Search Frequent Questions

Filter By:

Active filters:

Remove all filters

Displaying 1 - 15 of 311 results

  • What questions was EPA trying to find answers to during its first round of sampling at the Norwood Landfill site?

    The main question that EPA seeks to answer is whether the identified waste areas warrant consideration for placement of the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund List. In the first round of sampling, EPA collected surface soil samples (0-2 feet) from the landfill property, and surface water…

    • Last published:

  • What does it mean when EPA finds contamination that “exceeds screening levels?”

    Screening levels are not the same as cleanup or action levels. An exceedance of a screening level indicates the need for additional evaluation, potentially including a site-specific risk assessment.

    • Last published:

  • If EPA finds any contamination associated with the Norwood Landfill site that “exceeds” what is considered safe, will EPA clean up that contamination - even if the Agency cannot find any “pathways” for that contamination to reach humans or sensitive environments?

    If the sampling data shows an exceedance of a screening level, EPA will consult with the site Toxicologist and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to conduct a human health risk screening assessment to determine any potential threat to human health. EPA will also consult with the…

    • Last published:

  • How do you know you are not missing some areas that might be contaminated?

    EPA uses all credible information available, including community input, regarding the boundaries and geographic areas of waste that may have been deposited or where contaminated soil may have been placed. The team selects its sampling locations based on those areas and consults historic aerial images that help depict those boundaries.

    • Last published:

  • Criteria for selecting alternative release scenarios

    As part of the hazard assessment, owners and operators of Program 2 and Program 3 covered processes must identify and analyze alternative release scenarios (40 CFR §68.28). What criteria should be used when selecting an alternative release scenario? The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to the risk…

    • Last published:

  • Will EPA sample the Glenolden Laboratory property?

    The former Glenolden Laboratory property located on South Avenue is a separate site. The previous owners conducted a voluntary cleanup pursuant to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) Environmental Cleanup Program, known as Act 2. Concerns regarding remedial actions conducted under Act 2 should be directed to PADEP as…

    • Last published:

  • Obtaining an RMP ID Number

    How can a facility subject to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements obtain its RMP ID number? The owner or operator of a regulated RMP facility that has already submitted an RMP, may obtain the facility's identification number (RMP ID Number) by contacting the RMP Reporting Center (703-227-7650). An RMP-covered…

    • Last published:

  • Does the distance to endpoint start at the process or stationary source boundary?

    When selecting the worst-case release scenario for Program 2 and 3 processes as required by 40 CFR §68.25, a stationary source owner or operator must analyze the release scenario that results in the greatest distance to an endpoint. Does the "greatest distance to an endpoint" refer to the greatest total…

    • Last published:

  • Using meteorological station data for off-site consequence analyses

    For the purpose of the offsite consequence analyses required under 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B, there are several instances in which data gathered at a local meteorological station may be used to establish the modeling parameters of wind speed, atmospheric stability, temperature, and humidity for the stationary source. How…

    • Last published:

  • Underground storage tank off-site impacts to groundwater, drinking water, or soil

    For the worst-case and alternative release scenarios of an underground storage tank, should I consider any impact on groundwater, drinking water, or soil? No. As part of the worst-case and alternative release scenarios, you need to define the offsite impacts to the environment (40 CFR §68.33) by listing the environmental…

    • Last published:

  • Accidental releases from non-covered processes

    Should the owner or operator include accidental releases from processes containing listed substances below the threshold quantity in the five-year accident history required under the hazard assessment provisions of 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B, and in the incident investigation requirements under 40 CFR Part 68, Subparts C and D…

    • Last published:

  • Why are industries exempt under OSHA's PSM subject to RMP?

    The Program 3 prevention program requirements under 40 CFR Part 68 are almost identical to the requirements of OSHA's process safety management (PSM) standard. OSHA exempts certain industries from the PSM standard. Why does EPA not exempt those same industries from the CAA §112(r) risk management program requirements? EPA and…

    • Last published:

  • Redoing calculations if RMP*Comp is updated

    Will RMP*Comp be updated? If so, would I have to redo calculations I might already have made with an earlier version? No, you do not have to redo your work if you have already completed your consequence analyses. RMP*Comp is based on the EPA's Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance (OCA Guidance)…

    • Last published:

  • Different distances to toxic endpoints with different versions of RMP*Comp

    I've noticed that for certain chemicals, RMP*Comp gives substantially different distances to the toxic endpoint than previous versions. Why? In the current version of RMP*Comp, we have incorporated new chemical-specific distance tables for ammonia, chlorine, and sulfur dioxide. The generic tables are still used for other chemicals (you can see…

    • Last published:

  • Distance to endpoint calculations used by RMP*Comp

    Does RMP*Comp perform some math or modelling in order to arrive at an endpoint distance, or is it simply interpolating from the tables in the EPA's Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance (OCA Guidance)? RMP*Comp follows the procedures set out in the OCA Guidance . This means that for some scenarios, the…

    • Last published: