Search Frequent Questions
Filter By:
- Norwood Landfill Site Total results: 30
- Air Emissions Inventories Total results: 34
- Asbestos Total results: 141
- Butte Area/Silver Bow Creek Total results: 17
- Coronavirus (COVID-19) Total results: 33
- East Palestine, Ohio Train Derailment Total results: 148
- Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Total results: 301
- Fuel Program Total results: 693
- Great Lakes Funding Total results: 92
- Lead Total results: 398
- MOVES Total results: 57
- Oil Regulations Total results: 96
- Permitting Under the Clean Air Act Total results: 19
- Radiation Total results: 1
-
Risk Management Program (RMP)
Total results: 285
- Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) Total results: 57
- Applicability/General Duty Clause Total results: 69
- Emergency Response Total results: 6
- Five-Year Accident History Total results: 16
- Other Risk Management Programs Total results: 35
- Plan Preparation and Submission Total results: 49
- Prevention Program Total results: 30
- Program Levels Total results: 16
- RMP*Comp Total results: 7
- Southeast Minnesota Groundwater Total results: 11
Displaying 1 - 15 of 87 results
-
What state or federal agencies are responsible for evaluating records from the PADOH cancer registry? Are all types of cancers considered in this evaluation [including rare and/or environmentally associated cancers]?
A few important items to note regarding the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry: PADOH’s Pennsylvania Cancer Registry is a statewide data system responsible for collecting information on all new cases of cancer diagnosed or treated in Pennsylvania. It is part of the National Program of Cancer Registries administered by the Centers for…
- Last published:
-
What is a site assessment and what is the difference between a site assessment and a site investigation?
The first step of the site assessment process is known as a preliminary assessment (PA). This assessment gathers historical and other readily available information on site conditions and surroundings to evaluate whether the site poses a potential threat to human health and the environment and/or whether further investigation is needed…
- Last published:
-
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:
-
Why hasn’t the Norwood Landfill Site been identified as a Superfund Site? Two nearby landfills, Folcroft and Clearview, which were established and in use at the same time as Norwood Landfill and Dump have both been designated as Superfund sites.
EPA is still conducting its investigation of the Norwood Landfill Site to determine if it should be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), or Superfund List. Thus far, the data collected has not demonstrated that the site warrants placement on the NPL. Both the Folcroft and Clearview Landfills went…
- 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:
-
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:
-
Administrative controls considered when determining worst-case release quantity
For the purpose of analyzing the worst-case release scenario required as part of the hazard assessment at 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B, the worst-case release quantity is identified as the greatest amount held in a single vessel or pipe, taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity…
- Last published:
-
Are Mechanical Controls Considered Administrative Controls?
For the purpose of analyzing the worst-case release scenario required as part of the hazard assessment at 40 CFR Part 68, Subpart B, the worst-case release quantity is identified as the greatest amount held in a single vessel or pipe, taking into account administrative controls that limit the maximum quantity…
- Last published:
-
Worst-case release from smaller process with larger distance to endpoint
The owner or operator of a stationary source covered by the risk management program regulations must conduct a worst-case release scenario analysis as part of the required hazard assessment (40 CFR §68.25). The worst-case release is defined as the release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance from a…
- Last published: