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 ------- |