[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31115-31120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14428]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5220-5]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
granting a petition submitted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Richland, Washington, to exclude certain wastes to be generated by a
treatment process at its Hanford facility from being listed as
hazardous wastes. This action responds to DOE's petition to exclude
these treated wastes on a ``generator-specific'' basis from the
hazardous waste lists.
Based on careful analyses, the Agency has concluded that the
disposal of these wastes, after treatment, will not adversely affect
human health and the environment. This final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but imposes
testing conditions to ensure that the future-generated waste remains
qualified for delisting.
This final rule will also allow DOE to proceed with critical
cleanup at the Hanford site. The primary goal of cleanup is to protect
human health and the environment by reducing risks from unintended
releases of hazardous wastes that are currently stored at the site.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, and is available for viewing (room M2616) from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (202) 260-9327
for appointments. The reference number for this docket is ``F-95-HNEF-
FFFFF''. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no
cost for the first 100 pages, and at $0.15 per page for additional
copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For
technical information concerning this notice, contact Shen-yi Yang,
Office of Solid Waste (5304), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-1436.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the Agency
to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and
261.32. Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow
the Agency to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any
of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste.
In addition, the administrator must determine, where he 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 a hazardous waste, that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of This Rulemaking
DOE's Hanford site, located in Richland, Washington, petitioned the
Agency to exclude from hazardous waste control the effluents to be
generated from its proposed 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF).
The effluents are presently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001
through F005, and F039 derived from F001 through F005. After evaluating
the petition, EPA proposed, on February 1, 1995, to exclude Hanford's
waste from [[Page 31116]] the lists of hazardous wastes under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (see 60 FR 6054).
This rulemaking addresses public comments received on the proposal
and finalizes the Agency's proposed decision to grant DOE's petition.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford Facility, Richland, Washington
A. Proposed Exclusion
On October 30, 1992, DOE petitioned the Agency to exclude from
hazardous waste control its treated wastes to be generated from the
proposed 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). The ETF is
designed to treat process condensate (PC) from the 242-A Evaporator.
The untreated PC is a low-level radioactive waste as defined in DOE
Order 5820.2A and a RCRA listed hazardous waste (EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F001 through F005 and F039 derived from F001 through F005) as
defined in 40 CFR Sec. 261.31(a).
While the constituents of concern in listed wastes F001 through
F005 wastes include a variety of solvents (see Part 261, Appendix VII),
the constituents (based on PC sampling data and process knowledge) that
serve as the basis for characterizing DOE's petitioned wastes as
hazardous were limited to 1,1,1-trichloroethane (F001), methylene
chloride (F002), acetone and methyl isobutyl ketone (F003), cresylic
acid (F004), and methyl ethyl ketone (F005).
In support of its petition, DOE submitted:
(1) Detailed descriptions of the waste generation and waste
management history at the Hanford site;
(2) An inventory of chemicals used in Hanford's production plants
and supporting operations;
(3) Detailed descriptions of various waste streams to be fed into
the 242-A Evaporator;
(4) Detailed descriptions and schematic drawings of the generation
of untreated PC from the 242-A Evaporator;
(5) Information quantifying concentrations of hazardous
constituents of untreated 242-A Evaporator PC, including metals and
other inorganic constituents, organic constituents, and radioactive
constituents;
(6) Detailed descriptions and schematic drawings of its proposed
Effluent Treatment Facility and primary steps of its treatment
processes;
(7) Results from the analysis of liquid wastes generated by pilot-
scale treatability studies, showing concentrations of inorganic and
organic compounds in samples of untreated and treated surrogate test
solutions and percent removal; and
(8) Information regarding the hazardous characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity.
The Agency evaluated the information and analytical data provided
by DOE in support of the petition and determined that the disposal of
the DOE effluents, after treatment, would not adversely affect human
health or the environment. Specifically, the Agency used the modified
EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) to predict the potential
mobility of the hazardous constituents found in the petitioned waste.
The Agency also evaluated additional modeling information, submitted by
DOE, concerning transport of hazardous constituents in ground water.
Based on these modeling evaluations, the Agency determined that the
concentrations of constituents in groundwater from DOE's petitioned
waste would not exceed delisting levels of concern. See 60 FR 6054,
February 1, 1995, for a detailed explanation of why EPA proposed to
grant DOE's petition for its treated effluents generated from the ETF
located at the Hanford site.
