[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11639-11651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6153]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-7153-7]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
proposing to grant a petition submitted by the United States Department
of Energy Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR) to exclude (or
``delist'') certain hazardous wastes from the lists of hazardous wastes
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DOE-SR
generated the petitioned waste by treating wastes from various
activities at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The petitioned waste meets
the definitions of listed RCRA hazardous wastes F006 and F028. DOE-SR
petitioned EPA to grant a one-time, generator-specific delisting for
its F006 and F028 waste, because DOE-SR believes that its waste does
not meet the criteria for which theses types of wastes were listed. The
waste is a radioactive mixed waste (RMW) because it is both a RCRA
hazardous waste and a radioactive waste. EPA reviewed all of the waste-
specific information provided by DOE-SR, performed calculations, and
determined that the waste, which has a low level of radioactivity,
could be disposed in a landfill for low-level radioactive waste without
harming human health and the environment. The petition is for a one-
time delisting, because the petitioned waste has been generated, will
be completely disposed of at one time, and will not be generated again.
Today's proposed rule proposes to grant DOE-SR's petition to delist its
F006 and F028 waste, and requests public comment on the proposed
decision. If the proposed delisting becomes a final delisting, DOE-SR's
petitioned waste will no longer be classified as F006 and F028, and
will not be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C
of RCRA. The waste will still be subject to the Atomic Energy Act and
local, State, and Federal regulations for low-level radioactive solid
wastes that are not RCRA hazardous wastes.
DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision.
Comments will be accepted until April 29, 2002. Comments postmarked
after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late.'' These
``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision.
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Richard D. Green, Director of the Waste
Management Division, EPA, Region 4, whose address appears below, by
April 1, 2002. The request must contain the information prescribed in
40 CFR 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Send two copies of your comments to Jewell Grubbs, Chief,
RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Send one copy to Myra C. Reece, Director, South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Lower Savannah
District Environmental Quality Control, 218 Beaufort Street, N.E.,
Aiken, South Caolina 29801, and one copy to Shelly Sherritt, Bureau of
Land and Waste Management, South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina
29201. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket
number: R4-01-02-DOESRSP. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to
[email protected]. If files are attached, please identify the
format.
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Richard D. Green,
Director, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the
EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and
is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The docket contains the petition,
all information submitted by the petitioner, and all information used
by EPA to evaluate the petition.
The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost
for the first 100 pages, and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional
copies.
Copies of the petition are available during normal business hours
at the following addresses for inspection and copying: U.S. EPA, Region
4, Library, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8190; South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, Lower Savannah District Environmental
Quality Control, 218 Beaufort Street, N.E., Aiken, South Carolina
29801, Myra C. Reece, Director, Phone: (803) 641-7670; and DOE Public
Reading Room, Gregg-Graniteville Library, University of South Carolina
at Aiken, 171 University Parkway, Aiken, South Carolina 29801, Phone:
(803) 641-3465.
The EPA, Region 4, Library is located near the Five Points MARTA
station in Atlanta. The Lower Savannah District Environmental Quality
Control Office of the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control is located a block north of U.S. Highway 78 on
Beaufort Street (State Road 118) which is near the eastern boundary of
Aiken. The University of South Carolina at Aiken is located on
University Parkway (also State Road 118), on northwest boundary of
Aiken, between Interstate Highway 20 and U.S. Highway
[[Page 11640]]
78 and about a half-mile west of State Road 19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
about this proposed rule, contact Judy Sophianopoulos, South
Enforcement and Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), RCRA
Enforcement and Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,
S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8604, or call, toll free, (800)
241-1754, and leave a message, with your name and phone number, for Ms.
Sophianopoulos to return your call.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
I. Background
A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority to Delist
Wastes?
B. How did EPA Evaluate this Petition?
1. What is the EPACML model that EPA used in the past for
determining delisting levels?
2. What is the DRAS that uses the newer EPACMTP model to
calculate not only delisting levels, but also to evaluate the
effects of the waste on human health and the environment?
3. Why is the EPACMTP an improvement over the EPACML?
4. Where can technical details on the EPACMTP be found?
5. What methods is EPA proposing to use to determine delisting
levels for this petitioned waste?
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
A. Summary of Delisting Petition Submitted by the United States
Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR),
Aiken, South Carolina
B. What Delisting Levels Did EPA Obtain with DRAS and EPACMTP?
C. How Did EPA Use the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP) to
Evaluate This Delisting Petition?
D. Conclusion
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion Will this Rule Apply in All
States?
IV. State Authorization
A Statutory Authority
B. Effect on State Authorization
V. Effective Date
VI. Administrative Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC
601 et. seq.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Federalism--Applicability of Executive Order 13132
E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Risks and Safety Risks
G. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995
H. Executive Order 12898
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist Wastes?
On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This
list has been amended several times, and is published in 40 CFR 261.31
and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they exhibit
one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in
subpart C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11
(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, 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 may not be. For this reason, sections 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility \1\ should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although no one produces hazardous waste intentionally, 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. Please see 40 CFR 260.10 for
regulatory definitions of ``generator,'' ``facility,'' ``person,''
and other terms related to hazardous waste, and 40 CFR part 262 for
regulatory requirements for generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show, first, that
wastes generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria
for which the wastes were listed. See section 260.22(a) and the
background documents for the listed wastes. Second, the Administrator
must determine, where he/she 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. 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 toxicants at hazardous levels. See section
260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the background documents for the
listed wastes. Although wastes which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded)
have been evaluated to determine whether or not they exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under
RCRA to determine whether or not their wastes continue to be
nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,
characteristics which may be promulgated subsequent to a delisting
decision.)
In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
are also considered hazardous wastes. See Section 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived-
from'' rules and remanded them to the EPA on procedural grounds. Shell
Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA
reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited comments
on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR 7628).
These rules became final on October 30, 1992 (57 FR 49278), and should
be consulted for more information regarding waste mixtures and solid
wastes derived from treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous
waste. On May 16, 2001, EPA amended the mixture and derived-from rules
for certain types of wastes (66 FR 27218 and 66 FR 27266). The mixture
and derived-from rules are codified in 40 CFR 261.3, paragraphs
(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i). EPA plans to address all waste mixtures and
residues when the final portion of the Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (HWIR) is promulgated.
