24401-41
•530L
'&? - BACKGROUND DOCUME.NT
'
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES UNDER RCRA, SUBTITLE C, SECTION 3004
General Comments on Storage
(40 CFR 264 and 265. Subpart I, Standards for Use and Management
of Containers; Subpart L, Standards for Waste Piles)
/o
K This document (ms. 1941.32) provides background information
pS and support for EPA's hazardous waste regulations
0
Repository Material
Penitent Collection
OCT !
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
EJBD 202-566-0556
ARCHIVE
EPA
530-
Jr U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
December 30, 1980 "
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................... 1
Organization ............. ...... ?
Key Definitions .................. 6
II. RATIONALE FOR REGULATION ............. 10
A. Statutory Authority ............. 1O
B. Damage Cases .............. ... 10
C. Basis for the Regulation; Other Federal
and State Regulations ........... 1^
III. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR STORAGE: "NO-
DISCHARGE" AND " CONTAINERS ATION" (250. 44 (a)
and (b)) .................... 71
IV. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED REGULA-
TIONS AND RATIONALE FOR THE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR CONTAINERS ............ 23
A. Compatibility ................ ?.a
B. Empty Non-combustible Containers ....... "33
C. Inspections . ................ 47
D. Leaking Containers .............. 4ft
E. Prohibition on Damaging Containers ...... 4"?
F. Containers Must Be Kept Closed ........ 4«
G. Ignitable and Reactive Wasx.es ........ 4R
H. Paper Bags .................. SO
I. Requests for Exemptions ........... 54
J. Quantity Limitations ............. 60
K. Ground-Water Monitoring . .......... ft 3
L. Primary Containment ............. 6^
M. Storage of Volatile Wastes .......... ft*7
N. Recordkeeping for Storage .......... 63
-------
V. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT OF
WASTES IN PILES
A . Wind Dispersal ................ f><*
B. Waste Analysis ........... ..... 7O
C . Containment. ................. 72
D. Ignitable and Reactive Wastes . ....... 7*
E. Incompatible Wastes ............. 76
VI. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM FINAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
FOR CONTAINERS .................. 7fl
VII. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM FINAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
FOR WASTE PILES. ................. R?.
VIII. RATIONALE FOR THE GENERAL REGULATIONS AND
CHANGES FROM THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
FOR CONTAINERS .................. RR
A. Applicability ..... ............ RR
B. Containment ................. «<*
C. Compatibility ................ 100
D. Closure ................... 103
IX. RATIONALE FOR THE GENERAL STANDARDS AND
CHANGES FROM THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
FOR WASTE PILES ..................
A. Applicability ................ 10 ^
B. General Design Requirements ......... 105
C. General Operating Requirements ........ 107
D. Containment Systems ............. lOQ
E. Inspections and Testing ..... . ..... 115
F. Contingency System Repairs;
Contingency System Plans ........... 117
G. Closure ..... ...... ........ 121
H. Waste Analysis ............... .
-------
X. PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR INTERIM
STATUS 'AND GENERAL STANDARDS
XI. REGULATORY LANGUAGE ............. • . . . . 128
A. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
SUBPART I, USE AND MANAGEMENT
OF CONTAINERS . . ............... 123
B. GENERAL STANDARDS
SUBPART I, USE AMD MANAGEMENT
OF CONTAINERS
SUBPART L, WASTE PILES.
C. PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR WASTE PILES
PART 265 PART 264 .............. 147
Appendix I: Examples of Potentially Incompatible Wastes. 14q
References ........................ 153
-------
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 EPVs initial efforts to control
hazardous wastes from the point of generation, through transnor-
tation, treatment, and storage, to the point o^ ultimate Disposal.
This document, and the others in this series, attemnt to
explain why the regulations were developed and why they have come
to be written the way they are. In so doing, KPA. addresses:
(a) the Congressional mandate for regulation, (b) the need for
the regulation based on threats and impacts to human health and
the environment, (c) precedents set by state and other Federal
regulations and, perhaps most importantly, (d) analysis of and
response to the many comments received on the proposed version o^
these regulations, which were published in the Federal Register
on December 18, 197R, and (e) analysis of and response to the
comments received on the regulations promulgated on an interim
status basis on May 19, 19RO.
This background document is limited in scope to containers
and piles and to issues concerning storage in general. Wastes
are commonly stored and transported in containers and stored
and treated in piles. Special requirements for transportation
of containers are included in Part 261. Wastes containing no
liquids can be disposed in containers but, under these regulations,
only in accordance with the landfill requirements of ^ubpart M.
Disposal in piles (as opposed to storage or treatment) must also
-------
meet the landfill requirements of Subpart N. Treatment can be,
but is not often, carried out in piles. Since disposal in piles
and in containers is covered by the landfill regulations, 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 piles.
The proposed regulations allowed storage only in tanks and
containers. This flowed from the Agency's no-discharge view of
storage. The Agency has reevaluated its view of storage, and the
current regulations 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 regulations for specific devices and
facilities, and the section labeled "storage" has been deleted.
Comments on the proposed storage regulations are still relevant
to the interim status regulations, of course, and are addressed
here. The Agency has also recognized that treatment may occa-
sionally be conducted in piles although the regulations of piles
and containers are focused on storage.
Organization
This document first discusses definitions which are important
to the regulations and then turns, in Section II, to the rationale
for regulating waste management in containers and piles. In
this regard, it does not so much explore why the regulations
are written as they are, but rather it supports the need to
regulate these practices at will. In making its case the Agency
invokes statutory mandate and Congressional intent, environmental
- 2 -
-------
and human "health benefits to be gained, and the experiences
and regulatory precedents of State and other Federal Acrencies.
In Section III, the Agency discusses a perennial issue which
extends beyond specific regulation of containers and piles. The
difference in interpretation and control strategies for "storage"
facilities and "disposal" facilities affects nearly all kinds of
facilities (e.g., tanks, landfills, surface impoundments etc.).
Many comments were received on the issue as a result of the pro-
posed regulations of December, 197R. The resolution of this
issue is discussed there and referenced in other Background HOCU-
ments.
Sections IV and V discusses those standards which were promul-
gated in May of 1980, which are applicable during the interin
status period, i. e., during that period between the effective
date of the regulations and the receipt of a permit bv a parti-
cular facility. This section includes an analysis of the comments
received on the December, 197q proposed regulations which are
relevant to the interim status standards and a rationale for
why the interim status regulation came to be promulgated, in form
and substance as they did in May 1980.
In general, the Agency has promulgated 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 larqe capital expenditures for items
which require approval as part of the permitting
process
- 3 -
-------
(c) can be implemented directly by the requlated 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 standards proposed in necember
1978 so that the variance procedures ("notes" in the proposed
regulations) do not require interaction with the Agency. The
Agency believes that a number of the desirable technical criteria
for design and contruction of container storage facilities and
facilities storing in piles cannot properly be implemented durinq
interim status. The costs of upgrading these facilities nav 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 ^or storaqe,
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.
Many of the interim status standards were promulgated in
May, 1980 on an interim final basis. This means that although
the promulgated regulations become effective in due course
(November of 1980), the Agency accepted comments for a specified
period, and might, as a result of these comments, alter the
interim status requirements. This approach to nromulgation
was used primarily in cases where the Agency made extensive
-------
changes to regulatory provisions as a result of public comment
on the December, 1978 proposed regulations. In this way the
general public is being afforded the opportunity to concur
or object to the changes made.
Essentially all of the interim status standards for piles
were promulgated in May, 1980 as interim final regulations
because analagous standards were not proposed for piles in
December, 1978. Only §265.176 of the container regulations was
promulgated on an interim status basis. The comments received
on these regulations and the changes made as a result are analyzed
in Sections VI and VII of this document for containers and piles
respectively. However, the interim status standards will not
be finalized at this time, so no changes will be made to
them presently. In some cases, the Agency plans to make amend-
ments to the interim status regulations so that they will be
similar to their Part 264 counterparts, and this is indicated in
Chapters VIII and IX on the general standards.
Many of the general standards upon which permits will be
granted were not promulgated in May 1980. These regulations are
incorporated in Part 264 of the Code of Federal Regulations and
are discussed in Sections VIII and IX of this document for con-
tainers and piles respectively. Many of the general standards
are identical to those promulgated as interim status standards
in May, 1980. The analysis of tl\e comments and rationale for
these requirements is the same as for the interim status analogs
and the appropriate discussions are simply referenced in Sections
VIII and IX. For the remaining general standards (e.g., those
-------
without an interim status analog), an analysis of the relevant
comments received on the proposed regulations of December, 1973
is included.
The general standards are being promulgated on an interim
final basis and the public will therefore have sixty days to
submit comments on the regulations.
The interim status and general regulatory language for both
container management and piles may be found at the back of the
document. Also at the end, the Agency has included examples of
waste types which are often incompatible with each other. This
same list of examples is included in the regulations.
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
hazardous 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,
injection, 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 haz-
ardous or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or dis-
charged into any waters, including groundwaters."
2. Regulatory Definitions
The following terms, which are defined in Part 261, are also
key to this area of regulation:
o "Containers" means any portable device in which a material
is stored, transported, treated, disposed of or otherwise
handled.
- 6 -
-------
[Comment: The portability'of containers is the primary
distinguishing characteristic which separates
containers from tanks.1
o "Incompatible waste" means a hzardous waste which is
unsuitable for:
(i) Placement in a particular device or facility because
it may cause corrosion or decay of containment materials
(e.g., container inner liners or tank walls); or
(ii) Commingling with another waste or material under uncon-
trolled conditions because the commingling might pro-
duce 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 (December 1^7ft) in two ways.
First, the phrase "under uncontrolled conditions"
has been added, in response to comments, to make
it clear that wastes 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
may, 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 document. "I
-------
o "Pile" means any non-containerized accumulation of solid,
non-flowing hazardous waste that is used for treatment or
storage.
rComment: This definition has been included as a result
of the decision to allow hazardous wastes
to be stored in other than tanks and con-
tainers. 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."!
o "Storage means the holding of hazardous waste for a
temporary period, at the end of which the hazardous waste
is treated, disposed of, or stored elsewhere.
[Comment: This definition expands and clarifies the
definition in the Act. It makes clear that
the difference between storage and disposal
is one of intent to remove the waste after
a limited time, rather than any difference
in facilities and equipment.!
o "Surface impoundment" or "impoundment" means a facilitv
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 materials), which is designed to hold
an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes containing
-------
free liquids, and which is not an injection well.
Examples, of surface impoundments are holding, storaae,
settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons.
o "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 in the proposed regulations
(December 1978) have been removed from the final Part 260
regulations: storage facility, empty container, and triple r
Either these terms are no longer used or the Agency has con-
cluded 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
terras may be defined in later promulgations if it becomes nec-
essary.
-------
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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations establish-
ing performance 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, techniques, and practices as may be satis-
factory to the Administrator" ;
"(4) the location, design, and construction of such hazardous
waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities."
To comply with this mandate, therefore, it is necessarv to
establish regulations that will assure that human health and the
environment are protected from the potential adverse effects o^
storing hazardous waste.
B. Damage Cases
EPA has received numerous reports of health and environmental
damage caused by improper storage of hazardous wastes. ''he
following summarize some of the more graphic cases :
1. General Storage
(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 heavv 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
- 10 -
-------
to spread through the system to all the tanks. The tanks were
"being renovated by a contractor at the time of the fire. The
cause of the explosion is suspected to be improper welding, a
lighted cigarette, or some other worker-related incident. Six
workmen were killed and 30 others injured. 'i,2)
(b) On at least two occasions, waste storage lagoons have
broken, spilling large volumes of wastes into the Allegheny
River in Pennsylvania. On one occasion in 1968, a waste refin-
ing 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 bottom 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.(3)
(c) Lagooned wastes from a company in Nockamixon Township,
Pennsylvania, had been the source of groundwater, stream, and
soil contamination. The company, which was in operation from
1965 to 1969, bought industrial wastes from other plants,
extracted copper, and stored the rest of the toxic liquids in
lagoons. 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 injuction was issued requir-
ing the wastes to be treated, the company defaulted, leaving
3-1/2 million gallons of toxic wastes on the site. Heavy rains,
in April 1970, caused the lagoon to overflow and spill the
hazardous wastes (e.g., acids) into the creek, which is a tribu-
tary 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 neutralized and ocean-dumped in 1971. '3)
(d) An open gate valve in a retention lagoon at a chemical
company 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. (3)
(e) A U.S. Army arsenal, 10-miles northest of Denver,
produced chemical intermediates, toxic items, and munitions during
WWII. Portions of the arsenal were leased to a pesticide manu-
facturer 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, 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
- 11 -
-------
in 1966, when a correlation with earthquakes in the Denver area
was shown. Groundwater sampling in the mid-1950's showed
widespread contamination from sodium, chloride, and chlorate.
In 1974, DIMP (diisopropylmethyl prosp"honate) from GV manu-
facture and DCPD (dicyclopentadiene) from pesticide operations
were discovered in both on-post and off-post shallow wells-
No adverse health effects or crop damage have been found from
the DIMP and DCPD. Thirty-three other compounds, including
DBCP (dibromochloropropane) 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. '4'
(f) 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 building where
"shop" activities (i.e., repair work) were performed, 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 else-
where. Pesticides have been found at high levels in the
groundwater at approximately 7 feet, and the top 6 to 12 inches
of soil in the creek are heavily contaminated. v5,6) While the
materials stored were products, not wastes, in this case, the
result would have been the same had they been waste materials.
(g) 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 storm sewers and nearby surface
streams. The freezing and thawing cycles were thought to be
accelerating decomposition of the drums.(7)
(h) On July 4, 1980, a fire was caused by stored chemical
wastes on the property of an industrial paint manufacturing
company in Carlstadt New Jersey. Toxic fumes resulting from
the fire spread over Carlstadt. (54)
2. Mismanagement of Containers
(a) 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, wrapping around a
steel guard post. The employee received thermal and possible
chemical burns to both feet. The exothermic reaction that caused
- 12 -
-------
the drum to rupture was probably a combination of cyanoathylation
and polymerization as a result of mixing of the wastes. '^, 1®'
(b) 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-liner (55-gallon) steel drums and 190-liter (50-gallon)
fiber drums. The wastes brought 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
addition 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 resented other
problems. In March of 1976, a fire broke out at the site and
two firefighters became ill, presumably because they inhaled
toxic fumes. (9,10)
(c) A firm engaged in the disposal of spent chemicals was
storing 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. (!)
(d) Officials found 1,500 steel drums of various hazardous
wastes, some leaking chemicals, stored in the open just out-
side the city limits in Travis County, Texas. This site is
located within the recharge zone of an aquifer which supplies
water for domestic and stock-watering purposes. At a later
date, investigators found another 3,000 barrels of wastes stored
in West Travis County. The wastes included acids, heavy metals,
volatile liquids, waste oil, and other toxic and corrosive
substances. The eight industries that contracted with the
"disposal" company to legally dispose of the wastes have agreed
to repay the State for removing the waste to a solid waste dis-
posal site. (12f 13)
(e) In Elizabeth, New Jersey, a hazardous waste incinerator
closed in early 1979, leaving behind 40,000 rusting and leakinq
drums at the facility on the property of the Chemical Control
Corp. Police complained of nausea and weakness from nitric acid
leaking from deteriorating drums. EPA inspectors found many of
the drums corroding and deteriorating. Many of the drums were
perched on a drainage canal bank; others were sitting on the
curb. Rainfall runoff was polluting the canal. (14f15)
In April 1980, after the facility was closed by State authorities,
- 13 -
-------
the site erupted in a spectacular explosion and fire which spread
possibly noxious fumes across the citv. Presently some of
the drums are leaking wastes into an adjacent stream and even-
tually into the Hudson River. A clean up effort is currently
underway, encompassing the removal of the containers and of
the contaminated topsoil (54).
(f) In 1976, a hazardous waste incinerator operator in
Shakopee, Minnesota, was forced to close by countv officials
due to numerous pollution control code violations. Approximately
1-1/2 million gallons of wastes were left in deteriorating drums.
The air was reported tainted with fumes.*16' In 1973, the same
facility suffered a manor fire in its drum storage area, which
took hours to bring under control. Toxic fumes were spread
over wide areas. (I6,17)
(g) On July 4, 1980, a fire was caused by stored chemical
wastes on the property of an industrial paint manufacturing
company in Carlstadt New Jersey. Toxic fumes resulting from
the fire spread over Carlstadt.'54)
(h) Drums containing hazardous wastes at a chemical disposal
plant in Perth Amboy, >7ew Jersey violently exploded on July 7,
1980. The resulting fire gutted seven buildings and sixteen
businesses in an industrial park.v"54'
3. Piles
(a) A manufacturer of agricultural harbicides in Oconto
County, Wisconsin, produced salt wastes containinq 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 <>0,noo
tons. Arsenic concentrations of up to 6,000 ppm were found in
groundwater and concentrations of 200 ppm in the river sediments
just offshore. The groundwater contamination extended to a
depth of 40 feet. In the latter part of 1978, the last of the
waste was trucked away to a disposal site. (1R, iq'
(b) Since 1867, asbestos product manufacturers have accumu-
lated 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 erosion. 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 ng/m3 was found at a play-
ground near the largest waste pile. Values obtained near
active disposal piles range from 114 to 1.745 ng/m3. A high
pH level in a nearby stream 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) closure plan
- 14 -
-------
includes halting additions to the piles, stabilizing the piles,
reducing erosion and runoff by planting vegetation on the piles,
and fencing them off. The State is confident that the piles
now present no human health hazard. (3)
(c) Construction workers building a shopping center in
Torrington, Connecticut in 1979 uncovered a major asbestos dumping
ground on a site formerly occupied by the Fitzgerald Gasket
Company. Unprotected workers were exposed to asbestos dust.
The problem was remedied and construction of the shopping center
resumed (20)
(d) In Globe, Arizona there are presently four abandoned
asbestos mills containing large guantities of asbestos dust.
These mills are not closed and thus, are easily accessible. In
addition, asbestos tailings were leveled on the site of one
closed mill, and the area subdivided. The State is currently
evacuating persons residing in the area, demolishing the mills,
and covering the subdivision with a layer of soil in order to
lessen the asbestos exposure (21)
(e) A major chemical company had been piling large guantities
of chromium ore residues on its own property since lc>74.
Contamination of groundwater due to leaching into the soil is
probable (22).
These damage incidents illustrate how human health and the
environment can be affected by improper storage of hazardous
waste. Unless the storage of hazardous wastes is strictly regu-
lated, the nation can expect similar damage incidents to continue.
C. Basis for the Regulation
It is clear from the language of RCRA that Congress intended
the Agency to write regulations to control storage of hazardous
wastes. The review of past damages, above, confirms the wisdom
of Congress. The proposed regulations were (December lQ^q^ were
designed to eliminate problems of the type discussed above.
To summarize, problems arise from storage o^ hazardous
wastes when:
(a) ignitable or reactive wastes explode or catch fire,
exposing 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
- 15 -
-------
(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
groundwater 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
(primarily 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 frequently used as de facto disposal devices without
any real safegauards. Often they are simply abandoned. The
ultimate result is often groundwater and surface water pollution,
poisoning or chemical burns to animals or children from direct
contact, and destruction of vegetation from air emissions.
Containers (bags, jugs, drums, cans, etc.) are used not
only to store hazardous wastes, but also to ship millions of.
tons of products, 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
(§261.33(c)).
- 16 -
-------
In addition to RCRA, Congress previously recoqnized problems
with specific hazardous wastes when they passed the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the ^oxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under these Acts, EPA developed
recommended procedures for storage and disposal of pesticides
and pesticide containers, and regulations controlling storage
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's).
Many states also have recognized the human health and
environmental threats posed by "empty" containers and by waste
storage container areas. A number of states have developed or
are developing regulations covering storage in containers and
empty containers.
In developing these regulations, the Agency reviewed these
Federal and state regulations and operating guidelines. This
review was instrumental in identifying regulatory ontions and
alternatives, which were then further evaluated by EPA. Addi-
tionally, 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 (23) — These recommended
procedures were developed to implement Section I°> 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 operating
container storage areas are also included. Some of the nrincinles
in EPA's regulations for segregating wastes v/ere developed in
these procedures.
- 17 -
-------
(b) EPA Regulations for Polychlorinated Biphenyls
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 desian
of storage facilities, for routine inspection, for control of
container leakage, and requirements for spill prevention con-
trol and countermeasure plans (SPCC) . These PCB standards
presented precedents and alternatives which the Agency used
in developing these regulations.
(c) Minnesota Hazardous Waste Regulations (?•*») — In regula-
tions recently promulgated, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency developed comprehensive storage regulations for hazardous
wastes. Many are directly analogous to these regulations. Thev
include requirements that containers be closed during storage
except during filling and emptying, that the containers be
compatible with the waste with which it comes in contact, that
storage containers of incompatible wastes must be segregated,
and that containers must be regularly inspected to determine if
any leaks have occurred.
(d) Washington Hazardous Waste Regulations - — in its
regulations, 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.
(e) Texas Technical Guidelines for Noncompatible Wastes
(27) — These guidelines develop basic guidance for managing incom-
patible wastes and provide alternative regulatory approaches,
which were considered during development of these regulations.
( f ) California Hazardous Waste Regulations
California hazardous waste regulatory program was the first
substantive program in the United States . Including recentlv
proposed regulations, the California program is verv comprehen
sive and has served as a model for other states and, indeed,
for parts of the present regulations. California's storaae
containers containing incompatible wastes and a prohibition
on adding wastes to unwashed containers. Both are concepts
that have been further developed and incorporated into these
regulations. The Agency also found regulations promulgated
by California (29) for use(j pesticide containers to be help-
ful in developing the present regulations.
(g) South Carolina Regulations (27) — South Carolina's
pesticide container storage and disposal regulations contain
requirements similar to these regulations. South Carolina's
draft Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (31) include the
following proposed standards for storage (31) in containers.
They propose that:
- 1R -
-------
(a) Storage containers must be covered
(b) if a container is not in good condition, the
hazardous waste must be recontainerized
(c) containers must be separated or protected from
each other if they contain incompatible wastes
(d) a container must be compatible with the wastes in
them
(e) a container may not be refilled with incompatible
waste unless it has been washed.
South Carolina also recognizes the hazardous nature of con-
tainers that contained hazardous residues. They have proposed
that these containers be treated to render them nonhazardous;
if not, they must be disposed of as a hazardous waste.
(h) Oregon Regulations—Oregon's pesticide regulations
require triple rinsing (See §261.33(c)) as a decontamination
technique.(32) Oregon's Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
(33) require that hazardous waste be adequately contained to
minimize the possibility of spills or other means of escape to
the environment.
(i) Louisiana Hazardous Waste Management Rules and Regula-
tions (34)—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.
(j) Tennessee Draft Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
(35)—These regulations propose that incompatible wastes should
not be stored in common containers and that wastes should be
compact.
(k) Wyoming Solid Waste Management Rule—These rules require
that all hazardous waste sites, including storage areas for
containers, be designed, located and operated in such a manner
that there will be no hydraulic surface or subsurface connection
between flowing or standing water and to contain any runoff
from accidental spills at the site. (36)
(1) New York Regulations on Bulk Storage of Hazardous
Materials—These regulations require that every site where haz-
ardous materials are stored shall be entirely surrounded by a
continuous dike or wall capable of containing the total volume
of the largest storage unit holding a stored liquid hazardous
material. The construction and composition of such dike or
wall shall be such as to prevent the escape or movement of a
stored liquid hazardous material from the site. (37^39)
- 19 -
-------
(m) Iowa Solid Waste Disposal Rules—The requirements are
that storage facilities:
1) shall have a smooth, impervious, easily cleaned
base;
2) shall provide leachate collection;
3) shall prevent runoff entering the facility from
adjacent areas. (38)
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
procedures 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.
- 20 -
-------
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
previously, this section discussed principally the comments
received on the Agency's interpretation of the definitions of
storage and disposal.
A. Summary of the Proposed Regulation
The proposed regulationsrequired that hazardous waste be
stored in either a storage tank or a storage container
(§250.44(a)), and that the storage prevent all discharaes and
emissions of wastes and waste constituents into the environment
(§250.44(b)). Although only the "no-discharqe" 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 Recoverv Act of 1976 (RCRA)
defines "storage" to mean the "... containment of hazardous
waste, either on a temporary basis or for a period of vears,
in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such haz-
ardous waste" (Section 1004(33)). "Disposal" is defined in
RCRA as follows:
'"Disposal1 means the discharge, deposit, infection, 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 anv
waters, including groundwater." (Section 1004(3)).
In its proposed regulations ($250.44(b)), EPA interpreted
these definitions as prohibiting the discharge of hazardous
- 21 -
-------
wast.es from storage facilities. Therefore, the proposed regula-
tions (§250.44(a)) limited storage of hazardous waste to tanks
or storage containers, the only types of storage devices that
are normally enclosed to eliminate air emissions, and also
built of sufficiently impermeable materials to prevent seepage
of wastes into groundwater.
C. Comments Received on These Subjects
EPA 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
technically 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 affects on
health and the environment from storage, treatment,
and disposal of hazardous waste. The standard should
focus on the "contamination" of the air or water.
- a proper interpretation of the Act
b. Two alternative performance standards for storage
facilities were proposed:
- the potential for discharge should be minimized
- no detrimental (or significant) discharge should
occur
The following comments were submitted on EPA's proposal that
wastes be stored only in tanks and containers:
a. The requirement that all waste must be stored in storage
tanks and containers is overly restrictive because:
- hazardous waste may be stored in other environ-
mentally sound manners
- 22 -
-------
- bulk solid or semi-solid waste may not be conducive
to containerization because of the nature or
volume of the waste
b. Flexible standards should be written for each storage
technique (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 Rationale for
Regulations
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. Difficulties inherent in the interpretation of storaae
in the proposed regulations can be summarized as follows:
(a) Storage in lagoons, basins, piles, and open tanks
apparently 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. (40)
(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 .
- 23 -
-------
The Agency has re-evaluated its interpretation of the
definitions of "storaqe" and "disposal" and the regulations that
result from this interpretation. The Agency has determiner' that
the central factor that separates storage ^rom disposal is that
storage is "containment . . . either on a temporarv basis or
a period of years." The Agency has decided, therefore, that
the proper focus for regulation of storage facilities is to
ensure that human health and the environment are protected
during storage facility site life, and that owners and opera-
tors of the storage facility provide financial responsibility
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
"storage" and "disposal", i.e., whether the waste and its haz-
ardous residuals are to be removed at some point. And from
the standpoint of regulatory strategy, this is the question
of most interest. There is no inherent reason, for example,
why wastes should not be stored or disposed in a surface impound-
ment—the technical requirements to protect 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 storaqe facilitv,
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 finan-
cial assurance will be necessary, since the post-closure require-
ments do not apply; and (3) require a facility design (liners,
- 24 -
-------
etc.) sufficient 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 post-closure care because protection of
human health and the environment must extend well beyond closure.
In summary, the essential difference between "storage"
and "disposal" is in the intent of the operator to remove the
wastes at closure, rather than in whether there are any dis-
charges .
The Agency disagrees, however, with the suggestion that
"no discharge" of waste liquids to the land or water is not
possible, vjhile it may be theoretically true that "every-
thing 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 detectable without highly
sophisticated equipment, unless the integrity of the structure
has been breached. The purpose of the regulations is to detect
leakage from the storage structure as a result of damaqe to
it, not seepage through relatively impermeable materials. Any
significant leachate or liquid waste leakage into the surround-
ing soil consitutes a failure of the storage device and may
pose a potential threat to groundwater and surface water supplies.
Thus, standards for containers and tanks focus on the prevention
of leaks and require remedial actions following leak detection.
- 25 -
-------
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 surround-
ing environment.
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 sane, whether
it is used for storage, treatment, or disposal. (The one
exception involves those few requirements which are necessary
for post-closure groundwater 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 modification 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 interim status storage
regulations:
a. allow storage in containers, piles,tanks (open or
closed), and surface impoundments, and
b. do not contain a special section (formerly $250.44)
on storage. Any special requirements applicable to
storage in specific types of facilities ftanks, piles,
impoundments, etc.) are not included within the regula-
tions covering specific devices (tanks, imooundments,
etc.)
This document deals summarily with those comments and issues
which are relevant to the interim status and general standards
for containers and piles. However, some of the comments relate
- 26 -
-------
to the proposed (December, 197Q) regulatory section of qeneral
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. They are discussed
in this background document.
- 27 -
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED REGULAR IOWR AND
RATIONALE FOR THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR COMTMMERS
This section discusses the comments received on the con-
tainer regulation (§2*50.4-4-2) proposed in December, 1^78, where
they relate to the interim status standards promulgated in
May, 1980 comments are also discussed on the proposed storaae
standards (§250.44) where they are relevant to May, 19RO pro-
mulgation of the container interim status regulations. Rationale
for the regulations promulgated in May, 1930 is included.
A. SUBJECT: COMPATIBILITY
1. Summary of Proposed Regulations
The proposed regulations (December, 1Q78) required that
storage tanks and containers or their liners be compatible with
the waste to be contained (§2R0.44(h)) and that the incompatible
wastes be physically separated (§25O.44-?(d). Additionally,
the proposed regulations prohibited placincr hazardous waste
into an unwashed storage tank or container that previously held
an incompatible waste (§250.44(1)).
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulations
Reactions between incompatible substances may produce poten-
tially hazardous conditions, such as heat generation, fires,
explosions, or the release of toxic substances (see Part
(2), Section II B (Damage Cases) for examples of this type
of incident). If such reactions 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 reaula-
- 28 -
-------
tions was to prevent this type of damage by preventing hazardous
waste from coining in contact with container construction materials
or other wastes with which it is incompatible. Appendix I,
attached, gives examples of incompatible wastes.
3. 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 anv unwashed
container, 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.
4. Analysis of and Response to Comments 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 removina the
last drops and, in any event, waste adheres to the walls o^ 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 con-
tainer; hence, the need to wash the tank or container before
placing another waste in it if the "new" waste is compatible
with the original waste.
- 29 -
-------
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 violent, especially for the more concentrated
acids and bases. There are also other potential reactions
between incompatible wastes which should be considered. An
incident occurred in California when hot chromic acid waste
was inadvertently added to a drum containing methylene chloride
waste from degreasing operations. The workshop was snraved
with chemicals following a violent eruption. (R) In a similar
incident, a violent exothermic reaction occurred during the
transfer of vinyl cyanide waste to a supposedly enpty drum ^p^
Therefore, compatibility of the container or tank construction
material with both types of wastes does not make mixing them
in the same container safe. If, however, the ensuing reactions
are within the limits specified in the general requirements
for ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes f$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 (PVfM is softened
by methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)'. Such reactions could cause
/
accelerated deterioration of a container, leading to release
of its contents (leaking). Therefore, the compatibility require-
ments 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 con-
- 30 -
-------
tainer compatibility requirements to provide that wastes stored
in containers must be either constructed of or lined with
materials which are compatible with the waste. This addition
recognizes that it is the material which comes into contact
with the waste which is important in determining compatibility.
Thus, plastic-lined steel containers, a common design, are
acceptable for a variety of wastes which are compatible with
the plastic, but not the steel. In such cases, the plastic
liner must be capable of containing the waste such that con-
tact will not take place between the steel liner and the waste.
(2) Workers May Add Incompatible Wastes
The training programs mandated by $265.16 are designed,
among other things, to teach the facility personnel which wastes
may be incompatible, and familiarize them with the precautions
on mixing incompatible wastes. If owners and operators carrv
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 it 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 reguire that
all containers be washed between each use. The Agency expects
that owners and operators will institute some means of identi^v-
ing the previous contents of empty containers, such as labels,
- 31 -
-------
records, segregated storage, or tests, if empty containers
are not routinely washed.
( 3) Separation of Incompatible Waste
Since leakage of containers could cause incompatible waste to
commingle in storage areas, the Agency is requiring that con-
tainers with incompatible wastes be separated from one another
by sufficient 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 sufficiently, leaking wastes will
not commingle. This relatively inexpensive precautionary 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.
5. Summary of Interim Status Regulation f &S265 .17?,
265 .177T
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 dele-
terious reaction as described in $265.17(b). They may be mixed
under controlled conditions as a treatment process. Residues
must be washed from containers 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 thev
might react .
- 32-
-------
6. Interim Status Language
§265.172 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.
§265.177 Special Requirements for Incompatible Wastes
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and
materials (see Appendix V for examples), nust not
be placed in the same container, unless ^26S.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 pro-
tected from them by means of a dike, berm, wall,
or other device.
[Comment: The purpose of this is to prevent fires, explo-
sions, 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.T
B. SUBJECT: EMPTY, NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONTAINERS
1. Summary of the Proposed Regulation
The proposed regulation (§250.44-2(f)) authorized three
options for managing of emptied, noncombustible containers which
- 33 -
-------
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 permitted drum
reconditioner.
c. The containers could be reused with the same
or compatible wastes.
2. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
The emphasis of most of these regulations was clearIv on
protecting public health and the environment. However, Section
1003 of the Act indicates that one of the objectives of the
Act is "to conserve valuable material and energy resources."
In this regulation, the Agency attempted to implement Congress'
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 the
volume of hazardous waste that must be placed in the ground
where they remain potentially hazardous for long periods.
3. Comments Received on this Subject
a. EPA should allow noncombustible containers, like
combustible containers (§250.44-2(e)), to be
disposed of in a landfill which meets the
requirements of proposed $250.452 because:
- the disposal of noncombustible storage con-
tainers in an aporoved landfill can protect
human health and the environment to at -least
the same degree as the three authorized
options
- landfill disposal may provide a qreater degree
of protection, since it eliminates the multiple
rehandling of the containers that characterizes
the three authorized options
- 34 -
-------
the regulation is inconsistent with the land-
filling regulations, which allow full, non-
combustible drums to be buried
recovering or reusing containers mav be
uneconomical and/or environmentally more
dangerous than disposing of them because
of a number of factors, which include:
— distance of the drum source from a dis-
posal site
— distance of the drum source from a
drum reconditioner
— cost of setting up a permitted cleaning
facility on-site
— cost of shipping empties
difficulty of cleaning drums
recycling drums may be impossible where
the drum shows evidence of damaqe 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 Section 4004
are not subject to control under Subtitle C.
Therefore, the proposed Section 250.44-2( fM U ,
which requires that drums which have been
cleaned be sent to a drum reconditioner or
to a recovery facility, should be modified
by eliminating Subparts (i) and (ii)
c. Regarding the option authorizing a container to
be transported to a permitted drum reconditioner,
with appropriate manifest (proposed $250.44-2(f)
(2)):
- the requirement that the drum reconditioner
be permitted is inconsistent with the Aqency'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
- 35 -
-------
control under Subtitle C. Thus, the drum
reconditioninq facility is not a "hazardous
waste facility and does not need a permit.
d. The regulations should clarify whether oartially
or nearly empty drums are considered to be empty
drums.
e. EPA should allow methods other than triple rinsinq
to decontaminate empty and partially emntv drums/
since triple rinsing 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 container should be exempted
from these regulations.
g. Plastic containers are omitted from the regulations
Often they can be cleaned and reused.
4. 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 ha-
ardous wastes, under Part 261 of these regulations, if they
are discarded. They then must be manaqed as hazardous wastes .
The following discussion states the Agency's response to the
individual comments.
(1) Landfiiling of Noncombustible Containers Should Re
Allowed (Comment a)
Although the proposed regulation was in part intended to
protect human health and the environment from hazards pose^ by
contaminated containers, it was also partly intended to implement
one of the objectives of Section 1003 of RCRA — to promote the
recycling and recovery of material and energy resources. The
Agency has reconsidered its position/ in light of the comments
- 36 -
-------
on this proposed regulation, and has changed the focus of this
regulation to the protection of human health and the environment
through the appropriate 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 the provisions of
Part 261, they may also be reused.
(2) Cleaned Containers are not a Hazardous Waste
(Comment b)
Several commenters noted that the proposed list of hazardous
wastes (§250.14(a)) expressly excluded triple-rinsed containers
formerly containing many chemicals listed in Appendices III, IV,
and V (43PR 56962-3), and Appendix XII (44FR 4<»O4). 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. T'he rationale
for triple rinsing was developed as part of "EPA's Recommended
Procedures for the Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and Pesti-
cide Containers. (41) Hsieh et_al. showed that repeated (six^
rinsings with small volumes of water effectively remove up to
99.2% of all chemical residues remaining in metal drums after
they were emptied and drained (until the dripping stopped).
Three rinsings with water removed 9R.123: while retained in
drums even when they are drained as completely as possible. (42)
As a result, the Agency believes that rinsing is one effective
- 37 -
-------
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 con-
tainers of hazardous materials as well/ since there are no
inherent differences between pesticides and other hazardous
materials which would make triple rinsing an unacceotable pro-
cedure for the other materials. (42, 43, 44)
(3) Drum Reconditioners are not Hazardous Waste
Facilities (Comment "cl
Similarly, one cornmenter 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 recycling facilities (drum re conditioners^
need not be permitted, since they do not handle hazardous wastes
This interpretation of the proposed regulations is correct and
the commenter propely notes that the proposed regulations were,
therefore, inconsistent. In the final regulations, (Mav, 1Q$0)
listed hazardous wastes, including empty containers that pre-
viously contained listed substances in 5261.33fe), which are
recycled are subject to all of the controls of Parts 262 and
263 and to the requirements of Parts 264 and 265 in so ^ar as
storage is concerned. Actual treatment of the wastes in the
recycling process is not subject to these regulations. ^e
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.
- 38 -
-------
(4) Other Decontamination Procedures (Comment e)
Other commenters requested that the Agency allow and even
specify other acceptable decontamination procedures besides
triple rinsing. 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 Aqency to identify then
all. Therefore, the regulation will allow the operator to
demonstrate decontamination equivalent to triple rinsing. ''Tiose
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) processes other
than rinsing may constitute a treatment of the hazardous waste
remaining in the container and will, therefore, require a
permit, 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 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 aspirated or pumped out. This leaves
a small residue on the bottom. This should never be more than
- 39 -
-------
one inch and, in most, cases, is substantially less. 'T1he amount
of residue is subject to both the physical characteristics o^
the material left in the drum and the methods used to empty
the drum.
(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 uncontaminated steel drum. This is not possible where
the plastic (or other coating) is bonded to the drum. "Vie
Agency has accommodated the suggestion of the commenters by
allowing the steel outer container to be managed as non-haz-
ardous if the inner liner is removed.
(7) Plastic Containers (Comment q)
The Agency agrees that plastic containers can often be
cleaned and reused. The omission of plastic containers in the
proposed regulations does not mean that these containers were
omitted from coverage.
5. Summary of Interim Status Regulation (&265.173 ^
The Agency has reconsidered its proposed requirement which
limited management of empty noncombustible containers to recycl-
ing and recovery options. EPA agrees that, as a legal matter,
it cannot prohibit environmentally-sound waste management prac-
- 40 -
-------
tices under Section 3004 simply because they do 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 ?61.33(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 hazarardous waste in
accordance with §261.33(c). Containers which are to be recycled
are not covered by these regulations (§261.6) unless the residual
material is either a listed hazardous waste or a material listed
in §261.33(e). Triple rinsed containers are no longer hazardous
wastes (§261.33(c)). The reader is referred to the Preamble
to Part 261 for further discussion.
6. Interim Status Language
§265.173 Management of Containers
(a) A container holding hazardous waste must alwavs 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
container or cause it to leaX.
CCommentt A container that is a hazardous waste listed in
§§261.31 or 261.33 of this Chapter must be managed
in compliance with the regulations of this Part.
- 41 -
-------
Reuse of containers in Transportation is governed
by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations,
including those set forth in 49 CFR 173.28.1
C. SUBJECT: INSPECTIONS
1. Summary of Proposed Regulation
EPA's proposed interim status regulations ($2^0.40(0) (2) (v))
required that storage facilities be inspected daily in accordance
with requirements of the visual inspection standards ($7.50.43-^.
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation
The reasoning behind the requirements for all owners and
operators (including owners and operators of storage 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 mal-
functions so that they can be remedied before they affect the
environment or public health. the Agency believes that this
administrative procedure will be successful in preventinq many
potentially serious problems through early detection.
3. Comments Received on the Proposed Standard
a. The standard should be deleted because it is
redundant and unnecessary in view of the require-
ments of §250.43-6.
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 manaqe "marginally-
hazardous" waste.
c. The standard referring to visual inspection should
begin as follows: "As a minimum, an owner/opera-
tor ..." (the commenter did not explain why
he thoutht this phrase should be added to the
standard).
- 42 -
-------
d. Daily inspection is unnecessary. Weekly, biweekly,
or monthly would be adequate.
4. 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, identi-
fying the items to be inspected and the frequencies of inspection.
However, for reasons discussed in the background document on
inspections, some minimum requirements are beinq included in
the regulatory sections dealing with specific types of facilities.
One of the major problems with drum storage is the deteriora-
tion of drums on exposure to the elements and damage to then
during handling (by forklift trucks, fallinq of stacked drums,
etc). There are no studies which specifically relate to how long
a steel drum will last under a given set of meteoroioqical con-
ditions while storing given waste types. However, many inspec-
tions have been conducted of facilities storing drummed-waste
and leaking drums are frequently reported. Associated pollution
problems include contamination of surface water and groundwater,
pollution of the air through evaporation of volatile chemicals,
and fires and explosions associated with ignitable wastes. Of the
damage cases previously discussed (Section II. B), the following
are particularly pertinent:
o well pollution and fire in Anniston, Alabama (q)
o visible emissions and environmental damaqe in
Louisiana t11^
o leaking drums in a groundwater recharge zone in
Texas t12*
o nitric acid fumes from leaking drums in *Tew Jersev d4)
- 43 -
-------
o surface water pollution in Lowell, Massachusetts
o toxic emission and fire in Shakopee, Minnesota (16, I7)
Inspections of drum storage areas on a periodic basis is
an effective wasy to detect leaks, often before they become
serious. Redrumming and cleanup are then usually effective in
preventing pollution incidents. Where severe corrosion is noted,
wastes can be redrummed before leaks even occur. A.S with anv
inspection program, the more frequent the inspection, the better.
However, given the relatively slow rate of drum deterioration
due to corrosion, the 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 escape of pollutants that can
cause a hazardous condition. The appropriate frequency will
vary, depending on such factors as waste type, container con-
struction, climate, and other site-specific conditions. There
is not sufficient data available on these factors to permit
the Agency to develop a formula for evaluating all of these
factors and arriving at a precise inspection frequency.
EPA agrees with those commenters who contended that weekly
inspection for leaks and corrosion 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 forklifts, falling drums, etc.). In the latter
case, operators are normally aware that the damage has occurred
- 44 -
-------
and, since it. is normally acute (i.e., a major leak), cleanup
and redrumming should commence 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 of these problems could be
corrected by regular inspection and maintenance, the Agency
believes that it is important to establish some minimum inspec-
tion period for all facilities. Adequate 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. (2°) finally, the
Agency believes that the cost of performing inspections, contrary
to the views of some commenters, is likely to be small. '45)
Therefore, the final regulations require weekly inspection o^
container storage areas.
5. Summary of Interim Status Regulation ($265.174^
As part of the inspection schedule required by $265.15,
container storage areas must be inspected at least weekly for
leaks and deterioration.
6. Interim Status Language
§265.174 Inspections
The owner or operator must inspect areas where containers
are stored, at least weekly, looking for leaks and for deteriora-
tion caused by corrosion or other factors.
- 45 -
-------
nComment; See §265.171 for remedial action required if
deterioration or leaks are detected. 1
D. SUBJECT: REPACKAGING OF LEAKING CONTAINERS
1. Summary of Regulation
The proposed regulations ($250.44-2(a)) required that wastes
in leaking or damaged containers be recontainerized. It was
also proposed for inclusion as one of the interim status stan-
dards. No comments were received on this proposal, and it
has been retained in these final interim status regulations
(§265.171). A minor clarification has been added, which specifi-
cally allows an owner or operator to take wastes from a leaking
container directly to treatment, disposal, or another mode o^
storage, rather than redrumming.
2. Rationale for the Standard
Leaking of hazardous wastes from containers can result in
groundwater pollution, emission of vapors and gases to the air,
reactions with other leaking wastes, and fires. Several damage
cases previously discussed demonstrated these problems. The
1973 Alabama incident (Case No. R in the Damage Cases: Section
II. B of this document), involving 10,000 drums of aramite waste,
is an example of leaking drums causing groundwater and surface
water problems. '^) The Louisiana case (Case No. 7), involving
storage of drummed volatile wastes, is an example of both air
and water pollution. (7)
3. Final Interim Status Language
§265.171 Condition of Containers
If a container holding hazardous waste is not in good con-
- 46 -
-------
dition, or if it begins to leak, the owner 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.
The Shakopee, Minnesota, fire at an incinerator drum storage
area (Case No. 14) typifies the fire potential from these facili-
ties (16, 17) It is important, therefore, that wastes in
drums which are leaking or have been damaged, or are deteriorat-
ing, be recontainerized as as soon as possible.
E. SUBJECT: PROHIBITION ON DAMAGING CONTAINERS
1. 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 the container or cause it to leak.
2. Rationale for the Standard
Although §265.171 requires repackaging of leaking contain-
ers, this requirement (§265.173)(b) has been retained for enforce-
ment 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.
3. Interim Status Language
See pg. 41 for the interim status language for $265.173(bK
- 47 -
-------
F. SUBJECT: CONTAINERS MUST BE KEPT CLOSED
1. Summary of the Regulation
Containers must, be kept, closed, except when adding or remov-
ing wastes (§265.173(a) ). This is a new standard; it was not
proposed.
2. Rationale for the Standard
Although "container" was defined to be "any portable
enclosure . . . ." this new standard will eliminate the possi-
bility of any misunderstanding regarding the implicit assumption
in the proposed rules that containers must be closed when stored,
To be transported safely, containers must be closed, i.e.,
have lids or bungs; thus, the word "enclosure" in the definition,
Since all containers have lids or closable bungs, it it good
operating practice to Tceep them closed during storage. Keeping
containers closed prevents overflow and possible reaction fron
rainfall, limits unintentional direct contact, reduces the
potential for emissions to the air, reduces the potential for
spillage, and reduces the possibility of fire.
3. Final Interim Status Language
See pg. 41 for the final interim status language for
§265.173(a).
G. SUBJECT: IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTE IN CONTAINERS
1. Summary of the Regulation
A 50-foot buffer zone is required between the property line
and a storage facility containing ignitable and reactive wastes
in containers (§265.176). This is a new standard; it was not
proposed.
- 48 -
-------
2. Rationale for the Standard
One of the acute problems with storage areas for contain-
erized 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 NTo. 14 in the Damage Cases,
Section II. B or this document). Drums of exploding wastes
flew through the air like rockets (l6, 17) 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, d9) These kinds of incidents pose
an immediate threat to the health and safety of anyone near the
scene, as a result of burns or inhaling of toxic gases. The
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has been accumu-
lating experience and information on necessary distances between
drum storage areas and nearby residences, business places, and
other public places. These have been codified in the Flammable
and Combustible Code of 1977. The Code requires a 50 foot
minimum distance between the container area and the facility
property line. (46)
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. The Agency is not certain
that these limits will be fully adequate for large storage areas
_ 49 -
-------
or for those with highly explosive wastes or wastes which qive
off highly toxic gases. However, the other requirements in this
regulatory package are designed to prevent fires and explosions
from ever occuring. EPA will be monitoring the effectiveness of
these regulations in protecting those who reside or work near
hazardous waste facilities that handle iqnitable and reactive
wastes. Revision will be made if data shows it is necessary.
3. Interim Status Language
§265.176 Special Requirements for Ignitable or Reactive Waste
Containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be
located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's property
line.
[Comment; See §265.17(a) for additional requirements.!
H. SUBJECT: PAPER RAGS
1. 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)).
2. Rationale for the Proposed Regulation
The intent of the proposed regulation was to minimize the
potential for release to the environment of residual hazardous
materials adhering to empty paper bags. The disposal of pecticide
bags, in particular, has caused problems from direct contact
of animals and people with contaminated bags, and wind disper-
sion. For example, in one case, a load of "empty" insecticide
bags was dumped adjacent to a field where cattle were pastured
and 14 cattle died after licking the bags. (42) Burning has
- 50 -
-------
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. (43) Placing these bags in containers for proper disposal
would have prevented these problems.
3. Comments Received on this Subject
a. The requirement is unnecessarily burdensome and
expensive because:
- it is good common business sense to prevent
loss of material by making sure that only
a small amount of material adheres to paner
bags and, thus, the hazard potential from
material remaining in bags is small
- more hazardous material per month could con-
ceivably be put into a refuse landfill bv a
nonregulated small generator than from paper
bags disposed of in trash; therefore, con-
taminated paper bags should be exempted
- supplying secondary containers for paper bags
is costly; therefore, the requirement should
be deleted or should be amended to allow
paper bags to 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.
4. Analysis of and Response to the Comments and Rationale
for Interim Regulations
As a result of the comments, the Agency has reconsidered the
proposed requirement. Obtaining secondary containers may prove
difficult and costly for many facilities that routinely bury
empty bags. The Agency has found that those facilities which
would have to purchase drums to comply with the proposed regula-
- 51 -
-------
tion would have to pay up to $10 each for reconditioned drums
(47). Each drum could hold 500 bags, depending on the size
of the bag and if carefully placed. If crumpled, only about SO
to 100 could be placed. (48) since hazardous materials also
tend to be expensive materials, the amount left in bags is nor-
mally 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. (49) 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 Hazardous Waste Generated by Small Quantity
Generators"). The Agency believes these other hazardous waste
regulations will adequately protect public health and the environ-
ment. The Agency agrees that empty bags disposed of on-site
in permitted facilities should present no real public health
oroblem if they are managed carefully in accordance 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 cnsiderably
more potent (concentrated) than most hazardous wastes. The
Agency believes that, in terms of risk to the public health, the
- 52 -
-------
concentrated chemical products left in bags may pose a hazard
that is equal to or greater than an equal volume of many of the
hazardous wastes. It should be pointed out that those who generate
less than the small quantity limit of contaminated bags (paper
and plastic, and residue) are also exempted from these regulations.
There were two comments dealing with the volume of bags—one
suggested bags would take less landfill room if they could be
compacted with plant trash and sent to a refuse landfill. ^he
other suggested that landfills should more properly be reserved
for more potent wastes. The Agency disagrees with with both
comments. As mentioned previously, the problems associated with
mismanaged "empty" paper bags can rival those of other types of
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 haz-
ardous waste facilities just as much as do other commonlv
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. ^4R^ 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 regula-
tions would constitute less than one percent of the total volume
of covered wastes. The Agency does not believe this volume will
- 53 -
-------
seriously affect the available "hazardous waste management caoa-
city. (48) -j^e 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 sub-
stantial hazard if simply disposed of in guantity in refuse
landfills.
5. Summary of Interim Status Regulations
As a result of the comments, the Agency has deleted the
requirement for packaging contaminated bags in secondary containers
(drums). The Agency believes that the general Subtitle C nanaae-
ment regulations will adequately deal with the problem and
assure adequate protection of human health and the environment.
The Agency will be monitoring the effectiveness of these requia-
tions in protecting human health from mismanagement of non-con-
tainerized "empty" bags and may repropose similar controls at
a later time if it appears that they are needed.
I. SUBJECT: REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION
Requests were received from various commenters asking that
certain wastes or facility types receive outright exemptions or
special consideration from the storage and container regulations.
1. 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 require-
ment favors large generators; small generators
will take longer to accumulate enough waste to
improve transportation economies. The 90-day cut-
off 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.
- 54 -
-------
c. Bulk liquid terminals which are in the business
of handling larqe volumes of commercial products,
and which are in compliance with EPV s other
regulations regarding control of discharges to
navigable waters, the soil, and qroundwater,
should be regulated differently for the rela-
tively small volumes of residues that they gen-
erate than storage facilities which are in the
sole business of hazardous waste management.
d. Non combustible containers with less than 30 gallon
capacity should be exempted from the management
requirements for empty containers. This exemp-
tion is consistent with the proposed exemption
of generators of small volumes of wastes (less
than 100 kg/mo) and the exemption of household
hazardous waste.
e. Storage on-site for less than QO days prior to
shipment to an on-site treatment or disposal
facility should also be exempted.
2. Analysis of and Response to the Comments
These comments are similar only in that they request an
exemption. They must be considered individually.
(a) The 90— day Exclusion is Unfair to Small Business
a)
The first commenter misinterpreted the proposed Subpart R
(Section 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 .
- 55 -
-------
The rationale and comment summary and analysis on this
requirement 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 technical 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 nermit exemp-
tion. That is to say that storing wastes in lagoons or piles
for less than 90 days before shipping them off-site will require
a permit, whereas short-term storage in tanks and containers
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. Impoumdments 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 permitting procedures is necessary for adequate control.
(b) Stockpiled Wastes Should Be Exempted (Comment b)
The point of the comment on an exemption for stockpiled
wastes is not clear. The commenter may be objecting to the
- 56 -
-------
limitation of storage to tanks and containers. As discussed
previously, the Agency lias amended the regulations to allow
bulk storage in piles and also in surface impoundments. The
comraenter may also be advocating the exemption on the ground
that it takes longer than 90 days to accumulate 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 tine period is left open-ended,
many less reputable generators could simply claim that stock-
piled wastes were "stored" for future use or shipment when, in
fact, that "storage" represents ultimate disposal. The primary
reason for the 90-day storage exemption is not based on protectinq
human health, although the Agency believes the impact on human
human will be negligible, since the tanks and containers 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 inabilitv 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. ^PA 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
- 57 -
-------
to these regulations. It is only the permitting process and the
non-technical requirements which they are not subject 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 Be Exempt (Comment c)
The Agency is unable to allow any distinction between bulk
liquid terminals and other generators of hazardous wastes. Haz-
ardous wastes stored there, or generated there as a result o^
tank clean-outs, etc., are similar in type and hazard potential
to other hazardous wastes.(47) n= these facilities generate less
than the amount which qualifies them for the small quantity exemp-
tion, they are not subject to these regulations, just as any
other facility generating small quantities is not subject to
them.
(d) Small Noncotnbustible Containers Should Re Exempt
(Comment d)
Based on considerations of human health and the environment,
the Agency is unable to justify exempting noncombustible con-
tainers of less than 30-gallon capacity from regulations which
would apply to larger containers. Smaller containers have more
"wall area" than larger containers in relation to the volume
of the container. For example, for equivalent total capacity,
five-gallon containers have more than twice the wall area as
55-gallon drums. (50) Therefore, since the amount of residue
depends, to a large extent, on the contaminated wall area,
smaller containers should contain more residual hazardous
- 58 -
-------
material than large ones per unit volume. The Agency dis-
agrees that exempting small containers is in any way related
to the small quantity exemptioni While it is true that it takes
more small containers to reach the monthly limit, the small
quantity limit is based on total hazardous waste 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 house-
hold 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.
Thus, small containers have not been exempted from the
definition of hazardous waste. The circumstances under Which
containers are a hazardous waste can now be found in 5261.33(c).
(e) Temporary Storage Prior to Shipment to an On-site
Facility Should be Exempted (Comment eT
The primary reason for the temporary exemption of storage by
generators prior to shipment off-site is based on the Agency's
desire to avoid the permitting burden for the tens of thousands
of tank or drum storage areas that would not otherwise need
a permit. Where on-site treatment or disposal is practiced,
a permit will be required in any case. Inclusion of temporary
storage facilities in the permit application should have no
real impact on either the applicant or the Agency.
- 59 -
-------
C. Summary of Interim Status Regulations
No exemptions were made to the final regulations covering
containers, piles, or other management as a result of these
comments.
J. SUBJECT: QUANTITY LIMITATIONS
1. 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 waste,
but will provide additional safeguards against a company goina
bankrupt and leaving behind thousands of drums.
2. Analysis and Response to the Comment
The Agency sees much merit in the suggestion and in the
reasoning behind it. A guantity 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 "treatment" facilities has been a major problem. f^,
l-^, 16, 17,) (Note: Most treatment facilities have inventory
storage facilities associated with them to stabilize the waste
feed supply to the treatment unit.) However, after considerable
discussion, the Agency decided that an eguitable, non-arbitrary
quantity limitation vaould be very difficult to develop and,
in the final analysis, the Agency believes its financial regula-
tions, coupled with the permit procedures and other requirements,
will solve the abandonment or bankruptcy problem.
- 60 -
-------
To be supportable, any time or quantity limit should be
related to the type of waste to be stored, the design and con-
struction of the containment device used to store the material
(drum or tank), the climatic conditions under which storage is
to take place, and many other factors. At this time, EPA does
not have sufficient data on the inteqritv 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 require-
ments (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 facilities, part o^ the cost
of closure is the cost of disposing of the maximum inventory
of stored wastes the owner or operator expects to have on hand
a"n any one time. The owner or operator is, therefore, not allowed
to store more wastes than his deposit (or bond or other alterna-
tive) 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
- 61 -
-------
of these wastes will determine, in part, the size of the trust
fund (or other alternative) which will be deposited. Durinq
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 the
permit. The Agency believes this approach will accomplish,
on a case-by-case basis, more arbitrary, across-the-board
limitation. The Agency will monitor the effectiveness of these
requirements in protecting the public against abandonment of
wastes. If necessary, additional regulations can be proposed
at a later date.
- 62 -
-------
K. SUBJECT: GROUNDWATER MONITORING
1. Summary of the Proposed Regulations
The proposed standards ($250.44(d)) stipulated that the
Regional Administrator may require some storage facilities to
comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements of the
proposed §250.43-8, if the Regional Administrator determines that
there is a potential for discharge of stored wastes.
2. Rationale for the Proposed Standards
Monitoring groundwater below treatment/storage facilities
allows owners or operators to detect groundwater contamination
resulting from spills or leaks from a storage device.
The proposed rules (May, 1978) did not require that ground-
water be monitored at all storage facilities because:
i. The potential for hazardous waste to be discharge from
containment devices constructed of man-made materials
(e.g., tanks) is less than from containment devices
which depend heavily on earthen materials, (e.g.,
unlined surface impoundments) since man-made materials
are usually less permeable than soils. Additionally
some types of storage facilities (e.g., tanks) are
constructed of more substantial materials (e.g., con-
crete and steel) and thus much less easilv damaged than
others such as surface impoundments.
ii. Containers and above-ground tanks can be visually
inspected for leaks, cracks or weak spots.
iii. The proposed rules for storage facilities reguired an
impervious secondary containment system.
The proposed regulations applied to both tanks and containers
and gave the Regional Administrator the authority to impose
groundwater monitoring requirements where he thought the other
containment standards would be inadequate. Since secondary con-
tainment devices were also required, the Agency anticipated that
- 63 -
-------
the most likely circumstance under which the groundwater moni-
toring requirements would be invoked would he where tanks were
buried in the ground making leak detection in both the primary
and secondary containment devices difficult.
3. Summary of Comments
a. The requirement for groundwater or leachate moni-
toring at storage facilities should be deleted because the sturdv
nature of the materials used to construct storage containers,
and the requirements for an impervious base below the facilitv,
minimize the possibility that hazardous waste from storage
facilities will contaminate groundwater.
b. EPA should require groundwater and leachate
monitoring at all storage facilities because there is a potential
for surface water and groundwater contamination at all facilities
due to the likelihood of:
i. incompatibility of the materials of construc-
tion with a waste new to that facility;
ii. damage to storage containers;
iii. spills during transfer of materials from the
transporter to the storage facility and
between storage tanks.
4» Analysis of Comments
The Agency agrees with the first commenter insofar as
container storage areas are concerned. Management of containers
in accordance with the requirements of these regulations poses
a negligible threat to the groundwater for the followina reasons.
(1) The amount of waste in a single container is small,
usually not over 55 gallons.
- 64 -
-------
(2) The secondary containment requirement will result in
containment of leaks or spilled materials for extended periods,
and
(3) Inspections are designed to detect leaks lonq before
any material could escape the secondary containment system.
Therefore, while it agrees with the second commenter that
leaks and damage to containers will inevitably occur, the Aqency
believes that the safeguards built into the regulations negate
the need for groundwater monitoring at container storage areas,
The Agency has retained the groundwater monitoring option
for tanks, however, because the secondary containment device
need not extend under existing tanks and because many tanks are
now buried in the ground. Leak detection is difficult in both
cases. See the background document covering "Tanks and Chemical,
Physical, and Biological Treatment Facilities for a discussion
of the general status requirements affecting groundwater moni-
toring at those facility types.
L. SUBJECT: PRIMARY CONTAINMENT
1. Summary of the Proposed Standard
The proposed standard §250.44(g) required tha t storage
containers be of sturdy and leakproof construction in accordance
with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regu-
lations for storage of flammable and combustible liquids (?*>
CFR Part 1910, Subpart H, $910.106).
- 65 -
-------
2. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
Section 250.44(b) of the proposed regulations stated that
storage was to be conducted in such a manner that no discharge
of hazardous waste occurs. This requirement necessitated that
storage containers be leakproof.
The OSHA design specifications for tanks and containers
were deemed to be adequate to ensure that containers are sturdy
and leakproof. Therefore, EPA incorporated the OSHA design
specifications into its regulations.
3. Summary of Comments
No comments were received on this requirement.
4. Rationale for Deletion of the Proposed Requirement
The Agency has eliminated the "no discharge" performance
standard (1250.44(b)) for hazardous wastes storage facilities
(see the discussion beginning on page 23). The Agency recog-
nizes that no construction, including tanks and containers, is
truly leakproof in the long run. The Agency has therefore
oriented its regulatory controls toward earliy detection and
prompt repair of leaks and to containment of those which do
occur. The requirement has therefore been deleted.
Upon analysis, the Agency further concluded that the refe-
rence to the OSHA regulations was not useful. Only a very small
part of the referenced regulations relate to container design and
they would add no additional protection to human health or the
environment above that protection already afforded by the rest of
these requirements. The OSHA reference has therefore been dropped,
- 66 -
-------
M. SUBJECT: STORAGE OF VOLATILE WASTES
1. Summary of the Proposed Standard
Proposed §250.44(f) required that extremely volatile wastes
(those that would cause the proposed Air Human Health and Environ-
mental Standard (1250.42-3) to be exceeded if open to the environ-
ment) be stored intanks or containers only, until treated or
disposed.
2. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
In the December, 1978 proposed regulations, tanks and con-
tainers were required to achieve zero discharge to the environment,
including the air media. Thus, volatile wastes could be stored
in them with no potential for impact on the air.
3. Summary of Comments
No comments were received on this requirement.
4. Rationale for Deletion of the Proposed Requirement
The requirement has been dropped from the interim status
requirements because:
(a) the Human Health and Environmental Standards have been
deleted
(b) the zero discharge requirement for storage has been
deleted as impractical and thus tanks and containers need not
be emission proof
(c) the Agency has not yet been able to devise an accep-
table regulatory strategy for identifying and controlling hazardous
volatile wastes.
- 67 -
-------
N. SUBJECT: RECORDKEEPING FOR STORAGE
1. Summary of the Proposed Standard
§250.44(1) required that the identify and location of
stored hazardous waste be known at all times.
2. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
Knowledge of the location of hazardous wastes is necessary
for prompt action in the event of an emergency (e.g., a fire).
3. Summary of Comments
No comments were received on this requirement.
4. Rationale for Deletion of the Proposed Requirement
The proposed requirement is redundant to §265.73(b)(2) in
the interim status standards promulgated in May 19RO, which
requires that the location of all wastes in all facilities be
known and recorded on the operating record.
- 68 -
-------
V. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT OF WASTES IN
In the proposed regulations (May, I97fl) the Aqency antici-
pated that piles of wastes could be managed in compliance with
the landfill requirements. At that time the Aqency 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 Aqency received a number of comments suqqestina
that storage be allowed in devices other than containers and
tanks, and specifically in piles. These commenters further
pointed out that while the landfill regulations miqht ^e suitable
for large piles, they are not practical for tennorary storage
of wastes in piles. The Agency agrees that small temporary
storage piles require different management than large Disposal
piles. Accordingly, the Agency has designed the Subpart L require-
ments for interim status to relate specifically to small scale
temporary storage piles. The owner or operator of a pile may
choose to manage it in accordance with either the Subpart L pile
regulations or the Subpart N landfill requirements under interim
status. The additional interim status requirements as promulgated
in May, 1980, are as follows:
A. Wind Dispersal
Owners and operators must protect piles containing hazardous
wastes from wind dispersal through management techniques such
as covering (§265.251).
Rationale for the Standard
The example of the Pennsylvania asbestos waste piles (^, s'^
graphically demonstrates the need for control of blowing wastes
- 69 -
-------
from piles. An air monitoring proqam, conducted by EPA in
October 1973, indicated ambient background levels of asbestos,
a known carcinogen, to be 5 ng/m3. An asbestos level of <*.*
ng/m3 was found at a playground near the largest waste pile.
While this pile is a disposal pile and would not fall under the
waste pile regulations, similar problems could be posed by storaqe
piles.
This regulation is designed to cause owners of waste piles
that are subject to wind erosion to take steps of their choosinq
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.
Interim Status Language
§265.251 Protection from 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.
B. Waste Analysis
Incoming shipments of waste must be sampled and analvzed
before adding the waste to a pile (5265.252). This is to be
part of the Waste Analysis Plan required by Section 265.13.
It must include a simple visual comparison, which nay be suople-
- 70 -
-------
mented by other quick physical or chemical tests, such as
The analysis performed must differentiate between incompatible
wastes received at the facility which could conceivably be placed
in piles. If no incompatible wastes are received which can be
piled/ then the regulation does not apply.
Rationale for the Standard
The possible impact associated with incompatible wastes was
discussed in the damaqe case section and in the discussion o?
compatibility in this section of the background document. The
waste analysis 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. ( 53f 54) ^ simple color or texture comparison should
prevent many dangerous mistakes that could result from missing
mislabeled, or incompatible wastes being placed into existino piles.
In the proposed General Facility .Standards, there was a
general requirement ($2^0.43(h)) that each truckload be sampled
for certain characteristics. However, this was not proposed
as part of the Interim Status Standards. Nonetheless, the \qency
believes it is important to prevent problem reactions caused
by accidentally mixing incompatible wastes in piles, and can
see no reason not to incorporate this relatively simple, inexpen-
sive requirement, which meets the criteria qualifying it as an
Interim Status Standard.
Interim Status Language
5265.252 Waste Analysis (Interim Final}
- 71 -
-------
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 addinq the waste to
any existing pile, unless: (1) the only wastes the facilitv
receives which are amenable to piling are compatible with each
other, or (2) the waste received is compatible with the waste
in the pile to which it is to be added. The analysis conducted
must be capable of differentiating between the types of hazardous
waste the owner or operator places in piles, so that mixing of
incompatible waste does not inadvertently occur. The analvsis
must include a visual comparison of color and texture.
[Comment: As required by $265.13, the waste analysis plan
must include analyses needed to comply with
§§265.256 and 265.257. As required by $265.73,
the owner or operator must place the results of
this analysis in the operating record of the
facility.!
C. Containment ($265.253)
These requirements contain the bulk of the design require-
ments 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
groundwater 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 leachate and run-of^.
If the owner or operator chooses to prevent the formation
of leachate and run-off, he must protect the pile from precipita-
tion and run-on, and must not place any liquids or wastes con-
- 72 -
-------
taining free liquids on the pile. (See the preamble section on
landfills for a 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.
Rationale for the Standard
Other than for wind dispersal, the most likely pollution
potential 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 groundwater is another
likely possibility. These regulations are designed to prevent
that. The pile regulations are designed to cover smaller piles
used primarily for temporary storage. As §265.250 explains, the
owner or operator may alternately choose to manage a waste pile
in accordance with the landfill regulations. These pile regula-
tions require that waste be contained, i.e., that rainfall run-
off Which contacts the waste does not enter the environment,
either through the soil or surface run-off. The landfill regula-
tions allow more latitude in design, particularly during the
interim status period, but require groundwater montoring. The
Agency expects that most larger, longer-term "piles", such as
- 73 -
-------
slag heaps and benefication wastes, when hazardous, will be
managed as landfills. The smaller, more temporary piles are more
lilcely to be managed according to these pile regulations.
Placing an impermeable base under an existing pile nay
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 groundwater monitoring),
this safeguard must be imposed at the outset. Those existing
piles for which this proves impractical may be covered or may
be managed as landfills, where different protective measures are
relied upon.
Interim Status Language
§265.353 Containment (Interim Final)
If leach ate or run-off from a pile is a hazardous waste,
then either:
(a) The pile must be placed on an impermeable base
that is compatible with the waste under the con-
ditions of treatment or storage run-on nust be
diverted away from the pile, and any leachate
and run-off from the pile must be collected
and managed as a hazardous waste; or
(b) (1) The pile must be protected from precipita-
tion and run-on by some other means; and
(2) No liquids or wastes containing free liquids
may be placed in the pile.
rComment: If collected leachate or run-off is dis-
charged through a point source to waters
of the United States, it is subject to the
requirements of Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act, as amended.1
(c) The date for compliance with paragraphs (a) and
(b)(l) of this Section is 12 months after the
effective date of this Part.
-------
D. Ignitable and Reactive Wastes ($265.7.56)
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 o* iqnition
or from any material or conditions which may cause it to react
(§265.256). Wastes can also be pretreated to make them nonflammable
or non-reactive. In this case, once they no longer meet the definition
of an ignitable or reactive waste, in accordance with Part 261, manaae-
ment of them is no longer covered by the hazardous waste regulations.
Rationale for the Standard
It is not common practice to store highly ignitable or
reactive wastes of any kind in piles. There is too areat a
chance that they will be accidentally ignited by discarded matches,
or even lightning. It is also true that many of the more hiahlv
ignitable wastes are volatile liguids that are not amenable to
piling. The potential problems are obvious. Piles of reactive
wastes may react violently to form toxic oases, or mav explode
when the proper conditions occur. Toxic fumes would also be
likely with some hazardous, ignitable wastes. Piles of hiqhlv
flammable wastes could conceivably ignite with exploxive force.
The Agency, therefore, believes it is necessary to prevent the
open piling of ignitable or reactive wastes.
With regard to the variance procedure employed, the reader
may note that, if the waste is treated so that it no lonqer meets
the ignitable or reactive waste definitions, it mav be added
to any pile. Some may argue that, if so treated, the waste
is not hazardous and, thus, is not subject to these reaulations
-------
anyway. That is true if the waste is hazardous only because
it is ignitable or reactive wastes into a pile if, after the
mixing operation, the mixed pile no longer has the character-
istic of ignitability or reactivity. The Aqencv has no know-
ledge of anyone practicing such a mixing technoloqy with niles,
but believes the flexibility should be present to allow it,
since similar practices are allowed at other types of facilities,
Interim Status Language
§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 defini-
tion of ignitable or reactive waste under &5261.21
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 react.
E. Incompatible Wastes (§265.2^7)
The Agency has adopted standards for the storage of incompa-
tible 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 S265.17(b), the general facility
standard which deals with incompatible 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 incompa-
- 76 -
-------
tible waste, unless the area "has been decontaminated sufficiently
so that deleterious reactions do not occur.
Rationale for the Standard
These requirements are designed to prevent reactions between
two wastes and between wastes and other materials. Such reactions
could occur should waste from the pile come into contact with a
nearby waste or material as a result of containers or tarf
-------
VI. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM FINAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS - SURPAR^1 I - CONTAINERS
Although the interim status standards are not beinq finalized
at this time and, therefore, not changed, the. Aqency has resnonded
to comments on them and considered them in the formulation of the
general standards.
Comments on Interim Final Standards
Of the Interim Status standards for containers, only
$265.176 - Special Requirements for Ignitable or Reactive
Waste was promulgated Interim Final.
1. Special Requirements for Ignitable or Reactive Waste
special
[§265.1
(§265.176)
a. Summary of the Interim Final Standard
The interim final requirements stated that containers
holding ignitable or reactive waste must be located at least
15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's property line.
b. Rationale for the Interim Final Standard
One of the acute problems with storage areas for container-
ized hazardous waste involves fires, explosions and violent
reactions. These kinds of incident pose an immediate threat
to the health and safety of anyone near the scene, in the
form of burns or the inhalation ot toxic gases.
There are several damage cases which illustrate the tyoes
of dangers involved in the storage of ignitable or reactive
waste. Drums of exploding waste have occasionally flown hundreds
of feet through the air. In just the past few months, three
particularly graphic examples of the explosion of containerized
- 7fl -
-------
hazardous waste occurred. In April 1980 in Elizabeth, New Jersey,
several abandoned containers on the lot of a now - bankrupt
company, the Chemical Control Corp./ exploded, causing a fire.
The containers had apparently been left on the property for as
long as ten years without any type of maintenance. In July IQflO
a fire was caused by stored hazardous waste on the property o*
an industrial - paint manufacturing company in Carlstadt,
New Jersey. Toxic fumes caused by the ignition of the wastes
covered Carlstadt. A. few days later, drums containing hazardous
waste at a chemical disposal plant in Perth Amboy, New Jersey
erupted, causing a fire whic'h destroyed numerous nearby buildings.
(54) Compliance with regulations governing ignitable and
reactive waste (as well as other applicable regulations) would
help to prevent such incidents.
c. Summary of Comments
(i) OSHA allows containers to be stored -Prom
20 feet down to 3 feet from the property line
(29 CFR 1910.1O6). EPA requirements for
ignitable wastes should be consistent with
OSHA requirements for ignitable raw materials.
(ii) In remote areas it may be desirable to
have the containers as far from the workplace
as possible which may mean adjacent to the property
line.
(iii) A 50-foot buffer zone is not necessary
where a fire-proof barrier wall exists between
the containers and the property line.
- 79 -
-------
d. Response to Comments
(i) Inconsistency with OSHA Requirements
In the preamble discussion to the interim final promulga-
tion (40 CFR Part 265, May 19, 1980) the Aqency inaccurately
stated that OSHA requirements were consistent with the NFPA
recommendations. However, the Aqency believes that the
differences between the OSHA requirements and EPVs regulations
are justifiable. OSHA's primary concern is worker safety, with
which EPA is equally concerned. EPA is, however, also houn^ to
ensure the protection of human health and the environment outside
the facility. A more stringent standard is necessary in order
to accomplish this. In addition, since the NFPA recommends
a 50 ft. buffer zone, it is likely that many owners and ooerators
are already in compliance with this recommendation, and the
promulgation of such a standard by EPA would, therefore, be
reasonable. The cost of compliance would be borne only by those
not already following NFPA's recommendation. Lastlv, damage
cases illustrate that a 50 ft. buffer zone is necessary to pro-
vide adequate protection.
(ii) Remote Areas
In remote areas, a facility should be able to distance
containers holding ignitable and/or reactive waste from both
the workplace and 50 feet from the property line.
(iii) Barrier Walls
Due to the explosive force of fires at storage areas for
containers holding ignitable or reactive wastes, the Agency
does not believe a wall or building could adequately contain
-------
a fire or the toxic fumes or vapors generated by a fire. Damage
cases illustrate both the explosive of fires (Damaae Cases
1 and 2) and the consequences of exposure to toxic gases released
by fires at container storage areas. (Damage Cases No. 9 and 10).
The Agency continues to believe that a buffer zone of at
least 50 feet is integral to the proper management of "hazardous
wastes stored in containers. In factr given the aforementioned
disasters, it may be that the 50 feet minimum is not sufficient
to adequately protect human health and the environment. EP\
will be monitoring the effectiveness of the 50 foot bufer zone
and will propose changes if warranted.
Therefore, the Agency does not intend to change the
requirement.
- 81 -
-------
VII. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM FINAL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR WASTE PILES
As stated in the last chapte:although the Agency is not
finalizing the interim status standards at this time, comments
on them are analyzed and answered here and have been considered
in the formulation of the general standards.
All of the interim status standards for piles (except
Applicability - §265.250) were promulgated in May, 1^80 on an
interim final basis. This was necessary because there were no
regulations relating specifically to piles in the December, l^^
proposed standards. The proposed regulations required that
piles be managed in accordance with the landfill requirements .
Although the Agency reviewed comments urging that separate require-
ments be developed for storage piles, the public has had no
previous opportunity to comment on the substance of them; thus
the need to promulgate the requirements on an interim final basis .
Comments received are discussed in this section.
A. Comments on the Interim final Requirements of the Interim
Status Standards & Modifications
§265.250
1« Summary of the interim final requirements of the
Interim Status Standard and rationale
See Section V of the "Interim Status Standards for Manage-
ment of Wastes in Piles" in this document for a discussion o^
§265.250.
2. Comment
Waste piles of small volume are frequently stored for short
periods of time (sometimes less than two weeks) both inside
- 82 -
-------
and adjacent to buildings. These piles should be exempt from
the permit requirements of Subpart L of Part 265, or at a minimum,
should be conditionally exempt just as containerized or tanked
waste stored for less than 90 days is conditionally exempt under
§262.34 (Accumulation Time).
3. Analysis of and Response to the Comment
The Agency disagrees with the commenters' position that the
volume, location or length of storage of waste piles merits an
exemption from the requirements of Subpart L. The volume or
location of hazardous waste treated, stored, or disposed is not
a factor in the applicability, of any of the treatment, storage
or disposal standards unless the waste is produced by a small
quantity generator. (See the background document on small
quantity generators for more information.) There is no environ-
mental basis for making such a distinction that is not inherently
arbitrary.
