Thursday
                       December 22, 1994
                        Part II
                                    c    '    ģ
                                    'i
                        Environmental
                        Protection  Agency
                       40 CFR Part 2611 et al.
                       Hazardous Waste Management System;
                       Identification and Listing of Hazardous
                       Waste;Dye and Pigment industries;
                       Hazardous Waste Listing Determination
                       Policy; ^and CERCLA Hazardous     '
                       Substance Designation and Reportable
                       Quantities; Proposed Rules   ,


                   —• ; •. rf- '**;-.
,;..:i.fc;.-:iĢ.ri~.

::-v--.-'':^'':A.?.:J



•'•%'^Ĩ'.,&/-
 Ģ'!.; ,:';;•?•. ? .>~'^ ^
•:t.'"v.,-i.-^:s:.-*^,V:/

-------
 660.72   V yederal"Register 7 Vol.*59, No/<245 •(- TWrsday,* Decenifeer 22, 1994 /-Proposed Rules
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY                :    ;.  i   •

 40 CFR Parts 261,271, and 302  .
 tSWH-FRL-6122-$J    "       ""   ,    :

 RIN 2050^AD80     •     ,  ..... -

 Hazardous Waste Management     '-
 System; Identification and Listing of   .
 Hazardous Waste; Dye and Pigment
 Industries; Hazardous Waste Listing
 Determination Policy; and CERCLA
 Hazardous Substance Designation and
 ReportableQuantities   ...   -;  '".'

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.         .             .
 ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

 SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental   .
 Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
 amend the regulations for hazardous
 waste management under the Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
 EPA is listing, as hazardous, five wastes
 generated during the production of dyes
 and pigments because certain ways of
 disposing of these wastes may present a'.
 risk to human health and the   •
 environment. EPA also is proposing not
 to list as hazardous six other wastes
 from this industry, and to defer action
 on three wastes due to insufficient
 information. The proposal would add
 the toxic constituents found in the
 wastes to the list of constituents that" •
•serve as a basis for classifying •wastes as
 hazardous. This action" also describes
 EPA's policy on making listing
 determinations, and the risk-based
 criteria used by the Agency.           J
  This action is proposed under the'" '.
 authority of Sections 3001(eX2) sad " •.
 3001(h)[l) of the Hazardous and Solid
 Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
 which direct EPA to make a hazardous
 waste listing determination lor dye and
 pigment wastes. If finalized, this .
 regulation would regulate these wastes
 as hazardous wastes under -Subtitle Ccf
 RCRA. Additionally, this action  " r.  .
 proposes to designate the wastes    •
 proposed for listing as hazardous    -  •
 substances subject to the     ~  .
 Comprehensive Environmental  .   •
 Response, Compensation, and Liability
 Act (CERCLA). EPA-is not taking action
 at this time to adjust the one-pound
 statutory reportable quantities (RQs) for
 these substances.       '.•"••""'..   ••'•
, DATES: EPA will accept public •  •-.•••-
 comments on this proposed rule and on
 EPA's hazardous waste listing"  .,-.. ' •
 determination policy until March 22, .*.
 1995. Comments postmarked after this  -
 date will be marked "late" and may not
 be considered. Any person may request
 a public hearing on this proposal by
- -filling -a request with Mr. David Bussord,
 *v hose iddrtiss appears belowr, by   ••-&•
                      '
 ADDRESSES: The official record of ihis
 •proposed rulemaking is identified by ;
 Docket Number F-Q^DPIP-TFFFF Ģ
 is located at the following *ddress. The
, public must send an original *ad two  •
 copies of their comments to:H?ARCRA
 Docket Clerk, Room 26.ie-&305),tXS.  ;
 Environmental Protection Aeeacy,*01
 M Street, SW., Washington, DC ZMSS.
   The Docket Number for etimments on
 EPA's discussion of its listing -;;.";._ '-f?-'.
 determination policy (see Section UB) is
 F-94-LCN-FFFFF. The public must  - -
 send an original and two cqjies of their
 comments on EPA's policy discussion to
 the above address. Sucfa comments must
 be submitted separately from conanetrts
. on the dye and pigment listing "  .   '
 determinations, and must reference    ,
 Docket Number F-Qtr-UJCN-FFFFf1.:
 Copies of materials relevant to this  .
 proposed rulemaking are located in the
 docket at the address' listed above. The
 docketjs open from 9 am to 4 pia, . •  *
 Monday through Friday, excluding •• ."•
 Federal holidays. The public must Jinake
 an appointment to review docket '••:'•>
 materials by. calling (202) 380-5327.. The
 public may icopy 100 pages fioinlhe -•'..,
 docket at no 'charge; additional copies
 are $0.15 per page. ; .  ": _."- -• .•-    •;.'-
   Requests for a hearing should be
 addressed to Mr. David Bussardat ,:
 Characterizjition and Assessment '.- - -:~
 "Division, Office of Solid Waste 1530$,
 U.S. Bnvironmental Protection Agency,
• .401 M Stiieett, S W.; Washui^on, DC : ' . : .'
           ''    •'         ''  " *    '
 VQR FURTHER 1HPORMAT10N OOHTACT: The
 RCRA/Superfund HotHne, tolkfice, '.fit •
 <800) 424-Ģ348 or at (703) 020-8810.
. The TDD Hotline number is (800) 353-
 7672 {toll-free) of (703) 486-3323 in the
_Washinjgtpn,DC metropolitan area. For
 technical injibnnation on the RCRA - >.,
 hazardous waste listings, contact  ' *• j
 Wanda,Levine, Office of Solid Waste  .'
 <53O4),U.S.Sivironmental^rc4ecSon
 Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington,
 .DC 20460, (202) 260-^7458,; tv. ;..V ";J'^
   For technical information on the , ~ • •
 CERCLA aspects of this rule, contact: 7.
 ,Ms. GerainH. Perry, Response .;   -':J^i
 Standards aiid Criteria Branch, L;^^,;^VJ;
' Emergency Response DivisipnC52O2SG),
 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgertcjf,
, 401 M Street, SVV., Washington, DC ;,:; i-
 2046pr(763)'603-7a76p. .-. -1;. •'.:"j:'\ '*'.^
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 3$B:7*t;^-
. contents of the preamble •.toihis .....-,;.•.•=•;>.
 .proposed rule are listed in theiollawing
- outline: .-,-.;.. •_- .A-,; ..--'^.^;si^:.K3;%te
 I. Background ;%  -"'  - •' •. v:Ģ.v<~.:-. t; •••"•'fc;
 • A. Statutory and'Regulaioiry-'Authorities'^:"-!
  • -B. EPA's Hazardous Waste Listing . - 7 '>r •
 /...  Determination Policy   -;-:,.'•   -;
 .-|I. Today's Action  ..•  ,  .. -  ,.    ^- -,••"•'.
   A. Summary of Today's'Action . .,•...'•,.
 .-.. 1. Confidentiality .Claims ...   .,.'•_: f\ .'••
 ' ^ 2. Summary af Listing Determinations and
 "••'•  Deferrals     "  .'  '  •    •• • •  ,  .,;
  :.. ^.Request forComirierit on :the Effect of  -~^.
 ;,,.- ..EnforceableEPAAndustry Agreements
  '•  . on Plausible Mismanagement Analysis
 ...'..' .-.and Subsequent Listing Determinations
 !• • •..' B. Dye and Pigment Industries Overview  . •
 , . C. Description of the Process Wastes  ' ' '; • •
 -''   .identified in Comparison to those   .
 . • *  Specified in the Settlement Agreement
  ;,D; Description of Health and Risk       '.s'
     Assessments ".'      • ~
 ,„'E, Waste-Specific Listing Determinatioa  :-
 '.''•••' Rationales       .   •  ".    •..
 :.1H. Waste Minimization -  •'••.••-  .
  IV. Applicability of Land Disposal  ;    -.   .
  ;'  Restrictions Determinations     ..'-.. ...-,
 •  - A. Request for Comment on the Agency's
   • - -Approach to the Development of BOAT
  1C.  Treatment Standards     '    ..'.-..'
   B. Request for Comment on the Agency's  .
  • ':  Approach to the Capacity Analyses in
  '",  the LDR Program          .•'• '_•"[•   ."
  V. Compliance Dates  *''•-•-•'   • /•"'.'.
 - : A/Notification - '- • *-'. ';:  '   '--•
 •  'B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities-
  VI. State Authority  ;          • .
 ,'.•• •-' Av Applicability of Rule in Authorized  ' ' •;'
  /-^states'. •   •'.••....'.,:':  "  ••.••••'
   B. Effect on State Authorizations
  VU. CERCLA Designation and Reportable
 •    Quantities  .  ' •'•"• .,  ••'  '"  '.'•;'   •
  VIII. Economic Impact Analysis
  IX.Exeputive Order12866      '.     '   .
 - X. Regulatory Flexibility Act   .          .
 ^.3H.Paperwork Reduction Act   .

  ?.Background  '  ;   ,•  .    '•   • •*.'•

 •"A. "Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
 '..,   These regulations are proposed .under-
  the authority of Sections 2002(a) and   :
  3001(b) and 3001(e)(2) of the Solid
  Waste Disposal-Act, 42 U.S..C. 6912(a),
  and 6921(b) and (e)(2), as amended by
  the Hazardous and Solid Waste    ;   ',••-
  Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).These
  statutes commonly are referred to as the
  Resource Conservation and Recovery'
 : Act (RCRA) and are codified at Volume
 -42 of the United States Code (U.S.C.),  .
 " sections 6901 to 699200 (42 U.S.C.:     '
  6901-699200).         '     .     ••-'••   '
 ; "-.Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive -
 '^EnvironmentalResponse,   ' ,-.''   '••';.'
  Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
 .'(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is the
•'•;_ authority for the CERCLA aspects of this
 ':rule. •••-.'•''-'  '"' '•• •    '-v - •' .•'•-'•'••
 -:   Section 3001(a) of RGRA, 42 JJ.SJC:.
 .;-'6921{a)i requires EPA to promulgate'  " •;-
 -criteria for identifying characteristics of
 ^hazardous wastes and for listing .     >
 ~ .hazardous wastes. Section 3001(b) of • -=- •.'•
"." RCRA requires EPA to promulgate  "   ••••'-
 .Mgulations, based on these criteria, ^'  ,
 ^identifying and listing hazardous wastes
 'I'which shall be subject to the   -  - •.     •
 ^requirementStofthe Act. ''!: • :     v •':':-.

-------
FĢderal Register
                                      . 59, No, 245 / ;-
                                             ? /"fifoposed Rules ^ .; -
  .".. Hazardous waste is defined at Section
.   1004(5) jof RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6903(5)...   ^ -
 - -There are two types of hazardous waste. •
 x: First^hazardous wastes are those solid . • •
   wastes which may cause or significantly
   contribute to an increase in mortality,
  • serious irreversible illness, or ,  ..  : ,..;;  .
 ' "incapacitating reversible illness. In ;", • '
   addition, hazardous wastes are those
>;:. solid, wastes which inay pose a       • , ,:
  - substantial present or potential hazard
  < to human health or the environment  •  --
., when improperly managed. -
 • :-   EPA's regulations establishing criteria
.->-! for listing hazardous wastes are codified
 '• atTitle 40,pf the Code of Federal - i ---; >,'•/'.
• '.  Regulations (CFR) §261.11 (40 CFR ^:  -
   261.11).; Section 261.11 states three   :, •
 : •. criteria for identifying characteristics .}
 •  and for listing wastes as hazardous.* S-".
     First, wastes may be classified ias  '•  V;
   "characteristic" wastes if they have the ,
   properties described at 40 CFR261.2lTr'. _,
   24 which would cause them to be. -
   classified as having the characteristics  ,
   of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity pr, ••
 •'toxicityi      ••' :,    •   ••    ;''~~-':  •" •
 '•.  • Second, wastes maybe classified as
   acutely hazardous if they are fatal to  ,.
 -... humans at low doses, lethal in animal ''-•
.  : studies at particular doses designated in
   the regulation, or otherwise capable of
  .causing! or significantly contributing to ',-
   an increase in serious illness.   .''.".   '- ••'
    .Third, wastes may be listed as -"-'
   hazardous if they contain hazardous " .
   constituents identified in Appendix Vm
   of 40 CŖR part 261 and the Agency  ,   .
  'concludes, after'considering eleven '. '.
  /.factors enumerated in 40 CFR-     '  .  '
   261.11(a)(3), that the waste is capable of
 ..' posing a substantial present or potential
  '• hazard to human health or the  .  •
 • environment when improperly "•   '' '•''• >
  ' managed. Such wastes are designated as
 .  toxic wastes, A substance is listed in -- • -::
   Appendix VIE if it has been shown in
   scientific studies to have toxic,    • ^
   carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic •
   effects on humans or other life forms.
     Wastes listed as hazardous are subject
  , to federal requirements under RCRA for
.   persons who generate, transport, treat,•'*
• .store or dispose of such waste. Facih'ties
  -- that must meet the hazardous waste;  -; -• •'•
 ;  management requirements, including  - *•
   the need to obtain permits to operate^ '-••;
.  -commonly are referred to as Subtitle C-':
   facilities. Subtitle C is Congress'original"
   statutory designation for that part of
   RCRA that directs EPA to issue thoseĢ '-'
  • regulations for hazardous wastes as may
   be necessary to protect human health or -
   the environment Thus, facilities like   '.-
   incinerators or landfills that are
   required to comply with RCRA   -  -
   requirements for hazardous waste are   " •
   referred to'as Subtitle C incinerators or ••••
   landfills.   •..' -  '••:•:••-••.•'•,	 .-  '.-..••->'-
                                       s.-iAs^wrtofits.regulatipnS;-?;-^ v. -.,-^i
 of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste Disposal) of   implementing Section 3001(e) of RCRA,
.Volume 42 of the United States Code (42  , EPA published a list of hazardous   . .U
 U.S.G. 6921 through 693.9(e))i EPA: •*," ,V v;r^astes Aat in^udfes'hazardous wiwt^
 standards and procedural reguiatipns-'I,,l^generated from non-specific sources and
 .implementing Subtitle Care fount! Ŗ:-% ^ iaflisl:^of hazardpus wastes from specific
.generally at 40 CFTR pai4s'260 through ;S; asjSur.cesi^'hfese^liistsJiaviB been amended
 272.  -    ģ-'•-..•;' •i-i'.-T''-Ģ^ii ••'";' .t?"":i -  several times, and.are published in 40 '"
   Solid wastes that are not hazardpus-^-: CFR261.31 arid 4pCTIl 2^1.32^..'   >
 wastes may be disposed of at facilities :--••. respBctively. In this action, EPA'is
 tiiat are overseen by state and local  *-.•>
 governments. These ara the So-called - -
 Subtitle D facilities. Subtitle D isi:^3^
 Congress' original statutory designation
 for that part of RCRA that d6al$ wi&;'!
 federal assistance to state and regional
                '   "ispbfeal-of solid ?*"
                                                               ;--proposing to amend40 GFR 261.32 to  '- *i":-
                                                              •'•,. add five wastes from specific sources   J
                                                                •generated during the production of dyes
                                                              ^t7end pigments.  :.' •• '"•.•' '•i-::'-,-.:t^.>/-.^ .?-^Ģ^-"Ģ•.-;-;
                                                              ^ •_ Otiose hazardous' constituents-that are •
                                                              •" prof)ose4 to be included in Appendix -t^
                                                              ;M)VHtp;part 26jliB&ste;forListing4 *.&; --^
                                                              ';/- Haziirdpus Waste, also:are proposed to -:,
                                                              ' - ;be added to Appendix Vill pf:part.261, \,
                                                                 .the list of Hazardous Constituents, if not

                                       (ah-ejidy included in this list!'
                                         All hazardous wastes listed under •
                                       RCRA and codified in 40 CFR 261.31
                                       through 261.33, as well as any-solid
•;~, Subtitle' D is codified as Subcbapter -
 IV of Chapter 82 (Solid Waste Disposal)
 of Volume 42 of the United States Code
 (42 U.S.C. 6941 thrpflgli:6949(a)). EPA :>'
 regulations affecting Subtitle D facilities
 arl found generally at'W CFR parts 240   uaola&^1'^i^ we" as *"y so^
 n,^ oA't-^tA ^cc*i,Ģ. OCQ      ,.. r,.c.r;, waste that exhibits one or more of the
^^ecSo^lSSfoSAWuSC:   ^acteristicsofaRCRA hazardous
 69l1S?r^KS^nSCr  wa^(,s. •,.<:••-•••-;:;{
                                      ^J5ectio^l^ljpL4)(GJ. CERCLA hazardous; c. /-' 1
                                       • substances are listed inT^ble 302.4 at  •• c ' ;-> ••
                                      ..-.-_.    i--...   ,      ... 'leiriepprtabieT; i>: \,
' the setdemerit agreement), in which ihe";
 Agency agreed to publish a ft&pp&ea*;^*
 determination as to whether or riot to
 list as hazardous certain wastes from the
 production of dyes 'and pigments by ,  -
 November 30^1994 and to promulgate a
 final decision by^November 30,; 1^95.' -
•'•-: ''Therfr are three major classes of '&yfss *.'
•andpigments: AzbTbtehadine, =-  •"'•'- S'
• anthraquinone, and triarybnetharie. The
--settlement agreement specifies that the
• listing is to address the azo, monoazo,  "
••diazo.triazo,polyazo,azoic?and ,'' t .;
"benzidirie categories olf the azo/ -' > -J -f '"•.
 benzidine dye and pigment class; Ae _;>^;
 anthraquinone and peiylene categories r,
-of the anthraquinone Hye and^igment _}.;•;
1 class; and the triarybiKithane,,;;' >'*." ~i
                                                               -,-; .Vf.OOI.b^ ~JLUt ĢUL1.0 fiCuOIX OS XjŖliXV>U/V ',' — . ',;,7 "
                                                                 hazEirdous substances in Table 302.4 of
                                                                 ,40 CFR 302.4;;EPA is not taking action;
                                                                 at this time to adjust the one-pound •'-'' -
                                                                 statiiDtpry RQs for these substances. *  .' ~

                                                                 B. EPA's Hazardous Waste Listing >  -,;:,'
                                                               •'Determination Policy   :X:;>-   -••?';'.'•
                                                                   EIģA beueyesthat it should provide -
                                                                 the public with a better understanding -
                                                                 of the basis for EPA's listing decisions.  ;'
                                                                 Accbrdmgly, EPA presents here the -  ,;•-.",
                                                                 general approach the Agency uses for : .
                                                                 determining whether to list a waste as "
                                                                 hazŖirdous pursuant to 40 CFR ;;-••<•  '.'-.'.
                                                               ',: 261; Jl(a)(3); This presentation focuses";;
                                                                 on selection of waste management *~i>;-!
                                                                .'scenarios used in assessing risk and the
 categories of the triarylmethane dye and
 pigment dass. The settlement agreernent
 also specifies that the listing is to""";^*
• address the following types of wastes   .*•
 where they areiound: spent catalysts,  v
 reactor still-overheads, vacuum system -.-•
 condensate, process waters, spent  --"-'-.* :
 adsorbent, equipment cleaning sludge, -. •
 product mother liquor, product'-.'j -..-'  -
 standardization filter cake, dust  :  •   -
 collector filter fines, recovery still > '.
                                                                 making listing detenniiiations. These tr:
                                                                 "elements kre^^ an important part o'f EPA's-
                           coiiecior niier nnes, recovery suii     ^..T-J^OO-
                           bottoms,treated wastewater effluent,ff.V^j'She
                           and wastewater treatrnentsludge..^:;.'^:'&'f$&u
                                       aspects to the'jdyes and pigments listing
                                      ..determination. It is irnportant tonote-  : -
                                       that this discussion presents EPA's     :.;
                                       general listing policy and is not a   : :  ?v
                                       . rulemaking. The Agency may take :•:{ :'-'_
                                       action at variance widi this general; Hs.' -
                                      -.poliicy. The Agehcy-is seeking comment _:-
                                      >=6n-i1;s policy in order to get input from  ^r
                                       ShepubUcvnotin oi-def to promulgate *;gj
                                       bindiing rules for. listing determinations; ,

-------
 Ģ6074     Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules
 The Agency will review any comments
 received and may revise its policy based
 on such comments. However, the
 Agency does not intend to respond to
 comments submitted.        -      '
   Tte listing criteria described here
 focus on several aspects of the Agency's'
 listing determination process. Hie
 discussion is aot intended to cover all
  Potential aspects of these --.   ,.     -
  etenninatians.For example, -analyzing
 population risk is 3not included in this
 presentation. The Agency solicits
 comment on how population risks-could
 be included as a factor in listing    .-'.:
 determinations. The Agency's approach
 to calculating distributions of individual
 risk values when determining "high .
 end" risk and the Agency's position on
 how far into the future it will consider
 risk are not covered in today's notice.
 The Agency solicits comment on these
 factors and theiruse in listing
 determinations.
   Currently, risk levels (including
 carcinogen risk, non-carcinogen risk as
 determined by hazard quotient (HQ),
 and ecological risk) provide one of the
 'principal bases for a listing
 determination. However, risk levels
 themselves do not represent the-sole  ,"
 basis for a listing. Other factors  .
 generally are weighed in making a'
 listing decision. The Agency's listing
 decision policy uses a "weight-of- •. •  -.
 evidence" .approach in which calculated
 risk information is a key factor.   •  ;
 Available risk values are assessed with
 all other data available to determine
 whether a waste is or is not a hazardous
 •waste.                          -
   The criteria for listing wastes as  .  u
 •hazardous are described in 40 CFR •
 261.11. They ere presented in two basic
 parts: Numeric criteria for acutely
 hazardous wastes (defined by 40 CFR -
 261.1 l(a) [2)); and criteria for toxic
 wastes (defined by 40 CFR 261.11{a)(3})
 containing toxic constituents listed in
 Appendix VIII to Part 261 (wiere 11
 factors are considered in determining
 "substantial present or potential hazard
 to human health and the environment"^
   Of these 11 factors, seven deal .with
 risk (constituent toxkaty. concentration,
 waste quantity, migration potential,  '
 persistence, degradation product
 potential, and bioaccumulation
 potential) and are integrated into the
 risk values generated. The other four
 factors (plausible management,-damage
 cases, coverage of other regulatory •
 programs, and other factors as may be  ,
• appropriate) are individual factors that
 also are considered in a listing     •
 •determination. Waste quantity
 (specific^y/"demininus~ amounts wf
 waste) also can be a special ~  -
 consideration in making* listing  •, •'"•
 detenninaticflifcralowcr volume   "
 vrastestream.     .:'   .•!"'->•'" •• • :••*•.• '  •'

 l.Selection-oTWaste Management  .  '.'•'
 Scenarios (261.li(a){3)(vuj)      ;  ;. . >
   As noted above, one of the many  ,  v
 factors that the Agency takesinto •  —
 account is the "plausible types of .- ;• ':. •-
 .improper management to which the .
 \vastecould besubjectedV'40 CFR - --
 261.11(aj(3)(viij. Exposures to wastes •-: -
 (and therefore the risks involved) will  .
 vary by waste management practice. .  •
   It is important to note that a :   "-'J'
 management -scenario need not be in use
 currently to be considered plausible by
 EPA since disposal practices can and do
 change over time. Potential future waste
 management practices are projected and
 considered in the risk analysis, if  . '   .
 appropriate. The Agency often projects
 risks from management that seasonably •
 could be employed.  •.''..  ;i-  .  ..•• "•• -
   a. Factors for Projecting a Plausible
 Waste Management Scenario. There are
 a number of disposal scenarios for
 wastes not hiizardous under RCRA mat
 are common .across industries. These , -
 include municipal and industrial .  •_.•
 unlined Landfills for solid materials, ,  .
 tanks and unlined surface <'' "  . :
 impoundments for liquids^ and boileis •
 for organic solids and liquids. T3ģe   ,
 Agency will presume that these - :
 scenarios are plausible unless   '
 circumstances unique to a particular
 industry sh•
 .''reason to believe theyjaaight be -...• v •  - •
 practiced in the future. •'••;; i"; y. ~ :j . :* I •''• ~-
 - In determining whether eneof the :
 Kjominon disposal scenarios is not -;   •
 plausible, the Agency will consider ' - " '•
 fcctorssuch as the following:
  •.ģ -doverage of ^the'^Characterization
 practices. :-.,.                      ,
 -  There may be practical consteaiate to
 the type of waste management practices ',
: -available to a category of waste  '•'. •' ••..- ••.-••
 generators. For example^if tarHitiftg in ,.
 -an industry have only a JioSte& amount
 of land available toihem, then iģailding
 ' large surface impoandmeatsto handle '-
 wastewaters may be highly tmKkely ta*d
 would not bo considered plausible.  >:'•
 percentage, of facilities in an Industrial
 category can be characterized with    -
 respect to waste management practices,
 the Agency may be able to do A more
 refined analysis of the plausibility of
 facilities switching from their current
-waste management practice to a .higher
 risk-waste management practice. Tae: .-•.
 Agency may determine it more
 appropriate to estimate risk based on    -
 estm*nt JnanagRment practiceg •wnerfi
• our analysis shows that it is unh'kely  .
 that facilities would switch to another r
 management practice.       ;     ..  -
  . • Effect of Other Regulatory         '
 IPro^rams. .,              .     -  ,  -
   Other regulatory programs, for   '; .
 example, the water pollution control
 program or air pollution regulatory
 requirements, can impose legal,
 technical, c-r practical restraints on   •.
 waste management practices. If these  ^.
 requirements restrict certain practices
 (e.g., water treatment requirements
 technically and practically might
 . preclude treatment in surface -  .'• >'••'•'•
 impoundments) the Agency can use this
. information to tynsider rfitninating-thgt
•disposal practice from consideration.
     Management-Costs,
   Often, the cost of different
 management scenarios can be a . '     ' ;
" determinative factor in dictating the
 ' plausibility of waste management •
 scenarios. In*the absence of other . •     •
 potential cost factors, such as liability, .
 - the plausibility that a Ŗadh° ty would . '•
 choose a waste management scenario  .-•
 increases as the expense of that  _
 management practice decreases.  -  • •  .
 "Conversely, itis more nnplausiMeto ' •
 assume that a frnn would chose
• management activities that impose a
 higher cost (where cost includes the
'• likelihood of future potential liabilities.}
 Gist can be a consideration the Agency
 uses in cnoosing which management  •
 scenario to project as Ģ scenario to
 analyzefor determining potential risk off
 •wastemanagement.  •  •  /••  •    • .'•".'',••'
•'?'-.' These factors are presented as  .'.;  '
 examples; there may be others   :', -  . "
 appropriate to specific industries. Jni  .
 characterizing the risks fora   •' •  :""*'"
 wastestream-where more than are    • ;
 ' disposal scaiario is plausible, the ~
 . .Agency will usethe resuhs of the risk
' J)ggĢ>ggmpnt fnrtlnn plangihlp snfnafSn  " •'
   Note that EPA considers the extent to '
 which the plausible management  •ģ'•  " .''
 scenarioĢalcĢiated to cause the highest
 risk is practiced, or could be practiced.
 ^believes probably woidd occur
 • infrequently may be less determinative -

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules     66075
in the final listing-determination
process. As the probability that    '  "
•generators would use a management
practice increases, the greater the weight
thai set of risk values has in the final
listing determination. . •

2. Risk Levels in Making Listing
Decisions'
  •A;s noted earlier, the Agency's listing
determination policy utilizes a "weight-
of-e|vidence'.'approach in which risk is
a key factor. Risk measurements used
include carcinogen risk, non-carcinogen
risk as determined by hazard quotient
(HQ), and ecological risk. However, risk
levels themselves do not necessarily  . .•-
 represent the sole basis For a listing.  • •-
 There can be uncertainty in calculated ••
 risk values and so other factors are-  •
 considered in conjuction with risk in
•.••making a listing decision.   , ,     -  ".
   a. Use of Risk Levels in a Listing
 Decision. EPA's current listing    _ . •
 determination procedure (illustrated in
 Figure 1) uses as an initial cancer-risk
 "level of concern" a calculated risk • • -•
 level of 1 x 10~s (one in one hundred
 thousand) and/or HQs (and/or   '    - .
 Ģnyironmental risk quotients:lEQs]) of 1
 at aniy one point in time. Note that
 individual risks can occur at different " -
 points in time. For example, a category
• of wastestream that is both burned in a
 lģiler by one facility but placed in ai    \
 , landfill 1>y another would be projected  '
 • to cause exposure through both the air
 rĢnd tiie;drinking water pathways. It is
• likely that risks from each source will
 j occur at different times, since air   '. '-• -.
 oxposures would probably occur sooner;
 than groundwater exposures. The
 jVgency will take the timing factor into
 account when analyzing risk.. In
 accordance with EPA policy, risks from
 . individual carcinogens generally are   • .
 lidded together. Listing decisions from
 this risk level of concern generally will
 lie.as follows. .   ..           ..       ;

-------
O
s
"

*

Figure 1







,,

" s ., ,
•



•


Carcinogenicity 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8
HQorEQ ' ' . &s ' 1 n . '
-. ' ^,-Ŗ\ in : •• 1 '•$
K\f'iĢ*ft' ' ,\' V A rt'."' •"ģ
' 4"'''^ v-'T •>'•ģ ••'/'A;
/'••• '" ' ^fs:ifj ',-'• ' j ""''' :;'^
••".•'•'• IJffe'/^K'V ;.',;;; \:
-"•''' .'• •'••"•/ " -' '-' • -$^v\ ' !'.'i", 'V-
' .-•.'•••• '' ' • i1^ "t^ ' ģ • '.' " J

* ' ģ . * *ģ •
: " _ - ' . - " . '
RISK LEVEL RISK1
, LIST FOR ' ! FG
. 7 71 PRESUMPTIVE PRESUf
: , ,- ...LISTING' 'NOLIJ
•••-'-. / '-'. •-• '•• . '•'.•.'.. ' '• '.:'•• , ' • • - '
..-'•-• .: : • ' > " •" ""':.••-.• - -i •••- .-.. • :
initial Risk Level
of Concern:

: calculated high
end risk level

, - • • .. ' . _ ' .•••'' v
1 '
'• ,

-'...' " •
•"

' • .'•' ' • •
' ." • ". . ,""-''

' , " '1 "
- • ' 1- . • 1 " . • • • ,
.EVEL
^TOE - ^NO LIST,-: ': ••*
3TING ; r. • •-,;•
• •• - ' • '.-"••>. • - ' :

-".:''' ' !- ~ •• •''"'.


