Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50647 

(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. 

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/WasteToxics/Nuclear-waste/Public-commentperiods. 

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 


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 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 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 

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 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/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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. 

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, 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. 

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(2- 

Chloroisopropyl) 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 

* * * * * 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50651 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

United States Department of Energy (Energy).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; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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 

(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.’’ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 173 / Friday, September 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50653 

1FEMA 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/ 

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. 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

* * * * * 

[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 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

http://www.regulations.gov and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katherine Fox, Assistant Administrator 

for Mitigation, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 202–646–1046, 

Katherine.Fox5@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 

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 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES