3
EPA530-R-94-0051
PB94-922412
HLY HOTLINE REPORT
December 1994
RCRA/UST, Superfund, and EPCRA
Hotline Questions and Answers
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 1
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 2
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) .„.. £ 3
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 4
New Publications
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 7
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) 8
Other 9
Federal Registers
Final Rules : 11
Proposed Rules 11
Notices 12
Call Analyses
Calls Answered 19
Caller Profiles 22
Hotline Topics 24
RCRA/UST. Supertund, and EPCRA
National Toil-Free Nos 800-424-9346 or 800-535-0202
Local 703-412-9810
TDD National Ton-Free No.: 800-553-7672
This report is prepared and submitted in supcort of Contract No. 68-WO-0039.
EPA Project Officer:
Carie VanHooft J
U.S. Environment,», Protection Agency
Washington, DO . -wiO
Printed on
Recycled Pape'
-------
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
RCRA
1. Notification Requirements for
Exported Wastes
In addition to other requirements, a
primary exporter of hazardous waste must
comply with the special requirements of 40
CFR Pan 262, Subpart E, including providing
notification of intent to export to EPA's Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 60
days prior to the initial shipment (§26253(a)),
and originating the hazardous waste manifest
(§26254). If a waste is not regulated as a
hazardous waste in the United States but is
subject to Canadian regulations, must the
exporter notify EPA of the intent to export? If
the waste is a hazardous waste but exempt
from regulation in the United States, must the
exporter still notify EPA ?
Part 262, Subpart E applies only to wastes
which are subject to Part 262, Subpart B
manifest requirements (see also 51 FR 28664;
August 8,1986). For example, if the waste
intended for export is a solid waste according
to §261.3 but is not regulated as a hazardous
waste subject to manifest requirements, the
exporter would not be required to notify EPA
of the intent to export. Wastes which are
hazardous but exempt from manifest
requirements would also be exempt from Part
262, Subpart E. For example, scrap metal
(§261.6(a)(3)(iii)) and lead-acid batteries
(§261.6(a)(2)(iv)) sent for reclamation are
exempt from Subtitle C hazardous waste
regulations (including the manifest
requirements), and would therefore not be
subject to Subpart E export requirements.
Although exporters may be exempt from the
requirement to notify EPA, they are advised to
check with their Canadian counterparts for
any applicable regulations (for example,
Canadian manifest requirements) before the
waste crosses the border.
2. Elementary Neutralization Units
Generating and Storing Non-
Corrosive Hazardous Wastes
The operator of an electroplating facility
neutralizes corrosive D002 wastewaters with
lime in an on-site tank. The neutralization
process causes a sludge to accumulate at the
bottom of the tank. Although it does not
exhibit the characteristic ofcorrosivity, this
sludge from the treatment of electroplating
wastewaters meets the definition ofF006
listed hazardous waste (40 CFR §261.31).
The neutralization process thus causes a non-
corrosive hazardous waste to be generated
and stored in the treatment tank. Can this
tank meet the definition of an elementary
neutralization unit?
This treatment tank at the electroplating
facility meets the definition of an elementary
neutralization unit, because the waste
originally treated in the tank is hazardous only
due to corrosivity. According to 40 CFR
§260.10, an elementary neutralization unit is a
device which: (1) is used for neutralizing
wastes that are hazardous only because they
exhibit the corrosivity characteristic, or are
listed only because ofcorrosivity; and (2)
meets the definition of a tank, container,
transport vehicle, or vessel. As long as the
-------
Hotline Questions and Answers
Decemberl994
original influent waste is hazardous only due
to corrosivity, generation of a new, non-
corrosive listed or characteristic hazardous
waste during the neutralization process does
not automatically bar the tank from the
elementary neutralization unit definition. This
tank is therefore eligible for the exemption for
elementary neutralization units found at 40
CFR §§264.1(g)(6), 265.1(c)(10), and
270.1 (c)(2)(v). Units qualifying for this
exemption are not subject to permitting,
generator on-site accumulation time limits,
weekly inspections, or other technical RCRA
standards. Since the elementary neutralization
unit exemption applies only to the tank and
does not attach to wastes that are removed
from the unit, the F006 sludge formed during
the neutralization process is subject to full
regulation as a hazardous waste once it is
removed from the tank for treatment and
disposal.
3. Epineohrine Residue In A Syringe Is
Not P042
A hospital administers the drug
epinephrine to patients by injection with a
syringe. After the proper dose is injected,
excess epinephrine and epinephrine residue
remain in the syringe. Epinephrine appears
on the P-list of hazardous wastes at 40 CFR
§26133(e) as P042. Is the epinephrine
remaining in the syringe a P-listed hazardous
waste when the syringe is discarded?
The epinephrine in the discarded syringe
would not be classified as a listed hazardous
waste. The P-list of hazardous wastes applies
to unused discarded commercial chemical
products. Commercial chemical products are
defined as commercially pure grades and
technical grades of the listed chemicals or
chemical formulations in which the listed
chemical is the sole active ingredient, which
have not been used for their intended purpose
(54 FR 31335,31336; July 28,1989). Drug
residues often remain in § dispensing
instrument after the instrument is used to
administer medication. EPA considers such
residues remaining in a dispensing instrument
to have been used for their intended purpose.
The epinephrine remaining in the syringe,
therefore, is not a commercial chemical
product and not a P042 hazardous waste. The
epinephrine could be a RCRA hazardous
waste, however, if it exhibits a characteristic
of hazardous waste. ,v
OUST
4. Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund
In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended Subtitle
I of RCRA and added RCRA §9003(h) which
established a program to address releases
from petroleum underground storage tanks
(USTs). Congress created the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund to help ensure that money was available •
for the clear"? of petroleum releases at
facilities which are unable to pay for the
cleanup. How can EPA and states use the
LUST Trust Fund to pay for cleanups at sites
with leaking petroleum USTs?
The LUST Trust Fund program provides
EPA with funding to initiate cleanup at sites
contaminated by leaking petroleum USTs as
necessary to protect human health and the
environment. This program is similar to
EPA's Superfund Program, which establishes
a Fund for the cleanup of hazardous substance
sites. As with Superfund, the LUST Trust
Fund is available to EPA and states to help
pay for the cleanup of releases when a
responsible party capable of performing
corrective action cannot be identified. The
Futiu is financed through a 0.1 cent per gallon
-------
December 1994
Hotline Questions and Answers
excise tax on gasoline, diesel, and aviation
fuels, and is appropriated to EPA by Congress.
EPA distributes Fund money to states who
have signed Cooperative Agreements with the
Agency. The Cooperative Agreements give
states the authority to initiate corrective action
at sites with leaking petroleum USTs and
specify the actions states will take when
responding to releases.
States play the primary role in
implementing corrective action at UST sites,
and determine when and how to utilize Trust
Fund money. When states initiate corrective
action at a particular site, they can use Fund
money only for activities directly related to
responding to actual or suspected releases from
petroleum USTs subject to Subtitle I
regulation. Such activities include inspecting
the tank and identifying suspected releases,
developing and enforcing corrective action
orders, performing corrective action (including
exposure assessment, cleanup, provision of
safe drinking water to residents), and
recovering costs of Fund-financed activities
from responsible owners and operators. The
Fund cannot be used for addressing releases
from hazardous substance USTs or from USTs
that are not subject to Subtitle I.
States will require responsible owners or
operators to perform and pay for corrective
action when petroleum releases are discovered.
The LUST Trust Fund will be used to pay for
corrective action in situations when a
responsible owner or operator cannot be
identified, when an owner or operator refuses
to comply with a corrective action order, or
when an owner or operator cannot afford the
full cost of cleanup right away. When Fund
money is used, states have the authority to
recover corrective action costs from a
responsible party that has the ability to pay for
corrective action.
There are certain limitations on the use of
the LUST Trust Fund at government facilities.
The Fund may not be used to clean up actual
releases from petroleum USTs at state and
federal facilities. It may, however, be used for
site investigations, enforcement actions, and to
address emergency situations at these site's as
necessary to protect human health and the
environment States can utilize the Trust Fund
to initiate corrective action and pay for the
cleanup of releases at local government UST
sites, similar to other responsible party sites.
CERCLA
5. Waivers of ARARs and Permits by
Private Parties in CERCLA Response
Actions
CERCLA provides authority for several
different persons to take actions to mitigate or
eliminate releases of hazardous substances.
These include actions taken by EPA, states, or
tribes under CERCLA §104(d)(l) response
authority, as well as actions taken by persons
pursuant to an administrative order or consent
decree issued under CERCLA §§106 or 122.
Any private party may also undertake a
response action on its own initiative. While
these private party actions are not carried out
under CERCLA authority, the party
undertaking the cleanup may seek to recover
its response costs from those responsible for
the release under the cost recovery provisions
in CERCLA §107 if the party has complied
with the procedures set forth in the NCP. May
private parties conducting response actions
take advantage of any of the regulatory
waivers provided by the NCP?
Private party actions are not eligible for
waivers of permits or applicable requirements.
The NCP makes clear that only sites addressed
under CERCLA authority are eligible for
-------
Hotline Questions and Answers
December 1994
waivers (40 CFR §300.700(c)(5)(iii) and 55
'ER 87%; March 8,1990). CERCLA §Kl(d)
requires that en-site remedial actions comply
with federal environmental laws, as well as
state environmental or facility siting laws that
are deemed to be applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). On-site
actions at CERCLA sites must comply only
with the substantive requirements of ARARs,
which include cleanup standards and other
environmental protection criteria.
Administrative requirements of such ARARs,
such as reporting, record keeping, or
permitting, do not need to be complied with at
sites. CERCLA §121(e)(l) specifically
mandates that no federal, state, or local permits
are required for response actions that occur
entirely on site. This permit waiver applies to
any site addressed under CERCLA removal or
remedial authority.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP)
requires compliance with ARARs both during
remedial actions, and, to the extent practicable
considering the exigencies of the situation,
during removal actions (40 CFR §300.430(f);
§300.415(i)). ARARs may be waived in
certain circumstances specifically authorized
under CERCLA §121(d)(4), but the authority
to waive ARARs in §121(d)(4) is conferred
solely to the President (and by delegation to
EPA). Since private party actions (other than
those subject to an order under CERCLA §106
or a consent decree under CERCLA §122) are
not conducted under the President's authority,
private parties may not grant themselves
waivers of applicable requirements. Similarly,
the §121(e)(l) permit waiver does not apply to
purely private actions as those actions are not
selected under §121 of CERCLA.
Compliance with relevant and appropriate
requirements is not legally required for purely
private non-CERCLA cleanups. These private
parties may choose not to comply with
relevant and appropriate requirements,
regardless of whether a waiver would apply. If
a private party wishes to Ensure that its cleanup
is consistent with the National Contingency
Plan for purposes of cost recovery, however, it
should comply with all relevant and
appropriate as well as applicable requirements
(55 EE 8793, March 8,1990). In doing so, it
may take advantage of the waiver provisions
for relevant and appropriate requirements, but
not, as discussed above, for applicable
requirements.
EPCRA
7. Description of the Terms "Molten"
and "In Solution" Under EPCRA
§302
To assist state and local officials in the
development of emergency response plans,
EPA requires the owner or operator of each
facility at which an extremely hazardous
substance (EHS) is present in an amount equal
to or exceeding its threshold planning quantity
(TPQ) to notify the State Emergency Response
Commission (EPCRA §302). The list ofEHSs
(found in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and
B) whose presence may trigger an emergency
planning notification indicates each chemical's
threshold planning quantity. EHSs which are
in solid form under standard conditions have
two TPQs: a lower threshold, which applies to
powders with a particle size less than 100
microns, certain reactive solids, chemicals in
molten form, and solids in solution; and an
upper threshold, which applies to all other
forms of the chemical (40 CFR
§355.30(e)(2)(i)). What does EPA mean by the
terms "molten" and "in solution" when used
to describe extremely hazardous substances,
and now are these forms quantified for
comparison to the appropriate threshold
planning quantity?
-------
December 1994 Hotline Questions and Answers
The term "molten" denotes the liquid form
of an EHS which is a solid at standard *
•»
temperature and pressure. EPA requires * '
facilities to account for the potential volatility
of molten chemicals by applying the lower of
the two TPQs listed in 40 CFR Part 355,
Appendices A and B, to EHSs present in
molten form. Facilities need not, however,
compare the entire weight of a molten
chemical to the lower TPQ. The Agency
examined the fraction of volatilization
expected for the solids on the list and found v
that it ranges from 0.3 to 0.008 pounds/minute
per pound spilled. Since data were not
available for all solids and to be conservative,
the Agency chose to incorporate the 0.3
fraction into the reporting requirements (59 FR
51819; October 12,1994). To determine if the
presence of a molten EHS triggers an
emergency planning notification, the facility
owner or operator should therefore multiply
the weight in molten form by 0.3 and compare
the resulting figure to the lower TPQ for the
chemical in question (40 CFR
§355.30(e)(2Xiv)).
A solid EHS is present "in solution" when
dissolved in a liquid. When determining if the
presence of a dissolved EHS triggers an
emergency planning notification, the facility
owner or operator may compare the weight of
the solid in solution (rather than the entire
weight of the solution) to the lower TPQ for
the chemical in question (40 CFR
§355.30(e)(2)(ui)).
-------
-------
NEW PUBLICATIONS
HOW TO ORDER
NTIS Publications are available by calling (703) 487-4650, or writing NT1S, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161. Use the NTIS Order Number listed under the document
EPA Publication* are available through the Hotline. Use the EPA Order Number listed under the document.
RCRA/UST, Superfund, and EPCRA
National Toil-Free Nos.: 800-424-9346 or 800-535-0202
Local: 703-412-9810
TDD National Toll-Free No.: 800-553-7672 V
RCRA
TITLE: "1991 Biennial RCRA Hazardous
Waste Report: List of Large Quantity
Generators"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA530-C-94-001
This is the disk version of the list of large
quantity generators of hazardous waste. The
list, on a 3.5" disk, contains the EPA ID
number, company name, location, and tons of
waste generated for every facility in the United
States that reported as a large quantity
generator in 1991.
TITLE: "Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB94-147690
This report provides information about the
amount of municipal solid waste generated in
the United States through 1993. It addresses
the relationship of waste generation to
population and economic activity, and contains
discussions of various MSW management
options such as combustion, composting, and
landfilling. The document also examines the
role of source reduction and its effects on
waste generation and presents projections for
MSW generation and combustion to the year
2000.
TITLE: "Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update;
Executive Summary"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA-530-S-94-042
This document summa^l^es the information
contained in the Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
It contains general information about the
quantity of MSW generation in the United
States through 1993, and projections for MSW
generation through the year 2000. It also
addresses various MSW management options
such as combustion, composting, and
landfilling.
TITLE: "Environmental Fact Sheet: Final Air
Emissions Under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) for Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities: Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and
Containers"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA530-F-94-041
This fact sheet outlines the EPA's final rule
under the authority of §3004(n) of RCRA to
-------
New Publications
December 1994
reduce organic air emissions from hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal "
facilities. The document addresses the
environmental benefits of this rulemaking. It
provides information on who will be affected
by the final rule, and it briefly lists what the
final standards will require. This fact sheet
also references sources of additional
information, and ordering information for the
final rule.
CERCLA
TITLE: "U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory
Program: Statement of Work for Organic
Analysis OLMO3.1"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB93-963 503
This Statement of Work.(SOW) is part of the
documentation required in contracts between
EPA and commercial laboratories performing
analyses in support of EPA Superfund
Programs. It includes an overview of the
general requirements; a description of the
laboratories' reporting and deliverables
requirements, a target compound list with the
contract-required quantitation limits for sample
matrices, analytical procedures, descriptions of
required QA/QC, standard operating
procedures and sample documentation
requirements.
TITLE: "Superfund Technical Assistance
Grants (TAGs)"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB93-963 302
This brochure gives an overview of the
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program.
The TAG program provides funds for
community groups near Superfund sites to
obtain expert assistance. This pamphlet
contains background information; the use of
TAGs, who may apply, and how to apply; and
additional sources of information about the
program.
«? i
TITLE: "Superfund Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) Handbook: Managing Your
Grant"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB03-963 355
This handbook provides the basic requirements
for managing a TAG. It includes the dos and
don'ts, commonly asked questions, a grant
management checklist, and sample grant
management documents.
TITLE: "Superfund Strategic Plan and
Implementation Strategy FY 1994"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB94-963 245
This document provides the Superfund
program's strategic direction for FY 1994. It
presents the vision, mission, and goals of the
program.
TITLE: "Audit Management Process"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB94-963 232
The purpose of this reference guide is to
describe the audit management process. This
guide explains relevant terms; roles and
responsibilities of participants; and helpful
hints and tools for full compliance. It is
primarily geared toward the Office of
Emergency Remedial Response managers and
staff.
-------
December 1994
New Publications
TITLE: "Procedure for Use of USAGE
Replaced Contracts to Expedite Superfund
Cleanup Tasks"
AVAILABBLITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB94-963243
To provide more flexible and responsible
contracting capabilities, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) has procured contracts
that give EPA streamlines access to
engineering, removal, and remedial services at
selected Superfund site. This fact sheet
describes each contract in terms of scope,
applicability, criteria for use, response time,
procedures for accessing the contract, and cost.
OTHER
TITLE: "Monthly Hotline Report"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: See below
Yearly Subscription PB94-922 400
530-R-94-005
January 1994
February 1994
March 1994
April 1994
May 1994
June 1994
July 1994
PB94-922 401
530-R-94-005a
PB94-922402
530-R-94-005b
PB94-922403
530-R-94-005c
PB94-922 404
530-R-94-005d
PB94-922 405
530-R-94-005e
PB94-922 406
530-R-94-005f
PB94-922 407
530-R-94-005g
August 1994
September 1994
October 1994
November 1994
December 1994
PB94-922 408
530-R-94-005h
**• »
PB94-922 409
530-R-94-005i
PB94-922410
530-R-94-005J
PB94-922411
530-R-94-005k
PB94-9&2 412
530-R-94-0051
The reports contain questions that required
EPA resolution or were frequently asked,
publications availability, Federal Register
summaries, and Hotline call statistics.
The Monthly Hotline Report Questions and
Answers are also available for downloading at
no charge from CLU-IN at (301) 589-8366.
-------
10
-------
FEDERAL REGISTERS
FINAL RULES
RCRA
"Hazardous Waste TSDFs and
Generators; Organic Air Emission
Standards for Tanks, Surface
Impoundments, and Containers"
December 6,1994 (59 EB 62896)
EPA promulgated air standards in order to
reduce organic emissions from hazardous waste
management activities. Under the standards, air
emission controls must be used for tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers in which
hazardous waste is placed on or after June 5,
1995, except under the certain conditions
discussed in the rule. Air emission control
requirements are also added to die RCRA
permit terms and provisions specified for RCRA
miscellaneous units. Finally, this action
establishes a new EPA reference test method to
determine the organic vapor pressure of a waste.
"Louisiana; Rnal Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions"
December 23,1994 (59 EB 66200)
EPA intends to approve revisions to
Louisiana's hazardous waste program under
RCRA. Rnal authorization will be effective
March 8,1995, unless EPA publishes a prior
action withdrawing this immediate final rule.
Comments must be received on or before
February 6,1995.
CERCLA
"National Priorities Ust (NPL) for
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites"
December 16,1994 (59 EB 65206)
vv
EPA announced the addition of 18 new sites to
the NPL, 14 to the General Superfund Section
and 4 to the Federal Facilities Section. The
entire NPL is printed This rule is effective
January 17,1995.
PROPOSED RULES
RCRA
"hazardous Waste Management;
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Wastes"
December 22,1994 (59 £B 66072)
EPA proposed to list as hazardous waste under
RCRA, Subtitle C, five wastes generated during
the production of dyes and pigments. The
Agency declined to list six other wastes from the
dye and pigment industry, and deferred listing of
three other wastes. The Agency also proposed to
designate as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
the wastes proposed for listing, without taking
action to revise the statutory one-pound
Re portable Quantity. Comments must be
received on or before March 22,1995.
Comments received after that date will be
marked "late" and may not be considered.
Requests for a public hearing on this issue must
be received on or before January 5,1995.
-------
Federal Registers
December 1994
"Hazardous Waste Management; Slag
Residues Derived from High
Temperature Metal Recovery (HTMR)
Treatment of K061, K062, and F006
Wastes"
December 29,1994 (59 EB 67256)
EPA proposed to allow materials resulting
fipom the treatment of certain hazardous wastes
to be used as product in road construction and as
anti-skidding or deicing material on road
surfaces. These materials are residues, or slags,
generated from the treatment of pollution control
dusts resulting from scrap metal recycling. This
action would designate these treated materials as
nonhazardous and allow the above uses, but only
if the toxic metals in the waste have been
reduced to safe levels by treatment EPA will
accept public comments on this rule no later than
February 13,1995.
CERCLA
"National Priorities List; Kenmark
Textiles Printing Corporation"
December 15,1994 (59 ES 64644)
EPA announced its intent to delete the
Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation, located
in New York, from the NPL, EPA and the State
of New York determined that no furdier eleanup
under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial
actions at the site have been protective of public
health, welfare, and the environment
Comments concerning the site may be submitted
on or before January 17,1995.
TSCA
"Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)"
December 6,1994 (59 EB 62788)
EPA proposed to amend requirements for PCB
concentration levels and procedures; as well as
reporting and rccodkeeping requirements for
PCBs, PCB items, environmental media
contaminated with PCBs, or PCBs in association
with radioactive materials Additionally, the
Agency proposed to insert new references and
definitions, include new authorizations and,
exemptions, require the registration of certain
electrical transformers, regulate combustion in
industrial furnaces, govern the disposal of liquids
in landfills, coordinate PCB disposal approvals
with other federal and state programs, and revise
the reportable quantity in the siull cleanup
policy. Finally, EPA proposed methods to
coordinate strategies for the remediation of PCB
contamination with cleanup provisions under
RCRA and CERCLA. Written comments on
this proposed rule must be received on or before
April 6,1995.
NOTICES
RCRA
"Availability of Document"
December 14,1994 (59 £fi 64407)
EPA announced the availability of the
document Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update. The
document contains information about the types
and amounts of municipal solid waste generated,
discarded, and recycled in die United States
through 1993. The document is also available
on the Internet
"Arizona; Rnal Determination of Full
Program Adequacy of State Municipal
Solid Waste Permit Program"
December 19,1994 (59 £E 65334)
Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(Q, EPA gave
notice of a final determination approving the
adequacy of Arizona's municipal solid waste
landfill permit program. The effective date of
this rale is December 19,1994.
12
-------
December 1994
Federal Registers
NOTICES
"Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption"
December 20,1994 (59 EB 65538)
EPA granted a petition submitted by Merichem
Company to issue an exemption to LDR for the
Class I Injection well located at Houston, Texas.
EPA is satisfied that, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the injection zone for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. This action is
effective December 2,1994.
"Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption"
December 20,1994 (59 EB 65539)
EPA granted a petition submitted by BP
Chemicals to reissue an exemption to LDR for
the Class I Injection well located at Port Lavaca,
Texas. EPA is satisfied that, to a reasonable
degree of certainty, there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents from the injection zone
for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This
action is effective iJecember 2,1994.
"New Mexico; Final Determination of Full
Program Adequacy of State Municipal
Solid Waste Permit Program"
December 23,1994 (59 EB 66306)
Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(Q, EPA gave
notice of a final determination approving the
adequacy of New Mexico's municipal solid waste
landfill permit program. The effective date of
this rule is December 23,1994.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Powder
River Crude Processors"
December 29,1994 (59 EB 67339)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Dale
Valentine, etal.. was lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Wyoming on
December 21,1994. The complaint seeks
injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations
of administrative orders issued by EPA under
§7003 of RCRA for cleanup of the site. The
decree requires the settling parties to perform
certain cleanup activities at the site and assure
financing of such activities, and one settler to
reimburse EPA $20,000 for costs incurred in
connection with the reprocessing facility near
Glenrock, Wyoming, commonly known as
Powder River Crude Processors or Big Muddy
Oil Processors. The Department of Justice (DOJ)
will receive comments for a period of 30 days
from the date of publication.
CERCLA
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
MKY Corporation Mycalex Facility"
December 5,1994 (59 E3 62398)
EPA proposed to enter into an administrative
settlement under CERCLA §122(h). The
proposed settlement requires the settling party to
reimburse EPA for response costs incurred in
connection with the MKY Corporation Mycalex
Facility in Andover, New Jersey. The Agency
will receive comments for a period of 30 days
from the date of publication.
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Eastern Diversified Site"
December 6,1994 (59 EB 62728)
EPA proposed to enter into a d£ minimis
administrative settlement under CERCLA
§ 122(g). The proposed settlement requires the 65
settling parties to reimburse EPA for response
costs incurred in connection with the Eastern
Diversified Site in Hometown, Pennsylvania.
The Agency will receive comments for a period
of 30 days from the date of publication.
-------
Federal Registers
December 1994
NOTICES
"Proposed Consent Decree; Niagara
County Refuse Site'*
December 6,1994 (59 EB 62748)
A Consent Decree in United Stales v. Booth Oil
Co.. Inc. was lodged with die U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York on
November 21,1994. The proposed settlement
requires the settling parties to perform certain
remedial activities and reimburse the United
States $72,000 for response costs incurred in
connection with die Niagara County Refuse Site
in Niagara County, New York. DOJ will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from the date
of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Tibbetts
Road Site-
December 6,1994 (59 EB 62749)
A Consent Decree in United States, et al. v.
Ford Motor Company was lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire
on November 8,1994. The proposed settlement
requires die settling party to reimburse EPA and
the State of New Hampshire for response costs
incurred in connection with the Tibbetts Road
Site in Barrington, New Hampshire. The settling
party must also perform remediation at the site as
well as pay $480,000 plus 75% of the ongoing
cost of purifying contaminated groundwater to
the Swains Lake Village Water District DOJ
will receive comments for a period of 30 days
from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Various
Settlement Properties"
December 6,1994 (59 EB 62749)
A Consent Decree in United States, et al. v. Port
ofTacoma was lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on
November 21,1994. The proposed settlement
requires the settlkg party to reimburse the United
States for response costs incurred in connection
with six parcels of property which will be
transferred from the Port of Tacoma to the United
States to hold in trust for the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians. DOJ will receive comments for a period
of 30 days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree;
Hollingsworth Solderies^ Terminal
Company"
December 9,1994 (59 Efi 63820)
A Consent Decree in In re Hollingsworth
Solderless Terminal Company was lodged with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on November 16,1994. The
proposed settlement requires the settling party to
reimburse the Hazardous Substance Superfund
$150,000 for response costs incurred in
connection with the Hollingsworth Suideriess
Terminal Company Site in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. The settler must pay 55% of the net
proceeds of the sate of die facility (Plant 1) to
EPA. DOJ will receive comments for a period of
30 days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Poplar Drive Drum Dump Site"
December 14,1994 (59 EB 64407)
EPA proposed to enter into an administrative
settlement under CERCLA §122(h). The
proposed settlement requires the settling party to
reimburse EPA for response costs incurred in
connection with the Poplar Drive Drum Dump
S i te located in Elizabeth City, Pasquotank
County, North Carolina. The Agency will
receive comments for a period of 30 days from
the date of publication.
14
-------
December 1994
Federal Registers
NOTICES
"Proposed Consent Decree and
Bankruptcy Stipulation; Forest Waste
Products"
December 15,1994 (59 EB 64699)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Agrico
Chemical Co.. Inc.. et al.. was lodged with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on November 30,1994, and a proposed
Stipulation in In re: Bond Corporation North
America. etaL. was lodged on December 2,
1994, with die United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York. The
proposed Consent Decree requires the settling
parties to perform certain remedial activities and
reimburse the United States $5,000,000 for
response costs plus future response costs incurred
in connection with the Forest Waste Products
Site located in Forest Township, Genessee
County, Michigan. DOJ will receive comments
for a period of 30 days from the date of
publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Florida Steel
Site"
December 15,1994 (59 £B 64699)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Florida
Steel Corporation was lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Honda
on November 21,1994. The proposed Consent
Decree addresses Operable Unit Two of the site,
and requires the settling parties to perform certain
remedial activities and reimburse die United
States $1,200,000 for response costs incurred in
connection widi Operable Unit Two of die
Florida Steel Site located near Indiantown,
Florida. DOJ will receive comments for a period
of 30 days from die date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Saegertown
Industrial Area"
December 15,1994 (59 EB 64700)
f
A Consent Decree in United States v. GATX
Corporation and General American
Transportation Corporation was lodged witii die
U.S. District Court for die Western District of
Pennsylvania on November 15,1994. The
proposed Consent Decree requires die settling
parties to perform certain remedial activities and
reimburse die United States for response costs
incurred in connection with die Saegertown
Industrial Area Site located in Saegertown,
Crawford County, Pennsylvania. The defendants
must also reimburse die United States for natural
resource damages. DOJ will receive comments
for a period of 30 days from die date of
publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; American
Barrel Site"
December 15,1994 (59 EB 64700)
A Consent Decree in United States v.
PacifiCorp d/b/a Utah Power & Light Company
was lodged widi die U.S. District Court for die
District of Utah on December 2,1994. The
proposed Consent Decree requires die settling
parties to perform die remedial activities selected
by EPA for die American Barrel Site located in
Salt Lake City, Utah. DOJ will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from die date
of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Alaskan
Battery Enterprises Site"
December 16,1994 (59 EB 65069)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Alaskan
Battery Enterprises. Inc. was lodged widi die
U S District Court for the District of Alaska on
November 22,1994. The proposed Consent
15
-------
Federal Registers
December 1994
NOTICES
Decree requires the settling parties to reimburse
the United States $749,303 for response costs,
plus the prejudgement interest accruing on that
amount from November 1,1992, through the date
of payment, incurred in connection with the
Alaskan Battery Enterprises Site located in
Fairbanks, Alaska. DOJ will receive comments
for a period of 30 days from the date of
publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Reilly Tar &
Chemical Site"
December 16,1994 (59 EH 65070)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Reilly
Industries. Inc. was lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on
December 2,1994. The proposed Consent
Decree requires the settling parties to perform
certain remedial activities and reimburse the
United States $227,000 for response costs
incurred in connection with the Reilly Tar and
Chemical site located in Indianapolis, Indiana.
DOJ will receive comments for a period of 30
days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Smuggler
Mountain Site"
December 16,1994 (59 £B 65070)
A Consent Decree in United States v.
Smuggler-Durant Mining Corporation, et al.. was
lodged with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on October 31,1994. The
proposed Consent Decree requires the settling
party to enforce EPA-selected institutional
controls and perform certain remedial activities at
the Smuggler Mountain Site located in and
adjacent to Aspen, Colorado. DOJ will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from the date
of publication.
"Proposed Settlement Agreement;
Doepke-Holliday and Operating
Industries Sites"
December 16,1994 (59 EH 65071) '
A Settlement Agreement in In re: Trans World
Airlines. Inc. was lodged with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on
November 17,1994. The proposed Agreement
requires the settling party to reimburse the United
States $300,000 for past and future activities at
the Doepke-Holliday Site located in Johnson
City, Kansas, and the Operating Industries Site
located in Los Angeles County, California. DOJ
will receive comments for a period of 30 days
from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Reeves
Southeastern Corporation"
December 19,1994 (59 EB 65387)
A Consent Decree in United Stags v. Reeves
Southeastern Corporation was lodged with the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, on November 2,1994.
The proposed Consent Decree requires the
settling parties to perform certain remedial
activities and reimburse the United States
$297,759 for past response costs, as well as pay
for all future response costs incurred in
connection with the Reeves Southeastern
Corporation located in Tampa, Florida. The
defendant will also perform the selected remedial
actions at the site. DOJ will receive comments
for a period of 30 days from the date of
publication.
16
-------
December 1994
Federal Registers
NOTICES
"Proposed Consent Decree; Tacoma
Channel Site"
December 19,1994 (59 £B 65387)
A Consent Decree in United States v. The
Boeing Company was lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of
Washington on December 6,1994. The
proposed Consent Decree requires the settling
parties to pay $2.3 million to the Hazardous
Substance Superfund, and settles a counter-claim
by requiring the United States to contribute $7.7
million to the Superfund. The Consent Decree
resolves claims in association with the Tacoma
Channel/Well 12A/Time Oil Site located in
Tacoma, Washington. DOJ will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from the date
of publication.
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Old City of York Landfill"
December 21,1994 (59 £g 65769)
EPA proposed to enter into a d£ minimis
administrative settlement under CERCLA
§ 122(g). The proposed settlement requires the 11
settling parties to reimburse EPA $819,140.48 for
response costs incurred in connection with the
Old City of York Landfill Site located in York
County, Pennsylvania. The Agency will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from the date
of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Chemplex
Site-
December 21,1994 (59 £R 65789)
Two Consent Decrees in United States v. ACC
Chemical Corporation, et aL. were lodged with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa, Davenport Division, on December 7,
1994. The proposed Consent Decrees require the
settling parties to perform certain remedial
activities and reimburse EPA for past response
costs incurred in connection with the Chemplex
Site located near Clinton, Iowa. DOJ will receive
written comments for a period of 30 days from
the date of publication.
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Petrochem Recycling Corp. Site"
December 27,1994 (59 £B 66536)
vv
EPA proposed to enter into two de minimis
administrative settlements under CERCLA
§ 122(g). The first proposed settlement requires
the 15 settling parties to reimburse EPA
$231,922.08 for response costs incurred in
connection with the Petrochem Recycling Corp.
Site located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The second
settlement requires 22 settlers to pay $357,111
for response costs taken at the same site. The
Agency will receive comments for a period of 30
days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Carolina
Chemicals, Inc. Site"
December 27,1994 (59 EB 66557)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Carolina
Chemicals. Inc. was lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina,
Columbia Division on December 14,1994. The .
proposed settlement requires the settling parties
to reimburse the United States $5,631,000 for
response costs incurred in connection with the
Carolina Chemicals, Inc. Site in West Columbia,
South Carolina. DOJ will receive comments for
a period of 30 days from the date of publication.
-------
Federal Registers
December 1994
NOTICES
"Proposed Consent Decree; Harbor
Island Site"
December 27,1994 (59 EB 66557)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Lockheed
Corp. was lodged with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on
December 8,1994. The proposed settlement
requires the settling parties to perform certain
remedial activities and reimburse the United
States $3,000,000 for response costs incurred in
connection with die Harbor Island Site in Seattle,
Washington. DOJ will receive comments for a
period of 30 days from the date of publication.
"Availability of Document"
December 30,1994 (59 JFQ 67706)
EPA announced the availability of a Draft Soil
Screening guidance. The guidance presents a
framework for developing soil screening levels
and includes simple equations in addition to
generic levels. The guidance is presented in a
fact sheet and s»noorted by a Technical
Background Document The Agency is also
making an Issues Document available, which
reviews comments already received through
outreach discussions. Comments will be
accepted until March 1,1995. Comments
received after this date will be considered to the
extent feasible.
EPCRA
"Science Advisory Board; Public
Meetings"
December 14,1994 (59 EB 64404)
EPA announced that die Toxics Reporting
Subcommittee of die Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee of die Science Advisory
Board will conduct a meeting on January 4,
1995, in Arlington, Virginia. The subcommittee
will review technical information from EPA and
die public commenters related to die toxicity of
ammonia and die criteria for listing ammonia
compounds on die Toxics Release Inventory
under EPCRA §313. The Science Advisory
Board will receive written comments on or
before December 19,1994.
Environmental Justice
"National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council; Public Meetings"
December 27,1994 (59 EB 66534)
EPA announced that open meetings of die
National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council and four subcommittees will be held in
Hemdon, Virginia, on January 17 through
January 19,1995.
18
-------
CALL ANALYSES
CALLS ANSWERED BY HOTLINE
December Daily Volume*
300
EPCRAand
Superfund
1256789
12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30
Day
Year to Date*
RCRA/UST
January-
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Month
5.843
5,069
6.059
4,535
4.802
6.324
4.565
5.257
4,729
4,796
4,762
4.935
Cumulative
5.843
10.912
16.971
21,506
26.308
32.632
37.197
42454
47.183
51,797
56,559
61.494
EPCRA and Superfund
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Month
4,418
6,835
7.203
6.114
7.944
8.414
3946
39O6
3,863
4,245
4,292
2.600
Cumulative
4.418
11,253
18.456
24.570
32.514
40,928
44874
48.780
52.643
56.838
61.180
S3 780
Documents
(All Prcoram Areas)
January
February
March
April
Mav
June
Julv
Auoust
September
October
November
December
Month
4.050
4,095
4.081
3,203
3,800
4.915
4246
4.913
4,407
3,993
3,736
3,229
Cumulative
4.050
8,145
12.226
15,429
19.229
24.144
28390
33.303
37,710
41,703
45,439
48,668
•All calls answered by the Call Management System, the Meat4«r « -u •.<•> *J Une, and the Document Retrieval Line.
-------
Call Analyses
December1994
QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY TYPE
December Daily Volume*
Regulatory
e
o
O
"o
i
3
8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30
Year to Date*
Regulatory
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Month
12,042
12.609
15947
13,686
15.514
19,335
11,280
11,393
11,241
11,075
11,176
10,126
Cumulative
12,042
24.651
40598
54,284
69.798
89,133
100,413
111,806
123,047
134,122
145,298
155,424
Document
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Month
4,353
4.528
4.789
3,931
4.346
5,404
4,561
5.093
4,561
4,275
3,960
3,654
Cumulative
4,353
8.881
13,670
17.601
21.947
27.351
31.912
37.005
41.566
45.841
49.801
S3.4S5
Referral/Transfer
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Month
768
1,288
1.954
1,482
1,763
1,669
1,231
1,508
1,442
1,310
1,314
1,109
Cumulative
768
2.056
4.010
5,492
7,255
8,924
10,155
11.663
13,105
14,415
15,729
16,838
* All questions answered by the Call Management System, the Mesu«< *
single call may include multiple questions combined with-docunw"1 • -
«j Line, and the Document Retrieval Line. A
20
-------
December 1994
Call Analyses
QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY PROGRAM AREA
December1994*
UST
6%
(783)
'Based on 13,780 questions and excludes 1,109 referrals and transfers made from both Hotlines. Includes the
Message Retrieval Line and the Document Retrieval Line.
Year to Date*
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
RCRA
Month
57%
(9,394)
51%
(8,788)
54%
(11,149)
49%
(8,708)
47%
(9,334)
43%
(10,757)
53%
(8,365)
60%
(9.786)
59%
(9,350)
60%
(9,278)
59%
(8,846)
61%
(8,454)
Cumulative
57%
(9,394)
54%
(18,182)
54%
(29,331)
53%
(38,039)
52%
(47,373)
50%
(58,130)
50%
(66,495)
51%
(76,281)
52%
(85,631)
53%
(94,909)
53%
(103,755)
54%
(112,209)
UST
Month
4%
(668)
5%
(831)
5%
(993)
5%
(857)
4%
(791)
4%
(932)
6%
(917)
6%
(1.018)
7%
(1,083)
5%
(698)
5%
(821)
6%
(783)
Cumulative
4%
(668)
5%
(1.499)
5%
(2,492)
5%
(3,349)
4%
(4,140)
4%
(5,072)
5%
(5,989)
5%
(7,007)
5%
(8,090)
5%
(8,788)
5%
(9,609)
5%
(10,392)
EPCRA
Month
25%
(4,100)
29%
(4,923)
27%
„ (5,588)
31%
(5.509)
37%
(7,386)
45%
(11.042)
27%
(4.312)
21%
(3532)
20%
(3.196)
22%
(3.430)
24%
(3633)
?i%
2892)
Cumulative
25%
'* 100)
27%
(9.023)
27%
(14,611)
28%
(20,120)
30%
(27,506)
33%
(38,548)
32%
(42.860)
31%
(46.392)
30%
(49,588)
29%
(53,018)
29%
(56,651)
28%
(59,543)
Superfund
Month
14%
(2,223)
15%
(2,595)
14%
(3,006)
15%
(2,543)
12%
(2.349)
8%
(2,008)
14%
(2,247)
13%
(2,150)
14%
(2,173)
13%
(1,944)
12%
(1,836)
12%
(1,651)
Cumulative
14%
(2,223)
14%
(4,818)
14%
(7,824)
14%
(10,367)
14%
(12,716)
13%
(14,724)
13%
(16,971)
13%
(19,121)
13%
(21,294)
13%
(23,238)
13%
(25,074)
13%
(26,725)
-------
Call Analyses
December 1994 ~
CALLER PROFILE
RCRA/UST Hotline
Regulated Community 5,195
Citizens 188
State & Local Govt/Native American 244
Federal Agencies 115
Educational Institutions 116
EPA 84
Media 10
Interest Groups 16
Congress * 3
International 6
Other 67
Referrals* 316
Transfers to EPCRA/Superfund Hotline* 215
Document Retrieval Line* 122
Message Retrieval Line* 337
TOTAL
Citizens
State & Local Govt/ 3%
Native American
4%
All Others
5%
7,034
Federal Agencies
2%
Regulated
Community
* No caller profile data available.
22
-------
December 1994
Call Analyses
Emergency Planning and Community Rlght-to-Know Act/
Superfund Hotline
Manufacturers
Food/Tobacco 29
Textiles 20
Apparel 3
Lumber & Wood 9
Furniture 10
Paper 12
Printing & Publishing 24
Chemicals 201
Petroleum & Coal 52
Rubber and Plastics 40
Leather 12
Stone, Clay & Glass 23
Primary Metals 56
Fabricated Metals • 64
Machinery (Excluding Electrical) 29
Electrical&Electronic Equipment 44
Transportation Equipment 42
Instruments 30
Misc. Manufacturing 112
Subtotal 812
Consultants/Engineers 1,362
Attorneys 261
Citizens 156
Public Interest Groups 21
Educational Institutions 86
EPA 69
Federal Agencies 91
GOCOs 2
Congress 1
State Officials/SERCs , 58
Local Officials/LEPCs * 57
Fire Departments 16
Hospitals/Laboratories 20
Trade Associations 8
Union/Labor 2
Farmers 9
Distributors 14
Insurance Companies 10
Media/Press 8
Native Americans 0
International 3
Other 87
Referrals* 223
Transfers to RCRA/UST Hotline* 255
Document Retrieval Line* 24
Message Retrieval Line* 75
TOTAL 3,730
Attorneys
8%
All Others
18%
Consultants/
Engineers
43%
* No caller profile data available.
Manufacturers
26%
23
-------
Call Analyses
December 1994
HOTLINE TOPICS
RCRA
Special Wastes
Ash 6
Mining Wastes, Bevill 17
Medical Wastes 126
Oil and Gas 10
Subtitle C (General) 550
Hazardous Waste Id. (General) 1,671*
Toxicity Characteristic 51
Wood Preserving 6
Listing of Used Oil 70
Ruff 1
Radioactive Mixed Waste 30
Delisting Petitions 19
Hazardous Waste Recycling 192*
Generators 506*
Small Quantity Generators 127
Transportation/Transporters 58
TSDFs General 431
TSDFs Siting Facilities 7
TSDFs Capacity 14
TSDFs Treatment 65
TSDFs Burning 92
TSDFs Storage 63
TSDFs Disposal 54
' and Disposal Restrictions 7601
Permits and Permitting 142
Corrective Action 241
Financial Liability/Enforcement 122
Test Methods 96
Health Effects 8
Waste MinJPollution Prevention 2911
State Programs 76
Hazardous Waste Data 43
Subtitle D (General) 2771
Household Hazardous Waste 128
Siting Facilities 15
Combustion 11
Industrial Waste 10
Composting 9
Source Reduction/Poll. Prev. 38
Grants & Financing 3
Procurement (General) 23
Building Insulation 4
Cement & Products with Fly Ash 4
Paper & Paper Products 5
Re-refined Lubricating Oil 4
Retread Tires 4
Solid Waste Recycling (General) 2431
Aluminum '* *" 13
Batteries 19
Glass 6
Paper 4
Plastics , 12
Tires ' 29
Used Oil 175
Markets (General) 10
Aluminum 1
Batteries 0
Compost 1
Glass , 0
Paper * 0
Plastics • 4
Tires 12
Used Oil 16
RCRA General 1,429
TOTAL 8,454*
* Includes 2,082 RCRA document requests.
UST
General/Misc. 1711
Applicability/Definitions 84
Regulated Substances 16
Standards for New Tank Systems 27
Tank Standards and Upgrading 88
Onerating Requirements 25
Release Detection 106
Release Reporting & Investigation 22
Corrective Action for USTs 86
Out-of-Service/Closure 39
Financial Responsibility 45
State Programs 23
Liability/Enforcement 35
LUST Trust Fund 16
TOTAL 783*
* Includes 329 UST document requests.
24
i Hot topics for this month
• Topics ars calculated as the summation of all questions
multiple questions.
«h» Hotline 4 single call may result in
-------
December 1994
CaH Analyses
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
General:
General Title ffl Questions 352
Trade Secrets 5
Enforcement 36
Liability/Citizen Suits 4
Training 12
Chemical-Specific Information 33
Emergency Planning (§§301-303):
General 72
Notification Requirements 29
SERC/LEPC Issues 36
EHSs/TPQs 37
Risk Communication/
Hazards Analysis 23
Exemptions 9
Emergency Release Notification (§304):
General 31
Notification Requirements 33
Reportable Quantities 74
CERCLA § 103 vs. SARA §304 39
ARIP/AHEDB/ERNS 6
Exemptions 8
Hazardous Chemical Reporting
(§§311-312):
General 56
MSDS Reporting Requirements 47
Tier 1/H Requirements 145
Thresholds 62
Hazard Categories 9
Mixtures Reporting 25
Exemptions 25
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (§313):
General
Reporting Requirements
Thresholds
Form R Completion
Supplier Notification
NOTEs/NOSEs/NONs
Voluntary Revisions
Pollution Prevention 33/50
Public Access to Data
TRI Database
Petitions
TRI Expansion
Exemptions
126
185
120
243
61
1221
971
21
55
47
43
354
41
Special Topics:
CAA§112
General •* 38
RMPs * * 65
List of Regulated Substances 22
Federal Facilities Executive Order 44
TOTAL 2,892
"Includes 717 Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know document requests
SUPERFUND
General/Misc. ^
Access & Information Gathering
Administrative Record
ARARs
CERCUS
Citizen Suits
Claims Against Fund
Clean-Up Costs
Clean-Up Standards
Community Relations
Contract Lab Program (CLP)
Contractor Indemnification
Contracts
Definitions
Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Hazardous Substances
HRS
Liability
Local Gov't Reimbursement
Natural Resource Damages
NCP
Notification
NPL
Off Site Rule
OSHA
PA/SI
PRPs
RD/RA
Reauthorization
Remedial
Removal
Rl/FS
Risk AssessTHealth Effects
ROD
176
10
7
63
66
8
4
23
73
46
11
5
3
11
30
19
119
17
- 52
6
8
19
51
1381
14
6
16
22
12
9
85
33
49
51
29
1 Hot topics for this month
• Topics are calculated as the summation of all questions received b» the Hotline. A single call may result in
multiple questions.
25
-------
Call Analyses
December 1994
RQ
SACM
Settlements
SITE Program
State Participation
State Program
TAGs
Taxes
214*
89
16
23
4
5
6
3
Special Topics
Oil Pollution Act
SPCC Regulations
Radiation Site Cleanup
8
13
66
TOTAL 1,651*
'Includes 526 Superfund document requests.
TOTAL HOTLINE QUESTIONS,
DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND
REFERRALS: 14,889
1 Hot topks for this month
* Topics are calculated as the summation of all questions received by tixr H uiiir.e. A single call may result in
multiple questions.
26
------- |