^^
* ^^ \ "UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
O
'/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
530R86118
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Monthly Report - RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline Report
for October, 1986
FROM: JoaTh Warren, Office of Solid Waste
Hubert Watters,!\6ffice of Emergency antL£e^»d.ial Response
*v, •
TO: See Addressees
I. ACTIVITIES
A. The Hotline responded to 8,011 questions and^rfSStyggJ^xj^pr documents
in October.
B. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 was signed by
President Reagan on October 17, 1986. The Hotline received numerous calls
on the amendments. Most callers are concerned with the CERCLA taxes and
community right-to-know provisions.
C. On October 9, Mia Zmud and Kate Blow of OSW briefed the Hotline on how
the RCRA Docket was organized as well as the recent automation of Docket
information.
D, On October 15, Bill Rusin attended a workshop on the Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishments Plan (SCAP). The Workshop focused on the Integrated SCAP
format which coordinates the planning and budgetary efforts of the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) with those of the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) with regard to Superfund sites.
E. On October 21, Debbie Wolpe of the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) briefed the
Hotline on the proposed rule for establishing financial assurance for
corrective action of known releases at RCRA permitted facilities. The rule
was proposed on October 24, 1986 (51FR 37854).
F. On October 21, Frank McAllister and Marty Madison of OSW briefed Hotline
staff on the final state cluster rule which was promulgated on September 22,
1986 (51FR 33712). The cluster rule specifies deadlines for state program
modifications including those changes to implement HSWA.
-------
G. On October 21, Kim Gotwals held a brief conference call with Jack Kooyomjian
of OERR and Commander Kenneth Rock of the US Coast Guard concerning the
the responsibilities of the National Response Center (NRC). Lt. Commander
Rock clarified the fact that the NRC will always accept information
about spills or releases. The NRC refers callers to the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline when callers request assistance on waste identification and
calculating reportable quantities. Lt. Commander Rock requested that
the Hotline document any instances where callers indicated that the NRC
had not accepted and recorded information on releases which the callers
provided.
H. On October 22, Bill Rusin, Kim Gotwals, and Jennifer Brock assisted the
Office of Solid Waste with the Small Quantity Generator Teleconference
which was broadcast from the WETA studio in Arlington, Virginia.
I. On October 22, Dave Phillips briefed the Hotline staff on the Land
Disposal Restrictions Rule.
J. On October 23, Denise Wright attended a training seminar presented by
Vanessa Musgrave of OSW and ICF staff on Public Involvement in the RCRA
Permitting Program. Numerous offices frcm EPA Headquarters were repre-
sented.
K. On October 23, Pat Conn and Bill Rusin attended a meeting of the Superfund
Communications Workgroup chaired by Susan Bulland of the Office of the
Assistant Administrator for OSWER.
L. On October 29, Steve Weil of OSW briefed the Hotline after work on the
final Land Disposal Restrictions Rule.
II. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES: SUPERFUND INFORMATION SERVICES
A. Region II (800-732-1223 in New York, 800-346-5009 in New Jersey)
Rick Wice has joined the Region II Superfund staff, and EPA has decided
to discontinue the Regional Hotline in Region II.
o Rick Wice responded to 51 calls/inquiries during October.
Specific sites 19
CEPP 2
CERCLA 12
RCRA 6
Other 12
o Industry 7
Public 26
Consultants 2
Federal Government 0
State Government 4
Local Government 4
Environmental Organizations 2
Realtors 5
Media 1
-------
B. Region IX (800-231-3075)
o Nancy Alvarado - Blauer responded to 157 information requests during October.
o Nancy also responded to three controlled correspondences and four
general letters.
o The breakdown of calls by subject and caller is as follows:
Specific sites 72
CEPP 4
CERCLA 42
RCRA 21
Other 18
Industry 7
Public 67
Consultants 49
Federal Government 1
State Government 14
Local Government 11
Environmental Organizations 2
Other 6
o The release of the feasibility study on the MGM Brakes NPL Site in
Cloverdale, California has generated numerous calls and comments by
nearby residents.
III. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES
A. RCRA
1. Land Disposal Restriction Variances
A manufacturer generates a waste which will be subject to land disposal
restrictions and for which no treatment technologies have been developed
that are capable of achieving the treatment standards. The only manage-
ment method available is landfilling. Can the generator obtain a variance
from or an extension to the effective date of the land disposal restrictions
that will be finalized November 8, 1986?
The generator has three options:
1) He may demonstrate that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents from the disposal unit for as long
as the waste remains hazardous, per §3004(e).
-------
2) He may apply for a 1 year extension of the effective date
of the prohibition, per §3004(h)(3), if he meets the criteria in
§268.4(a). Essentially these criteria require that the generator
has entered into a contractual agreement either with someone to
build treatment capacity for him or with someone who can eventually
provide alternative capacity for the waste, but that the capacity
will not be available until some time after the effective date of
the ban. The Administrator's decision to grant an extension will
be made on a case-by-case basis. An extension may be renewed once
for an additional year.
