UNITED-STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PftjDTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON,- D.C. 20460 JANUARY 25, 1985 OFFJCE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE .^MEMORANDUM* SUBJECT: FROM: TO: I. ACTIVITIES The Hotline responded to 2/588 questions and requests for documents in December. II. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES A.¦RCRA 1. The financial requirement regulations (40 CFR §264 and §265, Subpart H) require that owners and operators of all hazardous waste management, facilities establish financial assurance to cover the cost of closing their respective facilities. The regulations provide six methods for establishing financial assurance. One method is a financial test and corporate guarantee for closure (§264.143(f)(10) and §265.143(e)(10)). Using this method, a parent corporation (guarantor) can provide., the financial assurance for an owner/operator of a subsidiary company. If a facility becomes a separate company, completely autonomous from the parent company, may the ex-parent company provide financial assurance for the owner/operator of the newly independent company? No; the ex-parent company may not provide financial assurance for the newly independent company. Sections 264.143(f)(10) and 265.143(e)(10) state that "The guarantor must be the parent corporation of the owner or operator." Therefore, the newly independent company must.establish its own.financial, assurance since its ex-parent ccmpany can 6o longer function as its guarantor. This financial assurance must.be in place upon independence. Source: Joe Freedman (202) 382-7700 Research: Gordon Davidson w RCRA/Superfund Hotline Monthly Status Report — December 1984 Carolyn Barley, Project Officer Office of Solid Waste (382-2117) Barbara Hostage, Project Officer s6&t#U<0 Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (382—2X86^ Addressees ------- -2- 2. If a facility's interinr..£fcatus- is.'.terminated, must the owner/operator of the facility still meet the §265_-;irit;erim status standards for closure, post-closura and financial "responsibility?, Yes; a facility which has had its interim status terminated must meet §265 standards, including those:fo£ closure, post-closure, and financial responsibility. A technical amendment to the interim status standards which was published in the'November 21, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 46094) clarified that interim status standards are applicable to facilities whose interim status is terminated until their closure and post-closure require- ments are fulfilled. Source: Libby Scopino (202) 475-8731 Research: Hilary Sonrner 3. A treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) has agreed to accept "empty containers" per §261.7. Upon receiving the containers (55 gallon drums), the TSDF found that although the containers held less than one inch, the containers could be and were emptied further by inverting the container and pouring out additional hazardous waste. According to §261.7(b)(l)(i), a container that has held hazardous waste is empty if all wastes have been removed that can be removed using the practices canmonly employed to remove materials from that type of container, e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating. If the TSDF further empties the container by pouring, was the container "empty" when received even though it held under one inch of material? No; the container was not empty. Preamble language to the August 18, 1982 Federal Register (47 FR 36093) states that "it should be clear that one inch of waste material is an overriding constraint and may remain in an empty container only if it cannot be removed by normal means." This indicates that a container must be emptied by pouring, pumping, and aspirating. Then, if the container holds less than one inch, the container is empty per §261.7. Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4776 Research: Bill Rusin 4. An interim status facility has a surface impoundment for storing a hazardous waste. This facility wants to build another storage surface impoundment for a new product line which will produce a hazardous waste that was not designated on the facility's Part A application. Would building such a storage surface impoundment for accepting a generated hazardous waste new to the facility be considered an increase in design capacity (§270.72(b)) or a process change (§270.72(c))? Adding a new storage surface impoundment would be an increase in design capacity. This would not be considered a process change since the process is not changing; the new unit is also a storage surface impoundment (designated S04 on a Part A). An increase in design capacity requires the owner/operator to submit a revised Part A application, which includes a justification for the change, and to obtain approval from the Regional Administrator or State Director (§270.72(b)). Also, the owner/operator must comply with §270.72(e) concerning reconstruction of the facility. Source: Debbie Wolpe (202) 382-4754 Research: Tom Gainer ------- -3- 5. A private laboratory generates a variety^of r.hazardous wastes. The lab has about 200 lab technicians who may hahdle-tfie wastes. Must these lab technicians be trained to handle hazardous.vaste, and, if so, must there be documentation of their training? The lab technicians must have training to the extent necessary to ensure safe handling of the wastes. Per §262.34(a)(4), the generator must ccmply with §265.16 on training of personnel handling hazardous waste. Section 265.16(d) requires that training records be kept at the facility. The generator could categorize positions (i.e., superb- visors, lab technicians, etc.) and list the individuals names in those categories with a description of the training for that group. Source: Tony Baney (202) 475-8728 Research: Denise Wright 6. A company owns several facilities which generate waste solvents. The company is considering using an outside contractor with a mobile recycling unit to go to each facility on a regular basis to recycle the waste solvents on-site. The contractor would generate from the recycling process a useable solvent product and still-bottcm wastes. The contractor would leave both the product solvent and still-bottom waste at the facility in which the recycling took place. Under RCRA, who is considered the generator of the still-bottcm wastes; the facility or the contractor with the mobile unit? Also, would the generator be allowed 90-day accumulation of the still-bottcm wastes per §262.34? This situation where one person owns and operates a manufacturing unit and another person is used to reclaim spent solvents and spent catalysts is addressed in the October 30, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 72024). The definition of generator in §260.10 is "... any person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste..." Thus, both the owner/operator of the facility and the operator of the mobile recycling unit could be considered generators of the still-bottcm hazardous wastes. However "the Agency ... recommends that where two or more parties are involved, they should mutually agree to have one party perform the generator responsibilities. Where this is done, the Agency will look to that designated party to perform the generator duties. If EPA does not knew which party by mutual agreement is appointed to carry out the generator duties, the Agency will ... initially look to the operator of the unit to fulfill the generator duties..." (45 FR 72020). The 90-day accumu- lation period would apply in this case per §262.34. Source: Carolyn Barley (202) 382-2217 Research: Gordon Davidson B. CERCLA 1. Monitoring wells have been placed at a CERCLA site. Once the wells are evacuated, it takes one to one and a half weeks for the wells to recharge. EPA guidance on well sampling has indicated that before taking a sample the well should be evacuated 4 to 10 casing volumes prior to sampling. If this procedure were to be followed at this site, however, it could take two to four weeks to get a sample. Does the Agency provide any guidance on groundwater sampling in areas with slow recharge? ------- -4- B. CERCLA (con't) The Agency recorrcnends purging each well four to ten times prior to taking a groundwater sample. For sites with slow recovery, however, the wells should be evacuated to dryness (at least once) and then a sample taken as soon as a sufficient quantity of groundwater has recharged the well. Source: George Dixon (202) 382-4494 Research: Bill Rusin 2. The October 15, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 40320) proposed adding 244 sites to the National Priorities List (NPL). The proposed rule allowed for a 60 day comment period once published. Will there be an extension to the cormient period for this proposed rule? EPA is not planning to extend the comment period, and is not legally bound to consider ccmrtents received after the close of the comment period. In previous NPL rulemakings, EPA has considered comments submitted after the close of the ccnment period, whenever possible. EPA probably will do the same for this rulemaking. Source: Joe Gearo (202) 392-4485 Research: Hilary Sanmer 3. The May 25, 1983 Federal Register (48 FR 23552) contained a proposed rule listing CERCLA hazardous substances and their Reportable Quantities (RQs). Have any new hazardous substances been added to the list since publishing the proposed rule? Two new CERCLA hazardous substances have been identified as a result of EPA rulemakings since publication of the May 25, 1983 proposal. 1) Under RCRA, a group of wastes of generic category generated during the manufacture of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons with a carbon content of one to five has been added. The waste code for this group of wastes is F024. This waste group was published in the February 10, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 5308) 2) Coke oven emissions were added to the list of hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act in the September 18, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 36560). Source: Rick Horner (202) 382-2668 Research: Bill Rusin ------- -5- ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS The Hotline responded to 2,688 questions and requests for documents in December. Of the questions asked, the percentage of callers was: Generators 23.8% Transporters 3.3% TSDF's 11.6% State Agencies 8.8% Consultants 30.5% Press 1.1% EPA HQ's 1.4% EPA Regions_ 7.2% Federal Agencies 3.5% Trade Associations 1.6% Citizens Others 4.2% 3.0% 1 6.4% 3 23.3% 5 18.5% 7 4.2% 9 8.2% 2 13.6% 4 12.4% 6 7.2% 8 4.5% 10 1.9% Canada <1% RCRA TSDF General Information 212 A-Scope/Applicabi 1 ity 65 ification (3010) 19 B-General Facility Standards 10 [nitions (260.10) 55 C-Preparedness Prevention 3_ "TCtitions/Delisting (260.22) 32 D-Contingency Plans 7_ Definitions (261.2 & 3) 41 E-Manifest/Recordkeeping/Reporting £ Exclusions (261.4) 40 F-Groundwater Monitoring 26 Snail Quantity Generator (261.5) 69 G-Closure/Post-Closure 25 Recycle/Reclaim (261.6) 43 H-Financial Requirements 30 Container Residues (261.7) 15 I-Containers 15. Waste ID (261 C&D) 269 J-Tanks 32 262 Generator K-Surface Impoundments 60 Manifest Info 71 L-Waste Piles 5 Pre-transport 13 M-Land Treatment 1_ Accumulation 47 N-Landfills 20 Recordkeeping & Reporting 13 O-Incinerators 19 International Shipments 6 P-Thermal Treatment 2 263 Transporter 42 Q-Chemical, Physical, Biological Treat. 7 270 B - Permit Application 54 R-Underground Injection 1 D - Changes to Permits 14 X-Miscellaneous Facility 0 . F - Special Permits 2 Y-Experimental 0 G - Interim Status 29 266/267 1 271 State Programs 64 124 Decision Making 16 CERCLA General 94 Hazardous Substances/RQ 75 Liability/Enforcement 13 Hazardous Site/MPL/104 69 Other/Referrals 136 NCP 50 Document Requests 259 Taxes/IRS , 2_ _~RA Reauthorization 550 ------- -6- IV. PUBLICATIONS RCRA 1. "Waste Analysis Plans; A Guidance Model," September 1984, provides guidance to permit applicants and permit writers on how to prepare and evaluate waste analysis plans. Copies are available from the Government Printing Office (GPO) for $5.50 (order number 055-000- 00244-4). GPO's phone number in Washington, D.C. is (202) 783-3238. CERCLA 1. CERCLA1s 301 Studies, December 1984, are available frcm Charles Mooney at (202) 829-3535. An executive surtmary of the 301 studies is also available frcm Charles Mooney. The Hotline will accept requests for these two publications. 2. "Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy," December 5, 1984. This memorandum provides information concerning private party settlements under CERCLA. The Hotline is accepting requests for this document. V. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES December 4, 1984 49 FT* 47398 EPA corrects and updates the second addition of the manual "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," (SW-846). December 4, 1984 49 FR 47391 EPA grants final authorization to Virginia for the RCRA program, effective December 18, 1984. December 4, 1984 49 FT* 47441 The Department of Justice notes a proposed consent decree in "United States v. Pine Valley Golf Club," Civil Action no. 84- 2105, New Jersey. The action is for civil penalties and injunctive relief concerning disposal of chemicals in violation of RCRA and recovery of costs of removal pursuant to CERCLA. December 5, 1984 49 FR 47510 EPA corrects a proposed rule and request for comments published in October 23, 1984, FR. The proposed rule to exclude solid wastes generated at particular facilities, from 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 inadvertently omitted a portion of Table 2. December 12, 1984 49 FR 48300 EPA grants final authorization to Texas for the RCRA program, effective December 26, 1984. Authorization to operate the RCRA program for Indian lands within Texas remains with EPA. ------- -7- December 14, 1984 49 FR 48694 December 18, 1984 49 FR 49092 December 20, 1984 49 FR 49556 December 20, 1984 49 FR 49562 December 20, 1984 49 FR 49568 December 21, 1984 49 FR 49784 December 27, 1984 49 FR 50362 EPA grants final authorization to North Carolina for the RCRA program, effective December 31, 1984. Authorization to operate the RCRA program for Indian lands within North Carolina remains with EPA. EPA grants final authorization to New Hampshire for the RCRA program, effective January 3, 1985. EPA proposes to list as hazardous four wastes generated during the production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) frcm carboxylic acid hydrazides. These wastes are residuals at several points in an integrated series of reactors and associated purification units using carboxylic acid hydrazide feedstock. Comments will be accepted until February 19, 1985. EPA proposes to list as hazardous four wastes generated during the production and formation of ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid (EDBC) and its salts. These wastes are: process wastewater; reactor vent scrubber water; purfication solids; and baghouse dust generated during production. Comments will be accepted until February 4, 1985. Final rule allowing generators of hazardous waste to accumulate up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste in satellite areas at the generator facility. EPA proposes to add as hazardous 109 chemicals to its list of commercial chemical products that are hazardous when discarded. Twenty-eight of these would be classified as acutely hazardous. In addition, 120 compounds would be classified as hazardous constituents (Appendix VIII). The action is in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by Michigan. EPA grants final authorization to Oklahoma for the RCRA program, effective January 10, 1985. Authorization to operate the RCRA program for Indian lands within Oklahoma, remains with EPA. ------- -8- ADDRESSEES John Skinner, WH-562 Mike Cook, WH-562 Eileen Claussen, WH-562 Robert Knox, WH-562 Iantha Gilmore, WH-562 Christina Parker, WH-562 Cora Beebe, WH-562A Jack McGraw, WH-562A John Lehman, WH-565 Fred Lindsey, WH-565 Bruce Weddle> WH-563 Clem Rastatter, WH-563 Elizabeth Cotsworth, WH-563 Penny Hansen, WH-565 Alan Corson, WH-565- Ken Shuster, WH-565 Dale Ruhter, WH-56.5 William Sanjour, WH-563 Walter Kovalick, WH5;48 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 James Makris,-WH-548A Robert Lander's, WH-J48A Jim Jowett, ViH-548B~" Henry Vah Cleave, DOD/DLA Russ Wyer, WH-548E Bill Hanson, WH-548E Pat Cohn, WH-548D Carol Lawson, A-107 Marc Jones, PM-220 Barry Garelick, 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 Thad Juszczak, WH-562A Jack Stanton, WH-527 Tim Fields, WH-548 John Riley, WH-548B Jack Kooyocmjian, WH-548B Rick Horner, WH-548B John Bosky, EPA - Kansas City, KS Peter Cook, WH-527 Elaine Fitzback, WH-527 Jerry Kotas, WH-527 Hazardous Waste Division Directors'," Regions I-X Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chiefs', Regions I-X ------- - 9 - February 26, 1985 50 FR 7882 EPA proposed the exclusion of solid waste generated at six facilities from 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 as well as deny an exclusion to a petitioner for one waste stream. EPA also outlined the approach used to evaluate a de- listing petition. This includes the Vertical and Hori- zontal Spread (VHS) model. This model estimates the ability of an aquifer to dilute the toxicant from a specific volume of waste. Public ccnments will be accepted until April 12, 1985. A hearing will be granted if requested by March 19, 1985. ------- - 10 - Joyce Baker, Region III Library Cora Beebe, WH-562A Frank Biros, WH-527 George Bonina, WH-563 John Bosky, EPA - Kansas City, KS Eileen Claussen, WH-562 Henry Van Cleave, DOD/TDLA Pat Cohn, WH-548D Mike Cook, WH-562 Peter Cook, WH-527 Alan Corson, WH-565 Elizabeth Cotsworth, WH-563 Hans Crump, WH-548 Truett DeGeare, WH-563 Steve Dorrler, EPA - Edison, NJ Barbara Elkus, WH-527 Tim Fields, WH-548 Elaine Fitzback, WH-527 Lisa Friedman, LE-132S George Garland, WH-562 John Gilbert, EPA - Cincinnati, OH Iantha Gilmore, WH-562 Peter Guerrero, WH-563 Penny Hansen, WH-565 Bill Hanson, WH-548E Betti Harris, EPA-Region VII William Hedeman, WH-548 Lee Herwig, A-104 Rick Horner, WH-548B Hotline Staff Phil Jalbert, WH-548D Alvin K. Joe, Jr., Geo/Resource Marc Jones, PM-220 Jim Jowett, WH-548B Thad Juszczak, WH-562A Robert Knox, WH-562 Jack Roqyocmjian, WH-548B Mike Kosakowski, WH-527 Jerry Kotas, WH-527 Walter Kovalick, WH548 Donald Kraft, WH-548D Tapio Kuusinen, PM-223 Robert Landers, WH-548A Carol Lawson, A-107 John Lehman, WH-565 Steve Levy, WH-563 Fred Lindsey, WH-565 Gene Lucero, WH-527 James Makris, WH-548A Susan Mann, WH-563 Diane McCreary, Region III Library Jack MoGraw, WH-562A Tony Montrone, WH-527 Sue Moreland (ASTSWMO) Sam Napolitano, PM-220 Christina Parker, WH-562 John Riley, WH-548B Clem Rastatter, WH-563 Dale Ruhter, WH-565 William Sanjour, WH-563 Mike Shannon, WH-563 Ken Shuster, WH-565 John Skinner, WH-562 Elaine Stanley, WH-548 Jack Stanton, WH-527 Bruce Weddle, WH-563 Russ Wyer, WH-548E Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I-X Hazardous Waste Management Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X Regional Counsel, Regions I-X ------- |