[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Project XL Response to Comments on Withdrawn Direct Final Rule 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