United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
5305W
PB96-163423
EPA/530-R-95-002m
April 1996
&ER& Inside the Hotline
A Compilation of 1995 Monthly
Hotline Reports
*»"•
i
_ Emergency Planning and
„ Community Right-to-Know
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA 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-W6-0016
EPA Project Officer:
Carie VanHook Jasperse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION m
PART 1: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS i
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 3
Corrective Action 3
Generator Requirements 6
Import/Export 7
Municipal Waste Landfills 10
Recycling 10
TSDFs 13
Waste Identification 15
Waste Minimization 18
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 21
Financial Responsibility 21
Regulated Substance 24
Tank Requirements 25
Superfund (SF) 31
ARARs 31
Hazardous Substances and Reportable Quantities 32
National Priorities List 33
Response Process 39
State Involvement 43
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) . ...45
Emergency Planning and Release Notification 45
General 46
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting 50
Toxics Release Inventory 53
PART 2: FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARIES 63
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 65
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 81
Superfund (SF) 85
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) . ...99
Cross-Program 105
PART 3: INDICES 109
Key Word Index Ill
Regulatory Citation Index 119
Statutory Citation Index 129
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 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 1995. It is
divided into three parts: Questions and Answers, Federal Register summaries, and Indices
organized according to subject matter, regulatory citations, 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 1995 Montfily 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: PB96-163 423.
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 1994 Monthly Hotline Reports PB95-179 388
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
Electronic 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 by Telnet at clu-in.epa.gov. The file containing
the 1995 Monthly Hotline Reports is HOTLIN95.ZIP.
1995 Monthly Hotline Reports are also available through EPA's Internet servers at the
following routes:
Access through Gopher:
• Gotogopher.epa.gov
• Choose the following:
EPA Offices and Regions -> Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response -> Office of
Solid Waste (RCRA) -> RCRA: General -> RCRA/UST, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline
Reports
Access through tine World Wide Web:
• Go to the Hotline's Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline.htm
• Choose "Monthly 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 1995. 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 1995 the Hotline responded to
over 240,000 questions regarding EPA regulations, programs, guidance documents, and
other related matters. Figure 2 breaks down the questions by program area. The RCRA
program received the highest number of questions, nearly 53 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
68,418
(29%)
Questions by Type
Referrals/
Transfers
17,058
(7%)
Figure?1*
Questions by Program
Regulatory Questions
154,628
(64%)
Superfund
34,521
(14%)
EPCRA
61,369
(26%)
*Based on 240,104 questions received during 1995.
**Excludes 17,058 referrals and transfers made to other information sources.
-------
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
Corrective
Action
"Corrective Action Authorities"
Key Words:
Corrective action;
remedial action; solid
waste management unit
(SWMU)
QUESTION: RCRA §3004(u) requires corrective action for all releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from solid waste management
units (SWMUs) at permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs). Is RCRA corrective action limited to releases from SWMUs?
ANSWER: Any release of solid or hazardous waste which poses a threat to
health or the environment is potentially subject to RCRA remedial authority.
To this end, RCRA provides EPA with several distinct authorities to require
corrective action for contamination stemming from sources other than SWMUs.
A SWMU is a discernible unit in which solid wastes have been placed at any
time, irrespective of whether the unit was intended for the management of
solid or hazardous wastes. This definition includes any area at a facility at
which solid wastes have been routinely and systematically released. RCRA
§3004(u), which is specifically limited to releases from SWMUs, is the primary
authority requiring corrective action at permitted TSDFs. Section 3004(u)
requires a facility owner or operator to address releases from SWMUs
whenever seeking a RCRA permit.
Many potential releases at permitted TSDFs do not originate from SWMUs,
however, and are not subject to §3004 cleanup requirements. For example, a
one-time spill of hazardous waste from a vehicle traveling across a facility is
not a release from a SWMU. For such releases not originating from SWMUs at
permitted TSDFs, and for releases at TSDFs with permits that pre-date HSWA
and which therefore do not contain §3004(u) provisions, EPA may choose to
use its omnibus permitting authority pursuant to RCRA §3005(c)(3) to modify
the facility's permit as necessary to require corrective action for any potential
threat to human health or the environment. Additionally, RCRA §3004(v),
which is not limited to releases from SWMUs, requires TSDFs to cleanup
contamination beyond the facility boundary of a permitted TSDF.
RCRA also provides EPA with the authority to issue administrative corrective
action orders or bring suit in a United States District Court against TSDFs
operating under interim status. The interim status TSDF corrective action
order authority, provided by RCRA §3008(h), is not limited to releases from
SWMUs or any other type of unit. EPA can invoke §3008(h) to address any
release of hazardous waste from an interim status facility. Section 3008(h)
gives EPA authority to issue corrective action orders or bring suit for both on-
site releases at interim status facilities and releases which have migrated
beyond an interim status facility boundary.
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Corrective Action Authorities" (cont'd)
Finally, RCRA §7003 gives EPA broad authority to abate hazards caused by
releases of solid or hazardous waste from any source, including SWMUs.
Specifically, §7003 provides EPA with the authority to seek injunctive relief in
the appropriate United States District Court, or, after notice to the affected
state, issue administrative corrective action orders for releases from any site
where the handling, storage, treatment, transportation or disposal of solid or
hazardous waste may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to
health or the environment. Use of §7003 is not limited to any particular type of
facility or waste unit. (February 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Corrective action;
deletion/deferral policy;
National Priorities List
(NPL)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action"
QUESTION: EPA has the authority under both CERCLA and RCRA to address
the cleanup of contaminated sites. Under what circumstances will EPA address
a contaminated site through one of the RCRA Subtitle C corrective action
authorities rather than list the site on the CERCLA National Priorities List
(NPL)? If a site is already on the NPL, what are the criteria for deleting the site
and deferring it to RCRA?
ANSWER: To conserve Superfund resources and avoid duplication of effort,
EPA has maintained a policy not to undertake CERCLA responses at certain
sites that can or will be adequately addressed by RCRA. Consequently, instead
of listing sites on the NPL, the Agency often defers sites that otherwise meet the
NPL criteria to RCRA Subtitle C corrective action. Under current policy, EPA
may defer sites to RCRA at any point in the NPL process, including after
placement on the NPL. EPA has had a policy of deferring certain sites from
listing since the first NPL final rule on September 8,1983 (48 FR 40658).
Prior to the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), the RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities only applied to
certain releases from surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment areas,
and landfills that received hazardous wastes after July 27,1982. HSWA
expanded the RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities, giving EPA the
authority to address the on- and off-site cleanup of releases from active and
inactive permitted and interim status hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs). In order to implement this broader authority, in
1986, the Agency developed a policy for the listing or deferral from listing of
potential NPL sites (51 FR 21057; June 10,1986). According to the 1986 deferral
policy, EPA will generally defer the listing of potential NPL sites when other
authorities exist that are capable of accomplishing the needed corrective action.
The Agency will not automatically defer all sites eligible for cleanup under
RCRA. For example, EPA will not defer federal facilities from the NPL,
because federal facilities are not eligible for Fund-financed remedial action, and
deferring them would not conserve Fund monies (54 PR 10520; March 13,1989).
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action"
(cont'd)
In addition, the Agency will continue to include RCRA sites not subject to
Subtitle C corrective action authorities, such as generator and transporter sites,
on the NPL. EPA is also reluctant to defer sites owned by persons who are
unwilling or unable to pay for corrective action and related activities because
these owners are unlikely to take corrective action as required by RCRA. For
this reason, the 1986 deferral policy clarifies that the Agency will not defer sites
meeting the criteria for listing on the NPL that fall into one of the following
categories:
• RCRA facilities owned by bankrupt persons;
• RCRA facilities that have lost authorization to operate under the RCRA
Loss of Interim Status (LOIS) provision and are owned by persons who
have indicated an unwillingness to undertake corrective action; and
• Facilities that have not lost authorization to operate, but that are owned
by people who have, as determined on a case-by-case basis, a clear
history of unwillingness to undertake corrective action.
On June 24,1988 (53 FR 23979), EPA clarified the deferral policy and added the
following four categories of RCRA facilities to those types of sites which it will
not defer from inclusion on the NPL:
• Non- or late-filers — treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that
managed hazardous waste after November 19,1980, but did not file
Part A RCRA permit applications by that date and have little or no
history of compliance with RCRA;
• Converters — facilities that previously treated or stored hazardous
waste, but have since converted to activities that do not require interim
status and have therefore formally withdrawn their Part A
applications;
• Protective filers — facilities that filed RCRA Part A permit applications
as a precautionary measure for treatment, storage, or disposal
operations that do not require interim status and are not subject to
RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities; and
• Pre-HSWA permittees — sites holding permits issued before the
enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA).
These types of sites are either not subject to RCRA Subtitle C corrective action
authorities or are not high priorities under RCRA and would not be promptly
addressed by the RCRA corrective action program. The Agency has therefore
decided to place these sites on the NPL if they meet the listing criteria so that, if
necessary, the Superfund authorities are fully available.
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action"
(cont'd)
On March 20,1995 (60 PR 14641), EPA issued a new deferral policy for sites
after their placement on the NPL. Previously, once EPA made the decision to
place a site on the NPL (rather than defer the site to another cleanup authority),
the Agency would only delete the site from the NPL when no further response
at that site was appropriate (55 PR 8845; March 8,1990). This policy meant EPA
would not delete sites from the NPL to defer them to RCRA during the
response process, even if the Agency determined that a RCRA response was
appropriate. Under the 1995 deletion/deferral policy, the Agency may, during
the response process, delete sites from the NPL based on deferral to the RCRA
Subtitle C corrective action program. To be eligible for deletion from the NPL
based on deferral to RCRA, NPL sites must meet the following criteria:
• The site must be eligible for deferral from inclusion on the NPL under
EPA's current deferral policy (as discussed above);
• EPA must be currently addressing the site through a RCRA corrective
action authority under an existing enforceable order or permit
containing corrective action provisions;
• Response under RCRA must be progressing adequately; and
• Deletion must not disrupt any ongoing CERCLA response actions.
Before a site may be deleted from the NPL under the deferral/deletion policy, it
must also meet other applicable deletion requirements under CERCLA
regulations. In particular, a site may only be deleted from the NPL after the
state in which the release was located has concurred with the proposed
deletion (40 CFR §300.425(e)(2)). Thus, sites must also be evaluated by the
appropriate state authority before EPA can delete them from the NPL for
deferral to RCRA. (July 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Generator
Requirements
Key Words:
Batteries; counting;
generator
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and Counting Requirements"
QUESTION: EPA promulgated specific requirements for counting hazardous
wastes to facilitate accurate determination of monthly generator status. While
most hazardous wastes produced at generator sites are counted in the monthly
quantity determination, some special hazardous wastes are exempt from this
requirement (§261.5(c)). If a generator is accumulating spent lead-acid batteries
that will be sent for reclamation, should the batteries be counted towards the
determination of monthly generator status?
ANSWER: Spent lead-acid batteries that will be sent for reclamation are not
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and Counting Requirements" (cont'd)
subject to the monthly generator counting requirements. Hazardous waste is
counted only if it is subject to substantive regulation (40 CFR §261.5(c)).
Substantive regulations are those regulations which directly relate to the
storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste (51 PR 10152;
March 24,1986). Persons who generate, transport, or store spent lead-acid
batteries destined for reclamation, but who do not reclaim them themselves, are
not subject to substantive regulation, specifically Parts 262-266,270 or 124 (40
CFR §266.80). Therefore, spent lead-acid batteries destined for reclamation are
not counted when determining monthly generator status. Such wastes should
not be counted because they are not subject to regulation in the hands of the
generator (50 PR 14218; April 11,1985). (June 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Elementary neutralization
unit; exemptions;
wastewater treatment unit
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites"
QUESTION: A generator may treat hazardous waste without a permit or
interim status in an on-site accumulation unit that is in compliance with the
regulations in §262.34 (51 PR 10146,10168; March 24,1986). If a generator
chooses to treat hazardous -waste in an on-site wastewater treatment unit or in
an on-site elementary neutralization unit, must the generator comply with
§262.34?
ANSWER: No. A generator treating hazardous waste in an on-site wastewater
treatment unit or in an on-site elementary neutralization unit, need not comply
with §262.34, which is a conditional exemption from permitting requirements,
because these units are already exempt from certain RCRA requirements.
Specifically, wastewater treatment units and elementary neutralization units, as
defined in §260.10, are exempt from RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal
facility (TSDF) standards as well as from permitting standards (§§264.1(g)(6),
265.1(c)(10), and 270.1(c)(2)(v)). (February 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Import/Export
Key Words:
Exports; generator;
receiving country
"Export Requirements for Transportation Through Transit Countries"
QUESTION: A facility generates hazardous waste in Alaska. The generator
arranges to send the hazardous waste to a disposal facility in California. In the
process of transportation, the hazardous waste will pass through Canadian
territory. Will the facility be required to comply with any of the export
regulations found under Part 262, Subpart E?
ANSWER: In this scenario, RCRA export regulations do not apply. The
regulations for exports of hazardous waste in Part 262, Subpart E apply to any
person who meets the definition of a primary exporter. Primary exporter is
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Export Requirements for Transportation Through Transit Countries"
(cont'd)
defined under §262.51 as generally, any person required to initiate a hazardous
waste manifest which designates a treatment, storage, or disposal facility in a
receiving country. Receiving country is subsequently defined under §262.51 as
"a foreign country to which a hazardous waste is sent for the purpose of
treatment, storage, or disposal (except short-term storage incidental to
transportation)." In the above scenario, there are no treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities in a receiving country that are designated on the manifest,
rather, the waste simply passes through a foreign country. RCRA does not
require that transit countries be notified. (March 1995 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Key Words:
Bilateral agreements;
exports; imports
"International Agreements and Hazardous Waste Export Regulations"
QUESTION: The United States is party to several international agreements
addressing hazardous waste. RCRA §3017 allows for international agreements
to provide alternative regulatory standards applicable to hazardous waste
exporters under §262.58. Currently, no alternative requirements have been
promulgated. When the United States signs international environmental
agreements, what is the process for implementing any alternative
requirements?
ANSWER: International agreements regarding transboundary movement of
hazardous waste establish governmental control over and responsibility for the
acts of U.S. importers and exporters. Once agreements are executed by the
United States, EPA issues regulations to implement them, if necessary. Without
the necessary implementing regulations, U.S. importers and exporters are not
subject to the particular requirements of the agreement.
Currently, the United States is party to agreements with Canada, Mexico, and
member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). The bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico do
not differ substantially from EPA's current export regulations in 40 CFR Part
262, Subpart E. For this reason, the Agency did not need to promulgate specific
regulations to implement these agreements. EPA expects to promulgate
regulations implementing the OECD agreement which would, among other
things, expand the requirements applicable to U.S. exporters in the OECD
context. (February 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Key Words:
EPA ID number; imports;
manifest
"Manifest Requirements for Imported Hazardous Waste"
QUESTION: Any person who imports hazardous waste into the United States
must comply with all applicable generator requirements and the special
requirements for importers in Part 262, Subpart F (§262.60(a)). This includes
preparing a manifest with a generator EPA identification number before
transporting the imported hazardous waste within the United States. Because
waste generated in another country will not have an EPA identification
number, the importer's identification number should be used on the manifest.
Any party who helped arrange for the importation (e.g., a broker, a transporter,
a TSDF), however, may be considered an importer (June 25,1985, memo from
Skinner to Seraydarian). In cases where there is more than one importer, each
with an identification number, whose number should be used on the manifest?
ANSWER: EPA does not require any particular identification number to be
used on the manifest. The Agency recommends that the parties to the
movement decide among themselves who will act as the importer. The
importer's responsibility includes providing an identification number on the
manifest (§262.60(b)(l)). Regardless of who performs the importer duties, EPA
reserves the right to enforce against any of the involved parties if the
requirements of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations are not adequately
met. (January 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Generator; imports;
manifest
"Signing the Manifest as an Agent When Importing Hazardous Waste"
QUESTION: A waste broker in Mexico arranges to collect hazardous waste
from several different Mexican generators, and exports 1500 kilograms of
hazardous waste for disposal at a U.S. facility. The RCRA regulations under
Part 262, Subpart F require an importer to initiate a manifest when hazardous
waste enters the United States. Since the broker from Mexico accepts all
responsibility for the hazardous waste from the generator facilities and handles
the hazardous waste for the U.S. disposal facility, can the broker sign the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest as an agent of the U.S. disposal facility that
is importing the waste?
ANSWER: The regulations for imports of hazardous waste allow the importer
or his/her agent to sign the generator certification statement on the manifest in
place of the generator (§262.60(b)(2)). The only requirement for an agent
signing the manifest is that the agent must be somehow legally affiliated with
the EPA identification number used on the manifest. The Mexican broker could
sign the manifest certification only if the broker's company has a U.S. EPA
identification number (requiring a U.S. address) or the broker is legally related
to the importer (e.g., a subsidiary). A broker signing as an agent because of a
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Signing the Manifest as an Agent When Importing Hazardous Waste"
(cont'd)
legal relation to the importer must place the U.S. address and U.S. EPA
identification number of the importer on the manifest. (March 1995 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Municipal Waste
Landfills
Key Words:
Groundwater; municipal
waste; solid waste
disposal
Recycling
Key Words:
Batteries; reclamation;
universal waste
"Design Criteria Exemption for Small, Arid, Remote MSWLFs"
QUESTION: A small municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) which is located in
an arid or remote area is exempt from the design criteria of 40 CFR Part 258,
Subpart D, provided there is no evidence of groundwater contamination from the
facility (40 CFR §258.1(f)). If evidence of groundwater contamination is found and
the facility can no longer meet the conditions of the exemption, when must the
facility comply with the design criteria of Part 258, Subpart D?
ANSWER: Owners and operators of small MSWLFs in arid or remote areas must
begin to work towards compliance with all applicable design criteria immediately
upon the discovery of evidence of groundwater contamination from the facility.
The exemption from the design criteria is a conditional exemption. If a MSWLF
does not meet the conditions of the exemption under 40 CFR §258.1(f), the landfill
is immediately and fully subject to all applicable design requirements. (June 1995
Monthly Hotline Report)
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste"
QUESTION: How do the Part 273, Standards for Universal Waste Management,
affect the management of lead-acid batteries regulated under the Part 266, Subpart
G, regulations for spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed?
ANSWER: Lead-acid batteries that are managed under Part 266, Subpart G, are
not subject to the universal waste management standards. The universal
management standards only apply to those lead-acid batteries that are not
managed under Part 266, Subpart G. The existing recycling program for
automotive lead-acid batteries has been extremely successful, with recycling rates
in excess of 90 percent nationwide. By retaining the Part 266, Subpart G,
requirements, EPA can continue to operate this program without modification or
adverse effect on the environment. EPA expects that most non-automotive lead-
acid batteries will be managed under Part 273 (60 PR 25492,25505; May 11,1995).
(December 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
10
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Key Words:
Commercial chemical
product; recycling;
speculative accumulation
"Purpose and Applicability of Speculative Accumulation Provision"
QUESTION: RCRA regulates secondary materials that are defined as solid
wastes when recycled. Whether or not a given material meets the definition of
solid waste when recycled depends primarily on how the material is
categorized (e.g., spent material, sludge, commercial chemical product) and the
means of recycling (e.g., burning for energy recovery, reclamation, use or
reuse). The RCRA Subtitle C regulations also indicate that materials which are
"accumulated speculatively" prior to recycling are solid wastes (§261.2(c)(4)).
What is the purpose of this speculative accumulation provision? To which
materials does the provision apply?
ANSWER: EPA created the speculative accumulation provision to mitigate the
risk posed by facilities that overaccumulate hazardous secondary materials
prior to recycling. The provision serves as a safety net, preventing recyclable
materials that are not otherwise regulated under RCRA from being stored
indefinitely and potentially causing environmental damage. EPA subjects
persons who "accumulate speculatively" (i.e., persons who fail to recycle a
sufficient percentage of a recyclable material during the calendar year or fail to
demonstrate that a feasible means of recycling exists) to immediate regulation
as hazardous waste generators or storage facilities (50 PR 614, 650; January 4,
1985).
The speculative accumulation provision generally applies to secondary
materials that are not solid wastes when recycled (§§261.1(c)(8), 261.2(c)(4), and
261.2(e)(2)(iii)). In other words, certain secondary materials that are otherwise
excluded from the definition of solid waste become regulated as solid and
hazardous waste if accumulated speculatively. Among the materials subject to
this provision are:
• Materials that are not solid wastes when recycled according to
§261.2(e), including materials used or reused in an industrial process to
make a product; used or reused as effective substitutes for commercial
products; or returned to the original process from which they are
generated, without first being reclaimed
• Materials that are not solid wastes when reclaimed according to §261.2,
Table 1, such as by-products and sludges which exhibit a characteristic
of hazardous waste
• Materials identified under §261.4(a) as exempt from the definition of
solid waste when reclaimed, including pulping liquors that are
reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery furnace and then reused in the
pulping process (§261.4(a)(6)) and spent sulfuric acid used to produce
virgin sulfuric acid (§261.4(a)(7)).
11
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Purpose and Applicability of Speculative Accumulation Provision"
(cont'd)
The speculative accumulation provision generally does not apply to materials
that are defined as solid waste when recycled. Speculative accumulation is
thus not a factor in determining the regulatory status of spent materials that are
being reclaimed, secondary materials burned for energy recovery, materials
used in a manner constituting disposal, or scrap metal (50 PR 614,635). Since
EPA already exerts the appropriate level of regulatory control over these solid
wastes, as provided under §261.6 and Part 266, the safety net provided by the
speculative accumulation provision is not needed.
There are two exceptions to the rule that speculative accumulation applies to all
materials that are not solid wastes when recycled and does not apply to
materials that are solid wastes when recycled. Commercial chemical products
are not solid wastes when reclaimed (§261.2, Table 1), or when they are burned
for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting disposal if that is their
normal manner of use (§§261.2(c)(l)(ii) and 261.2(c)(2)(ii)). Commercial
chemical products are not, however, subject to the speculative accumulation
provision. EPA has not placed any time constraint on the accumulation of
commercial chemical products prior to reclamation (50 FR 614,636). In
addition, precious metal-containing materials are defined as solid wastes when
recycled but are also subject to accumulation restrictions. If accumulated
speculatively prior to reclamation, precious metals become subject to full
RCRA regulation, rather than the reduced standards of Part 266, Subpart F
(§266.70(d)). (August 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Commercial chemical
product; hazardous waste
definition; recycling
"Solid Waste Determination for Spilled Commercial Chemical Products"
QUESTION: According to 40 CFR §261.2, Table 1, hazardous commercial
chemical products, when recycled, are exempt from RCRA because they are not
solid wastes. If a manufacturer spills a commercial chemical product into the
soil and intends to reclaim the spill residue, is the spill residue exempt from
RCRA standards?
ANSWER: The intent to recycle a commercial chemical product spill residue
does not exempt the material from RCRA jurisdiction. In fact, EPA has stated
that contaminated soils and other cleanup residues generally are solid wastes
because of the difficulty associated with recycling wastes contained within
environmental media (54 FR 48494; November 22,1989). Sometimes, however,
a spill residue can be returned to a process or otherwise put to use, and thus
remain exempt from RCRA standards.
In order to demonstrate that a spill residue is not a solid waste, the generator
has the burden of proving that legitimate recycling will take place. The Agency
12
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Solid Waste Determination for Spilled Commercial Chemical Products"
(cont'd)
has adopted objective considerations to evaluate a generator's claim that a
spilled product will be legitimately recycled. The length of time the spill
residue has existed is one such consideration. In order to prove that legitimate
recycling will occur, a generator may also show that recycling has already
begun, the material is valuable, the material can feasibly be recycled and/or the
company has recycled such material in the past (55 FR 22671; June 1,1990).
In the absence of strong, objective indicators of recycling or intent to recycle a
spill residue, "the materials are solid wastes immediately upon being spilled
because they have been abandoned" (54 FR 48494; November 22,1989), and
must be managed in accordance with all applicable RCRA standards. (May
1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
TSDFs
Key Words:
Free liquids; landfill;
sorbent
"The Liquids in Landfills Prohibition and Sorbed Free Liquids"
QUESTION: EPA prohibits the direct placement in a hazardous waste landfill
of liquid hazardous waste or hazardous waste containing free liquids (40 CFR
§§264/265.314(b)). The Agency also prohibits the placement in a hazardous
waste landfill of containers holding free liquids, except for lab packs, very
small containers (i.e., ampules), and containers designed to hold free liquids for
use other than storage (i.e., batteries) (§264.314(d)(2), (3), and (4) and
§265.314(c)(2), (3), and (4)). On November 18,1992 (57 FR 54454), the Agency
retained the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT) as the required test to determine if
hazardous wastes hold free liquids. If the PFT demonstrates that a waste to
which sorbents have been added no longer contains free liquids, may the waste
be placed in a landfill, or is additional treatment required?
ANSWER: EPA's criteria for the use of sorbents to treat wastes containing free
liquids vary according to whether the wastes will be disposed of directly or
will be placed in a container prior to disposal. EPA allows the use of sorbents
to remove free liquids from "containerized" wastes. If the PFT demonstrates
that a containerized waste to which sorbents have been added contains no free
liquids, the waste may be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill (40 CFR
§264.314(d)(l)(ii) and §265.314(c)(l)(ii)), provided that it meets all applicable
land disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standards. As a precaution against
the use of inadequate sorbents, EPA regulations require that sorbents used to
treat free liquids prior to land disposal be nonbiodegradeable (40 CFR
§264.314(e) and §265.314(f)).
EPA prohibits the use of sorbents to treat liquid hazardous waste or hazardous
waste containing free liquids that will be disposed of directly (e.g., without first
13
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"The Liquids in Landfills Prohibition and Sorbed Free Liquids" (cont'd)
being placed in a container) in a landfill. Free liquids in such "bulk or
noncontainerized" hazardous wastes must be "chemically, thermally,
physically, or biologically treated without the use of absorbents" before the
wastes may be landfilled (OSWER Directive 9487.00-2A). To demonstrate that
chemical stabilization rather than absorption or adsorption is occurring, the
bulk or noncontainerized hazardous wastes should undergo an indirect
chemical stabilization test (also known as an unconfined compressive strength
test). The indirect chemical stabilization test ensures that, prior to direct
disposal, liquid hazardous wastes or hazardous wastes containing free liquids
wastes have been adequately treated through some means other than the
addition of sorbents. (January 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Recordkeeping;
treatment, storage, and
disposal facility
"Location of Operating Records at Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities"
QUESTION: The owner or operator of each hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) must keep a written operating record at the
facility. This record retention requirement applies to both facilities operating
under permits and facilities qualifying for interim status (40 CFR §§264/
265.73). The operating record must include a significant number of records
ranging from waste analysis results to closure cost estimates to tank integrity
assessment records. Must TSDF owner/operators maintain all of the different
documents making up the operating record in one central location?
ANSWER: No, the federal RCRA regulations do not require owner/operators
of hazardous waste TSDFs to maintain all of the documents making up the
operating record in one designated area. Compliance with the operating record
requirements of §§264/265.73 demands only that the specified information be
maintained on site at the facility; other records can be kept at remote locations.
In addition, for the records that must be kept on site, the various documents
making up the operating record need not be consolidated in one office as long
as they are available for review somewhere on the facility grounds (this might
be more practical in the case of a large facility with multiple buildings). In
order to improve accessibility to and control over these key documents,
however, EPA recommends that, where possible, all of the contents of the
operating record be retained in a central area under the supervision of one
designated individual. (October 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
14
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Waste
Identification
Key Words:
Beneficiation; Bevill
wastes; exemptions; land
disposal restrictions
(LDR); mineral processing
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes"
QUESTION: According to 40 CFR §268.1(e)(3), wastes identified or listed as
hazardous waste after November 8,1984, are not subject to land disposal
restrictions (LDR) until EPA promulgates prohibitions or treatment standards.
For purposes of LDR, certain mineral processing wastes which were formerly
exempt under the Bevill Amendment, but lost that exemption are considered to
be newly identified and therefore not subject to LDR until EPA promulgates
standards specific to this category of wastes. What wastes are included within
this category of formerly exempt Bevill wastes?
ANSWER: On November 19,1980, EPA promulgated an exclusion from
regulation under RCRA Subtitle C for, "solid waste from the extraction,
beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals (including coal), including
phosphate rock, and overburden for the mining of uranium ore" (45 PR 76618,
76620). This is one of the exclusions commonly referred to as a Bevill exclusion.
In this Federal Register. EPA clarified that the exclusion covered "...solid waste
from the exploration, mining, milling, smelting and refining of ores and
minerals" (45 PR 76619). On September 1,1989, EPA published a final rule that
narrowed the scope of the exclusion as it applies to mineral processing (54 PR
36592). Specifically, EPA finalized the exclusion for five mineral processing
wastes and conditionally excluded twenty wastes pending additional studies.
After completing a study of the twenty wastes, EPA removed five of the wastes
that had been subject to the September 1,1989, conditional exclusion, bringing
the total number of excluded mineral processing wastes to twenty (55 PR 2322;
January 23,1990). On June 13,1991, EPA finalized this list of twenty exempt
mineral processing wastes in §261.4(b)(7) (56 PR 27300). All other mineral
processing wastes are subject to RCRA Subtitle C. Wastes from the extraction/
beneficiation of ores and minerals remain covered by the exclusion generally,
and are not subject to Subtitle C.
EPA considers all mineral processing wastes which are not currently listed in
§261.4(b)(7), to be newly identified wastes and therefore not subject to LDR
requirements until treatment standards are promulgated. Treatment standards
for these wastes are currently being developed as part of the court-ordered
LDR Phase IV Proposed Rule. (March 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
15
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Key Words:
Hazardous waste
definition; household
hazardous waste
"Hotel Dry Cleaning Waste and the Household Waste Exclusion"
QUESTION: A hotel generates spent solvents from its on-site dry cleaning
facility. For purposes of the 40 CFR §261.4(b)(l) household waste exclusion,
EPA defines households to include hotels and motels. Will hotel dry cleaning
wastes be excluded from RCRA Subtitle C regulation as household waste?
ANSWER: Wastes produced by a hotel dry cleaning facility are not household
wastes and therefore will not be excluded from RCRA hazardous waste
regulation. A waste has to meet two conditions to be excluded as household
waste. Household waste must be generated on the premises of a temporary or
permanent residence and be comprised primarily of materials generated by
consumers in their homes. In general, wastes from hotels and motels will be
excluded as household waste as long as the waste is similar to the type of waste
that consumers generate in their home. Even though generated on premises of
a temporary residence (i.e. hotel), dry cleaning waste is not household waste
because the spent solvents from the dry cleaning operations are not similar to
wastes typically produced by a consumer in the home. The dry cleaning
wastes produced by the hotel do not meet both criteria for household waste
and will not qualify for the household waste exclusion per §261.4(b)(l) (49 PR
44978; November 13,1984). (March 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Chemical abstract service
(CAS) number;
commercial chemical
product; hazardous waste
definition; isomer
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes"
QUESTION: The P and U lists at 40 CFR §§261.33(e) and (f) identify chemicals
which, when discarded as unused commercial chemical products, are listed
hazardous wastes. If a particular P- or U-listed chemical has many isomers, are
those isomers listed hazardous wastes as well?
ANSWER: Many chemicals on the P and U lists have multiple isomers.
Isomers are compounds made up of the same atoms in the same proportions,
but which have different chemical structures and potentially different chemical.
properties. These different forms of a chemical can be identified precisely and
given unique Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers. For example,
toluenediamine (C^^N^ may have many isomers, including toluene-2-4-
diamine (CAS# 95-80-7) and toluene-2-6-diamine (CAS# 823-40-5), that
differ structurally. Chemicals also may be identified as "mixed isomers."
Mixed isomers include all mixtures of individual isomers of a compound. For
instance, the generic mixed isomer designation of toluenediamine (CAS#
25376-45-8) includes mixtures of the isomers toluene-2-4-diamine and toluene-
2-6-diamine.
EPA may choose to include all isomers of a chemical on the P or U list by listing
the mixed isomer or generic name of the compound. If the generic mixed
isomer name and CAS number of a compound appear on the P or U list, then
16
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes" (cont'd)
any individual isomers of that compound and all mixtures of isomers of that
compound meet the listing description. Thus/ when discarded in its
commercial chemical product form, the isomer toluene-2-4-diamine (CAS# 95-
80-7) is a listed hazardous waste, because the generic mixed isomer
toluenediamine (CAS# 25376-45-8) is listed as U221.
EPA may also choose to designate only specific isomers of a chemical as P- or
U-listed hazardous wastes. When a particular isomer is designated, then only
that isomer is covered by that particular listing. For example, U140 covers
isobutyl alcohol (CAS# 78-83-1), an isomer of butanol. Since the U140 listing
includes only isobutyl alcohol, other isomers of butanol are not U140 (although
they may be listed elsewhere). (September 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Hazardous waste
definition; hazardous
waste exclusion;
household hazardous
waste
"Restaurant Waste and the Household Waste Exclusion (§261.4(b)(1))"
QUESTION: Are restaurant wastes excluded from RCRA Subtitle C regulation
as household wastes per 40 CFR §261.4(b)(l)?
ANSWER: Wastes produced by restaurants are not household wastes and
therefore will not be excluded from RCRA hazardous waste regulation. The
applicability of the household waste exclusion is based on two conditions: the
place of generation and the type of waste generated. Household waste must be
generated on the premises of a temporary or permanent residence and be
comprised primarily of materials generated by consumers in their homes.
Restaurants do not serve as temporary or permanent residences for individuals
and therefore do not meet both of the criteria for household waste and will not
qualify for the household waste exclusion (49 FR 44978; November 13,1984). If
however, the restaurant is part of a temporary or permanent residence, the
waste generated would qualify for the household waste exclusion as it would
be generated on the premises of a temporary or permanent residence and be
comprised primarily of materials generated by consumers in their homes.
(May 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Hazardous waste
definition; hazardous
waste exclusion
"Status of Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Exclusion"
QUESTION: In 1980, EPA temporarily exempted, among other things, large
volume fossil fuel combustion wastes from RCRA Subtitle C regulation,
pending further study and issuance of a final regulatory determination
regarding these wastes. What is the current regulatory status of fossil fuel
combustion wastes?
17
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"Status of Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Exclusion" (cont'd)
ANSWER: The regulatory status of fossil fuel combustion wastes is dependent
upon the type of waste generated. Fossil fuel combustion wastes have been
divided into two categories, independently managed large volume coal-fired
utility wastes and remaining wastes, each having different schedules for
regulatory determination. On August 9,1993, EPA made the final regulatory
determination on the first category, retaining the exclusion of independently
managed large volume coal-fired utility wastes from RCRA Subtitle C
regulation (58 PR 42466). This category includes fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag, and flue gas emission control waste. EPA has deferred the final
regulatory determination on remaining wastes; they continue to be excluded
from Subtitle C until that determination is made in 1998. The remaining waste
category includes wastes from utilities burning other non-coal fossil fuels,
wastes from non-utility boilers burning any type of fossil fuel, large volume
coal-fired utility wastes that are co-managed with low volume wastes that are
produced in conjunction with the combustion of coal, and wastes generated by
fluidized bed combustion operations. Low volume coal combustion wastes
that are not co-managed with the large volume waste enumerated in RCRA do
not benefit from the exclusion. Examples of low volume wastes that are not
excluded if they are not co-managed include: boiler blowdown, coal pile runoff,
cooling tower blowdown, demineralizer regenerate and rinses, metal and
boiler cleaning wastes, pyrites, and sump effluents. Based on the original scope
of the exclusion, these wastes have always been subject to Subtitle C regulation
when managed independently. (April 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Waste
Minimization
Key Words:
Generator; pollution
prevention; treatment,
storage, and disposal
facility; waste
minimization
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements"
QUESTION: RCRA subjects generators of hazardous waste and treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) that manage their own hazardous waste
on site to waste minimization requirements. What are the specific
requirements?
ANSWER: Generators who generate 1,000 or more kilograms per month of
hazardous waste ("large quantity" generators) and owners and operators of
hazardous waste TSDFs who manage their own hazardous waste on site must
comply with similar waste minimization requirements. RCRA §3002(b)
requires large quantity generators who transport waste off site to certify on the
manifest that they have established a "program in place" to reduce the volume
or quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste generated to the extent
economically practicable. For owner/operators that manage waste on site in a
permitted TSDF, §3005(h) requires that a certification that a waste minimization
18
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements" (cont'd)
program is in place be prepared annually and maintained in the facility
operating record. In the May 28,1993, Federal Register (58 FR 31114), EPA
published interim final guidance on the elements of a waste minimization
"program in place" to assist generators and TSDFs in fulfilling these
requirements. The guidance provides latitude for a facility to tailor program
elements to meet the individual facility's needs. EPA has published a Facility
Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA600-R-92-088, to assist generators in tailoring
the guidance to the individual facility's needs.
RCRA §3002(a)(6) also requkes large quantity generators to submit biennial
reports describing their waste minimization efforts. Specifically, large quantity
generators must describe the efforts undertaken to achieve waste minimization
and the actual changes in the volume and toxicity achieved relative to other
years (§§262.41(a)(6)-(7)). The biennial report requirements for TSDFs that
generate waste parallel those specific to large quantity generators (§§264/
265.75(h) and (i)).
Small quantity generators who generate greater than 100 kilograms but less
than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month are not subject to the same
"program in place" certification requirement as large quantity generators.
Instead, they must certify on their hazardous waste manifests that they have
"made a good faith effort to minimize" their waste generation (51 FR 35190;
October 1,1986). (June 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
19
-------
20
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Financial
Responsibility
Key Words:
Financial responsibility;
underground storage tank
(UST)
"Calculating Annual Throughput for Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)"
QUESTION: The financial responsibility requirement for petroleum USTs
located at facilities that are not engaged in petroleum production, refining, or
marketing depends upon the average amount of petroleum handled at a
facility in a month, based on annual throughput. Facilities that handle, on
average, more than 10,000 gallons a month must demonstrate coverage for $1
million per occurrence, while facilities that handle an average of 10,000 gallons
or less a month must demonstrate coverage of $500,000 per occurrence. How is
"annual throughput" calculated?
ANSWER: Annual throughput is the total amount of product removed or
dispensed from USTs at a facility over the course of the previous calendar year.
Consider a facility which has three 10,000-gallon tanks. At the beginning of the
last calendar year, the facility put 10,000 gallons into tank A, where it was
stored for the remainder of the year. The facility used tanks B and C for storing
and dispensing fuel throughout the year, removing 55,000 gallons from each.
The annual throughput of this facility is 110,000 gallons (since the 10,000
gallons in tank A was not removed during the year, it would not be included in
the throughput calculations). In this example, the average amount of
petroleum handled in a month based on annual throughput is 110,000 gallons
divided by 12 months, or 9,167 gallons per month. Since the facility handles,
on an average, less than 10,000 gallons a month based on its annual
throughput, it is only required to demonstrate financial responsibility of
$500,000 (§280.93(a)(2)). (April 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
LUST Trust Fund;
underground storage tank
(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
21
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund" (corit'd)
substance sites. 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 gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels, and is appropriated
to EPA by Congress. EPA distributes Fund money to states that have signed
Cooperative Agreements with the Agency. The Cooperative Agreements give
states the authority to use money from the Fund to initiate corrective action at
sites with leaking petroleum USTs and specify the actions states will take when
responding to releases.
States generally 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 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 generally require responsible owners or operators to perform and pay for
corrective action when petroleum releases are discovered. The LUST Trust
Fund is used to pay for corrective action in, among other circumstances,
situations when a capable owner or operator cannot be identified or when an
owner or operator refuses to comply with a corrective action order. States have
the authority to recover corrective action costs to replenish the Fund from a
responsible party.
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.
(February 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
22
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
4
••V'S'S
.*..>..*.
••V'V'V
Key Words:
Financial responsibility;
state/local government;
underground storage tank
(UST)
"UST Financial Responsibility: Classification as a State or Local
Government"
QUESTION: The underground storage tank (UST) regulations in 40 CFR Part
280 require that owners or operators of regulated petroleum UST systems
demonstrate financial responsibility. State and federal government entities are
specifically exempt from the federal UST financial responsibility requirements
(§280.90(c)). Does a public transportation company, created by a state but
whose debts and liabilities are not those of a state, qualify as a state
government entity exempt from the federal UST financial responsibility
requirements?
ANSWER: The public transportation company referenced above does not
qualify as a state entity under the federal UST regulations. Only state and
federal government entities, whose debts and liabilities are the debts and
liabilities of a state or the United States, are exempt from UST financial
responsibility requirements (§280.90(c)). This company would not be
considered a state entity exempt from UST financial responsibility because the
public transportation company's debts and liabilities are not those of a state.
Although this company does not qualify as a state entity, it may be considered
a local government entity. Local government entities are created under state
law and include general purpose local governments and special purpose local
government entities. A special purpose local government entity is defined as a
government entity created to perform a single or limited range of functions. A
public transportation company is a typical example of a special purpose local
government entity, but whether or not a particular public transportation
company qualifies as a local government is ultimately a matter of state law (40
CFR §280.92 (definition of local government) and 58 PR 9030; February 18,
1993). Therefore, if the public transportation company cited above qualifies as
a local government under applicable state law, it can use the local government
financial responsibility mechanisms (§280.104 through §280.107), as well as the
standard financial responsibility mechanisms (§280.95 through §280.103) in
order to satisfy the federal UST financial responsibility requirements (Subpart
H of 40 CFR Part 280). (May 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
23
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Regulated
Substance
Key Words:
Clean Air Act
amendments; hazardous
substance; regulated
substance; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants and Hazardous Substance USTs"
QUESTION: Underground storage tanks (USTs) are subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 280 if they contain hazardous substances, as
denned in CERCLA §101(14), or petroleum. The list of hazardous substances
identified under CERCLA is not, however, a static list, as it is comprised of
chemicals identified under a number of different environmental laws.
Chemicals, such as ethylene glycol, identified as hazardous air pollutants
under the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act were subject to regulation as
CERCLA hazardous substances when the bill was signed into law on
November 15,1990. Moreover, USTs containing these newly identified
hazardous substances became immediately subject to regulation as hazardous
substance USTs. If a tank was installed after December 22,1988, but prior to
the date upon which the material stored in the tank was identified as a
hazardous substance, would the tank be considered a new or existing tank
system?
ANSWER: The tank would qualify as an existing system. While §280.12
separates "existing tank system[s]" from "new tank systemfs]" on the basis of
their status as of December 22,1988, use of this date is inappropriate to
determine the regulatory status of tanks that store newly identified hazardous
substances; the tank would be considered an existing system if it was in use on
the date that the material became identified as a hazardous substance. In
contrast, any UST brought into use for storage of a material after it has been
identified by statute or regulation as a CERCLA hazardous substance would
need to meet the standards for new UST systems prior to use.
By way of example, an ethylene glycol underground storage tank installed in
1989 would qualify as an existing tank system. As a result, the UST would not
be subject to upgrade requirements until December 22,1998. Yet, if installed in
1991, the UST would have been a new tank system, and, therefore, would be
required to meet the new tank standards described in 40 CPR Part 280.
(December 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
24
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Tank
Requirements
Key Words:
Piping; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Aboveground Storage Tanks With Underground Piping"
QUESTION: An aboveground storage tank is connected with underground
pipes. Although the tank itself is entirely above the ground surface, would the
underground piping cause it to be regulated as an underground storage tank
(UST) subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 280?
ANSWER: Extensive underground piping may subject an aboveground
storage tank to regulation as an UST. The definition of UST includes tanks, and
any underground pipes connected thereto, the total volume of which is at least
ten percent beneath the surface of the ground (§280.12). If the volume of the
underground pipes comprises 10 percent or greater of the tank system's total
volume, the aboveground tank would meet the definition of an UST and would
need to comply with the technical and financial requirements of Part 280.
(June 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Cathodic protection;
inspections; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Cathodic Protection Inspections on Existing Underground Storage
Tanks"
QUESTION: An owner/operator of an existing steel underground storage
tank (UST) installed a cathodic protection system on the tank in order to
comply with the upgrading requirements for existing USTs in 1995 (40 CFR
§280.21). Must the owner/operator begin inspecting the cathodic protection
system even though the system is installed prior to the December 22,1998,
upgrading deadline?
ANSWER: The 1998 upgrading deadline has no bearing on the inspection
requirements for cathodic protection systems on existing UST systems. All
cathodic protection systems must be tested within six months of installation
and then once every three years to ensure proper operation (§280.31(b)(l)).
This requirement applies to cathodic protection systems installed prior to and
after the 1998 regulatory deadline for upgrading existing tanks. Through
regular inspections, owners/operators can ensure that corrosion protection
systems are operated and maintained to continuously provide protection to the
metal components of an UST, thereby preventing releases to the environment.
Owners/operators must maintain records of the results for the last two
triennial inspections of the cathodic protection system (§280.31(d)(2)). In
addition, impressed current cathodic protection systems must also be inspected
every 60 days to ensure the equipment is running properly (§280.31(c)).
Owners/operators must maintain records from the last three inspections for
the 60-day checks of impressed current systems (§280.31(d)(l)). (November
1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
25
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Key Words:
Change-in-service;
closure; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Closure and Conversion to a Non-Regulated Tank"
QUESTION: A regulated underground storage tank (UST) is being converted
to store heating oil for consumptive use on site and therefore will be exempt
from 40 CFR Part 280 regulation (§280.12). What closure requirements will the
tank need to meet when changing from a regulated to exempt UST system?
ANSWER: Under the Part 280, Subpart G, closure requirements, an owner or
operator can choose from three UST closure options: temporary closure,
permanent closure, or change-in-service. The UST in this case will have to
comply with the change-in-service procedures prior to being used to store
heating oil in order to satisfy the closure requirements. The change-in-service
provisions apply when an UST will continue to be used to store a "non-
regulated substance" (§280.71(c)). When the regulated UST is converted to
storing heating oil, since the tank will now be exempt from regulation, the tank
is treated as if it were storing a non-regulated substance. The owner or
operator of the UST will have to notify the implementing agency, empty and
clean the tank, and assess the site prior to converting the UST into an exempt
tank system (§§280.71 and 280.72). States may have more stringent closure and
corrective action requirements for UST systems exempt from the federal
regulations. (September 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Leak detection;
underground storage tank
(UST)
"Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for Underground Storage Tank Leak
Detection"
QUESTION: Statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR) is a leak detection
method which analyzes product inventory, delivery, and dispensing data
collected over a period of time to determine whether or not an underground
storage tank (UST) system is leaking. Pursuant to 40 CFR §280.41, owners/
operators of petroleum USTs monitoring monthly for leaks are required to use
a method listed in 40 CFR §§280.43(d)-(h). SIR is not one of the methods listed
in §§280.43(d)-(g). Is SIR an allowable alternative method for leak detection
under §280.43(h)?
ANSWER: Yes. Provided that a SIR method is capable of detecting a 0.2 gallon
per hour leak rate or a release of 150 gallons within a month, and meets federal
requirements for probabilities of detection (0.95) and false alarm (0.05), SIR is a
valid method for monthly monitoring (§280.43(h)(l)).
For a SIR method, data are gathered daily and submitted periodically to a SIR
vendor for analysis. When first applied to an UST system, SIR may not
produce conclusive results. When initiating use of a SIR method, or when
transitioning from another form of leak detection to SIR, owners/operators
should employ a backup method for leak detection to ensure compliance with
the leak detection regulations under §280.41 until the SIR method provides
26
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
"Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for Underground Storage Tank Leak
Detection" (cont'd)
conclusive results that the performance criteria in §280.43(h) are being met.
(August 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Cathodic protection;
piping; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Underground Storage Tank Piping"
QUESTION: The regulations for new or upgraded underground storage tank
(UST) systems require piping that routinely contains product and is in contact
with the ground to be constructed or installed in a manner that protects the
pipes from leaking into the environment. Fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping
automatically meets this requirement, while metal piping requires cathodic
protection, or certification that there is no threat of a release due to corrosion of
the metal. Would the owner or operator of a tank system using fiberglass-
reinforced piping with metal "T" and "L" joints that routinely contain product
and are in contact with the ground be required to provide additional protection
to these joints, or provide certification of protection?
ANSWER: Yes. The UST regulations require corrosion protection of
operational underground piping and components including joints (53 PR
37128; September 23,1988). The corrosion prevention provision for piping
construction at 40 CFR §280.20(b) makes no exception for metal piping joints.
Although metal pipe joints are but a minor portion of a tank system, they must
have cathodic protection (§280.20(b)(2)), be installed at a site that is determined
not to require corrosion protection (§280.20(b)(3)), or be determined not to
show a potential for release or threatened release of regulated substances
(§280.2Q(b)(4)).
Because pipe joints make up such a relatively small portion of a tank system,
one of the latter two protection measures is usually most efficient. For metal
piping to meet the §280.20(b)(3) conditions, the piping must be installed at a
site that is determined by a corrosion expert to not be corrosive enough to
cause the piping to have a release due to corrosion during its operating life.
The regulations note two standards which may be used to comply with this
requirement (National Fire Protection Association Standard 30, and National
Association of Corrosion Fjigineers RP-01-69), although other appropriate
methods may be used. The owner or operator must maintain records that
demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The implementing agency
must approve of the construction and corrosion protection of the piping to
meet the requirements of §280.20(b)(4). Depending on the requirements of the
implementing agency, pipe construction may be approved via specific industry
standards, state regulatory requirements, or on a case-by-case basis. (March
1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
27
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
/fey Words:
Corrosion protection;
underground storage tank
(UST); upgrading
"Upgrading Requirements for Existing Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Systems"
QUESTION: What upgrading requirements must owners and operators of
existing underground storage tank (UST) systems meet by December 22,1998?
ANSWER: Owners and operators of existing USTs subject to the requkements
of 40 CFR Part 280 must either meet the new UST system performance
standards set forth in 40 CFR §280.20 or upgrade as explained below (40 CFR
§§280.21(a)(l) and (2)). Existing UST systems not upgraded by December 22,
1998, must be closed in compliance with Subpart G closure requirements by
that date (§280.21(a)(3)).
The upgrading regulations for RCRA-regulated USTs requke owners and
operators to install spill and overfill prevention equipment on existing tank
systems (§280.21(d)). The spill and overfill prevention requkements for
existing UST systems are the same as the standards for new UST systems
(§280.21(d)). These standards requke owners and operators to use equipment
such as spill buckets that will prevent spills from occurring when product is
added to the UST (§280.20(c)(l)(i)). Owners and operators must use either
automatic shutoff devices, overfill alarms, or flow restrictors as overfill
prevention equipment (§280.21(c)(l)(ii)). An UST which never receives more
than 25 gallons of regulated substance at a time does not have to meet the spill
and overfill protection requkements (§280.20(c)).
In addition, steel tanks and metal piping must be equipped with corrosion
protection by the 1998 deadline. Owners and operators may comply with the
corrosion protection requkement for steel tanks by installing an internal lining
(§280.21(b)(l)), installing a cathodic protection system (§280.21(b)(2)), or by
utilizing a combination of internal lining and cathodic protection
(§280.21(b)(3)). Metal piping which routinely contains regulated substances
and is in contact with the ground must be cathodically protected (§280.21(c)).
(June 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Release detection; tank
gauging; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Use of Manual Tank Gauging as Sole Means of Release Detection for
1,000-GalIon Tanks"
QUESTION: The regulations of 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart D requke owners
and operators of new and existing underground storage tanks (USTs) to
demonstrate release detection by using one of the methods found in
§§280.43(d) through (h). Can manual tank gauging alone be used to meet the
requkements for "other types of release detection methods" acceptable under
40CFR§280.43(h)?
28
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
"Use of Manual Tank Gauging as Sole Means of Release Detection for
1,000-GalIon Tanks" (cont'd)
ANSWER: Almost all owners and operators of USTs must eventually meet the
release detection requirements of Part 280, Subpart D, by using one of the
methods listed in 40 CFR §§280.43(d) through (h). Section 280.43(h)(l) allows
the use of an alternative method, or a combination of methods, to satisfy the
UST release detection requirements. These methods must be able to detect a 0.2
gallon per hour leak rate or a release of 150 gallons within a month with a
probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05.
To the Agency's knowledge, manual tank gauging alone has not been shown to
be able to meet the performance standards in 40 CFR §280.43(h)(l) for tanks
constructed to hold more than 1000 gallons. For smaller tanks designed to
contain 1000 gallons or less, however, manual tank gauging has been
demonstrated to meet the performance standard when conducted in
accordance with the following procedure:
1. Tank liquid measurement levels are taken at the beginning and end of a
time period during which no liquid is added to or removed from the tank.
The appropriate time period is listed in the chart below.
2. Level measurements are based on an average of two consecutive stick
readings at both the beginning and end of the period.
3. The equipment used is capable of measuring the level of product over the
full range of the tank's height to the nearest one-eighth of an inch.
4. Testing is conducted at least once a week and four weekly results are
averaged to obtain a monthly result. If the variation between beginning
and ending measurements exceeds the weekly or monthly standards in the
following table, a leak is suspected and will be subject to the release
reporting requirements of 40 CFR Subpart E.
Tank Size
up to 550 gallons
551-1,000 gallons
(when tank diameter
is 64")
551-1,000 gallons
(when tank diameter
is 48")
Minimum
Duration
of Test
36 hours
44 hours
58 hours
Weekly Standard
(1 test)
10 gallons
9 gallons
12 gallons
Monthly Standard
(4-test average)
5 gallons
4 gallons
6 gallons
(July 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
29
-------
30
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Applicable or
Relevant and
Appropriate
Requirements
Key Words:
Applicable or relevant
and appropriate
requirements (ARARs);
land disposal restrictions
(LDR); remedial action
"Placement within an Area of Contamination"
QUESTION: During the Superfund response process, EPA uses the area of
contamination (AOC) concept to assist officials in determining when placement
does and does not occur for CERCLA actions involving on-site disposal of
RCRA hazardous wastes. EPA equates an AOC with a single RCRA land
disposal unit consisting of continuous contamination of varying amounts and
types. Often, an AOC contains separate, discrete wastes. Those CERCLA
hazardous substances which are defined as hazardous waste under RCRA
must meet substantive land disposal restrictions (LDR) standards in certain
circumstances.
An AOC at a CERCLA site contains two piles of RCRA-regulated hazardous
waste, generated from the same source. The first pile is removed from the AOC
and is treated to meet RCRA LDR. The second waste pile is left untouched.
When the first waste pile is subsequently returned to the AOC, it is co-mingled
with the waste which never left the AOC. Despite the fact that it was never
removed from the AOC, is the untreated waste subject to LDR treatment
standards?
ANSWER: The untreated waste is not subject to LDR. CERCLA §121(d)(2)
specifically requires that remedial activities comply with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of federal, state, and local
environmental laws. LDR is an applicable requirement only when waste such
as contaminated soil is placed on the land. Placement does not occur, however,
when waste at a site is left undisturbed within an AOC, when it is treated in
situ, or when it is managed within the AOC without any intervening treatment
outside of the AOC (55 FR 8758; March 8,1990). Since the untreated waste is
not "placed" during the CERCLA response action, the LDRs are not ARARs.
Conversely, if the waste is removed from an AOC, or treated in a separate unit
within the AOC and subsequently returned, the action constitutes placement,
and that waste must be treated to meet LDR standards (55 FR 8758, 8760;
March 8,1990). (July 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
31
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Hazardous
Substances and
Reportable
Quantities
Key Words:
Glycol ethers; release
notification
"CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting Requirements for Aqueous
Film Forming Foam"
QUESTION: Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), a substance commonly
used by firefighters, contains ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) which is categorized
as a glycol ether. Glycol ethers meet the definition of hazardous substance in
CERCLA §101(14) because they are hazardous air pollutants pursuant to
§112(b) of the Clean Air Act. In 1990, the Clean Air Amendments added 47
individual hazardous air pollutants and 5 hazardous air pollutant categories,
including the broad category of glycol ethers. These hazardous air pollutants
newly identified as hazardous substances automatically received a reportable
quantity of one pound (CERCLA §102(b)). On June 12,1995, EPA published a
final rule adjusting the reportable quantities for the CAA hazardous air
pollutants, in particular, removing the one pound reportable quantity for the
five broad generic categories (60 PR 30926). Do the notification provisions in
CERCLA §103 and EPCRA §304 still apply to releases of AFFF?
