UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
^ ^ll7/- * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
530R88105
JUL IS
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Monthly Report - RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance
Hotline and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
Know Hotline Report for May 1988
FROM: Thea McManus, Project Officer y(V&x/- o
f-~rf. .. „ , . i T» r . ^ I I ^^l A \
Office of Solid Waste \ VA v
Hubert Walters, Deputy Project Officer -^n ^ •'"l
V
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response ENVIRONMENT ^,., i K,N
LIIRARY, RLUiUN v
TO: See List of Addressees
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES - MAY 1988
A. RCRA Program
1. Hazardous Waste Identification - Kill Listing
During the production of TNT (trinitrotoulene), DNT (dinitrotoulene) is
generated as an intermediate chemical via nitration of toulene. Does the Kill
listing (i.e., product washwater from the production of dinitrotoulene via the
nitration of toulene) cover the product washwaters generated from this
intermediate step or does the listing only cover those product washwaters
generated from final product DNT?
Product washwaters produced from the intermediate DNT chemical are
included in the Kill listing. The October 23, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR
42937) states that the Kill listing includes "any wastes which meet the waste
description and are generated by the processes described in the background
document, regardless of the end product or industry in which it takes place."
In fact, 50 FR 42937 specifically states "product washwaters from the
production of DNT by nitration of toluene, as an intermediate to TNT
production, also are covered by this listing."
Source: Bob Scarberry (202) 382-4769
Research: Sue Brugler
-------
2. Underground Storage Tank Liability
In 1985, Company A sold a service station, located on the grounds of a shopping
mall, to Company B. Included in this transaction were three (3) 10,000 gallon
underground gasoline tanks. As part of the sales agreement, Company A
performed tank tightness tests which revealed leakage in all three tanks, thereby
requiring Company A to repair the tanks prior to sale.
Recently the owners of the shopping mall filed court action against Company B,
claiming that gasoline tanks from Company B's shopping mall service station
have resulted in extensive contamination of the shopping mall's source aquifer.
If Company B can demonstrate, via quarterly tank tightness records, that the
company's tanks have not leaked since their purchase from Company A, can
company A be held liable for the aquifer's contamination?
Section 9001 (3) (A) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as
amended defines the term "owner" as meaning "in the case of an
underground storage tank in use on the date of enactment of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 [November 8, 1984], or brought into
use after that date, any person who owns an underground storage tank used
for the storage, use, or dispensing of regulated substances...." Therefore,
Company B would be defined as the current "owner" of the three
underground storage tanks and thus may be liable to EPA for any necessary
response costs. However, Company A may also be held liable, per Section
9003(h)(6)(a) of RCRA, for costs incurred for the undertaking of corrective or
enforcement action with respect to the release of petroleum from
underground storage tanks because Company A was the "owner" at the time
of the release. Liability to private parties, such as the shopping mall is not
addressed by RCRA.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706
Research: Jamie Joyce
3. Land Disposal Restrictions - Manifest Requirements
The EPA regulations that prohibit land disposal of spent solvent hazardous
waste, specified in 40 CFR Section 261.31 (F001-F005), became effective on
November 8, 1986. These restricted wastes must meet applicable treatment
standards in 40 CFR Section 268.41 prior to land disposal. A two-year nationwide
variance from the effective date of the prohibition was provided to small
quantity generators of 100-1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, as per
40 CFR Section 268.30(a)(l).
These small quantity generators are still required, however, to determine if their
spent solvent hazardous wastes are restricted using waste analysis test methods
described in 40 CFR Section 268.7(a). If the wastes are restricted, a notice stating
-------
3. Land Disposal Restrictions - Manifest Requirements (Cont'd)
that the waste is exempt from the land disposal restrictions must be sent with the
shipment of waste to the receiving land disposal facility as per 40 CFR Section
268.7(a)(3).
At the end of the two-year nationwide variance period, (November 8, 1988) the
small quantity generator's restricted spent solvent wastes will be required to
meet the appropriate treatment standards prior to land disposal. As well, when
the restricted waste is now sent to a treatment facility prior to land disposal, the
applicable notification requirements are detailed in 40 CFR Section 268.7(a)(l)
(i-iv).
As required by 40 CFR Section 268.7(a)(l)(iii) the notice must include the
manifest number associated with the shipment of the waste. Under certain
conditions; (in example, 40 CFR Section 262.20(e» small quantity generators of
100-1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste are not subject to the manifest
requirements in 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart B. Specifically when the generator's
wastes are being reclaimed under a contractual agreement with a recycling
facility. When these conditions apply and the waste shipment is a restricted
waste being sent to a treatment facility, will a manifest be required to comply
with 40 CFR Section 268.7?
