EPA540-R-10-003
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil
Information Center Monthly Report
April 2010
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.
Sheree Johnson, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Availability
The complete text of all Monthly Reports, beginning with November 1991, may be accessed on
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/contacts/infocenter.
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
OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
Q: Facilities subject to the Facility
Response Plan (FRP) regulations in 40 CFR
Part 112, Subpart D are required to develop
a facility response training program to train
those personnel involved in oil spill
response activities (§112.21(b)). How often
does a facility need to complete an oil spill
response training under the FRP
requirements?
A: EPA recommends facilities base their
training programs on the United States Coast
Guard's (USCG) Training Reference for Oil
Spill Response (§112.2Kb)). This guidance
suggests that facility personnel should
complete a training annually and those new
employees be trained within a week of their
hire. An alternative program can also be
acceptable subject to approval by the
Regional Administrator (§112.21(b)).
Q: Does a facility need to fill out Attachment
C-IIin 40 CFR Part 112, Appendix C if the
facility is only subject to the SPCC
regulations and is not subject to the Facility
Response Plan (FRP) requirements?
A: If the owner or operator of a facility
determines that the facility is not subject to
the FRP requirements, the owner or operator
shall complete and maintain at the facility
the certification form contained in Appendix
C-II and attach the documentation to the
certified form (§112.20(e)). This
documentation should include how the
facility came to the conclusion that it was
not subject to the FRP requirements. If the
facility uses an alternative formula than
prescribed in Appendix C to evaluate its
substantial harm criteria, the owner or
operator shall attach documentation to the
response plan cover sheet contained in
Appendix F to demonstrate the reliability
and analytical soundness of the alternative
formula and notify the Regional
Administrator in writing that an alternative
formula was used.
Q: The SPCC regulations in 40 CFR
§112.7(c) require facilities to provide
appropriate containment or diversionary
structures or equipment to prevent
discharges as described in §112.1(b). Does
a facility's SPCC Plan have to include
calculations to demonstrate compliance with
the §112.7(c) general secondary
containment requirements?
A: EPA does not require facilities to keep
calculations of secondary containment in an
SPCC Plan; however, the Plan must include
enough detail to describe the efficacy of the
measures used to comply with the
requirements in §112.7(c). EPA
recommends that the facility owner or
operator maintain calculations that serve as
the basis for the capacity of the secondary
containment system such that if questions
arise during an inspection, the calculations
will be readily available for review.
Calculations may be provided in the Plan as
part of the documentation to support the
adequacy of containment measures
employed at the facility. Industry guidance
(e.g., API Bulletin D16, Third Edition,
December 2002) recommends that facility
owners or operators include any secondary
containment capacity calculations or design
standards with the Plan.
Sample calculations of containment size are
available in Chapter 4 of the SPCC
Guidance for Regional Inspectors, available
at the following URL:
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/
spec guidance.htm
-------
Questions and Answers
April 2010
Q: Gas stations typically are not subject to
the SPCC Rule because completely buried
storage tanks subject to 40 CFR Part 280 or
281 are exempt per §112.1(d)(4). However,
a gas station would be subject to the SPCC
Rule if it has more than 1,320 gallons of oil
in aggregate above ground storage capacity
(e.g., abovegroundstorage tanks containing
gasoline or used motor oil). If a gas station
is subject to the SPCC Rule because of its
aboveground storage capacity, what
requirements, if any, must the fuel pumps or
dispensers connected to underground
storage tanks (USTs) meet to be in
compliance with the SPCC Rule?
A: Transfer areas, such as areas containing
dispensers or other oil transfer equipment,
associated with exempted USTs at an
otherwise regulated SPCC facility are
subject to the secondary containment
requirements in §112.7(c). A transfer
operation is one in which oil is moved from
or into some form of transportation, storage,
equipment, or other device, into or from
some other or similar form of transportation,
such as a pipeline, truck, tank car, or other
storage, equipment, or device. Areas where
oil is transferred but no loading or unloading
rack is present are subject to §112.7(c), and
thus appropriate containment and/or
diversionary structures are required, which
may include active containment such as
response action or sorbent deployment.
EPA does not require specifically-sized
containment for transfer areas; however,
containment size must be based on good
engineering practice (§112.3(d)).
Additional information regarding transfer
areas and general containment requirements
can be found in Chapter 4 of the SPCC
Guidance for Regional Inspectors, available
at the following URL:
Q: Pursuant to 40 CFR §112.7(c), facilities
subject to SPCC must provide containment
or diversionary structures or equipment to
prevent discharges as described in
§112. l(b). Additionally, facilities must
construct all bulk storage container
installations (except mobile refuelers) to
provide a secondary means of containment
for the entire capacity of the largest single
container and sufficient freeboard to contain
precipitation (§112.8(c)(2)). Must a facility
that has numerous 55-gallon drums provide
separate containment systems for each drum
to meet the general secondary containment
requirements in §112.7(c) or the specific
secondary containment requirements in
§112.8(c)(2)?
A: No, it is not necessary to provide separate
containment systems for each individual
container or piece of equipment. The SPCC
Plan preparer may choose to design facility
drainage to provide a common collection
area for multiple containers, piping, or oil-
filled equipment located at the facility. In
the specific secondary containment
requirements in §112.8(c)(2), the term bulk
storage container installation refers to an
assemblage of bulk storage containers, many
of which are separated by the types of
product that they store. Owners or operators
must ensure each bulk storage container
meets the requirements in §112.8(c)(2),
either individually or as part of a bulk
storage container installation.
Additional information about the SPCC
secondary containment requirements is
available in Chapter 4 of the SPCC
Guidance for Regional Inspectors, which is
available at the following URL:
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/sp
cc/spcc guidance.htm
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/sp
cc/spcc guidance.htm
-------
Questions and Answers
April 2010
RMP
Q: In general, flammable mixtures are
subject to the risk management program
requirements if there is a regulated
substance in the mixture above one percent
and the entire mixture meets the National
Fire Protection Association flammability
hazard rating of 4 (NFPA-4) (40 CFR
§68.115(b)(2)). A facility has a process with
a mixture that meets the NFPA-4 criteria
and contains three regulated flammable
substances. Two of the substances are
present in concentrations greater than one
percent, but one is present in a
concentration below one percent. Do all
three substances need to be included in the
facility's risk management plan (RMP), or
can the facility exclude the one that is
present in a concentration less than one
percent?
A: The facility should list all of the
substances in section 1 of the RMP,
including the substance that is present in a
concentration less than one percent. In the
case of flammable mixtures, the mixture
itself is counted towards the 10,000 pound
threshold and triggers applicability, not the
individual substances. If a flammable
mixture exceeds the threshold quantity and
meets the NFPA-4 criteria, all of the
regulated substances contained in the
mixture should be reported in the RMP,
regardless of their concentration.
Additionally, the facility must specify the
quantity of each regulated substance in the
flammable mixture and, therefore, is able to
indicate if only a small amount of a
regulated substance is present. The facility
can also include any additional information
it wishes to provide regarding the mixture in
the executive summary.
Q: Pursuant to the risk management
program regulations, facilities with
Program Level 2 and 3 processes must
perform compliance audits at least once
every three years (40 CFR §§68.58 and
68.79). Do regulated facilities have to
perform the audits within exactly three years
or can facilities perform the audits any time
within the third year follow'ing the previous
audit?
A: The rule requires that at least every three
years, the owner or operator certify that they
have evaluated compliance with the
prevention program requirements for each
Program Level 2 and 3 covered process.
Therefore, if a facility completes a
compliance audit of their covered processes
on July 1, 2007, then by July 1, 2010, that
facility would have to complete another
compliance audit of all of its Program Level
2 and 3 covered processes. EPA notes that
for large facilities and those with more than
one covered process, the audit for each
process would not need to be performed at
one time. The facility may choose to audit
different processes on different schedules,
provided that all Program 2 and 3 processes
are audited at least every 3 years.
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc/
spec guidance.htm
-------
NEW PUBLICATIONS
How to order...
NTIS Publications are available by calling (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000, or writing NTIS,
5301 Shawnee Rd, Alexandria, VA 22312. Use the NTIS Order Number listed under the document.
NSCEP Publications are available by calling (800) 490-9198 or by writing USEPA/NSCEP, PO Box 42419,
Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419. Use the EPA Order Number listed under the document.
CERCLA
TITLE: EPA Brownfields Assessment,
Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Grants
PUBLICATION DATE: April 2010
AVAILABILITY: Internet
http://www.epa.gOv/swerosps/b f/pilot_grant
s.htm
EPA awarded brownfields grants to
communities in 40 states, 4 tribes, and 1
U.S. territory to help clean, revitalize, and
sustainably reuse contaminated properties,
turning them from problem properties to
productive community use. Approximately
200 fact sheets were made available to
describe each of these awardees and the
grant amount that was received from the
$78.9 million EPA brownfields grants
funding. Each fact sheet provides a brief
overview of the EPA brownfields program
and information concerning the awarded
community, including a community
description, details of the amounts awarded
the end use of the funding, and contact
information for that grant award.
TITLE: EPA Brownfields Job Training
Grants
PUBLICATION DATE: April 2010
AVAILABILITY: Internet
http://www.epa.gOv/swerosps/b f/pilot_grant
s.htm
Under its brownfields program, EPA
awarded grants of $200,000 each to non-
profit organizations, workforce investment
boards, academic institutions, and local city
and county governments in twelve
communities. The communities will use the
grants for job training geared toward
cleaning up contaminated properties and
turning them into productive community
assets. The fact sheets created for each
award recipient provide a brief overview of
the EPA Brownfields program, details
concerning each community, information on
the program(s) that will be created due to the
grant award funding, and contact
information for each specific grant award.
-------
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
EPA Federal Registers are accessible via the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov
PROPOSED RULES
CERCLA
"Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Removal of
Saccharin and Its Salts From the
Lists of Hazardous Constituents,
Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous
Substances"
April 22, 2010 (75 FR 20942)
EPA proposed to amend the regulations
under CERCLA and the Resource
Conservation and Recover y Act to remove
saccharin and its salts from the list of
hazardous substances and hazardous wastes.
This action is in response to a petition
submitted to EPA by the Calorie Control
Council (CCC). EPA is proposing to grant
CCC's petition based on a review of
evaluations conducted by key public health
agencies concerning the carcinogenic and
other potential toxicological effects of
saccharin and its salts, as well as EPA's own
assessment of the waste generation and
management information for saccharin and
its salts, which demonstrate that saccharin
and its salts do not meet the criteria in the
hazardous waste regulations for remaining
on EPA's lists of hazardous constituents,
hazardous wastes, and hazardous substances.
Comments must be received by June 21,
2010.
TRI
"Addition of National Toxicological
Program Carcinogens; Community
Right-to-Know-Toxic Chemical
Release Reporting"
Aprils, 2010(75 FR 17333)
EPA proposed to add sixteen chemicals to
the list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting under EPCRA §313 and the
Pollution Prevention Act §6607. These
sixteen chemicals have been classified by
the National Toxicology Program in their
Report on Carcinogens as "reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen." EPA
believes that these sixteen chemicals meet
the EPCRA §313(d)(2)(B) listing criteria
because they can reasonably be anticipated
to cause cancer in humans. As in past
chemical reviews, EPA adopted a
production volume screen for the
development of this proposed rule to screen
out those chemicals for which no reports are
expected to be submitted. Based on a
review of the available production and use
information, these sixteen chemicals are
expected to be manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used in quantities that would
exceed EPCRA §313 reporting thresholds.
Comments must be received by June 7,
2010.
-------
Federal Registers
April 2010
CROSS-PROGRAM
"Spring 2010 Regulatory Agenda"
April 26, 2010 (75 FR 21872)
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
CERCLA
"Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plans (Renewal); EPA
ICR No. 1664.07, OMB Control No.
2050-0141"
April 14, 2010 (75 FR 19385)
EPA announced its plans to submit the
following Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval:
"National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plans (Renewal),"
ICR Number 1664.07, OMB Control
Number 2050-0141. The current expiration
date for this ICR is August 31, 2010.
Comments must be received by June 14,
2010.
TRI
"Hydrogen Sulfide; Community
Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical
Release Reporting; Extension
Comment Period"
April 14, 2010 (75 FR 19319)
EPA extended the comment period for the
February 26, 2010 notice announcing the
Agency's intent to consider lifting the
administrative stay of the EPCRA §313
reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide
(CAS Number 7783-06-4) (75 FR 8889).
The comment period previously scheduled
to close on April 27, 2010 has been
extended by 15 days until May 12, 2010.
SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT
DECREES
"Proposed Consent Decree; United
States v. City of Ottawa"
April 2, 2010(75 FR 16840)
"Proposed Settlement Agreement;
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield Superfund
Site-
AprilS, 2010(75 FR 17139)
"Proposed Consent Decree; United
States of America v. the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania"
Aprils, 2010(75 FR 17159)
"Proposed Settlement Agreement; 68th
Street Dump Site, Allied Paper/Portage
Creek/Kalamazoo River Site, Barefoot
Disposal Site, Berks Landfill Site Chief
Supply Site, Clinton Dock Area Site,
Diamond Alkali/Lower Passaic River
Study Area Site, French Limited Site,
HegelerZinc Site, Malone Service Site,
Many Diversified Interests Site, Omega
Chemical Corporation Site, and San
Fernando Valley Site"
Aprils, 2010(75 FR 17160)
"Consent Decree; United States v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation and Holcim
(US) Inc."
April 7, 2010(75 FR 17770)
"Proposed Consent Decree; United
States v. Union Pacific Railroad
Company"
April 12, 2010(75 FR 18550)
-------
Federal Registers April 2010
"Proposed Consent Decree; United
States v. Honeywell International Inc."
April 12, 2010(75 FR 18550)
"Proposed Consent Decree; United
States v. Wall Herald Corporation"
April 21, 2010 (75 FR 20862)
"Proposed Settlement Agreement;
Aerovox Site"
April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21292)
"Proposed Consent Decree; United
States v. Westward Seafoods, Inc."
April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21349)
"Proposed Settlement Agreement;
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
Superfund Site"
April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22785)
"Proposed Consent Decree; United
States v. James Y. Saporito and Paul
Carr"
April 30, 2010(75 FR 22843)
------- |