ANSWER: CERCLA §103 and EPCRA §304 notification requirements no
longer apply to releases of AFFF containing ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy), unless
the AFFF released contains another listed CERCLA hazardous substance found
at 40 CFR §302.4 or extremely hazardous substance found at 40 CFR Part 355
Appendix A. In the June 12,1995, Federal Register, EPA decided not to assign
reportable quantities to the additional five broad categories, but rather to
identify, designate, and assign reportable quantities to certain specific
substances within the categories at a later date. As a result, releases of AFFF
containing only chemicals within the glycol ethers category no longer require
reporting to the National Response Center pursuant to CERCLA §103(a) or the
State Emergency Response Commission and Local Emergency Planning
Committee pursuant to EPCRA §304. Owner/operators can still be held liable
under CERCLA for clean-up costs or damages caused by a release of AFFF
containing a glycol ether, even though the release itself is not reportable (60 PR
30926,30933; June 12,1995). (November 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
32
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Key Words:
Hazardous substance;
releases; reportable
quantity
"Releases of Hazardous Substances from NPL Sites"
QUESTION: During the remedial action at a National Priorities List (NPL)
site, hazardous substances are generated and placed into containers on site.
Due to a breach in a container, the hazardous substances stored on site are
released into the environment and the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
initiates an immediate response. If the amount of hazardous substance
released equals or exceeds a CERCLA reportable quantity (RQ) within a 24
hour period, would the National Response Center (NRC) need to be notified?
ANSWER: Yes. A release from an NPL site that occurs during cleanup
activities is not exempt from CERCLA §103 notification requirements, and
therefore must be reported to the NRC if the release equals or exceeds the RQ.
CERCLA §103(a) requires the person in charge of a vessel or facility to
immediately notify the NRC when a release of a hazardous substance within a
24 hour period equals or exceeds the designated RQ. Unless the release is
specifically exempted from CERCLA §103 notification requirements, a release
of a hazardous substance which meets these criteria must be reported to the
NRC. The reporting obligation applies even if response to the release has
already been initiated. In the above scenario, since EPA response teams are
likely to be present at the site, the RPM will probably have the opportunity to
determine the appropriate federal response. (February 1995 Monthly Hotline
Report)
National
Priorities List
Key Words:
Deferral; national
priorities list (NPL); state
programs
"Deferral of NPL Listing While States Oversee Response Action"
QUESTION: The June 23,1993, Superfund Administrative Improvements.
Final Report (OSWER Directive 9200.0-14-2) identified numerous initiatives to
improve the Superfund process, including enhancing the role of states in the
cleanup process. The report recommended developing a program to encourage
qualified states and tribes to address, using their own laws, sites that are
currently in the queue to be considered for inclusion on the National Priorities
List (NPL). The report suggested that a state deferral program would
accelerate cleanup, minimize duplication of federal and state efforts, and
encourage potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to undertake response actions.
To implement the recommendations of the report, on May 3,1995, EPA issued
Guidance on Deferral of NPL Listing Determinations While States Oversee
Response Actions (OSWER 9375.6-11). How are sites deferred to states, and
what criteria or guidelines must be followed?
33
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Deferral of NPL Listing While States Oversee Response Action" (cont'd)
ANSWER: To be eligible to participate in the deferral program, a state or tribe
should meet certain criteria to assure that response actions at deferred sites will
be successfully implemented. An EPA Region and state should enter into a
generic Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that certifies that the state has:
(1) adequate statutory, regulatory, or administrative provisions to select
protective remedies and to pursue necessary enforcement actions; and
(2) adequate program and resource capabilities to select actions, conduct
enforcement action, oversee cleanup activities, and provide for community
participation at deferred sites. Having met all these criteria, a state may
implement a "full-scale" or area-wide deferral program. If the eligibility
criteria cannot be met sufficiently for a state to implement a full-scale deferral
program, the state may still be able to participate in the deferral program on a
site-specific basis, provided the eligibility criteria are met for each site that is
deferred. EPA Regional offices and states should determine eligibility for
deferral based on the following criteria:
• The state must express an interest in having the site deferred.
• The site proposed for deferral must be included in EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act Inventory System (CERCLIS).
• The deferred site must be "NPL caliber" as defined in Additional
Guidance on 'Worst Sites7 and 'NPL Caliber Sites' to Assist in SACM
Implementation (OSWER Directive 9320.2-07A; October 12,1993).
• Viable and cooperative PRPs generally must be available to conduct
the response actions at the deferred sites. The PRPs should be willing
to enter into an enforceable agreement with the state to conduct all
response actions (including providing for operation and maintenance)
at the site and repay any state and fund-financed response costs
related to the deferral.
• Generally, the site proposed for deferral should not yet have been
entered into the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package development
process. If a task or work assignment to develop the HRS package for
the site has already been issued, the site could be deferred if the state
provides a compelling reason why the listing process should be
terminated. A site on the final NPL is not eligible for deferral.
• If a Region, after consulting with the state, determines the affected
community or other parties have significant, valid objections to the
deferral of the site that cannot be resolved, the Region should not
defer the site.
34
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Deferral of NPL Listing While States Oversee Response Action" (cont'd)
The deferral program guidance also identifies certain requirements with which
a state must comply when taking responsibility for the response action at a
deferred site. Generally, the remedies selected for deferred sites should be
protective within the 10"^ to 10'6 risk range and must comply with all
applicable federal and state requirements. Site-specific agreements between
states and EPA should describe the roles and responsibilities of the different
agencies, including EPA's review and oversight functions, and schedules for
conducting response actions.
Under the deferral program, the state is responsible for acquiring the necessary
resources to conduct response actions. EPA does not anticipate using Fund
resources to conduct response actions at deferred sites. Under limited
circumstances, however, states may receive funds through cooperative
agreements to conduct site-specific activity or to develop their capability to
participate in the deferral program. (August 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
CERCLA Information
System (CERCLIS);
construction completion;
national priorities list
(NPL)
"Five-Year Reviews under CERCLA"
QUESTION: Certain sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) must undergo
a review no less often than every five years after the initiation of remedial
action. The purpose of this review is to determine if the response action
remains protective of human health and the environment. How does EPA
determine which sites are subject to these five-year reviews? What date
triggers commencement of the five-year time period?
ANSWER: There are two types of five-year reviews conducted by EPA,
statutory reviews and policy reviews. Statutory reviews are conducted
pursuant to SARA §121(c) and §300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) at sites at which a
post-SARA remedy, upon attainment of the cleanup levels specified in the
Record of Decision (ROD), will not allow unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. These reviews must be completed within five years of the "initiation
of remedial action" (OSWER Directive 9355.7-02). This is the date the
potentially responsible party (PRP) or contractor mobilizes to begin remedial
action construction. EPA Headquarters determines this based on the date of
the subevent "RA On-Site Construction" recorded by the EPA Regional Office
in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). If this event is not listed in a site's CERCLIS
entry, the earliest of the following dates will be used: the planned or actual
contract award date; the planned or actual remedial action start date; or the
ROD date (OSWER Directive 9355.7-02A). Statutory reviews are conducted at
least every five years or until contaminant levels allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure (OSWER Directive 9355.7-02).
35
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Five-Year Reviews Under CERCLA" (cont'd)
As a matter of policy, EPA will conduct five-year reviews at sites where the
ROD cleanup levels will allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure at a
site, but more than five years will be required to attain those levels (e.g., long-
term, response action sites). EPA will also conduct these policy reviews at sites
addressed before SARA by remedies that, upon attainment of the ROD cleanup
levels, do not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (OSWER
Directive 9355.7-02). Policy reviews should be initiated within five years of the
completion of physical construction at a site, which is the date that a site
qualifies for inclusion on the Construction Completion List. A site qualifies for
this designation at the time of signature of the preliminary or final Close Out
Report, the final no-action ROD, or the deletion notice (OSWER Directive
9355.7-02A).
Due to logistical or other concerns, EPA may choose to conduct a five-year
policy review at a site either before or after its due date. If a five-year policy
review is conducted before it was originally due, the next review will be due
within five years of the completion of the early review. If a five-year policy
review is conducted after the time it was originally due, the next review is due
within five years of the time the original review was due (OSWER Directive
9355.7-02A). (April 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Corrective action;
deletion/deferral policy;
national priorities list
(NPL)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action"
QUESTION: EPA has the authority under both CERCLA and RCRA to
address the cleanup of contaminated sites. Under what circumstances will EPA
address a contaminated site through one of the RCRA Subtitle C corrective
action authorities rather than list the site on the CERCLA National Priorities
List (NPL)? If a site is already on the NPL, what are the criteria for deleting the
site and deferring it to RCRA?
ANSWER: To conserve Superfund resources and avoid duplication of effort,
EPA has maintained a policy not to undertake CERCLA responses at certain
sites that can or will be adequately addressed by RCRA. Consequently, instead
of listing sites on the NPL, the Agency often defers sites that otherwise meet the
NPL criteria to RCRA Subtitle C corrective action. Under current policy, EPA
may defer sites to RCRA at any point in the NPL process, including after
placement on the NPL. EPA has had a policy of deferring certain sites from
listing since the first NPL final rule on September 8,1983 (48 PR 40658).
Prior to the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), the RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities only applied to
certain releases from surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment areas,
and landfills that received hazardous wastes after July 27,1982. HSWA
36
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action"
(cont'd)
expanded the RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities, giving EPA the
authority to address the on- and off-site cleanup of releases from active and
inactive permitted and interim status hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs). In order to implement this broader authority, in
1986, the Agency developed a policy for the listing or deferral from listing of
potential NPL sites (51 FR 21057; June 10,1986). According to the 1986 deferral
policy, EPA will generally defer the listing of potential NPL sites when other
authorities exist that are capable of accomplishing the needed corrective action.
The Agency will not automatically defer all sites eligible for cleanup under
RCRA. For example, EPA will not defer federal facilities from the NPL,
because federal facilities are not eligible for Fund-financed remedial action, and
deferring them would not conserve Fund monies (54 FR 10520; March 13,1989).
In addition, the Agency will continue to include RCRA sites not subject to
Subtitle C corrective action authorities, such as generator and transporter sites,
on the NPL. EPA is also reluctant to defer sites owned by persons who are
unwilling or unable to pay for corrective action and related activities because
these owners are unlikely to take corrective action as required by RCRA. For
this reason, the 1986 deferral policy clarifies that the Agency will not defer sites
meeting the criteria for listing on the NPL that fall into one of the following
categories:
• RCRA facilities owned by bankrupt persons;
• RCRA facilities that have lost authorization to operate under the RCRA
Loss of Interim Status (LOIS) provision and are owned by persons who
have indicated an unwillingness to undertake corrective action; and
• Facilities that have not lost authorization to operate, but that are owned
by people who have, as determined on a case-by-case basis, a clear
history of unwillingness to undertake corrective action.
On June 24,1988 (53 ES 23979), EPA clarified the deferral policy and added the
following four categories of RCRA facilities to those types of sites which it will
not defer from inclusion on the NPL:
• Non- or late-filers — treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that
managed hazardous waste after November 19,1980, but did not file
Part A RCRA permit applications by that date and have little or no
history of compliance with RCRA;
• Converters — facilities that previously treated or stored hazardous
waste, but have since converted to activities that do not require interim
status and have therefore formally withdrawn their Part A
applications;
37
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action"
(cont'd)
• Protective filers — facilities that filed RCRA Part A permit applications
as a precautionary measure for treatment, storage, or disposal
operations that do not require interim status and are not subject to
RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities; and
• Pre-HSWA permittees — sites holding permits issued before the
enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA).
These types of sites are either not subject to RCRA Subtitle C corrective action
authorities or are not high priorities under RCRA and would not be promptly
addressed by the RCRA corrective action program. The Agency has therefore
decided to place these sites on the NPL if they meet the listing criteria so that, if
necessary, the Superfund authorities are fully available.
On March 20,1995 (60 PR 14641), EPA issued a new deferral policy for sites
after their placement on the NPL. Previously, once EPA made the decision to
place a site on the NPL (rather than defer the site to another cleanup authority),
the Agency would only delete the site from the NPL when no further response
at that site was appropriate (55 PR 8845; March 8,1990). This policy meant EPA
would not delete sites from the NPL to defer them to RCRA during the
response process, even if the Agency determined that a RCRA response was
appropriate. Under the 1995 deletion/deferral policy, the Agency may, during
the response process, delete sites from the NPL based on deferral to the RCRA
Subtitle C corrective action program. To be eligible for deletion from the NPL
based on deferral to RCRA, NPL sites must meet the following criteria:
• The site must be eligible for deferral from inclusion on the NPL under
EPA's current deferral policy (as discussed above);
• EPA must be currently addressing the site through a RCRA corrective
action authority under an existing enforceable order or permit
containing corrective action provisions;
• Response under RCRA must be progressing adequately; and
• Deletion must not disrupt any ongoing CERCLA response actions.
Before a site may be deleted from the NPL under the deferral/deletion policy, it
must also meet other applicable deletion requirements under CERCLA
regulations. In particular, a site may only be deleted from the NPL after the
state in which the release was located has concurred with the proposed
deletion (40 CFR §300.425(e)(2)). Thus, sites must also be evaluated by the
appropriate state authority before EPA can delete sites from the NPL for
deferral to RCRA. (July 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
38
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Response
Process
Key Words:
On-scene coordinator;
remedial action; remedial
project manager
"Clarification of the Definition of On-Scene Coordinator"
QUESTION: The hazardous substance response requirements under Subpart
E of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) provide EPA the authority and
mechanisms to conduct removal and remedial activities at Superfund sites.
The lead agency (usually EPA) may designate an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)
to direct response for a removal action or a Remedial Project Manager (RPM) to
coordinate the cleanup response for the remedial action. At a site where both
remedial and removal responses are required, must the lead agency designate
two coordinators?
ANSWER: The lead agency conducting a Superfund cleanup has great
flexibility in designating either an OSC, an RPM, or both to oversee the
response action. Where both the OSC and RPM are designated to lead
response actions at one site, the responsibilities of the OSC will generally be to
lead removal activities, while the RPM will generally oversee remedial
activities. Because this situation may promote duplication of information
collected or activities performed at some sites, oversight by either an OSC or an
RPM of both removal and remedial activities at one site is an option. The
definition of RPM in 40 CFR §300.5, clearly indicates that an RPM has the
authority to oversee remedial activities as well as "other response actions
under Subpart E" (i.e., removal actions). In contrast, the definition of an OSC
did not explicitly extend the same authority for that individual to oversee any
action beyond a removal action until a recent clarification in the July 14,1994,
Federal Register (59 PR 35852). This clarification amended the definition of
OSC to explain that he or she can direct removal or, "other response actions
under Subpart E of the NCP." Thus, a lead agency can designate one OSC or
RPM to oversee both types of response activities under Subpart E of the NCP.
(March 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Data quality objectives;
preliminary assessment/
site investigation (PA/SI);
remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS);
sampling
"Data Quality Objectives and the Superfund Process"
QUESTION: Data quality objectives (DQOs) are an important part of the data
collection process at Superfund sites. DQOs are an integral component of the
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), a formal document that specifies the
process for obtaining environmental data of sufficient quantity and quality.
What are DQOs, and when are they implemented in the Superfund process?
ANSWER: DQOs are quantitative and qualitative statements that clarify the
study objective, define the most appropriate type of data to collect, determine
the appropriate conditions for data collection, and specify decision error levels.
39
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Data Quality Objectives and the Superfund Process" (cont'd)
EPA or the lead agency applies DQOs to ensure that environmental data
collected at a Superfund site are legally defensible and appropriate for
remediation decisions. Since each Superfund site is unique, EPA develops
DQOs on a site-specific basis. These statements specify the quality and
quantity of data required to support Agency decisions during the Superfund
process and establish the criteria to be included in the SAP.
DQOs serve as a useful planning tool to enable EPA or the lead agency to
collect the appropriate data. According to the regulations governing the
development of SAPs, EPA or the lead agency is required to develop DQOs for
all site inspections (40 CFR §300.420(c)(4)(ii)), remedial investigations (40 CFR
§300.430(b)(8)(ii)), and non-time-critical removal actions (40 CFR
§300.415(b)(4)(ii)(B)). In general, EPA's policy is to use the DQO process to plan
all data collection efforts that will require or result in a substantial commitment
of resources. Even when there is not sufficient time to complete the entire DQO
process, as in the case of a time-critical removal action, the principles behind
DQOs can and should be used as a guide to ensure that the data will be
appropriate for supporting a decision.
The DQO process is a scientific data collection planning process through which
site managers determine the type, quality, and quantity of data appropriate for
environmental decision making. This process consists of seven prescribed
steps that are outlined in the document entitled Data Quality Objectives
Process for Superfund, Interim Final Guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.9-01).
These steps are:
1. State the contamination problem by describing the source, nature, and
location of contamination
2. Identify the decision for which the data is being collected
3. Identify the inputs, or samples needed to make the decision
4. Define the spatial, temporal, and practical boundaries to which the study
will apply, such as the geographical boundaries of the study and conditions
under which the study will be done
5. Develop an "if...then..." statement by which the final decision will be made
(i.e., if the level of contaminants in the affected media is above a certain
level, then a response action must be taken)
6. Specify limits on decision errors which define what level of certainty is
being used to make the environmental decision
7. Incorporate the entire set of DQO outputs into a sampling design and
document the outputs in the SAP.
By applying the DQO process to data collection projects, EPA ensures
protection of human health and the environment by producing reliable data to
40
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Data Quality Objectives and the Superfund Process" (cont'd)
make informed decisions. The DQO process also produces legally defensible
data by enabling site managers to determine the appropriate number of
samples and what type of analyses are required to support defensible decision
making. DQOs reduce sampling costs by preventing the collection of
unnecessary, duplicative, or overly precise data. In addition, DQOs define
where and when samples are to be collected and assist in the development of
statistical sampling designs from which the uncertainty in data can be
quantified. (November 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
CERCLA information
system (CERCLIS); No
Further Response Action
Planned (NFRAP)
"No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) Sites and the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS)"
QUESTION: The CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) is the database and
management system used by EPA to track activities at sites considered for
cleanup under CERCLA. CERCLIS also contains information about sites that,
according to EPA, do not warrant further action in the site evaluation process.
These sites are given a No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP)
designation in CERCLIS. Under the definition of CERCLIS, a NFRAP
designation indicates that no additional federal steps under CERCLA will be
taken at the site unless information is found indicating that further action is
necessary (40 CPR §300.5). Can a site with a NFRAP designation ever be
removed from CERCLIS?
ANSWER: Yes. Even though sites with a NFRAP designation are not
undergoing any response action, EPA has received comments stating that their
inclusion in the CERCLIS database has caused a negative stigma to be
associated with the sites. This unintended stigma has resulted in the
disincentive to purchase, improve, redevelop, and revitalize NFRAP sites. As a
result of the problems associated with the stigma, EPA published a final rule in
the Federal Register on March 29,1995, which amended the definition of
CERCLIS to specifically exclude NFRAP sites from the CERCLIS database (60
PR 16053). Previously, the definition of CERCLIS stipulated that sites remain in
the database after completion of evaluations in order to record the actions that
were taken and to preclude the possibility of repetition. The amended
definition states that NFRAP sites will be placed in a separate archival database
which serves as a mechanism to record activities taken at NFRAP sites and
prevent duplicative efforts. This final rule does not affect any EPA enforcement
decisions, and sites in the NFRAP database will still not undergo any
enforcement action unless new information is found that would alter this
determination. (May 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
41
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Key Words:
Applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements
(ARARs); preliminary
assessment/site
investigation (PA/SI);
remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS);
soil
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their Relationship to Preliminary
Remediation Goals"
QUESTION: Both soil screening levels (SSLs) and preliminary remediation goals
(PRGs) are risk-based contaminant levels developed to streamline the CERCLA
response process. SSLs are chemical concentrations in soil that represent levels of
contamination below which there is generally no concern under CERCLA. PRGs
are draft, media-specific cleanup levels based on preliminary site information.
How are SSLs and PRGs related, and how should each be used during the
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)? May SSLs be used as cleanup
standards?
ANSWER: While SSLs and PRGs are both risk-based levels of contamination, they
may be developed using different assumptions, land uses, or exposures, and have
distinct uses. SSLs are used to identify those areas of a site where levels of
contaminants in soil are generally not of concern under CERCLA. By excluding
these areas from further investigation, the site manager may focus on areas that
have levels of soil contamination that require further study. PRGs are developed
for the purpose of screening remedial technologies, in order to focus study on
those alternatives that can achieve remediation goals.
The use of SSLs is not mandatory. The decision to use SSLs is made early in the
RI/FS, and should be based on two considerations: the potential benefits of
eliminating areas of the site, potential chemicals of concern, or exposure pathways
from further study; and whether site conditions are suitable for the application of
the soil screening framework. This framework is the process used to develop
SSLs, and is based on several assumptions. The assumptions include default
values and prescribed parameters for residential land use and for human
exposure through the soil ingestion pathway, the inhalation pathway, and
ingestion of groundwater contaminated by the migration of chemicals through the
soil. SSLs cannot be applied at all CERCLA sites, especially sites with exposure
and risk scenarios differing from the assumptions used in developing the
framework (e.g., no ecological threats, no agricultural land use). If a site is found
to be suitable, the site manager then collects a small amount of site characteristic
data to develop site-specific SSLs. (Generic, conservative SSLs may also be
developed for crude comparisons.) After the site manager establishes SSLs for a
particular site, actual soil contaminant concentrations are then measured and
compared to the appropriate SSLs. Those areas with average soil concentrations
below SSLs can generally be eliminated from further evaluation under CERCLA,
while areas with concentrations exceeding SSLs generally receive further
investigation to determine the degree of risk posed by those areas.
PRGs are an integral part of each RI/FS. When developing the RI/FS workplan,
remedial action objectives are established, providing a general description of what
the remedial action will accomplish. PRGs are specified in the remedial action
42
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their Relationship to Preliminary
Remediation Goals" (cont'd)
objectives as desired endpoint contaminant concentrations or risk levels (i.e.,
"draft" cleanup levels). They focus the feasibility study on technologies that
can achieve the remedial goals, thereby limiting the number of alternatives
considered in the detailed analysis required at 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9). Initially,
PRGs are based upon readily available environmental or health-based
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) as developed
under other laws. Common examples include chemical-specific maximum
contaminant levels and water quality criteria. PRGs may be modified into final
cleanup levels after the completion of the baseline risk assessment, and as
additional information is derived from the RI/FS (55 FR 8712; March 8,1990).
SSLs are not universal remediation goals or cleanup standards, although there
may be some circumstances where SSLs maybe used as PRGs. The general
methodology for developing SSLs is an update of methodology presented in
the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part B. for developing health-
based PRGs. The use of SSLs as PRGs, however, is limited to sites where the
site conditions are consistent with the assumptions inherent in the soil
screening guidance. SSLs may be used as PRGs where basis for response action
exists, and provided that site parameters approximate the assumptions used in
developing the soil screening framework (e.g., residential use, no ecological
problems, consistent exposure pathways). SSLs may be modified as the RI
proceeds. SSLs will only become final cleanup levels when the nine criteria
considered in the remedy selection process (40 CFR §300.430(e)(9)(iii)) support
a remedy that achieves the SSLs. (December 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
State
Involvement
"Transfers of Real Property Interests to States"
Key Words:
Property transfer;
remedial action; state
involvement
QUESTION: A site on the National Priorities List (NPL) is entering the final
stages of remedial action. EPA acquired ownership of an interest in real
property in order to conduct a Fund-financed cleanup and is in the process of
preparing to legally transfer the property to the state. The state contends that
the ongoing remediation will take several years and is therefore hesitant to
accept the transfer. When must a state accept the transfer of an interest in real
estate?
ANSWER: In instances in which EPA acquires an interest in real estate in order
to conduct a Fund-financed remedial action, the state must agree to accept
transfer of that property on or before completion of the remedial action
(CERCLA §1040); 40 CFR §300.510(f)). In the July 14,1994, Federal Register (59
PR 35852), the Agency clarified that for purposes of §300.510(f), the completion
43
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"Transfers of Real Property Interests to States" (cont'd)
of the remedial action is the point at which operation and maintenance (O&M)
measures are initiated under §300.435(f). O&M typically begins when the remedy
has been constructed and is operational and functional. The requirement that
states accept property transfers at initiation of O&M is in effect whether the state
or another party is conducting the O&M. (January 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
44
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW (EPCRA)
Emergency
Planning and
Release
Notification
Key Words:
Extremely hazardous
substance; reportable
quantity (RQ); threshold
planning quantity (TPQ)
"Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide Reporting Under EPCRA §§302 and
304"
QUESTION: Ammonia (CAS #7664-41-7) is listed on the Extremely Hazardous
Substance (EHS) List found at 40 CFR Part 355 Appendix A and B, with a
threshold planning quantity (TPQ) of 500 pounds. A facility stores ammonium
hydroxide (CAS #1336-21-6), which does not appear on the EHS list, on site in
excess of 500 pounds. Since ammonium hydroxide is essentially a mixture of
ammonia and water, should the facility include the quantity of ammonia in
ammonium hydroxide toward TPQ and reportable quantity (RQ) calculations for
purposes of EPCRA §§302 and 304 reporting?
ANSWER: The quantities of ammonia in ammonium hydroxide should be
considered separately when determining reporting requirements under EPCRA
§§302 and 304. This is consistent with the listing under CERCLA (40 CFR Table
§302.4), where ammonia and ammonium hydroxide are specifically and
separately listed as hazardous substances. Thus, ammonia (CAS #7664-41-7) and
ammonium hydroxide (CAS #1336-21-6) are considered different chemicals for
EHS listing purposes.
The notification requirement in EPCRA §302 applies to facilities with quantities of
EHSs present on site equal to or in excess of a TPQ. Ammonia is considered an
EHS, therefore, a facility with a TPQ or more of ammonia is required to provide
EPCRA §302 notification. Since ammonium hydroxide is considered distinct from
ammonia, and is not specifically listed as an EHS, it is not subject to emergency
planning requirements. A facility storing a large quantity of ammonium
hydroxide, however, may have free ammonia in the headspace of a storage tank.
A facility must report the ammonia in the headspace of a storage tank under
EPCRA §302 if this amount of free ammonia equals or exceeds the TPQ at any
time.
EPCRA §304 applies to chemicals listed as either CERCLA hazardous substances
(40 CFR §302.4) or EHSs. Both ammonia and ammonium hydroxide are
specifically listed as CERCLA hazardous substances and both chemicals,
therefore, are subject to EPCRA §304 reporting requirements. Ammonia has a RQ
of 100 pounds and ammonium hydroxide has an RQ of 1000 pounds. If either
chemical is released to the environment above its designated RQ within a 24-hour
period, the facility is subject to EPCRA §304 notification requirements (40 CFR
§355.40). (July 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
45
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
Key Words:
Glycol ethers; release
notification
"CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting Requirements for Aqueous
Film Forming Foam"
QUESTION: Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), a substance commonly
used by firefighters, contains ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) which is categorized
as a glycol ether. Glycol ethers meet the definition of hazardous substance in
CERCLA §101(14) because they are hazardous air pollutants pursuant to
§112(b) of the Clean Air Act. In 1990, the Clean Air Amendments added 47
individual hazardous air pollutants and 5 hazardous air pollutant categories,
including the broad category of glycol ethers. These hazardous air pollutants
newly identified as hazardous substances automatically received a reportable
quantity of one pound (CERCLA §102(b)). On June 12,1995, EPA published a
final rule adjusting the reportable quantities for the CAA hazardous air
pollutants, in particular, removing the one pound reportable quantity for the
five broad generic categories (60 PR 30926). Do the notification provisions in
CERCLA §103 and EPCRA §304 still apply to releases of AFFF?
ANSWER: CERCLA §103 and EPCRA §304 notification requirements no
longer apply to releases of AFFF containing ethanol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy), unless
the AFFF released contains another listed CERCLA hazardous substance found
at 40 CFR §302.4 or extremely hazardous substance found at 40 CFR Part 355
Appendix A. In the June 12,1995, Federal Register, EPA decided not to assign
reportable quantities to the additional five broad categories, but rather to
identify, designate, and assign reportable quantities to certain specific
substances within the categories at a later date. As a result, releases of AFFF
containing only chemicals within the glycol ethers category no longer require
reporting to the National Response Center pursuant to CERCLA §103(a) or the
State Emergency Response Commission and Local Emergency Planning
Committee pursuant to EPCRA §304. Owner/operators can still be held liable
under CERCLA for clean-up costs or damages caused by a release of AFFF
containing a glycol ether, even though the release itself is not reportable (60 FR
30926,30933; June 12,1995). (November 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
General
Key Words:
Emergency planning;
hazardous chemical
inventory reporting; local
emergency planning
committee (LEPC);
release notification
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located within the Planning Districts
of Two LEPCs"
QUESTION: The reporting requirements of EPCRA §§303(d), 311, and 312
require covered facilities to provide information on the presence of extremely
hazardous substances (EHSs) and hazardous chemicals to -the Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC) for the purpose of preparing an emergency plan.
In general, facilities are located within the boundaries of a single LEPC's
emergency planning district, allowing all notification to be made to the same
planning entity. A certain facility subject to EPCRA emergency planning
requirements is located such that its perimeter extends across the planning
46
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located within the Planning Districts
of Two LEPCs" (cont'd)
jurisdiction boundaries of two LEPCs. In this case, which LEPC is responsible
for including the facility in its emergency response plan? To which LEPC
should the facility fulfill its reporting obligations under EPCRA §§303(d), 304,
311, and 312?
ANSWER: LEPCs who share jurisdiction over a facility should decide on how
they will share responsibility for including the facility in their emergency
planning activities and how they will accept information required under
EPCRA §§303(d), 304,311, and 312. With respect to §303(d), if the facility is
located within two districts, it must provide the required notification to both
LEPCs. Since EPCRA §304 requires facilities to notify the LEPC responsible for
any area likely to be affected by a release of a reportable chemical (40 CFR
§355.40(b)(l)), both LEPCs should receive release notification to ensure
sufficient emergency response. EPCRA §§311 and 312 require information to be
submitted to the appropriate LEPC (EPCRA §§311(a)(l)(A), and 312(a)(l)(A)).
LEPCs may reach an agreement as to which is the appropriate LEPC, and thus
determine which would receive information submitted under §§311 and 312.
In the absence of such an agreement, the facility would need to report to both
LEPCs. (July 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Emergency planning;
hazardous chemical
inventory reporting;
Indian lands; toxics
release inventory
reporting; tribal
emergency response
commissions
(TERCs)
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands"
QUESTION: In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), to help local
communities, including Indian reservations, protect public health and the
environment from chemical hazards by informing citizens about the chemicals
present in their communities. On July 26,1990, EPA published a rulemaking in
the Federal Register designating Indian Tribes and their chief executive officers
as the implementing authority for SARA Title III on all Indian lands (55 PR
30632). What is EPA's policy regarding the implementation of the different
provisions of SARA Title III on Indian lands?
ANSWER: EPA's policy is to work with Tribes on a "government to
government" basis in implementing the requirements of SARA Title III. SARA
Title III contains four major provisions: planning for chemical emergencies,
emergency notification of chemical accidents and releases, reporting of
hazardous chemical inventories, and toxic chemical release reporting. The
emergency planning provisions of SARA Title III §§301-303 are designed to
help Indian Tribes prepare for, and respond to chemical emergencies occurring
on Indian lands that involve extremely hazardous substances (EHSs), found at
40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A and B. The chief executive officers of federally
47
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" (cont'd)
recognized Tribes must appoint Tribal Emergency Response Commissions
(TERCs), responsible for carrying out the provisions of EPCRA in the same
manner as State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs). Alternatively,
Tribal leaders can join a Tribal Coalition which functions as the TERC, or
establish a Memorandum of Understanding with a state to participate under
the SERC. TERCs establish emergency planning districts and can appoint Local
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) or act as TERCs/LEPCs, performing
the functions of both. LEPCs use information collected under SARA Title III to
develop local emergency response plans to respond quickly to chemical
accidents. The chief executive officer should ensure that TERCs maintain a
broad-based representation, including Tribal public agencies and departments
dealing with environmental, energy, public health and safety issues, as well as
other tribal community groups with interest in SARA Title III. The Tribal LEPC
should also be representative of the community, and should include elected
Tribal officials, fire chiefs, Indian Health Services officials, Bureau of Indian
Affairs officials, Tribal elders and leaders, representatives of industries on or
near the reservation, and members of the general community.
The emergency release notification provisions of SARA Title III §304 require
facilities to immediately notify TERCs and LEPCs of releases in excess of
reportable quantities of EHSs and CERCLA hazardous substances, found at 40
CFR §302.4. Facilities must also provide written follow-up reports on the
actions taken to respond to releases and possible health effects of the released
substances. The emergency release notification provisions cover releases from
commercial, municipal, and other facilities on Tribal lands, including those
owned by the Tribe, and those from accidents on transportation routes within
the reservation. Substances covered by this section include not only EHSs, but
also hazardous substances subject to the emergency release notification
requirements of CERCLA §103. CERCLA requkes notification of releases to the
National Response Center. In cases where releases from facilities located on
Indian lands may affect areas outside Indian jurisdiction, the legislation under
SARA Title HI §304(b)(l) requkes that notice be provided to all SERCs and
LEPCs likely to be affected by the releases. Response to such releases will be
handled by cooperation between the affected jurisdictions. EPA encourages
Indian Tribes, SERCs, and LEPCs to participate in joint planning efforts to
prepare for such potential emergencies.
The hazardous chemical right-to-know provisions of SARA Title III §§311 and
312, requke facilities that prepare material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for
hazardous chemicals under OSHA, and have hazardous chemicals or EHSs
present above applicable threshold levels, to submit these MSDSs, or lists of
such chemicals to TERCs, LEPCs, and local fke departments. Facilities are also
requked to submit hazardous chemical inventory forms which detail the
48
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" (cont'd)
amounts, conditions of storage, and locations of hazardous chemicals and EHSs
to TERCs, LEPCs, and local fire departments. It is the responsibility of TERCs
and LEPCs to make this information available to the public.
Toxic chemical release reporting under SARA Title III §313 requires covered
facilities to submit annual reports on routine and accidental toxic chemical
releases to EPA and the Tribal environmental, health, or emergency response
agency which coordinates with the TERC. TERCs and EPA make this
information available to the community through the national Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) database. The data are also released to the public annually in
national and state TRI reports.
The information collected under SARA Title III enables TERCs and LEPCs to
paint a picture of the hazardous substances, chemicals, and toxics found on
Indian lands. It also allows the Tribal communities to work with industries to
reduce the use and releases of toxic chemicals into the environment and
prevent chemical accidents. EPA recognizes that resources are often limited on
Indian lands, and is committed to helping Indian tribes comply with SARA
Title III. EPA provides technical assistance, guidance, and training tailored to
the needs and capabilities of Indian tribes. EPA's Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) can provide TERCs with grants/
cooperative agreements to aid in the implementation and effectiveness of their
SARA Title III programs. To be eligible for consideration under this grant
program, a tribe or Tribal Coalition must function as an independent TERC. To
the extent that Tribes have these functions performed by states, they are not
eligible for these grants. Tribal agencies can also apply for training grants
provided by FEMA under SARA Title III §305(a) to gain or improve skills
needed for carrying out emergency planning and preparedness programs.
These grants are provided through the TERCs or other agencies. The
Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA)
also includes funding grants for Indian tribes for training public sector
employees in emergency response activities. HMTUSA provides planning
grants for developing, improving, and implementing Title III plans, and for
developing a training curriculum for TERCs and LEPCs. Tribes should contact
their EPA Regional office for information on how to apply for these grants.
Enforcing the provisions of SARA Title III is key to providing Tribal
communities with the information necessary to prepare for and prevent
chemical accidents. EPA provides assistance to Tribal communities for specific
enforcement actions against violators of §§302,311, and 312. Since EPA does
not receive or process information under these sections, actions should be
initiated at the tribal and district levels. (August 1995 Monthly Hotline
Report)
49
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
Hazardous
Chemical
Inventory
Reporting
Key Words:
Agriculture exemption;
fertilizer; hazardous
chemical inventory
reporting; material safety
data sheet (MSDS)
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to Horticultural Operations and Golf
Courses"
QUESTION: EPCRA §§311 and 312 require facility owners or operators to
submit material safety data sheets (MSDS) and annual inventory reports (Tier
I/Tier n Forms) for any hazardous chemical subject to OSHA's Hazard
Communication Standard (29 CFR §1910.1200) when present at a facility above
threshold amounts (40 CFR §370.20(b)). Under EPCRA §311(e)(5), any
substance used in routine agricultural operations is exempt from EPCRA
§§311/312 reporting requirements. Is the growing of turf by a nursery
considered routine agricultural operations? Does this exemption apply if the
turf is grown and maintained by a golf course?
ANSWER: The agricultural exemption found at EPCRA §311(e)(5) excludes
fertilizers held for sale by retailers and any substance which is used in routine
agricultural operations. Agricultural operations is a broad term which EPA has
interpreted to apply to various types of facilities, including nurseries and other
horticultural operations (52 PR 38344,38349; October 15,1987). Therefore,
chemicals used in direct support of turf growing by a nursery are exempt
under EPCRA §311(e)(5).
In contrast, a golf course is not an agricultural operation. Golf courses derive
their income from the playing of golf, not the sale of turf or other horticultural
products. Therefore, all hazardous chemicals (e.g., pesticides, fuel for
equipment) on site must be reported under EPCRA §§311/312 if they exceed
applicable thresholds. (January 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Batteries; consumer
product exemption;
hazardous chemical
inventory reporting
"EPCRA §§311/312 Consumer Use Exemption and Batteries"
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. Facility
owners or operators must file MSDSs and Tier inventory forms for each
hazardous chemical which meets the reporting criteria. A facility purchases
non-industrial batteries in the same form as those packaged for use by the
50
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"EPCRA §§311/312 Consumer Use Exemption and Batteries" (cont'd)
general public. Later, the facility services the batteries by adding water or
sulfuric acid. Must the facility consider the batteries when calculating whether
EPCRA §§311/312 thresholds have been triggered?
ANSWER: No. EPCRA §311(e), codified at 40 CFR §370.20(3), exempts "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 for the general public." Because the public is generally
familiar with the hazards posed by such materials, the disclosure of such
substances is unnecessary for right-to-know purposes. The exemption extends
to any substance packaged in the same form or concentration as a consumer
product whether or not it is used for the same purpose as the consumer
product (52 PR 38344,38348; October 15,1987). EPA interprets this exemption
to enable the facility to service batteries which are in such forms without
negating the exemption. Any chemicals used for servicing that are present at
the facility in bulk form, however, would not fall under the exemption. (April
1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Consumer product
exemption; federal
facilities; hazardous
chemical inventory
reporting
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product Exemption Under EPCRA
§§311 and 312"
QUESTION: Executive Order 12856 required federal facilities to comply with
all aspects of EPCRA (58 PR 41981; August 6,1993). Prior to this action, EPCRA
did not apply to federal facilities. Consequently, interpretive language
previously issued as guidance for non-federal facilities often does not address
issues specific to federal facilities. For example, the federal government
produces many of its own products (i.e., scouring powder, bleach) for use by its
own service people. These products are similar in form and concentration to
analogous products manufactured by private companies for distribution to the
general public. Many of the federal government's products are packaged in
comparable quantities to those produced in the private sector. EPCRA
provides an exemption at 40 CFR §370.2 for consumer products present in the
same form and concentration as products packaged for distribution and use by
the general public. The federal government's products, however, are not
available to the general public. Would the federal products be exempt under
the consumer product exemption if they are packaged in the same form and
concentration as those manufactured in the private sector, even though they are
not available for purchase by the general public?
ANSWER: Yes. Products manufactured by the federal government that are
packaged in the same form (i.e., package size) and concentration as products
manufactured by private industry are exempt from EPCRA §§311/312
reporting requirements. The federal products need not be available to the
51
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product Exemption Under EPCRA
§§311 and 312" (cont'd)
general public to meet this exemption. The exemption applies either to the
extent a product is used for personal, family, or household purposes, or is
present in the same form and concentration as a product used by the general
public (whether or not it is actually used by the general public (40 CFR §370.2)).
For further guidance on specific scenarios, federal agencies should look to their
respective Executive Order implementing offices to determine the extent of
reporting. Some federal agencies have agreed to disregard certain exemptions
even though their facilities may qualify for them in order to demonstrate the
Federal Government's leadership role in source reduction and pollution
prevention. (March 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Article exemption;
consumer product
exemption; creosote;
hazardous chemical
inventory reporting;
material safety data
sheet (MSDS)
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated Wood Under EPCRA
§§311 and 312"
QUESTION: Until recently, OSHA exempted wood and wood products from
the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) program. On February 9,1994,
OSHA amended its HCS to no longer exempt certain wood and wood products
(59 EE 6126). The revised exemption found at 29 CFR §1910.1200(b)(6)(iv)
applies only to wood and wood products for which the hazard potential is
limited to its flammability or combustibility. Wood that has been chemically
treated is now subject to the HCS and thus requires a facility to maintain a
material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the wood product. In addition, the wood
product is potentially subject to EPCRA §§311 and 312.
A manufacturer of creosote-treated wood stores various sizes of treated lumber,
which it sells to retailers and wholesalers. The facility never stores more than
10,000 pounds of creosote prior to being incorporated into the wood. Would
the consumer product exemption found at 40 CFR §370.2 apply to the creosote-
treated wood? If the treated wood in storage is subject to EPCRA §§311 and
312, does the facility apply the total weight of the wood products towards the
10,000-pound threshold, or just the weight of creosote contained in the wood?
ANSWER: EPCRA §§311 and 312 apply to any facility that is required to
prepare or have available an MSDS and has a hazardous chemical, as defined ,
by OSHA, present in excess of 10,000 pounds, or has an extremely hazardous
substance in excess of 500 pounds or the threshold planning quantity,
whichever is lower (40 CFR §370.20). Despite the new appHcability-of OSHA's
HCS to chemically treated wood, the wood may not be subject to EPCRA §§311
and 312 if certain exemptions apply.
A manufacturer of creosote-treated wood would not have to count the wood
products iri storage towards the 10,000-pound threshold if the treated wood is
52
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated Wood Under EPCRA
§§311 and 312" (cont'd)
in the same form and concentration as a product distributed to the general
public (40 CFR §370.2). If, however, the wood products are treated with levels
of creosote not typically used in consumer products, then the wood products in
storage must be counted in the threshold determination. Likewise, any wood
products in sizes not typically available to the general public must be counted
towards threshold calculations.
A facility subject to the requirements of EPCRA §§311 and 312 has two options
for reporting mixtures. An owner or operator may meet the requirements by
either providing the required information on each component of a mixture or
by providing the information on the mixture itself (40 CFR §370.28(a)). If the
manufacturer of creosote-treated wood knows the concentration of the creosote
in the wood, the manufacturer can apply the weight of creosote contained in
the wood along with any other creosote on site towards the 10,000-pound
threshold. The owner or operator may prefer, however, to simply apply the
total weight of the wood products towards the threshold. The owner/operator
may choose -which reporting option to use, but tihe option chosen must be
consistently applied for purposes of reporting under EPCRA §§311 and 312 (40
CFR §370.28(a)(2)). (March 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Toxics Release
Inventory
Key Words:
Alternate threshold;
Form R; threshold;
toxics release
inventory reporting
"Alternate Threshold Under EPCRA §313"
QUESTION: EPC.RA §313 established a set of activity thresholds which, if
exceeded, trigger toxic chemical release inventory reporting for manufacturing
facilities (SIC codes 20-39) with 10 or more full-time employees (40 CFR
§§372.22 and 372.25). EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register on
November 30,1994 (59 PR 61488), which created an alternate threshold of 1
million pounds for certain facilities. How can a facility that exceeds one of the
original thresholds qualify for the alternate threshold?
ANSWER: Facilities which have an annual reportable amount of no greater
than 500 pounds for a listed toxic chemical may qualify for the 1 million pound
alternate threshold for that chemical, beginning with the 1995 reporting year.
For purposes of the alternate threshold, the "annual reportable amount"
includes toxic chemicals listed at 40 CFR §372.65 which are released, disposed,
treated, recycled, and burned for energy recovery at the facility; and amounts
transferred from the facility to off-site locations for the purposes of recycling,
energy recovery, treatment, and/or disposal. These amounts correspond to
column B, sections 8.1 through 8.7 of the reporting Form R (revised
53
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"Alternate Threshold Under EPCRA §313" (confd)
December 4,1993). If a facility's combined annual reportable amount does not
exceed 500 pounds for a specific toxic chemical, the facility can qualify for
reduced reporting requirements unless the amount of that toxic chemical
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used within the calendar year exceeds
one million pounds.
Manufacturing facilities that qualify for the alternate threshold are not exempt
from reporting, but must fulfill certain requirements. In lieu of submitting a
Form R, the owner or operator of a facility must submit an annual certification
statement indicating that the facility met the requirements for use of the
alternate threshold for a specific chemical. The facility must also maintain, and
make available upon request, records substantiating the claim. The
certification statement includes basic information regarding the facility's
identification, the chemical in question, and a statement of accuracy to be
signed by a senior management official of the facility. (April 1995 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Article exemption;
threshold; toxics
release inventory
reporting
"Article Exemption and Paint Under EPCRA §313"
QUESTION: A manufacturing facility processes steel rods containing toxic
chemicals listed under EPCRA §313 (40 CFR §372.65). The toxic chemicals
contained in the steel rods meet the article exemption and therefore are not
included in EPCRA §313 threshold or release determinations (40 CFR
§372.38(b)). To qualify for the article exemption, an item must meet each of the
criteria of the article definition (40 CFR §372.3). The item must be formed to a
specific shape or design during manufacture, must have end use functions
dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and
must not release a toxic chemical under normal conditions of processing or use.
EPA has interpreted the first part of the article definition "formed to a specific
shape or design" to apply to items that retain their initial thickness or diameter,
in whole or in part, throughout the item's production cycle at a facility.
In this case, the steel rods meet each part of the article definition throughout
the entire process. During the final stage of production, however, two coats of
paint are applied to the steel rods. Does the application of the paint negate the
article status of the steel rods even though the thickness of the steel does not
change?
ANSWER: No. The Agency has determined that the painting or coating of an
item that otherwise meets the EPCRA §313 definition of an article does not
affect the article status of that item because the initial thickness or diameter of
that item is retained. Therefore, the facility does not need to count the toxic
chemicals present in the rods toward activity thresholds. The facility, however,
54
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"Article Exemption and Paint Under EPCRA §313" (cont'd)
must count any listed toxic chemicals found in the paint or coating materials
toward EPCRA §313 activity thresholds. (September 1995 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Key Words:
Aqueous; ammonia;
material safety data
sheet (MSDS)
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of Ammonium Hydroxide"
QUESTION: An EPCRA §313 covered facility maintains a material safety data
sheet (MSDS) for ammonium hydroxide (CAS #1336-21-6). The MSDS lists the
concentration of total ammonia in the ammonium, hydroxide at 29 percent. To
assist covered facilities in calculating total ammonia in aqueous solutions, EPA
has published a guidance document titled EPCRA §313 Guidance for Reporting
Aqueous Ammonia, which lists NH3 equivalent weight percents for chemical
sources of aqueous ammonia. Ammonium hydroxide is listed as a "chemical
source of aqueous ammonia" consisting of 48.59 percent total aqueous
ammonia (Table 1, p. 12). When calculating the weight of total aqueous
ammonia from ammonium hydroxide, should a facility use the percentage on
the MSDS or the percentage in the Agency's guidance document? When
calculating the weight of total aqueous ammonia in other solutions of aqueous
ammonia, what percentage should a facility use if given the choice between
EPA's guidance document and solution-specific information?
ANSWER: Facilities should use the percent total ammonia specified on the
label of ammonium hydroxide solutions they purchase to determine the total
ammonia content in these solutions. Ammonium hydroxide has the chemical
formula NH4OH; however, strong evidence indicates that the species NH4OH
does not exist. Bottles of concentrated aqueous ammonia purchased from
chemical supply companies are almost always labeled "ammonium
hydroxide." These solutions primarily consist of molecules of NHg dissolved in
water (along with small amounts of ionized ammonia). The 48.59 percent listed
in Table 1 for ammonium, hydroxide is based on the chemical formula NH4OH,
not the actual concentration of total ammonia in ammonium hydroxide
solutions. The actual concentration may vary depending upon the amount of
NH3 used to make the solution. Thus, Table 1 may not accurately reflect the
actual weight of total aqueous ammonia in any given solution labeled
ammonium hydroxide.
The percentages, reported in Table 1 as NH3 equivalent weight percents for
chemical sources, are the precise percentages of total ammonia (expressed as
NH3 equivalent weights) contained in each chemical listed based on the
molecular formula for each chemical. Except for ammonium hydroxide, these
numbers are exact for the pure chemical and do not vary. Facilities can use
these numbers to calculate how much total ammonia will be in aqueous
solutions made from these chemicals. If more specific information on the
55
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of Ammonium Hydroxide"
(cont'd)
actual concentration of total ammonia in an aqueous solution is available from
another source such as an MSDS, label, or measurement, facilities can use this
information rather than performing the calculations prescribed in the EPCRA
§313 Guidance for Reporting Aqueous Ammonia. (October 1995 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Estimating releases;
Form R; mineral acids;
toxics release inventory
reporting
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral Acids Using pH
Measurements"
QUESTION: Mineral acids such as hydrochloric acid are commonly used
throughout the manufacturing sector as product ingredients, reactants, and
chemical processing aids. Often, listed mineral acids are present in aqueous
waste streams that are neutralized on site. If the mineral acid is neutralized on
site, EPCRA §313 requires an indication on the Form R of the range of
concentration of the listed toxic chemical in the influent waste stream. These
concentrations are expressed in percentages, parts per million (ppm), or parts
per billion (ppb). If the pH of a waste steam containing a listed mineral acid is
quantified, can the pH data be used to calculate the total mineral acid
concentration in the influent waste stream?
ANSWER: In cases where only one acid is present in solution, the total mineral
acid concentration can be derived by using the pH value of the solution and the
molecular weight and ionization constant of the acid. In order to assist the
regulated community in EPCRA §313 reporting, EPA derived a table which lists
the total acid concentration for each listed mineral acid at different pH values
(Estimating Releases for Mineral Acid Discharges Using pH Measurements.
June 1991). The concentrations are expressed in pounds per gallon (Ibs/gal)
and can be converted to the appropriate units for reporting purposes. The
concentration that must be reported is based on the amount or mass of the toxic
chemical in the waste stream compared to the total amount or mass of the
waste stream.
For example, assume that a facility treats, by neutralization, a waste stream
containing hydrochloric acid (HC1) where the pH of the influent stream is 4. A
pH of 4 corresponds to a concentration of 0.00003 pounds of HC1 per gallon of
waste stream (Estimating Releases for Mineral Acid Discharges Using pH
Measurements. Table 1). The amount of HC1 in the influent waste stream can
be converted using the following calculation:
56
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral Acids Using pH
Measurements" (cont'd)
Key Words:
Form R; toxics release
inventory reporting
Influent Waste Stream
(0.00003 Ibs/gal) x (1 gal/3.78 liters) x (453,000 mg/1 Ib)
= 3.6 mg/1 of HC1 in the waste stream
Since mg/1 of solutions or dispersions of a chemical in water is equivalent to
ppm, 3.6 ppm of HC1 is the concentration in the influent waste stream.
The Form R requires a range of influent concentration, thus the facility should
select the appropriate range code and enter that value in the "Range of Influent
Concentration" column in the On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency
section of the Form. (February 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
"EPCRA §313 Form R Submission: Completion of Section 8"
QUESTION: Owners or operators of facilities that meet the requirements of 40
CFR §372.22, but that do not qualify for the alternate threshold (40 CFR
§372.27), must report on the releases and transfers of toxic chemicals using the
Form R. Sections 8.1 through 8.7 of the Form R require chemical-specific
release and transfer information from the current reporting year, the previous
reporting year, and estimates for the subsequent two reporting years. How
should the owner or operator of a facility complete Sections 8.1 through 8.7 for
the previous reporting year if she or he were not required to report on a toxic
chemical in the past (i.e., the facility did not previously exceed a threshold
specified in 40 CFR §372.25, or the chemical is newly listed and release
information was not previously collected)?
ANSWER: The owner or operator of a facility filing a Form R for a toxic
chemical for the first time, but who managed the toxic chemical in the previous
reporting year, should use the best information available to make estimates of
the amount of the toxic chemical involved in waste management activities
specified in Section 8.1 through 8.7. In reporting year 1991, and beginning
again with reporting year 1994, if the owner or operator has no information
with which to make an estimate, she or he may put NA in Column A of
Sections 8.1 through 8.7. For reporting years 1992 and 1993, facilities were
required to estimate prior year quantities. If no waste management activities
involving the toxic chemical occurred during the reporting year, facilities were
required to enter 0 in column A. (August 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
57
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
Key Words:
Form R; toxics release
inventory reporting
"EPCRA §313: Section 4.1 of Form R (Maximum Amount On Site)"
QUESTION: An EPCRA §313 covered facility, which does not qualify for the
alternate threshold discussed at 40 CFR §372.27, must prepare a Form R
annually to report activities at the facility associated with toxic chemicals listed
at 40 CFR §372.65. Part IT, Section 4, of the Form R records the maximum
amount of a toxic chemical on site at any time during the calendar year. When
determining this amount, the facility must aggregate all non-exempt quantities
of the toxic chemical. Does this amount include concentrations of the toxic
chemical present in products?
ANSWER: Yes. Facilities must indicate the maximum amount of the toxic
chemical on site at any one time during the calendar year. The maximum
amount on site includes raw materials, in-process materials, product inventory,
and quantities present in wastes. Owners or operators must total all quantities
of the non-exempt amounts of the toxic chemical present at the facility when
completing Section 4.1 of Part II of the Form R. (June 1995 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Key Words:
Structural component
exemption; threshold;
toxics release inventory
reporting
"EPCRA §313 Structural Component Exemption for Chemicals Associated
with an Exempt Use"
QUESTION: An EPCRA §313 covered facility uses a fuel-powered paint
sprayer for the sole purpose of painting the facility's structure. The toxic
chemicals within the paint used to maintain the facility's appearance are
exempt from EPCRA §313 threshold determination and release reporting
requirements under the structural component exemption (40 CFR §372.38(c)).
The fuel used to power the paint sprayer also contains toxic chemicals
reportable under EPCRA §313. Must the toxic chemicals in the fuel be applied
toward the 10,000-pound otherwise use threshold?
ANSWER: No. The toxic chemicals are exempt from EPCRA §313 threshold
determination and release reporting requirements. Although the structural
component exemption most commonly applies to toxic chemicals incorporated
into a facility's physical structure, the exemption also extends to toxic
chemicals whose sole use derives from or is associated with an exempt use.
Examples of toxic chemicals exempt in this manner include solvents used to
clean paintbrushes that had been utilized to paint a facility's structure and
fumes generated from the welding of pipes during installation at a facility.
(October 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
58
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
Key Words:
Toxic chemical list;
toxics release
inventory reporting
"EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemical Expansion"
QUESTION: On January 12,1994, EPA proposed to add 313 chemicals and
chemical categories to the list of toxic chemicals reportable under EPCRA §313 (59,
FR1788). EPA finalized the addition of 286 of these chemicals and chemical
categories on November 30,1994 (59 PR 61432). What is the scope of this
expansion and when must facilities begin reporting on the newly added
chemicals?
ANSWER: On November 30,1994, EPA used its authority under EPCRA
§313(d)(l) to add 286 chemicals and chemical categories to the list of toxic
chemicals reportable under EPCRA §313 (40 CFR §372.65). Of these chemicals,
243 are listed individually, 39 are listed as part of two delineated (also known as
delimited) chemical categories, and 4 are listed as inclusive chemical categories. A
delineated chemical category is one which comprehensively lists the specific
chemicals meeting the category definition (e.g., diisocyanates). An inclusive
chemical category defines reportable chemicals by a prescriptive molecular
formula (e.g., nitrate compounds). An inclusive chemical category may provide a
partial list of chemicals reportable under the definition of the category, but in all
cases the list is not exhaustive. Covered facilities must comply with EPCRA §313
reporting, including supplier notification requirements, for the newly listed
chemicals and chemical categories beginning with the 1995 reporting year, with
the first EPCRA §313 reports due by July 1,1996.
Pending further review of technical and policy issues raised by public comments
to the proposed rulemaking, EPA deferred final action on the addition of 40
chemicals and one chemical category contained in the proposed rule. The Agency
also determined that three chemicals, clomazone, 5-chloro-2-(2,4-
dichlorophenoxy)phenol, and tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate, that were
proposed for listing did not meet the statutory criteria for listing, and thus were
not added to the list. (June 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Form R; mineral acids;
neutralization; off site
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter Cake under EPCRA §313"
QUESTION: EPCRA §313 requires manufacturing facilities (SIC codes 20 - 39)
with 10 or more full-time employees that manufacture, process, or otherwise use
toxic chemicals above annual thresholds to report releases, transfers, and source
reduction and recycling activities associated with these chemicals. A
manufacturing facility generates a waste stream in the form of a filter press cake
that contains nitric acid, a listed mineral acid under EPCRA §313. Before the filter
cake is sent to an off-site landfill for disposal, the nitric acid in the filter cake is
neutralized to pH 7. How should the facility report the disposal of this nitric acid
on its Form R (revised December 4,1993)?
59
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter Cake under EPCRA §313"
(cont'd)
ANSWER: Discharges of listed mineral acids (i.e., hydrogen fluoride,
hydrogen chloride, nitric acid, and phosphoric acid) to receiving streams,
water bodies, or publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) may be reported
as zero on the Form R if the mineral acid is neutralized to pH 6 or above
during on-site treatment (Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form
R and Instructions. Revised 1993 Version, pp. 26,31). This policy also applies
to off-site transfers of neutralized mineral acids. A facility that neutralizes
nitric acid in an on-site waste stream before transferring it to an off-site
location for disposal should report this transfer as zero in column A of
Section 6.2 - Transfers to Other Off-Site Locations. Since the disposal facility
does not treat the nitric acid, the reporting facility should enter NA in Section
6.2, column C. All applicable on-site treatment of the acid must be reported
in Section 7A - On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency. The total
amount of the nitric acid that was neutralized should be reported in column
B of Section 8.6 - Quantity Treated On-Site. In addition, the manufacturing
facility neutralizing the nitric acid in the filter cake needs to determine if they
are manufacturing a listed water dissociable nitrate compound as a result of
the nitric acid neutralization. (September 1995 Monthly Hotline Report)
Key Words:
Coincidental manufacture;
natural gas; toxics release
inventory reporting
"Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Purification under EPCRA
§313"
QUESTION: EPCRA §313 requires manufacturing facilities that
manufacture, process, or otherwise use toxic chemicals above annual
thresholds to report releases, transfers, and source reduction and recycling
activities associated with these chemicals. A covered facility purchases
natural gas that contains EPCRA §313 toxic chemicals. The facility uses the
gas on-site to heat buildings and power equipment. Before the natural gas is
used, the listed toxic chemicals are removed and destroyed in a flare. The
definition of manufacturing in 40 CFR §372.3 states that, "Manufacture also
applies to a toxic chemical that is produced coincidentally during the
manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical or mixture of
chemicals, including a toxic chemical that is separated from that other
chemical or mixture of chemicals as a byproduct..." Are the toxic chemicals
that are removed from the natural gas coincidentally manufactured, and
hence subject to threshold determination under EPCRA §313?
ANSWER: The removal and destruction of an EPCRA §313 toxic chemical
from a fuel before it is used by a facility is not considered an activity that falls
under the definition of manufacturing. Facilities that use natural gas in
production processes sometimes need to remove impurities from the gas
60
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Purification under EPCRA
§313" (cont'd)
before it is used. Such a facility does not coincidentally produce toxic
chemicals as byproducts, but merely separates and removes toxic chemicals
already present in the gas. These chemicals would not be subject to threshold
determination for reporting under EPCRA §313, and would not be subject to
release reporting unless an activity threshold is exceeded elsewhere at the
facility. If the facility exceeds an activity threshold elsewhere, all releases from
the impurity removal process would be reportable.
Although these chemical impurities are usually destroyed, they could also be
captured for further use at the facility or for sale as products, either of which
would constitute a reportable activity under EPCRA §313. "Processing" refers
to the preparation of a toxic chemical for distribution in commerce (40 CFR
§372.3). If the chemicals are collected and sold as products or incorporated
into products, they are considered processed and the amount of each chemical
is applied toward its processing threshold. "Otherwise use" refers to any use
of a toxic chemical that is not covered by the definitions of manufacture or
process (40 CFR §372.3). If the chemicals are collected for further use at the
facility, the chemicals are considered otherwise used, and the amount of each
chemical is applied toward its otherwise use threshold. (February 1995
Monthly Hotline Report)
61
-------
-------
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 1995. Both proposed and final rules with significant
impact on these programs are included. This is not a complete list of all applicable Federal
Register notices for the year. For a comprehensive review of Federal Register notices, the
reader may wish to obtain Federal Register 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.
63
-------
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
March 2,1995
(60 FR11702)
"Land Disposal Restrictions: Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent Potliners"
SUMMARY: As part of its land disposal restrictions (LDR) program, EPA is
proposing treatment standards for wastes derived from the production of
carbamate pesticides, organobromine flame-retardants, and aluminum. In
addition, the Agency is also proposing to revise the treatment standards for
characteristic hazardous wastes. Currently, these wastes are not
regulated, once the characteristic is removed, when managed in Clean
Water Act/Clean Water Act-equivalent systems, or when injected into deep
wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA proposes to revise
its treatment standards to require treatment to remove the characteristic,
as well as to treat any underlying hazardous constituents that are in the
waste. EPA is also proposing to codify that filling in holes in the ground
with hazardous waste is illegal disposal. Finally, the Agency is proposing
to codify its policy prohibiting the combustion of certain metal-bearing
wastes under the dilution prohibition.
Citation:
March 22,1995
(60 EB15208)
"Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 Amendments"
SUMMARY: The Federal Facility CompHance Act of 1992 (FFCA) clarified
that EPA has explicit authority to issue administrative enforcement orders
to other federal agencies that are in violation of RCRA. Further, it
provides that no administrative enforcement order issued to a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the federal government becomes final until
the department, agency, or instrumentality has an opportunity to confer
with the EPA Administrator. EPA is proposing a technical revision of its
administrative rules of practice to provide a federal department, agency, or
instrumentality, which is the subject of an administrative enforcement
order, with the opportunity to confer with the Administrator as required by
the FFCA. Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
AprH 21, 1995.
65
-------
RESOURCE CONS5ERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 12,1995
(60 JEB 30964)
"Revisions to the Existing Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities"
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to establish specific standards for non-
municipal solid waste disposal facilities that receive conditionally
exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) wastes. Only those non-
municipal solid waste disposal facilities which meet the proposed
requirements of §§257.5 through 257.30 would be allowed to receive CESQG
hazardous waste. EPA is proposing only the minimum standards required
by the RCRA statute and is offering maximum flexibility for states and
facilities in meeting those standards.
Citation:
July 25, 1995
(60 £B 37974)
"Hazardous Waste Management System: Testing and
Monitoring Activities"
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise certain testing methods and to add
several new testing methods that may be used to comply with the
requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA. The new and revised methods,
designated as Update III, are proposed to be added to the Third Edition of
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical Methods
(SW-846). In addition, EPA is proposing to delete several obsolete methods
from SW-846 and the RCRA regulations. Comments must be submitted on or
before September 25,1995.
Citation:
August 10, 1995
(60 FR 40799)
"Small and Arid or Remote Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(MSWLFs): Alternatives To Groundwater Monitoring And Delay
Of General Effective Date"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to allow approved States and Tribes the
flexibility to consider site-specific alternatives to conventional
groundwater monitoring requirements for small MSWLFs located in either
dry or remote areas. The Agency is accepting public comment on this
proposal for a 90-day period, beginning on August 10,1995. In addition, EPA
solicited comment on delaying the general compliance date for small
MSWLFs located in either dry or remote areas. The Agency is also
accepting public comment on delaying the general compliance date for a 30-
day period, beginning on August 10,1995.
66
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
August 22, 1995
(60 FR 43654)
"Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV"
SUMMARY: In LDR Phase IV, EPA continues to address the LDR
implications of characteristic hazardous wastes which are diluted so they
no longer exhibit a characteristic(s), and are then managed in centralized
wastewater management land disposal units. A D.C. Circuit court decision
concluded such management is legal if it can be demonstrated that
hazardous constituents are reduced, destroyed, or immobilized to the same
extent they would be pursuant to equivalent LDR treatment standards.
In the Phase IV proposal, EPA addressed whether such treatment in surface
impoundments results in cross-media releases via leakage, air emissions, or
disposal of untreated sludges, that can be so excessive that the
impoundment effectively functions as a disposal unit.
EPA proposed treatment standards in the Phase IV rule for wood preserving
wastes and for toxicity characteristic metal wastes. These treatment
standards, when finalized, must be met prior to land disposal of these
hazardous wastes. Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted by
November 20,1995.
Citation:
October 25, 1995
(60 FR 54645)
"LDR Phase IV: Technical Correction to Proposed Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA corrected several errors in the LDR Phase TV Proposed
Rule (60 PR 43654; August 22,1995). Most notably, EPA corrected the
flowchart entitled "Figure 2: Option 2 Flowchart," which appeared on
page 43664 of the proposal. In addition, EPA resolved an inconsistency
between the UTS table which appeared at 60 FR 43682 and the UTS table
at 60 FR 43696. The tables were not in agreement concerning the list of
constituents proposed for regulations in F032, F034, and F035, as well as the
universal treatment standard proposed for several constituents.
Citation:
Novembers, 1995
(60 FR 56468)
"Military Munitions Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to identify when conventional and chemical
military munitions become a hazardous waste and provided provisions for
the safe storage and transport of such wastes. The Agency also amended
existing regulations regarding emergencies involving military munitions
and other explosives. In addition, EPA revised the definition of "on-site"
applicable to all generators of hazardous waste.
67
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 20, 1995
(60 EB. 57747)
"Petroleum Refining Process Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to list three wastes from the petroleum refining
industry as hazardous waste under RCRA. Additionally, EPA proposed to
designate the wastes proposed for listing as CERCLA hazardous substances
and adjust the one-pound statutory reportable quantities (RQs) for these
substances. EPA will accept public comments until February 20,1996.
Citation:
December 21, 1995
(60 EB 66344)
"Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)"
SUMMARY: HWIR proposes to establish constituent-specific exit levels for
low-risk solid wastes that are designated as hazardous because they are
listed, or have been mixed with, derived from, or contain listed hazardous
wastes. Generators of listed hazardous wastes that meet the self-
implementing, risked-based exit levels would no longer be subject to the
hazardous waste management system under Subtitle C of RCRA as listed
hazardous wastes. The Agency is also proposing to replace the technology-
based LDR treatment standards in 40 CFR §268.40 with the risk-based exit
levels. EPA will accept public comments on the HWIR proposal until
February 20,1996.
Final Rules
Citation:
Januarys, 1995
(60EB.242)
"Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II: Universal Treatment
Standards, and Treatment Standards for Organic Toxicity
Characteristic Wastes and Newly Listed Wastes"
SUMMARY: On September 19,1994, 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. In addition, EPA promulgated treatment standards 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. This rule corrects errors and clarifies the language of the
September 19,1994, rule. The rule was effective on December 19,1994.
68
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
January 13,1995
(60 ER 3089)
Citation:
Februarys, 1995
(60 FR 6666)
"Hazardous Waste Management System: Testing and
Monitoring Activities: Final Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA is adding new and revised testing and monitoring methods
as Update II to the Third Edition of the EPA-approved test methods
manual Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods (EPA publication SW-846). EPA is also incorporating the updated
SW-846 Third Edition into 40 CFR §260.11(a) for use in complying with the
requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA. The rule is effective on January 13,
1995.
"Determination of Point of Generation for Municipal Waste
Combustion Ash at Waste to Energy Facilities"
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court, in City of Chicago v. Environmental
Defense Fund, Inc., held on May 2,1994, that ash generated by municipal
waste to energy facilities is subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C.
Typically, fly ash, the ash that collects in the air pollution control
devices, is more likely to exhibit the toxicity characteristic than either
bottom ash, or combinations of fly ash and bottom ash. Neither the
Supreme Court's decision on ash nor any of EPA's previous policies address
the point at which the facility owner must determine whether the ash
exhibits the toxicity characteristic. The Agency is therefore clarifying
that the point of Subtitle C jurisdiction for this ash is at the exit of the
combustion building following the combination and air pollution control
processes. This rule is effective February 3,1995.
Citation:
February?, 1995
(60 FR 7366)
"Regulatory Determination on Cement Kiln Dust"
SUMMARY: When Congress enacted RCRA, it identified six categories of
waste that were believed to pose less risk to human health and the
environment. Cement kiln dust (CKD) and the other special wastes were
excluded from regulation under RCRA §3001 pending further study. A
Report to Congress requked by §8002(o) was signed by the Administrator on
December 30,1994. Based on this report, the Agency determined that
additional regulation of CKD is warranted. EPA intends to use its various
authorities under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and RCRA to
address the relevant pathways of potential contaminant releases from
CKD. Under Subtitle C of RCRA, the Agency will develop a set of
standards for CKD to control releases to groundwater. Until this set of
standards is published by the Agency/ however, CKD will retain the
Bevill exemption.
69
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
February 9,1995
(60 EB 7824)
"Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing: Carbamate
Production"
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its March 1,1994 (59 PR 9808), proposed rule
to list as hazardous six wastes generated during the production of
carbamate chemicals. Further, the Agency is also adding 58 chemicals to
the list of commercial chemical products in §261.33. This action also adds
these newly listed chemicals to the CERCLA list of hazardous substances in
§302.4. EPA is deferring action on 12 specific chemicals and four generic
categories and providing an exemption from the definition of hazardous
waste under RCRA for certain wastes, if the generator demonstrates that
hazardous air pollutants are not being discharged or volatilized during
waste treatment. Finally, the Agency is also exempting from the definition
of hazardous wastes biological treatment sludges generated from the
treatment of certain wastes provided the sludges do not display any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste. This rule is effective on August 9,
1995.
Citation:
February 14,1995
(60 £B 8384)
"New Hampshire: 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 Hampshire's municipal
solid waste landfill permit program. The effective date of this rule is
February 14,1995.
Citation:
March 14,1995
(60 EB 13722)
"New York: 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 York's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The effective date of this determination is
March 14,1995.
70
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 20,1995
(60 FR 14641)
Citation:
April 4,1995
(60 ER17001)
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites: Deletion Policy for Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its policy of deleting RCRA facilities from
the NPL before a cleanup is complete if the site is being, or will be,
adequately addressed by the RCRA corrective action program under an
existing permit or order. This deletion policy applies to sites on the NPL
that are RCRA-regulated facilities engaged in treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, but does not apply to federal facility sites.
The Agency requested comment on this policy on December 21,1988 (53 FR
51421). In order to be eligible for deletion from the NPL based on deferral to
RCRA corrective action authorities, a site must meet the following criteria:
1) if evaluated under EPA's current RCRA/NPL deferral policy, the site
would be eligible for deferral from listing on the NPL; 2) the CERCLA site
is currently being addressed by RCRA corrective action authorities under an
existing enforceable order or permit containing corrective action provisions;
3) response under RCRA is progressing adequately; and 4) deletion would
not disrupt an ongoing CERCLA response action. This policy is effective
April 19, 1995.
"Hazardous Waste Management System: Testing and
Monitoring Activities"
SUMMARY: EPA is amending its testing and monitoring regulations under
RCRA Subtitle C. This amendment clarifies the temperature requirement
for pH measurements of highly alkaline waste and adds Method 9040B and
9040C to Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods (EPA Publication SW-846). These test methods will provide a
better and more complete analytical technology for purposes of identifying
wastes that exhibit the corrosivity characteristic.
Citation:
April?, 1995
(60 EB17649)
"Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Financial Assurance Effective
Dates"
SUMMARY: EPA is delaying the effective date of the financial assurance
criteria of 40 CFR Part 258, Subpart G until April 9,1997. The extension
applies to all municipal solid waste landfills, including remote, very small
landfills. The effective date of this extension is March 31,1995.
71
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
April 17,1995
(60 £B 19165)
"Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing: Carbamate
Production"
SUMMARY: EPA finalized its March 1,1994 (59 FR 9808), proposed rule to
list as hazardous six wastes generated during the production of carbamate
chemicals on February 9,1995 (60 FR 7824). In that rule, the Agency added
58 chemicals to the list of commercial chemical products in §261.33 and
added these newly listed chemicals to the CERCLA list of hazardous
substances in §302.4. EPA is correcting minor typographical and omission
errors in the listing of these chemicals as well as in the listing of their
reportable quantities. This rule is effective April 17, 1995.
Citation:
April 17,1995
(60 £B 19251)
"Wyoming: 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 Wyoming's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The effective date of this rule is April 19,
1995.
Citation:
May 1,1995
(601FB21191)
"Campo Band of Mission Indians: Final Determination of Full
Program Adequacy of Tribal Municipal Solid Waste Permit
Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave notice of a final
determination approving the adequacy of the Campo Band of Mission
Indians' municipal solid waste landfill permit program. The effective date
of this rule is May 1,1995.
Citation:
May 1,1995
(60EB21370)
"Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products
Containing Recovered Materials"
SUMMARY: Section 6002 of RCRA requires EPA to designate items that are
or can be produced with recovered materials and to recommend practices for
title procurement of designated items by procuring agencies. Once EPA
designates an item, any procuring agency, when using appropriated federal
funds to procure that item, shall purchase it with the highest percentage of
recovered material practicable. EPA is promulgating a final regulation
designating 19 new items that are or can be made with recovered materials.
The effective date of this rule is May 1,1995.
72
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
May 1,1995
(60 EB 21386)
"Recovered Materials Advisory Notice"
SUMMARY: Section 6002 of RCRA requires EPA to designate items that are
or can be made with recovered materials and provide recommendations for
the procurement of these items when using federal funds for such purchases.
On May 1,1995 (60 FR 21370), EPA designated 19 new items in its
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG). EPA is announcing its
recommendations to procuring agencies for meeting their §6002 obligations
with respect to the new and existing designated items. The effective date
of this action is May 1,1995.
Citation:
May 11,1995
(60 FR 25492)
"Hazardous Waste Management System: Universal Waste Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating streamlined management regulations for
certain widely generated wastes identified as universal wastes.
Specifically, the rule applies to hazardous waste batteries, hazardous
waste pesticides that are recalled or that are sent to a collection program,
and certain mercury-containing hazardous waste thermostats. By
streamlining the requirements for handlers and transporters of the waste,
the Agency hopes to facilitate collection programs and to remove these
widely generated wastes from municipal waste streams. At the same time,
the regulations assure that wastes subject to this system will go to
appropriate treatment, recycling, or disposal facilities which are subject to
full Subtitle C controls. The rule also contains a petition process by which
other wastes may be added to the system. Because this rule is deemed to be
less stringent than the current regulations, states are not required to adopt
the provisions of Part 273. However, EPA strongly encourages states to
adopt this rule. The effective date of this rule in unauthorized states is
May 11,1995.
73
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
May 12,1995
(60 £B 25619)
"Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing: Carbamate
Production"
SUMMARY: EPA finalized its March 1,1994 (59 ZE 9808), proposed rule to
list as hazardous six wastes generated during the production of carbamate
chemicals on February 9,1995 (60 FR 7824). In that rule, the Agency added
58 chemicals to the list of commercial chemical products in §261.33 and
added these newly listed chemicals to the CERCLA list of hazardous
substances in §302.4. EPA corrected minor typographical and omission
errors in the listing of these chemicals as well as in the listing of their
reportable quantities on April 17,1995 (60 FR 19165). The Agency is
correcting a typographical error and an omission in the April 17,1995,
correction notice. The effective date of this rule is August 9,1995.
Citation:
May 19,1995
(60 £B 26828)
"Hazardous Waste TSDFs and Generators: Organic Air
Emissions Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and
Containers"
SUMMARY: On December 6,1995 (59 FR 62896), EPA promulgated air
standards in order to reduce organic emissions from hazardous waste
management activities. Under the standards, air emissions controls must be
used for tanks, surface impoundments, and containers. These standards were
originally scheduled to be effective on June 5,1995. Since promulgation,
however, EPA has become aware that certain provisions of the final
standards may require clarification and plans to publish a subsequent
Federal Register notice to address these provisions. To ensure that all
facilities have time to make alterations in their compliance plans prior to
the effective date of the standards, EPA is postponing the effective date of
the rule until December 6,1995.
74
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 12,1995
(60 FR 30926)
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments: Clean Air Act Hazardous Air
Pollutants and RCRA Hazardous Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA finalized changes to reportable quantities (RQs) for
certain hazardous substances under CERCLA. This final rule revises the
table of hazardous substances at 40 CFR §302.4 to add 47 individual Clean
Air Act (CAA) hazardous air pollutants and adjust their statutory one-
pound RQs; add five other CAA hazardous air pollutants that are
categories of substances and assign no RQ to the categories; and adjust RQs
for 11 RCRA hazardous wastes. EPA thoroughly evaluated the intrinsic
properties of these substances to determine appropriate levels for the
adjusted RQs. The adjustments are also consistent with the Agency's
Common Sense goals in that the rule will minimize net reporting and
recordkeeping burdens. The effective date of this rule is July 12,1995.
Citation:
JulyS, 1995
(60 FR 34982)
"Massachusetts: Adequacy Determination of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA has concluded that the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts' municipal solid waste landfill
permitting program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. EPA has therefore granted a final determination of
adequacy for all portions of Massachusetts' municipal solid waste permit
program. The determination of adequacy for Massachusetts will be
effective on July 5,1995. EPA also noted that the Agency intends to propose
a State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR). STIR will provide procedures
by which EPA will approve, or partially approve, State/Tribal landfill
permit programs.
Citation:
July 11, 1995
(60 EH 35703)
"Liquids in Landfills: Addition of Test Method to Demonstrate
Sorbent Non-biodegradability"
SUMMARY: In 1984, Congress required EPA to promulgate a rule that
prohibited the disposal in hazardous waste landfills of containerized
liquids that had been absorbed in biodegradable materials. EPA has
granted a petition to add a third test method to demonstrated that a
sorbent is non-biodegradable. If significant adverse comments are received,
this direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule. This final action will become
effective on September 11,1995, unless EPA receives significant adverse
comment on the proposal by August 10,1995.
75
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
August 2, 1995
(60 FB. 39385)
"Maryland: Adequacy Determination of State/Tribal Municipal
Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA has concluded that the
State of Maryland's municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) permitting
program satisfies a major portion of the statutory and regulatory MSWLF
requirements established by RCRA. EPA has therefore granted a final
determination of partial program adequacy for Maryland's municipal solid
waste permit program. The determination of partial adequacy for
Maryland will be effective on August 2,1995.
Citation:
August 14, 1995
(60 EH 41817)
"Reinterpretation of Carbamate Production Waste Listing"
SUMMARY: EPA reinterpreted the scope of the K156 and K157 carbamate
wastes listings to specifically exclude non-carbamate intermediates that
are produced at a site other than the ultimate site of carbamate production.
Wastes from the production of such intermediates will no longer be covered
by the listings. The effective date for this rule is August 8,1995.
Citation:
September 20,
1995
(60 £B 48711)
"North Dakota: Final Adequacy Determination of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has concluded that the State of North Dakota's
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) permitting program is adequate
to ensure compliance with the revised MSWLF criteria. EPA therefore
issued a final determination that the state/tribe's program is adequate.
The determination of adequacy for North Dakota is effective September 18,
1995.
Citation:
September 29,
1995
(60 EB 50426)
"Organic Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface
Impoundments, and Containers"
SUMMARY: EPA stayed the applicability of the Subpart CC technical
requirements for tanks and containers managing certain organic peroxide
compounds. These organic peroxides are inherently unstable and therefore
cannot be safely confined in closed units or systems. This rule is effective on
December 6,1995.
76
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
October 4, 1995
(60 FR 51925)
"Wyoming: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program"
SUMMARY: EPA determined that Wyoming's hazardous waste program
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final
authorization. To qualify for final authorization, a state's program must
(1) be "equivalent" to the federal program, (2) be consistent with the
federal program and other state programs, and (3) provide for adequate
enforcement. Final authorization will be effective October 18,1995.
Citation:
October 6, 1995
(60 £R 52337)
"Delay of General Compliance Date for Small MSWLFs in Either
Dry or Remote Areas"
SUMMARY: EPA extended the general compliance date of the municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) criteria for MSWLFs qualifying in
§258.1(f)(l) as small, arid or remote. As a result, qualifying small
MSWLFs are therefore not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 258
until October 9,1997, provided the MSWLF continues to qualify for the
small landfill exemption.
Citation:
October 30, 1995
(60 FR 55202)
"Administrative Stay of the Used Oil Mixture Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA announced an administrative stay of the used oil mixture
rule regulations in 40 CFR §279.10(b)(2). Section 279.10(b)(2) contains
special provisions regulating used oil mixed with either characteristic
hazardous waste or waste listed as hazardous because it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic. After December 29, 1995, the effective
date of the stay, these mixtures will be subject to the regulatory
requirements for other mixtures of hazardous and solid wastes, including
LDRs, until the Agency completes a new rulemaking addressing the used oil
mixture rule provisions. (Note: This rule was vacated by the United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on January 19,1996. The court action
reinstated §279.10(b)(2).)
77
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
Novembers, 1995
(60 FR 55843)
"Vermont: Final Adequacy Determination of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA concluded that the State of Vermont's municipal solid
waste landfill (MSWLF) permitting program is adequate to assure
compliance with the revised federal MSWLF criteria. EPA therefore
issued a final determination that the State/Tribe's program is adequate.
The determination of adequacy for Vermont is effective November 3,1995.
Citation:
November 13, 1995
(60 FR 56952)
"Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
and Hazardous Waste Generators: Organic Air Emission
Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers"
SUMMARY: EPA postponed the effective date of the final Parts 264/265,
Subpart CC air emission standards published on December 6,1994 (60 F_E
62896). The new effective date is June 6,1996. Due to the fact that EPA
intends to publish a Federal Register notice clarifying provisions in the
final rule and is actively considering amending the rule in ways that would
increase compliance flexibility and possibly reduce certain regulatory
requirements, EPA considered it appropriate to delay the effective date for
an additional six months.
Citation:
Decembers, 1995
(60 £B 62439)
"New Jersey: Final Partial Program Determination of Adequacy
of State/Tribal Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA granted final partial approval to the following
components of New Jersey's municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)
permitting program: location restrictions, operating criteria, design
criteria, closure and post-closure care, and financial assurance criteria.
New Jersey's program had been deemed adequate to ensure compliance with
the MSWLF criteria. The determination of adequacy for New Jersey's
program is effective December 6,1995.
78
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
December 11,1995
(60 FR 63417)
"RCRA Expanded Public Participation"
SUMMARY: EPA issued regulations providing for earlier public
involvement and expanded public access to information throughout the
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility permitting
process. EPA required applicants to hold an informal public meeting prior
to application submission, the permitting agency to notify the public when
it received the application, and combustion facilities to notify the public
before a trial burn. In addition, the rule gives the permitting agency the
authority to require an information repository at any point during the
permitting process or the permit life. This rule is effective on June 11,1996.
79
-------
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
January 24, 1995
(60 FR 4586)
"Texas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made the tentative decision that Texas' application
for final approval of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I
of RCRA satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final
approval. As a consequence, EPA intends to grant final approval to the
state to operate its program in lieu of the federal program. A public
hearing will be held, if it is requested. Comments on Texas' final approval
and all requests to present oral testimony at the public hearing must be
received on or before February 23,1995.
Final Rules
Citation:
February 24, 1995
(60 FR 10331)
"Arkansas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made the tentative decision that Arkansas'
application for final approval of its underground storage tank program
under Subtitle I of RCRA satisfies all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final approval. As a consequence, EPA intends to grant final
approval to the state to operate its program in lieu of the federal program
unless public comment shows the need for further review. Final
authorization for the program shall be effective at 1:00 p.m. on April 25,
1995, unless EPA publishes a prior Federal Register action withdrawing
this final rule. Comments on Arkansas' final authorization must be
received on or before March 27,1995.
Citation:
March?, 1995
(60 FR 12630)
"Iowa: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made the decision that Iowa's application for final
approval of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. As
a consequence, EPA intends to grant final approval to the state to operate
its program in lieu of the federal program. Final approval shall be
effective at 1:00 pm eastern time on May 8,1995.
81
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 7,1995
(60 EB 12631)
"Iowa: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA is codifying its approval of the Iowa underground storage
tank program in 40 CFR Part 282. Only those provisions of the Iowa
program for which approval has been granted by EPA will be incorporated
by reference for enforcement purposes. EPA retains the authority under
§§9005 and 9006 of Subtitle I to undertake inspections and enforcement
actions in Iowa, therefore the approved Iowa enforcement authorities will
not be incorporated by reference. This regulation is effective May 8,1995,
unless EPA publishes a prior Federal Register notice withdrawing this
immediate final rule. All comments on this codification of Iowa's
underground storage tank program must be received on or before April 6,
1995.
Citation:
March 8,1995
(60 EB 12709)
"Utah: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made the decision that Utah's application for final
approval of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. As
a consequence, EPA intends to grant final approval to the state to operate
its program in lieu of the federal program. Final approval shall be
effective at 1:00 pm eastern time on April 7,1995.
Citation:
March 16,1995
(60 £B 14334)
"South Dakota: Final Approval of State Underground Storage
Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made the decision that South Dakota's application
for final approval of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I
of RCRA satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final
approval. As a consequence, EPA intends to grant final approval to the
state to operate its program in lieu of the federal program. Final approval
shall be effective at 1:00 pm eastern time on May 15,1995.
82
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 16,1995
(60 EB14334)
"South Dakota: Final Approval of State Underground Storage
Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA is codifying its approval of the South Dakota
underground storage tank program in 40 CFR Part 282. Only those
provisions of the South Dakota program for which approval has been
granted by EPA will be incorporated by reference for enforcement purposes.
EPA retains the authority under §§9005 and 9006 of Subtitle I to undertake
inspections and enforcement actions in South Dakota, therefore the
approved South Dakota enforcement authorities will not be incorporated
by reference. This regulation is effective May 15,1995, unless EPA
publishes a Federal Register notice withdrawing this immediate final
rule. All comments on this codification of South Dakota's underground
storage tank program must be received on or before April 17,1995.
Citation:
March 17,1995
(60 FR 14372)
"Texas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made the decision that Texas' application for final
approval of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. As
a consequence, EPA intends to grant final approval to the state to operate
its program. Final approval shall be effective at 1:00 pm eastern time on
April 17, 1995.
Citation:
June 22,1995
(60 FR 32469)
"North Dakota: Final Approval of State Underground Storage
Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made the decision that North Dakota's application
for final approval of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I
of RCRA satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final
approval. As a consequence, EPA intends to grant final approval to the
state to operate its program in lieu of the federal program. Final
authorization for the program shall be effective on August 21,1995, unless
EPA publishes a prior Federal Register action withdrawing this final rule.
Comments on North Dakota's final authorization must be received on or
before July 24,1995.
83
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
JulyS, 1995
(60 £B 34879)
"Connecticut: Final Approval of State Underground Storage
Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA concluded that Connecticut's application for final
approval of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. As
a consequence, EPA intends to grant final approval to the state to operate
its program in lieu of the federal program. Final authorization for the
program shall be effective on August 4,1995.
Citation:
September 7, 1995
(60 EB 46692)
"Underground Storage Tank: Lender Liability"
SUMMARY: EPA limited the regulatory obligations of lending institutions
and other persons who hold a security interest in a petroleum underground
storage tank, or acquire title or deed to a petroleum UST or the facility
and/or property on which an UST is located. The rule specifies conditions
under which these "security interest holders" may be exempted from the
RCRA Subtitle I corrective action technical and financial responsibility
regulatory requirements that apply to an UST owner or operator. This rule
is effective December 6,1995.
Citation:
September 12,
1995
(60 £B 47300)
"Vermont: Incorporation by Reference of Vermont's State
Underground Storage Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of
Vermont's UST program and incorporated by reference appropriate
provisions of state statutes and regulations. This regulation is effective
November 13,1995, unless EPA publishes a prior Federal Register notice
withdrawing this immediate final rule.
Citation:
October 6, 1995
(60 £B 52343)
"Utah: Codification of Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA codified, in 40 CFR Part 282, the prior approval of Utah's
underground storage tank program and incorporated by reference
appropriate provisions of Utah's state statutes and regulations. This
regulation is effective December 5,1995, unless EPA publishes a prior
Federal Register notice withdrawing this immediate final rule.
84
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
February 13,1995
(60 EB 8212)
Citation:
August 4, 1995
(60 £B 40042)
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to add seven new sites to the general section of
the National Priorities List (NPL) and two new sites to the federal
facilities section. Comments must be submitted on or before April 14,1995.
"Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide
Releases"
SUMMARY: EPA announced a notice of proposed rulemaking requesting
comments on broader administrative exemptions from the release reporting
requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA. In particular, the Agency is
proposing to grant reporting exemptions for releases of naturally occurring
radionuclides associated with land disturbance incidental to extraction
activities at certain kinds of mines, and with coal and coal ash piles at all
kinds of sites. These reporting exemptions are being proposed in response to
comments on a November 30,1992, proposed rule on administrative
reporting exemptions (57 FR 56726). The exemptions would be consistent
with the Agency's common sense goals in that they would eliminate
unnecessary reporting burdens and allow EPA to focus its resources on the
most serious releases. Comments maybe submitted on or before October 3,
1995.
Citation:
October 2, 1995
(60 FR 51390)
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed 12 new sites for inclusion in the General
Superfund Section of the National Priorities List. Eight of the sites are
proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. One site is proposed based
on its designation as the State of Georgia's top priority. Three of the sites
are proposed on the basis of ATSDR health advisory criteria. EPA also
proposed to withdraw an earlier proposal to list the Broward County 21st
Manor Dump site on the NPL.
85
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 20, 1995
(60 FB 57747)
"Petroleum Refining Process Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to list three wastes from the petroleum refining
industry as hazardous waste under RCRA. Additionally, EPA proposed to
designate the wastes proposed for listing as CERCLA hazardous substances
and adjust the one-pound statutory reportable quantities (RQs) for these
substances. EPA will accept public comments until February 20,1996.
Final Rules
Citation:
January 24,1995
(60EB4568)
"National Priorities List: Suffolk City Landfill"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Suffolk City Landfill in
Suffolk, Virginia, from the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA published
a notice of its intent to delete the site from the NPL on October 20,1994 (59
ER 52949). EPA and the Commonwealth of Virginia have 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 January 11,1995.
Citation:
February 9,1995
(60 £B 7824)
"Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing: Carbamate
Production"
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its March 1,1994 (59 PR 9808), proposed rule
to list as hazardous six wastes generated during the production of
carbamate chemicals. Further, the Agency is also adding 58 chemicals to
the list of commercial chemical products in §261.33. This action also adds
these newly listed chemicals to the CERCLA list of hazardous substances in
§302.4. EPA is deferring action on 12 specific chemicals and four generic
categories and providing an exemption from the definition of hazardous
waste under RCRA for certain wastes, if the generator demonstrates that
hazardous air pollutants are not being discharged or volatilized during
waste treatment. Finally, the Agency is also exempting from the definition
of hazardous wastes biological treatment sludges generated from the
treatment of certain wastes provided the sludges do not display any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste. This rule is effective on August 9,
1995.
86
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
February 15,1995
(60 FR 8570)
"National Priorities'List: Boise Cascade/Onan
Corp./Medtronics, Inc."
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Boise Cascade/Onan
Corp./Medtronics, Inc. Site in Minnesota, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on October 26,
1994 (59 PR 53773). EPA and the State of Minnesota 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 February 15,1995.
Citation:
February 15,1995
(60FB8570)
"National Priorities List: Olmstead County Sanitary Landfill"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Olmstead County Sanitary
Landfill Site in Minnesota, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on October 13,1994 (59 PR
51933). EPA and the State of Minnesota 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 February 15, 1995.
Citation:
March 20,1995
(60 EB14641)
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites: Deletion Policy for Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its policy of deleting RCRA facilities from
the NPL before a cleanup is complete if the site is being, or will be,
adequately addressed by the RCRA corrective action program under an
existing permit or order. This deletion policy applies to sites on the NPL
that are RCRA-regulated facilities engaged in treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, but does not apply to federal facility sites.
The Agency requested comment on this policy on December 21,1988 (53 FR
51421). In order to be eligible for deletion from the NPL based on deferral to
RCRA corrective action authorities, a site must meet the following criteria:
1) if evaluated under EPA's current RCRA/NPL deferral policy, the site
would be eligible for deferral from listing on the NPL; 2) the CERCLA site
is currently being addressed by RCRA corrective action authorities under an
existing enforceable order or permit containing corrective action provisions;
3) response under RCRA is progressing adequately; and 4) deletion would
not disrupt an ongoing CERCLA response action. This policy is effective
April 19, 1995.
87
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 20,1995
(60 £R 14645)
"National Priorities List: Kent City Mobile Home Park Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Kent City Mobile Home
Park Site, located in Kent City, Michigan, from the National Priorities
List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on
November 8,1994 (59 FR 55606). EPA and the State of Michigan
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 March 20,1995.
Citation:
March 23,1995
(60 EB15247)
"National Priorities List: Crystal City Airport Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Crystal City Airport
Superfund Site in Crystal City, Texas, from the National Priorities List.
EPA published a notice of intent to delete the site on January 4,1995 (59 FR
422). EPA and the State of Texas 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 March 23,1995.
Citation:
March 24,1995
(60 £B 15489)
"National Priorities List: Radium Chemical Company"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Radium Chemical
Company Site in Woodside, New York, from the National Priorities List.
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
December 9,1994. EPA received no verbal or written comments. 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. The effective date of this
action is March 24,1995.
Citation:
March 29,1995
(60 EB 16053)
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan: CERCLIS Definition Change"
SUMMARY: EPA is adopting new procedures for maintaining its
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). The Agency has decided to remove from
CERCLIS those sites that do not warrant further evaluation under
Superfund. EPA is formally amending the CERCLIS definition in 40 CFR
§300.5 to implement this procedural change. The effective date of this rule
is March 29,1995.
88
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
Aprils, 1995
(60 FR 16808)
"National Priorities List: Independent Nail Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Independent Nail
Superfund Site, located in Beaufort, South Carolina, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site
on January 13,1995 (60 FR 3189). EPA and the State of South Carolina
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 April 3,1995.
Citation:
April 4,1995
(60 ER 17004)
"National Priorities List: Wilson Concepts Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Wilson Concepts Superfund
Site, located in Pompano Beach, Florida, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on February 10,
1995 (60 FR 7934). EPA and the State of Florida 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 April 4, 1995.
Citation:
April 17,1995
(60 FR 19165)
"Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing: Carbamate
Production"
SUMMARY: EPA finalized its March 1,1994 (59 FR 9808), proposed rule to
list as hazardous six wastes generated during the production of carbamate
chemicals on February 9,1995 (60 FR 7824). In that rule, the Agency added
58 chemicals to the list of commercial chemical products in §261.33 and
added these newly listed chemicals to the CERCLA list of hazardous
substances in §302.4. EPA is correcting minor typographical and omission
errors in the listing of these chemicals as well as in the listing of their
reportable quantities. This rule is effective April 17, 1995.
Citation:
April 19,1995
(60 FJB19525)
"National Priorities List: Cemetery Dump Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Cemetery Dump Site,
located in Rose Township, Michigan, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on February 15,
1995 (60 FR 8616). EPA and the State of Michigan 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 April 19,1995.
89
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
April 25,1995
(60 £B 20330)
"National Priorities List (NPL) for Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the addition of four new sites to the NPL;
three to the General Superfund Section and one to the Federal Facilities
Section. This announcement also includes a printing of the entire NPL. The
effective date for this rule is May 25,1995.
Citation:
May 1,1995
(60 £B 21047)
"National Priorities List: Kenmark Textile Corporation Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Kenmark Textile
Corporation Site, located in Farmingdale, New York, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site
on December 15,1994 (59 PR 64644). 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. The effective date of this action is May 31,1995.
Citation:
May 12,1995
(60 £B 25619)
"Hazardous Waste Identification and Listing: Carbamate
Production"
SUMMARY: EPA finalized its March 1,1994 (59 FR 9808), proposed rule to
list as hazardous six wastes generated during the production of carbamate
chemicals on February 9,1995 (60 FR 7824). In that rule, the Agency added
58 chemicals to the list of commercial chemical products in §261.33 and
added these newly listed chemicals to the CERCLA list of hazardous
substances in §302.4. EPA has corrected minor typographical and omission
errors in the listing of these chemicals as well as in the listing of their
reportable quantities on April 17,1995 (60 FR 19165). The Agency is
correcting a typographical error and an omission in the April 17,1995,
correction notice. The effective date of this rule is August 9,1995.
Citation:
May 22,1995
(60 £B 27041)
"National Priorities List: United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill
No. 5"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the United States Army Fort
Lewis Landfill No. 5, located in Pierce County, Washington, from the
National Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to
delete the site on March 27,1995 (60 FR 15737). EPA and the State of
Washington 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 May 22,1995.
90
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
May 25,1995
(60 FR 27697)
"National Priorities List: Hamilton Island Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Hamilton Island Site,
located in Skamania County, Washington, from the National Priorities
List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on April
12,1995 (60 FR 18565). EPA and the State of Washington 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 May 25,1995.
Citation:
May 26,1995
(60 FR 27896)
"National Priorities List: Southern Shipbuilding Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the addition of the Southern Shipbuilding
Site, located in Slidell, Louisiana, to the National Priorities List (NPL).
The Agency proposed to add the site to the NPL on February 13,1995 (60 FR
8212). The effective date of this action is June 26,1995.
Citation:
June 12,1995
(60 EB 30926)
"Reportable Quantity Adjustments: Clean Air Act Hazardous Air
Pollutants and RCRA Hazardous Wastes"
SUMMARY: EPA finalized changes to reportable quantities (RQs) for
certain hazardous substances under CERCLA. This final rule revises the
table of hazardous substances at 40 CFR §302.4 to add 47 individual Clean
Air Act (CAA) hazardous air pollutants and adjust their statutory one-
pound RQs; add five other CAA hazardous air pollutants that are
categories of substances and assign no RQ to the categories; and adjust RQs
for 11 RCRA hazardous wastes. EPA thoroughly evaluated the intrinsic
properties of these substances to determine appropriate levels for the
adjusted RQs. The adjustments are also consistent with the Agency's
Common Sense goals in that the rule will minimize net reporting and
recordkeeping burdens. The effective date of this rule is July 12,1995.
Citation:
June 15,1995
(60FR31414)
"National Priorities List: Koch Refining Company Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Koch Refining Company
Superfund Site, located in Rosemount, Minnesota, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site
on March 3,1995 (60 FR 15273). EPA and the State of Minnesota have
determined thait 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 June 15,1995.
91
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 28,1995
(60 FR 33362)
"National Priorities List: Alpha Chemical Corporation Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Alpha Chemical
Corporation Superfund Site, located in Lakeland, Florida, from the
National Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to
delete the site on May 3,1995 (60 PR 21786) EPA and the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection have 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 June 28,1995.
Citation:
July3, 1995
(60 £B 34790)
"Final Policy Toward Owners of Property Containing
Contaminated Aquifers"
SUMMARY: EPA announced and published a policy stating the Agency's
position that, subject to certain conditions, where hazardous substances
have come to be located on or in a property solely as the result of subsurface
migration in an aquifer from a source or sources outside the property, EPA
will not take enforcement actions against the owner of such property.
Citation:
Julys, 1995
(60 £B 34792)
"Agreements With Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated
Property"
SUMMARY: EPA announced and published new guidance clarifying when
the Agency will provide a covenant not to sue a prospective purchaser of
contaminated property under CERCLA. The new guidance, which
supersedes previously published Agency policy toward prospective
purchasers, essentially expands the criteria by which the Agency will
consider entering into prospective purchaser agreements, while also
expanding the universe of eligible sites. A model prospective purchaser
agreement is included in the new guidance.
92
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
July 24, 1995
(60 FR 37827)
"National Priorities List: Dakhue Sanitary Landfill Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
Site, located in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on March 15,
1995 (60 £R 13944). EPA and the State of Minnesota have 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 July 24,1995.
Citation:
July 28, 1995
(60 FR 38817)
"Revised Model CERCLA RD/RA Consent Decree"
SUMMARY: EPA published a revised version of the Model CERCLA
RD/RA Consent Decree which supersedes the 1991 interim Model. The
substantive changes contained in the revised Model Consent Decree are
designed to enhance the fairness and increase the number of settlements in
which PRPs agree to implement government-selected remedies at Superfund
sites.
Citation:
August 31, 1995
(60 ER 45343)
"National Priorities List: Northwestern States Portland Cement
Company Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Northwestern States
Portland Cement Company Superfund Site, located in Mason City, Iowa,
from the National Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its
intent to delete the site on October 19,1995 (59 FR 52747). EPA and the
State of Iowa have 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 August 31,1995.
Citation:
September 13,
1995
(60 FR 47849)
"National Priorities List: Jackson Township Landfill Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Jackson Township Landfill
Superfund Site, located in Ocean County, New Jersey, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site
on April 26,1995. EPA and the State of New Jersey have 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 September 13,1995.
93
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
September 21,
1995
(60 £B 48902)
"National Priorities List: NAS Whidbey Seaplane Base
Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the NAS Whidbey Seaplane
Base Site, located on Whidbey Island, Washington, from the National
Priorities List. EPA and the State of Washington 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 deletion is effective on September 21,1995.
Citation:
September 22,
1995
(60 £B 49230)
"National Priorities List: Brown Wood Preserving Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Brown Wood Preserving
Site, located in Live Oak, Florida, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on July 6,1995. EPA
and the State of Florida have 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 September 22,1995.
Citation:
September 25,
1995
(60 £B 49347)
"National Priorities List: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company County Road X23 Superfund Site, located in Fort Madison, Iowa,
from the National Priorities List. EPA and the State of Iowa 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 deletion is effective on September 25,1995.
Citation:
September 28,
1995
(60 EB 50114)
"National Priorities List: Pesses Chemical Company Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Pesses Chemical Company
Site in Fort Worth, Texas, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on April 17,1995. EPA and
the State of Texas have 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 September 28,1995.
94
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
September 29,
1995
(60 EB 50430)
"National Priorities List: Witco Chemical Corporation Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Witco Chemical
Corporation Superfund Site, in Oakland, New Jersey, from the National
Priorities List. 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. This deletion is effective on September 29,1995.
Citation:
September 29,
1995
(60 £R 50431)
"National Priorities List: Action Anodizing, Plating, and
Polishing Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Action Anodizing, Plating,
and Polishing Site, in Oakland, New Jersey, 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
deletion is effective on October 30,1995.
Citation:
September 29,
1995
(60 EB 50435)
"National Priorities List"
SUMMARY: EPA added eight new sites to the NPL; six to the General
Superfund Section and two to the Federal Facilities Section. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant
further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risk associated with the sites and to determine what
CERCLA financed remedial actions (if any) may be appropriate. This
deletion is effective on October 30,1995.
Citation:
October 4, 1995
(60 FR 51927)
"National Priorities List: Stewco, incorporated Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Stewco, Incorporated
Superfund Site, located in Waskom, Texas, from the National Priorities
List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on July
26,1995 (60 FR 38297). EPA and the State of Texas have 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 October 4,1995.
95
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 1, 1995
(60 £B 55466)
"Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List"
SUMMARY: EPA announced a change in its policy concerning deletion of
sites listed on the National Priorities List. EPA will now delete releases of
hazardous substances at portions of sites, if those releases qualify for
deletion. The Agency expects that this action will help to promote the
economic redevelopment of Superfund sites and to better communicate the
completion of successful partial cleanups. This policy change is effective
immediately.
Citation:
November 27, 1995
(60 £B 58238)
"National Priorities List: Woodbury Chemical Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Woodbury Chemical Site,
located in Princeton, Florida, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on August 21,1995
(60 FR 43424). EPA and the State of Florida have 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 27,1995.
Citation:
December 7, 1995
(60 £B 62849)
"Revised Model De Minimis Contributor Consent Decree and
Administrative Order on Consent"
SUMMARY: EPA published the revised "Model CERCLA Section 122(g)(4)
De Minimis Contributor Consent Decree" and the revised "Model CERCLA
Section 122(g)(4) De Minimis Contributor Administrative Order on
Consent." These models, developed by the Agency and DOJ, supersede the
"Interim Model CERCLA Section 122(g)(4) De Minimis Waste Contributor
Consent Decree and Administrative Order on Consent" issued on October 19,
1987 (52 FR 43393; November 12,1987). The revised models are designed as
guidance for EPA and DOJ staff when negotiating CERCLA §122(g)(l)(A)
de minimis contributor settlements. In addition to the models, EPA
published a September 29,1995, joint memorandum from EPA and DOJ
announcing issuance of the models.
96
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
December 11, 1995
(60 FR 63517)
"CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders and Government
Entities that Acquire Property Involuntarily"
SUMMARY: EPA published a policy memorandum which sets forth EPA's
and DOJ's policy regarding the government's pursuit of CERCLA cost
recovery from lenders and against government entities that acquire
property involuntarily. Although the "Lender Liability Rule,"
promulgated in 1992 (April 29,1992; 57 PR 18344), was vacated by the
Circuit Court of appeals for the District of Columbia in 1994, this
memorandum states that, as an enforcement policy, EPA and DOJ intend to
apply as guidance the provisions of the 1992 Rule, thereby endorsing the
interpretations and rationales announced in that Rule.
97
-------
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
Aprils, 1995
(60 FR 16830)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Ammonia, Ammonium
Sulfafe, Ammonium Nitrate, and Water Dissociable Ammonium
Salts"
SUMMARY: EPA is amending its March 30,1990, proposal to grant a
petition to delete ammonium sulfate solution from the list of toxic
chemicals subject to reporting under §313 of EPCRA. This proposal
suggested that releases of ammonium sulfate could be covered under the
§313 ammonia listing. Using similar reasoning, EPA is expanding the
proposal to include the deletion of ammonium nitrate (solution).
Ammonium nitrate solution could be more effectively covered by the listings
for ammonia and the recently added water dissociable nitrate compounds
category. In addition, EPA is clarifying that aqueous ammonia from all
water dissociable ammonium salts is reportable under the ammonia listing.
Finally, EPA is proposing that 10 percent of total aqueous ammonia be
reported under the ammonia listing. Comments on this proposal must be
received on or before May 3,1995.
Citation:
August 1, 1995
(60 EB 39132)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Di-(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate"
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a petition to delist di-(2-
ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), also known as bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
(CAS #103-23-1), from the reporting requirements under §313 of EPCRA.
This action is based on EPA's preliminary conclusion that DEHA meets the
deletion criteria of EPCRA §313(d)(3) based upon its potential effects on
human health and the environment. Comments on this proposed deletion
must be received by October 2,1995.
99
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
August 4, 1995
(60 FR 40042)
"Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide
Releases"
SUMMARY: EPA announced a notice of proposed rulemaking requesting
comments on broader administrative exemptions from the release reporting
requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA. In particular, the Agency is
proposing to grant reporting exemptions for releases of naturally occurring
radionucHdes associated with land disturbance incidental to extraction
activities at certain kinds of mines, and with coal and coal ash piles at all
kinds of sites. These reporting exemptions are being proposed in response to
comments on a November 30,1992, proposed rule on administrative
reporting exemptions (57 PR 56726). The exemptions would be consistent
with the Agency's common sense goals in that they would eliminate
unnecessary reporting burdens and allow EPA to focus its resources on the
most serious releases. Comments may be submitted on or before October 3,
1995.
Citation:
Septembers, 1995
(60 £B 46076)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Diethyl Phthalate"
SUMMARY: EPA has proposed to delete diethyl phthalate (DEP) from
the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting requirements under §313 of
EPCRA, because the Agency has preliminarily concluded that DEP meets
the deletion criteria of EPCRA §313(d)(3). Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received on or before November 6,1995.
Citation:
November 15, 1995
(60 EB 57382)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Hydrochloric Acid"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed modification of the listing for hydrochloric
acid on the list of toxic chemicals subject to EPCRA §313. Specifically, EPA
proposed to delete non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid from the list of
toxic chemicals, based on the Agency's conclusion that releases of non-
aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid do not cause adverse effects to human
health or the environment under ordinary exposure scenarios and,
therefore, do not meet the §313(d)(2) listing criteria. Written comments
must be received by January 16,1996.
100
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY BIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Final Rules
Citation:
February 17,1995
(60 EB 9299)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Butyl Benzyl Phthalate"
SUMMARY: EPA granted a petition to delete butyl benzyl phthalate
(BBP) from the list of toxic chemicals under EPCRA §313. The rule is
effective on February 17, 1995, and relieves facilities of their obligation to
report releases of BBP beginning with the 1994 reporting year.
Citation:
April 11,1995
(60 FR 18361)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Copper Phthalocyanine
Compounds"
SUMMARY: EPA deleted copper phthalocyanine compounds that are
substituted with only hydrogen and/or bromine and/or chlorine from the
copper compounds category on the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting
under EPCRA §313. EPA proposed to delete copper
monochlorophthalocyanine on June 6,1994 (59 PR 29252). EPA has found,
however, that all copper phthalocyanine compounds that are substituted
with only hydrogen and/or bromine and/or chlorine meet the deletion
criteria outlined in §313(d)(3), and therefore is relieving facilities of their
obligation to report releases of these compounds starting with the 1994
reporting year. This rule is effective April 11,1995.
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Monosodium
Methanearsonate and Disodium Methanearsonate"
Citation:
April 20, 1995
(60 FR 19702)
SUMMARY: EPA is denying a petition to delist monosodium
methanearsonate and disodium methanearsonate from the reporting
requirements under EPCRA §313. The petition was submitted on October 18,
1994, by ISK Biosciences Corporation. EPA determined, however, that
neither of the chemicals meet the deletion criteria in §313(d)(3). EPA is
denying this petition because these chemicals are known to cause toxic
effects in experimental animals as a result of chronic exposure and can
reasonably be expected to cause cancer in humans.
Citation:
June 16,1995
(60 FB 31643)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Acetone"
SUMMARY: EPA deleted acetone from the list of toxic chemicals under
§313 of EPCRA. This deletion is based on EPA's determination that acetone
meets the delisting criteria of EPCRA §313(d)(3). By promulgating this
rule, EPA is relieving facilities of reporting requirements under §313 for
acetone beginning with the 1994 reporting year.
101
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 30,1995
(60 £B 34172)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Ammonia, Ammonium
Sulfate, Ammonium Nitrate, and Water Dissociable Ammonium
Salts"
SUMMARY: In response to a petition to delete ammonium sulfate (solution)
from the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under §313 of EPCRA,
EPA is taking the following four actions: deleting ammonium sulfate
(solution) from the toxic chemical list; requiring that threshold and release
determinations for aqueous ammonia be limited to 10 percent of the total
ammonia present in aqueous solutions; modifying the ammonia listing by
adding a qualifier; and deleting ammonium nitrate (solution) as a
separately listed toxic chemical. EPA has concluded that the aqueous
ammonia present in ammonium sulfate (solution) is more appropriately
reported under the EPCRA §313 ammonia listing, and that reporting 10
percent of total aqueous ammonia under the ammonia listing is appropriate
and provides sufficient information for the public to assess the impacts of
releases of aqueous ammonia. EPA has also concluded that releases of
ammonium nitrate (solution) are more appropriately reported under the
EPCRA §313 listings for ammonia and the water dissociable nitrate
compounds category. All provisions of this rule are final as of June 30,1995.
The deletion of ammonium sulfate (solution) is effective for the 1994
reporting year and beyond, as is the requirement that 10 percent of total
aqueous ammonia be reported under the ammonia listing. The deletion of
ammonium nitrate (solution) is effective beginning with the 1995 reporting
year.
Citation:
June 30,1995
(60 FR 34182)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Sulfuric Acid"
SUMMARY: EPA modified the listing for sulfuric acid on the list of toxic
chemicals subject to §313 of EPCRA. Specifically, EPA deleted non-aerosol
forms of sulfuric acid from the toxic chemical list. This deletion is based on
EPA's review of available data on the health and environmental effects of
sulfuric acid. EPA has concluded that non-aerosol forms of sulfuric acid
meet the EPCRA §313(d)(3) deletion criteria because these forms cannot
reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects on human health or the
environment under normal exposure scenarios. By promulgating this rule,
EPA has relieved facilities of their obligation to report releases on non-
aerosol forms of sulfuric acid that occurred during the 1994 reporting year,
as well as releases that will occur in the future.
102
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
August 10, 1995
(60 FB 40989)
"Federal Acquisition and Community Right-To-Know"
SUMMARY: President Clinton Issued Executive Order 12969 requiring all
federal agencies, to the maximum extent practicable, to contract with
companies that report in a public manner on toxic chemicals released to the
environment. Under the Executive Order, Federal agencies are to include in
contract solicitations as an eligibility criterion for the award of
competitive acquisition contracts expected to equal or exceed $100,000 with
Federal contractors who are currently subject to EPCRA §313, the
requirement that such contractors must file (and continue to file for the life
of the contract) a Form R for each toxic chemical manufactured, processed,
or otherwise used in excess of the applicable annual threshold level by the
contractor at a facility. For the purposes of this Executive Order, the list of
toxic chemicals includes all substances on the list described in EPCRA
§313(c) as the list exists on the effective date of this order. The Executive
Order indicates that EPA will publish guidance for compliance with the
Order, including applicability with respect to subcontractors, no later than
September 30,1995. This Order is effective immediately.
Citation:
September 29,
1995
(60 FR 50738)
"Guidance on Implementing Executive Order 12969"
SUMMARY: EPA published guidance to assist federal agencies in
compliance with Executive Order 12969, which mandates that federal
agencies include in contract solicitations the requirement that federal
contractors ensure that Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Forms are filed
by their covered facilities for the life of the federal contract.
Citation:
October 27, 1995
(60 FR 54949)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Administrative Stay and
Request for Comment on Petition to Delist: DBNPA"
SUMMARY: EPA granted a request for an administrative stay of the
reporting requirements under §313 of EPCRA for 2,2-dibromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA). The effect of the stay is to suspend
reporting on DBNPA while the Agency completes a reassessment of the
data supporting the listing of this chemical. The Agency also requests
comment on whether DBNPA should be removed from the list of EPCRA
§313 toxic chemicals. The administrative stay is effective October 27, 1995.
Written comments on the petition to delist DBNPA must be received on or
before November 27,1995.
103
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Reopening of Comment
Period on Petition to Delist DBNPA"
Citation:
December 15,1995
(60 £B 64407)
SUMMARY: EPA granted a request to extend the comment period for a
petition to delete 2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) from the
EPCRA §313 list of toxic chemicals. The administrative stay of reporting
requirements for DBNPA under §313 of EPCRA and §6607 of the Pollution
Prevention Act remains in place (60 PR 54949; October 27,1995). EPA also
corrected an error printed in the October 27,1995 notice. Written comments
on the petition to delist DBNPA will be accepted by EPA on or before
January 29,1996.
104
-------
CROSS-PROGRAM
Citation:
Aprils, 1995
(60 FR 16875)
"Voluntary Environmental Self-Policing and Self-Disclosure"
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing and requesting comment on its interim policy
concerning incentives for regulated entities to disclose and correct violations
discovered during environmental auditing. This interim policy is intended
to promote environmental compliance by providing greater certainty as to
EPA's enforcement response to voluntary self-evaluations, disclosure of
violations, and prompt correction of such violations. The incentives for
regulated facilities to voluntarily disclose information concerning
violations include the elimination or reduction of civil penalties for self-
reporting facilities. Further, facilities that voluntarily report violations,
correct those violations, and meet certain other specific criteria, will
generally not be recommended for criminal prosecution. Finally, this policy
states that EPA will not request voluntary audit reports to trigger
enforcement actions. This policy is not a final Agency action and cannot be
relied upon to create any rights enforceable in any litigation with the
United States. This policy is effective as guidance 15 days after
publication. Comments on the policy must be received on or before June 2,
1995.
Citation:
May 10,1995
(60 FR 24856)
"Supplemental Environmental Projects: Interim Revised Policy"
SUMMARY: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of EPA is
issuing an interim Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) Policy to
supersede its February 12,1991, policy. In certain instances
environmentally beneficial projects, or SEPs, may be included in settlements
with alleged violator's. This policy gives EPA greater flexibility in
exercising its enforcement discretion in establishing appropriate settlement
penalties. Specifically, it outlines the types of projects that are
permissible as SEPs, the penalty mitigation appropriate for a particular
SEP, and the terms and conditions under which they may become part of a
settlement. EPA intends to implement this policy on an interim basis
effective May 8,1995. Comments must be received on or before August 6,
1995.
105
-------
CROSS-PROGRAM
Cross-
Program
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 23,1995
(60 EB 32675)
"Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses: Interim Policy"
SUMMARY: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (EPA)
issued the Interim Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses.
This interim policy provides incentives for participation in compliance
assistance programs and encourages prompt correction of violations.
Specifically, the policy sets forth guidelines for the Agency to waive or
reduce penalties for small businesses that make good faith efforts to correct
violations, and it provides guidance for states and local governments to
offer these incentives. Comments must be received on or before July 31,1995.
Citation:
June 29,1995
(60EB33912)
"Removal of Legally Obsolete Rules"
SUMMARY: EPA conducted a review of the regulations it administers and
removed several sections from the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining
to solid waste, hazardous waste, oil discharges, and Superfund which are
no longer legally in effect. The removal of these rules is not intended to
affect the status of civil or criminal actions initiated prior to June 29,1995,
or actions which may be initiated in the future to redress violations of
these rules when they were legally in effect.
Citation:
October 2, 1995
(60 £B 51475)
"Federal Facilities Cleanup Principles"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the availability of "Principles for
Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities," dated August 2,1995. The
"Principles," developed by the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee, are policy recommendations aimed at
improving the process by which federal facility environmental cleanup
decisions are made.
106
-------
CROSS-PROGRAM
Cross-
Program
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 1, 1995
(60 FR 55569)
"Regulatory Reinvention (XL) Pilot Projects: XL Community
Pilot Program"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the XL Community Pilot Program, which
provides an opportunity for states, local governments, communities, tribal
governments, and other local entities to test flexible and innovative
implementation strategies for envkonmental regulatory requkements. The
Agency solicited comments and invited proposals from public and private
entities interested in initiating XL community pilot projects. There is no
deadline for submissions; EPA will take proposals on a rolling basis for
selection of a limited number of pilots.
Citation:
December 22, 1995
(60 FR 66706)
"Incentives for Self Policing: Discovery, Disclosure,
Correction, and Prevention of Violations"
SUMMARY: EPA issued a final policy to encourage regulated entities to
voluntarily discover, disclose, and correct violations of environmental
requirements. Incentives include eliminating or substantially reducing the
gravity component of civil penalties (the portion of a penalty over and
above the economic benefit received from non-compliance) and not
recommending the cases for criminal prosecution. The policy also requires
companies to act to prevent recurrence of the violation and to remedy any
environmental harm which has occurred.
107
-------
-------
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 PR summaries by subject. The questions and PR summaries that address that
topic are listed below each key word. For example, to find information dealing with
release notification, you would look in the key word index for that phrase and find a
question entitled "CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting Requirements for Aqueous
Film Forming Foam" and a Federal Register notice from November 13,1995, regarding Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting. 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 Federal Register summaries by regulatory
citation, beginning with 40 CFR Part 22. This index is useful for identifying questions
affecting specific portions of the regulations. For example, under the heading "40 CFR Part
261 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste" is a question entitled "Definition of
Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes."
Similarly, the third index organizes the questions by statutory citation. For example, the
question entitled "Aboveground Storage Tanks with Underground Piping" is referenced
under "Section 9001 - Definitions and Exemptions."
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.
109
-------
-------
KEY WORD INDEX
Acetone
60 PR 31643; June 16,1995 p. 101 (E)
Administrative reporting exemptions
60 PR 40042; August 4,1995 p. 85,100 (E,S)
Agriculture exemption
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to
Horticultural Operations and Golf Courses"
p. 50 (E)
Air emissions
60 PR 26828; May 19,1995 p. 74 (R)
60 PR 50426; September 29,1995 p. 76 (R)
Alternate threshold
"Alternate Threshold under EPCRA §313"
p. 53 (E)
Ammonia
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of
Ammonium Hydroxide" p. 55 (E)
60 PR 16830; April 3,1995 p. 99 (E)
60 PR 34172; June 30,1995 p. 102 (E)
Ammonium sulfate (solution)
60 PR 34172; June 30,1995 p. 102 (E)
Applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs)
"Placement within an Area of Contamination"
p. 31 (S)
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their
Relationship to Preliminary Remediation Goals"
p. 42 (S)
Aqueous
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of
Ammonium Hydroxide" p. 55 (E)
Aquifer
60 PR 34790; July 3,1995 p. 92 (S)
Article exemption
"Article Exemption and Paint under EPCRA
§313" p. 54 (E)
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated
Wood under EPCRA §§311 and 312" p. 52 (E)
Batteries
"EPCRA §311/312 Consumer Use Exemption
and Batteries" p. 50 (E)
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste"
p. 10 (R)
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and Counting
Requirements" p. 6 (R)
Beneficiation
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes"
p. 15 (R)
Bevill wastes
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes"
p. 15 (R)
Bilateral agreements
"International Agreements and Haxardous Waste
Export Regulations" p. 8 (R)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
60 PR 9299; February 17,1995 p. 101 (E)
Carbamate production
60 PR 7824; February 9,1995 p. 70,86 (R, S)
60 PR 19165; April 17,1995 p. 72,89 (R, S)
60 PR 25619; May 12,1995 p. 74,90 (R, S)
60 PR 41817; August 14,1995 p. 76 (R)
Cathodic protection
"Cathodic Protection Inspections on Existing
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 25 (U)
"Underground Storage Tank Piping" p. 27 (U)
Cement kiln dust
60 PR 7366; February 7,1995 p. 69 (R)
CERCLA information system (CERCLIS)
"Five-Year Reviews under CERCLA" p. 35 (S)
"No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP)
Sites and the CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS)" p. 41 (S)
60 PR 16053; March 29,1995 p. 88 (S)
Change-in-service
"Closure and Conversion to a Non-Regulated
Tank" p. 26 (U)
Chemical abstract service (CAS) number
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes" p. 16 (R)
Clean Air Act Amendments
"Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants and
Hazardous Substance USTs" p. 24 (U)
Closure
"Closure and Conversion to a Non-Regulated
Tank" p. 26 (U)
Coincidental manufacture
"Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas
Purification under EPCRA §313" p. 60 (E)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
111
-------
Commercial chemical product
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes" p. 16 (R)
"Purpose and Applicability of Speculative
Accumulation Provision" p. 11 (R)
"Solid Waste Determination for Spilled
Commercial Chemical Products" p. 12 (R)
Compliance Incentives
60 ER 32675; June 23,1995 p. 105 (R, U, S, E)
Consent Decree
60 ER 38817; July 28,1995 p. 93 (S)
Consumer product exemption
"EPCRA §311/312 Consumer Use Exemption
and Batteries" p. 50 (E)
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product
Exemption Under EPCRA §311 and 312"
p.Sl(E)
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated
Wood under EPCRA §§311 and 312" p. 52 (E)
Construction completion
"Five-Year Reviews under CERCLA" p. 35 (S)
Containers
60 ER 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78 (R)
Corrective action
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3 (R)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA
Subtitle C Corrective Action" p. 4,36 (R7 S)
60 ER 14641; March 20,1995 p. 71,87 (R, S)
Corrosion protection
"Upgrading Requirements for Existing
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Systems"
p.28(U)
Counting
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and Counting
Requirements" p. 6 (R)
Creosote
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated
Wood under EPCRA §§311 and 312" p. 52 (E)
Data Quality Objectives
"Data Quality Objectives and the Superfund
Process" p. 39 (S)
DBNPA
60 ER 54949; October 27,1995 p. 103 (E)
60 ER 64407; December 15,1995 p. 104 (E)
Deferral
"Deferral of NPL Listing While States Oversee
Response Action" p. 33 (S)
Deletion/deferral policy
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA
Subtitle C Corrective Action" p. 4,36 (R, S)
60 FR14641; March 20,1995 p. 71,87 (R, S)
60 FR 55466; November 1,1995 p. 96 (S)
De minimis contributor
60 FR 62849; December 7,1995 p. 96 (S)
Diethyl phthalate (DEP)
60 FR 46076; September 5,1995 p. 100 (E)
Elementary neutralization unit
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites"
p.7(R)
Emergency planning
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located
Within the Planning Districts of Two LEPCs"
p. 46 (E)
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" p. 47 (E)
Enforcement
60 EE15208; March 22,1995 p. 65 (R)
60 FR 16875; April 3,1995 p. 105 (R, U, S, E)
60 FR 32675; June 23,1995 p. 106 (R, U, S, E)
60 EE 66706; December 22,1995
p. 107 (R, U, S, E))
Environmental auditing
60 EE 16875; April 3,1995 p. 105 (R, U, S, E
60 FR 66706; December 22,1995 p. 107 (R, U, S, E)
EPA ID number
"Manifest Requirements for Imported Hazardous
Waste" p. 9 (R)
Estimating releases
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral
Acids Using pH Measurement" p. 56 (E)
Executive order
60 FR 40989; August 10,1995 p. 103 (E)
60 FR 50738; September 29,1995 p. 103 (E)
Exemptions
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes"
p. 15 (R)
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites"
p.7(R)
Exports
"Export Requirements for Transportation
through Transit Countries" p. 7 (R)
"International Agreements and Hazardous Waste
Export Regulations" p. 8 (R)
Extremely hazardous substance
"Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide
Reporting under EPCRA §§302 and 304" p. 45 (E)
Federal facilities
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product
Exemption under EPCRA §§311/312" p. 51 (E)
60 FR 51475; October 2,1995 p. 106 (R, S)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
112
-------
Federal Facility Compliance Act
60 FR 15208; March 22,1995 p. 65 (R)
Fertilizer
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to
Horticultural Operations and Golf Courses"
p. 50 (E)
Financial assurance
60 FR17649; April 7,1995 p. 71 (R)
Financial responsibility
"Calculating Annual Throughput for
Underground Storage Tanks (USTS)" p. 21 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility: Classification as a
State or Local Government" p. 23 (U)
Form R
"Alternate Threshold under EPCRA §313"
p. 53 (E)
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral
Acids Using pH Measurements" p. 56 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Form R Submission: Completion
of Section 8" p. 57 (E)
"EPCRA §313: Section 4.1 of Form R (Maximum
Amount On Site)" p. 58 (E)
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter
Cake under EPCRA §313" p. 59 (E)
Free liquids
"The Liquids in Landfills Prohibition and Sorbed
Free Liquids" p. 13 (R)
Generator
"Export Requirements for Transportation
through Transit Countries" p. 7 (R)
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements"
p. 18 (R)
"Signing the Manifest as an Agent When
Importing Hazardous Waste" p. 9 (R)
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and Counting
Requirements" p. 6 (R)
60 FR 30964; June 12,1995 p. 66 (R)
60 FR 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78 (R)
Glycol Ethers
"CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting
Requirements for Aqueous Film Forming Foam"
p.32,46(E,S)
Groundwater
"Design Criteria Exemption for Small, Arid,
Remote MSWLFs" p. 10 (R)
Hazardous chemical inventory reporting
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to
Horticultural Operations and Golf Courses"
p. 50 (E)
"EPCRA §311/312 Consumer Use Exemption
and Batteries" p. 50 (E)
"EPCRA Requkements for a Facility Located
within the Planning District of Two LEPCs"
p.46(E)
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product
Exemption under EPCRA §§311/312" p. 51 (E)
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated
Wood under §§311/312" p. 52 (E)
"SARA Title HI on Indian Lands" p. 47 (E)
Hazardous substance
"Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants and
Hazardous Substance USTs" p. 24 (U)
"Releases of Hazardous Substances from NPL
Sites" p. 33 (S)
60 FR 7824; February 9,1995 p. 70,86 (R, S)
60 FR 19165; April 17,1995 p. 72,89 (R, S)
60 FR 25619; May 12,1995 p. 74, 90 (R, S)
60 FR 30926; June 12,1995 p. 75,91 (R, S)
60 FR 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68,86 (R, S)
Hazardous waste definition
"Hotel Dry Cleaning Waste and the Household
Waste Exclusion" p. 16 (R)
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes" p. 16 (R)
"Restaurant Waste and the Household Waste
Exclusion" p. 17 (R)
"Solid Waste Determination for Spilled
Commercial Chemical Products" p. 12 (R)
"Status of Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste
Exclusion" p. 17 (R)
60 FR 7824; February 9,1995 p. 70,86 (R, S)
60 FR 19165; April 17,1995 p. 72, 89 (R, S)
60 FR 41817; August 14,1995 p. 76 (R)
60 FR 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68,86 (R, S)
60 PR 66344; December 21,1995 p. 68 (R)
Hazardous waste exclusion
"Restaurant Waste and the Household Waste
Exclusion" p. 17 (R)
"Status of Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste
Exclusion" p. 17 (R)
Hazardous waste identification rule (HWIR)
60 FR 66344; December 21,1995 p. 68 (R)
Hazardous waste tanks
60 FR 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78 (R)
Household hazardous waste
"Hotel Dry Cleaning Waste and the Household
Waste Exclusion" p. 16 (R)
"Restaurant Waste and the Household Waste
Exclusion" p. 17 (R)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
113
-------
Hydrochloric acid
60 EE 57382; November 15,1995 p. 100 (E)
Imports
"International Agreements and Hazardous Waste
Export Regulations" p. 8 (R)
"Manifest Requirements for Imported Hazardous
Waste" p. 9 (R)
"Signing the Manifest as an Agent When
Importing Hazardous Waste" p. 9 (R)
inspections
"Cathodic Protection Inspections on Existing
USTs"p.25(U)
Isomer
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes" p. 16 (R)
Indian lands
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" p. 47 (E)
K170, K171.K172
60 EE 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68 (R)
Land disposal restrictions (LDR)
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes"
P.15(R)
"Placement within an Area of Contamination"
p.31(S)
60 EE 242; January 3,1995 p. 68 (R)
60 EE11702; March 2,1995 p. 65 (R)
60 EE 43654; August 22,1995 p. 67 (R)
60 EE 54645; October 25,1995 p. 67 (R)
Landfill
"The Liquids in Landfills Prohibition and Sorbed
Free Liquids" p. 13 (R)
Leak detection
"Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for
Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection"
p.26(U)
Lender liability
60 EE 46692; September 7,1995 p. 84 (U)
60 EE 63517; December 11,1995 p. 97 (S)
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located
within the Planning Districts of Two LEPCs"
p. 46 (E)
LUST Trust Fund
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund" p. 21 (U)
Manifest
"Manifest Requirements for Imported Hazardous
Waste" p. 9 (R)
"Signing the Manifest as an Agent When
Importing Hazardous Waste" p. 9 (R)
Material safety data sheet (MSDS)
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to
Horticultural Operations and Golf Courses"
p. 50 (E)
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of
Ammonium Hydroxide" p. 55 (E)
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated
Wood under §§311/312" p. 52 (E)
Military munitions
60 PR 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67 (R)
Mineral acids
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral
Acids Using pH Measurement" p. 56 (E)
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter
Cake under EPCRA §313" p. 59 (E)
Mineral processing
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes"
p. 15 (R)
Municipal waste
"Design Criteria Exemption for Small, Arid,
Remote MSWLFs" p. 10 (R)
Municipal waste combustion ash
60 PR 6666; February 3,1995 p. 69 (R)
National Contingency Plan (NCP)
60 PR 16053; March 29,1995 p. 88 (S)
National Priorities List (NPL)
"Deferral of NPL Listing While States Oversee
Response Action" p. 33 (S)
"Five-Year Reviews under CERCLA" p. 35 (S)
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA
Subtitle C Corrective Action" p. 4, 36 (R, S)
60 FR 4568; January 24,1995 p. 86 (S)
60 FR 8212; February 13,1995 p. 85 (S)
60 FR 8570; February 15,1995 p. 87 (S)
60 PR 8570; February 15,1995 p. 87 (S)
60 PR 14641; March 20,1995 p. 87 (S)
60 FR 14645; March 20,1995 p. 88 (S)
60 FR 15247; March 23,1995 p. 88 (S)
60 FR 15489; March 24,1995 p. 88 (S)
60 FR 16808; April 3,1995 p. 89 (S)
60 PR 17004; April 4,1995 p. 89 (S)
60 PR 19525; April 19,1995 p. 89 (S)
60 PR 20330; April 25,1995 p. 90 (S)
60 PR 21047; May 1,1995 p. 90 (S)
60 PR 27041; May 22,1995 p. 90 (S)
60 FR 27697; May 25,1995 p. 91 (S)
60 FR 27896; May 26,1995 p. 91 (S)
60 FR 31414; June 15,1995 p. 91 (S)
60 EE 33362; June 28,1995 p. 92 (S)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
114
-------
60 ER 37827; July 24,1995 p. 93 (S)
60 FE 45343; August 31,1995 p. 93 (S)
60 PR 47849; September 13,1995 p. 93 (S)
60 ER 48902; September 21,1995 p. 94 (S)
60 ER 49230; September 22,1995 p. 94 (S)
60 ER 49347; September 25,1995 p. 94 (S)
60 ER 50114; September 28,1995 p. 94 (S)
60 ES 50430; September 29,1995 p. 95 (S)
60 ER 50431; September 29,1995 p. 95 (S)
60 ER 50435; September 29,1995 p. 95 (S)
60 ER 51390; October 2,1995 p. 85 (S)
60 ER 51927; October 4,1995 p. 95 (S)
60 ER 55466; November 1,1995 p. 96 (S)
60 ER 58238; November 27,1995 p. 96 (S)
Natural gas
"Reporting Requkements for Natural Gas
Purification under EPCRA §313" p. 60 (E)
Neutralization
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter
Cake under EPCRA §313" p. 59 (E)
No Futher Response Action Planned (NFRAP)
"No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP)
Sites and the CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS)" p. 41 (S)
Off-site
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter
Cake under EPCRA §313" p. 59 (E)
On-scene coordinator
"Clarification of the Definition of On-Scene
Coordinator" p. 39 (S)
On-site
60 ER 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67 (R)
Organic air emissions
60 ER 50426; September 29,1995 p. 76 (R)
60 ER 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78 (R)
Permitting
60 ER 63417; December 11,1995 p. 79 (R)
Petroleum refining process wastes
60 ER 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68 (R)
Piping
"Aboveground Storage Tanks With
Underground Piping" p. 25 (U)
"Underground Storage Tank Piping" p. 27 (U)
Pollution prevention
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements"
p. 18 (R)
Preliminary assessment/site inspection (PA/SI)
"Data Quality Objectives and the Superfund
Process" p. 39 (S)
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their
Relationship to Preliminary Remediation Goals"
p. 42 (S)
Procurement
60 ER 21370; May 1,1995 p. 72 (R)
60 ER 21386; May 1,1995 p. 73 (R)
Property transfer
"Transfers of Real Property Interests to States"
p.43(S)
Prospective purchasers
60 ER 34792; July 3,1995 p. 92 (S)
Public participation
60 ER 63417; December 11,1995 p. 79 (R)
Radionuclides
60 ER 40042; August 4,1995 p. 85,100 (S, E)
Receiving country
"Export Requirements for Transportation
through Transit Countries" p. 7 (R)
Reclamation
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste"
p.lO(R)
Recordkeeping
"Location of Operating Records at Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities" p. 14 (R)
Recycling
"Purpose and Applicability of Speculative
Accumulation Provision" p. 11 (R)
"Solid Waste Determination for Spilled
Commercial Chemical Products" p. 12 (R)
Regulated Substance
"Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants and
Hazardous Substance USTs" p. 24 (U)
Release detection
"Use of Manual Tank Gauging as Sole Means of
Release Detection for 1,000-Gallon Tanks"
p. 28 (U)
Release notification
"CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting
Requirements for Aqueous Film Forming Foam"
p. 32,46 (E, S)
"EPCRA Requkements for a Facility Located
within the Planning Districts of Two LEPCs"
p. 46 (E)
Releases
"Releases of Hazardous Substances from NPL
Sites" p. 33 (S)
Remedial action
"Clarification of the Definition of On-Scene
Coordinator" p. 39 (S)
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3 (R)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
115
-------
"Placement within an Area of Contamination"
p.31(S)
"Transfers of Real Property Interests to States"
p.43(S)
60 Efi 38817; July 28,1995 p. 93 (S)
Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
"Data Quality Objectives and the Superfund
Process" p. 39 (S)
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their
Relationship to Preliminary Remediation Goals"
p.42(S)
Remedial project manager
"Clarification of the Definition of On-Scene
Coordinator" p. 39 (S)
Reportable quantity (RQ)
"Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide
Reporting under EPCRA §§302 and 304" p. 45 (E)
"Releases of Hazardous Substances from NPL
Sites" p. 33 (S)
60 EB 7824; February 9,1995 p. 86 (S)
60 EB.25619; May 12,1995 p. 90 (S)
60 EE 30926; June 12,1995 p. 75,91 (R, S)
60 JES 57747; November 20,1995 p. 86 (S)
Sampling
"Data Quality Objectives and the Superfund
Process" p. 39 (S)
Self policing
60 EE 66706; December 22,1995 p. 107 (R, U, S, E)
Small business
60 EE 32675; June 23,1995 p. 106 (R, U, S, E)
Soil
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their
Relationship to Preliminary Remediation Goals"
p.42(S)
Solid waste disposal
"Design Criteria Exemption for Small, Arid,
Remote MSWLFs" p. 10 (R)
60 ES 8384; February 14,1995 p. 70 (R)
60 EE 13722; March 14,1995 p. 70 (R)
60 EE 17649; April 7,1995 p. 71 (R)
60 EE 19251; April 17,1995 p. 72 (R)
60 EE 21191; May 1,1995 p. 72 (R)
60 EB 30964; June 12,1995 p. 66 (R)
60 EE 34982; July 5,1995 p. 75 (R)
60 EE 39385; August 2,1995 p. 76 (R)
60 EE 40799; August 10,1995 p. 66 (R)
60 EE 48711; September 20,1995 p. 76 (R)
60 EE 51925; October 4,1995 p. 77 (R)
60 EE 52337; October 6,1995 p. 77 (R)
60 EB 55843; November 3,1995 p. 78 (R)
60 PR 62439; December 6,1995 p. 78 (R)
Solid waste management unit (SWMU)
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3 (R)
Sorbent
"The Liquids in Landfills Prohibition and Sorbed
Free Liquids" p. 13 (R)
60 PR 35703; July 11,1995 p. 75 (R)
Speculative accumulation
"Purpose and Applicability of Speculative
Accumulation Provision" p. 11 (R)
State involvement
"Transfers of Real Property Interests to States"
p.43(S)
State/local government
"UST Financial Responsibility: Classification as a
State or Local Government" p. 23 (U)
State program
"Deferral of NPL Listing While States Oversee
Response Action" p. 33 (S)
60 FR 4586; January 24,1995 p. 81 (U)
60 EE 8384; February 14,1995 p. 70 (R)
60 ES 10331; February 24,1995 p. 81 (U)
60 FR 12630; March 7,1995 p. 81 (U)
60 FR 12631; March 7,1995 p. 82 (U)
60 FJR12709; March 8,1995 p. 82 (U)
60 FR 13722; March 14,1995 p. 70 (R)
60 FJR 14334; March 16,1995 p. 82 (U)
60 EE 14334; March 16,1995 p. 83 (U)
60 FR 14372; March 17,1995 p. 83 (U)
60 PR 19251; April 17,1995 p. 72 (R)
60 PR 21191; May 1,1995 p. 72 (R)
60 FR 32469; June 22,1995 p. 83 (U)
60 FR 34879; July 5,1995 p. 84 (U)
60 FR 34982; July 5,1995 p. 75 (R)
60 FR 39385; August 2,1995 p. 76 (R)
60 PR 47300; September 12,1995 p. 84 (U)
60 FJR 48711; September 20,1995 p. 76 (R)
60 ES 51925; October 4,1995 p. 77 (R)
60 FR 52343; October 6,1995 p. 84 (U)
60 FJR 55843; November 3,1995 p. 78 (R)
60 FR 62439; December 6,1995 p. 78 (R)
Structural component exemption
"EPCRA §313 Structural Component Exemption
for Chemicals Associated with an Exempt Use"
p. 58 (E)
Sulfuric acid
60 FR 34182; June 30,1995 p. 102 (E)
Supplemental environmental projects
60 FR 24856; May 10,1995 p. 105 (R, U, S, E))
Surface impoundments
60 FR 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78 (R)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
116
-------
Tank gauging
"Use of Manual Tank Gauging as Sole Means of
Release Detection for 1,000 Gallon-Tanks"
p. 28 (U)
Test methods
60 FR 3089; January 13,1995 p. 69 (R)
60 PR 17001; April 4,1995 p. 71 (R)
60 PR 35703; July 11,1995 p. 75 (R)
60 FR 37974; July 25,1995 p. 66 (R)
Threshold
"Alternate Threshold under EPCRA §313"
p. 53 (E)
"Article Exemption and Paint under EPCRA §313"
p.54(E)
"EPCRA §313 Structural Component Exemption
for Chemicals Associated with an Exempt Use"
p. 58 (E)
Threshold planning quantity
"Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide
Reporting under EPCRA §§302 and 304" p. 45 (E)
Toxic chemical list
"EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemical Expansion"
p.59(E)
60 PR 9299; February 17,1995 p. 101 (E)
60 FR 16830; April 3,1995 p. 99 (E)
60 FR 18361; April 11,1995 p. 101 (E)
60 FR 19702; April 20,1995 p. 101 (E)
60 FR 31643; June 16,1995 p. 101 (E)
60 PR 34172; June 30,1995 p. 102 (E)
60 PR 34182; June 30,1995 p. 102 (E)
60 FR 39132; August 1,1995 p. 99 (E)
60 FR 46076; September 5,1995 p. 100 (E)
60 FR 54949; October 27,1995 p. 103 (E)
60 FR 57382; November 15,1995 p. 100 (E)
60 FR 64407; December 15,1995 p. 104 (E)
Toxics release inventory reporting
"Alternate Threshold under EPCRA §313"
p. 53 (E)
"Article Exemption and Paint under EPCRA §313"
p.54(E)
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral
Acids Using pH Measurements" p. 56 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Form R Submission: Completion of
Section 8" p. 57 (E)
"EPCRA §313: Section 4.1 of Form R (Maximum
Amount On Site)" p. 58 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Structural Component Exemption
• for Chemicals Associated with an Exempt Use"
p. 58 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemical Expansion"
p. 59 (E)
"Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas
Purification under EPCRA §313" p. 60 (E)
"SARA Title El on Indian Lands" p. 47 (E)
60 FR 40989; August 10,1995 p. 103 (E)
Treatment, storage, and disposal facility
"Location of Operating Records at Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities" p. 14 (R)
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements"
p. 18 (R)
60 PR 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78 (R)
60 PR 63417; December 11,1995 p. 79 (R)
Tribal emergency response commissions
(TERCs)
"SARA Title HI on Indian Lands" p. 47 (E)
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
"Aboveground Storage Tanks with Underground
Piping" p. 25 (U)
"Calculating Annual Throughput for
Underground Storage Tanks (USTS)" p. 21 (U)
"Cathodic Protection Inspections on Existing
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 25 (U)
"Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants and
Hazardous Substance USTs" p. 24 (U)
"Closure and Conversion to a Non-Regulated
Tank" p. 26 (U)
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund" p. 21 (U)
"Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for
Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection"
p.26(U)
"Underground Storage Tank Piping" p. 27 (U)
"Upgrading Requirements for Existing
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Systems"
p. 28 (U)
"Use of Manual Tank Gauging as Sole Means of
Release Detection for 1,000-Gallon Tanks"
p. 28 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility: Classification as a
State or Local Government" p. 23 (U)
60 FR 4586; January 24,1995 p. 81 (U)
60 PR 10331; February 24,1995 p. 81 (U)
60 PR 12630; March 7,1995 p. 81 (U)
60 FR 12631; March 7,1995 p. 82 (U)
60 PR 12709; March 8,1995 p. 82 (U)
60 FR 14334; March 16,1995 p. 82 (U)
60 FR 14334; March 16,1995 p. 83 (U)
60 PR 14372; March 17,1995 p. 83 (U)
60 FR 32469; June 22,1995 p. 83 (U)
60 PR 34879; July 5,1995 p. 84 (U)
60 PR 46692; September 7,1995 p. 84 (U)
60 PR 47300; September 12,1995 p. 84 (U)
60 PR 52343; October 6,1995 p. 84 (U)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
117
-------
Universal treatment standards
60 EE 242; January 3,1995 p. 68 (R)
60 EE 54645; October 25,1995 p. 67 (R)
Universal wastes
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste"
p. 10 (R)
60 ES 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73 (R)
Upgrading
"Upgrading Requirements for Existing
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Systems"
p.28(U)
Used oil
60 FR 55202; October 30,1995 p. 77 (R)
Waste minimization
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements"
p. 18 (R)
Wastewater treatment unit
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites"
p.7(R)
Water dissociable ammonium salts
60 EE16830; April 3,1995 p. 99 (E)
60 EE 34172; June 30,1995 p. 102 (E)
XL community pilot program
60 EE 55569; November 1,1995 p. 107
(R,U,S,E)
LEGEND:
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
118
-------
REGULATORY CITATION INDEX
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
40 CFR Part 22 - Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment
of Civil Penalties and the Revolution or Suspension of Permits
60 PR 15208; March 22,1995 p. 65
40 CFR Part 124 - Procedures for Decisionmaking
60 PR 63417; December 11,1995 p. 79
40 CFR Part 148- Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions
60 PR 11702; March 2,1995 p. 65
40 CFR Part 247 - Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Products Containing
Recovered Materials
60 PR 21370; May 1,1995 p. 72
60 PR 21386; May 1,1995 p. 73
40 CFR Part 257 - Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices
60 PR 30964; June 12,1995 p. 66
40 CFR Part 258 - Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
"Design Criteria Exemption for Small, Arid, Remote MSWLFs" p. 10
60 PR 8384; February 14,1995 p. 70
60 PR 13722; March 14,1995 p. 70
60 PR 17649; April 7,1995 p. 71
60 PR 19251; April 17,1995 p. 72
60 PR 21191; May 1,1995 p. 72
60 PR 30964; June 12,1995 p. 66
60 PR 34982; July 5,1995 p. 75
60 m 39385; August 2,1995 p. 76
60 PR 40799; August 10,1995 p. 66
60 PR 48711; September 20,1995 p. 76
60 PR 52337; October 6,1995 p. 77
60 PR 55843; November 3,1995 p. 78
60 PR 62439; December 6,1995 p. 78
119
-------
40 CFR Part 260 - Hazardous Waste Management System: General
60 ER 3089; January 13,1995 p. 69
60 ER17001; April 4,1995 p. 71
60 ER 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73
60 ER 37974; July 25,1995 p. 66
60 ER 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67
60 ER 66344; December 21,1995 p. 68
40 CFR Part 261 - Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes" p. 15
"Hotel Dry Cleaning Waste and the Household Waste Exclusion" p. 16
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes" p. 16
"Purpose .and Applicability of Speculative Accumulation Provision" p. 11
"Restaurant Waste and the Household Waste Exclusion" p. 17
"Solid Waste Determination for Spilled Commercial Chemical Products" p. 12
"Status of Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Exclusion" p. 17
60 ER 6666; February 3,1995 p. 69
60 ER 7366; February 7,1995 p. 69
60 ER 7824; February 9,1995 p. 70
60 ER 19165; April 17,1995 p. 72
60 ER 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73
60 ER 30964; June 12,1995 p. 66
60 ER 41817; August 14,1995 p. 76
60 ER 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67
60 ER 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68
60 ER 66344; December 21,1995 p. 68
40 CFR Part 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
"Export Requirements for Transportation through Transit Countries" p. 7
"International Agreements and Hazardous Waste Export Regulations" p. 8
"Manifest Requirements for Imported Hazardous Waste" p. 9
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements" p. 18
"Signing the Manifest as an Agent When Importing Hazardous Waste" p. 9
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and Counting Requirements" p. 6
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites" p. 7
60 ER 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73
60 ER 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67
60 ER 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78
40 CFR Part 263 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
60 ER 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67
120
-------
40 CFR Parts 264/5 - Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3
"The Liquids in Landfills Prohibition and Sorbed Free Liquids" p. 13
"Location of Operating Records at Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities" p. 14
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action" p. 4
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements" p. 18
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites" p. 7
60 FR 25492;
60 FR 26828;
60 FR 35703;
60 FR 37974;
60 FR 50426;
60 FR 56468;
60 FR 56952;
May 11,1995 p. 73
May 19,1995 p. 74
July 11,1995 p. 75
July 25,1995 p. 66
September 29,1995 p. 76
November 8,1995 p. 67
November 13,1995 p. 78
40 CFR Part 266 - Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and
Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste" p. 10
60 FR 11702; March 2,1995 p. 65
60 FR 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73
60 FR 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68
60 FR 66344; December 21,1995 p. 68
40 CFR Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes" p. 15
"Placement within an Area of Contamination" p. 31
60 FR 242; January 3,1995 p. 68
60 FR 11702; March 2,1995 p. 65
60 FR 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73
60 FR 43654; August 22,1995 p. 67
60 FR 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68
60 FR 66344; December 21,1995 p. 68
40 CFR Part 270 - EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites" p. 7
60 FR 6666; February 3,1995 p. 69
60 PR 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73
60 FR 26828; May 19,1995 p. 74
60 FR 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67
60 FE 63417; December 11,1995 p. 79
121
-------
40 CFR Part 271 - Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs
60 EE 7824; February 9,1995 p. 70
60 EE 11702; March 2,1995 p. 65
60 EE 26828; May 19,1995 p. 74
60 EE 30964; June 12,1995 p. 66
60 m 35703; July 11,1995 p. 75
60 EE 43654; August 22,1995 p. 67
60 EE 51925; October 4,1995 p. 77
60 EE 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78
60 EE 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68
40 CFR Part 273 - Standards for Special Collection System Wastes
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste" p. 10
60 ER 25492; May 11,1995 p. 73
40 CFR Part 279 - Standards for the Management of Used Oil
60 EE 55202; October 30,1995 p. 77
122
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
40 CFR Part 280 - Underground Storage Tanks
"Aboveground Storage Tanks with Underground Piping" p. 25
"Calculating Annual Throughput for Underground Storage Tanks (USTS)" p. 21
"Cathodic Protection Inspections on Existing Underground Storage Tanks" p. 25
"Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants and Hazardous Substance USTs" p. 24
"Closure and Conversion to a Non-Regulated Tank" p. 26
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund" p. 21
"Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection" p. 26
"Underground Storage Tank Piping" p. 27
"Upgrading Requirements for Existing Underground Storage Tank (UST) Systems" p. 28
"Use of Manual Tank Gauging as Sole Means of Release Detection for 1,000-Gallon Tanks" p. 28
"UST Financial Responsibility: Classification as a State or Local Government" p. 23
60 PR 46692; September 7,1995 p. 84
40 CFR Part 281 - Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Programs
60 PR 4586; January 24,1995 p. 81
60 PR 10331; February 24,1995 p. 81
60 PR 12630; March 7,1995 p. 81
60 PR12709; March 8,1995 p. 82
60 PR 14334; March 16,1995 p. 83
60 PR 14372; March 17,1995 p. 83
60 PR 32469; June 22,1995 p. 83
60 PR 34879; July 5,1995 p. 84
60 PR 46692; September 7,1995 p. 84
40 CFR Part 282 - Approved Underground Storage Tank Programs
60 PR 12631; March 7,1995 p. 82
60 PR 14334; March 16,1995 p. 82
60 PR 47300; September 12,1995 p. 84
60 PR 52343; October 6,1995 p. 84
123
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
40 CFR Part 300 - National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Program
"Clarification of the Definition of On-Scene Coordinator" p. 39
"Five-Year Reviews under CERCLA" p. 35
"No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) Sites and the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS)" p. 41
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action" p. 36
"Placement Within an Area of Contamination" p. 31
"Transfers of Real Property Interests to States" p. 43
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their Relationship to Preliminary Remediation Goals" p. 42
60 ER 4568; January 24,1995 p. 86
60 ER 8212; February 13,1995 p. 85
60 ER 8570; February 15,1995 p. 87
60 ER 8570; February 15,1995 p. 87
60 ER14641; March 20,1995 p. 87
60 ER14645; March 20,1995 p. 88
60 ER 15247; March 23,1995 p. 88
60 ER 15489; March 24,1995 p. 88
60 ER 16053; March 29,1995 p. 88
60 ER 16808; April 3,1995 p. 89
60 ER 17004; April 4,1995 p. 89
60 ER 19525; April 19,1995 p. 89
60 ER 20330; April 25,1995 p. 90
60 ER 21047; May 1,1995 p. 90
60 ER 27041; May 22,1995 p. 90
60 ER 27697); May 25,1995 p. 91
60 ER 27896; May 26,1995 p. 91
60 ER 31414; June 15,1995 p. 91
60 ER 33362; June 28,1995 p. 92
60 ER 37827; July 24,1995 p. 93
60 ER 45343; August 31,1995 p. 93
60 ER 47849; September 13,1995 p. 93
60 ER 48902; September 21,1995 p. 94
60 ER 49230; September 22,1995 p. 94
60 ER 49347; September 25,1995 p. 94
60 ER 50114; September 28,1995 p. 94
60 ER 50430; September 29,1995 p. 95
60 ER 50431; September 29,1995 p. 95
60 ER 50435; September 29,1995 p. 95
60 ER 51390; October 2,1995 p. 85
60 ER 51927; October 4,1995 p. 95
60 ER 55466; November 1,1995 p. 96
60 ER 58238; November 27,1995 p. 96
60 ER 63517; December 11,1995 p. 97
124
-------
40 CFR Part 302 - Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification
"Releases of Hazardous Substances from NPL Sites" p. 33
60 PR 7824; February 9,1995 p. 86
60 PR 19165; April 17,1995 p. 89
60 FR25619; May 12,1995 p. 90
60 PR 30926; June 12,1995 p. 91
60 PR 40042; August 4,1995 p. 85
60 PR 57747; November 20,1995 p. 86
125
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
40 CFR Part 355 - Emergency Planning and Notification
"Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide Reporting under EPCRA §§302 and 304" p. 45
"CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting Requirements for Aqueous Film Forming Foam" p. 46
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located within the Planning District of Two LEPCs" p. 46
"SARA Title m on Indian Lands" p. 47
60 EB 40042; August 4,1995 p. 100
40 CFR Part 370 - Hazardous Chemical Reporting
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to Horticultural Operations Land Golf Courses" p. 50
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located within the Planning District of Two LEPCs" p. 46
"EPCRA §§311/312 Consumer Use Exemption & Batteries" p. 50
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product Exemption under EPCRA §§311/312" p. 51
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated Wood under §§311 and 312" p. 52
"SARA Title HI on Indian Lands" p. 47
40 CFR Part 372 - Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-to-Know
Section 372.3
"Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Purification under §313" p. 60
Section 372.38
"Article Exemption and Paint under EPCRA §313" p. 54
"EPCRA §313 Structural Component Exemption for Chemicals Associated with an Exempt Use" p. 58
Section 372.65
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of Ammonium Hydroxide" p. 55
"EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemical Expansion" p. 59
60 EB 9299; February 17,1995 p. 101
60 ER16830; April 3,1995 p. 99
60 EB18361; April 11,1995 p. 101
60 EE19702; April 20,1995 p. 101
60 EE 31643; June 16,1995 p. 101
60 ES 34172; June 30,1995 p. 102
60 m 34182; June 30,1995 p. 102
60 EB 39132; August 1,1995 p. 99
60 m 46076; September 5,1995 p. 100
60 EE 54949; October 27,1995 p. 103
126
-------
60 FR 57382; November 15,1995 p. 100
60 FR 64407; December 15,1995 p. 104
Section 372.85
"Alternate Threshold under EPCRA §313" p. 53
"Article Exemption and Paint under EPCRA §313" p. 54
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of Ammonium Hydroxide" p. 55
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral Acids Using pH Measurements" p. 56
"EPCRA §313 Form R Submission: Completion of Section 8" p. 57
"EPCRA §313: Section 4.1 of Form R (Maximum Amount On-Site)" p. 58
"EPCRA §313 Structural Component Exemption for Chemicals Associated with an Exempt Use" p. 58
"EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemical Expansion" p. 59
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter Cake under EPCRA §313" p. 59
"Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Purification under EPCRA §313" p. 60
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" p. 47
60 PR 9299: February 17,1995 p. 101
60 FR 16830; April 3,1995 p. 99
60 FR 18361; April 11,1995 p. 101
60 PR 19702; April 20,1995 p. 101
60 FR 31643; June 16,1995 p. 101
60 FR 34172; June 30,1995 p. 102
60 FR 34182; June 30,1995 p. 102
60 FR 46076; September 5,1995 p. 100
127
-------
-------
STATUTORY CITATION INDEX
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
Section 3001 - Identification and listing of hazardous waste
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes" p. 15
"Hotel Dry Cleaning Waste and the Household Waste Exclusion" p. 16
"Isomers of P- and U-Listed Wastes" p. 16
"Purpose and Applicability of Speculative Accumulation Provision" p. 11
"Restaurant Waste and the Household Waste Exclusion" p. 17
"Solid Waste Determination for Spilled Commercial Chemical Products" p. 12
"Status of Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Exclusion" p. 17
60 FR 3089; January 13,1995 p. 69
60 FR 6666; February 3,1995 p. 69
60 F_R 7366; February 7,1995 p. 69
60 FR 7824; February 9,1995 p. 70
60 FR 17001; April 4,1995 p. 71
60 PR 19165; April 17,1995 p. 72
60 PR 37974; July 25,1995 p. 66
60 FR 41817; August 14,1995 p. 76
60 FR 57747; November 20,1995 p. 68
60 FR 66344; December 21,1995 p. 68
Section 3002 - Standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste
"Export Requirements for Transportation Through Transit Countries" p. 7
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste" p. 10
"Manifest Requirements for Imported Hazardous Waste" p. 9
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements" p. 18
"Signing the Manifest as an Agent When Importing Hazardous Waste" p. 9
"Spent Lead-Acid Batteries and Counting Requirements" p. 6
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites" p. 7
60 PR 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78
129
-------
Section 3004 - Standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3
"Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt Wastes" p. 15
"Lead-Acid Batteries and Universal Waste" p. 10
"The Liquids in Landfills Prohibition and Sorbed Free Liquids" p. 13
"Location of Operating Records at Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities" p. 14
"Status of WWTUs/ENUs at Generator Sites" p. 7
60 EE 242; January 3,1995 p. 68
60 EE11702; March 2,1995 p. 65
60 EE 26828; May 19,1995 p. 74
60 EE 35703; July 11,1995 p. 75
60 EB 43654; August 22,1995 p. 67
60 EE 50426; September 29,1995 p. 76
60 EE 56468; November 8,1995 p. 67
60 EE 56952; November 13,1995 p. 78
60 EE 63417; December 11,1995 p. 79
Section 3005 - Permits for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3
"RCRA Waste Minimization Requirements" p. 18
Section 3006 - Authorized state hazardous waste programs
60 m 51925; October 4,1995 p. 77
Section 3008 - Federal enforcement
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3
Section 3014 - Restrictions on used oil
60 EE 55202; October 30,1995 p. 77
Section 3017 - Export of hazardous waste
"Export Requirements for Transportation through Transit Countries" p. 7
"International Agreements and Hazardous Waste Export Regulations" p. 8
Subtitle D - State or Regional Solid Waste Plans
Section 4004 - Criteria for sanitary landfills; sanitary landfills required for all
disposal
"Design Criteria Exemption for Small, Arid, Remote MSWLFs" p. 10
60 EE 17649; April 7,1995 p. 71
130
-------
Section 4005 - Upgrading of open dumps
60 FR 8384; February 14,1995 p. 70
60 FR 13722; March 14,1995 p. 70
60 FR 19251; April 17,1995 p. 72
60 FR 21191; May 1,1995 p. 72
60 FR 34982; July 5,1995 p. 75
60 FR 39385; August 2,1995 p. 76
60 FR 40799; August 10,1995 p. 66
60 FR 48711; September 20,1995 p. 76
60 FR 52337; October 6,1995 p. 77
60 FR 55843; November 3,1995 p. 78
60 FR 62439; December 6,1995 p. 78
Section 4010 - Adequacy of certain guidelines and criteria
60 PR 30964; June 12,1995 p. 66
Subtitle F - Federal Responsibilities
Section 6001 - Application of Federal, State, and local law to Federal facilities
60 FR 15208; March 22,1995 p. 65
Section 6002 - Federal procurement
60 FR 21370; May 1,1995 p. 72
60 FR 21386; May 1,1995 p. 73
Subtitle G - Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 7003 - Imminent hazard
"Corrective Action Authorities" p. 3
Section 7004 - Petition for regulations; public participation
60 FR 63417; December 11,1995 p. 79
131
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
SUBTITLE I, RCRA
Section 9001 - Definitions and exemptions
"Aboveground Storage Tanks With Underground Piping" p. 25
"Clean Air Act Hazardous Air Pollutants and Hazardous Substance USTs" p. 24
Section 9003 - Release detection, prevention, and correction regulations
"Calculating Annual Throughput for Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)" p. 21
"Cathodic Protection Inspections on Existing Underground Storage Tanks" p. 25
"Closure and Conversion to a Non-Regulated Tank" p. 26
"Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund" p. 21
"Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection" p. 26
"Underground Storage Tank Piping" p. 27
"Upgrading Requirements for Existing Underground Storage Tank (UST) Systems" p. 28
"Use of Manual Tank Gauging as Sole Means of Release Detection for 1,000 Gallon Tanks" p. 28
"UST Financial Responsibility: Classification as a State or Local Government" p. 23
60 ER 46692; September 7,1995 p. 84
Section 9004 - Approval of State programs
60 ER 4586; January 24,1995 p. 81
60 £R10331; February 24,1995 p. 81
60 ER12630; March 7,1995 p. 81
60 ER12631; March 7,1995 p. 82
60 ER12709; March 8,1995 p. 82
60 ER 14334; March 16,1995 p. 82
60 ER 14334; March 16,1995 p. 83
60 ER 14372; March 17,1995 p. 83
60 ER 32469; June 22,1995 p. 83
60 ER 34879; July 5,1995 p. 84
60 ER 47300; September 12,1995 p. 84
60 ER 52343; October 6,1995 p. 84
132
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Section 101 - Definitions
60 FR 7824; February 9,1995 p. 86
60 FR 19165; April 17,1995 p. 89
60 FR 30926; June 12,1995 p. 91
60 FR 63517; December 11,1995 p. 97
Section 102 - Designation of additional hazardous substances and establishment
of reportable released quantities; regulations
60 FR 7824; February 9,1995 p. 86
60 FR 25619; May 12,1995 p. 90
60 PR 30926; June 12,1995 p. 91
60 FR 57747; November 20,1995 p. 86
Section 103 - Notification requirements respecting released substances
"Releases of Hazardous Substances from NPL Sites" p. 33
"CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting Requirements for Aqueous Film Forming Foam" p. 32
60 FR 40042; August 4,1995 p. 85
Section 104 - Response authorities
"Transfers of Real Property Interests to States" p. 43
Section 105 - National contingency plan
"Clarification of the Definition of On-Scene Coordinator" p. 39
"No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) Sites and the CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS)" p. 41
"NPL Deletion/Deferral Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action" p. 36
60 FR 4568; January 24,1995 p. 86
60 ER 8212; February 13,1995 p. 85
60 FR 8570; February 15,1995 p. 87
60 FR 8570; February 15,1995 p. 87
60 FR 14641; March 20,1995 p. 87
60 FR 14645; March 20,1995 p. 88
60 EE 15247; March 23,1995 p. 88
60 EE15489; March 24,1995 p. 88
133
-------
60 EE16053; March 29,1995 p. 88
60 EE16808; April 3,1995 p. 89
60 ES17004; April 4,1995 p. 89
60 EE 19525; April 19,1995 p. 89
60 EE 20330; April 25,1995 p. 90
60 EE 21047; May 1,1995 p. 90
60 ER 27041; May 22,1995 p. 90
60 EE 27697; May 25,1995 p. 91
60 EE 27896; May 26,1995 p. 91
60 EE 31414; June 15,1995 p. 91
60 EE 33362; June 28,1995 p. 92
60 EE 37827; July 24,1995 p. 93
60 EE 45343; August 31,1995 p. 93
60 EE 47849; September 13,1995 p. 93
60 ES 48902; September 21,1995 p. 94
60 EE 49230; September 22,1995 p. 94
60 EE 50114; September 28,1995 p. 94
60 EE 50430; September 29,1995 p. 95
60 ES 50431; September 29,1995 p. 95
60 EE 50435; September 29,1995 p. 95
60 EE 51390; October 2,1995 p. 85
60 EE 51927; October 4,1995 p. 95
60 EE 55466; November 1,1995 p. 96
60 EE 58238; November 27,1995 p. 96
Section 121 - Cleanup standards
"Five-Year Reviews under CERCLA" p. 35
"Placement within an Area of Contamination" p. 31
"The Use of Soil Screening Levels and Their Relationship to Preliminary Remediation Goals" p.
Section 122 - Settlements
60 EE 34790; July 3,1995 p. 92
60 EB 34792; July 3,1995 p. 92
60 EE 62849; December 7,1995 p. 96
42
134
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-
TO-KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Section 301 - Establishment of State commissions, planning districts, and local
committees
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" p. 47
Section 302 - Substances and facilities covered and notification
"Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide Reporting under EPCRA §§302 and 304" p. 45
"SARA Title HI on Indian Lands" p. 47
Section 303 - Comprehensive emergency response plans
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located within the Planning District of Two LEPCs" p. 46
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" p. 47
Section 304 - Emergency notification
"Ammonia and Ammonium Hydroxide Reporting under EPCRA §§302 and 304" p. 45
"CERCLA §103(a) and EPCRA §304 Reporting Requirements for Aqueous Film Forming Foam" p. 46
"SARA Title III on Indian Lands" p. 47
60 JEE 40042; August 4,1995 p. 100
Section 311 - Material safety data sheets
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to Horticultural Operations and Golf Courses" p. 50
"EPCRA §311/312 Consumer Use Exemption and Batteries" p. 50
"EPCRA Requirements for a Facility Located within the Planning District of Two LEPCs" p. 46
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product Exemption under EPCRA §§311/312" p. 51
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated Wood under §§311/312" p. 52
"SARA Title HI on Indian Lands" p. 47
135
-------
Section 312 - Emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms
"Applicability of EPCRA §§311/312 to Horticultural Operations and Golf Courses" p. 50
"EPCRA. Requirements for a Facility Located within the Planning District of Two LEPCs" p. 46
"EPCRA §311/312 Consumer Use Exemption and Batteries" p. 50
"Federal Facilities and the Consumer Product Exemption under EPCRA §§311/312" p. 51
"Reporting Requirements for Chemically Treated Wood under §§311/312" p. 52
"SARA Title HI on Indian Lands" p. 47
Section 313 - Toxic chemical release forms
"Alternate Threshold under EPCRA §313" p. 53
"Article Exemption and Paint under EPCRA §313" p. 54
"EPCRA §313 and the Revised Reporting of Ammonium Hydroxide" p. 55
"EPCRA §313 - Estimating Releases of Mineral Acids Using pH Measurement" p. 56
"EPCRA §313 Form R Submission: Completion of Section 8" p. 57
"EPCRA §313: Section 4.1 of Form R (Maximum Amount On Site)" p. 58
"EPCRA §313 Structural Component Exemption for Chemicals Associated with an Exempt Use" p. 58
"EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemical Expansion" p. 59
"Reporting Mineral Acids Contained in Filter Cake under EPCRA §313" p. 59
"Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Purification under EPCRA §313" p. 60
"SARA Title HI on Indian Lands" p. 47
60 ER 9299; February 17,1995 p. 101
60 ER16830; April 3,1995 p. 99
60 ER 18361; April 11,1995 p. 101
60 ER 19702; April 20,1995 p. 101
60 ER 31643; June 16,1995 p. 101
60 ER 34172; June 30,1995 p. 102
60 ER 34182; June 30,1995 p. 102
60 ER 39132; August 1,1995 p. 99
60 ER 46076; September 5,1995 p. 100
60 ER 50738; September 29,1995 p. 103
60 ER 54949; October 27,1995 p. 103
60 ER 57382; November 15,1995 p. 100
60 ER 64407; December 15,1995 p. 104
136
-------
-------
------- |