40 CFR PART 265

                         OF CONTAINERS

                     OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


   I.   INTRODUCTION                                                 1

       Key  Definitions                                               3

  II.   RATIONALE FOR REGULATION                                     8

       A.   Statutory Authority                                      8
       B.   Damage Cases                                             8
       C.   Basis for the Regulation;  Other Federal and
           State Regulations                                       13

       AND  "CONTAINERIZATION" (250.44(a) and (b))                   19

       CONTAINERS (250.44-2) ORGANIZED BY SUBJECT                   26

       • COMPATIBILITY                                            26
       • EMPTY  NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONTAINERS                         31
       • INSPECTIONS                                              39
       a LEAKING CONTAINERS                                       43
       * PROHIBITION ON DAMAGING CONTAINERS                       44
       « CONTAINERS MUST BE KEPT CLOSED                           44
       • IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTES                            45
       « PAPER  BAGS                                               47
       • REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTIONS                                  51
       » QUANTITY LIMITATIONS                                "     57

       IN PILES                                                     60

       A.   Wind  Dispersal                                          60
       B.   Waste Analysis                                          61
       C.   Containment                                             63
       D.   Ignitable and Reactive Wastes                           65
       E.   Incompatible Wastes                                     66


       0  Subpart I - Use and Management of Containers             68
       •  Subpart L - Waste Piles                                  70


 REFERENCES                                                        77
                                  iii ~

     This is one of a series of background documents accompanying

promulgation of the initial hazardous waste management regulations

issued under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act.  These regulations represent EPA's initial efforts to control

hazardous wastes from the point of generation, through transporta-

tion, treatment, and storage, to the point of ultimate disposal.

     This document, and the others in this series, attempt to explain

why the regulations were developed and why they have come to be writ-

ten the way they are.  In so doing, EPA addresses:  (a) the Congres-

sional mandate for regulation, (b) the need for the regulation based

on threats and impacts to human health and the environment, (c) pre-

cedents set by state and other Federal regulations and, perhaps most

importantly, (d) analysis of and response to the many comments re-

ceived on the proposed version of these regulations, which were

published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1978.

     This background document is limiced in scope to containers and

piles and to issues concerning storage in general.  Wastes are com-

monly stored and transported in containers and stored in piles.  Spe-

cial requirements for transportation of containers are included in

Part 263.  Wastes containing no liquids can be disposed in containers

but, under these regulations, only in accordance with the landfill

requirements of Subpart N.  Disposal in piles (as opposed to storage)

must also meet the landfill requirements of Subpart N.  Treatment can

be, but is not often, carried out in containers and piles.  Since

disposal in piles and in containers is covered by the landfill re-

gulations, these regulations and this background document focus on

storage of hazardous wastes in containers and piles, and those few

instances where treatment is carried out in them.

     The proposed regulations allowed storage only in tanks and con-

tainers.  This flowed from the Agency's no-discharge view of storage.

The Agency has reevaluated it? view of storage, and the current regu-

lations now permit storage in other devices and facilities as well,

including piles and surface impoundments.  The general regulations on

storage have therefore been incorporated as appropriate into the reg-

ulations for specific devices and facilities, and the section labeled

"storage" has been deleted.  Comments on the proposed storage regula-

tions are still relevant to the  interim status regulations, of

course, and are addressed here.  The Agency has also recognized that

treatment may occasionally be conducted in piles and containers,

although the regulations of piles and containers are focused on


     These regulations and this  document are also limited to those

standards applicable during the  interim status period, i.e., during

that period between the effective date of the regulations and the re-

ceipt of a permit by a particular facility.  In general, the Agency

is promulgating for interim status only those requirements which:

     (a)  can be implemented by  the regulated community within the
          six-month period between the time these regulations are
          promulgated and their  effective date, and

     (b)  do not require large capital expenditures for items which
          require approval as part of the permitting process

     (c)  can be implemented directly by the regulated community
          without the need for consultation with or interpretation by
          the Agency

     These criteria were only used as a general guide in selecting

interim status standards.  The Agency has included other standards in

the interim status regulations when it believed that the benefits to

be gained by a certain provision justified it.  The Agency has also

revised many of the proposed standards so that the variance proce-

dures ("notes" in the proposed regulations) do not require interac-

tion with the Agency.  The Agency believes that a number of the

technical requirements for design and construction of container

storage facilities and facilities storing in piles cannot properly be

implemented during interim status.  The costs of upgrading these

facilities may be considerable, and the designs will require Agency

approval, which is properly part of the permit issuance process.  The

Agency is convinced that these interim status standards for storage,

which primarily improve operating procedures, will substantially

reduce the incidence of careless and sloppy storage practices, which

have all too frequently resulted in serious problems in the past.

Key Definitions

     1.  Statutory Definitions

     The following statutory definitions in Section 1004 of RCRA are

pertinent to the hazardous waste container and pile standards under

Section 3004:

    (33)   "The term 'storage1, when used in connection with hazard-
          ous waste, means the containment of hazardous waste,
          either on a temporary basis or for a period of years,  in
          such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such
          hazardous waste."

     (3)   "The term 'disposal1 means the discharge, deposit, injec-
          tion, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid
          waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so
          that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any consti-
          tuent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into
          the air or discharged into any waters, including ground-

     2.  Regulatory Definitions

     The following terms, which are defined in Part 261, are also key

to this area of regulation:

     »  "Container" means any portable device in which a material is
        stored, transported, treated, disposed of or otherwise hand-

        [Comment:  The portability of containers is the primary dis-

                   tinguishing characteristic which separates con-

                   tainers from tanks.]

     •  "Incompatible waste" means a hazardous waste which is unsuit-
        able 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

     (ii) Commingling with another waste or material under uncon-
          trolled conditions because the commingling might produce
          heat or pressure, fire or explosion, violent reaction,
          toxic dusts, mists, fumes, or gases, or flammable fumes or

     (See Appendix I in this background document for examples).

   [Comment:   This definition has been changed slightly from the

              proposed version in two ways.   First, the phrase

              "under uncontrolled conditions" has been added, in

              response to comments,  to make  it clear that waste

              which are commingled under controlled conditions

              as a treatment process (e.g.,  acidic and basic

              wastes for neutralization) are not "incompatible

              waste" under these regulations and nay,  therefore,

              be mixed in storage containers.

              In addition, a subparagraph relating to  the pro-

              posed Air Human Health and Environmental standards

              has been dropped, since those  standards  are no

              longer part of these regulations.  The elimination

              of the Air Human Health and Environmental standard

              is discussed elsewhere in this background docu-

              men t. ]

a  "Pile" means any non-containerized accumulation of  solid,
   non-flowing hazardous waste that  is used  for treatment or

   [Comment:   This is a new definition, included as a  result of

              the decision to allow hazardous wastes to be

              stored in other than tanks and containers.  Piles

              are primarily used as  a storage device.   This

              definition requires that storage in piles release

              no wastes or hazardous waste constituents to the

              soil or surface waters.  Thus, unless the piled

              waste does not leach or is protected from rainfall

              and surface runoff in some manner;  it must be

              constructed so as to contain leachate and runoff.

              Piled wastes which do not provide this safeguard

              will be considered to be landfills  and will be

              subject to the landfill regulations.]

9  "Storage" neans the holding of hazardous waste for a tempor-
   ary period, at the end of which the hazardous  waste is
   treated, disposed of, or stored elsewhere.

   [Comment:  This new definition expands and clarifies the de-

              finition in the Act.  It makes clear that the dif-

              ference between storage and disposal is one of in-

              tent to remove the waste after a limited time,

              rather than any difference in facilities and


«  "Surface impoundment" or "impoundment" means a facility or
   part of a facility which is a natural topographic depression,
   man-made excavation or diked area formed primarily of
   earthen materials (although it may be lined with man-made ma-
   terials), 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 hold-
   ing, storage, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and

•  "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 the structural support.

     The following definitions have been removed from the Part 260

regulations:  storage facility- empty container, and triple rinsed.

Either these terms are no longer used or the Agency has concluded

that the regulatory definitions would add nothing to the meanings of

the terms which are obvious from their common meaning and context in

the regulations.  Some or all of these terms may be defined in later

promulgations if it becomes necessary.


A.  Statutory Authority

     Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as substantially

amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976,

as amended (42 USC §§ 6901 et. seq.), requires the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations establishing perfor-

mance standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, as may be necessary to

protect human health and the environment.   Sections 3004(3) and (4)

further require that these standards include, but not be limited to,

requirements with respect to:

     "(3)  treatment, storage, or disposal  of all such waste received
           by the facility pursuant  to  such operating methods, tech-
           niques, and practices as may be  satisfactory to the Admin-
           istrator"; [and]

     "(4)  the location, design, and construction of such hazardous
           waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities."

     To comply with this mandate, therefore, it is necessary to

establish regulations that will assure  that human health and the

environment are protected from the potential adverse effects of

storing hazardous waste.

B.  Damage Cases

     SPA has received numerous reports  of health and environmental

damage caused by improper storage of hazardous wastes.  The following

summarize some of the more graphic cases:

(a)  In 1977, a 20,000-gallon storage tank filled with highly-
     flammable waste (a solvent and ethyl acetate) exploded at a
     chemical waste 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 interconnected by a common vapor recovery system,
     which may have allowed the flame to spread through the sys-
     tem to all the tanks.   The tanks were being renovated by a
     contractor at the time of the fire.  The cause of the ex-
     plosion is suspected to be improper welding, a lighted
     cigarette, or some other worker-related incident.  Six
     workmen were killed and 30 others injured.(1,2)

(b)  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 material sprayed the
     employee.  The drum was thrown approximately 48  feet, wrap-
     ping around a steel guard post.  The employee received
     thermal and possible chemical burns to both feet.  The exo-
     thermic reaction  that  caused the drum to rupture was  prob-
     ably a combination of  cyanoethylation and polymerization
     as a result of mixing  of the wastes.(3)

(c)  In 1973, a major  chemical company in Virginia contracted
     with a processing firm in Alabama to pick up, haul,  and
     dispose of approximately 10,000 drums of aramite waste,
     containing 30 to  80 percent sulfuric acid.  Most of the
     wastes were shipped in 208-liter (55-gallon) steel drums
     and 190-liter (50-gallon) fiber drums.  The wastes brought
     to Alabama were never  processed and remained in  two open-
     storage areas and in one enclosed warehouse.  As a result
     of weathering, physical stress, and the  corrosive and harsh
     nature of the wastes,  many of the drums  stored in the two
     open areas disintegrated, and their contents spread over
     the adjacent ground.  Already present at the two open-
     storage areas were piles of fibrous wastes,  which were only
     partially covered with a thin layer of plastic.   In addi-
     tion to contaminating  local waters (chemical analysis of
     samples of drainage water from the storage site  indicated a
     very high acidity and  high concentrations of heavy metals),
     the storage of waste at the three locations presented other
     problems.  In March of 1976, a fire broke out at the  site
     and two firefighters became ill, presumably because they
     inhaled toxic fumes.(4,5)

(d)  On at Least two occasions, waste storage lagoons have bro-
     ken,  spilling large volumes of wastes into the Allegheny
     River in Pennsylvania.  On one occasion in 1968, a waste
     refining sludge containing oils, acid wastes, and alkyl
     benzene sulfonate flowed three miles down a tributary to
     the Allegheny, killing 4.5 million fish.  The dike of
     another refinery waste lagoon broke in 1972.  Initially,
     the township lowered the dike in order to drain off the
     supernatant waters.  When heavy rains came, the already
     weakened lagoon eroded to a point where sludge on the bot-
     tom of the lagoon was released, killing 450,000 fish along
     a 60-mile stretch of the river.  The discharge was charac-
     terized by a pH of 1.7. (6)

(e)  Lagooned wastes from a company in Nockamixon Township,
     Pennsylvania,  had been the source of ground water, stream,
     and soil contamination.   The company, which was in opera-
     tion from 1965 to 1969,  bought industrial wastes from other
     plants, extracted copper, and stored the rest of the toxic
     liquids in lagoons.  Three of the cement lagoons developed
     open seams at the bottom and leaked toxic fluids into an
     adjacent creek, killing all aquatic life.  After an injunc-
     tion 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 overflew and spill the hazardous wastes (e.g.,
     acids) into the creek, which is a tributary of the Delaware
     River.  County officials then built a dike around the area.
     Soil contamination persists at the site and the entire area
     is devoid of vegetation.  The wastes were finally neutral-
     ized and ocean-dumped in 1971. (6)

(f)  An open gate valve in a retention lagoon at a chemical  com-
     pany in Venango County,  Pennsylvania, resulted in the
     release of phenolic substances in Oil Creek.  Some of the
     fish and turtles in the creek were killed.(6)

(g)  A firm engaged in the disposal of spent chemicals was stor-
     ing and disposing of toxic chemical wastes at two Louisiana
     locations.  At one of these sites, several thousand drums
     of waste (some with and some without lids) were in storage.
     Many of the drums were leaking, and visible vapors were
     emanating from the area.  All of the pine trees beside the
     storage area were killed as a result of this leakage.^)

(h)  A U.S. Army arsenal, 10 miles northeast of Denver, produced
     chemical intermediates,  toxic items, and munitions during
     WWII.  -Portions of the arsenal were leased to a pesticide

     manufacturer after WWII.   The nerve agent GB was produced
     by the Army from 1953-57.   In the early 1970's,  mustard gas
     and GB stocks were destroyed.  All industrial wastes were
     discharged  into  an unlined basin until 1957,  when a 93-
     acre,  asphalt-lined basin  was installed for containment of
     all wastes.  Beginning in  the early 1950's, crop damage
     from use of shallow irrigation wells was reported.   The
     principal contaminant  was  sodium chloride,  at 2,000-3,000
     ppm levels.  Other contaminants present were chlorate and a
     2-4-D-like  compound.   A 12,000-foot deep injection well was
     drilled in  1961  for waste  disposal, but injection was
     halted in 1966,  when a correlation with earthquakes in the
     Denver area was  shown.  Ground water sampling in the mid-
     1950 's showed widespread contamination from sodium,
     chloride, and chlorate.  In 1974, DIM? (diisopropylziathyl
     prosphonate) from GB manufacture and DCPD (dicyclopentadi-
     ene) from pesticide operations were discovered in both
     on-post and off-post shallow wells.  No adverse  health
     effects or  crop  damage has been found from the DIM? and
     DCPD.   Thirty-three other  compounds, including DBC? (dibro-
     mochloropropane) and fluoride, have been reported in on-
     post wells.  In  1978,  a bentonite barrier on the north
     boundary coupled with  an effective carbon absorption water
     treatment plant, and down  gradient recharge of water has
     eliminated  off-post discharge of contaminants.  Water
     quality in  off-  post shallow wells has improved.  Inorganic
     ions have dropped to non-toxic levels.  Expansion of the
     barrier- carbon  absorption system is presently

(i)   A manufacturer of agricultural herbicides in Oconto County.
     Wisconsin,  produced salt wastes containing arsenic, 7,500
     tons of which were piled for storage on a loading dock
     within 10 feet of the  Menominee River.  The total amount of
     arsenic-containing industrial waste stored at the site was
     90,000 tons.  Arsenic  concentrations of up to 6,000 ppm
     were found  in ground water and concentrations of 200 ppm in
     the river sediments just offshore.  The ground water contam-
     ination extended to a  depth of 40 feet.  In the  latter part
     of 1978, the last of the waste was trucked away  to a dispo-
     sal site.(9,10)

(j)   Officials found  1,500  steel drums of various hazardous
     wastes, some leaking chemicals, stored in the open just
     outside the city limits in Travis County, Texas.  This site
     is Located  within the  recharge zone of an aquifer which
     supplies water for domestic and stock-watering purposes.
     At a later  date, investigators found another 3,000 barrels
     of wastes stored in West Travis County.  The wastes


     included acids, heavy metals, volatile liquids, waste oil,
     and other toxic and corrosive substances.  The eight
     industries that contracted with the "disposal" company to
     legally dispose of the wastes have agreed to repay the
     State for removing the waste to a solid waste disposal

(k)  Since 1867, asbestos product manufacturers have accumulated
     nearly 2 million cubic yards of assorted industrial wastes
     in open piles in a small Pennsylvania town.  The original
     generator of the wastes went out of business in 1962.
     Since then, two other companies have been responsible for
     enlarging the spoils piles.  The atmosphere around the
     piles contains asbestos fibers, as a result of wind ero-
     sion.  An air monitoring program, conducted by the U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency in October 1973, indicated
     ambient background levels of asbestos to be 6 ng/m3.  An
     asbestos level of 9.6 ng/:n3 was found at a playground
     near the largest waste pile.  Values obtained near active
     disposal piles range from 114 to 1,745 ng/m^.  A high pH
     level in a nearby stresn has resulted from runoff from the
     piles.  The State has ordered and gotten compliance for
     closing of the site.  The ongoing (as of October 1979) clo-
     sure plan includes halting additions to the piles, stabil-
     izing the piles, reducing erosion and runoff by planting
     vegetation on the piles, and fencing the^i off.  The State
     is confident that the piles now present no human health

(1)  In Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, in January 1979, a wooden
     storage building containing fertilizers, pesticides, and
     herbicides burned to the ground.  Either a welder or a
     heater, which were located at one end of the storage build-
     ing where "shop" activities (i.e., repair work) were per-
     formed, is thought to have been the origin of the flame.
     The fire spread quickly through the highly-flammable,
     solvent-based liquid pesticides.  Large quantities of water
     used by the firemen to extinguish the flame carried the  150
     chemical products into a creek and onto the surrounding  ice
     and snow.  The resulting 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated
     snow, ice, and soil were disposed elsewhere.  Pesticides
     have been found at high levels in the ground water at
     approximately 7 feet, and the top 6 to 12 inches of soil in
     the creek are heavily contaminated.(13,14)  While the
     materials stored were products, not wastes, in'fthis case,
     the result would have been the same had they been waste

     (m)  In Elizabeth,  New Jersey, a hazardous waste incinerator
          closed in early 1979,  leaving behind 40,000 rusting and
          leaking drums  at the facility.  Police complained of nausea
          and weakness from nitric acid leaking from deteriorating
          drums.  EPA inspectors found many of the drums corroding
          and deteriorating.   Many of the drums were perched on a
          drainage canal bank; others were sitting on the curb.
          Rainfall runoff was polluting the canal. Vil-)>1D'  In
          April 1980, after the facility was closed by State
          authorities, the site erupted in a spectacular explosion
          and fire which spread possibly noxious fumes across the

     (n)  A hazardous waste recovery operation in Lowell,
          Massachusetts, closed in 1977, leaving behind numerous
          storage tanks  and leaking drums full of wastes.  Runoff
          from the facility was thought to be polluting the stom
          sewers and nearby surface streams.  The freezing and thaw-
          ing cycles were thought to be accelerating decomposition
          of the drums, d''

     (o)  In 1976, a hazardous waste incinerator operator in
          Shakopee, Minnesota, was forced to close by county offi-
          cials due to numerous pollution control code violacions.
          Approximately  1-1/2 million gallons of wastes were left in
          deteriorating  drums.  The air was reported tainted with
          fumes.tloj  in 1973, the same facility suffered a major
          fire in its drum storage area, which took hours to bring
          under control.  Toxic fumes were spread over wide

     These damage incidents illustrate how human health and the en-

vironment can be affected by improper storage of hazardous waste.

Unless the storage of hazardous wastes is strictly regulated, the na-

tion can expect similar  damage incidents to continue.

C.  Basis for the Regulation

     It is clear from the language of RCRA that Congress intended the

Agency to write regulations to control storage of hazardous wastes.

The review of past damages, above, confirms the wisdom of Congress.

The proposed regulations were designed to eliminate problems of the

type discussed above.

     To summarize, problems arise from storage of hazardous wastes


     (a)  ignitable or reactive wastes explode or catch fire, expos-
          ing workers and the nearby public to direct injury and to
          toxic gases

     (b)  wastes are mixed with incompatible wastes or other incom-
          patible materials, causing toxic emissions, fires, and

     (c)  wastes are placed in devices (tanks, basins, containers)
          with which they are incompatible, causing deterioration of
          the device and resulting in leakage which, in turn, can
          contaminate ground water and surface water and release
          volatile materials to the air.

These problems also arise when treatment and disposal facilities are

used with wastes for which they were not adequately designed.

     As discussed in the Introduction, this document deals with

"storage" in general and, more specifically, with management (primar-

ily storage) of hazardous wastes in piles and containers.  Not only

are piled and containerized wastes potential sources of the human

health and environmental hazards mentioned above, but they are fre-

quently used as de facto disposal devices without any real safe-

guards. Often they are simply abandoned.  The ultimate result is

often ground water and surface water pollution, poisoning or chemical

burns to animals or children from direct contact, and destruction of

vegetation from air emissions.

     Containers (bags, jugs, drums, cans, etc.) are used not only to

store hazardous wastes, but also to ship millions of tons of pro-

ducts, many of them also very hazardous (pesticides, drugs, solvents,

and other chemicals).  When emptied, unless carefully cleaned, they

can also present a significant hazard, since significant quantities

of the hazardous materials shipped in them inevitably adhere to the

walls.  Most often they are burned, buried, and piled, presenting the

same types of hazards as uncontrolled disposal of containers full of

hazardous wastes.  EPA recognizes this hazard and has decided to

specify the conditions under which an empty container is a hazardous

waste under Part 261 (5261.33(c)).

     In addition to RCRA, Congress previously recognized problems

with specific hazardous wastes when they passed the Federal Insecti-

cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA).  Under these Acts, EPA developed recommended pro-

cedures for storage and disposal of pesticides and pesticide contain-

ers, and regulations controlling storage of polychlorinated biphenyls


     Many states also have recognized the human health and environ-

mental threats posed by "empty" containers and by waste storage con-

tainer areas.  A number of states have developed or are developing

regulations covering storage in containers and empty containers.

     In developing these regulations, the Agency reviewed these

Federal and state regulations and operating guidelines.  This review


was instrumental in  identifying regulatory options and  alternatives,

which were then further evaluated by EPA.  Additionally, other states

developed regulations concurrently with  the development of  these

regulations, recognizing the need for many of  the same  regulations.

Following is a short discussion of those standards which relate to

containers (there are no similar regulations for waste  piles to the

Agency's knowledge):

     a.  EPA Recommended Procedures for  the Disposal and Storage of
         Pesticides  and Pesticide Containers(20;—These recommended
         procedures  were developed to implement Section 19  of the
         Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
         include disposal  recommendations for  managing  waste
         pesticides  and guidelines for  selecting sites, for storing
         pesticides, and for inspecting  storage areas.  Some
         guidelines  for operating container storage  areas are also
         included.   Some of the principles in  EPA's  regulations for
         segregating wastes were developed in  these  procedures.

     b.  EPA Regulations for Polychlorinated Biphenyls^D—These
         regulations include standards,  which  were developed under
         the Toxic  Substances  Control Act, for the storage  of PCB's
         and PCB wastes.   They include requirements  for the design of
         storage facilities, for routine inspection, for control of
         container  leakage, and requirements for spill,  prevention
         control and countenneasure plans (SPCC).  These PCB stan-
         dards presented precedents and  alternatives which  the Agency
         used in developing these regulations.

     c.  Minnesota  Hazardous Waste Regulations'22;—jn  regulations
         recently promulgated, the Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency
         developed  comprehensive storage regulations for hazardous
         wastes.  Many are directly analogous  to these  regulations.
         They include requirements that  containers be closed during
         storage except during filling and emptying, that the con-
         tainer's construction materials or its liner must  be compa-
         tible with  the waste  with which it comes in contact, that
         storage containers of incompatible wastes must be  segre-
         gated, and  that containers must be regularly inspected to
         determine  if any  leaks have  occurred.

Washington Hazardous Waste Regulations   ; — In its re-
gulations, Washington State has required that hazardous
wastes be stored in closed containers.  The regulations also
specify that wastes must be stored in a manner that prevents
incompatible wastes from mixing and reacting.
Texas Technical Guidelines for Noncompatible
These guidelines develop basic guidance for managing
incompatible wastes and provide alternative regulatory ap-
proaches, which were considered during development of these
California Hazardous Waste Regulations  5; — ^g California
hazardous waste regulatory program was the first substantive
program in the United States.  Including recently proposed
regulations, the California program is very comprehensive
and has served as a model for other states and, indeed, for
parts of the present regulations.  California's storage
standards include, among other things, a requirement to
separate containers containing incompatible wastes and a
prohibition on adding wastes to unwashed containers.  Both
are concepts that have been further developed and incorpora-
ted into these regulations.  The Agency also found regula-
tions promulgated by California^2°' for used pesticide
containers to be helpful in developing the present regu-

South Carolina Regulations^27' — South Carolina's pesticide
container storage and disposal regulations contain require-
ments similar to these regulations.  South Carolina's draft
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations' 2°' include the
following proposed standards for storage in containers.
They propose that:
(a)  storage containers must be covered

(b)  if a container is not in good condition, the hazardous
     waste must be recontainerized

(c)  containers must be separated or protected from each
     other if they contain incompatible wastes

(d)  a container must be compatible with the wastes in them

(e)  a container may not be refilled with incompatible waste
     Unless it has been washed.

South Carolina also recognizes the hazardous nature of con-
tainers that contained hazardous residues.  They have pro-
posed that these containers be treated to render them
nonhazardous; if not, they must be disposed of as a hazard-
ous waste.

Oregon Regulations—Oregon's pesticide regulations require
triple rinsing (See §261.33(c)) as a decontamination tech-
nique.^^-'  Oregon's Hazardous Waste Management Regula-
tions^  ' require that hazardous waste be adequately
contained to minimize the possibility of spills or other
means of escape to the environment.

Louisiana Hazardous Waste Management Rules and Regula-
tions ^  '—Louisiana requires  that incompatible wastes
should not be stored together, and that storage facilities
containing incompatible wastes should be sufficiently
separated to prevent mixing as a result of a spill, tank
failure, or other cause.

Tennessee Draft Hazardous Waste Management Regulations'^'
—These regulations propose that incompatible wastes should
not be stored in common containers and that wastes should be
compatible with the containers in which they are placed.

EPA's knowledge of and familiarity with state waste storage
regulations and guidelines  indicates that:

-  Control of storage by states is a recent phenomenon and
   is not yet widespread.   Recent activity has been, in
   large measure, a result  of  the development of the Federal
   RCRA program.

-  Many permit applications to states for waste disposal
   facilities also include  storage facilities.  The proce-
   dures for waste storage  are reviewed (along with the
   remainder of the application) by the state personnel, who
   decide to approve or reject on a case-by-case basis.

-  Most state hazardous waste  storage restrictions emphasize
   the protection of water  resources.

-  Existing state hazardous waste storage regulations gener-
   ally involve design and  operating standards.


     This section of the background document and the section that

follows discuss comments received from the public on the December 18,

1978, proposed regulations, 43 FR 243:59007.  As mentioned pre-

viously, comments addressed in this background document will be

limited to those dealing with the interim status regulations for con-

tainers, piles, and storage in general.  This section discusses

principally the comments on the Agency's interpretation of the defi-

nitions of storage and disposal.

A.  Summary of the Proposed Regulation

     The proposed regulations required that hazardous waste be stored

in either a storage tank or a storage container (§250.44(a)),  and

that the storage prevent all discharges and emissions of wastes and

waste constituents into the environment (§250.44(b)).  Although only

the "no-discharge" requirement was proposed as an interim status

requirement, the two issues are so interrelated that they are best

discussed together.

B.  Rationale for the Proposed Regulations

     The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)

defines "storage" to mean the ". . . containment of hazardous waste,

either on a temporary basis or for a period of years, in such a man-

ner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste" (Section

1004 (33)).  "Disposal" is defined in RCRA as follows:

     "'Disposal' means the discharge, deposit, injection, dump-
     ing, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or
    -hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such
     solid waste or hazardous waste, or any constituent thereof,
     may .enter the environment or be emitted into the air or
     discharged into any waters, including ground waters." (Sec-
     tion 1004(3))

     In its proposed regulations (§250.44(b)), EPA interpreted these

definitions as prohibiting the discharge of hazardous wastes from

storage facilities.  Therefore, the proposed regulations (§250.44(a))

limited storage of hazardous waste to tanks or storage containers,

the only types of storage devices chat are normally enclosed to eli-

minate air emissions, and also built of sufficiently impermeable

materials to prevent seepage of wastes into wastes into ground water.

C.  Comments Received on These Subjects

     SPA received the following comments on its proposal to require

"no-discharge" from storage facilities:

     a.  The imposition of a no-discharge performance standard is:

         -  overly stringent and unrealistic because it is technic-
            ally  impossible to design storage facilities so that no
            discharge occurs

         -  inconsistent with the concept of controlled emissions
            allowed under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act

         -  inconsistent with the rest of the intent of §3004 of
            RCRA, which is to minimize the adverse effects on health
            and the environment from storage, treatment, and disposal
            of hazardous waste.  The standard should focus on the
            "contamination" of  the air or water.

         -  a proper interpretation of the Act

     b.  Two alternative performance standards for storage facilities
         were proposed:

         -  the potential for discharge should be minimized

         -  no detrimental (or significant) discharge should occur

The following comments were submitted on EPA's proposal that wastes

be stored only in tanks and containers:

     a.  The requirement that all waste must be stored in storage
         tanks and containers is overly restrictive because:

         -  hazardous waste may be stored in other environmentally
            sound manners

         -  bulk solid or semi-solid waste may not be conducive to
            containerization because of Che nature or volume of che

     b.  Flexible standards should be written for each storage tech-
         nique (basins, piles, surface impoundments,  etc.).

     c.  It is unnecessary to store non-volatile waste in covered

     d.  Organic waste and asbestos waste should be required to be
         stored in covered storage devices in order to reduce fire
         hazards, airborne contaminants, and odor nuisances.

A comment was also received that greater distinction needs to be made

between storage and disposal facilities.  In some cases (drilling

operations, for example), storage may be equivalent to disposal.

D.  Analysis of and Response to Comments and Rational for Final Regu-

     As a result of comments, EPA has reevaluated this issue and

concluded that its interpretation of "storage," which resulted in the

"no-discharge" requirement for storage, needed to be changed.  Diffi-

culties inherent in the interpretation of storage in the proposed

regulations can be summarized as follows:

     (a)  Storage in lagoons, basins, piles3 and open tanks appar-
          ently was either:   (1) not allowed, or (2) would have to
          comply with the disposal requirements, many of which, such
          as the post-closure care requirements, did not appear
          applicable if all waste and residue were to be removed when
          storage was completed.

     (b)  Closing of all tanks is neither necessary nor cost-
          effective, since many low-volatility wastes are routinely
          stored in the open with no apparent ill effects.(33)

     (c)  Since wastes can be "disposed" in landfills and lagoons
          where some emissions are tolerated, there appears to be no
          supportable reason for the overly stringent requirement to
          enclose all storage operations.  Moreover a complete ban on
          all air emissions  appears impracticable.

     The Agency has re-evaluated its interpretation of the defini-

tions of "storage" and "disposal" and the regulations that result

from this interpretation.  The Agency has determined that the central

factor that separates storage from disposal is that storage is "con-

tainment  . . . either on a temporary basis or a period of years."

The Agency has decided, therefore, that the proper focus for regula-

tion of storage facilitates is to ensure that human health and the

environment are protected during storage facility site life, and that

owners and operators of the storage facility provide financial re-

sponsibility for closure including the costs for removal of hazardous

waste and residue for the site at the end of the temporary or finite

period.  This, then, is the essence of the difference between "stor-

age" and "disposal," i.e., whether the waste and its hazardous resi-

duals are to be removed at some point.  And from the standpoint of

regulatory strategy, this is  the question of most interest.  There is

no inherent reason, for example, why wastes should not be stored or


disposed in a surface impoundment—the technical requirements to pro-

tect the public during operation will be about the same in either

case.  The temporal question is the important one:  Will the waste be

removed when the facility is closed?  If yes, then as a storage

facility, the final regulations:  (1) should require more money in

the closure trust fund (or acceptable alternative), since it must

cover removal of the waste; but (2) no post-closure care financial

assurance will be necessary, since the post-closure requirements do

not apply; and (3) require a facility design (liners, ecc.) suffi-

cient to protect human health and the environment during the life of

the site.  If the wastes are not to be removed, then the regulations

should require a smaller closure deposit, but impose substantial

requirements, both technical and financial, for pose-closure care

because protection of human health and the environment must extend

well beyond closure.

     In summary, the essential difference between "storage" and "dis-

posal" is in the intent of the operator to remove the wastes at clo-

sure, rather than in whether there are any discharges.

     The Agency disagrees, however, with the suggestion that "no dis-

charge" of waste liquids to the land or water is not possible.  While

it may be theoretically true that "everything is permeable to some

extent," as a. practical matter, the permeability of the construction

materials (steel, concrete, etc.) commonly used for storage devices

is so low that the rate of liquid escape is not measurable or detect-

able without highly sophisticated equipment, unless the integrity of


the structure has been breached.  The purpose of the regulations is
to detect leakage from the storage structure as a result of damage to
it, not seepage through relatively impermeable materials.  Any signi-
ficant leachate or liquid waste leakage into the surrounding soil
constitutes a failure of the storage device and may pose a potential
threat to ground water and surface water supplies.  Thus, standards
for containers and tanks focus on the prevention of leaks and require
remedial actions following leak detection.
     The Agency has decided to delete the special storage section and
allow storage in piles, basins, and surface impoundments, provided
they are designed to minimize discharge to the surrounding environ-
     With the deletion of the requirement to completely eliminate
emissions from storage facilities, the technical requirements for any
one type of device are essentially the same, whether it is used for
storage, treatment, or disposal.  (The one exception involves those
few requirements which are necessary for post-closure ground water
protection in the case of disposal.)  Any specific requirements for
storage are incorporated in the specific facility sections (tanks,
basins, impoundments, etc.).  The Agency believes that this modifica-
tion to the regulatory format will make it easier to determine just
which regulations apply to each type of facility.
E.  Summary of Interim Status Regulations
     As a result of these comments, EPA's final interim status stor-
age regulations:

     a.  allow storage in containers, piles, tanks (open or closed),
         and surface impoundments, and

     b.  do not contain a special section (formerly §250.44) on stor-
         age.  Any special requirements applicable to storage in spe-
         cific types of facilities (tanks, piles, impoundments, etc.)
         are now included within the regulations covering specific
         devices (tanks, impoundments, etc.)

     This section will deal with those comments and issues which are

relevent to the interim status standards for containers.  Some of the

comments relate to the proposed regulatory section of general storage

which has been dropped from these final regulations.   Those comments

are relevant to tanks, surface impoundments and storage devices as

well as to containers.


                       SUBJECT:  COMPATIBILITY

A.  Summary of Proposed Regulations

     The proposed regulations required that storage tanks and con-

tainers or their liners be compatible with the waste to be contained

(§250.44(h)) and that the incompatible wastes be physically separated

(§250.44-2(d).  Additionally, the proposed regulations prohibited

placing hazardous waste into an unwashed storage tank or container

that previously held an incompatible waste (§250.44(i)),

3.  Rationale for the Proposed Regulations

     Reactions between incompatible substances may produce potential-

ly hazardous conditions, such as heat generation, fires, explosions,

or the release of toxic substances (see Paragraph (2), Section II A

(Damage Cases) for examples of this type of incident).  If such reac-

tions occur in closed systems, such as tanks or sealed containers,

the heat and pressure generated may cause  the container to explode.

Reactions between a waste and the wall of  a container, tank, or other

device may weaken the structure or cause a leak.  The intent of the

proposed regulations was to prevent this type of damage by preventing

hazardous waste  from coming in contact with container construction

materials or other wastes with which it is incompatible.  Appendix I,

attached, gives  examples of incompatible wastes.

C.  Comments Received on this Subject

     a.  The prohibition on placing hazardous waste into a storage
         tank or container which previously held an incompatible
         waste is unnecessary, particularly when:

         -  the container or tank is empty

         -  the container or tank is suitable for both caustic and
            acidic substances

     b.  Hazardous waste should not be added to any unwashed con-
         tainer, since workers at a facility may not know what the
         container previously held or how, if at all, the new waste
         will react with the waste which was previously stored in the

D.  Analysis of and Response to Gormen ts and Rationale for the Final

     (1)  Incompatibility Requirement is Unnecessary

     Unless tanks or containers are cleaned (washed); they are seldom

completely empty.  The pumps and drain valves used for emptying a

drum or tank are seldom capable of removing the last drops and, in

any event, waste adheres to the walls of the containers.  Thus, even

though a tank or container may be essentially "empty," the residues

that are left may react adversely with a "new" waste to be stored in

the tank or container; hence, the need to wash the tank or container

before placing another waste in it if the "new" waste is incompatible

with the original waste.

     Even though tanks or containers may be suited to both acidic and

basic wastes, reactions between them can generate heat and gases

which are sometimes toxic or explosive.  Such reactions can be vio-

lent, especially for the more concentrated acids and bases.  There

are also other potential reactions between incompatible wastes which


should be considered.  An incident occurred in California when hot

chromic acid waste was inadvertently added to a drum containing

methylene chloride waste from degreasing operations.  The workshop

was sprayed with chemicals following a violent eruption.^)  in a

similar incident, a violent exothermic reaction occurred during the

transfer of vinyl cyanide waste to a supposedly empty drum.(3)

Therefore, compatibility of the container or tank construction mater-

ial with both types of wastes does not make mixing them in the same

container safa.  If, however, the ensuing reactions are within the

limits specified in the general requirements for ignitable, reactive,

and incompatible wastes (§265.17(b)) then acids and bases may be

mixed in the same tank or container.  Wastes may also react with the

tank or drum construction materials For example, certain plastics are

softened and dissolved by aromatic solvents (e.g., polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) is softened by methylethyl ketone (HEX).  Such reactions could

cause accelerated deterioration of a container; leading to release of

its contents (leaking).  Therefore, the compatibility requirements of

the regulations are necessary for tanks and containers, just as they

are necessary for other devices.

     As a result of comment, the Agency has broadened the container

compatibility requirements to provide that wastes stored in contain-

ers must be either constructed of or lined with materials which are

compatible with the waste.  This addition recognizes that it is the

material which comes into contact with the waste which is important


in determining compatibility.  Thus, plastic-lined steel containers,

a common design, are acceptable for a variety of wastes which are

compatible with the plastic, but not the steel.  In such cases, the

plastic liner must be capable of containing the waste such that con-

tact will not take place between the steel liner and the waste.

     (2)  Workers May Add Incompatible Wastes

     The training programs mandated by §265.16 are designed, among

other things, to teach the facility personnel which wastes may be

incompatible, and familiarize them with the precautions on mixing

incompatible wastes.  If owners and operators carry out comprehensive

training programs, the danger of workers not recognizing when wastes

are incompatible and mixing them in the same container should be


      The Agency believes, however, that it is incumbent upon owners

and operators to train their employees sufficiently to recognize

incompatible wastes if they are going to place hazardous wastes in

unwashed containers.  Further, -there are many situations in which it

is acceptable to place waste in unwashed containers.   Therefore, it

would be unnecessary and burdensome to require that all containers be

washed between each use.  The Agency expects that owners and opera-

tors will institute some means of identifying the previous contents

of empty containers, such as labels, records, segregated storage, or

tests, if empty containers are not routinely washed.

     (3)  Separation of Incompatible Waste

     Since leakage of containers could cause incompatible waste to

commingle in storage areas, the Agency is requiring that containers

with incompatible wastes be separated from one another by a suffi-

cient distance to prevent commingling in the event of leakage, or by

physical barriers (e.g., dikes, berms, walls, or other structures).

In the proposed regulations, physical barriers were required.  The

Agency agrees with commenters, however, that, if separated suffi-

ciently, leaking wastes will not commingle.  This relatively

inexpensive precaucionary measure will help prevent one source of

dangerous reactions, which can cause  fires, explosions, and dangerous

gas emissions as a result of mixing of incompatible wastes from

leaking  containers.

Z.  Summary of Final Interim Status Regulation (S§265.172, 265.177)

     Wastes may not be  stored in containers made of materials with

which the wastes may react, unless the container is protected by a

non-reactive lining.  Incompatible wastes may not be stored together

in the same container unless they result in no deleterious reaction

as described in §265.17(b).  They may be mixed under controlled condi-

tions as a treatment process.  Residues must be washed from contain-

ers before wastes are added which might result in a deleterious

reaction with the residues.  Hazardous wastes in containers must be

physically separated (by space or barrier)  from other materials with

which they might react.



A.  Summary of the Proposed Regulation

     The proposed regulation (§250.44-2(f)) authorized three options

for managing of emptied, noncombustible containers which previously

contained hazardous waste.  The three options were:

     a.  The containers could be cleaned at a permitted hazardous
         waste site and sent to a recovery operation.

     b.  The containers could be sent to a permitted drum recondi-

     c.  The containers could be reused with the same or compatible

B.  Rationale for the Proposed Standard

     The emphasis of most of these regulations was clearly on pro-

tecting public health and the environment.  However, Section 1003 of

the Act indicates that one of the objectives of the Act is "to con-

serve valuable material and energy resources."  In this regulation,

the Agency attempted to implement Congress1 objective by requiring

that empty drums  and other noncombustible containers be reused or

recycled.  Recycling often serves to protect public health and the

environment by lessening volume to hazardous waste that must be

placed in the ground where they remain potentially hazardous for long


C.  Comments Received on this Subject

     a.  EPA should allow noncombustible containers, like combustible
         containers (§250.44-2(e)), to be disposed of in a landfill
         which meets the requirements of proposed §250.452 because:

    -  the disposal of noncombustible storage containers in an
       approved landfill can protect human health and the envi-
       ronment to at least the same degree as the three author-
       ized options

       landfill disposal may provide a greater degree of pro-
       tection, since it eliminates the multiple rehandling of
       the containers that characterizes the three authorized

    -  the regulation is inconsistent with the landfilling regu-
       lations, which allow full, noncombustible drums to be

    -  recovering or reusing containers may be uneconomical
       and/or environmentally more dangerous than disposing of
       them because of a number of faccors, vhich include:

       —  distance of the drum source from a disposal site

       —  distance of the drum source from a drum reconditioner

       —  cost of setting up a permitted cleaning facility on-

       —  cose of shipping empties

       —  difficulty of cleaning drums

    -  recycling drums may be impossible where the drum shows
       evidence of damage or corrosion

b.  Noncombustible containers which have been cleaned so that
    they are no longer a hazardous waste:

    -  should be allowed to be disposed of in a sanitary
       landfill which meets the criteria of Sectic  4004

    -  are not subject to control under Subtitle C.  Therefore,
       the proposed Section 250.44-2(f)(1), which requires that
       drums which have been cleaned be sent to a drum recondi-
       tioner or to a recovery facil-'^.y, should be modified by
       eliminating Subparts (i) and ^.ii)

c.  Regarding the option authorizing a container to be trans-
    ported to a permitted drum reconditioner, with appropriate
    manifest (proposed §250.44-2(f)(2)):

         -  the requirement that the drum reconditioner be permitted
            is inconsistent with the Agency's statement that "empty
            drums that formerly contained hazardous waste, but which
            are being delivered for reconditioning and reuse" will
            not be considered to be "other discarded materials," and,
            thus, are not subject to control under Subtitle C.  Thus,
            the drum reconditioning facility is not a hazardous waste
            facility and does not need a permit.

     d.  The regulations should clarify whether partially or nearly
         empty drums are considered to be empty drums.

     e.  EPA should allow methods other than triple rinsing to decon-
         taminate empty and partially empty drums, since triple rins-
         ing is not always adequate or economical.  The Agency should
         specify approved methods and agents for cleaning empty

     f.  Plastic-lined containers in which the hazardous material has
         come into contact with the plastic lining and not the con-
         tainer should be exempted from these regulations.

     g.  Plastic containers are omitted from the regulations.  Often
         they can be cleaned and reused.

D.  Analysis of and Response to Comments and Rationale for Final

     The proposed regulation has been deleted from the regulations on

containers.  Some contaminated containers are listed as hazardous

wastes, under Part 261 of these regulations, if they are discarded.

They then must be managed i.^ hazardous wastes.  The following dis-

cussion states the Agency's response to the individual comments.

     (1)  Landfilling of Noncombustible Containers Should Be Allowed
          (Comment a)

     Although the proposed regulation was in part intended to protect

human health and the environment from hazards posed by contaminated

containers, it was also partly intended to implement one of the

objectives of Section 1003 of RCRA — to promote the recycling and


recovery of material and energy resources.  The Agency has recon-

sidered its position, in light of the comments on this proposed

regulation, and has changed the focus of this regulation to the

protection of human health and the environment through the appro-

priate management of hazardous waste.  As a result, no special

restrictions are now placed on contaminated containers that are

hazardous wastes, beyond those placed on other hazardous wastes.

They may therefore be landfilled or otherwise properly disposed of.

Under tha provisions of Part 261, they may also be reused.

     (2)  Cleanad Containers Are Mot a Hazardous Wastes (Comment b)

     Several cominenters noted that the proposed list of hazardous

wastes  (§250.14(a)) expressly excluded triple-rinsed containers for-

merly containing many chemicals listed in Appendices III, IV, and V

(43FR 58962-3), and Appendix XII (44FR ^904).  These commenters were

correct in pointing out that, if not hazardous, they should not be

covered by the Subtitle C regulations.  The Agency agrees that, when

triple  rinsed with a suitable solvent, empty containers pose very

little  residual hazard.  The rationale for triple rinsing was

developed  as part of EPA's Recommended Procedures for the Disposal

and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers.(35)  Hsieh et

al. showed that repeated (six) rinsings with small volumes of water

effectively remove up to 98.20% of all chemical residues remaining in

small metal drums after they were emptied and drained (until the

dripping stopped).  Three rinsings with water removed 98.12% while


retained in drums even when they are drained as completely as pos-

sible. (38)  As a result, the Agency believes that rinsing is one

effective method for removal of residual wastes and that triple

rinsing with a suitable diluent is capable of removing most of the

remaining waste.  Rinsing more often than three times does not yield

substantial additional benefit.  The Agency believes that the

rationale for rinsing pesticide containers holds for containers of

hazardous materials as well, since there are no inherent differences

between pesticides and other hazardous materials which would make

triple rinsing an unacceptable procedure for the other


     (3)  Drum Reconditioners are Not Hazardous Waste Facilities
          (Comment c)
     Similarly, one ccmmenter observed that the definition of "other

discarded material," in §250.10(b)(1),  exempts wastes destined for

reuse from control under RCRA.  This commenter then contends that re-

cycling facilities (drum reconditioners) need not be permitted, since

they do not handle hazardous wastes.  This interpretation of the pro-

posed regulations is correct and the commenter properly notes that

the proposed regulations were, therefore, inconsistent.  In the final

regulations, listed hazardous wastes, including empty containers that

previously contained listed substances  in §261.33(e), which ->re

recycled are subject to all of the controls of Parts 262 and 263 and

to the requirements of Parts 264 and 265 in so far as storage is

concerned.  Actual treatment of the wastes in the recycling process


is not subject to these regulations.  The rationale backing the

Agency's decision to defer coverage of most recycled hazardous wastes

is discussed in depth in the Preamble to the Part 261 regulations.

     (4)  Other Decontamination Procedures (Comment e)

     Other commenters requested that the Agency  allow and even spe-

cify other acceptable decontamination procedures besides triple rins-

ing.  The Agency agrees that there are a number  of decontamination

methods which might prove as effective as triple rinsing, including

a number of waste—specific chemical processes and even incineration.

However; there are far too many processes, and they are too waste-

specific for the Agency to identify them ail.  Therefore, the

regulation will allow the operator to demonstrate decontamination

equivalent to triple rinsing.  Those wishing to  use this variance

need only obtain and retain the necessary comparative data; approval

by  the Regional Administrator  is  not necessary.  It should be pointed

out that:  (a) triple rinsing  may produce a hazardous waste which

must be dealt with in accordance  with the regulations, and (b) pro-

cesses other than rinsing may  constitute a treatment of the hazardous

waste remaining in the container  and will, therefore, require a per-

mit, unless the decontaminated drum is reused rather than disposed


     (5)  Clarifying "Empty"  (Comment d)

     One commenter asked for clarification of when a drum is "empty;"

noting that there is always a  residue in drums,  even when they are


completely drained.  The Agency recognizes this fact, and is using

the words "empty" and "emptied" in the practical, rather than the

absolute, sense.  Larger containers, such as drums, are usually aspi-

rated or pumped out.  This leaves a small residue on the bottom.

This should never be more than one inch and, in most cases,  is sub-

stantially less.  The amount of residue is subject to both the physi-

cal characteristics of the material left in the drum and the methods

used to empty the drum.  EPA has not found it necessary to define

what constitutes an empty drum and thus the term is no longer used.

For those who may be interested, however, the Agency considers a drum

empty when no further material can be removed by whatever method is

being used for withdrawing the material.  If the material is poured

out, empty would normally be drip dry.  If pumped or aspirated,  the

container would be empty when no more material could be removed by

these methods.

     (6)  Plastic-Lined Containers (Comment f)

     The Agency recognizes that it is common practice to fit steel

containers (drums) with plastic liners which are removable.   It is

also common to bond plastic or other protective coatings directly to

the steel.  In both cases, the plastic is intended to protect the

steel from deterioration and contamination by the waste or hazardous

substance.  In the former case, however, the plastic liner can be

removed and managed as a hazardous waste, leaving an uncontaiainated

steel drum.  This is not possible where the plastic (or other

coating) is bonded to the drum.  The Agency has accommodated the

suggestion of the commenters by allowing the steel outer container to

be managed as non-hazardous if the inner liner is removed.

     (7)  Plastic Containers (Comment g)

     The Agency agrees that plastic containers can often be cleaned

and reused.  The omission of plastic containers in the proposed regu-

lations does not mean that these containers were omitted from cov-


E.  Summary of Final Incerim Status Regulation (§254.175)

     The Agency has reconsidered ics proposed requirement which

limited management of empty nencombustible containers to recycling

and recovery options.  EPA agrees that, as a legal matter,  it cannot

prohibit environmentally-sound, ^aste management priorities  under Sec-

tion 3004 simply because they co not further the resource recovery

objectives of Section 1003.  Thus, the proposed requirements do not

appear in the final regulations.  As was identified by the  context of

a number of the comments, the question really goes to whether emptied

containers are a hazardous waste.  The Agency has concluded that such

wastes are hazardous unless triple rinsed or cleaned by an equivalent

method and has so indicated in §261.33(c). (Section 261.33(c) also

provides that a container from which an inner liner has been removed

is not a hazardous waste.)  Therefore, while an emptied container is

not required to be recycled, it must be managed as a hazardous waste

if it is a hazardous waste in accordance with §261.33(c).  Containers


which are to be recycled are not covered by these regulations

(§261.6) unless the residual material is either a listed hazardous

waste or a material listed in §261.33(e).  Triple rinsed containers

are no longer hazardous wastes (§261.33(c)).  The reader is referred

to the Preamble to Part 261 for further discussion.

                        SUBJECT:   INSPECTIONS

A.  Summary of Proposed Regulation

     EPA's proposed interim status regulations (§250.40(c)(2)(v))

required that storage facilities  be inspected daily in accordance

with requirements of the visual inspection standards (§250.43-6).

B.  Rationale for the Proposed Regulation

     The reasoning behind the requirements for all owners and opera-

tors (including owners and operators of scorage facilities) to

routinely inspect their operations is discussed in detail in the

background document entitled "Inspections."  In brief, the purpose is

to detect noticeable deterioration or obvious malfunctions so thac

they can be remedied before they affect the environment or public

health.  The Agency believes that this administrative procedure will

be successful in preventing many potentially serious problems through

early detection.

C.  Comments Received on the Proposed Standard

     a.  The standard should be deleted because it is redundant and
         unnecessary5 in view of the requirements of §250.43-5.

     b.  It is unreasonable to require owners/operators to visually
         inspect their storage facilities on weekends and holidays.
         This is particularly true for facilities which manage
         "marginally-hazardous" waste.

     c.  The standard referring to visual inspection should begin as
         follows:  "As a minimum,  an owner/operator . . ." (the com-
         menter did not explain why he thought this phrase should be
         added to the standard).

     d.  Daily inspection is unnecessary.  Weekly, biweekly, or
         monthly would be adequate.

  D.  Analysis of and Response to Comments

     The inspection requirements (§265.15) now call for the owner or

operator to design his or her own inspection schedule, identifying

the items to be inspected and the frequencies of inspection.

However, for reasons discussed in the background document on

inspections, some minimum requirements are being included in the

regulator sections dealing with specific types of facilities.

     One of the major problems with drum storage is the deterioration

of drums on exposure to the elements and damage to them during hand-

ling (by forklift trucks, falling of stacked drums, etc.).  There are

no studies which specifically relate to how long a steel drum will

last under a given set of meteorological conditions while storing

given waste types.  However, many inspections have been conducted of

facilities storing drummed-waste and leaking drums are frequently

reported.  Associated pollution problems include contamination of

surface water and ground water, pollution of the air through evapora-

tion of volatile chemicals, and fires and explosions associated with

ignitable wastes.  Of the damage cases previously discussed (Section

II. B)j the following are particularly pertinent:

     •  well pollution and fire in Anniston, Alabama^'

     *  visible emissions and environmental damage in Louisiana^''

     •  leaking drums in a ground water recharge zone in Texas^'

     •  nitric acid fumes from leaking drums in New Jersey'I-3'

     •  surface water pollution in Lowell, Massachusetts' *•''

                                                       MS 1 Q1
     *  toxic emissions and fire in Shakopee, Minnesota^xo»L^'

     Inspections of drum storage areas on a periodic basis is an

effective way to detect leaks, often before they become serious.

Redrumming and cleanup are then usually effective in preventing pol-

lution incidents.  Where severe corrosion is noted,  wastes can be

redrummed before leaks even occur.  As with any inspection program,

the more frequent the inspection, the better.  However, given the

relatively slow rate of drum deterioration due to corrosion, che

Agency recognizes that there is a maximum frequency beyond which more

frequent inspections would add little or no additional protection.

As a practical matter, inspection should be frequent enough to detect

corrosion before it results in leaks, and to detect Leaks before the

escape of pollutants can cause a hazardous condition.  The appro-

priate frequency will vary, depending on such factors as waste type,

container construction, climate, and other site-specific conditions.

There  is not sufficient data available on these factors to permit the

Agency to develop a formula for evaluating all of these factors and

arriving at a precise inspection frequency.


     EPA agrees with those commenters who contended that weekly

inspection for leaks and corrosion, which is likely to identify

problems before they result in serious environmental or human health

problems.  More frequent (daily) inspections would result in little

improvement in the detection of leaking or deteriorating drums except

where the problem results from operating damage (punctures from fork-

lifts, falling drums, etc.).  In the latter case, operators are nor-

mally aware that the damage has occurred and, since it is normally

acute (i.e., a major Leak), cleanup and redruiaming should con-.ence


     Monthly or biweekly inspections might be adequate under some

circumstances.  However, considering the extremely poor practices

that have all too frequently characterized drum storage of hazardous

wastes,  and that many o£ these problems could be corrected by regular

inspection and maintenance, the Agency believes that it is important

to establish some minimum inspection period for all facilities.  Ade-

quate protection of the human health and the environment suggest that

uncertainties in the appropriate inspection frequency be resolved in

favor of more rather than less frequent inspections.  In addition, at

least one facility with which the Agency is familiar is currently

conducting inspections on a weekly basis. t'+O)  Finally, the Agency

believes that the cost of performing inspections, contrary to the

views of some commenters, is likely to be small.(39)   Therefore,

the final regulations require weekly inspections of container storage


E.  Summary of Final Status Regulation (§265.174)

     As part of the inspection schedule required by §265.15, con-

tainer storage areas must be inspected at least weekly for  leaks and



A.  Summary of Regulation

     The proposed regulations (§250.44-2(a)) required that wastes in

leaking or damaged containers be recontainerized.  It was also pro-

posed for inclusion as ona of the interim status standards.  No

comments were received on this proposal,  and it has been retained in

these final interim status regulations (§265.171).  A minor clarifi-

cation has been added, which specifically allows an owner or operator

to take wastes from a leaking container directly to treatment, dispo-

sal, or another mode of storage, rather than re-drumming.

B.  Rationale for the Standard

     Leaking of hazardous wastes from containers can result in ground

water pollution, emission of vapors and gases to the air, reactions

with other leaking wastes, and fires.  Several damage cases pre-

viously discussed demonstrated these problems.  The 1973 Alabama in-

cident (Case No. 3 in the Damage Cases, Section II.3 of this docu-

ment), involving 10,000 drums of aramite waste, is an example of

leaking drums causing ground water and surface water problems.^"^

The Louisiana case (Case No. 7), involving storage of drummed vola-

tile wastes, is an example of both air and water pollution.^  '


The Shakopee, Minnesota, fire at an incinerator drum storage area

(Case No. 15) typifies the fire potential from these facili-

ties .^18>19;  jt £s important, therefore, that wastes in drums

which are leaking or have been damaged, or are deteriorating, be

recontainerized as soon as possible.


A.  Summary of the Regulation

     Since no comment was received, the Agency has retained the

requirement that containers must: not be managed in a way which may

rupture th= container ?r cause it to leak.

3.  Rationale for the Standard

     Although §265.171 requires repackaging of leaking contain-

ers, this requirement (§265.172) has been recained for enforcement

purposes.  Although an inspector may not find any containers which

are actually leaking, they may be managed in a place or in a manner

which could readily cause damage or leaking, e.g., from-a forklift.

This provision will allow EPA to take action in those cases.


A.  Summary of the Regulation

     Containers must be kept closed, except when adding or removing

wastes (§265.173(a)).  This is a new standard; it was not proposed.

B.  Rationale for the Standard

     Although "container" was defined to be "any portable enclosure

...," this new standard will eliminate the possibility of any


misunderstanding regarding the implicit assumption in the proposed

rules that containers must be closed when stored.  To be transported

safely, containers must be closed, i.e., have lids or bungs; thus,

the word "enclosure" in the definition.  Since all containers have

lids or closable bungs, it is good operating practice to keep them

closed during storage.  Keeping containers closed prevents overflow

and possible reaction from rainfall, limits unintentional direct con-

tact, reduces the potential for emissions to the air. reduces the

potential for spillage, and reduces the possibility of fire.


A.  Summary of the Regulation

     A 50-foot buffer zone is required between the property line and

a storage facility containing ignitabla and reactive wastes in con-

tainers (§265.176).  This is a new standard; it was not proposed.

B.  Rationale for the Standard

     One of the acute problems with storage areas for containerized

hazardous waste involves fires and explosions, and violent reactions.

On July 4, 1973, a spectacular fire erupted in an incinerator drum

storage area of a chemical waste disposal company in Shakopee,

Minnesota (Case No. 15 in the Damage Cases, Section II. 3 of this

document).  Drums of exploding wastes flew through the air like

rockets.^°>19)  Similarly, as discussed in the damage case section

(Case No. 3), several firefighters became ill fighting a fire in

Alabama, where aramite wastes were stored.^'  These kinds of

incidents pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of anyone

near the scene, as a result of burns or inhaling of toxic gases.

     The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has been accumu-

lating experience and information on necessary distances between drum

storage areas and nearby residences, business places, and other pub-

lic places.  These have been codified in the Flammable and Combusti-

ble Code of 1977.  The Code requires a 50 foot minimum distance

between the container area and the facility property line.^  '
     The Agency believes that this code provides a reasonable basis

for setback limits or buffer zones for protecting human health from

the acute effects of explosions, fires, and violent reactions of

ignitable and reactive wastes.  The Agency knows of no other data

available on which it could base different buffer zones'for these

types of waste.  Tne Agency is not certain that these limits will be

fully adequate for large storage areas or for  those with highly

explosive wastes or wastes which give off highly toxic gases.  How-

ever, the other requirements in this regulatory package are designed

to prevent fires and explosions from ever occurring.  EPA will be

monitoring the effectiveness of these regulations in protecting those

who reside or work near hazardous waste facilities that handle ignit-

able and reactive wastes.  Revision will be made if data shows it is


                        SUBJECT:  PAPER BAGS

A.  Summary of Proposed Regulation

     The proposed regulation required that paper bags contaminated

with hazardous waste be stored in closed secondary containers


B.  Rationale for the Proposed Regulation

     The intent of the proposed regulation was to minimize the poten-

tial for release to the environment of residual hazardous materials

adhering to empty paper bags.  The disposal of pesticide bags, in

particular, has caused problems from direct contact of aninals and

people with contaminaced bags, and wind dispersion.  For example, in

one case, a load of "empty" insecticide bags was dumped adjacent to a

field where cattle were pastured; the wind blew the bago into the

pasture and 14 cattle died after licking the bags. ^2'  Burning has

been a common technique for disposing of "empty bags."  This practice

can volatilize toxic chemicals and release hazardous gases.  In a

study where "empty" pesticide bags were burned, investigators found

7.9 mg of parathion per cubic meter of air.^3)  placing these bags

in containers for proper disposal would have prevented these


C.  Comments Received on this Subject

     a.  The requirement is unnecessarily burdensome and expensive

         -  it is good common business sense to prevent loss of
            material by making sure that only a small amount of
            material adheres to paper bags and, thus, the hazard
            potential from material remaining in bags is small

         -  more hazardous material per month could conceivably be
            put into a refuse landfill by a nonregulated small
            generator than from paper bags disposed of in trash;
            therefore, contaminated paper bags should be exempted

         -  using a secondary container will take up more available
            space than if the paper bags were compacted with other
            trash from the plant

         —  supplying secondary containers for paper bags is costly;
            therefore, the requirement should be deleted or should be
            amended to allow paper bags co be compacted with plant

     b.  Paper bags will use up valuable permitted landfill capacity,
         which is in short supply.

     c.  Paper bags should not have to be containerized if they are
         to be disposed of on-site in such a manner that they are
         prevented from being blown from the facility, e.g., covered
         in a landfill.

D.  Analysis of and Response to the Comments and Rationale for Final

     As a result of the comments, the Agency has reconsidered the

proposed requirement.  Obtaining secondary containers may prove dif-

ficult and costly for many facilities that routinely bury empty bags.

The Agency has found that those facilities which would have to pur-

chase drums to comply with the proposed regulation would have to pay

up to $10 each for reconditioned drums.'* '  Each drum could hold

500 bags, depending on the size of the bag and if carefully placed.

If crumpled, only about 50 to 100 could be placed.(45)  since haz-

ardous materials also tend to be expensive materials, the amount left

in bags is normally quite small.  A study of pesticide residues in

paper bags performed in Illinois indicates that an average of only

about 2.3 ounces of pesticides remained in the bag.^4"'  Further,

when these contaminated bags constitute a hazardous waste, they must

be managed in accordance with the rest of the Subtitle C regulations,

unless the generator generates less than the small quantity cutoff

(see the background document entitled "Special Requirements for Haz-

ardous Waste Generated by Small Quantity Generators").  The Agency

believes these other hazardous waste regulations will adequately

protect public health and the environment.  The Agency agrees that

empty bags disposed of oa-site in permitted facilities should present

no real public health problem if they are managed carefully in accor-

dance with the other regulations.

     Those commenters who suggested that generators of small volumes

could contribute more hazardous waste to a non-permitted site than

most generators of contaminated bags may be technically correct.

Much of the weight of the bags is paper or plastic, not hazardous

material.  However, the residue in these bags is usually a hazardous

chemical product which may be considerably more potent (concentrated)

than most hazardous wastes.  The Agency believes that, in terms of

risk to the public health, the concentrated chemical products left in

bags may pose a hazard that is equal to or greater than an equal vol-

ume of many of the hazardous wastes.  It should be pointed out that

those who generate less than the small quantity limit of contaminated

bags (paper and plastic, and residue) are also exempted from these


     There were two comments dealing with the volume of bags—one

suggested bags would take less landfill room if they could be com-

pacted with plant trash and sent to a refuse landfill.  The other

suggested that landfills should more properly be reserved for more

potent wastes.  The Agency disagrees with both comments.  As men-

tioned previously, the problems associated with mismanaged "empty"

paper bags can rival those of other types cf hazardous wastes,

because of the pure chemical nature and, thus, high toxicity of many

of  the residues in the bags.  If they are generated in significant

quantities, these bags belong in hazardous waste facilities just as

much as do other commonly accepted hazardous wastes.  They should not

be  mixed with trash in "dumpsters," where the chemicals can be

dispersed into the air or drip out if carried by liquids in wet

trash.  The total amount of bags which might contain hazardous wastes

has been estimated at 320,000 tons/year.^5)  However, many of

these contain pesticides and fertilizers which are generated by

farmers, homeowners, small generators, and other generators who have

been exempted from these regulations.  The 100,000 tons or so of

contaminated paper bags which would be  subject to these regulations

would constitute less than one percent of the total volume of covered

wastes.  The Agency does not believe this volume will seriously

affect the available hazardous waste management capacity.^5'  The

commenter provided no information to support his claim that available

capacity, on a national basis, will be seriously affected and that

contaminated bags pose no substantial hazard if simply disposed of in

quantity in refuse landfills.

E.  Summary of Final Interim Status Regulations

     As a result of the comments, the Agency has deleted the require-

ment for packaging contaminated bags in secondary containers (drums).

The Agency believes that the general Subtitle C management regula-

tions will adequately deal vich the problem and assure adequate

protection of human health and Che environmenc.  The Agency will be

monitoring the effectiveness of these regulations in protecting human

health from mismanagement of non-containerized "empty" bags and may

repropose similar controls at a later time if it appears that they

are needed.


     Requests were received from various commenters asking that cer-

tain wastes or facility types receive outright exemptions or special

consideration from the storage and container regulations.

A.  Comments Received on this Subject

     a.  Storage is defined to exclude wastes stored for 90 days or
         less.  There is no recognition of waste characteristics or
         quantities.  The requirement favors large generators; small
         generators will take longer to accumulate enough waste to
         improve transportation economies.  The 90-day cutoff will
         prevent them from protecting these economies.

     b.  Owners or operators who stockpile wastes in pools should be
         exempted from the storage requirements if they can show that
         the practice does not adversely affect human health and the

     c.   Bulk liquid terminals which are in the business of handling
         large volumes of commercial products,  and which are in com-
         pliance with EPA's other regulations regarding control of
         discharges to navigable waters, the soil, and ground water,
         should be regulated differently for the relatively small
         volumes of residues that they generate than storage facili-
         ties which are in the sole business of hazardous waste

     d.   Noncombustible containers with less than a 30-gallon capa-
         city should be, exempted from the management requirements for
         empty containers.  This exemption is consistent with the
         proposed exemption of generators of small volumes of wastes
         (less than 100 kg/mo) and the exemption of household hazard-
         ous waste.

     e.   Storage on-site for lass than 90 days  prior to shipment to
         an on-site treatment or disposal facility should also be

3.  Analvsis of and Resoonse to the Comments
     These comments are similar only in that they request an exemp-

tion.  They ausc be considered individually.

     (a)  The 90-day Exclusion is Unfair to Small Business (Comment

     The first commenter misinterpreted the proposed Subpart B (Sec-

tion 3002) requirements.  Section 250.25 of the proposed regulations

required that every generator place wastes that are to be shipped

into storage tanks complying with these regulations, or into shipping

containers in compliance with DOT requirements (which also comply

with these regulations).  Those generators who accumulate for less

than 90 days on-site are exempted from obtaining a permit under Part

122, Subparts A and 3, but must store in containers or tanks which

comply with the. Department of Transportation packaging requirements

and the requirements of Part 262 (§262.34), which are similar in

content to these requirements.

     The rationale and comment summary and analysis on this require-

ment are contained in the background document entitled "Standards

Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste."  The incremental cost

of keeping wastes for more than 90 days before shipment, as compared

to storing them less than 90 days, is largely the cost of obtaining

the permit in compliance with the non-technical requirements, since

the operator must, in any case, bear the cost of meeting the techni-

cal requirements which are very similar to this section.  Also,

although storage in lagoons and piles is now allowed, operators using

those methods of storage for less than 90 days will not be eligible

for the permit exemption.  That is to say that storing wastes in

lagoons or piles for less than 90 days before shipping them offsite

will require a permit, whereas short-term storage in tanks and con-

tainers will not.  This difference recognizes the relatively large

volumes normally managed in impoundments and piles.  The Agency

believes also that lagoons and piles are relatively more accessible

to the elements, more prone to serious accident (liner puncture,

spillage, etc.), and are less secure than tanks and containers.

Tanks and containers are structurally more sturdy and can readily be

checked for leakage.  Impoundments are ongoing operations in which

leakage is difficult to detect.  For these reasons, the Agency feels

that the oversight and approval process embodied in the permicting

procedures is necessary for adequate control.

     (b)  Stockpiled Wastes Should Be Exempted (Comment b)

     The point of the comment on an exemption for stockpiled wastes

is not clear.  The commenter may be objecting to the limitation of

storage to tanks and containers.  As discussed previously, the Agency

has amended the regulations to allow bulk storage in piles and also

in surface impoundments.  The commenter may also be advocating the

exemption on the ground that it takes longer than 90 days to accumu-

late enough volume for sale, for economic shipment, or possibly for

reuse.  While this may be true in some cases, the Agency is unable to

support a longer period, on the basis of protection of human health

and the environment.  Drums start to deteriorate with time, as noted

previously.  Also, if the time period is left open-ended, many less

reputable generators could siniply claim that stockpiled wastes were

"stored" for future use or shipment when, if fact, that "storage"

represents ultimate disposal.  The primary reason for the 90-day

storage exemption is not based on protecting human health, although

the Agency believes the impact on human health will be negligible,

since  the tanks and concainers must meet the technical standards

anyway.  The Agency's charge is to regulate the handlers and

disposers of the wastes, not the generators; thus, the exemption

makes  sense.  Another important reason for the exemption is the

Agency's inability to deal with the extra thousands of permits which

would  be necessary. Virtually every one of the generators that ship

their  wastes must have some temporary storage prior to shipment.  EPA

estimates this number to be over sixty thousand.  The Agency could

not manage the permitting of all those tanks and container storage

areas.  In any event, generators are required to store their wastes

in facilities which meet technical requirements similar to these

regulations.  It is only the permitting process and the non-technical

requirements which they are not subjecc to, and that only when the

temporary storage is carried out in containers or tanks.  In the

Agency's view, the impact on the public health of this exemption will

be negligible.

     (c)  Bulk Liquid Terminals Should 3a Zxesot (Comment c)

     The Agency is unable to allow any distinction between bulk

liquid terminals and other generators of hazardous wastes.  Hazardous

wastes stored there, or generated there as a result of tank clean-

outs, etc., are similar in type and hazard potential to other hazard-

ous wastes.^''  If these facilities generate less than the amount

which qualifies them for the small quantity exemption, they are not

subject to these regulations,  just as any other facility generating

small quantities is not subject to them.

     (d)  Small Noncombustible Containers Should Be Exempt (Com-
          ment d)

     Based on considerations of human health and the environment, the

Agency is unable to justify exempting noncomfaustible containers of

less than 30-gallon capacity from regulations which would apply to

larger containers.  Smaller containers have more "wall area" than

larger containers in relation to the volume of the container.  For


example, for equivalent total capacity, five-gallon containers have

more than twice the wall area as 55-gallon drums. ^8)  Therefore,

since the amount of residue depends, to a large extent, on the con-

taminated wall area, smaller containers should contain more residual

hazardous material than large ones per unit volume.  The Agency dis-

agrees that exempting small containers is in any way related to the

small quantity exemption.  While it is true that it takes more small

containers to reach the monthly limit, the small quantity limit is

based on total hazardous "ssce generated, and is unrelated to the

quantity of the increments.  The Agency also disagrees that exemption

of small containers is related to the exemption of household refuse.

While it is true that most household hazardous wastes occur in small

containers, the household waste exemption is based on Congressional

intent, as recorded in Senate Report No. 94988 (94th Congress, 2nd

session, p. 16).  Congress recognized the impracticality of trying to

regulate the hundred million or so household generators.  This has

nothing to do with the incremental quantity of wastes generated by


     ""hus, small containers have not been exempted from the defini-

tion of hazardous waste.  The circumstances under which containers

are a hazardous waste can now be found in §261.33(c).

     (e)  Temporary Storage Prior to Shipment to an On-Site Facility
          Should Be Exempted (Comment e)
     The primary reason for the temporary exemption of storage by

generators prior to shipment off-site is based on the Agency's desire


to avoid the permitting burden for the tens of thousands of  tank or

drum storage areas that would not otherwise need a permit.  Where

on-site treatment or disposal is practiced, a permit will be required

in any case.  Inclusion of temporary storage facilities in the permit

application should have no real inpact on either the applicant or  the


C.  Summary of Interim Status Regulations

     No exemptions were made to the final regulations covering con-

tainers, piles, or other as a result of these conrr.ants.


A.  Comment Received on the Subject

     Limitations should be placed on the amount of waste that can be

stored at storage facilities at any one period of time.  This will

not only reduce the potential harmful effect of the wasce, out will

provide additional safeguards against a company going bankrupt and

leaving behind thousands of drums.

B.  Analysis and Response to the Comment

     The Agency sees much merit in the suggestion and in the reason-

ing behind it.  A quantity limitation would tend to limit the impact

of any catastrophe which might befall a storage area—if there are

fewer drums to explode, presumably the danger and damage will be

less.  Also, the abandonment of stored drums of waste by "treacaent"

facilities has been a major problem. '*^> •"•' > *•&, 19)  (Note:  Most

treatment facilities have inventory storage facilities associated


with them to stabilize the waste  feed supply  to  the  treatment unit.)

However, after considerable discussion, the Agency decided that an

equitable, non-arbitrary quantity  limitation  would be very difficult

to develop and, in the final analysis, the Agency believes its finan-

cial regulations, coupled with  the permit procedures and other

requirements, will solve the abandonment or bankruptcy problem.

     To be supportable, any time  or  quantity  limit should be related

to the  type of waste  to be stored, the design and construction of the

containment device used to store  the T.aterial (drum  or tank), the

climatic conditions under which storaga is to take place, and many

other  factors.  At this tine, EPA does not have  sufficient data on

the integrity of  containers holding  different types  of wastes under

different  types of climatic conditions to write  storage  limitation

standards.  The Agency does plan  to  conduct this  type of analysis in

the future.  Therefore, if such limitations are warranted, the Agency

will develop and  propose standards at a later date.

     Under these  interim status regulations,  facilities must estimate

the cost of closure in accordance with the closure requirements, and

as a result of  the Phase II financial requirements (currently being

reproposed), will be  required to  provide a cash  deposit, a surety

bond or other allowable mechanism to ensure that  the money to pay for

closure will be available.  For those operations  with storage faci-

lities, part of the cost of closure  is the cost  of disposing of the

maximum inventory of  stored wastes the owner  or  operator expects to

have on hand at any one time.  The owner or operator is, therefore,

not allowed to store more wastes than his deposit (or bond or other

alternative) can cover, in disposal costs.  The closure regulations

and financial requirements for closure require that he determine the

cost of removing or disposing of the maximum inventory of wastes

which will be accumulated at the facility during the life of the

site.  The estimated cost of removing or disposing of these wastes

will determine, in part,  the size of the trust fund (or other

alternative) which will be deposited.  During interim status, these

requirements will be incumbent upon owners and operators, and the

Agency will enforce them through routine inspections.  Later, the

maximum inventory quantity determined by the owner or operator will

be incorporated as a limit in che permit.  The Agency believes this

approach will accomplish, on a case-by-case basis, more protection

against abandonment of stored wastes than would a more arbitrary,

across-the-board limitation.  The Agency will monitor the effective-

ness of these requirements in protecting the public against abandon-

ment of wastes.  If necessary, additional regulations can be proposed

at a later date.


     In the proposed regulations, the Agency anticipated that piles

of wastes could be managed in compliance with the landfill require-

ments.  At that time the Agency had focused primarily on the large

volume piles such as mining culm piles, where the pile  really

constitutes disposal, i.e., there is no plan to remove the waste in

the foreseeable future.  As mentioned earlier, the Agency received a

number of comments suggesting that storage be allowed in devices

other chan containers and  tanks, and specifically in piles.  These

coramenters further pointed out that while the landfill regulations

might be  suitable for large piles, they are not practical for tempo-

rary storage of wastes in  piles.  The Agency agrees that small tempo-

rary storage piles require different management than large disposal

piles.  Accordingly, the Agency has designed the Subpart L require-

ments to  relate specifically  to  small scale temporary storage piles.

The owner or operator of a pile may chose to manage it in accordance

with either the Subpart L  pile regulations or the Subpart N landfill

requirements.  The additional requirements are as follows:

A.  Wind  Dispersal

     Owners and operators  must protect piles containing hazardous

wastes  from wind  dispersal through management techniques such as

covering  (§265.251).

Rationale for the Standard

     The example of the Pennsylvania asbestos waste piles'^*,^

graphically demonstrates the need for control of blowing wastes from

piles.  An air monitoring program, conducted by EPA in October 1973,

indicated ambient background levels of asbestos, a known carcinogen,

to be 6 ng/m^.  An asbestos level of 9.6 ng/m^ was found at a

playground near the largest waste pile.  While this pile is a dispo-

sal pile and would not fall under the waste pile regulations, similar

problems could be posed by storage piles.

     This regulation is designed co cause owners of waste piles than

are subject to wind erosion to take staps of their choosing to keep

wastes from being dispersed by the wind.  A suggested mechanism,

included as an example, is covering, probably either with soil or

tarpaulins.  Some techniques would be effective with certain wastes,

others with other wastes.  The owner or operator of. the facility  is

best able to develop an adequate cost-effective technique based on

the properties of the wastes that he manages.

B.  Waste Analysis

     Incoming shipments of waste must be sampled and analyzed before

adding the waste to a. pile (§265.252).  This is to be part of the

Waste Analysis Plan required by Section 265.13.  It must include  a

simple visual comparison, which may be supplemented by other qu^-k

physical or chemical tests, such as pH.  The analysis performed must

differentiate between incompatible wastes received at the facility

which could conceivably be placed in piles.  If no incompatible

wastes are received which can be piled, then the regulation does not


Rationale for the Standard

     The possible impact associated with  incompatible wastes was

discussed in the damage case section and  in the discussion of compa-

tibility in this section of the background document.  The waste anal-

ysis requirement is designed to ensure  that incoming shipments are

not mistakenly added  to an incompatible pile.  The experience of

existing waste management facilities confirms  that wastes actually

received are not always those which were  expected. ^-, 3^> - :'  A sim-

ple color or texture  comparison should  prevent many dangerous mis-

takes  that could result from mixing raislabeled, incompatible wastes

into existing piles.

     In  the proposed  General Facility Standards,  there was a general

requirement (§250.43(h)) that each truckload be sampled  for certain

characteristics.  However, this was not proposed  as part of the

Interim  Status Standards.  Nonetheless, the Agency believes it is

important to prevent  problem reactions  caused  by  accidentally mixing

incompatible wastes in piles, and can see no reason not  to incorpor-

ate this relatively simple, inexpensive requirement, which meets the

criteria qualifying it as an Interim Status Standard.

C.  Containment (265.256 and 265.257)

     These requirements contain the bulk of the design requirements

for piles of hazardous wastes.  Besides the requirements for closure,

the major difference in the requirements between disposal piles and

storage piles is that the former must have ground-water monitoring to

detect contamination.  If leachate or run-off from a pile is a

hazardous waste, then owners and operators of the latter must either

prevent the formation of leachate and run-off or control hazardous

ieachate and run-off.

     If the owner or operator chooses to prevent the formation of

leachate and run-off, he must protect the pile from precipitation and

run-on, and must not place any liquids or wastes containing free

liquids on the pile.  (See the preamble section en landfills for £

discussion of free liquids.)  Piles kept in buildings will typically

meet this requirement.

     Alternatively, in order to control leachate and run-off, the

pile must be placed on an impermeable base so that leachate and run-

off can be collected, and run-on must be diverted away from the pile.

The collected leachate and run-off must be managed as a hazardous

waste, and an NPDES permit will be required if the leachate and run-

off is discharged through a point source to waters of the United


Rationale for the Standard

     Other than for wind dispersal, the most likely pollution poten-

tial from piles comes from erosion and "washing" of the pile from

rainfall, and from run-off from other areas of the facility.

Leaching through the soil to  the ground water is another  likely

possibiity.  These regualtions are designed to prevent that.  The

pile regulations are designed to cover smaller piles us'ed primarily

for temporary storage.  As §265.250 explains, the owner or operator

may alternately choose  to manage a vasts  pile in accordance with the

landfill regulations.   These  pile regulations require that waste be

contained, i.e., that rainfall runoff which contacts the waste does

not enter the environment, either through the soil or surface runoff.

The landfill regulations allow more latitude in design, particularly

during  the interim status period, but require ground water moni-

toring.  The Agency expects  that most larger, longer-term "piles,"

such as  slag heaps and  beneficiation wastes., when hazardous, will be landfills.   The smaller, more  temporary piles  are more

likely  to be managed according to  these pile regulations.

     Placing an  impermeable  base under an existing pile may entail

the expense of moving the pile.  However, the Agency believes that,

since  piles may be operated  for  a  number  of years under interim

status  (and without ground-water monitoring), this safeguard must be

imposed  at the outset.  Those existing piles for which this proves

impractical may be covered or may be managed as landfills, where

different protective measures are relied upon.

D.  Ignitable and Reactive Wastes

     Ignitable and reactive wastes cannot be placed in piles, unless

adding them into the pile makes them non-flammable or non-reactive,

or the waste is protected from sources of ignition or from any mater-

ial or conditions which may cause it to react (§265.256).  Wastes can

also be pretreated to make them non-flammable or non-reactive.  In

this case, once they no longer meet che definition of ar. ignitable cr

reactive waste, in accordance wich rare 261, management of them is no

longer covered by the hazardous waste regulations.

Rationale for the Standard

     It is not common practice to store highly ignitable cr reactive

wastes of any kind in piles.  There is too great a chance that they

will be accidentally ignited by discarded matches, or even lightning.

It is also true that many of the more highly ignitable wastes are

volatile liquids that are not amenable to piling.   The potential

problems are obvious.  Piles of reactive wastes may react violently

to form toxic gases, or may explode when the proper conditions occur.

Toxic fumes would also be likely with some hazardous, ignitable

wastes.  Piles of highly flammable wastes could conceivably ignite

with explosive force.  The AgencyN therefore, believes it is neces-

sary to prevent the open piling of ignitable or reactive wastes.

     With regard to the variance procedure employed, the reader may

note that, if the waste is treated so that it no longer meets the

ignitable or reactive waste definitions, it may be added to any pile.

Some may argue that, if so created,  the waste is not hazardous and,

thus, is not subject to these regulations anyway.  That is true if

the waste is hazardous only because  it is ignitable or reactive.

Also, the regulation allows mixing of ignitable or reactive wastes

into a pile  if. after the mixing operation, the mixed pile no longer

has  the  characteristic of  igni .abili _y or reactivity.  The Agency has

no knowledge of anyone practicing such a mixing technology with

piles, but believes the flexibility  should be present to allow it,

since similar practices are allowed  at other  types of facilities.

E.   Incompatible Wastes (§255.257)

     The Agency has adopted standards for the storage of incompatible

wastes  in piles similar to  those for containers.   Incompatible wastes

must not be  stored  in the  same  pile,  unless the resulting reactions

do not  cause fires, explosions,  emissions of  toxic gases, or present

other hazards  to human health  or the environment,  as provided in

§265.17(b),  the general facility standard which deals with incompa-

tible wastes.  Wastes stored  in piles must be physically separated

from other wastes  or materials  with  which they  are incompatible.

Similarly, wastes  cannot  be piled  on the  same area that previously

held an incompatible waste, unless  the  area has been decontaminated

sufficiently so  that  deleterious reactions do not  occur.

Rationale for the Standard

     These requirements are designed to prevent reactions between two

wastes and between wastes and other materials.  Such reactions could

occur should waste from the pile come into contact with a nearby

waste or material as a result of containers or tanks leaking on the

piles, growing until they intersect.



§265.170  Applicability

     The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and operators of

all hazardous waste facilities that store containers of hazardous

waste, except as §265.1 provides otherwise.

§265.71  Condition of Containers

     If a container holding hazardous waste is not in good condition,

or if  iz begins  10 le^d,  tha ovnar or operator must  transfer the

hazardous waste  from this container to a container that is in good

condition, or manage the waste in some other way that complies with

the requirements of this Part.

5265.172  Compatibility of Waste with Container

     The owner or operator must use a container made of or lined with

materials which  will not  react with, and are otherwise compatible

with,  the hazardous waste to be stored, so that the  ability of the

container to  contain the waste is not impaired.

§265.173  Management of Containers

      (a)  A container holding hazardous waste must always be closed
          during storage, except when it is necessary to add or
          remove waste.

      (b)  A container holding hazardous waste must not be opened,
          handled, or stored in a manner which may rupture the con-
          tainer or cause it to leak.

      [Comment:   A container that is a hazardous waste listed in

                 §§261.31  or 261.33 of this Chapter must be managed in

                compliance with the regulations of this Part.  Reuse

                of containers in transportation is governed by U.S.

                Department of Transportation regulations, including

                those set forth in 49 CFR 173.23.]

§265.174  Inspections

     The owner or operator must inspect areas where containers are

stored, at least weekly, looking for leaks and for deterioration

caused by corrosion or other factors.

     [Comment:  See §265.171 for r^edial action required if c = c;ri-

                oration or leaks are detected.]

§265.175  [Reserved]

§265.176  Special Requirements for Ignitable or Reactive Vaste

          [interim Final]

     Containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be locaced

at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's property line.

     [Comment:  See §265.17(a) for additional requirements.]

§265.177  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 container, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.

     (b)  Hazardous waste must not be placed in an unwashed container
          that previously held an incompatible waste or material (see
          Appendix V for examples), unless §265.17(b) is complied

     (c)  A storage container holding a hazardous waste that is
          incompatible with any waste or other materials stored
        ,  nearby in other containers, piles, open tanks, or surface
          impoundments must be separated from the other materials or
          protected from them by means of a dike, berm, wall, or
          other device.

     [Comment:   The purpose of this is to prevent fires, explosions,

                gaseous emissions, leaching, or other discharge of

                hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents which

                could result from the mixing of incompatible wastes

                or materials if containers break or leak.]

§§265.178 - 265.189  [Reserved]

                       SUBPART L - WASTE PILES

§265.250  Applicability

     The regulations in chis Subparc apply ;o owners and operators of

facilities chat creac or store hazardous waste in piles, except as

§265.1 provides otherwise.  Alternatively, a pile of hazardous waste

may be managed as a landfill under Subpart M.

§265.251  Protection froa Wind [Interim Final]

     The owner or operator of a pile containing hazardous waste which

could be subject to dispersal by wind must cover or otherwise manage

the pile so that wind dispersal is controlled.

§265.252  Waste Analysis  [Interim Final]

     In addition to the waste analyses required by §265.13, the owner

or operator must analyze  a representative sample of waste from each

incoming movement before  adding the waste to any existing pile,

unless:  (1) the only wastes the  facility receives which are amenable

to piling are compatible with each other, or (2) the waste received

is compatible with  the waste in the pile to which it is to be added.
The analysis conducted must be capable of differentiating between the

types of hazardous waste the owner or operator places in piles, so

that mixing of incompatible waste does not inadvertently occur.  The

analysis must include a visual comparison of color and texture.

     [Comment:  As required by §265.13, the waste analysis plan must

                include analyses needed co comply with §§265.256 and

                265.257.  As required by §265.73, the owner or opera-

                tor must place the results of this analysis in the

                operating record of the facility.]

5255.253  Cc — ain^ant [Interim Final]

     Ir leachate or runorr zroni a pile is a h-izsrciGus wasce, cnen


     (a)  The pile must be placed on an impermeable base that is com-
          patible with the waste under th-3 conditions of treatment: or
          storage, run-on nusc be diverged away from the pile, and
          any leachate and run-off from che pile must be collect=c
          and managed as a hazardous waste; or

     (b)  (1)  The pile must be protected from precipitation and
               run-on by some other means; and

          (2)  No liquids or wastes containing free liquids may be
               placed in the pile.

     [Comment:  If collected leachate or runoff is discharged through

                a point source to waters of the United States, it is

                subject to the requirements of Section 4-02 of the

                Clean Water Act, as amended.]

     (c)  The data for compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b)(l) of
          this Section is 12 months after the effective date of this

§§265.254 - 265.255  [Reserved]

§265.256  Special Requirements for Ignitable or Reactive Waste
          [Interim Final]

     Ignitable or reactive waste must not be placed in a pile,


     (1)  Addition of the waste to an existing pile (i) results in
          the waste or mixture no longer meeting  the definition of
          ignitable or reactive waste under §§261.21 or 261.23 of
          this Chapter, and (ii) complies with §265.17(b); or

     (2)  The waste is managed in such a way that  is protected from
          any material or conditions which may cause it to ignite or
          IT 3 3.C ;_ *

3265.257  Special for Incompatible Wastes [Interim

     (a)  Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials
          (see Appendix V for examples), must not  be placed in the
          sanie pile, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.

     (b)  A pile of hazardous waste  that is incompatible with any
          waste or other material stored nearby in other containers,
          piles, open tanks, or surface impoundments must be sepa-
          rated from the other materials, or procected from them by
          means of a dike, berm, wall,, or other device.

     [Comment:  The purpose of this  is to prevent  fires, explosions,

                gaseous  emissions, leaching, or other discharge of

                hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents which

                could result from the contact or  mixing of incompati-

                ble wastes or materials.]

     (c)  Hazardous waste must not be piled on the same^area where
          incompatible wastes or materials were previously piled,
          unless the area has been decontaminated sufficiently to
          ensure compliance with §265.17(b).

§§265.253 - 265,269   [Reserved]


                             APPENDIX I


     Many hazardous wastes, when mixed with other wastes or materials

at a hazardous wasce facility, can produce adverse effects on human

health and the environment in the following ways:  (1) by generating

heat or pressure, (2) by violent reaction, (3) by generating or

releasing flammable or toxic fumes and gases, (£•) by fire or explo-

sions, (5) by releasing toxic substances in case of fire or explo-

sion, and (6) by generating flammable or coxic gases.

     Below are examples of potentially incompatible wastes, waste

components, and materials, along with the adverse consequences

resulting from mixing materials in one group vith materials in

another group.  The list is intended as a guide for owners/operators

of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and for permit-

granting officials, to show the need for special precautions when

managing these potentially incompatible waste materials or compo-

nents .

     This list is not intended to be exhaustive.  An owner or oper-

ator must, as the regulations require, adequately analyze his wastes

so that he can avoid creating uncontrolled substances or reactions of

the  type listed below, whether they are listed below or not.

     It is possible for potentially incompatible wastes to be mixed

in a way that precludes a reaction (e.g., adding acid to water rather

than water to acid) or that neutralizes them (e.g., a strong acid


mixed with a strong base), or that controls substances .produced

(e.g., by generating flammable gases in a closed tank equipped so

that ignition cannot occur, and burning the gases in an incinerator).

     In the lists below, the mixing of a Group A material with a

Group 3 material may have  the potential consequence as noted.

           Group 1-A                              Group 1-B
Acetylene sludge                       Acid sludge
Alkaline caustic liquids               Acid and water
Alkaline cleaner                       Battery acid
Alkaline corrosive 'liquids             Chemical cleaners
Alkaline corrosive battery fluid       Electrolyte acid
Caustic wastavater                     Ecching acid liquid or solvent
Lizie sludge and other  corrosive        Liauid cleaning compounds
  alkalies                             Pickling liquor and other
Lime wascewater                          corrosive acids
Line and wacer                         Spent acid
Spent caustic                          Spent mixed acid
                                       Spent sulfuric acid

     Potential consequences:  Heat generation, violent reaction.

           Group 2-A                              Group 2-B

Asbestos waste and other  toxic         Cleaning solvents
  wastes                               Data processing liquid
Beryllium wastes                       Obsolete explosives
Unrinsed pesticide containers          Petroleum waste
Waste pesticides                       Refinery waste
                                       Retrograde explosives
                                       Waste oil and other flammable
                                         and explosive wastes

     Potential consequences:  Release  of  toxic substances  in case  of
                              fire or  explosion.

           Group 3-A                              Group 3-B

Aluminum                               Any waste in Groups 1-A or  1-B
Zinc powder and other reactive
  metals and metal hydrides

     Potential consequences:  Fire or explosion, generation of
                              flammable hydrogen gas.

