[Federal Register: July 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 135)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42395-42412]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jy04-21]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7786-6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, `the Agency' or `we') is proposing to grant a
petition submitted by the United States Department of Energy, Richland
Operations Office (DOE-RL) to exclude (or `delist') from regulation as
listed hazardous waste certain mixed waste (`petitioned waste') that
are treated at the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Site (200 Area ETF) on
the Hanford Facility, Richland, Washington.
The Agency proposes to conditionally grant the exclusion based on
an evaluation of waste stream-specific and treatment process
information provided by the DOE-RL. These proposed decisions, if
finalized, would conditionally exclude the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended.
If today's proposal is finalized, we will have concluded that DOE-
RL's petitioned waste does not meet any of the criteria under which the
wastes were originally listed, and that there is no reasonable basis to
believe other factors exist which could cause the waste to be
hazardous.
DATES: Comments. We will accept public comments on this proposed
decision until August 30, 2004. We will stamp comments postmarked after
the close of the comment period as `late'. These `late' comments might
not be considered in formulating a final decision.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Please send two copies of your comments to Dave
Bartus, EPA Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, MS WCM-127, Seattle, WA 98101.
Electronic comments can be e-mailed to bartus.dave@epa.gov.
Request for Public Hearing. Your request for a hearing must reach
EPA by July 30, 2004. The request must contain the information
prescribed in section 260.20(d). Any person can request a hearing on
this proposed decision by filing a written request with Rick Albright,
Director, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 6th
Ave., MS OAR-107, Seattle, WA 98101.
Docket. The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is
maintained by EPA, Region 10. You may examine docket materials at the
EPA Region 10 library, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-
1289, during the hours from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Copies of the docket are available for
review at the following Hanford Site Public Information Repository
locations:
University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publications
Division, Box 352900, Seattle, WA 98195-2900, (206) 543-4664. Contact:
Eleanor Chase, echase@u.washington.edu, (206) 543-4664.
Gonzaga University, Foley Center, East 502 Boone, Spokane, WA 99258-
0001, (509) 323-5806. Contact: Connie Scarppelli,
carter@its.gonzaga.edu.
Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, 934 SW
Harrison, Portland, OR 97207-1151, (503) 725-3690. Contact: Michael
Bowman, bowman@lib.pdx.edu.
U.S. DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University-TC, CIC Room
101L, 2770 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352, (509) 372-7443.
Contact: Janice Parthree, reading_room@pnl.gov.
Copies of material in the regulatory docket can be obtained by
contacting the Hanford Site Administrative Record via mail, phone, fax,
or e-mail:
Address: Hanford Site Administrative Record, PO Box 1000, MSIN H6-
08, 2440 Stevens Center Place, Richland, WA 99352, (509) 376-2530. E-
mail: Debra_A_Debbie_Isom@rl.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this document, contact Dave Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, MS
WCM 127, Seattle, WA 98101, telephone (206) 553-2804, or via e-mail at
bartus.dave@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve these delistings?
C. How will DOE RL manage the petitioned waste if delisted?
D. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusions?
II. Background
A. What laws and regulations give EPA the authority to delist
wastes?
B. How would this action affect the States?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data for Liquid
Effluent Waste
A. What waste did DOE RL petition EPA to delist and how is the
waste generated?
B. What information and analyses did DOE RL submit to support
these petitions?
C. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
D. What delisting levels are EPA proposing?
E. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
F. What did EPA conclude about DOE-RL's analysis?
G. What must DOE RL do to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed exclusion?
H. How must DOE RL manage the delisted waste for disposal?
I. How must DOE RL operate the treatment unit?
J. What must DOE RL do if the process changes?
K. What data must DOE RL submit?
L. What happens if DOE RL fails to meet the conditions of the
exclusion?
[[Page 42396]]
M. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
N. Relationship between today's proposed action and compliance
LDR treatment standards.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing a delisting action related to mixed \1\ waste
managed or generated by the 200 Area ETF on the Hanford Facility in
Richland, Washington. The action relates to treated liquid effluents
produced by the 200 Area ETF, which were first delisted in June 1995. A
description of the wastewater influent to the 200 Area ETF considered
in the original delisting, and how the original delisting was
developed, may be found in the original proposed rule (60 FR 6054,
February 1, 1995). EPA is proposing to modify this existing delisting
by increasing the annual quantity of waste delisted to conform to the
expected full treatment capacity of the 200 Area ETF and by expanding
the list of constituents associated with hazardous waste number F039
(multisource leachate) for which 200 Area ETF treated effluent is
delisted, from the current F001 to F005 constituents to all
constituents for which F039 waste is listed.\2\ This change will allow
ETF to fulfill its anticipated future missions, which include treating
mixed wastewaters from a number of additional sources beyond 242-A
Evaporator process condensate (PC) upon which the original delisting
was based. Finally, EPA is proposing to expand the list of hazardous
waste numbers for which treated effluent is delisted to include certain
wastewater forms of U- and P-listed wastes. In particular, these U- and
P-listed waste numbers are those whose chemical constituents are
included in the list of hazardous constituents for which F039 was
listed (see 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII). This latter addition is
intended to accommodate possible management of U- and P-listed
wastewaters from spill cleanup or decontamination associated with
management of these wastes at the Central Waste Complex (CWC) or other
storage facilities. These spill cleanup wastes include exactly the same
constituents that will eventually contribute to F039 when the source
wastes are land disposed, so today's analysis of expanding the 200 Area
ETF treated effluent to include F039 applies equally to the wastewater
forms of the same chemical constituents in their U- and P-listed waste
forms. This action will allow the 200 Area ETF to fulfill an expanded
role in supporting Hanford Facility cleanup actions beyond those
activities considered in the 1995 delisting rulemaking. Further details
of how hazardous waste numbers are applied to 200 Area ETF treated
effluent can be found in section II.A of today's proposal. Further
details about 200 Area ETF treated effluent and how it is generated can
be found in section III.A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mixed waste is defined as waste that contains both hazardous
waste subject to the requirements of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended, and source, special nuclear,
or by-product material subject to the requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA) [See 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6903 (41),
added by the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) of 1992].
\2\ Today's proposal is not modifying the list of constituents
for which F039 multisource leachate is listed. At the time of the
original delisting, DOE-RL did not expect to manage F039 wastes at
the 200 Area ETF from sources other than F001-F005 wastes.
Therefore, the original 200 Area ETF delisting excluded only F039
wastes from F001-F005 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOE-RL petitioned EPA to exclude (delist) treated liquid
effluent from the treatment of liquid mixed waste at the 200 Area ETF
because DOE-RL believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the
RCRA criteria for which EPA originally listed the petitioned waste. The
DOE-RL also believes there are no additional constituents or factors
that could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste or warrant retaining
the waste as hazardous waste.
Based on our review described in today's proposal, we agree with
the petitioner that the identified treated liquid effluents are non-
hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. Furthermore,
we find no additional constituents or factors that could cause the
waste stream to be a hazardous waste or warrant retaining the waste as
a hazardous waste. If our review had found that the waste remained a
hazardous waste based on the factors for which the waste originally was
listed, or if we found additional constituents or factors that could
cause either waste stream to be a hazardous waste or warrant retaining
the waste as a hazardous waste we would have proposed to deny the
petition. It is important to note that even if the waste becomes
delisted, the DOE-RL remains responsible for complying with the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA), as the treated effluents will generally remain
regulated as low-level radioactive wastes. Further, disposal of the
treated liquid effluent on site is regulated by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) under the authority of WAC 173-216.
Further details of how treated effluent will be managed if excluded
under today's proposal may be found in section I.C below.
B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve These Delistings?
We believe that the petitioned waste should be conditionally
delisted because the waste, when managed in accordance with today's
proposed conditions, do not meet the criteria for which the wastes
originally were listed and the waste do not contain other constituents
or factors that could cause the waste stream to be a hazardous waste or
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste. Our proposed decision
to delist the petitioned waste is based on information submitted by
DOE-RL, including the description of the wastewaters managed by the ETF
and their original generating sources, the ETF treatment processes, and
the analytical data characterizing performance of the 200 Area ETF.
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. [See 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22 (d)(2) through (4)]. These factors included (1) whether the
waste are considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the
constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the waste;
(4) the tendency of the hazardous constituents to migrate and to
bioaccumulate; (5) persistence of the constituents in the environment
once released from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of
management of the petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced;
and (8) variability of the waste. We also evaluated the petitioned
waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec.
261.11(a)(1), (2) and (3).
C. How Will DOE RL Manage the Petitioned Waste if Delisted?
Treated liquid effluents currently generated by the 200-Area ETF
are land disposed at the State Authorized Land
[[Page 42397]]
Disposal Site (SALDS).\3\ Treated effluent discussed in today's
proposal must be disposed of at SALDS, as a condition of today's
proposal. A brief description of the SALDS can be found in the DOE-RL
application for the State Waste Discharge Permit ST 4500, and the
permit fact sheet available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/pdf/4500dfs.pdf.
EPA's original evaluation of this disposal unit with
respect to delisting is found at 60 FR 6061 (February 1, 1995). The
DOE-RL's petition for modification of the existing delisting does not
reflect any change in design and operation of the SALDS compared to
DOE-RL's original delisting petition and EPA's associated analysis. We
note that this proposed exclusion is not dependant on the
characteristics or protectiveness of effluent disposal at the SALDS.
The fact that DOE-RL is not proposing management of excluded treated
effluent other than at the SALDS; however, does provide a basis for the
EPA to conclude that it is not necessary to consider other risk or
exposure pathways in today's proposal beyond those considered in the
original delisting rulemaking applicable to treated effluents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The SALDS disposal site is an effluent infiltration gallery,
consisting of a 116 foot by 200 foot rectangular drainfield with 4
inch porous pipe laterals coming off an 8 inch diameter header at 6
foot intervals. The drainfield pipes are 6 inches below the surface
of a 6 foot deep gravel basin. The gravel basin is covered by a
layer of native soil at least 12 inches deep. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/pdf/4500dfs.pdf.
For purposes of
developing delisting exclusion limits in the original 200 Area ETF
exclusion and in today's proposal, EPA considers the SALDS unit to
be functionally equivalent to an unlined surface impoundment,
consistent with existing EPA delisting guidance and the existing 200
Area ETF delisting..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the November 2001 petition, DOE-RL noted that in the future the
delisted treated effluent from 200 Area ETF could be used as makeup
water at onsite facilities that have a demand for large quantities of
demineralized water. Delisted treated effluent, however, contains
appreciable amounts of tritium and must be managed to minimize
personnel exposure and the potential for release. EPA encourages DOE-RL
to pursue potential alternate uses of 200 Area ETF liquid effluents,
and believes that, in general, such practices could prove to be fully
protective, and a means to further the Hanford Site cleanup mission.
Because no specific proposals have been made by DOE-RL, however, EPA
lacks information to specifically evaluate impacts of such reuse
practices with respect to delisting criteria, or whether such practice
would identify other factors that would need to be considered in a
delisting decision. Today's proposed rulemaking is based on continued
disposal of treated effluents at the SALDS, but does include a
provision whereby DOE-RL could request EPA to evaluate treated liquid
effluent reuse proposals. If EPA finds, through this review, that
delisting conditions in place at the time of the request ensure that
the treated effluent is managed protectively with respect to delisting
criteria, EPA may allow DOE-RL to commence the proposed activity
without changes to the delisting rule. Otherwise, EPA could require the
DOE-RL to submit a revised delisting petition, and new delisting
conditions would need to be established to reflect the new proposed
disposal/use activity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As noted elsewhere in this proposal, delisting requirements
that could be established as a result of this proposal are not
effective under RCRA in States that have final authorization for
delisting exclusion petition (40 CFR 260.22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Exclusions?
RCRA section 3001(f), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), specifically requires the
EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or
denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not make a final decision to
grant an exclusion until the EPA has addressed all timely public
comments (including any at public hearings) on today's proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance with the new
regulatory requirements. EPA believes that today's proposed exclusion,
if finalized, would reduce existing regulatory requirements, so that a
six-month period is not necessary for DOE-RL to come into compliance.
As a result, EPA believes that, if finalized, today's proposal should
be effective immediately upon final publication. A later date would
impose unnecessary hardship and expense on the petitioner. See also
section II.B for a discussion of today's proposal on State regulatory
programs.
II. Background
A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist Wastes?
On January 16, 1981, as part of the final and interim final
regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. EPA
has amended this list several times. See 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. EPA
lists these wastes as hazardous because (1) the wastes exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in subpart C
of part 261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
toxicity) or (2) the wastes meet the criteria for listing contained in
Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams could vary depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste that is
described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste
from an individual facility meeting the listing description might not
be hazardous.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a specific waste from a
particular generating facility \5\ should not be regulated as a
hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Although no one produces hazardous waste without reason,
many industrial processes result in the production of hazardous
waste, as well as useful products and services. A ``generating
facility'' is a facility in which hazardous waste is produced, and a
``generator'' is a person who produces hazardous waste or causes
hazardous waste to be produced at a particular place. 40 CFR 260.10
provides regulatory definitions of ``generator'', ``facility'',
``person'', and other terms related to hazardous waste, and 40 CFR
part 262 provides regulatory requirements for generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have their waste excluded, petitioners first must show that the
waste generated at their facilities does not meet any of the criteria
for which the waste was listed. See 40 CFR 260.22(a) and the background
documents for the listed waste. Second, the EPA Administrator must
determine, where the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe
that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for
which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be hazardous waste,
that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as hazardous
waste. Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste
does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present
sufficient information for the EPA to determine whether the waste
contains any other toxic constituents at hazardous levels. See 40 CFR
260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the background documents for the
listed waste. Although waste that is ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) has
been evaluated to determine whether or not the waste exhibits any of
the characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated
under RCRA to determine whether or not their waste continues to be non-
hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics (including
characteristics
[[Page 42398]]
that might be promulgated subsequent to a delisting decision).
In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous waste and mixtures containing listed hazardous waste
also are considered hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Such waste also is eligible for exclusion but remains
hazardous waste until excluded.
On October 10, 1995, the EPA Administrator delegated to the EPA
Regional Administrators the authority to evaluate and approve or deny
petitions submitted by generators in accordance with 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 within their Regions (See EPA Delegations Manual, Delegation 8-
19) in States not yet authorized to administer a delisting program in
lieu of the Federal program.
B. How Would This Action Affect the States?
This proposed rule, if promulgated, would be issued under the
Federal (RCRA) delisting authority found at 40 CFR 260.22. Some States
are authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this
proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would not apply under RCRA in those
authorized States. For States not authorized to administer a delisting
program in lieu of the Federal program (as is the case with the State
of Washington as of the date of today's proposal), today's proposal, if
promulgated, would become effective with respect to the Federal (RCRA)
program. DOE-RL would, however, have to comply with additional
applicable State requirements.
States are allowed to impose regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a
federally issued exclusion from taking effect in a State. Because a
petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both
Federal and State programs), petitioners are urged to contact State
regulatory authorities to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State laws.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data for Liquid
Effluent Waste
A. What Waste Did DOE RL Petition EPA To Delist and How Is the Waste
Generated?
The original delisting action considered treatment of only one
waste stream, process condensate from the 242-A Evaporator (242-A
Evaporator PC). Since promulgation of the original delisting, the
operating mission of the 200 Area ETF has expanded considerably.
Currently, the operating capacity of the 200 Area ETF provides
treatment of 242-A Evaporator PC, treatment of Hanford Site
contaminated groundwater from various pump-and-treat systems, and a
variety of other wastewaters generated from waste management and
cleanup activities at Hanford.
As discussed in section 3.0 of DOE-RL's November 2001 petition, the
mission of the 200 Area ETF is to treat wastewater generated on the
Hanford Facility from cleanup activities including multisource leachate
from operation of hazardous/mixed waste landfills, and other hazardous
wastewaters from a variety of sources including analytical laboratory
operations, research and development studies, waste treatment
processes, environmental restoration and deactivation projects, and
other waste management activities. Based on this change in the 200 Area
ETF mission, the DOE-RL has petitioned EPA to modify the existing
delisting applicable to treated liquid effluent from the 200 Area ETF
by increasing the effluent volume limit to 210 million liters per year,
and to conditionally exclude treated effluents from treatment by the
200 Area ETF of certain liquid Hanford wastes with hazardous waste
numbers identified at 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.33 as F001-F005, F039, and
all U- and P-listed substances appearing in the listing definition of
F039. Under the current delisting, the liquid effluent volume is
limited to approximately 86 million liters per year, and delisted only
for F001-F005 waste numbers and F039 constituents from F001 through
F005 waste numbers.
The November 2001 delisting petition explains that wastes bearing
numbers P029, P030, P098, P106, P120, and U123, as well as other U- and
P-listed numbers corresponding to F039 constituents, are currently
managed, or may be managed in the future, as part of Hanford cleanup
operations. Wastes bearing these waste numbers are intended for future
disposal in the mixed waste landfill (Low-Level Burial Grounds (LLBG)).
These wastes, therefore, eventually will contribute to generation of
F039 multisource leachate from this unit, and are specifically
considered in the analysis of F039 constituents in DOE-RL's delisting
proposal (refer to Appendix B of the November 2001 delisting petition).
The DOE-RL believes that wastewaters bearing these waste numbers could
be generated from activities such as spill cleanup or equipment
decontamination, and such wastewaters could be managed best at the 200
Area ETF. The DOE-RL is not proposing to manage the discarded
commercial chemical products in the 200 Area ETF, but only wastewaters
from spill cleanup or equipment decontamination. EPA believes that this
is a reasonable approach, and is proposing to include these U- and P-
listed numbers in today's proposed exclusion.
To ensure that the commercial chemical compounds themselves are not
inappropriately managed at the 200 Area ETF, EPA is proposing as a
condition of the proposed exclusion for these wastes that the 200 Area
ETF may manage only influent wastewaters bearing less than 1.0 weight
percent of any hazardous constituent. These wastewaters would also
would bear the same U- and P-listed numbers by virtue of the ``derived
from'' rule discussed above in section I.A. Because the hazardous
constituents from these U- and P-listed wastes are already included in
the analysis of 200 Area ETF performance for treatment of F039, EPA is
not proposing any separate analysis specific to U- and P-listed
numbers. EPA's proposal to include these U- and P-listed waste numbers
in today's proposed action is intended to include influent wastewaters
that might be generated from management of wastes currently stored in
CWC, as well as such wastes managed elsewhere at Hanford or which may
be generated in the future.
In theory, the provision of today's proposal dealing with U- and P-
listed waste numbers could include all 213 constituents included in the
regulatory definition of F039. In practice, EPA expects that the actual
number of U- and P-listed constituents that might actually be managed
under this provision will be significantly less for two reasons. First,
not all F039 constituents have corresponding U- or P-listed waste
numbers. Second, it is highly unlikely that most, or even many, of the
U- and P-listed waste numbers considered by this provision would ever
enter the influent wastewaters managed by ETF. In any case, EPA
believes that today's proposal is fully protective and demonstrates
compliance with delisting criteria regardless of the number of U- and
P-listed waste numbers that actually end up contributing to wastewaters
managed by ETF.
Beginning in 2007, DOE-RL expects to begin processing liquid
effluents (wastewaters) from the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), which
currently is being designed and constructed to treat high-
[[Page 42399]]
level mixed waste stored in 177 underground storage tanks. At this
time, a complete, detailed characterization of WTP liquid effluents is
not available. Should this waste stream fit within the conditions of
today's proposal, then the WTP effluents could be managed under this
delisting action, if finalized. Should WTP effluents require
significant reconfiguration of the 200 Area ETF system to be treated
successfully or be outside the waste volume limitations or treatability
envelope, or otherwise fail to meet the requirements of today's
proposal, the DOE-RL could not manage either the treated effluent or
concentrated wastes resulting from processing of WTP effluents as
excluded wastes. In this instance, the DOE-RL would need to seek a
further modification of the delisting rulemaking.
Given the lack of characterization data for future WTP effluents,
EPA specifically is not considering this waste stream in its analysis
of the proposed delisting action, other than to acknowledge that the
DOE-RL might manage WTP effluents in the 200 Area ETF, provided the
applicable delisting criteria and verification sampling requirements
are met. EPA anticipates that it might be necessary to further modify
the treated effluent delisting rule once WTP effluents are fully
characterized.
B. What Information and Analyses Did DOE RL Submit To Support These
Petitions?
The DOE-RL has provided a general description of the various waste
streams that the 200 Area ETF expects to manage in addition to 242-A
Evaporator PC and other waste streams currently being treated. This
information is found in section 3.0 of the November 2001 delisting
petition. Some of these waste streams have not yet been generated. As a
result, these waste streams cannot be fully characterized at this time,
nor can surrogate wastewaters be developed as was done as part of pilot
testing associated with the original delisting action. The DOE-RL's
request to modify the original delisting is based on extending the
original process model, which has been validated through operating
history, to these anticipated future waste streams. EPA is proposing
that treated liquid effluent from these new influent waste streams be
conditionally managed as excluded waste provided that the DOE-RL
demonstrates prior to 200 Area ETF processing that delisting criteria
can be met through application of the 200 Area ETF process model. All
treated effluent, including treated effluent from processing of new
influent waste streams that do not have an operating history of being
managed at the 200 Area ETF, will be subject to a verification sampling
requirement similar to that in the original delisting action for 242-A
Evaporator PC. As with the original delisting action, all treated
effluent will be subject to routine, periodic verification sampling.
(See section III.N for a discussion of the applicability of LDR
treatment requirements.)
The DOE-RL has submitted substantial data comparing actual
operating performance of the 200 Area ETF to predicted treatment
efficiency developed through pilot plant testing. These data
consistently validate the pilot plant model developed in support of the
original delisting, and indicate that for 242-A Evaporator PC processed
to date, treatment efficiency is well in excess of that predicted by
the process model. These data are presented in Table A-1 of the
November 2001 delisting petition. The EPA believes that these data
confirm that the 200 Area ETF is a robust treatment system well
equipped to provide treatment necessary to meet delisting criteria for
the wide range of new waste streams considered in this revised
delisting action.
Detailed characterization data are not available for many non-
process condensate waste streams that the DOE-RL proposes for
consideration under this delisting action. Therefore, the DOE-RL has
proposed a detailed waste acceptance process that allows this analysis
to be conducted in conjunction with the 200 Area ETF waste acceptance
process required by the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7 89000 8967 and
the State Waste Discharge Permit (ST4500) for the SALDS. Particulars of
the waste acceptance process with respect to this proposed delisting
action can be found in section 2.2 of the November 2001 delisting
petition. In addition, Ecology provided technical assistance to the EPA
on this matter by reviewing DOE-RL's 200 Area ETF waste acceptance
process, including permit-required quality assurance plans (QAPs). EPA
has reviewed and concurs with Ecology's technical conclusions that the
waste profiling and acceptance process at the 200 Area ETF is
sufficient to support delisting of the resulting treated effluents.
Briefly, this waste acceptance process is intended to accomplish
the following:
Establish operating conditions and operating configuration
of the 200 Area ETF;
Ensure contaminant concentrations do not interfere with or
foul 200 Area ETF treatment processes (e.g., interfere with ultraviolet
oxidation (UV/OX) destruction, foul reverse osmosis (RO) membranes,
etc.);
Ensure compatibility with 200 Area ETF materials of
construction and other influent wastewaters;
Ensure treated effluents meet delisting criteria and SALDS
waste discharge permit requirements;
Estimate concentrations of constituents in the secondary
treatment train and in concentrated waste (a discussion of EPA's
proposed delisting of concentrated wastes follows);
Ensure compliance with Hanford Facility RCRA Permit waste
acceptance requirements.
Based on waste profile information provided by wastewater
generators, the DOE-RL would compare constituent concentrations to
ensure that the influent falls within the 200 Area ETF treatability
envelope. The ETF treatability envelope is defined as the maximum
untreated waste concentrations that the 200 Area ETF is capable of
managing to meet treated effluent delisting criteria. The treatability
envelope concept is essentially the same approach used by the EPA in
evaluating treatability data provided by the DOE-RL in support of the
original delisting petition, with modifications to account for
operating history.
In some instances, wastewaters are accepted directly into the 200
Area ETF for treatment, while other wastewaters are accepted into the
Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) basins.\6\ Waste acceptance
evaluations for wastewaters managed in LERF basins account for
compatibility with basin materials in addition to treatability envelope
considerations. For wastewaters accepted into LERF basins, treatability
envelope evaluation reflect the commingled wastewater stream.
Wastewaters are required to undergo periodic re-valuation under the
site-wide permit waste analysis plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Information concerning management of influent wastewaters is
provided for background and informational purposes only. Whether
influent wastewaters are received directly by the 200 Area ETF
directly or via management in the LERF basins is generally an
operational decision distinct from the question of whether the
wastewaters are acceptable candidates for management under today's
proposed delisting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOE-RL's petition for modifying the existing treated effluent
delisting is based on establishing a waste processing strategy for each
waste stream. Each time a new wastewater is managed in the 200 Area
ETF, a document must be prepared containing the waste processing
strategy to reflect specific
[[Page 42400]]
waste constituents and to ensure that the treated effluent meets
delisting criteria. The waste processing strategy consists of the
processing configuration of the various treatment technologies
available at the 200 Area ETF and the operating conditions of each.
Examples of operating conditions include UV/OX residence time, RO
reject rate, etc. Wastewaters that fit within the treatability envelope
for a particular processing strategy can be processed directly, subject
only to the periodic re-evaluation of each waste stream with respect to
waste acceptance criteria required by the Hanford site-wide RCRA
permit, and periodic verification of the treated effluent with respect
to delisting requirements. Wastewaters for which a new processing
strategy is developed where no operating history has been accumulated
must undergo initial verification sampling similar to that required by
the original delisting action. EPA believes that this scheme of
establishing waste acceptance and processing strategy on a verified
process model, coupled with initial and periodic on-going verification,
provides certainty that delisting criteria will be met, reflecting data
that validate the original process model, and the redundancy of
verification testing, and is consistent with the delisting framework
established in the original delisting action. In addition, it provides
flexibility needed for the 200 Area ETF to fulfill its key role in
Hanford Site cleanup activities.
C. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?
For EPA to delist a particular waste, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the waste does not meet any of the criteria under
which the waste was listed, and that the waste does not exhibit any of
the hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through
261.24. In addition, based on a complete application, EPA must
determine where it has a reasonable basis to believe that factors
(including additional constituents) exist other than those for which
the waste was listed that could cause the waste to be a hazardous
waste. If such factors exist, EPA must determine that such factors do
not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste. For petitioned
waste that contains detectable chemical constituents, EPA generally
makes this determination by gathering information to identify plausible
routes of human or environmental exposure (i.e., groundwater, surface
water, air) and using fate and transport models to predict the release
of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste once the waste is
disposed. The transport model predicts potential exposures and impacts
of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
As discussed in the original delisting proposal (60 FR 6054,
February 1, 1995), EPA used a modified version of the Environmental
Protection Agency Composite Membrane Liner (EPACML) model based on
disposal of waste in a surface impoundment to establish delisting
levels for treated 200 Area ETF effluent. The original delisting
proposal included a discussion of plausible exposure routes and an
analysis of how these potential exposure routes influenced EPA's
selection of delisting criteria, as well as a detailed discussion of
how delisting levels were calculated from model outputs and
toxicological data.
In analyzing the DOE-RL's current delisting petition, EPA does not
believe that there is a substantial basis for choosing a different
approach to evaluating the risks of delisting this waste or for
establishing revised delisting criteria. In reaching this conclusion,
we considered several factors:
No changes in waste disposal practices. The DOE-RL
currently manages 200 Area ETF treated effluents in the same manner as
considered by EPA in the original delisting analysis, and DOE-RL's
revised delisting petition does not propose any changes in these waste
disposal practices. Therefore, we do not find any basis for any
different analysis of potential exposure pathways or modeling compared
to the original delisting analysis.
200 Area ETF treatment technology. Current 200 Area ETF
processing technologies and configurations remain unchanged from the
proposed design considered in EPA's original upfront delisting
analysis. Further, the 200 Area ETF operating history confirms the
treatment efficiencies and performance predicted by pilot plant testing
and considered by EPA in the original delisting analysis. Therefore, we
do not find any basis for alternate evaluation methodologies based on
the treatment capabilities of the 200 Area ETF.
Wastes managed by the 200 Area ETF. Although the original
delisting analysis considered only PC from the 242-A Evaporator, this
waste stream is quite complex, and is characterized by a wide range of
chemical constituents and classes of compounds from diverse wastes in
the Hanford Facility double shell tank system. Specifically with
respect to organic constituents and the treatment efficacy of
ultraviolet oxidation (UV/OX), the original delisting analysis was
based on treatment efficiency for groups or classes of organic
compounds. Although today's proposal considers additional chemical
compounds that might be present in F039 multisource leachate from
wastes other than F001 through F005, EPA believes that these additional
constituents can be analyzed effectively using the original
methodology. Further, EPA does not believe that any of the additional
constituents considered in this delisting proposal pose treatability or
risk questions that suggest the original chemical group approach to
analyzing delisting risks and establishing delisting levels needs to be
re-evaluated. A more specific discussion of how treatability groups and
delisting levels are established, considering the additional waste
streams and waste numbers to be managed by the 200 Area ETF under this
proposed delisting, can be found in section 4.1.1 of the November 2001
delisting petition.