On October 10, 1995, the Administrator delegated to the Regional
Administrators the authority to evaluate and approve or deny petitions
submitted in accordance with sections 260.20 and 260.22, by generators
within their Regions (National Delegation of Authority 8-19), in States
not yet authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the
Federal program. On March 11, 1996, the Regional Administrator of EPA,
Region 4, redelegated delisting authority to the Director of the Waste
Management Division (Regional Delegation of Authority 8-19).
[[Page 11641]]
B. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition?
This petition requests a delisting for a hazardous waste listed as
F006 and F028. In making the initial delisting determination, EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
cited in Section 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the
EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. (If EPA had found, based on
this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for
which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny
the petition.) EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to other
factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. See section 260.22(a) and (d). The EPA considered whether
the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the toxicity of the
constituents, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their
tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the
environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types
of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability.
1. What Is the EPACML Model That EPA Used in the Past for Determining
Delisting Levels?
In the past, EPA used the EPA Composite Model for Landfills
(EPACML) fate and transport model, modified for delisting, as one
approach for determining the delisting levels for petitioned waste. See
56 FR 32993-33012, July 18, 1991, for details on the use of the EPACML
model to determine the concentrations of constituents in a waste that
will not result in groundwater contamination. With the EPACML approach,
as used in the past, EPA calculated a delisting level for each
hazardous constituent by using the maximum estimated waste volume to
determine a Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) from a table of waste
volumes and DAFs previously calculated by the EPACML model, as modified
for delisting. See 56 FR 32993-33012, July 18, 1991. The maximum
estimated waste volume is the maximum number of cubic yards of
petitioned waste to be disposed of each year. The delisting level for
each constituent was equal to the DAF multiplied by the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) which the Safe Drinking Water Act allows for
that constituent in drinking water. The delisting level is a
concentration in the waste leachate that will not cause the MCL to be
exceeded in groundwater underneath a landfill where the waste is
disposed. This method of calculating delisting levels resulted in
conservative levels that were protective of groundwater, because the
model did not assume that the landfill had the controls required of
Subtitle D landfills. A Subtitle D landfill is a landfill subject to
RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous waste regulations, and to State and local
nonhazardous waste regulations.
2. What Is the DRAS That Uses the Newer EPACMTP Model To Calculate Not
Only Delisting Levels, But Also To Evaluate the Effects of the Waste on
Human Health and the Environment?
The EPA is proposing to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS),\2\ developed by EPA, Region 6, to evaluate this delisting
petition. The DRAS uses a newer model, called the EPA Composite Model
for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). The
EPACMTP improves on the EPACML model in several ways. EPA is proposing
to use the DRAS to calculate delisting levels and to evaluate the
impact of DOE-SR's petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. Delisting levels are the maximum allowable concentrations
for hazardous constituents in the waste, so that disposal in a landfill
will not harm human health and the environment by contaminating
groundwater, surface water, or air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information on DRAS and EPACMTP, please see 65 FR
75637-75651, December 4, 2000 and 65 FR 58015-58031, September 27,
2000. The December 4, 2000 Federal Register discusses the key
enhancements of the EPACMTP and the details are provided in the
background documents to the proposed 1995 Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The
background documents are available through the RCRA HWIR FR proposal
docket (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). URL addresses for Region 6
delisting guidance and software are the following:
1. Delisting Guidance Manual http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dlistpdf.htm
2. Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dras.htm
3. DRAS Technical Support Document (DTSD) http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/dtsd.htm
4. DRAS Users Guide http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-o/uguide.pdf
Region 6 has made them available to the public, free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's proposal provides background information on the mechanics
of the DRAS, and the use of the DRAS in delisting decision-making.
Please see the EPA, Region 6, RCRA Delisting Technical Support Document
(RDTSD) for a complete discussion of the DRAS calculation methods. The
RDTSD, and Federal Register, 65 FR 75637-75651, December 4, 2000, and
65 FR 58015-58031, September 27, 2000, are the sources of the DRAS
information presented in today's preamble, and are included in the RCRA
regulatory docket for this proposed rule.
The DRAS performs a risk assessment for petitioned wastes that are
disposed of in the two waste management units of concern: surface
impoundments for liquid wastes and landfills for non-liquid wastes.
DOE-SR's petitioned waste is solid, not liquid, and will be disposed in
a landfill; therefore, only the application of DRAS to landfills will
be discussed in this preamble.
DRAS calculates releases from solid-phase wastes in a landfill,
with the following assumptions: (1) The wastes are disposed in a
Subtitle D landfill and covered with a 2-foot-thick native soil layer;
(2) the landfill is unlined or effectively unlined due to a liner that
will eventually completely fail. The two parameters used to
characterize landfills are (1) area and (2) depth (the thickness of the
waste layer). Data to characterize landfills were obtained from a
nationwide survey of industrial Subtitle D landfills.\3\ Parameters and
assumptions used to estimate infiltration of leachate from a landfill
are provided in the EPACMTP Background Document and User's Guide,
Office of Solid Waste, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C., September 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Nationwide Survey of Industrial Subtitle D Landfills,
Westat, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAS uses the EPACMTP model to simulate the fate and transport of
dissolved contaminants from a point of release at the base of a
landfill, through the unsaturated zone and underlying groundwater, to a
receptor well at an arbitrary downstream location in the aquifer (the
rock formation in which the groundwater is located). DRAS evaluates,
with the EPACMTP model, the groundwater exposure concentrations at the
receptor well that result from the chemical release and transport from
the landfill (Application of EPACMTP to Region 6 Delisting Program:
Development of Waste Volume-Specific Dilution Attenuation Factors, U.
S. EPA, August 1996). For the purpose of delisting determinations,
receptor well concentrations for both carcinogens and non-carcinogens
from finite-source degraders and non-degraders are determined with this
model. Delisted waste is a finite source, because in a finite period of
time, the waste's constituents will leach and move out of the landfill.
If EPA makes a final decision to delist DOE-SR's F006 and F028 waste,
DOE-SR must meet the delisting levels and dispose of the waste
[[Page 11642]]
in a Subtitle D landfill, because EPA determined the delisting levels
based on a landfill model. Because of its radioactivity, DOE-SR's waste
when delisted must be disposed in a low-level radioactive landfill in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act.
3. Why Is the EPACMTP an Improvement Over the EPACML?
The EPACMTP includes three major categories of improvements over
the EPACML. The improvements include:
1--Incorporation of additional fate and transport processes (e.g.,
degradation of chemical constituents; fate and transport of metals);
2--Use of enhanced flow and transport equations (e.g., for calculating
transport in three dimensions); and
3--Revision of the Monte Carlo methodology (e.g., to allow use of site-
specific, waste-specific data) (EPACMTP Background Document and User's
Guide, Office of Solid Waste, U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C., September
1996).
