I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB, 01389 530R88111
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Monthly Report—RCRA/Superfund Industrial Assistance
Hotline and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
Know Information and Title III Hotline Report for November 1988
FROM: Thea McManus, Project Officer "lk&
al^^
vicinus, rrujtx'i vyini_er | [MH^C.^*
Of
Hubert Watters, Deputy Project Officer
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: See List of Addressees
This report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract #68-01-7371.
I. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES —NOVEMBER 1988
A. RCRA
1. Adjustment of Post-Closure Trust Funds Used for Financial Assurance
A TSD facility has been in post-closure care for one year. The facility owner or
operator had established a post-closure trust fund to meet their financial
assurance obligations. Can the facility owner or operator remove from the trust
fund the amount which exceeds the remaining cost of post-closure care?
According to Section 264.145(a)(10), during the period of post-closure care, the
Regional Administrator (RA) may approve a release of funds if the owner or
operator demonstrates to the RA that the value of the trust fund exceeds the
remaining cost of post-closure care. Therefore, the facility owner or operator
must receive approval for the release of excess funds from the RA, prior to
removing that amount from the trust fund.
Source: Mark Pollins (202) 382-6259
Research: Kim Jennings RECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL PRUitCHUlM AUtNCY
LIBRARY. REGION V
-------
2. Used Oil Court Decision
On March 7, 1988, a petition was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia by the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, the
Association of Petroleum Re-Refiners, and the Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., versus the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The petition
called for a review by the Court on a decision of the EPA concerning the
regulatory status of recycled used oils under RCRA. The Court issued a decision
on the petition on October 7,1988.
Specifically, on what decision were the petitioners asking the Court to rule?
What was the Court's decision?
In its final action of November 19,1986 (51 FR 41900), the Agency decided not
to list used oil that is recycled as a hazardous waste. The Agency based this
decision on its finding that such a listing would attach the stigma of the label
"hazardous waste" to recycled oil, thereby discouraging recycling.
Furthermore, the Agency stated that its authority to regulate used oil under
RCRA is not dependent on a hazardous waste listing, under the authority of
the Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980, which was redesignated as RCRA Section
3014 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. (See the
discussion at 50 FR 1691; January 11, 1985 and 51 FR 41900; November 19,
1986.)
The petitioners in this case were challenging this determination made by
EPA. The petitioners argued that the Agency acted contrary to law in basing its
determination on the stigmatic effects of listing. That is, the petitioners
argued that the RCRA statute does not give EPA the authority to not list a
waste based on the stigmatic effects of such a listing. Consequently, the
petitioners requested that the court order EPA to list recycled used oils as a
hazardous waste.
The Court agreed that EPA erroneously based its decision not to list recycled
used oils as hazardous wastes on the stigmatic effects of such a listing, a factor
not permitted by the statute. Thus, the Court is requiring EPA to determine
whether any recycled used oils meet the technical criteria for listing under the
law.
Source: Sarah Carney (202) 382-7932
Research: Chris Bryant
-------
3. UST Notification and Closure
Subtitle I of RCRA as amended by HSWA, Section 9002, requires that owners of
underground storage tanks (USTs) taken out of operation after January 1, 1974,
and still in the ground as of May 8, 1986, must notify the EPA as to the existence
of such tanks. Owners of tanks taken out of operation on or before January 1,
1974, are not required to notify.
Section 280.73 of the new final UST regulations of 40 CFR (53 FR 37200) states
that when directed by the implementing agency, the owner or operator of an
UST system permanently closed before the effective date of those regulations—
December 22, 1988—must assess the excavation zone and close the UST system in
accordance with Subpart G of Section 280—Out of Service UST Systems and
Closure.
Is an UST system that was not required to be notified for under Section 9002 of
RCRA, i.e., taken out of operation before January 1, 1974, still subject to the
closure requirements of new Section 280, Subpart G?
Yes. Any UST system that was closed before the effective date of the new final
tank regulations may be subject to those regulations after the effective date.
The applicability of the notification requirements in Section 9002 of RCRA as
amended, as codified in 40 CFR Section 280.22 (53 FR 37109) are not
determinant as to whether an UST system is subject to other Subtitle I
regulations. Section 9003(a) of RCRA directed EPA to promulgate regulations
applicable to all owners and operators of USTs. Section 9003(c)(5) states that
those regulations shall include "requirements for the closure of tanks to
prevent future releases of regulated substances into the environment." The
applicability of those tank regulations is not contingent upon whether the
UST was or was not required to be notified for.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706
Research: Laurence Buela
4. "Soft Hammer" Certifications/Demonstrations
On August 17, 1988, EPA promulgated a final rule on the "first third" of listed
wastes which were banned from land disposal on August 8, 1988 (53 FR 31138). In
this final rule, the Agency did not establish treatment standards for many of the
wastes that were on the first third, but did promulgate regulations to allow for
the continued land disposal of these so-called "soft hammer" wastes. Generators
of soft hammer wastes who dispose of the waste in surface impoundments or
landfills must comply with the regulations found in Section 268.8. This section
requires the generator to demonstrate and certify that there is no practically
-------
4. "Soft Hammer" Certifications/Demonstrations (Cont'd)
available treatment for the waste and that disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment is the only option. If treatment is available, the generator must
certify and demonstrate that the treatment method is the most environmentally
sound method available. These requirements also apply to the treatment
residuals of soft-hammer wastes (53 FR 31138). Also, landfill or surface
impoundments must meet minimum technology standards for double liners
and leachate collection systems.
A generator of "soft hammer" waste ships the waste to an incinerator. The
operator of the incinerator burns the waste and subsequently ships the ash to a
hazardous waste landfill.
With respect to the ash that is shipped off-site from the incinerator, who is
responsible for meeting the demonstration/certification requirements of Section
268.8, the original generator of the waste or the incinerator operator?
In this situation, both are responsible. The original generator of the waste
that was sent to the incinerator would be responsible for complying with the
demonstration/ certification requirements of Section 268.8. Thus, a generator
is responsible for knowing the final disposition of the treatment residues
from his wastes. If the treatment residues are disposed of in a surface
impoundment or landfill, the original generator must comply with the
Section 268.8 requirements with respect to the shipment of that waste. The
generator is solely responsible for determining which treatment is the best
practicable and available alternative (or for certifying that no treatment is
practical or available). The operator of the incinerator would be required to
certify that the treatment of the waste had been properly accomplished.
Finally, the owner or operator of the disposal facility would be responsible for
ensuring that the treatment residuals were placed in a unit meeting
minimum technology requirements.
Source: Rhonda Craig (202) 382-4800
Research: Chris Bryant
5. Contents of Part B Permit Application: General Requirements
The Part B of the permit application must contain general information
requirements. One of these requirements is information on the traffic pattern,
estimated volume and control of traffic, descriptions of access road surfacing, and
load bearing capacity of roads (Section 270.14(b)(10)).
Why is this information required?
-------
5. Contents of Part B Permit Application: General Requirements (Cont'd)
Is the information limited to on-site traffic, or must the traffic patterns
surrounding the facility also be described?
The intent of requiring submittal of the traffic related information is to
ensure that movement of hazardous waste will be conducted safely to
minimize the risk of accidents. The traffic related information is only
required for that area inside and immediately surrounding the hazardous
waste management facility.
There are no standards in Part 264 with which traffic related items must
comply. However, the overriding concern is safety. Permit applicants should
ensure that the movement of waste into, out of, and within the facility will be
conducted in a manner that minimizes accident potential. Additionally,
general traffic movement should not be such that hazardous waste managed
at the facility will be disturbed by the traffic. In order to present traffic related
items effectively, the Agency recommends that both a discussion and a
drawing be provided with the Part B permit.
Permit applicants should provide a thorough description of both the pattern
of general traffic and the pattern of traffic moving hazardous waste within the
facility. The applicant should also provide a description of traffic on roadways
traveled by the public which intersect with access roadways to the facility. The
following items should be considered for inclusion in the discussion of traffic
patterns and volumes: routes traveled; distances traveled; number of
vehicles; types of vehicles; waste movement; sampling and unloading
locations; and amount of pedestrian traffic.
Permit applicants are also required to submit a description of roadway
surfaces and load bearing capacity. The intent here is to insure that the
roadways are appropriate for the type and number of vehicles that will be
using them. If the road surface is such that it will require periodic
maintenance, the frequency and type of maintenance could also be described.
Finally, the reviewing agency may also be concerned with the amount of dust
that will be generated by vehicular traffic in and around the facility.
Source: Permit Applicant's Guidance Manual for the General Facility
Standards of Part 264
Research: Chris Bryant
-------
B. CEPP
6. Title III Trade Secrets
A chemical company in Louisiana filed their Section 311/312 reports by
hazardous components. The Louisiana State Right-to-Know laws require
companies to report on all unique substances present at the facility. For example,
if chemical A and chemical B are blended to make mixture C, than the facility
would have to report on chemical A, chemical B and mixture C containing A
and B. The facility has no problem reporting on the chemicals present on site
because they stock a large number of chemicals and their competitors would
never be able to figure out their mixture compositions from all these possible
chemicals. However, Louisiana requires the company to report on mixture C
and the chemicals in it—i.e., chemicals A and B. The facility does not want to
reveal what chemicals are present in what mixtures. How does this facility file a
trade secret claim?
Federal requirements for Section 311/312 state that a facility may report on the
mixture as a whole or may report on the hazardous components. It does not
require that a facility do both. Therefore, since the mixture and components
are not required to be reported, there is no reason for the facility to file a trade
secret claim with the Federal EPA. However, the State of Louisiana is
requiring information above and beyond the Federal requirements.
Therefore, in order for the facility to protect its trade secret mixture
formulation, the company must file a trade secret claim in accordance with
the Louisiana State trade secret provisions (53 FR 28795).
Source: Laurie Solomon (202)475-8942
Research: Anita Bartera
7. Sections 302 and 304: Liability
For Section 302 purposes, if a contractor brings an extremely hazardous substance
(EHS) on-site to a facility over the threshold planning quantity is the
owner/operator of the facility, or is the contractor required to make the
notification to the LEPC?
Also for Section 304 purposes, if a contractor bursts a tank at a facility and causes
a release of reportable quantity (RQ) of an EHS, should the contractor or the
owner/operator of the facility notify the community emergency coordinator?
-------
7. Sections 302 and 304: Liability (Cont'd)
For both Sections 302 and 304, a contractor could be considered an operator of
the facility or of a portion of the facility depending on if he/she has enough
authority. The definition of operator is not defined by statute or in the
regulations.
If the contractor is considered an "operator," he or she could be held liable for
not making the required notifications under Sections 302 or 304 if no
notification is made by the owner.
Source: Kirsten Engel (202) 382-3937
Research: Minda Sarmiento
8. Section 313: Toxic Chemical List Issues
Sodium hydroxide is listed as a toxic chemical with a qualifier of "solution." A
facility has sodium hydroxide in the solid form. At one point in their process,
the facility heats up the sodium hydroxide to 900°F. At this point, the sodium
hydroxide turns into the molten state. Is the liquid molten sodium hydroxide
considered to be a "solution" for the purposes of Section 313 of Title III?
Sodium hydroxide solution is essentially a mixture of sodium hydroxide
dissolved in a liquid. The molten sodium hydroxide is in its pure form
would not meet this requirement; therefore, the molten sodium hydroxide
would not be considered a sodium hydroxide solution.
Source: Larry Longanecker (202) 382-7971
Research: Jim Buchert
9. Title III Trade Secrets
A chemical company has one operation in a foreign country and an identical
operation in the U.S. For one chemical, they wish to file a trade secrecy claim
under Sections 311, 312 and 313. With regard to public disclosure, all non-
government entities in the foreign country are bound by a confidentiality
agreement regarding this chemical's identity and usage. However, there is no
confidentiality agreement with the foreign government because the foreign
government's laws have a statutory guarantee of confidentiality for all foreign
business interests. Does this lack of a tangible confidentiality agreement with the
foreign government constitute public disclosure? How is this reported on the
substantiation form?
-------
9. Title III Trade Secrets (Cont'd)
The fact that there is no tangible piece of paper stating "confidentiality
agreement," is not dispositive. The statutory guarantee of confidentiality
serves as an agreement of confidentiality. Therefore, Question 3.2 on the
Substantiation Form asking about disclosure may be checked "No."
Source: John Fogarty (202) 382-3624
Research: Anita Bartera
10. Trade Secret
A facility was not aware that all confidential business information (CBI) could be
deleted from a sanitized trade secret substantiation. As a result, when they filed
using the proposed trade secret substantiation form, they only deleted the
chemical identity and did not delete the CBI from the sanitized substantiation.
Since all proposed Substantiation Form submissions must be updated to reflect
changes made in the final form, the facility can delete all CBI from the final
sanitized substantiation form. Can the facility find out if anyone has requested
their proposed sanitized Substantiation Form? Also, can the facility retrieve
their proposed rule sanitized substantiation to prevent disclosure of their CBI?
At the Title III Reporting Center, all trade secret claims have been isolated and
protected from disclosure. As soon as the updated trade secret claim is
received, the proposed Substantiation Form submissions may be returned to
the submitter. The only way the proposed rule sanitized substantiation form
may be requested is through a Freedom of Information Act request. Since the
Title III Reporting Center must contact the facility when their sanitized
substantiation is requested, there is a way to protect their CBI. With the
updated claim, the facility must include a cover letter explaining their
mistake thereby identifying the proposed rule sanitized Substantiation Form
as containing CBI. By doing so, the Title III Reporting Center will be aware of
the error. Therefore, when the facility is contacted with notification of a FOIA
request, the facility can delete all CBI from the Substantiation Form before it is
sent to the requestor. Since sanitized substantiations were also sent to the
State, the facility must check with the individual State on their procedures
regarding updated claims and previously submitted sanitized substantiations.
Source: John Fogarty (202) 382-3624
Research: Anita Bartera
8
-------
11. Section 313: Waste Minimization
Section 313 of Title III requires covered facilities to submit information on their
releases of certain toxic chemicals. The information is provided on EPA Form R.
Section 8 of Form R is presently an optional section on waste minimization. If a
facility chooses to fill out Section 8, they must provide information about their
waste minimization including the type of modification. How should they
indicate this on the form if they have more than one type of modification?
The Form R only allows facilities to report one code for the type of waste
minimization. Since there is only room for one code type relating to the type
of modification, the facility should enter a code for the most prevalent type of
modification for the chemical that it is reporting.
Source: Sam Sasnett (202) 382-3821
Research: Jim Buchert
-------
II. ACTIVITIES — NOVEMBER 1988
1. The RCRA/Superfund Hotline and Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Hotline responded to 19,201 questions and requests for
documents in November. The breakdown is as follows:
RCRA Superfund UST CEPP
Information Calls
Call Document Requests
Written Document Requests
Referrals
Totals
5,813
3,123
564
1,172
10,672
1,143
238
1,381
1,827
1,760
3,587
2,058 =
766 =
477 =
260 =
3,181 =
10,841
5,887
1,041
1,432
19,201
A. RCRA/Superfund Hotline Activities
2. On November 2, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director met with Thea
McManus, OSW Project Officer concerning Hotline operations.
3. On November 7, 14, 21 and 28, Chris Bryant, Hotline Section Chief attended the
OSWER Communications Meetings.
4. On November 9, Todd Gold, OERR briefed the RCRA/Superfund Hotline on
the revisions to the NCP.
5. On November 9, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director, Laurie Huber, Hotline
Information Specialist and OUST Liaison, and Joe Nixon, Hotline Section Chief
met with Karen Sherman from the Thompson Publishing Group at OUST's
request concerning OUST publications and UST Hotline caller concerns.
6. On November 10, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director and Dave Phillips,
Hotline Section Chief met with George Cox from the Office of
Communications regarding the Hotline telephone system.
7. On November 10, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director met with John
Tillman, Office of Air, regarding overlap of RCRA and Air program calls to the
Hotline.
8. On November 15, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director met with Agnes Ortiz
and Irene Keifer, OERR regarding the Hazard Ranking System.
9. On November 17, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director briefed personnel from
the National Response Center on Hotline operations.