EPA also has examined the performance record of discharges of
treated effluents from the 200 Area ETF under State Waste Discharge
Permit No. ST4500. This permit, issued under the authority of chapter
90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, as amended, requires
monitoring of treated effluent and of groundwater affected by the
SALDS. There are three elements to the ST4500 Permit monitoring
requirements. These are: (1) Maximum effluent limitations; (2) ``early
warning'' effluent limitations that provide an early warning that
groundwater limitations are being approached in the effluent; and (3)
groundwater limits. Each of these elements are described below:
ST4500 Permit effluent monthly average--the highest
allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated
as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month
divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month.
Groundwater limit--maximum constituent concentration
allowed in groundwater at monitoring well specified in the ST4500
Permit.
Groundwater early warning limit--constituent concentration
in groundwater that triggers early warning reporting requirements.
Exceeding an early warning value does not constitute a violation of
ST4500 Permit requirements.
These limits, including a comparison to proposed delisting levels
(section D), are shown in the following table. All values are mg/L. The
first three columns correspond to the ST4500 permit monitoring
requirements described above, while the remaining columns contain the
following information:
[[Page 42401]]
Proposed delisting treatability group--class of similar
chemical constituents as defined in Table 4-1 of the November 29, 2001
delisting petition.
Proposed delisting level--constituent concentration limit
for treated effluent in today's proposal.
Comments--self-explanatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST 4500 permit Proposed
effluent Groundwater Effluent delisting Proposed
Constituent monthly limit groundwater treatability delisting Comments
average early warning group level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone............................ N/A 0.16 N/A 19 2.4
Acetophenone....................... 0.01 N/A N/A 19 N/A
Benzene............................ N/A 0.005 0.005 3 0.06
Carbon Tetrachloride............... 0.005 N/A N/A 13 0.018
Chloroform......................... N/A 0.062 0.005 13 N/A
n-Nitrosodimethylamine............. 0.02 N/A N/A 10e 0.02 Proposed delisting limit based on
PQL.
Tetrachloroethylene................ 0.005 N/A N/A 14 N/A
Tetrahydrofuran.................... N/A 0.1 0.1 18a 0.56
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)......... 1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arsenic............................ 0.015 N/A N/A 22 0.015
Beryllium.......................... 0.04 N/A N/A 21 0.045
Cadmium............................ N/A 0.01 0.0075 22 0.011
Chromium........................... 0.02 N/A N/A 22 0.068
Copper............................. N/A 0.07 0.07 N/A N/A
Lead............................... N/A 0.05 0.038 22 0.09
Mercury............................ N/A 0.002 0.002 22 0.0068
Ammonia............................ 0.83 N/A N/A 24 6
Chloride........................... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nitrate............................ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nitrite............................ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sulfate............................ N/A 250 N/A N/A N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Dissolved Solids......... N/A 500 380 N/A N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PQL = practical quantitation limit.
N/A = not applicable. The set of constituents with reporting or enforceable limits established in the ST 4500 permit and in today's proposal are not
identical. N/A table entries correspond to constituents included in the ST 4500 permit but not as constituents representative of a treatability group
or vice versa.
To date, the DOE-RL has not reported any exceedences of any of the
three monitoring criterion established by the ST4500 Permit. According
to the Ecology fact sheet issued in conjunction with the latest reissue
of the ST4500 Permit:
``During the history of the previous permit, the Permittee has
remained in compliance based on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
and other reports submitted to Ecology and inspections conducted by
Ecology.'' The only exceptions have been a few early high
groundwater levels of sulfate. The sulfate levels were not due to
the discharge of sulfate, but rather by the clean effluent
dissolving sulfate that exists in the vadose zone. The sulfate
levels peaked for about a year, always below groundwater standards,
and have since returned to background levels.
Given that all of these ST4500 Permit wastewater discharge limits
are at or below corresponding delisting levels, EPA concludes that the
200 Area ETF performs at least as well as the proposed delisting
levels. This conclusion supports EPA's belief that 200 Area ETF
processing model is well validated, and can be appropriately used to
predict performance of 200 Area ETF for treatment of new waste streams
for which actually operating data is not yet available. Further, these
data show 200 Area ETF discharges to SALDS are not having a significant
impact on groundwater. EPA therefore concludes that further analysis of
groundwater monitoring data is not necessary in the context of the
proposed delisting revisions.
D. What Delisting Levels Are EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude treated effluents by
establishing a set of verification constituents and concentrations that
must be met as a condition of the exclusion. These concentrations are
referred to as delisting levels. The process of selecting delisting
levels and proposed verification constituents is similar to that used
in the existing 200 Area ETF exclusion where constituents that are
representative of a treatability group were selected as verification
parameters.
Treatability groups established in today's proposal can be found in
Table 4-1 of the November 29, 2001 delisting petition. Treatability
groups have been established by grouping chemicals identified as 200
Area Effluent Treatment Facility Consolidated Constituents in Table B-1
of the November 29, 2001 delisting petition according to similar
chemical structure and function. For example, all organic constituents
with phthalate structure are grouped into treatability group 8.
Inorganic constituents (metals in particular) are each assigned to
their own treatability group. One difference in the process for
selecting constituents representing each organic treatability group
between the original delisting and today's proposal is that one
constituent is selected and proposed to represent a treatability group.
For inorganic treatability groups, each constituent is in a separate
treatability group.
Because the initial delisting was an upfront delisting,\7\ multiple
constituents were selected for a few treatability groups. The initial
delisting focused exclusively on listed wastewaters with a designation
of F001 to F005, or F039 derived from F001 to F005, and the
verification parameters included multiple constituents in several
treatability groups. Because this
[[Page 42402]]
delisting modification expands the constituents associated with the
F039 waste number being delisted, the proposed verification
constituents need to represent all the treatability groups. EPA's
analysis of data presented in the DOE-RL's petition indicate that the
data verify the process model used in the original delisting action.
Further, EPA concludes the treatment performance necessary to meet
delisting exclusion limits will be successfully demonstrated by the
individual constituents proposed to represent each treatability group.
Since these representative constituents have been selected after
consideration of both toxicity and how difficult each constituent is to
treat, EPA concludes that requiring multiple constituents to represent
each treatability group would not provide greater assurance that
exclusion limits are met for all constituents in the treatability
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ An upfront delisting is an exclusion granted for a waste
stream prior to full-scale commercial generation or treatment of the
waste stream. In contrast, a traditional exclusion applies to an
existing waste stream that can be fully characterized on a
commercial scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The constituents and the delisting levels for monitoring are
determined in a three-phase approach. First, the health-based levels
(HBLs) \8\ are calculated based on toxicological data for each
constituent of concern identified in Table B-1 of the November 2001
delisting petition. The HBLs are calculated using current toxicological
data from IRIS, HEAST, and NCEA.\9\ The target risk factor of 1.0 x
10-\5\ excess cancer risk is used with the oral slope factor
to calculate a HBL for carcinogens. The target hazard quotient factor
of 0.10 is used with the reference dose for oral exposure to calculate
a HBL for non-carcinogens. When an oral slope factor and a reference
dose for oral exposure are both available, the minimum (more
conservative) resulting HBL is used. The groundwater ingestion pathway
was the only pathway considered, based on the same rationale used to
select the groundwater pathway in the initial delisting exclusion,
found in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Health-based levels are considered the cancer slope factor
for carcinogens, and the reference dose for constituents with non-
cancer health effects.
\9\ The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) can be found
at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables (HEAST) can be found at ``Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables FY 1997 Update,'' 9200.6-303(97-1), EPA 540/R-97-036, PB97-
921199, July 199. Data from the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) may be found at http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/ncea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, a constituent is selected from a treatability group to
represent the entire group. This methodology uses HBLs (the lower the
HBL the higher the constituent toxicity), the electrical energy/order
(EE/O), which is a measure of the UV/OX treatment efficiency for a
constituent (the higher the EE/O the more difficult it is to destroy a
constituent), and the practical quantitation limit (PQL). Constituents
are ranked by the HBL and by the EE/O. HBLs within a factor of 10 are
considered identical for this selection process because HBLs of
constituents within most treatability groups range over a number of
orders of magnitude. Each treatability group is evaluated individually.
The constituents having the lowest HBL and the highest EE/O are the
first candidates considered for selection. To ensure that acceptable
analytical data can be obtained, the PQL is considered. If the PQL is
higher than the delisting level (HBL times the dilution attenuation
factor [DAF]),\10\ then another constituent is evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A dilution/attenuation factor is a measure of fate and
transport effects on constituents as they migrate from a source area
to a receptor. In this instance, the source area is the SALDS unit,
modeled as an unlined surface impoundment and the receptor is a
hypothetical individual ingesting groundwater affected by the waste
source). Details of how the EPACML model was used to calculate DAF
values for the 200 Area ETF may be found in the original delisting
proposal, 60 FR 6054, February 1, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the proposed delisting levels are based on the HBL times
the DAF of 6. The methodology used by DOE-RL to calculate this DAF
appears in section 4.0 of the November 2001 delisting petition. EPA has
previously determined that the methodology used by DOE-RL in
establishing the DAF of 6 is protective in a previous delisting. See 56
FR 32993, July 18, 1991. In a few cases, the delisting level is based
on either the PQL, maximum contamination limit (MCL), or a
concentration level derived from requirements of the Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA) applicable to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
remediation waste, which EPA has determined to be protective of
unrestricted exposure. EPA is proposing to establish delisting
exclusion limits for PCBs based on TSCA values as a means to achieve
consistency between RCRA and TSCA requirements applicable to treated
effluent. See section III.N for a discussion of the relationship
between delisting levels in today's proposal and LDR treatment
requirements.
There are a number of constituents of concern in treated effluent
where toxicological data are inconclusive or lacking. For treatability
groups where these constituents are grouped, toxicological data for the
constituent representing the treatability group is selected from one of
the remaining treatability group constituents for which conclusive
toxicological data are available. Stated another way, constituents
representing each treatability group are selected based on a
combination of available health-based data, difficulty to treat the
constituent, and availability of acceptable analytical information. EPA
believes that the methodology established in the original 200 Area ETF
delisting and adopted as the basis for today's proposal provides
certainty that when delisting criteria for representative constituents
are met, all constituents in the same treatability group satisfy
delisting requirements.
The methodology described in the previous paragraph for selecting
constituents to represent each treatability group also supports EPA's
proposal to have a single chemical constituent represent each
treatability group. As noted above, each constituent representing a
treatability group is selected on the basis of a combination of being
difficult to treat and of being the most toxic. Provided the ETF waste
processing strategy successfully demonstrates that the selected
represented constituent meets delisting limits (as required as a
condition of today's proposal), any other constituent in the same
treatability group would either be less toxic, or be more completely
destroyed or removed from the treated effluent than the representative
constituent. In either instance, the selected representative
constituent will always be the limiting factor within each treatability
group with respect to meeting the requirements to exclude a particular
waste.
The following are exceptions to this methodology.
Group 2: Diethylstilbestrol, also called estrogen, was not
selected because of analytical measurement difficulties and this
constituent is highly unlikely to be in wastewater treated at the 200
Area ETF.
Group 9a: 1-Butanol was chosen over propargyl alcohol
because 1-butanol is expected to be more prevalent in wastewaters
treated at the 200 Area ETF. Should treatment efficiency of the 200
Area ETF be limited by this treatability group, the greater prevalence
of 1-butanol increases the likelihood that this treatment limitation
would be identified by the verification sampling program. In other
words, a constituent that is rarely found even in wastes prior to
treatment would not be a good indicator of whether or not effective
treatment has occurred, since such a constituent would not be expected
to be found in treated effluent even after ineffective treatment.
Group 10a: All constituents containing hydrazine were
eliminated from selection because of their reactivity under strong
oxidizing conditions
[[Page 42403]]
present in the UV/OX system at the 200 Area ETF. Because these
constituents react so quickly in the conditions occurring in the UV/OX
system, they do not provide appropriate measures of effective treatment
for this treatability group.
Group 10e: N-Nitrosodimethylamine was chosen. Because of
analytical measurement difficulties, the delisting level is the PQL.
Group 12: The delisting level for PCBs is based on the
TSCA limit of 0.0005 mg/L (0.5 ppb). This level is where treated
remediation waste is authorized for unrestricted use.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In establishing a delisting limit based on the TSCA
unrestricted use limit of 0.5 parts per billion for liquid
remediation wastes, EPA is not necessarily representing that
wastewaters managed by the 200 Area ETF are necessarily TSCA
remediation wastes. Rather, EPA is simply ``borrowing'' a technical
standard developed for PCBs and applying it in a RCRA exclusion
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 17, 17a: The aldehyde group, in general, is reactive
in water, which makes these constituents unlikely to be in wastewaters
treated at the 200 Area ETF. Also, the reactivity of aldehydes causes
analytical problems where these are difficult to analyze in the
laboratory. The aldehyde group will be represented by treatability
Group 13, the group that is most difficult to destroy.
Group 19: Acetone was chosen over acetophenone because
acetone is expected to be a more prevalent contaminant in wastewaters
treated at the 200 Area ETF.
Group 22, 21: The delisting level for arsenic is based on
the PQL rather than the HBL. The delisting level for lead is based on
the MCL for drinking water rather than a level based on toxicity.
Group 25: This group includes group 25a and 25b. Tributyl
phosphate was chosen from this group as tributyl phosphate is expected
to be more prevalent in wastewaters treated at the 200 Area ETF.
EPA has not specifically evaluated environmental receptors in the
original delisting or today's proposal because the proposed management
scenario for excluded wastes is specifically intended to preclude
exposure for an extended period of time during natural decay of
radioactive tritium (tritium is technically impracticable to treat or
remove from the 200 Area ETF effluent). To ensure treated effluent is
not managed in a manner that might create environmental exposures, the
EPA is proposing to limit management of treated effluent to the SALDS
disposal unit.
Based on this methodology, Table 1 provides a list of proposed
delisting constituents and delisting levels.
Table 1.--Proposed Delisting Constituents and Delisting Levels for Treated Effluent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Proposed
Treatability delisting CAS < greek- HBL (mg/L) EE/O Justification delisting
group constituents i> level (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ Cresol [Cresylic 1319-77-3 2.0 x 10-11...... 10 Representing 1.2
acid]*. group, has
relatively low
HBL and highest
EE/O of group,
target compound
in SW-846
method(4), PQL
less than
delisting level.
2................ 2,4,6- 88-06-2 6.0 x 10-2....... 10 Representing 3.6 x 10-1
trichlorophenol. group, has a low
HBL and is a
hard to destroy
compound, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
3, 15, 15a....... Benzene*......... 71-43-2 1.0 x 10-2....... 3 Representing 6.0 x 10-2
group, the
compound with
the lowest HBL,
target compound
in SW-846
method, PQL less
than delisting
level.
4................ Chrysene......... 218-01-9 9.0 x 10-2....... 10 Representing 5.6 x 10-1
group, has a
relatively low
HBL and is one
of the hard to
destroy
compounds,
target compound
in SW-846
method, PQL less
than delisting
level. Chrysene
was chosen
because the
other
constituents
with lower HBLs
have analytical
measurement
difficulties.
5, 5a, 16........ Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 4.0 x 10-4....... 10 Representing 2.0 x 10-3
group, has a
relatively low
HBL and is one
of the hard to
destroy
compounds,
target compound
in SW-846
method, PQL less
than delisting
level.
Hexachlorobenzen
e was chosen
because
Heptachlorodiben
zofuran and
Heptachlorodiben
zo-p-dioxins
have analytical
measurement
difficulties.
6b, 14........... Hexachlorocyclope 77-47-4 3.0 x 10-2....... 10 Representing 1.8 x 10-1
ntadiene. group, has a low
HBL and is a
hard to destroy
compound, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Hexachlorocyclop
entadiene was
chosen over 1,4-
Dichloro-2-
butene and
Hexachlorobutadi
ene because of
analytical
measurement
difficulties,
and over 1,1-
Dichloroethylene
and Vinyl
chloride because
of a higher EE/O.
[[Page 42404]]
7a............... Dichloroisopropyl 108-60-1 1.0 x 10-3....... 15 Representing 6.0 x 10-2
ether [Bis(2- group 7a and 7b,
Chloroisopropyl) has a relatively
ether]. low HBL and the
EE/O is highest
of group, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Dichloroisopropy
l ether was
chosen over
Bis(2-
Chloroethyl)
ether and
Dichloromethyl
ether because of
a higher EE/O.
8................ Di-n- 117-84-0 8.0 x 10-2....... 15 Representing 4.8 x 10-1
octylphthalate*. group, has a
relatively low
HBL and the EE/O
is highest of
group, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
9a............... 1-Butanol*....... 71-36-3 4 x 10-1......... 10 Representing 2.4
group, the
compound with
the lowest HBL,
target compound
in SW-846
method, PQL less
than delisting
level.
9................ Isophorone....... 78-59-1 7.0 x 10-1....... 30 Representing 4.2
group, has a
relatively low
HBL and the EE/O
is highest of
group, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Isophorone was
chosen because
the other
constituents
with lower HBLs
have analytical
measurement
difficulties and
isophorone had
the highest EE/O.
10a.............. Diphenylamine.... 122-39-4 9.0 x 10-2....... 15 Representing 5.6 x 10-1
group, has a
relatively low
HBL and the EE/O
is close to
highest of
group, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Diphenylamine
was chosen
because other
constituents
with lower HBLs
have analytical
measurement
difficulties.
10b.............. p-Chloroaniline.. 106-47-8 2.0 x 10-2....... 10 Representing 1.2 x 10-1
group, has a
relatively low
HBL and the EE/O
is highest of
group, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
p-Chloroaniline
was chosen over
4,4[min]-
Methylenebis(2-
chloroaniline)
and o-
Nitroaniline
because of
analytical
measurement
difficulties.
10c.............. Acetonitrile..... 75-05-8 Rescinded, 10 Representing 1.2
previous (1994) group, has a
HBL is 0.2 mg/L. relatively low
HBL and the EE/O
is close to
highest of
group, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level,
the 1994
established HBL
(0.2 mg/l) is
used.
Acetonitrile was
chosen because
it has, by far,
the highest EE/O.
10d.............. Carbazole........ 86-74-8 3.0 x 10-2....... 30 Representing 1.8 x 10-1
group, has a
relatively low
HBL and it is
one of the more
difficult
compounds to
destroy, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Carbazole was
chosen because
other
constituents
with lower HBLs
have analytical
measurement
difficulties.
10e.............. N- 62-75-9 1.0 x 10-5....... 10 Representing 2.0 x 10-2
Nitrosodimethyla group, target
mine. compound in SW-
846 method,
because of
analytical
measurement
difficulties,
the PQL is used
as the delisting
level.
10f.............. Pyridine......... 110-86 1 4.0 x 10-3....... 4 Representing 2.4 x 10-2
group, the
compound with a
low HBL, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Pyridine was
chosen because
the other
constituent with
a lower HBL has
analytical
measurement
difficulties.
[[Page 42405]]
11............... Lindane [gamma- 58-89-9 5.0 x 10-4....... 40 Representing 3.0 x 10-3
BHC]. group, has a low
HBL and is one
of the more
difficult
compounds to
destroy, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Lindane was
chosen because
of those with
lower HBLs
lindane has the
highest EE/O.
12............... Aroclor 1016, PCBs 3.0 x 10-4....... 15 Representing 5.0 x 10-4
1221, 1232, group, target
1242, 1248, compound in SW-
1254, 1260. 846 method,
delisting level
based on TSCA
value, PQL less
than delisting
level.
13, 6a........... Carbon 56-23-5 3.0 x 10-3....... 200 Representing 1.8 x 10-2
tetrachloride*. group, has
relatively low
HBL and is the
compound with
the highest EE/
O, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Carbon
tetrachloride
was chosen
because the
other
constituent with
a lower HBL has
analytical
measurement
difficulties and
carbon
tetrachloride
has by far the
highest EE/O.
