Unus Ø Stasis Ofl’ci ol
Envro,w,i.ni.i Pvoisction Solid Wa st i and
Agincy EmirQ.rCy R.iion .
r!r’A
DIRECTIVENUMBER: 9483.02(83)
TITLE: Tank Shell Thickness Requirement
APPROVAL DATE: 4-20-83
EFFECTIVE DATE: 4-20-83
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
FINAL
o DRAFT
A— Pending 0MB approval
STATUS: [ ] B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C— For review &/or comment
] D— In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents): headquarters
n
wPP (
lfl
I P (‘ Q1flI D
I _________ ‘__RECTIVE

-------
PARTS 264 AND 265  SUBPART J - TANKS
DOC:  9483.02(33)
Key Words:    Minimum Shell Thickness, Tanks

Regulations:  40 CFR 270.16, 264.191

Subject:      Tank Shell Thickness Requirement

Addressee:    RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X

Originator:   Bruce R.  Weddle, Acting Director, State Programs and
              Resource Recovery Division

Source Doc:   #9483.02(83)

Date:         4-20-83

Summary:

     Current EPA regulations require owners and operators of tanks to submit
information regarding shell thickness which demonstrates compliance with
Part 264.  The Regional Administrator is required to establish minimum shell -
thickness based upon specified design factors under §264.191.   These are not
discretionary elements of the permit.

     Under these regulations, there is no requirement for secondary containment
for tanks.  The addition of such a requirement in a RCRA permit (even with an
applicant's approval) may not be enforceable and may not be defensible in the
event the permit is challenged.

     The Agency will propose tank regulations in July 1985 that will eliminate
the minimum shell thickness requirement.  The proposed regulations also will
require secondary containment systems for generators accumulating hazardous
wastes in tanks fewer than 90 days and for facilities with tanks under interim
status and RCRA permits in accordance with certain provisions.

-------
9483.02 (83)
AP u i 3
MF OR MnriM
Tank Shell Thicknegs Re uire ent
Rrtzce . ¶ e’1’ 1 le
.\cttr”j ‘Director
St3te rc ran Afl esourc Recovery rflvisicr (tJ9 3)
TO: RC! A Rranch Chiefs
eçions t — X
t would like to clarify FPA elicy toward the inclusic n ot shell
thickne3s as a condition in RCPA per”ttts for tanks. tn Phil Robe1’
march 2 3 summary c’f the recent Rranch Chiefs P eeting, the following
].anqUaJe appears:
9 ;ar 1jr q tank tP’ickr e c, r’y i’-ns ra ’1 rh
secondary conr.ain ent ! r ’-uirne ‘ th’
where tank thic”neas tntor’ tton ii’ ti ’-i fly
applicant is inalequato. Applicant ay either
accept secondary containment or sub”tlt full tank
t tcknese documentation.
- Th13 p ronch does not reflect current R c ul tjnns • r rolicv.
Section 122.2S(b)(2) ( 27O.l6 in t e new deconcoljdated re iulatjnns)
clearly requires owners operators of tanks to ut tt infor ati’ n
re jardint shell thickness which dernon trates cr ’ pliarice with 2A3
r riuirec’ ents. Section 2 4.] 9l cl’ rly r uiri t 2e jion l k r’7intc—
tr. tor to eqtahlisb ntnt” u ” shall tP’ickrrnsq hasc 1 ur,on snecitie’i
e i n tactor . TP ese are not i13cret1on ry or rpr .onal le ents . f
the ,er it.
‘urther cre, the current reçulations ‘ic not re uiro cond ry
cont’ti’u ent for tanks. I would reciin you that thQ add tinn of such
a re’quirerient ii a CPA per ” It (even with the licant’s . tr’rov?1)
n ay not be enfr,rceablA and ay not he defensible in the event the
ri,it Is challenged.
cc: Steve’ Levy

-------