3) He may apply for a treatibility variance, wherein the
generator proves that no treatment method for the particular
waste will achieve the §3004(m) standards specified in the
rule. The generator essentially applies for a different
performance standard for the particular waste, although it
would still be based on the performance achievable by the
application of BOAT to the particular waste. This new
option is discussed in the September 5, 1986 Federal Register
(51 FR 31787).
Source: Steve Weil (202) 382-4770
Research: Kim B. Gotwals
2. Delisting by States
A facility generates a waste that is not hazardous by Federal EPA
standards but is listed as a hazardous waste by the state. The state in
which the generator is located is authorized to implement the RCRA program,
excluding delisting provisions and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984. According to 40 CFR 271.9(b) (See the September 22, 1986 Federal
Register, 51 FR 33721), authorized states are not required to have a delisting
mechanism. If the generator wishes to have his state-listed hazardous waste
delisted, does he submit the delisting petition to EPA headquarters if the
state has no delisting program?
Although EPA has the authority to grant delistings, its authority does
not extend to wastes that are listed as hazardous by the state, but not
by Federal EPA. According to 40 CFR 271.1(1)(2) and 271.121(1)(2), any
state requirement that is greater in scope than the Federal RCRA require-
ments is not part of the Federally approved program. Program Implementa-
tion Guidance (PIG) 84-1 explains further that EPA may not enforce state
provisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program. State
listing of a waste that is not Federally listed is an example of a
provision that is broader in scope because it increases the size of the
regulated community. Therefore, EPA would have no authority to grant an
exclusion for a waste that is listed only by the state. The state would
be responsible for granting any exclusions for a waste not regulated
Federally.
Source: Marxy Madison (202) 382-2229
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
3. Hazardous Waste Tanks
New hazardous waste tank regulations were promulgated on July 14, 1986
(51 FR 25470). The Federal effective date for most of the new tank regu-
lations is January 12, 1987. Existing tank systems are defined as those in use
for the storage or treatment of hazardous waste or for which installation was
commenced on or before to July 14, 1986 (40 CFR 260.10). New tank systems are
those for which installation commenced after July 14, 1986. New tanks are re-
quired to have secondary containment (§265. 193(a)(l) and a leak detection system
(§265.193(c)(3)). New tank systems must also be designed in accordance with the
criteria in §265.192.
Existing tanks must be retrofitted for secondary containment and leak detec-
tion (§265.193(a)). The timing of the retrofit depends upon the age of the
tank and what it contains. All existing tanks in which F020, F021, F022,
F023, F026, and F027 is stored or treated must be retrofitted within two
years of the effective date of the regulations (§265.193(a)(2)). Tanks of
known, documented age must be retrofitted within two years of the effective
date of the regulations or when the tank system has reached 15 years of
age, whichever comes later (§265.193(a)(3)). When the age of the tank
cannot be documented, it must be retrofitted within eight years of the
effective date unless the facility is more than seven years old. In the
latter case, secondary containment must be installed by the time the facility
is 15 years old or within two years of the effective date, whichever cones
later (§265.193(a)(4)).
(a.) What is the status of the tanks at a new TSD facility if a RCRA
permit is issued by EPA or an authorized state after July 14,
1986 but before the effective date of the Federal or state regulation?
(b.) How would interim status and 90-day accumulation tanks be regulated
if they are installed between July 14, 1986 and the effective
date of the new tank regulations?
(a.) The permit would be written under the current regulations.
Section 270.32(b) and (c) state that for an EPA or state-issued
permit, an applicable requirement is a state statutory or regulatory
requirement which takes effect prior to final administrative
disposition of a permit. However, §270.32(b)(2) (50 FR 28742)
states that each permit issued shall contain terms and conditions
as the Administrator or State Director determines necessary
to protect human health and the environment. The Administrator
or the State Director may incorporate the new tank regulations
under this provision. This general omnibus authority is a creation
of HSWA and thus is implemented by EPA until the State is authorized.
When the permit is reviewed (in 10 years or less) under §270.50,
all regulations in effect at the time of the review must be
incorporated into the reissued permit per §270.32(d), including
the tank regulations promulgated in 51 FR 25470. The 15 year age
limit for secondary containment retrofitting for "existing"
tank systems (§264.193(a)(3)) would not apply to tanks built
after July 14, 1986 because the tanks are, by definition, "new"
tanks.
-------
Under the current regulations, a permit may only be modified
to incorporate new regulations at the request of the permittee
(§270.41(a)(3)(c)). However, EPA proposed a change to this
regulation in the March 28, 1986 Federal Register. Under
the proposed §270.41(a)(3) permits could be modified by EPA
or a state when the standards or regulations on which the
permit was based have been changed by statute or new or
amended standards or regulations. If this regulation is promulgated
as proposed, permits could be modified to include the requirements
of the revised tank regulations.
(b.) Before the effective date of the new hazardous waste
tank regulations, interim status tanks may be installed under
the current regulations for Subpart J. However, since these
tanks meet the definition of new tank systems because they
were installed after July 14, 1986, they must comply with all
of the standards in the new regulations (§265.192, §265.193) once
the regulation becomes effective. Therefore, if the tank is
installed under the old standards, it must be retrofitted or replaced
to comply with the new tank standard in §265.193 by the Federal
effective date which is January 12, 1987. These tanks are also
subject to the design standards in §265.192 including all certifications
required in §265.192(a) and the inspections and certifications
required in §265.192(b) and (g).
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Lillian Bagus (202) 382-2233
Chet Oszman (202) 382-4499
Research: Betty Wilson
4. Secondary Containment Variances for Tanks
New regulations promulgated in the July 14, 1986 Federal Register
(51 FR 25422) address secondary containment requirements for hazardous waste
treatment and storage tanks. 40 CFR 264.193(g) and 265.193(g) allow the tank
owner/operator to apply to the Regional Administrator for a variance from
the secondary containment requirements. A tank owner/operator may apply for
either a technology-based variance or a risk-based variance. How are these
two kinds of variances different?
40 CFR 264.193(g) and 265.193(g) described the requirements for
both technology-based and risk based variances. The Regional
Administrator may grant a technology-based variance if the owner/
operator can demonstrate that alternative design and operating
practices, combined with location characteristics, will be at
least as effective as secondary containment in preventing the
migration of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the
ground water or surface water. The Regional Administrator may
grant a variance based on risk if the owner/operator can demonstrate
that there will be no substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment if there is a release to the
ground water or surface water. Risk-based variances will not be
granted to new underground tank systems.
-------
According to §264.193(g)(1) and §265.193(g)(1), the Regional
Administrator will base a decision to grant a technology-based
variance on (1) the nature and quantity of wastes, (2) the proposed
alternate design and operation, (3) the hydrogeologic characteristics
of the facility (e.g., - thickness of soil between the tank system
and ground water), and (4) other factors related to the potential for
hazardous constituents to migrate into ground or surface water. For
a risk-based variance, the Regional Administrator will consider, in
addition to the nature and persistence of the waste and the facility's
hydrogeology, the potential effects on human health and welfare
(i.e., - wildlife, crops, vegetation, physical structures). The
Regional Administrator will evaluate these factors as they relate
to the quality of ground water, surface water, and the land (see
§§264.193(g)(2) and 265.193(g)(2)). In applying for a risk-based
variance, a tank owner/operator may demonstrate either that there
will be no exposure pathways for hazardous constituents, or that
exposure to hazardous constituents through ground or surface water
will not be high enough to pose a substantial hazard to human health
or the environment. In the latter approach, the variance would have
to address current and potential hazards (51 FR 25453).
For both technology-based and risk-based variances, the burden will
be on the applicant to demonstrate either that the alternate technology
will be equivalent to secondary containment or that the tank system
will present no current or potential risk to human health or the
environment.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Ellen Siegler (202) 382-7700
Research: Jennifer Brock
5. Termination of Permits
A permitted facility closes all its tanks and container storage areas,
its only RCRA-regulated units. The region now wishes to terminate
the permit because the facility no longer has any active units and is
not subject to the post-closure care requirements of 40 CFR 264.117.
The facility has complied with all the permit conditions and has
disclosed all relevant facts for the permit. On what basis may EPA
terminate the facility's permit?
40 CFR 270.43(a) presents the reasons for which EPA may terminate
a facility's permit or deny a permit renewal application. EPA
may terminate a permit if the facility fails to comply with any
condition of the permit, or if the permittee fails to fully disclose
relevant information during the permit application or issuance process.
-------
EPA may also terminate a permit if the permittee misrepre sents any
relevant facts, or if the permitted activity endangers human health
or the environment. A different type of permit termination occurs
when a permit is revoked and reissued during transfer of a permit
to a new owner/operator, per §270.30(1)(3) and §270.41 (b)(2) or
the Regional Administrator and the permittee agree to termination
in the course of transferring permit responsibility to an authorized
state under §271.8(b)(6). Nothing in the regulations allows for
permit termination because permit conditions no longer apply to a
facility. Normally the owner/operator of a facility that has
closed all its RCRA units and has no post-closure care reguirements
would allow the permit to expire. Although the owner/operator is
still subject to Part 264 standards, there are no hazardous waste
management activities to regulate. The owner/operator's financial
responsibilities should end after the region receives certification
of closure (§§264.143(1), 264.147(e)). According to §124.5(a) the
permittee may request termination, but EPA may still only terminate
a permit for the reasons given in §270.43.
Nevertheless, EPA does have authority to modify a permit if the Director
receives new information, or there are material and substantial alterations
to the permitted activity, that justify permit conditions different from
those in the existing permit (§270.41(a)(1)(2)). According to §270.50, the
maximum permit duration is ten years, but a permit may cover a shorter time
period. In this situation, EPA could modify the permit so that it would
expire shortly after the earlier closure date.
Source: Matt Hale (202) 382-4740
Research: Jennifer Brock
6. Post-Closure Permits
A storage and disposal facility has a surface impoundment. The facility stopped
receiving waste on January 25, 1983. However, the facility did not get
certification of closure until September 10, 1984. Is this facility required
to have a post-closure permit?
Yes; Permits covering the post-closure care period are currently required
for all disposal units that close after January 26, 1983 (§270.l(c)).
Units are closed once certification of closure is received not when the
unit stops receiving waste. 50 FR 28712 n. 14 (July 15, 1985).
Section 3005(i) of RCRA, which was added in the 1984 amendments requires
that any landfill, surface impoundment, land treatment unit, or waste-
pile unit which qualifies for the authorization to operate under interim
status and which receives hazardous waste after July 26, 1982 must meet
applicable permit standards concerning groundwater monitoring, unsaturated
zone monitoring, and corrective action under Section 3004.
In order to bring §270.1 permitting requirements in line with RCRA
Section 3005(1), EPA proposed on March 28, 1986 to amend its regulation
generally to ensure that all landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles
and land treatment units that received waste after July 26, 1982 will be
reviewed for compliance with the permitting standards for groundwater
monitoring, unsaturated zone monitoring, and corrective action. EPA's pre-
ferred alternative for conducting this review is the issuance of a post-
closure permit.
Source: Matt Hale (202) 382-4740
Research: Carla Rellergert
-------
7. Corrective Action for New Facilities
Is an owner/operator seeking a pre-construetion permit for a new RCRA treatment,
storage, or disposal facility subject to corrective action under Section 3004(u)
of RCRA?
Yes, Section 3004(u) states that corrective action is required "for all
releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any solid waste management
unit at a treatment, storage, or disposal facility seeking a permit..."
under Subtitle C of RCRA, "... regardless of the time at which waste
was placed in such unit..." Therefore, any solid waste management
unit located on a site which is involved in a permit application is
subject to corrective action (§264.101) even if there has never
been any previous authorization for hazardous waste activity at the
site. Examples of units which could be included in corrective
action under these circumstances are sanitary landfills, dumps, and
units in which waste which is normally exempt from RCRA regulation
have been stored or disposed. Releases of hazardous waste would
include releases of listed (§261.31-33) or characteristic hazardous
wastes. Releases of hazardous constitueuts from both hazardous and
solid wastes are also covered. This would include any of the
hazardous constituents listed in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII.
Source: Dave Fagan (202) 382-4740
Research: Betty Wilson
8. Retrofitting Surface Impoundments
RCRA Section 3005(j) states that except for specific cases for which
variances are granted a surface impoundment shall not receive, store, or
treat hazardous waste after November 8, 1988 unless it is in compliance
with Section 3004(o) (1)(A), the minimum technology standards for new
surface impoundments. Section 3004(o)(1)(A) requires new surface impound-
ments to have two or more liners with a leachate collection system
between the liners and ground water monitoring. Hence, the owner/operator
(o/o) must either close or retrofit his surface impoundments to meet the
minimum technology standards if he wants to operate the units after
November 8, 1988.
Since storage in a surface impoundment not meeting minimum technology
standards is prohibited after November 8, 1988, must the o/o who wishes
to close his impoundments, complete closure by November 1988?
No; EPA interprets the statute to require the facility to stop
accepting waste by November 8, 1988. The statute does not
require closure by that date. Therefore, the owner or operator must
comply with applicable closure regulations.
-------
The "Interim Status of Surface Impoundments - Retrofitting Variance"
(OSWER Policy Directive #9484.00-1) states that closure activities can
occur after November 8, 1988, provided that the receipt of hazardous
waste stops on or before November 8, 1988. Therefore the owner/operator
is required under 40 CFR 265.112(d)(2) to begin closure within 30
days after the last date on which wastes are received. According to
40 CFR 265.112(d)(1) the owner/operator must also submit a written
closure plan to the Regional Administrator at least 180 days prior
to the date on which closure is expected to begin. Therefore, notification
of closure of an interim status surface impoundment is required by
June 8, 1988 unless the impoundment is retrofitted or a variance is
obtained (51 FR 1644).
Source: Barbara Pace (202) 382-7703
Research: Betty Wilson
9. Export of Recyclable Materials
Are generators and transporters of recyclable materials used for precious
metals recovery subject to the export regulations that were published on
August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664)?
Yes, exporters of recyclable materials used for precious metals
recovery are subject to the export regulations in 40 CFR 262.50.
Subpart E of Part 262(§262.50) requires "primary exporters" to comply
with the export requirements. A primary exporter, as defined in
40 CFR 262.50, is any person who is required to originate a manifest for
a shipment of hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR Part 262,
Subpart B, or equivalent State provision which specifies a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility in a receiving country as the facility
to which the hazardous waste will be sent. A primary exporter also
includes any intermediary arranging for the export.
Generators of recyclable materials used for precious metals recovery
must prepare a manifest in accordance with Part 262 Subpart B per
§266.70(b)(2). If a generator exports his wastes for precious metals
recovery, he meets the definition of a "primary exporter" and is subject
to the export requirements in Subpart E-Exports of Hazardous Waste.
These exports requirements include:
(a) written notification to EPA of intent to export 60 days prior
to the initial shipment in a 12 month period;
(b) exporting only after receipt of an Acknowledgement of Consent;
(c) attaching the Acknowledgement of Consent to the manifest which
is prepared in accordance with special manifest requirements
of §262.54;
(d) filing exception reports, if needed;
(e) filing an annual report on his export activities
and waste minimization efforts
(f) keeping records for three years
-------
Transporters involved with exports of recyclable precious metal
wastes must also meet certain export requirements. According to
§266.70(b)(2), transporters of recyclable precious metal wastes
must comply with the manifest provisions of §§263.20 and 263.21.
The export regulations of August 8, 1986 modified the §262.20
manifest requirements for exports. Transporters must ensure that
the Aknowledgement of Consent accompanies the waste shipment and
cannot accept the waste without it. The transporter may not accept
the waste for export if he knows the shipment does not conform to
the Acknowledgement of Consent (51 FR 28685). The transporter must
give a copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs agent at the point the
waste leaves the U.S.
Source: Carolyn Barley (201) 382-2217
Research: Betty Wilson
-------
B. CERCLA
1. Liability of "Innocent Landowners"
Hew may a so-called "innocent landowner "attempt to indemnify himself
from liability under CERCLA §107(a)?
According to section 107(b) of CERCLA, "There shall be no liability
under subsection (a) of this section for a person otherwise liable
who can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the release
or threat of release of a hazardous substance and the damages
resulting therefrom were caused soley by-
1) an act of God;
2) an act of war;
3) an act or omission of a third party other than an employee or
agent of the defendant, or than one whose act or omission
occurs in connection with a contractual relationship, existing
directly or indirectly, with the defendant (except where the
sole contractual arrangement arises from a published tariff
and acceptance for carriage by a common carrier by rail), if
the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence
that (a) he exercised due care with respect to the hazardous
substance concerned, taking into consideration the
characteristics of such hazardous substance, in light of all
relevant facts and circumstances, and (b) he took precautions
against forseeable acts or omissions of any such third party
and the consequences that could forseeably result from such
acts or omissions; or
4) any combination of the foregoing paragraphs"
Section 101(f)(35)(A) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) states "The term 'contractual relationship1 for
the purpose of Section 107(b)(3), includes, but is not limited to,
land contracts, deeds or other instruments transferring title or
possession, unless the real proparty on which the facility concerned
is located was acquired by the defendant after the disposal or
placement of the hazardous substance on, in, or at the facility, and
one or more of the circumstances described in clause (i), (ii), or
(iii) is also established by the defendant by a preponderance of the
evidence;
(i) At the time the defendant acquired the facility the defendant
did not know and had no reason to knew that any hazardous
substance which is the subject of the release or threatened
release was disposed of on, in, or at the facility.
-------
(ii) The defendant is a government entity which acquired the
facility by escheat, or through any other involuntary
transfer or acquisition, or through the exercise of
emminent domain authority by purchase or condemnation.
(iii) The defendant acquired the facility by inheritance or bequest.
Furthermore, section 101(f)(35)(B)-(D) explains "(B) to establish
that the defendant had no reason to know, as provided in clause(i)
of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the defendant must have
undertaken, at the time of acquisition, all appropriate inquiry into
the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good
commercial or customary practice in an effort to minimize liability.
For purposes of the preceding sentence the court shall take into
account any specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the
defendant, the relationship of the purchase price to the value of
the property if uncontaminated, commonly known or reasonably
ascertainable information about the property, the obviousness of the
presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and
the ability to detect such contamination by appropriate inspection.
(C) Nothing in this paragraph or in section 107(b)(3) shall diminish
the liability of any previous owner or operator of such facility
who would otherwise be liable under this Act. Notwithstanding
this paragraph, if the defendant obtained actual knowledge of
the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance at
such facility when the defendant owned the real property and
then subsequently transferred ownership of the property to
another person without disclosing such knowledge, such defendant
shall be treated as liable under section 107(a)(l) and no defense
under section 107(b)(3) shall be available to such defendant.
(D) Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the liability under this
Act of a defendant who, by any act or omission, caused or
contributed to the release of a hazardous substance which is the
subject of the action relating to the facility."
Source: Dov Weitman (202) 382-7703
Research: Kris Andersen
-------
[V: ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS
The Hotline responded to 8,011 questions and requests for documents in October.
'• questions asked, the percentage of callers was:
Of the
Generators 30.0%
Transporters 1 . 1%
TSDF's 8.0%
EPA HQ's 1.1%
EPA Regions 2.2%
Federal Agencies 2.5%
Local Agencies 1.1%
Breakdown of calls by EPA Regions:
1 5.3% 3 23.3%
2 10.0% 4 11.0%
International 6
RCRA
General Information
3010 Notification
260.10 Definitions
260.22 Petitions/Delisting
261.2 Solid Waste Definition
261.3 Hazardous Waste (HW) Defn.
261-C Characteristic HW
oci n T i o+-aH PTA?
^•01 \j J-iisueu nw
261.4 Exclusions
261.5 Small Quantity Generator
261.6 Recycling Standards
ZDD L. use uonscit.UT.ing Disposal
266-D HW Burned for Energy Recovery
266-E Used Oil Burned for
Energy Recovery
266-F Precious Metal Reclamation
266-G Spent Lead-Acid Battery
Reclamation
261.7 Container Residues
262 Generator (Gen'l)
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 Administrative Procedures
Liability /Enforcement
Referrals
361
115
48
41
136
208
187
247
110
145
91
27
50
96
21
24
24
80
79
13
79
12
16
33
31
13
6
21
50
3
28
253
State Agencies 3.6%
Consultants 32.4%
Press 0.5%
Trade Associations 1.5%
Citizens 4.0%
UST 0/0 4.0%
Used Oil Handlers 3.0%
Others 5.0%
5 18.5% 7 2.6% 9
6 10.0% 8 5.0% 10
264/265 TSDF
A-Scope /Applicability
B-General Facility Standards
C-Pre paredness/Prevent ion
D-Contingency Plans
E-Mani fest/Recordkee ping/Re porting
F-Groundwater Monitoring
G-C losure/Pos t-C losure
H-Financial Requirements
I-Containers
J-Tanks
K-Surface Impoundments
L-Waste Piles
M-Land Treatment
N-Landfills
O-Incinerators
P-Thermal Treatment
Q-Chemical, Physical, Biological Treat
R-Underground Injection
X/Y-Miscellaneous/Experimental
CERCLA
General/Overview
Hazardous Substances/RQ
NCP
Taxes/PCLTF
Removal
Remedial
NPL
On-site policy
Off-site Policy
CERCLIS/Notification
Liabi lity /Enforcement
CERCLA Reauthorization
Total
11.2%
2.6%
63
33
8
13
8
63
60
52
15
75
106
4
5
24
28
5
. 13
3
4
79
151
20
10
25
37
69
9
9
13
29
113
564
Document Requests
2,612
-------
RCRA AMENDMENTS
General
Effective Dates
20
34
Small Quantity Generators_
Liquids in Landfills Ban
291
65
Land Disposal Restrictions 190
Storage of Banned Waste 74
Minimum Technology Standards
27
Retrofitting Suface Impoundments 11
Groundwater Monitoring
46
Groundwater Commission
Corrective Action
10
57
Interim Status Corrective
Action Orders
13
Loss of Interim Status_
Permits
12
19
Exposure Assessments_
RD&D Permits
Definitions
15
36
Listings/Characteristic Revision 96
Delisting 10
Used Oil Listing
Recycling Std.
117
74
Hazardous Waste Exports
11
Mining waste, Utility Waste &
Cement Kiln Dust 14
Uranium Mill Tailings_
State Implementation__
Subtitle D
11
Procurement Guidelines
Inventory of Injection Wells
0
Inventory of Federal Facilities 1
Ins pact ions
0
Federal Enforcement_
Citizen Suits
Dioxins from Resource Recovery 7
Domestic Sewage 4
H.W. Underground Tanks
44
UST
Waste Minimization
Notification
36
57
Interim Prohibition
Tank Standards
Total
113
70
276
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800-424-9346
Washington, DC Metro #202-382-3000
V. PUBLICATIONS
RCRA
"Unit Cost of Closure and Post-Closure Technical and Financial Requireinents"
(A-DI HHHH 02998) is available from the RCRA Docket. The Hotline will take
requests.
"RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD)"
(055-000-00260-6) is available from the Government Printing Office (GPO). The
cost is $16.00.
"Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project
Plans" (QAMS-005/80) is available from Stan Blacker of ORD. His phone number
is (202) 382-5763.
"Assessment of Environmental Impact of the Mineral Mining Industry" is available
from NTIS (PB-80-103-492). The cost is $22.95.
"S-Cubed Multi-Laboratory Collaborative Evaluation of the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure Interim Report" (TCS-2) is available from the RCRA Docket.
"National RCRA Corrective Action Strategy" (EPA/530-SW-86-045) is available
through the RCRA Docket. The Hotline will take requests.
"The final "RCRA Facility Assessment Manual " (PB-87-107-769) is available from
NTIS. The cost is $16.95.
"The Coast Guard has published the "Chemical Hazard Response System" or "CHRIS".
Initially "CHRIS" was composed of 4 manuals entitled:
(1) "Condensed Guide To Chemical Hazards"
GPO #055-012-00224-0 $14.00
Special Binder GPO #055-012-00151-1 $3.50
(2) "Hazardous Chemical Data Manual"
GPO #050-012-00215-1 $41.00
(3) "Hazard Assessment Handbook" - no longer available.
(4) "Response Method Handbook" - no longer available.
"Census of State and Territorial Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Programs"
(PB-87-108-080) is available through NTIS for $24.95
"L.U.S.T.line Bulletin #4 is available from the Office of Underground Storage
Tanks. The Hotline will take requests.
-------
CERCLA
"Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986" (PL99-499). The Hotline
will take requests.
"Major Provisions of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986".
The Hotline will take requests.
"Implementation Strategy for Reauthorized Superfund: Short Term Priorities for
Action" from J. Winston Porter. The Hotline will take requests.
-------
VI. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES FOR OCTOBER
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800-424-9346
Washington, DC Metro #202-382-3000
October 1, 1986: 51 FR 35190
(final modification of waste
minimization certification for SQGs)
October 2, 1986:51 _FR 35285
(termination of TSCA Hotline
toll free service)
October 9, 1986:51 FR 36233
(withdrawl of proposed
mining waste reinterpretation)
October 9, 1986: 51 FR 36235
(proposed delisting)
October 9, 1986:51 FR 36241
(proposed delisting)
Final rule amending the generator waste
minimization certification on the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest to include a provision
for Small Quantity Generators (SQG). This
rule requires SQG's to certify that a "good
faith effort" was made at their facility to
minimize waste production. This rule also
assigns a new OMB Manifest Form Number
(2050-0039) and extends the expiration date to
9/30/88. The effective date was September 22,
1986.
Notice of the discontinuation of the TSCA
toll free service. The TSCA Hotline will,
however, retain its commercial telephone
number of (202) 554-1404. The effective date
is September 30, 1986.
Withdrawal of the proposal to narrow the
scope of the mining waste exclusion as it
applies to processing wastes and to relist
six waste streams previously deemed
processing wastes. The effect of this action
will be to retain the existing regulation
(40CFR261.4(b)(7)) along with the Agency's
existing interpretation. The effective date
is September 30, 1986.
Proposal to exclude wastes generated by the
Michelin Tire Company, Sandy Springs, SC. EPA
will accept comments on this proposal until
October 24, 1986.
Proposal to exclude wastes generated by
Capitol Products Corporation, Kentland, IN,
Lincoln Plating Company, Licoln, NE; Maytag
Company, Newton, IA; and Windson Plastics,
Inc., Evansville, IN. EPA will accept
comments on these proposals until October 24,
1986.
-------
October 9, 1986: 51 FR 36342
(proposed 100-lOOOkg/mo
generator tank standards)
October 15, 1986: 51 FR 36707
(proposed delisting)
October 16, 1986: 51 FR 36804
(Michigan final authorization)
October 16, 1986: 51 FR 36974
(proposed delistings)
October 17, 1986: 51 FR 37019
(final delistings)
October 17, 1986:51FR37130
(proposed delisting denials)
Proposal to subject 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators of hazardous waste, who accumulate
hazardous waste in tank system prior to
off-site shipments, to new tank system
standards. This would reguire the 100-
lOOOkg/mo generators to perform periodic leak
detection tests, and provide secondary
containment for all new, appropriate existing,
and leaking tank systems. EPA will accept
comments on this proposal until January 7, 1987.
Proposal to exclude wastes generated by the
Envirite Corporation at their facilities in
Canton, OH, Harvey, IL, Thomaston, CT and
York, PA. EPA will accept comments on these
proposed exclusions until October 30, 1986.
Final rule granting authorization to the
state of Michigan for the RCRA program and
Cluster I. The effective date of this rule
is October 30, 1986.
Proposal to exclude wastes generated by
Tricil Environment Services, Inc. at their
facilities in Hilliard, OH, Muskegon, MI, and
Nashville, TN. EPA will accept comment on
these proposed exclusions until October 31,
1986.
Final rule granting exclusions for particular
waste streams generated by BBC Brown Boveri,
Inc, Sanford, FL; Pamcor C. Inc., Las Piedras,
PR; and William L. Bonnell Co., Carthage, TN.
The effective date of this rule is
October 17,1986.
Proposal to deny the delisting petitions
submitted by: 1) AT&T, N. Andover, MA, 2)
Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Co.,
Sunray, TX, 3) Hill Petroleum Co., Houston,
TX, 4) L-TEC Welding & Cutting Systems,
Ashtabula, OH, 5) Murphy Oil USA, Inc.,
Superior, WI, 6) New Departure Hyatt, Sandusky,
OH, 7) Virginia Chemicals, Inc., Bucks, AL, 8)
Titan Oil Co., Indianapolis, IN, and 9) Virginia
Chemicals, Inc., Leeds, SC. EPA will accept
comments on these proposed denials until
October 24, 1986.
-------
October 21, 1986: 51 FR 37299
(proposed delisting denials)
October 22, 1986: 51 FR 37420
( proposed delisting denials)
October 23, 1986: 51 FR 37608
(draft corrective action
strategy)
October 24, 1986: 51 FR 37723
(final delisting)
October 24, 1986: 51 FR 37725
(final listing of four EBDC
production wastes)
October 24, 1986: 51 FR 37729
(final authorization for
program revision of Colorado's
hazardous waste program)
October 24, 1986: 51 FR 37760
(proposed delisting)
Proposal to deny the delisting petitions
submitted by: 1) Cerro Conduit Co., Syosset,
NY, 2) General Motors Corp., Delco Products
Div., Kettering, OH, 3) East Chicago, IN, and
5) United Chair, Inc., Irondale, AL. EPA will
accept comment on these proposed denials until
October 28, 1986.
