Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62079

discussions with representatives of

the NRC staff regarding proposed

final SRP Chapter 19, Regulatory

Guide DG–1061, and use of

uncertainty versus point values in

the PRA-related decisionmaking

process. 10:15 A.M.–12:00 Noon: Operating

Events at Oconee Nuclear Power

Plant Units 1 and 2 (Open)—The

Committee will hear presentations

by and hold discussions with

representatives of the NRC staff

regarding the results of the

investigation performed by an

Augmented Inspection Team (AIT)

of the June 20 and 23 event at

Oconee Unit 1 involving failure of

emergency electrical power supply,

and of the April 22, 1997 event at

Oconee Unit 2 that involved

inoperability of the high pressure

injection pump. 1:00 P.M.–3:00 P.M.: Capability and

Application of the EPRI Checkworks

Code (Open)—The Committee will

hear presentations by and hold

discussions with representatives of

the NRC staff and Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI) regarding

the capability and application of the

EPRI Checkworks Code.

3:15 P.M.–3:45 P.M.: Future ACRS

Activities (Open)—The Committee

will discuss the recommendations

of the Planning and Procedures

Subcommittee regarding items

proposed for consideration by the

full Committee during future

meetings. 3:45 P.M.–4:00 P.M.: Reconciliation of

ACRS Comments and

Recommendations (Open)—The

Committee will discuss responses

from the NRC Executive Director for

Operations (EDO) to comments and

recommendations included in

recent ACRS reports, including the

EDO response to the October 10,

1997 ACRS report related to the

differing professional opinion

pertaining to steam generator tube

integrity. 4:00 P.M.–4:15 P.M.: Election of ACRS

Officers For CY 1998 (Open)—The

Committee will elect the Chairman

and Vice Chairman for the ACRS,

and Member-at-Large for the

Planning and Procedures

Subcommittee for CY 1998.

4:15 P.M.–7:00 P.M.: Preparation of

ACRS Reports (Open)—The

Committee will continue its

discussion of proposed ACRS

reports on matters considered

during this meeting.

Saturday, December 6, 1997

8:30 A.M.–9:00 A.M.: Report of the

Planning and Procedures

Subcommittee (Open/Closed)—The

Committee will hear a report of the

Planning and Procedures

Subcommittee on matters related to

the conduct of ACRS business,

qualifications of candidates

nominated for appointment to the

ACRS, agenda for the planning

meeting, and organizational and

personnel matters relating to the

ACRS.

[Note: A portion of this session may be

closed to discuss organizational and

personnel matters that relate solely to the

internal personnel rules and practices of this

Advisory Committee, and information the

release of which would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.]

9:00 A.M.–4:00 P.M. (12:00–1:00 P.M.

Lunch): Preparation of ACRS

Reports (Open)—The Committee

will continue its discussion of

proposed ACRS reports on matters

considered during this meeting.

4:00 P.M.–4:30 P.M.: Miscellaneous

(Open)—The Committee will

discuss matters related to the

conduct of Committee activities and

matters and specific issues that

were not completed during

previous meetings, as time and

availability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of and

participation in ACRS meetings were

published in the Federal Register on

September 4, 1997 (62 FR 46782). In

accordance with these procedures, oral

or written views may be presented by

members of the public, including

representatives of the nuclear industry,

electronic recordings will be permitted

only during the open portions of the

meeting, and questions may be asked

only by members of the Committee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, Chief, Nuclear

Reactors Branch, at least five days

before the meeting, if possible, so that

appropriate arrangements can be made

to allow the necessary time during the

meeting for such statements. Use of still,

motion picture, and television cameras

during this meeting may be limited to

selected portions of the meeting as

determined by the Chairman.

Information regarding the time to be set

aside for this purpose may be obtained

by contacting the Chief of the Nuclear

Reactors Branch prior to the meeting. In

view of the possibility that the schedule

for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by

the Chairman as necessary to facilitate

the conduct of the meeting, persons

planning to attend should check with

the Chief of the Nuclear Reactors Branch

if such rescheduling would result in

major inconvenience.

In accordance with Subsection 10(d)

P.L. 92–463, I have determined that it is

necessary to close portions of this

meeting noted above to discuss matters

that relate solely to the internal

personnel rules and practices of this

Advisory Committee per 5 U.S.C.

552b(c)(2) and to discuss information

the release of which would constitute a

clearly unwarranted invasion of

personal privacy per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been canceled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor, can be

obtained by contacting Mr. Sam

Duraiswamy, Chief, Nuclear Reactors

Branch (telephone 301/415–7364),

between 7:30 A.M. and 4:15 P.M. EST.

ACRS meeting agenda, meeting

transcripts, and letter reports are

available for downloading or reviewing

on the internet at http://www.nrc.gov/

ACRSACNW.

The ACRS meeting dates for Calendar

Year 1998 are provided below:

ACRS

Meeting

No.

1998 ACRS Meeting Date

Jan.—No Meeting.

448 ........... Feb. 5–7, 1998.

449 ........... Mar. 2–4, 1998.

450 ........... Mar. 5–7, 1998.

(Safety Research Program)

451 ........... Apr. 2–4, 1998.

452 ........... Apr. 30–May 2, 1998.

453 ........... June 3–5, 1998.

454 ........... July 8–10, 1998.

Aug.—No Meeting.

455 ........... Sept. 2–4, 1998.

456 ........... Oct. 1–3, 1998.

457 ........... Nov. 5–7, 1998.

458 ........... Dec. 3–5, 1998.

Dated: November 14, 1997.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–30526 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Joint NRC/EPA Guidance on Testing

Requirements for Mixed Radioactive

and Hazardous Waste

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection

Agency and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Publication of Final Joint

Guidance on the Testing Requirements

for Mixed Waste.
62080 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

1See 42 U S.C. § 6903 (41), added by the Federal

Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA).

2 See revised Guidance on the Definition and

Identification of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive

and Hazardous Waste and Answers to Anticipated

Questions, October 4, 1989.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

are jointly publishing herein final

guidance on the testing requirements for

mixed radioactive and hazardous waste

(mixed waste). NRC and EPA began

development of this guidance in 1987

and a draft was completed in 1989.

EPA’s adoption of the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP) in 1990 required the agencies to

substantially revise the guidance. The

agencies issued a draft for public

comment on March 26, 1992. A public

meeting was held on April 14, 1992, in

Washington, D.C., to solicit oral

comments on the draft guidance

document. The comment period ended

on May 26, 1992. NRC and EPA

received more than 700 requests for

copies of the draft guidance document

and NRC received approximately 100

written comments from 20 individuals

and groups, including comments

resulting from a review of the guidance

by the U.S. Department of Energy. NRC

and EPA staffs have incorporated the

appropriate comments into the final

guidance.

The guidance emphasizes the use of

process knowledge, whenever possible,

to determine if a waste is hazardous as

a way to avoid unnecessary exposures to

radioactivity. The guidance also

provides guidelines for generators

wishing to rely on process knowledge as

the basis for evaluating their waste.

The guidance offers two strategies for

helping to maintain radiation exposures

As Low As is Reasonably Achievable

(ALARA) if testing is required. These

strategies are the use of a sample size of

less than 100 grams, as long as the

resulting test is sufficiently sensitive to

measure the constituents of interest at

the regulatory levels prescribed in the

TCLP, and the use of surrogate

materials, as long as they are chemically

identical to the mixed waste and

faithfully represent the hazardous

constituents in the waste mixture.

The guidance also discusses other

allowable sampling and testing

procedures, such as representative drum

sampling, or sampling from drums

containing lower concentrations of

radioactive material, as long as the

chemical contents are identical to those

found in the drums with higher

concentrations of radioactive material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dominick A. Orlando, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C., 20555, telephone (301) 415–6749

or Newman Smith, Permits and State

Programs Division, Office of Solid

Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, D.C., 20460,

telephone (703) 308–8757.

Dated at Rockville, MD and Washington,

DC this 7th day of November, 1997.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

For the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

Elizabeth Cotsworth,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Clarification of RCRA Hazardous Waste

Testing Requirements for Low-Level

Radioactive Mixed Waste—Final

Guidance

Disclaimer: The policies discussed in this

document are not final Agency actions, but

are intended solely as guidance. They are not

intended, nor can they be relied upon, to

create any rights enforceable by any party in

litigation with the United States. The

Environmental Protection Agency and

Nuclear Regulatory Commission may follow

the guidance, or act at variance with the

guidance, based on an analysis of specific

site circumstances. The agencies also reserve

the right to change the guidance at any time,

without public notice.

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS USED IN

THIS GUIDANCE

Acronym/abbreviation

Definition

AEA ...... Atomic Energy Act.

ALARA As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable.

BDAT .... Best Demonstrated Available

Technology.

CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations.

EP ........ Extraction Procedure (toxicity test).

EPA ...... Environmental Protection Agency.

FR ........ Federal Register.

HSWA .. Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments.

LDR ...... Land Disposal Restrictions.

NRC ..... Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

RCRA ... Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

SW–846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid

Wastes, Physical/Chemical

Methods.

TC ........ Toxicity Characteristic.

TCLP .... Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure.

TSDF .... Treatment, Storage or Disposal

Facility.

WAP ..... Waste Analysis Plan.

I. Background

Mixed waste is defined as waste that

contains both hazardous waste subject

to the requirements of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material subject to the

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA).1 This guidance addresses testing

activities related to mixed low-level

waste (LLW), which is a subset of mixed

waste.2 The term ‘‘mixed waste,’’ for the

purposes of this document, will refer to

mixed LLW. Additional information on

the testing of hazardous wastes, which

could apply to both mixed LLW and

other types of mixed waste (e.g., highlevel and transuranic mixed waste), is

found in Appendix A. The information

below is intended for use by Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees

that may not be familiar with the

hazardous waste characterization and

testing requirements that apply to mixed

waste. The guidance assumes that the

reader is familiar with the NRC’s

regulations and regulatory framework

for the management of radioactive

material and focuses on compliance

with the Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA’s) requirements for the

management of hazardous waste.

Although it is written for commercial

mixed waste generators, the guidance

may also be useful for Federal facilities

that generate mixed waste.

Users of this guidance should have a

good understanding of how mixed waste

is defined (see above), and what

authority, or authorities, regulate mixed

waste testing activities. The hazardous

component of mixed waste is regulated

by EPA in those States where EPA

implements the entire RCRA Subtitle C

hazardous waste program (i.e.,

unauthorized States). Currently, EPA

regulates mixed waste in Alaska,

Hawaii, Iowa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin

Islands, and American Samoa. In most

instances mixed waste is regulated by

State governments. Thirty-nine States

and one territory (Guam) have been

delegated authority by EPA to

implement the base RCRA hazardous

waste program and to regulate mixed

waste activities (see 51 FR 24504, July

3, 1986, and Appendix B). These States

are referred to as ‘‘mixed waste

authorized States.’’ Nine additional

States are authorized for the RCRA base

hazardous waste program but have not

been delegated authority by EPA to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62081

3 The RCRA base hazardous waste program is the

RCRA program initially made available for final

authorization and includes Federal regulations up

to July 26, 1982. However, authorized States have

revised their programs to keep pace with Federal

program changes that have taken place after 1982

in accordance with EPA regulation.

4Refer to Appendix A for specific EPA

regulations pertaining to (1)–(4).

5ALARA, codified in 10 CFR Part 20, refers to the

practice of maintaining all radiation exposures, to

workers and the general public, as low as is

reasonably achievable.

6For a more detailed discussion on process

knowledge, see Section 1.5 in ‘‘Waste Analysis at

Continued

regulate mixed waste.3 In these States

mixed waste is not regulated by EPA,

but may be regulated by States under

the authority of State law. It is

important that licensees contact the

State hazardous waste agencies in

authorized States to determine the

specific testing, analysis, and other

hazardous waste requirements that may

apply to mixed waste managed in their

State, because their State may have

more stringent requirements than the

Federal requirements discussed in this

guidance.

This guidance describes:

(1) The current regulatory

requirements for determining if a waste

is a RCRA hazardous waste;

(2) The role of waste knowledge for

hazardous waste determinations;

(3) The waste analysis information

necessary for proper treatment, storage,

and disposal of mixed waste; and,

(4) The implications of the RCRA land

disposal restrictions (LDRs) on the

waste characterization and analysis

requirements.

This information should be useful for:

(1) radioactive waste generators, who

must determine if their waste is a RCRA

hazardous waste, and therefore a mixed

waste; (2) for those generators storing

mixed waste on-site in tanks, containers

or containment buildings for longer than

90 days, that consequently become

responsible for complying with RCRA

and NRC storage requirements; and (3)

those facilities that accept mixed waste

for off-site treatment, storage, or

disposal.

Generators and/or treatment, storage,

and disposal facilities (TSDFs) handling

wastes under RCRA must characterize

their waste for several purposes:

(1) To determine if their waste is a

hazardous waste (40 CFR 262.11);

(2) To comply with general waste

analysis requirements for new or

permitted TSDFs, for TSDFs operating

under interim status, and for certain

generators that treat land disposal

prohibited wastes in 40 CFR 264.13,

265.13 and 268.7, respectively. These

analysis requirements include:

(a) chemical/physical analysis of a

representative sample (and/or, in some

cases, use waste knowledge (see below);

and,

(b) preparation of a waste analysis

plan.

(3) To meet the waste analysis

requirements that apply to the specific

waste management methods in 40 CFR

264.17, 264.314, 264.341, 264.1034(d),

and 268.7;

(4) To ensure, prior to land disposal,

that the restricted waste meets the

required treatment standard (40 CFR

268.7).4

This guidance addresses the need for

chemical analysis of mixed wastes to

meet these purposes. The guidance also

emphasizes ways in which unnecessary

testing of mixed waste may be avoided.

This is important when handling mixed

waste, since each sampling, workup, or

analytical event may involve an

incremental exposure to radiation. This

guidance encourages mixed waste

handlers to use waste knowledge, such

as process knowledge, where possible,

in making RCRA hazardous waste

determinations involving mixed waste.

It also encourages the elimination of

redundant testing by off-site treatment

and disposal facilities, where valid

generator-supplied, and certified, data

are available.

Because mixed waste testing may

pose the possibility of increased

radiation exposures, this guidance also

describes methods by which individuals

who analyze mixed waste samples may

reduce their occupational radiation

exposure and satisfy the intent of the

RCRA testing requirements. Testing to

determine whether wastes are

hazardous under the RCRA toxicity

characteristic may pose special concerns

which are examined in Section III of

this guidance.

All of the activities described in this

guidance are subject to the requirements

of both the AEA and RCRA. The focus

of this guidance is the RCRA

requirements. NRC and NRC Agreement

State licensees are authorized to receive,

possess, use (which includes storing,

sampling, testing, and treating), and

dispose of AEA-licensed materials. NRC

licensees handling mixed waste should

ensure that their RCRA hazardous waste

testing activities are consistent with

NRC, or Agreement State, regulations

and license conditions. Flexibility in the

RCRA requirements is emphasized so

that the As Low As is Reasonably

Achievable (ALARA) concept can be

incorporated into the mixed waste

testing activities.5 If other AEA

requirements, or RCRA requirements are

difficult to meet in a specific mixed

waste management situation, licensees

should seek resolution by requesting

license amendments, approval of

modifications to their RCRA permits or

interim status Part A applications, or

resolution under both authorities.

Section 1006(a) of RCRA states

‘‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed

to apply to (or authorize any State,

interstate, or local authority to regulate)

any activity or substance which is

subject to * * * the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954 * * * except to the extent that

such application (or regulation) is not

inconsistent with the requirements of

such Acts.’’ If a resolution cannot be

achieved through the flexibility

provided by the two regulatory

frameworks, then and only then, should

licensees seek resolution under Section

1006(a) of RCRA. Licensees should note

that, if an inconsistency exists, relief

will be limited to that specific RCRA

requirement, and that the determination

of an inconsistency would not relieve

the licensee from all other RCRA

requirements. Section 1006(a) and

radiological hazard considerations are

addressed more fully in Sections III and

IV of this guidance. NRC licensees

should also include the necessary

flexibility in their RCRA permit waste

analysis plans to accommodate the

sampling and testing required to meet

AEA requirements.

II. Use of Waste Knowledge for

Hazardous Waste Determinations

The use of waste knowledge by a

generator and/or a TSDF to characterize

mixed waste is recommended

throughout this document to eliminate

unnecessary or redundant waste testing.

EPA interprets ‘‘waste knowledge’’ or

‘‘acceptable knowledge’’ of a waste

broadly to include, where appropriate:

• ‘‘Process knowledge’’;

• Records of analyses performed by

generator or TSDF prior to the effective

date of RCRA regulations; or,

• A combination of the above

information, supplemented with

chemical analysis.

Process knowledge refers to detailed

information on processes that generate

wastes subject to characterization, or to

detailed information (e.g., waste

analysis data or studies) on wastes

generated from processes similar to that

which generated the original waste.

Process knowledge includes, for

example, waste analysis data obtained

by TSDFs from the specific generators

that sent the waste off-site, and waste

analysis data obtained by generators or

TSDFs from other generators, TSDFs or

areas within a facility that test

chemically identical wastes.6
62082 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose

of Hazardous Wastes’’ OSWER 9938.4–03, April

1994.

7The ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules were

vacated and remanded due to EPA’s failure to

provide adequate notice and opportunity for

comment before their 1980 promulgation, in Shell

Oil v. EPA, No. 80–1532 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 1991).

At the Court’s suggestion, EPA reinstated the

‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules as interim final

until the rules are revised through new EPA

rulemaking. The ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived from’’

rules adopted by those States with authorized

RCRA programs were not affected by the court case

or the subsequent reinstatement by EPA. For further

information, see 57 FR 49278, October 30, 1992,

and 60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995.

Waste knowledge is allowed by RCRA

regulations for the following hazardous

waste characterization determinations:

• To determine if a waste is

characteristically hazardous (40 CFR

262.11(c)(2)) or matches a RCRA listing

in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D (40 CFR

262.11(a) and (b));

• To comply with the requirement to

obtain a detailed chemical/physical

analysis of a representative sample of

the waste under 40 CFR 264.13(a);

• To determine whether a hazardous

waste is restricted from land disposal

(40 CFR 268.7(a)); and,

• To determine if a restricted waste

the generator is managing can be land

disposed without further treatment (see

the generator certification in 40 CFR

268.7(a)(3) and information to support

the waste knowledge determination in

40 CFR 268.7(a)(6)).

Hazardous waste, including mixed

waste, may be characterized by waste

knowledge alone, by sampling and

laboratory analysis, or a combination of

waste knowledge, and sampling and

laboratory analysis. The use of waste

knowledge alone is appropriate for

wastes that have physical properties

that are not conducive to taking a

laboratory sample or performing

laboratory analysis. As such, the use of

waste knowledge alone may be the most

appropriate method to characterize

mixed waste streams where increased

radiation exposures are a concern.

Mixed waste generators should contact

the appropriate EPA regional office to

determine whether they possess

adequate waste knowledge to

characterize their mixed waste.

III. Determinations by Generators That

a Waste Is Hazardous

A solid waste is a RCRA hazardous

waste if it meets one of two conditions:

(1) the waste is specifically ‘‘listed’’ in

40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, or; (2) the

waste exhibits one of the four

‘‘characteristics’’ identified in 40 CFR

Part 261, Subpart C. These

characteristics are:

• Ignitability;

• Corrosivity;

• Reactivity; or,

• Toxicity.

(a) Listed Hazardous Wastes

Generators of waste containing a

radioactive and solid waste component

must establish whether the solid waste

component is a RCRA hazardous waste.

Determinations of whether a waste is a

listed hazardous waste can be made by

comparing information on the waste

stream origin with the RCRA listings set

forth in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D.

These listings are separated into three

major categories or lists, and are

identified by EPA hazardous waste

numbers. Most hazardous waste

numbers are associated with a specific

waste description, specific processes

that produce wastes, or certain chemical

compounds. For example, K103 waste is

defined as ‘‘process residues from

aniline extraction from the production

of aniline.’’ A generator who produces

such residues should know, without any

sampling or analysis, that these wastes

are ‘‘listed’’ RCRA hazardous wastes by

examining the K103 hazardous waste

description in the hazardous waste lists.

Other hazardous waste numbers

describe wastes generated from generic

processes that are common to various

industries and activities. These wastes

are referred to as hazardous wastes from

nonspecific sources. Radioactively

contaminated spent solvents are the

most likely mixed wastes to be

nonspecific source listed wastes. For

example, a generator using one of the

F002 halogenated solvents (e.g.,

tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,

and chlorobenzene, etc.) to remove

paint from a radiologically

contaminated surface, can determine

that this waste is a listed RCRA

hazardous waste by examining the F002

waste definition for the solvent type,

and for a solvent mixture/blend, the

percent solvent by volume.

In addition to wastes that are

specifically listed as hazardous, the

‘‘derived from’’ and ‘‘mixture’’ rules

state that any solid waste derived from

the treatment, storage, or disposal of a

listed RCRA hazardous waste, or any

solid waste mixed with a listed RCRA

hazardous waste, respectively, is itself a

listed RCRA hazardous waste until

delisted (see 40 CFR 261.3).7 (Note that

soil and debris can be managed as

hazardous wastes if they contain listed

hazardous wastes or they exhibit one or

more hazardous waste characteristics.

See hazardous debris definition in 40

CFR 268.2.)

Exceptions to the ‘‘mixture rule’’ and

‘‘derived from’’ rules exist for certain

solid wastes. For example, wastewater

discharges subject to Clean Water Act

permits, under certain circumstances,

are not RCRA hazardous (see 40 CFR

261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Also, hazardous wastes

which are listed solely for a

characteristic identified in Subpart C of

40 CFR Part 261 (e.g., a F003 spent

solvent which is listed only because it

is ignitable) are not considered

hazardous wastes when they are mixed

with a solid waste and the resultant

mixture no longer exhibits any

characteristic of a hazardous waste (see

40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)). Likewise, waste

pickle liquor sludge ‘‘derived from’’ the

lime stabilization of spent pickle liquor

(e.g., K062) is not a RCRA listed

hazardous waste, if the sludge does not

exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic

(see discussion below on characteristic

hazardous wastes). It should be noted,

however, that wastes such as F003 and

K062 must meet LDR treatment

standards. Outside of the exceptions

mentioned here and in the RCRA

regulations, a hazardous waste that was

generated via the ‘‘mixture rule’’ or the

‘‘derived from’’ rule must be delisted

through a specific EPA petition process

for the listed waste to be considered

only a solid waste, and no longer

managed as a listed hazardous waste

under the RCRA Subtitle C system.

When applying the mixture rule to

hazardous wastes, including mixed

wastes, generators should be aware that

EPA prohibits the dilution (i.e., mixing)

of land disposal restricted waste or

treatment residuals as a substitute for

adequate treatment (see 40 CFR 268.3).

An exception to the prohibition is the

dilution of purely corrosive, and in

some cases, reactive, or ignitable nontoxic wastes to eliminate the

characteristic, or the aggregation of

characteristic wastes in (pre)treatment

systems regulated under the Clean

Water Act (55 FR 22665).

(b) Characteristic Hazardous Wastes

Hazardous characteristics are based

on the physical/chemical properties of

wastes. Thus, physical/chemical testing

of waste may be appropriate for

determining whether a waste is a

characteristic hazardous waste. RCRA

regulations, however, do not require

testing. Rather, generators must

determine whether the waste is a RCRA

hazardous waste. Such a determination

may be made based on one’s knowledge

of the materials or chemical processes

that were used. EPA’s regulations are

clear on this point. 40 CFR 262.11(c)

states:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62083

8 Generators who also treat their waste are subject

to the requirements for treatment facilities unless

they treat waste in accumulation tanks, containers,

or containment buildings, for 90 days or less in

accordance with 40 CFR 262.34(a). Treatment

facilities must periodically test the treated waste

residue from prohibited wastes to determine

whether it meets the best demonstrated available

technology (BDAT) treatment standards and may

not rely on materials and process knowledge to

make this determination (40 CFR 268.7(b)). This

testing must be conducted according to the

frequency specified in the facility’s waste analysis

plan (refer to Section IV of this guidance for a

detailed discussion of treatment, storage, and

disposal facility requirements).

9This definition of surrogate should not be

confused with the definition of surrogate for the

purposes of sampling and analysis quality control

in Section 1.1.8 of ‘‘Evaluating Solid Waste—

Volume IA: Laboratory Test Methods Manual

Physical/Chemical Methods.’’

10Note that characteristic only wastes (which are

neither wastewater mixtures or RCRA listed

hazardous wastes when generated) may be treated

so that they no longer exhibit any of the four

characteristics of a hazardous waste. However,

these wastes may still be subject to the

requirements of 40 CFR Part 268, even if they no

longer exhibit a hazardous characteristic at the

point of land disposal. After treatment this waste

must not exhibit any RCRA hazardous waste

characteristic and must meet applicable treatment

standards before it can be considered a nonhazardous waste (see 57 FR 37263, August 18, 1992,

and 58 FR 29869, May 24, 1993).

11Note that hazardous and mixed waste samples

analyzed for waste characteristics or composition,

and samples undergoing treatability studies may be

exempt from all or part of the RCRA regulations if

they are managed in accordance with 40 CFR 261.4

(d), (e) or (f).

12EPA incorporated by reference into the RCRA

regulations (58 FR 46040, August 31, 1993), a third

edition (and its updates) of ‘‘Test Methods for the

Evaluation of Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical

Methods.’’ The updates can be found in 60 FR 3089,

January 13, 1995 (update II), 59 FR 458, January 4,

1994 (update IIA), 60 FR 17001, April 4, 1995

Continued

‘‘. . . if the waste is not listed [as

hazardous waste] in Subpart D [of 40 CFR

Part 261], the generator must then determine

whether the waste is identified in Subpart C

of 40 CFR Part 261 by either:

(1) Testing the waste according to the

methods set forth in Subpart C of 40 CFR Part

261, or according to an equivalent method

approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR

260.21; or

(2) Applying knowledge (emphasis added)

of the hazardous characteristic of the waste

in light of the materials or the processes

used.’’

Therefore, where sufficient material

or process knowledge exists, the

generator need not test the waste to

make a hazardous characteristic

determination, although generators and

subsequent handlers would be in

violation of RCRA, if they managed

hazardous waste erroneously classified

as non-hazardous, outside of the RCRA

hazardous waste system. For this

reason, facilities wishing to minimize

testing often assume a questionable

waste is hazardous and handle it

accordingly.

A generator must also comply with

the land disposal restriction regulations

in 40 CFR 268 which require the

generator to determine whether the

waste is prohibited from land disposal

(refer to Section V for a detailed

discussion of these requirements).8 With

respect to the hazardous characteristic,

and the determination as to whether a

waste is restricted from land disposal

under 40 CFR 268.7(a), a generator may

select the option of using waste

knowledge. However, if the waste is

determined to be land disposal

restricted in 40 CFR 268.7(a), some

testing will generally be required prior

to land disposal, except where

technologies are specified as the

treatment standard. For mixed waste,

EPA recommends that the frequency of

such testing be held to a minimum, in

order to avoid duplicative testing and

repeated exposure to radiation.

In determining whether a radioactive

waste is a RCRA hazardous waste, the

generator may test a surrogate material

(i.e., a chemically identical material

with significantly less or no

radioactivity) to determine the RCRA

status of the radioactive waste. This

substitution of a surrogate material may

either partially or completely supplant

the testing of the waste. A surrogate

material, however, should only be used

if the surrogate material faithfully

represents the hazardous constituents of

the mixed waste.9 The following

example discusses the use of surrogates.