           Grout) i-A
Alcohols                               Any concencrated wasca in
r-'aC2r                                    Groups 1-A or 1-3
                                       Metal hydrides
                                       SO^CLr,, 5GCL0, ?CL_j Cri»SiCl«3

                                       and other water-reactive

     Potential consequences:  Fire, explosion, or heat generation;
                              generation of flammable or toxic gases.

           Group 5-A                              Group 5-3

Alcohols                               Concentrated Groups 1-A or 1-B
Aldehydes                                wastes
Halogenated hydrocarbons               Group 3-A wastes
Nitrated hydrocarbons and other
  reactive organic compounds and
Unsaturated hydrocarbons

     Potential consequences:  Fire, explosion, or violent reaction.

           Group 6-A                              Group 6-B

Spent cyanide and sulfide solutions    Group 1-3 wastes

     Potential consequences:  Generation of toxic hydrogen cyanide or
                              hydrogen sulfide gas.

           Group 7-A                              Group 7-3

Chlorates and other strong             Acetic acid and other organic
  oxidizers                              acids
Chlorine                               Concentrated mineral acids
Chlorites                              Group 2-B wastes
Chromic acid                           Group 3-B wastes
Kypochlorites                          Group 5-A wastes and other
Nitrates                                 flammable and combustible
Nitric acid,  fuming                      wastes
^ 2 ~ ch1orates

     Potential consequences:  Fire, explosion, or violent reaction.

Source:  "Law, Regulations, and Guidelines for Handling of Hazardous
               "  California Department of Health, February 1975.

 (1)   News Briefs.   "Two Fatal Explosions  at Waste Facilities Prompt
      Investigations."   Solid Waste Management.   Vol.  21,  No. 2,
      February 1978.

 (2)   John Schaum and Gene  Cru-pler.  Technology Program.  Hazardous
      Waste Management  Division,  EPA.   unpublished memorandum,  "Visit
      to Rollins  Environmental Services  Plant:   New Jersey Facility."
      January 24, 1979.

 (3)   Hatayama, H.K., J.J.  Chan,  E.R.  de Vera,  R.D. Stephens, D.L.
      Storm.  "A  Method  for Determining  Hazardous Wastes Com-
      patiblicy".  ZPA Research Grant  No.  R304691.  1930.

 (4)   Ghasssai, M.   "Analysis of  Emergency Incident Involving Hazard-
      ous Wastes  in Anniston, Alabama."   Unpublished reporc under EPA
      Contract No.  63-01-2955 to  TRW,  Inc.  Prepared for ZPA's  Office
      of Solid Wasce. March 1977-

 (5)   O'Boyle, E.  Unpublished Report,  "Summary  of Hazardous Waste
      Damage Cases".   November 1979.

 (5),  C.  EPA's  Office of Solid Waste unpublished rie-^ran-
      dum to A. Lindsey, EPA's Office  of Solid Waste.   "Summaries of
      Damage Incidents".  December  27,  1979.

 (7)   Thronhill,  J.  EPA Region VI  unpublished memorandum  to A.
      Darnay, Jr.,  EPA's Office of  Solid Waste.   "Hazardous Waste
      Study".  October  27,  1972.

 (3)   Personal communication.  William S.  Dunn,  Chief  Chemist,
      Colorado Department of Health and  Co-Chairman of the Rocky
      Mountain Arsenal Technical  review  Committee to C.  Giansante,
      EPA's Office  of Solid Waste (see Reference 6).

 (9)   Wisconsin Department  of Natural  Resources.  News Release.
      August 20,  1974.

(10)   Hayes, P.   "Arsenic Leaves  37 Million Hangover."  Milwaukee
      Journal. September 27, 1978.

(11)   Anon.  "Toxic Waste Removal to Begin". Austin American.   May
      9, 1975.

                       REFERENCES (Continued)
(12)   Presentation on February 25, 1975, at meeting or Texas Water
      Quality Board by enforcement attorney Jack M. Cox, concerning
      operations in Travis County by Jack Arsenault of Rabar Enter-
      prises .

(13)   Poulter, S.  "Chemical Fire Woes Still Seeping, Seeping".  The
      Minneapolis Star.  February 1, 1979.

(14)   Personal communication.  Russ Felt, Minnesota -Pollution Control
      Agency (MPCA) to C. Giansante, EPA's Office of Solid Waste.
      October 30, 1979 (see Reference 6).
(15)  Lanson, G.  "Che-ical Explosions Feared".  Newark Record.  Ma
(16)  Personal observation.  Matthew Scraus, USE?A, Office of Solid
      Waste, November 14, 1373, as recorded in Personal communicacion
      from S. Plehn, Z?A' s Office of Solid "vasts to R. Wilson, EPA's
      Office of General Enforcement.  November 30, 1978.

(17)  Hart, Fred C., Inc.  "Analysis of Hazardous Waste Mismanagement
      Incident in Lovell, Massachusetts".  EPA Contract: Reoori No.
      68-01-3897.  July 1973.

(18)  Ostinann, R. , Jr.  "Rusting Barrels Seep, Burst While Lawyers
      Argue."  Minneapolis Star.  April 10, 1978.

(19)  Personal communication.  T. Scherkenbach, Minnesota Pollution
      Control Agency, to C. Giansante, EPA's Office of Solid Waste,
      October 31, 1979, as recorded in an unpublished memorandum,
      "Damage Incident in Shakopee, Minnesota", from C. Giansante to
      A.W. Lindsey, EPA's Office of Solid Waste.  January 9, 1980.

(20)  "Pesticides and Pesticide Containers, Regulations for Accep-
      tance and Recommended Procedures for Disposal and Storage".  39
      FR (85).  May 1, 1974.

(21)  "Polychlorinated Biphenyls:  Criteria Modification, Hearings".
      44 FR (106).  May 31, 1979.

(22)  Minnesota Code of Agency Rules.  Pollution Control Agency (?CA)
      - Hazardous Waste.  6 MCAR §4.9004.  "Location, Operation, and
      Closure of a Hazardous Wasta Facility:  C.  Hazardous Facility
      Operation, 3.  Storage of Hazardous Waste in Containers and


                       REFERENCES (Continued)
(23)   Washington Administrative Cods (WAC).   Hazardous Waste Regula-
      tion.   Chapter 173-302.

(24)   Texas  Department of Water Resources,  Industrial Solid Waste
      Management.  Technical Guideline ;>9 ,  "Noncompatible Wastes".
      Revised March 1, 1973.

(25)   California State Department of Health  Hazardous Waste Regula-
      tions.  Title 22,  Division 4.   Environmental Health, Chapter
      2.   Hazardous Waste,  Article 6.   Requirements for Management
      of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes.

(25)   California State Department of Healch.   California Administra-
      tive Code.  Title  3,  Chapter 4,  Sub chapter 1, Group 3. Article
      10.  "Pesticide Storage,  Transportation,  and Disposal".

(27)   South  Carolina Department of Health ana Environmental Control.
      Regulation 5, Pertaining  to the Disposal  of Waste Pesticides
      and Pesticide Containers.  Under the authority of §63-195.6
      (1962  Code), as amended.

(28)   South  Carolina Department of Healzh and Environmental Control.
      Draft  Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.  H..61-79.4,
      Standards for Treatment,  Storage, and  Disposal Facilities.

(29)   Oregon Administrative Rules.  Chapter  3^-0:  Department of  Envi-
      ronmental Quality, Division 63:   Hazardous Waste Management.
      OAR 340-63-130.

(30)   Oregon Administrative Rules.  Chapter  340:  Department of  Envi-
      ronmental Quality, Division 63:   Hazardous Waste Management,
      Part E, Management Facilities, Section 63-420 (OAR 340-63-420).

(31)   State  of Louisiana Department of Natural  Resources.  Rules  and
      Regulations, Hazardous Waste Management Plan.  Mandated by:
      Act 334 of 1978.  8.0  Standards Applicable to Facilities  whicr
      Treat, Store, and/or Dispose of Hazardous Wastes.

(32)   Tennessee Department of Public Health,  Division of Solid Waste
      Management.  Draft Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
      Rule 8.  Requirements Pertaining to Hazardous Waste Storage
      Facilities.  August 1978.

                       REFERENCES (Continued)
(33)  Personal communications:   M. Sanderora,  Chemical Waste Manage-
      ment, Inc., to J.H. Beard III,  USEPA, Office of Solid Waste,
      November 9, 1979; T. Merchtry,  IT Corporation,  to J.H. Beard,
      USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, November 20, 1979.  As contained
      in unpublished memorandum, "Background Document:  Storage in
      Piles and Containers."  J.H. Beard III to A.W.  Lindsey, USEPA,
      Office of Solid Waste, November 26, 1979.

(34)  Roy F. Weston, Inc.  Pollution Prediction Techniques for Waste
      Disposal Siting.  EPA Publication SW-162C, 1978.

(35)  40 CFR Part .165.

(38)  "Re zu lac ions for Acceptance and .Recommended Procedures for Dis-
      posal and Storage".  Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 35.  May

(37)  Hsieh, D.P.H., I.E. Archer, D.M. Munnecke, and J.H. McGowan,
      "Decontamination of Noncombustible Agricultural Pesticide Con-
      tainers by Removal of Emiilsifisble Parachion," Environmental
      Science and Technology 6:9.  September 1972, p. 826.

(38)  Archer, I.E., and D.P.H. Hsieh, "Detoxification of Mecal Drums
      from Emulsifiable Concentrate Formulations of Parat'nion,"
      Pesticide Science 4:69-76.  1973.

(39)  Personal communicacion.  "Cost Impact of Visual Inspections".
      J.H. Beard III to A.W. Lindsey, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste.
      November 29, 1979.

(40)  Personal communication.  T. Whitman, Systech, Inc., to T.
      Fields, USEPA/OSW, November 9,  1979, as recorded in unpublished
      memorandum, "Background Document:  Storage in Piles and Con-
      tainers".  J.H. Beard III to A.W. Lindsey, USEPA/OSW.  November
      26, 1979.

(41)  National Fire Protection Association.  NFPA 30.  Flammable and
      Combustible Code 1977.  Copies are available from NFPA, 470
      Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

(42)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Report to Congress—
      Disposal of Hazardous Wastes".   pp. 34-35.  Washington.  U.S.
      Government Printing Office.  1974.

                       REFERENCES (Continued)
(43)   Wolfe,  H.R. ,  e£ al.   Archives  of Environmental Health,  Volume
      3,  p.  531.   1961.

(44)   Energy Resources Co.,  Inc.   "Economic Impact Analysis of Haz-
      ardous  Waste  Managemenc Regulations  on Selected Generating
      Industries".   EPA Contract  No.  53-01-4319.   June 1979.

(45)   Personal communication.  B, Dixon,  Paper Shipping Sack  Insti-
      tute,  to J.H.  Beard  III,  USEPA,  Office of Solid Waste,  November
      28,  1979,  as  recorded  in unpublished memorandum entitled "Back-
      ground  Document for  Piles and  Containers:  Paper Sacks".  J.H.
      Beard  III to  A.W.  Lindsay,  USEPA/OSW.   November 30,  1979.

(46)   Leasure, J.K.,  Final Report on Pesticide Containers.   Illinois
      Institute for ZnvijTOarnancal Quality.  Cctober 1973.
(47)   Personal  communication.   T.  Meichtry,  IT  Corp.,,  co J.H.
      III,  USEPA/OSW,  November 20,  1979,  as  recorded in memorandum
      entitled  "Background Document:   Storage  in Piles  and  Contain-
      ers".  J.H.  Beard III to A.W.  Lindsay. USEPA/OSW.  November 25,

(43)   Memorandum entitled  "Surface  Area  sad  Volume  of  5-,  20-,  and
      55-Gallon Containers".   J.H.  Beard III to A.W. Lindsey.
      November  30,  1979.

(49)   "Evaluation of Emission  Control  Criteria, Hazardous  Waste Man-
      agement Facilities."  Unpublished  final  report for Office of
      Solid Waste,  USEPA,  under Contract Number 58-01-4645.   April
      1978, pgs. 464-469.

(50)   Personal  communication.   D.  Pascor,  Inter-Governmental Rela-
      tions Office,  Philadelphia,  to C.  Giansante,  EPA, Office  of
      Solid Waste.   October 30, 1979 (see Reference 6).

(51)   Personal  communication.   D.  Moon,  RES, Inc.,  to  J.H.  Beard III,
      USEPA/OSW, November  9,  1979,  as  recorded  in unpublished  memo-
      randum entitled "Background  Document:  Storage in Piles  and
      Containers".   J.H. Beard III  to  A.W. Lindsey, USEPA/OSW.
      November  20,  1979.

                       REFERENCES (Concluded)
(52)   Personal communication.  M. Sandersora,  Chemical Waste Manage-
      ment, Inc., to J.H. Beard III, USEPA/OSW, November 9,  1979,  as
      recorded in unpublished memorandum entitled "Background Docu-
      ment:  Storage in Piles and Containers".  J.K. Beard III to
      A.w*. Lindsey, USSPA/OSW.  November 26, 1979.

(53)   Personal communication.  J. McBride, Casmalia Disposal Site, to
      J.H. Beard III, USEPA/OSW, November 19,  1979, as recorded in
      unpublished memorandum entitled "Background Document:   Storage
      in Piles and Containers".  J.H. Beard III to A.W. Lindsey,
      USEPA/OSW.  November 26, 1979.