-181372
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES UNDER RCRA, SUBTITLE C, SECTION 3004
Standards for Preparedness and Prevention
(40 CFR 264V265, Subpart C) ?
Standards for Contingency P.Ian and Emergency Procedures
(40 CFR 264, 265, Subpart D)
This document Cms. 1941.7) provides background information
and support for EPA's hazardous waste regulations
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A3ENCY
April 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
A. Legislative Authority 1
B. Key Definitions 3
II. Rationale for Need to Regulate 5
A. Damage Case Summaries 5
B. Federal/State Precedents 10
III. Synopsis of Proposed Regulation 13
IV. Comment Analysis and Rationale for Chosen Action 16
A. General Comments 16
B. Subpart C - Preparedness and Prevention 21
1. Comments Applicable to Entire Subpart 22
2. $264.30 Applicability 23
3. $264.31 Design and Operation of Facility 23
4. Comments on Proposed $250.43-3(b)(2) 25*
5. $264.32 Required Equipment 25
6. $264.33 Testing and Maintenance of Equipment 29
7. $264.34 Access to Communications or Alarm System 30
8. $264.35 Required Aisle Space 32
9. $264.36 Special Handling for Ignitable or
Reactive Waste 33
10. $264.37 Arrangements with Local Authorities 34
C. Subpart D - Contingency Plan and Emergency
Procedures 37
1* Comment* Applicable to Entire Subpart 37
2. $264.50 Applicability 40
3. $264.51 Purpose and Implementation of
Contingency Plan 40
4. $264.52 Content of Contingency Plan 42
5. $264.53 Copies of Contingency Plan 48
6. $264.54 Amendment of Contingency Plan 54
7. $264.55 Emergency Coordinator 56
8. $264.56 Emergency Procedures 58
References 72
Attachment - Summary of Existing Laws and Regulations 73
-------
I* Introduction
This document supports the final regulations for 40 CFR Part
264, Subpart C - Preparedness and Prevention, and Subpart D - Con*
tingency Plan and Emergency Procedures, promulgated under the au-
thority of Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. This document also supports the final interim status standards
for similar provisions under 40 CFR Part 265* The interim status
standards under Part 265 are, with minor modifications, essentially
the same as the Part 264 standards. Differences between the two
sets of standards are highlighted in the discussions which follow.
A. Legislative Authority
Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), «s amended, 42 U.S.C.
SS6901 et seq., directs the EPA Administrator to promulgate regula-
tions establishing such standards, applicable to owners and operators
of facilities for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
waste identified or listed under Subtitle C, as may be necessary to
protect human health and the environment. Section 3004(3) provides
that these regulations must include requirements respecting treat-
ment, storage, or disposal of all hazardous waste received by the
facility pursuant to such operating methods, techniques, and
practices as may be satisfactory to the Administrator. Section
3004(5) requires these regulations to include provisions respecting
contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated
-------
damage from any treatment, storage* or disposal of any hazardous
waste.
RCRA specifically authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations
requiring preparation of contingency plans for hazardous waste «tn-
agement facilities. Requirements for (1) preparedness and prevention
measures to minimize the need for ever using contingency plans, and
(2) emergency response measures to be taken during and after situa-
tions in which a contingency plan is implemented also are authorized
by Section 3004 of RCRA. The Agency believes that such requirements
are necessary adjuncts to contingency plans to ensure protection of
human health and the environment. The Agency believes Congress
intended that preparedness, prevention, contingency plans, and emer-
gency response measures, be designed to minimize or avoid damages to
human health and the environment, rather than merely to react to
emergencies.
In addition to the Section 3004 mandates cited above, other
passages in RCRA reinforce this interpretation of Congressional
intent. RCRA Section 1002(b) states:
"The Congress finds with respect to the environment and health,
that:
(5) hazardous waste presents.. .special dangers to health
and requires a greater degree of regulation than does
nonhazardous waste."
RCRA Section 1003 states:
The objectives of this Act are to promote the protection
of health and the environment...by:
-------
(4) regulating the treatment, storage, transportation, and
disposal o£ hazardous votes which have adverse effects
on health and the enviroonent."
B. Key
"Contingency Plan" neans a document setting out an organized,
planned, and coordinated course of set ion to be followed in case of
* fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents which could threaten human health or the environment.
[Comment: .This revises the proposed definition, to clarify
that the contingency plan is intended to be a document out-
lining the course of action to be taken in an emergency.]
"Facility" means all contiguous land, and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for treating,
storing, or disposing of hazardous vaste. A facility may consist of
several treatment, storage, or disposal operational units (e.g., one
or more Landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations of them).
[Comment/. This revises the proposed definition to clarify that
a facility is considered to be the entire group of hazardous
waste management unit operations which may function simulta-
neously at a single location, rather than each operation indi-
vidually. Thus, only one contingency plan need be prepared for
all operations at a given facility.]
"Igni table Waste'! means a solid waste which has the character-
istics specified in 40 CFR S261.21. [Flash point less than 140*F,
etc.]
"Incompatible Waste" means a hazardous waste which is unsuitable
for:
(1) Placement in a particular device or facility because it
may cause corrosion or decay of containment materials
(e.g., container inner liners or tank walls); or
-------
(2) Coaming ling with another waste or material under uncon-
trolled condition* because the coaming ling Might produce
heat or pressure, fire or explosion, violent reaction,
toxic dusts, arista, fumes or gases, or flaaaable fumea
or gaaea.
[See 40 CFR Part 265, Appendix V for examples.]
"Reactive Waste" means a solid waste which has the characteris-
tics specified in 40 CFR §261.23 [e.g., explosives].
-------
II. Rationale for Heed to Regulate
A. Damage Cases
The following summaries of hazardous waste damage cases illus-
trate the need for preparedness and prevention measures, contingency
plans, and emergency response procedures at hazardous waste manage'
ment facilities. These cases are examples of the potential for
explosions, fires, air emissions, and contamination of ground water
and surface water associated with waste management activities.
(1) On the afternoon of December 8, 1977, a series of explo-
sions and fires occurred at a hazardous waste treatment
facility in New Jersey. The initial explosion was followed
by between two and five additional explosions. The ensuing
major fire lasted about 1-1/2 hours. During the episode
approximately 12 storage tanks and two tank trucks exploded
and/or burned. Facility personnel began fire fighting
operations until the local Volunteer Fire Department ar-
rived. Within a short time, seven local fire fighting
units, with about 200 men, had responded to the alarm.
Shortly thereafter, the New Jersey State Police arrived on
the scene and assumed overall coordination of activities.
Within two hours of the initial explosion, various Federal
and StaC:e personnel were also on the scene. Evacuation of
a nearby town was contemplated, but determined to be un-
necessary.
Six men who were working at the facility were killed, and
12 were injured; all had been employed by various contrac-
tors who were doing specialized maintenance work on-site
at the time. In addition, about 40 firemen were admitted
to a local hospital for smoke inhalation and released
after treatment.1
This incident points out the need for the owners or operators
of facilities that handle ignitable or reactive waste to (1) employ
rigorous preparedness and prevention measures, (2) prepare and file
contingency plans with local response agencies, (3) inform local fire
-------
and police agencies concerning the facility layout and the types of
vastes handled, and (4) be prepared to assist local, State, and
Federal authorities in making evacuation decisions.
(2) On July 25, 1978, in Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana, liquid waste
from a tanker truck was puaped into a surface impoundment
containing other waste. The new waste was incompatible
with the in-place waste. A gas, hydrogen sulfide, was
generated by the ensuing reaction. The tank truck driver
was overcoae and killed by the fumefl.2
(3) In October 1974, a bulldozer operator was killed in an ex-
plosion at an industrial landfill in Edison Township, New
Jersey. At the time of the explosion, he was burying and
compacting several 55-gallon drums of unidentified chemical
wastes. The victim died as a result of burns covering ap-
proximately 85 percent of his body.3
These incidents illustrate the need i-.r employees to be in
constant visual or voice contact with other employees who can provide
or summon emergency assistance.
(4) A landfill in Juneau County, Wisconsin, has been the site
of many fires involving wastes. Fires started when waste
batteries shorted out and ignited surrounding combustible
wastes. One such fire occurred on February 12, 1974, and
was visible for three miles. Small explosions produced by
the fire caused scraps of metal to strike an investigating
police officer and his squad car.4
This incident points out the need for (1) fire fighting equip-
ment at facilities, and (2) education of local authorities about
potential hazards at facilities.
(5) On July 1, 1975, a driver was disposing of 2,000 gallons of
industrial waste liquid in a landfill in Baltimore County,
Maryland. When the driver opened the valve to allow the
liquid to discharge into a depression atop an earth covered
area of the fill, the discharging liquid began bubbling and
forming a blue smoke. The smoke quickly streamed toward
the truck and soon enveloped it, causing the driver to fall
to the ground. The driver and several landfill operators
-------
were taken to a hospital. The area was then evacuated
and county fire fighters were summoned.to clean up the
liquid.5
This case again points out the need for facility evacuation
>lans and education of local authorities.
(6) In San Francisco, California, attempts to treat organic
lead wastes resulted in alkyl lead intoxication of plant
employees. Employees of firms in the surrounding area
were exposed to an airborne alkyl lead vapor hazard. Toll
collectors on a bridge along the truck route to the plant
became ill from escaping vapors from transport trucks.0
This case illustrates that spills to water are not the only kind
of releases from facilities, and that exposure of people outside the
facility must be considered, as well as exposure to employees*
(7) In 1975, at Crisfield, Maryland, there was a waste holding
pond that contained wastes such as arsenic, lead, nickel,
chromium, and cyanides. The pond received 15,000 gallons
of waste water per day, but was unlined. Testing by
government personnel revealed that contamination of under-
ground waters extended to a depth of 50 feet and a radius
of 1,000 feet from the pond.7
This case illustrates the need to address ground-water contami-
nation incidents in facility preparedness preparations.
(8) In October 1973, a New Jersey disposal firm was fined
$24,000 by the Superior Court in Hackensack for spilling
fish killing chemicals into a small creek in the Hackensack
Meadowlands. The spill had occurred during the previous
New Tear's weekend from a truck parked on the company's
premises. The company was in the business of hauling
liquid wastes from chemical companies to landfills.8
(9) In Niagara County, New York, a manufacturing corporation
for many years disposed of arsenic-containing wastes on
its property. This resulted in tne pollution of about 40
percent of the property with arsenic. The concentrations
of arsenic in the soil are high enough that surface runoff
picks up hazardous quantities of arsenic and carries it to
nearby streams.9
-------
(10) Sludge from a wasta storage lagoon at a refining corpora-
tion spilled into the south branch of Bear Creek in Butler
County, Pennsylvania, in 1968. The sludge flowed three
miles downstream into the Allegheny River, killing an es-
timated 4.5 million fish.10
• /*
(11) The dike of a lagoon in Carbo, in Russell County, Virginia,
containing an alkaline waste from a steam generating plant
collapsed and released 400 acre-feet of fly ash waste into
the Clinch River in 1967. Traveling at one mile per hour,
the waste reached Norris Lake where it killed 216,200 fish
and all organisms in a four-mile radius from its point of
entry into the lake.11
These cases illustrate the need to consider discharges to soil
4
and surface water in facility contingency plans since these events
could affect human health or the environment.
While not directly related to waste management activities, the
following cases illustrate the types of potentially serious problems
that can develop at industrial facilities, of which waste management
facilities are a subset.
(12) Residents were evacuated from more than 150 homes and
eight people received hospital treatment on March 20,
1973, when an underground storage tank ruptured and sent
a noxious and tear-provoking gas through an area more
than a mile long in Chicago s South West Side. About
200 residents were asked to leave their homes in the
area and stay at temporary shelters. Fumes containing
sulphur monochloride acid spread through the neighborhood
for four and one-half hours until firemen dropped 5,000
pounds of lime into the underground chamber, neutralizing
the acid and shutting off the flow of gas.12
(13) In July 1974, lightning struck a powerline, igniting a
large fire in a paint and herbicide manufacturing and
storage facility in Alliance, Ohio. The on-scene coor-
dinator from EPA's Region V called for local and county
police £o evacuate citizens downwind; later a shift in
the winds at the site of the fire necessitated evacuation
of 500 hospital patients. About a day later, the fire was
extinguished and the air pollution hazard eliminated. 13
-------
(14) In March 1976, a 12-hour fire «C a chemical plant in
Ennis, Texas, sent fireballs from exploding drums over
200 feet high. About 500 nearby residents were evacuated
vhen toxic fumes spread over the southern portion of the
city. The local firemen who responded had been trained
for several years for such an emergency and were prepared
with proper clothing, equipment, and procedures.^
It is interesting to contrast this case with case (1) above. In
this case local firemen had been trained for such an emergency and no
injuries to firemen were reported. In case (1), local firemen were
not well prepared, and about 40 firemen were overcome with smoke
inhalation.
(15) An industrial firm in Cattaraugus County, New York, caused
numerous spills, pipe leaks, and dumping of nitrogenous
wastes which resulted in the contamination of both surface
and ground waters. This also was the cause of two major
fish kills in the Allegheny River.15
(16) In September 1974, an electrical transformer being loaded
onto a barge fell from its loading sling, spilling 260
gallons of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) onto the dock
and into the waterway in Duwamish Waterway, Washington.
The spiller handled the incident as a minor spill until a
followup investigation by the Washington State Department
of Ecology revealed that PCBs were involved.16
From these damage cases, it is apparent that there are potential
dangers associated with fires, explosions, and releases at hazardous
waste mangement activities. While facility operating personnel are
primarily at risk, there is also the possibility of injury to nearby
residents and the environnent from toxic chemical emissions caused by
releases, fires, or explosions. Thus, the Agency believes mandatory
requirements are justified for preparedness, prevention, contingency
plans, and emergency response at hazardous waste management facili-
ties.
-------
B. Federal/State Precedent!
Several Federal and State laws and regulations require prepared-
ness measures, contingency plans, and emergency responses at hazard-
••&
ous vaste management facilities, or chemical manufacturing or storage
facilities* These rules all have similar requirements for prepared-
£ess measures, contingency planning, and emergency response defini-
tion because of the hazardous nature of materials handled. Thus,
they provide a precedent for regulatory activity in those areas. Ex-
amples of some of these provisions are discussed below. More details
are provided in the attachment following this document*
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Under this Act, the Secretary of Labor has issued regulations
requiring certain emergency responses in the event of an accidental
release of vinyl chloride or a number of other carcinogens at facil-
ities handling them. The procedures include:
- evacuation of the area affected
- decontamination
- medical surveillance of affected employees
- reports to OSHA
Clean Water Act
EPA regulations under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act require
that owners or operators of certain facilities handling oil and oil
products prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Counterneasures
(SPCC) plan. As specified in the Clean Water Act, this plan is
10
-------
Intended to prevent' discharges of oil into navigable waters and to
contain these discharges if they occur. In the near future, EPA will
promulgate regulations vhich extend these requirements to discharges
of hazardous materials.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Under this Act, EPA promulgated in 40 CFR Part 165, "Recommended
*
Procedures for the Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide
Containers." The guidelines include:
- reports of accidents to EPA
- inspection for leakage
- accident prevention measures
- use of protective clothing and respirators, and
- written notice of potential hazards to local fire, police,
and health agencies.
State Lavs
In recent years, at least 10 States have enacted lavs and regu-
lations which pertain to preparedness, contingency plans, and emer-
gency response at hazardous waste management facilities. These
States are Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.
All 10 states require facility owners or operators to provide
adequate equipment and necessary measures to prevent and extinguish
fires. California and Rhode Island require the ovner or operator to
make arrangements vith local fire departments to provide emergency
services. lova and Minnesota require facility owners or operators to
11
-------
implement remedial action after the detection of.a potential threat
'!'' >"
to the ground water. Reporting requirements for emergency situations
are:
State Phone Report Written Report
California In 24 hrs. la 30 days
lova Mo specific time req. No specific time req*
Minnesota Immediately Not required
Oklahoma Not required In 48 hours
Oregon Immediately Not required
Rhode Island Immediately Upon demand
Texas In 24 hours Not required
After a review of these existing* Federal and State laws and
regulations, the Agency found that many of their concepts and
requirements were applicable (directly or with modification) to
contingency plans, and preparedness and response aspects of hazardous
waste management facilities. The applicable concepts and require-
ments, together with lessons learned from damage cases and response
to legislative intent, led to the proposed rules discussed in the
next section.
*In the case of Minnesota's Hazardous Waste Management Rules, the
Agency reviewed drafts of these rules prior to the EPA proposal in
December, 1978. The Minnesota rules were subsequently promulgated
in June, 1979.
12
-------
III. Synopsis of Propoied Regulations
Contingency plan, preparedness and prevention, and emergency
procedure requirements applicable to owners and operators of
hazardous waste facilities were specified in $250.43-3 of the RCRA
Subtitle C regulations proposed on December 18, 1978* These
requirements also applied to owners and operators of facilities with
interim status, as specified in proposed $250.40(c)(2)(ii).
Section 250.43-3(a) required the owner or operator to develop a
contingency plan for each hazardous waste treatment, storage, or dis-
posal facility. At a minimum, the plan was to follow the provisions
of the Section 311, Spill Prevention, Control, and Counter Measures
Plan (SPCC) of the Clean Water Act. The contingency plan, and any
amended plan, was to be submitted to the Regional Administrator and
to local fire, police, and health authorities. The plan was also to
be submitted to EPA as part of the application for a facility permit,
The contingency plan was required to include:
- arrangements made with local authorities*
- a list of personnel qualified to act as facility emergency
coordinator
- a list of all emergency equipment
- an evacuation plan, and
- an outline of a training plan for familiarizing facility
personnel with emergency procedures and equipment.
*Requirements with an asterisk^*) in the synopsis were proposed
together with "Notes" which allowed variances under certain
circumstances.
13
-------
A facility emergency coordinator was required to be present at til
times when the facility was in operation.
Section 250.43-3(b) contained facility preparedness and preven-
tion requirements. Facilities were required to:
- be operated to oinimize the likelihood of discharges,
fires, or explosions.
- have an SPCC plan under $311 of the Clean Water Act
- have internal and external* communications systems
- have firefighting, spill control, and decontamination
equipment* which was regularly tested and maintained
- maintain aisle space* to allow unobstructed movement of
emergency equipment, and
- eliminate sources of ignition and prohibit smoking in
operating areas.
Section 250.43-3(c) specified the duties of the facility's emer-
gency coordinator regarding emergency response and recovery. These
duties included:
- notifying facility personnel, local authorities, and the
regional on-scene coordinator or the U.S. Coast Guard
National Response Center, as appropriate, of imminent or
actual emergency situations
- assessing the nature of discharges and possible hazards to
local communities, and assisting Federal, State, and local
officials to carry out mitigating actions
- ensuring that fires and explosions did not recur and spread
to other wastes
^Requirements with an asteriskC*) in the synopsis were proposed
together with "Notes" which allowed variances under certain
circumstances.
14
-------
- properly disposing of material resulting from an accident
- rejecting any new shipments of incompatible vaste
- monitoring for leaks, etc*
- restoring emergency equipment before normal operations
resume, and
- making a full report to EPA
15
-------
IV. Comment Analysis and Rationale for Chosen Action
Commentera from many organizations submitted numerous comments
on the proposed contingency plan, preparedness, and emergency
response requirements. Some of the comments received were general
and others were in response to specific provisions of the proposed
rules. The following analysis discusses the general comments first,
and then the comments on specific sections.
A. General Comments
1. Defer regulations until permit issued
Some of the comments were based on the premise that contingency
plan, preparedness, and emergency response requirements should be
negotiated when A permit is issued. Although they did not explicitly
state this, one can assume that the commentera felt that these re-
quirements should not apply during the interim status period. (By
definition, a facility owner or operator with interim status has
applied for a permit, but it has not yet been issued or denied.)
The Agency disagrees with this position. All the requirements
are associated directly with protecting the environment and people.
The Agency sees no reason to delay them until a permit is issued. In
addition, most of the requirements are explicit and straightforward.
Thus, they do not require negotiation with or interpretation by the
Regional Administrator before they can be implemented.
However, the Agency recognizes that some of the proposed
requirements, such as those accompanied by "Notes," might be
16
-------
interpreted as requiring negotiation with EPA. To minimize the need
for this during the interim status period, some of the final rules
applicable during interim status are written differently than the
general rules. These differences are highlighted in the following
discussions.
2. Tailor Rules to Circumstances
Many commeliters felt that the proposed contingency plan, pre-
paredness, and emergency response provisions should be restructured
to allow tailored requirements for particular circumstances. In the
same vein, other commenters complained that the proposed provisions
were overly restrictive for some types of facilities, too inflexible,
or too specific. Similarly, another group of commenters claimed that
the proposed rules were inappropriate for facilities which handled
only "low" hazard waste, such as utility boiler fly ash or waste oil.
The Agency recognizes that there are different types of facil-
ities handling many different kinds of wastes in widely differing
circumstances with respect to climate, proximity to people, etc. In
the proposed rules, the "Notes" following certain provisions provided
some flexibility to account for these differences. In the final
rules, these "Notes" have been incorporated into the regulations.
Further, this concept of case-by-case determinations of appropriate
requirements has been expanded, with many revisions throughout the
final rules to provide greater flexibility.
17
-------
An ex Ample is the proposed requirement: "The plan shall
describe arrangements made with local police departments, hospitals,
and emergency response teams to coordinate emergency services." This
concept has been modified in the final rules by adding the clause:
"as appropriate for the type of waste handled at the facility and the
potential need for the services of these organizations" in $264.37.
Similarly, the proposed requirement: "Aisle space shall be
maintained for unobstructed movement of personnel, and maintained so
that fire protection equipment, etc., can be brought to bear on any
area of facility operation in time of emergency." has been modified
in the final rules by adding the clause: "unless aisle space is not
needed for any of these purposes."
As a further example, the proposed requirement: "The plan shall
include an evacuation plan for facility personnel..." has been modi-
fied in the final rules by adding the clause "where there is a possi-
bility that evacuation could be necessary."
In addition, requirements specific to ignitable or reactive
waste have been clearly identified in the final rules. However, it
should be noted that fires and explosions are not the only kind of
incidents these provisions are intended to cover. Any release of any
hazardous waste is of concern to the Agency, and both the proposed
and final rules reflect this.
18
-------
3. On-site vs. Off-site Facilities
Several commenters felt Chat the proposed rules were aimed
primarily at commercial off-site facilities. It was claimed that
most manufacturing plants with on-site hazardous waste management
facilities have safety departments, firefighting capabilities, and
first aid stations. These commenters felt that the proposed rules
should be revised to allow on-site facilities to develop contingency
plans based on their specific needs on a site-by-site basis.
Upon review of the proposed rules, the Agency did not find any
provisions that apply primarily to commercial off-site facilities.
EPA agrees, however, that the rules should allow more flexibility for
specific needs at both on-site and off-site facilities. As noted
above, the Agency has recast the final rules to allow case-by-case
determinations of the necessity for most requirements depending upon
type of facility, type of waste handled, etc.
4. Guidelines vs. Regulations
One commenter felt that EPA should have a general regulation re-
quiring a suitable facility contingency plan subject to approval by
the Regional Administrator, but that all the other proposed rules
should be guidelines amplifying that general requirement, rather than
regulations.
The Agency does not agree with this comment. The contingency
plan provisions are but one of a set of three in the proposed rules.
The contingency plan provisions are considered to be the minimum
19
-------
necessary for adequate response planning for hazardous waste nan&ge-
nent facilities. Therefore, the Agency believes that they should be
regulations, rather than guidelines. However, the Agency believes
the preparedness and prevention, and emergency response requirements
are also important and independent of contingency plans, and should
remain as enforceable regulations in their own right.
It should be noted that these regulations do not prescribe all
situations which should be included in the contingency plans for
various kinds of facilities. The Agency intends to provide addi-
tional guidance for specific cases later in technical manuals, etc.
5. Protection Inside vs. Outside Facilities
Comments to several sections of the proposed rules indirectly
raised the following isaue: should the RCRA preparedness and pre-
vention, contingency plan, and emergency response provisions deal
with the potential for damage to htoan health and the enviroment
both inside and outside hazardous waste facilities?
RCRA13 mandate to protect human health and the environment is
not limited to dangers occurring outside hazardous waste management
facilities. In fact, many of the damage cases cited earlier involved
death or injury to facility operating personnel as well as threats to
people outside the facility.
The Agency is concerned about the health and safety of facility
personnel. The RCRA Section 3002 regulations for waste manifests and
waste shipping container labeling and marking, and the Section 3004
20
-------
waste analysis, training, inspection, and facility design and oper-
ating regulations, should go far in reducing hazards to facility
personnel.
In addition, the RCRA contingency plan, preparedness, and emer-
gency response regulations include steps to respond to both internal
and external thres s. In designing internal plans to respond to
employee health threats, however, respondents must recognize that
primary responsibility for protecting human health inside hazardous
waste management facilities rests with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration of the Department of Labor.
In summary, the ambit of these RCRA preparedness, contingency
plan and emergency response regulations includes activities both
inside and outside hazardous waste management facilities. Facility
owners and operators should understand that the Agency intends to
interpret and enforce these regulations in this manner (see related
discussion below at IV.C.I. at page 37).
