[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9992-10000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3616]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-6940-7]
Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for the Autoliv ASP Inc.
Facility in Promontory, Utah
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing in this
rule to implement a project under the Project XL program that would
provide site-specific regulatory flexibility under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), for the Autoliv ASP Inc.
(Autoliv) facility in Promontory, Utah. The principal objective of this
XL Project is to explore the benefits of a more streamlined and
flexible RCRA regulation of pyrotechnic hazardous wastes from the
automobile airbag industry that are treated in industrial furnaces.
This proposed rule would
[[Page 9993]]
provide regulatory flexibility to Autoliv in the form of a conditional
exemption from the definition of hazardous waste. The terms of the
project are defined in the Final Project Agreement (FPA) which was made
available for public review and comments through a Federal Register
notice on August 14, 2000 (65 FR 49571) and signed on September 20,
2000 by Autoliv, Box Elder County, the state of Utah, and EPA.
DATES: Public comments: Comments on the proposed rule must be received
on or before March 6, 2001.
Public Hearing: Commenters may request a public hearing by February
20, 2001, during the public comment period. Commenters requesting a
public hearing should specify the basis for their request. If EPA
determines that there is sufficient reason to hold a public hearing, it
will do so by February 27, 2001, during the last week of the public
comment period. Requests for a public hearing should be submitted to
the address below.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Written comments should be mailed to the RCRA
Information Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please send
an original and two copies of all comments, and refer to Docket Number
F-2001-AUFP-FFFFF.
Request to Speak at Hearing: Requests for a hearing should be
mailed to the RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk (5305G), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please send an original and two copies of all
comments, and refer to Docket Number F-2001-AUFP-FFFFF. A copy should
also be sent to Ms. Mary Byrne at U.S. EPA Region 8 (8P-R), 999 18th
Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466.
Viewing Project Materials: A docket containing the proposed rule,
the signed FPA, supporting materials, and public comments is available
for public inspection and copying at the RCRA Information Center (RIC),
located at Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,
Arlington, Virginia. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The public is encouraged to
phone in advance to review docket materials. Appointments can be
scheduled by phoning the Docket Office at (703) 603-9230. Refer to RCRA
docket number F-2001-AUFP-FFFFF. The public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost
15 cents per page. Project materials are also available for review for
today's action on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
A duplicate copy of the docket is available for inspection and
copying at U.S. EPA, Region 8 Library, First Floor, 999 18th Street, CO
80202-2466 during normal business hours. Persons wishing to view the
duplicate docket at the Denver location are encouraged to contact Ms.
Mary Byrne in advance, by telephoning (303) 312-6491.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Byrne, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO
80202-2466. Ms. Byrne can be reached at (303) 312-6491 or
[email protected]. Further information on today's action may also be
obtained on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The development and implementation of on-
site treatment would be piloted at Autoliv's Promontory, Utah facility
using the existing metals recovery furnace with air pollution controls
instead of sending the materials off-site to be open burned. This pilot
is intended to test the effectiveness of on-site treatment of
automobile airbag waste pyrotechnics in Autoliv's Metals Recovery
Furnace (MRF). These automobile airbag waste pyrotechnics generated on-
site at the Autoliv facility, are currently regulated as reactive
hazardous wastes (waste code D003).
The pilot will determine whether this approach promotes better
treatment of the waste pyrotechnics than the current method of open
burning. Autoliv will comply with many of the general facility
standards of RCRA, and is not seeking relief from all RCRA management
protections. Through this project, Autoliv intends to be able to treat
waste pyrotechnics, generated on-site, without obtaining a RCRA permit
from the state of Utah. A RCRA permit is normally required for thermal
destruction of hazardous waste in an industrial furnace. The waste as
referenced in Autoliv's Project Proposal is reactive only and does not
contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents listed in 40 CFR
Part 261, for more detailed information on waste composition please see
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/Autoliv/page2.htm.
This proposed rule provides a ``conditional exemption'' from the
definition of hazardous waste, for the specific waste that is subject
to this proposed site-specific rule. The effect of EPA granting the
conditional exemption is that a RCRA permit will not be required. The
waste pyrotechnics, generated on-site at the Autoliv facility, will be
conditionally exempted from regulation as hazardous wastes and thus, 40
CFR Parts 262 through 270 when treated in the MRF in accordance with
the provisions in this proposed site-specific rule. The facility will
continue to comply with certain general RCRA conditions on facility
operations, as described in this site-specific rule for the Autoliv
Facility and any state of Utah regulations that grant the conditional
exemption. The project signatories believe that processing pyrotechnic
materials in the MRF can be both cost-effective and achieve superior
environmental results as compared to open burning and this project
meets the intent of Project XL.
This proposed rule will not in any way impact the provisions or
applicability of any other existing or future regulations.
The deferral of specified RCRA requirements is in effect only for
the five-year term of this XL project. Following review of its MRF,
Autoliv would notify the state of Utah and EPA in writing of the date
on which it intends to begin treating its pyrotechnic waste in the MRF.
This proposed rule would become effective in Autoliv's facility only
after such written notification. Section III.C.2. and IV.F.1. discuss
the aspects of state implementation of this proposed rule.
The deferral of the specified RCRA requirements is conditional upon
Autoliv's implementation and compliance with the conditions set forth
in 40 CFR 261.4 of this proposed rule. The agreement includes specific
requirements for the management of Autoliv's waste that ensure
protection of human health and the environment while providing some
flexibility to encourage chemical reuse and waste minimization.
The conditions set forth in this proposed rule are expected to
function as an outline of the procedures that must be in place to
manage waste. The proposed deferral of the hazardous waste
determination is conditional on compliance with all of the requirements
of the XL Project. These criteria ensure that the handling and disposal
of Autoliv's waste would be protective of human health and the
environment by establishing how Autoliv's waste would be treated within
its Promontory facility, and in transit to the on-site waste
accumulation area for Autoliv.
EPA has agreed to allow Autoliv to undertake this XL project with
the requested regulatory flexibility to determine if the proposed
performance-based approach would result in superior environmental
performance and significant cost savings to Autoliv.
[[Page 9994]]
This proposed rule, and the state actions described in Section
IV.F.1. of this preamble that parallel this action, will not in any way
affect the provisions or applicability of any other existing or future
regulations.
EPA is soliciting comments on this proposed rule. EPA will publish
responses to comments. The XL Project will enter the implementation
phase after the initial stack test results have been submitted by
Autoliv and reviewed by both EPA and the state of Utah to ensure
adherence to the XL Project.
Outline of Today's Document
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Overview of Project XL
III. Overview of the Autoliv XL Project
A. What Autoliv Facility Will the Proposed Rule Apply?
B. What Are The Environmental Benefits of This Project?
C. What Regulatory Changes will be Necessary to Implement this
Project?
1. Federal Regulatory Changes
2. State Regulatory Changes
D. Why is EPA Supporting this New Approach to Autoliv's Waste
Management?
E. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
F. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
G. How Will the Terms of This XL Project and Proposed Rule Be
Enforced?
IV. Additional Information
A. How to Request a Public Hearing
B. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866?
C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this
Project Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act?
F. RCRA & Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
2. Effect on Utah Authorization
G. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045:
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks?
H. Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 12875: Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships?
I. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13084:
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments?
J. Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)?
I. Authority
EPA is publishing this proposed rule under the authority of
sections of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). (Authority: 42 U.S.C.
6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 6938.)
II. Overview of Project XL
Project XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''-- was announced on March
16, 1995, as a central part of the National Performance Review and the
EPA's effort to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May
23, 1995). Project XL provides a limited number of private and public
regulated entities an opportunity to develop their own pilot projects
to provide regulatory flexibility that will result in environmental
protection that is superior to what would be achieved through
compliance with current and reasonably anticipated future regulations.
These efforts are crucial to EPA's ability to test new strategies that
reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving
better environmental and public health protection. EPA intends to
evaluate the results of this and other Project XL projects to determine
which specific elements of the project(s), if any, should be more
broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of both the
economy and the environment.
Under Project XL, participants in four categories; facilities,
industry sectors, governmental agencies and communities--are offered
the flexibility to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements, on the
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental
performance.
The XL program is intended to allow EPA to experiment with
potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether
they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether
they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects
allow EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when
undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. As part of this
experimentation, the EPA may try out approaches or legal
interpretations that depart from or are even inconsistent with
longstanding Agency practice, so long as those interpretations are
within the broad range of discretion enjoyed by the Agency in
interpreting statutes that it implements. The EPA may also modify
rules, on a site-specific basis, that represent one of several possible
policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as
the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.
Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the
context of a given XL project does not, however, signal EPA's
willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even
in the context of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the
forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative
approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining
whether or not they are viable in practice and successful in the
particular projects that embody them. In announcing the XL program, EPA
expects to adopt only a limited number of carefully selected projects.
These pilot projects are not intended to be a means for piecemeal
revision of entire programs. Depending on the results in these
projects, EPA may or may not be willing to consider adopting the
alternative interpretation again, either generally or for other
specific facilities.
EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and
interpretations, on a limited, site-specific basis and in connection
with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with the
expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the
environmental statutes (provided that the Agency acts within the
discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is
a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing re-
evaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of
statutory provisions, such as section 8001 of RCRA.
To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop alternative
pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria: Superior
environmental performance; cost savings and paperwork reduction; local
stakeholder involvement and support; test of an innovative strategy;
transferability; feasibility; identification of monitoring, reporting
and evaluation methods; and avoidance of shifting risk burden. They
must have full support of affected federal, state and tribal agencies
to be selected.
For more information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to
the two descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR
27282, May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997), and the December
1, 1995 Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project
Agreements document. For further discussion as to how Autoliv XL
project addresses the XL criteria, readers should refer to the Final
Project Agreement available from the EPA RCRA docket or Region 8
library for this action (see ADDRESSES section of today's preamble).
[[Page 9995]]
The Project XL program is compartmentalized into four basic phases:
the initial pre-proposal phase where the project sponsor comes up with
an innovative concept that they would like to consider as an XL pilot,
the second phase where the project sponsor works with EPA and
interested stakeholders in developing an XL proposal, the third phase
where EPA, local regulatory agencies, and other interested stakeholders
review the XL proposal, the fourth phase where the project sponsor
works with EPA, local regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders
in developing a Final Project Agreement (FPA) and legal mechanism.
After the FPA has been signed by all designated parties, the XL pilot
proceeds into the implementation phase and evaluation phase.
The FPA is a written agreement between the project sponsor and
regulatory agencies. The FPA contains a detailed description of the
proposed pilot project. It addresses the eight Project XL criteria, and
the expectation of the Agency that this XL project will meet those
criteria. The FPA identifies performance goals and indicators
(monitoring schedule) which will enable Autoliv to clearly illustrate
the baseline quantities. The FPA specifically addresses the manner in
which the project is expected to produce superior environmental
benefits. The FPA also discusses the administration of the agreement,
including dispute resolution and termination. The FPA is available for
review in the docket for today's action, and also is available on the
world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
III. Overview of the Autoliv XL Project
Autoliv is proposing to develop, evaluate and implement, an
alternative to open burning of certain wastes generated at its
Promontory, Utah facility.
This waste is reactive only, and contains no significant levels of
hazardous constituents. These reactive hazardous wastes are presently
treated through open burning at a RCRA interim status facility.
Autoliv currently operates a $3 million Metals Recovery Facility
(MRF) designed to recover aluminum and steel from inflator units
containing live pyrotechnic material as well as previously fired units.
The MRF is capable of recovering 2000 pounds per hour of recyclable
aluminum and steel from off-spec and fired commercial inflator units
and their components while minimizing the waste to the environment.
Autoliv's XL Project proposes to process small volumes of its waste
pyrotechnic materials within the MRF rather than sending the materials
to a RCRA regulated treatment, storage or disposal facility (TSDF) for
open burning. The company is seeking a conditional exemption from the
definition of hazardous waste for pyrotechnic materials to be processed
through the MRF.
The MRF has an extensive air pollution train which is capable of
capturing the particulate emissions produced by the waste pyrotechnic
materials. The proposed project will demonstrate that it is feasible to
utilize existing equipment to process certain hazardous wastes in a
more efficient and environmentally sound manner, under a more flexible
regulatory framework. With minimal modifications to the operation,
Autoliv believes that it can achieve a safer, cleaner, and more
effective method of treatment than the current method of open burning.
EPA anticipates that this project will provide information on how
to develop alternative approaches to handling pyrotechnic waste. This
information would be useful to EPA in learning more about alternative
treatment approaches for airbag manufacturing wastestreams. This XL
Project would include conditions for the treatment of Autoliv's wastes
within Autoliv's Promontory Facility. These criteria will operate at
Autoliv's Promontory facility in lieu of the requirements found at 40
CFR 261.4. The conditions are a set of measurable requirements that are
similar to the current RCRA requirements. Each of the elements of the
conditions is described in full in today's proposed rule and is briefly
explained below.
The proposed requirements for Autoliv's XL Project include a
requirement that the project include procedures to assure compliance
with conditions specified in the proposed rule. The proposed conditions
set forth for the treatment of Autoliv's waste have been designed to
ensure that Autoliv's waste will be treated in a manner protective of
human health and the environment. The requirements in the conditions
include provisions which are consistent with current RCRA requirements.
Autoliv is proposing that EPA explore the benefits of more streamlined
and flexible RCRA regulation of pyrotechnic hazardous wastes from the
automobile airbag industry that are treated in industrial furnaces. The
project signatories agree that this rule can be characterized as a
conditional exemption from the definition of hazardous waste.
Autoliv will comply with many of the general facility standards of
RCRA, and is not seeking relief from all RCRA management protections.
Through this project Autoliv intends to be able to treat its waste
pyrotechnic materials on-site without obtaining a RCRA Part B permit
from the State of Utah that is normally required for thermal treatment.
The waste as referenced in Autoliv's Project Proposal is reactive only
and does not contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents (See
the Environmental Performance Summary Calculations section of the
Autoliv Proposal at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/Autoliv/page2.htm. for
more detailed information on waste composition).
A. To What Autoliv Facility Would the Proposed Rule Apply?
This proposed rule would apply only to the Autoliv ASP Inc.
(Autoliv) facility in Promontory, Utah.
B. What Are the Environmental Benefits of This Project?
This project is designed to achieve environmental results that are
superior to what is currently achieved by the current RCRA regulatory
system.
This project is expected to achieve superior environmental results
as compared to open burning for several reasons. The major benefit to
the environment will be from reduced air emissions due to the
minimization of open burning of hazardous waste. The company has
arranged for open burning of 183,557 lbs. of pyrotechnic material that
were not able to be recovered or recycled during 1998 and 1999. The
uncontrolled particulate emissions are a point of concern for all
parties involved. Although open burning is an approved method for
treatment of pyrotechnic wastes it does not utilize any air pollution
controls. The same pyrotechnic materials, if processed at the MRF,
would pass through an extensive air pollution control system rather
than being emitted, thus achieving a significant reduction of air
pollutants released to the environment, accomplishing superior
environmental performance compared to open burning. The company
projects that it can eliminate open burning of 158,000 lbs. of
pyrotechnic waste material in the first year of project participation.
It also estimates that a net reduction of 22,876 lbs./yr. of
particulate emissions would be accomplished.
Additional environmental benefits are achievable due to the fact
that certain pyrotechnic formulations contain materials (e.g., copper)
that could be potentially recovered in the slag as well as in the
baghouse. These materials could then be recycled back to Autoliv's
[[Page 9996]]
raw material suppliers. The distinctive properties of the pyrotechnic
materials enable these materials to be treated more efficiently and in
a manner that creates few air emissions than open burning which
precludes recycling or recovery of any kind.
The specifications governing the air bag industry are very
stringent and do not allow the use of toxic materials. The major gases
produced by gas generants are water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. The
percentage of each of these gases can vary depending on the formulation
but a typical analysis would be approximately 40% nitrogen, 40% water,
and 20% carbon dioxide. Other gaseous and particulate (metal) compounds
are present at ppm levels. These include gaseous carbon dioxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NO), and ammonia
(NH3), and particulate matter containing the metals copper,
cobalt, boron, and aluminum. The MRF is presently permitted by Utah
(DAQE-549-97) to operate 24 hours/day, 365 days/year. Actual operation
is estimated to be 50 percent of the permitted production capacity. A
portion of the processing capacity will be absorbed by pyrotechnic
waste material. Minimal changes to the emission streams are expected
because the pyrotechnic materials are also present within the recycled
inflator units themselves.
C. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary To Implement This Project?
1. Federal Regulatory Changes
This proposed rule would provide Autoliv with a temporary
conditional exemption from 40 CFR 261.4. In order to implement this
project, EPA will grant a conditional exemption from the definition of
hazardous waste, for the specific waste that is subject to this rule.
The effect of EPA granting the conditional exemption is that a RCRA
Part B permit will not be required. The waste pyrotechnics, generated
on-site at the Autoliv facility, will be exempted from regulation as a
hazardous waste exempt from 40 CFR Parts 262 through 270 when treated
in the MRF in accordance with the provisions in the site-specific rule.
The facility will continue to comply with certain general RCRA
conditions on facility operations, as described in this Project XL
site-specific rule for the Autoliv facility and any State of Utah
regulations that grant the conditional exemption. The project
signatories believe that processing pyrotechnic materials in the MRF
can be both cost-effective and achieve superior environmental results
as compared to open burning.
This site-specific rule is necessary to allow for the temporary
conditional exemption/deferral, and would add exclusion (b)(18) to 40
CFR 261.4 to clarify that the on-site treatment of Autoliv's wastes
would be covered by a new section to 40 CFR.
2. State Regulatory Changes
The State of Utah is authorized under Section 3003 of RCRA (Sec.
6926. Authorized State Hazardous Waste Programs), to implement the
federal RCRA Program. The state program operates in lieu of the federal
program. The Utah hazardous waste management regulations, codified in
Utah Code of Regulations contain equivalent or more stringent
requirements as compared to the federal regulations. Autoliv is subject
to the federal and the Utah regulations, which would include
requirements that the pyrotechnic waste be handled according to the
waste management provisions of RCRA. Conforming state regulatory
changes or legal mechanisms need to be implemented in addition to the
proposed federal changes in order for this XL Project to proceed.
D. Why Is EPA Supporting This New Approach to Autoliv's Waste
Treatment?
EPA is supporting this regulatory model contained in this rule
because it provides for a degree of environmental protection that is at
least as protective as that which existing RCRA regulations would
provide for the Autoliv's Promontory facility. The approach to be
tested under this project would be to explore the efficacy of treating
waste on-site in cases where there is a clear benefit to the
environment for doing so. This would entail the substitution of current
RCRA permitting requirements outlined in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 266 with
those for interim status facilities. EPA is interested in testing and
evaluating alternative approaches to regulating RCRA facilities that
can achieve superior environmental performance while reducing costs and
paperwork burden. Autoliv has a history of implementing waste
minimization techniques and practices with control over manufacturing
with emphasis on quality and waste minimization. Providing Autoliv the
flexibility to dispose of waste on a regular schedule means
professional resources can be redirected from reactive waste management
to proactive waste management.
EPA anticipates that this proposed rule will result in a successful
innovative pilot of a new on-site treatment system for Autoliv. EPA
recognizes that the proposed new systems may not be appropriate or
necessary for some institutions but may, at some point, depending on
the results of this XL project, consider the possibility of offering it
as a regulatory option.
For this pilot, Autoliv will be implementing an Environmental
Reinvestment Project (ERP) that will be finalized one year from the
project start date.
E. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?
Stakeholder involvement during the project development stage was
encouraged in several ways. The methods included communicating through
the media, directly contacting interested parties and offering an
educational program regarding the regulatory requirements impacted by
the XL project. Stakeholders have been kept informed on the project
status via mailing lists, newspaper articles, public meetings and the
establishment of a website. Both local and regional stakeholders have
expressed support for this project. They see this as a unique
opportunity to improve the air quality in Box Elder County and
surrounding communities. Participation in Project XL provides Autoliv,
the Box Elder County, the Utah Division of Environmental Quality and
the EPA the opportunity to explore new ways to improve the environment.
The neighboring community of Howell and the surrounding area would
benefit by reducing emissions associated with open burning. The highly
visible nature of open burning tends to heighten awareness of the
associated environmental impacts. A kickoff meeting and site tour held
on June 8th, 1999 garnered stakeholder support and input for the
project plan. Additional stakeholder meetings will be held as
appropriate.
Stakeholders that have been active in the project and have given
oral or written support are: Utah Division of Environmental Quality,
Bear River Health Department, Howell City, and Box Elder County.
Stakeholders have been made aware of Autoliv's intentions and the
environmental benefits associated with Project XL. Autoliv will
continue to provide the stakeholder group with any information
regarding the project including semi-annual project updates and will
encourage them to meet on a regular basis.
Copies of all comment letters, as well as EPA's response to comment
letters, will be located in the rulemaking Docket (see the ADDRESSES
section of today's preamble). As this XL project continues
[[Page 9997]]
to be implemented, the stakeholder involvement program would shift its
focus to ensure that: (1) Stakeholders are apprised of the status of
project implementation and (2) stakeholders have access to information
sufficient to judge the success of this Project XL initiative.
Anticipated stakeholder involvement during the term of the project will
likely include other general public meetings to present periodic status
reports, availability of data and other information generated. In
addition to the state and federal reporting requirements of today's
rulemaking, the FPA includes provisions whereby Autoliv will make
copies of interim project reports available to all interested parties.
A public file on this XL project has been maintained at the website
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/ throughout project development, and
Autoliv has committed to continue to update it as the project is
implemented.
A detailed description of this program and the stakeholder support
for this project is included in the FPA, which is available through the
docket or through EPA's Project XL site on the Internet (see ADDRESSES
section of this preamble).
F. How Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
The waste treatment currently accounts for the most substantial
expense for environmental, health and safety programs at Autoliv. This
XL Project would result in cost savings and paperwork reduction in
several key areas. These include a decrease in paperwork through a
streamlined process for approval of hazardous waste treatment,
elimination of paperwork related to transporting the waste off-site to
a permitted facility, and a reduction in the disposal costs that the
company would pay to a RCRA treatment or disposal facility. Autoliv
disposed of 82,361 lbs. of pyrotechnic waste in 1998 at an incurred
cost of $164,722. The pyrotechnic waste could easily have been
processed in the MRF with minimal additional operating cost. Autoliv
estimates that 158,000 lbs. of waste material will be generated in the
year 2000. The contracted disposal fee at present time is $2.00 per
pound. Through Project XL, Autoliv will save an estimated $316,000 in
disposal costs in the first year. It has been estimated that issuance
of a RCRA permit may take three to five years and may cost the facility
$500,000. Part of Autoliv's cost savings from the XL project will be
used to fund an ERP.
In addition, the following changes would be anticipated: waste
pyrotechnics would no longer be transported across public roads,
reducing potential liability and associated costs, and increasing
public safety. The paperwork burden would be reduced because hazardous
waste manifests and shipping papers would not be required or needed.
Operational flexibility would allow materials to be processed more
regularly, which further reduces paperwork as well as the amount of
pyrotechnics stored at any given time. It is expected with this project
a certain amount of paperwork associated with RCRA compliance is likely
to be reduced.
G. How Will the Terms of This XL Project and Proposed Rule Be Enforced?
EPA retains its full range of enforcement options under this
proposed rule. The conditional exemption of certain RCRA requirements
are conditional upon Autoliv's implementation and compliance with the
conditions set forth in 40 CFR 261.4 of this rule (b) (18).
If the conditions for the exemption are not met, the XL project may
be terminated pursuant to the terms of the Final Project Agreement
setting out the agreement of the parties to this project. The final
project agreement further provides for a return to compliance with any
regulations deferred under the project, and may include an agreed-upon
interim compliance period.
As with all XL projects, testing alternative environmental
protection strategies, the term of the Autoliv XL project is one of
limited duration. This proposed rule would set the term of the XL
Project at five years after the effective date of this rule. Because
Project XL is a voluntary and experimental program, the FPA contains
provisions that allow the project to conclude prior to the end of the
five years in the event that it is desirable or necessary to do so.
During the five year project term, Autoliv will comply with the
following:
(1) Autoliv will comply with the Project XL site-specific rule for
the Promontory facility and the requirements specified in 40 CFR Part
262, Part 265, Subparts B, C, D, E, G, H, I, and O, and Part 268. Waste
material will still be managed and stored as hazardous waste prior to
treatment. Autoliv will comply with the RCRA 90-day storage
requirements.
(2) All waste materials processed will be characterized and an
initial stack test described in the site-specific rule will be
conducted by Autoliv to evaluate the safety and the efficiency of the
MRF system.
(3) The amounts of pyrotechnic wastes will be reported to EPA and
the State of Utah at each periodic performance review conference
conducted every six months.
(4) Due to the dynamic and ever changing nature of the air bag
industry, it will be pertinent to allow for new development and provide
flexibility for future materials. Emission product limitations will
comply with air bag industry emissions standards listed in the Superior
Environmental Performance section.
(5) The Utah Division of Air Quality under authority delegated by
EPA has agreed that a separate Approval Order will be issued for the
pyrotechnic waste disposal process which will serve as an amendment to
the existing Approval Order which covers the current operation of
processing airbag inflators and their components. No regulatory
flexibility or modification of federal regulations is required for the
new approval order to be issued by the Division of Air Quality.
(6) No off-site pyrotechnic wastes will be received or processed at
this location and in the MRF.
(7) An MRF Operating Record, including waste feed composition, feed
rates, temperatures, pressures, upset conditions, spills and releases,
etc., will be maintained at the facility and made available for the
State of Utah and EPA to review and copy for enforcement purposes if
necessary.
(8) The State of Utah and EPA will be notified of any upset
conditions, such as, spills and releases of hazardous or toxic
substances at the MRF. The information will be reported orally within
24 hours from the time Autoliv becomes aware of the circumstances. A
written submission to the State of Utah and EPA will be provided within
five days of the time Autoliv becomes aware of the circumstances of the
noncompliance. The severity and type of upset condition that would
trigger the reporting threshold is described in the site-specific rule.
IV. Additional Information
A. How To Request a Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding this
regulation in accordance with 40 CFR Part 25. Persons wishing to make
an oral presentation on the site specific rule to implement the Autoliv
XL project should contact Ms. Mary Byrne of the EPA Region 8 office, at
the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Any member
of the public may file a written statement before the hearing, or after
the hearing, to be
[[Page 9998]]
received by EPA no later than February 27, 2001. Written statements
should be sent to EPA at the addresses given in the ADDRESSES section
of this document. If a public hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of
the hearing, and written statements provided at the hearing will be
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours at
the EPA addresses for docket inspection given in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.
B. How Does This Rule Comply with 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 in 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 entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because the annualized cost of this final rule will be
significantly less than $100 million and will not meet any of the other
criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been determined that
this rule is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of
Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
Executive Order 12866 also encourages agencies to provide a
meaningful public comment period, and suggests that in most cases the
comment period should be 60 days. However, in consideration of the very
limited scope of today's rulemaking and the considerable public
involvement in the development of the proposed Final Project Agreement,
the EPA considers 21 days to be sufficient in providing a meaningful
public comment period for today's action.
C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq.,
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
because it only affects Autoliv. Therefore, EPA has concluded that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this Project Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act?
This action applies only to Autoliv, and therefore requires no
information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) will be
submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
As noted above, this rule is applicable only to the Autoliv
facility in Promontory, Utah. The EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. EPA has also determined that this
rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.
F. RCRA & Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to
administer and enforce the RCRA program for hazardous waste within the
state. (See 40 CFR Part 271 for the standards and requirements for
authorization.) States with final authorization administer their own
hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal program. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008,
3013 and 7003 of RCRA.
After authorization, federal rules written under RCRA (non-HSWA),
no longer apply in the authorized state except for those issued
pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). New federal requirements imposed by those rules do not take
effect in an authorized state until the state adopts the requirements
as state law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in authorized states at the
same time they take effect in nonauthorized states. EPA is directed to
carry out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in
[[Page 9999]]
authorized states until the state is granted authorization to do so.
2. Effect on Utah Authorization
This proposed rule is being promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA
authority, rather than HSWA. Utah has received authority to administer
most of the RCRA program; thus, authorized provisions of each state's
hazardous waste program are administered in lieu of the federal
program. Utah has received authority to administer hazardous waste
standards for generators. As a result, this proposed rule, would not be
effective in Utah until the state adopts equivalent legal mechanisms or
requirements as state law. EPA may not enforce these requirements until
it approves the state requirements as a revision to the authorized
state program.
G. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks?
The Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have 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.
H. Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12875: Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships?
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 any 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.
This proposed rule does not create a mandate on state, local or
tribal governments. This 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.
I. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13084: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly 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 provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities. Today's rule does not significantly
or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. There
are no communities of Indian tribal governments located in the vicinity
of Autoliv. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
J. Does This Rule Comply With the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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 standard. This
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Waste determination.
Dated: January 19, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 261 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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, 6924(y), and
6938.
2. Section 261.4 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(18) to read as
follows:
Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(18) By-products resulting from the production of automobile air
bag gas generants at the Autoliv ASP Inc. facility in Promontory Utah,
(Autoliv) are exempt from the D003 listing, for a period of five years
from [the effective date of this rule/publication date] provided that:
(i) The by-product gas generants are processed on-site in Autoliv's
Metal Recovery Furnace (MRF).
(A) By-product gas generants must only be fed to the MRF when it is
operating in conformance with the State of Utah, Division of Air
Quality's Approval Order DAQE-549-97.
(B) Combustion gas temperature must be maintained below 400 degrees
Fahrenheit at the baghouse inlet.
(ii) Prior to processing in the MRF, the by-product gas generants
are managed
[[Page 10000]]
in accordance with the requirements specified in 40 CFR 262.34.
(iii) The Autoliv facility and the MRF are operated and managed in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265, Subparts B, C, D,
E, G, H, I, and O.
(iv) Residues derived from the processing of by-product gas
generants in the MRF are managed in accordance with the requirements
specified in 40 CFR Parts 262 and 268.
(v) The following testing of the MRF's stack gas emissions is
conducted:
(A) An initial test shall be conducted within 30 operating days of
starting feed of by-product gas generants to the MRF. EPA may extend
this deadline, at the request of Autoliv, when good cause is shown. The
initial test shall consist of three duplicate runs sampling for:
(1) Particulate matter using Method 5 as specified in 40 CFR Part
60, Appendix A.
(2) The metals Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Boron,
Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, and Nickel using Method 29 as
specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
(3) Polychlorinated di-benzo dioxins and furans using Method 23
0023A as specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
(4) Carbon monoxide using Method 10 as specified in 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A.
(B) After the initial test is completed, an annual stack test (12
months from the previous initial stack test) of the MRF shall be
conducted. The annual tests shall consist of three duplicate runs using
Method 29 and Method 5 as specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A.
(C) Testing shall be conducted while by-product gas generants are
fed to the MRF at no less than 90% of the planned maximum feed rate,
and with the MRF operating parameters within normal ranges.
(D) Initial stack testing results and additional project
performance data and information, including the quantity of by-product
gas generants processed and the operating parameter values during the
test runs, will be submitted by Autoliv to the State of Utah and EPA
within 60 days of the completion of the initial stack test.
(E) Annual stack test results and additional project performance
data and information, including the quantity of by-product gas
generants processed and the operating parameter values during the test
runs, will be submitted by Autoliv to EPA and the State of Utah within
60 days of the completion of the annual test.
(vi) Combustion gas discharged to the atmosphere from the MRF meets
the following limits:
(A) Dioxin emissions do not exceed 0.4 ng per dry standard cubic
meter on a toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ) basis corrected to 7%
Oxygen.
(B) Combined lead and cadmium emissions do not exceed 240 ug per
dry standard cubic meter corrected to 7% Oxygen.
(C) Combined arsenic, beryllium, and chromium emissions do not
exceed 97 ug per dry standard cubic meter corrected to 7% Oxygen.
(D) Particulate matter emissions do not exceed 34 mg per dry
standard cubic meter corrected to 7% Oxygen.
(E) If the limits specified in paragraphs (b)(18)(vi)(A) through
(D) of this section are exceeded, Autoliv shall discontinue feeding gas
generants to the MRF until such time as Autoliv can demonstrate to EPA
and the state of Utah satisfaction that the MRF combustion gas
emissions can meet the limits specified in paragraphs (b)(18)(vi) (A)
through (D) of this section
(vii) No by-product gas generants or other pyrotechnic wastes
generated off-site will be received at the Autoliv facility in
Promontory, Utah or processed in the MRF unless otherwise allowed by
law (permit or regulation). (viii) Autoliv will provide EPA and the
state of Utah with semi-annual reports (by January 30 and July 30 of
each year).
(A) The semi-annual reports will document the amounts of by-product
gas generants processed during the reporting period.
(B) The semi-annual reports will provide a summary of the MRF
Operating Record during the reporting period, including information on
by-product gas generant composition, average feed rates, upset
conditions, and spills or releases.
(ix) No significant changes are made to the operating parameter
production values of Autoliv's production of air bag gas generants such
that any of the constituents listed in appendix VIII of this part are
introduced into the process.
(x) Autoliv reports to the EPA any noncompliance which may endanger
health or the environment orally within 24 hours from the time Autoliv
becomes aware of the circumstances, including:
(A) Any information of a release, discharge, fire, or explosion
from the MRF, which could threaten the environment or human health.
(B) The description of the occurrence and its cause shall include:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the facility;
(2) Date, time, and type of incident;
(3) Name and quantity of material(s) involved;
(4) The extent of injuries, if any;
(5) An assessment of actual or potential hazards to the environment
and human health, and
(6) Estimated quantity and disposition of recovered material that
resulted from the incident.
(C) A written notice shall also be provided within five days of the
time Autoliv becomes aware of the circumstances. The written notice
shall contain a description of the non-compliance and its cause; the
period of noncompliance including exact dates and times, and if the
noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate,
and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. The EPA may waive the
five day written notice requirement in favor of a written report within
fifteen days.
(xi) Notifications and submissions made under paragraph (b)(18) of
this section shall be sent to the Regional Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, U.S. EPA, Region
8 and the Executive Secretary of the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste
Control Board.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-3616 Filed 2-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P