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 generators collecting wastes 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 accumulation 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 marking 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: Empty 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 would 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 near 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 containment for existing tanks. It appears 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) requires 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 requirement for secondary containment. In this situation, 

some portions of ancillary equipment may be located between 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 §265.197(b) non clean-closure, 

closure as a landfill. While the regulations require permitted facilities 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 recommended 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. Consequently, SOCMA 

strongly supports the Hazardous 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 the current 

regulations. SOCMA has previously commented in support of EPA’s proposal to reduce inspection frequencies for tanks from daily 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 byadopting 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 urges 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: SOCMA 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 equipment leaks. 

EPA should consider that other air regulations, such as the requirements under the Maximum Achievable Control Requirements (MACT), as 

well as various state air rules require leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs that are very similar to the RCRA Subpart 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 streamline 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 qualified to certify that treatment; 

storage and disposal units are functioning properly. SOCMA has learned from discussions with its members that professional engineers 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 should 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 duties 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 have nine years 

of experience, or similarly 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: PhRMA Topic: Empty 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). Are 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 to 261.7 for containers.

Stakeholder: PhRMA 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. However, 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 require that, as evidenced by 

1986 preamble language (51 FR 10160; March 24, 1986), even though the regulatory language does not require that. EPA should not be 

telling generators that they have to follow preamble language that is not consistent with the regulation 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 that 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: PhRMA 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. If EPA is concerned that a company’s P.E. could be forced to 

certify asuspect tank design/installation this issue is addressed by state licensure requirements including a P.E. ethics obligation and 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 “compatible with the wastes.” Typical secondary containment is a concrete dike. Since 

concrete is not completely impermeable to every possible waste constituent, secondary containment systems are usually required by the states to be 

lined. When storing waste streams with multiple constituents or waste streams that may be highly variable due to campaign processing, it is difficult to 

identify a liner system compatible with all of the constituents. Additionally, maintenance of the liner systems is difficultand while well maintained, at 

any given time they do not present a smooth even surface. This 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 the migration of waste”. The 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. States have taken the position that any migration of the waste into the concrete (not into 

the environment) is not permissible.

Stakeholder: PhRMA 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. This 

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. This issue is debated with state RCRA inspectors almost every year.

Stakeholder: PhRMA 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 the 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. However the external liner requirements in 265.193(e)(1) do not 
specify either water stops or impermeable coatings. If 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. Generators should not be required to know what 

EPA "intended", and be subject to enforcement on requirements such as this that are not specified in the regulations. The fact 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: PhRMA Topic: Inspection frequencies

Comment: 265.195(a) – This citation requires daily inspections of RCRA generator tank systems. Some 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 waste. There has been a general 

lack of guidance on how to make a RCRA tank “RCRA-empty,” like the container regulations allow at 261.7. PhRMA recommends that EPA provide 

regulatory language on how to empty a RCRA tank system to allow discontinuance of the daily inspections.

Stakeholder: PhRMA 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,” unless the 

release is less than or equal to one pound and immediately contained and cleaned-up. However, 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 this 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 subject 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 accumulation 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 acapacity less than 500 gallons, with no underground piping and located indoors 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 regulated if located indoors or 

inside secondary containment. LQG storage time frames could be extended to 180 days for container and small ASTstorage. Labeling and dating 

requirements, container management, contingency planning and training standards should be uniform for all such generators.
All generators, except conditionally exempt, 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 the 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 facility. (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 without 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 specify 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 materials 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/corrective 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 requirements: [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 meters of the property lines, at 
least with respect to generators who accumulate waste in containers and small ASTs. The regulation has 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 violation 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 CFR 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 who store, recycle or treat hazardous waste in tank systems, on drip pads or in containment buildings.”

· Specialized annual training with job titles and position descriptions could be limited to facilities with these specialized units.

· Training could be incorporated into an “operating plan” for these units which would be facility specific. The operating plan would include applicable PE 

certifications, inspection plans, contingency plans, waste analysis plan [for treatment units treating waste in accordance with 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 Subparts J, W and/or DD. This would be an appropriate location in the regulations 

to clarify the difference between a generator tank system and a Subpart X regulated thermal treatment system, especially with regard to sludge 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 weeklyif 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 tanks that have a 

holding 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 requirements. 

Stakeholder: American Petroleum Institute Topic: Treatment in Tanks

Comment: EPA 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 frequencies
Comment: API provided comments to EPA’s “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative”, 68 FR 61662 (October 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 Petroleum 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 recognizes. We commended EPA on 

this change to allow “qualified professional engineers” to conduct certain RCRA certifications instead of “independent, qualified, 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 Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Inspection frequencies

Comment: EPA 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 supports 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 criteria, 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 independent 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 minimized, contained, and 

infrequent.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Maintenance 

Comment: Maintenance. Hazardous waste tank system components including ancillary equipment (valves, pumps, flanges, etc.) are normally part of 

facility 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.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Spill and Overflow Prevention Practices

Comment: Spill and Overflow Prevention Practices. In order to mitigate spills and releases, hazardous waste tank systems must 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 shutoffs; and double walled piping. 
Many of the indicators, sensors, and alarms are wired to main control panels in areas where employees can regularly monitor the system. Also, 

automobile manufacturing facilities commonly maintain an integrated spill response 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 waste tanks are located. These 

plans are normally provided to emergency response organizations.

Stakeholder: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Topic: Secondary Containment

Comment: Secondary Containment. Hazardous waste tank systems are specifically designed with adequate secondary containment and are mainly 

located within the manufacturing building. The design of an automobile manufacturing facility is such that the facility itself provides the necessary 

secondary containment for the ancillary equipment used to manage the hazardous waste. Also, the systems are 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: Environmental 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 recognized 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 design 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 provide additional 

environmental benefit or protection of human health. 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 full 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 regulations 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 Other 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. For example, the 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (“SPCC”) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) regulations contain 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 inspections. If EPA is unwilling to codify more flexible, open-ended requirements, it should consider 

increasing the current timeframe for hazardous waste storage area inspection. For example, tank and container area inspections 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 containment - 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 - Clarification

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 Containment

Environmental Management Systems