EPA-540-R-06-073
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil
Information Center Monthly Report
April 2006
Services in support of OSRTI, OIAA, and OEM
National Toll-Free No.: (800) 424-9346 Local: (703) 412-9810
TDD National Toll-Free No.: (800) 553-7672 Local: (703) 412-3323
This report is prepared and submitted in support of Contract No. EP-W-06-018.
Derrick Montford, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Printed on
Washington, DC 20460 Recycled Paper
Availability
The complete text of the 1991 (November and December only) through December 2004 Monthly
Call Center Reports may be accessed from the Internet. Go to EPA's Information Resources
page at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/infoserv.htm and select RCRA Monthly Reports. Reports
starting with January 2005 may be accessed at
www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/infocenter/reports.htm.
The Information Center maintains an electronic mailing list named callcenter_oswer.
Subscribers receive Information Center announcements and Monthly Reports via e-mail at no
charge.
• To subscribe to the Information Center electronic mailing list, send a blank e-mail to:
join-callcenter_oswer@lists.epa.gov
• To unsubscribe from an EPA electronic mailing list send a blank e-mail to:
leave-listname@lists.epa.gov
For example, leave-callcenter_oswer@lists.epa.gov
-------
Questions and Answers
SUPERFUND
Q: Has EPA established a preliminary
remediation goal for perchlorate in
groundwater?
A: Following the National Academy of
Sciences' National Research Council review,
EPA has adopted a reference dose (RfD) for
perchlorate of 0.0007 milligram/kilogram-
day (mg/kg-day) for the CERCLA
(Superfund) program. This RfD leads to a
Drinking Water Equivalency Level (DWEL)
and preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of
24.5 micrograms/liter (ug/L) or 24.5 parts
per billion (ppb).
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) calls
for the development of preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs) based on readily
available information (40 CFR
§300.430(e)(2)(i)). PRGs are generally
conservative, default endpoint
concentrations used in screening and initial
development of remedial alternatives before
consideration of information from a site-
specific risk assessment. PRGs may be
modified as more information becomes
available through the site characterization
and remedial investigation process.
PRGs are often based on applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) under federal environmental, state
environmental, or facility siting laws.
Where no federal or state ARARs have been
promulgated (as with perchlorate), PRGs
may be developed based on "to be
considered" (TBC) values (§300.400(g)(3)).
The perchlorate RfD and corresponding
DWEL of 24.5 ppb are respectively the
recommended TBC value and PRG for
perchlorate.
RMP
Q: The endpoint concentrations for
regulated toxic substances under the risk
management program rule (40 CFR Part 68
Appendix A) are listed in units of milligrams
per liter (mg/L). Is this equivalent to parts
per million (ppm) ?
A: No, mg/L is not always equivalent to
ppm. Whereas ppm is a volume-to-volume
or mass-to-mass ratio, mg/1 is a mass-to-
volume relationship. To convert from units
of mg/L to ppm, use the following equation.
Endpointppm =
Endpoint /L x 1,000 x 24.5
Molecular Weight
EPA has included the RMP toxic endpoints
in both ppm and mg/L in Appendix B of the
Risk Management Program Guidance for
Offsite Consequence Analysis (EPA550-B-
99-009, April, 1999).
OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
Q: If the owner or operator of a facility
subject to the SPCC regulations determines
that the installation of any of the specified
secondary containment structures or
equipment is not practicable and
accordingly provides in the facility's SPCC
Plan an oil spill contingency plan follow ing
the provisions of 40 CFR Part 109 pursuant
to §112.7(d), must the licensed Professional
Engineer (PE) who reviews and certifies the
SPCC Plan pursuant to §112.3(d) certify the
contingency plan? If the owner or operator
has submitted an FRP for the facility in
question, must the PE certify the FRP?
A: PE certification is required for any SPCC
Plan that may include a contingency plan
following 40 CFR Part 109 when secondary
containment is determined to be
-------
April 2006
Questions and Answers
impracticable. The determination of
impracticability involves good engineering
practice and compliance with alternative
measures in lieu of secondary containment.
Therefore, the contingency plan is
technically a material part of the SPCC Plan.
No PE certification is required for an FRP,
even when an impracticability determination
is made pursuant to §112.7(d).
Q: The SPCC rule requires inspections,
tests, and evaluations of aboveground
containers (40 CFR §112.8(c)(6)). Does the
rule set schedules for how often these need
to be conducted?
A: The SPCC rule does not prescribe a
specific frequency or methodology for
performing the required inspections,
evaluations, and tests for aboveground
containers. The SPCC rule is a
performance-based regulation that relies on
the use of good engineering practices and
industry standards. These standards may
include testing procedures accepted by the
American Petroleum Institute or the Steel
Tank Institute, among others. The certifying
Professional Engineer (PE) is responsible
for establishing procedures for inspections
and testing at the facility and attests that the
Plan was prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices and consideration of
industry standards. The PE may also use
recommended practices, safety
considerations, and requirements of other
federal, state, and local regulations. As
described in 40 CFR §112.3(d), the PE must
attest that a facility's SPCC Plan is effective
to satisfy the requirements of the SPCC rule,
and this includes an appropriate inspection
program for aboveground containers.
TRI
Q: For Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
reporting under EPCRA §313, is on-site
conversion of a metal compound to an
elemental metal or from the elemental form
of a metal to a compound of that same metal
considered treatment for destruction?
A: Generally, if the conversion of a listed
TRI toxic chemical into another substance
(listed or not) takes place in a wastestream,
it is considered treatment for destruction of
the initial chemical. Metals, however,
generally are not considered as treated for
destuction because only the weight of the
parent metal is reported and the parent metal
cannot be destroyed. Therefore, the
conversion of an elemental metal to a
compound of the same metal or from a metal
compound to the elemental form of the same
metal is not considered treatment for
destruction, even when such conversion
takes place in a wastestream. There are,
however, a few instances in which a TRI
metal or metal category compound may be
considered treated for destruction upon its
conversion to another form or substance
because the newly formed substance is not a
listed TRI chemical. For example, when
elemental barium or a barium compound is
converted to barium sulfate in a
wastestream, this is reported as treatment for
destruction because barium sulfate is not a
listed TRI chemical. Similarly, aluminum
and zinc, which are only reportable in the
form of fumes or dusts, are considered
treated for destruction when they are
converted into non-reportable forms if this
conversion takes place in a wastestream.
-------
Questions and Answers April 2006
Q: How should quantities of toxic chemicals
released and managed as waste as a result
of non-production related events, such as
remedial actions or catastrophic events, be
reported on the EPCRA §313 Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting Form (Form
R)?
A: Quantities of a toxic chemical released to
the environment on site and quantities
transferred off site for disposal, treatment,
recycling, or energy recovery as a result of
remedial actions, catastrophic events, or
other one-time events not associated with
production processes may be reported
distinctly in Section 8.8 (instead of Sections
8.1, 8.3, 8.5, or 8.7). In contrast, quantities
of a toxic chemical combusted for energy
recovery, recycled, or treated for destruction
on site must be reported in Sections 8.2, 8.4,
and 8.6, respectively - never in Section 8.8 -
even if they result from non-production
related, remedial, or catastrophic events.
-------
FEDERAL REGISTERS
Availability
You may order copies of Federal Registers by calling the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center
National Toll-Free No.: (800) 424-9346 Local: (703) 412-9810
TDD National Toll-Free No.: (800) 553-7672 Local TDD: (703) 412-3323
Electronic Availability
EPA Federal Registers from October 1994 to the present are accessible via the Internet at: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr
FINAL RULES
SUPERFUND
"National Priorities List for
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites"
April 19, 2006(71 FR 20016)
EPA added six new sites to the General
Superfund Section of the National Priorities
List(NPL). The effective date of this
rulemaking is May 19, 2006.
PROPOSED RULES
SUPERFUND
"National Priorities List for
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites, Proposed Rule No. 44"
April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20052)
EPA proposed to add four new sites to the
General Superfund Section of the NPL.
This rule also proposes to restore one site to
the NPL and withdraws one site from
proposal to the NPL. Comments must be
received by June 19, 2006.
"National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List"
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24627)
EPA announced its intent to delete the
Internal Parcel of the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal National Priorities List Site from the
NPL. Comments must be received by May
26, 2006.
CROSS-PROGRAM
"Spring 2006 Regulatory Agenda"
April 24, 2006 (71 FR 23226)
EPA published the Semiannual Regulatory
Agenda to update the public about
regulations and major policies currently
under development, reviews of existing
regulations and major policies, and
regulations and major policies completed or
canceled since the last Agenda.
NOTICES
EPCRA
"Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Trade Secret
Claims for Community Right-To-
Know and Emergency Planning
(EPCRA Section 322); EPA ICR No.
1428.07, OMB Control No. 2050-
0078"
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24670)
EPA announced its plans to submit the
following Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval:
"Trade Secret Claims for Community Right-
To-Know and Emergency Planning (EPCRA
Section 322)," ICR Number 1428.07, OMB
Control Number 2050-0078. The current
-------
Federal Registers
expiration date for this ICR is October 31,
2006. Comments must be received by June
26, 2006.
SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT
DECREE NOTICES
"Consent Decree; United States v.
Ametek, Inc. and John Evans' Sons,
Inc."
April 5, 2006 (71 FR17140)
"Consent Decree; United States and
State of Oregon v. City of Millersburg"
April 5, 2006 (71 FR17141)
"Consent Decree; United States v.
Monarch Greenback, L.L.C., et al."
April 5, 2006 (71 FR17141)
"Consent Decree; United States v. Sahli
Enterprises, Inc. and Michael Sahlf
April 5, 2006 (71 FR17142)
"Consent Decree; United States v.
Dravo Corporation, et al."
April 13, 2006(71 FR 19205)
April 2006
"Consent Decree; United States v. The
Standard Oil Co., et al"
April 20, 2006 (71 FR20418)
"Consent Decree; United States v. AOL
Express, Inc., et al."
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24760)
"Consent Decree; Crane Co., et al. v.
United States"
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24761)
"Consent Decree; United States and the
State of Wisconsin v. NCR Corporation
and Sonoco-U.S. Mills, Inc."
April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24761)
------- |