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 ------- |