[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: 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/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 http://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