18a.............. Tetrahydrofuran.. 109-99-9 9.0 x 10-2....... 4 Representing 5.6 x 10-1
group 18 and
18a, a compound
with relatively
low HBL, target
compound in SW-
846 method, PQL
less than
delisting level.
Tetrahydrofuran
was chosen
because the
other
constituent with
a lower HBL has
analytical
measurement
difficulties.
19............... Acetone*......... 67-64-1 4.0 x 10-1....... 10 Representing 2.4
group, has a
relatively low
HBL and is one
of the harder to
destroy
compounds,
target compound
in SW-846
method, PQL less
than delisting
level.
20............... Carbon disulfide. 75-15-0 4.0 x 10-1....... 5 Representing 2.3
group, the
compound with
the lowest HBL,
target compound
in SW-846
method, PQL less
than delisting
level.
21, 22........... Barium*.......... 7440-39-3 3.0 x 10-1....... ....... HBL x DAF is 1.6
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
21, 22........... Beryllium*....... 7440-41-7 8.0 x 10-3....... ....... HBL x DAF is 4.5 x 10-2
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
21, 22........... Nickel*.......... 7440-02-0 8.0e10-2......... ....... HBL x DAF is 4.5 x 10-1
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
21, 22........... Silver*.......... 7440-22-4 2.0 x 10-2....... ....... HBL x DAF is 1.1 x 10-1
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
21, 22........... Vanadium*........ 7440-62-2 3.0 x 10-2....... ....... HBL x DAF is 1.6 x 10-1
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
21, 22........... Zinc*............ 7440-66-6 1.0.............. ....... HBL x DAF is 6.8
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
22, 21........... Arsenic*......... 7440-38-2 5.0 x 10-4....... ....... HBL below PQL, 1.5 x 10-2
PQL of 0.015 mg/
L used as
delisting level.
22, 21........... Cadmium*......... 7440-43-9 2.0 x 10-3....... ....... HBL x DAF is 1.1 x 10-2
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
22, 21........... Chromium*........ 7440-47-3 1.0 x 10-2....... ....... HBL x DAF is 6.8 x 10-2
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
22, 21........... Lead*............ 7439-92-1 1.5 x 10-2....... ....... No HBL, used MCL 9.0 x 10-2
of 0.015 mg/L
and DAF = 6,
(MCL * DAF).
22, 21........... Mercury*......... 7439-97-6 1.0 x 10-3....... ....... HBL x DAF is 6.8 x 10-3(2)
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
22, 21........... Selenium*........ 7782-49-2 2.0 x 10-2....... ....... HBL x DAF is 1.1 x 10-1
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
23............... Fluoride*........ 16984-48-8 2.0 x 10-1....... ....... HBL x DAF is 1.2
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
24............... Ammonia*......... 7664-41-7 1.0(3)........... ....... HBL x DAF is 6.0
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
24............... Cyanide*......... 57-12-5 8.0 x 10-2....... ....... HBL x DAF is 4.8 x 10-1
delisting level,
PQL is less than
delisting level.
[[Page 42406]]
25a.............. Tributyl 126-73-8 2.0 x 10-2(3).... 5 Representing 1.2 x 10-1
phosphate*. group 25a and
25b, the
compound with a
low HBL, target
compound in EPA
method, PQL less
than delisting
level. No
updated HBL.
Previous
delisting level
is used,
adjusted for a
DAF of 6 instead
of 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstract Service. DAF = dilution attenuation factor. HBL = health-based levels. MCL = maximum
contamination limit. PQL = practical quantitation limit. TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. (1) The
HBL for cresol is assumed to be that for o-cresol and m-cresol. (2) The HBL for ammonia is assumed to be the
same as used in the initial Delisting Petition. (3) The HBL for tributyl phosphate is assumed to be the same
as used in the initial Delisting Petition. (4) The phrase ``Target compound in SW-846'' means that the
associated constituent can be analyzed for and reported using promulgated SW-846 analytical methods.
*Current delisting parameters.
E. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?
As noted in section III.C, EPA believes that the approach used in
the original 200 Area ETF treated effluent delisting action is sound
and environmentally protective. Further, EPA does not believe there is
any basis to expand on the analysis conducted to support the original
200 Area ETF delisting. EPA has considered the potential for, but has
concluded that there are no other factors that warrant consideration in
this proposed delisting modification.
F. What Did EPA Conclude About DOE-RL's Analysis?
After reviewing the DOE-RL petition, EPA concludes that (1) no RCRA
hazardous constituents are likely to be present in treated effluent
above the proposed health-based delisting levels; and (2) the
petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (refer to 40 CFR
261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24, respectively).\12\ In addition, EPA
considered other factors or criteria enumerated in section I.B that
could cause the wastes to be hazardous under RCRA. Today's proposal
expands the list of constituents for which the wastes are excluded to
include certain U- and P-listed waste numbers which are defined by 40
CFR 261.33 as acutely hazardous. EPA's analysis demonstrates that
treated effluents do not contain U- and P-listed constituents above
health-based delisting levels, and therefor no longer meet the criteria
under which the waste was originally listed as an acutely hazardous
waste. Therefore, the treated effluents may be excluded from the
definition of hazardous waste. The remaining factors discussed in
section I.B were considered as part the analysis EPA performed to
establish exclusion limits and the verification sampling program
applicable to the wastes considered in today's proposed exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Delisting requirements of 40 CFR 260.22 state that an
excluded waste cannot exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste (reactivity, ignitability, corrosivity or toxicity).
The delisting levels in today's proposal are below the toxicity
characteristics levels, and there is no record of untreated or
treated aqueous wastewaters associated with the 200 Area ETF having
sufficient concentrations of any constituent to suggest that the
reactivity or ignitability characteristic might be of concern with
respect to treated effluents. Similarly, the nature of the treatment
processes at the 200 Area ETF, which include multiple pH adjustment
steps, insure that treated effluents do not exhibit the
characteristic of corrosivity. EPA believes that treated effluents
satisfy these delisting requirements. DOE-RL, however, must
demonstrate that treated effluents do not exhibit the
characteristics of ignitability or corrosivity through application
of process knowledge or analytical sampling according to 40 CFR
262.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. What Must DOE RL Do To Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed
Exclusion?
DOE-RL's obligation to demonstrate compliance with this proposed
exclusion has two key components. The first is to demonstrate that each
influent wastewater is within the processing capabilities (defined in
this context as the ability to treat to delisting levels) of the 200
Area ETF prior to treatment. This demonstration is made through
application of the verified treatment efficiency process model for the
200 Area ETF unit operations to waste characterization data required by
the waste characterization and acceptance procedures in Hanford's site-
wide RCRA permit, WA7 89000 8967. The second component is a treated
effluent sampling program intended to verify that the predicted
treatment levels in fact are achieved. The verification sampling
program in turn has two phases--an initial qualification sampling
requirement applicable to all influent waste streams that do not have
an operating history of treatment in 200 Area ETF, and an on-going
verification ``spot check'' sampling requirement. The first
qualification phase is intended to demonstrate that the predicted
treatment efficiencies can be achieved for new waste streams, while the
``spot check'' requirement is intended to identify any long-term
changes in treatment efficiency or influent waste stream variability
that would impact the ability of the 200 Area ETF to meet delisting
requirements. At any time that an initial or verification sampling
event indicates failure to meet delisting criteria, the DOE-RL is
required to re-evaluate the waste characterization data (to identify
any constituents, constituent levels, or other factors that might
affect treatability of the waste), the treatment strategy and
operational baseline, and to make any changes necessary to ensure
subsequent batches of treated effluent do not fail delisting criteria.
As with new treatment strategies, the initial treated effluent batch
after any waste treatment strategy changes also is subject to
verification sampling to ensure the treatment strategy changes are
effective. In all cases where verification sampling is required, the
corresponding batch of treated effluent cannot be discharged to the
SALDS unit until compliance with delisting exclusion limits can be
documented. Both of these overall compliance components and the two
verification sampling program phases are essentially the same as in the
original delisting action, with modifications to reflect actual
operating experience and the additional influent wastes the 200 Area
ETF expects to manage under this proposed exclusion.
EPA is also proposing additional conditions to ensure ongoing
compliance with delisting exclusion limits. First, EPA is proposing a
re-opener provision to allow EPA to re-evaluate the protectiveness of
today's exclusion limits and management requirements should new
information become available that might alter
[[Page 42407]]
conclusions reached should today's proposal be finalized. EPA currently
includes this re-opener provision as a standard component of delisting
rulemakings. Second, EPA is proposing record keeping and reporting
requirements. These conditions are intended to ensure that
documentation of information necessary to review the compliance history
of RL is appropriately recorded and maintained.
H. How Must DOE RL Manage the Delisted Waste for Disposal?
As a condition of this proposed exclusion, DOE-RL would be required
to dispose of treated effluent at the SALDS. As noted elsewhere in this
proposal, EPA anticipates and encourages the DOE-RL to evaluate
alternate reuse options for treated effluent. Such changes in
management practices will require EPA approval pursuant to delisting
condition 7.
I. How Must DOE RL Operate the Treatment Unit?
The DOE-RL would be required to operate the 200 Area ETF according
to the waste processing strategies developed pursuant to this proposed
exclusion, if finalized, including the waste treatment strategy
developed under Condition (1)(a). Although not a specific condition of
this proposed delisting, the DOE-RL also must operate the 200 Area ETF
in compliance with applicable RCRA regulations, the requirements of the
Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7 89000 8967, and in part, the
requirements of the State Waste Discharge Permit ST4500.
J. What Must DOE RL Do if the Process Changes?
EPA expects that 200 Area ETF treatment technologies will evolve
and/or change over the operating life of the unit in support of Hanford
Facility cleanup. EPA is proposing an exclusion condition that will
allow the DOE-RL to modify the treatability envelope for the 200 Area
ETF with written EPA approval to reflect such changes. Under today's
proposal, such changes to the treatability envelope will not require
modifications to the exclusion rule. EPA notes that changes to the
treatability envelope for ETF may require modification to the State
Waste Discharge Permit ST4500 as well.
EPA has included a re-opener clause that may also provide a basis
for modification of this proposed exclusion to reflect substantial
changes to ETF or its performance. Since it is not possible to
completely anticipate potential future changes or modifications to the
200 Area ETF treatment process, EPA is not providing a comprehensive
definition of ``substantial'' in the context of the reopener clause.
However, EPA is proposing that changes that would require Class II or
Class III modifications to the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7 89000
8967 would be considered ``substantial.'' Without enumerating all
possible changes to the 200 Area ETF, this proposal serves as a general
example of ``substantial'' changes.
EPA notes that substantial changes to the 200 Area ETF that would
warrant EPA review in the context of today's proposed exclusion would
also likely require modification of the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit
WA7 89000 8967
K. What Data Must DOE RL Submit?
EPA believes that the methodology in this proposed exclusion
provides a sound and robust basis to accommodate the diverse waste
streams expected to be managed by the 200 Area ETF under this proposed
exclusion. Based on the 200 Area ETF operating history, EPA does not
expect that the RL will encounter exceedances of delisting levels
during verification sampling. Should exceedances occur, however, the
retreatment and subsequent verification requirements of Conditions (2)
and (3) in today's proposal provide assurances against environmental
harm. Should such an exceedance occur, however, EPA believes that it
might be indicative of unanticipated changes in waste streams or 200
Area ETF operations that require regulatory evaluation beyond the self-
implementing provisions of Conditions (2) and (3). Therefore, EPA is
proposing a recordkeeping and data submission requirement to ensure
that EPA and Ecology are aware of such situations, and have the
opportunity to take any appropriate response actions.
The DOE-RL also must disclose new or different data related to the
200 Area ETF or disposal of the waste if the data is relevant to the
delisting (see Condition (4) of the proposed rule for the specifics of
this requirement). This provision will allow EPA to re-evaluate the
exclusion if new or additional information becomes available to EPA.
The EPA will evaluate the information on which we based the decision to
see if the information still is correct, or if circumstances have
changed so that the information no longer is correct or would cause EPA
to deny the petition if presented. This provision expressly requires
the DOE-RL to report differing site conditions or assumptions used in
the petition within 10 days. If EPA discovers such information itself
or from a third party, EPA can act on the information as appropriate.
The language being proposed is similar to those provisions found in
RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions at 40 CFR 268.6.
EPA believes that we have the authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to
re-open a delisting decision. We may re open a delisting decision when
we receive new information that calls into question the assumptions
underlying the delisting.
EPA believes a clear statement of its authority in delistings is
merited in light of Agency experience, where the delisted waste leached
at greater concentrations in the environment than the concentrations
predicted when conducting the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), thus leading the Agency to repeal the delisting. See
Reynolds Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458
(December 1, 1997). If a threat to human health and the environment
presents itself, EPA will continue to address these situations case by
case. Where necessary, EPA can make a good cause finding to justify
emergency rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
L. What Happens if DOE RL Fails To Meet the Conditions of the
Exclusion?
If DOE-RL violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the Agency may begin procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
If the analytical testing of the waste indicates treated effluents do
not meet the delisting criteria described previously, the DOE-RL must
notify EPA according to Condition (6). Because the 200 Area ETF
provides the capability to re-treat waste, EPA is not proposing to
suspend this proposed exclusion if verification sampling results fail
to demonstrate compliance with delisting levels. The proposed delisting
conditions do, however, require the DOE-RL to review and/or modify the
associated waste processing strategy to ensure future treatment batches
meet delisting criteria, and to perform additional verification testing
to demonstrate that changes are effective. Since the conditions of
today's proposed exclusion require DOE-RL to maintain records of
verification sampling and waste processing strategies, and report
verification failures to EPA (see Condition 6(b)), EPA can evaluate
whether verification sampling failures are isolated and adequately
addressed by re-treatment, or indicative of repeated and consistent
failures that might warrant reopening of the exclusion rule under
Condition 4. Note: Failure of treated effluent exclusion limits would
not necessarily provide a basis to begin withdrawal proceedings,
[[Page 42408]]
because the waste could be managed as hazardous without violating terms
of today's proposed exclusion, or applicable waste management
requirements.
M. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?
We have reviewed DOE-RL's November 29, 2001 delisting petition, the
operating history of the 200 Area ETF treatment process, the basis EPA
used to establish the original delisting, and DOE-RL's proposed
delisting levels and approach for waste acceptance and processing
strategy development for new waste streams. EPA believes that these
data and information provide a sufficient basis for EPA to grant the
proposed modifications to the existing exclusion. The framework
proposed by the DOE-RL for the 200 Area ETF operations, along with the
updated verification requirement being proposed, ensures that the
treated effluent will not pose a threat when managed as non-hazardous
low-level radioactive waste in the SALDS. EPA, therefore, proposes to
grant the proposed exclusion modification.
If we finalize this proposed exclusion, EPA no longer will regulate
the petitioned waste as a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR parts 262
through 268 and the permitting standards of part 270.
N. Relationship Between Today's Proposed Action and Compliance LDR
Treatment Standards
Today's action proposes to exclude certain wastes from the
definition of hazardous waste under the authority of 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22. EPA is not proposing any action that establishes or imposes
treatment requirements under the authority of land disposal restriction
rules appearing at 40 CFR part 268, nor is EPA proposing that the
numerical delisting criteria in today's proposal necessarily satisfy
existing LDR treatment standards that may be applicable to treated
effluents. In general, all of the influent wastewaters considered in
today's proposal are expected to be generated and actively managed
prior to the point of exclusion, should today's proposal be finalized.
As such, EPA believes that the treated effluent in question are
prohibited wastes and subject to applicable LDR treatment requirements
prior to land disposal at the SALDS. For disposal at SALDS, applicable
LDR prohibitions and treatment requirements are specified by WAC 173-
303-140, which incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 268.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'',
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This proposal to grant
an exclusion is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms
of Executive Order 12866, since its effect, if promulgated, would be to
reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste
management regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding
waste generated at a specific facility from EPA's lists of hazardous
wastes, thus enabling a facility to manage its waste as non-hazardous.
Therefore, EPA has determined that this proposed rule is not subject to
OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., is intended
to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that
information requests and recordkeeping requirements affecting ten or
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Although this action
proposes to establish or modify information and recordkeeping
requirements for DOE-RL, it does not impose those requirements on any
other facility or respondents, and therefore is not subject to the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as codified in the Small
Business Administration Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not
have a significant impact on small entities because the proposed rule
will only have the effect of impacting the waste management of waste
proposed for conditional delisting at the Hanford facility in the State
of Washington. After considering the economic impacts of today's
proposed rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Public
Law 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
[[Page 42409]]
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this proposed
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this rule.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule addresses the
conditional delisting of waste at the federal Hanford Facility. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although Section 6
of the Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA
did consult with representatives of State and local governments in
developing this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The
rule proposes to conditionally delist certain waste streams at the
federal Hanford Facility and does not establish any regulatory policy
with tribal implications. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on
this proposed rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed action
present a disproportionate risk to children. The proposed rule concerns
the proposed conditional delisting of certain waste streams at the
Hanford facility.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through the Offce of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the
Agency decides to use ``government-unique'' standards in lieu of
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring and
measurement, but is not establishing new technical standards for
verifying compliance with concentration limits, data quality or test
methodology. EPA proposes not to require the use of specific,
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use
of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or
not, that meets the prescribed performance criteria. Examples of
performance criteria are discussed in ``Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication-846, Third
Edition, as amended by updates I, II, IIA, IIB and III. EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in
this regulation, if finalized.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on
[[Page 42410]]
the National Performance Review, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States and its territories and possessions, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the
Mariana Islands. Because this proposed rule addresses the conditional
delisting of certain waste streams at the Hanford Facility, with no
anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects,
the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: July 6, 2004.
L. John Iani,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFYING AND LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 2, of Appendix IX of part 261, it is proposed to revise
the entry for ``DOE RL, Richland, WA'' to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Water Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
* * * * *
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility/address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Department of Energy, Richland Operations (DOE-RL), Treated effluents bearing the waste numbers identified
Richland, Washington. below, from the 200 Area ETF located at the Hanford
Facility, at a maximum generation rate of 210 million
liters per year, subject to Conditions 1-7: This
conditional exclusion applies to EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
F001, F002, F003, F004, F005, and F039. In addition, this
conditional exclusion applies to all other U- and P-
listed waste numbers that meet the following criteria:
The U/P listed substance has a treatment standard
established for wastewater forms of F039 multi-source
leachate under 40 CFR 268.40, ``Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes''; and
The as-generated waste stream prior to treatment in the
200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (200 Area ETF) is in
the form of dilute wastewater containing a maximum of 1.0
weight percent of any hazardous constituent. This
exclusion shall apply at the point of discharge from the
200 Area ETF verification tanks after satisfaction of
Conditions 1-7.
Conditions:
(1) Waste Influent Characterization and Processing
Strategy Preparation.
(a) Prior to treatment of any waste stream in the 200 Area
ETF, the DOE-RL must:
(i) Complete sufficient characterization of the waste
stream to demonstrate that the waste stream is within the
treatability envelope of 200 Area ETF as specified in
Tables C-1 and C-2 of the delisting petition dated
November 20, 2001. Results of the waste stream
characterization and the treatability evaluation must be
in writing and placed in the facility operating record,
along with a copy of the November 29, 2001 petition.
Waste stream characterization may be carried out in whole
or in part using the waste analysis procedures in the
Hanford Facility RCRA Permit, WA7 89000 8967;
(ii) Prepare a written waste processing strategy specific
to the waste stream, based on the ETF process model
documented in the November 29, 2001 petition.
(b) DOE-RL may modify the 200 Area ETF treatability
envelope specified in Tables C-1 and C-2 of the November
29, 2001 delisting petition to reflect changes in
treatment technology or operating practices upon written
approval of the Regional Administrator.
(c) DOE-RL shall conduct all 200 Area ETF treatment
operations for a particular waste stream according to the
written waste processing strategy, as may be modified by
Condition 3(b)(1).
(d) The following definitions apply:
(i) A waste stream is defined as all wastewater received
by the 200 Area ETF that meet the 200 Area ETF waste
acceptance criteria as defined by the Hanford Facility
RCRA Permit, WA7 89000 8967 and are managed under the
same 200 Area ETF waste processing strategy.
(ii) A waste processing strategy is defined as a specific
200 Area ETF unit operation configuration, primary
operating parameters and expected maximum influent total
dissolved solids (TDS) and total organic waste carbon
(TOC). Each processing strategy shall require monitoring
and recording of treated effluent conductivity for
purposes of Condition (2)(b)(i)(E), and for monitoring
and recording of primary operating parameters as
necessary to demonstrate that 200 Area ETF operations are
in accordance with the associated waste processing
strategy.
(iii) Primary operating parameters are defined as
ultraviolet oxidation (UV/OX) peroxide addition rate,
reverse osmosis reject ratio, and processing flow rate as
measured at the 200 Area ETF surge tank outlet.
(iv) Key unit operations are defined as filtration, UV/OX,
reverse osmosis, ion exchange, and secondary waste
treatment.
(2) Testing. DOE-RL shall perform verification testing of
treated effluents according to Conditions (a), (b), and
(c) below.
(a) Sample collection and analysis, including quality
control (QC) procedures, must be performed according to
current version of SW-846 or other EPA-approved
methodologies. DOE-RL shall maintain a written sampling
and analysis plan in the facility operating record.
Results of all sampling and analysis, including quality
assurance (QA)/QC information, shall be placed in the
facility operating record.
(b) Initial verification testing.
(i) Verification sampling shall consist of a
representative sample of one filled effluent discharge
tank, analyzed for all constituents in Condition (5), and
for conductivity for purposes of establishing a
conductivity baseline with respect to Condition
(2)(b)(i)(E). Verification sampling shall be required
under each of the following conditions:
(A) Any new or modified waste processing strategy;
[[Page 42411]]
(B) Influent wastewater total dissolved solids or total
organic carbon concentration increases by an order of
magnitude or more above values established in the waste
processing strategy;
(C) Changes in primary operating parameters;
(D) Changes in influent flow rate outside a range of 150
to 570 liters per minute;
(E) Increase greater than a factor of ten (10) in treated
effluent conductivity (conductivity changes indicate
changes in dissolved ionic constituents, which in turn
are a good indicator of 200 Area ETF treatment
efficiency).
(F) Any failure of initial verification required by this
condition, or subsequent verification required by
Condition (2)(c).
(ii) Treated effluents shall be managed according to
Condition 3. Once Condition (3)(a) is satisfied,
subsequent verification testing shall be performed
according to Condition (2)(c).
(c) Subsequent Verification: Following successful initial
verification associated with a specific waste processing
strategy, DOE-RL must continue to monitor primary
operating parameters, and collect and analyze
representative samples from every fifteenth (15th)
verification tank filled with 200 Area ETF effluents
processed according to the associated waste processing
strategy. These representative samples must be analyzed
prior to disposal of 200 Area ETF effluents for all
constituents in Condition (5). Treated effluent from
tanks sampled according to this condition must be managed
according to Condition (3).
(3) Waste Holding and Handling: DOE-RL must store as
hazardous waste all 200 Area ETF effluents subject to
verification testing in Conditions (2)(b) and (2)(c),
that is, until valid analyses demonstrate Condition (5)
is satisfied.
(a) If the levels of hazardous constituents in the samples
of 200 Area ETF effluent are equal to or below the levels
set forth in Condition (5), the 200 Area ETF effluents
are not listed as hazardous wastes provided they are
disposed of in the State Authorized Land Disposal Site
(SALDS) (except as provided pursuant to Condition (7)),
according to applicable requirements and permits.
Subsequent treated effluent batches shall be subject to
verification requirements of Condition (2)(c).
(b) If hazardous constituent levels in any representative
sample collected from a verification tank exceed any of
the delisting levels set in Condition (5), DOE-RL must:
(i) Review waste characterization data, and review and
change accordingly the waste processing strategy as
necessary to ensure subsequent batches of treated
effluent do not exceed delisting criteria;
(ii) Retreat the contents of the failing verification
tank;
(iii) Perform verification testing on the retreated
effluent. If constituent concentrations are at or below
delisting levels in Condition (5), the treated effluent
are not listed hazardous waste provided they are disposed
at SALDS according to applicable requirements and permits
(except as provided pursuant to Condition (7)), otherwise
repeat the requirements of Condition (3(b).
(iv) Perform initial verification sampling according to
Condition (2)(b) on the next treated effluent tank once
testing required by Condition (3)(b)(iii) demonstrates
compliance with delisting requirements.
(4) Re-opener Language.
(a) If, anytime before, during, or after treatment of
waste in the 200 Area ETF, DOE-RL possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any data (including but not
limited to groundwater monitoring data, as well as data
concerning the accuracy of site conditions or the
validity of assumptions upon which the November 29, 2001
petition was based) relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that the treated effluent no longer meets
delisting criteria (excluding recordkeeping and data
submissions required by Condition (6)), or that
groundwater affected by discharge of the treated effluent
exhibits hazardous constituent concentrations above
health-based limits, DOE-RL must report such data, in
writing, to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of
first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(b) DOE-RL shall provide written notification to the
Regional Administrator no less than 180 days prior to any
planned or proposed substantial modifications to the 200
Area ETF, exclusive of routine maintenance activities.
This condition shall specifically include, but not be
limited to, changes that do or would require Class II and
III modification to the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7
89000 8967 (in the case of permittee-initiated
modifications) or equivalent modifications in the case of
agency-initiated permit modifications. DOE-RL may request
a modification to the 180-day notification requirement of
this condition in the instance of agency-initiated permit
modifications for purposes of ensuring coordination with
permitting activities.
(c) Based on the information described in paragraph (4)(a)
or (4)(b) or any other relevant information received from
any source, the Regional Administrator will make a
preliminary determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to protest human
health or the environment. Further action could include
suspending or revoking the exclusion, or other
appropriate response necessary to protect human health
and the environment.
(D) Delisting Levels: All total constituent concentrations
in treated effluents managed under this exclusion must be
equal to or less than the following levels, expressed as
mg/L:
Inorganic Constituents: Ammonia--6.0; Barium--1.6;
Beryllium--4.5 x 10-2; Nickel--4.5 x 10-1; Silver--1.1 x
10-1; Vanadium--1.6 x 10-1; Zinc--6.8; Arsenic--1.5 x 10-
2; Cadmium--1.1 x 10-2; Chromium--6.8 x 10-2; Lead--9.0 x
10-2; Mercury--6.8 x 10-3; Selenium--1.1 x 10-1;
Fluoride--1.2; Cyanides--4.8 x 10-1.
Organic Constituents: Cresol--1.2; 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol--
3.6 x 10-1; Benzene--6.0 x 10-2; Chrysene--5.6 x 10-1;
Hexachlorobenzene--2.0 x 10-3; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene--
1.8 x 10-1; Dichloroisopropyl ether; [Bis(2-
Chloroisopropyl) ether--6.0 x 10-2; Di-n-octylphthalate--
4.8 x 10-1; 1-Butanol--2.4; Isophorone--4.2;
Diphenylamine--5.6 x 10-1; p-Chloroaniline--1.2 x 10-1;
Acetonitrile--1.2; Carbazole--1.8 x 10-1; N-
Nitrosodimethylamine--2.0 x 10-3; Pyridine--2.4 x 10-2;
Lindane [gamma-BHC]--3.0 x 10-3; Arochlor [total of
Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260]--5.0
x 10-4; Carbon tetrachloride--1.8 x 10-2;
Tetrahydrofuran--5.6 x 10-1; Acetone--2.4; Carbon
disulfide--2.3; Tributyl phosphate--1.2 x 10-1.
(6) Recordkeeping and Data Submittals.
[[Page 42412]]
(a) DOE-RL shall maintain records of all waste
characterization, and waste processing strategies
required by Condition (1), and verification sampling
data, including QA/QC results, in the facility operating
record for a period of no less than three (3) years.
However, this period is automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement action regarding the
200 Area ETF or as requested by EPA.
(b) No less than thirty (30) days after receipt of
verification data indicating a failure to meet delisting
criteria of Condition (5), DOE-RL shall notify the
Regional Administrator. This notification shall include a
summary of waste characterization data for the associated
influent, verification data, and any corrective actions
taken according to Condition (3)(b)(i).
(c) Records required by Condition (6)(a) must be furnished
on request by EPA or the State of Washington and made
available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by
a signed copy of the following certification statement to
attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:
``Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making
of submission of false or fraudulent statements or
representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of
the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited
to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928). I certify that
the information contained in or accompanying this
document is true, accurate, and complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s) of the document
for which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth
and accuracy, I certify as the official having
supervisory responsibility of the persons who, acting
under my direct instructions, made the verification that
this information is true, accurate, and complete.
In the event that any of this information is determined by
EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate, or
incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to DOE-RL, I
recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be
void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed
by EPA and that the DOE-RL will be liable for any actions
taken in contravention of its RCRA and CERCLA obligations
premised upon DOE-RL's reliance on the void exclusion.''
(7) Treated Effluent Disposal Requirements. DOE-RL may at
any time propose alternate reuse practices for treated
effluent managed under terms of this exclusion in lieu of
disposal at the SALDS. Such proposals must be in writing
to the Regional Administrator, and demonstrate that the
risks and potential human health or environmental
exposures from alternate treated effluent disposal or
reuse practices do not warrant retaining the waste as a
hazardous waste. Upon written approval by EPA of such a
proposal, non-hazardous treated effluents may be managed
according to the proposed alternate practices in lieu of
the SALDS disposal requirement in paragraph (3)(a). The
effect of such approved proposals shall be explicitly
limited to approving alternate disposal practices in lieu
of the requirements in paragraph (3)(a) to dispose of
treated effluent in SALDS.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 04-15945 Filed 7-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P