When a manifest is not required to be sent with a shipment of hazardous
waste (e.g., 100-1,000 small quantity generators having their wastes reclaimed
under contractual agreement with a recycling facility as per Section 262.20(e)),
a manifest number will not be associated with those shipments of hazardous
waste. Therefore, the manifest number information that is required in the
notification requirements in 40 CFR Section 268.7(a)(l)(iii), is not applicable to
shipments of restricted hazardous waste that do not require a manifest.
Shipments of hazardous waste previously not required to have a manifest
will not become subject to manifesting solely due to information required by
the land disposal restriction regulations.
Source: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805
Research: George Kleevic
4. Land Disposal Restrictions - Disposal of Wastes Granted a Variance
On November 8, 1986, all spent solvent wastes (F001-F005) were prohibited from
land disposal unless those wastes met treatment standards set forth in Section
268.41. However, based on a shortage of incineration capacity, EPA granted a
two-year variance for spent solvent wastes that meet the criteria set forth in
Section 268.30(a)(l-3).
-------
4. Land Disposal Restrictions - Disposal of Wastes Granted a Variance (Cont'd)
According to Section 268.30(b), these wastes granted a variance may be land
disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment only if the facility is in
compliance with Section 268.5(h)(2) (minimum technological requirements).
Does this preclude land disposal of these wastes in other types of land disposal
units, such as a land treatment facility?
No, land disposal of these wastes in other types of land disposal units is not
precluded.
RCRA Section 3004(h) is the statutory authority that EPA uses to implement
Section 268.30(b). It applies only to land disposal in landfills and
impoundments, not to any other type of land disposal. The language in
RCRA Section 3004(h) is similar to that in Section 268.30(b) and states,
"Whenever another effective date (herein after referred to as a "variance") is
established..., with respect to any hazardous waste during the period for
which such variance or extension is in effect such hazardous waste may be
disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment only if such a facility is in
compliance with the requirements of subsection (o)."
Section 3004(k) defines the term "land disposal" to include land treatment
facilities. Neither the RCRA statute nor the land disposal prohibition
regulations specifically prohibit the placement of these wastes in other types
of land disposal units such as land treatment facilities with the exception of
RCRA Section 3004(b). This section prohibits the placement of
noncontainerized or bulk liquids in any salt dome formation, salt bed
formation, underground mine or cave. Furthermore, RCRA Section 3004(h)
which requires all new, replacement or lateral expansion landfill or surface
impoundment units to have minimum technological standards in place,
does not require the minimum technology standards for other types of land
disposal units. Thus, wastes granted a variance under Section 268.30(a) may
be disposed in a land treatment facility that is not in compliance with the
minimum technology standards.
Source: Mitch Kidwell (202) 382-4805
Research: Susan Brugler
5. Retrofitting Interim Status Surface Impoundments
Section 3005(j) requires surface impoundments that were in existence on
November 8, 1984 and eligible for the authorization to operate under interim
status to meet the minimum technological requirements of Section 3004(o)(l)(A)
by November 8, 1988. The minimum technological requirements consist of the
installation of double liners and leachate collection systems. These requirements
-------
5. Retrofitting Interim Status Surface Impoundments (Cont'd)
must be met unless an exemption was requested and approved under Section
3005(j) or Section 3004(o)(2).
The owners or operators of interim status surface impoundments without
approved exemptions who do not retrofit per Section 3005(j) by
November 8, 1988 must cease the receipt of hazardous wastes into those
impoundments by November 8, 1988. The closure of these impoundments must
then proceed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 264/265 Subpart G.
An owner of three interim status surface impoundments does not wish to
retrofit the units. He therefore plans to cease receiving wastes on
November 8, 1988 and proceed with the closure. As part of closure activity, the
owner proposes to remove the liquid waste from two of the impoundments,
stabilize the waste, and dispose of it in the third impoundment. This third
impoundment would then be closed as a landfill and provided with post-closure
care while the other two impoundments will be "clean-closed" per Section
265.228.
Can the owner change the facility process and convert the impoundment to a
landfill?
If the process can be changed, would the landfill be considered an existing unit,
replacement unit, or a new unit?
The owner of the facility may change the facility process and convert the third
impoundment to a landfill under limited circumstances. However in order to
do so, the requirements in Section 270.72(c) must be met. Under Section
270.72(c), an owner of an interim status facility may change the treatment,
storage or disposal processes of the facility if he submits a revised Part A
application, along with the justification explaining the need for the change.
The change may be approved under only two limited circumstances: (1) It is
necessary to prevent a threat to human health or the environment because of
an emergency situation; or (2) It is necessary to comply with Federal
regulations or State or local laws.
Furthermore, if this "conversion" amounts to reconstruction, Section
270.72(e) would prohibit the change. Reconstruction is defined in Section
270.72(e) as occurring when the capital investment in the changes exceeds fifty
percent (50%) of the capital cost of a comparable entirely new hazardous waste
management facility.