B. Response to Public Comments
The Agency received public comments on the February 1, 1995
proposal from three interested parties. These three commenters either
expressed support or did not have any negative comments on the Agency's
proposed decision to grant DOE's petition. One commenter, the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, believed that the Agency's consideration
of the unique circumstances surrounding the management of the mixed
waste generated at the Hanford facility was appropriate and the
concepts the Agency used in formulating the proposed rule should be
incorporated in developing management strategies for other commercial
mixed wastes. The two remaining commenters wanted clarification and
expansion of the language contained in the proposed rule. The following
sections address their specific comments.
Comment: One commenter requested that zinc be removed as a
``hazardous constituent'' from the proposed rule. The commenter stated
that zinc is not listed as a hazardous constituent of F001 through F005
wastes, nor is zinc listed as a hazardous constituent in 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix VIII. The commenter also stated that the Agency recently
noted that zinc was not an ``underlying hazardous constituent'' under
the new land disposal restrictions, 40 CFR 268.2(i) (see 59 FR 48106,
September 19, 1994). Therefore, the commenter does not believe that
zinc can be listed as a ``hazardous constituent'' in the proposed
addition to Appendix IX of Part 261 as set forth in the proposal.
Response: The Agency agrees that zinc is not listed as a hazardous
constituent of F001 through F005 wastes, nor is zinc listed as a
hazardous constituent in 40 CFR 261, Appendix VIII. However, the
statute (Sec. 3001(f)) requires the Agency, as part of its delisting
evaluation, to consider any factors (including additional constituents)
other than those for which the waste was listed if there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous.
Accordingly, in addition to addressing the criteria for which the
wastes were listed, a petitioner must demonstrate that the wastes do
not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics and must present
sufficient information for the Agency to determine whether the wastes
contain any other toxicants at hazardous levels. See 42 USC
Sec. 6921(f) and 40 CFR 260.22(a). Because zinc was detected in DOE's
petitioned waste and is a constituent with an established health-based
level (10 ppm), it is a constituent of regulatory concern for DOE's
petitioned waste for delisting purposes (see Docket Report on Health-
Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting
Petitions, Submitted Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, December 1994). As
such, zinc will remain on the list of constituents for verification
testing. However, consistent with the commenter's request, EPA
acknowledges that zinc remains on the list as an additional constituent
of concern for delisting purposes and not as a designated ``hazardous
constituent''. In the proposal, EPA did not intend to indicate
otherwise. Also, the September 19, 1994 rulemaking cited by the
commenter states that zinc is not an ``underlying hazardous
constituent'' in characteristic wastes, according to the definition at
268.2(i). (See Sec. 268.48 Table UTS, note 5, 59 FR 48107). As above,
that issue is not determinative of the issue here concerning EPA's
decision to retain zinc on the list of constituents for verification
testing as an additional constituent of concern for delisting purposes.
Comment: One commenter felt that if the Agency believes the ETF can
provide adequate treatment to delist F039 leachates derived from
sources other than F001 through F005 wastes, then EPA should add
language to the first sentence of Hanford's waste
[[Page 31117]] description found in Table 2 of 40 CFR 261 Appendix IX
to reflect that. The commenter believed that the additional language
would provide the maximum operational flexibility to DOE in their mixed
waste disposal planning and would not require regulatory changes to 40
CFR 261 if and when DOE disposes of non-F001-F005 wastes in Hanford's
landfills. The commenter also wanted this comment withdrawn if it would
result in the delay of the final delisting.
Response: The Agency proposed to exclude the liquid wastes covered
by DOE's petition, which consist of F001 through F005 wastes and F039
wastes derived from F001 through F005. The commenter believes it would
be useful to expand the scope of this delisting because the ETF is
capable of treating a wider variety of wastes. The Agency acknowledges,
as noted in the proposal, that the treatment data show the ETF to be
extremely effective for all classes of inorganic species, and the data
also demonstrate that organic constituents can be effectively treated
by the UV/OX process (see 60 FR 6060). However, obtaining a request to
expand this delisting decision to cover other waste codes and
evaluating specific data and information accompanying that request,
which would be likely to require an opportunity for public notice and
comment, would result in delays in the promulgation of this delisting.
Therefore, consistent with the commenter's request not to delay this
delisting, today's final exclusion has not been expanded to include
non-F001 through F005 wastes.
C. Final Agency Decision
For the reasons stated in the proposal and in this final rule, the
Agency is granting a final exclusion to DOE-RL, located in Richland,
Washington for the liquid wastes, described in its petition as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F001, F002, F003, F004, F005, and F039 derived from
F001 through F005.
