UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 APR 4 B85 of nee op SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: RCRVSuperfund Hotline Monthly Status Report — February 1985 FROM: Carolyn Barley, Project Officer Office of Solid Waste (382-2217) Barbara Hostage, Project Officer Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (382-2198^ TO: Addressees I. ACTIVITIES A. The Hotline responded to 4,712 questions and requests for documents in February B. On February 5 and 22, Matt Straus briefed the Hotline staff and answered questions on the new definition of solid waste. C. On February 5, Denise Wright and Tbm Gainer attended the public meeting held by EPA to explain the procedures and criteria used to exclude (or "delist") a listed hazardous waste fran regulation. D. On February 13, Lee Thcmas signed the CERCLA reportable quantity package which clarified the reporting procedures under Section 103(a) of CERCLA for releases and addjusted the reportable quantities (RQ's) for 340 hazardous substances. The package also included a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to adjust the RQ's for 105 of the remaining 358 hazardous substances. The RQ package will be published in the Federal Register in early April. II. SIQilFICANT QUESTIONS AND RESOLVED ISSUES 1. A company has several facilities which use oil for their machinery and, therefore, generate a significant amount of used oil. The canpany picks up this used oil from each facility and transports it to another company-owned facility to burn it for heat. Under the proposed rule on blenders and burners of hazardous waste fuels and used oils published in the January 11, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 1684), would this ccmpany be classified as a marketer of used oil fuel even though the used oil fuel is not sold outside the ccmpany? A. RCRA ------- -2- Yes, this corpariy would be considered a marketer of used oil fuel. Although the term marketer implies ccmnercial activity, the regulations governing used- oil fuel marketers were meant, in part, to regulate trans- portation of used oil fuel off-site. Therefore, the proposed rules of $266.43 would apply to this company. Section 266.43 requires marketers to fulf-ill requirements including: fuel analysis, notification of location and activity, the establishment of a shipment invoice system, and other recordkeeping requirements. Source: Karen Walker (202) 382-7937 2. A company generates a waste which is a mixture of wastes exhibiting the RCRA characteristics of ignitability and corrosivity (D001 and D002, respectively). This waste mixture meets the definition of spent material (§261.1(c)(1)) defined in the new definition of solid waste published in the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FT* 614). The ccrpany burns this waste mixture in one of its boilers for energy recovery. The boiler is not subject to the Subpart 0 (Par£ 264 or Part 265) incinerator standards. How do the regulations apply to this waste mixture? The new definition of solid waste as put forth in the January 4, 1985 Federal Register final rule (50 FR 614), provides the best guidance for addressing this question. This waste mixture is a spent material and meets the definition of a solid waste (§261.2 (c)(2)(i)(A)) and hazardous waste (§261.3). This waste mixture is governed by the requirements for recyclable materials (§261.6) which states that hazardous wastes burned for energy recovery in boilers that are not subject to Subpart 0 of Part 264 or 265 are subject to Part 266 standards (§261.6 (a)(2)(ii)). Part 266 Subpart D governs hazardous waste burned for energy recovery in boilers or industrial furnaces. Section 266.36 states, however, that hazardous waste fuels that are spent materials and that are hazardous only because they exhibit a characteristic are not regulated when burned for energy recovery, or when managed before burning. Currently, therefore, this hazardous waste fuel is not regulated. The proposed rule governing hazardous waste and used oil fuels published in the January 11, 1985 Federal Register (50 F]l 1684) will, however, regulate such hazardous waste fuel prior to being burned, and could ban burning in non-industrial boilers. Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551 3. A 274 acre interim status landfill has 20 downgradient groundwater monitoring wells. Contamination has been detected in five of the wells. For the last five years the remaining 15 wells have shown no contamination. In the facility's Part B application, must the compliance monitoring or corrective action program be applied to all 20 wells or just the five wells which show contamination? If, after thorough site-specific review of interim status compliance, it has been determined that all 20 assessment program wells are necessary _to properly detect and characterize any plumes of contamination which may come from the facility, the ocnpliance monitoring program must be carried out at all of the 20 wells which are at the point of compliance, not just those wells that have shown contamination (§264.98(h)(2)). However, the way the'question is worded gives seme doubt that the existing wells comply with interim status assessment requirements. Usually more wells will be needed after detection to determine rate and extent of migration (5265.93(d)(4)(i)). It is unlikely that five ------- - 3 - wells will fully characterize a five year old plime of contamination from a 274 acre site. Wells may be needed in the vicinity of each of the five wells now showing contamination to demonstrate that the highest concentrations are detected, and to establish the plume boundaries and the rates of migration. Additionally, it must be shown that the failure to detect contamination in the remaining 15 wells is not a false negative. Information including additional analytes from the 20 wells should be fully evaluated andr based on this analysis, a monitoring array should be designed. In general, the same high standards for the number and location of wells apply to both interim status and permitted facilities implementing ground water monitoring programs. Interim status standards include requirements for detection and assessment programs. Permitting standards include requirements for detection, compliance, and corrective action programs. Both detection programs are essen- tially the same. Data gathered frcm the interim status assessment program should be sufficient for characterizing the plans for the purposes of fulfilling Part B application requirements. However, there is no interim status equivalent to com- pliance monitoring under Part 264. In a ccrpliance monitoring permit, wells mijst be located at the intersection of any plume and the point of compliance; both tjhe periphery and the point of highest concentration within that plume nust be monitored, monitored. Finally, both applicants and permit writers should weigh the opportunity to, improve the monitoring system under the permit against the need for maintaining data continuity. Upgrading to teflon wells, installing new wells at plume centers, and other improvements may need to be phased in over several sampling cycles to establish correlations between old data and new data. Source: Burnell Vincent (202) 382-4658 4.^ The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act to include a new Subtitle I which contains regulations governing "regulated substances" in underground storage tanks. "Regulated substances" include all CERCLA hazardous substances as defined in CERCLA 101(14) and listed in the May 25, 19841 Federal Register, Table 302.4 (48 FR 23571), except for RCRA hazardous wastes. RCRA hazardous wastes stored or treated in underground tanks that cannot be entered for inspection are currently subject to the interim status standards under 40 CFR Part 265 standards. A company stores benzene, as a product, in an underground storage tank. Would this company's benzene storage tank be regulated under the new underground storage tank regulations? This storage tank would be regulated under the underground storage tank regulations because the benzene stored in it is a product and not a waste. If the benzene was intended to be discarded, it would be considered a RCRA hazardous waste under §261.33(f) and would, therefore, cause the underground storage tank to be subject to the interim status standards as noted above. Permitting standards for underground storage tanks which store hazardous waste and which cannot be entered for inspection are currently under development. Source: Dave O'Brien (202) 382-7924 5. The RCRA regulations provide the regulated ccrmunity a method to exclude wastes from regulation at the specific facilities at which the wastes are generated. The delisting requirements are detailed in $260.20 and $260.22. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste toendments (HSWA) amended the delisting procedures with regard to the timing in which plisting petitions must be considered. What are these particular amendments? ------- - 4 - Section 222(a) of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Anendnents contains the delisting procedure amendments. The amendments briefly state that EPA should publish in the Federal Register a proposal to grant or deny a ocrplete delisting petition application within twelve months frcm receiving the petition and make a final decision within 24 months after receiving a conplete application. Also, the Agency must act on petitions which were granted temporary exclusions prior to the amendments by twenty-four months from the date of enactment of the HSWA (November 8, 1984); otherwise, the tenporary exclusion is no longer in effect causing the wastes to be regulated. Source: Jim Poppiti (202) 382-4796 B. CERCLA 1. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) identifies the response procedures and authorities created by the Superfund law. EPA has proposed revisions to the NCP based on program experience and agreements reached in settlement of a lawsuit J between the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the State of New Jersey, and EPA. The proposed rule was published in the February 12, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 5862). What are the major revisions? There are seven major proposed revisions to the NCP, all of which appear in Subpart F, Hazardous Substance Response. Briefly, the proposed revisions: 1) Eliminate immediate and planned removals and initial remedial measures (IRM)| as distinct response categories, and expand the criteria for conducting \ removal actions; 2) Remove the prohibition frcm listing federal facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA is soliciting cements on different ways to advise the public of the status of federal government cleanup efforts at federally- cwned sites. One approach may be to list sites currently owned by by the federal government on the NPL; 3) Require the development and implementation of formal ccrmunity relations plans for all remedial actions at NPL sites (including enforcement actions) prior to field activities; 4) Provide that, as a matter of policy, EPA will meet the substantive provisions of other "applicable or relevant" Federal public health and environmental standards, unless one of five specified circumstances exists and that EPA will consider other standards, criteria, and advisories in selecting remedies; 5) Add criteria allowing sites to be listed on the NPL regardless of the sites' Hazard Ranking System scores if a health advisory has been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services as a consequence of releases; 6) Clarify what is required for private party response and cost-recovery actions including preauthorization; and 7) Establish presumptions for removal and remedial action which indicate under what circumstances specific actions are appropriate. Source: Nancy Parkinson (202) 382-2237 ------- -5- • 2. The proposed-revisions to the National Contingency Plan (50 JR 5862) include a method by which a site may be included on the NPL if a health advisory has been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a consequence of releases from that site (§300.66(b)(4)). Is there a list of sites which have had health advisories completed for NPL purposes, and, who is responsible for preparing health advisories? There is no list of sites for which health advisories have been canpleted to determine inclusion on the NPL. However, two sites are under consideration for health advisories. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) works closely with EPA and is primarily responsible for health advisory protocols and development. Source: Nancy Parkinson (202) 382-2237 3. The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is EPA's primary methodology for determining the relative risk posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites for implementation of CERCLA remedial response activities. The HRS is presented in Appendix A of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) published in the July 16, 1982 Federal Register (47 ra 31219). The ground water migration route score is one of three migration scores used to I determine potential for harm fran migration of a hazardous substance release intofthe air, surface water, or ground water from a site. In determining the ground water migration score, the term "aquifer of concern" is used. What is the aquifer of concern, and how is it applied in the HRS? The "aquifer of concern" is the aquifer that might be contaminated as a result*6f a release. Identifying the aquifer of concern involves examining site-specific hydrogeology, (including possible interconnections between aquifers), aquifer use or potential use, and risk posed to the aquifer frcnt site releases. Site investi- gators will identify the aquifer of concern during the course of an investigation. Once an aquifer of concern is identified, then the depth to the aquifer is deter- mined. The depth or distance to the aquifer of concern is measured vertically from the lowest point of the hazardous substances to the highest seasonal level of the saturated zone of the aquifer of concern. This distance is one indicator of the ease with which a pollutant frcm the facility could migrate to ground water. A value used for scoring purposes is assigned depending on the distance to the aquifer of concern. This value table is in Section 3.2 on page 31224 of the July 16, 1982 Federal Register. Also considered in the HRS scoring is the population served by the aquifer of concern. Figures 2 and 3 (47 FR 31225, July 16, 1982) provide more information on the aquifer of of concern concept, and how it is applied in the HRS. Source: Steve Caldwell (202) 475-8103 III. PUBLICATIONS RCRA 1. "Permit Writers' Guidance Manual for location of Hazardous Waste Land Storage and Disposal Facilities - Phase I: Criteria for Location Acceptability and Existing Applicable Regulations (draft)," February 1985. The Hotline will accept requests for this document. 2. "Implementation of Minimun Technology Requirements of HSWA of 1984, Respecting Liners and Leachate Collection Systems. Reauthorization Statutory Interpretation (draft memorandum)," January 31, 1985. The Hotline will accept requests for this document. ------- - 6 - 3. "RCRA Reauthorization-Statutory Interpretation #3: Inmediate Implement at ion of . New Corrective Action Requirements (preliminary guidance memorandum)," February 5, 1985. The Hotline will accept requests for this document. 4. "Signatories to the Department of Defense Permit Applications (memorandum)," January 25, 1985. This memo was assigned to the Program Implementation Guidance System as "PIG-85-1." The Hotline will accept requests for this document. CERCLA 1. "Review of In-Place Treatment Techniques for Contaminated Surface Soils, Volume 1: Technical Evaluation," September 1984, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA-540/2-84-003a. Available frcm the EPA's Office of Research and Development at (513) 684-7562. 2. "National Priorities List, 786 Current and Proposed Sites in Order of Ranking and By State, October 1984," revised edition, December 1984, HW-7.2. The Hotline will accept requests for this document. ------- - 7 - IV. ANALYSES OF QUESTIONS I btline responded to 4,712 questions and requests for documents in February. Of the «tions asked, the percentage of callers was: Generators 20.0 State Agencies 11.0 Transporters -2.1 Consultants 40.0 TSDF1 s 3^1 Press 0^8 EPA HQ's 1^9 Trade Associations 2^5 EPA Regions 3^6 Citizens 3.9 Federal Agencies 5.0 Others 6.1 More calls were received fran Region 3 than from any other Region. Breakdown by Region: 1 5.8 3 25 .0 5 16.4 7 4.0 9 7.7 2 14.0 4 12.0 6 8.6 8 3.8 10 ? 2.5 r Canada <1 RCRA TSDF \ \ 1 General Information 261 A-Scope/Applicabi1ity 72 Notification (3010) 44 B-General Facility Standards 24 Definitions (260.10) 43 C-Preparedness/Prevention 8 PeLitions/Delistinq (260.22) 68 D-Contingency Plans 10 Q| kitions (261.2 & 3) 82 E-Manifest/Recordkeepinq/Reportinq 23 h[ rsions (261.4) 45 F-Groundwater Monitoring^ 35 Shall Quantity Generator (261.5) 63 G-Closure/Post-Closure 40 Recycle/Reclaim (261.6) 108 H-Financial Requirements 54 Container Residues (261.7) 19 I-Containers 23 Waste ID (261 C&D) 342 J-Tanks 21 262 Generator K-Surface Incoundments 29 Manifest Info 92 L-Waste Piles 5 Pre-transport 11 M-Land Treatment 7 Accumulation 54 N-Landfills 23 Recordkeeping & Reporting 38 O-Incinerators 27 International Shipments 6 P-Thermal Treatment 6 263 Transporter 44 O-Chemical, Physical, Biological Treat. 2 270 B - Permit Application 56 R-Underqround Injection 2 D - Chanqes to Permits 16 X-Miscellaneous Facility 0 F - Special Permits 4 Y-Experimental 0 G - Interim Status 42 266/267 104 271 State Programs 71 124 Decision Makinq 0 CERCLA General 143 RCRA Reauthorization 723 Hazardous Substances/RO 149 Liability/Enforcement 33 Hazardous Site/NP 1/104 84 Dther/Referrals 344 NCP 70 Document Requests 963 Taxes/IRS 7 ------- - 8 - V. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES FOR FEBRUARY 1985 February 5, 1985 50 FR 5034 The Agency published the December 5, 1984 "Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy." This policy governs private party cleanup and contribution proposals under CERCLA. Also included is a more detailed discussion of issues raised by the policy. Public ocnments will be accepted until April 8, 1985. February 7, 1985 50 FR 5259 EPA grants an extension of interim authorization to California, Nevada, and Guam. This extends the authori- zations until January 26, 1985. February 7, 1985 50 FR 5260 EPA grants Final Authorization to New Jersey for the RCRA program effective on February 21, 1985. February 7, 1985 50 FR 5268 EPA announces the availability of the draft manual, "Permit Writers Guidance Manual for location of Hazardous Waste Land Storage and Disposal Facilities-Phase Is Criteria for Location Acceptability and Existing Applicable Regulations. Public caiments will be accepted until April 8, 1985.M February 11, 1985 50 re 5637 EPA announces the availability of additional information on the proposed amended listings of petroleum wastes K048 and K051. EPA also clarified that the final listing wou] would apply only to wastes from primary wastewater treatrh processes and not to any wastes from secondary wastewater treatment. Public carments will be accepted until March 13, 1985. February 12, 1985 50 FT* 5862 EPA proposed revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP). The purpose of the revisions is to streamline the response mechanisms; to ensure prompt, cost effective response; to respond to issues raised by litigation under the current NCP; and to clarify responsibilities and authorities. EPA also proposed a policy concerning the extent to which reponse actions taken pursuant to CERCLA will be consistent with other environmental statutes. Public caiments will be accepted on Section 300.66(b)(4) (CDC Health Advisories) only until March 14, 1985. Carments on the remainder of the proposal will be accepted until April 15, 1985. February 14, 1985 50 FT* 6320 Final rule amending the National Priorities List (NPL) by the addition of two sites. The two sites are the Glenn Ridge radium site, Glen Ridge, New Jersey and the Montclair/West Orange radium site in Montclair/West Orange, New Jersey. The effective date is March 18, 1985. February 21, 1985 50 FT* 7268 Final rule establishing an action time for Judicial Review under applicable EPA administered statutes including RCRA. This rule is intended to bring greater fairness to "Races | to the Courthouse." The effective date of this rule is April 22, 1985. ------- |