•.v^'".:w.' -V
••••' :':--:^:/:.-: •'"' -.•"•'"•


en
0
o
SJ
O)
3
Cu
CD
t-l
EL
CD
ĢB.
•ģģ
o.
en
"
p-
IS9
V
5
e
en
CL
01
">*
a
1
KI
l-ģ
CD
•s
~-s
1
en
CD :
1*
en.


-------
              Federal  Register / Vol. S9, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, ^1994 / Proposed Rules     66077
 .   (1) Wastestreams for which the
  calculated high-end individual caiicer-
  riski level is 1 x 10 ~5 or higher-generally
  are considered initial candidates for a
  list decision.
    (2) Wastestreams for which these risks
  are calculated to he 1 x 10 ~ 4 or higher,
  or 1) or higher HQs or EQs for any
  individual non-carcinogen, or non- .'
  carcinogens that elicit adverse effects on
 . the same target organ, generally will be
  considered to pose a substantial present
 •or potential hazard to human health and
  the environment and generally will be
  listed as hazardous waste. Such
  Wastestreams fall into a category
,  presumptively assumed to pose
 sufficient risk to require their listing as ~
  hazardous waste. However, even for
  these Wastestreams there can in some
  cases be factors which could mitigate
 'the high hazard presumption. These '"
 additional factors, explained below, also
• will be considered by the Agency in
 making a final determination.
:    (3) Wastestreams for which the
 calculated high-end individual cancer-
 risk level is lower than 1'x 10~5
 generally are considered initial
 candidates for a no^h'st decision.
    (4| Wastestreams for which these risks
 are Calculated to be 1 x.id~* or .lower,
• and lower than 1.6 HQs or EQs for any
 non-fcarcinogens, generally will be
 considered not to pose a substantial
 present or potential hazard to human
 health and the environment and     -  .,
 generally will not be listed as hazardous
 Wastp. Such Wastestreams fall into a
 category presumptively assumed not'to
 pose, sufficient risk as to require their
 listing as hazardous waste. However,
 even1 for .these Wastestreams, in some  '
 cases, there can be factors that could'
 mitigate the low hazard presumption.
 These also will be considered by the
 Agency in making a final  determination.
 .   (5) Wastestreams where the calculated
 high-fend individual Cancer-risk level is
 betwjeen  lxlO~-ģ and lxiO~6 fall in'the
 category  for which,there is a   •'
 presumption of candidacy for either     :
 listing (risk >10 - 5) or no listing (risk
 
 not as strong as when risks are outside
 this range. Therefore, listing
 determinations for Wastestreams falling
 into this range would always involve   •
 assessment of the additional factors
 discussed below.      .      '      ,   '
   b. Additional Factors.   ••
  , Th'e following factors will be  ,
 considered in making listing  •    •, '   ,.<
 determinations, particularly for wastes
 falling into the risk range between  - --
 lX10pĢandlxlO-Ģ: , :..'.   _.
   (1) Certainty of waste    .  .      .  .
 characterization;       •            "
   (2) Certainty in risk assessment
 methodology;    .;;.   ' ;   -   - ~'   -
   t3) Coverage by other, regulatory
 programs;           .  .      •   .-..'•
 •  '(4) Waste volume;   '. •     -•-.'•
   (5) Evidence of co-occurrence;
   (6) Damage cases showing actual
 impact to human health or the  .
 environment; and               \   .
   (7) Presence of tbxicarit(s) of unknown
 or unquantifiable risk.  •-;.-.

 (1) Certainty of Waste Characterization
   EPA compiles data on the amounts
 -and composition of each wastestream.
 Different sources of variability in these
 data, variability between facilities,   ;'.,
 between production processes, between
 samples, and in analytical      ;-    -
 methodologies, exist. All such      -
 variability sources may influence the
 Agency's decision on how much weight
 to place on data collected as a basis fof
 a listing decision.         •.'-.
   Budget constraints or sample  . .
 availability constraints may'limit the
 size pf the database for any one     .   '."'•'
 •wastestream. In such cases, the Agency
 generally assumes that the sample(s)
 taken are representative of each, like
 wastestream from that category of .-•ģ •
 generator and that the data, generated
 following a QA/QCplan, are "good"
 data. However, EPA will take
 uncertainty of the data into account in "
 the listing process." ••'   :
 ;  The Agency sometimes relies on
 analytical measurements that fall below
 the level of an analyst's ability to : ,  . •:-
 quantify with certainty the      '
 concentration of the constituent    ^ ." ':•
 involved (these measurements are  ;    -
 referred to as "estimated" or "J-values"
 in listing determinations). Analytical
 methods used by the Agency have been ".
 developed/with a .goal of obtaining
 quantitative measurements  (i.e., ą25%  .
 uncertainty or less) at levels of
 regulatory concern. Frequently,
 analytical measurements may detect the
 presence of constituents of concern at .  ,
 levels at or belowthe analytical;" ' J,-" .
 method's limit of quanfitation.   .    ,_' :-
 However, for some highly toxic     - •  :
 substances measurement's of   /•"-'?
 constituents below the limit of'". • ' •'• •":'•'.*•"
 quantitation may be of tpxicological ' •;-'•''
 significance and, therefore, potential  f-  -
 regulatory significance.       ; , ,  •''•:
   The limit ofqiiontitatipn is defined as
 the level above which results may be     •
 obtained with a specified degree of  '••' ' •.-."
 confidence. In the case tif methods   ;
which use mass spectrometric' -   • -, - '• '• ••
measurements, quantitative uhcertahity
is assigned to measurements below the
 limit of quantitation (although a positive
determination of presence is certain) as •
follows:'   -=.,-.'  --•_"•.,':ģ•".•'•>••.•"••.'•••
  ;. ;• The uncertainty of measurements at
 the limit of detection -(3 times the        :  '
 standard deviation estimation [o]) :
 approaches ą100% (3oą3o).
  •> • At the point of reliable detection r.
 (6oą3o), the uncertainty of
 measurement approaches ą50%.
  jĢ hi the area of accurate quantitation
 (lOo to 120), uncertainty approaches
 ą30% to ą25%, based on the 99%   -
 confidence level of the measurement  ;
 iincertainty. ..••""•:.     -.-':"'
  '; M other words, When the analyte.
 signal is 10 or more times larger than -
 the standard deviation of the
 •measurements, there is a 99%        •".•''•
 probability that the true concentration     .
 qf the analyte is ą30% of the calculated
 concentration.*  '         .           •  .
  -j Although the uncertainty of analytical
 Eheasurements increases as the limit of
 detection is approached, the calculated r
 concentrations obtained  may represent
 tihe best available measurement of the
 analyte present.              ,
  ! It is the  Agency's policy on listing
 determinations that measurements in
 tlhe range below the level of.       '     -
 quantification but above the level of -
 detection, will be used at the reported  . •
 quantitation level for risk analysis          '
 purposes.  However, the Agency   .-•'.'
 generally will consider the uncertainty  , '
 associated with measurements below ~T'•'
 tlie quantitation level and assess the ;
 impact of that level of uncertainty on a : -
 listing decision. Increasing uncertainty. ' •  •
 of a 'measurement may increase the
 importance of other factors in making a'.
listing determination.

 (2) Certainty in Risk'Assessment   ':' "
'Methodology            '     -    •  . ,   v
. j Uncertainty can exist-in the  ~.   •.-'-.- •
 methodologies and data used to conduct.
 both the. toxicity assessments and the
 fette and transport exposure models
 employed  in risk assessments. Toxicity
 assessment methods sometimes rely'on
animal or cellular models to predict a
cliemical's effect on humans or animals.
Direct toxicity testing of a chemical is
.not always available. For some of these
-chemicals, structure/activity           V
relationships can be used to predict the ;.••"•  -
toxicity of  thesubstance involved. In   ../
.ttiese cases, the Agency considers what
degree of uncertainty can exist in that  '-..-••
analysis when making listing     *, >- ; /
.determinations. Similarly, some fate/   :
• transport models make use pf an   :.'•' .L -'
increased amount of input data or can -:'
iBivolve actual verification. For those ::-
models, uncertainty in exposure   .: -""  •• •  .

  1 Keith, L.H., Environmental Sampling and  •  ,~, -
Analysis: A Practical Guide (Chelsea, Ml: Lewis ••.-.-.
Piliblishers, 1992). See Figure 12,page.lio,forlhe '' '".''"
relationship of limit of detection, reliable detection  V'.v'.
limit,andlimiLofquantitation.  .' •'• -' •-'•'Ģ ",.*".'''••" •'••"•'-

-------
66078     Federal  Register /  Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December  22, 1994 / Proposed Rules
analysis is decreased. The Agency
weighs the relative uncertainty of the
predictive models when generating risk
assessments and making listing
determinations.     •     •     -•
|3) Coverage by Other Regulatory
Programs
  Listing decisions can be strongly
influenced by the effect of other
regulatory requirements on the
waste'streams involved. Where another '
Federal or State program or other RCRA
requirements clearly will provide the
type of control needed to eliminate the
risk associated with a certain type of
waste management,  a RCRA listing may
be considered unnecessary or
redundant.    ' •           •        .
  • Other Federal or State program's.
  If other Federal or State programs  .
clearly regulate risk associated with the
wastestream, listing may not be
necessary to eliminate risk.--For
example, if the Office of Air and
Radiation within EPA has issued an ••,
NESHAP to control emissions of a   , -
constituent, it may be unnecessary to   .
consider risk from inhalation of that..:..'.
constituent in making listing
determinations. In some cases, another
regulatory program may be in the
process of developing such regulatory
requirements. If this program is under
statutory requirements or Court Order,
EPA may consider these regulatory
requirements to be forthcoming and, in •
some cases, may defer to them in listing
determinations, even where such
regulatory coverage is several years
away. If this program is under no     .  ,
•statutory or legal deadline, no  deference
typically will be given to projected
future regulatory coverage from other
programs.      •'.-.•
(4) Waste Volume         .,
  Waste volume is, in fact, part of a risk-
level calculation. Risk is projected based
on the volume of waste involved.  . .-
However, volume of waste is also a
factor EPA may consider when the
projected risk falls in a marginal risk
range.
(5) Evidence of Co-occurrence  .
  Virtually all wastestreams EPA
assesses are complex mixtures of
constituents. Where possible, the
Agency calculates potential risk for all
measured pollutants. Where more than
one risk value for carcinogenicity is
calculated, concern  about overall      •
wastestream effects increases and the
Agency will consider that risk additive. •
However, ivhere sampling and analysis
data show compelling evidence that the
constituents cannot or do not occur
together in the wastestream orat the .  ..
 receptor, the Agency generally will only
 consider the risk associated with  •..    '
 individual constituents.   •

 (6) Damage, Cases      ''..-•   '.. •••_ •. ".- '
   For each listing determination, EPA /
 seeks data on damage cases. These are.
 cases in which some prior waste   .
 management practice has resulted in'
 environmental harm. Where there has .
 been a clear case of harm, the data
 suggest the management of that waste
 has already damaged human health or
 the environment in some way, and.that
 such damage could occur again.
 .Depending on the number and severity
 of the damage cases and the potential
 for these damages to happen again,
 adverse damage cases may provide a   ,
 "stand alone" reason for listing the
 waste.          '•'••.  •;"•.  • '.,...  j  '
   Where damage cases appear to '-.  '••  . '
 contradict the risk analysis, EPA will try
 to determine the reason and use that / ••
 assessment in the overall listing  ;  ' •"•',-
 decision.      •  ..•••-•  ,  ~     • .   .
. _(7) Unknown or Unqualified. Risk '•;••'
   Not all constituents in a complex*.,-"-. '• •:
 wastestream can be analyzed for risk.   ••
 Hazard data may not be available either .
 directly or through mechanisms such as
 structure/activity relationships, or they '..
 'may be in a form which is not
 considered usable by EPA. In the cases
. where some constituents are present but
 no risk levels can be assigned to them,.
 the Agency considers the potential Jbr.
 these constituents to be hazardous.
;  As stated above; use of these  . Vi
. additional factors is not limited to 'cases
 in which the risk levels fall between '••'' • • '
 10 ~4 and 10 ~6. Pursuant to EPA's '•-•'•
. listing determination policy "weight-bf- -
 evidence'" approach, the Agency will
 consider these factors, as appropriate,
 even where risk, levels fall in the
 presumptive list or presumptive no-list •
 levels.       ,. •    •-      . •'"
 II. Today's Action    ._''"  ,   '."•.

 A. Summary of Today's Action . .••"'"•-•*';''•
 1. Confidentiality Claims     . •."_•'• — .
   The hazardous waste listings   •
 proposed here aire based in part upon
 data claimed as 'confidential by certain ...
 dye and pigment manufacturers.  '   ..''.•
 Although EPA intends to publish
 information derived from these data •
. claimed as confidential (to the extent  '
 relevant to the proposed listing), the    :
 Agency is unable to do so at the present  •
 time. Therefore, this proposed rule is • • • •
 being published without some of the •_. *>•
 information that supports the Agency's
 .proposal. Where.that information is •
 missing from text, it is noted in the text.'
. Whenever EPA is unable to include ' - •
 pertinent data in a table., the following
 statement appears in a footnote:
 "Relevant data are not included at the
 present time due to business •         '  •
-confidentiality concerns." EPA is      .
 pursuing avenues to allow publication  )
-< of the information, and intends to        ?
 supplement the public record prior to
 issuing a final listing.       *  ,      .

 2. Summary of Proposed Listing
 Determinations and Deferrals
   In today's notice, EPA is proposing to
 add five wastes generated during the
 production of dyes and pigments to the
 lists of hazardous waste's in 40 CFR  . .  .
 261.32. A summary of the waste     .   'v-
 groupings proposed for listing are
 provided below with their proposed
 corresponding EPA Hazardous Waste   v '
 Numbers.'     .    ;     .
 K162 Wastewater treatment sludge -
 '  from the production of azo .pigments. •
 K163 Wastewaters from the             -
   production of azo pigments.         ,  -
 K164 Wastewater treatment sludge •
   from the production of azo dyes,
  .excluding FD&C colorants.   / .     ." •
.K165 Wastewaters from.the    .,   • y '
   production of azo dyes; excluding '
   FD&C colorants.      .
 K166 Still bottoms or heavy ends from
   the production of triaryhnethane dyes  _
   or pigments.    .  ..-.
  ' The Agency has determined that these
 'wastes meet the criteria for listing set
 out in 40 CFR 261.11.,Section II.E. of
 this preamble presents waste   '  .
 characterization,'waste management,
 and risk assessment data, which are the  •
 bases for the Agency's proposal to list or  •
 not to list, the wastes studied in this •'.'•'.
 rulemaking.'     .  •   •''•-
   Upon promulgation of-these proposed
 h'stings, all wastes meeting the listing
 descriptions would become hazardous .
 wastes and would require treatment,
 storage, or disposal at permitted
 facilities. Residuals from the treatment,
 storage, or disposal of the wastes  '
 included in this proposed listing also
 would be classified as hazardous Wastes
 pursuant to the "derived-from" rule (40
 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). For example^ash or
 other residuals from treatment of the
 listed wastes would be. subject to the     .
.hazardous waste regulations. Also, 40
 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (the "mixture" rule)
 provides that, with certain limited    . -,•
 exceptions, any mixture of a listed'.
 waste and a solid Waste is itself a RCRA
 hazardous waste:  •  .          .  .     ;•':
   However, when these wastes are
 recycled as described in 40  CFR       :
 261.2(e)(l)(iii) or 261.4(a)(8), they are.
 not solid wastes and are not subject to
 hazardous waste regulations. For >.    t  -.
 example, if a waste is collected and
 returned in a closed-loop fashion to the

-------
              Federal  Register  / Vol. 59, No. 245 7 Thursday, December 22, !1994 / Proposed Rules     G6O79
   samje process, the waste is not regulated..
   To meet the exemption,- the manner in
 '  whi|ii a material is recycled must meet
   the three key requirements outlined in
   the rule's and in 50 FR 639 (January 4,
   1985): (1) The material must be returned
   to" the original process from which it
   wasigenerated without.first being    -
 :  reclaimed; (2) the production process to
   whiph the materials are returned must
 " 'use raw materials as principal
 '  feedstocks; and (3) the material must be
   retul-ned as a substitute for raw material
  .feedstock in the original production •  .
 .  process. (The regulations contain other
   recycling exclusions as well, but the
   provisions referenced above are the
   principal ones most likely to be
   applicable to the wastes at issue in this
   proposal.) EPA is proposing to amend
 '  Appendix VII and Appendix ViH to 40
   CFR part 261 to add constituents
 .  contained in the above wastestreams
 .  which were found to pose risk.
;• .  The Agency requests comments oh
   the proposed listing of the above wastes,
   and Jon the option of not listing these
.  -wastes. •-...     ~.  • .',''-..  •', ".-• •
    This action also proposes hot to list as
   hazardous six wastestreams generated
  during the production of dyes and  ••,  -
  pigments:
   . * Wastewaters from the production of"
. ' triarylmethane dyes and pigments
   (excluding triarylmethane pigments. .
  using aniline as a feedstock).
    • (Wastewater treatment sludge from
 • the production of triaryhnethane
  pigments using aniline as a feedstock.
    • jWastew.aters from the production of
  triarylmethane pigments using aniline  -.-•
  as a feedstock.   . :•  . ..
 -   • iWastewaters from the production of,
  anthraquinone dyes and pigments.  •
    • jWastewaters from the production of
  FD&C colorants.        .          ,
    • Dusts and dust collector fines from
  the manufacture of dyes and pigments.
    The Agency requests comments on
  the proposal not to list the above wastes
  and ";•.'
 3. Reiquest for Comment on the Effect of
 Enforceable EPA/Industry Agreements "
. on Plausible Mismanagement Analysis "'
 arid Subsequent Listing Determinations '•
   The Agency is interested in    .     ;
 innovative ways of conducting listing  ••••
 determinations that could assure
 environmental protection with less cost
 than full regulation as a hazardous . '
 waste. One approach on which the    ..
 Agency seeks comment-involves   - -.'
 enforceable agreements between EPA
 and the regulated community.
   The Agency is seeking comment oh  :
 whether enforceable agreements
 between EPA and industry that restrict
 the use of certain waste management   .
 practices could affect the Agency's  ' -
 plausible mismanagement analysis and,'
: in turn, affect the Agency's listing /  ,; .
 determination. Specifically, the Agency
 seeks comment on whether EPA should
 pursue such agreements with respect to
either the dye and pigment wastes that
the Agency is proposing to list in this '•,.
notice (or, additionally those it proposes
not to list). The Agency -seeks comment
on whether the Agency should decide -.
not to list such wastes (orretain a no-  _
h'st decision) if the agreements ensure  ;-',
that the wastes will not be managed in
a manner that poses unacceptable risk.' ;
  , A decision not to h'st based on such  '
enforceable agreements could be based
  on the view that management practices
  that are prohibited in an enforceable "•:   ;
  agreement^re not "plausible" because, ,
  facilities within an industry covered by •.. •
.  tin enforceable agreement are unlikely to
  Violate that agreement; i.e., use a risky
  management practice, especially if the
  agreement were to contain monetary or
  other sanctions for a breach or violation.  ;L
  Waste management practices'that are
  not plausible because they are .
  prohibited by such an agreement •    -~
- {jrguably need not be considered by the '; - •
  Agency in determining whether the
  waste poses "a substantial present or
  j)otential hazard to human health or the.'  -;
  einvironment when improperly treated,
  itored, transported, or disposed of, or  : -  ;
  .otherwise.managed." (Seq discussion of  '
 . selection of waste management   .
: .-sicenarios at I.B.I.) Thus, if a waste does
  iiot pose ah unacceptable risk if   :'..-..
  managed in accordance with an
  einfprqeable agreement, the Agency
 •clbuld determine that the waste should
  riot be listed as hazardous. The Agency
  requests comment on the use of such an
  approach as part of th6 listing :   ..'..;.- •. t- J
..determination for wastes generated  '•;-/"' -.'
  during the production of dyes and     :
  pigments, including those proposed to " •>.
  lie listed and/or proposed not to be .•-"•;,".
• listed in today's notice.    '  .     ;
•:  /For such an .approach to be. workable, ".',".
 ihe EPA believes that the following    • -"''''
  iiasic principles must apply:       " '     '
 -;,-'
-------
 66080
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.  245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994 /Proposed Rules
 or agreement. In addition, the Agency -.
 has inherent authority to enter into
 contracts that are not prohibited by law.
 See generally, Kern-Limerick, Inc. v.  v
 Scurlock, 347 U.S. 110 (1954). Such
 inherent authority also may be available
 to enter into such agreements.
   EPA believes that such an approach
 may be feasible for the wastes generated
 during the production of dyes and
 pigments because such wastes are
 generated by a relatively small number
 of facilities, and the likelihood of
 expansion in this industry does not
 appear to be great. Such an approach
 may not be feasible in an industry with
 a greater number of facilities or in an  .
 industry that is expanding.
 Additionally, it may not be a valid
 approach for an industrial sector in
 •which the wastes generated are so
 hazardous, move off-site in such a
 fashion, or require such detailed
 controls that EPA wants the full
 regulatory controls and civil and
, criminal authorities that follow from"
 full Subtitle C regulation.
   The Agency requests comments on  ,  .
 the feasibility of entering into and  .'
 enforcing such agreements with
 industry. The Agency also requests
 comment on how such agreements
 would account for entrance into the  •
 market of new facilities that generate .the
 waste at issue (e.g., add new elements
< to the agreement, issue unilateral order
 under RCRA Section 7003). The Agency
 also requests comment on alternative
 innovative approaches to listing
 determinations.     •
 B. Dye and Pigment Industries Overview
   The dye and pigment industries are
 comprised of three separate industries,
 represented by three different trade-  -
 associations. The Color Pigment
 Manufacturers Association (CPMA)
 represents pigment manufacturers, the
 Ecological and Toxicological
 Association of the Dyestuffs
 Manufacturing Industry (ETAD)
 represents dye manufacturers, and the'
 International Association of Color
 Manufacturers (IACM) represents food,
 drug, and cosmetic (FD&C) colorants  -
 manufacturers.
   Dyes are intensely colored or
 fluorescent organic substances that, '
 impart color to a substrate by selective
 absorption of light.2 When a dye is
 applied, it penetrates the substrate in a
 soluble form, after which it may or may
 not become insoluble. Dyes are retained
 in the substrate by physical absorption,
 salt or metal-complex formation,
                           solution, mechanical retention, or by the
                           formation of ionic or covalent chemical
                           bonds.3               .   •           \-
                             Dyes are used to color fabrics, leather/
                           paper, ink, lacquers, varnishes, plastics,
                           cosmetics, and some food items. Dye
                           manufacture in the U.S. includes more
                           than 2,000 individual dyes, the majority .
                           of which are produced in quantities of
                           less than 50,000 pounds. In 1990, total
                           U.S. dye production was 258 million
                           pounds. In 1991, there were      -
                           approximately 33 manufacturing plants •
                           operated by 20 companies that produce
                           either azo, anthraquinone, er  .-• .   '..  .•
                           triarylmethane dyes.*  -.  •     -.-  -".._-'_
                             Pigments possess unique   :  ,     '
                           characteristics that .distinguish them
                           from dyes and other colorants. Pigments
                           are colored, black, white, or fluorescent*
                           participate organic or inorganic solids,
                           usually insoluble in, and essentially
                           physically and chemically unaffected  7
                           by,-the vehicle or substrate in which -
                                                          lyes'is
                           that during the application process,
                           pigments are insoluble in the substrate.
                           Pigments also retain a crystalline or    •
                           particulate structure and impart color by
                           selective absorption or by scattering of
                           light. With dyes; the structure is   ;  •
                          ' temporarily altered during the  '' '
                          , application process, and imparts color
                          . only by selective absorption.5  '   ...
                           •  Pigments are used in a variety of • • ;
                           applications; the primary use is in' ,.   •
                           printing inks.  There are fewer pigments
                           produced than dyes, though pigment '
                           batches are generally larger in size. The
                           U.S. total 1990 pigment-production
                           volume of approximately 415 million,  "
                           pounds is composed of 300 million
                           pounds of inorganic pigments and 115
                           million pounds of organic pigments.6 In
                           1991, there were approximately 27
                           domestic manufacturing plants operated
                           by 20 companies 7 producing organic  ,.
                           pigments subject to the settlement   "
                           agreement.      _ •'.-..   .   7   - ".,
                             FDScCcolorants are dyes and --  "  .  '
                           pigments that  have been approved by •
                          , the Food and Drug Administration
                           (FDA) for use in food items, drugs, and/,
                           or cosmetics. Typically, FD&C colorants
                           are azo or triaryhnethane dyes and are
                           similar or identical to larger-volume dye
                           products not used in'food, drugs, and  "
                           cosmetics. Manufacture of FD&C "  ."--
                          .colorants is identical to that for the   .
   ^"Pigmcnl!—A Primer," reprinted from
 American InkMakcr, June 1989, Color Pigment
 Manufacturer* Auodatton.
                           , sKirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
                           Technology—Volume 8, "Dyes and 0ye   .  >  ;'
                           Intermediates."     -.'  "   •  •'* ••-	"  '.-."•''
                            * 1992 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire Data. •-'
                            5 "Pigments—A Primer." reprinted from •
                           American Ink' Maker, June 1989, .Color Pigment
                           Manufacturers Association..  ..."  , ''-."'"••'
                           ^ BCPMA meeting presentation, Angnst. 1,9911- >";
                            •' 1902 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire Data. "-
 corresponding dye or pigment, except
, that the colorant undergoes additional.
 .purification. Each FD&C colorant batch
 is tested and certified by the FDA. In
 1991, there were approximately 7
 domestic manufacturing plants operated
 by 5 companies B producing FD&C'
 colorants subject to the EDF settlement
 agreement   -.           '        ••
  .This proposal addresses the three
 chemical classes of organic dyes and.
 pigments specified in the settlement:
 agreement: azos, anthraquinones, and
 triarylmethanes.  .    •
   Azos are the largest and most versatile
 chemical class. The various azo
 .chemical structures are readily ' •
 synthesized, typical product application
 methods are not complex, and a broad
 range of colors can be produced with  -
 excellent fastness properties. Azo
 colorants are Used in essentially all
- organic dye applications, including ; -  •
 textiles, paper, inks, coatings, plastics,
'and leather,  • •  . -. .       •         ' :. •
  ; Pyrazolones are a subset of azo dyes  '•
 and pigments, named for the substituted
 pyrazolones that are used.as coupling
 agents. The pyrazolone subclass is  .
 comprised mainly of yellow, orange,
 and red azo dyes and pigments.  - •'
 -  Pyrazolone dyes and pigments are  /
 used primarily in textiles and plastics,
-respectively. '       • '   •
   Despite high costs, anthraquinones.
 are an" important .group of dyes due to
.superior fastness. They have    ."  '  '•'
 applications on cotton, cellulose, and
- synthetic fibers. They have good affinity
 for the substrate,* level  dyeing power,
 and excellent fastness. Anthraquinone  •
 pigments are chemically identical to the
 corresponding dyestuffs and also exhibit
 high fastness properties.They are used '
 primarily in 'automotive paints. There
 are many mor.e anthraquinone dyes than
 pigments. Most anthraquinone dyes    .7
 have not been developed into pigments
 due to technical constraints, as well as
 competition from less expensive   '  : '.,_
 substitutes?                    ':'.-.
 .  Perylene pigments, a subset of the
 anthraquinone chemical class, provide
 an'economical alternative to heavy
 metal-containing red pigments. Their.
 excellent thermal stability and fastness
 properties meet the standards for
'.automotive finishes and other bigh-
; quality coatings.
   Triarylmethanes are characterized .by
 their brilliancy of hues intensity of  '; - -'
 color, and low fastness properties.    "".' •
 Triaryhnethane dyes typically are used
 in the textile industry and in the    "
 production of pigments. Pigments;	
 .typically are used in the production of
 printing and duplicating inks.
                                                                             • , • .• 1992 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire Data. •.

