se°SZ%UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIX75HawthorneStreetSanFrancisco,A94105May7,2012VMEMORANDUMSUBJECT:August4,2011DOEPetitionforaSite-specificOne-timeVariancefromaTreatmentStandardundertheLandDisposalRestrictions(“LDR”)RegulationsFROM:SteveTyahia,ProjectManagerRCRACorrectiveActionOffie/--VWasteManagementDivisionVVTHRUSteveArmann,ManagerVRCRACorrectiveActionOfficeV7JVWasteManagementDivisionVVTHRU:ArleneKabei,AssociateDrVVVWasteManagementDivisiVTO:JeffScott,DirectorWasteManagementDivisionVTheprimarypurposeofthismemoistoobtainyourapprovaltopubliclynoticeapreliminaryEPAdecisiontoapprovethesubjectpetitionandinitiatea30daypubliccomment.Specifically,withyourapproval,IwillplaceanadtheLasVegasReview-Journalnotifyingthepublicofourpreliminarydecisiontoapprovethepetitionandinitiatea30daypubliccommentperiod,andwillestablishanAdministrativeRecordintheFederalDocketsystem(publiclyviewableatwww.regulations.gov).Additionallythismemoservesastherecordofmyreviewofthepetition.Basedonmyreviewofthepetition’stechnicalmeritandtheapplicablecriteriacontainedintheregulations,Irecommendapprovalofthepetitioner’srequestforavariance,subjecttoconsiderationofanypubliccommentsreceived.Theauthorityforgrantingordenyingsuchsite-specificone-timepetitionshasbeendelegatedtotheDirector,WasteManagementDivision,EPARegion9asdocumentedinEPARegion9OrderR91280.18ofMarch28,1998.OnApril4,2012IwastaskedtoleadEPA’sprocessingandtechnicalreviewofsubjectpetitionfromtheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy(“DOE”or“petitioner”)forasite-specificone-timevariancefromtheapplicabletreatmentstandardforthefuturedisposaloftworadioisotopethermoelectricgenerators.Thetworadioisotopethermoelectricgenerators(or“RTGs”)arecurrentlylocatedinasecuredcoveredstorageareaattheOakRidgeNationalLaboratorycomplexinOakRidge,Tennessee(“ORNL”).Thepetition(Attachment1)wassubmittedbySECFederalServicesCorporationonbehalfofDOEpursuanttotheLandDisposalRestrictions(“LDR”)regulationsfoundat40C.F.R.Part268—inparticular40C.F.R.§268.44(h)“Variancefromatreatmentstandard.”Asrequiredby40C.F.R.§268.44(h)(5),priortoEPAmakingaFinalDecisiononthepetition,apublicnoticeandreasonableopportunity(e.g.,30days)forpubliccommentwillbeprovided.Iwillmakearrangementsforthatnoticeandcommentperiodassoonaspracticableafteryourconcurrenceonmyrecommendationforapproval.AnadwillbeplacedintheLasVegasReview-Journalandadocketcreatedinwww.regulations.govthatwillprovidepublicaccesstotheadministrativerecord,aswellasoneofseveralmeanstoprovidecomment.Uponcompletionofthe30daypubliccommentperiod,Iwillreviewallcommentsand,asappropriate,willreconfirmormodifymypreliminaryrecommendationforapprovalanddocumentthiseffortinanothermemorandum.SummaryofthePetition:Thepetitionseeksaone-timesite-specificvariancefromtheapplicableLDRtreatmentstandardfordisposaloftworadioisotopethermoelectricgenerators(“RTGs”)whichwerebuiltin1961andarecurrentlylocatedatORNL.Theseparticularunits,onea“SNAP-7C”andtheotherreferredtoasa“WeatherBureauRTG”werebuiltandusedaslong-termelectricalpowersourcesindevicessuchasmarineaidstonavigationandweathermonitoringstations.TheRTGsgenerateelectricitydirectlyfromheatproducedbytheradioactivedecayofStrontium-90(half-lifeof28.8years).TFareeach19jjsindiameter,21inchestallandweigh1,764pounds.Eachalsocontains13poundsofmercury(usedasaheattransfermedium)whichisthereasontheywillbehazardouswaste(D009)upondisposal.UndertheLDR,thetreatmentstandardthatwouldapplyisthermaldesorptionandrecoveryofthemercury.Thepetitionrecommendsmacroencapsulationasanalternativetreatmentmethodsincetheapplicablestandardwouldbeinappropriatebecausetherecoveredmercurywouldlikelycontainresidualradioactivecontaminationmakingitunusable.Moreover,theRTGsneedtobemanagedas“lowlevelmixedwaste”sincetheyarebothhazardousandlowlevelradioactivewaste.TheirultimatedisposalsitewillbetheNevadaNationalSecuritySite(“NNSS,”previouslyknownasthe“NevadaTestSite”)inNyeCounty,Nevada.ReviewofthePetition:1.Completeness:Per40C.F.R.§268.44(i),eachapplicationforasite-specificvariancefromatreatmentstandardmustincludetheinformationin§260.20(b)(l)-(4):(1)Thepetitioner’snameandaddress;(2)Astatementofthepetitioner’sinterestintheproposedaction;(3)Adescriptionoftheproposedaction,including(whereappropriate)suggestedregulatorylanguage;and(4)Astatementoftheneedandjustificationfortheproposedaction,includinganysupportingtests,studies,orotherinformation.Inaddition,petitionsaretoincludethecertificationstatementfoundat40C.F.R.§268.44(c).Thetworadioisotopethermoelectricgenerators(“RTGs”)forwhichDOEisseekingavariancefromtheLDRtreatmentstandardandproposingmacroencapsulationinlieuoftheapplicabletreatmentofretortingorroastinginathermalprocessingunittovolatilizeandrecovermercuryintheunits.InAttachment1thepetitionerprovidedorimpliedalloftheinformationrequiredabove,includingthesignedcertificationstatement.Toobtainadditionalinformationandconfirmthatthiswasaone-timerequestandtheultimatedisposalsiteplannedistheNNSS,Iinquiredtothepetitioner’sprimarypointofcontactviae-mailonApril10,2012.Ireceivedtherequestedconfirmationalongwithadditionalinformationbyreturne-mailonApril12,2012.Attachment2isacopyofthiscommunication.2.TechnicalReview:Asdescribedinthepetition,oncedeclaredawaste,theRTGswouldbecharacterizedasmeetingthecriteriaforatoxicwasteduetomercury(EPAhazardouswastecodeD009,40C.F.R.§261.24(b)).EachRTGweighs800kg(1,764pounds)includingapproximately6kg(13poundsor6,000,000mg)ofliquidmercury,thustheiroverallmercuryconcentrationis7,500mg/kg(orpartspermillion).Asapointofreference,amere0.2partspermillionofmercuryintheextractofawastesubjectedtothetoxicitycharacteristicleachingprocedure(“TCLP”)wouldqualifythewasteasahazardouswasteduetomercury(wastecode“D009”).Inthe“TreatmentStandardsforHazardousWastes”tablein40C.F.R.§268.40thistypeofwastewouldfallunderthe“HighMercury-InorganicSubcategory”ofD009wastes.Theapplicabletreatmentstandardforthistypeofwasteis“RMERC”whichisdefinedin40C.F.R.§268.42Table1-TechnologyCodesandDescriptionsofTechnology-BasedStandards.The“RMERC”technologyrequiresretortingorroastinginathermalprocessingunitcapableofvolatilizingmercuryandsubsequentlycondensingthevolatilizedmercuryforrecovery.Thisapproachistechnicallyinappropriateforradioactivelycontaminatedmercury-containingwastebecausetherecoveredmetalswouldlikelycontainresidualradioactivecontamination.Asaconsequence,therecoveredmetalswouldhaveanextremelylowprobabilityforreuse.Inaddition,neitherEPAnorDOEisawareofanycommercialmetalsrecoveryfacilitywiththecapabilitytohandlewastemercury-containingRTGsforrecycle,andDOEdoesnothavethecapabilitytoperformsame.DOEproposesmacroencapsulationasanalternativetreatmentfortheRTGspriortodisposalattheNNSS.Asdefinedin40C.F.R.§268.42Table1-TechnologyCodesandDescriptionsofTechnology-BasedStandards“MACRO”(ormacroencapsulation)involvesmacroencapsulationwithsurfacecoatingmaterialssuchaspolymericorganics(e.g.,resinsandplastics)orwithajacketofinertinorganicmaterialstosubstantiallyreducesurfaceexposuretopotentialleachingmedia.InAttachment1thepetitionerhighlightstheanalogousnatureofthissite-specificpetitionandtheirJune13,2002petitionforagenericvarianceforradioactivelycontaminatedcadmium-,mercury-,andsilver-containingbatteries.EPAapprovedthatgenericvarianceinadirectfmalruleonOctober7,2002(FederalRegister,Vol.67,No.194,page62618)—thatrulemakingisincludedasAttachment3anditapprovesmacroencapsulationasthealternativetreatmentforallthreetypesofradioactivelycontaminatedbatteries.Recommendation:BasedonmyreviewoftheAttachmentsandapplicableregulations,IconcurwiththepetitionerthatitwouldbetechnicallyinappropriatetotreattheRTGsbythemethodspecifiedasthetreatmentstandard(evenifitwerecommerciallyavailable)asitwouldresultintherecoveryofradioactivelycontaminatedmercurywhichwouldnotbeusable.Macroencapsulationoftheentireunits,theproposedalternativetreatmenttechnology,wouldbeappropriateandprotective,istechnicalávailable,andwouldbeperformedattheORNL.Ibelievethispetitionmeetstheregulatorystandardsin40C.F.R.Part268andprovidesforaprotectiveLDRtreatmentalternative.Irecommendthatthevariancebegranted.Uponyourapproval,thenextstepswillbetopublishanoticeintheLasVegasReview-Journalnewspaperandestablishthefederaldocketforthispreliminarydecision.Afterwereceiveandprocessallpubliccomments,Iwillsubmitanothermemotoyouwithmyfmalrecommendationonthepetition.Attachments(3)1.Petition-SECFederalServicesCorporationletterofAugust4,20112.E-mailcommunicationsbetweenEPAandKevinMitchelldatedApril10and12,20123.FederalRegister,October7,2002,Vol.67,No.194,pages62618-62625DisapproveJeffScott,DirectorWasteManagementDivision

### RE: Request for Site Specific LDR Treatability Variance of 04 Aug 2012

Kevin Mitchell to: Stephen Tyahla 04/12/2012 04:46 AM

Cc: j patterson, "'Kent DeRoos'"

Please respond to kmitchell

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.



### Mr. Tyahla,

Thank you for reaching out and your involvement in this effort. Responses to your questions are

embedded below. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

_

____________ _ Kevin Mitchell

Scientific Services Manager

405 Galleria Lane, Suite D

Oxford, MS 38655

Phone: 662

‐ 701

‐ 7328

Email: kmitchell@stratag.org

URL: www.StrataG.org

From: Stephen Tyahla [mailto:Tyahla.Stephen@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, A pril 10, 2012 5:37 PM

To: kmitchell@stratag.org

Subject: Request for Site Specific LDR Treatability Variance of 04 A u g 2012

Mr. Mitchell,

I have recently been tasked with processing the subject request (copy attached). In this

note I wanted to introduce myself and ask a few initial questions. I apologize for this

request getting bounced around a bit, but it's now on my plate to get processed and I'll

make sure that happens without any further unnecessary delay.

A few initial questions: 1) While seemingly obvious, can you please confirm that this is a one time request for the

two particular RTGs?



### Correct, a one time site specific request.

2) EPA Region 9 is processing this request since the disposal facility is within our region,
Nevada (presumably the Nevada Test Site). Unless I've missed it, the attached does not

specifically identify the proposed ultimate disposal facility or location of where the proposed

macroencapsulation would be performed, can you please identify those?



### The proposed disposal facility is the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Macroencapsulation will be

performed/confirmed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is the current location of the RTGs.

3) Do you have photographs of the two RTGs that you can provide?

### Yes. Photo included below.

4) Can you generally describe where the RTGs are now being stored?



### The two RTGs are currently stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, TN. They

are stored outdoors behind a locked fence for security reasons with general institutional controls in

place at ORNL. See below for picture of storage area.

5) Is there any particular time sensitivity with the present storage of the RTGs?



### The RTG’s have been in storage outside of Building 3517 at ORNL for ~40 years. Building 3517 is

scheduled for demolition under the Bethel Valley CERCLA ROD and the disposal of the RTG’s are included

in that scope. Removal and disposal of the RTG’s is also necessary to reindustrialize/revitalize the

central campus area of ORNL.

6) Please confirm that the attached includes the entire 4 August 2011 request ( j ust being
certain).



### Yes, the attached includes the entire request.

Thanks,

Stephen F. Tyahla, P.E.,CHMM

Project Manager, RCRA Corrective Action Office

Waste Management Division

U.S. EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (WST-5)

### San Francisco, CA 94105

Ph. 415.972.3466 / Fax 415.947.3533

tyahla.stephen@epa.gov

[This email, including any attachments, may contain non-public, privileged and / or confidential information solely intended to be conveyed to the designated recipient(s). If

you receive this email and are not an intended recipient, please delete this email and its

attachments immediately. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or

reproduction of this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited by law.] 

## =

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED

*******************

This Email message contained an attachment named

image001.jpg

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program

could

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's

computers,

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted.

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses

introduced

into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program

attachments

sent from the Internet into the agency via Email.

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate,

you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file

name

extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment.

After

receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment,

you can

rename the file extension to its correct name.

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900.

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED

***********************

### 62618 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 268 and 271

[FRL–7390–7; Docket Number: RCRA–2002–

0027]

RIN 2050–AE99

Land Disposal Restrictions: National
Treatment Variance To Designate New Treatment Subcategories for Radioactively ContaminatedCadmium-, Mercury-, and SilverContaining Batteries

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION : Direct final rule.

SUMMARY : EPA is taking direct final action to grant a national treatability variance from the Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for radioactively contaminatedcadmium-, mercury-, and silvercontaining batteries by designating new treatment subcategories for these wastes in response to a rulemaking petition from the Department of Energy. The

current treatment standards of thermal recovery for cadmium batteries and of roasting and retorting for mercury batteries are technically inappropriate, because any recovered metals would likely contain residual radioactive

contamination and not be usable. The

current numerical treatment standard for silver batteries is also inappropriate because of the potential increase in radiation exposure to workers associated with manually segregating silver-containing batteries for the purpose of treatment. Macroencapsulation in accordance with the provisions for treatment standards for hazardous debris is designated as the required treatment prior to land disposal for the new waste subcategories. This will allow safe disposal of these radioactively

contaminated materials.

DATES : This rule is effective on

November 21, 2002 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 6, 2002. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that this

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES : Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand/delivery/courier. You must send an original and two copies of the comments referencing Docket

Number RCRA–2002–0027 to: EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), B102, EPA

West, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0002. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

I. D. below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : For general information, call the RCRA Call

Center at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1– 800–553–7672 (hearing impaired). Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412– 9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA Call Center is open Monday-Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Eastern Standard Time. For more information on specific aspects of this direct final rule, contact Mr. John

Austin at 703–308–0436, austin.john@epa.gov, or write him at the

Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :

The contents of the preamble to this final are listed in the following outline:

I. General Information

A. Regulated Entities

B. Direct Final Action
C. How Can I Get Copies of This Document

and Other Related Information?

D. How and To Whom Do I Submit

Comments?

E. How Should I Submit CBI to the

Agency?
F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My

Comments for EPA?
II. Background

What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment

Variances?
III. Why Are the Existing Standards

Inappropriate?
A. What Are the Wastes That Require a

Treatment Variance?

B. What Are the New Treatment

Standards?
IV. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

States

B. Effect on State Authorization
V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Unfunded Mandates

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s

Health
H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects
I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

J. Executive Order 12898: Environmental

Justice K. Congressional Review Act I. General Information

A. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which generate, treat, and dispose radioactive batteries. Regulated categories and entities

include:

Category .................... Radioactively contaminated cadmium-, mercury-,

and silver- containing batteries.
Industry .................... Nuclear waste generators, and treatment and disposal

facilities.
Examples of regulated entities. Envirocare of Utah,

Inc.; Nevada Test

Site; and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington.
Federal Agencies ...... Department of Energy.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Direct Final Action

EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view it as a noncontroversial action. We anticipate

no adverse comment because of the limited nature of this action. Having said this, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to grant the designation of a new treatment subcategory if adverse

comments are filed. This direct final

rule will be effective on November 21,

2002 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by November 6, 2002. If we receive significant adverse comment on this rulemaking, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating that this direct final rule action is being

withdrawn due to adverse comment. We will then address all public comments, as appropriate. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this rulemaking must do so at this

time.


### 62619 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

C. How Can I Get Copies of This

Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action

under Docket ID No. RCRA

– 2002

– 0027. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments

received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does

not include Confidential Business

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the

collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket

Center (EPA/DC), B102, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC

20460

– 0002. The EPA/DC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. To

review file materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling (202) 566

– 0270. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any file

maintained at the RCRA Docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per

page.

2. Electronic Access. You may access

this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet

under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA ’ s electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ‘‘ search, ’’ then key in the appropriate docket

identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.

Information claimed as CBI and other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing

in EPA ’ s electronic public docket. EPA ’ s policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA ’ s electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly

available docket materials will be made

available in EPA ’ s electronic public

docket. When a document is selected

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in

EPA ’ s electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available

docket materials at the EPA/DC.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA ’ s policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing in EPA ’ s electronic public

docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or

other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide

a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in

EPA ’ s electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or

delivered to the docket will be

transferred to EPA ’ s electronic public

docket. Public comments that are

mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA ’ s electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA ’ s electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

D. How and to Whom Do I Submit

Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate

docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your

comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments

received after the close of the comment period will be marked ‘‘ late. ’’ EPA is not required to consider these late

comments. Do not use EPA Dockets or

e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address,

and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your

comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be

identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment

due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of
your comment. EPA ’ s policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,

and made available in EPA ’ s electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your

comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your

comment.

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA ’ s electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is

EPA ’ s preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and

follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA ’ s electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ‘‘ Information

Sources, ’’ ‘‘ Dockets, ’’ and ‘‘ EPA

Dockets. ’’ Once in the system, select

‘‘ search, ’’ and then key in Docket ID No.

RCRA

– 2002

– 0027. The system is an

‘‘ anonymous access ’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity,

e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by
electronic mail (e-mail) to rcradocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID

No. RCRA

– 2002

– 0027. In contrast to

EPA ’ s electronic public docket, EPA ’ s email system is not an ‘‘ anonymous

access ’’ system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA ’ s electronic public

docket, EPA ’ s e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail

address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA ’ s e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in

EPA ’ s electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit

comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in the following section.

These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. You must send an original and two copies of the comments referencing Docket Number RCRA

– 2002

– 0027 to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/

DC), B102, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460

– 0002.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket

Center (EPA/DC), B102, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC

20460

– 0002, Attention Docket ID No.

RCRA

– 2002

– 0027. Deliveries are only


### 62620 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

accepted during the Docket ’ s normal hours of operation 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

E. How Should I Submit CBI to the
Agency?

Do not submit information electronically that you consider to be CBI through EPA ’ s electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: RCRA CBI Document

Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention

Docket ID No. RCRA

– 2002

– 0027. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you

submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark

the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific

information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of

the comment that does not contain the

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public

docket and EPA ’ s electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM,

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI.

Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA ’ s electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your

comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you

used.

3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your

views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your

estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period

deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided

the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. Background

What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment

Variances?

Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA is 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. ’’ EPA interprets this language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This interpretation was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Hazardous Waste

Treatment Council vs. EPA, 886 F. 2d

355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

The Agency recognizes that there may

be wastes that cannot be treated to levels specified in the regulations (see

40 CFR 268.40) because an individual

waste matrix or concentration can be substantially more difficult to treat than those wastes the Agency evaluated in establishing the treatment standard (51

FR 40576, November 7, 1986), or that it may be inappropriate to require the waste to be treated to the level specified or by the method specified, even though such treatment is technically possible. For such wastes, EPA has a process by which a generator or treater may seek a

treatment variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). Treatment variances may be generic (under 40 CFR 268.44(a)) or site-specific (under 40 CFR 268.44(h)). A generic

variance can result in the establishment of a new treatability group and a corresponding treatment standard that applies to all wastes that meet the criteria of the new waste treatability group (55 FR 22526, June 1, 1990). A site-specific variance applies only to a specific waste from a specific facility.

On June 13, 2002, the Department of Energy (DOE) petitioned EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44 for a generic treatability variance for mercury-, cadmium-, and silver-containing

batteries that are contaminated with radioactive materials. The petition is

available in the docket for this rulemaking. III. Why Are the Existing Standards Inappropriate?

A. What Are the Wastes That Require a

Treatment Variance?

Batteries are used in a variety of ways across the DOE complex. For example, nickel-cadmium (NiCd) rechargeable batteries are commonly found in cellular and cordless telephones, 2-way radios, video cameras, portable power tools, laptop computers, and radiological monitoring equipment.Mercury-containing and silvercontaining batteries have been widely

used in watches, calculators, and

cameras. When these batteries reach end of life, they are typically classified as radioactive waste if they were used in a radioactively contaminated area, unless through decontamination and/or radiological surveys they can be cleared for management as non-radiological

waste. Sometimes because of cracks,

fissures, holes or uneven surfaces in the battery casings, a reasonable confidence

level that the batteries are free of

radioactive contamination cannot be

achieved. In other cases, radioactive

contamination is found that cannot be easily removed. In either case, there will always be some batteries that are deemed to be radioactively

contaminated.

Based on input from individual facilities, DOE estimates that 2,653 kg of radioactively contaminated waste cadmium-containing batteries, and 247 kg of radioactively contaminated waste mercury-containing batteries are in storage across the complex. No estimate is available for silver-containing batteries. Projected generation rates are 23 kg/yr for radioactively contaminated waste cadmium batteries and 4 kg/yr for radioactively contaminated waste mercury batteries.

The cadmium-containing waste

batteries are almost all NiCd batteries,although other types of cadmiumcontaining waste batteries such as mercury-cadmium and silver-cadmium may be present as well. At a minimum, all of the cadmium-containing waste batteries exhibit the toxicity characteristic for cadmium and carry a

D006 hazardous waste code.

Detail on the specific types of mercury-containing waste batteries present is limited, but it is assumed that

this waste stream includes both mercury-zinc and mercury-cadmium

batteries. At a minimum, these batteries exhibit the toxicity characteristic for mercury and carry a D009 hazardous waste code. Detail on specific types of silver-containing waste batteries is also limited. They may be silver-cadmium or of other composition. At a minimum,


### 62621 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

1 Although today ’ s rule is granted through the 40 CFR 268.44 variance process, the Agency has

determined that the new standards are neither more nor less stringent than the current standards. This is because today ’ s rule offers a different technical approach (macoencapsulation) over the current technical approaches of recovery and stabilization. these batteries exhibit the toxicity characteristic for silver and carry a D011

hazardous waste code.

While not representing a large volume of waste, radioactively contaminatedcadmium-, mercury-, and silvercontaining batteries, which must be managed as mixed waste ( i.e. , RCRA hazardous and radioactive), present an ongoing waste disposal problem for several sites in the DOE complex. This situation has developed because the existing applicable LDR treatment standards are inappropriate, as explained below. Moreover, neither EPA nor DOE is aware of any commercial metals recovery facility that currently accepts radioactively contaminated cadmium-, or mercury-containing waste

batteries for treatment.

B. What Are the New Treatment

Standards?

Under existing land disposal

restriction (LDR) treatment standards, cadmium-containing waste batteries are classified as D006 Cadmium Containing Batteries Subcategory waste. As such, they are subject to the specified technology of RTHRM (thermal recovery of metals). Most mercury-containing

waste batteries are classified as D009 High Mercury-Inorganic Subcategory waste because they are inorganic, exhibit the toxicity characteristic for mercury (under 40 CFR 261.24(b)), and contain greater than 260 ppm total mercury. As such, they are subject to the specified technology of RMERC (roasting/retorting with recovery of mercury). In both cases, the objective of the specified technology is to volatilize the metals in a high temperature treatment unit and subsequently

condense and collect them for reuse, while significantly reducing the

concentration of metals in the waste residual. This approach is technically inappropriate for radioactivelycontaminated cadmium- and mercurycontaining batteries, because the recovered metals would likely contain

residual radioactive contamination. As a consequence, the recovered metals would have an extremely low probability for reuse.

For silver-containing batteries that are D011, the existing LDR treatment standards require treatment to meet

numerical constituent concentration levels for silver and any underlying hazardous constituents. Meeting these standards could involve manually segregating the silver-containing batteries from commingled waste

batteries before treatment, which could entail increased worker exposure to radiation and result in the generation of larger volumes of radioactively contaminated waste for disposal.

As a result, we intend to grant a national treatment variance by designation of new treatment subcategories for these materials. We believe that the appropriate treatment standard is macroencapsulation in accordance with the design and operating standards of 40 CFR 268.45. Macroencapsulation of debris is defined

at 40 CFR 268.45 Table 1 as:

Application of surface coating materials such as polymeric organics

( e.g. , resins and plastics) or use of a jacket of inert inorganic materials to substantially reduce surface exposure to potential leaching media.

The design and operating standard requires that the encapsulating material must completely encapsulate the waste and be resistant to degradation by the

debris and its contaminants and materials into which it may come into contact after placement ( e.g. , leachate,

other waste, or microbes).

Encapsulation technologies are applicable primarily to wastes containing hazardous metal constituents. Macroencapsulation is the required treatment for D008 radioactive lead solids subcategory wastes and K175 mercury-bearing wastes. Macroencapsulation is also an

alternative treatment standard for

hazardous debris. We believe that macroencapsulation is appropriate for these radioactively contaminated batteries, because it would require minimal worker handling and reduce the potential for leaching media to contact the batteries following disposal. Thus, macroencapsulation would minimize worker exposure to radioactivity and the potential for release, which we wish to encourage.

IV. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified State to

administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State in lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the State. A State may receive authorization by following the approval process described under 40 CFR 271.21. See 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for

authorization. EPA continues to have independent authority to bring

enforcement actions under RCRA

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An

authorized State also continues to have independent authority to bring

enforcement actions under State law. After a State receives initial

authorization, new Federal requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 1984

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent State requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in

authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States.

As such, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA

authorizes the State to do so.

Authorized States are required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements.

RCRA section 3009 allows the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. See also

§ 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States are not required to adopt Federalregulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA, that are considered less stringent than existing Federal
requirements.

B. Effect on State Authorization

The requirements of today ’ s rule, in

EPA ’ s view, are neither more nor less stringent than current regulatory
requirements. 1 Therefore, when promulgated, the Agency will add the rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to HSWA. Although States are only required to adopt requirements that are more stringent than the existing provisions, EPA strongly encourages States to adopt the provisions of today ’ s rule.

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘ significant ’’ and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘ significant


### 62622 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

regulatory action ’’ as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President ’ s priorities, or the principles

set forth 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.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today ’ s rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business

that has fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code the firm primarily is classified; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.

This rule is not expected to result in a net cost to any affected entity. Thus, adverse impacts are not anticipated.

Costs could increase for entities that are not complying with current requirements, but even these costs, which are not properly attributable to the current rulemaking, would not be expected to result in significant impacts

on a substantial number of small

entities. After considering the economic impacts of today ’ s rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not change in any way the paperwork requirements already applicable to radioactive cadmium-, mercury-, or silver-containing batteries.

Therefore, it does not affect requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates

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 the proposed and final

rules with ‘‘ federal mandates ’’ that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year.

Before promulgating a 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 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,

enable 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.

The Agency ’ s analysis of compliance

with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today ’ s rule imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the private sector. This rule contains no federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, EPA has

determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Because we consider today ’ s rule to be neither more nor less stringent than the current regulations, state governments are not required to adopt the proposed changes. The UMRA generally excludes from the definition

of ‘‘ Federal intergovernmental mandate ’’ duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. The UMRA

also excludes from the definition of

‘‘ Federal private sector mandate ’’ duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. Therefore, we have determined that today ’ s rule is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘ Federalism ’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ‘‘ Policies that have federalism implications ’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include regulations that 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. ’’

This final rule 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, because states are not required to adopt the provisions

of this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘ Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments ’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘ meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. ’’ This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in


### 62623 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 13175, because it does not preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s

Health

‘‘ Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks ’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that EPA determines
(1) ‘‘ 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 potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have

reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. When the subject wastes are treated and disposed in accordance with this regulation, the Agency believes that

future risks to the human health and the

environment will be minimized.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, ‘‘ Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Effect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

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, though OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This

rule does not establish new technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘ Federal

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations ’’ (February 11, 1994) is designed to address the

environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all

citizens of the United States. The
Agency ’ s goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high

and adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of

EPA ’ s policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order 12898,

EPA ’ s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues
(OSWER Directive No. 9200.3

– 17). Facilities that would be affected by today ’ s rule include any facility generating hazardous radioactive cadmium, radioactive mercury, or

radioactive silver batteries for treatment or disposal. The Agency does not believe that today ’ s rule will result in any disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income communities relative to affluent or non-minority communities, because today ’ s rule will facilitate the removal of the subject

hazardous wastes from current generation sites for treatment and controlled disposal to ensure protection

of human health and the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register . A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register

. This action is not a ‘‘ major rule ’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective 45 days following the publication.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 268

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information, Hazardous material transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: September 30, 2002.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 268

— LAND DISPOSAL

RESTRICTIONS

1. The authority citation for part 268

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

and 6924.

2. In § 268.40, the Table, ‘‘ Treatment

Standards for Hazardous Wastes ’’ is amended by adding entries to the end of

entries D006, D009, and D011 to read as follows. The footnotes are republished without change.

§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment standards.

* * * * *


### 62624 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

T REATMENT 

### S TANDARDS FOR 

### H AZARDOUS 

### W ASTES

Waste code Waste description and treatment/Regulatory subcategory 1 Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters:

Concentration

in mg/L, 3 or technology

code 4 Nonwastewaters: Concentration in mg/kg 5 unless noted as ‘‘mg/L TCLP’’, or technology code. 4 Common name CAS 2 No.

* * * * * * *

D006 9

.............. *****
Radioactively contaminated cadmium

containing batteries. ( Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters
only) Cadmium ............ 7440–43–9 NA Macroencapsulation in accordance with 40 CFR

268.45.

* * * * * * *

D009 9

.............. *****
Radioactively contaminated mercury

containing batteries. (Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters
only) Mercury .............. 7439–97–6 NA Macroencapsulation in accordance with 40 CFR

268.45.

* * * * * * *

D011 9

.............. *****
Radioactively contaminated silver containing batteries. (Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters
only) Silver .................. 7440–22–4 NA Macroencapsulation in accordance with 40 CFR

268.45.

* * * * * * *

Footnotes to Treatment Standard Table 268.40

1 The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261. Descriptions of Treatment/R egulatory Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards.

2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a che mical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.

3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples.

4 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268 .42 Table 1—Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.

5 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentra tion were established, in part, based upon incineration in units opeated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Par t 264, Subpart O, or Part 265, Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technica l requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.

* * * * * * *

9 These wastes, when rendered nonhazardous and then subsequently injected in a Class I SDWA well, are not subject to treatment st andards. (See § 148.1(d)).

* * * * * * *

PART 271

— REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

3. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.

4. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication

to read as follows.

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *



### T ABLE 

### 1.—R EGULATIONS 

### I MPLEMENTING THE 

### H AZARDOUS AND 

### S OLID 

### W ASTE 

### A MENDMENTS OF 

### 1984

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

* * * * * * *
Sept. 30, 2002 ..................... Land Disposal Restrictions: National Treatment Variance
to Designate New Treatment Subcategories for Radioactively Contaminated Cadmium-, Mercury-, and Silver-Containing Batteries. [Insert Federal Register citation page numbers]. November 21, 2002

* * * * * * *


### 62625 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 194 / Monday, October 7, 2002 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02

– 25414 Filed 10

– 4

– 02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560

– 50

– P