jt*0STA%
p ^ 'i
w
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APRIL 20, 1984
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Status Report — March 1984
FROM: Carolyn Barley, Project Officer C..
Office of Solid Waste (382-5235)	//	^J—
Barbara Hostage, Project Officer
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (382-2186)"
TO:	Addressees
I. General Activities
A.	The Hotline responded to 3,058 questions and requests for documents in
March. Page 9 of this report presents an analysis of those calls.
B.	On March 26, Gordon Davidson joined the Hotline as Project Manager.
Prior to the Hotline, Gordon worked as an environmental scientist
for ICF, Inc's Technical Assistance Team and was responsible for
providing support to the Superfund Emergency Response program. Before
ICF, Gordon was involved in the RCRA permitting program in Region V.
Gordon has a Masters in Environmental Management with a specialization
in hazardous waste management from Duke University and a B.A. in Biology
from Wittenberg University.
C.	Also on March 26, Tom Gainer joined the Hotline as an Information
Specialist. Tern has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and a B.S. in
Environmental Science/ Geology from Lehigh University in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania. Tern's prior experience includes work with the State of
Delaware's Emergency and Remedial Response Information System program.
D.	On March 12 - 14, Irene Horner and Denise Wright attended parts of the
Subpart G conference on facility closure issues held at the Shoreham
Hotel in Washington, D.C. Office of Solid Waste staff, EPA Regional
staff, State representatives, and members of ICF, Inc. gave presentations
on various closure and financial assurance issues.
E. On February 6, Jim Cummings of Mike Cook's staff met with John Thompson,
Carolyn Barley, and Irene Horner to discuss the Dioxin Management Task
Force. Mike Cook, Jim Cummings, and Barry Korb coordinate dioxin efforts
by reviewing the work of several groups on a monthly basis and setting
policies. (Lee Thomas is responsible for the oversight of these efforts).
Jim Cunnings has prepared a Dioxin Inquiry Reference form for the Hotline
staff to use to forward information on call write-ups to June Price. Only
a few calls were referred to June in the month of March because the calls
were either requests for the Dioxin Strategy publication available frcnt
Mike Slimak in Water (382-7051) or routine dioxin questions the Hotline
answers which are based on the April 4, 1983, Federal Register.

-------
March 1984 Report
Page 2
F. On March 9, John Thompson, Carolyn Barley and Bruce Weddle briefed Depart-
ment of Transportation personnel on the EPA Uniform Manifest. Irene Horner
represented the Hotline. DOT assembled their inspection, enforcement, and,
regulatory divisions to learn how EPA regulations impact DOT. DOT present
the DOT amendments which adopt the Uniform Manifest for shipment of hazardous"
waste.
G.	On March 20, EPA and DOT in a joint rulemaking effort published the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest. This month's report features questions on the
Uniform Manifest (below).
H.	Copies of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Federal Register have been
disseminated to the Regions for public distribution.
I. The EPA report entitled "Assessing the Releases and Costs Associated with
the Truck Transport of Hazardous Wastes" is undergoing peer review. Once
the review is complete, it will be available through NTIS. The executive
summary is available through the RCRA docket (call Kelly Lenox on 382-4672).
J. Barbara Hostage and Gordon Davidson met with Elaine Stanley to discuss the
development of a formal information transfer mechanism between the Superfund
office and the Hotline.
II. Frequently Asked and Significant Questions
Uniform Hazardous Waste
Federal Register, this section
Segment A addresses the
and Segment B presents
A. Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (UHWM)
Because of the impact and scope of the joint EPA/DOT
Manifest final rule published in the March 20, 1984,
of the Monthly Report is divided into two segments,
recently published Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest;
questions on other issues.
(Citations: page number (e.g., p. 10492) refers to the appropriate page in the
March 20, 1984 Federa1 Register.)
1.	When is the UHWM going to supersede State and company manifests?
The final rule is effective September 20, 1984, six months
after the March 20 promulgation date (p. 10490). However, on
p. 10493 of the preamble under "E. Implementation Date,"
the Agency states that members of the regulated community
in "States that currently do not require the use of a
specific manifest form may use the Uniform Manifest forms
immediately."
2.	Can the Manifest be used for air, rail, and barge transportation
of hazardous waste?
The Manifest is required for all these modes of transportation
- 49 CFR 172.205(a).
3.
A facility may require that information such as waste concentration
and pH be included on the UHWM. Where would this information go?

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
M.arch 1984 Report
Page 3
This type of information would go in block 15 - "Special Handling
Instructions and Additional Information."
4.	Waste is transported to a disposal facility by truck, then railroad,
and finally by truck again. The certification statement under item
16 pertains only to the highway mode. How should the Manifest reflect
the fact that the waste is also being transported by railroad?
The instructions (p. 10503) to the Uniform Manifest require the
generator to note the use of additional modes by entering the
words "and rail" in the space below the word "highway." The
generator should enter information on the first (highway) trans-
porter in items 5 and 6; information on the second (rail) trans-
porter in items 7 and 8; and information on third (truck) trans-
porter in items 24 and 25 on the Continuation Sheet. It should
be noted that while the regulations allow the rail carrier to
carry a shipping paper in lieu of the Manifest (263.20(f)), it
may be more practical in this instance for the rail carrier to
carry the Manifest with the shipment rather than forwarding it to
the next truck transporter. This would ensure that the second
truck transporter received the Manifest.
5.	When shipping hazardous wastes by drum, should the weight or volume be
entered in item 14?
Either unit of measure is acceptable, e.g., 55 gallons or 425 lbs.
6.	What is the relationship between .the Uniform Manifest and DOT'S
requirements?
DOT has amended their Hazardous Materials Regulations to require
the use of EPA's Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form for the
transportation of hazardous waste.
7.	Under whose authority is use of the Uniform Manifest required?
EPA has the authority to require the Uniform Manifest in
unauthorized States and in States with or applying for final
authorization (p. 10491). DOT has the authority to require
the UHWM in those States with interim authorization (p. 10492).
8.	Can a State preprint instructions or other applicable regulations on
the Uniform Manifest form?
The State can preprint instructions or regulations in the margin
or on the back of the form as long as the instructions or regula-
tions do not require reporting additional information 40 CFR 271.10
(h)(l)(iv).
9.	May a State require both the generator and the designated facility
to send copies of the Manifest to the State? What if the generator
or facility is out of State?
A State may require both the generator and the facility to send
copies to the State. See p. 10496 for a discussion of States'
authority.

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
March 1984 Report
Page 4
10. Can a State or private firm printing their own forms put their name,
address, logo, and emergency response number on the form?
Yes - both entities can place this information in the margin
or on the back of the form.
11. Can copies of the form be printed in different colors?
EPA has no requirements regarding the color of the Manifest;
however, State regulations may specify color requirements.
B. General Questions
RCRA
1.	What RCRA regulations apply to Department of Energy facilities?
On February 22, 1984, EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE)
signed a Memorandum-of Understanding (MOU) for Hazardous
Waste and Mixed Waste Management. According to this MOU, DOE
facilities must comply with Part 262 (generator), Part 263
(transporter), and Part 265 (treatment, storage, and disposal)
standards. All these standards, as they apply to DOE facilities,
are subject to modification by EPA - DOE agreement. The Part
265 standards will apply to each DOE facility until EPA issues
each facility a Hazardous Waste Compliance Plan. Compliance
Plans are based on the permitting standards, and are issued in
lieu of a RCRA permit. Contact Tony Baney (382-4131) for further
details.
2.	Has the satellite accumulation regulation governing accumulation
of waste in numerous on-site locations been finalized yet?
No. The January 3, 1983, proposed change to 262.34 referred
to as satellite accumulation is expected to be finalized in
late spring.
3.	Has EPA stopped "delisting" hazardous waste?
EPA has not stopped delisting hazardous wastes, although no
wastes have been delisted since November 22, 1982. EPA plans
to modify its procedures to exclude frcrn regulation wastes
listed under 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, and 261.33. In the past,
under 260.22, delisting petitioners were only required to
address those factors considered by the Agency in listing the
toxic (T) wastes as hazardous (i.e., Appendix VII of Part 261).
Since there are situations where a specific waste may not
contain the toxic constituent that caused the waste to be listed
but may contain other toxic constituents, EPA intends to amend
the delisting procedures to account for such situations.
Congress is also considering amending RCRA to require EPA to
address hazardous constituents other than those for which a
waste was originally listed when evaluating delisting petitions.i
Additionally, these RCRA amendments would require public notice
and corrment before any new exclusions are granted, and would

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
March 1984 Report
Page 5
require final determinations on all existing temporary
exclusions that have been granted in a relatively short time
period.
In light of this Congressional activity, EPA has begun to
request additional information from all past petitioners who
have either filed or been granted temporary exclusions. The
type and amount of information requested will vary with each
petition. See the February 8, 1984, Federal Register, p. 4802
for further discussion. Also, in response to Congressional
activity, EPA implemented the new policy of proposing to exclude
waste and providing a comment period (March 9, 1984, Federal
Register, p. 8962).
4.	Is the list of commercial chemical products associated with the
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon wastes (F024 and F025) in the
February 10, 1984, Federal Register (p. 5309) complete?
The list is almost ccmplete. There are seme small specialty
chemicals not on the list, but usually the manufacturers of
these chemicals do not employ the free radical catalyzed
process which is necessary to meet the listing.
5.	Which States are still under the Federal RCRA program?
The following States have not yet received interim authorization:
Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, South
Dakota, and Wyoming.
6.	What is the inflation factor for updating the closure/post-closure
estimate?
The closure/post-closure cost estimates should be updated in
May by multiplying the May 1983 cost estimate by 1.04. The
1.04 figure is derived by dividing the 1983 annual implicit
price deflator of 215.63 by the revised 1982 annual implicit
price deflator of 206.88.
B. CERCLA
7.	When will the National Priority List be updated?
The proposed additions frcm September 8, 1983, Federal Register
should be finalized by late spring. New sites may be proposed
by late simmer.
8.	If I spill a certain material, is it reportable under CERCLA?
The release of a material defined as a CERCLA hazardous
substance pursuant to Section 101(14) of the Act must be
reported to the National Response Center when the release
into the environment is equal to or greater than its
reportable quantity (RQ). Until final promulgation of the
RQs proposed in the May 25, 1983, Federal Register notice,
the statutory RQs prevail for notification requirements under
CERCLA Section 103(a).

-------
iv-ivvouperiuriu notxine
March 1984 Report
Page 6
9. Have the proposed reportable quantities for CERCLA hazardous substances
been finalized?
No, the reportable quantities proposed in the May 25, 1983,
Federal Register have not been finalized. A Federal Register
announcement is anticipated in late spring 1984.
III. Resolved Issues
A. RCRA
1.	If unused commercial xylene is spilled onto the ground, is it
regulated as a U239 waste (261.33(d)), or will the mixture rule
exclusion of 261.3(a)(2)(iii) exclude the contaminated soil which
is not ignitable? The xylene is not a waste when spilled.
According to page 56588 of the November 17, 1981, Federal
Register, the mixture rule exclusion was intended to exclude
mixtures of solid wastes and wastes listed under 261.31,
261.32, and 261.33 for Subpart C characteristics if that
mixture does not exhibit that characteristic any longer.
Since xylene (U239) is listed for ignitability only and the
contaminated soil resulting from the spill is not ignitable,
the contaminated soil would not be regulated as U239.
Source: Steve Silverman
2.	Is a storage tank for sludge considered part of the wastewater treat-
ment tank exclusion if the sludge is piped from the wastewater
treatment tanks to the storage tank?
Any tank that is part of a wastewater treatment system subject
to regulation under either Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean
Water Act is excluded from regulation under 265.1(c)(10). Thus,
a tank that is part of the wastewater treatment system is excluded
even if that tank does not have an effluent discharge. The defini-
tion applicable to this situation is found in 260.10 "Wastewater
treatment unit," paragraph (2).
Source: Fred Lindsey
3.	A transporter delivers a shipment of hazardous waste to the facility
designated on the Manifest. The Manifest describes the shipment as
500 drums, with each drum weighing 450 lbs. The owner/operator of
the facility determines that all 500 drums are accounted for but that
each drum weighs only 430 lbs, not the designated 450 lbs. Is the
owner/operator required to attempt to resolve the discrepancy with
either the transporter or generator within 15 days; and if resolution
fails, file a discrepancy report to the Regional Administrator?
No. Sections 264.72 and 265.72 define significant manifest
discrepancies as (1) variations greater than 10 percent in
weight for bulk quantities, and (2) any variation in piece
count for batch waste. In this instance, the piece count is
accurate (number of drums), and the variation in weight is
less than 10 percent. Sane States, however, may require a
discrepancy report to be filed in this instance.
Source: Carolyn Barley

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
March 1984 Report
ijage 7
4.	The February 15, 1984, Federal Register contains an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) addressing land disposal issues.
Does this ANPRM ban the land disposal of small quantity generator
(SQG) wastes?
No. The ANPRM does not specifically address the issues of
land disposing of SQG wastes. In addition, it is not clear
hew Congress intended to handle this issue in either of the
RCRA reauthorization bills now pending. The caller is
strongly encouraged to cament on the proposed rulemaking.
Source: Sue Br arm
5.	The February 10, 1984, Federal Register promulgates an interim
final rule governing the regulation of a generic group of
wastes generated during free radical catalyzed manufacturing
processes of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons having carbon
chain lengths from one to five. Page 5310 of that Federal
Register mentions the Clean Water Act 304(b), Ambient Water
Quality Criteria Levels (AWQCL) relative to the aliphatic
hydrocarbon wastes in question. Are these AWQCL's in the back-
ground document for the aliphatic hydrocarbons regulation? When
were these AWQCL1s addressed in the Federal Register?
The AWQCL's are addressed in the background document for
the aliphatic hydrocarbons regulation, which is in the
RCRA docket, and are discussed in the November 28, 1980,
Federal Register, vol. 45, number 231, page 79318.
Source: Cate Jenkins
6.	Section 263.20 allows under certain conditions bulk water and inter-
mediate rail transporters to carry a shipping paper in lieu of the
Manifest with the shipment. Are these transporters required to have
EPA identification numbers?
Yes. Section 263.11 requires all hazardous waste transporters
to have EPA identification numbers. While the bulk water or rail
transporter's identification number is not required on the shipping
paper, the generator is still required to prepare a Manifest.
The Uniform Hazadous Waste Manifest (March 20, 1984, Federal
Register) regulations require the generator to record on the Mani-
fest the name and EPA identification number of every transporter
used between the generator and designated facility.
Source: Carolyn Barley
7.	Facility A places its spills of ccmmercial chemical produces (CCP)
into tanks and surface impoundments. The tanks and surface impound-
ments are subject to NPDES. By the May 19, 1980, 261.3 definition
of hazardous waste, the CCP spill contents are Subpart D listed

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
March 1984 Report
Page 8
hazardous wastes. The facility is, therefore, subject to RCRA and
operates under interim status requirements (Part 265). According
to the November 17, 1981 Federal Register, however, the tanks and
surface impoundments contain "de minimis" spills which are not
subject to RCRA (261.3(a)(2)(iv)(D)). The facility does not have
to be permitted for any of its present activities because of the
mixture rule, and it does not plan to need a permit for any of its
future work. Does the November 17, 1981, mixture rule mean that the
facility does not have interim status because it does not handle
hazardous waste, or does the facility have interim status that would
require 265 closure in lieu of a permit application?
Facility A is still subject to interim status requirements for
the time between November 19, 1980, and November 17, 1981. The
mixture rule does not negate waste meeting the 261.4(a)(2)(iv)(D)
description that was generated prior to November 17, 1981. Since
the facility does not plan to manage hazardous waste in the future,
the tanks and surface impoundments will not be permitted. The
facility may elect to perform closure and any applicable post-closure
requirements under 265, or the facility may elect not to furnish a
part B as grounds for termination under 124. Until 124 proceedings
have been culminated after 265 closure or in response to not having
an application submitted, the facility maintains its interim status
and is able to have changes according to 270.72.
Source: Deborah Wolpe
B. CERCLA
1. According to 108(b)(1) of CERCLA, EPA was to have identified by
December 30, 1983, groups of facilities that produce, transport, treat,
store or dispose of hazardous substances, and under 108(b) was to have
rules as soon as December 1985 to identify financial responsibility
for the facilities consistent with the amount of risk involved in the
handling of hazardous substances.
1)	What is the disposition of the identification effort and
the rules?
2)	Will the rules take into account the nonsudden liability of
pollution insurance that RCRA facilities are required to have
and seme other groups voluntarily carry?
1)	There are no resources available to pursue the
identification and rulemaking effort at this time.
2)	Any analyses performed for such rules will most likely
account for other types of insurance.
Source: Carol Ansheles

