[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 135 (Thursday, July 15, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42395-42412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15945]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW-FRL-7786-6]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for 
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, `the Agency' or `we') is proposing to grant a 
petition submitted by the United States Department of Energy, Richland 
Operations Office (DOE-RL) to exclude (or `delist') from regulation as 
listed hazardous waste certain mixed waste (`petitioned waste') that 
are treated at the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Site (200 Area ETF) on 
the Hanford Facility, Richland, Washington.
    The Agency proposes to conditionally grant the exclusion based on 
an evaluation of waste stream-specific and treatment process 
information provided by the DOE-RL. These proposed decisions, if 
finalized, would conditionally exclude the petitioned waste from the 
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended.
    If today's proposal is finalized, we will have concluded that DOE-
RL's petitioned waste does not meet any of the criteria under which the 
wastes were originally listed, and that there is no reasonable basis to 
believe other factors exist which could cause the waste to be 
hazardous.

DATES: Comments. We will accept public comments on this proposed 
decision until August 30, 2004. We will stamp comments postmarked after 
the close of the comment period as `late'. These `late' comments might 
not be considered in formulating a final decision.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Please send two copies of your comments to Dave 
Bartus, EPA Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, MS WCM-127, Seattle, WA 98101. 
Electronic comments can be e-mailed to [email protected].
    Request for Public Hearing. Your request for a hearing must reach 
EPA by July 30, 2004. The request must contain the information 
prescribed in section 260.20(d). Any person can request a hearing on 
this proposed decision by filing a written request with Rick Albright, 
Director, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 6th 
Ave., MS OAR-107, Seattle, WA 98101.
    Docket. The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is 
maintained by EPA, Region 10. You may examine docket materials at the 
EPA Region 10 library, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-
1289, during the hours from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays. Copies of the docket are available for 
review at the following Hanford Site Public Information Repository 
locations:

University of Washington, Suzzallo Library, Government Publications 
Division, Box 352900, Seattle, WA 98195-2900, (206) 543-4664. Contact: 
Eleanor Chase, [email protected], (206) 543-4664.
Gonzaga University, Foley Center, East 502 Boone, Spokane, WA 99258-
0001, (509) 323-5806. Contact: Connie Scarppelli, 
[email protected].
Portland State University, Branford Price Millar Library, 934 SW 
Harrison, Portland, OR 97207-1151, (503) 725-3690. Contact: Michael 
Bowman, [email protected].
U.S. DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State University-TC, CIC Room 
101L, 2770 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352, (509) 372-7443. 
Contact: Janice Parthree, [email protected].

    Copies of material in the regulatory docket can be obtained by 
contacting the Hanford Site Administrative Record via mail, phone, fax, 
or e-mail:
    Address: Hanford Site Administrative Record, PO Box 1000, MSIN H6-
08, 2440 Stevens Center Place, Richland, WA 99352, (509) 376-2530. E-
mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
this document, contact Dave Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, MS 
WCM 127, Seattle, WA 98101, telephone (206) 553-2804, or via e-mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized 
as follows:

I. Overview Information
    A. What action is EPA proposing?
    B. Why is EPA proposing to approve these delistings?
    C. How will DOE RL manage the petitioned waste if delisted?
    D. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusions?
II. Background
    A. What laws and regulations give EPA the authority to delist 
wastes?
    B. How would this action affect the States?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data for Liquid 
Effluent Waste
    A. What waste did DOE RL petition EPA to delist and how is the 
waste generated?
    B. What information and analyses did DOE RL submit to support 
these petitions?
    C. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
    D. What delisting levels are EPA proposing?
    E. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
    F. What did EPA conclude about DOE-RL's analysis?
    G. What must DOE RL do to demonstrate compliance with the 
proposed exclusion?
    H. How must DOE RL manage the delisted waste for disposal?
    I. How must DOE RL operate the treatment unit?
    J. What must DOE RL do if the process changes?
    K. What data must DOE RL submit?
    L. What happens if DOE RL fails to meet the conditions of the 
exclusion?

[[Page 42396]]

    M. What is EPA's final evaluation of this delisting petition?
    N. Relationship between today's proposed action and compliance 
LDR treatment standards.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 
Populations

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    The EPA is proposing a delisting action related to mixed \1\ waste 
managed or generated by the 200 Area ETF on the Hanford Facility in 
Richland, Washington. The action relates to treated liquid effluents 
produced by the 200 Area ETF, which were first delisted in June 1995. A 
description of the wastewater influent to the 200 Area ETF considered 
in the original delisting, and how the original delisting was 
developed, may be found in the original proposed rule (60 FR 6054, 
February 1, 1995). EPA is proposing to modify this existing delisting 
by increasing the annual quantity of waste delisted to conform to the 
expected full treatment capacity of the 200 Area ETF and by expanding 
the list of constituents associated with hazardous waste number F039 
(multisource leachate) for which 200 Area ETF treated effluent is 
delisted, from the current F001 to F005 constituents to all 
constituents for which F039 waste is listed.\2\ This change will allow 
ETF to fulfill its anticipated future missions, which include treating 
mixed wastewaters from a number of additional sources beyond 242-A 
Evaporator process condensate (PC) upon which the original delisting 
was based. Finally, EPA is proposing to expand the list of hazardous 
waste numbers for which treated effluent is delisted to include certain 
wastewater forms of U- and P-listed wastes. In particular, these U- and 
P-listed waste numbers are those whose chemical constituents are 
included in the list of hazardous constituents for which F039 was 
listed (see 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII). This latter addition is 
intended to accommodate possible management of U- and P-listed 
wastewaters from spill cleanup or decontamination associated with 
management of these wastes at the Central Waste Complex (CWC) or other 
storage facilities. These spill cleanup wastes include exactly the same 
constituents that will eventually contribute to F039 when the source 
wastes are land disposed, so today's analysis of expanding the 200 Area 
ETF treated effluent to include F039 applies equally to the wastewater 
forms of the same chemical constituents in their U- and P-listed waste 
forms. This action will allow the 200 Area ETF to fulfill an expanded 
role in supporting Hanford Facility cleanup actions beyond those 
activities considered in the 1995 delisting rulemaking. Further details 
of how hazardous waste numbers are applied to 200 Area ETF treated 
effluent can be found in section II.A of today's proposal. Further 
details about 200 Area ETF treated effluent and how it is generated can 
be found in section III.A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mixed waste is defined as waste that contains both hazardous 
waste subject to the requirements of Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended, and source, special nuclear, 
or by-product material subject to the requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act (AEA) [See 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6903 (41), 
added by the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) of 1992].
    \2\ Today's proposal is not modifying the list of constituents 
for which F039 multisource leachate is listed. At the time of the 
original delisting, DOE-RL did not expect to manage F039 wastes at 
the 200 Area ETF from sources other than F001-F005 wastes. 
Therefore, the original 200 Area ETF delisting excluded only F039 
wastes from F001-F005 sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOE-RL petitioned EPA to exclude (delist) treated liquid 
effluent from the treatment of liquid mixed waste at the 200 Area ETF 
because DOE-RL believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the 
RCRA criteria for which EPA originally listed the petitioned waste. The 
DOE-RL also believes there are no additional constituents or factors 
that could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste or warrant retaining 
the waste as hazardous waste.
    Based on our review described in today's proposal, we agree with 
the petitioner that the identified treated liquid effluents are non-
hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. Furthermore, 
we find no additional constituents or factors that could cause the 
waste stream to be a hazardous waste or warrant retaining the waste as 
a hazardous waste. If our review had found that the waste remained a 
hazardous waste based on the factors for which the waste originally was 
listed, or if we found additional constituents or factors that could 
cause either waste stream to be a hazardous waste or warrant retaining 
the waste as a hazardous waste we would have proposed to deny the 
petition. It is important to note that even if the waste becomes 
delisted, the DOE-RL remains responsible for complying with the Atomic 
Energy Act (AEA), as the treated effluents will generally remain 
regulated as low-level radioactive wastes. Further, disposal of the 
treated liquid effluent on site is regulated by the Washington State 
Department of Ecology (Ecology) under the authority of WAC 173-216. 
Further details of how treated effluent will be managed if excluded 
under today's proposal may be found in section I.C below.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve These Delistings?

    We believe that the petitioned waste should be conditionally 
delisted because the waste, when managed in accordance with today's 
proposed conditions, do not meet the criteria for which the wastes 
originally were listed and the waste do not contain other constituents 
or factors that could cause the waste stream to be a hazardous waste or 
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste. Our proposed decision 
to delist the petitioned waste is based on information submitted by 
DOE-RL, including the description of the wastewaters managed by the ETF 
and their original generating sources, the ETF treatment processes, and 
the analytical data characterizing performance of the 200 Area ETF.
    In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing 
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. [See 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 
260.22 (d)(2) through (4)]. These factors included (1) whether the 
waste are considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the 
constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the waste; 
(4) the tendency of the hazardous constituents to migrate and to 
bioaccumulate; (5) persistence of the constituents in the environment 
once released from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of 
management of the petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; 
and (8) variability of the waste. We also evaluated the petitioned 
waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec.  
261.11(a)(1), (2) and (3).

C. How Will DOE RL Manage the Petitioned Waste if Delisted?

    Treated liquid effluents currently generated by the 200-Area ETF 
are land disposed at the State Authorized Land

[[Page 42397]]

Disposal Site (SALDS).\3\ Treated effluent discussed in today's 
proposal must be disposed of at SALDS, as a condition of today's 
proposal. A brief description of the SALDS can be found in the DOE-RL 
application for the State Waste Discharge Permit ST 4500, and the 
permit fact sheet available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/pdf/4500dfs.pdf. EPA's original evaluation of this disposal unit with 
respect to delisting is found at 60 FR 6061 (February 1, 1995). The 
DOE-RL's petition for modification of the existing delisting does not 
reflect any change in design and operation of the SALDS compared to 
DOE-RL's original delisting petition and EPA's associated analysis. We 
note that this proposed exclusion is not dependant on the 
characteristics or protectiveness of effluent disposal at the SALDS. 
The fact that DOE-RL is not proposing management of excluded treated 
effluent other than at the SALDS; however, does provide a basis for the 
EPA to conclude that it is not necessary to consider other risk or 
exposure pathways in today's proposal beyond those considered in the 
original delisting rulemaking applicable to treated effluents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The SALDS disposal site is an effluent infiltration gallery, 
consisting of a 116 foot by 200 foot rectangular drainfield with 4 
inch porous pipe laterals coming off an 8 inch diameter header at 6 
foot intervals. The drainfield pipes are 6 inches below the surface 
of a 6 foot deep gravel basin. The gravel basin is covered by a 
layer of native soil at least 12 inches deep. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/pdf/4500dfs.pdf. For purposes of 
developing delisting exclusion limits in the original 200 Area ETF 
exclusion and in today's proposal, EPA considers the SALDS unit to 
be functionally equivalent to an unlined surface impoundment, 
consistent with existing EPA delisting guidance and the existing 200 
Area ETF delisting..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2001 petition, DOE-RL noted that in the future the 
delisted treated effluent from 200 Area ETF could be used as makeup 
water at onsite facilities that have a demand for large quantities of 
demineralized water. Delisted treated effluent, however, contains 
appreciable amounts of tritium and must be managed to minimize 
personnel exposure and the potential for release. EPA encourages DOE-RL 
to pursue potential alternate uses of 200 Area ETF liquid effluents, 
and believes that, in general, such practices could prove to be fully 
protective, and a means to further the Hanford Site cleanup mission. 
Because no specific proposals have been made by DOE-RL, however, EPA 
lacks information to specifically evaluate impacts of such reuse 
practices with respect to delisting criteria, or whether such practice 
would identify other factors that would need to be considered in a 
delisting decision. Today's proposed rulemaking is based on continued 
disposal of treated effluents at the SALDS, but does include a 
provision whereby DOE-RL could request EPA to evaluate treated liquid 
effluent reuse proposals. If EPA finds, through this review, that 
delisting conditions in place at the time of the request ensure that 
the treated effluent is managed protectively with respect to delisting 
criteria, EPA may allow DOE-RL to commence the proposed activity 
without changes to the delisting rule. Otherwise, EPA could require the 
DOE-RL to submit a revised delisting petition, and new delisting 
conditions would need to be established to reflect the new proposed 
disposal/use activity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted elsewhere in this proposal, delisting requirements 
that could be established as a result of this proposal are not 
effective under RCRA in States that have final authorization for 
delisting exclusion petition (40 CFR 260.22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. When Would EPA Finalize the Proposed Delisting Exclusions?

    RCRA section 3001(f), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), specifically requires the 
EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or 
denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not make a final decision to 
grant an exclusion until the EPA has addressed all timely public 
comments (including any at public hearings) on today's proposal.
    RCRA section 3010(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to 
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community 
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance with the new 
regulatory requirements. EPA believes that today's proposed exclusion, 
if finalized, would reduce existing regulatory requirements, so that a 
six-month period is not necessary for DOE-RL to come into compliance. 
As a result, EPA believes that, if finalized, today's proposal should 
be effective immediately upon final publication. A later date would 
impose unnecessary hardship and expense on the petitioner. See also 
section II.B for a discussion of today's proposal on State regulatory 
programs.

II. Background

A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist Wastes?

    On January 16, 1981, as part of the final and interim final 
regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended 
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. EPA 
has amended this list several times. See 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. EPA 
lists these wastes as hazardous because (1) the wastes exhibit one or 
more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in subpart C 
of part 261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and 
toxicity) or (2) the wastes meet the criteria for listing contained in 
Sec.  261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
    Individual waste streams could vary depending on raw materials, 
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste that is 
described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste 
from an individual facility meeting the listing description might not 
be hazardous.
    For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion 
procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a specific waste from a 
particular generating facility \5\ should not be regulated as a 
hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although no one produces hazardous waste without reason, 
many industrial processes result in the production of hazardous 
waste, as well as useful products and services. A ``generating 
facility'' is a facility in which hazardous waste is produced, and a 
``generator'' is a person who produces hazardous waste or causes 
hazardous waste to be produced at a particular place. 40 CFR 260.10 
provides regulatory definitions of ``generator'', ``facility'', 
``person'', and other terms related to hazardous waste, and 40 CFR 
part 262 provides regulatory requirements for generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To have their waste excluded, petitioners first must show that the 
waste generated at their facilities does not meet any of the criteria 
for which the waste was listed. See 40 CFR 260.22(a) and the background 
documents for the listed waste. Second, the EPA Administrator must 
determine, where the Administrator has a reasonable basis to believe 
that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for 
which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be hazardous waste, 
that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as hazardous 
waste. Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste 
does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., 
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present 
sufficient information for the EPA to determine whether the waste 
contains any other toxic constituents at hazardous levels. See 40 CFR 
260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the background documents for the 
listed waste. Although waste that is ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) has 
been evaluated to determine whether or not the waste exhibits any of 
the characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated 
under RCRA to determine whether or not their waste continues to be non-
hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics (including 
characteristics

[[Page 42398]]

that might be promulgated subsequent to a delisting decision).
    In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of 
listed hazardous waste and mixtures containing listed hazardous waste 
also are considered hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and 
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, 
respectively. Such waste also is eligible for exclusion but remains 
hazardous waste until excluded.
    On October 10, 1995, the EPA Administrator delegated to the EPA 
Regional Administrators the authority to evaluate and approve or deny 
petitions submitted by generators in accordance with 40 CFR 260.20 and 
260.22 within their Regions (See EPA Delegations Manual, Delegation 8-
19) in States not yet authorized to administer a delisting program in 
lieu of the Federal program.

B. How Would This Action Affect the States?

    This proposed rule, if promulgated, would be issued under the 
Federal (RCRA) delisting authority found at 40 CFR 260.22. Some States 
are authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal 
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this 
proposed exclusion, if promulgated, would not apply under RCRA in those 
authorized States. For States not authorized to administer a delisting 
program in lieu of the Federal program (as is the case with the State 
of Washington as of the date of today's proposal), today's proposal, if 
promulgated, would become effective with respect to the Federal (RCRA) 
program. DOE-RL would, however, have to comply with additional 
applicable State requirements.
    States are allowed to impose regulatory requirements that are more 
stringent than EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more 
stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a 
federally issued exclusion from taking effect in a State. Because a 
petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both 
Federal and State programs), petitioners are urged to contact State 
regulatory authorities to determine the current status of their wastes 
under the State laws.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data for Liquid 
Effluent Waste

A. What Waste Did DOE RL Petition EPA To Delist and How Is the Waste 
Generated?

    The original delisting action considered treatment of only one 
waste stream, process condensate from the 242-A Evaporator (242-A 
Evaporator PC). Since promulgation of the original delisting, the 
operating mission of the 200 Area ETF has expanded considerably. 
Currently, the operating capacity of the 200 Area ETF provides 
treatment of 242-A Evaporator PC, treatment of Hanford Site 
contaminated groundwater from various pump-and-treat systems, and a 
variety of other wastewaters generated from waste management and 
cleanup activities at Hanford.
    As discussed in section 3.0 of DOE-RL's November 2001 petition, the 
mission of the 200 Area ETF is to treat wastewater generated on the 
Hanford Facility from cleanup activities including multisource leachate 
from operation of hazardous/mixed waste landfills, and other hazardous 
wastewaters from a variety of sources including analytical laboratory 
operations, research and development studies, waste treatment 
processes, environmental restoration and deactivation projects, and 
other waste management activities. Based on this change in the 200 Area 
ETF mission, the DOE-RL has petitioned EPA to modify the existing 
delisting applicable to treated liquid effluent from the 200 Area ETF 
by increasing the effluent volume limit to 210 million liters per year, 
and to conditionally exclude treated effluents from treatment by the 
200 Area ETF of certain liquid Hanford wastes with hazardous waste 
numbers identified at 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.33 as F001-F005, F039, and 
all U- and P-listed substances appearing in the listing definition of 
F039. Under the current delisting, the liquid effluent volume is 
limited to approximately 86 million liters per year, and delisted only 
for F001-F005 waste numbers and F039 constituents from F001 through 
F005 waste numbers.
    The November 2001 delisting petition explains that wastes bearing 
numbers P029, P030, P098, P106, P120, and U123, as well as other U- and 
P-listed numbers corresponding to F039 constituents, are currently 
managed, or may be managed in the future, as part of Hanford cleanup 
operations. Wastes bearing these waste numbers are intended for future 
disposal in the mixed waste landfill (Low-Level Burial Grounds (LLBG)). 
These wastes, therefore, eventually will contribute to generation of 
F039 multisource leachate from this unit, and are specifically 
considered in the analysis of F039 constituents in DOE-RL's delisting 
proposal (refer to Appendix B of the November 2001 delisting petition). 
The DOE-RL believes that wastewaters bearing these waste numbers could 
be generated from activities such as spill cleanup or equipment 
decontamination, and such wastewaters could be managed best at the 200 
Area ETF. The DOE-RL is not proposing to manage the discarded 
commercial chemical products in the 200 Area ETF, but only wastewaters 
from spill cleanup or equipment decontamination. EPA believes that this 
is a reasonable approach, and is proposing to include these U- and P-
listed numbers in today's proposed exclusion.
    To ensure that the commercial chemical compounds themselves are not 
inappropriately managed at the 200 Area ETF, EPA is proposing as a 
condition of the proposed exclusion for these wastes that the 200 Area 
ETF may manage only influent wastewaters bearing less than 1.0 weight 
percent of any hazardous constituent. These wastewaters would also 
would bear the same U- and P-listed numbers by virtue of the ``derived 
from'' rule discussed above in section I.A. Because the hazardous 
constituents from these U- and P-listed wastes are already included in 
the analysis of 200 Area ETF performance for treatment of F039, EPA is 
not proposing any separate analysis specific to U- and P-listed 
numbers. EPA's proposal to include these U- and P-listed waste numbers 
in today's proposed action is intended to include influent wastewaters 
that might be generated from management of wastes currently stored in 
CWC, as well as such wastes managed elsewhere at Hanford or which may 
be generated in the future.
    In theory, the provision of today's proposal dealing with U- and P-
listed waste numbers could include all 213 constituents included in the 
regulatory definition of F039. In practice, EPA expects that the actual 
number of U- and P-listed constituents that might actually be managed 
under this provision will be significantly less for two reasons. First, 
not all F039 constituents have corresponding U- or P-listed waste 
numbers. Second, it is highly unlikely that most, or even many, of the 
U- and P-listed waste numbers considered by this provision would ever 
enter the influent wastewaters managed by ETF. In any case, EPA 
believes that today's proposal is fully protective and demonstrates 
compliance with delisting criteria regardless of the number of U- and 
P-listed waste numbers that actually end up contributing to wastewaters 
managed by ETF.
    Beginning in 2007, DOE-RL expects to begin processing liquid 
effluents (wastewaters) from the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), which 
currently is being designed and constructed to treat high-

[[Page 42399]]

level mixed waste stored in 177 underground storage tanks. At this 
time, a complete, detailed characterization of WTP liquid effluents is 
not available. Should this waste stream fit within the conditions of 
today's proposal, then the WTP effluents could be managed under this 
delisting action, if finalized. Should WTP effluents require 
significant reconfiguration of the 200 Area ETF system to be treated 
successfully or be outside the waste volume limitations or treatability 
envelope, or otherwise fail to meet the requirements of today's 
proposal, the DOE-RL could not manage either the treated effluent or 
concentrated wastes resulting from processing of WTP effluents as 
excluded wastes. In this instance, the DOE-RL would need to seek a 
further modification of the delisting rulemaking.
    Given the lack of characterization data for future WTP effluents, 
EPA specifically is not considering this waste stream in its analysis 
of the proposed delisting action, other than to acknowledge that the 
DOE-RL might manage WTP effluents in the 200 Area ETF, provided the 
applicable delisting criteria and verification sampling requirements 
are met. EPA anticipates that it might be necessary to further modify 
the treated effluent delisting rule once WTP effluents are fully 
characterized.

B. What Information and Analyses Did DOE RL Submit To Support These 
Petitions?

    The DOE-RL has provided a general description of the various waste 
streams that the 200 Area ETF expects to manage in addition to 242-A 
Evaporator PC and other waste streams currently being treated. This 
information is found in section 3.0 of the November 2001 delisting 
petition. Some of these waste streams have not yet been generated. As a 
result, these waste streams cannot be fully characterized at this time, 
nor can surrogate wastewaters be developed as was done as part of pilot 
testing associated with the original delisting action. The DOE-RL's 
request to modify the original delisting is based on extending the 
original process model, which has been validated through operating 
history, to these anticipated future waste streams. EPA is proposing 
that treated liquid effluent from these new influent waste streams be 
conditionally managed as excluded waste provided that the DOE-RL 
demonstrates prior to 200 Area ETF processing that delisting criteria 
can be met through application of the 200 Area ETF process model. All 
treated effluent, including treated effluent from processing of new 
influent waste streams that do not have an operating history of being 
managed at the 200 Area ETF, will be subject to a verification sampling 
requirement similar to that in the original delisting action for 242-A 
Evaporator PC. As with the original delisting action, all treated 
effluent will be subject to routine, periodic verification sampling. 
(See section III.N for a discussion of the applicability of LDR 
treatment requirements.)
    The DOE-RL has submitted substantial data comparing actual 
operating performance of the 200 Area ETF to predicted treatment 
efficiency developed through pilot plant testing. These data 
consistently validate the pilot plant model developed in support of the 
original delisting, and indicate that for 242-A Evaporator PC processed 
to date, treatment efficiency is well in excess of that predicted by 
the process model. These data are presented in Table A-1 of the 
November 2001 delisting petition. The EPA believes that these data 
confirm that the 200 Area ETF is a robust treatment system well 
equipped to provide treatment necessary to meet delisting criteria for 
the wide range of new waste streams considered in this revised 
delisting action.
    Detailed characterization data are not available for many non-
process condensate waste streams that the DOE-RL proposes for 
consideration under this delisting action. Therefore, the DOE-RL has 
proposed a detailed waste acceptance process that allows this analysis 
to be conducted in conjunction with the 200 Area ETF waste acceptance 
process required by the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7 89000 8967 and 
the State Waste Discharge Permit (ST4500) for the SALDS. Particulars of 
the waste acceptance process with respect to this proposed delisting 
action can be found in section 2.2 of the November 2001 delisting 
petition. In addition, Ecology provided technical assistance to the EPA 
on this matter by reviewing DOE-RL's 200 Area ETF waste acceptance 
process, including permit-required quality assurance plans (QAPs). EPA 
has reviewed and concurs with Ecology's technical conclusions that the 
waste profiling and acceptance process at the 200 Area ETF is 
sufficient to support delisting of the resulting treated effluents.
    Briefly, this waste acceptance process is intended to accomplish 
the following:
     Establish operating conditions and operating configuration 
of the 200 Area ETF;
     Ensure contaminant concentrations do not interfere with or 
foul 200 Area ETF treatment processes (e.g., interfere with ultraviolet 
oxidation (UV/OX) destruction, foul reverse osmosis (RO) membranes, 
etc.);
     Ensure compatibility with 200 Area ETF materials of 
construction and other influent wastewaters;
     Ensure treated effluents meet delisting criteria and SALDS 
waste discharge permit requirements;
     Estimate concentrations of constituents in the secondary 
treatment train and in concentrated waste (a discussion of EPA's 
proposed delisting of concentrated wastes follows);
     Ensure compliance with Hanford Facility RCRA Permit waste 
acceptance requirements.
    Based on waste profile information provided by wastewater 
generators, the DOE-RL would compare constituent concentrations to 
ensure that the influent falls within the 200 Area ETF treatability 
envelope. The ETF treatability envelope is defined as the maximum 
untreated waste concentrations that the 200 Area ETF is capable of 
managing to meet treated effluent delisting criteria. The treatability 
envelope concept is essentially the same approach used by the EPA in 
evaluating treatability data provided by the DOE-RL in support of the 
original delisting petition, with modifications to account for 
operating history.
    In some instances, wastewaters are accepted directly into the 200 
Area ETF for treatment, while other wastewaters are accepted into the 
Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) basins.\6\ Waste acceptance 
evaluations for wastewaters managed in LERF basins account for 
compatibility with basin materials in addition to treatability envelope 
considerations. For wastewaters accepted into LERF basins, treatability 
envelope evaluation reflect the commingled wastewater stream. 
Wastewaters are required to undergo periodic re-valuation under the 
site-wide permit waste analysis plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Information concerning management of influent wastewaters is 
provided for background and informational purposes only. Whether 
influent wastewaters are received directly by the 200 Area ETF 
directly or via management in the LERF basins is generally an 
operational decision distinct from the question of whether the 
wastewaters are acceptable candidates for management under today's 
proposed delisting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOE-RL's petition for modifying the existing treated effluent 
delisting is based on establishing a waste processing strategy for each 
waste stream. Each time a new wastewater is managed in the 200 Area 
ETF, a document must be prepared containing the waste processing 
strategy to reflect specific

[[Page 42400]]

waste constituents and to ensure that the treated effluent meets 
delisting criteria. The waste processing strategy consists of the 
processing configuration of the various treatment technologies 
available at the 200 Area ETF and the operating conditions of each. 
Examples of operating conditions include UV/OX residence time, RO 
reject rate, etc. Wastewaters that fit within the treatability envelope 
for a particular processing strategy can be processed directly, subject 
only to the periodic re-evaluation of each waste stream with respect to 
waste acceptance criteria required by the Hanford site-wide RCRA 
permit, and periodic verification of the treated effluent with respect 
to delisting requirements. Wastewaters for which a new processing 
strategy is developed where no operating history has been accumulated 
must undergo initial verification sampling similar to that required by 
the original delisting action. EPA believes that this scheme of 
establishing waste acceptance and processing strategy on a verified 
process model, coupled with initial and periodic on-going verification, 
provides certainty that delisting criteria will be met, reflecting data 
that validate the original process model, and the redundancy of 
verification testing, and is consistent with the delisting framework 
established in the original delisting action. In addition, it provides 
flexibility needed for the 200 Area ETF to fulfill its key role in 
Hanford Site cleanup activities.

C. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?

    For EPA to delist a particular waste, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the waste does not meet any of the criteria under 
which the waste was listed, and that the waste does not exhibit any of 
the hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through 
261.24. In addition, based on a complete application, EPA must 
determine where it has a reasonable basis to believe that factors 
(including additional constituents) exist other than those for which 
the waste was listed that could cause the waste to be a hazardous 
waste. If such factors exist, EPA must determine that such factors do 
not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste. For petitioned 
waste that contains detectable chemical constituents, EPA generally 
makes this determination by gathering information to identify plausible 
routes of human or environmental exposure (i.e., groundwater, surface 
water, air) and using fate and transport models to predict the release 
of hazardous constituents from the petitioned waste once the waste is 
disposed. The transport model predicts potential exposures and impacts 
of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
    As discussed in the original delisting proposal (60 FR 6054, 
February 1, 1995), EPA used a modified version of the Environmental 
Protection Agency Composite Membrane Liner (EPACML) model based on 
disposal of waste in a surface impoundment to establish delisting 
levels for treated 200 Area ETF effluent. The original delisting 
proposal included a discussion of plausible exposure routes and an 
analysis of how these potential exposure routes influenced EPA's 
selection of delisting criteria, as well as a detailed discussion of 
how delisting levels were calculated from model outputs and 
toxicological data.
    In analyzing the DOE-RL's current delisting petition, EPA does not 
believe that there is a substantial basis for choosing a different 
approach to evaluating the risks of delisting this waste or for 
establishing revised delisting criteria. In reaching this conclusion, 
we considered several factors:
     No changes in waste disposal practices. The DOE-RL 
currently manages 200 Area ETF treated effluents in the same manner as 
considered by EPA in the original delisting analysis, and DOE-RL's 
revised delisting petition does not propose any changes in these waste 
disposal practices. Therefore, we do not find any basis for any 
different analysis of potential exposure pathways or modeling compared 
to the original delisting analysis.
     200 Area ETF treatment technology. Current 200 Area ETF 
processing technologies and configurations remain unchanged from the 
proposed design considered in EPA's original upfront delisting 
analysis. Further, the 200 Area ETF operating history confirms the 
treatment efficiencies and performance predicted by pilot plant testing 
and considered by EPA in the original delisting analysis. Therefore, we 
do not find any basis for alternate evaluation methodologies based on 
the treatment capabilities of the 200 Area ETF.
     Wastes managed by the 200 Area ETF. Although the original 
delisting analysis considered only PC from the 242-A Evaporator, this 
waste stream is quite complex, and is characterized by a wide range of 
chemical constituents and classes of compounds from diverse wastes in 
the Hanford Facility double shell tank system. Specifically with 
respect to organic constituents and the treatment efficacy of 
ultraviolet oxidation (UV/OX), the original delisting analysis was 
based on treatment efficiency for groups or classes of organic 
compounds. Although today's proposal considers additional chemical 
compounds that might be present in F039 multisource leachate from 
wastes other than F001 through F005, EPA believes that these additional 
constituents can be analyzed effectively using the original 
methodology. Further, EPA does not believe that any of the additional 
constituents considered in this delisting proposal pose treatability or 
risk questions that suggest the original chemical group approach to 
analyzing delisting risks and establishing delisting levels needs to be 
re-evaluated. A more specific discussion of how treatability groups and 
delisting levels are established, considering the additional waste 
streams and waste numbers to be managed by the 200 Area ETF under this 
proposed delisting, can be found in section 4.1.1 of the November 2001 
delisting petition.
    EPA also has examined the performance record of discharges of 
treated effluents from the 200 Area ETF under State Waste Discharge 
Permit No. ST4500. This permit, issued under the authority of chapter 
90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, as amended, requires 
monitoring of treated effluent and of groundwater affected by the 
SALDS. There are three elements to the ST4500 Permit monitoring 
requirements. These are: (1) Maximum effluent limitations; (2) ``early 
warning'' effluent limitations that provide an early warning that 
groundwater limitations are being approached in the effluent; and (3) 
groundwater limits. Each of these elements are described below:
     ST4500 Permit effluent monthly average--the highest 
allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated 
as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month 
divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month.
     Groundwater limit--maximum constituent concentration 
allowed in groundwater at monitoring well specified in the ST4500 
Permit.
     Groundwater early warning limit--constituent concentration 
in groundwater that triggers early warning reporting requirements. 
Exceeding an early warning value does not constitute a violation of 
ST4500 Permit requirements.
    These limits, including a comparison to proposed delisting levels 
(section D), are shown in the following table. All values are mg/L. The 
first three columns correspond to the ST4500 permit monitoring 
requirements described above, while the remaining columns contain the 
following information:

[[Page 42401]]

     Proposed delisting treatability group--class of similar 
chemical constituents as defined in Table 4-1 of the November 29, 2001 
delisting petition.
     Proposed delisting level--constituent concentration limit 
for treated effluent in today's proposal.
     Comments--self-explanatory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ST 4500 permit                                     Proposed
                                        effluent       Groundwater      Effluent        delisting       Proposed
            Constituent                  monthly          limit        groundwater    treatability      delisting                  Comments
                                         average                      early warning       group           level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone............................             N/A            0.16             N/A              19             2.4
Acetophenone.......................            0.01             N/A             N/A              19             N/A
Benzene............................             N/A           0.005           0.005               3            0.06
Carbon Tetrachloride...............           0.005             N/A             N/A              13           0.018
Chloroform.........................             N/A           0.062           0.005              13             N/A
n-Nitrosodimethylamine.............            0.02             N/A             N/A             10e            0.02  Proposed delisting limit based on
                                                                                                                      PQL.
Tetrachloroethylene................           0.005             N/A             N/A              14             N/A
Tetrahydrofuran....................             N/A             0.1             0.1             18a            0.56
Total Organic Carbon (TOC).........             1.1             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
Arsenic............................           0.015             N/A             N/A              22           0.015
Beryllium..........................            0.04             N/A             N/A              21           0.045
Cadmium............................             N/A            0.01          0.0075              22           0.011
Chromium...........................            0.02             N/A             N/A              22           0.068
Copper.............................             N/A            0.07            0.07             N/A             N/A
Lead...............................             N/A            0.05           0.038              22            0.09
Mercury............................             N/A           0.002           0.002              22          0.0068
Ammonia............................            0.83             N/A             N/A              24               6
Chloride...........................             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
Nitrate............................             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
Nitrite............................             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
Sulfate............................             N/A             250             N/A             N/A             N/A
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Dissolved Solids.........             N/A             500             380             N/A            N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PQL = practical quantitation limit.
N/A = not applicable. The set of constituents with reporting or enforceable limits established in the ST 4500 permit and in today's proposal are not
  identical. N/A table entries correspond to constituents included in the ST 4500 permit but not as constituents representative of a treatability group
  or vice versa.