10
-------
A. RCRA/Superfund Hotline Activities (Cont'd)
10. On November 21, Mitch Kidwell, OSW reviewed Hotline operations relevant
to the OSW project.
11. On November 29, Joe Nixon, Hotline Section Chief attended the OUST staff
meeting.
B. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline Activities
12. On November 1 and 8, John Ferris, Hotline Information Specialist and Robert
Costa, Hotline Section Chief attended the Section 313 Interpretation Subgroup
meetings on outstanding technical issues.
13. On November 1,15, and 29, the Title III Hotline staff attended the Preparedness
Staff meetings on the status of program office activities.
14. On November 2, 9,16 and 23, the Title III Hotline staff attended the Title III
Outreach Subcommittee meetings on the status of Title III communications
strategy.
15. On November 3, Sam Sasnett, OTS briefed the Title III Hotline staff on the
outstanding issues regarding Section 313 supplier notification requirements.
16. On November 3, 10, 17 and 18, Denise Sines, Hotline Project Director and
Robert Costa, Hotline Section Chief met with Lawrence Pratt and Bob Israel,
OTS and Anastasia Watson, Preparedness Staff on the status of the Title III
Hotline.
17. On November 8, Anita Bartera, Hotline Information Specialist attended the
Title III workgroup meeting on the status of Title III activities.
18. On November 9, Robert Costa, Hotline Section Chief briefed the Preparedness
Staff Regional Coordinators on the types of Regional, SERC, and LEPC calls
received on the Hotline.
19. On November 10, Minda Sarmiento, Hotline Information Specialist attended
the open meeting on improving Section 313 magnetic media submissions.
20. On November 17, Jon Roland, Hotline Information Specialist attended the
Prevention Workgroup meeting on the status of ARE? and other prevention
activities.
21. On November 17, Jim Buchert, Hotline Information Specialist attended the
NRT meeting on the status of Federal preparedness and response activities.
11
-------
B. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline Activities (Cont'd)
22. On November 21, Stephanie Portalski, Hotline Information Specialist attended
the conference call with the FEMA/EPA Regional Title III Coordinators on the
status of Title III activities.
23. On November 21, Robert Costa, Hotline Section Chief briefed the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline on Title III and cross-cutting issues.
24. On November 22, Jim Styers, Hotline Information Specialist attended the Title
III workgroup meeting on the status of Title III activities.
12
-------
ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS - November 1988
Grand Total = 15,640
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Summary of Calls by EPA Reaion
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
5%
10%
21%
11%
19%
9%
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
International Calls
4%
4%
13%
4%
0%
Calls
Manufacturers
Generators
Transporters
TSDFs
EPAHQ
EPA Regions
Federal Agencies
State Agencies
Local Agencies
Used Oil Handlers
USTO/O
RCRA
General Information
§3010 Notification
§260.10 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 kfl/mo
§262 Manifest Information
§262 Accumulation
§262 Recordkeepina & Reporting
§262 International Shipments
§263 Transporters
4%
14%
1%
6%
1%
2%
2%
5%
2%
1%
14%
478
68
89
28
188
354
469
441
150
1 19
77
42
169
74
140
103
40
15
56
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
Asbestos/PCBs/Radon
Corrective Action
Dioxins
Household Hazardous Waste
Infectious Waste
Liability/Enforcement
Minimum Technology
Mixed Radioactive Waste
Used Oil
Waste Minimization
27%
9%
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
1%
5%
1%
7
59
60
1 2
13
341
83
78
1 3
37
62
47
1 0
34
79
38
13
-------
RCRA-TSDF/264 and 265
A Scope/ADDlicabilitv
B General Facility Standards
C Preparedness/Prevention
D Contingency Plans
E Manifest/Recordkeeping/Reportin<
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
Q Chem., Phys., Btol Treatment
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.
§280 D Release Detection
§280 E Release Rpt. & Investigation
1 1 1
24
1 8
1 8
1 4
77
90
28
36
95
49
4
7
1 7
21
42
0
2
572
179
7
56
77
45
24
42
61
49
23
134
26
R Underground Injection
X Miscellaneous
§268 General
§268 Solvent & Dioxins
§268 California List Wastes
§268 Schedled Thirds
§269 Air Emissions Standards •
§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
§280 F Corrective Action Petroleum
§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
8
25
225
139
97
21 1
7
60
45
1 7
4
56
39
6
1 7
45
86
3,123
8,936
33
7
115
293
20
41
13
8
2
1,760
3,587
14
-------
CERCLA
Access & Information Gatherinq
Administrative Record
Allocations from Fund
ARARs
CERCUS
Citizen Suits
Clean-Up Costs
Clean-Up Standards
Community Relations
Contract Lab Program (CLP)
Contractor Indemnification
Contracts
Definitions
Emergency Response
Enforcement
Exposure Assess./Risk Assess.
Federal Facilities
Fund Balancing
General
Grants
Hazardous Substances
Health/Toxics
MRS
Liability
Mandatory Schedules
Natural Resource Damaqes
NBARs
NCP
Notification
NPL
Written Request Responses
Referred to EPA Program Offices
Referred to other Federal Agencies
Referred externally (state.
organizations, etc.)
Response Form Sent
Response Form Sent/FOIA
Form Letter Sent/Need More Info.
Requests Filled - RCRA
- CERCLA
-UST
SUBTOTAL
40 '
4
4
25
46
6
1 7
34
4
3
3
6
21
6
38
19
7
1
97
1 1
80
5
32
47
0
0
4
97
33
112
2
26
80
79
0
5
0
302
64
6
564
Off-Site Policy
On-OSite Policy
OSHA
PA/SI
PRPs
Public Participation
Radon
RCRA Interface
RD/RA
Remedial
Removal
Response
RI/FS
ROD
R3
SARA Interface
Settlements
SITE Program
State Participation
State Program
Taxes
Title lll/Right-to-Know
CERCLA Document Requests
CERCLA SUBTOTOAL
Referrals
Referrals - EPA HQ
Other Hotlines
Regions
State
GPO/NTIS/PIC/ORD/Dockets
Other
SUBTOTAL
9
4
2
1 3
1 1
2
2
8
4
16
1 5
2
42
31
102
13
1 5
24
5
4
3
1 4
238
1 ,381
59
145
149
332
408
79
1,172
TOTAL CALLS, DOCUMENT
REQUESTS and REFERRALS
15,640
15
-------
Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline
Daily/Monthly Summary Report - November 1988
Total Calls: 3,084
Distribution of Calls by EPA Regions
Region 1
Reqion 2
Reqion 3
Reqion 4
Reqion 5
International
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, Clay & 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
(Total Mfg. (%)
(Title III General
§301-3 Emergency Planning
SERCs
Notification
TPQs
Mixtures
Extremely Hazardous Substances
8%
1 1%
21%
13%
20%
0%
2.30%
0.00%
0.30%
0.09%
0.50%
0.30%
1 .20%
1 .90%
10.00%
1 .70%
1.80%
0.10%
1.70%
0.70%
4.70%
1 .30%
3.10%
1 .40%
0.10%
0.40%
2.40%
37%|
326
219
85
44
34
24
145
Total Document Requests: 766
Total Written Requests: 477
Region 6 :
Region 7
Reqion 8
Region 9
Region 10
Unknown
Distributors
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
iTotal (%)
9%
5%
2%
8%
2%
1%
2.70%
6.00%
6.50%
14.50%
1.30%
1 .60%
0.60%
3.60%
0.30%
0.90%
3.30%
1.90%
2.10%
2.60%
2.90%
0.20%
0.80%
0.80%
0.00%
3.10%
0.00%
1.20%
1 0 %|
8
1 2
1 8%|
16
-------
§31 1/§31 2
General
MSDS Reporting Requirements
Tier l/ll Requlations
Thresholds
OSHA Expansion
Hazard Categories
Mixtures
Exemptions
iTotal (%)
§313
General
Form R
Thresholds
Phase II
Phase III
Workshop (Training)
Petitions
Health Effects
Database
Mass Balance Study
ITotal (%)
Referrals
C6HA
Preparedness Staff
OTS Staff
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Regional EPA
TSCA Hotline
Other
Total Referrals
291
144
145
198
45
30
26
60
3 0 %l
480
182
124
26
0
0
1 8
3
7
2
27%|
69
0
0
74
23
24
70
260
(Total Document Requests:
766)
Training: General
§305 Training Grants
§305 Emergency Systems Review
§126 (SARA) Training Regulations
ITotal (%)
CEPP: Interim Guide
Chemical Profile
NRT-1
Hazard Analysis
Risk Communication
Title III Workshops
Information Management
Prevention ARIP
Other
ITotal (%)
Trade Secrets
ITotal (%)
Enforcement
ITotal (%)
Liability
ITotal (%)
Release Notification
General
Notification Requirements
Reportable Quantities
RQsvs.TPQs
CERCLA vs. §304
Transportation
Exemptions
ITotal (%)
2
3
7
13
1 %
4
1 7
27
1 5
6
0
2
4
103
6 %
1 8
0.50%
26
0 . 8 0 °/c
7
o . 2 o y<
57
31
31
1 C
32
4
1 ;
6 . 0 0 °/
17
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
IV. PUBLICATIONS —NOVEMBER 1988
RCRA
The following documents are available from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) at (703) 487-4650.
—National Survey of Solid (Municipal) Landfill Facilities; PB89-118-525.
—Phase II Report to Congress, Volumes I and II; Volume I: PB89-110-381;
Volume II: PB89-1W-399.
The October 11,1988 Federal Register (53 FR 38720) entitled, "Statistical Methods
for Evaluating Groundwater Monitoring from Hazardous Waste Facilities; Final
Rule" is available from the Cincinnati warehouse. The publication number is
OSW-FR-89-001.
October 20,1988 Federal Register (53 FR 41288) entitled, "Mining Waste
Exclusion; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," is available from the Cincinnati
warehouse.
The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air is available from the Public Information
Center (PIC).
The RCRA Corrective Action Plan is available from ORD.
Indoor Air Quality in Public Buildings: Volumes I and II are available from
ORD. The publication number is EPA/600/6-88-0096.
The October 11,1988 Federal Register (52 FR 39722) entitled "Statistical Analysis
of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities," will be available in
January 1989; if needed in advance it is available from Subpart F Regional
contact.
Infectious waste tracking bill (HR-3515) is available as Public Law 582 (PL-582). It
is available by calling House documents room at (202) 225-3456.
18
-------
CERCLA
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA; August 1988 Interim Final Guidance is available from the CERCLA
Docket; OSWER Directive #9355.3-01.
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook is available from the
Superfund Docket.
A preprint copy of the proposed NCP is available for xeroxing (by appointment
only) from the Superfund Docket.
HRS Federal Register pre-publication notice and press package is available from
the Superfund Docket.
Superfund Design and Construction Update (bi-monthly) is available at the
Public Information Center.
19
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
V. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES — NOVEMBER 1988
Former Notices with Open Comment Period
August 30,1988; 53 FR 33314
(proposed rule)
September 22,1988; 53 FR 36883
(notice of availability)
September 27,1988; 53 FR 37601
(notice of proposed rule)
September 28,1988; 53 FR 37803
(notice of proposed petition)
The proposal revises the criteria for
classification of solid waste disposal facilities
and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 257.
This proposed action would amend Part 257
by including information requirements for
certain solid waste disposal facilities and sets
forth specific requirements for municipal
solid waste landfills in Part 258. These
specific requirements include location
restrictions, facility design and operating
criteria, ground-water monitoring
requirements, corrective action, and
closure/post-closure care. Comments were
accepted on or before November 30, 1988.
The EPA announces availability of a draft
report entitled, The Solid Waste Delimma:
An Agenda for Action. Comments were
accepted until November 21, 1988.
EPA is proposing to grant a one-time
exclusion of certain solid wastes generated by
Merck & Co., Elkton, WV, from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
Section 261.31 and Section 261.32. Comments
were accepted until November 14, 1988.
The EPA is proposing to deny a petition
submitted by Weirton Steel Corporation in
Weirton, VA, to exclude certain solid wastes
from the lists of hazardous wastes.
Comments were accepted until
November 14, 1988.
20
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
September 28,1988; 53 FR 37808
(denial of proposed petition)
October 4,1988; 53 FR 38950
(final rule)
October 5,1988; 53 FR 39161
(proposed consent decree)
October 12,1988; 53 FR 39813
(consent decree notice)
October 14,1988; 53 FR 40282
(consent decree notice)
The EPA is proposing to deny a petition
submitted by the Brush Wellman Corp.,
Bedford, OH, to exclude on a one-time basis,
certain solid wastes from the lists of
hazardous wastes. Comments were
accepted until November 14, 1988.
This final rule announces EPA's approval
of revisions made to Nebraska's hazardous
waste program. Comments were accepted
on or before November 3, 1988.
This notice announces the lodging of a
proposed consent decree in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana in
U.S. v. Aresta, Inc., pursuant to RCRA.
Comments were received by the Department
of Justice (DOJ) until November 4, 1988.
The DOJ will receive comments on a
consent decree which has been lodged against
Canadyne-Georgia Corp. et al. pursuant to
CERCLA. Comments were accepted until
November 11, 1988.
The DOJ will receive comments on a con-
sent decree which has been lodged pursuant
to RCRA against Techalloy Co. for LOIS (Loss
of Interim Status) violations. Comments
were accepted until November 13, 1988.
21
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
October 17,1988; 53 FR 40692
(proposed rulemaking)
October 17,1988; 53 FR 40490
(proposed settlement)
October 17,1988; 53 FR 40499
(lodging of consent decree)
October 19,1988; 53 FR 40908
(notice of deletion from NPL)
October 19,1988; 53 FR 40910
(notice of deletion from NPL)
This rulemaking proposes the application of
worker protection standards for employees
engaged in hazardous waste operations
pursuant to Section 126(f) of SARA. This
proposal extends the OSHA requirements as
proposed in the August 10,1987 (52 FR 29620)
Federal Register, to State and local employees
in States without approved OSHA programs.
Comments were received until
November 16, 1988.
The EPA is proposing to settle a claim under
Section 107 of CERCLA for response costs
incurred at the Summit National Site in
Deerfield, OH. Comments were received
until November 16, 1988.
The Agency is lodging a consent decree
pursuant to CERCLA as proposed in U.S. v.
Fairchild Industries, Inc., et al.. for the
Limestone Road Site in Allegheny County,
MD. DOJ accepted comments through
November 16, 1988.
This notice announces EPA's intention to
delete from the National Priorities List (NPL)
the Cooper Road Site, Voorhees Township,
NJ. Comments were accepted until
November 18, 1988.
This notice announces EPA's intention to
delete from the NPL the Krysowaty Farm
Site, Voorhees Township NJ. Comments
were accepted until November 18, 1988.
22
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
October 20,1988; 53 FR 41164
(final rule)
October 20,1988; 53 FR 41210
(notice to extend comment
period)
October 20,1988; 53 FR 41250
(lodging of consent decree)
October 20,1988; 53 FR 41288
(proposed rule)
October 21,1988; 53 FR 41424
(partial consent decree notice)
October 25,1988; 53 FR 43050
(notice of proposed consent
decree)
This immediate final rule approves the State
of Kentucky's hazardous waste program
revisions, which authorize the regulation of
the hazardous waste component of
radioactive mixed waste. Comments on
EPA's approval were accepted until
November 21, 1988.
This notice extends the comment period for
the proposed criteria for solid waste disposal
facilities (53 FR 33313). Comments were
accepted through November 30, 1988.
This notice announces the lodging of a
proposed consent decree pursuant to
CERCLA in U.S. v. Outboard Marine Corp.,
in the District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. Comments were accepted
until November 19, 1988.
This proposed rule eliminates from the
mining waste exclusion most wastes from
the processing of ores and minerals. Also
included is the list of processing wastes
which are covered by the exclusion (Section
261.4(b)(7)). Comments were accepted
until November 21, 1988.
This notice announces the lodging of a
proposed partial consent decree pursuant to
CERCLA in U.S. v. Thomas Solvent
Company,_et al.? in the District Court,
Western District of Michigan. Comments
were received through November 20, 1988.
The DOJ is proposing a consent decree
against the Ford Motor Co., for remedial
actions at the Speigelberg Landfill in
Greenoak Township, MI. DOJ received
comments until November 24, 1988.
23
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
October 26,1988; 53 FR 43400
(proposed rule)
October 26,1988; 53 FR 43279
(notice of consent decree)
November Federal Register Notices
November 3,1988; 53 FR 44526
(proposed settlement)
November 3, 1988; 53 FR 44527
(proposed settlement)
November 4, 1988; 53 FR 44658
(SAB meeting)
The EPA is proposing rules implementing
the Congressionally mandated prohibitions
on the underground injection of selected
hazardous wastes. This notice sets forth
restrictions for certain first third wastes.
Comments must be received on or before
December 27,1988.
The DOJ has lodged a consent decree in
EPA v. Burns^et aL. for cost recovery
pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA for costs
incurred at the "UMF' site in Gonic, NH.
Comments were received through
November 26, 1988.
This notice announces a proposed settlement
under Section 122(h) of CERCLA between
EPA and John R. Boucom, Jr., for response
costs at Auburn Church Road Drum Site,
Raleigh, NC. The comment periods ends
December 3,1988.
This notice announces a proposed settlement
under Section 122(h) of CERCLA between
EPA and Transcon Lines, Inc., for response
costs at the Peachtree Mercury Site, Norcross,
GA. The comment period ends December 3,
1988.
This notice announces the meeting of the
Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Sub-
committee on Products of Incomplete
Combustion (PICs) for hazardous waste
incineration. The meeting will be open to
the public and will be held December 15-16,
1988, in Washington, D.C.
24
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
November 4, 1988; 53 FR 44678
(proposed consent decree)
November 4, 1988; 53 FR 44716
(proposed rule)
November 7, 1988; 53 FR 44947
(notice)
November 7, 1988; 53 FR 44976
(correction notice)
This notice announces the lodging of a
proposed consent decree in U.S. v. Village of
Endicott and Town of Union in connection
with the Endicott Village Wellfield Site,
Broome County, NY. The comment period
ends December 4,1988.
This proposed rule will reference various
Federal Agencies' implementation of OMB's
Circular A-110 with a common government-
wide rule for the administration of grants
and cooperative agreements to institutions of
higher education, hospitals, non-profit and
profit entities. Both EPA and FEMA are
affected by this proposed rule. The comment
period ends January 3,1989.
The EPA will transfer to the appropriate State
environmental protection office information
submitted to EPA under the authority of
RCRA in the following surveys:
—National Screening Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and
Recycling Facilities;
—National Detailed Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal and
Recycled Facilities;
—National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators; and,
—Hazardous Waste Biennial Report Data.
EPA has corrected a date from "January 24,
1988" to "January 24,1989," in the
Underground Storage Tank Financial
Responsibility Rule.
25
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
November 8,1988; 53 FR 45089
(final rule)
November 8,1988; 53 FR 45106
(proposed rule)
November 8, 1988; 53 FR 45112
(proposed rule)
November 9, 1988; 53 FR 45402
(lodging of consent decree)
November 10,1988; 53 FR 45523
(extension of comment period)
EPA has renewed the Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest form without change and
extends the expiration date to September 30,
1991. This notice also includes a burden
disclosure statement.
EPA is proposing to grant a petition
submitted by Marquette Electronics, Inc., of
Milwaukee, WI, to exclude certain solid
wastes from the lists of hazardous wastes
contained in 40 CFR Sections 261.31 and
261.32. Comments will be accepted until
December 23,1988.
EPA is proposing to conditionally grant
Occidental Chemical Corp. of Sheffield, AL,
an exclusion for certain solid wastes from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
Sections 261.31 and 261.32. Comments will
be accepted until December 23,1988.
The DOJ is lodging a consent decree pursuant
to CERCLA in the case of U.S. v. Zinc Corp.
of America, a division of Horsehead
Industries. Inc. The decree is for a release in
the Blue Mountain Unit of Palmerton Zinc
in Palmerton, PA. DOJ will accept comments
until December 9, 1988.
EPA is extending the comment period on a
proposed delisting decision for Merck and
Company, Inc., of Elkton, VA, that
appeared in the Federal Register of
September 27,1988. Comments will be
accepted until December 14,1988.
26
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
November 15,1988; 53 FR 45948
(notice of public hearing)
November 16,1988; 53 FR 46364
(Federal facilities update)
November 17, 1988; 53 FR 46558
(final rule)
November 17, 1988; 53 FR 46474
(request for comment)
November 21, 1988; 53 FR 46948
(consent decree)
The public hearing concerning the proposed
mining waste exclusion (53 FR 41288) has
been rescheduled. The original time was
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (on November 17,1988);
the hearing has been extended, and will be
held from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.-
4:30 p.m., unless concluded earlier.
This notice contains the first six-month
update of the list of Federal facilities under
CERCLA Section 120(c). This notice also
contains revisions to the initial list (known
as the "Federal Facilities Docket").
This final rule presents guidelines for the
Federal procurement of retread tires. This
guideline implements Section 6002 (e) of
RCRA, and adds a Part 253 to the 40 CFR.
This final rule designates tires as products
which, if Federal funds are used in
purchasing such products, must contain the
highest percentage of recovered materials
practicable.
This notice requests further comment on the
proposed rulemaking of August 14,1987 (52
FR 30570) concerning increased flexibility in
the modifications of permits (and for interim
status facilities, Part A applications) when
facilities are managing newly listed or
identified wastes. The comment period ends
December 19,1988.
The DOJ is giving notice that a consent
decree has been issued pursuant to CERCLA ,
in the case of U.S. v. Alean Aluminum Corp.
The proposed consent decree involves clean-
up costs incurred at the Renora Superfund
site in Edison, NJ.
27
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
November 22,1988; 53 FR 47232
(FEMA proposed rule)
November 25,1988; 53 FR 47731
(proposed rule)
November 25,1988; 53 FR 47737
(proposed rule)
November 25,1988; 53 FR 47692
(final rule)
November 29,1988; 53 FR 47980
(NPL site deletion)
This proposed rule would establish policy
implementing FEMA's responsibility to
provide permanent relocation assistance to
persons as part of CERCLA response actions.
Comments must be received by January 23,
1989.
EPA is proposing to exclude certain solid
wastes contained in an on-site surface
impoundment from the lists of hazardous
waste in 40 CFR Sections 261.31 and 261.32 in
response to a petition submitted by Brush
Wellman, Inc., Elmore, OH. This notice also
proposes to deny two other petitions
submitted by the same company. Comments
will be accepted until January 9,1989.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the
State program of Utah and give Utah final
authorization. Comments will be accepted
until December 27, 1988.
EPA is granting an exclusion from the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
Sections 261.31 and 261.32 for specified wastes
generated by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company in Randleman, NC.
EPA is providing notice on its intent to
delete the Parramore Surplus Company site,
Mt. Pleasant, FL, from the National Priorities
List (NPL). Comments must be submitted to
the Region IV Docket Office by December 24,
1988.
28
-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
National Toll Free #800/424-9346, Washington DC Metro #202/382-3000
November 29,1988; 53 FR 48048
(consent decree)
November 29,1988; 53 FR 48218
(proposed rule)
This notice announces the lodging of a
proposed consent decree pursuant to
CERCLA in U.S. v. Metropolitan Dade
County Florida, for the Northwest 58th Street
Municipal Landfill. Comment period ends
December 29,1988.
This proposed rule would amend the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) by adding
a new Section 300.440. This proposed
amendment implements CERCLA Section
121(d)(3) regarding off-site management of
wastes from CERCLA response actions.
Comment period ends January 13, 1989.
29
-------
List of Addressees:
Devereaux Barnes, OS-330
Jim Berlow, OS-322
Frank Biros, OS-500
George Bonina, OS-310
John Bosky, EPA-Kansas City
Susan Bromm, OS-500
Karen Brown, PM-220
Diane Buxbaum, Region 2
Jon Cannon, OS-100
Jayne Carlin, Region 10
Fred Chanania, LE-132S
Richard Clarizio, Region 5
Steve Cochran, EH-562B
Kathy Collier, RTF, NC
Elizabeth Cotsworth, OS-343
Rhonda Craig, OS-333
Wayne Crane, PM-273F
Hans Crump, OS-210
Gordon Davidson, OS-500
Elaine Davies, OS-301
Truett DeGeare, OS-301
Bob Dellinger, OS-332
Jeffery Denit, OS-300
Bruce Diamond, OS-500
Melinda Downing, DOE
Lee DuFief, TS-779
Karen Ellenberger, OS-100
Terry Feldman, A-108
Tim Fields, OS-210
Lisa Friedman, LE-132S
John Gilbert, EPA-Cin., OH
Al Goodman, EPA-Portland, OR
Lloyd Guerci, OS-500
Matt Hale, OS-340
Lynn Hansen, OS-305
Penny Hansen, OS-230
Bill Hanson, OS-220
Cheryl Hawkins, OS-200
Steve Hooper, OS-500
Irene Horner, WH-595
Barbara Hostage, OS-210
Hotline Staff
Bob Israel, TS-779
Phil Jalbert, OS-240
Alvin K. Joe, Jr., GRC
Gary Jonesi, LE-134S
Jim Jowett, OS-210
Thad Juzczak, OS-100
Julie Klaas, OS-500
William Kline, OS-322
Bob Kievit, EPA-Olympia, WA
Robert Knox, OS-130
Mike Kosakowski, OS-510
Walter Kovalick, OS-200
Steve Kovash, PM-214F
Tapio Kuusinen, PM-223
Steve Leifer, LE-134S
Steve Levy, OS-301
Henry Longest, OS-200
Sylvia Lowrance, OS-300
James Makris, OS-120
Joseph Martone, A-104
Chet McLaughlin, Region 7
Scott McPhilamy, Region 3
Royal Nadeau, Region 2
Mike Petruska, OS-332
Lawrence Pratt, ANR-464
Steve Provant, EPA-Boise, ID
Barbara Ramsey, A-104
Carl Reeverts, WH-550E
John Riley, OS-210
Suzanne Rudzinski, OS-343
Dale Ruhter, OS-320
Debbie Rutherford, OS-400
William Sanjour, OS-332
Pam Sbar, LE-134S
Mike Shannon, OS-310
Mike Shapiro, TS-779
Elaine Stanley, OS-500
Jack Stanton, A-101
Steve Torok, EPA-Juneau, AK
Betty VanEpps, OS-240
Anastasia Watson, OS-120
Bruce Weddle, OS-301
Steve Willhelm, Region 7
Alex Wolfe, OS-342
Dan Yurman, OS-100
Tish Zimmerman, OS-220
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
30
-------
A AA
------- |