§262.34 specifies that hazardous wastes stored for less than
ninety days may be exempt from the permit requirements of Sub-
title C if they are containerized. This containerization controls
release of hazardous substances and allows for relatively easv
inspection for leaks. Piles do not provide this same level of
protection. Even though it might initially appear that piles
stored inside buildings might be "containerized" and therefore,
not subject to such impacts as wind dispersal, precipitation and
run-on, this is not necessarily the case. For example, a "building"
may not be fully enclosed - it may not have a roof or may only
have three sides. A pile stored in such a "building" would there-
- 83 -
-------
fore, be subject to both wind dispersal and precipitation. In
addition, the ventilation systems of many buildings might allow
waste that is in a particulate form to be picked up from the
pile and circulated throughout the building. This could present
a hazard to worker health and to the environment.
Further, the Agency feels that waste stored in piles could
result in leaching if the piles contain free liquids, even in the
absence of precipitation and run-on.
Finally, the Agency sees no need for the exemption requested.
The commenters may have assumed that a separate permit would be
required for each pile. However, this is not the case. All
storage locations at a given facility may be covered with a single
permit. Thus, the permit requirements are not burdensome. The
Agency does not intend to change this requirement to exclude
such generators.
§265.253(a)
1. Summary of the interim final requirements of the
Interim Status Standard and rationale.
See Section V (c) of the "Interim Status Standards for
Management of Wastes in Piles" in this document for a dis-
cussion of §265.253(a).
2. Comments
(a) The prevention of run-on should not be required
if leachate and run-off are collected.
(b) The prevention of run-on and the collection of
run-off would entail too many costly and time -
consuming modifications, which are inaopropriate
under the criteria of the interim status standards.
(c) No design standard was utilized in the interim
final regulations as a reasonable engineering
- 84 -
-------
standard for the control of run-on and run-off.
The "24-hour, 10-year storm " design standard
is suggested.
3. Analysis of and Response to the Comments
(a) It is important that run-on to a waste pile be
diverted to minimize the amount of leachate
which must be managed. If run-on is not prevented
from reaching a waste pile, a major storm in
addition to run-on may result in too large a
volume of run-off for leachate collection
systems to handle, and thus, some spillage may
occur. Therefore, the Agency feels that the
requirement which provides for the diversion
of run-on is necessary in order to maximally
protect "human health and the environment.
(b) For the same reasons cited in the respnse to
comment (a), both run-on and run-off regulations
are necessary under the interim status regulations.
It is the Agency's view that the importance of
these measures in the protection of the environ-
ment outweighs the impact of the costs of com-
pliance. Further, since facilities have one year
from the effective date of the interim final
regulations in order to comply with the standards,
the commenter's claim that compliance would be
time - consuming is not well supported.
(c) No design standard is utilized for the control
of run-on and run-off because it is the Agency's
opinion that it is to responsibility of the
owner/operator to estimate and allow for a
reasonable amount of precipitation. ^urther,
the 25-year/10-hour storm design standard is
arbitrary and §265.253(b)(2) is georaphically
dependent i.e., the volume of water oroduced
by the storm varies with the geographic region.
1. Sununary of the interim final requirements for the
Interim Standard and rationale.
See Section (V) of the "Interim Status Standards for the
Management of Wastes in Piles "in this document for a discussion
of §265.253 (b)(2).
- 85 -
-------
2. Comment
The introduction of wastes containing free liquids to waste
piles should be permitted since impermeable bases and collection
systems would provide adequate protection.
3. Analysis of and Response to the Comment
§265.253 (b)(2), which prohibits the addition of liquids
or wastes containing free liquids to piles, does not require
that a pile be placed on an impermeable base or that leachate
be collected. Impermeable bases and leachate collection
systems are, instead required in a separate option, ^265.253(a).
An owner or operator may elect to either: 1) place a pile on
an impermeable base, divert run-on and collect run-off; or 2)
protect the pile from precipitation and run-on and exclude the
addition of liquids or wastes containing free liquids from the
pile. [§265.253(b)].
In reviewing the Interim Status requirements for containment
of piles, the Agency has noted an inconsistency. $265.253
begins with the statement "If leachate or run-off from a pile
is a hazardous waste..." However, §261.3(c)(2) (Definition
of Waste) specifies that precipitation run-off of hazardous
waste is not a hazardous waste. §261.3(c)(2) was intended to
apply to landfills and not to piles, since landfills are more
likely to be covered than piles. In considering this subject,
the Agency has concluded that precipitation run-off from hazardous
waste may be considered as a hazardous waste. Therefore, an
amendment will be made to $261.3(c)(2).
- flfi -
-------
The general standards for containment, discussed in Chapter
IX, eliminate the issue of free liquids so that there is no
prohibition on precipitation or free liquids. This has been done
because the general standards require a base for all piles.
- 87 -
-------
VIII. RATIONALE FOR THE GENERAL REGULATIONS AND CHANGES PROM
INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS FOR CONTAINERS
The general standards include the interim status standards
promulgated on May 19, 19«0. The rationale for the interim status
regulations is discussed in Chapter IV of this document. Some
minor changes "have ben made in the course of making the interim
status regulations part of the general regulations, and these
modifications will be discussed below. In some cases, the Aaency
plans to make the same changes to the interim status requirements.
A few additions have also been made to the general standards,
containment and closure. The changes have been made in part
with the consideration that the general standards, under which
permits are issued, are more extensive in that they include more
design-related requirements. The content of these standards
and the rationale supporting them are discussed in this chapter.
A. SUBJECT: APPLICABILITY
1. Summary and Rationale for the General Standard
On November 25, 1^80, the Agency amended the Part 261
requirements (45 FR 78524-78529) to clarify when and to what
extent empty containers are hazardous wastes. This was done
largely by incorporating what had been widely scattered provisions
into a new §261.7. §261.7 states that when a container has been
emptied according to specified procedures, the remaining residues
lift in the container are not considered to be hazardous wastes.
Therefore, these residues and the containers which hold them are
not subject to the Part 264 regulations.
- 88 -
-------
The interim status standards promulgated May 19, 19RO
contained a comment located in §265.173, management of containers,
which referred to the empty container provisions of Part. 261.
The Part 264 counterpart to that requirement has been modified to
reference the new §261.7 and is now located in $264.170, Applica-
bility. Since the comment refers to a limit on which containers
the Subpart I regulations are effective, it is more appropriately
located in the applicability section. 'Hie Agency plans to ma\e
similar changes to the comment in $265.173.
No other changes were made to the Applicability section.
2. General Standard Language
§264.170 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and operators
of all hazardous waste facilities that store containers of
hazardous waste, except as §264.1 provides otherwise.
CComment; Under §261.7 and §261.33(c)), if a hazardous waste is
emptied from a container the residue remaining in the container
is not considered a hazardous waste if the container is "emr>ty"
as defined in §261.7. In that event, management of the container
is exempt from the requirements of this Subpart.1
B. SUBJECT: CONTAINMENT
1. Summary of and Rationale for the General Standard
The regulations for storaqe facilities, of which container
storage areas are one type, require a primary containment device,
an inspection program where practical to detect leaXs and deterio-
ration, and where primary containment devices are easily damaged
-------
or difficult to inspect, a secondary containment system. In
container storage, the container itself provides primary contain-
ment, i.e., it holds the waste, preventing escape. In this regard
it serves the same purpose as a tank, the liner to a surface
impoundment, and the concrete pad or other device underlying a
pile. Secondly, it is practical to inspect container storaqe areas
to detect leaks, excessive corrosion, or damage to containers so
that wastes can be recontainerized before the damaged container
fails or, failing that, the escaped wastes can be cleaned up before
they disperse widely into the environment.
In comparison to a tank, however, it is relatively easy to
damage drums and most other kinds of containers. Containers are
relatively thin-walled, can be punctured by fork lift trucks,
and are prone to break open when dropped or knocked over. ''Tiev
tend to corrode or otherwise deteriorate relatively rapidly both
from the inside as a result of reaction with the waste, and from
the outside as a result of exposure to the environment. The
Agency believes therefore, that is prudent to require a secondary
containment system under container storage areas. The containment
system will catch leaks, spills, container failures and precipi-
tation which becomes contaminated, and hold it while its hazar-
dousness can be determined.
In December 1978 when the proposed regulations were published,
standards relating to secondary containment of container storage
areas were included. It may be useful to review these proposed
standards, comments on them, and analyses and responses to the
- 90 -
-------
comments to observe what influence they "have "had in the formula-
tion of the general standards for containment (§2fi4.1^c5) .
a. Summary of the Proposed Regulations
The proposed requirements stated that all storage areas
must have impervious, continuous bases (§250.44(e)) and that
container storage areas must be equipped with spill confinement
structures with a capacity equal to 10 percent of the containerized
waste plus sufficient freeboard to allow for the containment o^
precipitation resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.
b. Rationale for the Proposed Standards
The purpose of the containuous, impervious base proposed in
§250.44(e) was to prevent percolation of spilled or leaking wastes
into the groundwater. Secondarily, a continuous, imnervious base
allows easy detection of spilled or leaking wastes.
The proposed containment system (250.44-2(c)) was designed
to prevent run-off from major spills or leaks or from contaminated
rainwater from reaching surface streams or perhaps areas adjacent
to the facility (e.g., neighbors' yards).
There is no existing data on the probability of failure of
or damage to containers over any specified period, which would
support or refute the selection of 10% as an appropriate quantitv
for storage of wastes in containers. The Agency believed it unlike-
ly that all or even most of the containers in a storage area would
fail simultaneously except under catastrophic circumstances when
the value of the containment system is doubtful anyway. On the
other hand, it is conceivable or even probable that more than one
-------
container could fail within a reasonably short time frame.
Ideally, one would specify a containment volume slightly in excess
of the maximum amount of waste which will escape their containers
between inspections. This, of course, is impossible to predict.
Since inspections must be conducted at least weekly ($264.174)
the Agency chose 10% as a conservative but reasonable figure of
the maximum amount. However, the amount of containment necessary
is complicated by the need to allow for rainwater in the contain-
ment area which could become contaminated with spilled or leaking
wastes. The proposed regulations required that sufficient addi-
tional capacity be provided to accomodate the 24-hour, "^-year
storm. Again, this was a conservative decision because of the low
frequency of such storms. On the other hand, this amounted to
only a few additional inches of containment system curbing or
diking.
c. Summary of Comments
1. The requirement for an "impervious base"
is not clearly defined.
2. The term "continuous base" needs
clarification.
3. Confinement structures should be speci-
fied to be constructed of low permea-
bility materials if there is an oppor-
tunity for percolation and contamination
of groundwater. This could be asphalt,
concrete, or other material compatible
with wastes being stored.
4. The furnishing o.f a hazardous waste
storage area with a continuous base of
impervious material such as concrete or
asphalt could be very expensive. Retro-
fit of an existing area could be extremely
costly.
- 92 -
-------
5. The secondary containment system should
require the qreater of (1) ten percent
of the containerized waste or (2) the
volume of the largest container since
the latter may be larger than the former.
6. A. spill confinement structure should
contain a capacity of 20% of the contain-
erized waste. (No rationale for 20%
was included with the comment).
7. Regulation of spill confinement is unne-
cessary for tanks and container facilities
since compliance with EPA's oil and
hazardous substance pollution prevention
regulations should be sufficient to protect
human health and the environment.
8. Spill confinement requirements should be
consistent with oil and hazardous sub-
stances pollution prevention regulations.
The proposed rule is more stringent in
requiring sufficient freeboard for preci-
pitation resulting from a 74-hour, 25-year
storm.
Q. Containment is unnecessary because con-
tainers are constructed of sturdv "imper-
meable" material.
d. Analysis of the Comments and Effect on the
General Standards
1. Definition of "impervious" - The Agency
recognizes that "impervious" is a rela-
tive term and difficult, if not impossible,
to quantify. Further, it would eliminate
the flexibility of the owner or operator
to choose the type of materials that could
be used with certain wastes if EPA spe-
cified a certain allowable level of permea-
bility. Therefore, the general regulations
have been restated to specify a base which
is "sufficently impervious" to contain
any waste until it is collected and removed,
2. Clarification of "continuous base" - The
concept of a base with high structural
integrity, which was the underlying
concept for the "continuous base" in the
proposed standards remains in the general
regulations in a revised form. In the
general standards, the base underlying
-------
the containers must be free of gaps or
cracks.
3. Specification of low permeability mate-
rials - The Agency envisions that contain-
ment structures for containers will most
often consist of a concrete or asphalt
pad with no cracks or holes. Clay or
otTier materials may be used if they are
sufficiently impervious to contain the
waste and precipitation until it can be
detected and removed. In addition, the
Agency has included a requirement that
the containment system drain all standing
liquid from the base within one hour
unless the containers are protected from
accumulated liquids. This requirement
will be discussed at greater length later
in this chapter. Again, in order to
afford the owner or operator flexibilitv
in the choice of structural materials,
the Agency does not wish to specify
levels of permeability.
4. Cost of Impervious Base and Retrofitting
The cost of constructing an impervious
asphaltic or sealed concrete base and
containment system is not extremely high
and is a cost effective means of preventing
environmental damage from releases of
"hazardous waste due to spills or leaking
containers. Since containers are readily
transportable, they can be temporarily
relocated while the base is installed.
There is therefore, no reason for existing
facilities to receive special consideration.
Tit is not, however, usually practical to
relocate tanks while impervious pads
are placed under them. As a result, for
existing tanks, a set of alternate require-
ments have been developed where the owner
or operator is unable or chooses not to
provide an impervious base under his tank.
The reader is referred to the background
documents on tanks and chemical, ohysical,
and biological treatment for further
discussion.1
- 94 -
-------
5 & 6. Capacity of Cont-ainmervt System
The Agency agrees with the comment that
the secondary containment system must
at least have the capacity to contain
the volume of the largest container.
While containers are usuallv relatively
small, some portable containment devices
will have capacities of 300-500 gallons.
If two or three of these containers
were stored in one area, a secondary
containment capacity of 10% of the
containerized waste would be inadequate
in the event of a major failure of one
of them. The regulations have been
changed to institute the suggestion.
Comment (6) was the only one received on
the adequacy of the 10% figure for con-
tainment system capacity. Therefore,
the Agency considers that the figure
chosen was well received and is considered
reasonable. Comment (6) provided no sup-
porting rationale for why the change
from 10% to 20% should be made. The
Agency will be monitoring the adequacy
of the 10% rule and if it should prove
to be insufficiently protective, will
propose modifications as may be warranted
by experience.
7 & 8. Consistency with KPA's Oil and Hazardous
Substances Regulations
The Oil Pollution Prevention regulations
(40 CFR Part 112) promulgated in 19"?3
apply only to those facilities which
could reasonably be expected to spill
oil to navigable waters. The proposed
Hazardous Substances Pollution Prevention
regulations would apply only to
permitted facilities with the potential
to spill harmful quantities of hazardous
substances (defined in Part. 110) into
navigable water. They do not provide
direct protection of groundwater, or
cover facilities where it is unlikely
that harmful quantities can reach surface
waters. The RCRA Hazardous Waste regu-
lations apply to all facilities manaainQ
hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR
Part 261. Therefore, in order to cover
- 95 -
-------
all of the facilities managing hazardous
wastes it is necessary to regulate
under RCRA. The regulations nave
been worded in a fashion which eliminates
conflict.
The Agency believes that there are no
inconsistencies between these regulations
and the Oil Pollution Prevention and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Prevention
regulations.
The Agency believes that the proposed
requirement for sufficient additional
containment capacity for sufficient
additional containment capacity to hold
the 24-hour, 25-year storm was extreme
in its worst case assumption. The like-
lihood of a leak coinciding with such a
large storm is remote. The reguirement
has been replaced with a provision that
the containment system be capable of
holding wastes, leaks, spills, precipi-
tation, etc. until it is detected and
removed, and drain all standing liguids
from the base within one hour unless the
containers are in some way protected
from accumulated liquids. ^he Agency
believes that it should allow owners
and operators some flexibility in design
of a containment system rather than
requiring owners and operators to adhere
to a certain design standard. The 7.4-
hour, 25-year design standard is arbitrary
and depending upon the geographic area
in which a facility is located and the
climatic conditions, it may likely be
inappropriate. A requirement callina
for the system to be designed to drain
all standing liquid from the base within
one hour after leakage or precipitation
or to protect the containers in some
manner from contact with accumulated
liquids takes into consideration poten-
tial amounts of rainfall in a particular
geographic region. This requirement,
the Agency believes, is more reasonable
but at the same time protective.
The requirement §264.175 (aH9-)» which
stipulates that containers must not
stand in accumulated liquid is included
-------
because EPA. believes that it is unwise
to allow containers to stand in accumu-
lated rainfall/ spilled or leaked wastes
due to the potential for accelerated
deterioration of the drums. In addition,
containers standing in liquid interferes
with inspections.
The containment regulations therefore
require that the base be sloped or
otherwise designed to drain to a collec-
tion system so that one hour after a
leak or storm, no standing liquid (puddles)
will remain on the base in contact with
the container. Typical construction
consists of gentle sloping, often with
grooves, to facilitate drainage to
gutters or trenches which serve either
to hold the liquids or conduct theTn to
a sump or tank where they are held until
they can be tested to determine if they
are a hazardous waste. ^e Agency
realizes, however, that it is common
practice, especially in small storage
areas, to place containers on pallets
so that the containers do not sit direct.y
on the base. In this case, since the
containers do not site in the accumulated
liquid, a drainage and external collec-
tion system is not necessary. This
alternative is allowed provided, of
course, that the liquids collected on
the base would not rise to contact the
containers. This constitutes a simpler
type collection system in which liquids
accumulate directly on the base, normally
contained by a concrete curb. Of course,
some provision must be made for removing
the collected liquids from time to
time.
Containment unnecessary due to sturdy
construction of containers
The Agency believes that spills and leaks
due to corrosion or damage in handlina
will occur at most container storage areas.
The Agency knows of many instances where
leaking and damaged containers have
been stored with apparent disregard ^or
the impact of such practices. Compliance
with SubPart I should mitigate these
- 97 -
-------
practices. Without secondary containment,
such leaks and spills runoff to surface
waters or trickle through permeable soil
to ground-water.
In addition to those issues proposed for containment of
container storage areas, the general regulations also require that
precipitation drainage (run-on) into the containment system be
prevented, unless the collection system has the excess capacity
to handle it. The purpose of this requirement is to minimize
overload of the secondary containment system and containment over-
flow. In addition, any spilled or leaked waste and accumulated
precipitation is required to be removed from the collection area
as quickly as is necessary to prevent overflow. Collected material
(precipitation, leachate, run-off or leaked waste) which has
accumulated in the containment system must be managed as a hazar-
dous waste if:
(1) If has been contaminated by a spill or leak which had
not been adequately cleaned up at the time of the storm,
and
(2) The collected material is a hazardous waste as defined
by these regulations
Accumulated precipitation and other collected material is a
hazardous waste whenever it becomes mixed with a listed hazardous
waste or exhibits the characteristics of a hazardous waste. Over-
flow of the containment system is simply not permissible unless
it has been determined that the overflow is not a hazardous waste.
Whether run-on may enter the containment area depends on the capa-
city of the collection system, the frequency at which the waste
can be removed, the magnitude of rainfall events, and the aeographv
of the drainage area. Where an owner or operator desires to allow
-------
run-on, a judgement will be made during permit application review
concerning the capability of the collection system to handle it.
As well as the proposed regulations already discussed, the
Agency also proposed that the Regional Administrator could require
ground water monitoring if he determined that there was a potential
for discharge (§250.44(d)). However, in response to comments,
the Agency deleted this requirement (see Chapter IV for a dis-
cussion of the standard and the comments). The Agency believes
that the performance standard of §264.171, the inspection standard
of §264.174 and the containment system requirements of $264.17=1
will prevent leakage to the ground water. Therefore, ground water
monitoring is unneeded.
The interim status regulations promulgated on May 19, 1980
did not include provisions for a containment system because it
was considered too costly to be appropriately required under
interim status.
2. General Standard Language
§264.175 Containment.
(a) Container storage areas must have a containment system
that is capable of collecting and holding spills, leaks, and
precipitation. The containment system must:
(1) Have a base underlying the containers which is free of
cracks or gaps and is sufficiently imervious to contain
leaks, spills, and accumulated rainfall until the
collected material is detected and removed;
(2) Be designed for efficient drainage so that standing
liquid does not remain on the base longer than one hour
after a leakage or precipitation event unless the
containers are elevated or in some other manner are
protected from contact with accumulated liquids; and
- 99 -
-------
(3) Have sufficient, capacity to contain 10% of the volume
of containers or the volume of the largest container,
whichever is greater.
(b) Run-on into the containment system must be prevented,
unless the Regional Administrator waives this requirement in the
permit after determining that the collection system has suffi-
cient excess capacity in addition to that required in paragraph
(a) (3) of this Section to accomodate any run-on which might enter
the system.
(c) Spilled or leaked waste and accumulated precipitation
must be removed from the sump or collection area in as timelv a
manner as is necessary to prevent overflow of the collection system,
: If the collected material is a hazardous waste under
Part 261 of this Chapter, it must be managed as a hazardous waste
in accordance with all applicable requirements of Parts ?62 - 2^6
of this Chapter. If the collected material is discharqed throuqh
a point source to waters of the United States, it is subject
to the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as
amended. 1
C. SUBJECT: COMPATIBILITY
1. Summary and Rationale
A new paragraph (c) has been added to the ^264.17 basic
compatibility requirements which is an addition to the comparable
interim status requirements of Part 265. It requires that owners
and operators have documentation that they are complying with
the compatibility requirements of §264.17(a) and (b) . It also
indicates that trial tests, waste analyses, literature reviews
- 100 -
-------
and similar activities may be necessary to develop this documen-
tation.
A comment has been added to $264.177 alerting the reader
to the documentation requirement of §264. l"7(c). A similar comment
will be added to §265.177 when a new companion section is issued
(§265.17(c)) for interim status.
Both §§264.172 and 264.177 deal with incompatibility —
both the incompatibility of a waste with a container which can
cause accelerated corrosion and premature failure and the incom-
patibility of wastes with each other which can cause danqerous
emissions, violent reactions, fires, explosions, and other unde-
sirable and uncontrolled reactions. A number of commenters
responding to the regulations on storage in tanks asked for clari-
fication, pointing out that all materials corrode or undergo only
mild reactions at reduced concentrations, and so on. 'T'hese
commenters wanted to know the limits — how rapid must corrosion
be before it is too rapid, how violent a reaction is violent.
See the background document on tanks for a discussion o^ these
comments.
The Agency has not been able to place numerical limits on
incompatibility: there are too many variables. TT-IUS, some
judgement is involved. In considering the incompatibility of
wastes with containers, it is the Agency's intent that the waste
not react with the materials of construction of the container at
a rate which would cause the container to fail before the waste
is scheduled for removal. This is not only a variable situation
- 101 -
-------
but is difficult to predict. The Agency believes, however, that
with common sense and a little elementary chemistry, most people
can avoid serious incompatibility problems which would lead to
rapid failure. It is these noticeable and dangerously accelerated
reactions that the Agency is addressing in $264.172.
With regard to two or more incompatible wastes, the situa-
tion is also not clear cut. As concentrations diminish, for
example, the reaction rates decrease until it is questionable
whether a hazard is posed. By reference to $264.17(b), $264.177
refers to the generic requirement for iqnitable, reactive, and
incompatible wastes. By using the terms "extreme", "violent",
and "uncontrolled", §264.17(b) indicates unusual or severe reaction's
By use of the term "threaten human health", $264.177(b) indicates
that the reaction must, to some real extent, nose a hazard. Tn
the gray areas, the exercise of judgement is unavoidable.
The Agency is developing guidance which will provide assis-
tance to the permitting officials and the regulated community in
assessing waste compatibility.
2. General Standard Language
§264.172 Compatibility of waste with containers
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
^ility of the container to contain the waste is not impaired.
§264.177 Special requirements for incompatible wastes
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials
- 102 -
-------
(see Appendix v for examples), must, not be placed in the sane
container, unless §264.17(b) is complied with.
(b) Hazardous waste must not be placed in an unwashed
container that previously held an incompatible waste or material.
rcorament; As required by $264.13, the waste analysis plan must
include analyses needed to comply with §264.177. Also, $264.17(c)
requires wastes analyses, trial tests or other documentation to
assure compliance with §264.17(b). As required by $264.73, the
owner or operator must place the results of each waste analysis
and trial test, and any documented information, in the operating
record of the facility.]
(c) A storage container holding a hazardous waste that is
incompatible with any waste or other materials stored nearbv in
ot.her containers, piles, open tanks, or surface impoundments must
be separated from the other materials or protected from them by
means of a dike, berm, wall, or other device.
[Comment; The purpose of this Section is to prevent ^ires,
explosions, gaseous emission, leaching, or other discharge of
hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents which could
result from the mxing of incompatible wastes or materials if
containers break or leak..!
D: SUBJECT: CLOSURE
1. Summary and Rationale for the General Standard
Mo specific closure standard under Subpart. I (Part 265)
was promulgated on May 19, 19RO. The general closure standard
(Part 265, Subpart G) is applicable, however. It requires that
wastes be removed from storage facilities at closure and that
- 103 -
-------
structures and equipment be disposed of or decontaminated (&265.114),
However, for purposes of clarification and to be consistent with
the closure requirements of tanks (Subpart J), for which specific
closure requirements were promulgated on May 19, and with the
closure requirements of piles (Subpart L) for which closure stan-
dards are being promulgated in Part 264, a closure standard specific
to container facilities has been added to Part 264. The Agency
plans to add the same specific requirements to Part 265 as well.
The rules promulgated today require that all hazardous wastes
and hazardous waste residues be removed from the containment
system. If any liners, bases or any other areas of the contain-
ment system cannot be decontaminated, they must be removed. In
addition, any contaminated soil surrounding or in the vicinity of
the containment system must also be removed or decontaminated.
2. General Standard Language
§264.178 Closure
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues
must be removed from the containment system. Remaining containers,
liners, bases, and soil containing or contaminated with hazardous
waste or hazardous waste residues must be decontaminated or
removed.
[Comment: At closure, as throughout the operating period, unless
the owner or operator can demonstrate in accordance with ^261.3(d)
of this Chapter that the solid waste removed forn the contain-
ment system is not a hazardous waste, the owner or operator
becomes a generator of hazardous waste and must manage it in accor-
dance with all applicable requirements of Parts 262 - 266 of this
Chapter.
- 104 -
-------
IX. RATIONALE FOR THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR WASTE PILES AND FOR
CHANGES FROM THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
This chapter addresses the general standards for waste piles.
Most of the interim status regulations are beinq adopted as gene-
ral standards in Part 264. The rationale for their inclusion is
the same as for the comparable interim status requirements and
can be found in Chapter V of this document.
Changes have been made to parts of the regulations, "however,
in order to be consistent with other Subparts, such as Subpart K
(Surface Impoundments) and to clarify the requirements. Some
changes were made to the containment requirements ($7.64.263}
and requirements for general desian ($264.2=11), general operation
(§264.252), base inspection during installation ($264.254), con-
tainment system repairs (§264.255) and closure ($264.25,cn have
been added. A discussion of these subjects follows.
In addition, one section, Waste Analysis, has been deleted,
and the rationale for this is also presented.
A. SUBJECT: APPLICABILITY
1. Summary and Rationale for the General Standard
The general standard for applicability of the waste pile
requirements (§264.250) is different from the interim status
standards in that the alternative for managing a pile of hazar-
dous waste as a landfill under Subpart N has been deleted.
This option has been eliminated because firstly, the ^art
264, Subpart N landfill standards are not being promulgated at
this time. Secondly, the Part 264, Subpart L regulations are
intended to apply only to storage and treatment practices in
- 105 -
-------
piles and Which prevent discharge into the land surface or around
water. Waste piles for the purpose of storage or treatment
require containment in the Agency1s view, and allowing an owner
or operator to manage a pile as a landfill constitutes disposal.
A comment to this section clarifies which piles are subject
to Subpart L, and indicates that the Agency intends to supplement
these regulations in the future to address other types of waste
piles that are not designed and operated to prevent discharae and
piles that are closed with the waste left in place. The Agency
believes that these types of waste piles constitute disposal
rather than storage or treatment, and are best dealt with under
an engineering analysis approach. Meanwhile, until additional
regulations are promulgated, all waste piles that are authorized
by permit must comply with the Part 264, Subpart L standards.
2. General Standard Language
§264.250 Applicability
The regulations of this Subpart apply to owners and operators
of facilities that store or treat hazardous waste in piles, except
as §264.1 provides otherwise.
[Comment; This Subpart currently applies only to waste piles
that are used for storage or treatment of hazardous waste and are
designed and operated to prevent discharge into the land, surface
water, and ground water. The Aqency intends to supplement this
regulation to address other types of waste piles including piles
that are not designed and operated to prevent discharge and piles
that are closed with waste left in place. Hntil additional reciu-
- ins -
-------
lations are promulgated, all waste piles that are authorized by
permit must comply with this Subpart.l
3. SUBJECT: GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ($264.251)
1. Summary and Rationale for the General Standard
The objectives to be achieved by the pile desiqn are the
subject of §264.251, General f)esign Requirements. This part of
the regulations include stipulations to control dispersal by
wind or water erosion, and to prevent discharge into the land,
surface or ground water during the life of the pile by use of a
containment system under §264.253.
The provision to control dispersal by wind or by water
erosion implies that a pile must be designed so that no emission
of "hazardous waste will occur due to wind storms, precipitation,
or run-on.
The Agency anticipates that the owner or operator of a waste
pile will design the Pile to meet these requirements, and submit
the design information to the Regional Administrator with Part R
of his permit application for review, modification as necessary,
and final determination as part of the permit process. por
example, the owner or operator must, where necessary, include
wind dispersal controls (such as enclosing the pile in a shed)
in the waste pile design.
2. General Standard Language
§264.251 General design requirements.
(a) A waste pile must be designed to control dispersal of
the waste bv wind where necessary, or by water erosion.
- 106 -
-------
(b) A waste pile must be designed to prevent discharge into
the land, surface water, or qround water durina the life of the
pile by use of a containment system which complies with $254. 2*>3.
C. SUBJECT: GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENT'S ($264.?52)
1. Summary and Rationale for the General Standard
The objectives of §264.252, General Operating Requirements,
are to control wind dispersal, divert run-on away from a waste
pile, and to collect leachate and run-off from a waste nile.
The control of wind dispersal provision is similar to $265.251,
Protection of Wind, under the interim status requirements. It
has been reworded slightly because the Agency anticipates that
the Regional Administrator will approve or impose specific control
practices (e.g., cover by a tarpaulin, enclosure in a building,
frequent wetting) as permit conditions, where necessarv. In addi-
tion the regulation has been included in General Operating
Requirements in order to clarify its objectives. T>ie Aqencv anti-
cipates that the owner or operator can use various methods to
control wind dispersal. These include enclosure in a buildina,
covering with a tarpaulin, or wetting with a dust suppressant,
the latter of which is reportedly not as effective and is analogous
to the requirements in §265.253(a). The rationale for control
of wind dispersal can be found in Chapter v.
The requirement to divert run-on away from a niie f&264.252(b))
is required for either option is the interim status containment
provision (§265.253). The requirement that leachate arid run-off
from a pile be collected and controlled ($264.252(0)1 derives from
the containment objective of these Part 264 standards.
- 107 -
-------
Although there may be rare situations where the leachate or
run-off from a pile of hazardous waste is not itself a hazardous
waste and thus where uncontrolled discharge from the pile mav be
acceptable, or situations where hazardous leachate or run-off mav
be discharged in a manner that protects human health and the
environment, such cases are properly the subject of the supnle-
mental Part 264 waste pile regulations to be issued in the
future. Until these additional standards are promulgated, all
waste piles that are authorized by permit must collect and control
leachate and run-off from the pile. The owner or operator must
then determine whether or not the leachate or run-off is a
hazardous waste and manage it accordingly. In order to be con-
sistent with the containment philosophy which is integral to these
regulations, it is necessary to require the control and collections
of leachate and run-off.
2. General Standard Language
§264.252 General operating requirements
(a) The Regional Administrator shall specify control practices
(e.g., cover or frequent wetting) where necessary to ensure that
wind dispersal of hazardous waste from piles is controlled.
(b) Run-on must be diverted away from a waste pile.
(c) Leachate and run-off from a waste pile must be collected
and controlled.
[Comment; If the collected leachate or run-off is a hazardous
waste under Part 261 of this Chapter, it must be manacred as a
hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable requirements of
-------
Parts 262 - 266 of this Chapter. If collected leachate or run-off
is discharged through a point source to waters of the United
States, it is subject to the requirements of Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended."!
D. SUBJECT: CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS ($264.2^3)
1. Summary and Rationale for the Generaj^ Standard
§264.253 has been altered from the comparable interim status
standards in that $264.253 requires that all piles must have a
leachate and run-off collection and control system regardless of
the containment design. This has been reuired in keeping with a
ccomplete containment philosophy. In addition, under general
status, every pile must have a base that will prevent leachate
and run-off from entering the soil beneath or around a pile.
This requirement also stems from the idea of containment of the
pile. However, the owner or operator is now afforded two options
for the type of base to be used.
The first waste pile base option requires a sturdy base
underlying and in contact with the waste pile that is made of a
liner (or liners) that will prevent discharge into the land
surface water or ground water during the life of the pile. To
comply with this requirement, the base rnaterial(s) and design must
be based on the thickness and permeability of the liner(s) and the
characteristics of the waste or leachate to which the liner(s)
will be exposed. Further, the liner(s) must be of sufficient
strength and thickness to prevent failure due to puncture, crackina,
tearing or other physical damage from equipment used to place
- 109 -
-------
waste in or on the pile or to clean and expose the liner surface
for inspection.
The material(s) and design for this waste pile option have
not been specified in order to afford the owner or operator
flexibility. The type of waste to be piled, its volume and mass,
and the foundation upon which the base is to be placed all influ-
ence the type of material (s) that should be used and dictate the
thickness and strength required.
The major difference between the first type of base and its
alternative is the ability to accommodate periodic removal of the
waste pile to allow inspection of the liner surface. Oiven that
heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers or front-end loaders) nav have
to be used for waste pile removal, the Aqencv expects that in
many cases this base option will consist of reinforced concrete
with appropriate coating(s) or synthetic membrane liner(s) to
prevent leachate seepage. The Agency does not believe that natu-
ral or compacted soil liners provide an adequate base for hazar-
dous waste piles. A compacted clay liner, for example, must be
saturated to provide waste containment. In a waste pile, a clay
liner would not be in contact with liquids at all times, as it
would be in a surface impoundment, and thus would be liXely to
dry out, crack, and lose its containment properties.
In the case of the second waste pile base option, the base
in contact with waste must be designed to prevent discharqe as in
the first option, but the base does not have to be sufficientlv
strong or thick to prevent failure due to damaqe from equipment
- 110 -
-------
that would be used to remove the pile for inspection or to clean
the base.
In some cases, it may be more economically or technically
feasible to utilize a base to contain a waste pile which would
not be strong or thick enough to withstand stress generated by
regular removal of the pile. This alternative is included
primarily to accommodate those situations where it is impractical
to remove the waste periodically to allow inspection of the line
surface. However, a leachate detection, collection and removal
system must be installed and used in conjunction with the liner.
This leachate collection system is intended to detect, collect
and remove any discharge from the base, and must be placed above
the water table. The collection system must be in the unsaturated
zone in order to detect any leakage or failure earlv enough so
that repairs can be made. The water table may be controlled in
order to comply with this requirement. This may be accomplished
by, for example, a counter pumping program in which ground water
is pumped out, thus lowering the water table. This technique
has been frequently used at landfills. A. leachate detection
system customarily consists of a bottom liner and a drainacre
system which acts not only as a detection system but also as a
secondary containment system in the event leakage occurs.
Additionally, $264.253 contains provisions relating to
structural materials of the base, protection of the containment
system from plant growth, and containment life. These sections
relate to all piles. §264.253(b) specifies that the base must
be made of materials that will be strong and thick enouqh to with-
- Ill -
-------
stand pressure and physical contact with the waste it contains.
These materials must also be able to withstand weather conditions,
and the stress of installation of the liner. Also, the base must
be placed on a foundation able to support it, and to support
loads moving across the base in a manner such that failure does
not occur due to the stress of movements across the surface or
due to settlement.
§264.253(c) stipulates that the containment system must be
protected from plant qrowth which could puncture any component of
the system, thereby causing failure. This can be done prior to
construction of the base by clearing the site of any topsoil
which may contain seeds and/or applying an herbicide to the soil
to kill any viable seeds or plants.
The requirement that the containment system must have a
containment life equal to or greater than the life of the pile
is given in $264.253(d). Obviously, this is necessary in order
for the base to adequately contain the pile for the intended
length of time. In addition, certain components of the contain-
ment systems, such as a liner or base coating, may be replaced
during the life of the pile, thus extending the life of the
containment system.
2. General Standard Language
§264.253 Containment systems
(a) A containment system must be designed, constructed,
maintained, and operated to prevent discharge into the land,
surface water, or ground water during the life of the waste
pile. The system must consist of:
- 112 -
-------
(1) A leachate and run-off collection and
control system; and either
(2) A base underlying and in contact with the waste pile
that is made of a liner (or liners) which will prevent
discharge into the land, surface water, or ground water
during the lifeof the pile based on the liner(s) thick-
ness, the permeability of the liner(s), and the charac-
teristics of the waste or leachate to which the liner(s)
will be exposed. The liner(s) must be of sufficient
strength and thickness to prevent failure due to puncture,
cracking, tearing, or other physical damage form equip-
ment used to palce waste in or on the pile, or to clean
and expose the liner surface for inspection; or
(3) A base as in paragraph (a) (2^ of this Section, except
that the liner(s) need not be of sufficient strength
and thickness to prevent failure due to physical damaoe
from equipment used to clean and expose the liner surface
for inspection, and a leachate detection, collection,
and removal system beneath the base to detect:, contain,
collect, and remove any discharge from the base. The
leachate detection, collection, and removal system must
be placed above the water table to ensure the detection
of any discharge through the base; to prevent the discharge
of ground water into the leachate detection, collection,
and removal system; and to protect the structural inte-
grity of the base.
- 113 -
-------
[Commentt A highly impermeable liner beneath the drainage layer
is a necessary part of a leachate detection, collection, and
removal system. The ground water table may be controlled to
achieve this requirement.H
(b) A waste pile base must be constructed:
(1) Of materials that have aopropriate chemical properties
and strength and of sufficient thickness to prevent
failure due to pressure of and physical contact with the
waste to which they are exposed, climatic conditions,
and the stress of installation; and
(2) On a foundation capable of providing support to the
liner(s) and to loads placed or movincr above the linerfs
to prevent failure of the liner(s) due to settlement or
compression.
(c) A containment system must be protected from plant growth
which could puncture any component of the system.
(d) A containment system must have a containment life equal
to or greater than the life of the pile.
rcomment: See "Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance
Evaluation" EPA, SW/R69, September 19RO for methods to evaluate
the containment life and effectiveness of a liner system. See
"Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities", KPA/87O,
September 1980 for data and discussions of liner system materials,
design, construction, operation, and maintenance.!
