Wednesday
June 26, 1985
Part SI
Protection. Agency.
40 CFR Parts 260, 262, 264, 265, and 270
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems; Proposed
Rule
-------
26444
Federal Register / Vol.-50, No. 123 { Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,262,264,265, and
270
ISWH-FRL 2791-1]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Standards for Hazardous
Waste Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION; Proposed rule. '
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) today proposes to amend
Us regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
for tank systems storing or treating
hazardous waste. These proposed
amendments would substantially revise,
delete, and add to the existing tank
standards that apply under interim
status and through RCRA permits.
DATES: EPA will accept comments from
the public on the proposed amendments
until August 26,1985. Three public
hearings will be held on this proposed
rulemaking. See Section X of this
Preamble for the schedule and location
of these public hearings and a brief
summary of how they will be conducted.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed
to the Docket Clerk [Docket No. 3004,
Revised Tank System Standards), Office
of Solid Waste (WH-562), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20480.
Comments received by EPA and all
references used in this document may be
inspected in Room S-212(C), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, D.C., from 9:00
am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800)
424-9346 (toll free) or (202) 382-3000 in
Washington, D.C., or William J. Kline,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20480, (202) 382-7917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
!. Authority
II. Background
A. RCRA Hazardous Waste Program
B, Status of Subtitle C Rulemaking for
Tanks
C. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984
D. Universe of Hazardous Waste Tanks
1. Overview
2. Characteristics of Hazardous Waste
Tanks
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Overview of Today's Proposal
B. Objectives of the Proposal
C. Existing Regulatory Strategy
D. Today's Proposal
IV. Considerations Influencing Today's
Proposal '
A. Limitations of the Existing RCRA Tank
Standards ,
1. Incompleteness of Existing Standards
2. Unworkableness. of the Existing
Standards
3. Necessity for Additional Requirements
B. Protective Measures Considered
C. Alternative Regulatory Alternatives
Considered
D. Today's Proposal for Implementing
EPA's Strategy for Tank Systems
V. Analysis of Today's Proposed Revisions to
, the RCRA Tank System Rules
A. Definitions (§ 260.10)
B. Storage in Tanks for Less Than 90 Days
(§ 262.34)
C. Ground-Water Protection for Tank
Systems
D. Financial Responsibility (Parts 264 and .
265—SubpartH)
E. Tank System Design, Installation, and
Operating Requirements (Part 264—
Subpart))
1. Applicability (| 264.190)
2. Design of Tank System (§ 264.191)
a. Minimum Shell Thickness
b. Tank System Concept
c. Corrosion Protection
d. Engineer's Assessment of Tank
System'Design
3. Installation of New Tank Systems
(§ 264.192)
' 4. Secondary Containment (§ 264.193)
, a. Background to.Today's Proposed
Approach
b. Problems With Retrofitting Existing
Above-, In-, and Underground Tank
Systems
c. General Requirements for
Secondary-Containment Systems,
d. Specific Secondary-Containment
Requirements for Tank Systems
e. Specific Secondary-Containment
Requirements for Ancillary Equipment
f. Ground-Water Monitoring
Alternative
g. Ground-Water Monitoring
Requirements
h. Leak-Testing
i. Waiver of Secondary Containment '
5. General Operating Requirements
(§ 264.194)
6. Inspections (§ 264.195)
7. Response to and Disposition of
Leaking or Unfit-for-Use Tank Systems
C§ 264.198)
8. Closure and Post-Closure Care
(§ 264.197)
9. Special Requirements for Ignitable or '
Reactive Wastes (§ 264.198)
10. Special Requirements for
Incompatible Wastes (§ 264.199)
F. Interim Status Tank Systems [Part 265—
Subpart J)
1. Assessment and Certification of Tank
System Integrity (§ 265.191)
2. Response to and Disposition of
Leaking or Unfit-for Use Tank Systems
(§ 265.192]
3. Secondary Containment [§ 265.193)
4. General Operating Requirements
(§ 265.194)
5. Waste Analysis and Trial Tests
(§ 265.195)
6. Inspections (§ 265.196)
7. Closure and Post-Closure Care
[§ 265.197)
8. Special Requirements for Ingnitable or
Reactive Wastes (§ 265.198)
9. Special Requirements for Incompatible
Wastes {§ 265.199)
G. Permitting Requirements (Part 270)
1. Specific Part B Information
Requirements for Tanks (§270.16)
2. Changes During Interim Status
(§270.72)
VI. Relationship to Current RCRA Hazardous
'. Waste Program
A. Small Quantity Generators
B. State Authority
C. Storage or Treatment of Dioxin-
Containing Wastes in Tanks
D. Class Permit for Storage in Tanks
VII. Relationship to Other EPA Programs
A., Regulation of Underground Product
Storage Tanks (the "LUST1 Program)
B. EPA's Ground-Water Protection Strategy
C. CERCLA Reportable Quantities
VIII. Economic Analyses
A. Regulatory Costs
B. Economic and Financial Impacts on
Facilities ; ,
IX. Review of Supporting Documents and
Request for Public Comments ,
X. Schedule for Public Hearings
XI. Compliance With Executive Order 12291
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
XIII. Regulatory'Flexibility Act
XIV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260, 262,
264,265, and 270 < - . -
I. Authority
These regulations are issued under the
authority of Sections 1006, 2002, 3001-
3007, 3010, 3014, 3015, 3017, 3018, 3019,
and 7004 oif the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1970, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,
6912, 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937,
6938, 6939, arid 6974).
"",
II. Background
^
A. The RCRA Hazardous Waste
Program
Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
creates-a "cradle-to-grave" management
system intended to ensure that
hazardous waste is identified and-safely
transported, stored, treated, and'
disposed. Subtitle C requires EPA to
identify hazardous waste and to
promulgate standards for generators and
transporters of such waste. This ,.'..
includes the creation of a manifest.
system designed to track, the movement
of hazardous waste and requires . • •. .
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 123 \l "Wdn day'
e
hazardous waste generators and
transporters to employ appropriate
management practices to ensure the
effective operation of such system.
Under section 3004 of RCRA, owners
and operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities are required to comply
with standards "necessary to protect
human health and the environment."
These standards are generally
implemented through permits issued
under authorized State programs or by
EPA. •
B. Status of Subtitle C Rulemaking For
Tanks " ~"
On December 18,1978, EPA proposed
rules for storage and treatment tanks .
containing hazardous waste (43 FR
59007-59008). These proposed technical
standards took into cqnsidertion
primarily Occupational Safety and : :
Health Administration (OSHA)
standards and EPA Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures (40 CFR
112) requirements for tanks (issued '•
under Section 311 of the Clean Water ,
Act).
In May 1980, EPA promulgated interim
status standards for the storage or
treatment of hazardous waste in tanks
(Part 265, Subpart J, 45 FR 33244-33245).
These standards focused on operating
measures designed to prevent releases
of hazardous waste from tanks. ,
On January 12,1981 (46 FR 2867-2868),
the Agency, promulgated RCRA
permitting standards for those
hazardous waste storage and treatment
tanks that can be entered for inspection.
These standards, which emphasize the
structural integrity of tanks to protect
against leaks, ruptures, and collapse of
the shell, require adequate design,
maintenance of minimum shell
thickness, and inspections. Concurrent
with the promulgation of these , x .
permitting standards, EPA requested v"-
public comments on numerous issues of
concern for future rulemaking, Including,
for example, secondary .containment for
all tanks and the banning of
underground tanks.
C. The Hazardous and Solid Waste,
Amendments of 1984
On November^, 1984, the President
signed into law the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. Two of
these amendments directly address the
storage or treatment of hazardous waste
in underground tank systems. Today's
proposed regulations, hi part, attempt to
respond to these new congressional
mandates. .
The first amendment (new section
3004 (o)(4)) mandates that EPA . -
promulgate standards requiring any new
underground tank system to utilize an
"approved leak detection system,"
defined as a system or technology
capable of detecting leaks of hazardous
constituents at the earliest practicable
time. EPA has exajnined several types of
leak^detection systems and has
considered the advantages and .
disadvantages of each. (See Section
IV.B. of this Preamble for a detailed
discussion of the different protective ..-
measures.) Today's proposal would
mandate a leak-detection system as an
integral part of secondary containment
for all;new tank systems, including
underground tank systems. The Agency
believes this proposal, if finalized, will
meet the congressional mandate to
detect leaks from new underground tank
systems at the earliest practicable time.
The second amendment (new section
3004(w)) requires EPA to promulgate by
March 1,1985, final permitting standards
for hazardous waste underground ,
storage tanks that cannot be entered for
inspection. This statutory deadline
obviously has not been achieved. Today
EPA is proposing to apply the revised
tank permitting standards in Part 264,
Subpart J, to such tanks. When this
proposed rule is finalized, it will enable
EPA to permit these tanks under Section
3005 and satisfy the requirements in
Section 3004(w).
D. Universe of Hazardous Waste Tanks
1. Overview
EPA sponsored a national survey of
hazardous waste facilities in 1982-1983
to support an Agency assessment of the
environmental effects of hazardous
waste facilities and the alternative
regulatory approaches for controlling
them. A report prepared for EPA, ":
"National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities Regulated under
RCRA in 1981," presents the survey's
methodology and conclusions. A copy of
this document has been placed in the
public docket for today's proposed
rulemaking. (See Section IX of this
Preamble for additional information
regarding the availability of this
document.) According to the data hi this
survey, approximately 9,100 tanks were
used at 1,700 facilities to store or treat
hazardous waste hi the United States in
1981. (Each facility typically has 5
tanks.) These tanks contained about 13.8
billion gallons of such waste. As seen
below, this is less than the amount
managed in surface impoundments (35.8
billion gallons), but more than the
amount managed by all other methods
combined (11 billion gallons).
QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
MANAGED IN 1981 (EXCLUDING 90-
DAY ACCUMULATION TANKS) IN BIL-
.. LIONS; OF GALLONS
Surface Impoundments.. '..............
Tanks (Storage and Treatment).......
Injection Wells...
Landfills.,..:..,
' Incinerators..
Waste Piles ...
Storage (Containers (Drums)
Land Treatment
35.8
13.8
8.6
.81
.45
.39
.16
.10
Undei; § 262.34, tanks used by
generators to accumulate hazardous
waste for less than 90 days (referred'to
as 90-day accumulation tanks) are
subject to a selected portion of the 40"
CFR Part 265 standards. The survey
showed that, hi addition to the 9,100
tanks used to store 6r treat hazardous
wastes, there are about 6,400 90-day
accumulation tanks nationwide at 2,100
facilities (each facility typically
consisted of 3 tanks);
Survey data show the 90-day
accumulation tanks are similar in two
respecti) to other hazardous waste
management tanks. First, the typical
design capacity for a 90-day
accumulation tank is 4,000 gallons while,
for tanks requiring permits it is 5,000
gallons. Second, the typical annual
throughput for'a 90-day accumulation
tank is 18,000 gallons; for tanks requiring
permits it is 21,000 gallons. EPA did not
collect data concerning other
characteristics associated with 90-day
accumulation tanks, and, therefore,
radditio;aal statistical comparisons
cannot be made. •
EPA'iB experience in inspecting and
permitting tank facilities has, however,
persuaded the Agency that 90-day
accumulation tanks are similar hi other
respects to the hazardous waste storage
tanks being permitted under RCRA.
2. Characteristics of Hazardous Waste,
Tanks j
The survey revealed several
significant characteristics of tanks'
covered by RCRA that were considered
in today's proposed rulemaking. These
findings are 'summarized briefly below:
• Location. Most hazardous waste
tanks (71 percent) are located on or
aboveground; 17 percent are partially
underground; and 12 percent are
completely underground. , .
• Secondary, containment. Many
hazardous waste tanks (63 percent)
- already have some type of partial or fuli
secondary containment. In addition, 50
percent have some type of partial or
total secondary containment for
-------
26446
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 123 / Wednesday. June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
ancillary equipment and/or piping. The
EPA survey did not examine the types of
secondary containment at tank facilities.
On the basis of its inspection and
permitting experiences, EPA has
concluded, however, that in-place
secondary-containment systems for
tanks vary widely in the quality of
environmental protection they provide.
Thus, it can be concluded that many of
the secondary-containment systems
reported to be used by hazardous waste
tanks covered by the survey may.not
meet the containment requirements for
tanks being proposed today.
• Inspeclions. Approximately 84
percent of nil hazardous waste tanks
can be entered for inspection, ranging
from 97 percent for open-topped tanks to
61 percent for underground tanks.
• Material of construction. Steel is
the most common material of
construction for hazardous waste tanks
(76 percent). Other materials reported
Include concrete (13 percent) and
fiberglass (9 percent). The primary
materials for construction of inground
tanks is concrete (60 percent); for
underground tanks, primarily steel (73
percent); and for aboveground tanks,
steel also (84 percent).
• 7>pes of wastes. A wide variety of
wastes are managed in tanks, and many
tanks handle several types of hazardous
waate or wastes with more than one
hazardous characteristic. Of all the
tanks, 38 percent store or treat corrosive
wastesj 38 percent, ignitable wastes; 35
percent, toxic wastes; and 18 percent,
reactive wastes.
• Age. The typical age of a hazardous
waste tank is 7 years. The age of" tanks
varies, however, over a range of 1 to 55
years. •'
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Overview
As mentioned previously in this ,
Preamble, EPA has already promulgated
interim status and permitting standards
for hazardous waste storage or
treatment tanks that can be entered for
Inspection. Further data gathering and
analysis by the Agency, as well as
experiences in permitting, have revealed
that several changes and additions are
needed to meet more adequately the
goal of protecting human health and the
environment. Today's proposal sets
forth requirements that address causes
of releases at tank facilities. (See a more
detailed discussion of the Agency's
regulatory strategy for storage facilites,
including tanks, in Section IV.D. of this
Preamble.) The more stringent controls
that are proposed should substantially
improve the owner's or operator's ability
to contain releases from tank systems
and therefore provide needed protection
of human health and the environment. In
addition, the Agency has concluded that
the cost of these controls are not
significantly greater than other
technologies the Agency evaluated that
provide similar protection against leaks.
The Agency plans to conduct a risk
assessment of the technologies proposed
in this rule and of the alternative control
measures to protect human health and
the environment described in Section
IV.C. of this preamble. The results of
this assessment may change the
Agency's conclusions about the cost-
effectiveness of the technologies
proposed today. (See Section VIII of the
Preamble for a detailed discussion of the
economic aspects of the requirements
being proposed today.)
B. Objectives of the Proposal
Today's proposal has a number of
important objectives. First, these
revisions are an important step in
meeting mandates of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
Second, EPA is proposing requirenients
that fulfill aspects of EPA's regulatory
strategy for tanks that were left
unaddressed andJor which public
comment was requested when the
existing regulations for tanks were
promulgated in 1981 (see 46 FR 2867-
2868). For example, EPA is today
proposing the selection of a secondary
containment approach for tank systems.
The opinions of those who commented -
were taken into consideration in
developing today's proposal.
Third, EPA is announcing the
availability of new information and
analyses that provide the basis for the
proposed revisions. This information is
listed in Se'cUon IX of this Preamble and
has been placed in the rulemaking
docket for public inspection. This
information will-be supplemented by the
risk assessment now being conducted to
support the final rule. Fourth, EPA is
soliciting comment on several regulatory
alternatives to the secondary
containment approach proposed in this
rule.
Finally, the Agency in this rule gives
notice that the standards applicable to
large quantity generators are also being
considered for small quantity generators
under Section 3001(d) of RCRA.
Consequently, the Agency requests
comments on how such an extension
might affect the cost estimates, scope,
and impact of this rule, especially on the
small business community (see Section
VI.A. for a detailed discussion). •
C. Existing Regulatory Strategy
EPA's regulatory approach to storage
facilities was discussed in the Federal
Register of January 12,1981 (see 46 FR
2807-2808). The Agency's overall
strategy for hazardous waste storage
facilities is based on a policy decision
that the best way to accomplish the
statutory goal of protecting human
health and the environment is to contain
the waste for the term of the storage.
This containment approach focuses on
the prevention of releases to the soil and
to ground and surface waters where
such releases may present a risk to
human health or the environment. >
The containment strategy for
hazardous waste storage resulted hi a
regulatory approach that requires the
following: the proper design and
operation of a primary containment
device to prevent leakage and.overflow
as long as the waste remains in storage;
an inspection program to monitor
deterioration of the primary-
Containment system and the area
around the storage unit; and the use of
secondary containment where the
primary-containment devices are easily
damaged and/or inspection is difficult.
The existing Part 264 tank_standards
implement a portion of this three-tiered
regulatory approach for tanks that can
be entered for inspection in the
following manner. The design and
operation of a primary-containment
system are achieved through minimum
tank shell thickness requirements
(§ 264.191) and tank overfilling and
freeboard controls (§ 264.192(b)).,An
inspection program for the primary-
containment and overfilling controls is
also required (§ 264,194).
Several aspects of the Agency's
strategy for regulating storage tanks
• were left unaddressed by the existing
regulations. First, a secondary-
containment standard was deferred
pending public comment on, and EPA
consideration of,' three possible
containment options that were,
presented in the earlier Preamble (see 46
FR 2833). These options are discussed
more fully in Section V.E.4. of this
Preamble.
Secondly, the existing Part 264
standards pertain only to tanks that can
be entered for inspection. -
Implementation of standards for
underground tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection were deferred
pending public comment on, and EPA's
consideration of, a ban on the treatment
or storage of hazardous waste in
underground tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection or tanks located
in the water table (see 46 FR 2831).
Finally, the existing standards do not
require corrosion protection for steel
tanks whose surfaces are exposed to
corrosion-inducing soil. In the January
-------
12,, 1981 preamble, the Agency requested
comment on the requirement of cathbdic
protection for.partially buried steel
tanks.
D. Today's Proposal .-.•-"
Today, EPA is proposing regulatory
measures for storage tanks that would
fulfill the regulatory approach for
storage tanks described in the January
12,1981 preamble by developing
permitting standards under Part 264 for
underground tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection,' by developing
corrosion protection requirements for
metal tank systems that are susceptible
to corrosion, and by selecting a
-secondary containment approach. These
revisions would also fulfill mandates of
the 1984 amendments that new •
underground tanks be equipped with
leak detection systems (RCRA
§3004(o)(4)) and that EPA issue
permitting standards for underground
tanks that cannot be entered for
inspection (RCRA § 3p04(w)). In
addition, EPA is proposing revisions to
certain existing standards that have
proven unworkable and ineffective.
These proposed revisions and additions
do not depart from the regulatory
strategy announced in the January 12,
1981 preamble, but rather reinforce and
complete the strategy.
The major elements of today's
proposal include" the following: Under
proposed revisions to the Part 264
permitting standards, structural integrity
of all tank systems for which permits are
sought,would be assessed by a qualified
registered professional engineer and
submitted to the Regional
Administrator. Included in this
assessment for metal tank systems
would be a. determination by a corrosion
expert of the type and degree of
corrosion protection needed to ensure
the integrity of the system for its
intended life. This requirement would
replace the existing minimum shell
thickness requirements. -
Proposed Part 264 requirements would
also establish installation standards for,
new tank systems and require that a
qualified registered professional
engineer or a-qualified inspector trained
in the installation of tank systems
prepare a written statement to be kept
on file at the facility attesting to the
proper installation of the system.
Supervision and certification by,a
corrosion expert of the installation of
cathodic protection systems would also
be required.
Proposed Part 264 regulatipns would
require that all new tank systems have
secondary containment and that existing
tank systems either have full secondary
containment or implement a ground-
water monitoring program.. Facilities
with existing tanks that elect to
implement ground-water monitoring
rather than retrofit full secondary
containment would be required to
construct partial secondary containment
for any above-ground portions of their
systems. In addition, existing
underground.tank systems that do not
have secondary containment would be
required to test the integrity of their ;
systems every six months. Tank systems
that have secondary containment would
have to maintain a leak detection
system that detects leaks within 24
hours of entry of liquid into the
containment system.
" Part 264 inspection requirements
would be revised to ensure that
structures or devices required under the-
new regulations, such as corrosion
protection devices and leak detection
systems, are periodically inspected. In
addition, these revisions would require
owners and operators to establish a '
schedule for assessing the integrity of
aboveground and inground tanks.
Part 264 would also be amended to
establish procedures for responding to
leaks once they are detected.
Proposed revision to the Part 265
interim status standards would require
that the structural integrity of all tank
systems that have interim status be
assessed withjn six months of the
effective date of these proposed
regulations (by internally inspecting
aboveground and inground'tanks that
can be entered'for inspection and by
leak testing underground tanks).
Proposed Part 265 regulations would
also provide a secondary containment
option similar tpjhat proposed for :
existing permittee! tanks under Part 264.
The regulations would require that tank
systems either have full secondary
containment or that a groundwater .
monitoring progra'm be implemented.
Tank system's that do not have
secondary containment would have to
have partial secondary containment for
any above-ground portions of the tank
system without secondary containment
and would have to be leak tested every
six months.
Inspection requirements for interim
status tanks would also be revised to
ensure that structures or devices
required under the new regulations are
Inspected.
Part 265 would be amended to establish
•procedures for responding to leaks and
to repair or replace unfit tanks.
Finally, today's proposal would
require that all tanks subject to the 90-
day accumulator, provisions of 40 CFR
§ 262.34 have full secondary,
containment. • '
These proposed revisions and.
additions to the existing regulations are
discussed in detail in Part V of this
Preamble. The following sections
discusEi the factors;and alternatives
considered in developing today's
proposal.
IV. Considerations Influencing Today's
Proposal ,„
This section of today's Preamble
discusses factors that influenced the
revision of the current-standards for
hazardous waste tank systems. A
detailed discussion of the various '
protective measures that were
considered in developing today's
proposal is also included.
A. Limitations of the Existing RCRA .
Tank Standards '•_".'•
i. Incompleteness of Existing Standards
As seated above, on January 12,1981,
EPA published interim final permit
standards for hazardous waste storage
and treatment tanks that can be entered
for inspection. The Agency requested
public pomment on these permitting
standards and on several specific issues.
The latter included: (1) Banning the
treatment or storage of hazardous
wastes in tanks located in the water .
table or .in underground tanks that , ,
cannot be entered for inspection; (2] the
need for arid effectiveness of three
secondary-containment options for
tanks; and (3) cathodic-protection
measures for partially buried tanks (see
46 FR 2831-2834).
The Agency was unable to consider
all the public comments and to complete
the regulations within a short time. As a
consequence, there are, for example, no
standards for permitting underground
hazardous waste tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection and no .
requirements for secondary containment
or external corrosion protection. : ;
2. Unworkableness of Existing
Standards ,
EPA's experience in writing RCRA
permits reveals that certain existing
Subpart J tank standards are impractical
to implement at maiiy types of facilities.
Other standards are effectively applied
at some facilities but not at others.
EPA has identified several flaws in
.the current tank design standard
requiring the establishment arid
maintenance of a minimum shell
thickness .(§ 264.191). This standard can
be applied effectively only to'
aboveground steel tanks; many of the
testing; mechanisms for shell thickness
do not:work adequately for o.ther types
of tanks (e.g., concrete and underground
tanks)1; and riiany existing tank facilities
-------
26448
Federal Register / Voi. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
have nonspecification tanks for which
detailed design information about the
shell is not available.
EPA is concerned .that inspection
requirements are less protective of the
environment for underground tanks than
aboveground tanks because the exterior
of the former cannot be inspected.
Owing to the serious potential for
accelerated corrosion of metal tanks
that are placed in the ground, internal
inspections may not be adqeuate to
detect corrosion.
3, Necessity for Additional
Requirements v
The Agency has received new
information indicating that some tank
systems are leaking and may be
threatening human health and the *"
environment. This new information
comes primarily from three sources:
Several EPA-sponsored studies
completed In 1984; information from the
public, industry, and State and local
governments, including survey results
and studies; review of internal Agency
information pertaining to damages, or
threats of damage, caused by releases of
hazardous wastes from tank systems.
These sources can be found in the
rulemaklng docket. (See Section IX of
tho Preamble for information concerning
the docket and for a summary of the
sources.)
The new Information documents over
30 cases where hazardous waste tank
facilities have leaked or spilled
hazardous waste into the environment.
(Twenty of them are suspected of
impacting, or threatening to impact,
community ground-water well systems.)
In addition to the cases mentioned
above are 20 that were reported in the
background document supporting the
May 19,1980, regulations. Numerous
other cases are cited in State or local
survey data.
EPA plans to supplement these case
examples with an analysis of the risks
to human health and the environment
from hazardous waste tank releases ,
under different environmental
conditions.
The existing Subpart J permitting
standards emphasize the importance of
adequate tank shell design (i.e.,
establishment of minimum shell
thickness) and periodic assessments of
the shell's integrity to ensure that tanks
do not rupture or leak hazardous waste '
into the environment. A recent EPA
report, Assessment of the Technical,
Environmental, and Management
Aspects of Storage and Treatment of
Hazardous Waste in Aboveground and
Inground Tanks, indicates, however,
that structural design deficiency is
among the least common factors that
cause releases. The existing tank design
standards (§ 264.191) do not adequately
address the factors that, actually
contribute to the,releases..
B. Protective Measures Considered
In developing today's proposed
revisions, EPA has concluded that
certain management practices, such as
proper design (adequate structure),
proper installation, and good day-to-day
operating rules are applicable and
appropriate for hazardous waste tank
systems. The Agency believes, however,
that although these baseline practices
are of crucial importance in ensuring the
overall proper management of a tank
system, they do not provide sufficient '
protection of human health and the
environment from releases of hazardous
waste from these systems. Studies
indicate that some releases from
primary-tank systems are inevitable _
over time and that all releases cannot be
prevented by tank design and operating
requirements. On the basis of the
information available at this tune,
therefore, EPA has concluded that a
secondary containment approach, as
was contemplated in the January 12,
1981 Federal Register is necessary. EPA
recognizes, however, that protection of
human health and the environment may
not require the containment of all
releases by means of an impervious
secondary containment structure
surrounding or beneath the primary
containment device in all situations. An
approach may be to rely upon early
release detection systems and a rapid
response program to prevent releases
from endangering human health or the
environment. Other options are
presented in Section I¥.B. of this
preamble.
In the course of deciding the most
effective regulatory approach for
properly managing the storage or
treatment of hazardous waste in tank
systems, EPA has considered several
technical protective measures. Each
protective measure was'assessed with
respect to its sole effectiveness in
detecting and containing releases of
hazardous waste. The Agency invites
comment on these measures and on
their applicability to the proper
.management of hazardous waste tank
systems.
1. Inventory Monitoring
Inventory monitoring, by which inputs
and outputs from the tank system are
recorded daily, is one means of
detecting leakage from the system.
Gasoline stations have long made
checks with dipsticks and taken
readings of the gasoline pump meters.
Inventory monitoring, if regularly and
properly conducted, can serve as a
useful tool for detecting leaks at motor
fuel dispensing stations. These ,two
measurements enable the station
operator to determine if the inventory
coincides with the quantity of product
delivered minus the amount of product
sold. Low inventories may indicate
leakage from the tank, theft, or
underdeliveries, while high inventories
could indicate overdeliveries or leakage
of water into the tank.
EPA has examined the techniques of
inventory monitoring to detect leaks
from hazardous waste storage or
treatment tanks and found that, for the
reasons given below, there are
numerous constraints in applying these
techniques to the universe of hazardous
waste tanks.
The Agency believes that, because of
the chemical and. physical dynamics that
are often involved, there is considerable
room for error in inventory monitoring of
tanks used for treatment of hazardous
waste. Sludge removal, chemical
additions, and recirculation, among
other similar processes, could make
accurate monitoring in a treatment tank
difficult. Furthermore, treatment tanks
are often open topped ahd,. therefore,
subject to climatic conditions (e.g.,
losses from evaporation and gains from
precipitation).
Accurate inventory monitoring may
also be difficult to achieve when
hazardous waste is delivered to the
storage or treatment tank via. gravity
flow. Methods available for gauging
volume in gravity flow pipes include
liquid level sensors and venturi meters.
Liquid level measurements, which
require computation of flow using pipe
slope and roughness coefficients, are
inaccurate for relatively small-diameter
piping. A venturi meter requires that the
pipe be full, which may not be a typical
condition at many hazardous waste
storage or treatment facilities.
- Several techniques, such as magnetic,
venturi, mass, vortex, turbine, and
positive displacement flow meters, make
inventory monitoring feasible in pump-
fed systems. The accuracy of a flow
measurement varies from 0.25 percent of
the measured flow to 10 percent of the
full-scale flow, depending on the type of
pump, manufacturer, and application. In
order to provide adequate detection of
releases in hazardous waste tanks, the
error in flow measurement needs to be
on the low end of this range. .For
example, a flow meter with an accuracy
of 1 percent of the measured flow would
not be capable of detecting a leak of less
than 1 gallon per day in a tank system
handling 3,000 gallons of hazardous
waste per month.
-------
Federal Register I"'Vol. 50. No. 12S [ Wednegday, Juie26, 1985 ./- P/opbsed Rules
26448
An alternative to measuring pipe flow
for the purpose of monitoring inventory.
is the gauging of the liquid level in the
tank. Because of the dynamic nature of
treatment tank processes, EPA believes
that this method is not appropriate for
most treatment tanks. Monitoring of
liquid level can either be manual (with a
dipstick) or automatic (by float or
electronic monitor). Use of dipsticks is
very inexpensive, but the accuracy of
the method appears to be relatively low
because of the opportunity for human
error. EPA is presently evaluating this
'method to determine if greater accuracy
may be achieved through the use of
different inventory monitoring
procedures. An added concern with the
use of dipsticks-in hazardous waste
storage tanks is safety—the potential for
direct contact or exposure to the
hazardous waste being stored. There is,'
furthermore, the risk of damaging the
-tank (especially fiberglass-reinforced
plastic [FRP] tanks) as a result of
repeated impacts of the dipstick on the
tank's bottom. Likewise, the repeated
impact of a dipstick can damage linings
of steel tanks. Nonmanual-level sensors,
which are more accurate than dipsticks,
are readily available but are
considerably more expensive.
Regardless of which tank gauging
method is used, however, temperature
can have a major impact on the
accuracy of this type of monitoring. For
example, a change in temperature of 1
degree Fahrenheit for 10,000 gallons of a
liquid with a coefficient of expansion of
0.0006 (e.g., carbon tetrachloride) will
result in a change in volume of 8 gallons.
As a consequence, variations in
temperature between level readings,
unless strictly minimized, may result in
misleading readings. EPA is not
convinced that such variations can be
minimized. Public comment on these
deficiencies in the use of level readings
is invited.
Although inventory monitoring can
detect large leaks, it cannot be
depended oh for detecting smaller leaks
{fewer than 15 gallons per day). Aside
from the numerous technical problems
involved in conducting accurate
inventory monitoring at hazardous
waste storage or treatment tanks, there
is considerable room for human error
(taking readings, making calculations,
bookkeeping, etc.). In many cases,
inventory monitoring for any given day
cannot be truly relied on for positive
identification of a release from a tank
system; thus, under this detection
' method, a gradual but significant release
could conceivably go undetected for an
extended period of time. For all the
reasons discussed above, EPA has
decided not to propose, the use of
inventory monitoring for the purpose of
detecting leaks from hazardous waste
tanks. .
2. Leak Testing
Another potential means of
determining releases of hazardous
waste from tanks is testing of the tanks
for leaks, but to date, methods for
testing are available only for
underground tanks. The major reason
for this restriction is that the accuracy of
available leak-testing methods depends
on the relative stability of the -. - '
temperature of the tank's contents.
Aboveground tanks have much wider
temperature fluctuations occuring over
short periods qf time than do
underground tanks. Other factors, such
as wind action and vibrations, also
make leak testing of'aboveground tanks
unreliable.
EPA's evaluation of available leak
testing methods reveals a number of
major concerns, principally,
compatibility of the testing equipment
with hazardous waste, the minimum
detectable size of a leak, the reliability
and consistency of test results, and the
availability of equipment and trained
personnel.* ;
Because available leak-testing
" methods were developed primarily for
detecting and measuring leaks in
underground gasoline storage tanks,
there is limited information regarding
their applicability to the full spectrum of
hazardous wastes. The applicability of
some leak-testing methods may be,
restricted in certain cases as a resultof
the waste's characteristics (e.g.,
corrosivity, viscosity, etc.). It is reported,
however, that several of the methods
have been used to detect leaks in
commercial, nonpetroleum tank systems.
For this reason, EPA believes that many
current testing methods'could be used or
modified to test the majority of
underground hazardous waste storage :
or treatment tanks without imposing
insurmountable technical testing
problems.
Another concern with current
methods is the minimum size leak they
can detect. The ideal is to be able to
detect all leaks, regardless of their Size,
but the current state of the art does not
achieve this proficiency. The National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has
established a target leak rate of 0.05
gallons per hour (approximately 1 gallon
per day) as the standard that some tests
can legitimately and accurately attain.
EPA is studying the achievability of
this target rate. Public .comment is
requested on whether this rate is
realistic in light of the current state of
the art in tank leak testing. Any leak-
testing methods capable of detecting a ;
leak of 0.05 gallon per hour must take
into consideration, among other factors,
the volumetric coefficient of expansion
of the liquid being tested relative to any
change in'temperature during the test.
Since reliable measurements of leaks at
a rate of less than 0.05 gallon per hour
are supposedly beyond the scope of
current testing methods, a tank system
that is tested and shows no leakage
down to I3.G5 gallon per hour is assumed
to be tight (nonleaking).
A third concern associated with leak
testing is quality control. Because of the
many variables that must be considered
(e.g., changes in temperature, variation
of temperatures of the tank's contents,
the tank's end deflection, characteristics
of the liquid stored, etc.) and the
potential for human error, there is
undoubtedly considerable room for
significant variability in the test results.
EPA is concerned, for example, with
how reliably and, consistently a test
methodology detects the rate of a leak
(using a ipriterion such as the NFPA's
0.05 gallon per hour rate as the point at
which a 'tank is considered leaking) from
a tank, given the potential for a wide
margin of error in the testing.
The Agency is undertaking a research
program ibf volumetric and - ~.
nonvolumetric leak-testing methods in
order to determine their accuracy and.-
reliability. The results of this research
will enable EPA to define more
'• accurately the applicability and
usefulness of leak testing in the
management of hazardous waste tanks.
Yet another concern with current
leak-testing methods is the availability
of equipment and,trained personnel
nationwide. Although several of the
methods are widely available, many are
limited to a geographical area. There are
restrictions, however, even on those few
methods that are nationally available.
One company, for instance, has a
number ,pf branch offices across the
U.S., but-allows only its own personnel
to perform the testing/The leak-
detection equipment is not separately
marketed. By means of this approach,
the company ensures the .accuracy and
reliability of its tests. In contrast,
another Company has taken the opposite
approach, focusing primarily on
marketing the test equipment. It certifies
: anyone who purchases the equipment
and passes a test given after three days
of classroom and field study.
Recertification is encouraged on an
. annual basis.
Both of these approaches present
problems. While the first assures a
higher level to testing quality control,
the number of leak testers may, prove
-------
Federal Register •/ Vol. 50. No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 '/ Proposed Rules_
inadequate to tncet the demand if leak
testing is required on a nationwide
basis. EPA's concern with the second
approach relates to the quality of
testing, which stems hi part from the
limited experience to date in the testing
of hazardous waste tank systems.
Furthermore, even though a leak test
indicates no leakage at the time the test
is conducted, there is no guarantee that
a leak will not begin soon thereafter. In
order to ensure the ongoing integrity of
the tank system, frequent testing would
be necessary. Because each leak test
costs at least $500 per tank, this
alternative could, however, be
burdensome for many facilities.
In light of the problems discussed
above, the Agency does not believe that
leak testing alone will ensure adequate
protection of human health and the
environment. It can play an important
role, however, in the proper
management of a hazardous waste tank
system. Such testing can be used to
identify underground hazardous waste
tanks and piping that are presently
leaking (over 0.05 gallons per hour) so
that immediate remedial actions can be
taken. In addition to a nationwide
screening of all underground hazardous
waste tank systems, leak testing could
be employed in combination with a
ground-water monitoring program to
identify leaks in certain cases prior to
their being detected by a ground-water
monitoring system. For the above
reasons, EPA is proposing a nationwide
one-time testing of all interim status
underground tanks within six months of
the effective date of these proposed
regulations. EPA is also proposing that
underground tanks be tested as a
condition to obtaining a permit and that
all existing underground tanks that do
not have or retrofit full secondary
containment be tested on a semi-annual
basis. Public comment is requested on
these requirements and the applicability
of present leak-testing methods in
complying with these requirements.
3. Corrosion Protection
Corrosion is the major cause of failure
in metal tank systems; nonmetal
systems are, of course, not affected. An
American Petroleum Institute (API)
survey of leaks in underground tank
systems at gasoline stations revealed
that over 90 percent of tank leaks and 60
percent of pipe leaks were attributable
to corrosion resulting from contact of the
metal tank system with corrosion-
inducing soils. Although this survey
involved gasoline rather than hazardous
waste storage tanks (according to an
estimate by the Agency, approximately
90 percent of the aboveground and
underground tanks used to store or treat
hazardous waste are constructed of
carbon steel), EPA believes there is no
appreciable difference in their
susceptibility to corrosioriT If any
difference does exist, EPA expects that
the corrosion rate may be higher for
hazardous waste tanks because of the
corrosive nature of many such wastes
stored or treated in tanks.
Corrosion protection under today's
propos'al would be required for the
metal components of tank systems that
are found to be susceptible to corrosive
conditions. EPA believes that such
protective measures are an important
facet of the proper management of
hazardous waste in metal tank systems
and should be addressed in the design
of such systems. Although corrosion
protection may significantly prolong the
life of a metal tank system, it cannot by
any means be considered a cure-all.
Other significant contributors to the
failure of tank systems include
operators' errors, overfilling, and failure
of ancillary equipment or piping. In
addition, unless corrosion-protection
devices are properly installed and
maintained over the entire life of the
tank system, corrosion will occur, and
the risk of releases will increase.
Improper maintenance of corrosion-
protection devices can, in fact,
accelerate corrosion beyond what might
occur if no protective measures are
taken. For these reasons, EPA believes
that other protective measures,
'including those provided by the
proposed secondary containment
approach and ground-water monitoring
alternative, must be used to supplement
the proposed corrosion protection
requirements. Public comment is .
requested on the use of corrosion
protection measures in the context of
today's proposal.
4. Inspections
The existing regulatory approach to.
hazardous waste storage or treatment
tanks reliefs largely on inspections as the
means for detecting and preventing
releases (see 46 FR 2808, 2829, and 2831,
January 12,1981), Inspections can detect
actual tank leaks, potential locations of
leaks resulting from corrosion, or other
visible damage to the tank, liner, or
coating material. In developing today's
proposal, EPA has reevaluated the
effectiveness of inspections relative to
the proper management of tank systems.
-External visual inspections of
aboveground tanks (or otherwise
accessible portions of tanks) are useful
from the standpoint of identifying leaks
or other problems before a major release
occurs. The role of external-inspections
is, however, limited in many instances,'
For example, the exterior of
underground and inground tanks arid the
. bottoms of aboveground tanks (unless
the tank in cradled or otherwise
elevated off the ground) are usually not
susceptible to external inspection.
The usefulness of internalinspections
- has also been reevaluated. Such
inspections enable many potential leaks
or other impending structural failures to
be identified prior to their being viewed
from the exterior of the tank or to being
released to the environment. The
existing standards rely on internal
inspections to ensure continued tank
integrity.
EPA believes, however, that internal
'. visual inspection of tanks is of limited
value because it is only possible to
observe obvious cracks and major
structural deficiencies. Thus, such
inspections must be supplemented by
the use of special equipment (e.g.,
ultrasonic measurements), but even
ultrasonic measurements are not
appropriate or applicable to many .
hazardous waste storage or treatment
tanks (e.g., concrete tanks). Internal
inspections seem to be most effective for
steel tanks, while they are of
questionable usefulness for FRP tanks
and for concrete tanks.
'Internal inspections pose a number of
problems. Safety is a large concern. The'
Agency believes that sending people
inside a tank to conduct an internal
inspection that potentially exposes them
to toxic constituents and hazards from
fife or explosion is a questionable
practice. The cost of emptying a tank to
make it safe for entry and to allow a
reliable internal inspection involves a :
number of expensive steps: removal and
• disposal of the contents,
decontamination of the atmosphere in
the tank, cleaning (e.g., sandblasting,
hydroblasting; steam or chemical
cleaning), possible shutdown of the
processing operation when the tank is
taken out of service. In addition, in order
to be an important tool in preventing
. releases, internal inspections must be
done frequently. It is common industry
practice, however, to take tanks out of
service periodically for routine
"- maintenance so, that, if inspections were
performed during the routine shutdown
of a tank, the cost to the owner or
operator of a hazardous waste storage
or treatment tank would be considerably
less significant^.
Owing to the factors discussed above,
EPA is reluctant to continue depending
primarily on internal inspections for the
prevention of releases to the -
environment from hazardous waste
storage or treatment tanks. The Agency
does not believe, however, that the use "
of such inspections/should be entirely
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 /.Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / 'Proposed Rules,
26451
eliminated. In certain circumstances
they may be a necessity. For instance, ,
internal inspection of roofed tanks
enables the .owners or operators to .
check for corrosion or other structural
failure of the roof-supporting structure.
Also, as previously stated, periodic
internal inspections may be useful for
detecting obvious structural deficiencies
in the tank.
5. Unsaturated Zone" Monitoring
The Agency evaluated unsaturated
zone monitoring (which refers to
monitoring conducted in the area
immediately beneath or adjacent to a
tank system) for use in detecting
releases from these systems. Such
monitoring differs from ground-water
monitoring which is, usually conducted
in the saturated zone.
For unsaturated zone monitoring of
tank systems, EPA evaluated the ,
viability of using observation wells
combined with thermal conductivity or
electrical resistivity sensors or vapor
sensors. Lysimeters were also
evaluated.
The Agency believes that unsaturated
zone monitoring could result in early
detection of a release and, thus,
facilitate remedial actions to remove or;
decontaminate the released hazardous ;
constituents prior to the ground water's
becoming contaminated. Unsaturated
zone monitoring (except for lysimeters)
is also continuous. Although the initial -.-
cost of this type of equipment is higher
than that for ground-water monitoring,
the annualized cost is less.
While there are a number of
advantages to unsaturated zone
monitoring, there also appear to be
certain restrictions to its use. Because it
is relatively new, experience in using it(
, with-a wide variety of qhemical
substances is limited. Although EPA
allows lysimeters to monitor land
treatment of hazardous waste, they are
largely unproven in monitoring the
integrity of tanks. Iii addition, lysimeters
do not provide continuous monitoring
and are susceptible to clogging.
1 Owing to the uncertainties associated
with current state-of-the-art'unsaturated
.zone monitoring, EPA is reluctant at this
time to endorse this technology as a
substitute for ground-water Monitoring.
EPA invites public comment on the
substitution of unsaturated zone
monitoring for ground-water monitoring
and on its dependability in the early
detection of releases of hazardous waste
from hazardous waste tank systems.
6. Ground-Water Monitoring ' ;
Ground-water monitoring is not
presently required for tanks that store or
treat hazardous waste. Because of the
apparent inevitability of many types of
releases from tanks, the.Agency
believes that ground-water monitoring
should be required for any tank system
that is not provided with full secondary
containment. Thus, there would be
periodic (usually semiannual unless
otherwise specified by the permitting
authority1) sampling from wells around
the waste management area and
analysis of samples for hazardous
constituents. The Agency believes that
ground-water monitoring equipment can
be retrofitted around existing tanks,
which would enable such facilities to
continue present storage operations
relatively unchanged.
EPA is proposing ground-water,
monitoring for all existing hazardous
waste storage or treatment tanks that
now are nonleaking and choose not to
install full secondary containment. For
the reasons discussed in Sections III.C.
and V.C., however, the Agency has
decided that reliance on ground-water
monitoring for new tank systems is
inappropriate because of the relative
cost-effectiveness of installing full
secondary containment for tank systems
and the potential costs of corrective
action where ground water is allowed to
be contaminated.
7. Secondary Containment .
The Agency has been evaluating for
some time the need for secondary
containment for hazardous waste
storage op treatment, tank systems.
("Secondary containment," as used in
this discussion, includes the means for
collecting a release and thus preventing
its escape into the ground water and/or
surface water; it also includes the
capability of detecting the presence of
liquid within the secondary-containment
device ["leak monitoring device"], thus '
signaling the failure of either the
primary- or secondary-containment
structures.) Three secondary
containment approaches for tank
systems were discussed in the Preamble
.- to the January 12,1981, tank permitting
regulations (46 FR 2833). These included
"complete containment": (Le., an
impervious base underlying the tanks in
the storage area); "variable ..
containment" (i.e., varying levels of
containment depending on the
likelihood of spills or leaks in the area);
and "run-off collection containment"
(i.e., diking and drainage to contain
catastrophic failures in the primary
containment). EPA has subsequently
conducted further study of secondary
containment for tank systems.
EPA has determined, based upon this
study and other studies of leak
incidents, that since it is likely that, over
time, tank systems will experience
failure of one sort or another, a strategy
that properly manages the storage or ' > '
treatment of hazardous waste in tank
systems should be capable of not only '
preventing failure of the tank and its
components] but also of containing any
release that does occur, ,
Secondary containment as a technical
alternative has a number of advantages.
It provides a second line of defense .
against deficiencies in tank and , ,
ancillary equipment and piping design. It
minimizes the number of problems
associated with undetected leakage. It
protects against failure's of equipment
and,against releases resulting from
operational errors. •
The manner in which secondary
containment is achieved depends on
. whether the tank system is existing or,
new and on whether the system is
aboveground, inground, or underground.
(See Section V.E.4. for a more detailed
discussion of secondary containment for
tanks.) '! ' ' ' - . ,
Q. Alternative Regulatory Strategies
Considered". ......•'.
Section IV.B. described technical , .
alternatives for controlling hazardous
releases from tank systems. These
technical measures! may be used alone
or in combination to protect human ;
health and the environment. This
section describes several regulatory
optipns that employ one or several of
these measures. The Agency has chosen
to propose isecondary containment, as
described in SectionTV.D,, based on the
information available today. However,
EPA will perform an analysis of the
costs and risks involved in'all of these
regulatory options as well as the options
described in the 1981 proposal (see 46
FR 2833-34} before the final rule. The
Agency requests comments, therefore,
on these regulatory options as well as
on the option of secondary containment.
1. Combination of Secondary
Containment and Grounds-Water
Monitoring! • :
EPA considered requiring both
secondary containment and ground- ; -.,
water monitoring fqr. all tank systems.
! rather than permitting the use of either
protective measure. This' approach
would be consistent with the approach .
required for surface impoundments and ,
landfills under the 1984 Amendments to
RCRA. Under new section 3004(o), each
, new, replacement, and lateral expansion
of existing landfills, and surface
'impoundments is required to install two
or more liners and a leachate collection
system and groundwater monitoring.,
With respect to tanks with full
. secondary containment, EPA believes
-------
28452
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
that an additional requirement to
Implement a groundwater monitoring
requirement would be unnecessary. If a
release between the primary
containment and secondary
containment did occur, the Agency
believes that the noncomplex nature of
the tank system (i.e., the relative
confined area involved and the high
reliability of the leak detection devices)
would-enhance the prompt detection of
any release into the secondary
containment system. In addition, unlike
most landfills and surface
impoundments, if a'release is detected,
the contents of the tank system can be
completely and quickly withdrawn.
With respect to tank systems for
which the ground-water monitoring
alternative is selected, EPA believes
that the combination of semi-annual
leak testing for underground tanks, the
groundwater monitoring program, and
the response, closure, and postclosure
care requirements proposed today
provide safeguards that will adequately
protect human health and the
environment. The Agency invites public
comment on the need to require both
secondary containment and ground-
water monitoring for all tank systems.
2. National Risk-Based Standards
As an alternative to across-the-board
design and operating standards, EPA
evaluated the concept of risk-based
standards. Risk-based standards vary
according to the degree and type of risk
presented based on such factors as site
location, type of hazardous waste
managed, nearness to ground water,
proximity to populated areas, etc. Such
factors could be arrayed in the form of a
matrix, with different levels of control
prescribed according to the relative risk
posed by a particular combination of
factors.
The Agency chose not to incorporate
this option in the proposed rule because
of concerns about the difficulty of
implementing it, and a lack of quantitive
data to justify the selection of control
measures for particular sets of factors.
The Agency solicits comments on the
merits of pursuing this approach in light
of its administrative concerns. EPA is
especially interested in receiving
samples of relevant matrices that have
been found to be both analytically
sound and capable of being readily
understood and'followed by the
regulated community.
3. Minimum National Standards With a
Variance From Containment
Requirements Based Upon Risk
In lieu of national risk-based
standard!), EPA also considered using a
risk-based approach via a variance to a
set of uniform design/operation
standards. For example, assume that full
secondary containment is established as
the uniform national standard for all
hazardous waste tank systems. Then, an
owner or operator of a tank system
'could request a variance to the
secondary containment requirement if
he could demonstrate that, even if a
release did occur from his tahk system,
it would not present a danger to human
health or the environment. Such a
determination of low or no risk might be ,
based on the type of waste stored,
hydrogeological characteristics of the
area, current and future uses of the
water, etc. such as is now requried to
establish ground-water monitoring of an
alternate concentration Imit for a
hazardous constituent (see § 264.94(b)).
This option was not included in this
rule because of preliminary data
indicating that the cost of demonstrating
compliance with the terms of such a
variance is generally higher than
actually complying with the technical
standards proposed today. We solicit
comment on the costs of demonstrating
that releases from a hazardous waste
tank pose a low risk to human health
and the environment. Based on this data
and further information that EPA plans
to compile over the next months, we will
re-evaluate the merits of including a
risk-based variance in the final rule.
4. Minimum Performance Standards
Yet another alternative evaluated by
EPA is the concept of a minimum federal
performance standard for hazardous
waste tank systems. Such a performance
standard might be: all new tank systems
must be located, designed, operated,
maintained, and closed in a manner that
will assure protection of human health
and the environment. Under this
approach, States would have the option
of expanding upon the federal
performance standard by promulgating
more specific, and possibly more
stringent, standards if so desired. In
States choosing not to elaborate upon
the federal performance standard, •
ow'ners or operators of tank systems
would have the responsibility to
demonstrate that their tank systems do
not endanger human health and the
environment. This would require a case-
by-case assessment of the protective
measures needed to achieve the
performance standard through the
permit process. The reader is referred to
§ 267.10 for examples of the factors that
could be taken into consideration in
determining these protective measures.
EPA's decision to not include this
option in the proposed rule stems from
the same concerns expressed with the
previous two options. That is, the cost of
demonstrating compliance with the
performance standard may be .
considerable, as too may be the
difficulty of implementing the approach.
Comments received on the previous two
options will enable EPA to further
examine the merits of this option.
5. Ban of Underground Tanks
As another means of controlling the
problem of leaks from underground
hazardous waste tanks, EPA considered
banning such waste from being stored or
treated in underground tanks. A
proposal to this effect was discussed in
the Preamble to the January 12,1981,
regulations (see 46 FR 2831). The
comments were overwhelmingly against
such a provision for a number of
reasons. One of the comments was that
many local fire codes require that tanks
be underground. Second, underground
tanks are reported to be advantageous
where land is scarce or where pumping
costs can be eliminated by using gravity
flow. Third, it was pointed out that if
underground tanks were eliminated, the
waste would have to be placed in
aboveground tanks, containers, or
surface impoundments—-a costly move,
and, depending on the type of waste
stored, perhaps an unsafe alternative.
EPA agrees that the use of
underground tanks for the storage of
certain wastes may be the safest
alternative. EPA also believes that the
protective measures proposed today for
underground tanks would prevent or
detect releases in time to provide
necessary protection of human health
and the environment. Thus, it is not
necessaryjto ban underground tanks for
the storage or treatment of hazardous
waste.
6. Forced Retirement of Underground
Tanks
As an alternative to secondary
containment for underground tanks, EPA
considered the option of forced
retirement of a tank when it reaches a
predetermined age. For example, a new
underground bare steel tank could be
allowed to operate without secondary
containment for, say, 10 years—the age
at which there is typically reason to
expect corrosion-induced leaks.
There are, however, some significant
drawbacks to this approach. As
discussed in Section V.E.2.C. of this
Preamble, the age of tanks is not a
reliable basis on which to predict the
existence of corrosion-induced leaks in
steel tanks and is irrelevant with respect
to releases from FRP and other nonmetal
tanks. Depending on the conditions to
which a metal tank is exposed, failure
resulting from corrosion could occur at
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123;^ Wednesday, June 26, 1985 /Proposed Rules
any time between 2 and 50 or more
years. Even if the environment hi which
a steel tank is placed can'be accurately
assessed with regard to its potential for
influencing corrosion, EPA does not
believe that it is feasible to predict, for
regulatory purposes, the age at which a
tank would begin to exhibit leaks.
Because of the many uncertainties
involved in this approach to managing
hazardous waste in underground tanks,
EPA ruled out its,use.
D. Today's Proposal for Implementing
EPA's Strategy for Tank Systems
Today's proposed revisions to the
existing tank standards reflect currently
available information and are designed
to prevent leaks from tank systems.
During the next few months, EPA
intends to do more analysis to evaluate
the regulatory options and technical
measures described in the previous ,
sections to determine their effectiveness
at protecting human health and the
environment. Based on this new
information, as well as the information
currently available, EPA will reconsider
today's strategy.
As previously stated, the proper
management of a hazardous waste
storage or treatment tank system
involves and to a large extent relies on
proper design and operation practices.
The protective measures discussed in
Section IV.B. were evaluated with"
respect to their ability to prevent
releases from entering the environment.
Several measures or combinations of
these measures were identified as being
appropriate" for the purpose of achieving
good design and operation of a tank
system. Thus, such measures as proper
design and installation and the use of
corrosion protection are incorporated
into today's proposed regulatory -
strategy to ensure the integrity of the
primary tank system. For example,
comprehensive assessment of the tank
system design is proposed with
particular attention given to corrosion'
protection. Proper installation is also
focused on as a means of precluding
many of the types of failures (e.g.,
corrosion-related failures) now being
encountered.
- EPA's experience and studies since
early 1981 have led the Agency to
believe that some releases from
primary-tank systems are inevitable
over time, that all releases cannot be
prevented by tank design and operating
requirements. Such factors as the
accelerated corrosion of metal tanks in
contact with the soil, breaks and leaks
in ancillary equipment and piping,
breakdowns in and spills from overflow
equipment, and operators' errors have
caused the Agency to conclude tiiat full
secondary containment is the. most
effective means of preventing releases
from tank systems. Thus, the Agency
today proposes to require, whenever
feasible,, full secondary containment for
hazardous waste tank systems (i.e.,
tanks and ancillary equipment). For new
tank systems, EPA has determined that
full secondary containment is always
the least costly means of containing
releases. Today's proposal, therefore,
would require'all new tank systems to ,.
have secondary containment.
The Agency has determined, however,
that full secondary containment may not
be .the most practical means of
containing releases from existing tank
systems. Thus, the Agency is proposing
an alternative to full secondary
containment for existing.tanks systems.
This alternative would require .
secondary containment of any portion of
. a tank system that is aboveground,' (i.e.,
partial secondary containment) plus a
ground-water.monitoring program. In
addition, underground tank systems
would be required to'be leak tested > .. ''•
every six months. For purposes of this
Preamble, the alternative to full
secondary containment will be termed -
simply the "ground-water monitoring
alternative," •
This alternative containment option
would apply only to existing tank
systems that are operating under either •>
interim status or are already permitted.
Because of the need for interaction
between the facility owner or operator
and EPA whenever ground-water
monitoring is implemented, such an
option would not be viable for 90-day
accumulation tank systems. Thus, these ,
facilities must either be provided with
full secondary containment within one
year of the [effective date of these
regulations or apply for a RCA Part 264
permit (see Section V.B. of this
Preamble). The chart below illustrates
the containment strategy being
proposed.
BILLING CODE S580-50-M
-------
26454
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26,1985 / Proposed Rules
CONTAINMENT APPROACH
Type of Tank System
All permittable
hazardous waste
storage/treatment
tank systems
- new
- existing
{ aboveground
and inground)
- existing
(underground)
90~day accumulation
tank sys terns
- new
- existing
Containment Requirements
•
full secondary containment |~".
within one year of effective date,
provide
full secondary containment |
or ' :-.
partial secondary containment
and :
ground-wate'r monito;ring
•^ . • ' ' : r
within one y«ar of effective date*
provide
full secondary containment
or . '• ••-• •
ground-water monitoring ,
and
leak testing every six months
full secondary containment " J_
•-•'':' ' - . • • •
full secondary containment
within one year of effective
date or apply for a Part 264
permit
WU4NO CODE 85S9-50-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. /SO, No. 123 / Wednesday' June 28, 19^5 -/
EPA believes that the ground-water
monitoring alternative would provide
essentially equivalent protection to full -
secondary containment. This protection
is further ensured by the requirement
that the owner or operator take
immediate response measures should a
release occur. - ;
In addition, EPA is proposing to
expand the closure standards for tank
systems without full secondary
containment to require removal qf
contaminated soil at closure and post-
closure care if all hazardous waste .
residues and contaminated soil are not
removable at closure. The remainder of
the proposed strategy is similar to the
present strategy (e.g., inspections).
Finally, although the requirement for
secondary containment constitutes
perhaps the major difference between
the existing standards'and today's
proposed regulatory strategy, there are
also other notable changes. One such
change is the increased emphasis on the
proper design, installation, and
operation of ancillary equipment (e.g.,
pipes, pumps). ,
V. Analysis of Today's-Prqposed
Revisions to the RCRA Tank Rules
This section contains a detailed
discussion of numerous technical and
policy issues and the Agency's rationale ,
for proposing today's revisions to the
RCRA tank regulations. It also presents
EPA's findings and conclusions in
support of the specific revisions. These
revisions are intended to remedy
significant deficiencies in the existing
regulations, such as addressing releases
from tank piping and ancillary
equipment; opera tors'-errors in -
managing tank systems [e.g., tank
overfilling); corrosion of metal tank
systems in contact with the soil; and
improper installation practices.
. A. Definitions
Today's proposed regulations coyer
only tank systems that are used to store
or treat hazardous waste. In these
regulations, a. "tank system" is
comprised of the tank(s) and the
ancillary equipment associated with the
tank(s) (e.g., pipes, valves, pumps). For
example, in the case of a facility at ,
which a waste is pumped from an indoor
process tank to an outside hazardous
waste storage tank, the term "tank
system" would include: the waste
storage tank; all piping, along with any •
valves and pumps going from the
process tank to the storage tank; and
any vent lines, empty-out lines, or other
, appurtenances (e.g., monitoring
equipment) associated with the waste
storage tank. . ; • . -• -
Today's proposed regulations make
some distinctions among aboyeground
tanks, inground tanks, and underground
tanks. This categorization reflects the
tank's degree of contact with soil and its
Capacity to be viewed externally. By
means of these categories, one can ,
' determine the. specific causes of the
tanks system's failure, the associated
risks posed to the environment, and the
practices needed to prevent such
failures. Furthermore, as allowed by
RCRA and as suggested by numerous
comments in response to the January 12,
1981 proposal, EPA is proposing
standards that differentiate in some
respects between existing and new
hazardous waste storage or treatment
tanks.
To clarify these and other concerns,
EPA is proposing to add in 40 CFR Part
260 several definitions of terms used
extensively in today's proposal.
1. Aboveground Tank
An aboveground tank is situated in
such a manner that the bottom" of the
tank is at or above the plane of ground
/level. It may be placed directly on a
foundation, on the soil (at the plane of
ground level), on cradles, or elevated on
legs. ; ,
2. Inground Tank .
: A tank is considered to be inground if
its base is to any degree "situated below
the plane of ground level and is in direct
contact with the soil such that a portion
of the tank wall is above the ground and
a portion of the tank wall is below the
ground (not externally viewable). Tanks
that might be typically referred to as
inground but that do not meet this
definitional requirement include tanks
situated below floor level inside a
building and tanks located in a
topographical depression. Such tanks
are not different from aboveground
tanks because they are not (except for
•perhaps the base) in direct contact with
soil arid are externally viewable.
3. Leak Detection System
The Agency believes the ability to
detect promptly a! release from a tank
system is crucial in protecting human:
health and the environment. Even with
.-. systems that have secondary
containment, it is important to know
when a release from either the tank.
system or the secondary-containment
. system has occurred. EPA has
concluded that, for tanks with
secondary containment, the most
effective way of attaining these
objectives is to require quick detection
of a breach in either the primary- or.
' secondary-containment structure
• through leak detection and monitoring,
which, in its simplest form, might be
achieved by a visual inspection by an
operator. Thus, EPA today i's proposing .
to define leak detection system as one '
that provides the capability to detect,
within 24 hours, the failure of either the
primary-or secondary-containment
structure or the presence of liquid in the
secondary containment structure. -
A number of automatic leak-detection
and monitoring devices are
commercially available that could .
satisfy the proposed definition (e.g.,
interstitial monitoring between doubleT
walled tanksi). These can include probes
to monitor, for liquid accumulation „
between the primary- and secondary-
containmeni structures (i.e.; flow of
waste out of the'primary structure into
the secondary-containment system or
inflow of water into the secondary-
containment system from the exterior)
or means to,maintain a vacuum or .
pressure between the primary- and
secondary-containment structures (loss
of vacuum or pressure indicates a leak in
the system).- .
4. Underground Tank . •
-The entire; surface area of an ;
underground tank is situated completely
'' below the plane of ground level. The
phrase "entire surface area" is intended '
. to mean that, for horizontal tanks, the
entire circumference of the tank is
within the.giound; for vertical tanks, the
tank top is situated below the plane of
ground level. In most cases, an
underground tank is in direct contact
with the soil.
5. Ancillary^Equipment
EPA considers any equipment used to
monitor, distribute, meter, or otherwise
control the flow of hazardous waste to
or.from the storage or treatment tank as
ancillary equipment. As discussed
beldw, the Agency is concerned with the
failure of ancillary equipment such as
pipiiig and pumps and the ensuing
releases of Hazardous waste to the
environment. It is, therefore, subject to
.the proposed regulations. .
6. Existing Tank System
An existing tank system is defined as
one that is already in operation or for
which installation has commenced on or
prior to the effective date of these
regulations. The determination of
"installation" is tied to several factors,
including whether all necessary Federal,
State, and local preconstruction and
mstallatidn!approvals or permits have
been obtained and whether either
'• physical onsite construction has been
-------
26456
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 /'Proposed Rules
undertaken or contractual obligations
have been agreed to by the owner or
operator that cannot be canceled or
modified without substantial losses if
the construction of the site or
Installation of the tank system is to be
completed within a reasonable time.
7. New Tank System
In order for a tank system to be
considered "new," its installation must
have commenced after the effective date
of these regulations. As in the case of
existing tank systems, installation will
be considered to have commenced if the
owner or operator has obtained all
necessary Federal, State, and local
preconsu-uction or installation approvals
or permits and if either physical onsite
construction has been undertaken or
contractual obligations have'been
agreed to by the owner or operator that
cannot be canceled or modified without
substantial losses if the construction of
the site or installation of the tank
system is to be completed within a
reasonable: time,
8. Corrosion Expert
EPA believes that the capability to
evaluate the potential for corrosion of a
tank system in a particular environment
and determine those protective
measures needed to prevent corrosion of
the tank system is unique to persons
trained in this area of expertise. As
such, the Agency is requiring that a
corrosion expert be used in both the
design and installation of tank systems
to ensure proper corrosion protection.
A corrosion expert is being defined as
a person who, by reason of his
knowledge of the physical sciences and
the principles of engineering and
mathematics, acquired by a professional
education and related practical
experience, is qualified to engage in the
practice of corrosion control on buried
or submerged metal piping systems and
metal tanks. Such person may be a
registered professional engineer or may
be a person certified as being qualified
by the National Association of
Corrosion engineers if such licensing or •
certification includes suitable
experience in corrosion control on
buried or submerged metal piping
systems and metal tanks.
B. Storage in Tanks for Less Than 90
Days (§262,34}
Under the existing rules, generators
storing hazardous waste onsite in tanks
are exempt from having to apply for a •
RCRA permit if. within 90 days after it
was generated, the hazardous waste is
moved. (See § 262.34.) Such facilities, .,
referred to as accumulation tanks, must
only comply with a limited subset of the
Part 265 requirements, including, for
example, inspection and operating
requirements. As part of the effort to
implement more adequately its strategy
of protecting human health and the
environment from the storage and
treatment of hazardous waste in tank
systems (see Section IV.D.), EPA is
. today, proposing to require full
secondary containment at.such 90-day
accumulation tank facilities.
The'final standards promulgated on
February 26,1980, for generators of
hazardous waste did not allow for the
accumulation of such waste in storage
tanks. As stated in the Preamble to
those standards (45 FR12730), EPA
intended to amend the Part 262
generator regulations, subsequent to
promulgation of the Parts 264 and 265
regulations, so that accumulation in
storage tanks -would be allowed.
On May 19,1980, EPA promulgated
interim status Part 285, Subpart J, tank
standards. The Part 262 standards were
also revised to allow the accumulation
of hazardous waste in tanks that meet
certain of these interim status
standards. The Preamble to the Part 262
amendment (45 FR 33141) stated that
Part 262 might be amended again to
include the final Part 264 standards.
EPA's intent was clearly indicated in the
background document to the May 19,
1980, amendment to Part 262: "there is
little difference between [short term]
accumulation and [long term] storage so
far as potential damage to human health
and the environment is concerned, and
therefore, the same standards for
protection of human health and the
environment should apply." No
additional amendments to the Part 262
standards have been promulgated,
however, subsequent to the May 19,1980
revisions.
EPA continues to believe there is little
difference between these 90-day
- accumulation tanks and other storage
tanks. For example, additional EPA data
have indicated tha't the annual
throughput of waste in these tanks and
the types of wastes stored at 90-day
facilities are, generally, the same as at
other hazardous waste tank facilities.
'Thus, the potential for release resulting
from failure of the tank system is
probably the same. In fact, because
waste is handled more when it is moved
from tanks within a. 90-day period, the
probability of a release owing to a spill,
accident, or other incident may be
increased at these accumulation
facilities. Also, because of the high
throughput of wastes at many of these
facilities, the amount of waste released
may be greater if it remains undetected
for a long period of time;
In light of the above, EPA has
reevaluated the existing-regulations for
90-day accumulationjanks and has
decided that these standards are
.inadequate. The Agency considered two
basic technical Options in attempting to
upgrade these standards.
1. Add a Secondary-Containment
Requirement to the 90-Day Rule
Under this option, a significant degree
of environmental protection Would be
attained by adding full secondary
containment for all 90-day accumulation
tanks to the existing requirements.
Under this option there would probably
be little, if any, involvement of the
owner or operator with EPA in
establishing the secondary-containment
system; thus, there could be some
uncertainty .about the proper design,
installation, and maintenance of such
systems. ,
2. Require Ground-Water Monitoring
The Agency considered the ground- .
water monitoring option as an
amendment to § 262.34, but decided that
this would be unworkable because such
an approach would require significant
contacts between facilities and the
Agency. Thus, EPA is not allowing 90-
day accumulatorsjhe option of ground-
water monitoring because, in the
absence of requiring a permit, the
implementation of such monitoring
would not be feasible without the
interaction that would be needed to
assure proper compliance.
• In reviewing these two options, EPA
.became aware that no one option .
presents an ideal solution, but
concluded that full secondary
containment would be the most feasible.
As a result, EPA has decided that s.uch
tanks should be allowed to continue
operation under the 90-day
accumulation exemption provided that
the owner or operator of the facility
; installs full secondary containment. The
risk assessment the Agency is preparing
for the final rale may change this
conclusion. • - '. "
Under today's proposed revisions to
the 90-day accumulation rule, full
secondary containment would be
phased in over a 1-year period to
provide sufficient time for installation of
the secondary-containment system. (See
proposed § 262,34(a)(2).) At those tank
facilities where full secondary --
containment is not provided, the owner
or operator has the option of closing
or—if it is an existing facility—applying
for a RCRA permit, which would allow
the ground-water monitoring alternative
to be selected. The Agency believes that
this approach will provide necessary
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 /^Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules . 26457
protection of human health and the
environment in a relatively short period
of time and still afford the owner or
operator of each facility some flexibility
in determining the appropriate method
of protection for his particular situation.
As with any metal tank system, EPA .
is .concerned about corrosion in 90-day
accumulation tank systems. (A
discussion of corrosion and its control .is
presented in Section V.E.2. of this
Preamble). Since corrosion is the
primary cause of failures in metal tank
systems, the Agency is. considering
requiring an assessment of th.e need for
and the installation of corrosion-
protection measures for 90-day
accumulation tank systems. This
approach is similar to that for interim-
status and permitted hazardous waste
tank facilities. Public comment on the
appropriateness of corrosion protection
at these facilities is requested; ; .
C. Ground-Water Protection for Tank
Systems
EPA recognizes that there are certain
situations (especially when the
retrofitting of existing tanks is involved)
where it is impractical, perhaps .
impossible, to provide full secondary
containment at individual tank facilities.
For example, it may be impractical to
retrofit secondary containment beneath
the tank system without completely
dismantling (and perhaps destroying)
the tank. In,order to provide an option to
full seconday containment for such
facilities, while at the same time
ensuring protection of human health and
the environment, EPA is proposing that
owners or operators of existing tank
systems be allowed to provide partial
secondary containment for above-
ground portions of the system, leak
testing every six months of underground
tanks, thorough periodic assessments of
inground and aboveground tanks, and a
ground-water monitoring program. EPA
believes that such a program will protect
human health and the environment for a
number of reasons. First, leak testing
underground tanks every six months
..and performing a periodic thorough .
assessment of inground and .
aboveground tanks should assist in
detecting leaks so that they can be
responded to before they enter the
ground water. Secondly, spills and leaks
from above-ground portions of the
. system will be contained by the partial
secondary containment system. Finally,
ground-water monitoring will guarantee
that releases that do enter the ground
water are detected and responded to.
, Beqause ground-water monitoring is
one of the components to the alternative
to full secondary containment, it will
have to be assessed by the owner or
operator for feasibility of
implementation. Inherent in '•& ground-
water monitoring program is the need
for corrective action should a hazardous
.constituent from a tank enter the
ground-water at unacceptable levels.
Owners or operators will have to weigh
carefully the liabilities associated with
this provision. They will also need to
consider such other factors as. the
complexity of a monitoring and response
program; the size of the tank facility,
and the costs of retrofitting it with
secondary containment. In many cases
analyzed by the Agency, full secondary
containment for existing tank systems,
although initially capital intensive,
proves to be comparable in cost with the
ground-water monitoring alternative
when the costs are annualized over a 20-
year life of the tank system. •
EPA is also proposing that the ground-
water monitoring alternative not be
allowed at new facilities. (See Section
V.E.4.f. for a description of this proposed
Part 264 requirement.) The Agency has
concluded that it is less expensive to
install full secondary containment when
a new tank system is being constructed
than to conduct a ground-water
monitoring program for the life of the
facility (even when not including post-
closure care). The Agency specifically
requests public comment on this
conclusion and the Agency's decision to
require full secondary containment for
all new tank systems.
Proposed § 264.193 requires that
owners and operators of tank systems
that do not have full seconday
• containment implement a ground-water
monitoring program unless they obtain 'a
waiver from these requirements under
§ 264.193(i).
Proposed § 264.193(g) sets forth the
requirements' of this ground-water
monitoring program. Under this section, .
. an owner or operator would be required
to install a ground-water monitoring
system at a compliance point specified
in the facility's permit. The owner or
operator would then be required to
monitor for indicator parameters, waste
constituents, or reaction products also
specified in the permit. The owner or
operator would be required to sample
the ground-water quality at each
monitoring well at the compliance point
1 at least sem'i-annually and determine
whether there has been a statistically
significant increase over background
values for any parameter or constituent
specified in the permit. Upon a •
determination that there has been a
statistically significant increase in such
parameters or constituents, the owner or
..operator would have to notify the
Regional Administrator and assess the
integrity of the tank system. - ,
The requirements of proposed
; § 264il93(g) are nearly identical to
several requiirements-of Part 264,
Subpart F, specifically the general
ground-water monitoring requirements
of § 284.97 arid the detection monitoring
requirements of § 264.98(a)-(gj. Rather •'
than adopt all Subpart F requirements
for tank systems § 264.193(g) would
incorporate only those requirements^?
Subpart F that are applicable to-a
detection monitoring program. Thus,
owners and operators would no't be ••
subject to compliance monitoring or
corrective action requirements similar to
those required under Subpart F,
§§264.99 and 264.100.
EPA chosef this modified version of
the Part 264, Subpart F standards for
incorporation into Subpart J because of
the new corrective action authority it
has under RCRA section 3004(u). Section
3004(u), which was added to RCRA by
the 1984 amendments,'provides EPA
authority to require corrective action at
any solid waste management unit
located at a facility seeking a permit
under Section 3005. Once a release is
detected under proposed Section
264.193(g) arid the Regional
Administrator is notified, therefore, EPA
will have thjf authority to require
whatever measures are appropriate to
confirm the leak and to implement
corrective action where necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.. EPA believes that reliance
upon this authority, rather than
incorporation of Subpart F compliance
monitoring and corrective action
requirements, will give the Agency
greater flexibility to fashion response
and corrective action measures that are
appropriate for tank systems.
EPA seeksi comment on this approach
it is proposing today and upon the
alternative cif simply applying the
existing coirjplete Part 264,. Subpart F
Ground-Water, monitoring, requirements
to tank systems. .
Although EPA is proposing to adopt;
certain subpart F requirements for
permitted tank systems, the Agency
believes that it is hot necessary to '.
follow 'this same approach for interim :
status tank systems. The existing Part;
265, Subpart F standards are appropriate
for the detection of releases from interim
status tank systems. Any subsequent
corrective action can be implemented
via the authority granted in 3008(h) of . .
RCRA. Public comment is sought oh the
appropriateness of applying the Part 265,
: Subpart F Ground-Water Protection
' standards to interim status tank
systems, j : - •
-------
26458 Federal Register / Vol>-50. No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
One area of concern regarding the
application of the proposed ground-
water requirements of § 264,193{g) to
tank systems is defining the waste
management area to be monitored. EPA
is concerned that extensive waste
management areas (as could be the case
when long lengths of piping are
included) could pose a problem with
respect to specifying the number and
placement of monitoring wells
necessary to ensure detection of a
release from the tank system. Another
important issue with ground-water
monitoring of tank systems is how to
monitor effectively for a leak from any
individual tank system if it is in a
conglomeration of tanks, for instance, in
a tank farm. Public comment on this
, issue is requested.
Under the existing tank standards,
releases from tanks can enter the
environment and could go undetected
Indefinitely. Thus, pollution of ground
water could continue unabated until it
has a significant impact on human
health or (he environment. Imposition of
the ground-water protection
requirements as well as the requirement
for partial secondary containment for
above-ground portions of the tank
system, tank assessments for inground
tanks, and leak testing for underground
systems a? existing tank facilities should
prevent such events.
D, Financial Responsibility (Parts 264
andZGS, Subpart H)
Today's EPA is proposing
amendments to the existing tank closure
standards that require certain
postclosure responsibilities for tank
systems not using full secondary
containment. These post-closure
requirements would apply at such
facilities if, at closure^ contaminated
soils and/or ground water (if any)
cannot be removed or decontaminated.
(See V.E.8, for a more detailed
discussion of these new post-closure
requirements for tank systems). In
addition to the above amendments to
the existing tank closure standard,
today's proposal also includes a change
in the applicability section of
§ 284,140(b): financial assurance for
post-closure care requirements. This
change proposes that a financial
assurance mechanism for post-closure
be established for tank systems subject
to proposed § 254.197 postclosure
requirements. Under this provision, each
tank system not using the full
secondary-containment approach must
have sufficient resources to carry out
post-closure care if, at closure,
hazardous waste is found to have been
released into the environment and all
such waste cannot be practicably
removed or decontaminated.
EPA is also proposing changes to Part
265, Subpart H, that require tank
systems without full secondary
containment to obtain financial
. assurance for post-closure care. These
revisions are the same as those being
proposed under Part 264, Subpart H.
E. Tank System Design, Installation,
and'Operating Standards (Part 264,
Subpart J)
In order to provide for better
management of hazardous waste in tank
systems, today's proposal makes several
changes in the existing design,
management, and operating standards
for permitting tank systems (Part 264,
Subpart J). These revisions propose to,
delete some of the existing standards
(e.g., minimum tank shell thickness),
modify others (e.g., inspection
requirements), and add new ones (e.g., ^
secondary containment and ground-
water monitoring program). Because of
the large number of changes to Subpart J
proposed today, only the standards that
are being deleted, modified, and added
are discussed in this Preamble.
In developing today's proposed
revisions to the existing design and
operating standards, EPA has
considered all of its previous rulemaking
activities (see the discussion in Section
II.B.), comments received on these
earlier actions, and data obtained from
EPA studies on the management of
hazardous Waste in tank systems.
1. Applicability (§ 264.190)
The existing RCRA permitting
standards apply to all tank systems that
treat or store hazardous waste, except
for covered underground tanks that
cannot be entered for inspection. In the
Preamble to the January 12,1981,
regulations (48 FR 2831), EPA revealed it
had knowledge of several significant
damage cases caused by releases from
nonenterable underground tanks, but
had no sure strategy for preventing such
disasters. Public comment was
requested on the option of completely
banning treatment or storage of
hazardous waste in such tanks.
Opponents of a ban were asked to
provide information on adequate
protection methods at such facilities.
The Agency indicates that covered
underground tanks that cannot be
entered for inspection could continue to
operate under interim status, but could
not receive RCRA permits until final
rules were established for them. As
discussed in Section IV.C., those who •
commented suggested several reasons
why this type of tank should not be
banned, including: local fire codes, the
scarcity of space for storage in
aboveground tanks, and the costs of
developing alternatives. The consensus
was that underground tanks can be
designed, installed, and operated in a
manner that will protect human health
and the environemnt.
Today's proposed changes to the
technical requirements have been
developed to ensure the proper
management of these tank systems.
Therefore, this proposal deletes the
existing § 2G4.190(b), thereby making the
Subpart J standards applicable to all
tank systems, 'including underground
tanks that cannot be entered. •-
In the Preamble to the January 12,
1981, tank permitting standards, EPA
solicited comments on the advisibility of
* allowing the storage of hazardous waste
in tanks that are situated in the water
table (46 FR 2833), Most of those who
commented believed such a ban was
unreasonable and unnecessary and that
, proper design, installation, and
operating practices would ensure that
hazardous waste is not released to
ground Water. In light of the tank system
permitting standards proposed today -
(e.g., corrosion protection, installation
requirements, secondary containment,
leak detection, etc.), EPA believes that
tank systems can be managed in an
environmentally safe manner even if not
enterable for inspection or when located
in ground water.
In sum, today's proposed Subpart J
standards close an existing gap in the
coverage of the RCRA tank standards
by making them applicable to all tank
systems managing hazardous wastes.
2. Design of Tank Systems (§ 264.191)
As discussed in Section III.C., the •
Agency has previously adopted a three-
part regulatory strategy for storage of
- hazardous waste. For tank systems, this
consists, of proper design and operation
of primary containment, inspections;
and secondary containment. The
following discussion relates to the
proposed deletions, revisions, and
additions to the existing § 264.191 design
requirements for tank systems;
inspection and secondary containment
are addressed later in this Preamble.
a. Minimum Shell Thickness. The
Preamble to the January 12,1981,
regulations (46 FR 2831-2832) includes a
discussion on minimum tank shell
thickness that is provided in support of
the existing design requirements. Those
standards require the establishment and
preservation of a minimum tank shell
thickness supplemented by an
inspection program to ensure that the
tank's integrity is maintained. :
-------
Federal Register / ¥oi S& Mo. 12$ .'j|--Wednesday, .fane- 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
26459
Because they were interim, final
standards, EPA. received several , ,
comments on them. Most of those who
commented strongly opposed the design
requirements for minimum: shell
thickness. One of, their main reasons for
opposing1 this requirement was the belief
that EPA should not. be involved in the ,
establishment of such standards, since
tanka are typically; designed in
accordance with nationally acceptable
standards, established by, for example,
API, Underwriters' Laboratories [ULJ,
and the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. Those who commented
considered EPA's involvement in such
design, considerations! to be redundant
and time consuming. They also pointed
out that many existing, tanks- ace
nonspeeification tanks [not built to
nationally established standards}, for .
which much of the original design
information! may not be available,, and
suggested that such tanks be granted a
permit based on a demonstration to EPA
that the tank is sufficiently sound to.'
justify its use for storage or treatment of
hazardous waste.
Other comments concerned the
technical aspects, of measuring shell
thickness. Several of those who
commented indicated that it is;
extremely difficult,, if not impossible, to
measure tank shell thickness. They
pointed out that, in many cases,: such-
measurements can only be taken from
the inside of tanks- whose interiors may
be inaccessible. They also expressed
their belief that considerable; burden is
placed on facilities that must shut down
a manufacturing process in order to take
the tank out of service for internal-
inspection. In addition, they reported
that the costs of emptying, and cleaning
a tank and disposing of its contents are
unjustified. For example, EPA estimates
that the cost of emptyingt cleaning, and
properly disposing of contents of an
8,000>gallon steel tank is. approximately
$1,000,
Among the other concerns associated
with shell thickness, those who '. *"-'"'
commented pointed out the following., In
many eases, measurements, can give
unpredictable and inaccurate results
and may be of no value in. fiberglass,
lined, coated, or insulated tanks. It is
impractical to measure tank bottoms •
because of the high cost of cleaning, to
the point where measurements, can be
taken. Standard practice in measuring
metal thickness is to make "spot
checks" of the tank shell rather than
measuring the entire shell surface. These
spot checks usually cover as little as 1 to
10% of the shell surface, FOE the portion
, of the tank universe constructed of
concrete, the requirement may be
uBamplementabte.because watt
composition for this type of tank is
comprised of a variable distribution and
orientation of aggregate so that it is
unlikely that ultrasonic, testing, devices
could be easily calibrated to accurately
test such tanks. The;safety of personnel
taking measurements inside tanks must
also be considered. Unless effective
cleaning procedures have been used,
there is the possibility that toxic fumes
will be present or that an explosion may
occur. Several of those who commented
suggested that alternative, inspection
methods [e.g., hydrostatic, testing, x- ^
raying} for metal tanks should be
allowed or that internal inspections
should be performed only during normal
tank shutdowns.
EPA generally agrees with those who
commented that the minimum shell
thickness requirement should be
deleted, givent the following facts. This
requirement has. proven difficult to
implement. It has been an, unjustified
burden on many owners; or operators of
tank facilities', especially those with
secondary containment. It is of limited
effectiveness in controlling releases
from tanks.
EPA has reviewed data regarding the
failure of tank systems and has
concluded that the overwhelming;
number of reported releases foam such
systems have resulted from occurrences
other than failure; of the shell. An
analysis of over 2,000 incidents of spills
of oil or hazardous substances, reported
under EPA's Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasures- Plans ([SPCCJ and
the Coast Guard's-Pollution Incident
Reporting System (PIRS) reveals that
between 40 and 50 percent of the spills
resulted from failure of piping or
ancillary equipment (pumps, valves,
etc.). Another approximately 40 percent
of the reported spills, were attributed to
operational deficiencies (overfilling,
operators' errors). Less than 1ft percent
of the spills could be related to releases
resulting from failure of the shell.
On the basis of information it has •
accumulated, public comments, and
permitting officials' experiences- with .
implementing the shell thickness
requirement, EPA has; reconsidered the
effectiveness of shell thickness
determinations in the overall regulatory
strategy for managing hazardous wastes
at tankfaeilities. The Agency concludes
that in view of all the technical, safety,
and cost issues associated with the
determination of tank shell thickness,
the existing standard is not effective
and, therefore, not warranted.
Accordingly, today's amendments
propose to delete this requirements from
§ 264.191.
fa. Tiwk Systems; The existing Subpart
J tequireifflents focus; primarily on the
storage1 oar treatment tank itself and
generally ignore ancillary equipment.
Today/as proposal emphasizes the term
"tank system," which is meant to assort"
that both ancillary equipment and the
tank itself are covered! Thus, any
equipment used to distribute', meter, or
control fee flow of hazardous, waste to
or from tfce storage or treatment tanks)
as well afi- the tanks themselves: are"
included m the term "tank system."
The significance of including, a
hazardous waste tank's; ancillary
equipment {rnduding; piping), is
demonstrated fay the SPCC and PIRS
data, which show that piping and
, ancillary; equipment failures may/
account, for up to 50'percent of releases
from tank systems. A survey by/ APE of
leaks froin gasoline storage tanks.
corroborates these data. In addition,,
diseussioitis between the Agency/ and
several tBmfc-testing. companies verify
that at least 50; percent of leaks fcom>
tank sy/stiima can be attributed to piping
probfemst •
Asa result of all tMs evidence^ the
Agency has concluded that both-the
tank and its ancillary equipment must
, be considered in EPA'a regulatory/
strategy fo> protect human health and the
• environment from the release of .
hazardous waste from tank facilities.
c. Coirasiont Protection* As discussed
ins Section W.B;3.» corrosion is the major
cause1 of failure of metal tank systems.
Internal ciorrosiQE [which according to a
recent report accounts for between 10%-
29% of corrosion-induced tank failures)
is usually prevented by/ assuring
compatibility/ of the inner surfaces of the
tank By/stem with the material to be
stored itt[the, tank system. Although
carrosioHi of metal owing to atmospheric
conditions' is also of concern, the most
serious corrosion-problems are
associateid with metal tanks that are in
direct coiitact with surrounding soils. .
Information received since the January
1981 regulation was promulgated has
persuaded EPA that, as part of the
process of designing, a tank system, it is
important to assess the potential for
corrosioa specific to the soils in which
the metal components of the system are
placed, II: would seem prudent,
therefore, to situate the tank system at
the location with the least corrosion
potential and, when necessary, to
incorporate appropriate, measures to
control corrosion. , '
A study by API of nearly 2,000 leaks
from, underground gasoline tanks
demonstrates the impact of corrosion in
the management of tanks. This study
found that between 75 and 80 percent of
-------
26460 . Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
the leaks were attributable to tank and/
or piping failure resulting from
subsurface corrosion. Additional studies
of leaks from underground tank'systems
by New York, California, and Michigan
also point to corrosion as a leading
factor in the failure of metal tanks and
piping. It is inevitable that the majority
of unprotected metal tank systems in
contact with the ground will experience
some degree of corrosion over the life of
the system. Data from the API study
show a significant increase in detected
leaks in both steel tanks and steel piping
older than 5 years of age. It is assumed
that the higher incidence rate of leaks at
older facilities is caused primarily by
corrosion.
In order to evaluate the occurrence of
leaks in tanks resulting from subsurface
corrosion, it is necessary to go beyond
the general conclusions that can be
derived from the API survey results. A
separate statistical study on tank leaks
was conducted for API entitled
"Underground Unprotected Steel Tank
Study: Statistical Analysis of Corrosion
Failures." This study showed that the
tank's age, by itself, is not necessarily
the best predictor of a corrosion-induced
failure. The prediction must also take
into account such factors as soil
resistivity, pH, moisture, the level of
sulfides in the immediate backfill
materials that are hi contact with metal
components, the influence of nearby
underground metal structures, and the
effects of stray current. The information-
gathered under this study indicates that
77 percent of steel tanks will point-
corrode (develop holes caused by
accelerated corrosion at localized areas
In the tank system), while the other 23
percent of tanks may corrode on a more
uniform basis (and thus not develop
holes) over even a longer period of time.
The study cautions, however, that
certain corrosion-inducing conditions
could cause a leak in a steel tank system
within as short a tune as a year or two
of its installation.
This study also concluded that (taking
Into account the various factors
mentioned above) tanks of 12 years of
age in saturated soil conditions have a
50 percent probability of leaking. In
unsaturated conditions the 50 percent
probability of leaking occurs at 21 years
of age. Overall, the data indicate that
the mean age for tank leakage is around
16 years; that is, 50 percent of all tanks
will have developed a leak as a result of.
subsurface corrosion by the time they
are 18 years of age.
A company specializing in cathodic
protection has reported on the age to
leak rates of 800 tanks in Ohio. Their
data show that at leas one underground
metal tank failure can be expected in 55
percent of the gasoline stations over a
15-year period and that failures can be
expected at 70 percent of the stations in
20 years. It was also reported that the
life of the tanks in areas such as New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
Michigan, and Illinois rarely exceeds 12
years.
There have been a number of studies
on the occurrence of leaks in
underground piping. The National
Association of Corrosion Engineers
(NACE) reports that, if the accumulated
number of leaks in .underground piping
is plotted against time, an exponential
curve is derived. This exponential curve
is noticed starting at approximately 5
years from installation. The curve
indicates that the cumulative number of
leaks subsequently increases.by a factor
of 10 every 6 years. '
EPA believes that the foregoing data
indicate that once a steel tank system
that ig in contact with surrounding soil
is 5 years of age, concern for leaking
should be intensified. Extreme caution
should be exercised once such an '
unprotected steel tank system reaches
10 years of age.
EPA data show that over 60 percent of
the underground tanks and 30 percent of
the inground tanks used to store
hazardous waste are constructed of
carbon steel. Most large steel
aboveground tanks are placed directly
on the ground or a concrete foundation
and, thus, may be subject to bottom
corrosion. The overwhelming majority of
these tanks do not have corrosion
protection. Taking into account the
analyses provided above" and
considering the fact that 50 percent of
the existing steel underground tank
systems are over 8 years of age (25
percent are more than 15 years old),
EPA has concluded that many existing
steel tanks may now be leaking. In order
to ensure the integrity of a steel tank
system, one must establish and maintain
corrosion protection over its entire life.
Assessing the-potential for corrosion at
the site where the tank system is or will
be established is the first step in this
process. Specific requirements being
proposed today for achieving corrosion
protection at hazardous waste tank
systems are discussed below.
d. Engineer's Assessment of the Tank
System's Design. As discussed in
Section III. C., the proper design and
operation of the primary containment
device is the first step in the Agency's
three-part regulatory approach for the
storage of hazardous waste. Therefore,
to replace the minimum shell thickness
requirements that are being deleted
todaj the Agency is proposing "a
substitute approach for ensuring that the
design of hazardous waste tank systems
is appropriate and adequate. The new
approach requires owners and operators
of all tank systems to submit, as part of
the permit application, a written
assessment-and certification by a
qualified registered professional
engineer of the tank system's design and
suitability for handling hazardous
waste.
In using the term "qualified registered
professional engineer," EPA intends that
the person employed to provide the
assessment and certification be a
registered professional engineer who is
qualified to provide such an assessment
by reason of his knowledge of principles
of engineering, acquired by professional
education and related practical
experience. As such, the Agency does
not necessarily believe that any
registered professional engineer can
adequately fulfill this role. For example,
an electrical engineer, although
registered as a professional engineer,
may not necessarily have the
professional training or experience to
assess the structural integrity of a tank ;
system, secondary containment system,
etc. EPA believes that persons trained in
the fields of chemical and/or civil
engineering are likely to be best
qualified to provide the assessment
required in § 264.191. Public comment on
a definition of qualified registered
professional engineer is invited.
This proposed requirement is partly
intended to provide a substitute for the
extensive engineering-related
calculations and judgmental reviews,
that are now being required for
permitting under the existing standards
concerning minimum tank shell
thickness. As discussed above, the
limitations of this approach have
convinced EPA that the structural
integrity of a tank system can be more
easily and quickly assessed by a
professional engineer who attests to the
system's overall capability for managing
hazardous waste. Proposed § 264.191(a}-
(e), discussed below,-pro vide the
specific design criteria that must be
addressed in this assessment. The
information required to be provided in
this assessment differs slightly for new
and existing tank systems.
Proposed § 264.191(a) (l)-(2) require
that the engineer's assessment include
the design standard to which new tank
systems are constructed. Adherence to
nationally accepted design standards
such as those published by API, UL, and
the American National Standards
Institute would convince EPA of the
structural integrity of the tank system.
The assessment of each new
-------
Federal Register / YoL 50, No. 123. / Wednesday, June 26V 1985 / PibposeA Riites
26461
nonspecincation: tank system would
need to demonstrate that it was
constructed in accordance with, sound
engineering principles. In assessing the
appropriateness of a new tank system's
design* the engineer must also determine
whether the design will enable the
system to handle the wastes planned for
it. [See | 264.191[aX3H
The engineer's assessment of existing,
used, and reused tank systems can.
likewise demonstrate that the tank
system was constructed in accordance
with a specific design standard. Such
design information may not be
available, however, at many existing
facilities. Thus, the engineer's
assessment must consider such; design
information only if it is available;. {See
proposed §264.1?l(b)0.W The
assessment of existing,, used, and reused
tank systems must provide, at a:
minimum, a description of the tank
system, including its size, age. and!
materials of construction. [See ,
5 264.19i(b)[2).J In addition, the
assessment must address the ability of
an existing system to' contain the wastes
to be handled, including a consideration
'of the wastes' characteristics [e.g.,
. corrosivity, reactivify). [See
1264.191(bJ|[3jJ For example, it must be
determined that a used FRP tank that
may have been: built for storage of a
certain chemical [thus requiring fee use
of a specific resinj is able to be used for
the waste to be stored. Communication
with, a resin manufacturer may be
necessary to determine compatibility of
the tank with the waste.
In order to assess whether an existing
underground tank's shell is structurally
sound and able to handle the quantity
and type of wastefs) to be managed,
proposed 1264.19l£b}f5); requires .that
testing methods be employed to ensure
the structural integrity of existing
underground tanks. [See Section rVJB.
for a detailed discussion of such.
methods.J For existing abovegroond' and
inground tanks that can be entered, the
Agency believes that an internal
inspection of the tank conducted within
one year prior to permitting will provide
sufficient information to complete the
structural assessement of these types of
tanks. EPA believes that a qualified
registered professional engineer given
the results of testing and inspection, the
available data on design, and the tank's
intended use,, can assess and certify
whether a particular tank should be
used for storing or treating hazardous
waste and estimate the remaining life of
the tank system. (See § 284.191(b}C4),}
EPA believes that it is important for
the engineer's assessment to consider
some other factors' as well. One such
factor is the potential for corrosion.
Therefore, as part of tiie process of , ••
assessing a jnetal tank system, the
engineer must obtain an assessment
from a corrosion expert of the potential
for corrosion at the location where
metal, components of the tank system
are or will be hi contact with the soil.
This assessment must incorporate, when
necessary, appropriate measures to "
control corrosion of the tank system.
Proposed § 264.19l£c)(l) provide the
criteria to be used in assessing the
corrosion potential of a site and: in
establishing the need for corrosion-
protection measures for tank systems.
Corrosion is influenced:by many
factors. This assessment should
consider! such factors as soil moisture
content, soil pH, bacterial action
{sulftdes level), soil resistivity, structure
to soil potential, stray electric current,
influence of nearby underground metal
.structures and existing corrosion-
protection measures {e.g., coatogsj. The
presence of one or more of these
parameters and their synergistic role in
promoting corrosion must be determined
on a site-by-site basis. Professional
engineering judgement should determine
other parameters as necessary in order
to make a satisfactory assessment of
corrosion potential. For example, this
determination may depend on individual
site conditions fe.g.» the existence of
another nearby taook system, fluctuating
water table, etc.). EPA intends that this
assessement be conducted for all metal
tank system in contact with soil,
including system* that have secondary
containment. For example, a tank that is
situated within a vault or a lined
excavation and that is backfilled within
the secondary containment may pose
the same potential for corrosion of the
external surface of the metal '
components of the tank system as would
any metal tank system that is not
isolated from the surrounding
environment, Tank systems with
secondary containment [e.g.i those
within a liner or concrete vault) may
already be somewhat protected from
corrosion by being constructed of
corrosion-resistant materials or by the
use of certain types of backfill materials
' within the containment system to deter
corrosion. However, unless- the ancillary
equipment is also so protected and is
isolated from the host soil, a galvanic
current may be developed between the
soil, piping, and tank, thereby resulting
in corrosion. ';
The requirements of § § 264.i91[c} (1)
and £2) provide the corrosion expert
with factors that must be assessed in
determining whether corrosion -
protection may be necessary and, if so,
the types of such protection acceptable
to EPA. The Agency believes that well-
established engineering standards for
each for the 'parameters listed in
§ 264,19i(c)[i} are available to assess
the corrosion, potential of a sitev Having
conducted this assessement. the
corrosion expert can then proceed to
define what, if any, coraosion-protectipn
measure;? are needed toi control
corrosioiii of the tank system. Any
existing corrosion-protection measure's
ah-eady incorporated into the tank
system should, of course, be considered
in assessing the need to provide
additional corrosion protection. • '
Other factors that the engineer must
consider in assessing the overall design
of a tank system are included in
proposed || 284.191 (dj and (e). Section
264.19l£d} requires a determination of
measures to protect underground
equipment from damage: resulting frpni
'vehicular traffic, including the; weight of
the traffi c and vehicular contact with '
exposed portions of tank systems £e.g.,
vent lines, fill pipes). Guard rails or; .
similar types of barricades around the
components susceptible to damage ' !
would bs appropriate, ]
As part of the overall design of a tank,
§ 264.191fe) requries proper design of>
the tank'% foundafioft so that a full ,
tankloaeE can be maintained. Also, in
areas where tanks and piping are
located in seismic fault zones subject to
the localiion requirements of 1 2B4.18fa),
the tank' system must be designed; so
that fiieife factors will not pose adverse
effects on it, e.g., dislodging or flotation.
The same design consideration must
also be given to tank systems situated in
a saturated zone, even if saturated •
conditions exist at only certain times of
the year; EPA also considered applying
this requirement to tank systems thati
are located in floodplains subiect to the
requirements of f 264.18(b). The Agency
chose not to propose this requirement
foMank systems in floodplains because
it is not sure whether this requirement is
necessary given the requirements of
§ 264.18[b). Public comment on this issue
isirivite'd.- ;,
3. Installation of New Tank Systems
The ^[gency believes that the proper
installation of new hazardous waste
tank syiitems is as important as their.
" proper design. Thus, fee Agency has
concluded that this facet of new tank
system management must be regulated
to assure that proper installation
practices will be employed. Improper
installation of tank systems canresult&i
immediate or future releases of ,
hazardous waste into the environment
-------
26462 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Under § 204,192 facilities seeking a
RCRA permit would have to adhere to "
the new installation standards
discussed below.
Proposed § 264.192{a) requires that
installation be observed by a person
trained in the proper installation of
tanks who will certify that the tank
system was properly installed. EPA
believes that persons such as a certified""
building inspector, fire marshal,
qualified representative of the tank '
manufacturing company, or a registered
professional engineer can fill this role.
Public comment is welcome on the
subject of certification of proper
Installation. Proper handling and
installation practices are needed to
protect against weld breaks, punctures, •
loose fittings, scrapes, cracks, or other
structural damage to the tank system.
EPA recommends that persons
inspecting tank system installations use
a checklist containing, at a minimum, all
of these items which are required to be
inspected under § 264.192(a).
A number of considerations are
Involved in the installation of new tank
systems. First, the Agency believes the
proper installation of new metal tank
systems is important because of
corrosion. This includes consideration of
the design at the excavation location,
appropriate choice of backfill material,
and proper handling of metal
components.
As discussed previously, corrosion
plays an important role in debilitating
the integrity of metal tank systems, thus
causing failure of the system. Although
corrosion of metal is to a certain degree
a natural process, its initiation and
progression can be significantly arrested
by such precautions as providing
corrosion-resistant materials of
construction, coatings, cathodic
protection, and isolation of the system.
The primary goal of corrosion protection
is to eliminate localized anode activity,
that is, areas of concentrated corrosion.
The extent of this problem is
demonstrated by a study by the
National Bureau of Standards, which
found that over 90 percent of corrosion
damage on underground pipelines
results from this type of corrosion
action. For corrosion-protection
measures to work effectively, it is
important (hat steps be taken to prevent
damage to the tank system during
installation. Unsuitable types of backfill
or backfilling methods or improper or
careless installation resulting in scrapes
of protective coatings, cracks resulting
from careless handling, or other
structural damage to the tank system
can lead to corrosion.
Second, the proper installation'of
fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) tanks
is also critical. One of the leading
causes of failure of FRP tanks is, in fact,
faulty installation. The structural
integrity of an underground FRP tank (as
well as an underground metal tank)
depends largely on the support provided
by the surrounding soils. EPA has no
evidence that the load-bearing strength
of FRP tanks is less than that of
underground steel tanks. The Agency
believes, however, that FRP tanks are
more vulnerable to certain other types of
structural failure than underground steel
tanks. FRP tanks seem, particularly, to
be more susceptible to puncture and - •
may be less able to tolerate torsional or
flexural stress. It is crucial, therefore,
that the type of backfill and the
placement of the backfill material do'not
puncture the tank or result in voids or
"soft spots" around the tank. Failure of
an FRP tank owing to breakage resulting
from faulty installation and backfilling
presents significant risk to the
environment because it could allow, hi a
short period of time, the release of a
major portion-of the tank's contents into
, the environment. Today's proposal
requires the use of noncorrosive, porous
substances such as sand or pea gravel
for backfill material of tank systems
inside a secondary containment system
and that underground tanks are
carefully backfilled so that the backfill
is placed completely around the tank
and compacted to ensure that the tank is
fully and uniformly supported. Most
manufacturer's specifications for
backfilliing tanks satisfy these
requirements and should thus be strictly
adhered to. These requirements are
intended not only to prevent structural •
failures, but also to reduce corrosion
potential, which EPA believes can best
be accomplished during the installation
of tank systems. The inspector's
checklist should also address this
concern.
EPA also believes it is good practice '
to test or inspect all new hazardous
waste tank and piping systems for
tightness and integrity before they are
actually put into service. The Agency
considers it particularly important to
test or inspect the components of new
tank systems that will be in contact with
or covered by the surrounding soil or
backfill because, once in service, they
will for the most part be inaccessible for
routine visual inspections. Thus,
§ 264.192(c) proposes that components
of new tank systems must be tested or
inspected for tightness and repaired, if
leaking, prior to being covered,
enclosed, or put into service. Adherence
to appropriate industry guidelines, such
as API Publication 1615—Installation of
Underground Petroleum Storage
Systems and ANSI Standard B 31.3—
Petroleum Refinery Piping and ANSI
Standard B 31.4—Liquid Petroleum
Transportation Piping System, will
ensure that piping systems are
adequately supported and protected
against physical damage and stress as
required in proposed § 264.192(d).
Finally, § 264.192(e) requires that the
corrosion protection measures
determined to be needed by the
Regional Administrator per § 264.191(c)
be provided at the time the tank is
installed and that the installation of
such measures be overseen by a
corrosion expert.
4. Secondary Containment for Tank
System (§ 264.193)
EPA believes that tank systems (tanks
and their ancillary equipment) used to
store or treat hazardous waste should be
managed in a fashion that prevents
releases that pose a threat to human
health and the environment. As
discussed in Section IV.D., this approach
carries out the Agency's regulatory
strategy for storing hazardous waste,
which emphasizes the containment of
such releases.
Following promulgation of the January
12,1981, regulations EPA undertook an
extensive study of the causes of releases
from tank systems and compared the
results to the design, installation,
operation, and maintenance practices
that are required by the existing RCRA
tank regulations. EPA has concluded •
that even if these existing requirements
are strictly adhered to, releases to the
environment are likely to occur at some •
time over the life of the system. For
example, the existing requirements do
not prevent releases from spills and
overfilling caused by operators' errors
and malfunctioning equipment, failures
of ancillary equipment, and releases
from tanks corroded by surrounding
soils. ,
The Agency has evaluated several
protective measures to determine •
whether their use might achieve the
regulatory strategy of protecting human
health and the environment. (See
Section IV.B. for a brief discussion of the
various protective measures
considered.) This effort has resulted in
today's proposal to require full
secondary containment for new tank •
systems and full secondary containment
or the ground-water monitoring
alternative for existing tank systems. '"
EPA's proposal in §264.193, to require
the use of full secondary containment
for hazardous waste tank systems, is
perhaps the most significant change to
the Subpart J tank permit standards
being proposed today. The following
discussion highlights the issues •
-------
2M85
considered by EPA in determining
today's proposed approach to full
secondary containment for tank
systems. The Agency's rationale for this
part of the proposal is also provided.
Finally, each of the proposeo!
requirements is discussed in detail,
including the way they will be applied.
a. Background to Today's Proposed
Approach. As mentioned previously,
EPA first proposed standards applicable
to the storage and treatment of
hazardous wastes in tanks on December
IS, 1978. That proposal included a
requirement for an impervious,
continuous base and spill-confinement
structures [e.g., diking).completely
surrounding abovegroundtank storage
areas. These proposed requirements
were not included in the January 12,
1981 interim final rules for permitting
hazardous waste tanks; however, ':
because the Agency decided it did not
have sufficient data at that time to
.determine what, if any, secondary
containment was appropriate. Following
suggestions by several of those who
commented on the December 18,1978, .
proposed rules, EPA instead decided to
emphasize the establishment and
maintenance of a minimum shell
thickness as the means of assuring the
tank's integrity.
In the Preamble to the January 12,
1981, regulations, EPA again raised the
issue of secondary containment for
tanks. The Agency indicated its
intention to propose a future secondary
containment for tanks, as an addition to
Part 264, and solicited public comment
on
-------
26464
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 7 Proposed Rules
containment approach presented in the
January 12,1981, Preamble, but with
significant exceptions to address some
important concerns identified by several
of those who commented.
The proposed requirements are
intended to offer flexibility to existing
tank systems because the Agency
believes that it may not be technically
or economically feasible to retrofit some
of these systems with full secondary
containment, short of total replacement
of the system. Thus, although the
proposal requires new tank systems to
^have full secondary-containment
systems, it also provides an alternative
for existing tank systems: the ground-
water monitoring alternative discussed
in EPA's strategy (see Section IV.D.) that
allows the use of a ground-water
monitoring program in conjunction with
partial secondary containment [for
above-ground portions of tank systems),
semi-annual leak tests (for underground
tank systems), and thorough periodic
assessments of aboveground and
inground tank systems.
To allow for flexibility in
Implementing the containment
requirements on a case-by-case basis,
the proposal permits waivers of both the
full secondary-containment
requirements and the ground-water
monitoring alternative if an owner or
operator can demonstrate that any
hazardous waste or hazardous
constituent will be prevented from
migrating into ground water or surface
water "at any future time." EPA is
considering and seeking public comment
on the alternative of demonstrating that
migration will not occur "during the
active life of the unit and the post-
closure care period." These waivers do
not, however, alter the proposed design,
installation, and operating requirements
for tank systems (the primary
containment system), which must -
always be met. In addition, the Agency
solicits comment on the merits of using a
risk-based approach to granting a
waiver from the secondary containment
requirement, as outlined in Section IV.C.
of this preamble.
b. Problems with Retrofitting Existing
Above-, In-, and Underground Tank
Systems, Full secondary containment for
tank systems is viewed as a barrier
designed, installed, and operated so that
any release of hazardous waste from the
system will be promptly detected,
collected, and removed, thereby
preventing hazardous waste from
reaching the soil, ground water, or
surface water outside the barrier.
Because most existing hazardous waste
tank systems are not protected by full
secondary containment, a key issue is
the feasibility of retrofitting these
existing systems. In order to evaluate
this issue, it is useful to classify the'
existing hazardous waste tank universe
into three broad categories:
aboveground, inground, and
underground. Figures 1-13 provide
typical examples of each of these
categories, including some of the types
of partial or full secondary containment
that may be provided for them.
At existing aboveground tanks that
are cradled or otherwise elevated above
the ground's surface, the Agency
believes that it is technically and
economically feasible to place a barrier
such as concrete under the tank and to
install curbing or diking around the
storage area to contain the movement of
released Waste. In contrast, if a
secondary-containment barrier must be.
placed under a tank system that is in
contact with the ground's surface, it
would, in many cases, be necessary to
disassemble, lift, and unearth the tank
system, which could result in
destruction of the tank. To solve these
problems, the Agency considered
several technical control measures as an
alternative to full secondary
containment.
For existing aboveground tanks that
are in direct contact with the ground's
surface or sitting on a foundation and
cannot practicably be provided with full
secondary containment under the
bottom of the tank, the Agency
evaluated the use of partial containment
consisting of a base and diking around
the perimeter of the tank but not under
its bottom. (See Figure 1.) EPA believes
that such partial containment would
prevent many of the most frequent type"
of releases (e.g., overtopping,
malfunctioning equipment, operators'
errors) from entering the environment.
Although in certain limited situations
(e.g., tanks on concrete pads) leakage
from the bottom could be detected by
visual inspection of the tank's exterior
and the surrounding area, the Agency
does not believe that most leaks from
the bottoms of such tanks can be
detected in this manner. As discussed
previously, the Agency is concerned
with releases from those portions of
tank systems that corrode as a result of •
contact with the surrounding soil and
that cannot be observed. Partial
containment of an aboveground tank k
does not prevent or contain releases
from the bottom of a tank that is in
contact with the ground's surface.
BILLING CODE 6580-5D--M
-------
\
A
\
INTAKE
LINE
\
CONTINUOUSLY
MONITORING LEAK
\ DETECTION DEVICE
(IF APPLICABLE)
SUCTION PUMP
TO REMOVE
ACCUMULATED
PRECIPITATION
DISCHARGE
LINE
\
\
\
\
TANK
\
Y
'SUMP
TO COLLECT
PRECIPITATION,
LEAKS. AND SPILLS
\_ __
SEE ABOVE DRAWING
FOR DETAIL
\
WASTE PROOF
COATING
(IF NECESSARY)
\
GRADE
TO
SUMP
/DIRE
NOT TO SCALE
;' : FIGURE 1 -. •
EXISTING
ABOVEGROUND TANK
BILUKQ CODE 6520-50-0
-------
2B468 Federal Register / VoL 50, No. 123 /Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules ^
The Agency also assessed the
feasibility of using such measures as
ground-water monitoring, inventory
controls, leak tests, and corrosion-
protection measures at partially
contained aboveground tank systems as
a means of achieving environmental
protection equivalent to full secondary
containment. (See Section IV.B. for a
detailed discussion of the additional
protective measures available and their
relative strengths and limitations.) EPA
believes that inventory monitoring and
leak testing cannot be relied upon for
detecting leakage from the bottom of
aboveground tanks. It concludes that
ground-water monitoring and periodic
assessments are the most feasible
means of detecting invisible leaks from
the bottoms of those existing
aboveground tanks that can only be
retrofitted with partial secondary
containment. (A possible future
alternative may be some type of
continuous unsaturated zone monitoring,
as discussed in Section IV.B. but EPA
has rejected this alternative because of
the lack of data establishing its
reliability at this tune.) Corrosion-
protection measures required by this
proposal would also provide added
protection for tank bottoms where full
secondary containment is not used.
The Agency realizes that retrofitting a
containment barrier to surround the ..
portion of existing inground tanks that
do not have a full secondary-
containment barrier around or
underneath them would usually require
replacing the tank, especially since
approximately 70 percent of such tanks
are constructed of concrete (see Figure
2). The Agency has evaluated the use of
partial containment consisting of a base
and diking around the perimeter of the , •
tank but not containing that portion of
the tank in the ground. EPA has
determined that this approach could be
valuable in preventing releases from
.overtopping, and malfunctioning
equipment, but is concerned with the
high probability that inground concrete
tanks will crack over time and allow
leakage and the present inability to
detect releases within a-reasonable
period. As discussed in Section FV.B.,
inventory controls and leak testing are
not viable options for inground tanks.
The Agency has concluded that existing
inground hazardous waste tank systems
that do not have full secondary
containment must implement the
ground-water monitoring alternative
previously discussed. For inground
metal tanks, corrosion control measures
must also be retrofitted; for example,,
cathodic protection can provide added -
protection for that portion of the shell in
the ground.
WASTE PROOF COATING
(IF NECESSARY)
DIKE
LINER
V
'REINFORCED CONCRETE,.!'
SEE 'EXISTING ABOVEGROUND TANK*
DRAWING FOR DETAIL
SUMP
\/ / / /COMPACTED BUaQRAPe// / SX
NATIVE SOIL
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2 , ,
EXISTING IN GROUND TANK
As an alternative to ground-water
monitoring, the Agency is evaluating the
feasibility of internal liners on existing
.inground tanks. Consistent with existing
secondary-containment requirements for
other types of facilities (e.g., landfills
and surface impoundments), leak
detection between the liner and the shell
of the tank would be included. In this
-------
Federal 'Register i/ Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985'/ tTopOse-d! Rules ;^
28467'"
approach to secondary containment for
existing inground tanks, the liner •
becomes the primary containment
device while the original tank walls and
bottom compose the secondary
containment. EPA does not know if this
approach is technically feasible and
seeks comment on its equivalency to the
more common types of secondary
containment that are technically
• feasible and practical: an external liner
surrounding the tank, a tank within a
vault, or.double-walled tanks.
For exisiting underground tanks
without a barrier between the tank and
the surrounding soils, the Agency does
: not believe it is practicable to provide
full containment around the tank
without digging it up and lifting it out to
install the containment system. Neither
does' the Agency believe that partial
containment addresses releases from
• underground tanks because of their
location below the ground's surface. The
primary concerns with'existing
underground tank systems are: the
causal relationship between corrosion of
metal tanks and the surrounding soils,
the "invisibility" of resulting releases
into the ground, and the present inability
to detect releases quickly. As discussed
hi Section IV.B., tank-testing methods
are available primarily for-use with
underground tank systems. The Agency
believes that periodic testing can be
valuable in detecting releases from
existing underground tanks without
secondary containment. EPA is
concerned, however, that this approach
alone will not detect significant releases
that could develop over the period of
time between tests. Also,'as discussed
in Section IV.B, the Agency is reluctant
to rely on inventory monitoring to
identify releases of hazardous waste
from tank systems. The retrofitting of
corrosion-protection measures (e.g., :
cathodic protection) is feasible and ma'y
be one useful method for mitigating or
preventing releases from many metal
• underground tank systems. The Agency
has concluded that a ground-water
monitoring program plays an important
role in assuring that releases from
existihg'underground tanks without full
secondary containment are adequately
controlled to protect human health and
the environment. . •. -
Problems with retrofitting existing •;
ancillary equipment (e.g., pipes, pumps,.
valves, flanges) that is without full
• secondary containment depend on
whether the equipment is: above or
below the ground's surface, and
assc elated with aboves in-, or
underground, tanks. The Agency believes
that the partial containment of above-
and inground tanks may often be
utilized to provide the necessary
, secondary containment for nearby
ancillary equipment. The Agency has
concluded that it is necessary to provide
full secondary containment for
aboveground equipment (e.g., at valves,
flanges, and pump's) since the risk of
release from breakage of malfunction is
significant. All ancillary equipment that
is in the ground must be either provided
with full secondary containment or leak
tested and provided with ground-water
monitoring.
The Agency believes there are leak-
testing methods that can be used
effectively on a periodic basis to assure
the integrity of underground piping (see
Section IV.B.). EPA is concerned that
metal equipment will corrode in the
ground and that releases from
underground equipment are invisible.
The Agency believes, however, that
retrofitting corrosion protection for
underground metal piping is feasible.
Because significant leaks can be .
released undetected from underground '
equipment in a relatively short period of
time, the Agency has concluded thatja
ground-water monitoring and leak
testing program must be provided for
underground equipment that does not"
have full secondary containment. If the
ancillary equipment is part of an
existing inground or underground tank
without full secondary containment,
then the ground-water monitoring
"program required for the tank should
also be designed to cover the ancillary
equipment, -
c. General Requirements for
Secondary-Containment Systems. As
discussed'previously, EPA is today
proposing in § 264.193 to incorporate
into the RCRA permitting standards
specific design, installation, and
operating requirements that are
intended to implement full secondary
containment for hazardous waste tank
systems. Proposed § 264.193(a) provides
the general performance standards that
must be achieved by such systems.
Proposed § 264.193(b) provides general
requirements that the Agency believes
must be met to assure 'that any technical
; approach to full secondary containment
chosen by an owner or operator
successfully protects human health and
the environment.
The first two general design standards
(§§ 264.193(b) (1) and (2)) relate to the
wastes stored and physical forces. The
first requires that containment systems
be constructed of or lined with materials
that are compatible with the type of
waste(s) to be handled in the tank
system (e.g., a concrete vault may need
to be lined to prevent attack from
sulfides or decomposition by acidic
, wastes). The second requires that the
secondary-containment system be
designed and installed so that climatic
conditions'resulting from stresses from
installation and pressure gradients that
could result in settlement, compression,
or uplift are prevented. Special
precautions would be necessary, for
example, when a secondary-
containment^ system is located in a
fluctuating -water table (owing to
seasonal or lidal variations). In this
case, the design engineer must
compensate for the-external
hydrological forces exerted on the
system. In addition, the base or
foundation on which the containment
system rests must be of sound
construction. ,
-The design standard proposed in
§ 264.193(b)(3) requires that secondary
containment for a tank system
incorporate a device or method capable
of detecting promptly the presence of
released hazardous liquid in the
seondary-cohtainment system ("leak
detection"). It is EPA's intent that this
leak detection capability be able to ' . ,
detect the presence of liquids within 24
hours of a release.- Once a release is.
detected, the owner or operator must '
take measures to respond to the release.
These required measures are provided
in § 264.196 and are described in V.E.7.
of this .Preamble. To ensure that the
integrity of the secondary-containment
system is maintained, such leak
detection should also be capable of
detecting the entrance of liquids that are
external to the tank and within the
containment area. This design standard
would be achieved if the flow of ground
water into the system could be detected, .
thus indicating a failure of the
secondary-containment system. One
such method of leak detection is a • :
containment-detection system designed
with a sump that has an access point
enabling periodic inspection for the
presence, of liquids. (See Figures 1 and 2
for an example of this technical
approach.) ' ;;
To meet the proposed § 264.193(b)(4)
standard,-the base of the secondary-
containment system must be sloped or
otherwise designed and operated so thaS
liquids entering that system will be able
to drain 'to a location from which
removal is facilitated. In many cases,
-------
26468
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday. June 26, 19Q5 /Proposed-Rules
this could simply be a sump from which
the liquid is pumped as soon as it is
detected in the containment system.
(See Figures 3 and 4.) If this liquid is
thought or known to have resulted from
a leak in the tank system, action should
be taken to minimize the quantity of the
release by cutting off the flow of waste
to the tank and possibly even emptying
the tank's contents into another storage
device (tank or container). Liquids that
do get into the secondary-containment
system should be removed within 24
hours in order to minimize the risk of the
waste's being released into the
environment and to avoid endangering
human health (from fumes, explosions,
etc,).
eiuiNQ CODE eseo-so-u
-------
Federal Register/ Vol. '
/Proposed Rules
-------
TANK WALL
CONE*-DOWN
TANK BOTTOM
lMlM»8on FILTER FA3Rlcf
COMPACTED SOIL
REINFORCED CONCRETE
TANK WALL
TIE-IN
CONCRETE
RINQWALL
SUMP
LIN6R OB WASTEPROOF
COATING ON CONCRETE
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4 •
DETAIL OF SECONDARY
CONTAINMENT UNDERNEATH
A NEW ABOVEGROUND TANK
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 123 /Wednesday, June 26, 1985 /Proposed Rules 26471
In order to provide complete
containment should a tank rapture,
§ 264.193(b)(5) requires that the
secondary-containment system be
designed and/or operated to hold 110
percent of the design capacity of the
largest tank within the containment
area. In addition, under § 264.193(b)(6),
the containment system must have
sufficient capacity.-above and beyond
110 percent of the largest tank's
Capacity, to collect precipitation runon
and infiltration that may enter the
containment system. To compute the;
, quantities of precipitation that may
enter the containment system, the ' .
Agency believes that the 25-year, 24-
hour rain storm should be used. If the
design capacity required in
§ 264.193(b}(5) and the possible runon,
infiltration, and precipitation, calculated
in § 264.193(b)(6) together exceed the
containment system's design capacity, -
then the system must be redesigned to
accommodate this volume. :
d. Specific Secondary-Containment
Requirements for Tanks. Proposed
§ 264.193(b) provides several standards
specific to each of the three types of
secondary containment available for
tanks: liners external to the tank system,
vaults, and double walls. These special
standards and the basis for the Agency's
concerns regarding the three options for
containment are discussed below. It is
important to note that the Agency does
not at this time intend to; endorse any
particular type of containment over
another. If properly designed, installed,
and bperated, each of the methods is
expected to provide.protectiori of human
health and the environment.
External liners may be used to contain
aboveground, inground, and
underground tanks. (See Figures 5 and 6
for examples of this technical approach.}*
Liners may be constructed of a variety
of materials, including bentonite,
asphalt, concrete, or synthetic
membranes. The choice of materials
depends onsuch factors as the site's ,
location, the wastes handled, and
climate. Diking or curbing around
aboveground portions of tanks might be
constructed of asphalt or concrete,
depending on site-specific factors. (See
Figure 7.) Owners and operators who
use an external liner to provide
secondary containment must ensure'that
the liner provides a complete envelope
that will prevent both lateral and
vertical migration of waste out of the
containment system and; will be 'free of
craks or gaps. Care must also be taken
to ensure that a leak-proof connection
between the tank and piping •
containment systems is provided (see
Figure 8). Compatibility between the
liner and the wastes to be handled must
be assured so that the integrity of the
liner is maintained. .
BILLING CODE SSSOrSO-M '
-------
DRAINAGE
DITCH
LINER OR
WA8TEPROOF
COATING ON
CONCRETE
LEAK
MONITORING
POINT
SEE 'TYPICAL DIKE SYSTEM'
DRAWING FOR DETAILS
SON. COVER
FOR EROSION AND
ULTRAVIOLET
PROTECTION
o
LINER OR
WA8TIPROOP
COATING OH
CONCRETE
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 5
NEW INGROUND TANK
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 /Wednesday, June 28, 1985 /Proposed Rules
2847$
'O.
.Z
>
102
-------
WITHDRAWAL PIPE
CONVEYS LIQUIDS IN
SUMP TO STORAGE
OR TREATMENT UNIT
TO ALARM
, CONTINUOUSLY
MONITORING LEAK
DETECTION DEVICE.
(IF APPLICABLE}
4JNIO SUMP
TO COLLECT
PRECIPITATION,
LEAKS, AND SPILLS
NOT TO 8CALB
FIGURE 7
TYPICAL D8KE SYSTEM
-------
" ,.'•'".'. ' •
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123~'/ Wednissday,June J6,' 1J85
26475
-------
26476
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Another approach to achieving
secondary containment is to construct a
vault around the tank, the proposed
§ 284.193(d)(2) standards require that a
vault system be constructed so that it is
liquid-tight, that is, it provides a
continuous structure with leakproof
Joints. In addition, any water stops must
be chemically compatible with the
wastes being stored or treated.
One of the most common construction
materials for vaults is concrete. (See
Figure 9.) A major concern with concrete
is that cracking is inevitable. EPA
believes that since concrete is porous
and susceptible to cracking, the interior
surface of vaults constructed of concrete
must be lined with an epoxy or similar
material that is compatible with the
waste being stored. Such an ulterior
coating provides the added advantage of
preventing the absorption of waste by
the concrete. EPA also requires that the
external surface of vault containment
structures be waterproofed to prevent
water from being absorbed by the
concrete and thus entering the
secondary-containment area.
MANWAY FOR
REINFORCED ACCESS TO TANK
CONCRETE
COVER
-GRADE TO PROMOTE DRAINAGE-
DETECTION
AND WITHDRAWAL
PIPE .
GRADE
EXHAUST LINES
NECESSARY;
• DRAIN
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 9
TANK IN CONCRETE VAULT
BiUJN3 CODE «5«0-S04*
-------
FedergJ Register/Vol. 50. No. 123 /Wednesday, June 26, 1985 ./Picoposed Rules 26477
One of the main problems EPA must
address .with regard to vaults is
assessing risk 01 fire or explosion, which
may cause a conflict with fire codes. ;
Proposed | 264.193(d)(2)(iii) requires
tanks storing ignitable waste that are
placed in secondary-containment vaults
to be backfilled. The reason for this
requirement is that fire safety officials
believe that ah unfilled vault poses a
potential risk of explosion if a leak of
ignitable waste from the tank vaporizes
and mixes with the air in the vault to
form an explosive mixture.
Backfilling the tank in the vault
eliminates this concern. This practice
does, however, make it impossible to •.
perform a visual inspection of the tank's
exterior and the vault's interior surfaces;
\it also increases the cost of taking
remedial actions on the tank or vault
should a release occur in the system,
EPA will continue to work closely with
the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) on this issue so that vaults will
become acceptable from the viewpoints
of environmental protection and fire
safety. The Agency invites comment on
this issue. • —\' • , . .
Double-walled tanks offer yet another
approach to providing secondary
containment for tanks. (See Figure 10.)
Double walls offer such advantages as
easy installation and ease of cleanup if
primary containment fails. Industries in
several European countries have used "*
-• double-walled tanks for as many as 15
years or more. Although such tanks are
not currently manufactured extensively
in the United States, a growing number
of U.S. tank manufacturers consider
them standard items. The Steel Tank
Institute (STI) has recently developed
guidelines for the design; construction,
and installation of steel double-walled
tanks. Since the fiberglass tank industry
does not have a comparable national
association, a similar industry-wide
guideline has not been developed for
fiberglass double-walled tanks although
they are being marketed by several
companies.
The standards in prpposed
§ 264.193(d)(3) require that double-
walled secondary containment be a self-
contained unit (i.e., complete ,
containment of the tank) with built-in
leak-detection monitoring. Liquid-,
vacuum-, or pressure-type detection
systems can be used. Corrosion
protection must be provided for metal
double-walled tanks in contact with the
ground's surface.
e. Specific Secondary-Containment
Requirements for Ancillary Equipment.
As discussed previously in this
Preamble, 50 percent or more of releases
from tank systems can be attributed to
failure of a component of the ancillary
equipment. Thus, the Agency has ;
concluded that releases from this
equipment must be adequately
controlled. After considering the
applicability of the protective measures
discussed in Section IV.B., EPA"
concluded that releases from ancillary
equipment are inevitable and only
secondary containment can completey
prevent such releases. For this reason,
the prpposed standards in,§ 264.193(e)
require secondary containment for such
ancillary equipment as pipes, pumps,
and valyes. The general secondary-
containment standards in |284.193(b)
apply to ancillary equipment as well as
to tanks. - -• • --....-'•
Containment of releases from some
ancillary equipment may already be
provided by virtue of its location within
the secondary-containment system of
storage or treatment tanks. The Agency
believes that secondary containment for
pumps and valves is most cost-effective
if it is integrated in the tank's
secondary-containment system. The
Agency recognizes that this will not
always be the case, and so a separate
'containment system specifically
designed for ancillary equipment may
have to be provided. For equipment such
as pumps and valves, a sump or similar
device may be used to collect leaks (see
Figure 11).
Releases from pipes can be contained
by trenches or double-walled piping.
(See Figures 12 and 13.) The Agency
believes that acceptable trenches can be
constructed of concrete ,or lined with a
synthetic membrane. Either open-topped
or covered trenches are acceptable,
depending on whether the piping is
above- 01 under-ground, but uncovered
trenches-would necessitate the
management of incidental precipitation,
as would 'any secondary containment
system (s?e § 264.193(b)), if located
outdoors.! Another poteiitail problem
with trenches is fire safety: a release
that becomes "pooled" in the trench
may be subject to ignition. This, issue is
similar to the fire safety concerns
associated with tank vaults; thus, EPA is
discussing both of these topics with
NFPA. Comment on the relationship of
fire safety to secondary containment for
piping is invited. >
BiLUNS CODE 8560-50-01 -
-------
xxxxx*
NON CORROSIVE
TANK
PENETRATIONS
XNATIVE
COATING £.
-- FOR .'
CORROSION:
>PROTECTIOH
TURNOUCKLE
ANCHOR BOLT
CONCRETE SLAB
OR DEADMEN
FIGURE 10
DOUBLE WALLED
STEEL TANK
2 TUFWBUCKLE8. ANCHOR STRAPS, ANCHOR BOLTS, AND
CONCRETE SLAB ARE HEEDED IN WATER CONDITIONS.
-------
•: 01
a
I
•in
^co
O5
•f*
'tc
jK
'03
•c
CO
-a
«e
..a?
oo
esi
o"
ip
.a
IT
NOIA0111OO
OA
-------
PAVEMENT
WELL COMPACTED NON CORROSIVE MA
(CLEAN WASHED SAND OR GRAVEL)
NATIVE SOIL
LINER OR WA8TEPROOF
COATINQ ON CONCRETE
NOTES:
1. LEAK DETECTION SHOULD 3S
INTO THE DESIGN.
2. NOT TO SCALE.
FIGURE 12,
UNDERGROUND
LiNED TRENCH FOR PIPING
-------
SIQHT
Q1A88
NONCORRODINQ
SECONDARY
CONTAINMENT
CASING
SUPPORT FOR
SERVICE PIPE
SERVICE PIPI
INSTANTANEOUS
LEAK DETECTOR
CABLE
FIGURE 13
DOUBLE WALLED PIPE
SYSTEM PROFILE
S-i.
£••'"£
90'*',
ffl :,-;.
VI'.'.
p.*;
°'4'
-&:*.
||
CD <-v»
»' *•
BtLUNG CODE 6S60-50-C
isa
-------
26482
I , , " ' ' I I i • .. ' !',•!' t
Federal Register/ Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Another method of secondary
containment is double-walled piping—a
pipo within a pipe. [See Figure 13.) The
interstitial space between the walls is •
part of the system and is included in the
leak monitoring, which is identical to
that discussed above for trenches. .
Double-walled piping, although initially
expensive, has a number of advantages.
First, it is equally applicable
aboveground and underground. Second,
there is no need for the management of
precipitation. Third, if there is a release
from the primary piping, the cleanup is
relatively simple and inexpensive.
Proposed § 264.193(e) requires a leak-
detection device for ancillary
equipment.
In combined tank-ancillary equipment
containment systems, owners or
operators may want to consider
designing leak-detection devices or
methods that would, for example,
differentiate between releases from the
tank vs. the piping. This is not, however,
required in the proposed regulations.
EPA also suggests that, to limit the area
over which secondary containment may
be necessary to protect against releases
from failures of pump-fed piping [valves
bursting, flanges breaking, etc.),
protection against spray-out [for which
several devices are commercially
available) should be used. Again, this is
not required in the proposed regulations.
Leak detection may be provided either
by integrating the secondary
containment for the tank with that for
the piping and using one leak detection
system for the entire system or by
installing sensors along the length of the
separately contained pipe. For a number
of reasons, EPA believes sensors [or
similar methods) may be prefered,
particularly for coversd or underground
piping. Reliance on the tank's
monitoring device would not necessarily
identify which part of the tank or piping
is leaking. On the other hand,
monitoring devices along the entire
length of the piping enable the owner or
operator to detect even relatively small
leaks anywhere hi the piping system and
also provide a check of the integrity of
the secondary containment (i.e., ingress
of water into the containment area).
Furthermore, it is beneficial to know
where the leak is occurring so that
remedial action can be taken quickly
and efficiently.
EPA requests comment on the types of
leak-monitoring devices that currently
exist and the degree to which such
devices or methods are presently being
used.
f. Alternative of Ground-Water
Monitoring. Proposed § 264,193(f) allows
owners or operators of existing tank
systems, except for those used to store
or treat Hazardous Waste Nos. F020,
F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027, the
option of providing a ground-water
monitoring program in accordance with
§ 264.193(g) in lieu of full secondary
containment, which was discussed in
Sections FV.D and V.C. The option is
intended for facilities where it is
technically impractical and costly to
retrofit full secondary containment
under those portions of existing tanks,
piping, and ancillary equipment that are
already on or below the ground's
surface.
To exercise the option, however, an
owner or operator must also provide a
partial secondary-containment system
for all the aboveground portions of the
tank system.
g. Ground-Water Monitoring '
Requirements. Proposed § 264.193(g)
provides the specific ground-water
monitoring standards that apply to
owners and operators of tank systems
that do not have full secondary
containment. As previously discussed in
Section V.C., as an alternative to
applying all of the Subpart F
requirements, EPA incorporated into ,
Subpart J only those specific provisions
of Subpart F that would provide
detection monitoring for tank systems.
Once the detection of a statistically
significant increase in parameters or
constituents is found, appropriate
measures to confirm the leak and to
implement corrective action at the
facility as necessary to protect human
health and the environment are ..
required.
h. Leak-Testing. Proposed § 264.193(h)
requires that all undergound tank
systems that do not have full secondary
containment to be leak tested at least
semi-annually. This provision, as
previously discussed in Sections IV.D.
and V.C., plays an important role in
ensuring that the ground-water
monitoring alternative provides
protection equivalent to full secondary
containment. EPA believes that semi-
annual leak testing will in many cases
enable a release to be detected prior to
its detection via ground-water
monitoring. As such, ground water may
• be prevented from becoming
• contaminated and corrective action
costs may be minimized. EPA is
specifying the same criteria for testing
as was discussed in Sections V.E.2.d.
and V.F. for assessing tank system
integrity.
i. Waiver from Secondary
Containment. Proposed § 264.193(i)
provides a waiver from all or part of the
secondary-containment requirements.
Such a waiver may be granted if the
owner or operator can demonstrate to
EPA that the location of the tank system
and the facility's design and operating
practices prevent hazardous waste from
ever reaching ground or surface waters. .
As previously mentioned in Section
V.4.a., EPA considered the option of
allowing a demonstration that migration
will not occur "during the "active life of
the unit and the post-closure period."
This waiver will not, however, be made
available to storers/treaters of the EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F023,
F026, and F027 for which full secondary
containment must always be provided.
" EPA requests comment on the feasibility
of this waiver.
5. General Operating Requirements
(§ 264.194) . ' • .. '
The proposed § 264.194 requirements
are essentially the same as the existing
general operating requirements.
Proposed § 264.194(a) revises the
existing requirements.of § 264.192(a) by
substituting a more general performance
standard that must be achieved under
the permit. Under the proposed
standard, the owner or operator is still
required to ensure that the wastes being
managed are compatible and that
measures are taken to protect the tank
system against accelerated corrosion,
erosion, and abrasion.
Under proposed § 264.194(b), spills
and overflows from tank systems must
be prevented. This requirement
encompasses the need to use
appropriate controls and practices to
prevent spills during transfer operations
(e.g.,-filling or emptying of a tank). For
example, if a hose is used to empty a
tank's contents into a truck, the hose is
regarded as part of the tank system and
therefore subject to these requirements.
The Agency is concerned with releases
that occur during these operations,
especially at facilities that do not have
secondary containment. The use of
check valves, dry disconnect couplings,
and so forth will prevent most spills of
this type. -
6. Inspections (§ 264.195)
The revised inspection requirements
in proposed § 264.195 are, with a few
exceptions, similar to the existing
standards. Those requirements in
§ 264.195 (b) and:(c) are unchanged.
Under proposed § 264.195[a), the present
requirement for daily inspection of
overfill controls has been eliminated,
but the owner or operator must develop
a schedule and procedure for carrying
out such inspections, as appropriate.
Because of the technical differences and •
variety of overfill controls that might be
present at a facility, EPA believes that
more flexibility is needed in establishing
inspections for these controls; this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 1231 / Wednesday, June 26. 1985 :'/ Proposed Rules 26483
approach will allow the owner or '
-operator more flexibility in establishing
the frequency and protocol of • "
inspections, taking into'account site- :
specific factors. '
In § 264.195(d), the Agency proposes
to add requirements to inspect cathodic-
protection systems, if present. As
discussed previously,!the Agency is
proposing several new requirements to
assure corrosion protection of metal
tank systems that are in contact with the
ground. Although cathodic protection is
effective in mitigating corrosion of ,a
metal tank system, once it is installed, it
must be adequately maintained. If
corrosion-protection measures are -not
maintained, corrosion rates for systems
that have such protection can exceed'
-the rates for completely unprotected
systems. The proposal requires that
impressed current systems must be
inspected monthly for such problems as
anode deterioration, rectifier
malfunction, power interruption, and
rectifier output and that the anode
output of a sacrificial anode system
must be checked at least semiannually.
It also requires that the tank system to
soil potential measurement be
conducted at least annually to ensure a
minimum voltage of -0.85 volts. This
"measurement is typically conducted by ,
taking voltage measurements between
the tank or piping surface and a *
saturated copper/copper sulfate
reference electrode located on the soil
as close as possible to the storage
system. Reference should be made to the
NACE Standard Recommended Practice,
RP-02-85—"Control of External •-.-
Corrosion on Metallic Buried, Partially
Buried, or Submerged Liquid Storage
Systems" for details on performing this
measurement. EPA recommends that
manufacturers' recommendations for
inspection of cathodic-protection
equipment be followed to ensure that
the cathodic-protection system is
properly maintained and that corrosion
is not taking place.
Proposed § 264.195(e) retains the
existing requirements for periodic
inspections, but, in keeping with other
changes being proposed today, a
schedule and procedure must be
developed for assessing the condition of
the entire tank system. Although EPA is
today proposing requirements for
• secondary containment, this does not
mean that the tank system's primary
containment should be neglected. The
owner or operator must, of course,
properly maintain the integrity of the
tank system to preclude catastrophic ,
failures that could endanger human .
health or the environment. Thus, the . .;•
proposed standards for periodic - ' , - •
inspections of § 264.195(e) require
scheduled investigations of the complete
tank system to check for leaks, cracks, ^
corrosion, and erosion that may lead to
releases. Such inspections should
include the bottoms and roofs of tanks,
piping joints, and so on. The frequency
of this assessment can be determined
individually for each tank system. It is
appropriate in many cases to coordinate
this comprehensive inspection with the
schedule by which the tank system is
normally taken out of service for routine
preventive maintenance. Of course, this
requirement would apply only to tanks
that can be inspected and would not
apply to underground tanks that cannot
be entered for inspection. Underground ~
tanks that do not have full secondary
containment, however, must be tested
semi-annually under § 264,193(h). '
Inspection for shell thickness has
been deleted since the Agency is also
proposing to delete the existing
requirement for minimum shell
thickness. The practices described in the
API publication, Guide for Inspection of
Refinery Equipment (4th ed., 1981),
Chapter XIII, "Atmospheric and Low
Pressure Storage Tanks," may be used
as guidelines for assessing the overall *
condition of the tank system.
7. Response to and Disposition of
Leaking or Unfit-for-Use Tank Systems
(§2.64.196] = _.'...
Proposed § 264.196 establishes
procedures to be used in responding to
spills and leaks, including the timing
and procedures for the removal of
leaked or spilled waste. This
requirement also covers removal of
waste from secondary-containment ;,
systems, where applicable, and -
measures that will be taken to minimize
any release (e.g., emptying a tank to
below the level of the leak) when
discovered. These requirements must be
part of the contingency plan required
under Subpart D of Part 264 and must be
made available upon request. At a
minimum, these procedures must include
measures for containment of releases,
measures for removal of releases from
the tank and containment systems,
procedures for conducting assessments
of the risks due to a release and the
remedial actions necessary to mitigate
the severity of a release, and procedures
for placing repaired or replacement tank
systems into service.
8. Closure and Post-closure Care
(§264.197).
The proposed requirements in
§ 264.197(a) oblige each facility owner or
operator to close the entire tank system,
not just the tank, as is required under
the existing standard. This means that
both the tank and ancillary equipment •
must be removed or decontaminated aty
closure. If a secondary^containment
system is used, it, tpo, must be properly
closed by assuring that all hazardous
wastes are decontaminated or removed.
Finally, the owner or operator is
required to decontaminate or remove
any contaminated soil. Such soil must
be managed as hazardous waste unless
it is a solid waste that does not exhibit
any of the characteristics of hazardous.
waste or it has been excluded under
§§ 260.20 and 260.22. The proposed
standard is intended to prevent releases
from closed tank systems and to
eliminate contamination from the
surrounding soil so that human health or
the environment is not endangered
• subsequent to closure of the system'. *
Proposed § 264.197(b) states that if an ,
-owner or operator is unable to remove
or decontaminate all contaminated soils
at closure,' then the post-closure landfill
requirements, of final capping and
ground-water monitoring set forth in
§ 264.310 are applicable at the site. This
post-closure care requirement is being
proposed! because there is the potential
that a release from any tank system
without full secondary containment
could be left unmanaged at closure.
The Agency believes that an
impermeable cap over the contaminated
area will reduce the possibility of the
waste in the soil from migrating into the
ground water. In addition, continuation
of the ground-water monitoring program
will ensure that human health and the
environment are not adversely impacted
during the post-closure care period, if
the contamination moves offsite.
Under proposed § 264.197(c), owners
or operators of tank systems without ...
secondary containment are required to
prepare a contingent post-closure plan
that will ensure that any potential post-
closure care responsibilities are
identified in the RCRA permit. The plan
would bei used only if all contaminated
residues and soils (if any) cannot be
removed at closure. : •:.-..'-
EPA believes that contingent post-
closure plans should be required at tank
facilities without secondary
containment because,;if such a system
has had undetected leaks or spills in the
past; it is; possible that the material
cannot be practicably removed from the
soil without incurring unreasonable
costs. Implementation of contingent
post-closure plans will ensure that :
future threats to public health and the .
environment from these past releases at
closed facilities are minimized, '•- . -
.monitored, and:contrpiled as.ngcessary. .
A=facility that receiveSja waiver front
the secondary-containment -: *..'.
-------
26484
Federal Register-/ Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985'/ Eroposed Rules
requirements under § 284.193(i) need not
prepare a contingent post-closure plan.
This is because EPA would previously
have examined the facility's design,
operation, and location and determined
that hazardous waste constituents will
not migrate into ground water or surface
water at any future time. Facilities with
secondary-containment systems are
likewise not required to prepare
contingent post-closure plans because
these systems should prevent releases
into the environment. Under
I 264.197(b), however, if a contained
system has released hazardous waste
and it all cannot be removed or be
decontaminated at closure, then the
facility must also meet the post-closure
requirements of proposed § 264.l97(b).
To implement fully the proposed
requirements in § 264.197, EPA is also
proposing a conforming change to the
applicability section of § 264.110. This
change makes tank systems subject to
the general post-closure requirements of
§§264.117-264.120.
9. Special Requirements for Ignitable or
Reactive Wastes (§ 264.198)
The requirements in § 264.198 are the
same as the existing standards with,
only one minor change: the owner or
operator must ensure that the required
precautions for tanks are taken •>
throughout the entire tank system (i.e.,
tank and ancillary equipment). Since
EPA is retaining the existing
requirements, public comment is invited
only on the applicability of these
standards to the overall tank system as
opposed to solely the storage or
treatment tank.
10. Special Requirements for
Incompatible Wastes (§ 264.199)
The requirements in § 264.199 are the
same as the existing standards with
only one minor change: the owner or
operator must ensure that the required
precautions for tanks are taken
throughout the entire tank system (i.e.,
tank and ancillary equipment). Since
EPA is retaining the existing
requirements, public comment is invited
only on the applicability of these
standards to the overall tank system as
opposed to solely the storage or
treatment tank.
F. Interim Status Tank Systems (Part
265, SubpartJ)
It was originally intended that the
existing interim status standards apply
at hazardous waste tank facilities for a
relatively short time prior to the
issuance of RCRA permits. It is
expected, however, that many will not
be permitted for several years. On the
basis of the information discussed
previously in this Preamble, EPA has
concluded that a significant number of
existing hazardous waste storage or
treatment tank systems may be
releasing hazardous wastes into the
environment. The Agency is concerned
that, under the existing interim status
standards, these tanks will continue to
release hazardous wastes into the
environment undetected for an
undetermined period of time. ,
As discussed previously, the Agency
has also concluded that the existing Part
264 permitting standards are inadequate
and do not prevent most of the releases
or spills from tanks that are inevitable
over time. The Part 265 requirements are
even less stringent than the permitting
standards. EPA is today proposing to
amend the Part 265, Subpart J, as well as
the Part 264, Subpart ], tank regulations.
In most instances, the proposed
amendments to the interim status tank
standards correlate with the changes
proposed for the permitting
requirements.
As in Part 264, the existing interim
status requirements are being revised to
address tank systems (i.e., tank and
ancillary equipment), not just tanks. The
. same regulatory strategy of containment
with either full secondary containment
or the groundwater monitoring option is
being implemented. Evaluation of the
tank system by a qualified registered
.professional engineer, corrosion " '
protection, and leak testing of
underground tanks are some of the
regulatory options being proposed in a
manner consistent with what is being
proposed under Part 264. Because many
of these facilities will eventually be
permitted, the Agency has carefully
considered the proposed interim status
requirements to assure that these
facilities follow similar management
practices to those that will be required ,
under RCRA tank permits.
The following discussion describes
these requirements and the Agency's
rationale for making the changes. To the
extent possible, the previous discussions
in today's Preamble that support similar
requirements in Part 264 are cited but
not repeated in this section.
1. Assessment and Certification of Tank
System's Integrity (§ 265.191)
The Agency proposes to address the
concern that a significant number of
existing hazardous waste storage or
treatment tank systems may be leaking
and to locate such tank systems as soon
as possible. Accordingly, § 265.191
proposes that within six months of the
effective date of these regulations, all
tank systems without full secondary
containment be assessed and certified
as able to store or treat hazardous
waste in a manner that protects human
health and the environment. The Agency
believes that -the required assessment
under interim status should at least
address all the concerns listed in
proposed § 265.191. These assessments
can, then be used to meet both the
interim status and permitting
requirements (if the assessment is
performed within one year of submitting
the Part B application to EPA). The
owner or operator would be responsible
for the assessment, which would consist
of a leak test of all underground tanks
and piping and a qualified registered
professional engineer's assessment and
certification that the aboveground and'
inground tank systems are not leaking
and are able to continue to be used for ,
the storage/treatment of hazardous
waste. EPA considers the guideliaes in •
the API publication, Guide for
Inspection of Refinery Equipment,
Chapter XIII, "Atmospheric and Low
Pressure Storage Tanks," to be
appropriate for the assessment of most
aboveground steel tanks.
Since corrosion is the primary cause
for failure of metal tank systems, EPA
believes that it is necessary for
corrosion-protection measures to be
instituted immediately, even prior to a
tank system's being permitted. Thus,
proposed § 265.191(b) requires that an
evaluation of the potential for corrosion
of metal tank systems be conducted by a
corrosion expert within 1 year after
these proposed, regulations become
effective. This evaluation should, of
course, be performed only for those tame
systems that are not presently leaking
and that will continue to be used for the
purpose of storing or treating hazardous
waste.
The leak testing being proposed in
§ 265.191(a) for the underground
components of tank systems without
'secondary containment would be similar
to that commonly performed for gasoline
storage tanks,. A discussion of this
technique was given in Section IV.B.2.
The testing must be accurate enough to
detect leaks to the .05 gallons per hour
level, meeting the recommended NFPA
standards for leak-testing sensitivity,
and the results must be certified by the
qualified personnel performing the test.
As discussed previously in Section
IV.B.2., existing leak-testing technology
has certain limitations. For example,
' current technology cannot reliably
detect leaks of less than 0.05 gallon per
hour. The Agency believes,
nevertheless, that these required
assessments and leak tests will be of
crucial importance in identifying
currently leaking tanks. Depending on '
the particular leak test employed,
-------
, ' ' , , ' _ - . ' 1 - -
Federal Register / VoL 50.-No.^123' /^Wediiesday? June 26.^1985 / Proposed,Rules
"28485
underground piping and .the tank itself
may be tested simultaneously. If
simultaneous testing is not done, a. •
separate test must be conducted to
determine the integrity of the piping.
Leak testing as described here applies
only to underground tanks and piping. '
Thus, alternative methods must be used
to assess the integrity of aboveground
and inground tank systems. In many
cases this could involve an intensive
internal inspection using ultrasonic or
similar equipment to detect the
locations, if any, of existing or
impending failures in the tank system.
Proposed § 265.191(a) requires that
assessment and leak testing be
conducted within 6 months of the
effective date of the regulation. Under
§ 265.191(b) owners or operators have 1
year in which to conduct the evaluation
of corrosion potential. The Agency
believes that these requirements provide
the regulated community with sufficient
time to implement the assessment and •
conduct the tests to determine if tank
systems are leaking.
EPA beleives that the proposed
requirements will result in the
identification of many, if not all, of the
existing tank systems that are believed
to be contamhiating the environment.
2. Response to and Disposition of
Leaking or Unfit-for-Use Tank Systems
(§265.192]
EPA is today proposing several
requirements under § 265.192 for tank
systems that are found to be leaking or
are otherwise unfit for storage or
treatment of hazardous waste. These
proposed requirements are intended to:
stop any leak that is identified at a
nonpermitted tank facility; require'
immediate containment of surface spills
and remedial action for any release
resulting from the identified leak(s); and
remove from service either temporarily
or permanently any tank system that is
leaking or is unfit for service.
Replacement tank systems must have
full secondary containment.
Once a tank system is found to be
lealdng under the requirements of
§ 265.191, the owner or operator must
take steps to minimize, contain, and
clean up the release in accordance with
proposed § 285.192(a). The Agency has
decided that the first step.m minimizing
a potential release is to require that no
hazardous waste be added to tank
systems that are identified as leaking
until the integrity of the primary
containment system is restored
(§ 265.192(a)(l]]. Proposed
§ 265.192(a)(2) requires that the system
must be sufficiently emptied to remove
the threat of further release. Such
emptying also facilitates any needed
•• inspections and repairs, tinder :
§ 265.192(a)(3) the owner or operator
must take immediate action to contain •
any visible contamination resulting from
releases. This may, for example, entail
the containment or removal of visibly
contaminated soils.
Under the existing RGRA interim
, status standards, owners or operators
are not required to report leaks to EPA;
they are required to inspect tanks and
containment structures for leaks on a
regular basis and to make repairs as
necessary. (See § 265.15(c] and
§ 265.194.] Under proposed
§ 265.192(a)(4), however, the Regional
Administrator must be notified within 24
hours after confirmation of an actual
leak. With respect to invisible leaks
from underground portions of the tank
system, the Agency intends this '-
provisions to require that the
notification takes place within 24 hours
of the completion of a test or assessment
that confirms the existence of a leak, •
such as the assessement required in
§ 265.191, if the assessement shows the
tank system to be leaking. This
notification should specify the way the
leak was detected, the substance leaked
or suspected of having leaked, the cause
of the leak (if known], and the estimated
extent of the leak.
Today's proposed RCRA notification"
requirement is not intended to include
reports of minor leaks such as minor
drips that-are quickly detected and
stopped. Any leak of hazardous •
substance that exceeds the "reportable
quantity" established under sections 103
(a) and (b] of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), however, would not be
considered a minor leak and must be
reported to the Regional Administrator
and to the National Response Center
under CERCLA section 103(a).
If the assessment of the tank system
•required in proposed § 265.191 reveals a
leak in the tank, this leak must be
reported, and the steps proposed in
§ 265.192 must be followed. If a leak test
of an underground tank and/or piping
fails the standard in § 265.191(a), this
leak must also be reported under the
proposed provision. In addition, all
leaks would have to be fully'repaired
before the system could be certified as
fit for use in accordance with proposed
§ 265.191(c]. Again, all leaks of a
reportable quantity under CERCLA
section 103(a) must be reported to the
National Response Center as well as to
the Regional Administrator under the
new RCRA requirements discussed
above.
.Within:30 days of discovering a leak
that must be reported under proposed
§ 265.192(a)(4], the owner or operator
must determine under proposed
'§ 265:i94(a](5) die extent of the release. .
This determination may be based, for
example, cm soil borings, sample soil
excavations, or ground-water samples.
New RCRA section 3008(h), added by
the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments, provides EPA authority to
issue corrective action orders or suck
other measiures as deemed necessary to
protect human health and the
environment from releases of hazardous
waste front any facility authorized to
operate under section 3005(e] of RCRA
Subtitle C. Accordingly, a note has been
added'to the proposed rule explaining
that the Regional Administrator may, on
the basis of information received that
there is or has been a release, issue an
order under RCRA section 3008(h)
requiring corrective action or such other
response as is deemed necessary to .
protect human health or the
environment. .
Owners or operators must repair or
close leaking or unfit tank systems in
. accordance with proposed § 265.l92(b).
Systems that are taken permanently out
of service must meet the closure and -
post-closure care requirements of
§ 265.197. Repaired tanks must be
recertified as conforming to the
standards in proposed § 265.191 (a] and
(b]. This re certification must be
submitted to EPA at least 7 days before
a tank system is returned to service; this
amount of lime will enable EPA to
conduct an inspection of the repaired
system if the Agency believes it is
necessary. (EPA recommends that the
owner or operator consult API •
Publication 1631 for guidelines on the
repairability of steel tank systems
before a decision on repair is made.)
Replaced tank systems are regarded as
maintaining interim status but, because
a replacement tank system would not
encounter the problems presented by
retrofitting full secondary containment
that are present for existing facilities,
§ 265.192(b](3] requires that all
replacement tank systems have full
secondary containment.
3. Secondary Containment (§ 265.193]
EPA is proposing to make secondary
containment a requirement for non-
permitted tank facilities under interim
status. The additions to the Part 265
requirements are identical to the
secondary-containment requirements
proposed for Part 264, with a few
exceptions. Below is a summary of these
standards. (See Section V.E.4. for a more
complete discussion of the proposed
secondary-H( pntairiment requirements.] '
-------
- • •/.'•••) , ~ : \ • ' I ' • T .
26486 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26. 1985 / Proposed Rules
Under § 264.193 (b) and (c), the Aency
is proposing to require general design
and operating standards for all
containment systems, as in § 264.193 [a]
and (b). The specific secondary-
containment requirements being
proposed in Part 264 for the various
categories of tanks are not, however,
being proposed for tanks under interim
status because the Agency believes that
these standards can be most effectively
implemented through a permit. The
limited contact between the Agency and
facilities under interim status may not
provide either EPA or the owner/
operator with sufficient opportunity and
Information with which to judge
compliance with detailed design
standards.
On the other hand, because the Part
265 standards are self-implementing, an
argument can be made that specific Part
265 secondary containment standards
are desirable and necessary so that the
owner or operator can best achieve the
level of protection intended by EPA. •
EPA invites public comment on whether
the detailed requirements for secondary
containment systems set forth in
§ 264.193(d) should be incorporated into
the secondary containment
requirements of § 265.193.
As in Part 264, existing facilities under
interim status will be allowed to meet
either the full secondary containment
requirements or the ground-water
monitoring option. Thus, in lieu of full
secondary containment, the following
alternatives are being proposed under
1265.193(e): (1) For above- and in-
ground tanks where it is not practical to
retrofit hi order to contain releases from
the tank—partial containment measures
around the perimeter of the tank,
consisting of a base and diking in
conjuction with a ground-water
monitoring program; (2) for underground
tanks—a ground-water monitoring
program supplemented with semiannual
leak testing. (See "General Operating
Requirements," below, for the leak-
testing standards.) EPA is proposing that
Interim status tank systems be provided
with a ground-water monitoring program
that meets the Part 265—Subpart F
requirements. Owners or operators of
existing tank systems who choose the
option of full secondary containment
must install such a system within 1 year
of the effective date of these
amendments. The secondary-
containment system must be designed,
installed, and operated in compliance
with the proposed performance
requirements in § 265.193 (b) and (c).
The system must detect and contain
leaks and must be emptied when such
leaks occur. Ancillary equipment must
also be provided with either full
secondary containment under
§ 265.193(d) or the ground-water
monitoring option under § 265.193(e).
Also, as in Part 264, the owner or
operator can obtain a waiver from all or
part of the foregoing containment
requirements [unless storing or treating
the EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20,
FO21, FO22, FO23, FO26, and FO27 or
unless the tank system is a replacement
tank system subject to the requirements
of § 265.192(b}[3}, if it can be
demonstrated that there will never be
potential for migration of hazardous
waste into ground or surface water. EPA
requests comment on the alternative
that the demonstration be made that no
migration of hazardous waste will occur
"during the operating life of the unit or
during the post-closure period." ,
As discussed above, EPA believes
there are several benefits to be derived
from proposing, where possible,
identical approaches for secondary
containment under Parts 265 and 264.
Owners or operators should also
consider all of the more detailed
requirements under Part 264 (including,
for example, design requirements for
tank systems before installing
secondary containment). Each of these
facilities will later need to be permitted,
and,, to the extent the requirements are
the same, there will be reductions in
permitting tune and resources and
elimination of the need for
reconstruction or other costly
modifications.
Because'there may be little if any
opportunity for the owner or operator to
work out the details for his secondary-
containment system with EPA during
interim status, the Agency is developing
a guidance manual to assure that the
methods for attaining such equivalence
are understood.
4. General Operating Requirements
(I 265.194)
All of the existing Part 265 general
operating standards have been retained
but, in addition, some new standards
are being proposed in concert with other
changes that are being proposed in Parts
265 and 264.
Proposed § 265.194(b) modifies the
existing requirement to make clear that
the present freeboard standards must be
met unless a secondary containment
structure or a stand-by tank is provided.
Because all abovegrounid and inground
tank systems must have at least partial
secondary containment within 1 year of
the effective date of the final
amendments, this standard will apply
. until such secondary containment is
provided.
Under proposed § 265.194(d),
underground tanks and piping are
required to be leak tested every six
months if full secondary containment is
not provided (i.e., if the ground-water
monitoring option is followed). This is ,
the same requirement that is being
proposed for such tanks under proposed
§ 264.193(g). The Agency believes that
this requirement is particularly
important for the underground
components of tank systems because
they cannot be observed during the
routine daily inspections that are
already required. These leak tests will
ensure that releases from these systems
are identified and corrected. In many
cases, the leak test will alert the owner
or operator to a release prior to it being
detected by ground-water monitoring.
These tests and required follow-up
actions (if any are needed) must be
conducted in accordance with the
requirements in §§ 265.191(a) and
265.192, which were discussed
previously in this Preamble. After the
initial assessments, records of leak tests
• conducted in accordance with proposed
§ 265.191 must be kept at the facility. If,
however, a test shows a leak exists, the
owner or operator must notify the
Agency within 24 hours of obtaining the
results of the leak test, and he must
comply with the other requirements of
proposed §265.192.
EPA considered requiring a periodic
assessment for interim status
aboveground and inground tank
systems. A number of factors, however,
convinced the Agency that such a
, requirement is not necessary. First, each
• of these tank systems must be evaluated
within six months of final promulgation
of today's proposed rules. Second, for
those tank systems for which a Part B is
submitted more than a year subsequent
to this evaluation, another evaluation is
. required at time of submittal of the Part
B application. Third, due to the cost and
laborious nature of performing internal
tank inspections (as discussed in
Section V.E".2.a.) and the variety of
factors influencing the selection of
appropriate assessment schedules for
various types of tank systems, the
Agency is reluctant to specify a uniform
frequency for these inspections that
would be applicable to all interim status
tank systems. Because there is limited
interaction with EPA during interim
status, there would be no opportunity to
negotiate a schedule for such
assessments on a case-by-case basis.
Public comment is invited on the
appropriateness of EPA's decision not to
require periodic comprehensive
inspections of aboveground and
-------
SeS te /
Rules
26487,
inground tank (systems during interim •
status.
Proposed § 265.194(f) requires that all
metal tank systems found to be
susceptible to external corrosion as a .
result of the evaluation required in
§ 265.i91(b) be provided with corrosion
protection that will ensure the integrity
of the tank system for its intended life. .
Publications developed by the National
Association of Corrosion Engineers
(NACE) and API may be used for
guidance on corrosion protection for
tank systems.
5. Waste Analysis and Trial Tests
(§265.195)
The § 265.195 is the same as existing
§ 265.193.
This section is not being revised but is
. presented only to clarify for the reader
the overall structure of these proposed
tank system standards. EPA is not
reproposing this section and as such is
not requesting or accepting public
comment on this section. ,
6. Inspections (§ 265.196)
Except for minor revisions reflecting
changes that are being made in some of
the other interim status standards, the
proposed inspection requirements are
the same as the existing standards. For
example, proposed § 265.196(b) adds the
requirement that leak-detection
equipment, which is being proposed as
part of the secondary-containment
requirements, be inspected daily.
Proposed §,265.196(c) revises the
existing standard to make clear that
only the aboveground portions of the :
tank system must be inspected daily to
detect corrosion or leaking.
Under proposed § 265.196(d) the
existing standard has been revised to
focus the inspection on releases around
the area of the secondary-containment
system as well as the tank. This change
reflects the incorporation of secondary-
containment requirements being
proposed today for interim status tank
facilities.
As proposed in § 265.192(a)(4), the
owner or operator must notify the
Regional Administrator within 24 hours
after confirmation of a leak. The owner
or operator must also notify the National
Response Center of the release of any
reportable quantity of a hazardous
waste pursuant to Sections (103(a) of
CERCLA.
7. Closure and Post-Closure Care
(§265.197)
The existing closure standard for ;
tanks has been revised and expanded
under proposed § 265.197.'-The '
requirements are the same as those v
proposed in § 264.196. (See Section
V.E.8. for a detailed discussion of the ~_
Agency's rationale for these changes.)
8. Special Requirements for Ignitable or
Reactive Wastes (§ 265.198)
The requirements in § 265.198 are .
essentially the same as those under the
existing standards with the exception of ;
'those changes that are also proposed in
§ 264.198, (See Section V.E.9. for a
discussion of these changes.) Since EPA
Is retaining the existing requirements,
public comment is invited only on the
applicability of these standards to the
overall tank system as opposed to solely
the storage or treatment tank. ;
9. Special Requirements for
Incompatible Wastes (§ 265.199)
The existing requirements for
incompatible waste in § 265.199) are
essentially the same as those under the
existing standards with the exception of
these changes that are also proposed in
§ 264.199. (See Section V.E.10. for a
discussion of these changes). Since EPA
is retaining the existing requirements,
public comment is invited only on the
applicability of thpse standards to the
overall tank system as opposed to solely
the storage or treatment tank.
