Friday
June 13, 1986
OQ5~
Part If
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 261, 271y and 302
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Notification Requirements;.
Reportafole Quantity Adjustments;
Proposed Rule |
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 114 / Friday. June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
40 CFR Parts 261,271, and 302
[FRL 2940-6]
j
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Notification
Requirements; Reportable Quantity
Adjustments; Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to
amend its hazardous waste
identification regulations under Subtitle
C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) by expanding the
Toxicity Characteristic to include
additional chemicals and by introducing
a new extraction procedure to be used
in the Toxicity Characteristic. EPA is
also proposing to incorporate the
changes made pursuant to this rule into
the lists of hazardous substances under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980. Today's action is
necessary both to define further the
scope of the hazardous waste
regulations and to meet a specific •
mandate of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
This amendment will bring additional
wastes under regulatory control,
providing for further protection of public
health and the environment.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted on or before August
32,1986. A public hearing has been
scheduled for July 14,1986 at 9:30 a.m.,
in Washington DC. Requests to present
oral testimony must be received 10 days
before each public hearing.
ADDRESSES: One original and three
copies of all comments on this proposed
. rule, identified by the docket number F-
86-TC-FFFFF, should be sent to the
following address: EPA RCRA Docket
(S-212), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (WH-562), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington DC 20460. The EPA RCRA "
docket is located in the sub-basement
area at the above address, and is open
from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. To review docket materials,
the public must make an appointment by
calling Mia Zmud at 475-9327 orlCate
Blow at 382^675. A maximum of 50
pages of material may be copied from
any one regulatory docket at no cost.
Additional copies cost $.20/page.
Documents identified in Section IX of
the Supplementary Information section
of this preamble are available in the
docket. The public hearing will be held
on July 14,1986 at the following location
Vista International Hotel, 1400 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m., with
registration at 9:00 a,m., and will run
until 4:00 p.m. unless concluded earlier.
Anyone wishing to make a statement at
the hearing should notify, in writing, Ms.
Geraldine Wyer, Public Participation
Officer, Office of Solid Waste (WH-
562), U.S. Environmental Protection
'.. Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington;
, DC 20460. Persons wishing to make oral
presentations must restrict them to 15
minutes and are encouraged to have••'
Written copies of their complete
comments for inclusion in the official
record.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline, Office of Solid Waste
(WH-562), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (800) 424-9346
toll-free or (202) 382-3000.
For information on specific aspects of
this proposed rule contact: Todd A.
Kimmell, Office of Solid Waste (WH-
562B), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington
DC 20460, (202) 382-4770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Development of Toxicity Characteristic
A. Introduction
B. Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels '
• C. Dilution/Attenuation' Factor
D. Proposed Toxicants and Regulatory
Levels
E. Analytical Constraints
III. Development of the Leaching Procedure
A. Introduction
B. Objectives ' '
C. Disposal Environment and Model
D. Leaching Procedure
E. Leaching Procedure Issues
IV. Other Aspects of Proposal -
A. Testing Frequency and Recordkeeping
B. Relationship to Multiple EP and Oilv
Waste EP ° • ' .
, C. Analytical Methods «
D. Notification Requirements
V. Relationship to Other Regulatory
Authorities , •
VI. State Authority . ' ' ', ' ' " i •
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States ' ..' ','.,'. ' ..
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VII. Economic and Regulatory Impacts '
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility»Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIH. Additional Information
A. Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels
B. Ground Water Transport Equation
C. Tables or Proposed Contaminants and
Data Used to Develop Regulatory Levels
D. Development and Evaluation of the
TCLP . - , ...-•-..
IX. References .
I. Background
Under section 3001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA was charged with
identifying those wastes .which pose a
hazard to human health and the
environment if improperly managed. It
further called on EPA to identify such
wastes through development of lists of
hazardous waste and through . ''
characteristics of hazardous wastes,.'..','•
These two means of identifying
hazardous wastes employ
fundamentally .different approaches.
- To list a waste as hazardous, EPA
conducts a detailed industry study,
• placing particular emphasis on the
hazardous constituents contained in
specific wastes from the industry being
studied (See 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3}). This
process involves literature reviews, •
engineering analyses, surveys and
questionnaires, and site visits, including
sampling and analysis of wastes. As
such, the listing process may require
from 1 to 3 years or more, depending on
the complexity of the industry being
investigated.
The process of identifying wastes as
"hazardous" by reason of a
• characteristic is fundamentally different.
Characteristics are those properties1
which, if exhibited by a waste, identify
the Waste as a hazardous waste. It is a
generic process whereby EPA identifies
properties that'might be possessed by a
waste Which would cause the waste, if
'improperly managed, to 'cause harm to
human health Or the environment. The
Agency then determines a reasonable
mechanism by which such harm might
occur; develops a quantitative model-to
identify hazard levels/and whenever
possible, test methods for use in'
determining if a. specific waste
possesses hazardous levels of the
property. Once EPA promulgates a
characteristic it becomes self
implementing. Any solid waste which
exhibits the characteristic is a
hazardous waste, and when treated so
that it no longer exhibits the ,
characteristic, is:no longer subject to
RCRA regulation'as a hazardous waste.;
•Solid-wastes which do not exhibit'a
characteristic, however, are riot
necessarily non-hazardous. ..'•'••'''••
Characteristics are established at' levels ;
at which there is a high degree of
certainty that a waste which exhibits
these properties needs to be managed in
a controlled manner (Lei, is a hazardous
waste). The Agency realizes that not all
wastes which exhibit properties at
levels below trie characteristic are safe,
for disposal as nonhazardous waste. '
The Agency may therefore, upon
-------
Federal Register./ Vol. 51. -No. 114./ Frj^^e^
21649
evaluation of specific wastes,from
specific industries, decide to list such
wastes as hazardous based on the
criteria defined in 40 CFR 261.11 (a) (3).
This reflects the Agency's philosophy,
first articulated in May'of I960, that the
characteristics define broad classes of
wastes that are clearly hazardous, whil,e
the listing process defines .somp wastes
that may pass the characteristic, but are .
nonetheless hazardous wastes (45 FR
ssiiij:" ; .' '"•''''' '. ""'.''. . •"•' . .'
In carrying out the RCRA mandate,
EPA identified a number of . ,
characteristics which, if exhibited by .a
waste, would indicate that the waste is
a hazardous waste and shoulcThe „
managed as such. One of these ; .
characteristics, the Extraction Procedure
(EP) Toxicity Characteristic (EPTC) (40
CFR 261.24), was intended to identify
wastes which pose a hazard due to their
potential to leach significant .
concentrations of specific toxic species.
The EPTC'is the only characteristic
which directly relates to, the toxicity of a
waste. This characteristic ehtaijs use of
'jBi leaching test, the EP, which is.used in
determining if an unacceptabry.high
level of ground water contamination
might result from imprpper.waste
management. The EP results in a liquid
extract which is analyzed for eight
.metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium; and ^
silver), four insecticides (endrin,
lindane, methoxychlor and toxaphene),"
and two herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP).
Regulatory thresholds were established
for these 14 species .taking into account
the attenuation and dilution expected to
occur during migration of the leachate to
the ground water, through use of a
generic dilution/attenuation factor of.
100(Ref.26). "., •
' ' At the time of promulgation,. EPA
recognized two major shortcomings of
the EPTC. The first was that the only :
benchmarks for establishing toxicity
levels of specific chemicals, which were
both.scientificaliy recognized and which
addressed chronic exposure, were the
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards (DWS). The Agency
considered incorporating other _,
standards, such as the. Water Quality
Criteria that were being developed
under the Clean Water Act. Preliminary
drafts of these criteria, however,
received substantial .negative comment
from the scientific community. The
Agency thus put off expansion of the
EPTC pending development of
acceptable standards. The second
shortcoming was that.the EP was
opHmized.Jp evaluate the leaching of
elemental rather than organic
constituents. Hence, the leaching of
organics needed to be investigated.' \ ;
"."in addition to, addressing Ihfcleaching
;of organics, EPA believes that other
aspects of the' EPTC can be improved.
For example, ground water modeling ;
and knowledge of leaching and fate and
transport mechanisms have advanced to
the point that mathematical models can
be used to identify species-specific
dilution/attenuation factors, rather ;than
relying on the generic 100 times level
now employed in the EPTC. Also, the EP
protocol is known to suffer a number of.
operational shortcomings that, while not
critical, warrant attention. These
shortcomings and their solutions are
detailed in further sections,of this
preamble. ". •
Congress also.recognized the
shortcomings of the EPTC, and amended
RGRA in 1984 (section 3001 (g) and (h)},
directing EPA to make" changes iri the EP
to insure .that It accurately predicts
leaching potential, and to identify
additional characteristics" of hazardous
waste, including measures orindicators
of toxieity. EPA intends to. address both
of these.mandates through expansion of
the EPTG to include additional -
chemicals, and through the introduction
of an improyed;leaching test to replace
the current EP protocol. , ^ .
EPA is also planning to add another
facet to the hazardous waste
_ characteristics. Specifically, EPA is
working on a mechanism by which to
identify wastes as hazardous by virtue
of their ability to mobilize other
. toxicants. This component would ,
primarily affect solvent-coritairtirig
wastes, and will complement a
regulation EPA promulgated oil •'. .
December 31,1985 that redefined the
, universe of solvents considered listed
hazardous wastes to include certain
solvent mixtures (50 FR 53315}. EPA .
indicated that this was an interim .^
measure which would be modified or
superseded when further work! was U ,
completed. More detail regarding the
. approach the Agency is considering is
provided in section II(E).
" EPA is today proposing to amend the
• Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Characteristic by (l) expanding the
characteristic to include 38 additional -
compounds, (2) applying compound-
specific dilution/attenuation factors
generated from a ground water transport
model, and (3J introducing a-second
generation leaching procedure, the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), that has been
developed to address the.mobility of
both .organic and'inorganic compounds,
and to solve the operational problems of
the EP protocol.
It is important to point put that while' .
this proposed rule fulfills tfie " -"' ;T~
Congressional mandate'to add
additional characteristics of hazardous
waste, considerably more work is now.
underway within EPA to look at .
additional constituents that could and. .
should be added to the proposed rule,
and to explore other characteristics that-
will deal with.toxicity,c.i
On January 14,1986 (51.FR 1602), the:
Agency proposed the framework, for a
.regulatory-program to implement the
congressionally mandated land disposal
prohibitions. The action proposed
procedures to'establish treatment
standards for hazardous waste and
procedures by which EPA will
determine whether to allow continued •""
land disposal of specific hazardous
wastes. . ,j .,,-/ , ' • ' -••-".. • -j
In implementing these; proeeduresvthe
Agency ha,s'|aro'posed to enlploy the /;
TTCtP .to.estimate the leaching hazard ,'
posed'by wa ste placed, in Subtitle C
facilities. The'safne subsurface"trahspprt
model' is used in bbth.the land disposal
regulation land this proposed.jregulation.
However,'minormodifications'to ".; .,
account for'disposal/in'a non-Kazardpus
versus a haziardous waste landfill have
been made in the, transport equation for
use in this proposed rule. In addition,
different risk levels are used to establish
the regulatoiry level for carcinogens, and
a different confidence, interval for the
ground wat«r transport simulation is
used to establish the dilution/
attenuation factors, Howeveri to the
extent that commenters have provided
us with their views on the model either
in the context of the land disposal •
restrictionsprogram-or it.s delistihg
programs, tliose comments need only be
, referenced in response to this proposed
rule. More information on the • • .
differences between the models is
provided to Section V of this preamble.'
il. Development to Toxicity•;....,;
" .Characteristic, .'
A. Introduction ,
In establishing a scientifically
justifiable £ipproach for arriving at
"threshold concentrations, EPA wanted
to assure a high degree, of confidence
that a waste, which releases toxicants at
concentrations above the regulatory
threshold level would pose a ha,zard to:
human health. •
The existing EPTC uses the National •
Interim Primary Drinking Water ' .• •*
Standards [DWSJ as toxicity thresholds
for individual pollutants, and combines
these with a generic dilution/
attenuation factor (100 timesJUo. yield -
•the regulatory threshold. The-new- •'••'
-------
21650
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13,~1986 A Proposed Rules.
approach, described below, uses chronic
toxicily reference levels, combined with
a compound-specific dilution/
attenuation factor [derived from
application of a ground water transport
equation), to calculate the regulatory
level concentrations for individual
toxicants.
n. Chronic Toxicity Reference levels
Implementation of the Toxicity
Characteristic level setting approach - ,
described below, requires the initial
input of a toxicity limit to establish a
regulatory level for each contarnjnant.
Limits set for protection against chronic
toxicily effects are the reference
standard of choice since this level will
usually be protective for both chronic
and acute effects. The first step in-
developing regulatory levels is therefore
the development of a measure of
"acceptable" chronic exposure for
individual toxicants in drinking water.
EPA, under other statutory mandates,
has investigated the adverse health
effects due to specific chemicals with a
view toward controlling exposure
through different media. Human health
criteria and standards have been
proposed or promulgated for certain
substances in particular media. Since
these have received Agency and public
review and evaluation, EPA is proposing
to use such standards as the starting
point for the back calculation model, ~
where such standards are available.
EPA used the DWS for the 8 elements
and 6 pesticides as the basis of the
Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Characteristic.
Drinking water standards are based
upon toxicity, treatment technologies,
costs, and other feasibility factors such
as availablity of analytical methods. In
developing DWS's, the intital step is the
identification of non-enforceable health
limits. The assessment process for
establishing these health goals includes
evaluation of the quality and weight-of-
evidence of supporting lexicological
studies, absorption rates of specific
toxicants, the possibility that a
compound or element is nutritionally
essential at certain levels, route of
exposure, and exposure medium
apportionment.
For non-carcinogens, these health
limits are denoted as Reference Doses
(RfD's). The RfD is an estimate of the
daily dose of a substance which will
result in no adverse effect even after a»
lifetime of such exposure. It is thus a
chronic toxicity limit. The establishment
of a chronic toxicity reference level for
carcinogens requires setting a specific
risk level which is then used to calculate
the Risk Specific Dose (RSD). The RSD
is the daily dose of a.carcinogen over a
lifetime which will result in an incidence
of cancer equal to the specific risk level.
An RSD established at the 10"5 risk
level translates.to a probability of-one in
one hundred thousand that an individual
might contract some form of cancer in
his or her lifetime.
In developing toxicity levels for
carcinogens, EPA is further proposing a
weight'-of-evidence approach which
involves categorizing carcinogens
• -according to the quality and adequacy "
of the supporting lexicological studies.
This approach was proposed by EPA in
its Carcinogen Risk Assessment
guidelines published in the Federal
Register on November 23,1984 (49 FR
46294). '.-....
In order to account for toxicant /
exposure from other sources (i.e., air
and food), EPA is also proposing to.limit
the RfD value to some fraction, as is
done in developing drinking water
standards. The fraction of the toxicity
level used iri-these standards is
compound-specific, and is apportioned
according to exposure assessment data,
if adequate data exist, or by use of an
arbitrary value of 20 percent if adequate
exposure assessment data do not exist. .
EPA is proposing a similar approach for
the Toxicity Characteristic.
Note, however, that EPA is. not
proposing this approach for the
. carcinogens, as it appears that a small
reduction in the RSD would still be well
within the margin of uncertainty of the '
estimated RSD. Rather, EPA is
proposing to use 100 percent of the RSD
value. Section VIII(A) of this preamble
provides detailed information as to the
identification of chronic toxicity
reference levels. ' .
One area that the Agency solicits
comment on is whether, as an
alternative to using the DWS's, the
Agency should consider using the RfD or
RSD values as the starting point for. the.
Hack calculation model, even when
DWS's are available.
C. Dilution/Attenuation Factor
After a toxicity level has been
identified, the degree of kttenuation and
dilution that a compound is expected to
undergo during transport through the
ground water to an underground
drinking water source is determined.
The ground-water transport equation
EPA is intending to use to estimate
dilution and attenuation, estimates the
reduction in toxicant concentration that
.would occur as toxicants are
transported in ground water over a
specified distance from the disposal unit
to the point of exposure (i.e., drinking
water well), as depicted in the following
.figure (Figure 1):
-------
t Register/ Voisi.Np. 114 / Friday, June 13,1986 / firoposect Rules
21651
Fiqure
Ir Illustration of,Dilution/Attenuation
TAT.
Saturated
Zone
Dilution/Attenuation
.Occurring During.,-
Migration of
Contaminant
To Well
n
Drinking
Water .
well
IB]
(At Refers to the concentration of,t'he contaminant in the
laachate at the bottom of the disposal Unit. . .
[Bl Refers to the concentration of the contaminant, in the -
drinking water well, which is calculated using a ground
water transport equation, and is expected to be lower
than the concentration at (A) due to attenuation and
dilution. - . , , . ' .
This equation relies on compound
specific hydrolysis and soil absorption
data, coupled'with parameters ;
describing a generic underground
environment (e.g.; ground water flow
rate, soil porosity, ground water pHJ, to
calculate the degree of attenuation and
dilution a compound would be expected
to undergo as it migrates to.an
underground drinking water source.
''. Values for environmental parameters
/"have been selected based on review of
subsurface geological conditions at
existing landfills across the continental
United States. Boundary conditions and
interrelationships between the above
parameters have been established based
on a sensitivity and an uncertainty
analysis.
Originally, EPA had also hoped to
develop dilution/attenuation factors for
metal species through use of a second
model* since these species.generally
behave differently in the ground water
environment,than do the .organic
.compounds. Unfortunately, this model
could not be fully developed in time for
today's proposal; Accordingly, while
EPA is continuing to work on modeling
• metal transport, EPA is retaining the ,_
present EP Toxicity Characteristic levels
for the elemental toxicants. .
Details pf the ground water transport
equation to be used for organic •
compounds are provided in section
VIII(B). Note that in the Federal Register
of January 14,1986, the Agency
proposed to use the same basic ground
water transport equation for use in the
Land Disposal Restrictions Rule (51 FR
1602). The proposed Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule equation, however,
" contains minor .differences to account
for the additional engineering controls
(e.g., landfill caps), required of Subtitle
C hazardous waste facilities, and the
higher standard of confidence required
• under HSWA for determining that a
hazardous waste is suitable for land
disposal. As noted previously, different
risk levels are used;"to establish the '
characteristic regulatory threshold for'1
carcinogeriSi'arid a different'confidence
.interval is used for the ground water
transport simulation to establish the
dilution/attenuation factors. While
• section VIH(B) provides additional'." . '
information concerning the equation .
proposed for use in the Toxicity
Characteristic, considerably more detail
concerning/this equation is provided in
the preamble .section to the proposed
Land Disposal Restrictions Rule (51 FR
1602, January 14,1986). .
Since many aspects of the ground
water transport equatioa are similar
between the two rules:, cqmrnenters
need not repeat relevant comments that
have already been made in response to
the LandDisposal Restrictions Rule. .
These earlier comments may be
referenced; although aB relevant .
comments, will be considered in .-..;. v
developing the Toxicity Characteristic .
final rule. Comment specific;to EPA's-,
use of the.pquation for this rule, should
howeverv.be submitted
DrPFOposed Toxicants tin'd Regulatory
Levels t, •• •. • - - .".'.. ..'..' ['
In order'toiestabiish a Toxicity .;. -
Characteristic regulatory level for.... ^
Individual Compounds, adequate and
verified deita must exist for EPA to (1)
identify a toxicit'y level (i.e., DWS, RfD,
•- or RSDJ, and (2) calculate a dilution/
attenuation factor through application of
the ground water transport equation. As
discussed previously, EPA will retain
the 100 times factor used in the current
EP Toxicity Characteristic for the
elemental drinking water toxicants. Due
to the Ageincy's continuing efforts'tp
develop'an adequate ground water
transport_equation for the metals,
addition of elemental and anionic
toxicants to tlie Toxicity Characteristic
!. is being delayed. The Agency expects to
propose Toxicity Chara'cteristic
threshold* for nickel and thallium 'during
the-period between proposal and
promulgation of this rule.
In selecting additional organic
toxicants-to incorporate in today's
proposal;the'Agency identified those
Appendix VIII compounds for which
there existed a promulgated or proposed
drinking" water standard, or an RfD or
RSD. The compounds identified as a .-.. *
result of these efforts were then
examined to determine if adequate fate -
and transiport data were available to
.' establish a compound-specific dilution/
attenuation factor. x
-------
21652
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 114 / Fridav< Iune
These efforts have resulted in the
identification of a total of 52 compounds
for the Toxicity Characteristic. This
includes the existing 14 EPTC
compounds, and 38 compounds whose
thresholds are driven by their toxicity,
as shown in the following table (Table
TABLE 1: PROPOSED TOXICITY CHARACTERIS-
TIC CONTAMINANTS AND REGULATORY LEV-
ELS
HWNO
D0ie,._
D004 ,„„„.,„
D005,™_ ,.,...
D010,,
D020,,.™™,.
0006, „_„
D02I ,
0023 HZZT
D024
0025 „.„___„
O007,,,,™,..™.
D026..™.,..™.
D027 _
D028. „„
DOI6 „.,
D029,, .^.^
O030,.«™,,,^,M
D03I „„„..
0032,™.,
0033 __
D034 .'.'"'".'I
0035u,.w..HHM,w
D038,
0037,...™,......
D038««™..,,.,,..M
DOOfl ,„..«..„..„
D013, ™>
D009,MHM.,wm.
DossIZZIZ
D040 .-.„„, „
0041 „„.,.
D042,«.,««, .,„,.,
O043 ,„,„««,„„..
D044 =..„..„„,„„„
DO 10™,™,
D01 1 ,w.M«,,w.n.
D04S..WM,,,H,...,
0048 .„„.,„„.,„.
D04 7 » .nm...
0048,..,™^,..,,.
0049lMltM^.il4,M,
. Contaminants
Aorytonilri*
Arsenic „.____ .
Barktm .„...„.«.„..„
Benzene „.
Bis(2nenol...«M.,«w.m.......
"yridine ,„ .......
cloroum..,.....,....^.,,...
fiver ...„..„..„„„„ .
.1.1.2-
Telraehloroethano.
.1A2-
Teuachloroetharte.
etracrHoroethylehe ..
3.4.6-
Teuachlorophenol
'okien«.™»^,...,._^
DOIS.,,.™.™.,.,,^ oxaphene... „,...„
DCSO,,«mm«,,..««
D051 M™.™,,.,...
Dosa,.,.,,.™,,,,.,.
D053 ,...„,„„„„
D054,g,,..,.w,Mw^
0017,,™..,......,
DOSS ..,..„.„,„.,
1.1.1- •
Tncttkxoethano.
1.1.2-
Trichloroethane.
Trichloroeth)lone
2.4.5-
Tflchtorophenol.
2.4.8-
Tnchloroptienol.
2,4,5-TP(S«vex).
Wnjrl eh(orido_
( CASNO
.. 107-13-
.. 7440-38-
.. 7440-39-3
71-43-
111-44-4
7440-43-
75-15-0
56-23-
57-74-
108-90-
67-66-3
1333-82-
' 95-48-
108-39-
106-44-5
94-75-7
95-50-
106-46-7
107-06-2
75-35-4
121-14-2
72-20-8
76-44-2
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
78-83-1
7439-92-1
58-8S-9
7439-97-6
72-43-5
75-09-2
78-93-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
108-95-2
110-86-1
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
108-88-3
001-35-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
7S-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-76-5
75-01-4
Regula-
tory "
level
(mg/l)
5.0
5.0
100
0.07
0.05
1.0
14.4
0.07
0.03
1.4
0.07
5.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1.4
-4.3
10.8
0.40
0.1
0.13
0.003
0.001
0.13
0.72
4.3
36
5.0
0.06
0.2
1.4
8.6
7.2
0.13
3.6
14.4
5.0
1,0
5.0
10.0
1.3'
0.1
1.5
I4.4
0.07
30
1.2
0.07
5.8
0.30
0.14
0,05
There is one group of chemicals for
which the Agency considers use of the
health criteria/ground water transport
approach to setting threshold
concentrations as being inappropriate in
some cases. These are solvents.
Solvents need to be managed in a
controlled manner not only because of
inherent toxicity, but also because they
can mobilize hazardous constituents
from codisposed non-hazardous waste.
Since solvents exhibit this property, the
Agency is working to identify such
wastes through use of a solvent
override. • ;
The Agency intends to set regulatory'
levels for solvents based, on the total
amount of solvent observed in the TCLP
extract. Thus, wastes whose TCLP
extract caijtains more than g specified
amount of total solvent would be
identified as a hazardous waste, even if
none of the health criteria based
thresholds for the individual solvents •
- are exceeded. The Agency is also
exploring the possibility of developing a
solvent power test which would be
designed to determine the actual ability
,of a waste to mobilize hazardous
constitutents for non-hazardous wastes!
The Agency solicits ideas, data and
comments on these and other i
approaches.
The next section .presents a discussion
regarding some of the analytical
constraints EPA faced in establishing
regulatory levels. Section VIII(C)
provides tables presenting each
compound and the data that EPA has
used to calculate~the.regulatory level.
EPA anticipates that the list of toxicants
to be included in the Toxicity
' Characteristic will be periodically
expanded as more information qn the
Appendix VIII compounds is developed.
E. Analytical Constraints
As illustrated in Table 1 (and further
in section VIII(C)), the regulatory levels
for the proposed compounds span about
5 orders of magnitude (i.e., from the low
parts per billion to 100 parts per million].
This is not so much a function of the
individual dilution/attenuation factors,
but rather due to the great range in
toxicity levels of the individual
toxicants. Since many of the toxicity
levels for the carcinogens (and some of
the non-carcinogensj (see section
VIII(A)) are very low, depending on the
magnitude of the dilution/attenuation
factor, the calculated level will also be
very low. This presents ~a problem for
the Agency since some of these
calculated thresholds are below the
analytical level measurable using
currently available methodology. This
affects 7 of the compounds (See section
VIII(C)).
EPA believes that the appropriate
way to deal with this problem is to
establish technology based regulatory
levels.1 The lowest level that can be
reliably achieved within specified limits
of precision and, accuracy during routine
laboratory operating condition's is the
quantitation limit. The quantitation limit
. thus represents the lowest level •
achievable by good laboratories within
specified limits during routine
laboratory operating conditions. The
quantitation limit is determined through
ihterlaboratory studies, such as
. performance evaluation studies.
If data are unavailable from :
interlaboratory studies, quantitation
limits are-estimated based upon the
detection limits and an estimate of a
higher level which would represent a
practical and routinely achievable level
with relatively high certainty that the
reported value is reliable. EPA
estimated this level to be 5 to 10 times
the detection limit in their final rule on'
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards for Volatile Synthetic
Organic Chemicals (50 FR 46880, '.
November 13,1985). EPA believes that
setting the quantitation limit at 5 times ,
the detection limit is a fair expectation
for most regulatory and commercial
laboratories. Public comment is
specifically requested on the use of 5
times the detection limit as a general
rule as to what levels can be expected to
be measured routinely by commercial
laboratories with reliability.
Use of either detection limits or
quantitation limits would allow for
regulatory levels that fall below the
analytically measurable level to be '
periodically updated as advances are
made in analytical methodology. EPA is
proposing the-use of the quantitation
limits because the determination that" a •
compound is present (in the extract
above a specified value) conclusively
demonstrates the presence of a hazard.
EPA is seeking comment, however, on
both approaches. - .-1. .
. The tables in section VIII(C):indicate
the quantitation limits for each of the ^~
elements and compounds, as well as the
appropriate EPA SW-846 analytical
method numbers (Ref. 27). (Analytical. •
1 Such levels could be set at the analytical •
detection limit or, as an alternative/they could be
set at the limits of accurate quantitation (i.e..
quantitation limit). In general, EPA defines .tjie
method detection limifas the minimum * :
concentration of a substance that can be-measured'
and reported with 99 percent confidence thaUhe-
true value is greater than zero. The specifications of
such a.concentration are limited by the fact'that
detection limits are a variable affected by the
. performance of a given measurement system.
Detection limits are not necessarily .reproducible •
over time in a given laboratory,.even when the same
analytical procedures, instrumentation and sample
matrix are used; Difference's between detection and
quantitation limits are expected, since the detection
limits represent the, lowest achievable level under
ideal laboratory conditions, whereas the
quantitation limit represents the lowest.'achievable'
level under practical and routine laboratory
conditions.'
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No, 114 / Friday. June 13, 1986 /JPropWd Rules
21653
methods for the Tpxicity Characteristic
compounds are discussed more fully in
section IV(D) of this preamble.) The
quantitation limits used; are based on
the presence of these compounds in a
water matrix. Since TGLP extracts
would also be aqueous in nature, EPA is
proposing to use the quantitation limit
as observed in water. EPA recognizes,
however, that while these;quantitation
limits would be attainable for most,
wastes, Qther.wastes will produce an
extract that is qualitatively different,
and may not allow quantitation to the,
same low level as water. This, however,
will be waste specific and difficult to.
predict beforehand. While specifying a
higher quantitation limit is an option,
EPA is reluctant to do so due to the
degree of environmental protection that
might be sacrificed. EPA is, however,
working to determine actual
quantitation limits on real wastes, which
may result in increases in the
quantitation limit, and the
corresponding regulatory level, for some
of the contaminants. EPA solicits
comments and suggestions on how to
deal with this issue. , .
Three of the .phenolic compounds that
are included in today's proposal ortho-,
meta-, and para-cresol, also pose an
analytical problem. Specifically, meta-
and para-cresol cannot be analytically
separated using readily available
; techniques. In order to overcome this
problem, and given that these isomers
, all act in an additive manner, the
Agency, is proposing to establish a single
level for total p-, m- and p-crespl.
Public comment and information on
all aspects of the issues presented in
this section, are requested to assist EPA
in making a final choice of analytical
methods and the specific performance
- requirements in the final rule. ,
Supporting data/information is .
requested for any comments provided.
Specifically, public comment is
requested on the following questions:
• Are the proposed analytical .
methods technically and economically
available (see section IV(D) of this
preamble)?
• What is the precision/accuracy of
the analytical methods at the proposed
quantitation levels?
• Are there sufficient qualified
laboratories capable of measuring at
proposed quantitation levels?
III. Development of the Leaching
Procedure
- A. 'Introduction -
The Extraction Procedurfi.(EP) was
designed to simulate the leaching that '
would result when a solid waste is co-
disposed with municipal wastes in a
sanitary landfill. The EP was intended to
be a first order approximation of the
leaching action of the low molecular
weight carboxylic acids generated,in an
actively decomposing sanitary landfill.
Acetic acid, one of the more dominant ;
carboxylic acids present in municipal
waste leachate, is added to deionized
distilled water to make up the extracting
medium used in the EP. The acetic acid
models primarily the leaching of metals -
from an industrial waste. The impetus
' behind development of the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) was the need also to address the
leaching of organic compounds (Ref. 26).
In addition, EPA believes that the EP
protocol can be improved in certain
areas. For example, the EP involves
continual pH adjustment (titration) with
0.5 ,N acetic acid to a pH of 5.0+0.2. This
can involve more than 6 hours of
operator attention and can be difficult
for some waste types, particularly oily
wastes. In developing the TCLP, EPA
felt that elimination of ,the need for
' continual pH adjustment would be a
desirable improvement. As another
example, the EP involves separating the ,
initial liquid from the solid phase of the
waste,.,as well as separation of the
liquid (extract) derived from the . •
leaching test. These steps, involving ,
pressure filtration through a 0145 um
filter, can be difficult and time
consuming for certain waste types, and
warrant simplification. In addition, other
minor changes in the EP protocol, such
as shortening the duration of the test
and accounting for the loss of waste
materials to the side walls of s,ample
containers, were felt to be of use in
lowering the cost of the test and
improving the overall precision of the .
method. Thus, the Agency believes that
development of a second generation-
extraction procedure was of value even
if the EP were found to be acceptable for
organics. - , •
B. Objectives .,...-.'
,EPA's intent, then, was to develop an
improved leaching test method suitable,
for use in evaluating wastes containing
organic toxicants. It is important to note
that the purpose of the EP, as well as
this new method, is as a means of
determining whether a waste, if
mismanaged, has the potential to pose a
significant hazard to human health or
• the environment due to its propensity to
leach toxic compounds^EPA believes
that the EP adequately accomplished
. this goal for the currently regulated
toxicants. . .
When the EP was developed, the
Agency had little empirical data upon
which to base its assumptions regarding
accuracy (Kef. 26). Hence, while the^ few
data that were available>egarding, ,
accuracy were used in developing the
EP, it was primarily based oir what was
reasonable, as well as what would
provide a reproducible (precise) test •
protocol. While improved - •
reproducibility is one objective of the
TCLP, the major objective was to
accurately model the mobility of
constituents from wastes, particularly
organic constituents. Other objectives
were that the test be relatively
inexpensive: to conduct; that, if possible,
it yield an extract amenable to
evaluation with biological toxicity tests;
and that it also model, the mobility of
, inorganic species. This last objective
would permit EPA to expand the toxicity
characteristic to encompass organics,
yet require only one leaching test for
both organics and inorganics. ,-
C. Disposal En vironmen t and Model .
• The specific environment modeled by
bpth the current EP and the TCLP is co-
disposal of industrial waste with refuse
in a sanitary -landfill. The Agency's
concern was that potentially hazardous
waste, if not brought under the control
of the RCRA hazardous: waste system,/
might be se-nt to sanitary landfills, with
a resulting high level of leaching '
activity. This concern, has not changed. -
Although the Agency believes that fewer
industrial solid wastes are .being
disposed i'ri this manner as compared tb
a few years ago, the Agency also
believes that the co-disposal, scenario'
still represents a reasonable worst-case.
mismanagement scenario. In addition,
the Agency believes that the predicted
degree of contaminant migration, as
indicated by the TCLP, could reasonably
occur in the course of other types of
land management of wastes' (see section
''
.
Hence, the experiments used to
develop the TCLP were set up to
conform as closely as possible with the
co-disposal model. Specific features of
this model: were that the landfill is
composed of 5 percent industrial solid
waste and 95 percent municipal waste,
and that the character of the leaching
fluid that the waste will be exposed to is
predominantly a. function of the
decomposing refuse in the landfill. In
expanding the Toxicity Characteristic,
the modelis and assumptions used in
developing the EP have been retained.
D. Leaching Procedure
The work undertaken to develop and
evaluate the new leaching test was
carried out in three phases, and
involved 11 wastes and close to 100
organic arid inorganic components
which leached from these wastes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday. June 13,1986 / Proposed Rules
Briefly, the research involved leaching
these wastes in a pilot-scale field
facility with sanitary landfill leachate,
measuring the concentration of the
compounds which leached from the
wastes, and attempting to duplicate
these concentrations in a laboratory
tost, the TCLP (Ref. 6 and 7).
A TCLP has ben developed as a result
of this work. EPA believes that this test
method is reasonably accurate in terms
of modeling a field-scale co-disposal
scenario for both organics and
inorganics. In addition, it appears that
many of the operational problems
associated with the EP protocol have
been overcome in the process of
developing the TCLP. The test has also
been subjected to ruggedness and
precision evaluations, and a limited
multi-laboratory collaborative
evaluation, and is currently being
evaluated in a more comprehensive
collaborative evaluation.
Section VI1I(D) of this preamble
providc-s detailed information with
respect to the TCLP development and
evaluation program. The regulation
section provides the actual TCLP
protocol, as Appendix II to Part 261. A
more detailed discussion pertaining to
the TCLP is provided in a background
document that EPA has prepared {Ref.
33).
R Leaching Procedure Issues .
In an effort to identify and resolve any
potential problems associated with the
TCIJP prior to proposal, and also to
inform the public of EPA's activities in
this area, EPA held a number of
meetings at which various aspects of the
procedure were reviewed and draft
procedures circulated. These included
public discussions at meetings of the
Association of Official Analytical
Chemists and the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM).
As a result of these meetings and as a
result of the Agency's own efforts in
these areas, a number of issues have
been identified and some minor changes
to the TCLP protocol have also been
made. Following is a discussion of these
issues, and how they have been
addressed in the proposed TCLP.
1. Overall Issues
a. Accuracy of TCLP. As indicated
previously, EPA was directed by the
IISWA to make the EP more accurate.
EPA's experimental program to develop
the TCLP was intended to provide an
accurate extraction method, in terms of
ability to model a field co-disposal
situation. One of the issues associated
with the TCLP is whether the method is
adequately accurate in this respect.
In an effort to better quantify how
well the TCLP compares to the field
model, the distributions of the actual
and absolute percent differences
between concentrations observed in the
field model and those observed in the
acetate buffer system chosen for the
TCLP (see section VIII(D)), have been
examined. Results of these comparisons
indicate that ro.ughly half of the 95
individual target compounds (from the
11 wastes examined in both Phases I
and II), were within —32 percent and
+ 76 percent of their respective field
lysimeter target concentrations. Roughly
, three-fourths of .the 95 individual target
compounds were.within'---80 percent
and +86 percent of their respective field
, lysimeter target concentrations (Ref. 25),
The standard deviation of the total
distribution (which is skewed) in this
case is 182 percent. These preliminary
numbers indicate that the acetate buffer
system duplicates field lysimeter target
concentrations for approximately three-
fourths of the target compounds within
one standard deviation of the
distribution. This is particularly
significant since the laboratory test
duration is 18 hours, whereas the field
lysimeter experiments were run for
approximately 3 months. EPA believes
that the accuracy of the TCLP is
adequate .in terms of indicating the
potential for wastes to pose a hazard if
mismanaged.
b. Use of TCLP for sewage sludge
disposal. EPA expects to propose in-
September 1986 sewage sludge '
management standards under Section
405(d) of the Clean Water Act. Once the
Section 405(d) standards are
promulgated, EPA is considering
exempting sewage sludge from RCRA
regulation. The section 405(d) standards
will tailor EPA's control strategy to the
management of specific risks to human
health and the environment from each of
the sludge use and disposal practices.
The Agency solicits comments on this
potential approach to regulating sewage
sludge.
• C. Extent of experimentation. Another
issue related to accuracy is whether
EPA has examined enough
contaminants and waste types in its
TCLP development program. The TCLP
was developed based on data from 11 ;
wastes and 95 target compounds which
leached from these-wastes (Ref. 6 and
7). The amount of work involved here is
substantial. EPA is aware, however, of
one waste type, specifically wastes of
moderate to high alkalinity, that was not
adequately represented by the 11
wastes, and has included provisions in
the TCLP to insure that the potential
environmental damage that may be
caused by such a waste was not
underestimated. (These changes are '
detailed further in this section).. '
Additional testing aimed at evaluating
the need to modify the TCLP extraction
fluid to alter its solubilizing potential is
not believed to be necessary. In addition
to the work described in section VIII (D),
the Agency had earlier conducted two
studies that evaluated the effect that
changes in extraction fluid composition i;;
would have on solubilizatiori of organics'
(Ref. 19 and 24). These studies examined
the effect of adding acetic acid, •
carbohydrates, protein, tannic acid, ' .
citrate, thiosulfate, and a surfactant Id
the leaching medium. Both studies
showed little" change in toxicant
solubility and extraction efficiency with
the addition of these various solubilizing
agents. This agrees well with the work
done to develop the TCLP (Ref. 6 and 7),
which also showed that leaching seems
to be unaffected by, minor changes.to
primarily aqueous extraction media.
Thus, EPA believes that further testing
is unlikely to result in a significant
change in extraction fluid composition.
d Mismanagement scenario. RCRA .
requires EPA to identify those wastes
which pose a potential hazard to human •
health or the environment if
mismanaged. In determining what form
of mismanagement to model'in
developing the TCLP, the Agency
considered several alternatives. These
included segregated management, co-
disposal with municipal refuse, co-
disposal with industrial waste in a
Subtitle D landfill, arid co-disposal with
industrial waste in a Subtitle C.landfill
which suffers some form of containment'
. system failure. '
For wastes which are not defined as
hazardous (e.g., do not exhibit the .
proposed toxicity characteristic), the
Agency has concluded that disposal in a
Subtitle C (hazardous waste) landfill is
not a reasonable mismanagement
option. In the absence of regulation,
there is no reason to expect that waste
would go to the more expensive Subtitle
C facilities. The Agency believes that it
is reasonable to base its regulations on
adverse effects when in a non-Subtitle C
environment.
. For the three remaining options,
segregated management, co-disposal •
with municipal refuse, and co-disposal
with industrial refuse in a Subtitle D
landfill, the Agency believes that, in
genera.!, each is a plausible -.
mismanagement scenario. Industrial
facilities dedicated to the management
of only one waste, or the waste from
only one generator, are likely to pose
less of a hazard than would general
sanitary or industrial landfills, since the
design and operation problems are
-------
Federal Register /Veil, 51, No, 114 /Friday, June 13,.1986 /PrpppsedRuIea
21655
simpler and the operator has much more
information on the properties of the
wastes before and while the facility is in
operation. To insure that industrial • _
wastes are adequately managed, EPA .
has'proposed to employ the more -
protective sanitary landfill scenario.
The Agency believes that sanitary
landfills may pose more of a potential
hazard thaii industrial landfills. Many
States have required some additional
protection (e.g., more stringent siting
requirements) at industrial landfills. The
Agency, however, solicits comments on
the choice of the sanitary landfill ;
scenario, and specifically requests any
evidence that another disposal scenario
may represent the worst-case plausible .',•
mismanagement.
The scenario selected for .the TCLP, as
well as for the current EP, was co-
disposal with municipal waste in a
sanitary, landfill. EPA selected this co-
disposal scenario since Subtitle D
sanitary landfills have traditionally
accepted noft-hazardous industrial . :
wastes.'A recent survey conducted for ..
the Office of Solid Waste (Ref. 14)
concluded that ". . ,. in general, Subtitle
D landfills accept industrial wastes but
not organic solvents or liquids/'.Wastes
do have the potential to be subject to .
more aggressive conditions that might
be better modeled through the use of
strong inorganic acids, alkalies, or
solvents.
The survey noted above, however,
found that Subtitle D facilities generally
take only small amounts of organic
solvent wastes (i.e., <1 to 2 percent of
the total waste accepted). In addition,
EPA will consider listing specific wastes
as hazardous, when their normal
- management or their potential for
mismanagement suggests more
aggressive conditions. The Agency
solicits comments on the fate of
industrial wastes, the 5% industrial
waste, 95% municipal waste assumption
used in developing the leaching
procedure, and the level of solvents
which can be found at Subtitle D
landfills.
The Agency recognizes that not all
industrial waste, or even wastes from all
industries, go to Subtitle D sanitary
landfills. The Agency believes, however,
that this scenario is a reasonable worst-
case and that some industrial wastes go
to such facilities. In addition, it could be
a serious administrative problem to
define hazardous waste characteristics
based on waste-specific or industry-
specific disposal scenarios [including
different leaching media) for the many
different wastes generated. Even if .
different toxicity characteristics could
be created, difficult enforcement issues
would result. For example, if the Agency
discovered an uncontrolled waste
situation (e.g., waste disposed in an
open pit) it might be difficult to
determine what characteristic test
should apply to the waste because there
may be very little available information
about how the waste was generated.
Moreover, even where some information
existed about the source of the waste,
the Agency believes that the existence
of varied toxicity tests would encourage
disputes about which test should apply
to a particular waste.
It is therefore reasonable to use a
Subtitle D sanitary landfill as a general
model of how industrial wastes might be
disposed. The Agency, however, solicits ,
comments on whether this scenario is
appropriate for.all wastes. Commenters
identifying-a different scenario for
particular wastes should explain why *
the Subtitle D sanitary landfill model is .
inappropriate and what disposal
scenario would be appropriate for those
wastes, including a discussion of what
leaching medium is suggested by that
scenario. In response to this •
information, ;the Agency may develop
special management standards for a
. class or classes of wastes. ,
•' As an additional matter, the Agency
believes that the predicted degree of
contaminant concentration in leachate
could reasonably occur in the course of
other types of land based waste
management (e.g., surface
impoundments). The TCLP, as well as
the EP, basically involve mixing the
waste with an aqueous leaching media,
and seeing if certain contaminants can
migrate from the waste to a significant
degree. If such mobility is demonstrated,
EPA believes that the waste in question
poses a potential hazard to ground '
water, and that proper management
controls need to be instituted to
preclude unacceptable contamination of
ground water. This applies to the
leaching of both organics and 4
inorganics.
First, as discussed previously, minor
changes to primarily aqueous media do
not generally affect the leaching of
organic compounds. For inorganics, the
acidity afforded by the TCLP leaching
fluid accounts for the possibility that
wastes could be subjected to mild acidic
conditions-occurring in other types of
land disposal environments.
Wastes do have the potential to be
subjected to more aggressive conditions
. that might be better modeled through the
use of strong inorganic acids, alkalies, or
solvents. The surv.ey referred to earlier
(Ref. 14) found that Subtitle D facilities
generally take only small amounts of
organic solvent wastes (e.g., <1 to 2
percent of the total waste accepted). In
addition, EPA will consider listing
specific wasteis as hazardous, when
their normal management or their, .;
potential for mismanagement dictates '
more aggressive conditions.
e. Treatment of highly alkaline
wastes. As mentioned previously, highly -
alkaline wasteis were not adequately
represented by the 11 wastes used.in the
TCLP development program. EPAJs
concerned that the potential hazard
posed by these wastes may be
underestimated by the acetate buffer ;
system initially chosen for the TCLP
(See section VIII(D)). Specifically, EPA -,
believes that an increase in the leaching
of inorganic aind some organic species
may be observed as the alkalinity of
wastes becom.es exhausted due to
continuous contact with an acidic
leaching medium. Note that this can
occur well after the 20 to 1 liquid to solid'
ratio selected;for the EP and TCLP. Data
from the TCLP development program (on
a moderately alkaline waste), arid from
subsequent studies on wastes, of ....
moderate to high alkalinity (Ref. 8),
demonstrated that the leaching rate of ,.
heavy metals [was relatively constant;.
and in some cases increased slightly,
over.liquid to-solid ratios;as high as 30
to 1. Constituents from non-alkaline.
wastes generally experience a decrease
in leaching rate during this time period
(Ref. 6 and 7). The TCLP acetate buffer
leaching fluid may therefore not
adequately account for the leaching of
" heavy metals; from wastes of moderate
to high alkalinity.
To address this problem, EPA
determined that an increase in the
acidity of the leaching medium for the,
alkaline wastes would adequately
account for the increased leaching of
these species, that could eventually
occur in landfills..To define this second
leaching fluid, the basis behind the EP's
i! maximum amount of acetic acid (i.e., 2
* milliequivalents of acid per gram of
.'. waste) was used in defining a second
leaching fluid to be used when
evaluating highly alkaline wastes. Data
gathered at EPA's Boone County Field
Site over a period of 7 years indicated
that the leachate generated by
decomposing municipal waste contains
approximately 0.14 equivalents of
acidity per kilogram of dry refuse.
Applying this data to the hypothetical
co-disposal environment, EPA
concluded that 1 gram of industrial
. waste could potentially be acted upon
by 2 milliequivalents of acid. For a
hundred gram sample (the EP's minimum
sample size), this translated to a total of
200 milliequiivalents of acid (Ref. 26).
The acetate buffer systeni'originally'
chosen for th,e TCLP supplies only 70
-------
21656
l£feral Register / Vo1- 51» No-114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
milliequivalents of acid for a hundred
gram sample.
As indicated above, steady or
increased leaching of inorganic species
was demonstrated to occur up to and
after the 20 to 1 liquid to solid ratio (Ref.
8). While this data demonstrates that the
70 milliequivalent acetate buffer system
is not aggressive enough for most of the
inorganic species investigated, it
supports the use of a 200 milliequivalent
acetic acid solution for only some of the
inorganic species. The Agency is,
however, proposing use of the 200
milliequivalent acetic acid solution for
alkaline wastes to be protective of
human health and the environment
when such leaching does occur. The
Agency believes this action is justified
given the conservative nature of the'
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. In addition, as
indicated in the report on Phase I of the
TCLP development effort (Ref. 6),
municipal waste leachates, both those
generated in lysimeters and real
leachates, have been observed in other
studies to contain higher concentrations
of carboxylic acids [measured as total
organic carbon, of which approximately
70 percent is made up of carboxylic
acids (Ref. 6)), than those measured in
the municipal waste leachate used in the
TCLP development program.
Hence, EPA is proposing a two
leaching fluid system for the TCLP. As
explained above, the Agency has chosen
to base the strength of the alkaline
waste leaching medium on the basis
behind the EP's limit on the amount of
acetic acid used. This will involve a 2
milliequivalent of acid per gram of
waste leaching fluid for wastes of
moderate to high alkalinity and a 0.7
milliequivalent per gram of waste
leaching fluid for other wastes. A simple
tost of waste alkalinity is proposed as a
means of determining the appropriate
leaching fluid. For highly alkaline
wastes (i.e., alkalinity> 0.7
milliequivalents/gm), the more acidic
leaching fluid would be used. Note that
EPA is not proposing this dual leaching
fluid system for the evaluation of
volatile compounds, since these
compounds are expected to be
unaffected by slight changes in acidity.
More detail is provided in Section VIII
(D) and in the background document
supporting the TCLP (Ref. 33).
/ Use of a pre-screen test. One
concern that was raised with the TCLP
xvas that the protocol for dealing with
volatile compounds is likely to be
considerably more expensive than the
protocol for the non-volatiles. Similarly,
since this proposal involves additional
analytes, the analytical costs associated
• with the TCLP protocol will also
increase over that of the EP. For these
reasons, EPA is proposing to establish a
pre-screen test for the TCLP protocol.
This pre-screen consists of a total
analysis of the waste itself (using SW-
846 methods, Ref. 27)), to determine if
the waste contains sufficient amounts of
"specific compounds for the regulatory
level to be exceeded, assuming that all
the compound leaches from the waste. If
based on such an analysis one can be
certain that the regulatory level cannot
be exceeded, then the TCLP does not
have to be performed.
This pre-screen is being offered as a
cost saving alternative, and is not
mandatory. It will be especially useful to
, those generators who wish to
demonstrate that their waste does not
contain sufficient amounts of certain
compounds, and therefore, that further
analysis would be unnecessary. Perhaps
a prime example of this is wastes
resulting from a combustion process,
like ashes from incineration. Since these
wastes would likely be devoid of
volatile components running the TCLP
for volatiles would be unnecessary.
2. Technical Issues
a. Use of extraction devices. The EP
protocol contains a descriptive
definition of what was considered to be
acceptable agitation. Two types of
extraction equipment are described
which EPA has determined meet this
definition. One is a stirrer type extractor
which uses small fan-like blades to mix
the extraction fluid with the waste. The
other type involves rotary action in
which closed bottles containing the
waste/extraction fluid mixture are'
tumbled in an end over end fashion (Ref.
27). This lack of specificity in agitation
conditions is a major source of
variability.
£• Today's proposal eliminates this
source of variability by specifying a,
single means of agitation (i.e., rotary
tumbler), and a fixed agitation rate
(30±2 rpm). The rotary of tumbler type
of extractor was selected for several
reasons. It is widely recognized as a
reproducible means of contacting the
liquid and solid, and has been
standardized by ASTM in their draft .
method D3987 (Ref. 1). Also, ,a factor in
this determination was that the
Agency's Science Advisory Board
(SAB), in reviewing the TCLP
development program, recommended
that EPA develop one device and one
set of operating conditions (Ref. 29).
Although EPA recognized that this
would require laboratories to purchase
additional equipment, EPA has opted to
propose the use of rotary agitation only.
Another related issue deals with the'
extractor vessel. As discussed in section
VIII (D), EPA has developed a zero-
headspace extraction vessel (ZHE) for
use when extracting wastes with
volatile organic compounds. This device
can accommodate liquid/solid
separation within the device, and
obviates the need for an outside
pressure filtration apparatus.'One issuer
associated with use of this device is
that, due to its 500 ml internal capacity,.
it can only accommodate a maximum
sample size of 25 grams for a 100 percent
solids sample. (A device of the normal 2
liter capacity was impractical due to its
large size and weight.) For a waste of
less than 100 percent solids, the
maximum sample size the device can
accommodate is tied to the percent -
solids of the waste. The device can only
accommodate the minimal 100 gram
sample size for wastes that are 25
percent solids or less.
Another problem associated with the
extractor is that while EPA is proposing
to require the zero-headspace extractor
when dealing with volatiles, EPA is
requiring use of regular extraction
bottles when dealing with metals and
other-non-volatile components. Regular
extraction bottles are much less
expensive and easier to use than the
zero-headspace vessel. The problem is
"that while EPA originally intended the
zero-headspace extractor to be allowed
to be used for metals and non-volatiles
as well, certain features of the device,
and other constraints, have led EPA to
allow its use only when dealing with
volatiles.
The problem touches upon the SAB's
concern that, in the interest of precision,
one device and one set of operating
conditions should be specified (See
section VIII(D)). There are actually two
factors here which differ between
regular extraction bottles and the zero-
headspace vessel which could affect
precision. The first is that since regular _
extraction bottles will provide for at
'east some-headspace, agitation is likely
to be slightly greater than' with the zero-
headspace vessel.
«The second factor is that the two
devices involve different types of liquid/
solid.separation techniques. Whereas
the ZHE requires piston-applied
pressure, use of bottles involves
conventional air pressure filtration.
These two means of applying pressure
to accomplish liquid/solid separation
.are capable of producing different
results for some waste types.
b. Particle size reduction. The EP
protocol requires particle size reduction
in those cases where the waste cannot'
pass through a 9.5 mm sieve, or has a
-------
Federal Register/'Vol. 51. No-114
21657
surface area of less than 3.1 cm2/gm.
The TCLP continues with this
requirement. One difference, however,
deals with particle size reduction for
monolithic type wastes. The EP allows
the alternative of using the Structural.
Integrity Procedure (SIP), which
amounts to p'ounding the monolithic
waste with hammer-like blows and then
conducting the extraction on the
resulting sample, whether in one piece
or in many pieces. The proposed TCLP
does not allow use of the SIP (i.e.,
requires particle size reduction) for
several reasons. The first reason again
has to do with precision and the Science
Advisory Board's comment to limit the
new procedure to one device and set of
operating conditions. Secondly, the
Agency believes that given the '
uncertainties concerning the long term
• environmental stability of solidified
wastes, an environmentally "
conservative approach is warranted.
The SIP was originally developed as a
means of assessing the degree to which
a cementitiqus process stabilized a
waste to the extent that the waste
would remain as a monolithic block
• even after disposal. Such stabilization
processes decrease leaching potential
through reduction of surface area, and
thus the area of potential leachate
contact. Many processes also provide
for chemical stabilization by binding
heavy metals in insoluble hydroxide and
other complexes. ,
The Agency_believes that physical
stabilization alone is not enough to
insure that components do not leach in
significant quantities from wastes. There
are two types of actions which may act
to reduce the, physical integrity of
stabilized wastes. First, the action of •
heavy landfill equipment, which the SIP
is designed to simulate, will act to
reduce, the monolithic blocks into
smaller pieces. Secondly, and more
important, is the effect of natural
weathering forces, such as wet/dry and
freeze/thaw cycles (Ref. 10). The SIP
does not account for such weathering.
The Agency is currently investigating
the effects of natural weathering on
monolithic wastes, and may propose the
use of additional predictive , . ;
methodology at some later date. In the
interim, by not allowing use of the SIP,
the Agency insures that generators do,
not rely on physical stabilization alone.
An unrelated issue regarding particle
size reduction also involves the
treatment of volatile compounds. While
EPA is attempting to prevent loss of
volatiles (through introduction of the
ZHE), if a waste containing volatiles
requires particle size reduction, it is
likely that some portion of these
volatiles will be lost before the waste is
introduced into the ZHE.
Herein lies a problem that may
require a trade-off. Is it more important
to 'reduce particle size or to prevent the
loss of volatiles? EPA believes that
particle size reduction is more important
and has addressed this problem in the .
draft TCLP protocol by specifying that,
where possible, particle size reduction
be conducted to the extent possible on
the sample as it is being taken.
The protocol does recognize, however,
that there will be situations where_
volatile containing samples requiring
particle size reduction cannot be '
reduced under these conditions. In'this
: case, the protocol specifies that the
sample should first be refrigerated to
reduce the vapor pressure of the
volatiles, and then that the particle size
should be reduced with minimal
.exposure to the atmosphere to, at least, .
minimize the loss of volatiles. Another
alternative is to require* extractions r
under both conditions. Comments and
alternative suggestions regarding this
issue are solicited. .
c. Quality assurance requirements.
The quality assurance requirements of
the EP are relatively straightforward.
They require a minimum of one blanket
per sample batch, and the method of
standard addition (MSA) to be run for
all samples. The Agency has received
comments that requiring MSA for all
extractions, which is very expensive, is
unnecessary for all situations. This issue
is particularly significant in determining
the quality assurance requirements for
the TCLP, given the increased number of
analytes. In addition, the EP protocol is '
felt to need clarification and expansion
in addressing other aspects of quality
assurance, such as sample holding
times.
The reader is referred to section 9 of
the draft TCLP protocol, which appears
as Appendix irto.Part 261 in the
regulation section of this proposed rule
for review of the quality assurance
requirements. One change that deserves
'mention here is in the requirement for
the method of standard addition (MSA),
Recognizing that MSA is expensive and
not always necessary, EPA is proposing
to require MSA only under certain
conditions (See Proposed Appendix II to
Part 261). This change recognizes that
MSA is necessary only when the
measured concentration; of a constituent
is close enough to the threshold, that
matrix .interferences could yield a wrong
decision regarding the determination of
hazard, or when there is evidence that
severe matrix interference' may be
present. -
IV. Other Aspects of Proposal
A. Testing Frequency and .. \
Recordkeepirig '.
Under the framework being proposed
today, the determination of whether a
waste is a hazardous waste depends on
whether the concentrations of
constituents in the TCLP extract exceed
the applicable'regulatory levels. Since
this determination is critical, EPA is
evaluating whether to require periodic
waste testing;
. EPA has identified three general
approaches to testing requirements,
which are discussed in detail below.
First; EPA could require generators to.
evaluate their wastes as to whether they
exceed applicable regula.to.ry levels, but
not specifically require testing to make
this determination. This approach is
consistent with the current application
of the RCRA hazardous waste
characteristics. Second, .EPA could
require testing of wastes at a frequency
specified by regulation. Third, EPA
could require! the generator to test,
documenting the determination" of the
appropriate testing frequency based on
guidance provided by the Agency.
As indicated above, existing
regulations (40 CFR 262.11) require
generators of solid wastes to determine
whether their waste is hazardous. If the
solid waste is not specifically excluded
from regulation, and it is hot listed as a
hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR
Part 261, then,the generator must
determine whether the waste is
hazardous by any of the hazardous
waste characteristics included in
Subpart C p'F 40 CFR Part 261. This .
determination may be made by either
testing the waste or by the application
of knowledge of the waste in light of the
materials or the processes used in its
generation. Under 40 CFR 262.40,
, generators eire required to keep records
on how the hazard determination was
•• .made. Thus,' although generators are
held responsible for determining
whether their-wastes are hazardous,
they are noli specifically required to
perform testing. :
-" Although this approach would place
the least burden on the regulated
community,; EPA is concerned that this
approach may not promote voluntary
compliance; and that it could hamper
Agency enforcement efforts against
those members of the regulated • . „ •
community that do not comply -
voluntarily-with the regulations.
Another possible approach is to
require periodic testing, specifying in the
regulations'both the method arid the
frequency of testing. Thusj.testing might
be required, on a semiannual, or annual
-------
21658
Federal Register / Vol. 51,. No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
basis. This approach would make
enforcement of the regulations easier
and would likely induce a higher level of
voluntary compliance since the
regulations would be highly specific
regarding what constitutes an
acceptable testing program and what
actions and inactions would constitute
violations.
There are, however, several problems
with such an approach. First, there are
problems inherent in specifying an
appropriate testing frequency. Based on
data from the Office of Solid Waste's
Industry Studies Program and data from
the Office of Water's Effluent Guidelines
Program, it is clear that many waste
streams are extremely variable in
concentrations, of chemical constituents
from one plant to another, even when
the same general process is employed.
Variability exists not only from one ,
generator to another, but also spatially
and temporarily within a single plant or
process. This variability can be caused
by plant start-ups and shut-downs,
changes in raw materials, changes in
product specifications, seasonal
changes, or meteorological events.
While these factors tend to indicate the
desirability of requiring testing at
frequent specified intervals, the process-
specific nature of this variability [among
others) makes it difficult to identify a
generically appropriate testing interval.
For example, an appropriate frequency
for a continuous process might be too
infrequent for a batch process.
The third possible approach is to
require generators to perform testing on
their wastes, but not to specify a testing
frequency in the regulations. Rather,
generators would be required to
determine an appropriate testing
frequency based on guidance developed
by the Agency and to document, in their
records, this frequency determination.
The advantage of this approach is that
process-specific factors could be taken
into account in determining the
appropriate testing interval. Thus,.
although there would be some
additional burden on generators to
determine, based on the guidance, the -
appropriate frequency for testing
tailored to specific factors relating to his
process, there would be less of a chance
of requiring unnecessarily frequent
testing. This approach does, however,
present greater enforcement difficulties
than does the approach of specifying
generic periodic testing intervals.
Even if testing is specifically required,
a problem still remains as to how to
assure that the waste sample subjected
to testing is representative of both the
batch and the process from which they
are derived. This problem arises not
only in the context of the Toxicity ,
Characteristic program, but also in
connection with other waste sampling
requirements. EPA is currently
developing a guidance manual on
representative sampling that will
address these concerns and anticipates
publishing that guidance in late 1986.
EPA is proposing to retain "the
requirement that generators evaluate
their wastes as to whether they exceed
applicable regulatory thresholds, but not
specifically to require periodic testing.
EPA is, however, requesting comments
on the approaches discussed above, as
well as other possible alternatives to
these approaches.
B. Relationship To Multiple EP and Oily
Waste EP
As a result of its waste listing
program, EPA has listed a number of
wastes as being hazardous on the basis
that these wastes typically or frequently
contain hazardous constituents at
significant levels, or that they typically
or frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes. In
recognition, however, that individual'
wastes may not actually be hazardous,
due perhaps to a different process or'the
use of different raw materials, EPA has
established a "delisting program,"
where generators could demonstrate to
EPA that the particular waste in
question does not constitute a
hazardous waste. Although no waste to
date has been listed because it exhibits
the EPTC, -the delisting program has
been applying the EP protocol to this.
determination for the metal
contaminants (with the application of a
more conservative dilution/attenuation
factor).
Given that the delisting process
involves a more waste specific
approach, a number of situations have
arisen which have led EPA to modify the
EP to address specific situations. The
use of multiple extractions with
simulated acid rain have been used to
predict any long-term effects acid rain
might have on stabilized wastes (the
Multiple Extraction Procedure or MEP),
and the Oily Waste EP (OWEP) has
been used to predict the leaching of.
metals from wastes which contain
significant amounts of oily materials.
The OWEP was adopted because of the
Agency's concern that the oil present in
the wastes may (1) degrade, thus
permitting the metals to be leached from,
the residue, or (2) migrate,itself, and
transport metals present in the organic
phase to the ground water.
The Agency has a number of studies
underway to better define the situations
when such modifications are required.
Pending completion of such studies the
Agency will continue to employ the MEP
and OWEP only in the listing and
delisting programs where situation
specific decisions caii be made.
C. Analytical Methods
The analytical methods proposed to
be used for TCLP extracts are shown in
section VIII(C) (See Table C-2), and also
appear in the regulation section of this
proposal as required methods. These are
SW-846 methods (Ref. 27).
Analyzing the TCLP extract for
phenolic compounds and phenoxy acid
herbicides poses a potential analytical
problem. The leaching fluid used in the
new leaching procedure is 0.1 M with
respect to acetate. Due to potential
interference from the acetate ion, the
routinely used analytical methods used
for these compounds (i.e., GC/MS-SW-
846 method 8270) may not be sufficient.
EPA is presently investigating these
methods to ascertain whether they are
sufficient, or, whether it may be
necessary to modify these methods. One
modification being investigated is
whether it may be possible to remove
the acetate ion from the extract before
determination of the phenolics and
herbicides.
EPA is also investigating the use of
high pressure liquid chromatography
(HPLC) using .electrochemical and
fluorescence detection. HPLC with
fluorescence detection was used in
developing the improved leaching
procedure, and has been shown to
produce acceptable results (Ref. 6 and
7). A GC/MS method would be
preferable since use of the HPLC
method could add significantly to
analytical costs. Should the presence of
the acetate ion present substantial
problems to GC/MS, it is likely that ,
HPLC may be specified.
These methods are currently being
evaluated. The Agency solicits
comments arid data on these or other
methods which may be appropriate. On
completion of these studies and
evaluation of data received, a method
for the phenolics will be selected and
proposed for use with, TCLP extracts
prior to promulgation of this rule.
D. Notification Requirements
The Agency has decided not to
require persons who generate, transport,
treat, store, or dispose of these
hazardous waste to notify the Agency
within 90 days of promulgation that they
are managing these wastes. The Agency
views the notification requirement to be
unnecessary in this case since we
believe that most, if not all, persons who
manage these wastes have already
notified EPA and received an EPA
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 51. No. 114
^opose(*
21659
identification number. In the event that
any person who generates, transports,
treats, stores, or'disposes of these
wastes has not previously notified and
received an identification number, that
person must get ah identification
number pursuant to 40 CFR 262.12
before he can generate, transport, treat,
store, or dispose of these wastes.
V. Relationship to Other Regulatory
Authorities :
As has been pointed out previously,
the Toxicity Characteristic threshold
setting approach is modeled along the
same lines as that used in the January
14,1986 proposed standards for
implementing the Land Disposal ,
Restrictions regulations (51 FR1603).
However, since the Toxicity
Characteristic proposes to use a Subtitle
D disposal model, a slightly broader
confidence interval for the Monte Carlo
simulation, and an order'of magnitude
higher risk level for the carcinogens, the ;
regulatory thresholds may be different
than those proposed for banning wastes
from land disposal. '
The reason for the different thresholds
in the Toxicity Characteristic relates to
the nature of characteristics and the
relationship between characteristics and
listings, as discussed previously in this
. .preamble. Characteristics are designed
to be self implementing hazardous
waste definitions in which waste and
- • management specific factors are not
• considered. For that reason,
characteristics are established.at levels
at which the Agency has a very high
level of certainty that a waste which
exhibits these properties, needs, to be
managed in a controlled manner (i.e., is
„ a hazardous waste). The Agency
realizes that not all waste which exhibit
.-' properties at levels below the
characteristic are safe for disposal as
nonhazardous waste. Rather, for those
' wastes having properties lower than the
. characteristic levels, and which are
demonstrated to pose a hazard to
human health or the environment, the
Agency undertakes waste specific
. evaluations under the auspices of its
listing program. Wastes which are
determined to require controlled
management after consideration of the
factors identified in 40 CFR 261.11(a}(3),
(e.g., the nature of the toxic constituents,
toxicant mobility under various
• environmental management scenarios,
volume of waste generated, potential
methods of management), are then
specifically listed as hazardous wastes
and subjected .to the appropriate RCRA
management controls.
For the land disposal restrictions
program, the screening levels, identified
through the equation are levels which,
EPA is very certain are protective at
Subtitle C land disposal facilities.
Wastes not meeting the screening levels
are not banned outright from land-
disposal, but rather subject to qase-by-
case evaluations taking into account the
specific characteristics of individual
facilities. This case-by-case
determination is initiated by petitions.
for exmption from the land disposal
restrictions. The evlauation of these
petitions will be based on results of
modeling similar to that used to set
screening levels, but with site-specific
rather than conservative generic factors
included. ,
In addiiton, the HSWA requires a very
' high standard of proof for a showing
that a hazardous waste is suitable for
land disposal. For this reason, the
Agency believes it is appropriate to use
a higher level of confidence and a lower
cancer risk level in the modeling for the
land disposal restrictions decisions,
than is used for the Toxicity
Characteristic. However, the Agency
requests comment on whether the risk
level and confidence level used in the
Toxicity Characteristic should be the
" same as for. the screening levels used in
the proposed land disposal restrictions
rule. -,',-.
Whenever a waste or waste stream is
determined to be hazardous under
section 3001 of RCRA, it automatically
becomes a hazardous substance under
section 101(14) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). CERCLA section 103
requires that persons in charge of
vessels or facilities from which
hazardous substances have been
released in quantities, that are equal to
or greater than the reportable quantities
(RQs), immediately .notify the National
Response Center (at (800) 424-8802 or
(202) 426-2675) of the release. (See 50 FR
13456, April 4,1985). '
The term "hazardous substance" .
includes all substances designated in
§ 302.4(a) of the April 4,1985 final rule
(50 FR 13474), as well as unlisted ., - • -
hazardous wastes exhibiting the
characteristics of Ignitability,^
Corrosivity, Reactivity, and Extraction
Procedure Toxicity (ICRE). (See
§ 302.4(b) of the April 4..1985 final rule).
There are currently only 14
substances listed under CERCLA as
ICRE wastes oh the basis of the EP
Toxicity Characteristic, most of which
are also specifically designated as
hazardous substances under 40 CFR
302.4(a). Under today's proposed rule, an
additional 38 compounds, which are also
specifically designated .as hazardous
substances under 40 CFR 302.4(a), would
be incorporated under the newly defined
Toxicity Characteristic. Accordingly, ,
EPA proposes in this rulemaking to
amend Table. 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4, to
remove "Characteristic of EP Toxicity"
and replace it with "Toxicity
Characteristic," and to list the
additional Toxicity Characteristic
contaminants along with their final RQs
from Table 302.4.
The CERCLA program will also use
the TCLP procedure to help determine
when waste( taken off-site must be . ,
managed as a hazardous waste. To the
extent that the TCLP is applicable or
relevant and appropriate, the CERCLA
program will apply the TCLP in a
manner that is consistent with the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) (50 FR
47912, November 20,1985) and policy on
CERCLA compliance (50 FR 47946,
November 20,1985) with other
environmental statutes.
As indicated earlier in this preamble,
under section 405 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), EPA establishes guidelines
for the disposal and use of sewage
sludge. The regulation of sewage sludge
" is necessarily a complex matter because
these sludges fall within the jurisdiction
of several Federal environmental
programs. Under section 1004(27) of
RCRA, the definition of "solid waste"
specifically includes "sludge from a
waste treatment plant." In defining
"sludge," SBCtion 1004(26A) includes,
wastes froih a "municipal wastewater
treatment plant.". Under.section 102 of"
the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act, EPA regulates the
; ocean dumping of sludge, including,
sewage sludge.
Where silch overlapping jurisdiction
exists, EPA seeks to integrate and .
coordinate its regulatory actions to the
extent feasible. Thus, consistent with
section 1006 of RCRA, the Agency's
strategy for the development of a
comprehensive sewage sludge
management regulation will result in the
establishment of a separate regulation.
Once this regulation is in place, all
sewage sludge use and disposal
practices will be covered under
appropriate provisions of section 405 of
the CWA. If appropriate, sewage sludge
that would be defined as a hazardous
waste will be exempted from coverage
under proirisions of Subtitle C of RCRA,
once this separate, sewage, sludge
regulation, which will provide an
equivalent level of protection, is issued.
-------
21660
Federal Register /Vol. 51. No. 114 /Friday, June 13,1986 /Proposed Ruies
VI. Slate Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008, 7003 and 3013 of RCRA, although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility. - ' .
Prior to the HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in
lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that State. The Federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized State, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities in the
Slate which the State was authorized to
permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified lime frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under newly enacted
section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
G92C(g). new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
nonaulhorized Stales. EPA is directed to
carry out those requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
USWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, the HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
Today's rule would be promulgated
pursuant to sections 3001 (g) and (h) of
RCRA. provisions added by HSWA.
Thus, it would be added to Table 1 in
section 271.1(j) which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for Ihe HSWA provisions
identified in Table 1, as'discussed in the
following section of this preamble;
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's proposed rule, when
promulgated, in authorized States until
.they modify their programs to adtfbt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Since the rule will be
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program»modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or
3006(b), respectively, on the basis of
requirements that are substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The
procedures and schedule for State
program modifications under section
3006(b) are described in. 40 CFR 271.21.
The same procedures should be
followed for section 3006(g)(2).
Applying § 271.21(e)(2), States that
have final authorization must modify
their programs within a year of
promulgation of EPA's regulations if
only regulatory changes are necessary,
or within two years of promulgation if
statutory changes are necessary. These.
deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases (40 CFR 271.21(e)(3]).
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
proposed rule. These State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
is not authorized to carry out these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
States with existing rules may continue
to administer and enforce their
standards as a matter of State law. In
implementing the Federal program, EPA'
will work with States under cooperative
agreements to minimize duplication of
efforts.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than ,12
months after promulgation of EPA's
regulations may be approved without
including standards equivalent to those
promulgated. Once authorized, however,
.a State must modify its program to
include standards substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's within
the time periods discussed above.
VII. Economic and Regulatory Impacts
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Executive Order 12291
Executive Order 12291 requires
regulatory agencies to conduct a
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
any major rule. A major rule is one
likely to result in (1) an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, (2)
a major increase in costs'or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State or local government
agencies, or geographic regions, or (3)
significant Adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United States-based enterprises to
compete in domestic or export markets.
EPA conducted an RIA to compare
several regulatory alternatives, as
explained in the following sections. The
RIA provides an analysis based on the
guidelines contained in the Office of
Management and Budget's "Interim
Regulatory Impact Analysis Guidance"
(Ref. 21) and EPA's "Guidelines for
Performing Regulatory Impact
Analyses" (Ref. 28).
Based on the results of this analysis
the Agency has concluded that this
proposed regulation is a major rule with
an annual cost to the economy of $151 •
million and an annual benefit of $1,625
•million. The benefits, however, may be
an overestimate since it is assumed that
all contaminated aquifers would be
cleaned up.-Thus, the savings attributed
to not having to clean up those aquifers
would not accrue with a resultant
decrease in benefits. Due to the case-by-
case nature of these cleanup decisions,
, it was not possible to quantify this
qverestimatioh.
The purpose of section VII(Al) is to
summarize the methodologies and
findings of the RIA. Section VII(A)(2)
discusses the basic approach taken in '
the RIA, and provides the regulatory
alternatives examined. Section VII(A){3)
lists the industries projected to be
affected by the proposed actions; and
section VII(A)(4) discusses the
methodologies employed in the
economic impacts, benefit, and cost
analyses. Finally, section VII(A)(5)
reviews and compares the results of the
benefit and cost estimations. The full
draft RIA is available as part of one of
the background documents supporting
this proposed regulation (Ref. 22).
This proposed rule was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
for review, as required by Executive
Order 12291. :
2. Basic Approach/Regulatory
Alternatives '
EPA is proposing to expand its list of
contaminants under the EP Toxicity
Characteristic to include a total of 52
contaminants. As explained earlier, and
in sections VIII (A), (B) and (C),
regulatory levels for these contaminants
have been established by multiplying
the chronic toxicity reference level for
the contaminant, by its compound
specific dilution/attenuation factor.
Since EPA was in the process of refining
both its chronic toxicity reference levels
for some of the compounds, and its
ground water transport model, many of
the actual levels proposed today could
not be used in estimating regulatory
impact. Since the ground water
transport model was in the process of -
being refined, straight dilution/
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 114 /Friday, June 13,1986 /Proposed
21661
attenuation factors of 10, WO, and 1,000
were applied to .estimated chronic .
tpxicity reference levels",, to .arrive at "...,
three levels of regulation. Thus,
including the status quo [i.e., no
regulation), a total of four regulatpry. -'
alternatives were e'xamined. . ':..'; - :
This approach .was taken as it would
provide minimum and maximum . • , .• "
estimates pf regulatory impact, and also
because it provided EPA with
comparative cost and benefit is estimates
for three levels of-regulation. Since the
regulatpry levels for the elemental
drinking water standards are being
retained, and since the TCLP is expected
to be roughly, equivalent to the EP, this
RIA also assumes that the universe of
waste regulated as a result of the
elemental drinking water standards is ,
unchanged. Benefits and'costs were
determined, then, for the following - .
regulatpry alternatives: ,
' Alternative 1. Includes all currently
unregulated wastes which would
produce a TCLP extract containing any
of the contaminants at a level greater
than or equal" to 100 times the chronic
toxicity reference level. '•' '
Alternative 2. Same as above except
this alternative evaluates, a level greater
' -than or equal to, 10 times the chronic .',
toxicity reference'level. ' ;
Alternative 3. Same as above except
this alternative evaluates a level greater
than or equal to 1,000 times the chronic
toxicity reference level.
Alternative 4. Status quo (i.e., no
regulation).
The proposed regulation, since it
employs compound specific attenuation
factors, does not exactly mirror any of
the alternatives studied. Rather, it falls
between alternatives 2 and 3, with 40 . ;
compounds having a dilution/
attenuation factor of 14.4, and 12 "'-.':
compounds with factors ranging from 18
to 150 (See section YIII(C). As will be
seen from the discussion which follows,
'alternatives 1 and 2 both yield almost
identical results for both costs and
benefits. Thus,, basing the conclusions
on the results of alternatives 1 or 2 are
not expected to result in any significant
difference.
Benefits and costs for each regulatory
alternative are compared to those of the
baseline status quo. The status quo is
assumed not to require industry to incur
additional waste management costs.
However, this RIA assumes that society
will incur, the costs of not regulating :
these wastes. The. "social" costs of the
status quo are.assumed:to be the.;.
benefits .that would occur if the wastes
were regulated. They vary with .the . ,
projected number of affected facilities.
.Note that no original research, ' •
sampling, or analyses were conducted
as.part of this RIA. In addition, as in alf
RIAs, a number pf assumptions were
made in order, to predict impacts .
Assumptions about potentially affected
wastes were based primarily on.
technical judgment, review of available
literature and data, and EPA guidance.
The determination of whether wastes
would be hazardous under this proposed
rule was based primarily on the
solubility of individual contaminants"
rather than actual testing or data.
Consequently, EPA believes that the
estimates of projected impact indicated
in the following paragraphs, are_
conservative (i.e., overstated) and
should be viewed in a relative'sense. In
addition, although EPA expects to have
better impact estimates (and some
additional actual data) when this
proposed regulation is promulgated, the
very nature of predicting impact based
on assumptions .and technical judgment
dictates that impact estimates still be .
viewed in a relative sense., • " , •
3. Affected Industries ,.. - . .
"-•' • Since the proposed actiPn is chemical
specific ratherthan industry-specific, it
. affects a'wide.range of industries. The
following table (Table 2} shows the
affected industries by Standard'
Industrial Classification. (SIC) code, and
gives the number of potentially affected
facilities: •
TABLE 2.—DIRECTLY AFFECTED INDUSTRIES
TABLE 2.—DIRECTLY AFFECTED INDUSTRIES—
"''<,', Continued
Industry
Plastics . • '
materials and
resins. * • -
Synthetic
rubber.
Medicinals and
botanicals.
Soap and other
detergents.
Surface active
agents.
Paints and
allied
products.
Cyclic crudes
and
intermediates
. Industrial ; <
Organic
chemicals. '
SIC ,
code
No.
2821
2822
2833
2841
2843
2851
2865
- -
, 2869
' Description -
Manufacturing pf . ,
synthetic resins,
plastics materials and
nonvulcanizable
elastomers. . ' ' .
Manufacturing synthetic '
.rubber 'by
polymerization or
copolymerization.
Manufacturing bulk :
organic and inorganic
medicinal chemicals . ,'
and botanical drugs.
Manufacturing soap and
synthetic organic.
detergents, inorganic
alkaline detergents.
and crude and refined
. . glycerin. "
Producing surface active
preparations as
wetting agents.
emulsifiers, and
penetrants:
Manufacturing paints'.
varnishes, and.allied
paint products. *
Manufacturing coal tar
crudes and cyclic
organic intermediates,
dyes, color lakes, and
toners.
Manufacturing, industrial
organic, chemicals not
• elsewhere' classified.
Affect- '
ed
facili-
ties1
823
2
1
2
22
2
'.' 185
•214
. Industry .
Agricultural
. chemicals. .
Petroleum
refining.
Nonferrous
wire drawing
and
insulating.
Total
SIC
code
No.
[2879
,11
J2911-
'•,' '
•i:
'i
3357
']
.;'•.-
.Description
Forrnulation and .'
preparation of pest. .
control chemicals.
including insecticides, .
. : fungicides, and •
' .hetbicides;
Producing' gasoline, -
kerosene, fuel oils.
. .lubricants, and other
petroleum derived
• products. ' ' :
Drawing, drawing and
. insulating, and
insulating-wire and ,
. cable of honferrous
metals. . .
Affect-
.ed
facili-
ties ' .
' 7'
2
.5
1;265'
'Based on Alternative"2 (ioxdilutton/attenuation factor).
Most of the plants "that produce and use
the proposed chemicals appear in the
organic chemical industries. Any facility
that is projected to generate a waste,
which could produce a TCLP extract ; ,
cpntaming ajiy .contaminant at. ,
concentrations greater^than the -,
regulatory level (i.e., the solubility of, the
contaminant exceeds the level), is , ,
-.-assumed to be a,hazardous waste. ;
(Those wasites currently regulated by '
RCRA are not included in the analysis.)
The number of affected facilities may
include plants that produce or use more
. than one of the chemicals. The actual
number of plants affected may therefore
be less thani the1 total shown.
The RIA addresses primarily the
" impact of the .expansion of the Toxicity
Characteristic oh the industrial sector. It
is apparent, however, that since sewage
sludges are; defined as solid wastes '
- under RCRA, today's proposal will also .
have an impact oh the municipal'sector.
'. Given that there are some 15,000
municipal generators of sewage sludge
across the United States, the impact
could be significant. While less than 10
percent of these facilities .accept ,
sufficient industrial waste to cause any
concern, these facilities generate most of
the sewage sludge across the United
State's. | ... "~- ;
The existing and proposed regulations
do not differ in their-treatment of metals.
Thus, any impact of the proposed
regulation on the municipal sector:
.would be due.solely to the additional
' organic compounds. Due to this concern,
EPA has begun a testing program to
evaluate these sludges. To date, eight;
sewage sludges from facilities receiving
significant industrial input have been
tested with the TCLP, and allwere
found noUo exceed any of the Toxicity
Characteristic levels (organics,or
inorganics), Although more sewage
-------
21662
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 114 /Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rule,s
sludge is being tested, EPA expects that
only sludge containing very high levels
of the organic toxicants proposed for
addition (which would most likely be
introduced through industrial input),
would be defined as hazardous. Very
few sewage sludges are expected to be
hazardous wastes.
Hence, most of the impact of the
proposed rule on the municipal sector
will be the requirement to evaluate
sludges against the Toxicity
Characteristic levels. This, as explained
earlier in the preamble, does not
necessarily mean that all sewage
sludges will be tested using the TCLP.
Rather, as with the current EPTC, the
vast majority of sewage sludge
generators will perform that hazard
determination using their knowledge of
the sludge they generate. EPA believes
that most of the municipal facilities
receive such small amounts of industrial
input, that they will be able to support a
determination of non-hazardousness
without having to test sludges using the
TCLP.
To assess more fully the regulation's
impact on the municipal sector, the
Agency will be collecting additional
data during the period between proposal
and promulgation. To help the Agency in
its impact estimates, EPA is requesting
that data on municipal sewage sludges
generated with the EP, the TCLP, or total
analyses be sent to the Agency.
Although it is not necessary to indicate
the source of the sewage sludge, EPA
solicit!; information such as the extent of
industrial input to the generating
facilit3', the type of industry involved,
the amount of sludge generated by the
facility annually, the type and extent of
sludge generation and treatment (e.g.,
primary, secondary, tertiary, filtration,
etc.), and the disposal method used.
4. Methodology Employed
a Economic impacts methodology. A
Partial Equilibrium Multimarket (PEM)
model was used to estimate economic
impacts. The basis of this model is the
partial equilibrium framewo/k, in which
only a manageable number of markets is
modeled. Economic impacts, or
equilibrium changes, in non-modeled
markets are assumed to be insignificant.
Input, directly affected, and output
markets ideally would be linked
together by a vertical market structure.
A majority of the expected market
changes would be modeled by the
structure in which markets are linked to
each other through the purchase of
inputs or the sale of outputs. As changes
occur in one market, resource
reallocations by buyers and sellers
prompt changes in other markets.
Limited data availability imposes
"constraints on such a modeling effort.
Thus, the economic impacts model, used
quantitatively, projects economic
impacts only in the identifiable directly
affected markets.
As described in the full RIA, directly
affected markets have been identified at
the four-digit SIC level. Since different
products are included within a four-digit
SIC code, products unaffected by the
proposed regulation may unavoidably
be included in this analysis.
The directly affected markets are
linked together by means of the PEM
model. Data requirements include an
I original equilibrium, supply functions,
demand functions, and the initial
• impacts caused by the proposed
regulatory alternatives. Several
; assumptions make this data collection
effort more manageable. Within this
economic impacts model, all supply
functions are treated as being perfectly
elastic. This assumption limits the
interaction between directly affected
^markets. A demand shift in an output
market does not change input price and
does not change production costs of a
directly affected product. What this
simplification implies cannot be
assessed because of limited data. In the
long run, however, all supply functions
tend to become more elastic (or flatten),
making the importance of this
assumption less significant.
Demand functions are assumed to
incorporate changes in equilibrium. As
defined by Just, Heath, and Schmitz
(Ref. 15), these general equilibrium
. .demand functions define the
relationship between price and quantity,
given all changes in output markets. For
example, a price increase and quantity
decrease in an output market ordinarily
will shift demand for a directly affected
product. With a general equilibrium
demand function, a shift in demand
function does not have to be defined.
Market changes caused by the
proposed regulation are straightforward.
Initial equilibrium changes occur as
increased production costs and cause
supply functions in the directly affected
markets to shift up. Owing to the
. assumptions listed above, .these new
prices and quantities now represent a •
new equilibrium since input prices do
not change and demand for directly
affected products does not shift.
, Changes in the unmodeled input market •
are only changes in quantity traded.
Changes in unmodeled output markets
are an increase in price and a decrease
in quantity traded.
The PEM model simplifies the
analysis in several ways. Most
...importantly, it allows measurement of
all social costs in the directly affected
markets. Also, it allows the economic
impacts to be:solved in several steps
rather than simultaneously. The
projected economic impacts are then
used to define benefits and costs..
b. Benefits estimation methodology.
Regulation of wastes containing any one
of the selected chemicals is anticipated
to result in a reduced risk of
contamination of ground water that
serves as a supply of drinking water for
many communities. If the contaminating
chemical is a carcinogen, consumption
of drinking water may result in an
excess incidence of cancer cases in the
population. Ingestionpf noncarcinogenic
chemicals in drinking water at a level
above; the RfD may be correlated with
toxic,:reproductive, or genetic effects,
depending on the particular chemical. If
people avoid drinking contaminated
ground wa'ter, switching to an '
alternative water source imposes
substantial costs on the affected
communities. Often, if a chemical has
, been detected in the ground water, the
contaminated aquifer is cleaned up (to :
the extent possible) and the landfill
treated, which also results in additional
costs to the community.
.. Estimates are made for each chemical
of the health effects and switching and
cleanup costs (corrective costs)
attributable to the presence of that
chemical in the ground water.
Regulation of the waste is assumed to
prevent these'estimated health effects
and corrective costs completely. The
estimated benefits attributable to the
regulation are .the health effects and
corrective costs avoided by its
implementation.
Four steps are used to determine
benefits: (1) Estimate quantity and
concentration of chemical in landfill, (2)
estimate concentration of chemical in
leachate (i.e.. TCLP extract), (3) estimate '
chemical concentration at drinking -;
water well, -and (4) estimate health
effects and corrective costs attributable '*
to that ground water contamination.
The unregulated wastes are assumed •.,
to be disposed in a landfill each year for
20 year's (the average lifetime of a
landfill). The amount of the chemical :
contaminant that leaches through the .;
landfill, and the leaching duration, is
determined using a leachate ' :
concentration model. From the bottom of
the landfill, 'the contaminant is
transported through the aquifer to the
community well. The concentration of
the contaminant at the well varies over
time and is tracked over 100 years with
a ground water transport model. The
health and corrective costs attributable
to the contaminated well are then
estimated by a health and corrective .
costs, model.
-------
Two methods—the Base Case Method
(Alternative. 1') and an Alternate Method
(use of a ground water transpoft'THOdel)
were employed to estimate the •
concentration of the chemical in the
leachate at the well. The estimated
; benefits presented in the next unit are
calculated using the Base Case Method.
This method assumes (1) that the landfill
receives predominantly domestic refuse,
r ^with only 5 percent of the landfill
holding industrial waste, (2} that the
character of the leaching fluid to which
wastes are exposed is primarily a
function of the non-industrial material in
the landfill, (3] that the landfill is
located over an aquifer that is a source
of drinking water, (4) that the soil below
: the landfill has limited attenuative
capacity, (5) that the nearest drinking
water wells are 150 meters (500 ft)
downgradient from the landfill, and (6]
that as constituents migrate from the
landfill through the urisaturated and
saturated zones to the source of drinking
water, they are attenuated by a factor of
100.
c. Cost estimation methodology. The
current disposal costs, .pr.baseline, must
. be established if the increased disposal
costs, incurred,by waste generators due
to the proposed regulation are to be .
estimated. Current disposal costs are a
function of the disposal alternatives in ,
use. Where the waste is not a listed
hazardous waste,; current disposal
practices are identified by examining
the technical literature, by analogy to
similar wastes for which disposal
practice is known; or by assumption.
Some baseline disposal .alternatives
may understate the actual treatment and
disposal applied to that waste, because
no effort has been made to determine
which wastes may be affected by State
and; local regulations that, are .more
stringent than Federal regulations. This
may also, occur because firms
voluntarily may be applying more ;
thorough treatment and disposal than
required by regulation. The result of this
potential understatement of baseline
treatment and disposal, alternatives is
that the estimated increase in disposal
costs to comply with the characteristic
approach will be greater than the actual
increase.
For currently landfilled wastes not
listed as hazardous but subject to the
regulation, disposal practice after
regulation will become more stringent
, and costs will increase. Disposal costs ,
are assumed to remain the same for
wastes currently incinerated or k
deepwell injected. Solvent waste's and a
few other wastes are assumed to be
incinerated. '. .''"''
Using model plant information, '
estimates of the incremental disposal
and operating and maintenance^ costs
Associated with the implementation of
*he alternatives are projected. These
estimated costs are then compared to
the cost of contracting, with commercial
disposal services to.estimate properly
the minimum costs incurred by the
affected facilities. These costs are
anmialized to reflect an accurate
measure of the increased"production
costs associated with this proposal.
Estimates of percentage cost change are
generated for use in the product/
consumption model. Under the
.assumption of full-cost pricing, these
percentage estimates are determined by
dividing the annualized incremental
costs by the value of shipments in
affected SIC industries.
The economic impacts model is used
to derive all costs or welfare losses
borne by consumers of directly.affected
products. Consumers suffer, a welfare
loss because they lose consumer ,
surplus, or the value placed, on
consumption in excess of the amount
" required to purchase a product-..-
Economic theory allows the estimation
of total consumer costs;through impacts
in the directly affected markets. Thus,
input and output market data are not
required. . •'. :, .
Consumer surplus losses represent the
only recurrent or annual costs. Changes
in waste disposal methods in response
to a regulation are represented by an
upward shift in the supply function. The'
higher production costs that result
create a new equilibrium and a
consumer surplus loss. The new
equilibrium will have lower production
at a higher,cost than the initial
' equilibrium^ A real resource cost is the,
value of the additional.costs incurred to
produce the new lower level of output. A
- dead-weight loss is the loss in surplus
value consumers placed^on those units
that will no longer be produced.
Extension of the above analysis to a
multimarket situation is straightforward.
Since impacts in input and output
markets need not be considered, total
welfare costs are developed by
assuming:welfare costs in the directly
affected markets.;
Consumer surplus costs represent .
annual costs. Within this analysis all
baseline data are presented for the year
1982. Consumer surplus losses will
continue to be incurred, however, for an
unknown number of years. To develop
cost estimates for future years, costs are
first estimated for 1982 and then
assumed to be constant for all
subsequent years. This simplifying
assumption is necessary since time
constraints preclude the projection of
market trends. - •
' • Implementation, costs., consisting of
transaction'costs 'and employment '.
losses, represent losses in welfare that.
will be incurred only once'. Transaction
costs represient the value of resources
that would "be expended to 'determine if
a waste stream is'to be regualated.
These costs are based on an estimated
cost of sampling and analyzing each
waste stream by affected facilities.
Employment losses occur since.goods
and services are forgone when
individuals are employed. Losses are
based oh th|e projected change in
production and employment-to-output
ratios for each directly affected market.
These losses are not valued in dollar
terms becanise projecting the length of
time for which an employee is,
unemployed is difficult. Similarly, the
value to place on tune, individual job
skills, age, education, and personal
dislike of being unemployed are not
valued .in dollar terms. .. \ • • ' -
5. Results |
o. Aggregate benefits. Continued use
of current practices for managing wastes
producing TCLP extracts containing the
. selected chemicals in excess to -, .
; regulatory levels is expected to res, nit ia
the deterioration of .environmental
, quality. This deterioration may elevate
risks to huitnan health and reduce the
quality of environmental resources, such
as drinking water. The major route by
which environmental quality is expected
to be affected is through' the leaching of
contaminated wastes into ground water.
Over 50 percent of the U.S. population
uses groun d water for drinking water.
Further, contaminated ground water can
enter surfatce water, reducing its quality.
The capacity of both ground water and
surface water to assimilate toxic
' chemicals is limited. , -...,'•-
If peoplts drink contaminated ground
water, a wide range of health effects
may occur, from simple gastrointestinal
problems to cancer and birth defects;'
The focus is on the possible excess
cancer cases if the selected chemicals
are not regulated. It is assumed that
contaminated water would continue to
' be used as a drinking water source until
the concentration reached taste or odor
thresholds of the average person. When
that threshold is attained, it is assumed
they would switch to alternative water
sources. '.•,--. *
When a landfill is recognized as a
source of ground water contamination, it
is also assumed that the municipality'
would take action to prevent further
leaching of the chemicals. Estimates
were developed for a representative
community arid aggregated' to pbtain ;
national totals. This aggreation process
-------
21664
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 /Friday. June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
is not very precise, so the reader is
cautioned to interpret the results
presented carefully. The benefits and
costs for each regulatory alternative are
summarized in the following table
(Tables).
TABLE 3.—BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT
Elonafits-Costs
Monetized benefits*
Avoided cost of alternative
watof source:
Prosem value (S10*)* ..
AwKulized (S10«/Yr)
Avoided cosl o» aquifer
cteamjp;
Present value (S10«)»
Annutiftzed (SIO'/Yr),..,
Monetized costs;
float rosoiHco cost:
Present value (S10»)*__...._
Annwiitzcd (S10»/Yi)_,
Deadweight consumer sur-
pktscosl:
Present value (S10«)k
Annunllzed (S10*/Yr).™...._..
Transaction cost (S10«)<
Net monetized benefits:'
Present value ($10")'
Armu»feod (SIOVYr)
Nonrnonotzod benefits;1
AvoKtod cancer cases.
Avoided person-years of ex-
pojoro above tha chronic
ttxoshould (10»)
Konmomtized costs;
Employee dislocations —
Regulatory alternative
1
3,218
378
11.897
1.398
1.285
151
1.2
0.1
12
13,830
1,625
54
4.8
407
2
3,317
390
12.316
1.447
1,287
151
1.2
0.1
1.2
14.345
1.685
, 54
4.8
407
3
3,174
373
11,719
1,377
1,186
139
1.0
0.1
1.2
13,706
1,610
53
0
372
•Bonofitt are based on Alternative 1.
* 20-Year cost discounted at 10 percent.
'One-time cost incurred fust year.
'Monetised benefits minus monetized costs excludina
transaction costs, s
These estimates of the health effects
and corrective costs attributable to a
waste are developed for a typical
community. The estimates of the
aggregate benefits of the proposed
regulation are obtained by assuming
that health effects and corrective costs
would be avoided by all the
communities affected by the proposed
regulation. Since the aggregation
process used assumes that each waste
affects a single typical community, it is
somewhat arbitrary. Again, the reader is
cautioned to interpret results with care.
b. Aggregate costs. Benefits of the
regulatory alternatives would be
accompanied by costs. As described
previously, total costs of the regulatory
alternatives includes real resource costs,
dead-weight consumer surplus losses,
dead-weight producer surplus losses
(capital value losses), employee
dislocation costs, and transaction costs.
Two of these welfare costs have not
been projected in this analysis.
Employee dislocations have been
quantified, but their social costs have'
not been evaluated. Capital value losses
incurred by owners of affected capital
also have not been evaluated.
c. Benefit-cost comparison. Most
public policy alternatives have benefits
and costs. Policy'evaluation can be
difficult because these benefits and •
costs typically accrue to different %
individuals. Harberger (Ref. 11) has.
argued that:
when evaluating the net benefits or costs of a
given action (project, program, or policy), the
costs and benefits accruing to each member
of the relevant group (e.g., a nation) should
normally be added without regard to the •
individuals to whom they accrue.
This principle dates to Kaldor (Ref. 16)
and Hicks (Ref. 12), who argued that a
change should be instituted if a potential
gain exists so that those who bear the
cost could be compensated fully for their
loss by the beneficiaries, and the
beneficiaries would still be better off
than before. Following the Kaldor-Hicks
principle, this RIA evaluates benefits
and costs to society at large without
regard to their incidence.
Table 3 summarizes the benefits and
costs of the regulatory alternatives. The
difference between the monetized
benefits (i.e., avoided corrective costs)
and monetized costs (i.e., real resource
and dead-weight consumer surplus
costs) is compared using the annualized
method. This difference is positive for
all regulatory alternatives. Thus, each
alternative would provide an
improvement in economic welfare.
An evaluation of the regulatory
alternatives will allow a comparison of
the different regulatory levels for the
proposed contaminants. Moving from
Alternative 2 to 1, respectively leads to
virtually no changes in health benefits,
but does increase the net monetized
benefits by $61 million per year. This
suggests that Alternative 2 is preferable
to Alternative 1. Moving from
Alternative 3 to 1 leads to substantial
reduction in health benefits, and yields a
decrease in net monetized benefits of
$14 million per year.
As explained earlier, this RIA
compares the benefits and costs of
several regulatory alternatives that were
determined by multiplying estimated
chronic toxicity reference levels for the
selected compounds, by assumed
dilution/attenuation factors of 10,100
and 1,000. This was necessary, as the
•toxicity reference levels and the model-
generated dilution/attenuation factors
that were proposed today could not be
generated in time for this analysis.
Hence, while this analysis provides
estimates of the range of regulatory
impacts due to the proposed rule, it does
not directly provide an estimate of the
impact qf the proposed rule. The final
RIA which, will accompany the
promulgation of this rule will analyze
the benefits and costs based on the final
regulation.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601-612 whenever an Agency is
required to issue for publication in the
Federal Register any proposed or final
rule; it must prepare and make available
for comment a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis which describes the impact of
the rule on small entities (i.e., small
business, small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions), unless the
Agency's Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities'. -
The Agency has examined the
proposed rule's potential impact on
'small businesses, and has concluded
that this regulation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Again, for the
reasons stated in the above section, this
analysis does hot directly provide an
estimate of the impact of the proposed
rule on small businesses.
More than 20 percent of the small
firms in an industry is considered a
substantial number of affected firms. •
This analysis uses a worst-case
approach and assumes that all affected
facilities belong to small firms. Three
standard measures suggested by EPA
guidance are used in determining a
• significant impact on small firms within
an industry. These are (1) when
annualized compliance cost as a
percentage of. total costs of production is
greater than 5 percent, (2) when capital
costs of compliance represent a .
significant portion of capital available to
small entities, and (3) when annualized
compliance cost as a percentage of sales
for small firms is more than 10 .
percentage points higher than
annualized compliance costs as a
percentage ,of sales for large firms. For
the purposes of this analysis, the costs
associated with the first regulatory
alternative are used in assessing the
significance of impacts on the small
firms within affected industries.
In determining the ratios needed for '
the third measure, annual compliance
costs for each industry are apportioned -
into two groups. One group is used with
the receipts for large firms and the other
is used with receipts for small firms. The
proportion going to each group is equal
to the percentage of small and large
firms above and below the size standard
of 50 employees. EPA has elected not to
adopt the Small Business .
Administration's definition of small
business, which is fewer than 500
employees for most SICs, because it
would include the majority of plants in
•the regulated community. Using a
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. .114 / Friday/June 13.1986 / ProposedRules
31665
threshold value which includes a
majority of the total population obscures
any differential impacts on smaller
firms.- The Agency considers a, threshold
value of fewer than 50 employees to be
a more sensitive index of impacts on
small businesses..
For the other two measures, the entire
cost for the industry is compared to the
aggregate data for small firms as a worst
• case. This will provide an extreme
estimate ,of the number of industries that
have small firms that might experience a
significant impact. A "significant portion
otcapital available to small entities" •
depends on the average annual portion
of new capital expenditures spent on
pollution abatement in the last 10 years.
If capital costs as a percentage of new '
capital expenditures are more than 10
percentage points larger than the
average percentage, that' has been spent
in the last 10 years, than the capital
costs are determined to be significant.
Under this analysis, no SICs are
impacted significantly by any of the
three measures described. Accordingly, I
certify that this proposed regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small •
entities. This regulation therefore does
not require a Regulatory Flexibility .-'••>..
Analysis. . • ,
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule contains
information collection requirements
subject,to OMB review under the - •
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
' U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. Specifically, under 40
CFR 262.40, generators are required to
keep records on how the hazard .
determination was made for the wastes
they generate. EPA believes that these
information collection requirements are
insignificant arid has not prepared
documentation pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act. If necessary,
such documentation will be prepared for
the promulgated rule.
VIII. Additional Information
A. Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels_
1. Introduction '
When the EP Toxicity Characteristic
(EPTC) was promulgated in May of 1980,
the only standards which existed for
establishing toxicity levels, and which .
, addressed chronic exposure, were the
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards (NIPDWS). These, '
addressed 8 metals, 4 insecticides and 2
herbicides, and hence, EP toxicity
thresholds were limited to these 14
contaminants. Today, however, chronic
toxicity levels have been established for
a mimber of additional toxicants. This
Section provides details on the chronic
toxicity reference levels which are being
proposed for use in, expanding the
Toxicity Characteristic. ; .
2. Non-Carcinogenic Constituents
Establishing regulatory levels for '
individual contaminants requires the
initial input of a health reference level.
Determination of the appropriate level is
dependent upon the nature of the toxic
effect of the constituent, specifically
whether, or not the constituent is a
carcinogen. Substances which dp' not
cause cancer exert toxicity through
mechanisms which exhibit physiological
thresholds. Thus a reserve capacity,
assumed to exist within an organism,
- must be depleted or overwhelmed
before toxic effects are .evident. Simply -
put, for each non-carcinogen there is
some low level of exposure which has
no effect on humans. Protection against
'a chronic toxic effect-for a non-
carcinogen is achieved by keeping
exposure levels at or below .the
reference dose.
For non-carcinogenic constituents, the
Agency is proposing to use Reference
.Doses (RfDs) as the starting point for
establishing chronic toxicity regulatory
levels.. An RfD is an estimate,of a
lifetime daily exposure of a substance to
the general human population, which
appears to be. without an appreciable
: risk of deleterious effects. Conceptually,
the RfD is closely related to the term
Acceptable Daily Intake. ADIs were first
used-by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in 1954 as specific
guidelines and recommendations on the
use of "safe" levels of chemicals, such
as food additives or food contaminants,
for human consumption (Ref. 18). Since
their initial use by the FDA, ADIs Have
been used by other public health
agencies in establishing "safe" levels for
toxic chemicals. The Food and
Agricultural Organization, World Health
Organization, and EPA have used ADIs,
in the process of establishing allowable
pesticide residues in foodstuffs (i.e.,
tolerances). The National Academy of
Science and EPA have ^estimated ADIs
for purposes of establishing safe levels
of contaminants in drinking water (Ref.
30). '
The experimental method for
estimating the RfD is to measure the
highest test dose of a substance which
causes no statistically or. biologically
significant effect in an. appropriately
conducted animal bioassay test. This
experimental no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) is an estimate of
the animal population's physiological
threshold. The RfD is derived by.
dividing the NOAEL by a suitable
• scaling or uncertainty/factor.
NOAELs are usually obtained through
a chronic study pr a :90-day subchronic
study. Other available lexicological .
data, such as metabolism and ..-..•. .
pharmacokinetics, are used to validate
the judgmental choice of a particular
dose level as the.NOAEL. Confidence in
the NOAEL, and therefore injhe RfD, is
dependent on the equality of the " .
experiment, the number and type of
animals tested at each level, the number
and range of dose levels, the duration of
the study (i.e., chronic vs subchronic),
and the nature of the biological endpoint
measured'{i.e., the severity of the
observed effects). The longer the
duration of the study, the smaller is the
uncertainty'factor applied to the
NOAEL; Selection, of the appropriate
uncertainty factor 'involves scientific
judgment and the application of general
guidelines.'(Ref. 30). The derivation of
RfDs used for establishing regulatory
. levels has been evaluated and verified
by an Agency workgroup (Ref. 3.0, 31,
; and 32). | • . - X ^ -. . , /" ~
Table A-l presents the"propbsed non-
carcinogensLand their RfDs. The RfDs in
this'table aijie calculated by assuming
that a 70 Kg person ingests the
compound in 2 liters of drinking water.
per day. - i . .
TABLE A-1 .—NON-CARCINOGENS AND RFDS
.- ! (MG/L) .
. •: Compounds
Carbon disulfkfe.i -, -
Chlo'robenzene. l
o-Cresol ;
m-Cresol >
p-Cresol, - *
1,2-pichlorobenzene.
IsobutanoK
Methyl ethyl ketcme.
Nitrobenzene. ' ,
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol - ~ -
Pyridine ~ -
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol:
Toluene. -
2.4,5-Tfichlorophenol .
RfD '
4
J
>2
'2
'2
3
MO
2
0.02
.1
4 . .
0.075
'0.4 •
10
4
1 Preliminaty estinia'te of RfD. .
For some of the contaminants •
addressed in today's proposed rule,. ,
insufficient toxicological data exists for
establishing an RfD. EPA is using .
preliminary data for isobutanol, ortho-,
meta-, andpara-cresol, and 2,3,4,6?-
tetrachlorophenol while appropriate
testing continues. The Agency will
revise these RfD's and repropose the
regulatory .levels if necessary. Note also
that the Agency intends to propose . . .
regulatory levels for nickel and thallium
during the period betweeri-proposal and
promulgation of this rule. The chronic
toxicity levels for nickel and thallium
are expected to be 0.15 and 0.002 mg/1,
: respectively.; ; ' .
-------
21666
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
3. Carcinogenic Constituents
The use of the RID is appropriate only
for non-carcinogenic toxic endpoints. In
the absence of chemical specific
information on mechanism of action or
kinetics, EPA science policy suggests
that no threshold dose exists for
carcinogens. No matter how sma.ll the
. dose, some risk remains.
The dose-response assessment for
carcinogens usually entails an
extrapolation from an experimental high
dose range and observed carcinogenic
effects in an animal bioassay, to a dose
range where there are no observed
experimental data, by means of a pre-
selected dose-response model. The slope
of the dose-response curve is
determined by this model. EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group has
estimated the carcinogenic potency (i.e.,
the slope of risk versus exposure) for
humans exposed to low dose levels of
carcinogens. These potency values
indicate the upper 95 percent confidence
limit estimate of excess cancer risk for
individuals experiencing a given
exposure over a 70 year lifetime. In
practice, a given dose multiplied by the
slope of the curve gives an upper limit.
estimate of the number estimated to- .
develop cancer. The slope can be used
to calculate the upper limit of the dose
which gives rise to a given risk level ,
(e.g., one response in a hundred
thousand). By specifying the level of risk
(no matter how small) one can estimate
the lifetime dose corresponding to it.
The upper limit of the dose of a
carcinogen corresponding to a specific
risk level is called the Risk Specific
Dose (RSD). To arrive at a starting
health limit for a carcinogen, a risk level
or range of concern must be specified. •
EPA proposes to specify a risk level of
concern on a weight-of-evicjence basis,
as described below.
In November 1984, EPA proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment (49 FR 46294), which
described a scheme to characterize
carcinogens based on the experimental
weight of evidence. This scheme is
based on considerations of the quality
and adequacy of the experimental data
and the kinds of responses induced by a
suspect carcinogen. The classification.
scheme is generally an adaptation of a
similar system developed by the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer (Ref. 13).
EPA's classification of weight-of-
evidence system comprises five groups.
Group A indicates human carcinogens.
This classification is based on sufficient
evidence from epidemiological studies
of a causal association between human
exposure to the substance and cancer.
Group B indicates probable human
carcinogens. The evidence of human
carcinogenicity from epidemiological
studies for substances within this group
ranges from almost sufficient to
inadequate. This group is subdivided
into two categories (Bi and 62) on the
basis of the strength of the human
evidence. Where there is limited
epidemiologic evidence oL '
carcinogenicity, the carcinogen is
categorized as Bi. Where there is no
evidence or inadequate evidence from
human studies, the carcinogen is
categorized as Ba. Group C comprises
possible human carcinogens. This group
includes agents with limited evidence of
animal carcinogenicity. It includes a
• wide variety of animal evidence. Group
D includes agents which cannot be
classified because no data or
insufficient data are available. Group E
includes chemicals for which there are
adequate negative animal bioassays.
This category indicates no evidence of'
carcinogenicity in humans.
The Agency regards agents classified
in Group A or B as suitable for
quantitative risk assessment. The
method for quantitation of Group C
substances is best judged on a case-by-
case basis, since some Group C agents
do not have a data base of sufficient
quality and quantity to perform a
quantitative carcinogenicity risk
assessment.
Since carcinogens differ in the weight
of-evidence supporting the hazard
assessment, EPA believes that ,
establishment of a single across-the-
board risk level is not appropriate. The
Agency proposes to set a reference risk
level as a point of departure, along with
a risk range keyed to the weight of
evidence approach. The dose for known
and probable human carcinogenic
agents (Classes A'and B) would thus be
determined at the 10~5 risk level.
For the Class C carcinogens (agents
with less firm evidence of human
carcinogem'city), a risk level of concern
of 10~4 is being proposed. For those
Class C carcinogens for which there is
insufficient data to perform a
quantitative risk assessment, the dose is
calculated pn.the basis of th'e lowest
threshold effect, with an .additional
uncertainty factor of ten (e.g., NOAEL/
1000). This approach is similar to the
approach taken by the Agency on
November 13,1985 in its proposed'
regulations on enforceable standards for
volatile organic chemicals in drinking
water (50 FR 46880). The Agency solicits
comments on the proposed risk levels
and the criteria for distinguishing among
the Class C carcinogens for this purpose. '
Some agents appear to cause cancer
by only one route of exposure or entry.
" Conclusions about route specificity can
only be addressed in circumstances
where adequate data exists on
carcinogenicity for more than one route
of exposure. Where carcinogenicity
findings are available from only one
route of exposure, the substance is
judged to represent a cancer hazard by >
all routes, unless it can be scientifically*
demonstrated that the material cannot
gain access to target sites by the
. alternative routes of interest. Where the
data from one or more routes'are
limited, the Agency will evaluate each
case on it's merits, placing particular
emphasis on the scientific evidence.
For a few substances (notably metals),
the data base demonstrating that cancer
is produced by one route of exposure '
but not by another is substantial and
convincing. An example of a substance
whose carcinogenic response is
characterized as route-specific is
chromium and some of its salts. These
substances cause cancer by inhajation
but not by other conventional routes of
entry. The Agency will regulate such
substances as carcinogens only by the
relevant route and as non-carcinogens
by all other routes.
Table A-2 presents those proposed
Toxicity Characteristic contaminants
that are carcinogens, the class of the
carcinogen, and the Risk Specific Dose.
TABLE A-2.—CARCINOGENIC CONTAMINANTS
AND RSD (MG/L) l " - ,
Contaminant
Acrylonitrile
Bis (2-chloroethyl)
ether.
Chlordane .:.....
Chloroform
2,4-Dinitrotoluene...
Heptaohlor
Hexachloroben-
zene.
Hexachlorbuta-
diene.
Hexachloroethane...
Methylene chloride .
1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroeth-
ane.
1.1.2,2- ' , • '
Tetrachloroeth-
ane.
Tetrachlorbethy- ••
lens. , .
1,1,2-
Trtchloroethane.
2,4,6- •
Trichlorophenol.
Carcinogen
class
B;.
B
C .;. -.
B
B
B <
B .:...;.... :
c
C '
B .
C
c .., „..
B
c..
B . • '
Risk
level
•JO"6
10-'
10~5
10~s
10^B
10"*
• 10~4
10~s
- 10" *
, .io-«
10~5
10~4
Risk specific
dose (RSD)
3E-4
2E-3
1E-3 r
2E-4
5E-2
6E-1
7E-1
2E-2,
7E-3 "' ' ; " •
6E-2
Does not include those carcinogenic, contaminants for
which Dnnkmg Water Standards have been established or
proposed (See next section). , •....••
4. Use of Existing Agency Health
Standards
Under the existing EP Toxicity
Characteristic, EPA uses the existing
-------
Federal-Register ):Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday. June 13,1986 / Proposed Rules
21667
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards, established for eight
elemental contaminants and six' ., .
pesticides, as toxicity thresholds.
Today's rule retains these thresholds for
the elemental toxicants but proposes
compound specific dilution/attenuation
factor based thresholds for the organic
compounds. ' .
EPA has. also been working to..
establish Drinking Water Standards for
additional organic compounds. Final
standards for drinking water, the
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),
are enforceable and are based upon
health, treatment technologies, costs,
and other feasibility factors such as the
availability of analytical methods. The
MCLs are set following an analysis
based on health considerations as
guided by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This intermediate analysis results in
proposed Recommended Maximum
Contaminant Levels (PMCLs), which are
non-enforceable health based limits.
Included in the analysis of the health
considerations for determining PMCLs '.
are not only the quality and weight-of-
evidehce of the supporting toxicological,
studies, but also examination of
absorption rates of specific toxicants,
the possibility of nutritionally essential
levels for some elements, the existence
of route-specific toxicity, the
demonstration of other environmental
exposures, and finally, the
apportionment of the permissible limit of
constituent into media specific amounts.
In general, final MCLs for noft- ,
carcinogens are based on 20% of the
relevant RfDs, to account for exposure
from other sources (e.g., food and air).
Final MCLs for carcinogens are based
on risk levels that range from 10 ~4 to
10"6- . •
Since the above factors have been
evaluated for each of the other .
contaminants in today's_rule, PMCL ,
standards derived under the Safe
Drinking Water Act can be used as. . ..
"' toxicity thresholds. On November 13,
1985 EPA proposed MCLs for eight
synthetic volatile organic chemicals (50
FR 46880). EPA is also proposing to use
these contaminants and their proposed
MGLs, which appear in Table A-3, as
toxicity thresholds for the Toxicity
Characteristic. After public review and
evaluation EPA will promulgate final
.standards. Should the final MCLs differ'.
from the proposed MCLs, EPA will base
regulatory levels fof the Toxicity
Characteristic on these revised final
standards.
TABLE A-3.—PROPOSED MCL's FOR VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (MG/L)
* Contaminant
Benzene .....
Carbon tetrachlorlde.
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene.
1 ,2-Dichloroethane.
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane.
Triohloroethylene
Vinyl chloride.
Proposed
MCL .
0.005
0.005.
0.75
0.005
0.007
0.2
0:005
0.001
5. Apportionment of Health Limits
The reference dose for humans is the
maximum daily dose of a substance tha't
should not be exceeded to assure no
adverse health effects over a lifetime of
exposure. If exposure occurs by multiple
routes, some tolerance level can be
established for each route so that the
sum of exposures by the individual
routes does not exceed the reference
dose. , .-•'..
The concept of apportionment of a
chemical by medium and by.route of
exposure is not new. The National
Research Council's Safe Drinking Water
Committee, calculated a suggested no-
adverse-response-level (SNARL) for
chronic exposure to a non-carcinogen in
drinking water, while incorporating an
"arbitrary assumption" that 20 percent,
of the intake of the chemical was from
drinking water (Ref. 20). EPA, in setting
PMCLs for chemicals in drinking water,
has followed, the suggestion of the NRG,
and selected a'fraction of the RfD,
usually 20 percent for synthetic organic'
chemicals if no empirical data suggest
some other fraction is more appropriate
(50 FR 46880, Nov. 13,1985). EPA is
proposing to apportion non-carcinogenic
contaminants according to the scheme
outlined on the following pages.
In evaluating carcinogens,- the
National Research Council's Safe
Drinking Water Committee estimated
cancer risks assuming that tap water
exposure was both 1 and 20 percent of
the total daily intake (Ref. 20). The
Agency is however, not proposing to
apportion the RSD for carcinogens. For
such substances, the RSD is estimated
by a procedure which introduces
unavoidable uncertainties. The
procedure used is deliberately
conservative, so that a 'difference in
dose of a factor of two is still well
within the .margin of uncertainty of the
estimated RSD.
Moreover, for carcinogens, the ,
determination of risk is the daily dose
averaged over a lifetime. Small,
: variations around the daily ;dose have
little effect on the lifetime risk, providing
that the average is riot affected. For this
rea'sqn, a two-jfold'reduction in the RSD
is relatively insignificant. For non- .
carcinogens, it is possible that not
applying a 50 percent reduction (the
indirect effect of which is to permit an
approximate doubling of the RfD), may
cause the level to be exceeded on some
.or even many iiays of exposure.
Exceeding the level for non-carcinogens •
may therefore have significant health
consequences for some individuals.
Thus, there is justification for treating
non-carcinogens differently from
carcinogens with respect to
apportionment
In the process to developing drinking
water standards, EPA considers the
contribution from other sources of
exposure, such as air and food. When
sufficient data are available, the PMCL
is determiried.by subtracting the known'
contribution of the constituent in food '
and air from the RfD. Such data is often
not available. In these cases, the amount
permitted in drinking water is calculated '
by an estimation of the percentage of
exposure attributable to the exposure
route of concern. In the absence of
adequate exposure data, apportionment
is established:at 20 percent for synthetic
organic chemicals. For inorganic
chemicals, an adequate data base
generally exists/The actual contribution
from other sources can be factored into
the PMCL. Where actual data is sparse,
however, a W percent contribution is
estimated for inorganics in drinking
water, since sources other than drinking
water are more likely carriers for
inorganics. '"
- Apportionment has also been used in
the risk evaluation procedure developed .
for EPA's Office of Emergency and '
Remedial Response to evaluate and
manage the ri sks for specific remedial
action sites under the CERCLA
(Superfund) Law. In this procedure, :
concentrations are generally
apportioned equally in environmental
media (e.g., air and water), as an initial
basis for calculating a rate of release. If
there are significant cost and feasibility
differences in controlling exposures via
the different pathways, unequal'
apportionment is selected. This .option is
appropriate under the CERCLA statute ,
since cost-effectiveness is an integral
part of the decision-making process (Ref.
5). i' •
Many of the chemicals EPA regulates
are ubiquitous in the environment and
may be associated with exposures from
other media (e.g., water, food, air). ,
Although available scientific.and ;
technical information as well as past
-------
21668
Federal Register /.Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
decisions will be considered in reaching
decisions on the apportionment of RfDs,
sufficient information is not generally
available on exposure to reliably
quantify the proportion of the RfD that
should be allotted for each chemical.
When adequate exposure data does not
exist, the Agency is proposing to limit
population exposure to a 50% fraction of
the RID to reflect consideration of
potential and actual exposure from other
media,
EPA proposes to apportion reference
doses according to the scheme shown in
Figure A-l.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.'114 / Friday, June 1£»J986 /JProposedBules
Figure A-l
Flow Chart for Apportionment of RfD
Determine
total RfD
Is there a
MCL for the
compound?
-yes-
Has EPA
fractionated
RfD into .
other media?
••——yes---—
Fractionate RfD
according to EPA's
scheme.
no
no
Do data exist
regarding concentration
of .compound in the
various media?
—yes—
MCL-—crater
(100% of total RfD
MCL)-—fractionate
other media on a
basis.
minus the
to air -and
i-by-case
c=se
no
MCL water ' -
(50% of.total RfD minus the
MCL)——air
Do data exist .
regarding concentration of
the compound in the
various media?
•—--yes——'
fractionate RfD- on
. a case-by-case basis
no
50% of total RfD to be fractionated
to air and water using the volatility and
octanol-water constants
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
21669
-------
21670
Federal
Basically, (his scheme indicates that,
if the Agency has adequate data to
nssess exposure from various routes,
then such data will be used to apportion.
If on the other hand, adequate data
does, not exist, EPA will use 50 percent
of the RfD and subtract from this 50%
the fraction of the RfD allotted to water,
using the remainder for air.
EPA proposes to estimate
environmental partitioning to air and
water according to a simplified scheme
using Henry's Law Constant (HJ and
the octanol-water partition coefficient
(k0 J for individual contaminants.
Henry's Law constant estimates the
ratio of a substance between the vapor
and dissolved (aqueous) state. The kow
estimates the distribution of a
compound between water and octanol,
where octanol is intended to represent
an organic (lipid) component. Each
distribution constant (Hc and kow) is.
subdivided into two equal parts
according to its range of values, as
shown in Table A-4. Each contaminant
to be apportioned is classified as having
a high or low value according to the
general size of its distribution constants,
as shown iri Table A-5. A relationship
between He and kow and the distribution
between air and water has been devised
using a matrix, as shown in Table A-6.
TABLE A-4.—RANGES AND CLASSIFICA-
TION OF HENRY'S LAW CONSTANTS (KH)
and Octanol-Water Partition Coeffi-
cients (kow) •
kH.
K™
High in Air >10~5
Low in water >500....
T — -A- — 7""""
High in water
<500.
TABLE A-5.—HENRY'S LAW CONSTANTS AND OCTANOL-WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS FOR
NON-CARCINOGENIC CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
Catbon diwlfida., , , , ,
Chtofoberacne. ,„ „, ~
Cf&SOlS- ^ tl ..... «...
LZ-DtehtototxinxiHW „
totxrtano). ....... „„».„_„...„"
Methyl «thy»,k«an«., „
fiifiabtruemi.,.,,....,,..
PwMSKhtotopbanol .„.....„„„,_.....„ ..... .
Pt>eool.!,«,™,..m_,...,,,..ra._...._,m__M.-.i ., , "
Pyrxfcw , ,„.,.,., „ , .
J.3A6-T«*acMo«sph0
1.68E-02
2.61 E-05
4.62E-06
5.02E-06
1.95E-07
4.53E-06
5.93E-03
2.84E-05
Relative
concentra-
tion in air
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low ...„..„„
Low
High
High
Octanol-
water
coefficient
(Kow)
1.45E+02
7.41E-f02
1.41E+02
,.2.00E+00
7.94E+01
1.15E+05
4.79E.+00
2.14E+04,
661E+ 02
7.24E+Q3
Relative
concentra- ,
tion in water
High.
LOW.
High, -..:
High.
High.
Low. , .
High; '
Low.
Low
Low.
TABLE A-6,—DISTRIBUTION MATRI'X'BETWEEN
WATER AND AIR USING KOW and k,, Air»
Wal«'
law,..,,.,,,,,.,,
H-sh...,™.
Low
A»,w«t8f 50:50 „„.
Arwater 20:80,
High
Ainwater 80:20.
Air.water 50:50.
5
'aoural °* computed k,, and k..
To construct the matrix, EPA assumed
that a compound with equal ranges of
kow and Hc {i.e., high-high or low-low),
will distribute between air and water
into equal parts. For compounds that
exhibit a high range for Hc and a low
range for kow, EPA assumes that the
distribution would be in a ratio of 80 to
20, air to Water. As an example, given
lha t SO percent of the total RfD is
available for apportionment into water
and air, and if Table A-5 indicates a
high Hc and a high kow, the fractionation
of the total RfD is 25 percent of the total
RfD into each medium. If the
conlaminant exhibits a low Hc and a
high kow, then 10 percent of the total RfD
will distribute to air and 40 percent to
water.
EPA believes that the approach
outlined above is reasonable in light of
the difficulty in obtaining exposure data
for many compounds within the
statutory time limit. The Agency solicits
comments on this general approach. The
Agency is also considering a simpler
scheme which examines relative
concentrations between water and air
using Henry's Law constant only.
Table A-7 presents all 52 compounds
included for toxicity, their respective
health based toxicity thresholds, and the
results of any apportionment.1 The
Tables in section VIII(C) contain further
information used in establishing the
proposed regulatory thresholds.
1 As explained in other sections of this preamble,
11 compounds are also proposed for inclusion in the
Toxicity Characteristic based on their solvent
properties.
TABLE A-7.—SUMMARY OF CHRONIC TOXICITY
' REFERENCE LEVELS
. Contaminant
Acrylonitrile
Barium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether.
Cadmium
Carbon disulfide..:..
Carbon
tetrachloride.
Chlordane..:.
Chlorobenzene.. ......
Chloroform...
' chromium
6-Cresol :
m-Cresol :...:...
p-Cresol
2,4-D
1,2-
Dichlorobenzene.
1,4-
. Dichlorobenzene.
1,2-Dichloroethane.
1,1-
Dichloroethytene.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene....
Endrin
Heptachlor..
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexacntorobuta-
dlene.
Hexachioroethane
Isobutanol
Lead.. :....
Landane
Mercury „
Methoxychlpr
Methylens chloride...:
Methyl e'thyl ketone...
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol ....
Phenol
Pyridine
." Selenium
Silver
1,1,1,2-
Trichloroethana.
1,1,2,2-
Trichloroethane.
1 Tetrachloraethylene ..
2,3,4,6-
Tetrachlorophenol.
Toluene...
Toxaphene
1,1,1-
Tetrachloroeth-
ane.
"1,1,2-
Tetraohloroeth-
ane. .
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol.
2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol.
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Vinyl chloride
chron
ic
toxic
ty
refer
ence
leve
(mg/
2E-3
005
1.0...
3E-4
001
4
0.005
2E-3.
1
5E-3.
,0.05..
2
2
2
0.1,...
3
0.75..
0.005
0.007
1E-3..
2E-3.,
1E-4..
2E-4....
5E-2....
0.003...
10
O.OS
0.004...
0.002...
0.1
0.06.....
I.02
0.075...
0.01
.05
,7
E-2....
E-2,...
.4
0
.005...
.2.
E-3....
005...
E-2.,..
01
001...
Basis
RSD ' "
DWS
RSD.. .
oyvs
RfD *
PMCL
RSD
RfD
RSD
DWS
RfD
RfD
RfD
DWS
RfD
PMCL
PMCL
PMCL......
RSD
DWS...
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
Rfp...
dws
DWS
DWS ..........
DWS
RSD
RfD....:
RfD...:....
RfD
RfD .
RfD
DWS
DWS
RSD.
RSD...
RSD
RfD
RfD
DWS :....
MCL
SD
MCL
(D
SD....
WS
MCL
Appor-
tionmen
(per-
cent)
•• -
*'
25
- 10
'40
40
40
10
1
. 25
; ' '" 25"
, 25
25
40
-25
10
Re-
sulting
- value
(mg/l)
1.0
3E-4-
1.0
0.005
2E-3
0.1
5E-3
•0:05 • '
6.7
0.7
6.7
0.1
0.3
0 75
0005
0007
1E-3
2E-3
1E-4
2E-4
5E-2
0 003
2.5
0.05
0.004
0.002
0.1
0.06
0.5
0.004
0.25
0.03
0.01
.05
.7 ."
E-2
E-2
.1
.005
.2
E-3
005
4
E-?
01
001
' RSD=Risk Specific Dose.
2 DWS=National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard
0 PMCL=Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level.
1 RfD=Reference Dose.
B. Ground Water Transport Equation
I. Introduction
Under the framework presented in
this proposal, EPA will establish
regulatory levels for individual chemical
constituents contained in hazardous
wastes. These levels are expressed as
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 51. No. 114 / Friday, June 13,1986 /.Proposed Rules
21671
maximum acceptable concentrations for
individual constituents in extracts of
-wastes. The extract concentration is
assumed to be the same as the leachate
concentration entering the ground water
since the scenario assumes the bottom
of the landfill lies directly over the
saturated zone. EPA has developed a
quantitative ground water modeling
procedure to evaluate potential impacts
on ground water and to establish
regulatory levels for individual
constituents. The proposed regulatory
level-setting procedure involves a back-
calculation from a point of potential
exposure to. a point of release from a
hypothetical sanitary landfill.
Specifically, the model assesses the
long-term chemical flux or leaching of
toxicants ta the ground water from a
waste disposed in a Subtitle D sanitary
landfill The beginning point of the back-
- calculation is, a measurement point at a
specified distance directly ,
downgradiant from the disposal unit.
This procedure incorporates the
, toxicity, mobility, the persistence of
constituents, and also the long-term
uncertainties associated with land
disposal.
' The toxicity of constituents is ,.. -
considered by specifying a regulatory
level at the point of mea'surement [i.e.,
drinking water well) and back-
calculating to the maximum acceptable
leachate concentration that will not
exceed the specified standard. The
mobility of constituents is considered
through application of the TCLP, and for
organics, through incorporation of •
" sorption as a delay mechanism. The
inclusion of sorption in the- ground water
transport model is important only for
organic constituents which degrade.
The persistence of constituents is
incorporated into the ground water
model for organics by considering
hydrolysis. Metals do not degrade, so no
degradation is assumed. Speciation of-
metals in ground water is an important
factor in the extent to which metals
migrate. The Agency is studying the use
-. of the MINTEQ speeiation model in ;
order to permit calculating element
specific dilution/attentuation factors.
The Agency has not been able tp
complete these studies yet, and
therefore will continue to employ a
standard attenuation factor of 100. Once
development of the fate and transport
equation approach for the elemental
species is completed, element specific
factors will be proposed.
The proposed ground water model
accounts for most of the major physical
and chemical processes known to
influence movement and transformation
of chemicals in simple, homogenous and
isotropie porous media under steady.
flow conditions.'The mechanisms
Considered include advection,
hydrodynamic dispersion in the
longitudinal, lateral, and vertical
dimensions, adsorption, and chemical
degradation. Mechanisms not ,
considered in the model include
biodegradation, effects of sinks and
sources, and dilution of constituents
within drinking water wells.
2. Model Assumptions
The analytical solution described
below is based on a number of key
assumptions pertaining'to the features of
ground water flow and the properties of
the porous medium. These assumptions
include the following:
a. Saturated soil conditions (no
-attenuation of chemicals in the ,
unsaturated zone).
b. Flow regions of infinite extent in
the longitudinal direction, semi-infinite
extent in the lateral direction.
c. All aquifer properties are
homogeneous, isotropio and of constant
thickness.
d. Groundwater flow is uniform and
continuous in direction and velocity.
e. First-order decay is limited to
hydrolysis and the byproducts of
- hydrolysis" are assumed to be non-
hazardous.
f. Sorption behaves linearly.
g. Infinite source—supplies a constant
mass flux rate.
h. Ground water recharge is
accounted for.
i. The ground water is initially free of
contamination.
j. The receptor well is directly in line
with the source and the ground water
flow.' '•'..-'•' • ;
The effect of the first assumption is to
presume that a waste is placed directly
at the top of the saturated zone. Since
EPA has found that a significant number
of hazardous waste landfills are located
within a-few feet of an aquifer, and
since Subtitle D facilities are generally
sited £n similar environments, this
assumptionis believed to be reasonable.
This worst-case assumption predicts
that no attenuation occurs during the
migration of constituents in leachates to
the underlying aquifer. .
The second assumption of infinite.and'
semi-infinite flow regions in the
longitudinal and lateral direction,
respectively, is appropriate for all
simplified analytical ground water flow
models. (The term semi-infinite refers to
the fact that once a leachate reaches an
aquifer, although theoretically it can
disperse in the lateral direction to an
infinite degree; for all practical purposes
there is a point at which further
dispersion has little effect on the
concentration of contaminants within a
plume. Although further dispersion
would still be greater than zero, its
effect is insignificant.) Aquifers have
finite areal extent, however,-and may be
confined by'impermeabfe layers. If an
aquifer is confined by an impermeable
layer in the [longitudinal or lateral fields,
this assumption will underestimate.
downgradient concentrations.
The assumption of homogeneous and
isotropie aquifer properties is rarely
encountered in the field, but the
availability of data and the generic
nature of this analysis requires the use
of a homogeneous and isotropie
approximation. Also, this assumption is
usually^ employed if the solution of the
problem is obtained by analytical
techniques, " •
A uniform flow velocity, the fourth
assumption,, presumes that the water
volume entering from the source is" not
large enough to affect the natural ground
water gradient. This assumption is
appropriate for simplified analytical
solutions, la situations where the ground
water flow! system contains sinks or
sources (e.g., pumping or injection
wells), drastic changes in the velocity
distribution will occur. Under this
situation that steady-state down •
gradient contaminant concentrations •
may be underestimated.
Hydrolysis of first-order kinetics, the
fifth assumption, is the only mechanism
for transformation considered in the
proposed model. While other
transformation mechanisms-, such as
biodegradation and oxidation are also,
important;, the Agency's present
understanding of these mechanisms
does; not yet permit a kinetic —/
representation: of these processes within
the. system modeled. The effects,
relative importance, and interactions of
these processes in the ground water
environment are not well understood
and are under investigation.
In general, all^transformations are
dependent upon both the: chemical
constituent and the prevailing
environmental properties.: For
hydrolysi s, ground water pH and
temperature must be known. The
Agency's analysis to date has identified
more than 20,000; measurements for pH
and temperature frorn which distribution
functions! can be assigned for purposes
of evaluating variation and uncertainty.
Similar .data describing microbial
populations, metabolizable carbon
sources; etc.,.,are.not generally available.
The Agency tfeiieves that given this
limited understanding of the factors
influencing biodegradation and.
oxidation in the ground water
environment,, prudence dictates that
• these processes not be included in the
-------
21672
V°L 51' No' 114 I Friday- June 13'1986 /Proposed Rules
model. By including only hydrolysis in
the model, the Agency is being
conservative.
The seventh assumption of an infinite
source represents a worst case. To
ensure that waste disposal is protective
of human health and the environment in
all possible situations (which do not
address the total amount of waste
disposed), the Agency believes it is
prudent to adopt this conservative -
assumption.
The assumption of dilution of the
contaminant plume by ground water
recharge accounts for a process known
to occur in the environment. Ground
water recharge leads to further dilution
of the contaminant plume as it moves
downgradient from the facility. EPA
recognizes that it is difficult to develop
precise estimates of ground water
recharge for incorporation into a generic
mode. Data is available, however, from
xvhich rough estimates can be
developed.
The assumption of placement of a
well in the exact position to receive the
highest concentration of a contaminant
represents an absolute worst case. The
Agency believes this assumption is
appropriate for use in the model since it -
is possible that some drinking water
wells are directly in line with Subtitle D
land disposal units.
3. Cumulative Frequency Distribution
Through use of a Monte Carlo
computer simulation, the ground water
transport equation results in a
cumulative frequency distribution. The
cumulative frequency distribution
provides estimates of the likelihood or
probability that the target concentration
level (e.g., reference dose), would not be
exceeded, given the range and
distribution of the values that may be
expected for each of the various
environmental parameters known to
affect such concentrations. For the
purposes of this regulation, EPA is
proposing to use the 85th cumulative
percentile. EPA believes that using the'
85th percentile will provide a reasonable
balance between the need to identify the
majority of truly hazardous waste as
hazardous, while at the same time
minimizing the false identification of ,
non-hazardous waste as hazardous.
Note, however, that EPA is considering
the use of both the 80th and the 90th
percentile for this regulation. For non-
degrading compounds, the 80th and 90th
percentiles produce dilution/attenuation
factors of 22 and 10, respectively;
The regulatory levels being proposed
today are based on the 85th cumulative
frequency percentile. As indicated
previously, this does not necessarily
mean that EPA is unconcerned about
wastes which may exceed levels based
on some higher percentile (e.g., 90
percent).. Specific wastes whieh the
Agency finds not to be hazardous using
the regulatory levels based on the 85th
percentile, but which could exceed
thresholds based on some higher
percentile, and which are determined to
pose a hazard to ground water, may be
specifically listed by the Agency as
hazardous wastes under §§ 261.31 or
261.32. ^ .
4. Further Information
The Agency has proposed to use the
same basic ground water transport
equation and health effects thresholds
for use in the Land Disposal Restrictions
Rule (51 FR 1603), proposed on January
14,1986. Differences in the equations
have been introduced for the proposed
Land Disposal Restrictions Rule, to
account for the additional engineering
controls required (e.g., landfill caps),
when managing wastes as hazardous in
a Subtitle C hazardous waste facility,
and the higher standards of confidence
required under the HSWA for
determining that a waste is suitable for
land disposal.
While this proposal outlines the
equation's proposed use in the Toxicity
Characteristic, considerably more detail
concerning this equation is provided in
the preamble section to the proposed
Land Disposal Restrictions Rule. The
reader is referred to that preamble, and
the reference noted therein, for further
information on the equation and the
data used in running it. The computer
printouts obtained as a result of running
the equation on .the compounds will be
included in the Toxicity Characteristic
docket. _,
C. Tables of Proposed Contaminants
'and Data Used to Develop Regulatory
Levels
TABLE C-1.—TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC
CONTAMINANTS AND LEVELS
HWNO'and contaminant
D018— Aorylonitrile ,
D004— Arsenic ;
0005 — Barium .
D019— Benzene :
D020— Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
D006— Cadmium
D021— Carbon disulfide
D022— Carbon "tetrachloride
D023— Chlordane
D024— Chlorobenzene :....
D025— Chloroform
0007— Chromium . ,
D026— o-Cresol
D027— m-Cresol '..
D028— p-Cresol .'...
D016— 2,4-D..;
D029— 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0030— 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
D031— 1,2-Dichloroeihane
D032— 1,1-Oichloroethylene
D033— 2,4-Dinitrotoluane
D012— Endrin
D034— Heptachlor (and hydroxide) .....
D035 — Hexachlorobenzene....
0036— Hexachlorobutadiene.;
D037— Hexachloroethane s
D038— Isobutanol;
D008— Lead • , , ,,
D013— Lindane
D009— Mercury ,
D014— Methoxychlor
D039— Methylene chloride
D040— Methyl ethyl ketone
D041— Nitrobenzene
0042— Pentachlorophenol
D043— Phenol
D044— Ryridine
D010— Selenium
001 1— Silver
D04S— 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
0046— 1,1, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0047— Tetrachloroethylene
D048— 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
0049— Toluene
D015— Toxaphene
DOSO— 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane... .
0051— 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. . .
0052— Trichloroethytene.... -
0053— 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
D054— 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0017— 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) '
0055— Vinyl chloride
Casno2
107-13-
7440-38-
111-44-4
75-1 5-
56-23-5
108-90-7
95-48-7
95-50-1
1 06-46-7
75-35-4
- 72-20-8
76-44-8
118 74-1
87-68-3
7439-92-1
58-89-9
72-43-5
75-09-2
87-86-5
7782-49-2
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
108-88-3
001-35-2
71-55-6
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-76-5
Regula-
tory level
(mg/1)
50
, 0.05
0.07
0.001
0.72
10.0
1-3 .
,1-5
1 Hazardous Waste Identification Number.
2 Chemical Abstracts Registry Number.
TABLE C-2.-METHODS AND QUANTITATION LIMITS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
AcrytoniWo, „ L ^ _
BJSfzSSoT "ttT'i ihfflr — ™" "'
Cutoofl totrachlofkte „.. '
Chkxdtna „ — ,
*
Vol.'
V
V
V
SW-846 methods 2
503D/8240. _ " "
7060, 7061
6010, 7080. 7081
5030/8240 .. ,
3510/8270
6010,7130,7131 , ,
5030/8240 : . .„„
8080 •
Detection
limit (mg/
1.0
0.01 .
Quantitation
limit (mg/
1)4
5.0
0,05
-------
Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 114 /_Friday. .June'13.1988 / Proposed Rules
21673
TABLE C-2 -METHODS AND QUANTITATION LIMITS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC OONTAM.NAN ,,,-ou, ,u, ,u
Contaminant
Chlorobenzene _ _
Chloroform - - -v—
Chromium - - ~
o-Cresol. ~ -
M-Cresol ,
P-CresoE. —
2,4-D. -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene, - -
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane. _ _
i,1-Dichloroethylene. ~
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Endrin._ - -
Heptachlor (and its hydroxide) , -
Hexachtorobenzene — __- - -
Hexachtorobutadiene -_
HexachToroethane
Isobutanol . , — --— -
Lead, - '
Lindane *
Mercury,
Methoxychlor. '
Methylene chloride i
Methyl ethyl ketone , i
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol i
Phenol.
Pyridine.
Selenium.
Silver.
1.i.1.;2-Tetrachloroethane .
1.1-.2.2-Tetrachloroethane, — - t
Tetrachloroethylene
2.3.4,6-Tetrachlorophenol.
Toluene - '
Toxaphene, \ - — „-
f,1.1-Trichloroethane — —
t.1.2-Trichloroethane. — - - ~
Trichloroethylene - ~
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol , -
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol , - —
2,4-,5-TP (Silvex)
Vol.'
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
:. \
SW-846 methods 2
030/8240. r , "
030/8240. _
010, 7190, 7T91
510/8270
510/8270 ,.
510/8270.
150
510/8270
510/8270.
030/8240.
030/8240.
51078270..
080 -
080
3510/8270
3510/8270.
3510/8*270. - .t ,
503078240.
6010, 7420, 7421
8080.-
7470, 7471
8080 ......
5030/8240. ,
5030/8240.
3510/8*270.,
3510/8270.
,3510/8270.
3510/8270. - ......
6010. 7740. 7741
6010, 7760, 7761
5030/8240.
5030/8240.
5030/8240.
3510/8270., ,
5030/8240 - 1
8080
5030/8240.
5030/8240.
5030/8240.
3510/827a__
3510/8270.
8150... ,
5030/8240.- - - -
GV4
Detection
imit (mg/
D3
0.01
0:01
0:02
0:10
0.10
0.005
0-.025
0.025
0;01
O.OT
0.025
0-.0001
0.0001
0.025
0.025
0.025
T..O'
0:08
0.0001
0.0004
0.0005
0,025,
0.01,
0.025
n m
U.Ul
0.025
1 0
0 01
t\ m "
U.U I.
0 01
0.01
0.01
0.10-
•6.01
.0.005
0 01
O.OT
0.05
0.05
O.OOE
0.01
uantitation
imit (mg/
1)<
0.05
0 05
OiTO
0:50
0-.50
0.50
0.025
0.125
0 "125
0.05
0 05
0.125
0.0005
0.0005
0.125
0.125
5 0
O4O
0.0005
0.002
- 0.0025
0.125 .
0 05
0.125
0-.05
0.125
5.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0:50
0.05
0.025
0.05
0 05
0.25
0.25
' 005
^sr^ En— ntal pfote*n Aflenoy' '** 1982 ^*fo^he"oitocomp™nds
TABLE C-3 -CHRONIC TOXICITV REFERENCE LEVELS FOR TOXICITV CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS
Contaminant
Acrylonitrile — -
Barium ' — — ^ "
Benzene -- — ' "
Bis(2-chloroethy.l)ether
Cadmium —
Carbon disulfide. - — ~ ~
Carbon tettachloride. _ .
Chlordane. - —
Chlorobenzene _ -- - —
Chloroform . - - "
Chromium. - "
o-Cresbl .... . — *™
m-Cresol .- -• ~
p-Cresol — -- - - -
2,4-D -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene,
1,4-Dichlorobenzene. .
1 ,2-Dichloroethane ~ "
1 ,t-Dichloroethy!ene.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene. — -
Endrin ...,._
Heptachlor (and hydroxide).
Hexachlorobenzene -
Hexachtorobutadiene
Hexachlo'roethane -
Isobutanol - ' » "
Lead
Lindane ...
Mercury... < — - -
Methoxychlor. -
Methylene chloride.
Methyl ethyl ketone.
Chronic- toxicity reference- leyet (trig/I)11
002(RSD>. - -
05(DWS)..
0(DWSJ. -- -
0005(PMCL).
0.0003(RSD),
0.01 PWSJ..
4(RfDJ...
0.005(PMCtJ..
0.002(RSDJ,
I (Rf D) ..
O.OOS(RSD),
0.05(DWS).. - •
2(RfD).
2(RfD)..
2(RfD) ..
0.1(DWS).
3(RfD) ..
0.75(PMCL).
0.005(PMCL). - ^
0 001(RSD)
0.0002(DWS). - -
O.OOOT(RSD).
0.0002(RSD).
0.05(HSD) ,
O.S(RSD)
10(RfD(.
0.05(DWS).
0.004(DWS)
0.002PWS) ,
0.10(OWS).
0.6(RSD)
2(RfD)
0.02(RfD).
LOG Kow2
„
^
-
2:18
2;87
2.15
2.15
2.15
3.56
0.74
03
1.9
lh(atra m.3/mol^3
' *
'.68E-2
S.46E-3
5.05E-S
5.05E-&
iS.OSE-6
1.88E-3,
1 23E-5-
2.61 E-5
Z.40E-5
Apportion-
ment
(percent)4
25
to
40~
40
40
ia
25
2
2
Apportioned
reference
level (mg/l)a
0.002 .
O.OS
T.O
0.005
0:0003
0.01
1,0
0.005
0.002
0:1
0.005
0:05 '
0:7
0.7
0.7
O.1
0\3
0.75
0.005
0.007
0 001
0000!
0.0001
0.0002
0.05
0.3
2.5
0.05
0:604
0.002
0.1
b.&
0.5
0 004
-------
21674
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13,1986 / Proposed Rules
TABLE C-3.—CHRONIC TOXICITY REFERENCE LEVELS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS—Continued
: Contaminant
PentacMofoprwmol.. „..„,..._ _
PyfNflno "~ """ """ "" " *
Setanum..., „ .„„„.„„..,..„.„
Sdvw, ' '
1,1,l,2'Tctrn:MotcK!lluno ...„,.„ „..,...„.. „. i
1,1 AZ-TeKacfikKOdlhana „.„...„ „
To«fad*xoolty!ene . „. „, „,. .
2A<6-T«tr«cl*xopband...,. „
Tofcw
Chronic toxicity reference level (mg/l)1
1(RfD)
4(R(D) „.. - .
0.075(RfD)
001(DWS)
0 OS(DWS)
0.7(RSD) ',.. .
0.02(RSD)
0 007(RSD)
0 4(RfD)
10(HfD)
O.OOS(DWS)
0,2(PMCL) '
0.06(RSD)
O.OOS(PMCL)
4(RfD) ,.,.,
0 02(RSD)
001(DWS)
O.OOI(PMCL)
LOG Kow «
1.49
0.68
.
. 3.86
Khfatm m''/mol);1
4.5E-6
1.95E-7
2.84E-S
Apportion- /
men! \
(percent)4
40
40
" '
" .
10
Apportioned
reference
level (mg/l)=
1.0
" , .APS;. .
, ..Q.j1 , •-
, 0.005
'.'0.4
0.00U1
1 OWS- National Interim Primary Drinking Standard.
JJMCL=Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (Proposed standard in drinking water).
RfO«ne!echlotoprKmol .,„
Toh»n»«..,,B.,.,™™..,..M..... ,.„..
Tonaphana. — ,.™ .,„
1,1,1 -TncNof o«than«.™...,,™,M«m........™ „
l.l-Z-Tnehkxoethane.,.. „..„
2,4,8-TrtchtofOplianol." ZZZZZZ "
2,4,5-TP (Siivoic) .
Vinyl chfofKlo «.»™.™.w..,™«n,,..MM.« """'
1 LOO Oclanol Walcsf Partition Coefficient
LOG Kow'
0.07
2.13
1.04
2.16
„ 2.96
'5.48
2.87
• 2 15
2.70
3.56
1.40
2.13
2.30
"4.61
6.42
4.22
0.74
3.40
1.26
0.3
1.90
506
2.81
2.42
3.03
4.33
2.82
'5.30
2,50
2.28
3.86
3.45
1.38
Ka *
>1/Y,.
NHYF1.
NH5.
NH
NH.
NH.
NH.
NHYF.
NH.
NH.
NLFG.
NuFG.
NLFG.
NLFG.
NH.
NLFG.
NLFG.
NH
NH.
NH.
NLFG.
NH.
NHYF.
NH.
NH
NLFG.
NH.
NH
NLFG.
NH,
5 NH = Negligible Hydrolv
Hydrolysis rate constants
Kb"*,
>1/Yr.
1
NHYF.
NH.
>10/Yr,
NH.
>10/Yr.,
1E-6/Hr.
NHYF.,
1E-5/Hr.
NH.
NLFG.
NLFG.
NLFG.
NLFG.'
NH.
NLFG t.
NLFG.
1.3/Hr.
2.6E+3/Hr.,
NLFG.
1E-5/Hr.
NHYF.
>10/Yr.
NH.
NLFG.
1E-5/Hr.
NLFG.
1E-5/Hr..f
3is.
Kn2
>1/Yr.. ,"
'
NHYF.,
8E-5/Hr.
NH.
NH.
NH.
NH.
NHYF.
NHYF.
NH.
7.2E-5/Hr..
NLFG,
NLFG,
> 1 /Yr.
NLFG.
NLFG. ,
IV
1.18E-8/Hr.
NLFG.
NLFG.
NLFG.
2.2E-7/Hr.,
NH.
NLFG,
NH.
NHYF.
NH.
1.1E-4/HK.
NLFG.
NH.
NLFG,.
1E-7/Hr.
D/A
• factor?
144
100.0
100.0
14.4
144
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
100,0
14.4
14.4
14.4
1,4.4
14.4
14.4
-75,'0
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
;14.4
,14.4
14.4
14.4
too.o
14.4
100.0
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
,14.4,
, 14.4
> 100.0
100.0
14.4
65.0
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4 "
150.0
20.0
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
j . round water transport equation.
* NHYF a No Hydroryzabte Functional Group.
' Estimated value.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday. June 13. 1986 / Proposed Rules
21675
TABLE C-5.—•REGULATORY LEVELS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS ; •
Contaminant:
Acrylbnitrile J
Arsenic
' Barium,
. Benzene.
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ,
Cadmium. ~
Carbon disulfide;
Carbon tetrachloride.
Chlordane
Chlordberizene
Chloroform.
Chromium.
o-Cresol. *
m-Cresol.
p-Cresol. *
2,4-D
1.2-Dichlprobenzene ,
1,4-Dichlorobenzene. _ v
1 ,2-Dictiloroethane- ' " ' ,
1,1-Dicnloroethylene. , - "
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.
Endrin t
Heptachlor (and hydroxide) .
Hexachlorobenzene..;v. >
Hexachtorobutadiene. ..
Hexachioraethane. * ^
Isobutanol. v
" Lead.
Lindane <
Mercury
Me.thoxychlor. - «
Methylene chloride , . »
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene '
Pentachlorophenot .
Phenol
Pyridine
Selenium .
Silver, . •
1,1,1.2-T.etrachforoethane. - f
1 ,1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane.
Tetrachloroethylene.
2.3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenot,
toluene
Toxaphene. ,
• 1,1.1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trtchloroethane ,
, Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol. i -
2.4,6-Trichlorophenol. ,
2,4.5-TP (Silvex).
Vinyt chloride.
Apportioned
chronic
toxicity
reference
level (mg/
D1
0.002
0.05
1.0
0.005
0.0003
0.01
1 0
0.005
0.002
0.1
0.005
0.05
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.3 •
0.75
0.005
0.007
0.001
0.0002
0.0001
0,0002
0.05
0.3
2.5
0.05
0.004
0.002
0;1
0.6
0.5
0.004
0.25
1."0 •
0.03
.0.01
0.05
0.7
0 02
0007
0 10
-1.0
0.005
0.2
0 06
0.005
0.4 "
0.02
0.01
0.001
D/A .
factor =
14.4
.100.0
100.0
'14.4
14.4
100.6
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
100.0
14.4
14.4
, 14.4
14.4
14,4
14.4
75.0
14.4
" 14.4
14.4
14.4
,; ''14.4
''14.4
14.4
' 14.4
100.0
14.4
. 100.0
14.4
1 14.4
' .14.4
, 14.4
1 4.4
14.'
14.4
100.0
'•' 100.0
' 14.'
65,(
14.'
14,'
14>
14.'
150
20.
• 14.'
14.'
14.'
14.'
''- 14.
t-f'-': ' '••'
Calculated
evel (mg/
i- D" ,
: - 0.029
; 5.0
''lob
6.072-
[' 0.004 .
.... 1S,.,,
1 14.4
I . 0.072
i 0:029 .
; * 1.44'
J - 0.072
:'"• 5.0
: 10.08
; 10.08
r 10.08
i. 1.44-
,' ,4.32
10.B
0.40
0.1008,
• . 0.0144 ,
L 0.0029
™ 0.0014
-; 0.0029
', , 0.72'.
': :4.32'
' 36
5.0.
1 0.0576
0.2
••••' " 1.44 -
'; ' '8.64'
-, - 7".2
.J " . 0.0576
J1.' - 3.6
1 ; 14.4
;.v 6.432
i; •' 1.0 •:
V 5.0
; '10.08
•','• . .1.3
;['' ' 0.100
•V.44
•;;, ,.14.4.;
. 0.072
t'' 30-' '
" .- ' -1.2 •
!• 0.072
II ' 5.76
I 0.288
0.144
: ' • 0.014
— — ! - '• : ^ "
.
Quantitation
mit(mg/1)4
,5.0
0.025
6.05
0.05
'0:05
0.05
' 5.0
0.05'
0.0025
0.05
0.05
6.1' •
. 0.5
. ':0.5
'0.5
0.025
,0.125
6.125
0.05
0.05
0.125
0.0005
• ' 0:0005
0.125
0.125
'6.125
5.0
.0.4
0:0005
0.002
0.0025
0.125
• .0.05
... 0.125
0.05
0.125
:5.0.. ",
. 6.05. '
0.05'
• 0.05 '
0.05
0.05
-0.5 ,,
0.0.5
0.025
. 0:05
0.05
. 0.05,
0.25
0.25
0.025
0.05
Regulatory
level (mg/
, . (5.0)
5.0
100
' 0.07 •
. (0.05)
1.0
14^4 ".
. 0.07
'0.03
. , U4
- '0.07
5,0
' '10.0
• 10.0! -.. .
10.0
' 1.4
4.3
10.8
0.40 '
,0.1
(0,13)
0.003
v 0.001
, (0.13)
0.72 \
4.3
. 36 -
5.0'
0.06
-;.,-:0:2 .
1.4
a:6
:7.26
(0.13)
3.6
• 14!4
- (5.0)
\ 1.0
5.0
'10:0
' , 1.3'
':• 0.1
1 1.5
14.4 -
0.07
, 30 -
1.2
0.07
5.8 •
• 0.3'
. '0.14
(0.05)
s — ... =— ~ ^ • ' .' "" .-.'..• . .-',-? '-..,.
'See Table C-3.
3 Apportipned Chronic Toxicity Reference Level multiplied by Dilution/Attenuation Factor.
"
is greater than the calculated level, the Quantitation limit becomes the (technology based) regulatory level (indicated by fevei^pa
limit i
D. Development and Evaluation of the .
TCLP : ' •• .- ' .-;.••
i. Introduction .' -' ';.-.,
This Section provides detailed ...'.'
information oh how the TCLP was ." . ,
.developed and evaluated..Still more , .
detailed information regarding the TGLP
is available in-.a Background Document
that EPA has prepared for the TCLP ;
(Ref. 33).
2. ExperimentalDesign
EPA, through an interagency
agreement with the U.S. Department of
Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), has conducted a research
program designed to develop ah
improved leaching test, the TCLP. The
TCLP development program was split up,
into three phases. Phases. I and II, and
part of phase III have been completed.
Phase I consisted of an initial data
gathering effort in which a number of
wastes were leached with a teachate
derived fr.om municipal refuse. The
wastes were, also extracted with a
variety of laboratory leaching media
and contact procedures. Phase I was
designed to narrow the universe of
potential candidate leaching procedures.
In Phase II,-additiohal wastes were
leached and the candidate procedures
refined into the .draft TCLP. During this
phase of testing, public assistance and
review of the draft was solicited. ' ; '
The overall apprbach'employed in • ;
Phase I was as follows: • .
a. Large-scale field lysimeters were
filled with domestic and commercial
refuse and useid to generate a municipal
waste leachate (MWL).
b. The MWL was used to leach four
industrial solid wastes in large columns.
-------
21676
•ejht,_./nV°L 51' No" 114/ ^ridav. June 13,1986 / Proposed'Rules
c. The leachate concentration of a
. number of organic and inorganic species
that were present in each waste were
measured over time.
d. A total of 34 laboratory leaching
tests were run on the four wastes to
assess their accuracy in modeling the
results of the lysimeter/column
experiments. These tests included both
column and batch procedures using four
leaching media (i.e, sodium acetate
buffer, carbonic acid, water, and actual
municipal waste leachate), and four
media to w,aste ratios (i.e., 2.5, 5,10, and
20 to 1). In addition, the EP and a
sequential batch leaching procedure
were also investigated.
e. Target Concentrations (TCs), were
established for each constituent based
on the lysimeter/column leaching
curves, by calculating the amount of
constituent leached over a specific
leaching interval (i.e., an amount of
leachale equal to twenty times the
weight of the original industrial solid
waste—twenty to one liquid to solid
ratio).
f. Laboratory leaching test results
were compared to the TCs, and the two
laboratory tests that best replicated
lysimeter results were selected for
further evaluation in Phase E.
Phase II of the program involved
extensive evaluation and verification of
Phase I:
a. Seven wastes were leached in
essentially the same experimental
arrangement as used in Phase I.
b. Each waste was subjected to the "
two "best" leaching procedures selected
from Phase I, as well as the EP.
c. The single procedure which best
satisfied the objectives presented in the
body of this preamble was selected as
the draft TCLP.
d. the draft TCLP was then circulated
to interested members of industry,
academia, environmental groups, and
other with interest and experience
conducting such tests, for comment.
Phase III of the program involved
subjecting the draft TCLP to an
evaluation of ruggedness and precision.
This work has been partially completed
and the design and results to date are
summarized further in this Section. ~"
Another part of Phase III which is
currently ongoing is a multi-laboratory
collaborative evaluation of the draft
TCLP. (The TCLP has evolved to its
present form in response to both Agency
activities as well as to comments
received on the circulated drafts.) The
following sections present the
experimental program and the results.
3. Results of Phase I
The ORNL Phase I report explains in
detail the experimental approach and
describes the results, obtained during the
first phase of testing (Ref. 6). Briefly,
lysimeter leachate target concentrations
were established based on both
practical considerations and the need to
represent a mid-to-long term leaching
interval or exposure period. This was
important as the purpose of the leaching
test is .primarily to evaluate the
migratory potential of chronically toxic
organic compounds (Ref. 17). (Use 'of
chronic toxicity values are discussed in
more detail elsewhere in this preamble.)
The various laboratory procedures
tested were then compared as to their
ability to reproduce the lysimeter
leachate target concentrations. The
absolute value of the percentage
difference for each target concentration/
leaching test concentration pair was
determined, averaged for each leaching
procedure, and then each procedure was
ranked from the lowest to highest
difference and evaluated for
significance using Duncan's multiple
range test. These analyses identified
most of the laboratory procedures as ^
being equally predictive of lysimeter
leachate target concentrations,
particularly where the organics were
concerned.
No single procedure will be able to
accurately predict leachate
concentrations for all compounds in all
waste matrices. EPA therefore picked
the procedures which seemed to most
closely model lysimeter leachate target
concentrations using the absolute value
of the percentage difference. Factors
other than average percentage
difference, such as ease and expense of
operation, applicability to both organics
and inorganics, and-applicability to
biological testing, were also taken into
account. These factors were identified in
the body of the preamble as objectives
for the TCLP.
On the basis of all these
considerations, two procedures, similar
in concept and operation to the current
EP, were selected for further work in '
Phase II. Both of these procedures use a
20:1 liquid to solid ratio (i.e., an amount '
of extraction fluid equal to twenty times
the weigth of the solid phase of the
waste) and involve a batch-type
extraction. One procedure uses a 0.1 N
pH 5 sodium acetate buffer solution-as
the extraction medium, and the other
uses carbon dioxide (CO2) saturated
deionized. distilled water (i.e., carbonfc
acid).
4i Peer Reviews
A number of peer reviews were
conducted at various stages of the TCLP
development program. The general tone
of these reviews was always strongly
positive. One such review which
deserves attention, primarily because it
had profound effect on the way the
TCLP development data was analyzed,
is a'review conducted by the Agency's
Science Advisory Board (Ref.;2§).
At the end of Phase I/the -
Environmental Engineering Committee
of the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
was asked by EPA to review and
provide recommendations concerning
the development program and the
selected methods. Overall, the SAB
found that the experimental approach
taken reasonably represented an actual
landfill. The SAB did, however, question
the statistical methodology used to
evaluate the Phase I data and
recommended that the data be re-
evaluated using additional statistical
analyses. Their primary concerns were
the need to provide more resolution in
the data through the use of more
powerful statistical tests, the need to
indicate the direction of the statistical
differences (i.e., were individual
laboratory tests generally more or less
aggressive than lysimeter targets) and
the need to examine the data for
possible compound or class-related
trends. , '' . • •
5. Results of Phase II "' -
The SAB comments resulted in the
application of a number of additional
statistical tests to both the Phase I and
Phase II data, and the Phases I and H
combined data (Ref. 7 and 25). Before
describing the results of these statistical
analyses, it is important to bear in mind
that no single leaching procedure will be
able to accurately predict leachate
concentrations for all compounds in all
waste matrices. The idea was to select
the procedure which most consistently
modeled the field lysimeters. Another
consideration was the need to minimize
the occurrence of false negative results
(i.e., the situation where the leaching
test falsely identifies the waste as non-
hazardous in this case the leaching test
would be less aggressive than field
results). While it is important to also
minimize the occurrence of false
positives, EPA believes that minimizing
false negatives is more important, since
the consequences of false negative
results are more environmentally
serious. In addition, other factors, such
as ease and expense of operation,
applicability to both organics and
inorganics, reproducibility, and
applicability to biological testing (the
original objectives in developing the
TCLP), were also considered in selecting
the most appropriate leaching medium.
Table .D-l .summarizes the results of
four of the more important statistical
analyses applied to the data comparing
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 114 / Ffiday,;June 13, '19'86 / Proposed fRiiles
:21677
lysimeter, to.laboratory results. This
table presents comparisons between
three extraction media (i.e., acetate ,
buffer, carbonic acid and EP leaching
medium), and includes the results for
both organics and inorganics from both
phases of testing. Only statistically
significant results are presented. A
different letter indicates statistical
significance at the 5 percent level, an
"A" value being closest to the lysimeter
results, .The results reported in this table
come from several references (Ref. 6, 7,
and 25): Also, see the TCLP Background
Document (Ref. 33). .; '-
TABLE D-1.—SUMMARY TABLE—STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA' USED To DEVELOP THE
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE ONLY ?.
Absolute percent D *: •
EP ,. ,...; ....
Actual percent D a; •
Multivariate •*:
Acetate ....
Carbonic ......
Precision (C.V.) *: •••.-'
EP ...'....v
Inorganic's
Phase. '
- 1
CO < CD . CD < CO'
"•/=.. ;•• <:''«
A
A
. ND
Phase
' 'II
•. A-
A
• A
-; -AS
' A
B
B
P"hase
. I + M
A
.A
A
. ; -B
• + A
A
B
'• ' ,B
\ .Organics'.'
Phase
1
• .' "A
. ,*.
A
' + A
+ A
'• D
• B
• ND
Phase
II
. A
' . A
' .; +A
.-+-A-
'S +A
• o .0 co
Phase.
If".
A
, A
" •. 'A'
+A
+AB
+ B
B'
.-.' . C
C
Inorganics and prganics '
Phase
• , A
, A
.-'' -A
' -A.
'. ' A
. • B
;" B
• . A
ND
Phase.
II
• <<< < co < ' • .'•<'••'..'.•.
The analysis qf precision, the last" '
statistical analysis.presented in Table ,
D-1,.also indicated that the acetate,
buffer•'•extraction, would provide a more
precise test procedure than either of the
other two media. In addition, the acetate
buffer system offers a number of ..
operational;advantages over either the,
carbonic acid medium or the EP leaching
: medium..Finally, use of the acetate
buffer systejn! should minimize the ;
occurrence bf false negative results,
since the Wiase'if inorganics analyses
indicated trial the .carbonic acid medium
was less aggressive than the lysimeter _
field results. • "
. For the abpv'e reasons, the sodium
acetate buffer system has been, selected
as the medium of choice. Perhaps the
only objective that may have been :
compromisibd by selection of the acetate
buffer.'system was'-the objective to have
a leaching medium that is applicable to.
biological testing. Although the acetate
buffer system will complicate biological
testing, it should not preclude bioassajf'
evaluation of TCLP extracts entirely.
Phase HI of the TCLP development
program involves an evaluation of
ruggedness and precision as well as a
multi-laboratory collaborative study.
Since the design of these studies, and
'•' hence the results.are a function of how
EPA addressed some of the operational
aspects of the EP, a discussion of Phase
III follows the next section which
presents and discusses some of these.
procedural problems. ;
6. Operaticinal Aspects ' :. • "
As indicated previously, in moving
from the E!? to .the" TCLP protocol, the •
Agency hoped to improve the test
procedure and eliminate some steps in •
the EP procedure which have caused
difficulty for analysts. These include the
need .for continual pH adjustment, which
is time consuming and serves as a
source of imprecision, and the difficulty _
in performing the.initial and finatliquid/ ,
. solid separations, which currently
involves 0.45 ptm pressure filtration.,In ,
addition, the need to adequately prevent
volatilization of organic qompounds . ,
' during extraction was. critical. These
three aspects of the.test procedure are
discussed ielow. As an aid, Table D-2
presents a comparison between the EP
and the.TCLP, in terms of procedural
aspects. Figures D-1 and D-2 present
the flow diagrams for each procedure,
respectively. ;
-------
21678
federal Register / Vol.
/ProPosed Roles
TABLE D-2.—COMPARISON OF THE EXTRAC-
TION PROCEDURE (EP) AND THE TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE
(TCLP)»
Hem
(t) Leaching
media.
(2) Uqukt/soW
sepirition.
EP
0.5 N AceUc acid
added to
disUlcd
detonlzed wafer
loapHof 5
with 400 ml
maximum
addiSon.
Continual pH
ndjuslmonL
(MS inn Filtration
to 7S pa in 10
pa increments
Unspecified fitter
type.
TCLP
0.1 pH 2.9 acetic
acid solution for '
moderate to high
alkaline wastes
and 0.1 pH 4.9
acetate buffer for
other wastes.
0.6-0.8 urn Glass
fiber filter filtration
to 50 psi.
TABLE D-2.—COMPARISON OF THE EXTRAC-
TION PROCEDURE (EP) AND THE TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE
(TCLP)'—Continued .
Item
(3) Monolithic
material/
particle size
reduction.
(4) Extraction
: vessels.
(5) Agitation.:.-
EP
Use of Structural '
Integrity
Procedure or '
grinding and
milling.
Unspecified
design. Blade/
stirrer vessel
acceptable.
Prose definition ol
acceptable
agitation.
TCLP
Grinding or milling
only. Structural
Integrity
Procedure no!
used.
Zero-headspace
vessel required for
volatiles. Bottles
used for non-
volatitesl Blade
stirrer vessel not
used.
Rotary agitation only
in an ehd-over-
end fashion at
30±2 rpm.
TABLE D-2.—COMPARISON OF THE EXTRAC-
TION PROCEDURE (EP) AND THE, TOXICITY
CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE
• (TCLP)'— Continued "" '.''"''
Item
• (6) Extraction
time.
(7) Quality
control
requirements.
.
, . EP
Standard additions
required. One
tilunk per
sample batch. . '
- •>
. . „, TCLP ,
Standard additions
required in some
cases. One blank
per 1.0 extractions
and every new:
batch of extract.
Analysis specific
to analyte.
1 All other attributes between the two tests are generally
the same, although there are some minor differences. Note
also that while the EP only addresses those species for
which National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NIPDWS) exist, the TCLP can be applied to other toxicants.
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
-------
[ Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday. June 13;:1986 / Proposed Rules'
21679
•._••• -- • .:'•••••:'•" -' - •'- ;'-" .-.-..-•-.-•• •_..- . •
Wet Waste Sample' Representative
Contain^ G.5% . ' Waste Sample
Nonfilte
Solids
J
rable ^ .> IUU brams /
4,
Dry Waste Sample
r • • . - . • •
Liquid Solid i. .
Separation - ™ .
.•.:•'•'- . ' • ' _L "
Liq
Discard
•'.-o'^- ::•:'::•.:•":,?
uid Partic
> 9.5mm < 9.!
Sample Size
Reduction
. * . ' .
.. ' . ' . . .
r ' '• . - '•-."'•'
e'Size .,'..' ; •':...•-..'...'•
•'."-"..• '- .
,
5mm. Monolithic
..'•'-. Structural
Integrity
Procedure
" . ' ' •;•,• A • • - -
' . "-• :'-:J: •••••-' : 4 . .: ' ./''•' -'. ••:.-'.
Solid 4~~ Liquid Solid Separation - -
Discard
, Liq
' J
EPE
" •' . . .-.: '• ' .' J
' ' . . .^ • ' ' "
V' ••.•-•':
uid
It '
1 ' : .
Ktract
Methods ,
. • .
Wet Waste Ssimple
Contains > 0.5%
Nonfilterablei
Solids !
'. - 1 .'[•••-••':'.
Liquid Solid
Separation
" ./"Liq
Store
at pH
uid" f ;;_• -.-.:''.' . •; ; '"(•• . ', :
• ---'-- ' . • - '
St4°C :
— • O' "•'"'" • " j •
•
• i • •-',.'• .'-•'• •
' -• • . '••'.' • >.-'" "
••'•-. ' ' - ' , .
-Figure D-2: Extraction Procedure Flowchart
-------
21680
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 114 / Friday. June 13,1986 / Proposed Rules
FIGURE D-2: "TC-LP Flowchart
WET WASTE SAMPLE
CONTAINS < 0.5 %
NON-FILTERABLE
SOLIDS
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION
0.6-0.8 urn
GLASS FIBER
FILTERS
REPRESENTATIVE WASTE
SAMPLE
CRY. WASTE
-' SAMPLE
DISCARD
SOLID
SOLID
SOLID
REDUCE PARTICLE SIZE IF >9.5 mm
OR SURFACE AREA <3.1 cm2
TCLP EXTRACTION1
OF SOLID
0-HEADSPACE EXTRACTOR '
REQUIRED FOR VOIATILES
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION
0.6-0.8 urn GLASS
FIBER FILTERS ,
WET WASTE SAMPLE-
CONTAINS > 0.5 •%
NON-FILTERABLE
SOLIDS
DISCARD
SOLID
LIQUID'
TCLP EXTRACT
TCLP EXTRACT
ANALYTICAL
METHODS •
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION
0.6-0.8 urn
GLASS FIBER
FILTERS
.LIQUID
."~T~"
STORE AT
4°C
TCLP EXTRACT ._
1 The extraction fluid employed is a function of. the alkalinity of the-solid-
phase of the waste. - , r
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 114 / Friday, June 13.1986 /Proposed Eules
The EP procedure involves continual
pH adjustment or titration. The
procedure calls for periodic pH
adjustments if necessary, at 15 minute
intervals for up to 6 hours or more. This
is very tedious, time consuming and
"expensive,-and is also probably the
• single most important element in the EP
protocol contributing to variability.
.Using pre-defined leaching media
eliminates the problem of pH adjustment
since such media does not require pH
adjustment during extraction. ,
.The initial liquid/solid separation -...
: problems are.due to the tendency for
some materials, such as certain types of
oily wastes, to clog the 0.45 um filter,
; and prevent filtration- even if •
;cdnsiderable.pressure (75,psi) is applied.
This problem is serious, since materials '.•
which do not pass the 0.45 um filter are
treated as solids e'ven if they physically
appear to be a liquid. These (liquid)
wastes are then carried through EP
extraction as a solid.
This is particularly serious for oily
wastes, since oils have been known to
frequently migrate to ground waters. It
is important for the luquid/solid
separation to treat, as liquids, those-;-,
materials which can behave as liquids in
Ihe environment. It is important to
recognize, however, that some materials,
such as many paint wastes and some
.oily wastes, while they have.some liquid
properties, they will generally behave as
solids in the environment (i.e., will'not '
migrate in total).
: In addition, since different analysts
may expend varying degrees of effort in
accomplishing the liquid/solid
separation with these waste types, this
problem also contributes to variability.
As indicated below, EPA believes that
the liquid/solid separation technique :
that has been developed for the TCLP"
protocol reduces the variability that was
' associated with the EP's liquid/solid
separation technique, and that it also
provides a more adequate
differentiation between those materials
that behave as liquids in the
environment, and those materials which
behave as solids.
. Initially, it was felt that this problem
, could be addressed through use of the
much simplier liquid/solid separation
technique used in RCRA Test Method
9095 (Paint Filter Free Liquid Test) (Ref.
27). This.method involves gravity
• filtration through a 60 mesh paint filter.
This test method was promulgated on
April 30,1985 (50 FR 18370). It is
intended to be a qualitative :
determination of whether a waste ,
• contains any free liquids, and was
developed in response to bans instituted
on the disposal of liquids in landfills.
In applying this method to the TCLP,
however, a number of problems were
encountered (Ref. 3). The most serious of
these was the fact that particulates, .,
which are solids, are capable of passing
through the paint filter in bulk. Using
Method 9095 in the TCLP, would lead to
these solids being considered as a
liquid, and thus, not subject to
extraction/This could lead to an
artificially high (or low) apparent ' j
extract concentration. In addition, the
amount of liquid the method yields
varies with how the waste is poured or
placed in the filter. These two problems •
negated the use'of Method 9095 in the
TCLP.. .•:-.•:.''.-'''' '•'' '•".. ". ' -,'-•' .
-'• To overcome the problems
' encountered with the paint filter .
method, EPA has returned to the use of
pressure filtration to separate the liquid
from the solid phase of a waste. In
Devaluating this technique, however,
several changes have been made which
will decrease the .time it takes to '
accomplish separation, improve the
precision of the method, and provide a
more adequate differentiation between ,
those materials which behave as liquids.,
in the environment, and those which
behave as solids. These.changes include
switching from a 0.45 um filter medium '
'of varying composition, to specifying a-
0.6-0.8 um glass fiber filter, as well as
limiting the time spent filtering. The use
of glass fiber will reduce the possibility
of adsorption of analytes to the filter
media. Also, these filters have a much
higher" throughput and show much .less
tendency to clog, and for these reasons,
allow the use of a pressure of 50 psi
rather than 75 psi to,accomplish
separation. Initial experiments indicate
substantial operational advantages and
time savings with the use of glass fiber.
filters (Ref. 4).. ~
: The third problem deals with the need
to prevent loss of volatile organic
compounds during the conduct of the
procedure. This includes losses during
initial and final liquid/solid separation,
: extraction,.and sample handling. With
: the assistance of laboratory equipment
manufacturers, EPA has addressed this
problem .through development of a Zero-,.
' Headspace Extractor (ZHE). After
experimentation:with several prototype
devices, the device described
schematically in Figure D-3 has been
successfully applied during evaluation
of the TCLP procedure. Equipment of
this type is now available from two
suppliers (See TCLP in the proposed
Appendix ll to Part 261).
21681 '-'•
-------
-Filter-
"Waste/Extraction Fluid
Piston
3
EEV.
Top
Flange
Body
,VITON
O-rings
(2 of three)
-r
Bottoni
Flanne.
Pressurizing Gas Inlet/Outlet Valve
Figure D-3; Zero-Headspace Extraction Vessel
The ZHE is capable of conducting the
initial liquid/solid separation, agitation,
as well as final extract filtration, with
only minimal loss of volatiles. Although
considerably more expensive than the
bottles used in the current EP, these
devices are only required when
investigating the leachability of volatile
components. Less expensive vessels are
used for assessing the mobility of non-
volatile components. In addition, since
the ZHE is capable of also conducting
the liquid/solid separation, no
additional filtration apparatus is
required.
Due to the need to have the ZHE
compatible with common laboratory
equipment, such as off-gassing ovens,
and laboratory sinks, and also the need
to produce a device that is easily
handled by laboratory personnel, a
device smaller than the 2 liter internal
volume device EPA originally had in
mind was necessary. Balancing the need
to also accommodate as large a sample
size as possible, EPA determined that'a
device with one-half liter [500 ml)
internal volume would be more
appropriate. Due to the 500 ml internal
capacity, the ZHE can only
accommodate a maximum sample size
of 25 grams for "a 100 percent solids
sample. For a waste of less than 100
percent solids, the maximum, sample
size the ZHE can accommodate is .tied to
the percent solids of the waste. The
device can only accommodate the
minimal 100 gram sample size specified
for bottle extractions for wastes that are
25 percent solids or less.
In addition to the major improvements
discussed above, EPA has instituted a
number of minor Improvements in the
TCLP protocol. These improvements are
primarily designed to increase the
overall precision of the method. For
example, in transferring samples from
container to filtration apparatus to
extractor, etc., the procedure-calls for
determining the weight of any residual
sample material left behind and
subtracting this from the total sample
size, this will insure that the amount of
extracting medium added to the '
extractor is truly a function of the solid
.material within the extractor, and will
help to improve overall precision.
7. Results of Phase III
Phase III of the TCLP development
program involved an evaluation of
ruggedness and precision as well as a
multilaboratory collaborative study. The
experimental design and a summary of
the results of the precision evaluations
are presented below. While the
ruggedness evaluation for the metals
and semivolatiles have been completed
the work on the volatiles portion of the
method is in progress. The results of the
ruggedness evaluation for the volatiles
will be noticed for comment upon
completion.
EPA's collaborative study is currently
on-going. In addition, the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) has conducted
a limited collaborative evaluation of the
draft TCLP protocol, primarily as it
appies to inorganic constituents. The,
report on this study is being drafted. The
results of .both of these studies will be
noticed for comment when completed.
a'. Precision evaluation. As discussed
earlier, the TCLP protocol requires the
use of a Zero-Headspace Extractor
(ZHE) when dealing with vplatiles, and
the use of common EP extraction
equipmenmt (i.e., bottles) when dealing
with non-volatile components. In
response, EPA has conducted a
precision evaluation of the TCLP
protocol using both devices. These'
evaluations xvere conducted by two
laboratories, each laboratory conducting
a number of replicate extractions on two
wastes. These wastes were an API
separator sludge/electroplating waste
admixture containing nonvolatile
organics and a variety of inorganics, and
an ammonia still lime sludge containing •
a variety of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and several inorganic
compounds. These wastes were also
spiked with several volatile compounds.
The results of the precision evaluation
for non-volatile components indicate the
TCLP to be of acceptable precision (Ref.
23). For the most part, the percent
coefficient of variation between
replicate extractions for individual
constituents was less than 30 percent.
This includes the variability contributed
by sampling variability,and analytical
variability. Although sampling
-------
Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 114'/
21683
variability was minimized to the extent
possible, iir is reasonable- to expect a
sample variability contribution to the;,
total variability of between 2 and 5
percent. Analytical variability was in
many cases comparable to, and in some
cases exceeded, the total variability.
This observation is significant as the
analytical methods used to analyze me
TCLP extracts are well accepted and -in
widespread use, „.:..
Precision for tha non-volatiles was
observed to be best for those
contaminants present at relatively high
levels, as is- the usual case to any.
analysis, for method precision. For those
cases; where the contaminant wps. .
present at relatively low concentrations,
precision was-pair, the percent .
coefficient of variation generally tailing
below 50 and 60 percent.
The results of the precision
evaluations for the volatile components
[Ref. 9), are not as clearly inteipr.eted.
There are several reasons for this>. These
evaluations were' initiated as the zero-
headspace extractor became available,
Recall that the present design for the
ZHE was. the result oi experimentation, - .
with several prototype deuces. Hence,-
experience with the ZHE, especially by
laboratory technicians who were
responsible for conducting the work was
limited.-
In addition, the precision work on the
volatiles was conducted using two draft
, TCLP protocols. The first publi|araft
protocol was released for comment In
April of 1985. At this time EPA was still
experimenting with several proto^e,
devices, and although the April TCLP
draft addressed volatile components,, it
was largely to obtain technical^
comments and suggestions.ancF was not
based_pn an actual working ZHE device.
It was"this; protocol under whicji the
TCLP precision evaluation of tjre
- volatiles was begun. :"-.-- „
The second public draft of thejTCLP
protocol was released for comment in
October of 1985, Although this draft was
based on the current design for tWZHE,
further experience with the device ias
led EPA to re-write the TCLP volatiles
procedure in the form that it currently
appears (see TCLP in the proposed
Appendix II to Part 261). In addition, it is
possible that further clarifications in the
procedure.may be advisable.^. __. ;
The remainder of the precision
evaluation for the volatiles w§s, _
conducted using the Octobe&pp® draft
TCLP. Several significant change&have,
been made in the current (proposed)
version due to experience gained with
the device.JFor example, whereas the
October 1985 version allawerTj^euse of
VOA vials for the .collection qf thef CLP
extract, the proposed method requires
the use-of air-tight syringes or TEDLAR®
bags due tc- expected- losses of volatiles
from the VOA vials during collection of
the extract. VOA vials-were used to-
collect the extract during the precision
evaluation of the volatiles. • .
Also, in following the protocols,
inadvertent errors were apparently •
made which seem to have affected
method precision. For example, whereas
the October 1985 version of the protocol
placed a maximum of 25- grams on the
amount of solid material the ZHE could
accommodate, considerably more solid
material was extracted during the
precision analysis of one of the wastes
tested (i.e.» the API separator sludge/
electroplating waste admixture). This
provided for a variable liquid to solid,
ratio rather than the specified 20 to 1
ratio.
To complicate matters further, due to
extenuating circumstances, two
individual laboratories conducted the
work rather than the intended single
laboratory. It is. apparent that higher
concentrations were obtained on the
same waste from the different
laboratories. '.
As indicated above, 'these- factors
make the precision data difficult to
interpret. Whereas the percent
coefficient of variations on the ammonia
still lime sludge were mostly less than
60 or 70 percent, which is fair given the
nature of volatiles, the numbers
generated from the admixture of API '
separator sludge, and: electroplating
, .waste indicated more variability. As,
indicated in the draft report (Ref. 9),
some of this can be attributed to severe
laboratory contamination problems, and
the oily character of the waste, which
seemed to have dominated the
extraction, .."..-.
Due to the inconclusive nature of the
results, EPA is.in the process of
conducting another precision evaluation
of the volatile components. This study
will use-the proposal draft of the TCLP, ,
which we believe should help to clear
up some of the problems encountered
during the first evaluation.'This study v
will be similar to the pre-wious one in .
most other aspects, except that a third
waste will be evaluated (one expected
to not react with the spiked volatiles),
and two levels of volatile spike- will be .-
used (i.e., one erf relatively high
concentration and one of relatively tow
concentration^ The results, of this
evaluation will be noticed for comment
upon its completion. '.--...
. 'b.:Ruggedites.s evaluation, A.
'ruggedness. evaluation is designed to
determine how sensitive; a test method
is with respect to modest departures
from, the protocol which can be expected
during routine applications; of the
protocol. The purpose of this evaluation
is to identify procedural variables which
must be carefully controlled, and then to
emphasize in the protocol the limits of
acceptable delation with respect to
these, variables. If a procedure is. .
"ragged" it will be unaffected! by minor
departures from the specified method
values. If results are affected by
variation/of conditions, the protocol
must be written to specify those
parameters which must not be varied
beyond a deteirmined amount.
As with the precision evaluation,
ruggedness was evaluated for both the.
ZHE and common EP extractorJjottles.
Different lots "of the same wastes used
for the precision evaluations were used
• for the ruggedness evaluation. These
evaluations: Were performed by one
laboratory. Vsfhereas the ruggedness
evaluation for the common EP extractor
bottles has been completed [Ref. 4a), the
ZHE evaluation is still in progress.
Table D-3 presents the parameters
• which were evaluated for ruggedness
using both types of extraction
'equipment, ; , ... ,
TABLE D-3.—PARAMETERS INVESTIGATED DURING TCLP-RuGGEDNESS:EvALUATroN
Parameter
(1) Liquid/Solid ratio.: .- ,•••
(2) Extraction time- - ••
(3) Headspace: . .
ZHE , ~ •* -. ••
(4) Medium #1 acidity (milliequivalents
acid). '.-
(5) Medium #2 acidity fmilliequivalents
. acid). .
(6) Aliqucts, (laRing of. ahquots directly
from ZHE for analysis.
(8) Acid wash filters ,
(9). Filter type — : — ., v-...
(10). Pressurizatibn of ZHE during' agita-
tfon (psi).
. TCLP specification
18 :, ,•••.•"••••
arci;.;^^,.:.,.^U.;..,,...'..::.'..
70. ;......
Allowed for ZHE in some
cases (see .proposed
TCLP). . '
(See proposed TCLP) -
Required; for metals ..,
.0.6-0.8 .um. glass fiber,. -
'•' •; ZBEdevfce . _
19 to 2i;^.....:..--.l^....-;v-.;"
a to 5 peicent......::..:..'........-....-.
eo to" 8p.:t.;..-.--,..:.....v:................
' . - , °f" ;,.' . '!. '- ^'^' .Jl-
T~ ' "jl '.;•" v-5- .*.; - .;; ^ ;-
Associatea ' ' ZHE— Millipbre
'ZHE. ,
0 to 20.H '.
• " ^Common . .
equipment (bottles)
i9-t621."": .
16=10-20, . -. -. '
20 to 60 percent:
'190 to 210.' J-
Borasilicate— Flint '
glass.
Yes-rNo. „ ,.
Polycarbonate—
.Glass fiber.
-------
21684
VoL 51' No-114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
TABLE D-S.-PARAMETERS INVESTIGATED DURING TCLP RUGGEDNESS EvALUATioN-Continuec-
Parameter
(II) 2HE extract colactfon devtcas..
TCLP specification
TEDLAR> bag or syringe
ZHE device
TEDLAR" bag-syringe
Common
ipment (bottl
There were several parameters which
EPA intended to investigate (i.e.,
extraction temperature and agitation
rate), which could not be accommodated
due to lack of appropriate laboratory
equipment necessary to vary these
parameters. In addition, while EPA had
originally intended to evaluate the
effects of different glass fiber filters (See
Table D-3, Item 9), glass fiber filters
other than the type specified in the
TCLP protocol were unable to withstand
the pressures stipulated in the TCLP.
Hence, the EP's use of polycarbonate'
filters were investigated instead. EPA
has already determined that extract
concentrations may differ slightly
between the two filter types (Ref. 4 and
7), The remainder of the Table D-3
parameters are largely self-explanatory.
The ruggedness evaluation for the
common (EP) extraction equipment
demonstrated that for the most part, the
TCLP ii fairly rugged (Ref. 4a). This is
especially true for the semi-volatile
organics, which, with few exceptions,
were unaffected by the parameters
investigated. For metals, the results
suggest that at least two parameters are
critical. As expected, the acidity of the
extracting fluid directly "influences the
extraction of metals. The TCLP protocol
emphasizes accuracy in the preparation
of the extraction fluids, by specifying
the exact recipes for the preparation of
these fluids, and indicating that the pH
of these fluids should be accurate to
within ± 0.05 pH units.
Bottle type (i.e., borosilicate vs flint
glass) is the second parameter which
apparently affects the concentration of
metals in the extract, and may also
effect (to a lesser degree), the extraction
of semi-volatiles. It appears that using
flint glass can result in significantly
higher extract concentrations. While
acid washing the flint glass bottles, or
an expanded use of blanks, may help to
solve the problem, specifying
borosilicate over flint glass would solve
the problem entirely. Due to the
substantially higher cost of the
borosilicate glass (from 3 to 5 times
higher), EPA is reguesting comment on
this option.
The volatiles evaluation for the TCLP
is currently ongoing. As noted above,
the Table D-3 parameters were
Investigated to determine if they need to
be controlled more carefully. As an
example, pressurization of the ZHE
during agitation is being investigated to
determine whether the buil'd-up of ,
pressure within the ZHE during agitation
(which is expected to occur for some
wastes, particularly carbonate
containing waste), needs to be
controlled more carefully. The build-up
of this pressure could cause the ZHE
piston to move, thereby causing the
presence of headspace. The ruggedness
evaluation would indicate if this
variable should be controlled more
carefully, perhaps by putting more
pressure (e.g., 20 psi) behind the piston
during agitation.
As indicated above, the results of the
volatiles ruggedness evaluation will be
noticed for comment upon completion.
c. Collaborative study. As indicated
earlier, both EPA and Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) have planned
collaborative evaluations of the TCLP
protocol. EPA's evaluation, in which the
American Society of Testing and
Materials, a number of business
associations and individual companies,
the Department of Energy, and
Environment Canada's Environmental
Research Center are participating, is .
currently ongoing. This study involves
26 laboratories, five different wastes,
both types of extraction equipment, and
organic arid inorganic compounds,
including volatiles.
EPRI's study, which is very similar to
an evaluation EPRI conducted on the EP
(Ref. 2), was limited to the
determination of inorganic compounds
and deals with common extraction
equipment only. This study deals with
seven types of Utility wastes and
involves three laboratories. In addition
to total precision, EPRI is investigating
the contribution of both variability in
sampling, and variability introduced
through analytical methods, as was
done during the investigation of the EP
protocal.
Both studies will be noticed for '
comment when completed.
IX. References
(1) American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). Committee D-34 Draft
Method. Method For 24-Hour Batch-Type
Distribution Ratio For Contaminant Sorption
on Soils and Sediments. ASTM D34.02-
022RO. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1985.
(2) Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI). Proposed RCRA Extraction Procedure:
Reproducibility and Sensitivity.
Environmental Assessment Department. Palo
Alto, California. November 1,1979.
, (3) Energy Resources Company [ERGO).
EP-HI Preliminary Study. U.S.'EPA Contract
68-01-6467. September, 1984.
(4) "Energy Resources Company (ERGO);
Filtration of Various Wastes Using Various
Filter Media. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-7075
April, 1985.. . -
(4a) Energy Resources Company (ERGO).
Evaluation of Bottle TCLP Draft Protocol.
Draft Final Report. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-
70.75. February 21,1986.
(5) Environ Corporation. Superfund Risk
Evaluation Model—Draft prepared under U.S.
EPA Contract. November 17,1983.
(6) Francis, C.W. et al. Mobility of Toxic
Compounds From Hazardous Wastes.
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) PB 85-117-034. Springfield, Virginia.
August, 1984. '••--
(7) Francis, C.W., and M. Maskarinec. Field
and Laboratory Studies in Support of a
Hazardous Waste Extraction Text. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory Report No. 6247.
February, 1986.
(8) Francis, C.W., and M. Maskarinec.
Leaching of Metals From Alkaline Wastes by
Municipal Waste Leachate. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Draft Report. January
1986. *
(9) Francis, C.W., and M. Maskarinec.
Precision Analysis for the Zero-Head
Extractor. Draft Report. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. January, 1986.
(10) Hannack, P. Letter from P. Hannack,
Canada Ministry of the Environment, Alberta
Research Center, to T.A. Kimmell, U.S. EPA,
Methods and Studies Branch Re: TCLP.
October 28,1985.
(11) Harberger, A. C. Three Basic
Postulates of Applied Welfare Economics: An
Interpretive Essay. Journal of Economic •
- Literature. 9(3):785-797.1971.
(12) Hicks, J. The Foundations of Welfare
Economics. The Economic Journal. 49:696-
712. December, 1939.
(13) International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemicals to Humans, Supplement 4. Lyon,
France. 1982.
(14) JRB Associates. Survey of Industrial
Waste Landfills. U.S, EPA Contract 68-03-
3113. June, 1985.
(.15) Just, R.E., D.L. Heath, and A. Schmitz.
Applied Welfare Economics and Public
Policy. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey. 1982.
(16) Kaldor N. Welfare Propositions of
Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of
Utility. The Economic Journal. 49:549-552
1939. ,
(17) Kimmell, T.A. and D. Friedman. Model
Assumptions and Rationale Behind The
Development'of EP-III. Presented at the
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Fourth Symposium for Hazardous
and Industrial Solid Waste Testing. In Press.
Washington D.C. 1984.
(18) Lehman, A.J. and O.J. Fitzhugh One
Hundredfold Margin of.Safety. Association of
Food and Drug Officers, U.S. Quarterly
Bulletin. Volume 18.1954.
(19) McKown et al. Development of
Methodology for the Evaluation of Solid
-------
Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 114 / Friday. June 15% 1986 /
11685
Wastes. Volume 1. EPA Contract 68-0&-2552.
January, 1981. .
(20) National Researeh Council (NRC).
, Drinking Water and Health. Vol. 4. Safe
Drinking Water Committee, National
Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1982.
(21) Office of Management and Budget .
(OMB). Interim Regulatory Impact Analysis
Guidance. Washington D.C. June, 1981.
(22) Research Triangle Institute (RTI).
Regulatory Impact Analysis for Expansion of
Toxicity Characteristic Under RCR& U.S.
EPA Contract 68-01-7075. October, 1985,
• (23) S-Cubed. Precision Evaluation of the
TCLP Protocol For Non-Volatile Components.
Draft Report. U.S. EPA Contract 68-03-1958.
January 1986.
(24) Spellenberg, S.P. Organic Extraction
Procedure. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-614?.
January, 1982.
, (25) Technology Applications Inc. (TAI). '
Statistical Analysis of TCLP Development
Data. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-6936. May 28,
1985. ; .
(26)' U.S. EPA. Background Document,
Section 261.24, Characteristic of Extraction
Procedure Toxicity. National Technical
• Information Service (NTIS) PB 81-185-027.
Springfield, Virginia, May, 1980.
(27) U.S. EPA. Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Wastes—Physical/Chemical Methods:
Second ed. Government Printing Office
(GPO) 055-002-81001-2'. EPA SW-846.
Washington, D'.C. 1982.
(28) U.S. ERA. Guidelines for Performing
Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington,
D.C. December, 1983.
(29) U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB). Report on the Review of EP-HI.
Washington, D.C. May, 1984.
(30] U.S. EPA. Background' Document:
Issues Relating to the Development and Use
of Reference Doses to Support 40 CFR Part
268, Land Disposal Restrictions. Washington,
D.C. November,. 1985.
(31} U.S. EPA. Acceptable Daily Intake
Workgroup Paper: Assessing, Risks
Associated With Systemic Toxicants.
Washington, D.C. 1985.
(32) U.S. EPA. Verified Reference Doses
(RfD's) of the US. EPA. Washington, D.C.
. 1985. . . '
(33J U.S. EPA. Background Document For
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.
Washington, D.C. February, 1986.
List of Subjects Jnt 40 CFR Parts 261, 271,
and 302
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Chemicals, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials,
Hazardous materials transportation, ,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous.
waste, Indian lands. Intergovernmental
relations. Natural resources. Nuclear
materials,. Penalties, Pesticides and
pests* Radioactive materials, Reey/eliag,
Reporting, and. reeordkeeping
requirements, Superfurid, Water
pollution, control, Water supply, Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated. May 31,1986.
Lee M.Thomas, - - ,
Administrator^
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, it is proposed to amend Title
40 of the Cade of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 261
continues to read as follows;
Authority: Sees. 1006,2002(a], 3001, and
3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42,'U.S.C.
6905, 6912{a), 6921, and 6922).
2. § 261.24 is revised to. read as
follows:
§261.24 Toxicity characteristic,
[aj A solid waste exhibits the
characteristic of toxicity if, using the test
methods described in Appendix II or
equivalent methods approved by the
Administrator under the procedures, set
forth in §§ 260.20 and 260.21, the extract
from a representative sample of the
waste contains any of the contaminants
listed in Table 1 at the concentration
equal to or greater than the respective
value given in that Table. Where the
waste contains less than 0.5 percent
filterable solid's, the waste itself, after •
filtering using the methodology outlined
in Appendix II, is considered to. be the
extract for the purpose of tbis section.
ib). A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of taxiclty, but is not .
listed as a hazardous waste in. Subpart
D,. has the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number specified in Table 1 which
corresponds to the toxic contaminant
causing it.to be hazardous.
TABLE 1.—TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC
CONTAMINANTS AMD REGULATORY LEVELS
TABLE tWTOMCITY CHARACTERISTIC CON-
TAMINANTS AND REGULATORY LEVELS—Con-
tinued •''..';•
HWNO and contaminant
DOT1 Silver - —
D045— t-,1>T,2-Tetrachloroethane
D046— t,T,2i2-Tetruchloroetftane._ -
D047— Tetrachlbroistnyfene.-
D048— 2,3,4.6.-Tetri3chlorophenol
D05Q-— 1,1,t:-Trichl ethee ....
D023— ehlordane-.... .
D025 — Chloroform _
O026— Q-Cf£sQl *_ — , — •—
D016" 24-D- —^ -
D029— 1,2-Dichlofobenzen®. ...
D030— 1,4-Dichtorobenzene
O031— 1,2-Dfchloroethane.... — -
D032 — 1 ,1 -Dichloroethylene ...
D03S— 2,4-Dinitrotoluene — . — -.
P034— Heptachlor (and its hydroxide).
nnas — Hexachlorobenzene
CWSNO-
1:07-13-1
74-40-38-2
7440-39-3-
7t-43.-2
111-44-4
7440-43-9
75-T5-Cr
56-23-5
57-74-9
108-90-7
67-66-3
1333-82-0
95-48-7
108-39-4'
106-44-5
94-75-7
95-50-t
106-46-7
107-06-2
; 75-35-4
t2t-t4-2
72-20-a
76-44-8
118-74-1
Regufa-
ory level
(mg/D
5.0
s.a
100
O.Q7
OS>5
1.0
14-4
0.07
0;03
1.4-
0.07
s.a
• 10.0
10.0
10.0
t.4
• 4.*
10-A
• a40
O.T
0.13
o.ooa
0.001
0.13
' o-, m-, and p-Cresol concentrations are added together
and compared to a threshold of IDiO-ingA.
3. Appendix II of Part 261 is revised to
read as follc.ws: -
Appendix II—Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLPJ
1.0- Scope aad application.
1.1 The TCLP-JES. designed! to determine the
mobility/ of both organic and inorganic.
contaminants present in liqtridr solid, and -
multtphasic wastes. . • . "
1.2 If a tolial analysis of the waste
demonstrates that individual contaminants
are not present in the waste, or that they are
present but ai sack low concentrations that
the appropriate regulatory thresholds could
not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not
be ruh'. . ; ' .
2.0 Summary ofmethod {See Figure!}.
2.1 For wastes containing less than a5%
solids, the waste, after filtration through a
0.6-0.8 ,fim glass- fiber filter, is- defined as- the
TCLP extract.- •
2.2 For wastes, containing greater than
" 0.5% solids, fce liquid phase, if any, is
separated fixira the solid phase and stored for
later analysiif-The particle size of the solid
phase is reduced (if necessary}* weighed, and
extractedi-wi'th- an amount of extraction fluid
equaf to 2& times the weight of the solid'
phase. The extraction fluid employed is a
function-of the alkalinity of the solid phase of
the waste. A'special extractor vessel is- used
when testing for volatiles (See Table 1).
Following extraction, the liquid extract is
separated from- the solid phase by a6-ff.8 jxm
glass fiber filter filtration.
2.3- If compatible [e.g, precipitate or
multiple phases will not form on
combination}, the initial liquid phase of the .
waste is added to the liquid extract and these
liquids are analyzed' together. If incompatible,
the liquids, are analyzed separately and the
-------
Reter
51< No- 114 I Friday, Tune 13. 1986 / Proposed Rules
results are mathematically combined to yield
volume weighted average concentration.
3.0 Interferences.
3,1 Potential interferences that may be
encountered during analysis are discussed in
the individual analytical methods.
4.0 Apparatus and materials.
4.1 Agitation Apparatus: An acceptable
agitation apparatus is one which is capable
of rotating the extraction vessel in an end-
over-end fashion (See Figure 2) at 30±Z rpm.
Suitable devices known to EPA are identified
in Table 2.
4,2 Extraction vessel:
4.2.1 Zero-Headspace Extraction Vessel
(ZME). When the waste is a being tested for
mobility of any volatile contaminants (See
Table 1), an extraction vessel which allows
for liquid/solid separation within the device,
and which effectively precludes headspace
(os depicted in Figure 3), is used. This type of
vessel allows for initial liquid/solid
separation, extraction, and final extract
nitration without having to open the vessel
(See Section 4.3.1). These vessels shall have
an internal volume of 500 to 600 ml and" be ,
equipped to accommodate a 90 mm filter.
Suitable ZHE devices known to EPA are
identified in Table 3. These devices contain
viton O-rings which should be replaced
frequently.
4.2.2 When the waste is being evaluated
for other than volatile contaminants, an .
extraction vessel which does not preclude
headspace (e.g., 2-liter bottle) is used.
Suitable extraction vessels include bottles
made from various materials, depending on
the contaminants to be analyzed and the
nature of the waste (See Section 4.3.3). These
bottles are available from a number of
laboratory suppliers. When this type of
extraction vessel is used, the filtration device
discussed in Section 4.3.2 is used for initial
liquid-solid separation and final extract
filtration.
4.3 Filtration devices:
4.3.1 Zero-Headspace Extractor Vessel •
(See Figure 3): When the waste is being
evaluated for volatiles, the zero-headspace
extraction vessel is used for filtration. The
device shall be capable of supporting and
keeping in place the glass fiber filter, and be
able to withstand the pressure needed to
accomplish separation (50 psi).
Note. When it is suspected that the glass
fiber filter has been ruptured, an in-line glass
fiber filter may be used to filter the extract.
4,3.2 Filter Holder. When the waste is
being evaluated for other than volatile
compounds, a filter holder capable of
supporting a glass fiber filter and able to
withstand the pressure needed to accomplish
separation is used. Suitable filter holders
range from simple vacuum units to relatively
complex systems capable of exerting
pressure up to 50 psi and more. The type of
filler holder used depends on the properties
of the material to be filtered (See Section
4.3.3). These devices shall have a minimum
internal volume of 300 ml and be equipped to
accommodate a minimum filter size of 47 mm.
Filter holders known to EPA to be suitable for
use are shown in Table 4.
4.3,3 Materials of Construction:
Extraction vessels and filtration devices shall
be made of inert materials which will not
leach or absorb waste components. Glass,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or type 31,6
stainless steel equipment may be used when
evaluating the mobility of both organic and
inorganic components. Devices made of high
density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene,
or polyvinyl chloride may be used when
evaluating the mobility of metals.
4.4 Filters: Filters shall be made of
borosilicate glass fiber, contain no binder
materials, and have an effective pore size of
0.6-0.8 um, or equivalent. Filters known to
EPA to meet these specifications are
identified in Table 5. Pre-filters must not be
used. When evaluating the mobility of metals,
filters shall be acid washed prior to use by
rinsing with 1.0 N nitric acid followed by
three consecutive rinses with deionized
distilled water (minimum of 500 ml per rinse).
Glass fiber filters are fragile and should be
handled with care.
4.5 pH Meters: Any of the commonly
available pH meters are acceptable.
4.6 ZHE extract collection devices:
TEDLAR® bags or glass, stainless steel or
PTFE gas tight syringes are used to collect the
initial liquid phase and the final extract of the
• waste when using the ZHE device. . ,
4.7 ZHE extraction fluid collection
devices: Any device capable of transferring
the extraction fluid into the ZHE without
changing the nature of the extraction fluid is
acceptable (e.g., a constant displacement
pump, a gas tight syringe, pressure filtration
unit (See Section 4.3.2), or another ZHE
device).
4.8 Laboratory balance: Any laboratory
balance-accurate to within ±0.01 grams may
be used (all weight measurements are to be
within ±0.1 grams).
5.0 Reagents.
5.1 Water: ASTM Type 1 deionized,
carbon treated, decarbonized, filtered water
(or equivalent water that is treated to remove
volatile components) shall be used when
evaluating wastes for volatile, contaminants.
Otherwise, ASTM Type 2 deionized distilled
water (dr equivalent) is used. These waters
should be monitored periodically for
impurities.
5.2 1.0 N Hydrochloric acid (HC1) made
from ACS Reagent grade.
5.3 1.0 N Nitric acid (HNO3) made from -
ACS Reagent grade.
5.4 1.0 N Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) made
from ACS Reagent grade.
5.5 Glacial acetic acid (HOAc) made from
ACS Reagent grade.
5.6 Extraction fluid: • -
5.6.1 Extraction fluid #1: This fluid is
made by adding 5.7 ml glacial HOAc to 500
ml of the appropriate water (See Section 5.1),
adding 64.3 ml of 1.0 N NaOH, and diluting to
a volume of 1 liter. When correctly prepared,
the pH of this fluid will be 4.93 ± 0.05.
5.6,2 Extraction fluid #2: This fluid is
made by diluting 5.7 ml glacial HOAc'with
ASTM Type 2 water (See Section 5.1) to a
volume of 1 liter. When correctly prepared;
the pH of this fluid will be 2.88 ± 0.05.
Note.—These extraction fluids shall be '
made up fresh daily. The pH should be
checked prior to use to insure that they are
*TEDLAR is a registered trademark of
DuPont.
made up accurately, and these'fluids shoijld
be monitored frequently for impurities. '•'
5.7 ^Analytical standards .shall be .
prepared according to the appropriate ;
analytical method.
6.0 Sample Collection, preservation, and
handling.
6.1 All samples shall be collected using a
sampling plan that addresses the
consideration discussed in "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Wastes" (SW-846).
6.2 Preservatives shall not be added to
samples. '
6.3 Samples can be refrigerated unless it
results in irreversible physical changes to the
waste.
6.4 When the waste is 'to be evaluated for
volatile contaminants, care must be taken to
insure that these are not lost. Samples shall
be taken and stored in a manner which
prevents the loss of volatile contaminants. If
possible, any necessary particle size ' '
reduction Should be conducted as the sample
is being taken (See Step 8.5). Refer ,to SW-846
for additional sampling and storage
requirements when volatiles are '
contaminants of concern.
6.5 TCLP extracts should be prepared for
analysis and analyzed as soon as possible
following extraction. If they need to be'
stored, even for a short period of time,
storage -shall be at 4PC and samples for ''
volatiles analysis shall not be allowed to
come into contact with the atmosphere (i.e.,
no headspace).
7.0 , Procedure when volaliles are not
involved.
Although a minimum sample size of 100
grams is required, a larger sample size may
be necessary, depending on the percent
solids of the waste sample. Enough waste
sample should be collected such that at least
75 granis of the.solid phase of the waste (as
determined using glass fiber filter filtration),'
is extracted. This will insure that there is
adequate extract for the required analyses
(e.g., semivolatiles, metals, pesticides and
herbicides). • • • , .
The determination of which extraction fluid
to use (See Step 7.12) may also be conducted
at the start of this procedure. This
determination shall be on the solid phase of
the waste (as obtained using'glass fiber filter
filtration). ....
7.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
free liquid when subjected to pressure
filtration, weigh out a representative
subsample of the waste (100 gram minimum)
and proceed to Step 7.11.
, 7.2 If the sample is liquid or multiphasic,
liquid/solid separation is required. This
involves the filtration device discussed in
Section 4.3.2, and is outlined in Steps 7.3 to
7.9. , ' .
7.3 Pre-weigh the filter and the container '
which will receive the filtrate.
7.4 Assemble filter holder .and filter
following the manufacturer's instructions.
Place the filter on the support screen and
secure. Acid wash the filter if evaluating the
mobility of metals (See Section 4.4). ' ".
7.5 Weigh out a representative subsample
of the waste (100 gram minimum) and record '
weight.' -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51.-No. 114 / Friday. June 13.1986 / Proposed Rules
21687
7.6 Allow slurries to stand to permit the
solid phase.to settle. Wastes that settle _
slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtration. .
7.7 Transfer the .waste sample to the. filter
holder.
Note.—If waste material has obviously
adhered to the container used to transfer the ,
sample to the filtration apparatus, determine
the weight of this residue and subtract it from
the sample wejght determined in Step 7.5, to :•'
determine the weight of the waste sample -
, which will be filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure of ;
1-10 psi, until air or pressurizing gas moves
, through'.the .filter. If .this point is not reached
under 10 psi, and if no additional liquid has •
passed through the filter in any 2 minute .
interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10-
psi increments to a'maximum of 50 psi. After
' each incremental increase of 10 psi, if the
.. pressurizing gas has riot'moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2 minute interval,,
proceed to the next 10 psi increment. When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when liquid flow, has ceased at ;
50 psi [i.e., does not result in any additional
filtrate within any 2 minute period), filtration
is stopped.
Note.—Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter,
; and may cause premature plugging.
7.8 The material in the filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the wasteland
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase. .
Note.—Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material which appears to be a
; liquid—but even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Step 7.7, this
material may not filter. If this is the case, the
material within the filtration device is
defined as a solid, and is carried through the
extraction as a solid.
7.9 Determine the weight of the liquid
phase by subtracting the weight of the filtrate
container (See Step 7.3} from the total weight
of the filtrate-filled container. The liquid
phase may now be either analyzed (See Step
7.15) or stored at 4°C until time of analysis.
. The weight of the solid phase of the waste
sample is determined by subtracting the
weight of the liquid phase from the weight of
the total waste sample, as determined in Step
7.5 or 7.7. Record the weight of the liquid and
• solid phases. •'.-,.
Note.—If the weight of the solid phase of
the waste is less than-75 grams, review Step
•- 7.0. ••'"- , -: "'-•.''•• ;• •-' ; '•"'.••/ '•" '
7.10 The sample will be handled
-differently from this point, depending on '
• whether it contains more or less-than 0.5% •
solids-. If the sample obviously has greater
than 0.5% solids go to Step-.7.il. If it appears
that the solid may cpmprise less than 0.5% of
the total waste, the percent solids will be
determined as .follows: • •• '..
7.10.1 Remove the solid phase and filter
fromthe filtration apparatus. ,
'7.10.2 Dry the filter and solid phase at
100±20°C until two successive weighings
yield the same value. Record final weight.
7.10.3 Calculate the percent' solids as
follows: ' .
Weight of dry waste and filters minus tared .
weight of filters divided by initial weight
of waste (Step 7.5 of 7.7) multiplied by
100 equals percent solids.
7.10.4 If the solid comprises less than 0.5%
of the waste, the solid is discarded and the
liquid phase is defined as the TCLP extract.
Proceed to Step 7.14.- ' .
, 7.10.5 If the solid is greater than or equal
to 0.5% of the waste, return to Step 7.1, and
begin the procedure with a new sample of
waste. Do not extract the solid that has been
dried.
Note.—This step is only used to determine
whether the solid must be extracted, or .
whether it may.be discarded unextracted. It
is not used in calculating the amount of
extraction fluid to use in extracting the .
waste, nor is the dried solid derived from this
step subjected to extraction. A new sample
• will have to be prepared for. extraction". .
7.11 If the sample has more than 0.5%
'solids, it is now evaluated for particle size. If
the solid material has a surface area per gram
of material equal to or .greater than 3.1 cm2, or
is capable of passing through a 9.5 mm (0.375
inch) standard sieve, proceed to Step 7.12. If
the surface area is smaller or the particle size
is larger than that described above, the solid
material is prepared for extraction by
crushing, cutting, or grinding the solid
material to a surface area or particle size as
• • described above: When surface area or
particle size has been appropriately altered,
proceed to Step 7.12.
7.12 This step describes the determination
of the appropriate extracting fluid to use (See
• Sections 5.0 and 7.0). .
7.12.1 Weigh out a small sub-sample of
• the solid phase of the waste, reduce the splid
(if necessary) to a particle size of
approximately 1 mm in diameter or less, and
transfer a 5.0 gram portion to a 500 ml beaker
or erlenmeyer flask.
7.12.2 Add 96.5 ml distilled deionized
- water (ASTM Type 2), cover with watchglass,
and stir vigorously for 5 minutes using a •. -
7 . magnetic stirrer. Measure and recoiS the pH.
If the pH is < 5.0, extraction fluid #1 is used.
Proceed to Step 7.13.
7.12.3 If the pH from Step 7.12.2 is >5.0,
add 3.5 ml 1.0 N HC1, slurry for 30 seconds,
cover with a watchglass, heat,to 50°C, and
hold for 10 minutes.
;. 7.12.4 Let the solution cool to room
temperature, and record pH. If pH is <5.0, use
extraction fluid #1. If.the pH is > 5.0, .
extraction fluid #2 is used.
- 7.13: Calculate the weight of the remaining
solid.material by subtracting the weight of
the sub-sample taken for Step 7.12, from the
original amount of solid material, as obtained
from Step 7.1 or 7.9. Transfer remaining solid
material into the extractor vessel, including
the filter used to separate the initial liquid
from the solid phase.. •
Note.—If any of the solid phase remains
adhered to the walls of the filter holder, or
the container used to transfer the waste, its ,
weight shall be determined, subtracted from
the weight of the solid phase of the waste, as
determined above, and this weight is used in
calculating the amount of extraction fluid to
iadd into the extractor bottle.
Slowly add an amount of the appropriate
extraction fluid (See Step 7.12), into the
extractor bottle equal,to 20 times the weight
of the solid phase that has been placed into
the extractor bottle. Close extractor bottle
tightly, secure in rotary extractor device and
rotate at 30 ± 2 rpm for 18 hours; The - ^
temperature shall be maintained at 22 :± 3 °C
duringfthe extraction period:
Note.—As agitation continues, pressure '
may build up within the'extractor bottle (due
to the evolution of gasses such as carbon,
dioxide). To relieve these pressures, the
extractor bottle may be periodically opened
and vented intij a hood. ,.,- . .
7.14 Following the 18 hour extraction, the
material in the.extractpr vessel is separated
into its component liquid and solid phases by
filtering through a new glass fiber filter as
outlined in Step 7.7. This new filter shall be
acid washed (!3ee Section 4,4) if evaluating
the mobility of metals,
7.15 The TCLP extract is now prepared as
follows: •"•'••
7.15.1 If the waste contained nq initial
liquid phase, the .filtered liquid material ,
obtained from Step 7.14 is defined a,s the
TCLP extract. Proceed to Step 7.16.;
7.15.2 If compatible (e.g., will not form
precipitate or multiple phases), the filtered
liquid resulting n-om Step 7.14 is combined
with-the initial liquid phase of the waste as:
obtained in Step 7.9. This combined liquid is
defined as the; TCLP extract. Proceed to Step
7.16. . -.• ' - , •
7.15.3 If the initial liquid phase of the .
waste, as obtained from Step 7.9, is notor
may not be compatible with the filtered liquid
resulting from Step 7.14, these liquids are not
combined. These liquids are collectively ;
defined as the TCLP extract, are analyzed
separately, arid the results are combined
mathematically. Proceed to Step 7.16. ;
; 7.16 The TCLP extract will be prepared
and analyzed according to the appropriate
SW-846 analytical methods identified in .
Appendix III 'of 40 CFR 26}. TCLP extracts to _
be analyzed for metals shall be acid digested.
If the individual phases are to be analyzed
separately, determine the volume of the ;
individual phases (to 0.1 ml), conduct the '••
' appropriate a.nalyses, and combine the-
• results mathematically by using a simple .
; weighted average:
Final contaminant concentration=
-------
21888
Federal Register /Vol. 51. No. 114 / feday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
where:
Vi =The volume of the first phase W
Ci=The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the first phase (mg/1)
V3 =The volume of the second phase (1)
Cist The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the second phase (mg/1)
7.17 The contaminant concentrations in
the TCLP extract are compared to the
thresholds identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer to Section 9 for quality
assurance requirements.
8,0 Procedure when volatiles are
involved.
The ZHE device has approximately a 500
ml internal capacity. Although a minimum
sample size of 100 grams was required in the
Section 7 procedure, the ZHE can only
accommodate a maximum 100 percent solids
sample of 25 grama, due to the need to add an
amount of extraction fluid equal to 20 times
the, weight of the solid phase. Step 8.4 '
provides the means of which to determine the
approximate sample size for the ZHE device.
Altliouoh the following procedure allows
for particle size reduction during the conduct
of the procedure, this could result in the loss
of volatile compounds. If possible, any
necessary particle size reduction (See Step
8,5) should be conducted on the sample as it
is being taken. Particle size reduction should
only be conducted during the procedure if
there is no other choice.
In currying out the following steps, do not
allow the waste to be exposed to the
•ilmosphere for any more time than is
absolutely necessary.
8.1 Pre-wefgh the (evacuated) container
which will receive the filtrate (See Section
4.6), and set aside.
8.2 Place the ZHE piston within the body
of the ZHE (it may be helpful to first moisten
me piston O-rings slightly with extraction
fluid). Secure the gas inlet/outlet flange
(bottom flange) onto the ZHE body in
accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. Secure the glass fiber filter
between the support screens and set aside
Set liquid inlot/oullct flange (top flange)
.
8.3 If the waste will obviously yield no
free liquid when subjected to pressure
filtration, weigh out a representative
subsumple of the waste (25 gram maximum-
Sec Step 8.0). record weight, and proceed to
Step 8.5.
8.4 This step provides the means by
which to determine the approximate sample
size for the ZHE device. If the waste is liquid
or mulliphasic, follow the procedure outlined
m Steps 7.2 to 7.9 (using the Section 7
filtration apparatus), and obtain the percent
solids by dividing this weight of the solid
phase o;f the waste by the original sample
size used. If the waste obviously contains
greater than 0.5% solids, go to Step 8.4.2. If it
appears that the soli'd may comprise less than
0.5% of the waste, go to Step 8.4.1.
8.4.1 Determine the percent solids by
using the procedure outlined in Step 7.10. If
the waste contains less than 0.53i solids,
weigh out a new loo gram minimum
representative sample, proceed to Step 8 7
and follow until the liquid phase of the waste
is filtered using the ZHE device (Step 8.8).
fhfs liquid filtrate is defined as the TCLP
extract, and is analyzed .directly. If the waste
contains greater than or equal to 0.594 solids,
repeat Step 8.4 using a new 100 gram
minimum sample, determine the percent ' »
solids, and proceed to Step 8.4.2.
8.4.2 If the sample is < 25% solids, weigh
out a new 100 gram minimum representative
sample, and proceed to Step 8.5. If the sample
is > 25% solids, the maximum amount of '
sample the ZHE can accommodate is
determined by dividing 25 grams by the
percent solids obtained from Step 8.4. Weigh
out a new representative sample of the
determined size.
8.5 After a representative sample of the
waste (sample size determined from Step 8.4)
has been weighed out and recorded, the
sample is now evaluated for particle size (See
Step 8.0). If the solid material within the
waste obviously has a surface area per gram
of material equal to or greater than 3.1 cm2,
or is capable of passing through a 9.5 mm
(0.375 inch) standard sieve, proceed
immediately to Step 8.6. If the surface area is
smaller or the particle size is larger than that
described above, the solid material which
does not meet the above criteria is separated
from the liquid phase by sieving (or
equivalent means), and the solid is prepared
for extraction by crushing, cutting, or grinding
to a surface area or particle size as described
above.
Note.—Wastes and appropriate equipment
should be refrigerated, if possible, to 4°C
prior to particle size reduction. Grinding and
milling machinery which generates heat shall
not be used for particle size reduction. If
reduction of the solid phase of the waste is
necessary, exposure of the waste to the
atmosphere should be avoided to the extent
possible.
When surface area or particle size has been
appropriately altered, the solid is recombined
with the rest of the waste.
8.6 Waste slurries need not be allowed to
stand to permit the solid phase to settle.
Wastes that settle slowly shall not be
centrifuged prior to filtration.
' 8.7 Transfer the entire sample (liquid and
solid phases) quickly to the ZHE. Secure the
filter and support screens into the top flange
of the device and secure the top flange to the
ZHE body in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions. Tighten all ZHE
fittings and place the device'in the vertical
position (gas inlet/outlet flange on the
bottom). Do not attach the extract collection
deviqe to the top plate.
Note.—If waste material has obviously
adhered to the container used to transfer the
sample to the ZHE, determine the weight of
this residue and subtract it from the sample
weight determined in Step 8.4, to determine
the weight of the waste sample which will be
filtered.
Attach a gas line to the gas inlet/outlet valve
(bottom flange), and with the liquid inlet/
outlet valve (top flange) open, begin applying
gentle pressure of 1-10 psi (or more if
necessary) to slowly force all headspace out
of the ZHE device;. At the first appearance of
liquid from the liquid inlet/outlet valve,
quickly close the valve and discontinue
pressure.
8.8 Attach evacuated pre-weighed filtrate
collection container to the liquid inlet/outlet
value-and open valve. Begin applying gentle
pressure of 1-10 psi to force'the liquid phase
into the filtrate collection container. If no
additional liquid has passed through the filter
in any 2 minute interval, slowly increase'the'
pressurejn 10 psi increments to a maximum
of 50 psi. After each incremental increase of
10 psi, if no additional liquid has passed'
through the filter in any 2 minute interval,
proceed to the next 10 psi increment. When
liquid flow has ceased such that continued
pressure filtration at 50 psi does not result in-
any additional filtrate within any 2 minute
period, filtration is stopped. Close the liquid
inlet/outlet valve, discontinue pressure to the
piston, and disconnect the filtrate collection
container.
Note.—Instaiitanepus application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
8.9 The material in the ZHE is defined as
the solid phase of the wasteland the filtrate
is defined as the liquid phase.
Note.—Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material which appears to be a
liquid—but even after applying pressure
filtration, this material will not filter. If this is
the'case,, the material within the filtration
device is defined as a solid, and is carried
through'the TCLP extraction as a solid. '
If the original waste contained less than 0.5%
solids, (See Step 8.4) this filtrate is defined as
the TCLP extract, and is analyzed directly—
proceed to Step 8.13.
8.10 Determine the weight of the liquid
phase by subtracting the weight of the filtrate
container (See Step 8.1) from the total weight
of the filtrate-filled container. The liquid
phase may now be either analyzed (See Steps
8.13 and 8.14), or stored at 4°C until time of
analysis. The weight of the solid'phase of the
waste sample is determined fay subtracting
the weight of the liquid phase from the weight
of the total waste'sample (See Step 8.4).
Record the final weight of (lie liquid and solid
phases.
8.11 The following details how to add the
appropriate amount of extraction fluid to the
' solid malerial within the ZHE and agitation'
of the ZHE vessel. Extraction fluid #1 is used
in all cases {See Section 5.6).
8.11.1' With the ZHE in the vertical
position, attach a line from the extraction
fluid reservoir to the liquid inlet/outlet valve.
The line used s.hall contain fresh extraction
fluid and should be preflushed with fluid to
eliminate any air pockets'in the line. Release
gas pressure on the ZHE piston (from the gas
inlet/outlet valve), open the liquid inlet/
outlet valve, and begin transferring extraction'
fluid (by pumping or similar means) into the
ZHE. Continue pumping extraction fluid into
the ZHE until the amount of fluid introduced
into the device equals 20 times the weight of
the solid phase of the waste that is in the
ZHE. , '
. 8.11.2 After the extraction fluid has been
added, immediately close the liquid inlet/
outlet valve, and disconnect the extraction
fluid line. Check the ZHE to make sure that:
all valves are in their closed positions. Pick
up the ZHE and physically rotate the device
in an end-over-end fashion 2 or 3 times.
-------
Federal Register!/ Vol. 51, No, 114 /Friday. June 13,1986 / Proposed
: 21689
Reposition the ZHE in the vertical position-
with the liquid inlet/outlet valve on top. Put
5-10 psi behind the piston (if necessary), and
slowly open the liquid inlet/outlet valve to
'bleed out any headspace (into a hood) that
may have been introduced due to the
addition of extraction fluid. This bleeding
shall be done quickly and shall-be stopped at '
the first appearance of liquid from the valve.
Re-pressurize the ZHE vyith 5-10 psi and
check all ZHE fittings to insure that.they are
closed.
8.11.3 Place the ZHE .in the rotary
extractor apparatus (if it is not already there},
and rotate the ZHE at 30 + 2 rpm for 18 _
hours. The temperature shall be maintained
• at 22 Br + 3°G during agitation. - .-.,.."'
812 Following the 18 hour extraction,
check the pressure behind the ZHE piston by
quickly opening-and closing the g&s inlet/
outlet valve,; and noting the escape'of gas. If
the pressure has not been maintained (i.e., no
gas release observed), the device is leaking.
Replace ZHE O-rings or other fittings, as
necessary, and redo the extraction! with a
new sample of waste. If the pressure within
the device has been maintained, the material
in the extractor vessel is once again
separated into its component liquid and solid
phases. If the waste contained an initial
liquid phase, the liquid may be fipered
directly into the same filtrate collection
container (i.e., TEDLAR* bag,'gaslight"
syringe) holding the initial liquid phase of the
waste, unless doing so would create multiple
phases, .or unless there is not enough volume
left witHin the filtrate collection container. A
separate filtrate collection container must be
used in these cases. Filter through the glass
fiber filter, using the ZHE device as discussed
in Step 8.8. All extract shall be filtered and
collected if the extract is multi-phasic or if
the waste contained an initial liquid phase.
Note.—If the glass fiber filter .is not intact
following .agitation, the-filtration device
discussed in the NOTE in Section 4.3.1 may
be used to filter the material witnin the ZHE,
8.13 If the waste contained no initial
liquid phase, me filtered liquid material
obtained from Step 8,12 is defined as the
TCLP extract. If th'e waste contained an
initial liquid phase, the filtered liquid ' - " •
material obtained from Step 8.12, and the
initiaLliquid phase (Step 8.8) are collectively
defined as the TCLP extract; " ', _ ',
8.14 The TCLP extract will be prepared
and analysed according to the appropriate
SW-846 analytical methods, as identified in
Appendix HI of 40 CFR 261. If the individual
phases are to be analyzed separately,
. determine.the volume;.pfthe individual .
phases (to 0.1 ml), conduct the appropriate
analyses and combine the results .
mathematically by using a simple volume
weighted average:' .*'•'''
Final contaminant concentration —
where: • . . . • .' •-'•'•' ,,: •>". " :
:V,- = The volume of the first-phase (1J , •
C, = The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in.the*first phase (mg/1) ,
V2 = The volume of the second phase (!)
C2 = The concentration of the contaminani of
concern in the 'second phasejmg/l) _.'
8.15 The contaminant concentrations in
the TCLP extract are compared to the
thresholds identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer*to Section 9 formality
assurance requirements.
9.0 Quality Assurance requiyments, \
9.1 All data, including qualitf assurance
-'• data, should be maintained and available for
reference or inspection.
9.2 . A minimum of one blank for every 10
extractions that have been conducted in an
1 extraction vessel shall be employed asa
check to determine if any memory effects
from the extraction equipment is occurring.
One blank shall also be employed fp^every.
new batch of leaching fluid that is. made up.
' 9.3 AH quality control measures described
in the appropriate analytical methods shall
be followed. ^
9.4 The method of standard addition shall
be.employed for each waste type if: 1)
Recovery of the compound from spiked splits
of the TCLP extract is not between 50'and
150%, or 2) If the concentration of
constituent measured in tKe. extract is Within ..
20% of the-appropriate regulatory threshold.;If.
more than 1 extraction is being rjm;on
samples of the same waste, the method of .
standard addition need only be applied once
and the percent recoveries Applied to. the
remainder of the extractions.
9.5 TCLP extracts shall be analyzed
within the following periods after generation:
Volatiles—14 days, Semi-volatiles—50 days,
Mercury—28 days, and other Metals—180
days. . ,, .,.._,..
TABLE 1 .—VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS '
TABLE 1 .—VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS '-
1 Continued
Compound
) CASNO
1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroetriane.
Tetrachloroethylene. ^
Toluene
1.1,1 Tnohloroethane -
1.1.2 Tnchloroethane
Trichloroethyiene ,_
Trichlorofluoromethane,
1,1.2-Trichloro-1,2,2-frifluoroethane.
Vinyl chloride.
Xylene,
. . ^. , ; Compound , _
°*
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Benzene.
n-Butyl alcohol.
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chiorobenzene.
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ;1-Dichlor.oethylene
Ethyl acetate'.'
.Ethyl benzene.
EthyJ, ether.
Isobutanol
Methanol
Methylene chldride
Methyl ethyl ketone.
Methyl isobutyl ke)one.
1.1.1 .2-Tetrachloroethane.
CASNO'
67-6.4-1
107-13-1
"71-43-2
71-36-6
75-15-0
S6-23-5
108-90-7
67-6fc3
107-06-2
75-35-4
141-78-6
100-41-4
60-29-7
78-83-1
67-56-1
75-09-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
108^88-3
71-55-S
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
1330-20-7
1 Includes compounds ^identified in both, the Land Disposal
Restrictions'Rute and the Toxicity Characteristic. . ,
TABLE 2.r—SiUitABLE ROTARY AGITATION
-..-,: :,- :• i APPARATUS l ' •-..•
.Company ' ,
Associated Design; :
. and Manufacturih
California, (800).
882-7711. :
Dublin, California, •
(415) 828^010.
Bedford,", '. '
'' Massachusetts, ,
. (800)225-3384:
• Model -
425910
. 410400,
302400
YT30142HW
XXI 004700
Size
(mm)
142
.47
' 142
' 1,42
•• '47
1 Any device capable of separating th'e liquid from the solid
phase of the was':e is suitable, providing that it is chemically
..compatibfe with the waste and the constituents to be ana-
lyzed. Plastic devices (not listed .'above), may be used when.
.--only inorganic cortaminants:are of concern. -
"- ..TABLE !>.—SUITABLE FILTER MEDIA ' ""
Company
Whatman :
Laboratory
ProductSi Inc. .' . ".
. ' . Location,
Clifton,
'(201)
New Jersey
773-5800.
'Nominal pore size. '
BILLING CODE 1 5EO-50-M
" ModeL
' GFF
Rore
size '
0.7
_ - - - - ^<- . • • • •
-------
'21690
'Federal Register'/ Vol. 51, No. f!4 /"Fridav. fune 13.1^86 / Proposed Rules
FIGURE Is "ICLP Flowchart
WET WASTE SMPLE
CONTAINS < 0.5 %
NON-FlJJTERABLB
SOLIC6
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION
0.6-0.8 urn
GLASS FIBER
FILTERS
REPRESENTATIVE WASTE
SAMPLE
DRY WASTE
SAMPLE
DISCARD
SOLID
SOLID
SOLID
REDUCE PARTICLE; SIZE IF >9.5 mm
OR SURFACE AREA <3.1 cm2
TCLP EXTRACTION1
OF SOLID
0-HEADSPACE EXTRACTOR
REQUIRED FOR VOIATILES
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION
0.6-0.8 urn GLASS
FIBER FILTERS
LIQUID
WET WASTE SAMPLE
CONTAINS > 0«:5 %
NON-FILTERABLE •
SOLIDS
DISCARD
SOLID
TCLP EXTRACT
TCLP EXTRACT
ANALYTICAL
METHODS
LIQUID/SOLID-
SEPARATION
0.6-0.8 urn/
GIASS FIBER
FILTERS
LIQUID
~1 ""'
STORE AT
4°C '
TCLP EXTRACT
1 The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the solid
phase of the waste.
-------
Liquid Inlet/Outlet Valve
Extraction Vessel Holder
Figure ii Rotary Agitation'
• x
J
' '-
1
v_
• 'I
.. F
—Filter .— -
Waste/Extraction Fluid
•m
Piston
•
^
Body
^
Top •
Flanqe
VITON , '
0-rinqs
(2 or three)
Bottom
Flanqe
*
z
Pressurizing Gas I.nlet/Outlet. Valve
'H*
CJ
Figure 3; Zero-Headspace .Extraction-Vessel
Or.
ce
to.
•8
-------
4. Amend Table 1 of Appendix HI of
Part 261 to add the following compounds
and methods in alphabetical order:
Appendix III—Chemical Analysis Test
Methods
TABLE 1.— ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ORGANIC
CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-846
TABLE I.—ANALVSIS METHODS FOR ORGANIC
CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-846—Contin-
ued
Compound
First edition
meth°d(S)
Compound
First edition
Second
mlmod(s>
Banzen© «
OW*)rol>imz«n
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday. lune 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3024 LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QuANTiTiES-Qpntinued
Hazardous substance ,_, "
Lindane.
Mercury.
, Methbxychlor,
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone.
Nitrobenzene .
Pentachlorophenql.
i Phenol
Pyridine
Selenium
Silver.
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane .
1 ,i ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane .
.Tetrachloroethylene.
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol .
Toluene
Toxaphene.
• 1 ,1.,1 -Trichloroethane
1 .1 ,2-Trichloroethane.
Trichlordethylena.
2,4.5-Trichloro-phenol.
2,4,6-Trichloro-prienol.
2.4.5.TP. ' -
Vinyl chloride .. . ,
. CASRN . - Regulatory synonyms
•-.--.-•" ' . .' ' ' ~*
-
~
7S092 Methane, dichloro-
78933 2-Butanone,
98953 Benzene, nitro-
87865 Phenol, pentachloro. _,
108952 Benzene; hydroxy-
110861
-
630206 Ethane, 1,1 ,1,2-tetrachloro.
79345 Ethane 1122 tetrachloro-
127184 Ethene,'1.1.2,24etraohloro-.
68902 Phenol, ,.2,3,4,6-tetrachlbro-
^08883 Benzene methyl
71558 Methyl chloroform.
79005 Ethane', 1.1,2-trichloro-
79016 TricWoroethene.
95954 Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-
88062 Phenol, 2,4,6-lrichloro-
75014 Ethene, chloro- - _
RQ
1
T
1
1*
1'
1000
JP
1000
\*
1*
1*
1'
r
1"
1*
1000
i
r
r
1000
10
10
100
1'
•
Statutory > -
-nrtot ". RCRA
Codef .was,eNo.
1,4 ;0013
4 D009
1,4 D014
2,4 ! D039 '
4 ,0040 .
1,2,4 ! D041
1,2,4 D042
1,2,4 D043
4"' D044
4 D010
4 D011
4 0045
' 2,4 0048'
•; .2,4-" 0047- ' J.
, 4: O04^" ..'••
. 1,2,4' 0049
'• ; ":1,4;, D015 '.-
. 2,4 ! 0050 ,
2,4; DQ51 ..
' '1,2,4' -D6SZ--
• ' 1,4 0053
1,2.4 O054
1,4 .0017
2,3,4: 0055
21693
Category Pounds (Kg)
X
X
X
C
0
C
A
C
X
X
X
X
X
x-' • ••-
A ' .
.c .-• •
'••X ! " '
c ... '
X
c' •
A
A
B
X
1^(0.454)
1(0.454)
1(0.454)
1000(454)
5000(2270)
1000(454)
10»(4.54)
1000**(454)
1*#(0.454)
1**(0.454) .
1(0.454)
1tt(0,454)-
ia(0.454)
1*(0.454)
,... 10(4.54)
1000(454)
: . 1*(0.454)
. 1000(454)
1 #(0.454)
' 1000#(454)
,10#(4.54)
10#(4.54)
100(45.4)
1 #(0.454)
• ; , -. . — — : • . ' l| ',;•'•'•
Indicates that the, 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ.
{PR Doc. 86-13033 Filed 6-12-86; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M -
-------
------- |