- 114 -
-------
E. SUBJECT: INSPECTIONS AND TESTING ($264.2^4")
1- Summary and Rationale for the General Standard
Inspection of the containment system for piles was not
included in the Part 265, Subpart L, requirements promulgated on
May 19, 1980. The Agency believes that periodic inspection and
testing requirements for pile containment systems should be
specified explicitly, since neither a secondary containment
system nor ground water monitoring is required in the management
of waste piles. However, inspection and testing of the waste pile
base requires removal of the waste from the base, and this would
be a significant new regulatory requirement. This requirement
has been proposed for both Parts 264 and 265 and is discussed
in Section X.
In order to verify that a base will function properly as a
containment device and is capable of tolerating stress to which
it will likely be subjected, the system should be inspected
during its construction and installation and prior to placing a
waste pile on it. §264.254 specifies that during construction or
installation, liner systems must be examined to certify that thev
are uniform, and free from cracks, holes and other damage or
imperfections. In addition, manufactured liner materials must
be inspected to ensure tight joints and seams in order that the
base will contain the waste.
Although liners and/or bases are frequently inspected in
this manner during construction and installation, the Aaencv
believes the requirement should be made explicit in the reaulations
due to its importance. Since in this case the liner or base is
- 115 -
-------
the primary containment device, its integrity is very important.
Inspections of liners during construction and installation have
been significant in identifying or ensuring against liner problems
at numerous installations in the past. Damage such as holes,
cracks, thin spots, foreign materials, tears or blisters can be
detected via visual inspection during construction or instllation.
However, thin spots, foreign materials and integrity of seans and
joints may also reguire testing, depending upon the tyne of
material. (See the EPA report "Lining of Waste Impoundment and
Disposal Facilities", SW-R70, September 1980 for more information
about inspection of liners.)
The Agency also believes that the requirement for inspecting
the pile base during construction and installation is not burden-
some, especially since many owners and operators commonly examine
the integrity of a base prior to its use anyway. In addition, it
does not require much extra effort to be expended in order to comoly
with the regulation. It is relatively easy to visually insoect
a base or liner materials and, if necessary, test for integrity.
As well as promulgating this requirement as a general status
standard, the Agency is considering including it in the part 265
interim status standards.
2. General Standard Language
§264.254 Inspections and testing
(a) During construction or installation of the waste pile
base:
(l) Liner systems must be inspected for uniformity, damage,
and imperfections (e.g., holes, cracks, thin spots,
and foreign materials); and
- 116 -
-------
(2) Manufactured liner materials (e.g., membranes, sheets,
and coatings) must be inspected to ensure tight seams
and joints and the absence of tears or blisters.
F. SUBJECT: CONTAINMENT SYSTEM REPAIRS: COWLINGENCV
(§264.255)
In addition to inspecting the waste pile base during its
construction or installation, the Agency believes that the contain-
ment system should be inspected whenever there is any indication of
its possible failure. Further, whenever there is a positive indi-
cation of containment system failure, the waste pile should be
removed from service and its containment system should be repaired
immediately, or the waste pile closed.
§264.255 has been included in the general standards, and
requires remedial action in accordance with a previously prepared
contingency plan whenever a containment system fails or there is
an indication that it may fail.
Several occurrences might indicate possible failure of the
containment system including liquid detected in the leachate
detection system (where applicable), leakage or potential for
leakage in the base, erosion of the base and possible deterioration
of the liner based on observation or test samples of the liner
materials. Some of these incidents are subject to judgement as
to whether or not they constitute leakage which would dictate
implementation of the contingency plan. For example, some liquid
in the leachate detection system may not indicate liner ^ailure,
and §264.252 (General operating requirements) requires that
leachate be collected. The amount of leachate expected to appear
- 117 -
-------
in the leachate detection and collection system is dependent upon
the liner design. Any amount significantly above that level
probably indicates liner failure. In addition, it should be
considered that the amount of leachate can be expected to increase
over the active life of the waste pile as liner deterioration
proceeds. It may be prudent to describe the expected increase in
the remedial action plan so that excessive amounts may be recog-
nized as a liner failures.
The action required by the owner or operator should a waste
pile need to be retired is given in $264.255 (cK The owner or
operator must immediately stop adding further waste to the pile,
contain any leakage, stop the leak, and if the leak cannot be
stopped by any other means, remove the waste from the base to
repair it.
The contingency plan specified in $264.255(d) must give the
procedures for complying with §264.255(c), explained above. ""he
plan must also describe procedures for testing and monitoring,
action to be taken in the event of a possible failure and for
repair to be used in the event of leakage or deterioration which
does not require removal of the waste pile from service.
Once a pile has been retired, it cannot be restored to
service unless the containment system has been repaired and
certified by a qualified engineer as meeting the design require-
ments in the permit. A. pile that has been removed and which has
a base that is not being repaired must be closed under
(Closure).
- 118 -
-------
§264.255 is analogous to §264.227 for surface impoundments.
See the background document on surface impoundments for further
details.
2. General Standard Language
§264.255 Containment system repairs; contingency plans
(a) Whenever there is any indication of a possible failure
of the containment system, that system must be inspected in
accordance with the provisions of the containment system evalua-
tion and repair plan required by paragraph (d^ of this Section.
Indications of possible failure of the containment system include
liquid detected in the leachate detection svstem fwhere applicable^,
evidence of leakage or the potential for leakage in the base, ero-
sion of the base, or apparent or potential deterioration of the
liner(s) based on observation or test samples of the liner materials.
(b) Whenever there is a positive indication of a failure of
the containment system, the waste pile must be removed from service.
Indications of positive failure of the containment system include
waste detected in the leachate detection system (where applicable),
or a breach (e.g., a hole, tear, crack, or separation) in the base.
(c) If the waste pile must be removed from service as required
by paragraph (b) of this Section, the owner or operator must:
(1) Immediately stop adding wastes to the pile;
(2) Immediately contain any leakaqe which has or is occurina;
(3) Immediately cause the leak to be stopped; and
(4) If the leak cannot be stopped by any other means, remove
the waste from the base.
-------
[Comment: See §264.56(j) for recordkeeping and reporting require-
ments . 1
(d) As part of the contingency plan required in Subpart D,
the owner or operator must specify:
(1) A procedure for complying with the requirements of
paragraph (c) of this Section; and
(2) A containment system evaluation and repair plan
describing inspection, testing, and monitoring tech-
niques ; procedures to be followed to evaluate the
integrity of the containment system in the event of
a possible failure; a schedule of actions to be taken
in the event of a possible failure; and a description
of the repair techniques to be used in the event of
leakage due to containment system failure or deterio-
ration which does not require the waste pile to be
removed from service.
(e) No waste pile that has been removed from service in
accordance with paragraph (b^ of this Section can be restored to
service unless:
(1) The containment system has been repaired; and
(2) The containment system has been certified by a qualified
engineer as meeting the design specifications approved
in the permit.
(f) A waste pile that has been removed from service in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this Section and that is not
being repaired must be closed in accordance with S264.2*>3.
[Comment; All wastes removed from the waste pile must be managed
as a hazardous waste in compliance with all applicable requirements
of Parts 262, 263, and 264 or 265 of this Chapter. Any point
source discharge to waters of the United Stares is subject to the
requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. "I
- 120 -
-------
G. SUBJECT: CLOSURE
1. Summary and Rationale for the General Standard
Under interim status, there are no closure requlations specific
to waste pile facilities, although the topic was discussed in the
preamble to Subpart L. The general closure standard (Part 2
-------
H. SUBJECT: WASTE ANALYSIS
The waste analysis section in the Part 265 interim status
standards (§265.252) was intended to prevent inadvertent mixing
of incompatible wastes in piles and to assure that ignitable or
reactive wastes are protected from sources of ignition. However,
with the formulation of the general standards, a new paragraph (c)
has been added to §264.17, which coupled with the general waste
analysis requirements under $264.11, makes a Part 264 waste analysis
section for storage facilities redundant. Therefore, no comparable
standard for waste analysis has been included in the general
regulations. EPA also intends to include paragraph fc) in $265.17
and to delete §265.252 from the interim status standards for the
same reasons.
- 122 -
-------
X. PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR INTERIM STATUS AND GENERAL STANDARDS
FOR WASTE PILES
1. Summary of and Rationale for the Proposed Regulations
EPA is proposing to amend Parts 264 and 265 to include
periodic comprehensive inspections for waste pile facilities.
The Agency is proposing modifications to the Part 265 interim
status rules because this involves a substantive change to the
interim status requirement promulgated in May 1980. EPA is also
proposing that the Part 264 general standards be amended to
include this rule, because it is a major chanqe from the nronosed
rules published December 18, 1978 T43 FR 58982-590281.
When the Part 265 interim status standards for hazardous
waste pile facilities were promulgated on May 19, 1980, there
were no specific requirements for the inspections of piles other
than the general Inspections Requirements of ^265.15. EPA
proposes to add §265.254 and $264.254 to the interim status and
general standards, respectively, as requirements for periodic
inspections of piles.
The proposed regulations under interim status, $265.254,
stipulate that an owner or operator must devise an inspection and
testing schedule for the device for controlling precipitation and
run-on, and the base and devices for controlling run-of-P, if
these are used in the containment of the pile under ^265.?53. Tf
a waste pile base is required, the pile must be removed at regu-
lar intervals in order to inspect the base. This requirement is
necessary to ensure that long-term degenerative processes which
could result in failure of the containment system are detected.
- 123 -
-------
These processes include settling and cracking of dikes and foun-
dations/ corrosion, puncture or deterioration of liners.
Inspections of waste piles are important to their proper
management and to ensure the integrity of the containment svstem
. because neither groundwater monitoring nor secondary containment
is required. Waste or leachate can be released through cracks or
holes in a base or diking system and improper functioning of
the control devices for both precipitation and run-on and ^or
leachate and run-off can lead to emission of waste as well.
Once released, the waste, leachate or run-off may contaminate
soil, ground water or surface water. In order to prevent such
contamination, it is important to monitor the condition of the
waste pile base and diking system and precipitation, run-on and
leachate and run-off control equipment at regular intervals so
that any corrosion, punctures, cracks or other failure can be
detected before it leads to failure of the containment svsten
and subsequent release of the world.
The Agency has considered the technical problem of the method
of the inspection of a pile base and has concluded that the best
way to detect any deterioration is to visually examine and test
the condition of the base. This necessitates the removal of the
pile from its base periodically.
The Agency recognizes, however, that it may be impractical
in some cases to remove the pile from the base because of the
size of the pile or because of the type of base used. For example,
if a synthetic membrane is used as a base, it could be damacjed
by equipment during waste removal. Therefore, the Proposed requ-
- 124 -
-------
lations allow the owner or operator 1.0 omit the pile base inspec-
tion from the inspection schedule if lie provides the pile with a
leachate detection, collection and removal system placed under
the base. Any breach of the integrity of the base in the way of
excess leachate or waste would be detected, collected and removed,
and repairs could be made to the base.
The proposed regulations under the general standards,
§264.254 are the sane as for interim status with a few minor
changes. The devices for controlling wind dispersal where
required must also be periodically examined. The Part 26=) lan-
guage has been altered from the "waste pile base and devices for
controlling run-off, if these are used in the containment svstem"
to the Part 264 "waste pile containment system". This has been
done because the containment system, by definition, under Part ?^4
includes a base and devices for controlling run-off. The provi-
sion for examining devices for controlling precipitation is also
omitted, since Part 264 does not require that precipitation be
controlled due to the fact that all piles must have bases. Addi-
tionally, since a base is required in Part 264, the language in
this proposed regulation reflects that fact.
2. Proposed Regulatory Language
PART 265, SUBPA.RT L - WASTE PILKS
§265.254 Inspections
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this
Section, the owner or operator of a waste pile must include in the
inspection plan required under $265.15 a schedule of inspection
of the devices for controlling precipitation and run-on, and the
- 125 -
-------
waste pile base and devices for controlling run-off, if these
are used in the containment of the pile under $265.7.53. Where a
waste pile base is required, the inspection schedule must include,
at a minimum, periodic removal of the waste pile and testing of
the base to ensure that it has not deteriorated to the point where
it is no lonqer capable of containment, is already leaking, or is
otherwise in disrepair.
(b) If it is impractical to remove the waste pile and test
the underlying base periodically because of the size of the pile
or the type of base used 9e.g., synthetic membrane which could be
damaged during waste removal), the owner or operator nay omit the
pile base inspection from his inspection nlan, provided that the
waste pile has a leachate detection, collection, and removal
system as specified in $264.253(a)(3) of this Chapter.
PART 264, SUBPART L - WASTT=: PILKS
§264.243 Inspections
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 'b) of the
Section, the owner or operator of a waste pile must include in
the inspection plan required under 5264.15 a schedule of inspec-
tion of the devices for controlling wind dispersal (where required)
and run-on, and the waste pile containment system under $264. "253.
The inspection schedule must include periodic removal o^ the waste
pile and testing of the underlying base to ensure that it has not
deteriorated to the point where it is no longer capable o*
containment, is already leaking, or is otherwise in disrepair.
(b) If it is impractical to remove the waste pile and test
the underlying base peridically because of the size of the pile
- 126 -
-------
or the type of ba.se used (e.g., a synthetic membrane which could
be damaged during waste removal), the owner or oeprator may omit
the pile base inspection from his inspection plan, provided that
the waste pile "has a leachate detection, colleciton, and removal
system as specified in §264.253(a)(3).
- 127 -
-------
XI. REGULATORY LANGUAGE
A. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
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 hazar-
dous 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 it begins to leak, the owner or operator must transfer the
hazardous waste from this container to a container that is in qood
condition, or manage the waste in some other way that complies with
the requirements of this Part.
§265.172 Compatibility of Waste with Container.
The owner or operator must use a container made o* or lined
with materials which will not react with, and are otherwise compa-
tible 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 alwavs 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
container or cause it to leak.
rComment; A container that is a hazardous waste listed in
§§261.31 or 261.33 of this Chapter must be managed in compliance
with the regulations of this Part. Reuse of containers in trans-
- 123 _
-------
portation is governed by U.S. Department of Transportation regu-
lations, including those set forth in 4^ CPR 173.23.1
§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.
HComment; See $265.171 for remedial action reguired if
deterioration or leaks are detected.!
§265.175 [Reserved!
§265.176 Special Requirements for Ignitable or Reactive Waste.
rInterim Final!
Containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be
located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's property
line.
[Comment; See §265.17(a) for additional reguirements. "I
§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 con-
tainer that previously held an incompatible waste or
material (see Appendix v for examples), unless ^fiS.l'Mb)
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.
rComment; The purpose of this is to prevent fires, explo-
sions, gaseous emissions, leaching, or other discharge of hazardous
- 129 -
-------
waste or hazardous waste constituents which could result from the
mixing of incompatible wastes or materials if containers break or
lealc. 1
§§265.178 - 265.189 PReserved!
- 130 -
-------
SUB PART L - WASTE PILES
§265.250 Applicability.
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and operators
of facilities that treat 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 N.
§265.251 Protection from Wind. ("interim Finall
The owner or operator of a pile containing hazardous waste
which could be subject to dispersal by wind must cover or other-
wise manage the pile so that wind dispersal is controlled.
§265.252 Waste Analysis. Tinterim Final!
In addition to the waste analyses reguired by *?6n».l'3, the
owner or operator must analyze a representative sample of waste
from each incoming movement before adding the waste to anv
existing pile, unless: (1) the only wastes the facilitv receives
which are amenable to piling are compatible with the waste in
the pile to which it is to be added. The analysis conducted must
be capable of differentiating between the types of hazardous waste
the owner or operator places in piles, so that mixing of incom-
patible 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 to comply with ^^265.256 and ?6S .
As required by §265.73, the owner or operator must place the
results of this analysis in the operating record of the facilitv. "I
- 131 -
-------
§265.253 Containment . ("Interim Final!
If leachate or runoff from a pile is a hazardous waste, then
either:
(a) The pile must be placed on an impermeable base that is
compatible with the waste under the conditions of treat-
ment or storage, run-on must be diverted away from the
pile, and any leachate and run-off from the pile must
be collected 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 mav
be placed in the pile.
f 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 402 of the Clean Water
Act, as amended. 1
(c) The date for compliance with paragraphs (a) and
of this Section is 12 months after the effective date
of this Part.
§§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 meetina the defi-
nition 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 react.
- 132 -
-------
§265.257 Special Requirements for Incompatible Wastes. rinterim
Final] ' ~~~~
(a) Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials
(see Appendix V for examples), must not be placed in
the same 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 protected ^rom them
by means of a dike, berm, wall, or other device.
rcomment; The purpose of this is to prevent fires, exnio-
sions, gaseous emissions, leachinq, or other discharge of hazar-
dous waste or hazardous waste constituents which could result from
the contact or mixinq of incompatible 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 suffi-
ciently to ensure compliance with S?.6 5.17 (b) .
§§265.258 - 265.26Q [Reserved]
- 133 -
-------
B. GENERAL STANDARDS
Subpart I - Use and Management of Containers
§264.170 Applicability.
The regulations in this Subpart apoly to owners and operators
of all hazardous waste facilities that store containers of
hazardous waste, except as §264.1 provides otherwise.
[Comment; Under §261.7 and §261.33(c)), if a hazardous waste
is emptied from a container the residue remaining in the
container is not considered a hazardous waste if the container
is "empty" as defined in §261.7. In that event, management of
the container is exempt from the requirements of this Suboart."1
§264.171 Condition of Containers.
If a container holding hazardous waste is not in qood
condition (e.g., severe rusting, apparent structural defects>
or if it begins to leak, the owner 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 wav
that complies with the requirements of this Part.
§264.172 Compatibility of waste with containers.
The owner or operator must use a container made of or
lined with materials which will not react with, and are other-
wise compatible with, the hazardous waste to be stored, so that
the ability of the container to contain the waste is not impaired.
§264.173 Management of containers.
(a) A container holding hazardous waste must always be
closed during storage, except when it is necessary to add or
r emove wa st e.
- 134 -
-------
(b) A container holding hazardous waste must not be opened,
handled, or stored in a manner which may rupture the container
or cause it to leak.
FComment; Reuse of containers in transportation is governed
by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations including
those set forth in 49 CFR 173.2R1
§264.174 Inspections.
At least weekly, the owner or operator must inspect areas
where containers are stored, looking for leakinq containers
and for deterioration of containers and the containment system
caused by corrosion or other factors.
[Comment; See §§264.15(c) and 264.171 for remedial action required
if deterioration or leaks are detected.1
§264.175 Containment.
(a) Container storage areas must have a containment
system that is capable of collecting and holdinq spills, leaks,
and precipitation. The containment system must:
(1) Have a base underlying the containers which is
free of cracks or gaps and is sufficiently impervious
to contain leaks, spills, and accumulated rainfall
until the collected material is detected and removed;
(2) Be designed for efficient drainage so that standing
liquid does not remain on the base longer than one
hour after a leakage or precipitation event unless
the containers are elevated or in some other manner
are protected from contact with accumulatd liquids; and
- 135 -
-------
(3) Have sufficient capacity to contain 10% of the
volume of containers or the volume of the larqest
container, whichever is greater.
(b) Run-on into the containment system must be prevented,
unless the Regional Administrator waives this requirement in
the permit after determining that the collection system has
sufficient excess capacity in addition to that required in
paragraph (a) (3) of this Section to accomodate any run-on
which might enter the system.
(c) Spilled or leaded waste and accumulated precipitation
must be removed from the sump or collection area in as tinely
a manner as is necessary to prevent overflow of the collection
system.
rcommentt If the collected material is a hazardous waste under
Part 261 of this Chapter, it must be manaqed as a hazardous waste
in accordance with all applicable requirements of Parts 262 - 266
of this Chapter. If the collected material is discharged
through a point source to waters of the United States, ix. is
subject to the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act, as amended.]
§264.176 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste.
Containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be
located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's
property line.
[Comment: See $264.17(a) for additional requirements.!
- 136 -
-------
§264.177 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 §264.17(b) is complied with.
(b) Hazardous waste must not be placed in an unwashed
container that previously held an incompatible waste or material.
[Comment; As required by §264.13, the waste analysis plan must
include analyses needed to comply with $264.177. Also, $264.17(c)
requires wastes analyses, trial tests or other documentation to
assure compliance with §264.17(b). As required by 5264.T$, the
owner or operator must place the results of each waste analysis
and trial test, and any documented information, in the operatinq
record of the facility. ~\
(c) A storaqe container holding a hazardous waste that is
incompatible with any waste or other materials stored nearby
in other containers, piles, open tanks, or surface impoundments
must be separated from the other materials or protected from
them by means of a dike, berm, wall, or other device.
[Comment; The purpose of this Section is to prevent fires,
explosions, gaseous emission, 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.T
§264.178 Closure.
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues must be removed from the containment systen. Remaining
-------
containers, liners, bases, and soil containing or contaminated
with hazardous waste or hazardous waste residues must be
decontaminated or removed.
CComment; At closure, as throughout the operating period,
unless the owner or operator can demonstrate in accordance
with §261.3(d) of this Chapter that the solid waste removed
from the containment system is not a hazardous waste, the
owner or operator becomes a generator of hazardous waste and
must manage it in accordance with all applicable requirements
of Parts 262 - 266 of this Chapter].
§§264.179 - 264.189 [Reserved!
- 138 -
-------
Subpart L - V7ASTE PILES
§264.250 Applicability.
The regulations of this Subpart apply to owners and operators
of facilities that store or treat "hazardous waste in piles, except
as §264.1 provides otherwise.
rComment; This Subpart currently applies only to waste piles that
are used for storage or treatment of hazardous waste and are
designed and operated to prevent discharge into the land, surface
water, and ground water. The Agency intends to supplement this
regulation to address other types of waste piles including piles
that are not designed and operated to prevent discharge and piles
that are closed with waste left in place. Until additional regu-
lations are promulgated, all waste piles that are authorized bv
permit must comply with this Subpart.1
§264.251 General design requirements.
(a) A waste pile must be designed to control dispersal of
the waste by wind, where necessary, or by water erosion.
(b) A waste pile must be designed to prevent discharae into
the land, surface water, or ground water durinq the life of the
pile by use of a containment system which complies with $2*>4.35?.
§264.252 General operating reguirements.
(a) The Regional Administrator shall specify control practices
(e.g., cover or frequent wetting) where necessary to ensure that
wind dispersal of hazardous waste from piles is controlled.
(b) Run-on must be diverted away from a waste pile.
(c) Leachate and run-off from a waste pile must be collected
and controlled.
- 139 -
-------
[Comment; If the collected leachate or run-off is a hazardous
waste under Part 261 of this Chapter, it must be managed as a
hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable requirements of
Parts 262 - 266 of this Chapter. If collected leachate or run-of*
is discharged through a point source to waters of the United states,
it is subject to the requirements of Section 402 o^ the Clean
Water Act, as amended.!
§264.253 Containment systems.
(a) A containment system must be designed, constructed, main-
tained, and operated to prevent discharge into the land, surface
water, or ground water during the life of the waste nile. The
system must consist of:
(1) A leachate and run-off collection and control svstem;
and either
(2) A base underlying and in contact with the waste oile
that is made of a liner (or liners) which will prevent
discharge into the land, surface water, or ground water
during the life of the pile based on the liner(s^ thick-
ness, the permeability of the liner(s), and the charac-
teristics of the waste or leachate to which the linerfsl
will be exposed. The liner(s) must be of sufficient
strength and thickness to prevent failure due to punc-
ture, cracXing, tearing, or other physical damage from
equipment used to place waste in or on the nile, or to
clean and expose the liner surface for insnection; or
(3) A base as in paragraph (a) (2) of this Section, excent
that the liner(s) need not be of sufficient strength
- 140 -
-------
and thickness to prevent failure due to physical danaqe
from equipment used to clean and expose the liner surface
for inspection, and a leachate detection, collection, and
removal system beneath the base to detect, contain,
collect, and remove any discharge from the base. The
leachate detection, collection, and removal svstem must
be placed above the water table to ensure the detection
of any discharge through the base; to prevent the dis-
charge of ground water into the leachate detection,
collection, and removal system; and to protect the
structural integrity of the base.
[Comment; A. highly impermeable liner beneath the drainage layer
is a necessary part of a leachate detection, collection, and
removal system. The ground water table may be controlled to
comply with this requirement.1
(b) A waste pile base must be constructed:
(1) Of materials that have appropriate chemical properties
and strength and of sufficient thickness to prevent
failure due to 'pressure of and physical contact with the
waste to which they are exposed, climatic conditions,
and the stress of installation; and
(2) On a foundation capable of providing support to the
liner(s) and to loads placed or moving above the liner(s)
to prevent failure of the linerfs) due to settlement or
compression.
(c) A. containment sytem must be protected from oiant growth
which could puncture any component of the system.
- 141 -
-------
(d) A. containment system must "have a containment life equal
to or greater than the life of the pile.
rcomment: See "Landfill and Surface Impoundment Performance
Evaluation", EPA, SW/R69, September 198O for methods to evaluate
the containment life and effectiveness of a liner system. See
"Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities", KPA/R^O,
September 1980 for data and discussions of liner system materials,
design/ construction, operation, and maintenance.!
§264.254 Inspections and testing.
(a) During construction or installation of the waste pile
base:
(1) Liner systems must be inspected for uniformity, damage,
and imperfections (e.g., holes, cracks, thin soots, and
foreign materials); and
(2) Manufactured liner materials (e.g., membranes, sheets,1
and coatings) must be inspected to ensure tight seams
and joints and the absence of tears or blisters.
§264.255 Containment system repairs; contingency plans.
(a) Whenever there is any indication of a possible failure
of the containment system, that system must be inspected in accor-
dance with the provisions of the containment system evaluation and
repair plan required by paragraph (d) of this Section. Indications
of possible failure of the containment system include liquid
detected in the leachate detection system (where applicable), evi-
dence of leakage or the potential for leakage in the base, erosion
of the base, or apparent or potential deterioration of the liner(s^
based on observation or test samples of the liner materials.
- 142 -
-------
(b) Whenever there is a positive indication of a failure of
the containment system, the waste pile must be removed from service.
Indications of positive failure of the containment system include
waste detected in the leachate detection system (where applicable^,
or a breach (e.g., a hole, tear, crack, or separation^ in the base.
(c) If the waste pile must be removed from service as required
by paragraph (b) of this Section, the owner or operator must:
(1) Immediately stop adding wastes to the pile;
(2) Immediately contain any leakage which has or is occurinq;
(3) Immediately cause the leak to be stopped; and
(4) If the leak cannot be stopped by any other means, remove
the waste from the base.
[Comment; See §264.56(j) for recordkeeping and reportinq
requirements.]
(d) As part of the contingency plan required in Subpart D,
the owner or operator must specify:
(1) A. procedure for complying with the requirements of
paragraph (c) of this Section; and
(2) A. containment system evaluation and repair plan describing
testing and monitoring techniques; procedures to be
followed to evaluate the integritv of the containment
system in the event of a possible failure, a schedule o^
actions to be taken in the event of a possible failure,
and a description of the repair techniques to be used in
the event of leakage due to containment system failure
or deterioration which does not require the waste pile
to be removed from service.
- 143 -
-------
(e) No waste pile that "has been removed from service in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this Section mav "he restored to
service unless:
(1) The containment system has been repaired; and
(2) The containment system has been certified by a qualified
engineer as meeting the design snecif ications approved
in the permit .
(f) A. waste pile that has been removed from service in accor-
dance with paragraph (b) of this Section and that is not beinq
repaired must be closed in accordance with ^264.2'iR.
TComment: All wastes removed from the waste pile must be nanaqed
as a hazardous waste in compliance with all apnlicable requirements
of Parts 262 - 266 of this Chapter. Any point source discharge to
waters of the United States is subject to the requirements of
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended."!
§264.256 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not be placed in a nile, 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 2^1. ?3
of this Chapter, and (iil complies with $?64.i7(b^r or
(2) The waste is managed in such a way that it is protected
from any material or conditions which mav cause it to
ignite or react.
[Comment; As required by §264.13, the waste analysis plan must
include analyses needed to comply with §264.256. Also, $?.64.17(c>
requires waste analyses, trial tests, or other documentation to
- 144 -
-------
assure compliance with «264.17(b). As required by *264.73,
the owner or operator must place the results of each waste
analysis and trial test, and any documented information, in
the operating record of the facilitv.l
§264.257 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 pile, unless §264.17(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 separated from the other materials, or
protected from them by means of a dike, berm, wall,
or other device.
[Comment; The purpose of this is to prevent fires, explosions,
gaseous emissions, leaching, or other discharge which could
result from the contact or mixing of incompatible wastes or
materials.1
(c) Hazardous waste must not be piled on the same base
where incompatible wastes or materials were previously
piled, unless the base has been decontaminated suffi-
ciently to ensure compliance with $264.17(b).
[Comment; As required by §264.13, the waste analysis plan must
include analyses needed to comply with $264.257. Also, $2<=i4.1"? f d
requires waste analyses, trial tests, or other documentation to
assure compliance with $?64.17(b). As required bv ^264.73,
- 145 -
-------
the owner or operator must place the results of each waste
analysis and trial tests, and any documented information, in
the operating record of the facility."!
§264.258 Closure.
At closure, all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues
must be removed from the pile. Any component of the containment
system containing or contaminated with hazardous waste or
hazardous waste residues must be decontaminated or removed.
[Comment; At closure, as throughout the operating period, unless
the owner or operator can demonstrate in accordance with 8?61.3M
of this Chapter that the solid waste removed from the waste nile
is not a hazardous waste, the owner or operator becomes a gene-
rator of hazardous waste and must manage it in accordance with
all applicable requirements of Parts ?62 - 266 of this Chanter."!
§§264.259 - 264.999 [Reserved"!
- 146 -
-------
C. PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR WASTE PILES
PART 265, SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
§265.254 Inspections
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b^ of this
Section, the owner or operator of a waste pile must include in the
inspection plan required under $265.15 a schedule of inspection
of the devices for controlling precipitation and run-on, and the
waste pile base and devices for controlling run-off, if these are
used in the containment of the pile under $265.253. Where a waste
pile base is required, the inspection schedule must include, at
a minimum, periodic removal of the waste pile and testing of the
base to ensure that it has not deteriorated to the point where it
is no longer capable of containment, is already leaking, or is
otherwise in disrepair.
(b) If it is impractical to remove the waste pile and test
the underlying base periodically because of the size of the pile
or the type of base used (e.g., synthetic membrane which could be
damaged during waste removal), the owner or operator mav omit the
pile base inspection fdrom his inspection plan, provided that the
waste pile has a leachate detection, collection, and removal
system as specified in §264.253(a){3) of this Chapter.
- 147 _
-------
PART 264, SUBPART L - WASTE PILFIS
§264.254 Inspections
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b^ of the
Section, the owner or operator of a waste pile must include in the
inspection plan required under §264.!"> a schedule of inspection of
the devices for controlling wind dispersal (where requried^ and
run-on, and the waste pile containment system under $264.2^3.
The inspection schedule must include periodic removal of the waste
pile and testing of the underlying base to ensure that it has
not deteriorated to the point where it is no longer capable o*
containment, is already leaking, or is otherwise in disre pair.
(b) If it is impractical to remove the waste pile and test
the underlying base periodically because of the size of the pile
or the type of base used (e.g., a synthetic membrane which could
be damaged during waste removal), the owner or operator may omit
the pile base inspection from his inspection plan, provided that
the waste pile has a leachate detection, collection, and removal
system as specified in 5264.253(a)(3).
- 148 -
-------
APPENDIX I
EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE
Many hazardous wastes, when nixed with other wastes or
materials at a hazardous waste facility, can oroduce adverse
effects on human health and the environment in the followina
ways: (1) by generating heat or pressure, (2) by violent reac-
tion, (3) by generating or releasing .flammable or toxic fumes
and gases, (4) by fire or explosions, (?) by releasing toxic
substances in case of fire or explosions, and (6) by aeneratina
flammable or toxic gases.
Below are examples of potentially incompatible wastes,
waste components, and materials, along with the adverse con-
sequences resulting from mixing materials in one aroup with
materials in another group. The list is intended as a oui^e
for owners/operators of treatment, storage, and disposal ^acili-
ties and for permit-granting officials, to show the need for
special precautions when managing these potentially incompatible
easte materials or components.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive. An owner or
operator must, as the regulations require, adequately analvze his
wastes so that he can avoid creating uncontrolled substances
or reactions of the type listed belowj whether they are listed
below or not.
It is possible for potentially incompatible wastes to be
mixed in a way that precludes a reaction fe.a., ad^iner acid
to water rather than water to acid) or that neutralizes them
(e.g. a strong acid mixed with a strong base), or that controls
-------
substances produced (e.g., by generating flammable aases
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 B material may have the potential consequence as noted.
Group 1-A Group 1-3
Acetylene sludge Acid sludge
Alkaline caustic liquids Acid and water
Alkaline cleaner Battery acid
Alkaline corrosive liquids Chemical cleaners
Alkaline corrosive battery fluid Elecrolyte acid
Caustic wastewater Ktchino acid liquid n - solvent
Lime sludge and other corrosive Pickling liquor and other
alkalies corrosive acids
Lime wastewater Spent acid
Lime and water -Spent mixed acid
Spent caustic Spent sulfuric acid
Potential consequences: Heat oeneration, violent reaction.
Group 2-A Group 2-B
Asbestos waste and other toxic Cleanina 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
fire or explosion.
- 150 -
-------
Group 3-A Group 3-R
Aluminum Any waste in Croups 1-A or 1-R
Beryllium
Calcium
Lithium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc powder and other reactive
metals and metal hydrides.
Potential consequence: Fire or explosion, generation of flammable
hydeoqen gas.
Group 4-A Group 4-B
Alcohols Any concentrated waste in
Water Groups 1-A or 1-B
Calcium
Lithium
Metal hydrides
Potassium
Sodium
SO2CL2, SOCL2, PCL2» CH3' SiCl^,
and other water-reactive wastes
Potential consequences: Fire, explosion, or heat aeneration;
generation of flammable or toxic oases.
Group 5-A Group 5-q
Alcohols Concentrated Group 1-A or 1-R
Aldehydes wastes
Halogenated hydrocarbons Group 3-A wastas
Nitrated Hydrocarbons and other
reactive organic compounds and
solvents
Unsaturated hydrocarbons
Potential consequences: Firei explosion, or violent reaction.
- 151
-------
Group 6-A Group 6-B
Spent cyanide and sulfide slutions Group 1-B wastes
Potential consequences: Generation of toxic hvdroqen cvanide
or hydroaen sul.f i
Group 7-A Group 7-3
Chlorates and other strong Acetic acid and other oraanic
oxidizers acids
Chorine Concentrated mineral acids
Chorites Group 2-3 wastes
Chromic acid Group 3-3 wastes
Hypochlorites Group 5-A. wastes and other
Nitrates flammable and combustible
Perchorates wastes
Permanganates
Peroxides
Potential consequences: Fire explosion, or violent reaction
Source: "Law, Regulations, and Guidelines for Handlina of
Hazardous Waste." California Department of Health,
February 1975.
- 152 -
-------
REFERENCES
News Briefs. "Two Fatal Explosions at Waste Facilities
Prompt Investigations." Solid Waste Management. Vol. 11,
No. 2, February 1978.
John Schaum and Gene Grumpier. Technology Proqran, Ftiwn, .
EPA. Unpublished memorandum, "Visit to Rollins Environ-
mental Services Plant: New Jersey Facility." Januarv
24, 1979.
Giansante, C. EPA's Office of Solid Waste unpublished
memorandum to A. Lindsey, EPA's Office of Solid waste.
Summaries of Damage Incidents". December 27,
4. Personal communication, William s, nunn, chie^ Chemist,
Colorado Department of Health and Co-Chairman of the Rockv
Mountain Arsenal Technical Review Committee to C. Gian-
sante, EPA's Office of Solid Waste ( see Reference fi).
5. Poulter, S. "Chemical Fire Woes Still Seeoino, Seepina" .
The Minneapolis Star. February 1. 1979.
6. Personal communication. Russ Felt, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) to C. Giansante, EPA's Office of
Solid Waste. October 30, 1979 (see Reference fi).
7. Hart, Fred C., Inc. "Analysis of Hazardous Waste Mismanage-
ment Incident in Lowell, Massachusetts". EPA's Contract
report No. 68-01-3897. July 1978.
8. Hatayama, H. K. , J. J. Chan, E. R. de Vera, R. O. Stephens,
D. L. Storm. "A Method for Determining Hazardous Wastes
Compatibility". EPA Research Grant MO. RfiO4.fi Q.l. !Q«n.
9. Ghassemi, M. "Analysis of Emergency Incident Involving
Hazardous Wastes in Anniston, Alabama." Unpublished report
under EPA Contract No. 68-01-2596 to TRW, Inc. ^repared
for EPA's Office of Solid Waste. March 1077.
10. O1 Boyle, E. Unpublished Report, "Summary of Hazardous Waste
Damage Cases". November 19"79,
11. Thronhill, J. EPA Region VI unpublished memorandum to A.
Darnay, Jr., EPA's Office of Solid Waste. "Hazardous Waste
Study". October 27, 1972.
12. Anon. "Toxic Waste Removal to Begin". Austin American.
May 9, 1975.
- 153 -
-------
13. Presentation on February 25, 1975, at meeting of Texas
Water Quality Board by enforcement attornev Jack M. Cox,
concerning operations in Travis County by Jack Arsenault
of Rabar Enterprises.
14. Lanson, G. "Chemical Explosions Feared". Newark Record.
May 18, 1979.
15. Personal observation, Matthew Straus, USEPA, Office of
Solid Waste, November 14, 197R, is recorded in Personal
communication from S. Plehn, EPA's office of Solid Waste
to R. Wilson, EPA's Office of General Enforcement.
November 30, 1978.
16. Ostmann, R., Jr. "Rusting Barrels Seep, ^urst While
Lawyers Argue." Minneapolis Star. April in, 197a.
17. Personal communication. TT .Scherkenbach, Minnesota Pollu-
tion 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, 19flO.
Ifl. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. News Release.
August 20, 1974.
19. Hayes, P. "Arsenic Leaves S7 Million Hanover". Milwaukee
Journal. September 27, 197R.
20. Personal communication. T. Whitman, Systech, In., to
T. Fields, USEPA/OSW, November 9, 1Q7Q, as recorded in
unpublished memorandum, "Background Document: storaae in
Piles and Containers". J. H. Beard III to A. w. Lindsev,
USEPA/OSW. November 26, 1979.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Aaency oil and Special
Materials Control Division. Damages and Threats Caused
by Hazarous Material Sites. Draft Reoort. Februarv
22. Ibid. Page 45.
23. "Pesticides and Pesticide Containers, Requlations ^or
Acceptance and Recommended Procedures *=or Disnosal and
Storage". 39 FR («5). May 1, 1974.
24. "Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Criteria Modification,
Hearings". 44 FR (106). May 31, 1979
- 154 -
------- |