A generator is required to determine if

a process waste stream containing lead

(D008) exceeds the regulatory level of

5.0 milligrams per liter for the toxicity

characteristic (40 CFR 261.24). If this

determination cannot be made based on

material and process knowledge only,

the generator would need to test the

hazardous material. Rather than testing

the radioactive waste stream, the

generator may opt to test a surrogate or

chemically identical non-radioactive, or

lower activity, radioactive waste stream

generated by similar maintenance

activities in another part of the plant.

This substitution of materials is

acceptable as long as the surrogate

material faithfully represents the

characteristics of the actual waste, and

testing provides sufficient information

for the generator to reasonably

determine if the waste is hazardous

under RCRA. Non-radioactive or lower

activity quality control samples/species

and spiked solutions, for instance, are

acceptable to minimize exposure to

radiation from duplicative mixed waste

testing.

As part of the hazardous waste

determination, a generator must

document test results or other data and

methods that it used. Specifically, 40

CFR 262.40(c) states that ‘‘a generator

must keep records of any test results,

waste analyses, or other determinations

made in accordance with 40 CFR 262.11

for at least three years from the date that

the waste was last sent to on-site or offsite treatment, storage, or disposal.’’

Section V of this guidance contains

information on record keeping

requirements for land disposal restricted

hazardous (and mixed) wastes.

In summary, testing listed wastes to

make the hazardous waste

determination is not necessary, because

most RCRA hazardous waste codes or

listings identify specific waste streams

from specific processes or specific

categories of wastes. Testing will most

often occur to determine if a waste

exhibits a hazardous characteristic.

However, testing is not required if a

generator has sufficient knowledge

about the waste and its physical/

chemical properties to determine that it

is non-hazardous.10 It is recognized that

certain mixed waste streams, such as

wastes from remediation activities or

wastes produced many years ago, may

have to be identified using laboratory

analysis, because of a lack of waste or

process information on these waste

streams. Nonetheless, hazardous waste

determinations based on generator

knowledge can be used to reduce the

sampling of mixed waste and prevent

unnecessary exposure to radioactivity.

The same principle holds for a

generator’s determination that a waste is

subject to the RCRA land disposal

restrictions in 40 CFR 268.7(a).

IV. Testing Protocols for Characteristics

When testing is conducted to

determine whether a waste is a RCRA

hazardous waste, there are acceptable

test protocols or criteria for each of the

four characteristics. Testing for

characteristics must be done on a

representative sample of the waste or

using any applicable sampling methods

specified in Appendix I of 40 CFR 261.11

Ignitability—For liquid wastes, other than

aqueous solutions containing by volume less

than 24 percent alcohol, the flash point is to

be determined by a Pensky-Martens Closed

Cup Tester, using the test method specified

in American Society of Testing and Materials

(ASTM) Standard D–93–79 or D–93–80, or a

Setaflash Closed Cup Tester, using the test

method specified in ASTM Standard D–

3278–78, or as determined by an equivalent

test method approved by the Administrator

under procedures set forth in 40 CFR 260.20

and 260.21 (see ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’

3rd Ed., as amended, EPA, OSWER, SW–846,

Methods 1010 and 1020 12). (Non-liquid
62084 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

(update IIB), and 62 FR 32452, June 13, 1996

(update III). Hazardous and mixed waste generators

and management facilities should verify that the

analytical method that they use to analyze

hazardous waste has not been superseded in the

third edition.

13When evaluating test protocols for explosive

mixed waste, consideration should be given to the

likelihood for dispersing radioactivity during

detonation. Using process knowledge or a surrogate

material would, in most instances, be appropriate

for these wastes.

14Note that when using the TCLP, if any liquid

fraction of the waste positively determines that

hazardous constituents in the waste are above

regulatory levels, then it is not necessary to analyze

the remaining fractions of the waste. Extraction

using the zero headspace extraction vessel (ZHE) is

not required, furthermore, if the analysis of an

extract obtained using a bottle extractor

demonstrates that the concentration of a volatile

compound exceeds the specified regulatory levels.

The use of a bottle extractor, however, may not be

used to demonstrate that the concentration of a

volatile compound is below regulatory levels (40

CFR Part 261 Appendix II Sections 1.3 and .4).

15With the exception of the fourteen areas (see

Appendix D) where test methods are required by

hazardous waste regulation, use of EPA’s Test

Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste (SW–

846) is not required, and should be viewed as

guidance on acceptable sampling and analysis

methods.

wastes, compressed gases, and oxidizers may

exhibit the characteristic of ignitability as

described in 40 CFR 261.21 (a)(2–4).)

Corrosivity—For aqueous solutions, the pH

is to be determined by a pH meter using

either an EPA test method (i.e., SW–846,

Method 9040 or an equivalent test method

approved by the Administrator under

procedures set forth in 40 CFR 260.20 and

260.21.) For liquids, steel corrosion is to be

determined by the test method specified in

National Association of Corrosion Engineers

(NACE) Standard TM–01–69 as standardized

in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods,’’ 3rd Ed., as

amended (EPA, OSWER, SW–846, Method

1110), or an equivalent test method approved

by the Administrator under procedures set

forth in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.21.

Reactivity—There are no specified test

protocols for reactivity. 40 CFR 261.23

defines reactive wastes to include wastes that

have any of the following properties: (1)

normally unstable and readily undergoes

violent change without detonating; (2) reacts

violently with water; (3) forms potentially

explosive mixtures with water; (4) generates

dangerous quantities of toxic fumes, gases, or

vapors when mixed with water; (5) in the

case of cyanide- or sulfide-bearing wastes,

generates dangerous quantities of toxic

fumes, gases, or vapors when exposed to

acidic or alkaline conditions; (6) explodes

when subjected to a strong initiating force or

if heated under confinement; (7) explodes at

standard temperature and pressure; or (8) fits

within the Department of Transportation’s

forbidden explosives, Class A explosives, or

Class B explosives classifications.13

EPA has elected to rely on a descriptive

definition for these reactivity properties

because of inherent deficiencies associated

with available methodologies for measuring

such a varied class of effects, with the

exception of the properties discussed in No.

5, above. The method used, as guidance but

not required, to quantify the reactive cyanide

and sulfide bearing wastes is provided in

Chapter 7 of ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,’’

3rd Ed., as amended, EPA, OSWER, SW–846.

Toxicity Characteristic—The test method

that may be used to determine whether a

waste exhibits the toxicity characteristic (TC)

is the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP), as described in 40 CFR

Part 261, Appendix II (SW–846, Method

1311). The TCLP was modified and revised

in 55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990. Note that

this revised TCLP is used (in most cases) for

land disposal restriction compliance

determinations as well. Differences between

the TCLP and the previously required

Extraction Procedure (EP) include improved

analysis of the leaching of organic

compounds, the elimination of constant pH

adjustment, the addition of a milling or

grinding requirement for solids (waste

material solids must be milled to particles

less than 9.5 mm in size), and other more

detailed alterations.14 Additionally, the TC

rule added 25 organic compounds to the

toxicity characteristic.

The TCLP (Method 1311)

recommends the use of a minimum

sample size of 100 grams (solid and

liquid phases as described in Section

7.2). For mixed waste testing, sample

sizes of less than 100 grams can be

used, if the analyst can demonstrate

that the test is still sufficiently sensitive

to measure the constituents of interest at

the regulatory levels specified in the

TCLP and representative of the waste

stream being tested. Other variances to

the published testing protocols are

permissible (under 40 CFR 260.20–21),

but must be approved prior to

implementation by EPA. Use of a

sample size of less than 100 grams is

highly recommended for mixed wastes

with concentrations of radionuclides

that may present serious radiation

exposure hazards.

Additionally, Section 1.2 of the TCLP

allows the option of performing a ‘‘total

constituent analysis’’ on a hazardous

waste or mixed waste sample, instead of

the TCLP. Section 1.2 of Method 1311

states:

If a total analysis of the waste

demonstrated that the individual analytes are

not present in the waste, or that they are

present, but at such low concentrations that

the appropriate regulatory levels could not

possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not be

run.

For homogenous samples, the use of

total constituent analysis in this manner

eliminates the need to grind or mill

solid waste samples. The grinding or

milling step in the TCLP has raised

ALARA concerns for individuals who

test mixed waste. The use of total

constituent analysis, instead of the

TCLP, may also minimize the generation

of secondary mixed or radioactive waste

through the use of smaller sample sizes

and reduction, or elimination, of high

dilution volume leaching procedures.

Flexibility in Mixed Waste Testing

Flexibility exists in the hazardous

waste regulations for generators, TSDFs,

and mixed waste permit writers to tailor

mixed waste sampling and analysis

programs to address radiation hazards.

For example, upon the request of a

generator, a person preparing a RCRA

permit for a TSDF has the flexibility to

minimize the frequency of mixed waste

testing by specifying a low testing

frequency in a facility’s waste analysis

plan. EPA believes, as stated in 55 FR

22669, June 1, 1990, that ‘‘the frequency

of testing is best determined on a caseby-case basis by the permit writer.’’

EPA’s hazardous waste regulations

also allow a mixed waste facility the

latitude to change or replace EPA’s test

methods (i.e., Test Methods for

Evaluating Solid Waste (SW–846)) to

address radiation exposure concerns.

There are only fourteen sections of the

hazardous waste regulations that require

the use of specific test methods or

appropriate methods found in SW–846

which are outlined in Appendix A.15

However, any person can request EPA

for an equivalent testing or analytical

method that would replace the required

EPA method (see 40 CFR 260.21).

In a recent amendment to the testing

requirements, EPA added language to

SW–846 that describes fourteen

citations in the RCRA program (listed in

Appendix A) where the use of SW–846

methods is mandatory (Update II, 60 FR

3089, January 13, 1995). In all other

cases, the RCRA program functions

under what we call the Performance

Based Measurement System (PBMS)

approach to monitoring. Language

clarifying this approach was included in

the final FR Notice which promulgated

Update III (62 FR 32542, June 13, 1997)

and in appropriate sections (Disclaimer,

Preface and Overview, and Chapter 2) of

SW–846. Under PBMS, the regulation

and/or permit focus is on the question(s)

to be answered by the monitoring, the

degree of confidence (otherwise known

as the Data Quality Objective (DQO)) or

the measurement quality objectives

(MQO) that must be achieved by the

permittee to have demonstrated

compliance, and the specific data that

must be gathered and documented by

the permittee to demonstrate that the

objectives were actually achieved. ‘‘Any

reliable method’’ may be used to

demonstrate that one can see the

analytes of concern in the matrix of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62085

16An inconsistency occurs when compliance

with one statute or set of regulations would

necessarily cause non-compliance with the other. It

may stem from a variety of considerations,

including those related to occupational exposure,

criticality, and other safeguards.

17A representative sample is defined in 40 CFR

260.10 as ‘‘a sample of a universe or whole (e.g.,

waste pile, lagoon, ground water) which can be

expected to exhibit the average properties of the

universe or whole.’’ For further guidance see

Chapter 9 of the EPA’s testing guidance entitled

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste or SW–

846.

concern at the levels of concern.

Additional reference documents on the

characterization and testing methods are

listed in Appendix C.

NRC regulations do not describe

specific testing requirements for wastes

to determine if a waste is radioactive.

However, both NRC and Department of

Transportation regulations contain

requirements applicable to

characterizing the radioactive content of

the waste before shipment. For example,

NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 20.2006

require that the waste manifest include,

as completely as practicable, the

radionuclide identity and quantity, and

the total radioactivity. NRC regulations

also require that generators determine

the disposal Class of the radioactive

waste, and outline waste form

requirements that must be met before

the waste is suitable for land disposal.

These regulations are referenced in 10

CFR 20.2006, and are outlined in detail

at 10 CFR 61.55 and 61.56. Mixed waste

generators are reminded that both RCRA

waste testing and NRC waste form

requirements must be satisfied.

Generators may also be required to

amend their NRC or Agreement State

licenses in order to perform the tests

required under RCRA. In addition, if an

NRC licensee uses an outside laboratory

to test his or her waste, that laboratory

may be required to possess an NRC or

Agreement State license. It is the

responsibility of the generator to

determine if the outside laboratory

possesses the proper license(s) prior to

transferring the waste to the laboratory

for testing.

Where radioactive wastes (or wastes

suspected of being radioactive) are

involved in testing, it has been

suggested that the testing requirements

of RCRA may run counter to the aims

of the AEA. The AEA requirements that

have raised inconsistency concerns with

respect to RCRA testing procedures

include ALARA, criticality, and

security. Neither EPA nor NRC is aware

of any specific instances where RCRA

compliance has been inconsistent with

the AEA. However, both agencies

acknowledge the potential for an

inconsistency to occur.16 A licensee or

applicant who suspects that an

inconsistency may exist should contact

both the AEA and RCRA regulatory

agencies. These regulatory agencies may

deliberate and consult on whether there

is an unresolvable inconsistency and, if

one exists, they may attempt to fashion

the necessary relief from the particular

RCRA provision that gives rise to the

inconsistency. However, all other RCRA

regulatory requirements would apply.

That is, such a conclusion does not

relieve hazardous waste facility owner/

operators of the responsibility to ensure

that the mixed waste is managed in

accordance with all other applicable

RCRA regulatory requirements. Owner/

operators of mixed waste facilities are

encouraged to address and document

this potential situation and its

resolution in the RCRA facility waste

analysis plan which must be submitted

with the Part B permit application, or

addressed in a permit modification.

Both agencies also believe that the

potential for inconsistencies can be

reduced significantly by a better

understanding of the RCRA

requirements, a greater reliance on

materials and process knowledge, the

use of surrogate materials when

possible, and the use of controlled

atmosphere apparatuses for mixed waste

testing. Where testing is conducted, the

use of glove boxes and other controlled

atmosphere apparatuses during the

testing of the radioactive waste material

lessens radiation exposure concerns

significantly. These protective measures

may also help to reconcile the required

testing requirements (including milling)

with concerns about maintaining

exposures to radiation ALARA and

complying with other AEA protective

standards. If such protective measures

do not exist, or do not adequately

reduce individual exposure to radiation

or address other factors of concern,

relief may be available under Section

1006 of RCRA.

V. Determinations by Treatment,

Storage, or Disposal Facility Owner/

Operators and Certain Generators to

Ensure Proper Waste MaNagement

General Waste Analysis

Owner/operators of facilities that

treat, store, or dispose of hazardous

wastes must obtain a chemical and

physical analysis of a representative

sample of the waste (see 40 CFR 264.13

for permitted facilities, or 40 CFR

265.13 for interim status facilities). 17

The purpose of this analysis is to assure

that owner/operators have sufficient

information on the properties of the

waste to be able to treat, store, or

dispose of the waste in a safe and

appropriate manner.

The waste analysis may include data

developed by the generator, and

existing, published, or documented data

on the hazardous waste or on hazardous

waste generated from similar processes.

In some instances, however, information

supplied by the generator may not fully

satisfy the waste analysis requirement.

For example, in order to treat a

particular waste, one may need to know

not only the chemical composition of

the waste, but also its compatibility

with the techniques and chemical

reagents used at the treatment facility.

Where such information is not

otherwise available, the owner/operator

will be responsible for gathering

relevant data on the waste in order to

ensure its proper management.

The analysis must be repeated only if

the previous analyses are inaccurate or

needs updating. EPA regulations at 40

CFR 264.13(a)(3) do require that, at a

minimum, a waste must be re-analyzed

if:

(1) The owner/operator is notified, or has

reason to believe, that the process or

operation generating the waste has changed

[in a way such that the hazardous property

or characteristics of the waste would change];

and

(2) For off-site facilities, when the results

of the verification analysis indicate that the

[composition or characteristics of the] waste

does not match the accompanying manifest

or shipping paper.

The requirements and frequency of

waste analysis for a given facility are

described in the facility’s waste analysis

plan. As required by 40 CFR 264.13(b),

the waste analysis plan must specify the

parameters for which each hazardous

waste will be analyzed; the rationale for

selecting these parameters (i.e., how

analysis for these parameters will

provide sufficient information on the

waste’s properties); and the test

methods that will be used to test for

these parameters. The waste analysis

plan also must specify the sampling

method that will be used to obtain a

representative sample of the waste to be

analyzed; the frequency with which the

initial analysis of the waste will be

reviewed or repeated, to ensure that the

analysis is accurate and up to date; and,

for off-site facilities, the waste analyses

to be supplied by the hazardous waste

generators. Finally, the waste analysis

plan must note any additional waste

analysis requirements specific to the

waste management method employed,

such as the analysis of the waste feed to

be burned in an incinerator.

The appropriate parameters for each

waste analysis plan are determined on

an individual basis as part of the permit
62086 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

18A prohibited waste may not be land disposed

unless it meets the treatment standards established

by EPA. These standards are usually based on the

performance of the BDAT. A waste that is subject

to an extension, such as a national capacity

variance, does not need to comply with the BDAT

treatment standards, but is ‘‘restricted’’ and if it is

going to be disposed in a landfill or surface

impoundment, it can only be disposed of in a unit

that meets the minimum technology requirements

(MTRs). An exception exists for interim status

surface impoundments which may continue

receiving newly identified and restricted wastes for

four years from the date of promulgation of the

listings or characteristics before being retrofitted to

meet the MTRs (RCRA Section 3005(j)(6)), so long

as the only hazardous wastes in the impoundment

are newly identified or listed.

19The treatment standards for mineral processing

wastes and certain additional newly listed waste

streams were proposed in 61 FR 2338, January 25,

application review process. To reduce

the inherent hazards of sampling and

analyzing radioactive material, and in

particular, the potential risk to workers

from exposure to radiation posed by

duplicative testing of mixed wastes,

redundant testing by the generator and

off-site facilities should be avoided. In

addition, waste analysis plans must

include provisions to keep exposures to

radiation ALARA, and incorporate

relevant AEA-related requirements and

regulations.

Analysis Required to Verify Off-site

Shipments

The owner/operator of a facility that

receives mixed waste from off-site must

inspect and, if necessary, analyze each

hazardous waste shipment received at

the facility to verify that it matches the

identity of the waste specified on the

accompanying LDR notification or

manifest (see 40 CFR 264.13 or

265.13(c)). This testing is known as

verification testing. Such inspections

and analysis will follow sampling and

testing procedures set forth in the

facility’s waste analysis plan, which is

kept at the facility.

It should also be emphasized that,

where analysis is necessary, RCRA

regulations do not necessarily require

the analysis of every movement of waste

received at an off-site facility. As

explained above, the purpose of the

waste analysis is to verify that the waste

received at off-site facilities is correctly

identified, and to provide enough

information to ensure that it is properly

managed by the facilities.

For example, if a facility receives a

shipment of several sealed drums of

mixed waste, a representative sample

from only one drum may be adequate,

if the owner/operator has reason to

believe that the chemical composition of

the waste is identical in every drum. In

such a case, the drum containing the

least amount of measurable radioactivity

could be sampled to minimize radiation

exposures (variations in radioactivity do

not necessarily suggest different

chemical composition). This procedure

also would apply to a shipment of

several types of waste. If the owner/

operator has reason to believe that the

drums in the shipment contain different

wastes, then selecting a representative

sample might involve drawing a sample

from each drum or drawing a sample

from one drum in each ‘‘set’’ of drums

containing identical wastes. Once this

waste analysis requirement has been

satisfied, routine retesting of later

shipments would not be required if the

owner/operator can determine that the

properties of the waste he or she

manages will not change.

Fingerprint Analysis Versus Full Scale

Analysis

Full scale analysis (i.e., detailed

physical and chemical analysis) may be

used to comply with the waste analysis

plan, including verification of off-site

shipments. However, for mixed waste,

abbreviated analysis or ‘‘fingerprint

analysis’’ may be more appropriate to

meet general waste analysis

requirements. The test procedure should

be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Fingerprint analysis (which may

involve monitoring pH, percent water,

and cyanide content) is particularly

recommended for mixed waste streams

with high radiation levels that are

received by an off-site TSDF for RCRA

waste manifest verification purposes. It

may be appropriate to use full scale

analysis, instead of, or after, fingerprint

analyses, if the facility suspects that the

waste was not accurately characterized

by the generator, information provided

by a generator is incomplete, waste is

received for the first time, or the

generator changes a process or processes

that produced the waste.

Generators Who Treat LDR Prohibited

Waste In Tanks, Containers or

Containment Buildings To Meet LDR

Treatment Requirements

Hazardous waste generators may treat

hazardous wastes in tanks or containers

without obtaining a permit if the

treatment is done in accordance with

the accumulation timeframes and

requirements in 40 CFR 262.34.

However, generators who treat

hazardous waste (including mixed

wastes) to meet the EPA treatment

standards for land disposal prohibited

wastes must also prepare a waste

analysis plan similar to that prepared by

TSDFs. The plan must be based on a

detailed analysis of a representative

sample of the LDR prohibited waste that

will be treated. In addition, the plan

should include all the information that

is necessary to treat the waste, including

the testing frequency (See 40 CFR

268.7(a)(5)).

VI. Determinations Under the Land

Disposal Restrictions

Generators, as well as treatment

facilities and land disposal facilities,

that handle mixed waste may have to

obtain or amend their radioactive

materials licenses if they test or treat

mixed waste under the LDRs. The

following discussion assumes that

generators and treatment and disposal

facilities have satisfied the requirement

to obtain, or amend, their radioactive

materials licenses, as appropriate.

Waste knowledge may also be used to

satisfy certain waste characterization

requirements imposed by the LDRs for

mixed wastes. The Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA

(P.L. 98–616), enacted on November 8,

1984, established the LDR program. This

Congressionally mandated program set

deadlines (RCRA Sections 3004(d)-(g))

for EPA to evaluate all hazardous wastes

and required EPA to set levels, or

methods, of treatment which would

substantially diminish the toxicity of

the waste, or minimize the likelihood of

migration of hazardous constituents

from any RCRA waste. Beyond specified

dates, prohibited wastes that do not

meet the treatment standards before

they are disposed of, are banned from

land disposal unless they are disposed

of in a so-called ‘‘no-migration’’ unit

(i.e., a unit where the EPA

Administrator has granted a petition

which successfully demonstrated to a

reasonable degree of certainty that there

will be no migration of hazardous

constituents from the disposal unit for

as long as the wastes remain

hazardous)(40 CFR 268.6). Certain

categories of prohibited wastes also may

be granted extensions of the effective

dates of the land disposal prohibitions

(i.e., case-by-case and national capacity

variances (40 CFR 268.5 and Subpart C,

respectively). However, these wastes are

still restricted and, if disposed in

landfills or surface impoundments,

must be disposed of in units meeting the

minimum technology requirements.18

The requirements of the LDR program

apply to generators, transporters, and

owner/operators of hazardous waste

treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities. Not all hazardous wastes are

subject to 40 CFR Part 268. For instance,

certain wastes that are identified or

listed after November 8, 1984, such as

newly identified mineral processing

wastes for which land disposal

prohibitions or treatment standards

have not yet been promulgated, are not

regulated under 40 CFR Part 268.19
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62087

1996, and a second supplemental proposed rule

signed April 18, 1997.

20Non-wastewater residues (e.g., slag) that result

from high temperature metals recovery that are

excluded from the definition of hazardous waste by

meeting the conditions of 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C),

and hazardous debris that is excluded from the

definition of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3(f)

have reduced LDR notification requirements.

Specifically, these wastes, and characteristic

hazardous wastes that are rendered non-hazardous,

do not require a notification and certification

accompanying each shipment. Instead, they may be

sent to an AEA-licensed facility with a one-time

notification and certification sent to the EPA Region

or authorized State.

Determinations by Generators

Under 40 CFR 268.7(a), generators

must determine whether their waste is

restricted from land disposal (or

determine if they are subject to an

exemption or variance from land

disposal (40 CFR 268.1)) by testing their

waste (or a leachate of the waste

developed using the TCLP or, in certain

cases, the Extraction Procedure Toxicity

Test (EP), or by using waste or process

knowledge). If the waste exhibits the

characteristic of ignitability (and is not

in the High Total Organic Constituents

(TOC) Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or

is not treated by the ‘‘CMBST’’ or

‘‘RORGS’’ treatment technology in 40

CFR 268.42, Table 1), corrosivity,

reactivity and/or organic toxicity, the

generator must also determine the

underlying hazardous constituents

(UHCs) in the waste. Two exceptions to

this requirement are: (1) if these wastes

are treated in wastewater treatment

systems subject to the Clean Water Act

(CWA) or CWA equivalent; or, (2) if they

are injected into a Class I, nonhazardous Underground Injection

Control well. A UHC is any constituent

listed in 40 CFR 268.48, Table UTSUniversal Treatment Standards, with

the exceptions of nickel, zinc and

vanadium, which can reasonably be

expected to be present at the point of

generation of the hazardous waste, at a

concentration above the constituentspecific UTS treatment standard.

Determining the presence of the UHCs

may be made based on testing or

knowledge of the waste. The UHCs must

meet the UTS before the waste may be

land disposed.

If a generator chooses to test the waste

rather than use waste or process

knowledge for hazardous waste that is

not listed and exhibits a characteristic

only, the generator must use the TCLP.

The only exception is TC metals.

Until the ‘‘Phase IV’’ LDR rule is

promulgated in the spring of 1998,

generators who characterize their wastes

as TC toxic only for metals may use the

EP instead of the TCLP result to

determine if their waste is land disposal

restricted, because the TC wastes do not

have final EPA treatment standards

whereas, at this time, the EP metals do.

If the EP result is negative, the waste

will still be considered hazardous, but

is not prohibited from land disposal.

The TCLP generally yields similar

results as the EP. However, in certain

matrices the TCLP yields higher lead

and arsenic concentrations than the EP.

The rationale for using the EP instead of

the TCLP for characteristic wastes is

explained in 55 FR 3865, January 31,

1991. For further guidance on using the

EP for the land disposal restriction

determination, refer to the Figures 1 and

2, of this guidance.

If a waste is found to be land disposal

restricted, generators must determine if

the waste can be land disposed without

further treatment. A prohibited waste

may be land disposed if it meets

applicable treatment standards (whether

through treatment or simply as

generated), or is subject to a variance

from the applicable standards. As

explained above, this determination can

be made either based on knowledge of

the waste or by testing the waste, or

waste leachate using the TCLP.

Generators who determine that their

listed waste meets the applicable

treatment standards must certify to this

determination and notify the treatment,

storage, or land disposal facility that

receives the waste (40 CFR 268.7(a)(3)).

Notification to the receiving facility

must be made with the initial shipment

of waste and must include the following

information:

• EPA Hazardous Waste Number;

• Certification that the waste

delivered to a disposal facility meets the

treatment standard, and that the

information included in the notice is

true, accurate, and complete;

• Waste constituents that will be

monitored for compliance if monitoring

will not include all regulated

constituents, for wastes F001-F005,

F039, D001, D002, and D012-D043;

• Whether the waste is a nonwastewater or wastewater;

• The subcategory of the waste (e.g.,

‘‘D003 reactive cyanide’’), if applicable;

• Manifest number; and,

• Waste analysis data (if available).

If a generator determines that a waste

that previously exhibited a

characteristic is no longer hazardous, or

is subject to an exclusion from the

definition of hazardous waste, a onetime notification and certification must

be place in the generator’s files (40 CFR

268.7(a)(7) or 268.9).

Generators who determine that their

waste does not meet the applicable

treatment standards must ensure that

this waste meets the applicable

standards prior to disposal. These

generators may treat (or store) their

prohibited wastes on-site for 90 days or

less in qualified tanks, containers (40

CFR 262.34), or containment buildings

(40 CFR 268.50), and/or send their

wastes off-site for treatment.20 When

prohibited listed wastes are sent off-site,

generators must notify the treatment

facility of the appropriate treatment

standards (40 CFR 268.7(a)(2)). This

notification must be made with the

initial shipment of waste and must

include the following information:

• EPA Hazardous Waste Number;

• Waste constituents that the treater

will monitor if monitoring will not

include all regulated constituents, for

wastes F001–F005, F039, D001, D002,

and D012–D043;

• Whether the waste is a nonwastewater or wastewater;

• The subcategory of the waste (e.g.,

‘‘D003 reactive cyanide’’), if applicable;

• Manifest number; and,

• Specified information for hazardous

debris.

Generators whose wastes are subject

to an exemption such as a case-by-case

extension under 40 CFR 268.5, an

exemption under 40 CFR 268.6 (a nomigration variance), or a nationwide

capacity variance under 40 CFR 268,

Subpart C must also notify the land

disposal facility of the exemption. In

addition, records of all notices,

certifications, demonstrations, waste

analysis data, process knowledge

determinations, and other

documentation produced pursuant to 40

CFR Part 268 must be maintained by the

generator for at least three years from

the date when the initial waste

shipment was sent to on-site or off-site

treatment, storage, or disposal (40 CFR

268.7(a)(8)).

Determinations by Treaters and

Disposers

Owner/operators of treatment

facilities that receive wastes that do not

meet the treatment standards are

responsible for treating the wastes to the

applicable treatment standards or by the

specified technology(ies). In addition,

the owner/operators of treatment

facilities must determine whether the

wastes meet the applicable treatment

standards or prohibition levels by

testing:

(1) The treatment residues, or an extract of

such residues using the TCLP, for wastes

with treatment standards expressed as

concentrations in the waste extract (40 CFR

268.40); and.

(2) The treated residues (not an extract of

the treated residues) for wastes with
62088 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

21Note that verification testing is a means to

verify that the wastes received match the waste

description on the manifest, which is required

under 40 CFR 264.13 and 40 CFR 265.13(c). The

main objective of corroborative testing is to provide

an independent verification that a waste meets the

LDR treatment standard.

22Land disposal facilities must maintain a copy

of all LDR notices and certifications transmitted

from generators and treaters (40 CFR 268.7(c)).

treatment standards expressed as

concentrations in the waste extract (40 CFR

268.40).

This testing should be done at the

frequency established in the facility’s

waste analysis plan. Owner/operators of

treatment facilities, however, do not

need to test the treated residues or an

extract of the residues if the treatment

standard is a specified-technology (i.e.,

a technology specified in 40 CFR 268.40

or 268.45, Table 1.—Alternative

Treatment Standards for Hazardous

Debris).

Owner/operators of land disposal

facilities under the LDRs are responsible

for ensuring that only waste meeting the

treatment standards (i.e., wastes not

prohibited from disposal or wastes that

are subject to an exemption or variance)

is land disposed. Like a treatment

facility, a disposal facility must test a

treatment residue or an extract of the

treatment residue, except where the

treatment standard is a specified

technology.

Owner/operators must periodically

test wastes received at the facility for

disposal (i.e., independent corroborative

testing) as specified in the waste

analysis plan to ensure the treatment

has been successful and the waste meets

EPA treatment standards, except where

the treatment standard is expressed as a

technology.21 The results of any waste

analyses are placed in a TSDF’s

operating records along with a copy of

all certifications and notices (40 CFR

264.73 or 40 CFR 265.73).22

Mixed Waste Under the LDRs

As clarified in the Land Disposal

Restrictions rule published on June 1,

1990 (see EPA’s ‘‘Third Third rule,’’ 55

FR 22669, June 1, 1990), the frequency

of testing, such as corroborative testing

for treatment and disposal facilities,

should be determined on a case-by-case

basis and specified in the RCRA permit.

This flexibility is necessary because of

the variability of waste types that may

be encountered. Mixed waste is unique

for its radioactive/hazardous

composition and dual management

requirements. Each sampling or

analytical event involving mixed waste

may result in an incremental exposure

to radiation, and EPA’s responsibility to

protect human health and the

environment must show due regard for

minimizing this unique risk. These are

factors which should be considered in

implementing the flexible approach to

determining testing frequency spelled

out in the Third Third Rule language.

This flexible approach encourages

reduction in testing where there is little

or no variation in the process that

generates the waste, or in the treatment

process that treats the waste, and an

initial analysis of the waste is available.

Also, the approach may apply to mixed

wastes shipped to off-site facilities,

where redundant testing is minimized

by placing greater reliance on the

characterization developed and certified

by earlier generators and treatment

facilities. On the other hand, where

waste composition is not well-known,

testing frequency may be increased.

Waste analysis plan conditions in the

permits of mixed waste facilities should

reflect these principles.

Revised Treatment Standards for

Solvent Wastes

EPA promulgated revised treatment

standards for wastewater and nonwastewater spent solvent wastes (F001–

F005) in 57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992.

The revision essentially converts the

treatment standards for the organic

spent solvent waste constituents (F001–

F005) from TCLP based to total waste

constituent concentration based. This

conversion of the spent solvent

treatment standards is particularly

advantageous to mixed waste

generators, since the entire waste stream

or treatment residual must be analyzed

(instead of a waste or treatment residual

extract). This holds true for other mixed

waste streams where the hazardous

component is measured using a total

waste analysis. As discussed in Section

IV of this guidance, total constituent

analysis has several advantages over the

use of the TCLP for high activity waste

streams.

EPA and NRC are aware of potential

hazards attributable to testing hazardous

waste. Moreover, EPA and NRC

recognize that the radioactive

component of mixed waste may pose

additional hazards to laboratory

personnel, inspectors, and others who

may be exposed during sampling and

analysis. All sampling should be

conducted in accordance with

procedures that minimize exposure to

radiation and ensure personnel safety.

Further, testing should be conducted in

laboratories licensed by NRC or the

appropriate NRC Agreement State

authority. EPA and NRC believe that a

combination of common sense,

modified sampling procedures, and

cooperation between State and Federal

regulatory agencies will minimize any

hazards associated with sampling and

testing mixed waste.

Note: Section V, ‘‘Determinations under

the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)’’ and

the following flow charts represent a brief

summary of the Land Disposal Restriction

Regulations. They are not meant to be a

complete or detailed description of all

applicable LDR regulations. For more

information concerning the specific

requirements, consult the Federal Registers

cited in the document and the Code of

Federal Regulations, Title 40 Parts 124, and

260 through 271.

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62089
62090 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62091
62092 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

BILLING CODE 7590–01–C
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices 62093

Appendix A—RCRA Regulations That

Require Specific EPA Test Methods

The use of an SW–846 method is

mandatory for the following nine Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

applications contained in 40 CFR Parts 260

through 270:

• Section 260.22(d)(1)(I)—Submission of

data in support of petitions to exclude a

waste produced at a particular facility (i.e.,

delisting petitions);

• Section 261.22(a)(1) and (2)—

Evaluations of waste against the corrosivity

characteristic;

• Section 261.24(a)—Leaching procedure

for evaluation of waste against the toxicity

characteristic;

• Section 261.35(b)(2)(iii)(A)—Evaluation

of rinsates from wood preserving cleaning

processes;

• Sections 264.190(a), 264.314(c),

265.190(a), and 265.314(d)—Evaluation of

waste to determine if free liquid is a

component of the waste;

• Sections 264.1034(d)(1)(iii) and

265.1034(d)(1)(iii)—Evaluation of organic

emissions from process vents;

• Sections 264.1063(d)(2) and

265.1063(d)(2)—Evaluation of organic

emissions from equipment leaks;

• Section 266.106(a)—Evaluation of metals

from boilers and furnaces;

• Sections 266.112(b)(1) and (2)(I)—

Certain analyses in support of exclusion from

the definition of a hazardous waste for a

residue which was derived from burning

hazardous waste in boilers and industrial

furnaces;

• Sections 268.7(a), 268.40(a), (b), and (f),

268.41(a), 268.43(a)—Leaching procedure for

evaluation of waste to determine compliance

with land disposal treatment standards;

• Sections § 270.19(c)(1)(iii) and (iv), and

270.62(b)(2)(I)(C) and (D)—Analysis and

approximate quantification of the hazardous

constituents identified in the waste prior to

conducting a trial burn in support of an

application for a hazardous waste

incineration permit; and

• Sections 270.22(a)(2)(ii)(B) and

270.66(c)(2)(I) and (ii)—Analysis conducted

in support of a destruction and removal

efficiency (DRE) trial burn waiver for boilers

and industrial furnaces burning low risk

wastes, and analysis and approximate

quantification conducted for a trial burn in

support of an application for a permit to burn

hazardous waste in a boiler and industrial

furnace.

APPENDIX B.—STATES AND TERRITORIES WITH MIXED WASTE AUTHORIZATION

[As of June 30, 1997]

State/territory FR date Effective

date FR cite

Colorado ............................................................................................................................................ 10/24/86 11/7/86 51 FR 37729.

Tennessee ......................................................................................................................................... 6/12/87 8/11/87 52 FR 22443.

S. Carolina ......................................................................................................................................... 7/15/87 9/13/87 52 FR 26476.

Washington ........................................................................................................................................ 9/22/87 11/23/87 52 FR 35556

Georgia .............................................................................................................................................. 7/28/88 9/26/88 53 FR 28383.

Nebraska ........................................................................................................................................... 10/4/88 12/3/88 53 FR 38950.

Kentucky ............................................................................................................................................ 10/20/88 12/19/88 53 FR 41164.

Utah ................................................................................................................................................... 2/21/89 3/7/89 54 FR 7417.

Minnesota .......................................................................................................................................... 4/24/89 6/23/89 54 FR 16361.

Ohio ................................................................................................................................................... 6/28/89 6/30/89 54 FR 27170.

Guam ................................................................................................................................................. 8/11/89 10/10/89 54 FR 32973.

N. Carolina ........................................................................................................................................ 9/22/89 11/21/89 54 FR 38993.

Michigan ............................................................................................................................................ 11/24/89 12/26/89 54 FR 48608.

Texas ................................................................................................................................................. 3/1/90 3/15/90 55 FR 7318.

New York ........................................................................................................................................... 3/6/90 5/7/90 55 FR 7896.

Idaho .................................................................................................................................................. 3/26/90 4/9/90 55 FR 11015.

Illinois ................................................................................................................................................. 3/1/90 4/30/90 55 FR 7320.

Arkansas ............................................................................................................................................ 3/27/90 5/29/90 55 FR 11192.

Oregon ............................................................................................................................................... 3/30/90 5/29/90 55 FR 11909.

Kansas ............................................................................................................................................... 4/24/90 6/25/90 55 FR 17273.

N. Dakota .......................................................................................................................................... 6/25/90 8/24/90 55 FR 25836.

New Mexico ....................................................................................................................................... 7/11/90 7/25/90 55 FR 28397.

Oklahoma .......................................................................................................................................... 9/26/90 11/27/90 55 FR 39274.

Connecticut ........................................................................................................................................ 12/17/90 12/31/90 55 FR 51707.

Florida ................................................................................................................................................ 12/14/90 2/12/91 55 FR 51416.

Mississippi ......................................................................................................................................... 3/29/91 5/28/91 56 FR 13079.

S. Dakota ........................................................................................................................................... 4/17/91 6/17/91 56 FR 15503.

Indiana ............................................................................................................................................... 7/30/91 9/30/91 56 FR 41959.

Louisiana ........................................................................................................................................... 8/26/91 10/26/91 56 FR 41959.

Wisconsin .......................................................................................................................................... 4/24/92 4/24/92 57 FR 15092.

Nevada .............................................................................................................................................. 4/29/92 6/29/92 57 FR 18083.

California ........................................................................................................................................... 7/23/92 8/1/92 57 FR 32725.

Arizona .............................................................................................................................................. 11/23/92 1/22/93 57 FR 54932.

Missouri ............................................................................................................................................. 1/11/93 3/12/93 58 FR 3497.

Alabama ............................................................................................................................................ 3/17/93 5/17/93 58 FR 14319.

Vermont ............................................................................................................................................. 6/7/93 8/6/93 58 FR 31911.

Montana ............................................................................................................................................. 1/19/94 3/21/94 59 FR 2752.

New Hampshire ................................................................................................................................. 11/14/94 1/13/95 59 FR 56397.

Wyoming ............................................................................................................................................ 10/04/95 10/18/95 60 FR 51925.

Delaware ........................................................................................................................................... 8/8/96 10/7/96 61 FR 41345.

Total: 39 States and 1 Territory.
62094 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Notices

Appendix C: Testing Reference Documents

The following references provide

information on approved methods for testing

hazardous waste samples:

American Public Health Association,

Standard Methods for the Examination

of Water and Wastewater, 17th Edition.

1989. Available from the Water Pollution

Control Federation, Washington, D.C.,

#S0037.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Design and Development of a Hazardous

Waste Reactivity Testing Protocol. EPA

Document No. 600/2–84–057, February

1984.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water

and Waste. EPA–6001114–79–020.

Washington, D.C., 1983.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods. SW–846.

Third Edition (1986) as amended. Avail

able from the Government Printing

Office, by subscription, 955–001–00000–

1, or from the National Technical

Information Service, PB88–239–223.

Washington, D.C., January, 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The

New Toxicity Characteristic Rule:

Information and Tips for Generators.

Office of Solid Waste, 530/SW–90–028,

April, 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD,

and U.S. Department of Energy,

Characterizing Heterogenous Wastes:

Methods and Recommendations. EPA/

600/R-92/033, February 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response. ‘‘Joint EPA/NRC Guidance on

the Definition and Identification of

Commercial Mixed Low-Level

Radioactive and Hazardous Waste,’’

Directive No. 9432–00–2, October 4,

1989.

Appendix D: List of Regulations

Environmental Protection Agency General

Regulations for Hazardous Waste

Management, 40 CFR Part 260.

Environmental Protection Agency

Regulations for Identifying Hazardous

Waste, 40 CFR Part 261.

Environmental Protection Agency

Regulations for Hazardous Waste

Generators, 40 CFR Part 262.

Environmental Protection Agency Standards

for Owners and Operators of Hazardous

Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal

Facilities, 40 CFR Part 264.

Environmental Protection Agency Interim

Status Standards for Owners and Operators

of Hazardous Waste Facilities, 40 CFR Part

265.

Environmental Protection Agency

Regulations on Land Disposal Restrictions,

40 CFR Part 268.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Regulations—Standards for Protection

Against Radiation, 10 CFR Part 20.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Regulations—Rules of General

Applicability to Domestic Licensing of

Byproduct Material, 10 CFR Part 30.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Regulations—Domestic Licensing of Source

Material, 10 CFR Part 40.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Regulations—Domestic Licensing of

Production and Utilization Facilities, 10

CFR Part 50.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Regulations—Licensing Requirements for

Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, 10

CFR Part 61.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Regulations—Domestic Licensing of

Special Nuclear Material, 10 CFR Part 70.

[FR Doc. 97–30528 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

PROTECTION TRANSITION OFFICE

Advisory Committee for the

President’s Commission on Critical

Infrastructure Protection; Meeting

Time & Date: 9:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.,

Wednesday, December 3, 1997.

Action: Notice of Meeting.

Summary: Pursuant to the provisions

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub.L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770), notice is

hereby given for the second meeting of

the Advisory Committee on the

President’s Commission on Critical

Infrastructure Protection.

Address: The Madison Hotel, 15th

and M St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.

Public seating is limited and is available

on a first-come, first-served basis. This

facility is accessible to persons with

disabilities.

For Further Information Contact:

Carla Sims, Public Affairs Officer, (703)

696–9395, comments@pccip.gov.

Hearing-impaired individuals are

advised to contact the Virginia Relay

Center (Text Telephone (800) 828–1120

or Voice (800) 828–1140), or their local

relay system.

Supplementary Information: The Advisory

Committee was established by the President

to provide expert advice to the Commission

as it developed a comprehensive national

policy and implementation strategy for

protecting the nation’s critical

infrastructures. The Committee is co-chaired

by the Honorable Jamie Gorelick, Vice Chair

of Fannie Mae, and the Honorable Sam

Nunn, Partner with the law firm of King &

Spaulding. The Committee currently consists

of 14 members representing various industry

sectors.

Purpose of the Meeting: This is the second

advisory meeting of the Committee. The

Committee will review and discuss the

recommendations contained in the

Commission’s report to the President,

‘‘Critical Foundations: Protecting America’s

Infrastructure’s.’’

Tentative Agenda: The Advisory

Committee meeting will review and discuss

the recommendations contained in the

Commission’s report. The unclassified report

is available electronically from the

Commission’s site on the World Wide Web

(http://www.pccip.gov/).

Public Participation: The morning session

of the meeting will be open to the public.

Written comments may be filed with the

Commission after the meeting. Written

comments may be given to the Designated

Federal Officer after the conclusion of the

open meeting; mailed to the Commission at

P.O. Box 46258, Washington, D.C. 20050–

6258; or emailed to comments@pccip.gov/.

Closed Meeting Deliberations: In

accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92–463 [5

U.S.C. App II, (1982)], it has been determined

that the afternoon session concerns matters

listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(1)(1982).

Therefore, the afternoon meeting will be

closed to the public in order for the

committee to discuss classified material.

Robert E. Giovagnoni,

General Counsel, President’s Commission on

Critical Infrastructure Protection Transition

Office.

[FR Doc. 97–30501 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–$$–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Notice of Meeting of the Advisory

Committee for Trade Policy and

Negotiations

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice that the December 4,

1997, meeting of the Advisory

Committee for Trade Policy and

Negotiations will be held from 10:00

a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be

closed to the public from 10:00 a.m. to

1:30 p.m. and open to the public from

1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee for

Trade Policy and Negotiation will hold

a meeting on December 4, 1997 from

10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will

be closed to the public from 10:00 a.m.

to 1:30 p.m. The meeting will include a

review and discussion of current issues

which influence U.S. trade policy.

Pursuant to Section 2155(f)(2) of Title

19 of the United States Code, I have

determined that this meeting will be

concerned with matters the disclosure

of which would seriously compromise

the development by the United States

Government of trade policy, priorities,

negotiating objectives or bargaining

positions with respect to the operation

of any trade agreement and other

matters arising in connection with the

development, implementation and

administration of the trade policy of the

United States. The meeting will be open