Department of Energy Hanford Mixed Radioactive Waste Land Disposal Restrictions Variance, 83065-83072 [2023-26123]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Secondary Lead Smelting Operations,
State effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62–
296.604, Electric Arc Furnace Equipped
Secondary Steel Manufacturing
Operations, state effective July 10, 2014;
Rule 62–296.700, Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Particulate
Matter, State effective August 14, 2019;
Rule 62–296.702, Fossil Fuel Steam
Generators, State effective July 10, 2014;
Rule 62–296.704, Asphalt Concrete
Plants, State effective July 10, 2014;
Rule 62–296.705, Phosphate Processing
Operations, State effective July 10, 2014;
Rule 62–296.707, Electric Arc Furnace,
State effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62–
296.708, Sweat or Pot Furnaces, State
effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62–296.711,
Materials Handling, Sizing, Screening,
Crushing and Grinding Operations,
State effective July 10, 2014; and Rule
62–296.712, Miscellaneous
Manufacturing Process Operations,
State effective July 10, 2014. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the ‘‘For Further
Information Contact’’ section of this
preamble for more information).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
IV. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed above, EPA
is proposing to approve the April 1,
2022, Florida SIP revision consisting of
amendments to Rules 62–296.320(4),
62–296.406, 62–296.602, 62–296.603,
62–296.604, 62–296.700, 62–296.702,
62–296.704, 62–296.705, 62–296.707,
62–296.708, 62–296.711, and 62–
296.712 in the Florida SIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
Tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The State of Florida did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83065
neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this
proposed action. Due to the nature of
the action being proposed here, this
proposed action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this proposed action, and there
is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving environmental
justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 21, 2023.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023–26107 Filed 11–27–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0372; FRL 11026–
04–OLEM]
Department of Energy Hanford Mixed
Radioactive Waste Land Disposal
Restrictions Variance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to grant a treatability
variance from the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards
for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
for approximately 2,000 gallons of
mixed low-activity waste from the
Hanford Site in Washington State. The
petitioner demonstrated that treatment
of the waste to the specified standard is
technically inappropriate, and the
treatment variance is sufficient to
minimize threats to human health and
the environment posed by land disposal
of the waste. If the variance is granted,
the waste will be stabilized subject to
specified conditions, and disposed at
EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah and/or
Waste Control Specialists in Andrews
County, Texas. The variance would
allow DOE, Washington, and EPA to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
28NOP1
83066
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
evaluate the regulatory pathways by
which separation, pretreatment,
stabilization, and offsite disposal could
be implemented for other Hanford
mixed low-activity waste.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OLEM–2023–0372, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Office of Land and Emergency
Management Docket, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA
Docket Center, WJC West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket
Center’s hours of operations are 8:30
a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except
Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bethany Russell, Waste Characterization
Branch, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery
(5304P), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202–566–0823; email address:
russell.bethany@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Docket
EPA has established a docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OLEM–2023–0372. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center. The Public
Reading Room for the docket is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern,
Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays. The telephone number for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
Public Reading Room and Docket Center
is (202) 566–1744.
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 2.
B. Written Comments
II. General Information
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–
0372, at https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or the other
methods identified in the ADDRESSES
section. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
A. Does this document apply to me?
C. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov or
email. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI to only the following
address: ORCR Document Control
Officer, Mail Code 5305–P,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460; Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OLEM–2023–0372.
Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD–
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. If you
submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not
contain CBI, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not
contain CBI. Information marked as CBI
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This action applies only to DOE’s
Hanford facility located in Richland,
Washington.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
On August 2, 2023, the EPA received
a petition from the DOE requesting a
variance from a treatment standard of
the LDR of 40 CFR 268.40 for disposal
of approximately 2,000 gallons of
hazardous wastes generated from DOE’s
Test Bed Initiative (TBI). This document
proposes to grant DOE’s petition for a
variance pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44.
C. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
Sections 3004(d) through (g) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6294(d)–(g),
prohibit the land disposal of hazardous
wastes unless such wastes meet the LDR
treatment standards (or treatment
standards) established by EPA (or the
Agency). Section 3004(m) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6924(m), requires EPA to set
levels or methods of treatment, if any,
which substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized. EPA has established
treatment standards for all hazardous
wastes.
However, when facilities generate
hazardous wastes which cannot be
treated to the specified levels, or when
it is technically inappropriate for such
wastes to undergo the prescribed
treatment, they can apply for a variance
from a treatment standard.1 The
requirements for a treatment variance
are found at 40 CFR 268.44. An
applicant for a treatment variance may
demonstrate that it is inappropriate to
require a waste to be treated to the level
or by the method specified as the
treatment standard, even though such
treatment is technically possible. This is
the criterion pertinent to today’s
action.2 The petitioner must also
1 See 51 FR at 40605–40606 (November 7, 1986);
see also 62 FR 64504 (December 5, 1997).
2 According to 42 CFR 268.44(a)(2), a petitioner
may obtain a variance from an applicable treatment
standard if it is inappropriate to require the waste
to be treated to the level specified in the treatment
standard or by the method specified as the
treatment standard, even though such treatment is
technically possible. To show that this is the case,
as applicable here, the petitioner must demonstrate
that treatment to the specified level or by the
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
28NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
demonstrate that compliance with any
given treatment variance is sufficient to
minimize threats to human health and
the environment posed by land disposal
of the waste.
III. Background
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Hanford Waste Description
Nearly 56 million gallons of
radioactive and hazardous waste (mixed
waste) were generated from the Hanford
Site’s role in our nation’s defense
program during the Manhattan Project
and the Cold War.3 A total of 149 single
shell tanks (SSTs) were constructed and
entered service at Hanford between the
1940s and 1960s to contain this waste.
Beginning in the 1960s, an additional 28
double shell tanks (DSTs) were also
constructed at Hanford. DST capacity is
crucial for retrieval of SST waste.
Between the 1940s and the mid-1980s,
approximately 240,000 tons of
hazardous chemicals were added to
Hanford’s tanks.4
DOE regulates certain radioactive
materials, including the radioactive
portion of mixed waste at Hanford,
pursuant to its self-regulating authority
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(AEA), 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq. The
Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECY) regulates the hazardous
portion of the mixed waste as dangerous
waste pursuant to the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) Chapter 70A.300
and Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) Chapter 173–303, as a State
authorized to implement a hazardous
waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Under RCRA and RCRA-authorized
Washington regulations, mixed wastes
are generally subject to the treatment
standards in 40 CFR 268.40. Where
there is no specific treatment standard
set forth for a mixed waste, the standard
applicable to the hazardous waste code
applies to the mixed waste. For certain
mixed wastes, specific treatment
standards have been established.
Treatment by high-level vitrification
(HLVIT) applies to the subcategory of
radioactive high-level mixed wastes
specified method is technically inappropriate (for
example, resulting in combustion of large amounts
of mildly contaminated environmental media).
Section 268.44(m) further requires the petitioner to
demonstrate that compliance with any given
treatment variance is sufficient to minimize threats
to human health and the environment posed by
land disposal of the waste.
3 See Hanford Test Bed Initiative Fact Sheet, July,
2018, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/
07/f53/Hanford%20Test%20Bed%20Initiative%20
Fact%20Sheet%207-12-18.pdf.
4 Government Accountability Office, GAO 22–
104365, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to
Enable DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of
Billions of Dollars (2021), at 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
generated during the reprocessing of
fuel rods and bearing the waste codes
D002 and/or D004 through D011.5 EPA
selected vitrification as the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) for this waste, and established
HLVIT as the treatment standard, in part
because stabilization would not provide
treatment of the high-level radioactive
portion of the waste, and because the
potential health hazards associated with
exposure to radioactivity during
analysis of this high-level mixed waste
precluded setting a concentration-based
treatment standard.6
B. Description of the Proposed
Treatment and Disposal
In 2013, DOE updated its decision to
separate tank wastes with low levels of
long-lived radionuclides (referred to as
low-activity waste or LAW) from other
tank waste, and to vitrify some of the
LAW at Hanford’s Tank Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant
(WTP). The vitrified waste form will be
disposed of onsite at Hanford’s
Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The
WTP has the design capacity to treat
only around 60 percent of the LAW
from the Hanford tanks.7 For the
remaining LAW, DOE did not select a
treatment method and found it would be
‘‘beneficial to study further the potential
cost, safety, and environmental
performance of supplemental treatment
technologies.’’ 8 DOE therefore proposed
the TBI Demonstration.
DOE describes the TBI Demonstration
as: (1) the onsite separation and
pretreatment of supernate from Tank
SY–101, located in the 200 West Area
on the Central Plateau of the Hanford
Site to remove the bulk of the key
radionuclides from the supernate; (2)
transport of the pretreated liquid waste
to an offsite treatment facility for
treatment using stabilization/
solidification (grouting); and (3)
disposal of the grouted waste form at a
commercial disposal facility outside the
State of Washington. Effectuating the
TBI Demonstration would allow DOE,
Washington, and EPA to evaluate the
regulatory pathways by which
separation, pretreatment, stabilization
(grouting), and offsite disposal could be
implemented for other Hanford mixed
low-activity waste. Concurrently, DOE
is applying for a Research Development
& Demonstration (RD&D) Permit from
ECY to perform the onsite pretreatment
5 See WAC 173–303–140, which incorporates by
reference 40 CFR 268 at WAC 173–303–140(2)(a).
6 55 FR 22520, 22627 (June 1, 1990).
7 See GAO 22–104365, Actions Needed to Enable
DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of Billions of
Dollars (2021), at 2.
8 See 78 FR 75916.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83067
activities associated with the TBI
Demonstration.9
On August 2, 2023, DOE submitted to
EPA a petition for a treatment variance
under 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2) to implement
the TBI Demonstration by treating
approximately 2,000 gallons of
supernate from Tank SY–101.10 DOE
selected Tank SY–101 for the TBI
because of, among other reasons, the
tank waste chemistry, including low
organic concentration.11 Separation and
pretreatment would involve filtration of
solids, and use of a crystalline
silicotitanate ion exchange media to
capture and remove key radionuclides
(including cesium (Cs-137) and
daughter barium (Ba-137m) and
strontium (Sr-90)) from the supernate.
Tank SY–101 consists of two layers: the
supernate, which comprises
approximately 81 percent of the tank
volume, and an undissolved salt cake
layer beneath the supernate.
As requested in the petition and
provided in this proposal, the pretreated
supernate would be subject to a
stabilization treatment method,
hereafter referred to as STABL, with
verification sampling to ensure the
treated waste meets the numerical LDR
treatment standards applicable to the
waste codes provided in this proposal.
The offsite commercial treatment
facilities identified in the petition,
EnergySolutions and Waste Control
Specialists, would be required to
conduct the stabilization treatment in
compliance with their RCRA permits, as
well as their radioactive material
licenses.
DOE anticipates that half of the
pretreated liquid would be transported
to EnergySolutions for grouting and
disposal at its commercial facility in
Clive, Utah, and half would be
transported to Waste Control Specialists
for grouting and disposal at its Federal
Waste Facility (FWF) in Andrews
County, Texas.12 The process totes used
to transport the pretreated liquid waste
offsite to EnergySolutions and Waste
Control Specialists for treatment would
meet all applicable U.S. Department of
9 U.S. Department of Energy, ORP–67633, 2,000Gallon Test Bed Initiative Demonstration Research,
Development, and Demonstration Permit
Application, Revision. 0 (June 8, 2023) (hereinafter,
RD&D Permit Application).
10 U.S. Department of Energy, 23–TF–0023, Test
Bed Initiative Land Disposal Restrictions Variance
Petition (August 1, 2023).
11 U.S. Department of Energy, Test Bed Initiative
at Hanford, Report to Congress (April 2019), at 7.
12 See U.S. Department of Energy, Memorandum:
Approval of Exemption of Use of Non-U.S.
Department of Energy Facilities for the 2,000-Gallon
Test Bed Initiative Demonstration (June 8, 2023).
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
28NOP1
83068
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Transportation (USDOT) requirements
under 49 CFR Subchapter C.
In accordance with DOE Order 435.1
Chg 2(AdminChg), Radioactive Waste
Management and DOE Manual 435.1–1
Chg 3(LtdChg), Radioactive Waste
Management Manual, DOE completed a
Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR)
Evaluation for the 2,000-gallon TBI
Demonstration in March 2023.13 Based
on the WIR Evaluation, DOE determined
that the separated, pretreated, and
solidified supernate from Tank SY–101
is waste incidental to the reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel, is not high-level
waste, and can be managed as a lowlevel waste.14
DOE also completed a Final
Environmental Assessment (Final EA)
for the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration
in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
DOE’s NEPA implementation
regulations, 10 CFR part 1021.15 In the
Final EA, DOE analyzed the
environmental impacts associated with
four combinations of facilities for
grouting and disposal of the pretreated
2,000 gallons of supernate from Tank
SY–101. The EA evaluated potential
impacts of the TBI Demonstration to air
quality, human health (both from
normal operations and accidents or
destructive acts), waste management,
and transportation. Any proposal to
separate, pretreat, stabilize, and dispose
of any tank waste other than the TBI
supernate from Tank SY–101 would be
evaluated in a separate NEPA review.
DOE sent the draft EA with a request for
input to host States and Tribes as well
as States and Tribes that could be
affected by the proposed action, as
documented in Section 4 of the EA.16
DOE determined that the four
alternatives analyzed for grouting and
disposal will not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment
13 U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ORP–2022–
02, Revision 0, Final Waste Incidental to
Reprocessing Evaluation for the Test Bed Initiative
Demonstration (hereinafter, Final WIR Evaluation)
(March 2023); see 88 FR 16615 (March 20, 2023).
https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/WIR_
%E2%80%93_Final_WIR_Evaluation_for_the_
TBI1.pdf.
14 WIR Determination.
15 U.S. Department of Energy, Final
Environmental Assessment of the Test Bed Initiative
Demonstration, DOE/EA–2086 (March 2023).
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/
ea-2086-test-bed-initiative-hanford-2023-03_0.pdf.
16 The following tribes and State agencies were
notified of the preparation of the EA: Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez
Perce Tribe, Yakama Nation Tribe, Wanapum Tribe,
Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, State of Utah Public Lands Policy
Coordination Office, Oregon State Department of
Energy, Washington State Department of Ecology.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
within the meaning of NEPA, and
therefore issued a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) on March
16, 2023.17
IV. Basis for EPA’s Proposed
Determination
A. EPA’s Approach to This Proposed
Variance
The regulatory framework and
associated requirements of the RCRA
LDR standards must be addressed to
implement the 2,000-gallon TBI
Demonstration and dispose of the
grouted waste form at EnergySolutions
in Clive, Utah, and/or Waste Control
Specialists in Andrews County, Texas.
As mentioned above, the LDR standard
under RCRA and RCRA-authorized
Washington regulations for the
subcategory of radioactive high-level
mixed wastes generated during the
reprocessing of fuel rods and bearing the
waste codes D002 and/or D004 through
D011 is HLVIT. DOE asserts that after
Tank SY–101 supernate is processed
through TBI, including separation of
high- and low-activity waste fractions,
pretreatment, and solidification,
following a re-classification through a
WIR determination, the solidified lowactivity waste fraction can be managed
and disposed as low-level radioactive
waste. Once those steps are completed,
DOE believes the HLVIT treatment
standard does not apply and thus the
separated, pretreated mixed waste
would not be required to be vitrified.
Washington interprets its RCRAauthorized LDR requirements such that
the waste designation and all associated
LDR treatment standards, including
HLVIT, have already attached to the
tank waste and remain attached to the
separated, pretreated low-activity
fraction of the tank waste until satisfied.
Thus, according to Washington, if the
waste is not vitrified, the HLVIT
standard would need to be removed
through some regulatory vehicle, such
as a treatment variance, in order for that
waste to be grouted instead of
vitrified.18
EPA’s decision to propose this
treatment variance approval does not
resolve DOE and the State’s differing
interpretations of the LDR requirements,
and EPA is not concluding that HLVIT
does or does not apply to the TBI waste.
Rather, EPA proposes to approve this
variance to provide a clear regulatory
17 Finding of No Significant Impact Test Bed
Initiative Demonstration Hanford Site, Washington,
DOE/EA–2086 (March 16, 2023). https://
www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/Final_--_230316_-_
NEPA_FONSI_for_TBI_(Digital).pdf.
18 For Washington’s statements describing its
position, see FFRDC Report 2023, Volume II p. 494–
495.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
pathway for the 2,000-gallon TBI to
proceed. As documented in a 2021
report by the General Accountability
Office,19 DOE, Washington, and EPA
agree that the TBI should proceed, to
test the viability of a grouting approach
to some of the Hanford tank waste.
However, the regulatory disagreement
between DOE and Washington remains
unresolved. In view of this
background—and the importance DOE,
Washington and EPA all attach to
making progress on the Hanford tank
waste mission—EPA proposes to
approve a variance clearly allowing the
TBI to proceed, on the specific terms
and subject to the specific conditions
proposed today, regardless of whose
interpretation forms the starting point
for the variance analysis.
Specifically, EPA proposes to subject
the TBI waste to a STABL (stabilization)
treatment method, with verification
sampling to ensure the treated waste
meets the LDR numerical standards, as
applicable, for waste codes F001–F005
(limited to constituents associated with
spent solvent activities at the Hanford
facility); D001–D011, D018, D019, D022,
D028–D030, D033–D036, D038–D041,
and D043. The waste codes included
herein are those identified on the
Dangerous Waste Permit Application
Part A form for the DST System, Rev. 4
(December 14, 2009), which includes
Tank SY–101.20 The codes include
listed hazardous wastes bearing organic
constituents, and toxic and corrosive
characteristic wastes which ordinarily
must meet concentration-based
treatment standards under Washington’s
RCRA-authorized program. DOE’s
petition requests to use STABL to meet
the numeric standard, therefore these
wastes are included in this variance.
19 GAO–22–104365.
20 See Petition, Table 1. The data provided in
Table 1 is derived from the Final Analytical Report
for Tank 241–SY–101 TBI Grab Sampling 2018,
RPP–RPT–61303 Rev. 05 (October 2020). All waste
codes that appear on the DST System Part A form
are included in this variance, with the exception of
F039 (because the DST System has not accepted
waste bearing that waste code). The sample result
suggests that Tank SY–101 supernate displays only
a limited subset of the waste codes listed on the
DST System Part A form. See RD&D Permit
Application, Sec. 4.1.2 and Table 4–1. DOE
explains that Tank SY–101 supernate does not
exhibit the characteristics of ignitability (D001) and
reactivity (D003) before or after pretreatment.
Nonetheless, EPA understands that Washington
views the SY–101 waste as bearing all of the codes
on the Part A form (except for F039) and is therefore
including the codes in the proposed variance, since
the facility is regulated under Washington’s
authorized program. The inclusion of D001 and
D003 does not affect the treatment required by the
variance, since treatment for underlying hazardous
characteristics for these waste codes is accounted
for by the treatment required for the corrosivity
(D002) and toxicity (D004–043) characteristics.
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
28NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2)(i), a
variance may be approved if it is
technically inappropriate to treat the
waste to the level specified in the
treatment standard, or by the method
specified as the treatment standard,
even though such treatment is
technically possible. As with any
section 268.44 treatment variance, the
petitioner must also show that
compliance with the variance will be
sufficient to minimize threats to human
health and the environment posed by
land disposal of the waste.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Proposed Technically Inappropriate
Determination
In promulgating the Land Disposal
Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled
Wastes (Third Third Rule) that
established the HLVIT treatment
standard, EPA expressly recognized the
effectiveness of grouting for
immobilizing inorganic hazardous
constituents in low-level mixed waste:
The Agency believes that for treatment of
metals in low-level mixed wastes and for
some TRU mixed wastes containing low
radioactive components, chemical
precipitation will remove the metals in
wastewaters, and stabilization technologies
will reduce the leachability of the metal
constituents in nonwastewater matrices.
These are the same technologies that are
applicable to nonradioactive wastes
containing metals.
DOE submitted data demonstrating the
applicability of stabilization as a treatment
technology for the low-level waste fractions
that are separated from the high-level waste
generated during the reprocessing of fuel
rods. As used by one particular facility, a
stabilization process called grout
stabilization involves blending commercially
produced cement-based reagents with the
liquid low-level waste fraction. The material
sets up as a solid mass, immobilizing the
waste. The performance data indicate that
stabilization provides immobilization of the
characteristic metal constituents and
radioactive contaminants for this low-level
radioactive waste, and that it is possible to
stabilize the RCRA hazardous portions to
meet the treatment levels for the
characteristic metals. . . .
DOE provided information to support that
vitrification is an applicable technology for
their high-level wastes generated from the
reprocessing of fuel rods. Treatment can be
accomplished by using either direct
vitrification or a more complex treatment
process which includes a series of chemical
steps that separate the low-level radioactive
waste fractions from the high-level
radioactive waste. The high-level radioactive
portion is then vitrified. When using
separation technologies such as precipitation
followed by settling or filtration, the bulk of
the radioactivity can be incorporated into a
high-level liquid waste containing up to 99
percent of the radioactivity of the original
irradiated fuel rods. By separating high-level
and low-level mixed wastes, the amount of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
high-level waste that may require
vitrification treatment can be reduced.
[55 FR 22626–2627 (June 1, 1990).]
Tank SY–101 contains both inorganic
and organic constituents; however,
sampling results from Tank SY–101
supernate 21 show that the organic
constituents in the waste are at least one
order of magnitude below the applicable
nonwastewater (NWW) concentrationbased LDR treatment standards except
for 1-butanol (also referred to as n-Butyl
alcohol).22 The sample results show that
1-butanol was not detected in the
sample, however, the laboratory
detection limit (2.78 mg/L) for this
constituent is slightly above the NWW
concentration-based standard (2.6 mg/
kg). Thus, 1-butanol is either below or
just slightly above this standard in the
pre-treated waste, and EPA is confident
that it will meet the LDR standard
following treatment, and that grouting is
an appropriate treatment technology for
this constituent in this waste.
As referenced above, EPA expresses
no opinion on whether the waste subject
to this proposed variance must be
vitrified under ECY’s RCRA-authorized
LDR regulations. However, EPA believes
that, under the facts and circumstances
presented in DOE’s petition for this
waste stream and the terms of this
proposed variance, it would be
technically inappropriate to require the
Tank SY–101 supernate to be treated by
vitrification. As explained further
below, in view of the efficacy of grout
for immobilizing inorganic constituents,
the fact that the organics concentrations
in the pretreated liquid waste are below
(or in the case of 1-butanol, below or
just slightly above) the NWW standards,
and the protective geologic features of
the identified disposal sites, EPA
believes that requiring Tank SY–101
supernate to be vitrified would be
technically inappropriate. This is
because vitrification would require
more time to implement, result in
additional secondary impacts, and be
more costly—outcomes that EPA
considers unnecessary and undesirable
in view of its proposed determination
that grouting under the terms of the
proposed variance would minimize
threats.
The proposed approval applies only
to the 2,000 gallons of separated,
pretreated supernate from Tank SY–101.
Therefore, these distinctions in impacts
and outcomes between grouting and
vitrifying the waste are small. That said,
21 See
Petition, Table 1.
the final grouted waste form being
disposed of will be a nonwastewater, the NWW
standards are the relevant treatment standards for
this proposed variance.
22 Because
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83069
EPA believes they are tangible in
proportion to the amount of waste
involved, which is also small. Moreover,
the TBI Demonstration is intended to
test the viability of an approach
involving grouting and offsite disposal
for other low-activity waste from
Hanford. Thus, the TBI could provide
the basis for a broader approach under
which these distinctions would be more
significant.
First, EPA believes grouting the waste,
under the terms of the proposed
variance, would speed up
implementation of retrieval, treatment
and disposal. In a peer-reviewed report
issued in 2023, the Federally Funded
Research and Development Center
(FFRDC) recommended grouting and
off-site disposal in parallel to
vitrification due to the improved
execution schedule and probability of
successful project completion when
compared to all other effective
alternatives for waste beyond the
capacity of the existing DFLAW.23 Tank
SY–101 is not currently part of the
direct-feed system for vitrification. To
vitrify LAW from SY–101 would require
construction of new infrastructure.
Thus, the TBI would allow the 2,000
gallons of TBI waste to be retrieved,
treated, and disposed of more quickly
than would otherwise be possible.
Conducting TBI in parallel to on-site
vitrification of LAW from other tanks
could provide multiple pathways for
disposal of Hanford tank waste and
provide the capability to achieve a more
rapid reduction in the amount of waste
stored, and therefore result in a more
rapid reduction in risk to human health
and the environment.24 Moreover, DST
space in West Area is needed to allow
for the receipt of waste retrievals from
the aging SSTs for vitrification. In 2021
the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reported that insufficient tank
space is the top risk to the Hanford
cleanup mission, with a 95 percent
chance of running out of DST space to
continue retrieval of SST waste.25 The
May 2017 GAO report, which discussed
the potential reduction in short-term
risks and long-term costs from treating
a portion of LAW with grout, stated that
grouting could reduce the
environmental risk posed by leaks from
aging tanks by removing waste from
such tanks sooner than vitrification
would. The availability of DST space,
including in SY–101, is thus integral to
DOE’s cleanup mission at Hanford.
Grouting the TBI waste would free up
2,000 gallons of DST space that could be
23 FFRDC
Report 2023, Volume I page 52.
FFRDC Report 2023 page 52.
25 GAO–21–73.
24 See
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
28NOP1
83070
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
used for waste retrieved from SSTs,
allowing for optimized retrieval
sequencing to reduce environmental
and human health risk more rapidly.26
Again, these distinctions as applied to
the 2,000 gallons are small, but if the
TBI demonstrates the effectiveness of a
regulatory pathway for other Hanford
low-activity waste via grouting and
offsite disposal, that could substantially
facilitate DOE’s ability to meet its SST
retrieval schedule and allow DOE to
complete its cleanup mission in less
time than it would if vitrification is
required for all of Hanford’s low-activity
waste.27 Grouting could provide an
alternative treatment pathway that
would allow 200 West Area tanks to be
retrieved, and supernate from those
tanks to be treated and disposed of
offsite, decades earlier than the baseline
approach of vitrification. Given that
these tanks are well past their design
life and are at risk of leaking, this would
help mitigate the environmental risk of
this tank waste (and attendant costs)
sooner.
Second, vitrification of the 2,000
gallons of Tank SY–101 supernate
would result in certain secondary
impacts, which are unnecessary and
avoidable under these circumstances
given the efficacy of grouting, the
protective geologic features of the
identified disposal sites, and the terms
of the proposed variance. When LAW is
vitrified, the water present in LAW is
not incorporated into the glass matrix as
part of the treatment process. The water
initially present in the LAW, as well as
any water produced as part of the
treatment process, must then be
recycled back into the vitrification
system or managed as a liquid
secondary waste, which would contain
low levels of radionuclides and
hazardous constituents not otherwise
immobilized or destroyed by the glassforming step. In contrast, when
pretreated LAW is grouted instead of
vitrified, the water content of the waste
is incorporated into the cementitious
matrix.
Vitrification also generates secondary
waste streams (such as high-efficiency
particulate air filters, carbon adsorber
beds, spent or failed melters, and melter
components), whereas grouting
generates minimal secondary wastes.28
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
26 See
FFRDC 2023 page 52.
GAO 22–104365, p. 44–45; GAO, GAO 21–
73, Hanford Cleanup, DOE’s Efforts to Close Tank
Farms Would Benefit from Clearer Legal Authorities
and Communication (January 2021). See, also, 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. 1, p. 9–11 (finding,
for example, that every two years of WTP
vitrification operations without LAW supplemental
treatment adds one year to the overall mission).
28 See, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I,
App. B.
27 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
Furthermore, vitrification is a high
temperature process that generates
offgas that requires management and
treatment for worker and public
protection, whereas grouting takes place
at much lower temperatures and is less
energy-intensive than vitrification.29
Vitrification of TBI tank waste would
also be more costly than grouting to
achieve near-term risk reduction.
Additional vitrification capability
would need to be constructed before the
TBI waste and any other low-activity
waste from Hanford’s 200 West Area
could be vitrified. Multiple independent
sources estimate the costs of grouting
and off-site disposal vs vitrification.30
For example, the 2023 FFRDC FollowOn Report states that grouting would
minimize financial demands by
reducing mission duration and lifecycle
costs and indicates that grouting is
clearly executable at benchmark funding
levels.31 In light of this, EPA believes
grouting and offsite disposal of TBI
waste in accordance with the terms of
this approval would be cheaper than
vitrification. Cost savings can also be
realized by reducing the amount of
waste that needs to be managed in
tanks. The GAO reported in 2021 that
DOE spent more than $400 million per
year from 2017–2019 maintaining the
waste in the tanks.32 Finally, the
reduction of waste quantity managed in
aging tanks has the potential to reduce
cleanups costs associated with waste
leaking from the tanks.
EPA recognizes there are differences
in reporting on how much time, cost,
and secondary impacts would be
reduced by grouting some of the
Hanford low-activity waste rather than
vitrifying it. However, EPA believes
there would be savings under all three
metrics.
Finally, the characteristics of the two
facilities that would be authorized for
disposal of the grouted waste form
under the proposed variance support
EPA’s proposed determination that
requiring HLVIT would be technically
inappropriate for the TBI waste as
described below.
First, these two facilities feature
favorable physical, including geologic,
features, as described in section II.C
below.33 These features would help
ensure that threats to human health and
the environment posed by disposal of
29 See,
2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p.
3–4.
30 See 2019 FFRDC Report; 2022 GAO report;
2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report.
31 GAO–17–306
32 GAO–21–73.
33 The geology underlying the IDF differs from the
geology underlying these two facilities in certain
respects, see Section II.C page 14 below.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the grouted SY–101 supernate are
minimized. EPA’s proposed technical
inappropriateness determination is
dependent on its proposed threat
minimization determination.
Second, because the pre-treated LAW
will still contain radionuclides, EPA
notes that disposal must be in
accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s (NRC) performance
objectives at 10 CFR part 61, subpart C
for disposal of LLW. The performance
objective requirements for licensed
MLLW disposal facilities in the Texas
Administrative Code and the Utah
Administrative Code mirror and are
comparable to the NRC’s performance
objectives, as discussed in detail in the
2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration Final
WIR Evaluation.34
For all the reasons above, EPA
concludes that requiring treatment by
vitrification would be technically
inappropriate for this 2,000 gallons of
Tank SY–101 supernate in view of the
efficacy of grouting, the protective
geologic features of the identified
disposal sites, and the conditions
specified in the proposed variance.
C. Proposed Minimization of Threat
Determination
EPA proposes to determine that
grouting of the pre-treated, low activity
fraction of the Tank SY–101 supernate,
under the terms of the proposed
variance, would minimize threats to
human health and the environment
posed by disposal of the waste. The
proposed minimization of threat finding
is predicated on the TBI waste being
treated to the LDR standard of STABL,
with verification through samples
collected after grouting to demonstrate
that the stabilization achieves the NWW
LDR concentration-based and Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)-based standards, as applicable,
for F001–F005 (limited to constituents
associated with spent solvent activities
at the Facility); D001–D011, D018,
D019, D022, D028–D030, D033–D036,
D038–D041, and D043.
The EPA-approved STABL treatment
technology is described as
‘‘[s]tabilization with the following
reagents (or waste reagents) or
combinations of reagents: (1) Portland
cement; or (2) lime/pozzolans (e.g., fly
ash and cement kiln dust) . . .’’ 40 CFR
268.42. This method includes the
grouting technology that DOE requests
approval for. As described above, EPA
in the Third Third Rule preamble
generally concluded that stabilization
was an appropriate technology for lowlevel waste fractions that are separated
34 See
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
Final WIR Evaluation, p. 4–2; 5–1.
28NOP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
from the high-level waste generated
during the reprocessing of fuel rods. To
comply with STABL, the offsite
commercial treatment facilities would
be required to use the appropriate
stabilization methods that meet
applicable regulatory requirements in
accordance with the facilities’ waste
permits and radioactive material
licenses, as applicable.
Moreover, under the proposed
variance, the grouted waste would be
required to meet the numerical
treatment standards applicable to the
waste codes for the subject waste. While
confirmation sampling would not
typically be conducted for waste subject
to the STABL standard, since it is a
method-based standard, sampling after
treatment at the offsite commercial
treatment facilities would be conducted
for the purpose of validating treatment
performance against the NWW
numerical standards at 268.40 and, as
applicable, at 268.48.35 EPA determined
in promulgating these numerical
standards that they minimize threats
posed by disposal of hazardous waste
bearing the relevant waste codes, as
required by RCRA section 3004(m).
Based on the sampling data provided
by DOE, EPA fully expects that the
numerical treatment standards will be
met. All metals other than chromium
are below NWW TCLP standards based
on their measured total concentrations
in Tank SY–101. A previous grouting
recipe used by DOE provided a
retention factor for chromium which
can be used to predict the TCLP
concentrations found in the final
grouted waste form. This demonstration
showed that the chromium TCLP
leachate concentration in the grouted
waste form would be two to three orders
of magnitude less than the NWW TCLP
numerical standard.36 While this grout
recipe may not be identical to the recipe
used in this proposed action, grouting is
generally BDAT for metal constituents
and is therefore expected to immobilize
the chromium and therefore minimize
threats.37
As described earlier, the organic
wastes are already at least an order of
magnitude below the NWW standards,
except for 1-butanol, which below or
just slightly above the treatment
standard. For this reason, targeted
organics destruction or removal in
addition to grouting is not necessary to
minimize threats to health and the
environment.
EPA’s proposed determination is
supported by independent assessments.
For example, experts convened by the
National Academies of Science in 2016
concluded that both vitrification and
grout could effectively treat Hanford
low activity waste and be protective of
human health.38
Finally, the treatment and disposal
facilities that would be authorized by
this variance are particularly
appropriate for this waste. Most
importantly, the grouted waste form will
be disposed of at EnergySolutions in
Utah and/or Waste Control Specialists
in Texas, both of which are commercial
facilities that are RCRA-permitted and
licensed by the applicable State
authorities pursuant to their agreement
with the NRC to accept mixed waste in
accordance with their Waste Acceptance
Criteria. Because the pre-treated LAW
will still contain radionuclides, disposal
must be in accordance with the NRC
performance objectives at 10 CFR part
61, subpart C for disposal of LLW. The
performance objective requirements for
licensed MLLW disposal facilities in the
Texas Administrative Code and the
Utah Administrative Code mirror and
are comparable to the NRC’s
performance objectives, as discussed in
detail in the 2,000-gallon TBI
Demonstration Final WIR Evaluation.
Those licensed facilities are subject to
regulations and conditions that ensure
the protection of public health and
safety and the environment.
The disposal facilities were also
specifically selected based on their
location, geology, hydrogeology, and
experience in receiving comparable
waste types for disposal. The
EnergySolutions facility is located in a
35 DOE has requested this confirmation sampling
in the context of the 2,000-gallon TBI to support
and inform the development of a possible methodbased treatment standard for other Hanford tank
waste. DOE indicates that it may submit a variance
request in the future for other tank waste that may
provide a basis to eliminate the need for posttreatment sampling. Today’s proposal is limited to
the 2,000-gallon TBI, and EPA expresses no view
as to the appropriateness of proposals DOE may
advance in the future for treatment of other Hanford
tank waste.
36 DOE details in their petition: In Tank SY–101
supernate, chromium was detected at 95.8 mg/L.
Available data on chromium in relation to DOE’s
Cast Stone formulation indicate that the retention
factor for chromium is between 3.3×10–5 and
1.3×10–4 (mg_Cr/L_leachate)/(mg_Cr/kg_solid),
which corresponds to an EPA SW–846 Method
1311 TCLP concentration of between 9.9×10–4 and
3.9×10–3 (mg_Cr/L_leachate). In contrast, the NWW
treatment standard for chromium is 0.6 (mg_Cr/L_
leachate). Thus, the TCLP leachate concentration
for the grouted waste form is expected to be two or
three orders of magnitude less than the NWW
numerical standard.
37 EPA 402–R–96–014, Stabilization/
Solidification Processes for Mixed Waste, page 36.
38 GAO–22–104365, Nuclear Waste Disposal:
Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision That Could
Save Tens of Billions of Dollars, at 50–51.
39 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
13.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
83071
remote area of Utah with lowpermeability clay soils immediately
under the facility. Any potential for
exposures via the groundwater pathway
is further reduced due to naturally poor
groundwater quality at the site which is
extremely saline and exceeds EPA and
Utah State drinking water standards for
several naturally occuring
constituents.39 No domestic water use
occurs within 10 km of the facility.40
The precipitation levels in the area are
low, evaporation is high, and the nearest
stream channel is 2 miles east of the
facility, thus minimizing the potential
for releases via any surface water
pathway.41 All of those characteristics
make the site well-suited for the
disposal of the TBI waste.
Similarly, the Waste Control
Specialists FWF facility is in a physical
setting that is naturally protective of
human health and the environment. The
area receives less than 16 inches of
precipitation annually and
evapotranspiration exceeds
precipitation rates.42 There are no
perennial streams on or near the site.43
The site sits on top of a 600-ft geologic
layer of silts, muds and other lowpermeability constituents.44 The first
continuously saturated zone is 225 ft
below ground surface and has extremely
low permeability, retaining water from
the Pleistocene era.45 The water volume
is not sufficient to support an
individual, and is non-potable.46
The geologic features, low infiltration,
and no credible pathway to surface
water or potable water aquifers at both
EnergySolutions in Utah and Waste
Control Specialists in Texas provide
additional long-term environmental
protections for waste that would help
ensure that threats to human health and
the environment posed by the disposal
of the grouted SY–101 supernate are
minimized.47 Conversely, with respect
to geology, Hanford’s IDF overlies
unconsolidated to semi-consolidated
sediments with no intervening natural
barrier between the landfill and the
underlying aquifer. However, EPA is not
making a decision on whether a
40 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
18.
41 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
18.
42 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
33.
43 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
33.
44 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
27.
45 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
31.
46 2023
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G–
31.
47 2023
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p. 52.
28NOP1
83072
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
variance would be appropriate for
disposal in landfills other than those
evaluated in the petition.
disposal in landfills other than those
evaluated in the petition.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO 40 CFR 268.44(o) FOR THE TBI DEMONSTRATION PETITION
WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS UNDER § 268.40
Wastewaters
Facility name and
address
United States Department of Energy (Energy),
Richland, WA 17.
Waste code
F001–F005 D001–
D011, D018,
D019, D022,
D028–D030,
D033–D036,
D038–D041, and
D043 18.
Regulated hazardous
constituent
See also
NA ..................
For waste codes F001–F005,
the constituents are limited
to those associated with
spent solvent activities at
the Facility documented
through process knowledge.
For constituents, as applicable, associated with D
waste codes under the
‘‘Waste Code’’ column, see
40 CFR 268.40.
Nonwastewaters
Concentration
(mg/L)
Notes
Concentration
(mg/L)
NA ..................
NA ..................
STABL19 20 .....
Notes
NA.
17 The STABL treatment standard applies to the separated and pretreated tank waste under the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration.
18 The waste codes included in this column are those identified on the current version of the Dangerous Waste Permit Application Part A form for the Hanford Double Shell Tank System, Rev. 04 (December 14, 2009), except for F039 which has not been accepted into the Double Shell Tanks.
19 Sampling after treatment will be conducted at the treatment facility for the purpose of assessing the extent of treatment performance against the NWW numerical
standards at 268.40 and, as applicable, at 268.48. Waste treated using STABL may not be land disposed until LDR constituents are below the non-wastewater numerical standards at 40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48.
20 Treatment using the STABL treatment method shall be performed, and the treated waste shall be disposed of, at EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and/or Waste
Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Office of Land and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2023–26123 Filed 11–27–23; 8:45 am]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Nov 27, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM
28NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83065-83072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26123]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0372; FRL 11026-04-OLEM]
Department of Energy Hanford Mixed Radioactive Waste Land
Disposal Restrictions Variance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing to grant a treatability variance from the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) for approximately 2,000 gallons of mixed low-activity
waste from the Hanford Site in Washington State. The petitioner
demonstrated that treatment of the waste to the specified standard is
technically inappropriate, and the treatment variance is sufficient to
minimize threats to human health and the environment posed by land
disposal of the waste. If the variance is granted, the waste will be
stabilized subject to specified conditions, and disposed at
EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah and/or Waste Control Specialists in
Andrews County, Texas. The variance would allow DOE, Washington, and
EPA to
[[Page 83066]]
evaluate the regulatory pathways by which separation, pretreatment,
stabilization, and offsite disposal could be implemented for other
Hanford mixed low-activity waste.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2023-0372, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Land and Emergency Management Docket, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Russell, Waste
Characterization Branch, Materials Recovery and Waste Management
Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5304P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0823; email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
A. Docket
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0372. All documents in the docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center. The Public Reading Room for the
docket is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room and Docket Center is (202) 566-1744.
B. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-
0372, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
C. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
ORCR Document Control Officer, Mail Code 5305-P, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0372.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that
does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly
that it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 2.
II. General Information
A. Does this document apply to me?
This action applies only to DOE's Hanford facility located in
Richland, Washington.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
On August 2, 2023, the EPA received a petition from the DOE
requesting a variance from a treatment standard of the LDR of 40 CFR
268.40 for disposal of approximately 2,000 gallons of hazardous wastes
generated from DOE's Test Bed Initiative (TBI). This document proposes
to grant DOE's petition for a variance pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44.
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
Sections 3004(d) through (g) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6294(d)-(g), prohibit the land disposal
of hazardous wastes unless such wastes meet the LDR treatment standards
(or treatment standards) established by EPA (or the Agency). Section
3004(m) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6924(m), requires EPA to set levels or
methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term
threats to human health and the environment are minimized. EPA has
established treatment standards for all hazardous wastes.
However, when facilities generate hazardous wastes which cannot be
treated to the specified levels, or when it is technically
inappropriate for such wastes to undergo the prescribed treatment, they
can apply for a variance from a treatment standard.\1\ The requirements
for a treatment variance are found at 40 CFR 268.44. An applicant for a
treatment variance may demonstrate that it is inappropriate to require
a waste to be treated to the level or by the method specified as the
treatment standard, even though such treatment is technically possible.
This is the criterion pertinent to today's action.\2\ The petitioner
must also
[[Page 83067]]
demonstrate that compliance with any given treatment variance is
sufficient to minimize threats to human health and the environment
posed by land disposal of the waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 51 FR at 40605-40606 (November 7, 1986); see also 62 FR
64504 (December 5, 1997).
\2\ According to 42 CFR 268.44(a)(2), a petitioner may obtain a
variance from an applicable treatment standard if it is
inappropriate to require the waste to be treated to the level
specified in the treatment standard or by the method specified as
the treatment standard, even though such treatment is technically
possible. To show that this is the case, as applicable here, the
petitioner must demonstrate that treatment to the specified level or
by the specified method is technically inappropriate (for example,
resulting in combustion of large amounts of mildly contaminated
environmental media). Section 268.44(m) further requires the
petitioner to demonstrate that compliance with any given treatment
variance is sufficient to minimize threats to human health and the
environment posed by land disposal of the waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
A. Hanford Waste Description
Nearly 56 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste (mixed
waste) were generated from the Hanford Site's role in our nation's
defense program during the Manhattan Project and the Cold War.\3\ A
total of 149 single shell tanks (SSTs) were constructed and entered
service at Hanford between the 1940s and 1960s to contain this waste.
Beginning in the 1960s, an additional 28 double shell tanks (DSTs) were
also constructed at Hanford. DST capacity is crucial for retrieval of
SST waste. Between the 1940s and the mid-1980s, approximately 240,000
tons of hazardous chemicals were added to Hanford's tanks.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Hanford Test Bed Initiative Fact Sheet, July, 2018,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/07/f53/Hanford%20Test%20Bed%20Initiative%20Fact%20Sheet%207-12-18.pdf.
\4\ Government Accountability Office, GAO 22-104365, Nuclear
Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision That Could
Save Tens of Billions of Dollars (2021), at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE regulates certain radioactive materials, including the
radioactive portion of mixed waste at Hanford, pursuant to its self-
regulating authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 42
U.S.C. 2011, et seq. The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY)
regulates the hazardous portion of the mixed waste as dangerous waste
pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 70A.300 and
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-303, as a State
authorized to implement a hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Under RCRA and RCRA-authorized Washington regulations, mixed wastes
are generally subject to the treatment standards in 40 CFR 268.40.
Where there is no specific treatment standard set forth for a mixed
waste, the standard applicable to the hazardous waste code applies to
the mixed waste. For certain mixed wastes, specific treatment standards
have been established. Treatment by high-level vitrification (HLVIT)
applies to the subcategory of radioactive high-level mixed wastes
generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods and bearing the waste
codes D002 and/or D004 through D011.\5\ EPA selected vitrification as
the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) for this waste, and
established HLVIT as the treatment standard, in part because
stabilization would not provide treatment of the high-level radioactive
portion of the waste, and because the potential health hazards
associated with exposure to radioactivity during analysis of this high-
level mixed waste precluded setting a concentration-based treatment
standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See WAC 173-303-140, which incorporates by reference 40 CFR
268 at WAC 173-303-140(2)(a).
\6\ 55 FR 22520, 22627 (June 1, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Description of the Proposed Treatment and Disposal
In 2013, DOE updated its decision to separate tank wastes with low
levels of long-lived radionuclides (referred to as low-activity waste
or LAW) from other tank waste, and to vitrify some of the LAW at
Hanford's Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The
vitrified waste form will be disposed of onsite at Hanford's Integrated
Disposal Facility (IDF). The WTP has the design capacity to treat only
around 60 percent of the LAW from the Hanford tanks.\7\ For the
remaining LAW, DOE did not select a treatment method and found it would
be ``beneficial to study further the potential cost, safety, and
environmental performance of supplemental treatment technologies.'' \8\
DOE therefore proposed the TBI Demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See GAO 22-104365, Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision
That Could Save Tens of Billions of Dollars (2021), at 2.
\8\ See 78 FR 75916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE describes the TBI Demonstration as: (1) the onsite separation
and pretreatment of supernate from Tank SY-101, located in the 200 West
Area on the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site to remove the bulk of
the key radionuclides from the supernate; (2) transport of the
pretreated liquid waste to an offsite treatment facility for treatment
using stabilization/solidification (grouting); and (3) disposal of the
grouted waste form at a commercial disposal facility outside the State
of Washington. Effectuating the TBI Demonstration would allow DOE,
Washington, and EPA to evaluate the regulatory pathways by which
separation, pretreatment, stabilization (grouting), and offsite
disposal could be implemented for other Hanford mixed low-activity
waste. Concurrently, DOE is applying for a Research Development &
Demonstration (RD&D) Permit from ECY to perform the onsite pretreatment
activities associated with the TBI Demonstration.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Department of Energy, ORP-67633, 2,000-Gallon Test Bed
Initiative Demonstration Research, Development, and Demonstration
Permit Application, Revision. 0 (June 8, 2023) (hereinafter, RD&D
Permit Application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 2, 2023, DOE submitted to EPA a petition for a treatment
variance under 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2) to implement the TBI Demonstration
by treating approximately 2,000 gallons of supernate from Tank SY-
101.\10\ DOE selected Tank SY-101 for the TBI because of, among other
reasons, the tank waste chemistry, including low organic
concentration.\11\ Separation and pretreatment would involve filtration
of solids, and use of a crystalline silicotitanate ion exchange media
to capture and remove key radionuclides (including cesium (Cs-137) and
daughter barium (Ba-137m) and strontium (Sr-90)) from the supernate.
Tank SY-101 consists of two layers: the supernate, which comprises
approximately 81 percent of the tank volume, and an undissolved salt
cake layer beneath the supernate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Energy, 23-TF-0023, Test Bed Initiative
Land Disposal Restrictions Variance Petition (August 1, 2023).
\11\ U.S. Department of Energy, Test Bed Initiative at Hanford,
Report to Congress (April 2019), at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As requested in the petition and provided in this proposal, the
pretreated supernate would be subject to a stabilization treatment
method, hereafter referred to as STABL, with verification sampling to
ensure the treated waste meets the numerical LDR treatment standards
applicable to the waste codes provided in this proposal. The offsite
commercial treatment facilities identified in the petition,
EnergySolutions and Waste Control Specialists, would be required to
conduct the stabilization treatment in compliance with their RCRA
permits, as well as their radioactive material licenses.
DOE anticipates that half of the pretreated liquid would be
transported to EnergySolutions for grouting and disposal at its
commercial facility in Clive, Utah, and half would be transported to
Waste Control Specialists for grouting and disposal at its Federal
Waste Facility (FWF) in Andrews County, Texas.\12\ The process totes
used to transport the pretreated liquid waste offsite to
EnergySolutions and Waste Control Specialists for treatment would meet
all applicable U.S. Department of
[[Page 83068]]
Transportation (USDOT) requirements under 49 CFR Subchapter C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See U.S. Department of Energy, Memorandum: Approval of
Exemption of Use of Non-U.S. Department of Energy Facilities for the
2,000-Gallon Test Bed Initiative Demonstration (June 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with DOE Order 435.1 Chg 2(AdminChg), Radioactive
Waste Management and DOE Manual 435.1-1 Chg 3(LtdChg), Radioactive
Waste Management Manual, DOE completed a Waste Incidental to
Reprocessing (WIR) Evaluation for the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration in
March 2023.\13\ Based on the WIR Evaluation, DOE determined that the
separated, pretreated, and solidified supernate from Tank SY-101 is
waste incidental to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, is not
high-level waste, and can be managed as a low-level waste.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ORP-2022-02, Revision 0,
Final Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for the Test Bed
Initiative Demonstration (hereinafter, Final WIR Evaluation) (March
2023); see 88 FR 16615 (March 20, 2023). https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/WIR_%E2%80%93_Final_WIR_Evaluation_for_the_TBI1.pdf.
\14\ WIR Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also completed a Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for
the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and DOE's NEPA implementation
regulations, 10 CFR part 1021.\15\ In the Final EA, DOE analyzed the
environmental impacts associated with four combinations of facilities
for grouting and disposal of the pretreated 2,000 gallons of supernate
from Tank SY-101. The EA evaluated potential impacts of the TBI
Demonstration to air quality, human health (both from normal operations
and accidents or destructive acts), waste management, and
transportation. Any proposal to separate, pretreat, stabilize, and
dispose of any tank waste other than the TBI supernate from Tank SY-101
would be evaluated in a separate NEPA review. DOE sent the draft EA
with a request for input to host States and Tribes as well as States
and Tribes that could be affected by the proposed action, as documented
in Section 4 of the EA.\16\ DOE determined that the four alternatives
analyzed for grouting and disposal will not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of NEPA, and therefore issued a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) on March 16, 2023.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Department of Energy, Final Environmental Assessment
of the Test Bed Initiative Demonstration, DOE/EA-2086 (March 2023).
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ea-2086-test-bed-initiative-hanford-2023-03_0.pdf.
\16\ The following tribes and State agencies were notified of
the preparation of the EA: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Yakama Nation Tribe, Wanapum
Tribe, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, State of Utah Public Lands
Policy Coordination Office, Oregon State Department of Energy,
Washington State Department of Ecology.
\17\ Finding of No Significant Impact Test Bed Initiative
Demonstration Hanford Site, Washington, DOE/EA-2086 (March 16,
2023). https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/Final_--_230316_-_NEPA_FONSI_for_TBI_(Digital).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Basis for EPA's Proposed Determination
A. EPA's Approach to This Proposed Variance
The regulatory framework and associated requirements of the RCRA
LDR standards must be addressed to implement the 2,000-gallon TBI
Demonstration and dispose of the grouted waste form at EnergySolutions
in Clive, Utah, and/or Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County,
Texas. As mentioned above, the LDR standard under RCRA and RCRA-
authorized Washington regulations for the subcategory of radioactive
high-level mixed wastes generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods
and bearing the waste codes D002 and/or D004 through D011 is HLVIT. DOE
asserts that after Tank SY-101 supernate is processed through TBI,
including separation of high- and low-activity waste fractions,
pretreatment, and solidification, following a re-classification through
a WIR determination, the solidified low-activity waste fraction can be
managed and disposed as low-level radioactive waste. Once those steps
are completed, DOE believes the HLVIT treatment standard does not apply
and thus the separated, pretreated mixed waste would not be required to
be vitrified. Washington interprets its RCRA-authorized LDR
requirements such that the waste designation and all associated LDR
treatment standards, including HLVIT, have already attached to the tank
waste and remain attached to the separated, pretreated low-activity
fraction of the tank waste until satisfied. Thus, according to
Washington, if the waste is not vitrified, the HLVIT standard would
need to be removed through some regulatory vehicle, such as a treatment
variance, in order for that waste to be grouted instead of
vitrified.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For Washington's statements describing its position, see
FFRDC Report 2023, Volume II p. 494-495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's decision to propose this treatment variance approval does not
resolve DOE and the State's differing interpretations of the LDR
requirements, and EPA is not concluding that HLVIT does or does not
apply to the TBI waste. Rather, EPA proposes to approve this variance
to provide a clear regulatory pathway for the 2,000-gallon TBI to
proceed. As documented in a 2021 report by the General Accountability
Office,\19\ DOE, Washington, and EPA agree that the TBI should proceed,
to test the viability of a grouting approach to some of the Hanford
tank waste. However, the regulatory disagreement between DOE and
Washington remains unresolved. In view of this background--and the
importance DOE, Washington and EPA all attach to making progress on the
Hanford tank waste mission--EPA proposes to approve a variance clearly
allowing the TBI to proceed, on the specific terms and subject to the
specific conditions proposed today, regardless of whose interpretation
forms the starting point for the variance analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ GAO-22-104365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, EPA proposes to subject the TBI waste to a STABL
(stabilization) treatment method, with verification sampling to ensure
the treated waste meets the LDR numerical standards, as applicable, for
waste codes F001-F005 (limited to constituents associated with spent
solvent activities at the Hanford facility); D001-D011, D018, D019,
D022, D028-D030, D033-D036, D038-D041, and D043. The waste codes
included herein are those identified on the Dangerous Waste Permit
Application Part A form for the DST System, Rev. 4 (December 14, 2009),
which includes Tank SY-101.\20\ The codes include listed hazardous
wastes bearing organic constituents, and toxic and corrosive
characteristic wastes which ordinarily must meet concentration-based
treatment standards under Washington's RCRA-authorized program. DOE's
petition requests to use STABL to meet the numeric standard, therefore
these wastes are included in this variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Petition, Table 1. The data provided in Table 1 is
derived from the Final Analytical Report for Tank 241-SY-101 TBI
Grab Sampling 2018, RPP-RPT-61303 Rev. 05 (October 2020). All waste
codes that appear on the DST System Part A form are included in this
variance, with the exception of F039 (because the DST System has not
accepted waste bearing that waste code). The sample result suggests
that Tank SY-101 supernate displays only a limited subset of the
waste codes listed on the DST System Part A form. See RD&D Permit
Application, Sec. 4.1.2 and Table 4-1. DOE explains that Tank SY-101
supernate does not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability
(D001) and reactivity (D003) before or after pretreatment.
Nonetheless, EPA understands that Washington views the SY-101 waste
as bearing all of the codes on the Part A form (except for F039) and
is therefore including the codes in the proposed variance, since the
facility is regulated under Washington's authorized program. The
inclusion of D001 and D003 does not affect the treatment required by
the variance, since treatment for underlying hazardous
characteristics for these waste codes is accounted for by the
treatment required for the corrosivity (D002) and toxicity (D004-
043) characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 83069]]
Pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2)(i), a variance may be approved if
it is technically inappropriate to treat the waste to the level
specified in the treatment standard, or by the method specified as the
treatment standard, even though such treatment is technically possible.
As with any section 268.44 treatment variance, the petitioner must also
show that compliance with the variance will be sufficient to minimize
threats to human health and the environment posed by land disposal of
the waste.
B. Proposed Technically Inappropriate Determination
In promulgating the Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes (Third Third Rule) that established the HLVIT
treatment standard, EPA expressly recognized the effectiveness of
grouting for immobilizing inorganic hazardous constituents in low-level
mixed waste:
The Agency believes that for treatment of metals in low-level
mixed wastes and for some TRU mixed wastes containing low
radioactive components, chemical precipitation will remove the
metals in wastewaters, and stabilization technologies will reduce
the leachability of the metal constituents in nonwastewater
matrices. These are the same technologies that are applicable to
nonradioactive wastes containing metals.
DOE submitted data demonstrating the applicability of
stabilization as a treatment technology for the low-level waste
fractions that are separated from the high-level waste generated
during the reprocessing of fuel rods. As used by one particular
facility, a stabilization process called grout stabilization
involves blending commercially produced cement-based reagents with
the liquid low-level waste fraction. The material sets up as a solid
mass, immobilizing the waste. The performance data indicate that
stabilization provides immobilization of the characteristic metal
constituents and radioactive contaminants for this low-level
radioactive waste, and that it is possible to stabilize the RCRA
hazardous portions to meet the treatment levels for the
characteristic metals. . . .
DOE provided information to support that vitrification is an
applicable technology for their high-level wastes generated from the
reprocessing of fuel rods. Treatment can be accomplished by using
either direct vitrification or a more complex treatment process
which includes a series of chemical steps that separate the low-
level radioactive waste fractions from the high-level radioactive
waste. The high-level radioactive portion is then vitrified. When
using separation technologies such as precipitation followed by
settling or filtration, the bulk of the radioactivity can be
incorporated into a high-level liquid waste containing up to 99
percent of the radioactivity of the original irradiated fuel rods.
By separating high-level and low-level mixed wastes, the amount of
high-level waste that may require vitrification treatment can be
reduced.
[55 FR 22626-2627 (June 1, 1990).]
Tank SY-101 contains both inorganic and organic constituents;
however, sampling results from Tank SY-101 supernate \21\ show that the
organic constituents in the waste are at least one order of magnitude
below the applicable nonwastewater (NWW) concentration-based LDR
treatment standards except for 1-butanol (also referred to as n-Butyl
alcohol).\22\ The sample results show that 1-butanol was not detected
in the sample, however, the laboratory detection limit (2.78 mg/L) for
this constituent is slightly above the NWW concentration-based standard
(2.6 mg/kg). Thus, 1-butanol is either below or just slightly above
this standard in the pre-treated waste, and EPA is confident that it
will meet the LDR standard following treatment, and that grouting is an
appropriate treatment technology for this constituent in this waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Petition, Table 1.
\22\ Because the final grouted waste form being disposed of will
be a nonwastewater, the NWW standards are the relevant treatment
standards for this proposed variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As referenced above, EPA expresses no opinion on whether the waste
subject to this proposed variance must be vitrified under ECY's RCRA-
authorized LDR regulations. However, EPA believes that, under the facts
and circumstances presented in DOE's petition for this waste stream and
the terms of this proposed variance, it would be technically
inappropriate to require the Tank SY-101 supernate to be treated by
vitrification. As explained further below, in view of the efficacy of
grout for immobilizing inorganic constituents, the fact that the
organics concentrations in the pretreated liquid waste are below (or in
the case of 1-butanol, below or just slightly above) the NWW standards,
and the protective geologic features of the identified disposal sites,
EPA believes that requiring Tank SY-101 supernate to be vitrified would
be technically inappropriate. This is because vitrification would
require more time to implement, result in additional secondary impacts,
and be more costly--outcomes that EPA considers unnecessary and
undesirable in view of its proposed determination that grouting under
the terms of the proposed variance would minimize threats.
The proposed approval applies only to the 2,000 gallons of
separated, pretreated supernate from Tank SY-101. Therefore, these
distinctions in impacts and outcomes between grouting and vitrifying
the waste are small. That said, EPA believes they are tangible in
proportion to the amount of waste involved, which is also small.
Moreover, the TBI Demonstration is intended to test the viability of an
approach involving grouting and offsite disposal for other low-activity
waste from Hanford. Thus, the TBI could provide the basis for a broader
approach under which these distinctions would be more significant.
First, EPA believes grouting the waste, under the terms of the
proposed variance, would speed up implementation of retrieval,
treatment and disposal. In a peer-reviewed report issued in 2023, the
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) recommended
grouting and off-site disposal in parallel to vitrification due to the
improved execution schedule and probability of successful project
completion when compared to all other effective alternatives for waste
beyond the capacity of the existing DFLAW.\23\ Tank SY-101 is not
currently part of the direct-feed system for vitrification. To vitrify
LAW from SY-101 would require construction of new infrastructure. Thus,
the TBI would allow the 2,000 gallons of TBI waste to be retrieved,
treated, and disposed of more quickly than would otherwise be possible.
Conducting TBI in parallel to on-site vitrification of LAW from other
tanks could provide multiple pathways for disposal of Hanford tank
waste and provide the capability to achieve a more rapid reduction in
the amount of waste stored, and therefore result in a more rapid
reduction in risk to human health and the environment.\24\ Moreover,
DST space in West Area is needed to allow for the receipt of waste
retrievals from the aging SSTs for vitrification. In 2021 the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that insufficient tank
space is the top risk to the Hanford cleanup mission, with a 95 percent
chance of running out of DST space to continue retrieval of SST
waste.\25\ The May 2017 GAO report, which discussed the potential
reduction in short-term risks and long-term costs from treating a
portion of LAW with grout, stated that grouting could reduce the
environmental risk posed by leaks from aging tanks by removing waste
from such tanks sooner than vitrification would. The availability of
DST space, including in SY-101, is thus integral to DOE's cleanup
mission at Hanford. Grouting the TBI waste would free up 2,000 gallons
of DST space that could be
[[Page 83070]]
used for waste retrieved from SSTs, allowing for optimized retrieval
sequencing to reduce environmental and human health risk more
rapidly.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ FFRDC Report 2023, Volume I page 52.
\24\ See FFRDC Report 2023 page 52.
\25\ GAO-21-73.
\26\ See FFRDC 2023 page 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, these distinctions as applied to the 2,000 gallons are
small, but if the TBI demonstrates the effectiveness of a regulatory
pathway for other Hanford low-activity waste via grouting and offsite
disposal, that could substantially facilitate DOE's ability to meet its
SST retrieval schedule and allow DOE to complete its cleanup mission in
less time than it would if vitrification is required for all of
Hanford's low-activity waste.\27\ Grouting could provide an alternative
treatment pathway that would allow 200 West Area tanks to be retrieved,
and supernate from those tanks to be treated and disposed of offsite,
decades earlier than the baseline approach of vitrification. Given that
these tanks are well past their design life and are at risk of leaking,
this would help mitigate the environmental risk of this tank waste (and
attendant costs) sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See GAO 22-104365, p. 44-45; GAO, GAO 21-73, Hanford
Cleanup, DOE's Efforts to Close Tank Farms Would Benefit from
Clearer Legal Authorities and Communication (January 2021). See,
also, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. 1, p. 9-11 (finding, for
example, that every two years of WTP vitrification operations
without LAW supplemental treatment adds one year to the overall
mission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, vitrification of the 2,000 gallons of Tank SY-101 supernate
would result in certain secondary impacts, which are unnecessary and
avoidable under these circumstances given the efficacy of grouting, the
protective geologic features of the identified disposal sites, and the
terms of the proposed variance. When LAW is vitrified, the water
present in LAW is not incorporated into the glass matrix as part of the
treatment process. The water initially present in the LAW, as well as
any water produced as part of the treatment process, must then be
recycled back into the vitrification system or managed as a liquid
secondary waste, which would contain low levels of radionuclides and
hazardous constituents not otherwise immobilized or destroyed by the
glass-forming step. In contrast, when pretreated LAW is grouted instead
of vitrified, the water content of the waste is incorporated into the
cementitious matrix.
Vitrification also generates secondary waste streams (such as high-
efficiency particulate air filters, carbon adsorber beds, spent or
failed melters, and melter components), whereas grouting generates
minimal secondary wastes.\28\ Furthermore, vitrification is a high
temperature process that generates offgas that requires management and
treatment for worker and public protection, whereas grouting takes
place at much lower temperatures and is less energy-intensive than
vitrification.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, App. B.
\29\ See, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vitrification of TBI tank waste would also be more costly than
grouting to achieve near-term risk reduction. Additional vitrification
capability would need to be constructed before the TBI waste and any
other low-activity waste from Hanford's 200 West Area could be
vitrified. Multiple independent sources estimate the costs of grouting
and off-site disposal vs vitrification.\30\ For example, the 2023 FFRDC
Follow-On Report states that grouting would minimize financial demands
by reducing mission duration and lifecycle costs and indicates that
grouting is clearly executable at benchmark funding levels.\31\ In
light of this, EPA believes grouting and offsite disposal of TBI waste
in accordance with the terms of this approval would be cheaper than
vitrification. Cost savings can also be realized by reducing the amount
of waste that needs to be managed in tanks. The GAO reported in 2021
that DOE spent more than $400 million per year from 2017-2019
maintaining the waste in the tanks.\32\ Finally, the reduction of waste
quantity managed in aging tanks has the potential to reduce cleanups
costs associated with waste leaking from the tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 2019 FFRDC Report; 2022 GAO report; 2023 FFRDC Follow-
On Report.
\31\ GAO-17-306
\32\ GAO-21-73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes there are differences in reporting on how much time,
cost, and secondary impacts would be reduced by grouting some of the
Hanford low-activity waste rather than vitrifying it. However, EPA
believes there would be savings under all three metrics.
Finally, the characteristics of the two facilities that would be
authorized for disposal of the grouted waste form under the proposed
variance support EPA's proposed determination that requiring HLVIT
would be technically inappropriate for the TBI waste as described
below.
First, these two facilities feature favorable physical, including
geologic, features, as described in section II.C below.\33\ These
features would help ensure that threats to human health and the
environment posed by disposal of the grouted SY-101 supernate are
minimized. EPA's proposed technical inappropriateness determination is
dependent on its proposed threat minimization determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The geology underlying the IDF differs from the geology
underlying these two facilities in certain respects, see Section
II.C page 14 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, because the pre-treated LAW will still contain
radionuclides, EPA notes that disposal must be in accordance with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) performance objectives at 10 CFR
part 61, subpart C for disposal of LLW. The performance objective
requirements for licensed MLLW disposal facilities in the Texas
Administrative Code and the Utah Administrative Code mirror and are
comparable to the NRC's performance objectives, as discussed in detail
in the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration Final WIR Evaluation.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Final WIR Evaluation, p. 4-2; 5-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all the reasons above, EPA concludes that requiring treatment
by vitrification would be technically inappropriate for this 2,000
gallons of Tank SY-101 supernate in view of the efficacy of grouting,
the protective geologic features of the identified disposal sites, and
the conditions specified in the proposed variance.
C. Proposed Minimization of Threat Determination
EPA proposes to determine that grouting of the pre-treated, low
activity fraction of the Tank SY-101 supernate, under the terms of the
proposed variance, would minimize threats to human health and the
environment posed by disposal of the waste. The proposed minimization
of threat finding is predicated on the TBI waste being treated to the
LDR standard of STABL, with verification through samples collected
after grouting to demonstrate that the stabilization achieves the NWW
LDR concentration-based and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)-based standards, as applicable, for F001-F005 (limited to
constituents associated with spent solvent activities at the Facility);
D001-D011, D018, D019, D022, D028-D030, D033-D036, D038-D041, and D043.
The EPA-approved STABL treatment technology is described as
``[s]tabilization with the following reagents (or waste reagents) or
combinations of reagents: (1) Portland cement; or (2) lime/pozzolans
(e.g., fly ash and cement kiln dust) . . .'' 40 CFR 268.42. This method
includes the grouting technology that DOE requests approval for. As
described above, EPA in the Third Third Rule preamble generally
concluded that stabilization was an appropriate technology for low-
level waste fractions that are separated
[[Page 83071]]
from the high-level waste generated during the reprocessing of fuel
rods. To comply with STABL, the offsite commercial treatment facilities
would be required to use the appropriate stabilization methods that
meet applicable regulatory requirements in accordance with the
facilities' waste permits and radioactive material licenses, as
applicable.
Moreover, under the proposed variance, the grouted waste would be
required to meet the numerical treatment standards applicable to the
waste codes for the subject waste. While confirmation sampling would
not typically be conducted for waste subject to the STABL standard,
since it is a method-based standard, sampling after treatment at the
offsite commercial treatment facilities would be conducted for the
purpose of validating treatment performance against the NWW numerical
standards at 268.40 and, as applicable, at 268.48.\35\ EPA determined
in promulgating these numerical standards that they minimize threats
posed by disposal of hazardous waste bearing the relevant waste codes,
as required by RCRA section 3004(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ DOE has requested this confirmation sampling in the context
of the 2,000-gallon TBI to support and inform the development of a
possible method-based treatment standard for other Hanford tank
waste. DOE indicates that it may submit a variance request in the
future for other tank waste that may provide a basis to eliminate
the need for post-treatment sampling. Today's proposal is limited to
the 2,000-gallon TBI, and EPA expresses no view as to the
appropriateness of proposals DOE may advance in the future for
treatment of other Hanford tank waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the sampling data provided by DOE, EPA fully expects that
the numerical treatment standards will be met. All metals other than
chromium are below NWW TCLP standards based on their measured total
concentrations in Tank SY-101. A previous grouting recipe used by DOE
provided a retention factor for chromium which can be used to predict
the TCLP concentrations found in the final grouted waste form. This
demonstration showed that the chromium TCLP leachate concentration in
the grouted waste form would be two to three orders of magnitude less
than the NWW TCLP numerical standard.\36\ While this grout recipe may
not be identical to the recipe used in this proposed action, grouting
is generally BDAT for metal constituents and is therefore expected to
immobilize the chromium and therefore minimize threats.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ DOE details in their petition: In Tank SY-101 supernate,
chromium was detected at 95.8 mg/L. Available data on chromium in
relation to DOE's Cast Stone formulation indicate that the retention
factor for chromium is between 3.3x10-5 and 1.3x10-4 (mg_Cr/
L_leachate)/(mg_Cr/kg_solid), which corresponds to an EPA SW-846
Method 1311 TCLP concentration of between 9.9x10-4 and 3.9x10-3
(mg_Cr/L_leachate). In contrast, the NWW treatment standard for
chromium is 0.6 (mg_Cr/L_leachate). Thus, the TCLP leachate
concentration for the grouted waste form is expected to be two or
three orders of magnitude less than the NWW numerical standard.
\37\ EPA 402-R-96-014, Stabilization/Solidification Processes
for Mixed Waste, page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described earlier, the organic wastes are already at least an
order of magnitude below the NWW standards, except for 1-butanol, which
below or just slightly above the treatment standard. For this reason,
targeted organics destruction or removal in addition to grouting is not
necessary to minimize threats to health and the environment.
EPA's proposed determination is supported by independent
assessments. For example, experts convened by the National Academies of
Science in 2016 concluded that both vitrification and grout could
effectively treat Hanford low activity waste and be protective of human
health.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ GAO-22-104365, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to
Enable DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of Billions of Dollars, at
50-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the treatment and disposal facilities that would be
authorized by this variance are particularly appropriate for this
waste. Most importantly, the grouted waste form will be disposed of at
EnergySolutions in Utah and/or Waste Control Specialists in Texas, both
of which are commercial facilities that are RCRA-permitted and licensed
by the applicable State authorities pursuant to their agreement with
the NRC to accept mixed waste in accordance with their Waste Acceptance
Criteria. Because the pre-treated LAW will still contain radionuclides,
disposal must be in accordance with the NRC performance objectives at
10 CFR part 61, subpart C for disposal of LLW. The performance
objective requirements for licensed MLLW disposal facilities in the
Texas Administrative Code and the Utah Administrative Code mirror and
are comparable to the NRC's performance objectives, as discussed in
detail in the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration Final WIR Evaluation.
Those licensed facilities are subject to regulations and conditions
that ensure the protection of public health and safety and the
environment.
The disposal facilities were also specifically selected based on
their location, geology, hydrogeology, and experience in receiving
comparable waste types for disposal. The EnergySolutions facility is
located in a remote area of Utah with low-permeability clay soils
immediately under the facility. Any potential for exposures via the
groundwater pathway is further reduced due to naturally poor
groundwater quality at the site which is extremely saline and exceeds
EPA and Utah State drinking water standards for several naturally
occuring constituents.\39\ No domestic water use occurs within 10 km of
the facility.\40\ The precipitation levels in the area are low,
evaporation is high, and the nearest stream channel is 2 miles east of
the facility, thus minimizing the potential for releases via any
surface water pathway.\41\ All of those characteristics make the site
well-suited for the disposal of the TBI waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-13.
\40\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-18.
\41\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Waste Control Specialists FWF facility is in a
physical setting that is naturally protective of human health and the
environment. The area receives less than 16 inches of precipitation
annually and evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation rates.\42\ There
are no perennial streams on or near the site.\43\ The site sits on top
of a 600-ft geologic layer of silts, muds and other low-permeability
constituents.\44\ The first continuously saturated zone is 225 ft below
ground surface and has extremely low permeability, retaining water from
the Pleistocene era.\45\ The water volume is not sufficient to support
an individual, and is non-potable.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-33.
\43\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-33.
\44\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-27.
\45\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-31.
\46\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geologic features, low infiltration, and no credible pathway to
surface water or potable water aquifers at both EnergySolutions in Utah
and Waste Control Specialists in Texas provide additional long-term
environmental protections for waste that would help ensure that threats
to human health and the environment posed by the disposal of the
grouted SY-101 supernate are minimized.\47\ Conversely, with respect to
geology, Hanford's IDF overlies unconsolidated to semi-consolidated
sediments with no intervening natural barrier between the landfill and
the underlying aquifer. However, EPA is not making a decision on
whether a
[[Page 83072]]
variance would be appropriate for disposal in landfills other than
those evaluated in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p. 52.
Table 1--Proposed Modification to 40 CFR 268.44(o) for the TBI Demonstration Petition
Wastes Excluded From The Treatment Standards Under Sec. 268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Regulated -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility name and address Waste code See also hazardous Concentration Concentration
constituent (mg/L) Notes (mg/L) Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Department of F001-F005 D001- NA.............. For waste codes NA.............. NA.............. STABL\19 20\.... NA.
Energy (Energy), Richland, D011, D018, F001-F005, the
WA \17\. D019, D022, constituents
D028-D030, are limited to
D033-D036, those
D038-D041, and associated
D043 \18\. with spent
solvent
activities at
the Facility
documented
through
process
knowledge.
For
constituents,
as applicable,
associated
with D waste
codes under
the ``Waste
Code'' column,
see 40 CFR
268.40.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The STABL treatment standard applies to the separated and pretreated tank waste under the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration.
\18\ The waste codes included in this column are those identified on the current version of the Dangerous Waste Permit Application Part A form for the
Hanford Double Shell Tank System, Rev. 04 (December 14, 2009), except for F039 which has not been accepted into the Double Shell Tanks.
\19\ Sampling after treatment will be conducted at the treatment facility for the purpose of assessing the extent of treatment performance against the
NWW numerical standards at 268.40 and, as applicable, at 268.48. Waste treated using STABL may not be land disposed until LDR constituents are below
the non-wastewater numerical standards at 40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48.
\20\ Treatment using the STABL treatment method shall be performed, and the treated waste shall be disposed of, at EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and/
or Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.
[FR Doc. 2023-26123 Filed 11-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
