ATE&EN VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY / 5 WASHINGTON, D.C. Z0460 J? JU/ 91988 530R88104 ENVIHONM:... i • , ,. i(l) Lit.:-. . . i ... . MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF iVimVLVJJlAlM v U m SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUBJECT: Final Monthly Report - RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Hotline Report for April 1988 FROM: Thea McManus, Project Officer Office of Solid Waste N^ Hubert Watters, Deputy Project Officer Office of Emergency and Remedial Response TO: See List of Addressees This report is prepared and submitted for EPA Contract No. 68-01-7371. I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES - APRIL 1988 A. RCRA Program 1. Notification Requirements for Recyclable Materials A gold plating operation generates a spent cyanide solution. The solution is sent to a reclaimer so that the gold content can be recovered. The recyclable material, because of its free cyanide content, is a California listed waste. Does the generator have to send a notification to the reclaimer per Section 268.7? The requirements for recyclable materials from which precious metals are reclaimed in Section 261.6(a)(2)(IV) subject the generator to regulation under Subpart F of Part 266. However, Section 261.6(a)(2) does not specifically free the generator of Part 268 regulations. Only those recyclable materials specifically listed in Section 261 .6(a)(3) are not subject to Part 268 regulations. Since this waste is a California listed waste, the generator must provide proper notifi- cation to the reclaimer. Contact: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805 Research: Cheryl McNabb ------- 2. Secondary Containment for Hazardous Waste Tanks A facility intends to install a series of underground hazardous waste accumulation tanks. The projected facility design specifies provisions for double walled tanks to meet the secondary containment requirements of Section 265.193. Section 265.193(e)(3)(i) state-; that the tank "mustbe: designed as an integral structure (i.e., an inner tank within an outer shell) so that any release from the inner tank is contained by the outer shell...." Does this imply that the void space between the primary waste tank and the secondary outer shell needs to be capable of containing one hundred percent (100%) of primary tanks contents? No, secondary containment requirements for double walled hazardous waste tanks do not include provisions for containment of one hundred percent (100%) of the waste in the system's interstitial void. For the majority of such tank systems, inherent design criteria would make it unnecessary for such a specification. If a portion of the primary tank were to fail, the release would result in the two (2) tank systems acting as one (1) unit, whereby the entire contents of the primary tank would be confined within the overall structure. The properties of fluid dynamics would prevent a release (as long as spill and overfill protection where adequate) due to equilibrium of the waste volume between the primary tank and secondary tank. Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-7924 Research: Andy CKHare 3. Post Closure Plans for Hazardous Waste Tanks According to Section 264.197(c) an owner or operator of a tank system that does not have secondary containment meeting the requirements of Section 264.193(b) through (f) and is not exempt from the secondary containment requirements in accordance with Section 264.193(g), must have a contingent closure and post-closure plan that meets all closure, post-closure and financial responsibility requirements under Subparts G and H of Part 264. If the facility's permit for an underground tank system specifically states that no post-closure care is required, must a contingent post-closure plan still be prepared and submitted as required by Section 264.197(c)? No, the facility's permit would shield the owner or operator from the requirement to prepare and submit a contingent post-closure plan. According to Section 270.4(a), compliance with a RCRA permit during its term generally constitutes compliance for purposes of enforcement with Subtitle C of RCRA. However, the facility would also be required to dean close. Alternatively, the Director (in either the Regional Office or the State, as appropriate) could modify the permit under Section 270.41 to require post- closure care and the submission of post-closure plans for cause, such as new informa- tion or new regulations. For instance, if the permit was issued before the hazardous waste tank regulations were revised to require post-closure plans (July 14,1986) and the ------- ------- tank system cannot be clean closed, the Director may modify the permit to require post- closure care as required by Section 264.197(b). Source: Chester Oszman (202) 382-4498 Research: Joe Nixon 4. Spent Solvent Listings The owner of a metal working facility uses a cutting oil to cool and lubricate metals during a drilling process. The cutting oil, before use, consists of eighty percent (80%) 1,1,1/trichloroethane and twenty percent (20%) lubricating oil. When spent, this fluid is sent for disposal. Would this material meet the F002 listing found in Section 261.31? Yes, Section 261.31 of 40 CFR describes the requirements for listing spent solvents. These requirements were codified in the December 31, 1985 Federal Register. The December 31,1985 FJR explains that: "the spent solvent listings cover only those solvents that are used for their solvent properties — that is, to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other constituents." For example, solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric scour- ing, as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media, and similar uses are covered under the listing (when spent). A solvent is considered "spent" when it has been used and is no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed" (50 FR 53316). The 1,1,1, trichloroethane in this circumstance, is being used as a diluent for mobilizing the constituents in the lubricating oil and is therefore covered by the F002 listing in 40 CFR Section 261.31. Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-8551 Research: Steve Campbell 5. Hazardous Waste I.D. Ground-water, contaminated by F001-F005 listed hazardous wastes, is removed from an aquifer during corrective action measures performed at an interim status hazardous waste disposal facility. After on-site steam stripping, the treated ground-water is transported, via trucks, to a local Publicly Owned Treatent Work (POTW) for discharge. Prior to steam stripping, would the contaminated ground-water be classified as F001- F005 listed hazardous wastes? If so, what treatment concentration levels must be achieved in order for the ground-water not to be classified as F001-F005 listed wastes; thereby eliminating the requirements of having a manifest accompany each ground- water shipment to the POTW? ------- The ground-water itself, is not listed F001-F005 hazardous waste, but is subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulations because it contains F001-F005 listed hazardous wastes. If the ground-water is treated such that it no longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground- water would no longer be under RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction (see EPA Memorandum from Marcia Williams of the Office of Solid Waste to Patrick Tobin of Region IV Waste Management Division, dated November 13,1986). If the F001-F005 wastes contained in the ground-water are delisted, the ground-water would no longer be subject to Subtitle C and may be transported without a manifest to the POTW. Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-9888 Research: Jamie Joyce Becky Cuthbertson 6. Dilution of Land Disposal Restricted Waste A generator of a spent solvent, which contained one hundred percent (100%) acetone before use, identified the waste as F003. She/he regenerates the spent solvent by distillation, and then treats the stillbottoms in an accumulation tank by mixing them with nonhazardous solid waste. The resulting mixture no longer exhibits the characteristic of ignitability. According to 40 CFR Section 261.3(a)(2)(iii), the material is no longer a hazardous waste. However, the enforcement agency considers the mixing with nonhaz- ardous waste to be dilution, which is prohibited by Section 268.3. Would the dilution prohibition prevent the generator from being able to mix the F003 waste with nonhaz- ardous solid waste? The preamble to the November 7,1986 Federal Register (51 FR.40592) specifies that the prohibition on dilution of wastes restricted from land disposal, found at Section 268.3, "does not affect provisions in other EPA regulations which may allow dilution for other purposes." Thus, if the generator's purpose in mixing the stillbottoms with nonhaz- ardous waste is to render the mixture nonhazardous she/he is not precluded from doing so by Section 268.3. However, if the generator's purpose in mixing the waste is to dilute the F003 waste as a substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with Part 268, Subpart D, the action is prohibited. Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-9888 Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805 Research: Becky Cuthbertson Deborah McKie ------- 7. Ground-Water Monitoring—Assessment Monitoring/Corrective Action at Closed Facilities An interim status landfill must comply with the requirements in Part 265, Subpart F, Ground-Water Monitoring, during the post-closure care period (see 40 CFR Section 265.90(b)). Section 265.93(d)(7)(i) states that the owner or operator conducting an assessment monitoring program must determine the nature and extent of contamination in the uppermost aquifer below the facility "on a quarterly basis until final closure of the facility (emphasis added).. .if such a program was implemented prior to final closure of the facility." Section 265.93(d)(7)(ii) states that the owner or operator may cease to make regular analyses of the ground-water quality if the assessment plan is implemented during the post-closure care period. An interim status landfill stopped receiving waste before July 26,1982, and certified closure closed prior to January 26,1983. The facility is now performing post-closure care activities. The facility recently "triggered into" an assessment monitoring mode. With what ground-water monitoring requirements must he comply? What authority may be used to institute corrective measures? After the owner/operator implements the specific assessment plan detailed in Section 265.93(d)(l)-(5) no further monitoring would be required. According to EPA, if the confirmed detection of hazardous constituents in the ground-water first occurs during the post-closure care period, "the sources of contamination are expected to be relatively stable [as no additional wastes are currently being placed in the unit] such that repeated assessments would only confirm the initial determination of contamination. For this reason only one ground-water quality assessment which demonstrates contamination is required during the post-closure care period" (see May 19,1980 Federal Register, 45 FR 33195). The post-closure monitoring requirements referred to in Section 265.90(c) would therefore include only any detection monitoring and this one-time assessment of the ground-water quality. A facility who stopped receiving waste on or before July 26,1982, and who closed on or before January 26,1983, would not be required to obtain a post-closure permit (see December 1,1987 Federal Register. 52 FR 45798). This being the case, EPA could not require additional ground-water monitoring under these regulations alone. EPA may compel the owner or operator of such a facility to perform ground-water (or other media) monitoring via a RCRA Section 3013 order. A Section 3013 order may be issued when the Administrator gains knowledge of the presence of a hazardous waste at a facility, or knowledge of the release of any waste from a facility. The corrective action authority applicable to interim status facilities (RCRA Section 3008(h)) may also be applied if any remedial activities are desired. This order may be issued when the Administrator has information that there has been a release of hazardous waste into the environment from an interim status facility. Source: Kirsten Engle (202) 382-7706 Vernon Myers (202) 382-4685 Research: Deborah McKie Andy C^Hare ------- 8. Ground-Water Monitoring—Compliance Period/Post-Closure Care Period The "compliance period" is defined in 40 CFR Section 264.96(a) as "the number of years equal to the active life of the waste management area (including any waste manage- ment activity prior to permitting, and the closure period)." The compliance period begins when a compliance monitoring program is initiated (40 CFR Section 264.96(b)). Section 270. l(c) states that the regulations in Part 264, Subpart F apply during the post- closure care period if the land disposal facility received wastes after July 26,1982, or certified closure after January 26,1983 (see December 1,1987 Federal Register, 52 FR 45798). The post-closure care period "must begin after completion of closure of the unit and continue for 30 years after that date" (emphasis added). (See 40 CFR Section 264.117(a).) If the compliance period ends before the post-closure care period ends, do the requirements to perform ground-water monitoring also cease at the facility? No. The July 26,1982 Federal Register, (47 FR 32287) discusses the concept behind the establishment of the compliance period. EPA views the active life of a land unit as the "time period during which the release of leachate to the [ground-water] is likely to be greatest." Therefore the timeframe for the ground-water compliance period must be at least equal to the active life of the facility to allow sufficient time to track the plume of contamination. Compliance Period/Post-Closure Care Period COMPLIANCE PERIOD ACTIVE LIFE CLOSURE POST-CLOSURE CARE BEGIN HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITIES COMPLIANCE PERIOD BEGIN COMPLIANCE MONITORING End Hazardous Waste Activities Begin Post-Closure Care Compliance Period; Begin Cycle Again END POST-CLOSURE CARE ------- The July 26,1982 Federal Register (47 FR 32294) also states that when the compliance period ends before the close of the post-closure care period, a detection monitoring program must be reinstated. Section 264.90(c)(2) infers that a detection monitoring program (Section 264.98) should be conducted during the post-closure care period when the facility is not implementing a compliance or corrective action program. Once the detection monitoring program is reinstated, the facility could conceivably proceed to a compliance or corrective action program. If a statistically significant increase over background values for the parameters and constituents of concern is identified, a compliance program or a corrective program must be initiated (see 40 CFR Section 264.98(h)). If, after the compliance period ends, there are still "hazard- ous constituents under Section 264.93.. .at the compliance point under Section 264.93, the owner or operator must institute a compliance monitoring program under Section 264.99" (Section264.91(a)(l)). Once the post-closure compliance monitoring program recommences, the compliance period "clock" would begin anew. (See 40 CFR Section 264.96(b).) Source: Kirsten Engle (202) 382-7706 Vernon Myers (202) 382-4685 Research: Deborah McKie Steve Campbell B. CERCLA 9. Off-Site Policy If a Superfund Record of Decision (ROD) requires CERCLA wastes to be incinerated at a facility which is in compliance with EPA's off-site policy, do the treatment residues from incineration also have to be managed in accordance with the off-site policy? No, once a CERCLA waste is treated using the best demonstrated available technol- ogy (BDAT) or in the absence of BDAT, treated to substantially reduce its mobility, toxicity or persistence, it is no longer considered a CERCLA waste for purposes of management under the off-site policy. However, if residues derived from the treatmentof the CERCLA waste are RCRA hazardous wastes they must be managed as such under RCRA. Source: Nancy Browne (202) 475-9326 Research: Joe Nixon ------- 10. Contractor Indemnification A contractor is considering engaging in various remedial clean-up activities for a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a site currently on CERCLIS but not, as of yet, an National Priorities List (NPL) site. The contractor is negotiating with the PRP to obtain the assignment, and is uncertain as to the third party liability coverage he/she must acquire to do the work. Could the contractor receive indemnification for this liability under the provisions of Section 119(c) of CERCLA? Would this contractor be eligible for the indemnification if he is providing remedial services for PRPs who are not subject to Section 104 or Section 106 CERCLA authority? Where PRPs are conducting clean-up (Sections 104 or 106) under consent decree or administrative order, contractors working for those PRPs are generally required to obtain third-party liability insurance. Since pollution liability is usually excluded from Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policies, contractors are sometimes required to obtain pollution liability insurance as well as CGL insurance. The specifics of the insurance requirements are included in the order or decree. Response Action Contrac- tors (RACs) (as defined in CERCLA Section 119(e)(2)(A)) under contract to PRPs, where the PRPs are conducting a clean-up under a consent decree or administrative order, may be eligible to receive EPA indemnification under CERCLA Section 119(c) in unusual circumstances. Before providing indemnification, EPA must determine that pollution liability insurance (which is priced "fairly and reasonably") is generally unavailable, that the RAC has demonstrated diligent efforts to obtain such insurance (and the RAC agrees to continue to make such diligent efforts), and that the PRP possesses insufficient financial resources to enable it to provide adequate indemnification to the RAC (note that the RACs willingness to provide indemnification is irrelevant). Finally, EPA will provide indemnification only if the PRP is unable to procure qualified contractors absent EPA indemnification. Section 119 indemnification can be applied to pollution liability only. Specifically, as elaborated in Section 119(c)(5)(A), the indemnification "...shall apply only to response action contractor liability which results from a release of any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant if such a release arises out of response activities." Other third party liability would have to be covered by the contractor through an independent insurance provider. RACs are not eligible for indemnification if the PRP conducting the clean-up is not doing so under a consent decree or administrative order. Source: Tom Gillis (202) 382-4524 Research: Andy O'Hare 8 ------- 11. Section 103(c) Notification for Conditionally Exempt Generators A conditionally exempt small quantity generator treats and disposes of his waste on-site and in accordance with Section 261.5(g). Is this disposal subject to CERCLA Section 103(c) notification? Does a de minimis level exist for the purposes of Section 103(c) notification? Under CERCLA Section 103(c), "any person who owns or operates or who at the time of disposal owned or operated, or who accepted hazardous substances for transport and selected a facility at which hazardous substances (as defined in Section 101(14)(c) of this title) are or have been stored, treated, or disposes of ...unless such a facility has a permit issued, or has been accorded interim status under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act" was required to notify the EPA of the existence of such facilities by June 9,1981. Persons who knew of such facilities and failed to report them to the Agency by that date have a continuing obligation to notify the Agency of the facilities. Whether a conditionally exempt small quantity generator's waste disposal is subject to CERCLA Section 103(c) notification requirements depends upon whether the generator has a permit issued, or has been accorded interim status under Subtitle C of RCRA. 40 CFR Section 261.5(g)(3) requires that if a conditionally exempt small quantity generator disposes the wastes on-site, the generator must have one of the following: a Subtitle C permit, interim status, a State license or permit (Section 261.5(g)(3)(iii)-(iv), or that he/ she be reusing or recycling the waste (Section 261.5(g)(3)(v)). Thus if the generator has a Subtitle C permit or has been accorded interim status, he/she is not subject to Section 103(c) notification. However, if the generator is disposing the waste on-site under a State permit or license or reuses or recycles the material, he/she is subject to CERCLA Section 103(c) notification requirements. In an April 15,1981 Federal Register notice (46 FR 22148) the Agency provides three (3) exceptions to the Section 103(c) notification requirements. These exceptions include: (1) facilities where disposal of less than 55 gallons of hazardous waste has taken place; (2) areas where incidental leakage or spillage has occurred; and (3) inactive treatment or storage facilities at which no hazardous wastes are present. Thus a conditionally exempt small quantity generator otherwise subject to Section 103(c) notification requirements who disposes of less than 55 gallons is exempt from Section 103(c) notification. However, if a quantity of 55 gallons or greater is disposed of at a facility at any time (note: accumulation time would not affect the set 55 gallon limit), then the facility would be subject to criminal penalties for failure to notify. EPA still encourages facilities that dispose of hazardous waste below 55 gallons to notify the Agency of their existence as their site may present a hazard to human health and the environment (see 46 FR 22149). Source: Kirsten Engle (202) 382-7706 Research: Susan Brugler ------- C. CEPP 12. Applicability of the Exemption for Agricultural Use for Sections 311/312 An animal refuge sprays herbicides and pesticides on its grounds to better the qual- ity of the area for the animal inhabitants. Is the spraying of these pesticides exempt from the requirements of Sections 311 and 312 of Title III under the exception to the definition of "hazardous chemical" for "any substance to the extent it is used in routine agricultural operations?" The exemption for routine agricultural use under Sections 311 and 312 is designed to eliminate the reporting of many of the chemicals routinely used by farmers. The animal refuge is not spraying the chemicals for the production of food crops and the refuge is not in the food crop production business. Therefore, the refuge's spraying of herbicides and pesticides would not be considered routine agricultural operations and thus, not exempt from Sections 311 and 312 reporting. Source: Kirsten Engel (202) 382-7706 Research: John Ferris 13. Filing Form R for Metals/Metal Compounds A facility has determined that it needs to report under Section 313 of SARA for both elemental leads as well as lead compounds. Can this facility file one EPA Form R that takes into account both the releases of lead and lead compounds or are they required to report separately? According to EPA, if a subject facility exceeds thresholds for both the parent metal and compounds of that same metal, it is allowed to file one joint report (e.g., one report for lead compounds and elemental lead). EPA allows this because the release information reported in connection with metal compounds will be the total pounds of the parent metal released. Source: SamSassnet (202)382-3821 Research: John Ferris 10 ------- II. ACTIVITIES - APRIL 1988 1. The RCRA/Superfund Hotline and Emergency Planning and Communityr Right-to- Know Hotline responded to 20,384 questions and requests for documents in April. The breakdown is as follows: RCRA Superfund UST CEPP Information Calls 7,677 1,487 937 2,231 = 12,332 Call Document Requests 802 214 369 1,913 = 3,298 WrittenDocument Requests 188 2,781 = 2,969 Referrals 1568 217 = 1,785 Totals 10,235 1,701 1,306 7,142 = 20,384 A. RCRA/Superfund Hotline Activities 2. On April 4, the RCRA/Superfund Hotline reviewed the "In Your Own Backyard" UST videotapes. 3. On April 12, Denise Sines, Project Director, met with Hubert Watters, Deputy Project Officer, regarding Hotline issues. 4. On April 13, Randall Eicher, Hotline Senior Information Specialist, attended the ERD Enforcement of Notification Requirements Briefing. 5. On April 13, Miles Morse and Elaine Eby of OSW briefed the Hotline on Waste Mini- mization. 6. On April 14, Myles Morse, Elaine Eby and Jackie Krieger of OSW briefed the Hotline on Waste Minimization. 7. On April 14, Denise Sines, Project Director, met with Lauris Davies of the Municipal Solid Waste Task Force to discuss Subtitle D tasks. 8. On April 19, Laurie Huber of the RCRA Superfund Hotline attended the OUST Staff meeting. 9. On April 19, Denise Sines, Project Director briefed the RCRA/Superfund Hotline on Subtitle D issues. 10. On April 20, Randall Eicher briefed the RCRA/Superfund Hotline and the Title IH Hotline on the Enforcement of Superfund Notification Requirements. 11 ------- 11. On April 21, Doreen Sterling of OSW briefed the RCRA / Superfund Hotline on Solid Waste Characterization on Dioxin Listings (F027). 12. On April 22, Joe Nixon of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline attended the ERD, Title III Workshop. 13. On April 25, John Bayliss of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline attended the ERD Notifica- tion Scenarios Compliance Flowchart Workshop. 14. On April 27, Joe Nixon, Hotline Senior Information Specialist briefed the RCRA/ Superfund Hotline and the Title III Hotline on Title III issues. B. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Information Hotline Activities 16. On April 5, Minda Sarmiento of the Title III Hotline Staff attended the Title m Workgroup meeting on the status of Title HI activities. 17. On April 5 and 17, Title HI Hotline Staff attended the Preparedness Staff meeting. 18. On April 6,13, and 27, Title HI Hotline Staff attended the Title III Outreach Committee meetings on the status of Title III Communications Strategy. 19. On April 11, Denise Sines and Robert Costa of the Title III Hotline met with Ann Giesecke on the development of the Section 313 Evaluation Project. 20. On April 11, Robert Costa of the Title III Hotline attended the FEMA/EPA Regional Coordinators conference call on the status of Title III activities. 21. On April 12, John Ferris of the Title III Hotline attended the Title IH Workgroup meet- ing on the status of Title in activities. 22. On April 14, Denise Sines and Robert Costa of the Title III Hotline met with Lawrence Pratt of the Office of Toxic Substances regarding the Title III Hotline status. 23. On April 14 and 21, Denise Sines of the Title III Hotline attended the Title III Outreach Regional conference call on status of communication activities. 24. On April 19, Denise Sines of the Title in Hotline met with Martha Colvin of the Pre- paredness Staff on the status of Hotline activities. 25. On April 20, Brian Littleton of the Title III Hotline attended a briefing on OTS's Chemical Reference Desk. 12 ------- 26. On April 20, Denise Sines and Kim Jennings of the Title III Hotline attended a meeting with intergovernment associations on the status of Title HI outreach efforts. 27. On April 22, Joe Nixon of the Title III Hotline attended an EPA workshop on CERCLA Section 103/SARA Section 304. 28. On April 25, Minda Sarmiento of the Title HI Hotline attended the FEMA/EPA Re- gional Title in Coordinators conference call on the status of Title in activities. 29. On April 26, Elaine Davies of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program briefed the Title III Hotline on the status and development of the Section 305 Report on Emer- gency Systems. 30. On April 26, Kim Jennings of the Title IE Hotline attended the Title III Workgroup meeting on the status of Title III activities. 31. On April 28, Jim Buchert of the Title HI Hotline attended a viewing of the new Section 313 videotape. 32. On April 28, Minda Sarmiento of the Title HI Hotline attended the Federal Facilities Workgroup meeting on Title HI. 13 ------- III. ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS • April 1988 Grand Total = 13,242 RCRA/Superfund Hotline Summary of Calls by EPA Region Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Calls Manufacturers Generators Transporters TSDFs EPAHQ EPA Regions Federal Agencies State Agencies Local Agencies Used Oil Handlers USTO/O General Information §3010 Notification 15260.10 Definitions §260.22 Petitions/Delisting §261.2 Solid Waste Definition §261.3 Hazardous Waste Definition §261 C Characteristic Haz. Waste §261 D Listed Haz. Waste §261.4 Exclusions §261.5 Small Quantity Generators §261.6 Recycling Standards §261.7 Container Residues §262 Generator-General §262 100-1000 kg/mo §262 Manifest Information §262 Accumulation §262 Recordkeeping & Reporting §262 International Shipments §263 Transporters 6% 10% 24% 12% 18% 9% 6% 16% 2% 7% 1% 3% 3% 5% 1% 1% 5% 626 132 104 67 241 406 649 640 197 196 106 50 223 100 105 173 106 24 61 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 International Calls Consultants Attorneys Laboratories Univ ./Researchers Trade Associatons Insurance Co.'s Environmental Groups Press Citizens Other §266 C Use Constituting 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 Subtitle D Used Oil - General Household Haz. Waste Dioxins Mixed Radioactive Waste Asbestos/PCBs/Radon Infectious Waste Liability/Enforcement Corrective Action Waste Minimization Minimum Technology 3% 4% 11% 3% 0% 30% 8% 2% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 2% 8 79 1 12 20 28 143 127 36 22 35 146 55 88 100 80 13 14 ------- RCRA §264/§265 TSDF A Scope/Applicability B General Facility Standards C Preparedness/Prevention D Contingency Plans E Manifest/Recordkeeping/Reportinc F Ground-Water Monitoring G Closure/Post Closure H Financial Requirements 1 Containers J Tanks K Surface Impoundments L Waste Piles M Land Treatment N Landfills Liquids in Landfills 0 Incinerators P Thermal Treatment CERCLA General SARA General Acces and Information Gathering Allocations from Fund/Fund Balance/Grants CERCLIS/S103 Notification Citizen Suits Clean-Up Stds./ARARs/ How Clean Is Clean Contractor Indemnification Contracts/Contract Lab Program Exposure Assess^Public Health Evaluation Definitions Enforcement Federal Facilities Haz. Substances/RQs HRS Liability/PRPs Mandatory Schedules Natural Resource Damages 128 49 1 7 26 