Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0062-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes; Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comments [F-2000-WH2A-FFFFF]
Posted Date: 2000-07-18T04:00Z

[
Federal
Register:
July
18,
2000
(
Volume
65,
Number
138)]
[
Proposed
Rules]
[
Page
44491­
44506]
From
the
Federal
Register
Online
via
GPO
Access
[
wais.
access.
gpo.
gov]
[
DOCID:
fr18jy00­
23]

=======================================================================
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
261
[
FRN­
6838­
1]
RIN
2050­
AE07
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
(
HWIR):
Identification
and
Listing
of
Hazardous
of
Hazardous
Wastes;
Notice
of
Data
Availability
and
Request
for
Comments
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Notice
of
data
availability
and
request
for
comment;
extension
of
the
public
comment
period.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
making
available
for
public
comment
human
health
and
ecological
risk
data
and
information
relating
to
an
exemption
from
hazardous
waste
management
that
we
discussed
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
published
on
November
19,
1999
(
64
FR
63382).
That
exemption,
also
known
as
the
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Rule
(
HWIR)
exemption,
would
exempt
listed
hazardous
wastes
that
meet
chemical­
specific
exemption
levels
from
hazardous
waste
management
requirements.
We
plan
to
develop
these
exemption
levels
based
on
results
from
the
Multimedia,
Multipathway
and
Multireceptor
Risk
Assessment
(
3MRA)
Model.
The
model
evaluates
simultaneous
chemical
exposures
across
several
environmental
media
and
multiple
exposure
pathways
to
human
and
ecological
receptors
in
order
to
estimate
the
health
and
ecological
effects
in
the
vicinity
of
waste
disposal
units
that
may
receive
exempt
listed
hazardous
waste.
We
presented
the
underlying
methodology
and
assumptions
for
the
3MRA
Model
in
the
Federal
Register
(
64
FR
63382,
November
19,
1999).
However,
because
of
technical
difficulties,
we
were
unable
to
propose
exemption
levels
in
that
notice.
Since
then,
we
have
made
numerous
revisions
to
correct
and
improve
the
model.
On
April
12,
2000,
we
provided
an
updated
version
of
the
3MRA
Model
(
beta
Version
0.98)
and
results
for
five
chemicals
in
Docket
number
F­
99­
WH2P­
FFFFF.
On
April
19,
2000
(
65
FR
20934),
we
also
extended
the
original
deadline
of
May
17,
2000
for
public
comment
on
the
modeling
methodology
to
August
15,
2000
to
allow
additional
time
for
review
and
comment.
Today's
notice
makes
available
the
results
for
36
chemicals,
including
the
five
already
in
the
docket,
using
an
updated
version
of
the
model
(
Version0.98r).
In
addition,
today's
notice
again
extends
the
comment
period
for
the
November
19,
1999
HWIR
exemption
discussion
until
October
16,
2000,
to
coincide
with
the
comment
period
for
today's
notice.
Before
using
a
revised
risk
assessment
to
support
a
final
regulatory
action,
we
would
propose
the
HWIR
exemption.
Comments
on
the
1999
HWIR
discussion
and
on
today's
notice
will
be
helpful
to
us
in
developing
such
a
proposal.
Please
note
that
today's
notice
does
not
re­
open
the
comment
period
on
the
revisions
to
the
mixture
and
derived­
from
rules
that
were
proposed
in
the
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice
(
64
FR
63382,
Sections
I­
IV,
Sections
XXI­
XVI
(
as
applicable)
of
the
preamble
and
the
proposed
regulatory
language
amending
40
CFR
Part
261).

DATES:
We
will
accept
comments
through
October
16,
2000
on:
(
1)
The
concentration­
based
HWIR
exemption
discussed
in
the
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice;
(
2)
the
possible
revisions
to
the
Land
Disposal
Restriction
(
LDR)
treatment
standard
which
were
also
discussed
in
the
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice;
and
(
3)
the
additional
data
presented
today.
The
discussions
of
the
HWIR
exemption
and
possible
LDR
treatment
standard
revisions
are
in
Sections
V­
XX
and
Sections
XXI­
VVCI
(
as
applicable)
of
the
preamble,
64
FR
63382
(
November
19,
1999).

ADDRESSES:
Commenters
must
send
an
original
and
two
copies
of
their
comments
referencing
docket
number
F­
2000­
WH2A­
FFFFF
to:
(
1)
If
using
regular
U.
S.
Postal
Service
mail:
RCRA
Docket
Information
Center,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5305G),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
(
EPA,
HQ),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460­
0002,
or
(
2)
if
using
special
delivery,
such
as
overnight
express
service:
RCRA
Docket
Information
Center
(
RIC),
Crystal
Gateway
One,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
First
Floor,
Arlington,
VA
22202.
Comments
may
also
be
submitted
electronically
through
the
Internet
to:
rcra­
docket@
epa.
gov.
Comments
in
electronic
format
should
also
be
identified
by
the
docket
number
[[
Page
44492]]

F­
2000­
WH2A­
FFFFF
and
must
be
submitted
as
an
ASCII
file
avoiding
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption
and
should
include
commenter's
mailing
address
and
phone
number.
If
comments
are
not
submitted
electronically,
we
are
asking
prospective
commenters
to
voluntarily
submit
one
additional
copy
of
their
comments
on
labeled
personal
computer
diskettes
in
ASCII
(
TEXT)
format
or
a
word
processing
format
that
can
be
converted
to
ASCII
(
TEXT).
It
is
essential
to
specify
on
the
disk
label
the
word
processing
software
and
version/
edition
as
well
as
the
commenter's
name
and
address.
This
will
allow
EPA
to
convert
the
comments
into
one
of
the
word
processing
formats
utilized
by
the
Agency.
Please
use
mailing
envelopes
designed
to
physically
protect
the
submitted
diskettes.
We
emphasize
that
the
submission
of
comments
on
diskettes
is
not
mandatory,
nor
will
it
result
in
any
advantage
or
disadvantage
to
any
commenter.
Commenters
should
not
submit
electronically
any
confidential
business
information
(
CBI).
An
original
and
two
copies
of
CBI
must
be
submitted
under
separate
cover
to:
RCRA
CBI
Document
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5305W),
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20460­
0002.
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.
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
the
public
make
an
appointment
by
calling
703­
603­
9230.
The
public
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
$
0.15/
page.
The
notice
and
other
material
associated
with
this
action
can
be
electronically
accessed
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
hwirwste/
index.
htm.
The
official
record
will
be
kept
in
paper
form.
Accordingly,
EPA
will
transfer
all
comments
received
electronically
into
paper
form
and
place
them
in
the
official
record,
which
will
also
include
all
comments
submitted
directly
in
writing.
The
official
record
is
the
record
maintained
at
the
address
in
ADDRESSES
at
the
beginning
of
this
document.
The
comments
and
other
documents
associated
with
the
November
19,
1999
HWIR
notice
(
64
FR
63382)
are
kept
in
docket
Number
F­
99­
WH2PFFFFF
We
will
respond
to
submitted
comments,
whether
written
or
electronic,
in
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
or
in
a
response
to
comments
document
placed
in
the
official
record.
We
will
not
immediately
reply
to
electronically
submitted
comments
other
than
to
seek
clarification
of
comments
that
may
be
garbled
in
transmission
or
during
conversion
to
paper
form,
as
discussed
above.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
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
specific
information
on
the
risk
modeling,
contact
David
Cozzie,
(
703)
308­
0479,
cozzie.
david@
epa.
gov,
Stephen
Kroner,
(
703)
308­
0468,
kroner.
stephen@
epa.
gov,
or
Zubair
Saleem,
(
703)
308­
0467,
saleem.
zubair@
epa.
gov,
all
at:
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
5307W),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460­
0002.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Outline
I.
How
does
today's
notice
relate
to
the
November
19,
1999
notice?
II.
How
has
EPA
revised
the
3MRA
Model
since
the
November
19,
1999
notice?
III
What
are
the
results
from
the
revised
3MRA
Model?
IV.
What
are
possible
next
steps
for
the
HWIR
exemption
development?

I.
How
Does
Today's
Notice
Relate
to
the
November
19,
1999
Notice?

The
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice
includes
(
among
other
things)
a
discussion
of
a
concentration­
based
exemption
(
the
``
HWIR
exemption'')
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
(
64
FR
63382
and
docket
number
F­
99­
WH2P­
FFFFF;
see
also
the
web
site
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
hwirwste/
index.
htm
for
accessing
the
background
documents
electronically).
Included
in
this
discussion
is
an
extensive
explanation
of
the
risk
assessment
methodology
that
would
support
this
exemption.
The
version
of
the
3MRA
Model
that
we
discussed
was
beta
Version
0.93.
However,
because
of
unresolved
technical
issues,
we
did
not
have
results
from
the
risk
assessment
modeling,
other
than
for
acrylonitrile,
to
include
in
the
Federal
Register
notice.
Since
then,
we
have
addressed
many
technical
issues
and
have
revised
the
3MRA
Model.
Today's
notice
and
materials
placed
in
the
docket
explain
the
revisions
to
the
3MRA
Model
and
present
results
for
36
chemicals
using
beta
Version
0.98r
of
the
revised
model.

II.
How
Has
EPA
Revised
the
3MRA
Model
Since
the
November
19,
1999
Notice?

The
details
of
all
the
improvements
and
corrections
made
to
beta
Version
0.93
of
the
model
and
incorporated
in
beta
Version
0.98r
of
the
model
are
presented
in
the
RCRA
docket
number
F­
2000­
WH2A­
FFFFF.
Selected
examples
of
changes
we
made
are
listed
below.
(
1)
We
changed
the
aerated
tank
and
surface
impoundment
modules
so
that
exceedance
of
constituent
solubility
in
either
the
leachate
or
the
waste
management
unit
(
WMU)
causes
an
error
that
terminates
the
model
instead
of
issuing
a
warning
that
allows
the
model
to
continue.
We
changed
this
because
solubility
exceedance
indicates
that
the
modules
were
not
operating
within
the
intended
range
of
simulation;
that
is,
the
modules
were
not
intended
to
model
concentrations
that
lead
to
the
formation
of
non­
aqueous
phase
liquids.
(
2)
We
changed
the
national
data
table
in
the
aquifer
module
so
that
it
simulates
the
effects
of
fractures
and
heterogeneities
on
the
transport
of
chemical
constituents.
We
did
this
to
better
reflect
the
nature
of
the
subsurface
environment
in
the
vicinity
of
the
WMUs.
(
3)
We
corrected
an
error
in
the
data
transfer
between
the
ecological
risk
module
and
the
exit­
level
processor
(
ELP­
I).
Previously
the
ELP­
I
misread
the
ecological
receptor
group
descriptors.
In
beta
version
0.98r,
the
ecological
module
outputs
the
ecological
receptor
groups
directly
to
the
ELP­
I;
and
(
4)
We
changed
the
exit­
level
processor
(
ELP­
II)
to
correct
the
exposure
pathway
tables
to
include
only
those
pathways
relevant
to
the
chemical.
The
ELP­
II
now
refers
to
flags
in
the
human
health
benchmarks
database
to
identify
appropriate
exposure
pathways
for
each
chemical.
This
specific
change
has
occurred
since
Version
0.98.

III.
What
Are
the
Results
From
the
Revised
3MRA
Model?

We
are
presenting
the
draft
chemical­
specific
results
estimated
for
the
three
waste
forms
(
liquids,
solids,
and
semi­
solids)
and
one
WMU
type
(
landfill)
for
the
four
Protection
Groups.
The
Protection
Groups
are
based
on
five
different
types
of
protection
criteria:
(
1)
Cancer
risk
level,
(
2)
human
health
hazard
quotient
(
HQ)
for
non­
cancer
risks,
(
3)
ecological
hazard
quotient,
(
4)
population
percentile,
and
(
5)

[[
Page
44493]]

probability
of
protection.
We
summarize
below
these
five
risk
protection
criteria,
which
are
explained
more
fully
in
the
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice
(
see
64
FR
63440­
41).
1.
Cancer
Risk
Level.
The
cancer
risk
level
refers
to
an
individual's
increased
chance
of
developing
cancer
over
a
lifetime
due
to
potential
exposure
to
a
specific
chemical.
A
risk
of
1
x
10­\
6\
translates
as
an
increased
chance
of
one
in
a
million
of
developing
cancer
during
a
lifetime.
EPA
generally
sets
regulations
at
risk
levels
between
10­\
6\
and
10­\
4\
(
in
other
words,
from
one
in
a
million
to
one
in
ten
thousand
increased
chance
of
developing
cancer
during
a
lifetime).
In
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
listing
program,
a
10­\
6\
risk
is
usually
the
presumptive
``
no
list''
level,
while
10­\
5\
is
often
used
to
determine
which
wastes
are
considered
initial
candidates
for
listing
(
see,
for
example
the
petroleum
listing
at
63
FR
42117).
We
present
the
exemption
levels
that
result
from
both
the
10­\
6\
and
10­\
5\
risk
levels.
2.
Human
Health
Hazard
Quotient
(
HQ).
The
HQ
refers
to
the
likelihood
that
exposure
to
a
specific
chemical
would
result
in
a
noncancer
health
problem
(
for
example,
neurological
effects).
The
hazard
quotient
is
developed
by
dividing
the
estimated
exposure
to
a
chemical
by
the
reference
dose
(
RfD)
for
oral
ingestion
pathways
or
reference
concentration
(
RfC)
for
inhalation
pathways.
The
RfD
and
RfC
are
estimates
of
the
highest
dose
or
concentration
that
might
be
considered
safe.
An
HQ
of
one
or
lower
indicates
that
the
given
exposure
is
unlikely
to
result
in
adverse
health
effects.
We
present
the
exemption
levels
that
result
from
both
an
HQ
of
0.1
and
an
HQ
of
one.
3.
Ecological
Hazard
Quotient.
The
ecological
hazard
quotient
is
analogous
to
the
human
health
HQ,
except
that
the
estimated
exposure
is
compared
with
an
ecological
toxicity
value
rather
than
the
human
health
RfD
or
RfC.
For
this
analysis,
we
developed
two
types
of
toxicity
values:
(
1)
An
ecological
benchmark
that
is
calculated
as
a
dose
(
mg/
kg­
day);
and
(
2)
a
chemical
stressor
concentration
limit
(
CSCL)
that
is
calculated
as
a
concentration
in
media
(
for
example,
mg/
l).
The
ecological
hazard
quotient
protects
ecological
health
at
the
population
or
community
level,
and,
therefore,
focuses
on
reproductive
and
developmental
effects,
rather
than
the
mortality
of
individual
organisms.
In
developing
ecological
toxicity
values
for
this
risk
assessment,
we
used
the
geometric
mean
between
a
No
Observed
Effects
Level
(
NOEL)
and
a
Lowest
Observed
Effects
Level
(
LOEL).
(
Human
health
reference
doses
are
based
on
NOELs.)
We
present
the
exemption
levels
that
result
from
an
ecological
hazard
quotient
of
one
and
ten.
4.
Population
Percentile.
The
population
percentile
is
the
percentage
of
the
population
protected
at
the
specified
risk
level
and
hazard
quotient
for
a
single
environmental
setting.
A
setting
is
a
specific
WMU
at
a
specific
site,
and
is
defined
by
combining
site­
based
information
(
such
as
unit
size,
and
unit
placement)
with
variable
environmental
information
(
such
as
rainfall
and
exposure
rates)
from
regional
and
national
databases.
We
present
the
exemption
levels
that
result
from
population
protection
percentiles
of
99%
and
95%.
5.
Probability
of
Protection.
The
probability
of
protection
is
defined
as
the
percentage
of
WMU
settings
that
meet
the
population
percentile
criteria.
We
present
the
exemption
levels
that
result
from
probability
of
protection
levels
of
95%
and
90%.
Four
Protection
Groups
are
defined
below
in
Table
1.
These
four
groups
serve
to
indicate
the
potential
range
of
risk
decision
measures,
from
most
conservative
(
Group
1)
to
least
conservative
(
Group
4),
that
we
could
use
to
determine
the
final
HWIR
regulatory
exemption
levels.
These
groups
are
not
an
exhaustive
look
at
all
possible
combinations
of
potential
risk
protection
criteria;
we
could
choose
a
different
combination
altogether.
An
example
of
how
these
protection
groups
are
interpreted
is
provided
below
with
respect
to
the
Group
2
criteria
for
cancer
and
hazard
effects,
respectively:

­­
99%
of
the
population
are
subject
to
cancer
risks
of
less
than
10­
6
across
90%
of
the
environmental
settings;
­­
99%
of
the
population
experience
exposure
levels
below
an
HQ
of
1
across
90%
of
the
environmental
settings.

Table
1.­­
Protection
Groups
Evaluated
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­
Protection
Protection
Protection
Protectio
n
group
1
group
2
group
3
group
4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­
Risk
Level.......................
10­\
6\
10­\
6\
10­\
5\
10­\
5\
Human
Health
HQ..................
0.1
1
1
1
Ecological
HQ.....................
1
1
1
10
Population
Percentile.............
99
99
99
95
Probability
of
Protection.........
95
90
90
90
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­

In
addition
to
the
five
risk
criteria
set
forth
in
the
November
19,
1999
notice
and
summarized
above,
we
present
a
sixth
risk
criterion:
the
distance
to
human
and
ecological
receptors
from
the
WMU.
We
developed
draft
chemical­
specific
waste
concentrations
for
each
of
the
36
chemicals
that
are
presented
in
Tables
2
through
13.
These
tables
present
results
using
3MRA
Model
beta
Version
0.98r
for
the
four
Protection
Groups
based
on
the
above
five
protection
criteria
and
for
various
distances
to
human
receptors
corresponding
to
500,
1000,
2000
meters
and
for
a
fixed
distance
of
2000
meters
for
ecological
receptors.
We
also
are
presenting
in
the
RCRA
Docket
(
Docket
Number
F­
2000­
WH2A­
FFFFF)
the
following
results
for
the
same
36
chemicals:
1.
Protection
Group
Results.
Draft
chemical­
specific
waste
concentrations
identified
for
the
additional
four
waste
management
unit
types
(
waste
piles,
aerated
tanks,
surface
impoundments,
and
land
application
units);
2.
Sub­
Population
Results.
Risk
or
hazard
quotient
estimates
for
each
sub­
population
(
residents,
gardeners,
beef/
dairy
farmers,
and
fishers)
for
each
Protection
Group
and
the
three
waste
forms
and
the
five
waste
management
unit
types;
3.
Cohort
Results.
Risk
or
hazard
quotient
estimates
for
each
cohort
(
infants,
children
1­
12,
and
adults
13
and
older)
for
each
Protection
Group
and
the
three
waste
forms
and
the
five
waste
management
unit
types;
and
4.
Exposure
Pathway
Results.
Risk
or
hazard
quotient
estimates
for
each
exposure
pathway
(
air
inhalation,
soil
ingestion,
water
ingestion,
crop
ingestion,
beef
ingestion,
milk
ingestion,
fish
ingestion,
shower
inhalation,
breast
milk,
all
inhalation,
all
ingestion,
all
[[
Page
44494]]

ingestion
and
inhalation,
and
groundwater
total)
for
each
Protection
Group
for
the
three
waste
forms
and
for
the
five
waste
management
unit
types.
Copies
of
beta
Version
0.98r
of
the
3MRA
Model
are
in
the
RCRA
docket
on
a
CD.
Beta
Version
0.98r
of
the
3MRA
model
can
also
be
accessed
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ceampubl/
hwir.
htm.

IV.
What
Are
Possible
Next
Steps
for
the
HWIR
Exemption
Development?

Since
the
results
of
the
HWIR
risk
assessment
model
presented
in
today's
notice
are
intrinsically
related
to
the
discussion
of
the
HWIR
risk
assessment
found
in
the
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice,
we
have
harmonized
the
comment
periods
for
both
to
end
on
October
16,
2000.
However,
please
note
that
nothing
in
today's
notice
changes
or
supersedes
the
information
in
the
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice.
The
information
available
by
today's
notice
specifically
supplements
the
information
in
Sections
XV­
XIX
in
the
preamble
to
the
November
19,
1999
discussion.
Please
note
that
today's
notice
does
not
re­
open
the
comment
period
on
the
revisions
to
the
mixture
and
derivedfrom
rules
that
were
proposed
in
the
same
November
19,
1999
Federal
Register
notice.
That
comment
period
ended
February
17,
2000.
We
will
review
the
public
comments
and
decide
if
further
revisions
to
the
HWIR
risk
assessment
(
3MRA)
model
or
other
aspects,
e.
g.,
implementation,
of
the
HWIR
exemption
are
necessary.
We
also
are
continuing
independent
testing
and
external
peer
review
of
the
HWIR
risk
assessment
model.
Before
we
go
final
with
an
HWIR
exemption,
we
will
publish
a
proposal
to
allow
public
comment
on
a
unified
package.
The
exact
timing
of
this
proposal
will
depend
on
the
extent
of
the
public
and
peer
review
comments.

BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
P
[[
Page
44495]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.004
[[
Page
44496]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.005
[[
Page
44497]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.006
[[
Page
44498]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.007
[[
Page
44499]]
[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.008
[[
Page
44500]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.009
[[
Page
44501]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.010
[[
Page
44502]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.011
[[
Page
44503]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.012
[[
Page
44504]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.013
[[
Page
44505]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.014
[[
Page
44506]]

[
GRAPHIC]
[
TIFF
OMITTED]
TP18JY00.015
Dated:
July
7,
2000.
Elizabeth
A.
Cotsworth,
Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste.
[
FR
Doc.
00­
18103
Filed
7­
17­
00;
8:
45
am]
BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
C