+(,121/,1(

Citation: 51 Fed. Reg. 21648 1986 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Fri Oct 23 14:20:56 2009

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261, 271, and 302

[FRL 2940-61

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

12, 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 F86-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 or Kate

Blow at 382-4675. 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 (WH562), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Persons wishing to make oral

presentations must restrict them 4o 15

minutes and aie 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 (WH562B), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460, (202) 382-4770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

11. Development of Toxicity Characteristic

A. Introduction

B. Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels

C. Dilution/Attenuation Factor

D. Proposed Toxicants and Regulatory

Levels

E. Analytical Constraints

Ill. 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-Oily

Waste EP

C. Analytical Methods

D. Notification Requirements

V. Relationship to Other Regulatory

Authorities

VI. State Authority

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

VIII. 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 properties

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 not

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 (i.e., is a hazardous

waste). The Agency realizes that not all

wastes which exhibit properties at

levels below the characteristic are safe

for disposal as nonhazardous waste.

The Agency may therefore, upon

21648

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21648 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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 1980, that the

characteristics define broad classes of

wastes that are clearly hazardous, while

the listing process defines some wastes

that may pass the characteristic, but are

ponetheless hazardous wastes (45 FR

33111).

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 should be

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 entails use of

a leaching test, the EP, which is used in

determining if an unacceptably high

level of ground water contamination

might result from improper 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 scientifically 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

tinder 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

optimized to evaluate the leaching of

elemental rather than organic

constituents. Hence, the leaching of

organics needed to be investigated.

In addition to addressing the leaching

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

RCRA in 1984 (section 3001 (g) and (h)),

directing EPA to make changes in the EP

to insure that it accurately predicts

leaching potential, and to identify

additional characteristics of hazardous

waste, including measures or indicators

of toxicity. EPA intends to address both

of these mandates through expansion of

the EPTC to include additional

chemicals, and through the introduction

of an improved 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-containing

wastes, and will complement a

regulation EPA promulgated on

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

completed. More detail regarding the

approach the Agency is considering is

provided in section II(E).

EPA is today proposing to amend the

Extraction Piocedure Toxicity

Characteristic by (1) expanding the

characteristic to include 38 additional

compounds, (2) applying compoundspecific dilution/attenuation factors

generated from a ground water transport

model, and (3) 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 out that while

this proposed rule fulfills the

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.

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.

In implementing these procedures, the

Agency has proposed to employ the

TCLP to estimate the leaching hazard

posed by waste placed in Subtitle C

facilities. The same subsurface transport

model is used in both the land disposal

regulation and this proposed regulation.

However, minor modifications to

account for disposal in a non-hazardous

versus a hazardous 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 regulatory level for carcinogens, and

a different confidence interval for the

ground water transport simulation is

used to establish the-dilution/

attenuation factors. However, to the

extent that commenters have provided

us with their. views on the model either

in the context of the land disposal

restrictions program or its delisting

programs, those comments need only be

referenced in response to this proposed

rule. More information on the

differences between the models is

provided in Section V of this preamble.

II. Development to Toxicity

Characteristic

A. Introduction

In establishing a scientifically

justifiable approach 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 hazard to

human health.

The existing EPTC uses the National

Interim Primary Drinking Water

Standards (DWS) as toxicity thresholds

for individual pollutants, and combines

these with, a generic dilution/

attenuation factor (100.times) to yield

the regulatory threshold. The new

21649

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21649 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

approach, described below, uses chronic

toxicity'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.

B. 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 contaminant.

Limits set for protection against chronic

toxicity 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-ofevidence of supporting toxicological

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 selting a specific

risk level which is then used ito 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 orher 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 toxicological studies.

This approach was proposed by EPA in

its Carcinogen Risk Assessment

guidelines published in theFederal

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 in 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

back calculation model, even when

DWS's are available.

C. Dilution/Attenuation Factor

After a toxicity level has been

identified, the degree of attenuation 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 intendin 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):

21650

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21650 1986
Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13,-1986 / Proposed Rules

Finure 1: Illustration of Dilution/Attenuation

Saturated

Zone

Dilution/Attenuation

Occurring During

Migration of

Contaminant

To Well

-- IsI

[A) Refers to the concentration of the contaminant in the

leachate at the bottom of the disposal unit.

(1 Refers to the concentration of the contaminant in the

drinking water well, which is calculated usinq a ground water transport equation, and is expected to be lower

than the concent.ration at [A] due to atte.nuation 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 p1-), 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 of 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

16021. 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

carcinogens, and a different confidence

interval is used for the ground water

transport simulation to establish the

dilution/attenuation factors. While

section VIII(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 equation are similar

between the two rules, commenters

need not repeat relevant comments that

have already been made in response to

the Land Disposal Restrictions Rule.

These earlier comments may be

referenced, although all relevant

comments will be considered in

developing the Toxicity Characteristic

final rule. Comment specific to EPA's

use of the equation for this rule, should

however, be submitted.

D. Proposed Toxicants and Regulatory

Levels

In order to establish a Toxicity

Characteristic regulatory level for

individual compounds, adequate and

verified data must exist for EPA to (1)

identify a toxicity level (i.e., DWS, RfD,

or RSD), 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 Agency's continuing efforts to

develop an adequate ground water

transport equation for the metals,

addition of elemental and anionic

toxicants to the Toxicity Characteristic

is being delayed. The Agency expects to

propose Toxicity Characteristic

thresholds for nickel and thallium during

the period between proposal andpromulgation 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 transport data were available to

establish a compound-specific dilution/

attenuation factor.

v , - r216... 21651

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21651 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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

1):

TABLE 1: PROPOSED TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS AND REGULATORY LEVELS

Regula- HWNO Contaminants CASNO toy HWNO/level

____ ___ ___ ___ mg/Il

Acrylonitrile .................

Arsenic ........................

Barium .........................

Benzene ......................

Bis(2-chloroethyl)

ether.

Cadmium .............

Carbon disulfide.

Carbon tetrachloride.

Chlordane ...................

Chlorobenzene ...........

Chloroform ..................

Chromium ...................

o.Cresol ......................

m Gresol .....................

p-Cresol ...............

2,4-D ............................

1,2-Dichlorobenzene.

1,4-Dichlorobenzene.

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene.

2,4-Dinitrotoluene.

Endrin ..........................

Heptachlor (and its

hydroxide).

Hexachlorobenzene..

Hexachlorobutadiene.

Hexachloroethane.

Isobutanol.

Lead ............................

Lindane .......................

Mercury ......................

Methoxychlor .

Methylene chloride...

Methyl ethyl ketone..

Nitrobenzene .............

Pentachlorophenol

Phenol ........................

Pyridine ......................

Selenium ....................

Silver ..........................

1,1,1,2-

Tetrachloroethane.

1,1,2.2.

Tetrachloroethane.

Tetrachloroethylene..

2,3,4,6-

Tetrachlorophenol.

Toluene .......................

Toxaphene ..................

1,1,1.

Trichloroethane.

1,1.2-

Trichloroethane.

Trichloroethylene.

2,4.5-

Trichlorophenol.

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol.

2,4,5-TP (Silvex).

Vinyl chloride ..............

107-13-1

7440-38-2

7440-39-3

71,43-2

111-44-4

7440-43-9

75-15-0

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

95-50-1

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

58-89-9

7439-97-6

72-43-5

75-09-2

76-93-3

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

8001-35-2

71-55-6

79-00-5

79-01-6

95-95-4

88-06-2

93-76-5

75-01-4

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

14.4

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 contains more than a 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

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 on 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 io 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-carcinogens) (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.' The lowest level that can be

I 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.,

reliably achieved within specified limits

of precision and accuracy during routine

laboratory operating conditions is the

quantitation limit. Thequantitation limit

thus represents the lowest level

achievable by good laboratories within

specified limits during routine

laboratory operating conditions. The

quantitation limit is determined through

interlaboratory. 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.

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

quantitation limit). In general, EPA defines the

method detection limit as the minimum

concentration of a substance thaI can be measured

and reported with 99 percent confidence that the

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. Differences 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.

21652

D018 ..................

0004 ..................

0005 ..................

00 19 ..................

0 020 ..................

0006 ..................

0021 ..................

0022 ..................

D023 ..................

0024 ..................

0025 ..................

0007 ..................

D026 ..................

0027 ..................

0028 ..................

0016 ..................

0029 ..................

D030 ..................

D031 ..................

D032 ..................

D033 ..................

D012 ..................

D034 ..................

D035 .................

D036 ..................

D037 ..................

0038 ..................

D008 ..................

D013 ..................

D009 ..................

D014 ..................

D039 ..................

D040 ..................

D041 .................

D042 .-..

0043 .................

0044 .................

D0 10 .............

D011 .................

D045 .................

D046 .................

D047 .................

D048 .................

D049 .................

D015 ..................

D050 ..................

O051 ..................

0052 ..................

0053 ..................

D054 ..................

0017 .............

D055.................

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21652 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

methods for the Toxicity 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 TCLP 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, other wastes will pr6duce 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, metaand 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 o-, m- and p-cresol.

Public comment and information onall aspetts 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?

Ill. Development of the Leaching

Procedure

A. Introduction

The Extraction Procedure (EP) was

designed to simulate the leaching that

would result when a solid waste is codisposed .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 0.45 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 sidewalls of.sample

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

ihis 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 (Ref. 26). Hence, while the few

data that were available regarding

accuracy were used in developing the

EP, it was primarily based on 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 Environment and Model

The specific environment modeled by

both the current EP and the TCLP is codisposal 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 sent 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 in this manner as compared to

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

VIII(D)).

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 models 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 and inorganic components

which leached from these wastes.

I

21653

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21653 1986
21654 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

test, 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 eval'uations, and a limited

multi-laboratory collaborative

evaluation, and is currently being

evaluated in a more comprehensive

collaborative evaluation.

Section VIII(D) of this preamble

provides detailed information with

respect to the TCLP development and

evaluation program. The regulation

section provides the actual TCLP

protocol, as Appendix 11 to Part 261. A

more detailed discussion pertaining to

the TCLP is prov.ided in a background

document that EPA has prepared (Ref.

33).

E. Leaching Procedure Issues

In an effort to identify and resolve any

potential problems associated with the

TCLP 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

HSWA 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 roughly 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 threefourths 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

would have on solubilization of organics

(Ref. 19 and 24). These studies examined

the effect of adding acetic acid,

carbohydrates, protein, tannic acid,

citrate, thiosulfate, and a surfactant to

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 b ' 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, codisposal with municipal refuse, codisposal with industrial waste in a

Subtitle D landfill, and 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

general, 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

Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

21654 Federal Register /

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21654 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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 than 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 codisposal with municipal waste in a

sanitary landfill. EPA selected this codisposal scenario since Subtitle D

sanitary landfills have traditionally

accepted non-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 industryspecific 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

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 survey 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 wastes 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 wastes were not adequately

represented by the 11 wastes used in the

TCLP development program. EPA is

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 and some organic species

may be observed as the alkalinity of

wastes becomes 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), and 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

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 milliequivalents of acid (Ref. 26).

The acetate buffer system originally

chosen for the TCLP supplies only 70

21655

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21655 1986
Federal Register / Vol.. 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

afterthe 20 to 1 liquid to solid ratio (Ref.

81. 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 nunicipal 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

milliequiivalent 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

test 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, sincelthese

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).

f. Use of a pre-screen test. One

concern that was raised with the TCLP

was 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 SW846 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 todemonstrate 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 zeroheadspace 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 issue

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 zeroheadspace vessel which could affect

precision. The first is that since regular

extraction bottles will provide for at

least some headspace, agitation is likely

to be slightly greater than with the zeroheadspace 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

21656

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21656 1986
Federal Register'/ Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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 pounding 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 cementitious 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

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 qc

the draft TCLP protocol, which appears

as Appendix II to 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 al ways 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

Recordkeeping

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 regulatory 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 not 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 of 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 are 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 not 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 and the

frequency of testing. Thus, testing might

be required on a semiannual, or annual

21657

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21657 1986
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 processspecific 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 determinationm

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 can 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-SW846 method 8270) may not be sufficient.

EPA is presently investigating. thqse

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 and 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

Vol, 51, No. 11.4 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules 21658 Federal Register /

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21658 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986. /'Proposed Rules2

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 an identification

number pursuant to 40 CFR 262.12

before he can generate, transport, treat,

store, or dispose ofthese 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 FR 1603).

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 my 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 tohuman 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 appropriat.e 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 case-bycase evaluationstaking into account the

specific characteristics of individual

facilities. This-case-by-case

determinatibn is.initiated by petitions

for exmption from the land disposal

restrictions. The evlauafion 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 ii the modeling for the

land disposa[ 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- thesame 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 on the basfs 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, ar

additional 38 compounds, which are alsc

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 "Characterfstic of EP Toxicity"

and replace it with "Toxicity

Characteristici' and to li'st the

additional, Toxicity Characteristic

contaminants along wfth their final RQs

from.Table- 302.4.

The CERCLA program will also use.

the TCLP procedure to help determine

when waste'taken offrsite must be

managed as a. hazardous waste. To the

extent that the:TCLP is applicable orrelevant.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 1004127) of

RCRA, the-defihition of "solid. waste"

specifically includes "sludge-from a

waste-treatment plant." In defining "sludge," section 1004(26A) includes.

wastes from 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 such 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

strategyfbr 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 coverageunder provisions of Subtitle C of RCRA,

once this separate sewage, sludge

regulation, which will provide an

equivalent level-of protection, is issued.

21659'

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21659 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

VI. State 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

State 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 time 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.

6926(g), new requirements and

prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take

effect in authorized States at the same

time that they take effect in

nonauthorized States. 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

HSWA-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 the 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 adopt

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 timeperiods 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-bycase nature of these cleanup decisions,

it was not possible to quantify this

overestimation. ,

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/

21660

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21660 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

attenuation factors of 10, 100, and 1,000

were applied to estimated chronic

toxicity reference levels, to arrive at

three levels of regulation. Thus,.

including the status quo (i.e., no

regulation), a total of four regulatory

alternatives were examined.

This approach was taken as it would

provide minimum and maximum

estimates of regulatory impact, and also

because it provided EPA with

comparative cost and benefits estimates

for three levels of regulation. Since the'

regulatory 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

regulatory 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 VIII(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. comparedito those of'the

baseline status quo-..The status quo is

assumed not to require indhstry to incur

additional waste management costs.

However, this RIA.assumes that society

will incur the costs ofnot regulating

these wastes. The. "social" costs of.the

status quo-are assumed to be. the

benefits that wouldoccur if the-wastes

were regufated. 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 all

RIAs, a number of assumptions were

made in order to predict impact.

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 (ie., 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 action is chemical

specific rather than 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

ISiC[ AffectII led

Industry code D escription fct.

SNo. ties I

Plastics

materials and

resins.

Synthetic

rubber.

Medicinals and' botaricals.

Soap and other

detergents..

Surface active

agents.

Paints and.

allied

products.

Cyclic crudes

and

intermediates.

Industrial

organic

chemicals.

Manufacturing of . synthetic resins,

plastics materials, and

nonvulcanizabla

elastomers.

Manufacturing synthetic

rubber by

polymerization or

copolymerization..

Manufacturing bulk

organic and inorganic

medicinal chemicals

and botanical drugs.

Manufacturingisoap and

synthetic-organic

detergents, inorganic

alkaline detergents.

and crude and.refined

glycerin.

Prodbcingsurface 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.

Manutacturing industrial

organic chemicals'not

elsewhere classified.

TABLE 2:-DIRECTLY AFFECTED INDUSTRIESContinued

sic Affect- SIC ed

Industry code . Description fadil

No. ties

Agricultural 2879 Formulation and 7

chemicals. preparaton of pest

control chemicals

including insecticides,

fungicides, and

herbicides,

Petroleum 2911: Producing gasoline, 2

refining. kerosene, fuel oils,

lubricants, and other

petroleum derived

products.

Nonferrous 3357 Drawing, drawing and 5

wire drawing insulating, and.

and insulating wire and

insulating, cable of nonferrous

metals. Total ................................ 1,265

-Based on Alternative. 2 (t0xdilulion/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

containing any 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 wastes currently regulated by'

RCRA are not included in the analysis.

The number of affected facilitiesmay

include plants that produce or use more

than one of the chemicals. The actual

number of plants affected may therefore

be less than the total shown.

The RIA addresses primarily the

impact of the expansion of the Toxicity

Characteristic on 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 on 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

sufficiint industrial waste-to cause any

concern, these-facilities generate most of

the sewage sludge- across the United

States.

The existing and proposed regulations

do not-differ in their treatment of metals.

Thus, any i'mpact of. the proposed

regulation onthe municipal; sector

would' be due solely to, the additional

organic compound. Due to, this duncern,

EPA.has begun a testing program.to

evaluatethese sludges. To date,.eight.

sewage. sludges from facilities receiving

significant industrial input have been.

tested with the TCLP, and allwere

found notto exceed'any of the Toxicity

Characteristic level's. (brganfcs or

inorganics). Although more sewage

21661

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21661 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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 municip.ql 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

solicits information such as the extent of

industrial input to the generating

facility, 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 framework, in which

oply a nanageable 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 fullRIA, 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

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. Ingestion of 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 water, 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 years (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.

21662

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21662 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, 'June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

Two methods-the Base Case Method

(Alternative 1) and an Alternate Method

(use of a ground water transport model)

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,

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 unsaturated 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, or 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 area

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

deepwell injected. Solvent wastes 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

the 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

annualized 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 niarket 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 outpuf. 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 represent 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 on the projected change in

production.and employment-to-output

ratios for each directly affected market.

These losses are not valued in dollar

terms because projecting the length of

time for which an employee is

unemployed is difficult. Similarly, the

value to place on time, individual job

skills, age, education, and personal

dislike of being unemployed are not

valued in dollar terms.

5. Results

a. Aggregate benefits. Continued use

of current practices fcr managing wastes

producing TCLP extracts containing the

selected chemicals in excess to

regulatory levels is expected to result in

the deterioration of environmental

quality. This deterioration may elevate

risks to human 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 ground water for drinking water.

Further, contaminated ground water can

enter surface water, reducing its quality.

Thecapacity of both ground water and

surface water to assimilate toxic

chemicals is limited.

If people 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 and aggregated to obtain

national totals. This aggreation process

21663

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21663 1986
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

(Table 3).

TABLE 3.-BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT

Benefits-Costs Regulatory alternative

1 2 3

Monetized benefits:.

Avoided cost of alternative

water source: Present value ($106) ............ 3,218 3,317 3,174

Annualized ($106/Yr) ............. 378 390 373

Avoided cost of aquifer

cleanup:

Present value ($1W)" ............ 11,897 12,316 11,719

Annualized.($1Ov/Yr)............. 1,398 1,447 1,377

Monetized costs:

Real resource cost:

Present value 1$109) ............ 1,285 1,287 1,186 Annualized ($10 /Yr) ............. 151 151 139

Deadweight consumer sur- plus cost:

Present value ($10")............ 1.2 1.2 1.0

Annualized ($1UO /Yr) ............. 0.1 0.1 0.1

Transaction cost ($106) ........... 1.2 1.2 1.2

Not monetized benefits

Present value ($10r) ............ 13,830 14,345 13,706

Annualized ($106/Yr) ............. 1,625 1,685 1,610

Nonmonetized benefits:'

Avoided cancer cases ............... 54 54 53

Avoided person-years of ex- posure above the chronic

threshould (10-) 

.................... . 4.8 4.8 0

Nonmonetized costs:

Employee dislocations ............... 407 407 372

:Benefits are based on Alternative 1.

'20-Year cost discounted at 10 percent. SOne-time cost incurred first year. d Moneized benefits minus monetized costs excluding transaction costs.

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 mulitplying 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 modelgenerated 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 of 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 not 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

21664

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21664 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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

of capital 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 arg 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 and 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 number of additional'toxicants. Thls

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 do 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 noncarcinogen is achieved by keeping

exposure levels at or below the

ieference 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 RiD 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 RD 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" levelp 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 RD 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-adverseeffect-level (NOAEL) is an estimate of

the animal population's physiological

threshold. The RID is derived by

dividing the NOAEL by a suitable

scaling or uncertainty factor.

NOAELs are usually obtained through

a chronic study or a 90-day subchronic

study. Other available toxicological

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 in the RID, is

dependent on the quality 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. 30, 31,

and 32).

Table A-1 presents the proposed noncarcinogens and their RfDs. The RfDs in

this table aie calculated by assuming

that a 70 Kg person ingests the

compound in 2 liters of drinking water

per day.

TABLE A-I.-NON-CARCINOGENS AND RFDs

(MG/L)

Compounds RID

Carbon disulfide .............................................................. 4

C hlorobenzene ................................................................. 1

o-Cresol ............................................................. 2

m-Cresol .......................................................... 2

p -C reso l ........................................................................... 1 2

1,2-Oichlorobenzene ............................................

3

Isobutanol ............................................................ ... . 0

M ethyl ethyl ketone ......................................................... 2

N itrobenzene .................................................................... 0.02

Pentachlorophenol ........... ........................ .............. 1 I

P henol ....................................................

4 Pyrdine ...................... ........... 0.075

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol .............................................. '0.4

Toluene ................................. 10

2.4,5-Trichlorophenol ..................................................... 4

Preliminary estimate of RIO.

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-, and para-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 between proposal and

promulgation of this rule. The chronic

toxicity levels for nickel and thallium

are expected to be 0.15 and 0.002 mg/l,

respectively.,

21665

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21665 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

3. Carcinogenic Constituents

The use of the RfD 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 small 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 preselected 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-evidence 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-ofevidence 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 (13 and B2) on the

basis of the strength of the human

evidence. Where there is limited

epidemiologic evidence of

carcinogenicity, the carcinogen is

categorized as B,. Where there is no

evidence or inadequate evidence from

human studies, the carcinogen is

categorized as B2. 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 hioassays.

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-bycase 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 acioss-theboard 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

carcinogenicity), a risk level of concern

of 10- is being proposed. For those

Class C carcinogens for which there is

insufficient data to perform a

quantitative risk assessment, the dose is

calculated on the basis of the 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 aboujt 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 its 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 inhalation

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)

Contaminant Carcinogen Risk Risk specific class level dose (RSD)

Acrylonitrile .............. B ...................... 10-

: 2E-3

Bis (2-chloroethyl) B ...................... 10- 3E-4

ether.

Chlordane . C........... 10- 4 2E-3

Chloroform ............... S ...................... 10-

1 5E-3

2.4-Dinitrotoluene..- B ...................... 10-

: 1E-3

Heptachlor . ........... 10- 1E-4

Hexachloroben- B ...................... 10-

1 2E-4

zene.

Hexachlorbuta- C ...................... 10- 4 SE-2

diane.

Hexachloroethane... C............ 10-

4 3E-1

Methylene chloride. B .................... 10-

1 6E-1

11.1,2- C ...................... 10-

' 7E-1

Tetrachloroethane. 1,12,2- C ...................... 10"' 2E-2

TetrachloroethTetrachloroethy- B .................... 10-

1 7E-3

lene.

1,1,2- C ...................... 10- 1 6E-2

Trichloroethane.

2,4,6- B ...................... 10-S 2E-2

Trichlorophenol.

IDoes not include those carcinogenic contaminants for

which Drinking 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

21666

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21666 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed, Rules

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-ofevidence 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 noncarcinogens are based on 20% of the

relevant RfDs, to account for exposure

trom other sources (e.g., food and air).

Final MCLs for carcinogens are based

on risk levels that range from 10 -4 to

10 -a

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

MCLs, which appear in Table A-3, as

toxicity thresholds for the Toxicity

Characteristic. After publicreview and

evaluation EPA will promulgate final

standards. Should the final MCLs differ

from the proposed MCLs, EPA will base

regulatory levels for the Toxicity

Characteristic on these revised final

standards.

TABLE A-3.-PROPOSEO MCL's FOR VOLATILE

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (MG/L)

Contaminant Proposed

Benzene ....................................................................... 0.005

Carbon tetrachloride ................................................... 0.005

1,4-Dichlorpbenzene ................................................... 0.75

1 2-Dichoroothane ..................................................... 0.005

1,1 -Dichloroethylene ................................................ 0.007

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane ................................................. 0.2

Trlchloroethylene ..................................... : ................. 0.005

Vinyl chloride .............................................................. 0.001

5. Apportionment of Health Limits

The reference dose for humans is the

maximum daily dose of a substance that

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 noadverse-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 suggestionof the NRC,

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 I and 20 percent of

the total daily intake (Ref. 20). The

Agency is however, not proposing to

apportioif 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 not affected. For this

reason, a two-fold reduction in the RSD

-is relatively insignificant. For noncarcinogens, 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 days 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 determined 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 inorgIanic

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 10 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 risks 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 tate 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 st atute

since cost-effectiveness is an integral

part of the decision-making process (Ref.

5).

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

21667

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21667 1986
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 RfD 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-1.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21668 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

Figure A-i

Flow Chart for Apportionment of RfD

Fractionate RfD

according to EPA's

scheme.

-- yes--

MCL---water

(50% of total RfD minus the

MCL)--- air

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

Do data exist

regarding concentration

of compound in the

various media?

MCL--water

(100% of total RfD minus the

MCL)---fractionate to air and

other media on a case-by-case

basis.

Do data exist

regarding concentration of

the canpound in the

various media?

!

!

i

21669

--- yes----

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21669 1986
Federal Resister / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, Tune 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

Basically, this scheme indicates that,

if the Agency has adequate data to

assess 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

ofthe 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 (H) and

the octanol-water partition coefficient

(k,,) for individual contaminants.

Henry's Law constant estimates the

ratio of a substance between the vapor

and dissolved (aqueous) state. The ko,

estimates the distribution of a

compound between water and octanol,

where octanol is intended to represent

an organic (lipid) component. Each

distribution constant (H, '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 in Table A-5. A relationship

between H, and ko, and the distribution

between air and water has been devised

using a matrix, as shown in Table A-6.

TABLE A-4.-RANGES AND CLASSIFICATION OF HENRY'S LAW CONSTANTS (Ks)

and Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients (kew)

........... High in Air > 0 . - 5 " Low in Air <10 -1

.

