34694 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

Total Annual Expected Facility Burden

and Cost

The total annual burden and cost for

all existing facilities and all new

facilities are shown in Exhibit 7. The

current ICR that was submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

includes similar burden and cost

estimates for the first year of the current

ICR, however the annual burdens

presented in this notice are calculated

based on the third and final year of the

current ICR. Approximately 9,900

facilities are required to perform

activities in the final year of the current

ICR. Of these, over 4,300 new facilities

will incur a combined burden of 2,600

hours and $130,000 to become familiar

with the rule and determine that they

are not required to prepare such plans.

Each year approximately 65 new

facilities will determine that they are

required to prepare such plans and will

incur a combined burden of 21,000

hours and $850,000 to do so.

Approximately 5,500 existing facilities

are required to maintain existing plans

and will incur an annual combined

burden of about 800,000 hours and

$26,000,000 to do so.

EXHIBIT 7.—TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS FOR ALL NEW AND EXISTING FACILITIES

Type of facility

Burden hours Cost

Managerial

($58.61)

Technical

($40.17)

Clerical

($18.32)

Foreman

($33.33)

Labor

($22.22)

Total burden Capital O&M Total

Existing Facilities:

Small ......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Medium ..................... 7,050 17,955.0 1,880.0 9,400 15,040 51,325 0 0 $1,817,325

Large ......................... 74,084 240,571.0 41,954.0 100,980 293,760 751,349 0 0 24,671,998

New Facilities that are

Preparing FRPs:

Small ......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Medium ..................... 404.25 1,004.5 191.5 110 176 1,886.25 2,720 0 77,860

Large ......................... 3,335.5 9,954.5 1,813.0 1,188 3,456 19,747 24,749 0 769,771

New Facilities that are not

Preparing FRPs:

Small ......................... 868 0 0 0 0 868 0 0 54,345

Medium ..................... 805 0 402.5 0 0 1,207.5 0 0 55,360

Large ......................... 156 312.0 39.0 0 0 507 0 0 22,469

As part of the Agency’s efforts to

reduce the overall paperwork burden on

regulated facilities, EPA solicits

comments on how the Agency could

best reduce the total paperwork burden

hours for this rule while maintaining an

effective level of environmental

protection. EPA also solicits public

comments to: (i) evaluate whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (ii) evaluate the

accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be collected

and (iv) minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate technological

collection techniques.

No person is required to respond to a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. The OMB control numbers for

EPA’s regulations are displayed at 40

CFR part 9. Send comments regarding

these matters, or any other aspects of the

information collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to

the address listed under ADDRESSES near

the top of this document.

Dated: May 23, 2000.

Stephen D. Luftig,

Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial,

Response.

[FR Doc. 00–13560 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[SW–FRL–6707–3]

Notice of Final Decision on Request by

FMC Corporation for an Extension of

the Land Disposal Restrictions

Effective Date for Five Waste Streams

Generated at the Pocatello, Idaho

Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final decision.

SUMMARY: The EPA is today approving

the request submitted by FMC

Corporation (FMC) for a one-year Caseby-Case (CBC) extension of the May 26,

2000, effective date of the RCRA land

disposal restrictions (LDRs) applicable

to hazardous wastes generated by FMC.

This action responds to the request

submitted by FMC, under the

procedures for case-by-case extensions

to an effective date, which allow any

person to request the Administrator to

approve, on a case-by-case basis, an

extension of the applicable effective

date of the LDRs. FMC requested the

CBC extension due to the lack of

available treatment capacity for five

waste streams and the need for

additional time to design, construct, and

begin operation of an on-site treatment

plant to treat those wastes. As discussed

in the notice of proposed decision (See

March 8, 2000), EPA concludes that

FMC has adequately made each of the

seven demonstrations required by

statute in order for EPA to approve a

CBC extension to the LDR effective date.

As a result of today’s action, FMC

Pocatello can continue to manage the

five subject wastes, as currently

managed in on-site surface

impoundments, until May 26, 2001,

without being subject to the LDRs

applicable to these wastes. If warranted,

EPA may grant a renewal of this

extension, for up to one year, which, at

a maximum, would extend the effective

date of the LDR for these wastestreams

to May 26, 2002.

DATES: This case-by-case extension

becomes effective on May 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The official record for this

action is identified as Docket Number

F–2000–FMCF–FFFFF. Public

comments and supporting materials are

available for viewing in the RCRA

Information Center (RIC), located at

Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34695

The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

federal holidays. To review docket

materials, it is recommended that you

make an appointment by calling (703)

603–9230. You may copy a maximum of

100 pages from any regulatory docket at

no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/

page. The index and some supporting

materials are available electronically.

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for information on accessing

them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information about this notice,

contact the RCRA Hotline at (800) 424–

9346 or TDD (800) 553–7672 (hearing

impaired). In the Washington, DC,

metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810 or

TDD (703) 412–3323.

For more detailed information on

specific aspects of this CBC extension,

contact William Kline, Office of Solid

Waste, 5302W, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308–8440,

[e-mail address:

kline.bill@epamail.epa.gov].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index

of supporting materials evaluated by

EPA in reaching our determination to

propose approval of the requested CBC

extension is available on the Internet.

You will find this index at <http://

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr/

fmc.htm>.

The information in this section is

organized as follows:

I. Background of This Notice of Final

Decision

A. RCRA and Congressional Mandate

B. Related Regulatory Background

C. Summary of FMC’s Request for a CBC

Extension

D. Relationship of this CBC Extension with

the RCRA Consent Decree for FMC

Pocatello

E. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of FMC’s

Demonstrations Under 40 CFR 268.5(a)

II. What Are EPA’s Responses to Comments

Submitted on the Notice of Proposed

Approval of CBC Extension?

A. Will the Proposed LDR Treatment Plant

have Sufficient Capacity?

B. Do the Surface Impoundments (Ponds 17

and 18), to be Used During the

Extension, Meet the Minimum

Technological Requirements of 40 CFR

268.5 (h)(2)?

C. Has EPA Consulted Adequately with the

Tribes?

D. Other Issues Not Directly Related to the

CBC Extension

III. What Is EPA’s Final Determination on

FMC’s Request for a CBC Extension?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background of This Notice of Final

Decision

A. RCRA and Congressional Mandate

The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a

program for controlling hazardous waste

from the time it is generated, through its

treatment and storage, until its ultimate

disposal. EPA’s regulations

implementing RCRA are listed in Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR). Within Title 40, the hazardous

waste regulations are listed in Parts 260

through 268, and 270 through 272.

Congress enacted the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of

1984 to amend the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act. These

amendments imposed additional

responsibilities on persons managing

hazardous wastes. Among other things,

HSWA required EPA to develop

regulations that prohibit the land

disposal of certain hazardous wastes by

specified dates in order to protect

human health and the environment.

EPA also was required to set ‘‘levels or

methods of treatment, if any, which

substantially diminish the toxicity of

the waste or substantially reduce the

likelihood of migration of hazardous

constituents from the waste so that

short-term and long-term threats to

human health and the environment are

minimized.’’ Characteristic hazardous

wastes must be treated not only to

remove the characteristic property that

identifies them as hazardous, but also to

treat any hazardous constituents that

may be present in the wastes in

significant concentrations (so-called

‘‘underlying hazardous constituents’’).

See Chemical Waste Management v.

EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 14–17 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Congress recognized that adequate

alternative treatment, recovery, or

disposal capacity which is protective of

human health and the environment may

not always be available by the

applicable statutory effective dates. As

such, EPA is authorized to grant a

national capacity variance from the

effective date which would otherwise

apply to specific hazardous wastes,

based on the earliest dates that such

capacity will be available but not to

exceed two years. In addition, EPA is

authorized to grant an additional

extension of the applicable LDR

deadline, on a case-by-case basis, for up

to one year. Such an extension is

renewable once for up to one additional

year. The specific requirements for

obtaining a CBC extension of a Land

Disposal Restriction (LDR) effective

date, the subject of this notice of

proposed decision, are found in Part

268—Land Disposal Restrictions,

§ 268.5(a), which rule essentially recites

the statutory criteria found in RCRA

section 3004 (h)(3).

B. Related Regulatory Background

On January 25, 1996 (61 FR 2338),

EPA published a supplemental

proposed rule that addressed land

disposal restrictions applicable, among

others, to characteristic mineral

processing wastes. On behalf of its

elemental phosphorous plant located in

Pocatello, Idaho (FMC Pocatello), FMC

submitted a petition to request a twoyear national capacity variance from the

Phase IV LDR requirements, citing the

lack of available treatment capacity in

the U.S. for certain wastes generated by

its Pocatello, Idaho facility. FMC later

submitted supplemental comments to

its petition for a national capacity

variance, informing EPA that it could

not design a treatment unit for its wastes

until the applicable treatment standards

and the wastes subject to treatment were

defined.

On May 12, 1997 (62 FR 26041), EPA

proposed to grant a two-year national

capacity variance for three waste

streams (Medusa Scrubber Blowdown,

Anderson Filter Media Rinsate, and

Furnace Building Washdown) generated

at the Pocatello, Idaho facility. FMC

submitted comments, noting that the

Anderson Filter Media Rinsate now had

been eliminated, using pollution

prevention. However, FMC identified

three additional waste streams

(Precipitator Slurry, NOSAP Slurry, and

Phossy Water) generated in the same

elemental phosphorous production

process for which treatment capacity

was not available and likewise needed

to be granted the proposed two-year

national capacity variance.

On May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), EPA

promulgated the Final LDR Phase IV

rule and granted a two-year national

capacity variance for newly identified

characteristic wastes from elemental

phosphorous processing, including the

five waste streams generated at FMC’s

facility in Pocatello, Idaho. This

national capacity variance extended the

LDR effective date for these wastes to

May 26, 2000.

On July 12, 1999, FMC Corporation

submitted to EPA a request, along with

documentation to support the required

seven demonstrations in section 268.5,

for a one-year CBC extension of the LDR

effective date for the five waste streams

generated at its facility located in

Pocatello, Idaho.

34696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

On March 8, 2000, EPA proposed to

approve the CBC extension requested by

FMC Corporation to extend the LDR

effective date for the five waste streams

generated at its facility located in

Pocatello, Idaho. (See 65 FR 12233 for

details of the notice of proposed

approval of this CBC extension.) The

proposed extension would allow FMC

Pocatello to continue managing these

wastes in on-site surface impoundments

until May 26, 2001, while FMC designs

and constructs a treatment plant to treat

these waste streams to BDAT standards.

As discussed below in Section II—only

the Fort Hall Business Council (on

behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes)

and FMC Corporation submitted

comments on the notice of proposed

approval of this CBC extension.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

approved the proposed plan by FMC

and Solutia, Inc. to operate a joint

venture company, known as Astaris

Idaho LLC, comprising the combined

phosphorous chemical businesses of

FMC Corporation and Solutia, Inc.

Effective April 17, 2000, Astaris Idaho

LLC became the owner and operator of

the Pocatello facility. As such, Astaris

Idaho LLC is responsible for the

construction, operation, and

maintenance aspects of the LDR

Treatment Plant. However, FMC retains

responsibility for funding the capital

costs and for implementing all RCRA

Consent Decree projects, including the

proposed LDR Treatment Plant. For the

sake of simplicity, for the purposes of

this notice of final decision on the

requested CBC extension, we simply

will refer to FMC as the applicant for

the CBC extension. However, where

appropriate, the name FMC also is

construed as encompassing the FMC/

Astaris Idaho LLC joint venture.

C. Summary of FMC’s Request for a CBC

Extension

FMC’s CBC extension request is for

five waste streams, generated in the

production of elemental phosphorous:

(1) Non-Hazardous Slurry Assurance

Project (NOSAP) Slurry, (2) Medusa

Scrubber Blowdown, (3) Furnace

Building Washdown, (4) Precipitator

Slurry, and (5) Phossy Water. These five

waste streams are generated in large

quantities (see the chart) and pose

unique handling, treatment, and

disposal considerations, given the

presence of elemental phosphorous and

cyanide, causing the wastes to exhibit

the characteristic of reactivity for

phosphine and hydrogen cyanide gas,

and also to exhibit the characteristic of

ignitability. Each of these waste streams

also contains varying levels of Naturally

Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM)

which pose special treatment concerns

for off-site commercial TSDs.

QUANTITY OF FMC WASTE STREAMS

GENERATED

Waste

Quantity generated in millions of

gallons per

year

Precipitator Slurry ................. 4

NOSAP Slurry (treated precipitator slurry) .................. 21

Phossy Water ....................... 89

Medusa Scrubber Blowdown 55

Furnace Building Washdown 93

FMC requested the CBC extension due

to the lack of available treatment

capacity for these five waste streams

and the need for additional time to

design, construct, and begin operation

of an on-site LDR Treatment Plant

(System). This proposed treatment plant

would use a combination of

clarification, the Anoxic form of the

Zimpro treatment process (an anoxic

aggressive caustic hydrolysis at elevated

temperature and pressure), pH

adjustment, filtration, and stabilization

to treat the FMC Pocatello waste streams

to meet the applicable BDAT standards,

including reducing the levels of

elemental phosphorous and cyanide in

the wastes such that the treated wastes

do not exhibit the characteristic of

reactivity for phosphine and hydrogen

cyanide gas or exhibit the characteristic

of ignitability.

Currently, these five waste streams are

managed in on-site surface

impoundments and must be kept

covered with water to prevent ignition.

The surface impoundments into which

these wastes will be managed during the

CBC extension were constructed to meet

the RCRA minimum technological

requirements of 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2).

Specifically, the off-specification

Precipitator Slurry, Furnace Building

Washdown, Medusa Scrubber

Blowdown, and Phossy Water waste

streams are pumped to a surface

impoundment, designated as Pond 18,

for clarification. The NOSAP Slurry is

pumped to another surface

impoundment, Pond 17. Once the LDR

Treatment Plant is operational,

precipitator slurry will be treated by it

and the discharge to Pond 17 will be

eliminated, thereby eliminating the

NOSAP Slurry waste stream. Operating

the LDR Treatment Plant also will

eliminate the need for the continued

discharge of these five waste streams to

the on-site ponds.

FMC has provided documentation

showing that they initiated research and

development efforts in 1990 to develop

the technology needed to treat the

Pocatello, Idaho facility’s elemental

phosphorous production waste streams

to meet anticipated LDR standards. FMC

also submitted the results of extensive

surveys, involving approximately 200

commercial TSD facilities nationwide,

that it conducted in an attempt to find

off-site available treatment capacity.

These surveys indicated that no

commercial TSD facility contacted was

able or willing to treat the Pocatello

waste streams. The chemical properties

of these waste streams, along with the

volumes generated, are among the

reasons given by commercial facilities

for not being able or desiring to treat

these waste streams. Corroborating

FMC’s documentation, EPA has not

received any statement or other

indication from commercial hazardous

waste TSD facilities that treatment

capacity exists for these FMC waste

streams.

FMC spent considerable time and

effort on identifying an appropriate

treatment technology for these waste

streams. However, FMC determined that

it could not finalize development of the

treatment technology, design the LDR

Treatment Plant, obtain permits,

construct the LDR Treatment Plant, and

begin operating the LDR Treatment

Plant within the two-year period of the

current national capacity variance that

expires on May 26, 2000. As such, in

July 1999, FMC submitted its request to

EPA for a CBC extension to further

extend the LDR effective date for the

subject five waste streams generated at

its Pocatello, Idaho facility.

On March 8, 2000, EPA published a

notice of intent (65 FR 12233) to

approve FMC’s request for a one-year

extension of the LDR effective date,

based upon a determination that FMC

had fulfilled the criteria of 40 CFR

268.5(a) which sets forth the required

demonstrations to be made in requesting

a CBC extension of a LDR effective date.

D. Relationship of the CBC Extension

With the RCRA Consent Decree for FMC

Pocatello

To settle charges that it repeatedly

had violated hazardous waste

regulations, including numerous RCRA

violations involving the

mismanagement of ignitable and

reactive wastes in on-site ponds, FMC

negotiated a consent decree with the

United States government to pay a civil

penalty and commit to bringing the

Pocatello facility into RCRA

compliance. On July 13, 1999, the U.S.

District Court for the District of Idaho

entered as final a Consent Decree

(United States v. FMC Corp., Civ. 98–

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34697

0406–E–BLW) requiring closure of

certain on-site ponds, tank system

upgrades to comply with RCRA

standards, and the implementation of

SEPs to address air quality. This

Consent Decree also mandates certain

requirements regarding the management

of FMC Pocatello waste streams,

including site-specific treatment

requirements to deactivate ignitable and

reactive waste streams, and the

requirement to design, construct, and

commence operation of a LDR

Treatment Plant for these waste streams

by no later than May 2002, prohibiting

the discharge of untreated hazardous

wastes to the facility’s on-site ponds

after May 26, 2002. (The terms ‘‘LDR

Treatment System’’ and ‘‘LDR

Treatment Plant,’’ as used in the RCRA

Consent Decree and the FMC CBC

extension application, respectively, are

essentially referring to the same

treatment unit and associated ancillary

equipment, needed to be designed,

constructed, and operated in order to

treat the FMC Pocatello hazardous waste

streams to meet the applicable LDR

requirements.) The RCRA Consent

Decree does not negate the need for

FMC to pursue CBC extension(s), as

needed, to allow the continued

discharge of the LDR subject wastes to

on-site surface impoundments beyond

the May 26, 2000 expiration date of the

current national capacity variance. As

we discussed in the March 8, 2000,

notice of proposed approval of this CBC

extension, although there is no direct

connection between EPA’s approval of

FMC’s request for a one year extension

to the LDR effective date and the

Consent Decree, EPA believes that

FMC’s compliance with the terms of the

RCRA Consent Decree bolster certain of

the demonstrations required by RCRA

section 3004(h)(3) and the

implementing rules to obtain the

requested CBC extension. EPA views

these courses of action as ensuring

consistency of both the CBC extension

and RCRA Consent Decree processes

and complementary in compelling FMC

toward providing the necessary

treatment capacity to properly manage

the subject waste streams. Conversely,

approval of this CBC extension

obviously does not alter any terms of the

RCRA Consent Decree, since there is no

direct connection between the Consent

Decree and this proceeding.

E. Summary of EPA’s Evaluations of

FMC’s Demonstrations Under 40 CFR

268.5(a)

The following is a summary of each

of the seven demonstrations required

under 40 CFR 268.5(a) to obtain a CBC

extension and EPA’s evaluation of the

adequacy of the demonstrations made

by FMC Pocatello.

1. Section 268.5(a)(1)—The Applicant

(FMC) Has Made a Good-Faith Effort To

Locate and Contract With Treatment,

Recovery, or Disposal Facilities

Nationwide To Manage Its Waste in

Accordance With the LDR Effective Date

of the Applicable Restriction (i.e., May

26, 2000)

When faced with pending regulation

under the Land Disposal Restrictions,

FMC initially surveyed 168 treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities (TSDs)

throughout the nation, in an effort to

locate commercial treatment or disposal

capacity. None of these facilities was

able or willing to provide treatment or

disposal capacity for the FMC Pocatello

waste streams. Various reasons were

noted by the TSDs in declining to

manage these waste streams, including

the presence of elemental phosphorous,

the potential for generation of

phosphine gas, levels of naturally

occurring radioactive materials (NORM),

and the volume of wastes to be

managed. Likewise, EPA was not aware

of any available capacity for these waste

streams. FMC provided these findings to

EPA in support of its request for a

national capacity variance for the

subject waste streams. Given these

findings, as well as EPA not being aware

of the availability of treatment capacity

for these waste streams, and no

commercial (or other) entity providing

waste treatment disputing these

conclusions, EPA granted a national

capacity variance for the FMC Pocatello

waste streams, extending the LDR

effective date for these waste streams to

May 26, 2000. (See 63 FR 28556, May

26, 1998.)

In early 1999, FMC conducted a

follow-up survey of available treatment

capacity at TSDs to support its request

for a CBC extension. This survey

indicated that there still was no TSD

facility able or willing to treat the FMC

Pocatello waste streams.

EPA is convinced that FMC has made

concerted and reasonable efforts to

locate adequate, alternative treatment

capacity for the five waste streams for

which it is requesting a CBC extension

of the LDR effective date, but that no

such treatment capacity exists. EPA’s

own independent evaluation confirms

absence of any available alternative

treatment capacity for these wastes at

this time. EPA thus finds that FMC has

adequately fulfilled the requirements of

this demonstration.

2. Section 268.5 (a)(2)—The Applicant

(FMC ) Has Entered Into a Binding

Contractual Commitment To Construct

or Otherwise Provide Alternative

Treatment, Recovery, or Disposal

Capacity That Meets the Treatment

Standards Specified in 40 CFR Part 268,

Subpart D or, Where Treatment

Standards Have Not Been Specified,

Such Treatment, Recovery, or Disposal

Capacity Is Protective of Human Health

and the Environment

FMC has provided documentation

that it has entered into a contract with

Raytheon Engineers and Constructors to

design, engineer, and construct the LDR

Treatment Plant. In addition to this

contract, FMC also provided other

documentation, including corporate

approval of funds, purchase orders for

equipment, supplies, and services that

further support its demonstration of a

binding contractual commitment to

construct the LDR Treatment Plant.

EPA also notes that the RCRA Consent

Decree imposes an additional binding

legal commitment on FMC to construct

the LDR Treatment System. Under the

RCRA Consent Decree, FMC is

compelled to design and construct the

proposed LDR Treatment System by

May 2002. If FMC fails to meet the

stipulations of this RCRA Consent

Decree, it will be subject to significant

monetary penalties.

We conclude that FMC has provided

the necessary documentation to meet

this demonstration of its binding

contractual commitment to provide the

on-site treatment capacity needed to

treat the subject waste streams generated

at the Pocatello, Idaho facility to BDAT

standards.

3. Section 268.5 (a)(3)—Due to

Circumstances Beyond the Applicant’s

(FMC’s) Control, Such Alternative

Capacity Cannot Reasonably Be Made

Available by the Applicable Effective

Date. This Demonstration May Include a

Showing That the Technical and

Practical Difficulties Associated With

Providing the Alternative Capacity Will

Result in the Capacity Not Being

Available by the Applicable Effective

Date

The five waste streams for which FMC

requests a CBC extension pose

numerous and essentially unique

treatment problems, as evidenced by the

non-availability of commercial

treatment capacity. Since the early

1990s, FMC has committed considerable

resources toward determining and

developing the most appropriate

treatment technology for these waste

streams, evaluating more than 50

potential waste treatment technologies.

34698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

However, in addition to solving the

technical problems posed by these

waste streams, FMC also has needed to

know the final Phase IV LDR treatment

standards. FMC’s documentation shows

that it has made an intensive effort to

determine the treatment technology

most appropriate to treat the FMC

Pocatello waste streams to meet the LDR

requirements. Now that an appropriate

treatment technology/process has been

identified, FMC is proceeding with

plans to construct the LDR Treatment

Plant, incorporating the Zimpro anoxic

hydrolysis process as the principal

treatment technology in the treatment

system.

We believe FMC has acted in good

faith to provide the necessary treatment

capacity but that such capacity could

not reasonably be made available by

May 26, 2000, the current effective date

of the land disposal restriction for these

waste streams. EPA believes the lack of

treatment capacity for these waste

streams is due to circumstances beyond

the control of FMC. These waste streams

pose unique handling, safety, and

treatment considerations, including the

presence of elemental phosphorous and

cyanide, and the potential for generation

of phosphine and hydrogen cyanide gas.

FMC has demonstrated to EPA’s

satisfaction that it has aggressively

pursued the development of technology

capable of treating the FMC Pocatello

waste streams to BDAT standards and is

actively engaged in the design and

construction of the treatment system

employing this technology to provide

the necessary treatment capacity.

However, it is not possible for FMC to

construct the LDR Treatment Plant

needed to provide the treatment

capacity and to be operating by May 26,

2000.

4. Section 268.5 (a)(4)—The Capacity

Being Constructed or Otherwise

Provided by the Applicant (FMC) Will

Be Sufficient To Manage the Entire

Quantity of Waste That Is the Subject of

the Application

The proposed LDR Treatment uses a

combination of lime treatment, anoxic

hydrolysis, metals precipitation,

filtration, and stabilization. FMC, in its

application for a CBC extension, states

that the LDR Treatment Plant to be

constructed will have sufficient capacity

to adequately treat the waste streams

generated by the Pocatello, Idaho

facility. FMC has provided

documentation that demonstrates this

treatment system will treat the subject

waste streams to meet the LDR

treatment standards, destroying

elemental phosphorous and cyanide,

and removing the hazardous

characteristics from these waste streams.

FMC has made available information,

initially designated as CBI, regarding the

process design flow and operating

conditions of the proposed LDR

Treatment Plant. The documentation

shows that FMC plans to design,

construct, and operate the LDR

Treatment Plant with sufficient capacity

to treat not only the annual production

of the five waste streams that are the

subject of the requested CBC extension

but also treat, within five years of

commencing operation of the LDR

Treatment Plant, the accumulated solids

in Pond 18, as is required by the RCRA

Consent Decree. As discussed below,

the Tribes, in comments provided to

EPA, expressed concern that the

proposed LDR Treatment Plant may not

have sufficient capacity, in light of

recent revised FMC estimates of the

quantity of Pond 18 solids to be

removed and treated. Based on the data

submitted by FMC (as discussed in the

March 8, 2000 FR notice) in support of

its request for a CBC extension, the

projected design capacity of the LDR

Treatment Plant will be sufficient to

treat the five subject waste streams and

the Pond 18 solids. FMC also notes

waste reduction initiatives being

implemented at the Pocatello facility

will further ensure that the LDR

Treatment Plant will be able to

accommodate the full annual

production of the five waste streams and

also meet the requirement to treat the

Pond 18 solids. In a letter, dated April

24, 2000, FMC reaffirmed its

commitment to ensure that the Pocatello

facility definitely will have sufficient

capacity to manage the five waste

streams that are the subject of this CBC

extension. FMC states that it does not

anticipate reducing the production of

elemental phosphorous during the oneyear CBC extension, but, if necessary, it

will reduce plant production to reduce

the quantity of its waste streams in

order to further ensure sufficient

treatment capacity.

The RCRA Consent Decree likewise

requires that the LDR Treatment System

have sufficient capacity to treat the

production wastes and the accumulated

solids from Pond 18. At this point, FMC

has completed approximately 20% of

the design of the proposed LDR

Treatment Plant. Design work is

scheduled to be completed in January

2001. EPA is convinced that FMC is

committed to providing the necessary

treatment capacity to ensure that the

entire quantity of these five waste

streams, for which FMC is requesting a

CBC extension, will meet applicable

BDAT standards. FMC has noted it will

need to request an extension of this CBC

extension to provide additional time to

complete the construction of the

proposed LDR Treatment Plant. At that

time, FMC will have completed the

design of the LDR Treatment Plant and

will need to provide further

confirmation that sufficient treatment

capacity is being constructed.

5. Section 268.5(a)(5)—The Applicant

(FMC) Provides a Detailed Schedule for

Obtaining Operating and Construction

Permits or an Outline of How and When

Alternative Capacity Will Be Available

FMC has provided EPA with a

proposed schedule for the design,

construction, and permitting of the LDR

Treatment Plant to be constructed at its

Pocatello, Idaho facility. This schedule,

in effect, coincides with the schedule

outlined under the Consent Decree for

bringing the LDR Treatment System online by May 2002. This schedule

provides the necessary design,

construction and permitting milestones

for bringing the LDR Treatment Plant

on-line and therefore providing the

treatment capacity needed to treat the

subject waste streams to BDAT

standards. EPA notes that the one-year

CBC extension being approved today,

extending the LDR effective date until

May 26, 2001, likely will not provide

sufficient time for FMC to bring the LDR

Treatment Plant into operation. FMC

likely will need to request a renewal of

this CBC extension to provide

additional time to complete

construction and commence operation

of the LDR Treatment Plant. As noted in

the March 8, 2000 FR notice, FMC

provided a number of milestones,

including the startup of onsite

construction in July 2000 and the

completion of design and engineering

work in January 2001. EPA will closely

monitor the progress being made by

FMC toward its stated schedule for the

design, construction, and operation of

the LDR Treatment Plant. FMC must

provide a monthly progress report, as

discussed below, that identifies any

delay or possible delay in developing

this treatment capacity and describes

the actions being taken to remedy any

such delay. EPA further will examine

FMC’s progress in meeting these

milestones at such time when FMC

reapplies for an additional CBC

extension, as anticipated.

FMC has provided the necessary

design, construction and permitting

milestones for bringing the LDR

Treatment Plant on-line and therefore

providing the treatment capacity needed

to treat the subject waste streams to

BDAT standards.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34699

6. Section 268.5(a)(6)—The Applicant

(FMC) Has Arranged for Adequate

Capacity to Manage Its Waste During an

Extension, and Has Documented the

Location of All Sites at Which the Waste

Will Be Managed

During this CBC extension, FMC will

continue to manage the five waste

streams in two of its on-site surface

impoundments, referred to as Ponds 17

and 18. FMC has provided data showing

that each of these surface

impoundments will have the necessary

capacity available to manage these

wastes during the extension, i.e., until

May 26, 2001. Further assurance of

adequate capacity and proper

management of these surface

impoundments (ponds) will be provided

by FMC’s adherence to the Pond

Management Plan, as required by the

RCRA Consent Decree. Among other

requirements, the Pond Management

Plan requires that pond levels be

maintained within defined minimum

and maximum levels.

EPA concludes that FMC has

provided the documentation necessary

to satisfy this demonstration.

7. Section 268.5(a)(7)—Any Waste

Managed in a Surface Impoundment or

Landfill During the Extension Period

Will Meet the Requirements of 40 CFR

268.5(h)(2)

As previously described, the subject

waste streams will be piped directly to

the on-site surface impoundments, i.e.,

Ponds 17 and 18. FMC has provided

information demonstrating that both of

these surface impoundments were

constructed to meet the RCRA minimum

technological requirements of 40 CFR

268.5(h)(2), including such protective

measures as double liners, leak

detection, and groundwater monitoring

wells. EPA concludes that FMC has

provided the documentation necessary

to satisfy this demonstration.

II. What Are EPA’s Responses to

Comments Submitted on the Notice of

Proposed Approval of the CBC

Extension?

The Fort Hall Business Council

(representing the Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes) and FMC Corporation submitted

comments in response to the March 8,

2000 FR notice. These comments

previously had been provided to EPA in

response to EPA’s advance

communication with the Tribes on the

draft notice ‘‘ prior to the notice being

published in the Federal Register. The

comments provided by FMC essentially

address each of the issues raised by the

Tribes in these comments. Additional

comments were submitted by the Fort

Hall Business Council, subsequent to a

meeting held with EPA on May 2, 2000.

The following is a discussion of and

EPA’s response to each of the issues

raised in the comments, pertinent to the

proposed CBC extension for the five

subject waste streams generated at FMC

Pocatello.

A. Will the Proposed LDR Treatment

Plant Have Sufficient Capacity?

FMC recently completed a dispersion

modeling study of Pond 18 emissions to

better understand the emissions of

phosphine and hydrogen cyanide that

will occur during removal of solids from

Pond 18. FMC found that the potential

magnitude of these emissions during

removal of sediments within the fiveyear period is significantly greater than

FMC had anticipated when the RCRA

Consent Decree was negotiated. As

such, FMC requested that the RCRA

Consent Decree requirement to remove

and treat the Pond 18 solids within five

years of the start of the LDR Treatment

System be extended to 10 years in order

to comply with acute health standards

for phosphine emissions. EPA denied

the request. The Tribes also noted that

FMC recently had informed them that

the amount of sediment expected from

Pond 18 would be greater than

originally calculated. As such, the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes questioned

whether the proposed LDR Treatment

Plant was being designed to provide

sufficient capacity to treat the five

subject waste streams as well as the

accumulated solids from Pond 18.

The removal and treatment of

accumulated solids from Pond 18

within a five-year period are mandated

by the RCRA Consent Decree and are

not requirements of this CBC extension.

However, the demonstration under

§ Section 268.5(a)(4), requiring FMC to

design the LDR Treatment Plant with

adequate treatment capacity, is

impacted by the RCRA Consent Decree

requirement that FMC remove and treat

the Pond 18 solids within five years of

the treatment plant commencing

operation. As such, EPA must be

assured that the proposed LDR

Treatment Plant indeed will have

sufficient capacity to treat not only the

subject five waste streams but also the

Pond 18 solids. Addressing this issue,

FMC, in its comments of March 28,

2000, states ‘‘The LDR Treatment Plant

is designed to manage the quantity of

production wastes generated at FMC

Pocatello as well as the Pond 18

dredged material that will be generated

after start-up in early 2002.’’ FMC, in a

letter, dated April 24, 2000, further

reaffirmed its commitment to ensure

that the Pocatello facility definitely will

have sufficient capacity to manage the

five waste streams that are the subject of

this CBC extension. FMC has indicated

that, if necessary, it will reduce plant

production to ensure adequate treatment

capacity.

It is critical that FMC provides

adequate treatment capacity to manage

the entire quantity of waste it generates

that is the subject of this CBC extension.

Based on design capacity information

provided by FMC to EPA in support of

its request for a CBC extension, FMC’s

subsequent statements that further

assure its commitment to provide

adequate treatment capacity and to cut

production, if needed, we conclude the

proposed LDR Treatment Plant will be

designed and operated so that sufficient

capacity is available to treat the five

subject waste streams as well as the

Pond 18 solids. EPA will continue to

monitor FMC’s efforts to provide this

treatment capacity. If information

becomes available, leading EPA to

conclude that FMC is no longer able or

willing to meet its commitment to

provide adequate treatment capacity,

EPA will need to consider revoking this

CBC extension.

B. Do the Surface Impoundments

(Ponds 17 and 18) That Will be Used

During the Extension, Meet the

Minimum Technological Requirements

of 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2)?

As previously discussed, FMC, under

this CBC extension, will continue to

pipe the five subject waste streams to

the on-site surface impoundments, i.e.,

Ponds 17 and 18. As such, both of these

surface impoundments must meet the

RCRA ‘‘minimum technology

requirements’’ of 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2)

which requires that impoundments

receiving wastes subject to a CBC

extension include such protective

measures as double liners, leak

detection, and groundwater monitoring

wells. The Tribes stated that they do not

believe that waste managed in these

surface impoundments, during the

extension period, will meet the

requirements of 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2).

However, no specific information was

provided by the Tribes as to why they

believe Ponds 17 and 18 do not meet

these requirements. The Tribes further

stated that 40 CFR 265.229 prohibits the

placement of ignitable or reactive wastes

in an impoundment unless the

requirements of 40 CFR part 268 have

been met and the waste is treated,

rendered, or mixed before or

immediately after placement in the

impoundment so that it no longer meets

the definition of ignitable or reactive

waste. FMC, in its comments, noted that

the RCRA Consent Decree and the RCRA

34700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

Pond Management Plan establish

standards for properly managing these

wastes so as to satisfy these alternative

provisions. FMC notes that

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) standards will

be followed to protect workers, that

dredging will be performed by remotely

controlled apparatus, that phosphine

monitoring and response measures will

be in-place, and that there are no

residences or recreational areas within

the projected area of offsite impact.

The Tribes also expressed concerns

regarding the capacity and management

of Ponds 17 and 18. In their comments,

the Tribes questioned whether these

ponds would have sufficient capacity

given FMC’s current design criteria for

the planned LDR Treatment Plant,

coupled with potential delays in

construction and possible equipment

failures during demonstration or other

unexpected events. The Tribes also

stated that FMC has not demonstrated

the ability to manage waste and water in

existing surface impoundments as

evidenced by previous incidents of

overtopping of other on-site ponds.

FMC has provided data showing that

each of the two surface impoundments,

that will be used during the CBC

extension, have the necessary capacity

available to manage these wastes during

the extension, i.e., until May 26, 2001.

Although it is feasible that construction

delays, equipment failure, etc. could

occur, EPA cannot speculate on the

probability of occurrence of such events.

At this point, EPA is convinced that

FMC is continuing to make a good-faith

effort toward the design and

construction of the proposed LDR

Treatment Plant so that operation will

commence by May 2002. Although there

may have been past problems with

certain other on-site FMC ponds, EPA

continues to conclude that the two

surface impoundments (Ponds 17 and

18) to be used during the CBC extension

do meet the minimum technology

requirements, and in addition, will be

operated in a protective manner and in

compliance with other applicable EPA

rules during the one-year CBC

extension.

EPA is convinced that the

requirements of the RCRA Consent

Decree and the Pond Management

Program adequately address the proper

design and operation of these surface

impoundments—to meet the

requirements for managing these wastes

in Ponds 17 and 18 during this CBC

extension. In addition to designing the

ponds to meet the RCRA minimum

technology requirements, FMC, for

example:

• Treats precipitator slurry per the

Non-Hazardous Slurry Assurance

Project (NOSAP) system operating

requirements prior to discharging this

waste to Pond 17

• Provides electronic leak detection

in Pond 18

• Provides a tertiary liner, to serve as

the sacrificial liner, to allow removal of

sediments from Pond 18 without

jeopardizing the integrity of the other

liners/leak detection system

• Provides around the clock, seven

days a week, surveillance, inspections,

and recordkeeping

• Manages pond water levels to

minimize water level fluctuations so

that solids in the ponds remain covered

thereby preventing fires. Electronic level

monitoring/alarm devices and a video

surveillance system are used to

continuously measure and record water

levels.

• Manages volume of water generated

during normal plant operation and a

100-year, 24-hour storm event to

maintain adequate freeboard and

prevent overtopping.

• Follows the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA)

standards to protect workers.

Based on EPA’s knowledge of these

surface impoundments and the

documentation provided by FMC, we

continue to conclude that these surface

impoundments (Ponds 17 and 18) do

meet the minimum technology

requirements, and in addition, will be

operated in a protective manner and in

compliance with other applicable EPA

rules during the one-year CBC

extension.

The Tribes also commented that

certain air emission standards, in

particular, the standards of 40 CFR part

265.1086. must be met for these two

surface impoundments. As previously

noted in the notice proposing to

approve the requested CBC extension

(65 FR 12233, March 8, 2000), EPA

believes that the level of volatile

organics, if any, in these wastes is below

the threshold set out in EPA’s

regulations in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265

subpart CC so that these rules do not

apply. These regulations address air

emissions from hazardous waste surface

impoundments (but see the limitation

that only impoundments receiving

certain types of volatile wastes are

subject to the rules (40 CFR

265.1083(c)(1)). Should the rules be

applicable, FMC must, of course,

comply with them. FMC submitted a

letter, along with data, to EPA, dated

April 21, 2000, that reaffirms FMC’s

position that the regulatory threshold

for 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart CC is not

exceeded for materials entering the

surface impoundments, based on direct

measurements obtained from sampling

the waste streams at the point of waste

origination. Based on EPA’s knowledge

of these wastes and the information

made available by FMC, EPA continues

to believe that these rules do not apply

to the two surface impoundments that

FMC will use to manage the subject five

waste streams during the CBC

extension.

C. Has EPA Consulted Adequately With

the Tribes?

The majority of the FMC Pocatello

site, including most of the processing

areas, is located on Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes’ lands, referred to as the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation. As such, The United

States recognizes and concurs that it

does owe an important trust

responsibility to the Tribes, on whose

lands the FMC Pocatello facility is

located, including a responsibility to

perform its obligations under RCRA and

other statutes intended to protect the

environment. We also recognize the

Tribes’s concerns regarding the

continued placement of untreated

hazardous wastes in the FMC Pocatello

on-site surface impoundments. The

Tribes commented that they do not

believe EPA has met the consultation

mandate required of all federal agencies

under the government-to-government

relationship. EPA has taken numerous

steps to meet the consultation

requirement of the Presidential

Memorandum of April 29, 1994.

Specifically, EPA has:

• Requested FMC to make sure that

the Tribes are provided the same

information as is provided to EPA in

evaluating this CBC extension request.

• Held staff level discussions to

obtain feedback on the CBC extension.

• Provided the Tribes with an

advance copy of the draft Federal

Register notice of Proposed Decision

and provided the Tribes three weeks for

review and comment prior to publishing

the FR notice. In conveying the draft

Federal Register notice, EPA asked for

information and comments on whether

FMC adequately met the seven

demonstrations required to qualify for a

CBC extension.

• Sent a letter offering to meet with

Staff and/or the Fort Hall Business

Council to discuss their comments on

the draft notice.

• Evaluated information submitted by

the Tribes and, when appropriate,

requested and reviewed additional

information from FMC.

• Scheduled conference calls with the

Chairman of the Fort Hall Business

Council.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices 34701

• Scheduled a meeting with the Fort

Hall Business Council for government to

government consultation, to follow up

on their comments and further consult

regarding final determination on FMC’s

request for a CBC extension.

• Subsequent to a meeting held on

May 2, 2000, provided the Fort Hall

Business Council with an additional

opportunity to provide comments.

EPA believes it has made reasonable

and timely efforts to consult with the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes on this

matter. We will continue our efforts to

consult with the Tribes on their

concerns regarding this CBC extension

and the anticipated request by FMC for

a renewal, up to one additional year, of

this CBC extension. EPA also will

require that FMC provide the Tribes

with a monthly progress report, as

discussed below.

D. Other Issues Not Directly Related to

the CBC Extension

The Tribes raised a number of

concerns and issues in their comments,

concerning the environmental impact of

operations at the FMC facility, that are

beyond the scope of EPA’s

consideration of FMC’s request for this

CBC extension. The ultimate and

controlling issue in EPA’s evaluation of

FMC’s request for a CBC extension is

whether FMC has satisfied the statutory

and regulatory conditions, as provided

in section 3004(h)(3) of the statute and

the rules in 268.5. These establish that

an applicant who satisfies the

conditions for a CBC extension will be

granted one.

These other concerns, raised by the

Tribes, are being addressed under the

current RCRA Consent Decree or other

ongoing EPA actions at FMC Pocatello.

These concerns include:

• Groundwater and soil

contamination from FMC’s old ponds

are being addressed under a CERCLA

Record of Decision (ROD).

• Numerous efforts are ongoing/

planned at FMC Pocatello to address air

emissions, including:

(1) FMC’s particulate air emissions are

being addressed in the proposed Federal

Implementation Plan.

(2) Off-gases from the LDR Treatment

Plant must meet EPA’s air emission (or

MACT) standards, issued under the

Clean Air Act. The consent decree

requires that FMC document that the

off-gas system will meet MACT

standards for hazardous waste

combustion units. Under the consent

decree, FMC must submit design and

operating plans for the off-gas system.

These plans will allow the Region and

the Tribes to evaluate the efficacy of the

system.

(3) The consent decree requires

numerous Supplemental Environmental

Projects (SEPs), including the Fort Hall

Environmental Health Assessment, that

address air emissions from the FMC

facility.

• Concerns about the radionuclide

content of treatment residuals and

FMC’s plans to transport these waste

residues off-site, across tribal lands, and

dispose of them in an unlined landfill

outside the reservation are being

addressed by the State of Idaho and EPA

Region 10.

III. What Is EPA’s Final Determination

on FMC’s Request for a CBC Extension?

EPA concludes that FMC, owner/

operator of the Pocatello, Idaho facility,

at which a treatment plant will be

constructed to provide treatment of the

five subject wastes streams to meet

BDAT standards, has made the

necessary demonstrations to be granted

a CBC extension. EPA concludes that

FMC has made and is continuing to

make a good-faith effort toward

providing sufficient and appropriate

treatment capacity for the five waste

streams that are the subject of its request

for a CBC extension of the LDR effective

date request. Therefore, EPA is

approving an extension of the

applicable LDR effective date for these

five waste streams: (1) NOSAP Slurry,

(2) Medusa Scrubber Blowdown, (3)

Furnace Building Washdown, (4)

Precipitator Slurry, and (5) Phossy

Water, generated at the Pocatello, Idaho

facility, until May 26, 2001. As such,

these wastes may continue to be

managed in on-site surface

impoundments (Ponds 17 and 18) until

May 26, 2001 (unless the extension is

renewed for up to one additional year,

in which case the extension would

expire no later than May 26, 2002),

while the proposed LDR Treatment

Plant is being constructed. This

extension remains in effect unless the

facility fails to make a good-faith effort

to meet the schedule for completion, the

Agency denies or revokes any required

permit, conditions certified in the

application change, or the facility

violates any law or regulations

implemented by EPA.

The majority of the FMC Pocatello

site, including most of the processing

areas, is located on Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes’ lands, referred to as the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation. The Tribes oppose

granting this CBC extension, continuing

to believe that FMC’s hazardous waste

must be treated prior to being land

disposed. The United States recognizes

and concurs that it does owe an

important trust responsibility to the

Tribes, on whose lands the FMC

Pocatello facility is located, including a

responsibility to perform its obligations

under RCRA and other statutes intended

to protect the environment. We also

recognize the Tribes’ legitimate

concerns regarding the continued

placement of untreated hazardous

wastes in the FMC Pocatello on-site

surface impoundments. However, the

controlling law here is section

3004(h)(3) of the statute and the rules in

268.5 which implement that provision.

The ultimate and controlling issue in

processing FMC’s application

consequently is whether the company

has satisfied these statutory and

regulatory conditions. As previously

noted, we conclude that it is not yet

feasible for FMC to treat these wastes

prior to placement in the on-site surface

impoundments, and that there is no

available off-site commercial treatment

capacity for these five waste streams.

We continue to be convinced that the

necessary treatment capacity and

capability only will be available once

the proposed LDR Treatment Plant is

constructed and commences operation.

Having been granted this CBC

extension of the LDR effective date,

FMC must immediately notify EPA of

any change in the demonstrations made

in the petition (40 CFR 268.5(f)). FMC

also must submit a monthly progress

report that describes the progress being

made toward its stated schedule for the

design, construction, and operation of

the LDR Treatment Plant. The monthly

progress report also must identify any

delay or possible delay in developing

this treatment capacity and describe the

mitigating actions being taken in

response to the event (40 CFR 268.5(g)).

FMC must submit the first monthly

progress report by June 26, 2000.

Subsequent monthly progress reports

must be submitted, approximately every

thirty (30) days, by the 26th day of each

month for the duration of this CBC

extension.

Four (4) copies of each monthly

progress report must be submitted to the

following address: Chief, Analysis and

Information Branch, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Solid

Waste (5302W), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

A copy of the monthly progress report

also must be provided to EPA Region 10

to the following address: Director, Office

of Waste and Chemicals Management,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

A copy of the monthly progress report

must be provided to the ShoshoneBannock Tribes to the following

address: Director, CERCLA/RCRA

Program, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,

P.O. Box 306, Fort Hall, Idaho 83203.

34702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 105 / Wednesday, May 31, 2000 / Notices

EPA can revoke this CBC extension if

FMC fails to make a good-faith effort to

meet the schedule for completion, if

EPA denies or revokes any required

permit, if conditions certified in the

CBC extension application change, or

for a violation of any law or regulations

in Parts 260–266 and 268 (see 268.5(g)).

IV. Administrative Requirements

As discussed in the FR notice of

March 8, 2000, neither the requirements

of Executive Order 13084 entitled

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments nor

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism,’’ apply to this action.

Today, EPA is approving FMC’s

request for a one-year CBC extension of

the May 26, 2000, effective date of the

RCRA land disposal restrictions for a

facility located on Tribal Lands. This

action will significantly or uniquely

affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments by permitting this facility

to continue to treat, store, or dispose of

five waste streams as currently managed

in on-site surface impoundments

(located on Tribal Lands) until May 26,

2001.

In their comments, the Tribes stated

that by allowing FMC to continue to

treat, store, and dispose of hazardous

waste streams in the surface

impoundments, EPA is also allowing

the continued emissions of hydrogen

cyanide, phosphine, and other toxic

emissions onto the Fort Hall Indian

Reservation. The Tribes stated they

believe continuous monitoring of

emissions from the ponds is necessary

to assure compliance with Pond

Management Plan in order to protect

human health and the environment. The

Tribes asserted this would result in

direct compliance costs to the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

Monitoring of emissions from the

ponds already is required of FMC under

the Pond Management Plan, as

incorporated into the RCRA Consent

Decree. FMC is responsible for the costs

of this monitoring until the ponds are

closed. Unless the Tribes actually do

their own additional monitoring, there

are no costs incurred by the Tribes. As

such, EPA concludes that this action

will not impose any direct compliance

costs on the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

community.

This notice also does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of this Executive Order

likewise do not apply to this action.

Authority: Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001,

and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

amended by the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C.

6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924).

Dated: May 25, 2000.

Cliff Rothenstein,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 00–13547 Filed 5–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–64047; FRL 6588–5]

Notice of Receipt of Requests for

Amendments To Delete Uses in Certain

Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),

as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of

receipt of request for amendment by

registrants to delete uses in certain

pesticide registrations.

DATES: Unless a request is withdrawn,

the Agency will approve these use

deletions and the deletions will become

effective on November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: James A. Hollins, Office of

Pesticide Programs (7502C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location

for commercial courier delivery,

telephone number, and e-mail address:

Rm. 266A, Crystal Mall #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202, (703) 305–5761; e-mail:

hollins.james@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. Although this action may be

of particular interest to persons who

produce or use pesticides, the Agency

has not attempted to describe all the

specific entities that may be affected by

this action. If you have any questions

regarding the information in this notice,

consult the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov. To access this document,

on the Home page select ‘‘Laws and

Regulations’’ and then look up the entry

for this document under the ‘‘Federal

Register—Environmental Documents.’’

You can also go directly to the Federal

Register listing at http://www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr/.

2. In person. Contact James A. Hollins

at 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal

Mall #2, Rm. 224, Arlington, VA,

telephone number (703) 305–5761.

Available from 7:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This notice announces receipt by the

Agency of applications from registrants

to delete uses in 27 pesticide

registrations. These registrations are

listed in the following Table 1 by

registration number, product name,

active ingredient and specific uses

deleted.

TABLE 1.—REGISTRATIONS WITH REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS TO DELETE USES IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS

EPA Reg. No. Product Name Active Ingredient Delete From Label

*000352–00400 Dupont Oxamyl Technical 42 Insecticide/

Nematicide

Oxamyl Non-bearing plum, non-bearing strawberry

000432–00663 Tetramethrin Technical 95% Tetramethrin Greenhouse uses

000432–00789 TetraPerm 8–20–40 WB Concentrate Piperonyl butoxide;

Tetramethrin; Permethrin,

mixed cis, trans

Greenhouse uses