[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