Quiero saber acerca de...

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

added, no change to the delisting rule itself is necessary.
Ecology and EPA have determined based on their review of the information provided by Energy regarding new constituents associated with the WTP that the methodology used by Energy in developing this information is sound and defensible.
There is no substantial risk of unidentified constituents appearing in WTP liquid effluents that would preclude acceptance of such wastes for treatment at the 200 Area ETF. Ecology and EPA also note that the 2005 revision to the ETF delisting include rigorous waste characterization and waste treatment plan requirements prior to acceptance of any waste for treatment at the 200 Area ETF, ensuring that even in the remote instance that constituents or levels of constituents which would cause a waste to be unacceptable for treatment at ETF are identified prior to waste receipt.
Shipment of Secondary Waste for OffSite Treatment The commenter also raised concerns regarding Energys 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 any tank-waste-related feeds to LERF/ETF Liquid Effluent Retention Facility/Effluent Treatment Facility and any brines produced as a result of the changing projections of WTP waste compositions as described in the current delisting petition, should be prohibited from off-site treatment. The cradle to grave liability for this waste rests with DOE, and DOE should not share it with a facility that has a poor track record and a poor environmental location.
and the second citation in the comment discussed in the previous section Addition of new constituents.
Regarding the risks associated with treatment of ETF secondary wastes at off-site facilities, Ecology ensures that all such wastes are treated, stored and disposed at approved facilities and in full compliance with all dangerous waste regulations and applicable permits in a manner fully protective of human health and the environment.
However, concerns related to treatment, storage or disposal of secondary wastes are not subject to delisting and to this current delisting rule modification proposal.
Lack of Direct Liquid Effluent Characterization The commentor made several comments regarding a lack of direct waste stream characterization and lack
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:14 Sep 09, 2021

Jkt 253001

of pilot plant data. In particular, the commenter stated 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 DFLAW process treatment train.
The integrated WTP pilot scale equipment does not exist for DFLAW.
Rather WTP itself is being built as a fullscale pilot plant, with unknown and uncertain but certain to be expensive results.
Ecology and EPA acknowledge that the current delisting rule modification changes are based on projections, not full-scale operations or demonstration testing. With respect to acetonitrile, the proposed changes to the delisting rule are specifically targeted to ensure an implementable mechanism is in place to allow demonstration testing as necessary to expand the treatability envelope for acetonitrile. Therefore, before full-scale operation of the DFLAW configuration of the WTP
begins, Energy will have performed exactly the type of direct demonstration noted in these comments. As discussed more fully in the 2005 delisting modification action, the current 200Area ETF delisting is explicitly structured to accommodate new constituentswhere 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 RPT63053, page 19
This is the engineering report provided as Attachment 3 to the March 31, 2021
delisting modification request, included in the docket. Alternate reuse practices are provided for under Condition 7 of the current delisting, which is not being changed under the current modification proposal. Ecology and EPA understand that Energy will be seeking approval under Condition 7 for expanded treated effluent reuse practices at a later date.
Approval of this change is outside of the current proposed delisting modification.
The EPA is also making one grammatical clarification identified after
PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

50649

the regulatory amendment proposed rulemaking was published. The EPA is modifying the last phrase of Condition 6c originally worded as that the Energy will be liable for Energys reliance on the void exclusion. to read . . .that Energy will be liable for Energys reliance on the voided exclusion.
III. Final Rule A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
EPA is finalizing Energys 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. 6930b1, 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. 553d.
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 EPAs, 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.

E:FRFM10SER1.SGM

10SER1