Thursday
October 9, 1986
L ^
Part If
40 CFR Parts 262, 265, find 271
Hazardous, Waste" Management System;:.-,-'
'Hazardous Waste Accufl^tairoiT Tank' '. :.,
System: Standards for Generators.:of 100;
to 1S000 Kilograms Per Month; Proposed,
' "
-------
36342
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1986 / Proposed
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 262,265, and 271
ISWH-FRU-3028-9]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Hazardous Waste
Accumulation Tank System Standards
for Generators of 100 to 1,000
Kilograms Per Month
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION; Proposed rule. .
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today proposing to
subject generators of 100 to 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month
who accumulate hazardous waste in
tank systems prior to off-site shipment
to new standards. These are the same
tank system rules promulgated on July
14,1986 (51 FR 25422) for larger
generators under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The proposed regulatory
amendments would require that 100-
1,000 kilograms per month generators
perform periodic leak assessments of
their hazardous waste accumulation
tank systems and provide secondary
containment for all new and leaking
tank systems. They also would require
all existing tank systems to be provided
with secondary containment by the time
they reach 15 years of age. EPA is also
soliciting comments and information on
a,number of alternative regulatory
options that are being considered for
these generators.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 7,1987.
The proposed Parts 262,265, and 271
standards applicable to 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators would take effect six months
after the date of publication in the
Federal Register of the final rules.
AOORKSSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to: EPA RCRA Docket (S-212)
(WH-562), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Place the docket # F-88-RTSQ-FFFFF
on your comments. For additional
details about the OSW docket see the
"Supporting Documents" section in
"Supplementary Information."
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, (800)
424-9346, (in Washington, DC, call 382-
3000), the Small Business Hotline, (800)
308-5888, or William J. Kline, (202) 382-
7S17, Office of Solid Waste (WH-565A),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
below:
I. Authority
II. Background
A. May 19,1980 Regulations
B. Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984
C. June 26,1985 Proposed Rules for Tank
Systems
D. August 1,1985 Proposed Rules for
Generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo
E. March 24,1986 Final Rules for
Generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo
F. July 14,1986 Final Rules for Hazardous
Waste Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems
G. Summary of This Proposed Rule and
Request for Comments
III, Proposed Strategy to Regulate
Accumulation Tank Systems of 100-1,000
kg/mo Generators
A. Summary of Approach Adopted in the
July 14,1986 Final Tank System Rules
B. Approach to Regulating Accumulation
Tank Systems of 100-1,000 kg/mo
Generators
C. Basis for Proposal and Alternative
Regulatory Approaches; Request for
Comments
1. Request for Comment on Alternative
Approaches
2. Risk Analysis
3. Economic Analysis
4. Effective Dates
5. Request for Comments
D. Regulation of Underground Product
Storage Tanks under Subtitle I (the UST
Program)
E. Relationship of Proposed Regulation to
Section 3014 of RCRA (Used Oil)
F. Explanation of Proposed Regulatory
Language
IV. Impact on Authorized States >
A. Applicability in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VIII. Supporting Documents
IX. List of Subjects
Appendix AEconomic AnalysisSummary
I. Authority
These regulations are being proposed
under authority of sections 2002, 3001,
3002, 3004, and 3006 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1970, ,as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912,
6921, 6922, 6924, and 6926).
II. Background
In the following discussion on the
statutory and regulatory requirements
applicable to 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators, it may be useful to
distinguish among three classes of
regulated persons. The first class
consists of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
who accumulate up to 6,000 kg of
hazardous wastes on-site for 180 days or
less (or 270 days if the waste must be
shipped more than 200 miles). These
generators are the subject of today's
proposal, and are the only class for
which the Agency is today requesting
comment on possible tank system
requirements. The second class consists
of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators who store
hazardous waste on-site for more than
180 (or 270) clays. These generators, as
of March 1987, are subject to full Parts
264 and 265 requirements, including the
new Subpart J tank system requirements
promulgated on July 14,1986. The third
class consists of off-site treatment,
storage or disposal (TSD) facilities who
accept hazardous waste from 100-1,000
kg/mo generators. These facilities must
comply with full Parts 264 and 265
requirements, as of September 22,1986,
and with the new Subpart J
requirements, as of January 12,1987.
A. May 19,1980 Regulations
On May 19,1980, EPA promulgated
hazardous waste management
regulations applicable to generators and
transporters of hazardous waste and to
interim status facilities that treat, store,
or dispose of hazardous waste (see 45
FR 33088). As part of these regulations,
EPA adopted special requirements in 40
CFR 262.34 which, if met by generators
, of hazardous waste, would allow them
to accumulate hazardous waste on-site
for 90 days in tanks or containers
without having to obtain a RCRA permit
as a storage or treatment facility. If the -
waste is placed in tanks, the generator
must comply with Subpart J of 40 CFR
Part 265. 40 CFR 262.34(a)(l).
Under 40 CFR 261.5 of the 1980 .
regulations, generators of less than 1,000
kilograms per month of non-acutely
hazardous waste were conditionally
exempt from most of the requirements of
Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, the
requirements of 40 CFR Subpart J, for
storage and treatment of hazardous
waste in tanks did not apply to these
small quantity generators who met the
conditions for exemption.
B. Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 . "
The Hazardous.and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 added a
new section 3001(d) to RCRA, which
modified this regulatory exemption for
small quantity generators. New section
3001(d) directs EPA to promulgate, no
later than March 31,1986, standards
applicable to generators of between 100
and 1,000 kilograms per month of
hazardous waste ("100-1,000 kg/mo
generators").
Section 3001 (d) standards must
require that all treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste generated
-------
38344 Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1988 / Pfopbsed Rules
the'final rules is provided based upon a
showing of equivalent protection of
human health and the environment as
that provided by secondary containment
-through the use of an alternative tank
system design and operating conditions
and/or hydrogeologic setting. A
variance may also be granted by the,
Regional Administrator following a
showing that a tank system would pose
no substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the
environment, even in the event of a
release of its contents to ground water
or surface water. : -
The rules provide for a phase-in of the
secondary containment and leak
detection requirements for existing tank
systems. Non-leaking existing tank
systems must be replaced or retrofitted
with secondary containment and leak
detection by the time the tank system
, reaches 15 years of age.
As explained in the remainder of this
preamble, tank systems utilized by 100-
1,000 kg/mo generators who accumulate
hazardous waste in tank systems prior
to off-site shipment do not as aresult of;
the July 14,1986 final rules become
subject to the secondary containment
and leak detection requirements.
Instead, today, the Agency is proposing
to .subject these generators tojfe final
tank system rules and is invifmg
comments and supporting information
on alternative regulatory strategies.
The Agency strongly encourages all
readers to become familia£_w|;| the July
14,1988 final rule and accompanying
preamble [51 PR 25422), to assist the
reader in understanding today's
proposed rulemaking. ,
G, Summary of This Proposed Rule and
Request for Comments
At the time of the March 24,1986
ruiemaking, tfie Agency had notjudged
whether protection of human health and
the environment required imposing
requirements beyond those contained in
the then existing Subpart J for lOOr-1,000
kg/mo generators accumulating
hazardous waste in tanks for 180 (or
270) days. Since that timejjhe Agency
has completed its risk analysis, which
includes anfssessment otthe risks
posed by sn|ll accumulation tanks. The
Agency hasflso evaluated.the economic
impact that feese proposed tank system
regulations ifould impose Cti ioo-1,000
kg/mo generators. Based on\js
information, the Agency is today
proposing that lOOfl.OQO kg/mo
generators who accumulate hazardous
waste in tank systems for 180 (or 270)
days be made subject to those portions
of the new
promulgated in the July 14,1986 Federal
Register (51 FR 25422), that apply to
generators of greater than 1,000 kg/mo
who accumulate hazardous waste in
tank systems. The Agency's risk
analysis demonstrates that even small
release volumes of the waste streams
associated with 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators may pose a risk to human
health and the environment. In addition,
the risk analysis indicates that
secondary containment is the most.
effective and reliable method for
reducing the risk posed by such tank
systems.
, The Agency has determined, based on
data and information currently
available, that secondary containment is
the preferred option for protecting
against the risks posed by 100-1,000 kg/
mo generator accumulation tank
systems. Other strategies for protecting
against leaking tank systemsiiave been
suggested and considered by-EPA, but
available data show them to be less
protective than the approach taken by
the Agency in the final tank system
regulations.
While the Agency has determined
from its economic assessment that the
secondary containment requirements
would not have severe economic
impacts on 100-1,000 kg/mo generators,
it will consider varying the requirements ,
if they are shown to be unduly
burdensome. The economic burden of
the requirements on 100^-1,000 kg/mo
generators is of special concern to EPA
because, for those generators, EPA must
give weight to economic impacts where
alternatives exist which provide
comparable protection of human health
and the environment. Similar
^ considerations also apply in the cases of
regulation of underground product
storage tanks and used oil tanks. As
explained in later sections of this
preamble, EPA does not believe that
regulations for each of these three types
of tank systems must necessarily be the
same as the regulations for other
hazardous waste tank systems. The
Agency will consider alternative
regulatory approaches if they
adequately protect against the risks
posed by these tanks. A number of
potential options are discussed below.
Although EPA has previously received
comments suggesting that these
generators' tank systems present lower
risks than other hazardous waste tank
systems and comments suggesting
alternatives to secondary containment,
these comments have not been
sufficiently supported by data or
information. Section III.C.2. below
contains a more detailed discussion of
comments received. If more complete
verifiable data and information are .
submitted to show that the entire ,
population or subsets of these tank
systems do present lower risks than.
other hazardous waste tank systems or
that alternatives to secondary
containzrient would be adequately
protective, the Agency will consider
adopting !alternative' technical
requirements as well as reducing any
associateid administrative requirements.
EPA does not believe that
accumulation tank system regulations
for 100-i;oOO kg/mo generators must
necessarily be the same as those
adopted for other generators, especially
in view of the economic impacts that
might result. However, in the absence of
data showing that risks -from these tank
systems can be adequately addressed
by alternative; measures, theAgency has
chosen to propose the same approach
adopted for other hazardous waste tank
systems. Therefore, it is important that
commenters provide additional
information to supplement the limited
data that; the Agency has available to it. .
The Agency seeks information on all
aspects of accumulation of hazardous
wastes in tank systems.by lOOr-1,000 kg/
mo generators. Specifically, the Agency
is interested in receiving information on:
Hazardous waste characterization (i.e^,
types of hazardous waste and
constituents and constituent ''
concentrations); the prevalence of
accumulation of hazardous waste in "
tank systems by production process .and .
industrial sector; current accumulation
tank system design and operating
practices', differentiated by new versus
existing tank systems (e.g., above
ground versus underground, indoor
versus out of doors, and proximity to
drinking water supplies and sources);
and historic information on tank system-
leakage and resultant human health and,
environmental impacts.
The Agency invites comments and
information that both support and refute
currently: available information that is
discussed throughout this preamble.
While ho one commenter or even a
group of commenters is likely to have
access to all of the information the',
Agency is seeking, all interested parties
are encouraged to provide whatever
information they have available. After
reviewing all the information submitted
in response to this proposed'rulemaking,
the Agency will be in a much better
position to pursue any remaining data
gaps. | r ,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1986 / Proposed Rules
36343
by 100-1,000 kg/mo generators occur at
facilities wiih interim status or a permit.
However, the standards must allow
generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo to store
hazardous waste for 180 days without
the need for interim status or a RCRA
permit (or for 270 days if the waste is
shipped or hauled over 200 miles for off-
site storage, treatment, or disposal]. No
more than a total of 6,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste may be stored on site
at any one time.
Section 30Ql(d) requires that EPA
promulgate standards, sufficient to
protect human health and the
environment, for the management of
hazardous waste from generators of
100-1,000 kg/mo. Such standards would
include those applicable to
accumulation of hazardous waste in
tank systems for 180 (or 270) days.
During the last twelve months, EPA has
addressed the subject of requirements
for accumulation of hazardous waste
from 100-1,000 kg/mo generators in four
notices of rulemaking, discussed
chronologically below.
C. June 26,19S5 Proposed Rules for Tank
Systems
On June 28,1985, EPA proposed
regulations applicable to the storage and
treatment of hazardous waste in tank
systems (see 50 FR 26444). These
proposed amendments to the existing
standards were designed to meet the
mandates of HSWA sections 30Q4(o)(4)
and 3004(w), and to modify certain
existing tank standards that have
proved unworkable or ineffective.
Specifically, EPA proposed in part that
all tank systems subject to the 90-day
accumulator provisions of 40 CFR 262.34
have full secondary containment.
At the time of the proposal, generators
of less than 1,000 kg/mo of hazardous
waste were conditionally exempt from
RCRA regulations, in accordance with
40 CFR 261,5. Thus, such conditionally
exempt small quantity generators were
not specifically addressed with regard to
the proposed requirements for
secondary containment for hazardous
waste treatment and storage tank
systems or the proposed requirements
for tank system integrity assessments or
associated administrative requirements.
Instead, the June 26 proposal stated that
the Agency would decide on appropriate
40 CFR Subpart J tank system
requirements to apply to small quantity
generators in the proposed rulemaking
for 100-1,000 kg/mo generators under
section 3001(d). In addition, the Agency
solicited comments on options for
regulating the storage of hazardous
waste in tank systems by small quantity
generators and the impact of the
proposed tank system regulations upon
such generators (see 50 FR 264,88).
D. August 1,1985 Proposed Rules for.
Generators of 100-1,000 Kg/Ma
On August 1,1985, EPA proposed
regulations applicable to the generation,
transportation, and treatment, storage,
and disposal of non-acutely hazardous
waste from 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
(see 50 FR 31278). Among the proposed
requirements, which the Agency
believed necessary to protect human
health and the environment, were rul.es
applicable to generators who
accumulate hazardous waste in tanks ,
for 180 days (or 270 days where the
waste was to be shipped or hauled a
distance greater than 200 miles) for
amounts less than 6,000 kilograms. In
essence, the proposed regulations for
on-site accumulation by 100-1,000 kg/
mo generators were the same as then
existing requirements under § 262.34 for
generators of greater than 1,000 kg/mo
who accumulate hazardous wastes in
tanks for 90 days. However, in
recognition of the small business nature
of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators, the
Agency did propose to simplify some
administrative aspects of the
requirements, such as requiring less
formal and paper-work intensive
contingency plans and employee
training.
With regard to the specific
requirements for accumulation of
hazardous waste in tanks., the Agency
proposed that the then existing 40 CFR
Subpart J requirements would apply to
100-1,000 kg/mo generators. In so doing,
the Agency did not propose that 100-
1,000 kg/mo generators who accumulate
in tanks become subject to the revised
tank system standards proposed on June
26,1985.'The August 1,1985 proposal
incorporated by reference the June 26,
1985 proposed amendments to the
Subpart J tank, system requirements for
generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo who store,
hazardous waste in tank systems-for
longer than 180 (or 270) days. These tank
systems were proposed to be subject to
full regulation under Parts 264 and 265 of
the hazardous waste, regulations as a
hazardous waste facility, since the
Agency saw no basis for distinguishing
these tank systems from other
hazardous waste facilities.
However, the preamble explained that
the Agency had not yet determined
whether the proposed amendments to
Subpart J of Part 265 requiring
secondary containment for short-term
accumulation tank systems should also :
be applied to generators; of 100-1,000 kg/
mo since the Agency had not yet
completed an assessment of the
potential risks which such accumulation
tank systems may pose.
EL March 24, 1986 Final Rules for
Generators of 100-1,000 Kg/Mo
On March 24,1986,, the Agency issued
final regulations applicable to the
generation, transportation and
treatment, storage, and disposal of non-
acutely hazardous waste from 100-1,000
kg/mo generators (see 51 FR 10146). As
was proposed, the Agency applied,
under § 262.34, the existing (as of March
24,1986) 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart J
requirements to 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators who accumulated hazardous
waste in tanks. Thus, generators of100
1,000 kg/mo of hazardous waste who
accumulate hazardous waste in tanks
for 180 (or 270) days would Hot
automatically become subject to the
amendments to Subpart J. Of course,
generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo of
hazardous waste who store their waste
in tanks for periods of time greater than
180 (or 270) days or who are otherwise
required to obtain interim status or a
permit would become subject to the new
Subpart J requirements, consistent with
the Agency's August 1,1985 proposal.
F.July 14, 1986 Final Rules for
Hazardous Waste Storage and
Treatment Tank Systems
On July 14,1986, the Agency issued
final amendments to the regulations
applicable to the accumulation, storage
or treatment of hazardous waste in tank
systems [see 51 FR 25422). These
amended regulations, which will
become effective on January 12,1987,
will apply to all hazardous waste
generators and owners or operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities except for handlers of
hazardous waste which is- conditionally
exempt from regulation pursuant to
§ 261.5, and except for 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators who accumulate hazardous
waste in tanks in accordance with
§ 262.34(d).
These final amendments are
discussed in detail in section III.A. of
this preamble. In brief, the final
regulations require that secondary
-containment with leak detection be
provided for all new and existing tank
systems that are used for the
accumulation,, storage, or treatment of
hazardous waste. Th& rules include
technical standards for the design,
installation, and operation of hazardous
waste tank systems. The rules also
impose administrative requirements for
tank system integrity assessments,, leak
testing, recordkeeping, and reporting. An
opportunity for a variance from the
secondary containment requirements of
-------
' ; - f «, .*?* y i / t n * fj ?~j
FederarRegister / Volj gl. ^°: 196 I/Thursday, October 9, 1986. / Proposed Rules
.
36345
HI. Proposed.Strategy To Regulate
Accumulation-Tank Systems of 100-
1,000 kg/mo -Generators'..''
A. Summary of Approach Adopted in
the July 14,1986 Final Tank System
Rules . -..-; ." . -." -'-';.-
As explained in detail in the preamble
to the July 14,. 1986 final tank system
rules (51 FR 25422)^ the Agency's overall
strategy for accomplishing the statutory
goal of protecting human health and the
environment from the risks-posed by
hazardous, waste-storage and treatment-
facilities is to prevent the; migration of
hazardous waste constituents, to ground
and surface waters where such releases
may present a risk to-human health and -.
the; environment. A key element of the .
overall strategy is the need to detect ,..
releases in a.timely manner so that an;
appropriate response.can be made.
The Agency's overall risk
management strategy has evolved from
th&fpllowing considerations. Firsft there
is^a need to address further regulation'of
hazardous waste tank systems because
the current situation most likely
-presents significant risks. A number of
studies have, shown that tank systems
are likely to be leaking or are likely to
leak in,the future. Releases from tank
systems are likely to contaminate
ground water, posing risks to human
health and the environment. v-_
. Second, based on EPA's. review:ofthe
technical options, as well as the,
rationale expressed in the preamble to.
the. January 12,1981 hazardous waste
.tank regulations, the Agency has
concluded that a regulatory approach
that emphasizes secondary containment
with leak detection both satisfies the
statutory objective and is consistent
with the function of tank systems-as
storage,, rather than disposal,units.
The regulatory strategy promulgated
on July 14,1986. is applicable to tank
.systems.'.npt only to the, tanks;. ,
themselves, as had been the case
previously. The Agency has, received
new information showing that there is a
high potential for release not just from
tanks themselves, but also from
ancillary equipment such as piping,
fittings and /valves. "
While the focus of these regulations is
on se condar jr containment, the Agency
recognizes that secondary containment
ia not always necessary to achieve the:
statutory 'bb jectiv.es;. -
Accordingly, the Agency has included'
in the regulations the opportunity to.
obtain variances from the' secondary : "-
containment requirements. The. variance
opportunity is discussed in detail in the
preamble to the, July 14,1986 final rules
(51 ER 25451-25453). "--.."
The variance opportunity is available
to 90-day .accumulators. andJriterim
status as well as permitted hazardous
waste management facilities. A variance
may be granted by the Regional^
Administrator following.submission of
information that demonstrates that (1)
alternative design andoperating
practices, together with location
characteristics, will be as effective as
secondary containment in preventing
migration of hazardous waste or
constituents into, ground water or
surface .water, or (2) no substantial -
present or potential hazard would be:
posed to human: health or the;
environment even in the: event of a .
release from tiie tank system. Only .the
first variance basis (i.e., equivalent
design, operation, and location) is
available to new underground tank
systems utilized by.interim status
facilities or 90-day accumulators
because section 3004(p)(4) of RCRA
requires that altnew underground tanks
have leak detection systems that detect
leaks at the ''earliest practicable time."
,_ The principal .reliance on secondary
containment does not mean that all
existing tank systems must be equipped
with secondary containment
immediately. The regulations provide for
an orderly phase-in of secondary
containment for existing tank systems.
The major features .of the Agency's
risk management strategy for hazardous
waste tank systems, as: expressed in the7
final hazardous waste tank system rules,
are summarized helow. -
The first is/the maintenance ofthe
integrity of the primary containment
structure. For both new and existing:
tank systems, the final rule requires that
the primary tank system, be designed'
properly and that it is compatible with
the wastes that are1 stored Or treated. .;
For existing- tank systems not fitted with
a secondary containment system, a tank
integrity-test must be conducted by the
owner/operator within 12 months of the .
effective date of the final rules (i.e;,
January 12,. 1988) to identify leaks from
the primary tank system. To ensure the ;
integrity of metal tank systems7,"''all new
metal tank systems in which all or part
pf the system is pr'will be-in contact
with the soil or with; water are required
to be evaluated for corrosion potential
by a corrosion expert. As a protective
measure for cathodie corrosion
protection devices, the'rule requires
regular inspection/testing of saerifi'cial
anode potential and.impressed current
sources. "
The second feature of: the Agency's
overall regulatory approach of effective-
containment of wastes is proper .
. installation of new tank systems. The .
final rules require an independent^
qualified installation inspector or .
professional engineerto certify that the-
tank system';is'structurally sound before
'_ installatibn iind that proper handling .
procedures are adhered to during
installatiphJrTank systeins must be
tested for tightness prior to use. Tanks
and piping must be supported properly,
and corrosion protection must be
installed if rieeded« The design and
installation requirements are intended
.to prevent tank system faihire and leaks
due to improper design, and installation
practices, which are known to be major
causes of 'tanksystem failures. These
requirements can also lead to long-term;
prevention C'f leaks due'to structural
failure and/or eorrpsion.
The third ifeature pf the Agency's
containjtnent^approach is secondary
containment; with leak detection to
collect-and detect leaks froni the
primary conlfai'nment vessel. Despite the
provisions for new tank systems .'
requiring proper design, installation; and
operation of ithe: primary containment
system, available data show thatieaks
are still likely to occur. The-function of
the secondary containment and leak
detection system is to ensure that leaks
are detected before they migrate, beyond
the zone of engineering control (i.e., an
area under tl&e control of the owner/ "
operator that, upon detection of a-
hazardous wasteTelease, can be readily
cleaned up-prior to the release of
hazardous cibnstituents to ground water
or surfaee waters). The secondary ^ "
containment system collects and
: contains releases from the primary
containment vessel so-that releases can
be. detected-ljjefforerthey migrate to the ^-!
environnient. The leak detection system
allows prompt detection of any'release.
from the primary system to the "", -.".
secondary cdntainment system. The rule
provides design standards for vaults,
exteripr linens, and dpubfewalled tank
secpndary c<)ntaihment systems;
/ . The-ffhal rules require secondary
containment; for new tank systems and
existing tanl; systems that are found to.
be leaking bijfore they:are placed or
returned intcf service; In addition, r
owners arid bperators of existing tank
systems are required to install
secondary containment within two-
years of the date of promulgation of "the
final rule if storing or treating certain
listed dioxin-cpritaining wastes or; in the
case pf other hazardpus'wastes, within
two years pr by the time the'tank system
reaches 15 years pf age, whichever -
comes- later. In the event that the age of
the tank system is unknown, EPA;will;;
assume, based on its study pf the age .
distribution i5f hazardous waste tanks,
that the-tank system is seven years-old,
-------
36346
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1986 / Proposed Rules
the median age of all hazardous waste
tanks, unless the facility at which the
tank system is located is known to be
older than seven years of age. In the
latter instance, secondary containment
would be required within two years, or
by the time the facility reaches 15 years
of age, whichever comes later. Tanks
systems without full secondary
containment are subject to periodic
integrity assessments. Variances from
the secondary containment
requirements may be granted to
permitted, interim status, and
accumulation tank systems if the owner
or operator demonstrates that
hazardous wastes or constituents will
not migrate into the ground water or
surface water or that, in the event of a
release that does migrate to ground
water or surface water, no substantial
present or potential hazard will be
posed to human health or the
environment.
The final feature of EPA's regulatory
approach incorporates provisions for
adequate responses to releases of
hazardous waste to the environment.
The final rules require that all
significant releases be reported, either to
the Regional Administrator under RCRA
or to the National Response Center
under CERCLA regulations. In addition,
immediate action must be taken to
identify and stop the release, including,
if necessary, emptying that part of the
tank system found to be leaking until the
leak has been stopped. The final rule
requires that a qualified, registered
professional engineer certify that major
repairu have been properly made before
a leaking tank system is returned to
service. The final rule also requires that
secondary containment with leak
detection be provided for any
component (i.e., tank or ancillary
equipment) of the repaired tank system
that is underground. In addition, if a
leak has occurred in any portion of a
tank system component that is not
readily accessible for visual inspection,
the entire component must be provided
with secondary containment with leak
detection prior to being returned to
service. EPA is also requiring owners or
operators of tank systems to provide
adequate closure, and, if necessary,
post-closure care. All wastes and all
contaminated components, soils,
structure, and equipment must be
removed from the site at closure, or the
site must be provided with post-closure
care similar to that required for landfills.
EPA concluded in the final rule that
since there is no significant difference
with respect to the risks posed by 90-
day accumulation tank systems and the
general hazardous waste tank system
population, these tank systems should
be managed in the same way, to the
extent possible; as any hazardous waste
tank system.
EPA also concluded that 90-day
accumulation tank systems should be
able to qualify for variances from
secondary containment. Thus, the final
rule requires that owners/operators of
90-day accumulation tank systems
comply with many requirements of the
final Part 265, Subpart J, including:
A one-time assessment of the tank
system, as discussed above, including
the results of an integrity test;
Installation standards;
Design standards including an
assessment of corrosion potential;
Secondary containment phase-in
provisions;
Periodic leak testing if the tank
system does not have secondary
containment; and
Additional response requirements
to a leak, including a report to the
Regional Administrator of the extent of
the release and requirements for repair
or replacement of leaking tanks.
Variance provisions that had been
provided in the proposal only for
permitted and interim status tank
systems are available to 90-day
accumulation tank systems.
The final rule does not require that
owners/operators of 90-day
accumulation tank systems comply with
the final Part 265, Subpart J
requirements for preparation of closure
and post-closure plans, contingent
closure and post-closure plans, financial
responsibility requirements, and waste
analysis and trial tests. Unlike off-site
commercial hazardous waste storage
and treatment facilities where a wide
variety of hazardous wastes are
managed, generators generally produce
and would thus store or'treat wastes
that are relatively consistent in terms of
their physical/chemical properties.
Thus, EPA does not believe that waste
analysis and trial tests must be
conducted by generators of hazardous
waste because of their familiarity with
the wastes that they generate. In
addition, EPA is conducting a review of
the requirements that are imposed on
owners/operators of accumulation tank
systems and will address the issues of
closure and post-closure, contingent
closure and post-closure, and financial
assurance requirements for
accumulation tank systems as part of
this review. An Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that was
published on July 14,1986 (51 FR 25487)
requested public comments with respect
to imposing these requirements at
accumulation tank systems and
otherwise discussed modifying the
existing exemption for accumulation
tank systems from permitting.
B. Approach to Regulating
Accumulation Tank Systems of 100-
1,000 Kg/Mo Generators
As discussed in the proposed and
final rules for 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators (50 FR 31278, 51 FR 10146),
EPA is authorized under section
3001(d)(2) of RGRA to vary standards
for these generators.. While Congress
intended EPA to take into account
impacts on 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
in developing standards, it also directed
that these standards be adequate to
protect against the risks associated with
hazardous waste management activities.
EPA's approach in the March 24,1986
rule regulating accumulation of
hazardous wastes by these generators
was to relieve them from administrative
impacts rather than technical
requirements. This approach was based
on a careful balancing of the two goals
of avoiding unreasonable burdens on
these generators and protecting human
health and the environment. Clearly, the
technical requirements under Subtitle C
are more essential than administrative
requirements to the goal of protecting
human health and the environment
because they are directly concerned
with controlling releases to the
environment. The Agency concluded
that protection of human health and the
environment overrode the potential
economic impacts that the Subtitle C
technical standards may cause.
In considering whether the Subpart ]
tank system amendments should be
varied for 100-1,000 kg/mo generators,
the Agency has conducted a similar
analysis by balancing the risks
associated with accumulation of
hazardous wastes by these generators
against the impacts from requiring
compliance with the July 14,1986 finail
hazardous waste tank system standards,
including secondary containment. The
Agency has considered whether the
impacts, in light of the risks posed,
would justify reducing or eliminating
any technical or administrative aspects
of the tank system standards.
The Agency has concluded, based on
its economic analysis (see Appendix A),
that imposing the full set of tank system
standards would not have a significant
" economic impact on most 100-1,000 kg/
mo generators. It has also decided,
based upon current information and in
particular its risk analysis, that given
the risks posed by these tank systems,
application of the full tank system
requirements to these generators is the
preferred regulatory approach. While it
-------
Federal Register, y Vol. 51, No. 198 / Thursday, October'9, 1986 V tepOKed JRules
38347
is arguable.that smaller generators''tank _
systems pose lesser jelatiyerisksJor a
given waste 'due to the smaller jelease
volumes that would be-assppiated with
these generators' tank\§ystems, .
(assuming that smaller generators have
smaller.tanks), EPAIs.risk analysis
indicates^that even small releases ^could
pose substantial Msks over time. Thus,
the same concerns-that .led the Agency
to adopt secondary containment
requirements for larger generators, such
as the record of .inevitable leaks from
primary tank systems overtime,'appear
to.be equally applicable to 100-1,000 kg/
mo generators. .,.
However/in deciding whether the
impacts of requiring the.full tank rsystem
/standards couldie-reducedfor these
generators without Compromising /
protection of health and environment,
the Agency'considered whether any
technical requirements :or reporting,
recordkeeping, -and other .administrative
requirements that are associated with
the technical standards .could be ;
reduced or eliminated. The Agency's
economic analysis showed-that varying "
one particular standardthe annual
integrity assessment requirementf
would have a relatively significant effect'
on the costs imposed by
-------
36348 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October j^Jjj86AjProposed Rules
order that should be construed as
indicative of the Agency's preferences,
a. Ratain Existing Subpartf
Requirements. The Agency will consider
retaining the existing Subpart ]
requirements (i.e., § 265.201) for one or
more subsets of 100-1,000 kg/mo
generator accumulation tank systems
that are shown to pose a low risk to
human health and the environment. For
example, certain tank systems may pose
low risks because any releases from
them may be easily detected and
corrected and may be of small volume.
Of course, in accordance with section
3004(o){4) of RCRA, new underground
tank systems will need to utilize a leak
detection system that is capable of
detecting leaks of hazardous
constituents at the earliest practicable
time. The Agency requests comment and
information on whether 100-1,000 kg/mo
generator accumulation tank systems
merit the existing less stringent
regulation due to the relatively low risks
involved.
b. Class Variances, In the August 1,
1985 proposal, EPA requested comment
on providing for a conditional
exemption from secondary containment
for 100-1,000 kg/mo generators who
store relatively small amounts of waste
for short periods. While several
commenters supported this option, they
did not submit information to specify the
criteria to be applied. For example,
some tank systems utilized by 100-1,000
kg/mo generators may be used to
accumulate relatively less hazardous
wastes or wastes in small volumes or
low concentrations. These conditions of
accumulation may not warrant full
secondary containment. Similarly,
indoor tank systems may pose low risks
because of ease of inspection and
detection of releases and the small
volume of any possible releases to the
environment. While today's proposal
does adopt the site-specific variance
opportunity and procedure (see
§ 205.193 (g) and (h)), EPA requests
comment on the possibility of class
variances from secondary containment
for specific groups of tank systems of
100-1,000 kg/mo generators that,
because of specific hazardous wastes,
volumes, or constituent concentrations,
present a low risk of harm to human
health and the environment. More
specifically, the Agency is seeking
information on particular combinations
of hazardous waste types and
constituents, environmental settings,
and system designs and operating
practices that pose a sufficiently low
risk to human health and the
environment such that existing tank
system requirements (i.e., § 265.201)
applicable to 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators who accumulate in tanks are
protective of human health and the
environment.
c. Inventory Monitoring. EPA requests
comment regarding the possibility that
inventory monitoring may be an
acceptable alternative to secondary
containment for specific groups of tank
systems of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators.
If releases from such tank systems could
be readily detected by monitoring, it
may serve as a viable regulatory
alternative to secondary containment.
Such an alternative would rely on
accurate monitoring and recordkeeping
to demonstrate that no significant
release had occurred. EPA requests
comment on what such inventory
monitoring requirements should be. For
example, the Agency seeks information
that demonstrates that the use of simple
volumetric measuring devices, such as
dip sticks or gravity flow meters, can
achieve a high degree of accuracy and
reliability in detecting releases from .
some or all tank systems utilized by
100^-1,000 kg/mo generators, which
would enable prompt corrective
measures and thereby reduce or prevent
significant impacts on human health or
the environment.
d. Unsaturated Zone Monitoring. As
discussed in the preamble, to the July 14,
1986 final hazardous waste tank system
rulemaking, unsaturated zone '
monitoring could be utilized in lieu of
secondary containment and leak ,
detection only through a successful
variance demonstration in accordance
with § 265.193 (g) and (h). The Agency is
aware that unsaturated zone monitoring
may be effective in early detection of
releases from a tank system in certain
situations where a combination of
volatile hazardous waste, porous-
backfill material, and proper installation
techniques are particularly well suited
to unsaturated zone monitoring
technologies. The Agency solicits
information on whether there are
classes of tanks containing specific
hazardous wastes that are amenable to
unsaturated zone monitoring to provide
prompt detection of leaks, even in the ,
absence of secondary containment. The
Agency is also seeking information on
whether there are hazardous wastes
generated and accumulated in tank
systems by 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
that are sufficiently volatile or exhibit
other physical or chemical properties
such that existing unsaturated zone
monitoring technology has been
demonstrated to be effective (i.e.,
capable of detecting in specific or most
environmental settings, quickly enough
to enable corrective measures which
would prevent significant impacts on;
human health or the environment).
e. Conditional Insurance Variance.
The Agency recognizes that the
insurance industry exercises some
degree of regulation when it establishes
conditions and rates for providing
environmental impairment and
corrective measure coverages. EPA
seeks comments on the ability of 100-
1,000 kg/mo tank system accumulators
to obtain such insurance at affordable
rates, even in the absence of federal
secondary containment requirements,
and on whether the .conditions for such ,
coverage would assure the Agency that
no significant risk to human health and
the environment would be posed by 100-
1,000 kg/mo generators who obtained
and-maintained insurance coverage. Do
some or all 100-1,000 kg/mo
accumulation tank systems pose small
enough risks that the insurance industry
would be willing to provide coverage at
affordable rates? What amount of
coverage might be available, affordable,
and sufficient to serve as an alternative
to secondary containment? Is the
viability of this alternative different for
new tank systems than it is for existing
tank systems?
f. Alternative Variance Mechanisms ,
and Submission Deadlines. In
accordance with today's proposal, 100-
1,000 kg/mo generators who accumulate
hazardous waste in tank systems could
seek a variance from the secondary
containment requirements by submitting
to the Regional Administrator either a
demonstratibh that an alternative tank
system design and operation would
provide protection equivalent to that
provided by secondary containment or a
demonstration that no substantial
present or potential risk would be posed
by a release from the generator's tank
system (see § 265.193 (g) and (h)).
However, the no substantial present or
potential risk opportunity for a variance
does not apply to new underground tank
systems because of the leak detection
requirement contained in section
3004(o)(4)ofRCRA.
While the Agency has been unable to
identify any additional justifiable bases
for granting 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
a variance from the. secondary
containment requirements, the Agency ,
seeks comments on the appropriateness
of the equivalent technology and the no
substantial risk bases with regard to
100-1,000 kg/mo accumulators,
Comments and information on >
additional bases for supporting such
variances are also requested.
Furthermore, EPA invites comment on
its assumption that most 100-1,000 kg/
mo generators will not choose to seek a
-------
Federal .Register /Vol. 51, No. 196 /Thursday, October 9, 1986 /.Proposed Rules
136349
variance from the secondary
containment requirements in: accordance'
with § 265.193:(g)and,(hj. Is .there :
/information, that would counter this ,
assumption? Could these generators file
a sufficient number of .notices of intent :
to seek a variance and submit actual :
-variance requests >that would overwhelm
EPA's and the States' ability to process
them-in-a timely fashion? Would
different submission;deadlines.av:oid
such-a possibility? .,
. g. Delayed Effective Dates. Another
option presented in the August 1,1985
proposal was to delay -the"effective date
of secondary containment requirements
for these generators. As-discussed in
section III.C.4. below-{"Effective
Dates"); the Agency-is proposing to
apply .the same phaserin requirements to
100-1,000 ,kg/mo generators as it is
applying to other generators. The
Agency requests comment on the
specific circumstances /applicable to
lOCM-1,000 kg/mo generators that may
warrant a delay ineffective dates.: EPA
also requests comment on its
assumption that there is an adequate
supply of reasonably priced technical
professionals able to .assist 100-1,000.
, kg/mo generators in complying with "
these proposed rules. Specifically, EPA
would like to know whether the demand
for these professionals will overwhelm
the .supply as a result of the large
number of 100-1,000 kg/mo .generators
thai would be brought under the tank " V
system regulations,;even.though "
generators would be subject to a later
implementation schedule.
- h., Site-Specific Effective .Dates.'The
Agency also requests comment onv: ,
whether it should provide site-by-site
effective dates for installing secondary
containment. EPA recognizes -that some
100-1,000 kg/mo generators are likely to
have tank systems not subject to
.Subpart J, some of which jnay be used:to
accumulate used oil and others which
may be used to store substances subject
to regulation under RCRA Subtitle L Are
multiple tank systems for hazardous
wastes, waste oil, and regulated
substances at the same facility more
common for 100.1,000 kg/mo generators :
than for larger quantity hazardous waste
generators? Will; any unreasonably high
implementation costs arise if the
hazardous waste tank system rules go
into effect before rules governing waste
oil and regulated substances go into
effect (e.g., .costs of piping and controls
for all tank systems located in the same
excavation trench}? Should the fact that
regulatory strategies, ofher than , .
secondary containment, may well .be
adopted 'by the Agency for generators of
recycled .used oil,or regulated
substances under Subtitle I of RCRA =
cause the Agency to defer promulgating
standards applicable to 10,0-1,000;kg/mo
generators whb accumulate nazardous
waste in tank systems until such time as
it .can promulgate a full set of standards
regarding accumulation :or storage of
RCRA regulated materials by these
generators? , .."".'-.,- :.'-.''
i. Inspection and Assessment
Frequencies. .If, based upon information
available to the Agency including
comments arid information submitted in
response to this proposal, the Agency
determines that .secondary containment
of tanlc systems :for accumulation of.
hazardous waste by 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators is necessary for protection of
human health and the environment,
there may still fae .specific .associated :
requirements that could be relaxed for
these hazardous waste generators. The
Agency inyites comment and
information that would support
requirements for less .frequent
inspections or assessments that must be 1
conducted on all existing tanks. For
example, the Agency would consider
requiring less frequent than annual, tank
system integrity assessments.
Information :should be submitted to
show that reducingthe frequency would
not result in significantTisk from
undetected releases. EPA will also
consider less frequent than daily
Inspections of tank system for leaks.
The Agency also invites comment on its
current estimates-of the economic
burden imposed as a result of today's
proposed requirements regarding
'integrity assessments and leak \
inspections. _..-' , :
]. Reduced'Administrative
Requirements.There .are a numberof ;.
recordkeeping and reporting ':
requirements that accompany the
proposed technical standards and that
the Agency would consider modifying if
;shown:to be unduly burdensome or
: unnecessary for proper implementation
of the technical requirements. For /
example, the Agency would consider
"waiving,or modifying the:requirement
that generators maintain an operating
log of, all Assessments .and leak .
inspections. : '.': - ~ ,
2. Risk Analysis
- This proposed rule for generators, of
"100-1,0.00 kg/rno hazardous waste tank
systems is supported by -a risk analysis
of a variety of hazardous waste storage
tank systems that was published by EPA
on March 17,1986 [51 FR 9072]. The ,. f
analysis, coinpared five regulatory
strategies for mitigating health threats ,.
from leaking hazardous waste storage ;.
tank systems. The analysis indicates
that secondary containment with leak
detection appears to be Ihe most
effective me!thodfor,.reducing risks ,-"-,.
associated w'ith hazardous waste tank
systems, including:the:150-,(or 270-) day
accumulatiqiri tank systems of
generators iif lOO-liOOO kg/mo. Based pn
the risk analysis reaultsfor all .,-
appropriateihazardousw;astetank ~.'{,;,,
systems, wa.ste streams, and ...
hydrogeolegic-setting combinations, the
possible regulatory strategies are ranked
" in .descending order of protectiveness:
(1) Secondary containment with leak
detection; (2i) partial secondary, :
containmenlt and groundwater ,. ,
monitoring; ;(3) leak testing and :
groundwater monitoring; (4J corrosion
protection without leak detection? and
(5) existing regulation, which serves as a
.baseline. ,, .".. ; . ,:
The analysis of all five regulatory"
jscenarios allowed comparison between
the range pfsrisks posed by hazardous
waste tank systems :as they are
currently being-managed and under
technical requirements :setfqrth in the
proposed regulatioiis/The estimated' ,
ffelativeTiskis posed by 100^1,000 kg/mb
hazardous waste accumulation tank
systems weie lower than from other ''i
types of tanlcisystems considered in the
Hazardous 5|(Vaste Tanks Risk Analysis.
Neverthelesis, :the analysis indicated that
short-term accumulation tank :systemS'Of
generators of 100^1,000 kg/mo-did pose
some risk, j. ..,.; . j.".. ..
'In addition, the Agency conducted .a
supplementEiry analysis to examine the
effectiveness.of .unsaturated zone ,
monitoring for hazardous Twaste tenks.
In evahiating the reliability of
unsaturatejd zone monitoring, the t ..
Agency assiuoaed: (1) Thatthe tank is a,
carbon steel-underground'tank \-'
containing tlie highly-v.olatile waste .
stream dichloromefhane; (.2) that the -
tank is located in :a homogeneous
backfill of Icnpwn permeability; (3) that
the ground water table is deep enough to
, allow detection of the leak prior to ':'..
ground water contamination; (4) that the
comppsitionjofthe waste stored in the
tank does .ncit vary over the time that.
unsaturated zone ;moriitdring is used; (5)
that the.mpnitoring welljs-located two
feet from the tank; and,(6] that the tank
owner/operator can affordperiodic /
clean up and. repair or replacement of
the .tank. Oyjerall, these assumptions ,:
result in an evaluation of unsaturated
zone monitoiring in ideal situations .
which include proper installation and
operating conditions. , -~~ '
Given assumptions such as these, the "
supplementary analysis, indicates that;
unsaturated ;zone monitoring isnearly -as
effective as siecondary containmbnt'in i
appropriate situations. However,'
-------
S6350
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196/ Thursday,
l86 / Proposed _Rules_
because its effectiveness is limited to
the specific conditions mentioned
above, EPA believes it would have been
inappropriate to assess its use for the
general range of conditions under which
the other regulatory options were
evaluated. As a result, the Agency has
not included unsaturated zone
monitoring in the overall risk reduction
ranking scheme with the other
regulatory alternatives.
The tank system risk analysis model
that supports this proposed rule requires
a large number of variables as inputs to
the model. These variables include
waste stream characterization, tank
management, and hydrogeologic
conditions.
Typical waste streams for generators
of 100-1,000 kg/mo were identified from
a survey of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
conducted by EPA.1 Waste streams with
similar toxicities and concentrations
were consolidated to simplify the risk
analysis. The waste streams modeled
were: (1) Spent solvents, ignitable
wastes, and ignitable paint wastes; (2)
waste pesticides, pesticide washing, and
rinsing solutions; (3) heavy metal
wastewater sludges, cyanide wastes,
spent plating wastes, and other reactive
wastes; (4) photographic wastes,
solutions, and sludges with photo silver,
(5) waste ink with solvents or heavy
metals, and ink sludges with chromium
or lead; (8) strong acid or alkaline
wastes; (7) filtration residues from dry
cleaning; and (8) wood preservative
wastewaters. The waste streams were
identified from the Agency's survey of
100-1,000 kg/mo generators.2 The exact
constituents and relative concentrations
were obtained, for the most part, from
information contained in the OSW
docket report, Economic Analysis of
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Regulations for Small Quantity
Generators, which was supported by the
RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Waste Stream
Data Base (July 1984) (commonly
referred to as the W-E-T Model Data
Base) and the TRW Analysis.8 *
The survey of 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators identified a large number of
generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo who
utilize hazardous waste tank systems.
Auto repair, services, and garages
1 National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste
Generator Survey. Abt Associates, Cambridge,
Mass, February 28,1935.
1 Ibid.
* 1CK Incorporated, Development Planning and
Research Associates, Inc., and Pope-Reid
Associates (June 1935),
4 TRW Environmental Engineering Division,
Technical Environmental Impacts of Various
Approaches for Regulating Small Volume
Hazardous Waste Generators, Vol. II, December
1879.
accounted for 33 percent of the 100-1,000
kg/mo generators storing hazardous
wastes. Auto dealers and gasoline
service stations accounted for an
additional 32 percent of those
establishments.
No other two digit SIC (Standard
Industrial Code) industry groups
accounted for more than 5 percent of the
generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo using
tank systems to store hazardous waste.
Approximately 4 percent of the
generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo using
tank systems to store hazardous waste
were in the painting, paperhanging, and
decorating industry, 3 percent were in
the primary metals industry, and about 2
percent each were in photofinishing,
trucking, and printing and publishing.
These data indirectly affect the risk -
analysis results by determining the
waste streams and constituents that
were modeled. The Agency is requesting
comment on the validity of these data
and their effects on the risk analysis for
100-1,000 kg/mo generators of
hazardous waste.
While the industries generating 100-
1,000 kg/mo of hazardous waste were
identified by the Agency's small
quantity generator survey, the exact
characteristics of these establishments
were not always identified. The number
of generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo using
tank systems was estimated to be 11,388
with 4,745 facilities having tank systems
above ground, 4,935 having tanks
underground, and 1,708 having tanks
both above and below ground. Each
establishment was assumed to have two
tank systems for a total tank system
population of approximately 23,000. All
tank systems were assumed to be
operated for short-term accumulation.
A variety of materials may be used to
construct tanks (e.g., carbon steel,
fiberglass-reinforced plastic, concrete)
and tanks may be located in a variety of
locations (e.g., above ground on cradles
or ongrade, completely underground,
partially underground). For the risk
analysis, the accumulation tank systems
of generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo were
assumed to be constructed of carbon
steel, located either above ground on
cradles or completely below ground. The
tanks were assumed to be small
capacity tanks holding 200 gallons and
to contain wastes stored for 180 days,
the maximum time allowed in the
proposed and final regulations for these
generators without requiring interim
status or a storage permit. ;
Releases were assumed to result from
any of five generic release types: (1)
Catastrophic events, (2) rupture of tank
components, (3) corrosion of system
components, (4) overflows during tank
filling, and (5)'spills over a 20-year time
horizon. For underground tanks of 100-
1,000 kg/mo generators, 80 percent of
the modeled scenarios experienced tank
corrosion failure, 60 percent of the
scenarios experienced weld or gasket
failure, and 30 percent of the scenarios
experienced loose hose connections. For
above-ground tank systems of
generators of 100 to 1,000 kg/mo, 74
percent of the scenarios experienced
weld or gasket failures of piping, 48
percent experienced overfilling, 44
percent of the scenarios experienced
tank corrosion, and 34 percent
experienced loose hose connections.
In the risk analysis for tank systems
of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators,
approximately 48 percent of the risk
estimates for above-ground tanks,
assuming the baseline case (i.e., current
rules), are associated with estimable
risk (i.e., some risk to human health is
likely). This contrasts with
approximately 13 percent nonzero risk
estimates for the same tank systems
assuming secondary containment with
leak detection. Results for underground
tank systems are similar to above-
ground tank systems with the baseline
case haying nonzero risk associated
with 56 percent of the risk estimates.
Secondary containment, on the other
hand, was associated with nonzero risk
estimates for approximately 5 percent of
the risk estimates.'
These risk estimates should not be
interpreted as absolute risks because
there were few data to confirm or refute
certain assumptions made in the
analysis; Some of the more significant
areas of uncertainty are the following:
(1) The failure model release estimates;
(2) the use of nine generic ground water
settings with representative parameters;
(3) waste constituent quantities and
concentrations; (4) the use of a single
exposure distance of 60 meters from a
hazardous waste tank; and (5) the
assumption that the exposed individual
uses the same source of ground water
over a 70-year lifetime.
Although the risk results should not
be interpreted as absolute, the analyses
are useful for comparisons between
regulatory alternatives and their
associated magnitudes of risk. In this
manner, the risk analysis provides an
indication of whether risks are likely to
be significant (a substantial proportion
of risk estimates are non-zero), and
which regulatory alternative is most
effective at reducing risk.
EPA invites comment on the general
accuracy and completeness of the
analysis for hazardous waste tank
systems o,f 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
and invites comment on the nature of
-------
°'
October 9.
fMptijeft Mules'
hazardous waste tank systems of 100-
1,000 kg/mo generators that would affect
the Agency's interpretation of the risk.
analysis results. Specifically, EGA is
requesting comment concerning'the
assumptions about: [1) Number of tank
systems of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
by industry; (2) waste types and
. concentration stored in these tank
systems; (3) the size :of these tank ,'
systems; (4) the location of these tank
systems (e.g., above ground,
.underground); (5} their proximity to
drinking water wells (e.g., 200 feet
downgradient of the tank system); (6) ,
tank system.age, design,; and operating
practices; and ,(7) tank system failure
causes and rates. ;-'-.-
EPA has already received comments
on the Hazardous Waste Tanks Risk
Analysis, which are addressed in a
background document to the final tank
system rule promulgated on July 14,
1986. Some cpmmenters suggested new
data or new tools lor Conducting such a
risk analysis. This section provides a
brief discussion of the information
provided by cpmmenters 'and the
Agency's current views on the adequacy
and relevance of the information in this
rulemaking. The Agency will carefully
cpnsider these comments along with
others Deceived in response to today's
proposal.
a. EPRI Model One of the
commenters suggested that the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Underground Tank Risk Management
System model be used to replace or
supplement the Hazardous Waste tank
Risk Analysis. The Office of Solid
Waste and the Office of Underground
Storage Tanks have reviewed this model
in terms of applicability to the
hazardous waste tank system and
underground product storage tank
programs. This model only examines the
costs~associated with managing an
underground tank system and does not
consider risk to human health and the ;
environment. Thus, while .the EPRI
model may be well-suited for specific
facility management decisions, it has not
been adopted by the Agency. In addition
to the model's failure' to consider health
and environmental risk, the model: (1) ,
Does not provide new performance data
on tank .systems o^safety technologies;
(2) examines only cost impacts of
underground carbon steel petroleum
tanks leaking due to corrosion "(there are
many other tank types .and failure
mechanisms); and (3) faces the same
difficulties the Hazardous Waste Tank
Risk Analysis Model faced in trying to
examine the population pf hazardous
waste tank conditions {i.e., aggregation-
requires simplifying assumptions with .;.-.
respect to hydrogeologic setting, tank
characteristics, and waste ",,-.'
characteristics). - y.. ;
, . The "Risk" portion of the model's title "
refers to the risk of incurring tank
management costs, not to the risk of
posing adverse human health and
environmental impacts. The EPRI
model's specific purpose is to aid a
facility Avith an underground storage
tank in minimizing the cost of using that
tank over the facility's planning horizon.
For example, the EPRI model can
compare the cost of immediately
replacing a tank with a double-walled
tank to the cost of replacing that tank
sometime in the future plus the cost of
necessary corrective action that may
result during the period prior to
replacement. The model does not assess
risks to human health and the
environment prior to completion of
corrective action, and it is not
reasonable to assume that there are no
risks to human health-and the
environment regardless of the length of
time required to correct a contamination
event. Thus, the model is riot suitable for
the Agency's determination of whether
and how hazardous waste tanks pose
risk to human health and the, - - -'
environment or what technologies are
available that adequately protect human
:healthuand the environment.
b. Generator Spent Solvent Waste
Stream Characterization. One
cbmmenter disagreed with EPA's
characterization of 100-1,000 kg/mo
generator spent solvent wastes. The
cpmmenter asserted that the Agency did
not use readily available data sources
such as EPA's WET model. This
- assertion is apparently based on a
misunderstanding of the Agency's :
methodology for characterizing wastei-_
streams associated with 100-1,000 kg/
mo generator accumulation tank
facilities.
In order to characterize 100-1,000 kg'/
mo generator waste streams, EPA used
the National Small Quantity Generator
Survey to determiner the-industries that
have 100-1,000 kg/mo generators with
tanks. To determine the waste streams -
associated with generators in these :
industries, EPA used the study, ..
Technical Environmental Impacts of
Various Approaches for Regulating ,
Small Volume Hazardous Waste
Generators? The appendices for this
study provide waste characterization,
data for 100-1,000 kg/mo generators by
industry. With this information and a
supplementary literature search, EPA
identified 40 solvent constituents ' ' ,.
associated with 100-1,000 kg/mo
6 ibid.
. generators wilhin the SIGs Identified in
the Small Quantity, Generator survey.
Of these 40 solvent constituents, 14
were identified as RGRA-listed wastes;
and Were associated with from 2 to 10
SICs identified by the Small Quantity
Generator survey. EPA then '''.' .
characterized the physical properties
(e.g., constituent mass fraction) of these
100-liOOO kg/mo generator related
RCRA-listed solvents based on the
existing WET model data base.
The information available to EPA on
the constituents of waste solvents is
limited in scogie and may not be a
representative1 sample of the solvent
wastes produced by the whole spectrum
of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators.
However, it is specific data obtained
from some generators,of waste solvents
and, therefore, gives an indication of
constituents likely to be present in
solvent wastesi. EPA believes that the
waste charactfjrizations usedin the:risk
analysis for 100-1,000 kg/mo generators
are appropriate. However, EPA requests
additional data to-improve its waste
characterizations for these generators.
In contrasts the mostly anecdotal
data arid information provided .by
commeniers on the risk analysis, the
Agency encourages commenters to be as
specific as possible, including, when
available, actual constituent analyses of
solvent waste streams generated by
100-1,000 kg/mo generators.
c. Use of SO Meter Exposure-Distance.
Numerous coramenters disagreed with
the Agency's use in the rislc analysis of a
standard distance of 60 meters :(200 feet)
between the drinking water welland'the
hazardous wasite tank system, In order
to estimate risk from hazardous waste
tank systems, EPA used an;existing land
disposal risk model that provides three
standard exppKure distances 1(60 m, 800
m, and 1500 m). EPA examined available
data sources to estimate more
appropriate weill distances for , ; ''.
hazardous waste tank systems. In
particular, EPA" examined the Federal
Reporting Data System (FRDS)
maintained by EPA's Office of Water.
From this examination, EPA
determined that the FRDS cannot be,
used to provide feasible .estimates of "
potentially exposed populations
because: (1) The well and water intake
locations specified as the .centroid of the
mailing addresisiip codes are :not
reliable -estimates of-exposure locations;.
(2) FRDS.does not contain information '..".
on the location ;and drinking water -
population associated, with private. ^
wells; and {3) tlie Te'pbrted drinking. ...'{'..
water populalion represents the-total iv^
population"drinking either surface or ' '
ground -water obtainecl directly,-or :
-------
36352
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1986 / Proposed Rules
purchased from elsewhere, by the water
supply svstem.
In addition to the inability to estimate
the location of water supply systems
and ground water sources used for
drinking water, EPA has no readily
available data on the specific locations
of the approximate 5,500 storage, 3,600
treatment, 6,400 accumulation, and
11,388100-1,000 kg/mo generator tank
facilities. While the Office of Solid
Waste Mail Survey contains the street
address and zip codes of a sample of
storage, treatment and accumulation
tank facilities, there are no similar data
for the* 100-1,000 kg/mo generator tank
facility population.
Thus, as a result of data limitations
and time constraints, EPA made the
conservative assumption that the
exposure distance is 60 meters. While
this assumption is conservative, the
model does not account for the damage
that results from contamination of a
valuable ground water resource. In
addition, the model underestimates
potential ground water contamination
impacts since it does not examine tanks
located in the ground water or multiple
tanks above the same aquifer.
It is important to note that while
longer well distances may reduce health
risk estimates, the longer the well
distance, the more extensive the ground
water contamination prior to eventual
deteclion at the drinking water well.
Once contamination reaches the ground
water, regardless of the extent of the
contamination plume, the corrective
action costs of ground water treatment
are likely to be excessive.
3. Economic Analysis
The results of the economic impact
analysis that the Agency has relied upon
in today's proposal (see Appendix A)
indicate that most 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators will not be significantly
affected by the proposed tank system
requirements. The Agency evaluated the
impact of eleven different regulatory
scenarios on model firms generating
100-1,000 kg/mo of hazardous waste.
The scenarios varied in terms of phase-
in requirements (15 and 20 years),
administrative requirements, and
frequency of integrity assessments. The
overall results showed that, at most, 6
out of 84 model firms would be
significantly impacted by the proposal
or any one alternative regulatory
scenario. However, as discussed earlier,
varying the frequency of integrity
assessments would reduce impacts
significantly, while reducing
administrative requirements would have
a negligible effect. The Agency requests
comment on whether it would be
appropriate to vary either of these
requirements, and requests information
to support the comments. Specifically,
the Agency requests comments and
information on whether promulgating
the rules as proposed would have severe
economic impacts on particular
segments of 100-1,000 kg/mo generators,
and whether reducing the frequency of
integrity assessments would reduce such
impacts. In addition, the Agency
requests comment on whether any
administrative requirements are overly
burdensome in terms of cost or
paperwork required, and if they can be
reduced or eliminated without severely
compromising the protectiveness of the
technical standards.
The Agency based its analysis on
certain assumptions and information
available to it, as described more fully
in Appendix A. Comment is invited on
the validity of these assumptions and
the information used, and commenters
are requested to submit specific
information to support any different
conclusions they may have.
4. Effective Dates
The final rule published in the July 14,
1986 Federal Register establishing new
standards for hazardous waste tank
systems will take effect on January 12,
1987,180 days after the publication date.
For one of the major requirements of the
final rule, secondary containment for
hazardous waste tank systems, EPA has
adopted a phased implementation
approach. For existing tank systems
without secondary containment that
meet the rule's requirements, an
assessment of the tank system's
integrity is required by January 12,1988.
The final rule requires that leaking tanks
be repaired or replaced and, if
underground or not subject to visual ;
inspection, provided with secondary
containment before being brought back
into service. Other existing tank systems
are required to have secondary
containment within two years of the
date of promulgation of the final rule if
storing or treating dioxin-containing
wastes or, in the case of other
hazardous wastes, within two years or
by the time the tank system reaches 15
years of age, whichever comes later. In
the event that the age of the tank system
is unknown, EPA will assume, based on
its study of the age distribution of.
hazardous waste tanks, that the tank is
seven years old, the median age of all
hazardous waste tanks, unless the
facility is known to be older than seven
years of age. In the latter instance,
secondary containment would be
required within two years, or by the
time the facility reaches 15 years of age,
whichever comes later.
Generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo of
hazardous waste subject to the rules
proposed today will likely need at least
as long as other tank system owners and
operators to comply with the rules;
therefore, the Agency proposes that the
phased implementation for these
generators be based on the future date
of final tank system rules governing
accumulation tanks of generators of 100
to 1,000 kg/mo. Under the terms of
today's proposal, therefore, 100-1,000
kg/mo generators who utilize tank
systems for accumulation of their
hazardous wastes will be provided the
same number of months after
promulgation of this proposal as a final
rule as those hazardous waste
generators subject to the July 14,1986 "
final tank system rules are afforded.
5. Request for Comments
EPA is concerned about the limited
amount of data available on
accumulation tanks of 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators. As noted above in several
locations in this preamble, EPA requests
additional data to improve its
information base. To the extent possible,
data and information provided to EPA
should distinguish between new and
existing accumulation tank systems. In
addition, EPA seeks information on the
current prevalence of secondary
containment for 100-1,000 kg/mo
generator accumulation tank systems,
categorized by hazardous waste type
and production process. If these data
alter EPA's basic conclusions regarding
secondary containment, EPA will
carefully consider promulgating
regulations that embody one or more of
the options discussed above.
D. Regulation of Underground Product
Storage Tanks Under Subtitle I (The
UST Program)
EPA has received a number of
c'omments expressing concern that the
final hazardous waste tank system rules
would establish a precedent for the UST
rules when they are promulgated. The
same concern may apply to this
proposed rule, which would subject
generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo to the
same requirements imposed on 90-day
accumulators by the final rule. Many
100-1,000 kg/mo generators who have
hazardous waste tank systems also have
underground storage tanks that will be
subject to RCRA Subtitle I rules (e.g.,
gasoline service stations).
In the preamble to the June 26,1985
proposed rule, EPA cautioned against
concluding that the proposed rules
would establish precedents for the
Agency's effort to regulate, under
Subtitle I o£ RCRA, underground storaj,
-------
tanlcs-containing "regulated
substances." EPA explained that, in fact,
"the requirements proposed today [i.e.,
June-26,1985], as they apply to
underground hazardous 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." (50
FR 26490; June 26,1985.) Regulations
governing underground storage tanks
are being developed separately from the
hazardous waste tank regulations.
Differences in statutory language, the
number of tanks to be regulated, the
regulatory framework, and forthcoming _
information about technical options and
their reliability may cause regulations
for underground storage tanks to differ
from those for hazardous waste tank :
systems. For example, whereas the
development pf regulations for Subtitle
C .tank systems is based solely on the
criterion of protection of human health
and the environment, Subtitle I
specifically authorizes EPA to
distinguish between different types of
tanks" and to norisider other factors such
as current industry practices, national
.consensus codes, the technical .
capability of tank owners and operators,
andsmallbusiness considerations
(RCRA Section 9003(b)). The ;
underground storage tank regulations
will apply to over 1,000,000 tank
systems, a vastly greater universe than
the hazardous waste tank systems
universe. In addition, Subtitle Idoes not
require implementation of a permit ; .
system, a difference which may lead to
a different regulatory approach., ,
Currently, the Agency is actively
studying methods of detecting leaks
from tank systems. Results from these
studies may indicate that leak detection
methods: whose reliability is not yet "
established (e.g., soil gas monitoring in
the unsaturated or excavation zonej
may be found to be reliable before the
underground storage tank regulations
'are issued. Finally; the Agency may take
a different approach to regulating
product storage if EPA determines that
particular products, because of their
value, are managed more reliably than
hazardous wastes.' :
E. Relationship of Proposed Regulation
to Section 3014 of RCRA (Used Oil)
The Congress, in passing the Used Oil
Recycling Act of 1980,(Pub. L. 96-^63);.
and the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, supplemented the
basic requirements for regulation of :';
hazardous waste with certain, special
requirements for recycled'Oil, These
requirements are founclin RCRA section
3014. Section 3.014(a) retains the
language of section 7(b) of the Used Oil
Recycling Act: ::
[T]he Administrator shall promulgate
regulations.... as may be necessary to
protect the public health arid the environment
from hazards associated;with recycled oil. In
developing such regulations, the, ,;
Administrator shall conductan analysis of
the economic impact of vthe:regulatio=ns on the
oil recycling industry. The Administrator
shall ensure that such regulations do not
discourage the recovery or recycling bl used
oil. -"''-. -''.-._
Section .242 of the1984 Amendments
also added the following phrase: to the
end of the above paragraph, "consistent
with the protection of human health and
the environment" to make it clear that
- such protection is of prime concern:
under section 3014, and that certain
recycling practices may indeed be
discouraged by regulation if necessary
to ensure an adequate level of ,
protection. (See H.R. Conf. Rep. No.
1133, 98th Cong. 2dSess. 114 (1984).]
Sectioiv3014(bJ requires the . '-.-'-
Administrator ;to propose whether tb list,
or identify used.crarikcase oil arid other
used oil as a hazardous, waste under
-section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has
proposed to list all used oil as a
hazardous waste (50 FR 49258-49270,
November 29,1985) and has also
proposed management standards for'
used oil generators, transporters, and
recycling facilities :(50 ER 49250-49258,
November 29,1985), "
In proposing to list used oil as a
hazardous waste and in developing,
management standards associated with
the recycling:of hazardous waste, EPA
has attempted to take into account the
effects suchlisting and:staridards will
have on the ultimate disposition of used
oil. The objective of the proposed
regulations was to establish standards
for the recycling of used oil that are
most protective of the environment
while not creating significant
disincentives or barriers to the practice.
In keeping with the stated objective of
section 3014 of RGRA to not discourage
recycling, while ;ehsuring protection of
human health and the environment, EPA
proposed a special, reduced set of
storage standards for recycled oil
generators to minimize adverse small;
business and recycling impacts. EPA
also proposed different and less *
stringent standards for small quantity
recycled oil generators who may
generateup to 1,000 kg/month of used
oil and do not accumulate used oil in
quantities exceeding 1,000 kg. In the
preamble to the proposed'used oil,
management-standards,; EPA explained
that such reduced standards for small > -
quantity recycled-oil generators would
offer the following benefits: (1) Reduce
economic impacts on small businesses;
(2) facilitaterecycling; and (3) encourage
small quantity recycled oil generators to
recycle used oil rather than dispose it In
' a manner that may threaten human
health and tjlieenvironment.' / ;
Although !the proposed regulation
would generally reduce standards for
storage of recycled oil, if promulgated as
proposed, it would require that full
secondary containment apply to tank
systems at non-generating facilities
storing suchjusedoil. At,this time, '
however, the rules are still in proposed
form and EPA is in the process of
evaluating comments submitted during
the public comment period. The'
commentsjreceived were extensive, and
have caused EPA to consider
alternatives to the proposed regulation.
In particular, EPA issued an extension
to the public comment period in the
March 10,1988 Federal Register (51 FR
8206). In tha:t notice, EPA solicited :"
additional consent on a regulatory
approach suggested by several
commenters;; list used oil as a hazardous
'waste only if it is disposed rather than
recycled. EPA is in the process of
evaluating the additional comments
received from this notice. E?A is -, -,
particularly icohcerned about the impact
onusedbil recyclmg that would occur
as a,result -oif the proposed management
standards and the proposed listing of
used oil as a hazardous Waste. EPA is
also conqerned about the impact of a
used oillistiiag on insurance costs., as it
would affect used oil recycling, as well
as the effectiof the proposed
management standards and listing on
the'overall risks tp,humari health and "
the environmentppsedby used oil
recycling aniJ/or disposal practices.
Today's proposed rule does not
address storagei or treatment of used oil;
rather, used OiLmanagemerit standards:
will be incluided:m the used oil .
regulations scheduledj to be issued later."
That regulatory package will address all
applicable tank system standards for the
storage of recycled used oil. '
F. Explanation of Proposed Regulatory'
Language ;!_ -'; '" - - .
