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
------- |