G. Permitting Requirements
-1. Specific Part ,B Information
Requirements for Tanks (§ 270.16)
, In order to receive a RGRA permit for
a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facility, owners or operators,
must submit sufficient information in
Parts A and B of a.two-part permit
application to demonstrate that the
facility's methods of compliance are
technically appropriate in relation to the
Part 264 standards/Today's proposal
does not change the requirements for the
contents of Part A^of the application,
which are hi § 270.13. The contents of
Part B of the application are specified in
§ § 270.14-270.21. Today's proposal
revises the'specific Part B information
requirements for tanks (§ 270.16), but
does not change the general information
requirements (§270.14).
The existing requirements for Part B ,
of the RCRA permit application for ;
hazardous waste treatment or storage
tanks were promulgated, along with the
Part 264 technical standards, on January
12,1981. (See the Preamble to that
rulemaking for a general discussion of
the Part B application requirements [46
FR 2841-2842].) The Part B requirements
were subsequently recpdified under Part
270 on April 1,1983 (48 FR 14238).
Today's proposal completely revises the
specific Part B information requirements
that apply to tanks (§ 270.16) and tailors
them to today's proposed technical '-,
standards;for tanks:inP,art 264, •
SubpartJ. i.. - .,,,', , ... , :,: ;..,!
EPA has proposed only those <
application information requirements
that it believes-are needed to,evaluate
the facility's compliance;with the-.- -
appropriate standards. . -
2. Changes During Interim Status
(§270.72) .".- -.- •.;; ; ; : ";';,,•
In order to enable owners or operators;
to comply iwith the.containment •
requirements in § 265.193, interim status
facilities will need to retrofit their tank •
systems. Currently, any changes during"
interim status are limited to the
requirements in § 270,72 to: (a) new
hazardous wastes not previously
identified in the Part A application; (b) •
increases in the design capacity of ::
processes; (c) changes in or the addition'
of processes; (d) changes in the
ownership or operational control of the
facility. Under § 270.72(e), changes'
cannot be made to an interim status
facility that amount to reconstruction of
the facility. Reconstruction occurs when
the-capital investment in the changes to
the facility exceeds fifty percent of the
capital coists of a comparable new .
facility. I , "
If the proposed requirement for
secondary] containment systems :at
interim status facilities results in a
capital expenditure that exceeds fifty
percent of the capital cost of an entirely
new facility, such changes would violate
the reconstruction prohibition of
§270.72(e). .. '
Accordingly, the Agency believes that
•the existing requirements of § 270.72{e)
need to be amended to exclude the
changes required by this proposal from
the changes referred to in § 270.72(e).
Therefore, § 270.72(e) is being
amended 'to exclude changes made
solely for the purpose of complying with
the secondary containment
requirements of § 265.193. In this way,
owners or operators will be able to
comply with either the full secondary or
partial secondary containment
requirements of § 265.193 without
violating the reconstruction prohibition/
VI. Relationship to the Current RCRA ,
Hazardous Waste Program
' '' • ' . .• i. " . •, • • •
A. Small Quantity Generators • ."
Urider the existing hazardous waste
regulations, generators of less than 1000
kg per month of non-acutely hazardous
wastes are conditionally exempted by
40 GFR 261.5 from most of the
requirements of Subtitle C. The 1984 -
amendments, however, added a new -,
provision to RCRA, section 3001(d), ^ •
-------
26488 Federal Register / Vol. 50, NCK 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules^
designed to modify this regulatory
exemption for small quantity generators.
New section 3001(d) directs EPA to
• promulgate standards no later than
March 31,1936, applicable to generators
of between 100 and 1000 kg per month of
hazardous waste ("100-1000 kg/mo
generators").
At a minimum, section 3001 (d)
standards must require that all
treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes generated by 100-
1000 kg/mo generators occur at facilities
with interim status or a permit
However, the standards must allow
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo to store
hazardous waste for up to 180 days
without the need for interim status or a
RCRA permit (or 270 days if they store
no more than a total of 6000 kg of waste
and the waste is shipped or hauled over
200 miles for offsite storage, treatment,
or disposal). In addition, the standards
for 100-1000 kg/mo must generally
require that a copy of the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest accompany
all offsite shipments.
If EPA fails to promulgate standards
under section 3001 (d) by March 31,1986,
section 30Ql(d)(S) imposes a statutory
"hammer," which, among other things,
would impose the minimum
requirements described above.
The potential impact and applications
of the proposed regulation on small
quantity generators has not been fully
evaluated. Therefore, the universe of
generators potentially impacted and the
estimates of the effects of this rule may
be subject to change. The following
discussion explains the requirements of
RCRA section 3001 (d) and its potential
impact on small quantity generators
who store or treat hazardous waste in
tanks. The Agency will decide whether
to apply the Subpart} requirements to
small quantity generators during the
proposal of that rule.
1. Proposed Standards for 100-1000 kg/
mo Generators
EPA is now developing proposed
regulations to satisfy the requirements
of new section 3001(d). It is likely that
EPA will propose subjecting 100-1000
kg/mo generators to most of the Part 262
requirements applicable to generators of
•larger quantities of hazardous waste.
Specifically, it is likely that small
quantity generators will be required to
meet the applicable § 262.34 (less than
90-day accumulator) requirements.
However, the ISM RCRA Amendments
(section 3001 (d)) provide that the period
of on-site storage allowed without a
permit or interim status can be extended
for 100-1000 kg/mo generators to 180
days (or 270 days if the waste does not
exceed 6000 kg and is to be shipped over
200 miles). Accordingly, if the
requirements for tanks being proposed
today become final, and EPA also
finalizes the small quantity generator
proposal as discussed above, the tank
regulations being proposed today would
also apply to 100-1000 kg/mo
generators. Those 100-1000 kg/mo
generators storing for up to 180 (or 270 .
days) would, therefore, be governed by
the Subpart j requirements for tanks
•referenced in proposed § 262.34,
including the requirement for secondary
containment. These generators would
not have the option of ground-water
monitoring in lieu of secondary
containment. Generators of 100-1000 kg/
mo storing wastes in tanks for greater
than 180 (or 270) days would be subject
to Parts 264 and 265, as well as the
requirement to obtain a RCRA permit.
The Agency estimates that these •
requirements could impose an
additional annual compliance cost of
$37 million for all small quantity
generators storing hazardous waste in
tanks.
EPA is considering modifying the
proposed standards applicable to 100-
1000 kg/mo generators who store
hazardous waste in tanks for less than
180 (or 270) days to provide that such
generators satisfy all requirements set
forth in § 262.34 except for the proposed
§ 262.34 requirement for full secondary
containment. This limited exemption
from secondary containment
requirements would be available under
conditions that restrict both the amount
of waste stored and the duration of
waste stored. Further, the exemption
could be withdrawn at the discretion of
the Regional Administrator in situations
that are known to pose an unacceptable
risk to human health and the
environment
2. Section 3001(d)(8) Hammer Provision
In the event that EPA fails to ;
promulgate standards for small quantity
generators by March 31,1986, section
3001(d)(8) imposes certain statutory
"hammer" provisions. Among those
requirements is an allowance for on-site
storage by generators of 100-1000 kg/mo
for up to 180 (or 270) days without the
requirement for a permit. This hammer
provision does not impose substantive
management requirements, such as
those contained in § 262.34 on such on-
site storage. However, 100-1000 kg/mo
generators who store for more than 180
(or 270) days will be required to obtain a
permit or qualify for interim status.
Since EPA's current regulations impose
substantive requirements on all facilities
having interim status or a permit, a 100-
1000 kg/mo generator storing for more
than 180 (or 270) days will be subject to
Subpart J of Part 265 during interim
status and Subpart J of Part 264 under its
permit.
The Agency estimates that if the
hammer provisions become effective,
those 100-1000 kg/mo generators storing
wastes in tanks for longer than 180 (or
270) days would incur additional annual
costs of $17.6 million. >
3. Request for Comments
The Agency will, be seeking comment
on small quantity generator standards
when those standards are proposed this
summer. Nevertheless, the tank, rules
being proposed today may have a
substantial impact on 100-1000 kg/mo
generators if the tank rules become
final. For this reason, EPA solicits
comment on options for regulating the
storage of hazardous waste in tanks by
small quantity generators and the
impact of this proposed rule upon such
generators. By requesting comments in
this proposal, as well as in the small
quantity generator proposal, EPA hopes
to provide the regulated community an
opportunity to focus their comments on
the impacts that today's proposed tank
rule will have if it were to apply to 100-
1000 kg/ino generators.
B. State Authority
1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized.
States
Under section 3008 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections •
3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
amending RCRA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in
lieu of the federal program. The federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized State, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities in the
State which the State was authorized to
permit When new, more sjtringent
federal requirements were promulgated
and enacted, the State was obligated to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New federal
requirements did not take effect'in an ;
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
Under newly enacted section 3006(g)
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 /Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
26489
by the HSWA take effect in ,
nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to
carry out those requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, the HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim. . , X «
2. Effect on State Authorizations
Because many of the requirements
that are being proposed today to revise
the existing standards for management
of hazardous waste in tank systems are
imposed pursuant to the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, they
would be applicable in all States. X
Included in this category are:
Requirements for underground tanks not
enterable for inspection,leak detection'
•including secondary containment for
new tank systems, and response
measures (i.e., requirements in "
§§ 264.196 and 265.192). Thus, EPA will
implement these standards in
nonauthorized States and in authorized
States until they revise their programs to
adopt these rules and the revision is
approved by EPA.
A State may apply to receive either
interim or final authorization under :
section 3b06{g)(2) or 3006(b),
respectively, on the basis of •
requirements that are substantially .
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The
procedures and schedule for State
adoption of these regulations is • •'-'" '
described in 40 CFR 271.21. See 49 FR
21678 (May 22,1984). Similar procedures
should be followed for section
3006(g)(2).
Applying § 271.21(e)(2)i States that
have final authorization must revise ;
their programs within a year of
promulgation of EPA's regulations if
only regulatory changes are necessary,
or within two years of promulgation if •
statutory changes are necessary. These
deadlines can be extended hi
exceptional cases (40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)).
States that submit official ^applications
for final authorization less than 12 ,
months after promulgation-of EPA's
regulations may be approved without -
including standards .equivalent to those
promulgated. However, once authorized,
a State must revise its program to. .
include standards substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's within
the time period discussed above.
Today's announcement also proposes
standards that will not be in effect in ^
authorized States since the requirements
are not being imposed pursuant to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. Included in this
category are those standards being
proposed for existing tank systems that
are enterable for inspection and that '
have been subject to State requirements
considered no less stringent than the
federal requirements of Part 264, '
Subpart J. Also included are tanks
subject to the* 90-day accumulation
provisions of 40 CFR 262^34. Thus, these
requirements will be applicable only in
those States that do not have interim or
final authorization. In authorized'States,
the requirements will not be applicable
until the State revises its program to
adopt equivalent requirements tinder
State law. ; , . ;
40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
revise their programs to include
equivalent standards within a year of
promulgation of these standards if only
regulatory changes are necessary, or
within two years of promulgation if
statutory changes are necessary. These
deadlines can be exended hi exceptional
cases (40 CFR 271,21(e)(3)). Once EPA
approves the revision, the State
requirements become Subtitle C RCRA
requirements^ '
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after promulgation of these
standards may be approved without
includingequivalent standards.
However, once authorized, a State must
revise its program to include equivalent
standards within the time period
discussed above. The process arid _
schedule for revision of State programs
is described in amendments to 40 CFR
271.21 published on May 22,1984. (See
49 FR 21678.)
C. Storage arid Treatment ofDioxin-
Containing Wastes in Tanks ' -
On January 14,1985 (50 FR 1978), EPA
promulgated an amendment to Part 261
of the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations that listed wastes containing
certain chlorinated dioxins (CDDs), .:
dibenzofurans (CDFs),'and phenols and
their phenoxy derivatives as hazardous
wastes. Final amendments to Part 264
were also promulgated that specified
certain management standards for the
storage and treatment of these wastes in
aboveground, inground, and .- . .
underground tanks that can be entered
for inspection. Thus, exiSting § 264.200
requires secondary containment of spills
or leaks of dioxiri-containing wastes "
from tanks in.accordance with these
performance standards. Under.existing
§ 264.194{c)(2), such facilities must also
have procedures in their contingency
plan for responding to spills or leaks '
from the tank into the containment
system.
Today's proposal would delete these
special requirements for permitting
dioxiri, tanks and substitute the proposed
standards that would be applicable to
all RCRA tanks, with two exceptions.
First, the proposal will not allow new or
existing tanks storing or treating dioxin-
containing wastes the option of utilizing
the ground-water monitoring alternative
instead of secondary-containment. (See
proposed §§ 265.193(e) and 264.193(f).)
Second, tanks storing or treating these,
wastes will not be allowed to seek a '
waiver of secondary-containment
requirements as proposed,under "••'•'
§ §265.193(f) and 264.193(1). As 0 .
discussed in the Preainble to the
amendments to Part 26_4, it is well
documented that these' extremely toxic
wastes present a substantial hazard.to
human health and the environment. In .
addition, EPA's experience shows that
these wastes are particularly difficult
and expensive to clean up. This
requirement.for containment of dioxin
wastes, is the same as the existing
requirements in § 264.200.
'•The existing standard in
§ 264.194(c)(2) that requires procedures
in,the contingency plan for responding
to spills or leaks of dioxin-contairiing
wastes from the tank into the '...-...-.--..
containment system becomes applicable
for all tanks in proposed § 264.195(f).
Today's proposal includes several -..••
requirements that 'may be more stringent-
than the existing special permitting; -: -.
requirements for dioxin. For example,
today's proposed standards for •... •
corrosion protection and leak tests are
not required under the existing special
standards. If EPA issues RCRA permits
to tanks; storing dioxin-containing . .-...
wastes under the .existing permitting •
requirements, the Agency intends to ,-•
consider these concerns. New RCRA • - .
section 3005(c)(3), added to RCRA by
the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments, provides the Agency (or,
any authorized State) authority to -.
require any terms or conditions in
permits beyond those mandated by . ;
current regulations if such terms or
. conditions are deemed necessary to
protect human health and the . %
environment. This amendment gives the
Agency the authority to. incorporate new ,
requirements in permits when EPA
intends to add such requirements to the
regulations but has not yet issued a final
regulatory amendment.'See S. Rep. 98— .•
284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (October 28, .
1983). -j ' , •,;..-'. ."•'.'. - - ... . ,,,'..,..
D. Class Permitting for Storage in Tanks
On July 20,1984, EPA proposed a . :
standard permit application;and '''-.•:••:•..
reduced requirements for a class of • ,
-------
26490 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday. June 26. 1985 / Proposed Rules
facilities (nee 49 FR 29524-29550}
consisting of generators whose only
activity subject to RCRA permitting is
the storage of hazardous wastes
generated onsite in aboveground tanks
or containers for more than 90 days.
Today's proposed amendments will
have no impact on most of these
facilities because they store hazardous
waste in containers only, but will impact
approximately 210 facilities that have at
least one tank onsite.
IF today's proposed revisions to the
RCRA tank standards become final, the
standard permit application form as it
applies to tanks would have to be
modified to reflect these revisions were
it to be applied to tanks. Changes to the
application requirements (Parts 270) will
be made in proposed form'at the time
that this proposal becomes final and will
be tailored, to the final changes to the
Part 264, Subpart J, standards being
proposed today.
VII. Relationship to Other EPA
Programs
A. Regulation of Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks ("Lust" Program)
Under new Subtitle I of the amended
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act that became law on November 8,
1984, the Agency has been charged to
study, report on, develop, and
implement a program to regulate
underground storage tanks that contain
"regulated substances" other than
hazardous waste. The Agency estimates
that there may be over 3 million such
tanks containing petroleum and
chemical products that will eventually
be covered under this program.
Prior to the passage of mis new
statute, the Agency had begun a
nationwide survey of approximately
1,050 underground tank facilities storing
motor fuels. This survey, including leak
testing of approximately 500 tanks, will
be completed by November 1985 at
which time the Agency expects to report
its findings.
To avoid any confusion that might"
arise among the public, including the
regulated community, the Agency
believes it is important to emphasize
that today's proposed standards for
hazardous waste tank systems do not
apply to this new and broader
Congressional initiative to control
underground storage tanks containing
"regulated substances." Today's
proposed revisions should not be
interpreted as indicating the Agency's
intended regulatory strategy (which is
still being planned) for managing the
storage of regulated substances or as
establishing precedents for underground
tanks regulated under Subtitle I of •
RCRA. In fact, the requirements
proposed today, as they apply to
underground hazardous waste storage
tanks, may be significantly different in
many ways from the standards that will
be developed in the future for
underground tanks storing regulated
substances.
A number of factors underly the
Agency's belief that two different
regulatory approaches are necessary,
and will continue to cause them to be
developed separately from each other.
First, there are differences in the
statutory language of Subtitles C and I.
Although regulations under Subtitle I,
like Subtitle C, must be "necessary to
protect human health and the"
environment," section 9003(b) of Subtitle
I specifies that EPA may distinguish
between types, sizes, and ages of tanks
taking into account a number of factors
including, for example, current industry
practices and national consensus codes.
The legislative history of this provision
suggests that Congress intended that
EPA build upon existing industry
practices in developing its regulations,
taking into special account the needs of
small businesses.
Another difference between Subtitles
C and I is that Subtitle C requires
implementation of a permit system while
Subtitle I does not. Requirements that
can be implemented through interaction
between EPA and the tank owner or
operator, therefore, would not be
implementable under Subtitle I in the
absence of a permit system.
Other differences stem from the
differences in the nature of tanks and
the size of the tank universe regulated
under Subtitles C and I. With respect to
differences in the number of tanks
subject to each Subtitle, the proposed
Subtitle C tank regulations affect a total
universe of approximately 15,000 tanks.
Subtitle I, on the other hand, may affect
as many as 3 million tanks or more, A
major consideration in developing
Subtitle I regulations, therefore, will be
ability of owners and operators to
implement the requirements without
EPA oversight and EPA ability to
enforce the requirements'. •
Finally, with respect to difference in
the nature of the tanks governed by
Subtitles C and I, management practices
for product tanks may differ from those
hazardous waste tanks, thus making
certain protective measures more
feasible at one than the other.
For example, as described in Section
IV.B., inventory monitoring of hazardous
waste tank sytems has several
drawbacks. Such monitoring is,
however, already a widespread practice
throughout the retail gasoline service
industry, and, therefore, these
drawbacks may not apply for tanks
containing petroleum products. For the
reason, the Agency is carefully
considering whether it is feasible and
effective to require inventory monitoring
as a management tool for leak detection
at least at existing underground tank
facilities storing petroleum-based
products. Likewise, the effectiveness of
inventory monitoring for other regulated
substance storage tanks will also be
evaluated.
B. EPA's Ground-Water Protection
Strategy
In August 1984, EPA published "A
Ground Water Protection Strategy" (a
copy of which is included in today's
rulemaking docket), which was
developed at the direction of the
Administrator. The strategy's main goals
are to: strengthen State ground-water
protection programs; cope with currently
unaddressecl problems related to
ground-water contamination; create a
policy framework for guiding EPA
programs; and strengthen EPA's
organization for ground-water
management. One of the important
conclusions of this report is that States,
with local governments, have the
principal role in ground-water protection
and management. An important role for
EPA in this area is to provide national
environmental leadership and to
develop a general program framework
for ground-water protection. The
strategy provides general guidelines by
which to establish consistency in EPA's
ground-water protection programs.
These guidelines are based on
recognition 'that protection should be
afforded to a ground-water resource in
order to allow lie highest beneficial use
for which it could presently or
potentially be used.
The strategy establishes that the
protection of particularly sensitive and
valuable ground water (Class I) is of
critical importance. EPA intends to use
its authorities to the greatest extent
possible to provide the protection that
these unique and highly important
resources require. Class II is described
as that grouiid water currently used or
"potentially available for drinking water
or for other beneificial uses (e.g.,
irrigation), Under this strategy, this class
will receive a level of protection
consistent with gound water standards
under EPA's existing statutes. Class III
ground water is described as that which
is saline or otherwise contaminated
beyond levels that would allow for
drinking or other beneficial purposes
and is not hydraulically connected to
Class I or II ground waters or to surface
waters hi a way that would allow
-------
Fedegai Register /Vol. SO, No. 123 /Wednesday, June 26, 1985 J Proposed Rules
26491
contaminants to migrate to these waters
and potentially cause adverse effects on
human health or the environment. The
strategy provides that this ground water
may, in some instances, receive less
protection. For example, hazardous •••
waste facilities located over Class III
areas could be required to meet the
same technical standards as facilities
over the other classes, If, however, -
contamination resulting from human
activity occurs in Class III ground
waters; the extent of cleanup required
- would be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. Should contamination pose no
risk to human health and the
environment (if the ground water is not
usable or controls prevent its use), then,
under RCRA, cleanup requirements
could be reduced or eliminated.
To implement the strategy, EPA will
consider a series of changes to existing
RCRA regulations and may develop new
regulations or guidelines that support
the Agency's goal of providing .
consistent levels of ground-water
protection throughout its programs.
Today's proposed hazardous waste tank
regulations constitute one area where '
the existing RCRA regulations may need
to be altered to be consistent with the
new ground-water protection strategy.
For example,' the strategy calls for EPA
to ban the siting of new land disposal
facilities above Class I ground water
and to clean up contamination in all.
cases to background or drinking water
standards. Conversely, the strategy also
allows, on a case-by-case basis, a
reduction or elimination of requirements
for cleanup over Class Hlground water.
Specific regulatory language is not being
proposed today because the detailed
definitions, criteria, and guidelines
necessary to implement the strategy are
still being developed by EPA. The
Agency requests comment on these and
other alternatives for developing tank
regulations that implement the ground-
water strategy. .-'.-•
, Several alternatives that may be
appropriate for hazardous.waste storage
or treatment tanks include: a ban of new
underground tanks from being located
over Class I ground water; special
management of existing tanks situated
over Class I ground water (e.g., '
retrofitting aU existing tanks to include
secondary containment); elimination of
any cleanup variances (AGLs) over
Class I water; determination of the
degree of protection, if any, needed at
tank systems over Class HI ground
water, i.e., possibily eliminating
secondary containment or modifying
- ground-water monitoring and leak ••',:
testing requirements and liberal cleanup
variances for tanks located over Class
III ground 'witter*' 'V-U~-
C. Reportable Quantities under
CERCLA
Sections 103 (a) and (b) of CERCLA
(or "Superfund") require persons in
charge of vessels or facilities to notify
the National Response Center
immediately when there is a release of
hazardous substances in quantities that
are equal to or greater than the
reportable quantity (RQ) for that
substance. All RCRA hazardous wastes
listed under RCRA are designated as
hazardous substances and assigned RQs
under 40 CFR 302.4. Solid wastes
exhibiting characteristics identified in
Subpart C of Part 261 are also hazardous
substances under CERCLA. As a result,
•RQ releases of all hazardous wastes
from RCRA tanks must be reported
pursuant to section 103 of CERGLA,
unless they are a federally permitted
release, as defined under section 101(10)
of that Act.
The major purpose of this notification •
program is to alert government officials
of releases of hazardous substances -that
may require rapid response to protect
public health and welfare and the
environment. Under Section 104 of
CERCLA, the Federal Government may
respond whenever there is such a • ,
release or a substantial threat of release
into the environment. Thus, the RQ is
essentially a trigger for notifying the
government so that the need for
response can be evaluated and any
necessary response can be undertaken
promptly. While experience shows tha.t
the government does not undertake a
.field response to all reported releases,
reporting will enable the government to
make the appropriate response
deteremination. Failure to report such
releases may result in penalties under
section 103(b). -..'.'
In the preamble to an earlier proposed
rule,'"Notification Requirements; . . -' -
Reportable Quantity Adjustments," the
Agency determined that releases from
hazardous waste management facilities
with final RCRA permits were
considered federally permitted releases
for purposes of CERCLA. (See 48 FR
23556, May 25,1983.) It was also
determined, however, that this •
exemption does not apply to facilities in
interim status pursuant to section 3005(e}
of RCRA. Today's proposed revisions to
the KCRA tank rules do not change that
earlier decision. Thus, any releases from
tank facilities in interim status must be
reported to the NRG.
As discussed in Section V of this
Preamble, EPA is today proposing
requirements concerning response to
and disposition of leaking or unfit-for-
use tank systems discovered during
interim status. (See proposed § 265.192.)
These provisions require, among other
things, that the EPA Regional
Administrator be notified within 24
hours after a leak is discovered under
the assessment required in proposed
§ 265.191,:-EPA may choose to respond
quickly to such notices to ensure that
other RCRA requirements in § 265.192(a)
are being^met (i.e., the tank system is
being expeditiously removed from
service td stem the flow of any further
releases, and steps are being taken to
contain any surface leakage). Meeting ,
these initial requirements under RCRA
will not, however, yelieve the owner or
Operator of the notification requirements
or any fu1:ure liabilities or
responsibilities under CERCLA.
Yin. Economic, Analysis. >' .
The Agency undertook an analysis of
the proposed hazardous waste tank
regulation amendments to determine the
extent of the associated costs and
economic impacts on the regulated
community. These analyses also
provided the Agency with the necessary
information for determining whether the
proposed revisions will constitute a
major rule under Executive Order 12291,
or have .significant small business . " .
impacts on a substantial number of
small businesses as the Agency is
required to consider under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
• The following discussion summarizes
the methodology and the results of the
analyses supporting these findings. ;
Further detail of the cost and economic
analyses for the proposed tank
regulations can be found in the docket
reports, Cost Analysis of Proposed
RCRA Regulations for Hazardous
. Waste Tank Facilities and Economic
Impact Analysis of Proposed RCRA
Regulations for Hazardous Waste Tank
Facilities. -
A. Cost and Economic Impact
Methodology • '
The analysis found iri these reports is
base Jon the cost estimates for facilities
sampled in the Office of Solid Waste's
Regulatory Impact Analysis (QSW RIA)
survey. The data from the tank, and
generator questionnaires indicte that the .
proposed tank regulatipns could affect
facilities in a variety of two digit SIC's. •
The most prominent SIGs are chemicals
and allied products; petroleum and coal
products; fabricated metals; and electric
and'electronic equipment.
EPA estimated incremental
compliant e costs for Parts 262, 264 and
265 for each sample facility.,The primary
focus of tf e proposed revisions is the
-------
26492 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
requirements for secondary
containment. EPA estimated these
facility costs from cost functions
developed for tanks based on material
of construction and the size of the tank.
For purposes of estimating total national
costs, EPA assumed a number of
existing tanks are leaking on the basis of
tank type, age, and size.
For accumulation tanks, the Agency
estimated the cost of retrofitting all
accumulation tanks with full secondary
containment. For storage or treatment
tanks assumed to be leaking, EPA
estimated the cost of replacing the tank
including full secondary containment
For storage or treatment tanks not
assumed to be leaking, EPA estimated
the least expensive option of either
retrofitting full secondary containment
or partial secondary containment/leak
testing and ground-water monitoring.
For the Parts 265 and 264 revisions,
EPA also included the cost of requiring
an assessment of the integrity of the
tank system and corrosion protection for
steel tanks. Part 264 permitting
standards require a more detailed tank
integrity assessment. However, the
difference In cost between 265 and 264
standards are minimal. In order to
estimate the economic impacts
associated with the proposed regulatory
costs, the Agency collected financial
data for each facility in the survey
population. The analysis of publicly
available financial information ,
estimated the ability of affected
facilities, firms, and industries to bear
the increased costs of the proposed
regulations.
The Agency first estimated net income
of each firm in the OSW RIA database.
To determine whether compliance costs
for a facility may be significant, EPA
investigated whether the ratio of
annualized compliance costs to total
annual cash flow is greater than 20
percent. If so, a firm is identified as
having financial difficulties in complying
with the potential regulations.
For firms identified as such, EPA
examined each facility's financial profile
to determine whether the facility has
financial difficulty exclusive of the
proposed compliance costs or has assets
that could be redirected in order to
finance compliance with the proposed
requirements. From this analysis, EPA
determined the extent of impacts on
facilities for the Nation.
In order to determine whether a
substantial number of small businesses
would be significantly affected by the
proposed regulations, EPA compared
average compliance costs for small
business to model small business annual
net income levels. This analysis allowed
the Agency to determine at what-level
compliance costs would be greater than
20 percent of a small business annual
net income.
From this result EPA could estimate .
the percentage of small businesses that
would incur financial difficulty in
complying with the proposed
regulations. As suggested in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines, if
less than 20 percent of the small
businesses that must comply with the
regulations incur financial hardship as a
result, then EPA does not consider the
proposed regulations to result in
significant small business impacts:
B. Cost and Economic Impacts
EPA estimated total national
compliance costs in four categories. The
first category of compliance costs are
initial .costs. Initial costs are those
which are incurred in the first yeari but
are not depreciable capital costs. An
example of an initial cost is the tank
integrity assessment requirement. The
second category of compliance costs are
the capital costs. Tank facilities may
incur these costs hi the first year or they
may occur periodically over the life of
the tank. Capital costs are depreciable
costs. An example of a capital cost is
the secondary containment requirement
for tanks.
Third, EPA estimated operating and
maintenance (O&M) compliance costs.
O&M costs are incurred by tank
faculties periodically during the year.
These compliance costs would include
periodic inspections of monitoring
equipment. Finally, EPA estimated
annualized costs. Annualized costs
represent the initial and capital costs on
a yearly basis over the life of the tank
plus the O&M costs on an annual basis.
The Agency estimated the total initial
costs of regulatory Parts 265 and 264 to
be; approximately $18 million, total
capital costs are about $163 million, and
the total O&M costs are about $3
million. EPA estimates the total initial
costs of the regulatory Part 262
amendments to be about $5.5 million
and the capital costs to be about $49.5
million if we assume all accumulation
tanks are aboveground. If all
accumulation tanks are assumed to be
underground, the Part 262 total initial
costs are about $17 million and the
capital costs are about $150.5 million.
The Part 262 total O&M costs are
estimated to be about $2 million.
For the purpose of estimating the
impacts of these proposed rule revisions,
costs are annualized based on an
average 12.9 percent real rate of return
for a period of 20 years. The Agency
estimated the annualized cost of
regulatory Parts 265 and 264
amendments to be about $29 million for
approximately 1,700 storage and
treatment facilities in the United States.
For the 2,100 accumulation tank
facilities, EPA estimated the annualized
cost of the Part 262 amendment to be
between $9.6 million and $25.5 million.
Thus, the estimated total national
annualized cost of the regulatory
proposal is between $38.6 and $54.6
million.
Tables I and II display the
incremental costs new tank facilities
will face under the proposed tank
permitting standards. These costs
represent installing new tanks that
comply with the full secondary
containment requirement. As the tables
indicate, there is a wide variation in the
incremental cost of the secondary
containment requirement, depending
upon the type arid number of tanks.
The'results of our financial analysis
on the sample facilities indicate that
EPA does not expect any plant closure .
as a result of the amendments to Parts
262, 264, and 265. For example, EPA
estimates that about 88 percent of the
storage and treatment tank facilities and
between 76 percent and 82 percent of
the accumulation tank facilities will
incur annualized compliance costs less
than one percent of theirfirm's net
income.
TABIE I?—INSTALLED COSTS FOR NEW CARBON STEEL ABOVEGROUND TANKS WITH FULL SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
[DoHara In thousands!
Wjinbar of tank*
4
t ,.„-„„„,„„-,-.-, -.-
i , :
SIlSO*
tankt
(gallon)
'3,000
10,000
125,000
Tank systems without full secondary
containment
Initial
$9
14
148
OSM
SO
0
0
AnmiaKzod
$1.3
S.O
21.1
TanSi systems with full ' secondary
containment
Initial
$13
24
190
OSM
$0.25
.as
• .25
Annualized
$2.1
3.6
27.1
Incremental cost of full secondary
containment
Initial
$4
10
41
caw
$0.26
.25
.25
Annualized
$0.8
t.6
6.0
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26. 1985 / Proposed Rules : 26493
TABLE I.—-INSTALLED COSTS FOR NEW CARBON STEEL ABOVEGROUND TANKS WITH FULL SECONDARY CONTAINMENT—Continued
. - '' ' ". ' ' ' (Dollars in thousands]. "'
- Number of tanks .
4 " ' " ' '
Size of
tanks -
(gallon)
io;ooo
Tank systems without full secondary
containment
Initial
. 59
O&M
0
Annualized
8.3
Tank, systems with full ' secondary V •
-^ • containment , ' . . t .
Initial
87
O&M ,
.25
Annualized
126
•• Incremental cost of full secondary
•••;•'."";, containment
. 'initial
•; -: . • 28
, O&M
•25
Annualized -
• 4.3-
'FuH secondary containment costs include a lined concrete basin undrneath and surrounding the tank(s) with diking around the perimeter and leak monitoring. There Is 35 feet of
underground piping that is double-walled, corrosion resistant steal with interstitial monitoring. 'There is 15 feet of above-ground piping that is .in the tank secondary containment area.
* TABLE II.—INSTALLED COSTS FOR NEW CARBON STEEL ABOVEGROUND TANKS WITH FULL SECONDARY CONTAINMENT . :
• . .-, [Dollars in thousands] • ' . ;f - * '•• '
No. of tanks ''..'.
1 .._..'. . ".-.'.' . . •
^ . ••.....
j .
3 '"-• ' •
Size of
tanks
(gallon)
3,000
10,000
20,000
.10,000
Tank systems without full secondary
containment
Initial
$10
19
, 30
48
OSM
$0
0
0
0
Annualized
.$1*4
; 2.7
• 4.2
6.8
Tank systems with full ' secondary I
containment / ' i
Initial
$23
39
57
100
O&M
$0.25
"SB
' .25
.25
Annualized •
$3:5
s:a
8,1.
• 14,4
Incremental cost of full secondary •
containment -
• Initial "
$13
20
27,
52
JD6M
$0.25
... .25.
, .25
.25
Annualized
S2.1
3.1
4.1
7.6
1 Ft* secondaiy containment costs include double-waited tanks and 50 fesi of double-walled, corrosion resistant underground steel piping and .inters'itial monitoring.
The majority of the remaining
facilities will either incur compliance
costs less than 20 percent of net income
or have assets that can be redirected to
cover compliance costs. Thusr EPA does
not anticipate significant financial
impacts for the Nation-. As there are no
significant financial impacts for
individual facilities, the,. Agency expects
no overall price, wage, or employment
shifts in industries with facilities using
hazardous waste tanks.
Finally, the small business analysis
indicates that the proposed hazardous
waste tank amendments will not result
to a substantial number of small
businesses incurring significant impacts.
Our analysis indicates that between 17
and 19 percent of the small businesses
subject to the regulations will be
significantly affected. The Regulatory
Flexibility Guidelines suggest that if less
than 20 percent of the relevant small
businesses are significantly affected,
then a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
unnecessary. Therefore, although EPA
intends to improve the small business
analysis as the data improves, the
Agency will not undertake a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
IX. Review of Supporting Documents
and Request for Public Comments
EPA invites public comments oil all
aspects of these proposed regulations,
including all issued raised in the
Preamble. In preparing this proposal, the
Agency has used several sources of data
(the major sources are listed below).
They have been placed in the
ralemaking docket, which may be .
inspected by,the public in.Ropm S-
212(c), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street; SW,. Washington,
p:Gi, from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays.:. . .'
Copies of several of these documents
are also available for public inspection
and review in the libraries of EPA's
Regional Office*.
Although the Agency used the
background documents supporting the
. existing RCRA tank regulations, it based
today's proposal primarily on •
information that has been gathered
since promulgation of the RGRA tank
permitting standards on January 12,
1981, Among the sources EPA has used
are: in-house and contractors' studies; ,.
written communications from EPA
Regional permitting officials: and public
comments on the January 12,1981
regulations and Preamble,.All these
items are available for viewing in the
public docket at EPA Headquarters. In
addition, copies of the major studies are
available hi the libraries of EPA's
Regional .Offices. Comments are
solicited in regard to these sources of
informtion, especially their relevance to
today's proposed ralemaking. The
Agency requests that these comments be
submitted to the RCRA Docket Clerk
(Docket No. 3004, Revised Tank
Standards, Office of Solid Waste, WH-
562, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 ,M Street, SW., Washington,
B.C. 20460) on or before September 24,
1985. ,
A brief discussion concerning these
sources of information follows. .
1. Assessment of the. Technical,
Environmental, and Management -..
Aspects of Storage and Treatment of
hazardous Waste in Above-ground and
Inground Tanks by SCS Engineers .
(August 1984). The objectives of this
. EPA-sponsored study were to define .
current practices for hazardous waste :
storage in abovegrpund and inground
tanks; evaluate these practices in
relation to data on spills and damages
and best engineering judgment; estimate
the relative probability and magnitude
of releases from aboveground tanks; and
examine alternative's for prevention
: arid/or mi figation of releases. Shell :
thickness iahd secondary containment
were among the alternatives assessed.
AIJ analysis included evaluation of
approximately 2,OQO releases reported to
the mutually exclusive .SPCC amd'PIRS
datasystems. • .. '•"
2. Assessment of the Technical, '..-'.
Environmental, and Safety Aspects of
Storage of Hazardous Waste in
.Underground Tanks by SCS Engineers
(February.1984). The objectives of this
study we're to define current practices
for hazardous waste storage in
undergroutid tanks; evaluate these
practices in relation to data on spills
and damages and best engineering
judgment; estimate, the relative
probability and magnitude of releases
from underground, tanks; and examine
appropriate alternatives for prevention
and/or mitigation of releases,
; 3. Seismic Location Standard: The
Physical Effects of Seismic Events on
Hazardous Waste Facilities and The
Risks Associated with Earthquake,
Damage at Hazardous Waste Facilities
by Livermpre Associated Research
Group, Inc. (LARG), (December 1982).
This report assessed the impact of
seismic events on hazardous waste
management facilities, including tanks.
Tanks were reported to be a major
•contributor to the risk'of release of .
.hazardous waste due to seismic activity.
. 4, A Brief In-House Statistical:
Summary of an 1981 National Survey
Data Re: Hazardous Waste Tanks. This
, statistical summary, which is.based on.
. EPA-sponsored national survey "data, ,:
presents significant characteristics of a '
sampling of actual hazardous waste .
-------
26494
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
tank facilities (e.g., age of tank, design
capacity, material of construction).
5. National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment,
St&rase, and Disposal Facilities
Regulated under RCRA in 1981 by
Wcstat Inc. (April 1984). This report
summarizes the methodology and
findings of an extensive national survey
of hazardous waste generators and
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities regulated under Subtitle G of
RCRA.
6. Cost of Analysis of Proposed RCRA
Regulations for Hazardous Waste Tank
Facilities by ICF, Inc. (February 1985).
The purpose of this study was to
develop regulatory cost functions for
facilities with hazardous waste tanks.
These cost functions are based on tanks
at model facilities developed by EPA
from the OSW tank survey (see No. 4
above). The cost functions are used to
estimate regulatory costs for the actual
facilities in the survey sample. The
facility costs are extrapolated to
national costs and are used to determine '
expected economic impacts resulting
from the regulations.
7. Economic Impact Analysis of
Proposed RCRA Regulations for
Hazardous Waste Tank Facilities by
ICF, Inc. (January 1985). The purpose of
this study was to estimate the financial
effects of the requirements on the
regulated community. The study also
analyzes the expected impacts on small
businesses to determine whether a
regulatory flexibility analysis is
necessary. Finally, the report examines
economic impacts in terms of changes in
prices, number of employees, and
output.
8. A Brief Compilation of Hazardous
Waste Tank Damage Cases Impacting
or Threatening Community Drinking
Water Well Systems (May 7,1984). This
brief in-house survey of some of the
Agency's data bases provides a brief
illustration of some of the known or
suspected causes of releases from tanks
that may be impacting or threatening
community drinking water well systems
at various sites throughout the United
States.
9. EPA Permit-writer Memos on the
Subject of Minimum Shell Thickness.
Momos from many of the EPA Regional
Offices and Headquarters offices that
are involved in the permitting of
hazardous waste storage facilities were
obtained on the topic of minimum shell
thickness.
As the memos show, the EPA Regions
are generally unanimous in their opinion
concerning the minimum shell thickness
requirements: they are difficult to
Implement; they have placed an
unnecessary burden on many owners
and operators of tank facilities,
especially those with secondary
containment; and they have only a
limited effect in controlling releases
from tanks.
10. Public Comments on 'the January
12,1981, RCRA Tank Permit Standards.
All the public comments received on the;
tank regulations promulgated in 1981
and a summary of them are included in
the docket at EPA Headquarters. These
comments were considered by EPA in
developing today's proposal.
X. Schedule for Public Hearings
The Agency will hold three public
hearings on today's proposal. They are
scheduled to convene at three different.
locations and at the dates indicated
below:
1. August 9,1985—Washington, D.C.
Department of Health and Human
Services, North Auditorium, 330
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20201
2. August 13,1985—Chicago, Illinois
The Westin Hotel O'Hare, 6100 River
Road, Rosemont, Illinois 60018
3. August 15,1985—San Francisco,
California
San Francisco Hilton & Towers,
Pacific Room, 330 O'Farrell Street,
San Francisco, California 94102
The hearings will begin at 9:30 a.m., with
registration at 9:00 a.m. The hearings
will end at 4:30 p.m., unless concluded
earlier. Anyone wishing to make a
statement at the hearing should notify,
in writing, Ms. Geraldine Wyer, Public
Participation Officer, Office of Solid
Waste [WH-562], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Oral and written statements may be
submitted at the public hearing. Persons
who wish to make oral presentations
must restrict them to 15 minutes and are
encouraged to have written copies of
their complete comments for inclusion in
the official record.
XI. Compliance With Executive Order
12291
Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order
12291 (46 FR13193, February 9,1981)
require that a regulatory agency
determine whether a new regulation will
be "major" and, if so, that a Regulatory
Impact Analysis be conducted. A major
rule is defined as one that is likely to
result in: (1) An annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; (2) a
major increase in costs or prices for , .
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, and local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or (3)
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, .investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
Today's proposal of revised standards
for RCRA tank facilities will have none
of the above effe'cts. Because the
proposed amendments do not meet the
definition of a major regulation, the
Agency is not conducting a Regulatory
Impact Analysis at this time. However,
EPA will perform a risk analysis to
support the final rule. EPA has prepared
background information supporting this
determination; this documentation is in
the Economic Impact Analysis Report,
which may be examined at the RCRA
Public Docket Office.
These proposed amendments haye
been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review pursuant to Section 6 of the
Executive Order.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Pursuant to Section 3504(h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the
reporting and recordkeeping provisions
of today's proposed rule have been
submitted for OMB approval. Comments
^on these requirements should be
submitted to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 726
Jackson Place NW., Washington, D.C.
20503, marked: Attention—Desk Offiqer
for EPA. Should EPA promulgate a final
rule, the Agency will respond to
comments,by OMB or the public
regarding the information collection
provisions of the rale.
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), whenever an
agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that
: describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small business, small
organization;), and small governmental
jurisdictions.) No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, however, if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.'
EPA has conducted some analysis of
the impacts on small businesses, which
is included in the Economic Impact
Analysis Report (EIAR). However, the
forthcoming small quantity generator
rule may require facilities generating
between 100-1000 kg/mo, to comply with
the requirements specified in today's ,
proposal. The EIAR does not include the
-------
Federal legister /Vol. !gQ. No. 123 /: Wednesday.'June 26, 1^85 rf PrdlposediMes' : 2M85
potential impact on small businesses of
the small quantity generator rule. The
EIAR is available for public viewing in
the docket for today's proposal.. , -
On the basis of the analysis .-•-••
conducted thus far, EPA has determined
that the proposed rule,-if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects. '
40,CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidentialbusiness
information, Hazardous materials,
Waste treatment and disposal.,
40CFRPari262 ,
Hazardous materials, Waste
treatment and disposal, recycling.
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 265 : . '
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures*, Surety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water supply. ,
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and- '
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply. '."-.-
Dated: June 14,1985. . ;
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator, , ,
For the reasons set out in the
Preamble, it is proposed to amend 40
GFR Chapter I as set forth below:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
40 CFR Part 260 is amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 260 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002[a), 3001 through
3007, 3010, 3014, 3015, 3017, 3018, and 3019 of .
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a),
6921 through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, '
and 6939). ... ....'-
2. It is proposed to amend § 260.10 by
adding the'folio wing terms and
definitions in alphabetical order: .••
§260.10 Definitions. ^
- * * * -•*..*.',.
"Above-ground tank'' [ACT) means a
device meeting the definition of "tank"
in § 260.10 and that is situated in such a
way that the base of the tank is at or
above the plane of ground level.
* * * . * *
"Ancillary equipment" means any
device used to distribute, meter, or
control the flow of hazardous waste to
or from the storage or treatment tank(s),
including but not limited to such de\'ices
as piping, fittings, flanges, gaskets,
yah'es, and pumps.
* * '*;.*,»
"Corrosion expert" refers to a person
w.ho, by reason of his knowledge of the
physical sciences and the principles of
engineering and mathematics, acquired
by a professional education and related
practical experiences, is qualified to '
engage in the practice of corrosion
• control on buried or submerged metal
piping systems and metal tanks. Such
person may be a registered professional
engineer or may be a person certified as
being qualified by the National
Association of Corrosion Engineers if
such licensing or certification includes
suitable experience in corrosion control
on buried or submerged metal piping
systems and metal tanks.
* * ***.
"Existinglank system" means a tank;
system that is used for the storage or
treatment of hazardous waste and that
is in operation, or for which installation
has commenced, on or prior to (put in
effective date of .these regulations).
Installation will be considered to have
commenced if the owner or operator has
obtained all Federal, State, and local
approvals or permits necessary to begin
physical construction of the sfte or
installation of the tank system and
either (1) a continuous onsite physical
construction or installation program has •
begun, or (2) the owner or operator has
entered into contractual obligations—
which cannot be canceled or modified
without substantial loss—for physical
construction of the site or installation of
the tank system to be completed within
. a reasonable time.
. * .*.."*. * * - :
"Inground. tank" (IGT) means a device
meeting the definition of "tank" in
§ 260.10 that is situated to any degree
within the ground, i.e., below the plane
of ground level, but is neither completely
buried nor situated so that the tank
bottom is above the plane of ground
level. • - . -
* *•••***'
"Leak-detection system" means a
system for providing the capability to
' detect within 24 hours the failure of
either the primary-or seeondary-
containmeht structure or the presence of
liquid in the secondary-containment
structure. Such a system may consist of
operational controls (i.e., inspections) or
a device designed to.detect leaks.
* * ••!*]'* *
"New tank system" means a tank
system for which installation has
commenced after (put in" the effective .
date.of these regulations). (See
definition of existing tank system for the
determination Of when installation has
'commenced.)
* * I* - '•. .* * ' . '• , -- • - •
"Tank system" means any storage or
treatment tank and the ancillary
equipment Associated with that tank. It -'.
does not include the Secondary
containment system associated with the
tank system.
*; * - •!*' * - * - , • ~
"Underground tank" (UGT) means a :
device meeting the definition of "tank"
in § 260.10 whose entire surface area is
(wholly submerged within the ground
(i.e., totally below the surface of and
covered by the ground), or is otherwise
covered With a material so that
expeditous inspection of the tank's
exterior surface area is'precluded.
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
.WASTE ;| . : ' ., '•:'-. " ";. '
40 CFR Part 262 is amended as
follows: I
3. The authority citation for Part 262 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2608, 3001, 3002, 3003,
3004, 3005, and 3017 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as. amended'by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 69Q6, 6912, 6922, 6923, ,
6924, 6925, aiad 6937).
4. It is proposed to amend § 262:34 by
revising paragraph (a)(l), adding a new
paragraph fa)(2) and redesignating :"' ~
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)"(4) as
paragraphs (a}(3) through (a)(5) as
follows:
§262.34 Accumulation time. ~
(a) A generator may accumulate
hazardous waste onsite for 90 days or
less without a permit or without having
interim status provided that:
(1) The waste is placed in containers
and the generator complies with Subpart
I of 40 CFR Part 265, or the waste is
placed in tanks and the generator '
complies with.§§ 265.192(a)(lH4),
265.194(a)-(c), 265.196. 265.197 (a) and
(b), 265.198 and 265.199 of Subpart J of
40 CFR Part 265r
-------
26496
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 /Wednesday, June 26. 1985 /Proposed
(2) Tanks that ace used to accumulate
hazardous waste are provided with
secondary containment equivalent to
that prescribed in § 265.193(bHc) within
1 year of the effective date of those
sections;
(3) The dale upon which each period
of accumulation begins is clearly
marked and visible for inspection on
each container;
(4) While being accumulated onsite,
each container and tank is labeled or
marked clearly with the words,
"Hazardous Waste;" and
(5) The generator complies with the
requirements of owners or operators in
Subparts C and D of 40 CFRPart 265,
and with § 285.16.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
40 CFR Part 264 is amended as
follows:
5. The Authority citation for Part 264
la revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006,2002,3004, and 3005
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
by Iho Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,
6912(a), 0924, and 6925).
6. It is proposed to amend the Table of
Contents and heading of Part 264,
Subpart J—Tanks by revising it to read:
*****
Subpart J~T«nk Systems
Sec.
264.190 Applicability.
204,191 Design of tank systems.
284.192 Installation of new tank systems.
20-1.193 Secondary containment.
204.104 Gtmoral operating requirements.
264.195 Inspections,
204.190 Response to and disposition of
leaking or unfit-for-use tank systems.
254,197 Closure and post-closure care.
284.198 Special requirements for ignitable or
reactive wastes.
204.199 Special requirements for
incompatible wastes. •
§264,15 [Amended!
7. It is proposed to amend § 264.15
General inspection requirements in
paragraph (b)(4) by removing the
reference to "§ 264.194" and adding
"I 204.195".
1264.73 [Amended]
8. It is proposed to amend § 264.73
Operating record requirements in
paragraph (b)(6) by adding a reference
to "I 204.192".
9. It is proposed to amend § 264.110 in
Sufapart G—Closure and Post-closure by
adding a new paragraph [b)(3):
§264.110 Applicability.
*****
(br * *
(3) Tank systems to the extent that
these sections are made applicable to
such facilities in § 264.197.
*****
10. It is proposed to amend § 264.140
in Subpart H—Financial Requirements
by adding a new paragraph (b)(3):
§264.140 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Tank systems to the extent that
these Sections are made applicable to
such facilities in § 264.197.
* * * * *
11. It is proposed to amend the
Subpart J— Tank Systems requirements
by revising the Subpart as follows:-
Subpart J—Tank Systems
§ 264.190 Applicability.
The requirements' of this Subpart
apply to owners and operators of
.facilities that use tank systems for
storing and/or treating hazardous waste
except as otherwise provided in § 264.1
of this Part..
§ 264.191 Design of tank systems.
Owners or operators of tank systems
must obtain and submit to the Regional
Administrator a written assessment by a
qualified registered professional
engineer of the system's structural
integrity and acceptabilty for the storing
and treating of hazardous waste. This
assessment, which wilfbe used by the
Regional Administrator to judge the
acceptabilty of the tank system design,
must include, at a minimum, the
following information: " •
(a) For new tank systems;
(1) Design standard(s) according to
which the tank is cfonstructed;
(2) Design standard(s) according to
which the ancillary equipment is
constructed; and
(3) Hazard characteristics of the
waste(s) to be handled.
(b) For existing, used, and reused
tanks systems:
(1) Design standard(s), if available,
according to which the tank(s) and
piping system components were
constructed;
[2) Description of the tank system
(e.g., size, age, material of construction);
(3) Hazard characteristics of the
waste(s) that have been and will be
handled;
(4) Estimated remaining life of the
tank system; and
(5) Results of a leak test that is
capable of detecting a leak equal to or
greater than 0.05 gallons per hour (for
underground tank systems) or an
internal inspection (for above- and
inground tank systems) performed
within the past year.
(c) For all metal tank systems in
which all or part of the tank system is or
will be in contact with the soil, a
determination by a corrosion expert of:
(1) Factors affecting the potential for
corrosion, including but not limited to: •.
(i) Soil moisture content;
(ii)SoilpH; •
(iii) Soil sulfides level;
(iv) Soil resistivity;
(v) Structure to soil potential;
(vi) Influence of nearby underground
metal structures (e.g., piping);
(vii) Existence of stray electric .
current; , •
(viii) Existing corrosion-protection
measures (i.e., coatings, cathodic
protection).
and (2) the type and degree of corrosion
protection needed to ensure the integrity >
of the tank system for its intended life,
consisting of one or more of the
following:
(i) Corrosion-resistant materials of
construction such as special alloys, •
fiberglass reinforced plastic, etc.;
(ii) Corrosion-resistant coating (such
as epoxy, fiberglass, etc.)
(iii) Cathodic protection (i.e.;
impressed current or sacrificial anodes);
or
(iv) Electrical isolation devices such
as insulating joints, flanges, etc.
Note.—The practices described in the
National Association of Corrosion Engineers
(NACE) standard, "Recommended Practice
(RP-02-85)—Control of External Corrosion on
Metallic Buried, Partially Buried, or
Submerged Liquid Storage Systems," and the
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Publication 1632, Cathodic Protection of
Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and
Piping Systems, may be used as guidelines in
providing corrosion protection for tank
systems.
(d) For underground tank system
components that are likely to be
affected by vehicular traffic, a
determination of design or operational
measures that will protect the tank
system against potential damage; and
(e) Design considerations to ensure
that:
(1) Tank foundations will maintain the
load of a full tank; and
(2) Tank systems will be anchored to
prevent flotation and/or dislodgment
where the tank system is placed in a
saturated zonei or is located within a
-------
Federal Register /. Vol. 50. No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28. 1985 /, Proposed Rules ..26.497.
seismic fault zone subject to the
standards of § 264.l8(a).
§ 264.192 Installation of new tank
systems. .>•••,..-.•
(a) The owner or operator must ensure
that proper handling procedures are
adhered to in order to prevent damage
to the tank system during installation.
Prior to covering, enclosing, or placing a
: new tank system in use, a qualified
installation inspector or a qualified
professional registered engineer who is
trained in the proper installation of tank
systems must inspect the system for the
presence of any of the following items:
(1) Weld breaks;
[2} Punctures;
, (3) Scrapes of protective coatings;
(4) Cracks;
• (5) Corrosion; .
(6) Other structural damage or
inadequate construction/installation.
All discrepancies must be remedied
before the system is placed in service.
(b) Backfill material must be a
noncorrosive, porous substance. Tanks
that are placed underground must be
carefully backfilled so that the backfill
is placed completely around the tank
and compacted to ensure that the tank is
fully and uniformly supported.
(c) All tanks and ancillary equipment
must be tested for tightness prior to
being covered, enclosed, or placed in
use. All leaks must be remedied before
the system is placed in service.
(d) Piping systems must be supported
and protected against physical damage
and excessive stress owing to
settlement, vibration, expansion, or
contraction.
- Note.—The piping system installation
procedures described in API Publication 1615
{November 1979), Installation of
Underground Petroleum Storage Systems, or
ANSI Standard B31.3, "Petroleum Refinery
Piping," and ANSI Standard B31.4 "Liquid
Petroleum Transportation Piping System,"
may be used au guidelines for proper
installation of piping systems.
(e) The owner or operator must
provide the type and degree of corrosion
protection determined by the Regional
Administrator to be necessary to ensure
the integrity of the tank system for its
intended life, based on the information
provided under § 264.191(c). A corrosion
expert must supervise the installation of
any cathodic protection system.
(f) Written statements by those
persons required to supervise the
installation of tank systems in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraphs (a)-(e) of this section which
attest that the tank system was properly
installed, must be kept on file at the
facility. These written statements must
also include a certification as required
in§270.11(d)
§ 264.193 Secondary containment
i (a) Except as allowed under
paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this
section, a tank system must be designed,
installed, and operated with a
secondary containment system that;
(1) Prevents any migration of wastes
or accumulated precipitation out of the
tank system to the soil ground water or
to surface water at any time during the
use of the tank system;
(2) Detects and collects any releases
of waste and accumulated precipation
until the collected material can be
removed;
(3) Removes or permits the removal of
spilled or leaked waste and
accumulated precipitation in as timely a
manner as is necessary to. prevent
releases from the secondary
containment system.
(b] To meet the requirements in
paragraph (a) of this section all
secondary-containment systems must be
at. a minimum:
(1) Constructed of or lined with.
materials that are compatible with the
wastefs) to be placed in the tank system
and must have sufficient strength and
thickness to prevent failure owing to '
pressure gradients [including static head
and external hydrblogical forces),
physical contact with the waste to*
which it is exposed, climatic conditions,
the stress of installation, and the stress .
of daily operation (including stresses
from nearby vehicular traffic);
, (2) Placed on a foundation or base
capable of providing support to the
secondary containment system and
resistance to pressure gradients above
and below the system and capable of
preventing failure owing to settlement,
compression, or uplift;
(3) Provided with a leak-detection
system that is designed or operated so
that it will detect the presence of any
release of hazaradous waste or
accumulated liquid in the secondary
containment system within 24 hours of
entry of the liquid into the system;
' (4) Sloped or otherwise designed or
operated to drain and remove liquids
resulting from leaks, spills, or
precipitation;
(5) Designed or operated to contain
110 percent of the design capacity of the
largest tank within its boundary;
(6) Designed or operated to prevent
run-on or infiltration of precipitation
into the secondary containment system
unless the collection system has
. sufficient excess capacity in addition to
that required in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section to contain run-on or infiltration.
Such additional capacity must be
sufficient to contain precipitation from a
25 year, 24 hour rain storm.
Notes.—If the collected material is a
hazardous waste under Part 261 of this ,
Chapter, it is subject to management as a
hazaradous waste in accordance with all
applicable requirements of Parts 262 through
265 of this chapter. If the collected material is
discharged through a point source to waters
of the United States, it is subject to the
requirement!! of sections 307 and 402 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended.
(c) Secondary containment for
aboveground, inground, and
underground tanks must include one or
more of the following devices:
(1) A liner (external to the tank);
(2) A vault; •
(3) A 4ouble-walled tank; or
(4) Ah equivalent device as approved
by the Regional Administrator.
(d) In addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this
section, liners, vaults, and double-
walled tank systems must satisfy the
following requirements:
(1) External liner systems must be: '"
(i) Free oif cracks or gaps; and
(ii) Installed to cover all surrounding
earth likely to come into contact with
the waste if released from the tank(s)
(i.e., capable of preventing lateral as.
well as vertical migration of the waste).
(2) Vault systems (concrete) must be:
(i) Constructed as an continuous
structure with chemical resistant water
stops in place at all joints (if any);
(ii) Provided with an interior coating
that is compatible with the stored waste
for the purpose of preventing migration
of waste through the concrete and also
an exterior moisture barrier to prevent
migration of moisture into the vault; and
(iii) Provided with a noncorrosive
porous fill material around the tank if
, the waste being stored meets the
definition oif ignitable waste under
§261.21 of this chapter.
(3) DoubloTwalled tanks must be:
(i) Designed as a integral structure
(i.e.,: an inner tank with an outer shell)
so that any release from the inner tank
is contained by the outer shell;
(ii) Protected, if constructed of metal,
from both corrosion of the primary tank
interior and of the external surface of
the outer shell; and
(iii) Provided with a built-in leak
monitor.
Note.—The provisions outlined in the Steel
Storage Tank Institute's (STI) "Standard for
Dual Wall Underground Steel Storage Tanks"
may be used as guidelines for the design of
underground isteel double-walled tanks. "',-•-"
(e) Ancillary equipment associated
with tanks must be provided with
secondary containment (e.g., trench,
double-walled piping) that meet the
-------
26498 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Proposed Rules
requirements of (a) and (b) o/ this
section.
(f) As an alternative to complying
with the full secondary containment
requirements of paragraphs (a), [b], (c),
(d), and (e) of this section, the owner or
operator of an existing tank system,
except for those used to store or treat
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20, FO21,
FO22, FO23, FO26, and FO27, may
implement a ground-water monitoring
program in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this
Section. Owners or operators who
choose to implement a ground-water
monitoring program in lieu of complying
with the secondary-containment
requirements" of § 284.193(a)-(e) must
also install partial secondary
containment for any above ground
portion of the tank system consisting of
a leak-proof base and diking that meet
the requirements of § 264.193 (a), (b),
and (d)(l).
(g) The ground-water monitoring
requirements of this section apply to
owners and operators of tank systems
that do not have full secondary
containment in accordance with
paragraphs (a)-(e) of this section.
Owners and operators subject to this
section must comply with the following
requirements:
(!) The owner or operator must install
a ground-water monitoring system at a
compliance point to be specified in the
permit by the Regional Administrator.
(i) The compliance point is a vertical
surface located at the hydraulically
downgradient limit of the waste
management area that extends down
into the uppermost aquifer underlying
the tank system.
(ii) The waste management area is the
limit projected in the horizontal plane of
the area covered by the tank system.
The waste management area includes
any horizontal space taken up by the
tank or any ancillary equipment
connected to the tank.
(iii) If .the facility contains more than
one tank system, the waste management
area is described by an imaginary line
circumscribing the several tank systems.
(2) The owner or operator must
monitor for indicator parameters (e.g.,
specific conductance, total organic
carbon, or total organic hologen), waste
constituents, or reaction products that
provide a reliable indication of the
presence of hazardous constituents hi
ground water. The Regional
Administrator will specify the indicators
or constituents to be monitored in the
facility permit, after considering the
following factors:
(i) The types, quantities, and
concentrations of constituents in wastes
contained in the tank system;
(ii) The mobility, stability, and
persistence of waste constituents or
their reaction products in the
unsaturated zone beneath the tank
system;
{iii) The detectability of indicators,
waste constituents, and reaction
products in ground water; and
(iv) The concentration or values and
coefficients of variation of proposed
monitoring parameters or constituents in
the ground-water background.
(3) The ground-water monitoring
system required by this section must
comply with the following requirements:
(i) The ground-water monitoring
system must consist'of a sufficient
number of wells, installed at appropriate
locations and depths to yield ground-
water samples from the uppermost
aquifer that:
(A) Represent the quality of
background water that has not been ,
affected by leakage from a tank system;
and
(B) Represent the quality of ground
water passing through the compliance
point.
(ii) If a«facility contains ^more than one
tank system, separate ground-water ,
monitoring systems are not required for
each tank system provided that
provisions for sampling the ground-
water in the upper-most aquifer will
enable detection and measurement at
the compliance point of monitoring
parameters or constituents from the tank
systems that have entered the
environment.
(iii) All monitoring wells must be
cased in a manner that maintains the
integrity of the monitoring-well bore
hole. This casing must be screened or
perforated and packed with gravel or
sand, where necessary, to enable .
collection of ground-water samples. The
annular space (i.e., the space between
the bore hole and well casing) above the
sample depth must be sealed to prevent
contamination of samples and the
ground-water.
(iv) The ground-water monitoring
program must include consistent
sampling and analysis procedures that
are designed to ensure monitoring
results that provide a reliable indication
of ground-water quality below the waste
management area and that accurately
measure monitoring parameters or
constituents in ground-water samples.
At a minimum, the program must include
procedures and techniques for:
(A) Samples collection;
(B) Sample preservation and
shipment;
(C) Analytical, procedures; and
(D) Chain of custody control.
(v) The ground-water monitoring
program must include a determination of
the ground-water surface elevation each
time ground water is sampled.
(4) The owner or operator must
establish a background value for each of
the monitoring parameters or
constituents specified in the permit
pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this
section. The permit will specify the
background values for each parameter
or specify the procedures to be used to
calculate the background values. The
owner or operator must comply with the
following requirements in developing
the data base used to determine
background values:
(i) Background ground-water quality
for a monitoring parameter or
constituent must be based on data from
quarterly sampling of wells upgradient
from the waste management area for '
one year.
.(ii) Background quality may be based
on sampling of wells that are not
upgradient from the waste management
area where bydrogeological conditions
• do not allow the owner or operator to
determine what wells are upgradient; or
sampling at other wells will provide an
indication of background ground-water
quality that is as representative or more
representative than that provided by the
upgradient wells.
(iii) In developing the data base used
-.'. to determine a background value for
each parameter or constituent, the
owner or operator must take a minimum
of four samples from the entire system
used to determine background ground-
water quality each time the system is
sampled.
(5) The owner or operator must
determine ground-water quality at each
monitoring well at the compliance point
at least semi-annually during the active
life of the tank system (including any
closure and post-closure care period
required under § 264.196). The owner or
operator must express the ground-water
quality at each monitoring well in a form
necessary for the determination of
statistically significant increases.
(6) The owner or operator must
determine whether there is a
statistically significant increase over
background values for any parameter or
constituent specified in the permit
pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this
section each time he determines ground-
water quality at the compliance point
under paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
(i) In determining whether a
statistically significant increase has
occurred, the owner or operator must
compare the ground-water quality at
each monitoring well at the compliance.
point for each parameter or constituent
to the background value for that
parameter or constituent, according to
-------
Federal Register / Vok-5'0, No. 123 / Wednesday, June'26,1985 /Proposed Rules
26499
the statistical procedure specified in the
permit under paragraph (g)(7) of this
section. , ,:
(ii) The owner or operator must
determine whether there has been a .
statistically significant increase at each
monitoring well at the compliance point
within a reasonable time period after.
completion of sampling. The Regional
Administrator will specify that time
period in the facility permit, after
considering the complexity of the ,
statistical test and the availability of
laboratory facilities to perform the
analysis of ground-water samples.
• (7) The owner or operator must use
the following statistical procedure in
determining whether background values
• or concentration limits have been
exceeded:
(i) If the background value has a «,„
sample coefficient of variation less than
1.00:
(A) The owner or operator must take
at least four portions from a sample at
each well at the compliance point and
determine whether the difference •
between the mean of the constituent at
each well (using all portions taken) and
the background value for the constituent
is significant at the 0.05 level using the
Gochran's Approximation to the
Behrens-Fisher Student's t-test as
described in Appendix IV of this part. If
the test indicates that the difference is
significant; the owner or operator must
repeat the same procedure (with at least
the same number of portions as used in
the first test) with a fresh sample from
the'monitoring well. If this second round
of analyses indicates that the difference
is significant the owner or operator
must conclude that a statistically
significant change has occurred; or
(B) The owner or operator may use an
equivalent statistical procedure for
'determining whether a statistical
procedure for determining whether a
statistically significant change has
occurred. The Regional Administrator
will specify such a procedure in the
facility permit if he finds that the
alternative procedure reasonably
balances the probability of falsely
identifying a non-leaking tank system ,
and the probability of failing to identify
a leaking tank system in a manner that
is comparable to that of the statistical
procedure described in paragraph
(g)(7)(i)(A) of this section.
(ii) In all other situations, the owner, or
operator must use a statistical procedure
providing reasonable confidence that
the migration of hazardous constituents
from a tank system into and through the
aquifer will be indicated. The Regional
Administrator will specify a statistical
procedure in the facility that he finds:
(A) Is appropriate for the distribution
of the data used to establish background
•.values or concentration limits; and
(B) Provides a reasonable balance
between the probability of falsely
identifying a non-leaking tank system
and the probability of failing to identify
a leaking tank system. •. .
(8) The owner or operator must
determine the ground-water flow rate
and direction in the uppermost aquifer
at least annually. -
• (9) If the owner or operator
determines, pursuant to paragraph (g){6)
of this section, that there is a
statistically significant increase for
parameters or constituents specified
pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this
section at any monitoring well at the
compliance point, he must:
(i) Notify the. Regional Administrator
of this finding in writing within seven
. days. The notification must indicate
what indicators or constituents have
been detected; and
(ii) Assess the integrity of the tank
system by conducting a leak test (of
underground system) in accord with
paragraph (h) of this section and by a
thorough inspection of any aboveground
or inground tank systems.
(h) All underground tank systems that
do not have full secondary containment
that meets the requirements of this
section must be leak tested at least
semi-annually in accordance with the
following:
(1) A leak test of every underground
tank to detect any leak equal to or
greater than 0.05-gallon per hour and
(2) A leak test of all underground
piping to detect any leak equal to or
greater than 0.05 gallon per hour, or a
pressure drop of 5 pounds per square
inch per minute.
. (i) Except for tanks used to store or
treat EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20,
FO21, FO22, EO23, FO26, and FO27, the
owner or operator may be exempted
from all Or part of the requirements of
this Section if the Regional
Administrator finds, as a result of a
demonstration by the owner or operator,
that alternative design and operating
practices, together with location
characteristics, will prevent the
migration of any hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents into the ground
water or surface water at any future
time. . "
In deciding whether to grant an
exemption, the Regional Administrator
will consider: ,
(1) The nature arid quantity of the
wastes; - .
; (2) The proposed alternate design and
operation;
(3) The hydrogeologic setting of the
.facility, including the thickness of soils ,
present between the tank system anth
ground water; and -.. ..."'.....
(4) All other factors that would
influence the quality.and mobility of the
hazardous constituents and the potential
for them to migrate to ground water or
surface water.
§264.194 General operating requirements.
(a) Hazardous wa'stes or treatment
reagents muist not be placed in a tank
system if they could cause the tank or its
ancillary equipment'to rupture, leak, or
corrode, or otherwise fail before the end
of its intended life.
(b) The owner or operator must use
appropriate controls and practices to
prevent spills and overflows from tank
or secondary containment systems.
These include at a minimum:
(1) Spill prevention controls (e.g.,:
check valves, dry disconnect couplings);
(2) Overfill prevention controls (e.g.y
automatic feed cutoff or bypass to a
standby tank); and .
(3) Maintenance of sufficient •
freeboard in uncovered tanks to prevent
overtopping by wave or wind action or
by precipitation.
I
§264.195 Inspections.
(a) The owner or operator of a tank
system must develop a schedule and
procedure for inspecting overfill
controls, where present (e.g., level- --
sensing devices, high-level alarms,
waste feed cutoff and bypass .systems).
(b) The owner or operator must
inspect at.least once each operating day:
(1) The aboveground portions of the
tank system, if any, to detect corrosion
or leaking of waste from fixtures, joints,
and seams; amd
(2) Data gEithered from continuous
monitoring and leak detection
"equipment, iff any, (e.g., pressure or
temperature gauges, monitoring wells,
leak-detection devices) to ensure that
the tank system is being operated \
according to its design.
(c) The owner or operator must
inspect on at least a weekly basis the
construction materials of, and the area
immediately surrounding the externally
accessible portion of the tank system
and the secondary-containment system,
to detect erosion or signs of leakage
(e.g., wet spoils, dead vegetation). -
(d) The owner or operator must
inspect cathodic-protection systems, ifV ;
present, according to, at a minimum, the
following schedule to ensure that they
are properly functioning:
- (1) The operation and components of
impressed current systems must be
inspected at least monthly for such
, items as: anode deterioration, rectifier i •
-------
26500 Federal Register'/ Vol. 50. No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 1985'/ Proposed Ruleg
malfunction, power interruption, and
rectifier output;
(2) The anode output of a sacrificial
anode system must be inspected at least
semiannually, and
(3) The tank system to soil potential
measurement must be conducted at least
annually to ensure a minimum level of
-0,85 volts.
(e) A schedule and procedure must be
developed for assessing the overall
condition of the tank system. The
schedule and procedure must be
adequate to detect obvious cracks,
leaks, and corrosion or erosion that may
lead to cracks or leaks. The frequency of
these assessments must be based on the
material of construction of the tank and
its ancillary equipment, the age of the
system, the type of corrosion- or
erosion-protection used, the rate of
corrosion or erosion observed during the
previous inspection, and the
characteristics of the waste being stored
or treated.
Note.—The practices described in the API
Publication Guide for Inspection of Refinery
Equipment, Chapter Xni, "Atmospheric and
Low-Pressure Storage Tanks," 4th edition,
1991, may be used as guidelines for assessing
the overall condition of the tank system.
f 264.196 Response to and disposition of
leaking or tmlit-for-uso tank systems.
(a) As part of the contingency plan
required under Subpart D of Part 264,
the owner or operator must specify
procedures for responding to spills or
leakage from tanks, including
procedures for expeditious removal of
leaked or spilled waste. These
procedures must be available for review
by EPA upon request and must include:
(1) Measures for containing any
visible contamination resulting from a
release from the tank system that has
occurred or is occurring;
(2) Measures for immediate removal
of waste from the tank and containment
system;
(3) Procedures for conducting
assessments of the risk to human health
and the environment owning to a
release from a tank system and the
remedial actions necessary to mitigate
the severity of a release;
(4) Steps for obtaining, prior to
returning repaired or replaced tank
systems or secondary-containment
systems to service, a certification by a
qualified registered professional
engineer that the system is capable of
handling hazardous waste for the
intended useful life of the tank system
without permitting its release into the
environment. This certification must be
submitted in writing to the Regional
Administrator at least seven (7) days
prior to the system being returned to
service.
(b) The owner or operator must
promptly, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the contingency
plan, remedy any malfunction,
deterioration, leak, spill, or crack.
§ 264.197 Closure and post-closure care.
(a) At closure of a tank system, the
owner or operator must remove or
decontaminate all residues,
contaminated containment system
components (liners, etc.), contaminated
soils, and structures and equipment
contaminated with waste and manage
them as hazardous waste unless
§ 261.3(d) of this chapter applies.
(b) If, after removing or
decontaminating all residues and
making all reasonable efforts to effect
removal or decontamination of
contaminated components, soils,
structures, and equipment as required in
paragraph [a] of this section, the owner
or operator finds that not all
contaminated soils can be practicably
removed or decontaminated, he must
close the tank system and perform post
closure care in accordance with the
closure and post-closure care
requirements that apply to landfills
(§264.310).
(c) The closure plan for the tank
system under § 264.12 must include
details for complying with paragraph (a)
of this section.
(d) The owner or operator of a tank
system that does not comply with the
full secondary containment
requirements of § 264.193(a)-(d), must: (i)
Include in the closure plan for the tank
system under § 264.112 both a plan for
complying with paragraph (a) of this
section and a contingent plan for
complying with paragraph (b) of this
section in case not aU contaminated soil
can be practicably removed at closure;
and (ii) prepare a contingent post-
closure plan under § 264.118 for
complying with paragraph (b) of this
section in case not all contaminated soil
can be practicably removed at closure.
(e) The cost estimates for closure and
post-closure care must be calculated in
accordance with the requirements under
§ § 264.142 and 264.144, respectively. '
§ 264.198 Special requirements for
Ignitabte or reactive wastes.
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste must
not be placed in a tank system, unless:
(1) The waste is treated, rendered, or
. mixed before or immediately after
placement in the tank system so that the
resulting waste, mixture, or dissolved
material no longer meets the definition
of ignitable or reactive waste under
§§ 261.21 or 261.23 of this Chapter, and
§'264.17(b) is complied with: or
(2) The waste is stored'or treated in
such a way that it is protected from any
material or conditions that may cause
the waste to ignite or react; or
(3) The tank system is used solely for
emergencies.
(b) The owner or operator of a facility
where ignitable or reactive waste is
stored or treated in a tank system must
comply with the requirements for the
maintenance of protective distances
between the waste management area
and any public ways, streets, alleys, or
an adjoining property line that can be
built upon, as required in Tables, 2-1
through 2-8 of the National Fire
Protection Association's "Flammable"
and Combustible Liquids Code" (1977 or
1981), (incorporated by reference, see
§260.11).
§264.199 Special requirements for
Incompatible wastes.
(a) Incompatible wastes, or
incompatible wastes and materials,
must not be placed hi the same tank
system, unless § 264.17(b) is complied
with.
(b) Hazardous waste must not be
placed in an unwashed tank that
previously held an incompatible waste
or material, unless § 264.17(b) is
complied with.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR Part 265 is amended as
follows:
12. The Authority citation for Part 265
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Seca. 1008, 2002(a), 3004, 3005,
.and 3015 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, and 6935).
13. It is proposed to amend the Table
of Contents and the heading of Part 265,
Subpart J—Tanks by revising it to read:
Subpart J—Tank Systems
Sec.
265.190 Applicability.
265.191 Assessment and certification -uf
tank system's integrity.
265.192 Response to and disposition of
leaking or urifit-for-use tank systems.
265.193 Secondary containment.
265.194' General operating requirements.
265.195 Waste analysis and trial tests.
265.198 Inspections. •...
265.197 Closure and post-closure care.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 123 /Wednesday, June 26, 1985 / Propose^-Rules 2BSW
sec. . - •• -:••:. ; • :. ; :
265.198 Special requirements for ignitable or
reactive wastes. "
285.199 Special requirements for
incompatible wastes.
§265.13 [Amended]. „
14. It is proposed to amend § 265.13
General waste analysis requirements in
paragraph (b)(6) by removing the
reference to "265.193" and adding
"265.195".
§265.15 [Amended]
15. It is proposed to amend § 265.15
General inspection requirements in
paragraph (b)(4) by removing the
reference to "265.194" and adding
"265.196".
§ 265.73 [Amended]
16. It is proposed to amend § 265.73-
Operating record requirements in
paragraph (b)(3) byremoving the
reference to "265.193" and adding
"265.195,'" and in paragraph (b)(6) by
adding a reference to "265.194".
_ 17. It is proposed to amend § 265.110
in Subpart G—-Closure and post-closure
by revising paragraph (b) to read:
§265.110 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Sections 265.117-265.120 (which
concern post-closure) apply.to the
4 owners and operators of: ',
. (!) All hazardous waste disposal
facilities; and .
(2) Tank systems to the extent that
these sections are made applicable to
such facilities in § 265.197.
* * *' .* *
18. It is proposed to amend § 265.140
in Subpart H—Financial requirements
by revising paragraph (b) to read:
§265.140 Applicability.
*••''* * * * • •'-'.'••
(b) The requirements of § § 265.144
and 265.145 and 265.146 apply only to
owners and operators of:
(1) Disposal facilities; and
(2) Tank systems to the extent that
these Sections are made applicable to
such facilities.in § 265.197.
* * * * *
, 19. It is proposed to amend the
Subpart J—Tank Systems requirements
by revising the Subpart as follows: .
Subpart J—Tank Systems
§265.190 Applicability.
The regulations'in .'this subpart apply
to owners or operators of facilities that
use tanks to treat or store hazardous
waste; except as otherwise provided in
§ 265.1 of this part.
§ 265.191 Assessment and certification of
tank system's integrity.
(a) For each tank system that does not
have full secondary containment
meeting the requirements of 265.193(b)-
(d), the owner or operator must submit
an assessment of the tank system to the
Regional Administrator within 6 months
of the effective date of .these revisions to
the regulations. Such assessment must
include:
(1) A leak test of every underground
•tank to detect any leak equal to or
greater thanU05 gallon per hour;
(2) A leak test of all underground
piping to detect a leak equal to or
greater than 0.05 gallon per hour, or a
pressure 'drop of 5 pounds per square
inch per minute;
(3) For tank systems, other than
underground tanks and underground
piping that do not have full secondary
containment meeting the requirements
of § 265.193(b)-(d). an assessment of
each tank system by a qualified
registered professional engineer. This
assessment must address cracks, leaks,
corrosion, or erosion.
NoSe.—The practices described in the API
Publication, Guide for Inspection of Refinery
Equipment, Chapter XIH, "Atmospheric and
Low-Pressure Storage Tanks," 4th e'dition,
1981, may be used as guidelines in conducting
the assessment of a tank system.
(b) For those metal tank systems at
which all or part of the tank system is in
contact with the soil, the owner or
operator must, within 1 year of the
'effective date of these revisions to the
regulations, have a corrosion expert' •
conduct a determination of factors
affecting the potential for corrosion,
including but not limited to:
(1) Soil moisture content;
(2)Soili>H;
(3) Soil sulfides level;
(4) Soil resistivity;
(5) Structure to soil potential;
[6) Influence of nearby underground
metal structures [e.g., piping);
(7) Existence of stray electric current;
and '
(8) Existing corrosion-protection
measures (i.e., coatings, cathodic
protection).
§ 265.192 Response to and disposition of
leaking or unflt-for-use tank systems.
(a) A tank system found to be leaking
must be immediately removed from
service and its owner or operator must
satisfy the following requirements:
(1) The flow or addition of hazardous
waste into the tank system must be
immediately stopped;
(2) The remaining hazardous waste in
the tank system or its secondary
containment (if any) must be removed
as quickly as possible and no later than
24 hours after detection of the leak so
that no further release of hazardous ;
waste is permitted to occur and
inspection'or repair of the tank system
can be performed; ,
(3) Necessary steps must be
immediately taken to contain any visible
contamination resulting from a release •
from the tank system that has occurred
or is occurring; -,..--
(4) The Regional Administrator must,
be notified within 24 hours after
confirmation, of the leak; and
(5) An estimation of the extent of
release of hazardous waste or
constituents of hazardous waste to the
environment must be performed and
reported to the Regional Administrator
within 30 days of detection of a release.
Note.—The Regional Administrator may,
on the basis of any information received that
there is or has been releases of hazardous
waste into the1 environment, issue an order
under RCRA section 3008(h) requiring
corrective action or such other response as • •-.
deemed necessary to protect human health or
the environment. '
Note.—See if 265.15(c) for the requirements
necessary to remedy a failure. Also, sections
103 (a) and (b) of CERCLA require the owner
or operator to notify the National Response .
Center at (800] 42^-8802 of the release of any
"reportable quantity." -.-•'.'
(b) Tank systems taken out of service
in accordance with (a) of this Section or
that are judged to present a hazard for
continued use as hazardous waste
storage or treatment units as a result of
the assessment of § 265.191(a)(3) must
be: -i
(1) Closed in accordance with the
requirements of § 265.197, or
(2) Repaired. Repaired tank systems, •
prior to being returned to service for the
management of hazardous waste, must
be certified by a qualified registered
professional engineer to be capable of
storing or treating hazardous waste for
the intended life of the tank system
without permitting its release into the
environment. This certification must be
based upon assessments performed in
accordance with §'§ 265.191 (a) and (b)
and must be submitted in writing to the
Regional Administrator at least 7 days
prior to the tank system's being returned
to service, or
(3) Replaced. If an interim status tank
system is replaced with another tank
system, the replacement system is
regarded as having interim status. Such
tank systems must have full secondary
containment in accordance with the
requirements of §§ 265,193 .(b) and (c)
and must be certified by a qualified
registered professional engineer to be,
capable of storing or treating hazardous
waste for the intended life of the tank
-------
26502 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 123 I ^_e^^y')^_^^^Ll!:2E^^.
system without permitting its release
into the environment. This certification
must be based upon an assessment
performed in accordance with
|§ 265.191 (a) and (b) and must be
submitted to the Regional Administrator
at least 7 days prior to bringing the tank
system into use.
§ 265.193 Secondary containment.
(a) In order to minimize the release of
hazardous waste or constituents of
hazardous waste to the environment, all
tanks and ancillary equipment must,
within 1 year of the effective date of
these revised regulations, be provided
with full secondary containment that
meets the requirements of paragraphs
tb), (c), and (d) of this Section.
(b) Full secondary-containment
systems must be:
(1) Designed, installed, and operated
to prevent any migration of wastes or
accumulated liquid out of the system to
the soil or ground water or to surface
water at any time during the intended
life of the tank system; and
(2) Capable of detecting and collecting
any waste or leak and accumulated
liquids until the collected material can
be removed.
(c) To meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (d), secondary-
containment systems must be at a
minimum:
(1) Constructed of or lined with ,
materials that are compatible with the
waste(s) to be placed in the tank system
and must have sufficient strength and
thickness to prevent failure owing to
pressure gradients (including static head
and external hydrological forces),
physical contact with the waste to
which it is exposed, climatic conditions,
the stress of installation, and the stress
of daily operation (including stresses
from nearby vehicular traffic);
(2) Placed on a foundation or base
capable of providing support to the
secondary containment system and
resistance to pressure gradients above
and below the system owing to
settlement, compression, or uplift;
(3) Provided with a leak-detection
system that is designed or operated so
that it will detect the presence of any
release of hazardous waste or
accumulated liquid in the secondary
containment system within 24 hours of
entry of the liquid into the containment
system;
(4) Sloped or otherwise designed or
operated to drain and remove liquids
resulting from leaks, spills, or
precipitation. Spilled or leaked waste
and accumulated precipitation must be
removed from the secondary-
containment system in as timely a
manner as is possible but no later than
24 hours after the detection of the
release.
(5) Designed or operated to contain
110 percent of the design capacity of the
largest tank within its boundary.
(6) Designed or .operated to prevent
run-on or infiltration of precipitation
into the secondary containment system
unless the collection system has
sufficient excess capacity in addition to
that required in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section to contain run-on or infiltration.
Such additional capacity must be
sufficient to contain precipitation from a
25 year, 24 hour rain storm.
Note.—If the collected material is a
hazardous waste under Part 261 of this
chapter, it is subject to management as a
hazardous waste in accordance with all
applicable requirements of Parts 262 through
265 of this Chapter. If the collected material
is discharged through a point source to
waters of the United States, it is subject to
the requirements of sections 307 and 402 of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(d) Ancillary equipment must be
provided with full secondary
containment (e.g., trench, double-walled
piping) that meets the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
(except paragraph (c)(5)J.
(e) As an alternative to complying
with the full secondary containment
requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
and (d) of this section, the owner or
operator or an existing tank system,
except for those used to store or treat
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FO20, FO21,
FO22, FO23, FO26, and FO27 and
replacement tank systems subject to the
requirements of § 265.192(b)(3) may
implement a groundwater monitoring
program in accordance with the
requirements of Subject F of this Part.
Owners or operators who choose to
implement a groundwater monitoring
progfam in lieu of comply ing .with the
, full secondary containment
requirements of this Section must also
install partial secondary containment
consisting of a leak-proof base and
diking that meet the requirements of
§§ 264.193 (b) and (c) for any
aboveground portion of the tank system.
(f) Except for tank systems used to
store or treat EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. FO20, FO21, FO22, FO23, FO28,
and FO27, the owner/operator may be
exempted from all or part of the
secondary containment requirements of
•this Section if the Regional
Administrator finds, as a result of a
demonstration by the owner or operator,
that alternative design or operating
practices, together with location
characteristics, will prevent the
migration of hazardous waste or
constituents of hazardous waste into the
ground water or surface water at any
future time.
§ 265.194 Gensral operating requirements.
(a) Hazardous wastes or 'jeatment
reagents must not be placed in a tank
system if they-could cause the tank or its
inner liner to,rupture, leak, corrode, or
otherwise fail before the end of its
intended life.
(b) Uncovered tanks must be operated
to ensure at least 60 centimeters (2 feet)
of freeboard, unless the tank is equipped
with a secondary-containment structure
(e.g., dike or trench) or a diversion
structure (e.g., standby tank) with a .
capacity that equals or exceeds the
volume of the top 60 centimeters (2 feet)
of the tank.
(c) Where hazardous waste is
- continuously fed into a tank, the tank
must be equipped with a means to stop
this inflow (e.g., a waste feed cutoff
system or bypass system to a standby
tank). . . .
(d) All underground tank systems that
do not have full secondary containment
. meeting the requirements of § 265.193
(b), (c), and (d.) must be leak tested at
least semiannually in accordance with
the requirements of § 265.191(a) (1) or
(2). The owner or operator must
maintain a record of the results of the
leak tests at the facility.
(e) Any tank system that is found to
be leaking either by the leak test
required in paragraph (d) or by any
other means of leak detection must meet
the requirements of § 265.192.
(f) All metal tanks and associated
piping that are found to be susceptible
to corrosive conditions resulting from
the determination in 265.191(b) must be
provided with the corrosion protection
needed to ensure the integrity of the
tank system for its intended life,
consisting of one or more of the
following:
(1) Corrosion-resistant materials of
construction such as special alloys,
fiberglass reinforced, plastic, etc.;
(2) Corrosion-resistant coating such as
epoxy, fiberglass, etc.;
(3) Cathodic protection (i.e., impressed
current or sacrificial anodes); or
(4) Electrical isolation devices such as
insulating joints, flanges, etc.
Note.—The practices described in the
NACE standard, "Recommended Practice
(PR-02-85)—Control of External Corrosion on
Metallic Buried, partially Buried, or
Submerged Liquid Storage Systems," and API
Publication 1832, Cathodic Protection of
Underground Petroleum Tanks and Piping*
Systems, may be used as guidelines in
providing corrosion protection for tank
-------
, ,-, - .
- . "
_Federal Register,/ Vol. 50. No. 123 / Wednesday. June ^26. 1985 /
26503
§265.195 Waste analysis and trial tests.
In addition to performing the waste
analysis required by § 265.13, the owner
or operator must, whenever a tank
system is to be used to treat chemically
or store a hazardous waste that is
• substantially different from waste
previously treated or stored in that tank
system; or treat chemically a hazardous
waste with a substantially different'
process than any previously used in that
tank system:
(a) Conduct waste analyses and trial
treatment or storage tests (e.g., bench
scale or pilot plant scale tests); or
(b) Obtain written, documented
information on similar waste under "• '
similar operating conditions to sho.w
that^this proposed treatment or storage
will meet all applicable requirements of
§ 265.194 (a) and (b).
Note. Section 265.13 requires the waste
analysis plan to include anslyses needed to
comply with § § 265.198 and 265.199. Section
265.73 requires the owner or operator to place
the results from each waste analysis and-trial
test, or the documented information, in the
operating record of the facility. ^,^''-M
§265.196 Inspections. ^^t^" '
The owner or operator of a'*tank must
conduct and document in the operating
record of the facility an inspection of,
where present: -;•" ;
(a) Discharge control equipment (e.g.,
waste-feed cutoff systems, bypass
systems, and drainage systems), at least
once each operating day, to ensure that
it is in good working order; ~
(b) Data gathered from monitoring
equipment (e.g., pressure and
temperature gauges) and leak-detection
equipment, at least once each operating
day, to ensure that the tank system and
leak-detection system are being-
operated according to their design;
(c) The aboveground portions of the
tank system, if any, at least once each
operating day, to detect corrosion or
leaking of fixtures, joints/or seams; and'
•(d) The construction materials of, and
the area immediately surrounding the
externally accessible portion of the tank
system and secondary-containment
structures (e.g., dikes), at least weekly,
to detect erosion or signs of leakage (e.g.
- wet spots, dead vegetation); •
Note.—Section 265.15(c) requires the owner
or operator to remedy any deterioration or
malfunction he finds. Section 265.192 requires
the owner or operator to notify the Regional
Administrator within 24 hours of confirming a
leak. Also, Sections 103 (a) and (bj of
CERCLA require the owner or operator to
notify the National Response Center at (800)
424-8802 of the release of any "reportable .
quantity." , .
(e) Cathodic protection systems to
ensure that it is properly functioning
according to, at a minimum, the • '
following schedule:
(1) The operation and components of
impressed current systems must be
inspected at least monthly for such
items as anode deterioration, rectifier
• malfunction, power interruption, and
, rectifier output;
v (2) The anode output of a sacrificial
anode system must be inspected at least
semiannually; and >
(3) The tank system to soil potential
measurement must be conducted at least
annually to ensure a minimum level of
rO.85 volts.
§285.197 Closure and post-closure care.
(a) At closure of a tank system, the
'• owner or operator must remove or
decontaminate all hazardous waste
residues, contaminated containment
system components (liners, etc.),
contaminated soil, and structures and
equipment contaminated with waste,
and manage them as hazardous waste
- unless § 261.3(d) of this chapter applies.
(b) If, after removing or
..decontaminating all- residues and
making all reasonable efforts to effect
removal or decontamination of "
contaminated components, soils,' '
structures, and equipment as required in
paragraph (a).of this Section, the owner
or operator finds that not all
contaminated soils can be practicably
• removed or decontaminated, he must
close the tank system and perform post-
closure care in accordance witH the
'•closure and post-closure care I
requirements that apply to landfills.
(§264.310).
•(c) The closure plan for the tank
_ system under § 265.112 must include a
plan for complying with paragraph (a) of
this section. '
(d) The owner or operator of a tank
system that does not comply with the
full secondaryjrequirements of
§§ 265.193 (bmnd (c) must: (iftnclude in
the closure plf/i for the tank system
under § 265.112 both a plan for
complying with paragraph (a) of this
section and a contingent plan for
complying with paragraph (b) of this
section in case not all contaminated soil
can be practicably removed at closure;
and (ii) prepare a contingent post-
closure plan under § 265.118 for
complying with paragraph (b) of this
. section in case not all contaminated soil
can-practicably be removed at closure!
(e) The cost estimates for closure and
post-closure care must be calculated in
accordance with the requirements under .
§§265.142 and 265.144, respectively.
§ 265.198 Special requirements for
ignitable or reactive wastes.
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste must
not be placed in a tank system, unless:
(1) The waste is treated, rendered, or
mixed before or immediately after
placement in the tank system so that
(i) The Tesujting waste, mixture, or
dissolved material no longer meets the
definition of ignitable or reactive waste
under §§ 2(51.21 or 261.23 of this
Chapter, arid
. (ii) Section 265.17(b) is complied with;
br-;, ,,."'.- . ' '
(2) fife'waste is stored or treated in
such a way that it is protected from any
material ,br conditions that may cause
the'waste to ignite or react; or
•(3) Trie tank system is used solely for
emergencies^--
(b) The owner or operator of a facility
where ignitable or reactive waste is
stored or treated in tanks must comply
"with the requirements for the
maintenance of protective distances
between the waste management area '
and any public ways, streets, alleys, or
an-adjoining property line that can be
built upon as required in: Tables 2-1
through 2-6fof the"National Fire
Protection Association's "Flammable
find Combustible Liquids Code" (1977 or
1981), (incorporated by references, see
§260.11). I '
§265.199 Special requirements for '
incompatible wastes.
(a) Incompatible wastes, or .
incompatible wastes and materials,
must not be placed in the same tank
system, unless § 265.17(b) is complied "
with. •:[_. '•-.-' ••-,-.-..'
(b) Hazardous waste must not be
placed in an; unwashed tank that
previously held an incompatible waste
or material, unless § 265.17(b) is
complied with.
PART 270HEPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
. !'
40 CFR Part 270 is amended as
follows: I .'•-.; :'.
20. The authority citation for Part 270
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1008, 2002, 3005, 3007, 3019,
and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act 'of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905, 6912, 69215, 6927, 6939, and 6974).
§270.14 [Amended] .
21. It is proposed to amend § 270.14(b)
General information requirements in
paragraph (b)(5) by removing reference
to "264.194" and adding "264.195"; and
in paragraph (b)(7) by adding "264.196,"
-------
26504 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 123 / Wednesday. June 26, 1985 / ProposedRulei^
prior to". . . specific requirements in
§§" and "264.227."
22. It is proposed to amend § 270.16,
Specific Part B information requirements
for tanks, by revising it to read:
§ 270.16 Specific Part B Information
requirements for tank systems.
Except as otherwise provided in
§ 264.190, owners and operators of
facilities that use tanks to store or treat
hazardous waste must provide the
following additional information:
(a) A written assessment by^a
registered professional engineer as to
the structural integrity and suitability
for handling hazardous waste of each
tank system, as required under
§ 264.191;
(b) Dimensions and capacity of the
tank;
(c) Description of feed systems, safety
cutoff, bypass systems, and pressure
controls (e.g., vents);
(d) A diagram of piping,
instrumentation, and process flow for
each tank system;
(e) A description of materials and
equipment used to provide external >
corrosion protection, as required under
§264.191(0);
[f) For new tank systems, a detailed
description of how the tank system(s)
will be installed hi compliance with
§ 264.192 (b), (c), and (d);
(g) Detailed plans and description of
how the secondary-containment system
for each tank system is or will be
designed, constructed, and operated to
meet the requirements of § 264.193 (a),
(b), (c). (d), and (e);
(h) For tank systems not in
compliance with the secondary-
containment requirements of § 264.193
(a) [b), (c) (d), and (e) the following:
(1) All plans, reports and other
information required under § 270.14(c);
and
(2) Detailed plans and description of
the partial secondary-containment
system for aboveground portions of the
tank system(s), as required under
§ 264.193(f);
(i) For tank systems for which an
exemption from the requirements of
§ 264.193 is sought (as provided by
§ 264.193(i)), detailed plans and
engineering and hydrologic reports, as
appropriate, describing alternate design
and operating practices that wilK in
conjunction with location aspects,
prevent the migration of any hazardous
constituents into the ground water or
surface water at any future time;
(j) Description of controls and
practices to prevent spills and
overflows, as required under
§ 264.194(b); and
(k) For tank systems in which
ignitable, reactive, or incompatible
wastes are to be stored or treated, a
description of how operating procedures
and tank system and facility design will
achieve compliance with the
requirements of §§ 264.198 and 264.199.
§270.72 [Amended]
23. It is proposed to amend § 270.72(e),
Changes during interim status, by«
adding the following sentence after the
last sentence:
* * * Changes under this section do not
include changes made solely for the
purpose of complying with requirements
of,§ 265.193 for tanks and ancillary
equipment.
* * ^.. * * * * .
[FR Doc. 85-14970 Filed 6-25-85; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-5O-M
-------
V
-------
------- |