-------
                                                          -            . '       I       "         '                -

              Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, J994 /; Proposed Rules     66081
  C. Description of the Process Wastes
  Identified in Comparison to Those
  Specified in the Settlement Agreement

    Based on the Agency's study of the
.  dye and pigment industries, EPA has
  concluded that many of the dye and
  pigment processes within each of the
  three chemical classes generate very
. similar wastestreams. Because of the
  similarity of wastestreams associated
  with'the manufacture of each class of
  dye of pigment {i.e., azo, anthraquinone,
  and triarylmetlrane), EPA combined
  closely related wastestreams into "waste
  groupings," and proposed one
• hazardous waste listing description and
 .waste code for each of these groupings.
  Although, given time and resource
  constraints, EPA was not able to sample
  wastestreams generated from the  •
  production of each distinct product,
'  within a particular waste grouping, the
  sampling data and raw material and
 . process chemistry information that EPA
  collected support the waste groupings
 T5PA has established.    -    :••.'.;•'•'.
   . Thje constituents and their  , ::r  1  ..
  concentrations, in a waste will  ."
  determine, in turn, the nature of the
  tojdcity of the waste; EPA Is required to \
  consider-the nature and toxicity of a
  waste in  making listing determinations
  pursuant to 40 CFR 261.11. Given that
  similarities between wastes will result.
 in a similar listing determination   .......
 pursuant to the factors in EPA's     -.'.; .
 regulations, it is reasonable to group
'' wastes for the purpose of making listing
 ..determinations. Further, grouping
 similar waste matrices (i.e., wastewaters
, or sludges) will facilitate the  -
• .development of land disposal treatment
 standards (see 40 CFR part 268).  .
   •Listing determinations were made on •
 each waste grouping. For example, all
 wastewaters resulting from the
 production of azo pigments are
 proppsed to be listed as K163  hazardous
 f wastes. Other wastewater groupings for .
 which listing determinations were made
 include wastewaters resulting from the
 production of azo dyes, excluding FD&C
 colorants (proposed as Klj55),
 wastewaters resulting from the      •  .'.
 production of anthraquinone dyes and
 pigments, and wastewaters resulting ,  .
 from the production of FD&C colorants. .
   In Addition, wastewaters generated
 from the production oftriarylmethane
 dyes and  pigments are grouped together
 under one waste grouping due to the
 similarity of these wastes, with the
 excepjtion of wastewaters from the
 production oftriarylmethane pigments  .
 using aniline as a feedstock.
 Wastewaters from the production of
 triarylmethane pigments using aniline
 as a feedstock were found to be    ;
  significantly different in chemical
  composition from other ^triarylmethane
  dye and pigment processes and,  , "'.'."
  therefore/were placed in a separate
  waste grouping.      - :  .;  '
   Triarylmethane pigments using
  aniline as a feedstock are manufactured
  at two facilities in the country. Only two
 'triarylmethane products are made at
  each of these facilities and one is, Used
  as an intermediate for the second. The
 -process used in manufacturing these ,.  •
  pigments is a batch process but is .. ''  '
  operated throughout the year. Only .two"
  primary reactants are used at these  . L
  facilities, unlike other dye and pigment ,'-
  operations where hundreds of raw .;." ..>•.
 Materials often are lised at one site. As ';:
 .a result, these reactants.are present in _ ;
  the wastewater at high concentrations.
 -  Iftius, wastewaters from the. •',. •   ., .
 production of triarylmethane dyes and
 .pigments were divided into two     ",;.•. -
 categories for purposes of making a  .,..
 listing determination: (1) Wastewaters   ;
 jrom the production: of triarylm ethane . '•'.
 -dyes and pigments, excluding   ,„'_.. .
; triaryhnethane pigments using aniline  •
 as a feedstock, and (2) wastewaters from
 .the production of triarylmethane.  -  ._.;
 pigments using aniline as a feedstock;
   The wastewater categories include
 mother liquors generated from product
 filtration, filter washwaters, equipment -
 -and floor cleaning washwaters, break
.-waters, spent scrubber waters, and other
 process waters. Treated wastewater
 effluent also is captured by these ••;...  -•
 wastewater groupings. Although EPA
 did not sample wastewater folio wing
 •treatment, treated wastewater would be  -
 ^expected to contain the same or fewer
• hazardous constituents and the same or
 -lower concentrations of such     • •. -"':
 constituents than untreated wastewater. -
 Thus, if not listed before treatment, such
 wastewater is presumed not to meet the
 Agency's criteria for listing after
; treatment.  Furthermore, any wastewater
 listed as hazardous before treatment
 would continue to be regulated as .'....-.
 hazardous waste after treatment.      -
   Wastewater treatment sludges were  -
 grouped in a similar manner to     .":.._"
 wastewaters. Wastewater treatment-
 sludges generated from die dye and  •  '
 pigment industries include any sludges  ,
 generated during the pretreatment or  . .:'
 treatment of dye and pigment  ,  .
 wastewaters. This includes pretreatment
 sludge generated from'filtration and .If;::
 precipitation hi equalization and :/. ;'  ••
 neutralization basins, sludges from
 powdered activated carbon or other
 adsorbent treatments, 'and primary and"
 secondary biological treatment sludges!
 Sludge groupings defined for purposes
 of listing determinations include  ..••
.wastewater treatment sludge,from the
 - production of azo pigments (proposed..
 .as K162), wastewater treatment sludge
  from the production of azo dyes,    ,,".:
  excluding FD&C colorants (proposed as
  K164J, wastewater treatment sludge
 ' from die production of anthraquinone, ~:,
  dyes and pigments, wastewater
  treatment sludge from the production of
  triaryhnethane dyes and pigments,
 r excluding triaryhnethane pigments - '..T
 'using aniline as a feedstock, and    .  7
"\ wastewater treatment sludge frqrn the
 : production of triaryhnethane pigments
 .^sing aniline as a feedstock. These .'....,'.
 - giroupings are justified because, as was V
 - hue within the wastewater grouping,
 .-the sludges covered by each sludge    ;','
  waste group exhibit similarities in   ; '••"''•
 .•constituent concentrations.      ••    ','*.
    Distillation bottoms from dye and
  pigment,manufacturing are generated  .
 during raw material and solvent.  :  •': -
 JMscovery operations. The Agency'    ģ  '
 . determined that still bottoms from dye
  and pigment manufacturing are . .,\,,;
 .^generated only during recovery - .•:'---
: pjperations associated with the
 -manufacture of triaryhnethane dyes and
 piigments. Therefore, the following
 waste grouping was developed to  !.-":
. address distillation bottoms from the;   -
 tlye and pigment industries: Still -    "
 bottoms or heavy ends from the  / •"" •.. •-•
 pi'oductionof triarylmethane-dyesor  .  -
 pigments (proposed as K166).
 " • iThe Agency grouped spent filter aids,
 djatomaceous earth, or adsorbents used
'.. in, the production of azo, anthraquinone,"
 -tH'triaryhnethane dyes, pigments, or   ••
 F1D&C colorants into one waste grouping
 bescause these wastes all adsorb    .  . -
 unreacted raw materials, by-products,
 arid impurities and are generated in
 physically similar forms. Because the
 constituent composition of these filter
 aids varies depending on raw materials
 us:ed, the Agency does not, at this time,
 have sufficient data to fully characterize
 this waste grouping. To further support
 a listing determination on these
 wastestreams, the Agency intends to
 -collect additional information which
 will! allow assessment of these wastes  -
 eilier as a single waste grouping or,
 alternatively, as several separate
 groupings. .                 .     .'.
  IDusts and dust collector fines are
 •generated primarily during drying,
 .grinding, and blending operations used
 in manufacturing toth dyes and
 pijpnents. TKese wastestreams were  '
 grouped because they all are comprised
 primarily of product dust.    , -
  Product standardization filter cake  "••
 probably is generated during a final
 purification step following product
 standardization. Information obtained  ",
 during the industry study does not
 .confirm the existence or description of  -

-------
66082     Federal Register / Vol. ,59, No.  245 /Thursday, December 22, 1994  /Proposed Rules
this wastestream. However, filter cakes
generated during product purification
are comprised of spent filter aids,
diatomaceous earth, or other adsorbent,
along with product impurities and,
therefore, will be characterized with the
spent filter aids wastestream described
above.              •           •
  Information relevant to this
discussion is not included at the present
time due to business confidentiality
concerns.
.  Therefore, the Agency is including the
spent catalyst wastestreams with the
spent filter aids, diatomaceous earth, or
adsorbents used in the manufacture of
azo, anthraquinone, or triarylmethane.
dyes, pigments, or FD&C colorants
waste group. The Agency did not     •
encounter any traditional catalysts (i.e.,
chemicals used to enhance a reaction
without being consumed) used in dye
and pigment manufacturing. "
   Vacuum system condensate, reactor
 still overhead, and equipment cleaning
 sludge, are not generated in dye and.
 pigment manufacturing.
   The following table summarizes each
 of the wastestreams identified in the
 settlement agreement, and describes
 their coverage in the listing        -  -
 determinations proposed in today's
 rulemaking:                  -
                               TABLE 11-1.—SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WASTESTREAMS
        Wastestreams Identified in the settlement agreement
                               Coverage in today's proposed rulemaking
Product mother liquor	
Process waters           *
Treated wastewaler effluent
Wastewater treatment sludge
Recovery still bottoms	
Spent fitter aids	
Dust collector fines	
Product standardization filter cake,
Spent catalysts	;.......,
Vacuum system condensate	
Reactor Still Overhead
Equipment Cleaning Sludge
                    Addressed as a wastewater for each industry segment, including azo,
                     • anthraquinone, and triarylmethane dyes and pigments (K163, K165).

                    Addressed as wastewater treatment sludge for each industry segment,
                     including azo, anthraquinone, and triarylmethane dyes and pigments
                     (K162, K164).                         .            .-•..   • V
                    Still bottoms from triarylmethane dyes and pigments (K166).
                    Addressed for the industries as a whole.    '                   .  '
                    Addressed for the industries as a whole.   .       •
                    Not explicitly generated.          •         *           ,
                    Not explicitly generated but included with spent filter aids.,
                    Not generated by these industries. —            .
D. Description of Health and Risk
Assessments         •
  In determining whether waste
generated from the production of dyes
and pigments meets the criteria for,
listing a waste as hazardous as set out
at40 CFR 261.11, the Agency evaluated
the potential toxicity and intrinsic
hazard of constituents present in the
'wastestreams, the fate and mobility of
these chemicals, the likely exposure
routes, the current waste management
practices, and plausible management
practices. A quantitative risk assessment
was conducted for those constituents
and wastestreams where the available
information made such an assessment
possible.
1. Human Health Criteria and Effects
  The Agency uses health-based levels,
or HBLs, as a means for evaluating the
level of concern of toxic constituents in
various media. In the development of
HBLs, EPA first must determine
exposure levels that are protective of
human health and then apply standard
exposure assumptions to develop
media-specific levels. EPA uses the
following hierarchy for evaluating
health effects data and health-based
standards in establishing chemical-
specific HBLS:                  .    .
  a. Use the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) or proposed MCL (PMCL)
as the HBL for the ingestion of the
constituent in water, when it exists.
MCLs are promulgated under the Safe '
Drinking Water Act (SWDA) of 1974, as
amended in 1986, and consider  .
technology and economic feasibility as
well as health effects.     .   - .    '  .•
  b. Use Agency-verified Reference
Doses (RfOs) or Reference    .     '
Concentrations (RfCs) in calculating
HBLs for noncarcinogens and verified
carcinogenic slope factors .(CSFs) in
calculating HBLs for carcinogens.
Agency-verified RfDs, RfCs, and CSFs  •
•and the bases for these values are
presented in the EPA's Integrated Risk •
Information System (IRIS).
  c. Use RfDs, RfCs, or CSFs ihat are
calculated by standard methods but not
verified by the Agency. These values  .
can be found in a number of different
types of Agency documents and EPA  •
uses the following hierarchy when
reviewing these documents: Health
Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST); Human Health Assessment
Group for Carcinogens; Health
Assessment Summaries. (HEAs) and
Health and Environmental Effects  ,
Profiles (HEEPs); and Health and  .   .
Environmental Effects -Documents
(HEEDs).   .   >.     '    , -  . -
  d. Use RfDs oir CSFs that are
calculated by alternative methods,  such
as surrogate analysis, including /   • -..
structure activity analysis, and toxicity
equivalency.
  All HBLs and their bases for this
listing determination are provided in a
 document entitled "Dye and Pigment
 Waste Listing Support Health Effects
 Background Document" (RTI,1994),
 which can be found in the RCRA docket,
 for this rule at EPA Headquarters (see
 ADDRESSES section).      ,,     .  .   . -
   Acute toxicity data such-fls lethal
 doses for the oral and dermal routes and
 lethal concentrations for the inhalation
 route also were evaluated for all
 analytes in the record samples. These
 data also are presented in .the Health.
 Effects Background Document prepared
 for this rule.  '      -  .      .    .

 Use of Metabolic Products      -  •• .
•   There are three compounds        •
 commonly identified in the record
 samples for which EPA has found no
 reliable health effects data. These
 compounds are: Acetoacet-o-anisidide
: (AAOA), acetoacet-o-toluidide (AAOT),
 and acetoacetanilide (AAA). Because of
 the lack of health effects data on these
 compounds, the Agency explored the
 use of metabolic pathway information to
 develop toxicologic values. This
 approach involves the use -of health
 effects information for compounds - '
 expected to follow a similar metabolic
 pathway to those of the three chemicals
; of concern to estimate toxicity.',   :  '
   The metabolic pathways for the class
 of compounds identified as aromatic
 amines have been extensively studied,
 and acetylation.and N-hydroxylation
 have been identified as initial metabolic

-------
   • •  .  j       Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. .245 / Thursday. December  22.  1994 7 Proposed Rules    - 66083

   reactions of this class of compounds.
   Using this information, the Agency -   "
   proposes to use the toxicity of aniline to
  , represent the toxicity of AAA and the
   toxicity of 2-aminotoluerie to represent
   the toxicity of AAOA and AAOT. The
   Agenjcy has assumed a direct
   quanltitative relationship between the
   constituents of concern (i.e., AAOA,
   AAOT, AAA) and these.compounds
   (i.e., aniline, 2-aminotoluene) that
  • follow a similar metabolic route.
    In humans as much as 60 percent of
   aniline that is absorbed is oxidized in a
,   dose-dependent manner to give o- and-
   p-aminophenol, the first step in amide
  formation for this pathway. The
  metabolites of these products include
  acetylated arylamines, and are    .
  responsible for the toxicity of aniline.
    Acetoacetanilide (AAA) is a structural
  analog of aniline and the metabolic
  pathways are expected to be similar.  '
  Since the acetyl grqup is already part of
  AAA j initial acetylation may be
  considered  complete.        -
.   Because the metabolic conversions
  occuTj on a molar basis and the doses in
  laboratory studies are reported as parts
  per million, the difference in molecular
  weight must be considered. Also, since
  only  60 percent of the aniline is
  expected to be metabolized by the
  acetylation pathway and AAA is
  acetylated in its original form, the
  toxicijty of AAA is expected to be
., proportionally greater than the toxicity
.  of aniline. Therefore, the HBL for AAA
  'is estimated to be 0.003-mg/L as
  compared to 0.006 mg/L for aniline.
   Ace^oacet-o-toluidide (AAOT), and
  acetoacet-oanisidide (AAOA) are
  structural analogues of 2-aminotpluene,
  and the metabolic pathways are
  expected to  be similar to those  .
  previously described for aniline. Since
  the acetyl group is already part of AAOT
  and AAOA,  initial acetylation may be
  considered complete.        „
   Because the metabolic conversions
 occur pn a molar basis and the doses in
  laboratory studies are reported as parts
 per million,  the difference in molecular
 weight must be considered. Also, since
 only 2,5 percent of the aminotoluene is
 expected to be metabolized by the
 acetylation pathway, and AAOT and   >
 AAOA are acetylated in their original
 fprmsjtheir toxicities are expected to be
 proportionally greater than the toxicity
 of 2-aminotoluene. Therefore, the HBLs
 for AAIDT and AAOA are estimated to
 be 0.00004 mg/L and 0.00005 mg/L,
 respectively, as compared to 0.0001 mg/
 L for 27aminotoluene.   >.:••"-•   '.-<'_ .-.
   2-Methoxyaniline also has been    ,r
 identified in the azo pigment. •'.   : :'  .
 wasteSjU-eam. 2-Aminotoluene has been  -
 selected as the surrogate for the toxicity
.  of-2-methoxyaniline, because of the    •
  structural similarity of the compounds
  and the.similarity of metabolic
  mechanisms described "above. The
  Agency requests comment on the use of
 ."metabolic pathway information to
  determine health effects, and on
  alternate approaches.      J       ..-'-.".
  2. Coeluting Compounds '.
    A number of compounds detected in
  the wastes generated from dye and
  pigment manufacture coelute (/.Ģ., ._
  overlap), on the Gas Chromatography/
  Mass Specfrometry (GC/MS) curve,  .
  making it impossible to confirm the
  concentration and, in some cases, the  :
  presence of the individual coeluting.
  compounds. For example, the three
  constituents, 2- and 4-aminoaniline, and
  2-methoxyaniline, coelute on the GC/
  MS curve. The coelutiori is such that the
  presence, of 2- and 4-aminoaniline is
  indistinguishable, yet the presence of 2-
  methoxyaniline can be verified. This
  occurs because the curve for 2-
  methpxyaniline contains an extra peak
  in addition to the peaks that overlap
  with 2- and 4-aminoaniline: However/
  the individual contributions to the, total
  concentration found in the waste can   •
  not be established.   . '•  ' •  ••••/.-'.
   Because the contributions from the
  individual contaminants can not be
  established, the Agency assumed that
 any of the three contaminants could be
  present at 100 percent of the' -
  concentration detected. The Agency
  evaluated  all coeluting compounds
  independently in the risk assessment  .
  and used the highest risk calculated for
 the compounds to ensure the risk vras '
 not underestimated.   ~
   However, 2-methoxyaniline is the   ;
, expected contaminant in wastes .-.-/• .
 generated from facilities that          .
 manufacture azo pigments using '.    -'.:'
 acetoacet-o-anisidide (AAOA) as a raw
 material because 2-methoxyaniline is an
 expected hydrolysis product Of AAOA
 (refer to Section n.E, Wastewater
 Treatment Sludge from the Production
 of Azo Pigments, K162, for a discussion -
 on the hydrolysis of AAOA). Therefore,
 for wastes generated from the   -     --.'•
 manufacture of azo pigments using '•  '.:*•'•<
 AAOA as a raw material, the Agency '
 conducted the risk assessment for these
 coeluting compounds based on toxicity
'information for 2-methoxyaniline (see - •'>
' discussion of metabolic products, above,
and the Dye and Pigment Waste Listing '
 Support Health Effects Background    ";
Document for discussions on the • -
toxicity surrogate used for 2-    '" .'••>.'  -
methoxyaniline).   : ."•",,"''  U  "  . '*•••'•.
 • • A second set of coeluting compounds
•consists of the. three isomers 2r, 3-, and .;
4-aminbtoluene.'The.presence of the
  tliree isomers was confirmed when  • '•
  detected, and the combined
  concentration of the three compounds '•
  was quantified. Because the    -
  .contributions from the individual  ,.:
  contaminants can not be established,
  any one of the coeluting contaminants
  cpuldire present at 100 percent of the
  concentration detected. Therefore/the ,?
  Agency evaluated coeluting compounds
  with health-based levels independently,
 . iti the risk assessment and used the     .
  highest risk calculated Tjy the
  'constituents, in this case 2-
  aminotoluene, to ensure that risk was
  not underestimated. The volume of 2-  :
 '. aininotoluene consumed as a raw
  material, based on 1991 RCRA Section
  3007 Questionnaire data, is
  approximately 9 times that of the other
  isomers. In addition, aromatic amines
  with substitutions in the 2- and 4-    /
  positions of the aromatic ring are used
  in the manufacture of azo dyes much  '
  mpre frequently than those substituted
 - in the 3.- position. Therefore,.any
  inipurities or breakdown products from
  aromatic amines are likely to be
  substituted in the 2- and 4- positions. ...
   ;l,.2-diphenylhydrazine and   '      -
  azbbenzene also coelute on the GC/MS
  CTrve. Both compounds are likely ,  .
  oxidation products of aniline, and may
  be present in the waste as reaction byr
 . products. In addition to the uncertainty
 . in establishing concentrations for each
,  of the two compounds, the chemical
  pathway from aniline to these oxidation
  products suggests that either
  contaminant may be present at all or   ,
  part of the concentration detected. The -
  Agency evaluated these coeluting
  compounds independently and used the
 highest risk calculated by the
 compounds to ensure the risk was not  .
 underestimated.   '..  .           j'•„''••..'
  . i\s with azobenzene and 1,2-    -
 di]jhenylhydrazine, diphenylamine and
 N-:aitrosodiphenylamine coelute on the
 GCJ/MS curve and are likely by-products
 resulting from the oxidation of aniline.
 As stated above, the Agency evaluated  .
 .thtisecoeluBngcompounds :• .,
 independently and used the highest risk
 calculated by the compounds to ensure ':
^the risk was not underestimated.
  . irhe Agency requests comments on  %-•".
 the> approach used to assess risk when -.'
 poinppunds .that coelute were detected
 in ithe wastestream, and on alternative
 apj>roaches that commenters may  -
 develop,  c,      ".,.'..,.   ..    ....    .
 •3. Risk Analysis   : •-"•.•'-   -y: "      ;,-:
 Risk Characterization Approach ' .^ ;
  The risk characterization approach  ... ,
 follows the recent EPA Guidance on   "*'•
 Risk Characterization (Habicht, 1992J

-------
 66034     Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245 /Thursday, December 22, 1994 /  Proposed Kules
 and Guidance for Risk Assessment (EPA
 Risk Assessment Council, 1991). The
 guidance specifies that EPA risk
 assessments will be expected to include
 (1) the central tendency and high-end
 portions of the risk distribution, and (2)
 important subgroups of the populations
 such as highly susceptible groups or.
 individuals, if known. In addition to the
 presentation of results, the guidance
 also specifies that the results portray a
 reasonable picture of the actual or
 projected exposures with a discussion of
 uncertainties. These documents are
 available in the public docket for this.
 action (see ADDRESSES section).
 Individual Risk                  '  -.
   Individual risk descriptors are
 intended to convey information about
 the risk borne by individuals within a
 specified population and
 subpopulations. These risk descriptors
 are used to answer questions concerning
 the affected population, and thejisk for
 individuals within a population of
 interest. The approach used in this
 analysis for characterizing baseline
 individual risk included: (1) Identifying
 and describing the population of
 concern for an exposure route; (2) •
 • determining the sensitivity of the model
 parameters used in the risk estimation;
 . (3) estimating central tendency and „
 high-end values for the most sensitive
 parameters in the risk estimation
 procedures; and (4) calculating
 individual risk for likely exposure   •
 pathways that provides a            -
 characterization of the central tendency
 and high-end risk descriptor.
 Bisk Assessment  __      ,   ,
   .The results of the risk assessment are .
 presented in waste-specific risk tables in
 each  of the basis for listing sections
  (Section U.E.). The risk tables include
 the following information: Constituents
  of concern; estimated human health risk
  associated with the current and
  plausible management scenarios; high,
  low,  and average concentrations of
  constituents found in this wastestream;
  the number of samples in which the
  constituent was detected; notes
  regarding "J-values** (see Section n.B on.
  Data Uncertainties); and industry-      ;
  submitted data.
    In  addition to those compounds
  presented in the waste-specific risk . _
  tables, the Agency's characterization
  data  include a number of compounds
  identified as present in the waste but for
  which no health benchmarks exist In
  addition, other compounds which  do
  have health benchmarks have been
  identified in these wastes but were
'  dropped from further consideration  •
  following the risk screening because the
risks were projected to be below levels
of concern. The risk tables presented in
this preamble do not contain these
additional constituents. The complete
list of constituents found in each of the
wastes generated from the manufacture
of dyes and pigments, an explanation of,
the risk screening process, and an  .
explanation of EPA's development of
the target analytelist are presented in  ...
the Listing and Health Effects   J
Background Documents for tills .'-'•"
proposed rule, which are located in the
RCRA Docket for ibis rulemaking (See  ;
ADDRESSES section).   •  '.'-  -•' .
  • The analysis of risk Was developed
using both the input of derived or    ,
measured lexicological information and  •
the modelinfof exposure from baseline
(or current) waste management .practices
and other plausible management .   • - -,
scenarios. Pursuant to the Agency's
regulations on listing hazardous wastes,
EPA considers the "plausible types of
improper management to which the
waste could be subjected", 40 CFR    ;
 261.11(a)(3)(vii). Thus, plausible
management is one of the waste
management scenarios used by EPA to
 assess the risks to human health and the
 environment from the disposal of the
 wastes under consideration.
   The choice of "plausible          :
 management" depends on a "' >    "."-•,
 combination of factors which are ,'- •,
 discussed in Section H.A, "EPA's
 Listing Determination Process." The
 following discussion explains the   •
 plausible management scenarios used to
 assess risk for.each of the waste groups
 addressed in this proposal. The Agency
 requests comment oh its choice of    '
 plausible management scenarios and on
 the possibility of using alternative  -
 plausible management scenarios..  ' ;..-.-..

 Sludges and°Oiher Solid Materials   - '
   The plausible management scenario
 used to assess risks for the wastewater
 treatment sludges from the production
 of azo dyes and pigments (K162 and
 K164). and still bottoms or heavy ends.
 from the production of triarylmethane
• dyes and pigments (K166) was disposal
 in an on-site monofilL Disposal in an '.
 on-site inoiiofill far these waste   ;!  . • '
 categories results in the highest adverse
 exposure of sensitive individuals or
 populations. For wastewater treatment
 sludges from azo dye production (K164),
 this plausible management scenario  Y
  (ije., pa-site monofiU) currently is
  practiced.  ,   .,     ':"•.,-'.•-<..:
    The Agency determined that disposal.
  in an on-site imonofill is a plausible   . •
••  management scenario for wastewater  .
 treatment sludges from azo pigment  '
  production (K162) and still bottoms or
  heavy ends from the production of
 triarybnethane dyes and pigments    .
 (K166), for the following reasons:
   • Cm-site monofills have been used
 by industry to dispose of wastewater • ..
 treatment sludge from the manufacture
 of dy.esr and pigments;        •'    '•'•'.
   • Most of the still bottoms generated
 from the production of triarylmethane
 dyes and pigments are high-volume
 wastestreams for which, on-site
 monofills are a plausible managenlent
•option;and •     "' .:'•   •:'•••
   • 'On-site monofills can be a lower-
. cost disposal option.          •
  : Therefore, there is a potential for
 monofills to be constructed and used in
 the future, by either dye or pigment
 manufacturers to dispose of wastewater  .
 treatment sludges or other high-volume
 solid wastes.         •            .
 :  For wastewater treatment sludge from ,
 the .production of triarylmethane
 pigments using aniline as a feedstock,
 the plausible management was
 determined to be the current •
•''management, blending with non-.
 hazardous fueL Currently, 100% of this
 waste is sent off-site for non-hazardous
 fuel blending. The Agency believes that .
 this waste will continue to be managed
 in this manner because the relatively
 high organic content of the waste gives
 the material value as a fuel ingredient
 Therefore, generators of the waste have
 ah economic incentive to continue fuel'
 •blending. For comparison purposes, the
 .Agency also projected the risks from
 managing this wastestream in a   •
 •municipal landfill (from release of     •-
 contaminants into ground water) and in
 an on-site boiler (from release of  .'   v
 contaminants into the air).
   The primary exposure pathway  ._.,  ,
 considered from disposal of solid   "v
 materials in both unlined municipal
• landfills (evaluated as the baseline
 .managementpractice forK162, K164,  •
 and K165) and monofills (evaluated as
 plausible management practices for  .  -.-'.
 K162, K164, and K166) is direct
- ingestion of drinking water from  ..
• residential wells near the disposal site.
 Because of the widespread practice of
  daily cover, indirect'air pathways and
 .surface erosion and runoff were not • •
 evaluated for municipal landfills. For
;  on-site-monofills, however, the
 • presumption of no daily cover was used,
  and risks associated with indirect
  pathways were evaluated,   . •„  ''.'••
 ,. In addition to estimating potential
 risks from waste disposed in an unlined
  municipal .landfill, the Agency     .
  evaluated risks from municipal landfills
  meeting the minimum requirements for
  a Subtitle D landfill (56 FR 50978, .• ':
  1991). These requirements include daily
  cover, flexible membrane liner, leachate
  collection system, clay liner, and final  •

-------
              federal Register /Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December  22.  1994 / Proposed Rules     660S5
   cap and cover. The results of these
  • analyses can be found in the Risk, ••
   Assessment for Dye and Pigment Waste
   Listing Determination. This document is
•   available in the RCRA public docket
   (see ADDRESSES section).
    A dilution factor based on the ratio of
  'the volume of the waste to the volume •
   of ccf-disposed. municipal waste and
   daily cover was used to estimate the
   concentrations of the constituents of
  •• concern in the landfill. The
  -concentrations of the constituents
  measured in the Waste were multiplied
  by this dilution factor to determine the
  concentration of the constituents in the
  landfill. The concentrations of the
  constituents in the landfill leachate
  were estimated using Toxicity
  Characteristics Leaching Procedure
  (TCLP) data submitted by industry for '
  selected constituents (3,3'-
  dichiorobenzidine, aniline, 4-
  chloroaniline, and 2- and 4-        :
:  aminotoluene), or when TCLP data were
  not available, by using a soil-water ~" •
  partitioning equation.
    JJPiA. used the following linear
  partition equation (Dragan,-1988) with
  an adjustment to relate sorted
  concentration to total waste
  concentration.'     ..   •
  Q. = jCw/[Foc * Koc + O * S/Bd]
  wherje Ci.=leachate concentration   •-••
  Cw=waste concentration  . •- .-       •
  Foc=fraction organic carbon
  Kpc=jorganic carbon partitioning  •-.'-••
1 ".    coefficient    '   •'  ,     .    .
  O=porosity -
  S=fraetion water content > '
  Bd=b;ulk density            '
    The physical properties of the waste
  used in this equation (i.e., bulk density,
  fraction organic carbon) were obtained
  either from the Agency's record samples
  when; available, or from the 1991 RCRA
  Section 3007 Questionnaire responses.
    The volume of leachate and rate of
  ground-water recharge were estimated
  usingl the HELP model. The HELP model
  uses site-specific precipitation values
  and  standard assumptions for the
 characteristics of municipal waste to
  estimate infiltration and recharge rates.
  For tHe evaluation of dye and pigment
  wastes in municipal landfills, annual
 precipitation rates for sites near all dye
 .and pigment facilities were ranked.     "
 Charlotte, North Carolina was selected
 as representative of the median '     ~
 precipitation value for the areas near
 dye and pigment facilities, and   .    -
 Charleston, South Carolina, was :
 selected as representative of sites with
 high annual rainfall potential. The    .   ,
 default meteorologic conditions for
 these locations in the HELP model were
 used to determine the infiltration and ...
.  recharge rates used in the ground-water.
  modeling.          - -...  ,  -,:•:'
  ,  The distance to the receptor wells .  -
  near the municipal landfifl used in .the
  .ground-wafer modeling were obtained
  from the survey of well distances
  conducted for the Background   '  .: •.""
  Document for EPACML: Finite Soufce
  Methodology (EPA, 1992). The value
  selected as representative of the average
  condition is the 50th-percentile value •
  for well distance (438 m), and the value
  for the high-end (close) condition (48 m)
  is the 95th-percentile value.
    The Agency used the MULTIMED
  groundwater model to simulate the   r
  subsurface dilution and attenuationlpf
  the leachate constituents in order to
  estimate the concentration of      . -   .
  constituents at the hypothetical  •-.; •'.'..'
  residential wells. The Agency then     '
 . calculated risks to an individual,
  assuming the residents using this well
  on average consume 1.4 L/day of
  contaminated water, or 2 L/day for   '..
  higher consumptions. Values of 9. or 30
  years were used for the average and  .-."'...
-  high-exposure duration estimates. The
  formulae used and a more detailed
  discussion of the application of these
 models to the waste samples can be '
  found in the Risk Assessment for Dye
 and Pigment Waste Listing           ;.
 Determination, available in the RCRA
 public docket (see ADDRESSES section).
   For on-site mondfills, the leaching
:. analysis was the same as for municipal
 landfills except that the waste,  •''.••-.'
 concentrations are not diluted in the
 monofill.             -:
   The distance to'the nearest receptor
 wells near the on-site landfill used in
 the ground-water modeling were •'."•' '•_•
 obtained from a telephone survey of 9 *
 city planning offices and a review of site
 visit reports and site maps. The value,
 selected as representative of the average
 condition is the SOtfa-perceritile value
 for well distance (163 m) and the value
 for the high-end (close) condition (16 ni)
 is the closest value. The Risk     "•.''•
 Assessment for Dye and Pigment Waste
 Listing Determination for this   . .
rulemaking contains a more detailed  -',:
discussion of these values. This
document is available in the RCRA ,. 3 ,,
public docket (see ADDRESSES section).
  In addition to direct ingestion of ~.:,  •-,.
contaminated driaking water, additional
pathways were evaluated depending on
the characteristics of'the waste and   ;..
management practices evaluated. These .
pathways included inhalation pathways
from airborne particulates and volatiles
released from the monofills, and
indirect exposure pathways such as tEe '•
ingestion of vegetables grown in soil
contaminated by runoff from the on-site
landfill and/or dermal exposure due to.
  direct contact with contaminated soil.
 ., The algorithms used for the estimation
  of risks due to indirect exposures were
  taken from the Methodology for  ..
  Assessing Health Risks Associated with
  Indirect Exposure to Combustion   . ..
  Emissions (U.S. EPA, 1990) as modified
  by the September 24 draft of
  Addendum: Methodology for Assessing
  Health Risks Associated with Indirect
 • Exposure to Combustion Emissions.  ',
  V/orking Group Recommendations (U.S;'
  EPA, 1993) and the Risk Assessment  '..
  Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): ..-..  •:'•
  Volume I—Human Health Evaluation -.' '.
 I Manual (Part B, Development of Risk- "
  biase Preuminary Remediation Goals)
  (U.S. EPA, 1991), and Dermal Exposure
  Assessment: Principles and  .
  Applications. Interim Report (U.S. EPA
  1992) for dermal exposures to. water. • .'.-
  These documents are available in the  •
  public docket for this rule (see •'"''.'
  ADDRESSES section).    .    .     :   .
   [The air pathways were evaluated   -._
  uising the CHEMDAT 7 air emission. ,>
  model to determine the emission rates .•'
  for volatile constituents from the     -
  landfill, tanks, and storage bins. The
 " Fiagitive Dust Model (FDM) was used to
  determine die emission rates for:' •"  " • i  •
  piirticulates. These emissions were  ;   "
  coupled with dispersion coefficients to -"
 ; determine the ambient air  -.       '   ,
  concentrations and the rate  of      ...
  deposition of the waste constituents"'",
  onto the nearby soil; vegetable gardens/"*
  watersheds; and water bddies. The   '
  distances to air receptors are assumed to
  be similar to those used for the ground-
  water wells. The meteorologic locations
  us;ed for the air modeling were selected
 • by a procedure similar to that used to 
-------
 Ŗ8086    " Federal Eegister  / Vol. 59. No.  245 / Thursday. December 22. 1994 / Proposed Rules
 information and industry-supplied data
 in the RCRA Section 3007
 Questionnaire data. Hie ifieteorologic
 data used to characterize the dispersion
 were determined based upon a
 distribution of meleorologic data
 collected for sites near, existing dye
 facilities. These data are ranked by year
 and location, and the 50th- and 90th-
 porcentile year and location were
 selected for the central and high-end "
 dispersion modeling. The air dispersion
 was estimated using the COMPDEP
• model to estimate air concentrations
 and wet and dry depositiori'of the
 constituents on nearby soil, vegetables
 and water bodies. The air  .
 concentrations and deposition data also
 Were used to evaluate indirect •
 exposures.                    .
    For wastewater streams (K163, K165,
  and wastewaters from the production of
  triarylmethane dyes and pigments) the
  Agency determined that treatment in  "
  surface impoundments represents the
  plausible management scenario because,
  since surface impoundments currently
  are in use or planned at several dye
  facilities, and waste management  ,
  practices in the dye and pigment
  industries are generally similar, fhe
  Agency believes that pigment
  manufacturers may employ surface,  -
  impoundments in the future. In
  addition, facilities currently
  manufacturing dyes also could
  manufacture pigments in the future and
  manage wastewaters  from pigment
  production in surface impoundments.
    The baseline management practice
  evaluated for these wastewater streams
  (i.e., K163, kl6S, and wastewaters from
  the production of triarylmethane dyes
  and pigments) was treatment in tanks;
  Thus, for wastewaters, the modeling
  included direct and indirect exposures
  to volatile emissions from surface '
  impoundments and tanks and direct and
  indirect exposures to contaminants that
  "may leach into ground water from
  unlined surface impoundments. The air
  emissions from tanks were estimated  .
  using the CHEMDAT 7 air emission
  model and the dispersion of these
  emissions was estimated using the
  Industrial Source Complex Model-Long
  Term, Version 2 (ISCLT2) air dispersion
  model. The meteorologic locations used
  for estimating the emissions and
  dispersions were the same locations
  selected for use with air models for
  volatile emissions from landfills. Very
  few inhalation health-based levels are •
   available for constituents found in dye
   and pigment wastewaters. Risk from
   direct inhalation exposure to wastes ;
   disposed in surface impoundments was
estimated io be less than one-in-a-
million for all constituents. Results from
air emission modeling for tanks are
presented in the Risk Assessment
Background Document for the Proposed
Rule in the RCRA Docket at EPA
Headquarters (see ADDRESSES section).
  Since the constituents in these wastes."
are highly soluble, leaching from    •  ,
unlined impoundments was  evaluated. '
The concentration of the constituents ia
the leachate was assumed to be equal to
the concentration in the wastewater.'.
   To estimate the concentration of ^..
constituents at the hypothetical "-
residential well, the Agency attempted,
..to use the MULTIMED model to
simulate the subsurface attenuation and
•' dilution of the surface impoundment
• leachate. However, there are limitations
of the MULTIMED model that preclude
its use in this analysis. These include,
the large vohune of leachate estimated
to be released from the surface        ~
impoundment and a conservative
 approach to predict the horizontal
 transport of the leachate within the
 aquifer. This resulted in an infiltration ...
 rate that is so hģgh that it overwhelms
 the aquifer and dilution was not •;  •
 expected. Therefore, to evaluate risk for
 those wastewaters that the Agency is : .
 proposing to list, the Agency assumed
 for this proposal that a dilution and
 _iĢ	j*_^_ Ŗ~.ĢJi..Ģ-^T"k A C*) r\f ^t\f^ 4o
 attenuation factor {DAF) of 100 is
 achievable during migration to the  .; ;. •
 nearest drinking water well. The     '  ...
 Agency's toxicity characteristic (TC) -
 rule (55 FR11798,1990} adopts a DAF
 of 100 to estimate the subsurface fate  :
 and transport between an unlined
 landfill and a receptor drinking water
 well. For purposes of the risk analyses,
 the concentrations in the residential •   .
 wells near the onrsite disposal facility
 were estimated to be equal to 0.01 times
 the concentrations measured in the
 .wastewater. The residents using this
 well are assumed on average to consume
 1.4 L/day or 2L/day of contaminated
 water for an exposure duration of 9 '
 years or 30 years.  -•••-• ' . - -    • {
    The Agency believes that it is more
 reasonable to use the TC rule approach .
 to support a proposed determination to i-
 list, rather than developing a model   .
 more sophisticated than the MULTIMED
 model because "the Agency believes a
 more sophisticated analysis would  "
  suggest greater estimated risks than the
  analysis using a DAF of 100 for the
  following reasons. First, the DAF of 100
 was derived for the TC rule for a range
  of municipal landfill leachate volumes
  that are generally lower than leachate
  volumes from surface impoundments.  •
  Surface impoundment DAFs are
  expected to be lower (and risks -  '-
  subsequently higher) compared to  ' • •
landfill DAFs as a result of both the
liquid in the impoundment and     '-   -"
subsequent increase in hydraulic head.
Second, in the TC analysis, the location ,
of the receptor well was varied
anywhere within the extent of the
contaminant plume. For listing
determinations,1he Agency generally
assumes that the well is located on the
centerline of the'plume.This
assumption would lead to a lower DAF
and higher risks.  Thus, because the use
of the TC DAF of 100 underestimates
risk, use of the TC to estimate risk can
Support a proposal to list. A more
sophisticated model would show only
higher.risk numbers. The wastewaters   ;
that the Agency proposes not to list
were evaluated using MULTIMED arid
creating a bounding estimate. The
Agency believes  that it is reasonable to
use the MULTIMED model to support
this proposed determination not to list
certain wastewaters because it  ,
 overestimates risks.

 EcologicalRisks

   In addition to  evaluating the risk to
 human health, the analysis also
 estimates risks to fish and wildlife from
 exposure to dye  and pigment wastes.
' The concentrations of contaminants of •.
 concern in water bodies near dye and
' pigment waste facilities  were estimated
 using the indirect exposure •
 methodology, and a few high-end input .
 parameters.'As a screening analysis, the
 estimated surface-water concentrations
 were compared with the National .  ,_.
 Ambient Water Quality Criteria
 (NAWQC), or LCso values for bluegill
 and/or rainbow trout if NAWQC were
 not available. The risks to terrestrial and
• .-avian species were evaluated by
'• comparing the waste concentration with
 the Oral rat LDjo, dermal rabbit LDso,
 any available avian LD5o values, and if
 available, a Lowest Observed Adverse
.Effects Level. (LOAEL). Aniline from the
 manufacture of triarylmethane pigment
 using aniline as a reactant was the only
 compound identified as a potential risk
 to the  aquatic or terrestrial environment
 by this method. Details  of these analyses
 are presented hi the Risk Assessment for
 Dye and Pigment Waste listing
; Determination available in the public
 docket (see ADDRESSES section),       t
    The Agency requests comments on
 ^methodology,used by the Agency in
  selecting plausible mismanagement
• scenarios and assessing risks and. on fhe
 •plausible management scenarios
  selected for the wastestreams generated
  from the manufacture of dyes and  . •  •
  pigments.   • .  ,...  .•  •••

-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol.  59,  No. 245  / Thursday, December 22, 19M / Proposed Rules     66087
E. Waste-Specific Listing Determination
Rationales

1. Wastes From the Production of Azo
Pigments    .        '  \
  a. Wa|stewater treatment sludge from
the production of azo pigments (K162).

Summary
  EPA is proposing to list as hazardous
wastewjater. treatment sludges from the
production of azo pigments. This
wastestream meets the criteria set out at
40 CFR 261.li(a)(3) for listing a waste
as hazardous and is capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health "or the environment.
Based on ingestion of contaminated
groiiid water^EPA calculatedlUgh-end
individual cancer-risk levels for six
hazardous constituents that are equal to
or exceed 1E-4 for carcinogens or have
HQs equal to or greater than 1 for non-
carcinogens for the plausible    .
management practice, an on-site •'..
monofill. the combined carcinogenic
risk for multiple co-existing constituents
in this wastestream is projected to be
6E-3 for the on-site monofill. Jn
addition, a combined risk of 1E-4 for
multiple coexisting contaminants were
identified for the baseline management •
practice, a municipal landfill.
Calculated risks exceeding lE-4 also
were) identified from exposure to four ' "
contaminants through ingestion of
contaminated vegetables or through •
dermal contact_with contaminated soil.
Three additional contaminants pose,,
calculated individual risks between IE- .
4 anŖ 1E-6 for the on-site monofill, and
4 contaminants pose calculated risks
between these levels for the municipal
landfill. Six contaminants pose   -•   '
calculated individual risks between IE—
4 and 1E-6 from exposures through
"indirect pathways.
 TABLE 11-2.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES—K162—WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE FROM THE
                                   :.  ;   PRODUCTION OF Azo PIGMENTS      '.:,-..
-
Cons
Aniline
2- & 4-A
2-Met
2-&4-A
Acetoac
Acetoac
Acetoac
1,3-Dinit
3,3'-Dirr
benzk
Nitroben
2,4-DinH
Combinf
•tituents of concern

minoaniline/
Toxyaniline*.
rriinotoluene** 	 — ...
Bt-oanisidide (AAOA)
et-o-tolukfide (AAOT) .
etanyide (AAA) 	
robenzene _.„ 	 	 ...
ethyl-
line.
izene ....... 	 	 	 	 	

3d Carcinogen Risk ..:.-
Baseline management •
Municipal landfill*™
Central tend-
ency
Risk<1E-6 .
Risk=6E-6
Risk<1E-6
Risk=2E-6
Risk=1Ŗ-5 .
Risk=7E-6
HQ <1
:Risk<1Ŗ-6
HQ<1
HQ<1
Riski3E-5
High end
Risk=1E-6
Risk=3E-5
Risk<1E-6
Risk=8E-6
Risk=6E-5
Risk=3E-5
HQ<1
Risk<1E-6
HQ <1
HQĢcl
Risk=1E--l
Piausitte management
On-site monofill*" -
.Centra)
tendency
Risk=1E-5
Risk=3E-€
Risk=1E-5
Aisk=3E-4
Risk=6E-4
Risk=1E-4
HQ=5
Risk=3E-6
HQ=10
HQ-1
Risk=8E-3
High end
Risk=6E-5
Risk=3E-4
Risk=3E-5
Risk=1E^3
Risk=4E-3
Risk=6E-4
HQ=7
Risk=1E-S.
HQ=14
HQ=1
Risk=6E-3
. . Waste characterization . ,
Avg,
cone.
f.n.
7.17
1.3
0.67'
In.
In.
1.05
1.9
f.n.
JD.74
" High
. chnc.
-f.n,
1.5
f.n,
- r f.n.
1.€
2.4
j J.n.

Low
cone.
f.n.
1-2
0.31
0.14
0.72
1.3
tn.

# of pts
f.a 	 _
1 of 5 .... ..
3 of 8 ....
1 of 5 „..
4 of 5 ....
5 of 5 ...
3 of 16 .
2 of 16 ....
f.n. _ 	
1of16 ....
Notes
J.S
j(3).1(3)
S' • -. • '-
J(D,S
(JHD.S .
J(3),l(3)
J(2), 1(2)
J- '..'.-
J ;
  * Risk lestitnates based on.surrogate for 2-methoxyaniline.    -      ...•'•:
  "RisH estimates based on 2-aminotoluene.     •
  *** Exposure through ingestion,of contaminated water.       .    •     '    _'
  f.n. Relevant data are not included at the present time due to business confidentially concerns. .
  Notes':            •.  "              '           *"-   .           .
  All concentrations are in mg/kg.  '    .                  .  •  '•-'••••..                      .
  J(#)—Samples where estimated concentrations are belpw quantitatton limits, "(#)" indicates number of samples that, are J values.
  !(#)—includes data supplied by industry, "<#)" indicates mirriber of samples that are industry-supplied   '  - . ••  •
  S—Toisicity estimated based on metabolic similarity to chemical analog.   . •;••••   .-.             r        .        .  ..-         ...

   TABLE 11-3.—K162—RISK VALUES FOR DISPOSAL IN A MONOFILL {OTHER THAN DRINKING CONTAMINATED GROUND
       j                                       .:      WATER)           ,  '   .    .                 .  .     ,    -
I . Constituent . '-;'... ...
• i;3-Din5trobenzene. . ;,.'*•. .
2-Aminotoluene . ... 	 	 	 ••••" 	

2 4 6-Trichlorophenol • Ģ .............. ............
3 S'-Dichlofobenzkiine '-** ģ ,„..... ................


Acetoacet-o-toiuidine ģģĢ.ģĢģ..ģ.Ģ.' nĢ..ģ..ģ.ģ*...... ...ģģ.Ģģ.ģĢ
Acetoacetanilide 	 ^ .-. - , r^,,,,,,'--,,--^ 	
Total Carcinogen Risk 	 : 	 .-._... 	 	 	 ; 	 -..
Vegetable ingestion
Central
R-4E-5 -
R=3E-6
Ģ=1E-6
R=1E-€
R=2E-3
R=4E-3
ft=3E-6 ,!
R=8E-3
High end
R=4E-5 -
Ģ=1E-6
R=SE-3
fl=3E-6
H=5E-4
R=1E-5
R>9E-3
Soil dermal contact ,
Central
' ' .- " k •
. _.
.
'•"..• . 1 ' -
'• - " -,' '
R=7E-5 ;'':
• - ••• i
' •-',.'.!'
R=iE-4 !
High end
R=2E-4
R=3E-5
. SoH ingestion .
Central
R=9E-6
R-1E-5
High end
. . '' - 'N
R=3E-6
R=6E-6
R=4Ŗ-5 '••

-------
 66088     Federal Register /Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994 /Proposed Rules
 Discussion           ' '  -

   The volume reported by the industry
 in the 1991RCRA Section 3007  ,
 Questionnaire data for wastewater
 treatment sludge from the manufacture
 of azo pigments (K162) is not included
 at the present time due.to business
 confidentiality concerns. Over 99% of
 this wastestream currently is disposed
 in Subtitle D municipal landfills.
 Therefore, the Agency used disposal in
 a municipal landfill as the baseline
.management practice. In addition; as
' explained under Section II.D,
 Description of Health and Risk
 Assessments, the Agency evaluated on-
 site monofilling as a plausible   ; . -   ;
 management scenario.
 . The projected risks of increased - • •
 cancer or hazard quotient above one for
 exposure to this waste are presented in.
 Table JI-2. The data presented in this
 table represent 16 samples collected
 from. 4 azo pigment-manufacturing
 facilities. Eleven of the 16 samples were
 collected and analyzed by industry, and
 were submitted to EPA for evaluation.'
 The 11 industry samples were analyzed
 using Gas Chromatography/Mass
 Spectrometry (GC/MS), Method 8270B
 in EPA's "Test Methods for Evaluating
 Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
 Methods" (SW-846, Third Edition) but
 were not analyzed using High Pressure
 Liquid Chromatography/Thennospray/ *
 Mass Spectrometry (HPLC/TS/MS),	
 Method 8321 in SW-846. EPA has . 	
 reviewed the quality of these industry
 submitted data and has found that these
 data nieet the Agency's data quality     .
 objectives and, therefore, qualify for    :
 inclusion in the waste assessment.  ..   -
 Inclusion of these industry data, - " ,"
 however, does bias the industry's
 characterization toward one facility (i.e.,
 of 16 data points, 11 were submitted by
 one facility, and 2 were collected by the
 Agency at that same facility). The five
 EPA-collected samples, representing
 four facilities, were analyzed using both
 methods, a process which encompasses
 more analytes. Therefore, several
 analytes, specifically acetdacetanilide
 (AAA), acetbacet-o-toluidide (AAOT),~
• and acetoacet-o-anisidide (AAOA), were
 •detected in some or all of the EPA '' •
. samples, but were not analyzed in the
— industrysamples. l	 '.
 .  The calculated risks from ingesting
 contaminated ground water associated
 with disposing these sludges in on-site '
 monofills are very high. Three of the
 compounds thai exceed risk levels of .
 IE—4 are common raw materials used as
 coupling agents in the manufacture of
 azo pigments: acetoacetanilide (AAA),
 . acetoacet-o-anisidide (AAOA), and , .  -
 aoetoacet-p-toluidide (AAOT). These .  -
• three compounds were expected to be
 present in the waste, and consistently  ;
 '• were found in the samples collected by
 •the Agency. •'. •.- ••'••••;     ' "  ,    •;
   The three coupling compounds
; • present in this waste, AAA, AAOA, and
'. AAOT, are predicted to pose very high
. -risks via ground-water ingestion when - •
 managed in an on-site monofill. As     -

           -..  TABLE 11-4   •".•''•""-:":
 shown in Table H-2, the calculated risks
 posed by these compounds range from-
 1E-3 to 6E-4. These risks were
 calculated using metabolic product
 structural-activity relationships (SAR)
 for these compounds. A detailed
 discussion of the SAR for these    •     -
 compounds, and the estimation of
 toxicities for AAA, AAOA, and AAOT  .
 is presented earlier in this preamble,
 under Section BUG, Description of •
 Health and Risk Assessments, and in the
 Health Assessment Background  ',.,
 Document for this proposed rule, which
' is located in the RCRA Docket for this
 rulemaking (See ADDRESSES section).   .
'•-.•- These three compounds are high- :  .. •
 volume couplers used in the
-manufacture of azo pigments. Based on
 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire data,
' AAA is the third highest-volume
 reactant in the pigment industry, with   -
 over 8200 metric tons used in 1991.  .  ,,
 AAOT and AAOA also are used in high
 volumes; their 1991 use volumes were,  .
 2600 and 850 Mtons, respectively.
 .  AAA, AAOT, and AAOA were found
 .in 85% of the wastewater systems where
 .they are used. When detected in the
. wastewater system, the compound was
 • found either in the wastewater or in the
 sludge. Table n-4 presents the number
 of wastewater systems where each of the
 three coupling compounds were   ..
, • detected. Table n—4 also shows the •...<• -!r
 •' number of samples in which the three
, coupUng compounds were detected -.   .
 relative to the number in which the     •
- compounds were expected,      .     .
'-' • •-.-'••
AAA
AAOA' ' • " ' "' • • •
AAOT
WWT System
5 of 5 systems .......
2 of 4 systems Ģ...*-
4 of 4 systems ....:..
Wastewater
4 of 4 samples 	
3 of 3 samples 	
1 of 4 samples 	
Sludge
5 of 5 samples.
1 of 2 samples. •
4 of 4 samples.
   Amides (e.g., AAA, AAOT, and
 AAOA) hydrolyze to form free acids and
 amine salts under acidic conditions.
 Measurements of pH values of process'
 wastewaters at several pigment
 production facilities revealed that these
 acidic conditions are encountered
 frequently. The hydrolysis products for
 AAA, AAOT, and AAOA are aniUne, 2-
 aminotoluene, and 2-methoxyaniline,  -
" respectively. The unreacted amide raw .
 materials and the amines expected from
 hydrolysis of these amides both have *
 been identified in untreated
 wastewaters and wastewater biological .
 treatment sludges.      '       ,
   Two sets of coeluting compounds
 were observed from the analysis of
 wastewater treatment sludge from the
 production of azo pigments. The first set
  of coeluting compounds produced one
  data point, shown in Table El, for
  which the mass spectrum indicates the
  presence of 2-methoxyaniline, along
  with the potential presence of 2- and 4-
  aminoaniline (for a discussion of..   ;"
  coeluting compounds and risk'    '•• ,''_
 -assessments conducted-on these  •"••' •'•••
 • compounds, please refer to the section
 'entitled "Coeluting Compounds'." in.'_.  -.'".
  Section n.D). 2-Methoxyaniline is   •* "j
  expected as a contaminant in the   -'
  wastewater treatment sludge from'the •• ,-
  facility that generated the sample   • '•''
  because that facility manufactures azo •."'
  pigments using acetoacet-b-anisidide
  (AAOA) as a raw material, and, as stated
  above, 2-methoxyaniline'is an expected
  hydrolysis product of AAOA. In   • • i>
  addition, the facility from which this -
  sample was collected uses 2-   -  •
  aminoaniline as a reactant in the
  manufacture of azo dyes.
   For this wastestream, the Agency  ,
•  conducted the risk assessment for these
  coeluting compounds based on toxicity .
  information for 2-methoxyaniline
  because this contaminant is expected to
  be present from azo pigment
  production. Since there currently is no"
  HBL for 2-methoxyaniUne, the Agency  '
-.based the risk assessment on the toxicity
  of a surrogate compound. 2-
  Aminotoluene is a structural analog of.  '
  2-methoxyaniline and is being used as
- a toxicity surrogate. The resulting high- -
  end individual cancer-risk level for 2-
  methoxyaniline was calculated to be   -'
  2E-3 for the on-site monofill    '
  management scenario.

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 59, IfoT 245 / Thursday? December 22, 1994  / Proposed Rules     66O69
   The second set of coeluting
 compounds consists of the two isomers
 2- and 4-aminotoluene. The two isomers
 were detected in 3 out of 8 sludge
 samples from azo pigment
 manufacturing operations, and the .
 combined concentration of the two1 •-
 compounds was quantified. The  , '    ,"•
 calculated high-end individual- cancer-
 risk level, based on the toxicity of 2-
 aminbtoluene, is 3E-5 for the pn-site
 monofill management scenario.
   In addition to the substantial
 calculated risks (i.e.. exceeding 1E-4 for
 carcinogens) posed by raw materials
 used in azo pigment manufacturing and
 their break-down products, four
 additional contaminants were found in
 thejwastestream at concentrations that  '
 are [projected to pose very high risks
 (HQs of 1 or greater for non-carcinogens)
 throiugh ingestion of contaminated
 ground water under plausible
 management in an on-site monofill. 1,3-
" Dinltrobenzene, nitrobenzene, and 2,4-
 dinltrophenol were found at
 concentrations that resulted in
 calculated high-end HQs of 7,9, and i
 respectively.                        . ,
   Iji addition to assessing the risks
 associated with the individual   '     "
 constituents found in the waste, the
. Agency considers the combined risk of
 constituents that co-exist in the
 wastestream. In the case of wastewater
 treatment sludges generated from the
 manufacture of azo pignients,,all of the
 diazotization and coupling reactants
 and breakdown products previously
 discussed in this section (i.e., AAA,
 AA!OT, AAOA. aniline, 2-aminotoluene,
 and'2-methoxyaniline) are assumed to  -
 co-exist in the wastestream. The.    -
 reactants are used in numerous larger
 volume pigments which are
 maiiulactured on a frequent basis. Since '
 this sludge is a commingled
 wastestream representing production  .'
 from the entire plant, the constituents
 are! likely to be present simultaneously
 in the waste. Therefore, the combined
 risk of these individual constituents,
 which is projected to be very high (i.c.,
 "SE-f-3 at the Mgh end), also was
 considered in making this listing
 determination.  •                 '
   In addition to the very high risks    •-
 posed by the plausible management
 practice (a monofill), the calculated
 -risks posed by the current management
practice (a municipal landfill) are also
high. The combined additive high-end
risk for the reactants and breakdown  •'
products previously discussed in this •
section (i:e., AAA, AAOT, AAOA,
aniline, 2-aminotoluene, and2-      .-,
methoxyaniline) is projected to be IE—
4 for the municipal landfill management
practice. Therefore, EPA concludes that
even if the Agency considered current
management and did not consider
plausible management, this wastestream
would present a substantial risk to •   ••-
human health and the environment, and
should be listed as hazardous.'
  Three additional constituents (i.e.,
aniline, 3^'-dimetiaylbenzidine, and 2-
aminotoluene) were found in the
wastewater treatment sludge from azo
pigment operations at concentrations
that are projected to pose risks within
the Agency's risk range of concern (i.e.,
IE—4 to 1E-6 for carcinogens) using the
on-site monofill management scenario.
Four constituents (i.e., AAOA, AAOT,
AAA, and the coeluKihg compounds *2- .
ammoaniline and 2-methoxyariilinej
were found in this waste at-..,  •   ;
concentrations that pose risks between
IE—4 and 1E-6 for carcinogens for .the
municipal landfill scenario. In addition,
six constituents pose risks within this
range of potential concern through
indirect pathways.  •   '          .'
 ', Based on an analysis of the risks  .
associated with botii current and
plausible management practices, EPA is
proposing to list wastewater treatment. .
sludge from the production of azo  '  ' .
pigments as a hazardous waste, r  ..
designated as EPA Hazardous Waste
Number K162.    .   .   ' ,    ,  .:--.
 , For the -reasons stated above, the   •
 following constituents to Appendix VII
 to Part 281—Basis for Listing: Aniline. .
' 2-aminoaniline4 4-aminoaniline, 2- '
 methoxyahitine, 2-aminotoluene, 4-  .;
 aminotoluene, acetoacet-o-anisidide,'
 acetoacet-o-toiuidide, acetoacetanilide,
 i;3-dinitrobenzene, 33*-   -''  •-•"    '
 dimethylbenzidine, nitrobenzene, and
 2;4-dinitrophenol. .      -   -  .
 ,  In addition, acetoacet-o-anisidide^
 acetoacfit-D-toluidJ.de. acetoacetanilide,
 2-aminoaniline. 4-aminoaniline, 2-'
 methoxyaniline, and 1,3-dinitrobenzene
 are proposed to be added to Appendix
 VIII to Part 261^HazardDus
 Constituents.     -.-.',-••-.  ~-.:._   ,
 j b. Wastewaters from the production of
 azo pigments (K163).     .,       -•  '

 SSummary   '     .  _.       ;  •-. •
   The Agency is proposing to list   '.""•
 ijvastewaters from the production of azo
 pigments as hazardous! wastes. This  ".  -
 iwaste meets the criteria set out at 40   .
 CFR 261,ll(a)(3)  for listing a waste as
 hazardous and is capable of posing a
 Ģignificant present or potential hazard to
 liunjan health or, the environment.
 Based on ingestion of contaminated
 ground water, EPA calculated high-end
 Individual,risk levels for three      .
 carcinogens .that exceed 1E-4 for     ^
 disposal in an uhlined on-site surface ""
 iimpoundment, the plausible
 'lirianagemeht scenario. The calculated
 combined carcinogenic risk for these
 -constituents is 3E-4 from exposure to
 iDontaminated ground water for the
 (Surface impoundment.mariagement
 jjcenarip. To further support this listing,
 lour additional contaminants pose ,
\jindividual risks between 1E-4 and IE—
 IB for the surface impoundment scenario.

 iOistmssiori    ;'  ."     '   :""•;'•.  •''.'-
'-t Data from the RCRA Section 3007  -
 Questionnaire show that the 1991  -,.
 Volume, reported by the industry for the
 •ivastewater stream from azo pigment
 production is 9,914,662 metric tonS4, or
 iapproximateiy 7.2 milh'on gallons per '<  •
 day; Oyer 75% of wastewaters from azo
 pigment manufacturing currently are  '
 pretreated and discharged to a publicly
 owned treatment works (POTW). Most
 of these waste waters are treated in
 equalization and neutralization tanks
 prior to discharge to a POTW. A smaller
 percentage of these wastewaters is
 subjected to aerobic biological treatment
 in tanks, with subsequent NPDES   -.  : •
 Discharge to a surface water.
 l" As explained under Section II.D,
 Description of Health and Risk
 Assessments, the risk assessment for
. these wastewaters was performed using .
 treatment in tanks as the current, of
 baseline, management practice, and
 treatment in surface impoundments
 iplausible management scenario. The
 -risks of increased cancer for exposure to
 this waste are presented in Table H-5.
 .The data presented in this table       .
 represent six samples collected from   ;'
 --.four azo pigment manufacturing
 "facilities.  '     .-
                                                                            •TV

-------
  60090      Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.  245 / Thursday. December 22,  1994 / Proposed Rules
   TABLE 11-5.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES KIBS-^WASTEWATERS FROM THE PRODUCTION OF Azo
                           "   ,'   •     -'  •  •        PIGMENTS-              -  "           ^     •
Constituents of
concern
2- & 4-
Aminoanilirie/2- , .
Methoxyani-
line*.
2-,3-,&4-
Aminoto-
, luene".
Aniline 	
Acetoacet-o
anisidide
(AAOA).
Acetoacet-o-
loluidide (AAOT).
Acetoacetanilide
(AAA).
2,4- & 2.6-,
Dimelhylaniline.
Combined Car-
cinogen Risk.
, Baseline management
Treat in tanks'"
Central tend-
ency
All 	
Constituents
Dropped —
After 	
Bounding ....
Risk 	
Assessment

• High end


.V



•
• •

Plausible management sce-
nario
Treat in SI*"
Central tend-
_ ency
Risk=5E-5
Risk-1E-5
Risk=2E-6 .
Risk=5E-6
Risk=5E-5
Risk=4E-6
Risk=5E-5
Risk 2E— 4

High end
Risk 1E-4 '
Risk-2E-5
Risk=4E-6
Risk-1E-5
Risk=1E-4
Risk=7E-6
Risk=1E-4
Risk=3E-4
Waste characterization '•• .,"'"' ;
Avg.
cone.
, In,
0.54
f.n.
. f.ri.
-2.06
f.n.
- f.n.-
High
cone.
,.4.75
'2.1
f.n.
.0.18
in.

Low cone. '
f.n. (J) 	 .....
f.n. 
4 of 6 	 	
4 of 5 ...... .
3 of 6 ........
1 Of 6
,4 Of 6 .......
f n

ģ•
Notes
J(1)- .
J(3)
J(i),S
S
s
   * Risk estimates based on surrogate for 2-methoxyaniline.
   ** Risk estimates based on 2-aminotoluene.                •        •   ••••,••••  ••-•-•-.
   '" Exposure through ingeslion of contaminated groundwater."     • •''-.'       ....  '.-...     .
   f.n. Relevant data are not included at ihe present time due to business confidentiality concerns
   Notes:            •          •     .•      .-,.-..      ..,...'         ::"\  ' .-   	".'
   All concentrations are in mg/l.          ' ,     '   •         '  •-   -  •'"   ' " "'.'-".       ,   :'"'-; ••'  ;
   Jw—Samples where estimated concerrtrations are below quantitation limits, '(#)' indicates number of samoles that
   S—Toxiciry estimated based on metabolic similarity to chemical analog.   .-        ,       :•,
                                                      are 'J' values..,
   The calculated risks associated with
 managing these wastewate.rs in surface
 impoundments are very high. Three
 constituents are considered to pose a
 substantial potential hazard to human  '
 health and the environment (i.e.", risks
 exceed 1E-4). Calculated risks for each
 of these three compounds are 1E-4. '
   Three of the constituents that have
 been projected to pose a risk greater
 than 1E-6, namely, acetoacetanilide  •
 (AAA), acetoacet-o-toluidide (AAOT),
 and acetoacet-o-anisidide (AAOA), are
 high-volume,coupling reactants used in
 the manufacture of azo pigments. As
 explained above for K162, these
 constituents are dominant raw materials
 in the azo pigment manufacturing
 industry and generally are present in the
 •wastewater treatment systems at these
 sites. As shown in Table II-5, the risks
 calculated by these compounds range
 from 1E-4 to 1E-6. As stated for K162,
 these risks were calculated using
 metabolic product structural-activity  .
 relationships (SAR) for these    •  .
 compounds, an approach which is    "
 discussed in detail in Section Il.D of this.
 preamble, and in the Lasting  .          .
 Background Document for this proposed
rule, which is located in the RCRA
 Docket for this rulemaking (See.
 ADDRESSES section).       -"  -.:
   Table II-4, presented earlier, shows  •
 that AAA and AAOA were detected in
 all of the wastewater samples collected
 from facilities that use these reactants.
 AAOT was found only in one of four
 wastewater samples, but it was found in
 all four of the sludge samples collected
 from facilities using the compound. The
 Agency believes, that the latter
 compound generally is present in the
 wastewater treatment system at facilities
 that use AAOT as a raw material but
 that it may be preferentially partitioning
 to the sludge.   •    •  .-  ' . -~ '•-
   In addition to the high risks    .-• .'.
• calculated by the three reactants,. AAA,•;
 AAOA, and AAOT, tie hydrolysis   •••-.-
 products of these compounds, aniline, ••;,
- 2-aminotoluene, and 2-methoxyaniline, -
 also were detected in the .waste at
 concentrations that pose significant risk
 (i.e., risks ranging from 1E-4 to 4E-6).
 Discussions addressing hydrolysis   ; '..
-pathways and conditions for these  --,*  '•
 compounds, and jhe issue of coeluting -,
 compounds associated with the     '.',..:
 hydrolysis products, were presented  ;.
 earlier in this preamble (see discussion :
 of K162, and Section n.D).  .    ;
    In addition to the primary raw
 • materials and breakdown products
  presented above, the combined 2,4- and
  2,6-isomers of dimethylaniline, which .
  also are suspected raw material
  breakdown products, were detected in
  this waste at cbncentrations'that pose a
 Arery high risk (i.e., a risk of 1E-4).
 -'. Along with risks associated with the
  individual constituents found in the
  waste, the Agency considers the
  combined risks of constituents that co-
 exist in the wastestream. In the case of
 wastewaters generated from ihe
 manufacture of azo pigments, all of the-
" reactants and breakdown-products
 previously discussed in this section
 (i.e., AAA, AAQT, AAOA, aniline, 2-
 aminbtoluene, and 2-methoxyaniline) V .'
 are assumed to co-exist in the  \:
-wastestream. The reactants are used in
"•' producing numerous large-volume
 . pigments that are manufactured on a
 frequent basis. ;Since this wastewater  .
 stream represents several commingled
 wastestreams from throughput the plan;,
 "the constituents are likely to be present ;
 simultaneously in the waste. Therefore,
 the combined risks of these individual
 . constituents, which are:ptojected to be -
" very high under the surface  ,  -...-.    -,"
 impoundment mismanagment scenario

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December: 22. 1994 /Proposed Rules     66091
 (i.e:, i3E—4 at the High end), also were
 considered in making this listing
 determination.
   Bafeed on the calculated risks        ;
 associated with the plausible       •
 management practice for this waste
 (treatment in surface impoundments),
 EPA is proposing to list wastewaters
 fromjthe production of azo pigments as
 a hazardous waste, designated EPA
'Hazardous Waste Number K163.
 •However, the Agency recognizes that if,
 wastewater treatment sludges from the
 production of azo pigments (K162) are
 listed as proposed, the available options
 for w,astewater management may change
'and the surface impoundment scenario  •
 may not be plausible for the following
 reason: wastewaters that are managed in
 an impoundment will generate sludges
 through precipitation. In .the event that"
 Kl62 sludges were listed and the
 wastewaters were not, the sludges
 generated in a Subtitle D wastewater
 impoundment would be hazardous  ,   •
 wastes and the surface impoundment
 would become subject to RCRA Subtitle
 C regulation. The Agency is requesting
 comment on whether the use of SubtiUe
 D surface impoundments to manage '
 wastewaters would be a plausible  '•
 management scenario if the  wastewaters
. were,not listed but the wastewater
 treatment sludges were listed as
 hazardous wastes. The Agency also is
 requesting comment on the. need to list .
 K163 wastewaters, given that the      .
 plausibility; of the management scenario
 on which the risk assessment was, based
 may be affected by the final outcome of
 the Kl 62 sludge listing.  ,	
, , For the reasons stated 'above, EPA
 proposes to add the following  .....
 constituents to Appendix VTJ to^art
 261—Basis for Listing: Aniline, 2-
 aminoaniline, 4-amuioaniline, 2-
 methoxyaniline, 2-aminotoluerie, 3-
 aminotoluene, 4-aminotoluene,
 acetoacet-o-anisidide. aeetoacet-o-  .  •
 toluidide, acetoacetanilide, 2,4-
. dimethylanilihe, and 2,6-  .. . ;   .'.
 dimethylaniline.    .      .
-   In addition, 2-aminoaniline, 4-  . '•'   •
 aminoaniline, 2-methoxyaniline, 3-
 aminotoluene, ac'etoacet-o-anisidlde,
 acetoacet-o-toluidide, acetoacetanilide,
 2,4-dimethylaniline, and 2,6-          .
 dimethylaniline are proposed to be
 added to Appendix VIII to Part 261—   :
 Hazardous Constituents.
   2. Wastes from the .production of azo
 dyes.   -   •    .       '    ' >  .
   a. Wastewater treatment sludge  from ;
 the production of azo dyes, excluding
 FD&C colorants (K164):
 Summary          '    .        ,
   EPA is proposing to list wastewater '
treatment sludge from the production of
 aiio dyes, excluding FD&C colorants, as ;
 a hazardous waste. This wastestream
 meets the criteria set out at 40 CFR
 2l31.11ffa}(3) for listing a waste as  .
 hazardous and is capable of posing a
 substantial present or potential risk to ^
 hiiunan health or the environment.. ' ;
 Biased on ingestion of contaminated. .
'_ ground water, EPA calculated high-end ,
 individual cancer risk levels for five
 constituents which exceed lE-^4. for
 Ctircinogehs and have HQs of i or
 gi:eater for non-carcinogens forthe
 plausible management practice, an on-  /
 site monofill. Four additional
 contaminants further support the listing
 by posing individual risks between 1E-
. 4 and 1E-6. Risks between 1E-4 and
 113-6 also were identified for six . -  •   ~:-
 contaminants from exposure to these
 constituents through other .exposure ' -.  '
 pathways.  :      .  '    •       '....'

 Discussion

  [The majority of wastewater treatment
 sludge from the production of azo dyes
 is biological treatment sludge. The
 information on volume and the'
 percentage of this waste volume      "•'.
 disposed of at Subtitle D municipal
 landfills, as reported in the 1992 RCRA
 Section 3007 Questionnaire, is not
 included at the present time due to. '   :
business confidentiality concerns.
  TABLE 11-6.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES, K154—WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE FROM THE
     I      .     ....                   ,       PRODUCTION OF Azo DYES          i           "    .    -' •  .
1 .
Constituents of
concern
• -1 • ' ••
•-••' r -
i •
2-&4 I "
Aminoaniline/
'2- .' ' ' '
Methoxyani-
line*;.
Aniline 	
Diphenylamine/
N-Njtrosodi-
phehylamine".
3.3'- j • . -
Dimtethoxybe-
nzidine.
4-Metjiylphenol
1,3- i
Dinitrobenze-
ne. ! '•
2-Methoxy-5-ni-
troaniline.
2,4- J .
Dihltrophenol.
2- & 4rAminotc-
luenjj"*.
Baseline manage-
ment*
Municipal landfill""
Central .
tend.
R=4E-6
R<1E-6
R<1E-6
R<1E-6
R<1E-6
HQ<1
R<1E-6
HQ<1;
R<1E-6
High end.
R=2E-5 ;
R<1E-6
R<1E-6
R<1E-6
R<1E-6
HQ<1
fl<1E-6
HQ < 1
R=1E-6
Plausible management scenario ••
Orhsite monofill""
Central
tend.
R=2E-4
R=2E-6
R<1E-€
R=4ET6
HQ-2
HQ = 34
R<1E-6
HQ ..= 1
R=3E-5
High end
R=5E-4
R=1E-5
R=2E-6
R=2E-5.
HQ = 3
HQ = 45
R=2Ŗ-6
R=1E-4 '
Vegetable ingestion
Central
tend.
R=4E-5
R=2E-6
R=3E-6 :
R-5E-6
R=1E-§';;
High end
R=4E-5
R=2E-6
R=3EHB
R=5E-6
,' -
Avg.
cone:
7.17
f.n.
f.n.
. f.n.
1.05
. O.S2
6.74
Waste characterization
." High .
ainc.

