\
V-X
        ASSESSMENT  OF  RCRA/EP  TEST  RESULTS  ON  FBC  RESIDUE

 PART II -  PROPOSED PROCEDURE  IN  FEDERAL  REGISTER,  Dec.  18,  1978
                                by

                   C.  C.  Sun  and  J. T. McAdams
                    Vlestinghouse R&D Center
                      Pittsburgh, PA  15235

-------
           F o r w a r d


'  i e port  prepared by  the  We3tir,ft!;^


 ->p;nent  Center  is part  of a r.id. i ,.; •


 industrial Environmental ?ese-ir-:,


•  Park),  U.S. Environmental Pro'., -^


 •••pcict of regulations developed  j ,.

                                    *.
  Disposal Act, as amended by  t '•:<.;


'.. :,;very  Act (RCRA) of  1976 on  :


 •_ si dues.   This  report  was not  . ',••  <


 .. ';rjng  the extension of  the COT...'
              This  report
 •,house  fr~brn testing several V'r,'


  • i^ction Procedure ( E P )  for  i <


    16,  1978 (U3  FR 58956-57),


 •should  be noted  that publicc- t 1 i


 , .1.1 Regist_e_r does not  sign"5 i\v  ;


.oessarily reflect the  views •-•:.


  i ' v -j t e c t i o n Agency nor  d o e L-   ^


 ;  products constitute  en dor:-

-------
            ASSESSMENT OF RCRA/EP TEST RESULTS ON FBC RESIDUE
     PART II - PROPOSED PROCEDURE IN FEDERAL REGISTER, Dec. 18, 1978
                                    by
                        C. C. Sun and J. T. McAdarrs
                          Westinghouse R&D Center
                           Pittsburgh, PA  15235
                                May 4, 1979

                             1.0  INTRODUCTION
          The federal laws hax'ing legislative power over the environ-
mental impact of solid waste disposal are:
          •  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 1976
             -  Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1965
                Resource Recovery Act, 1970
          •  Clean Water Act, 1977
             -  Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 1972
                Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974
          •  Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977
             -  Clean Act Act, 1970
          •  Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 1977
          •  Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 1970
          •  Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 1972.
          The passage of RCRA closed the legislative loop of environ-
mental laws (air/water/solid) and created a new level of control over
solid waste disposal.  Of special concern are the regulations to be
                                                          1-4
promulgated under Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management.     Of the
characteristics currently proposed for hazardous waste (ignitability-
corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity), toxicity causes the most concern.
                                                                       2
Both the previously drafted March 1978 toxic extraction procedure (TEP)

-------
and the recently proposed extraction procedure  (EP)   were carried out
on selected samples of the fluidized-bed  combustion  residues and refer-
ence solids.  Results from the former tests (T.EP)  and recommendations
were communicated to EPA. »^>-)
          The results of EP tests are summarized here along with comments
on the proposed procedures in the hope of providing  EPA with useful
information for its continued efforts to  refine the  extraction procedures
and promulgate regulations.

-------
                             2.0  BACKGROUND
          Table 1 summarizes the history of regulation development under
RCRA Sec. 3001, and efforts undertaken by Westinghouse accordingly.
Table 2 lists the key differences among the previous  draft  versions and
the proposed regulations (Fed. Reg.  Dec. 18, 1978).
          The results of Westinghouse efforts in testing the  TIP
procedures with residues from FBC processes and recommendations were
summarized in an informal document entitled "Assessment of  RCRA/TEP
test results on FBC residue, Part I" and  communicated  to EPA in
                 4
December of 1978.   Thi:
proposed EP procedures.
                 4
December of 1978.   This report represents continued effort  with the

-------
ex
o
W
O
o
M
H
tu
PS
o
o
CO
PS

 I
 to
H






t/i
c
o
•H
4-J
u
<;

01
Ifi
3
O

"So
c
•H
4-1
W
0)
£2




















1C
0)
3
1C
in
M

£x,
OJ
^












C/j
t) C
OJ O
in -H
0 4-1
CX to
O i-l
i-i 3
ex 00
OJ
PS
en
c
0
4-1 4J
t\J M
P 3
O 60
Ol
PS
c 10
o o
•H 3
4-1 TI
to -H
"O rH 0 00
OJ O -Hit)
4-> O ID C P
on co
0) -r-l C U-J
i-l = O
0) O .-<
en ' QJ co P 0)
CO -HOP
C i-J 3
o < -H : 4J
PS C Cfi CO
~G O • -H 3 C
O Pi 4J O
4-1 c 01 -a :
10 4-1 OJ ~C P Vi
•H W g -H CO 3
4-1 -i-l eX > N O
•H Cfi O O CO "0
C 1C rH P ^T M
•rH CO CO 01 CX - CO
Ol > N
- i— 1 O 0) O M-i CO
CX cx 4-j tj JJ o .G
« E
H C5
- OJ • •