-------
5. Retrofitting Interim Status Surface Impoundments (Cont'd)
For circumstances that allow a process change under this very restrictive
requirement, Reauthorization Statutory Interpretation #5D states that the
impoundment/landfill would be considered an existing unit.
However, if the owner of the unit removes the waste that is already in the
impoundment stabilizes the waste, and places it back into the
impoundment/landfill along with the waste from the other two
impoundments, the unit would be considered a replacement unit. As such,
the landfill would need to be in compliance with the minimum technology
standards of Section 3004(o) (RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Report,
December 1985). Also if the addition of waste into the unit exceeds the level
designated in the facility's Part A application, that portion of the
impoundment/landfill would be considered an expansion of an existing unit
and would be subject to the requirements of Section 3004(o) (Section
265.301 (a)).
Source:
Research:
Pamela Savage
Dave Eberly
Alex Wolfe
Chris Bryant
(202) 382-7700
(202) 382-4691
(202) 382-2227
Hazardous Waste
Filter Medium
Primary Liner
^
Secondary Liner
Primary and Secondary
Leachate Collection and
Removal Systems
Drainage
Pipes
Leachate Collection
System Sump
-------
6. Hazardous Waste Tank - Leak Detection
40 CFR Sections 264 and 265.193(b)(2) require that hazardous waste tank systems
must be provided with secondary containment systems that are capable of
detecting releases. The leak detection system must be able to detect the presence
of any release of hazardous waste or accumulated liquid in the secondary
containment system within 24 hours as specified in Sections 264 and
265.193(c)(3). The type of leak-detection method used is afforded some flexibility
according to the October 2, 1987 OSWER Policy Directive No. 9483.00-3 titled,
"Questions and Answers Regarding the July 14, 1986 Hazardous Waste Tank
System Regulatory Requirements." The directive explains that "In some cases,
daily visual inspection will be allowed as a means to comply with the leak
detection requirement."
Can a daily visual inspection be used as a means to comply with the leak-
detection requirement when a hazardous waste tank is resting on a concrete pad?
For completely aboveground tank systems, or portions thereof, a daily visual
inspection of the hazardous waste tank system is an acceptable method of
leak-detection. When a tank is resting directly on a concrete pad, it is not
possible to visually inspect the bottom portion of the tank that is in contact
with the concrete.
In this situation, if the owner/operator can demonstrate that any release of
hazardous waste from the tank bottom will be promptly detected by a daily
visual inspection before the released material potentially migrates to the
environment (e.g., via cracks in the concrete), then a daily visual inspection
may be allowed by the appropriate permitting authority. To enhance the
detectability of releases in these situations, the concrete pad must be
impermeable and free of cracks. The pad would have to be sloped or
otherwise designed to facilitate the flow of released waste from beneath the
tank to a point where it can be readily detected in order for the
owner/operator to make a showing that a release can be detected within a 24-
hour period. Other methods of leak-detection for the secondary containment
may also be used.
Other options are being used by the regulated community to provide release
detection for this situation. When a tank, especially one of greater than 20,000
gallons, is resting directly on a concrete pad and is not tightly surrounded by
any structural walls, an area for a leak detection system can be created by
physically entering the tank and welding a new tank bottom above the
existing bottom of the tank (double bottom or false bottom tank). The space
between the two tank bottoms is the area where the leak detection system will
be installed. Assuming the rest of the rest of the tank is not double-walled, a
secondary containment system, such as diking the perimeter area of the tank,
would also be needed.
-------
6. Hazardous Waste Tank - Leak Detection (Cont'd)
If the tank is within a concrete vault and resting directly on the floor of the
vault, a leak-detection system can be installed between the outer tank wall
and the inner vault walls. The leak-detection system may be positioned at the
lower end of the sloped vault floor and all portions of the floor including the
area on which the tank rests must be lined or coated. These specific
requirements and all other applicable provisions in Sections 264 and 265.193
must be met. The leak-detection system, installed entirely within the walls of
the vault, is sufficient. No leak-detection system outside of the vault walls,
such as monitoring wells, is required.
Another possibility for leak detection if the tank is resting on a concrete pad
unsurrounded or on the floor of a concrete vault, is raising the tank above
the floor or pad permanently with structural support such as metal legs. If
the support is provided and the tank bottom is exposed, a visual inspection
may be used to fulfill the leak-detection requirement for the hazardous waste
tank's secondary containment system.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Research: George ICleevic
7. Hazardous Waste Tanks - Existing vs. New Tank
An interim status treatment and storage facility stores liquid hazardous waste in
several concrete sumps that are isolated from the other treatment and storage
units on-site. The owner of the facility intends to install a hazardous waste
storage tank inside of each sump. These sumps will now serve as secondary
containment to the newly installed storage tanks.
Is this type of tank system modification regulated as a new tank installation, or is
this practice recognized as providing secondary containment for an existing
hazardous waste storage tank?
40 CFR Section 265.193 requires that secondary containment must be provided
for new and existing tanks that treat or store hazardous waste at an interim
status facility. Installing a tank in an existing hazardous waste sump or
another tank to facilitate compliance with secondary containment
requirements is one method being employed by the regulated community.
This hazardous waste storage tank installation must be in compliance with
the regulatory requirements for the design and installation of a new tank
system or component in 40 CFR Section 265.192. A sump, now serving as
-------
7. Hazardous Waste Tanks - Existing vs. New Tank (Cont'd)
secondary containment to the tank must be provided with a menas of leak
detection and must meet the technical requirements of Section 265.193(e)(l)
and (2) and all other applicable provisions in Section 265.193.
Source: Bill Kline (202) 382-4623
Research: George Kleevic
B. CERCLA
8. Applicability of Federal Liens Under CERCLA
When a facility is subject to a removal or response action under CERCLA there
may be a Federal lien imposed on the land where the facility is located. What is
included in this type of lien?
Section 107(1) of CERCLA as amended by SARA imposes a lien against
persons potentially liable for Superfund cost recovery. This section provides
a Federal lien in favor of the United States upon property which is subject to
removal or remedial action. The lien applies to all real property and rights to
such property affected by a removal or remedial action.
The Federal lien takes precedence over interests perfected after the Federal
lien has been filed. It is subordinate only to rights of a purchaser, holder of a
security interest, or judgement creditor whose rights are perfected before the
lien is filed.
Federal liens are filed in the appropriate state office as designated by state law
in which the property is located. If a state has not designated an office for
receipt of such notices, the notice would be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the district in which the property is located.
Source: Allen Danzig (202) 382-2845
Research: Laurie Huber
C. CEPP
9. Sections 304 and 313: Reporting Requirements
Company A owns a facility which manufactures crude oil. They sell the crude
oil to Company B, where it is kept in tanks on Company A's facility, but leased to
Company B. Who is subject to reporting under Sections 304 and 313?
-------
9. Sections 304 and 313: Reporting Requirements (Cont'd)
Since the tanks are part of Company A's facility and Company A is the owner
and/or operator of the facility, Company A would be subject to Section 304
release notification and Section 313 reporting requirements for any releases
from the tanks, which may contain either 302 (EHS) listed substances,
CERCLA hazardous substances and/or Section 313 listed chemicals above the
applicable reporting thresholds. Company A would also be held liable if the
reports were not made.
Source: Kirsten Engel (202) 382-7722
Jim Nelson (202) 382-7213
Research: Minda Sarmiento
10. Section 313: Toxic Chemical Release Reporting
A facility is composed of two (2) separate establishments and is filing a separate
Form R for Section 313 reporting for each establishment. For Part I Section 3.5,
what Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are to be listed by each
establishment?
The SIC code(s) of the establishment(s) whose data is included in each Form R
are the only one(s) needed to be entered in Part I Section 3.5 of Form R. The
other SIC code(s) for the other establishment(s) of the facility would be
included in their own Form R submittal.
Source: Sam Sassnett (202) 382-3821
Research: John Ferris
11. Section 304: Reporting for Multi-Establishment Facilities
Regarding the written follow-up report to an incident, should the location of the
incident and the cause of the accident be included?
The April 22,1987 Federal Register (52 FR 13387) states that the location of the
incident should definitely be included in both the initial and written follow-
up reports. However, the cause of the accident is not addressed and it is not
required in the regulations pursuant to Section 304 of Title ffl. EPA strongly
encourages, but does not require the inclusion of the cause of the accident in
the written follow-up report.
Source: Kirsten Engel (202) 382-7706
Research: Anita Bartera
10
-------
12. Section 313: Laboratory Exemption
If a manufacturer of transportation equipment (airplanes) is required to report a
Form R for Section 313 for their uses of benzene as a component in jet fuel, must
the facility include emissions of this benzene when the jet fuel is used to power
the equipment in an off-site test run?
The facility would not have to include emissions of benzene to be consistent
with the laboratory use exemption. The usage of benzene in this manner
would be considered as being used for product testing, therefore emissions
due to this product testing would not need to be reported under Section 313.
Source: Sam Sassnett (202) 382-3821
Research: John Ferris
11
-------
II. ACTIVITIES - MAY 1988
1. The RCRA/Super fund Hotline and Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Hotline responded to 20.946 questions and requests for
documents in May. The breakdown is as follows:
RCRA Superfund UST CEPP
Information Calls
Call Document Requests
Written Document Requests
Referrals
Totals
7,375
649
146
1533
1,438
94
1,022
286
2,120 =11,955
1,618 = 2,647
4,468 = 4,614
197 = 1.730
9,703
1,532 1,308 8,403 =20,946
A. RCRA/Superfund Hotline Activities
2. On May 3, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director met with OSW and the
communications office concerning a technical device for the deaf (TDD) to
access the Hotline.
