Final Monthly Report: RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance And Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Information Hotline Report September 1985


Wri	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I2IKJ	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
fir;; i 3 c:5
NOW 1 8 1985	OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM	solid waste and emergency response
SUBJECT: RCRA/Superfund Hotline Status Report - September 1985
FROM:
Carolyn Barley, Project Officer	f	s.
Office of Solid Waste (382-2217) ^
Barbara Hostage, Project Officer	@
Office of Bnergency and Remedial Response (382-2198) *
TO:	See addressees
I. ACTIVITIES
A.	The Hotline responded to 7,566 questions and requests for documents in
September.
B.	On September 5, members of the Hotline attended a press conference on the
proposed fourth update to the National Priorities List (NPL). The proposal
to add 38 sites to the NPL appeared in the September 18, 1985 Federal Register
(50 F£ 37950).
C.	Bob Mason of OSWER briefed the Hotline on September 6 on the constrained
insurance market for liability insurance for hazardous waste facility owners
and operators.
D.	On September 11, Pam Garrow of OWPE briefed the Hotline on the ccmunity
relations program for Superfund enforcement sites.
E.	On September 13, Ken Jennings of CWPE briefed the Hotline on the draft "RCRA
Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document." The document
will be used by RCRA enforcement officials in evaluating the adequacy of the
ground-water monitoring systems at interim status facilities. See section IV
(Publications) of this report for distribution information.
F.	Matt Straus met with the Hotline staff on September 17 to discuss solid waste
questions.
G.	Hotline members attended the September 24 public meeting on the proposed
revisions to the Small Quantity Generator regulations. These proposed
regulations which appeared in the August 1, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR
31278) would alter the requirements for people producing 100-1,000 kg. of
hazardous waste per month.
H.	On September 24, Denise Wright met with Karen Reed of EPA's Occupational
Health and Safety staff and Regional members of the Laboratory Hazardous
Waste Workgroup to discuss a variety of RCRA issues.

-------
-2-
I. Gordon Davidson and.Bill Rusin met with Carolyn Barley, Barbara Hostage, and
Jim Hurst of Ccmnunications on September 26 to discuss options for improving the
Hotline's phone system.
II. SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES
A. RCRA	;0\. g J
EP Toxicity for Oily Wastes
1.	With regard to the EP toxicity test specified in §261.24, there was a method
1330 for oily wastes proposed to be added to SW-846, "Test Methods for Evalua-
ting Solid Wastes," which appeared in the October 1, 1984 Federal Register
(49 FR 38804). At what oil concentration should one use this modified EP toxi-
city test for oily wastes?
Method 1330 "Oily Waste Extraction Procedure" was developed for wastes
containing oil or grease in concentrations of 1% or greater. This method
has been used by EPA for generators petitioning EPA to exclude their oily
hazardous wastes from the hazardous waste listings (i.e., "delisting").
Currently, when determining if a non-listed waste is hazardous with respect
to EP toxicity, a generator must follow the procedure specified in 40 CFR 261
Appendix II, not method 1330. Method 1330 should be used only when requested
by EPA for the purpose of delisting a hazardous waste.
Sources Jim Poppiti (202) 382-4665
Non-Hazardous Liquids Ban
2.	The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 placed several bans on the
placement of certain wastes in RCRA interim status or permitted landfills. One
of the bans, as codified in §264.314(e) and §265.314(f) (50 FR 28749 - 28750,
July 15, 1985), states that "effective November 8, 1985, the placement of any
liquid which is not a hazardous waste in a landfill is prohibited unless"
certain conditions are met. The RCRA regulations do not define what is meant
by the term "liquid." Is there any clarification available regarding the
applicability of this ban to semi-solid or multi-phase wastes? Is the use of
absorbents prior to placement in a RCRA landfill prohibited?
The ban on the placement of non-hazardous liquids in RCRA landfills will apply
to any waste that is a liquid or that contains free liquids as determined by
the Paint Filter Liquids Test, Method 9095 as described in "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods." [EPA Publication No.
SW-846] The ban does not specify that the use of absorbents to solidify non-
hazardous liquids prior to placement in a RCRA landfill is prohibited.
Therefore, if a nonhazardous liquid has been has been solidified and contains
no free liquids as determined by the Paint Filter Liquids Test, it may be
placed in a RCRA landfill, according to current staff policy. Guidance will
be available to the Regions in November.
Source: Paul Cassidy (202) 382-4682

