Hazardous Waste Management System; Final Exclusion for Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste, 50647-50653 [2021-19048]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
*
(2) [Reserved]
*
*
*
(521) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
*
(2) Rule 1110.2, ‘‘Emissions from
Stationary, Non-Road and Portable
Internal Combustion Engines,’’
amended on September 18, 2018.
*
*
*
*
*
(542) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District.
(1) Rule 2.27, ‘‘Large Boilers,’’ revised
on May 15, 2019.
(2) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–19434 Filed 9–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R10–RCRA–2021–0142; FRL–8917–
02–R10]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Final Exclusion for Identifying
and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
I. Overview Information
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Public Comments
III. Final Rule
A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
B. When is the delisting effective?
C. How does this action affect the states?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ or
‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is taking final
action to finalize technical amendments
to an existing exclusion from the list of
federal hazardous waste (delisting)
issued to the United States Department
of Energy (Energy) under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. These
modifications address changes to the
200-Area Effluent Treatment System
associated with the delisting necessary
to accept liquid effluents expected to be
generated from vitrification of certain
low-activity mixed wastes at the
Hanford Federal Facility, or Hanford
Site, in Richland, Washington.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 10, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2021–0142. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
I. Overview Information
Based on a petition submitted to the
EPA, Energy requested technical
amendments to an existing exclusion
from the list of federally listed wastes
set forth in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 261.33 previously
issued to the United States Department
of Energy (Energy) for the Hanford
Federal Facility, or Hanford Site in
Richland, Washington (Current
delisting). See 40 CFR part 261,
appendix IX, Table 2. This existing
exclusion applies to treated effluent
generated by Hanford’s 200 Area
Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). The
requested amendments relate to the
planned startup of the Hanford Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant
(WTP). Details of Energy’s requested
technical amendments are more fully
described in EPA’s proposed regulatory
amendments to the existing delisting at
86 (FR) 30237, June 7, 2021. After
consideration of comments received on
the EPA’s proposed regulatory
amendments, the EPA is finalizing these
amendments as proposed. The EPA is
also making one grammatical
clarification identified after the proposal
cited above.
SUMMARY:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov. Due to restrictions
related to COVID–19, docket materials
are not available in hard copy form at
this time. If you have further questions
concerning docket materials, we
recommend you telephone Dr. David
Bartus at (206) 553–2804.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, M/S M/S 15–H04,
Seattle, Washington 98070; telephone
number: (206) 553–2804; email address:
bartus.dave@epa.gov.
As discussed in Section V of this
document, the Washington State
Department of Ecology is making a
separata but parallels decision regarding
the Petitioner’s request for this
modification under state authority.
Information on Ecology’s action may be
found at https://ecology.wa.gov/WasteToxics/Nuclear-waste/Public-commentperiods.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Sep 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50647
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Public
Comments
The EPA received one anonymous set
of comments on the proposed regulatory
amendments. These comments, and the
EPA’s evaluation of them, are described
below.
This commenter raises several issues.
One common theme is that there are
data gaps or other uncertainties
regarding the ability of the Effluent
Treatment Facility to manage future
wastes from the WTP. The following
sections address each of the comments
that have a clear nexus to the proposed
modification of the existing 200-Area
ETF delisting.
Uncertainty Regarding the Future
Capability To Treat ‘‘the Future
Unknowns’’
The commenter stated ‘‘It appears that
the current petition revision is solely to
address acetonitrile, but that there are
other unknowns and chemicals of
concern to be submitted at a later date
for future delisting petitions. There is no
guarantee that there will be a future
capability to treat the future unknowns,
leaving a considerable risk of what to do
with non-compliant effluent from the
WTP.’’
In promulgating significant revisions
to the 200–ETF delisting in 2005 (70 FR
44498, July 30, 2012), Ecology and EPA
explicitly intended to broadly expand
the waste streams that the ETF could
process within the scope of the treated
effluent delisting. More specifically, the
final delisting rule stated ‘‘The effect of
these changes is to allow the 200 Area
ETF to fulfill an expanded role in
supporting Hanford Facility cleanup
actions beyond those activities
considered in the 1995 delisting
rulemaking. In particular, these changes
will allow the 200 Area ETF to treat
mixed wastewaters from a number of
additional sources beyond 242–A
Evaporator process condensate (PC)
upon which the original delisting was
based.’’ (See 70 FR 44497, July 30,
2012).
Consistent with this objective, the
2005 delisting modifications established
a detailed mechanism based on the
concept of a treatability envelope,
which defines the ability of the ETF
system overall to treat a wide range of
waste constituents. This mechanism is
based on an engineering model of the
various unit operations within the ETF
treatment train. Additionally,
constituent-specific data for a wide
range of constituents were used on a
waste-stream specific basis to evaluate
the treatability of that waste stream as
part of the waste acceptance process for
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
50648
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the ETF. A target goal with this
approach was to establish a delisting
framework that could consider future
waste streams for which
characterization data was not available
at the time, but that could be managed
in the future. More importantly, as
Ecology and EPA noted in the 2005
delisting rulemaking ‘‘[s]ince Energy
could not reasonably provide detailed
characterization of wastes streams that
have yet to be generated, EPA proposed
a waste acceptance framework based on
an engineering evaluation of waste
streams. This model provides a degree
of confidence that treatment in the 200
Area ETF will meet delisting exclusion
limits to the same degree of confidence
as if detailed waste stream
characterization were available, while
avoiding the need to frequently revise
the delisting rule itself.’’ (See 70 FR
44499, July 30, 2012).
Liquid effluents from the Waste
Treatment Plant are one example of
wastes that, in 2005, were expected to
be generated in the future, but were not
sufficiently characterized in order to be
evaluated at that time. Since the 2005
modifications, the Department of Energy
has made progress in both the design
and operation of the planned WTP,
including a detailed characterization of
the liquid effluents from the WTP
through engineering design and
modelling. (See the engineering report
and associated supporting calculation
documents provided in the docket for
the current delisting modifications).
From this work, Energy identified a
number of constituents in WTP liquid
effluent that would need to be
considered in the context of the ETF
delisting. Energy has provided a request
to the EPA (21–ECD–001774 dated June
29, 2021, available in the Hanford
administrative records at
www.hanford.gov) to consider five of
these additional constituents through a
modification of Tables C–1 and C–2
pursuant to Condition (1)(b) of the
existing delisting. This request is
consistent with the mechanism already
in place under the existing delisting.
Because the June 29, 2021 request is
outside the scope of this modification to
the delisting rule itself, the request to
add five additional constituents
identified in the June 29, 2021 request
are not further considered in this
comment response, but will be
addressed by EPA’s expected future
response to the June 29, 2021 request.
As documented in its request for a
modification of the 200 Area ETF
delisting, Energy identified that
acetonitrile exceeded the existing
treatability envelope for that
constituent. Based on our analysis of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Sep 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
information provided by Energy for the
current proposed modification, and the
overall structure and content of the 2005
modifications to the delisting, EPA and
Ecology have determined that with the
current proposed modifications, the
200-Area ETF is fully capable of
accepting reasonably expected liquid
effluents from the WTP, and that there
is little if any regulatory, environmental,
or project risk associated with WTP
liquid effluents that would warrant
future modifications of the 200 Area
ETF delisting.
The commenter also raised a concern
about a lack of pilot scale testing for
WTP effluent. In particular the
commenter states ‘‘In the case of 242–
A condensate, condensates had been
sampled, and surrogate wastes were
processed through pilot scale ETF
treatment units in order to provide an
‘up front’ petition’’ and ‘‘No pilot scale
processes have been conducted for the
current WTP EMF effluent. There is no
pilot EMF and no integrated pilot scale
Direct Feed Low Activity Waste
(DFLAW) process treatment train. The
integrated WTP ‘pilot scale’ equipment
does not exist for DFLAW. Rather WTP
itself is being built as a full-scale pilot
plant, with unknown and uncertain (but
certain to be expensive) results.’’
Ecology and EPA acknowledge that
the current proposed delisting rule
modification changes are based on
projections, not full-scale operations or
demonstration testing. With respect to
acetonitrile, the proposed changes to the
delisting rule are specifically targeted to
ensure an implementable mechanism is
in place. This will allow demonstration
testing as necessary, to expand the
treatability envelope for acetonitrile.
Therefore, before full-scale operation of
the DFLAW configuration of the WTP
begins, Energy will have performed
exactly the type of direct demonstration
that this comment speaks to. As
discussed more fully in the 2005
delisting modification action, the
current 200-Area ETF delisting is
explicitly structured to accommodate
new constituents where such new
constituents are within the treatment
capacity of ETF (as reflected in the
waste-stream specific waste processing
strategy required by the delisting rule).
New constituents can be accepted for
treatment in the 200 Area ETF without
modification of the delisting. For new
constituents that would require changes
to a treatability envelope, the new
demonstration testing mechanism in the
current proposal would be applied.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Secondary Wastes From the 200-Area
ETF
The commenter raises multiple issues
regarding secondary waste associated
with the 200-Area ETF system. In
particular the commenter states ‘‘[a]
defined secondary waste disposition
path is needed for the solids/brine
produced by treatment of WTP EMF hot
operations effluent.’’ And ‘‘DOE has
initiated an additional project to install
the capability to load-out brine from the
ETF STT’s concentrate tanks into totes
for shipment off-site. This project will
mitigate brine removal issues from the
STT and expand the capacity of WTP
EMF hot operations effluent treated[.]’’
Information in the proposed delisting
docket notes that ETF brine could be
sent off-site for further treatment. (See
RPP–RPT–62739, pages 35, 38, 39, and
108). While this may be a valid issue,
secondary wastes are not within the
scope of the proposed modifications to
the 200-Area ETF delisting.
Addition of New Constituents
The commenter notes that Energy has
identified multiple additional
constituents associated with liquid
effluent from the WTP. In particular, the
commenter states ‘‘[a]dditionally, RPP–
RPT–60974 lists constituents in the
projected WTP EMF hot operations
wastewater profile that are not included
in the delisting treatability envelope,
including 2-hexanone, 2-butoxyethanol,
acetate, glycolate, oxalate, boron, and
manganese. These additional
constituents (and their associated limits)
will need to be added to the delisting
approval treatability envelope. A project
is underway to complete this action.’’
and ‘‘EPA has noted that acetonitrile is
difficult to destroy. Will the yet
undiscovered other constituents be
similarly difficult to destroy, potentially
leading to more ‘off-site’ promises and
off-site risks?’’
Ecology and EPA agree that the
enumerated constituents have been
identified by Energy. However, the
mechanism established in the 2005
revisions of the ETF delisting,
specifically the treatability group
concept, was established to address
exactly this circumstance. (See
Condition (1)(b) of the current
delisting). Ecology and EPA are
expecting a written request from Energy
to modify Tables C–1 and C–2 in the
existing delisting, to incorporate these
additional constituents. Because
treatment of these constituents is
expected to be well within the
treatability envelope of the associated
treatability group (to which they will be
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
added), no change to the delisting rule
itself is necessary.
Ecology and EPA have determined
(based on their review of the
information provided by Energy
regarding new constituents associated
with the WTP) that the methodology
used by Energy in developing this
information is sound and defensible.
There is no substantial risk of
unidentified constituents appearing in
WTP liquid effluents that would
preclude acceptance of such wastes for
treatment at the 200 Area ETF. Ecology
and EPA also note that the 2005 revision
to the ETF delisting include rigorous
waste characterization and waste
treatment plan requirements prior to
acceptance of any waste for treatment at
the 200 Area ETF, ensuring that even in
the remote instance that constituents (or
levels of constituents) which would
cause a waste to be unacceptable for
treatment at ETF are identified prior to
waste receipt.
Shipment of Secondary Waste for OffSite Treatment
The commenter also raised concerns
regarding Energy’s current proposal to
send secondary wastes from the ETF
(brine, acetonitrile concentrate) to an
off-site treatment, storage or disposal
facility. In particular, the commenter
states ‘‘[a]ny tank-waste-related feeds to
LERF/ETF [Liquid Effluent Retention
Facility/Effluent Treatment Facility] and
any brines produced as a result of the
changing ‘projections’ of WTP waste
compositions as described in the current
delisting petition, should be prohibited
from off-site treatment. The cradle to
grave liability for this waste rests with
DOE, and DOE should not share it with
a facility that has a poor track record
and a poor environmental location.’’
and the second citation in the comment
discussed in the previous section
‘‘Addition of new constituents’’.
Regarding the risks associated with
treatment of ETF secondary wastes at
off-site facilities, Ecology ensures that
all such wastes are treated, stored and
disposed at approved facilities and in
full compliance with all dangerous
waste regulations and applicable
permits in a manner fully protective of
human health and the environment.
However, concerns related to treatment,
storage or disposal of secondary wastes
are not subject to delisting and to this
current delisting rule modification
proposal.
Lack of Direct Liquid Effluent
Characterization
The commentor made several
comments regarding a lack of direct
waste stream characterization and lack
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Sep 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
of pilot plant data. In particular, the
commenter stated ‘‘[i]n the case of 242–
A condensate, condensates had been
sampled, and surrogate wastes were
processed through pilot scale ETF
treatment units in order to provide an
‘up front’ petition[]’’ and ‘‘[n]o pilot
scale processes have been conducted for
the current WTP EMF effluent. There is
no pilot EMF and no integrated pilot
scale DFLAW process treatment train.
The integrated WTP ‘pilot scale’
equipment does not exist for DFLAW.
Rather WTP itself is being built as a fullscale pilot plant, with unknown and
uncertain (but certain to be expensive)
results.’’
Ecology and EPA acknowledge that
the current delisting rule modification
changes are based on projections, not
full-scale operations or demonstration
testing. With respect to acetonitrile, the
proposed changes to the delisting rule
are specifically targeted to ensure an
implementable mechanism is in place to
allow demonstration testing as
necessary to expand the treatability
envelope for acetonitrile. Therefore,
before full-scale operation of the
DFLAW configuration of the WTP
begins, Energy will have performed
exactly the type of direct demonstration
noted in these comments. As discussed
more fully in the 2005 delisting
modification action, the current 200Area ETF delisting is explicitly
structured to accommodate new
constituents–where such new
constituents are within the treatment
capacity of ETF (as reflected in the
waste-stream specific waste processing
strategy) required by the delisting rule.
Constituents can be accepted for
treatment in the 200 Area ETF without
modification of the delisting. For new
constituents that would require changes
to a treatability envelope, the new
demonstration testing mechanism in the
current proposal would be applied.
Alternate Treated Effluent Reuse
The commenter also raised an issue
regarding alternate re-use practices as
documented in RPT–63053, page 19
(This is the engineering report provided
as Attachment 3 to the March 31, 2021
delisting modification request, included
in the docket). Alternate reuse practices
are provided for under Condition 7 of
the current delisting, which is not being
changed under the current modification
proposal. Ecology and EPA understand
that Energy will be seeking approval
under Condition 7 for expanded treated
effluent reuse practices at a later date.
Approval of this change is outside of the
current proposed delisting modification.
The EPA is also making one
grammatical clarification identified after
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50649
the regulatory amendment proposed
rulemaking was published. The EPA is
modifying the last phrase of Condition
(6)(c) originally worded as ‘‘that the
Energy will be liable for Energy’s
reliance on the void exclusion.’’ to read
‘‘. . .that Energy will be liable for
Energy’s reliance on the voided
exclusion.’’
III. Final Rule
A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
EPA is finalizing Energy’s requested
amendments as proposed. Conditions of
the existing delisting not modified by
this action remain unchanged.
B. When is the delisting effective?
This rule is effective September 10,
2021. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), to
allow rules to become effective in less
than six months when the regulated
community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. This
rule reduces rather than increases the
existing requirements and, therefore, is
effective immediately upon publication
under the Administrative Procedures
Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
C. How does this action affect the
states?
This exclusion modification is being
issued under the federal RCRA delisting
program. Therefore, only states subject
to federal RCRA delisting provisions
would be affected. This exclusion is not
effective in states that have received
authorization to make their own
delisting decisions. Moreover, the
exclusion modifications may not be
effective in states having a dual system
that includes federal RCRA
requirements and their own
requirements. The EPA allows states to
impose their own regulatory
requirements that are more stringent
than EPA’s, under Section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision
that prohibits a federally issued
exclusion from taking effect in the state.
As noted in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, Ecology is expected to
make a parallel delisting decision under
their separate state authority.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
50650
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
because it is a rule of particular
applicability, not general applicability.
The action approves a modification of
an existing delisting petition under
RCRA for the petitioned waste at a
particular facility.
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is considered an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule maintains
meaningful burden reduction afforded
by the existing exclusion consistent
with changes necessary to allow
management of liquid effluents
expected from startup and operation of
Hanford’s Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
because it only applies to a particular
facility.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provision of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1531–1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
new enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Sep 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This action applies only to
a particular facility on non-tribal land.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
K. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This action does not involve technical
standards as described by the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272).
L. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high or
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The EPA has determined that this action
will not have disproportionately high or
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
M. Congressional Review Act
This action is exempt from the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
et seq.) because it is a rule of particular
applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection; Hazardous
waste, Recycling, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Timothy Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
261 as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
2. In appendix IX to part 261, amend
table 2, under the entry ‘‘United States
Department of Energy (Energy)’’ by:
■ a. Revising Conditions (1)(a)(i) and
(ii), and (1)(b);
■ b. Redesignating Conditions (1)(c) and
(d) as Conditions (1)(d) and (e);
■ c. Adding a new Conditions (1)(c);
■ d. Revising the newly redesignated
Conditions (1)(e)(iv); and
■ e. In Conditions (5) under the entry for
‘‘Organic Constituents’’ by:
■ i. Removing the entry
‘‘Dichloroisopropyl ether’’ and adding
an entry ‘‘Dichloroisopropyl ether—6.0
× 10¥2’’ in its place;
■ ii. Removing the entry ‘‘[Bis(2Chloroisopropyl) either]—6.0 × 10¥2’’;
■ iii. Removing the entry ‘‘Arochlor
[total of Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232,
1242, 1248, 1254, 1260]—5.0 × 10¥4’’
and adding an entry ‘‘Aroclor [total of
Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248,
1254, 1260]—5.0 × 10¥4’’ in its place;
and
■ f. Revising Condition (6)(c).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
*
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
*
*
10SER1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
50651
TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
*
*
United States Department of Energy (Energy).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Sep 09, 2021
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
Richland, Washington .................... * * *
Conditions:
(1) * * *
(a) * * *
(i) Complete sufficient characterization of the waste stream to demonstrate that the waste stream is within the treatability envelope of
200 Area ETF as specified in Tables C–1 and C–2 of the delisting
petition dated November 29, 2001, as amended. Results of the
waste stream characterization and the treatability evaluation must
be in writing and placed in the facility operating record, along with a
copy of Tables C–1 and C–2 of the November 29, 2001 petition, as
amended. Waste stream characterization may be carried out in
whole or in part using the waste analysis procedures in the Hanford
Facility RCRA Permit, WA7 89000 8967;
(ii) Prepare a written waste processing strategy specific to the waste
stream, based on the ETF process model documented in the November 29, 2001 petition, the March 31, 2021 modification request,
and Tables C–1 and C–2 of the November 29, 2001 petition, as
amended. For waste processing strategies applicable to waste
streams for which organic envelope data is provided in Table C–2
of the November 29, 2001 petition, as amended, Energy shall use
envelope data specific to that waste stream, if available. Otherwise,
Energy shall use the minimum envelope in Table C–2.
(b) Energy may modify the 200 Area ETF treatability envelope specified in Tables C–1 and C–2 of the November 29, 2001 delisting petition, as amended, to reflect changes in treatment technology or
operating practices upon written approval of the Regional Administrator. Requests for modification shall be accompanied by an engineering report detailing the basis for a modified treatment envelope.
Data supporting modified envelopes must be based on at least four
influent waste stream characterization data points and corresponding treated effluent verification sample data points for
wastes managed under a particular waste processing strategy.
Treatment efficiencies must be calculated based on a comparison
of upper 95 percent confidence level constituent concentrations.
Upon written EPA approval of the engineering report, the associated inorganic and organic treatment efficiency data may be used
in lieu of those in Tables C–1 and C–2 for purposes of condition
(1)(a)(i).
(c) Where operation of the 200 Area ETF for purposes of gathering
data supporting a modified treatability envelope pursuant to Condition (1)(b) requires operation outside of an existing treatability envelope or where a new treatability envelope is to be proposed, Energy
may request interim approval to conduct such demonstration testing
for purposes of developing a new or modified treatability envelope.
Such a request must include the following documentation:
(i) An Engineering Report documenting the basis for a modified treatability envelope. The Engineering Report shall, based on best available information, document that operation of the 200 Area ETF during the period of interim approval can be reasonably expected to
produce treated effluent satisfying the delisting levels in Condition
(5). The Engineering Report shall include, but is not limited to, engineering calculations, process modelling results, or performance
data provided by equipment manufacturers;
(ii) A demonstration test plan documenting the following:
(A) The quantity and characterization of the waste stream to be used
in conducting demonstration testing, and information that will be included in the waste processing strategy required by Condition
(1)(a)(ii) for the demonstration testing. The test plan shall document, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that data gathered from
the demonstration testing will be suitable for use in modifying the
treatability envelope pursuant to Condition (1)(b). The test plan may
include provisions for ‘‘spiking’’ the demonstration test waste feed
to ensure that a waste feed meeting the requirements of the test
plan is available;
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
50652
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
(B) A sampling and analysis plan with supporting systematic planning
documentation (e.g., Data Quality Objectives) and with an associated Quality Assurance Project Plan, for all sampling and analysis
specific to the demonstration testing. A minimum of four independent sample sets over the course of the demonstration test are
required from both the influent to the 200 Area ETF and the effluent
to the verification tanks;
(C) A schedule for conducting the demonstration testing. The demonstration testing schedule may be based on functional criteria in
addition to or in lieu of fixed calendar dates. The testing schedule
may contain contingencies for revising the test plan should additional testing be required to obtain the required performance data
points.
Energy may not commence demonstration testing until written interim
approval is obtained from the Regional Administrator. The effect of
interim approval shall be limited to relief from the requirement of
operating within the treatability envelope specified in Tables C–1
and C–2 of the November 29, 2001 delisting petition, as amended,
during the period of demonstration testing. Interim approval shall remain in effect only for the duration of the demonstration testing as
documented in the required testing schedule. Within 60 days following completion of demonstration testing, or such other time as
may be approved in writing by the EPA, Energy shall submit a written completion report documenting analysis of data gathered during
the demonstration test. Energy may request an extension of interim
approval for the period of time between completion of the demonstration testing and final approval of the modified treatability envelope. The EPA may approve amendments to the demonstration
test plan, including the associated schedule, as necessary to successfully complete demonstration testing. The EPA’s written approval of the completion report shall be considered approval of the
modified treatability envelope pursuant to Condition (1)(b).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(iv) Key unit operations are defined as filtration, UV/OX, reverse osmosis, ion exchange, steam stripping, and secondary waste treatment.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
Dichloroisopropyl ether—6.0 × 10¥2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Aroclor [total of Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254,
1260]—5.0 × 10¥4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(6) * * *
(c) Records required by Condition (6)(a) must be furnished on request
by EPA or the State of Washington and made available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the following certification statement to attest to the truth and accuracy of
the data submitted:
‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission
of false or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but may
not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928). I certify that
the information contained in or accompanying this document is true,
accurate, and complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s) of the document for which I cannot personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the official having supervisory responsibility of the persons who, acting
under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate, and complete.
In the event that any of this information is determined by EPA in its
sole discretion to be false, inaccurate, or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to Energy, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect to the extent
directed by EPA and that Energy will be liable for Energy’s reliance
on the voided exclusion.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Sep 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
*
*
50653
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–19048 Filed 9–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Parts 77, 78, 79, 80, 201, and
206
[Docket ID: FEMA–2019–0011]
RIN 1660–AA96
FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance
and Mitigation Planning Regulations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule revises the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance
and mitigation planning regulations to
reflect current statutory authority and
agency practice.
DATES: This rule is effective October 12,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
rulemaking is available for inspection
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be
viewed by following that website’s
instructions.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katherine Fox, Assistant Administrator
for Mitigation, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 202–646–1046,
Katherine.Fox5@fema.dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
I. Background and Discussion of the
Rule
On August 28, 2020, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) (85 FR 53474) to
revise FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation
Assistance (HMA) program regulations
to reflect current statutory authority and
agency practice.1 FEMA’s HMA program
1 FEMA has already implemented most of the
changes discussed in this Final Rule through the
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance in 2013.
See FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance,
Feb 27, 2015, available at https://www.fema.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Sep 09, 2021
Jkt 253001
Waste description
*
*
regulations consist of the Flood
Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant
program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP), financial assistance
for property acquisition and relocation
of open space, and mitigation planning
regulations. The NPRM proposed to
revise the FMA grant program
regulations to incorporate changes made
by amendments to the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA).2 The
NPRM also proposed to update terms
and definitions throughout the HMA
and Mitigation Planning regulations to
better align with uniform administrative
requirements that apply to all Federal
assistance.
The NPRM solicited public comment
on these proposed changes. FEMA
received five comments related to the
rulemaking and one unrelated comment
that was outside the scope of the
rulemaking. (The unrelated comment
was an expression of the commenter’s
political views and therefore not
germane to this rule). FEMA does not
consider the one unrelated comment in
this preamble. In this final rule, FEMA
adopts the changes it proposed in the
NPRM with some minor revisions in
consideration of the related comments
as well as Title 2 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 200. FEMA
describes the comments received and
changes to the final rule below.
II. Summary and Discussion of Public
Comments
FEMA received five written responses
to the amendments to its Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program
regulations. All commenters submitted
responses online at regulations.gov.
FEMA reviewed each unique comment
and considered whether to change the
regulation in response to the comment.
A summary of each comment and
FEMA’s response is provided below.
Responses are listed in order of Docket
ID number.
Individual Citizen, Docket ID FEMA–
2019–0011–0003
This individual citizen recommended
that FEMA eliminate the FMA program
and reallocate those resources to be
sites/default/files/2020-04/HMA_Guidance_
FY15.pdf (last accessed Feb 5, 2021). FEMA is now
updating its HMA regulations to reflect these
changes.
2 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
available for the purposes of obtaining
open space. FEMA appreciates this
comment and recognizes the importance
of maintaining open space as a critical
component of many hazard mitigation
programs; indeed, this is why the
acquisition of open space is one of the
eligible project types under FEMA’s
HMA programs. However, FEMA lacks
authority to eliminate the FMA program
because FEMA is required by statute to
implement this program (42 U.S.C.
4104c(a)(1)–(3)). FEMA also recognizes
that a one size fits all approach to
hazard mitigation is not aligned with
the comprehensive community and
hazard mitigation planning processes.
Individual Citizen, Docket ID FEMA–
2019–0011–0004
This individual citizen recommended
that the definition of ‘‘community’’ be
expanded to include community
organizations. In response, FEMA notes
that ‘‘community’’ is defined in statute
in 42 U.S.C. 4104c(h)(1) and as a result,
FEMA cannot reinterpret, expand or
change this definition. Although private
nonprofits and other private sector
entities such as businesses, industry
associations, native corporations, and
individuals are unable to apply for
FEMA’s HMA programs based on
statute, FEMA encourages partnerships
and recognizes that these entities can
provide value to projects eligible for
HMA funding.
The Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Docket ID FEMA–2019–0011–
0005
The Association of State Floodplain
Managers (ASFPM) is an organization of
professionals involved in floodplain
management, flood hazard mitigation,
the flood insurance, and flood
preparedness, warning and recovery.
The ASFPM Flood Mitigation
Committee submitted a number of
comments on behalf of the organization.
First, the ASFPM expressed concerns
that the proposed 44 CFR 77.7(b) states
that ‘‘[Pre-award] costs can only be
incurred during the open application
period for the FMA program.’’ Under
FEMA’s current practice, eligible preaward costs may be incurred prior to
application submission (limited by 44
CFR 79.8 to costs incurred during the
open application period). However, it is
not FEMA’s intent to disallow otherwise
E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM
10SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50647-50653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19048]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R10-RCRA-2021-0142; FRL-8917-02-R10]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Final Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (also, ``the
Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is taking final action to finalize
technical amendments to an existing exclusion from the list of federal
hazardous waste (delisting) issued to the United States Department of
Energy (Energy) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These
modifications address changes to the 200-Area Effluent Treatment System
associated with the delisting necessary to accept liquid effluents
expected to be generated from vitrification of certain low-activity
mixed wastes at the Hanford Federal Facility, or Hanford Site, in
Richland, Washington.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 10, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2021-0142. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through www.regulations.gov. Due to
restrictions related to COVID-19, docket materials are not available in
hard copy form at this time. If you have further questions concerning
docket materials, we recommend you telephone Dr. David Bartus at (206)
553-2804.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98070;
telephone number: (206) 553-2804; email address: [email protected].
As discussed in Section V of this document, the Washington State
Department of Ecology is making a separata but parallels decision
regarding the Petitioner's request for this modification under state
authority. Information on Ecology's action may be found at https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Public-comment-periods.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. EPA's Evaluation of Public Comments
III. Final Rule
A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
B. When is the delisting effective?
C. How does this action affect the states?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
Based on a petition submitted to the EPA, Energy requested
technical amendments to an existing exclusion from the list of
federally listed wastes set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 261.33 previously issued to the United States Department of
Energy (Energy) for the Hanford Federal Facility, or Hanford Site in
Richland, Washington (Current delisting). See 40 CFR part 261, appendix
IX, Table 2. This existing exclusion applies to treated effluent
generated by Hanford's 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). The
requested amendments relate to the planned startup of the Hanford Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). Details of Energy's requested
technical amendments are more fully described in EPA's proposed
regulatory amendments to the existing delisting at 86 (FR) 30237, June
7, 2021. After consideration of comments received on the EPA's proposed
regulatory amendments, the EPA is finalizing these amendments as
proposed. The EPA is also making one grammatical clarification
identified after the proposal cited above.
II. EPA's Evaluation of Public Comments
The EPA received one anonymous set of comments on the proposed
regulatory amendments. These comments, and the EPA's evaluation of
them, are described below.
This commenter raises several issues. One common theme is that
there are data gaps or other uncertainties regarding the ability of the
Effluent Treatment Facility to manage future wastes from the WTP. The
following sections address each of the comments that have a clear nexus
to the proposed modification of the existing 200-Area ETF delisting.
Uncertainty Regarding the Future Capability To Treat ``the Future
Unknowns''
The commenter stated ``It appears that the current petition
revision is solely to address acetonitrile, but that there are other
unknowns and chemicals of concern to be submitted at a later date for
future delisting petitions. There is no guarantee that there will be a
future capability to treat the future unknowns, leaving a considerable
risk of what to do with non-compliant effluent from the WTP.''
In promulgating significant revisions to the 200-ETF delisting in
2005 (70 FR 44498, July 30, 2012), Ecology and EPA explicitly intended
to broadly expand the waste streams that the ETF could process within
the scope of the treated effluent delisting. More specifically, the
final delisting rule stated ``The effect of these changes is to allow
the 200 Area ETF to fulfill an expanded role in supporting Hanford
Facility cleanup actions beyond those activities considered in the 1995
delisting rulemaking. In particular, these changes will allow the 200
Area ETF to treat mixed wastewaters from a number of additional sources
beyond 242-A Evaporator process condensate (PC) upon which the original
delisting was based.'' (See 70 FR 44497, July 30, 2012).
Consistent with this objective, the 2005 delisting modifications
established a detailed mechanism based on the concept of a treatability
envelope, which defines the ability of the ETF system overall to treat
a wide range of waste constituents. This mechanism is based on an
engineering model of the various unit operations within the ETF
treatment train. Additionally, constituent-specific data for a wide
range of constituents were used on a waste-stream specific basis to
evaluate the treatability of that waste stream as part of the waste
acceptance process for
[[Page 50648]]
the ETF. A target goal with this approach was to establish a delisting
framework that could consider future waste streams for which
characterization data was not available at the time, but that could be
managed in the future. More importantly, as Ecology and EPA noted in
the 2005 delisting rulemaking ``[s]ince Energy could not reasonably
provide detailed characterization of wastes streams that have yet to be
generated, EPA proposed a waste acceptance framework based on an
engineering evaluation of waste streams. This model provides a degree
of confidence that treatment in the 200 Area ETF will meet delisting
exclusion limits to the same degree of confidence as if detailed waste
stream characterization were available, while avoiding the need to
frequently revise the delisting rule itself.'' (See 70 FR 44499, July
30, 2012).
Liquid effluents from the Waste Treatment Plant are one example of
wastes that, in 2005, were expected to be generated in the future, but
were not sufficiently characterized in order to be evaluated at that
time. Since the 2005 modifications, the Department of Energy has made
progress in both the design and operation of the planned WTP, including
a detailed characterization of the liquid effluents from the WTP
through engineering design and modelling. (See the engineering report
and associated supporting calculation documents provided in the docket
for the current delisting modifications). From this work, Energy
identified a number of constituents in WTP liquid effluent that would
need to be considered in the context of the ETF delisting. Energy has
provided a request to the EPA (21-ECD-001774 dated June 29, 2021,
available in the Hanford administrative records at www.hanford.gov) to
consider five of these additional constituents through a modification
of Tables C-1 and C-2 pursuant to Condition (1)(b) of the existing
delisting. This request is consistent with the mechanism already in
place under the existing delisting. Because the June 29, 2021 request
is outside the scope of this modification to the delisting rule itself,
the request to add five additional constituents identified in the June
29, 2021 request are not further considered in this comment response,
but will be addressed by EPA's expected future response to the June 29,
2021 request.
As documented in its request for a modification of the 200 Area ETF
delisting, Energy identified that acetonitrile exceeded the existing
treatability envelope for that constituent. Based on our analysis of
information provided by Energy for the current proposed modification,
and the overall structure and content of the 2005 modifications to the
delisting, EPA and Ecology have determined that with the current
proposed modifications, the 200-Area ETF is fully capable of accepting
reasonably expected liquid effluents from the WTP, and that there is
little if any regulatory, environmental, or project risk associated
with WTP liquid effluents that would warrant future modifications of
the 200 Area ETF delisting.
The commenter also raised a concern about a lack of pilot scale
testing for WTP effluent. In particular the commenter states ``In the
case of 242-A condensate, condensates had been sampled, and surrogate
wastes were processed through pilot scale ETF treatment units in order
to provide an `up front' petition'' and ``No pilot scale processes have
been conducted for the current WTP EMF effluent. There is no pilot EMF
and no integrated pilot scale Direct Feed Low Activity Waste (DFLAW)
process treatment train. The integrated WTP `pilot scale' equipment
does not exist for DFLAW. Rather WTP itself is being built as a full-
scale pilot plant, with unknown and uncertain (but certain to be
expensive) results.''
Ecology and EPA acknowledge that the current proposed delisting
rule modification changes are based on projections, not full-scale
operations or demonstration testing. With respect to acetonitrile, the
proposed changes to the delisting rule are specifically targeted to
ensure an implementable mechanism is in place. This will allow
demonstration testing as necessary, to expand the treatability envelope
for acetonitrile. Therefore, before full-scale operation of the DFLAW
configuration of the WTP begins, Energy will have performed exactly the
type of direct demonstration that this comment speaks to. As discussed
more fully in the 2005 delisting modification action, the current 200-
Area ETF delisting is explicitly structured to accommodate new
constituents where such new constituents are within the treatment
capacity of ETF (as reflected in the waste-stream specific waste
processing strategy required by the delisting rule). New constituents
can be accepted for treatment in the 200 Area ETF without modification
of the delisting. For new constituents that would require changes to a
treatability envelope, the new demonstration testing mechanism in the
current proposal would be applied.
Secondary Wastes From the 200-Area ETF
The commenter raises multiple issues regarding secondary waste
associated with the 200-Area ETF system. In particular the commenter
states ``[a] defined secondary waste disposition path is needed for the
solids/brine produced by treatment of WTP EMF hot operations
effluent.'' And ``DOE has initiated an additional project to install
the capability to load-out brine from the ETF STT's concentrate tanks
into totes for shipment off-site. This project will mitigate brine
removal issues from the STT and expand the capacity of WTP EMF hot
operations effluent treated[.]''
Information in the proposed delisting docket notes that ETF brine
could be sent off-site for further treatment. (See RPP-RPT-62739, pages
35, 38, 39, and 108). While this may be a valid issue, secondary wastes
are not within the scope of the proposed modifications to the 200-Area
ETF delisting.
Addition of New Constituents
The commenter notes that Energy has identified multiple additional
constituents associated with liquid effluent from the WTP. In
particular, the commenter states ``[a]dditionally, RPP-RPT-60974 lists
constituents in the projected WTP EMF hot operations wastewater profile
that are not included in the delisting treatability envelope, including
2-hexanone, 2-butoxyethanol, acetate, glycolate, oxalate, boron, and
manganese. These additional constituents (and their associated limits)
will need to be added to the delisting approval treatability envelope.
A project is underway to complete this action.'' and ``EPA has noted
that acetonitrile is difficult to destroy. Will the yet undiscovered
other constituents be similarly difficult to destroy, potentially
leading to more `off-site' promises and off-site risks?''
Ecology and EPA agree that the enumerated constituents have been
identified by Energy. However, the mechanism established in the 2005
revisions of the ETF delisting, specifically the treatability group
concept, was established to address exactly this circumstance. (See
Condition (1)(b) of the current delisting). Ecology and EPA are
expecting a written request from Energy to modify Tables C-1 and C-2 in
the existing delisting, to incorporate these additional constituents.
Because treatment of these constituents is expected to be well within
the treatability envelope of the associated treatability group (to
which they will be
[[Page 50649]]
added), no change to the delisting rule itself is necessary.
Ecology and EPA have determined (based on their review of the
information provided by Energy regarding new constituents associated
with the WTP) that the methodology used by Energy in developing this
information is sound and defensible. There is no substantial risk of
unidentified constituents appearing in WTP liquid effluents that would
preclude acceptance of such wastes for treatment at the 200 Area ETF.
Ecology and EPA also note that the 2005 revision to the ETF delisting
include rigorous waste characterization and waste treatment plan
requirements prior to acceptance of any waste for treatment at the 200
Area ETF, ensuring that even in the remote instance that constituents
(or levels of constituents) which would cause a waste to be
unacceptable for treatment at ETF are identified prior to waste
receipt.
Shipment of Secondary Waste for Off-Site Treatment
The commenter also raised concerns regarding Energy's current
proposal to send secondary wastes from the ETF (brine, acetonitrile
concentrate) to an off-site treatment, storage or disposal facility. In
particular, the commenter states ``[a]ny tank-waste-related feeds to
LERF/ETF [Liquid Effluent Retention Facility/Effluent Treatment
Facility] and any brines produced as a result of the changing
`projections' of WTP waste compositions as described in the current
delisting petition, should be prohibited from off-site treatment. The
cradle to grave liability for this waste rests with DOE, and DOE should
not share it with a facility that has a poor track record and a poor
environmental location.'' and the second citation in the comment
discussed in the previous section ``Addition of new constituents''.
Regarding the risks associated with treatment of ETF secondary
wastes at off-site facilities, Ecology ensures that all such wastes are
treated, stored and disposed at approved facilities and in full
compliance with all dangerous waste regulations and applicable permits
in a manner fully protective of human health and the environment.
However, concerns related to treatment, storage or disposal of
secondary wastes are not subject to delisting and to this current
delisting rule modification proposal.
Lack of Direct Liquid Effluent Characterization
The commentor made several comments regarding a lack of direct
waste stream characterization and lack of pilot plant data. In
particular, the commenter stated ``[i]n the case of 242-A condensate,
condensates had been sampled, and surrogate wastes were processed
through pilot scale ETF treatment units in order to provide an `up
front' petition[]'' and ``[n]o pilot scale processes have been
conducted for the current WTP EMF effluent. There is no pilot EMF and
no integrated pilot scale DFLAW process treatment train. The integrated
WTP `pilot scale' equipment does not exist for DFLAW. Rather WTP itself
is being built as a full-scale pilot plant, with unknown and uncertain
(but certain to be expensive) results.''
Ecology and EPA acknowledge that the current delisting rule
modification changes are based on projections, not full-scale
operations or demonstration testing. With respect to acetonitrile, the
proposed changes to the delisting rule are specifically targeted to
ensure an implementable mechanism is in place to allow demonstration
testing as necessary to expand the treatability envelope for
acetonitrile. Therefore, before full-scale operation of the DFLAW
configuration of the WTP begins, Energy will have performed exactly the
type of direct demonstration noted in these comments. As discussed more
fully in the 2005 delisting modification action, the current 200-Area
ETF delisting is explicitly structured to accommodate new constituents-
where such new constituents are within the treatment capacity of ETF
(as reflected in the waste-stream specific waste processing strategy)
required by the delisting rule. Constituents can be accepted for
treatment in the 200 Area ETF without modification of the delisting.
For new constituents that would require changes to a treatability
envelope, the new demonstration testing mechanism in the current
proposal would be applied.
Alternate Treated Effluent Reuse
The commenter also raised an issue regarding alternate re-use
practices as documented in RPT-63053, page 19 (This is the engineering
report provided as Attachment 3 to the March 31, 2021 delisting
modification request, included in the docket). Alternate reuse
practices are provided for under Condition 7 of the current delisting,
which is not being changed under the current modification proposal.
Ecology and EPA understand that Energy will be seeking approval under
Condition 7 for expanded treated effluent reuse practices at a later
date. Approval of this change is outside of the current proposed
delisting modification.
The EPA is also making one grammatical clarification identified
after the regulatory amendment proposed rulemaking was published. The
EPA is modifying the last phrase of Condition (6)(c) originally worded
as ``that the Energy will be liable for Energy's reliance on the void
exclusion.'' to read ``. . .that Energy will be liable for Energy's
reliance on the voided exclusion.''
III. Final Rule
A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
EPA is finalizing Energy's requested amendments as proposed.
Conditions of the existing delisting not modified by this action remain
unchanged.
B. When is the delisting effective?
This rule is effective September 10, 2021. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), to allow rules to become effective in less than six months
when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come
into compliance. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing
requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication
under the Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
C. How does this action affect the states?
This exclusion modification is being issued under the federal RCRA
delisting program. Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA
delisting provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective
in states that have received authorization to make their own delisting
decisions. Moreover, the exclusion modifications may not be effective
in states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements
and their own requirements. The EPA allows states to impose their own
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under
Section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking,
Ecology is expected to make a parallel delisting decision under their
separate state authority.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
[[Page 50650]]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general
applicability. The action approves a modification of an existing
delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular
facility.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule maintains meaningful burden reduction afforded
by the existing exclusion consistent with changes necessary to allow
management of liquid effluents expected from startup and operation of
Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) because it only applies to a particular facility.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular
facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action does not involve technical standards as described by
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272).
L. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment.
M. Congressional Review Act
This action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection; Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Timothy Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
261 as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.
0
2. In appendix IX to part 261, amend table 2, under the entry ``United
States Department of Energy (Energy)'' by:
0
a. Revising Conditions (1)(a)(i) and (ii), and (1)(b);
0
b. Redesignating Conditions (1)(c) and (d) as Conditions (1)(d) and
(e);
0
c. Adding a new Conditions (1)(c);
0
d. Revising the newly redesignated Conditions (1)(e)(iv); and
0
e. In Conditions (5) under the entry for ``Organic Constituents'' by:
0
i. Removing the entry ``Dichloroisopropyl ether'' and adding an entry
``Dichloroisopropyl ether--6.0 x 10-2'' in its place;
0
ii. Removing the entry ``[Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) either]--6.0 x
10-2'';
0
iii. Removing the entry ``Arochlor [total of Arochlors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260]--5.0 x 10-4'' and adding an
entry ``Aroclor [total of Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254,
1260]--5.0 x 10-4'' in its place; and
0
f. Revising Condition (6)(c).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
* * * * *
[[Page 50651]]
Table 2--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
United States Department of Richland, * * *
Energy (Energy). Washington. Conditions:
(1) * * *
(a) * * *
(i) Complete
sufficient
characterization of
the waste stream to
demonstrate that the
waste stream is
within the
treatability
envelope of 200 Area
ETF as specified in
Tables C-1 and C-2
of the delisting
petition dated
November 29, 2001,
as amended. Results
of the waste stream
characterization and
the treatability
evaluation must be
in writing and
placed in the
facility operating
record, along with a
copy of Tables C-1
and C-2 of the
November 29, 2001
petition, as
amended. Waste
stream
characterization may
be carried out in
whole or in part
using the waste
analysis procedures
in the Hanford
Facility RCRA
Permit, WA7 89000
8967;
(ii) Prepare a
written waste
processing strategy
specific to the
waste stream, based
on the ETF process
model documented in
the November 29,
2001 petition, the
March 31, 2021
modification
request, and Tables
C-1 and C-2 of the
November 29, 2001
petition, as
amended. For waste
processing
strategies
applicable to waste
streams for which
organic envelope
data is provided in
Table C-2 of the
November 29, 2001
petition, as
amended, Energy
shall use envelope
data specific to
that waste stream,
if available.
