OSWER DIRECTIVE ^9487.00-3
'I UNITED STATES EN VIRONMEN T AL PROTECTION AGENCY
\55Zrfr* WASHINGTON, O.C. 20150
. '• -c OF
••') ••V3.-.-*--NCY RESPONSE
AUG I 8 )§81
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT-:- • Jo-i-n-t-•N-RG-B'PA—Gtti-d«H*c6-o»--a—Corvcep-feual- Design Approach
tor Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous
Waste Disposal Facilities — Action Memorandum
FROM: Marc i a E. Williams, Director p #A-~
Office of Solid Waste {
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached is a guidance document entitled "Joint NRC-EPA
Guidance on a Conceptual Design Approach for Commercial Mixed
Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities."
The document was developed in concert with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) primarily to aid States and compacts in designing
mixed waste land disposal facilities that satisfy the regulatory
requirements of both Agencies. The document highlights two
requirements often cited by the regulated community as being in
conflict, namely, EPA's double liner/leachate collection and.leak
detection systems and NRC's requirement that waste not come in
contact with liquids. The design presented in the attached
guidance accommodates these and other land disposal requirements
in an above ground tumulus which with only minor modifications
could be placed below grade.
This document constitutes the last in the series of three
guidance documents originally slated for development by EPA and
NRC addressing mixed waste issues of national concern. However,
both EPA and NRC are committed to providing further guidance not
only to the Regional Offices but to States, compacts and other
members of the regulated community as needed. Therefore, I
encourage you to bring to our attention those issues which you
believe are generic and may require additional guidance to
facilitate implementation of the mixed waste program.
Attachment
-------
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9'487.00-3
AUG -3 I98T
TO THE STATES, COMPACT REGIONS, AND ALL NRC LICENSEES
SUBJECT: JOINT NRC-EPA GUIDANCE ON A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN APPROACH FOR COMMERCIAL
MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction over the management of solid wastes
with the exception of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material, which
are-..r-eguI.a.texiJ3LVt> theOLS^JIucIeajE. Regulatony^CommJs-siorv (NRC) under the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA). Low-Level Radioactive Wastes (LLW) contain source,
byproduct, or special nuclear materials, but they may also contain chemical
constituents which are hazardous under EPA regulations promulgated under
Subtitle C of RCRA. Such wastes are commonly referred to as Mixed Low-Level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (Mixed LLW).
Applicable NRC regulations control the byproduct, source, and special .nuclear
material components of the Mixed LLW (10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 61, and 70); EPA
regulations control the hazardous component of the Mixed LLW (40 CFR Parts
260-266, 268 and 270). Thus, all of the individual constituents of Mixed LLW
are subject to either NRC or EPA regulations. However, when the components are
combined to become Mixed LLW, neither agency has exclusive jurisdiction under
current Federal law. This has resulted in dual regulation of Mixed LLW where
NRC regulates the radioactive component and EPA regulates the hazardous
component of the same waste.
The attached guidance document provides a conceptual design approach for Mixed
LLW disposal facilities. It has been developed jointly by the NRC and EPA to
assist commercial LLW disposal site operators and State and Regional Compact
regulatory agencies in designing disposal facilities that satisfy both EPA and
NRC regulations for Mixed LLW facilities. Although EPA is currently in the
process of promulgating regulations that further define the technical
parameters for the leak detection, leachate collection, and double liner
systems, affected parties may proceed to develop designs for disposal units
that will accept Mixed LLW in accordance with existing regulatory requirements.
Owners and operators should, however, keep abreast of developing EPA.
regulations in this area. The attached guidance is based on NRC and EPA
regulations in effect on August 1, 1987.
The attached guidance presents a conceptual design approach that meets EPA's
regulations covering minimum technology requirements for liners and leachate
collection systems, and NRC's requirements for minimization of contact of waste
with water, while also assuring long-term stability and avoidance of long-term
maintenance which are required by both agencies. The concepts proposed in this
document are presented as general guidance; specific design details are
expected to be complementary to particular site conditions, so that a license
application will have to address site characteristics and their relationship to
a proposed design as well as the details of any engineered portion of the
facility. The application of this guidance will not affect the requirements
for waste disposal facilities to comply with all applicable NRC and EPA
regulations.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
The attached guidance should permit licensees to develop safe and effective
designs for disposal of Mixed LLW that fully meet the regulatory requirements
of both agencies. Depending on the particular type of conceptual design
selected by a licensee, EPA may_ permit variances to the requirements for double
liners and leachate collection systems.
Sincerely,
HUj^h/L. Thompson,/r.,/effector
Orfcrce of Nuclear Mats
Safety and Safeguard
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Winston Porter
ssistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Enclosure:
As stated
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #948/.UU-8
JOINT NRC-EPA GUIDANCE ON A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN APPROACH FOR
COMMERCIAL MIXED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Introduction
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA)
requires that the three operating low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal
facilities remain available through-1992v By that time, all states and compact
regions are required to assume complete responsibility for LLW disposal. Both
existing^and new disposal facilities may.receive commercial mixed low-level
radioactive and hazardous waste (Mixed LLW), which is regulated by the~U.'S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), and by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Mixed LLW is defined as waste that satisfies the
definition of LLW in the LLRWPAA and contains hazardous waste that either (1)
is listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or (2) causes
the LLW to exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics identified in
Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. To assist in applying this definition, NRC and
EPA issued joint guidance entitled "Guidance on the Definition and
Identification of Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Answers to
Anticipated Questions" on January 8, 1987.
This jointly developed NRC-EPA guidance document presents a conceptual design
approach that meets the regulatory requirements of both agencies for the safe
disposal of Mixed LLW. Other designs, or variation of the proposed design
concept may also be acceptable under the requirements of both agencies and will
be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as received.
EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 264, Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Identify the
design and operating requirements for owners and operators that dispose of
hazardous waste in landfills [264.300 to 264.317]. These regulations involve
requirements for the installation of two or more liners and a leachate
collection and removal system (LCRS) above and between the liners to protect
human health and the environment. Exceptions to the double liner and leachate
collection system requirements are allowed, 1f alternative design and operating
practices, together with location characteristics, are demonstrated to EPA's
Regional Administrator to be equally effective in preventing the migration of
any hazardous constituent into the ground water or surface water.
NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of
Radioactive Waste, indicate that long-term stability of the waste and the
disposal site require minimization of access of water to the waste [61.7(b)(2)]
and that the disposal site must be designed to minimize, to the extent
practicable, the contact of water with waste during storage, the contact of
standing water with waste during disposal, and the contact of percolating or
standing water with wastes after disposal [61.51(a)(6)j. The primary objective
of the above NRC regulations is to preclude the possibility of the development
of a "bath-tub" effect in which the waste could become immersed in liquid
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
(e g from infiltration of surface water runoff) within a disposal unit below
grade with a low-permeability bottom surface.
document ll not affect the requirements for licensees of waste disposal
facilities to comply with all applicable NRC and EPA regulations.
Conceptual Design
Sketches and a brief discussion of the design considerations for an above grade
disposal unit are provided. This design concept has been developed Primarily
to demonstrate the integration of EPA's regulatory requirements for two or more
l?ners fndt leachate collection ..system above and /^VnSThe'waste be
reflations of the NRC that require the contact of water with tne waste oe
minimized? In addition, the design concept fulfills the need under both
agencies' regulations to assure long-term stability and minimize active
maintenance after site closure.
in +MC annroach the Mixed LLW would be placed above the original ground
suVfSce inPa tSmulus that would be blended into the disposal site topography.
IchemSic dltails of some of the principal design features of an above grade
Mixed LLW disoosal unit are provided in the, sketches accompanying this guidance
document! F gSre 1 2epi?ts the three dimensional overall view of a conceptual
Mixed ILW disposal unit; Figure 2 provides details of the perimeter berm,
linen,: and leachate collection system; Figure 3 presents a cross-sectional
view of the covered portion of the disposal unit; and Figure 4 describes the
final cover system.
In the overall view of the Mixed LLW disposal facility, the double liners and
eacSate conection and removal system are installed bef "^ yTj—Jft*
thP Mixed LLW: and the cover system is added at closure. The lea* aetecnon
lank ad leachate collection tank are encircled by a berm that controls surface
water ruUff frw precipitation that would fall directly on the waste faciity
siteT The drainage pipes in the upper primary collection system would co ect
anv leachate that could possibly develop above the top flexible membrane liner
tnd telw the emplaSed wastl. Any leachate collected would drain through the
p?pes tS the pHmaS leachate collection tank where the leachate would be
tested and treated/if required. Any leachate collected by the lower leachate
collect^ anl removal system would drain to the ^jj detection tank ^he
rfpvelonment of sicmificant amounts of leachate from the solidified waste aizer
cl^u?e^s not lnt?cipSe5. This is because the closure requirements provide
that the cover must be designed^ and constructed 1) to prov de long-term
minimization of water infiltration Into the closed disposal facility, £.) to
funSion wtth minimum maintenance, 3) to promote drainage and minimize erosion,
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
and 4) to have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of any
bottom liner system. It is anticipated that the area shown on Figure 3 between
the slope of the final cover and the run-on control berm, where the tanks are
located, would be regraded and the tanks removed at the end of the post-closure
care period (normally 30 years) when leachate development and collection is no
longer a problem.
Figure 2 provides the general details required by EPA regulations for the
double liner and. leachate^coJJ.ectioru and renuxv.a.1-.systenu. The perimeter berm
for leachate runoff control Would assure that all leachate is collected'below
the waste and safely contained and transported through the drainage layers and
pipes to the tanks located outside the final cover slope. NRC's regulations
requiring minimizing contact of the waste with water are fulfilled by requiring
the waste to be placed above the level of the highest water table fluctuation
and above the drainage layers where leachate would collect. The bottom
elevation of the solidified Mixed LLW would be required in all instances to be
at elevations above the top of the perimeter berm.
In Figures 3 and 4, the design concepts for the final cover over the solidified
waste zone and the perimeter berm are presented. The actual zone for placement
of solidified Mixed LLW may consist of different options, depending on the
licensee's selection. Options that would be acceptable include use of stable
high integrity waste containers (HICs) that have the spaces between containers
filled with a cohesionless, low compressible fill material or placement of the
waste in an engineered structure, such as a reinforced concrete vault. A cover
system over the waste that would be acceptable to the EPA and NRC is shown in
Figure 4. The cover system would consist of (1) an outer rock or vegetative
layer to minimize erosion and provide for long-term stability, (2) a filter and
drainage layer that transmits infiltrating water off of the underlying low
permeability layers, (3) an impervious flexible membrane liner overlying a
compacted low permeability clay layer, and (4) a filter and drainage layer
beneath the compacted clay layer. If the solidified waste zone does not
consist of an engineered vault structure with a top roof, an additional
compacted clay layer should be placed immediately above the emplaced waste to
direct any water infiltration away from the waste zone. Mixed LLW that
contains Class C waste as designated by NRC's regulations would need to provide
sufficient thickness of cover materials or an engineered intruder barrier to
ensure the required protection against inadvertent intrusion.
Variations on the above described design approach may Include placement of the
Mixed LLW in an engineered reinforced concrete vault, a steel fiber
polymer-impregnated concrete vault, or double-lined high integrity containers
that are hermetically sealed. If proposed by license applicants, these
variations would be reviewed by both the EPA and NRC on a case-by-case basis to
evaluate their acceptability and conformance with established Federal
regulations.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
For questions related to NRC regulations and design requirements, contact:
Dr. Sher Bahadur, Project Manager
Division of Low-Level Waste Management.
and Decommissioning
Mail Stop 623-SS '
U.S. NucVearHtegtrhartory-'eoinirTSSTcnr--- • •
Washington, DC 20555
Facility specific questions, permitting requirements, variances and other
related concerns should be addressed to either the EPA Regional office or State
agency authorized to administer the mixed waste program as appropriate. For
general questions related to EPA regulations and design requirements, contact:
Mr. Kenneth Skahn, Senior Engineer
Waste Management Division
Mail Stop WH-565E
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
FINAL COVEII
R&MOVAl
LEACHATE
COLLECTION
LCACIIATE COLLECTION MANIFOLD
LEACIIAIE COLLECTION TANK
fctTECTlOM
- MlXtD WKSTE.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
SEPARATIOH TO ASSURE.
V.EJ\CH/VTE. FLOW IHTQ LCRS
SOUDlFltb
BOTTOM OF
HEACMKTE RUNOFF CONTROL
TOP LINER (FLEXIBLE MEMBR/VNE LINER -FML>
DETECTION, tQUUECTloN ^^ ___
REMOVE SYSTEM
BOTTOM LINER (COMPOSITE
COMP/\CT£D CLKi
UNSATURATIO SOIL
STABLE FOUNDKTION
compacted claij
«nr>»n\»n\)in 3 -f «et iv, -H>icKness and Vmve
o rlic conducfixlifij Us* ^
FIGURE Z- D6UBUE UHER
V.EACHKTE CQLLECTIOH SYSTEM
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
R6GRKDED FOLLOWING
POST-CLOSURE CW?E. PERlOO
Sttindords)
FINM. COVER
RUN-OH
COHTBpL
PERIMtTER
BERKA fOR
LEAiCHATE
RUNOFF
CONTROL
I
CONTROL BERM
GROUND WATER
3- CROSS -SECTiOHM. M\E\M ^-^
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-
FML
C010FF
POST-CLOSURE CfSRE
LCfcS GovxecTiod
1>*TECTK)O P»PE
TO
FLOW INTO LCR
F\6URE 4 - V^Stfc COVER SVSTEM
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
24504
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FRl-3041-31
State Authorization To Regular* the
Hazardous Components of
Radioaetlvt Mixed Wastts Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
AGINCY: Environment! Protection
Agency.
ACTION: N'otice.
SUMMAMV: The En\ironmental Protection
Agenc>
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 128 / Thursday. July 3. 1986 / N'ctices
noi.ce thai in order to obtain and
maintain authorization to administer
and enforce a hazardous waste program
pursuant to Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recover} Act
(RCRA). States must have authority to
regulaie the hazardous components of
"radioactive mixed wastes".
"Radioactive mixed wastes" are wastes
that contain hazardous wastes subiect
to RCRA and radioactive wastes subject
to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
o*Tf : States which have received EPA
authorization prior to the publicity date
of this N'otice must, within one year of
the publication date of this notice (two
years if a State statutory amendment is
required) (i.e.. by July 3. 1987 and July 3.
1988). demonstrate authonty to regulate
the hazardous components of
radioactive mixed wastes. States
initially applying for final authorization
after July 3. 1987 must incorporate this
provision in their application for final
authorization.
*OW PUHTMfll INPONMATION CONTACT:
Denise Hawkins. Office of Solid Waste
(WH-S63-B). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW..
Wdshington. DC 20460. (2021 382-2210.
SUPM.I MffMTAHY INFOMMAT!OM:
A. Authorization of State Hazardous
Waste Programs
Section 3006(b) of RCRA provides that
Sidles may apply to EPA for
authorization to administer and enforce
a hazardous waste program pursuant to
Subtitle C of RCRA. Authorized State
prjgrams are carried out :n lieu of the
Federal program. However. EPA :s
authorized to implement the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA
(HSWA) (Pub. L 98-618) in autnonzed
States until those States revise their
programs to incorporate the HSWA
requirements and receive EPA
authorization to implement HSWA.
Requirements for obtaining
authorization are set forth m 40 CFR
Part 271. To date. 41 States have
received final authorization (not
including HSWA).
B. Regulation of Radioactive Wastes
Section 1004(27) of RCRA excludes
from thejiefinition of "solid .waste.'.'...'..
' ''""source, "special nuclear or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954. as amended (AEA)
(68 Slat. 923)." Since "hazardous waste"
is defined by section 1004(5) as a subset
of "solid waste", "source, special
nuclear and byproduct material" are
exempt from the definition of hazardous
waste and thus from the Subtitle C
program.
W'hile source, special nuclear and
byproduct material are clearly exempt
from RCRA. the extent of the statute's
applicability to wastes containing both
hazardous waste and source, special
nuclear or byproduct material has been
les evident. The question of which
wastes are encompassed by the term
"byproduct material" has a'lso been the
subjecu of some controversy. We note
that the definition of byproduct material
is currently the subject" of-rulemaking by
the Department of Energy (DOE). (50 FR
45738. November 1,1985). '
Given the lack of clant'yo'ii this issue.
EPA did not previously require as a
condition of State authorization that the
State have regulatory authority over the
hazardous components of radioactive
m;xed wastes. In authorizing States.
EPA did not inquire inwSfate authonty
over the hazardous components of
radioactive mixed wastes and made no
determination of whether States had
authority over such wastes.
Accordingly, the Agency has taken the
position that currently authorized State
programs do not apply to Tadioictive
mixed wastes.
Thus, radioactive mixed wastes are
not currently subject to.Subtitle C
regulations in authorized States.' EPA
has now determined that wastes
containing both hazardous was'n a--
radioactive waste are jubtec; to •--'"
RCRA regulation.
Today, we are hereby pub.ish.ra
notice that, pursuant to 40 CFR ::: 9
(which requires State programs V
regulate all wastes controlled ur.za- 40
CER Part 261). Radioactive mixed w »«•
are to be part of authorized State
programs. States that already hav»
authorized programs must revise t^-r
programs (if necessary) and must a?"!-
for authorization for hazardous
components of radioactive mixed
wastes. Slates-must demonsrratrro the
appropriate EPA Regional Admin-st-i'-i
tnat their program applies to all
hazardous waste even if mixed with
radioactive waste. This demonstrate
must be made within one year of the
publication date of this notice.1 States
1 Th« exception to ihu n ,r i!.» .Jje 3f cpA 4
HSWA authorities m author-iea Suits EPA c*.i
use itt HSWA authorities 10 supplement in
authorized Suit s authority ov«r RCRA-renla—i
t units. Undtr f MMIuJ. EPA cm laimiy issue *
permit with the State tnd impost corrective t:r-"t
requirements on hazardous waste management
units snd solid wastt nunaftmtm um'i ;iwmi »• „•
facilities th«t eomnn units subteet to RCRA
Although hazardous eompontms if Mdio«e:u*
miztd wants art not RCRA-rtfui«tcd under
authonstd Statt RCRA programs, mdioau.ti
mtitd waste will bt eonsidtrtd to bt a soi;.i
wastt" for purposes of corrective tenon t- «u.'. J
waste management units. Tht Federal deftn.-t.'.- .«
"solid wastt" is to bt ustd in dtttrmmmf »h.--
units art swmu's. because Suit definitions »«-<
not seniimixtd. Therefore, in ordtr >o obtain
authorization for eorrtetivt tenon Sutti T.JI
obtain'authorization for thttr definition of iu' •.'
watit. which may not exclude hazardous
components of radioactive mi»«d »4n#t Btti.i*
radtotetive mixed waste is considered a soiu »«,-,.
under tht Ftdtral RCRA proiram jn-.is tar.-* .- -a
radioactive mixed wattes are iwmu t and «.-e
subitci to corrective tenon .'there u «no-k«» -j- •
requirni a RCRA permit at the f*c:ni> RCR.A
enforcement activities also ippl>
1 EPA is not promuifating a refuUnon :o » ores.oui a-. >
we believe n n appropriate to provide the tirr» '
allowed by 40 CFR ir\ ::;e»:i for S-are srot-.m
modifications to conform to regulafon ch*.-j-«
Note that EPA has propoicd to a.-rend W CFS
271.21 to allow States am:l |ulv 1 of «
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-3
Federal Register / Vol. SI. No. 128 / Thursday July 3. 1986 / Notices
24302
initially applying for f"nt' authorization
one year after the publication date of
this nonce must make this
demonstration in (heir initial'
application.
In most cases, this will reqxre aniy an
interpretse statement BV the 5sa:e
Attorney General, since most Stares
have the same exception to the
definition of "solid waste" as that
contained in section 1004(2"] of RCRA.
Some States, however, may require
stattuozy amendments~m.ocdex.to-., •
regulate*the hazardous components of
radioactive mixed wastes. Such States.
if already authorized, must revise tneir
programs within two years of fW.e
publication date of this not;:e Sta'es
miitalh applying that need a statutory
amendment w:!l have to obtdin the
amendment before subrouting an
application for final authorization
In order to demonstrate recuia'ion of
the hazardous components of
radioactive mixed wastes. States should
submit to the appropriate Regional
Administrator a copy of all applicable
statutory and regulatory provisions. pi-.s
a statement by the State Attorney
General to the effect that the Slate s
hazardous waste program applies to
wastes containing both hazardous v\as'e
and radioactive waste as defined b> :ne
AEA. If an agency other than the
authorized hazardous waste agencv v\,i;
implement the radioactive mixed wastes
prosramrthe-authorrzatfon' application
must include a description of tnc
agency's functions (see 40 Cr'R Z"1 6ibM
' ' '
between that agency and the authorized
hazardous waste agency, describing the
roies and responsibilities of each.
The DOE has proposed an ir.terprfve
det'.nmon of the t»rm "byproduct
masenal" (53 FR 4S"3o. Nove-rr.er l.
1983). and :s now evaluating ;>ubiic
comment Pending clarification of tnis
issue, this matter will be aaaressed on a
case-by-case basis.
Y\ e disc note that section 1006 of
RCRA precludes any regulation bv EPA
or a Sldie which :s inconsistent wi»n the
requirements of the Atomic Eneigy Act.
EPA and 'he S-afe mav. -ra-. ''j.-fe :n ny gr;mt of access to cLss. ;".«•.]
tnforr.-.ation under the provision* of
RCRA.
D*:e JO. !38C
| Winston Porttr.
•IU.INO COOC (MO-10-M
-------
I
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
ATTACHMENT 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON O C 2
AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:fV
FROM:
TO:
JUN 2 9 '937
,._ .
5
rter
Assistant nfaministrator
.
Regions I - '<
This memorandum is i
surrounding the i
cr,
any unce^tainty
(51
Cinai
rule
the u=sn
be considered byproduct maerlal " -h. ^f ,w«"»
pretative rule^aking is that all '"
contain a Us
»trean» »m
h-his int:er-
"h ei
:his
conm"ssi'r^i%c°^£ni=Jfp^
-.«. t..u.i .^i.i,^:-™™£ £sr&l.c%;lxiL&2
n '/19W o
" £?A for
.
S contention
byproduct rule. AS you know
excluding high-level and tran.ura:
diction. The proposed exclusion ;
that tr.eir waste .nanagesient o-
to those mandated by RCRA and r»- ' r*-< =, i^=7 a
regulatory duplication was inconsistent? Jc-or^nn ^iM l™tilat
tas< force was commissioned in Nov^ber 1986 ^^^' Cn' MEWS
information on the merits of DOE 's'aslert ion v ^ac^e^ technical
however, that past p-actic«s wer« ^ * t J?^ °U shou1^ note,
nor were they ?eviewe"cI by the JHk^r Ci"d?d ln the DOE -Dr°P°
visits to select D^E facilities S dUri"g Subsequent si?e
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
- 2 -
I
In March of this year, the MEWS task force issued its final
r^oort which indicated that to a Large extent, DOE manager?eat of
hiah-level and transuranic :mixed wastes were equivalent: or superior
to RCRA requirements. Certain areas of their waste m.anageTient
operations, however, such as ground-water monitoring and chemical
analysis of wastes were clearly deficient. To date, no category
of DOE mixed waste has been. exempt.ed....f rom RCRA regulation as a
result of the findings of the MEWS task force.
Thus-»-all--DOS- wrxer?~wa'sfg5-.are''subject to RCRA regu-laticms-
independent of the nature of the radioactive component. Therefore,
Regions which are administering RCRA programs in unauthorized
States should, in accordance with priorities established in the
RCRA Implementation Plan, be implementing the program at DOE
facilities. Secondly, those Regions where States have been
delegated mixed waste authority should make it clear that their
authorization includes all 'DOE mixed wastes. These mixed wastes
may contain high-level, low-level, or transuranic radioactive
constituents. Third, you should continue to encourage States to
apply for -nixed waste authorization especially in those States
with major DOE facilities.
Headauarters is committed to providing technical; legal and
policy assistance to the States and Regions in support of efforts
to effect mixed waste reaulation at DOE facilities. Accordingly,
I will keep you apprised of: any initiatives taken by either DQE
and/or EPA Headquarters affecting mixed waste regulation as soon
as they develop. Specific 'questions concerr.i-ng mixed wastes
should be-directed to 3etzy Shackleford, OS;; on (FTS) 475-9656.
Attachment *
cc: Ken Shuster, OSW
Chris Grundler, OSWER
Ray Berubev DOE"
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #94ff7.00-8
Rules and Regulations
F«d«Ml
Vol. 3i No. 34
Friday. May 1. 19
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 9«2
H»dk»ctlv« WML, Byproduct Mat.**
AOCNCY: Department of Energy.
*cnoic Final rule.
fnn, DeP*rtm«nt °f Energy ~
(DOE) today is issuing a final
interpretative rule under section leip. Of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S C
..Oil et sec..- hereinafter "the AEA") for
the purpose of clarifying DOFs
obligations under the Resource
n •
substances which are also "hazardous
waste • within tht meaning of RCRA
The effect of this rule is that ail DOE
"l10*^8 WMt8 which «• hazardous
under RCRA will be subject to
m13-^" un,der both 8CRA "«* «h« -
AEA Th,, rule daes not affect materials
that are defined as byproduct matenal
under s-ction He(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act
OATK June 1. 1987.
Henry K. Carson. Esq., Assistant
-------
1
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9*8*7.00-8
General Counsel for Environment. GC-
11. Department of Energy. :ooo
Independence Avenue SW
Washington. DC 20585. Telephone (202)
.
Raymond P. Berube. Acting Director
Office of Environmental Guidance and
Compliance. EH-23. Department of
Ir»r?£ I00° '"dependence Avenue
SW.. Washington DC 20S85.
Telephone (202) 586-3680.
3UPWJMIMTAHY INFORMATION:
Background
RCRA establishes a comprehensive.
regulatory scheme, administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and EPA-authonzed States, governing
the gener«wn.^raraportatttJnV
treatment, storage and disposal of
hazardous waste. Federal agencies are
required by section 6001 of RCRA (42
U.S.C. 6961) to comply with the
requirements of that regulatory scheme
in the same manner, and to the same
extent, as any private person or entity.
L'nder section 1004 of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
6903). the "hazardous waste" governed
by RCRA is a subset of the statute's .
definition of "solid waste." The
definition of "solid waste." however
expressly excludes "source, special'
nuclear, or byproduct material as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act."
Those materials, instead, continue to be
regulated under the AEA either by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRQ
M The AEA's definitions of the terms
source material" and "special nuclear
material * are specific in nature, and
present no particular difficulty of
interpretation. The AEA's definition of
byproduct material." in contest.
speaks only generally of "any
radioactive material (except special
nuclear material) yielded in or made
radioactive by exposure to the radiation
incident to the process of producing or
utilizing special nuclear material." AEA
section lle(l). 42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(l). The
lack of specificity in thi« definition.
coupled with RCRA's exclusion of
byproduct material from its hazardous
waste regulatory scheme, has raised a
question concerning which DOE
radioactive waste streams, if any.
should bt considered byproduct
m"'e"al not subject to regulation under
between "direct process" radioactive
waste (i.e. waste directly yielded in. or
necessary to. the process of producing
and utilizing special nuclear material)
and other radioactive waste less
proximate to the physical process of
producing or utilizing special nuclear
material. Under the proposed rule, direct
process waste, even if it contained
hazardous material, would have been
regarded as byproduct material and
thus would be regulated exclusively
under the AEA. Any radioactive waste
other than direct process waste, if it
contained hazardous material would
have been considered "mixed waste-
subject to regulation under both RCRA
JHrt th a.—A-CA.1...--.. ......
SuchT'dei,dlspersed in the medit
such a result, m DOE'rview
presented substantul legal questions
ifSHrfe
a±" SL?!^radiation h«»S,
The Proposed Rule
On November 1.1985. DOE published
«™,°f of Pr°P°«d rulemaking (SO FR
45708, in which it proposed to adopt an
interpretative rule clarifying RCRA's
applicability to DOE radioactive waste.
Briefly summarized, that proposed rule
would hav« established a distinction
As DOE noted the Federal Register
preamble to the proposed rule, the
legislative history of the AEA provides
little guidance in interpreting the
statutory definition of byproduct
material, and application of the
definition has not been clarified by
judicial interpretation. Because the plain
words of the definition are keyed to the
process for producing and utilizing
special nuclear material however! it
seemed that process must be regarded
as a critical factor in determining
fcii8Su .particula,r radioactive material*
fell within the definition. Accordingly.
one significant feature of the "direct
process" approach, as discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, was its
congeniality with the bare text of the
statutory definition of byproduct
material.
A major consequence of the "direct
process" approach was the fact that it
would result in the exclusive regulation
of all direct process waste under the
AEA. Just as the legislative history of
the AEA provides little help in
interpreting the statutory definition of
byproduct material the legislative
history of RCRA is silent on the
intended effect of RCRA's exclusion
from its coverage of source, special
nuclear and byproduct material
Nevertheless. DOE assumed that that
exclusion was intended by the Congress
to be applied to radioactive wastes in
their real-world configuration. Virtually
all radioactive waste substances are
contained, dissolved or suspended in a
nonradioactive medium from which
their physical separation is
impracticable. Accordingly, DOE noted
m proposing the "direct process-
approach that unless some radioactive
waste streams were considered to be
byproduct material in their mtinty.
RCRA s exclusion of byproduct material
might reasonably be perceived to have
httle effect, because RCRA'a application
to a nuclear waste's nonradioactive
medium would appear to entail at least
ni rce- •P**a.
and byproduct material, and general!*
preempts the State, from SJffiS "J
hose materials.' It had also been helc
that when tha radiation and
nowadiation hazards of a wast»
containing byproduct material are
inseparable, regulatory action under tf
- AEA-preempts the incompatible '
exercise of general state nuisanca
authority over th* waste.* Thes«
deciiions. read in conjunction wsth
RCRA s affirmation of state regulation
as an acceptable, indeed a favored
alternative to EPA regulation, were
I1*™9*** °°E " suggesting that an :
appropriate interpretation of bynreduci
material would, like tha proposed 1
direct process" approach, exclude :
certain radioactive wasta streams, in
their entirety, from regulation under
Development of tha Final Rula
At thettoie of its publication of the
f1?°P0i*f "d* °°E made available to
«•«» public reports provisionally
identifying which of th* waste streams
generated at its facilities would bo ]
considered "direct process waste" 1
subject only to AEA regulation under 1
the proposed rule, and which of those 1
waste streams would be considered ''•
"mixed waste" subject to regulation :
under both RCRA and the AEA. DOE
sought and received public comments on
those reports, and on the proposed rule
During the period since the proposal
was made. -DOE has had the opportunity
further to review the pertinent legal
authorities, as well aa to consider the
comments received, the provisional '
waste stream identifications. DOE's
additional operating experience, and
related actions taken by other federal
agencies. Baaed on the review. DOE is
today publishing a final rule that adopt*
a narrower interpretation of byproduct
material than the "direct process"
approach that was originally proposed.
For the reasons set forth below, the final
rule provides that only tha actual
radionuclidee in DOE wast* streams
1 Sw Northwn sum Pomtt Co. ». MHUMMM.
*w r.M imj (MX or. wn». a/jf* «os us, uaT
lian). Stt alto Tula v. Colcindo Pfck. (at*mi
**tt«*di Oou»t
-------
[
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
Federal Renter / Vol. 52. No. 84 /Friday. May i. i987 / Rules and Regulations
will be considered byproduct material.
The nonradioactive components of those
waste streams, under the final rule, will
be subject to regulation under RCRA to
the extent that they contain hazardous
components.
Discussion
The overriding question raised by the
public comments on the proposed rule
was whether RCRA's exclusion of
source, special nuclear and byproduct
material from regulation under that Act
was intended by the Congress to exempt
entire waste streams, rather than
exempting only the radionuclides
dispersed or suspended in a waste
streatnrAj-discussed'above". the" ''" '
proposed rule woud have treated any
"direct process" waste as byproduct
material in its entirety, even if the waste
contained a nonradioactive chemically
hazardous component that would
otherwise have been subject to
regulation under RCRA. Thus, the
characterization of a waste stream as
"direct process" waste would have
foreclosed the application of RCRA to
that stream irrespective of whether the
associated non-radiological
environmental hazard was significant.
In the opinion of many commenters. this
was a significant disadvantage to the
"direct process" approach. In view of
this concern, some commenters
suggested that DOE instead adopt an
alternative interpretative approach that
would permit the application of each
regulatory regime to the type of hazard
that it was designed to control, i.e. that
would apply the AEA to ensure
protection against the radiological
hazard of this waste, and apply RCRA
to ensure protection against any
associated chemical hazard.
DOE'S operational experience since
the publication of the proposed rule
lends support to the concern expressed
by these commenters. In its efforts
provisionally to apply the "direct
process" approach. DOE found a
number of instances in which otherwise
identical wastes were sometimes found
subject to RCRA. end other times were
found subject only to the AEA. due
solely to the wastes' different proximity
to the physical process of producing and
utilizing special nuclear material. While
distinctions of this type are not entirely
incompatible with the process-oriented
language employed by the Congress in
the AEA to define byproducts material.
DOE has concluded after further
analysis that the better view of the (aw
is one that avoids such artificial
distinctions and that affords the greatest
scope to the RCRA regulatory scheme.
consistent with the requirements of the
AEA. SM Legal Envtl. Assistance Found
v. Hqd$l. 586 F.Supp. 1183 (E.D. Tenn.
1984J. :> '::.-"
As noted in (he foregoing discussion
and in the preamble to the proposed
rule, the legislative histories of both
RCRA and the AEA provide little
assistance in interpreting either the
meaning of the term byproduc* material
or the intended effect of RCRA's
exclusion of byproduct material from the
hazardous waste regulatory program.
The House Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, in reporting its
version of the bill that;ultimately was
enacted as RCRA. alluded to a 1973 leak
of radioactive waste from a DOE under-
.gBMiod. «tocaaa.tank' at Rrehiandr-
Washington as an "actual instance {} of
damage caused by current hazardous
waste disposal practices." H.R. Rep. No.
1491. 94th Cong.. 2d Sess.. pt 1. at 17-19.
feprtntedia 1978 U.S. Code Cong. A
Admin. News 6238.8254-57. This
reference is a less than certain
indication that the Congress viewed
such radioactive waste at "hazardous
waste" subject to RCRA. Unlike RCRA
as finally enacted, the bill » which this
House Report accompanied contained
no provision excluding source, special
nuclear and byproduct material, thereby
minimizing the probative value of the
Committee's Richland reference in
construing the statute that was
ultimately enacted. Nevertheless, the
Committee's reference should not be
entirely discounted as evidence :hat the
Congress in considering RCRA was
concerned with unregulated hazards
presented by radioactive waste, even
though the AEA already provided
sufficient jegula^ry control over the'
radiological hazards associated with
such waste.
No court has addressed the specific
question whether the entirety of a
nuclear waste, or only its radioactive
component is byproduct material.4 The
decision in Brown v. Kerr-McGee Chem.
Corp.. supra note 2. clearly holds that
the States cannot employ their general
authority to abate nuisances to regulate
even the nonradiation hazard of a waste
incompatibly with regulation done under
the AEA where the radiation and
nonradiation hazards an inseparable.
Nothing in that decision, however, is
incompatible with concurrent regulation.
> H.R. 14498.94(li Con*. Id SMS. (1979).
* Two decuioiu havt upheld the authority of ih«
NRCi pr*dK*i«or tftncy. the Atomic Energy
Ccmmmion. to UetaM low level radioactive waete
i« byproduct material. Kama Gammy v. United
Stoin. 02 F 2d 370 {sih Cir. 1981): City of New
Britain v. Atomic Energy Comrn n. MS f.2d MS (O.C
Or. 1S02). In neither cue. however, did the conn
ranch the ipecific queetion whether the tnnraty of
the wane, or only its radioactive component. i«
byproduct material
by the States or EPA. of the
nonradioactive component of a nucieai
waste, subject to paramount
requirements of the AEA.4
In this context. DOE notes that at the
time trie Congress was considering
RCRA. the Supreme Court very recent!'
had published its decision in Tram v '
«,°J:°,T,**° Pub> Inter"« Research Croup
428 U.S. 1 (1978). That case decided
whether the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. as amended in 1972,
applied to source, special nuclear and
byproduct material discharged into
navigable waters by govemment-ownec
production facilities and commercial
power reactort-regulatetf by tfie'AEA.
After concluding that the Federal Watei
Pollution Control Act properly
construed, did not authorize EPA or the
States to regulate source, special nuclea
and byproduct material the Court
rejected the contention that the Water
Act contemplated joint regulation of
source, special nuclear or byproduct
material effluents. 428 U.S. at 15. Th«
practical effect of the Court's decision.
however, was a regime of concurrent
regulation, by different authorities, of :
effluent streams containing both '
radioactive and nonradioactive i
components. Specifically, tha decision j
left EPA and tha States free to regulate. I
under tha Water Act tha nonradioactiv*
component of liquid effluents from ;
nuclear facilities, while reserving to the '
NRC and DOE'S predecessor agency all :.
regulatory authority over the source. i
special nuclear and byproduct materials]
contained in those same effluent j
streams. <
The legislative history of RCRA i
contains no mention of the Train
decision. However, the Congress is
presumed to be aware of decisions of
the Supreme Court* and in fact
employed in RCRA the same AEA
terms, including byproduct material that
the Court had extracted from the Water
Act's legislative history to emphasize in
its analysis in Train. Thus it is at least
equally logical to infer that tha -
Congress, in selecting the AEA terms 1
emphasized in Train, anticipated a
similar result under RCRA aa it is to
posit—as did the proposed rule—that
RCRA's exclusion of byproduct material
must have bean intended to exclude in
their entirety some waste streams from
regulation under RCRA.
In short while the specific legal
authorities relied upon by DOE in
developing the proposed rule appeared
consistent with the "direct process"
* Sew dueuMMa of RCHA Mctioo 1008UI. U-SC
MOOtai, infra
• Gary ». Curtia. 44 UA (3 How. | as, 240 (184SI.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
15940 Fadtral gagiater / Vd. S2. No. 84 / Friday. May 1. lOff / Rules mi
approach, those authorities an equally
consistent with ma narrower
Interpretation nrTijpmrinrt ••tin !•! that
was suggested bf the majority of the
commenten on the propped rule, Ufere
Tmpcrtanlly, DOB is now persuaded
after farther analysis that the "direct
process" approach does not reflect the
betterTiew of tkia law.
RCRA is a remedial statute. and as
•uch must b« UbaraHy eaastnad to
effectuate Out renedial purpose for
which 51 was scactad.7 Tie m>«»>^
comprehanaiveaess of RCRA'*
regulatory schema is evident from the
Act's legislative history. The principal , ,
sponsor ofthe legislation in the Senate
emphasized •hatitTcpresenaed "a major
commitment of federal assistance to
state and local .government efforts to
meet {hazardous and solid waste)
problems in a comprehensive and
effective manner." * The House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce regarded the legislation as
closing the "last remaining loophole" •
in a framework of national
environmental lnws that already
included the dear Air Amendments of
1970. the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. and
the Safe Drimkinij Water Act
Moreover, interpretation of RCRA's
exclusion of byproduct material must
not focus solely
•dual ra4cm*dides in the waste as
betna «x»tno< from RCRA. Today's final
rule adopts the same approach for all
DOE radioactive and chemically
hazardous waste.
Accordingly, for purposes of RCRA.
DOE interprets the teem byproduct
material to refer only te the radioactive
component of a nuclear waste. The
mnradioaetiwe chemically hazardous
component of the waste will be subject
to regulation under RCRA.
Precriuni Mftttari
-4. Executive On/or 12291
This rule ba< been reviewed in
accordance wrA Executive Order 12291.
The rufo is not classified as a major rule
because it does not meet the criteria for
major rules established by that Order.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is an interpretative rate
intended only to clarify the meaning-of a
statutory definition. Issuance of the rule
will have no eBwonmentai impact
C Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
• Tho rule will not nave • significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entitle*.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 29OO
There are no information collection
reqniremento in the rule.
List of Subjocte ia M CFR Part 982
. Nuclear materials. Byproduct
material.
Issued m Washington. DC. April 27.19H?
I Michaul FuraU.
Cer,eral Counsml
In consideration of the foregoing. Part
962 is added to 10 CFR Chapter III. to
read as follows:
PART 982—OYPflOOUCT MATERIAL
Sec.
962.1 Scop*.
962.2 Purpose.
962.3 Byproduct material.
Authority: Th« Atomic-Energy Act ui" 19S4
(42 C'.S C. 2011 et seq.): Energy '
ReorBdmzation Act of 1974 (42 L'.S.C. SSOl et
sfu I: Department of Energy Organization Act
[42 C S.C 7t01 et «7.): Nuclesr W^sse Policy
Act | Pub. L. 9r-4zs. 90 Stat. 22011.
§962.1 Scepv.
This Part applies only to radioactive
waste sttfaatancas which are owned or
produced by the Department of Energy
at facilities owned or operated by or for
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9487.00-8
Federal Refuier / Vol. 52. No. 84 / Friday. May 1. 1987 / Rules and Regulationa
15941
the Department of Energy under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C
2011 tt aeq}. This Part doe* not apply to
substances which an not owned of
produced by the Department of Energy.
The purpose of this Part is to clarify
the meaning of the term "byproduct
material- under section lle(l) of th«
Atomic Energy Act of 19S4 (42 U.S.C
2014(e)(l)) for use only in determining
the Department of Energy's obligations
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 at teg.}
with regard to radioactive waste
substances owned-or produced- by (he**-—
Department of Energy pursuant to the
exercise of its responsibilities under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This Part
does not affect materials defined as
byproduct material under section lle(2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C 2014(eH2)).
19614 Byproduct material
(a) For purposes of this Part, the term
"byproduct material*4 means any
radioactive material (except special
nuclear material) yielded in or mado
radioactive by exposure to the radiation
incident to the process of producing or
utilizing special nuclear material.
(b) For purposes of determining the
applicability of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C 0901 et teg.) to any radioactive
waste substance owned or produced by
the Department of Energy pursuant to
the exercise of its atomic energy
research, development testing and
production responsibilities under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2011 et seq.]. the words "any radioactive
material." as used in subsection (a).
refer only to the actual radionuclides
dispersed or suspended in the waste
substance. The nonradioactive
hazardous component of the waste
substance will be subject to regulation
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
(FR Doc 87-9883 Filed 4-30-97; 8:48 am]
SUMauuty; The Ust of Marginable OTC
Stocks is -comprised of stocks traded
over-the-counter (OTC) that have been
determined by the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System to be
subject to the margin requirements
under certain Federal Reserve
regulations. The List is published four
times a year by the Board as a guide for
lenders subject to the regulations and
the general public. This document sets
forth additions to or deletions from the
previously published List effective
February 10, 1987 and will serve to give
notice to the public about the changed
status of certain stocks.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Parts 207,220,221 and 224
Regulation* a T, U and X; Securities
Credit Transactions; Ust of Marglnabto
OTC Stocks
AOIMCY: Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rulr. determination of
applicability of regulations.
19877
ran puff™** INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peggy Wolffnim, Research Assistant
Division of Banking Supervision and
Regulation. (202H4S2-2781. For the
hearing impaired only. Earnestine Hill or
Dorothea Thompson.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD) (202HS2-3544. Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. Washington. DC 20551.
supetlMCNTANY INRMWATIONS Set forth
below are stocks representing additions
to or deletions from the Board's List of '
Marginable OTC Stocks. A copy of the
complete List incorporating these
additions and deletions is available
from the Federal Reserve Bankv This
List supersedes the last complete List
which was effective February 10. 1987.
(Additions and deletions for that List
were published at 52 FR 3217.' February
3. 1987). The current LisMncludes those
stocks that meet the criteria specified by
the Board of Governors in Regulations
G. T. U and X (12 CFR Parts 207. 220. 221
and 224. respectively). These stocks
have the degree of national investor
interest the depth and breadth of
market and the availability of
information respecting the stock and its
iiisuar to warrant regulation in the same
fashion as exchange-traded securities.
The List also includes any stock
designated under an SEC rule as
qualified for trading in the national
market system (NMS Security).
Additional OTC stocks may be
designated as NMS securities in the
interim between the Board's quarterly
publications. They will become
automatically marginable at broker-
dealers upon the effective date of their
NMS designation. The names ot these
stocks are available at the Board and
the Securities and Exchange
Commission and will be incorporated
into the Board's next quarterly Ust.
The requirements of 5 U.S.C 553 with
respect to notice and public
participation were not followed in
connection with the issuance of this
amendment due to the objective
character of the criteria for inclusion
and continued inclusion on (he List
specified in 12 CFR 207.8 (a) and (b).
220.17 (a) and (b). and 221.7 (a) and (b).
No additional useful information would
be gained by public participation. The •
full requirements of 5 U.S.C. section 553
with respect to deferred effective date
have not been followed in connection
with the issuance of this amendment
because the .Board finds that it is in the
public interest to facilitate investment
and credit decisions based in whole or
in part upon the composition of this List
as soon as possible. The Board has
responded to a request fey the public and
allowed a two-week delay before the
List is effective.
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 207
Banks. Banking. Credit. Federal
Reserve System. Margin. Margin
requirements. National Market System
(NMS Security). Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Securities.
12CFRPart220
Banks. Banking. Broken. Credit
Federal Reserve System. Margin. Margin
requirements. Investments. National
Market System (NMS Security).
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Securities.
12 CFR Part 221
Banks. Banking. Credit Federal
Reserve System. Margin. Margin
requirements. Securities. National
Market System (NMS Security),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
12 CFR Part 224
Banks. Banking. Borrowers. Credit.
Federal Reserve System. Margin. Margin
requirements. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Securities.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
of sections 7 and 23 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. as amended (IS
U.S.C. 78g and 78w), and in accordance
with 12 CFR 207.21 k) and 207.6(c)
(Regulation Gl 12 CFR 220.2(s| and
220.17(c} (Regulation T). and 12 CFR
221.2(j) and 221.7(c) (Regulation U).
there is set forth below a listing of
deletions from and additions to the
Board's List:
Deletions From List
Stocks Removed for Failing Continued
Listing Requirements
American Aggregates Corporation
No par common
Bio-Mtdicus. Inc.
Warrants (expire 08-31-88)
-------
------- |