[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43590-43592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21677]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6143-4]
Project XL Response to Comments on Withdrawn Direct Final Rule
for Project XL for Molex, Inc., 700 Kingbird Road Facility, Lincoln,
Nebraska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Response to Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is implementing a project under the Project XL program
for the Molex, Inc. (Molex) facility located at 700 Kingbird Road,
Lincoln, NE. On November 3, 1997 EPA published a draft project
agreement and proposed site specific rule (FRL 5916-3, 62 FR 59287) for
this project. EPA received adverse comment. This notice today
summarizes the comments on the Direct Final Rule and the follow up
actions taken on this project as a result of the comments. Also
published in today's Federal Register is a notification of the Final
Project Agreement and the State-issued temporary variance. That notice
can be found in the Notices Section of today's Federal Register. As a
result of the comments, EPA decided to withdraw the site specific rule
and proceed under the authority of the Nebraska RCRA program.
Notification of the withdrawal was published in the Federal Register on
December 30, 1997 (FRL 5942-5; 62 FR 67736).
The Molex Project XL provides flexibility to the facility in
managing their waste sludges. The facility has decided to segregate
waste streams which had previously been co-mingled into a single waste
stream. By changing the process lines to generate separate waste
streams (nickel, copper, tin/lead), the facility can optimize the
precipitation of each metal more effectively before the effluent is
sent to the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
The environmental benefit of this project is a substantial
reduction in the mass loading of metals entering the City of Lincoln's
POTW. In addition, the resultant mono-metal sludges will be commodity-
like materials suitable for recycling by reclaimers. A secondary
environmental benefit will be an increase in recycling and a reduction
in the amount of material that would otherwise be landfilled. The
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality is giving Molex a
temporary variance from classifying as solid waste nickel, copper, and
tin/lead non-precious metals containing sludges.
DATES: This action is effective August 13, 1998. Additional information
is provided in the section entitled ADDRESSES.
ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record is maintained at EPA
Region VII. Questions and comments should be submitted to: Mr. David
Doyle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air, RCRA &
Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913)
551-7667.
Docket. A docket containing supporting information used in
developing this final rulemaking is available at U.S. EPA Headquarters,
US EPA, 401 M Street SW (1802), Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7434;
or EPA Region VII, Air, RCRA & Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue,
Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7667; file information is available at
the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Lincoln, NE, (402)
471-4217.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Doyle, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VII, Air, RCRA & Toxics Division, 726
Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7667.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Response to Public Comment--Project XL, Molex (Lincoln, Nebraska)
EPA received several comments on the Molex Direct Final Rule, and
the Proposed Rule. One of the commenters suggested additional data was
needed to support the administrative record for the project. EPA
agrees, and has gathered additional data in support of the project.
Based on that data and additional analysis, we have determined that
existing RCRA regulations (40 CFR 260.31) provide adequate authority
and flexibility to allow Molex to proceed with its proposal to
segregate waste streams. Therefore, it was decided that there is no
need to promulgate a site-specific rule at the federal level to
implement this XL project. As a result, EPA decided, rather than
proceeding with a site specific rule, to proceed under Nebraska's
authorized RCRA program, which has an existing, equivalent variance
provision comparable to 40 CFR 260.31.
The first commenter expressed concern that certain wording in the
November 3, 1997, Federal Register notice and in the draft Final
Project Agreement required that Molex ship their wastewater treatment
sludges directly to smelters. The commenter asked that EPA clarify this
issue by stating that Molex would be allowed, under the terms of the
project, to ship their wastewater treatment sludges directly to any
legitimate reclaimer, not just to smelters.
EPA agrees with the first commenter that Molex be allowed to ship
its sludges to any legitimate reclaimer and did not intend in its
proposal to require that Molex ship its sludges only directly to
smelters. EPA has made the appropriate wording changes to the Final
Project Agreement to address this issue.
The second commenter raised three issues. The first issue concerned
the
[[Page 43591]]
commenter's belief that based on the administrative record developed
for this proposal, Molex was not in compliance with the precious metals
recovery provisions provided under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Related to this, the second issue concerned the
commenter's belief that the record did not support EPA's contention
that the wastewater treatment sludges presently generated by Molex are
sufficiently ``commodity-like'' in nature to allow the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to grant its temporary
variance.
Subsequent to receiving these comments, EPA has investigated both
current and historical waste handling practices and all current and
historical analytical and financial data associated with the sludges
generated by Molex.
In response to the first issue, the information from EPA's
investigation shows that under Molex's old operation, sham recycling
had not occurred when the sludges were handled under the precious
metals exemption, and Molex was in fact in compliance with the
requirements of RCRA. In response to the second issue, the information
shows that the wastewater treatment sludges generated by Molex at the
its new operation have sufficient economic value to be considered
``commodity-like'' and thereby support the temporary variance proposed
by the NDEQ. Data and transaction receipts have been entered into the
administrative record to document the recycling transactions between
Molex and Sipi (Precious Metals Division, 1720 Elston Ave, Chicago Ill,
60622).
To address the commenter's concerns about the record on these first
two issues, copies of historical inspection reports, correspondence
between Molex and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
(NDEQ) and analytical and cost documentation provided to EPA by Molex
have recently been added to the administrative record. Copies of these
documents can be found at EPA's Project XL homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.
The third issue by the second commenter concerned the commenter's
belief that based on statements made by Molex during the development of
the project proposal, evidence of contamination of the wastewater
treatment sludges by ``organics'' may be occurring. The commenter
further stated that EPA is pursuing this XL project without sufficient
analytical information of the wastewater sludges, specifically
concerning potential contamination of the wastewater treatment sludges.
The commenter also believes that EPA is not requiring sufficient
analysis of these sludges after the project is underway.
In response to the third comment, EPA requested Molex to undertake
extensive sampling and analysis of all the wastewater treatment sludges
that are subject to this project. The company agreed to conduct this
sampling and analysis and the results can be found at EPA's Project XL
homepage. EPA also conducted an onsite inspection of the company,
focusing this inspection on the company's wastewater treatment
operations and in general its compliance with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act.
EPA has reviewed the analytical results of the sludge samples taken
by Molex and determined that only one organic constituent, bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, is present in significant concentrations. EPA
believes that this contaminant exists in the sludges as a result of
plastic packaging, production or treatment equipment used at the
facility. Bis(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate, more commonly known as di(2-
ethyhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP, is a widely used plasticizer found in
products used throughout society. Because of its physical and chemical
properties however, exposures typically experienced by the general
public of DEHP have not constituted a threat to the public health.
Based upon the potential exposure pathways and concentration of DEHP in
the Molex sludges and the proposed method of handling of these sludges,
EPA has concluded that the amount of DEHP in the sludges pose no risk
to public health or the environment.
EPA's inspection of the Molex facility, which was conducted on 4/
27-4/30, 1998, determined that little if any potential exists at the
facility for contamination of the wastewater sludges by organic
contaminants to occur. A copy of EPA's inspection report is also
available for review at EPA's XL homepage.
Nonetheless, because some organic contamination has been found in
the Molex wastewater sludges, EPA has decided in response to the third
comment to require that Molex conduct additional sampling and analysis
of these sludge after the project has been implemented, to ensure that
levels of DEHP and any other semi-volatile organics in their sludges
remain below any levels of concern. Molex will be required to conduct
semi-annual sampling and analysis of each of their sludges for semi-
volatile organics for the first year of the project. If the
concentrations of these constituents remain below levels of concern for
the first year, and as long as Molex maintains the same operational
processes at the facility, Molex will not be required to conduct
additional sampling for these organic constituents for the remainder of
the project. The Final Project Agreement has been amended accordingly.
Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation with State
officials as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October
28, 1993), or involve special consideration of environmental justice
related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). Because this action is not subject to notice-and-
comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
List of Additional Data/Correspondence Posted on XL Homepage
12/20/90 Letter from Paul Eckerson to Dave Wisch, Nebraska DEC
1/14/91 Letter from DEC to Paul Eckerson
9/13/91 Letter to Mike Driscoll, Molex from David Wisch Nebraska DEC
6/25/91 NDEC inspection report of Molex facility
6/25/95 SAIC RCRA compliance evaluation and inspection report for
Molex facility
2/19/98 Letter from Doyle to Eckerson, requesting that organics
sampling be conducted by Molex.
2/24/98 E&I Labs 7 page analytical report
3/5/98 Total Toxic Organic analysis for effluent and leachate analysis
for the different sludges (41 pages)
3/5/98 Letter from Eckerson to Doyle, describing types of metals used
at facility and concentrations of heavy metals in discharge to POTW
from both the old and new facilities.
3/18/98 West Coast Analytical Services 16 page analytical report
4/13/98 Letter from Eckerson to Doyle, containing cost data on
reclamation of ``old'' wastewater sludges.
4/20/98 Fax from Eckerson to Doyle, containing metals concentrations
for ``new'' sludges.
5/15/98 Letter from Bill Gidley NDEC to David Doyle
[[Page 43592]]
Dated: August 6, 1998.
Jay Benforado,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Reinvention.
[FR Doc. 98-21677 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 6560-50-P
