66 OOB
Tuesday
May 24, 1988
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 268
Land Disposal Restrictions; Proposed
Rule
-------
18792
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 100 / Tuesday. May 24. 1988 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
IFRL-332S-9]
Land Disposal Restrictions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental" Protection
Agency (EPA) is today proposing to
revise the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP). "Method
1311," as proposed on June 13.1988 as
part of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC)
and as promulgated on November 7,
1983 as part of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The changes to Method 1311
involve the use of a stainless steel cage
in the bottle extractor, the addition of
new suppliers of equipment, and the
addition of a more detailed method flow
chart and diagram of the stainless steel
cage. The cage modification would
allow the elimination of the size
reduction step for certain materials.-
DATESVComments on this proposed rule
to modify Method 1311 must be
submitted on or before June 23,1988.
ADDRESSES: One original and two
copies of all comments on this proposed
rule, identified by the Docket number F-
88-TCA-FFFFF, should be aent to the
following address: EPA RCRA Docket.
WH-582. (LG-100). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460. Please place the
Docket number on all comments. The
EPA RCRA Docket is located in the sub-
basement at the above address and is
open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal •
holidays. To review Docket materials.
the public must make an appointment by
calling (202) 475-9327. A maximum of 50
pages of material may be copied from
any one regulatory docket at no cost.
Additional copies cost S0.20/page. .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9348 (toll- '
free) or (202) 382-3000.
For information on the technical
aspects of this proposed rule contact
Gail Hansen. Office of Solid Waste.
WH-562B. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460. (202) 382-4761.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Tabta of Contents
Part L Background
Part IL Incorporation of Cage and Other
Modifications
Part III. Economic and Regulatory Impacts
Part IV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Part V. References
I. Background
On January 14.1986 (51 FR1602). EPA
proposed the framework for
implementing the Congressionally-
mandated Land Disposal Restrictions
Program (LDR) under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). This action, among other
things, proposed to establish treatment
standards that had to be met before
wastes could be land disposed. To
determine whether the applicable
treatment standards had been met. the
Agency proposed to employ the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP). or Method 1311. On June 13.
1986 EPA also proposed the use of
Method 1311 as part of a new Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) for determining
whether a waste is hazardous. (51 FR
21648). The TC proposal would expand
the existing Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Characteristic (EPTC) by
• requiring that additional chemicals be
considered in determining the
hazardousness of a waste, and by using
Method 1311 to determine the. presence
of such chemicals in, and their potential
to leach from,' a waste. In both these
proposals. Method 1311 was developed
to simulate the mobility of both organic
and inorganic compounds. In the TC
rule, EPA proposed that Method 1311
would replace the Extraction Procedure
'(EP) in the EPTC.
In response to these proposals, the
Agency received numerous public
comments regarding the test protocol.
As a result of these comments, several
changes and clarifications were
incorporated into Method 1311 when it
was promulgated as part of the Land
Disposal Restrictions Program (LDR) on
November 7.1986 (51 FR 40543). These
modifications included (1) specifying
that the percent solids determination be
performed on a separate sample to
prevent problems when volatile species
are important, (2) clarifying that multiple
extractions might be required for
samples of low solids content in order to
obtain sufficient extract to conduct the
needed analyses, (3) specifying
particular quality assurance information
which should be maintained and
available for inspection. (4) specifying
storage periods for the leachate. (5)
recommending the use of borosilicate
glass bottles over the use of flint glass,
and (6) clarifying that, in the bottle
protocol, centrifugation may be used as
an aid to filtration of either the initial
liquid phase of the waste or the extract
of the solid phase.
Although these changes were not
incorporated into Method 1311 when it
was proposed as part of the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC), when the TC is
finally promulgated, these changes will
be added. In addition, EPA is today
proposing, to make additional changes to
Method 1311 (as used both in the LDR
program and the TC) in response to
comments received from the TC and
LDR rules and recent studies conducted
by the Agency. These changes consist of
incorporating a stainless steel cage in
the bottle extractor, which allows the
elimination of the particle size reduction
step for certain materials; the addition
of new equipment suppliers; and the
addition of a more detailed method flow
chart and diagram of the cage.
The cage modification would respond
to those commenters who argued that
requiring all wastes to be milled/ground
before extraction (as currently required
in Method 1311) would penalize those
persons who solidify their-wastes into a
monolithic mass or those persons whose
wastes are in a monolithic form. The
addition of new equipment suppliers is
in response to new information on the
availability of suitable testing
equipment and would address
commenters' concerns'that equipment
shortages will prevent timely waste
testing. The addition of a more detailed
method flow chart would address
comments that the current method flow
chart needs to be explained and
clarified. The addition of a diagram of
the stainless steel cage is for
clarification.
II. Incorporation of Cage and Other
Modifications
Method 1311 (as proposed on June 13,
1986 as part of the TC and promulgated
on November 7,1986 as part of the LDR)
requires that the waste undergo particle
size reduction in those cases where the
waste cannot pass through a 9.5 mm
sieve or has a surface area of less than
3.1 cmz/g. This particle size reduction is
achieved through milling the waste. The
Agency believed, given the uncertainties
concerning the long-term environmental
stability of solidified wastes, that
milling these wastes was an
environmentally conservative approach.
However. EPA received numerous
comments on the issue of particle size
reduction, particularly as it would apply
'for monolithic and stabilized wastes. In
particular, these commenters indicated
that wastes are sometimes solidified by
stabilization or fixation processes to
intentionally prevent contact (and
subsequent leaching) between water
present in the disposal unit and the toxic
species present in the waste.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24. 1988 / Proposed Rules
18793
Additionally, certain wastes may exist
as rugged, monolithic materials. These
commenters argued that since rugged
monolithic solids and well-solidified
wastes are not likely to be physically
degraded in a landfill, such waste
samples should not have to be milled
into small particles (to pass through a
9.5 mm sieve) before extraction. The
commenters suggested that as a
replacement for the milling requirement
for monolithic wastes, the structural
integrity procedure (SIP), from the
Extraction Procedure (EP), be reinstated
and improved to simulate the effects of
weathering processes (such as wet/dry
and freeze/thaw cycles) and vehicular
traffic on a landfill.
The Agency has reviewed the use of
the SIP, which uses a drop-hammer to
test the integrity of the waste and to
reduce its size if it fractures. The
Agency found that, although it may
simulate the potential of a monolithic
waste to be degraded by vehicular
traffic on a landfill, it cannot address
certain other stresses acting on the
waste (e.g., wet/dry and freeze/thaw
cycles). While evaluating the use of the
SIP, the Agency found that, when
certain monolithic materials were tested
using the SIP, the materials retained
their monolithic structure. When these
materials were subsequently placed in
the glass extractor bottle and rotated,
the bottle would break. Consequently, in
order to prevent breakage of the bottles,
the Agency developed a cage insert for
the extractor bottle. The cage, which is
designed not to move within the bottle,
is constructed of 0.25-inch stainless steel
woven mesh. Experiments have shown
that the use of the cage prevents bottle
breakage (Ref. 7).
While evaluating the utility of the
cage, the Agency noticed that wastes
which were believed to be well-
solidified retained their monolithic
nature in the cage during extraction,
whereas wastes which were believed to
be less well-stabilized (even though
some of them had passed the SIP) were
broken into small pieces during the
extraction.
To further examine this apparent
correlation, the Agency obtained a
select group of stabilized wastes which
had been tested for their apparent
resistance to environmental stresses,
such as wet/dry (W/D) and freeze/thaw
(F/T) cycles. These included wastes
which were unlikely to undergo
degradation due to F/T or W/D tvpe
stresses after placement in a landfill as
well as wastes which did not appear to
be resistant to such stresses. Resistance
was measured by subjecting the wastes
to repeated cycles of water submersion
and oven drying and freezing and
defrosting using draft ASTM methods
"Wetting and Prying Test of Solid
Wastes" (Ref. 7) and "Freezing and
Thawing Test of Solid Wastes" (Ref. 7),
respectively. Wastes that did not fall
apart or lose 30% of their original weight
after 28 cycles of F/T and W/D were
assumed to be resistant to
environmental stresses. The 30% or more
cut-off was based on data from both an
EPA/Environment Canada/Industry
study and from studies conducted by the
Alberta Environment Center (Ref. 7).
These studies showed that there was a
natural break point between those
wastes that were stress resistant and
lost less than 30% of their original
weight and those wastes that were
poorly resistant and lost more than 30%
of their original weight.
Those wastes that had been
previously characterized using the W/D
and F/T resistance tests were then
subjected to the extractor using the cage
insert (Ref. 7). The cage was considered
to correlate the behavior of the W/D
and F/T resistance tests if the samples
that were degraded in the F/T and W/D
testa were degraded after tumbling. The
results are shown in Table 1. This study
confirmed that those wastes that are '
resistant to environmental stresses were
resistant to degradation using the cage-
modified extractor. Those that were not
deemed resistant to the environmental
stresses were degraded by the extractor.
For instance, both the wet/dry and
freeze/thaw tests completely degraded
the poorly stabilized pozzolonic (lime/
fly ash) material and the poorly
stabilized K028 concrete mixture, but
neither test caused significant
degradation of the vitrified, polymer
encapsulated, or well-stabilized F024
concrete wastes. In addition, experience
with the SIP in the laboratory has shown
that stabilized solids that were not
degraded by the SIP. yet that failed the
freeze/thaw and wet/dry procedures,
also were degraded by the cage
extractor. These preliminary results
suggest to the Agency that the cage
tumbling procedure may better correlate
with the environmental stability of the
waste than the SIP. Although these data
are scant, the Agency feels that there is
sufficient basis to propose this
procedure. Commenters should
understand that the Agency will
continue evaluation of the procedure
during the comment period: we
encourage submission of data and
suggestions of additional sources of
useful information.
TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF WET/DRY,
FREEZE/THAW AND TUMBLING WITH
CAGE INSERT
Sample
F024*2:1....
F024S:1
K028'1:1
K028 5:1
Lime/fly ash
1:1
Lima/fly ash
2:1
Polymer
' encapsulated..
Vitrified '
Percent of weight
remaining (number of
cycles)
Wet/dry
73 (28)
84 (28)
0.(3)
70 (17)
0(3)
0 (5)
100 (28)
97 (28)
Freeze/
' thaw
77 (28)
91 (28)
0 (17)
90 (28)
0 (1)
0 (2)
100 (28)
89 (28)
Average
percent
of weight
remaining
after
tumbling
•71
•89
»0
8 72
"0
»o
'100
•CBS
•=Tested in duplicate, result is average of 2
experiments. ^
"=Tested in triplicate, result is average of 3 ex-
periments.
«=Only a single specimen was tested.
4=Includes chlorinated solvents (40CFR, Part 261
App. VII).
•=lndudes 1,1.1-trichloroetriane, vinyl chloride
'=1-L jar used due to small quantity of waste
available.
Based on these results, the Agency is
proposing that most waste materials are
not to be milled to pass the 9.5 mm sieve
before testing if (1) the bottle extractor
equipped with the cage is employed and
(2) an appropriate size representative
sample can be taken and analyzed. The
exceptions would be wastes which are
rendered monolithic by being
encapsulated and wastes which are
tested for volatiles. The Agency believes
that some encapsulated wastes may be
well-solidified but is concerned about
encapsulants which will corrode (e. g.,
metal battery cases) or otherwise
degrade in the environment, thereby
permitting contact between the waste
material and landfill leachate.
Therefore, the Agency is continuing to
require that all encapsulated wastes be
milled. The Agency, however, invites
comments on how to define stable, non-
corrodable, encapsulated wastes.
Studies and data are needed of
encapsulants that will not be readily
breachable. Based on data and
comments obtained, the Agency may
consider different testing requirements
for encapsulated wastes. The Agency
also requires that wastes which are
tested for volatiles be milled. The
extraction of volatiles requires the use
of a special extraction device, the Zero
Headspace Extractor (ZHE), which is
made of Type 316 stainless steel. The
Agency does not know how to adapt the
ZHE to incorporate a cage insert and
therefore, still requires that wastes that
are tested for volatiles go through
particle size reduction, preferably as the
sample is being taken in the field to
-------
1S7M Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 100 / Tuesday. May 24, 1988 / Proposed Rules
minimize volatile loss. The EPA invites
comment on how to reduce the particle
size of volatile-containing wastes to
minimize volatile loss and. based on
comments obtained, may consider other
alternatives to milling of volatile-
containing wastes.
The other modifications, the addition
of new equipment suppliers, the addition
of a more detailed method flow chart
and the addition of a diagram of the
stainless steel cage, are being'added
primarily to further clarify the method.
The new equipment suppliers include
two manufacturers of rotary agitation
devices. Environmental Machine and
Design. Inc. of Lynchburg. VA, and
Milllpore Corp. of Bedford. MA: one
manufacturer of a Zero Headspace
Extractor vessel (ZHE), Lars Lande of
Whitmore Lake, MI; and two
manufacturers of filter media, Millipore
Corp. of Bedford, MA. and Nucleopore
Corp. of Pleasanton, CA. These
manufacturers are listed in Tables 2.3,
and 5, respectively, along with company
telephone numbers and equipment
model numbers.
in. Economic and Regulatory Impacts
A.'Rtigulatory Impact Analysis
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
U.S.-based enterprises to compete in
domestic or export markets.
The Administrator has determined
that today's proposal is not a major rule.
In fact, we believe the proposed changes
to Method 1311 will result in savings to
persons performing the testa using this
method. In particular, the time and,
therefore, labor costs are lower when
using the proposed modification because
solid materials will not have to be
milled to pass a 9.5 mm sieve but rather
only be reduced to a size to fit the
extraction cage in the bottle. Therefore. .
because this proposal is not a major
regulation, no Regulatory Impact
Analysis was conducted.
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
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). This
analysis is unnecessary, however, if the
Agency's Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Agency has examined the
potential impact of the proposed rule on
small business and has concluded that
this regulation will have no adverse
impact on small entities since the
modification to Method 1311 does not
.significantly affect the cost of testing. In
fact because the modification reduces
Tabor costs, this proposal may reduce
testing costs. Therefore. I certify that
this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule contains no
recordkeeping or information collection
requirements subject to OMB review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1930.44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Because
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements are not required by this
proposal, the Agency has not-prepared
documentation pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste. Reporting and
Recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 8.1988.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
IV. References
(1) Research Triangle Institute. "Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure." Draft
Background Document U.S. EPA. OSW,
Washington. DC. 1987.
(2] S-Cubed. "Modification, to the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure." U.S.
EPA, Contract No. 88-01-7286,1987.
(3) Research Triangle Institute. "Evaluation of
Analytical Procedures Supporting the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP): Modification* to Protocols." U.S.
EPA. Contract No. 68-01-7266.1987.
(4) S-Cubed. "Modification of the TCLP for
Problem Matrices." U.S. EPA, OSW.
Washington. DC. 1987.
(5) U.S. EPA. "Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure." Background
Document U.S. EPA. OSW. Washington.
DC, 1988.
(6) "EPA TCLP Changes." Internal Document.
U.S. EPA. OSW. 1988.
(7) S-Cubed. "Modification of TCLP to
Accommodate Solidified Wastes;" Draft
Final Report. U.S. EPA. OSW. Washington.
DC. September. 1987.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, it is proposed to amend Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), 6921. and
6924.
2.'The heading. Steps 4.2.2. 7.0, 7.3. 8.9,
8.10. Table 2. Table 3, Table 5, and
Figure 1 of Appendix I are revised and a
new Figure 4 is added, to read as
follows:
Appendix I to Part 268—Method 1311
4.2.2 Extraction Bottle with Cage. When
the waste is being evaluated for other than
volatile contaminants, a 2-liter jar fitted with
a stainless steel cage is used for most
samples (see below for exceptions).
Headspace is allowed in this vessel. The jar
is fitted with a type 316 stainless steel (or
equivalent material) cage that will contain all
of the solids in the sample. The cage is
constructed of 0.25 inch (83 mm) woven wire
mesh with an inside diameter of 3.0 ± 0.1 in.
and a free fail length of 9.9 ± 0.1 to. The cage
shall be supported in the extractor bottle in
such a manner that it does not move as the
bottle is rotated. See Figure 4 for details of
construction.
The extraction bottles may be constructed
from various materials, depending on the
contaminants to be analyzed and the nature
of the waste (see Step 4.3.3). It is
recommended that borosilicate glass bottles
be used instead of other types of glass,
especially when inorganics are of concern.
Plastic bottles shall not be used if organics
are to be investigated. Bottles are available
from a number of laboratory suppliers, but
the bottle size must be appropriate to contain
the cage. When this type of extraction vessel
is used, the filtration device discussed hi Step
4.3.2 is used for initial liquid/solid separation
and final extract filtration.
For the wastes that must be reduced to
granules in Step 7.3. the cage is not used in
the extraction bottle. The cage is used in all
other cases, even if the solids are present as
small particles.
7.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS
Preliminary evaluations are performed on a
minimum 100 gram representative sample of
waste that will not actually undergo
extraction (designated as the first sample in
Step 8.2). These evaluations include: (1)
preliminary determination of the percent
solids of the waste; (2) determination of
whether the waste contains insignificant
solids, and is therefore, its own extract after
filtration: (3) determination of whether the
waste is encapsulated; and (4) determination
of which of the two extraction fluids are to be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 100 / Tuesday. May 24, 1988 /Proposed Rules
33795
used for the non-volatile leaching extraction
of the waste.
7.3 Determination of whether the waste
requires size-reduction (particle-size is
reduced during this Step): If an extraction for
volatile organics (Step 9.0) is to be performed
on the wastes that contain more than 0.5%
solids, the solids must be reduced to the
•particle size prescribed in Step 7.3.3. For the
extraction of other analytes (Step 8.0) the
solid is reduced to small particles only if it is
encapsulated.
7.3.1 The solid portion of the waste is
carefully examined to determine if it is
encapsulated. If the solid is found to be en
capsulated; it must be crushed, cut, or milled
to pass a 9.5 mm sieve. If a liquid phase
results in this step, the resulting mixture shall
be evaluated by Step 7.1.
Note.—This size reduction is meant both
for wastes encapsulated with surface
coatings and wastes that may naturally be in
sealed capsules (e.g., dry cell batteries.
electrical parts).
7.3.2 If the solid portion of the waste is
not encapsulated and volatile organics are
not of concern, representative solid pieces
are used in the extraction procedure (Step
8.0), as obtained.
Note.—For wastes that are to be fixated or
stabilized before extraction the sample may
be cast (or otherwise stabilized) in the form
of a cylinder or block that will fit in the cage
of the extraction apparatus (see Steps 8.0-
8.11). The casting may be allowed to cure for
30 days before the leaching procedure is
performed.
7.3.3 For solids that are to be extracted
for volatile organics (Step 9.0) or solids that
are encapsulated (Steps 8.0 and 9.0), a
particle-size reduction is required, if the solid
has a surface area per gram of material equal
to or greater than 3.1 cm2, or is smaller than 1
cm in its narrowest diagonal (i.e., is capable
of passing through a 9.5-mm (0.375 inch)
standard sieve). Such solids are prepared for
extraction by crushing, cutting, or grinding
the waste to a surface area or particle-size as
described above. If the solids are prepared
for organic volatiles extraction, special
precautions must be taken, see Step 9.8.
Note.—Surface area requirements are
meant for filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and
similar waste materials. Actual measurement
of surface area is not required, nor is it
recommended.
* * * * *
8.9 If the waste contains <0.5% dry solids
(see Step 7.2), proceed to Step 8.13. If the
waste contains > 0.5%'dry solids (see Step 7.1
or 7.2), and if particle-size reduction of'the
solid is needed in Step 7.3 .(i.e., the solid is
encapsulated), proceed to Step 8.10. If
particle-size reduction was not required in
Step 7.3. quantitatively transfer the solid
material into the stainless steel cage of the
extractor vessel, and include the-filter used to
separate the initial liquid from the solid
phase, if used. Proceed to Step 8.11.
8.10 If the waste is encapsulated the solid
portion is prepared for extraction by
crushing, cutting, or grinding the waste to a
surface area or particle size as described in
Step 7.3. When the surface area or particle-
size has been appropriately altered,
quantitatively transfer the solid material into
an extractor bottle, without a stainless steel
cage. The filter used to separate the initial
liquid from the solid phase is also put into the
extractor bottle.
Note.—Sieving of the waste through a sieve
is not normally required. If sieving is needed
a Teflon-coated sieve should be used to avoid
contamination of the sample. Surface area
requirements are meant for filamentous (e.g..
paper, cloth) and similar waste materials.
Actual measurement of surface area is not
recommended.
TABLE 2.—SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION APPARATUS l
Company
Location
Model
Analytical Testing and Consulting Services, Inc
Associated Design and Manufacturing Co
Environmental Machine & Design, Inc
IRA Machine Shop and Laboratory
Lars Lande Mfg _ „
Millipore Corp
REXNORO
Warrington. PA, (215) 343-4490 4-vessel ZHE device or 8-bottfe extractor device.
Alexandria. VA, (703) 549-5999 ! 4-vessel device, 6-vessel device.
Lynchburg, VA, (804) 845-6424 :. ; 4-vessel device, 8-vessel device.
Santurce, PR, (809) 752-4004 ; 16-vessel device.
Whitmore Lake. Ml. (313) 449-4116 ; 1O-vessel device, 5-vessel device.
Bedford, MA, (800) 225-3384 ', 4-vessel ZHE device or 4-one liter bottle extractor device.
Milwaukee, Wl. (414) 643-2850 j 6-vessel device.
1 Any device that rotates the extraction vessel in an end-over-end fashion at 30 ~ 2 rpm is acceptable.
TABLE 3.—SUITABLE ZERO-HEAOSPACE EXTRACTOR VESSELS
Company
Location
Model
Analytical Testing and Consulting Services, Inc..
Associated Design & Manufacturing Co
Lars Lande Mfg
Millipore Corp .'.
Warrington, PA. (215) 343-4490 C102. Mechanical Pressure Device.
Alexandria. VA. (703) 549-5999 3740-ZHB, Gas Pressure Device.
Whitmore Lake, Ml. (313) 449-4116 Gas Pressure Device.
Bedford, MA (800) 225-3384 f SOI P581"C5, Gas Pressure Device
TABLE 5.—SUITABLE FILTER MEDIAL
Company
Millipore Corp
Nucleopore Corp..
Whatman Laboratc
>ry Products, Inc
Location
Bedford, MA, (800) 225-3384
Pleasanton, CA, (415) 463-2530
Clifton. NJ. (201> 773-SSOO
Model | Size '
AP40
211625
GFF
0.7
.7
.7
1 Nominal pore size (urn).
BILLING COOE 8S8O-SO-M
-------
18796
Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 100 / Tuesday. May 24, 1988 / Proposed Rules
Figure 1 H«thod 13X1 Flowchart
Us* a representative sample of vaate
Separate liquid
from eqlida
with 0.8-0.8 ua
glass fiber
filt.r
Separate liquid
froB solids
with 0.8-0.8 am
glass fiber
filter
Store liquid
at 4 deg. C
Discard
•olid*
Halt the
•olid be
Billed?*
Extract
u/appropriate fluid
1) Extractor v/cage
for non-volatilee
ZHE device for
volatile*
liquid
compatable
with the
extract?
Bednce size
to <9.S »»
particle*
Diicard
tolid
Separate extract
froa solid u/
0.8-0.8 BB claee
fiber filter
Measure aaount of
liquid k analyze
(mathematically
coabine result w/
result of extract
analysis)
Tas
Combine
extract w/
liquid phase
of waste
Analyze
liquid
•If the solid* are large pieces(>9.5 sa) and will be extracted in the
ZHE device, or they are encapsulated, they must be Billed.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 1988 / Proposed Rules
1879?
>Shock absorber
-Type 316 stainless
steel cage (0.25"
woven wire mesh),
3.0 + 0.1 in ID,
9.9 + 0.1 in LG
•Wide mouthed 2-liter
borosilicate bottle
Shock absorber
3.15
Figure 4. Stainless steel cage used in the tumbling
of solid samples
[FR Doc. 88-9903 Filed 5-23-88; 8:45 am]
SHJJNO COOC (S40-SO-C
-------
------- |