3. On May 5, John Bayliss of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline attended EPA's
"Release Trends" ERD Briefing.
4. On May 6, Mary Stevens of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline attended OERR's
Technical Assistance Grants Briefing.
5. On May 11, Mike Petruska, OSW briefed the RCRA/Superfund Hotline on
Waste Characterization Issues.
6. On May 11, John Bayliss, Hotline Information Specialist briefed the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline on ERD Release Scenarios.
7. On May 12, members of the RCRA/Superfund Hotline staff attended an open
house at the EPA Library on information and databases available for Hotline
research.
8. On May 17, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director met with Mia Zmud, OSW
concerning Hotline referrals.
9. On May 25, Sue Brugler, Hotline Information Specialist briefed the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline on CERCLA Release Trends.
10. On May 26, Sharon Frey, OSW briefed the RCRA/Superfund Hotline on
Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.
12
-------
A. RCRA/Superfund Hotline Activities (Cont'd)
11. On May 26, Alfred Ward, Hotline Senior Document Clerk briefed the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline on document request procedures.
B. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline
Activities
12. On May 3 and 17, the Title HI Hotline Staff attended the Preparedness
Program meetings.
13. On May 4,11,16 and 25, the Title m Hotline Staff attended the Title HI
Outreach Subcommittee meetings on the status of Title in communications
strategy.
14. On May 5, John Ferris of the Title HI Hotline attended the National Response
Team monthly meeting on the status of Federal preparedness and response
activities.
15. On May 5 and 12, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director attended the Title in
Outreach Regional conference call on the status of communication activities.
16. On May 9, Minda Sarmiento of the Title HI Hotline attended the Federal
Facilities Workgroup meeting on Title in.
17. On May 9, Kim Jennings of the Title III Hotline attended a conference call
with the FEMA/EPA Regional Title IE Coordinators on the status of Title IE
activities.
18. On May 10, Minda Sarmiento of the Title HI Hotline Staff attended the Title
HI Workgroup meeting on the status of Title HI activities.
19. On May 12, members of the Title HI Hotline staff attended an open house at
the EPA Library on information and databases available for Hotline research.
20. On May 13, Jim Buchert of the Title ni Hotline attended a training session on
the toxic chemical release reporting requirements held by the Office of Toxic
Substances.
21. On May 13 and 27, Kim Jennings of the Title ni Hotline attended the Phase H
Steering Committee meetings on the status of Section 313/Phase II activities.
22. On May 16, Robert Costa of the Title IH Hotline attended the National
Response Team monthly meeting on the status of Federal preparedness and
response activities.
13
-------
B. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline
Activities (Cont'd)
23. On May 16-19, Robert Costa of the Title m Hotline attended the Hazardous
Materials Spills Conference on the status of national and international
activities regarding preparedness, prevention and response. In addition, he
attended meetings of EPA Regional Preparedness Coordinators and with
FEMA Regional Title III contacts.
24. On May 19, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director met with Lawrence Pratt,
OTS on development of Section 313 Evaluation Project.
25. On May 20, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director met with Lawrence Pratt,
OTS regarding the Title IH Hotline status.
26. On May 23, Minda Sarmiento of the Title HI Hotline attended the conference
call with the FEMA/EPA Regional Title IE Coordinators on the status of Title
III activities.
27. On May 23, Anita Bartera and Jim Buchert of the Title in Hotline attended a
briefing on an expert system in relationship to the Section 305 Emergency
Systems Study.
28. On May 24, Jim Buchert of the Title ffl Hotline attended the Title in
workgroup meeting on the status of Title El activities.
29. On May 26, Anita Bartera and Jim Buchert of the Title m Hotline attended the
Congressional Oversight Hearings on Title in chaired by Senator Lautenberg.
14
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
IV. PUBLICATIONS - MAY 1988
RCRA
The following documents are available from the Government Printing Office
(GPO) at 202/275-6241:
"Ground-water Conditions at Many Land Disposal Facilities Remain
Uncertain" #GAO/RCED-88-29; and
"Cost Growth on Remedial Construction Activities" #GAO/RCED-88-69.
A handbook on hazardous waste regulations in California is available from the
Environmental Law Institute (ELI). The document is titled: California
Hazardous Waste Enforcement: A Practical Guide. ELI's telephone number is
202/328-5150, cost is $28.00.
A bibliographic series on waste minimization is available by calling the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline. The title of the document is: Bibliographic Series -
Waste Minimization: Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Solid Waste (1980 to
Present). The order number is EPA/IMSD-87-007.