The regula'tory amendments proposed
today Would-subject 100-1,000 kg/mp
generators to the same requirements
imposed on 90-day accumulators in the
July 14,1986 final tank system rules. The j
Agency offers below a detailed
explanation of the proposed regulatory
language, d - -;''' ;-
As part of the final'regula'tions : :','
promulgated:on March 24,1986; for iOQi-
1,000 kg/mo generators (51 FR'10J46J,; '' '
the Agency required compliance with ;
existing 40 CFR Part:265, Subpaft] by :
-------
36354 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9. 19,86 / Proposed, Rules .
generators who accumulated hazardous
xvaste in tanks for 180 (or 270) days (see
40 CFR 262.34(d)). Such generators
would have become subject to the
following sections on the September 22,
1986 effective date: 40 CFR 265.190,
265.192, 265.194, 265.197, 265.198, and
265.199. As a result of the July 14,1986
final amendments to 40 CFR Part 265,
Subpart J, these listed sections no longer
contain the same regulatory
requirements as they did on March 24,
1986. For this reason, the newly
promulgated Subpart} amendments
include a new § 265.201, designated as
Special Requirements for Generators of
between 100 and 1,000 kg/mo that
accumulate in tanks. This new section
contains all those above listed sections
of Subpart J (i.e., |§ 265.190, 265.192,
265.194, 265.197, 265.198, and 265.199) as
(hey existed on March 24,1986.
In effect, the July 14,1986 final
amendments to § 262.34 and Part 265,
Subpart J continue to subject 100-1,000
kg/mo generators who accumulate
hazardous waste in tanks for 180 (or
270) days to the same regulatory
requirements as were imposed by the
March ?A, 1986 regulations, even though
the requirements have now been
recodificd.
The amendments discussed in today's
proposal would amend the regulatory
language of § 262.34(d)(3) to parallel the
language of § 262.34(a)(l). which
subjects 90-day accumulation facilities
to most 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart J
standards. The amended subsection
would also provide that generators of
100-1,000 kg/mo must comply with the
requirements for tank system integrity
lasting (§ 265.191) and secondary
containment (§ 265.193) based on the
date of final promulgation of this
proposcsd rule for 180- (or 270-) day
accumulation tank systems. In addition,
new § 265.201 is proposed to be deleted,
because it would no longer be needed
once today's proposed rules become
final.
IV. Impact on Authorized States
A, Applicability in Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce their own
hazardous waste programs pursuant to
Subtitle C (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), 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
hazardous waste management facilities
that the State was authorized to permit.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obligated to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames; however, the new
Federal requirements did not take effect
in an authorized State until the
requirements were adopted as State
law.
In contrast, under newly enacted
section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6926(g), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to
carry out those requirements and
prohibitions, including the issuance of
permits, in authorized States until the
State is granted authorization to do so.
While States must still adopt HSWA
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the HSWA requirements
apply in authorized States in the interim.
EPA is issuing today's proposed
regulations pursuant to section 3001(d)
of RCRA, a provision added by HSWA.
Therefore, if promulgated as a final rule,
it would be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR
271.1, which identifies the Federal
program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final status
for the HSWA provisions identified in
Table 1, as discussed in the following
section of this preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA would
implement the standards in authorized
States until they revise their programs to
adopt these rules and the revisions are
approved by EPA. Because this rule
would be promulgated pursuant to
HSWA, a State submitting a program
modification would be able to apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent to EPA's. The
procedures and schedule for State
adoption of these regulations under
section 3006(b) are described in 40 CFR
271.21 (49 FR 21678, May 22,1984). The
same procedures should be followed for
section 3006(g)(2). -
Applying 40 CFR 27i.21(e)(2), States
that have final authorization must
modify their programs within one year
from the date of promulgation of EPA's.,
regulations if only regulatory changes
are all that are necessary, or within two
years if statutory changes are necessary.
These deadlines can be extended in
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 could be approved without
including standards equivalent to those
promulgated. Once authorized, however,
a State must modify its program to
include standards substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's within
the time period discussed above,
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
The Agency undertook an analysis of,
the proposed hazardous waste tank
system regulatory requirements as they
apply to generators of 100-1,000 kg/mo
with new or existing accumulation tank
systems to determine the extent of
associated cost and economic impacts
on the regulated community. These
analyses also provided the Agency with
the necessary information .for
determining whether the revisions will
constitute a major rule under Executive
Order 12291 or have significant impacts
on a substantial number of small
businesses as the Agency is required to
consider under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The discussion in Appendix A
summarizes the methodology and results
of the analyses supporting these
findings. Further detail of the cost and
economic analyses for the proposed
100-1,000 kg/mo generator accumulation
regulations for hazardous waste tank
systems can be found in the docket
report, Cost and Economic Impact
Analysis of Proposed RCRA Hazardous
Waste Accumulation Tank Regulations
for 100-1,000 kg/mo Generators.
The results of EPA's regulatory impact
analysis for this proposed rule indicate
that overall output, employment, and
price-level effects from the regulations
should be insignificant, although
adverse effects may be felt by some
individual firms. Based on the analyses,
the Agency does not anticipate that
requiring secondary containment for
new or existing accumulation tank
systems utilized by 100-1,000 kg/mo
generators will result in significant
financial impacts. At most, the results
indicate that 6 out of 84 model firms may
be significantly affected. The results of
the analysis (Appendix A) indicate that
these revisions to the rule do not..
constitute a major rule under Executive
Order 12291.
-------
A'ftopclseci
->. , !
36355
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted.fof approval to the .-
Office of Management arid Budget'
(OMB) under''the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980: Comments on these
requirements should be submitted to the
Office of Information and Regulatory :
Affairs at OMB, marked "Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA." The Agency will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements prior to promulgation of
the final rule. ;
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.G. 601 etseq.], 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
organizations, 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 an analysis of the
impacts of today's proposed tank system
rules on small businesses, which is
included in the Economic Impact :
Analysis Report (ELAR) and discussed in
section V of this preamble. The EIAR is
available for public viewing in the
docket for today's rulemaking. On the
basis of the analysis conducted, EPA
has determined that this proposed
: rulemaking will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
numberof'small entities. -'.
VIIL Supporting Documents :
In preparing this proposed regulation,
. the Agency has used many sources:of
information, including those used in
preparing the final Hazardous Waste
Tank System Rule, published in the
Federal Register on July14,1986. Of
these, the most significant for this
proposed regulation are listed below.
They have been placed in the
rulemaking docket at U.S. -"' '
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
RCRA Docket (Sub-basement), 401M
Street, SW., Washington, DG 20460. The
docket is open from 9:30^a.m. to 3:30:
p.m., Monday through Friday, except for'
, Federal holidays. The public must make
flri appointment to review docket ; ' "
materials by calling MiaeZmud at (202)
475-9327 or Kate Blow at (202) 382-4675.
The public may copy a maximum of 50
pages of material from any one
regulatory docket at no cost;'Additional"
copies cost $0.20 per page. "
- In addition to sources of information;
used in preparing the final Hazardous
Waste Tank.Systera Rule, the following
sources of information are also ;
available for viewing only at the EPA
RCRA Docket:
1. National Small Quantity, Hazardous
Waste Generator Survey, Abt
Associates, Cambridge, Mass* February
28,1985.:; ;
2. National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities :
Regulated Under RCRA in 1981, Office
of Solid Waste, April 1984.
3. Economic Analysis of Resource -
Conservation and Recovery Act
Regulations for Small Quantity
Generators, IGF Incorporated, ,
Development Planning and Research
Associates, Inc., and Pope-Rsid
Associates (June 1985).
4. Cost and Economic Impact Analysis
of Proposed RCRA Hazardous Waste
Accumulation Tank Regulations:for 100-
1,000 kg/mq Generators, IGF
Incorporated and Development Planning
and Research Assoc., Inc. (August 1986).
5. TecEuiical Environmental Impacts of
Various Approaches for Regulating
Small Volume Hazardous Waste
Generators, Vol. II, TRW Environmental
Engineering Division, December 1979V ;
List of Subjects
40CFRPart262:
, Intergovernmental relations, ;
Hazardous materials, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Waste
treatment and disposal.
40CFRPart26Z 1^
hitergovernmental relations, '"..]
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water supply. _
40 CFR Part 271 . ,
Intergovernmental relations,
Hazardous materials, Indians-lands,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements,, Waste treatment and
disposal, Penalties, Confidenfal business
information.
Dated: September 30,1986.;.-...'--:-.;
tee M. Thomas,
Administrator . .' -_ .-.,.. . -;
- For the reasons set put in the :' '
preamble, it is proposed to amend Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:, '...'
PART 262^-SSTANDARDS APPLSCABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE ' '-. ; .,.,; .,':
follows: , . ,
l.ITie authority citation for Part 282
continues to read as follows: '
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003,
3004, 3005, and 3017 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1978, as
amended (42 U.S.G. 6905, 6912, 6921, 6922, ;
6923, 6924,6925; and 6938). " ',
V2. In §262.3^ paragraph (dj(3) is ,
revised to read as follows: ;
§ 262.34 Accumulation time,
. . ..
(3) The gericjrator: complies with .
Subpart J of 413 CER Part 265; e'xcept
§ 265.197 (c), jd), and (e) and §. 265.200
and except that; § 265.191 shall: be
effective (insert date that is 12 months " -' _
after the effective date of these revisions
to the regulations) arid that the January
12, 1987 date "for tiie provision, of :
secondary containrnent under;
§265.193(3) (2), (3), (4) arid (5) shall be
replaced by (insert effective date of
these revisions to-the regulations).
PART 2S5iriiTEBIBg STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AMD
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFRPart;265 is amended as
follows^ : } -".,: ';;-.'.;'-,:' :: :. . '. ''-.
3. The Authority citation: for Part 265.
continues to read as follows:
Authorityr Sees. 1006,2002fa),; 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)K.69514, 6925, and6936),"
§265.201 [Removed] ' -
4. 40 CFR Pairt 265is amended by
removing § 26!5.201.
PART 271^R!SQUIREMEMTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
5. The authority citation for Part 271
continues to reiad as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006,2002(a), and 3008 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976, as amended (42 U.S:C. .6905,69l2(a),
and 6926). '..!,."."''V,V;. .'.''V. ''":.','. '. -.
§271.1 [Amemiled] "
6. In § 271.1, paragraph (j) Js amended
by adding the iollowing'entry to^able 1
-------
36356 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1986 / Proposed Rules ^
in chronological order by date of
publication:
TABLE 1.REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS
OF 1984
D*M
ft 4
Oct. 9, 19J6__
Titte ol regulation
Hazardous Waste
Accumulation Tank
System Standards
§262.34
-------
- Federal ' Register / Vol. 51, No. 196 / -Thursday, October 9, 1980 / Proposed: Rules
36357
testing multiple underground tanks and larger
savings for delaying the installation of
secondary containment. Thus, the annualized
cost for the two underground tank facility is
slightly reduced for. the longer phase-in and
same integrity assessment frequency as the
proposal. Finally, the results in Table IV
suggest that administrative costs, .such as
recordkeeping of daily inspection results,,do
not substantially contribute to the cost of the
proposal. -
Table V displays the incremental costs that
. facilities installing new hazardous waste;'
accumulation tank systems may face under
this proposed rule. In addition to the 200
gallon tank that the Agency assumed for the
existing tank economic analysis. Table V
provides the cost for 550 gallon'above-ground
and below-ground tanks. The Agency has
provided the 550 gallon tank costs to
represent those 100-1,000 kg/mo tank
facilities that may have only one larger tank, .
"instead of two smaller tanks. These costs
represent installing new tanks,that comply
with the secondary containment requirement.
Because EPA assumes that underground
tanks are retrofit with secondary
containment by replacement with a double-
walled steel tank and double-Walled piping, .
the Agency has included the cost of corrosion
protection. EPA assumes that above-ground
tanks are mounted on cradles or legs; .
therefore, the tank is not in contact with the
soil and does not require corrosion
protection.
The financial effects of the proposed
hazardous waste tank system regulations on
potentially affected generators'of 100-1,000 .
kg/mo will vary widely from facility to
facility depending upon financial strength,
quantity of waste, number and type of tank
systems, current waste management >
practices, and. changes required to, comply
with the regulations. Certain generators of
- 100-1,000 kg/mo, given the variability of their
financial strength and potential lack of waste
management alternatives, may incur
' significant adverse financial effects. Because
of data limitations, however, it is not possible
to determine the frequency of these
situations.
, In order to examine the potential impacts
of the proposed tank system requirements for
existing 100-1,000 kg/mo generator tank
systems, the Agency developed cost
estimates for 11 regulatory scenarios, each of
which was subsequently rejected on
environmental protection bases, to compare
with the proposal. These scenarios vary
between phase-in ages of 15 and 20 years old,
by whether administrative requirements are
imposed, and by the frequency of integrity ;
assessments. Table VI presents the number
of model facilities significantly affected for
each of the 11 regulatory strategy
alternatives. .
For each of the,se scenarios, the Agency
estimated annualized after-tax costs for
comparison with the model financial
.characteristics, representing small and
medium 100-1,000 kg/mo facility sizes in 42
affected industries. The results of this
analysis indicate that there is little reason for
the Agency to expect significant adverse
financial effects for a substantial number of
100-1,000 kg/mo generator tank facilities as a
result of the proposal or the alternatives. At
most, the results indicate that six.out of 84
model firms may be significantly affected.
For the proposal, the annuafized
compliance costs for .the two'underground
tank facility result in five significantly
affected model firms. However, the proposed
regulatory^costs for the facility with two,
above-ground tanks did not result in any
significantly affected facilities. Finally, the :
annualized compliance costs for the facility
with one above-ground and one underground
tank resulted in significant effects on six
different types of firms.
For all of the 11 different types of
regulatory alternatives, there were no
significant impacts for the costs associated
with the model facility with two above-
ground tanks. This indicates that facilities
'with cradled tanks can retrofit secondary
containment without replacing the tank '
system and can conduct integrity .
assessments without incurring major adverse
financial impacts.
In addition, no significantly impacted firms
were estimated for the regulatory alternatives
where integrity assessments for underground
tanks are either not required, or required only
. every three or five' years, rather than every >
year as proposed. Depending upon the
combination of :tanks at the, facility, the '.'
length of the phase-in period will either
increase or decrease the associated '.,'._
annualized cost. However, this change is
slight and does not result in a significant
change in the number of model firms that
experience economic impacts. This indicates
that the integrity assessment frequency may
be a relatively, significant .cost; and, as a.'
result, there is not .a significant cost savings
by allowing 100-1,000 kg/mo accumulation ;
lank systems a longer phase-in age of 20
years. , .-"' (
The economic impacts for scenarios
including such administrative costs as
installation certification and recording of .
inspections do not vary'significantly from the
regulatory scenarios exempting these
administrative costs, regardless of the phase-
in age. These results indicate that such
administrative costs are negligible with !
respect to causing adverse economic impacts.
As a result of this impact analysis, the
Agency expects that the phased-in secondary
containment requirement alone will not result
in any significantly;affected generators of
100-1,000 kg/mo, even if the phase-in.age
were 20 years. If the Agency could have
justified a proposed requirement for less
frequent underground tank integrity
assessments than is proposed, EPA would not
have anticipated any significant impacts on
firms in general. On the other hand, since the
Agency is proposing annual underground :
tank integrity assessments, whether the
phase-in age is 15 or 20 years, EPA expects a
few firms to incur significant impacts.
However, the Agency does not expect a
substantial number of small businesses to
incur significant impacts and, therefore, EPA
proposes to regulate the 100-1,000 kg/mo
generator accumulators the same as currently
regulated accumulation tank system facilities.
-EPA does not expect any 100-1,000 kg/mo
generator plant closures as* a result of the
hazardous waste tank system regulations.
The small model firms (fewer 'than 10
employees] with net income bejow $10,000 '
- that-may incur significantiadverse^effects.do
not do so necessarily because of. the
magnitude of estimated compliance costs, but
because of their relatively low net income or
sales blithe year analyzed, (1983 inflated to . ' -
1984). In addition, it is riot known hqw much .,
flexibility these generators pf 100-1,000 kg/
mo have regarding their hazardous waste
management practices {for example, their
ability to shift to alternative hazardous waste
storage and treatment technologies and the.
costs of any such alternatives). Actual 100-
1,000 kg/mo facilities may have alternatives
.available to. them that are less costly than
complying with the hazardous waste
accumulation tank regulations m the manner
. that the Agency has assumed. ' ' '.
'. The effects of the hazardous waste tank
. system regulations on 100-1,000 kg/mo
generator modei'plants in the medium
employee size category (10 to 49 employees)
are inot, expected to be significant.. No model
plants in this size category incurred "
compliance 'costs that were more than 20
percent of their estimated, net income or mor,e
than one percent of their estimated sales. The
effects of the hazardous waste .tank system
regulations ton any: industry with generators
of 100-1,000 kg/mo as a whole are also
expected torbe insignificant for the following
reasons: ;-'- ,--.- . . .' _"'. ' . ,...
to 15 percent of generators
1,000 kg/mo across all industries have /
hazardous waste tank systems; v
Two-thirds of generators of 100-1,000 kg/
mo with hazardous waste tank systems
have more than 10 employees and, '
' according to our.hietn6dol6gy, are less
likely to' experience adverse financial
-'" effects; -! r..' " '- - .' ::' .<' -'.,'
Generatoifs/of .100-1,000 kg/mo, particularly
those with tank systems, generally
represent'Small portions of industry output
and employment; and- '..
100-1,000 kg/mo generator costs are worst-.,
case scenarios' and many firms' hazardous
waste management'practices, such as off;
site recycling and disposal to POTWs, are
in compliikncflai: exempt from the
hazardous waste tank system, regulations.
Thus, overall output, employment, and price-
level effects; from the regulations should be .
insignificant, although adverse, effects may be
felt by some individual firms'.
Finally, EPA does not anticipate that
requiring secondary containment for new
tank systems will result in significant
financial impacts. The incremental costs of
providing sijccmdary containment for new
tank systems, as shown.in Table V, are less
,thcuvthe compliance costs for .existing tank
systems. Thus, EPA expects even fewer
impa'cts for ifaoilities installing new tank
;systems than the Agency found, for facilities
'with existing accumulation tank systems.
.; For example, EPA compared the '
incremental annualized.cost for installing
new tank systems in compliance with the
proposed requirements to the model financial
data for. 10C»-l,pOO kg/mo generator facilities
to assess tire potential impacts. The results
indicate that, at most, 'two model firms,
compared to six, may experience significant
financial impacts as a result of complying
with the new tank system requirements.
BILLING CODK 6560-50-M :
-------
36358
Federal Register 7 Vol. 51, No. 196 /
9' 1986 / Pr.opo8edRules
_LJ'V
HI
3
CQ
g
>>
.u
4->
C
CO
3
cr
~
CO
e
ty>
CO
I ***
o c
t- CO
1
CO C
t/3 O
O
O co
E_
CU 2
E
CU 2
c a
4J O
t.*1
O. 05
CO U?
0) TO
cc.
E (A
4J O
C/J TO
UJ '-
03
UJ N
to (a
o
. -C-
*J .
- >
U)
o t-
«0~ O
CO
X <-
CO CU
I C
i a
d>o
i_
o
(*
Q)
CD
II
O
f)
R3
H
=4
»B X
O CO
4J
CO 1
~ t_
CU
a -u
a-
CO
^
CO
O X
CO
a -w
CU 1
0 N CU
J (-
0 O
3 CO W
J 3 (U
c .0
U Cl
J CO
: I
- T3
3 CU
i N
3
J S
CO -=,0
J C
- C
-
0
T3
S CU
B J-
r 3
= O
c
O U)
o
o
CO
a
CO
Q
CO
o
c
h-
^.
J
._
«
o
CO
Lk.
M
o\
*o
^.
.
o\
o\
^
,>,
oa.
^ r
CO
CM
CO
in
"
^
CO
c.
CO
4J
T3
C
o
u
01
^
a
aj
i3
o
i
co o\
00. |
ON r- , 1
> i
: ,
'
. . i
VO fO
r-- ' co
'0 0
^ ^
" t\t
a-' r-
0 00
o in
^ ^
_.
. o - o
CO CM (* CM .
1 1 1 ~ 1
- ON CO ON
>,>, >,>>>,
O. O OOO
O'O mr CM
Ov CM O r Ov
CSJ
in CM "
\0. . 00
in co
ivy' ' '
.' .'-g' " '
aj *
4J
T3
- C-L
^
0
Ol
^
a;
S
co:
TJ -a
£ S
a a:
S_- L.
01 en
d> ' d>
> >
8 2 i
co ca.
O OJ
3 0 '
< '- t \ ' ' ' '
' ' , ' ; -
' '.," :'!,"*. '
.';;' - - ' "
i ! ' ' " -
1 , " . , ' .
i --
- -
. t
"~
... ;* ' . .- " ' ' ' .
~ , jf ' ' ' . 'r' , , - . . .' '
'
! I ' ' ''-'
. . i ...,..
1 ; - ',' ',' i - ;
-------
-' .""-: ' . '.-. : ; . ' ' ,/ TABLE. II
'
;' I -
Table II- Before-Tax National Cost Estimates of the Proposal for Sma 1 ,1- Quantity
Generators with Hazardous Waste Accumulation Tanks
i .
TWO below ground tanks
Two above ground tanks
One above ground and one below ground
tank
Nat iona 1 Total
. .
Number of
LJFaci 1 ities
-«»,935
4,7145
1,708
- II, 388
OfeM Annua
caoital (year cost incurred) 1 0&
.:.. ($ mil
$28.8 $7.9 (yr 1-7): $ 6
3.2 (vr 8-20)
2.7* 4.3 (yr 1-8) U
5.7 (yr 9-20)
6.6 3.5 (yr 1-7) ' 2
1.3 (yr 8)
1.6 (yr 9-20)
38.1 NA 13
.'-' ' - % ' " ' '
, . . . -,..-
' .t ' '' ' . ' ,-,.'
"' ' ."..-' '''-'"..
lized annual ized caoital plus O&M
M (before-tax) .(after-tax)
ion) -." ...........
.0 $ 9.7 $ 8.4
.7 5.1 '"'».'*
.7 3.6 3.1
.5 18. U 15.9
'
'
: , '
': . ''.,;M J^-"* . " ''; V ' .' - - ' ' .': :. -:'- v '- ;'''' ";'.'.. -';. '''-.. '." .-''" ' '. ' ' ' -' - ' ..?'"
.»
a.
1
1
«':
n .
£.
en
O
&
cn
br"
M. .,
. CO .
8-
<
O. :
o'-
er
CD
CO
CO
CO.
o>
O '
to .
re
eu
I
CD-
CO
-------
TABLE III
Table III; Description or Small Quantity Generator Regulatory Alternatives for Proposal
CO
8
a>
o
('1)
(5)
. (6)
In
(«)
(9)
( 10)
d!)
( 12)
StP.ry scoria rip
roposa 1
'.
*»
* _A_L_. . _, ^
=
_=-- - -
Phase- In Age
[years]
15
15
15
15
f
15 ;
. -- . '- -
: _
15
,
20
20
20
20 i
20
20
I Dai ly Aboveg round
Tank Inspections
yes
yes
yes
-
yes
yes
yes
» -" ! yes
yes
:.:
'--. yes :;..-
-^ -''.'yes :;i;:
yes
' '.''-. yes .
Recording
Inspections
yes
no
no
no
no ,
no
. '
-
yes
no
hof.
- , no
ho
no
A'uoveg round Tank
Inteqrity Assessments
annua 1 ly
no
every 3 years
eve ry 3 yea rs
every 5 years
annually
.
annual ly
-
no
-. -
every 3 years
every 3 years \
every 5 years
annua 1 ly
Underground Tank
and Piping
Integrity Assessments
annua 1 ly
no
annua 1 ly
every 3 years
every 5 years
. ,
annua 1 ly
annua 1 ly
.
.
no
..
- '-
annua 1 ly ;
..
every 3 years
every 5 years
annua 1 ly
I
Corrosion
Protect ion
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
.
. -
no
"
.
no
no
no
I
0)
O
2
o
-CO
CD
3
I
a-
o
a
o
cr
CD
CO
a
s
CD
B.
S"
-------
(1 )
(2) ,
(3)
<>)
: . (6)
(7)
(8)
'.,. . . .(3)
' : . :
' . ' TABLE IV ,.--.. .
Table IV: Annualized Facility Cost Estimates of II Regulatory Alternatives Compared
to the Annualized Facility Cost Estimate for the Proposal
" Est.imat.ed Total After-Tax Annua li zed Facility Cost
..'... ' . '' 2 below
Requlatory Scenario Descriotibn \ around tanks
Proposal: phase- in secondary containment at tank age 15, daily $1,693
inspections of above ground' tanks, recording of daily inspections,
.annual integri ty. assessment of all underground tanks and piping and
above ground tanks, and corrosion protection of steel tanks in
contact with the soil.
Phase-in secondary conta inment at tank age of 15 years old, daily -810
inspections of above ground tanks.
Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily 1,622
'inspections of above ground tanks, initial and periodic (annually for
underground tanks and piping and every 3 years for above ground
tanks) integrity assessments.
Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily i,08l
inspections for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (every 3 .
years) integrity assessments for under ground tanks and piping and
above ground ta'nks. ,
, > . ' ' ' - .
Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily 972
.inspections for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (every 5
years) integrity assessments for underground tanks and piping and
iabove ground tanks.
Phase- in secondary conta inment at tank age of 15 years old, daily 1,622
inspections for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (annua 1)
integrity assessments for .underground tanks and piping and above
ground tanks.
Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 20 years old, daily 1,573
inspections of above ground tanks, recording of daily inspections,
annual integrity assessment of a1 1 1 underground tanks and piping and
above ground tanks, and corrosion protection of steel tanks in
contact with the soil.
Phase-in secondary conta inment at tank age of 20. years- old, daily 425
inspections above-ground ' tanks.. . ',. ' .
.Phase-in secondary conta inment at tank age of 20. years o,Jd, da.ily . 1,539
inspections of ab~ove ground tanks, ,init ia 1 :and periodic (annually tor. . . :-'
underground tanks and piping and every 3 yeans for aboveg round tanks) j . '_;:.;.
integri ty assessments. !- ;
2 above- 1 above ground and
around tanks 1 below around tank
$918 $1,789
,
. ".._'
492 . : 729
: 52? :: ^ "' ; ,1,560
529 1,018
514 882
603 1,585
838 1,805
386 448
' *
434 . . 1,586
i.
t '
B^ .
a
(D
B.
a
9 - ' ,
J\
1,
1^
CO
to
o -
(-1*--
O-
0"
CD-;
to
CD"
_ . ,.
co . - - .
CB
ex. : . . .
i* ' .
CO
!"' '
-------
TABLE IV (continued)
en
CO
en
to
Table IV: Annual ized Facility Cost Estimates of II Regulatory Alternatives Compared
to the Annualized Facility Cost Estimate for the Proposal
(continued)
Regulatory Scenario Description
(10) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 20 years old, daily
inspections for above grdtind tanks, initial and periodic (every 3
years) Integrity assessments for Underground tanks and piping and
above-ground tanks.
(II) Phase-in secondary conta inherit at tank eige of 20 years old, daily
inspections for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (every 5
years) integrity assessments for underground tanks and piping and
aboveground tanks.
(12) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 20 years old, daily
inspections.for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (annual)
integrity assessments for underground tanks and piping and
abOvegrpund tanks.
Estimated Total After-Tax Annualized Facility Cost
2 below 2 above- I above ground and
ground tanks ground tanks I below ground tank
to
oa
796
647
1,539
434
531
843
657
1,628
2!
CD
CD
tr
M-
CO
H
CD
t)
>-a
O
a
o
to.
CD
'
-------
Federal Register /-Vol. 51, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1986 / Proposed Rules
36363
"
0
-
TJ
C
~ 3
O 4J
t. c
cncu
«- E
03 C
o
C CO
^ 4J
C
o
03 'O
03
i \ ".^
f^
CO
CT3
O C
.Q O
-«- 0
O W
' . 3* "
03 *.
' - 2 3
Lu
^ <-
°5
W "
. *j CO ^
PM w »
«fi o.s:
H -w.g. .-
01-
,0)
o
CO <
to ^*
C-D .
« J^
3 '-
X O
CO t-
I-O
1
03 03
L. >
0 O
03 <
CD
C
CO
>
03 -
.
n
CO
(
.u
4- C
O 03
e
4-> C
to
O CO
O 4J
c
o
COO
c >
03 t-
E CO
03 -O
t- C
O O
C U
03
10
o
03
N
.
^
CO
c
c
CO
0
Q\
<^>
o
y
<^j
Q
lf\
CM
V>
w
CO
4-1
~
C
O
vO
^
' lA,
4J
C
03
U! E
E C
03
4J CO
to 4J
X C
to o
^o
C >;
t- CO
o
- C*. c
. o o
o
a 03
to to
o
Of
03
N
«
.^
CO
c
c
CO
O
O\
i
X^
o
<*)
0
UN
CM
««
CO
c
^Cl'
- ' Qi'
fO
("*
.C^
" '
c
03
E
c
. to
e ra
03 **
*> c
w o
c/3
C CO
COT3
t- c
:o
C|w O
O 03
Ifl 4-1
O 3
O 0
f
4J
13
03
N
CO
c
C
CO
.0
CM
o
El 0
-CO
>.
^J
^
c
O
\O -'
.VO
*~,
<^
to
*^~
C
CO to
1- C
o
fj _.
o
CO
03 o
N
so
O
o
CM
to
^«
T3 to
C J£
CO C
CO
t- p
0)
.J34-
6-0
Z 0)
. O.
t '
O
=9
'«
0
ar
^
«.
0
UN
CM
O
ON
*
VO
o
(M
3-
^
O
lA
CM
O
a-
0*
O
CO
CM
O
O
o.
0
f-
^
CM
O
\f\
ci
3
-
o o
cvj -a-
CO CO
0 0
IA IfN
CM (M
C3 O
1 CO
O O
ro
a IA
0 0
UN lA
CM CM
O 0
VO VO
CM
*» *
M
O O
o\ o\
o o
o o.
o o
o , o
o\ oo
vo a-
^
60
O UN
CM tA
O 0
^- . _
D ' ' . ' . - .
c - . ..... .-.- - -
3 J£ ' .....--...,
O C - - . J .
1- CO 03 '..-''-
O14Jf ...
4J - -.':
41= ..-. . .
> c^. C
O CO - i --.--
X3 03 f ' - -
co f 4J . .:
IB '..--- ; - .
C 1 >>
O 0) 4J .
4J C ' -.."."
. co I 3 - ; ' .
Ol6*- E ' . '
Cfc. g . ; . , '
UN O O ' I-
cos O
(M ' '
cower .
CBCO , ...
o -o . -'..'-
c>- co o) ..;..-.
-E4J .--.
cDtoeo ,.
to . . - .--
o 01 3 ' ...:-
ff.cn . .- ' .
4J+J 03 ' . : '
^ " ' ' ' . ' '!
to X " ..:.',-
CO 03 .-..."
CD c « . .
e a .. . . . . - . - .
10 t- £1
3 - -
C13 O 13 ' . ' - ' .
f 0) . .
*j as to - .
1-3 . , ' .' ."'-.,.' ' '
O TO ' ' -
o >> . '
w ' .-.
o -a: c " - - - - .
' 4J C 0 - . - ' - - ! ' -
.co E - . . . i . ' :
D 4J E - - - ' '. ' . -
03 O , . - ' - ......
e-o o .
3 03 . . ...... . . .
<0 (D ' . . - ..
W <- .. ' . . -
->£.." , . '"'.'' '
£ i 03 : ' " - '
CO' J2 ' - ' . ' '.'.,
- Ol ' -. ',..- ' -. .- '
. « c o .-''-. " " .-.' . .
, c ' ' "..,."- ".". ,',"...
CO to . . - ' ; = ' ' . . '
o c -. - ' '""','''" - '. .
D 3 CO . .- ' ' . '^ '
' C w) *J . ; ' ' - ,
3 - - - '. - ,- .'-.-.:.'' . '.
t- « o - ' -; -'-.'- "',..
en 3 3 .,,;.-.-..
s- co to - . . ...
a) o - ' i .;:,
o as to ' . . - | : .'..:.'..
= ofll ' '; - - :- . - . - , - '"' '!; " " ' . ' ' '.-''
J£ 0) N ,".'-'
- -0 C Q- , ' ....,--,.. .... . '
C CO X tO . ..'..
, CO 4J 0) . : ' ..''-' ' ' ' -
"O *O X C - ' ' ' " *'"''-,".---."-
C C 0 co : r - '. ' ."..'".'
3 3 C 4J . - -
O 0 03 . . . -
i. t- cnc -; . -_..
1 CT C31^ O ' . '-.''-'
t, . ' . - - ; " ' r .'.'.,
03 03 0) ...
>T3 JC CO '. - - . ' ' - - 1 '
O C 4J Ol - ....-: :
a 3 " ' ' . - ...
CO *O ' ' i - -
c too , ' .
C O 3 CM ' ' ,
. .0 f - . -. .
i- E ... . ..-.: ." -., .
CO 3 . .--,
CO 01 E ' ' ' . ,.' ' ' . . . : : ' . :',
en. - !- - , - j -
tA-a c ''-. :- ''. . -..-
O 1^ 0) ' '
OCM o e . . ,
CM 3 - ' ..-.'
CO TD "O ' " . - . . . ; - .....-.,." . ' '.....
.U 0 03 . .;.'-.. .-.--.
O'O <- 4J - - --'.. '
«- CQ. co - . . ' .-. - .--,..-
CO - ' i- , . '
to to 3 . " '-v.;- . . ;
CO C N .- -"...'". " - - .:,.: ' . - , . . , -
O CO CO . - '.> , . ' .... ...
O 4J t» O ' -''-.
'ui . . . "''""-..: -. ' - ' - ' : '
- t- ' . - - . ' . ' .. - .
o" - - - ' --.., . ,
-------
TABLE VI
Table Vis Economic Impacts for Small Quantity Generator Model Tank
i-aciiities under Alternative Regulatory Scenarios
Regulatory Scenario Pescrtpt_ion_
(I) Proposal: phase-in secondary containment at tank age 15, daily
inspections of above ground tanks, recording of daily inspections,
annual integrity assessment of all underground tanks and piping and
above ground tanks, and corrosion protection of steel tanks in
contact with the soil.
(2) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily
inspections of above ground tanks.
(3) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily
inspections of above ground, tanks, initial and periodic (annually for
underground tanks and piping and every 3 years for above ground
tanks) integrity assessments.
(4) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily
inspections for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (every 3
years) integrity assessments for under ground tanks and piping and
above ground tanks.
(5) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily
-inspections: for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (every 5
years) integrity assessments, for underground tanks and piping and
above ground tanks, . . .
(6) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 15 years old, daily
: inspections for above ground tanks, initial and periodic (ah'hual)
..-integrity assessments for underground tanks and piping and above
. ground tanks. . -....'.-
(7) Phase-in secondary conta inment at; tank age of 20 years old, daily
inspections of above ground tanks, recording of daily inspections, '
annual integrity assessment of all underground tanks and piping and
I -above ground tanks, and corrosion protection of steel tanks in
'"Cphtaet with the soil.
(8) ' Phase-in secondary containment at; tahk'age of 2'0 years bid, daily
inspections above ground tanks.
(9) Phase-in secondary containment at tank age of 20 years old, daily
inspection's of above gVbUhd tanks, initial irid periodic (annually fop
uriberg'round tanks aha piping and every 3 years for aboveground tanksj
integrity assessments.
Number of Significantly Affected Model Facilities^
2 below 2 above- I above ground and
ground tanks ground tanks I below ground tank
i/
J;/ We examined 8
-------
c
, ' "'
0),
! 0
E W
. O
o t.
*^ CO
CO C
(DO
ceo
d >> o
fl> «*»
co
C~.' n 3 '-.
i _! " TO OT
M 30)
-H crce - . -.
G T3
o r§'§
i /\ , . > 3 - .
U to c
*-* E 4J«n
: CO to 4i>
c c
W - . C. E-§
> . . o CD O
, .^ Cj- JJ v
W , 25 , ::
S o !-
W . to oj
C
00-
E£i e
T3
0)
o
CD
t*. t
f. J
< 1 C
CD d
» 4-
O
*J J3 X
C to C
CO I
OCX! C
t.
*- c
c-
o
If
CO Jt
" C
*- > cc
0 0 *-
t- CD "C
CD A C
2 =
ECM O
' 3£ c
c
o
'Z
Q
L.
O
CO
. 03
a
c
c.
CO
c
0)
. C
C
- CO
-3
O
CD
C£
;
; ° .'.,-
>
D
3
IS
3 '
J .'
JO
'
n ' .
-
'.
o
.
._ ^
Xco
to <-. .
tJ WO!
> C' ,
.- I.
Ol
JC C i.
C CD
CO 13
CO 3
4J X
CO C C. .
CO O
C
Q) "O W
e c w
C 3 C
O CD
co t- e
*J en co p
C CO '
O CD CO
O > co
O CO , .
>>£} CO CQ
..c- co j:
c o <->
'0 4- V
o cn-a
CD CO CD c
CO C *J 3
' f en
I O 1
03 CD CO Q3
co a. .i. >
co w eo'O
^ C CD J3
d. >»co
«
0 ,
- " -
L-
o .
o
o
, c
>.co
to ,t- .
' tJ OJ O> .
CD. .
D- a.
o o a.
COT3T3
t- o c
. , to to
CD i-
>> CD CO
O.JC
o : c
c w
c»- to
o -o
c
O CO 3
Ol O
(0 *> .<-,
..^c?
C CD
;ro ^ -
U) 3 '
to c C
CO O
c
03 13 CO
f C 4J
O 03
to <- &'
C CO
O CD CD
O > en
O .CO
' '^*>^' CO
C- CO CO
CO >>.*
X3 i- W C
C O CO
OC~ l-.w
O Ol
03 W) 0) 13
CO C «J C
O C 3
C~- 0
0> CD CO CD
CO Q.C- >
CO 10 CO O
.c c (a a
0 >>co
^^
3.
-/ - . J * - , - T . - / . r wcJUJUtJ
'. '; '. ' ' , ' ' ' '
. . -' ' '
1 / ' .
CO - " .. ...'."'..-I-..
' - ' ' '!,!'' *
: ' ' . "' .- . .:: ---.' '"' ,-.'"'
' .
o , " - ' ' -..'.'. . ' ' -
1 " '- * ' .
- '-'," - ' ' '. . -"
1 - ' ' '1 ... ; ....
'f - ' . .'.--.
. . . ^ . . 1 . . ^ ,
1 ^
« r^ " '
"co - ' - ' ,
to 3 ' . - , -
a c, . -. . -.-. -,
- - - C- ; . . . . . ' ' i '-
-to . . . . - - . '.,......
" o o"to ' . " . '" '- ' ' ' ' " ,''" "'."'''. K'
co -a 01 '.''" ' .>-''.-. ....
«- o c ' . . .-..,-: (i ..-. ...''..-
co . - . .........
CD t-i Q. "...- ... . ..
>>* ' " - ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' - ' -
a a. ..'' . -
o - . " ,'.'''
.«-§§ -.'--. - :.'.-.-
^»« . ' .- - . - . .".,. ...-;. -:...: .-
03^ ' . , - . -
Ol C ' ' . .
CO ** CO > ' ' ' ,
*J - - - - -.....,.
X. C
c-'-o .- . ' ; . . .
to c .-.-
4J > 3 .
^ « g - , i, - '
' to C Ol - - . .'I'" ' - ,
tot-' - -, - - -
4J 4J Q) .'[-<
c -o . , ..-.-...
tl) X3 C . -
. E C 3 . - ' ! : . --'.-
C 3
. O <- ' ' ' ' -
to c- o 'cP ' : .
( .CO ' , - , ' " . ' '
O CD CO IO " . - .. ' ' :
>,1I . - ' ' ''' '* ' ' ' - :" ' '''' '
t- co E co' S -.-.. . .
ra °> -* T . ' ; . '
"" c o 03 to 2 . ' , ' '
o c>_ t/i *j 2 . . . .
o in *~\ ~ - ... . .-....
CD co to -a ; "S ' ' ' ' ' - - - ". "
co c c .S ,. .
O>>3ET >'
C *J Q o
-CDCDOICDCNjS . ''
10. CL'03 > CNI ID . - . , ,
co co 4J o , h ul ' .
cccjarog - . '
(JO
o a - . . . .
' Q z - ' . - -..--
w a- 3 . . ..
z. '--. &. s . . - - -.. ;. ... -
-------
------- |