24401-29
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PART 265
SUBPART J - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR TANKS
SUBPART Q - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL,
PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
APRIL 29, 1980
-------
;, i ^ '-.
-------
Page
IV. Continuous Feed Operations 27
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 27
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 27
C. Summary of Comments 27
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments 28
E. Final Regulation Language 30
V. Freeboard 31
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 31
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 31
C. Summary of Comments 32
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments 32
E. Final Regulation Language 34
VI. Waste Analyses and Trial Treatment Tests 35
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 35
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 35
C. Summary of Comments 36
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments 37
E. Final Regulation Language 40
VII. Inspections 42
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 42
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 42
C. Summary of Comments 42
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments 43
E. Final Regulation Language 47
111
-------
Page
VIII. Closure 49
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 49
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 49
C. Summary of Comments 51
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments 52
A
E. Final Regulation Language 53
IX. Special Requirements for Ignitable
and Reactive Waste 54
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 54
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 54
C. Summary of Comments 55
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments 57
E. Final Regulation Language 62
X. Special Requirements for Incompatible Waste 64
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 64
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 64
C. Summary of Comments 65
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments 65
E. Final Regulation Language 67
XI. NPDES Facilities 68
A. Summary of Comments 68
B, Analysis of and Response to Comments 68
XII. Miscellaneous Comments 70
FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATION LANGUAGE 72
References 81
Appendix I NFPA Buffer Zone Requirements for Tanks .... 83
IV
-------
FOREWORD
This is one of a series of documents providing support
and background information for regulations issued under Section
3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This background document concerns the management of hazardous
waste in tanks and in chemical, physical, and biological treat-
ment facilities other than surface impoundments and land treat-
ment facilities (40 CFR Parts 265, Subparts J and Q). It is
divided into two parts. The first part contains introductory
material which addresses the Congressional authority for the
regulation, key definitions used in the regulation, examples
of damage incidents which illustrate the need for the regulation,
and a description of precedents set for the regulation by State
and/or other Federal statutes. The second part of this document
describes the regulations as originally proposed, summarizes
and responds to comments received that relate to the proposed
regulation, and indicate the Agency's rationale for the final
regulation.
On December 18, 1978, in §§250.44 and 250.44-1 of the
proposed RCRA Section 3004 regulations, the Agency proposed
standards for the storage of hazardous waste in tanks. In
§§250.45-4 and 250.45-6, the Agency proposed standards for
the treatment of hazardous waste in basins. (The proposed
§250.45-6 standards applied also to treatment facilities other
than basins.) As specified in §250.40(c)(2) of the proposed
rules, certain of the proposed §§250.44, 250.45-4, and 250.45-6
standards applied to facilities during the interim status
v
-------
period (i.e., the time from the effective date of the interim
status regulations until the Agency's final decision on a
facility owner's or operator's permit application).
Several commenters asked that the set of standards
applicable to facilities with interim status be expanded,
pointing out that the Agency has predicted (43 Federal Register
58984) that the ultimate permitting process may take several
years to complete. In response to these comments, the Agency
has added several of the proposed permanent status standards
to the set of final interim status standards. As explained
in the preamble discussion entitled "Interim Status Standards",
in general, the Agency included permanent status standards
in the set of final interim status standards if the standard:
(a) can be implemented by the regulated community
within the six-month period between the time the
regulations are promulgated and their effective
date;
(b) does not require large capital expenditures for
items which would later require approval as part
of the permitting process; and
(c) can be implemented directly by the regulated
community without the need for consultation with
or interpretation by the Agency.
The Agency believes that some of the proposed permanent
status technical requirements for the design and construction
of tanks, basins, and chemical, physical, and biological treat-
ment facilities e.g., the requirements for spill confinement
VI
-------
structures, an impermeable base beneath tanks, and emergency
storage capacity should not be implemented during the interim
status period. The costs of upgrading these aspects of facilities
will be considerable and the designs will require Agency approval,
which is properly part of the permit issuance process. Therefore,
these requirements are not included in the final interim status
standards.
Some of the proposed §250.45-4 and 250.45-6 standards for
basins and other types of treatment facilities contained "Notes",
which provided alternative standards to those in the text of
the regulation, available upon making a specified showing to the
Agency. To avoid the burden to the Agency of having to pass
on such requests during the interim status period, the final
interim status standards have been rewritten so that, although
alternative standards may be available only under specified
conditions, no showing or Agency approval is necessary.
In the proposed rules, the standards for tanks were somewhat
different than those for basins. Tanks were regulated as
covered containment devices used for storing hazardous waste,
while basins were regulated as uncovered containment devices
used for treating hazardous waste. (The proposed rules did not
address the use of tanks for treating hazardous waste.) Both
tanks and basins, however, were defined to be constructed out
of man-made materials.
The comments revealed that this distinction between covered
storage devices and uncovered treatment devices did not reflect
actual practice very well. The final rules call all non-portable
Vll
-------
containment devices made of non-earthen materials "tanks",
whether they are covered or uncovered, or used for storage or
treatment. All tanks are covered by a single set of regulations
(40 CFR Part 265, Subpart J). The Subpart J standards include
standards from the proposed §$250.44-1 (Storage Tanks) and
250.45-4 (Basins), and also standards applying to tanks and
basins in the proposed §§250.44 (General Storage) and 250.45-6
(Chemical, Physical, and Biological Treatment Facilities).
Subpart Q contains requirements which pertain to chemical,
physical, and biological treatment conducted in facilities
other than tanks, surface impoundments (Subpart K), or land
treatment facilities (Subpart M). For example, facilities
which treat hazardous waste using distillation columns, centri-
fuges, or filter presses must comply with the Subpart Q standards
if they do not meet the definition of "tank" specified in the
final Part 260 rules.
The Phase I Subpart Q standards are essentially identical
to the Phase I standards for tanks. Therefore, the standards
in these two Subparts will be discussed together. References
to tanks in the following discussion are also meant to include
the waste containment components of chemical, physical, and
biological treatment equipment.
Vlll
-------
- 1 -
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION
RCRA Authority for the Regulation;
In Section 3004 of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as substantially amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended
(42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq.), the Congress of the United
States requires the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations
to establish such standards, for hazardous waste treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities as may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment.
Sections 3004(3) and (4) of RCRA state that the
standards to be promulgated by the EPA must include
requirements for -
"(3) treatment, storage, or disposal of all such
waste received by the facility pursuant to such
operating methods, techniques, and practices as
may be satisfactory to the Administrator;
"(4) the location, design, and construction of
such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or
storage facilities; [emphasis added].
To comply with this mandate, the Agency must, among
other things, promulgate regulations that will protect human
health and the environment from the potential adverse
effects of (l) treating or storing hazardous waste in tanks
and (2) treating hazardous waste in facilities subject to
regulation under Subpart Q.
-------
II. Key Definitions
The following terms, which are defined in Part 260,
are key to this area of regulation:
"Freeboard" means the vertical distance between
the top of a tank or surface impoundment dike,
and the surface of the waste contained therein.
11 Incompatible Waste" means a hazardous waste which
is unsuitable for:
(i) 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
(li) Commingling with another waste or material
under uncontrolled conditions because the
commingling might produce heat or pressure,
fire or explosion, violent reaction, toxic
dusts, mists, fumes, or gases, or flammable
fumes or gases.
(See Part 265, Appendix V, of this Chapter for examples)
These definitions are further discussed in the background
document supporting the final Part 260 rules.
o "Inner liner" means a continuous layer of material
placed inside a tank or container which protects
the construction materials of the tank or container
from the contained waste or the reagents used to
treat the waste.
This definition was added to the final rules to distin-
guish between continuous layers of materials used to line
facilities constructed primarily of non-earthen materials
(e.g., tanks) and those constructed of earthen materials
(e.g., landfills). The former type of facility is always
lined with man-made materials, the latter is often lined
by earthen materials. Because the precautions needed to
protect these linings depend on the materials used to
make them, it is appropriate to have different terms to
-------
- 3 -
refer to the them in the regulations. Accordingly, con-
tinuous layers of material used to line facilities constructed
primarily of non-earthen materials are called ''inner liners11/
and materials used to line facilities constructed of earthen
materials are called "liners".
0 "Storage" means the holding of hazardous waste
for a temporary period, at the end of which
the hazardous waste is treated, disposed of,
or stored elsewhere.
This new definition expands and clarifies the defin-
ition of "storage" in RCRA. It makes clear that the under-
lying difference between storage and disposal is one of
intent to remove the waste after a limited time, rather
than any difference in facilities and equipment. The
need for this new definition is discussed in the background
document entitled " Containers and Piles".
0 "Surface Impoundment" or "impoundment" means a
facility or part of a facility which is a natural
topographic depression, man-made excavation, or dike
area formed primarily of earthen materials (although
it may be lined by man-made materials), which is
designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or
wastes containing free liquids, and which is not an
injection well. Examples of surface impoundments
are holding, storage, settling, and aeration pits,
ponds, and lagoons.
The analysis of comments received on the proposed
definition of "Surface Impoundment" and the rationale for
the modifications made to the definition in the final
rules is contained in the background document entitled
"Surface Impoundments".
-------
- 4 -
"Tank" means a stationary device, designed to
contain an accumulation of hazardous waste which
is constructed primarily of non-earthen materials
(e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) which
provide structural support.
The analysis of comments received on the proposed
definition of "Storage Tank" and the rationale for the
medications made to the definition in the final rules
is contained on page 10 of this document.
o "Treatment" means any method, technique, or process,
including neutralization, designed to change the
physical, chemical, or biological character or com-
position of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize
such waste, or so as to recover energy or material
resources from the waste, or so as to render such
waste non-hazardous; safer to transport, store, or
dispose of; or amenable for recovery, amenable for
storage, or reduced in volume.
The analysis of comments received on the proposed
definition and the rationale for modifications made to
it in the final rules is contained on page 16 of this
document.
o "Totally enclosed treatment facility" means a
facility for the treatment of hazardous waste
which is directly connected to an industrial
production process and which is constructed and
operated in a manner which prevents the release
of hazardous waste or any constituent thereof into
the environment during treatment. An example is a
pipe in which waste acid is neutralized.
The rationale for adding this definition to the final
rules is contained on page 19 of this document.
-------
- 5 -
III. Damage Cases
The following damage cases illustrate the potential
hazards associated with the improper storage or treatment
of hazardous waste. They demonstrate the need to regulate
any type of containment device that is used to treat or
store hazardous waste to guard against the damage
that these kind of operations can entail. The influence
which these damage incidents had in establishing the
final standards for tanks and chemical, physical, and
biological treatment facilities is explained in the
sections of the document where the individual standards
are discussed.
(1) In 1977, a 20,000 gallon storage tank filled
with highly flammable waste (a solvent and
ethyl acetate) exploded at a chemical disposal
site in New Jersey- Eleven other storage
tanks were ruptured in the blast, releasing
heavy chemical fumes. Three tanks were blown
into the air and thrown several hundred feet
across the plant. The tanks were intercon-
nected by a common vapor recovery system
which could have allowed the flame to propa-
gate through the system to all the tanks.
The tanks were being renovated by a contractor
at the time of the fire. The suspected cause
of the explosion is improper welding, a
smoldering cigarette or some other worker-
related incident. Six workmen were killed
and 30 others injured.l
(2) Lagooned wastes from a copper reclamation
company in Noxamixon Township, Pennsylvania,
had been the source of ground water.- stream,
and soil contamination there. The company,
which was in operation from 1965 to 1969,
-------
bought industrial wastes from other plants,
extracted copper, and stored the rest of the
toxic liquids in lagoons. T'hree of the cement
lagoons developed open seans on the bottom
and leaked toxic fluids into an adjacent
creek, killing all aguatic life. After an
injunction was issued requiring the wastes to
be treated, the company defaulted, leaving
3 1/2 million gallons of toxic wastes on the
site. Heavy rains in April 1970 caused the
lagoon to overflow and spill the hazardous
wastes (e.g., acids, copper, nickel, and iron
chloride) into the creek which is a tributary
of the Delaware River. County officials then
built a dike around the area. Soil contami-
nation persists at the site and the entire
area is devoid of vegetation. In 1971, the
wastes were finally neutralized and ocean
dumped.2
(3) An open gate valve in a retention lagoon at
a chemical company in Venango County, Penn-
sylvania released phenolic substances to
Oil Creek. Some fish and turtles were killed
in the Creek.3
(4) A firm engaged in the disposal of spent chemicals
was storing and disposing of toxic chemicals
at two Louisiana locations. At one of these
sites, several thousand drums of waste (some
with and some without lids) were in storaqe.
Many of the drums were leaking, and visible
vapors were emanating from the area. As a
result, all of the pine trees beside the storaae
area were killed ."4
(5) An employee transferred two 5-gallon cans of
waste vinyl cyanide and water from a still to
a supposedly empty waste drum. As the employee
rolled the drum to a storage area across -the' =
road, it exploded. Waste materials sprayed
the employee. The drum was thrown 'approxi-
mately 48 feet, wrapping around a steel quard
post. The employee received 'thermal and
possible chemical burns to both feet. The
exothermic reaction that caused the drum to
rupture was probably a combination of
cyanoethylation and polymerization.5
-------
- 7 -
(6) In 1978, the owner of a facility in Dallas,
Texas, who had declared bankruptcv, left behind
the following items on his property: parts of
an incinerator which burned during a fire,
acid and alkali recovery basins with a "home-
made" fiberglass liner, a variety of storaae
tanks, approximately 150 55-gallon drums, a
landfill, and a number of other small containers
of chemicals. The facility owner had been in
the business of storing and processing a
variety of wastes, which included car-wash
and grease-trap wastes, chromium sludge, acid
and alkaline wastes, plating waste, cyanide,
ketones, tannins, and aromatic solvents.
Water samples, from monitoring wells, at a
depth of approximately 10 feet detected metal
comtamination.6
IV. State Legislation
EPA reviewed the solid waste management regulations
and guidelines of several States to ascertain the various
State approaches to regulating the storage and treatment
of solid and/or hazardous waste in tanks and in other
types of facilities used to treat wastes. The following
is a synopsis of those aspects of the States' regulations
or guidelines which the Agency used as models in developing
the RCRA interim status standards for these facilities.
Several States' regulations or guidelines have '
standards which specifically address the incompatibility
of stored and/or treated wastes with each other, or with
the construction materials of the containment devices
(i.e., containers or tanks) in which the wastes are
treated or stored. For example:
- Texas,7 Louisiana,^ and Tennessee^ prohibit
placing incompatible wastes together in the same
-------
- 8 -
containment device. However, Texas' Guidelines
provide an exception to this rule where the place-
ment of incompatible wastes in the same containment
device is done for controlled neutralization of
acids and alkalies.1°
Texas11 and South Carolina12 prohibit adding
hazardous waste to an unwashed containment device
that previously held a material or waste with
which it is incompatible.
Minnesota13 requires tanks to be constructed of
materials, or protected by a liner, that will not
react chemically with the contained waste, if such
a reaction may impair the tank's ability to contain
the waste. Louisiana1'* has a similar requirement,
but it specifies that the construction materials
of the containment device must be resistant to the
emplaced waste for at least the estimated life of
the operation. A bond, or warranty satisfactory
to the Secretary of Louisiana's Department of
Natural Resources is required for construction
materials or liners for which historical perfor-
mance data is not available.
Texas15 and Louisiana1^ require tests to be con-
ducted for determining the compatibility of the
waste to be contained with the construction
materials of the containment device, or with
-------
- 9 -
the liner used to protect them.*
In addition to standards which deal with incom-
patibility, the following other State standards were
also used as prototypes in developing the Subparts J
and Q interim status standards:
Texasl7 specifies that all ponds (which include
containment devices comparable to uncovered tanks)
should have adequate freeboard. The suggested
height of the freeboard varies from 1 1/2 to 2
feet, depending upon the characteristics of the
waste. For example, Texas' standards specify that
Class IA waste (which includes those wastes which
are classifed to be hazardous in Section 3001 of
the RCRA rules) should be contained in ponds with
2 feet of freeboard.
- Louisiana^ requires that before introducing
any new or altered hazardous waste into an existing
or new treatment sequence, pilot or bench scale
tests, or reliable operating data, must be obtained
for the waste.
* Louisiana's regulations gives owners or operators the option
of collecting data (presumably from the literature or from other
facilities) in lieu of performing the tests themselves.
-------
- 10 -
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS, ORGANIZED BY SUBJECT
Subject; The Definitions of "Basin" and "Storage Tank"
A. Proposed Definitions:
"Basin" means any uncovered device constructed of
artificial materials, used to retain wastes as part of
a treatment process, usually with a capacity of less
than 100,000 gallons. Examples of basins include open
mixing tanks, clarifiers, and open settling tanks.
"Storage Tank" means any manufactured non-portable
covered device used for containing pumpable hazardous
waste. (As defined in §250.41.)
"Storage Tank" means any manufactured non-portable
covered device used for containing but not treating
hazardous waste. (As defined in §250.21.)
B. Rationale for the Proposed Definitions
BASIN; The purpose of the proposed wording of the
definition of "basin" was to help owners or operators decide
if the uncovered containment devices in which they treat
hazardous waste are "basins" or "surface impoundments".
This distinction was important because the proposed
requirements for surface impoundments were far more
rigorous than they were for basins.
The primary characteristic which distinguished
basins and surface impoundments in the proposed rules
was the type of materials used to build the containment
devices. Basins were made out -of man-made, "artificial
materials" (e.g., steel, plastic, concrete). Surface
impoundments, on the other hand, could be lined by "arti-
ficial materials" (e.g., PVC), but the construction
material that provided structural support for surface
impoundments was earthen material (e.g., natural in-place
soil, or reworked/reconstructed soil).
-------
- 11 -
A secondary characteristic which the Agency believed
would be helpful to distinguish between basins and surface
impoundments was size. Because man-made materials are
typically more expensive than earth, basins tend to be
smaller than surface impoundments. Based on the Agency's
belief that most basins hold less than 100,000 gallons,
the definition of "basin" contained a statement to this
effect.
STORAGE TANK; The Agency mistakenly provided two
different definitions of the term "storage tank" in the
proposed rules, one in §250.21, and the other in §250.41.
The two proposed definitions were similar in that they
defined a storage tank to be any manufactured non-portable
covered device used to store hazardous waste. However,
the definition provided in §250.41 also stated that the
waste contained in storage tanks is pumpable. This was not
intended and has been removed from the final definition.
The purpose of the proposed wording of the defin-
ition^) of "storage tank" was to help owners or operators
decide if their covered containment devices were "con-
tainers" or "tanks". Again, the ability to make this-
determination was important because some- of the proposed
requirements for containers were different than those
for tanks.
The primary characteristic which distinguished con-
tainers and tanks in the proposed rules was size. Con-
-------
- 12 -
tainers were small enough to be portable, whereas tanks
were too large to be portable (i.e., they are stationary)
C. Summary of Comments:
Regarding the definition of "Basin":
1. The word "uncovered" should be deleted.
2. The definition should specify whether the term
"artificial material" means man-made, manufactured,
not natural in place, or something else.
3. The volume restriction of 100,000 gallons should
be deleted, because containment devices constructed
of man-made materials frequently have a capacity
greater than 100,000 gallons.
4. The public normally understands the word "basin"
to mean a geologic or topographic depression or a
small bathroom or kitchen bowl; therefore, the
term should not be used to stand for a large device
constructed of artificial materials.
Regarding the definition of "Storage Tank":
5. The word "covered" should be deleted because:
- the storage of a non-volatile waste does not
require a covered tank.
- the word is not part, of the commonly under-
stood meaning of "tank". The special need
for "covered" devices is properly addressed
elsewhere in the proposed regulations, with
respect to storing volatile materials.
-------
- 13 -
the word "covered" places an unwarranted
limitation on facilities which would be con-
sidered storage tanks.
an uncovered steel tank would be designated
as a "basin". Consequently, it would require
ground-water monitoring, even though the absence
of a cover by itself does not signifi-
cantly increase the potential for contaminating
ground water-
6. The word "pumpable" should be deleted from §250.4l(b)(84)
because:
- it makes this definition inconsistent with the
definition of the same term given in §250.2l(b)(27).
- the definition does not specify the circumstances
under which the material must be "pumpable".
In some instances, material may be liquid and
"pumpable" going in, but may become non-pumpable
during storage e.g., because of evaporation,
or reaction, or solidification, etc.
- the storage of solid or semi-solid wastes should
be permitted.
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments.;
The Agency's re-evaluation of its conception of
storage for regulatory purposes now permits storage to
be conducted in uncovered as well as covered devices,
and in devices such as surface impoundments. Thus basins.
-------
- 14 -
as they were defined in the proposed regulations, are now
recognized as appropriate storage devices. In addition, the
Agency has recognized that treatment as well as storage may
be conducted in tanks. These changes have made the proposed
regulations' concepts of basins and storage tanks essentially
identical, with the exception that one is uncovered and the
other is covered. As a result, the Agency has combined the two
concepts into one: a tank is now defined to be "a stationary
device, designed to contain an accumulation of hazardous waste,
v/hich is constructed primarily of non-earthen materials . . .
which provide structural support." Tanks are referred to as
covered or uncovered when appropriate. The terms "basin"
and "storage tank" have been deleted from the final rules.
These revisions should satisfy most of objections to
including "uncovered" in the definition of "basin", and
"covered" in the definition of "storage tank"; these object-
ions appear to reflect mainly a discontent with restricting
basins (uncovered tanks) to treating waste, and storage
tanks (covered tanks) to storing it. The final rules also
contain no standards requiring the use of covered tanks. As
explained in the background document on Storage and Containers;
the purpose of requiring tanks to be closed was to control air
emissions. However.- air emissions are primarily a problem fox-
volatile waste, and the Agency has deferred issuing any rules
concerning volatile waste.
-------
- 15 -
The meaning of the term "artificial materials" was
unclear in the proposed definition of "basin" and has been
replaced by the words "non-earthen ... (e.g., wood, concrete,
steel, plastic)" in the final definition, to make clear the
types of construction materials which can be used to build a
tank.
The proposed definition of "basin" stated that they
usually had a capacity of less than 100,000 gallons. The
Agency did not intend owners or operators to interpret this
to mean that containment devices which hold more than 100,000
gallons are excluded from the definition of basin. Rather,
the statement was included in the definition as general
guidance to help differentiate between basins and surface
impoundments. However, since the statement seems to have
confused, rather than helped the regulated community to
distinguish between basins (uncovered tanks) and surface
impoundments, the Agency has deleted the reference to the
capacity of tanks from the final rules.
The Agency also agrees that tanks need not be re-
stricted to holding "pumpable" waste, and this requirement
has been deleted.
-------
- 16 -
II Subject; The Definitions of "Treatment" and "Treatment
Facility"
A. Proposed Definitions:
"Treatment" has the same meaning as that given in
Section 1004 of the Act.
"Treatment Facility" means any facility which treats
hazardous waste.
B. Summary of Comments:
1. The definition of "treatment" should exclude:
(a) operations performed to meet Clean Water Act
requirements (i.e., it should exclude pretreatment
of wastewater to be discharged to industrial NPDES
facilities in the same way that it excludes the
pretreatment of wastewater to be discharged to
POTWs). Otherwise, wastewater streams would be
subject to dual regulation and this is inconsis-
tent with Section 1006 of RCRA, which requires
integration with other environmental laws.
(b) processing methods and techniques which are
designed to reduce the volume or quantity of a
waste being generated.
(c) processing operations which'separate oil and
water by gravity, because the reporting requirements
for these facilities would be staggering.
2. The definition of "treatment facility" should
exclude, or differentiate these facilities, from
resource recovery facilities.
-------
- 17 -
3. The proposed rules are inequitable because they
regulate differently two facilities which treat
waste in an identical manner. Where waste is rendered
non-hazardous by being piped directly to a processing
facility, the facility is not subject .to control
under Subtitle C. However, a facility which renders
its waste non-hazardous with an identical process,
but after the waste has passed through a surface
impoundment, is subject to control under Subtitle C.
In order to eliminate this inequity, the definition
of "treatment facility" should exclude any facility
where the waste flows, on a substantially continuous
basis, directly from the point of generation, or
through a storage facility or surface impoundment,
to a processing facility.
4. Facilities which treat their waste on-site (e.g.,
universities or hospitals which treat waste before
it leaves the premises) should be exempt from the
requirements of Sections 3004 and 3005. Otherwise,
in a chemistry lab, every chemical on the shelf
that has been used once might be considered to be
a waste, and every successive experiment might be
considered to be a treatment facility.
C. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
la. The regulations promulgated under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) are designed to prevent the discharge of pol-
lutants to surface waters. The regulations promulgated
-------
- 18 -
under Subtitle C of RCRA, on the other hand, are
designed to prevent the discharge of hazardous waste
to ground water, as well as surface waters. In those
cases where treatment facilities regulated under the
CWA contain hazardous waste, this waste may seep through
the bottom of the facility to the ground water, as well
as flow over the rim of the facility to surface waters.
For this reason, the Agency believes that these facil-
ities must be subject to the regulations precribed
under Subtitle C of RCRA, as well as the regulations
prescribed under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
The final rules do not exclude the pretreatment of
all wastewater discharged to POTWs from regulation under
RCRA. The exclusion only applies to domestic sewage or
mixtures of domestic sewage with other wastes that pass
through a sewer system to a POTW. The rationale for
this is contained in the Part 261 background document
supporting the exclusions under §261.4(a).
Ib. Processing operations which reduce the volume of a
waste already generated cannot be'excluded'from the
definition of "treatment" because RCRA expressly defines
"treatment11 of hazardous waste, to include any method,
or process, ... designed ... to render such waste ...
reduced in volume" (emphasis added). However,- neither
RCRA nor these regulations are intended to govern changes
-------
- 19 -
to production processes made to reduce the volume or
quantity of wastes generated.
lc. & 2. For this same reason, the Agency is also unable
to modify the definition of "treatment" to exclude gravity
oil/water separation processes. However/ if the purpose
of the separation process is to extract the waste oil
for reuse, rather than for disposal, the waste oil separa-
tion process would be a resource recovery facility, and
would be exempt from regulation under the final Phase I
Section 3004 regulations. (See the Part 261 background
document supporting the exclusions under §261.4(b)).
3. The final rules do not exclude all processing facil-
ities in which hazardous waste is received directly from a
production process. Only those which meet the definition
of a "totally enclosed treatment facility" are exempted
from these rules. The key characteristics of such a
facility are that it:
- does not release any hazardous waste or constituent
of hazardous waste into the environment during
treatment, and
- it is directly connected to. an industrial production
process.
The Agency has exempted these facilities from regula-
tion under Subtitle C because they do not release wastes
or waste constituents into the environment, and therefore
stringent controls are not "necessary to protect human
-------
health and the environment". Such controls might also
discourage the use of such facilities, which in many ways
represent the optimum in good waste management practices.
It may also be very difficult, as a practical matter, to
permit or otherwise regulate these types of facilities
many are indoors, are part of complicated plumbing
systems which do not fall within RCRA's jurisdiction, and
do not have clearly defined starting and end points.
After treatment in a totally enclosed treatment
facility, the resulting discharge, treatment residue,
etc., may be a hazardous waste and subject to regulation
under Subtitle C. Owners and operators of such facilities
should consult §261.3 of the Part 261 rules to determine
whether that is the case.
Hazardous v/aste treatment facilities which receive
wastes from a surface impoundment do not pose any of the
practical problems mentioned above. They are not hard to
distinguish from the production processes, and have dis-
crete beginning and end points. They are thus more prac-
tical to examine in the permitting process. In addition,
a generator with a totally enclosed treatment process
would need 'no facility permit at all, and requiring him
to obtain a facility permit would create a substantial
burden for both the Agency and the owner or operator
with little corresponding gain. On the other hand, a fac-
ility with a surface impoundment will require a facility
-------
- 20A -
permit in any event, and it should be practical and
relatively simple to obtain a treatment permit for an
otherwise totally enclosed treatment process at the
same time. These factors indicate a sensible regulatory
distinction between a "totally enclosed treatment
facility" at the end of a generator's production process
and a similar facility which draws its wastes from a
surface impoundment.
4. The Agency disagrees with the comment suggesting that
the Section 3004 and 3005 standards should only apply to
off-site treatment facilities. These regulations are de-
signed to ensure that hazardous waste facilities do not
pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Potential hazards are certainly not posed uniquely by
off-site treatment facilities. Because on-site treat-
ment facilities pose a potential threat to human health
and the environment equal to that posed by off-site
treatment facilities, the final rules apply to both
types of facilities.
However, the Agency does not expect that many uni-
versity chemistry labs will be treatment facilities.
The reason is that the chemicals used for the purpose of
experimentation are not deemed to be wastes until the
experiment is over and the resulting residue needs to be
stored, treated, or disposed. That is, the experiments
-------
- 21 -
performed in labs are not considered to be treatment
processes because the substances used to run the experi-
ments are hazardous chemicals, not hazardous waste.
D. Final Definitions;
"Treatment": (see page 4 above)
"Totally enclosed treatment facility": (see page 4
above)
The definition of "treatment" in the final Part 260
rules is substantively the same as that which was proposed
The Agency has rearranged the order of certain phrases in
the proposed definition in order to maXe it easier to
understand.
The proposed definition of "treatment facility" has
been deleted from the final rules because its meaning was
obvious and, therefore, defining the term was unnecessary-
-------
- 22 -
III. Subject: Compatability of the Waste with the
Containment Device and/or its liner
A. Summary of Proposed Standards 250.44(h),
250.45-4(b)(l), (d), and (e), and 250.45-6(a)
and (b)(2);
The proposed standards required that the materials
used to build containment devices (i.e., tanks, basins,
and other types of treatment facilities), or the liners
used to protect them, must be compatible both with the
hazardous waste to be stored or treated, and with the
treatment reagents that are expected to be used:
- under expected operating conditions (250.45-4(e)
and 250.45-6(a));
- so that the ability of the containment device to
contain the waste is not impaired (250.44(h)).
The proposed standards further required that the
waste to be treated in containment devices must be tested
to determine if the waste, or the reagents to be used
to treat the waste, will have any detrimental effect on
the containment device (250.45-4(d) and 250.45-6(b)(2)).
Wastes which would damage the construction materials
of a basin were not allowed to be placed in the basin
(250.45-4(b)(l)).
3. Rationale for the Proposed Standards;
The service life of a containment device can be
prematurely shortened because of harmful interactions
between its construction materials and the waste or reagents
-------
- 23 -
it contains. This interation may include one or more of
the following:
(l) Corrosion; Corrosion of containment devices may be
accelerated by the properties of the hazardous waste
itself, or by the chemical reagents used to treat the
waste. For example, chromic acid (an oxidizing agent)
generally corrodes all metals. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to treat hazardous waste with chromic acid
in a steel tank unless the tank is lined with a material
which is relatively inert to chromic acid (e.g., glass,
polyethylene, or PVC).
(2) Salting and scaling; Salting and scaling is the
formation of an insulating layer at heat transfer sur-
faces, which could contribute to the failure of evapora-
tion tanks and the subsequent escape of hazardous waste
to the environment. Salting and scaling may be reduced
or prevented by the preliminary treatment of the influent
waste stream or by other operational controls.
(3) Pressure: High pressure (caused, for example, by
mixing wastes which collectively generate large amounts
of gaseous emissions) may cause covered containment
devices to explode, unless the device has been designed
to withstand high pressure.
(4) Liquid flow rate and mechanical abrasion; Mechanical
abrasion from materials contained in the waste or high
liquid flow rates may damage the construction materials
of a containment device. In order to prevent this, it is
important to match the construction material of the device
with the abrasion characteristics of the wastes expected
to be treated, and the anticipated liquid flow rate of
the treatment process.
The purpose of the proposed standards was to prevent
these sorts of adverse interactions. This was necessary
in order to prevent the premature deterioration of con-
tainment devices and the subsequent discharge of the
waste they contain to ground water or surface water.
-------
- 24 -
C. Summary of Comments Received;
1. It is unrealistic to try to protect basins from
"any detrimental effect" which may result from con-
taining a waste which is incompatible with the basin's
construction materials because all construction
.:
materials have an intended useful life (i.e., a
design corrosion rate). Owners or operators should
be allowed to choose between a construction material
with a relatively short intended life (e.g., carbon
steel, with an intended life of five years), which
requires frequent replacement of the basin, vs. a
construction material with a relatively long intended
life (e.g., stainless steel, with an intended life
of ten to thirty years), which allows less frequent
replacement of the basin. Therefore, the phrase
"any detrimental effect" should be replaced by the
phrase "any effect which would cause the basin to
fail prior to closure, or prior to the end of the
basin's intended life".
2. The restriction on placing waste in a basin,
where the waste is detrimental to the basin's con-
struction materials, will preclude the presently
desirable waste management practice of mixing spent
alkaline with spent acid for the purpose of neutral-
ization because these wastes will cause corrosion
when tested on the construction materials of the
basin. The standard should be revised to allow
-------
- 25 -
wastes, which by themselves would corrode a basin,
to be placed in the basin for the purpose of chemical
reaction under controlled conditions.
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1 & 2. The Agency agrees with the commenter's general
argument that containment devices need not be designed
to last forever. Although the Agency would prefer
that hazardous waste be treated or stored in devices
which will not be detrimentally affected by these
operations, the Agency recognizes that, inevitably,
the construction materials of most containment
devices will be somewhat impaired by the physical
or chemical properties of the waste they contain.
The Agency's concern is not so much with the
gradual deterioration of a containment device as
long as this deterioration is monitored, and the
device is repaired or replaced as needed (see the
§265.15 inspection requirements) as with the
rapid impairment of a device's containment capabilities
due to adverse interactions between the device's
construction materials and the wastes it contains.
In response to the comments, the final rules
have been modified to prohibit placing wastes in
containment devices if so doing would impair the
ability of the device to contain the waste during its
intended life. Unlike the proposed rules, the focus
-------
- 26 -
of the final standard is solely on placing wastes
into devices. The proposed approach, which regu-
lated both the types of materials used to build
devices and the kinds of wastes that could go in
them, was redundant. As long as the waste that is
placed into the devices is controlled, the purpose
of the proposed standards (i.e., to prevent the
rapid deterioration of these devices) will be
achieved.
E. Final Regulation Language;
§265.192 General operating requirement*
(b) Hazardous wastes or treatment reagents must not
be placed in a tank if they could cause the tank or its
inner liner to rupture, leak, corrode, or otherwise fail
before the end of its intended life.
§265.401 General operating requirement*
(b) Hazardous wastes or treatment reagents must not
be placed in the treatment process or equipment if they
could cause the treatment process or equipment to rupture,
leak, corrode, or otherwise fail before the end of its
intended life.
-------
- 27 -
IV. Subject: Continuous Feed Operations
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 250.45-6(g);
The proposed standard required that facilities which
continuously feed hazardous waste into containment devices
used to treat hazardous waste must have a waste feed
cutoff or a by-pass system which turns on automatically
when the treatment process breaks down.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard;
The Agency believed that it makes little sense to
add hazardous waste to a containment device in which the
waste already contained therein is not being treated
effectively. In addition, where the breakdown of the
treatment process poses a threat to human health and the
environment (e.g., when an unanticipated reaction between
a reagent and a waste generates excessive heat), the
inflow of additional waste into the device may exacerbate
the problem and thereby increase the dangers associated
with the malfunction of the treatment process.
Therefore, the Agency believed that facilities with
continuous feed operations should be equipped with fail-safe
mechanisms (i.e./ waste feed cutoff or by-pass systems)
capable of stopping the flow of waste into a containment
device in which the treatment process is not working.
C. Summary of Comments Received:
1. It is unnecessary to require that automatic waste
feed cutoff or by-pass systems be installed in all
treatment facilities. Instead, the standard should:
-------
- 28 -
allow a facility to use other mechanisms
(e.g., dikes or collection ponds) which
will contain waste discharges if a mal-
function occurs 7
- require that a facility have adequate
instrumentation and controls to ensure
safe operating conditions.
2. The standard should be recast to acknowledge
that not all malfunctions are severe enough to
cause hazardous waste to be discharged to the
environment. Automatic cutoffs or by-passes, if
required at all, should only have to be triggered
by malfunctions which might cause discharges.
3. EPA should clarify whether the the use of the
word "by-pass" in the proposed standard is meant
to be interpreted in the way the chemical industry
uses the term, i.e., "shunt, to the downstream
side of a process or piece of equipment".
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. The Agency still believes that the best way to
minimize the potential dangers associated with a
system failure (e.g., a-malfunction in the treatment
process, or a crack in the tank) is to prevent addi-
tional waste from flowing into a tank. The Agency
disagrees that facilities should be allowed to con-
tain the overflow from a tank with dikes or
collection ponds instead of preventing the inflow
-------
- 29 -
of a waste to a tank. The Agency believes that
every reasonable effort should be made to confine
waste to the interior of a tank, and only after
these efforts have failed, should waste be allowed
to flow into secondary containment devices (e.g.,
dikes or collection ponds).
However, the Agency agrees that mechanisms
other than those specified in the proposed standard
should be allowed to prevent the inflow of waste to
tanks. For example, a manual waste feed cutoff
system may be just as effective as an automatic
waste feed cutoff system to prevent the inflow of
waste to a tank. For this reason, the Agency has
revised the standard in terms of a performance stan-
dard. The final standard requires that facilities
at which hazardous waste is continuously fed into
tanks be equipped with a means to prevent the inflow
of waste to the tank, but it does not require that
any particular method(s) be used to accomplish this
objective.
2. The Agency recognizes that there may be situa-
tions where the malfunction of a treatment process
does not pose a threat to human health and the environ-
ment (e.g., where an aerator is not aerating an
industrial wastewater with 100% efficiency). In
such situations, the addition of more waste to the
treatment facility may not significantly exacerbate
-------
- 30 -
the situation. The Agency agrees that under such
circumstances, an owner or operator should not be
required to prevent waste from flowing into a tank.
Therefore, the final standard indicates that the
equipment used to prevent inflow to a tank need
only be activated in the event of a leak or over-
flow from the tank due to a system failure (e.g.,
a malfunction in the treatment process, a crack
in the tank, etc.).
3. Because the Agency's use of the term "by-pass"
is consistent with the way it is used in the chemical
industry, and the way it is defined in the dictionary,
the Agency believes that further clarification of
the term in these regulations is unnecessary.
E. Final Regulation Language:
§265.192 General operating requirement*
(d) Where hazardous waste is continuously fed into
a tank, the tank must be equipped with a means to stop
this inflow (e.g.f a waste feed cutoff system of by-pass
system to a stand-by tank).
[Comment: These systems are intended to be used in the
event of a leak or overflow from the tank due to a system
failure (e.g., a malfunction in the treatment process,
a crack in the tank, etc.)]
§265.401 General operating requirement*
(c) Where hazardous waste is continuously fed into a
treatment process or equipment, the process or equipment
must be equipped with a means to stop this inflow (e.g.,
a waste feed cut-off system or by-pass system to a standby
containment device).
[Comment; These systems are intended to be used in the
event of a malfunction in the treatment process or
equipment.]
-------
V. Subject; Freeboard
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 250.45-6(e):
The proposed standard required that at least two
feet of freeboard be provided for each containment device
used for treating hazardous waste.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard;
Hazardous waste may spill or splash over the rim of
an open-topped containment device (i.e., uncovered tank
or surface impoundment) for a number of reasons, which
include:
- the acceleration of a treatment facility's
liquid flow rate past that for which the facility
is designed;
- careless pouring of additional waste into a
partially full containment device;
- an unanticipated reaction between two incom-
patible wastes which causes them to boil-over;
- wave-action on a windy day in containment
devices with large surface areas; and
- major precipitation.
The purpose of the required two feet of freeboard
was to prevent such spilling or splashing and thus reduce
the potential for spilled or splashed waste to contaminate
ground water or surface water.
The Agency's choice of two feet as the required
height of the freeboard was based on the State of Texas'
guidelines for ponds, which specify that a minimum of
-------
- 32 -
two feet of freeboard should be maintained for ponds
containing hazardous waste.
Additional support for requiring owners or operators
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard in large,
uncovered containment devices is contained in several
technical documents (e.g., in the proceedings from a
symposium on upgrading wastewater stabilization ponds-^,
an EPA design manual for upgrading wastewater treatment
plants^O, and an environmental engineers' handbook on
water pollution21).
C. Summary of Comments Received:
In many cases, a freeboard of less than two feet
will be sufficient to prevent hazardous waste from splashing
or spilling during treatment. Therefore, a "note" should
be added to the standard which allows using less than two
feet of freeboard where:
- there is a collection and drainage area surrounding
the reaction vessel which has restricted access
during operation (the commenter did not explain
exactly what he meant by the phrase "which has
restricted access during operation");
- an equivalent degree of protection is provided.
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
The Agency agrees that secondary containment
systems dikes, trenches, drainage to another treatment
system, diversion to a stand-by tank, etc. may provide
-------
- 33 -
a degree of protection from splashing and spillage equal
to that provided by two feet of freeboard. The interim
status standards for tanks do not require secondary
containment systems (see the Foreword of this document).
However, the Agency believes that facilities with interim
status should be allowed to use existing containment
systems to prevent hazardous waste from spilling or
splashing from tanks to the ground water or surface
water. Therefore, the final interim status standard for
tanks require that facilities have either (1) two feet
of freeboard, or (2) a containment structure (e.g., dike
or trench), drainage control system, or diversion structure
(e.g., standby tank) which has a capacity that equals
or exceeds the volume of the top two feet of the tank.
The Agency has not included a freeboard requirement
in the final Subpart Q standards. Unlike tanks, which can
be uncovered, to the Agency's knowledge the treatment
processes regulated under Subpart Q are conducted in
covered containment devices and maintaining freeboard
in these devices is thus unnecessary.
-------
- 34 -
E. Final Regulation Language;
$265.192 General operating requirement*
(c) Uncovered tanks must be operated to ensure at
least 60 centimeters (2 feet) of freeboard, unless the
tank is equipped with a containment structure (e.g., dike
or trench), a drainage control system, or a diversion
structure (e.g., standby tank) with a capacity that equals
or exceeds the volume of the top 60 centimeters (2 feet)
of the tank.
-------
- 35 -
VI. Subject; Waste Analyses and Trial Treatment Tests
A. Summary of Proposed Standards 250.45-6(b) and (c)
The proposed standards required that waste analyses
and trial tests be conducted in part in order to:
- identify the proper treatment technique for
each type of hazardous waste treated at the
facility;
determine if the waste is contaminated with
substances which might interfere with the
treatment of the waste or damage the contain-
ment device; and
ensure that each new or significantly different
waste accepted at the facility can be treated
effectively with the process used at the facility.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
Carelessness and haphazard experimentation with
different treatment techniques on large quantities of
hazardous waste (e.g., the quantity which is contained in
a tank) can adversely affect human health and the environment
if the waste is incompatible with the treatment process
or the chemical reagents used to treat the waste. For
example, adding a strong oxidizing agent (e.g., chromic
acid) to a steel tank full of an unknown waste may generate
toxic fumes, excessive heat, fires, explosions, or may
cause the tank to corrode rapidly.
-------
- 36 -
The purpose of the proposed standard was to dis-
courage the large scale "hit or miss" approach to hazardous
waste treatment by requiring that an owner or operator
conduct bench scale (or pilot scale) tests to determine
the effectiveness and safety of the treatment technique
intended to be used at the facility.
C. Summary of Comments Received:
1. Requiring that a hazardous waste be tested
before placing it in a basin (§250.45-4(d)) is inappro-
priate when applied to the continuous flow of an
industrial wastewater through a treatment process
unit.
2. Requiring trial treatment tests for each new or
significantly different waste accepted at a treatment
facility may result in needless duplicative testing
where the waste has already been shown to be compatible
with the process in question at similar facilities.
3. A treatment facility should have to submit to
the permit authority the type of information described
in §250.45-6(b) and (c) before a significant new
waste can be handled at the facility.
4. A list of analytical tests should be developed
to help the owner or operator determine which processes
are appropriate for the treatment of his waste. This
list should include such tests as: total quantitative
analysis, leach test, explosives testing, flammability
-------
- 37 -
tests, corrosivity tests, oxidative tests, and
toxicity determinations.
5. The word "proper" in §250.45-6(b)(1) should be
replaced with the word "appropriate" because the
word "proper" suggests that there is only one treat-
ment technique, feed rate, operating condition, etc.
for a particular hazardous waste.
Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. It was the Agency's intent, in the proposed
rules, to require the testing of industrial waste-
water flowing through a treatment process unit only
(a) when the process is initially started up,
(b) when the influent waste stream changes signifi-
cantly, or (c) when the process used to treat the
wastewater is changed or is significantly modified.
The final rules have been redrafted along these
lines.
2. The Agency agrees that an owner or operator
should not have to perform waste analyses or trial
tests where the information needed to ensure that
the regulations will be complied with has been
obtained at, and is available from other facilities
which have performed similar storage or treatment of
similar waste under similar operating conditions.
Therefore, the regulations have been revised to
exempt owners or operators from the waste analyses
-------
and trial test requirements where such information
is available from other sources. However, reliance
on information from other facilities does not relieve
the owner or operator of primary responsibility
should the information he has obtained from other
sources prove to be incorrect, and damage to human
health or the environment occurs.
3. It might be desirable for EPA to review the
results of each waste analysis and trial test before
a new or significantly different waste could be
handled at a facility- This review would enable EPA
to prevent the storage/treatment of waste where the
Agency believes the owner or operator has misinter-
preted the results of the tests with respect to a
planned course of action. However, the number of
reviews which EPA would have to conduct if it required
owners or operators to obtain EPA review of their test
results before a new or significantly different waste
could be managed, makes such a requirement impractical
because EPA lacks sufficient manpower to provide a
timely turn-around of the test results. In addition,
it is unclear whether the added increment of safety is
enough to be worth the added burden to the Agency and
to owners and operators. Furthermore, the results of
these waste analyses and trial tests will be available
to the Regional Administrator. Because these results
-------
- 39 -
will be reviewed when the facility's application for
a permit is evaluated, the Agency believes that this
review process will encourage owners or operators to
conduct thorough analyses/tests and to take the
course of action which the test results indicate
should be taken.
It should be noted that the final interim status
standards do not include a revision of paragraph (iv)
and (v) of proposed §250.45-6(b). These parts of
the proposed standard dealt with issues (i.e., volatile
and highly toxic substances) for which EPA is deferring
action. Therefore, although prior review of test
results is not required for the final interim status
standards corresponding to proposed §250.45-6(b)(i),(ii
and (iii), the Agency is deferring its decision as
to whether Agency review of the test results will be
required before the waste can be managed, where the
tests indicate that highly toxic substances or toxic
air emissions will be generated during the intended
storage or treatment process.
4. The Agency agrees that owners or operators should
be given guidance to help them select an appropriate
process to treat their waste. The Agency is in the
process of developing a guidance manual which will
describe the types of analytical tests requested by
the commenter.
-------
- 40 -
5. The Agency agrees that there may be a number of
treatment techniques, chemical reagents, operating
conditions, etc. that are appropriate for the treatment
of a particular waste. Any implication that there
is only one "proper" treatment process for each type
of waste has been eliminated from the final rules.
E. Final Regulation Language:
§265.193 Waste analysis and trial tests*
In addition to the waste analysis required by §265.13,
whenever a tank is to be used to:
(l) Chemically treat or store a hazardous waste
which is substantially different from waste previously
treated or stored in that tank; or
(2) Chemically treat hazardous waste with a substan-
tially different process than any previously used
in that tank;
the owner or operator must, before treating or storing
the different waste or using the different process:
(l) Conduct waste analyses and trial treatment or
storage tests (e.g., bench scale or pilot plant
scale tests); or
(2) Obtain written, documented information on
similar storage or treatment of similar waste under
similar operating conditions;
to show that this proposed treatment or storage will meet
all applicable requirements of §265.l92(a) and (b).
[Comment; As required by §265.13, the waste analysis plan
must include analyses needed to comply with §§2.65.198 and
265.199. As required by §265.73,- the owner or operator
must place the results from each waste analysis and trial
test, or the documented information, in the operating
record of the facility-]
-------
- 41 -
§265.402 Waste analysis and trial tests*
In addxtion to the waste analysis required by §265.13,
whenever:
(l) A hazardous waste which is substantially different
from waste previously treated in a treatment process
or equipment at the facility is to be treated in that
process or equipment, or
(2) A substantially different process than any pre-
viously used at the facility is to be used to chemi-
cally treat hazardous waste;
the owner or operator must, before treating the different
waste or using the different process or equipment:
(1) Conduct waste analyses and trial treatment tests
(e.g., bench scale or pilot plant scale tests); or
(2) Obtain written, documented information on similar
treatment of similar waste under similar operating
conditions;
to show that this proposed treatment will meet all applicable
requirements of §265.401 (a) and (b).
[Comment; As required by §265.13, the waste analysis
plan must include analyses needed to comply with §§265.405
and 265.406. As required by §265.73, the owner or operator
must place the results from each waste analysis and trial
test, or the documented information, in the operating
record of the facility=J
-------
- 42 -
VII. Subject; Inspections
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 250.45-4(h):
The proposed standard required that basins be visually
inspected in accordance with §250.43-6, and that any damage
detected during the inspection be repaired immediately.
§250.43-6 called for the daily visual inspection of
several specific components of hazardous waste facilities,
plus the recording of these inspections in the facility's
daily operating log. The daily inspection requirement
could be relaxed for certain aspects of the facility's
operation if the owner or operator could demonstrate
that lesser requirements would still adequately protect
human health and the environment.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard;
The purpose of the proposed §250.43-6 standards is
discussed in the background document entitled "Inspections".
The purpose of the requirement that any damage detected
during the visual inspection be repaired immediately,
was to assure not only that damage to basins is detected,
but that corrective measures are speedily taken to repair
the damage.
C. Summary of Comments Received;
1. The requirement that basins be repaired "imme-
diately" , should be revised to require that damage
be repaired:
as soon as practicable
-------
- 43 -
in time to prevent a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health and
the environment
because using the word "immediately" might subject
owners/operators to penalties, even though they took
prompt action in good faith. In addition, under
certain circumstances (e.g., strikes, inclement
weather, the need to remove the waste before repairing
the basin), it may be impossible to carry out repairs
immediately.
2. Daily inspection is unnecessary because dike
failure is a long term event with early warning
signs such as wet spots or dead or unusually lush
vegetation in a limited area of the dike. Further-
more, the daily inspection aspect of the standard
could be counterproductive because it could lead to
superficial inspections.
3. The inspections required in items 1 through 7
of §250.43-6(a) are redundant for facilities regulated
under OSHA's safe employment regulations, the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, as well as state and
local regulations.
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. The Agency agrees that it may not always be
possible to "immediately" repair damage noted during
the inspection of a facility. In some cases, immediate
repair, although desirable, may not be necessary. For
-------
- 44 -
example, the presence of rust in the wall of a tank
should be remedied, but human health and the environ-
ment will not be placed in serious jeopardy, under
most circumstances, if the tank is not repaired for
a week or two. Therefore, the final inspection
standards require that any damage or adverse con-
dition detected during the inspection must be
corrected before it can result in a pollution
incident. Where an incident is imminent or has
already occurred, the final standards require that
repair be made as soon as possible.
2. The response to comments concerning the daily
inspection aspect of the proposed §250.43-6 standards
is contained in the background document entitled
"Inspections". The final general inspection stan-
dards (§265.15) require owners or operators to develop
their own inspection schedule. The inspection
schedule is to be based on the owner's or operator's
knowledge of the facility's critical processes,
equipment, and structures, and on his perception
of the potential for failure and the rate of any
deterioration processes (corrosion, erosion, etc.)
which may lead to failure.
In addition, owners or operators of tanks must
comply with certain minimum inspection requirements
specified in the final standards for tanks. The
rationale for including minimum inspection require-
-------
- 45 -
ments in each of the technical sections of the final
regulations, is contained in the background document
entitled "Inspections".
The minimum inspection requirements for tanks
and chemical, physical, and biological treatment
facilities are divided into two categories: those
aspects of the facility which require inspection
each operating day, and those which require inspection
each week.
Damage incident #3 on page 6 of this document
illustrates that the spill control equipment of
storage/treatment facilities (e.g., a tank's valves)
needs to be inspected each operating day because of
the vital role (i.e., preventing the inflow to, or
containing the overflow from containment devices)
that such equipment plays at these facilities in
preventing a malfunction which could quickly threaten
human health or the environment. Similarly, the
Agency believes that the data gathered from monitoring
equipment (e.g., pressure and temperature gauges)
must be checked each operating day because of the
important role that this data plays in ensuring that
the facility is running according to plan".
On the other hand, because deterioration
resulting from corrosion or erosion normally occurs
relatively slowly, the Agency believes that the
construction materials of tanks and spill confinement
-------
- 46 -
structures (e.g., dikes) should only have to be
inspected once a week. Weekly inspection should be
adequate to detect corrosion or erosion long before
the tanks or spill confinement structures are likely
to fail-* The final standards also require weekly
inspection of the grounds surrounding the tanks and
spill confinement structures for obvious signs of
leakage. Damage incident #4 illustrates the type
of obvious signs of trouble (e.g., dead vegetation,
visible air emissions) which signal the failure of a
containment device.
3. Response to comments concerning the alleged
overlap of the proposed §250.43-6 standards with
the inspection requirements of other Acts, is
contained in the background document entitled
"Inspections."
* Support for a weekly inspection requirement for
these aspects of facilities is contained in several of the
comments received on the proposed §250.43-6 standards.
-------
- 47 -
E. Final Regulation Language;
§265.194 Inspections
The owner or operator of a tank must xnspect, where
present:
(1) Discharge control equipment (e.g., waste feed
cut-off systems, by-pass systems, and drainage systems),
at least once each operating day, to ensure that it
is in good working order;
(2) Data gathered from monitoring equipment (e.g.,
pressure and temperature gauges), at least once
each operating day, to ensure that the tank is being
operated according to its design;
(3) The level of waste in the tank, at least once
each operating day, to ensure compliance with
§265.l92(c)7
(4) The construction materials of the tank, at
least weekly, to detect corrosion or leaking of
fixtures or seams; and
(5) The construction materials of, and the area
immediately surrounding, discharge confinement struc-
tures (e.g., dikes), at least weekly, to detect
erosion or obvious signs of leakage (e.g., wet spots
or dead vegetation).
[Comment: As required by §265.l5(c), the owner or operator
must remedy any deterioration or malfunction he finds.]
§265.403 Inspections
The owner or operator of a treatment facility must
inspect, where present:
(l) Discharge control and "safety equipment (e.g.,
waste feed cut-off systems, by-pass systems, drainage
systems, and pressure relief systems) at least once
each operating day, to ensure that it is in good
working order;
(2) Data gathered from monitoring equipment (e.g.,
pressure and temperature gauges), at least once
each operating day, to ensure that the treatment
process or equipment is being operated according
to its design;
-------
- 48 -
(3) The construction materials of the treatment
process or equipment, at least weekly, to detect
corrosion or leaking of fixtures or seams; and
(4) The construction materials of, and the area
immediately surrounding, discharge confinement
structures (e.g., dikes), at least weekly, to
detect erosion or obvious signs of leakage (e.g.,
wet spots or dead vegetation).
[Comment: As required by §265.l5(c), the owner or
operator must remedy any deterioration or malfunction
he finds . "]
-------
_ 49 -
VIII. Subject; Closure
A.. Summary of Proposed Standards 250.45-4Ch) and
250.45-6(h) and (i);
The proposed standards required that when a basin
closes, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues
contained in the facility must be removed from it and
disposed of (250.454(h)), or treated or disposed of
(250.45-6(h) and (i)), as a hazardous waste.
In addition, when removing residues from a treatment
facility (either when the facility closes, or when simply
cleaning the facility), the proposed standards required
that the residues must be assumed to be hazardous unless
they are analyzed and found not to be hazardous, within
the meaning of the proposed Section 3001 regulations.
However, testing to prove that a residue is non-hazardous
was not required where the owner or operator could demon-
strate that the residue is similar to a non-hazardous
residue that was previously generated at the facility.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standards;
Although it may be obvious that because basins and
treatment facilities are.temporary containment^devices,
the hazardous waste contained in them must-be removed
when the facility closes, it may not be as obvious that
the hazardous waste residues that settle to the bottom of
basins or treatment facilities must also be removed before
closure. The Agency believed that hazardous waste residues
must be removed from the facility because the structural
-------
- 50 -
material of the facility is eventually going to fail*
(i.e., crack or corrode), and the subsequent discharge of
the residue from the damaged facility may contaminate
ground water or surface water. Damage incidents #2 and
#6 on pages 5-6 of this document illustrate the type of
damage which may result when hazardous waste is left in
containment devices after the facility has closed.
Although some of the residues generated in treatment
facilities (e.g., sludges which settle to the bottom of
the containment device, or by-products generated during
the treatment process itself) may have been rendered
non-hazardous during the process of treating the waste,
the Agency believed that most of the residues generated
in treatment facilities are hazardous. Therefore, to
discourage owners or operators from making hasty and
perhaps erroneous assumptions about the nature of the
residues which they generate, the Agency wrote the proposed
standard to require that residues be treated or disposed
of as hazardous waste unless they are proven to be non-
hazardous .
* In fact, prolonged contact of the residue with the
insides of the basin may even accelerate its deterioration
if the residue is corrosive or incompatible with basin's
structural materials.
-------
- 51
C. Summary of Comments Received:
1. The requirement to remove all hazardous waste and
hazardous waste residues from treatment facilities is
inconsistent with §250.45-3(e)(l), which does not require
removing the waste or residues of a surface impoundment
which meets the landfill requirements of §250.45-2.
2. Residues should only have to be analyzed to
determine whether they are hazardous if owners or
operators have reason to believe that their residues
are hazardous. This suggestion is consistent with
page 58951 of the proposed Preamble, which states
that such testing is only required when the generator
has reason to believe that his waste is hazardous.
3. The requirement that the residue be analyzed to
determine whether it is hazardous "within the meaning
of Subpart A" is too broad, because Subpart A includes
"the broad criteria of the statutory standard in
§250.12 and the bases for listing in §250.14." The
requirement for residue analysis should be consistent
with the analysis required of generators of solid
waste who know or who have reason to believe that
their waste is hazardous. That is, the waste should
be evaluated in accordance with the characteristics
set forth in §250.13.
4. The 100 kg exemption for generators should apply
to facility operators who generate residues through
treatment.
-------
- 52 -
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. The Agency did not intend that proposed
§250.45-6(h) apply to surface impoundments closed in
accordance with the landfill closure requirements.
However, this intention was not reflected in the
proposed standard. The final rules have been written
to reflect the Agency's original intent.
2. The Agency believes that most residues resulting
from treatment processes are hazardous wastes. For
this reason, the final Part 261 rules specify that
all such residues are hazardous unless the owner or
operator can demonstrate otherwise. A more detailed
explanation for this provision is contained in the
Part 261 background document supporting the definition
of hazardous waste in §261.3.
3. The Agency agrees that the proposed requirement
to analyze the residue "within the meaning of Subpart A"
was somewhat broad. The final rules specify that all
residues generated from treatment processes are hazard-
ous waste unless the owner or operator can demonstrate,
in accordance with §261.3(f) of Part 261, that the
residue is not a hazardous waste. As is further ex-
plained in the background document for Part 261, this
means that the residue need not be tested against a
particular characteristic if no incoming waste was
found hazardous under that characteristic, and that
the residue need not be measured against the criteria
for delisting a listed waste unless some incoming waste
-------
was a listed waste. The Agency does not agree that the
residue should not be measured against the criteria for
listing wastes so long as one of the incoming wastes
was listed.
4. The final rules specify that, by removing a residue
from a tank or treatment facility, the owner or operator
becomes a generator of hazardous waste and must manage it
in accordance with all applicable requirements of Parts
262, 263, and 265 of the final Subtitle C rules. Any
special exemptions pertaining to generators in these rules
also apply to owners and operators generating residues.
E. Final Regulation Language;
§265.197 Closure
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues must be removed from tanks, discharge control
equipment, and discharge confinement structures.
[Comment; At closure, as throughout the operating period,
unless the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accordance
with §261.3(f) of this Chapter, that the residue removed
from his tank is not a hazardous waste, the owner or
operator becomes a generator of hazardous waste and must
manage it in accordance with all applicable requirements
of Parts 262, 263, and 265 of this Chapter.]
§265.404 Closure
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues must be removed- from treatment processes -or" -
equipment, discharge control equipment, and discharge
confinement structures.
[Comment; At closure, as throughout the operating period,
unless the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accor-
dance with §261.3(f) of this Chapter, that the residue
removed from his treatment process or equipment is not a
hazardous waste, the owner or operator becomes a generator
of hazardous waste and must manage it in accordance with
all applicable requirements of Parts 262, 263, and 265 of
this Chapter.1
-------
- 54 -
[X. Subject; Special Requirements for Ignitable and
Reactive Waste
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 250.45-4(b)(2) and (3):
The proposed standard prohibited owners or operators
from placing ignitable or reactive waste in basins unless
he could demonstrate that doing so would not:
- produce more air contaminants than the permissible
exposure levels promulgated by OSHA, or
damage the structural integrity of the basin
through fires, explosive reactions, or the
generation of heat.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard;
The Agency was concerned about owners or operators
placing ignitable and reactive waste in containment devices
because the waste may come in contact with materials with
which it will ignite or react and thereby cause a fire
or explosion, or generate excessive heat. Damage incident
#1 on page 5 of this document exemplifies the types of
dangers which can result from placing ignitatale waste in
containment devices.
Generating excessive heat or causing a fire or explo-
sion in a containment device in which hazardous waste is
treated or stored, poses a serious threat to human health
and the environment because:
it could generate hazardous air emissions which
may endanger the health and lives of the facility's
personnel and neighbors ;
-------
- 55 -
it could damage the structural integrity of
the basxn through heat, fires, or explosive
reactions, and allow hazardous waste to be
discharged from the device to ground water or
surface water;
- it could ignite nearby flammable waste.
To prevent this type of damage, the proposed stan-
dard restricted but did not prohibit the placement of
ignitable or reactive waste in basins, since the Agency
wished to encourage facilities to treat rather than
dispose of hazardous waste. Conditions for a variance
from the proposed standard were included in the proposed
rules, allowing owners or operators to place ignitable
or reactive waste in basins if so doing would not (l) damage
the structural integrity of the basin as a result of heat
generation, fires, or explosive reactions; or (2) contribute
air contaminants in excess of the permissible exposure
levels promulgated by OSHA.
C. Summary of Comments Received:
1. The provision of the "Note" to the standard
which required that owners or operators demonstrate
that their treatment operations do not contribute
air contaminants in excess of the permissible exposure
levels promulgated.by OSHA is objectionable because
this would:
use RCRA to regulate air contaminants
within the regulatory authority of the
-------
- 56 -
Clean Air Act and OSHA and, thus, would
conflict With RCRA's Section 1006 mandate
regarding the application and integration
of RCRA with other environmental laws.
misuse the OSHA exposure limits which were
derived from Threshhold Limit Values (TLVs)
developed by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH),
because the ACGIH has placed the following
restrictions on the use of the TLVs: the
limits "are not intended for use, or for
modification for use, (l) as a relative
index of hazard or toxicity.- (2) in the
evaluation or control of community air
pollution nuisances, (3) in estimating the
toxic potential of continuous, uninterrupted
exposures ..." .
Furthermore, the proposed use of OSHA
limits is technically more stringent than
the compliance requirements under OSHA
itself. OSHA applies these limits to human
exposure, and allows administrative controls
and protective equipment for compliance.
Therefore, the restriction on placing ignitable and
reactive waste in basins should be modified to allow
placing such waste in basins for the purpose of
treatment if such treatment will not:
-------
violate any applicable standard promulgated
under the Clean Air Act; or
damage the structural integrity of the
basin through heat generation, fires, or
explosive reactions.
2. The restriction on placing ignitable and reactive
waste in basins should be deleted because basins com-
prise major elements of treatment systems and, there-
fore, must contain such wastes in order to treat them.
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. The Agency agrees that the OSHA air contaminant
exposure figures are not generally appropriate for the
circumstances of waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, and they have been deleted from the regu-
lations. In addition, the Agency is deferring promul-
gation of regulations dealing with volatile wastes
under Section 3004, as explained in the preamble dis-
cussion entitled "Volatile Waste." Other standards for
the treatment of ignitable, reactive, and incompatible
wastes are discussed in the preamble.
2. The Agency still believes that certain restrict-
ions are needed on placing ignitable or reactive
waste in tanks and in chemical, physical, and
biological treatment facilities. The final rules
permit alternative approaches. An owner or operator
may treat ignitable or reactive waste so as to render
the waste non-ignitable or nonreactive. This
provision minimizes the potential for such waste
-------
- 53 -
to come into contact with sources of ignition, or
with substances with which it may react, during the
time the waste is contained in these facilities.
Alternatively, some owners or operators treat
ignitable or reactive waste for a purpose other than
rendering the waste non-ignitable or non-reactive,
respectively e.g., to reduce the water content
of the waste before incinerating it. Because the
Agency wishes to encourage the treatment of hazardous
waste, the final rules allow owners or operators to
treat or store ignitable or reactive waste without
rendering the waste non-ignitable or non-reactive,
respectively, if the waste is treated or stored in
such a manner that it is protected from any sources
of ignition or from any material or condition which
may cause it to react.
Finally, the final rules permit placement of
ignitable or reactive wastes in tanks which are used
solely for emergencies. Petroleum refiners requested
such an exemption for surface impoundments which
collect petroleum and related materials in emergencies.
The Agency has made such a provision in the surface
impoundment regulations, and believes that a parallel.
exemption for tanks is warranted.
The Agency has included in §265.l7(b) of Subpart B
of the final rules, general requirements for ignitable,
-------
- 59 -
reactive, and incompatible wastes. The final Subparts
J and Q requirements specify that treatment or storage
of ignitable and reactive waste in tanks and in chemica
physical, and biological treatment facilities must be
done in accordance with §265.l7(b). The rationale
for the §265.17(b) requirements is contained in the
preamble discussion entitled "Ignitable, Reactive,
and Incompatible Wastes".
The Agency believes that the potential for a
violent explosion or fire from a tank containing
ignitable or reactive waste is more likely to occur
if the tank is covered because of the tendency for
vapors to pressurize in enclosed devices. For this
reason, the Agency believes that minimum setbacks
from the facility's property line should be required
for tanks which contain ignitable or reactive waste.
This would minimize the potential for injury to the
neighboring public from the flying debris or toxic
air emissions which often result from explosions
involving hazardous materials. For example, the
explosion which occured in 1977 at the chemical
disposal site in New Jersey (see damage incident #1
on page 5 of this document) resulted in the ejection
of several large tanks and the death and injury of
several people at the site.
Not a great deal of data is available on which
the Agency can base minimum setback requirements
-------
- 60 -
for these types of waste. The only data on this
subject of which EPA is aware is that gathered by
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
This data was codified in the NFPA's Flammable and
Combustible Code of 1977.
The purpose of the standards in the NFPA code
is "to reduce the hazard to a degree consistent with
reasonable public safety, without undue interference
with public convenience and necessity which requires
the use of flammable and combustible liquids"22
(emphasis added). Because protection of human health
from fires or explosions resulting from the storage
of ignitable and reactive waste is also a goal of
the Section 3004 RCRA rules, it is appropriate to
use the NFPA's minimum setback requirements as the
basis for establishing EPA's regulations for ignitable
and reactive waste. Although EPA's categories of
ignitable and reactive waste are only roughly compar-
able to NFPA's category of flammable and combustible
liquids, the setback requirements in the NFPA rules
would appear to represent a minimum fo-r -all igni-table
and reactive wastes, since the -great majority of these
wastes pose similar hazards from ignition o.r reaction.
Therefore, the final rules require that the treatment
or storage of ignitable or reactive waste must be in
accordance with the NFPA's buffer zone requirements
for tanks, contained in Tables 2-1 of the "Flammable
-------
-Gl-
and Combustible Code of 1977". These tables are
contained in Appendix I of this document.
These NFPA standards already apply to most
covered tanks containing ignitable and reactive
materials under the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA) regulations. The Agency,
therefore, does not expect these regulations to
necessitate substantial capital expenditures for
covered tanks.
The NFPA standards do not by their terms apply
to uncovered tanks and, thus, requiring these existing
tanks to comply with the NFPA standards might require
substantial capital expenditures. Because such a
requirement does not meet the general criteria for
interim status standards (see the Foreword to this
document), it has not been included in the Part 265
rules. For this same reason, the requirement to
comply with the NFPA standards has also not been
included in the Subpart Q standards for chemical,
physical, and biological treatment facilities.
-------
- 62 -
E. Final Regulation Language;
§265.192 General operating requirements*
(a) Treatment or storage of hazardous waste in
tanks must comply with §265.i7(b).*
§256.198 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive
waste[Interim Final]
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste must not be placed in
a tank, unless:
(l) The waste is treated, rendered, or mixed
before or immediately after placement in the
tank so that (i) the resulting waste, mixture,
or dissolution of material no longer meets
the definition of ignitable or reactive waste
under §§261.21 or 261.23 of this Chapter, and
(11) §265.17(b) is complied with; or
(2) The waste is stored or treated in such
a way that it is protected from any material
or conditions which may cause the waste to
ignite or react; or
(3) The tank is used solely for emergencies.
* §265.17 General requirements for ignitable, reactive, or
incompatible wastes [Interim Final]
(b) Where specifically required by other Sections of this
Part, the treatment, storage, or disposal of ignitable or
reactive waste, and the mixture or commingling of incompatible
wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials, must be conducted
so that it does not:
(l) Generate extreme heat or pressure, fire or explosion,
or violent reaction;
(2) Produce uncontrolled toxic mists, fumes, dusts, or
gases in sufficient quantities to threaten human health;
(3) Produce uncontrolled flammable fumes or gases in
sufficient quantities to pose a risk of fire or explosions;
(4) Damage the structural integrity of the device or
facility containing the waste; or
(5) Through other like means threaten human health or the
environment.
-------
- 63 -f
(b) The owner or operator of a facility which treats
or stores ignitable or reactive waste in covered tanks
must comply with the National Fire Protection Association's
(NFPA's) buffer zone requirements for tanks, contained in
Tables 2-1 through 2-6 of the "Flammable and Combustible
Code - 1977".
[Comment: See §265.l7(a) for additional requirements.]
§265.401 General operating requirements*
(a) Chemical, physical or biological treatment of
hazardous waste must comply with §265.l7(b).
§265.405 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive
waste[Interim Final]
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste must not be placed
in a treatment process or equipment unless:
(l) The waste is treated, rendered, or mixed before
or immediately after placement in the treatment
process or equipment so that (i) the resulting waste,
mixture, or dissolution of material no longer meets
the definition of ignitable or reactive waste under
§§261.21 or 261.23 of this Chapter, and (ii) §265.l7(b)
is complied with; or
(2) The waste is treated in such a way that it is
protected from any material or conditions which may
cause the waste to ignite or react.
-------
- 64 -
X. Subject: Specxal Requirements for Incompatible Waste
A. Summary of Proposed Standards 250.45-4(c) and 250.44(3.)
The proposed standards prohibited placing hazardous
wastes which are incompatible with each other in basins.
The standards also prohibited placing hazardous waste
in an unwashed storage tank that previously held an incom-
patible material.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standards:
The Agency was concerned about owners or operators
placing wastes which are incompatible in the same con-
tainment device because the commingling of incompatible
waste may:
(l) generate hazardous air emissions which may endanger
the health and lives of the facility's personnel and
neighbors. For example, mixing cyanide and sulfide-
containing alkaline wastes may release toxic HCN and
H2S vapors into the environment.
(2) generate excessive heat, fire, or explosions, which
may damage the structural integrity of the containment
device and, thus, possibly cause hazardous waste to be
discharged from the basin to ground water or surface
water. For example, mixing hazardous waste containing
highly reactive components- (e.g.-, oxrdation-reduction
agents and organics) may generate excessive heat which
could adversely affect the impermeability of some
construction materials or liners.
-------
- 65 -
C. Summary of Comments Received;
1. The prohibition on mixing incompatible waste
precludes the presently desirable waste management
practice of controlled neutralization of spent
acids and caustics. The standard should be revised
to allow wastes which are incompatible to be mixed,
if such mixing is:
- for the purpose of treatment
in accordance with the provisions of
the note to §250.45(c)
2. The requirement that hazardous waste must not
be placed in a storage tank or container which pre-
viously held an incompatible waste is unnecessary,
particularly when:
- the tank is empty, or
the tank is suitable for both caustic
and acidic substances.
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. The Agency agrees that incompatible wastes should
be allowed to be mixed together in containment de-
vices for the purpose of treatment if the §265.17(b)
regulations are complied with (see previous Section
of this document).
As mentioned earlier, the Agency is deferring
regulation of volatile wastes, which may cause air
emissions to be generated from treatment facilities.
The only restriction included in the final interim
-------
- 66 -
status standards on the treatment of incompatible
wastes in facilities subject to control under Subparts
J and Q, is that this treatment comply with §265.l7(b)
2. The Agency believes that placing hazardous
waste in containment devices which previously held
an incompatible waste should be restricted even when
the device is "empty", because the residues that are
left in the device may react adversely with the
"new" waste to be stored or treated in the device.
Damage incident #5 on page 6 of this document exem-
plifies the type of potential hazards associated
with placing waste in an unwashed containment device
which previously held an incompatible waste. This
hazard exists even if the tank itself is compatible
with both the previous waste and the "new" waste.
The Agency believes that, unless devices are
cleaned (washed), they are seldom empty because the
pumps and drain valves used for this purpose are
seldom capable of removing the last drops of waste
which settle to the bottom, or adhere to the sides
of the tank. Therefore, the requirement to wash a
tank before emplacing a "new" waste in it, if the
"new" waste is incompatible with the "original"
waste -- has been retained in the final standards.
However, the standard has been reworded to allow
waste to be placed in an unwashed device which pre-
viously held an incompatible waste, if it is done
in accordance with §265.l7(b).
-------
- 67 -
E. Final Regulation Language:
§265.199 Special requirements for incompatible waste
(a) Incompatible wastes or incompatible wastes and
materials, (see Appendix V for examples) must not be
placed in the same tank unless §265. 17 (b) is complied
with .
(b) Hazardous waste must not be placed in an
unwashed tank which previously held an incompatible
waste or material, unless §265. 17 (b) is complied with.
§265.406 Special requirements for incompatible wastes
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and
materials, (see Appendix V for examples) must not be
placed in the same treatment process or equipment, unless
§265.17(b) is complied with.
(b) Hazardous waste must not be placed in unwashed
treatment equipment which previously held an incompatible
waste or material, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.
-------
- 68 -
XI. Subject: NPDES Facilities
A. Summary of Comments:
NPDES-permitted treatment facilities should be exempt
from the §250.45-6 standards, because:
1. these facilities are regulated under Section
402 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 1006 of RCRA
specifically excludes activities or substances subject
to the Clean Water Act from regulation under RCRA.
2. the terms of the NPDES permit overlap and are
inconsistent with the provisions of §250.45-6. For
example, §250.45-6(g), which requires by-passing, is
incompatible with certain industry NPDES require-
ments which prohibit by-passing.
3. the standards dictate design and operating
procedures which are outside of the RCRA mandate for
such facilities.
B. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1-2. Section 1006 of RCRA excludes activities or
substances subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
"except to the extent that such application (or
regulation) is not inconsistent with the require-
ments" of the CWA. As stated earlier, the Agency
believes it has authority under RCRA to regulate
NPDES facilities. The Agency is also unaware of
any regulations promulgated under the CWA which are
inconsistent with the proposed §250.45-6 standards.
With regard to the example cited by the commenters
concerning by-pass systems, proposed §250.45-6(g)
-------
- 69 -
gave, and present §265.192(d) gives, owners or opera-
tors the option of either equipping their treatment
systems with an automatic waste feed cut-off or a
by-pass system. Thus, in those instances where the
provisions of a facility's NPDES permit prohibit
by-passing, owners or operators are able to comply
with the proposed standard by installing an automatic
waste feed cut-off system at their facilities.
3. As explained on pages 17-18 of this document,
the Agency believes that the standards it has proposed
for treatment facilities are in accordance with the
authority given to the Agency in Section 3004 of
RCRA. Thus, where NPDES-permitted facilities contain
hazardous waste, the Agency believes that these
facilities should comply with the standards promul-
gated under Section 3004 of RCRA, as well as those
promulgated under the CWA. Response to this comment
is also contained in the preamble to the Section 3001
standards. In addition, the proposed and present
interim status standards contain few of the design
standards proposed for the general status standards.
Comments directed toward the general standard design
requirements will be discussed when general design
standards are promulgated.
-------
- 70 -
XII. Subject; Miscellaneous Comments
Comment; It is unreasonable to require facilities which change
the pH of their wastes, so as to render them less hazardous
before disposal, to comply with the requirements for treatment
facilities. This points out the need for separate standards
for on-site treatment and storage facilities.
Response; The definition of "treatment", in Section 1004 of
RCRA, specifically includes neutralization processes. Because
the regulation of pH is a "neutralization process", the Agency's
regulations which pertain to treatment facilities must apply
to all facilities which change the pH of their waste.
Because facilities which neutralize their waste on-site
pose an equal potential threat to human health and the environ-
ment as do off-site neutralization processes,* the Agency
disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that separate sets
of standards should be written for on-site facilities at
which hazardous waste is neutralized.
Comment; The standards for treatment facilities (§250.45-6)
are too detailed because they impose requirements on semi-
hazardous materials which will have little or no effect upon
water quality or public health. The standards for treatment
facilities should be related to the degree of hazard of the
waste being treated.
* Except for totally enclosed treatment facilities, which have
been exempted from the Subtitle C rules (see page 19 of this
document).
-------
- 71 -
Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter's suggestion
that the proposed standards for treatment facilities are too
detailed. On the contrary, the Agency recognized that it is
difficult to write specific design and operating standards
which would be appropriate for all treatment systems and,
therefore, wrote performance-oriented standards in the proposed
§250.45-6 rules for chemical, physical, and biological treat-
ment facilities. The Agency believes that all of these proposed
standards are appropriate for all hazardous waste treatment
facilities, regardless of the hazard of the waste being treated.
(See the background document entitled "Degree of Hazard" for
the Agency's rationale for not establishing regulations based
on the degree of hazard of the waste.)
-------
FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATION LANGUAGE
Subpart J - Tanks
§265.190 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and
operators of facilities that use tanks to treat or store
hazardous waste, except as §265.1 provides otherwise.
[§265.191 Reserved]
§265.192 General operating requirements*
(a) Treatment or storage of hazardous waste in tanks must
comply with §265.17(b).
(b) Hazardous wastes or treatment reagents must not be
placed in a tank if they could cause the tank or its inner
liner to rupture, leak, corrode, or otherwise fail before
the end of its intended life.
(c) Uncovered tanks must be operated to ensure at least
60 centimeters (2 feet) of freeboard, unless the tank is
equipped with a containment structure (e.g., dike or trench),
a drainage control system, or a diversion structure (e.g.,
standby tank) with a capacity that equals or exceeds the
volume of the top 60 centimeters (2 feet) of the tank.
(d) Where hazardous waste is continuously fed into a
tank, the tank must-be equipped with a means to stop this
inflow (e.g., a waste feed' cutoff system or~by-pass system to
a stand-by tank).
[Comment: These systems are intended to be used in the event
of a leak or overflow from the tank due to a system failure
(e.g., a malfunction in the treatment process, a crack in the
tank, etc.).1
-------
- 7,3 -
§265.193 Waste analysis and trial tests*
In addition to the waste analysis required by §265.13,
whenever a tank is to be used to:
(1) Chemically treat or store a hazardous waste which is
substantially different from waste previously treated or
stored in that tank; or
(2) Chemically treat hazardous waste with a substantially
different process than any previously used in that tank?
the owner or operator must, before treating or storing the dif-
ferent waste or using the different process:
(1) Conduct waste analyses and trial treatment or storage
tests (e.g., bench scale or pilot plant scale tests); or
(2) Obtain written, documented information on similar
storage or treatment of similar waste under similar operating
conditions;
to show that this proposed treatment or storage will meet all
applicable requirements of §265.192(a) and (b).
[Comment: As required by §265.13, the waste analysis plan must
include analyses needed to comply with §§265.198 and 265.199.
As required by §265.73, the owner or operator must place the
results from each waste analysis and trial test, or the documented
information, in the operating record of the facility.]
§265.194 Inspections
The owner or operator of a tank must inspect, where present:
(1) Discharge control equipment (e.g., waste feed cut-off
systems, by-pass systems, and drainage systems), at least
-------
once each operating day, to ensure that it is in good working
order;
(2) Data gathered from monitoring equipment (e.g./ pressure
and temperature gauges), at least once each operating day,
to ensure that the tank is being operated according to its
design;
(3) The level of waste in the tank, at least once each
operating day.- to ensure compliance with §265.192(c);
(4) The construction materials of the tank, at least
weekly, to detect corrosion or leaking of fixtures or
seams; and
(5) The construction materials of, and the area immediately
surrounding, discharge confinement structures (e.g., dikes),
at least weekly, to detect erosion or obvious signs of
leakage (e.g., wet spots or dead vegetation).
[Comment; As required by §265.15(c), the owner or operator must
remedy any deterioration or malfunction he finds.]
[§§265.195 - 265.196 Reserved]
§265.197 Closure
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues
must be removed from tanks, discharge control equipment, and dis-
charge confinement structures.
[Comment; At closure, as throughout the operating period, unless
the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accordance with §261.3(f)
of this Chapter, that the residue removed from his tank is not a
hazardous waste, the owner or operator becomes a generator of
-------
- 75 -
hazardous waste and must manage it in accordance with all applicable
requirements of Parts 262, 263, and 265 of this Chapter.]
§265.199 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste
[Interim Final]
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste must not be placed in a tank,
unless:
(1) The waste is treated, rendered, or mixed before or
immediately after placement in the tank so that (i) the
resulting waste, mixture, or dissolution of material no
longer meets the definition of ignitable or reactive waste
under §§261.21 or 261.23 of this Chapter, and (ii) §265.17(b)
is complied with; or
(2) The waste is stored or treated in such a way that
it is protected from any material or conditions which
may cause the waste to ignite or react; or
(3) The tank is used solely for emergencies.
(b) The owner or operator of a facility which treats or stores
ignitable or reactive waste in covered tanks must comply with the
National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) buffer zone
requirements for tanks, contained in Tables 2-1 through 2-6 of
the "Flammable and Combustible Code - .1977".
CComment; See §265»17(a) for additional requirements.]
§265>199 Special requirements for incompatible wastes
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials,
(see Appendix V for examples) must not be placed in the same
tank, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.
-------
- 76 -
(b) Hazardous waste must not be placed in an unwashed tank
which previously held an incompatible waste or material, unless
§265.17(b) is complied with.
[§§265.200 - 265.219 Reserved]
-------
- 77 -
Subpart Q - Chemical, Physical,
and Biological Treatment
§265.400 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and opera-
tors of facilities which treat hazardous wastes by chemical,
physical, or biological methods in other than tanks, surface
impoundments, and land treatment facilities, except as §265.1
provides otherwise. Chemical, physical, and biological treatment
of hazardous waste in tanks, surface impoundments, and land
treatment facilities must be conducted in accordance with
Subparts J, K, and M, respectively.
§265.401 General operating requirements*
(a) Chemical, physical, or biological treatment of hazardous
waste must comply with §265.17(b).
(b) Hazardous wastes or treatment reagents must not be
placed in the treatment process or equipment if they could
cause the treatment process or equipment to rupture, leak,
corrode, or otherwise fail before the end of its intended life.
(c) Where hazardous waste is continuously fed into a
treatment process or equipment-, the process or equipment must be
equipped with a means to stop this inflow (e.g., a waste feed
cut-off system or by-pass system to a standby containment device).
[Comment; These systems are intended to be used in the event
of a malfunction in the treatment process or equipment.]
-------
§265.402 Waste analysis and trial tests*
In addition to the waste analysis required by §265.13,
whenever:
(1) A hazardous waste which is substantially different
from waste previously treated in a treatment process or
equipment at the facility is to be treated in that process
or equipment, or
(2) A substantially different process than any previously
used at the facility is to be used to chemically treat
hazardous waste;
the owner or operator must, before treating the different waste
or using the different process or equipment:
(1) Conduct waste analyses and trial, treatment tests
(e.g., bench scale or pilot plant scale tests); or
(2) Obtain written, documented information on simi-
lar treatment of similar waste under similar operating
conditions;
to show that this proposed treatment will meet all applicable
requirements of §265.401 (a) and (b).