The following documents may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) at 703/487-4650:
• Compilation of Persons Who Design, Test, Inspect and Install Storage Tank
Systems, #PB88-197611, $19.95;
• Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Guide for Municipal Officials -
Planning and Overview -1976, #PB88-197561, $12.95;
• Office Paper Recovery: An Implementation Manual - 1977, #PB-197587,
$14.95;
• Draft Guidance: Standards Applicable to Owners/Operators of Hazardous
Waste TSDFs Under RCRA -1984, #PB88-197595, $19.95;
• Fourth Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction - 1977,
#PB88-197579, $19.95; and
• EPA Activities Under RCRA 1976 Annual Report to President and Congress -
FY 1977, #PB88-197603, $14.95.
15
-------
I. ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS - May 1988 Grand Total = 12,543
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Summary of Calls by EPA Region
Reqion 1
Region 2
Reqion 3
Reqion 4
Reqion 5
Reqion 6
Calls
Manufacturers
Generators
Transporters
TSDFs
EPAHQ
EPA Regions
Federal Agencies
State Agencies
Local Agencies
Used Oil Handlers
USTO/O
General Information
§3010 Notification
§260.10 Definitions
§260.22 Petitions/Delistina
§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 & Recoiling
$262 International Shipments
$263 Transporters
5%
10%
22%
11%
18%
11%
5%
15%
2%
6%
1%
3%
2%
5%
2%
1%
5%
556
114
125
53
222
370
685
714
195
150
139
57
198
94
109
171
59
24
53
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
International Calls
Consultants
Attorneys
Laboratories
Univ ./Researchers
Trade Assotiatons
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— Add
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
4%
4%
10%
4%
0%
30%
9%
2%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
4%
1%
22
87
99
34
24
177
115
28
1 9
26
120
34
84
87
46
21
16
-------
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
O 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 StdsJARARs/
How Clean Is Clean
Contractor Indemnification
Contracts/Contract Lab Program
Exposure AssessVPublte
Health Evaluation
Definitions
Enforcement
Federal Facilities
Haz. Substances/RQs
MRS
Liabilitv/PRPs
Mandatory Schedules
Natural Resource Damages
153
31
22
18
28
81
113
39
68
162
63
10
10
37
20
82
10
146
23
3
25
122
7
73
1 1
14
24
22
29
18
242
30
84
0
3
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
NCP
NPL
Off-Site Policy
On-Site Policy
PA/SI
Public Participation
Radon
RD/RA
Remedial
Removal
RI/FS
RODs/Clean-Uo Costs
Settlements
SITE Program
State Participation
Taxes
Title lll/Right-to-Know
Other Provisions
CERCLA Document Requests
CERCLA Subtotal
3
1 6
38
186
141
1 16
248
9
1 18
47
32
21
48
90
4
1 9
34
147
649
8,024
2
38
179
15
10
20
8
0
2
24
13
53
38
21
1 9
6
7
97
10
94
1 ,532
17
-------
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 Red.
§280 D Release Detection
357
70
36
36
38
31
21
24
21
45
13
51
§280 E Release Reporting and
Investigation
§280 F Corrective Action Petroleum
15
41
§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
1 1
77
75
24
12
5
9
10
286
1,308
TOTAL CALLS, DOCUMENT
REQUESTS and REFERRALS
12,543
Referrals
Referrals - EPA HQ
173
Other Hotlines
Regions
State
GPO/NTIS/PIC/ORD/Dockets
Other
Subtotal
299
149
233
556
123
1 ,533
Written Request Responses
Referred to EPA Program Offices
Referred to other Federal Agencies
35
0
Referred externally (state,
organizations, etc.)
Response Form Sent
Response Form Sent/FOIA
Form Letter Sent/Need More Info.