Otherwise, Energy
shall use the
minimum envelope in
Table C-2.
(b) Energy may modify
the 200 Area ETF
treatability
envelope specified
in Tables C-1 and C-
2 of the November
29, 2001 delisting
petition, as
amended, to reflect
changes in treatment
technology or
operating practices
upon written
approval of the
Regional
Administrator.
Requests for
modification shall
be accompanied by an
engineering report
detailing the basis
for a modified
treatment envelope.
Data supporting
modified envelopes
must be based on at
least four influent
waste stream
characterization
data points and
corresponding
treated effluent
verification sample
data points for
wastes managed under
a particular waste
processing strategy.
Treatment
efficiencies must be
calculated based on
a comparison of
upper 95 percent
confidence level
constituent
concentrations. Upon
written EPA approval
of the engineering
report, the
associated inorganic
and organic
treatment efficiency
data may be used in
lieu of those in
Tables C-1 and C-2
for purposes of
condition (1)(a)(i).
(c) Where operation
of the 200 Area ETF
for purposes of
gathering data
supporting a
modified
treatability
envelope pursuant to
Condition (1)(b)
requires operation
outside of an
existing
treatability
envelope or where a
new treatability
envelope is to be
proposed, Energy may
request interim
approval to conduct
such demonstration
testing for purposes
of developing a new
or modified
treatability
envelope. Such a
request must include
the following
documentation:
(i) An Engineering
Report documenting
the basis for a
modified
treatability
envelope. The
Engineering Report
shall, based on best
available
information,
document that
operation of the 200
Area ETF during the
period of interim
approval can be
reasonably expected
to produce treated
effluent satisfying
the delisting levels
in Condition (5).
The Engineering
Report shall
include, but is not
limited to,
engineering
calculations,
process modelling
results, or
performance data
provided by
equipment
manufacturers;
(ii) A demonstration
test plan
documenting the
following:
(A) The quantity and
characterization of
the waste stream to
be used in
conducting
demonstration
testing, and
information that
will be included in
the waste processing
strategy required by
Condition (1)(a)(ii)
for the
demonstration
testing. The test
plan shall document,
to a reasonable
degree of certainty,
that data gathered
from the
demonstration
testing will be
suitable for use in
modifying the
treatability
envelope pursuant to
Condition (1)(b).
The test plan may
include provisions
for ``spiking'' the
demonstration test
waste feed to ensure
that a waste feed
meeting the
requirements of the
test plan is
available;
[[Page 50652]]
(B) A sampling and
analysis plan with
supporting
systematic planning
documentation (e.g.,
Data Quality
Objectives) and with
an associated
Quality Assurance
Project Plan, for
all sampling and
analysis specific to
the demonstration
testing. A minimum
of four independent
sample sets over the
course of the
demonstration test
are required from
both the influent to
the 200 Area ETF and
the effluent to the
verification tanks;
(C) A schedule for
conducting the
demonstration
testing. The
demonstration
testing schedule may
be based on
functional criteria
in addition to or in
lieu of fixed
calendar dates. The
testing schedule may
contain
contingencies for
revising the test
plan should
additional testing
be required to
obtain the required
performance data
points.
Energy may not
commence
demonstration
testing until
written interim
approval is obtained
from the Regional
Administrator. The
effect of interim
approval shall be
limited to relief
from the requirement
of operating within
the treatability
envelope specified
in Tables C-1 and C-
2 of the November
29, 2001 delisting
petition, as
amended, during the
period of
demonstration
testing. Interim
approval shall
remain in effect
only for the
duration of the
demonstration
testing as
documented in the
required testing
schedule. Within 60
days following
completion of
demonstration
testing, or such
other time as may be
approved in writing
by the EPA, Energy
shall submit a
written completion
report documenting
analysis of data
gathered during the
demonstration test.
Energy may request
an extension of
interim approval for
the period of time
between completion
of the demonstration
testing and final
approval of the
modified
treatability
envelope. The EPA
may approve
amendments to the
demonstration test
plan, including the
associated schedule,
as necessary to
successfully
complete
demonstration
testing. The EPA's
written approval of
the completion
report shall be
considered approval
of the modified
treatability
envelope pursuant to
Condition (1)(b).
* * * * * * *
(e) * * *
(iv) Key unit
operations are
defined as
filtration, UV/OX,
reverse osmosis, ion
exchange, steam
stripping, and
secondary waste
treatment.
* * * * * * *
(5) * * *
Dichloroisopropyl
ether--6.0 x 10-2
* * * * * * *
Aroclor [total of
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248,
1254, 1260]--5.0 x
10-4
* * * * * * *
(6) * * *
(c) Records required
by Condition (6)(a)
must be furnished on
request by EPA or
the State of
Washington and made
available for
inspection. All data
must be accompanied
by a signed copy of
the following
certification
statement to attest
to the truth and
accuracy of the data
submitted:
``Under civil and
criminal penalty of
law for the making
or submission of
false or fraudulent
statements or
representations
(pursuant to the
applicable
provisions of the
Federal Code, which
include, but may not
be limited to, 18
U.S.C. 1001 and 42
U.S.C. 6928). I
certify that the
information
contained in or
accompanying this
document is true,
accurate, and
complete.
As to the (those)
identified
section(s) of the
document for which I
cannot personally
verify its (their)
truth and accuracy,
I certify as the
official having
supervisory
responsibility of
the persons who,
acting under my
direct instructions,
made the
verification that
this information is
true, accurate, and
complete.
In the event that any
of this information
is determined by EPA
in its sole
discretion to be
false, inaccurate,
or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of
this fact to Energy,
I recognize and
agree that this
exclusion of waste
will be void as if
it never had effect
to the extent
directed by EPA and
that Energy will be
liable for Energy's
reliance on the
voided exclusion.''
[[Page 50653]]
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-19048 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