"
^
PX
w
H
^

^ 01
Ol 4-1
P in
3 CO
t) S
0)
o in
0 3
M O
ex T3
^4
d CO
O N
•H CO C
4-1 f. O
0 -H
CO P 4-1
P O CO
4J 14-1 U
W iHl
0) -H
O 4-1 4-1
•H U-i C
X CO OJ
O P T3
H -0 -rl















OO
r~
,e
o
J-(
CO
s:


01 •
n p-j
W
O
4-J "
OJ
•> P
TD 3
0) T3
•H OJ
U-l CJ
•rt 0
•a P
o ex
E
c
>< o
r-l -H
4-J -1- '
C 0
cO to
0 P
•H 4-J
M-i X
•H Ol
C
•H OJ
ic E
ra
ex c
K 0)
H P















OO
r~
.
4J
a.
0)


r-
u
p~
[•
5
•c ^
o P
4-1
u -o
G C
^H ^
O
cr. ^
r-i
C -
c •-'
^~
M) ^J
o -1-1
4_J tO
CO E
•H
4_> CJ •
•c-i U l£
C C x)
•H Ol C
P 0)
- 01 X!
pu ^ P
tJ D O
- P !T>
ID
G
E O 4J C CO
P- -H CO O C
x \ l£ ~ £1 O -HO
•* U-, [— 4 4_> 4_) J-j j i tr-\ -^j ^._
~ -HE ir. — i cj •• ex 4-i o 4J
ex "c CD i-< -•-> E co ir. — '
W 1C i-iC XOJG^-IC>
r X3 C P4-1XDC--^
i— 1 O >-, O O Ifi O 6C C 4-J
•• J_) -r-l 4-1 E MCO OJPU
OIC>-H Cll^rHPCXCO
PCOQJPP 4-J CO O
30POCC co >> -^ OJ P — I
T3 *H CX 01 U- t_) 4-1 4J 4-1 Q T^
d) "4-1 4-1 -H V, Cfi Vi CO
O-'HOC'C -rHCOCO P
o c j: -r1 o cu -H ex > CD
P OC' 4-J -1-1 4-1 4J U C •
p^ -H ,— 1 l— IB 3 O K v-l O >*
Ifi C CO 'i-l CO 4J34-J CO
cicOPo I2&C oooov:
01^:301 CTj-acctfi
•H -C 4-J 4-J CX rH -n Ov P -H CO
4-JG OCC cOT34-JtOO)4tiO
Otfi4J3 ••H3ONUtO-H
rooc pr,y o rH G to c E-e
4-j o P w *-< o cxcl?'" > IH *t3
X P Ol CC i — 1 C/2 'H 3 U-l T? 3 C-
w ex u-* 
o


-------
E-
rj".
u:
t;
IX.
t:
U-
o
(X.
O
c cc
•H • r—
"O CD rH
O .'X
cc
0 • CC
CX ~ IH
O 0
Vj p-
ex, u
0
c







cc
t^
•-

•
4-J
CX
CJ
cc

















CC
r^
a.

x:

J-4
EC
2:






























E
tc

<^2
c
rH

A !


















E
fcC

o
o
i— i

A |











TD
CJ
•H
U-i
•H
CJ
Oj
CX
CC1

4-J
o








0)
N
•H
CO

0)
rH
CX
E
CO
CO



CO
p —
cc -
re
*
CU 4J
E ex
re cj
cc co
CJ
O
= -°
H U
oc !n
- J-J
V- rH
o o
c
•• o
= E
CO
•-- c
fl O

0 4J
4-J CC
CJ
60 4-J
jn
•r-l J-J
"0 O
c E
•H E
S-J CO
0 ,c








~
oc
^^_
co

0
4-J

bC
C
•H
13
C
•H
VJ
0
c
o
•H
4-1
CO
M
CO
CX
CJ

P ,

0)
rH
fv
E
CO




CC

LC -
re

O 4J
E —
re o
C7-. ^



z
.
c
X
4-J
.H
^5 T.J
CJ
s~ -a
CJ ~O
4-J re
re
*£ '^
• r-t
X) CJ
cj re
NT
•— u
C -H
O 4-.
•H O
CJ CJ
C re
_
c
re
^
rC ID
4J (U
•H T3
> 'O
re
M
CJ "O
4J -r-
CO CJ
> re

-a o
CJ 'H
N 4J
•H O)
C cj
o re
•H
CJ VJ
(3 O






E
~3
•H
-o
QJ
IS

r?
U
CO
0)
^



cc
f^^
in -
o
.
O 4-1
C. C~
re o
o~. cy.
1










^
• rJ
O
<^

o
•H
4-1
0
U
<^

*^r
LO
*
O



CJ
«^
4-1
CJ
u
<^

rH
• •
rH

Vj
0

ffi
o
CO
Z T3
•H
z o
rH re



4_>
C
CJ
to
<_^

bO
C
•H
4J
CO
V-(
4-1
•H
H



00

rf ^
CO
.
O 4-1
E CX
re o
cc c/^






-3
-—
r — (
0
CO

E
tc
-- — .
rH
E

1!
E
^
E
•H
X
CO
2
















4J
•H
E

rJ

0
z

c
o
•H
4_)
CO

4J
•H
H

E

g
•H
X
CO
X



CO

0'. -
CO
.
CJ 4-J
E L.X
re o
cr. LO


.^
rC
-o
o
i~H
r-l 'C
O 0
Vj ^3
4-1 O
f , — I
O rH
cj re

VJ -O
0 -H
CJ
r-j d
.
u~\ E
•^
1 E

o x
• co

i~j
JIT.

CC
x^f

jl


J_;
^T


C^4 < — 1
fl

O
C-4 4-J



O
^
•H
f~j

c
o
•H
4-J
U
re

4J
^
w



CO
r-
K -
CO
a
CJ 4-J
E CX
CO CJ
CC GO



V-
§
cr
rH

rH
co
C
*r~i
tc
=H
r—
O

U".
^
r-l
C-

o
CXI

rH
rH
CC
C
~> CC
O 'H
C^ )H
O
V •
o cr
L— ' H3
rH
^: ex
CJ
re -
o c
o
i-, -H
O J-1
"-M CJ M
CO O
O V-' 3
r--i i-1 C-"
• • X -H
rH 0.1 -H

•rJ
4-J
CV
t-^

' C
•H
n
tr
•H
( •}
^_
•-^
•r~^
rH
ro




CO
1
K -
CO
•
0) 4-1
E CX
cc o
cc ex


co
o
T.
o
o

4-1 "O
^? Cb
J.J 4-1
cc
^ o
-o «
a w.
T-i D
U-, 1C
• -1
CJ t£
CJ C
ex •'-
CC V-
Vj
4-J -i-t
O 4J
£2 CC











X!
O
•H
U-j
•H
CJ
O
CX
CO

4-J
_p











(_4
o
4-J
CO
4-J
•H
00
<

-------
                             3.0  EXPERIMENT
3.1  Samples
          Ten FBC residue samples were selected for preliminary RCRA/EP
tests to include process variations:  limestone/dolomite,* AFEC/PFBC/
adiabatic, bed/cyclone/additional filter.  Untreated and treated FGD
sludges, and a conventional coal ash were also tested for comparison.
Raw sorbent and natural gypsum were tested in parallel to provide
references.
3.2  Procedures and Equipments
          The EP procedures as,, specified in the Federal Register
December 18 were followed, allowing for the following interpretations or
adjustments:
          •  "Representative Sample" - We used 25 g instead of 100 g
             because of the limited quantities of FBC solids
             available.  Because of the granular nature of the
             solids, however, we believe that the samples (25 g)
             were representative.
          •  Neither the structural integrity test (SIT) nor the
             handling of liquor was required for FBC residue because
             of the nature of the solids (dry granular, <3/8 in).
          •  "Suitable extractor" - We used an Eberbach automatic
             shaker at its highest speed (140 excursions per min.)
             and found that it provided good solid/water mixing
             and prevented stratification.  The high-speed shaker was
             selected also because of the following facts:
                    The  suggested  extractor  by  Associated  Design  and
                    Manufacturing  Co.,  Alexandria, VA was  not  commercially
                    available   at  the  time we initiated  the  EP tests.

-------
               •  Oak Ridge National Laboratories who were testing the
                 EP procedures under contract to the EPA Office of
                 Solid Waste designed and built their own extraction
                 apparatus.
          •  A Chemtrix Type ASA pH controller was used for auto-
             matic titration of some samples.  Prior to obtaining
                                                       «.
             the automatic titrator, we followed the manual pH
             adjustment procedures.  Both performed satisfactorily.
3.3  Results
          Table 3 summarizes the trace elements in the EP leachates and
compare them to the criteria for hazardous waste,  ten times the primary
drinking water standards (DWS).  None exceeded the criteria,  thus all
were nontoxic.  Although lower than the criteria,  EP leachates of the
AFBC and PFBC fir.es (from the 3rd cyclone or the final filter) had Cr
concentrations rauzfh higher than did the other leachates and were close
to 10 x DWS.  They, therefore, warrant special attention in future
investigations.  Similarly, Se in the EP leachates of conventional coal
ash and FGD sludge was near 10 x DWS (0.1 ppir,) and was much higher than
the average Se concentrations found in the FBC leachates.  Analyses for
the chlorinated organic pesticides and herbicides  which were also proposed
in Sec. 3001 criteria were felt to be unnecessary.
          Table i summarizes the characteristics of EP leachates in
addition to the trace elements.  As expected, the  major species, such
as Ca, SO^, and TDS were high in the EP leachates  of FBC residues.  In
most cases the maximum allowable acid (A ml of 0.5N acetic a-1-' Dei-
gram of solid) was reached so that the final pH was much higher than 5.

-------
a
a
w



"H


co
 <


 <





o;
to
*\
to
4-J
c
0
p
01
1— 1
w
o
u
CO
(J
H







(U
CO


P-.
y — v
:z
n
O tr.
;s co
^^
£

Pu

o
T3

03
PQ
CO


<
Process Residue
.-H
o
o
o
-a-
0
o
V
in
V
1/1
c
o
o
o
i— i
V
c^
o
0
r-i
0
c
V
,—1
V
t-l
o
o
c

re
^
Pu
CM
0
o

-------
5:
c
Di
CC

r^
CJ
H
c/:
pi
o
u;
H

<




" rH
H 
•
rH
rH









C
O
rH
*










O

•r-1
CC
O
P:

cc
cc
CJ
CJ
O
f-i
P-.

















TD
CJ
,0

c_}
pa
tlj
•<

m
.
CM
0
a>




o
rH
V



0
m,
rH
»*
f)
fl
r~-
•
TH
rH









CM
rH









0
o
rH
•K















J_
Cj
£>
o
p>-,
rJ
J_J
cd
o

0
pa
fr ,

cc

i— i
i
c
v£;
c
, — 1
CM
s
1
CM
o
vD
L1
CM
1
CM
rH
•s
rH
r--
r*^
1
CM
O
•
f —


CM
rH
•
! — '.
, — 1
1
CM
in
.
DM






C
O
rH
•K













-X
^
'r-
CJ

c
p>-,
rJ
J_l
ro
o

o
pa
Lz_(
PJ
0
o
00

CM
1
LO
G^1
3
rH
)_



^
CM
C
•^
, — [


OC
CC

^
C
tN
^
rH
1
CM
^
rH
f —
1
rH
O>
•
v^-



CM
.
CTi
1
CM
C
•
in






C
O
rH
•K
1
^C
r-i















^
•K
CO
CJ
fj
•H
U-<

u
PQ
fi4
P-l



c
v^-
rH
r
CM

^~
.
^







OJ
fl
•
vC



1 —
fl
r^




s




^J-
^J-
r~^
»•


LO
.
Ln







in
fi
*
m




o
1— 1
0

, — ,


1—i
CM




r\i
r~^.
O~!


Cxi
v^;
•
i— 1







m
O
.
ir»










o
C
i— •
j*








cc
OC






\
, 1
h- }




C
^
^
f— 1
'J~.

•^
o
4-J
B
O
l-i
4-1
C
D

O
c_^
Pu



0'








v^J-
rs!











r~
tC '/.
"- ! c

cc

T3
CJ

•H
rH
-H
fO
CO
4J
1C

P
O

,
Cj
O
u

rH
R
C
O
•H
-1 i
C
0)
£>
c
o
u



o

OC




o
r— 1
V



o
c
vC



rH
•
CM







CM
c

m










1— 1
rH











o
rH
V




O


*

c
CM
, — |
».
CM

CO
*
vO







CM
00
.
vC










O
c
: — '
-£








o
rH
A




o

CC
j^

•^
CJ
CJ
C 4J
cj c
rJ O
CJ X
l« rJ
CJ O
K cc
r, ,
»j
•H
p
O
o
^31

^2
n
V-i

»«
CJ
0
C J-J
OJ C
rJ CJ
Cy ,O
U-J >J
CJ O
Pi CO





























.
*O
OJ
^3
O •
r-H ^%
t-J V4
CS 0
tc
TD O
•H -u
O C
rt u
U _C
•H 0
ri v
o
re c
•r-
^ X
in 4J
• -H
o 3
W-i ' \J
C 0
4-1 CC
C 0
b
t- c/
CO r-t
CJ
CJ >
X ce-
rt a
^ rH
O C.
rH g
rH CC!
cO cc

g r — I
3 cc
E r-<
•H CJ
X >
ig o
^- cc
•JC -JJ
*

-------
                             4.0  DISCUSSIONS
          Preliminary results indicated that the FBC waste would not be
considered hazardous (Table 5).   Keither would conventional coal ash and
FGD sludge, based on test results of a single sample (which may or may
not be representative).  Although these results indicated that the FBC
residue would not be hazardous,  and, therefore, need not be subject to
the regulations on "special waste category" under RCRA Sec. 3004, it-
should be pointed out that the proposed "special waste," utility wastes
among the list, did not mention FBC residue.  We recommend, therefore-,    •  ,
that the FBC waste be added to the list of utility wastes that currently •
includes FGD, bottom ash, and fly ash.                                   /
                                              4
          In our previous communication to EPA , several difficulties
encountered in testing TEP procedure were mentioned:  the high concentra-
tion of acetic, acid specified in TEP, the large amount of acid required
to neutralize the highly alkaline FBC residue" to reach pK-3, the c.;;trac-
tion temperature, and the agitation mode.  The first three situations
were significantly improved by the new EP procedure, as shown on Table 2.
Some uncertainty still exists as to what is a suitable extractor because
"well-mixing" depends not only on the type of apparatus but also on the
nature of the solids.  In this test we found that a high-speed automatic-
shaker (e.g., 140 excursions/inin) provided good mixing of the F!>C solids.
          Other q\:?stiDns may arise in the future, such as th^ corrpatability
of biological testing with rr.o acetic-based le^hate, ar.d the c.^:t and
reliability of the various specified procedures (mutagenicity, bioaccur»ula-
tion, and radioactivity).  We hope that the forthcoming report by Oak
Ridge-National Laboratories8 on the RCRA-TEP and E? test results will
provide some answers.
                                    10

-------























x^
1— 1
o
o
f)

J2
o
f~,
H
U
w
u^

<
o
PS
>-^

<
1— f
p^
w
H
Hi
PS
u
K
H
ty.
<^
^

cy.
*~j
O
C
pi
<^
c*^
<^
££

\

m

i/
i — i
-C.

~ —




























4j
c
0)
E
E
O
U












cr.
C
0
•H
4J
R
G G
•n P
t3 'O
C -1-1
G
>s OS
R CJi
C CC
•H fa
E
•H
T— (
CD
t-l
PU










K
P
4-1
C3
4J
C/)










_ - — — .


•;
G
"£
y.
*r-t
Lj
G
4_J
G
re
re
o


•o
•H
1 P 4-> >,
re cr P re
i-l -H B E
• P i—t
' tc cr.
GO • C
i ^ 4-> CO G
V I-H
•a ^ j-j
O 1-1 U C
to c c •— i
O O P
D. CM tC
O X rM G
*-. i— 1 A I i-i
C. D.
O- E ID
4J re a. G •
E CO G
G 10 G O CC
^ C •" C- C
j- o co c re
p -H re i* .c
C_> 4-1 3 Cl. G












0 0
c c










, •
C G a G
•H ,c r-. vi
O^ 4-1 G
cc G — i re — i
r^* i-j 4—* T3
C~ r tO O
r— ' '"O f-~* "^
G <~~i G !-"
•• i— t J2 G
00 P . C-
>— i -a G o
G G 4-> "O
• jr c G
G G "O &
G LC ~ G G
P G T3 •'-'
•4-1 C >
"J "-Ti r; G CJ

o' r~' - -- r~*
^ ! ~ •'-
c • i~ " 's i
C T. ' O J-J
i« G . V- G C r"
p. t. a 'z t-- r
i

>.
4J >^,
r-H •1—'
*H ^>
^ -H
re w
4-J O
•H V-
c ^
bC' G
>— CJ
. .
i — 1 CN

G ^— 4-1 G
• K O C O P
G • '^ G ^ *T5
•-i - i-» C E -*
QJ X • C O C> T? t/;
AJ Q ^ •— ( 4^ V-J O
cr. i-Jtcj^ j>-, u cj c^i—
ft 4-J c c CT; i-i tc
^C-)Cj'i-jE'i-'C/jCjC>
4-1 cc r: o v, cc
C£ C O ^? r*% V- O t1-
Ci-'i— j_> p_ ^> r~ p_
•^ o r ^: c i- -H «u
>- C 4-» — • 0 i-» -f* •"
cso "T^rr-LJC^o
OtC^-'>-i-'C-i-J ^>
^Q O V- *H »,-' >i — <
C • ^ O r— ' T-H iJ
CJ ct • T — i (j O c *~H re
*X3 cj • 4-j c ...rr z^ t^ V-
•r-J r c ^ *j cr -H a
u- ^r y. o u c
f— ( (J O r- -J O £ W O O
n -- ' cr. C E O "- C. tc
C/"< ,f~ cO •»-* C V- -^ tn GJ
^ ^J CxC p* C/^. U- 4-J CJ M












o
c








































J J
•rH
^>
•iH
4-J
G
re
G
pi
,
ro



tc
G
4-1
re
r" ^
G G HS
) 1 f^ /~^
re G
" t~~ ^
i i-

4-> P- E
1 i~~ •rj
p - ^_
P C-

C •• X
G cr. c
4_J , — i
^ 1 —
G P C.r
cr. cr. •_-.
re G re
e: ^ c_












o
C









































^>,
4_l
.-J
G
•H
X
G
H
.
<•





















^




























" f

CC O j £
t ' — • C^ C "
c j •- c
>- • • K- -
p. G 13 re
G C G - ~ i
>-' c. c P-, ;-.
O ->-i > G C-.
U~- » 4-J CZ G f^
tc re v i-- ~i -
G C E ^
c; V t-. *o c c
•H .M c G re ^ c/.
4-j re :-^ cr. , ~~ i —
0 E C 0 ^ C
&. O -^ C- CJ •
r-l ^~ CJ-.CO
*T^J D y • K- Cj rr o
o G: u ro C- & > rr.
C^ f^ O C ~vT
;- T: o *j o c *X
v~" C.' . ^ . _ ^_ [~ .
> CT no f^ > c ;

--, ^ --.._- . _, 	 . - - - -,
T p:
1 ' ~ •
- i - J
~ | ^ 1 ^ u.

'Ij >, E C ° >,
G u 4-J P o cr, j-j
re -r-> 'i-> G -H 4-) — >
O r- > G 4j G G
•H G — > re -H G -r-
~ c jj o -a a x
re G G' •!-! T3 CT. C
£i cj; < p; < •< H
• • • •
in o i-- co
j
11

-------
          Finally,  experts in the area  differ  in  their opinions  about the
best approach to identifying hazardous  waste:   the  "single-test" approach
(which differentiates solid wastes into hazardous or  nonhazardous)  versus
"multi-test" screening (which may classify  wastes into degree  of
hazardousness).   In the former approach,  EPA-OSW  has  successfully
formulated an Extraction Procedure to which we react  favorably on the
basis of our experience with FBC solids.  On the  other hand, because a
waste can bo hazardous or nonhazardous  depending  on where  and  how it is
disposed of, an approach based on "degree of hazardousness" on a site-
specific ir.ulti-test screening basis also requires serious  consideration.
                                   12

-------
                                            REFERENCES
             1.  Corson, A., D. Friedman, and D. Viviani, Hazardous Waste Management
                 Division, EPA-OSW, 1978.
             2.  "Hazardous Waste Guidelines and Regulations-Criteria, Identification,
 ••               and Li ting of Hazardous Waste" EPA Draft, March 1978.
•            3.  "Hazardous Waste:  Proposed Guideline? and Regulations and Proposal
                 on Identification and Listing", Federal Register, Dec. 18, 1978.
             4.  Sun, C. C., and J. T. McAdams, "Assessment of RCRA/TEP Test Results
                 on FBC Residue, Part 1 - EPA Draft Procedure of March 1978".  Informal
                 Memo for Communication to EPA, December 1978.
             5.  Henschel, D. B., EPA-IEPL. December 1978.
             6.  Yarouxis, Associated Design and Manufacturing Co., Private
                 Coir>n>unication, October 1978.
             7.  Arora, H., Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Private Connunication,
                 October 1978.
             8.  Boegly, W. , C. Francis, and H. Wilson, Oak Ridge Kational Laboratorifi.
                 Private Communication, October 1978 to Apri] 1979.
                                                                         SW-818

-------