Requests Filled - RCRA
- CERCLA
-UST
Subtotal
20
0
1
0
90
0
0
146
18
-------
Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline
Daily/Monthly Summary Report - May 1988
Totals
Total Calls—3,935
Total Call Document Requests—1,618
Total Written Requests-4,468
Distribution of Calls by EPA Regions
Region 1
Reqion 2
Reaion 3
Region 4
Region 5
International
7%
14%
13%
13%
23%
0.00%
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Unknown
8%
5%
4%
8%
13%
0.90%
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%
0.76%
1%
0.50%
1%
1%
2%
3%
16%
2%
4%
0.30%
2%
1%
10%
3%
5%
3%
0.40%
10%
3%
1%
217
128
49
42
32
6
134
Handlers
Attorneys
Co nsultants/Engineers
Laboratories
Trade Associations
Public Interest Groups
U n iversities/Academia
Insurance Companies
Hospitals
State Aoencies/SERC
Fire Departments
EPA
Local Officials
LEPC
Farmers
Federal Aqencies
Media/Press
Union/Labor
Citizens
Indians
Other
Total
Delistino EHS
Exemptions
Training: General
9305 Training Grants
$305 Emergency Systems Review
S126 (SARA) Trainina Regulations
4%
4%
11%
0.85%
1%
0.20%
1%
0.35%
0.85%
1%
0.85%
1%
0.80%
1%
0.25%
0.70%
0.22%
0%
1%
0%
1%
104%
26
5
5
3
9
10
19
-------
§31 1/5312
General 255
MSDS Reporting Requirements 1 1 4
Tier I/It Regulations 146
Thresholds 150
§313
General 1,403
Form R 535
Thresholds 375
Phase II 1
Phase III 1
Workshop (Training) 7
Petitions 109
Health Effects 0
Database 8
Mass Balance Study 0
Referrals
OSHA 53
Preparedness Staff 0
OTS Staff 1
RCRA/Superfund Hotline 43
Regional EPA 1 5
TSCA Hotline 6
Other 7 9
Total Referrals 1 97
Document RequMt*: 1,618
No. of Documents Reauested: 3.524
OSHA Expansion 9 5
Hazard Categories 2 3
Mixtures 32
Exemptions 4 9
CEPP: Interim Guide 2
Chemical Profile 8
NRT-1 35
Hazard Analysis 9 5
Risk Communication 0
Title III Workshops 0
Information Management 0
Prevention ARIP 0
Other 4 7
Trade Secrets 1 9
Enforcement 8
Liability 2
Release Notification
General 4 1
Notification Requirements 20
Reportable Quantities 1 4
RQsvs.TPQs 15
CERCLAvs.5304 33
Transportation 4
Exemptions 7
20
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
IV. PUBLICATIONS - MAY 1988
RCRA
The following documents are available from the Government Printing Office
(GPO) at 202/275-6241:
"Ground-water Conditions at Many Land Disposal Facilities Remain
Uncertain" #GAO/RCED-88-29; and
"Cost Growth on Remedial Construction Activities" #GAO/RCED-88-69.
A handbook on hazardous waste regulations in California is available from the
Environmental Law Institute (ELI). The document is titled: California
Hazardous Waste Enforcement: A Practical Guide. ELI's telephone number is
202/328-5150, cost is $28.00.
A bibliographic series on waste minimization is available by calling the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline. The title of the document is: Bibliographic Series -
Waste Minimization: Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Solid Waste (1980 to
Present). The order number is EPA/IMSD-87-007.
The following documents may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) at 703/487-4650:
• Compilation of Persons Who Design, Test, Inspect and Install Storage Tank
Systems, #PB88-197611, $19.95;
• Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Guide for Municipal Officials -
Planning and Overview - 1976, #PB88-197561, $12.95;
• Office Paper Recovery: An Implementation Manual - 1977, #PB-197587,
$14.95;
• Draft Guidance: Standards Applicable to Owners/Operators of Hazardous
Waste TSDFs Under RCRA - 1984, #PB88-197595, $19.95;
• Fourth Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction - 1977,
#PB88-197579, $19.95; and
• EPA Activities Under RCRA 1976 Annual Report to President and Congress -
FY 1977, #PB88-197603, $14.95.
21
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
V. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES - MAY 1988
Former Notices with Open Comment Period
March 14,1988; 53 FR 8279
(request for public comment)
March 22,1988; 53 FR 9358
(notice of availability)
March 22,1988; 53 FR 9358
(solicitation for applications)
March 24,1988; 53 F_£ 9700
(proposed administrative
settlement)
March 24,1988; 53 FR 9736
(interim final rule with
request for comments)
March 31,1988; 53 FR 10401
(supplement to proposed rule)
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 insitu treatment methods at
Superfund sites. Applications were accepted
until May 1,1988.
The notice solicits applications by
universities to establish five (5) hazar-
dous substance research facilities. Applica-
tions must be received by June 27,1988.
The notice proposes a settlement under
§122 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 requests comments on a
phase-in of a compliance date associated
with financial responsibilities for under-
ground storage tanks. Comments were
accepted until May 2,1988.
22
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
March 31,1988; 53 FR 10403
(notice of availability of
information)
The notice requests comments on new
information made available by this
notice. Comments were accepted until
May 2,1988.
May Federal Register Notices
May 2,1988; 53 FR 15624
(proposed rule)
May 3,1988; 53 F£ 15704
(proposed rule)
May 3,1988; 53 FJ& 15714
(advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking)
May 5,1988; 53 FE16086
(interim final rule)
May 5,1988; 53 £B 16202
(stipulation and order)
May 5,1988; 53 FR 16211
(notice of correction)
The proposal sets out guidelines for
Federal procurement of retread tires.
Comments will be accepted until June 1,
1988.
The proposed rule would provide a one-
time exclusion from listing of certain
retreated solid wastes generated by U.S.
Nameplate Company in Mt. Vernon,
Virginia.
This notice announces that the Department
of Interior will review the natural resource
damage assessment regulations developed
pursuant to Section 301 (c) of CERCLA.
