### Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic ( **Tank standards) Stakeholder:**  ESS Group **Topic:** Redundancy w/RCRA AA standards 

### Comment: **40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(ii)** -This section requires large quantity generators collecting waste in tanks to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subparts AA, BB, and CC. For the same reasons as described above for generators collecting wastes in containers, we suggest that generator s collecting was tes in tanks not be required to comply with 40 CFR 265 Subpart AA. **Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Topic:** Accumulation Start date **Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2)** - Empty Tanks. **This paragraph does not require hazardous waste tanks to be marked with the accumul**  **ation start date.** We suggest that some system to track the accumulation time limit be required for all tanks and containers. **Since some tanks, such as underground tanks, are not designed in such a way that such m**  **arking could be on the tank, as is currently required for containers, another system** **, such as a log would be effective in tracking the time the waste has been onsite.**  **Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Topic:** Em pty Tanks **Comment:** Also, in most cases, when an accumulation tank is drained, residual liquid remains in the tank system and the tank may not meet the definition of “empty” in **40 CFR 261.7.** It wo uld seem appropriate not to require that a tank system be fully drained in order to comply with the 90 - day limitation. The issue of how a tank may be deemed “empty” was addressed in the January 11, 1982 Federal Register (47 FR 1250). In this Federal Register, EPA stated the following: “a tank will be considered “empty” when its contents have been drained to the fullest extent possible. Since many tank designs do not allow for complete drainage due to flanges, screens or siphons, it is not expected that 100% of the wastes will always be removed. **As general guidance, a tank should be considered empty when the generator has left the tank’s drainage system** **open until a steady, continuous flow has ceased.**  We recommend that this guidance be incorporated into the regulatory language for clarification. **Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Topic:** Marking of Tanks **Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(3)** - Marking of Tanks. This paragraph requires hazardous waste containers and tanks to be marked with the words “Hazardous Waste.” Since some tanks, such as underground tanks, are not designed in such a way that such marking could be on the tank and visible, another system, **such as marking nea r the fill pipe**  **and discharge pipe would be effective in providing information about the tank containing hazardous waste. Stakeholder:**  ESS Group **Topic:** Secondary containment - Deadlines for providing **Comment: 40 CFR 265.193** - Secondary containment. **This regulation describes deadlines for providing secondary containm** **ent for existing tanks. It a** **ppears that all of these deadlines have passed; therefore, we recommend that the language in this section be revised to simplify the rule**  . 40 CFR 265.193(f) re quires that ancillary equipment be provided with full secondary containment (e.g., trench, jacketing, double - walled piping) that meets the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this regulation except for certain equipment that is visually inspected on a daily basis. **We recommend that clarification be provided as to whether ancillary equipment located inside a building is considered to meet the requirem**  **ent for secondary containment.** In this situation, some portions of ancillary equipment may be located b etween floors or walls where visual inspection is not possible.**Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Topic:** Tank Inspections - Clarify “Operating day” and “on a daily basis” **Comment: Tank Inspections. 40 CFR 265.195(a) requires that certain equipment be inspected once each**  **“operating day.** ” “ **Operating day” is not defined** and could be taken to mean any day that waste is in the tank, any day the process that generates the waste in the tank is operating regardless of whether there is waste in the tank, or any day the facility is operating regardless of whether there is waste in the tank. If the agency intends an operating day to be a day in which the tank is holding waste, further guidance is needed. In most cases, when an accumulation tank is drained, residual liquid remains in the tank system and the tank may not meet the definition of “empty” in 40 CFR 261.7. We suggest that operating day be defined, and that clarification be provided as to when a tank is considered to be empty. Similarly, **we suggest that “ on a daily basis”**  **as this term is used in 40 CFR 265.193(f) be defined.** Stakeholder: State of Delaware Topic: Closure plans **Comment: The DE**  **- DNREC also believes the requirements for tank accumulation need be improved.**  The regulations require LQGs closing less than 90 day storage tank units achieve the requirements of 40 CFR §265.197(a), the clean closure provision; or 40 CFR §265.19 7(b) non clean - closure, closure as a landfill. **While the regulations require permitted fa cilities submit closure plans, there is no analogous requirements for LQGs,**  **although the closure of a permitted hazardous waste tank and a LQG less than 90 day storage tank may be identical. It is reco mmended that**  **EPA require LQGs prepare a closure plan at the time of tank closure.**  This plan documents how the LQG will conduct closure and demonstrate clean; or implement additional remediation activities. **Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: Tank Inspection Frequencies**  **Comment: Reduced Tank Inspection Frequencies.**  Many SOCMA members are relatively smaller companies that have limited staff and resources. In fact, over 70 percent of SOCMA’s members qualify as small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration. Cons equently, SOCMA strongly supports the H azardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program Evaluation Initiative and its potential to lessen the administrative burden upon SOCMA member. In this regard, SOCMA wants to focus on the benefits to be derived from **reducing tank inspection frequencies under th e current**  **regulations. SOCMA has previously commented in support of EPA’s proposal to reduce inspection frequencies for tanks from dail y to weekly**  **inspections. This change will be of direct benefit to the many SOCMA members who rely on tank storage.** SOCMA also urges EPA to make this type of relief more broadly available by **adopting a self -**  **implementing mechanism to allow facilities to qualify for other reductions in self** 

**- inspection frequencies.**  A well - structured, self- implementing mechanism can motivate and reward well - run facilities with reduced inspection requirements on terms that still assure continued protection of human health and the environment. SOCMA is concerned that an optional case - by case determination for reducing inspection frequencies, as was set out in the RCRA Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, would not be used by many states, as it would be too resource - intensive and hence too burdensome for states to implement. In addition, a case - by - case determination approach should be avoided as it could disadvantage smaller facilities. SOCMA is concerned that smaller facilities might well lack the necessary resources for the submissions and meetings that would be required to obtain a case - 

### bycase determination from state regulators. Accordingly, SOCMA urg es EPA to move forward with its burden reduction efforts by establishing in a final rule terms by which facilities could qualify for reduced inspection frequencies through a self- implementing mechanism, such as a certification. **Stakeholder: SOCM A**  **Topic: Elimination of Redundant Equipment Leak Requirements -**  **Overlap w/CAA** **Comment:** SOCMA asks that EPA also focus on the redundancies and overlap inherent in the various regulatory programs that address equip ment leaks.

**EPA should consider that other air regulations, such as the requirements under the Maximum Achievable Control Requirements (M ACT), as**  **well as various state air rules require leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs that are very similar to the RCRA Subpar t BB requirements.**  There is no need to duplicate these requirements for these facilities. Also, for small generators, it is a significant burden to have to meet these additional monitoring provisions for the required valves and pumps for very little or any benefit in reducing leaks. Eliminating the Subpart BB regulations for small generators and for facilities already covered by other LDAR programs would not endanger the environment and would help to str eamline the RCRA program in easily implemented change that would provide concrete burden reduction relief. **Stakeholder: SOCMA Topic: Modification of Professional Certification Requirements**  **Comment:** SOCMA applauds EPA’s prior acknowledgment that professional engineers are not the sole individuals qualifie d to certify that treatment; storage and disposal units are functioning properly. SOCMA has learned from discussions with its members that professional en gineers often do not have environmental expertise, and must be educated on facility operations before they approve the certification. SOCMA therefore believes that EPA should require actual environmental experience, rather than formal qualifications, when determining who may certify the units. EPA s hould develop a set of criteria to ensure that certifying individuals possess the necessary expertise to complete the certification, instead of relying on formal qualifications that often do not translate into the necessary knowledge. If EPA believes that formal qualifications are necessary, SOCMA believes that it should expand the universe of qualifications that it deems acceptable. **SOCMA supports EPA’s proposal to allow a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager to complete the necessary certification. SOCMA believes**  **that a professional engineer’s certification du ties may also be competently performed by a Qualified Environmental Professional,3 who must**  **possess at least 5 years of professional experience and complete an exam, a Certified Environmental Professional,4 who must h ave nine years**  **of experience, or simila rly qualified and credentialed environmental professionals. Thus, SOCMA would support EPA’s including these**  **additional categories of professionals (in addition to a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager) in the final rule. Stakeholder:**  **P hRMA**  **Topic:** Emp ty Tank - Clarification **Comment: 262.34(a)(1)(ii) –**  EPA has issued guidance on how to restart the 90 - day clock at 47 Federal Register 1250, January 11, 1982, but failed to include the status of the residue (or tank heels). A re the residues exempt from RCRA regulation, or are they still hazardous waste and carry any listed codes from the formerly stored hazardous waste? **PhRMA recommends that EPA update the regulations to clarify when a tank is considered empty for purposes of restarting the 90**  **- day clock, and to address the status of the residues, similar t**  **o 261.7 for containers.** Stakeholder: P hRMA **Topic:** Marking on Tanks (and containers) **Comment: 262.34(a)(2) & (3) -**  The referenced regulations clearly require that the accumulation start date be shown only on containers, and that the words "Hazardous Waste" be shown on both tanks and containers. H owever, recently EPA stated in a June 2003 RCRA Online Q&A that large quantity generators must also mark the start date on tanks. **EPA supports this position by saying that it was their "intent" to re quire that, as evidenced by**  **1986 preamble language (51 FR 10160; March 24, 1986), even though the regulatory language does not require that. E**  **PA should not be**  **telling generators that they have to follow preamble language that is not consistent with the re gulation itself.**  **In this particular case, there should be no requirement to mark the start date directly on a hazardous waste accumulation tank as long as the facility has a**  **procedure in place for tracking the accumulation time (i.e., allow the generator**  **to use a method that best fits the process and equipment setup).** However, if EPA believes that the start date must be marked on tanks, they should go through proposal and comment rulemaking to revise the regulatory wording accordingly. **PhRMA recommends t hat EPA either remove or clarify the conflicting guidance.** 

### Stakeholder: **PhRMA Topic: Treatment in Tanks** 

**Comment:** 265 Subparts I and J

– EPA has written guidance that clarifies that generators can conduct treatment in tanks and containers in less than 90 - day storage areas. PhRMA recommends that EPA incorporate this into the regulations. **Stakeholder: P**  **hRMA Topic: Modification of Professional Certification Requirements**  **Comment:** 265.191(a) and 265.192(a)

– PhRMA recommends that EPA remove the requirement to have an independent professional engineer (P.E.) certify RCRA tank systems and allow an in - house P.E. of the generator perform this task. I f EPA is concerned that a company’s P.E. could be forced to certify a suspect tank design/installation this issue is addressed by state licensure requirements including a P.E. ethics obligation a nd the fact that a P.E. can lose his/her license for false application of their stamp. **Stakeholder** 

### : **PhRMA Topic:**  **Clarify the term**  **“ designed to prevent the migration of waste”**  **Comment: 265.193(b) and (c) –**  These paragraphs require generators to install secondary containment systems for tanks storing hazardous waste, that will “prevent any migration of waste  ” and that are “co mpatible with the wastes.” T ypical secondary containment is a concrete dike. S ince concrete is not completely impermeable to every possible waste constituent, secondary containment systems are usually require d by the states to be lined. W hen storing was te streams with multiple constituents or waste streams that may be highly variable due to campaign processing, it is difficul t to identify a liner system compatible with all of the constituents. Additionally, maintenance of the liner systems is difficult and while well maintained, at any given time they do not present a smooth even surface. T his could be regarded as non - compliance on an inspection. **PhRMA recommends that EPA revise the regulations to better define what qualifies as “designed to prevent th**  **e migration of waste”. T**  **he regulation also requires removal of accumulated liquids within 24 hours, and properly maintained concrete in many applications will prevent migration**  **of the waste into the environment within the 24**  **- hour period.**  **S tates have take**  **n the position that any migration of the waste into the concrete (not into the environment) is not permissible.**  **Stakeholder: P**  **hRMA Topic: Clarify “ small amounts of precipitation to be left in the sumps to**  **secondary containment systems” Comment:**  265.193(c)(4) - PhRMA recommends that EPA provide allowance for small amounts of precipitation to be left in the sumps to secondary containment systems, as long as enough volume is left in the containment system to contain a release and precipitation event, as applicable. T his would allow generators to pump out as much of the precipitation as is practical, without resorting to the use of mops and/or absorbent materials to remove every last drop. T his issue is debated with state RCRA inspectors almost ever y year.

**Stakeholder: P**  **hRMA Topic: Clarify External liner requirements**  **Comment:** 265.193(e)(1) & (2) - EPA has stated in a September 2, 1988, preamble (53 FR 34084) and various guidance documents (e.g. letters dated 3/16/88 & 11/3/99) that t he requirements in 265.193(e)(2)(iii) & (iv) for water stops and impermeable coatings applicable to secondary containment vaults were also intended to apply to concrete external liner containment systems. H owever the external liner requirements i n 265.193 (e)(1) do notspecify either water stops or impermeable coatings. I f EPA believes those controls are required for concrete external liners , they should revise

265.193(e)(1) [and 264.193(e)(1)] to make those requirements clear in the regulations themselves . G enerators should not be required to know what EPA "intended", and be subject to enforcement on r equirements such as this that are not specified in the regulations. T he f act that those two conditions are specifically noted for vaults in 265.193(e)(2) and are not included in the 265.193(e)(1) standards for external liners would generally be read to mean they are only required for vaults. **Stakeholder: P**  **hRMA Topic: Inspection frequencies**  **Comment:** 265.195(a)

– This citation requires daily inspections of RCRA generator tank systems. S ome generators would like the ability to stop the inspections for temporary periods of time when the generating process is not in operation and thus not generating was te. T here has been a general lack of guidance on how to make a RCRA tank “RCRA- empty,” like the container regulations allow at 261.7. P hRMA recommends that EPA provide regulatory language on how to empty a RCRA tank system to allow discontinuance of the daily inspections. **Stakeholder: P**  **hRMA Topic: Clarify**  report of releases of hazardous waste to the environment Comment: 265.196(d)

– This citation requires generators to report releases of hazardous waste from a tank system to the “environment,” unles s the release is less than or equal to one pound and immediately contained and cleaned - up. H owever, because this regulation fails to define the term “environment.” Because this citation is silent to the definition of “environment,” and RCRA’s general goal of protecting land and water, there has been some uncertainty as to whether EPA intended to include releases to the air (via evaporation) in this context. In the January 17, 2002 Burden Reduction Initiative Proposal (67 FR 2518), EPA proposed to remove t his reporting requirement altogether. PhRMA recommends that EPA proceed with that proposal. However, failing that, PhRMA recommends that EPA clarify in the regulations that releases from a tank system (including its ancillary equipment) to soil or surface water, that are greater than or equal to one pound, are subject to the reporting requirements in 265.196, and that releases to the secondary containment (i.e., the release did not enter the “environment”), no matter what the size of the release, are not su bject to the 265.196 reporting requirements. This would be consistent with OSWER Policy Directive #9483.00 - 3 (page V- 2) in which EPA states, “releases that are contained within the secondary containment system need not be reported.” Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Standards for small ASTs Comment: FDEP recommends clear and simplified standards for generators whose hazardous waste management consists solely of ac cumulation in containers and small AST systems prior to off- site disposal. Generators who treat hazardous waste or accumulate the waste in other types of management units should be regulated more stringently. “Small AST Systems” means aboveground tank systems with a **capacity less than 500 gallons**, with no underground piping and located ind oors or inside adequate secondary containment. “Adequate” secondary containment should be defined in terms of capacity, design, maintenance, etc. Standards applicable to management of hazardous waste in tanks should reflect the size and nature of the tank, not the quantity of waste generated at the facility. Small covered ASTs with no underground piping with a capacity under 500 gallons do not need to be excessively regul ated if located indoors or inside secondary containment. LQG storage time fra mes could be extended to 180 days for container and small ASTstorage. L abeling and dating requirements, container management, contingency planning and training standards should be uniform for all such generators.All generators, except conditionally exem pt, who accumulate hazardous waste in containers and small AST systems should comply with the following:

· Label the containers “Hazardous Waste” or with other words that describe the contents, provided the description includes th e word “waste” · Mark with accumulation start dates · Containers of liquids must be closed · Containers of HW with no free liquids or volatile hazardous constituents may be left open if indoors and protected from conditions that could cause a release. · Containers must be in good condition and not leaking · Weekly inspections - keep records · State requirements directly without references to 265 Subpart C · Maintain fire control and spill control equipment appropriate to the nature and volume of hazardous waste generated by the fac ility. (EPA should consider the extent to which other state and local regulations cover fire and chemical storage safety, keeping in mind that governmental agencies could be exempted from local codes. For example, in Florida, schools can be constructed wit hout permits or inspections by the local building departments.) · Maintain adequate aisle space to allow for inspections and access for emergency equipment. Generators frequently ask “what is ‘adequate’ aisle space”, so the regulations should probably spec ify a minimum number of inches. · Maintain the facility to prevent a release of HW or hazardous waste constituents to the environment. · Respond to spills or releases by immediately taking steps to contain the spilled material and any contaminated material s and soil. If the spill has occurred in a location that could contaminate soil, ground water or surface water, the generator must collect appropriate environmental samples for analysis to document that corrective actions have been completed. Closure/corre ctive action performance standard should be met for all spills and releases. · Notifications [insert language from 262.34(d)(5)(iv)(C)] · If sampling confirms that ground water has been contaminated, or if contaminated soil remains more than 30 days after discovery of the release, the generator must notify the Administrator. The report must include the date(s) of the incident, the nature and estimated quantity of the spilled material, a site map with sampling locations and copies of all analytical information related to the spill and cleanup. This notification is in addition to any notifications required under CERCLA · Generators who operate small AST tank systems must comply with the following general operating requirem ents: [insert language from 265.201]. Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Storage of ignitable or reactive hazardous waste Comment: FDEP suggests elimination of the prohibition against storage of ignitable or reactive hazardous waste within 15 mete rs of the property lines, atleast w ith respect to generators who accumulate waste in containers and small ASTs. The regulation ha s been an issue at several facilities in Florida,

where compliance was a regulatory burden. A facility could have very toxic products located near property lines, or a 1000 - gallon tank of virgin acetone, yet the same facility, as an LQG, would be in violat ion of RCRA if its 55 - gallons drums of waste acetone were managed within the same 15 - meter set back area. RCRA could reference applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. RCRA training requirements pre - date OSHA “right to know” training. FDEP suggests that generator training requirements could be fulfilled by compliance with regulations under OSHA or an approved State OSHA program. Language similar to 40 CFR Part 311 should be included in 40 C FR 262 - 265 to ensure that government workers will continue to receive training in jurisdictions that do not have approved State plans. Stakeholder: State of Florida Topic: Recycling in small AST systems Comment: EPA should consider regulating small distillation units (shop stills) under the provisions outlined above for small AST systems. Shop stills are found at many LQGs and SQGs. It makes no sense to require 265 Subpart CC compliance for a five - or ton - gallon still used a couple of times a week. References to 265 Subpart AA, BB and CC need to be clarified to exclude small units operated by LQGs. Instead of LQG requirements, there should be “additional requirements for generators w ho store, recycle or treat hazardous waste in tank systems, on drip pads or in cont ainment buildings.” · S pecialized annual training with job titles and position descriptions could be limited to facilities with these specialized un its. · Training could be incorporated into an “operating plan” for these units which would be facility specific. The operating pla n would include applicable PE certifications, inspection plans, contingency plans, waste analysis plan [for treatment units treating waste in accordance wi th 268.7(a)(5)] and a closure plan. · Notification requirements for treated HW being sent off site for disposal. In addition to the standards for accumulation in containers and small ASTs, the “additional requirements” generators would be subject to Part 265 S ubparts J, W and/or DD. This would be an appropriate location in the regulations to clarify the d ifference between a generator tank system and a Subpart X regulated thermal treatment system, especially with regard to sludg e dryers and wastewater evaporators that are not part of an exempt WWTU. Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Inspection frequencies Comment: **Modify hazardous waste tank management standards.** The hazardous waste tank management standards, incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(ii), should be modified. Required tank inspection frequency should be changed from daily to weekly if waste hazards and tank systems are such that this is appropriate. Stakeholder: Alcoa Topic: Small ASTs Comment: Additionally, the regulations should incorporate a de minimis volume amount for hazardous waste tanks, such that ta nks that have a ho lding capacity of <110 gallons be exempt from the tank management standards and be considered containers instead. In addition to these proposed changes, the hazardous waste tank management standards should be further streamlined to eliminate unnecessary re quirements. Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute Topic: Treatment in Tanks Comment: E PA has written guidance that clarifies that generators can conduct treatment in tanks and containers in less than 90 - day storage areas. API recommends that EPA incorporate this guidance into the regulations. Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute Topic: Inspection frequenciesComment: API provided comments to EPA’s “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative”, 68 FR 61662 (Oct ober 29, 2003). API

supported the proposal to change the tank self- inspection frequencies from daily to weekly for both large and small quantity generators. We also support EPA’s proposal to reduce inspection frequency for ancillary tank equipment (piping, pumps, valves and other associated equipment) at both small and large quantity generator facilities. As a general matter, API also supports reduced inspection requirement for areas subject to spills (see §264.15(b)(4)). Stakeholder: American Pet roleum Institute Topic: Modification of Professional Certification Requirements Comment: API provided comments to EPA’s “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative”, 68 FR 61662 (October 29, 2003). API supported EPA’s proposal to allow professionals who: (a) are certified by organizations meeting the ASTM E1929 - 98 standard, or licensed in the state where the facility is located; and (b) have the knowledge and experience, to conduct certain certifications the Agency recogn izes. W e commended EPA on this change to allow “qualified professional engineers” to conduct certain RCRA certifications instead of “independent, quali fied, registered professional engineers.” We agree with EPA’s rationale that this modification retains the most important requirements: that the engineer is qualified to perform the task and that he/she is a professional engineer. Using in - house professional expertise will reduce costs without compromising the required safeguards. Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobi le Manufacturers Topic: Inspection frequencies Comment: E PA SHOULD REDUCE INSPECTION FREQUENCY OF TANK SYSTEMS FROM DAILY TO WEEKLY. EPA requests comments on whether to reduce inspection frequencies on tank systems from daily to weekly. The Alliance su pports such an amendment, which is substantiated by several factors. These include the fact that the risks associated with such tanks systems are already minimized by numerous other regulations under OSHA, CERCLA, SPCC, and the CAA relating to design crite ria, maintenance, spill and overflow prevention practices, secondary containment, and environmental management systems. Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Design Criteria. Comment: Design Criteria. Tank systems under the current requirements of 40 CFR 265 require specific leak detection systems, and design requirements including secondary containment. The systems must have an integrity assessment reviewed and certified by an inde pendent registered professional engineer (40 CFR 265.191 & 192) with respect to: adequate design; compatibility with waste to be stored in the tank; corrosion protection; secondary containment; and leak detection. All of the above design criteria ensure that spills and leaks from the system are mini mized, contained, and infrequent. Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: M aintenance Comment: Maintenance. Hazardous waste tank system components including ancillary equipment (valves, pumps, flanges, etc.) are normally part of fac ility preventative maintenance schedules. Frequent inspections and manufacturer suggested maintenance measures are performed on the system per prescribed schedules depending on the equipment (monthly, annually, etc.), thereby minimizing system failure. S takeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: S pill and Overflow Prevention Practices Comment: Spill and Overflow Prevention Practices. I n order to mitigate spills and releases, hazardous waste tank systems mus t employ spill and overflow prevention practices (40 CFR 264.194). Some of the more commonly used practices include: high level alarms; routine loading/unloading schedules and procedures; high and low level indicators; pump failure alarms; leak detection sensors; automatic s hutoffs; and double walled piping.Many of the indicators, sensors, and alarms are wired to main control panels in areas where employees can regularly monitor t he system. Also,

automobile manufacturing facilities commonly maintain an integrated spill respo nse plan, which outlines how the facility will address emergencies, inclusive of spill response. Typically, the plans contain area specific information, which includes areas where hazardous was te tanks are located. These plans are normally provided to emer gency response organizations. Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Secondary Containment Comment: S econdary Containment. Hazardous waste tank systems are specifically designed with adequate secondary containment a nd are mainly located within the manufacturing building. The design of an automobile manufacturing facility is such that the facility itsel f provides the necessary secondary containment for the ancillary equipment used to manage the hazardous waste. Also, the systems ar e mainly located within immediate proximity of plant personnel and any release would be detected either immediately or at least within 24 hours. Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Environmental Management Systems Comment: E nviro nmental Management Systems. Most automobile manufacturers have certified environmental management systems that address the handling, management, and maintenance of hazardous waste tank systems through specific Work instructions. EPA has long recogn ized the benefit of formalized environmental management systems and is beginning to recognize that facilities with such systems may warrant less prescriptive regulatory constraints. As demonstrated in the foregoing, hazardous waste tank systems have specific desi gn specifications, proper secondary containment, and are regularly monitored. As a result, a daily inspection requirement is overly burdensome and duplicative for generators and does not provi de additional environmental benefit or protection of human healt h. The agency therefore should, at a minimum, reduce inspection frequency requirements from daily to weekly. Not sure I have NPCA **Lastly, with respect to the burdensome requirement that hazardous waste generators must “empty” hazardous waste storage tanks every 90**  **days, this requirement may actually increase risk of highway release since extra non -** **full truck loads are needed to achieve the “empty” requirement. Instead, EPA should allow generators additional storage time to gather enough waste for a fu**  **ll truck load or if the throughput of the hazardous waste storage tank is greater than the volume of the tank, the generator should not have to “empty” the tank.**  Stakeholder: US Postal Service **Topic:** Inspection Frequency **Comment: The current regulatio**  **ns require weekly inspections of container areas and daily inspections for tank areas managed at SQG and LQG facilities, with certain weekly inspection allowances for SQGs tanks**  **O ther EPA programs provide flexibility by allowing**  **facilities to inspect tank**  **and container areas less frequently based on the facility’s –**  **or overseeing professional engineer’s –**  **discretion. F**  **or example, the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (“SPCC”) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) regulations cont**  **ain provisions for “regular” and “periodic” inspections, respectively**  **The Agency should consider amending the regulations in §§265.174 and 265.195 to allow RCRA generators greater flexibility in the frequency**  **of hazardous waste tank and container inspec tions.**  **I f EPA is unwilling to codify more flexible, open**  **- ended requirements, it should consider**  **increasing the current timeframe for hazardous waste storage area inspection. F**  **or example, tank and container area inspectio ns could be**  **required on a monthly basis.** **9 commenters; 34 comments Analysis of Comments** 

**8 Commenters -**  **33 comments Redundancy w/RCRA AA standards**  **Accumulation Start date Empty Tanks**  **Marking of Tanks 1 1 Secondary containm** **ent -**  **Deadlines for providing Tank Inspections**  **- Clarify “Operating day” and “on a daily basis”**  **Closure plans Tank Inspection Frequencies**  **1 1 1 1 1 Elimination of Redundant Equipment Leak Requirements**  **- Overlap w/CAA**  **Modification of Professional Certification Requirements 1 1 1**  **Empty Tank -**  **Clar ification**  **Treatment in Tanks 1 1**  **Clarify the term “** **designed to prevent the migration of waste” Clarify “ small amounts of precipitation to be left in the sumps to secondary containment systems”**  **Clarify External liner requirements Clarify report of**  **releases of hazardous waste to the environment**

**Standards for small ASTs 1 1**  **Storage of ignitable or reactive hazardous waste Recycling in small AST systems**  **Design Criteria. Maintenance**  **Spill and Overflow Prevention Practices Secondary Contai**  **nment**

**Environmental Management Systems**