-------
RC*RA/Superfund Hotline
March 1984 Report
E^ag'e 9
Analyses of Questions
The Hotline responded to 3058 questions and requests for documents in March. Of the
questions asked, the percentage of callers was:
Generators	23.8%		State Agencies	9.9%
Transporters	1.1%		Consultants	29.2%
TSDF's .	15.3%	Press	0.8%
EPA HQ's	1.8%		Trade Associations	0.5%
EPA Regions	5.8%		Citizens	6.0%
Federal Agencies	3.7%		Others	2.1%
More calls were received frcm Region 3 than in any other Region. Breakdown by Region:
1 6.1%	3 21.0%	5 18.0%	7 4.0%	9 8.2%
2 17.0%	4 12.0%	6 7.8%	8 4.1 % 10 1.7%
«CRA	TSDF
Kneral Information	185		A-Scope/Applicability	66_
Notification (3010)	40		&-General Facility Standards	20
Definitions (260.10)	52		C-Preparedness Prevention	5_
Petitions/Delisting. (260.22J	44		D-Contingency Plans		20
Definitions (261.2 & 3)	95		E-Manifest/Recordkeeping/Reporting 18"
Exclusions (261.4)	64		F-Groundwater Monitoring	46'
Small Quantity Generator (261.5) 86		G-Closure/Post-Closure	49
Recycle/Reclaim (261.6)	113		H-Financial Requirements	104
Container Residues (261.7)	37		I-Containers	24
Waste ID (261 C&D)	366		J-Tanks	J	23_
262	Generator	K-Surface Impoundments	26
Manifest Info	89		L-Waste Piles	3_
Pre-transport	13		M-Land Treatment	6_
Accumulation	70		N-Landfills	44_
Recordkeeping & Reporting 33		O-Incinerators	17
International Shipments	7		P-Thermal Treatment	10_
263	Transporter	15		Q-Chemical, Physical, Biological Treat. 1
270	B - Permit Application	57		^Underground Injection	4_
D - Changes to Permits	9		X-Misc. Facility	1_
F - Special Permits	3		Y-Experimental	
G - Interim Status	40		266/267	4_
271	State Programs	H3	
124 Decision Making 	6		CERCLA General		78
Hazardous Substances/RQ	163
General	Hazardous Site/NPI/104	105
Eity/Enf or cement	27		NCP	19
Referrals	150		Taxes/IRS	12_
nt Requests	507

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
March 1984 Report
Page 10
CERCLA Publications
The Hotline is beginning to ccnpile information and publications that
may be of interest. The following is a series of publications that will be
available.
Superfund Publication Series - "540" series. Available through ORD
Publications - Cincinnati at (513) 684-7562.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Slurry Trench Manual
Feasibility Study Guidance Document (150pp)
Remedial Investigation Guidance Document (150pp)
Handbook on Plume Management (650pp)
Model Selection Model (100)
Costs of Worker Health and Safety (lOOpp)
Remedial Costing Methods Manual (55pp)
Removal Costing Methods Manual (55pp)
Cost Compendium (200pp)
Exposure/Risk Assessment Manual (lOOpp)
Screening of Remedial Alternatives .(lOOpp)
Canpatibility of Grouts with Hazardous Substances (lOOpp)
Addressees
John Skinner, WH-562
Mike Cook, WH-562
Eileen Claussen, WH-562
John Lehman, WH-565
Bruce Weddle, WH-563
Lee Daneker, WH-563
Elizabeth Cotsworth, WH-563
Stephen Lingle, WH-565
Alan Corson, WH-565
Ken Shuster, WH-565
Dale Ruhter, WH-565
William Sanjour, WH-563
Truett DeGeare, WH-563
Peter .Guerrero, WH-563
Steve Levy, WH-563
John Thompson, WH-563
Mike Shannon, WH-563
George Garland, WH-562
William Hedeman, WH-548
Elaine Stanley, WH-548
Kenneth Biglane, WH-548A
Robert Landers, WH-548A
Henry Van Cleave, WH-5483
Russ Wyer, WH-548E
Bill Hanson, WH-548E
Mary Ann Froehlich, WH-548D
Carol Lawson, A-107
Marc Jones, PM-220
John Palmisano, PM-223
Sam Napolitano, PM-220
Gene Lucero, WH-527
Frank Biras, WH-527
Lee Herwig, A-104
Tony Montrone, WH-527
Pete Rosenberg, WH-527
Mike Kosakowski, WH-527
Barbara Elkus, WH-527
Hotline Staff
Alvin K. Joe, Jr., Geo/Resource
Susan Moreland (ASTSWMO)
Diane McCreary, Region III Library
Lisa Friedman, LE-132S
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X

-------