25 103 166 57 65 161 70 9 16 63 48 45 7 152 37 3 48 1 12 4 61 4 22 24 23 29 26 241 30 100 1 4 Q Chem., Phys., Biol Treatment R Underground Injection X Miscellaneous §268 General §268 Solvent & Dioxins §268 California List Wastes §268 Scheduled Thirds §269 Air Emission Stds. §270 A General §270 B Permit Application §270 D Changes to Permits §270 F Special Permits §270 G Interim Status/LOIS §271 State Programs §124 Administrative Procedures DOT Requirements OSHA Requirements/HW Training Test Methods/HW Technologies RCRA Document Requests SUBTOTAL NBARs NCR NPL Off-Site Policy On-Site Policy PA/SI Public Participation Radon RD/RA Remedial Removal RI/FS RODs/Clean-Up Costs Settlements SITE Program State Participation Taxes Title lll/Right-to-Know Other Provisions CERCLA Document Requests CERCLA Subtotal 2 4 39 209 149 141 1 94 1 3 102 54 26 1 7 64 121 3 33 44 109 802 8,479 4 38 179 1 4 7 24 1 1 3 2 33 9 45 49 30 1 6 2 1 2 75 1 3 214 1 ,701 15 ------- Underground Storage Tanks General §280.10 Applicability §280.11 Interm Prohibition §280.12 Definitions - General UST Regulated Substance §280 B New UST Systems - General §280.20 Performance Stds. §280.21 Upgrading §280.22 Notification §280 C General Operating Req. 344 75 54 39 23 27 14 1 2 1 2 27 10 §280 D Release Detection and Investigation §280 E Release Reporting §280 F Corrective Action Petroleum 62 13 22 §280 G Corrective Action Hazardous Substances §280 H Out-of-Service/Closure §280 I Financial Responsibility §281 State UST Programs Liability Enforcement LUST Trust Fund Other Provisions UST Document Requests UST Subtotal 10 72 80 15 9 4 8 5 369 1,306 TOTAL CALLS, DOCUMENT REQUESTS and REFERRALS 13,242 Referrals Referrals - EPA HQ 148 Other Hotlines Regions State GPO/NTIS/PIC/ORD/Dockets Other Subtotal 319 139 217 592 153 1 ,568 Written Request Responses Referred to EPA Program Offices Referred to other Federal Agencies 48 7 Referred externally (state, organizations, etc.) Response Form Sent Response Form Sent/FOIA Form Letter Sent/Need More Info. Requests Filled - RCRA - CERCLA -UST Subtotal 29 0 0 0 104 0 0 1 88 16 ------- Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline Daily/Monthly Summary Report - April 1988 Totals Total Calls—4,361 Total Call Document Requests—1,913 Total Written Requests—2,781 Distribution of Calls by EPA Regions Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 International 7% 17% 14% 12% 21% 0.07% Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Unknown 7% 5% 5% 7% 2% 0.69% Manufacturers 20 Food 21 Tobacco 22 Textiles 23 Apparel 24 Lumber & Wood 25 Furniture 26 Paper 27 Printing & Publishing 28 Chemicals 29 Petroleum & Coal 30 Rubber and Plastics 31 Leather 32 Stone, Clav & Glass 33 Primary Metals 34 Fabricated Metals 35 Machinery (Excluding Electrical 36 Electrical & Electronic Equipmer 37 Transportation Equipment 38 Instruments 39 Misc. Manufacturing Not Able to Determine Distributors Title III General §301-3 Emergency Planning SERCs Notification TPQs Mixtures Extremely Hazardous Substances 3% 0.11% 0.87% 0.39% 1% 0.71% 3% 3% 15% 2% 3% 0.18% 2% 2% 9% 2% 3% 1% 0.48% 2% 3% 2% 249 163 1 12 62 54 15 177 Handlers Attorneys Consultants/Engineers Laboratories Trade Associations Public Interest Groups Universities/ Academia Insurance Companies Hospitals State Agencies/SERC Fire Departments EPA Local Officials LEPC Farmers Federal Agencies Media/Press Union/Labor Citizens Indians Other Total Delistinq EHS Exemptions Training: General §305 Training Grants §305 Emergency Systems Review §126 (SARA) Training Regulations 6% 3% 13% 1% 1% 0.69% 1% 0.27% 0.71% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 0.18% 0.69% 0.50% 0.02% 1% 0 1% 97% 70 3 4 2 7 6 17 ------- §31 1/S312 General 386 MSDS Reporting Requirements 1 68 Tier I/I I Peculations 279 Thresholds 241 §313 General 1,654 Form R 391 Thresholds 465 Phase II 1 Phase III 1 Workshop (Traininq) 4 Petitions 59 Health Effects 7 Database 2 0 Mass Balance Study 1 3 Referrals OSH4 51 Preparedness Staff 0 OTS Staff 0 RCRA/Superfund Hotline 60 Reqional EPA 1 5 TSCA Hotline 5 Other 8 6 Total Referrals 2 1 7 Document Requests: 1,913 No. of Documents Requested: 3,895 OSHA Expansion 1 8 0 Hazard Categories 3 7 Mixtures 29 Exemptions 8 2 CEPP: Interim Guide 5 Chemical Profile 6 NRT-1 76 Hazard Analysis 8 0 Risk Communication 0 Title III Workshops 0 Information Management 5 Prevention ARIP 0 Other 4 6 Trade Secrets 2 2 Enforcement 9 Liability 2 Release Notification General 6 7 Notification Requirements 43 Reportable Quantities 34 RQsvs.TPQs 7 CERCLA vs. S304 4 0 Transportation 1 1 Exemptions 1 3 18 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 IV. PUBLICATIONS — April 1988 RCRA "Guidelines for Exposure Assessment/' is available from Center for Environmental Research Information 513/569-7562. The publication number is EPA/600/8-87/045. "DRASTIC Model — Evaluating Groundwater Contamination, " is available through ORD 513/569-7562. The publication number is EPA/600-2-87-035. "Corrective Measures for Releases to Ground-Water from Solid Waste Management Units" is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The publication number is PB88-185251. "Technical Guidance for Corrective Measures—Determining by Appropriate Technology and Response for Air Releases" is available from NTIS. The publication number is PB88-185269. "Corrective Measures for Releases to Soil from Solid Waste Management Units" is available from NTIS. The publication number is PB88-185277. "Technical Guidance for Corrective Measures—Subsurface Gas" is available from NTIS. The publication number is PB88-185285. The "EPA Manual for Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessments" is available by calling Georgia Dunaway 513/569-7650. The EPA publication number is EPA/600/2-88/0. "Background Document for Solvents to Support 40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions (Final Rule)" is available from NTIS. The publication number is PB87- 156683. The "FY'89 RCRA Implementation Plan" (OSWER Directive 9420.00-5) is available by writing OSW. The "Guidance Manual: Equivalency Petitions" is available through NTIS. The publication number is PB87-178349. 19 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 "Compilation of Persons Who Design, Test, Inspect, and Install Storage Tank Systems" is available from NTIS. The order number is PB88-197611. "Subchronic Toxicity of Para-Cresol in Sprague Dawley Rats" is available from NTIS. The order number is PB88-195292. "Subchronic Toxicity of Meta-Cresol in Sprague Dawley Rats" is available from NTIS. The order number is PB88-195284. 'Termitting Hazardous Waste Incinerators" is available by calling the RCRA/Superfund Hotline. The EPA publication number is EPA/530-SW-88-024. "Hazardous Waste Incineration: Questions and Answers" is available by calling the RCRA/Superfund Hotline. The publication number is EPA/530-SW-88-018. CERCLA "Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods" is available from the Public Information Center (PIC) at 800/828-4445. The "National Dioxin Study" is available from NTIS. The order number is PB88- 192687. The correct publication number for the "Superfund Hazardous Waste Bibliography" is EPA/540-1-87-001. 20 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 V. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES — April 1988 Former Notices with Open Comment Period February 9,1988; 53 FR 3818 (proposal of financial assurance requirements for hazardous substance tanks) February 23,1988; 53 FR 5298 (request for public comment) March 14,1988; 53 FR 8223 (notice of intent to delete NPL sites) March 14,1988; 53 FR 8279 (request for public comment) March 22,1988; 53 FR 9358 (notice of availability) In the ANPRM comments and informa- tion are sought regarding approaches to financial assurance requirements for haz- ardous substance underground tanks. The comment period remained open until April 11,1988. The notice solicits comments on the "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters, Negotiations, and Information Exchange." Comments must have been submitted to the Agency on or before April 25,1988. The notice requests public comment on EPA's intent to delete the Varsol spill site, Miami, Florida and the Tri-City Oil Conservationist site, Temple Terrace, Florida from the National Priorities List (NPL). Comments were accepted until April 13, 1988. The notice requests public comment on published guidance which evaluates mixed funding settlements under CERCLA. Comments were accepted until May 13, 1988. The notice announces the availability of applications for grant monies to develop innovative in situ treatment methods at Superfund sites. Applications must be received by May 1,1988. 21 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 March 22,1988; 53 FR 9358 (solicitation for applications) March 24,1988; 53 FR 9700 (proposed administrative settlement) March 24,1988; 53 FR 9736 (interim final rule with request for comments) March 25,1988; 53 FR 9807 (notice of proposed adminis- trative settlement and opportunity for public comment) March 31,1988; 53 FR 10401 (supplement to proposed rule) March 31,1988; 53 FR 10403 (notice of availability of infor- mation) The notice solicits applications by universities to establish five (5) hazardous substance research facilities. Applications must be received by June 27,1988. The notice proposes a settlement under §122(h) of CERCLA with two parties at the Pollution Abatement Services site in Oswego, New York. Comments were received on the proposal until April 25, 1988. The interim final rule codifies the provisions of §117(e) of CERCLA. It establishes a formal procedure for communities near NPL sites to obtain Technical Assistance Grants (TAGS) for $50,000. Comments on the rule must be received on or before June 22,1988. The notice announces a proposed settlement pursuant to CERCLA §122 with three (3) PRPs at a PCB contaminated site in Escondido, California. Comments on the proposed settlement were received until April 25,1988. The notice requests comments on a phase-in of a compliance date associated with financial responsibilities for underground storage tanks. Comments will be accepted until May 2,1988. The notice requests comments on new infor- mation made available by this notice. Comments will be accepted until May 2,1988. 22 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 April Federal Register Notices April 1,1988; 53 FR 10560 (proposed settlement) April 1,1988; 53 FR 10569 (request for comment) April 5,1988; 53 FR 11117 (EPA list) April 8,1988; 53 FR 11742 (proposed rule) April 11,1988; 53 FR 11889 (extension of comment period) April 13,1988; 53 FR 12162 (availability of data, request for comment) April 13,1988; 53 FR 12201 (lodging of consent decree under CERCLA) Notice of proposed settlement at the Woodward Property Site, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. EPA will consider public comment for thirty (30) days after which the settlement may be modified or withdrawn. Comments will be accepted until May 2, 1988. SARA §104(i)(5)(A) authorizes the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to develop toxicological data for relevant chemicals. This notice requests comment by June 30,1988 on eight (8) chemicals nominated for study. The notice provides a master list of debarred, suspended or voluntarily excluded persons. Proposed rule to prohibit the land disposal of 1st Third (Sixth) of Scheduled wastes listed in 40 CFR §268.10. Comments will be received on this rule on or before May 23, 1988. Notice of proposed rulemaking for RQ adjustments for five (5) substances published March 2, 1988. Extension of comment period to April 15,1988. The notice requests comments on additional data regarding the scope of the K048 and K050 listings. Comments will be accepted until May 31,1988. The proposed consent decree provides for recovery of costs under §104 of CERCLA for various locations in Cook and Lee Counties, Illinois. 23 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 April 13,1988; 53 FR 12201 (lodging of consent decree under CERCLA and RCRA) April 13,1988; 53 FR 12201 (lodging of consent decree under CERCLA) April 13,1988; 53 FR 12256 (final rule) The proposed consent decree is lodged pursuant to both CERCLA§122(d)(2) and §7003(d) of RCRA against Carolawn Co., Inc., et. al. The proposed consent decree addresses groundwater contamination and threatened surface water contamination in York, Virginia, requiring Virginia Power Co. to remedy existing conditions and prevent further contamination. The rule provides procedures to govern the conduct of administrative hearings pursuant to §3008(b) of RCRA. April 15,1988; 53 FR 12613 (lodging of consent decree) April 18,1988; 53 FR 12680 (final rule) April 19,1988; 53 FR 12868 (proposed rule) April 22,1988; 53 FR 13316 (notice of formation of task force) The proposed consent decree provides for Allied Corporation and others to complete remedial work and reimburse the U.S. and Louisiana for past costs at the Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana landfill. The final rule announces the deletion of three (3) sites from the NPL, effective April 18,1988. The proposed rule provides guidelines for reporting the continuous release of hazardous substances. Comments on the proposal must be submitted on or before June 20,1988. The notice announces the formation of a Municipal Solid Waste Task Force as well as associated public meetings. 24 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 April 22,1988; 53 FR 13382 (technical corrections) April 25,1988; 53 FR 14334 (regulatory agenda) April 26,1988; 53 FR 14839 (cancellation of hearing) April 26,1988; 53 FR 14862 (lodging of consent decree) April 26,1988; 53 FR 14862 (lodging of consent decree) April 26,1988; 53 FR 14892 (proposed rule) April 27,1988; 53 FR 15033 (final rule) The notice corrects the final rule from August 6, 1986 which added CAS numbers to the P and U listed chemicals. The notice also provides for the addition of CAS numbers to associated Appendix VIII constituents. The corrections are effective April 22,1988. The notice provides the semi-annual regulatory agenda. The notice cancels the Cincinnati public hearing on the Report to Congress regarding wastes from coal combustion of Electric Utility Power Plants. The consent decree and complaint filed by the U.S. compels ARCO to conduct a permanent relocation and site stabilization of the community of Mill Creek, Montana. The consent decree provides for Hermes Consolidated, Inc. to pay $25,000 and engage in corrective action activities to address releases of hazardous waste due to their failure to comply with RCRA. The proposal sets forth rules for imple- menting the land disposal restrictions as they pertain to underground injection wells. Comments will be accepted until May 26, 1988. The rule provides technical amendments to the Hazard Communication Standard, this is an OSHA rule but is used in the SARA Title III regulations. 25 ------- RCRA/Superfund Hotline National Toll Free Telephone 800 424-9346 • Washington, D.C. Metro Telephone 202 382-3112 April 27,1988; 53 FR 15129 (proposed settlement) April 27,1988; 53 FR 15129 (proposed settlement) April 27,1988; 53 FR 15170 (final rule) April 27,1988; 53 FR 15182 (final rule) April 28,1988; 53 FR 15299 (lodging of consent decree under CERCLA) April 29,1988; 53 FR 15417 (proposed rule) April 29,1988; 53 FR 15422 (proposed rule) The notice proposes an administrative settlement under CERCLA regarding liabilities of forty-eight (48) parties at the Bourdeauhui and Kapinos sites. Comments will be accepted until May 27,1988. The notice proposes an administrative settlement under CERCLA regarding liabilities of ten (10) parties at the Bourdeauhui and Kapinos sites. Comments will be accepted until May 27,1988. The rule corrects the March 11, 1988 exclusion for certain wastes generated by the EPA mobile incinerator in Maryland. The rule implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986; it sets out administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against any person who makes a false claim or statement to EPA. The proposed consent decree provides that the settling defendants CSX Transportation Inc., Bulk Distribution Centers, Inc., and fifty-six (56) other genera tor/transporter defendants reimburse the U.S. one hundred percent (100%) of costs incurred to date. The proposal seeks to grant a petition for delistings submitted under 40 CFR §260.20 by VAW of America Inc., of St. Augustine, Florida. Comments will be accepted until June 13,1988. The proposal seeks to grant a petition for delisting submitted under 40 CFR §260.20 by Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation of Roanoke, Virginia. Comments will be accepted until June 13,1988. 26 ------- List of Addressees: Devereaux Barnes, WH-562B Jim Berlow, WH-565 Frank Biros, WH-527 George Bonina, WH-565 Susan Bromm, WH-563 John Bosky, EPA- Kansas City Diane Buxbaum, Region 2 Fred Chanania, LE-132S Richard Clarizio, Region 5 Kathy Collier, RTF, NC Peter Cook, WH-527 Elizabeth Cotsworth, WH-563 Wayne Crane, PM-273F Hans Crump, WH-548B Gordon Davidson, WH-527 Elaine Davies, WH-562 Truett DeGeare, WH-562 Bob Dellinger, WH-562B Jeffery Denit, WH-562 Bruce Diamond, WH-527 Melinda Downing, DOE Karen Ellenberger, WH-562A Tim Fields, WH-548B Lisa Friedman, LE-132S George Garland, WH-563 John Gilbert, EPA-Cin., OH Lloyd Guerci, WH-527 Matt Hale, WH-563 Lynn Hansen, WH-562 Penny Hansen, WH-548A Bill Hanson, WH-548E Betti Harris, Region 7 Cheryl Hawkins, WH-548 Steve Hooper, WH-527 Irene Horner, WH-595 Barbara Hostage, WH-548B Hotline Staff Phil Jalbert, WH-548D Alvin K. Joe, Jr., GRC Gary Jonesi, WH-562 Jim Jowett, WH-548B Thad Juszczak, WH-562A Karen Brown, PM-220 Robert Knox, WH-562A Jack Kooyomjian, WH-548B Mike Kosakowski, WH-527 Walter Kovalick, WH-548 Tapio Kuusinen, PM-223 Steve Leifer, LE-134S Steve Levy, WH-562 Henry Longest, WH-548 Sylvia Lowrence, WH-562 James Makris, WH-562A Joseph Martone, A-104 Jack McGraw, WH-562A Scott McPhilamy, Region 3 Royal Nadeau, Region 2 Margo Oge, TS-779 Mike Petruska, WH-562B Lawrence Pratt, TS-779 Carl Reeverts, WH-550E John Riley, WH-548B Mike Riley, PM-214F Suzanne Rudzinski, WH-563 Dale Ruhter, WH-565 William Sanjour, WH-562B Pam Sbar, LE-134S Mike Shannon, WH-565 Ken Shuster, WH-563 Elaine Stanley, WH-527 Jack Stanton, A-101 Anastasia Watson, WH-562A Bruce Weddle, WH-563 Steve Willhelm, Region 7 Dan Yurman, WH-562A 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 27 ------- |