# + 2

(,1 1/,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 [FRL2940-61
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identificationand Listingof 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 ofthe 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 ofhazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.Today's action is necessary both to define further the scope ofthe 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 forfurther protection ofpublic health and the environment. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule mustbe submitted on or before August 12, 1986. Apublic hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 1986 at9:30 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 ofall 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 DC20460. The EPA RCRA docket is located in the sub-basement
area at the above address, and is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, the public must make an appointment by calling Mia Zmud at 475-9327 orKate Blow at 382-4675. A maximum of50 pages ofmaterial 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 

### ofthis preamble areavailable inthe docket. The publichearing will be held
on July 14, 1986 at thefollowing location: Vista International Hotel, 1400 M:Street, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The hearing willbegin at 9:30 a.m., with registration at 9:00a.m., and willrun until4:00 p.m. unless concluded earlier. Anyone wishing to make a statement at the hearing shouldnotify, in writing, Ms. Geraldine Wyer,Public Participation Officer, Office ofSolid Waste (WH562), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Persons wishing to make oral presentations must restrict them4o 15 minutes and aie encouraged to have written copies oftheir complete comments forinclusion in the official record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For general information contact the 

### RCRA Hotline, Office of SolidWaste (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 thisproposed rule contact: Todd A. Kimmell, Office ofSolid Waste (WH562B), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-4770. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1.

Background 11.

Development ofToxicity 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 LeachingProcedure

A. Introduction B.Objectives C.Disposal Environment and Model D.LeachingProcedure E.LeachingProcedure Issues IV.Other Aspects ofProposal

A.Testing Frequency and Recordkeeping B.Relationship toMultiple EPand-Oily

Waste EP C.AnalyticalMethods D.Notification Requirements V.Relationship to Other Regulatory Authorities VI. State Authority

A. Applicability ofRulesin 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. ChronicToxicity Reference Levels B.

### GroundWater Transport Equation C.Tables or Proposed Contaminants;and

Data Used to Develop Regulatorylevels D.Development and Evaluation ofthe

TCLP IX.References I. Background
Under section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPAwas charged with identifying those wastes which pose a hazard to human health and the environment ifimproperly managed. It further called on EPA to identify such wastes through development oflists of hazardous waste and through characteristics ofhazardous wastes. These two means ofidentifying 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 40CFR 261.11(a)(3)). This process involves literature reviews, engineering analyses, surveys and questionnaires, and site visits, including sampling and analysis ofwastes. As such, the listing process may require from 1to 3years ormore, depending on the complexity of the industry being investigated.

. Theprocess of identifying wastes as "hazardous" by reason ofa characteristic is fundamentally different. Characteristics are those properties which, ifexhibited 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 improperlymanaged,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 ifa specific waste possesses hazardous levels ofthe 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 in40 CFR 261.11(a)(3). This reflects the Agency's philosophy, first articulated in May of1980, thatthe characteristics define broad classes of wastes that are clearly hazardous, while the listing process defines some wastes thatmay pass the characteristic, but are ponetheless hazardous wastes (45 FR 33111).

In carrying out the RCRA mandate, EPAidentified a number of characteristics which, ifexhibited by a waste, would indicate that thewaste is
ahazardous waste and should be managed as such. One of these characteristics, theExtraction 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 ofspecific toxic species.

The EPTCisthe only characteristic which directly relates to the toxicity ofa waste. This characteristic entails use of
a leaching test, the EP, which is used in determining ifan unacceptably high level ofground water contamination might result fromimproper waste management. The EP resultsin a liquid extract which is analyzed for eight metals (arsenic,barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and silver), fourinsecticides (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 dilutionexpected to
occur duringmigration ofthe leachate to the ground water, through useofa generic dilution/attenuation factor of 100(Ref. 26).

At the time ofpromulgation, EPA recognized two major shortcomings of the EPTC.The first was that the only benchmarks forestablishing toxicity levels ofspecific chemicals, which were both scientifically recognized and which addressed chronicexposure, were the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards (DWS). The Agency considered incorporating other standards, such as theWater Quality Criteria that were being developed tinder the Clean Water Act. Preliminary drafts ofthese criteria, however, received substantial negative comment from the scientific community. The Agency thus put offexpansion of the EPTC pendingdevelopment 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 oforganics, EPAbelieves that other aspects ofthe EPTC can be improved. Forexample, ground water modeling and knowledge of leaching and fate and transport mechanisms have advanced to the point thatmathematical models can be used to identify species-specific dilution/attenuation factors, rather than relying on the generic 100times level
now employed in the EPTC. Also, the EP protocol isknown 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 ofthe 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 ofhazardous waste, including measures or indicators oftoxicity. EPA intends to address both ofthese 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 alsoplanning toadd another facet to the hazardous waste characteristics. Specifically, EPA is working on a mechanism by which to identify wastes as hazardous by virtue oftheir 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 ofsolvents considered listed hazardous wastes to include certain solvent mixtures (50FR 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 aground 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 ofhazardous 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 forhazardous waste and procedures by which EPA will determine whether to allow continued land disposal ofspecific 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 -theregulatory level for carcinogens, and
a different confidence interval forthe 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 ofconfidence 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 ofa ground water transport equation), to calculate the regulatory level concentrations for individual toxicants. B. Chronic ToxicityReferencelevels

Implementation ofthe Toxicity Characteristic level setting approach described below, requires theinitial input ofa toxicity limit to establish a regulatory level for each contaminant. Limits set for protection against chronic toxicity effects are the reference standard ofchoice since this level will usually be protective for both chronic and acute effects.The first step in developing regulatory levels is therefore, the development ofa 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 forcertain substances in particular media. Since these have received Agency and public review and evaluation, EPA is proposing to-usesuchstandards as the starting point forthe back calculation model, where such standards are available. EPA used the DWS for the 8 elements and 6 pesticides as the basis ofthe Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic.

Drinking water standards are based upon toxicity, treatment technologies, costs, and other feasibility factors such
as availablity ofanalytical methods. In developing DWS's, the intital step is the identification of non-enforceable health limits. The assessment process for establishing thesehealth goals includes evaluation ofthe quality and weight-ofevidence ofsupporting toxicological studies, absorption rates ofspecific toxicants, the possibility that a compound orelement 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 ofa substance which will result in no adverse effect even after a lifetime ofsuch 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 ofacarcinogen over a lifetime which will result in an incidence ofcancer equal to the specific risk level. An RSD established at the 10 - 5 risk level translates to a probability ofone in
one hundred thousand that an individual might contract some form ofcancer in his orher lifetime.

In developing toxicity levels for carcinogens, EPAis further proposing a weight-of-evidence approach which involves categorizing carcinogens according to the quality and adequacy ofthe supporting toxicological studies. This approach was proposed by EPA in its Carcinogen Risk Assessment guidelines published in theFederal Register on November 23, 1984 (49FR 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 ofthe toxicity level usedin these standards is compound-specific, and is apportioned according to exposure assessment data, ifadequate data exist, orby use ofan arbitrary value of20 percent if adequate exposure assessment data do not exist. EPA isproposing 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 inthe RSD would still be well within the margin of uncertainty ofthe estimated RSD. Rather, EPA is proposing to use 100 percent ofthe RSD value. Section VIII(A) ofthis preamble provides detailed information as to the identification ofchronic toxicity reference levels.

One area thatthe Agency solicits comment on iswhether, as an - alternative to usingthe 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 ofattenuation and dilution that a compound is expected to undergo during transport through the ground water to an underground drinking water source isdetermined. 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 overa specified distance from the disposal unit to the point ofexposure (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 hydrolysisand soilabsorption data, coupled with parameters describing ageneric underground environment (e.g., ground water flow rate, soil porosity, ground water p1-), to calculate the degree ofattenuation and dilution acompound 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 ofasecond 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 workon modeling metal transport,EPA is retaining the present EP Toxicity Characteristic levels forthe elemental toxicants.

Details ofthe ground water transport equation to be used fororganic compounds are provided in section VIIi(B). Note that in theFederal Register ofJanuary 14, 1986, the Agency ,proposedto use the same basic ground water transport equation for use in the Land-Disposal Restrictions Rule (51 FR 16021. The proposed Land Disposal RestrictionsRule equation, however, contains minor differences to account for the additional engineering controls (e.g.. landfill caps), required of Subtitle Chazardous 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 theToxicity Characteristic final rule.Comment specific to EPA's use ofthe equation for this rule, should however, be submitted.
D.ProposedToxicantsandRegulatory Levels

In order to establish a Toxicity Characteristic regulatory level for individual compounds, adequate and verified data must existfor EPA to (1) identify atoxicity level (i.e., DWS, RfD, or RSD), and (2)calculate adilution/ attenuation factor through application of the ground water transport equation. As discussed previously, EPA will retain the 100times factor used in the current EP Toxicity Characteristic for the elemental drinking water toxicants. Due to the Agency's continuingefforts to develop an adequate ground water transport equation for the metals, addition of elemental and anionic toxicants to theToxicity Characteristic is being delayed. The Agency expects to propose ToxicityCharacteristic thresholds for nickel and thallium during the period between proposal andpromulgation ofthis rule.

In selectingadditional organic toxicants to incorporate intoday's proposal, the Agency identified those Appendix VIII compounds for which there existed apromulgated or proposed drinking water standard, oran RfD or RSD. The compounds identified as a result ofthese 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 ofa total of52 compounds forthe 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 ofthe 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 thisproperty, the Agency is working to identify such wastes through use ofa 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 oftotal 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 ofdeveloping a solvent power testwhich would be designed to determine the actual ability ofa 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 ofthe analytical constraints EPA faced in establishing regulatory levels. Section VIII(C) provides tables presenting each compound and the data thatEPA has used to calculate the regulatory level. EPA anticipates that the list oftoxicants to be included in the Toxicity Characteristic will be periodically expanded as more information on the Appendix VIII compounds is developed.
E.AnalyticalConstraints

As illustrated inTable 1(and further in section VIII(C]), the regulatory levels forthe proposed compounds span about 5 orders of magnitude (i.e., from the low parts per billion io 100parts permillion). 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 ofthe toxicity levels for the carcinogens (and some of the non-carcinogens) (see section VIII(A)) are very low, depending on the' magnitude ofthe dilution/attenuation factor, the calculated level will alsobe very low. This presents a problem for the Agency since some ofthese calculated thresholds are below the analytical level measurable using currently available methodology. This affects 7ofthe 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

ISuch levels could be set at the analytical detection limit or, asan alternative, they could be setat the limits of accurate quantitation (i.e., reliably achieved within specified limits ofprecision 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.

Ifdata are unavailable from interlaboratory studies, quantitation limits are estimated based upon the detection limits and an estimate ofa 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 limitin 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 5times the detection limit is a fair expectation formost regulatory and commercial laboratories. Public comment is specifically requested on the use of5 times the detection limit as a general rule as towhat levels can be expected to be measured routinely by commercial laboratories with reliability.

Use ofeither detection limits or quantitation limits would allow-for -regulatorylevels that fall below the analytically measurable level to be. periodically updated as advances are made in analytical methodology. EPA is proposing the use ofthe quantitation limitsbecause the determination that a compound is present (in the extract above a specified value) conclusively demonstrates the presence ofa 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 99percent confidence that the true value is greater than zero.The specifications of such aconcentration are limited by the fact that detection limits are a variable affected by the performance ofa given measurement system. Detection limits are not necessarily reproducible over time ina given laboratory, evenwhen 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

.................. 0019

.................. 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
................. D010
............. 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 ofthese compounds in a water matrix. Since TCLP extracts would alsobe 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 anoption, EPA isreluctant todo so due to the degree of environmental protection that might be sacrificed. EPAis, 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 ofthe 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, alsopose 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 ofthe issues presented in this section are requested to assist EPA inmaking 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) ofthis preamble)?

* What is the precision/accuracy of the analytical methods at the proposed quantitation levels?

* Are there sufficient qualified laboratories capable ofmeasuring at proposed quantitation levels? Ill. Development of theLeaching Procedure A. Introduction

The Extraction Procedure (EP)was designed to simulate the leaching that would result when a solid waste is codisposed .withmunicipal 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 ofthe 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 ofmetals from an industrial waste. The impetus behind development of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was the need also to address the leaching oforganic compounds (Ref. 26).

In addition, EPAbelieves 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 of5.0-0.2. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe liquid (extract) derived fromthe leaching test. These steps, involving pressure filtration through a 0.45um 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 ofthe test and accounting forthe loss ofwaste materials to the sidewalls of.sample containers, were felt to be ofuse in lowering the cost of the test and improving the overall precision ofthe method. Thus, the Agency believes that development ofa second generation extraction procedure was ofvalue even ifthe 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 ofthe EP, as well as thisnew 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 toxiccompounds. EPA believes that the EPadequately accomplished ihisgoal forthe currently regulated toxicants.

When the EP was developed, the Agency had little empirical data upon which to baseits 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 ofthe 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, ifpossible, 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 permitEPA toexpand the toxicity characteristic to encompass organics, yet require only one leaching test for both organics and inorganics.
C.Disposal EnvironmentandModel The specific environment modeled by both the current EP and the TCLP is codisposal of industrial waste with refuse in a sanitary landfill. TheAgency's
concern was that potentially hazardous waste, ifnot brought under the control of the RCRA hazardous waste system, might be sent to sanitary landfills,with
a resulting high level ofleaching activity. Thisconcern 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 ofcontaminant migration, as indicated by the TCLP, could reasonably
occur in the course ofother types of land management ofwastes (see section VIII(D)).

Hence, the experiments used to develop the TCLPwere set up to conform as closely as possible with the co-disposal model. Specific features of this model were that the landfill is composed of5 percent industrial solid waste and 95 percent municipal waste, and that the character ofthe 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.LeachingProcedure

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 ofthe 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 isreasonably accurate in terms ofmodeling a field-scale co-disposal scenario for both organics and inorganics. In addition, it appears that many ofthe 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 TCLPdevelopment and evaluation program. Theregulation 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.LeachingProcedure Issues
In an effort to identify and resolve any potential problems associated with the TCLP prior to proposal, and also to inform the public ofEPA's activities in this area, EPA held a number of meetings at which various aspects ofthe procedure were reviewed and draft procedures circulated. These included public discussions at meetings ofthe Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

As a result ofthese meetings and as a result ofthe Agency's own efforts in these areas, a number ofissues have been identified and someminor changes to the TCLP protocol have also been made. Following is a discussion ofthese issues, and how they have been addressed in the proposed TCLP. 1.Overall Issues

a.AccuracyofTCLP.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 ofthe issues associated with the TCLPis whether the method is adequately accurate in this respect. 

### In an effort to betterquantify 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 ofthese comparisons indicate that roughly halfofthe 95 individual target compounds (from the 11 wastes examined in both Phases I and II), were within -32 percent and +76 percent of theirrespective field lysimeter target concentrations. Roughly three-fourths ofthe95 individual target compounds were within -80 percent and +86 percent oftheir respective field lysimeter target concentrations (Ref.25).

The standard deviation ofthe 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 ofthe target compounds within
one standard deviation ofthe distribution. This is particularly significant since the laboratory test duration is-18 hours, whereas the field lysimeter experiments were run for approximately 3months. EPAbelieves thatthe accuracy of theTCLP is adequate in terms ofindicating the potential for wastes to pose a hazard if mismanaged.

b. UseofTCLP forsewagesludge disposal.EPA expects to propose in September 1986 sewage sludge management standards under Section 405(d) ofthe CleanWater Act. Once the Section405(d) standards are promulgated, EPA is considering exempting sewage sludgefrom RCRA regulation. The section 405(d) standards will tailorEPA's control strategy to the management ofspecific risks to human health and theenvironment from each of the sludge use and disposal practices. The Agency solicits comments on this potential approach to regulating sewage sludge.

c.Extentofexperimentation. Another issue related to accuracy is whether EPA has examined enough contaminants and waste types in its TCLP development program. TheTCLP
was developed based on data from 11 wastes and 95target compounds which leached from these wastes (Ref. 6and 7).The amount ofworkinvolved 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 TCLPto insure that thepotential 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 TCLPextraction 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 inextraction fluid composition would have on solubilization oforganics (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 ofthese 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 EPAto 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 Dlandfill, and co-disposal with industrial waste in a Subtitle C landfill which suffers some form ofcontainment 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 ofregulation, there is no reason to expect that waste would go to the more expensive Subtitle C facilities. TheAgency believes that it is reasonable to base its regulations on adverse'effects when in a non-Subtitle C environment.

Forthe 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, orthe waste from

- only one generator, are likely to pose less ofa hazard than would general sanitary orindustrial 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 ofthe 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 ofa 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 ofthe 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, wascodisposal 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 ofSolid Waste (Ref.14) concluded that "... in general, Subtitle D landfills accept industrial wastes but not organic solvents or liquids." Wastes do have the potential tobe 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 SubtitleD 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 usedin developing the leaching procedure, and the level ofsolvents which canbe found at Subtitle D landfills.

The Agency recognizes thatnot 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 someindustrial 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, ifthe Agency 

### discovered an uncontrolled waste situation (e.g., waste disposed in an open pit) it mightbe difficult to determine what characteristic test shouldapply to the waste.because there may be very little available information about how the waste wasgenerated. Moreover, even where some information existed about the source ofthe waste, theAgency believes that the existence ofvaried toxicity tests would encourage disputes about which testshould apply to a particular waste.

It is therefore reasonable to use a Subtitle Dsanitary landfill as ageneral model ofhow industrial wastes might be disposed.The Agency, however,solicits comments on whether thisscenario is appropriate for allwastes. Commenters identifying a different scenario for particular wastes should explain why the Subtitle Dsanitarylandfill model is inappropriate and what disposal scenario would be appropriate for those wastes, including a discussion ofwhat leaching medium is suggested by that scenario: Inresponse to this information, theAgency may develop special management standards for a class or classes ofwastes.

Asan additional matter,the Agency believes that the predicted degree of contaminant concentration in leachate couldreasonably occurin the course of other types oflandbased waste management (e.g., surface impoundments). The TCLP, as well as theEP,basically involve mixing the waste with an aqueous leaching media, and seeing ifcertain contaminants can migrate from the waste to a significant degree. If suchmobility is demonstrated, EPA believes that thewaste inquestion poses a potentialhazard to ground water,and that proper management controls need to be instituted to preclude unacceptable contamination of ground water.This applies to the leaching ofboth organics and inorganics.

First, as discussed previously, minor changes to primarilyaqueous media do not generally affect the leaching of organic compounds. Forinorganics, the acidity afforded bythe TCLPleaching fluid accounts for the possibility that wastes could be subjected to mild acidic conditions occurring in other typesof land disposal environments.

Wastes dohave thepotential to be subjected to more aggressive conditions that might be better modeled through the
use ofstrong.inorganic acids, alkalies, or solvents. The survey referred to earlier (Ref. 14) found that Subtitle Dfacilities generally take only smallamounts of organic solvent wastes (e.g., <1 to 2 percent ofthetotal 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. Treatmentofhighlyalkaline wastes.As mentioned previously, highly alkaline wastes were not adequately represented by the 11 wastes used in the TCLPdevelopment program. EPA is concerned that the potential hazard posed by these wastes may be underestimated by the acetate buffer' system initially chosen forthe TCLP (See section VIII(D)). Specifically, EPA believes that an increase in the leaching ofinorganic 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 1liquid 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). TheTCLP acetate buffer leaching fluid may therefore not adequately account forthe leaching of heavy metals fromwastes ofmoderate to high alkalinity.

To address this problem, EPA determined that an increase in the acidity ofthe leaching medium for the alkaline wastes would adequately account for the increased leaching of these species that could eventually
occur inlandfills. 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 of7 years indicated that the leachate generated by decomposing municipal waste contains approximately 0.14 equivalents of acidity per kilogram ofdry refuse. Applying this data to the hypothetical co-disposal environment, EPA concluded that 1gram ofindustrial waste could potentially be acted upon by 2 milliequivalents ofacid. For.a hundred gram sample (the EP's minimum sample size), this translated to a total of 200 milliequivalents ofacid (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 fora hundred gram sample.

As indicated above, steady or increased leaching ofinorganic species
was demonstrated to occur up to and afterthe 20 to 1liquid to solid ratio (Ref. 81. While this.data demonstrates that the 70 milliequivalent acetate buffer system is not aggressive enough for mostofthe inorganic-species investigated, it supports theuse ofa 200 milliequivalent acetic acid solution for only some ofthe inorganic species. TheAgency is, however, proposing useofthe200 milliequivalent acetic acid solution for alkaline wastes to be protective of human health and the environment when such leaching doesoccur.The Agency believes this action isjustified given the conservative nature ofthe 

### Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of1984. In addition, as indicated in the report on Phase Iof the TCLP development effort (Ref. 6), municipal waste leachates, both those generated in lysimeters and real leachates, have been observed inother studies to contain higher concentrations. ofcarboxylic acids (measuredas total organic carbon, ofwhich approximately '70 percent is made up ofcarboxylic acids (Ref. 6)), than'those measured in the nunicipal waste leachate used in the TCLPdevelopment program.

Hence, EPA is proposing a two leaching fluid system for theTCLP.As explained above, the Agency-has chosen to base the strength ofthe alkaline waste leaching medium on thebasis behind theEP's limit on the amount of acetic acid used. This will involve a 2 milliequiivalent ofacid per gram of waste leaching fluid forwastes of moderate to high alkalinity and'a 0.7 milliequivalent per gram ofwaste leaching fluid for other wastes A simple test ofwaste 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 fluidwould be used Note that EPA is notproposing thisdual leaching fluid system.for theevaluation of volatile compounds, sincelthese compounds are expected to be unaffected by slight changes in acidity. More detail is providedin SectionVIII (D)and in the.background document supporting theTCLP (Ref.33).



## f. Useofapre-screentest.One
concern thatwas raised with the TCLP wasthat.the protocol for dealing with volatile compounds is likely to be considerably more expensive than the protocol for thenon-volatiles. Similarly, since this proposal involves additional analytes; the analytical costs associated 'with the TCLP protocol will also increase over that ofthe EP. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to establish a pre-screen test for the TCLP protocol. This pre-screen consists ofa total ' analysis of the waste itself(using SW846methods, 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 thewaste. 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 theirwaste does not contain sufficient amounts ofcertain compounds, and therefore, that further analysis would be unnecessary. Perhaps
a prime example ofthis is wastes resulting from a combustion process, like ashesfrom incineration. Since these. wastes would likely be devoid of volatile components running the TCLP forvolatiles would be unnecessary. 2. Technical Issues

a. Useofextractiondevices.The EP protocol contains a descriptive definition ofwhat 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 ofspecificity in agitation conditions is a major source of variability.

Today's proposal eliminates this
source ofvariability by specifying a single means ofagitation (i.e.,rotary tumbler), and a fixed agitation rate (30±2rpm). The rotary oftumbler type of extractor was selected for several
reasons. It is widely recognized as a reproducible means ofcontacting the liquid andsolid, and has been standardized by ASTM in theirdraft method D3987 (Ref. 1). Also, a factorin 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 ofoperating conditions (Ref.29). Although EPArecognized 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
usewhen extracting wastes with volatile organiccompounds. This device
can accommodate.liquid/solid separation within the device, and obviates theneed for an outside pressure filtration apparatus. One issue associated with use ofthis device is that, due to its 500ml internal capacity, itcan only accommodate amaximum sample size of25 grams fora 100 percent solids sample. (A device ofthe normal 2 litercapacity was impractical due to its large size and weight.) For a waste of less than100 percent solids, the maximum sample size the device can accommodate is tiedto thepercent solids ofthe waste.The device can only accommodate theminimal 100gram sample sizefor wastes that are 25 percent solids orless.

Anotherproblem associated with the extractor is that while EPA is proposing to require the zero-headspace extractor when dealing with volatiles,EPA is requiring use ofregular 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 tobe allowed to be used formetals andnon-volatiles
as well,certain features ofthe device, and other constraints, have led EPA to allowits use onlywhen dealing with volatiles.

The problem touches upon the SAB's
concern that,inthe interest ofprecision,
one device and one set ofoperating conditions shouldbe specified (See sectionVIII(D)). There are actually two factorshere which differ between regularextraction bottles and the zeroheadspace vessel which could affect precision.The first is that since regular extraction bottles will provide forat least some headspace, agitation is likely to be slightly greater than with the zeroheadspace vessel.

The second factoris that'the two devices involve different typesofliquid/ solid separation techniques. Whereas the ZHErequires piston-applied pressure, use ofbottles involves conventional airpressure filtration. These two means ofapplying pressure to accomplish liquid/solid separation
are capable ofproducing different results for some waste types.

b.Particlesizereduction.TheEP protocol requires particle size reduction in thosecases 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 ofless 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. Theproposed TCLP does not allow use ofthe SIP (i.e., requires particle sizereduction) for several reasons. Thefirst reason again has to do with precision and the Science Advisory Board's comment to limitthe
new procedure to one device and set of operating conditions. Secondly, the Agency believes that given the uncertainties concerning thelong term environmental stability ofsolidified wastes, an environmentally conservative approach is warranted. The SIP was originally developed as a means ofassessing 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 ofsurface area, and thus the area ofpotential leachate contact. Many processes also provide for chemical stabilization by binding heavy metals in insoluble hydroxide and other complexes.

TheAgency believes that physical stabilization alone is not enoughto insure that components do not leach in significant quantities from wastes. There
are two types ofactions which may act to reduce the physical integrity of stabilizedwastes. 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 ofnatural 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 ofnatural weathering on monolithic wastes, and may propose the
use ofadditional predictive methodology at some later date. Inthe 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 sizereduction also involves the treatment of volatile compounds. While EPA isattempting to prevent loss of volatiles (through introduction ofthe ZHE), ifa waste containing volatiles requires particle size reduction, it is likely that some portion ofthese 

### volatiles willbe 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 orto prevent the loss ofvolatiles? 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 .sizereduction be conducted to the extent possible on the sample as it is being taken.

The protocol does recognize, however, that there willbe 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 thevapor pressure ofthe volatiles, and then that the particle size should be reduced with minimal exposure to the atmosphere to, at least, minimize the loss ofvolatiles. Another alternative is to require extractions under both conditions. Comments and alternative suggestions regarding this issue are solicited.

c. Qualityassurance requirements. The quality assurance requirements of theEP are relatively straightforward. They require a minimum ofoneblanket per sample batch, and the method of standard addition (MSA) to be run for all samples. The.Agency has received comments that requiring MSA forall 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 needclarification and expansion in addressing other aspects ofquality assurance, such as sample holding times.

The reader is referred to section 9 qc the draft TCLPprotocol, which appears as Appendix II to Part 261 in the regulation section ofthis proposed rule, forreview ofthe quality assurance requirements. One change that deserves mentionhere is in the requirement for the method ofstandard addition (MSA). Recognizing that MSA is expensive and not always necessary, EPA is proposing to require MSA onlyunder certain conditions (See Proposed Appendix II to Part 261). This change recognizes that MSA is necessary only when the measured concentration ofa constituent is close enough to the threshold, that matrix interferences could yield awrong decision regarding the determination of hazard, orwhen there is evidence that
severe matrix interference may be present. IV. Other Aspects ofProposal
A. TestingFrequencyand Recordkeeping

Under the framework being proposed today, the determination ofwhether 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 testingrequirements, which are discussed in detail below. First, EPAcould 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 theRCRA hazardous waste characteristics. Second, EPA could require testing ofwastes at a frequency specified by regulation. Third, EPA could require the generator to test, documenting the'determination ofthe appropriate testing frequency based on guidance provided by the Agency.

As indicated above, existing regulations (40CFR 262.11) require generators of solid wastes to determine whether their waste is hazardous. Ifthe solid waste is not specifically excluded from regulation, and it is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of40 CFR Part 261, then the generator must determine whether the waste is hazardous by any of the hazardous waste characteristics included in Subpart C of40CFR Part 261. This determination may be made by either testing the waste or bythe application of knowledge ofthe 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 ofthe 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 oftesting. 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 ofthe 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 SolidWaste's Industry Studies Program and data from the Office ofWater's Effluent Guidelines Program, it is clear that many waste streams are extremely variable in concentrations ofchemical 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 plantor 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 ofrequiring 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 ofthis 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 ofspecifying generic periodic testing intervals.

Even iftesting is specifically required,
a problem still remains as to how to
assure that the waste sample subjected to testing is representative ofboth the batch and the process from which they
are derived. This problem arises not only in the context ofthe Toxicity Characteristic program, but also in connection with otherwaste 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.RelationshipToMultipleEPandOily WasteEP

As a result ofitswaste listing program, EPA has listed a number of wastes as being hazardous on the basis that these wastes typically orfrequently containhazardous constituents at significant levels, or that they typically
orfrequently exhibit one or more ofthe characteristics ofhazardous wastes. In recognition, however, that individual wastes may not actually be hazardous, due perhaps to a different process or the
use ofdifferent 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 amore waste specific approach, anumber ofsituations have arisen which have led EPA to modify the EP to'address specific situations. The
use ofmultiple 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 ofoily materials. The OWEP was adopted because ofthe 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 ofsuch 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.AnalyticalMethods

The analytical methods proposed to be used forTCLP extracts are shown in section VIII(C) (See Table C-2), and also appear in the regulation section ofthis 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. Theleaching fluid used in the
new leaching procedure is0.1 Mwith respect to acetate. Due to potential interference from the acetate ion, the routinely used analytical methods used for these compounds (i.e., GC/MS-SW846method 8270) may not be sufficient. EPA ispresently 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 ionfrom the extract before determination ofthephenolics 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). AGC/MS method would be preferable since use ofthe HPLC method could add significantly to analytical costs. Should the presence of the acetate ion present substantial problems to GC/MS, itis 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 ofthese studies and evaluation ofdata received, a method for the phenolics will be selected and proposed foruse with TCLP extracts priorto promulgation ofthis rule.
D.NotificationRequirements

The Agency has decided not to require persons who generate, transport, treat, store, ordispose of these hazardous waste to notifythe Agency within90 days ofpromulgation that they
are managing these wastes. The Agency views the notification requirement to be unnecessary in this case since we believe that most, ifnot 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 ofthese wastes has not previously notified and received an identification number, that person must get an identification number pursuant to 40CFR 262.12 before he can generate, transport, treat, store, ordispose 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 (51FR 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 ofmagnitude higher risk level forthe carcinogens, the regulatory thresholds my be different than those proposed for banning wastes fromland disposal.

The reason for the different thresholds in theToxicity 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 selfimplementing hazardous waste definitions inwhich 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 ofcertainty 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 topose a hazard tohuman health-or the environment, the Agency undertakes waste specific evaluations under the auspices ofits listing program. Wastes which are determined to require controlled, management after consideration ofthe factors identified in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), (e.g., the nature ofthe toxic constituents, toxicant mobility under various environmental management scenarios, volume ofwaste generated, potential methods ofmanagement), are then specifically listed as hazardous wastes and subjected to the appropriat.e RCRA management controls.

For the landdisposal restrictions program, the screening levels identified through the equation are.levels which EPA is very-certain areprotective 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 ofindividual facilities. This-case-by-case determinatibn is.initiated by petitions forexmption from the land disposal restrictions. The evlauafion ofthese petitions will be based on results of modeling similarto 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 ofproof'for a showing, that a hazardous waste is suitable for land disposal. Forthis reason, the Agency believes it is appropriate to use. a higher level ofconfidence and a lower
cancer risk level ii the modeling for the land disposa[ restrictions decisions, than isused for theToxicity Characteristic. However,-theAgency requests comment on whether therisk 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 ofRCRA,itautomatically becomes a hazardous substance under section 101(14) of'the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980 (CERCLA). CERCLA section 103 requires that persons in charge of vessels orfacilities from which, hazardous,substances havebeen released in-quantities that are equal to
orgreater 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, April4, 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 ofIgnitability, Corrosivity, Reactivity, and Extraction Procedure Toxicity (ICRE): (See §302.4(b) ofthe April4, 1985 final rule).

There are currently only 14 substances listed under CERCLA as ICRE wastes on the basfs ofthe.EP Toxicity Characteristic, most ofwhich
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 of40 CFR 302.4, to
remove "Characterfstic ofEPToxicity" 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) (50FR 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 ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA establishes guidelines for.the disposal and use ofsewage. sludge. The regulation ofsewage sludge is necessarily'a complex-matter because these sludges fall within the-jurisdiction ofseveral 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 ofsludge, 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 ofRCRA, the Agency's strategyfbr the development-of a comprehensiVe sewage sludge management regulation will result in the establishment.ofa 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. Ifappropriate, sewage sludge that would be defined as a hazardous waste will be exempted from coverageunder provisions ofSubtitle C ofRCRA,
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. Applicabilityof Rules inAuthorized 

### States

Under section 3006 ofRCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to administer and enforce the RCRA program within the State. (See 40 CFR Part271 forthe standards and requirements for authorization.) Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008, 7003 and 3013 ofRCRA, although authorized States have primary enforcement responsibility.

Priorto the HSWA, a State with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu ofEPA administering the Federal program in that State.The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits forany 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. NewFederal 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) ofRCRA, 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. EPAis 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 1in section 271.1(j) which identifies the Federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to HSWA and that take effect in all States,regardless oftheir authorization status. States may apply for either interim or final authorization for the HSWAprovisions identified in Table 1,as discussed in the following section of thispreamble.
B.Effect on StateAuthorizations

As noted above, EPA will implement today's proposed rule, when promulgated, inauthorized States until they modify their programs to adopt these rules and themodification 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 orequivalent to EPA's. The procedures and schedule for State program modifications under section 3006(b) are described in 40CFR 271.21. The same procedures shouldbe 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 ofEPA's regulations if only regulatory changes are necessary, or within two years ofpromulgation 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 intoday'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 isnot authorized to carry out these requirements in lieu ofEPA until the State program modification is approved. States with existing rules may continue to administer and enforce their standards as a matter ofState law. In implementing the Federal program, EPA" willwork with States under cooperative agreements to minimize duplication of efforts.

States that submit official applications for final authorization lessthan 12 months after promulgation ofEPA'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 orequivalent toEPA's within the timeperiods discussed above. VII. Economic and Regulatory Impacts A. RegulatoryImpactAnalysis 1.Executive Order 12291

Executive Order 12291 requires .regulatoryagencies to conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for any majorrule. 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 orlocal government agencies, or geographic regions, or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, orthe ability of United States-based enterprises to compete in domestic orexport 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 theresults of thisanalysis 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 ofthese cleanup decisions, it was not possible to quantify this overestimation. ,

The purpose ofsection VII(Al)is to summarize themethodologies and findings oftheRIA. Section VII(A)(2) discusses thebasic approach taken in the RIA, and provides theregulatory alternatives examined. Section VII(A)(3) liststhe industries projected to be affected by theproposed 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 theresults of the benefit and cost estimations. The full draftRIA is available as part ofone of the background documents supporting this proposed regulation (Ref.22).

This proposed rule was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget forreview, as required byExecutive Order 12291. 2. Basic Approach/Regulatory Alternatives

EPA isproposing to expand its list of contaminants under the EPToxicity 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 EPAwas in the process ofrefining both its chronic toxicity reference levels for some ofthe compounds, and its ground watertransport model, many of the actual levels proposed today could not be used in estimating regulatory impact. Since the ground water transport model was in theprocess 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 of10, 100, and 1,000
were applied to estimated chronic toxicity reference levels, to arrive at three levels ofregulation. Thus,. including the status quo (i.e., no regulation), a total offourregulatory alternatives were examined.

This approach was taken as it would provide minimum and maximum estimates ofregulatory impact, and also because itprovided EPA with comparative cost and benefits estimates for three levels ofregulation. Since the' regulatory levels forthe elemental drinking water standards are being retained, and since the TCLPis expected to be roughly-equivalent to the EP, this RIA also assumes that theuniverse 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:

Alternative1. Includes all currently unregulated wastes which would produce a TCLP extract containing any ofthe contaminants at a level greater than or equal to 100times the chronic toxicityreference level.

Alternative2.Same.as above except this alternative evaluates a level greater than or equal to 10 times the chronic toxicity reference level.

Alternative3.Same as above except this alternative evaluates a level greater than or equal to 1,000 times the chronic toxicity reference level.

Alternative4. Status quo (i.e., no regulation).

The proposed regulation, since it employs compound specific attenuation factors, doesnot exactly mirror any of the alternatives studied. Rather, it falls between alternatives 2and 3,with 40 compounds having a-dilution/ attenuation factor of14.4, and 12' compounds with factors ranging from 18 to 150 (See section VIII(C). Aswill be
seen fromthe discussion which'follows, alternatives 1 and 2 both yield almost identical results for both costs.and benefits. Thus, basing the conclusions
on theresults ofalternatives 1 or2 are not expected to.result in any significant difference.

Benefits and costs foreach regulatory alternative are.comparedito those of'the baseline status quo-..The status quo is assumed notto 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 tobe.the benefits that wouldoccur ifthe-wastes
were regufated. They vary with the projected number ofaffected facilities.

Note that no original research, sampling, oranalyses were conducted as part ofthis RIA. In addition, as in all RIAs, a number of assumptions were made in order to predict impact. Assumptions about potentially'affected wastes were basedprimarily on technical judgment, review ofavailable. literature and data; and EPA guidance; The.determination ofwhether wastes would be hazardous under this proposed rule was based primarily on the solubility ofindividual contaminants' rather than actual testing or data. Consequently, EPAbelieves' that the estimates ofprojected 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 (Table2)shows the affected industries by Standard Industrial Classification.(SIC) code,,and gives thenumber ofpotentially affected' facilities:

TABLE 2.-DIRECTLY AFFECTED INDUSTRIES 

### ISiC[ AffectII led Industry code Description fct. SNo. ties I

Plastics

materials and resins.

Synthetic

rubber.

Medicinalsand'

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 insulatingwire and insulating, cable of nonferrous metals. Total

................................ 1,265

-Based on Alternative. 2 (t0xdilulion/attenuation factor).
Most ofthe 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 TCLPextract 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 ofaffected facilitiesmay include plants thatproduce oruse more than one ofthe chemicals. The actual number ofplants affected may therefore be less than the total shown.

TheRIA addresses primarily the impact ofthe expansion ofthe 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 ofsewage sludge
across theUnited States, the impact could be significant. While less than 10 percent ofthese facilities accept sufficiint industrial waste-to cause any concern, these-facilities generate most of the sewage sludge-across theUnited 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 solelyto,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 havebeen. tested with the TCLP, and allwere found notto exceed'any ofthe 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

sludgeis being tested, EPA expects that only sludge containing very high levels ofthe organic toxicants proposed for addition (which would most likely be introduced through industrial input), wouldbe defined as hazardous. Very few sewage sludges are expected to be hazardous wastes.

Hence, most ofthe impact ofthe proposed rule on the municipal sector will be the requirement to'evaluate sludges against the Toxicity Characteristic levels. This, as explained earlier in thepreamble, does not necessarily mean that all sewage sludges will be tested using the TCLP. Rather, as with the current EPTC,the vast majority ofsewage sludge generators willperform that hazard determination using theirknowledge of the sludge they generate. EPA believes that most ofthe municip.ql facilities receive such small amounts ofindustrial input, that they willbe able to support a determination ofnon-hazardousness withouthaving to testsludges 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 isnot necessary to indicate the source ofthe sewage sludge,EPA solicits information such as the extent of industrial input to the generating facility, the type ofindustry involved, the amount ofsludge 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.Economicimpactsmethodology.A Partial Equilibrium Multimarket (PEM) model was used toestimate economic impacts. Thebasis of thismodel is the partial equilibrium framework, in which oply a nanageable number ofmarkets is modeled. Economic impacts, or equilibrium changes, innon-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 ofthe expected market changes would be modeled by the structure in which markets are linked to each other through the purchase of inputs orthe sale ofoutputs. 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 SICcode, products unaffected bythe proposed regulation may unavoidably be included in this analysis.

The directly affected markets are linked togetherby means ofthe 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 limitsthe interaction between directly affected markets. A demand shift in an output market does not change input price and doesnot change production costs of a directly affected product. What this simplification implies cannot be assessed because oflimited data. In the long run, however, all supply functions tend to become more elastic (orflatten), making the importance of this assumption less significant.

Demand functions are assumed to incorporate changes in equilibrium. As defined byJust, Heath, and Schmitz (Ref.15), these general equilibrium demand functions define the relationship between price and quantity, given all changes inoutput markets. For example, a price increase and quantity decrease in an output market ordinarily will shift demand fora 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 nowrepresent a new equilibrium since input prices do not change and demand fordirectly affected products does not shift. Changes in the unmodeled inputmarket
are onlychanges 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,-itallows 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. Benefitsestimationmethodology. Regulation ofwastes containing any one ofthe selected chemicals is anticipated to result in a reduced risk of contamination ofground water that
serves as a supply ofdrinking water for many communities. If the contaminating chemical is a carcinogen, consumption ofdrinking water may result in an excess incidence of cancer cases in the population. Ingestion ofnoncarcinogenic chemicals in drinking water at a level above theRfD 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, ifa chemical has been detected in the ground water, the contaminated aquifer is cleaned up (to the extent possible) and the landfill treated, which alsoresults in additional costs to the community.

Estimates are made for each.chemical ofthehealth 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 byits implementation.

Four steps are used to determine benefits: (1)Estimate quantity and concentration ofchemical in landfill, (2) estimate concentration ofchemical 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 ofa landfill).The amount ofthe chemical contaminant that leaches through the landfill, and the leaching duration, is determined using a leachate concentration model. From the bottom of thelandfill, 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 over100 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 ofa 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 unitare calculated using the Base Case Method. This method assumes (1)that the landfill receives predominantly domestic refuse, with only5 percent ofthe landfill holding industrial waste, (2)that the character ofthe leaching fluid to which wastes are exposed is primarily a function ofthe 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. Costestimationmethodology.The current disposal costs, or baseline, must be established ifthe increased disposal costs incurred by wastegenerators 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, orby assumption.

Some baseline disposal alternatives may understate the actual treatment and disposal applied to thatwaste, 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 byregulation. The result ofthis potential understatement ofbaseline 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 ofcontracting with commercial disposal services to estimate properly the minimum costs incurred by the affected facilities. These costs are annualized to reflect an accurate
measure ofthe increased production costs associated with thisproposal. Estimates ofpercentage cost change are generated foruse in the product/ ,consumption model. Under the assumption offull-cost pricing, these percentage estimates are determined by dividing the annualized incremental costs bythe value ofshipments in affected SIC industries.

The economic impacts model is used to derive all costs or welfare losses borne by consumers ofdirectly affected products. Consumers suffer a welfare loss because they lose consumer surplus, or the value placed on consumption in excess ofthe 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 onlyrecurrent 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 willhave lower production at a higher costthan the initial equilibrium. Areal resource cost is the value of the additional costs incurred to produce thenew lower level ofoutpuf. A dead-weight loss is the loss in surplus value consumers placed on those units that will no longer be produced.

Extension Ofthe 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 costsin 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 ofyears. To develop cost estimates forfuture years, costs are first estimated for 1982 and then assumed tobe 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 inwelfare that will be incurred only once. Transaction costs represent the value ofresources that would be expended to determine if
a waste stream is to be regualated. These costs are based on an estimated cost ofsampling 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 foreach directly affected market. These losses are not valued in dollar terms because projecting the length of time forwhich an employee is unemployed is difficult. Similarly, the value to place on time, individual job skills, age, education, and personal dislike ofbeing unemployed are not valued in dollar terms. 5. Results

a.Aggregatebenefits.Continued use of current practices fcrmanaging wastes producing TCLPextracts containing the selected chemicals in excess to regulatory levels is expected to result in the deterioration ofenvironmental quality. This deterioration may elevate risks to human health and reduce the quality ofenvironmental resources, such
as drinking water. Themajor 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

usesground water for drinking water. Further, contaminated ground water can enter surface water, reducing its quality. Thecapacity ofboth ground water and surface water to assimilate toxic chemicals is limited.

Ifpeople drink contaminated ground water, a wide range ofhealth effects may occur, from simple gastrointestinal problems to cancer and birth defects. The focus is on the possible excess cancer cases ifthe selected chemicals
are not regulated. It isassumed that contaminated water would continue to be used as a drinking water source until the concentration reached taste or odor thresholds ofthe 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 ofground water contamination, it is also assumed that-the municipality would take action to prevent further leaching ofthe 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

Monetizedbenefits:.

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 Presentvalue ($10r)

............ 13,830 14,345 13,706 Annualized ($106/Yr)

............. 1,625 1,685 1,610 Nonmonetized benefits:'

Avoidedcancer cases

............... 54 54 53 Avoided person-years ofex-

posure above the chronic threshould (10- )

.................... . 4.8 4.8 0 Nonmonetized costs:

Employee dislocations

............... 407 407 372

:Benefits are basedon Alternative 1. '20-Year cost discounted at 10 percent. SOne-time cost incurred firstyear. d Moneized benefits minus monetized costs excluding transaction costs.

These estimates ofthe health effects and corrective costs attributable to a waste are developed for a typical community. The estimates of the aggregate benefits oftheproposed regulation areobtained by assuming thathealth effects and corrective costs wouldbe 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.Aggregatecosts.Benefits ofthe regulatory alternatives would be accompanied by costs. As described previously, total costs ofthe 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 ofthese 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 ofaffected capital also have not been evaluated.

c.Benefit-costcomparison.Most public policy alternatives have:benefits and costs. Policy evaluation can be 

### difficult because these benefits and coststypically accrue to different individuals. Harberger (Ref.11) has argued that: whenevaluating thenetbenefits orcosts ofa given action (project,program,or policy), the costs andbenefits accruing to eachmember ofthe relevant group(e.g., anation) should normallybe added without regard tothe individuals towhom they accrue. This principle dates to Kaldor (Ref. 16) and Hicks (Ref.12), who argued that a change should be instituted ifa potential gain exists so that those whobear the cost couldbe compensated fully fortheir loss bythe beneficiaries, and the beneficiaries would still bebetter off than before. Followingthe Kaldor-Hicks principle, thisRIA evaluates benefits and costs to society at large without regard to their incidence.

Table 3summarizes the benefits and costs oftheregulatory alternatives. The difference between themonetized 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 allregulatory alternatives. Thus, each* alternative wouldprovide an improvement ineconomic welfare.

An evaluation oftheregulatory alternatives willallow a comparison of the different regulatory levels for the proposed contaminants. Moving from Alternative 2to1,respectively leads to virtually no changes inhealth benefits, but doesincrease the net monetized benefits by$61 million peryear.This suggests that Alternative 2is preferable toAlternative 1.Moving from Alternative 3to 1leads to substantial reduction in health benefits, andyields a decrease in net monetized benefits of $14 million peryear.

As explained earlier, thisRIA 

### compares the benefits and costs of several regulatory alternatives thatwere determined bymulitplying estimated chronic toxicityreference levels forthe selected compounds,by assumed dilution/attenuation factors of10, 100 and 1,000. This was necessary, as the 

### toxicityreference levels and themodelgenerated dilution/attenuation factors that were proposed today could notbe generated in time for this analysis. Hence, while this analysis provides 

### estimates ofthe range ofregulatory impacts due tothe proposed rule, it does not directly provide an estimate ofthe impact of theproposed rule. The final RIA which will accompany the 

### promulgation ofthis rulewill analyze the benefits and costs based onthe final regulation. B.RegulatoryFlexibilityAct
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 whenever an Agency is required to issue forpublication in the Federal Register any proposed orfinal 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 thisregulation willnot have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Again, for the
reasons statedin the above section, this analysis does not directly provide an estimate ofthe impact ofthe proposed rule on smallbusinesses.

More than20 percent ofthe small firms in an industry is considered a substantial number ofaffected 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 oftotal costs ofproduction is greater than 5 percent, (2) when capital costs ofcompliance represent a significant portion ofcapital available to small entities, and (3)when annualized compliance cost as a percentage ofsales for small firms is more than 10 percentage pointshigher than annualized compliance costs as a percentage ofsales for large firms. For the purposes ofthis analysis, the costs associated with the first regulatory alternative are used in assessing the significance ofimpacts on the small firms within affected industries.

In determining theratios needed for the third measure, annual compliance costs foreach industry are apportioned into two groups. One group is used with the receipts forlarge firms and the other is used withreceipts for small firms.The proportion going to each group is equal to the percentage ofsmall and large firms above and below the size standard of50 employees. EPA has elected not to adopt the Small Business Administration's definition ofsmall business, which is fewer than 500 employees formost SICs, because it would include the majority ofplants in theregulated 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 ofthe total population obscures any differential impacts on smaller firms.The Agency considers a threshold value offewer than 50 employees to be
a more sensitive index ofimpacts on small businesses.

For the other two measures, the entire cost forthe industry is compared to the aggregate data forsmall firms as a worst
case. This will provide an extreme estimate ofthe number ofindustries that have small firms thatmight experience a significant impact. A "significant portion ofcapital available to smallentities" depends on the average annual portion ofnew capital expenditures spent on pollution abatement in the last 10years. Ifcapital costs as a percentage ofnew. capital expenditures are more than 10 percentage points larger than the average percentage that has been spent inthe last 10years,than thecapital costsarg determined tobe significant.

Under this analysis, no SICs are impacted significantly by any ofthe three measures described. Accordingly, I certify that this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number ofsmall entities.This regulation therefore does notrequire a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. C.Paperwork ReductionAct Theproposed rule contains 

### information collection requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980,44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. Specifically, under 40 CFR 262.40, generators arerequired to keep records on howthe hazard determination was made for thewastes they generate.EPA believes that these information collection requirements are insignificant and has not prepared documentation pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.Ifnecessary, suchdocumentation willbe prepared for thepromulgated rule. VIII.Additional Information 

### A. ChronicToxicityReferenceLevels 1.Introduction



### When the EPToxicity Characteristic (EPTC] waspromulgated in May of1980, the only standardswhich 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,EPtoxicity thresholds were limited to these 14 contaminants. Today, however, chronic toxicity levels have been established for
a number ofadditional'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 ofa health reference level. Determination ofthe appropriate level is dependent upon the nature ofthe toxic effect ofthe 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, mustbe depleted or overwhelmed before toxic effects are evident. Simply put, for each non-carcinogen there is
some low level ofexposure which has
no effect on humans. Protection against
a chronic toxic effect for a noncarcinogen is achieved by keeping exposure levels at orbelow 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 ofa lifetime daily exposure ofa substance to the general human population, which appears to be without an appreciable risk ofdeleterious effects. Conceptually, the RD is closely related to the term Acceptable DailyIntake. ADIs were first used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)in 1954 as specific guidelines and recommendations on the
use of "safe" levels ofchemicals, such
as food additives or food contaminants, forhuman consumption (Ref. 18). Since their initial use by the FDA, ADIs have beenused by other public health agencies in establishing "safe" levelp for toxic chemicals. The Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and EPAhave used ADIs in the process ofestablishing allowable pesticide residues in foodstuffs (i.e., tolerances). The National Academy of Science and EPAhave estimated ADIs for purposes ofestablishing safe levels ofcontaminants in drinking water (Ref. 

### 30).

The experimental method for estimating the RD is to measure the highest test dose ofa substance which
causes no statistically orbiologically 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. TheRID is derived by dividing the NOAEL by a suitable scaling oruncertainty 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 ofdose 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 ofthe appropriate uncertainty factor involves scientific judgment and the application ofgeneral 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 ofdrinking 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

resol

........................................................................... 12 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.
Forsome of the contaminants addressed in today's proposed rule, insufficient toxicological data exists for establishing an RfD. EPA is using preliminary data forisobutanol, 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 ifnecessary. Note also that the Agency intends to propose regulatory levels fornickel and thallium during the period between proposal and promulgation ofthis 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 ofthe RfD is appropriate only for non-carcinogenic toxic endpoints. In the absence ofchemical specific information on mechanism ofaction or kinetics, EPA science policy suggests thatno 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 95percent confidence limit estimate of excess cancer risk for individuals experiencing a given exposure over a 70 year lifetime. In practice, a given dosemultiplied by the slope ofthe curve gives an upper limit estimate of the numberestimated to develop cancer. The slope can be used to calculate the upper limit ofthe dose which gives rise to a given risk level (e.g., one response in a hundred thousand). By specifying the level of risk (nomatter how small) one can estimate the lifetime dose corresponding to it. The upper limit ofthe dose ofa 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
orrange of concern mustbe specified. EPA proposes to specify a risk level of
concern on a weight-of-evidence basis,
as described below.

In November 1984, EPAproposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (49 FR 46294), which described a scheme to characterize carcinogens based on the experimental weight ofevidence. This scheme is based on considerations ofthe quality and adequacy ofthe experimental data and the kinds of responses induced by a suspect carcinogen. The classification scheme is generally an adaptation ofa similar system developed by the International Agency forResearch on Cancer (Ref. 13).

EPA's classification ofweight-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 ofhuman carcinogenicity from epidemiological studies for substances within this group ranges from almost sufficient to inadequate. Thisgroup is subdivided into two categories (13and B 2)on the basis of the strength ofthe 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 B 2. 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 agentswhich 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 orB as suitable for quantitative risk assessment.The method for quantitation ofGroup C substances is bestjudged on a case-bycase basis, since some Group C agents do not have a database ofsufficient quality and quantity to perform a quantitative carcinogenicity risk assessment.

Since carcinogens differ in the weight ofevidence supporting the hazard assessment, EPA believes that establishment ofa single acioss-theboard risk level is not appropriate. The Agency proposes to set a reference risk level as a point ofdeparture, along with
a risk range keyed to theweight of evidence approach. The dose for known and probable human carcinogenic agents (Classes A and B) would thus be determined at the 10- 5risk level.

For the Class C carcinogens (agents with less firm evidence of human carcinogenicity), a risk level ofconcern of10- is being proposed. For those Class C carcinogens forwhich there is insufficient data to perform a quantitative risk assessment, the dose is calculated on the basis ofthe lowest threshold effect, with an additional uncertainty factor often (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). TheAgency 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 aboujtroute specificity can only be addressed in circumstances where adequate data exists on carcinogenicity formore than one route ofexposure. Where carcinogenicity findings are available from only one route ofexposure, 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 ofinterest. 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 (notablymetals), the database demonstrating that cancer is produced by one route of exposure but not by anotheris substantial and convincing. An example ofa substance whose carcinogenic response is characterized as route-specific is chromium and some ofits salts. These substances cause cancer by inhalation but not by other conventional routes of entry. The Agency willregulate 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 ofthe carcinogen, and the Risk Specific Dose.

TABLEA-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 ofExisting 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 foreight elemental contaminants and six pesticides, as toxicity thresholds: Today's ruleretains these thresholds for the elemental toxicants but proposes compound specific dilution/attenuation factorbased thresholds for the organic compounds.

EPA has also been working to establish Drinking Water Standards for additional organic compounds. Final standards fordrinking 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 basedon health considerations as guided bythe Safe DrinkingWater Act. Thisintermediate analysis resultsin proposed Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels (PMCLs), which are non-enforceable health based limits. Included in the analysis ofthe health considerations for determining PMCLs
are not only the quality and weight-ofevidence ofthe supporting toxicological studies, but also examination of absorption rates ofspecific toxicants, the possibility ofnutritionally essential levels for some elements, the existence ofroute-specific toxicity, the demonstration ofother environmental exposures, and finally, the apportionment ofthe permissible limit of constituent into media specific amounts. In general, final MCLs for noncarcinogens are based on 20%ofthe relevant RfDs, to account for exposure trom other sources (e.g., food and air). Final MCLs forcarcinogens are based

on risk levels that range from 10 -4to 10 -a

Since the above factors havebeen evaluated foreach ofthe 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 foreight synthetic volatile organic chemicals (50 FR46880). EPA is also proposing to use these contaminants and their proposed MCLs, which appear inTable A-3, as toxicity thresholds forthe Toxicity Characteristic. After publicreview and evaluation EPAwill promulgate final standards. Should the final MCLs differ from the proposed MCLs, EPA will base regulatory levels for theToxicity 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 12-Dichoroothane
..................................................... 0.005 1,1-Dichloroethylene
................................................ 0.007 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
................................................. 0.2 Trlchloroethylene

..................................... :................. 0.005 Vinyl chloride

.............................................................. 0.001

5.Apportionment ofHealth Limits

The reference dose forhumans is the maximum daily dose ofa substance that should not be exceeded to assureno adverse health effects over a lifetime of exposure. Ifexposure occurs by multiple routes, some tolerance level canbe established foreach route so that the
sum ofexposures by the individual routes does not exceed the reference dose.

-The concept ofapportionment ofa 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 ofthe chemical was from drinking Water (Ref.20). EPA, in setting PMCLs for chemicals in drinking water, has followed the suggestionofthe NRC, and selected a fraction ofthe RfD, usually 20 percent for synthetic organic chemicals ifno empirical data suggest
some other fraction is more appropriate (50 FR46880, Nov. 13, 1985). EPA is proposing to apportion non-carcinogenic contaminants according to the scheme outlined on the following pages.

Inevaluating carcinogens, the National Research Council's Safe Drinking Water Committee estimated
cancerrisks 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 apportioifthe RSD forcarcinogens. 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 ofa factor oftwo is still well within the margin ofuncertainty of the estimated RSD.

Moreover, forcarcinogens, 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. Fornoncarcinogens, it is possible that not applying a 50 percent,reduction (the indirect effect of which,is to permit an approximate doubling ofthe RfD), may
cause.the level tobe exceeded on some or even many days ofexposure. Exceeding thelevel fornon-:carcinogens may therefore have significant health consequences for some individuals. Thus, there isjustification 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 ofthe constituent in food and air from the RfD. Suchdata is often not available. In these cases, the amount permitted in drinking water is calculated by an estimation of thepercentage of exposure attributable to the exposure route ofconcern. In the absence of adequate exposure data, apportionment is established at 20 percent for synthetic organic chemicals. For inorgIanic chemicals, an adequate database generally exists. The actual contribution from other sources canbe factored into the PMCL. Where actual data is sparse, however, a 10 percent contribution is estimated forinorganics 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 ofEmergency and Remedial Response to evaluate and manage therisks forspecific remedial action sites under the CERCLA (Superfund) law. In thisprocedure, concentrations are generally apportioned equally in environmental media (e.g., air and water), as an initial basis for calculating a tate ofrelease. If there are significant cost and feasibility differences in controlling exposures via the different pathways, unequal apportionment is selected. This option is appropriate under the CERCLA statute sincecost-effectiveness is an integral part ofthe decision-making process (Ref. 5).

Many ofthe 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 ofRfDs, 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 ofa substance between the vapor and dissolved (aqueous) state.The ko, estimates the distribution ofa compound between water and octanol, where octanol is intended to represent an organic (lipid) component. Each distribution constant (H, 'andkow) is 

### subdivided into twoequal parts , according to its range ofvalues, as shown inTable A-4.Each contaminant to be apportioned is classified.as having

a high orlow'value according to the general size ofits 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 inwater >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 inair coie tion inwater

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 High. 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 Kowand kH Air

Low High

Water:!

Low............ Air:water 50:50

............. Air:water 80:20. High

............ Air:water 20:80

............. Air:water 50:50,

Determined bycomparing actual or computed k,,and it. to ranges InTable 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. Forcompounds that exhibit a high range for H..and a low range for k.,,EPA assumes that the distribution would be in a ratio of80 to 20, air to water. As an example, given 

### that50percent ofthetotal RfDis available for apportionment intowater and air, and ifTable A-5 indicates a - high Hand a high kow, the fractionation 

### ofthe totalRfD is25percent ofthe total RFD into each medium.-Ifthe

- contaminant,exhibits a low H, and a high ki, then;10 percent ofthe'total RIfD 

### will distribute to airand 40percent to water. .



### EPA believes that the approach outlinedaboveis reasonable in light of thedifficulty in obtaining exposure data formany compounds within the statutory timelimit. TheAgency solicits comments on thisgeneral approach. The Agency is also considering a simpler scheme which examines relative concentrations between water and air usingHenry's Law constant only.

-

Table A-7 presents all 52 compounds included fortoxicity, theirrespective health based toxicity thresholds, and the results ofany apportionment.' The Tables insection VIII(C) contain further information used in establishing the 

### proposed regulatory thresholds.

As explained in oihersections of this preamble, 11compounds 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- ReContaminant 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

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

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

Trichloroethane. 1.1.2,2-

Trichloroethane. Tetrachloroethylene.. 2.3,4.6-

Tetrachlorophenol. Toluene

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

................. 1.1,1-

Tetrachloroethan

e . 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
.......... RID
............. 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

............... .0.05 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

............. DWS

.......... DWS
.......... DWS .......... DWS. RSD
........... RID
............. RiD
............. RID
............. RID

............. RID
............ DWS
.......... DWS. RSD ..........25

25 25 25 40 40

2E-2.... RSD

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

7E-2. RSO ... R .D............ 7E-2 0.4

. RID

............. 25 0.1

10. RID

............. 10 1.0 0.005... DWS

............................ 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 IRSD=Risk Specific Dose. DWS=National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard. PMCL= Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level.

. RID=Reference Dose.

B. Ground Water TransportEquation
1.Introduction

-

Uinderthe framework presented in. this proposal, EPAwill establish regulatory levels forindividual 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 

## IVol. 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 .assumesthe bottom of the landfill lies directly over the saturated zone. EPA has developed a quantitative.ground water modeling procedure to evaluate potential impacts

onground water and to establish regulatory levels for individual* constituents. Theproposed regulatory level-setting procedure involves a-back-, calculation from a point ofpotential exposure to a point ofrelease 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 ina Subtitle D sanitary landfill. The beginning point ofthe backcalculation is a measurement point at a specified distance directly downgradiant from the disposal unit.

Thisprocedure 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 ofmeasurement (i.e., drinking water well) and backcalculating to the maximum acceptable leachate concentration that will not exceed the specified Standard.The mobility ofconstituents is considered through application of the TCLP, and for organics, through incorporation of sorption as a delay mechanism. The inclusion ofsorption in the ground water transport'model is important onlyfor organic constituents which degrade.

The persistence ofconstituents 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 factorin the extent to which metals migrate. The Agency is studying the use ofthe 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 ofthe fate and transport equation approach forthe 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 ofchemicals 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 ofsinks and sources, and dilution of constituents within drinking water wells. 2. Model Assumptions

The analytical solution described below isbased on a number ofkey assumptions pertaining tothefeatures of ground waterflow and theproperties of the porousmedium-.These assumptions' include thefollowing:

a. Saturated soil conditions (no attenuation ofchemicals in the unsaturated zone).

b. Flow regions ofinfinite extent in the longitudinal direction, semi-infinite extent in the lateral direction.

c. All aquiferproperties are homogeneous, isotropic and ofconstant thickness.

d.Groundwater flow is uniform and continuous in direction and velocity.

e.First-order decay is limited to hydrolysis and thebyproducts of hydrolysis are assumed tobe nonhazardous. "

f.Sorption behaves linearly. g. Infinite source-supplies a constant
massflux rate.'

h. Ground water recharge'is accounted for.

i.Theground water is initially free of contamination.

j.Thereceptor wellis directly in line with the source and the ground water flow.

The effect of thefirst assumption is to presume that a waste is placed directly at the top ofthe saturated zone.-Since EPA has found that a significantnumber ofhazardous waste landfills are located within a few feet ofan aquifer, and since Subtitle D facilities are generally sited in similar environments, this assumption is believed to bereasonable. This:worst-case assumption predicts that no attenuation occurs during the migration ofconstituents in leachates to the underlying aquifer.

The second assumption ofinfinite and semi-infinite flow regions in the longitudinal and lateral direction, respectively, is appropriate for all simplified analytical ground water flow models. (Theterm semi-infinite refers to thefact that once a leachate reaches an aquifer, although theoretically it can disperse in thelateral directionto an infinite degree, forall practical purposes there is a point at which further dispersion has little effect on the concentration ofcontaminants 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. Ifan aquifer is confined by an impermeable layer in the longitudinal or lateral fields, this assumption willunderestimate downgradient concentrations;.

The assumption ofhomogeneous and isotropic aquifer properties is rarely encountered in the field, but the availability ofdata and the generic nature ofthis analysis requires'the rse of a homogeneous and isotropic approximatioh. Also, this assumption is usually employed ifthe solution ofthe problem is obtained by analytical techniques.

Auniform flowvelocity, the fourth assumption, presumes that thewater 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 orinjection wells), drastic changes in the velocity distribution willoccur. Under this situation that steady-state down gradient contaminant concentrations may be underestimated. Hydrolysis offirst-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, theAgency's present understanding ofthese mechanisms doesnot yetpermit a kinetic representation ofthese 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 forpH and temperature from which distribution functions can be assigned for purposes ofevaluating variation and uncertainty. Similar data describing microbial populations, metabolizable carbon sources, etc., are not generally available. The Agency believes that given this.. limited understanding ofthe 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. Byincluding only hydrolysis in the model,the Agency is being conservative.

The seventh assumption ofan infinite
source represents a worst case. To
ensure that waste disposal is protective ofhuman health and the environment in all possible situations (which do not address the total amount ofwaste disposed), theAgency believes it is prudent to adopt this conservative assumption.

The assumption ofdilution ofthe contaminant plume by ground water recharge accounts for a process known to occur in the environment. Ground water recharge leads to further dilution ofthe contaminant plume as itmoves downgradient from the facility. EPA. recognizes that it is difficult to develop precise estimates ofground water recharge forincorporation into a generic mode. Data is available, however, from which rough estimates can be developed.

The assumption ofplacement of a well in the exact position toreceive the highest concentration ofa contaminant represents an absolute worst case. The Agency believes this assumption is appropriate foruse in themodel 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 ofa Monte Carlo computer simulation, the ground water transport equation results in a cumulative frequency distribution. The cumulative frequency distribution provides estimates ofthe likelihoodor probability that the target concentration level (e.g., reference dose), would not be exceeded, given the range and distribution ofthe values thatmay be expected for each ofthevarious environmental parameters known to affect such concentrations. Forthe purposes ofthis regulation, EPA is proposing to use the 85th cumulative percentile. EPAbelieves thatusing the 85th percentile will provide a reasonable balance between the need to identify the majority oftruly hazardous waste as hazardous, while at the same time 

### minimizing the false identifi.cation of non-hazardous waste as hazardous. Note, however, thatEPA is considering the use ofboth the 80th and the 90th percentile for thisregulation. For nondegrading compounds, the80th and 90th percentiles produce dilution/attenuation factors of22 and 10, respectively.

The regulatory levels being proposed today are based on the 85th cumulative frequency percentile. Asindicated previously, this does not necessarily
mean that EPA is unconcerned about wastes which may exceed levels based
on some higherpercentile (e.g., 90 percent). Specific wastes which the Agency finds not to be hazardous using the regulatory levelsbased on the85th percentile, butwhich could exceed thresholds based on some higher percentile, and which are determined to pose a hazard to ground water, maybe specifically listedbythe Agency as hazardous wastes under §§261.31 or 261.32. 

### 4. FurtherInformation

The Agency has proposed to use the
same basic ground water transport equation andhealth effects thresholds for usein the LandDisposal Restrictions Rule (51 FR 1603), proposed on January 14, 1986. Differences in the equations 

### havebeen introduced for the proposed LandDisposal 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 ofconfidence 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 LandDisposal Restrictions Rule. The reader is referred to that preamble, and the reference noted therein, forfurther information onthe equation and the data used in running it.The computer printouts obtained as a result ofrunning the equation on the compounds-will be included in the-Toxicity Characteristic docket. C.TablesofProposed Contaminants andDataUsedtoDevelopRegulatory 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 D011- 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

..................... 79-01-6 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

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

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

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

...........................................
-Icti t

iiWorUezn

............... i
................................................ I.I

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

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

......................................................................................................................... 1.1

-Dichloroethylene

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

Heptachlor (and itshydroxide)

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

..................... Vinylchloride

.................................................................................................................................... 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.
2Detection limits in TCLP extract. Detection limits are approximate. 4Quantitation 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 m

0/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(DWS)

................................................................ 1.0(DWS)

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

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

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(PMJLt...................................... 1.1

-Dichloroethylene

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

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

............................................................................................. Hexachlorobenzene
.......................................................................................................... Hexachlorobutadiene

................................................................................................. Hexachloroethane
............................................................. ............................................ Isobutanol
.................................. ......................................... ......................................... Lead
............................................................................................................................. Lindane
........................................................................................................................... Mercury ............................................................................................................................. Methoxychlor
........................................ :.!

..................................................................... 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(DWS)

...................................................................................... 0.002(DWS)

............................................................. ......................... 0.10(DWS)...

.......................................... ............ .... .................... 1.68E-2

3.46E-3

5.05E-6 5.05E-6 5.05E-6

1.88E-3

1.23E-5

0.6(RSD)

...

85

..

0..

....................................................................... 2(RfD).. : ............ .......... 71...................... .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 ane ............................................................................................................ ............. . .............................................................. ........................

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(DWS)

...................................... :.................................. .................................... ... 0.01 Silver

.................................................................................................................................. 0.05(DWS)

.................................................................................................................. 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(DWS)

............................................................. .......................... ......................... 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 Vinylchloride

..................................................................................................................... 0.001(PMCL)

................................................................................................ 0.001

OWS = National Interim Primary Drinking Standard. PMCL-Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (Proposed standard inddnking water). RID=Reference Dose (non-carcinogen). RsD=Risk Specific Dose (carcinogen). 2LOG Octanol Water Partition Coefficient. I Henry's Law Constant. 4RfD's are the only ChronicToxicity Reference Levels which are apportioned (See Section VII1(A)). IValue bywhich 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 Ase ic

.................................................................................... .......................... ,................................ ........................... ............................................................. , ............................................................. 100.0 Barium

..................................................................................... ........................... . ......................................................... ... ............................................................. ................................................. :............ 100.0 Benzene

........................................................................... .... . ................. ........................ NHYF

................................................. NHYF

................................................. 14. Bis(2-chloroethyl)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/Yr .............................................. 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

.......... ...................................................... 42.30 NLFG

................................................ NLFG

................................................. NLFG

................................................. 14.4 Enddin

....................... .............................................................. 13.54 => l/Yr

................................................ j > I/Yr

................................................ > I/Yr

.................................... ...... 14.4 Heptachlo (andits hydroxide)

............................................ 74.61 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

............................................... Y NHYF

................................................. NHYF

................................................ 144 Pyridine

................................................................................... 0.66 NLFG

................................................ NLFG

................................................ 14.4 Selenium
.......................................................................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................ 100.0 Silver

.............................................................................................................. ............................................................. 1.............................................................

............................................................ 100. 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 trachlor ethane .................................................... 2 4 H...... L G

................................................ . 6 N

L 3 /H

..................................... N H...............

G..................................

..... 14

. 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

........... 0............................. 20 Trichloroethyliene

................................................................... 2.28 NLFG

................................................ NLFG

................................................. NLFG

................................................ 14.4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

............................................................ 3.86 NH

...................................................... tE-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. 2Acid 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 Calculated Ouanttation Regulatory toxicity D/A level)n/ - tnialo, lee rg reference factor ( Ig/ lit (mg l e) e
le vela (mg/) 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 (andhydroxide)
.................................................................................. : ................................................. ...................... 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.Tetrchlorethan............

. . . . . . . . .... .... 0. 14. 10.0

........ .0.0.. 1,1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane
................................. ....................................... :......................................... :............................................
. 0.7 14.4 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-Trichlrophenot
........................................................... .......................................................................................................... 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. 4See Table (-2. II the quanilation limit is greater than the calculated level,the quantitation limit becomes the (technology based) regulatory level (ilndicatedby level In parenthesla).

D.Development andEvaluation ofthe 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 oftesting, public assistance and information on how theTCLP was into three phases. Phases Iand II,and review ofthe draft .wassolicited. developed and evaluated. Still more part ofPhase IIIhave been completed. The overall approach employed in detailed information regarding theTCLP Phase Iconsisted ofan initial data Phase Iwas 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 togenerate 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 Iwas b. TheMWL 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 ofa number of organic and inorganic species that were present in each waste were -measured over time. d. A total of34 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 ofthe 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 inPhase II.

Phase IIofthe 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 fromPhase I, as well as the EP.

, c. The single procedure which best satisfied the objectives presented in the body ofthis preamble was selected as the draft.TCLP.

-

d. the draft TCLPwas then circulated to interested members ofindustry, academia, environmental groups, and other with interest and experience conducting such tests, forcomment.

Phase III ofthe program involved subjecting the draft TCLP to an evaluation ofruggedness and precision. This work has been partially completed and the design and results to date are summarized further in this Section. Another part of PhaseIII which is currently ongoing is a multi-laboratory collaborative evaluation ofthe draft TCLP. (TheTCLP 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 ofPhase I

The ORNL Phase Ireport explains in detail the experimental approach and 

### describes theresults obtained during the first phase oftesting (Ref. 6]. Briefly, lysimeter leachate target concentrations were established based on both practical considerations and theneed to represent a mid-to-long term leaching interval or exposure period. This was important as the'purpose oftheleaching test is primarily to evaluate the migratory potential ofchronically toxic organic compounds (Ref. 17). (Useof chronic toxicity values are discussed in moredetail elsewhere inthis preamble.)-

The various laboratory procedures tested were then compared asto their.

.. ability toreproduce the lysimeter leachate target concentrations. The absolute value ofthe percentage • difference for eachtarget concentration/ leaching test concentration pairwas determined, averaged foreach leaching procedure, and theneach procedure was ranked from thelowest tohighest difference and evaluated for significance usingDuncan's multiple range test. These analyses identified most ofthe laboratory procedures as being equally predictive oflysimeter leachate target concentrations, particularly where the organics were concerned.

No single procedure will be able to accurately predict leachate concentrations for allcompounds in all waste matrices. EPA therefore picked the procedures which seemedto most closely model lysimeter leachate target concentrations usingthe absolute value ofthe percentage difference. Factors other than average percentage difference, such asease and expense of operation, applicability toboth organics and inorganics, and applicability to biological testing, were also taken into account. These factors were identified in thebody ofthe preamble as objectives for the TCLP.

On the basis ofallthese considerations, two procedures, similar in concept and operation tothe current EP,were selectedfor further work in Phase II.Bothofthese procedures use a 20:1 liquid to solid ratio (i.e., an amount ofextractionfluid equal to twenty times the weigth ofthe solid phase ofthe waste) and involve a batch-type extraction One procedure uses a 0.1N pH 5sodium acetate buffer solution as the extraction medium, and theother uses carbon dioxide (CO 2

### ) saturated deionized distilled water (i.e., carbonic acid). 4. Peer Reviews

Anumber ofpeer reviewswere conducted at various stages oftheTCLP development program.The general tone of these reviews v~as always strongly positive. One such review which deserves attention, primarily because it hadprofound effect on the way the TCLPdevelopment data was analyzed, is a review conducted by the Agency's Science Advisory Board (Ref.29).

At theend ofPhase I, the

- Environmental Engineering Committee ofthe ScienceAdvisory Board (SAB)
was asked by EPAto review and providerecommendations concerning the development program and the selected methods. Overall, the SAB -found that the experimental approach taken reasonably represented.an actual -landfillTheSAB did,"however, question the statistical methodology used to 'evaluate the PhaseIdata-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 ofmore powerful statistical tests, theneed to indicate thedirection ofthe statistical differences (i.e., were individual laboratory testsgenerally more or less aggressive than lysimeter targets) and the need to examine the data for possible compound or class-related trends. 5.Results ofPhaseII

The SAB comments resulted in the application ofa number ofadditional statistical tests to both thePhase Iand Phase IIdata, and thePhases Iand II combined data (Ref.7and 25). Before describing the results ofthese statistical analyses, it is important tobearin mind that no single leachingprocedure willbe able to accurately predict leachate concentrations for allcompounds in all waste matrices. The idea was to select the procedure which most consistently modeled the field lysimeters. Another consideration was theneed to minimize the occurrence offalse negative results (i.e., the situation where theleaching test falsely identifies thewaste as nonhazardous in this case the leaching test would be less aggressive than field results). While it is important to also minimize the occurrence offalse positives, EPA believes that minimizing false negatives is moreimportant, since the consequences offalsenegative results are more environmentally serious. In addition, other factors, such
asease and expense of operation, applicability to both organics and inorganics, reproducibility, and applicability tobiological testing (the originalobjectives in developing the TCLP), were alsoconsidered in selecting the mostappropriate leaching medium

Table D-1 summarizes the results of fourofthemore important statistical analyses applied to thedata 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 the5 percent level, an 

### "'A" value being closest to the lysimeter results. The resultsreported in this table come.from several references (Ref.6, 7, and 25). Also, see the TCLPBackground 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 EP........................................................ ............................................... .....

........... ................................ . 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.
2Absolute valueo the percentage difference between laboratory concentration andthe 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. 4Ranks based on theMartalanobis distance (See Ref. 7). 4Precision, 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 ofeach ofthe 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. Abetter.
means ofindicating'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 ofaccuracy, 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 ofthe wastes being extracted in a device which does not prevent loss ofvolatiles (i.e., losses ofvolatile organics to the headspace in the extraction vessel), and also a function ofthe fact that the field leachates were analyzed unfiltered, whereas the laboratory extracts were analyzed filtered. Higher concentrations ofsome 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 fieldmodel. 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 Idata 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 oftesting. Only statistically. significant results are presented. A evaluation was the multivariate analysis.

The analysis ofprecision, the last statistical analysis presented inTable D-1. also indicated that the acetate buffer extraction would provide a more precise testprocedure than either ofthe 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 ofthe acetate buffer system should minimize the

occurrence offalse negative results, since the Phase I1inorganics analyses indicated that the carbonic acid medium

was less aggressive than the lysimeter fieldresults.

For the above reasons, the sodium acetate buffer system has been selected
as the medium ofchoice. 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 ofTCLP extracts entirely.

Phase Ill ofthe 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 ofhow EPA addressed some ofthe operational aspects of the EP, a discussion ofPhase III follows the next section which presents and discusses some ofthese 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 oforganic compounds during extraction was critical. These three aspects ofthe test procedure are discussed below. As an aid, Table D-2 presents a comparison between the EP and the TCLP, in terms -ofprocedural 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

- deionizedwater 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 2.9acetic acid solution for moderate to high alkaline wastes and 0.1pH4.9 acetate buffer for other wastes.

0.6--0.8 urnGlass

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 definitionof

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
................... 18hours. time. (7) Quality Standard additions Standard additions

control required. One required in some requirements. blank per cases.One blank sample batch, per 10extractions and every new batch of extract. Analysis specific to analyte.

IAll other attributes between the twotests 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 4 0 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-HEADSPACE 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 plIadjustment or titration. The procedure calls for periodic pH adjustments ifnecessary, at 15 minute intervals for up to 6 hours ormore. 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 toground 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 ofeffort 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 thisproblem could be addressed through use ofthe much simplier liquid/solid separation technique used in RCRA Test Method 9095 (PaintFilter Free Liquid Test) (Ref. 27). This method involves gravity filtration through a60 mesh paint filter. This test method was promulgated on April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370). It is intended tobe a qualitative determination ofwhether a waste ,:ontains any free liquids, and was developed in response to bans instituted
on the disposal ofliquids in landfills.

In applying this method to the TCLP, however, a number ofproblems were encountered (Ref. 3). The most serious of these was the fact that'particulates, which are solids, are capable ofpassing 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 ofliquid the method yields varies with how the waste is poured or placed in the filter. These two problems negated the use ofMethod 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 ofa 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 ofvarying composition, to specifying a 0.6-0.8 um glass fiber filter, as well as limiting the time spent filtering. The use ofglass fiber will reduce the possibility ofadsorption ofanalytes to the filter media. Also, these filters have a much higher throughput and show much less tendency to clog, and forthese reasons, allow the use ofa pressure of50 psi rather than 75 psi to accomplish separation. Initial experiments indicate substantial operational advantages and time savings with the use ofglass fiber filters (Ref.4). *

The third problem deals with the need toprevent loss ofvolatile 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 oflaboratory equipment manufa'cturers; EPAhas addressed this problem through development ofa 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 

## 1Proposed Rules

Liquid Inlet/Outlet Valve

Pressurizing Gas Inlet/Oatlet Valve

Figure D-3: Zeto-Headspace Extraction Vessel

The Z-IE is capable ofconducting the initial liquid/solid separation, agitation,
as well as final extract filtration, with only minimal loss ofvolatiles. Although considerably more expensive than the bottles used inthe current EP, these devices are only required when investigating the leachability ofvolatile components. Less expensive vessels are used for assessing the mobility ofnonvolatile 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 2liter 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-halfliter (500 ml) internal volume would be more appropriate. Due to the 500 ml internal capacity, the ZHEcan only accommodate a maximum sample size of25 grams for a 100 percent solids sample. Fora waste ofless than* 100 percent solids, the maximum sample size the ZHE can accommodate is tied to the percent solids ofthe 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 majorimprovements discussed above. EPA has instituted a number ofminor improvements inthe 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 ofanyresidual sample material left behind and subtractingthis from the total sample size, this will insure that the amount of extracting medium added to the extractor istruly a function ofthesolid material within the extractor, and will help to improveoverall precision.
7. Results ofPhase III

Phase Ill oftheTCLP development 'program involved anevaluation of ruggedness and precision aswell as a multilaboratory collaborative study. The experimental design and a summary of the results oftheprecision evaluations
are presented below. While the ruggedness evaluation for themetals and semivolatiles have been completed the wdrk on the volatiles pottion ofthe method is in progress. The results ofthe ruggedness evaluation for the volatiles will be noticed for commentupon completion.

EPA's collaborative study is currently on-going. In addition, theElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has conduted
a limited collaborative evaluation of the draft TCLPprotocol, primarily as it appies to inorganic constituents. The report on this study is being drafted. The results ofboth of these studies will be noticed forcomment when completed.

a.Precisionevaluation. As discussed earlier, the TCLP protocol requires the
use of a Zero-Headspace Extractor (ZHE) when dealing with volatiles, and' the use ofcommon EP extraction equipmenmt (i.e., bottles) when dealing with non-volatile components. In response,EPA has conducted a precision evaluation ofthe TCLP protocol using both devices. These evaluations were conducted by two laboratories, each laboratory conducting
a number ofreplicate extractions on two wastes. These wastes were an API separator sludge/electroplating waste admixture containing nonvolatile organics and a variety ofinorganics, and
an ammonia still lime sludge containing
a variety ofpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and several inorganic compounds. These wastes were also spiked with several volatile compounds.

The results ofthe precision evaluation for non-volatile components indicate the TCLP to be ofacceptable precision (Ref. 23). For themost part, the percent coefficient ofvariation 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, itis reasonable to expect a sample variability contribution to the total variability of between 2and 5 percent. Analytical variability was in many cases comparable to,and in some cases exceeded, thetotal variability. This observation is significant as the analytical methods used to analyze the TCLPextracts 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 formethod precision. For those
cases where the contaminant was present at relatively low concentrations, precision waspair, thepercent coefficient ofvariation generally falling below 50 and 60percent.

The results of theprecision evaluations forthe volatile components (Ref. 9) are not as clearly interpreted. There are several reasons for this. These evaluations were initiated as the zeroheadspace extractorbecame available. Recall that thepresent design for the ZHE wasthe result ofexperimentation with several prototype devices. Hence, experience with the ZHE, especially by laboratory technicians who were responsible forconducting thework was limited.

Inaddition, the precision work on the volatiles was conducted using two draft TCLP protocols. The first public draft protocol wasreleased for comment in April of1985. At this time EPA was still experimenting with several prototype devices, and although the AprilTCLP draft addressed volatile components, it was largely to obtain technical comments and suggestions and was not based on an actual working ZHE device. Itwas thisprotocol underwhich the TCLP precision evaluation ofthe volatiles wasbegun.

The second public draft of theTCLP protocol wasreleased for comment in October of1985. Although this draft was based on the current design forthe ZHE, further experience with the device has led EPA to re-write the TCLP volatiles procedure in the form that it currently appears (see TCLPin the proposed Appendix 1I to Part 261). In addition, it is possible that further clarifications in the procedure maybe advisable.

The remainder ofthe precision evaluation for the volatiles was conducted using the October, 1985 draft TCLP.Several significant changes have been made in thecurrent (proposed) version due to experience gained with the device. For example, whereas the October 1985 version allowed the use of VOA vials forthe collection ofthe TCLP extract, the proposed method requires the use ofair-tight syringes'or TEDLAR" bags due to expected losses ofvolatiles fromthe VOA vials during collection of the extract.,VOA vials were used to collect the extract during the precision evaluation ofthe 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 of25 grams on the amount ofsolid material the ZHEcould accommodate, considerably more solid material was extracted during the precision analysis ofone ofthe 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 workrather 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 ofvariations on the ammonia still lime sludge were mostly less than 60 or70'percent, which is fair given the nature ofvolatiles, the numbers generated from the admixture ofAPI separator sludge and electroplating waste indicated more variability. As indicated in the draft report (Ref. 9),
some ofthis can be attributed to severe laboratory contamination problems, and the oily character ofthe waste, which seemed to have dominated the extraction.

Due to the inconclusive nature ofthe results, EPA is in the process of conducting another precision evaluation ofthe volatile components. This study will use the proposal draft of the TGLP, which we believe should help to clear up some ofthe 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 ofvolatile spike will be used (i.e., one ofrelatively high concentration and one ofrelatively low concentration). The results ofthis evaluation will be noticed for comment upon its completion.

b.Ruggednessevaluation. 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 ofthe protocol. The purpose ofthis 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. Ifa procedure is "rugged" it will be unaffected by minor departuresffrom the specified method values. Ifresults are affected by variation ofconditions, 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 ofthe same wastes used for the precision evaluations were used for the ruggedness evaluation. These evaluations were performed by one laboratory. Whereas the ruggedness evaluation forthe 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 forruggedness using both types ofextraction 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

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

..................................................... 20to60perc 60 to 80

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

200

............................................... I...............

. 190 to 210.

Allowed for ZHE in some

cases (see proposed TCLP). (See proposed TCLP)

................ (8) Acid wash filters

..................................... Required formetals

............. (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 ® bagor 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 ofappropriate laboratory equipment necessary tovary these parameters. In addition, while EPA had originally intended to evaluate the effects of different glass fiber filters (See Table D-3, Item9), glass fiberfilters other than the type specified in the TCLP protocol were unable to withstand the pressures stipulated in the TCLP. Hence, the EP'suse ofpolycarbonate 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 ofthe 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 iffairly rugged (Ref.4a). This is especially true forthe 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 ofthe extracting fluid directly influences the extraction ofmetals.The TCLP protocol emphasizes accuracy in the preparation ofthe extraction fluids, by specifying the exact recipes for the preparation of these fluids, and indicating that the pH ofthese 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 glassbottles, or an expanded use ofblanks, may help to solve the problem, specifying borosilicate over flint glass would solve the problem entirely. Due to the substantially higher cost ofthe borosilicate glass (from 3 to 5 times higher), EPA is reguesting comment on this option.

The volatiles evaluation for theTCLP is currently ongoing. As noted above, the Table D-3parameters were investigated to determine ifthey need to be controlled more carefully. As an example, pressurization ofthe 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. Thebuild-up ofthis pressure could cause the ZHE piston to move, thereby causing the presence ofheadspace. The ruggedness evaluation would indicate ifthis 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 ofthe volatiles ruggedness evaluation will be noticed forcomment upon completion.

c.Collaborative study.As indicated earlier, both EPA and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) have planned collaborative evaluations ofthe TCLP protocol. EPAts evaluation, in which the American Society ofTesting and Materials, a number of business associations and individual companies, the Department ofEnergy, and Environment Canada's Environmental Research Center are participating, is currently ongoing. This study involves 26 laboratories, five different wastes, both types ofextraction equipment, and organic and inorganic c6mpounds, including volatiles.

EPRI's study, which is very similar to
an evaluation EPRI conducted on theEP (Ref. 2), was limited to the determination ofinorganic compounds and deals with common extraction equipment only.This study deals with
seven types ofutility wastes and involves three laboratories. In addition to total precision, EPRIis investigating the contribution ofboth 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 forTesting 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)ElectricPower 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 ofVarious Wastes Using Various Filter Media. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-7075. April, 1985.

(4a) Energy Resources Company (ERCO). Evaluation ofBottleTCLP 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 ofToxic Compounds FromHazardous 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 ofa Hazardous WasteExtraction Text. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report No. 6247. February, 1986.

(a)

Francis, C.W., and M. Maskarinec. Lea6hing ofMetals 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. OakRidge National Laboratory. January, 1986.

(10) Hannack,P. Letter from P. Hannack, Canada Ministry ofthe 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 ofApplied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay. journal ofEconomic Literature. 9(3):785-797. 1971.

(12) Hicks, 1.The Foundations ofWelfare 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 ofIndustrial 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'ofEP-il. Presented at the American Society forTesting 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 ofSafety. Association of Food and Drug Officers, U.S. Quarterly Bulletin. Volume 18..1954.

(19) McKown etal. Development of Methodology for the Evaluation ofSolid • 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). DrinkingWater 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 Contract68-01-7075. October, 1985.

(23) S-Cubed. Precision Evaluation ofthe 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) TechnologyApplications Inc. (TAI). Statistical Analysis ofTCLP Development Data. U.S. EPA Contract 68-01-936. May 28, 1985.

(26) U.S. EPA. Background Document, Section 261.24, Characteristic ofExtraction Procedure Toxicity. NationalTechnical 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. Guidelinesfor Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.Washington, D.C. December, 1983.

(29) U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). Report on the Review ofEP-111. Washington, D.C. May, 1984.

(30) U.S. EPA. Background Document: Issues Relating to the Development and Use of Reference Doses toSupport 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 SystemicToxicants. Washington. D.C. 1985.

(32) U.S. EPA. Verified Reference Doses (RfD's) ofthe U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C. 1985.

(33) U.S. EPA. Background Document For Toxicity Characteristic LeachingProcedure. Washington. D.C. February, 1986.
List of Subjects in40 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-proposedto 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 ofthe 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 inTable 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 ofthis 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 torylevel (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 D013-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

......................................... i10-86-1 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-Vinylchloride

......................... 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 andapplication. 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 Ifa total analysisof the waste demonstrates that individualcontaminants are not present in the waste, or that they are present, butat such low concentrations that the appropriate regulatory thresholds could not possibly beexceeded, the TCLP need not be run.

2.0 Summaryofmethod (See Figure 1). 2.1 For wastes containing less than 0.5% solids,the waste,'after filtration through a 0.6-0.8Aim 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 ofthe solid phase is reduced (if necessary), weighed, and extracted with an amount of extraction fluid equal to 20 times the weight ofthe solid phase. The extraction fluid employed isa function of the alkalinityofthe solid phase of the waste. A special extractor vessel is used when testingfor volatiles (See Table 1). Following extraction,the liquid extract is separated from the solid phase by 0.6-0.8Am glass fiber filter filtration.

2.3 Ifcompatible (e.g, precipitateor multiple phases willtnot form on combination); the initial liquid phase ofthe 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

### FederalRegister / 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 analysisare discussed in the individual analytical methods.

4.0 •Apparatusandmaterials. 4.1 Agitation Apparatus: An acceptable agitation apparatus is one which is capable of rotating the extraction vessel in anendover-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 ofany volatilecontaminants (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 filtrationwithout having to open the vessel (See Section 4.3.1). These vessels shall have an internal volume of500to 600 nl and be equipped to accommodate a 90 mm filter. Suitable ZHE devicesknown to EPA are identified in Table 3.These devicescontain 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, dependingon the contaminants to beanalyzed and the nature ofthe 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 filtrationdevice discussed inSection 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 becapable of supporting and keeping in place the glass fiberfilter,and be able to withstand the pressure needed to accomplish separation (50 psi).

Note. When it is suspected that theglass fiber filter has been ruptured, an in-lineglass fiber filter may be usedto filter the extract.

4.3.2 Filter Holder.When the waste is being evaluated for otherthan 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 unitsto relatively complex systems capable ofexerting pressure up to 50 psi and more. The type of filter holder useddepends on the'properties' ofthe material to be filtered (See Section 4.3.3). These devices shall have a minimum internal volume of 300ml and-beequipped to accommodate a minimum filter size of47 mm. Filter holders known to EPA to,be suitable for ,useare shown in Table 4.

4.3.3 Materials ofConstruction: Extraction vessels and filtration devices shall be made of inert materials which Will not leach orabsorb waste components. Glass, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or type 316 stainless steel equipment may be usedwhen 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 borosiljcateglass fiber,contain nobinder materials and have an'effective pore size of 0.6-0.8 um, or equivalent. Filters known to EPA to meet these specificationsare 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 rinsingwith 1.0 N nitric-acid followed by three consecutive rinses with"deionized distilled water (minimum of500'ml per rinse).' Glass fiber filters are fragile and should be handled with care..

4.5 pH Meters: Any ofthe commonly available pH meters are acceptable.

4.6 ZHE extract collection devices: TEDLAR® bags or glass, stainless steelor PTFE gas tight syringes are used to collectthe initial liquid phase and the final extract of the waste when using the ZHE device.

4.7 ZHE extraction fluid collection devices:Any device capableof 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 ±0.01grams may beused (all weight measurements are tobe within ±0.1 grams).

5.0 Reagents. 5.1 Water: ASTM Type 1deionIzed, carbon treated, decarbonized, filtered water -(orequivalent water that is treated to remove volatile components) shall be used when evaluating wastes for volatile contaminants. Otherwise, ASTM Type 2deionized 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 1.0N Nitric acid (HNOa) made from ACS Reagent grade.

5.4 1.0 N Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) made from ACS Reagentgrade.

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 ofthe appropriate water (See Section 5.1), adding 64.3 ml of'1.0 N NaOH, and diluting to a volume of 1liter,When correctly prepared, the pH ofthis fluid will be4.93 _. 0.05.

5.6.2 Extraction fluid #2: This fluid is made by diluting 5.7 ml glacial HOAc with ASTM Type 2water (See Section 5.1) to a volume of 1 liter.When correctly prepared, the pH ofthis 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, andthesefluids 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 usinga sampling planthat 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 ofvolatile 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 ofconcern.

6.5 TCLP extracts should be prepared for analysis and analyzed as soon as possible -followingextraction. Ifthey need to be stored, even for a short period of time, storage shall be at4°C and samples for volatiles analysis shall not be allowed to come.intocontact with the atmosphere (i.e.,
no headspace).

7.0 Procedurewhen volatilesarenot inv

lved. Although a minimum sample size of 100 grams is required, a largersample size may be necessary, depending on the percent solids ofthe waste sample. Enough waste sample should be collected such that at least 75 grams of the solid phase ofthe 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, pesticidesand herbicides).

The determination ofwhich extraction fluid to use (See Step7.12) may also be conducted at thestart ofthis procedure. This determination shall be on the solid phase of the waste (as obtained using glass fiberfilter filtration).,

7.1 If the waste will obviouslyyield 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 Ifthe 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 whichwill 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 ofmetals (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 centrifugedprior-to filtration.

7.7 Transfer the waste sample to4he-fitter holder.

Note,-If wslesnaterial has obviousiy adhered to the container used totransfer the sample-to the filtration:apparatus, determine the weight ofthis residue and subtract it from the sample weightdetermined in Step 7.5, to determine the weight ofthe waste sample which will be filtered. Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure of 1-10 psi, until air or pressurizinggas moves through thefilter. 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 amaximum of50 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, orwhen 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 filterholder is defined as the solid phase ofthe waste, and the filtrate isdefined 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 applyingvacuum or pressure filtration, as outlined in Step7.7, this material may not filter. Ifthis is the case, the material within the filtration device is definedas a solid,and iscarried through the extraction as a solid.

7.9 Determine the weight ofthe liquid phase by subtracting the weight of the filtrate container (See Step7.3) from the total weight ofthe filtrate-filled container.The liquid phase may now be e'ther analyzed (See Step 7.15) or stored at 4C until time ofanalysis. The weight of the solid phase ofthe waste sample is determined by subtracting the

- weight ofthe liquid phase from the weight of the total waste sample, as determined in Step 7.5 or7.7. Record the weight ofthe liquid and solid phases.

Note.-If the weight ofthe solid phase of the waste is less than 75grams, 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 toStep 7.11. Ifit-appears that the solid may comprise less than0.5% 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 filterand solid phase at 100±20°C until two successiveweighings yield the same value. Record final weight.

7.10.3 Calculate the percent solids as follows: Weight ofdry waste and filters minus tared weight of filters divided by initial weight ofwaste (Step 7.5 or7.7) multiplied by 100equals percent'solids. 7.10.4 If the solid comprises lessthan 0.5% ofthe waste, the solid is discarded andthe liquid phase is definedas the TCLP extract. Proceed to Step 7.14.

7.10.5 If the solid is greater than or equal to 0.5% of thewaste, return to Step 7.1, and begin the procedure with anew sample of waste. Do not extract thesolid that'has been dried.

Note.-This step is only used todetermine 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 Ifthe sample has more than 0.5% solids, it is now evaluated for particle size.If the solid material has asurface area per gram of material equal to or greater than 3.1 cm2

, or is capable of passing through a9.5 mm (0.375 inch) standard sieve, proceed to Step 7.12. If the surfacearea is smaller orthe 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 surfacearea 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 ofthe appropriate extracting fluid to use (See Sections 5.0 and 7.0).

7.12.1 Weigh out asmall sub-sample of the solid phase ofthe waste, reduce the solid (if necessary) to a particle size of approximately 1mm indiameter or less, and transfer a5.0 gram portion to a500 ml beaker or erlenmeyer flask.

7.12.2 Add 96.5 ml distilleddeionized water (ASTM Type 2), cover with watchglass, and stirvigorously for 5minutes 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, coverwith a watchglass, heat to 50°C,and hold for 10 minutes.

7.12.4 Let the solution cool to room temperature and record pH. IfpH is 05.0, use extraction fluid #1. Ifthe pH is >5.0, extraction fluid #2 is used.

7.13 Calculate the weight of the remaining solid material by subtracting the weightof the sub-sample takenfor Step 7.12, from the original amount ofsolid 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 .toseparate the initial liquid from the solid phase.

Note.-tf any ofthe solid phase remains adhered toi the walls ofthe filter holder, or the container usedto-transfer thewaste, its weight shall bedetermined, subtracted from the weight ofthe solid phase ofthe waste, as determined'above, andthis weight is used in calculating the amount ofextraction fluid to add:into theextractor bottle. "

- Slowly add an amount of the appropriate extraction fluid (See Step7.12], into the extractor bottle equal to20 times the w'eight ofthe solid phase that has been placed into the extractor bottle.Close extractor bottle tightly,secure in rotary extractor device and rotate at30 ± 2rpm for 18 hours.The temperature shall be maintained at 22 ± 3 °C duringthe extraction period.

. Note.-As agitation continues, pressure may build up within the extractor bottle (due to the evolution ofgasses such as carbon dioxide). To relieve these pressures, the extractor bottle may be periodically opened and vented intoa 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 definedas the TCLP extract. Proceed toStep 7.16.

7.15.2 If compatible (e.g., will not form precipitate or multiple phases), the filtered liquid resulting from Step 7.14 iscombined with the initial liquid phase ofthe waste as obtained in Step 7.9.This combined liquid is defined as theTCLP extract. Proceed to Step 7.16.

7.15.3 If the initial liquid phase ofthe waste, as obtained from Step 7.9, is not or may not becompatible with the filtered liquid resulting from Step 7.14,these liquids are not combined.These liquids are collectively defined as the TCLPextract, are analyzed separately, and the results are combined mathematically. Proceed to Step 7.16.

7.16 TheTCLP extract will be prepared and analyzed according to the approprihte SW-846 analytical methods identified in Appendix III of 40 CFR 261. TCLPextracts to be analyzed for metals shall be acid digested. If the individual phases are to be analyzed separately, determine the volume ofthe individual phases (to 0.1 ml), conduct the appropriate analyses, and combine the results mathematically by using asimple weighted average:

(v,) (C,) + (V 2)(C 2) :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 ofthe contaminant of

,concern in the first phase (mg/l) V

2=The volumeof the second phase (1) C2=The concentration ofthe 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 of100 grams was required in the Section 7procedure, the ZHE can only accommodate a maximum 100 percent solids sample of25grams. due to the need .toadd an amount of extractionfluid equal to 20 times the weight ofthe solid phase. Step8.4 provides the means ofwhich to determine the approximate sample size for the ZHE device.

Although the following procedure allows for particle size reduction during the conduct ofthe procedure, thiscould result in the loss ofvolatile compounds. Ifpossible,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 beconducted during theprocedure if there is no other choice.

In carrying out the following steps,do not allow the waste to be exposed to the atmosphere forany 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 withinthe body ofthe ZHE (itmay be helpful to first moisten the piston O-rings slightlywith extraction fluid). Secure thegas inlet/outlet flange (bottom flange) ontothe ZHE body in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.Secure the glass fiber filter between the support screens and setaside. Set liquid inlet/outletflange (top flange) aside.

8.3 If thewaste will obviously yield no free liquid when subjected topressure filtration,weigh out a representative subsample ofthe waste (25 gram maximumSeeStep 8.0), record weight. and proceed to Step8.5.

84 This step provides the means by which to determine the approximate sample size for the ZHE device. Ifthe 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 bydividing the weight ofthe solid phaseof the waste by the original sample size used. Ifthe waste obviously contains greater than0.5% solids,go to Step 8.4.2.If it appears that the solid may comprise lessthan 0.5%of the waste,go to Step 8.4.1.

8.4.1 Determine the percent solidsby using the procedure outlined in Step 7.10. If the waste contains less than 0.5%solids, weigh out a new 100gram minimum representative sample, proceed to Step 8.7, and follow until the liquid phase of thewaste is filtered using theZHE device (Step 8.8). This liquid filtrate is defined as theTCLP

- extract, and is analyzed directly. If the waste contains greater than or equal to0.5% solids. repeat Step 8.4 using a new 100gram minimum sample, determine the percent solids, and proceed to Step 8.4.2.

8.4.2 Ifthe sample is <25% solids, weigh out anew 100gram minimum representative sample, and proceed to Step8.5. If the sample is > 25% solids,the maximum amount of sample theZHE can accommodate is determined by dividing 25 grams by the percent solids obtained from Step 8.4. Weigh out a new representative sample ofthe determined size.

8.5 After arepresentative 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 Step8.0). Ifthe solid material withinthe waste obviouslyhas a surface area per gram of material equal to orgreaterthan 3.1 cm2

, or is capable ofpassing through a9.5 mm (0.375 inch) standard,sieve, proceed immediately to Step8.6. Ifthe surface area is smaller or the particle sizeis 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 ofthe solid phase of thewaste is necessary, exposure ofthe 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 ofthe waste.

8.6 Waste slurries need not be allowed to stand to permit thesolid phase to settle. Wastes thatsettle slowly shall not be centrifuged prior to filtration.

8.7 Transferthe entire sample (liquid and solid phases) quickly to theZHE. Secure the filter andsupport screens into the top flange ofthe device and secure the top flangeto the ZHE body in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.Tighten all ZHE fittings and place the device inthe vertical position (gas inlet/outlet flange on the bottom). Do not attach the extract collection -deviceto the top plate.

Note.-If waste material has obviously adhered to the container used to transfer the sample to the ZIE,determine the weightof this residue andsubtract it from the sample weightdetermined in Step 8.4. to determine the weight of the waste sample which will be filtered. Attach agas line to thegas inlet/outlet valve (bottom flange), and %4ith the liquid inlet/ outlet valve (top flange) open, begin applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi (ormore if necessary) to slowly force all headspace out ofthe ZHE device. At thefirst appearance of liquidfrom the liquid inlet/outlet valve, quickly close thevalve and discontinue pressure.

8.8 Attach evacuated pre-weighed filtrate collection container to the liquid inlet/outlet value and open valve. Begin applyinggentle pressure of 1-10 psi(o f6rce theliquid phase into the filtrate collection container.If no additional liquid has passed through the filter in any 2minute interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10 psi increments toa maximum of 50 psi. After each incremental increase of 10 psi, if noadditional 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 tothe piston, anddisconnect the filtrate collection container.

Note.-lnstantaneous application of high pressure can degradethe glass fiber filter and may cause premature plugging.

8.9 The material in the ZHE is definedas the solid phaseof the waste, andthe 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 asolid, and is carried through the TCLPextraction as asolid. Ifthe original waste contained less than0.5%' 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 ofthe liquid phase by subtracting the weight ofthe filtrate container (See Step 8.1) from the total weight ofthe filtrate-filled container.The liquid phase may now beeither analyzed (See Steps 8.13 and 8.14), or stored at 4'C until time of analysis.The weight ofthe solid phase ofthe waste sample is determined by subtracting the weight of the liquid phase from the weight ofthe total waste sample (See Step 8.4). Record.the final weight ofthe liquidand solid phases

-8.11 The following details how to addthe appropriate amount ofextraction fluid to the solid material within the ZHE and agitation ofthe ZHEvessel. Extraction fluid #1 is used in all cases(See Section 5.6).

8.11.1 With the ZHE in the vertical position, attacha 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 onthe ZHE piston (from thegas 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 offluid introduced into the device equals 20 times the weight of the solid phase ofthe waste that is in the ZHE.

8.11.2 After the extraction'fluid has been added, immediately close the liquid inlet/ outlet valve,and disconnectthe extraction fluid line.Check the ZHE to make sure'that all valves are in their closed positions. Pick up the ZHEand physically rotate the device in anend-over-end fashion 2or3 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 valveto 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 theZIIE in the rotary extractor apparatus (if it'is not already there), and rotate the ZIIE at 30 + 2rpm 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 escapeofgas. If the pressure has not been maintained (i.e., no gas release observed), the device is leaking. Replace ZHE 0-rings or otherfittings, as necessary, and redo the extraction with a new sample ofwaste.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 phaseof the waste, unless doing so would create multiple phases, or unless there isnot enough volume leftwithin the filtrate collection container.A separate filtrate collection container must be used in these cases. Filter through theglass fiber filter,using the ZHIE device as discussed in Step8.8. All extract shall be filtered and collected if the extract is multi-phasic or if the waste contained an initial liquid phase.

Note.-If theglass fiberfilter 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 1fthe wastf contained no initial liquid phase,the filtered liquid material obtained from Step 8.12 is defined as the TCLP extract. Ifthe waste 'contained an initial liquid phase, thefiltered 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 of40 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,-.+ V

2

where: V, = The volume of the first phase (1) C, = The concentration ofthe contaminant of concern in the first phase (mg/I) V

2 = The volume of the second phase(1) C

2 = The concentration ofthe 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 QualityAssurance requirements. 9.1 All data, including quality assurance data, should be maintained and available for reference or inspection.

9.2 A minimum ofone blank for every 10 extractions that have been conducted in an extraction vessel shall be employed as a check to determine ifany memory effects from the extraction equipment is occurring One blank shall also be employed forevery new batch of leachingfluid that is made up.

9.3 Allqualitycontrol measures described in the appropriate analytical methods shall be followed.

9.4 The method ofstandard addition shall beemployed for each waste type if: 1) Recovery ofthe compound from spiked splits ofthe TCLP extract is not between 50and

- 150%. or 2) Ifthe concentration ofthe constituent measured in the extract is within • 20% ofthe appropriate regulatory threshold. If more than I extraction is being run on samples ofthe same waste, the method of standard addition need only be applied once and the percent recoveries applied to the remainder ofthe 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

Acetone

..................................................-................... Acrylonitrile

................................................................. 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 Anydevice which rotates the extraction vessel in an end- over-end fashion at 30

- 2 rpm is acceptable.

2Although this device is suitable, it is not commercially made. It may also require retrofitting toaccommodate 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

IAny 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 Location Model Pore Compny



### if )size

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-FI ERAB[U SOLI2S 

### WET WASTE SAMPLE CONTAINS > 0.5 % NON-FILTERABLE 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-HFADSPACE EXTRACTORREQUIRED FOR VOLATILES

LIQUID/SOLID



### SEPARATION 0.6-0.8 um GLASS FIBER FILFERS

LIQUID

TCLP EXTRACT DISCARD SOLID

TCLP EXTRACf ANALYTICAL

.... TCLP EXTRACT

- - - 

### METHOLS LIQUID 

# .[

STORE A2 40

### C

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

### *FederalRegister 

# /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 ofAppendix 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 

### ofthe SolidWaste Disposal Act, as 5030/8240 

### amended bythe Resource Conservation

8090, 8250. 

### and Recovery Act of1976, 

### as amended 3510/8270 (42 U.S.C. 

### 6905, 6912(a), and 6926). 2. Amend §271.1 Paragraph (j)by adding thefollowing entry to Table 1in 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 forPart 302 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 102ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980,42 U.S.C. 9602; Secs. 311 and 501(a) ofthe 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 EPToxicity" in Table 302.4and the footnotes are republished as follow: §302.4 Designation of hazardous substances.

TABLE 3024.-LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
Statutory Final RO Hazardoussubstance CASRN Regulatory synonyms RO Co RCRA Category Pounds (Kg) RQ Code, waste NO. Ctgr ons(g

Unlisted HazardousWastes

.................................................................................................................................................................. Toxicity Characteristic

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

Acrylonildle

....................................................................... 107131 2-Propenenitrile

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

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

......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Benzene .................................................................. ... 71432 ..................................................................................................... eis(2-chloroethy!) ether

................. ............. ......... 111444 Dichloroethyl ether Ethane, 1,1'-oxybis[2-chIoro-

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

.......................................................................................................................................................................................... :.......... Carbon disufide

............................. 3

................................. 75150 Carbon bisulfide

...................................................................... Carbontetrachloride

........................................................ 56235 Methane, tetrachloro

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

.......................................................................... 57749 Chlordane, technical 4,7-Methanoindan, 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 Ethane, 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 Hazardoussubstance CASRN Regulatory synonyms R0 caet RCRA Category Pounds (Kg) .0 ' cdet waste No.

Lindane

.......................................................................... ................................................................................ 1 1.4 D013 X 1 (0.454) M

ercury................ :....... ....................... .. ............................................ ...... : ........................................................................................... 1 4 D009 X 1(0.454) M

ethoxychlor

.............................................................................................. . .......................... ............................................................ . 1 1.4 D 014 X 1(0.454) Methylenechloride

......................................................... 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. methyl...................................................................... 1000 1,2.4 0049 C 1000(454) Toxaphene

.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1,4 D0t5 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 D017 B 100(45.4) Vinyl chloride

.................................................................... 75014 Ethene, chloro-.

....................................................................... 1. 2,3.4 D055 X 1 r(0.454)

(-Indicatesthe statutory source as d6fined by1,2,3, or 4below. 1-Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA isCWA 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 statutorysource for designation of thishazardous substance under CERCLA isCAA Section 112. 4-ndicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substanceunder CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
1 *-Indicatesthat the 1-pound RO isaCERCLA statutory Re. 'v-Indicates that the RD issubject to change when the assessment o1potential carcinogenicityand/or chronic toxicity is completed.

= -Indicates that an adjusted RD isproposed ina speatteNPRM [50 FR 13154, April 4, 1985]. ===-The Agency mayadjust the RO for methyl isocyanate inafuture rulemakinq: until then the statutory 1-pound RDapplies.

IFR Doc. 86-13033 Filed 6-12-86; 8:45 amj BILLING CODE 6560-50-

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21693 1986HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 21694 1986