    To date, the DOE-RL has not reported any exceedences of any of the 
three monitoring criterion established by the ST4500 Permit. According 
to the Ecology fact sheet issued in conjunction with the latest reissue 
of the ST4500 Permit:

    ``During the history of the previous permit, the Permittee has 
remained in compliance based on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) 
and other reports submitted to Ecology and inspections conducted by 
Ecology.'' The only exceptions have been a few early high 
groundwater levels of sulfate. The sulfate levels were not due to 
the discharge of sulfate, but rather by the clean effluent 
dissolving sulfate that exists in the vadose zone. The sulfate 
levels peaked for about a year, always below groundwater standards, 
and have since returned to background levels.

    Given that all of these ST4500 Permit wastewater discharge limits 
are at or below corresponding delisting levels, EPA concludes that the 
200 Area ETF performs at least as well as the proposed delisting 
levels. This conclusion supports EPA's belief that 200 Area ETF 
processing model is well validated, and can be appropriately used to 
predict performance of 200 Area ETF for treatment of new waste streams 
for which actually operating data is not yet available. Further, these 
data show 200 Area ETF discharges to SALDS are not having a significant 
impact on groundwater. EPA therefore concludes that further analysis of 
groundwater monitoring data is not necessary in the context of the 
proposed delisting revisions.

D. What Delisting Levels Are EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude treated effluents by 
establishing a set of verification constituents and concentrations that 
must be met as a condition of the exclusion. These concentrations are 
referred to as delisting levels. The process of selecting delisting 
levels and proposed verification constituents is similar to that used 
in the existing 200 Area ETF exclusion where constituents that are 
representative of a treatability group were selected as verification 
parameters.
    Treatability groups established in today's proposal can be found in 
Table 4-1 of the November 29, 2001 delisting petition. Treatability 
groups have been established by grouping chemicals identified as 200 
Area Effluent Treatment Facility Consolidated Constituents in Table B-1 
of the November 29, 2001 delisting petition according to similar 
chemical structure and function. For example, all organic constituents 
with phthalate structure are grouped into treatability group 8. 
Inorganic constituents (metals in particular) are each assigned to 
their own treatability group. One difference in the process for 
selecting constituents representing each organic treatability group 
between the original delisting and today's proposal is that one 
constituent is selected and proposed to represent a treatability group. 
For inorganic treatability groups, each constituent is in a separate 
treatability group.
    Because the initial delisting was an upfront delisting,\7\ multiple 
constituents were selected for a few treatability groups. The initial 
delisting focused exclusively on listed wastewaters with a designation 
of F001 to F005, or F039 derived from F001 to F005, and the 
verification parameters included multiple constituents in several 
treatability groups. Because this

[[Page 42402]]

delisting modification expands the constituents associated with the 
F039 waste number being delisted, the proposed verification 
constituents need to represent all the treatability groups. EPA's 
analysis of data presented in the DOE-RL's petition indicate that the 
data verify the process model used in the original delisting action. 
Further, EPA concludes the treatment performance necessary to meet 
delisting exclusion limits will be successfully demonstrated by the 
individual constituents proposed to represent each treatability group. 
Since these representative constituents have been selected after 
consideration of both toxicity and how difficult each constituent is to 
treat, EPA concludes that requiring multiple constituents to represent 
each treatability group would not provide greater assurance that 
exclusion limits are met for all constituents in the treatability 
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An upfront delisting is an exclusion granted for a waste 
stream prior to full-scale commercial generation or treatment of the 
waste stream. In contrast, a traditional exclusion applies to an 
existing waste stream that can be fully characterized on a 
commercial scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The constituents and the delisting levels for monitoring are 
determined in a three-phase approach. First, the health-based levels 
(HBLs) \8\ are calculated based on toxicological data for each 
constituent of concern identified in Table B-1 of the November 2001 
delisting petition. The HBLs are calculated using current toxicological 
data from IRIS, HEAST, and NCEA.\9\ The target risk factor of 1.0 x 
10-\5\ excess cancer risk is used with the oral slope factor 
to calculate a HBL for carcinogens. The target hazard quotient factor 
of 0.10 is used with the reference dose for oral exposure to calculate 
a HBL for non-carcinogens. When an oral slope factor and a reference 
dose for oral exposure are both available, the minimum (more 
conservative) resulting HBL is used. The groundwater ingestion pathway 
was the only pathway considered, based on the same rationale used to 
select the groundwater pathway in the initial delisting exclusion, 
found in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Health-based levels are considered the cancer slope factor 
for carcinogens, and the reference dose for constituents with non-
cancer health effects.
    \9\ The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) can be found 
at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The Health Effects Assessment Summary 
Tables (HEAST) can be found at ``Health Effects Assessment Summary 
Tables FY 1997 Update,'' 9200.6-303(97-1), EPA 540/R-97-036, PB97-
921199, July 199. Data from the National Center for Environmental 
Assessment (NCEA) may be found at http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/ncea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, a constituent is selected from a treatability group to 
represent the entire group. This methodology uses HBLs (the lower the 
HBL the higher the constituent toxicity), the electrical energy/order 
(EE/O), which is a measure of the UV/OX treatment efficiency for a 
constituent (the higher the EE/O the more difficult it is to destroy a 
constituent), and the practical quantitation limit (PQL). Constituents 
are ranked by the HBL and by the EE/O. HBLs within a factor of 10 are 
considered identical for this selection process because HBLs of 
constituents within most treatability groups range over a number of 
orders of magnitude. Each treatability group is evaluated individually. 
The constituents having the lowest HBL and the highest EE/O are the 
first candidates considered for selection. To ensure that acceptable 
analytical data can be obtained, the PQL is considered. If the PQL is 
higher than the delisting level (HBL times the dilution attenuation 
factor [DAF]),\10\ then another constituent is evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A dilution/attenuation factor is a measure of fate and 
transport effects on constituents as they migrate from a source area 
to a receptor. In this instance, the source area is the SALDS unit, 
modeled as an unlined surface impoundment and the receptor is a 
hypothetical individual ingesting groundwater affected by the waste 
source). Details of how the EPACML model was used to calculate DAF 
values for the 200 Area ETF may be found in the original delisting 
proposal, 60 FR 6054, February 1, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed delisting levels are based on the HBL times 
the DAF of 6. The methodology used by DOE-RL to calculate this DAF 
appears in section 4.0 of the November 2001 delisting petition. EPA has 
previously determined that the methodology used by DOE-RL in 
establishing the DAF of 6 is protective in a previous delisting. See 56 
FR 32993, July 18, 1991. In a few cases, the delisting level is based 
on either the PQL, maximum contamination limit (MCL), or a 
concentration level derived from requirements of the Toxic Substance 
Control Act (TSCA) applicable to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) 
remediation waste, which EPA has determined to be protective of 
unrestricted exposure. EPA is proposing to establish delisting 
exclusion limits for PCBs based on TSCA values as a means to achieve 
consistency between RCRA and TSCA requirements applicable to treated 
effluent. See section III.N for a discussion of the relationship 
between delisting levels in today's proposal and LDR treatment 
requirements.
    There are a number of constituents of concern in treated effluent 
where toxicological data are inconclusive or lacking. For treatability 
groups where these constituents are grouped, toxicological data for the 
constituent representing the treatability group is selected from one of 
the remaining treatability group constituents for which conclusive 
toxicological data are available. Stated another way, constituents 
representing each treatability group are selected based on a 
combination of available health-based data, difficulty to treat the 
constituent, and availability of acceptable analytical information. EPA 
believes that the methodology established in the original 200 Area ETF 
delisting and adopted as the basis for today's proposal provides 
certainty that when delisting criteria for representative constituents 
are met, all constituents in the same treatability group satisfy 
delisting requirements.
    The methodology described in the previous paragraph for selecting 
constituents to represent each treatability group also supports EPA's 
proposal to have a single chemical constituent represent each 
treatability group. As noted above, each constituent representing a 
treatability group is selected on the basis of a combination of being 
difficult to treat and of being the most toxic. Provided the ETF waste 
processing strategy successfully demonstrates that the selected 
represented constituent meets delisting limits (as required as a 
condition of today's proposal), any other constituent in the same 
treatability group would either be less toxic, or be more completely 
destroyed or removed from the treated effluent than the representative 
constituent. In either instance, the selected representative 
constituent will always be the limiting factor within each treatability 
group with respect to meeting the requirements to exclude a particular 
waste.
    The following are exceptions to this methodology.
     Group 2: Diethylstilbestrol, also called estrogen, was not 
selected because of analytical measurement difficulties and this 
constituent is highly unlikely to be in wastewater treated at the 200 
Area ETF.
     Group 9a: 1-Butanol was chosen over propargyl alcohol 
because 1-butanol is expected to be more prevalent in wastewaters 
treated at the 200 Area ETF. Should treatment efficiency of the 200 
Area ETF be limited by this treatability group, the greater prevalence 
of 1-butanol increases the likelihood that this treatment limitation 
would be identified by the verification sampling program. In other 
words, a constituent that is rarely found even in wastes prior to 
treatment would not be a good indicator of whether or not effective 
treatment has occurred, since such a constituent would not be expected 
to be found in treated effluent even after ineffective treatment.
     Group 10a: All constituents containing hydrazine were 
eliminated from selection because of their reactivity under strong 
oxidizing conditions

[[Page 42403]]

present in the UV/OX system at the 200 Area ETF. Because these 
constituents react so quickly in the conditions occurring in the UV/OX 
system, they do not provide appropriate measures of effective treatment 
for this treatability group.
     Group 10e: N-Nitrosodimethylamine was chosen. Because of 
analytical measurement difficulties, the delisting level is the PQL.
     Group 12: The delisting level for PCBs is based on the 
TSCA limit of 0.0005 mg/L (0.5 ppb). This level is where treated 
remediation waste is authorized for unrestricted use.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In establishing a delisting limit based on the TSCA 
unrestricted use limit of 0.5 parts per billion for liquid 
remediation wastes, EPA is not necessarily representing that 
wastewaters managed by the 200 Area ETF are necessarily TSCA 
remediation wastes. Rather, EPA is simply ``borrowing'' a technical 
standard developed for PCBs and applying it in a RCRA exclusion 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Group 17, 17a: The aldehyde group, in general, is reactive 
in water, which makes these constituents unlikely to be in wastewaters 
treated at the 200 Area ETF. Also, the reactivity of aldehydes causes 
analytical problems where these are difficult to analyze in the 
laboratory. The aldehyde group will be represented by treatability 
Group 13, the group that is most difficult to destroy.
     Group 19: Acetone was chosen over acetophenone because 
acetone is expected to be a more prevalent contaminant in wastewaters 
treated at the 200 Area ETF.
     Group 22, 21: The delisting level for arsenic is based on 
the PQL rather than the HBL. The delisting level for lead is based on 
the MCL for drinking water rather than a level based on toxicity.
     Group 25: This group includes group 25a and 25b. Tributyl 
phosphate was chosen from this group as tributyl phosphate is expected 
to be more prevalent in wastewaters treated at the 200 Area ETF.
    EPA has not specifically evaluated environmental receptors in the 
original delisting or today's proposal because the proposed management 
scenario for excluded wastes is specifically intended to preclude 
exposure for an extended period of time during natural decay of 
radioactive tritium (tritium is technically impracticable to treat or 
remove from the 200 Area ETF effluent). To ensure treated effluent is 
not managed in a manner that might create environmental exposures, the 
EPA is proposing to limit management of treated effluent to the SALDS 
disposal unit.
    Based on this methodology, Table 1 provides a list of proposed 
delisting constituents and delisting levels.

               Table 1.--Proposed Delisting Constituents and Delisting Levels for Treated Effluent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Proposed                                                                     Proposed
   Treatability        delisting      CAS                                                       level (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  Cresol [Cresylic     1319-77-3  2.0 x 10-11......       10  Representing                  1.2
                    acid]*.                                                     group, has
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and highest
                                                                                EE/O of group,
                                                                                target compound
                                                                                in SW-846
                                                                                method(4), PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
2................  2,4,6-                 88-06-2  6.0 x 10-2.......       10  Representing           3.6 x 10-1
                    trichlorophenol.                                            group, has a low
                                                                                HBL and is a
                                                                                hard to destroy
                                                                                compound, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
3, 15, 15a.......  Benzene*.........      71-43-2  1.0 x 10-2.......        3  Representing           6.0 x 10-2
                                                                                group, the
                                                                                compound with
                                                                                the lowest HBL,
                                                                                target compound
                                                                                in SW-846
                                                                                method, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level.
4................  Chrysene.........     218-01-9  9.0 x 10-2.......       10  Representing           5.6 x 10-1
                                                                                group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and is one
                                                                                of the hard to
                                                                                destroy
                                                                                compounds,
                                                                                target compound
                                                                                in SW-846
                                                                                method, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level. Chrysene
                                                                                was chosen
                                                                                because the
                                                                                other
                                                                                constituents
                                                                                with lower HBLs
                                                                                have analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties.
5, 5a, 16........  Hexachlorobenzene     118-74-1  4.0 x 10-4.......       10  Representing           2.0 x 10-3
                                                                                group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and is one
                                                                                of the hard to
                                                                                destroy
                                                                                compounds,
                                                                                target compound
                                                                                in SW-846
                                                                                method, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level.
                                                                                Hexachlorobenzen
                                                                                e was chosen
                                                                                because
                                                                                Heptachlorodiben
                                                                                zofuran and
                                                                                Heptachlorodiben
                                                                                zo-p-dioxins
                                                                                have analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties.
6b, 14...........  Hexachlorocyclope      77-47-4  3.0 x 10-2.......       10  Representing           1.8 x 10-1
                    ntadiene.                                                   group, has a low
                                                                                HBL and is a
                                                                                hard to destroy
                                                                                compound, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Hexachlorocyclop
                                                                                entadiene was
                                                                                chosen over 1,4-
                                                                                Dichloro-2-
                                                                                butene and
                                                                                Hexachlorobutadi
                                                                                ene because of
                                                                                analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties,
                                                                                and over 1,1-
                                                                                Dichloroethylene
                                                                                and Vinyl
                                                                                chloride because
                                                                                of a higher EE/O.

[[Page 42404]]

 
7a...............  Dichloroisopropyl     108-60-1  1.0 x 10-3.......       15  Representing           6.0 x 10-2
                    ether [Bis(2-                                               group 7a and 7b,
                    Chloroisopropyl)                                            has a relatively
                    ether].                                                     low HBL and the
                                                                                EE/O is highest
                                                                                of group, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Dichloroisopropy
                                                                                l ether was
                                                                                chosen over
                                                                                Bis(2-
                                                                                Chloroethyl)
                                                                                ether and
                                                                                Dichloromethyl
                                                                                ether because of
                                                                                a higher EE/O.
8................  Di-n-                 117-84-0  8.0 x 10-2.......       15  Representing           4.8 x 10-1
                    octylphthalate*.                                            group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and the EE/O
                                                                                is highest of
                                                                                group, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
9a...............  1-Butanol*.......      71-36-3  4 x 10-1.........       10  Representing                  2.4
                                                                                group, the
                                                                                compound with
                                                                                the lowest HBL,
                                                                                target compound
                                                                                in SW-846
                                                                                method, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level.
9................  Isophorone.......      78-59-1  7.0 x 10-1.......       30  Representing                  4.2
                                                                                group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and the EE/O
                                                                                is highest of
                                                                                group, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Isophorone was
                                                                                chosen because
                                                                                the other
                                                                                constituents
                                                                                with lower HBLs
                                                                                have analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties and
                                                                                isophorone had
                                                                                the highest EE/O.
10a..............  Diphenylamine....     122-39-4  9.0 x 10-2.......       15  Representing           5.6 x 10-1
                                                                                group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and the EE/O
                                                                                is close to
                                                                                highest of
                                                                                group, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Diphenylamine
                                                                                was chosen
                                                                                because other
                                                                                constituents
                                                                                with lower HBLs
                                                                                have analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties.
10b..............  p-Chloroaniline..     106-47-8  2.0 x 10-2.......       10  Representing           1.2 x 10-1
                                                                                group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and the EE/O
                                                                                is highest of
                                                                                group, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                p-Chloroaniline
                                                                                was chosen over
                                                                                4,4[min]-
                                                                                Methylenebis(2-
                                                                                chloroaniline)
                                                                                and o-
                                                                                Nitroaniline
                                                                                because of
                                                                                analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties.
10c..............  Acetonitrile.....      75-05-8  Rescinded,              10  Representing                  1.2
                                                    previous (1994)             group, has a
                                                    HBL is 0.2 mg/L.            relatively low
                                                                                HBL and the EE/O
                                                                                is close to
                                                                                highest of
                                                                                group, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                the 1994
                                                                                established HBL
                                                                                (0.2 mg/l) is
                                                                                used.
                                                                                Acetonitrile was
                                                                                chosen because
                                                                                it has, by far,
                                                                                the highest EE/O.
10d..............  Carbazole........      86-74-8  3.0 x 10-2.......       30  Representing           1.8 x 10-1
                                                                                group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and it is
                                                                                one of the more
                                                                                difficult
                                                                                compounds to
                                                                                destroy, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Carbazole was
                                                                                chosen because
                                                                                other
                                                                                constituents
                                                                                with lower HBLs
                                                                                have analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties.
10e..............  N-                     62-75-9  1.0 x 10-5.......       10  Representing           2.0 x 10-2
                    Nitrosodimethyla                                            group, target
                    mine.                                                       compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method,
                                                                                because of
                                                                                analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties,
                                                                                the PQL is used
                                                                                as the delisting
                                                                                level.
10f..............  Pyridine.........     110-86	1  4.0 x 10-3.......        4  Representing           2.4 x 10-2
                                                                                group, the
                                                                                compound with a
                                                                                low HBL, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Pyridine was
                                                                                chosen because
                                                                                the other
                                                                                constituent with
                                                                                a lower HBL has
                                                                                analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties.

[[Page 42405]]

 
11...............  Lindane [gamma-        58-89-9  5.0 x 10-4.......       40  Representing           3.0 x 10-3
                    BHC].                                                       group, has a low
                                                                                HBL and is one
                                                                                of the more
                                                                                difficult
                                                                                compounds to
                                                                                destroy, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Lindane was
                                                                                chosen because
                                                                                of those with
                                                                                lower HBLs
                                                                                lindane has the
                                                                                highest EE/O.
12...............  Aroclor 1016,             PCBs  3.0 x 10-4.......       15  Representing           5.0 x 10-4
                    1221, 1232,                                                 group, target
                    1242, 1248,                                                 compound in SW-
                    1254, 1260.                                                 846 method,
                                                                                delisting level
                                                                                based on TSCA
                                                                                value, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level.
13, 6a...........  Carbon                 56-23-5  3.0 x 10-3.......      200  Representing           1.8 x 10-2
                    tetrachloride*.                                             group, has
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and is the
                                                                                compound with
                                                                                the highest EE/
                                                                                O, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Carbon
                                                                                tetrachloride
                                                                                was chosen
                                                                                because the
                                                                                other
                                                                                constituent with
                                                                                a lower HBL has
                                                                                analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties and
                                                                                carbon
                                                                                tetrachloride
                                                                                has by far the
                                                                                highest EE/O.
18a..............  Tetrahydrofuran..     109-99-9  9.0 x 10-2.......        4  Representing           5.6 x 10-1
                                                                                group 18 and
                                                                                18a, a compound
                                                                                with relatively
                                                                                low HBL, target
                                                                                compound in SW-
                                                                                846 method, PQL
                                                                                less than
                                                                                delisting level.
                                                                                Tetrahydrofuran
                                                                                was chosen
                                                                                because the
                                                                                other
                                                                                constituent with
                                                                                a lower HBL has
                                                                                analytical
                                                                                measurement
                                                                                difficulties.
19...............  Acetone*.........      67-64-1  4.0 x 10-1.......       10  Representing                  2.4
                                                                                group, has a
                                                                                relatively low
                                                                                HBL and is one
                                                                                of the harder to
                                                                                destroy
                                                                                compounds,
                                                                                target compound
                                                                                in SW-846
                                                                                method, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level.
20...............  Carbon disulfide.      75-15-0  4.0 x 10-1.......        5  Representing                  2.3
                                                                                group, the
                                                                                compound with
                                                                                the lowest HBL,
                                                                                target compound
                                                                                in SW-846
                                                                                method, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level.
21, 22...........  Barium*..........    7440-39-3  3.0 x 10-1.......  .......  HBL x DAF is                  1.6
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
21, 22...........  Beryllium*.......    7440-41-7  8.0 x 10-3.......  .......  HBL x DAF is           4.5 x 10-2
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
21, 22...........  Nickel*..........    7440-02-0  8.0e10-2.........  .......  HBL x DAF is           4.5 x 10-1
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
21, 22...........  Silver*..........    7440-22-4  2.0 x 10-2.......  .......  HBL x DAF is           1.1 x 10-1
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
21, 22...........  Vanadium*........    7440-62-2  3.0 x 10-2.......  .......  HBL x DAF is           1.6 x 10-1
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
21, 22...........  Zinc*............    7440-66-6  1.0..............  .......  HBL x DAF is                  6.8
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
22, 21...........  Arsenic*.........    7440-38-2  5.0 x 10-4.......  .......  HBL below PQL,         1.5 x 10-2
                                                                                PQL of 0.015 mg/
                                                                                L used as
                                                                                delisting level.
22, 21...........  Cadmium*.........    7440-43-9  2.0 x 10-3.......  .......  HBL x DAF is           1.1 x 10-2
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
22, 21...........  Chromium*........    7440-47-3  1.0 x 10-2.......  .......  HBL x DAF is           6.8 x 10-2
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
22, 21...........  Lead*............    7439-92-1  1.5 x 10-2.......  .......  No HBL, used MCL       9.0 x 10-2
                                                                                of 0.015 mg/L
                                                                                and DAF = 6,
                                                                                (MCL * DAF).
22, 21...........  Mercury*.........    7439-97-6  1.0 x 10-3.......  .......  HBL x DAF is        6.8 x 10-3(2)
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
22, 21...........  Selenium*........    7782-49-2  2.0 x 10-2.......  .......  HBL x DAF is           1.1 x 10-1
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
23...............  Fluoride*........   16984-48-8  2.0 x 10-1.......  .......  HBL x DAF is                  1.2
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
24...............  Ammonia*.........    7664-41-7  1.0(3)...........  .......  HBL x DAF is                  6.0
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.
24...............  Cyanide*.........      57-12-5  8.0 x 10-2.......  .......  HBL x DAF is           4.8 x 10-1
                                                                                delisting level,
                                                                                PQL is less than
                                                                                delisting level.

[[Page 42406]]

 
25a..............  Tributyl              126-73-8  2.0 x 10-2(3)....        5  Representing          1.2 x 10-1
                    phosphate*.                                                 group 25a and
                                                                                25b, the
                                                                                compound with a
                                                                                low HBL, target
                                                                                compound in EPA
                                                                                method, PQL less
                                                                                than delisting
                                                                                level. No
                                                                                updated HBL.
                                                                                Previous
                                                                                delisting level
                                                                                is used,
                                                                                adjusted for a
                                                                                DAF of 6 instead
                                                                                of 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstract Service. DAF = dilution attenuation factor. HBL = health-based levels. MCL = maximum
  contamination limit. PQL = practical quantitation limit. TSCA = Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. (1) The
  HBL for cresol is assumed to be that for o-cresol and m-cresol. (2) The HBL for ammonia is assumed to be the
  same as used in the initial Delisting Petition. (3) The HBL for tributyl phosphate is assumed to be the same
  as used in the initial Delisting Petition. (4) The phrase ``Target compound in SW-846'' means that the
  associated constituent can be analyzed for and reported using promulgated SW-846 analytical methods.
*Current delisting parameters.

E. What Other Factors Did EPA Consider in Its Evaluation?

    As noted in section III.C, EPA believes that the approach used in 
the original 200 Area ETF treated effluent delisting action is sound 
and environmentally protective. Further, EPA does not believe there is 
any basis to expand on the analysis conducted to support the original 
200 Area ETF delisting. EPA has considered the potential for, but has 
concluded that there are no other factors that warrant consideration in 
this proposed delisting modification.

F. What Did EPA Conclude About DOE-RL's Analysis?

    After reviewing the DOE-RL petition, EPA concludes that (1) no RCRA 
hazardous constituents are likely to be present in treated effluent 
above the proposed health-based delisting levels; and (2) the 
petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of 
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (refer to 40 CFR 
261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24, respectively).\12\ In addition, EPA 
considered other factors or criteria enumerated in section I.B that 
could cause the wastes to be hazardous under RCRA. Today's proposal 
expands the list of constituents for which the wastes are excluded to 
include certain U- and P-listed waste numbers which are defined by 40 
CFR 261.33 as acutely hazardous. EPA's analysis demonstrates that 
treated effluents do not contain U- and P-listed constituents above 
health-based delisting levels, and therefor no longer meet the criteria 
under which the waste was originally listed as an acutely hazardous 
waste. Therefore, the treated effluents may be excluded from the 
definition of hazardous waste. The remaining factors discussed in 
section I.B were considered as part the analysis EPA performed to 
establish exclusion limits and the verification sampling program 
applicable to the wastes considered in today's proposed exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Delisting requirements of 40 CFR 260.22 state that an 
excluded waste cannot exhibit any of the characteristics of 
hazardous waste (reactivity, ignitability, corrosivity or toxicity). 
The delisting levels in today's proposal are below the toxicity 
characteristics levels, and there is no record of untreated or 
treated aqueous wastewaters associated with the 200 Area ETF having 
sufficient concentrations of any constituent to suggest that the 
reactivity or ignitability characteristic might be of concern with 
respect to treated effluents. Similarly, the nature of the treatment 
processes at the 200 Area ETF, which include multiple pH adjustment 
steps, insure that treated effluents do not exhibit the 
characteristic of corrosivity. EPA believes that treated effluents 
satisfy these delisting requirements. DOE-RL, however, must 
demonstrate that treated effluents do not exhibit the 
characteristics of ignitability or corrosivity through application 
of process knowledge or analytical sampling according to 40 CFR 
262.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. What Must DOE RL Do To Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed 
Exclusion?

    DOE-RL's obligation to demonstrate compliance with this proposed 
exclusion has two key components. The first is to demonstrate that each 
influent wastewater is within the processing capabilities (defined in 
this context as the ability to treat to delisting levels) of the 200 
Area ETF prior to treatment. This demonstration is made through 
application of the verified treatment efficiency process model for the 
200 Area ETF unit operations to waste characterization data required by 
the waste characterization and acceptance procedures in Hanford's site-
wide RCRA permit, WA7 89000 8967. The second component is a treated 
effluent sampling program intended to verify that the predicted 
treatment levels in fact are achieved. The verification sampling 
program in turn has two phases--an initial qualification sampling 
requirement applicable to all influent waste streams that do not have 
an operating history of treatment in 200 Area ETF, and an on-going 
verification ``spot check'' sampling requirement. The first 
qualification phase is intended to demonstrate that the predicted 
treatment efficiencies can be achieved for new waste streams, while the 
``spot check'' requirement is intended to identify any long-term 
changes in treatment efficiency or influent waste stream variability 
that would impact the ability of the 200 Area ETF to meet delisting 
requirements. At any time that an initial or verification sampling 
event indicates failure to meet delisting criteria, the DOE-RL is 
required to re-evaluate the waste characterization data (to identify 
any constituents, constituent levels, or other factors that might 
affect treatability of the waste), the treatment strategy and 
operational baseline, and to make any changes necessary to ensure 
subsequent batches of treated effluent do not fail delisting criteria. 
As with new treatment strategies, the initial treated effluent batch 
after any waste treatment strategy changes also is subject to 
verification sampling to ensure the treatment strategy changes are 
effective. In all cases where verification sampling is required, the 
corresponding batch of treated effluent cannot be discharged to the 
SALDS unit until compliance with delisting exclusion limits can be 
documented. Both of these overall compliance components and the two 
verification sampling program phases are essentially the same as in the 
original delisting action, with modifications to reflect actual 
operating experience and the additional influent wastes the 200 Area 
ETF expects to manage under this proposed exclusion.
    EPA is also proposing additional conditions to ensure ongoing 
compliance with delisting exclusion limits. First, EPA is proposing a 
re-opener provision to allow EPA to re-evaluate the protectiveness of 
today's exclusion limits and management requirements should new 
information become available that might alter

[[Page 42407]]

conclusions reached should today's proposal be finalized. EPA currently 
includes this re-opener provision as a standard component of delisting 
rulemakings. Second, EPA is proposing record keeping and reporting 
requirements. These conditions are intended to ensure that 
documentation of information necessary to review the compliance history 
of RL is appropriately recorded and maintained.

H. How Must DOE RL Manage the Delisted Waste for Disposal?

    As a condition of this proposed exclusion, DOE-RL would be required 
to dispose of treated effluent at the SALDS. As noted elsewhere in this 
proposal, EPA anticipates and encourages the DOE-RL to evaluate 
alternate reuse options for treated effluent. Such changes in 
management practices will require EPA approval pursuant to delisting 
condition 7.

I. How Must DOE RL Operate the Treatment Unit?

    The DOE-RL would be required to operate the 200 Area ETF according 
to the waste processing strategies developed pursuant to this proposed 
exclusion, if finalized, including the waste treatment strategy 
developed under Condition (1)(a). Although not a specific condition of 
this proposed delisting, the DOE-RL also must operate the 200 Area ETF 
in compliance with applicable RCRA regulations, the requirements of the 
Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7 89000 8967, and in part, the 
requirements of the State Waste Discharge Permit ST4500.

J. What Must DOE RL Do if the Process Changes?

    EPA expects that 200 Area ETF treatment technologies will evolve 
and/or change over the operating life of the unit in support of Hanford 
Facility cleanup. EPA is proposing an exclusion condition that will 
allow the DOE-RL to modify the treatability envelope for the 200 Area 
ETF with written EPA approval to reflect such changes. Under today's 
proposal, such changes to the treatability envelope will not require 
modifications to the exclusion rule. EPA notes that changes to the 
treatability envelope for ETF may require modification to the State 
Waste Discharge Permit ST4500 as well.
    EPA has included a re-opener clause that may also provide a basis 
for modification of this proposed exclusion to reflect substantial 
changes to ETF or its performance. Since it is not possible to 
completely anticipate potential future changes or modifications to the 
200 Area ETF treatment process, EPA is not providing a comprehensive 
definition of ``substantial'' in the context of the reopener clause. 
However, EPA is proposing that changes that would require Class II or 
Class III modifications to the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7 89000 
8967 would be considered ``substantial.'' Without enumerating all 
possible changes to the 200 Area ETF, this proposal serves as a general 
example of ``substantial'' changes.
    EPA notes that substantial changes to the 200 Area ETF that would 
warrant EPA review in the context of today's proposed exclusion would 
also likely require modification of the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit 
WA7 89000 8967

K. What Data Must DOE RL Submit?

    EPA believes that the methodology in this proposed exclusion 
provides a sound and robust basis to accommodate the diverse waste 
streams expected to be managed by the 200 Area ETF under this proposed 
exclusion. Based on the 200 Area ETF operating history, EPA does not 
expect that the RL will encounter exceedances of delisting levels 
during verification sampling. Should exceedances occur, however, the 
retreatment and subsequent verification requirements of Conditions (2) 
and (3) in today's proposal provide assurances against environmental 
harm. Should such an exceedance occur, however, EPA believes that it 
might be indicative of unanticipated changes in waste streams or 200 
Area ETF operations that require regulatory evaluation beyond the self-
implementing provisions of Conditions (2) and (3). Therefore, EPA is 
proposing a recordkeeping and data submission requirement to ensure 
that EPA and Ecology are aware of such situations, and have the 
opportunity to take any appropriate response actions.
    The DOE-RL also must disclose new or different data related to the 
200 Area ETF or disposal of the waste if the data is relevant to the 
delisting (see Condition (4) of the proposed rule for the specifics of 
this requirement). This provision will allow EPA to re-evaluate the 
exclusion if new or additional information becomes available to EPA. 
The EPA will evaluate the information on which we based the decision to 
see if the information still is correct, or if circumstances have 
changed so that the information no longer is correct or would cause EPA 
to deny the petition if presented. This provision expressly requires 
the DOE-RL to report differing site conditions or assumptions used in 
the petition within 10 days. If EPA discovers such information itself 
or from a third party, EPA can act on the information as appropriate. 
The language being proposed is similar to those provisions found in 
RCRA regulations governing no-migration petitions at 40 CFR 268.6.
    EPA believes that we have the authority under RCRA and the 
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. (APA), to 
re-open a delisting decision. We may re open a delisting decision when 
we receive new information that calls into question the assumptions 
underlying the delisting.
    EPA believes a clear statement of its authority in delistings is 
merited in light of Agency experience, where the delisted waste leached 
at greater concentrations in the environment than the concentrations 
predicted when conducting the toxicity characteristic leaching 
procedure (TCLP), thus leading the Agency to repeal the delisting. See 
Reynolds Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July 14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 
(December 1, 1997). If a threat to human health and the environment 
presents itself, EPA will continue to address these situations case by 
case. Where necessary, EPA can make a good cause finding to justify 
emergency rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

L. What Happens if DOE RL Fails To Meet the Conditions of the 
Exclusion?

    If DOE-RL violates the terms and conditions established in the 
exclusion, the Agency may begin procedures to withdraw the exclusion. 
If the analytical testing of the waste indicates treated effluents do 
not meet the delisting criteria described previously, the DOE-RL must 
notify EPA according to Condition (6). Because the 200 Area ETF 
provides the capability to re-treat waste, EPA is not proposing to 
suspend this proposed exclusion if verification sampling results fail 
to demonstrate compliance with delisting levels. The proposed delisting 
conditions do, however, require the DOE-RL to review and/or modify the 
associated waste processing strategy to ensure future treatment batches 
meet delisting criteria, and to perform additional verification testing 
to demonstrate that changes are effective. Since the conditions of 
today's proposed exclusion require DOE-RL to maintain records of 
verification sampling and waste processing strategies, and report 
verification failures to EPA (see Condition 6(b)), EPA can evaluate 
whether verification sampling failures are isolated and adequately 
addressed by re-treatment, or indicative of repeated and consistent 
failures that might warrant reopening of the exclusion rule under 
Condition 4. Note: Failure of treated effluent exclusion limits would 
not necessarily provide a basis to begin withdrawal proceedings,

[[Page 42408]]

because the waste could be managed as hazardous without violating terms 
of today's proposed exclusion, or applicable waste management 
requirements.

M. What Is EPA's Final Evaluation of This Delisting Petition?

    We have reviewed DOE-RL's November 29, 2001 delisting petition, the 
operating history of the 200 Area ETF treatment process, the basis EPA 
used to establish the original delisting, and DOE-RL's proposed 
delisting levels and approach for waste acceptance and processing 
strategy development for new waste streams. EPA believes that these 
data and information provide a sufficient basis for EPA to grant the 
proposed modifications to the existing exclusion. The framework 
proposed by the DOE-RL for the 200 Area ETF operations, along with the 
updated verification requirement being proposed, ensures that the 
treated effluent will not pose a threat when managed as non-hazardous 
low-level radioactive waste in the SALDS. EPA, therefore, proposes to 
grant the proposed exclusion modification.
    If we finalize this proposed exclusion, EPA no longer will regulate 
the petitioned waste as a listed hazardous waste under 40 CFR parts 262 
through 268 and the permitting standards of part 270.

N. Relationship Between Today's Proposed Action and Compliance LDR 
Treatment Standards

    Today's action proposes to exclude certain wastes from the 
definition of hazardous waste under the authority of 40 CFR 260.20 and 
260.22. EPA is not proposing any action that establishes or imposes 
treatment requirements under the authority of land disposal restriction 
rules appearing at 40 CFR part 268, nor is EPA proposing that the 
numerical delisting criteria in today's proposal necessarily satisfy 
existing LDR treatment standards that may be applicable to treated 
effluents. In general, all of the influent wastewaters considered in 
today's proposal are expected to be generated and actively managed 
prior to the point of exclusion, should today's proposal be finalized. 
As such, EPA believes that the treated effluent in question are 
prohibited wastes and subject to applicable LDR treatment requirements 
prior to land disposal at the SALDS. For disposal at SALDS, applicable 
LDR prohibitions and treatment requirements are specified by WAC 173-
303-140, which incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 268.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'', 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a 
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This proposal to grant 
an exclusion is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866, since its effect, if promulgated, would be to 
reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste 
management regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding 
waste generated at a specific facility from EPA's lists of hazardous 
wastes, thus enabling a facility to manage its waste as non-hazardous. 
Therefore, EPA has determined that this proposed rule is not subject to 
OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., is intended 
to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated 
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information 
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that 
information requests and recordkeeping requirements affecting ten or 
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Although this action 
proposes to establish or modify information and recordkeeping 
requirements for DOE-RL, it does not impose those requirements on any 
other facility or respondents, and therefore is not subject to the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small 
entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as codified in the Small 
Business Administration Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not 
have a significant impact on small entities because the proposed rule 
will only have the effect of impacting the waste management of waste 
proposed for conditional delisting at the Hanford facility in the State 
of Washington. After considering the economic impacts of today's 
proposed rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue 
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

[[Page 42409]]

than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 
any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed 
under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan 
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, 
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and 
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with 
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 
regulatory requirements.
    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable 
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 
Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this proposed 
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of 
section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule addresses the 
conditional delisting of waste at the federal Hanford Facility. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although Section 6 
of the Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA 
did consult with representatives of State and local governments in 
developing this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 
proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The 
rule proposes to conditionally delist certain waste streams at the 
federal Hanford Facility and does not establish any regulatory policy 
with tribal implications. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on 
this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed action 
present a disproportionate risk to children. The proposed rule concerns 
the proposed conditional delisting of certain waste streams at the 
Hanford facility.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through the Offce of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the 
Agency decides to use ``government-unique'' standards in lieu of 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring and 
measurement, but is not establishing new technical standards for 
verifying compliance with concentration limits, data quality or test 
methodology. EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, 
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use 
of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or 
not, that meets the prescribed performance criteria. Examples of 
performance criteria are discussed in ``Test Methods for Evaluating 
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication-846, Third 
Edition, as amended by updates I, II, IIA, IIB and III. EPA welcomes 
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary 
consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in 
this regulation, if finalized.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and 
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on

[[Page 42410]]

the National Performance Review, each Federal agency must make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States and its territories and possessions, the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the 
Mariana Islands. Because this proposed rule addresses the conditional 
delisting of certain waste streams at the Hanford Facility, with no 
anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, 
the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: July 6, 2004.
L. John Iani,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFYING AND LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    2. In Table 2, of Appendix IX of part 261, it is proposed to revise 
the entry for ``DOE RL, Richland, WA'' to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Water Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and 
260.22

* * * * *

                                 Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Facility/address                                         Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Department of Energy, Richland Operations (DOE-RL),   Treated effluents bearing the waste numbers identified
 Richland, Washington.                                 below, from the 200 Area ETF located at the Hanford
                                                       Facility, at a maximum generation rate of 210 million
                                                       liters per year, subject to Conditions 1-7: This
                                                       conditional exclusion applies to EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
                                                       F001, F002, F003, F004, F005, and F039. In addition, this
                                                       conditional exclusion applies to all other U- and P-
                                                       listed waste numbers that meet the following criteria:
                                                      The U/P listed substance has a treatment standard
                                                       established for wastewater forms of F039 multi-source
                                                       leachate under 40 CFR 268.40, ``Treatment Standards for
                                                       Hazardous Wastes''; and
                                                      The as-generated waste stream prior to treatment in the
                                                       200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (200 Area ETF) is in
                                                       the form of dilute wastewater containing a maximum of 1.0
                                                       weight percent of any hazardous constituent. This
                                                       exclusion shall apply at the point of discharge from the
                                                       200 Area ETF verification tanks after satisfaction of
                                                       Conditions 1-7.
                                                      Conditions:
                                                      (1) Waste Influent Characterization and Processing
                                                       Strategy Preparation.
                                                      (a) Prior to treatment of any waste stream in the 200 Area
                                                       ETF, the DOE-RL must:
                                                      (i) Complete sufficient characterization of the waste
                                                       stream to demonstrate that the waste stream is within the
                                                       treatability envelope of 200 Area ETF as specified in
                                                       Tables C-1 and C-2 of the delisting petition dated
                                                       November 20, 2001. Results of the waste stream
                                                       characterization and the treatability evaluation must be
                                                       in writing and placed in the facility operating record,
                                                       along with a copy of the November 29, 2001 petition.
                                                       Waste stream characterization may be carried out in whole
                                                       or in part using the waste analysis procedures in the
                                                       Hanford Facility RCRA Permit, WA7 89000 8967;
                                                      (ii) Prepare a written waste processing strategy specific
                                                       to the waste stream, based on the ETF process model
                                                       documented in the November 29, 2001 petition.
                                                      (b) DOE-RL may modify the 200 Area ETF treatability
                                                       envelope specified in Tables C-1 and C-2 of the November
                                                       29, 2001 delisting petition to reflect changes in
                                                       treatment technology or operating practices upon written
                                                       approval of the Regional Administrator.
                                                      (c) DOE-RL shall conduct all 200 Area ETF treatment
                                                       operations for a particular waste stream according to the
                                                       written waste processing strategy, as may be modified by
                                                       Condition 3(b)(1).
                                                      (d) The following definitions apply:
                                                      (i) A waste stream is defined as all wastewater received
                                                       by the 200 Area ETF that meet the 200 Area ETF waste
                                                       acceptance criteria as defined by the Hanford Facility
                                                       RCRA Permit, WA7 89000 8967 and are managed under the
                                                       same 200 Area ETF waste processing strategy.
                                                      (ii) A waste processing strategy is defined as a specific
                                                       200 Area ETF unit operation configuration, primary
                                                       operating parameters and expected maximum influent total
                                                       dissolved solids (TDS) and total organic waste carbon
                                                       (TOC). Each processing strategy shall require monitoring
                                                       and recording of treated effluent conductivity for
                                                       purposes of Condition (2)(b)(i)(E), and for monitoring
                                                       and recording of primary operating parameters as
                                                       necessary to demonstrate that 200 Area ETF operations are
                                                       in accordance with the associated waste processing
                                                       strategy.
                                                      (iii) Primary operating parameters are defined as
                                                       ultraviolet oxidation (UV/OX) peroxide addition rate,
                                                       reverse osmosis reject ratio, and processing flow rate as
                                                       measured at the 200 Area ETF surge tank outlet.
                                                      (iv) Key unit operations are defined as filtration, UV/OX,
                                                       reverse osmosis, ion exchange, and secondary waste
                                                       treatment.
                                                      (2) Testing. DOE-RL shall perform verification testing of
                                                       treated effluents according to Conditions (a), (b), and
                                                       (c) below.
                                                      (a) Sample collection and analysis, including quality
                                                       control (QC) procedures, must be performed according to
                                                       current version of SW-846 or other EPA-approved
                                                       methodologies. DOE-RL shall maintain a written sampling
                                                       and analysis plan in the facility operating record.
                                                       Results of all sampling and analysis, including quality
                                                       assurance (QA)/QC information, shall be placed in the
                                                       facility operating record.
                                                      (b) Initial verification testing.
                                                      (i) Verification sampling shall consist of a
                                                       representative sample of one filled effluent discharge
                                                       tank, analyzed for all constituents in Condition (5), and
                                                       for conductivity for purposes of establishing a
                                                       conductivity baseline with respect to Condition
                                                       (2)(b)(i)(E). Verification sampling shall be required
                                                       under each of the following conditions:
                                                      (A) Any new or modified waste processing strategy;

[[Page 42411]]

 
                                                      (B) Influent wastewater total dissolved solids or total
                                                       organic carbon concentration increases by an order of
                                                       magnitude or more above values established in the waste
                                                       processing strategy;
                                                      (C) Changes in primary operating parameters;
                                                      (D) Changes in influent flow rate outside a range of 150
                                                       to 570 liters per minute;
                                                      (E) Increase greater than a factor of ten (10) in treated
                                                       effluent conductivity (conductivity changes indicate
                                                       changes in dissolved ionic constituents, which in turn
                                                       are a good indicator of 200 Area ETF treatment
                                                       efficiency).
                                                      (F) Any failure of initial verification required by this
                                                       condition, or subsequent verification required by
                                                       Condition (2)(c).
                                                      (ii) Treated effluents shall be managed according to
                                                       Condition 3. Once Condition (3)(a) is satisfied,
                                                       subsequent verification testing shall be performed
                                                       according to Condition (2)(c).
                                                      (c) Subsequent Verification: Following successful initial
                                                       verification associated with a specific waste processing
                                                       strategy, DOE-RL must continue to monitor primary
                                                       operating parameters, and collect and analyze
                                                       representative samples from every fifteenth (15th)
                                                       verification tank filled with 200 Area ETF effluents
                                                       processed according to the associated waste processing
                                                       strategy. These representative samples must be analyzed
                                                       prior to disposal of 200 Area ETF effluents for all
                                                       constituents in Condition (5). Treated effluent from
                                                       tanks sampled according to this condition must be managed
                                                       according to Condition (3).
                                                      (3) Waste Holding and Handling: DOE-RL must store as
                                                       hazardous waste all 200 Area ETF effluents subject to
                                                       verification testing in Conditions (2)(b) and (2)(c),
                                                       that is, until valid analyses demonstrate Condition (5)
                                                       is satisfied.
                                                      (a) If the levels of hazardous constituents in the samples
                                                       of 200 Area ETF effluent are equal to or below the levels
                                                       set forth in Condition (5), the 200 Area ETF effluents
                                                       are not listed as hazardous wastes provided they are
                                                       disposed of in the State Authorized Land Disposal Site
                                                       (SALDS) (except as provided pursuant to Condition (7)),
                                                       according to applicable requirements and permits.
                                                       Subsequent treated effluent batches shall be subject to
                                                       verification requirements of Condition (2)(c).
                                                      (b) If hazardous constituent levels in any representative
                                                       sample collected from a verification tank exceed any of
                                                       the delisting levels set in Condition (5), DOE-RL must:
                                                      (i) Review waste characterization data, and review and
                                                       change accordingly the waste processing strategy as
                                                       necessary to ensure subsequent batches of treated
                                                       effluent do not exceed delisting criteria;
                                                      (ii) Retreat the contents of the failing verification
                                                       tank;
                                                      (iii) Perform verification testing on the retreated
                                                       effluent. If constituent concentrations are at or below
                                                       delisting levels in Condition (5), the treated effluent
                                                       are not listed hazardous waste provided they are disposed
                                                       at SALDS according to applicable requirements and permits
                                                       (except as provided pursuant to Condition (7)), otherwise
                                                       repeat the requirements of Condition (3(b).
                                                      (iv) Perform initial verification sampling according to
                                                       Condition (2)(b) on the next treated effluent tank once
                                                       testing required by Condition (3)(b)(iii) demonstrates
                                                       compliance with delisting requirements.
                                                      (4) Re-opener Language.
                                                      (a) If, anytime before, during, or after treatment of
                                                       waste in the 200 Area ETF, DOE-RL possesses or is
                                                       otherwise made aware of any data (including but not
                                                       limited to groundwater monitoring data, as well as data
                                                       concerning the accuracy of site conditions or the
                                                       validity of assumptions upon which the November 29, 2001
                                                       petition was based) relevant to the delisted waste
                                                       indicating that the treated effluent no longer meets
                                                       delisting criteria (excluding recordkeeping and data
                                                       submissions required by Condition (6)), or that
                                                       groundwater affected by discharge of the treated effluent
                                                       exhibits hazardous constituent concentrations above
                                                       health-based limits, DOE-RL must report such data, in
                                                       writing, to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of
                                                       first possessing or being made aware of that data.
                                                      (b) DOE-RL shall provide written notification to the
                                                       Regional Administrator no less than 180 days prior to any
                                                       planned or proposed substantial modifications to the 200
                                                       Area ETF, exclusive of routine maintenance activities.
                                                       This condition shall specifically include, but not be
                                                       limited to, changes that do or would require Class II and
                                                       III modification to the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit WA7
                                                       89000 8967 (in the case of permittee-initiated
                                                       modifications) or equivalent modifications in the case of
                                                       agency-initiated permit modifications. DOE-RL may request
                                                       a modification to the 180-day notification requirement of
                                                       this condition in the instance of agency-initiated permit
                                                       modifications for purposes of ensuring coordination with
                                                       permitting activities.
                                                      (c) Based on the information described in paragraph (4)(a)
                                                       or (4)(b) or any other relevant information received from
                                                       any source, the Regional Administrator will make a
                                                       preliminary determination as to whether the reported
                                                       information requires Agency action to protest human
                                                       health or the environment. Further action could include
                                                       suspending or revoking the exclusion, or other
                                                       appropriate response necessary to protect human health
                                                       and the environment.
                                                      (D) Delisting Levels: All total constituent concentrations
                                                       in treated effluents managed under this exclusion must be
                                                       equal to or less than the following levels, expressed as
                                                       mg/L:
                                                      Inorganic Constituents: Ammonia--6.0; Barium--1.6;
                                                       Beryllium--4.5 x 10-2; Nickel--4.5 x 10-1; Silver--1.1 x
                                                       10-1; Vanadium--1.6 x 10-1; Zinc--6.8; Arsenic--1.5 x 10-
                                                       2; Cadmium--1.1 x 10-2; Chromium--6.8 x 10-2; Lead--9.0 x
                                                       10-2; Mercury--6.8 x 10-3; Selenium--1.1 x 10-1;
                                                       Fluoride--1.2; Cyanides--4.8 x 10-1.
                                                      Organic Constituents: Cresol--1.2; 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol--
                                                       3.6 x 10-1; Benzene--6.0 x 10-2; Chrysene--5.6 x 10-1;
                                                       Hexachlorobenzene--2.0 x 10-3; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene--
                                                       1.8 x 10-1; Dichloroisopropyl ether; [Bis(2-
                                                       Chloroisopropyl) ether--6.0 x 10-2; Di-n-octylphthalate--
                                                       4.8 x 10-1; 1-Butanol--2.4; Isophorone--4.2;
                                                       Diphenylamine--5.6 x 10-1; p-Chloroaniline--1.2 x 10-1;
                                                       Acetonitrile--1.2; Carbazole--1.8 x 10-1; N-
                                                       Nitrosodimethylamine--2.0 x 10-3; Pyridine--2.4 x 10-2;
                                                       Lindane [gamma-BHC]--3.0 x 10-3; Arochlor [total of
                                                       Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260]--5.0
                                                       x 10-4; Carbon tetrachloride--1.8 x 10-2;
                                                       Tetrahydrofuran--5.6 x 10-1; Acetone--2.4; Carbon
                                                       disulfide--2.3; Tributyl phosphate--1.2 x 10-1.
                                                      (6) Recordkeeping and Data Submittals.

[[Page 42412]]

 
                                                      (a) DOE-RL shall maintain records of all waste
                                                       characterization, and waste processing strategies
                                                       required by Condition (1), and verification sampling
                                                       data, including QA/QC results, in the facility operating
                                                       record for a period of no less than three (3) years.
                                                       However, this period is automatically extended during the
                                                       course of any unresolved enforcement action regarding the
                                                       200 Area ETF or as requested by EPA.
                                                      (b) No less than thirty (30) days after receipt of
                                                       verification data indicating a failure to meet delisting
                                                       criteria of Condition (5), DOE-RL shall notify the
                                                       Regional Administrator. This notification shall include a
                                                       summary of waste characterization data for the associated
                                                       influent, verification data, and any corrective actions
                                                       taken according to Condition (3)(b)(i).
                                                      (c) Records required by Condition (6)(a) must be furnished
                                                       on request by EPA or the State of Washington and made
                                                       available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by
                                                       a signed copy of the following certification statement to
                                                       attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:
                                                      ``Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making
                                                       of submission of false or fraudulent statements or
                                                       representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of
                                                       the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited
                                                       to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928). I certify that
                                                       the information contained in or accompanying this
                                                       document is true, accurate, and complete.
                                                      As to the (those) identified section(s) of the document
                                                       for which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth
                                                       and accuracy, I certify as the official having
                                                       supervisory responsibility of the persons who, acting
                                                       under my direct instructions, made the verification that
                                                       this information is true, accurate, and complete.
                                                      In the event that any of this information is determined by
                                                       EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate, or
                                                       incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to DOE-RL, I
                                                       recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be
                                                       void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed
                                                       by EPA and that the DOE-RL will be liable for any actions
                                                       taken in contravention of its RCRA and CERCLA obligations
                                                       premised upon DOE-RL's reliance on the void exclusion.''
                                                      (7) Treated Effluent Disposal Requirements. DOE-RL may at
                                                       any time propose alternate reuse practices for treated
                                                       effluent managed under terms of this exclusion in lieu of
                                                       disposal at the SALDS. Such proposals must be in writing
                                                       to the Regional Administrator, and demonstrate that the
                                                       risks and potential human health or environmental
                                                       exposures from alternate treated effluent disposal or
                                                       reuse practices do not warrant retaining the waste as a
                                                       hazardous waste. Upon written approval by EPA of such a
                                                       proposal, non-hazardous treated effluents may be managed
                                                       according to the proposed alternate practices in lieu of
                                                       the SALDS disposal requirement in paragraph (3)(a). The
                                                       effect of such approved proposals shall be explicitly
                                                       limited to approving alternate disposal practices in lieu
                                                       of the requirements in paragraph (3)(a) to dispose of
                                                       treated effluent in SALDS.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 04-15945 Filed 7-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P