B. Subpart .3 ~_ ''ifcparednass and Prevention
[Proposed $250.43-3(b)]
This section was proposed as paragraph (b) of $250.43-3, Contin-
gency Plan and Emergency Procedures. In the final rules, it has been
made a separate Subpart because:
(1) it contains explicit facility requirements (e.g., fire
protection equipment, aisle space, etc.) which are in-
dependtrt of implementing a facility contingency plan;
21
-------
(2) ic is more logical Co discuss preparedness and prevention
aspects of facility operations before discussing planning
for and response to emergencies which may or may not occur;
and
(3) the placement of the paragraph in the proposed rule tended
to interrupt the flow of discussion from contingency plan-
ning to implementing the contingency plan, i.e., emergency
response.
Also, proposed §250.43-3(a)v.3) concerning arrangements with local*
authorities has been moved to this Subpart, because such arrangements
arc related to preparedness.
1. Comments Applicable to Entire Subpart
Several commenters felt that some facilities do not present
potential hazards requiring preparedness and prevention. They sug-
gested the preparedness and prevention requirements should be appli-
cable only "where appropriate".
These comments are similar to those discussed at IV. A. 2. above
(page 17) under the title Tailor Rules to Circumstances. As indi-
cated in that discussion, the Agency recognizes that there are dif-
ferent types of facilities handling many different kinds of waste
in widely differing circumstances. Thus, the Agency has provided
greater flexibility in the final rules to allow case-by-case determi-
nations of appropriate requirements, where flexibility is warranted.
Examples of this were given previously and need not be repeated here.
As the following sections discuss the specific provisions for pre-
paredness and prevention, the reader will see greater flexibility in
most of the final requirements than in their proposed versions.
22
-------
2. S26A.30 Applicability
The Agency has added a section on applicability to each Subpart
of the final rules to amplify the general applicability provisions in
S264.1. Subpart C applies to the owners and operators of all facili-
ties. Hence, the final rule states:
$264.30 Applicability
The regulations in this Subparc apply to owners and
operators of all hazardous waste facilities, except as
S264.1 provides otherwise.
The comparable final interim status standard is essentially
identical:
§265.30 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and
operators of all hazardous waste facilities, except as
$265.1 provides otherwise.
3. S264.31 Design and Operation of Facility
[Proposed $250.43-3(b)(D]
One cotranenter suggested changing the proposed wording of this
section to read: "Facilities shall be designed, operated, and con-
structed so that the likelihood of the most common type of accident
and/or emergency, discharge, fire, or explosion harmful to human
health or the environment is minimized." The commenter did not elab-
orate the reasons for this suggestion, or what "the most common type"
of accident might be.
23
-------
The Agency infers the suggestion to be that facility prepared-
ness and prevention measures should be more limited than proposed.
However, the proposed rule is essentially a performance standard
which is intended to minimize potential harm to the environment or
human health outside the facility from any type of accident or
emergency. The Agency believes this is closer to the legislative
intent of Section 3004 of RCRA than the more restrictive version
suggested by the commenter. Further, the Agency believes it would
be very difficult to decide what "the most common type" of accident
might be at most facilities, and it would not be fully protective of
human health and the environment to design and operate the facility
to protect only against one type of emergency. Thus, the Agency has
retained the proposed approach. However, the Agency will use a
standard of reasonableness in interpreting the provision.
The word "maintain" has been added to the final rule to clarify
that proper maintenance of equipment, as well as proper operation of
equipment, is of concern to the Agency and is an element of an ac-
ceptable facility preparedness and prevention program. "Maintain"
elaborates on the word "operation" and mirrors the specific require-
ments of §§264.33 and 264.56(h)(2).
The proposed rule has been modified to incorporate these points.
The final rule states:
§264.31 Design and operation of facility
Facilities must be designed, constructed, maintained, and
operated to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or
24
-------
any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous waste
or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water
which could threaten human health or the environment.
The words "designed" and "constructed" have been deleted from
the final interim status standard provision because EPA does not ex-
pect the owner or operator of facilities already in operation to da-
sign or construct new structures to comply with the provision during
the interim status period. The final interim status standard incor-
porates the points raised above and reads as follows:
S265.31 Maintenance and operation of facility
Facilities must be maintained and operated to minimize the
possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or
non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste con-
stituents to air, soil, or surface water which could threaten
human health or the environment.
4. Comments on Proposed S250.43-3(b)(2)
•
A number of commenters claimed that the proposed requirement
that a facility covered by Section 311 of the Clean Water Act have
a valid SPCC plan could constitute duplicative enforcement of other
laws under RCRA. They recommended that the provision be deleted.
The Agency agrees with these comments for reasons discussed else-
where (see Legal Support Document). The provision has been deleted
from the final rule.
5. $264.32 Required Equipment
[Proposed $250.43-3(b)(3), and (5)1
In the final rule, the required equipment for facility prepared-
ness and prevention is specified in one section, rather than the two
sections in the proposed rules.
25
-------
The proposed rules at $250.43-3(b)(3) required all facilities to
have both internal and external emergency communications equipment.
A "Mote" provided a variance to the external communication system
requirement but not for the internal system. Several commenters felt
that not every size or type of facility would require an internal
communications system. Thus, they recommended providing an exemption
or variance for this requirement as well.
The proposed rules at S250.43-3 (b)(5) required that each facil-
ity have fire control, spill control, and decontamination equipment
as well as an adequate water supply for fire equipment and special
fire extinguishing equipment. A "Note" provided a variance for fire
extinguishing and control equipment, but not for other requirements.
One commenter felt this provision was confusing and recommended
a flexible standard to allow determinations on a case-by-case basis.
The Agency agrees that there is sufficient variability in the types
of waste handled at facilities that a variance is justified for this
standard. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been revised.
The Agency agrees that there may be some faciliti.s—such as
those handling wastes with leaching potential but without immediate
or acute hazard potential—which do not need an internal communica-
tions or alarm system to provide immediate emergency instruction to
facility employees. Accordingly, ':he final rule adds a variance to
this provision.
26
-------
A commuter interpreted the proposed rule to require that each
facility have an alaro, a telephone, and a hand-held, two-way radio
or similar device, and felt that this duplication was unnecessary.
It was the Agency's intent that each facility have at least one of
these devices, but not necessarily all of them. The final rule has
been written to clarify this point.
One cooaenter suggested adding a requirement that each facility
have an alarm connected directly to the local health or public safety
agency. EPA disagrees with this suggestion because:
(1) not all facilities handle acutely hazardous waste and thus
do not need to immediately notify local authorities, and
(2) this requirement would be unnecessarily complex and
burdensome.
A reference to State and local emergency response teams has been
added to be consistent with changes to contingency plan requirements
discussed in IV, C. 4. below at page 42.
Another commenter suggested that the provision be revised to
require a back-up water supply for fire control equipment at each
facility. The Agencv has not adopted this suggestion in the final
rule because some facilities may not need any water supply system
for fire control equipment, much less a back-up system. Thus, in
the Agency's opinion, the suggested requirement is not generally
applicable, and would be unnecessarily burdensome.
The final rule adopts the suggestion for a variance to provide
flexibility. The composite rule for facility equipment reads as
follows:
27
-------
§264.32 Required Equipment
All facilities oust be equipped with the following, unless
it can be demonstrated to the Regional Administrator that none
of the hazards posed by waste handled at the facility could
require a particular kind of equipment specified below:
(a) An internal communications or alarm system capable of
providing immediate emergency instruction (voice or
signal) to facility personnel;
(b) A device, such as a telephone (immediately available at
the scene of operations) or a hand-held two-way radio,
capable of summoning external emergency assistance from
local police departments, fire departments, or State or
local emergency response teams;
(c) Portable fire extinguishers, fire control equipment
(including special extinguishing equipment, such as
that using foam, inert gas, or dry chemicals), spill
control equipment, and decontamination equipment; and
(d) Water at adequate volume and pressure to supply water
hose streams, or foam producing equipment, or automatic
sprinklers, or water spray systems.
For some facility owners or operators with interim status, it
may be several years before the Agency calls for submission of Part B
of the permit application. To provide flexibility during the interim
status period, and to avoid the need for facility owners or operators
with interim status to conduct time-consuming negotiations with the
Regional Administrator, reference to a variance demonstration has
been deleted from the final interim status standards.
In effect, the Agency will allow facility owners or operators
with interim status to determine for themselves whether a variance
from the standard is applicable to them. However, they must be
able to demonstrate the basis for their judgments to authorized EPA
28
-------
officials during Any facility inspections EPA may. conduct during the
interim status period.
Consequently, the final interim status standard for this pro-
vision reads as follows:
$265*32 Required Equipment
All facilities must be equipped with the following,
unless none of the hazards posed by waste handled at the
facility could require a particular kind of equipment
specified below:
(a) An internal communications or alarm system capable of
providing immediate emergency instruction (voice or
signal) to facility personnel;
(b) A device, such as a telephone (immediately available at
the scene of operations) or a hand-held two-way radio,
capable of summoning external emergency assistance from
local police departments, fire departments, or State or
local emergency response teams;
(c) Portable fire extinguishers, fire control equipment
(including special extinguishing equipment, such as
that using foam, inert gas, or dry chemicals), spill
control equipment, and decontamination equipment; and
(d) Water at adequate volume and pressure to supply water
hose streams, or foam producing equipment, or automatic
sprinklers, or water spray systems.
6. S264.33 Testing and Maintenance of Equipment
[Proposed S250.43-3(b)(6)]
The proposed rule required all fire, spill, and decontamination
equipment to be tested, inspected, and maintained in satisfactory
operating condition. No comments were received on this proposed
rule, most likely because it makes eminently good sense and is in
line with common practice, and applicable State and local laws.
-------
The Agency modified the rule slightly in the final version to be
consistent with the variance provisions added earlier to J264.32.
Further, reference to equipment inspections was deleted since this
aspect is now covered in the inspection provisions of $264.15. Also,
upon review of the proposed rule, the Agency detected an oversight.
The Agency believes that the testing and maintenance requirement
should apply to facility communications or alarm systems, as well
as fire, spill, and decontamination equipment, in order to provide
adequate facility preparedness for emergencies. The final rule
states:
$264.33 Testing and maintenance of equipment
All facility communications or alarm systems, fire protec-
tion equipment, spill control equipment, and decontamination
equipment, where required, must be tested and maintained as
necessary to assure its proper operation in time of emergency.
The final interim status standard at $265.33 is identical to the
above rule.
7. $264.34 Access to Communications or Alarm System
[Proposed $250.43-3(b)(4)]
The proposed provision required that employees have access to
internal and external communication systems whenever hazardous waste
was being handled. Several commenters felt there should be an exemp-
tion or variance to this provision where emergency situations are un-
likely.
The Agency agrees with these comments for the same reasons dis-
cussed under IV B. 5. above at page 25. Also, $264.32 and $264.34
30
-------
would b« incotuistent unless a variance provision were added here.
Thus, the proposed rule has been revised and the final rule reads as
follows:
S264.34 Access to communications or alarm system
(a) Whenever hazardous waste is being poured, mixed, spread,
or otherwise handled, all personnel involved in the oper-
ation must have immediate access to an internal alarm or
emergency communication device, either directly or through
visual or voice contact with another employee, unless the
Regional Administrator has ruled that such a device is not
required under $264.32.
(b) If there is ever just one employee on the premises while
the facility is operating, he must have immediate access
to a device, such as a telephone (immediately available
at the scene of operation), or a hand-held two-way radio,
capable of summoning external emergency assistance, unless
the Regional Administrator has ruled that such device is
not required under S264.32(b).
The final interim status standards for this provision have been
modified, (by deleting "the Regional Administrator has ruled that")
to be consistent with the interim status standards for S265.32. They
now read as follows:
$265.34 Access to communications or alarm system
(a) Whenever hazardous waste is being poured, mixed, spread,
or otherwise handled, all personnel involved in the oper-
ation must have immediate access to an internal alarm or
emergency communication device, either directly or through
visual or voice contact with another employee, unless such
a device is not required under $265.32.
(b) If there is ever just one employee on the premises while
the facility is operating, he must have immediate access
to a device, such as a telephone (immediately available
at the scene of operation), or a hand-held two-way radio,
capable of summoning external emergency assistance, unless
such a device is not required under $265.32.
31
-------
8. $264.35 Required Aisle Space
[Proposed »250.43-3(b)(7)]
The proposed rule required that adequate aisle space be main-
tained to allow unobstructed movement of personnel and fire, spill,
and decontamination equipment. A "Note" accompanying the proposed
rule provided a variance.
