[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48434-48444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20020]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-6847-5]


Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of 
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is 
proposing to grant a petition submitted by Tyco Printed Circuit Group, 
Melbourne Division, Melbourne, Florida, (Tyco), formerly Advanced Quick 
Circuits, L.P., to exclude (or ``delist'') a certain hazardous waste 
from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31. Tyco generates the 
petitioned waste by treating liquid waste from Tyco's printed circuit 
board manufacturing processes. The waste so generated is a wastewater 
treatment sludge that meets the definition of F006 in Sec. 261.31. Tyco 
petitioned EPA to grant a generator-specific delisting, because Tyco 
believes that its F006 waste does not meet the criteria for which this 
type of waste was listed. EPA reviewed all of the waste-specific 
information provided by Tyco, performed calculations, and determined 
that the waste could be disposed in a landfill without harming human 
health and the environment. Today's proposed rule proposes to grant 
Tyco's petition to delist its F006 waste, and requests public comment 
on the proposed decision. If the proposed delisting becomes a final 
delisting, Tyco's petitioned waste will no longer be classified as 
F006, and will not be subject to regulation as a hazardous waste under 
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The 
waste will still be subject to local, State, and Federal regulations 
for nonhazardous solid wastes.

DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 
Comments will be accepted until September 22, 2000. Comments postmarked 
after the close of the comment period will be stamped ``late.''
    Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by 
filing a request with Richard D. Green, Director of the Waste 
Management Division, EPA, Region 4, whose address appears below, by 
August 23, 2000. The request must contain the information prescribed in 
section 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send two copies of your comments to Jewell Grubbs, Chief, 
RCRA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Send one copy to Bob Snyder, Central District 
Office, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 3319 Maguire 
Boulevard, Suite 232, Orlando, Florida 32803-3767. Identify your 
comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: R4-99-01-TycoP. 
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to 
[email protected]. If files are attached, please identify the 
format.
    Requests for a hearing should be addressed to Richard D. Green, 
Director, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
    The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the 
EPA Library, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn 
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and 
is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The docket contains

[[Page 48435]]

the petition, all information submitted by the petitioner, and all 
information used by EPA to evaluate the petition.
    The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost 
for the first 100 pages, and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional 
copies.
    Copies of the petition are available during normal business hours 
at the following addresses for inspection and copying: U.S. EPA, Region 
4, Library, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8190; and Central District Branch 
Office, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 13 East 
Melbourne Avenue, Melbourne, Florida 32901, (321) 984-4800. The EPA, 
Region 4, Library is located near the Five Points MARTA station in 
Atlanta. The Central District Branch Office in Melbourne is located in 
the southeast corner of Melbourne Avenue and Babcock Street.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information 
about this proposed rule, contact Judy Sophianopoulos, South 
Enforcement and Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8604, or 
call, toll free, (800) 241-1754, and leave a message, with your name 
and phone number, for Ms. Sophianopoulos to return your call.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble are listed 
in the following outline:

I. Background
    A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority to Delist 
Wastes?
    B. How did EPA Evaluate this Petition?
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
    A. Summary of Delisting Petition Submitted by Tyco Printed 
Circuit Group, Melbourne Division, Melbourne, FL Circuits, LP 
(Tyco), Melbourne, Florida
    B. What Delisting Levels Did EPA Obtain with the EPACML Model?
    C. What Delisting Levels Did EPA Obtain by Using UTS Levels or 
HTMR Exclusion Levels?
    D. How Did EPA Use the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP) to 
Evaluate This Delisting Petition?
    E. Should EPA Set Limits on Total Concentrations, as well as on 
TCLP Leachate Concentrations, that the Petitioned Waste must Meet in 
order to be Delisted?
    F. Should EPA Evaluate this Petitioned Waste for Recovery of 
Metals, as well as for Disposal in a Landfill?
    G. Conclusion
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
    Will this Rule Apply in All States?
IV. Effective Date
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
VI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act
IX . Executive Order 12866
X. Executive Order 12875
XI. Executive Order 13045
XII. Executive Order 13084
XIII. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office

I. Background

A. What Laws and Regulations Give EPA the Authority To Delist Wastes?

    On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final 
regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended 
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This 
list has been amended several times, and is published in 40 CFR 261.31 
and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they exhibit 
one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in 
subpart C of part 261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and 
toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11 
(a)(2) or (a)(3).
    Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw 
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste 
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a 
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing 
description may not be. For this reason, sections 260.20 and 260.22 
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a 
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be 
regulated as a hazardous waste.
    To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show, first, that 
wastes generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria 
for which the wastes were listed. See section 260.22(a) and the 
background documents for the listed wastes. Second, the Administrator 
must determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that 
factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which 
the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, 
that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous 
waste. Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste 
does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., 
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present 
sufficient information for the EPA to determine whether the waste 
contains any other toxicants at hazardous levels. See section 
260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and the background documents for the 
listed wastes. Although wastes which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) 
have been evaluated to determine whether or not they exhibit any of the 
characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under 
RCRA to determine whether or not their wastes continue to be 
nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., 
characteristics which may be promulgated subsequent to a delisting 
decision.)
    In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of 
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes 
are also considered hazardous wastes. See Secs. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and 
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules, 
respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain 
hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived-
from'' rules and remanded them to the EPA on procedural grounds. Shell 
Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992, EPA 
reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited comments 
on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR 7628). 
These rules became final on October 30, 1992 (57 FR 49278), and should 
be consulted for more information regarding waste mixtures and solid 
wastes derived from treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous 
waste. The mixture and derived-from rules are codified in 40 CFR 261.3, 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2)(i). EPA plans to address waste mixtures 
and residues when the final portion of the Hazardous Waste 
Identification Rule (HWIR) is promulgated.
    On October 10, 1995, the Administrator delegated to the Regional 
Administrators the authority to evaluate and approve or deny petitions 
submitted in accordance with sections 260.20 and 260.22, by generators 
within their Regions (National Delegation of Authority 8-19), in States 
not yet authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the 
Federal program. On March 11, 1996, the Regional Administrator of EPA, 
Region 4, redelegated delisting authority to the Director of the Waste 
Management Division (Regional Delegation of Authority 8-19).