This interim final rule authorizes the
President to pay up to $10,000 to individuals
for information leading to successful
prosecution for a criminal violation under
CERCLA. Comments will be accepted until
September 2,1988.
This stipulation and order modifies the
remedial program for the Hyde Park
Landfill, New York, owned and operated by
Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation.
The notice provides a correction to the
April 26,1988 consent decree proposed
pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (SDWA).
23
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
May 6,1988; 53 FR 16264
(notice of determination)
May 9,1988; 53 FR 16466
(notice of extension)
May 9,1988; 53 FR 16476
(lodging of consent decree)
May 12,1988; 53 FR 16918
(lodging of consent decree)
May 13,1988; 53 FR 17120
(lodging of consent decree)
May 16,1988; 53 ££ 17228
(notice of intent to delete
(sites from NPL; request
for comments)
The notice provides EPA's final deter-
mination on the State of Maine's application
for final authorization. Final authorization
is granted and will be effective as of
May 20,1988.
The notice extends the deadline for sub-
mission of grant applications by States
under the RCRA Integrated Training &
Technical Assistance (RTTTA) Program to
May 25,1988.
The notice proposes a consent decree
pursuant to RCRA against Erie Coatings
and Chemicals, Inc., et. al. Comments on
the proposed decree will be received
until June 9,1988.
The notice proposes a consent decree
pursuant to CERCLA against USX Corp.
Comments will be received on the decree
until June 12,1988.
The notice proposes a consent decree
pursuant to CERCLA against Price et. al.
Comments will be received on the
decree until June 12,1988.
The notice announces EPA's intent to
delete three (3) sites from the NPL: 1)
Gallaway Pits, Gallaway, Tennessee;
2) Lee's Lane Landfill, Louisville,
Kentucky; and (3) Newport Dump,
Wilder, Kentucky. Comments concerning
these sites will be received until
June 15,1988.
24
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
May 17,1988; 53 FR 17578
(proposed rule)
May 19,1988; 53 FR 17986
(lodging of consent decree)
May 19,1988; 53 £E 17987
(lodging of consent decree)
May 19,1988; 53 FR 18024
(notice of request for comment)
May 20,1988; 53 F£ 18107
(proposed rule)
May 23,1988; 53 fS 18359
(lodging of consent decree)
This notice proposes land disposal
restrictions for the First Third Scheduled
Wastes. Comments must be submitted on or
before June 16,1988.
This notice proposes a consent decree
pursuant to RCRA against Keystone
Consolidated Industries, Inc. Comments
will be received for a period of 30 days
after the publication of this notice.
This notice proposes a consent decree
pursuant to CERCLA against Richard
Dingwell d/b/a The McKin Company et.
al. Comments will be received for a
period of 30 days after the publication
of this notice.
This notice is a request for comment on
an alternative strategy for setting dilution/
attenuation factors for each of the consti-
tuents in the proposed Toxicity Character-
istic. This notice also presents revised values
and new information on 14 of the 38 chronic
toxicity reference levels in the proposed
Toxicity Characteristics. Comments will be
received until June 5, 1988.
This proposed amendment to 40 CFR
Section 260.22(b) is a proposed change to the
delisting procedure to ensure consistency
with HSWA. Comments will bereceived
until July 5,1988.
This notice proposes a consent decree
pursuant to RCRA against IT Corpora-
tion. Comments will be received for a
period of 30 days after the publica-
tion of this notice.
25
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
May 24,1988; 53
(proposed rule)
18792
May 25,1988; 53 FR 18913
(lodging of consent decree)
May 26,1988; 53 FR 19090
(notice of correction)
May 27,1988; 53 FR 19337
(notice of announcement)
This proposed rule is a revision to the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Proce-
dure originally proposed on
June 13, 1986, and promulgated as part of the
Land Disposal Restrictions on
November 7,1986. This proposed rule
consists of changes to the TCLP method
(Methodl311). Comments will be accepted if
submitted on or before June 23,1988.
This notice proposes a consent decree
pursuant to CERCLA against John R.
Cauffman, et. al. Comments will be
received for a period of 30 days after
the publication of this notice.
This notice announces corrections to a
proposal to grant a delisting petition by
Roanoke Electric Steel Corp. (originally
proposed in the April 29,1988 Federal
Register (53 FR 15422)).
This notice announces that the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry is accepting applications for
competitive grants and cooperative
agreement applications to provide
financial assistance for states to conduct
pilot and epidemiologic studies to deter-
mine the relationship between human
exposure to hazardous substances and
adverse health outcomes.
26
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
May 31,1988; 53 FR 19805 This notice announces re-opening of the
(advanced notice of comment period on the ANRM (dated
proposed rulemaking) March 24,1988) for providing technical
assistance to grant applicants and recipients
with the services of an administrative
services contractor. Written comments will
be accepted on or before June 22,1988.
27
-------
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 Homer, 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 Yunnan, 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
28
------- |