Proposal to deny the delisting petitions
submitted by 1) Chevron, USA, Port Arthur, TX,
2) E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Beaumont
works, Beaumont, TX, 3) Ford Motor Co., Lima,
OH, 4) General Motors Corp., Truck & Coach
Div., Pontiac, MI, 5) McLouth Steel Corp.,
Trenton, MI, 6) Olin Corp., St. Marks, FL, and
7) Welsh Co. of the South, Union Springs, AL.
EPA will accept comments on these proposed
denials until October 29, 1986.
Notice of availability of the draft
strategy entitled "National RCRA Corrective
Action Strategy". Copies are available
free through the RCRA/Superfund Hotline and
EPA will accept comments on this draft strategy
until November 24, 1986.
Final rule granting an exclusion for particular
waste streams produced at the General Cable Co.,
Muncie, IN. The effective date of this
exclusion is October 24, 1986.
Final rule listing four wastes as hazardous
that are generated during the production of
EBDC. The effective date of this rule is
April 24, 1987.
Final authorization granted for a progam
revision to Colorado's hazardous waste program
to include the regulation of radioactive
mixed waste. The effective date of this rule
is November 7, 1986.
Proposal to exclude wastes generated by
Lederle Laboratories, Pearl River, NY. EPA
will accept comment on this proposed exclusion
until November 3, 1986.
-------
October 24, 1986: 51 FR 37767
(data supporting del1sting
denials)
October 24, 1986: 51 FR 37854
(proposal to add financial
responsibility for corrective
action)
October 27, 1986: 51 FR 38904
(unified regulatory agenda)
October 31, 1986: 51 FR 39752
(final authorization of
revisions to Indiana's
hazardous waste program)
Notice of availability of data supporting the
Agency's decision to deny the delisting
petitions submitted by the Rock Island Refinery
Corp., Indianapolis, IN, and the Sun Oil Co.,
Yabucoa, PR. EPA will accept comment on this
information until October 31, 1986.
Proposal to amend the financial responsibility
and permitting standards to include a provision
for requiring owner/operators to demonstrate
financial assurance for the costs of completing
corrective actions at the facility. EPA will
accept comment on this proposal until December
23, 1986.
Publication of the EPA Semiannual Unified
Regulatory Agenda.
Final authorization of administrative
revisions to Indiana's hazardous waste
management program. The effective date
for this final rule is December 31, 1986.
-------
Martha Anderson, DORM
Frank Biros, WH-527
George Bonina, WH-563
Susan Bromm, WH-563
Karen Brown, PM-220
John Bosky, EPA - Kansas City, KS
Diane Buxbaum, Region II
Richard Clarizio, Region V
Eileen Claussen, WH-562
Kathy Collier, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Peter Cook, WH-527
Alan Corson, WH-565
Elizabeth Cotsworth, WH-563
Hans Crump, WH-548B
Truett DeGeare, WH-563
Jeff Denit, WH-562
Steve Dorrler, EPA - Edison, NJ
Melinda Downing, DOE
Barbara Elkus, WH-527
Tim Fields, WH-548B
Elaine Fitzback, WH-527
Lisa Friedman, LE-132S
George Garland, WH-562
John Gilbert, EPA - Cincinnati, OH
Lloyd Guerci WH-527
Matt Hale, WH-563
Bill Hanson, WH-548E
Betti Harris, EPA-Region VII
Steve Heare WH-527
Lee Herwig, A-104
Hotline Staff
Warren Hull, A-104
Phil Jalbert, WH-548D
Alvin K. Joe, Jr., Geo/Resource
Gary Jonesi, WH-562B
Sylvia Lowrance, WH-527
Carolyn Barley WH-563
Helga Butler (WH-562A)
Ginny Steiner SH-527
Jim Jowett, WH-548B
Thad Juszczak, WH-562A
Robert Knox, WH-562
Jack Kooyoonjian, WH-548B
Mike Kosakowski, WH-527
Walter Kovalick, WH548
Tapio Kuusinen, PM-223
Robert Landers, EMSL/LV
Steve Leifer, LE-1345
Steve Levy, WH-563
Henry Longest, WH-548
Gene Lucero, WH-527
James Makris, WH-548A
Jack McGraw, WH-562A
Scott McPhilamy, Reg. Ill
Tony Montrone, WH-527
Sue Moreland (ASTSWMO)
Sam Napolitano, PM-220
Christina Parker, WH-562
Karen Reed, PM-273
John Riley, WH-548B
Clem Rastatter, WH-548
Dale Ruhter, WH-565
William Sanjour, WH-563
Susan Sawtelle, WH-562
Pam Sbar, LE-134S
Mike Shannon, WH-563
Ken Shuster, WH-565
Elaine Stanley, WH-548
Jack Stanton, WH-527
Hillary Sonmer, N.C.
Bruce Weddle, WH-563
Steve Wilhelm, Region VII
Marcia Williams, WH-562
Eric Males A-101F (FC)
Matt Hale WH-563
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
------- |