Nonetheless, one commenter suggested the provision should be
applicable o'nly "where appropriate." This was t? intent of the
"Note," which the commenter apparently misunderstood. In the final
rule the Agency has incorporated the "Note" directly into the rule
to avoid misinterpretation. The final rule reads as follows:
$264.35 Required aisle space
The owner or operator must maintain aisle space to allow
the unobstructed movement of personnel, fire protection equip-
ment, spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment
to any area of facility operation in an emergency, unless it
can be demonstrated to the Regional Administrator that aisle
space is not needed for any of these purposes.
For the reasons discussed in IV.B.5. above (page 25), ref-
erence to a variance demon'stration has been deleted from the final
interim status standard. The provision now reads as follows:
J265.35 Required aisle space
The owner or operator must maintain aisle space tc allow
the unobstructed movement of personnel, fire protection equip-
ment, spill control equipment, and decontamination equipment
to any area of facility operation in an emergency, unless
aisle space is not needed for any of these purposes.
-------
9. $264.36 Special Handling for Ignitable or Reactive Watte
[Proposed J250.43-3(b)(8) and (b)(9)]
The proposed rule (b)(8) required precautions to be taken to
prevent accidental ignition of ignitable materials. Rule (b)(9)
prohibited smoking while ignitable or reactive waste is being han-
dled. One commeuter felt that rule (b)(9) was redundant and unneces-
sary since a smoking precaution was already included in rule (b)(8).
The Agency agrees that the proposed rules (b)(8) and (b)(9) are
closely aligned, and has combined them in the final rule to avoid
redundancy. Further, the final rule highlights the fact that its
provisions apply only to ignitable or reactive waste. The final rule
reads as follows:
$264.36 Special handling for ignitable or reactive waste
The owner or operator must take precautions to prevent
accidental ignition or reaction of ignitable or reactive waste*
This waste must be separated and protected from sources of ig-
nition or reaction including but not limited to: open flames,
smoking, cutting and welding, hot surfaces, frictional heat,
sparks (static, electrical, or mechanical), spontaneous igni-
tion (e.g., from heat-producing chemical reactions), and radi-
ant heat. While ignitable or reactive waste is being handled,
the owner or operator must confine smoking and open flame to
specially designated locations. "No Smoking" signs must be
conspicuously placed wherever there is a hazard from ignitable
or reactive waste.
The final interim status standard is identical to this provi-
sion and is located in $265.17(a).
33
-------
10. $.264.37 Arrangements with Local Authorities
[Proposed J250.43-3(a)(3)]
Familiarization of Local Authorities. Several commentera
pointed out that facility owners or operators may offer to make ar-
rangements to coordinate emergency services with local authorities,
but they cannot require local authorities to enter into such arrange-
ments, as the proposed rule implied. Other commenters felt that
familiarization of local authorities may not be necessary in many
situations, e.g., where the owner or operator can show that the
facility has the equipment and personnel necessary to control emer-
gencies. Another commenter suggested that the proposed rule be broad-
ened to include written arrangements with State response agencies.
In the proposed rule, the Agency did not intend nor mean to
imply that local authorities were required to enter into agreements
against their will. RCRA's Subtitle C controls extend to local au-
thorities only if they generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste. The Agency does intend that facility owners or
operators attempt to enter into agreements with local authorities
where this is appropriate, and describe those arrangements, where
successfully made and agreed to, in the contingency plan. The Agency
agrees that State, as well as local, emergency response teams may be
called in certain emergencies, and that prior agreements with these
State agencies are desirable where appropriate.
34
-------
Insurance Problems. One commenter claimed that familiarization
of local authorities with the plant layout and waste handled at a
facility, prior to their actually being called to the facility in an
emergency, may create insurance problems, and other difficulties, but
did not elaborate on this point.
The Agency doubts that any potential insurance problems are of
great magnitude. It is difficult for EPA to imagine how familiariza-
tion of local authorities with a hazardous waste management facility
could create insurance problems which could not be solved by appro-
priate arrangements. EPA assumes the insurance industry supports
such familiarization actions, and EPA considers them as an important
component of protecting the environment and human health outside the
facility.
Familiarization is Ineffective. One commenter claimed that
familiarization of local authorities is ineffective and useless,
because of personnel turnover and higher priority concerns, and
recommended that the proposed rule be deleted.
Personnel turnover is a fact of life in any organization but,
in EPA's view, this is not sufficient justification to delete the
requirement. Further, it is EPA's belief that public awareness of
hazardous waste management activities is growing rapidly. Thus,
local authorities will be more attentive to these activities in the
future, and will give them higher priority.
35
-------
In consideration of the above comments, the final rule states:
$264.37 Arrangements with local authorities
(a) The owner or operator must attempt to make the following
arrangements, as appropriate for the type of waste handled
at his facility and the potential need for the services of
these organizations:
(1) Arrangements to familiarize police, fire departments,
and emergency response teams with the layout of the
facility, properties of hazardous waste handled at the
facility and associated hazards, places where facility
personnel would normally be working, entrances to and
roads inside the facility, and possible evacuation
routes;
(2) Where more than one police and fire department might
respond to an emergency, agreements designating pri-
mary emergency authority to a specific police and a
specific fire department, and agreements with any
others to provide support to the primary emergency
authority;
(3) Agreements with State emergency response teams, emer-
gency response -contractors, and equipment suppliers;
and
(4) Arrangements to familiarize local hospitals with the
properties of hazardous waste handled at the facility
and the types of injuries or illnesses which could
result from fires, explosions, or releases at the
facility.
(b) Where State or local authorities decline to enter into
such arrangements, the owner or operator must document
the refusal in the operating record.
The final interim status standard at §265.37 is identical to the
above.
36
-------
C. Subpart D - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
[Proposed S250.43-3(a) and (c)]
1. Comments Applicable to Entire Subpart
Delete Contingency Plan. Commenters felt that the proposed
contingency plan provision was unnecessary and should be deleted be-
cause the Spill Prevention, Control, and Counter-measures (SPCC) plan
required by the Clean Water Act is sufficient to fulfill contingency
planning requirements for hazardous waste management facilities*
The Agency disagrees with this comment. The universe of facil-
ities currently required to have a SPCC plan is not identical to the
universe of hazardous waste facilities controlled under RCRA. Fur-
ther, the proposed rules for RCRA contingency plans are not identical
to the SPCC plan requirements and the SPCC plan is not an adequate
substitute for RCRA contingency plan requirements. However, the two
plans can be complementary. The modifications discussed in IV. C. 4.
below (page 42) are designed to take advantage of this.
Ground-Water Contamination. Commenters were concerned that the
proposed rules seemed to address only acute emergency situations, and
argued that the contingency plan should include responses to be taken
if ground-water contamination were detected.
The Agency agrees with this comment in principle. The release
of any hazardous waste, whether sudden or non-sudden, is a potential
threat to people or the environment and is of concern to the Agency.
37
-------
Numerous documented damage cases concerning ground-water contami-
nation associated with hazardous waste management facilities dee
Ground-Water Monitoring Background Document) illustrate the serious-
ness of this problem.
However, the Agency has concluded that the ground-water monitor-
ing regulations, rather than the contingency plan regulations, are
the appropriate place to deal with contingency planning and response
to ground-water contamination incidents. Ground-water monitoring
is required only at certain types of facilities, trtiereas the contin-
gency plan requirement applies to all types of facilities. Further,
ground-water contamination incidents, while very serious in many
cases, do not generally require an immediate (i.e., within minutes
or hours) response, and therefore, do not fit the general perception
of the type of incident to be covered by a contingency plan.
The final ground-water monitoring rules include requirements for
evaluation of ground-water analyses, and advance planning for and a
description of the response required where a potential ground-water
problem is identified. Consequently, the Agency has adopted the
commenters1 basic suggestion, but in a different manner than proposed
in the comments.
Implementation of the Contingency Plan. Several commenters
suggested that a phrase should be added to a sentence in proposed
§250.43-3(a)(1) to make that paragraph consistent with the proposed
definition of "contingency plan" and the emergency response and
38
-------
recovery provision at proposed J250.43-3(c)(1). The suggested lan-
guage was (addition underlined): "Tha provisions of the plan shall
be implemented immediately in the event of a discharge or release of
.-
hazardous waste from the facility which has the potential for damag-
ing human health or the environment."
The Agency agrees that the comment has merit. It is not the
Agency's intention that facility owners or operators invoke their
contingency plan when small amounts of hazardous waste are released
(e.g., v«ry small spills or a leaking valve). Also, the Agency
agrees that the RCRA regulations should be consistent. Consequently,
in the final rule the sentence at issue has been revised to state:
"The provisions of the plan must be carried out immediately
whenever there is a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous
waste or hazardous waste constituents which could threaten
human health or the environment."
Further the definition of "contingency plan" and the response
and recovery provisions proposed in §250.43-3(c) have been revised
in the final rule to be consistent with this sentence.
Include "worst case." Coramenters suggested that the contingency
plan should also provide for a "worst case" accident or emergency,
but did not elaborate.
It is difficult for EPA to respond to this comment without fur-
ther details of what the commenters meant by the term "worse case."
The damage cases discussed earlier in this document include some ex-
amples of acute emergency situations of substantial magnitude. The
rules are structured to address such situations. Consequently, the
39
-------
Agency believes there is no need to add "worst case" provisions to
the final rules.
[Comment; The final rules for contingency plans and emergency
procedures have been restructured for greater clarity. The
following discussion of comments received on the proposed
rules, and rationale for the final rules, follows the order
of the final rules.]
2. $264.50 Applicability
The Agency has added a section on applicability to each Subpart
of the final rules to amplify the general applicability provisions in
$264.1. Subpart D applies to the owners and operators of all facili-
ties. Hence, the final rule states:
t264.50 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and
operators of all hazardous waste facilities, except as
5264.1 provides otherwise.
The comparable final interim status standard is essentially
identical:
$265.50 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and
operators of all hazardous waste facilities, except as
$265.1 provides otherwise.
3. $264.51 Purpose and Implementation of Contingency Plan
[Proposed $250.43-3(a)(D]
The proposed rule required owners or operators to develop a
contingency plan for each facility, and to implement the plan immedi-
ately in the event of a discharge or release of hazardous waste from
the facility.
40
-------
Multiple Facilities at One Site. One commenter asked whether
the proposed rule meant that each "facility" (that is, each surface
impoundment, landfill, etc.) at one location is required to have its
own individual contingency plan. Several coomenters suggested that
one overall contingency plan should be adequate where multiple facil-
ities are located on one site, or where waste generation and dispo-
sal are on the same site.
Apparently, the definition of "facility" in the proposed rule
was not clear, and caused confusion. The Agency's intent is that one
contingency plan be written for each facility, but that a facility
may include several individual unit operations, such as one or more
landfills, surface impoundments, etc., at a single location. The
definition of "facility" in the final rule has been clarified to
reflect that intention (see I.B. above at page 3). Further, the
final rule allows merging the RCRA contingency plan requirements with
an existing SPCC plan, or other emergency or contingency plan. This
plan may apply to an overall manufacturing or waste generation plant,
which could include a hazardous waste management facility at the same
location.
In the final rule, the term "discharge or release" has been
shortened to "release" to avoid redundancy. The words "to air, soil,
or surface water" have been added to clarify that the RCRA contin-
gency plan is intended to cover unplanned releases to any media. The
final rule thus reads as follows:
41
-------
$264.51 Purpose and implementation of contingency plan
(a) Each owner or operator must have a contingency plan for
his facility. The contingency plan mist be decigned to
minimize hazards to human health or the environment from
fires, explosions, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden
release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents
to air, soil, or surface water.
(b) The provisions of the plan must be carried out immediately
whenever there is a fire, explosion, or release of haz-
ardous waste or hazardous waste constituents which could
threaten human health or the environment.
The final interim status standard at $265.51 is identical to
this provision.
4. S264.52 Content of Contingency Plan
[Proposed $250.43-3(a)(l), (3), (5), (6), (7), and (8)]
The proposed provisions cited above all pertained to what the
contingency plan must contain. In the final rule, they have been
grouped together for clarity.
Upon review of proposed §250.43-3(a)(8), the Agency determined
that the definition of a training program to familiarize employees
with emergency procedures and equipment was more appropriate to the
Personnel Training regulations. Accordingly, these provisions have
been moved to $264.16 in the final rule. (See the Personnel Training
Background Document for further discussion.)
a. $264.52 - General Description
This new provision has been added to the final rules to provide
a general description of what the contingency plan must contain, and
to clarify that the actions necessary to comply with $$264.51 and
42
-------
264.56 must be included in the plan. The final rule reads as fol-
lows :
§264.52 Content of contingency plan
(a) The contingency plan must describe the actions facility
personnel must tfike to comply with $$264.51 and 264.56 in
response to fires, explosions, or any unplanned sudden or
non-sudden release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents to air, soil, or surface water at the facil-
ity.
The final interim status standard at $265.52(a) is essentially
identical to the above.
b. $264.52(b) - Spill Control Plan Amendment
Merge RCRA Contingency Plan with SPCC Plan. Many commenters
suggested that, to avoid duplicate work for facility owners or oper-
ators, the proposed rules should be modified to allow the owners or
operators to merge the RCRA contingency plan with their SPCC plan,
or other in-place emergency plans for fires, explosions, or spills
required by Federal, State, or local regulations.
The Agency agrees that these comments have merit. The Agency
recognizes that existing spill or emergency plans may complement the
RCRA requirements. Certainly, EPA has no desire to add unnecessary
work to facility owners or operators coming under RCRA control. The
final rules reflect this point.
Reference SPCC Plan. One commenter suggested adding to the
regulation the Code of Federal Regulations reference for SPCC plans.
The Agency agrees with this comment, since it will make it
easier for the regulated community to comply. The appropriate
43
-------
references for SPCC plans (40 CFR Pare 112 and 40 CFR Part 151) have
been added to the final rule.
Conflict with U.S. Coast Guard Rules. One commenter claimed
that the proposed RCRA rules for contingency plans would conflict
with proposed U.S. Coast Guard rules for waterside facilities.
EPA has been coordinating with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding
the shared responsibilities in protecting the environment and human
health, or marine environment, from spills or discharges of hazardous
substances or hazardous wastes under the authorities of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act,
respectively. Both agencies agree that the RCRA Section 3004 regula-
tions are sufficiently flexible regarding the requirements for con-
tingency plans, preparedness, prevention, and emergency response that
these regulations will not conflict with the forthcoming U.S. Coast
Guard regulations for waterfront facilities (33 CFR Parts 126, 154,
and 156).
As a result of all of the considerations discussed above, the
final rule for $264»52(b) reads as follows:
(b) If the owner or operator has already prepared a Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan in
accordance with Part 112 or Part 151 of this chapter, or
some other emergency or contingency plan, he need only
amend that plan to incorporate hazardous waste management
provisions that are sufficient to comply with the require-
ments of this Part.
The final interim status standard at S265.52(b) is identical to
the above.
44
-------
c. 1264.52(c) - Agreements with Local Authorities
[Proposed §250.43-3(a)(3)]
The Agency's response to comments on the proposed rule is dis-
cussed in Section IV.B.10. of this document under S264.37 - Arrange-
ments with Local Authorities. The Agency intends that facility
owners or operators attempt to enter into agreements with local
authorities where this is appropriate, pursuant to $264.37, and
describe those arrangements, where successfully made and agreed
to, in the contingency plan. The final rule reflects this point,
as follows:
(c) The plan must describe arrangements agreed to by local
police departments, fire departments, hospitals, con-
tractors, and State and local emergency response teams
to coordinate emergency services, pursuant to $264.37.
The final interim status standard at S265.52(c) is essentially
identical to the above.
d. S264.52(d) - List of Emergency Coordinators
Delete List of Emergency Coordinators. Several commenters sug-
gested that the contingency plan need not list emergency coordinators
for facilities where emergency situations are unlikely.
As noted earlier, the contingency plan is intended to minimize
both sudden and non-sudden releases, as well as fires and explosions,
which could present hazards to human health or the environment. It
is difficult to predict the likelihood of an emergency—and in re-
sponding to an emergency, the Agency believes that there should be at
least one employee in charge. Therefore, the Agency believes there
45
-------
should be a list of emergency coordinators in the contingency plan,
even if the list contains only one name, and has retained the pro-
posed approach in the final rule.
List by Title. One commenter suggested listing emergency coor-
dinators by title, rather than by nane, to avoid amendments to the
contingency plan.
The final rule allows the emergency coordinator(s) to be on
call, rather than present on-aite at all times. Both the office and
home telephone numbers of the emergency coordinator(s) must be listed
for the contingency plan to be effective. Listing by title will not
avoid amendments to the plan. Thus, the proposed approach has been
retained in the final rule.
List in Order of Responsibility. One commenter suggested that,
where there is more than one emergency coordinator, they should be
listed in the order they will assume responsibility as alternates to
« primary emergency coodinator.
The comment has merit and supports the principle that there
should be a single person in charge of emergency response. The
suggestion has been adopted in the final rule, which states:
(d) The plan must list names, addresses, and phone numbers
(office and home) of all persons qualified to act as emer-
gency coordinator (see $264.55), and this list must be kept
up to date. Where more than one person is listed, one must
be named as primary emergency coordinator and others must
be listed in the order in which they will assume responsi-
bility as alternates. For new facilities, this information
must be supplied to the Regional Administrator at the time
of certification, rather than at the time of permit appli-
cation.
46
-------
During the interim status period, the provision regarding new
facilities does not apply. Consequently, it has been deleted from
the final interim status standard at S265.52(d), which now reads as
follows:
(d) The plan must list names, addresses, and phone numbers
(office and home) of all persons qualified to act as emer-
ency coordinator (see $265.55), and this list must be kept
up to date. Where more than one person is listed, one must
be named as primary emergency coordinator, and others must
be listed in the order in which they will assume responsi-
bility as alternates.
e. 8264.52(e) and (f) - List of Equipment and Evacuation Plan
Location of Equipment. One commenter suggested the plan contain
not only a list of all emergency equipment, but also: (1) its loca-
tion, (2) a description and location of backup equipment, and (3) a
discussion of the types of emergency equipment to be used for various
emergencies.
Item (3) was already included in the proposed rule as "a de-
scription of the capabilities of all emergency equipment at the fa-
cility." The first item has merit and is adopted in the final rule.
Information on the location of emergency equipment could be of cru-
cial importance during an emergency. Item (2) would be covered in
any event, since backup equipment would be listed if it is emergency
equipment.
Variance. Commenters suggested a variance to the requirements
for listing emergency equipment and preparing an evacuation plan,
where emergency situations are unlikely.
47
-------
As noted earlier, the contingency plan is intended to protect
human health and the environment from non-sudden releases, as well as
acute threats. It is difficult to predict the likelihood of an emer-
gency of either type, given the many possible situations. The list-
ing of emergency equipment should cover both aspects, and a variance
is not justified. However, the evacuation plan requirement is ap-
plicable only to acute situations. Thus, the variance suggested for
this requirement has been adopted in the final rules, which now read:
(e) The plan must include a list of all emergency equipment
at the facility (such as fire extinguishing systems, spill
control equipment, communications and alarm systems (inter-
nal and external), and decontamination equipment), where
this equipment is required. This list must be kept up
to date. In addition, the plan must include the location
and a physical description of each item on the list, and
a brief outline of its capabilities.
(f) The plan must include an evacuation plan for facility per-
sonnel where there is a possibility that evacuation could
be necessary. This plan must describe signal(s) to be used
to begin evacuation, evacuation routes, and alternate evac-
uation routes (in cases where the primary routes could be
blocked by releases of hazardous waste or fires).
The final interim status standards at $265.52 (e) and (f) are
identical to the above.
5. 8264.53 Copies of Contingency Plan
[Proposed $250.43-3(a)(2)]
The proposed rule required that copies of the contingency plan,
and any amendments, be filed with the Regional Administrator, and lo-
cal agencies that might be called upon to provide emergency services,
as soon as it was prepared. Also, the contingency plan was to be
48
-------
submitted to the Regional Administrator as part of the facility
permit application.
Maintain but Don't Submit Contingency Plan. Many commenters
argued that facility owners or operators should be required to main-
tain contingency plans on file, but not be required to submit plans
and amendments to the Regional Administrator or to local emergency
or health agencies. The reasons given were:
- SPCC plans are required to be available for inspection, but
are not required to be submitted; RCRA plan requirements
should be consistent with this.
- Contingency plans are amended frequently; it is burdensome
to everyone to file amended plans.
- Local authorities may refuse to accept plans; therefore, the
rule is unenforceable.
- Plans submitted to local authorities are relegated to obscure
files; therefore, the rule is useless.
Similarly, some comma nters felt that contingency plans should be
filed with local authorities only when a release of hazardous waste
would require their response or endanger those under their protec-
tion, or when a facility handles "extremely" hazardous waste.
The Agency agrees, in general, with what the commenters say
about EPA involvement, but not with what they say about local agency
involvement. The Agency believes that the contingency plan require-
ment is an important part of the overall RCRA Section 3004 standards,
and that EPA should ensure that each facility has an acceptable plan.
Because the Agency accomplishes this by requiring that a contingency
plan be:
49
-------
- prepared by each facility
- amended as accessary
- made available to EPA inspectors during on-site reviews,
or to the Regional Administrator when requested, and
- submitted to EPA as part of the permit application,
the Agency agrees that plans and revisions need not be submitted rou-
tinely to EPA. This approach is consistent with SPCC plan require-
ments, which are being revised to require submission of plans to EPA
only upon request of the Regional Administrator.
•
It is more important, however, that local authorities have an
up to date facility contingency plan, whenever "their response may be
required or those under their protection may be endangered," to para-
phrase one of the comments.
Both the proposed and final rules-use the phraae "... that may
be called upon to provide emergency services." This phrase covers
responses by local authorities both to the facility and to people
outside the facility io an emergency situation originating inside the
faciliuy. Also, the phrase means that a contingency plan need not be
filed with local authorities if the nature of the waste handled at a
facility or internal emergency response capabilities at the facility
are such that local authorities will not be called upon to provide
services either to the facility or to people outside the facility.
The contingency plan must be amended in the following cases:
- revisions to applicable regulations (interim status)
- revisions to the facility permit (permitted status)
50
-------
- failure of the plan in an emergency
- changes in the facility design, construction, operation,
maintenance, or other circumstances that materially increase
the potential for fires, explosions; or releases of hazard-
ous waste or hazardous waste constituents or change the re-
sponse necessary in &n emergency
- changes in the person(s) qualified to act as facility emer-
gency coordinator
- changes in the emergency equipment at the facility
The Agency believes all these reasons for plan amendment are
important and that local authorities, where appropriate, have a. need
to know about these changes. The first four cases could involve
significant amendments to a facility's contingency plan, but such
amendments should occur infrequently. The last two cases may occur
more often, but the change and notification requirements are not
burdensome.
The proposed rule required facility owners or operators to file
contingency plans with local authorities. It did not require these
authorities to accept them. The Agency believes the great majority
of locsl authorities are responsible and competent and that they
rarely will reject facility plans or relegate them to obscure files.
Nevertheless, a facility owner or operator will have complied with
the rule if he can document in the operating record that he submitted
a contingency plan to local authorities who may be called upon to
provide emergency services, and that they refused to accept it.
Confidential Information. Several commenters claimed that fa-
cility contingency plans frequently contain confidential information
51
-------
which companies would insist not be maintained in public files.
Therefore, the comment era felt contingency plans should not be sub**
mitted to EPA (or by extension, to local authorities) but, rather,
maintained on the facility premises open to EPA inspection.
The contingency plan must be submitted to EPA with Part B of the
permit application under 40 CFR Part 122, and will become a condition
of any permit issued. The permit regulations state that permit-
related information, asserted to be confidential at the time it is
submitted, will be disclosed by EPA only in accordance with the pro-
cedures in 40 CFR Part 2. Because the contingency plan will be part
of the permit, portions of contingency plans asserted to be confiden-
tial will be available to the public only in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 2.
As stated earlier, the Agency believes that where appropriate to
protect human health and the environment in emergencies, it is vital
that local authorities have up-to-date facility contingency plans in
their possession. A facility's contingency plan need not contain
details of proprietary processes or operations. For this -eason, the
Agency does not believe that contingency plans often, if ever, need
to be confidential.
Insufficient Time for Plan Submission. A few commenters stated
that: "Requiring the submittal of an SPCC plan as part of a [RCRA]
permit application is unreasonable, since the development of an
adequate and effective SPCC plan may require a significantly greater
52
-------
period of time than available between promulgation of the [RCRA]
regulations and submission of a [RCRA] permit application."
These comments were made before the RCRA permit rules were pro-
posed on June 14, 1979. These proposed rules set up a two-part per-
mit application. Submission of the Part A permit application to EPA
is required to qualify for interim status. Part A must be submitted
within six months after promulgation of the RCRA Section 3001 regula-
tions. Part B of the permit application is to be submitted to EPA
upon request at a later date. The facility contingency plan must be
submitted with Part B, but is not required for Part A. Further, as
noted above, the RCRA contingency plan may be merged with an existing
SPCC plan, but it is not a requirement in the final rule that an SPCC
plan be submitted as part of a RCRA permit application.
The contingency plan must include:
(1) actions to be taken in response to fires, explosions, or
releases
(2) where appropriate, a description of arrangements agreed to
by local agencies to provide emergency response services
(3) a list of emergency coordinators
(4) a list of emergency equipment at the facility, and
(5) where appropriate, an evacuation plan.
The Agency believes a facility owner or operator should be able
to prep?—j a contingency plan meeting the above requirements within
the six-month period between regulation promulgation and effective
date.
53
-------
Consequently, each facility owner or operator is required to
have a contingency plan on the effective date of these regulations,
and to submit it to appropriate local authorities, even though it is
not required to be submitted to EPA until a later date, with Part B
of the permit application.
In consideration of the above points, the final rule states:
S264.53 Copies of contingency plan
A copy of the contingency plan and all revisions to the
plan must be:
(a) Maintained at the facility; and
(b) Submitted to all local police departments, fire depart-
ments, hospitals, and State and local emergency response
teams that may be called upon to provide emergency ser-
vices.
The final interim status standard at §265.53 is identical to
the above.
6. 264.54 Amendment of Contingency Plan
[Proposed §250.43-3(a)(2)]
A part of proposed paragraph (a)(2) concerned plan amendments.
This provision has been restructured and made a separate rule. The
proposed term "changed circumstances" has been deleted in favor of
the more explicit term "revisions to the facility permit." Require-
ments for plan amendments, when emergency coordinators and facility
equipment are changed, were omitted from the proposed rule through
Agency oversight. These elements have been added to the final rule.
(See related discussions under IV.C.5. above, at page 48.) '
54
-------
The proposed rule required amendment of the contingency plan
when regulations were changed. The Agency has retained this re-
quirement for the interim status standards in Part 265. However,
the Agency has determined that this requirement is not appropriate
for permitted facilities. In this case, amendments to contingency
plans, along with other changes to facility operations which result
from changes to regulations, should take place in concert with the
periodic review and revision of the facility's permit. The final
rule for Part 264 reflects this point, and the other points made
above, as follows:
§264.54 Amendment of contingency plan
The contingency plan must be reviewed, and immediately
amended, if necessary, whenever:
(a) The facility permit is revised;
(b) The plan fails in an emergency;
(c) The facility changes—in its design, construction, oper-
ation, maintenance or other circumstances—in a way that
materially increases the potential for fires, explosions,
or releases of hazardous waste or hazardous waste consti-
tuents, or changes the response necessary in an emergency;
(d) The list of emergency coordinator* changes or;
(e) The list of emergency equipment changes.
During the interim status period, there are no facility permits
and, thus, no revisions to permits. Consequently, this provision is
deleted in the final interim status standard, which now states:
55
-------
$265.54 Amendment of contingency plan
>*.
The contingency plan must be reviewed, and immediately
amended, if necessary, whenever:
(a) Applicable regulations are revised;
(b) The plan fails in an emergency;
(c) The facility changes—in its design, construction, oper-
ation, maintenance or other circumstances—in a way that
materially increases the potential for fires, explosions,7
or releases of hazardous waste, or hazardous waste consti-
tuents, or changes the response necessary in an emergency;
(d) The list of emergency coordinators changes; or
(e) The list of emergency equipment changes.
7. §264.55 Emergency Coordinator
[Proposed J250.A3-3(a)(4)]
The proposed rule required that, at all times when the facility
was in operation, there be at least one person present with the re-
sponsibility of coordinating all emergency response measures.
Emergency Coordinator On Call Vs. On-Site. A great many com-
menters felt it was unnecessary and burdensome for an emergency coor-
dinator to be present at all times when a facility is in operation,
as the proposed rule required. Some commenters pointed out that "in
operation" can be interpreted to include passive or automated situa-
tions, such as storage in tanks or surface impoundments, or "off
periods," such as evening hours when no activities are ongoing. Many
commenters suggested that the proposed rule should include a variance
where emergency situations are unlikely to develop, or that the rule
56
-------
be modified to allow an emergency coordinator to be on call, rather
than present on-site.
Upon review of the points raised above, EPA agrees that there
are many situations associated with hazardous waste management, such
^as those noted above, where the facility emergency coordinator's
presence on-site is not essential. However, the Agency believes an
emergency coordinator should at least be available (on call) to re-
spond immediately to emergency situations at the facility by giving
phone instructions to local authorities or facility personnel, and
by being able to be on-scene within a short period of time. This
arrangement should impose no undue burden.
Energency Coordination Team. Several commenters felt that no
one person could be cognizant of, and responsible for, all the duties
of the emergency coordinator specified in the proposed rule. They
suggested the rule be modified to allow an "emergency coordination
team" under management supervision.
The Agency recognizes that the emergency coordinator's duties
are manifold, and fully expects that many people with different
disciplines will be required to assist the emergency coordinator in
fulfilling these duties. However, based on analysis of past emergen-
cies, the Agency feels strongly that there must be a single person
in charge during an emergency with the responsibility and necessary
authority to direct response measures. A "team" approach dilutes re-
sponsibility and authority and can lead to divisiveness or confusion
57
-------
under stress. Consequently, the Agency disagrees with these last
comments and has retained the proposed approach in the final rule.
However, the final rule does not preclude the use of a response team,
provided a single person has central responsility over it.
Based on the considerations discussed above, the final rule
reads as follows:
$264.55 Emergency coordinator
At all times, there must be at least one employee either
on the facility premises or on call (i.e., available to respond
to an emergency by reaching the facility within a short period
of time), with the responsibility for coordinating all emergency
response measures. This emergency coordinator must be thoroughly
familiar with all aspects of the facility's contingency plan,
all operations and activities at the facility, the location and
characteristics of waste handled, the location of all records
within the facility, and the facility layout. In addition, this
person must have the authority to commit the resources needed to
carry out the contingency plan.
The final interim status standard at $265.55 is identical to the
above.
8. $264.56 Emergency Procedures
[Proposed S250.43-3(c)]
a. General Comments Applicable to Entire Section
One commenter felt that the proposed list of requirements for
the facility emergency coordinator was very extensive and confusing.
It vas recommended r.hat the requirement be restructured to clearly
del^eate those actions which are required immediately upon discovery
of an emergency from those that are required after the emergency has
been brought under control.
58
-------
The Agency believes this is an excellent suggestion. The pro-
posed rule has been restructured to specify, in step-by-step fashion,
what must be done: (1) immediately upon discovery of an emergency,
(2) during the emergency control phase, and (3) immediately following
attainment of control.
Another commenter felt that occasional minor spills that might
occur at facilities would not affect the environment or human health
outside the facility. Therefore, it was suggested that the rule
should require notifying the regional on-scene coordinator or the
National Response Center only if a release, fire, or explosion has
the potential for damaging the environment or human health outside
the facility.
The Agency agrees that the need for immediate notification of
those outside the facility may vary in accordance with different
types and levels of incidents. Thus the final rule has been re-
structured to require an evaluation of potential impacts immediately
followed by appropriate notifications.
The discussion which follows tracks the new format of the final
rule, which results from adopting these suggestions. The title of
the section has been changed to read "Emergency Procedures," since
this is more descriptive of its content and is consistent with the
proposed (and final) section title.
59
-------
b. 5264.56(a) Warn Employees and Summon Help
[Proposed J250.43-3(c)(2) and (c)(3)]
No comments were received on proposed rules (c)(2) and (c)(3).
The Agency believes the first duty of a facility emergency
coordinator (or his designee—see discussion under IV.C.7.) in any
imminent or actual emergency situation is to warn facility operat-
ing personnel, since they are likely to be the first group of people
exposed to danger. Second, appropriate State or local emergency
response agencies should be called in, if their assistance is needed
to cope with the emergency inside (or outside) the facility. Accord-
ingly, proposed rules (c)(2) and (c)(3) have been combined in the
final rule and placed at the beginning in Paragraph (a), which reads
as follows:
$264.56 Emergency procedures
(a) Whenever there is an imminent or actual emergency situa-
tion, the emergency coordinator (or his designee when
the emergency coordinator is on call) must immediately;
(1) Activate internal facility alarms or communication
systems, where applicable, to notify all facility
personnel; and
(2) Notify appropriate State or local agencies with
designated response roles if their help is needed.
The final interim status standard at 5265.56(a) is identical to
the above.
60
-------
c. S264.56 (b) Evaluate Nature and Extent of Emergency
[Proposed §250.43-3(c)(5)]
No comments were received on proposed rule (c)(5).
The Agency has moved the rule, after minor modification, to
second in the emergency procedure sequence because the facility's
emergency coordinator needs to know the character and extent of any
release, fire, or explosion to guide further actions. The final rule
reads as follows:
(b) Whenever there is a release, fire, or explosion, the
emergency coordinator must immediately identify the
character, exact source, amount and areal extent of
any released material;. He may do this by observa-
tion or review of facility records or manifests, and,
if necessary, by chemical analysis.
The final interim status standard at S265.56(b) is identical to
the above.
d. S264.56 (c) Assess Hazards
[Proposed §250.43-3(c)(6)]
No comments were received on proposed rule (c)(6).
The Agency moved this rule, after minor modifications, to third
in the emergency procedure sequence. The Agency believes the next
task of the facility's emergency coordinator (after warning employ-
ees, summoning help if needed, and determining the nature and extent
of the emergency) is to assess possible direct and indirect hazards
to human health or the environment. The final rule reads:
61
-------
(c) Concurrently, the emergency coordinator must assess
possible hazards to human health or the environment
that may result from the release, fire, or explosion.
This assessment must consider both direct and indirect
effects of the release, fire, or explosion (e.g., the
effects of any toxic, irritating, or asphyxiating gases
that are generated, or the effects of any hazardous sur-
face water run-off from water or chemical agents used to
control fire and heat-induced explosions).
The final interim status standard at $265.56(c) is identical to
the above.
e. §264.56 (d) Notify Authorities
[Proposed §250.43-3(c) (1) , (c)(4), and (c)(7)]
Proposed rule (c)(l) dealt with notification of the regional
on-scene coordinator or the National Response Center. Rules (c)(4)
and (c)(7) dealt with notifying and assisting local agencies if
evacuation of local areas might be advisable. A ccmmenter on rule
(c)(l) felt that reference to the entire proposed §250.37 for report-
ing would result in confusion and unnecessary paperwork, since parts
of proposed §250.37 were not relevant to releases at hazardous waste
management facilities. No comments were received on rules (c)(4) or
The Agency agrees that parts of proposed §250.37 are inapplica-
ble able to facility emergencies. To ivoid confusion, the Agency has
deleted the reference to proposed §250.37 and has transferred the ap-
plicable notification requirements from proposed §250.37 to this sec-
tion.
62
-------
Since proposed rules (c)(l), (c)(4), and (c)(7) all dealt with
interactions with local, regional, or national officials in the event
of potential threats to the environment and human health outside the
facility, the Agency has combined them in $264.56(d) of the final
rule.
Clearly, an assessment by the facility emergency coordinator
that evacuation of local areas may be advisable has first priority.
Thus, notification of local authorities of this assessment is placed
first in the paragraph. In any event, the Agency believes the facil-
ity emergency coordinator should make a telephone report of any con-
dition which threatens the environment or people outside the facility
to the regional on-scene coordinator or the National Response Center,
whether or not possible evacuation of local areas may be involved.
This requirement is placed second in the final rule.
References to "local communit'.es" or "local residents" in the
proposed rule have been changed in the final rule to the more general
"local areas" or "human health." This change resulted from comments
discussed earlier, which claimed that the proposed rules were aimed
primarily at commercial, off-site facilities. The Agency recognizes
that many facilities may be located on-site in congested industrial
areas. Thus, there may be situations where evacuation of workers at
nearby industrial plants may be advisable, as well as evacuation of
residents of local communities.
63
-------
As a result of all these points, the final rule reads:
(d) If the emergency coordinator determines that the facility
has had a release, fire, or explosion which could threaten
human health, or the environment, outside the facility, he
must report his findings as follows:
(1) If his assessment indicates that evacuation of local
areas may be advisable, he must immediately notify
appropriate local authorities. He must be available
to help appropriate officials decide whether local
areas should be evacuated; and
(2) He must immediately notify either the government
official designated as the on-scsne coordinator for
that geographical area (in the applicable regional
contingency plan under Part 1510 of this Title), or
the National Response Center (using their 24-hour
toll-free number, 800/424-8802). The report must
include:
(i) Name and telephone number of reporter
(ii) Name and address of facility
(iii) Time and type of incident (e.g., release, fire)
(iv) Name and quantity of material(s) involved, to the
extent known;
(v) The extent of injuries, if any; and
(vi) The possible hazards to human health, or the environ-
ment, outside the facility.
The final interim status standard at §265.56(d) is identical to
the above.
f*. S264.56 (eX Limit Spread of the Eaergency
[Proposed S250.43-3(c)(8) ]
No comments ware received on proposed rule (c)(8), which dealt
with the common iense requirement that the facility emergency coor-
dinator take all reasonable measures necessary to ensure that fires
-------
and explosions do not recur or spread to other parts of the facility.
The Agency has slightly modified this requirement in the final rule
to clarify that this activity should take place during the emergency
response phase. Further, the word "occur" has been added to cover
cases where fires or explosions have not yet occurred during an em-
ergency, but might occur unless appropriate actions are taken, such
as stopping processes and operations, etc. The final rule reads:
(e) During an emergency, the emergency coordinator must take
all reasonable measures necessary to ensure that fires,
explosions, and releases do not occur, recur, or spread
to other hazardous waste at the facility. These measures
must include, where applicable, stopping processes and
operations, collecting and containing released waste, and
removing or isolating containers.
The final interim status standard at §265.56(e) is identical to
the above.
g. 5264.56 (f) Monitor for Leaks, etc.
[Proposed §250.43-3(c)(11)]
No comments were received on proposed rule (c)(ll), which re-
quired the facility emergency coordinator to monitor for leaks, pres-
sure buildup, etc., if operations were shut down in response to an
emergency. Again, the Agency believes this is a common sense re-
quirement intended to prevent further problems, as "domino-effects,"
if operations are shut down in an emergency. However, in logical
sequence, this requirement should be placed immediately after the
requirement that operations be shut down in certain circumstances.
Thus, it has been moved up in the final rule, and now reads:
-------
(£) If the facility stops operations in response to a fire,
explosion, or release, the emergency coordinator must
monitor for leaks, pressure buildup, gas generation, or
ruptures in valves, pipes, or other equipment, wherever
this is appropriate.
The final interim status standard at S265.56(f) is identical to
the above.
h. 5264.56 (g) Properly Manage Residues
[Proposed $250.43-3(c)(9)]
No comments were received on proposed rule (c)(9).
Given the nature of wastes handled at hazardous waste management
facilities, it seems prudent to the Agency to assume that the residue
materials from an emergency are hazardous waste, unless they are
shown not to be by EPA test protocols. In most cases, these residue
materials will be unconfined and available for release to the envi-
ronment. Thus, the Agency believes it is imperative to collect and
properly treat, store, or dispose of materials resulting from dis-
charges or accidents at hazardous waste management facilities immedi-
ately following control of these emergencies.
The final rule reflects these points, and reads as follows:
(g) Immediately after an emergency, the emergency coordinator
must provide for treating, storing, or disposing of recov-
ered waste, contaminanted soil or surface water, or any
other material that results from a release, fire, or ex-
plosion at the facility.
The final interim status standard at §265.56(g) is identical to
the above.
66
-------
i. S264.56 (h) and (i) Cleanup; notification of Start-up
[Proposed $250.43-3(c)(10) and (c)(12)
Proposed rule (c)(10) required the facility's emergency coordi-
nator to ban acceptance at the facility of any waste incompatible
with material released during an emergency until cleanup procedures
were completed, emergency equipment was restored to pre-accident con-
ditions, and the affected area was declared safe by EPA, State, or
local officials. One commenter felt that the decision that the fa-
cility could safely resume operations should be the responsibility of
the facility emergency coordinator, rather than EPA or other govern-
ment officials.
Upon analysis of this comment—and others, discussed earlier,
concerning the wide variation possible in both types of waste handled
and magnitude of emergencies at facilities—the Agency decided it
would be unreasonable to require a formal declaration by government
officials that a facility is safe to operate before allowing poten-
tially incompatible wastes to be accepted. It is quite possible that
a release, fire, or explosion could occur in one part of a facility
without affecting the safety of operations in other parts of the
facility. Thus, it would be unnecessary to keep the whole facility
from accepting a waste just because the waste may be incompatible
with the material released during an emergency in one limited part of
the facility.
67
-------
However, EPA, State, and local officials have a responsibility
to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. This
responsibility is particularly applicable where a facility has had a
release, fire, or explosion of sufficient magnitude to invoke the
facility's contingency plan. The Agency believes that the owner or
operator should be required to notify EPA and appropriate State and
local authorities that cleanup procedures following an emergency have
been completed, before the part(s) of the facility affected by the
emergency begins to accept potentially incompatible wastes. This
notification will allow State and local authorities to be informed
about the current status of facility operations.
These same considerations apply to proposed §250.43-3(c)(12),
which required that all emergency equipment be cleaned and restored
to pre-accident condition before operations are resumed. Conse-
quently, proposed rules (c)(10) and (c)(12) have been combined in the
final rules as $264.56 (h), and the notification requirement has been
added as $264.56 (i).
One commenter, on proposed rule (c)(12), felt that cleaning of
emergency equipment should not be a requirement for resuming facility
operations. It was suggested that "cleaning of equipment in a rea-
sonable period of time" should be substituted for the proposed lan-
guage.
The Agency disagrees with this comment. The suggestion would
allow the facility to resume operation after an emergency without
68
-------
having emergency equipnent cleaned and immediately available for use
should the emergency condition recur, or should some new condition
occur which would require use of this equipment. In the Agency's
opinion, this would be an unwarranted threat to the environment and
human health. However, the Agency believes that the proposed rule
was too broad in scope, since it implied that all emergency equipment
at the facility had to be cleaned and restored before resuming oper-
ations, whether or not the equipment was acutally used in the emer-
gency. It is the Agency's intent that only the emergency equipment
actually used in the affected area(s) of the facility must be cleaned
and restored.
All of these points are reflected in the final rules, which
state:
(h) The emergency coordinator must ensure that, in the affected
area(s) of the facility:
(1) No waste that may be incompatible with the released
material is treated, stored, or disposed of until
cleanup procedures are completed; and
(2) All emergency equipment listed in the contingency
plan is cleaned and fit for its intended use before
operated are resumed.
(i) The owner or operator must notify the Regional Administra-
tor, and appropriate State and local authorities, that the
facility is in compliance with paragraph (h) of this Sec-
tion before operations are resumed in the affected area(s)
of the facility.
The final interim status standards at $265.56(h) and (i) are
identical to the above.
69
-------
j. S264.56 (j) Recordkeeping and Reporting
[Proposed S250.43-3(c)(13)]
Mo comments were received on proposed rule (c)(13), which
required recordkeeping, and a written report of emergencies to the
Regional Administrator. The Agency continues to believe that these
incident reports to EPA are necessary and important. EPA will use
these for, among other reasons: (1) followup activities at the fa-
cility, (2) generating advisory guidance to other facilities to help
prevent similar incidents elsewhere, (3) gathering national statis-
tics on emergency conditions, and (4) guiding development of new' or
revised regulations, as necessary.
The proposed rule did not specify the timing and content of the
incident reports. These have been added to the final rule, and are
consistent with similar requirements for reporting to the Department
of Transportation any accidents in transporting hazardous material.
In the proposed rule, responsibility for recordkeeping and
reporting of incidents was placed on the facility emergency coordi-
nator. In the final rule, these responsibilities have been placed
on the facility owner or operator, to be consistent with similar re-
quirements in the general recordkeeping and reporting sections (Sub-
part E). After incorporating these changes, the final rule reads as
follows:
70
-------
(j) The owner or operator must note in the operating record the
time, date, and details of any incident that requires im-
plementing the contingency plan. Within 15 days after the
incident he must submit a written report on the incident
to the Regional Administrator. The report must include:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the owner or
operator;
(2) Name, address, and telephone number of the facility;
(3) Date, time, and type of incident (e.g., fire, explo-
sion);
(4) Name and quantity of material(s) involved;
(5) The extent of injuries, if any;
(6) An assessment of actual or potential hazards to human
health or the environment, where this is applicable;
and
(7) Estimated quantity and disposition of recovered mate-
rial that resulted from the incident.
The final interim status standard at 5265.56(j) is identical to
the above.
71
-------
REFERENCES
1. EPA Trip Report by J. Schaum and E. Grumpier, January 24, 1978.
2. Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, July 29, 1978.
3. EPA Haiardous Waste Disposal Damage Reports, EPA/530/SW-151, p.
6-8. June 1975.
4. Juneau County (Wisconsin) Deputy Frank in a report written on
February 12, 1974.
5. EPA Hazardous Waste Disposal Damage Reports,EPA/530/SW-151.3,
June 1976.
6. U.S. Congress, House Report No. 94-1491, Part I, p. 20-21.
7. U.S. Congress, House Report No. 94-1491, Part I, p. 21.
8. News on Country Life, October 18, 1973, Passaic County, New
Jersey.
9. U.S. Congress, House Report No. 94-1491, Part I, p. 20.
10. U.S. Congress, House Report No. 94-J491, Part I, p. 17.
11. U.S. Congress, House Report No. 94-1491, Part I, p. 22.
12. Chicago Tribune. March 21, 1973.
13. EPA Report "Oil Spills and Spills of Hazardous Substances,"
March 1977, p. 26.
14. EPA Report "Oil Spills and Spills of Hazardous Substances,"
March 1977, p. 27.
15. U.S. Congress, House Report No. 94-1491, Part I, p. 20.
16. EPA Report "Oil Spills and Spills of Hazardous Substances,"
March 1977, p. 28.
72
-------
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS
WITH REGARD TO PREPAREDNESS, CONTINGENCY PLANS,
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
73
-------
A. Federal Lavs
The Federal laws discussed below require certain preparedness
measures, contingency plans, or emergency responses. Thus, they pro-
vide a precedent for Federal regulatory activity in those areas.
1. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
This Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory
standards to protect the occupational safety and health of all
employers and employees of business engaged in interstate commerce.
Section 6(b) deals specifically with toxic materials and other harm-
ful agents requiring the Secretary to "set the standard which most
adequately assures that no employee will suffer material impairment
of health or financial capacity" from regular exposure to such haz-
ards. Specific requirements issued under this Act pertinent to
emergency response standards are discussed below.
Emergency response requirements have been issued for all
facilities which handle, process, release, or store vinyl chloride
or the following carcinogens: 4-nitrobiphenyl, alpa-Napthylamine,
4,4'-Methylene bis (2-chloroaniline), Methyl chloromethyl ether,
e,3'-Dichlorobensidine (and its salts), bis-Chloromethyl ether,
beta-Napthylamine, Benzidine, 4-Aminodiphenyl, Ethyleneimine, beta-
Propiolactone, 2-Acetylaminofluorene, 4-Dimethylamnoazobezene, or
N-Nitroso, dimethylamine. In the event of an accidental release,
which may result in exposure to or contact with any of the above
substances:
74
-------
a. The potentially affected area must be evacuated as soon as
the emergency has been determined.
b. Hazardous conditions created by the emergency must be elimi-
nated and the potentially affected area must be decontami-
nated before resuming normal operations.
c. Special medical surveillance by a physician must ha insti-
tuted within 24 hours for employees present in the poten-
tially affected area at the time of the emergency,
d. An incident report on the emergency must be made within 24
hours to the nearest OSHA Area Director.
e. A written report must be filed with the nearest OSHA Area
Director within 15 calendar days of the event and must
include:
(i) A specification of the amount of material released, the
amount of time involved, and an explanation of the pro-
cedure used in determining this figure;
(ii) A description of the area involved and the extent of
known and possible employee exposure and area contami-
nation;
(iii) A report of any medical treatment of affected employees
and any medical surveillance program implemented; and
(iv) An analysis of the circumstances of the incident and
measures taken or to be taken, with specific completion
dates, to avoid further similar release.
The contingency requirements issued by OSHA for facilities hand-
ling carcinogens are consistent with those of RCRA for hazardous
waste facilities.
2. Clean Water Act
In response to the President's request for the Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality to carry out Subsection (c)(2) of Section 311 of
the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Council
developed the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
75
-------
Contingency Plan. The objectives of the plan are "to provide for
efficient, coordinated, and effective action to minimize damage from
oil and hazardous substance discharges, including containment, dis-
persal, and removal." The plan is effective "for the navigable
waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, and for the
contiguous zone and the high seas where a threat to the United
States' waters, shoreface, or shelfbottom exists."
The owners or operators of nontransportation-related onshore and
offshore facilities engaged in drilling, producing, gathering, stor-
ing, processing, refining, transferring," distributing, or consuming
oil and oil products and which, due to their location, could reason-
ably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities, as defined
in CFR 40 Part 110, into or upon the navigable waters of the United
States are required to establish a Spill Prevention Control and
Countenneasures plan under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, as
amended, to prevent discharges of oil into the navigable waters of
the United States and to contain such discharges if they occur.
3. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Under authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, as amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide
4
Control Act of 1972, the EPA promulgated "Regulations for the Accep-
tance of Certain Pesticides and Recommended Procedures for the Dis-
posal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers" (40 CFR
165). The following guidelines pertinent to accidents at pesticide
management facilities were published:
76
-------
a. All accidents or incidents involving the storage or disposal
of pesticides, pesticide containers, or pesticide-related
wastes should be reported to the appropriate Regional
Administrator.
b. Containers should be checked regularly for corrosion and
leaks. If any are found, the container should be trans-
ferred to a sound, suitable, larger container and properly
labeled. Materials such as adsorptive clay, hydrated lime,
and sodium hypochlorite should be kept on hand for use, as
appropriate, for the emergency treatment or detoxification
of spills or leaks.
c. A number of accident prevention measures are suggested.
d. The use of protective clothing and respirators is recom-
mended for all employees handling pesticides.
e. Where large quantities of pesticides are stored, or where
conditions may otherwise warrant, the owner of stored pes-
ticides should inform the local fire department, hospitals,
public health officials, and police department, in writing,
of the hazards that these pesticides may present in the
event of a fire.
B. State Laws
Until recently, most State laws regarding solid waste management
did not contain preparedness, contingency plan, or emergency response
requirements. Some States did prepare spill contingency plans to
provide for coordinated response by various State agencies to spills
or discharges of oil or hazardous materials into waters of the State,
or for reporting of spills to the State agencies.
In recent years, however, several States have enacted laws spe-
cific to hazardous waste management (as opposed to non-hazardous
solid MS :e), and some of these laws require that contingency plans
be prepared by hazardous waste management facilities. Highlights
from duch State laws are discussed below.
77
-------
1. Arkansas; Arkansas Solid Waste Disposal Code (June 1973)
Requirements for sanitary landfills:
(a) Arrangements shall be made for fire protection service when
a public fire protection service is available. When such a
service is not available, practical alternate arrangements
shall be made.
(b) Telephone or radio communications shall be provided at the
landfill site.
(c) All-weather operational road(s) shall be provided for vehi-
cular movement within the site.
Requirements for incineration:
(a) Firefighting equipment meeting the standards shall Le
available in the storage and charging areas, and elsewhere
as needed.
(b) Arrangements shall be made with the local fire protection
agency to provide firefighting forces in an emergency.
2. California; California Guidelines for the Handling of
Hazardous Waste, 1974; California Guidelines for Hazardous
Waste Land Disposal Facilities, 1973; California Hazardous
Waste Regulations, Administrative Code Title 22, 1977
(a) A contingency plan must be prepared which includes:
(1) Actions that would be taken when an accident or acci-
dental discharge occurs:
(2) The equipment and manpower available to correct
effects of an accident or accidental discharge; and
(3) Emergency procedures for evacuating employees and
notifying agencies responsible for prevision of ser-
vices during emergencies.
(b) Hazardous waste facilities shall be designed, equipped, and
operated to prevent discharge of hazardous wastes outside
areas designated in the operation plan.
(c) Equipment used to handle, treat, store, or dispose of haz-
ardous waste shall be designed to avoid an uncontrolled
reaction, fire, explosion, or discharge of hazardous waste.
78
-------
(d) The Department may, on a case-by-case basis, require the
hazardous waste facility to have one or more of the follow-
ing, if necessary to protect public health and safety:
(1) A telephone or radio for summoning aid in an
emergency;
(2) Protective clothing and equipment to enable employees
of the facility to work safely with hazardous wastes
that are accepted at the facility;
(3) At least one safety shower and one eyewash that are
readily available to all personnel working in hazard-
ous waste areas;
(4) First aid supplies.
(e) Contaminated wash water, waste solutions, or residues
generated from washing or decontaminating the equipment
shall be collected and disposed of as hazardous waste.
(f) Report accidents:
(1) Within 24 hours of the time of occurrence;
(2) The Department may require a written report be pro-
vider within 30 days.
(g) The Department and local fire authority shall be kept cur-
rently advised of the names, addresses, and telephone
numbers, including emergency telephone numbers, of the
operator, station manager, and supervisor.
3. Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Pro-
tection, Solid Waste Management Regulations, Sections
19-524-1 through 19-524-12. 1978
(a) Appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent and control
fires.
(b) A certified operator or a designee shall be present at a
solid waste area at all times during working hours to
ensure that operations are conducted in conformance with
applicable statutes and regulations.
(c) Each facility shall establish a contingency plan outlining
procedures for obtaining alternative equiment or other
alternative methods of disposal in the event of equipment
breakdown.
79
-------
4. Iowa; Iowa Department of Environmental Quality, Solid Waste
Rules. Title IV. 1973
(a) A contingency plan must be preapred which details specific
procedures to be followed in case of equipment breakdown,
maintenance down time, or fire in equipment or vehicles,
including methods to be used to remove or dispose of accu-
mulated waste.
(b) In the event significant leachate is detected, the Depart-
ment shall be notified, and the permit holder shall submit
a plan for controlling and treating the leachate.
5. Minnesota; Minnesota's Hazardous Waste Management Rules,
6MCAR, June 1979
The facility operator shall:
(a) Prepare procedures for personnel to follow in the case of
spills of hazardous waste, and in the case of fire and
other emergencies;
(b) Post these procedures in a conspicuous place at the facil-
ity site;
(c) Have safety equipment available at the facility site for
use during spills, fires, and other emergencies;
(d) Have available, at all times, written procedures for hand-
ling spills, fires, and other emergencies;
(e) Have communication equipment available at the site for sum-
moning aid in an emergency;
(f) Prevent the discharge of hazardous waste from the facility
to the surface or ground waters of the state and prevent
hazardous waste from entering drains, sewer inlets, storm
sewers, sanitary sewers, doorway vents, tunnels, pipes,
windows, or areas with permeable earth or soil floors; and
(g) Immediately notify the Agency if the hazardous waste may
cause pollution of air, land, or waters of the State.
6. Oklahoma: Solid Waste Management Act of 1970, with Rules
and Regulations, Title 63, Sections 2251-2265; and Rules and
Regulations for Industrial Waste Management, July 1977
(a) Suitable measures shall be taken to prevent and control
fires.
80
-------
(b) An adequate stock of first aid supplies shall be maintained
at the site.
(c) Unloading of hazardous waste at the site shall be control-
led as to procedures for handling dusts or fine solids so
as: (1) not to produce hazardous airborne contaminants,
(2) prevent contamination or splashing of transport vehi-
cles, and (3) to clean, decontaminate, and wash out vehi-
cles and containers (e.g., emergency decontamination
showers).
(d) Facility operators must report emergency situations in 48
hours by a written statement.
7. Oregon; Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division
63, 1979; and Oregon Solid Waste Control Law. 1977
(a) Facility operators shall maintain current contingency plans
to minimize damage from spillage, leakage, explosion, fire,
or other accidental or intentional event.
(b) Hazardous waste shall be managed in a manner that will
minimize the possibility of a dangerous uncontrolled reac-
tion, the release of leachate, noxious gases or odors,
fire, explosion, or the discharge of such waste.
(c) A facility operator shall become familiar with the hazards
associated with the waste and the procedure to be followed
in the event of an emergency situation.
(d) All accidents or other occurrences which may result in the
discharge of such waste to the environment shall be imme-
diately reported to the Oregon Accident Response System.
8. Rhode Island; Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities, Rules
and Regulations, December 1978
(a) Hazardous waste disposal facilities shall be equipped,
operated, and maintained to minimize chance of fire and
explosion, and to protect the health and safety of the
users of the facility, personnel associated with the opera-
tion of the facility, and any other persons who might come
into contact with the site or with gaseous or liquid mater-
ials emanating from the operations of the facility.
(b) Facility operators shall have safety equipment available
for use during spills, fires, and other emergencies, in-
cluding a suitable means of communications for summoning
aid in an emergency.
81
-------
(c) All mobile equipment used at a hazardous waste facility
shall be equipped with suitable fire extinguishers.
(d) The facility operator shall have and maintain at least, but
not limited to, the following safety equipment:
(1) Protective clothing and equipment to enable personnel
associated with the operation of the facility to work
safely with the hazardous wastes that are accepted at
the facility;
»
(2) One safety shower and one eyewash that are readily
available to all personnel working the hazardous waste
areas; and
(3) First aid supplies.
(e) The facility operator shall make arrangements with a nearby
fire department to provide emergency service whenever
called.
(f) The facility operator shall collect hazardous waste dis-
charged and handle it as a hazardous waste.
(g) The facility operator shall report any accident immedi-
ately. The Director may require a written report to be
provided.
9. Texas; 1978 State of Texas Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill
Contingency Plan, September 1978
(a) Purpose; The plan is to provide procedures for a coordina-
ted response to spills or accidental discharges of oil or
other hazardous materials into the waters or adjacent to
the waters of the State of Texas by State agencies concern-
ed with protection of the environment and the public health
and welfare. It is also the purpose of this plan to out-
line methods by which such spills and accidental discharges
will be reported to State agencies having regulatory re-
sponsibility over the activities and/or facilities involved
in spills or accidental discharges.
(b) Spill Discovery: Section 26.039 of the Texas Water Code
requires that, when an accidental discharge or spill occurs
at, or from, any activity or facility which causes or may
cause pollution, the individual operating, in charge of, or
responsible for the activity or facility shall notify the
82
-------
office of the Texas Department of Water Resources as soon
as possible, and not later than 24 hours after the occur-
rence*
(c) Telephone Reports; Contents of telephone reports shall be
as follows:
(1) Where known, the name, address, and telephone number
of the party in charge of, or responsible for, the
activity or facility, and of the party at the site of
the spill or accidental discharge who is in charge of
operations at the site;
(2) The exact location of the spill or discharge, includ-
ing the name of the waters involved;
(3) The type of material spilled or discharged;
(4) An estimate of the quantity of material spilled or
discharged;
(3) The extent of actual and potential water pollution;
and
(6) The steps being taken or proposed to contain and clean
up the spilled or discharged material.
Persons within the concerned agencies to be notified are as
follows:
Texas Department of Water Resources
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Railroad Commission of Texas
Texas Department of Public Safety
Texas Department of Health
Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
U.S. Coast Guard Personnel
(d) Oil Spills:
(1) Reporting
(2) Containment and Oil Removal
(e) Hazardous Substance Spill:
(1) Discovery and Notification
83
-------
(2) Containment, Removal, and/or Treatment
(3) Prevention of Spills of Hazardous Substances
Every effort must be made by the party responsible for the
storage, handling, or transportation of hazardous, pollut-
ing substances to provide for spill prevention, containment
of accidental spills, and a countermeasure plan to be used
in the event of an accidental spill or discharge. Failure
to provide for such a plan may, upon consideration of the
circumstances under which a spill or accidental discharge
occurs, be deemed as negligence and be the basis for appro-
priate legal action, pursuant to the provisions of the
Texas Water Code.
10. Washington! Washington Hazardous Waste Regulation, WAG 173-302-
250 and WAG 173-302-310. July 1978)
The facility operator shall:
(a) Prepare a contingency plan that specifically relates to the
anticipated types of waste;
(b) Outline actions that would be taken when fires, spills, ex-
plosions, adverse chemical reactions, or other accidents
occur;
(c) List equipment and manpower available to respond to such an
.occurrence;
(d) Outline mitigating or con _tive measures that would be
taken where ambient monitoring has detected any waste pre-
viously buried, stored, or handled;
(e) Insure that personnel working on the site use adequate pro-
tective clothing and respiratory protection;
(f) Take immediate action to contain, extinguish, and prevent
the further dispersion of wastes in the event of spills,
fire, explosions, chemical reactions, or accidents; and
(g) Maintain telephone and radio contact with a security
patrol.
84
-------
33777^ 1Q»
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
i. *tmrr NO.
Nvcipfenc** AeeMden N*.
Standards Appl 1 cable to Owners and Operators of Haz-
ardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Under
RCRA, Subtitle C, Section 3004 Standards for Preparedness and Pre
standards for Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
A ~ . -
April 1980
7. Autho/U)
N»m*
Addrrt*
10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Solid
1L CentraetfC) or CrM«G) H«.
jnjs document -|s one Of a senes providing support for regulations
issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The regulations represent the initial effort for
nationwide control of hazardous waste from point of generation, throughv.transportation,
treatment, and storage, to point of ultimate disposal.
This document covers standards applicable to hazardous .waste management facilities,
specifically Preparedness and Prevention, (Subpart C), and Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures, (Subpart D)l
17. Document An»fytl» «. Dmcriptort
h. M*ntlfi«n/Op«f>-End*d .
Resource Conservation Recovery Act regulations
Hazardous waste facility standards
e. COSATl FVtId/Group
1*. Avillabtllty St*t«fn«n:
(S^ ANSUZ39.1S)
Sccvrtty CW»« (TM*
201 Stewtty CtoM (Tkto Po««)
21. N». *f
22. Piie*
OrnOMAL rOKM 272 (4-77)
(Tonntfty NTT5-3S)
------- |