United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
5305W
PB97-137632
EPA/530-R-96-002m
March 1997
&ER& Inside the Hotline
A Compilation of 1996 Monthly
Hotline Reports
IResource Conservation
and Recovery Act,
-------
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: Judi Kane
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION '. m
PART 1: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 3
Air Emissions 3
Financial Assurance 4
Generator and Transporter Requirements 7
Land-Based Units 10
Land Disposal Restrictions 13
Solid Waste Management 15
TSDFs 16
Universal Waste 19
Used Oil 20
Waste Identification 24
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 29
Applicability 29
Financial Responsibility 30
Leak Detection 34
Tank Requirements 36
Upgrading 38
Superfund (SF) 41
ARARs 41
Liability/Settlements 41
National Priorities List 45
Release Reporting 46
Response Process 47
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) .... 51
Emergency Planning and Release Notification 51
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting 51
Toxics Release Inventory 52
Clean Air Act (CAA) §112(r) 59
Risk Management Program 59
PART 2: FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARIES 63
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 65
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 77
Superfund (SF) 81
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) .... 93
Clean Air Act (CAA) §112(r) 95
Cross-Program 97
PART 3: INDICES 99
Key Word Index 101
Regulatory Citation Index 109
Statutory Citation Index 119
-------
-------
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 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 1996. 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 1996 Monthly Hotline Reports, is
available for purchase from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
1 (800) 553-6847 or (703) 487-4650. The NTIS Order No. is: PB97-137 632.
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 1995 Monthly Hotline Reports PB96-163 423
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 the
following methods:
Access to CLU-IN:
• Via modem at (301) 589-8366 (after registering at the main menu, choose "D" for
download and use the filename HOTLINE96.ZIP)
• Via the Internet by Telnet at clu-in.epa.gov (after registering at the main menu, choose
"D" for download and use the filename HOTLINE96.ZIP)
• Via the world wide web at http://www.clu-in.com/clu-in.htm (choose the file
HOTLINE96.ZIP under directory 8)
Selected 1996 Monthly Hotline Reports are also available through EPA's Internet servers
at the following route:
Access through the World Wide Web:
• Go to the Hotline's Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline
• Choose "Monthly Hotline Reports"
IV
-------
PART 1: 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 1996. 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 1996 the Hotline responded to over 246,000 questions
regarding EPA regulations, programs, guidance documents, and other related matters. The
number and type of questions in this report reflect the percentages cited in Figure 1. Figure 2
breaks down the questions by program area. The RCRA program received the highest number
of questions, nearly 47 percent.
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
61,714
(25%)
Figure 1 *
Questions by Type
Referrals/
Transfers
13,977
(6%)
Figure 2*
Questions by Program
Superfund
34,984
EPCRA
72,134
(31%)
*Based on 246,553 questions received during 1996.
**Excludes 13,977 referrals and transfers made to other information sources.
-------
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
Air Emissions
Keywords:
Air emissions; containers;
generator
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC
Air Emission Standards"
QUESTION: Are large quantity generators subject to the RCRA Subpart CC
air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundments, and containers?
ANSWER: Yes, large quantity generators are subject to the Subpart CC air
emission standards if managing hazardous waste in 90-day accumulation
units (§262.34(a)).
QUESTION: Does Subpart CC affect containers used for satellite
accumulation under §262.34(c)?
ANSWER: Subpart CC does not apply to containers used for satellite
accumulation (59 PR 62896,62910; December 6,1994).
QUESTION: Are large quantity generators subject to the Subpart AA and BB
air emission standards for process vents and equipment leaks?
ANSWER: Yes, in addition to establishing the Subpart CC air emission
standards, the December 6,1994, Federal Register also extended the
applicability of Subparts AA and BB to large quantity generators
accumulating hazardous waste in permit-exempt units (§262.34(a)).
QUESTION: Do the Subpart CC regulations specify the types of control
equipment that must be installed to comply with the air emission standards?
ANSWER: The Subpart CC standards do not require the use of any specific
type of equipment or add-on control device. Instead, the standards allow
owners/operators the flexibility of choosing a control device that is best
suited for a particular wastestream (59 FR 62896,62918; December 6,1994).
(February 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Air emissions; containers;
operating record; surface
impoundment; tank;
treatment, storage, and
disposal facility i
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit for Subpart CC
Compliance"
QUESTION: The effective date of the 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC air
emission standards is December 6,1996. Owners and/or operators who are
unable to install the appropriate air emission controls on affected tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers by the effective date of the rule are
given the opportunity to establish an implementation schedule for the
installation of required equipment. In all cases, owners and/or operators
must have all controls installed by December 8,1997 (§265.1082). Is the
removal of an affected unit from service an acceptable means of compliance
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
with the Subpart CC standards? If so, can the owner and/or operator continue to
manage hazardous waste in the unit without the appropriate air emission controls
if he or she is unable to remove the unit from service prior to the December 6,
1996, provided that documentation of the intentions to remove the unit from
service by December 8,1997, is placed in an implementation schedule?
ANSWER: Removal of a tank, surface impoundment, or container from service is
an acceptable means of compliance with the Subpart CC standards. If, however,
removal of the unit does not occur before the December 6,1996, effective date, all
required air emission controls must be installed on the unit if it continues to
manage hazardous waste. When it is not possible to install the appropriate
controls by the effective date of the rule, owners and/or operators must prepare
an implementation schedule in accordance with the guidelines established in
§265.1082.
Preparation of an implementation schedule is not an automatic extension to the
effective date of the Subpart CC standards until December 8,1997. In all cases,
owners and/or operators must document in the schedule the reasons why
required controls cannot be in place by the effective date and must make all efforts
to install the equipment as soon as possible, but no later than December 8,1997.
Thus, in order to continue managing hazardous waste after the effective date of
the air emission requirements in a unit scheduled for removal without the
required controls, an owner and/or operator must be able to demonstrate why the
unit cannot be removed before December 6,1996, and why the necessary controls
cannot be installed. An implementation schedule describing the removal of an
affected unit must be prepared and placed in the facility's operating record. The
owner and/or operator can continue to operate the unit without air emission
controls while he or she is implementing the schedule. (March 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Financial
Assurance
Keywords:
Closure; financial
assurance; letter of credit
"Annual Payments Into A Standby Trust Fund When Using A Letter Of
Credit"
QUESTION: Subpart H of 40 CFR Part 264 requires an owner or operator of a
permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) to establish financial
assurance to satisfy closure and post-closure care of the facility. A letter of credit
is one of the financial mechanisms that the owner or operator may choose to
demonstrate financial assurance (§§264.143(d)/264.145(d)). A letter of credit
allows a financial institution, that is authorized by a federal or state agency to
issue letters of credit, to extend credit on behalf of a TSDF. The letter of credit
must be irrevocable, issued for a period of at least one year, and in an amount at
least equal to the current closure and post-closure cost estimates, unless used in
combination with other financial assurance mechanisms (§§264.143(g)/
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
264.145(g)). An owner or operator using a letter of credit for closure or post-
closure financial assurance must also establish a standby trust fund to
accompany the letter of credit (§§264.143(a)/264.145(a)). If an owner or
operator is demonstrating financial assurance through the use of a letter of
credit, must annual payments be made into the standby trust fund?
ANSWER: No. Under the federal regulations, the owner or operator is not
required to make annual payments into the standby trust fund. The standby
trust fund merely facilitates drawing on the letter of credit in the event that
the owner or operator cannot pay for closure or post-closure care. A standby
trust fund (as opposed to a trust fund established under §§264.143(a)/
264.145(a)) cannot be used as a stand alone financial assurance mechanism
under RCRA. The standby trust fund documentation must be worded exactly
as the documentation for a trust fund, except for a few requirements: the
annual payments into the fund are waived; schedule A of the trust agreement
need not be updated; and annual valuations by the trustee or notices of
nonpayment are not required. These provisions for establishment of a
standby trust fund also apply to an interim status TSDF that is using a letter
of credit to establish financial assurance for closure and post-closure care
(§§265.143(c)/265.145(c)). (December 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Financial assurance;
financial test; liability
"Financial Statement Requirement for the RCRA Subtitle C Financial
Test"
QUESTION: For purposes of complying with the financial assurance
requirements, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) may
demonstrate liability coverage by use of the financial test. As evidence that
the TSDF satisfies the financial test requirements, the owner or operator is
required to submit a certified public accountant's report on the latest
completed fiscal year's financial statements (§264.147(f)(3)(ii)). If the owner or
operator does not have financial statements from the latest completed fiscal
year, may estimated financial statements be used as substitutes for this
requirement?
ANSWER: No. If there are no financial statements for the latest completed
fiscal year, the financial test mechanism cannot be used to demonstrate
financial assurance. In addition, estimates of financial statements may not be
used as substitutes for full statements. This is applicable not only to new
companies, but also to companies that have recently separated from parent
companies. Although such a recently separated company may have the
ability to accurately estimate their financial statements using the parent
company's statements, it must nevertheless rely on its own financial
statements to qualify to use the financial test. This allows the certified public
accountant to fairly predict the financial condition of the company in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principals. (November 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Keywords:
Financial assurance;
financial test; liability
"Tangible Net Worth Requirements for RCRA Subtitle C Financial
Assurance"
QUESTION: Owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
subject to Subtitle C regulation are required to demonstrate liability coverage for
bodily injury and/or property damage to third parties resulting from accidental
occurrences arising from facility operations (53 EE 33938; September 1,1988). This
requirement can be demonstrated using one or a combination of financial
mechanisms, including a financial test. The financial test for liability coverage
requires the owner or operator to possess net working capital and tangible net
worth each at least six times the amount of liability coverage to be demonstrated
by this test, and a minimum tangible net worth of $10 million (§264.147(f)(l)(i)(A)
and (B)). How does an owner or operator calculate the required amount of
tangible net worth when using the financial test?
ANSWER: The owner or operator using the financial test must possess a
minimum tangible net worth of at least $10 million. Even if six times the amount
of liability coverage to be demonstrated by this test is less than $10 million, the
owner or operator must still have at least $10 million in tangible net worth (see
Example 1). If, on the other hand, six times the amount of liability coverage to be
demonstrated by the financial test is more than $10 million, then that six times
multiple is the minimum tangible net worth necessary to qualify to use the
financial test (see Example 2).
Example 1: Amount demonstrated by the financial test: $500,000
Six times the amount demonstrated: $3 million
Minimum tangible net worth: $10 million
Example 2: Amount demonstrated by the financial test: $2 million
Six times the amount demonstrated: $12 million
Minimum tangible net worth: $12 million
(December 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Generator and
Transporter
Requirements
Keywords:
Conditionally exempt
small quantity generator;
elementary neutralization
unit; treatment
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators Treating in Elementary
Neutralization Units"
QUESTION: A conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) may
treat or dispose of hazardous waste on site provided the generator meets
certain requirements outlined in 40 CFR §§261.5(f)(3) and (g)(3). If a CESQG
chooses to treat waste in an on-site elementary neutralization unit, must the
generator meet the conditions of §§261.5(f)(3) and (g)(3)?
ANSWER: A CESQG may treat hazardous waste in an on-site elementary
neutralization unit without meeting the requirements in §§261.5(f)(3) and
(g)(3). Elementary neutralization units, as defined in §260.10, are exempt from
RCRA treatment, storage and disposal standards and permitting
requirements. The elementary neutralization unit exclusion does not preclude
a CESQG from treating waste in the exempt unit as long as the generator
meets the criteria outlined in §§264.1(g)(6), 265.1(c)(10), and §270.1(c)(2)(v).
Specifically, the elementary neutralization unit must meet the definition of a
container, tank, tank system, transport vehicle, or vessel; and be used for
neutralizing wastes that are hazardous only because of the corrosivity
characteristic. (February 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Conditionally exempt
small quantity generator;
generator; manifest;
permit
"Frequently Asked Questions on Hazardous Waste Generator
Requirements"
QUESTION: May large quantity generators (LQGs) and small quantity
generators (SQGs) treat hazardous waste on site without obtaining a permit or
interim status?
ANSWER: EPA has consistently maintained that a permit or interim status is
not required if a LQG or SQG treats hazardous waste in accumulation units
such as tanks or containers that are in full compliance with the requirements
of 40 CFR §262.34 and the special unit-specific requirements found in Part 265
(51 FR10146,10168; March 24,1986). This treatment must be completed
within the specified regulatory time limitations.
QUESTION: Must SQGs submit a Biennial Report for their hazardous waste
management activities?
ANSWER: No, SQGs (generators of greater than 100 kg but less than 1,000 kg
in a calendar month) are subject only to the reporting requirements listed in 40
CFR §262.44. The Biennial Report regulation at 40 CFR §262.41 is not
specifically listed in that section.
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
QUESTION: The 40 CFR Part 262 regulations, Standards Applicable to
Generators, do not mention conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs). Where are the CESQG regulations found?
ANSWER: Unlike the LQG and SQG regulations that are found throughout Part
262, the CESQG requirements are found in §261.5. CESQGs are those generators
who produce less than or equal to 100 kg of hazardous waste, less than or equal to
1 kg of acute hazardous waste, or less than or equal to 100 kg of spill residue of
acute hazardous waste per calendar month.
QUESTION: Must generators preparing an off-site shipment of hazardous waste
list the EPA waste codes on the manifest?
ANSWER: EPA manifest regulations at 40 CFR §262.20 and Appendix to Part 262
do not require generators to list EPA waste codes on the manifest. The shaded
space provided on the manifest for EPA waste codes is for the convenience of state
agencies, as some states may require EPA waste codes to be listed on a manifest
(40 CFR §271.10(h)). The Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations may,
however, require listing EPA waste codes as part of the DOT description (49 CFR
§172.203(k)(4)). (April 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Generator; transporter
"Generators and Designated Transporters"
QUESTION: In the normal course of transportation, a designated transporter is
unable to deliver a manifested shipment of hazardous waste to the designated
facility. To complete delivery of the waste shipment, the transporter would like to
hire a second carrier. Must the transporter seek the approval of the generator who
initiated the shipment in order to make these changes to the chain of
transportation?
ANSWER: Yes. Choosing the sequence of transporters that will deliver a waste to
the designated facility is the sole responsibility of the hazardous waste generator,
and changes to the chain of transportation require the approval of the generator.
A properly completed manifest identifies the full sequence of transporters that
will conduct hazardous waste to a designated facility. The directions for the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, found in the Appendix to 40 CFR Part 262,
specifically instruct generators to provide the name and EPA identification
number of the first transporter (Items 5 and 6), and if necessary, of the second
transporter (Items 7 and 8). The instructions further direct generators to use a
continuation sheet to identify additional transporters as necessary (Item 8, Note).
The regulations for hazardous waste transporters do not authorize haulers to
make unapproved changes to the chain of transportation delineated on the
manifest. In accordance with the manifest, transporters must deliver waste solely
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
to the designated or alternate facility, the next designated transporter, or the
designated export destination (§263.21(a)). Transporters who cannot deliver
waste according to the generator's designation must contact the generator for
instructions and must revise the manifest to reflect the approved changes to the
prescribed chain of transport (§263.21(b)). Generators alone are responsible for
identification of the complete chain of transportation and must, therefore, be
apprised of and approve of all deviations from that plan. (March 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Permit; tank; transporter
"Tank Storage at Transfer Facilities"
QUESTION: A transfer facility is a place where transporters temporarily hold
shipments of hazardous waste during the normal course of transportation (40 CFR
§260.10). A transporter storing manifested shipments of hazardous waste in
containers meeting DOT packaging requirements at a transfer facility for less than
10 days is not required to obtain a permit and is not subject to the requirements of
Parts 264,265, or 268 (§263.12). May a transporter store hazardous waste in
stationary tanks at a transfer facility and still remain subject to the reduced
transfer facility requirements of §263.12?
ANSWER: A transporter may not store hazardous waste in stationary tanks and
still remain subject to the reduced transfer facility requirements because such
tanks are not portable. To store hazardous waste at a transfer facility without a
permit or interim status, the transporter must meet three criteria. First, the
transporter may store only manifested shipments of hazardous waste. Second,
waste must be held in containers (including tank cars and cargo tanks) which
meet DOT packaging requirements. Container is defined to mean any portable
device in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of, or
otherwise handled (40 CFR §260.10). Finally, the waste may only be held for 10
days or less (§263.12). The transfer facility provisions, therefore, apply to storage
in portable containers (to accommodate the normal and routine activities of the
transportation industry). Storage of waste in stationary tanks at a transfer facility
would not be a normal or routine activity of the transportation industry and thus
is prohibited unless the facility has a permit or interim status (45 PR 86967;
December 21,1980). (June 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Exports; generator;
reclamation; small
quantity generator
"Tolling Agreement and Exports"
QUESTION: A small quantity generator (SQG) sends hazardous waste to a
reclamation facility in Canada with whom they have a contractual agreement.
Will this SQG need to comply with the export requirements in 40 CFR Part 262,
Subpart E?
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Land-Based Units
Keywords:
Closure; surface
impoundment; toxicity
characteristic
ANSWER: SQGs shipping hazardous waste under a reclamation agreement
are not subject to the export requirements. Export requirements apply only to
primary exporters of hazardous waste (§262.53). EPA defines primary
exporter as "any person who is required to originate the manifest for a
shipment of hazardous waste..."(§262.51). A SQG whose waste is reclaimed
via contractual agreement is not subject to the manifest requirements
provided the SQG follows the provisions of §262.20(e). As no manifest is
required, the SQG does not meet the definition of primary exporter and,
therefore, does not need to comply with the export requirements. (September
1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
"Delay of Closure for Non-retrofitted Hazardous Waste Surface
Impoundments Continuing to Receive Non-hazardous Waste"
QUESTION: RCRA requires owners and/or operators of surface
impoundments that become subject to regulation due to the promulgation of a
new hazardous waste listing or characteristic to retrofit the impoundment to
meet minimum technological requirements — a double liner, a leachate
collection and removal system, and a leak detection system — or close within
four years of the promulgation date of the listing or characteristic (§3005(j)(6)).
If the owner and/or operator of a newly-subject surface impoundment ceases
receipt of hazardous waste before the four years have elapsed and wants to
receive only non-hazardous waste, must she fkst perform closure under 40
CFR Part 265, Subpart G?
ANSWER: No, the owner and/or operator may continue to receive non-
hazardous waste indefinitely in the impoundment provided she complies
with §265.113(d) and removes all hazardous waste from the unit (§265.113 (e)).
She would not have to perform formal closure activities until 90 days after
final receipt of non-hazardous waste (§265.113(a)).
However, if the owner and/or operator does not remove all hazardous waste
from the impoundment, she must begin closure within 90 days of expiration
of the four-year retrofitting period. The Regional Administrator may extend
this deadline if removal of the hazardous waste will of necessity take longer
than 90 days and such an extension will not pose a threat to human health
and the environment (§265.113(e)).
For example, a surface impoundment stores a waste which becomes subject to
regulation as a result of the promulgation of the toxicity characteristic waste
codes on March 29,1990 (55 FR11798). The owner and/or operator must
retrofit or close the unit by March 29,1994. If in 1992, the owner and/or
operator decides to cease receipt of the hazardous waste, but wants to
continue receiving non-hazardous waste, she must remove all of the
10
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
hazardous waste. Once she has removed all of the hazardous waste, she may
receive non-hazardous waste indefinitely. When the owner and/or operator later
ceases receipt of non-hazardous waste, for example on January 1,1996, she must
then begin closure operations within 90 days, or by March 31,1996. If the owner
and/or operator chooses not to remove the hazardous waste, and does not receive
an extension from the Regional Administrator, she must then begin closure within
90 days of the expiration of the four-year retrofitting period, in this example 90
days from March 24,1994, or June 24,1994. 0une 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Containers; hazardous
waste landfill; liquids;
pump; sorbents
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and the Liquids in Landfills
Prohibition"
QUESTION: RCRA prohibits the disposal of hazardous waste containing free
liquids in hazardous waste landfills, where free liquids are defined as those that
readily separate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature and
pressure (40 CFR §260.10). To meet this requirement, must owners and/or
operators disposing of pumps containing free liquids dismantle the pump to
remove the liquid?
ANSWER: Owners and/or operators would not be required to dismantle the
pump. When disposing of containerized liquids, owners and/or operators have
three options: remove the liquid by a method such as decanting; add
nonbiodegradable sorbent material or solidify the waste so that free liquids are no
longer observable; or eliminate the free liquids by some other means
(§§264.314(d)(l) and 265.314(c)(l)). The regulations provide exclusions from this
requirement for small containers, such as ampules, and containers designed to
hold free liquids for use other than storage, such as batteries or capacitors
(§§264.314(d)(2)-(3) and 265.314(c)(2)-(3)). Since the pump holds liquid for use
other than storage, the owner and/or operator of the pump will be exempt from
the requirement to remove or sorb free liquids. (June 1996 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Keywords:
Hazardous waste landfill;
sump; tank
"Regulation of Leachate Collection Sumps"
QUESTION: Section 3004(o) of RCRA requires that owners/operators of new,
replacement, and lateral expansions of hazardous waste landfills equip the units
with two or more liners, a leak detection system, and a leachate collection and
removal system (LCRS) above and between the liners. The LCRS between the
liners must be equipped with a sump to collect the leachate that has percolated
through the unit, and a liquid removal device, such as a pump, to move the
leachate to a storage unit (40 CFR §264.301(c)(3)(v)). Is this leachate collection
sump considered a tank subject to the hazardous waste tank regulations of Parts
264/265, SubpartJ?
11
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
ANSWER: No, a sump used to collect leachate in a landfill is not a hazardous
waste tank subject to the tank standards in Parts 264/265, Subpart J.
Although most sumps meet the definition of a tank, leachate collection sumps
do not. EPA changed the definition of "sump" in the January 29,1992,
Federal Register to reflect this distinction. Leachate collection sumps are
defined differently because, unlike other sumps, they are an integral part of
the unit's liner system, surrounded by layers of liners; additional containment
is often impracticable and unnecessary, and would yield little environmental
benefit (57 FR 3471; January 29,1992).
Only the actual collection sump is excluded from the federal definition of
tank. Any unit subsequently used to manage the leachate may be regulated.
For example, when a facility pumps the hazardous waste leachate from the
collection sump into a storage tank, that tank is subject to full regulation
under Parts 264/265, Subpart J. (July 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Groundwater monitoring;
leachate collection and
removal system; surface
impoundment
"Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements"
QUESTION: The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to
RCRA specify minimum technological requirements for the design and
construction of new hazardous waste surface impoundments, including
installation of a double liner and a leachate collection and removal system
(LCRS) and groundwater monitoring (RCRA §3004(o)). Units for which EPA
received permit applications after November 8,1984, the enactment date of
HSWA, must comply with these standards. HSWA also requires owners and
operators of hazardous waste surface impoundments in existence on
November 8,1984, or which become subject to RCRA as the result of the
promulgation of a new hazardous waste listing or characteristic, to retrofit
their surface impoundments to meet the minimum technology requirements
for new units (§3005(j))- Under what circumstances does HSWA require
retrofitting of these existing or newly-subject surface impoundments, and by
what date must retrofitting be completed?
ANSWER: HSWA required owners and operators of all hazardous waste
surface impoundments operating under interim status on November 8,1984,
to retrofit to meet the double liner, LCRS, and groundwater monitoring
requirements or close within four years, or November 8,1988. Similarly,
owners and operators of existing surface impoundments which become
subject to RCRA as the result of a new hazardous waste listing or
characteristic must retrofit or close within four years of the promulgation of
the listing or characteristic. For example, owners and operators of surface
impoundments which became subject to RCRA as the result of the
promulgation of the toxicity characteristic waste codes on March 29,1990,
were required to retrofit those units to meet the minimum technology
requirements or close by March 29,1994 (55 FR 11798; March 29,1990).
12
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Land Disposal
Restrictions
Keywords:
Land disposal
restrictions; treatment;
universal treatment
standards
HSWA also provided variances under which certain existing surface
impoundments would not have to retrofit. These variances apply to surface
impoundments: (1) with a single liner for which there is no evidence of
leakage, located more than a quarter mile from an underground source of
drinking water, and in compliance with groundwater monitoring
requirements; (2) conducting aggressive biological treatment in compliance
with the Clean Water Act and RCRA groundwater monitoring requirements;
or (3) demonstrating no potential for migration of hazardous wastes or
constituents into groundwater or surface water at any future time
(§§3005(j)(2)-(4)). Additionally, HSWA granted the Administrator the
authority to modify the retrofitting requirements for owners and operators of
existing surface impoundments who had begun corrective action before
October 1,1984 (§3005(j)(13)).
Owners and operators of surface impoundments previously exempt from the
retrofitting requirements under one of the variances, but which no longer
meet the conditions of the variance (e.g., as a result of a torn liner), are
required to retrofit their impoundments within two years of the discovery of
the change. If the surface impoundment was exempt because it was
conducting aggressive biological treatment, the owner or operator must
retrofit the surface impoundment within three years. (May 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Compliance with Part 268 Land
Disposal Restrictions Treatment Standards"
QUESTION: If a waste is subject to the land disposal restrictions, where can
its treatment standard be found?
ANSWER: The table of "Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes" (40
CFR §268.40) lists by waste code each waste that is subject to the land disposal
restrictions (LDR); each waste code entry identifies either the hazardous
constituents subject to treatment and their applicable treatment levels, or the
specific treatment technology that must be applied to the waste.
QUESTION: If the §268.40 "Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes"
identifies the treatment standard applicable to each particular waste, what are
the "Universal Treatment Standards" in §268.48?
ANSWER: The "Universal Treatment Standards" (UTS) table is an
alphabetical list of all the hazardous constituents referenced in the "Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Wastes." While the UTS lists the numeric treatment
level for every hazardous constituent, only the §268.40 table of "Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Wastes" identifies the standard to which a waste
must be treated prior to land disposal.
13
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
QUESTION: Why would a handler of a restricted or prohibited waste consult the
§268.48 UTS?
ANSWER: The table "Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes" notes that
certain characteristic wastes, in addition to complying with the treatment
standard for the specific constituent or characteristic, must also "meet §268.48
standards." Characteristic wastes subject to this additional treatment requirement
must meet both the concentration limit (or technology) for that particular waste
code and the UTS levels for each underlying hazardous constituent (defined in
§268.2) likely to be present at the point of generation.
QUESTION: Under what circumstances are listed wastes subject to the §268.48
UTS?
ANSWER: While characteristic wastes often vary significantly in composition,
each listed waste is, by definition, fairly uniform in the hazardous constituents it
contains. As a result, the treatment standard listed in the §268.40 "Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Wastes" is able to address all of the hazardous
constituents that are commonly of concern for each particular listed waste.
Therefore, listed wastes treated to their waste code-specific treatment standards
identified in §268.40 will not require additional treatment for underlying
hazardous constituents. Only listed wastes that also exhibit a characteristic not
addressed in the treatment standard for the listed waste (§268.9(b)) could be
required to meet UTS for underlying hazardous constituents.
QUESTION: Until Phase IV of LDR is finalized, characteristic metal wastes are
subject to less stringent treatment standards for metal constituents than are wastes
whose treatment standards requke compliance with the UTS of §268.48. Where a
characteristic metal waste also exhibits another characteristic that renders it
subject to compliance with UTS levels, would the waste need to meet the more
stringent standard for the metal constituent?
ANSWER: Section 268.9(b) requires wastes to "meet the treatment standards for
all applicable listed and characteristic waste codes." In the rare case where a
waste is subject to multiple treatment standards for a particular constituent, the
more stringent treatment standard will continue to apply. (March 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
14
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Solid Waste
Management
Keywords:
Contractor; procurement;
recycling
"Contractors as Procuring Agencies"
QUESTION: RCRA §6002 applies to procuring agencies that purchase
$10,000 or more of a designated item during the current fiscal year, or who
purchased $10,000 or more of a designated item or functionally equivalent
items during the preceding fiscal year. A procuring agency is defined as
"...any federal agency, or any state agency, or agency of a political subdivision
of a state which is using appropriated federal funds for such procurement, or
any person contracting with any such agency with respect to work performed
under such contract (§1004(17))." If a federal agency is subject to §6002, will
contractors with that federal agency automatically be subject to §6002?
ANSWER: No. Federal contractors with procuring agencies subject to §6002
are not automatically subject to the requirements of §6002. These contractors
must buy an EPA-designated item with recycled content subject to certain
conditions (e.g., availability, conformance with applicable performance
standards) if they purchase $10,000 or more of the item during the current
year or purchased $10,000 worth of the item in the preceding fiscal year, for
use under the agency contract. For example, a federal contractor that
purchases $10,000 of office paper products during the current fiscal year for
use on the federal contract would need to purchase recycled content paper.
Thus, the contractor would need to ensure the paper purchased for the federal
contract contained the highest amount of postconsumer recovered material
practicable. (January 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Composting; recycling;
source reduction
"Frequently Asked Questions on Composting"
QUESTION: Does composting constitute source reduction or recycling in
EPA's hierarchy of solid waste management?
ANSWER: Composting organic wastes after they are transported to a
centralized municipal composting facility is a waste management activity
characteristic of recycling. Composting organic waste at the point of
generation such as in the yard of a home is a form of source reduction, since
no formal waste management activity occurs (Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States. 1994 Update. November, 1994).
QUESTION: Must a centralized municipal solid waste composting facility
obtain a permit before the facility may begin composting operations?
ANSWER: Although the federal regulations do not specifically address
composting facilities, many individual state or county agencies have
established permitting procedures to operate centralized solid waste
15
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
TSDFs
Keywords:
Generator; permit;
treatment, storage, and
disposal facility
composting facilities. States may require facilities to submit the following
information: details of facility design, operating plans, description of
incoming materials, monitoring plans, potential environmental releases, and
potential markets for final compost product (Decision-Makers7 Guide to Solid
Waste Management, Volume II. August 1995).
QUESTION: What markets are available for compost product material?
ANSWER: Many markets are available for composted material including the
agricultural industry, the landscape industry, the nursery industry, public
agencies, and residential property owners. New research and field work has
also begun to open markets for tailored compost material in the commercial
bioremediation industry to clean up contaminants in soil, water, and air. The
quality of compost products and the demand for compost products will vary
according to regional land and climate characteristics. As such, a centralized
municipal compost facility should identify potential markets early and cater
to those markets needs. For more information about compost markets refer to
Markets for Compost (November 1993).
QUESTION: What percentage of yard trimmings are recycled in centralized
municipal compost piles?
ANSWER: EPA has estimated that 32.8 million tons of yard trimmings were
generated in 1993. Approximately 19.8 percent (or 6.5 million tons) of the
1993 quantity of yard trimmings were managed in centralized municipal
compost facilities (Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 1994 Update. November, 1994). Many yard trimmings are also
managed in backyard compost heaps. Since 1988, private and public compost
facilities have increased from about 700 to 3,100 in 1994. (January 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units to Generator
Accumulation Units"
QUESTION: A treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) stores
hazardous waste in permitted storage units. The owner or operator wishes to
convert some of the permitted storage units into generator 90-day
accumulation units used to manage wastes that are generated on site. What
requirements must the owner or operator comply with before a permitted unit
may operate as a generator 90-day accumulation unit?
ANSWER: Generally, an owner or operator removing a unit from the
jurisdiction of a RCRA permit must first close the unit in accordance with all
of the applicable closure provisions for permitted units. In this case, since the
converted units will continue to store hazardous waste, conversion will not
16
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
trigger closure requirements because the unit will not have received its final
volume of hazardous waste (40 CFR §264.113(a)). Once the unit receives waste for
the last time, the owner or operator must comply with the more stringent
permitted closure provisions in 40 CFR Part 264 (Subpart G and the unit specific
closure provisions), rather than the closure provisions for generator accumulation
units referenced in §262.34(a). In addition, the owner or operator must maintain
financial assurance pursuant to Part 264, Subpart H, until closure of the unit is
complete (57 FR 37254; August 18,1992). To indicate that hazardous waste
management activities in the converted unit are no longer covered by the facility's
permit, the facility must submit the appropriate permit modification.
Owners or operators converting interim status units to 90-day accumulation units
also need not begin final closure until after the final receipt of hazardous waste (40
CFR §265.113(a)). Upon final closure, the owner or operator must comply with
the interim status closure provisions in Part 265 (Subpart G and the unit specific
closure provisions). As with permitted TSDFs, the owner or operator of interim
status facilities must maintain financial assurance pursuant to Part 264, Subpart H,
until final closure is completed. (January 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Corrective action; interim
status; treatment,
storage, and disposal
facility
"Corrective Action Beyond Interim Status Facility Boundary"
QUESTION: RCRA §3004(v) requires owners/operators of permitted hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to perform corrective
action for any contamination that has migrated beyond the facility boundary.
What authorities can EPA use to order corrective action for releases which have
migrated beyond the boundary of an interim status facility?
ANSWER: EPA can invoke §3008(h) or §7003 authority to address releases that
have migrated beyond an interim status facility boundary. Pursuant to §3008(h),
EPA can order corrective action or bring suit for the "release of hazardous waste
into the environment" from a facility that is interim status, should have had
interim status, or formerly had interim status. This includes authority for releases
which have migrated beyond the facility boundary. Although §3008(h) does not
explicitly state that EPA can order corrective action beyond an interim status
facility boundary, EPA interprets the §3008(h) statutory authority to be at least as
broad as the permitted facility corrective action authorities in §§3004(u) and (v)
(50 FR 28716; July 15,1985). Thus, because §3004(v) explicitly provides authority
for corrective action beyond a permitted facility boundary, §3008(h) provides
parallel authority for releases beyond an interim status boundary.
Section 7003 gives EPA the power to order corrective action or bring suit to abate
imminent and substantial endangerment caused by the past or present handling,
storage, treatment, transport, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste. This
broad and powerful authority is not limited to any particular kind of RCRA site.
Section 7003 is, therefore, also potentially applicable to contamination which has
17
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
migrated beyond the boundary of an interim status facility. (January 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Groundwater monitoring;
sampling; statistical
analysis
"Resampling and Groundwater Monitoring Notification Requirements"
QUESTION: As part of the groundwater monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part
264, Subpart F, owners/operators of permitted hazardous waste landfills, surface
impoundments, waste piles, or land treatment units must implement a detection
monitoring program. Under this program, an owner/operator samples the
groundwater at least semi-annually for permit-specific indicator parameters and
waste constituents, monitoring for statistically significant evidence of a release
from the unit (§§264.98(a) and (b)). If the owner/operator determines that such
evidence exists, she is required to notify the Regional Administrator in writing
within seven days and immediately sample the groundwater for hazardous
constituents listed in Part 264, Appendix DC, noting the concentration of any listed
constituents detected (§§264.98(g)(l) and (2)). The owner/operator has the option
to resample the groundwater within one month and repeat the analysis for the
hazardous constituents (§264.98(g)(3)). The owner/operator is required to submit
to the Regional Administrator an application for a permit modification to establish
a compliance monitoring program within 90 days (§264.98(g)(4)). If the owner/
operator chooses to resample, must she submit her permit modification within 90
days of the initial notification, or the resampling?
ANSWER: Because the determination of the existence of statistically significant
evidence of a release may be affected by the resampling, the owner/operator must
submit any required permit modification within 90 days of the resampling.
However, if the resampling shows that no statistically significant evidence of a
release exists, the owner/operator would not submit a permit modification and
would continue detection monitoring. If the resampling confirms the presence of
statistically significant evidence of a release, the owner/operator must then
submit an application for permit modification within 90 days of the resampling.
Many statistical procedures written into permits to comply with the Part 264,
Subpart F, groundwater monitoring requirements involve verification resampling
and retesting procedures as a means to simultaneously control Type I, or "false
negative," error rates and improve statistical power. With such procedures,
statistically significant evidence of a release from a unit is not necessarily
indicated by a single "statistically significant" exceedance. Instead, the results of
the statistical test are not interpreted until all resampling and retesting activities
have been completed. Thus, an initial exceedance of a prediction limit, for
example, could be followed by a single or double independent resampling and
retesting procedure. Should either the first or second independent retests lie
below the prediction limit, then no statistically significant increase should be
inferred, and the owner/operator may resume detection monitoring without
performing the complete Part 264, Appendix IX, analysis or conducting a permit
18
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
modification. Details of these and other statistical procedures can be found in
Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities —
Addendum to Interim Final Guidance (EPA530-R-93-003), (October 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
Universal Waste
Keywords:
Pesticides; thermostats;
universal waste
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Universal Waste Regulations"
QUESTION: Which hazardous wastes are covered under the universal waste
regulations in 40 CFR Part 273?
ANSWER: Currently, the three specific wastes covered under Part 273 are
hazardous waste batteries (e.g., nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries),
hazardous waste pesticides, and hazardous waste mercury-containing
thermostats (§273.1). Part 273, Subpart G, contains provisions to allow for
other wastes to be added to the universal waste regulations through a
petitioning process. As such, new wastes, such as mercury lamps, may be
added in the future.
QUESTION: Are universal waste handlers required to manage spent lead-
acid batteries under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart G, or under Part 273?
ANSWER: Handlers may actually choose the management standards with
which they will comply. That is, they may either manage their batteries under
the standards provided in Subpart G of Part 266 for spent lead-acid batteries
that are being reclaimed, or they may comply with the universal waste
regulations in Part 273 (60 PR 25505; May 11,1995).
QUESTION: What are the notification requirements for Large Quantity
Handlers of Universal Waste (LQHUW) and Small Quantity Handlers of
Universal Waste (SQHUW)?
ANSWER: The universal waste regulations specify two distinct forms of
notification for handlers of universal waste: a one-time written notification of
universal waste management activity, and the acquisition of an EPA
identification number. SQHUWs are not required to notify EPA of their
universal waste activity, nor are they required to obtain an EPA identification
number (§273.12). LQHUWs, however, must submit the one-time written
notification and must also obtain an EPA identification number (§273.32).
Renotification is not required for a LQHUW who has previously notified EPA
of universal waste management activities and who has already received an
EPA identification number (60 PR 25521; May 11,1995).
19
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
QUESTION: Do the universal waste regulations contain a provision similar to
the generator satellite accumulation provisions in §262.34(c)?
ANSWER: There is no specific provision under Part 273 for satellite
accumulation. However, the universal waste regulations do not limit the location,
or number of locations, at which a handler may accumulate universal wastes.
Thus, a handler may accumulate universal wastes at or near the point of
generation and may do so, in general, for up to one year (60 FR 25527; May 11,
1995). (May 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Used Oil
Keywords:
Processing; recycling;
used oil
"Coolant Recycling and Used Oil Processing"
QUESTION: A used oil generator uses an on-site filtration system to filter
contaminants from metal working oils, commonly known as coolants, in order to
extend the life of these oils. Is such on-site coolant recycling by the used oil
generator considered used oil processing under 40 CFR Part 279?
ANSWER: On-site coolant recycling by a generator is not considered used oil
processing if done in accordance with §279.20(b)(2)(ii). Processing is defined in
§279.1 as, "chemical or physical operations designed to produce from used oil, or
to make used oil more amenable for production of fuel oils, lubricants, or other
used oil-derived product." Processing includes, but is not limited to: blending
used oil with virgin petroleum products, blending used oils to meet the fuel
specification, filtration, simple distillation, chemical or physical separation, and
re-refining. Whether used oil is being processed depends on the purpose for
which the used oil is being filtered, separated, or otherwise reconditioned. These
activities constitute processing if they are intended to produce used oil derived
products or facilitate the burning of used oil for energy recovery.
Coolant recycling, which includes the on-site maintenance, filtering, separation,
reconditioning, or draining of coolants used in machining operations, is intended
to extend the life of the oil and is incidental to the production process. This type
of recycling is incidental or ancillary to a primary processing activity and is not
intended to produce used oil derived products or facilitate burning for energy
recovery. Therefore, EPA did not intend to regulate these practices as used oil
processing (59 FR 10555-6; March 4,1994). Such coolant recycling is not
considered processing as long as the coolant is generated on site and is not being
sent directly off site to a burner of used oil. The generator (or collection center or
aggregation point) must comply with the requirements set forth in
§279.20(b)(2)(ii). (November 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
20
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Keywords:
Chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC); reclamation; used
oil
"Rebuttable Presumption for CFC Contaminated Used Oil"
QUESTION: EPA presumes used oil containing more than 1,000 ppm total
halogens is a hazardous waste because it has been mixed with a listed
halogenated hazardous waste. Used oil generators may rebut this
presumption by demonstrating that the used oil does not contain hazardous
waste (§279.10(b)(l)(ii)). The rebuttable presumption, however, does not
apply to used oils contaminated with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) removed
from refrigeration units when the CFCs in the used oil are "destined for
reclamation" (§279.10(b)(l)(ii)(B)). At what point does this exemption from
the rebuttable presumption apply—at the point of draining from the unit or
only once the CFCs in the used oil have actually been reclaimed?
Additionally, would a generator or handler reclaiming the CFCs from the
used oil be considered a processor, subject to the standards for used oil
processors and re-refiners in Part 279, Subpart F?
ANSWER: A generator handling CFC contaminated used oil is exempt from
the rebuttable presumption at the point of draining, as long as the CFCs are
eventually reclaimed from the used oil to the fullest extent possible, and the
used oil has not been mixed with other wastes or with used oil from other
sources (57 FR 41580; September 10,1992). Although the rebuttable
presumption does not apply, these used oils remain subject to appropriate
Part 279 standards.
In the event the CFCs are not reclaimed, the rebuttable presumption would
have applied at the point of draining from the unit. If the presence of CFCs in
compressor oils removed from refrigeration units causes the used oils to
exceed the 1,000 ppm halogen limit, the oil must be managed as a hazardous
waste unless the presumption of hazardous waste mixing is successfully
rebutted.
On-site CFC reclamation by a used oil generator does not necessarily subject
the generator to the standards for used oil processors. Used oil processing, as
defined in §279.1, involves producing (or making used oil more amenable for
the production of) fuel oils, lubricants or other used oil-derived products.
However, §279.20(b)(2)(ii)(A) provides that generators who filter, clean, or
otherwise recondition used oil before returning it for reuse by the generator
are not processors if the used oil is generated on-site and is not being sent off-
site to a burner of used oil. Furthermore, the used oil/CFC separation process
is generally not designed to make the used oil more amenable for the
production of used oil derived product. Likewise, off-site used oil/CFC
separation by a used oil handler does not necessarily subject the handler to
the standards for used oil processors. Rather, a handler storing used oil on
site for greater than 24 hours but less than 35 days is regulated as a transfer
facility. Only a handler storing the used oil on site for greater than 35 days
would become subject to the processor requirements (§279.45(a)). This is true
21
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
for any transfer facility storing used oil for more than 35 days, regardless of
whether the facility is engaged in CFC reclamation. (December 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Generator; recycling;
used oil
"Recycling Presumption Under Part 279"
QUESTION: According to 40 CFR §279.10(a), used oil handlers are subject to the
Part 279 used oil management standards until the used oil is disposed of or sent
for disposal. How is a used oil generator regulated if he/she sends used oil to a
processor to be recycled, but the processor disposes of it instead? In this
situation, is the generator required to determine if the used oil is hazardous, since
it was not recycled?
ANSWER: No, the generator is not required to conduct a hazardous waste
determination for the used oil originally sent to the processor to be recycled. The
Part 279 used oil management standards are based on a presumption that all
used oil is recyclable and should be managed under one set of standards. Even if
the used oil exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic or will ultimately be
disposed of by a different used oil handler, it is still subject to Part 279 (57 PR
41578; September 10,1992). The recycling presumption allows a used oil handler
or any other person who handles the oil prior to the person who decides to
dispose of the oil, to presume that his/her used oil will be recycled regardless of
its final disposition.
Once a used oil handler determines the used oil will be sent for disposal, he/she
must conduct a hazardous waste determination pursuant to §262.11. Since used
oil is not a listed hazardous waste under RCRA, it would be subject to all
applicable Subtitle C regulations if it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic.
Additionally, the recycling presumption and the Part 279 standards do not apply
if the used oil is mixed with a listed hazardous waste (except for a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator (40 CFR §279.10(b)(3)), or mixed with a
characteristic hazardous waste which does not meet the provisions of
§279.10(b)(2). In either of these situations, the used oil/hazardous waste mixture
would be subject to Subtitle C regulation.
Finally, not all of the federal Part 279 standards are effective in every state. Used
oil handlers should contact their state agencies for specific regulatory
requirements which could, potentially, be more stringent than the federal
standards. (November 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
22
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Keywords:
Burning; state programs;
used oil
"State Authorization and Used Oil Recycled Through Some Other Means
Than Burning For Energy Recovery"
QUESTION: In a state where the 40 CFR Part 279 used oil management
standards are not in effect, how does Federal EPA regulate generators who
recycle their used oil by sending it to be re-refined?
ANSWER: In states where Part 279 is not in effect, EPA does not regulate
used oil that is recycled in some manner other than by being burned for
energy recovery, including re-refining. On November 29,1985 (50 PR 49164),
EPA established regulations for recycled used oil that is burned for energy
recovery (Part 266, Subpart E). At the same time, the Agency exempted
characteristic used oil from regulation if it was recycled through some other
means than burning for energy recovery (§261.6(a)(3)(iii)).
On September 10,1992 (57 PR 41566), the Agency established a new program
in Part 279 expanding the regulation of used oil recycling activities to include
other methods than burning for energy recovery. The Agency also repealed
§261.6(a)(3)(iii), and replaced it with a new provision that exempts recycled
used oil from the requirements of Parts 260 through 268 and subjects it to Part
279 (§261.6(a)(4)). Since Part 279 has been treated similarly to regulations
promulgated under the authority of a non-HSWA statutory requirement, the
Part 279 regulations are only in effect in unauthorized states and states with
EPA-approved programs.
Unlike the newer Part 279 regulations, the Part 266, Subpart E and
§261.6(a)(3)(iii) regulatory program was effective in all states, regardless of the
state's authorization status. Although the Agency repealed Part 266, Subpart
E, when it promulgated Part 279, in states that have not modified their state
program to adopt Part 279, the pre-1992 exemption for used oil recycled
through some other means than burning for energy recovery may still apply.
In these states, generators who recycle used oil through methods that do not
involve burning for energy recovery, including re-refining, are not regulated.
Finally, states may have additional used oil regulations. Regardless of the
effective status of the federal regulations in Part 279 and Part 266, Subpart E,
used oil handlers should refer to their appropriate state agency for any further
used oil regulatory requirements. (November 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
23
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Waste
Identification
Keywords:
Commercial chemical
product; hazardous waste
identification; solid waste
definition
"Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for Solid Waste Determination
vs. Hazardous Waste Identification"
QUESTION: An instrument manufacturer has off-specification mercury
thermometers which it wishes to either discard or reclaim. Under 40 CFR §261.2,
the definition of solid waste, "commercial chemical products" such as
thermometers being reclaimed are not solid waste and therefore cannot be
hazardous waste (§261.2(c)(3) and §261.3). Under §261.33, the P and U lists of
hazardous wastes, "commercial chemical products" containing mercury as a sole
active ingredient are characterized as U151, a listed waste (§§261.33(d), 261.33(f)).
What is the difference between the definition of commercial chemical product for
the purposes of the definition of solid waste and the P and U lists of hazardous
waste, and given the relative difference, would the thermometers be subject to
hazardous waste regulation if reclaimed or discarded?
ANSWER: The phrase "commercial chemical product" has different meanings in
the definition of solid waste and the definition of hazardous waste. As applied to
§261.2, the definition of solid waste, EPA interprets the category of commercial
chemical products to include all types of unused commercial products, whether or
not they would commonly be considered chemicals (e.g., circuit boards, batteries,
and other types of equipment). Although §261.2(c)(3), Table 1, applies this
provision to "commercial chemical products listed in 40 CFR 261.33," EPA
interprets the definition to also include commercial chemical products that are not
listed in §261.33, but exhibit one or more characteristic of hazardous waste (50 PR
14219; April 11,1985).
For the purposes of the P and U lists of hazardous wastes, however, EPA intended
to include in the P and U lists only those commercial chemical products and
manufacturing chemical intermediates known by the generic chemical name listed
in §261.33. EPA considers the P and U list definition of commercial chemical
product to exclude manufactured articles such as thermometers or fluorescent
lamps (45 FR 78541; November 25,1980). Therefore, manufactured articles that
contain a P or U listed chemical would not be considered a listed waste when
discarded in an unused form.
If the thermometers in question are to be reclaimed, they would be considered
commercial chemical products being reclaimed for the purposes of the definition
of solid waste, and, thus, would not be a solid waste. Since a material must be a
solid waste in order to be considered a hazardous waste, the thermometers
destined for reclamation could not be regulated as a hazardous waste (§261.3). If
the thermometers are to be discarded, then they would be a solid waste and the
manufacturer must then consider whether the off-specification thermometers are
listed or characteristic hazardous waste (§262.11). Mercury thermometers are not
among the process- and industry-specific wastes found in the F and K lists in
24
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
§§261.31 and 261.32. The thermometers would not meet the P or U listing
criteria because they are considered manufactured articles, not commercial
chemical products for the purposes of hazardous waste, as explained above.
As a result, the thermometers would not be regulated as U151, and would
only be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste if they exhibited a
characteristic of a hazardous waste found in Part 261, Subpart C. (August
1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Exclusion; hazardous
waste identification;
mixture rule
"Exclusion of Laboratory Wastes from the Mixture Rule"
QUESTION: A facility has a laboratory that generates a variety of listed
wastes. The laboratory generates wastes listed because they are toxic wastes
(with a Hazard Code of (T)), as well as acutely hazardous wastes (with a
Hazard Code of (H)). In addition, the laboratory generates wastes which are
listed because they are both toxic wastes and commonly exhibit the hazardous
waste characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity (e.g., with a
Hazard Code of (I,T), (C,T), or (R,T)). The laboratory discharges all of these
listed wastes into the facility's wastewater treatment system. The mixture rule
exempts from Subtitle C certain wastes from laboratory operations that are
discharged to wastewater treatment systems (40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E)).
Specifically, this section notes that mixtures of laboratory wastes listed for
being toxic (T) and large volumes of other wastewaters cease to carry the
listing after they pass the headworks of the wastewater treatment system. Are
the laboratory's wastes that are listed because they are acutely hazardous (H)
or toxic and characteristic ((I,T), (C,T), or (R,T)) also exempt from the mixture
rule?
ANSWER: Wastes listed for being acutely hazardous (H) or both toxic and
characteristic ((I,T), (C,T) or (R,T)) are also eligible for the wastewater
treatment exemption from the mixture rule provided that the wastewater flow
meets all the other conditions of §261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E) (i.e., the concentration of
laboratory wastes is less than 1 ppm of the total wastewater flow into the
headworks of the wastewater treatment facility or the laboratory contributes
less than 1 percent of the flow into the headworks). This exemption does not
apply, however, to wastewaters which were listed solely because they exhibit
a characteristic (e.g., a Hazard Code of (I) only). If wastes which were listed
solely for exhibiting a characteristic were mixed with other solid wastes, such
as a wastewater, and ceased to exhibit any characteristic they would, however,
no longer be considered hazardous wastes (§261.3(a)(2)(iii)).
Pursuant to the derived-from rule, sludges generated from the treatment of
listed wastes normally carry the same listings as the original wastes
(§§261.3(c) and (d)). Since laboratory wastewaters with Hazard Codes of (T),
(H), (I,T), (C,T), or (R,T) cease to carry any listing under §261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E),
sludges generated from the treatment of these wastewaters would not carry
25
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
the listings of the laboratory wastes. If the sludges exhibited any
characteristics of a hazardous waste (including the characteristics for which
the waste may have been listed), or if the sludges were derived from any non-
laboratory listed wastes not otherwise excluded, they would have to be
handled as hazardous. (May 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Hazardous waste
identification; PCBs;
toxicity characteristic;
TSCA interface
"PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes"
QUESTION: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are organic chemicals often
used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other
electrical equipment. Generally, the management of these substances is
regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), according to
regulations found at 40 CFR Parts 700-799. Are PCB wastes subject to RCRA
Subtitle C regulation as well?
ANSWER: Subtitle C regulations apply to PCB wastes only if they are RCRA
hazardous wastes. Wastes are hazardous under RCRA if they are listed on
one of four hazardous waste lists or if they exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste. Discarded, unused PCBs are not listed as commercial
chemical product hazardous wastes on the P or U lists found in 40 CFR
§261.33. PCB wastestreams are likewise not specifically among the process-
and industry-specific hazardous wastes found in the F and K lists in §§261.31
and 261.32. It is possible that PCBs will be present as incidental contaminants
in wastes that are themselves listed as hazardous. For example, solvents are
often used to remove PCBs from transformers. These solvents, when spent,
could be F001 through F005 listed solvents. In this case, the entire
wastestream, including the PCBs, would be regulated as listed hazardous
wastes.
Wastes are also regulated under RCRA when they exhibit one or more of four
characteristics of hazardous wastes: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity (§§261.21-261.24). Typically, fluids and materials regulated as PCBs
under TSCA would not exhibit these characteristics. However, in a rare case,
a PCB waste could exhibit ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity, and thus be
subject to Subtitle C regulation.
PCBs are not among the 39 different elements and compounds which can
cause a waste to exhibit the toxicity characteristic (TC) under §261.24, but any
waste containing PCBs could potentially exhibit the TC for another
contaminant, e.g., chlorinated benzenes. To deal with this possibility and
avoid dual TSCA/RCRA regulation, certain PCB-containing wastes that
exhibit the toxicity characteristic are explicitly exempted from RCRA
requirements. Section 261.8 exempts from RCRA Subtitle C regulation PCB-
containing dielectric fluid and the electric equipment which holds such fluid
if they satisfy two criteria. First, these PCB wastes must be regulated under
26
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
the TSCA standards of Part 761. Second, only the PCB wastes which exhibit
the TC for an organic constituent (waste codes D018-43) may qualify for the
exemption.
If a PCB-containing waste exhibits a RCRA characteristic or matches a listing
description, and does not qualify for the §261.8 exemption, that waste is
subject to all applicable Subtitle C regulations. These include manifesting,
treatment, storage, disposal, and recordkeeping requirements. Some PCB-
containing hazardous wastes may also be subject to the RCRA land disposal
restrictions. For example, PCB wastes that may be subject to LDR include
liquid hazardous wastes containing PCBs at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm (RCRA §3004(d)(2)(D)), or hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds in total concentrations greater than or equal
to 1,000 mg/kg (RCRA §3004(d)(2)(E)). (September 1996 Monthly Hotline
Report)
27
-------
28
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Applicability
Keywords:
Pump; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Applicability of the 40 CFR Part 280
Underground Storage Tank Regulations"
QUESTION: The Part 280 regulations apply to owners and/or operators of
UST systems. How are UST systems defined?
ANSWER: An UST system, or tank system, means an underground storage
tank, connected underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and
containment system, if any (§280.12).
QUESTION: Would the pump attached to an UST be considered part of that
tank system, and therefore subject to Part 280?
ANSWER: If underground, the pump meets the definition of ancillary
equipment, which includes, but is not limited to, piping, fittings, flanges,
valves, and pumps used to distribute, meter, or control the flow of regulated
substances to and from an UST and is subject to the regulations (§280.12).
QUESTION: Is there an exclusion from the Part 280 regulations for an UST of
a certain size?
ANSWER: Yes, any UST system with capacity of 110 gallons or less is
excluded from the requirements of Part 280 (§280.10).
QUESTION: To be subject to Part 280, USTs must contain "regulated
substances." What is a regulated substance under the UST regulations?
ANSWER: A regulated substance is any substance defined in §101(14) of
CERCLA (but does not include any substance regulated as a hazardous waste
under Subtitle C), and petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof
that is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (§280.12).
QUESTION: How is an UST storing fuel for use in emergency power
generators regulated?
ANSWER: An UST storing fuel solely for use by emergency power
generators is deferred from the release detection requirements in Subpart D of
Part 280 (§280.10). Owners and operators of these systems, however, must
comply with the requirements in all other subparts of Part 280 (September 23,
1986; 53 FR 37113).
QUESTION: Would an UST at a residence be subject to Part 280 regulations?
ANSWER: A farm or residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for
storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes is not included in the
29
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
definition of an UST, and would therefore not be subject to the Part 280 regulations
(§280.12).
QUESTION: If an UST is storing heating oil, is it subject to the Part 280
regulations?
ANSWER: The UST is not subject to the Part 280 regulations if the heating oil is
stored for consumptive use on the premises where stored (§280.12). Consumptive
use includes heating as a typical use of the fuels, but does not limit the exclusion
to fuels so used. Tanks holding heating oil for any on-site use, such as heating or
to power a generator, are exempted from federal regulation (September 23,1986;
53 FR 37117). State and local regulations may be more stringent. (June 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
Financial
Responsibility
Keywords:
Financial responsibility;
underground storage
tank (UST)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Underground Storage Tank (UST) Financial
Responsibility"
QUESTION: When a new UST is installed, does the owner/operator have any
financial responsibility notification requirements?
ANSWER: Within 30 days of bringing a new UST into use, UST owners/
operators must submit a new tank notification form to their state or local
implementing agency. As a part of this notification, they must demonstrate
financial responsibility for the newly installed UST (40 CFR §280.110(b)).
QUESTION: For which financial responsibility mechanisms must an UST owner/
operator also establish a standby trust fund?
ANSWER: According to 40 CFR §280.103, UST owners/operators must establish a
standby trust fund when using a guarantee (§280.96), a surety bond (§280.98), or a
letter of credit (§280.99). Standby trust funds are deposit mechanisms into which
funds are placed in the event that the owner/operator is unable or unwilling to
pay for corrective action or liability claims.
QUESTION: What constitutes "bodily injury" and "property damage" for
purposes of UST financial liability coverage?
ANSWER: As described in 40 CFR §280.92, "bodily injury" and "property
damage" for purposes of UST financial liability coverage have the meaning given
to them by applicable state law. These terms do not include liabilities which,
consistent with standard insurance industry practices, are excluded from coverage
in liability insurance policies for bodily injury and/or property damage.
30
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
QUESTION: The UST liability coverage per occurrence and annual aggregate
amounts are set at levels between $500,000 and $2 million depending on the type
of UST facility and the number of tanks owned and/or operated. Do these
amounts limit an owner/operator's overall liability?
ANSWER: The required per occurrence and annual aggregate amounts do not in
any way limit the liability of an UST owner/operator (40 CFR §280.93(h)).
QUESTION: When is an UST owner/operator no longer required to comply with
the financial responsibility provisions of 40 CFR Part 280?
ANSWER: After proper UST closure has been completed, or after any necessary
UST corrective action and subsequent closure have been completed (§280.113),
UST owners/operators are not required to maintain UST financial responsibility.
(September 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Financial responsibility;
insurance; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Use of insurance and State Funds to Fulfill UST Financial Responsibility"
QUESTION: Owners and/or operators of petroleum underground storage tank
(UST) systems are required to demonstrate financial responsibility for corrective
action by using the mechanisms outlined in 40 CFR Subpart H. Insurance policies
(§280.97) and state funds (§280.101) are two of the methods that may be used to
fulfill this requirement. However, these mechanisms often include deductible
amounts that must be paid by the tank owner. Could a one million dollar
insurance plan or state fund that includes a deductible serve as the sole means of
demonstrating UST financial responsibility, or does an owner or operator need to
obtain additional coverage for the deductible amount?
ANSWER: A single insurance policy that covers the entire $1 million or $2
million sum may be used to demonstrate financial responsibility. EPA alleviated
the problem of an uncovered deductible by requiring that insurance for
underground storage tanks provide "first dollar" coverage (§280.97(b)(2)). In
other words, insurers are liable for the entire sum of the policy including the
amount of the deductible. This does not preclude them from allotting such a
charge, it simply makes it the insurer's responsibility to recover the deductible
amount from the policy holder. This type of coverage ensures that corrective
actions will not be stalled or halted because an owner or operator cannot meet the
deductible (53 FR 43349; October 26,1988).
State funds may also be used as the sole method of demonstrating financial
responsibility if they provide for the full sum required, though this is often not the
case. For example, many state funds apply deductibles without providing first
dollar coverage. In these cases, the state funds can be approved as partial
financial responsibility mechanisms, but owners and/or operators must use an
additional device (like a surety bond) to cover the difference (53 FR 43354;
October 26,1988). (June 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
31
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Keywords:
Financial responsibility;
trust fund; underground
storage tank (UST)
"UST Financial Responsibility and Insolvent State Trust Funds"
QUESTION: Owners and operators of underground storage tanks (USTs)
regulated under 40 CFR Part 280 must maintain financial responsibility for
releases from their tanks (§280.93). UST owners and operators may
demonstrate financial responsibility by obtaining coverage from a state fund
that has been EPA-approved or submitted for EPA approval under §280.101.
EPA Regional Offices have the authority to revoke the approval of a state's
fund if the Region determines that the fund is no longer solvent. In such a
circumstance, the state must then send a notice to those UST owners and
operators, informing them that the state fund is no longer an acceptable
mechanism for complying with the financial responsibility requirements. If,
after receiving such notice, owners and operators commence UST temporary
or final closure activities, will they still be subject to the federal UST financial
responsibility requirements?
ANSWER: All owners and operators of regulated USTs, including those in
states with insolvent funds, are subject to the Part 280 financial responsibility
requirements, regardless of whether or not they commence UST temporary or
final closure activities. UST owners and operators must maintain financial
responsibility for all regulated tanks until the tanks have been properly closed
or, if corrective action is required, until after corrective action has been
completed and the tank has been closed in accordance with the requirements
of Part 280, Subpart G. The act of commencing temporary or final closure
procedures does not release UST owners or operators from their responsibility
to maintain financial assurance through an approved mechanism.
Owners and operators of regulated USTs must obtain alternate financial
assurance within 30 days from the date that they received notification from
the state that their coverage under the state fund will no longer be acceptable
as a financial responsibility mechanism (§280.110). Affected UST owners and
operators may obtain alternate financial responsibility by using any one of the
mechanisms listed in §§280.95 through 280.107. (March 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Financial responsibility;
petroleum; underground
storage tank (UST)
"UST Financial Responsibility and the Definition of Petroleum Marketer"
QUESTION: Owners and/or operators of petroleum underground storage
tanks (USTs) are required to demonstrate financial responsibility in both per
occurrence and annual aggregate amounts. Owners and/or operators of
petroleum USTs located at petroleum marketing facilities, or that handle an
average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month based on annual
throughput for the previous calendar year, must demonstrate $1 million in per
32
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
occurrence coverage (§280.93(a)(l)). On the other hand, owners and/or operators
of petroleum USTs located at non-marketing facilities that handle an average of
less than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month based on annual throughput for
the previous calendar year, are only required to demonstrate $500,000 in per
occurrence coverage. Petroleum marketing facilities include all facilities from
which petroleum is sold or transferred to other petroleum marketers or to the
public (§280.92). Based on this definition, if a private boating club sells petroleum
to its members only, is it considered a marketer or non-marketer for purposes of
determining UST financial responsibility per occurrence coverage?
ANSWER: The private boating club is considered a non-marketer. Because the
boating club's members are part of a restricted group (and hence not the general
public), the sale of petroleum to "members only" does not constitute the sale of
petroleum to the public at large. This situation is analogous to the interpretation
that rental car facilities that sell gasoline only to renters (also members of a
restricted group), are not considered marketers selling petroleum to the public at
large (53 ES 43330; October 26,1988).
The private boating club, therefore, would be considered a non-marketer, and
assuming the club handled an average of less than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per
month based on annual throughput for the previous year, the owner and/or
operator would have to demonstrate only $500,000 in per occurrence financial
responsibility coverage. If, on the other hand, the boating club handled an
average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month based on annual
throughput for the previous year, the owner and/or operator would have to
demonstrate $1 million in per occurrence financial responsibility coverage.
(February 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Corporate guarantee;
financial responsibility;
underground storage tank
(UST)
"UST Financial Responsibility: Use of the Guarantee When the Guarantor is
Not U.S.-based"
QUESTION: Owners and operators of petroleum underground storage tanks
(USTs) are required to demonstrate financial responsibility using one of the
mechanisms in 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart H. The use of a corporate guarantee,
which allows an owner or operator to secure a guarantee from another firm, is an
allowable mechanism (§280.96). To act as a guarantor, the firm must either posses
a controlling interest in the owner or operator, be controlled through stock
ownership by a common parent firm possessing a controlling interest in the
owner or operator, or have a substantial business relationship with the owner or
operator (§280.96(a)). If a foreign company meets one of these criteria, can the
company qualify as a guarantor for a company based in the U.S.?
ANSWER: Any company can qualify as a guarantor if the company passes either
of the two options for the financial test requirements of the guarantee. The
guarantor may fulfill either the UST financial test of self-insurance requirements
33
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
(§280.950?)), or a modified version of the requirements of the treatment,
storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) financial test for liability coverage as
described in §280.95(c).
The first option for passing the financial test, under §280.95(b), requires the
guarantor to demonstrate a tangible net worth of at least $10 million and have
a tangible net worth of at least 10 rimes the amount of aggregate and liability
coverage required. The guarantor must also file financial statements annually
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Energy Information
Administration, or the Rural Electrification Administration; or report annually
the firm's tangible net worth to Dun and Bradstreet and have been assigned a
financial strength rating of 4A or 5A. If the company's year-end financial
statements are independently audited, they cannot include an adverse
auditor's opinion, a disclaimer of opinion, or a "going concern" qualification.
The company's chief financial officer must also provide a signed letter
verifying the information required above (§280.95(d)).
Companies have a second option of passing the financial test under
§280.95(c). This financial test criteria requires the guarantor to have a tangible
net worth of at least $10 million, tangible net worth of at least six times the
amount of liability coverage required, and assets in the U.S. amounting to at
least 90 percent of their total assets or at least six times the required liability
amount. The guarantor must also have either a net working capital of at least
six times the amount of liability coverage required or have a bond rating
AAA, AA, A, or BBB from Standard and Poor's, or a bond rating of Aaa, Aa,
A, or Baa as issued by Moody's. The company's year-end financial statements
must be examined by an independent certified public accountant. The
company's chief financial officer must also provide a signed letter verifying
the information required above and the company must meet a few other
requirements of §280.95 to ensure the information is accurate and complete.
As long as the foreign company passes one of the financial tests described
above, the company may qualify as a guarantor. (April 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Leak Detection
Keywords:
Leak detection;
underground storage
tank (UST)
"Automatic Tank Gauging Requirements"
QUESTION: Owners and/or operators of underground storage tanks (USTs)
must comply with release detection requirements in 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart
D. Effective leak detection for USTs allows owners and/or operators to
respond quickly to signs of leaks. Owners and/or operators of petroleum
USTs may use an automatic tank gauging system (ATGS) as an acceptable
method for compliance with monthly leak detection requirements
(§280.41(a)). An ATGS can test for leaks and can also be used to measure
34
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
product inventory. If an owner and/or operator conducts monthly leak detection
using an ATGS, will a daily product inventory measurement need to be taken as
well?
ANSWER: All ATGS permanently installed on or after December 22,1990, must
be capable of detecting a 0.2 gallon per hour leak rate within a month with a
probability of detection (Pd) of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm (Pfa) of 0.05
(§280.40(a)(3)). An ATGS, or any other alternative leak detection method
(§280.43(h)(l)), capable of meeting these performance standards would obviate
the regulatory requirements for inventory control under §280.43(d), including the
need for the owner and/or operator to conduct a daily product inventory
measurement.
However, an owner and/or operator using an ATGS not meeting the Pd/Pfa
requirements will need to conduct and record a product inventory measurement
or use another test of equivalent performance every day that fuel is added or
removed from the UST. This daily measurement is required in addition to testing
for the loss of product each month (§280.43(d)(2)). Records documenting
monitoring activities, whether recorded automatically by the ATGS or manually
by the owner and/or operator, must be maintained for at least one year (§280.45).
Owners and/or operators of USTs should contact their state or implementing
agency to determine if more stringent regulations apply. (June 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Leak detection;
secondary containment;
underground storage
tank (UST)
"Differences in Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection Requirements"
QUESTION: Although petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) and
hazardous substance USTs are subject to many similar technical standards under
40 CFR Part 280, the requirements differ significantly with regard to leak
detection. What are these distinctions?
ANSWER: The leak detection requirements for hazardous substance tanks are
more stringent than those for petroleum tanks. Owners and operators of
petroleum tanks can choose from the variety of leak detection systems found in
§280.43. New hazardous substance tanks (those installed after December 22,
1988), on the other hand, must be equipped with secondary containment systems
and interstitial monitoring devices (§280.42(b)). Existing hazardous substance
tanks (those installed before December 22,1988) may meet the requirements for
petroleum tanks. However, by December 22,1998, these existing tanks must be
upgraded to meet the same leak detection standards as new hazardous substance
tanks (§280.42(a)). This stricter regulation of hazardous substance tanks is based
on the premise that hazardous substances that have leaked into the soil are more
difficult to detect and to clean up than petroleum leaks (September 23,1988; 53
FB 37082,37155).
35
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
In order to meet the stricter requirements, owners and operators of hazardous
substance tanks must install secondary containment systems for their tanks.
This system may consist of double walled tanks, external liners, or vaults, and
must be equipped with interstitial monitoring to detect leaks (§280.42(b)). All
underground piping for hazardous substance tanks also must be equipped
with secondary containment devices (§280.42(b)(4)). A facility may use
alternate release detection methods if it receives a site-specific variance from
the implementing agency (§280.42(b)(5)).
On the other hand, owners and operators of petroleum tanks can choose a
leak detection system from those found in §280.43. These options include
inventory control and tank tightness testing, manual tank gauging and tank
tightness testing, automatic tank gauging, vapor monitoring, groundwater
monitoring, and statistical inventory reconciliation (§§280.43(d)-(h)).
Suctioned or pressurized piping in these systems must meet leak detection
requirements similar to those for the tank (§280.41(b)). In addition, states may
have more stringent UST leak detection standards than the federal
requirements. (March 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Tank
Requirements
Keywords:
Petroleum; release
reporting; underground
storage tank (UST)
"Release Reporting Requirements for Underground Storage Tanks"
QUESTION: An operator of an underground storage tank (UST) accidentally
overfills his tank, resulting in a 5-gallon spill of petroleum. According to the
federal UST regulations of 40 CFR Part 280, owners and operators of UST
systems who contain and immediately clean up petroleum spills or overfills of
less than 25 gallons do not have to report the spills to their implementing
agency (§280.53(b)). However, §280.61(a) states that aU releases from UST
systems must be reported to the implementing agency. What is the; difference
between these two provisions, and which provisions would apply to the
operator in this case?
ANSWER: The operator of the UST would not have to report the 5-gallon
aboveground spill of petroleum to his implementing agency provided he
contains and immediately cleans up the spill. The provisions of §280.53
pertain specifically to aboveground spills and overfills from an UST, whereas
the release reporting requirements of §280.61 (a) pertain specifically to
underground releases from USTs (53 PR 37172,37176; September 23,1988).
According to §280.53(a), all spills and overfills of petroleum from an UST
which result in a release to the environment that exceeds 25 gallons, and all
spills and overfills of a hazardous substance which result in a release to the
environment that equals or exceeds its reportable quantity under CERCLA,
must be reported to the implementing agency. Any spill or overfill of
petroleum from an UST that is less than 25 gallons, or any spill or overfill of a
36
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
r^l
T3rtM3
hazardous substance that is less than its reportable quantity, need not be reported
to the implementing agency provided that the owner or operator of the UST
contains and immediately cleans up the spill or overfill (§280.53(b)). Any
underground release of petroleum or a hazardous substance, however, must be
reported to the implementing agency regardless of the volume of the release
(§280.61(a)). In addition, states may have more stringent UST reporting
requirements than the federal requirements. (October 1996 Monthly Hotline
Report)
Keywords:
Corrosion protection;
spills/spill prevention,
underground storage
tank (UST)
"Replacement Equipment for Existing Underground Storage Tanks"
QUESTION: The RCRA underground storage tank (UST) regulations in 40 CFR
Part 280 provide tank design and operating standards to prevent leaks of
petroleum into the environment. To that end, the regulations provide corrosion,
spill, and overfill protection standards with which USTs must comply. New tanks,
those installed after December 22,1988 (as defined in §280.12), must meet these
standards at installation. Existing tanks, or those installed prior to December 22,
1988, either must upgrade their tanks to meet these requirements or close by
December 22,1998 (§§280.20 and .21). If a pipe on an existing UST is being
replaced, will such replacement subject the existing tank system to the corrosion
protection and spill and overfill protection requirements at that time because the
new components were installed after December 22,1988, and are therefore viewed
as a new tank system?
ANSWER: The replacement of a part does not require the entire existing tank
system to meet the upgrade requirements (i.e., corrosion protection and spill and
overfill protection). Existing UST systems do not have to meet these requirements
until December 22,1998 (§280.21). New components of existing tank systems,
however, are required to meet the standards for new UST systems, because the
new components were installed after December 22,1988, and are therefore viewed
as a new tank system. The replacement pipe, therefore, would need to be
protected from corrosion if it routinely contained product and was in contact with
the soil.
In order to meet the corrosion protection requirements, the replacement pipe must
be constructed of either fiberglass-reinforced plastic, cathodically-protected steel
with corrosion-resistant coating, metal without corrosion protection if a corrosion
expert has determined that the site will not cause the pipe to leak due to corrosion
during the active life of the unit, or an alternative design approved by the
implementing agency (§280.20(b)). In addition, the owner and/or operator of the
UST must maintain records demonstrating such compliance (§280.34(b)).
For more information on corrosion protection, owners and operators may contact
the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), the American Petroleum
Institute (API), or similar trade associations. Further, UST owners and operators
37
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
should consult their implementing agencies, as some states may have more
stringent requirements. (March 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Spills/spill prevention;
underground storage
tank (UST)
Upgrading
Keywords:
Closure; underground
storage tank (UST);
upgrading
38
"Underground Storage Tank Spill Catchment Basin Size Requirement"
QUESTION: Owners/operators of underground storage tank (UST) systems
must comply with the spill and overfill requirements in 40 CFR Part 280,
Subpart B. New and existing UST systems must prevent spilling and
overfilling associated with product transfer by complying with equipment
standards under §280.20. An owner/operator of an UST is using a spill
catchment basin to comply with the spill prevention requirements
(§280.20(c)(l)(i)). Do the UST regulations specify a size for this spill
catchment basin?
ANSWER: The UST regulations do not specify a size for spill catchment
basins, but rather, establish a performance-based standard. The design and
size of the spill catchment basin should be of sufficient size to contain spills
and prevent releases to the environment (§280.20(c)(l)(i) and 53 PR 37134;
September 23,1988). EPA originally proposed that catchment basins should
be large enough to contain the volume of the transfer hose (52 PR 12779;
April 17,1987). This language was modified in the September 23,1988, final
rule to allow the appropriate volume of the catchment basin to be determined
case by case. EPA also allows the use of alternative devices to prevent spills if
they are approved by the implementing agency (§280.20(c)(2)(i)). In addition,
EPA does not require spill or overfill prevention equipment when the UST
system is filled by transfers of no more than 25 gallons of regulated substances
at one time (§280.20(c)(2)(ii)). The state or implementing agency should be
contacted to determine if more stringent regulations are in place in a
particular jurisdiction. (October 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
"Closure Requirements for Tanks Not Upgraded by 1998"
QUESTION: Existing underground storage tanks (USTs) (i.e., tanks installed
before December 22,1988) must meet certain spill, overfill, and corrosion
protection requirements by December 22,1998. An owner/operator who does
not upgrade or replace an UST by this date must close the existing UST
according to 40 CFR, Part 280, Subpart G (§280.21(a)). If an owner/operator
chooses to permanently close the UST, when must the closure be completed?
ANSWER: Permanent closure of the UST must be completed by
December 22,1998 (§280.21(a)(3)). To perform permanent closure under
Subpart G, the owner/operator must notify the regulatory authority at least
30 days before the UST is taken out of service for closure or replacement. The
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
tanks must be emptied and cleaned of liquids, dangerous vapor levels, and
accumulated sludge, and can either be removed from the ground or filled
with a harmless and chemically inactive solid. The owner/operator must
perform a site assessment to determine if releases from the UST have
contaminated the surrounding environment; however, vapor or groundwater
monitoring records may be used in lieu of the site assessment to determine if a
release has occurred (§280.71). If contamination is found during the site
assessment the owner/operator must begin corrective action in accordance
with 40 CFR, Part 280, Subpart F (§280.72(b)); but corrective action itself
would not need to be completed prior to December 22,1998. If the existing
UST has not been upgraded or has not been properly closed by the 1998
deadline, the facility may be cited for violations and fined. States may have
UST closure requirements more stringent than the federal requirements. (July
1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Corrosion protection;
spills/spill prevention;
underground storage
tank (UST); upgrading
"Frequently Asked Questions on Upgrading of Existing Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs)"
QUESTION: The federal underground storage tank (UST) regulations under
40 CFR Part 280 require owners and operators to upgrade, replace, or close
existing USTs, those installed prior to December 22,1988, by December 22,
1998. What are the elements of the federal upgrading requirement?
ANSWER: The upgrading regulations require owners and operators of
existing USTs to retrofit all existing tanks with spill and overfill equipment to
protect against releases during transfers of regulated substances (§280.21(d)).
Owners and operators of existing steel tanks and metal piping must also
install corrosion protection equipment to prevent releases into the
environment (§§280.21(b) and (c)). All existing tank systems must now be
provided with release detection (§280.40).
QUESTION: What are the upgrading requirements for existing USTs
constructed of fiberglass?
ANSWER: Existing fiberglass USTs must meet the upgrading requirements
only for spill and overfill equipment. Existing tanks and piping made out of
fiberglass already meet the corrosion protection upgrading requirements
(§§280.21(b) and (c)).
QUESTION: Do tanks that hold only small amounts of a regulated substance
have to be retrofitted with spill and overfill equipment?
ANSWER: USTs that never receive greater than 25 gallons of a regulated
substance at any one time are exempt from the requirement to be fitted with
spill and overfill equipment (§280.20(c)(2)(ii)).
39
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
QUESTION: What records must an owner or operator keep when an existing
UST is upgraded?
ANSWER: An owner or operator of an existing tank upgraded to meet the
corrosion protection requirements must keep documentation of operation and
maintenance of the corrosion protection equipment (§280.34(b)). If an owner or
operator chooses to close an existing UST instead of upgrading, he or she must
notify the implementing agency 30 days prior to permanent closure and keep
documentation of the results of the site investigation conducted at permanent
closure (§§280.34(a) and (b)). (July 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
40
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
ARARs
Keywords:
CERCLA waste; off-site
rule; remedial action
Liability/
Settlements
Keywords:
Enforcement; settlements
"Determination of Acceptable Facilities to Receive CERCLA Wastes"
QUESTION: According to the off-site rule promulgated on September 22,1993
(59 Eg 49200), all CERCLA wastes transferred off site must be sent to a facility
deemed acceptable to receive CERCLA wastes. These facilities must meet the
acceptability criteria outlined in 40 CFR §300.440(b). CERCLA §120 requires that
all federal agencies comply with the provisions of CERCLA. Can any federal
agency performing remedial actions under CERCLA §120 designate treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities as acceptable to receive CERCLA waste?
ANSWER: The off-site rule implementing §121(d)(3) of CERCLA applies to
CERCLA actions conducted by federal agencies, including those pursuant to §120
of CERCLA. EPA is the only federal agency with the authority to designate
facilities as acceptable to receive CERCLA wastes. Other federal agencies may
suggest appropriate facilities to the EPA Regional Office, but EPA must make the
final determination. (August 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
"Alternative Dispute Resolution"
QUESTION: In 1987, EPA issued the "Final Guidance on Use of Alternative
Dispute Resolution Techniques in Enforcement Actions" endorsing the use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a settlement tool during Superfund
enforcement cases (OWPE Directive 9834.12, PB91-139 303). As part of the
Superfund Administrative Reforms, EPA is emphasizing the use of ADR as a tool
for potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to negotiate settlements for cleanup at
Superfund sites. What is ADR and for what types of cases is ADR used?
ANSWER: ADR encompasses a series of processes that assist parties in resolving
disputes. Central to each method is the use of a mediator or other objective third-
party. ADR is a standard component of EPA's enforcement program, for it has the
potential of lowering the transaction costs for the parties as well as expediting the
enforcement process. Where the parties will have long-term working
relationships, the use of ADR has been found to improve those relationships.
ADR may be particularly suitable for multi-party cases. The use of ADR may
avoid years of litigation between the parties and may save EPA time and
resources needed to take enforcement actions against a large number of parties.
Cases are nominated for ADR by EPA Regional personnel. Before a case is chosen
for ADR, EPA must analyze the case to determine whether ADR may be
appropriate. There must be sufficient case information developed to substantiate
the violations. EPA will also consider whether the case is negotiable, i.e., no
precedent-setting issues are involved. Also, EPA will consider court or statutory
41
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
deadlines in determining whether sufficient time exists to conduct ADR
negotiations.
ADR techniques used by the Agency include several methods such as
mediation, convening, allocation, fact-finding, and arbitration, as described
below.
• Mediation, the primary ADR technique used by EPA, relies on a mediator
to facilitate negotiations among the parties. The mediator has no power
to decide the issues, but assists the parties in reaching a voluntary
negotiated settlement.
• Convening is often used as a prelude to mediation to assist parties in
determining whether to use ADR and in selecting an appropriate ADR
process.
• Allocation is the use of a third party who assists negotiating parties to
determine their relative cost responsibilities for a Superfund site. The
allocator may consider factors such as volume or toxicity of the waste
contributed, ability to pay, the degree of care exercised in handling waste,
and permit violations of the responsible parties, to develop a fair
allocation of the site costs.
• Fact-finding, often used in technical disputes, involves the use of a neutral
third party with subject matter expertise to investigate and decipher
complex data. The decision may or may not be binding depending on the
agreement between the parties. If the parties agree, these findings are
admissible as established facts in subsequent judicial or administrative
hearings.
• Arbitration involves the use of a third party who hears the issues, and
renders a decision. As with fact-finding, the findings may be binding or
non-binding depending upon the parties' agreement. EPA has authority
to enter into arbitration for small cost recovery claims, if the claims do not
exceed $500,000 (CERCLA §122(h)(2)).
EPA seeks parties with certain qualifications including demonstrated
experience, independence, neutrality, and technical expertise. The type of
ADR to be used at a particular site must be decided before negotiations begin
in order to determine the exact role the mediator or other third-party will play
throughout the ADR process. Discussions with a mediator are protected by
federal and state confidentiality provisions.
42
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
To date, ADR has been used in more than 100 Superfund enforcement cases as
well as numerous cases arising under other statutes. By establishing ADR leaders
in the Regional offices, providing ADR training, and sponsoring several ADR
pilots, EPA is committed to increasing the use of ADR. For further information on
ADR please see the fact sheet entitled Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in
Enforcement Actions. May 1995, and the Guidance on Use of ADR for Litigation in
Federal Courts. DOJ 1992, OSWER Directive 9208.0-09, PB94-963 668. (May 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Aquifer; hazardous
substance; liability
"CERCLA Liability in Relation to Subsurface Migration of Hazardous
Substances"
QUESTION: According to CERCLA §§107(a)(l) and 101(9), the current owner of
any property containing a hazardous substance can be held liable for response
costs incurred at that site. The possibility that hazardous substances may come to
be located in or on a property via subsurface migration in an aquifer creates
concern among property owners, prospective purchasers of property, and lenders
about potential CERCLA liability. What is EPA's policy toward owners of
property at which contamination has come to be located as the result of
subsurface migration?
ANSWER: EPA's "Policy Toward Owners of Property Containing Contaminated
Aquifers" (60 PR 34790; July 3,1995) is an attempt to lower the barriers to transfer
of such property by reducing uncertainty regarding the possibility that EPA or
third parties may take action against these landowners. This policy clarifies the
Agency's position that it will not take any enforcement actions (to require the
performance of response actions or the payment of response costs) against the
owner of a property at which hazardous substances have come to be located
solely as the result of subsurface migration in an aquifer from a source or sources
outside the property.
Applicability of this policy is, however, subject to certain conditions. First, the
landowner must not have caused, contributed to, or exacerbated the release or
threat of release of any hazardous substances at the site. This policy may not
apply, for example, if the property contains a well that may affect the migration of
contamination in the aquifer. In this case, EPA's policy requires a fact-specific
analysis of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, the impact of the well
and/or the owner's use of it on the spread or containment of the contamination in
the aquifer.
Second, the person who caused the release must not be an agent or employee of
the landowner, and must not have been in a direct or indirect contractual
relationship (defined at CERCLA §101(35)) with the landowner. In cases where
the landowner acquired the property, directly or indirectly, from a person that
caused the original release, applicability of this policy will depend upon whether,
43
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
at the time the property was acquired, the landowner knew or had reason to
know of the disposal of hazardous substances that gave rise to the
contamination in the aquifer.
The third condition for applicability of this policy is that there exists no
alternative basis for the landowner's liability for the contaminated aquifer.
Thus, the policy will not apply if there exists contamination on the
landowner's property other than that which migrated in the aquifer from an
outside source.
Additionally, in appropriate circumstances, EPA will consider de minimis
settlements (under CERCLA §122(g)(l)(B)) with landowners who satisfy the
requirements of the policy and who are threatened by third party lawsuits. In
such settlements, EPA would provide the landowner with a covenant not to
sue, as well as protection from third party contribution suits (under CERCLA
§§113(f)(2) and 122(g)(5)). (November 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Liability; prospective
purchaser; settlements
"CERCLA Liability Protection for Prospective Purchasers of Sites for
Redevelopment"
QUESTION: In a 1989 guidance (OSWER Directive 9835.9), EPA addressed
concerns that potential property owners and/or operators may have about
liability under CERCLA. CERCLA embodies a strict liability provision, which
means that a person is liable for contamination involving hazardous
substances, without regard to fault, diligence, negligence, or motive. Owners
of a vessel or a facility can be held liable for releases involving hazardous
substances, even if the release occurred prior to their ownership. The 1989
guidance allowed the use of a legal tool, the covenant not to sue, in specific
circumstances. The purpose of the covenant not to sue is to minimize the
threat of CERCLA liability for prospective purchasers of contaminated
property, in exchange for compensation to the Agency. In May 1995, EPA
reissued the original prospective purchaser guidance by changing the scope of
circumstances under which EPA will grant a covenant not to sue. The new
guidance changes the type of compensation EPA is willing to consider in
return for the agreement. How have these changes improved the effectiveness
of prospective purchaser agreements?
ANSWER: Changes to the original prospective purchaser guidance were
designed to make better use of the covenant not to sue in achieving the
Agency's fundamental goal of protecting human health and the environment,
while providing an economic stimulus for abandoned industrial areas. For
instance, tihe current guidance is applicable at sites where federal involvement
has occurred or is expected to occur, while the old guidance was limited to
sites where enforcement action was anticipated. EPA recognized potential
44
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
gains in terms of cleanup and public benefit may be realized with broader
application of prospective purchaser agreements. In addition, the original
guidance stipulated that the Agency would only consider direct benefit (i.e.,
monetary compensation for cleanup) in exchange for the covenant not to sue.
The 1995 guidance modifies this provision by stating that the Agency may
consider accepting an indirect public benefit in combination with a reduced
direct benefit from a prospective purchaser. Indirect benefits to the
community include measures that serve to substantially reduce the risks
posed by the site, create jobs, develop abandoned or blighted property, create
conservation or recreation areas, or provide community services. EPA
recognized that indirect benefit to a community is an important consideration
and may justify the commitment of the Agency's resources to negotiate such
an agreement.
EPA may enter into a covenant not to sue at its own discretion and the Agency
reserves the right to void the covenant at any time if it determines the
prospective purchaser provided inaccurate or incomplete information.
Further, a covenant not to sue has no bearing on any future liability a
prospective purchaser may incur as a result of his or her own activities under
CERCLA or other laws. These aspects of prospective purchaser agreements
have not changed from the original 1989 guidance. (December 1996 Monthly
Hotline Report)
National
Priorities List
(NPL)
v ' "Partial Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
Keywords:
Deletion; liability; National
Priorities List (NPL)
QUESTION: The National Priorities List (NPL) is EPA's list of uncontrolled
hazardous substance releases that are priorities for long-term remedial
evaluation and response. EPA may delete releases from the NPL with state
concurrence when it determines that no further response is appropriate under
CERCLA (40 CFR §300.425(e)). Most NPL sites are the result of multiple
releases. Is the cleanup of each release at an NPL site required for a site to be
deleted from the NPL?
ANSWER: EPA's policy is that portions of NPL sites may be deleted if those
releases qualify for deletion (60 PR 55466; November 1,1995). Prior to
November 1,1995, EPA policy had been to delete releases only after
evaluation of the entire site, once the entire site met the NPL deletion
requirements specified in §300.425(e).
Total site cleanup can take many years, while individual releases can often be
cleaned up and made available for productive use in considerably less time.
Waiting to delete sites from the NPL until after evaluation of the entire site
45
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Release
Reporting
Keywords:
Hazardous substance;
release reporting;
reportable quantity
does not communicate the successful cleanup of portions of sites.
Furthermore, potential investors or developers may be reluctant to undertake
economic activity at a cleaned-up portion of property that is part of a site that
remains listed on the NPL. For this reason, EPA will now delete portions of
sites where no further response is appropriate for that portion of the site. A
portion of a site can be a geographic unit, including a residential unit or a
specific environmental medium (e.g., groundwater). These partial deletions
will take place according to the National Contingency Plan requirements in 40
CFR §300.425(e). Thus, state concurrence will continue to be a requirement
for any partial deletion. (July 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination Discovered During a
Site Inspection"
QUESTION: CERCLA §103(a) requires immediate notification to the
National Response Center (NRC) for releases of hazardous substances in
quantities equal to or greater than the reportable quantity (RQ). If hazardous
substances are discovered during site assessment or audit activities, does the
CERCLA §103(a) notification provision apply? If so, who is required to
notify?
ANSWER: CERCLA §103(a) notification requirements apply as soon as a
"person in charge" has knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance equal
to or greater than the RQ. As part of normal real estate transactions, site
assessments (e.g., Phase I environmental assessments) are often performed as
a requirement for obtaining a loan from a lending institution. For instance,
lending institutions must ensure that all appropriate inquiry into a site is
performed prior to purchase as a defense against potential liability (CERCLA
§§107(b)(3), 101(35)(B)). In the course of conducting all appropriate inquiry,
information regarding a release of a hazardous substance may become
available. If the amount is greater than or equal to the RQ for any hazardous
substance, the person in charge of the facility is required to comply with the
notification provisions under CERCLA §103(a) (54 FR 34238; August 18,1989).
The person in charge of a particular facility may vary according to the nature
of the incident. EPA has not defined the term person in charge and believes
that proper assignment of reporting responsibilities depends on the site-
specific operation involved, management structure, and other case-specific
considerations (50 FR 13460; April 4,1985). If the person in charge is unsure
whether a RQ of a hazardous substance has been released due to the lack of
information about contamination found at a site, EPA encourages the person
in charge to notify the NRC immediately (55 PR 8676; March 8,1990). (July
1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
46
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"CERCLA §103(a) Release Notification Requirements for Friable and Non-
friable Forms of Asbestos"
Keywords:
Hazardous substance;
release reporting;
reportable quantity
Response
Process
Keywords:
Brownfields; cooperative
agreements; uses of the
fund
QUESTION: CERCLA §103(a) requires the person in charge of a facility or vessel
to report a release of a hazardous substance, that equals or exceeds a reportable
quantity' (RQ), to the National Response Center. The hazardous substances and
their reportable quantities are listed in 40 CFR §302.4. Asbestos is listed as a
hazardous substance. The asbestos listing includes a footnote indicating that the
RQ is limited to friable forms only. Is non-friable asbestos a CERCLA hazardous
substance? Does CERCLA liability attach to releases of non-friable forms of
asbestos?
ANSWER: Both friable and non-friable forms of asbestos are CERCLA hazardous
substances. The carcinogenic potential of asbestos is related, however, to specific
airborne fiber shapes, sizes, and concentrations (Technical Background Document
to Support Rulemaking Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102. Volume 3. July 1989).
EPA does not require reporting of non-friable forms of asbestos. Although
releases of non-friable asbestos are exempt from release notification requirements,
such releases are still subject to CERCLA response and liability provisions. (July
1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
"Brownfields Pilots: Funding Goals and Limitations"
QUESTION: As part of the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative, EPA
is awarding 50 grants of up to $200,000 each to selected states, towns, counties,
U.S. Territories, and Indian Tribes for the two-year funding of brownfields
demonstration pilots. EPA is funding the brownfields pilots with money from the
Hazardous Substances Superfund under the authority of CERCLA §104(d)(l).
Under this section, EPA may enter into cooperative agreements with eligible
states, political subdivisions, territories, or Indian Tribes. Through these
agreements, EPA may authorize these political entities to undertake response and
investigation activities at Superfund sites. Once the cooperative agreements have
been established, what types of activities will the brownfields grants support?
Has the Agency placed any limits on the potential uses of the grant moneys?
ANSWER: Brownfields funding is limited to pre-cleanup environmental
activities at sites where there is an actual or threatened release of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Allowable pre-cleanup activities include
site assessments, site identifications, site characterizations, site remediation
planning and design, and outreach efforts directed toward generating more
effective stakeholder involvement in these activities.
47
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
The CERCLA §104 restrictions on EPA's use of funding apply to brownfields pilot
grant recipients as well. Consequently, brownfields pilot funds may not be used
for, for example, the assessment, identification, characterization, or remediation of
petroleum contamination. CERCLA funds may only be used to address
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which are defined to exclude
petroleum. CERCLA regulations also prohibit the use of EPA funds to match any
other federal funds. Brownfields pilot funds may be used to develop creative
financing solutions (e.g., tax schemes, revolving loan funds) for the environmental
activities described above; however, federal grant funds may not be used for
capitalizing or fund-raising purposes. Finally, included in the restrictions
traditionally placed on CERCLA §104 funding, EPA has specified that brownfields
grant recipients may not use pilot funds for job training or to support their own
lobbying efforts.
In addition to initiating the partial deletion of releases at NPL sites, the Agency
will also consider petitions to delist portions of sites. Any person may submit
such a petition, including individuals, business entities, states, local governments,
and other federal agencies. Individuals need not follow any specific format in
submitting petitions. EPA will consider any petition that is submitted in writing.
Petitioners should note that the primary purpose of the NPL is to serve as an
informational and management tool. Whether property is part of an NPL site is
unrelated to CERCLA liability because neither NPL listing nor deletion assigns
liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. CERCLA §107 sets
forth broad liability provisions associated with releases of hazardous substances
without reference to NPL listing or deletion. As with entire sites, deleted portions
of sites remain eligible for further Fund-financed remedial actions should future
conditions warrant such action. (April 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Discount rates; remedial
alternatives; remedial
investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS)
"Discount Rates for Comparison of Remedial Alternatives"
QUESTION: During the feasibility study phase of the Superfund response
process, the project manager carefully estimates the costs of various remedial
action alternatives. Present worth analysis is used to evaluate expenditures that
occur over different time periods by discounting all future costs to a common base
year, usually the current year (OSWER Directive 9355.2-01). By performing a
present worth analysis, the cost of remedial action alternatives can be evaluated
and compared with regard to the total cost of an action, even though the remedial
action may take several years to complete. The figure derived from the present
worth analysis represents the amount of money that, if invested in the base year
and then disbursed over time, would reflect all remedial action costs. Has EPA
recommended a certain discount rate to use in present worth calculations?
ANSWER: Yes. EPA recommends that project managers use a seven percent rate
to conduct present worth calculations (OSWER Directive 9355.3-20). The
preamble to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan states,
48
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
"EPA recognizes the importance of using an appropriate discount rate when
deriving estimates of project costs. EPA will follow OMB circular A-94 ..." (55 PR
8722-8723; March 8,1990). The OMB Circular was revised on October 29,1992,
changing the discount rate to seven percent. In June 1993, EPA directed project
managers to use the seven percent discount rate instead of the five percent
discount rate published in Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA: Interim Final (October 1988, OSWER
Directive 9355.3-01). The seven percent rate should be applied to all sites which
have a Record of Decision (ROD) planned for FY94 and thereafter (OSWER
Directive 9355.3-20). (January 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
49
-------
in
o
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW (EPCRA)
Emergency
Planning and
Release
Notification
Keywords:
Release reporting;
reportable quantity
Hazardous
Chemical
Inventory
Reporting
Keywords:
Hazardous chemical
inventory report; Tier I/
Tier II
"Notification Requirements for Transportation-related Releases Under
EPCRA §304"
QUESTION: In the event of a release of an extremely hazardous substance
(EHS) or a CERCLA hazardous substance above its reportable quantity (RQ),
a facility owner/operator must immediately notify the State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC) and Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC) of the incident (EPCRA §304(b); 40 CFR §355.40(b)) and for CERCLA
hazardous substances, the National Response Center (NRC). As soon as
practicable after the release occurs, the facility owner/operator must submit a
written follow-up emergency notice to the SERC and LEPC (EPCRA §304(c);
40 CFR §355.40(b)(3)). In the case of a transportation-related release, EPCRA
§304(b) states that the emergency release notification requirements may be
satisfied by providing notice to the 911 operator instead of the SERC and
LEPC (40 CFR §355.40(b)(4)(ii)). Must the notifier submit a follow-up
emergency notice after the initial 911 report?
ANSWER: Notification of a transportation-related release, including the
requirement to submit a written follow-up notice, is satisfied by dialing 911
and providing the release information as described in 40 CFR §355.40(b)(2) to
the operator (40 CFR §355.40(b)(4)(ii)). In the absence of a 911 number, the
notifier may call the local operator to satisfy the emergency release
notification requkements (EPCRA §304(b)(l)). (May 1996 Monthly Hotline
Report)
"The Development and Use of Electronic Versions of EPCRA §312
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting Forms"
QUESTION: An owner or operator of a facility that meets the applicability
requkements of 40 CFR §370.20 must submit a hazardous chemical inventory
form containing Tier I information to the State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC), the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and
the fke department with jurisdiction over the facility (EPCRA §312 (a)(l)).
Reports are due by March 1 of each year and contain information from the
preceding calendar year. An owner or operator of a facility must provide Tier
n information upon the request of the SERC, LEPC, or the fke department
51
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
Toxics Release
Inventory
Keywords:
Form R; toxic chemicals;
toxics release inventory
reporting
(EPCRA §312(e); 40 CFR §370.25(c)). Do electronic versions of the Tier I or Tier II
forms exist? May states or private companies develop electronic versions of the
forms?
ANSWER: The Iowa SERC, in cooperation with EPA, has developed an electronic
equivalent of the Federal Tier II form for both DOS and Windows operating
systems. Both are available from the EPCRA Hotline on 3.5" diskette. States may
adopt Iowa's electronic version of the Tier n form, or develop their own.
Interested parties should check with individual SERCs to determine state policy
on the use and submission of electronic inventory forms.
Other states may develop and implement Tier I and Tier II electronic copies of
inventory forms without formal approval by EPA, so long as the electronic version
collects, at a minimum, the identical information required by 40 CFR §§370.40 and
370.41. In states which accept submission of inventory forms on magnetic media,
the owner or operator or the officially designated representative of the owner or
operator must certify a magnetic media submission by including a signed
certification cover letter with the submission (40 CFR §§370.40 and 370.41).
Private companies can also create electronic versions of inventory forms, subject
to state approval. States may establish procedures for submission and receipt of
electronic forms. The Agency encourages the use of electronic forms because it
conserves resources, and may facilitate data management and exchange for
SERCs, LEPCs, and covered facilities. (August 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
"Deletion of EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemicals from the TRI Database"
QUESTION: EPCRA §313(d) provides for the addition and deletion of chemicals
from the list of toxic chemicals found at 40 CFR §372.65. When a toxic chemical is
deleted, the final action is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
thereby relieving covered facilities of EPCRA §313 reporting requirements for the
newly deleted chemical from the date of publication forward. If a facility submits
a Form R for a newly deleted chemical, must the facility submit a formal written
withdrawal request to the Agency?
ANSWER: Facilities need not submit a formal written withdrawal because the
Agency does not enter a Form R received for a newly delisted toxic chemical into
the TRI database. Facilities that submit Form Rs for that chemical will receive a
Notice of Data Change informing the facility that the data on the Form R was not
entered into the database due to the chemical's deletion from the toxic chemical
list. The Agency does not, however, remove from the database information from
Form Rs submitted for years during which the toxic chemical was listed as an
EPCRA §313 toxic chemical.
52
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
In the case where only certain forms of a toxic chemical are delisted, the Agency
will not automatically exclude the Form Rs because the Agency cannot determine
for which form of the chemical the threshold determinations and reported data
were based. For example, non-aerosol forms of sulfuric acid were delisted on
June 30,1995 (60 FR 34182), making aerosol forms the only EPCRA §313
reportable forms of sulfuric acid. In this case, without written clarification from
the facility and review of the data submitted, the Agency cannot assume Form Rs
submitted for sulfuric acid for reporting year 1994 represent reporting for only
non-aerosol forms of sulfuric acid. Therefore, the Agency will enter the data as
received, unless the facility submits a written revision or withdrawal request, as
appropriate. (March 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Certification statement;
Form R; toxics release
inventory reporting
"EPCRA §313 and Certification Signatures"
QUESTION: Both the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R and
the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Certification Statement require a
certification signature in Part I, Section 3 of the respective form. May a
representative from a consulting firm that prepares a Form R or Certification
Statement for a covered facility sign the certification in lieu of the covered
facility's owner or operator?
ANSWER: No. A representative from a consulting firm preparing a Form R or a
Certification Statement for a covered facility cannot sign the certification in Part I,
Section 3 of either the Form R or the Certification Statement. The certification
must be signed by the owner or operator, or a senior management official
employed by the facility subject to EPCRA §313 toxic chemical release inventory
reporting. Senior management official means an official with management
responsibility for the person or persons completing the report, or the manager of
environmental programs for the facility or establishments, or for the corporation
owning or operating the facility or establishments responsible for certifying
similar reports under the other environmental regulatory requirements (40 CFR
§372.3). (July 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Exemptions; Form R;
threshold; toxics release
inventory reporting
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials Recognizable as Articles"
QUESTION: A manufacturing facility produces neon signs by bending leaded
glass tubing. The facility uses enough tubing annually to process in excess of
25,000 pounds of lead, an EPCRA §313 toxic chemical. EPCRA §313 provides an
exemption for chemicals present in the form of an article (40 CFR §372.38(b)) To
qualify as an article, a material must be formed to a specific shape, have its end
use dependent in whole or in part upon that shape, and not release a toxic
chemical under normal conditions of use (§372.3). When signs are formed from
glass tubing, the diameter of the tubes remains unchanged and lead is not
released during the heating or bending process, qualifying the tubes for the article
53
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
exemption. If a discrete number of glass tubes are broken and discarded
during the year, under what circumstances would disposal of the broken
tubes constitute a release that negates the article exemption, and how would
the facility calculate the amount of lead used in their operation?
ANSWER: Disposal of the glass does not necessarily constitute a release
which automatically negates the article exemption. Materials that remain
"recognizable" as articles upon disposal are still exempt if they continue to
meet the definition of an article in §372.3. For the tubing to meet the
definition of an article when discarded, the diameter of the tubing must
remain intact and unchanged. As a result, shards of glass no longer qualify as
articles, while cracked sections of tubing continue to be exempt as articles.
Only the shattered glass that is not recognizable as the original tubing loses
the article exemption. When calculating the quantity of lead used in its
process, the facility only must count the lead present in shattered tubing
toward the EPCRA §313 processing threshold and in subsequent release
determinations. (April 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Processing threshold;
threshold
54
"EPCRA §313 Clarification of Processing Threshold for Items that are
Processed More Than Once"
QUESTION: Manufacturing facilities (Standard Industrial Classification
codes 20-39) and federal facilities with ten or more full-time employees, who
manufacture, process, or otherwise use a toxic chemical in excess of the
applicable activity threshold must comply with the EPCRA §313 reporting
requirements found at 40 CFR Part 372. Processing is defined as the
preparation of a toxic chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in
commerce (40 CFR §372.3). A metal fabrication facility extrudes ingots
containing 20,000 pounds of copper into rods, which is considered to be a type
of processing under EPCRA §313. The facility then transfers the rods
containing 20,000 pounds of copper to another portion of the facility, which is
completely separate from the extruding operation, for further processing,
such as grinding. Has the facility processed 40,000 pounds of copper, and
thus exceeded the processing threshold of 25,000 pounds per calendar year?
ANSWER: No. In this scenario, the facility has only processed 20,000 pounds
of copper and would not be subject to reporting pursuant to 40 CFR Part 372
for this toxic chemical. For threshold purposes, facilities must count the
amount of a toxic chemical that is processed during the calendar year.
Facilities should not, however, double count toxic chemicals that are subject to
multiple on-site processing steps before being distributed in commerce.
Conversely, facilities that transfer toxic chemicals off site for processing and
receive the same toxic chemical back for further processing must count the
toxic chemical twice when calculating thresholds because the toxic chemical is
considered to be newly obtained. (February 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the Definition of Process"
Keywords:
Form R; manufacturing
threshold; processing
threshold; threshold;
toxics release inventory
reporting
QUESTION: A facility covered under EPCRA §313 uses formaldehyde as an
ingredient in feedstock. The feedstock is sent for use to another facility under
common ownership. The preparing facility does not receive direct compensation
for the product, nor is the product distributed to the general public. Does such a
transfer of a toxic chemical, after its preparation, to another facility under
common ownership constitute distribution in commerce and thus need to be
considered in threshold determination for reporting under EPCRA §313?
ANSWER: Yes. Under EPCRA, process means the preparation of a toxic
chemical, after its manufacture, for distribution in commerce (40 CFR §372.3).
Distribution in commerce includes any distributive activity in which benefit is
gained by the transfer, even if there is not direct monetary gain. Toxic chemicals
that are shipped from one facility to another facility under common ownership
are considered to be distributed in commerce. Although the chemical in the
product is not distributed to the general public, the preparing facility does derive
economic benefit by transferring the toxic chemical, as both facilities are under
common ownership. The amount of toxic chemical prepared at the facility must
be counted towards the 25,000 pounds per year processing threshold. (August
1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Hydrochloric acid; toxic
chemicals; toxics release
inventory reporting
"EPCRA §313 Listing of Hydrochloric Acid"
QUESTION: Hydrochloric acid, also known as hydrogen chloride (CAS number
7647-01-0) is a listed toxic chemical under EPCRA §313. Hydrochloric acid can
exist in both aqueous solution and in a gaseous, anhydrous form. On July 25,
1996, EPA modified the listing of hydrochloric acid to include acid aerosols
including mists, vapors, gas, fog and other airborne forms of any particle size (61
PR 38600). Does the modified listing of hydrochloric acid refer to both the
aqueous and the anhydrous forms of this chemical?
ANSWER: Yes. The CAS number 7647-01-0 identifies both aqueous and
anhydrous forms of hydrochloric acid. The listing modification also applies to
both aqueous and anhydrous forms of hydrochloric acid. Beginning with the 1995
reporting year, an EPCRA §313-covered facility that manufactures, processes, or
otherwise uses more than a threshold quantity of hydrochloric acid aerosols,
either in aqueous or anhydrous forms, must submit a Form R or a Certification
Statement for hydrochloric acid aerosols. (August 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
55
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
Keywords:
Form R; toxic chemicals;
toxics release inventory
reporting
"EPCRA and RCRA-Empty"
QUESTION: An EPCRA §313 covered f acility sends a 55-gallon drum
containing less than one inch of a toxic chemical off site for disposal. For
purposes of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, the container is
considered an empty container as defined in 40 CFR §261.7 (i.e., "RCRA-
empty"). Must the facility report the toxic chemical contained in the RCRA-
empty container as an off-site transfer for purposes of disposal on the Form R,
even though it is not considered to contain hazardous waste under RCRA?
ANSWER: Yes. The definition of an empty container pursuant to 40 CFR
§261.7 does not apply to EPCRA §313. Even though the residue remaining in
a container rendered "RCRA-empty" is no longer considered a hazardous
waste under the federal RCRA regulations, it is still considered a toxic
chemical under EPCRA. The status of a toxic chemical as a nonhazardous
waste under RCRA has no impact on the applicability of EPCRA regulations
on that chemical.
Under EPCRA §313, the term "release" is defined as "any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping,
leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the
abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed
receptacles) of any toxic chemical." In Section 8.1 of the Form R, EPA requires
facilities to report all releases of toxic chemicals, except those quantities
released to the environment as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic
events, or one-time events not associated with production processes. Disposal
of a "RCRA-empty" container which contains any amount of a toxic chemical
is generally reportable in Section 8.1 when transferred from or disposed of at
an EPCRA §313 covered facility. If, however, the facility has total reportable
amounts of the chemical not exceeding 500 pounds, it may be eligible for the
higher alternate reporting threshold in 40 CFR §327.27. (February 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Exemptions; toxic
chemicals; toxics release
inventory reporting
"Facility Maintenance Exemption Under EPCRA §313" |
QUESTION: An EPCRA §313 covered facility uses 55-gallon drums of paint
containing a toxic chemical to paint lines on the roads and air strips on the
facility's grounds. Paint is also used to maintain road signs and facility
building signs. Would the toxic chemicals in the paint be exempt from
EPCRA §313 reporting requirements under the facility grounds maintenance
exemption found at 40 CFR §372.38(c)(2)?
ANSWER: The facility grounds maintenance exemption in 40 CFR
§372.28(c)(2) applies to the use of products that are similar in type or
concentration to consumer products used for routine janitorial or facility
56
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
grounds maintenance. This exemption includes both individually packaged
products (e.g., cans of paint) and substances in bulk containers (e.g., 55-gallon
drums of paint). Therefore, if the paint in the drums used to maintain the roads
and the signs is similar in type or concentration to consumer products, the toxic
chemicals in the paint would be exempt from EPCRA §313 reporting
requirements. (February 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
Keywords:
Ammonia; Form R;
threshold; toxic
chemicals; toxics release
inventory reporting
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia Under EPCRA §313"
QUESTION: EPCRA §313 requires certain manufacturing and federal facilities to
report annually on releases and transfers of toxic chemicals, and source reduction
and recycling activities associated with those chemicals. A manufacturing facility
subject to EPCRA §313 processes an aqueous ammonia solution from water-
dissociable ammonium salts in tanks and open vats. Evaporative losses occur at
several points during processing. Are these evaporative losses considered releases
of aqueous ammonia or anhydrous ammonia for purposes of EPCRA §313
reporting?
ANSWER: Evaporation and drying losses from aqueous ammonia solutions
result in the release of anhydrous ammonia, which is 100 percent reportable under
the EPCRA §313 ammonia listing. Although EPA modified the ammonia listing
on June 30,1995 (60 FR 34172), the modification only limits the quantity of
aqueous ammonia that is reportable. The modification does not apply to
anhydrous ammonia, which remains 100 percent reportable. Facility owners or
operators must still include all anhydrous ammonia manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used at a covered facility in threshold determinations and release
reporting. Anhydrous ammonia generated through the evaporation or drying of
aqueous ammonia solutions derived from water-dissociable ammonium salts or
other sources must be counted toward the applicable activity threshold. For
example, if a facility processes aqueous ammonia, it has processed 100 percent of
the aqueous ammonia in that solution. If the ammonia stays in solution, then 10
percent of the total aqueous ammonia is counted toward thresholds. If there are
any evaporative losses of anhydrous ammonia, then 100 percent of those losses
must be counted toward the processing threshold. If the manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise use thresholds for the ammonia listing are exceeded, the
facility must report 100 percent of these evaporative losses in Sections 5 and 8 of
the Form R. (April 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
57
-------
58
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112(r)
(CAA)
Risk Management
Keywords:
Accidental release
prevention; Clean Air Act;
emergency planning; Risk
Management Program
"Frequently Asked Questions on the CAA of §112(r) Requirements"
QUESTION: Who is subject to the accidental release prevention regulations
under CAA §112(r)?
ANSWER: An owner or operator of a stationary source that has more than a
threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process is required to comply
with the CAA §112(r) requirements (40 CFR §68.10). The applicable threshold
quantities are listed in 40 CFR §68.115.
QUESTION: When must risk management plans (RMPs) be submitted?
ANSWER: For chemicals currently found on the list of regulated substances (40
CFR §68.130), compliance with 40 CFR Part 68 requirements, including submis-
sion of RMPs, is required by June 21,1999, or the date on which a regulated
substance is first present above a threshold quantity in a process (whichever is
later). For substances subsequently added to the list, the due date for RMP
submission will be three years after the date on which a regulated substance is
added to the list (40 CFR §68.10).
QUESTION: Are there any industry-wide exemptions from the accidental release
prevention provisions and risk management program regulations?
ANSWER: The only industry-wide exemption is for ammonia held by farmers for
use as an agricultural nutrient (40 CFR §68.125). This exemption only applies to
farmers as farmers and does not apply to other participants in the fertilizer
industry. Otherwise, owners or operators of stationary sources are subject to the
accidental release prevention requirements if any process at the stationary source
contains a regulated substance in excess of the applicable threshold quantity (40
CFR §68.10).
QUESTION: A stationary source is subject to the Occupational Safety and Health
Act (OSHA) process safety management (PSM) standard for chlorine. The station-
ary source does not, however, exceed the threshold for chlorine (or any other
regulated substance) in a process under the risk management program regulations
(40 CFR §68.130). Is the stationary source subject to the risk management require-
ments?
ANSWER: No. An owner or operator of a stationary source that is subject to the
OSHA PSM standard is subject to the risk management program requirements
only if he or she has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a
process (40 CFR §68.10(a)). (July 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
59
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112(r)
(CAA)
Keywords:
Clean Air Act; emergency
planning; integrated
contingency plan;
National Response Team
"National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance"
QUESTION: A number of federal statutes and regulations require emergency
response planning (e.g., risk management planning under the Clean Air Act
§112(r), contingency planning under RCRA, and facility reponse planning
under the Oil Pollution Act). On June 5,1996, the National Response Team
(NRT), published the Integrated Contingency Plan ("One Plan") Guidance (61
FR 28642), providing a mechanism by which a facility may consolidate
multiple emergency response plans into one functional plan. Is a facility
required to integrate its emergency response plans? Must a facility use the
Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) format specified in the guidance?
ANSWER: Adherence to the ICP guidance is not required, but the NRT
believes that a single functional plan is preferable to multiple plans. The ICP
is intended to streamline the emergency planning process of those facilities
that may be subject to one or more federal emergency planning regulations
(the ICP does not address state emergency planning requirements). While not
affecting the substantive requirements of these federal regulations, the NRT
developed a mechanism by which the components of the emergency plans
may be incorporated into a single document.
The guidance provides a sample format for an ICP. The plan is divided into
three parts: an introductory section, a core plan, and a series of supporting
annexes. The steps necessary to initiate, conduct, and terminate an
emergency response action are found in the core plan. The annexes provide
detailed support information based on the procedures detailed in the core
plan. Because the core plan is designed to provide only the most essential
response steps, the core plan should frequently reference the annexes. The
annexes may further reference other plans (e.g., area contingency plans under
OPA, local emergency planning committee plans under EPCRA) to facilitate
their integration with the facility's ICP. If a facility submits an ICP for review
and approval by a federal agency, the plan should cross-reference existing
emergency response regulatory requirements and their location in the plan.
Though the NRT's ICP guidance represents the federally preferred method of
response planning, a facility is not required to implement the format outlined
in the guidance. The NRT is aware that alternate formats exist and others will
likely be developed; however, the NRT anticipates that future federal
emergency response planning regulations will incorporate use of the ICP
guidance. Additionally, developers of state and local requirements will be
encouraged to be consistent with the ICP guidance. (September 1996
Monthly Hotline Report)
60
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112(r)
(CAA)
Keywords:
Clean Air Act; emergency
planning; OSHA; Risk
Management Program
"Relationship Between the Risk Management Program Rule and the Process
Safety Management Standard"
QUESTION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) mandated the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop a regulatory
program to protect workers from the risk of accidents that involve hazardous
chemicals. OSHA promulgated its Process Safety Management Standard (PSM)
on February 24,1992 (57 FR 6356), codified at 40 CFR §1910.119. The CAAA also
mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program to reduce the risk of serious
chemical accidents that could affect public health and the environment. In
response, EPA promulgated its List Rule on January 31,1994 (59 FR 4478), and its
Risk Management Program Rule on June 20,1996 (61 FR 31668), codified at 40
CFR Part 68. Would a stationary source that is in compliance with OSHA's PSM
already be in compliance with EPA's Risk Management Program Rule?
ANSWER: A process that is subject to OSHA's PSM, unless it meets the criteria
for Program 1 eligibility, will be subject to Program 3 requirements under EPA's
Risk Management Program Rule. The prevention program requirements for
Program 3 processes under 40 CFR §§68.65 through 68.87 are almost identical to
the requirements of OSHA's PSM. Thus, a source owner or operator responsible
for a process that is in compliance with OSHA's PSM should already be in
compliance with the Program 3 prevention program requirements (61 FR 31687;
June 20,1996). The owner or operator of the stationary source would still need to
develop a management system, conduct a hazard assessment, develop and
implement an emergency response program, and submit a risk management plan.
(October 1996 Monthly Hotline Report)
61
-------
62
-------
PART 2: FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARIES
The Federal Register summaries presented in this section include the major changes to
40 CFR regulations implementing RCRA, Superfund, the UST program, the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the risk management program under the
Clean Air Act §112(r), during 1996. 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
-------
64
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
January 25,1996
(61 FR 2337)
"Supplemental Proposal to LDR Phase IV: Clarification of Bevill
Exclusion for Mining Wastes, Changes to the Definition of Solid Waste
for Mineral Processing Wastes, and Associated Issues"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to lift several regulatory obstacles to the safe
recycling of mineral processing secondary materials and proposed regulations
to ensure that discarded mineral processing materials are properly treated
and disposed. Specifically, EPA proposed to exclude secondary materials
generated by and recovered within the mineral processing industry from
RCRA Subtitle C if they meet specific guidelines and conditions. If materials
do not meet the conditions excluding them from being wastes, and they test
hazardous, they must be treated to meet the land disposal restrictions
treatment standards newly proposed in this rule.
EPA also addressed issues concerning mineral processing wastes which had
been remanded by courts to EPA for further consideration. These issues
include retaining the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure as the test
for evaluating the toxicity characteristic for mineral processing wastes,
responding to the vacatur of the mixture rule for Bevill wastes, and
readdressing the regulatory status of several mineral processing listed
wastes.
Finally, EPA proposed to exclude from RCRA jurisdiction two types of
materials: processed scrap metal that is recycled, and shredded circuit boards
destined for metal recovery that are managed in containers prior to recovery.
Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted by March 25,1996.
Citation:
January 26,1996
(61 FR 2583)
"Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Facilities; State/Tribal Implementation
Rule (STIR)"
SUMMARY: RCRA requires states to adopt and implement permit programs
to ensure compliance with the Federal Disposal Facility Criteria for municipal
solid waste landfills (MSWLF). EPA determines the adequacy of the state
permit programs. This proposed rule provides guidance to States and Indian
Tribes in developing, implementing, and revising their MSWLF permit
programs. The STIR establishes criteria and procedures which EPA will use
to determine whether a state permit program is adequate to ensure
compliance with the Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria. So that
management of MSW is equally protective on Indian lands, the STIR also
gives Indian Tribes the right to apply for EPA approval of their landfill permit
programs. Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or before
April 25,1996.
65
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 4,1996
(61 EB 8323)
"Bilateral Agreements With Parties to the Basel Convention on the
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal"
SUMMARY: The Basel Convention prohibits a party to the Convention from
trading in Basel-covered wastes (i.e., hazardous and other wastes) with a non-
party, absent a bilateral agreement or arrangement consistent with Article 11 of
the Convention. Since the United States is not a party to the Convention, the U.S.
Department of State is seeking public comment to evaluate the need for waste
agreements or arrangements to allow the import of hazardous wastes from
Convention parties to the United States.
Citation:
April 19,1996
(61 EB 17357)
"Revised Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors"
SUMMARY: Under joint authority of the CAA and RCRA, EPA proposed revised
standards for hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous waste-burning cement
kilns, and hazardous waste-burning lightweight aggregate kilns. The standards
limit emissions of chlorinated dioxins and furans, other toxic organic compounds,
toxic metals, hydrochloric acid, chlorine gas, and particulate matter. These
standards reflect the performance of Maximum Achievable Control Technologies
(MACT) as specified by the Clean Air Act. The nature of this proposal also
requires that the following actions be proposed: the addition of hazardous waste-
burning lightweight aggregate kilns to the list of source categories in accordance
with Section 112(c)(5) of the Act; exempting from RCRA emission controls
secondary lead facilities subject to MACT; considering an exclusion for certain
comparable fuels; and revising the small quantity burner exemption under the BIF
rule. EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until June 18,1996.
Citation:
April 29, 1996
(61 EB 18779)
"Requirements for Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media (HWIR-
Media)"
SUMMARY: As part of the President's regulatory reform initiative, the EPA is
proposing new regulations for contaminated media that are managed during
government-overseen remedial actions. The proposal establishes modified Land
Disposal Restrictions treatment requirements, and modified permitting proce-
dures for higher risk contaminated media. The proposal would also allow EPA
and authorized states to remove certain lower-risk contaminated media from
regulation as hazardous waste. EPA also proposes to withdraw the regulations
concerning corrective action management units (CAMUs), and to exempt from
Subtitle C regulation, dredged material permitted under CWA or MPRSA.
66
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
May 1,1996
(61 £R 19432)
"Corrective Action for Releases from Solid Waste Management Units at
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities"
SUMMARY: This Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announces
EPA's corrective action regulatory strategy for releases from solid waste
management units at hazardous waste management facilities under RCRA.
EPA also requested information to assist in identification and development
of potential improvements to the protectiveness, responsiveness, speed, or
efficiency of corrective actions. In addition, EPA included a general status
report on the corrective action program and how it has evolved since the July
27,1990, proposal, and provided guidance on a number of topics not fully
addressed in 1990. Lastly, EPA emphasized areas of flexibility within the
current program and described program improvements currently underway
or under consideration. Comments must be received on or before July 30,
1996. EPA will hold a public hearing on the Notice on June 3,1996.
Citation:
June 14,1996
(61 EB 30472)
"Authorization of Indian Tribe's Hazardous Waste Programs Under
RCRA Subtitle C"
SUMMARY: EPA clarified the eligibility of Tribal Governments to obtain
authorization to implement a Subtitle C hazardous waste program under
RCRA §3006, and to obtain federal grants to support the development and
implementation of such a program under RCRA §3011. This proposal identi-
fied the standards and procedures that would govern the submission and
review of Indian Tribes' authorization applications. It also discussed the
circumstances under which Tribes could be approved to operate a partial
Subtitle C hazardous waste program.
Citation:
August 14, 1996
(61 EB 42318)
"Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Solvents; CERCLA Hazardous Substance
Designation and Reportable Quantities; Proposed Rule"
SUMMARY: Sections 3001(e)(2) and 3001(b)(l) of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 direct EPA to make a hazardous waste listing
determination for solvent wastes. After extensive study of 14 chemicals
potentially used as solvents, the Agency proposed not to specifically list them
as hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261. The Agency, consequently, will
not amend CERCLA's list of hazardous substances and their respective
reportable quantities found in 40 CFR Table 302.4.
67
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Proposed
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November?, 1996
(61 £B 57748)
"Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing
Recovered Materials"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed an amendment to the May 1,1995,
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline. The amendment designates thirteen
new items that are or can be made with recovered materials and clarifies three
items previously designated by EPA as items that can be made with recovered
materials. EPA is accepting comment on this proposed rule until February 5,
1997.
Final Rules
Citation:
February 9,1996
(61 £B 4903)
"Technical Amendment; RCRA Organic Air Emission Standards for
Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers"
SUMMARY: EPA provided additional guidance clarifying preamble
language to the Subpart CC Air Emissions final rule (59 FE 62896;
December 6,1994) and corrected typographical and grammatical errors. The
air standards, designed to reduce organic emissions from hazardous waste
management activities, apply to owners and operators of hazardous waste
tanks, containers, and surface impoundments subject to RCRA Subtitle C
permitting requirements and to large quantity generators accumulating waste
in on-site tanks and containers. The provisions clarified by this action are
effective as of June 6,1996, the effective date of the final rule.
Citation:
March 8,1996
(61 £B 9451)
"West Virginia; Partial Program Adequacy Determination of State
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program"
SUMMARY: The West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) applied for a partial determination of adequacy under §4005 of
RCRA. EPA reviewed WVDEP's application and made a tentative
determination of adequacy for those portions of the WVDEP's MSWLF permit
program that are adequate to assure compliance with the revised MSWLF
Criteria. All comments on WVDEP's application for a partial determination
of adequacy must be received by EPA Region III by April 30,1996.
68
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 18,1996
(61 FR11089)
"Technical Revision of the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) of
1992 Amendments for Hazardous Waste"
SUMMARY: The FFCA provides EPA explicit authority to commence
administrative enforcement actions against any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the federal government that is in violation of RCRA
requirements. As required by the FFCA, EPA revised it's administrative
rules to provide a federal department, agency, or instrumentality subject to
an administrative enforcement order with tine opportunity to confer with
the Administrator before the administrative enforcement order becomes
final. This rule is effective on March 18,1996.
Citation:
March 26, 1996
(61 EE 13103)
"Correction to RCRA Exclusion for Recovered Oil Inserted Into the
Petroleum Refining Process"
SUMMARY: EPA corrected the text of a regulatory exclusion from the
definition of solid waste for recovered oil which is inserted into the
petroleum refining process (§261.4(a)(12)). The corrected language revises
the location in the refining process at which recovered oil can be inserted to
qualify for the exclusion. The Agency intended to exclude recovered oil
that is inserted into a petroleum refining process at a point at which the
process removes or will remove at least some contaminants. EPA issued
this correction as a direct final rule and a proposed rule in different sections
of the Federal Register. The direct final rule will become effective on
May 28,1996, unless adverse comments are received by April 9,1996. If
such notification is received, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and
address the comments in a subsequent final rule.
Citation:
Aprils, 1996
(61 FR 15565)
"Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III — Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate Wastes, and Spent Potliners"
SUMMARY: EPA promulgated LDR treatment standards for hazardous
wastes from the production of carbamate pesticides and primary aluminum
production. The Agency also amended the treatment standards for
hazardous wastes that exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. In addition,
the rule created treatment standards for decharacterized wastewaters that
are managed in land-based Clean Water Act (CWA), CWA-equivalent, or
Class I Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) systems. In accordance with the
Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996, however, the Agency
promulgated a concurrent rulemaking (61 FR 15660) that withdraws the
treatment standards applicable to decharacterized wastes managed in these
CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems (see below). Finally, EPA
69
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
codified its enforcement policy stating that combustion of inorganic wastes is an
impermissible form of treatment because hazardous constituents are being
diluted rather than effectively treated.
Citation:
Aprils, 1996
(61 EB15660)
"Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III; Final Rule and Partial Withdrawal and
Amendment of Final Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA incorporated the provisions of the Land Disposal Program
Flexibility Act (LDPFA) of 1996 into the Phase III rule by amending and/or
withdrawing portions of the regulations that were superseded by the new
legislation. The LDPFA provided that characteristic wastes treated in CWA,
CWA-equivalent, or SDWA systems are no longer prohibited from land disposal
once they do not exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. The amendment/
withdrawal of these standards does not affect any other part of the final rule.
Furthermore, EPA amended parts of the LDR Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982;
September 19,1994) which were also overruled by the legislation. These
provisions are effective on April 8,1996.
Citation:
April 12,1996
(61 £B 16289)
"Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of OECD
Council Decision"
SUMMARY: EPA identified RCRA wastes subject to a graduated system (green,
amber, red) of procedural and substantive controls when exported and imported
for recovery among OECD countries. These requirements apply only to U.S.
exporters and importers of RCRA hazardous wastes destined for recovery in
OECD countries (except for Canada and Mexico; waste shipments to and from
these countries will continue to move under the current bilateral agreements and
regulations). This rule is effective July 11,1996.
Citation:
April 26,1996
(61 £B 18501)
"Solid Waste Programs; Removal of Legally Obsolete Guidelines"
SUMMARY: In response to the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted a review of the
regulations it administers and has identified the guidelines pertaining to solid
waste management as obsolete. These guidelines, which are being removed from
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) today, are no longer necessary because
they have been addressed by more recent regulations. This final rule takes effect
on April 26,1996.
70
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
April 26, 1996
(61 EB 18588)
"Mixed Waste Enforcement Policy Extension"
SUMMARY: EPA announced a limited extension of its policy (56 PR 42730;
August 29,1991) on civil enforcement of the LDR storage prohibition at facilities
which generate "mixed waste" regulated under both RCRA and the Atomic
Energy Act. This action renews the August 1991 policy for an additional two year
period for certain mixed wastes, based on EPA's determination that treatment
technology and disposal capacity for these mixed wastes are still not available.
Citation:
May 29, 1996
(61 £R 26986)
"Paper Products Recovered Advisory Notice"
SUMMARY: EPA provided a notice of the availability of the final Paper Products
Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) and supporting documents. This
notice represents a revision of the 1988 recommendations to government procur-
ing agencies for purchasing paper and paper products containing recovered
materials. It addresses issues that were raised by paper manufacturers, mer-
chants, and purchasers during the implementation of the 1988 recommendations
and incorporates minimum content standards for uncoated printing and writing
papers established by Executive Order.
Citation:
June 13,1996
(61 EB. 30065)
Citation:
June 24,1996
(61 FR 32434)
"Utah; Final Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal Municipal Solid
Waste Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA determined that Utah's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) program is adequate to ensure compliance with the revised federal
MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR Part 258).
"Kansas; Final Full Program Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA determined that Kansas' Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) program is adequate to ensure compliance with the revised federal
MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR Part 258).
71
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 24,1996
(61 EB 32436)
Citation:
June 25,1996
(61 EB 32798)
Citation:
June 28,1996
(61 EB 33691)
"Nebraska; Final Full Program Determination of Adequacy of State/Tribal
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA determined that Nebraska's Municipal Solid >Vaste Landfill
(MSWLF) program is adequate to ensure compliance with the revised federal
MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR Part 258).
"Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Notice of Extension of Deiisting Delegation to Regions"
SUMMARY: On October 10,1995, the EPA Administrator extended the
delegation of the hazardous waste delisting authority to EPA's 10 Regional
Offices. This notice provides a list of Regional delisting contacts.
"Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Recycled Used Oil Management Standards"
SUMMARY: On January 19,1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) October 30,1995, administrative stay of part of the regulatory provision,
known as the "used oil mixture rule," set forth in 40 CFR 279.10(b)(2). In this
action EPA clarified the regulatory status of mixtures of used oil and hazardous
wastes destined for recycling in light of the Court's vacatur of the administrative
stay. This action also eliminated the explanatory note to 40 CFR 279.10(b)(2) that
was included in the notice of the administrative stay. In addition, EPA discussed
a recent proposal that may affect such mixtures.
Citation:
July 1,1996
(61 EB 34251)
"Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices;
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Requirements for
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs; Final Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA revised existing criteria for solid waste disposal by establishing
standards for non-municipal non-hazardous-waste disposal units that accept
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) waste. These facilities
will be subject to location restrictions as well as groundwater monitoring and
corrective action requirements. This rule also clarified the hazardous waste
disposal options for CESQGs under Subtitle D of RCRA by expressing that
municipal solid waste landfills subject to Part 258 and non-municipal non-
hazardous waste landfills subject to this part were the only possibilities.
72
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
August 26,1996
(61 FR 43924)
"Emergency Revision of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Phase III
Treatment Standards for Listed Hazardous Wastes From Carbamate
Production; Final Rule"
SUMMARY: On April 8,1996, EPA published treatment standards for a
number of hazardous wastes associated with the production of carbamate
pesticides (Phase III) (61 FR 15566). The Agency has since become aware of
the fact that commercial laboratories are unable to analyze all of the
carbamate constituents because some of them lack laboratory standards. With
this rulemaking EPA revised the carbamate waste treatment standards by
allowing those wastes to be treated by a technology that will either achieve
the Phase HI concentration levels or meet alternative standards. However,
these alternative standards may only be applied for one year after the
publication of this rule.
Citation:
September 16,1996
(61 EB 48683)
"South Dakota; Final Determination of Adequacy of State's Municipal
Solid Waste Permit Program Over Non-Indian Lands for the Former
Lands of the Yankton Sioux, Lake Traverse (Sisseton-Wahpeton) and
Parts of the Rosebud Indian Reservation"
SUMMARY: EPA made a final determination that South Dakota's municipal
solid waste permit program is adequate for all lands, other than Indian
Country as defined by U.S.C. Section 1151, that were formerly within the 1867
Lake Traverse Reservation boundaries and for all lands in Gregory, Tripp,
Lyman, and Mellette Counties that were formerly within the 1889 Rosebud
Sioux Reservation boundaries.
Citation:
September 25,1996
(61 FR 50409)
"Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Re-Establishment of Ground-
Water Monitoring Exemption for Small Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Located in Either Dry or Remote Areas"
SUMMARY: EPA revised the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills by
re-establishing an exemption from groundwater monitoring for owners and
operators of certain small landfills.
73
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
Octobers, 1996
(61 EB 52791)
"Indiana: Final Full Program Determination of Adequacy of State Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA issued a tentative determination of adequacy for all portions of
Indiana's municipal solid waste landfill permit program. The application for full
program adequacy is available for public review and comment. If no adverse
comments are received within sixty days, the determination will become final and
effective.
Citation:
November 20,1996
(61 EB 59096)
"Wisconsin: Final Full Program Determination of Adequacy of State
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA issued a tentative determination of adequacy for all portions of
Wisconsin's municipal solid waste landfill permit program. All (comments on
Wisconsin's application must be received by EPA Region 5 by December 20,1996.
The determination of adequacy for Wisconsin will be effective on January 27,
1997, unless adverse comments are received.
Citation:
November 25,1996
(61 EH 59932)
"Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and
Hazardous Waste Generators; Organic Air Emission Standards for Tanks,
Surface Impoundments, and Containers"
SUMMARY: EPA amended and clarified the regulatory text of the final 40 CFR
Part 264/265, Subpart CC, standards and clarified certain language in the
preamble of the final rule. The final Subpart CC standards (59 PR 62896;
December 6,1994) were published to reduce organic air emissions from certain
hazardous waste management activities to levels that are protective of human
health and the environment. EPA amended the rule such that owners and
operators are provided with additional options and increased flexibility in
meeting the requirements. EPA also suspended the applicability and
implementation of the rule from October 6,1996, to December 6,1996.
Citation:
November 25,1996
(61 EB 60000)
"Alaska: Partial Program Adequacy Tentative Determination of State
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program"
SUMMARY: EPA issued a tentative determination of adequacy for the portions of
the Alaska municipal solid waste landfill permit program that were submitted on
February 12,1996, by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
74
-------
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 27, 1996
(61 EB 60328)
"Financial Assurance Mechanisms for Local Government Owners and
Operators of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities; Final Rule"
SUMMARY: EPA amended the financial assurance provisions of the
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) criteria, under Subtitle D of RCRA by
adding two mechanisms that can be used by owners and operators to
demonstrate that adequate funds will be available for the costs of closure,
post-closure care, and corrective action. The additional mechanisms, a
financial test for use by local government owners and operators, and a local
government guarantee, are designed to be self-implementing. The effective
date for this final rule is April 9,1997, when all MSWLFs will have to comply
with Subtitle D financial assurance requirements, except for small, dry, or
remote landfills which will be subject on October 9,1997.
Citation:
December 31,1996
(61 FR 69032)
"Solid Waste Programs; Management Guidelines for Beverage
Containers and Resource Recovery Facilities Guidelines; Removal of
Obsolete Guidelines"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the withdrawal of Parts 244 and 245 from Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This final rule will become effective on
March 3,1997, unless EPA receives adverse comments on the accompanying
proposal on or before January 30,1997.
75
-------
76
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Final
Rules
Citation:
January 18,1996
(61 FR 1211)
Citation:
January 18,1996
(61 FR 1213)
Citation:
January 18,1996
(61 FR 1216)
Citation:
January 18,1996
(61 £R 1220)
Citation:
January 18,1996
(61 FR1223)
"Louisiana; Codification of Prior Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program
Approval"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of Louisiana's
underground storage tank program and incorporated by reference appropriate
provisions of state statutes and regulations.
"Arkansas; Codification of Prior Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program
Approval"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of Arkansas'
underground storage tank program and incorporated by reference appropriate
provisions of state statutes and regulations.
"New Mexico; Codification of Prior Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Program Approval"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of New
Mexico's underground storage tank program and incorporated by reference
appropriate provisions of state statutes and regulations.
"Oklahoma; Codification of Prior Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program
Approval"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of Oklahoma's
underground storage tank program and incorporated by reference appropriate
provisions of state statutes and regulations.
"Texas; Codification of Prior Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program
Approval"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of Texas'
underground storage tank program and incorporated by reference appropriate
provisions of state statutes and regulations.
77
-------
:sis,j>,j-:j-:j-,j>:j>:
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Final
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
February 1,1996
(61 E3 3599)
Citation:
Februarys, 1996
(61 £B 4224)
Citation:
February 20,1996
(61 £B 6319)
Citation:
February 21,1996
(61 £B 6554)
Citation:
August 9,1996
(61 £B 41507)
Citation:
September 27,1996
(61 £B 50720)
"Montana; Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA granted final approval to Montana to operate its
underground storage tank program in lieu of the federal program.
"Georgia; Codification of Prior Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Program Approval"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of Georgia's
underground storage tank program and incorporated by reference
appropriate provisions of state statutes and regulations.
"Rhode Island; Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program"
SUMMARY: EPA granted final approval to Montana to operate its
underground storage tank program in lieu of the federal program.
"Maine; Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA granted final approval to Maine to operate its underground
storage tank program in lieu of the federal program.
"Underground Storage Tank Program: Approved State Program for
Connecticut"
SUMMARY: EPA granted final approval to Connecticut to operate its
underground storage tank program in lieu of the federal program.
"Delaware; Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA granted final approval to Delaware to operate its
underground storage tank program in lieu of the federal program.
78
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
Final
Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
October 4,1996
(61 EE 51875)
"Alabama; Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program"
SUMMARY: EPA has made a tentative decision that Alabama's underground
storage tank program satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for
approval. Alabama's application for approval is available for public review
and comment.
Citation:
October 31,1996
(61 FR56135)
"Underground Storage Tank Program: Approved State Program for
Massachusetts"
SUMMARY: EPA codified in 40 CFR Part 282 the prior approval of
Massachusetts's underground storage tank program and incorporated by
reference appropriate provisions of state statutes and regulations.
79
-------
08
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
June 17,1996
(61 EB 30575)
Citation:
August 14, 1996
(61 EE42318)
"National Priorities List"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to add 15 new sites to the National Priorities List.
"Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Solvents; CERCLA Hazardous Substance
Designation and Reportable Quantities; Proposed Rule"
SUMMARY: Sections 3001(e)(2) and 3001(b)(l) of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 direct EPA to make a hazardous waste listing
determination for solvent wastes. After extensive study of 14 chemicals
potentially used as solvents, the Agency proposed not to specifically list them
as hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261. The Agency, consequently, will
not amend CERCLA's list of hazardous substances and their respective
reportable quantities found in 40 CFR Table 302.4.
Citation:
December 23,1996
(61 EB 67678)
"National Priorities List; Proposed Rule No. 21"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to add five new sites to the General Superfund
Section of the NPL and withdraws the proposal of one site. Four sites are
proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above and one site is proposed
based on ATSDR health advisory criteria.
Final Rules
Citation:
January 26,1996
(61 EE 2451)
"National Priorities List; Anderson Development Company Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Anderson Development
Company site, located in Adrian, Michigan, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on August 30,
1995 (60 PR 13944). EPA and the State of Michigan have determined that no
further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at
the site have been protective of public health and welfare and the
environment.
81
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
January 31,1996
(61 EB 3331)
"National Priorities List; Ossineke Groundwater Contamination
Superfund Site"
I
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Ossineke Groundwater
Contamination Site, located in Ossineke, Michigan, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on
August 11,1995 (60 PR. 41051). EPA and the State of Michigan have
determined that no further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that
remedial actions at the site have been protective of public health and welfare
and the environment. :
Citation:
Februarys, 1996
(61 EB 4747)
"National Priorities List; Clothier Disposal Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Clothier Disposal Site,
located in Granby, New York, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on September 15,1995 (60 PR
47918). EPA and the State of New York have determined that no further
cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at the site
have been protective of public health and welfare and the environment.
Citation:
February 16,1996
(61 £R 6115)
"National Priorities List; Flowood Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Flowood Site, located in
Rankin County, Mississippi, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on June 15,1995 (60 PR 31440).
EPA and the State of Mississippi have determined that no further cleanup
under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at the site have been
protective of public health and welfare and the environment.
Citation:
February 21,1996
(61 EB 6556)
"National Priorities List; Lewisburg Dump Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Lewisburg ^Dump Site,
located in Lewisburg, Tennessee, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on December 20,1995
(60 PR 65616). EPA and the State of Tennessee have determined that no
further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at
the site have been protective of public health and welfare and the
environment. :
82
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
March 1,1996
(61 FR 7996)
"National Priorities List; Arkansas City Dump Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Arkansas City Dump Site,
located in Arkansas City, Kansas, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on September 20,
1995. EPA and the State of Kansas 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.
Citation:
April 10, 1996
(61 FR 15902)
"National Priorities List; Folkertsma Refuse Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Folkertsma Refuse Site,
located in Walker, Michigan, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on January 29,1996 (61 FR.
2772). EPA and the State of Michigan 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.
Citation:
April 25, 1996
(61 FR 18287)
"National Priorities List; Lee's Lane Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Lee's Lane Site, located in
Louisville, Kentucky, from the National Priorities List. The Agency published
a notice of its intent to delete the site on May 16,1988 (53 FR17228), and
published a revised notice on February 14,1992 (57 FR 5410). EPA and the
Commonwealth of Kentucky 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.
Citation:
April 26, 1996
(61 FR 18507)
"National Priorities List; Kummer Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Site, located in Belrrami County, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on March 1,1996
(61 FE 8012). 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.
83
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
April 29,1996
(61 £B 18683)
"National Priorities List; Galiaway Pits Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Gallaway Pits Site, located in
Fayette County, Tennessee, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on February 22,1996 (61FR
6807). EPA and the State of Tennessee 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.
Citation:
April 29,1996
(61 EB18684)
"National Priorities List; 29th and Mead Ground Water Contamination
Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the 29th and Mead Ground
Water Contamination Site, located in Wichita, Kansas, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on
January 31,1996 (61 FR 3365). EPA and the State of Kansas 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.
Citation:
April 30,1996
(61 EB 18968)
"National Priorities List; Amnicola Dump Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Amnicola Dump Site,
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on February 22,1996
(61 FR 6806). EPA and the State of Tennessee 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.
Citation:
May 7,1996
(61 EB 20473)
"National Priorities List; East Bethel Demolition Landfill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the East Bethel Demolition
Landfill Site, located in Anoka, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List.
The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on March 13,1996
(61 FR 10298). 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.
84
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
May 16,1996
(61 EB 24720)
"National Priorities List; Washington County Landfill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Washington County Landfill
Site, located in Washington County, Minnesota, from the National Priorities
List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on April 1,
1996 (61 FR14280). 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.
Citation:
May 17,1996
(61 EB 24894)
"National Priorities List; A.L. Taylor Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the A.L. Taylor Site, located in
Brooks, Kentucky, from the National Priorities List. The Agency published a
notice of its intent to delete the site in July 1988, and a revised notice of intent
to delete on March 8,1996. EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky 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.
Citation:
June 3, 1996
(61 EB 27788)
"National Priorities List; Newport Dump Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Newport Dump Site, located
in Wilder, Kentucky, from the National Priorities List. The Agency published
a notice of its intent to delete the site on May 16,1988, and published a revised
notice on March 8,1996. EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky 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.
Citation:
June 5,1996
(61 EB 28511)
"National Priorities List; Waste Disposal Engineering Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Waste Disposal Engineering
Site, located in Andover, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on March 26,1996 (61
FR 13131). 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.
85
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 11,1996
(61 EB 29493)
"Acquisition Regulation; Bonds and Insurance"
SUMMARY: EPA is removing from the EPA Acquisition Regulation clauses
regarding insurance for liability to third parties for Superfund response action
contractors. This rule eliminates coverage and clauses on Insurance, Liability
to Third Persons, for commercial organizations and state and local
governments performing as response action contractors in Superfund. These
clauses were rendered obsolete by EPA's Final Guidelines for Superfund
Response Action Contractor Indemnification published on January 25,1993.
Citation:
June 12,1996
(61 £B 29678)
"National Priorities List; New Castle Spill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Waste Disposal Engineering
Site, located in New Castle, Delaware, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on March 21,1996 (59
FR11597). EPA and the State of Delaware have determined that no further
cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions at the site
have been protective of pubHc health, welfare, and the environment.
Citation:
June 17,1996
(61 EB 30510)
"National Priorities List"
SUMMARY: EPA published the National Priorities List identifying the
national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United
States. This rule adds thirteen new sites to the National Priorities List.
Citation:
August 28,1996
(61 EB 45871)
"Executive Order 13016"
SUMMARY: The President ordered an amendment to Section 4 of Executive
Order 12580 of January 23,1987. Executive Order 12580 transfers authority
from the President to EPA to implement and regulate CERCLA. Section 4 of
Executive Order 12580 delegates certain enforcement provisions to EPA and
the Coast Guard. Executive Order 13016 amends this section by expanding
the delegation of authority to also include the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Energy in implementing CERCLA §§106(a) and 122
(except subsection (b)(l)).
86
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
October 2,1996
(61 FR 51373)
"National Priorities List; AMP Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the AMP Site, located in Glen
Rock, York County, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on July 26,1996 (61
FR 39104). The Agency has determined that deferral of the site to RCRA
authorities is appropriate, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concurs.
Citation:
October 9,1996
(61 FR 52886)
"National Priorities List; Chemet Company Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Chemet Company Site,
located in Fayette County, Tennessee, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on August 21,1996
(61 FR 43205). The Agency and the State of Tennessee have determined that
no further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions
conducted at the site have been protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment.
Citation:
October 9, 1996
(61 ER 52887)
"National Priorities List; Gold Coast Oil Corporation Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Gold Coast Oil Corporation
Site, located in Dade County, Florida, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on August 21,1996
(61 FR 43203). EPA and the State of Florida Department of Environmental
Protection have determined that the site poses no significant threat to public
health or the environment and therefore, further response measures pursuant
to CERCLA are not appropriate.
Citation:
October 11,1996
(61 FR 53328)
"National Priorities List; Northwest 58th Street Landfill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Northwest 58th Street
Landfill Site, located in Dade County, Florida, from the National Priorities
List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on
August 2,1996 (61 FR 40371). EPA and the State of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection have determined that the site poses no significant
threat to public health or the environment and therefore, further response
measures pursuant to CERCLA are not appropriate.
87
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
October 17,1996
(61 £B 54098)
"National Priorities List; Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Site, located in Minnesota, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on July 29,1996 (61 FR 39383).
EPA and the State of Minnesota have determined that remedial actions
conducted at the site remain protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment.
Citation:
October 18,1996
(61 EB 54343)
"National Priorities List; Marathon Battery Company Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Marathon Battery Company
Site, located in Cold Spring, New York, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency and the State of New York have determined that no further cleanup
under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial actions conducted at the site
have been protective of public health, welfare, and the environment.
Citation:
October 25,1996
(61 £B 55298)
"Revised Guidance on Procedures for Submitting CERCLA §106(b)
Reimbursement Petitions and on EPA Review of Those Petitions"
SUMMARY: EPA's Environmental Appeals Board revised guidance on
procedures for submitting reimbursement petitions pursuant to CERCLA
§106(b). Section 106(b)(2) of CERCLA allows any person who has complied
with an administrative order issued under CERCLA §106(a) to petition for
reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in complying with the order,
plus interest. To establish a claim for reimbursement, a petitioner must
demonstrate that it was not liable for response costs under CERCLA §107(a),
or that EPA's selection of the ordered response action was arbitrary and
capricious or was otherwise not in accordance with the law.
Citation:
October 29,1996
(61 £B 55751)
"National Priorities List; Com Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of portions of the Com Bay, Near
Shore/Tide Flats Site, located in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington, from
the National Priorities List. The Agency, the State of Washington, and the
Puyallup Tribe of Indians have determined that the deleted portions of the
site pose no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are not necessary.
83
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 1,1996
(61 FR 56477)
"National Priorities List; Seldon Clark Property from the General
Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Seldon Clark Property from
the General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site, located in East Flat Rock,
Henderson County, North Carolina, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on September 3,1996
(61FR 46418). The Agency and the State of North Carolina have determined
that the site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment
and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
Citation:
November 7,1996
(61 FB 57594)
"National Priorities List; Harbor Island Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of a portion of the Harbor Island
Site, located in Seattle, King County, Washington, from the National Priorities
List. The portion of the site to be deleted is the Lockheed Shipyard Operable
Unit. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on
September 5,1996 (61 FR 46749). The Agency and the State of Washington
Department of Ecology have determined that no further cleanup under
CERCLA is required and that the selected remedy is protective of public
health, welfare, and the environment.
Citation:
November 14,1996
(61 FR 58332)
"National Priorities List; St. Augusta Landfill/Engen Dump Superfund
Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the St. Augusta Landfill/Engen
Dump Site, located in Stearns County, Minnesota, from the National Priorities
List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on July 22,
1996 (61 FS 37876). The Agency and the State of Minnesota have determined
that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and that no further response by responsible parties is
appropriate.
Citation:
November 21,1996
(61 FR59184)
"National Priorities List; Louisiana-Pacific Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Louisiana-Pacific Site,
located in Oroville, California, from the National Priorities List. The Agency
published a notice of its intent to delete the site on August 27,1996 (61 FR
59184). The Agency and the State of California have determined that the site
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
no further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate.
89
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
November 27,1996
(61 £B 60197)
"National Priorities List; Lakewood Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of a portion of the Lakewood Site,
located in Pierce County, Washington, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete a portion of the site on
September 27,1996 (61FR 50788). The portion of the site to be deleted is the
soil unit and includes all contaminated soil and sludge related to the site.
EPA and the State of Washington Department of Ecology have determined
that no further cleanup under CERCLA is required and that the selected
remedy has been protective of public health, welfare, and the environment.
Citation:
December 11,1996
(61 £B 65186)
"National Priorities List; Omega Hills North Landfill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Omega Hills North Landfill
Superfund Site, located in Germantown, Wisconsin, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on
June 25,1996 (61 FR 32765). The Agency and the State of Wisconsin have
determined that remedial actions conducted at the site to date remain
protective of public health, welfare, and the environment.
Citation:
December 16,1996
(61 EB 65957)
"National Priorities List; Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base, Small Arms
Range Landfill Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Twin Cities Air Force
Reserve Base, Small Arms Range Landfill, Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport Superfund Site located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, from the National
Priorities List. The Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on
September 16,1996 (61 PR 65957). The Agency and the State of Minnesota
have determined that the responsible parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required and that remedial actions conducted at
the site to date remain protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment.
Citation:
December 20,1996
(61 £B 67233)
90
"National Priorities List; Sand Creek Industrial Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Sand Creek Industrial
Superfund Site, located in Colorado, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on August 28,1996
(61 FR 44275). The Agency and the State of Colorado have determined that
the site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment as long
as operation and maintenance is implemented as necessary and institutional
controls are implemented and effective.
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
December 20,1996
(61 ER 67234)
"National Priorities List; Cal West Metals Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Gal West Metals Superfund
Site, located in Lemitar, New Mexico, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on November 5,1996
(61 ER 56931). The Agency and the State of New Mexico have determined that
all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and no further cleanup is appropriate.
Citation:
December 23, 1996
(61 FR 67656)
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites"
SUMMARY: EPA added seven new sites to the General Superfund Section of
the National Priorities List. All of these sites are added to the NPL based on
an HRS score of 28.5 or greater. This action results in an NPL of 1,210 sites,
1,059 in the General Superfund Section and 151 in the Federal Facilities
Section.
Citation:
December 27,1996
(61 £R 68157)
"National Priorities List; Ambler Asbestos Superfund Site"
SUMMARY: EPA announced the deletion of the Ambler Asbestos Superfund
Site, located in Ambler, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete the site on September 5,1996
(61 FR 46755). The Agency and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA
have been implemented and no further cleanup by responsible parties is
appropriate.
91
-------
92
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW (EPCRA)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
June 27,1996
(61 EB 33588)
Citation:
October 1,1996
(61 EB 51322)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Addition of Facilities in Certain
Industry Sectors"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to expand the list of industry groups potentially
subject to the toxic chemical release inventory (TRI) reporting requirements
under §313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
and §6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act. Seven industry groups are pro-
posed for inclusion in the TRI: metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities,
commercial hazardous waste treatment, chemicals and allied products-
wholesale, petroleum bulk stations-wholesale, and solvent recovery services.
Written comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before August
26,1996.
"Addition of Reporting Elements; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting;
Community Right-to-Know"
SUMMARY: EPA provided notice of its consideration of requiring increased
information available to the public on chemical use. EPA solicits comments
on all aspects of chemical use and the collection of chemical use data.
Final Rules
Citation:
May 7,1996
(61 EH 20473)
Citation:
July 25,1996
(61 EB 38600)
"Extremely Hazardous Substance List Modifications; Deletions and
Reportable Quantity Adjustments"
SUMMARY: EPA modified the extremely hazardous substance (EHS) list
under EPCRA §302 by raising the statutory reportable quantities for 202 EHSs
and by removing four chemicals, determined not to meet the listing criteria,
from the EHS list. The effective date for this rule is July 8,1996.
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Hydrochloric Acid"
SUMMARY: EPA modified hydrochloric acid on the list of toxic chemicals
subject to EPCRA §313 reporting. Facilities are no longer obligated to report
releases of and other waste management information on non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid that occurred during the 1995 reporting year, and for
activities in the future. Facilities that have already filed a Form R report for
hydrochloric acid may revise or withdraw their submissions based on this
modification. Revisions and withdrawal requests must be submitted no later
than October 15,1996.
93
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
(EPCRA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
July 29,1996
(61 EH 39356)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Diethyl Phthalate"
SUMMARY: EPA deleted diethyl phthalate (DEP) (CAS No. 84-66-2) from the
list of toxic chemicals subject to EPCRA §313 reporting. EPA concluded that
DEP meets the deletion criteria of EPCRA §313(d)(3). Facilities are no longer
obligated to report releases of and other waste management information on
DEP that occurred during the 1995 reporting year, and for activities in the
future.
Citation:
July 31,1996
(61 EEL 39891)
"Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Di-(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate"
i
SUMMARY: EPA deleted di-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA) (CAS No. 103-23-
1), also known as bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, from the list of toxic chemicals
subject to EPCRA §313 reporting. EPA concluded that DEHA meets the
deletion criteria of EPCRA §313(d)(3). Facilities are no longer obligated to
report releases of and other waste management information on DEHA that
occurred during the 1995 reporting year, and for activities in the future.
Citation:
Augusts, 1996
(61 EB 41473)
"Toxic Chemical Release Inventory; Federal Acquisition and Community
Right to Know"
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council agreed on a final rule to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation Parts 23 and 52 to implement Executive Qrder 12969.
The Executive Order requires federal agency contractors to report in a public
manner on toxic chemicals released, to ensure that their covered facilities file
Form Rs for covered activities for the life of the contract.
Citation:
October 18,1996
(61 EB 54381)
"Copper Metal; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-
Know"
SUMMARY: EPA denied a petition to remove copper metal (CAS No. 7440-
50-8) from the list of chemicals subject to the reporting requirements under
§313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. The
Agency determined that copper metal did not meet the deletion criterion of
EPCRA §313(d)(3).
94
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112(r) (CAA)
Proposed
Rules
Citation:
April 15, 1996
(61 £E 16598)
"Proposed Amendments; List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds
for Accidental Release Prevention"
SUMMARY: EPA announced several proposed modifications to the final rule
listing regulated substances and threshold quantities under §112(r) of the
Clean Air Act as amended (59 FR 4478; January 31,1994). EPA proposed to
delete the category of Division 1.1 explosives (as listed by DOT) from the list
of regulated substances, and to provide an exemption from threshold
quantity determinations for regulated flammable substances in gasoline used
as fuel and in naturally occurring pre-processed hydrocarbon mixtures. EPA
also proposed a clarification of the provision for threshold determination for
flammable substances in mixtures, as well as clarification of the definition of
stationary source and the transportation exemption. Additional language is
proposed to clarify that the provisions of CAA §112(r) do not apply to sources
located ori the Outer Continental Shelf. EPA will accept written comments
regarding the proposed amendments on or before May 15,1996.
Citation:
April 15, 1996
(61 EB 16606)
Final Rules
Citation:
June 20,1996
(61 FR31668)
"Proposed Stay of Effectiveness; List of Regulated Substances and
Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention"
SUMMARY: EPA proposed to stay the effectiveness of provisions that are
potentially affected by the proposed List Rule Amendments (61 FR 16606;
April 15,1996). Under the proposed stay, owners and operators of processes
and sources that the proposed amendments would exempt from the §112(r)
Risk Management Program requirements would not become subject to those
provisions until EPA has determined whether to proceed with the proposed
amendments. Comments will be accepted on or before May 15,1996.
"Risk Management Program for Accidental Release Prevention"
SUMMARY: EPA announced regulations applicable to all stationary sources
with processes that contain more than a threshold quantity of a regulated
substance to prevent accidental releases and reduce the severity of those
releases that do occur. Processes are divided into three categories based on
the potential for off-site consequence associated with a worst-case accidental
release; accident history; or compliance with the prevention requirements
under OSHA's Process Safety Management Standard. All sources must
prepare a risk management plan based on the risk management programs
established at the source.
95
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112(R) (CAA)
Final Rules
(cont'd)
Citation:
June 20,1996
(61 £B 31730)
"Stay of Effectiveness; List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for
Accidental Release Prevention"
SUMMARY: EPA announced a stay of effectiveness of provisions that are
potentially affected by the proposed List Rule Amendments (61ER16606;
April 15,1996). Under the stay, owners and operators of processes and
sources that the proposed amendments would exempt from the §112(r) Risk
Management Program requirements are not subject to those provisions until
EPA has determined whether to proceed with proposed amendments.
96
-------
CROSS-PROGRAM
Final Rules
Citation:
June 3,1996
(61 FB 27984)
"Interim Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses"
SUMMARY: EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance issued
its Final Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses. The policy
sets guidelines for the Agency to reduce or waive penalties for small
businesses that make good faith efforts to correct violations, and provides
guidance for states and local governments to offer incentives for compliance.
Citation:
December 31,1996
(61 FR 69360)
"Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule"
SUMMARY: As mandated by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,
EPA adjusted its civil monetary penalties for inflation. Almost all of EPA's
penalty provisions are increased by ten percent, except for new penalty
provisions enacted into law in 1996.
97
-------
98
-------
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 Federal Register summaries by subject. The questions and answers and Federal
Register summaries that address that topic are listed below each key word. For example,
to find information dealing with release reporting, you would look in the key word index
for that phrase and find a question and answer entitled "CERCLA §103(a) Release
Notification Requirements for Friable and Non-Friable Forms of Asbestos" and a Federal
Register notice from May 7,1996, regarding reportable quantity adjustments. The reference
provides the page number for full text and is coded with a capital letter to indicate the
relevant program (i.ev R=RCRA, S=Superfund, U=UST, E=EPCRA, and C=CAA §112(r)).
The second index organizes the questions and answers 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 and answer
entitled "PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes."
Similarly, the third index organizes the questions by statutory citation. For example, the
question and answer entitled "Release Reporting Requirements for Underground Storage
Tanks" is referenced under "Section 9003 - Release Detection, Prevention, and Correction
Regulations."
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.
99
-------
100
-------
KEY WORD INDEX
Abatement
61EE 45871; August 28,1996 p. 86 (S)
Accidental release prevention
"Frequently Asked Questions on the
CAA §112(r) Requirements" p. 59 (C)
61 FS16598; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61ES16606; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 PR 31668; June 20,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 PR 31730; June 20,1996 p. 96 (C)
Air emissions
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Part
264/265, Subpart CC Air Emission Standards"
p.3(R)
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit
for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3 (R)
61 ES 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68 (R)
61 FR 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74 (R)
Ammonia
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia under
EPCRA §313" p. 57 (E)
Aquifer
"CERCLA Liability in Relation to Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Substances" p. 43 (S)
Bevill wastes
61 FR 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65 (R)
Brownfields
"Brownfields Pilots: Funding Goals and
Limitations" p. 47 (S)
Burning
"State Authorization and Used Oil Recycled
Through Some Other Means Than Burning for
Energy Recovery" p. 23 (R)
Carbamates
61 ER 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69 (R)
61 FR 43924; August 26,1996 p. 73 (R)
Certification statement
"EPCRA §313 and Certification Signatures"
p. 53 (E)
CERCLA waste
"Determination of Acceptable Facilities to Receive
CERCLA Wastes" p. 41 (S)
Chemical Use Inventory (GUI)
61 ER 51322; October 1,1996 p. 93 (E)
Chlorofluprocarbon (CFC)
"Rebuttable Presumption for CFC Contaminated
Used OH" p. 21 (R)
Civil penalties
61 EE 11089; March 18,1996 p. 69 (R)
61ES 27984; June 3,1996 p. 97 (C,R,U,S,E)
61 ES 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97 (C,R,U,S,E)
Clean Air Act
"Frequently Asked Questions on the CAA §112(r)
Requirements" p. 59 (C)
"National Response Team's Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance" p. 60 (C)
"Relationship Between the Risk Management
Program Rule and the Process Safety
Management Standard" p. 61 (S)
61 FR 16598; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 EE 16606; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 FR 31668; June 20,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 FR 31730; June 20,1996 p. 96 (C)
Closure
"Annual Payments Into a Standby Trust Fund
When Using a Letter of Credit" p. 4 (R)
"Closure Requirements for Tanks Not Upgraded
by 1998" p. 38 (U)
"Delay of Closure for Non-retrofitted Hazardous
Waste Surface Impoundments Continuing to
Receive Non-hazardous Waste" p. 10 (R)
Combustion
61 ES 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69 (R)
61 ES 17357; April 19,1996 p. 66 (R)
Commercial chemical product
"Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for
Solid Waste Determination vs. Hazardous Waste
Identification" p. 24 (R)
Composting
"Frequently Asked Questions on Composting"
p. 15 (R)
Conditionally exempt small quantity generator
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
Treating in Elementary Neutralization Units"
p.7(R)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Hazardous Waste
Generator Requirements" p. 7 (R)
61 FR 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72 (R)
Containers
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Parts
264/265, Subpart CC Air Emission Standards"
p.3(R)
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and
the Liquids in Landfills Prohibition" p. 11 (R)
LEGEND:
(C) = CAA§112(r)
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
101
-------
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit
for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3 (R)
61ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68 (R)
61ER 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74 (R)
Contractor
"Contractors as Procuring Agencies" p. 15 (R)
61ER 29493; June 11,1996 p. 86 (S)
61ER 41473; August 8,1996 p. 94 (E)
Cooperative agreements
"Brownfields Pilots: Funding Goals and
Limitations" p. 47 (S)
Copper,
61EK 54381; October 18,1996 p. 94 (E)
Corporate guarantee
"UST Financial Responsibility: Use of the
Guarantee When the Guarantor is Not U.S.-
Based"p.33(U)
Corrective action
"Corrective Action Beyond Interim Status Facility
Boundary" p. 17 (R)
61 ER 19432; May 1,1996 p. 67 (R)
Corrosion protection
"Frequently Asked Question on Upgrading of
Existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)"
p.39(U)
"Replacement Equipment for Existing
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 37 (U)
Decharacterized waste
61 ER 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69 (R)
61 ER 15660; April 8,1996 p. 70 (R)
Deletion
"Partial Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
p.45(S)
Dellsting
61 ER 32798; June 25,1996 p. 72 (R)
DIethyl phthalate
61 ER 39356; July 29,1996 p. 94 (E)
Di-(2-ethylhexyi adipate)
61 ER 39891; July 31,1996 p. 94 (E)
Discount rates
"Discount Rates for Comparison of Remedial
Alternatives" p. 48 (S)
Elementary neutralization unit
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
Treating in Elementary Neutralization Units"
P-7(R)
Emergency planning
"Frequently Asked Questions on the CAA §112(r)
Requirements" p. 59 (C)
LEGEND:
(C)sCAA§112(r)
(E) = EFCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(U) = UST
"National Response Team's Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance" p. 60 (C)
"Relationship Between the Risk Management
Program Rule and the Process Safety
Management Standard" p. 61 (C)
61 FR16598; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61ER16606; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 FR 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93 (E,S)
61 PR 31668; June 20,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 FR 31730; June 20,1996 p. 96 (C) :
Enforcement
"Alternative Dispute Resolution" p. 41 (S)
61 FE 45871; August 28,1996 p. 86 (S)
61 FR 27984; June 3,1996 p. 97 (C,R,U,S,E)
61 FR 55298; October 25,1996 p. 88 (S)
61 FR 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97 (C,R,U,S,E)
Exclusion
"Exclusion of Laboratory Wastes from the Mixture
Rule" p. 25 (R)
Exemptions
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials
Recognizable as Articles" p. 53 (E)
"Facility Maintenance Exemption Under EPCRA
§313" p. 56 (E)
Exports
"Tolling Agreement and Exports" p. 9 (R)
61 FR 8323; March 4,1996 p. 66 (R)
61 FR 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70 (R)
Extremely Hazardous Substance
61 FR 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93 (E,S)
Federal Facility Compliance Act
61 FR 11089; March 18,1996 p. 68 (R)
Financial assurance
"Annual Payments Into a Standby Trust Fund
When Using a Letter of Credit" p. 4 (R)
"Financial Statement Requirement for the RCRA
Subtitle C Financial Test" p. 5 (R) .
"Tangible Net Worth Requirements for RCRA
Subtitle C Financial Assurance" p. 6 (R)
61 ER 60328; November 27,1996 p. 75 (R)
Financial responsibility '
"Frequently Asked Questions on Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Financial Responsibility"
p. 30 (U) ;
"Use of Insurance and State Funds to Fulfill UST
Financial Responsibility" p. 31 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility and Insolvent State
Trust Funds" p. 32 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility and the Definition
of Petroleum Marketer" p. 32 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility: Use of the
Guarantee When the Guarantor is Not U.S.-
Based" p. 33 (U) ;
102
-------
Financial test
"Financial Statement Requirement for the RCRA
Subtitle C Financial Test" p. 5 (R)
"Tangible Net Worth Requirements for RCRA
Subtitle C Financial Assurance" p. 6 (R)
61 PR 60328; November 27,1996 p. 75 (R)
Form R
"Deletion of EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemicals from
the TRI Database" p. 52 (E)
"EPCRA §313 and Certification Signatures"
p. 53 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials
Recognizable as Articles" p. 53 (E)
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the
Definition of Process" p. 55 (E)
"EPCRA and RCRA-Empty" p. 56 (E)
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia under
EPCRA §313" p. 57 (E) .
61 PR 38600; July 25,1996 p. 93 (E)
61 FR 39356; July 29,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 F_E 39891; July 31,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 £R 41473; August 8,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 FR 51322; October 1,1996 p. 93 (E)
61ER 54381; October 18,1996 p. 94 (E)
Generator
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units
to Generator Accumulation Units" p. 16 (R)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Hazardous Waste
Generator Requirements" p. 7 (R)
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Parts
264/265, Subpart CC Air Emission Standards"
p. 3 (R)
"Generators and Designated Transporters" p. 8 (R)
"Recycling Presumption under Part 279" p. 22 (R)
"Tolling Agreement and Exports" p. 9 (R)
61 F_E 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68 (R)
61 FE 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70 (R)
61FR 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74 (R)
Groundwater monitoring
"Resampling and Groundwater Monitoring
Notification Requirements" p. 18 (R)
"Surface Impoundment Retrofitting
Requirements" p. 12 (R)
61 FE 50409; September 25,1996 p. 73 (R)
Hazardous chemical inventory report
"The Development and Use of Electronic Versions
of EPCRA §312 Hazardous Chemical Inventory
Reporting Forms" p. 51 (E)
Hazardous substance
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination
Discovered During a Site Inspection" p. 46 (S)
"CERCLA §103(a) Release Notification
Requirements for Friable and Non-friable Forms
of Asbestos" p. 47 (S)
"CERCLA Liability in Relation to Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Substances" p. 43 (S)
61 FR 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67,81 (R,S)
61 FR 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93 (E,S)
Hazardous waste identification
"Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for
Solid Waste Determination vs. Hazardous Waste
Identification" p. 24 (R)
"Exclusion of Laboratory Wastes from the Mixture
Rule" p. 25 (R)
"PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes" p. 26 (R)
61 FR 18780; April 29,1996 p. 66 (R)
61 FR 32798; June 25,1996 p. 72 (R)
61 FR 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67 (R,S)
Hazardous waste landfill
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and
the Liquids in Landfills Prohibition" p. 11 (R)
"Regulation of Leachate Collection Sumps"
P-U (R)
Hydrochloric acid
"EPCRA §313 Listing of Hydrochloric Acid"
p. 55 (E)
61 FR 38600; July 25,1996 p. 93 (E)
Indian lands
61 FR 2583; January 26,1996 p. 65 (R)
61 FR 30472; June 14,1996 p. 67 (R)
61 F_£ 48683; September 16,1996 p. 73 (R)
Industry expansion
61 FE 33588; June 27,1996 p. 93 (E)
Insurance
"Use of Insurance and State Funds to Fulfill UST
Financial Responsibility" p. 31 (U)
61 FR 29493; June 11,1996 p. 86 (S)
Integrated contingency plan
"National Response Team's Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance" p. 60 (C)
Interim status
"Corrective Action Beyond Interim Status Facility
Boundary" p. 17 (R)
Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act
61 FR 15660; April 8,1996 p. 70 (R)
Land disposal restrictions
"Frequently Asked Questions on Compliance with
Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standards" p. 13 (R)
61 FR 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65 (R)
61 F_E 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69 (R)
LEGEND:
(C) = CAA§112(r)
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
103
-------
61ES15660; April 8,1996 p. 70 (R)
61ER18779; April 29,1996 p. 66 (R)
61ER 43924; August 26,1996 p. 73 (R)
Leachate collection and removal system
"Regulation of Leachate Collection Systems"
p.ll(R)
"Surface Impoundment Retrofitting
Requirements" p. 12 (R)
Leak detection
"Automatic Tank Gauging Requirements" p. 34 (U)
"Differences in Underground Storage Tank Leak
Detection Requirements" p. 35 (U)
Letter of credit
"Annual Payments Into a Standby Trust Fund
When Using a Letter of Credit" p. 4 (R)
Liability
"CERCLA Liability in Relation to Subsurface
Migration of Hazardous Substances" p. 43 (S)
"CERCLA Liability Protection for Prospective
Purchasers of Sites for Redevelopment" p. 44 (S)
"Financial Statement Requirement for the RCRA
Subtitle C Financial Test" p. 5 (R)
"Partial Deletion of National Priorities List Sites"
p.45(S)
"Tangible Net Worth Requirements for RCRA
Subtitle C Financial Assurance" p. 6 (R)
61ER 29493; June 11,1996 p. 86 (S)
Liquids
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and
the Liquids in Landfills Prohibition" p. 11 (R)
Manifest
"Frequently Asked Questions on Hazardous Waste
Generator Requirements" p. 7 (R)
Manufacturing threshold
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the
Definition of Process" p. 55 (E)
Maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
61ER17357; April 19,1996 p. 66 (R)
Mineral processing waste
61FR 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65 (R)
Mixed waste
61ER18588; April 26,1996 p. 71 (R)
Mixture rule
"Exclusion of Laboratory Wastes from the Mixture
Rule" p. 25 (R)
61 ER 33691; June 28,1996 p. 72 (R)
Municipal solid waste landfills
61 ER 2583; January 26,1996 p. 65 (R)
61 ER 50409; September 25,1996 p. 73 (R)
LEGEND:
(C)-CAA§112(r)
(E)s EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R)SRCRA (U)=UST
61 EE 60328; November 27,1996 p. 75 (R)
National Priorities List (NPL)
"Partial Deletion of NPL Sites" p. 45 (S)
61ES 2451; January 26,1996 p. 81 (S)
61EE 3331; January 31,1996 p. 82 (S)
61 FE 4747; February 8,1996 p. 82 (S)
61 FE 6115; February 16,1996 p. 82 (S)
61 ES 6556; February 21,1996 p. 82 (S)
61 FE 7996; March 1,1996 p. 83 (S) ;
61 FE 15902; April 10,1996 p. 83 (S)
61EE18287; April 25,1996 p. 83 (S)
61 ES 18507; April 26,1996 p. 83 (S)
61 FE 18683; April 29,1996 p. 84 (S)
61 FE 18684; April 29,1996 p. 84 (S)
61 FR 18968; April 30,1996 p. 84 (S)
61 FE 20473; May 7,1996 p. 84 (S)
61 EE 24720; May 16,1996 p. 85 (S)
61 FE 24894; May 17,1996 p. 85 (S)
61 FR 27788; June 3,1996 p. 85 (S)
61 FR 28511; June 5,1996 p. 85 (S)
61 FR 29678; June 12,1996 p. 86 (S) ;
61 FE 30510; June 17,1996 p. 86 (S)
61 FE 30575; June 17,1996 p. 81 (S) i
61 ES 51373; October 2,1996 p. 87 (S)
61 EE 52886; October 9,1996 p. 87 (S)
61 EE 52887; October 9,1996 p. 87 (S)
61 EE 53328; October 11,1996 p. 87 (S)
61 EE 54098; October 17,1996 p. 88 (S)
61 FE 54343; October 18,1996 p. 88 (S)
61 ES 55751; October 29,1996 p. 88 (S)
61 EE 56477; November 1,1996 p. 89,(S)
61 EE 57594; November 7,1996 p. 89 (S)
61 FE 58332; November 14,1996 p. 89 (S)
61 EE 59184; November 21,1996 p. 89 (S)
61 EE 60197; November 27,1996 p. 90 (S)
61 FE 65186; December 11,1996 p. 90 (S)
61 EE 65957; December 16,1996 p. 90 (S)
61 ES 67233; December 20,1996 p. 90 (S)
61 ES 67234; December 20,1996 p. 91 (S)
61 ES 67656; December 23,1996 p. 91 (S)
61 EE 67678; December 23,1996 p. 81 (S)
61 FE 68157; December 27,1996 p. 91 (S)
National Response Team (NRT)
"National Response Team's Integrated
Contingency Plan Guidance" p. 60 (C)
Obsolete guidelines
61 EE 18501; April 26,1996 p. 70 (R)
61 EE 69032; December 31,1996 p. 75 (R)
OECD decision
61 ES 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70 (R)
Off-site rule
"Determination of Acceptable Facilities to Receive
CERCLA Wastes" p. 41 (S)
104
-------
Operating record
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit
for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3 (R)
OSHA
"Relationship Between the Risk Management
Program Rule and the Process Safety
Management Standard" p. 61 (C)
PCBs
"PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes" p. 26 (R)
Permit
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units
to Generator Accumulation Units" p. 16 (R)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Hazardous Waste
Generator Requirements" p. 7 (R)
"Tank Storage at Transfer Facilities" p. 9 (R)
61 FR 2583; January 26,1996 p. 65 (R)
Pesticides
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Universal
Waste Regulations" p. 19 (R)
61 FR, 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69 (R)
61 FR 43924; August 26,1996 p. 73 (R)
Petroleum
"Release Reporting Requirements for
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 36 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility and the Definition
of Petroleum Marketer" p. 32 (U)
Petroleum refining
61EE13103; March 26,1996 p. 69 (R)
Processing
"Coolant Recycling and Used Oil Processing"
p.20(R)
Processing threshold
"EPCRA §313: Clarification of Processing
Threshold for Items that are Processed More Than
Once" p. 54 (E)
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the
Definition of Process" p. 55 (E)
Procurement
"Contractors as Procuring Agencies" p. 15 (R)
61 FR 26986; May 29,1996 p. 71 (R)
61 FR 41473; August 8,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 FR 57748; November 7,1996 p. 68 (R)
Prospective purchaser
"CERCLA Liability Protection for Prospective
Purchasers of Sites for Redevelopment" p. 44 (S)
Pump
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Applicability
of the 40 CFR Part 280 Underground Storage Tank
Regulations" p. 29 (U)
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and
the Liquids in Landfills Prohibition" p. 11 (R)
Reclamation
"Rebuttable Presumption for CFC Contaminated
Used Oil" p. 21 (R)
"Tolling Agreement and Exports" p. 9 (R)
Recovered oil
61 FR 13103; March 26,1996 p. 69 (R)
Recycling
"Contractors as Procuring Agencies" p. 15 (R)
"Coolant Recycling and Used Oil Processing"
p. 20 (R)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Composting"
p. 15 (R)
"Recycling Presumption under Part 279" p. 22 (R)
Regulated substance
61 FR 16598; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 FR 16606; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 FR 31668; June 20,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 FR 31730; June 20,1996 p. 96 (C)
Release reporting
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination
Discovered During a Site Inspection" p. 46 (S)
"CERCLA §103(a) Release Notification
Requirements for Friable and Non-friable Forms
of Asbestos" p. 47 (S)
"Notification Requirements for Transportation-
Related Releases under EPCRA §304" p. 51 (E)
"Release Reporting Requirements for
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 36 (U)
61 FR 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93 (E,S)
61 FR 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67,81 (R,S)
Remedial action
"Determination of Acceptable Facilities to Receive
CERCLA Wastes" p. 41 (S)
61 FR 18780; April 29,1996 p. 66 (R)
Remedial alternatives
"Discount Rates for Comparison of Remedial
Alternatives" p. 48 (S)
Remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
"Discount Rates for Comparison of Remedial
Alternatives" p. 48 (S)
Reportable quantity
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination
Discovered During a Site Inspection" p. 46 (S)
"CERCLA §103(a) Release Notification
Requirements for Friable and Non-friable Forms
of Asbestos" p. 47 (S)
"Notification Requirements for Transportation-
Related Releases under EPCRA §304" p. 51 (E)
61 FR 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93 (E,S)
61 FR 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67,81 (R,S)
Risk Management Program (RMP)
"Frequently Asked Questions on the CAA §112(r)
Requirements" p. 59 (C)
"Relationship Between the Risk Management
LEGEND:
(C) = CAA§112(r)
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
105
-------
Program Rule and the Process Safety
Management Standard" p. 61 (C)
61ER16598; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 ER 16606; April 15,1996 p. 95 (C)
61ER 31668; June 20,1996 p. 95 (C)
61 ER 31730; June 20,1996 p. 96 (C)
Sampling
"Resampling and Groundwater Monitoring
Notification Requirements" p. 18 (R)
Secondary containment
"Differences in Underground Storage Tank Leak
Detection Requirements" p. 35 (U)
Settlements
"Alternative Dispute Resolution" p. 41 (S)
"CERCLA Liability Protection for Prospective
Purchasers of Sites for Redevelopment" p. 44 (S)
61 ER 45871; August 28,1996 p. 86 (S)
61 ER 27984; June 3,1996 p. 97 (C,R,U,S,E)
61 ER 55298; October 25,1996 p. 88 (S)
61 ER 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97 (C,R,U,S,E)
Small business
61 ER 27984; June 3,1996 p. 97 (R,U,S,E)
Small quantity generator
"Tolling Agreement and Exports" p. 9 (R)
Solid waste definition
"Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for
Solid Waste Determination vs. Hazardous Waste
Identification" p. 24 (R)
Solid waste management unit
61 ER 19432; May 1,1996 p. 67 (R)
Solvents
61 ER 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67,81 (R,S)
Sorbents
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and
the Liquids in Landfills Prohibition" p. 11 (R)
Source reduction
"Frequently Asked Questions on Composting"
p. 15 (R)
Spills /spill prevention
"Frequently Asked Question on Upgrading of
Existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)"
p.39(U)
"Replacement Equipment for Existing
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 37 (U)
"Underground Storage Tank Spill Catchment
Basin Size Requirement" p. 38 (U)
State programs
"State Authorization and Used Oil Recycled
Through Some Other Means Than Burning for
Energy Recovery" p. 23 (R)
LEGEND:
(C) = CAA§112(r)
(E) s EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
61 FR1211; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61ER1213; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61 ER 1216; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61 ER 1220; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61 PR 1223; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61 ER 2583; January 26,1996 p. 65 (R)
61 FR 3599; February 1,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 FR 4224; February 5,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 FR 6319; February 20,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 FR 3554; February 21,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 FR 9451; March 8,1996 p. 68 (R)
61 ER 30065; June 13,1996 p. 71 (R)
61 ER 32434; June 24,1996 p. 71 (R)
61 FR 32436; June 24,1996 p. 72 (R)
61 FR 41507; August 9,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 FR 48683; September 16,1996 p. 73 (R)
61 FR 50720; September 27,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 FR 51875; October 4,1996 p. 79 (U)
61 ER 52791; October 8,1996 p. 74 (R)
61 ER 56135; October 31,1996 p. 79 (U)
61 FR 59096; November 20,1996 p. 74 (R)
61 FR 60000; November 25,1996 p. 74 (R)
Statistical analysis
"Resampling and Groundwater Monitoring
Notification Requirements" p. 18 (R)
Sump
"Regulation of Leachate Collection Sumps"
P. 11 (R) :
Surface impoundment
"Delay of Closure for Non-retrofitted Surface
Impoundments Continuing to Receive Non-
hazardous Waste" p. 10 (R)
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit
for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3 (R)
"Surface Impoundment Retrofitting
Requirements" p. 12 (R)
61 FR 4903, February 9,1996 p. 68 (R)
61 FR 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74 (R)
Tank
"Regulation of Leachate Collection Sumps"
p. 11 (R) :
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit
for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3 (R)
"Tank Storage at Transfer Facilities" p. 9 (R)
61 FR 4903, February 9,1996 p. 68 (R)
61 ER 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74 (R)
Thermostats
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Universal
Waste Regulations" p. 19 (R)
Threshold
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials
Recognizable as Articles" p. 53 (E)
"EPCRA §313: Clarification of Processing
Threshold for Items that are Processed More Than
Once" p. 54 (E)
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the
106
-------
Definition of Process" p. 55 (E)
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia
Under EPCRA §313" p. 57 (E)
Tier I/Tier II
"The Development and Use of Electronic Versions
of EPCRA §312 Hazardous Chemical Inventory
Reporting Forms" p. 51 (E)
Toxic chemicals
"Deletion of EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemicals from
the TRI Database" p. 52 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Listing of Hydrochloric Acid"
p. 55 (E)
"EPCRA and RCRA-Empty" p. 56 (E)
"Facility Maintenance Exemption under EPCRA
§313" p. 56 (E)
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia under
EPCRA §313" p. 57 (E)
61 FR 38600; July 25,1996 p. 93 (E)
61 FR 39356; July 29,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 FR 39891; July 31,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 FE 54381; October 18,1996 p. 94 (E)
Toxicity characteristic
"Delay of Closure for Non-retrofitted Surface
Impoundments Continuing to Receive Non-
hazardous Waste" p. 10 (R)
"PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes" p. 26 (R)
Toxics release inventory reporting
"Deletion of EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemicals from
the TRI Database" p. 52 (E)
"EPCRA and RCRA-Empty" p. 56 (E)
"EPCRA §313 and Certification Signatures"
p. 53 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials
Recognizable as Articles" p. 53 (E)
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the
Definition of Process" p. 55 (E)
"EPCRA §313 Listing of Hydrochloric Acid"
p. 55 (E)
"Facility Maintenance Exemption under EPCRA
§313" p. 56 (E)
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia
Under EPCRA §313" p. 57 (E)
61 FR 33588; June 27,1996 p. 93 (E)
61 FR 38600; July 25,1996 p. 93 (E)
61 FR 39356; July 29,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 PR 39891; July 31,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 FJR 41473; August 8,1996 p. 94 (E)
61 FR 51322; October 1,1996 p. 93 (E)
61 FR 54381; October 18,1996 p. 94 (E)
Transporter
"Generators and Designated Transporters" p. 8 (R)
"Tank Storage at Transfer Facilities" p. 9 (R)
61 FR 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70 (R)
Treatment
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
Treating in Elementary Neutralization Units"
p.7(R)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Compliance with
Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standards" p. 13 (R)
Treatment, storage, and disposal facility
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units
to Generator Accumulation Units" p. 16 (R)
"Corrective Action Beyond Interim Status Facility
Boundary" p. 17 (R)
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit
for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3 (R)
61 PR 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68 (R)
61 FJR 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74 (R)
TRI expansion
61 FR 33588; June 27,1996 p. 93 (E)
61 FR 51322; October 1,1996 p. 93 (E)
Trust fund
"UST Financial Responsibility and Insolvent State
Trust Funds" p. 32 (U)
TSCA interface
"PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes" p. 26 (R)
Underground storage tank (UST)
"Automatic Tank Gauging Requirements"
p. 34 (U)
"Closure Requirements for Tanks Not Upgraded
by 1998" p. 38 (U)
"Differences in Underground Storage Tank Leak
Detection Requirements" p. 35 (U)
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Applicability
of the 40 CFR Part 280 Underground Storage Tank
Regulations" p. 29 (U)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Financial Responsibility"
p. 30 (U)
"Frequently Asked Question on Upgrading of
Existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)"
p. 39 (U)
"Release Reporting Requirements for
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 36 (U)
"Replacement Equipment for Existing
Underground Storage Tanks" p. 37 (U)
"Underground Storage Tank Spill Catchment
Basin Size Requirement" p. 38 (U)
"Use of Insurance and State Funds to Fulfill UST
Financial Responsibility" p. 31 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility and Insolvent State
Trust Funds" p. 32 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility and the Definition
of Petroleum Marketer" p. 32 (U)
"UST Financial Responsibility: Use of the
LEGEND:
(C) = CAA§112(r)
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
107
-------
Guarantee When the Guarantor is Not U.S.-
Based" p. 33 (U)
61EE1211; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61ES1213; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61EE1216; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61EE1220; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61ES1223; January 18,1996 p. 77 (U)
61ES 3599; February 1,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 ES 4224; February 5,1996 p. 78 (U)
61EE 6319; February 20,1996 p. 78 (U)
61ER 3554; February 21,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 EE 41507; August 9,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 EE 50720; September 27,1996 p. 78 (U)
61 EE 51875; October 4,1996 p. 79 (U)
61 EE 56135; October 31,1996 p. 79 (U)
Universal treatment standards
"Frequently Asked Questions on Compliance with
Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standards" p. 13 (R)
Universal waste
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Universal
Waste Regulations" p. 19 (R)
Upgrading
"Closure Requirements for Tanks Not Upgraded
by 1998" p. 38 (U)
"Frequently Asked Question on Upgrading of
Existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)"
p.39(U)
Used oil
"Coolant Recycling and Used Oil Processing"
LEGEND:
(C)-CAA§112(r)
(E) = EPCRA (S) = SUPERFUND
(R) = RCRA (U) = UST
108
-------
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
61 FR 11089; March 18,1996 p. 69
40 CFR Part 148- Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions
61EE 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65
61 FR 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69
61 FR 15660; April 8,1996 p. 70
40 CFR Part 241 - Guidelines for the Land Disposal of Solid Wastes
61 FR 18501; April 26,1996 p. 70
40 CFR Part 247 - Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Products Containing
Recovered Materials
"Contractors as Procuring Agencies" p. 15
61 FR 57748; November 7,1996 p. 68
40 CFR Part 250 - Guideline for Federal Procurement of Paper and Paper Products
Containing Recovered Materials
61 FR 26986; May 29,1996 p. 71
40 CFR Part 257 - Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices
61 FR 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72
40 CFR Part 258 - Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
61 FR 2583; January 26,1996 p. 65
61 FR 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72
61 FR 50409; September 25,1996 p. 73
40 CFR Part 260 - Hazardous Waste Management System: General
"Tank Storage at Transfer Facilities" p. 9
61 EE 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
61 FJR 17357; April 19,1996 p. 66
61 FR 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61 FR 32798; June 25,1996 p. 72
61 FR 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74
109
-------
40 CFR Part 261 - identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators Treating in Elementary Neutralization Units" p. 7
"Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for Solid Waste Determination vs. Hazardous Waste
Identification" p. 24
"Exclusion of Laboratory Wastes from the Mixture Rule" p. 25
"PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes" p. 26
61ER 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65
61 ER 13103; March 26,1996 p. 69
61 ER 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
61ER17357; April 19,1996 p. 66
61ER18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61ER 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72 ;
61 ER 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67
40 CFR Part 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units to Generator Accumulation Units" p. 16
"Frequently Asked Questions on Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements" p. 7
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC Air Emission Standards" p. 3
"Generators and Designated Transporters" p. 8
'Tolling Agreement and Exports" p. 9
61EE 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61 ER 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
61 ER 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
40 CFR Part 263 - Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
"Generators and Designated Transporters" p. 8
"Tank Storage at Transfer Facilities" p. 9
61 ER 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
40 CFR Parts 264/5 - Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
"Annual Payments Into a Standby Trust Fund When Using a Letter of Credit" p. 4
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units to Generator Accumulation Units" p. 16
"Corrective Action Beyond the Interim Status Facility Boundary" p. 17
"Delay of Closure for Non-retrofitted Surface Impoundments Undergoing a Change in,Service" p. 10
"Financial Statement Requirement for the RCRA Subtitle C Financial Test" p. 5
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC Air Emission Standards" p. 3
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and the Liquids in Landfills Prohibition" p. 11
"Regulation of Leachate Collection Sumps" p. 11
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3
"Resampling and Groundwater Monitoring Notification Requirements" p. 18
"Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements" p. 12
"Tangible Net Worth Requirements for RCRA Subtitle C Financial Assurance" p. 6
61 ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61 ER 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
61 ER 17357; April 19,1996 p. 66
61 ER 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61 ER 19432; May 1,1996 p. 67
61 ER 59932; November 25,1996 p. 74
110
-------
40 CFR Part 266 - Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and
Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
61 F.E16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
61 EE17357; April 19,1996 p. 66
40 CFR Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Compliance with Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standards" p. 13
61 FR 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65
61 EE 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69
61 FE15660; April 8,1996 p. 70
61 FR 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61 FR 43924; August 26,1996 p. 73
40 CFR Part 270 - EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators Treating in Elementary Neutralization Units" p. 7
61 FR 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61EE17357; April 19,1996 p. 66
61 FE 30472; June 14,1996 p. 67
40 CFR Part 271 - Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Programs
61 FR 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65
61 FE 15565; April 8,1996 p. 69
61 FR 17357; April 19,1996 p. 66
61 FR 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61EE 30472; June 14,1996 p. 67
61ES 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72
61 EE 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67
61 FE 43924; August 26,1996 p. 73
40 CFR Part 273 - Standards for Universal Waste Management
"Frequently Asked Questions on Universal Waste" p. 19
61 FR 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
40 CFR Part 279 - Standards for the Management of Used Oil
"Coolant Recycling and Used Oil Processing" p. 20
"Rebuttable Presumption for CFC Contaminated Used Oil" p. 21
"Recycling Presumption under Part 279" p. 22
"State Authorization and Used Oil Recycled Through Some Other Means Than Burning for Energy
Recovery" p. 23
61 EE 33691; June 28,1996 p. 72
111
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
40 CFR Part 280 - Underground Storage Tanks
"Automatic Tank Gauging Requirements" p. 34
"Closure Requirements for Tanks Not Upgraded by 1998" p. 38 :
"Differences in Underground Storage Tank Leak Detection Requirements" p. 35
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Applicability of the 40 CFR Part 280 Underground Storage
Tank Regulations" p. 29
"Frequently Asked Questions on Underground Storage Tank (UST) Financial Responsibility" p. 30
"Frequently Asked Question on Upgrading of Existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)" p. 39
"Release Reporting Requirements for Underground Storage Tanks" p. 36
"Replacement Equipment for Existing Underground Storage Tanks" p. 37
"Underground Storage Tank Spill Catchment Basin Size Requirement" p. 38
"Use of Insurance and State Funds to Fulfill UST Financial Responsibility" p. 31
"UST Financial Responsibility and Insolvent State Trust Funds" p. 32
"UST Financial Responsibility and the Definition of Petroleum Marketer" p. 32
"UST Financial Responsibility: Use of the Guarantee When the Guarantor is Not U.S.-Based" p. 33
40 CFR Part 281 - Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Programs
61EE 3599; February 1,1996 p. 78
61 EE 50720; September 27,1996 p. 78
61 EE 51875; October 4,1996 p. 79
40 CFR Part 282 - Approved Underground Storage Tank Programs
61 EE 1211; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 EE 1213; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 EE 1216; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 EE 1220; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 EE 1223; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 EE 4224; February 5,1996 p. 78
61 EE 6319; February 20,1996 p. 78
61 EE 6554; February 21,1996 p. 78 ',
61 EE 41507; August 9,1996 p. 78
5; October 31,1996 p. 79
112
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
40 CFR Part 300 - National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Program
Section 300.425
"Partial Deletion of NPL Sites" p. 45
61 FR 2451; January 26,1996 p. 81
61 FE 3331; January 31,1996 p. 82
61 FR 4747; February 8,1996 p. 82
61 FR 6115; February 16,1996 p. 82
61 FR 6556; February 21,1996 p. 82
61EE 7996; March 1,1996 p. 83
61EE15902; April 10,1996 p. 83
61 EE 18287; April 25,1996 p. 83
61 FR 18507; April 26,1996 p. 83
61 EE 18683; April 29,1996 p. 84
61 FR 18684; April 29,1996 p. 84
61 EE 18968; April 30,1996 p. 84
61 EE 20473; May 7,1996 p. 84 '
61 FR 24720; May 16,1996 p. 85
61 EE 24894; May 17,1996 p. 85
61 FR 27788; June 3,1996 p. 85
61 EE 28511; June 5,1996 p. 85
61 EE 29678; June 12,1996 p. 86
61 EE 30510; June 17,1996 p. 86
61 EE 30575; June 17,1996 p. 81
61 EE 51373; October 2,1996 p. 87
61 EE 52886; October 9,1996 p. 87
61 EE 52887; October 9,1996 p. 87
61 EE 53328; October 11,1996 p. 87
61 EE 54098; October 17,1996 p. 88
61 EE 54343; October 18,1996 p. 88
61 EE 55751; October 29,1996 p. 88
61 EE 56477; November 1,1996 p. 89
61 EE 57594; November 7,1996 p. 89
61 EE 58332; November 14,1996 p. 89
61 EE 59184; November 21,1996 p. 89
61 FR 60197; November 27,1996 p. 90
61 FR 65186; December 11,1996 p. 90
61 EE 65957; December 16,1996 p. 90
61 FR 67233; December 20,1996 p. 90
61 FR 67234; December 20,1996 p. 91
61 FR 67656; December 23,1996 p. 91
61 FR 67678; December 23,1996 p. 81
61 EE 68157; December 27,1996 p. 91
113
-------
Section 300.430
"Discount Rates for Comparison of Remedial Alternatives" p. 48
Section 300.440
"Determination of Acceptable Facilities to Receive CERCLA Wastes" p. 41
40 CFR Part 302 - Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination Discovered During a Site Inspection" p. 46
"CERCLA §103(a) Release Notification Requirements for Friable and Non-friable Forms of
Asbestos" p. 47 :
61ER 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93
61 ££ 42318; August 14,1996 p. 81
114
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
40 CFR Part 355 - Emergency Planning and Notification
"Notification Requirements for Transportation-Related Releases under EPCRA §304" p. 51
61£R 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93
40 CFR Part 370 - Hazardous Chemical Reporting
"The Development and Use of Electronic Versions of EPCRA §312 Hazardous Chemical Inventory
Reporting Forms" p. 51
40 CFR Part 372 - Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-to-Know
Section 372.22
61 FR 33588; June 27,1996 p. 93
Section 372.25
"EPCRA §313: Clarification of Processing Threshold for Items that are Processed More Than Once"
p. 54
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the Definition of Process" p. 55
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia under EPCRA §313" p. 57
Section 372.3
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials Recognizable as Articles" p. 53
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the Definition of Process" p. 55
Section 372.38
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials Recognizable as Articles" p. 53
"Facility Maintenance Exemption under EPCRA §313" p. 56
Section 372.65
"EPCRA §313 Listing of Hydrochloric Acid" p. 55
61 PR 38600; July 25,1996 p. 93
61 FR 39356; July 29,1996 p. 94
61 EE 39891; July 31,1996 p. 94
61 EE 54381; October 18,1996 p. 94
115
-------
Section 372.85
"EPCRA §313 and Certification Signatures" p. 53
"EPCRA and RCRA-Empty" p. 56
61EE 51322; October 1,1996 p. 93
116
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112(r) (CAA)
40 CFR Part 68 - Accidental Release Prevention Requirements
"Frequently Asked Questions on the CAA§112(r) Requirements" p. 59
"Relationship Between the Risk Management Program Rule and the Process Safety Management
Standard" p. 61
61 FR16598; April 15,1996 p. 95
61 FR 16606; April 15,1996 p. 95
61 FR 31668; June 20,1996 p. 95
61 PR 31730; June 20,1996 p. 96
117
-------
-------
STATUTORY CITATION INDEX
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
Section 3001 - identification and listing of hazardous waste
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators Treating in Elementary Neutralization Units"
p. 7
"Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for Solid Waste Determination vs. Hazardous Waste
Identification" p. 24
"Exclusion of Laboratory Wastes from the Mixture Rule" p. 25
"PCB Wastes as Hazardous Wastes" p. 26
61 FR 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65
61 FR 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61 FR 13103; March 26,1996 p. 69
61EE18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61 FR 32798; June 25,1996 p. 72
61 FR 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72
61 FR 42318; August 14,1996 p. 67
Section 3002 - Standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units to Generator Accumulation Units" p. 16
"Frequently Asked Questions on Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements" p. 7
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC Air Emission Standards" p. 3
"Generators and Designated Transporters" p. 8
"Tolling Agreement and Exports" p. 9
61 FR 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
Section 3003 - Standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste
"Generators and Designated Transporters" p. 8
"Tank Storage at Transfer Facilities" p. 9
61ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
Section 3004 - Standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
"Annual Payments Into a Standby Trust Fund When Using a Letter, of Credit" p. 4
"Conversion of Permitted or Interim Status Units to Generator Accumulation Units" p. 16
"Corrective Action Beyond the Interim Status Facility Boundary" p. 17
"Delay of Closure for Non-Retrofitted Surface Impoundments Undergoing a Change in Service" p. 10
"Financial Statement Requirement for the RCRA Subtitle C Financial Test" p. 5
119
-------
"Frequently Asked Questions on Compliance with Part 268 Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standards" p. 13 !
"Frequently Asked Questions on the 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart CC Air Emission Standards" p. 3
"Hazardous Waste Liquid-containing Pumps and the Liquids in Landfills Prohibition" p. 11
"Regulation of Leachate Collection Sumps" p. 11
"Removal of Hazardous Waste Management Unit for Subpart CC Compliance" p. 3
"Resampling and Groundwater Monitoring Notification Requirements" p. 18
"Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements" p. 12 i
"Tangible Net Worth Requirements for RCRA Subtitle C Financial Assurance" p. 6
61 ER 2337; January 25,1996 p. 65
61 ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61ER15565; April 8,1996 p. 69
61ER15660; April 8,1996 p. 70
61EE16289; April 12,1996 p. 70 i
61ER17357; April 19,1996 p. 66
61 ER 18588; April 26,1996 p. 71
61 ER 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61 ER 19432; May 1,1996 p. 67
61 ER 43924; August 26,1996 p. 73
Section 3005 - Permits for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste
"Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators Treating in Elementary Neutralization Units"
p.7
"Delay of Closure for Non-retrofitted Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundments Continuing to
Receive Non-hazardous Waste" p. 10
"Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements" p. 12
61 ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61 ER 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61 ER 19432; May 1,1996 p. 67
Section 3006 - Authorized state hazardous waste programs
61 ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61 ER 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
61 ER 30472; June 14,1996 p. 67
Section 3007 - Inspections
61 ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
61 ER 18779; April 29,1996 p. 66
Section 3008 - Federal enforcement
"Corrective Action Beyond the Interim Status Facility Boundary" p. 17 :
61 ER 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97 :
120
-------
Section 3011 - Authorization of assistance to States
61 FR 30472; June 14,1996 p. 67
Section 3013 - Monitoring, Analysis, and Testing
61 PR 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97
Section 3014 - Restrictions on used oil
"Coolant Recycling and Used Oil Processing" p. 20
"Rebuttable Presumption for CFC Contaminated Used Oil" p. 21
"Recycling Presumption under Part 279" p. 22
"State Authorization and Used Oil Recycled Through Some Other Means Than Burning for Energy
Recovery" p. 23
61EE 33691; June 28,1996 p. 72
Section 3017 - Export of hazardous waste
"Tolling Agreement and Exports" p. 9
61 FR 16289; April 12,1996 p. 70
Subtitle D - State or Regional Solid Waste Plans
Section 4004 - Criteria for sanitary landfills; sanitary landfills required for all disposal
61 FR 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72
61 FR 50409; September 25,1996 p. 73
Section 4005 - Upgrading of open dumps
61 FR 2583; January 26,1996 p. 65
61 FR 9451; March 8,1996 p. 68
61 FR 30065; June 13,1996 p. 71
61 FR 32434; June 24,1996 p. 71
61 FR 32436; June 24,1996 p. 72
61ES 52791; October 8,1996 p. 74
61 FR 59096; November 20,1996 p. 74
61 FR 60000; November 25,1996 p. 74
Section 4010 - Adequacy of certain guidelines and criteria
61 FR 34251; July 1,1996 p. 72
61EE 50409; September 25,1996 p. 73
Subtitle F - Federal Responsibilities
Section 6001 - Application of Federal, State, and local law to Federal facilities
61 FR 11089; March 18,1996 p. 69
121
-------
Section 6002 - Federal procurement
"Contractors as Procuring Agencies" p. 15
61ER 26986; May 29,1996 p. 71
61E£ 57748; November 7,1996 p. 68
Subtitle G - Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 7003 - Imminent hazard
"Corrective Action Beyond the Interim Status Facility Boundary" p. 17
61 EE 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97
Section 7004 - Petition for regulations; public participation
61ER 4903; February 9,1996 p. 68
122
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST)
SUBTITLE I, RCRA
Section 9001 - Definitions and exemptions
"Frequently Asked Questions on the Applicability of the 40 CFR Part 280 Underground Storage
Tank Regulations" p. 29
61 FR 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97
Section 9003 - Release detection, prevention, and correction regulations
"Automatic Tank Gauging Requirements" p. 34
"Closure Requirements for Tanks not Upgraded by 1998" p. 38
"Differences in Underground Storage Leak Detection Requirements" p. 35
"Frequently Asked Questions on Upgrading of Existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)" p. 39
"Frequently Asked Questions on Underground Storage Tank (UST) Financial Responsibility" p. 30
"Release Reporting Requirements for Underground Storage Tanks" p. 36
"Replacement Equipment for Existing Underground Storage Tanks" p. 37
"Underground Storage Tank Spill Catchment Basin Size Requirement" p. 38
"Use of Insurance and State Funds to Fulfill UST Financial Responsibility" p. 31
"UST Financial Responsibility and Insolvent State Trust Funds" p. 32
"UST Financial Responsibility and the Definition of Petroleum Marketer" p. 32
"UST Financial Responsibility: Use of the Guarantee When the Guarantor is Not U.S.-Based" p. 33
Section 9004 - Approval of State programs
61 FS1211; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 FR 1213; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 FR 1216; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 FR 1220; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 PS 1223; January 18,1996 p. 77
61 FR 3599; February 1,1996 p. 78
61 FR 4224; February 5,1996 p. 78
61 FR 6319; February 20,1996 p. 78
61ES 6554; February 21,1996 p. 78
61ES 41507; August 9,1996 p. 78
61 £g 50720; September 27,1996 p. 78
61 Eg 51875; October 4,1996 p. 79
61 EE 56135; October 31,1996 p. 79
123
-------
SUPERFUND (SF)
Section 101 - Definitions
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination Discovered During a Site Inspection" p. 46
"CERCLA Liability in Relation to Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Substances" p. 43
Section 102 - Designation of additional hazardous substances and establishment of
reportable released quantities; regulations
61EE 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93
61EE 42318; August 14,1996 p. 81 ;
Section 103 - Notification requirements respecting released substances
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination Discovered During a Site Inspection" p. 46
"CERCLA §103(a) Release Notification Requirements for Friable and Non-friable Forms of
Asbestos" p. 47
61EB 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93
Section 104 - Response authorities
"Brownfields Pilots: Funding Goals and Limitations" p. 47
Section 105 - National contingency plan
"Partial Deletion of NPL Sites" p. 45
61 EE 2451; January 26,1996 p. 81
61 EE 3331; January 31,1996 p. 82 !
61 £E 4747; February 8,1996 p. 82
61EE 6115; February 16,1996 p. 82
61 EE 6556; February 21,1996 p. 82 j
61 EE 7996; March 1,1996 p. 83
61 EE 15902; April 10,1996 p. 83
61 EE 18287; April 25,1996 p. 83
61EB18507; April 26,1996 p. 83
61 EE 18683; April 29,1996 p. 84
61EE18684; April 29,1996 p. 84
61 EE 18968; April 30,1996 p. 84
61 EE 20473; May 7,1996 p. 84
61 EE 24720; May 16,1996 p. 85
61 EE 24894; May 17,1996 p. 85
61 ES 27788; June 3,1996 p. 85
61 EE 28511; June 5,1996 p. 85
61 EB 29678; June 12,1996 p. 86
61 EE 30510; June 17,1996 p. 86
124
-------
61EE 30575; June 17,1996 p. 81
61 PR 51373; October 2,1996 p. 87
61EE 52886; October 9,1996 p. 87
61 FR 52887; October 9,1996 p. 87
61 FR 53328; October 11,1996 p. 87
61 FR 54098; October 17,1996 p. 88
61 EE 54343; October 18,1996 p. 88
61 EE 55751; October 29,1996 p. 88
61 FR 56477; November 1,1996 p. 89
61 FR 57594; November 7,1996 p. 89
61 EE 58332; November 14,1996 p. 89
61 EE 59184; November 21,1996 p. 89
61FE 60197; November 27,1996 p. 90
61 FR 65186; December 11,1996 p. 90
61 FR 65957; December 16,1996 p. 90
61 FR 67233; December 20,1996 p. 90
61 EE 67234; December 20,1996 p. 91
61 EE 67656; December 23,1996 p. 91
61 FE 67678; December 23,1996 p. 81
61 FE 68157; December 27,1996 p. 91
Section 106 - Abatement actions
61 FR 45871; August 28,1996 p. 86
61 FR 55298; October 25,1996 p. 88
61 FR 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97
Section 107 - Liability
"CERCLA §103(a) Notification for Contamination Discovered During a Site Inspection" p. 46
"CERCLA §103(a) Release Notification Requirements for Friable and Non-friable Forms of
Asbestos" p. 47
"CERCLA Liability in Relation to Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Substances" p. 43
"CERCLA Liability Protection for Prospective Purchasers of Sites for Redevelopment" p. 44
61 FE 55298; October 25,1996 p. 88
Section 109 - Civil Penalties and Awards
61 FR 69360; December 31,1996 p.97
Section 119 - Response action contractors
61 EE 29493; June 11,1996 p. 86
Section 120 - Federal Facilities
"Determination of Acceptable Facilities to Receive CERCLA Wastes" p. 41
Section 121 - Cleanup standards
"Determination of Acceptable Facilities to Receive CERCLA Wastes" p. 41
"Discount Rates for Comparison of Remedial Alternatives" p. 48
125
-------
Section 122 - Settlements
"Alternative Dispute Resolution" p. 41
"CERCLA Liability in Relation to Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Substances" p. 43
"CERCLA Liability Protection for Prospective Purchasers of Sites for Redevelopment" p. 44
61EE 45871; August 28,1996 p. 86
126
-------
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-
KNOW ACT (EPCRA)
Section 302 - Substances and facilities covered and notification
61EE 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93
Section 304 - Emergency notification
"Notification Requirements for Transportation-Related Releases under EPCRA §304" p. 51
61 FR 20473; May 7,1996 p. 93
Section 311 - Material safety data sheets
"The Development and Use of Electronic Versions of EPCRA §312 Hazardous Chemical Inventory
Reporting Forms" p. 51
Section 312 - Emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms
"The Development and Use of Electronic Versions of EPCRA §312 Hazardous Chemical Inventory
Reporting Forms" p. 51
Section 313 - Toxic chemical release forms
"Deletion of EPCRA §313 Toxic Chemicals from the TRI Database" p. 52
"EPCRA §313 and Certification Signatures" p. 53
"EPCRA §313 Article Exemption: Materials Recognizable as Articles" p. 53
"EPCRA §313: Clarification of Processing Threshold for Items that are Processed More Than Once"
p. 54
"EPCRA §313: Distribution in Commerce and the Definition of Process" p. 55
"EPCRA §313 Listing of Hydrochloric Acid" p. 55
"EPCRA and RCRA-Empty" p. 56
"Facility Maintenance Exemption under EPCRA §313" p. 56
"Reporting Evaporative Losses of Ammonia under EPCRA §313" p. 57
61 EE 33588; June 27,1996 p. 93
61ER 38600; July 25,1996 p. 93
61 FR 39356; July 29,1996 p. 94
61 FR 39891; July 31,1996 p. 94
61 FR 41473; August 8,1996 p. 94
61 FR 51322; October 1,1996 p. 93
61 FR 54381; October 18,1996 p. 94
Section 325 - Enforcement
61 EE 69360; December 31,1996 p. 97
127
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112(r) (CAA)
Section 112(r)
"Frequently Asked Questions on the CAA §112(r) Requirements" p. 59
"National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance" p. 60
"Relationship Between the Risk Management Program Rule and the Process Safety Management
Standard" p. 61
61ER16598; April 15,1996 p. 95
61EK16606; April 15,1996 p. 95
61ES 31668; June 20,1996 p. 95
61 EE 31730; June 20,1996 p. 96
128
------- |