Public comments for: Siting and Storage of Hazardous Materials

Comments

Comment:
On behalf of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to Section 41-14 of Title 15 of the Rules of the City of New York regarding the use of portable containers during extreme weather watches. The proposed rule 41-14 (b) specifically states that “Portable containers storing hazardous substances may not be used during extreme weather watches.” Since the rule does not specify if it applies only to facilities where portable containers are stored outside, it appears that it applies to all environments, inside and outside. While MSK understands the need to implement additional safeguards to prevent hazardous material spills in areas that can be potentially affected by flooding during severe weather events, we feel the proposed regulation, as written, would be extremely detrimental to hospital and laboratory operations. A rule prohibiting the use of portable containers throughout a patient care or laboratory facility during all the situations included in the extreme weather watch would effectively shut down these facilities as their use is integral to their basic functions. It seems that hospitals, patient care, laboratories, and ancillary facilities should be exempted from this proposed rule due to the critical nature of their operations which are required during all weather conditions.
Agency: DEP
Comment:
§ 41-14 (b)(4) states “Every portable container must be stored on drum spill containment pallets or equivalent structures to prevent contact with wet floors.” What is the definition of an ‘equivalent structure’? For instance, would a wooden pallet, countertop, or flammable cabinet all be sufficient ‘equivalent structures’ since all three would elevate portable containers off of the ground and prevent contact with wet floors?
Agency: DEP
Comment:
This is for all rules, regulations, and other publications: Pluralization is not accomplished with apostrophes. For example, in this proposed rule there is liberal use of the pluralization of the terms EHS and TPQ written as EHS's and TPQ's. The use of the apostrophe indicates possession and therefore everywhere it occurs in this proposed rule it is actually stating that EHS possesses whatever comes next. The correct word form is EHSs. Please be cognizant of using correct grammar and punctuation or you demean the rule itself as well as the regulators who are writing the rule. For your reference, I have attached a copy of the proposed rule with all erroneous instances of apostrophe use highlighted.
Agency: DEP