Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30237 

date of the date when the Severe area 

RACT SIP will be due, i.e., 36 months 

from the effective date of the EPA’s final 

rule reclassifying Eastern Kern to Severe 

(assuming we finalize the proposed 18- 

month schedule for submittal). We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposed rule for the next 30 days. 

The deadline and instructions for 

submission of comments are provided 

in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at 

the beginning of this preamble. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this 

proposed action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ and therefore is not 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. Because the 

statutory requirements are clearly 

defined with respect to the differently 

classified areas, and because those 

requirements are automatically triggered 

by reclassification, the timing of the 

submittal of the Severe area 

requirements does not impose a 

materially adverse impact under 

Executive Order 12866. For these 

reasons, this proposed action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

In addition, I certify that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) and that this proposed rule does 

not contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4), because the EPA is 

seeking comment solely on the timing of 

submittal requirements. 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) requires the EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ There 

are no Indian reservation lands or other 

areas where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction within the Eastern Kern 

ozone nonattainment area, and thus, 

this proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175. 

This proposed action also does not 

have federalism implications because it 

does not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, nor on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This 

proposed action does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because the EPA 

interprets Executive Order 13045 as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. 

As this proposal would set a deadline 

for the submittal of CAA required plans 

and information, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. The 

EPA believes that this action, which 

addresses the timing for the submittal of 

Severe area ozone planning 

requirements, does not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental health 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 27, 2021. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11706 Filed 6–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R10–RCRA–2021–0142; FRL–10023– 

45–Region 10] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Proposed Exclusion for 

Identifying and Listing Hazardous 

Waste 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) (also, ‘‘the Agency’’ or 

‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is proposing 

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: Comments must be received on 

or before July 7, 2021. Requests for an 

informal hearing must reach the EPA by 

June 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2021–0142 via 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Due to restrictions related to COVID–19, 

submission of comments via mail or 

hand delivery is not feasible at this 

time. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2021– 

0142. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30238 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1The Washington State Department of Ecology is 

authorized to implement their dangerous waste 

regulations at Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) 173–303 in lieu of the federal hazardous 

waste system, except for certain requirements, such 

as the state counterparts to the federal delisting 

regulations at 40 CFR 260.20 and 22. Under the 

dangerous waste program, dangerous wastes are a 

superset of federal hazardous wastes. 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

physical media you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Any person may request an informal 

hearing on this proposed decision by 

filing a request with Timothy Hamlin, 

Director, Land, Chemicals and 

Redevelopment Division, EPA, Region 

10, 1200 6th Ave., Suite 155, M/S 15– 

H04, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

request must contain the information 

prescribed in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations CFR 260.20(d). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, 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 15–H04, 

Seattle, Washington 98101; telephone 

number: (206) 553–2804; fax number 

(206) 553–8509; email address: 

bartus.dave@epa.gov. 

As discussed in Section V of this 

document, the Washington State 

Department of Ecology is evaluating 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. Background 

A. Hanford’s 200 Area Effluent Treatment 

Facility 

B. Hanford’s Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant 

C. Changes to 200 Area Effluent Treatment 

Facility Capability 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the Proposed 

Technical Amendments 

A. Addition of Steam Stripping as a New 

Unit Operation 

B. Changes to Treatability Envelope 

Demonstration Test Requirements 

C. Miscellaneous Changes and Updates 

IV. When Would the EPA Finalize the 

Proposed Delisting Modification? 

V. How Will This Action Affect States? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview Information 

The EPA is proposing 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. 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). As 

described below, these amendments 

relate to the planned startup of the 

Hanford Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant. 

Based on our review described in 

Section III of this document, we propose 

to approve the requested amendments. 

II. Background 

A. Hanford’s 200 Area Effluent 

Treatment Facility 

The 200 Area ETF is a radioactive 

aqueous wastewater treatment system 

located in the 200 East Area of the 

Hanford Site that provides treatment for 

a variety of aqueous mixed waste. This 

aqueous waste includes process 

condensate from the 242–A Evaporator, 

Hanford landfill leachates, and other 

aqueous waste generated from onsite 

remediation and waste management 

activities, potentially carrying a range of 

listed and characteristic dangerous 

waste numbers.1 The 200 Area ETF 

consists of a primary and a secondary 

treatment train. The primary train 

includes treatment processes to treat 

both organic and inorganic waste 

constituents, including ultraviolet 

oxidation (UV/OX), reverse osmosis, ion 

exchange, pH adjustment and filtration. 

The secondary treatment train manages 

backwash from the primary treatment 

train filters, ion exchange regeneration, 

and the stream from the reverse osmosis 

system that is retained by the reverse 

osmosis membrane, also known as 

retentate. Construction of the 200 Area 

ETF began in 1992 with waste 

management operations beginning in 

November of 1995. 

Treated effluent from the 200 Area 

ETF is discharged to the State Approved 

Land Disposal Site, or SALDS, located 

north of the 200 West Area of the 

Hanford Site. This disposal unit allows 

tritium remaining in the treated effluent 

to naturally decay in the subsurface—it 

is not authorized to accept dangerous 

waste. To this end, the EPA issued an 

exclusion from the list of hazardous 

wastes to Energy in 1995. See 60 FR 

6054, February 1, 1995. This exclusion 

was amended by the EPA in 2005. See 

70 FR 44496, August 3, 2005. 

B. Hanford’s Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant 

The Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP) is intended 

to process and stabilize much of the 56 

million gallons of radioactive and 

chemical waste currently stored at the 

Hanford Site. As originally envisioned, 

the WTP would treat high-level and 

low-activity radioactive waste 

simultaneously. To begin treating waste 

as soon as practicable, Energy 

developed an approach to treat lowactivity waste prior to the start-up of the 

WTP pre-treatment and the high-level 

waste facilities. This approach is called 

direct-feed low-activity waste, or 

DFLAW, and is focused on sending lowactivity waste from the tank farms 

directly to the WTP Low-Activity Waste 

(LAW) Facility. A new Effluent 

Management Facility (EMF) has been 

constructed at the WTP to manage 

effluents generated from the WTP LAW 

Facility during DFLAW. The EMF is 

needed to evaporate the liquid 

secondary waste generated by the off-gas 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30239 

2 In practice, the engineering report expected to 

be submitted in connection with a proposed 

demonstration treatment plan is likely to be similar, 

if not identical to the engineering report included 

in the docket supporting this proposed modification 

of the existing 200 Area ETF delisting. 

treatment system associated with the 

two WTP LAW Facility vitrification 

melters. Evaporator process condensate 

from the EMF, combined with WTP 

LAW Facility caustic scrubber effluents, 

will receive treatment at the 200 Area 

ETF, with the resulting treated effluent 

disposed of at the SALDS. The waste 

stream transferred from WTP to the 200 

Area ETF is referred to as the WTP 

DFLAW effluent waste stream. 

C. Changes to 200 Area Effluent 

Treatment Facility Capability 

Through the design and permitting of 

the WTP complex, Energy identified 

several additional constituents it 

expected to be present in WTP DFLAW 

effluent waste stream which are not 

typically found in wastes managed by 

the 200 Area ETF, or are present at 

levels above the current capabilities of 

the 200 Area ETF. Most of these 

additional constituents are within the 

existing treatment capabilities of the 200 

Area ETF, and do not require special 

consideration. One constituent, 

acetonitrile, which is formed in the 

WTP LAW Facility vitrification melters, 

is predicted to be present at levels in 

excess of the current capability of the 

200 Area ETF, as reflected in the current 

organic treatability envelope 

documented in Table C–2 of the 

delisting petition dated November 29, 

2001. Within the 200 Area ETF, the UV/ 

OX system treats organic compounds, 

including but not limited to acetonitrile. 

However, acetonitrile is not easily 

degraded through UV/OX. Table C–2 in 

the November 29, 2001 petition shows 

an electrical energy per order (EE/O) of 

magnitude destruction of 50. EE/O 

reflects the relative difficulty for 

destruction of the organic constituent in 

the UV/OX unit. Constituents in Table 

C–2 with an EE/O of 40 or higher are 

considered hard to treat organics. After 

examining various options for 

addressing this issue, Energy 

determined that the addition of 

supplemental organic treatment in the 

form of a steam stripper to the 200–ETF 

to separate acetonitrile from treated 

effluents would be the preferred 

approach to ensuring additional 

constituents associated with the WTP 

DFLAW effluent waste stream can be 

effectively managed at the 200 Area 

ETF. 

To accommodate the addition of the 

proposed steam stripper unit to the 200 

Area ETF, two technical amendments 

are necessary to the current delisting. 

First, the list of unit operations in 

Condition (1)(d)(iv) of the current 

delisting must be amended to include 

steam stripping. Second, a new 

condition is necessary to establish a 

mechanism whereby Energy can operate 

the 200 Area ETF outside of the existing 

treatability envelope to gather 

demonstration test data to increase the 

treatability envelope concentration for 

acetonitrile to accommodate the 

predicted level in the WTP DFLAW 

effluent waste stream. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Proposed Technical Amendments 

A. Addition of Steam Stripping as a 

New Unit Operation 

In support of its request to modify the 

existing 200 Area ETF delisting, Energy 

has provided the EPA with an 

engineering report documenting the 

design and expected level of 

performance of the proposed steam 

stripper (docket entries EPA–R10– 

RCRA–2021–0142–DRAFT–0003 and 

EPA–R10–RCRA–2021–0142–DRAFT– 

0005). These reports include both a 

detailed process flow diagram for, and 

results of process simulation of the 

proposed steam stripper. This 

information provides assurance that, if 

the steam stripper is added to the 200 

Area ETF primary treatment train, the 

overall treatment system can effectively 

treat the expected WTP DFLAW effluent 

waste stream and allow for successful 

verification of all existing delisting 

criteria, including but not limited to 

acetonitrile. Energy must also receive 

authorization to construct and operate 

the proposed supplemental organic 

treatment system from the Washington 

State Department of Ecology through 

their authorized dangerous waste 

permitting program, as well as other 

applicable state permits. 

B. Changes to Treatability Envelope 

Demonstration Test Requirements 

The existing 200 Area ETF delisting 

rule includes a mechanism, documented 

in Condition (1)(b), that allows Energy 

to modify the 200 Area ETF treatability 

envelope specified in Tables C–1 and C– 

2 of the November 29, 2001 delisting 

petition to reflect changes in treatment 

technology or operating practices upon 

written approval of the Regional 

Administrator. As stated in the rule, 

‘‘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.’’ This 

mechanism will be used to expand the 

existing treatability envelope for 

acetonitrile but will require operation of 

the 200 Area ETF outside the existing 

approved treatability envelope, which is 

otherwise not provided for in the 

delisting rule. To address this issue, the 

EPA is proposing to include a new 

condition (1)(c) that establishes a 

mechanism that will allow operation 

outside of the approved treatability 

envelope for purposes of gathering 

demonstration test data to amend the 

treatability envelope at a later time. 

The purpose of this new mechanism 

is to allow the EPA an opportunity to 

perform a forward-looking technical 

evaluation of how the 200 Area ETF will 

be operated during the demonstration 

test in order to support a finding that, 

to a reasonable degree of certainty, 

delisting exclusion limits can be 

satisfied during the demonstration test. 

This mechanism requires Energy to 

provide the EPA with an engineering 

report and a demonstration test plan. 

The engineering report must document 

that the 200 Area ETF can be reasonably 

expected to produce treated effluent 

during the period of interim approval 

which satisfies the delisting levels in 

Condition (5).2 The engineering report 

shall include, but is not limited to, 

engineering calculations, process 

modelling results, or performance data 

provided by equipment manufacturers. 

The demonstration test plan will 

complement the engineering report by 

documenting the composition of the 

waste feed to be used during the 

demonstration test, how the 

demonstration test will be conducted, 

how demonstration test sampling and 

analysis will be conducted, and a 

schedule for conducting the 

demonstration test. 

The EPA will review these submittals 

to determine whether the demonstration 

test will yield data suitable for 

establishing an expanded treatability 

envelope for the target constituents, and 

that delisting exclusion limits will be 

satisfied during the demonstration test. 

Provided that this review demonstrates 

that these criteria can be met to a 

reasonable degree of certainty, the EPA 

will provide written interim approval to 

Energy to proceed with the 

demonstration test according to the 

approved demonstration test plan. 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. Once 

demonstration test data are available, 

Energy will then submit a completion 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30240 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

report. The EPA’s written approval of 

the completion report shall be 

considered approval of the modified 

treatability envelope pursuant to 

Condition (1)(b). 

C. Miscellaneous Changes and Updates 

The EPA is also proposing to make 

several minor changes to address 

typographical errors, amend section 

numbering to reflect addition of a new 

condition, and to amend selected 

references to treatability envelopes in 

Tables C–1 and C–2 that may be 

updated to accommodate WTP DFLAW 

effluent waste stream to include the 

phrase ‘‘as amended.’’ The EPA is also 

correcting certain references to Tables 

C–1 and C–2 to properly characterize 

their function as defining inorganic and 

organic treatability envelope data. 

IV. When would the EPA finalize the 

proposed delisting modification? 

40 CFR 260.20(c) requires the EPA to 

provide notice and an opportunity for 

comment before granting or denying a 

final exclusion. Thus, the EPA will not 

make a final decision or grant an 

exclusion until it has addressed all 

timely public comments on today’s 

proposal, including any at public 

hearings. 

Since this proposed rule is limited to 

technical amendments that apply to 

future activities, and is limited to a 

specific process and waste stream at the 

Hanford Site, the regulated community 

does not need a six-month period to 

come into compliance in accordance 

with section 3010(b) of RCRA, as 

amended by the Federal Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. 

V. How will this Action affect states? 

Because the EPA is proposing to issue 

this exclusion under the federal RCRA 

delisting regulations, only states subject 

to federal RCRA delisting provisions 

will be affected. This exclusion may not 

be effective in states which have 

received authorization from the EPA to 

make their own delisting decisions. 

The EPA allows states to impose their 

own non-RCRA regulatory requirements 

that are more stringent than the 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. We urge petitioners 

to contact their state regulatory 

authorities to establish the status of 

their wastes under their respective state 

laws. 

The EPA has also authorized some 

states to administer a delisting program 

in place of the federal program, that is, 

to make state delisting decisions. 

Therefore, this exclusion does not apply 

in those authorized states. If the 

Petitioner manages the waste in any 

state with delisting authorization, the 

Petitioner must obtain delisting 

authorization or other determination 

from the receiving state before it can 

manage the waste as nonhazardous in 

that state. 

While Washington State has received 

final authorization to implement most of 

its dangerous waste program regulations 

in lieu of the federal program, including 

the listing and identification of listed 

waste codes associated with the 

petitioned wastes, it has not been 

authorized to implement its delisting 

regulations program in lieu of the 

federal program. The EPA notes that 

Washington State has provisions in the 

Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) 173–303–910(3) similar to the 

federal provisions upon which this 

delisting is based. These provisions are 

in effect as a matter of state law. Thus, 

the Petitioner must seek approval from 

Washington State at the state level in 

addition to this proposed delisting. 

VI. 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. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is exempt from 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget because it is a proposed rule of 

particular applicability, not general 

applicability. The proposed action 

addresses modifications to an existing 

delisting petition under RCRA for the 

petitioned waste at a particular facility. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed 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. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because this proposed 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.). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed 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. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. This proposed 

action applies only to a particular 

facility on non-tribal land. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed 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. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, because it is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This proposed action does not involve 

technical standards as described by the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note). 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed action does not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or indigenous peoples. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed action will not have 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30241 

disproportionately high and 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. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

This proposed 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 proposes to amend 

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 designated 

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; and 

■ ii. Removing the entry ‘‘[Bis(2- 

Chloroisopropyl) either]—6.0 × 10¥2; 

and 

■ ii. 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. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes 

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22 

* * * * * 

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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30242 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

(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; 

(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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30243 

1Exemptions may be revoked, in whole or in part, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(d). 

TABLE 2—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued 

Facility Address Waste description 

*******

Aroclor [total of Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 

1260]—5.0 × 10¥4

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–11341 Filed 6–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

49 CFR Part 1180 

[Docket No. EP 282 (Sub-No. 21)] 

Petition for Rulemaking—Railroad 

Consolidation Procedures—Exemption 

for Emergency Temporary Trackage 

Rights 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board (Board) grants a petition filed by 

the Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) to initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to establish a new class 

exemption for emergency temporary 

trackage rights. The Board also proposes 

certain other related changes to the class 

exemptions for trackage rights and 

temporary trackage rights. 

DATES: Comments are due by July 12, 

2021. Reply comments are due by 

August 11, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may 

be filed with the Board via e-filing and 

will be posted to the Board’s website at 

www.stb.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathaniel Bawcombe at (202) 245–0376. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 9, 2020, AAR filed a petition 

requesting that the Board initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding to establish a 

new emergency temporary trackage 

rights class exemption that could be 

invoked in specific situations and 

would allow emergency temporary 

trackage rights to take effect 

immediately, without need for the 30- 

day notice requirement under 49 CFR 

1180.4(g)(1). On November 4, 2020, 

Samuel J. Nasca, for and on behalf of 

SMART-Transportation Division-New 

York State Legislative Board (SMART/ 

TD–NY), filed a reply in opposition to 

AAR’s petition. 

On February 5, 2020, after considering 

the petition and reply, the Board 

granted AAR’s petition to initiate a 

rulemaking proceeding to establish a 

new emergency temporary trackage 

rights class exemption. The rule 

proposed here, which is set forth below, 

differs in some respects from AAR’s 

request, as explained below. The Board 

also proposes certain other related 

changes to the class exemptions for 

trackage rights and temporary trackage 

rights, also explained below. 

Background 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(6), 

prior Board approval is required for a 

rail carrier to acquire trackage rights 

over a rail line owned or operated by 

another rail carrier. Under 49 U.S.C. 

11324(d), the Board is required to 

approve trackage rights applications 

unless it finds that: (1) As a result of a 

transaction, there is likely to be 

substantial lessening of competition, 

creation of a monopoly, or restraint of 

trade in freight surface transportation in 

any region of the United States; and (2) 

the anticompetitive effects of the 

transaction outweigh the public interest 

in meeting significant transportation 

needs. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board is 

directed, to the maximum extent 

consistent with 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV 

part A, to exempt a person, class of 

persons, or a transaction or service from 

regulation whenever it finds that: (1) 

Regulation is not necessary to carry out 

the rail transportation policy (RTP) of 49 

U.S.C. 10101; and (2) either the 

transaction or service is of limited scope 

or regulation is not needed to protect 

shippers from an abuse of market 

power. 

The Board may exempt not only a 

single transaction but also an entire 

class of transactions that meets the 

exemption criteria of 49 U.S.C. 10502. A 

class exemption for transactions 

otherwise subject to Board licensing 

does not place those transactions 

beyond the Board’s jurisdiction; rather, 

it is a means by which a carrier may 

obtain Board authorization without 

going through the otherwise-applicable 

full licensing process.1

In 2003, the Board adopted a class 

exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8) for 

temporary overhead trackage rights of 

not more than one year in duration. See 

R.R. Consolidation Procs.—Exemption 

for Temp. Trackage Rts., EP 282 (SubNo. 20) (STB served May 23, 2003), 

modified (STB served May 17, 2004). 

Under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1), exemptions 

sought under § 1180.2(d)(8) (and various 

other class exemptions under 

§ 1180.2(d)) cannot become effective 

until at least 30 days after a railroad 

files a verified notice of the transaction. 

As a result, when a railroad seeks to 

have a temporary trackage rights 

exemption become effective in less than 

30 days, the railroad must petition for 

waiver of the 30-day period. In such 

cases, in addition to serving and 

publishing the notice of the exemption 

in the Federal Register, the Board also 

issues a separate decision acting on the 

waiver request and setting the effective 

date of the exemption. See, e.g., Union 

Pac. R.R.—Temp. Trackage Rts. 

Exemption—BNSF Ry., FD 36424 et al. 

(STB served Aug. 10, 2020) (granting a 

waiver of the 30-day notice period for a 

trackage rights exemption under 

§ 1180.2(d)(8) and setting effective date); 

Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry.—Temp. Trackage 

Rts. Exemption—Kan. City S. Ry., FD 

36418 (STB served July 2, 2020) (same). 

AAR’s Requested Exemption. AAR 

asks the Board to initiate a rulemaking 

to create a new emergency temporary 

trackage rights class exemption. Under 

AAR’s request, the 30-day notice 

requirement under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1) 

would not apply to individual 

exemptions sought under the new 

exemption provision; the temporary 

trackage rights would take effect 

immediately upon publication of a 

notice of the transaction by the Board in 

the Federal Register, which, according 

to AAR, would take place within 5 days 

of a party’s filing of a verified notice of 

exemption. (Pet., App. A at 

§§ 1180.2(d)(9), 1180.4(g)(5)(ii).) As 

requested by AAR, the temporary 

trackage rights could be requested for a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS