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 ------- |