BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZAP.TOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PART 265
GENERAL COMMENTS ON STORAGE
SUBPART I - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR THE USE AND MANAGEMENT
OF CONTAINERS
SUBPART L - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR WASTE PILES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
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
III. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR STORAGE: "NO-DISCHARGE"
AND "CONTAINERIZATION" (250.44(a) and (b)) 19
•IV. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR STORAGE 250.44(c)-(j) AND
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
V. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT OF WASTES
IN PILES 60
A. Wind Dispersal 60
B. Waste Analysis 61
C. Containment 63
D. Ignitable and Reactive Wastes 65
E. Incompatible Wastes 66
VI. FINAL LANGUAGE, INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS 68
0 Subpart I - Use and Management of Containers 68
• Subpart L - Waste Piles 70
APPENDIX I: EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTE 73
REFERENCES 77
iii ~
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
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
1
-------
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
storage.
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-
waters."
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-
led.
[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
gases.
(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
storage.
[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
equipment.]
« "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
lagoons.
• "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.
-------
II. RATIONALE FOR REGULATION
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
10
-------
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
underway.^°'
(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
11
-------
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
site.(11,12)
(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
hazard.(6)
(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
materials.
12
-------
(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.
ilSIA^
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
city.
(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
areas.(18,19)
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.
13
-------
The proposed regulations were designed to eliminate problems of the
type discussed above.
To summarize, problems arise from storage of hazardous wastes
when:
(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
explosions
(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.
14
-------
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
(PCB's).
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
15
-------
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.
16
-------
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
regulations.
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-
lations.
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:
i
(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.
17
-------
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.
18
-------
III. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR
STORAGE: "NO-DISCHARGE" AND "CONTAINERIZATION"
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:
19
-------
"'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:
20
-------
- 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
waste
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
devices.
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-
lations
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:
21
-------
(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
22
-------
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
23
-------
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-
ment.
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:
24
-------
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.
25
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON STANDARDS FOR STORAGE IN
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.
26
-------
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
container.
D. Analysis of and Response to Gormen ts and Rationale for the Final
Regulations
(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
27
-------
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
28
-------
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
minimized.
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.
29
-------
(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.
30
-------
SUBJECT: EMPTY, NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONTAINERS
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-
tioner.
c. The containers could be reused with the same or compatible
wastes.
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
periods.
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:
31
-------
- 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
options
- the regulation is inconsistent with the landfilling regu-
lations, which allow full, noncombustible drums to be
buried
- 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-
site
— 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)):
32
-------
- 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
drums.
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
Regulations
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
33
-------
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
34
-------
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
materials.(36,37,38)
(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
35
-------
11
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
of.
(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
36
-------
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
37
-------
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-
erage.
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
38
-------
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.
39
-------
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
40
-------
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.
41
-------
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
immediately.
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
areas.
42
-------
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
deterioration.
SUBJECT: REPACKAGING OF LEAKING CONTAINERS
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.^ '
43
-------
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.
SUBJECT: PROHIBITION ON DAMAGING CONTAINERS
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.
SUBJECT: CONTAINERS MUST BE KEPT CLOSED
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
44
-------
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.
SUBJECT: IGNITA3LE A2;D REACTIVE WASTE IN CONTAINERS
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
45
-------
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
necessary.
46
-------
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
(§250.44-2(g)).
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
problems.
C. Comments Received on this Subject
a. The requirement is unnecessarily burdensome and expensive
because:
47
-------
- 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
trash
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
Regulations
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
48
-------
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
49
-------
bags (paper and plastic, and residue) are also exempted from these
regulations.
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
50
-------
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.
SUBJECT: REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION
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
environment.
51
-------
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
management.
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
exempted,
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
£l
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.
52
-------
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.
53
-------
(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
54
-------
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
55
-------
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
others.
""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
56
-------
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
Agency.
C. Summary of Interim Status Regulations
No exemptions were made to the final regulations covering con-
tainers, piles, or other 3ar.agerr.er.t as a result of these conrr.ants.
SUBJECT: QUANTITY LIMITATIONS
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
57
-------
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
58
-------
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.
59
-------
V. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN PILES
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).
60
-------
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
61
-------
which could conceivably be placed in piles. If no incompatible
wastes are received which can be piled, then the regulation does not
apply.
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.
62
-------
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
States.
63
-------
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
managed.as 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
64
-------
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.
65
-------
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.
66
-------
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.
67
-------
VI. FINAL LANGUAGE, INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS
SUBPART I - USE AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS
§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
68
-------
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
with.
(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.
69
-------
[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
70
-------
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
either:
(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
Part.
71
-------
§§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,
unless:
(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 Sequirsr.sr.ts for Incompatible Wastes [Interim
Final]
(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]
72
-------
APPENDIX I
EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
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
73
-------
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
Solvents
Waste oil and other flammable
and explosive wastes
Potential consequences: Release of toxic substances in case of
fire or explosion.
74
-------
Group 3-A Group 3-B
Aluminum Any waste in Groups 1-A or 1-B
Beryllium
Calcium
Lithium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
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
Calcium
Lithium
Metal hydrides
Potassium
Sodium
SO^CLr,, 5GCL0, ?CL_j Cri»SiCl«3
and other water-reactive
wastes
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
solvents
Unsaturated hydrocarbons
Potential consequences: Fire, explosion, or violent reaction.
75
-------
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
Permanganates
Peroxides
Potential consequences: Fire, explosion, or violent reaction.
Source: "Law, Regulations, and Guidelines for Handling of Hazardous
" California Department of Health, February 1975.
76
-------
REFERENCES
(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) Giansar.ee, 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.
77
-------
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
-•i
(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
Tanks".
78
-------
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.
79
-------
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
1974.
(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.
80
-------
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,
1979.
(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.
81
-------
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.
82
------- |