Project XL Response to Comments on Withdrawn Direct Final Rule for Project XL for Molex, Inc., 700 Kingbird Road Facility, Lincoln, Nebraska

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Project XL Response to Comments on Withdrawn Direct Final Rule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