EPA530-R-95-002C
PB95-922 403
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT
March 1995
RCRA/UST, Superfund, and EPCRA
' ,-•/$, "-
\/* V v
•"^•fc^ ••
** '
Hotline Questions and Answers
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA).
1
3
3
4
New Publications
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA),
Other
Federal Registers
9
9
11
Final Rules ,
Proposed Rules
Notices
13
15
16
Call Analyses
Calls Answered 23
Caller Profiles 26
Hotline Topics 28
RCRA/UST, Superfund, and EPCRA
National Toll-Free Nos.: 800-424-9346
Local: 703-412-9810
TDD National Toll-Free No.: 800-553-7672
This report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract No. 68-WO-0039.
EPA Project Officer.
Carie VanHook Jasperse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Printed on
Recycled Paper
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
RCRA
1. Signing the Manifest as an Agent
When Importing Hazardous Waste
A waste broker in Mexico arranges to
collect hazardous waste from several different
Mexican generators, and exports 1500
kilograms of hazardous waste for disposal at a
U.S. facility. The RCRA regulations under
Part 262, Subpart F require an importer to
initiate a manifest when hazardous waste
enters the United States. Since the broker from
Mexico accepts all responsibility for the
hazardous waste from the generator facilities
and handles the hazardous waste for the US.
disposal facility, can the broker sign the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest as an
agent of the U.S. disposal facility that is
importing the waste?
The regulations for imports of hazardous
waste allow the importer or his/her agent to
sign the generator certification statement on
the manifest in place of the generator
(§262.60(b)(2)). The only requirement for an
agent signing the manifest is that the agent
must be somehow legally affiliated with the
EPA identification number used on the
manifest. The Mexican broker could sign the
manifest certification only if the broker's
company has a U.S. EPA identification
number (requiring a U.S. address) or the
broker is legally related to the importer (e.g., a
subsidiary). A broker signing as an agent
because of a legal relation to the importer
must place the U.S. address and U.S. EPA
identification number of the importer on the
manifest.
2. Export Requirements for
Transportation Through Transit
Countries
A facility generates hazardous waste in
Alaska. The generator arranges to send the
hazardous waste to a disposal facility in
California. In the process of transportation,
the hazardous waste will pass through
Canadian territory. Will the facility be
required to comply with any of the export
regulations found under Part 262, Subpart E?
In this scenario, RCRA export regulations do
not apply. The regulations for exports of
hazardous waste in Pan 262, Subpart E apply
to any person who meets the definition of a
primary exporter. Primary exporter is defined
under §262.51 as generally, any person
required to initiate a hazardous waste manifest
which designates a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility in a receiving country.
Receiving country is subsequently defined
under §262.51 as "a foreign country to which
a hazardous waste is sent for the purpose of
treatment, storage or disposal (except short-
term storage incidental to transportation)". In
the above scenario, there are no treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities in a receiving
country that are designated on the manifest,
rather, the waste simply passes through a
foreign country. RCRA does not require that
transit countries be notified.
-------
Hotline Questions and Answers
March 1995
3. Hotel Dry Cleaning Waste and the
Household Waste Exclusion
A hotel generates spent solvents from its
on-site dry cleaning facility. For purposes of
the 40 CFR §261.4(b)(l) household waste
exclusion, EPA defines households to include
hotels and motels. Will hoiel dry cleaning
wastes be excluded from RCRA Subtitle C
regulation as household waste?
Wastes produced by a hotel dry cleaning
facility are not household wastes and therefore
will not be excluded from RCRA hazardous
waste regulation. A waste has to meet two
conditions to be excluded as household waste.
Household waste must be generated on the
premises of a temporary or permanent
residence and be comprised primarily of
materials generated by consumers in their
homes. In general, wastes from hotels and
motels will be excluded as household waste as
long as the waste is similar to the type of
waste that consumers generate in their home.
Even though generated on premises of a
temporary residence (i.e. hotel), dry cleaning
waste is not household waste because the
spent solvents from the dry cleaning
operations are not similar to wastes typically
produced by a consumer in the home. The dry
cleaning wastes produced by the hotel do not
meet both criteria for household waste and
will not qualify for the household waste
exclusion per §261.4(b)(l) (49 FR 44978;
November 13,1984).
4. Definition of Formerly Bevill Exempt
Wastes
According to 40 CFR §268.1(e)(3), wastes
identified or listed as hazardous waste after
November 8,1984, are not subject to land
disposal restrictions (LDR) until EPA
promulgates prohibitions or treatment
standards. For purposes of LDR, certain
mineral processing wastes which were
formerly exempt under the Bevill Amendment,
but lost that exemption are considered to be
newly identified and therefore not subject to
LDR until EPA promulgates standards
specific to this category of wastes. What
wastes are included within this category of
formerly exempt Bevill wastes?
On November 19,1980, EPA
promulgated an exclusion from regulation
under RCRA Subtitle C for, "solid waste
from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals (including
coal), including phosphate rock, and
overburden for the mining of uranium ore"
(45 FR 76618,76620). This is one of the
exclusions commonly referred to as a
Bevill exclusion. In this Federal Register.
EPA clarified that the exclusion covered
"...solid waste from the exploration,
mining, milling, smelting and refining of
ores and minerals" (45 FR 76619). On
September 1,1989, EPA published a final
rule that narrowed the scope of the
exclusion as it applies to mineral
processing (54 FR 36592). Specifically,
EPA finalized the exclusion for five
mineral processing wastes and
conditionally excluded twenty wastes
pending additional studies. After
completing a study of the twenty wastes,
EPA removed five of the wastes that had
been subject to the September 1,1989,
conditional exclusion, bringing the total
number of excluded mineral processing
wastes to twenty (55 FR 2322; January 23,
1990). On June 13, 1991, EPA finalized
this list of twenty exempt mineral
processing wastes in §261.4(b)(7) (56 FR
27300). All other mineral processing
wastes are subject to RCRA Subtitle C.
Wastes from the extraction/beneficiation
of ores and minerals remain covered by
-------
March 1995
Hotline Questions and Answers
the exclusion generally, and are not subject
to Subtitle C.
EPA considers ajl mineral processing
wastes which are not currently listed in
§261.4(b)(7), to be newly identified wastes
and therefore not subject to LDR
requirements until treatment standards are
promulgated. Treatment standards for
these wastes are currently being developed
as part of the court-ordered LDR Phase IV
Proposed Rule.
UST
5. Underground Storage Tank Piping
The regulations for new or upgraded
Underground Storage Tank (UST) systems
require piping that routinely contains product
and is in contact with the ground to be
constructed or installed in a manner that
protects the pipes from leaking into the
environment. Fiberglass-reinforced plastic
piping automatically meets this requirement,
while metal piping requires cathodic
protection, or certification that there is no
threat of a release due to corrosion of the
metal. Would the owner or operator of a tank
system using fiberglass-reinforced piping with
metal "T" and "L" joints that routinely
contain product and are in contact with the
ground be required to provide additional
protection to these joints, or provide
certification of protection?
Yes. The UST regulations require
corrosion protection of operational
underground piping and components including
joints (53 FR 37128; September 23,1988).
The corrosion prevention provision for piping
construction at 40 CFR §280.20(b) makes no
exception for metal piping joints. Although
metal pipe joints are but a minor portion of a
tank system, they must have cathodic
protection (§280.20(b)(2)), be installed at a site
that is determined not to require corrosion
protection (§280.20(b)(3)), or be determined
not to show a potential for release or threatened
release of regulated substances (§280.20(b)(4)).
Because pipe joints make up such a
relatively small portion of a tank system, one
of the latter two protection measures is usually
most efficient. For metal piping to meet the
§280.20(b)(3) conditions, the piping must be
installed at a site that is determined by a
corrosion expert to not be corrosive enough to
cause the piping to have a release due to
corrosion during its operating life. The
regulations note two standards which may be
used to comply with this requirement (National
Fire Protection Association Standard 30, and
National Association of Corrosion Engineers
RP-01-69), although other appropriate methods
may be used. The owner or operator must
maintain records that demonstrate compliance
with this requirement. The implementing
agency must approve of the construction and
corrosion protection of the piping to meet the
requirements of §280.(20)(b)(4). Depending
on the requirements of the implementing
agency, pipe construction may be approved via
specific industry standards, state regulatory
requirements, or on a case-by-case basis.
CERCLA
6. Clarification of the Definition of On-
Scene Coordinator
The hazardous substance response
requirements under Subpart E of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) provide EPA the
authority and mechanisms to conduct removal
and remedial activities at Superfund sites. The
lead agency (usually EPA) may designate an
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) to direct
response for a removal action or a Remedial
Project Manager (RPM) to coordinate the
-------
Hotline Questions and Answers
March 1995
cleanup response for the remedial action. At a
site where both remedial and removal
responses are required, must the lead agency
designate two coordinators?
The lead agency conducting a Superfund
cleanup has great flexibility in designating
either an OSC, a RPM, or both to oversee the
response action. Where both the OSC and
RPM are designated to lead response actions at
one site, the responsibilities of the OSC will
generally be to lead removal activities, while
the RPM will generally oversee remedial
activities. Because this situation may promote
duplication of information collected or
activities performed at some sites, oversight by
either an OSC or a RPM of both removal and
remedial activities at one site is an option. The
definition of RPM in 40 CFR §300.5, clearly
indicates that a RPM has the authority to
oversee remedial activities as well as "other
response actions under Subpart E" (i.e.,
removal actions). In contrast, the definition of
an OSC did not explicitly extend the same
authority for that individual to oversee any
action beyond a removal action until a recent
clarification in the July 14,1994, Federal
Register (59 FR 35852). This clarification
amended the definition of OSC to explain that
he or she can direct removal or, "other
response actions under Subpart E of the NCP."
Thus, a lead agency can designate one OSC or
RPM to oversee both types of response
activities under Subpart E of the NCP.
EPCRA
7. Reporting Requirements for
Chemically Treated Wood Under
EPCRA §§311 and 312
Until recently, OSHA exempted wood and
wood products from the Hazard
Communication Standard (HCS) program. On
February 9,1994, OSHA amended its HCS to
no longer exempt certain wood and wood
products (59 Efi. 6126). The revised exemption
found at 29 CFR §1910.1200(b)(6)(iv) applies
only to wood and wood products for which the
hazard potential is limited to its flammability
or combustibility. Wood that has been
chemically treated is now subject to the HCS
and thus requires a facility to maintain a
material safety data sheet (MSDS)for the
wood product. In addition, the wood product
is potentially subject to EPCRA §§311 and
312.
A manufacturer of creosote-treated wood
stores various sizes of treated lumber, which it
sells to retailers and wholesalers. The facility
never stores more than 10,000 pounds of
creosote prior to being incorporated into the
wood. Would the consumer product exemption
found at 40 CFR §370.2 apply to the creosote-
treated wood? If the treated wood in storage
is subject to EPCRA §§311 and 312, does the
facility apply the total weight of the wood
products towards the 10,000 pound threshold,
or just the weight of creosote contained in the
wood?
EPCRA §§311 and 312 apply to any
facility that is required to prepare or have
available a MSDS and has a hazardous
chemical, as defined by OSHA, present in
excess of 10,000 pounds, or has an extremely
hazardous substance in excess of 500 pounds
or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ),
whichever is lower (40 CFR §370.20). Despite
the new applicability of OSHA's HCS to
chemically treated wood, the wood may not be
subject to EPCRA §§311 and 312 if certain
exemptions apply.
A manufacturer of creosote-treated wood
would not have to count the wood products in
storage towards the 10,000-pound threshold if
the treated wood is in the same form and
-------
March 1995
Hotline Questions and Answers
concentration as a product distributed to the
general public (40 CFR §370.2). If, however,
the wood products are treated with levels of
creosote not typically used in consumer
products, then the wood products in storage
must be counted in the threshold
determination. Likewise, any wood products
in sizes not typically available to the general
public must be counted towards threshold
calculations.
A facility subject to the requirements of
EPCRA §§311 and 312 has two options for
reporting mixtures. An owner or operator may
meet the requirements by either providing the
required information on each component of a
mixture or by providing the information on the
mixture itself (40 CFR §370.28(a)). If the
manufacturer of creosote-treated wood knows
the concentration of the creosote in the wood,
the manufacturer can apply the weight of
creosote contained in the wood along with any
other creosote on site towards the 10,000-
pound threshold. The owner or operator may
prefer, however, to simply apply the total
weight of the wood products towards the
threshold. The owner/operator may choose
which reporting option to use, but the option
chosen must be consistently applied for
purposes of reporting under EPCRA §§311 and
312 (40 CFR §370.28(a)(2)).
8. Federal Facilities and the Consumer
Product Exemption Under EPCRA
§§311 and 312
Executive Order 12856 required federal
facilities to comply with all aspects of EPCRA
(58 ER 41981; August 6,1993). Prior to this
action, EPCRA did not apply to federal
facilities. Consequently, interpretive language
previously issued as guidance for non-federal
facilities often does not address issues specific
to federal facilities. For example, the federal
government produces many of its own products
(i.e., scouring powder, bleach) for use by its
own service people. These products are
similar inform and concentration to
analogous products manufactured by private
companies for distribution to the general
public. Many of the federal government's
products are packaged in comparable
quantities to those produced in the private
sector. EPCRA provides an exemption at 40
CFR §3702 for consumer products present in
the same form and concentration as products
packaged for distribution and use by the
general public. The federal government's
products, however, are not available to the
general public. Would the federal products be
exempt under the consumer product exemption
if they are packaged in the same form and
concentration as those manufactured in the
private sector, even though they are not
available for purchase by the general public?
Yes. Products manufactured by the federal
government that are packaged in the same
form (i.e., package size) and concentration as
products manufactured by private industry are
exempt from EPCRA §§311/312 reporting
requirements. The federal products need not
be available to the general public to meet this
exemption. The exemption applies either to
the extent a product is used for personal,
family, or household purposes, or is present in
the same form and concentration as a product
used by the general public (whether or not it is
actually used by the general public (40 CFR
§372.2)). For further guidance on specific
scenarios, federal agencies should look to their
respective Executive Order implementing
offices to determine the extent of reporting.
Some federal agencies have agreed to
disregard certain exemptions even though their
facilities may qualify for them in order to
demonstrate the Federal Government's
leadership role in source reduction and
pollution prevention.
-------
NEW PUBLICATIONS
HOW TO ORDER
NTIS Publications are available by calling (703) 487-4650, or writing NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA k2161. Use the NTIS Order Number listed under the document.
EPA Publications are available through the Hotline. Use the EPA Order Number listed under the document.
RCRA/UST, Superfund, and EPCRA
National Toll-Free No.: 800-424-9346
Local: 703-412-9810
TDD National Toil-Free No.: 800-553-7672
RCRA
TITLE: "Update Released on Solid Waste
Management in the United States"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA530-F-94-042
This fact sheet summarizes the report entitled
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States: 1994 Update. The report
analyzes municipal solid waste generation and
management trends in the United States from
1960 to 1993 and the benefits of source
reduction and recycling. It provides
information about the amounts of solid waste
generated by volume as well as weight, and it
includes projections for solid waste generation
to the year 2000. This document is also
available on the Internet.
TITLE: "Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update;
Executive Summary"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA530-S-94-042
This document summarizes the report entitled
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States: 1994 Update. The report
analyzes municipal solid waste generation and
management trends in the United States from
1960 to 1993 and the benefits of source
reduction and recycling. This document is also
available on the Internet.
TITLE: "Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1994 Update"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB95-147 690
This report analyzes municipal solid waste
generation and management trends in the
United States from 1960 to 1993 and the
benefits of source reduction and recycling. It
provides information about the amounts of
solid waste generated by volume as well as
weight, and it includes projections for solid
waste generation to the year 2000. The
document is also available on the Internet.
TITLE: "Reusable News (Winter 1995
Edition)"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA530-N-95-001
Reusable News is a quarterly newsletter that
reports on municipal solid waste management
issues. The Winter 1995 edition contains an
article about the findings of the report entitled
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States: 1994 Update. It also
contains information about Washington's
"Buy-Recycled" campaign, and the 1994
-------
New Publications
March 1995
household hazardous waste management
conference. The newsletter also provides
information to home builders about
construction and demolition wastes, and
includes an insert listing the various EPA
publications concerning municipal solid waste
available to the public.
TITLE: "State Program Advisory Number
Fifteen"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB95-191 219
This document updates the State Authorization
Manual (SAM) which assists states and
regions in authorizing states for the RCRA
program. This advisory covers the period
July 1,1993, through June 30,1994. It
provides new revision checklists including
consolidated checklists for the land disposal
restrictions, boilers and industrial furnaces,
and the Bevill exclusion for mining wastes.
The advisory also contains model language
from the Attorney General's Statement.
TITLE: "Inside the Hotline: A Compilation
of 1994 Monthly Hotline Reports"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB95-179 388
This document is a compilation of questions
and answers and Federal Register summaries
from individual Monthly Hotline Reports for
the period covering January through December
1994. It includes indices arranged by subject,
regulatory citation, and statutory citation. This
document is also available on the Internet.
TITLE: "Index to the Monthly Hotline Report
Questions (June 1982 to December 1994)"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB95-179396
This document provides four indices to the
questions and answer section of the Monthly
Hotline Reports from June 1982 through
December 1994. The first index is a
chronological listing of question titles by year
and month. The second index organizes the
questions by regulatory citation. The third
index organizes the questions by statutory
citation, and the fourth index organizes the
questions by key work or subject. The
document replaces Index to the Monthly
Hotline Report Questions (June 1982 to
December 1992t. This document is also
available on the Internet.
TITLE: "Report to Congress on Flow Control
and Municipal Solid Waste"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: PB95-179 263
In September 1992, Congress directed the EPA
to develop and submit a Report to Congress on
flow control as a means of municipal solid
waste management. This report presents a
comparison of states with and without flow
control authority, and it identifies the impact of
flow control ordinances on protection of human
health and the environment. Specifically, it
identifies the impact of flow control on the
development of state and local waste
management capacity and the achievement of
goals for source reduction, reuse and
composting, waste-to-energy, and landfill
market segments. The report is also available
on the Internet.
-------
March 1995
New Publications
TITLE: "Report to Congress on Flow Control
and Municipal Solid Waste: Executive
Summary"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA530-S-95-008
This document summarizes the Report to
Congress on Flow Control and Municipal
Solid Waste. The report presents a comparison
of states with and without flow control
authority, and identifies the impact of flow
control ordinances on protection of human
health and the environment. The document is
also available on the Internet.
UST
TITLE: "State-EPA Strategy for Encouraging
Early Compliance with UST Upgrade/Replace/
Closure Requirements"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: N/A
EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST) has developed a strategy to encourage
early compliance with the December 1998
deadline for upgrading existing underground
storage tank (UST) systems. The document
outlines many steps that state and local
agencies can take to encourage early
compliance.
EPCRA
TITLE: "Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
Reporting Form R and Instructions: Revised
1994 Version"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA745-K-95-051
This document is the reporting form and
instructions used by facilities to provide EPA
with certain information required by §313 of
EPCRA The document also contains the §313
Toxic Chemical List and Federal Facility
reporting information. State designated §313
contacts and instructions for submitting the
automated Form R are also included in the
document.
TITLE: "Compliance with the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
of 1986 as Required Under Executive Order
12856: Questions and Answers"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: N/A
This document is designed to assist federal
facilities in complying with EPCRA as directed
by Executive Order 12856, entitled Federal
Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and
Pollution Prevention Requirements. The
document contains background information
about EPCRA and the executive order, and it
provides questions and answers that provide
technical assistance in understanding
regulatory issues. Lists of useful reference
materials and regional contacts are also
provided in the document.
TITLE: "Guidance for Implementing
Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance
with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution
Prevention Requirements"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: N/A
This document contains information used by
EPA to assist federal facility compliance with
Executive Order 12856, entitled Federal
Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and
Pollution Prevention Requirements. The
document contains guidance developed by
EPA to provide consistent interpretation of the
language found in the executive order.
Appendices to the document also provide
discussion of the regulatory practices unique to
compliance with community right-to-know
regulations.
-------
New Publications
March 1995
TITLE: "1993 Toxics Release Inventory
Public Data Release: Executive Summary"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA745-S-95-001
This document summarizes the information
contained in the 1993 Toxics Release
Inventory Public Data Release. The report is
generated from information contained in the
TRI database. It summarizes the data collected
for calendar year 1993, and provides
comparisons to basic data for 1991 and 1992.
The report contains information about releases
and transfers of toxic chemicals and prevention
and management of toxic chemicals in waste.
The summary is also available on the Internet.
TITLE: "1993 Toxics Release Inventory
Public Data Release: State Fact Sheets"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA745-F-95-002
This document is designed as a companion
volume to EPA's 1993 Toxics Release
Inventory Public Data Release. The fact sheets
in the document summarize the 1993 Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) data for each state.
Each fact sheet includes a map of the state
indicating the location of each facility
reporting to the TRI, the amount of on-site
releases, and the five chemicals with the
largest quantity of releases. Contacts for
additional information are also presented. The
document and is also available on the Internet.
TITLE: "1993 Toxics Release Inventory
Public Data Release"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: EPA745-R-95-010
This document, which is generated from
information contained in the TRI database,
summarizes data collected for calendar year
1993 and compares basic data from 1991 and
1992. It includes information about releases
and transfers of toxic chemicals, prevention
and management of toxic chemicals in waste,
and year-to-year comparisons of the data. It
also contains questions and answers relating to
TRI, and a list of state contacts for additional
information. This document is available on the
Internet.
TITLE: "Fact Sheet: Supplemental Notice to
Proposed Rule for Risk Management Planning;
CAA§112(r)"
AVAILABILITY: Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.: N/A
This fact sheet outlines the information
contained in the supplemental notice to the
proposed rule for risk management planning
under the CAA § 112(r). The proposed rule
was published in the Federal Register on
October 20,1993. In response to public
comments, EPA has issued a supplemental
notice proposing modifications and additions
to the proposed rule. EPA is requesting
additional comments on several issues
pertaining to facility and hazard assessment
requirements as well as state implementation
of the rule.
10
-------
March 1995 New Publications
OTHER
TITLE: "Monthly Hotline Report"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: See below
Yearly Subscription PB95-922 400
530-R-95-002
January 1995 PB95-922 401
530-R-95-002a
February 1995 PB95-922 402
530-R-95-002b
March 1995 PB95-922 403
530-R-95-002c
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.
The complete text of the 1993, 1994, and 1995
Monthly Hotline Reports may be accessed via
the Internet using a gopher. From the EPA
Core Server at gopher.epa.gov, follow this
pathway: EPA Offices & Regions --> Office of
Solid Waste & Emergency Response --> OSW
(RCRA) --> RCRA: General --> RCRA/UST,
Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Reports,
11
-------
FEDERAL REGISTERS
FINAL RULES
RCRA
"Iowa; Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program"
March 7,1995 (60 FR 12630)
EPA has made the decision that Iowa's
application for final approval of its underground
storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final approval. As a consequence,
EPA intends to grant final approval to the state
to operate its program in lieu of the federal
program. Final approval shall be effective at
1:00 pm eastern time on May 8,1995.
"Iowa; Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program"
March 7,1995 (60 FR 12631)
EPA is codifying its approval of the Iowa
underground storage tank program in 40 CFR
Part 282. Only those provisions of the Iowa
program for which approval has been granted by
EPA will be incorporated by reference for
enforcement purposes. EPA retains the
authority under §§9005 and 9006 of Subtitle I to
undertake inspections and enforcement actions
in Iowa, therefore the approved Iowa
enforcement authorities will not be incorporated
by reference. This regulation is effective May 8,
1995, unless EPA publishes a prior Federal
Register notice withdrawing this immediate
final rule. All comments on this codification of
Iowa's underground storage tank program must
be received on or before April 6,1995.
"Utah; Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program"
March 8,1995 (60 FR 12709)
EPA has made the decision that Utah's
application for final approval of its underground
storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final approval. As a consequence,
EPA intends to grant final approval to the state
to operate its program in lieu of the federal
program. Final approval shall be effective at
1:00 pm eastern time on April 7,1995.
"South Dakota; Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program"
March 16,1995 (60 Ffl 14334)
EPA has made the decision that South Dakota's
application for final approval of its underground
storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final approval. As a consequence,
EPA intends to grant final approval to the state
to operate its program in lieu of the federal
program. Final approval shall be effective at
1:00 pm eastern time on May 15,1995.
"South Dakota; Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program"
March 16,1995 (60 FR 14334)
EPA is codifying its approval of the South
Dakota underground storage tank program in 40
CFR Part 282. Only those provisions of the
South Dakota program for which approval has
been granted by EPA will be incorporated by
reference for enforcement purposes. EPA
retains the authority under §§9005 and 9006 of
13
-------
Federal Registers
March 1995
FINAL RULES
Subtitle I to undertake inspections and
enforcement actions in South Dakota, therefore
the approved South Dakota enforcement
authorities will not be incorporated by reference.
This regulation is effective May 15,1885, unless
EPA publishes a Federal Register notice
withdrawing this immediate final rule. All
comments on this codification of South Dakota's
underground storage tank program must be
received on or before April 17,1995.
'Texas; Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program"
March 17,1995 (60 EB14372)
EPA has made the decision that Texas'
application for final approval of its underground
storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final approval. As a consequence,
EPA intends to grant final approval to the state
to operate its program. Final approval shall be
effective at 1:00 pm eastern time on April 17,
1995.
CERCLA
"National Priorities List; Kent City Mobile
Home Park Site"
March 20,1995 (60 Efi 14645)
EPA announced the deletion of the Kent City
Mobile Home Park Site, located in Kent City,
Michigan, from the National Priorities List. The
Agency published a notice of its intent to delete
the site on November 8,1994 (59 EE 55606).
EPA and the State of Michigan determined that
no further cleanup under CERCLA is
appropriate and that remedial actions at the site
have been protective of public health, welfare,
and the environment The effective date of this
action is March 20,1995.
"National Priorities List; Crystal City
Airport Superfund Site"
March 23,1995 (60 FJR 15247)
EPA announced the deletion of the Crystal City
Airport Superfund Site in Crystal City, Texas,
from the National Priorities List. EPA published
a notice of intent to delete the site on
January 4,1995 (59 ER 422). EPA and the State
of Texas determined that no further cleanup
under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial
actions at the site have been protective of public
health, welfare, and the environment. The
effective date of this action is March 23,1995.
"National Priorities List; Radium
Chemical Company"
March 24,1995 (60 FR 15489)
EPA announced the deletion of the Radium
Chemical Company Site in Woodside, New
York, from the National Priorities List The
closing date for comments on the Notice of
Intent to Delete was December 9,1994. EPA
received no verbal or written comments. EPA
and the State of New York determined that no
further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate
and that remedial actions at the site have been
protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment. The effective date of this action is
March 24,1995.
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan; CERCLIS
Definition Change"
March 29,1995 (60 Ffi 16053)
EPA is adopting new procedures for
maintaining its Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). The Agency
has decided to remove from CERCLIS those -
14
-------
March 1995
Federal Registers
sites that do not warrant further evaluation under
Superfund. EPA is formally amending the
CERCUS definition in 40 CFR §300.5 to
implement this procedural change. The effective
date of this rule is March 29,1995.
EPCRA
'Toxic Chemical Release Reporting;
Technical Amendment"
March 10,1995 (60 EB13047)
In the November 30,1994, Federal Register (59
ER 61432), EPA added 286 chemicals to the
§313 list of toxic chemicals. The Agency is
correcting seven errors and clarifying one listing
from this final rule. Specifically, EPA is
correcting five typographical errors, removing
the listing for flumetralin, which the Agency has
deferred for listing, and correcting the chemical
formula for the polychlorinated alkanes category.
In addition, EPA is clarifying the listing for the
polychlorinated alkanes category. These
corrections are effective March 10,1995.
PROPOSED RULES
RCRA
"Land Disposal Restrictions;
Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes,
and Spent Potliners."
March 2,1995 (60 EB 11702)
As part of its Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
program, EPA is proposing treatment standards
for wastes derived from the production of
carbamate pesticides, organobromine flame-
retardants, and luminum. In addition, the Agency
is also proposing to revise the treatment standards
for characteristic hazardous wastes. Currently,
these wastes are not regulated, once the
characteristic is removed, when managed in
Clean Water Act/Clean Water Act-equivalent
systems, or when injected into deepwells
regulated under the Safe Drinking Waster Act.
EPA proposes to revise its treatment standards to
require treatment to remove the characteristic, as
well as to treat any underlying hazardous
constituents that are in the waste. EPA is also
proposing to codify that filling in holes in the
ground with hazardous waste is illegal disposal.
Finally, the Agency is proposing to codify its
policy prohibiting the combustion of certain
metal-bearing wastes under the dilution
prohibition.
"Federal Facilities Compliance Act of
1992 Amendments"
March 22,1995 (60 EB 15208)
The Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992
(FFCA) clarified that EPA has explicit authority
to issue administrative enforcement orders to
other federal agencies that are in violation of
RCRA. Further, it provides that no
administrative enforcement order issued to a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the
federal government becomes final until the
department, agency, or instrumentality has an
opportunity to confer with the EPA
Administrator. EPA is proposing a technical
revision of its administrative rules of practice to
provide a federal department, agency, or
instrumentality, which is the subject of an
administrative enforcement order, with the
opportunity to confer with the Administrator as
required by the FFCA. Comments on this
proposed rule must be received on or before
April 21,1995.
15
-------
Federal Registers
March 1995
CERCLA
"National Priorities List; Dakhue Sanitary
Landfill Site"
March 15,1995 (60 £B 13944)
EPA announced its intent to delete the Dakhue
Sanitary Landfill Site, located in Dakota County,
Minnesota, from the National Priorities List.
EPA and the State of Minnesota determined that
no further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate
and that remedial actions at the site have been
protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment. Comments concerning the site
may be submitted on or before April 14,1995.
"National Priorities List; Koch Refining
Company Site"
March 23,1995 (60 FR 15273)
EPA announced its intent to delete the Koch
Refining Company Site, located in Rosemount,
Minnesota, from the National Priorities List.
EPA and the State of Minnesota determined that
no further cleanup under CERCLA is appropriate
and that remedial actions at the site have been
protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment. Comments concerning the site
may be submitted on or before April 24, 1995.
NOTICES
RCRA
"Ores and Minerals; Additional Data
Available on Wastes from Extraction
and Beneficiation"
March 1,1995 (60 FR 11089)
EPA announces the availability of several
documents concerning the mining industry. In
particular, the Agency is making available
documents on the extraction and beneficiation
practices of various mineral sectors, mining
waste management and engineering practices,
and the history of EPA's mining waste activities.
The documents will be available in hard copy as
well as will be accessible on the Internet In
addition, EPA anticipates making several of the
documents available in Spanish by May 1995.
"Extension of Comment Period for the
Proposed Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Dye and Pigment
Industries"
March 7,1995 (60 £B 12525)
EPA is extending the comment period on the
December 22,1994 (59 FR 66072), proposal to
list several wastes generated during the
production of dyes and pigments. The comment
period, originally scheduled to close on
March 22,1995, will now end on July 19,1995.
"Postponement of Public Hearing on the
Proposed Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Dye and Pigment
Industries"
March 7,1995 (60 FR 12525)
EPA is postponing the public hearing on the
December 22,1994 (59 FR 66072), proposal to
list several wastes generated during the
production of dyes and pigments. The hearing
was previously scheduled for March 15,1995.
The Agency has not set a new date for the
meeting.
"New York; Final Determination of Full
Program Adequacy of State Municipal
Solid Waste Permit Program"
March 14,1995 (60 FR 13722)
Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave
notice of a final determination approving the
adequacy of New Hampshire's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The effective date
of this determination is March 14,1995.
16
-------
March 1995
Federal Registers
NOTICES
"Paper Products Recovered Materials
Advisory"
March 15,1995 (60 EB14182)
EPA is announcing the availability of a draft
Paper Products Recovered Materials Advisory
Nonce (RMAN) and Draft Paper Products
RMAN-Supporting Analyses. The RMAN
contains recommendations for procuring
agencies to use when purchasing paper and paper
products in accordance with §6002 of RCRA.
The supporting analyses contain detailed
information concerning the recommendations
found in the RMAN. Comments on the draft
RMAN must be submitted to EPA on or before
May 15,1995.
"Flow Control and Municipal Solid
Waste"
March 21,1995 (60 FR 14937)
The 102nd Congress directed EPA to review
flow control as a form of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) management. Flow controls are legal
provisions that allow state and local governments
to designate where MSW must be taken for
processing, treatment, or disposal. Specifically,
Congress asked EPA to review and compare
states with and without flow control authority, to
identify the impact of flow controls on human
health and the environment, and to identify the
impact of flow controls on human health and the
environment In addition, Congress directed
EPA to describe the impacts of flow control on
the development of state and local waste
management and on the achievement of state and
local goals set for source reduction, materials
reuse, and recycling. EPA is announcing the
availability of its completed Report to Congress
"on these issues. The document is available in
hard copy from the National Technical
Information Service, as well as electronically on
the Internet.
"Maryland; Partial Program Adequacy
Determination of the Municipal Solid
Waste Permit Program"
March 21,1995 (60 FR 14938)
Pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(l)(C), EPA gave
notice of a tentative determination, public
hearing, and public comment period concerning
the adequacy of Maryland's municipal solid
waste landfill permit program. The public
hearing is scheduled for May 17,1995.
Comments must be submitted on or before
May 19,1995.
"Science Advisory Board; Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
Subcommittee; Open Meeting"
March 27,1995 (60 Ffi 15761)
The Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) Subcommittee of the Science Advisory
Board will hold an open meeting on April 26 and
27,1995, in Washington, DC. The purpose of
the meeting is to review the Agency's draft multi-
media, multi-pathway risk analysis being
developed to support HWIR.
RCRA/CERCLA
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites; Deletion Policy
for Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Sites"
March 20,1995 (60 FR 14641)
EPA is announcing its policy of deleting RCRA
facilities from the NPL before a cleanup is
complete if the site is being, or will be,
adequately addressed by the RCRA corrective
action program under an existing permit or order.
This deletion policy applies to sites on the NPL
that are RCRA-regulated facilities engaged in
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
-------
Federal Registers
March 1995
NOTICES
waste, but does not apply to federal facility sites.
The Agency requested comment on this policy on
December 21,1988 (53 EE 51421). In onier to
be eligible for deletion from the NPL based on
deferral to RCRA corrective action authorities, a
site must meet the following criteria: 1) if
evaluated under EPA's current RCRA/NPL
deferral policy, the site would be eligible for
deferral from listing on the NPL; 2) the CERCLA
site is currently being addressed by RCRA
corrective action authorities under an existing
enforceable order or permit containing corrective
action provisions; 3) response under RCRA is
progressing adequately; and 4) deletion would not
disrupt an ongoing CERCLA response action.
This policy is effective April 19,1995. .
CERCLA
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Arkla Hunnewell Compressor Station
Site"
March 1,1995 (60 FR 11084)
EPA proposed to enter into an administrative
settlement under CERCLA §122(h). The
proposed settlement requires the settling party to
reimburse the Hazardous Substance Superfund
$130,938.25 for response costs incurred in
connection with the Arkla Hunnewell
Compressor Station Site in Hunnewell, Kansas.
The Agency will receive comments for a period
of 30 days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Bailey Waste
Disposal Site"
March 1,1995 (60 FB11113)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Allied
Signal Inc.. et al.. was lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on
February 16,1995. The proposed settlement
requires the settling parties to reimburse the
Hazardous Substance Superfund for response
costs incurred in connection with the Bailey
Waste Disposal Site in Orange County, Texas.
In particular, the settling parties will pay either
85.3 percent of 20 percent of those funds
expended by the Bailey Task Force in completing
its remedial action, pursuant to a Consent Decree
entered in a related action, United States v. BFI
or $2,600,000, whichever is greater. If the claims
submitted by the Bailey Task Force total less
than $2,600,000, then the settling parties shall
pay the United States 100 percent of the total
claims submitted under the Mixed Funding
Consent Decree. DOT will receive comments for
a period of 30 days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; New
Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Superfund Site"
March 2,1995 (60 Ffi11679)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Cape Fear
Community College, et al.. was lodged with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina on February 21,1995. The
proposed settlement requires the settling parties
to reimburse the Hazardous Substances
Superfund for 100 percent of the response costs
incurred in connection with the New Hanover
County Airport Bum Pit Superfund Site. DOJ
will receive comments for a period of 30 days
from the date of publication.
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Superfund Site"
March 3,1995 (60 Ffi11974)
EPA proposed to enter into an administrative
settlement under CERCLA §122(h). The
proposed settlement requires the settling parties
to reimburse the Hazardous Substance Superfund
$859,365 for response costs incurred in
18
-------
March 1995
Federal Registers
NOTICES
connection with the Rockaway Borough Well
Field Superfund Site, in Rockaway, New Jersey.
The Agency will receive comments for a period
of 30 days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Partial Consent Decree;
Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site"
March 13,1995 (60 EB13451)
A Partial Consent in United States v. Smuggler-
Durant Mining Corporation, et al.. was lodged
with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, on February 10,1995. The proposed
settlement requires the settling parties to
reimburse the Hazardous Substance Superfund
$1,700,000 for costs incurred in connection with
the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site in Aspen,
Colorado. The decree provides the settling
parties a covenant not to sue for past and future
response costs or response actions at the site, as
well as a limited covenant for natural resource
damages on Operable Unit 1 of the site. In
addition, the decree resolves potential
counterclaims by the settling parties against the
United States for any activities conducted on-site
by any instrumentality of the United States. DOJ
will receive comments for a period of 30 days
from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Missouri
Electric Works, Inc. Superfund Site"
March 16,1995 (60 EB 14305)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Missouri
Electric Works. Inc. et al.. was lodged with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Southeastern Division, on March 9,
1995. The proposed settlement requires the
settling parties to pay $190,000 and one half of
the net proceeds over $75,000 resulting from the
sales of the inventory of Missouri Electric Works
Inc. These payments will reimburse the
Hazardous Substance Superfund for costs
incurred in connection with the Missouri Electric
Works, Inc. Superfund Site in Cape Girardeau,
Missouri. DOJ will receive comments for a
period of 30 days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Arrowhead
Refining Co. Site"
March 21,1995 (60 EB 14963)
A Consent Decree in United States v.
Arrowhead Refining Co.. et al.. was lodged with
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on March 9,1995. The proposed
settlement requires 44 settling parties to perform
one component of the remedial action at the
Arrowhead Refining Co. Site at an estimated cost
of $12.52 million. In addition, these parties must
pay an additional $134,800 to federal and state
natural resource trustees for use in habitat
restoration projects. One hundred and sixty-five
other parties will contribute financially to the 44
settling parties' performance of the remedial
action. This settlement was pan of EPA's Mixed
Funding Pilot Project. DOJ will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from the date
of publication.
"Proposed Modification of Consent
Decree; Libby Groundwater National
Priorities List Superfund Site"
March 21,1995 (60 Ffi 14963)
A Modification of Consent Decree in United
States v. Champion International Corporation
was lodged with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on February 27,1995. The
Consent Decree was originally entered on
October 18,1989, and required the settling party,
inter alia, to implement the remedial actions
outlined in the December 1988, Record of
Decision for the Libby Groundwater National
Priorities List Superfund Site, located in Libby,
Montana. The proposed Modification of Consent
19
-------
Federal Registers
March 1995
NOTICES
Decree requires the settling party to implement
the September 1993, Explanation of Significant
Difference (ESD). This ESD waives the soil
remediation levels for certain constituents as well
as selects monitoring and institutional controls on
usage as a final remedy for the deep aquifer.
DOJ will receive comments for a period of 30
days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Arrowhead
Plating Superfund Site"
March 21,1995 (60 Ffi 14964)
A Consent Decree in United States v. Scovill.
Inc. was lodged with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, on March 2,
1995. The proposed settlement requires the
settling parties to reimburse the Hazardous
Substances Superfund $339,811.48 for response
costs incurred at the Arrowhead Plating
Superfund Site in Montross, Virginia. The
decree reserves the right of the United States to
recover future response costs and to seek further
injunctive relief against the settling defendants
for conditions at the site that are unknown at the
time of entry of this decree. DOJ will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from the date
of publication.
"Proposed Consent Decree; Montie Drum
Site"
March 23,1995 (60 F_fi 15308)
A Consent Decree in United States v.
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. was
lodged with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on March 8,1995.
The proposed settlement requires the settling
party to reimburse the Hazardous Substances
Superfund $1,100,000 for response costs incurred
in connection with the Montie Drum Site in
Belleville, Michigan. In addition, the settling
party must pay $50,000 to settle civil penalty
claims arising from its alleged failure to fully and
accurately respond to information requests from
EPA. DOJ will receive comments for a period of
30 days from the date of publication.
"National Priorities List; United States
Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 Site"
March 27,1995 (60 F_fi15737)
EPA announced its intent to delete the United
States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 Site,
located in Pierce County, Washington, from the
National Priorities List. EPA and the State of
Washington determined that no further cleanup
under CERCLA is appropriate and that remedial
actions at the site have been protective of public
health, welfare, and the environment. Comments
concerning the site may be submitted on or
before April 26,1995.
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Lorentz Barrel and Drum Superfund
Site"
March 29,1995 (60 FR 16135)
EPA proposed to enter into a de minimis
administrative settlement under CERCLA
§ 122(g). The proposed settlement requires the 88
settling parties to pay $1,853,545.51 to EPA and
$1,273,062.71 to the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control for response costs
incurred in connection with the Lorentz Barrel
and Drum Site in San Jose, California, The
Agency will receive comments for a period of 30
days from the date of publication. If the Agency
receives a request for a public hearing within 30
days following the date of publication, EPA will
hold a public hearing to afford the public an
opportunity to comment on the proposed
settlement
20
-------
March 1995
Federal Registers
NOTICES
"Proposed Administrative Settlement;
Sparks Solvent Fuel Site"
March 29,1995 (60 EB16136)
EPA proposed to enter into an administrative
settlement under CERCLA §122(h). The
proposed settlement requires the settling party to
reimburse EPA its proportional share of the
response costs incurred in connection with the
Sparks Solvent Fuel Site in Sparks, Nevada. The
Agency will receive comments for a period of 30
days from the date of publication.
"Proposed Settlement Agreement;
Buckeye Reclamation Landfill Site"
March 30,1995 (60 FR 16503)
A proposed Settlement Agreement was lodged
with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Pennsylvania on March 16,1995. The
proposed Settlement Agreement resolves certain
claims of the United States and the State of Ohio
under CERCLA and under state law relating to
the Buckeye Reclamation Landfill Site in
Belmont County, Ohio. In addition, the
agreement resolves certain claims of the United
States for pre-petition penalties under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Under the Settlement Agreement, inter alia, the
EPA will have an allowed general unsecured
claim of $1,252,846. DOJ will receive
comments for a period of 30 days from the date
of publication.
ATSDR
"List of Hazardous Substances;
Toxicological Profiles"
March 30,1995 (60 EB 16478)
As mandated by CERCLA §104(i)(2), EPA and
ATSDR maintain a list, in order of priority, of the
hazardous substances found at NPL sites posing
the most significant potential threat to human
health. This listing is called the Priority List of
Hazardous Substances that will be the Subject of
Toxicological Profiles. ATSDR published the
list of the first 100 substances in 1987 (52 £E
12866), and has published additional substances
or reviewed the list annually since this original
Federal Register notice. Because the list has
remained rather stable during the past few years,
as well as because of the substantial resources
needed to publish and review the list, ATSDR is
announcing a proposed change in its publication
schedule. According to the proposal, the list
would be shifted to a 2-year publication schedule
with a yearly informal review and revision. The
informal review would result in an informal list
that would not be published in the Federal
Register, but would be made available upon
request. Comments on this notice must be
received on or before May 1,1995.
Environmental Justice
"Environmental Justice Community/
University Partnership Grants Program"
March 16,1995 (60 FR 14281)
EPA is requesting applications for its
Environmental Justice Community/University
Partnerships Grants Program. The main
objective of the program is to link members of a
community, who are directly affected by adverse
environmental conditions, with an academic
institution's staff. A minimum of four, $300,000
grants will be awarded for the Fiscal Year 1995.
Applications must be postmarked on or before
May 17,1995.
21
-------
Federal Registers March 1995
NOTICES
Science Advisory Board
"Radiation Advisory Committee;
Notification of Public Advisory
Committee Meetings"
March 3,1995 (60 EB11971)
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) announced
that several of its committees will hold meetings,
including the Radionuclide Qeanup Standards
Subcommittee (RCSS) of the Radiation Advisory
Committee. RCSS will meet on March 27,1995,
to continue its review of the technical basis for
the Agency's cleanup standards for radionuclides.
The committee will be reviewing the draft
documents Radiation Site Cleanup Regulations:
Technical Support Document for the
Development of Radionuclide Cleanup Levels
for Soil. Review Draft and Radiation Site
Cleanup Regulations: Technical Support
Document for the Development of Radionuclide
Geanup Levels for Soil. Appendices.
TSCA
"Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs); Informal Hearing"
March 10,1995 (60 Eg 13095)
EPA intends to conduct an informal public
hearing on the December 6,1994 (59 ER 62788),
proposal to amend the TSCA rules for PCBs.
The hearing will take place on May 2,1995, in
Arlington, Virginia. Requests to participate in
the hearing must be received on or before
April 6,1995.
22
-------
CALL ANALYSES
CALLS ANSWERED BY HOTLINE
March Daily Volume*
350
RCRA/UST
100 -
50 •
1 - 1 - 1 - 1
1
EPCRA and
Superfund
H 1 1 1 1 1-
Documents
1
1 - 1
1
1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1
1
1 2 3
9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31
Day
Year to Date*
RCRA/UST
January
February
March
Month
6,017
5,984
6,953
Cumulative
6,017
12.001
18,954
EPCRA and Superfund
January
February
March
Month
3,432
4,284
3,892
Cumulative
3,432
7,716
1 1 ,608
Documents
(All Proa ram Areas)
January
February
March
Month
4,389
4,191
5,402
Cumulative
4,389
8,580
13,982
*A11 calls answered by the Call Management System, the Message Retrieval Line, and the Document Retrieval Line.
23
-------
Call Analyses
March 1995
QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY TYPE
March Daily Volume*
Regulatory
\|12.817|
'"— — **••»
1 1 1 1 1 L
Referral/Transfer
— .-^" — X. _ >
.1 1 1 1 1 1 —
X»— »^ ^«^ .-_ ^'^ rT747
• ^*»»*^' • *•*»,
— i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i
2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31
Day
Year to Date*
Regulatory
January
February
March
Month
12,045
11,182
12,817
Cumulative
12,045
23,227
36,044
Document
January
February
March
Month
5,285
5,301
6,643
Cumulative
5,285
10,586
17,229
Referral/Transfer
January
February
March
Month
1,518
1,689
1,747
Cumulative
1,518
3,207
4,954
* All questions answered by the Call Management System, the Message Retrieval Line, and the Document Retrieval Line. A
single call may include multiple questions combined with document requests and referrals.
24
-------
March 1995
Call Analyses
QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY PROGRAM AREA
March 1995*
'Based on 19,460 questions and excludes 1,747 referrals and transfers made from both Hotlines. Includes the
Message Retheval Line and the Document Retrieval Line.
Year to Date*
January
February
March
RCRA
Month
56%
(9,725)
52%
(9,474)
55%
(11,738)
Cumulative
56%
(9,725)
54%
(19.199)
55%
(30,937)
UST
Month
6%
(1,012)
5%
(951)
6%
(1,290)
Cumulative
6%
(1,012)
5%
(1 ,963)
6%
(3,253)
EPCRA
Month
24%
(4,215)
29%
(5,261)
23%
(4,904)
Cumulative
24%
(4,215)
27%
(9,476)
25%
(14,380)
Superfund
Month
14%
(2,378)
14%
(2,486)
16%
(3,275)
Cumulative
14%
(2,378)
14%
(4,864)
14%
(8,139)
25
-------
Call Analyses
March 1995
CALLER PROFILE
RCRA/UST Hotline
Regulated Community 7,214
Citizens 276
State & Local Govt./Native American 352
Federal Agencies 164
Educational Institutions 170
EPA 83
Media 26
Interest Groups 37
Congress 7
International 4
Other 92
Referrals* 553
Transfers to EPCRA/Superfund Hotline* 447
Document Retrieval Line* 301
Message Retrieval Line* 522
TOTAL
Citizens
10,248
State & Local Govt./
Native American
4%
All Others
5%
Federal Agencies
2%
Regulated
Community
' No caller profile data available.
26
-------
March 1995
Call Analyses
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act/
Superfund Hotline
Manufacturers
Food/Tobacco 82
Textiles 26
Apparel 14
Lumber & Wood 33
Furniture 21
Paper 39
Printing & Publishing 43
Chemicals 198
Petroleum & Coal 125
Rubber and Plastics 38
Leather 14
Stone, Clay & Glass 35
Primary Metals 52
Fabricated Metals 87
Machinery (Excluding Electrical) 24
Electrical&Electronic Equipment 70
Transportation Equipment 22
Instruments 18
Misc. Manufacturing 166
Subtotal 1,107
Consultants/Engineers 2,379
Attorneys 391
Citizens 305
Public Interest Groups 41
Educational Institutions 109
EPA 93
Federal Agencies 161
GOCOs 9
Congress 1
State Officials/SERCs 97
Local Officials/LEPCs 82
Fire Departments 21
Hospitals/Laboratories 74
Trade Associations 57
Union/Labor 7
Farmers 6
Distributors 25
Insurance Companies 9
Media/Press 27
Native Americans 4
International 3
Other 119
Referrals* 321
Transfers to RCRA/UST Hotline* 426
Document Retrieval Line* 44
Message Retrieval Line* 81
TOTAL 5,999
Attorneys
8%
Citizens
6%
All Others
18%
Consultants/
Engineers
46%
' No caller profile data available.
Manufacturers
22%
-------
Call Analyses
March 1995
HOTLINE TOPICS
RCRA
RCRA GENERAL
SUBTITLE C
Hazardous Waste Id. - General
Toxicity Characteristic (TC)
Wood Preserving Wastes
Listing of Used Oil
Huff
Mercury-Containing Lamps
Radioactive Mixed Waste
Delisting Petitions
Hazardous Waste Recycling
Generators
Small Quantity Generators
Transporters
Exports/Imports
TSDF General
Treatment
Storage
Disposal
Siting Facilities
Capacity
Land Disposal Restrictions
Permits and Permitting
Corrective Action
Liability/Enforcement
Test Methods
Health Effects
Combustion - General
Permitting
Tech. Standards/Combustion Units
Waste Minimization
Risk Assessment
983
1,918'
276
32
37
1
432
43
21
3651
7S41
316
97
38
6351
92
124
85
13
8
1,078'
172
337
162
188
31
166
33
77
75
13
Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention 183
State Programs
Hazardous Waste Data
Military Munitions
SUBTITLE D
Household Hazardous Wastes
Subtitle D - General
Siting Facilities
Combustion
Industrial Waste
Solid Waste Recycling - General
Aluminum
Batteries
Glass
Paper
Plastics
Tires
Used Oil
119
50
9
273
5491
22
121
36
5291
16
21
11
25
35
37
193
Composting 22
Markets - General 40
Aluminum 3
Batteries 14
Compost 9
Glass 12
Paper 7
Plastics 15
Tires 21
Used Oil 71
Procurement General 94
Building Insulation 5
Cement/Cement Products with Fly Ash 8
Paper and Paper Products 117
Re-Refined Lubricating Oil 8
Retread Tires 13
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention 78
Grant and Financing 8
OTHER WASTES
Ash 62
Bevill Amendment (Mining Waste) 68
Medical Waste 217
Oil and Gas 15
TOTAL 11,738*
* Includes 3,549 RCRA document requests.
UST
General/Misc. 3111
Applicability/Definitions 165
Regulated Substances 61
Standards for New Tank Systems 58
Tank Standards and Upgrading 103
Operating Requirements 36
Release Detection 156
Release Reporting & Investigation 49
Corrective Action for USTs 122
Out-of-Service/Closure 86
Financial Responsibility 59
State Programs 18
Liability/Enforcement 45
LUST Trust Fund 21
TOTAL 1,290*
* Includes 565 UST document requests.
28
1 Hot topics for this month
1 Topics are calculated as the summation of all questions received by the Hotline. A single call may result in
multiple questions.
-------
March 1995
Call Analyses
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
General:
General Title m Questions 5391
Trade Secrets 13
Enforcement 35
Liability/Citizen Suits 15
Training 30
Chemical-Specific Information 47
Emergency Planning (§§301-303):
General 82
Notification Requirements 40
SERC/LEPC Issues 36
EHSs/TPQs 72
Risk Communication/
Hazards Analysis 20
Exemptions 10
Emergency Release Notification (§304):
General 71
Notification Requirements 63
Reportable Quantities 96
CERCLA §103 vs. SARA §304 52
ARIP/AHEDB/ERNS 7
Exemptions 15
Hazardous Chemical Reporting
(§§311-312):
General 157
MSDS Reporting Requirements 106
Tier I/II Requirements 343
Thresholds 147
Hazard Categories 28
Mixtures Reporting 58
Exemptions 124
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
4631
26V
189
5141
44
7
25
19
108
109
57
209
96
Special Topics:
CAA§112
General
RMPs
List of Regulated Substances
Federal Facilities Executive Order
1441
1141
47
74
TOTAL 4,904
includes 1,401 Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know document requests
SUPERFUND
General/Misc. 269
Access & Information Gathering 46
Administrative Improvements
General 84
Environmental Justice/Brownfields 1491
S ACM/Presumptive Remedies 138
Soil Screening Levels 89
Administrative Record 12
ARARs 129
CERCLIS 151
Citizen Suits 16
Claims Against Fund 2
Clean-Up Costs 45
Clean-Up Standards 139
Community Involvement 83
Contract Lab Program (CLP) 31
Contractor Indemnification 9
Contracts 12
Definitions 18
Enforcement 87
Federal Facilities 59
Hazardous Substances 127
HRS 36
Liability 141
Local Gov't Reimbursement 12
Natural Resource Damages 19
NCP 54
Notification 76
NPL 2611
Off Site Rule 16
OSHA 9
PA/SI 38
PRPs 45
RD/RA 30
Reauthorization 24
1 Hot topics for this month
• Topics are calculated as the summation of all questions received by the Hotline. A single call may result in
multiple questions.
29
-------
Call Analyses March 1995
Remedial 135
Removal 38
RVFS 50
Risk Assess./Health Effects 87
ROD 42
RQ 2701
Settlements 50
SITE Program 45
State Participation 18
State Program 12
TAGs 9
Taxes 8
Special Topics
Oil Pollution Act 9
SPCC Regulations 26
Radiation Site Cleanup 20
TOTAL 3,275*
"Includes 1,128 Superfund document requests.
TOTAL HOTLINE QUESTIONS,
DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND
REFERRALS: 21,207
1 Hot topics for this month
1 Topics are calculated as the summation of all questions received by the Hotline. A single call may result in
multiple questions.
30
------- |