A summary of the key enhancements which have been implemented in
the EPACMTP is presented here and the details are provided in the
background documents to the proposed 1995 Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The
background documents are available through the RCRA HWIR Federal
Register proposal docket (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). For more
information, please contact Judy Sophianopoulos, South Enforcement and
Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), RCRA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303, (404) 562-8604, or call, toll free, (800) 241-1754, and leave a
message, with your name and phone number, for Ms. Sophianopoulos to
return your call. You may also contact her by e-mail:
[email protected].
The EPACML accounts for: one-dimensional steady and uniform
advective flow; contaminant dispersion in the longitudinal, lateral,
and vertical directions; and sorption. However, advances in groundwater
fate and transport have been made in recent years and EPA proposes and
requests public comment on the use of the EPACMTP, which is a more
advanced groundwater fate and transport model, for this RCRA delisting.
The EPACML was limited to conditions of uniform groundwater flow.
It could not handle accurately the conditions of significant
groundwater mounding and non-uniform groundwater flow due to a high
rate of infiltration from the waste disposal units. These conditions
increase the transverse horizontal, as well as the vertical, spreading
of a contaminant plume.
The EPACMTP model overcomes the deficiencies of the EPACML in the
following way: The subsurface as modeled with the EPACMTP consists of
an unsaturated zone beneath a landfill and a saturated zone, the
underlying water table aquifer. Contaminants move vertically downward
through the unsaturated zone to the water table. The EPACMTP simulates
one-dimensional, vertically downward flow and transport of contaminants
in the unsaturated zone, as well as two-dimensional or three-
dimensional groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the
underlying saturated zone. The EPACML used a saturated zone module that
was based on a Gaussian distribution of the concentration of a chemical
constituent in the saturated zone. The module also used an
approximation to account for the initial mixing of the contaminant
entering at the water table (saturated zone) underneath the waste unit.
The module accounting for initial mixing in the EPACML could lead to
unrealistic groundwater concentrations.
The enhanced EPACMTP model incorporates a direct linkage between
the unsaturated zone and saturated zone modules which overcomes these
limitations of the EPACML. The following mechanisms affecting
contaminant migration are accounted for in the EPACMTP model: transport
by advection and dispersion, retardation resulting from reversible
linear or nonlinear equilibrium sorption on the soil and aquifer solid
phase, and biochemical degradation processes. The EPACML did not
account for biochemical degradation, and did not account for sorption
as accurately as the EPACMTP.
The EPACMTP consists of four major components:
1--A module that performs one-dimensional analytical and numerical
solutions for water flow and contaminant transport in the unsaturated
zone beneath a waste management unit;
2--A numerical module for steady-state groundwater flow subject to
recharge from the unsaturated zone;
3--A module of analytical and numerical solutions for contaminant
transport in the saturated zone; and
4--A Monte Carlo module for assessing the effect of the uncertainty
resulting from variations in model parameters on predicted receptor
well concentrations.
4. Where Can Technical Details on the EPACMTP Be Found?
For more information on DRAS and EPACMTP, please see 65 FR 75637-
75651, December 4, 2000; 65 FR 58015-58031, September 27, 2000; and 66
FR 9781-9798, February 12, 2001. The December 4, 2000 Federal Register
discusses the key enhancements of the EPACMTP and the details are
provided in the background documents to the proposed 1995 Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). The
background documents are available through the RCRA HWIR FR proposal
docket (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995). A summary of DRAS is presented
in 66 FR 9781-9798, February 12, 2001. Footnote 2 in Preamble Section
I.B.2. above lists the URL addresses for Region 6 guidance on DRAS.
5. What Methods Is EPA Proposing To Use To Determine Delisting Levels
for This Petitioned Waste?
DOE-SR submitted to the EPA analytical data from its Savannah River
Site (SRS) in Aiken, South Carolina. The petitioned waste consists of
treated F006 and F027 waste from the M-Area of SRS, where nuclear
reactor components were produced. The M-Area waste was treated by
vitrification and DOE-SR petitioned EPA to delist the vitrified waste
treatment residue, classified as F006 and F028, because it was derived
from the treatment of F006 and F027 waste. DOE-SR's petitioned waste
also included a small volume of non-vitrified waste treatment residue
consisting of cementitious treatability samples (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006). DOE-SR's delisting petition is based on analytical results
for untreated waste, laboratory scale treatability studies, pilot scale
testing, and testing of the vitrified waste from the full-scale
vitrification unit. A summary of analytical data is presented in Table
2 of section II below, with analytical details in the Table footnotes.
After reviewing the analytical data and information on processes
and vitrification feed materials that DOE-SR submitted in the delisting
petition, EPA developed a list of constituents of concern and
calculated delisting levels and risks using DRAS and EPACMTP DAFs as
described above. EPA requests public comment on this proposed method of
calculating delisting levels and risks for DOE-SR's petitioned waste.
[[Page 11643]]
EPA also requests comment on three additional methods of evaluating
DOE-SR's delisting petition and determining delisting levels: (1) Use
of the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP), SW-846 Method 1320,\4\ to
evaluate the long-term resistance of the waste to leaching in a
landfill; (2) comparing total concentrations of constituents in the
waste to the results obtained by DRAS for total concentrations; and (3)
comparing concentrations of constituents in the waste and waste
leachate to the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS) levels in 40 CFR 268.48. The UTS levels for DOE-SR's
constituents of concern are the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``SW-846'' means EPA Publication SW-846, ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.'' Methods in this
publication are referred to in today's proposed rule as ``SW-846,''
followed by the appropriate method number.
Arsenic: 5.0 mg/l TCLP; Barium: 21
mg/l TCLP; Beryllium: 1.22 mg/l TCLP;
Cadmium: 0.11 mg/l TCLP; Chromium: 0.60 mg/l TCLP; Lead: 0.75 mg/l
TCLP;
Nickel: 11 mg/l TCLP; Silver: 0.14
mg/l TCLP; and Acetonitrile: 38 mg/kg.
The EPA provides notice and an opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final decision will not
be made until all timely public comments (including those at public
hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
A. Summary of Delisting Petition Submitted by the United States
Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR), Aiken,
South Carolina
DOE-SR is seeking a delisting for vitrified radioactive mixed waste
(RMW) generated at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, South
Carolina. The petitioned waste meets the listing definitions of F006
and F028 in Section 261.31 \5\ and was generated by vitrification
treatment of F006 and F027 \6\ waste from the SRS M-Area where nuclear
reactor components were produced. The petitioned waste also includes a
small volume of non-vitrified waste which consists of cementitious
treatability samples (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ F006: ``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations except from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid
anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc
plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-
aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and
milling of aluminum.''
F028: ``Residues resulting from the incineration or thermal
treatment of soil contaminated with EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F020,
F021, F023, F026, and F027.''
\6\ F027: ``Discarded unused formulations containing tri-,
tetra-, or pentachlorophenol or discarded unused formulations
containing compounds derived from these chlorophenols. (This listing
does not include formulations containing Hexachlorophene synthesized
from prepurified 2,4,5-tri-chlorophenol as the sole component.)'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE-SR petitioned EPA, Region 4, in September 1996 and submitted
revised petitions in September 1998 and September 2000, to exclude this
F006 and F028 waste, on a one-time, generator-specific basis, from the
lists of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D.
The hazardous constituents of concern \7\ for which F006 was listed
are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed). F028
was listed for tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins; tetra-,
penta-, and hexachlorodibenzofurans; tri-, tetra-, and
pentachlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy derivative acids, esters,
ethers, amine and other salts. DOE-SR petitioned the EPA to exclude its
F028 waste (generated from thermal treatment of F027 waste) and F006
waste because DOE-SR believes that the petitioned waste does not meet
the criteria for which the waste was listed. DOE-SR claims that its
F006 and F028 waste will not be hazardous because the constituents of
concern for which F006 and F028 are listed are either not present or
present only at such low concentrations that the waste does not meet
the criteria in Section 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as hazardous.
DOE-SR also believes that this waste will not be hazardous for any
other reason (i.e., there will be no additional constituents or factors
that could cause the waste to be hazardous \8\). Review of this
petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, as
well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). Today's proposal to grant this
petition for delisting is the result of the EPA's evaluation of DOE-
SR's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The hazardous constituents of concern for every listed waste
are in Appendix VII to Part 261--Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste.
\8\ Note that the waste remains subject to the Atomic Energy Act
because of its radioactivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of its petition, DOE-SR submitted: (1) Descriptions \9\
of the waste streams that contributed to the petitioned waste, the
areas where the contributing waste streams were generated, and the
vitrification treatment process that generated the petitioned waste;
(2) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all chemicals used in
processes that generated the waste streams from which the petitioned
waste was derived and the vitrification process that generated the
petitioned waste; (3) the total volume of petitioned waste generated;
(4) results of analysis of untreated waste and the petitioned waste for
all constituents in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 or Appendix IX of
part 264; (5) results of the analysis of leachate obtained by means of
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ((TCLP), SW-846 Method
1311), from the petitioned waste and historical results obtained by the
Extraction Procedure Toxicity leaching method ((EPTox), SW-846 Method
1310); (6) results of the determinations for the hazardous
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity, in these
wastes; and (7) results of the MEP analysis of the petitioned waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Detailed descriptions may be found in the DOE-SR's Approved
Site Treatment Plan (1996), developed pursuant to the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SRS vitrification unit treated all of the M-Area waste streams
from October 1996 through March 22, 1999, pursuant to the Land Disposal
Restrictions--Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (LDR-FFCA) of March
13, 1991, between EPA and DOE. Forty-four batches, a total of 2,960
metric tons, of M-Area waste streams were treated.\10\ The LDR-FFCA
required that the treatment residue meet LDR treatment standards. The
petitioned waste is this treatment residue and, except for a small
volume of cementitious treatability samples is the glass that formed
after cooling and shaping molten glass made from the M-Area waste
streams and glass-making additives. The vitrification unit, called the
Vendor Treatment Facility (VTF) Melter, was an electric joule-heated
glass melter, with a capacity of 5 to 6 tons per day, which maintained
the molten glass at 1150 deg.C for an average of 4 to 5 days. The total
amount of vitrified waste generated was 538 cubic yards, classified as
F006 and F028 because it was derived from F006 and F027 M-Area waste
streams. Table 1 presents a summary of the M-Area waste streams and
their generation dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The RCRA Docket, R4-01-02-DOESRSP, for today's proposed
rule contains the letter, dated June 15, 1999, to David E. Wilson
from J. V. Odum, which documents the treatment of the petitioned
waste to LDR treatment standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the vitrified waste, the DOE-SR requested the
delisting of a small volume of cementitious treatability samples (EPA
Hazardous
[[Page 11644]]
Waste No. F006). These samples were generated during treatability
studies on stabilization conducted by the Savannah River Technology
Center (between 1988-1991), and amounted to a total of 24 gallons
(approximately 0.12 cubic yards). Analytical data were presented in the
delisting petition which indicated that concentrations of hazardous
constituents in these cementitious treatability samples were well below
levels of concern. DOE-SR reported that these treatability samples
might have been size reduced and vitrified in the VTF melter, but VTF
operations personnel were concerned that the size reduced samples might
not dissolve in the molten glass, and might plug the discharge ports.
Therefore, the 0.12 cubic yard of cementitious treatability samples was
not vitrified, but was included in the delisting petition (Section
2.1.5.2) as a separate waste stream in addition to the 538 cubic yards
of vitrified M-Area wastes.
Table 1.--M-Area Waste Streams of Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA hazardous
Stream designation in waste number
Stream name site treatment plan (waste code) for Dates generated
listed waste
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plating Line Sludge from W-004 F006............ June 1990-Apr. 1995.
Supernate Treatment.
Mark 15 Filter Cake........... W-005 F006............ Apr. 1983-July 1983.
Sludge Treatability Samples W-029 F006............ 1988-1994.
(glass and cementitious).
Uranium/Chromium Solution..... W-031 Not listed, but 1990-1992.
hazardous by
characteristic.
High Nickel Plating Line W-037 F006............ June 1985-Sept. 1988.
Sludge.
Plating Line Sump Material.... W-038 Not listed, but Oct. 1988.
hazardous by
characteristic.
Nickel Plating Line W-039 Not listed, but Feb. 1992.
hazardous by
characteristic.
Soils from Spill Remediation W-048 Not listed, but 1983-1985.
and Sampling Programs. hazardous by
characteristic.
Uranium/Lead Solution......... W-054 Not listed, but 1986-1988.
hazardous by
characteristic.
Soils from Chemicals, Metals, W-082 F027............ 1984.
and Pesticides Pits
Excavation.
Dilute Effluent Treatment Not Applicable F006............ 1996-1999.
Facility (DETF) Filtercake
from VTF off-gas condensate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1B below summarizes the hazardous constituents and their
concentrations in DOE-SR's petitioned waste.
Table 1B.--Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina: Profile of Vitrified M-Area Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coefficient
Parameters \1\ 1 2 2 10 3 15 4 21 5 26 6 33 7 39 8 44 Maximum \3\ Mean Standard of variation
deviation (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic \2\ (mg/kg)........... 2.37 4.84 2.01 2.42 2.54 2.09 1.81 1.52 4.84 2.45 1.02 41.8
Arsenic--TCLP................. 0.045U 0.045U 0.045U 0.045U 0.045U 0.045U 0.045U 0.045U 0.045U NA NA NA
Barium (mg/kg)................ 79.6 116 101 127 104 83.3 85.3 101 127 99.6 16.5 16.6
Barium--TCLP.................. 0.018J 0.010J 0.013J 0.011J 0.009J 0.010J 0.0083J 0.0082J 0.018J 0.011 0.0032 30
Beryllium (mg/kg)............. 0.52 0.73 0.67 0.82 0.65 0.52 0.56 1.0 1.0 0.68 0.16 24
Beryllium--TCLP............... 0.0005U 0.0005U 0.0005U 0.0005U 0.0005U 0.0005U 0.0005U 0.0008J 0.0008J NA NA NA
Cadmium (mg/kg)............... 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.2 2.1 1.8 2.4 1.1 2.4 1.6 0.53 33
Cadmium--TCLP................. 0.004U 0.004U 0.004U 0.004U 0.004U 0.004U 0.004U 0.004U 0.0008J NA NA NA
Chromi-um (mg/kg)............. 293 401 131 163 224 218 443 449 449 290 126 43.6
Chromi-um--TCLP............... 0.18J 0.007J 0.007J 0.006U 0.006J 0.010J 0.010J 0.015J 0.18J 0.030 0.061 200
Lead (mg/kg).................. 53.5 74.9 59.2 99.2 94.0 61.5 76.0 33.6 99.2 69.0 21.6 31.3
Lead--TCLP.................... 0.016U 0.016U 0.016U 0.016U 0.016U 0.016U 0.016U 0.016U NA NA NA NA
Nickel (mg/kg)................ 4,450 6,270 3,990 6,130 9,800 6,420 8,680 1,540 9,800 5,910 2,620 44.4
Nickel--TCLP.................. 0.32 0.19 0.41 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.46 0.072 0.46 0.31 0.12 40
Silver (mg/kg)................ 7.4 11.5 5.3 6.0 10.2 10.2 8.3 1.5 11.5 7.55 3.26 43.2
Silver--TCLP.................. 0.010J 0.011J 0.014J 0.012J 0.015J 0.013J 0.016J 0.017J 0.017J 0.014 0.0024 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aceto-nitrile (g/kg). 8.8J 3.70J 9.60J 5.70J 8.54J 9.85J 9.4J 6.2J 9.85J 7.7 2.2 29
Aceto-nitrile-TCLP............ NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Metal Inorganics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluoride...................... 0.20U 0.24U 0.23U 0.45J 0.19U 0.270J 0.20U 0.23J 0.45J 0.25 0.084 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes to Table 1B:
\1\ Parameters are the chemicals or properties analyzed.
\2\ The first set of results for each chemical shows the concentrations determined by total analysis of the samples in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of waste (mg/kg) for metals and
micrograms per kilogram (g/kg) for organics. ``Total analysis'' means analysis of unextracted waste. The second set of results for each chemical shows the concentrations determined
by analysis of the TCLP extracts of the samples in milligrams of chemical per liter of TCLP extract of the waste (mg/L). The TCLP results are in the row where the name of the chemical is
followed by ``--TCLP.'' U = Not detected above the method detection limit, which is the value preceding the U. J = Detected at a concentration greater than the detection limit but less than
the reporting limit.--= not analyzed. The metals, antimony, mercury, selenium, and thallium were not detected by total analysis of samples and are not included in the table in order to save
space. Acetonitrile was the only organic compound detected and is the only organic compound included in the table. Acetonitrile was not detected above the laboratory reporting limit. Columns
2 through 9 in the table heading contain sample identification numbers. The samples were composite samples for total analysis and grab samples for TCLP from one or more of the VTF batches
associated with the composite sample. The top numbers in Columns 2 through 9 are composite sample numbers and the bottom numbers are TCLP grab sample numbers that identify a VTF batch number
that was grab-sampled for TCLP. Sampling and analysis details are in Sections 4 and 5 of the petition.
[[Page 11645]]
\3\ The last four columns contain a statistical analysis of the analytical results. Max. = maximum concentration found; Mean. = mean or average concentration found = sum of concentrations
divided by the number of samples; S.D.= standard deviation = the square root of [(sum of squares of the differences between each measured concentration and the mean) divided by (the number
of samples minus 1)]; C.V. = coefficient of variation, expressed as a percent = 100 times the standard deviation divided by the mean concentration. Statistical analyses were performed only
if the parameter was detected in more than one sample. If a chemical was not detected in any of the samples, NA (not applicable) was written in the last three columns. Detection limits
reported by the laboratory were used in the statistical calculations when chemicals were not detected (U) in some of the samples. This is a conservative assumption, which is likely to result
in overestimation of the mean concentration.
EPA concluded after reviewing DOE-SR's waste management and waste
history information that no other hazardous constituents, other than
those tested for, are likely to be present in DOE-SR's petitioned
waste. In addition, on the basis of test results and other information
provided by DOE-SR, pursuant to section 260.22, EPA concluded that the
petitioned waste will not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See Sections 261.21, 261.22,
and 261.23, respectively.
During its evaluation of DOE-SR's petition, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on media other than
groundwater. With regard to airborne dispersal of waste, EPA evaluated
the potential hazards resulting from airborne exposure to waste
contaminants from the petitioned waste using an air dispersion model
for releases from a landfill. The results of this evaluation indicated
that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human
health from airborne exposure to constituents from DOE-SR's petitioned
waste. (A description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of
airborne dispersal of DOE-SR's petitioned waste is presented in the
RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule.)
EPA evaluated the potential impact of the petitioned waste on
surface water resulting from storm water runoff from a landfill
containing the petitioned waste, and found that the waste would not
present a threat to human health or the environment. (See the docket
for today's proposed rule for a description of this analysis). In
addition, EPA believes that containment structures at low-level
radioactive waste landfills can effectively control runoff. DOE-SR
plans to dispose the petitioned waste at the bottom of a 30 foot deep
burial trench, so it does not anticipate that runoff from rainwater
will directly contact the disposed waste. EPA also believes that, in
general, leachate derived from the waste will not directly enter a
surface water body without first traveling through the saturated
subsurface where dilution of hazardous constituents may occur.
Transported contaminants would be further diluted in the receiving
water body. Compliance with Atomic Energy Act requirements would
minimize significant releases to surface water from erosion of
undissolved particulates in runoff.
B. What Delisting Levels Did EPA Obtain With DRAS and EPACMTP?
Delisting levels and risk levels calculated by DRAS, using the
EPACMTP model, are presented in Table 2 below. DRAS found that the
major pathway for human exposure to this waste is groundwater
ingestion, and calculated delisting and risk levels based on that
pathway. The input values required by DRAS were the chemical
constituents in DOE-SR's petitioned waste; their maximum reported
concentrations in the TCLP extract of the waste and in the unextracted
waste (Values in Table 1B, Preamble Section II.A.); the maximum one-
time volume to be land-disposed (538 cubic yards); the desired risk
level, which was chosen to be no worse than 10-6 for
carcinogens; and a hazard quotient of no greater than 1 for non-
carcinogens. The carcinogenic constituents in the waste are arsenic,
beryllium, and cadmium. Beryllium and cadmium also have non-
carcinogenic toxic effects. Allowable concentrations in the TCLP
leachate of the waste, as calculated by DRAS, are higher than the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) levels for all TC constituents except
arsenic. Therefore, the delisting levels for all TC constituents except
arsenic are capped at the TC regulatory level. The maximum TCLP
concentrations found by DOE-SRS for the petitioned waste are all well
below the TC levels and are also below the Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS) of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR). All total
concentrations reported for the unextracted petitioned waste are also
many orders of magnitude below the DRAS-calculated total levels. The
maximum reported total concentrations for DOE-SR's petitioned waste
were all below the following levels (mg/kg): Arsenic-10; Barium-200;
Beryllium-10; Cadmium-10; Chromium-500; Lead-200; Nickel-10,000;
Silver-20; Acetonitrile-1.0, and Fluoride-1.0
Table 2:--Delisting and Risk Levels Calculated by DRAS With EPACMTP Model for SRS Petitioned Waste
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAS-calculated
Hazard quotient
Delisting DRAS-calculated risk for for maximum
Constituent level (mg/l DAF maximum concentration of concentration
TCLP) carcinogen in waste of non-
carcinogen in
waste
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic..................... 0.0649......... 1,330................. 3.47 x 10-7............. ...............
Barium...................... 5,070*; 3,860 1,930................. ........................ 566 x 10-6.
Based on MCL.
Beryllium (Carcinogenic Not Enough 7.21 x 103............ 2.13 x 10-11............ ...............
Effect). Information:
Effect Based
on Inhalation
28.8 Based on
MCL.
Beryllium (Non-Carcinogenic 541 28.8 Based 7.21 x 103............ ........................ 2.16 x 10-6.
Effect). on MCL.
Cadmium (Carcinogenic Not Enough 2,080................. 4.17 x 10-15............ ...............
Effect). Information:
Effect Based
on Inhalation;
10.4 Based on
MCL.
Cadmium (Non-Carcinogenic 39* 10.4 Based 2,080................. ........................ 1.15 x 10-4.
Effect). on MCL.
Chromium (Hexavalent; Not Enough 1,070................. 5.30 x 10-12............ ...............
Carcinogenic Effect). Information:
Effect Based
on Inhalation;
107 Based on
MCL.
Chromium (Not Hexavalent; 1.50 x 107*, 2.67 x 105............ ...................... 5.48 x 10-7.
Non-Carcinogenic Effect). 2.67 x 104
Based on MCL.
[[Page 11646]]
Lead........................ 5,200*......... 3.46 x 105............ ........................ Not Enough
Information:
There is No
Reference Dose
for Lead.
Nickel...................... 1.960.......... 2,610................. ........................ 5.64 x 10-4.
Silver...................... 266*........... 1420.................. ........................ 3.71 x 10-5.
Fluoride.................... Not Enough 1,250................. ........................ Not Enough
Information; Information.
4,990 Based on
MCL.
Acetonitrile................ 847............ 1,320................. ........................ 6.00 x 10-7.
total Hazard Quotient for ............... ...................... ........................ 1.09 x 10-3.
All Waste Constituents.
Total Carcinogenic Risk for ............... ...................... 3.48 x 10-7............. ...............
the Waste (due to Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, and
Hexavalent Chromium)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*These levels are all greater than the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulatory level in 40 CFR 261.24. A waste
cannot be delisted if it exhibits a hazardous characteristic; therefore, the delisting level for each of these
constituents could not be greater than the TC level of 100 for Barium; 1.0 for Cadmium; 5.0 for Chromium; 5.0
for Lead; and 5.0 for Silver. MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level of National Primary Drinking Water Standards.
C. How Did EPA Use the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP) To Evaluate
This Delisting Petition?
EPA developed the MEP test (SW-846 Method 1320) to help predict the
long-term resistance to leaching of stabilized wastes, which are wastes
that have been treated to reduce the leachability of hazardous
constituents. The MEP consists of a TCLP extraction of a sample
followed by nine sequential extractions of the same sample, using a
synthetic acid rain extraction fluid (prepared by adding a 60/40 weight
mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid to distilled deionized water
until the pH is 3.0 0.2). The synthetic acid rain
extraction fluid was developed to determine the effect of ``natural''
acid rain on a hazardous waste inappropriately disposed, i.e., directly
exposed to rainfall. The standard TCLP extraction fluid was developed
to simulate the leaching of a hazardous waste disposed in a landfill,
with the simulated extractant having a pH of 4.93. During the MEP test,
the original sample which is subjected to the nine sequential
extractions consists of the solid phase remaining after, and separated
from, the initial TCLP extract. EPA designed the MEP to simulate
multiple washings of percolating rainfall in the field, and estimates
that these synthetic acid rain extractions would simulate approximately
1,000 years of rainfall. (See 47 FR 52687, Nov. 22, 1982.) 1982.) DOE-
SR modified the MEP procedure for the petitioned waste by using the
TCLP extraction fluid with pH = 4.93 for all the extractions, instead
of using the synthetic acid rain for the nine extractions following the
initial TCLP extraction. DOE-SR believed that the TCLP would represent
more accurately the long term leaching from the SRS low-level
radioactive waste landfill in which the waste would not be exposed to
direct rainfall leaching. Table 3 below presents the results of
analysis of modified MEP extracts.
The modified MEP data in Table 3 indicate that the petitioned waste
would be expected to leach metals at low and decreasing concentrations
for a period of at least 100 years, and much less than 10 per cent of
the total amount of metal in the waste would leach during this time
period.\11\ The average life of a landfill is approximately 20 years.
(See 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991; and 56 FR 67197, Dec. 30, 1991.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This estimate is based on the following calculation for
nickel: % nickel leached out over more than 100 years=100 x (total
number of milligrams of nickel in all of the 2-liter sample MEP
extracts)the number of milligrams of nickel in the 100-gram
sample that was extracted by the MEP: 100 x 2 x (0.46 + 0.33 +
0.34 + 0.29 + 0.32 + 0.30 + 0.31 + 0.31 + 0.33 + 0.33) 954
= 100 x 6.64 954 = 0.70%.
Table 3.--Multiple Extraction Procedure (Modified SW-846 Method 1320)
Results for DOE-SR's Petitioned Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel (Ni)
Extract No. concentration
(mg/1 TCLP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (Initial TCLP)........................................ 0.46
2 (First TCLP extraction of the modified MEP)........... 0.33
3....................................................... 0.34
4....................................................... 0.29
5....................................................... 0.32
6....................................................... 0.30
7....................................................... 0.31
8....................................................... 0.31
9....................................................... 0.33
10 (Ninth TCLP extraction of the modified MEP).......... 0.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Conclusion
After reviewing DOE-SR's processes, the EPA concludes that (1) no
hazardous constituents of concern are likely to be present in DOE-SR's
waste at levels that would harm human health and the environment; and
(2) the petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See 40 CFR 261.21, 261.22,
and 261.23, respectively.
EPA believes that DOE-SR's petitioned waste will not harm human
health and the environment when disposed in a low-level radioactive
waste landfill.
EPA proposes to exclude DOE-SR's petitioned waste from being listed
as F006 and F028, based on descriptions of waste management and waste
history, evaluation of the results of waste sample analysis, and on the
requirement that DOE-SR's petitioned waste must be disposed in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act. If the proposed rule
[[Page 11647]]
becomes effective, the exclusion will be valid if the petitioner
disposes of the waste in a low-level radioactive waste landfill in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act, as required by the amended Table
1 of Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 261. If the proposed rule becomes final
and EPA approves the disposal method, the petitioned waste would not be
subject to regulation under 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of 40 CFR part 270. Although management of the
waste covered by this petition would, upon final promulgation, be
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the waste would remain a solid
waste under RCRA and a low-level radioactive waste under the Atomic
Energy Act. As such, the waste must be handled in accordance with all
applicable Federal, State, and local solid waste management and low-
level radioactive waste regulations. Pursuant to RCRA section 3007, EPA
may also sample and analyze the waste to verify reported analytical
data.
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
Will This Rule Apply in All States?
This proposed rule, if promulgated, would be 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 States. 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. Furthermore, 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 in those authorized States. If the
petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting
authorization, SRS must obtain delisting authorization from that State
before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in that State.
IV. State Authorization
A. Statutory Authority
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the State. See 40
CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for
authorization. Following authorization, the State requirements
authorized by EPA apply in lieu of equivalent Federal requirements and
become Federally enforceable as requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized States also have independent
authority to bring enforcement actions under State law. A State may
receive authorization by following the approval process described under
40 CFR 271.
After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal
requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that
State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent
State requirements. The State must adopt such requirements to maintain
authorization.
In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA
provisions take effect in authorized States at the same time that they
take effect in unauthorized States. Although authorized States are
still required to update their hazardous waste programs to remain
equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of new
permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the State
to do so. Authorized States are required to modify their programs only
when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or
broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009
allows the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the
Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States
are not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA,
that are considered less stringent.
B. Effect on State Authorization
Today's proposal would be promulgated pursuant to HSWA authority,
and contains provisions that are less stringent than the current
Federal program. The proposed exclusion for DOE-SR's petitioned waste
would be less stringent. Consequently, States would not be required to
adopt the proposed exclusion, if it becomes final, as a condition of
authorization of their hazardous waste programs.
V. Effective Date
This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon
final publication. 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, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for the
petitioner. In light of the unnecessary hardship and expense that would
be imposed on this petitioner by an effective date 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 exclusion
should be effective immediately upon final publication. These reasons
also provide a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon
final publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553(d).
VI. Administrative Assessments
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether a 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 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; 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.
OMB has exempted this proposed rule from the requirement for OMB
review under section (6) of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule
is not a ``significant regulatory action,'' because it applies to a
single facility.
[[Page 11648]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.
The 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; (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.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C.
Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the
rule. This proposed rule is de-regulatory in nature, and, if
promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact on any small
entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one facility.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. 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.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 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
must prepare a written analysis, 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 one year. If a
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, unless the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law.
Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This is because today's proposed
rule is de-regulatory and imposes no enforceable duty on any State,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 204 and 205 of
UMRA.
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 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. EPA has determined that
this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This is because today's proposed rule is de-regulatory and imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Today's rule is not, therefore, subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.
There are no information collection requirements for this proposed rule
that require an ICR. Furthermore, only one facility is affected by this
proposal. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
E. 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 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have
[[Page 11649]]
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This is because today's proposed rule is de-
regulatory and imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Risks and Safety Risks
The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has 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. This proposed rule is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The public is
invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which
the agency may not be aware.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) 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 standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based measurement
System (``PBMS''), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific,
prescribed analytical methods, except when required by regulation in 40
CFR parts 260 through 270. Rather the Agency plans to allow the use of
any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS
approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the
regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in
analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding
the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus
standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria
specified.
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.
H. Executive Order 12898
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all populations in the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
that all people live in safe and healthful environments. In response to
Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the
Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an
Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental
justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall
strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No.
9200.3-17).
Today's proposed rule pertains to treated waste at a single
facility. EPA does not believe this petitioned waste would pose a risk
to any community, whether minority, low-income, middle-income, non-
minority, or affluent. The petitioned waste, if excluded from
regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA, must comply with the Atomic
Energy Act and all federal, state, and local solid waste regulations.
Therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to cause any
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income
communities versus non-minority or affluent communities.
We encourage all stakeholders including members of the
environmental justice community and members of the regulated community
to provide comments or further information related to potential
environmental justice concerns or impacts, including information and
data on facilities that have evaluated potential ecological and human
health impacts (taking into account subsistence patterns and sensitive
populations) to minority or low-income communities.
I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This proposal is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 Fed.
Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. We have concluded that this proposal will not have any adverse
energy effects. It is a de-regulatory proposal that will affect a
single facility.
J. Federalism--Applicability of Executive Order 13132
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 the various levels of government.''
Today's proposed rule is de-regulatory and imposes no enforceable
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
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.
This action does not have federalism implication. It will not have
a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or on the
[[Page 11650]]
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it affects
only one facility.
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: February 27, 2002.
Jewell Harper,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be 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 Table 1 of appendix IX, part 261 add the following
wastestream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22.
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Savannah River Site (SRS)....... Aiken, South Vitrified waste
Carolina. (EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. F006
South and F028)
that the United
States Department
of Energy
Savannah River
Operations Office
(DOE-SR)
generated by
treating the
following waste
streams from the
M-Area of the
Savannah River
Site (SRS) in
Aiken, South
Carolina, as
designated in the
SRS Site
Treatment Plan:
W-004, Plating
Line Sludge from
Supernate
Treatment; W-995,
Mark 15 Filter
Cake; W-029,
Sludge
Treatability
Samples (glass
and
cementitious); W-
031, Uranium/
Chromium
Solution; W-037,
High Nickel
Plating Line
Sludge; W-038,
Plating Line Sump
Material; W-039,
Nickel Plating
Line Solution; W-
048, Soils from
Spill Remediation
and Sampling
Programs; W-054,
Uranium/Lead
Solution; W-082,
Soils from
Chemicals,
Metals, and
Pesticides Pits
Excavation; and
Dilute Effluent
Treatment
Facility (DETF)
Filtercake (no
Site Treatment
Plan code). This
is a one-time
exclusion for 538
cubic yards of
waste
(hereinafter
referred to as
``DOE-SR
Vitrified
Waste'') that was
generated from
1996 through 1999
and 0.12 cubic
yard of
cementitious
treatability
samples
(hereinafter
referred to as
``CTS'')
generated from
1988 through 1991
(EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F006).
The one-time
exclusion for
these wastes is
contingent on
their being
disposed in a low-
level radioactive
waste landfill,
in accordance
with the Atomic
Energy Act, after
[insert date of
final rule.] DOE-
SR has
demonstrated that
concentrations of
toxic
constituents in
the DOE-SR
Vitrified Waste
and CTS do not
exceed the
following levels.
(1) TCLP
Concentrations:
All leachable
concentrations
for these metals
did not exceed
the Land Disposal
Restrictions
(LDR) Universal
Treatment
Standards (UTS):
(mg/l TCLP):
Arsenic-5.0;
Barium-21;
Beryllium-1.22;
Cadmium-0.11;
Chromium-0.60;
Lead-0.75; Nickel-
11; and Silver-
0.14. In
addition, none of
the metals in the
DOE-SR Vitrified
Waste exceeded
the allowable
delisting levels
of the EPA,
Region 6
Delisting Risk
Assessment
Software (DRAS):
(mg/l TCLP):
Arsenic-0.0649;
Barium-100.0;
Beryllium-0.40;
Cadmium-1.0;
Chromium-5.0;
Lead-5.0; Nickel-
10.0; and Silver-
5.0. These metal
concentrations
were measured in
the waste
leachate obtained
by the method
specified in 40
CFR 261.24.
Total
Concentrations in
Unextracted
Waste: The total
concentrations in
the DOE-SR
Vitrified Waste,
not the waste
leachate, did not
exceed the
following levels
(mg/kg): Arsenic-
10; Barium-200;
Beryllium-10;
Cadmium-10;
Chromium-500;
Lead- 200; Nickel-
10,000; Silver-
20; Acetonitrile-
1.0, which is
below the LDR UTS
of 38 mg/kg; and
Fluoride-1.0
[[Page 11651]]
(2) Data Records:
Records of
analytical data
for the
petitioned waste
must be
maintained by DOE-
SR for a minimum
of three years,
and must be
furnished upon
request by EPA or
the State of
South Carolina,
and made
available for
inspection.
Failure to
maintain the
required records
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
maintained with a
signed copy of
the certification
statement in 40
CFR
260.22(i)(12).
(3) Reopener
Language: (A) If,
at any time after
disposal of the
delisted waste,
DOE-SR possesses
or is otherwise
made aware of any
environmental
data (including
but not limited
to leachate data
or groundwater
monitoring data)
or any other data
relevant to the
delisted waste
indicating that
any constituent
is identified at
a level higher
than the
delisting level
allowed by EPA in
granting the
petition, DOE-SR
must report the
data, in writing,
to EPA within 10
days of first
possessing or
being made aware
of that data. (B)
Based on the
information
described in
paragraph (3)(A)
and any other
information
received from any
source, EPA will
make a
preliminary
determination as
to whether the
reported
information
requires that EPA
take action to
protect human
health or the
environment.
Further action
may include
suspending or
revoking the
exclusion, or
other appropriate
response
necessary to
protect human
health and the
environment. (C)
If EPA determines
that the reported
information does
require Agency
action, EPA will
notify the
facility. The
notice shall
include a
statement of the
proposed action
and a statement
providing DOE-SR
with an
opportunity to
present
information as to
why the proposed
action is not
necessary. DOE-SR
shall have 10
days from the
date of EPA's
notice to present
such
information.(E)
Following the
receipt of
information from
DOE-SR, as
described in
paragraph (3)(D),
or if no such
information is
received within
10 days, EPA will
issue a final
written
determination
describing the
Agency actions
that are
necessary to
protect human
health or the
environment,
given the
information
received in
accordance with
paragraphs (3)(A)
or (3)(B). Any
required action
described in
EPA's
determination
shall become
effective
immediately,
unless EPA
provides
otherwise.
(4) Notification
Requirements: DOE-
SR must provide a
one-time written
notification to
any State
Regulatory Agency
in a State to
which or through
which the
delisted waste
described above
will be
transported, at
least 60 days
prior to the
commencement of
such activities.
Failure to
provide such a
notification will
result in a
violation of the
delisting
conditions and a
possible
revocation of the
decision to
delist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-6153 Filed 3-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P