This exclusion only applies to the treatment processes and waste
volume (a maximum of 19 million gallons generated annually) covered by
the original demonstration. The facility would need to petition for a
new or amended exclusion if there is a change in composition of the
treated waste such that the levels of hazardous constituents increase
significantly (e.g., from changes to the waste streams or treatment
processes). (Note, however, that changes in operating conditions are
allowed as described in Condition (4).) Until a new or amended
exclusion is granted, the facility must treat as hazardous all such
wastes as well as effluents generated in excess of 19 million gallons
per year. As to the wastes covered by today's exclusion, continued
evaluation for levels of hazardous constituents will be achieved by the
verification testing specified in Condition (1).
Although management of the wastes covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction by this final exclusion, the
generator of a delisted waste must either treat, store or dispose of
the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered
to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility, either of
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage
municipal or industrial solid waste.
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is being issued under the
federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to
impose their own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a provision which prohibits a
federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a
petitioner's waste may be regulated under both Federal and State
programs, petitioners are urged to contact their State regulatory
authority to determine the current status of their wastes under State
law.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective June 13, 1995. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. In light
of the unnecessary hardship and expense that would be imposed on this
petitioner by an effective date of six months after publication and the
fact that a six-month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose
of section 3010, EPA believes that this rule should be effective
immediately upon publication. These reasons also provide a basis for
making this rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the
Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. This rule to grant an exclusion is not significant, since its
effect is to reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA's
hazardous waste management regulations. This reduction is achieved by
excluding waste generated at a specific facility from EPA's lists of
hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this facility to treat its waste as
non-hazardous. There is no additional economic impact due to today's
rule. Therefore, this rule is not a significant regulation, and no
cost/benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB
review under section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This amendment will not have any adverse economic impact on any
small entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of
EPA's hazardous waste regulations and it is limited to one facility.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulation, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 USC Sec. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a written statement to accompany any rules that have
``Federal mandates'' that may result in the expenditure by the private
sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the [[Page 31118]] most cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of such a rule and that is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly and uniquely affected by the rule.
Unfunded Mandates Act defines a ``Federal private sector mandate''
for regulatory purposes as one that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector.'' EPA finds that today's delisting decision is
deregulatory in nature and does not impose any enforceable duties upon
the private sector. Therefore, today's rulemaking is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. As to
Section 203 of this Act, EPA finds that small governments will not be
significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous Waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
Dated: June 2, 1995.
Michael Shapiro,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is amended
as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF 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 Part 261, table 2 of Appendix IX add the following
wastestream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. 260.20 and Sec. 260.22.
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
DOE-RL.......... Richland, Washington............ Effluents (EPA
Hazardous Waste
Nos. F001, F002,
F003, F004, F005,
and F039 derived
from F001 through
F005) generated
from the 200 Area
Effluent Treatment
Facility (ETF)
located at the
Hanford site (at a
maximum generation
rate of 19 million
gallons per year)
after June 13,
1995. To ensure
that hazardous
constituents are
not present in the
wastes at levels of
regulatory concern
while the treatment
facility is in
operation, DOE must
implement a testing
program. This
testing program
must meet the
following
conditions for the
exclusion to be
valid:
(1) Testing: Sample
collection and
analyses (including
quality control
(QC) procedures)
must be performed
according to SW-846
(or other EPA-
approved)
methodologies. If
EPA judges the
treatment process
to be effective
under the operating
conditions used
during the initial
verification
testing, DOE may
replace the testing
required in
Condition (1)(A)
with the testing
required in
Condition (1)(B).
DOE must continue
to test as
specified in
Condition (1)(A)
until notified by
EPA in writing that
testing in
Condition (1) (A)
may be replaced by
Condition (1)(B).
(A) Initial
Verification
Testing: During the
period required to
fill the first
three verification
tanks (each
designed to hold
approximately
650,000 gallons)
with effluents
generated from an
on-line, full-scale
Effluent Treatment
Facility (ETF), DOE
must monitor the
range of typical
operating
conditions for the
ETF. DOE must
collect a
representative
sample from each of
the first three
verification tanks
filled with ETF
effluents. The
samples must be
analyzed, prior to
disposal of ETF
effluents, for all
constituents listed
in Condition (3).
DOE must report the
operational and
analytical test
data, including
quality control
information,
obtained during
this initial period
no later than 90
days after the
first verification
tank is filled with
ETF effluents.
(B) Subsequent
Verification
Testing: Following
notification by
EPA, DOE may
substitute the
testing conditions
in this condition
for (1)(A). DOE
must continue to
monitor operating
conditions, and
collect and analyze
representative
samples from every
tenth verification
tank filled with
ETF effluents.
These
representative
samples must be
analyzed, prior to
disposal of ETF
effluents, for all
constituents listed
in Condition (3).
If all constituent
levels in a sample
do not meet the
delisting levels
specified in
Condition (3), DOE
must analyze
representative
samples from the
following two
verification tanks
generated prior to
disposal. DOE may
also collect and
analyze
representative
samples more
frequently.
(2) Waste Holding
and Handling: DOE
must store as
hazardous all ETF
effluents generated
during verification
testing (as
specified in
Conditions (1)(A)
and (1)(B)), that
is until valid
analyses
demonstrate that
Condition (3) is
satisfied. If the
levels of hazardous
constituents in the
samples of ETF
effluents are equal
to or below all of
the levels set
forth in Condition
(3), then the ETF
effluents are not
hazardous and may
be managed and
disposed of in
accordance with all
applicable solid
waste regulations.
If hazardous
constituent levels
in any
representative
sample collected
from a verification
tank exceed any of
the delisting
levels set in
Condition (3), the
ETF effluents in
that verification
tank must be re-
treated until the
ETF effluents meet
these levels.
Following re-
treatment, DOE must
repeat analyses in
Condition (3) prior
to disposal.
(3) Delisting
Levels: All total
constituent
concentrations in
the waste samples
must be measured
using the
appropriate methods
specified in ``Test
Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Wastes: Physical/
Chemical Methods,''
U.S. EPA
Publication SW-846
(or other EPA-
approved methods).
All total
constituent
concentrations must
be equal to or less
than the following
levels (ppm):
Inorganic
Constituents
Ammonium--10.0
Antimony--0.06
Arsenic--0.5
[[Page 31119]]
Barium--20.0
Beryllium--0.04
Cadmium--0.05
Chromium--1.0
Cyanide--2.0
Fluoride--40.0
Lead--0.15
Mercury--0.02
Nickel--1.0
Selenium--0.5
Silver--2.0
Vanadium--2.0
Zinc--100.0
Organic Constituents
Acetone--40.0
Benzene--0.05
Benzyl alcohol--
100.0
1-Butyl alcohol--
40.0
Carbon
tetrachloride--0.05
Chlorobenzene--1.0
Chloroform--0.1
Cresol--20.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene--
0.75
1,2-Dichloroethane--
0.05
1,1-
Dichloroethylene--0
.07
Di-n-octyl
phthalate--7.0
Hexachloroethane--0.
06
Methyl ethyl ketone--
200.0
Methyl isobutyl
ketone--30.0
Naphthalene--10.0
Tetrachloroethylene-
-0.05
Toluene--10.0
Tributyl phosphate--
0.2
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane--2.
0
1,1,2-
Trichloroethane--0.
05
Trichloroethylene--0
.05
Vinyl Chloride--0.02
(4) Changes in
Operating
Conditions: After
completing the
initial
verification
testing in
Condition (1)(A),
if DOE
significantly
changes the
operating
conditions
established in
Condition (1), DOE
must notify the
Agency in writing.
After written
approval by EPA,
DOE must re-
institute the
testing required in
Condition (1)(A).
DOE must report the
operations and test
data, required by
Condition (1)(A),
including quality
control data,
obtained during
this period no
later than 60 days
after the changes
take place.
Following written
notification by
EPA, DOE may
replace testing
Condition (1)(A)
with (1)(B). DOE
must fulfill all
other requirements
in Condition (1),
as appropriate.
(5) Data Submittals:
At least two weeks
prior to system
start-up, DOE must
notify, in writing,
the Chief of the
Waste
Identification
Branch (see address
below) when the
Effluent Treatment
Process will be on-
line and waste
treatment will
begin. The data
obtained through
Condition (1)(A)
must be submitted
to the Branch
Chief, Waste
Identification
Branch, OSW (Mail
Code 5304), U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington,
DC 20460 within the
time period
specified. Records
of operating
conditions and
analytical data
from Condition (1)
must be compiled,
summarized, and
maintained on site
for a minimum of
three years. These
records and data
must be furnished
upon request by EPA
or the State of
Washington and made
available for
inspection. Failure
to submit the
required data
within the
specified time
period or to
maintain the
required records on
site for the
specified time will
be considered by
EPA, at its
discretion,
sufficient basis to
revoke the
exclusion to the
extent directed by
EPA. 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
or 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 USC 1001 and 42
USC 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 this
document for which
I cannot personally
verify its (their)
truth and accuracy,
I certify as the
official having
supervisory
responsibility for
the persons who,
acting under my
direct
instructions, made
the verification
that this
information is
true, accurate, and
complete.
[[Page 31120]]
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, 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 will be liable
for any actions
taken in
contravention of
its RCRA and CERCLA
obligations
premised upon DOE's
reliance on the
void exclusion.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-14428 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
