Final Monthly Report: RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance And Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Information Hotline Report. May 1984


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUNE 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Status Report -- May 1984
Carolyn Barley, Project Officer
Office of Solid Waste (382-5235)
Barbara Hostage, Project Officer S
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (382-21864
ibOA& tffaa/U' (j
TO:
Addressees
I.	ACTIVITIES
The Hotline responded to 3449 questions and requests for documents in May.
Page 9 of this report provides further information on these calls.
Almost 50% of all document requests were for the draft Technical Resource
Document entitled "Procedures for Modeling Flow Through Clay Liners to
Determine Required Liner Thickness."
II.	FREQUENTLY ASKED AND SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS
A. RCRA
1.	Can a tanklike portable filter press used in a wastewater treatment facility be
excluded from regulation if the filter press meets all of the 260.10 criteria
under "wastewater treatment unit" despite the fact it is not a stationary device?
Yes; the filter press would be excluded from regulation by 265.1(c)(10)
and 264.1(g)(6) as a wastewater treatment unit.
2.	What is the difference between a tank and a surface impoundment?
According to the April 15, 1983 guidance memo from Bruce Weddle to
Region IV, the unit should be evaluated as if it were free standing
and filled to its design capacity with the material it is intended
to hold. If the walls or shell of the unit provide enough structural
support to maintain structural integrity of the unit under such
conditions, the unit is a tank. If the unit needs supporting earthen
materials to maintain its structural integrity, it is a surface
impoundment. Engineering data and drawings may be necessary to make
this determination.
3.	Is there guidance on how much construction is allowed before a permit is
i ssued?

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
May 1984 Report
page 2
In general, grading, grubbing, building access roads, soil testing, fencing,
and earth movement are not considered "construction." Such activities
that are not directly related to the hazardous waste facility or unit
such as excavating a surface impoundment are allowed prior to permit
issuance. The NRDC settlement agreement of Novenber 16, 1981,-issue
13, dicusses this point.
4.	What is the Agency's definition of electroplating?
In the background document for the 261.31 and 261.32 hazardous waste
lists, electroplating is defined as "corranon and precious metals
electroplating, anodizing, chemical conversion coating (i.e.,
coloring, chromating, phosphating and immersion plating), electroless
plating, chemical etching and milling and printed circuit board
manufacturing."
5.	RCRA requires generators and facility owners and operators to have contingency
plans outlining how personnel will respond to fires, explosions or releases
of hazardous waste. Part 264.52(b) and 265.52(b) refer to the Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and references Part
1510 of Chapter V. What is Part 1510 of Chapter V?
Part 1510 of Chapter V, Title 40, is a reference to the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) as originally prepared by the Council on
Environmental Quality. NCP responsibility was delegated to the EPA
by Executive Order 12316 (March 12, 1982 FRJ. As a result of this change,
the NCP was redesignated under Chapter I of Title 40, Part 300.
6.	For partial closure, must there be certification by a professional engineer
(P.E.), public notice of partial closure, and submission of the partial closure
plan 6 months prior to the anticipated partial closure date?
There is no set policy on partial closure with regard to these
three requirements, but partial closure is a priority issue for
the Office of Solid Waste. The Agency does not see how a professional
engineer would be able to certify at final closure that a partial
closure he did not witness had been performed in accordance with
the approved closure plan. In addition, if the closure plan has
not been approved prior to partial closure activities, it is probable
that those partial closure activities already performed may later
be found inadequate.
B. CERCLA
1. How can a company get a contract for EPA removal work at Superfund sites?
EPA has already awarded regional contracts to four companies to handle
all Superfund removal work. To see if there are subcontracts available,
these companies should be contacted:
Zone 1 contractor (EPA Regions 1-3)
OH Materials Co.
P.O. Box 551
Findlay, OH 45840
(419) 423-3526	Contact: Robert Ohneck

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Hay 1984 Report
page 3
Zone 2 contractor (EPA Region 4)
Hazardous Waste Technology Services
3300 Marjan Drive
Atlanta, GA 30340
(404) 451-9877	Contact: Gary demons
Zone 3 contractor (EPA Region 5)
Pedco Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
(513) 782-4700	Contact: Richard Gerstle
Zone 4 contractor (EPA Regions 6 - 10)
Environmental Emergency Services Co.
P.O. Box 3320
Portland, OR 97208
(503) 285-9111	Contact: Ed Minugh
2.	If a non-RCRA waste stream contains a hazardous substance such as methanol, is
the whole waste stream a hazardous substance subject to the CERCLA Section
103(a) reporting requirement? What would the reportable quantity be?
According to page 23555 of the May 25, 1983, Federal Register,
discharges of mixtures or solutions not otherwise designated in
Table 302.4 are subject to notification only when a conponent
hazardous substance (such as methanol) is discharged in a quantity
equal to or greater than the reportable quantity for that hazardous
substance. In this case, reporting of the waste stream is required
when one pound of methanol has been released. For example, if the
waste stream is 10% methanol, reporting would be required when a
discharge of 10 pounds or more occurs.
3.	When will IRS promulgate regulations clarifying the hazardous waste tax
required for the CERCLA Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund?
According to Ada Rousso at IRS, the regulation package is currently
under review at the Department of Treasury. Her office is expecting
to receive the package in the next few months. These regulations
should address such issues as how to calculate dry weight ton and which
RCRA facilities this tax applies to.
III. RESOLVED ISSUES
A. RCRA
1. Does the introduction to a wastewater treatment facility of pumped groundwater
contaminated by the slow leakage of an above-ground, tank containing a commercial
chemical product on the 261.33 list fall under the exclusion category of de minimis
losses (261.3(a)(2)(iv ) (D))?

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
May 1984 Report
Page 4
No; the fact that the flow has continued long enough to result in
groundwater contamination disqualifies it as a de minimis loss..
Source: Steve Silverman
Research: Ken Jennings
2.	The "Permit Applicants Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities" (final draft, SW-970), provides check lists
of all the information requirements and associated permitting standards
that an applicant for a land treatment, storage, or disposal facility may need
to address. Are these check lists to be be used as a format for preparing
a Part B application?
The check lists can be used as an application format. The check
lists are provided as a tool for both the applicant and permit reviewer
to use as a reference to ensure that all information required is
included in the application. The check lists should be included in the
application to aid the reviewer. The check lists allow an applicant to
indicate the location in the application of information responding to
each requirement. There are no formal application format requirements.
Source: Art Day
Research: Gordon Davidson
3.	F006 (wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations) is
shipped to a company that puts the waste right into a smelter to dewater
it. The dewatered waste is held until a load is accumulated and then shipped
to a metals reclaimer. The fines produced from smelting are held and later sent
off-site for disposal.
A)	Does the smelting company need a permit for storage?
B)	Is the dewatered waste still F006?
C)	Must the smelting company be a storage facility to hold the dewatered
sludge after smelting?
D)	Are the fines from smelting subject to storage standards since-they were
derived from F006 which is subject to storage standards when stored off-site
from the generator?
A)	Since the smelting company puts the waste right into the smelter for
recycling, no storage permit is needed to accept the F006.
B)	No; the material after reclamation is no longer considered a
solid waste.
C)	Since the dewatered sludge is no longer a waste, a storage permit is
not needed.
D)	No; the production of the fines is viewed as the generation of F006 per
261.3(c)(2) and the fines can be accumulated for less than 90 days per
262.34 without needing a storage permit.
Source: Matt Straus
Research: Denise Wright

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Kay 1984 Report
Page 5
4.	Section 261.3(a)(2)(IV) excludes from regulation the discharge of certain
wastewater mixtures which are subject to Clean Water Act regulation*'
(307(b) and 402) "(including wastewater at facilities which have eliminated
the discharge of wastewater)."
A)	What is the significance of this section's parenthetical phrase
addressing eliminated discharge?
B)	Do surface impoundments qualify under that parenthetical reference?
A)	The intended application of the parenthetical phrase in 261.3(a)(2)(IV)
is to situations where effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards
require zero discharge as the most environmentally sound practice,
or where a facility surpasses these requirements by achieving zero
discharge.
B)	If a surface impoundment is subject to Clean Water Act zero discharge
guidelines, then the exclusion applies. Information specific to the
purpose and management of surface impoundments must be supplied to
determine if this exclusion applies.
Source: Steve Si lverman
Research: Ken Jennings
5.	API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry (K051) is placed
in a surface impoundment where it further separates into sludge and water.
Is the water fraction a hazardous waste?
The water fraction is not a hazardous waste because the K051 listing
was meant to cover the sludge generated from this process, regardless
of the nunber of separations.
Source: Bill Sproat
Research: Tom Gainer
6.	A Part B applicant has an "existing" storage surface impoundment with a liner..
According to 270.2(b)(1) and 264.221(a), "existing" surface impoundments are not
required to install liners but are required to conform with all other design
and operating" requirements in 264.221, as well as the ground water protection
requirements. Must the applicant describe the liner in the Part B application?
The applicant is not required to describe the liner in the application.
EPA, however, recommends that the applicant include such information
in their Part B.
Source: Art Day
Research: Gordon Davidson
B. CERCLA
1. A) At how may sites on the National Priority List have monies been obligated for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)?

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
May 1984 Report
Page 6
B) Where is this information available?
A)	As of May 23, 1984, monies have been obligated for RI/FS at 255
NPL sites. Between 20 and 25 of these have been completed; the
remainder are on-going.
B)	The Remedial Accomplishments Plan summarizes the monies obligated by
site for the EPA Regions. The document is updated quarterly. Copies are
available from Denise Sines (382-3046) at the Superfund Docket,
Source: Ki rby Bi ggs
Research: Bill Rusin
2.	A) If a Superfund site is owned by a municipality, is a 10% or 50% cost
share required?
B) If a settlement is reached with responsible parties, does the state
or municipality ever get any of the 10% or 50% matching funds back?
A)	With respect to cost sharing, municipalities are treated the same
as states in accordance with Section 104(c)(3)(C)(ii) of CERCLA which states
that if at the time of release any "state or political subdivision thereof"
owned the site, a 50% cost share is required. If, however, the municipality
or state owned the site after the release as a result of a tax sale or
seizure, etc., only a 10% match would be required.
B)	Yes; if a settlement with responsible parties is reached, the state
or municipality should be compensated at the same percentage rate of its
original match. For example, if the settlement was for $100,000 and the
state had provided a 10% match in response costs, the state would receive
$10,000.
Source: Jan Wine
Research: Denise Wright
3.	A private party assessed that one of their lagoons posed an environmental
threat. The private party decided to clean up the lagoon without consulting
EPA. After the cleanup, the private party tried to get reinbursed from
CERCLA for cleanup funds expended. Will the private party get
reinbursed? *
No; the private party will not be reinbursed from the Fund. A private
party must conform with section 111(a)(2) of CERCLA and 300.25(d) of the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) to be a candidate for reinbursement.
Section 111(a)(2) requires that the costs of such actions be approved
under the NCP. Section 300.25(d) of the NCP states that a private
party must notify EPA of their intent to file a claim and receive
prior approval (preauthorization) before they begin the response
acti on.
Source: Bill Ross
Research: Gordon Davidson

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
•May 1984 Report
Page 7 >
IV. ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS
me Hotline responded to 3349 questions and requests for documents in May. Of the
questions asked, the percentage of callers was:
Generators	25.2%		State Agencies	10.0%
Transporters	3.2%	Consultants	29.7%
TSDF's	10.7%	Press "	<1.0%
EPA HQ's	<1.0%	Trade Associations	<1.0%
EPA Regions	5.6%		Citizens	7.5%
Federal Agencies	2.6%	Others	3.2%
More calls were received from Region 3 than in any other Region. Breakdown by Region:
	1	7.0%	3	18.2%	5 17.8% 7 4.8% 9 8.7%
	2	14.4%	4	11.9%	6 10.0% 8 4.3% 10 2.6%
CANADA <1.0%
RCRA	TSDF
General Information
180
A-Scope/Appli cabi1ity
68
Notification (3010)
38
B-General Facility Standards
24
Definitions (260.10)
58
C-Preparedness Prevention
3
£fititions/Delistinq (260.22)
30
D-Contingency Plans
8
tinitions (261.2 & 3)
85
E-Mani fest/Recordkeepi ng/Reporti ng
7
Husions (261.4)
102
F-Groundwater Monitoring
38
Small Quantity Generator (261.5)101
G-Closure/Post-Closure
60
Recycle/Reclaim (261.6)
109
H-Financial Requirements
43
Container Residues (261.7)
28
I-Containers
15
Waste ID (261 C&D)
250
J-Tanks
24
262 Generator

K-Surface Impoundments
32
Manifest Info
92
L-Waste Piles
5
Pre-transport
9
M-Land Treatment
10
Accumulation
78
N-Landfills
16
Recordkeeping & Reporting
13
O-Incinerators
•• 20
International Shipments
9
P-Thermal Treatment
8
263 Transporter
28
Q-Chemical, Physical, Bio. Treat.
0
270 B - Permit Application
42
R-Underground Injection
2
D - Chanqes to Permits
10
X-Misc. Facility
2
F - Special Permits
4
Y-Experimental
1
G - Interim Status
11
266/267
5
271 State Programs
53


124 Decision Makinq
4
CERCLA General
93


Hazardous Substances/RQ
121
General

Hazardous Site/NPL/104
74
Liability/Enforcement
19
NCP
16
Other/Referrals
493
Taxes/IRS
4
Document Requests	903

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
May 1984 Report
Page 8
V. PUBLICATION INFORMATION
A.	RCRA
1.	The Westat, Inc. report for EPA entitled "National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated
Under RCRA in 1981" has been sent to the U.S. Government Printing Office
(GPO). The order nunber for the document is 055-000-00239-8.
2.	"Sampling and Analysis Methods for Hazardous Waste Contustion," 1984,
(PB84-155-845) is available from NTIS for $32.50.
3.	"Assessment of Hazardous Waste Mismanagement Damage Case Histories,"
EPA/530-SW-84-002, April 1984, is available in limited nunbers from the
RCRA Docket.
B.	CERCLA
1. "Analysis of Community Involvement in Hazardous Waste Site Problems"
prepared by ICF, Inc. for EPA, July, 1981. Copies are available through
ICF by contacting Marc Tipermas or Mary Sexton at 862-1100. When ordering
a copy refer to the document as "Community Relations Case Studies."
VI. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
May 7
May 8
May 8
19341
May 10
19480
19608
19820
The EPA has tentatively decided to grant
final authorization to the State of Georgia
to operate its program in lieu of the Federal
hazardous waste program.
The San Gabriel Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 sites
have been added to the NPL. These four sites
were included in the Septenber 8, 1983
proposed rule.
Proposed rule to list certain wastes generated
during the production of dinitrotoluene,
toluenediamine, and toluene diisocyanate.
The Agency has also proposed to amend Section
261.33(f) by adding two compounds to the
list of commercial chemical products and to
add several constituents to Appendix VIII.
The EPA extended the period of interim
authorization of Oregon's hazardous waste
program to June 1984.

-------
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Key 1984 Report
Page 9
May 10
19922
May 15
May 22
20496
21678
ADDRESSEES:
Section 261.33(e) has been amended (P001, P122)
to include warfarin at concentrations greater
than 0.3% and zinc phosphide at concentrations
greater than 10%. Section 261.33(f) has been
amended (U248, U249) to include warfarin and
zinc phosphide at concentrations less than or
equal to the concentrations stated above.
The State of Rhode Island has been granted
interim authorization for Phase II, component A.
States applying for final authorization under
RCRA do not have to revise their programs and
applications to respond to Federal regulatory
changes occuring while the states' applications
are being prepared or processed. Authorized
states will be given sufficient time to amend
their programs to conform to Federal program
changes.
John Skinner, WH-562
Mike Cook, WH-562
Eileen Claussen, WH-562
Robert Knox, WH-562
Carl Reeverts, WH-562
Cora Beebe, WH-562A
Jack McGraw, WH-562A
John Lehman, WH-565
Fred Lindsey, 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
Steve Levy, WH-563
Peter Guerrero; WH-563
John Thompson, WH-563
Mike Shannon, WH-563
Susan Mann, WH-563
George Garland, WH-562
William Hedeman, WH-548
Elaine Stanley, WH-548
Kenneth Biglane, WH-548A
Robert Landers, WH-548A
Jim Jowett, WH-548B
Henry Van Cleave, WH-548B
Russ Wyer, WH-548-E
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
Sue Moreland (ASTSWMO)
Diane McCreary, Region III Library
Joyce Baker, Region III Library
Lisa Friedman, LE-132S
Steve Dorrler, EPA - Edison, NJ
John Gilbert, EPA - Cincinnati, OH
Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-X
Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X

-------