- „
f.n.
f.n.
"f.n.
1.6
....
>
Low
cone..

14
in.
f.n.
Q.72
.'I. ••'1.2
#ofpts
1 of 7
i n
in. ; 	 ;... "
in 	 	
1 of 7 .:.....
3 of 8 .......
10f10 ..;..
1 of 18 .....
3 Of 11 V..!.;
Notes
j1. .•• •;-.'

-------
66092     Federal Register /Vol.  59.  No. 245  /Thursday. December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules
  TABLE N-6.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES, K154—WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE FROM THE
                                      PRODUCTION OF Azo DYES—Continued  -   -          .
Constituents of
concern
Combined Car-
cinogenic
Risk.
Baseline manage-
ments
Municipal landfill""
Central
tend.
R*4E-6
High end
R=2E-5
• Plausible management scenario
Oivsite monofill**"
Central
tend.
R=2E-4
High end
R=7E-4
Vegetable ingestton
Central
lend.
'.• ' - • ";
High end
''"."• ''
.Waste characterization -
Avg.
cone.
<• ..'';•. '•
High
cone.
3 '• J
Low
cone.
•~* " ' -
;*ofpts
:'"'."' ';.'".
. Notes

  * Underestimates risks due to disposal in pn-sitempnorill.not-in   .-   ::-• -.-;'"  "'V'"'.- "•-",'•-.•'•.'•':•'""'-•-•.
  •• Risk numbers based on N-nitrosodiphenylamine.    -    ,         "••;  •',•:.  "    - .  -    ,  ,... :	
  **• Risk numbers based on 2-am'motoluene.    ,        "ģ'-•  -',.•'•..-.: .:..,,-  -.--,:-
  **" Exposure through Ingestion of ground nyater. -  • -..%ģ-'-,..• ........  -.-.-;  .-;* j-  --.   - v .. ģ ^.v-, i-'
  In. flelevant data are not Included at the present time due to business confidentiality concerns..   •'•."••  •"•'•'".."•-.'
  Notes:              •  •       '   •  .'' '   ...  ;  .    "  	 -'   . •••''••  '•'•'•'".  •'••"  /.'I'.  •".• Y'V ;
  All concentrations are in mg/kg.                  ~"                  '        .  /             '  . •".
  J(*)—Samples where estimated concentrations are foekwquantitation limits. *(*)' Indicates number of samples that are
  !(*)—Includes data supplied by industry,'(*)' indicates .number of samples that are industry-supplied.  .,,,-,, ;J.  ...-...
  S—ToxIcity estimated based on metabolic similarity to chemicalanalog.  .   ',,-    •  ..
                                                         •J'values.
  As discussed earlier under Section •
ILD, Description of Health and Risk
Assessments, the Agency, conducted the
risk assessment on these wastestreams
using both a current, or baseline
management scenario, and a plausible
management scenario. Information •  "•
relating to this discussion is not
included at the present time-due to
business confidentiality concerns.
  Therefore, the Agency conducted the
risk assessment on two current
management scenarios, a municipal
landfill, and a monofill, with the
monofill representing the plausible •
management practice.   .   •   .
  The risk projections associated with
this wastestream are presented in Table
11-6. The data presented in this table
represent 18 samples collected from
four azo dye manufacturing facilities.
Eleven of the 18 samples were collected
and analyzed by industry, and were
submitted to EPA for evaluation.
  The risks associated with  disposing
these sludges in monofills are projected
to be very high. Five constituents found
in the waste are predicted to pose
individual high-end cancer-risk levels
equal to or exceeding 1E-4 or HQs equal
to or exceeding 1 for non-carcinogens,
through ingestion of contaminated
ground xvater or vegetables.  The five
constituents pose carcinogenic risks
ranging from lE-4 to 5E-4 and non-
carcinogenic hazards from 2 to 45 times
above the RfDs for the monofill
management scenario.
  There are two cases of coeluting
constituents for this wastestream. As
shown in Table II-6, there is one data
point for which the mass spectrum
indicates the presence of 2-    •     •
xnothoxyaniline along with the • ••
  potential presence of 2- end'Ŗ•"-'- "-• V ;  ;
/•aminoaniline. As discussed In Section
  n.D, EPA based the risk assessment for •.
  *his set of coeluting compounds on 2-.:,
  :aminoaniline. The calculated high-end ,.
 -individual cancer-risk levellor 2-,.  -"-". -.
•  aminoaniline is 5E-4 for the monofill
 •managementscenario. •  '.--.  -•:'.. ••'-•.•-':.
   The second set of coeluting - - .;'
  compounds consists of the three isomers
-  2-,3-,and4-aminotoluene.The  -•,..•,?.
 . presence of the three isomers was    . \:
  confirmed in four out of six wastewater
• samples collected from azo dye - - - - --;
  manufacturing operations, and the-^"  '
 • combined concentration of the three -   ••
  compounds was quantified.-The   -  '--•-
  calculated high-end individual cancer-
  risk level, based on theioxicity of 2-    :
  aminotoluene, is 1E-4 for the monofill
. 'management scenario (See Section n.D
  of this preamble, Coeluting Compounds,
 • for more details on the Agency's  ;, •• •
 •approach to risk assessment.for   -     ;
 .coeluting compounds).   ••••••'•. • • :   •
   fa addition to the two sets  of
  coeluting compounds used as raw •
  materials in azo dye manufacturing,
  three compounds, 1,3- dinitrobenzene,
  4-methylphenol, and 2,4-dinitrophenol
 • were found at concentrations that are
  projected to pose a substantial risk to  '
. -human health and the environment. The.
  risks presented by these compounds are
• calculated to have high-end HQs of 45,
  3,and2,respectively. • -•' ; •' -";".' •' .]"
   Aniline is a' high-volume dye reactant
  present in the wastewater treatment .  .:
  •sludge at multiple facilities, according
  to RCRA Section 3007 questionnaire
  data. Aniline is the fourth highest-   __":
• -volume reactant used in the dye •    ; '
  industry, accordmg to data provided in
 "the 1991 RCRA.Section3007 -;    ":- ' -
 Questionnaires; with a 1991 use volume  ,
 of 4860 metric tons. Based on the
 aniline concentrations found in the  "',.''..
 waste, the Agency has calculated a high-  :
' end individual cancer-risk level for this >.:
--constituentatME-5.    } j"   '.' -••". ' ;  "
   Aniline was found in over^70% o'f the
'•samples of wastewater treatment sludge
 from azo dye production. However, 11  ~
 of the 13 aniline data points, which
;- were all from one facility .were dropped'
 prior to the risk assessment because the
• facility reported that aniline found; in
 the wastewater treatment sludges is  '•" ;:
'associated with non-dye operations.
 This facility consumes larger volumes of
 aniline in their non-dye operations than
-in the manufacture of azo dyes. It is
* likely that aniline from dye operations  "
':' contributed to the presence of the       <• •
 Constituent in the waste; however, the
. -Agency could not determine the extent  ••
 of this contribution.     • -
  • /In studying the wastewater treatment
-. systems from azo dye manufacturing
 operations as a whole, the Agency found
" aniline to be present in all systems from
 which samples were collected. In   .
• ••addition, aniline was consistently " .   :
 presentin the wastewaters for all >   '  "
: samples collected.'Furthermore, even
 though aniline would be expected to
 biodegrade in the wastewater treatment .
 system, aniline was present in 2 out of
 5 samples from the wastewater
: treatment sludge. Because the.
 wastewater treatment sludge presents a
> complex matrix for'chemical analysis,  ,
': the detection Hmits obtained for the    -
 wastewater treatment sludges were.high
" Therefore, the Agency believes that,
 given'the consistent presence of aniline
 in the wastewater, and the detection of   v
 aniline in 2 out of 5 sludge samples"

-------
            Federal Register / Vol.-59. No.'245 / Thursday, December 22, [1994 /  Proposed Rules     66093
 (with 11 data points dropped for the  •
 reasons stated earlier), aniline typically
 is present in wastewater treatment
 sludges from azo dye manufacturing   ,
 operations. Based on the aniline
 concentrations found in .the two data
 points that remain after 11 data points.
 were dropped, the Agency has
 determined that the risk posed by
 aniline in this wastestream is
 significant. '      •                •
•  An additional high-volume raw
 material used in the manufacture of azo
 dyes, 3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine, was
• founjd to be present in the wastewater ,
 treatment sludge from azo dye
 operations at concentrations that result
. in calculated high-end individual ::
 cancer-risk level of 2E-5. Based oh data ;
 from1 the 1991  RCRA Section 3007
 Questionnaire, 1719 metric tons of 3,3'-
 dimethyoxybenzidine were used in  the
 manufacture of azo dyes in 1991.
  Injaddition to the risks posed by the
 individual-hazardous constituents
 founjd in the waste, some of the
 contaminants are co-occurring in this
 wasjtestream. The Agency found that
 sludge samples collected from each  of
 the fourĢzo dye manufacturing facilities
 generally contain one or more toxic  raw
 materials simultaneously. Therefore,,
 some individual carcinogens are co- ' •;
 occurring in the waste and the
 calculated risks are assumed to be
 additive. Given the waste     <
 characterization and risk assessment
 results, along with toxicity information
 on other raw materials used in the
 production of azo dyes (i.e., aromatic
 amines), the Agency believes that
wastewater treatment sludges from azo
 dye manufacturing typically contain one
 or mdre toxic raw materials at
 concentrations that pose a significant
 risk.  '     .,  .  •  .      .'.'.-; -'•  :•
  In addition to the azo dye raw
materials that were found in the
wastestream at concentrations that pose
a high risk, two additional constituents,
2-methoxy-5-nitroaniline, and the two  '
coeluting compounds diphenylamine
and N-nitrosodiphenylamine, were
founcl in" the wastewater treatment
sludge -from azo dye operations at
concentrations that pose carcinogenic
risksjabove 1E-6 (See Section II.D for
treatment of coeluting compounds).   .
•;; The results from the assessment of  ':;
  exposure pathways other than drinking
  contaminated ground water resulting
  froni management in anjMijsite mohofill
  also are presented in Table'U-6.~:  .
 . Calculated high-end individual cancef-
 ; risk levels between" 1E-4 and 1E-6 were "
  identified for six contaminants through •
  indirect Ģxposure pathways
  (contaminated vegetable ingestion) if
  airborne dusts are not controlled.
   In addition to the risks posed by the  ;
  monofill management practice, the     '
  calculated risk posed by municipal
  landfill disposal also is within EPA's
  range of potential concern, lE-€tp.lE- ,
 . 4, for two sets of coeluting compounds, •
  2-and 4-aminoaniline/2-;   ,     :.:  ".
.  methoxyaniline, and 2-and 4-,
'  aminotoluene. The Agency also '. '
  considered the risks posed by these    "
  contaminants for a municipal landfill  '-
  when making the  listing decision..
   Based on an analysis of the risks
  associated with-the current management
 practices, a monofill and municipal
 . landfill, EPA is proposing to list as   "
 hazardous wastewater treatment sludge
 from the production t>f azo dyes, •
 excluding FD&C colorants, designated  '
 EPA Hazardous Waste Number K164.  .
   For the reasons  stated above, tne  "
 Agency is proposing to add the •'-''•'  •
 following constituents to Appendix VII
 to Part 261—Basis for Listing: 2- ;.
 aminoanilirie, 4-aminoaniline, 2- ' -  '
 methoxyaniline, aniline,       ,
 diphenylamine, N-     , •' :".   •.
 nitrosodiphenylaniine,.3,3'-
 dimethoxybenzidine, 4-methylphenol,
 1,3-dinitrobenzene, 2-methoxy-5-
 nitroaniline,' 2,4-dinitrophenol, 2-
 aminotoluene, and 4-amindtoluenei
   In addition, 2-amirioaniline, 4-     '
 aminoaniline, 2-niethoxyaniline, N-   -
 nitrosodiphenylamine, 4-methylphe'nbl,
 1,3-dinitrobenzene, and 2-methbxy-5-  ;
 nitroaniline are proposed to-be added to
 Appendix Vfll to Part 261—Hazardous
 Constituents.   ,      ,
  • b. Wastewaters from the production of
 azo dyes, excluding FD&C colorants
 {K165).      . -,,',,.;'  ;-;•;
 Summary    ..   ..;  ~-r.-.   : -;     ..•'
   The Agency is proposing to list   ,"
 wastewaters  from the. production of azo
 dyes, excluding FD&C colorants, as
 Hazardous. This wastestream meets the
 criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for
 -liisiing a waste as hazardous and is , .
 capable of posing a substantial present
 or potential hazard to human health or-.
 tilie environment. Based on ingestion of .-
 contaminated ground water, EPA  .   :
 calculated a high-end individual risk
 level of .lE-^4 for one hazardous      :
 •constituent for the plausible
 management scenario, treatment-in an  .
 imlined surface impoundment..Tw6
 additional constituents are estimated to
 pose risks between 1E-4 and 1E-6 for
 tlie surface impoundment scenario.   .

 Discussion •-.:••'•'  •  . '      •'   '

   Based on response data from the 1991
 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire, the
 volume reported by/the industry for
 v/astewaters from azo dye production,
 excluding FD&C colorants, was -. ;•'•' •
 6^295,779 metric tons per year, or 4.6 '
 million gallfans per day. Approximately
 58% of wastewaters from azo'dye
 production, excluding FD&'C colorants
 currently are pretreated and discharged
 to a POTW. Over 40% of these     	
 wastewaters are treated in aerobic . /.
 biologicaltanksystems",with    . :  ..'....--
 subsequent NPDES discharge to a
. siorface water. Approximately 5%.of the
 \yastewaters from azo dye operations
 excluding FD&C cqlorants are treated in
"biological treatment systems that use ".
 sijrface impoundments.
 -1 As discussed earlier under Section
 Il.D, Description of Health and Risk :: ' '
 Assessments, the risk assessment for •
 tliese wastewaters was perform'ed using
 tiealment in tanks as the current, or
 baseline, management pra'ctiee, and
 treatment in surface impoundments as a:.
 plausible management scenario. For this
 waste, however, the worst-case
 management scenario, .treatment in a
 sin-face impoundment, is also one of the~
 ciirrent management practices. The
 calculated risks of increased cancer or
 hazard quotient above one for exposure
 tot. this waste are presented in Table H-
 7.1 The data presented in this table
 represent seven samples'collected from
 five,azo dye-manufacturing facilities..

-------
  66094     Federal Register /Vol.  59. No. 245  /  Thursday, December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules
   TABLE 11-7—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND'RISK ESTIMATES K165—WASTEWATERS FROM THE PRODUCTION OF Azo
                                        DYES, EXCLUDING FD&C COLORANTS   -                ~"   ,
Constituents of
concern
'- 2- & 4-
Amfnoanillne/2- •
Methoxyani- •
fine*.
2-,3-.&4-
Aminoto-
tuene".
Aniline 	
Combined Car-
cinogenic Risk.
Baseline management
Treat in tanks'"
Central tend-
ency
Insignificant
risk for
any con- '
stituent.



High end

- ' > .
••••>••ģ..•.......ģ •

Plausible Management
.• Treat iaSI"* .'•'..<
Central tend-
ency -
Risk=6E-6
Risk=6E-5
Risk=<1E-6
Risk=6E-5>
~ High end ;
Risk=1E-5 , .
Risk=iE-4 '.',
Risk=2E-6
Riste=1E-4
Waste Characterization •
Avg.
cone.
;. In.
•--•-*
"... in.
:;-'';*a'
• ',"'''Ģ;-*
High
cone. ;
4.75
, In.
. f.n.
' Low cone.
f.n 	 	
0.048 (J) ......
0.063 :..;...-..
ftofpts
3 of 8 ........
6 of 8 .......
5 Of 5 .......
Notes
J(2). ; . .
   •Risk estimates based on 2-aminoaniline.                              ,                 ,           t
   ** Risk estimates based on 2-aminotoluene.        .   •   ".:•-•:.'•'•"'.--  •'• .--,.• '- •••• ."• • ••.-.'•':•"'      •••   .    '
   *" Exposure through ingestion of contaminated ground water. -       "  -'   " "  "."'"'    '.'-"  :.    '    ':'.•''••••.••
   in. Relevarttetaarerwtlrwluded^tttepresemanrecluetotaus^^                              :'• •            -
  .Notes:                          ,           •• •      •'•   ••  -,	,••'•,-:. ••-  •  .'  .  '.-    •   •   • :  ', •    ".
   All concentrations are in mg/l. •' •                •,,  -".      ,;- ;•   ,•   ,   *••"...•• -' • -  "; '  -.- s •..-•• •'••••:  •
   •J(*)—Samples where estimated concentrations are below quantitation limi?s..X#)' indicates number of samples that are 'J' values.
   S—Toxicity estJinated based on metabolic similarity to chemical analog. •'.      .,Ģ,..    '••.~'~''.T~            -
   The risk associated with the
 wastewaters in tanks is estimated to be  .
 below levels of concern. However, the
 risks associated with managing these
 'wastewaters in surface impoundments.
 are calculated to be high. One  .":
 constituent found in the waste is
 considered capable of posing a   .  ,
 substantial present or potential risk to
 human health or the environment (f.e., •
 risks are 1E-4 or higher for carcinogens,'
 or 1 or higher HQs for non-carcinogens).
 The constituent poses a risk 1E-4.
   As was the case with wastewater
 treatment sludge from the production of
 azo dyes, excluding FD&C colorants, the
 wastewaters were found to contain high
 concentrations of aniline, a high-volume
 dye reactant that poses an unacceptable
 risk at such levels. In fact, aniline was
 present in each of the seven wastewater
 samples from azo dye production.   •
 However, two of the seven aniline data
. points, which were both from one
 facility, were dropped prior to the risk
 assessment because the facility reported
 that aniline found in the wastewater is
 •associated with non-dye operations.
 This facility consumes larger volumes of
 aniline in their non-dye operations than
 in the manufacture of azo dyes.  It is
 likely that aniline from dye operations
 contributed to the presence of the
 constituent in the waste; however, the  ""'
 Agency could not determine the extent
 of this contribution.
   Based on the aniline concentrations
 represented by the five remaining data
 points, the Agency has determined that
 the risks posed by aniline in this
 wastestream are 2E-6).       r'
   The presence of three c'peluting 7.  "
 isomers, 2-, 3r, and 4-aminotoluene, was
 confirmed in four out of six wastewater
 samples collected from azo dye . '• ...... V _'.
 manufacturing operations, and the -; :  ;;
 combined concentration of the three ;•  "':
 compounds was quantified (refer to  '/:
, earlier discussion*under Section ri.D,2,' Ŗ
-Coeluting Compounds, for, a discussion '
 •onthecoelutionof2-73-',"and4-vl""'.'".  '':'
' aminotoluene). The calculated high-end
 individual cajacer-risk level, based on  '*'•.
 the toxicity of 2-aniinotoluene, is 1E-4 .
 for the surface impoundment'   ":;  .  •
 management scenario'.  .  /'•   U ; . '
   The second set of coehliting'"- •"-'":.Ģ  :
 compounds consists of 2-and 4-      ".
 ammoaniline, and 2-methoxyaniline.  •'?.
 EPA based the risk assessment for this  ' ••
'set of coeluting compounds on 2-   •   • .
 aminoaniune, as discussed in Section  •
 E.D.2. The resulting calculated high-  . 1
 end individual cancer-risk level is 1E~
 5 for the surface impoundment  ,..:'  ,  :';•.
-managementscenario..-•'.•••:.'•"•'• x'-s  ^C:--,  .-,
.   Based on the risks associated with the
 plausible management practice for-this -
 waste, EPA is proposing to list j,t -,• -'••.'  \.-.
wastewaters from the production of azp'.-.
 dyes, excluding1 FD&C colorants, as a  ; v
hazardous waste, designated EPA     ' .
Hazardous Waste Number K165...,
However, the Agency recognizes that if
wastewater treatment .sludges from the'-
production of azo dyes (K164) are listed "
as proposed, the available options for -
wastewatef management may change _:
and surface impoundments may not be" •
used. Wastewaters that are-managed in'
an impoundment will generate sludges; ••'
through precipitation. In-the event that - '-.
 K164 sludges were listed and the   •;.;,
 wastewaters were not, the sludges '.-.'•
 "generated in a Subtitle D wastewater '   ,>
 impoundment would be hazardous  •',-., -,•:'•': :.-
'• wastes and the.surface impoundment -.'.-;'
 would become subject to RCRA Subtitle
 C regulation. The Agency is requesting  ,•>,
 comment on whether it would be "• •:.-:•  j.'
 plausible to use a Subtitle D surface  :.  . .=.
 .impoundment to manage wastewaters if
 the wastewaters were not listed and the
/wastewatertreatment sludges were
 listed as hazardous wastes. The Agency   '
' also is requesting comment on the need  "'"
 to list K165 wastewaters, given that the
 plausibility of the worst-case      ./    -
 •management scenario on which the risk
 assessment was based may be affected'
 by the K164 sludge h'sting.          •-
   For the reasons stated above, El?A
 proposes to add the following         •
 constituents to Appendix Vll.to Part
 261—Basis for Listing: 2-afninoaniline,
 2-methoxyaniline, ,2-aminotpluene, 3-.
 aminotoluene, 4-aminotoluene, and       •
.aniline.  - . -  . -'.^•••-; ,••/..->:,  -. -";
 • -.In additi6n,"2-aminoaniUne,4- .   "'"•"
 aminoariiline, 2-methoxyanih'ne and 3-" X.
 aminotoluene are proposed to be~added
 to Appendix VHI to Part 261— .:.
 Hazardous Constituents.   '•*'*•  •'.  '' •• .*
   3. Wastes from the production of
 triaryhnethane dyes arid pigments
 (excluding triaryhnethane pigments  :- -  ••
 using aniline as a feedstock):.       -;
   a. Wastewater treatment sludge from
 fee production of triaryhnethane dyes   ' "
 and pigments (excluding triaryhnethane  .•'
 pigments using aniline as a feedstock).    ,•-.

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 59, tfo. 245 /Thursday, December  22,  1994 / Proposed Rules     66095
 Summary                             Industry for this wastestream is 1,404
   ™* "i     • -•  / j *  ,   ,  .      metric tons. '        '
   EPA is proposing to defer the decision    WaStewater treatment sludge from the  '•' EPA is proposing not to list
 on whether to list wastewater treatment ! production of triaryhnethahe dyes and
 'nil. Ģ3*ģĢ*J ŖĢnĢ 4.1._ _A_^.J_	.Li	_ r     ... ,t^       ^        .7       - , -J
                                      /pigments is generated at only five
                                      facilities. The Agency's sampling
                                      program, which was conducted in
                                      support of thjs listing determination,
                                      included wastewater treatment sludge -
                                      from one of the five facilities generating
                                      this waste. However, the facility was not
                                      manufacturing triaryhnethane dyes or
                                      pigments during the time of the
                                      sampling activities. Therefore, the .  •
                                      resulting absence of constituents
                                      attributable Jo the triaryhnethane .    •
                                      operations was not unexpected.       .
                                        .In conclusion, based on insufficient
                                      characterization data, the Agency
                                      proposes to defer a listing decision on
                                      wastewater treatment sludges from the '.
                                     - production of triaryhnethane dyes and
                                      pigments (excluding triaryhnethane
                                      pigments using aniline as a feedstock).
                                      The Agency is proposing to conduct •  '
                                      •additional sampling on this wastestream
                                     . and will publish a supplemental notice
                                     -with a proposed listing determination.
                                        -b. Wastewaters from the production of
                                      triaryhnethane-dyes and pigments ;•
                                      (excluding triarylmethane pigments  '                	
                                      using aniline as a feedstock).             of a:sos and other dyes and pigments.

       TABLE 11-8.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK. ESTIMATES WASTEWATERS FROM THE PRODUCTION OF
    TRIARYLMETHANE DYES AND PIGMENTS (EXCLUDING TRIARYLMETHANE PIGMENTS;USING ANILINE AS A FEEDSTOCK)
 sludges from the production of
 triaryhnethane dyes and pigments  •
 (excluding triaryhnethane pigments  .
 using aniline as a feedstock) due to
 insufficient waste characterization data.
 The Agency is planning to collect,
 additional information on this
 wastestream. EPA then will publish a
 supplemental notice with a proposed
 determination on whether to list this
 waste. !:.

 Discussion  :       ,:    •  ',         ,

  This waste is generated from the
 treatment of wastewaters from
 triaryhnethane dye and pigment
 manufabturing: These wastewaters often
 are commingled with wastewaters from
•the manufacture of other dyes and
 pigments. As a result, the wastewater -
 treatment sludges typically are managed
 also as a commingled wastestream from
 the production of triaryhnethane and
 any other dyes or pigments         -
 manufactured at the site. Based on the  •
 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire data,
 the 1991 volume reported by the   ' • '
                                                                           ISunirhary
  wastewaters from the production of'  '
  triaiylmethane dyes and pigments
  (excluding triaryhnethane pigments  '
 , usirig aniline as a feedstock) because the
  constituents in .this waste were observed
  at concentrations that present low risk
  levels (i.e., calculated at less than 1E-6
  for carcinogens and lower than 1HQ for
  nonrcarcinogens) through ingestion of.-.
  contaminated ground water( and no
  other hazardous constituents attributed
 to tiiarylmethane dye or pigment
  production were detected.     •  ,.

  Discussion     -
      f  '"•.•''••     •   •;         "'' .
   : Volume information reported by the
  industry in the 1992 RCRA  Section 3007-
 • Questionnaire for the wastewater stream.
  from triaryhnethane dye'and pigment
  production is  not included at the
  presenttime due to business.-.    .-     "
 confidentiality concerns. Wastewaters
  from the production of triaryhnethane
  dyes and pigments (excluding  '•".•'•.
 triaryhnethane pigments using aniline
 _as a feedstock) often are commingled  '•
 withi wastewaters from the manufacture
Consist
'
In. .......
4-Nitroar
f.n.
4-Methyl
f.n. .
f.n.
N,N-Dim
f.n.
uents of concern ,

liline 	 .'..„ 	
ahenol ,. -
/ r
ethylaniline
Baseline management
Treat in Tanks*1
Central
tendency
No HBL „.,
No HBL ....
All remain!
bounding on
High end


ig constituent
baseline mar
Plausible management
Treat in ST.
Centra]
tendency
No HBL ....
No HBL .„.
s weredroppe
agement
High end


d following
,' . ' . " . '
Avg.
'cone. '-'•-
"-In
, 0.016
Waste characterization ,
. Hiqh
cone.




Low
•cone. .,.


.- - ,"
•#ofpts
Tof3. 	
1-of3..,_.
: Notes-
j- >• '• -'•
  * Exposure through ingestion of contaminated ground water. /'
  f.ri. Relevant data are not included atthe present time due to business confidentiality concerns. "•"  t-    '--•-.     '":
  Notes:.;    ..     -.  - -      -•"   ;          •• •.'  '     •'-•..,.  •-'  -•:.'-   .-:....'  , :•!..• '.t -." •.-.. ..'-.
  All concentrations are in mg/l.  .   '   .  .- j           • .   .   •    .             , ' ' •  ..'•' |>       .".-.'.'
  J(#)—samples where estimated concentrations are below quantttation Jirrtts. '{#)' indicates number of isamples that are 'J1 values;
  intormation on the percentage of .these
wastewaters currently pretreated and
discharged to a POTYV, and on the
percentage treated in a biological
treatmeiit system and discharged to a
surface water .under the NPDES system '
is, not included at the present time due
to business confidentiality concerns. As
discussed earlier under Section ILD,
Description of Health1 and Risk
Assessments, the risk'assessment-for
these wastewaters was performed using
                                      treatment in tanks and surface   }•  .-
                                      impoundments as the basehne and    , ^
                                      plausible management practices,
                                      respectively.       _-   .  ;:-  '   :;   .
                                        The Agency believes that the three
                                      wastewater'samples collected from the
                                     manufacture of tiiaryhnethane dyes and
                                      pigments are representative of the
                                      industry, in part, because wastewater
                                      samples were collected from the two "
                                      largest triaryhnethane dye producers in
                                      the country. Furthermore, flie chemical
 analyses conducted on this "waste
 encompassed the most important raw'
 materials used in the manufacture of
 triarylmethane dyes and pigments, and
• these compounds were not detected at
 concentrations that pose a significant
 risk. For example, N,N-dimethylaniline
 is a large volume raw material used in  ;
 the manufacture of triaryhnethane dyes,
 and pigment, and was analyzed using
 the Gas Chromatography/Mass
 Spectrophotometry analytical method.

-------
 66096     Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules
 In addition to the GC/MS analysis,    ' •
 specific analyses were conducted in
 order to look for two additional toxic  ;
 raw materials for triaryhnethane dyes
 and pigments; chloranil and another
 raw material that cannot be identified
 due to business confidentiality
 concerns. As shown in Table II-8, N,N-
 dimethylaniline and the other raw
 material that cannot be identified were
 not found in these wastewaters at
 concentrations'that pose a significant  .
 risk, and chloranil was not detected at
 all in the wastewaters.  •
   Table 11-8 presents eight.constituents,
, obtained from three waslewater samples
 which were collected at three out of 14
 facilities that manufacture  .
 triarylmethane dyes or pigments. These
 eight compourids^are the constituents
 that were found to be attributable to the
 triarylmethane processes, and six of the
 eight compounds were dropped
 following the risk assessment screening
 (see the Listing and Risk Assessment for
 Dye and Pigment Waste Lasting
 Determination Background Documents
 for this proposed rule, located in the
 RCRA Docket for this rulemaking (see
 ADDRESSES section) for the process used
 in identifying attributable constituents
 and f6r the process used for dropping . •
 compounds after risk screening,
 respectively}. Because these compounds
 are not expected to bioaccumulate, the
 maximum measured concentrations of
 those constituents with HBLs in this
 wastestream were compared to their '
 HBLs, and the ratio of concentrations to
,HBL values was less than 1, indicating
 that the concentrations of these'
 compounds in the waste are not
 expected to pose a risk to human health
 or the environment. The two remaining
 constituents, 4-nitroaniline and a
 constituent that cannot be identified at
 the present time due to confident!ality
 concerns, were detected at low
 concentrations and do not have HBLs
 needed to conduct a risk assessment.
 The risks posed by these two
 constituents, however, were, assessed
 using surrogate compounds. Neither of
 the compounds are expected to be
 potential carcinogens. Furthermore, the
 Agency selected surrogate compounds
 that are structurally similar to the
 compounds detected in the waste, and
 are estimated, by means of structural
 activity relationships (SARs), to be more
 toxic than the subject compounds.
 Nitrobenzene was selected as a
 surrogate for 4-nitroaniline. Surrogate
 information on the second constituent  :
 cannot be included at the present time
 due to business confidentiality
 concerns. The ratios .of concentration to
 HBL (HQ) determined by this analysis
 were also less than 1, indicating that, if
 the contaminant concentrations found  •,
 in the waste, were actually present in^
 drinking water, the risks posed by  ;,
 ingesting the drinking water would be
 insignificant. More detailed discussions
'on the risk assessment screening and  ;'
 surrogate compounds are presented in
 the Dye and Pigment Listing Support
 Health Effects Background Document,
 which is located in the RCRA Docket for
 this rulemaking (see ADDRESSES
 section).   .     '    •  .  •    .•,-'.: ' . '
   In conclusion, because the  ."• .   •   :"
 constituents in this waste were observed.
 at concentrations that present low risk
 levels, and no other hazardous    '•
 constituents attributed-to triarylmethane
 dye or pigment production were .'. .-
 detected, the Agency is proposing not to,
 list wastewaters from the manufacture :
 of triaryhnethane Byes and pigments-as
 hazardous.  .     '•     ..'."     "  .
   4.Wastes from the production of ...  , • '
 triaryhnethane pigments using aniline
, as a feedstock, 't -.,  •  .."-.-  .  '.> -  -i
   Triaryhnethane pigments.using
 aniline as a feedstock currently are
 produced at two domestic facilities. .'•'"''.
•These facilities each produce a single
..product which is manufactured   . v
 throughout the year using aniline as the"
 major feedstock. The two processes are
• markedly different from other dye and """
 pigment processes in the industry. Most
 dye and pigment processes manufacture
 numerous products on a batch basis,
 using different raw materials  for each ; <_
 product. The wastes generated from
 typical dye manufacturing plants vary'
 in composition over time due to the  ,.
 constant changes in raw materials. In
 contrast, triaryhnethane pigments using
 aniline as a feedstock are generated at  .
 facilities that are dedicated to the     -•.•
 manufacture of one product  /••  '"..""' '
 continuously throughout the  year; and
 use only two raw materials, aniline and
 formaldehyde, at the site. In addition, ''
 aniline is used in excess in the process.
 These differences have a significant .
 .impact on the compositions of the  ,;'..
 waste. Such wastes were expected, and
, found, to contain high concentrations of
 aniline. Tha.listing Background .•-.  • ģ-,•„•.-. -.
 Document, found in the RCRA docket .-'
 (see ADDRESSES section) for this
 proposed rulemaking, contains details r,.'•
 on the process for manufacturing  • - •• ••„.
 triaryhnethane (TAM) pigments using  ..
 •aniline  as a feedstock.  •  • • .    --   -*
   a. Wastewater treatment .sludge from ...
 the production of triarylmethane .••   ~,
. pigments using aniline as a feedstock.

 .Summary  '"   ',   '':^'.':  : •,   "~" ' •"•'•"*"
•  • The Agency is proposing not to list as '
••hazardous wastewater treatment sludges,
 from the production of triaryhnethane  -
 pigments using aniline as a feedstock. If
 this wastestream were managed by
 disposal in a municipal landfill (the  ;
 plausible management scenario used for
 other wastewater .treatment sludges), it
 -would meet the criteria set out at 40    :
 CFR 261.11(a)(3) for listing a waste as .-•'..
 hazardous and would be.capable of
 posing a substantial present or potential
 hazard to human health or the .     • -" •
 environment. However, as discussed in
 Section'II.D, Description of Health and.  •'
 Risk Assessments, the Agency has
 determined that management in a
 municipal landfill is not plausible for
 this wastestream. Despite this        '
 determination, for comparison purposes
 the Agency calculated the risks,
 associated with, disposal in a municipal
 •landfill and with diposal in an on-site
 boiler. If, based on comments, the
' Agency determines that it is not
 reasonable to use fuel blending as the
 plausible management scenario, the  ' "
 Agency probably -would determine that
 plausible management is disposal in a -
 municipal landfill for the ground-water-
 pathway, and is disposal in an pn-site
 boiler for the air pathway. Disposal in '
• an on-site monofill, which was      '", .
 •established as the plausible       .".  .:~
. management scenario for other /
 wastewater treatment sludges (jf:e., K162
 and K164), is not a practical option for   '
 this wastestream due to its low volume
.relative to the capacity of a monofill,
 and so is hot feasible economically.
,'-. Based oningestion of contaminated
. grpnnd water due to releases from a
 municipal landfill, EPA calculated high- !
 end individual cancer-risk levels of IE—
 4.arid 8E-5 for the constituents  .
 benzidine and aniline, respectively The
 •cpeluting compounds 1,2-  ..          '
 diphenylhydrazine and a'zobenzene are  .
• calculated to pose risks between 1E-6
. and 1E-5. Therefore, the combined
. carcinogenic.fisk for multiple co-
 existing constituents in this wastestream
 would be 2E-4, assuming disposal in a
 landfill. However, the risks associated
. with the current and plausible .•  >   "
 management practice, blending with   .
 .non-hazardous fuel, are insignificant for
- any constituent. Thus, the Agency is,
, proposuig not to list it as hazardous.

 Discussion ....  •• •  '  '         -  '._' •
:^~ Wastewater treatment sludge from the
 production of triaryhnethane pigments
 using aniline as a feedstock currently is
 generated at only one facility. This
 waste is generated from'a filter press  ••> .'
 that is,used as part of the wastewater
 pretreatment system. The waste is '
 generated at a rate of approximately 18 -./
.• meitric tons per year.^ - .  ...4,;/,.., ,/.-vu-
 -: EPA has summarized the risk1' •••••"•' •'•
 projections associated with this sludge

-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday. December 22, iJjB4  /  Proposed Rules     66097
  in Table n-9. The data presented in this
  table represent one sample from one
  facility. Unlike earlier wastestreams.
  health benchmarks exist for all the
  contaminants detected in this
  wastestfeam (with the exception of one
  coeluu'ng compound,-which is
  discussed later in this section).  .
 • Additional compounds which do have
                                   health benchmarks, however, have been
                                   identified in these wastes, but were
                                   dropped from further consideration
                                   following the .risk screening^, The
                                   complete list of compounds found in
                                   this and other wastestreams is presented
                                   in the Listing Background Document for
                                   this proposed rule, which is located in
   the RCRA Docket for this rulemaking; ,
   ,(see ADDRESSES section).               :
     Details on the risk assessment are  ; •
   provided in Section H.D of this
   preamble, Description of Health and"
   Risk Assessments, and in the Listing
   Background Document for this proposed'
   rule, located in the RCRA Docket for
   this fulemaking (see ADDRESSES
   section).     •       '-.'..         :
       TABLE 11-9.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE FROM THE -
        !        •      PRODUCTION OF TRIARYLMETHANE PIGMENTS USING ANILINE As A FEEDSTOCK
— 1
, I , "
Constituents of
concern
i'
1,2-Dipnfenyl-
,, hydrazine/
, Azobeh-
.zene *!
Aniline :i 	 	
Benzidine 	 „
t
Combined car-
cinogen risk.
i
•Plausible management
Off-site non-haz fuel blend-
ing"
Central tend-
. enoy
Insignificant
risk for
any con-
stituent

Insignificant
risk for
any con-
stituent.
High end




;,_
Other management .
On^site
Central
tendency
Risk
ar\ IIUIIU/CTO kjaoou mi riDL. vjl l^-ulpnol
** Inhalation exposure through air pathway.
*" Exposure through ingestion of contaminated ground water
Notes:                                    -  '   ,         ', •  '
All cbncentrations are in mg/1.                '  •           •   '
J(#)-Samples where estimated concentrations are below quantftation limits, ^(
                                                                  )' indicates number iSf samples that are 'J' values.
   As shown in Table 11-9, benzidine is
 present in this wastestreain at
 concentrations that pose a substantial
 risk to human health and the
 environment (i.e., equal to or greater
 than !Ej5 for carcinogens) for the
• municipal landfill management-    ,
 scenario^. Benzidine was found to be  -;
 present in several wastestreams from the
 manufacture of triaryhnethane pigments
 using aniline as a feedstock, including
 waste wafers from both facilities that
 manufacture these pigments. The
 Agency believes that benzidine is either
 a raw material contaminant or a reaction
by-product from the process.
  Large quantities of aniline, typically
in excess, are used as a raw material to
this process. As a result, this  .;    .  .
wastestriam was found to contain.over
three percent aniline. The calculated
high-end individual cancer-risk level for
aniline is 8E-5 for the landfill scenario.
  In addition to benzidine and aniline,
the waste'was found to contain two
other hazardous constituents that are
believed Ito be by-products of the
reaction knd pose a significant risk at   '
the concentrations detected for the
                                  municipal landfill management
                                  scenario. Two additional compounds
                                  presented in Table H-^9,1,2-
                                  diphenylhydrazine and azobenzene,
                                 , coelute on the mass spectrum (see
                                 . Section n.D^Descriptipn of Health and
                                  Risk Assessments, for a "discussion on
                                  the Agency's approach to risk   .
                                  assessment for coeluting compounds).
                                  Both compounds are likely oxidation
                                  products of aniline, and maybe present
                                  in the waste as reaction by-products. In
                                 j addition to the uncertainty in
                                  establishing concentrations for each of
                                  the two compounds, the .chemical
                                  pathway from aniline to these oxidation.
                                  products suggests that either.
                                  contaminant may be present at all or
                                  part of the concentration detected. The
                                 . Agency conducted the risk assessment
                                  using the health-based levels for 1,2-
                                  diphenylhydrazine and azobenzene,
                                  independently. For disposal.in a
                                  municipal landfill, the calculated high-
                                  end individual cancer-risk level for
                                  these coeluting compounds, based on
                                  the toxicity of 1,2-diphenylb.vdrazine; is
                                  2E-5.   .       i;
  •  In addition to assessing the risks
  associated with the individual     ,  •
  constituents found in the waste, the    -
,  Agency considers the combinedriskof
  constituents that co-exist in the  .••'>••
  wastestream. m the case of this •
  wastewater treatment sludge, all of the
  constituents discussed above (i.e.,
  aniline, benzidine, and 1,2-     :
  diphenylhydrazine/azobenzene) are
  believed to co-exist in the wastestream".
  The processes that produce
  triarylmethane pigments using aniline
  as a feedstock are operated continuously
  all year. As a result, the constituents
  detected in the wastestream are likely to
  be present simultaneously in the waste.
  Therefore, the combined calculated risk .
  of these individual constituents, for the
  municipal landfill scenario would be
  2E-4 at the high. end.   ;
  , However, the risks associated with the
'  current and plausible management  ",:,
  practice for this wastestream (blending
  with non-hazardous fuel for
• combustion) are insignificant. As
  discussed in Section n.D, Description of
  Health and Risk Assessments, the
  Agency believes that the fuel blending

-------
 .66098     Federal  Register / Vol. 59, No. 245  I'Thursday, December 22, 1994 t Proposed Rules
 wiU continue. The relatively high
 organic content of the waste gives the
 material value as a fuel ingredient and,,
 therefore, generators of this waste have
 an economic incentive to continue fuel
 blending. Therefore, the Agency is
 proposing not to list the wastestream as
 hazardous. If the NFDES program
 requirements were to change (i.e.,     "
 become more stringent) then those  -•
 triaryhncthane pigment producers that
 currently do not-generate a sludge1 could
 be forced to generate a sludge due to   •
 their efforts to meet new NPDES . -  '   •
 requirements. In that case, the-plausible
 management scenario would change,
 and other practices, such as landfilling,,
 would become possible. The Agency
 may reopen this listing decision should
 this occur, and will use the risk levels
 associated with this management
 scenario to make a revised listing  -  -  _:-
 •determination.    : ":-   .-•,-••-..%• ••
   b. Waste waters from the production of
 triarylmethane pigments using aniline
 as a feedstock.    "             •
 Summary"   '    •     '  T  ••
   The Agency is proposing not to lisj as
• hazardous wastewaiers from the '   '
 production of triarylmethane pigments'
.• using aniline as a feedstock. As shown-
- in Table n-IO, these wastewaters  \  -
  contain an average aniline-concentration
, of 200 ppm. In addition, the      ģ
  wastewaters (Contain the same hazardous
  by-products found in the wastewater
  treatment sludge. Although this   ; ;.' .
  wastestream, if managed in surface   ;-.
  impoundments, would meet the criteria.
  set out in 40 CFR 261.11{a)(3) for listing
'  a waste as hazardous and would be  .
.capable of posing a substantial present -
  or potential Etsk to niimgii. nealuv or the
  envirornnentjf released into the   .,ą.
  environment, the Agency has ''  " '  .'
 •determined that management in surface
  impoundments is hot plausible for this "
 .wastestream. The Agency believes.this
 because 100% of this wastestream is  '-
 •managed in-exempt tanks. The Agency/.
 ,has no reason- te-believe that this..--*e~>-:,
..management practice will change. Risk
 •associated with treatment in tanks is
 insignificant and, thus, the Agency is
 proposing not to list this waste as
 hazardous. However, for comparison
 -purposes, the Agency has calculated the
, risks associated with disposal of this  .
• wastestream in a surface impoundment.
 If, based on comments, the Agency"
  determines' that it is not reasonable to
  assume that management in tanks is the
  correct plausible management scenario,'
  the Agency probably would determine •
  that management in a surface      -•••-'.-:
  impoundment is the appropriate  ' -:   '--
  plausible management scenario.  ;.;;;•

  Discussion    :..-  '"'."'".'•".'"''•'. ;•""-'!' ''/"••

   : These wastewaters are generated from
  filtrations of process intermediates; and,. .'
 .products, flushing operations,  ,-'..'• -.  ^
 ; 'equipment washdowns, floor washings,'
 .'andprocess operations. Based ori  .'   •;
 . response data from the 1901RCRA
 'Section 3007 Questionnaire, a total of  J,
 ;:757,~080 metric tons, or 0.4 million ' •'' .
  gallons per day, of wastewater from the
  productionof triarylmethane  (TAM)    -
 -pigments is generated. Information on
 -generation relevant to tin's discussion is
 ~ not included at fee present time dueto  "
 • business confidentiality concerns. All of
  the wastewaters generated, from TAM
  pigment production (using aniline as a
 . feedstock} are treated in tanks prior to   •
  discharge to a PQTW. The data   -
 : presented.in Table H-lfl represent three.
 ^samples collected from two TAM      . ;
 ipigment-manufacturing facilities.;'.. '• '  ;.."
       TABLE IMO.—WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND RISK ESTIMATES WASTEWATERS FROM THE PRODUCTION OF
                            TRIARYLMETHANE PIGMENTS USING ANILINE AS A FEEDSTOCK           .1
Constituents
. ot concern
1,2-dipheny-
Ihydrazlne/
Azobert-
zene*. ,
Aniline 	
Benzldine
Combined
Carcino-
genic Risk
Plausible management
Treat in tanks**
Central
tendency
Insignifi-
cant
risks for
any con-
stituent.
'••'•• — 	 "•' •
High end

— ••••—•
• ' Other management '• -' •
Treat In SI*"
Central
tendency


High end

••'•• . .
Treat In SI ^v
Central
tendency,'
Rtsk*5E-6
Risk=7E-5
Risk=1E-4
Risk=2E-4 -
• ' • . , • ,•
; High end
^R-1E-6
R=lE-4
,R=3E-4
-fl=5E-4.;
s. Waste Characterization "
Avg.
. cone. "
; im.
tn.
In.
, •- •! •,-. • •
High
cone.
tn.
fJt
In.
.•-*'•• '"• •
• •'Low
, cone.
0.093
(J)
ioa
O.OOS
-'- '•-,-•" > '-.. .
•Risk nitmhfirs haĢaģH nn HRI (far 1 9-Hinhonuthur4ra7ina ' .-.-.;••.. ^ ••..,. ..•.•••.. -i ;v .ģ-.-
#ofpts
f.n.
'tri. V''.
ta


Notes
J(2) ' -
i •.. '.'••*"••
'•-*•' ^

  "Inhalation exposure through air pathway.          '    ,    '   :......•• ;,-. r-,  r,, y. ,,:.?Ģ, ••,...,....;..-,_-.  ..  .--.;.
  *" Exposure through Ingestion of ground water.,   . -•  •      ,-i.-.     . •'• •^-.•~ ••'•^^••:'^---:^-:.-:f.^^ ^\:-;^: >>,.,-.,-..•  ^
  in. Relevant data are not Included at the present time due to business confidentiality cbrxģms.  .,   .    ,   ,  --;v   v...>
  Noles: All concentrations are In mg/l.   .         .       -   .  .   ..,..,- .  •..,.- .     /  ;,  ,        ..,.-,.
  J(Ģ)—Samples where estimated concentrations are below quanWation limits, W Indicates number of samples that are y values.
  As discussed earlier under Section
 Il.D, Description of Health and Risk
 Assessments; the plausible management
 scenario selected for wastewaters
 usually is treatment in surface
 impoundments.
  The risks associated with disposing'  •
 these wastewaiers in surface
 impoundments would be very high. '  - -
 Two hazardous constituents (aniline - • •
 and benzidine) are present in the waste
 at concentrations that wrould pose    ^
 substantial risks to human health and .
 the environment (i.e., greater than IE—4
 for carcinogens) for treatmetit in a'...' .  ,
 •surface impoundment. Large quantities.,
 of aniline, used in excess,, are used as a ,
. raw material in this process^ As a result,
^ery high concentrations of aniline arer. '^
 present in the process waters. Even after
 recovery operations, EPA found high '. ' •.
 concentrations.of aniline (in this case,  ,-
_ an average of 200 ppm) remaining in the
 wastewater effluent discharged to the
                      ''            •
r. •  -Benzidine was' found to be present in; . '\
 • several wastestreams from the  ,  •   ••-'••
.manufacture of triarylmethane pigments
:-;;\ising aniline as a feedstock, and is .'• •'• •-' (.
• sbelieved :tb be either a raw material '•'•' '-• -r

-------
                                                                   66099
                                      hiiman health or lire environment.
                                      Biised oningesfion ofconiaminated
                                      ground water, EPA calculated high^end
                                      individual risk levels {greater than IE-
                                      4.1 ff^T fl')*ifX?nAn*vĢĢ wĢĢ<9_J. 1	J.L i*l
                                                               ,   •
                                                     -site monofilL These
  contaminant or a reaction by-product
  T^sksposedbybenzidmfiatae    - impoundmeals, the Agency does not
  concentrations present IB these          believe that such maaageraent is
  wastewalers are aE^usiBga^orfece    plausible. The fociĢ6eSZfinfi&e
  impoundment management .scenario,     wastewater already are108% im4*ted    ^torcarcinofipnVu^deTboth rt,7
    The costing constituents, 1,2-        in treating fee waste in tanks pribrio   .  fiSSSS^dMS,  -      . '
  diphenylhydrazineand azobenzene,      sending it to a KHW.m addition, tMs  '  scenario^worfrSJin    ^^v
  which are nkeryby-productsarisins      if no* strongly expanding segnrekrof   • TZ?^I^?^^fflF*a&-•
  from the oxidation of aniline are present  the industry, so the Agency does not •  -
  in the waste at a concentration resulting  anticipate more facilities starting up
  in a calculated'risk level of IE-?, based   similar operations. Further, there is a •.'•"
  on the to3dcity of i,2-diphenylhydiazine,  general bias under most Stele industrial
  (see Section fl.B, Description of-Healih    waste programs against allowing -surface
  and Risk Assessments, for a discussion    impoundmeBts to be built. Thus, based
  nn +1,0 A™..~,,'-	ģ.„- ia ^.          on the risk associated with treatment in
  Ģ*w-f*w**i*.AģĢ. ivM. vģt/c.imjmx lAJzttpouiiQSi,    iHUKSj toŠ Agency is pToposiiffi not to
  The mass spectrum representing these    Ust ^s wastestream as hazardous.       r"^? "*A "?i!"c *** i*10"^
  two cpelutine compounds was             Ģ• S^11 *>oĢoras or feeayy ends from    .^^ted with management in an oa-
  t^^tift^ *_ _Ģ .1	   .  •         the production of triarylmeJhans d ves or  ^  tooller* ^practice which is both a   Ģ
                                       pigments (K166).             .   -      baseline manageme, at practice and a
                                       Summary        .   ' ~               plausible jnanagement scenario.

                                         The.Ageacyfa proposing to list Ģtitl -^  IHl?cas^on. .'...:              _

                                                                             'Rhis wastestrram includesdistillation
                                                                            bottoms from the production of
-"~"— *Ģ•Ģ"•-Ģ*Ot3Ģ*ģģJXilCfIX&f IXJi tl UlbUU
on the Agency's approach lo risk
assessment for coeluting compounds}.
The mass spectrum representing if
two cpeluting compounds was
identified in all three wastewater
samples collected from triaryimetbaae
pigment operations.

  However, based on the insignificant
risks associated with the current and
plausible management practice for this
                                                    e air pathway
. hazardous.
  rould be i

   TABLE 11-
was?e^™^^^^S:  Ģ-  U     tnsurymaeUiane dye and pigments, which
was^reammeets &ĢCT,tena setoutat  are.generated from solvenfand raw
                                             recovery
                                                    e, dbnethylaniline, Ģw
                                          AND
             ESHMAIES K J66-Smi. BOTTOMS OR Hewv

Consttu-
• ents dl
concern
henytr
hydra;-
zine/ i
Azo-
ben-
zene^.
.Aniline'^,.
N-nttro-
sodi- i
phenyt-
-amine/
Di-
phenyl-'
amirte:


Com- ;
bined
Car-
cino- i
gen
Risk. '
BaseBne manaoamer* '

Central
tend.
Ģ=2E-6





HOeJ
no air
HBL







R=2E-6
.



*RisVĢwmbefSoase
Hgh
end
R=*E-S




- •
no air
Ha.



„
'


R=6E-5



donKBLf
Mun^p^landfitl
Central
tend.
fl-SE-4




-
fi^U



• .



R=2E-^




High
end
fl=2E^3





fell







R=9E-3


- '
:
T 	 TtZ 	 — — 	 ; 	 —J—
Ort-stte boiler
Cenfral
tend.
a=?Ŗ^





HQ=3
no air
HSL







R^2E-5




end
fl-JE-5





noaJr
^~



^


R=SE-5

.


uwngeraent •
OjvsiteraonofiH
Centra!
lend.
R>9E-Ģ


- . • ~-
•

Ŗi1




1 :


JW5E-3

(

. ";. :
'ligih
Ģnd
1 HI 1 ģģ^-^^^
'ffc>i9F^?





'Tia'Wc—O




- .


ftĢE-3




A
CO

' ' '




...... ... ..,,-.;;.:.•,
'9-
nc.
ijn.

• •'



Tin.
,'580

• 'i


' "







5f 1 .2-
-------
 66100     Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.  245 / Thursday, December 22,  1994 / Proposed Rules
   Information relevant to this
 discussion is not included at the present
 time due to business confidentiality
 concerns.  "                    •   •
   Process waters from the manufacture
 of triaiylmethane dyes and pigments
 containing high levels of aniline or
 other raw materials and solvents •
 sometimes are sent to a distillation
 column for recovery of the material for •
 reuse in the process. As expected, the
, bottoms generated from the distillation.
 contain high concentrations of the
 material being recovered. The
 concentrations of aniline present in two
 samples collected exemplify the
 concentrations of solvent contaminants
 anticipated in these wastes. Information
 on the concentration of aniline observed
 is not presented at his time due to
 business confidentiality concerns.
   Based on data from the RCRA Section
 3007 Questionnaire, four facilities
 generated a total of 1700 metric tons of
 this waste in 1991.
   EPA has summarized the risk
 projections associated with this waste in
 Table 11-11. The data presented in this
 table represent two samples from two
 facilities. These samples were collected
 from the two largest generators of this
 wastestream, both of which recover
 aniline from the wastewater. One of the
 remaining two facilities recovers other
 aniline derivatives (i.e., N,N-
 dimethylaniline and N,N-diethylaniline)
 that are used as raw materials and
 solvents-in the production of
 triarylmethane dyes. The second facility
 recovers chlorobenzene used as a
 solvent in the production of
 triarylmethane dyes and generates a still
 bottom waste that is reported to contain
  50% chlorobenzene. This waste is •
  already listed as F002, based on the use
  of the solvent chlorobenzene. Based on
  an evaluation of the processes
  generating these wastes and the
  contaminants reported to be present by
  industry, the Agency believes the risks
  posed are similar to those assessed in
  Table 11-11. The data used to
  characterize these wastestreams, assess
  the risks posed by these wastes, and
  make a proposed listing determination
  on the waste grouping were obtained
  from the two samples collected by EPA
  and the 1991 RCRA Section 3007
  Questionnaire responses. Waste
  management information relevant to
  this discussion are not included at the
  present time due fo business  •
  confidentiality concerns.
    As  discussed earlier in Section n.D,
  Description of Health and Risk
  Assessments,-the Agency conducted the
  risk assessment on these wastestreams
  using the two most widely used
  practices, the on-site boiler and
 municipal landfill as the current
 management scenario, and an on-site:
 boiler (for .the. air pathway) and on-site
 monofill (for the ground-water pathway)
 as the plausible management scenario.
   The risk posed by the presence of
 aniline in the concentrations found in
 the waste is estimated to be very high
 (i.e., greater than 9E-3 for the ground-
 water pathway, and HQ=6 for the air
 pathway). Due to the imperfect nature of
 any recovery process, it is not
 unexpected that large quantities of     .
 aniline, or any other raw material OB
 solvent being recovered, would be
 present in these still bottoms. Aniline  •
 was found in very high concentrations
 (i.e., the low concentration was 1.9%) in
 both distillation bottom samples
- collected from triarylmethane pigment
 production. Information on the high  , '
 concentration value is not included at
 the present time due to business
 confidentiality concerns.
   In addition to aniline, the two sets of
 coeluting constituents present in the
 wastewater treatment sludge and
 wastewaters from these, operations (i.e.,
 1,2-diphenylhydrazine and azobenzene,
 and N-nitrosodiphenylamine and ..
 diphenylamine) also are present in the
 distillation bottoms (K166). These
 compounds are all likely by-products
 arising from the oxidation of aniline.
 The MS curve representing 1,2-
 diphenylhydrazine and azobenzene was
 identified in both distillation bottom
 samples collected from triarylmethane ..
 pigment operations. For the reasons
 discussed in Section H.D, the Agency
 conducted the risk assessment for these
 coeluting compounds independently."
 The resulting high-end individual
 cancer-risk level for this first set of
 coeluting compounds is greater than
 9E-3. Likewise, the risk assessment for
 • N-nitrosodiphenylamine .and
 , diphenylamine was conducted,       '
 independently, as discussed in Section \
 n.D. The resulting high-end individual
 cancer-risk level for this second set of
 coeluting compounds is 6Er6.
    In addition to assessing the risks . :
 associated with the'individual
  constituents'found in the waste, the
 Agency considers the combined risks of
  constituents that coexist in the
  wastestream.- In the case of still bottoms
  from the production of .triarylmethane
  dyes and pigments, all of the
  constituents are believed to co-exist in
  the wastestream. The distillation  •:,....
  columns generating this residual
  process the same wastestream with each
  dye or pigment batch. As a result, the
  constituents detected are likely to be
  present simultaneously in the waste.
  The risk of each individual constituent
  is high, and the combined risks of these
constituents are very high (greater than
SE-3 for the ground-water pathway and
6E—5 for the air pathway), both of which
were considered in making this listing
determination.
  In addition to the very high risks
posed by the plausible management
practice (on-site boiler for the air
pathway and pn-site monofill for the
ground-water pathway), the risks posed
by the baseline management practice
(on-site boiler for the air pathway and  ,
municipal landfill for me ground-water- -.
pathway) are also very high.-
-Specifically, the risks posed by the
current management practices are
greater than 9E-3 for the ground-water
pathway, and 6E-5 (carcinogens) and
HQ=6 (non-carcinogens) for the air
pathway.             '
„  In summary, the calculated risks
associated with managing these still
bottoms in on-site boilers, municipal
-landfills, and on-site monofills are all \
• very high, based on each of the
individual hazardous constituents in the .
wastestream and the combined risks due
to Carcinogens found in the wastestream
as a whole. Therefore, based on the risks
associated with both current          ,
management and .plausible management .
practices for this waste, EPA is
 bottoms or heavy ends from the    . ". '
 production of triarylmethane dyes or   '•
 pigments, designated EPA Hazardous
 Waste~NumberK166.             ,
   For the reasons stated above, the
.Agency is proposing to add the  _ '
 following constituents to Appendix Vn •-
 to Part 261—Basis for Listing: 1,2-
 diphenylhydrazine, azobenzene, •  •',
 aniline, diphenylamine, and N- ••
 nitrosodiphenylamine. •      ';  , '
   In addition, azobenzene and N-.
 nitrosodiphenylamine are proposed to
 be added to Appendix VIE to Part 261—
.Hazardous Constituents.          ,   -
   S.Wastes from the production of
 anthraquinone dyes "and pigments.
   a. Wastewater treatment sludge from
 the production of anthraquinone dyes
 and pigments.

 Summary          •-'.-•    '   '   ,
   EPA is proposing to deter the
 proposed listing determination for.
 wastewater treatment sludges from the
 -production of anthraquinone dyes and
 pigments at this .time. Based on analysis
 *>f the sludge samples collected by the
 Agency, no constituents attributable to
 anthraquinone processes were detected.
 However, data supplied by industry -.,  •
' indicate the presence of two    ..'.  . ••-'."
 constituents on the target analyte list for
 •which no health-based levels and no
 adequate surrogates exist. Based on this
 discrepancy, and the need to identify  •

-------
                Federal Register /Vol. 59. No. 245  / Thursday, December 22J 1994 X Proposed Rules     66101
     surrogates for risk analysis, the Agency
     believes a deferral is appropriate for this
 .   -wastestream.  '       :
     Discussion    •   '">               ;
      This sludge is generated from the
    .treatment of wastewaters from
     anthraquinone dye and pigment
-.    manufacturing. Volume infohriation
     reported by industry in the 1992 RCRA
,   ;  3007 Questionnaire data is not included
   :  at the present time due to business
 _.  confidentiality concerns.    ,    .
   •   ^astewater treatment sludge from the
 .   production of anthraquinone dyes and
     pigments is generated at 11 facilities.
     Sludge generated from 9 of the 11 -
     facilities, which represents over 98% of
     the anthraquinone dye and pigment
     production volume, is commingled with
     wastewa.tef treatment sludge from the
     production of azo pigments and/or dyes.
     Over 98% of the commingled sludge
     currently is managed in municipal
    landfills or is disposed in on-site
    monofills. Small fractions of the
    commingled sludge are managed under
    Subtitle C. Waste management and
    waste volume information relevant to
    this discussion is not included.at the
    present time due to business       :
  ': confidentiality concerns.              ,
      Of the 11 facilities that generate this
    was,te, the Agency collected samples
    from the three largest contributors to the
    wastestream and from one small
    contributor. Several compounds used in
 •   anthraquinone dye or pigment
    operations were expected to be present
    in the waste, based on facility
    production schedules, and were not
    detected. In addition, analysis of these
    samples did not produce any other
    contaminants attributable to   "  "
    anthraquinone dye or pigment
    operations (refer to the Background
    Document for this rulemaking located in
    'the RCRA Docket for this rule (see  "..
    ADDRESSES section) for the methodology
    used in identifying contaminants
    attributable to a'process).
     " Several compounds used in the
    manufacture of anthraquinone dyes and '
    pigments were dropped from the
    Agency's target analyte list for dye and
    pigment wastes, due to the absence of
    any health effects information and
    because of low usage rates (i.e., the
    compound was used at only 1 or 2  ,
    facilities)'. Examples of anthraquinone-
    related compounds droppedfrom the  •
    target analyte list for these reasons
    include: i-chloroanthraquinone, 1,4-
    dihydroxyanthraquinone-2-sulfonic
,   acid; l-amino^-chloro^-
   hydr|oxyanthraquinone,  and l-amino-4-
   bromo-2-anthraquinonesulfonic acid.
     As stated above, the Agency's analysis
   of wastewater treatment sludge samples
  collected from anthraquinone dye and
  pigment operations did not produce any
  contaminants attributable to  . •  • .
  anthraquinone dye of pigment   -'.'-.
  operations. However, industry data
  submitted on 11 sludge samples
  confirmed the presence of two target
  analytes, 1-aminbanthraquinohe; and
  leucoquinizarine, at average   '." ,  • ;  "
  concentrations of 1.5 j and 1.4 ppm,  '"
  respectively. Each of the two analytes   .
-  was detected in three of the 11 samples
 -  The Agency did not find HBLs for
 jeither of the two compounds detected in
  this wastestream, i-       > y    -•
  aminoanthraquinone and   "-  '•  : :-.   "
  leucoquinizarine.  In addition, the
  Agency was not able to identify any
  appropriate surrogate compounds to
  represent the toxicity of these  ,   1
  compounds.^ one or both of these
  compounds are potential carcinogens
  and 'behave in a similar manner to the
  potential carcinogen, "l-amino-2-methyl-
 anthraquinone, then the risk posed by
 the presence of the compounds in the
 waste would need to be examined  .•'•'-.
 further. The Agency is concerned about
 using this limited  surrogate information
 as a basis for listing this waste as    -'
 hazardous.          .     ,   .   •-•••'
  • In-summary, the Agency is proposing
 to defer a listing determination for
 wastewater treatment sludge from the_
 manufacture of anthraquinone dyes arid
 pigments at this time, and is requesting
 data on the toxicity of 1-
 aminoanthraquinone and - .  •,   '   ..  "'
 leucoquinizarine or information on   .  •
 suitable surrogates for these     Y
 compounds. EPA also would be
 interested in submission of further
 characterization data. EPA will evaluate
 carefully all public comments and
 information received in response to tins
 notice. Based on comments or data
 received, the Agency, rather than
 deferring, may choose to promulgate a
 final determination to either list or not  .-
 to list this waste as hazardous under
 RCRA.   *.                    ' . ,
  b. Wastewaters from-the production of
 anthraquinone dyes and pigments.   :'
 Summary'-  '   •  •   ••-;  '  '-. v   ; -

  EPA is proposing hot to h'st      ;
 wastewaters from the production of
 anthraquinone dyes and pigments as
 hazardous. This wastestream is not
 considered to pose significant risks to
 human health and the environment,
based on the 'analysis of samples, of the
waste. Several compounds used in the
manufacture of anthraquinone dyes and
pigments were expected to be present in
the waste but were  not detected. Only .
one compound attributable to  ..
anthraquinone processes, 3-
aminoacetamUde, was detected in the .
.. waste,, at low concentrations. Health ,;• ,
  effects information on this constituent...
 , does not currently exist,, and risk . .    -J~[
  estimates conducted using   ~*   _,-, ••••'•',:
: methylenephenylenediamine as a  .  i
  surrogate indicate no significant risks,.  ..
  Discussion        ! ;  .   "'----.•.'.  .::"
 |' Based pn response data from the :.  '. •-
  RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire, the
  [1991 volume reported by the industry .-'•"
  for .wastewaters from anthraquinone dye
  and pigment production was 3,988,166  "
  metric tonis,-or approximately 2.9      /
  million gallons per day, generated at 25
  facilities. Most of the wastewater
  currently is treated and discharged to a  ^
  surface water under the NPDES System;
  the remainder is discharged to a PQTW
  (with 5% pretreated prior to discharge)
  Additional information on volumes and
 - waste, managment is not included at the
 present time due to business  •• •-.-'•.
 confideritiality concerns.  '
 •i- Of the 25 facilities that generate this
 waste.-the Agency collected a total of  .
 iseyen samples from the four largest
 contributors to the wastestream and   '
 from one small contributor. Information
 irelevant to this discussion is not    ...
 iincluded at the present time'due to "'- -.
 business confidentiality concerns. /
    As stated above, several compounds  ••
 used in anthraquinone dye and pigment -••
 
-------
 66102     Federal Register /Vol. 59, Ffc>. 2357 Tfeursfey. December 22, J994  /  Prtj]posed Rules
 wouMbe-expected'tobelessthanthe
 HBL. More detailed discussions on tiie
 risk assessment screening and surrogate
 compounds are presented in Section  •
 n.D of tins preamble, Description of
 Health and Risk Assessments, and the
 Listing Background Document for this
 proposed rule, which is located in the
 RCRA Docket for this nrlemakfng (see .
 ADDRESSES section).
   In conclusion, because the one
 compound attributable to anthraquinqne
 dye or pigment production detected in  .
 this waste is present in low
 concentrations, does not have healfe
 data needed to assess risk, and does not
 indicate a risk using surrogate toxicity
 data, the Agency is proposing not to list
 wastewaters from the manufacture of  *
 anthraqttinone dyes and pigments as
 hazardous.
   6.Wastewaters from the production of
 FD&C colorants.
 Summary              •       .-:'•'
   EPA is proposing not to list
 wastewaters from the production of
' FD&C colorants as hazardous wastes.
 This wastestream is not considered to
 pose significant risks to human health'
 and the environment, based on the
 analysis of samples of the waste. Only
 three constituents attributable to FD&C
 colorant processes were detected in the
 waste, and these do not present a risk
 at th.e concentrations observed.

 Discussion                •        .
    Based on the 1991 RCRA Section 3007
  Questionnaire data, the volume reported
 by the industry for the wastewater
  stream  from FD&C colorant production
  is 3,557,563 metric tons per year, or 2.&
  million gallons per day. Information  on
  the percentage of these wastewaters that
  are currently pretreated and discharged
  to a POTW and other waste management
  information relevant to this.discussion
  is not included at the present time due
  to business confidentiality concerns.
    The Agency collected three samples
  of wastewaters generated from FBScC
  operations and did not find any
  hazardous constituents- present at
  concentrations that pose a risk above
  EPA's initial risk "level of concern"
  (i.e., 1E-5 for carcinogens, and HQ of 1
  or greater). The Agency believes that the
  samples of wastewaters from the
  manufacture of FD&C colorants  are
  representative of the industry. In fact,
  wastewater samples were collected from
  the two largest-volume FD&C colorant
  producers in the country, in addition to
  one smallermanufacturer.
     Several of the raw materials used in
  the manufacture of FD&C colorants were
  dropped from the Agency's target -
  aualyte list for analysis of-dye and
 pigment wastes because-the few existing
 health- studies on these-compounds
 indicate that fee compounds are.non-.
 toxic. In additioa, many of t&e raw
 materials used in .the-marrufecture of
 FD&C colorants are compounds that  ."
 contain salfomc acid functional groups,.
 for which analytical methods do-not
 exist. TExampfes of FD&C raw'ntateriafe ;
 dropped feom the-target analyte list for
 these-reasons inchidep-toluidine-m-  .. -
 sulfonic acid, and sulfanilic acid.   .  ....
   The sulfonic'aiad ranctional group   ...
 imparts water solubility to a compound,
• which generally results in tower  '.-"^.",-. •
 toxicity. However, several of these     -
 materials may pose a risk when present
 in the wastestream without the sulfonic '•
 acid functional group. For example,
 without sulfonic acid fbnetipnal groups,
' the two compounds Ksted above [p-_
 tohridine-nj-suHbnie acid aarf saffanaEc
 acid) are represented by p-toluidinev  ,.'
• and aniline, respectively, fat these cases,"
 the precarsorsio the FD&C reactants
 (i.e., prior to suHbnatiori) remained as  .
 target analytes even when the ./' ';..
 sulfbnated compounds were not on the
 list, Information relevant to- this     •.,"•'
 discussion is not included dae tff . ;
 business confidentiality concerns; {Refer
 to the Dye and Pigment Listing
 Backgrotmd Document, located in- the -
 RCRA Docket for this proposed
 rulemaking fsee ADDRESSES section)', for .
 details on me development of the target.
 analyte list.)            .  .   '   :
   From the three FDSbC wastewater
" samples collected, the foBewingJfiuree-
 constituents were- observed feat are"5.. -
 attributable to FD&C colorant
 production: Aniline, S'-hydroxyphenffll,
 and phenol. During-fee risk assessment
 . screening, fee Agency found that fee- .
 three constituent presest HI &e waste
 (i.e., aniline, 3-liydroxyphena}, and  ;  ,
 phenol) do not pose a risk at the
 concentrations detected, fa feet, ft*
 ratios of maxim am measured
 concentration in the wastestreara- to the
 HBL were less than 1 for aniline aad
 phenol. Since there currently Is BO HBŖ
 availabte for S^ydroxypheHol, the  .-•-••
 concentration of 3-hydroxyphenol was
  compared to that of a surrogate."3-'   .  :
  Hydroxypheriolis not e^qjected'tobe s
  potential carcinogen. Furthermore, tire
 Agency selected at surrogate componntf .
  that is structmaHy similar to the " .•;-;''. ~,
  cpmpoimd detected in the waste, ,and> is
' estimated, fey means of structural     .
  actmty relationships fSARs), to be more.
  toxic than the subject comptound.:      '-
  Therefore, phenol was selected as a  ';" .•
  surrogate for this 3-hydipxyphenp!, and.
 ' theiestthingratioofconceTitratidnto'
  HBL was als<ess than 1. This indicates
 .thatifthecontasniinaHfcbneeHlrations  :
  found in tfie waste were actually present
in drinking water, the risks posed by  -
ingesting the drinking water would be
insignificant.  '    '.   -'  .      ,     .      •
  In conclusion, because the       .-  •  '. .
constituents in. this wastestream were
observed at •concentrations that present'   /
•insignificant risks, arid no other.   -     /  -
hazardous1 constituents attributed to  _;" -' .
FD&C colorant prodttction were '  .
detected, tiie Agency, is proposing not to
tist wastewaters from the manufacture
of FD&C colorants as hazardous.
  •7. Dusts and..ctust collector fines from
thejnannfaetare of dyes and pigments.

Summary     -. '  • .• • -  -.''•/'      '    '
   The Agency is proposing not to list
dusts' and dust collector fines from the  -
manufacture of dyes, arid pigments
because; based on an evaluation of
current management arid plausible        '
management, this waste does not pose a1"
substantial potential hazard to human.   :
health and the environment.   '  .','.•'..-V--'

Discussion  -   ,
   Dusts and etest cotlector fines are  '
 generated during  drying, grinding, and
blending operations that occur during
 the manufacture of dyes and pigments. -  ,
 Dust collectors and baghouses generally .
 are used to capture arid collect fee dust.
 The total volume of this wastestream ,
 reported in response to the 1991 RCRA
 Section 3007 Questionnaire is 143
 metric tons. According to questionnaire
 data, someof the dusts arid fines. V      :
 reported by the industry are recovered .
 and recycled back to the manufacturing  .
 process .or sold to shoe-polish       .?-"•;
' manuractarers as a raw material. •'     •  ',
 Information on. the percentage handled
 in this mariner is-' aot included at the "'
 present tune due to business
 confidentiality concerns. There is a.   .
 distinct economic incerrtrve- for these  '  ;
 faciHtiesto continue-reusing or senhig
. dusts and.fines m this way. This
 hasdiingof dasts and fines is not  ••.-••••'
 expected to- present any significant risk .
' to humail health  and the environment. -•,•!'
   Seventeen percent of the reported
 -waste volume is generated by a Facility
 •that currently manages dusts and :fines   .,
 in a SabtMe C landfill and the Agency
 belieyes feat tibtis faciKty will continue
 to managedasts  and fines in such a
 manner. The dusts and fines generated
 at this facility from organic pignents.
' covered by fcis Esting determination are
%mixed'wife dusts and fines front.    :  '•'';'
 inorganic pfgnients that contain-lead
 arid cteoHTium.'The entire volame: of  -
 dusts and fiBes, comprised of the   -./  .'•.'••'
 cbrnmingled organic and inorganic   .."' .;
 products dusts and fines, is _  .     '.'•'• ,•
 charaeteristiea-Hy toxic for both lead and '
 chronrium and, therefore, is a hazardous
 waste as defined by 40 CFR 261.24. It •

-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245  / Thursday, December  22,  1994 /Proposed  Rules     66103
  is impractical for the facility to separate
  the dusts and fines covered by this
  listihg determination from these    '
  characteristic inorganic dusts'and fines.
  and[ thus, the facility manages the dusts
 'andj fines covered by this listing'
  determination in a Subtitle C landfill.:
  Analysis of existing plant design shows
  thatj dusts and fines are comingled in   .
 •ductwork that is structured such that
  these wastes are mixed. Without
  significant re-design arid construction,  -
  segregation tif the wastes is impossible.
  The| Agency does riqt believe that it is
  plausible for the facility to discontinue
  the practice of combining all of its dusts
•  and'fines wastes and disposing of such
  wastes at a Subtitle C facility given the ,
  physical arrangement of this facility.
  Management of this waste in a Subtitle
  C landfill is not expected to pose any
  significant level of risk to human health
'•  or the environment.    ..       ,  •' *
   Information on the volume and the
  percentage of tola] volume disposed of
  in Subtitle D landfills is not included at
  the present time due to business
  confidentiality concerns.    .
   The Agency believes the potential
  risks posed by the plausible
 . management practices for this volume
  do not warrant a hazardous waste listing
  for dusts and fines.    -•
   Although, due to resource constraints,
  the Agency was unable to collect
  information on the characteristics of
  these dusts and fines, the Agency
  estimated a worstTcase risk by
  estimating the risk associated with
  disposal of dusts and fines in a Subtitle
  D landfill based on the physical/
  chemical properties of a mobile dye
  product and the toxicological properties
  of a dye constituent known to be one of
  the most toxic and mobile:dye or       "
  pigment waste .constituents. This       .. ,
  analysis demonstrated that the risk is
 beloW the initial level of concern
  associated with disposal of this waste in
 a Subtitle D landfill. Management of this
 wastje in an on-site monofill was
  determined to be not plausible because
 the volumes generated would not justify
 an on-site monofill. For further
 information see the background'--'.-.
 document on risk~assessment, available
 in thje public docket for this rule.'   -
   The Agency requests comment on the
 approach used to determine risk posed
 by plausible management of the wastes
 and requests comment on the proposed '"
 determination not to list this waste.     :
   9. )Spent filter aids, diatomaceous
 earth, or adsorbents used in the
 production of azo, anthraquinone, or
 triarylmethane dyes, pigments, or FD&C
 colorants.
 Summary  .      '   ,    . ,     .  "_

   The Agency is proposing to defer a
 determination on whether to list spent .
 filter aids, diatomaceous earth, or
 .adsorbents used in the production of
 azo; anthraquinone, or triarylmethane
 dyes, pigments, or FD&C colorants as
 hazardous due to insufficient waste
 characterization data. The Agency is
 planning to collect additional
 information oh this wastestream. EPA  • "
 then will publish a supplemental notice
 with a proposed determination on  '•"."
 whether to list this waste.     :     ";

 III. Waste Minimization'     .     ;  ~
         •        -           .••':,.! •>
 ,  -In the Pollution Prevention Act of
 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L:
 101-508, November 5,1990), Congress
 declared pollution prevention the   "
 national policy of the United States. The
 act declares that pollution should be
 prevented or reduced whenever feasible;
 pollution that cannot be prevented   ,
 should be recycled or reused in an
 environmentally safe manner wherever
 feasible; pollution that cannot be .-
 prevented/reduced or recycled  should
 be treated; and disposal or release into
 the environment should be chosen only
 as a last resort/This section first  .
 provides a general discussion of some
 generic pollution prevention  and waste
 minimization techniques that facilities
 may wish to explore and second  •
 discusses and requests comment on  ^
 ways in which the hazardous waste
 listing determination program itself'.
 could'be structured to better promote
 pollution prevention and waste
 minimization.          ~;  '

 A. Generic Approaches to Waste   .
 Minimization             ,.:'

   Waste minimization practices fall into
 three general groups: change in   •' -'";.
 production  practices, housekeeping
 practices, and practices that employ the
 use of equipment, that by design  .
 'promote waste minimization. Some of  •
 these practices/equipment listed trelow
 conserve water, others reduce the
 amount'ofproductsn the wastestream,  /
 while others may prevent the creation of
 the.waste altogether. EPA acknowledges
 that some of these practices/equipment
.may lead to media transfers or increased
 energy consumption. This information
 is presented for general information, •_-'•
 and. is not being proposed as a .  • "•  :
 regulatory requirement. