Schedule 2

• Leachate Test
• Scope and Application of the TCLP Canadian Equivalent
• Table of Hazardous Constituents Controlled Under Leachate Test and Regulated Limits
• Explanatory Notes for Leachate Test
• Table of Hazardous Constituents Controlled Under Leachate Test and Regulated Limits

Leachate Test

The U.S. EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Test Method 1311 (as amended) is to be used to determine the leachate toxicity hazard as set out in Part III, subsection 3.11(1).

Scope and Application of the TCLP Canadian Equivalent

"This standard is designed to determine the mobility of both organic and inorganic analytes present in liquid, solid and multi phasic wastes.

If a total analysis of the waste demonstrates that individual analytes are not present in the waste or that they are present but at such low concentrations that the appropriate regulatory levels could not possibly be exceeded, the test need not be run.

This test does not apply to metals in non-dispersible form, which are bits and pieces of metal parts, bars, rods, sheets, wires, cables, bales, scrap automobiles (crushed, baled shredded or otherwise), railroad box cars, used beverage cans, whole television sets and white goods."

Explanatory Notes for Leachate Test

This Schedule is proposed as one instead of the workshop version which separated the test reference and scope from the table of hazardous constituents. The title and columns and note have been edited to reflect the proposed use of the term "hazardous constituent" (see definition in Part I). Other than these noted changes, this Schedule reflects the generally agreed positions of CCME/workshop participants.

Some discussion at the workshops had focused on expanding the list of examples in the scope to ensure that it was clear which types of materials did not have to undergo this test. Contrary to earlier recommendations during the explanatory notes in Part I-definitions, it is suggested that the scope remain as is with a list of examples which provide the necessary clarity that large, finished, non-dispersible materials are excluded. Listing every possibility is fraught with error in this case.

An alternate presentation of the table of hazardous constituents is presented below to demonstrate an option in response to the order of presentation in both official languages. Often the order is based on the originating language and for this type of list of names, the order is usually alphabetical. In addition, the structure of regulatory drafting often requires a numerical order for ease of reference in regulatory text and when tables are in alphabetical order, this requires the addition of item numbers matched to alphabetical order and then cross-referenced to the other language.

The option presented below, orders the list using the numeric order of "Code Numbers" which are assigned to each hazardous constituent. The result is that the code number serves as the regulatory order in both languages, alphabetical order becomes equally irrelevant in both languages and the entire table is in the same order for both.

Note in the resulting presentation that code numbers are now column 1 in numeric order and the hazardous constituent is named in column 2. Using this format, there is no need to add item numbers to ensure correct reference to the same constituent in both languages and the same hazardous constituent will be in the same position in both languages. Both languages benefit from the same convenience of a simple order and the same order and no one language has any preference based on alphabetical order.