530R85102
IBHL4.4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
/
OF
SOUO WASTE AND €M6flGEMC
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA/Superfund Hotline Status Report - May 1985
FROM: Carolyn Barley, Project Officer (/' .-, J*
Office of Solid Waste (382-2217) ^yf^ .
Barbara Hostage, Project Officer >^o*
-------
- 2 -
EPA believes that Congress intended the term "liquid" in Section
3004(c)(3) to encompass free liquids (as defined in §260.10) as
well as liquids. The legislative history to Section 3004(c)
indicates that Congress meant EPA to develop a uniform definition of
"liquid" and to prescribe a test to determine when a waste contains
liquids and free liquids. See S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 2d
Sess. 22 (1963). In addition, the legislative history shows that
Congress generally used the term "liquid" to include both liquids
and free liquids.
Hence, the Agency intends to use the paint filter test for the purpose
of determining whether a material is a liquid under Section 3004(c) (3).
The paint filter test is an appropriate test method to determine the
presence of free liquids. The April 30, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
18370) contains and discusses the final rule which requires the use of |
the paint filter test. Thffe pai)ttt filter test will be the new method
9095 as set out in "Update^ II £b SW-846," (Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Wastes). -'
Source: Paul Cassidy (202) 382-4682
Waste Analysis
2. Pursuant to 40 CFR §§265.13 and 264.13, owners and operators (o/o) of hazar-
dous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities must obtain a
waste analysis. Must owner/operators use "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes" (SW-846) for this waste analysis?
Currently, EPA does not require the use of SW-846 for the required
waste analysis pursuant to §§265.13 and 264.13. EPA, however, recently
proposed in the October 1, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 38786) to
require the mandatory use of SW-846 for all sampling, monitoring,
analysis, and testing required under 40 CFR Parts 260-271 unless
otherwise specified.
Sources: Barbara Pace (202) 382-7703
Manifest Use and State Authorization
3. A spent solvent, v*iich is hazardous by characteristic only (e.g. ignitable-
0001), is transported from the generator in Montana, to a reclamation facility
in Texas. Both Montana and Texas are states with final authorization for
the RCRA program. The transporter will also go through Wyoming which is a
non-authorized state (i.e., it is under the Federal RCRA program).
Pursuant to 40 CFR §261.6(a), characteristic hazardous wastes which are reclaimed
are not subject to RCRA regulations. According to §261.2(c) as amended by the
January 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 614), however, all spent solvents*
characteristic or listed, will be defined as "spent materials" and will be
regulated as "solid wastes" prior to reclamation. Thus, per §261.6(b), in the
January 4, 1985, rule, generators and transporters of recyclable hazardous
materials (e.g., spent solvents) are subject to Parts 262 and 263 (generator
and transporter standards, respectively). The complicating factor is that this
new definition of solid waste and respective recycling regulations may go into
effect at different times throughout the country depending on whether a state
is authorized or not.
-------
- 3 -
The January 4, 1985, rule will be effective in non-authorized states on July 5,
1965. States with final authorization, suoh as Montana and Texas, may have up
to January 4, 1987, to adopt this rule. Therefore, a characteristic ignitable
spent solvent will be a regulated hazardous waste prior to reclamation in non-
authorized states on July 5, 1985. In the transport situation described above,
is the transporter required to carry the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest in
Wyoming, since the spent solvent, is a "hazardous waste" in Wyoming on July 5,
1985?
If the spent, solvent is transported from Montana to Texas (EEA-authorized
states) after July 5, 1965, the transporter need not carry the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest, even though the spent solvent is transported
through Wyoming, which regulates the solvent as a RCPA waste. States through
which the waste shipment travels nay not dictate manifest requirements per
49 re 1049 (March 20, 1984). When either the generator state (Montana) or
the~designated state (Texas) determines that the waste is hazardous, that
waste will be subject to the Uniform Manifest requirements.
Sources Denise Hawkins (202) 382-2231
Solid Waste Determination
4. A warehouse stores product acrylonitrile. An accidental fire destroys the ware-
house and produces an ash from the burned acrylonitrile. The acrylonitrile
was not a hazardous waste prior to the fire. Is the ash viewed as solid waste
generated from the disposal of a hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i) and therefore
a listed hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i)?
The ash from an acrylonitrile warehouse fire is regulated as U009 hazardous
waste. Burned product is viewed as discarded. Thus, the acrylonitrile is
a solid waste per §261.2(b)(l) and §261.2(b) (50 FR 614, January 4, 1985). .
Ash from the acrylonitrile is a listed hazardous waste per §261.3(c)(2)(i).-
Sources Steve Silverman (202) 382-7706
Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Generator Determination
5. While on maneuvers, a U.S. Naval vessel generates various hazardous wastes on
board, such as spent listed solvents and reactive wastes. These wastes are
placed in containers while still on the vessel. The vessel docks at a shipyard
and the wastes are unloaded from the ship and placed on the pier. The owner/
operator (o/o) of the shipyard stores the wastes for up to 90 days without a
storage permit and then manifests the waste for shipment off-site. Is the naval
vessel or the shipyard operator the generator of the waste,? If the shipyard
operator is considered the generator, is he entitled to the 90 day accumulation
time per §262.34?
The naval vessel is considered the site where the waste is generated.
Language in the October 30, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 72024) states that
in certain cases a waste is not generated until it is removed from a product
or raw material transport vessel. This naval vessel is not a product or raw
material transport vessel; it is the site where a process produces a hazar-
dous waste and,is the generator according to the definition in §260.10. The
shipyard operator is not the generator and is not authorized to store wastes
for up to 90 days without a permit.
Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217
-------
- 4 -
RCRA Inspections
6. Section 3007 of RCRA allows for the entry of any duly authorized representative
of the Agency to obtain copies of records and to inspect and obtain sanples at
any establishment where hazardous wastes are or have been generated, stored,
treated, disposed of, or transported from. Is this Agency representative in
any way limited to what he or she can inspect and sample?
Authorizedkofficers, employees and representatives, including authorized
contractors, are allowed to enter any portion of a facility Which is being
or has been used to generate or manage hazardous vost.es. Such persons nay
inspect and obtain sanples of hazardous wastes and inspect containers and
labelling of such wastes. The inspection must be for the purpose of devel-
oping regulations or enforcing provisions of RCRA. The specific objective
of the inspection does not have to be written in any form, but the inspection
must strictly deal with the generation, management or transportation of
hazardous waste.
Source: Pam Sbar (202) 475-8173
B. CERdA
Management of CERCLA Wastes
1. Are there specified treatment, storage, or disposal sites for hazardous wastes
generated at CERCLA sites?
There are no designated sites for handling .waste generated at CERCLA sites,
. but there are certain procedures to be followed when selecting an off-site
facility for a particular Superfund response. These procedures are outlined '
in the interim policy memorandum of May 6, 1985, entitled, "Procedures for
Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions." This policy memorandum
was issued by Jack McGraw, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of ,
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and replaces the former memorandum ''
entitled, "Requirements for Selecting an Off-Site Option in a Superfund
Response Action" dated January 28, 1983. EPA intends to publish the new
policy memorandum in the Federal Register in the near future in order to
receive public comment on its provisions. The new policy for off-site
response actions must be followed for all removal, remedial, and enforcement
actions taken pursuant to CERCLA as well as section 7003 of RCRA within 30
days of signing or on June 6, 1985.
The off-site policy states that no hazardous substances may be taken to an
off-site RCRA facility if the facility has significant RCRA violations or
other environmental conditions that affect its satisfactory operation. A
significant RCRA violation is a Class I violation as defined in the "RCRA
Enforcement Response Policy" (December 21, 1984). Environmental conditions
that may affect the facility's operation include violations of other federal
or state laws as well as facilities in groundwater assessment monitoring.
A prospective off-site facility must have interim status, or a RCRA permit,
and be inspected within six months of actual storage, treatment, or disposal
of wastes from CERCLA cleanup actions to determine if it has has significant
RCRA violations or other environmental conditions that affect its satisfactory
operation. If the facility has had such violations or conditions, it may
not be used for CERCLA purposes unless certain conditions are met:
-------
- 5 -
o the owner/operator agrees through a consent decree or order to correct
the problems; and
o the Regional Administrator determines that the order or decree is likely
to be carried out to correct the problem; and
o the UFAtjreceiving the waste from the CEBCLA cleanup action is in com-
pliance with RCRA and is not contributing to the adverse conditions at
the facility.
If the facility is used for land disposal, that land disposal unit must
meet the applicable minimum technological requirements for double liners
required by the RCRA amendments of 1984. If the disposal unit will be used
for CERCXA hazardous substances which are not RCRA wastes, a RCRA. unit may
be used or a legal unit under another statute may be used (e.g., PCB's
disposed of in a TSCA approved disposal facility).
When selecting an off-site facility, the policy requires consideration of
treatment, recycling, or reuse over land disposal to the greatest extent
possible for all Fund financed and private party removal and remedial actions.
For removals, treatment or recycling/reuse may not be selected if those
methods are not readily available, or if they pose a significant environmental
hazard. For remedial actions, treatment or recycling/reuse must be included
as one of the remedial alternatives. Hie long term costs and effectiveness
(protecting human health and the environment) of such methods must be considered
when comparing treatment or recycling to land disposal.
Source: Sylvia Lowrance (202) 382-4812
CERdA Enforcement
2. A memorandum from Courtney Price, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring, dated May 24, 1984, entitled "Guidance Regarding CERdA
Enforcement Against Bankrupt Parties" states that the "U.S. could argue that
expenditures of funds for [a Superfund] cleanup creates an equitable lien on the
property". Such a lien would create an implied contract for reimbursement of
EPA as a secured creditor." In New Jersey, there already is an emergency clean-up
statute under the state Environmental Cleanup Responsiblity Act which says
that the lien for cleanup costs (at an uncontrolled hazardous waste site) cannot
be discharged by parties which go into bankruptcy. What other states have statutes
similar to New Jersey? What is the present policy on a national level?
In addition to New Jersey, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Vermont have statutes
that do not allow liens for cleanups costs to be discharged by bankrupt
parties. On a national level, the administration's proposed bill for the
reauthorization of CERCLA would create a federal lien for cleanup costs
against responsible parties. Hie CERCLA, reauthorization bill is listed as
HR 1342 and was submitted by Lee Thomas, Administrator of the US EPA and
the President to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on
February 25, 1985.
Source: Heidi Hughes (202) 382-3110
-------
- 6 -
III. ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS
The Hotline responded to 5809 questions and requests for documents in May. of the
questions asked, the percentage of callers was:
Generators_ 23.1%
Transporters 1.81
TSDF's 13.5%
EPA HQ's 2.0%
EPA Regions
Federal Agencies 4.6%
Local Agencies 1.0%
State Agencies
Consultants
Press
Trade Associations
Citizens
Others
9.6%
28.8%
1.0%
1.6%
4.4%
2.9%
More calls were received by Region 3 than from any other Region. Breakdown by Region:
1 7.3% 3 23.9% 5 17.0% 7 3.5% 9 7.7%
12.4%
11.9%
9.5%
8
3.8%
10 3.0%
RCRA
TSDF
General Information
Notification (3010)
Definitions (260.10)
Petitions/Delisting (260.22)
Definitions (261.2 & 3)
Exclusions (261.4)
Small Quantity Generator (261.5)
Recycle/Reclaim (261.6)
Container Residues (261.7)
Waste ID (261 C&D)
262 Generator
Manifest Info
Pre-transport
Accumulation
Recordkeeping & Reporting
International Shipments
263 Transporter
270 B - Permit Application
D - Changes to Permits
F - Special Permits
G - Interim Status
271 State Programs
124 Decision Making
RCRA Reauthorization
Liability/Enforcement
Other/Referrals
Document Requests
224
129
93
50
112
131
256
137
30
413
48
26
70
15
9
29
80
10
10
61
112
0
1327
55
208
760
A-Scope/Applicability
B-General Facility Standards
C-Preparedness Prevention
D-Contingency Plans
E-Manifest/Recordkeeping/Reporting
F-Grcundwater Monitoring
G-Closure/Post-Closure
H-Financial Requirements
I -Containers
J-Tanks
K-Surface Impoundments
L-Waste Piles
M-Land Treatment
N-Landfills
107
28
10
10
9
46
44
28
89.
82
94
14
13
117
O-Incinerators 23
P-Thermal Treatment
Q-Chemical, Physical, Biological Treat
R-lMderground Injection
X-Miscellaneous Facility
Y-Experimental
266/267
CERCLA General/Overview
Hazardous Substances/RQ
NCP
Taxes/IRS/PCLTF
Removal
Remedial/NPL
On-site policy
Off-site Policy
ERRis/Nbtification
T -S -»V^ ^ 1 -5 ^m v /C*M f f-tm-j-t j-_._rn^ I
iii anility/ enforcement
Reauthorization
7
. 1
Tb-~
0
0
123
124
185
65
10
14
65
5
19
17
26
29
-------
IV. PUBLICATIONS
RCRA
"Interim Status Ground-Water Monitoring Implementation Stud/ - Phase III."
The Hotline vd.ll take requests.
Study of poljtSuclear aronatic hydrocarbons (PNA's). Public conmants accepted
through June 10, 1985 (50 PR 19550). Copies are available by contacting the
RCRA Docket at (202) 382-4546.
"Petitions to Deliat Hazardous Wastes - A Guidance Manual." Notice of
availability at OTIS (50 FR 21607). The OTIS document identification nuntoer
is PB85-194488. It costsTl9.00 per hard copy or $4.50 per microfiche
copy.
"Documentation for the Development of ToxLcity and Volume Scores, for the
Purposes of Scheduling Hazardous Waste," as noticed in 50 FR 23253 dated
May 31, 1985. Copies are available by contacting the RCRA Docket at
(202) 382-4646.
CERCXA
"Guidance Document for Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA." Final. Copies
are available at the CERCXA Docket at $34.00 per copy. Contact Denise Sines
at (202) 382-3046.
"Remedial Investigations Guidance Document." Final. Copies are available
at the CERCIA Docket at $34.00 per copy. Contact Denise Sines at
(202) 382-3046.
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site Response Actions,"
May 6, 1985. Contact Sylvia Lowrance at (202) 382-4812 for copies.
-------
V. Federal Register Notices
Open Comment Period:
See May 13, 15, and 29, below.
- 8 -
May Federal Register Notices:
May 1, 1985: 50 FR 18622
(Proposed waste listings from
linuron and bronacil production.)
May 6, 1985: 50 FR 19087
(PRA requests on LUST and CERCCA
Natural Resource Claims and
Arbitration procedures.)
May 9, 1985: 50 FR 19550
(Polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbon (PNA) study and delisting
information on Amoco Oil's
petition.)
May 13, 1985: 50 FR 19956
(Reopening of comment period
on proposed regulations on used
oil burned for energy recovery.)
A proposed rule to list three wastes
generated during the production of linuron
and bromacil as hazardous wastes under 40
CFR §261.32. Comments will be accepted
until July 1, 1985.
Notice of Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
requests that were completed by CMB
covering the LUST survey and Natural Resource
Claims and Arbitration Procedures under CERCLA.
EPA announced the availability of a study of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNA's)
to be used in evaluating delisting petitions
submitted pursuant to 40 CFR §260.20 and
§260.22. Also, additional information on
Ptnxo Oil Company's Wood River facility
proposed delisting petition of October 23, 1984,
(49 FR 42580) is available. Comments will
be accepted until June 10, 1985.
EPA reopened the comment period for the proposed
regulations on burning used oil in boilers and
industrial furnaces for energy recovery which
appeared on January 11, 1985, (50 FR 1684).
Comments will be accepted until June 12, 1985.
May 15, 1985: 50 FR 20238
(Corrections, comment period
extension for §261.33 "Michigan
Petition" wastes.)
May 15, 1985: 50 FR 20239
(Proposed delistings for
F006 and K062 wastes.)
May 28, 1985: 50 FR 21607
(Delisting guidance document.)
EPA corrected errors, announced the availability
of a background document and extended the
comment period for comtnerical chemical products
(the "Michigan Petition" wastes) proposed to be
added to §261.33 lists on December 21, 1984,
(49 FR 49784). The new comment period closes
on June 30, 1985.
EPA proposed to exclude wastes generated at
three facilities from the listings in
40 CFR §261.31 and §261.32 (F006 and K062).
Comments will be accepted on these delisting
petitions until June 14, 1985.
EPA announced the availability of a guidance
document entitled "Petitions to Delist Hazardous
Wastes - A Guidance Manual" through the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
-------
1
- 9 -
May 28, 1985: 50 PR 21772
(Proposed LUBT notification
fonre and ptfclic hearings.)
May 29, 1985: 50 PR 21876
(Comment period extension for
"Oil Sheen" amendments of
3/11/85.)
May 30, 1985: 50 FR 23008
(D.C. final authorization -
additional information.)
May 31, 1985: 50 FR 23250
(Proposed land disposal ban
schedule.)
EPA proposed two forms for use by owners of
leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) when
notifying their State agencies of the existence
of such tanks. Public hearings will be held
in Denusr, Colorado on 7/2/85 and in Washington,
D.C. on 7/10/85. Caments on the notification
forms will be accepted until July 15, 1985.
Extension of the conraent period for the "Oil
Sheen" proposed amendments of 3/11/85 under
40 CFR 110 until July 1, 1985.
Announcement of additional information on the
District of Columbia's application for RCRA
final authorization which was approved on
3/8/85 (50 FR 9427). This information was
inadvertently omitted.
EPA proposed a schedule for banning listed
hazardous wastes front land disposal as required
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA's) of 1984. Caments will be accepted
until July 30,1985.
-------
- 10 -
Cora Beebe, VH-562A
Frark Biros, VH-527
George Bcnina, VH-563
John Bosky, EPA *• Kansas city, KS
K11^»" daussen,—VH-562
Henry Van Cleave, DOD/DIA
Pat Cohn, VH-527
Mike Cook, VH-562
Peter Cook, VH-527
Alan Corson, VH-565
Elizabeth Cotsworth, VH-563
Hans Crunp, VH-548B
Truett OeGeare, VH-563
Steve Dorrler, EPA - Edison, NJ
Barbara Elkus, VH-527
Tim Fields, VH-548B
Elaine Fitzback, VH-527
Lisa Friedman, LE-132S
George Garland, VH-562
John Gilbert, EPA - Cincinnati, OH
lantha Gilmore, VH-562
Peter Guerrero, WH-563
Penny Hansen, VH-565
Bill Hanson, VH-54SE
Betti Harris, EPA-Region VII
William Hedeman, VH-548
Lee Herwig, A-104
Rick Horner, VH-548B
Hotline Staff
Phil Jalbert, WH-548D
Alvin K. Joe, Jr., Geo/Resource
Marc Jones, PM-220
Jim Jowett, WH-54ffi
Thad Juszczak, VH-562A
Robert Khox, WH-562
Jack Kboyoonjian, VH-548B
Mike KosakowBki, WH-527
Jerry Kbtas, VH-527
Walter Kbvalick, VH548
Donald Kraft, VH-548D
Tapio Fuusinen, PM-223
Robert Landers, EMSL/LV
Carol Lawson, A-107
John Lehnan, VH-565
Steve Levy, WH-563
Fred Lindsey, WH-565
Gene Lucero, VH-527
James Makris, VH-548A
Susan Mann, WH-563
Jack MoGraw, WH-562A
Tony Montrone, WH-527
Sue Moreland (ASTSWMO)
Sam Napolitano, PM-220
Christina Parker, WH-562
John Riley, WH-548B
Clem Rastatter, VH-563
Dale Ruhter, WH-565
William Sanjour, WH-563
Pam Star, LE-134S
Mike Shannon, WH-563
Ken Shuster, WH-565
John Skinner, WH-562
Elaine Stanley, WH-548
Jack Stanton, WH-527
Bruce Weddle, WH-563
Steve Wilhelm, Region VII
Russ Wyer, WH-548E
Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-X
Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Regional Libraries, Regions I-X
------- |