K, . Low in water >500... High in water

<500.

TABLE A-5-HENRY'S LAW CONSTANTS AND OCTANOL-WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENTS FOR

NON-CARCINOGENIC CONTAMINANTS

Henry's Octanollaw Relative .Relative

Contaminant constant concentra- wer concentra-

(atm m . tion in air coie tion in water

moll Kw

Carbon disulfide .................................... 1.68E-02 High ................ 1.45E+02 High.

Chlorobenzene ........... i ................................................................................ 3.46E-03 High ................ 7.41E + 02 Low.

Cresois .................................................................................................. 5.05E-06 Low ................. 1.41E +02 High.

t.2-Dichlorobenzene ......................................................................................... 1.88E-03 High ................ 3.80E+03 Low.

Isobutanol ........................................................................................................... 1.23E-05 High _.: 5.50E + 00 High.

Methyl ethyl ketofne .......................................................................................... 2.61 E-05 High.. .......... 2.00E+00 High.

Nitrobenzene ..................... : ................................................................................ 2.40E-05 High ................ 7.94E + 01 High.

Pentachlorophenol ............................................................................................ 4.62E-06 Low ............. 1.15E+ 05 Low.

Phenol ................................................................................................................. 5.02E-06 Low ................. 1.49E + 00 H igh.

Pyridine ........................................................................................................ 1.95E-07 Low ................. 4.79E + 00 High.

2,3,4.6-Tetrachlorophenol ..... ............. .... 4.53E-06 Low . 2.14E404 Low.

Toluene ........................................... 5.93E-03 High ................ 6.61E+02 Low.

2.4,5-Trichloropheno ................................................................... 2.84E-05 High ............... 7.24E+03 Low.

TABLE A-6-DSTRIBUTON MATRIX BETWEEN

WATER AND'AIR USING Kow and kH Air

Low High

Water:!

Low............ Air:water 50:50 ............. Air:water 80:20.

High ............ Air:water 20:80 ............. Air:water 50:50,

Determined by comparing actual or computed k,, and it.

to ranges In Table A-5.

To construct the matrix, EPA assumed

that a compound with equal ranges of

kow and H, (i.e., high-high or low-low),

will distribute between air and water

into equal parts. For compounds that

exhibit a high range for H.. and a low

range for k.,, EPA assumes that the

distribution would be in a ratio of 80 to

20, air to water. As an example, given

that 50 percent of the total RfD is

available for apportionment into water

and air, and if Table A-5 indicates a -

high Hand a high kow, the fractionation

of the totalRfD is 25 percent of the total

RFD into each medium.-If the -

contaminant, exhibits a low H, and a

high ki, then;10 percent of the'total RIfD

will distribute to air and 40 percent to

water. .

EPA believes that the approach

outlined aboveis 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.' The

Tables in section VIII(C) contain further

information used in establishing the

proposed regulatory thresholds.

As explained in oiher sections of this preamble,

11 compounds are also proposed for inclusion in the

Toxicity Characteristic based on their sovent

properties.

TABLE A-7.-SUMMARY OF CHRONIC TOXICITY

REFERENCE LEVELS

chron-"

ic

toxici- Appor- ReContam inant ty Basis tionmeni suiting refer- Bais (per- value ence cent) (mg/I) level

(mg/I)

Acrylonitrile...............

Arsenic ........................

Barium ......................... Benzene .....................

Bis(2-chloroethyl)

ether.

Cadmium..................,

Carbon disulfide.

Carbon

tetrachloride.

Chlordane ...................

Chlorobenzene ...........

Chloroform ..................

chromium ....................

o-Cresol ......................

m-Cresol ..................... p-Cresol ......................

2,4,D .................

1,2-

- Dichtorobenzene.

1,4-

Dichlorobenzene.

1,2-Dichloroethane...

1,1-

Dichloroethylene.

2,4-Dinitrotoluene.

Endrin .........................

Heptachlor.: ............

Hexachlorobenzene,.

Hexachlorobutadiene,

Hexachloroethane.

Isobutanol ...................

Lead . ..................

Landane ......................

Mercury .......................

Methoxychlor ..............

Methylene chloride....

Methyl ethyl ketone...

Nitrobenzene ..............

Pentachlorophenol

Phenol .........................

Pyridine .......................

Selenium .....................

S ilver ...........................

1,1,1,2-

Trichloroethane.

1.1.2,2-

Trichloroethane.

Tetrachloroethylene..

2.3,4.6-

Tetrachlorophenol.

Toluene .......................

Toxaphene .................

1.1,1-

Tetrachloroethane .

1,1.2-

Tetrachloroethane.

Trichloroethylene.

2,4,5-

Trichlorophenol.

2,4.6-

Trichlorophenol.

2.4,5-TP (Silvex).

Vinyl chloride ..............

21-3... RSD .:

0.05. DWS 2.

1.0. DWS ..........

0.005... PMCL.

3E-4.... R5D.

0.01 .... WS. . 4 .......... RID 4 ..........

0.005... PMCL.

2E-3... RSD ...........

I .......... RID...........

5E-3... RSD ...........

0.05. DWS.

2.......... RID.

2 . RID ..........

2. RID .............

0.1. DWS ..........

3 .......... R ID .............

0.75 . PMCL.

................. 2E-3

0.05 

................. 1.0

................. ".005

................ 3E-4

0.01 

25 1.0

.................. 0.005

.................. 2E-3

10 0.1

.................. 5E-3

40 0.7

40 0.7

40 0.7

.............. 01 

10 0.3

........... 0.75

0.005. PMCL ........................... 0.005

0.007.. PMCL .......................... 0.007

IE-3... RSD .............................. 1E-3

2E-3 DWS DW .... ............. 2E-3

iE-4 RSD R ......... .D............. 1E-4

2E-4.... D .................. 2E-4

5E-2.... RSD ............................. 5E-2

RSD ...........

RID .............

DW S ..........

DW S ..........

DW S ..........

DWS.

RSD ...........

RID ............. RiD .............

RID .............

RID .............

RID ............

DW S .......... DWS.

RSD ..........

25

25

25

25

40

40

2E-2.... RSD ...... ............ 2E-2

7E-2. R RSO ... .D............ 7E-2

0.4 . RID ............. 25 0.1

10. RID ............. 10 1.0

0.005... DW S ............................ 0.005

0.2 . PMCL ........................... 0.2

6E-3.... R .................. 6E-3

0.005... PMCL ........... 0.005

4. RID ............. 10 0.4

2E-2.... .................. 2E-2

0.01 . DWS ......... . 0.01

0.001... PMCL .......... 0.001

I RSD=Risk Specific Dose. DWS=National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard.

PMCL= Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level. . RID=Reference Dose.

B. Ground Water Transport Equation

1. Introduction -

Uinder the framework presented in.

this proposal, EPA will establish

regulatory levels for individual chemical

constituents contained in hazardous.

wastes. These levels are expressed as

21670

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21670 1986
, Federal Re ister I Vol. 51. No. 114./ Friday. lune 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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, thermodel assesses the

long-term chemical flux or leaching of

toxicants to the ground water from a

waste disposed in a Subtitle D sanitary

landfill. The beginning point of the backcalculation 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 measurement (i.e.,

drinking water well) and backcalculating 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 speciation model in

order to permit calculating element

specific dilution/attentuation factors.

The Agency has not been able to

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

isotropic 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 notconsidered 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, isotropic 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 nonhazardous. " 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 in similar environments, this

assumption is 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 impermeable 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

isotropic aquifer properties is rarely

encountered in the field, but the

availability of data and the generic

nature of this analysis requires'the rse

of a homogeneous and isotropic

approximatioh. 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 toaffect the natural ground

water gradient. This assumption is

appropriate for simplified analytical

solutions. In 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 mechanisnis, 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 theground water

.environment are not well understood

and are under investigation.

In general, all transformatfons are

dependent upon both the chemical

constituent and the prevailing

environmental properties. For

hydrolysis, 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 from 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 believes 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

21671

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21671 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / 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

which 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 identifi.cation 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 nondegrading 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 which 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

RegulaHWNOIand contaminant Casno2 tory level (mg/1)

D01--Acrylonitrile ............... 107-13-1 5.0

D004- Arsenic .......................................... 7440-38-2 5.0

D005-Barium ................. 7440-39-3 100

D019- Benzene ....................................... 71-43-2 0.07

D020-Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ................ 111-44-4 0.05

D006 -Cadmium ...................................... 7440-43-9 1.0

D021--Carbon disulfide .......................... 75-15-0 14.4

D022-Carbon tetrachloride ................... .56-23-5 0.07

D023--Chlordane .................................... 57-74-9 0.03

D024-Chlorobenzene ............................ 108-90-7 1.4

0025--Chloroform ........................ ; .......... . 67-66-3 0.07

0007-Chromium ............... 1333-82-0 5.0

D026- o-Cresol ........................................ 95-48-7 10.0

D027- m-Cresol ....................................... 108-39-4 10.0

D028--p-Cresol ........................................ 106-44-5 10.0

D016- 2.4-0 ............................................. 94-75-7 1.4

D029-1.2-Dichlorobenzene ................... 95-50-1 4.3

D030-1.4-Dichlorobenzene ................... 106-46-7 10.8

D031-1,2-Dichloroethane .......... 107-06-2 0.40

D032-1,1Oichloroethylene ................... 75-35-4 0.1

D033-2,4-Dinitrotoluene ........................ 121-14-2 0.13

0012- Endrin ........................................... 72-20-8 0.003

D034-Heptachlor (and hydroxide) 76-44-8 0.001

D035-Hexachlorobenzene .................... 118-74-1 0.13

0036-Hexachlorobutadiene .................. 87-68-3 0.72

D037-Hexachioroethane ....................... 67-72-1 4.3

D038-sobutanol ..................................... 78-83-1 25

D008 -Lead .............................................. 7439-92-1 5.0

D013-Undane ......................................... 58-89-9 0.06

D009-Mercury ................ 7439-97-6 0.2

D014-Methoxychlor ............................... 72-43-5 1.4

D039-Methylene chloride ...................... 75-09-2 8.6

D040-Methyl ethyl ketone .................... 78-93-3 7.2

D041-Nitrobenzene ................................ 98-95-3 0.13

D042-Pentachlorophenol..t ................... 87-86-5 3.6

D043- Phenol ........................................... 108-95-2 14.4

D044-Pyridine ......................................... 110-8-1 5.0

D010- Selenium ....................................... 7782-49-2 1.0

D0 11- Silver ............................................ 7440-22-4 5.0

0045-1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane .......... 630-20-6 10.0

0046-1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroetiane .......... 79-34-5 1.3

D047-Tetrachloroethylene .................... 127-18-4 0.1

D048-2,3,4,6Tetrachtoophenol .......... 58-90-2 1.5

D049-Toluene ......................................... 108-88-3 14.4

D015-Toxaphene ................................... 8001-35-2 0.07

D050-1,1,l,-Tnchloroethane ................. 71-55-6 25

0051-1,12-Trichloroethane .................. 79-00-5 1.2

D052- Trichloroethylene ..................... 79-0 1-6 0.07

D053-2,4,5-Tchlorophenol .................. 95-95-4 5.8

D054-2,4,6.Trichlorophenol .................. 88-06-2 0.30

D017-2.4,5-TP (Silvex) .......................... 93-76-5 0.14

D055-Vinyl chloride ............................... 75-01-4 0.05

Hazardous Waste Identification Number.

Chemical Abstracts Registry Number.

TABLE C-2.-METHODS AND QUANTITATION LIMITS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS

Detection Quantitation Contaminant Vol. SW-846 methods I limt (mg/ limit (mg/ I _ I . 1) 3 1 . 1)"4

Acrylonitrile .................................................................................................................... . .V

Arsenic Barium ................................................................... ........................................... ..................

B................ . ......................... .............. . . . Benzene ......................... ....... : .......................................... . . ..... I.......................................... ...... .......... ......... v

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether .................................................................................................... I ................................

Cadmium........................................................................................................................................ ...................

Ca!bun disultide ................................................

Carbon tetrachloride ........................................

Chlordane . : .......... ...........

V

V

5030/8240 ..............................................................................

7060, 70611............................................................................

6010. 7080. 7081 .......................................... ......................

5030/8240 ..............................................................................

3510/8270 ........................................................................... .......

6010. 7130, 7131 .................................................... .......

5030/8240 ................................. ......................

5030/8240 ..............................................................................

8080 ..................................................................................

1.0

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

1.0

0.01

0.0005

21672 -

.................................................................. .........

................................. ............................................. L ..................

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21672 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No..114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules 21673,

TABLE C-2.-METHODS AND QUANTITATION LIMITS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS-Continued

. Detection Ouantitation

Contaminant Vol.I SW-846 methods 2 limit img/ limit mg/

1) 1 1) 4.

Chorooenzene .............................................................. I ......................................................... .

Chloroform .............................................................................................................. .........................

Chromium .........................................................................................................................................

-Cresol ........................................ ................................................................................................. M -Crea ol .........................................................................................................................................

P-Cresol ...........................................................................................................................................

2,4-D ................... ................................ : .................................................................................

V 5030/8240 ................................................................................

V 5030/8240 ................................................................................

.................... 6010, 7190, 7191 ............................................................. 1 ..............

.................... 3510/8270 ................................................................................

35 10 /8270 ................................................................................

3510/8270 ................................ ......................

8150 ...........................................

-Icti iiWorUezn t i ............... ................................................ I.I ............ . - ................

1,4-Dichorobenzene ................................. ...........................................................................

1,2-Dichloroethane .........................................................................................................................

1.1 -Dichloroethylene ....................................................................................................................

2.4-Dinitrotoluene ...........................................................................................................................

V

V

Heptachlor (and its hydroxide) ...................................................................................................... ............

Hexachlorobenzene ................................................................................................................... : ........................

Hexachlorobutadiene ........................................................................................................................................

Hexachloroethane .................................................................................................... . .........................................

Isobutlanol ........................................................................................................................................ V

Lead ................................... ................................................

Lindane ................................................ :................................................................................................................

Mercury .................................................................................................................................................................

Methoxychlor ................... : ...................................................................................................................................

Methylene chloride .......................................................................................................................... V

Methyl ethyl ketone .................................................. : ...................................................................... V

Nitrobenzene .......................................................................................................................................................

Pentachlorophenol .............................................................................................................................................

Phenol .............................................................................................................................................................

Pyridine .............................................................. ...............................................................................................

Selenium ................................................................. : ...........................................................................................

Silver ..............................................................................................................................................................

1.1. .2-Tetrachloroethane ........................................................................................................... V

lRn/R97n

....................................................................................

3510/8270 ................................................................................

3510/8270 ................................................................................

3510/8270 .............................................

5030/8240 ................................................................................

6010,7420. 7421 ...........................................................................

8080 ....................................................................................

7470,7471 ...............................................................................

8080 ....................................................................................

5030/8240 ................................................................................

5030/8240,.: ......................... ....................................................

3510/8270 .............................................

3510/8270 ................................................................................

3510/8270 ................................................................................

3510/8270 .............. .......................................................................

6010.7740,7741 .................................. ..................................

6010, 7760, 7761 ...........................................................................

1,1.2,2-Tetrach oroethane ............................................................................................................. V 5030/8240 ..................

Tetrachloroethylene ..................................................................................................................... . V 5030/8240 ..................

2.3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol .............................................................................................................. .................... 3510/8270 ..................

Toluene ........................................................................................................................................... V 5030/8240 ..................

Toxaphene ..........................................................................................................................................................

8080 ............................ 1.1,1-Trichloroethane ..................................................................................................................... V 5030/8240 ..................

1,1,2-Trichloroethane .................................................................................................................... V 5030/8240 ..................

Tr chloroethylene ......................................................................................................................... V 5030/8240. ..............

2,4.5-Trichlorophenol ...................................... .... ............. ......... ............... ......... 3510/8270.

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ................................................................................................... 3510/8270 ..................

2.4,5.TP (Silvex) .......................................................................................... .................................... 8150 .....................

Vinyl chloride .................................................................................................................................... V 5030/8240 ..................

........................

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.005

0.025

0.025

0.01

0.01

0.025

0.0001

0.0001

0.025

0.025

0.025

1.0

0.08

0.0001

0.0004

0,0005

0.025

0.01

0.025

0.01

0.025

1.0

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.10

0.01

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.05

0.005

0.01

0.05

0.05

0.10

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

0.125

5.0

0.40

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

0.05

0.25

0.25

0.025

0.05

- The "V" indicates the compound to be volatile and requires the use of the Zero-Headspace Extractor. ' Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste-Physical/Chemical Methods .WS-846. Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1982. Methods for phenolic compound

being evaluated.

2 Detection limits in TCLP extract. Detection limits are approximate. 4 Quantitation limits are assumed to be 5 times the detection limit.

TABLE C-3.-CHRONIc TOXICITY REFERENCE LEVELS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS

Apportion- [Apportioned

Contaminant Chronic toxicity reference level (mg/I)' LOG Kow 2 Kh(atm m0/mol) 3 ment I reterence

(percent) level (g/ )

Acrylonitrile ...............................................................................................................

Arsenic ....................................................................................................................

Barium ..............................................................................................................................

Benzene ................................................................................................................

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ...................................................................................................

Cadmium ..................................................................................................... .............

Carbon disulfide............................................................................................................

Carbon tetrachloride ........................................................................................................

Chlorobenzene .................................................................................................................

Chloroform .........................................................................................................................

Chromium ..........................................................................................................................

m-Cresol .............................................................................. . ................ 2

p-Cresol .................................................................................................. 2t

2,4-D ..................................................... ....................................... 0

1.2-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................... 3

1,4-Dichlorobenzene ..................................................................................................... 0

0.002(RSD) ..............................................................

0.05(DW S) ................................................................

1.0(DW S) .................................................................

0.005(PM CL) ......................................................

4(RID) ..................................................................... 2.16

0.005(PMCL) ................................ ................

I(RtD ) ....................................................................... 2 .87

0.O05RSDt ......................................

0.05(DWS) .............. 6 ..... 4.........................

RfD) ......................................................................

RID) .....................................................................

1(uw ) ................................................................

(RtD) ........................................ : .............................

7rfPkCri %

1.2-Dichloroethane ........................................................................................................... 0.005(PM JLt......................................

1.1 -Dichloroethylene .........................................................................................................

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ..............................................................................................................

Endrin .................................................................................................................................

Heptachlor (and hydroxide) .............................................................................................

Hexachlorobenzene ..........................................................................................................

Hexachlorobutadiene .................................................................................................

Hexachloroethane ............................................................. ............................................

Isobutanol .................................. ......................................... .........................................

Lead .............................................................................................................................

Lindane ...........................................................................................................................

M ercury .............................................................................................................................

M ethoxychlor ........................................ :.! .....................................................................

Melthylene chloride ......... . .................................... Methyl ethyl ketone .................. ,.,................ 7 . 7 ..... 

Nitrobenzene ........................................ .......... A...... .......................

0.007(PMCL)..

2.15

2.15

2.15

3.56

0.0002(RSD) ........................................................ : I ...................

0.05(RSD) ................................................. ............... .........................

0.3(RSD) .........................................

10(RfD) .......................................... 0.74

0.05(DW S) ................................................................ .........................

0.004(DW S) ......................................................................................

0.002(DW S) ............................................................. .........................

0.10(DW S)... .......................................... ............ .... ....................

1.68E-2

3.46E-3

5.05E-6

5.05E-6

5.05E-6

1.88E-3

1.23E-5

0.6(R 85 SD 0.. ) ... .. .......................................................................

2(RfD).. : ............ .......... 7 1...................... .0.3 2.61E-5

0.02(RfD) .......... ......................... .1 80 2.40E-5

25

10]

40

40]

40

25

25

25

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

or an e ............................................................................................................ ............. . .............................................................. ........................

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21673 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

TABLE C-3.-CHRONIC TOXICITY REFERENCE LEVELS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS-Continued

Apportion- fApportioned

Contaminant Chronic toxicity reference level (mg/l LOG Kow I Kh(alm mi/mol) : ment reference

(percent) 4 level (mg/l)l

Pentachlorophenot .................................... ................................................................ I(RfD) ................................................................... 5.06 4.62E-6 25 0.25

Phenol................................................................................................................................ 4(RfD) ....................................................................... 1.49 4.5E-6 40 1.0

yridine .............................................................................................................................. 0.075(RI D) ................................................................ 0.68 1.95E-7 40 0.03

Selenium ............................................................................................................................ 0.01(DW S) ...................................... : .................................. .................................... ... 0.01

Silver .................................................................................................................................. 0.05(DW S) .................................................................................................................. 0.05 1.t .1,2-Tetrachloroethane ....................................... : ....................................................... 0.7(RSD) ................................................................... .......................... ........................ 0.7

t .1.2 2-Tetrachloroethane .......................... ..................................................................... .02(RSD) ................................................................... .......................... ............... 0.02 1etrachloroethylene ............ ..... .. . . .................................... 0.007(RS ) ........................................................... ....... "0............. 007

2.3.4.6-Tetrachlorophenol ................................................................................................ 0.4(RfD) ..................... ............................................... 4.33 4.53E-6 25 0.1

Toluene .............................................................................................................................. O(RfD) ..................................................................... 2.82 5.93E-3 10 1.0 Toxaphene ............ ............................. ................................................................................ 0.005(DW S) ............................................................. .......................... ......................... 0.005

1 .1.1-Trichloroethnane ............ -.......................................................................................... 0.2(PMCL) .................................................................................................................. 0.2

1.1,2-Trichloroethane ....................................................................................................... 0.06(RSD) .................................................................................................................. 0.06 Tnichloroethylene .............................................................................................................. 0,005(PMCL) ............................................................ .......................... ......................... 0.005 2.4 5-Tr hchloropheno ....................................................................................................... 4(RfD) ....................................................................... 3. 86 2.84E-5 10 0.4

2.4.6-Tnchloyophenol ...................................................................................................... 0.02(RSD) .................................................................................................................. 0.02

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) .......................................................................................................... 0.01(DW S) .................................................................................................................. 0.01

Vinyl chloride ..................................................................................................................... 0.001(PMCL) ................................................................................................ 0.001

OWS = National Interim Primary Drinking Standard.

PMCL-Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (Proposed standard in ddnking water). RID=Reference Dose (non-carcinogen). RsD=Risk Specific Dose (carcinogen). 2 LOG Octanol Water Partition Coefficient. I Henry's Law Constant.

4 RfD's are the only Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels which are apportioned (See Section VII1(A)).

I Value by which Dilution/Attenuation factor is multiplied (See Tables C-4 and C-5).

TABLE C-4.-DILUTION/ATTENUATION FACTOR FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS

Hydrolysis rate constants

D/A LOG Kow ' Kax= Kb Kn factor 3

Contaminant:

Acrylonitnle ............................................................................ 0.07 > t/Yr ................................................ >1 /Yr ................................................ > /Yr ............................................... 14.4 A se ic .................................................................................... .......................... , ................................ ........................... ............................................................. , ............................................................. 100.0

Barium ..................................................................................... ........................... .......................................................... ... ............................................................. ................................................. :............ 100.0 Benzene ........................................................................... .... . ................. ........................ NHYF ................................................. NHYF ................................................. 14.

Bis(2-chloroe thyl)ether .......................................................... 1.04 NH ................................................... NH ...................................................... BE-5/Hr ............................................. 14.4 Cadmium ................................................................................ I ......................... ........................... ................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. i0 0

Carbon disulfide .................................................................... . 2.16 NH ..................................................... > 10/Yr .............................................. NH ...................................................... 14.4

Carbon tetrachloride ................................. ................. 2.96 NH ...................................................... NH ...................................................... NH ...................................................... 14.4

Chlordane ............................................................................... 5.48 NH ...................................................... > 10/Y r .............................................. NH ...................................................... 14.4 Chforobenzene ...................................................................... 2.87 NH ...................................................... 1E-6/Hr ............................................. NH ...................................................... 14.4

Chloroform ............................................................................. 1.96 NH ...................................................... 0.23/Hr .............................................. 3E-9/Hr ............................................. 14.

Chromium ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 100.0

o-Cresol ................................................................................. . 2.15 NHYF ................................................. NHYF ............................................... NHYF ................................................. 14.4

m-Cresol ................................................................................ 2.15 NHYF ............................................... NHYF ................................................. NHYF ....................................... 14.4 p.Cresol .................... .............. ........................................... 2.15 NHYF ................................................. NHYF .................................................. NHYF ................................................. 14,4

2,4-D ...................................................................................... 2.70 NHYF ................................................. NHYF ................................................. NHYF ................................................. 14.4 1.2-Dichorobenzeno ............................................................ 3.56 NH ....................................... .............. I E-5/Hr ............................................. NH ...................................................... 14.4 1.4-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................... 3.56 NLFG ............................................. NLFG ................................................. NLFG ................................................ 14.4

1.2-Dichloroethae ............................................................... 1.40 NH ..................................................... NH ..................................................... 7.2E-5/Hr .......................................... 75.0

1,1-Dichtr oethylene ............................................................. 2.13 0 NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................. NLFG ................................................. 14.4

2.4-Dinitrotoluene .......... ...................................................... 4 2.30 NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................. NLFG ................................................. 14.4 End din ....................... .............................................................. 1 3.54 = 

> l/Yr ................................................ j > I/Yr ................................................ > I/Yr .................................... ...... 14.4

Heptachlo (and its hydroxide) ............................................ 7 4.61 NLFG ................................................. NLFG ................................................. NLFG .............................................. 14.4

Hoxachlorobenzene ............................................................. 6.42 <1//Yr ............................................... < < /Yr ................................................ < /Yr ................................................ 14.4

Hexachlorobutadien e ........................................................... 4.24 NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................. NLFG ................................................ 14.4

Hexachloroethane ................................................................. . 4.22 >1/Yr ............................................... > 1 /Yr ................................................ >1 /Yr ................................................ 14.4

Isobutan l ............................................................................. 0.74 >/Yr ................................................ > I1/Yr ................................................ >0/Yr .14. Lead ........................................................................................ ......................... , ............... .............................................. , ............................................................. ,.....................................................

100.0

Lindane ................................................................................... 3.40 > I/Yr ............................ .............. > > r/Yr ................................................ > /Yr ................................................ 14.4

Mercury ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................... ..... 100.0

Methoxychlor ......................................................................... 74.30 NH .................................................... 1A /Hr ................................................ S7.5E-5/Hr ......................................... 14.4

Methylene chlorde .............................................................. 1.26 NH ..................................................... NH ...................................................... 1 6.18E-8/Hr ...................................... 14.

Methyl ethyl ketone .............................................................. 0.3 NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................ 4.4

Nirobe enzene .......................................................................... 1.90 NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................ NLFG ............................................... 144

Pentachlorophenol ................................................................ 5.06 NH ............. ................................. > 1E-4/Hr ........................................ NH ..................................................... 14.4

Phenol ..................................................................................... 1.49 NHYF ............................................... NHYF Y ................................................. NHYF ................................................ 144

Pyridine ................................................................................... 0.66 NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................ 14.4

Selenium .......................................................................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................. .....................................................

100.0

Silver .............................................................................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................ 100. 1.............................................

1.1.1.2-Tetrachforoethane .................................................... 2.81 NH ..................................................... 1 3 /Hr ............................................... 2.2E-7/Hr ......................................... 6 4.

Tera loTetrachloroethne .................................................... .4 NLFG ............................................... NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................. 14 . ! ,1 2Te tra ch lor ethan e .................................................... 2 4 L H...... G ................................................ .N L 6 3 / H ..................................... N H............... G.................................. ..... 1 4 .

2.3,4,6-Tetr.achlorophenol .................................................... 4.33 NH ...................................................... 1E-5/Hr ............................................ NH .................................................... 14.4

Toluene .......... ;........................................................................ 2.82 NHYF ................................................ NHYF .................................... NHYF ................................................ 144

Toxaphene ................................................................... '5.30 NH ...................................................... > I0/Yr ............................................. NH ..................................................... 144 1~.t.-Tdchloroethane ............................................................ '2.50 NH ...................................................... NH ....................................................... 1.1E-4/Hr .......................................... 150. 1.1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................................... . 1.91 NH ...................................................... 13/Hr ................................................ 4.3E-7/Hr ........... 200............................. 

Trichloroethyliene ................................................................... 2.28 NLFG ................................................ NLFG ................................................. NLFG ................................................ 14.4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ............................................................ 3.86 NH ...................................................... t E-5/Hr ............................................. NH ...................................................... 14. 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol .......................................................... . 3.58 NH ...................................................... 1E-5/Hr ................................... NH .................................. 14.4

24.5-TP (Silvex) .................................................................... 3.45 NLFG ............................................... NLFG ........................................ N .............................. 14.4

2.4.5 dT itv .... ......................................... 3.45.NLFG.......................NLFG....................... L.G............................. 14.4

Vinyl chloride.................................................... 1.38 NH ........................................ IE-SH............I 7H..............4

I LOG Octanol Water Partition Coefficient. 2 Acid base and neutral hydrolysis rate constants.

:1 Dilution/Attenuation Factor derived from ground water transport equation. NHYF = No Hydrolyzable Functional Group.

NH - Negligible Hydrolysis. NLFG = No Liable Functional Group.

Estimated value.

21674

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21674 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No'. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules 21675

TABLE C-5.-REGULATORY LEVELS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS

Apportioned

chronic toxicity D/A Calculated level)n/ Ouanttation Regulatory - 

tnialo, lee rg

reference factor ( Ig/ lit (mg l e) e

le v e la (m g/) g1

Contaminant:

Acrylonitrile .....................................................................................................................................................

0.002 14.4 0.029 5.0 15.0) Arsenic ............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 0.05 100.0 5.0. 0.025 5.0

Barium ........................................................................................................................................................

1.0 100.0 100 0.05 100 Benzene ............................................................................................................................................................................... ........ 0.005 14.4 0.072" 0.05 0.07

Bis(2-choroethyl)eteher .............................................................................................................................................

0.0003 14.4 0.004 0.05 (0.05)

Cadmium .......................................................................................................................................................

0.01 100.0 1.0 0.05 1.0

Carbon disultide ..................................................................................................................................................

1.0 14.4 14.4 5.0 14.4

Carbon tetrachloride ...............................................................................................................................................

0.005 14.4 0.072 0.05 0.07 Chfordanie ....................................................................................................................................................................................

0.002 .. 14.4 0.029 0.0025 0.03 Chlorobenzene ...................................................................................................................................................

0.1 14.4 . 0.05 1.4

Chloroform .....................................................................................................................................................0.005 14.4 0.072 0.05 0.07

Chro iurn ...................... .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.05 )100.0 5.0 0.1 5.0

o-Cresol ............................................................................ ....................................................................................... ....................... 0.7 14.4 10.08 0.5 10.0 m-Cresol .......................................................................................................................................................

0.7 14.4 10.08 0.5 10.0

p-Cresol ............................................................................................................................................................. ......... 0.7 14.4 10.08 0.5 10.0

2.4-D ................................................................................................... ..................................................................................... 0.1 14.4 1.44 0.025 1.4

t .2-Dichlorobenzene ....... ..................... ........................................ ................................. : ....... .................................... ................. 0.3 • '14.4 4.32 0.125 4.3

1,4-Dichlorobenzene .............................................................................................................................................

..... 0.75 14.4 10.8 0.125 10.8

1.2-Dichloiroethane ............... ..................... ................................................................................................................................

0.005 75.0 0.40 0.05 0.40

1.1-Dichloroethylene ...............................................................................................................................................

. 0.007 14.4 0.1008 0.05 0.1.

2,4-initrotoluene ............................................................................................................... : ....................................................... 0.001 14.4 0.0144 0,125 0.03) Endrin ................................................................................................................................. :... .................................... ............ 0.0002 14.4. 0.0029 0.0005 0.003

Heptlachlor (and hydroxide) .................................................................................. : ................................................. ...................... 0.0001 14.4 0.0014 0.0005 . 0.001

Hexachlorobenzene ....................... .....................................................................................................................................

0.0002 14.4 0.0029 0.125 (0.13)

Hexachlorobutadiene ............................................................................................ 7 ............................................ 0.05 14.4 0.72 0.125 0.72

Hexachloroethane ................................................................................................................................................

0.3 14.4 4.32 0.125. 4.3 lsobulanol ...................................................................................... ........................ ......................................................................... 2.5 . . 14.4 36 :5.0 36 Lead ..........................................................................................................................................................

.... 0.05 1000 5.0 0.4 5.0

Lindane ................................................................................................................................ ............................. ........... ........ 0.004 14.4 0,0576 0.0005 0.06

Mercury .......................................................................................................................................................0.002 4100.0 0.2 0.002 0.2 Methoxychlr ....................................................................... ........................... - " . ... . . . . . . . 0.012 1 !4 1.44 0.0025 0A

Methylene chloride .............................................................................................................. ..............................-........................ 0.6 14.4 i.64 . 0.125 8.6

Methyl ethyl ketone ............................................................................................................................... ! ........... : ........................... 0.5 - 14A 7.2 0.05 7.26

Nitrobenzene ................................................................................................................... .................................... ..................... . 0004. 14.4 00576 0.125 (0.13)

Pentachlorophenol ................................................. : .................................................................................................................. 0.25 14.4 3.6 005 3.1

Phenol .............................................................................................................................. ; ............................................... 1.0 . 14.4 14.4 0.125 144

Pyridine .......................................................... .................................................................................................. -............................ 0.03. . 14.4 0.432 15.0 (5.0)

Selenium .................................................................. ............................................................................... .................................. 0.01 100.0 10 0.05 1.0 Sler ............................................. : ...................................................................... .............. . 0.05 100.0 5.0 0.05 5.0..

1,1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane 1.1.1.Tetrchlorethan............ ................................. ....................................... . . . . :......................................... . . . . :............................................ .... .... ........ .0.0.. .0. 0.7 14. 14.4 10.0 10.08 .005 10.01

1.1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane ...................................................................................................................................... ........... .. . ... 0.02 65.0 1.3 , 0.05 1.3

Tetrachloroethylene ...............................................................................................................................................

. 0.007 14.4 0.1008 0.05 0.1

2.34.e -Te .chlorophenol ........................................................................ : .................................. ......................... .10.0 14.4 1.44 0.5 1.5 Toluene .............................................................................................................................. ........................................ : .................. 1.0 14.4 14.4 0.05 14.4

Toxaphene ........... ............................................... ........... ...... ................ ... 0.005 . 14.4 0.072 0.025 0.07

1.1.$-Trichloroethane .................................... I .......................................................................................................................... ... 0.2 150.0 30 0.05 30 1.1.2.TFichloroethane ............................................ ..................................................... ................................................................. 0.06 20.0 1.2 D.05 1.2

Trichloroethylene .............................................................................. .. ................ ........................................... ....................... 0.005 14.4 0.072 0.05 0.07

2.4.5-Trichlorophenol ..............................................................................................................................................

0.4 14.4 .5.76 0.25 5.8 2.4.6-Trichlr ophenot ........................................................... .......................................................................................................... 0.02 .14A4 0.288 0.25 0.3

2.4.5-TP (Sitvex) ................. ......................................................................................... ................. ................................... ............ 0.01 14.4 0.144 0.025 0.14

Vinyl chloride ...................................................................................................................................................0.001 14.4 0.0144 0.05 (0.05)

See Table C-3.

See Table C-4.

Apportioned Chronic Toxicity Reference Level multiplied by Dilution/Attenuation Factor.

4 See Table (-2.

II the quanilation limit is greater than the calculated level, the quantitation limit becomes the (technology based) regulatory level (ilndicated by level In parenthesla).

D. Development and Evaluation of the Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory potential candidate leaching procedures.

TCLP (ORNL), has conducted a research In Phase II, additional wastes were

1. Introduction program designed to develop an leached and the candidate procedures

improved leaching test, the TCLP. The refined into the draft TCLP. During this

This Section provides detailed TCLP development program was split up phase of testing, public assistance and

information on how the TCLP was into three phases. Phases I and II, and review of the draft .was solicited.

developed and evaluated. Still more part of Phase III have been completed. The overall approach employed in

detailed information regarding the TCLP Phase I consisted of an initial data Phase I was as follows:

is available in a Background Document gathering effort in which a number of a. Large-scale field lysimeters were

that EPA has prepared for the TCLP wastes were leached with a leachate filled With domestic and commercial

(Ref. 33). derived from municipal refuse.The refuse and used to generate a municipal

2. Experimental Design wastes were also extracted with a

variety of laboratory leaching media waste leachate (MWLJ.

EPA, through an interagency and contact procedures. Phase I was b. The MWL was used to leach four

agreement w'th the U.S. Department of designed to narrow the universe of industrial solid wastes in large columns.

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21675 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday. 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 waste 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

leachate equal to twenty times the • weight of the original industrial solid

waste-twenty toone liquid to solid

ratio).

f. Laboratory leaching test results were compared to the TCs, ad the two.

laboratory tests that best replicated,

lysimeter results were selected for

further evaluation in Phase II.

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., carbonic

acid).

4. Peer Reviews

A number of peer reviews were

conducted at various stages of the TCLP

development program. The general tone

of these reviews v~as 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. 29).

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

-landfillThe SAB did,"however, question

the statistical methodology used to

'evaluate the Phase I data-and

recommerided that the data be reevaluated 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 II

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 nonhazardous 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-1 summarizes the results of

four of the more important statistical

analyses applied to the data comparing

21676

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21676 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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

Inorganics Organics Inorganics and organics

Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase

II 1-411 I II 1+It I II 1411

Absolute percent D :

Acetate .................................. B A A A A A A A A

Carbonic ............................................ A A A A A A A A A

EP .............................. .......................... B A A A A A A A A

Actual percent D 1:

Acetate ......................... -B -AB -B -A +A +A -A +A -A,

Carbonic ......................... - A + B +A -A +A +AB -A -i-S +B

EP ....................................................... . AB -A - -,4A +A +B -A +A -iAG

Multivariate 4:

Acetate ........................ . ....................... A .................. A A

Carbonic .............................................. ............... ..... A B 8

E P ........................................................ ............................................... ..... ........... ................................ . B B B

Precision (C.V.) 5:

Acetate ..................................... A A A D B B B B 8

Carbonic .............................................. A B - B 8 C A C C

EP ........... : ............................................ ND B B ND C C ND .8

A different letter indicates statistical significance at the 5% level, an "A" value being closest to the lysimeter target values. 2 Absolute value o the percentage difference between laboratory concentration and the lysimeter field results.

:1 Actual value of the percentage difference between laboratory concentration and the lysimeter field results. A negative

value indicates the laboratory concentrations to be higher than lysimeter field results. 4 Ranks based on the Martalanobis distance (See Ref. 7). 4 Precision, as coefficient o variation categorized as follows: A =0-19, B =20-39, C=40-59, D=60+, ND=Not Duplicated.

The first test, the absolute percent

difference, give a crude indication of

accuracy of each of the methods.

Looking at Table D-1, the most apparent

conclusion is that there is essentially no

significant differences among the

leaching media as to their ability to

duplicate field results. This is especially

true for organic compounds. A better.

means of indicating'significant

differences in accuracy is believed to be

the multivariate analysis, the results of

which are also presented. This test

indicates that the acetate buffer

extraction is significantly more accurate

than the other media. In carrying out the

multivariate analysis, the results for

organics and inorganics were not

examined spearately.

The actual percent difference, while

also giving an estimate of accuracy, can

be used to estimate the aggressiveness

of the leaching media relative to the

field results. A negative value indicates

that the extraction is more aggressive

than the lysimeter field model. Looking

at Table D-1, once again there are few

significant differences among the

leaching media as to their ability to

extract organic compounds. All the

values for the.organics comparisons are

positive values, indicating that the

laboratory tests are generally less

aggressive than the lysimeter model.

This is most probably a function of the

wastes being extracted in a device

which does not prevent loss of volatiles

(i.e., losses of volatile organics to the

headspace in the extraction vessel), and

also a function of the fact that the field

leachates were analyzed unfiltered,

whereas the laboratory extracts were

analyzed filtered. Higher concentrations

of some organic compounds, especially

polyaromatic hydocarbons, were *

observed in the unfiltered extracts.

For inorganics, the actual percent -

differences test did produce somenegative values, indicating that some of

the leaching media.tested were more

aggressive towards inorganics than the

lysimeter field model. In Phase I, this

was true for all three leaching media. In

Phase 11, however, this was only true for

the acetate buffer and EP leaching

media. Hence, in Phase II, the carbonic

acid leaching media was generally less

aggressive towards inorganics than the

lysimeter field model (Refs. 7 and 25).

Although the Phase I data indicated

that the carbonic acid leaching medium

most closely approximated the lysimeter

results (Ref. 6), when the Phase II data

were taken into account, the sodium

acetate buffer leaching medium seemed

to be the most appropriate (Refs. 7 and

25). Given the most weight in this

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

evaluation was the multivariate

analysis.

The analysis of 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 eitfer the

carbonic acid medium or the EP leaching

medium. Finally, Use of the acetate

buffer system should minimize the

occurrence of false negative results,

since the Phase I1 inorganics analyses

indicated that the carbonic acid medium

was less aggressive than the lysimeter

field results.

For the above reasons, the sodium

acetate buffer system has been selected

as the medium of choice. Perhaps the

only objective that may have been

compromised 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 bioassay

evaluation of TCLP extracts entirely.

Phase Ill 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. Operational Aspects

As indicated previously, in moving

from the EP 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 final liquid/

solid separations, which currently

involves 0.45 p.m pressure filtration. In

addition, the need to adequately prevent

volatilization of organic compounds

during extraction was critical. These

three aspects of the test procedure are

discussed below. 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.

21677

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21677 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

TABLE D-2.-COMPARISON OF THE EXTRACTION' PROCEDURE (EP) AND THE TOXICITY

CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE

(TCLP)

Item EP TCLP

(1) Leaching

media.

(2) Uquid/solid

separation.

0.5 N Acetic acid

added to

distilled -

deionized water

to a pH of 5

with 400 ml

maximum

addition.

Continual pH -

adjustment.

0.45 urn Filtration

to 75 psi in to

psi increments.

Unspecified tilter

type.

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 liltration

to 50 psi.

TABLE D-2.-COMPARISON OF THE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (EP) AND THE TOXICITY

CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING . PROCEDURE

(TCLP) '-Continued

Item EP , TCLP

(3) Monolithic

matenal/

particle size

reduction.

(4) Extraction

vessels.

(5) Agitation.

Use of Structural

Integrity

Procedure or grnding and

milling.

Unspecified

design. Blade/

stirrer vessel

acceptable.

Prose definition of

acceptable

agitation.

Grinding or milling only. Structural

Integrity

Procedure not

used.

Zero-headspace

-vessel required for

volatiles. Bottles

used for nonvolatiles. Blade

stirrer vessel not

used.

Rotary agitation only

in an end-overend fashion at

30--2 rpm.

TABLE D-2.-COMPARISON OF THE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (EP) AND THE TOXICITY

CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE

(TCLP) '-Continued

Item EP TCLP

(6) Extraction 24 hours ................... 18 hours.

time.

(7) Quality Standard additions Standard additions

control required. One required in some

requirements. blank per cases. One blank

sample batch, per 10 extractions

and every new

batch of extract.

Analysis specific

to analyte.

IAll 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 6560-50-M

21678

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21678 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules 2

Wet Waste Sample

Contains < 0.5%

Nonfilterable

Solids

Wet Waste Sample

Contains > 0.5%

Nonfilterable

Solids

LiqUid

,Store at 40 C

at pH = 2

Figure D-2. Extraction Procedure Flowchart

21679. -

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21679 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

FIGURE D}-2: TCLP Flowchart

WET WASTE SAMPLE

CONTAINS < 0.5 %

NON-FILTERABLE

SOLIiW

LIQUID/SOLID

SEPARATION

0.6-0.8 um

GLASS FIBER

.FILTERS

WET WASTE SAMPLE

_ REPRESENTATIVE WASTE COtfAINS > 0.5 %

SAMPLE NON-FILTERABLE

"" • :"SOLID3.,

ERY WASTE

SAMPLE LIOUID/SOLID

SOLID

-_ DISCARD

SOLID SOLID

LIQUID

ISTORE AT

40C

REDUCE PARTICLE SIZE IF >9.5 mm

CR SURFACE AREA <3.1 cm2

ICLP EXtRACIt IO 1

OF SOLID

0-H EADS PACE EXTRACTOR

REQUIRED FOR VOLATILES

LIQUID/SOLID

SEPARATION DISCARD

0.6-0.8 um GLASS SOLID

FIBER FILTERS

.LIQUID

TCLP EXTRACT

TCLP EXTRAC, ANALYrICAL __ TCLP EXTRACT - - -

METHOE.

1 The-extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the solid

phase of the waste.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

21680

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21680 1986
. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. :114 / Friday, June 13,- 1986 / Proposed Rules

The EP procedure involves continual

pl I 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

considerable pressure (75 psi] is applied.

This problem is serious, since materials

which do not pass the 0.45 um filter are

treated as solids even if they physically

appear to be a liquid. These (liquid)

wastes are then carried throughEP

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

the 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

rfiay 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

,:ontains 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

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

reevaluating 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

manufa'cturers; EPA has addressed this

problem through development of a ZeroHeadspace 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 11 to-Part 261).

21681

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21681 1986
Federal Register / Vol., 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 1 Proposed Rules

Liquid Inlet/Outlet Valve

Pressurizing Gas Inlet/Oatlet Valve

Figure D-3: Zeto-Headspace Extraction Vessel

The Z-IE 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 nonvolatile 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 Ill 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 wdrk on the volatiles pottion 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 conduted

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 volatiles, 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 were 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

I I ....

21682

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21682 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

variability was minimized to the extent

possible, it 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 the

TCLP extracts are well accepted and in

widespread use.

Precision for the non-volatiles was

observed to be best for those

contaminants present at relatively high

levels, as is the usual case in any

analysis for method precision. For those

cases where the contaminant was

present at relatively low concentrations,

precision was pair, the percent

coefficient of variation generally falling

below 50 and 60 percent.

The results of the precision

evaluations for the volatile components

(Ref. 9) are not as clearly interpreted. There are several reasons for this. These

evaluations were initiated as the zeroheadspace extractor became available.

Recall that the present design for the

ZHE was the result of experimentation

with several prototype devices. 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 public draft

protocol was released for comment in

April of 1985. At this time EPA was still

experimenting with several prototype

devices, and although the April TCLP

draft addressed volatile components, it

was largely to obtain technical

comments and suggestions and was not

based on an actual working ZHE device.

It was this protocol under which the

TCLP precision evaluation of the

volatiles was begun. The second public draft of the TCLP

protocol was released for comment in

October of 1985. Although this draft was

based on the current design for the ZHE,

further experience with the device has

led EPA to re-write the TCLP volatiles

procedure in the form that it currently

appears (see TCLP in the proposed

Appendix 1I 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 was

conducted using the October, 1985 draft

TCLP. Several significant changes have

been made in the current (proposed)

version due to experience gained with

the device. For example, whereas the

October 1985 version allowed the use of

VOA vials for the collection of the TCLP

extract, the proposed method requires

the use of air-tight syringes'or TEDLAR"

bags due to 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 TGLP,

which we believe should help to clear

up some of the problems encountered

during the first evaluation. This study

will be similar to the previous 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 of relatively high

concentration and one of relatively low

concentration). The results of this

evaluation will be noticed for comment

upon its completion.

b. Ruggedness 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 deviation with respect to

these variables. If a procedure is "rugged" it will be unaffected by minor

departuresffrom the specified method

values. If results are affected by

variation of conditions, the protocol

must be written to specify those

parameters whichmust not be varied

beyond a determined amount.

As with the precision evaluation,

ruggedness was evaluated for both the

ZIHE and common EP extractor bottles.

Different lots of the same wastes used

for the precision evaluations were used

for the ruggedness evaluation. These

evaluations were performed by one

laboratory. Whereas 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.-PAAMETERS INVESTIGATED DURING TCLP RUGGEDNESS EVALUATION

ParamdteT TCLP specificaion F ZHE device Common

I I [ equipment (botte$)

(t) Liquid/Solid ratio ............................... :

(2) Extraction time ........................................

(3) Headspace:

ZHE ..............................

B ottles ...................................................

(4) Medium #1 acidity (milliequivalents

acid).

(5) Medium #2 acidity (milliequivalents

acid).

(6) Aliquots (taking of aliquots directly

from ZHE for analysis.

(7) Extractor vessel ....................................

20 ................................................ 19.to 21 ....................................... 19 to 21.

18 ....................................................................................................... 16 to 20.

Zero .............................................

Variable .......................................

70 .................................................

0 to 5 percent .....................

..................................................... 60 20 to 60 perc to 80 .......................................

200 ............................................... I............... . 190 to 210.

Allowed for ZHE in some

cases (see proposed

TCLP).

(See proposed TCLP) ................

(8) Acid wash filters ..................................... Required for metals .............

(9) Filter type .... ....................................... 0.6-0.8 us, glass fiber ..............

(10) Pressurization of ZHE during agita.

tion (psi).

Yes-No .....................................

Associated ZHE-Mitlipore

ZHE.

5 to 10 -........................... 0t20..................

Borosilicate-Flint

glass.

Yes-No.

PolycarbonatoGlass fiber.

21683

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21683 1986
Federal Register /,Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

TABLE D-3.-PARAMETERS INVESTIGATED DURING TCLP RUGGEDNESS EVALUATION-Continued

Parameter TCommon TCLP specification ZHE device equipment (bottles)

i1) ZHE extract collection devices ........... TEDLAR ® bag or syringe . TEDLAR bag-syringe.

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 (Ell) extraction equipment

demonstrated that for the most part, the

TCLP if 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 build-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. EPAts 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 and inorganic c6mpounds,

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 (ERCO).

EP-Il1 Preliminary Study. U.S. EPA Contract

68-01--6467. September, 1984.

(4) Energy Resources Company (ERCO).

Filtration of Various Wastes Using Various

Filter Media. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-7075.

April, 1985.

(4a) Energy Resources Company (ERCO).

Evaluation of Bottle TCLP Draft Protocol.

Draft Final Report. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-

7075. 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.

(a) Francis, C.W., and M. Maskarinec.

Lea6hing 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, 1. 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-il. 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

• v .. . .. II

21684

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21684 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, une 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules 2

Wastes. Volume 1. EPA Contract 68-03-2552.

Januaryt1981. " : 7

(20)'Natibnal Research Council (NRC).

Drinking Water and Health. Vol. 4. Safe

Drinking'Water Committee, National

Academy Pr6ss. Wa'shington. D.C. 1982.

(21) Office df 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 RCRA. 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 68-01-6149.

January, 1982.

(25) Technology Applications Inc. (TAI).

Statistical Analysis of TCLP Development

Data. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-936. 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. EPA. 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-111.

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 U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C.

1985.

(33) U.S. EPA. Background Document For

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

Washington. D.C. February, 1986.

List of Subjects in 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, Recycling.

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, 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 Codelof 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: Secs. 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.

(a) 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 I 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 solids, the waste itself, after

filtering using the methodology outlined

in Appendix II, is considered to be the

extract for the purpose of this section.

(b) A solid waste that exhibits the

characteristic of toxicity, 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.AND REGULATORY LEVELS

HWNO and contaminant

DO -Acrylonitrile ...............................

D004-Arsenic ........................

DOO5--adum ........................

D019-Benzene ......................................

D020-Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether ..............

D00-Cadmium ..................................

0021-Carbon disulfide .........................

D022--Carbon tetrachloride .................

D023-Chlordane ..............................

D024--Chorobenzene ...........................

D025-Chorolorm ........-.........................

D007--Chromium ........ ............

D026--o-Cresol .................... ..............

0O27--m-Cesol ...................................

D028--p-Cresol .................................

D016-2.4-D. ....................

0029-1,2-Dichlorobenzene.

D030-1.4.Dichloroanzene ..................

D031-1.2-Dichloroethane .........

D032-1,1-Dichloioethylene.

D033-2,4-Dinitrotoluene..

D012-Endrin ................ .........

D034-Heptachlor (and its hydroxide)..

D035 -Hexachlorobenzene.

CASNO

107-13-1

7440-38-2

7440-39-3

71-43-2

111-44-4

7440-43-9

75-15-0

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

95-50-1

106-46-7

107-06-2

75-35-4

121-14-2

72-20-8

76-44-8

118-74-1,

Ragula.

tory level

(mg/i)

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

TABLE I..-TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONTAMINANTS AND REGULATORY LEVELS-Continued

Regula. HWNO and contaminant CASNO tory level (mg/1)

0036--exachlorobutadiene .................. 87-68-3 0.72

0037-Heachloroethane ....................... 67-72-1 4.3

D038-1sobutanol ................................ 78-83-1 36

D0 08- Lead ............................................. 7439-92-1 5.0

D0 13-Lindane.. ............................... 58-89-9 0.06

DO09- Mercury ......... * ............................... 7439-97-6 0.2'

,P014-Methoxychlor ............................... 72-43-5 1.4

D039-Methylene chloride ...................... 75-09-2 8.6

D040-Methyl ethyl ketone .................... 78-93-3 7.2

D041-Nitrobenzene ................................ 98-95-3 0.13

D042-Pentachlorophenol ...................... 87-86-5 3.6

D043- Phenol ........................................... 108-95-2 14.4

0044-Pyridine ......................................... i 10-86-1 5.0 D010- Selenium ....................................... 7782-49-2 1.0

D011- Silver ............................................. 7440-22-4 5.0

D045-1.11,2-Tetrachloroethane .......... 630-20-6 10.0

D046-1.1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane .......... 79-34-5 1.3

D047-Tetrachloroethylane .................... 127-18-4 0.1

D048-23,46-Tetrachloropheno .......... 58-90-2 1.5

D049-Toluene ......................................... 108-88-3 14.4

DO15-Toxaphene ................................... 8001-35-2 0.07

:050-1,.Trichloroethane .................. 71-55-6 30

D051-1 .1,2-Trichloroethane .................. 79-00-5 1.2

D052-Trichloroethylane ......................... 79-01-6 0.07

D053-2.4,5-Trichlorophenol .................. 95-95-4 5.8

D054-2.4,6-Tchlorophenol .................. 88-06-2 0.30

D01 7-2,4,5-TP (Silvex) .................... 93-76-5 0:14

055-Vinyl chloride ......................... 75-014 0.05

o-. m-, and p-Cresol concentrations are added together and compared to a threshold of 10.0 mg/l.

3. Appendix II of Part 261 is revised to

read as follows:

Appendix II-Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP)

1.0 Scope and application.

1.1 The TCLP is designed to determine the

mobility of both organic and inorganic

contaminants present in liquid, solid, and

multiphasic wastes.,

1.2 If a total analysis of the waste

demonstrates that individual contaminants

are not present in the waste, or that they are

present, but at such low concentrations that

the appropriate regulatory thresholds could

not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not

be run.

2.0 Summary of method (See Figure 1).

2.1 For wastes containing less than 0.5%

solids, the waste,' after filtration through a

0.6-0.8 Aim glass fiber filter, is defined as the

TCLP extract.

2.2 For wastes containing greater than

0.5% solids, the liquid phase, if any, is

separated from the solid phase and stored for

later analysis. The particle size of the solid

phase is reduced (if necessary), weighed, and

extracted with an amount of extraction fluid

equal to 20 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 0.6-0.8 Am

glass fiber filter filtration.

2.3 If compatible (e.g, precipitate or

multiple phases willt 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 seperately and the

218

21RRR

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21685 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51., No.:- 114 / Friday, June 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 endover-end fashion (See Figure 2) at 30±2 rpm.

Suitable devices known to EPA are identified

in Table 2.

4.2. Extraction vessel:

4.2.1 Zero-Headspace Extraction Vessel

(ZHE). 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

(as depictedin Figure 3), is used. This type of

vessel allows for initial liquid/solid

separation, extraction, and final extract

filtration without having to open the vessel

(See Section 4.3.1). These vessels shall have an internal volume of 500 to 600 nl 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

filter 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 316

stainless steel equipment may be used when

evaluating tle mobility of both organic and

inorganic components. Devices made of high

density polyethylene (IDPE), polypropylene,

or polyvinyl chloride may be us.ed when

evaluating thle mobility of metals.

4.4 Filters: Filters shall be made of

borosiljcate 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. Pro-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 (or equivalent) is used. These waters

should be monitored periodically for

impurities.

5.2 1.0 N Hydrochloric acid (HCI) made

from ACS Reagent grade.

5.3 1.0 N Nitric acid (HNOa) 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 ±L 0.05.

Note.-These extraction fluids shall be

made. up fresh daily. The pH should be

checked prior Jo use to insure that they are

*TEDLAR is.a registered trademark of

DuPont.

madeup accurately, and thesefluids should

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 4°C and samples for

volatiles analysis shall not be allowed to

come. into contact with the atmosphere (i.e.,

no headspace).

7.0 Procedure when volatiles are not

invlved.

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 grams 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-weighthe filterand 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.

21686

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21686 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

7.6 Allow slurries to stand to permi't the

solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle ' .

slowly may be centrifuged prior-to filtration.

7.7 Transfer the waste sample to 4he-fitter

holder.

Note,-If wslesnaterial has obviousiy

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 weight 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 thepressurizing gas has not 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 waste, and

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 e'ther analyzed (See Step

7.15) or stored at 4C 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 7.11. If it-appears

that the solid may comprise 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

from the 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 or 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 solid

(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 *

magnetic stirrer. Measure and record the pH.

If the pH is < 5.0, extraction fluid #1 is used.

Proceed to Step 7.13.

7.12.3 If the p-I 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 05.0, 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

Final contaminant concentrat

the filter used .to separate the initial liquid

from the solid phase.

Note.-tf any of the solid phase remains

adhered toi 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

add: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 w'eight

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

during the 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 into a hood.

7.14 Following the 18 hour extraction, the

material in the extractor 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'(See 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 no initial

liquid phase, the filtered liquid material

obtained from Step 7.14 is defined as 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 from 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 not or

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, and the results are combined

mathematically. Proceed to Step 7.16.

7.16 The TCLP extract will be prepared

and analyzed according to the approprihte

SW-846 analytical methods identified in

Appendix III of 40 CFR 261. 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 analyses, and combine the

results mathematically by using a simple

weighted average:

(v,) (C,) + (V2)(C2 )

:ion±V . V, + V

21687

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21687 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

where:

V, =The volume of the first phase (1)

C, =The concentration of the contaminant of

, concern in the first phase (mg/l)

V2=The volume of the second phase (1)

C2=The concentration of the contaminant of

concern in the second phase (mg/I)

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

iwolved.

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 grams. 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.

Although 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 carrying out the following steps, do not

allow the waste to be exposed to the

atmosphere for any more time than is

absolutely necessary.

8.1 Pre-weigh 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

the 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 inlet/outlet flange (top flange)

aside. 8.3 If the waste will obviously yield no

free liquid when subjected to pressure

filtration, weigh out a representative

subsample of the waste (25 gram maximumSee Step 8.0), record weight. and proceed to

Step 8.5.

84 This step provides the means by

which to determine the approximate sample

size for the ZHE device. If the waste is liquid

or multiphasic, follow the procedure outlined

in Steps 7.2 to 7.9 (using the Section 7

filtration apparatus), and obtain the percent

solids by dividing the weight of the solid

phase of 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 solid 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 0.5% solids,

weigh out a new 100 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).

This liquid filtrate is defined as the TCLP -

extract, and is analyzed directly. If the waste

contains greater than or equal to 0.5% 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 8A)

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 4C

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

-device to the top plate.

Note.-If waste material has obviously

adhered to the container used to transfer the

sample to the ZIE, 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 %4ith 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 (o f6rce 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

pressure in 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.-lnstantaneous 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 waste, and 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 directlyproceed 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 by subtracting

the weight of the liquid phase from the weight

of the total waste sample (See Step 8.4).

Record. the final weight of the liquid and solid

phases

-8.11 The following details how to add the

appropriate amount of extraction fluid to the

solid material 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 shall 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 ZHIE 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.

21688

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21688 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

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 dueto 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 with 5-10 psi and

check all ZIE fittings to insure that they are

closed.

8.11.3 Place the ZI IE in the rotary

extractor apparatus (if it'is not already there),

and rotate the ZIIE at 30 + 2 rpm for 18

hours. The temperature shall be 'maintained

at 22 ± + 3°C during agitation.

8.12 'Following the 18 hour extraction,

check the pressure behind the ZHIE piston by

quickly opening and closing the gas 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 0-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 filtered

directly into the sane filtrate collection

container (i.e.. TEDLARI bag. gas-tight

syringe).holding.the initial liquid phase of the

waste, unless doing so would create multiple

phases, or unless there is not enough volume

leftwithin the filtrate collection container. A

separate filtrate collection container must be

used in these cases. Filter through the glass

fiber filter, using the ZHIE 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 within the ZHE.

8.13 1f the wastf contained no initial

liquid phase, the filtered liquid material

obtained from Step 8.12 is defined as the

TCLP extract. If the waste 'contained an

initial liquid phase, the filtered liquid

material obtained from Step 8.12, and the

initial liquid phase (Step 8.8) are collectively.

defined as the TCLP extract.

8.14 The TCLP extract will be prepared

and analyzed according to the appropriate -

SW-846 analytical methods, as identified in

Appendix III of 40 CFR 261. If the individual

phases are to be analyzed separately,

determine the volume of the individual

phases (to 0.1 ml), conduct the appropriate

analyses and combine the results

mathematically by using a simple volume

weighted average:

(V,(C,)+(Vn)(Cj Final contaminant concentration=

V,-.+ V2

where:

V, = The volume of the first phase (1)

C, = The concentration of the contaminant of

concern in the first phase (mg/I)

V2 = The volume of the second phase (1)

C2 = The concentration of the contaminant of

concern in the second phase (mg/Il

8.15 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.

9.0 Quality Assurance requirements.

9.1 All data, including quality 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

extraction vessel shall be employed as a

check to determine if any memory effects

from the extraction equipment is occurring

One blank shall also be employed for every

new batch of leaching fluid that is made up.

9.3 All 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 the

constituent measured in the extract is within •

20% of the appropriate regulatory threshold. If

more than I extraction is being run 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--40 days,

Mercury-28 days, and other Metals-180

days.

TABLE 1.-VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS

Compound

A ce to ne .................................................. -...................

A cry lo n itrile .................................................................

Benzene ..............................................................

n-Butyl alcohol...................................................

Carbon disulfide .........................

Carbon tetrachloride ............... ; . .......................

Chlorobenzone ...........................................................

Chloroform :..:.........................................................

1 .2-Dichloroethane .....................................................

1.1 -Dichloroethylena ..................................................

Ethyl acetate ..................................

Ethyl benzene .................................

Ethyl ether ...................................

Isobutanol .. ............ ................

Methanol ... ... ..... ......... . ........

Methylene chloride ............................ .......

Methyl ethyl ketone ...................................................

Methyl isobutyl ketone ..............................................

1.1,1.2-Tetrachloroethan .......................

CASNO

67-64-1

107-13-1

71-43-2

71-36-6

75-15-0

56-23-5-

108-90-7

67-66-3

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

TABLE 1.-VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS

Continued

Compound )CASNO

1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane ........................................ 79-34-5

Tetrachloroethylene ........................... 127-18-4

Toluene .........................................................

108-88-3

1.1.1 -Trichloroethane ........................ ....................... 71-55-6

1. 1,2-Trichloroethane ................................................ 79-00-5

T dchloroethylene ...................................................

79-01-6

Trichlorofluoromethane ........................................... 75-69-4

1,1.2-Trichloro-1.2.2-trifluoroelhane ..................... 76-13-1

Vinyl chloride ............. 75-01-4

Xylene ................... . . . 1330-20-7

Includes compounds identified in both the Land Disposal

Restrictions RulE and the Toxiciy Characteristic,

TABLE 2.-SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION

APPARATUS'

Company Location Model

Associated Design Alexandria, Virginia. 4-vessel

and Manufacturing (703) 549-5999. device.

Co. 6-vessel

device.

Lars Lande Whitmore Lake. 10-vessel

Manufacturing. Michigan, (313) device.

449-4116.

IRA Machine Shop Santurce, Puerto 16-vessel

and Laboratory. Rico, (809) 752- device.

4004.

EPRI Extractor ................................................... 6-vessel

device.2

Any device which rotates the extraction vessel in an end- over-end fashion at 30 - 2 rpm is acceptable. 2 Although this device is suitable, it is not commercially

made. It may also require retrofitting to accommodate ZHE

devices.

TABLE 3.-SUITABLE ZERO-HEADSPACE

EXTRACTOR VESSELS

Company Location Model No.

Associated Design Alexandria. Virginia. 3740-ZHB

and Manufacturing (703) 549-5999.

Co.

Millipore Corp ............... Bedord. SD P 8IC5

Massachusetts,

(800) 225-3384.

"ABLE 4.-SUITABLE FILTER HOLDERS

Size

Company Location Model ] (m(mm)

Nuclepore Corp . Pleasanton, 425910 142 'California. (800) 410400 47

882-7711.

Micro Filtration Dublin, California. 302400 142

Systems, (415) 828-6010.

Millipore Corp. Bedford. YT30142HW 142

Massachusetts, XX1004700 47

(800) 225-3384. N

I Any device capable of separating the liquid from the solid

phase of the waste is suitable, providing that it is chemically

compatible with the waste and the constituents to bg ana- lyzed. Plastic devices (not listed above) may be used when only inorganic contaminants are of concern.

- TABLE 5.-SUITABLE FILTER MEDIA

Company Compny if Location Model )sizePore

Whatman Clifton, New Jersey GFF 0.7

Laboratory (201) 773-5800.

Products, Inc.

Nominal pore size.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

21689

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21689 1986
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

FIGURE 1: TCLP Flowchart

WET WASTE SAMPLE

CONTAINS < 0.5 %

NON-F I ERAB[U

SOLI2S

WET WASTE SAMPLE

CONTAINS > 0.5 %

NON-FI LTERABLE

SOLICS

SAMPLE

LIQUID/SOLID

SEPARATION

0.6-0.8 um

GLASS FIBER

FILfERS

SOLID

DISCARD

SOLID SOLID

REDUCE PARTICLE SIZE IF >9.5 mm

OR SURFACE AREA <3.1 cm2

TCLP ExTRACTION

OF SOLID 0-HFADS PACE EXTRACTORREQUIRED FOR VOLATILES

LIQUID/SOLID

SEPARATION

0.6-0.8 um GLASS

FIBER FILFERS

LIQUID

TCLP EXTRACT

DISCARD

SOLID

TCLP EXTRACf ANALYT ICAL .... TCLP EXTRACT - - -

METHOLS

LIQUID .[

STORE A2

40C

1 The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the solid

phase of the waste.

21690

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21690 1986
*Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 114 /Friday, June 13, 1986 IProposed Rules 21691

0 C

0 ) E- '

I r4. 0s"

>C

C) Aj

0 A

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21691 1986
Federal Register/ Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986 / Proposed Rules

4. Amend Table I of Appendix III of

Part 261 to add the following compounds

and methods in alphabetical order:

Appendix 111-Chemical Analysis Test

Methods

TABLE 1.-ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ORGANIC

CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-846

Compound First edition Second

method(s) method(s)

Benzene .......................................... 8.02, 8.24 8020, 8024,

5030/8240

Bis(2-choroethyl)ether.................... 8.01, 8.24 8010,8240,

3510/8270

Cresol(s) ............................................. 8.04, 8.25

Dichlorobenzene(s) ........................... 8.01, 8.02,

8.12, 8.25

1,2-Dichloroethane ............................ 8.01, 8.24

1,1 -Dichloroethylene .........................

2,4-Dlnttrotoluene .............................. 8.09, 8.25

Hexachlorobenzene ............ 8.12, 8.25

Hexachlorobuladiene ........................ 8.12, 8.25

Hexachloroethane ............................. 8.12, 8.25

Isobutanol ........ ........

Methoxychlor .....................................

Mothylene chloride ...........................

Nilrobenzene ..................................... 8.09, 8.25

8040, 8250,

3510/8270

8010,8120,

8250,

3519/8270

8010, 8240,

5030/8240

5030/8240

8090, 8250,

3510/8270

8120, 8250,

3510/8270

8120. 8250,

3510/8270

8010, 8240.

3510/8270

TABLE 1.-ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ORGANIC

CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-846-Continued

First edition Second

Compound method(s) edition

method(s)

Pentachlorophenol ............................ 8.04, 8.25 8040, 8250,

3510/8270

Phenol ................................................ 8.04, 8.25 8040, 8250,

8.22 8140,

3510/8270

Pyridene ............................................. 8.06, 8.09, 8090, 8250,

8.25 3510/8270

Tetrachloroethane(s) ........... 8.01, 8.24 8010, 8240,

5030/8240

Tetrachloroethylene .......................... 5030/8240

Tetrachlorophenol(s) ........................ 8.04, 8.24 8040, 8250,

3510/8270

Toluene .............................................. 8.02, 8.24 8020, 8024,

5030/8240

Trichloroethane(s) ............................. 8.01, 8.24 8010, 8240,

5030/8240

Trichloroethylene ............................... 5030/8240

Trichlorophenol(s) ............................. 8.04, 8.25 8040, 8250,

3510/8270

PART 271 -REQUIREMENTS FOR

AUTHORIZATION OF STATE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

1. The authority citation for Part 271

continues to read as follows:

.5030/8240 Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), and

8080 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

5030/8240 amended by the Resource Conservation

8090, 8250. and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended

3510/8270 (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926).

2. Amend § 271.1 Paragraph (j) by

adding the following entry to Table 1 in

chronological order by date of

publication:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

(j) * * *

TABLE 1.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Date Title of regulation

June 13, 1986 ............................ Toxicity Characteristic.

PART 302-DESIGNATION,

REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND

NOTIFICATION

1. The authority citation for Part 302

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 102 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9602; Secs. 311

and 501(a) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.

2. Section 302.4 is amended by

revising the entry for "Characteristic of

EP Toxicity" in Table 302.4 and the

footnotes are republished as follow:

§ 302.4 Designation of hazardous

substances.

TABLE 3024.-LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES

Statutory Final RO

Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory synonyms RO Co RCRA Category Pounds (Kg) RQ Code, waste NO. Ctgr ons(g

Unlisted Hazardous W astes ..................................................................................................................................................................

Toxicity Characteristic ..................................................................................................................................................................................

Acrylonildle ....................................................................... 107131 2-Propenenitrile ........................................................................

Arsenic ........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Barium .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Benzene .................................................................. ... 71432 .....................................................................................................

eis(2-chloroethy!) ether ................. ............. ......... 111444 Dichloroethyl ether Ethane, 1,1'-oxybis[2-chIoro- ...............

Cadm ium .......................................................................................................................................................................................... : ..........

Carbon disufide ............................. 3 ................................. 75150 Carbon bisulfide ......................................................................

Carbon tetrachloride ........................................................ 56235 Methane, tetrachloro ..............................................................

Chlordane .......................................................................... 57749 Chlordane, technical 4,7-M ethanoindan, l,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-

octachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-.

Chlorobenzene ................................................................ 108907 Benzene, chloro- ......................................................................

Chloroform ........................................................................ 67663 Methane, trichloro- ................... ....................................

Chromium .......................................................................... ....................................................................................

o-CresOl ............................................................................. * 95487 o-Cresylic acid ......................... : ................................................

m -Cresol ............................................................................ 108394 m -Cresylic acid .........................................................................

p-Cresol ............................................................................ 106445 p-Cresylic acid .........................................................................

2,4-D ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................ 95501 Benzene, 1,2-dlchloro-o-Dichlorobenzene ............................

1,4Dichlorobenzene ........................................... 106467 Benzene. 1,4-dichloro-p-Dichlorobenzene .................

1,2-Dichloroethane ......................... 107062 Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-Ethylene dichloride ..............................

1,1-Dichloroethylene ........................................................ 75354 Etha ne, 1,1-dichoro-Vinylidene chloride ..............................

2,4-Dinitrotoluvne .......................................................... 121142 Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro .......................

Endnn ..........................................................................................................................................................

Heptachlor (and hydroxide) ............................................ 76448 4,7-Methano-lH mindene, 1,4,5,6.7,8,8-heptachoro3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-.

Hexachlorobenzene ....... . ... ............ 118741 Benzene, hexachloro .......................................................

Hexachlorobutadiene ....................................................... 87683 1,3-Butadiene. 1.1,2,3,4,4- hexachloro-. ...................

Hexachloroethane .......................... 67721 Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2,2-hexachloro- .............................................

Isobutanol..:................................................................... 78831 Isobuty! alcohol 1.Propanot, 2-methyl- .: .............................

Lead ............. ......................... ......................................................................................................................................

0 1,2,4 D018

• 4 D004

1 4 0005

0 1,2,3,4 D019

2,4 D020

1 4 D006

0 1,4 D021

0 1,2,4 D022

1 1,2,4 0023

.0 1,2,4 D024

0 1,2,4 P025

1 4 D007

0 1,4 D026 0 1,4 D027

.0 1,4 D028

0 1,4 D016

.0 1,2,4 D029

00 1,2,4 D030

00 1,2,4 D031

10 1,2,4 D032

10 1,2.4 D033

1 1,4 D012

1 1,2,4 D034

1. 2,4 D035

1

° 2,4 D036

1 

° 2,4 0037 1

• 4 0038

1" 4 D008

21692

100=(45.4)

1a(0.454)

1000(454)

1000V(454)

15(0.454)

1V(0.454)

5000=(2270)

5000&(2270)

1=(0.454)

100(45.4)

5000=(2270)

I =(0.454)

100:==(454)

1000-=(454)

1000=(454)

100(45.4)

100(45.4)

100(454)

5000-(2270)

5000=(2270)

1000=(454)

1(0.454)

I=(0.454)

1-(0.454)

1(0.454)

1,(0.454)

5000(2270)

luz(0.454)

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21692 1986
. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 1986/ Proposed Rules 21693

TABLE 3024.-LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES-Continued

Statutory Final RO

Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory synonyms

R0 .0 ' caet cdet waste RCRA Category Pounds (Kg) No.

Lindane .......................................................................... ................................................................................ 1 1.4 D013 X 1 (0.454) M ercury. ............... :....... ....................... .. ............................................ ...... : ........................................................................................... 1 4 D 009 X 1(0 .454)

M ethoxychlor .............................................................................................. . ...................................................................................... . 1 1.4 D 014 X 1(0.454 )

Methylene chloride ......................................................... 75092 Methane. dichloro-........... .................... 1 * 2.4 D039 C 1000(454)

Methyl ethyl ketone ..... ... ................. 78933 2-Butanone .............................................................................. t * 4 0040 D 5000(2270)

Nitrobenzene ................................................................... . . 98953 Benzene, nitro- .................................. ................................ 1000 1,2,4 D041 C 1000(454)

Pentachlorophenol........................................................ 87865 Phenol, pentachloro ................................................................ 10 1,2,4 0042 A 10-(4.54)

Phenol .................... : .......................................................... 108952 Benzene. hydroy. ....... 1000 1.2.4 D043 C 1000==(454)

Pyridine .............................................................................. 110861 .................. : ....................................... ...... . 4 D044 X 1==(0.454)

Selenium.......................................... ...... ... . ... ... ... ... ..... .......... 1. 4 D010 X 1==(0.454) Silver ............................................................................................... ..... ................................................ 1 4 D011 X 1(0.454)

1,1,t.2-Tetrachloroethane ............................................... 630206 Ethane, 1,,1.2-tetrachloro ..................................................... 1. 4 D045 X 1-(0.454)

1,1.2.2-Tetrachloroetiane ............................................... 79345 Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- ................................................... .1. 2.4 D046 X 10(0.454)

Tetrachloroethylene ................................................... 127184 Ethane, 1.1,2,2-tetrachloro- ................................................... 1. 2.4 D047 X 1=(0.454)

2,3.4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ............................................. 58902 Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-. ......................... 1. 4 0048 A 10(4.54)

Toluene ............................................................................ 108883 Benzene. m ethyl...................................................................... 1000 1,2.4 0049 C 1000(454)

Toxaphene .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1,4 D 0 t5 X 1= (0.454)

1.1.1-Tnchloroethane ................................................. 71556 Methyl chloroform .......... I ......................... : ................. ........... 1. 2.4 0050 C 1000(454)

1,1.2-Tnchloroethane ........ . . . . . . 79005 Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro- ........................................................... 1. 2,4 0051 X 10(0.454)

Trichloroethylene .............................................................. 79016 Tnchloroethene ........................................................................ 1000 1,2,4 D052 C 1000=(454)

2.4.5-Trichloro-phenol ..................................................... 95954 Phenol. 2,4,5-trichloro ............................................................ 10 1.4 D053 A 10i5(4.54)

2.4,6-Trichloro-phenol ...................................................... 88062 Phenol, 2,4,6-tichloro- ........................................................... 10 1,2,4 D054 A 100(4.54)

2,4.5-TP .. . . ............................................................................................. . . ........................................................................................ .. 100 1,4 D 017 B 100(45.4)

Vinyl chloride .................................................................... 75014 Ethene, chloro-. ....................................................................... 1. 2,3.4 D055 X 1 r(0.454)

(-Indicates the statutory source as d6fined by 1,2,3, or 4 below.

1-Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is CWA Section 31 1(b)(4). 2-Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is CWA Section 307(a). 3-Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is CAA Section 112. 4-ndicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.

1 *-Indicates that the 1-pound RO is a CERCLA statutory Re.

'v-Indicates that the RD is subject to change when the assessment o1 potential carcinogenicity and/or chronic toxicity is completed. = -Indicates that an adjusted RD is proposed in a speatte NPRM [50 FR 13154, April 4, 1985]. ===-The Agency may adjust the RO for methyl isocyanate in a future rulemakinq: until then the statutory 1-pound RD applies.

IFR Doc. 86-13033 Filed 6-12-86; 8:45 amj

BILLING CODE 6560-50-

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21693 1986
HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21694 1986