B. How Did EPA Evaluate This Petition?

    This petition requests a delisting for a hazardous waste listed as 
F006. In making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the 
petitioned waste against the listing

[[Page 48436]]

criteria and factors cited in Sec. 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on 
this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is 
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If EPA had 
found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on 
the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have 
proposed to deny the petition.) EPA then evaluated the waste with 
respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a 
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause 
the waste to be hazardous. See Sec. 260.22 (a) and (d). The EPA 
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the 
toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the constituents in 
the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their 
persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible 
and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the 
quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.
    For this delisting determination, EPA used such information to 
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., groundwater, surface water, 
air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. EPA 
used the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) fate and transport 
model, modified for delisting, as one approach for determining the 
proposed delisting levels for Tyco's waste. See 56 FR 32993-33012, July 
18, 1991, for details on the use of the EPACML model to determine the 
concentrations of constituents in a waste that will not result in 
groundwater contamination. Delisting levels are the maximum allowable 
concentrations for hazardous constituents in the waste, so that 
disposal in a landfill will not harm human health and the environment, 
by contaminating groundwater, surface water, and air. A Subtitle D 
landfill is a landfill subject to RCRA Subtitle D nonhazardous waste 
regulations, and to State and local nonhazardous waste regulations. If 
EPA makes a final decision to delist Tyco's F006 waste, Tyco must meet 
the delisting levels and dispose of the waste in a Subtitle D landfill, 
because EPA determined the delisting levels based on a landfill model. 
With the EPACML approach, EPA caclulated a delisting level for each 
hazardous constituent by using the maximum estimated waste volume to 
determine a Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) from a table of waste 
volumes and DAFs previously calculated by the EPACML model. See Table 2 
of section II.B. below, which is adapted from 56 FR 32993-33012, July 
18, 1991. The maximum estimated waste volume is the maximum number of 
cubic yards of petitioned waste that Tyco estimated it would dispose of 
each year. The delisting level for each constituent is equal to the DAF 
multiplied by the maximum contaminant level (MCL) which the Safe 
Drinking Water Act allows for that constituent in drinking water. The 
delisting level is a concentration in the waste leachate that will not 
cause the MCL to be exceeded in groundwater underneath a landfill where 
the waste is disposed. This method of calculating delisting levels 
results in conservative levels that are protective of groundwater, 
because the model does not assume that the landfill has the controls 
required of many Subtitle D landfills.
    EPA is requesting comment on the use of the EPACML model to 
determine the proposed delisting levels for Tyco's petitioned waste, as 
well as other methods that will be described below.
    Tyco submitted to the EPA analytical data on nine samples of its 
F006 waste collected during a six-month period.
    After reviewing the analytical data and information on processes 
and raw materials that Tyco submitted in the delisting petition, EPA 
developed a list of constituents of concern and calculated delisting 
levels for them, using MCLs and EPACML DAFs, as described above.
    EPA requests comment on whether the following method of setting 
delisting levels for the constituents of concern would be more 
appropriate than the EPACML method:
    Delisting levels would be either the Universal Treatment Standards 
(UTS) levels of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) regulations in 40 
CFR part 268 or the generic exclusion levels for residues from 
treatment of F006 by High Temperature Metal Recovery (HTMR), in 40 CFR 
261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1). For each constituent of concern, the delisting 
level would be the lower of those two sets of values. If the HTMR level 
is lower than the UTS level, the delisting level would be the HTMR 
level; if the UTS level is lower than the HTMR level, the UTS level 
would be chosen as the delisting level.
    EPA also requests comment on three additional methods of evaluating 
Tyco's delisting petition and determining delisting levels: (1) Use of 
the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP), SW-846 Method 1320,\1\ to 
evaluate the long-term resistance of the waste to leaching in a 
landfill; (2) setting limits on total concentrations of constituents in 
the waste, based on calculations of constituent release from waste in a 
landfill to surface water and air, and release during waste transport; 
and (3) setting delisting levels for waste that will be sent to a 
smelter for metal recovery, where the levels would be calculated in 
accordance with EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Procedure (HHRAP) 
for combustion risk assessment or the delisting levels would be the 
same as for land disposal, with the additional requirement that the 
smelting facility be in compliance with a permit issued under the 
authority of the Clean Air Act .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``SW-846'' means EPA Publication SW-846, ``Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.'' Methods in this 
publication are referred to in today's proposed rule as ``SW-846,'' 
followed by the appropriate method number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA provides notice and an opportunity for comment before 
granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final decision will not 
be made until all timely public comments (including those at public 
hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed. Late comments will 
be considered to the extent possible.

II. Disposition of Delisting Petition

A. Summary of Delisting Petition Submitted by Tyco Printed Circuit 
Group, Melbourne Division, Melbourne, FL Circuits, LP (Tyco), 
Melbourne, Florida

    Tyco manufactures printed circuit boards, and is seeking a 
delisting for the sludge generated by treating liquid wastes from its 
electroplating operations. This waste meets the listing definition of 
F006 in Sec. 261.31.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating 
operations except from the following processes: (1) sulfuric acid 
anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc 
plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-
aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and 
milling of aluminum.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tyco petitioned the Administrator, on August 26, 1998, to exclude 
this F006 waste, on a generator-specific basis, from the lists of 
hazardous wastes in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D. In accordance with the 
delegation of delisting authority, the Administrator transmitted the 
petition to EPA, Region 4, and on September 11, 1998, Tyco submitted 
the petition to EPA, Region 4.
    The hazardous constituents of concern for which F006 was listed are 
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed). Tyco 
petitioned the EPA to exclude its F006 waste because Tyco does not 
believe that the waste meets the criteria of the listing.
    Tyco claims that its F006 waste is not hazardous because the 
constituents of concern are either present at low

[[Page 48437]]

concentrations, or do not leach out of the waste at significant 
concentrations. Tyco also believes that this waste is not hazardous for 
any other reason (i.e., there are no additional constituents or factors 
that could cause the waste to be hazardous). Review of this petition 
included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the 
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 
(HSWA) of 1984. See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 
260.22(d)(2)-(4). Today's proposal to grant this petition for delisting 
is the result of the EPA's evaluation of Tyco's petition.
    In support of its petition, Tyco submitted: (1) Descriptions of its 
manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, the generation point 
of the petitioned waste and the manufacturing steps that contribute to 
its generation; (2) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for process 
materials; (3) Quantities of petitioned waste generated each year from 
1983 through 1997; (4) results of analysis for water, metals, cyanide, 
sulfide, and oil and grease in the waste; (5) results of the analysis 
of waste leachate obtained by means of the Toxicity Characteristic 
Leaching Procedure ((TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311) for metals; (6) results 
of the determinations for the hazardous characteristics of 
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; and (7) results of the MEP 
analysis of the waste.
    Tyco operates two electroplating operations on John Rodes Boulevard 
in Melbourne, Florida, that electroplate copper, tin/lead, nickel, and 
gold in the process of manufacturing printed circuit boards. One of the 
operations manufactures printed circuit boards mainly for commercial 
and military customers; the other is set up for high-tech, quick-
turnaround manufacturing of printed circuit boards. Wastewater and off-
specification plating solutions from both operations are piped to an 
on-site wastewater treatment facility, where they are treated by pH 
adjustment and flocculation to precipitate dissolved metals as metal 
hydroxides. The precipitated metal hydroxides are filtered, pressed, 
and concentrated, at which point, F006 sludge is generated.
    Tyco's average annual generation rate of F006 from 1983 through 
1997 was 192 tons, with a minimum of 134 tons in 1989 and a maximum of 
334.53 tons in 1990. Tyco estimated a future maximum generation rate of 
300 tons per year, and stated that actual generation rates depend on 
sales.
    Table 1 below summarizes the hazardous constituents and their 
concentrations in Tyco's petitioned waste.

                                      Table 1.--Tyco Printed Circuit Group, Melbourne Division: F006 Sludge Profile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Sample number
    Name of constituent \1\    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      1             2             3             4             5            6            7            8            9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Arsenic....................  0.02U \2\     0.20U         0.20U         0.10U         0.10U         0.10U        0.05U        0.05U        0.05U
2. Barium.....................  10U           10U           10U           0.50          0.60          0.80         2.0U         2.0U         20U
3. Cadmium....................  0.50U         0.50U         0.50U         0.024         0.036         0.020        0.10U        0.10U        0.10U
4. Chromium...................  1U            1U            1U            0.10U         0.10U         0.10U        0.10U        0.50         0.50U
5. Lead.......................  1U            1U            1U            0.20          0.19          0.16         0.50U        0.50U        0.50U
6. Mercury....................  .005U         .005U         .005U         .005U         .005U         .005U        .005U        .005U        .005U
7. Selenium...................  0.50U         0.05U         0.05U         0.010U        0.020U        0.010U       0.050U       0.050U       0.050U
8. Silver.....................  1U            1U            1U            0.40U         0.040U        0.040U       0.20U        0.20U        0.20U
9. Cyanide....................  NA            NA            0.10U         0.10U         0.10U         0.20U        0.10         1.5          NA
10. Oil and Grease............  NA            NA            100           130           13000         22000        2700         580          16000
11. Sulfide...................  NA            NA            10U           10U           10U           10U          17U          10U          10U
12. Nickel....................  NA            NA            NA            NA            NA            NA           NA           2100         960
13. Nickel....................  NA            NA            NA            NA            NA            NA           NA           NA           0.50U
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For all metals, except nickel, the concentrations in Table 1 are in milligrams per liter (mg/l) in the TCLP leachate. Concentrations in the
  unextracted waste (total concentrations), in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), are given for cyanide, oil and grease, and sulfide. The total
  concentration (mg/kg) of nickel in the sludge samples is given in row 12, and the TCLP concentration of nickel (mg/l) is given in row 13.
\2\ U=Not detected to level shown; NA = Not analyzed.

    EPA concluded after reviewing Tyco's waste management and waste 
history information that no other hazardous constituents, other than 
those tested for, are likely to be present in Tyco's petitioned waste. 
In addition, on the basis of test results and other information 
provided by Tyco, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, EPA concluded that the 
petitioned waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of 
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. See Secs. 261.21, 261.22, and 
261.23, respectively.
    During its evaluation of Tyco's petition, EPA also considered the 
potential impact of the petitioned waste on media other than 
groundwater. With regard to airborne dispersal of waste, EPA evaluated 
the potential hazards resulting from airborne exposure to waste 
contaminants from the petitioned waste using an air dispersion model 
for releases from a landfill. The results of this evaluation indicated 
that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human 
health from airborne exposure to constituents from Tyco's petitioned 
waste. (A description of EPA's assessment of the potential impact of 
airborne dispersal of Tyco's petitioned waste is presented in the RCRA 
public docket for today's proposed rule.)
    EPA evaluated the potential impact of the petitioned waste on 
surface water, because of storm water runoff from a landfill containing 
the petitioned waste, and found that the waste would not present a 
threat to human health or the environment. (See the docket for today's 
proposed rule for a description of this analysis). In addition, EPA 
believes that containment structures at municipal solid waste landfills 
can effectively control runoff, as Subtitle D regulations (see 56 FR 
50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant discharges into surface 
waters. While some contamination of surface water is possible through 
runoff from a waste disposal area, EPA believes that the dissolved 
concentrations of hazardous constituents in the runoff are likely to be 
lower than the extraction procedure test results reported in today's 
proposed rule, because of the aggressive acidic medium used for 
extraction in the TCLP. EPA also believes that, in general, leachate 
derived from the waste will not directly enter a surface water body 
without first traveling through the saturated subsurface where dilution 
of hazardous constituents may occur. Transported contaminants would be 
further diluted in the receiving water body. Subtitle D controls would

[[Page 48438]]

minimize significant releases to surface water from erosion of 
undissolved particulates in runoff.

B. What Delisting Levels Did EPA Obtain With the EPACML Model?

    In order to account for possible variability in the generation 
rate, EPA calculated delisting levels using a generation rate of 500 
tons per year, rather than Tyco's estimate of an annual maximum of 300 
tons. EPA converted the 500 tons to a waste volume of 590 cubic yards, 
by using the density of water for the density of the sludge. While the 
sludge is certainly more dense than water, using the lower density 
results in a higher value for the waste volume, and a lower, more 
conservative, Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF). Table 2 below is a 
table of waste volumes in cubic yards and the corresponding DAFs from 
the EPACML model. EPA obtained a DAF of 100 from Table 2, for Tyco's 
petitioned waste.

 Table 2.--Dilution/Attenuation Factors (DAFs) for Landfills Calculated
              by the EPACML Model, Modified for Delisting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          DAF  (95th
      Waste volume in cubic yards per year \1\         percentile) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000..............................................              \3\ 100
1,250..............................................                   96
1,500..............................................                   90
1,750..............................................                   84
2,000..............................................                   79
2,500..............................................                   74
3,000..............................................                   68
4,000..............................................                   57
5,000..............................................                   54
6,000..............................................                   48
7,000..............................................                   45
8,000..............................................                   43
9,000..............................................                   40
10,000.............................................                   36
12,500.............................................                   33
15,000.............................................                   29
20,000.............................................                   27
25,000.............................................                   24
30,000.............................................                   23
40,000.............................................                   20
50,000.............................................                   19
60,000.............................................                   17
80,000.............................................                   17
90,000.............................................                   16
100,000............................................                   15
150,000............................................                   14
200,000............................................                   13
250,000............................................                   12
300,000............................................                  12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The waste volume includes a scaling factor of 20 (56 FR 32993, July
  18, 1991; and 56 FR 67197, Dec. 30, 1991), where the annual volume of
  waste in the table is assumed to be sent to a landfill every year for
  20 years.
\2\ The DAFs calculated by the EPACML are a probability distribution
  based on a range of values for each model input parameter; the input
  parameters include such variables as landfill size, climatic data, and
  hydrogeologic data. The 95th percentile DAF represents a value in
  which one can have 95% confidence that a contaminant's concentration
  will be reduced by a factor equal to the DAF, as the contaminant moves
  from the bottom of the landfill through the subsurface environment to
  a receptor well. For example, if the 95th percentile DAF is 10, and
  the leachate concentration of cadmium at the bottom of the landfill is
  0.05 mg/l, one can be 95% confident that the receptor well
  concentration of cadmium will not exceed 0.005 mg/l. See 55 FR 11826,
  March 29, 1990; 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991; and 56 FR 67197, December
  30, 1991.
\3\ DAF cutoff is 100, corresponding to the Toxicity Characteristic Rule
  (55 FR 11826, March 29, 1990).

    Table 3 below is a table of EPACML delisting levels for each 
constituent of concern in Tyco's petitioned waste. The constituents of 
concern are barium, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, and nickel, and 
the DAF is 100 for the maximum estimated volume.

    Table 3.--Delisting Levels Calculated From EPACML Model for Tyco
                            Petitioned Waste
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Delisting
               Constituent                MCL \1\ (mg/l)    level (mg/l
                                                               TCLP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium..................................               2             200
Cadmium.................................           0.005             0.5
Chromium................................            0.10           \2\ 5
Cyanide.................................            0.20          \3\ 20
Lead....................................       \4\ 0.015             1.5
Nickel..................................        \5\ 0.73             73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the ``Docket Report on Health-based Levels and Solubilities Used
  in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions, Submitted Under 40 CFR
  260.20 and 260.22,'' December 1994, located in the RCRA public docket,
  for the Agency's methods of calculating health-based levels for
  evaluating delisting petitions from MCLs, and when MCLs are not
  available.
\2\ The Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulatory level for chromium in 40
  CFR 261.24 is 5 mg/l. Therefore, although a DAF of 100 times 0.10
  equals 10, the delisting level cannot be greater than 5 mg/l, because
  a delisted waste must not exhibit a hazardous characteristic.
\3\ The TCLP is to be followed for cyanide, except that deionized water
  must be used as the leaching medium, instead of the acetic acid or
  acetate buffer specified in the TCLP. SW-846 Method 9010 or 9012 must
  be used to measure cyanide concentration in the deionized water
  leachate.
\4\ This value is an action level for a Publicly Owned Treatment Works,
  rather than a MCL.
\5\ This value is a value that is protective of tap water, obtained from
  EPA Region 9's Preliminary Remediation Goals Tables. Internet address
  is: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/s1__05.htm.

C. What Delisting Levels Did EPA Obtain by Using UTS Levels or HTMR 
Exclusion Levels?

    Please see Table 4 below.

                       TABLE 4.--Delisting Levels From UTS Levels or HTMR Exclusion Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          HTMR (mg/l TCLP, except
           Constituent             UTS (mg/l TCLP) [40   for cyanide) \1\ [40 CFR    Delisting level (mg/l TCLP,
                                       CFR 268.48]        261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1)]       except for cyanide) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barium...........................  21.................  7.6.......................  7.6.
Cadmium..........................  0.11...............  0.050.....................  0.050.
Chromium.........................  0.60...............  0.33......................  0.33.
Cyanide..........................  590 (total); 30      1.8 (total)...............  1.8 (total).
                                    (amenable)\1\.
Lead.............................  0.75...............  0.15......................  0.15.
Nickel...........................  11.................  1.0.......................  1.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cyanide concentrations must be measured by the method specified in 40 CFR 268.40, Note 7. In order to meet
  the UTS levels, the cyanide (total, not amenable) concentration must not exceed 590 mg/kg, and the
  concentration of cyanide amenable to chlorination must not exceed 30 mg/kg. Cyanide amenable to chlorination
  is a measure of free, uncomplexed cyanide. These concentrations are by total analysis of the waste, not
  analysis of waste leachate. In order to meet the generic exclusion level for HTMR residues, the cyanide
  (total, not amenable) concentration must not exceed 1.8 mg/kg, by total analysis, not analysis of leachate.


[[Page 48439]]

D. How Did EPA Use the Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP) To Evaluate 
This Delisting Petition?

    EPA developed the MEP test (SW-846 Method 1320) to help predict the 
long-term resistance to leaching of stabilized wastes, which are wastes 
that have been treated to reduce the leachability of hazardous 
constituents. The MEP consists of a TCLP extraction of a sample 
followed by nine sequential extractions of the same sample, using a 
synthetic acid rain extraction fluid (prepared by adding a 60/40 weight 
mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid to distilled deionized water 
until the pH is 3.00.2). The sample which is subjected to 
the nine sequential extractions consists of the solid phase remaining 
after, and separated from, the initial TCLP extract. EPA designed the 
MEP to simulate multiple washings of percolating rainfall in the field, 
and estimates that these extractions simulate approximately 1,000 years 
of rainfall. (See 47 FR 52687, Nov. 22, 1982.) MEP results are 
presented in Table 5 below. In response to a request by EPA for 
additional information, Tyco reported the following practical 
quantitation limits in the MEP test: 2.0 mg/l for barium; and 0.5 mg/l 
for cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. Table 5 presents the results 
of analysis of MEP extracts.

      Table 5.--Multiple Extraction Procedure (SW-846 Method 1320) Results for Tyco'S Petitioned Waste \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Barium      Cadmium      Chromium                 Nickel     pH \2\  (before/
         Extract No.               (Ba)         (Cd)         (Cr)     Lead  (Pb)     (Ni)           after)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (TCLP).....................  2.0 U \1\    0.10 U       0.50 U       0.50 U      1.8 I \4\
2 (first extraction of the     0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10 U       0.10 U      0.20 I      6.827/7.616
 MEP).
3............................  0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10 U       0.10        0.10 U      7.406/NA \3\
4............................  0.50 I       0.020 U      0.10         0.10 U      0.10 U      7.743/7.361
5............................  0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10         0.10 U      0.10 U      7.821/8.345
6............................  0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10         0.10 U      0.10 U      8.038/8.409
7............................  0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10 U       0.10 U      0.10 U      7.980/8.605
8............................  0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10 U       0.10 U      0.10 U      8.042/8.121
9............................  0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10 U       0.10 U      0.10 U      8.112/8.121
10...........................  0.50 U       0.020 U      0.10 U       0.10 U      0.10 U      7.738/8.576
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U = Not detected to level shown.
\2\ pH is a measure of the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in an aqueous solution, and is a
  measure of how acidic or basic (alkaline) a solution is. At 25  deg.C, solutions with pH values less than 7
  are acidic; greater than 7 are basic (alkaline); and a pH value of 7 indicates a neutral solution. In general,
  metals and their compounds are less soluble in basic (alkaline) solutions. ``Start'' means pH at start of the
  extraction and ``Finish'' means pH at the end of the extraction.
\3\ NA = Not analyzed.
\4\ I = Analyte detected at level between the Method Detection Level and the Practical Quantitation Level.

    The MEP data in Table 5 indicate that the petitioned waste would be 
expected to be resistant to leaching for a period of at least 100 
years, because concentrations in each extract are either not detected, 
or very close to the detection limit. The average life of a landfill is 
approximately 20 years. (See 56 FR 32993, July 18, 1991; and 56 FR 
67197, Dec. 30, 1991.)
    The MEP pH data in Table 5 indicate that the pH of the petitioned 
waste would be expected to remain alkaline for a period of more than 
100 years. Most heavy metal hydroxides, like those in the petitioned 
waste, tend to remain insoluble in water at alkaline pHs (pH greater 
than 7).

E. Should EPA Set Limits on Total Concentrations, as well as on TCLP 
Leachate Concentrations, that the Petitioned Waste must Meet in order 
to be Delisted?

    EPA requests public comment on the appropriateness of setting a 
maximum of 20,000 mg/kg for the total concentration of nickel, and 500 
mg/kg for the total concentration of each of the metals, barium, 
cadmium, chromium, and lead, in the petitioned waste. These maximum 
concentration limits would be in addition to the limits on the TCLP 
concentrations proposed in preamble section II, paragraphs B and C.

F. Should EPA Evaluate This Petitioned Waste for Recovery of Metals, as 
Well as for Disposal in a Landfill?

    Metal recovery from Tyco's petitioned waste is economically 
feasible. Tyco reported to EPA that the metal value of its petitioned 
waste if sent directly to a metal smelter would be more than $200,000 
per year.
    EPA requests comment on the following proposed methods of delisting 
the petitioned waste before shipping it to a metal smelter:
    Method I requires that two conditions be met: (1) The waste must 
meet the same delisting levels proposed for landfill disposal, and (2) 
The metal recovery facility must have, and be in compliance with, a 
permit issued in accordance with the Clean Air Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that Federal, State, and local solid waste regulations 
have always applied, and continue to apply, to the residues from the 
metal recovery process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Method II requires that the risk of smelting the waste must be 
determined to be acceptable in accordance with EPA's Human Health Risk 
Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for combustion risk assessment.

G. Conclusion

    EPA believes that Tyco's petitioned waste will not harm human 
health and the environment when disposed in a nonhazardous waste 
landfill, if the proposed delisting levels are met. EPA requests 
comment on four proposals: (1) Delisting levels for land disposal based 
on (a) the EPACML model, or (b) the LDR Universal Treatment Standards 
or the generic delisting levels of 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1), 
whichever are lower; (2) delisting levels for land disposal that set 
limits for total concentrations; (3) delisting levels for metal 
recovery that are the same as for land disposal, with the additional 
requirement that the metal recovery facility must operate in compliance 
with a permit issued in accordance with the Clean Air Act; and (4) 
delisting levels for metal recovery that are based on the determination 
of acceptable risk in accordance with EPA's Human Health Risk 
Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for combustion risk assessment.
    EPA proposes to exclude Tyco's petitioned waste from being listed 
as F006, based on descriptions of waste management and waste history, 
evaluation of the results of waste sample analysis, and on the 
requirement that Tyco's petitioned waste must meet

[[Page 48440]]

proposed delisting levels before disposal. Thus, EPA's proposed 
decision is based on verification testing conditions. If the proposed 
rule becomes effective, the exclusion will be valid only if the 
petitioner demonstrates that the petitioned waste meets the 
verification testing conditions and delisting levels in the amended 
Table 1 of appendix IX of 40 CFR part 261. If the proposed rule becomes 
final and EPA approves that demonstration, the petitioned waste would 
not be subject to regulation under 40 CFR parts 262 through 268 and the 
permitting standards of 40 CFR part 270. Although management of the 
waste covered by this petition would, upon final promulgation, be 
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the waste would remain a solid 
waste under RCRA. As such, the waste must be handled in accordance with 
all applicable Federal, State, and local solid waste management 
regulations. Pursuant to RCRA section 3007, EPA may also sample and 
analyze the waste to determine if delisting conditions are met.

III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion

Will This Rule Apply in All States?

    This proposed rule, if promulgated, would be issued under the 
Federal (RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to 
impose their own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more 
stringent than EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more 
stringent requirements may include a provision which prohibits a 
Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the States. Because a 
petitioner's waste may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both 
Federal and State programs), petitioners are urged to contact State 
regulatory authorities to determine the current status of their wastes 
under the State laws. Furthermore, some States are authorized to 
administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal program, i.e., to 
make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this proposed exclusion, 
if promulgated, would not apply in those authorized States. If the 
petitioned waste will be transported to any State with delisting 
authorization, Tyco must obtain delisting authorization from that State 
before the waste may be managed as nonhazardous in that State.

IV. Effective Date

    This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon 
final publication. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 
amended section 3010 of RCRA 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. That is the case here, because 
this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for the 
petitioner. In light of the unnecessary hardship and expense that would 
be imposed on this petitioner by an effective date six months after 
publication and the fact that a six-month deadline is not necessary to 
achieve the purpose of section 3010, EPA believes that this exclusion 
should be effective immediately upon final publication. These reasons 
also provide a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon 
final publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 553(d).

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated 
with this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned 
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.

VI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or 
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based measurement 
System (``PBMS''), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, 
prescribed analytical methods, except when required by regulation in 40 
CFR parts 260 through 270. Rather the Agency plans to allow the use of 
any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS 
approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the 
regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in 
analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding 
the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus 
standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria 
specified.

VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``UMRA''), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 
1995, EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with 
Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, 
and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 
$100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is required 
for EPA rules, under section 205 of the UMRA EPA must identify and 
consider alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator 
explains in the final rule why it was not selected or it is 
inconsistent with law. Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, giving them meaningful and 
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with 
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 
educating, and advising them on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory 
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. EPA finds that today's 
proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not 
impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments 
or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting does not 
establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does 
not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make

[[Page 48441]]

available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the 
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    This rule, if promulgated, will not have an adverse economic impact 
on any small entities since its effect would be to reduce the overall 
costs of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited to one 
facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed regulation, 
if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does 
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

IX. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal of policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.

    OMB has exempted this proposed rule from the requirement for OMB 
review under Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

X. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

XI. Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045 is entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This order applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is 
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and 
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866.

XII. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is 
unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to meaningful and timely input'' in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities of Indian tribal governments. Today's 
proposed rulemaking does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed 
rule.

XIII. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States.
    The EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's 
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular 
applicability, etc. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following 
types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, 
procedures, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. See 5 U.S.C. 804(3). This rule will 
become effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: July 28, 2000.
Jewell Grubbs,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 
proposed to be amended 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, and 6938.


[[Page 48442]]


    2. In Table 1 of appendix IX, part 261 add the following 
wastestream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22

                               Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Facility                        Address                          Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
Tyco Printed Circuit Group, Melbourne  Melbourne, Florida.....  Wastewater treatment sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste
 Division.                                                       No. F006) that Tyco Printed Circuit Group,
                                                                 Melbourne Division (Tyco) generates by treating
                                                                 wastewater from its circuit board manufacturing
                                                                 plant located on John Rodes Blvd. in Melbourne,
                                                                 Florida. This is a conditional exclusion for up
                                                                 to 500 cubic yards of waste (hereinafter
                                                                 referred to as ``Tyco Sludge'') that will be
                                                                 generated each year and disposed in a Subtitle
                                                                 D landfill after [insert date of final rule.]
                                                                 Tyco must demonstrate that the following
                                                                 conditions are met for the exclusion to be
                                                                 valid. (Please see Conditon (8) for proposed
                                                                 requirements for the exclusion to be valid for
                                                                 waste that is sent to a smelter for metal
                                                                 recovery.)
                                                                (1) Verification Testing Requirements: Sample
                                                                 collection and analyses, including quality
                                                                 control procedures must be performed according
                                                                 to SW-846 methodologies, where specified by
                                                                 regulations in 40 CFR parts 260-270. Otherwise,
                                                                 methods must meet Performance Based Measurement
                                                                 System Criteria in which the Data Quality
                                                                 Objectives are to demonstrate that
                                                                 representative samples of the Tyco Sludge meet
                                                                 the delisting levels in Condition (3).
                                                                (A) Initial Verification Testing: Tyco must
                                                                 collect and analyze a representative sample of
                                                                 every batch, for eight sequential batches of
                                                                 Tyco sludge generated in its wastewater
                                                                 treatment system after [insert date of final
                                                                 rule.]. A batch is the Tyco Sludge generated
                                                                 during one day of wastewater treatment. Tyco
                                                                 must analyze for the constituents listed in
                                                                 Condition (3). A minimum of four composite
                                                                 samples must be collected as representative of
                                                                 each batch. Tyco must report analytical test
                                                                 data, including quality control information, no
                                                                 later than 60 days after generating the first
                                                                 batch of Tyco Sludge to be disposed in
                                                                 accordance with the delisting Conditions (1)
                                                                 through (7).
                                                                (B) Subsequent Verification Testing: If the
                                                                 initial verification testing in Condition
                                                                 (1)(A) is successful, i.e., delisting levels of
                                                                 condition (3) are met for all of the eight
                                                                 initial batches, Tyco must test a minimum of 5%
                                                                 of the Tyco Sludge generated each year. Tyco
                                                                 must collect and analyze at least one composite
                                                                 sample representative of that 5%. The composite
                                                                 must be made up of representative samples
                                                                 collected from each batch included in the 5%.
                                                                 Tyco may, at its discretion, analyze composite
                                                                 samples gathered more frequently to demonstrate
                                                                 that smaller batches of waste are non-
                                                                 hazardous.
                                                                (2) Waste Holding and Handling: Tyco must store
                                                                 as hazardous all Tyco Sludge generated until
                                                                 verification testing as specified in Condition
                                                                 (1)(A) or (1)(B), as appropriate, is completed
                                                                 and valid analyses demonstrate that Condition
                                                                 (3) is satisfied. If the levels of constituents
                                                                 measured in the samples of Tyco Sludge do not
                                                                 exceed the levels set forth in Condition (3),
                                                                 then the Tyco Sludge is non-hazardous and must
                                                                 be managed in accordance with all applicable
                                                                 solid waste regulations. If constituent levels
                                                                 in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels
                                                                 set forth in Condition (3), the batch of Tyco
                                                                 Sludge generated during the time period
                                                                 corresponding to this sample must be retreated
                                                                 until it meets the delisting levels set forth
                                                                 in Condition (3), or managed and disposed of in
                                                                 accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.
                                                                (3) Delisting Levels: All leachable
                                                                 concentrations for these metals must not exceed
                                                                 the following levels (ppm): Barium--7.6;
                                                                 Cadmium--0.050; Chromium--0.33; Lead--0.15; and
                                                                 Nickel--1.0. Metal concentrations must be
                                                                 measured in the waste leachate by the method
                                                                 specified in 40 CFR 261.24. The cyanide (total,
                                                                 not amenable) concentration must not exceed 1.8
                                                                 mg/kg, by total analysis, not analysis of
                                                                 leachate. Cyanide concentrations must be
                                                                 measured by the method specified in 40 CFR
                                                                 268.40, Note 7.
                                                                (4) Changes in Operating Conditions: Tyco must
                                                                 notify EPA in writing when significant changes
                                                                 in the manufacturing or wastewater treatment
                                                                 processes are necessary (e.g., use of new
                                                                 chemicals not specified in the petition). EPA
                                                                 will determine whether these changes will
                                                                 result in additional constituents of concern.
                                                                 If so, EPA will notify Tyco in writing that the
                                                                 Tyco sludge must be managed as hazardous waste
                                                                 F006, pending receipt and evaluation of a new
                                                                 delisting petition. If EPA determines that the
                                                                 changes do not result in additional
                                                                 constituents of concern, EPA will notify Tyco,
                                                                 in writing, that Tyco must repeat Condition
                                                                 (1)(A) to verify that the Tyco Sludge continues
                                                                 to meet Condition (3) delisting levels.

[[Page 48443]]

 
                                                                (5) Data Submittals: Data obtained in accordance
                                                                 with Condition (1)(A) must be submitted to
                                                                 Jewell Grubbs, Chief, RCRA Enforcement and
                                                                 Compliance Branch, Mail Code: 4WD-RCRA, U.S.
                                                                 EPA, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center,
                                                                 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia. 30303.
                                                                 This notification is due no later than 60 days
                                                                 after generating the first batch of Tyco Sludge
                                                                 to be disposed in accordance with delisting
                                                                 Conditions (1) through (7). Records of
                                                                 analytical data from Condition (1) must be
                                                                 compiled, summarized, and maintained by Tyco
                                                                 for a minimum of three years, and must be
                                                                 furnished upon request by EPA or the State of
                                                                 Florida, and made available for inspection.
                                                                 Failure to submit the required data within the
                                                                 specified time period or maintain the required
                                                                 records for the specified time will be
                                                                 considered by EPA, at its discretion,
                                                                 sufficient basis to revoke the exclusion to the
                                                                 extent directed by EPA. All data must be
                                                                 accompanied by a signed copy of the following
                                                                 certification statement to attest to the truth
                                                                 and accuracy of the data submitted:
                                                                ``Under civil and criminal penalty of law for
                                                                 the making or submission of false or fraudulent
                                                                 statements or representations (pursuant to the
                                                                 applicable provisions of the Federal Code,
                                                                 which include, but may not be limited to, 18
                                                                 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that
                                                                 the information contained or accompanying this
                                                                 document is true, accurate and complete.
                                                                As to the (those) identified section(s) of this
                                                                 document for which I cannot personally verify
                                                                 its (their) truth and accuracy, I certify as
                                                                 the company official having supervisory
                                                                 responsibility for the persons who, acting
                                                                 under my direct instructions, made the
                                                                 verification that this information is true,
                                                                 accurate and complete.
                                                                In the event that any of this information is
                                                                 determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be
                                                                 false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon
                                                                 conveyance of this fact to the company, I
                                                                 recognize and agree that this exclusion of
                                                                 waste will be void as if it never had effect or
                                                                 to the extent directed by EPA and that the
                                                                 company will be liable for any actions taken in
                                                                 contravention of the company's RCRA and CERCLA
                                                                 obligations premised upon the company's void
                                                                 exclusion.''
                                                                (6) Reopener Language: (A) If, anytime after
                                                                 disposal of the delisted waste, Tyco possesses
                                                                 or is otherwise made aware of any environmental
                                                                 data (including but not limited to leachate
                                                                 data or groundwater monitoring data) or any
                                                                 other data relevant to the delisted waste
                                                                 indicating that any constituent identified in
                                                                 the delisting verification testing is at a
                                                                 level higher than the delisting level allowed
                                                                 by EPA in granting the petition, Tyco must
                                                                 report the data, in writing, to EPA within 10
                                                                 days of first possessing or being made aware of
                                                                 that data. (B) If the testing of the waste, as
                                                                 required by Condition (1)(B), does not meet the
                                                                 delisting requirements of Condition (3), Tyco
                                                                 must report the data, in writing, to EPA within
                                                                 10 days of first possessing or being made aware
                                                                 of that data. (C) Based on the information
                                                                 described in paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B) and
                                                                 any other information received from any source,
                                                                 EPA will make a preliminary determination as to
                                                                 whether the reported information requires that
                                                                 EPA take action to protect human health or the
                                                                 environment. Further action may include
                                                                 suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other
                                                                 appropriate response necessary to protect human
                                                                 health and the environment. (D) If EPA
                                                                 determines that the reported information does
                                                                 require Agency action, EPA will notify the
                                                                 facility in writing of the action believed
                                                                 necessary to protect human health and the
                                                                 environment. The notice shall include a
                                                                 statement of the proposed action and a
                                                                 statement providing Tyco with an opportunity to
                                                                 present information as to why the proposed
                                                                 action is not necessary. Tyco shall have 10
                                                                 days from the date of EPA's notice to present
                                                                 such information. (E) Following the receipt of
                                                                 information from Tyco, as described in
                                                                 paragraph (6)(D) or if no such information is
                                                                 received within 10 days, EPA will issue a final
                                                                 written determination describing the Agency
                                                                 actions that are necessary to protect human
                                                                 health or the environment, given the
                                                                 information received in accordance with
                                                                 paragraphs (6)(A) or (6)(B). Any required
                                                                 action described in EPA's determination shall
                                                                 become effective immediately, unless EPA
                                                                 provides otherwise.
                                                                (7) Notification Requirements: Tyco must provide
                                                                 a one-time written notification to any State
                                                                 Regulatory Agency in a State to which or
                                                                 through which the delisted waste described
                                                                 above will be transported, at least 60 days
                                                                 prior to the commencement of such activities.
                                                                 Failure to provide such a notification will
                                                                 result in a violation of the delisting
                                                                 conditions and a possible revocation of the
                                                                 decision to delist.

[[Page 48444]]

 
                                                                (8) Delisting Conditions to be Met Prior to
                                                                 Shipping Waste to Smelter for Metal Recovery:
                                                                 Tyco must provide a written notification to EPA
                                                                 and the Florida Department of Environmental
                                                                 Protection (FDEP), that includes the name,
                                                                 address, and telephone number of each smelting
                                                                 facility to which Tyco's petitioned waste will
                                                                 be shipped. The notification must be provided
                                                                 at least 60 days prior to the first shipment of
                                                                 petitioned waste to be smelted. At the same
                                                                 time, Tyco must notify EPA and FDEP of the
                                                                 total concentrations (mg/kg) of barium,
                                                                 cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, and nickel in
                                                                 the waste to be smelted, and the concentrations
                                                                 of barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel
                                                                 in the TCLP leachate (mg/l) of the waste to be
                                                                 smelted. If the risk determined in accordance
                                                                 with EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment
                                                                 Protocol (HHRAP) for combustion risk assessment
                                                                 is unacceptable, the waste to be smelted must
                                                                 be managed as F006.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-20020 Filed 8-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U