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.

-------