[Comment; As required by §265.13, the waste analysis plan must
include analyses needed to comply with §§265.405 and 265.406.
As required by §265.73, the owner or operator must place the
results from each waste analysis and trial test, or the documented
information, in the operating record of the facility-]
§265.403 Inspections
The owner or operator of a treatment facility must inspect,
where present:
-------
- 79 -
(1) Discharge control and safety equipment (e.g., waste
feed cut-off systems, by-pass systems, draingage systems,
and pressure relief systems) at least once each operating
day, to ensure that it is in good working order;
(2) Data gathered from monitoring equipment (e.g., pressure
and temperature gauges), at least once each operating day,
to ensure that the treatment process or equipment is being
operated according to its design;
(3) The construction materials of the treatment process or
equipment, at least weekly, to detect corrosion or leaking
of fixtures or seams; and
(4) The construction materials of, and the area immediately
surrounding, discharge confinement structures (e.g., dikes),
at least weekly, to detect erosion or obvious signs of
leakage (e.g., wet spots or dead vegetation).
[Comment: As required by §265.15(c), the owner or operator must
remedy any deterioration or malfunction he finds.]
§265.404 Closure
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues
must be removed from treatment processes or equipment, -discharge
control equipment, and discharge confinement structures.
[Comment: At closure, as throughout the operating period, unless
the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accordance with §261.3(f)
of this Chapter, that the residue removed from his treatment
process or equipment is. not a hazardous waste, the owner or
operator becomes a generator of hazardous waste and must manage
-------
- 80 -
it in accordance with all applicable requirements of Parts
262, 263, and 265 of this Chapter.]
§265.405 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste
[Interim Final]
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste must not be placed in a
treatment process or equipment unless:
(1) The waste is treated, rendered, or mixed before or
immediately after placement in the treatment process or
equipment so that (i) the resulting waste, mixture, or
dissolution of material no longer meets the definition of
ignitable or reactive waste under §§261.21 or 261.23 of
this Chapter, and (ii) §265.17(b) is complied with; or
(2) The waste is treated in such a way that it is protected
from any material or conditions which may cause the waste to
ignite or react.
§265.406 Special requirements for incompatible wastes
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials,
(see Appendix V for examples) must not be placed in the same
treatment process or equipment, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.
(b) Hazardous waste must not be placed in unwashed treat-
ment equipment which previously held an incompatible waste or
material, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.
[§§265.407 - 265.429 Reserved]
-------
- 81 -
References
1. Trip Report. John Schaum and Gene Grumpier, Technology
Program, Hazardous Waste Management Division - January 24,
1979. (A brief description of the damage incident was
published in Solid Waste Management, "News Briefs",
December 3, 1977.)
2. Confirmed by telephone by Cindy Giansante, Environmental
Scientist, EPA, Washington, D.C., on October 30, 1979,
with Joseph A. Feola, Water Quality Specialist; Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources; Norristown,
Pennsylvania.
3. Confirmed by telephone by Cindy Giansante, Environmental
Scientist, EPA, Washington, D.C., on October 30, 1979, with
Kenneth Young, Chief of Operations; Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources; Meadville, Pennsylvania.
4. Letter from Jerry T. Thornhill, Chief Emergency Response
Branch, EPA, Region VI to Arsen Darnay, Jr., Director
Resource Recovery Division, EPA, Washington, D.C. October 27
1972: "Hazardous Waste Study".
5. Hatayama, H.K., J.J. Chan, E.R. de Vera, R.D. Stephens, and
D.L. Storm. "A Method for Determining Hazardous Wastes
Compatibility." Grant No. R804692. Prepared for the
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
6. Confirmed by telephone by Cindy Giansante, Environmental
Scientist, EPA, Washington, D.C., on November 15, 1979,
with Ron Kimbro, Texas Department of Water Resources,
Austin, Texas.
7. Texas Department of Water Resources, Industrial Solid
Waste Management. Technical Guideline #9, "Noncompatible
Wastes". Revised March 1, 1978.
8. State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Rules
and Regulations, Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Mandated
by: Act 334 of 1978. Section 8.4.9. Chemical, Physical,
and Biological Treatment Facilities.
9. Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Solid
Waste Management, Draft Hazardous Waste Management Regula-
tions, Rule 8, Requirements Pertaining to Hazardous Waste
Storage Facilities. August, 1978.
10. Op. cit. Texas Guideline #4, "Ponds and Lagoons".
11. Op. cit. Texas Guideline #9, "Noncompatible Wastes".
-------
- 82 -
12. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control, Draft Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
R. 61-79.4, Standards for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities.
13. Minnesota Code of Agency Rules. Pollution Control Agency
(PCA) - Hazardous Waste. 6 MCAR §4.9004, "Location,
operation and closure of a hazardous waste facility: C.
Hazardous Facility Operation, 3. Storage of hazardous
waste in containers and tanks.
14. Op. cit. State of Louisiana Rules and Regulations,
Section 8.4.3. Impoundments and Basins.
15. Op. cit. Texas Guideline #4, "Ponds and Lagoons".
16. Op. cit. State of Louisiana Rules and Regulations,
Section 8.4.9 Chemical, Physical and Biological Treatment
Facilities.
17. Op. cit. Texas Guideline #4, "Ponds and Lagoons".
18. Op. cit. State of Louisiana Rules and Regulations,
Section 8.4.9 Chemical, Physical and Biological Treatment
Facilities.
19. Middlebrook, E. Joe et al. Upgrading Wastewater Stabili-
zation Ponds to Meet New Discharge Standards. Symposium
Proceedings sponsored by Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Utah State University and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, ORD, November, 1974.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design
Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants.
U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, October, 1974, pg. 3-14.
21. Liptalc, Bela G., ed. Environmental Engineers' Handbook,
Volume 1, Water Pollution, pg. 815.
22. National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 30 Flammable
and Combustible Code 1977, pg. 3.
-------
APPENDIX I
NPPA Buffer Zone Requirements for Tanks
Table 2-1
Stable Liquids (Operating Pressure 2.5 psig or Less)
Table 2-2
Stable Liquids (Operating Pressure Greater Thau 2.5 psig)
Type of
'rank.
Floating
Roof
[Sec
2-2.1.1 (a)]
Vertical
with
Weak
Roof
to
Shell
Seam
(Sec
2-2.1.1)
Horizontal
and
Vertical
with
Emer-
gency
Relief
Venting
To Limit
Pressures
to 2.5 psig
I'rotecllon
Protection
lor
Exposures*
None
Approved
foam or
inerling
system on
tanks not
exceeding
150 feel in
diameter**
Protection
for
Exposures*
None
Approved
inerting
system on
(he tank
or approved
foam system
on vertical
tanks
Protection
for
Exposures*
None
Minimum Distance In
Feet from Property Line
Which U or Gun lie Unlit
Upon, Including the
Opposite Side of a Public
Way ami Sliull lie Nat
Less Than 5 Keel
Yi times diameter of
tank
Diameter of tank but
need not exceed 175
feet
J-2 times diameter of
tank
Diameter of tank
2 times diameter of tank
but need not exceed 350
feet
\i times Table 2-6
Table 2-6
2 times Table 2-6
Minimum Distance In
Keet front Neuron I Side of
Any Public Wuy or from
Nearest Important
Building on tbe Same
Property und Shall lie
Not Less Thau 5 Feet
]/e, times diameter of
tank
Y& times diameter of
tank
H times diameter of
tank
Y± times diameter of
tank
H times diameter
of tank
''
Vi times Table 2-6
Table 2-6
Table 2-6
Type of
Tunk
Protect Ion
Minimum Distance In
Keel from Property Line
Which Is at C»n lie Ilullt
Upon, Including the
Opposite Side of u Public
Way
Minimum Distance In
I'eet from Nearest Side of
Any Public Way or from
Nearest Important
Dulldlnii on the Same
Property
Any Type
Protection 1Yi times Table 2-6 but
for shall not be less than
Exposures* 25 feet
Yi times Table 2-6 but
shall not be less than
25 feet
3 times Table 2-6 but
None shall riot be less thun
50 feet
\Yi limes Table 2-6 but
shall not be less than
25 feet
*See Definition for "Protection for Exposures."
Table 2-3
Boil-over Liquid*
*Sec definition for "Protection for Exposures."
**For tanks over 150 ft. in diameter use "Protection for Exposures" or
"None" as applicable.
Type of
Tank
Floating
Roof
2-2.1.1 (a)]
Fixed
Roof
[Sec
2-2.1. 4(a)J
Protection
Protection
for
Exposures*
None
Approved
or
inerting
system
Proteciion
for
Exposures*
None
Minimum Distance In
Feet from Properly Line
Which In or Can Ue Uullt
Upon, Including the
Opposite Side of u Public
Wuy und Shall Re Not
Loss Than 5 Feet
Yi times diameter of
tank
Diameter of tank
Diameter of tank
2 times diameter of tank
4 times diameter of tank
but need not exceed 350
feet
Minimum Distance la
Feet from Nearest Side of
Any Public Wuy or from
Nearest Importune
Building on the Same
Property and Shall Ue
Not Lena Thau 5 Feet
Yl times diameter of
tank
Y& times diameter of
tank
Y± times diameter of
tank
% limes diameter of
tank
% times diameter of
tank
I
00
*Scc definition for "Protection for Exposures."
-------
Table 2-4 Unatablc Liquids
Table 2-5 Clas* HIB Liquid*
Type of
Tank
Horizon-
tal and
Vertical
Tanks
with
Emer-
«ency
Lelief
Venting
to Permit
Pressure
Not iu
Excess of
2.5 paig
Horizon-
tal and -
Vertical
Tanki
with
Emer-
gency
Relief
Venting
to Permit
Pressure
Over
2.5 psig
Protection
Tank
protected
with
any one
of the
following:
Approved
water spray,
Approved
incrting,
Approved
insulation
and
refrigeration,
Approved
barricade
Protection
for
Exposures*
None
Tank
protected
with
any one
of the
following :
Approved
water spray,
Approved
inerting,
Approved
inaulation
and
refrigeration,
Approved
barricade
Protection
for
Exposures*
None
Minimum Distance In
Feet from Property Line
Which Is or Cuu lie Built
Upon, Including the
Opposite Side of a Public
Wuy
Table 2-6 but not less
than 25 feet
2\4 times Table 2-6 but
not less than SO feet
5 times Table 2-6 but
not less than 100 feet
2 times Table 2-6 but
not less than 50 feet
4 times Table 2-6 but
not less than 100 feet
8 times Table 2-6 but
not less than ISO feet
Minimum UUtance In
Keel from Nearest Side of
Any Public Wuy or from
Nearest Important
Building on die Same
Property
f
Not less than 25 feet
.
Not lesa than 50 feet
Not less than 100 feet
Not less than SO feet
Not less than 100 feet
Not less than 150 feet
Capacity Giitlona
12,000 or less
12,001 to 30,000
30,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001 or more
Minimum Distance lit
Feet from Property Line
Which Is or Can Be Built
Upon, Including the
Opposite Side of a Public
Way
Minimum Distance in
Feet from Nearest Side of
Any Public Way or from
Nearest Important
Building oil the Same
Property
5
10
10
15
15
5
5
10
10
15
Table 2-C
Reference Table for Use in Tables 2-1 to 2-4
Capacity Tunk
Gallons
275 or less
276 to 750
751 to 12,000
12,001 to 30,000
30,001 to 50,000
50,001 to 100,000
100,001 to 500,000
500,001 to 1,000,000
t, 000,001 to 2,000,000
2,000,001 to 3,000,000
3,000,001 or more
Minimum Distance In Minimum Distance In
Feet from Property Line Feet from Nearest Side ol
Which Is 01- Can Be Built Any Pul.llc Way or from
Upon, Including the Nearest Important
Opposite Side of a Public Building on the Same
Way Property
5
10
15
20
30
50
80
100
135
165
175
5
5
5
5
10
15
25
35
45
55
60
I
CD
*Sce definition for "Protection for Exposures."
GPO B(i8-066
------- |