-------
-3-
wggte Minimization Certification
3. A shipnent of hazardous waste is initiated on or after September 1, 1985, by a
fully-regulated generator. The manifest does not contain the waste minimization
certification as required by Section 3002(b)(i) of RCRA. The -owner/operator
of the designated treatment, storage or disposal facility (TDSF) receives the
waste shipment unaccompanied by the waste minimization certification. May the
owner/operator accept the waste shipment? Is the owner/operator required to
notify the State or Region about the incomplete manifest?
Section §265.72(b) requires the owner/operator of a TSDF, upon discovering a
"significant [manifest] discrepancy," to first attempt to reconcile the discre-
pancy with the generator. If the discrepancy cannot be reconciled in fifteen
days, then the owner/operator must notify the Regional Administrator. However,
"significant discrepancies" as defined in §265.72(a) ares "(1) for bulk waste,
variations greater than 10 percent in weight and (2) for batch waste, any varia-
tion in piece count." The owner/operator must notify the Regional Administrator
only for unreconciled significant discrepancies. The owner/operator need not
notify the Regional Administrator since waste shipments unaccompanied by a
waste minimization certification are not significant manifest discrepancies.
Source: Mark Greenwood (202) 382-7703
Loss of Interim Status
4. The 1984 HSWA Anendments require that interim status land disposal facilities that
wish to continue operation after November 8, 1985, must submit Part B applications
and certify compliance with groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements by November 8, 1985. Which types of facilities are required to certify
that they are in compliance with all applicable groundwater monitoring and financial
responsility requirements? Is there a specific form for certifying compliance?
In the September 25, 1985 Federal Register (50 FT* 38947), the Agency interprets
the term "land disposal facility" to encompass: landfills; land treatment
units; surface impoundments for disposal, treatment or storage; waste storage;
waste piles; and Class I hazardous waste underground injection wells.
On July 15, 1985, §270.73 was changed to reflect the certification requirements
of the HSWA. Anendnents. The certification should be submitted in addition to
and not as part of the Part B application. The certification statement was
published in the September 25, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 38949). The certi-
fication requires that the facility be in compliance with all groundwater
monitoring and financial responsibility requirements of 40 CFR Parts 265 Subparts
F and H or all State ground-water monitoring and financial responsiblity require-
ments which are analagous to Part 265 as part of the State's authorized hazardous
waste program under section 3006 of RCRA. Copies of a facility's certification
and Part B or State final operating permit application must be submitted to both
the EPA Regional office and the State in which the facility is located. Facilities
in a State with a federally run RCRA prgram need only submit these documents to
the Region.
Source: Jackie Tenusak (202) 475-8729

-------
-4-
gniiri waste Variance
5.	A solvent product is sent off-site for use. The solvent material becanes spent
and is sent back to the production facility as a hazardous waste. The production
facility reclaims the waste and then uses it as a raw material in the production
process. Does this waste management scenario qualify for a variance from the
definition of solid waste for a material that is reclaimed and "then reused within
the original primary production process in which it was generated (§260.30(b))?
No. The variance applies to a waste which is reclaimed and then reused within
the original primary production process in which the waste, not the product,
was generated. In contrast, the waste here is not used ultimately in the
process frcm which it was generated. The following scenario may qualify for a
variance under §260.30(b): Raw material A is put into primary production process
B. In this process, raw material A becomes spent and is generated as hazardous
waste A. This waste A is reclaimed and then reused in the original primary
production process in which it was generated.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Battery Regeneration
6.	In the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 665), §261.6(a)(3) excludes certait]
recyclable materials frcm 40 CFR Parts 262 through 270. §261.6(a)(3)(ii) exclude
"used batteries (or used battery cells) returned to a battery manufacturer for
regeneration." (a) Is this exclusion only applicable to battery manufacturers or
does it also cover any facility that regenerates batteries? (b) Are spent lead-
acid batteries also covered under this exclusion, or are they specifically subject
to Part 266 Subpart G?
(a) This battery exclusion under §261.6(a)(3)(ii) was not meant to be appli-
cable solely to battery manufacturers. Any facility that regenerates
batteries but does not recover the lead from them can be covered under this
exclusion, (b) Only if a spent lead-acid battery is sent to reclaim the
lead (i.e., crack the battery and recover the lead), is it then subject to
§266.30.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
B. CERCLA
Petroleum Exclusion
1. A synfuel process uses coal to generate a product that is similar to a #2 fuel oil.
Petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not specifically
listed or designated as a hazardous substance, is excluded frcm the definition of
"hazardous substance" that appears in §101(14) of CERCLA. Does a #2 fuel oil which
is derived from coal by a synfuel process meet the petroleum exclusion of §101(14)?

-------
-5-
A #2 fuel oil which is derived from coal by a synfuel process does not meet
the petroleun fraction exclusion in the hazardous substance definition.
A hazardous substance as defined in $101(14) "does not include petroleum/
including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifi-
cally listed or designated as a hazardous substance... and the term does
not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas or
synthetic gas usable for fuel." Only synthetic gas products are specifically
excluded in the statute. Given the language of the statutes-other synthetic
fuels such as those similar to a #2 fuel oil are not excluded frcm the
definition of hazardous substance.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 475-8070
Responsible Party Rl/FS
2. Under the proposed revisions to the draft final National Contingency Plan (NCP),
(50 FR 5862), where does it state that EPA will review a remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) performed by a responsible party?
Section 300.71(a)(3) requires that "when a person (including a responsible
party) other than the lead agency takes the response, the lead agency
shall evaluate and approve the adequacy of proposals submitted when the
response is:
i)	action taken pursuant to enforcement action under 106 of CERCLA; or
ii)	action involving preautharization of fund expenditures, pursuant to
$300.25(d) of this Plan."
Source: Linda Garczynski (202) 382-2668
RI/FS Week Plan
3. A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) work plan for remedial
work at a CERCLA site describes how the contractor plans to do the RI/FS.
Who approves a responsible party work plan for remedial work at a Federal-
lead CERCLA site or a State-lead CERCLA site?
When the Federal EPA takes the lead at a CERCLA enforcement site, the
Superfund division director or other appropriate Regional program
official has the final authority to approve the work plan. For a State-
lead site, the appropriate State official approves the work plan. In
different circumstances, work plans have been approved by State Attorney
Generals as well as State environmental officials. Both State and
Federal officials rely on technical support to help review the work
plans.
Source: Mike Kosakowski (202) 382-5611

-------
-6-
III. ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS


The Hotline responded to 7,566 questions and requests for documents in September. Of the
questions asked, the percentage of callers was:
Generators 25%
State Aaencies
6%
Transporters 2%
Consultants
34%
TSDF's 12%
Press
1%
EPA rtVa 2%
Trade Associations
2%
FPA Bpqinns 4%
Citizens
3%
F prlpra 1 Agencies 5%
Others
2%
r/val Agencies 1%


More calls were received by Region 3 than from any other Region.
Breakdown by Region:
1 5% 3 29%
5 18% 7
4% 9.7%
2 11% 4 11%
6 8% 8
4% 10 3%
Canada <1%
RCRA
General Information	384
Notification (3010)	68
Definitions (260.10T	12T
Petitions/Delisting (260.22)	3§"
Definitions (261.2 & 3)	191
Exclusions (261.4)		116
Small Quantity Generator (261.5) 388
Recycle/Reclaim (261.6)	264
Container Residues (261.71 53"
Waste ID (261 C&D)		69%
262	Generator
Manifest Info	112
Pre-trans port	17
Accumulation		69
Recordkeeping & Reporting	32
International Shionents	12
263	Transporter		45
270	B - Permit Application	47
D - Changes to Permits" 12
F - Special Permits	8
G - Interim Status	35
271	State Programs	74
124 Decision Making	2.
RCRA Amendments	1713
Liability/Enfar cement	65
Other/Re f errals	321
Document Requests	681
TSDF

A-Scooe/Applicabilitv
168
B-General Facility Standards
45
C-Preparedness Prevention
17
D-Con&inaencv Plans
15
E-Manifest/Recordkeeping/Reporting
16
F-Groundwater Monitoring
93
G-Closure/Post-Closure
73
H-Finaneial Requirements
80
I-Containers
69
J-Tanks
125
K-Surface Impoundments
97
L-Waste Piles
13
M-Land Treatment
14
N-Landfills
86
O-Incinerators
44
P-Thermal Treatment
9
O-Chemical. Physical. Biological Treat. 60
R-Underqround Injection
11
X-Miscellaneous Facility
2
Y-Ex peridental
4
266/267
212
CEPCLA General/Overview
119
Hazardous Substances/HQ
131
NCP
74
Taxes/IRS/PCLTF
16
Removal
42
Remedial/NPL
173
On-site policy
24
Off-site Policy
18
Cerclis 103(c)
38
Liability/Enforcement
67 i
CEPCLA Reauthorization
37 1

-------
-7-
IV. PUBLICATIONS
RCRA
"RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance -Document
(Draft)", August 1985. Copies are available through these trade
associations for members: ftnerican Petroleum Institute, Chemical
Manufacturers' Association, and the National Solid Waste Management
Association. The Hotline will also take requests.
"Evaluation of Trace Emissions frcm Refuse Thermal Processing Facilities",
OSW document now available from the National Technical Information Service
(OTIS), (703) 487-4650. Order number is PB-85-249258. Cost: $16.95.
"Open Dump Inventory", (EPA/530-SW-85-017). The Hotline can take requests
and route them to Marty Madison. She has 100 copies. Later the document
will be available through the RCRA docket.
"Sunmary of Environmental Profiles of Hazards; Study for Constituents of
Municipal Sludge", per subtitle D. This publication is an analysis of
hazards of disposal of sewage sludge, and is available to the public through
the Office of Water. The Hotline can take requests and route them to
Alan Rubin, mail code WH-585.
CERCLA
"Endangerment Assessment Handbook" and '^General Toxicology Handbook" are
new manuals available to the public. Copies are now being printed. Requests
may be referred to Kathy Plourd's office at (202) 475-6690

-------
-8-
V. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
Forrrer Notices with Open Content Periods:
None
September Federal Register Notices:
September 4, 1985: 50 IT* 35798
(renaming of the Texas Department
of Water)
September 10, 1985: 50 FR 36886
(corrections to proposed
hazardous waste tank regulations)
September 10, 1985: 50 FR 36966
(proposal to amend spent pickle
liquor listing (K062))
September 12, >1985: 50 FR 37338
(proposed F029 dioxin-containing
waste listings)
September 13, 1985: 50 FR 37364
(final delisting of hazardous
wastes at two facilities)
September 13, 1985: 50 FR 37385
(tentative final authorization
for South Carolina)
September 16, 1985: 50 FR 36724
(NCP revision to add sitea to
NPL if a public health threat
exists)
A notice that the Texas Department of
Water is renamed the Texas Water Camiission.
The Texas Water Carmission is responsible
for the State's Industrial and Municipal
Hazardous Waste Program.
A correction of typographical errors in
the proposed rule for hazardous waste
storage and treatment tanks of June 26, 1985
(50 FR 26444-26504).
A proposed rule and request for ccnments
in order to resolve the scope of the listinc
for spent pickle liquor frcm steel finishir*
operations, K062, listed in §261.32, Cot
are due by November 12, 1985.
A proposed rule and request for carmen
the addition to §261.31 of certain resianes
designated F029, fran the treatment of
specific dioxin-containing wastes. Ccrment:
are due by October 28, 1985.
Final exclusions for solid wastes generated
at the tooco Oil Company (Illinois) and the
Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District (Ohic
frcm the hazardous waste lists in §§261.31
and 261.32. EPA also responds to ccnments
on its polynuclear aranatic hydrocarbons
study. Effective date: September 13, 1985
A second notice of tentative determination
on the state of South Carolina's applicatic
for final authorization to administer their
hazardous waste program. A public hearing
is scheduled for October 21, 1985 in Columt
South Carolina. EPA expects to make the
final determination by November 15, 1985.
Comments are due by October 15, 1985.
A final rule amending §300.66(b)(4) of I
National Contigency Plan. Section 300.66(o,
allows EPA to place sites on the National.
Priorities list if a public health thr
exists. Effective date: October 16,

-------
-9-
"September 16, 1985: 50 FR 37588
(public meeting on Ground Water
Monitoring Technical Enforcement
Guidance Manual)
September 16, 1985: 50 FT* 37630
(Landsdowne Radiation site added
to NPL)
September 18, 1985: 50 FR 37950
(proposed fourth update to the
NPL)
September 25, 1985: 50 FR 38866
(tentative final authorization
for Missouri)
September 25, 1980: 50 FR 38946
(enforcement policy on "loss of
interim status provision)
A notice that a two-day public meeting of the
Ground Water Monitoring Guidance Review
Subcarmittee of the Environmental Engineering
Comnittee of the Science Advisory Board will
be held October 3-4, 1985 at U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC. The draft document, "RCRA
Ground Water Monitoring "technical Enforcement
Guidance Document," will be reviewed.
A final rule amending the National Priorities
List (NPL) by adding the Landsdowne Radiation
site located in Landsdcwne, Pennsylvania.
Effective date: October 16, 1985.
A proposed rule and request for ccnments on
EPA's proposed fourth update with 38 sites
to the National Priorities List (NPL).
Cements are due by November 18, 1985.
A notice of tentative determination on the
state of Missouri's application for final
authorization to administer their hazardous
waste program. A public hearing is scheduled
for October 28, 1985 in Jefferson City,
Missouri. EPA expects to make final deter-
mination by December 2, 1985. Cements are
due by October 28, 1985.
A notice of implementation and enforcement
policy pertaining to section 3005(e) of RCRA
which states that an interim status land dis-
posal RCRA) facility will lose interim status
on November 8, 1985, unless the facility
applies for a final permit determination and
certifies compliance with applicable ground-
water monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements.

-------
-10-
Martha Anderson, DORM
Cora Beebe, WH-562A
Frank Biros, WH-527
George Bonina, WH-563
Karen Brown, PM-220
John Bosky, EPA - Kansas City, KS
Diane Buxbaum, Region II
Eileen Claussen, WH-562
Henry Van Cleave, DOD/DLA
Pat Cohn, WH-527
Peter Cook, WH-527
Alan Corson, WH-565
Elizabeth Cotsworth, WH-563
Hans Crump, WH-548B
Truett DeGeare, WH-563
Steve Dorrler, EPA - Edison, NJ
Barbara Elkus, WH-527
Tim Fields, WH-548B
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
Jim Jowett, WH-548B
Thad Juszczak, WH-562A
Robert Knox, WH-562
Jack Kooyoanjian, WH-548B
Mike Kosakcwski, WH-527
Jerry Kotas, WH-527
Walter Kovalick, WH548
Donald Kraft, WH-548D
Tapio Kuusinen, PM-223
Robert Landers, EMSL/LV
Carol Lawson, A-107
John Lehman, WH-565
Steve Levy, WH-563
Gene Lucero, WH-527
James Makris, WH-548A
Susan Mann, WH-563
Jack MoGraw, WH-562A
Tony Montrone, WH-527
Sue Moreland (ASTSVMO)
Sam Napolitano, PM-220
Dean Nelson, A-104
Christina Parker, WH-562
Karen Reed, PM-273
John Riley, WH-548B
Clan Rastatter, WH-563
Dale Ruhter, WH-565
William Sanjour, WH-563
Susan Sawtelle, WH-562
Pam Sbar, LE-134S
Mike Shannon, WH-563
Ken Shuster, WH-565
Elaine Stanley, WH-548
Jack Stanton, WH-527
Bruce Weddle, WH-563
Steve Wilhelm, Region VII
Marcia Williams, WH-562
Russ Wyer, WH-548E
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

-------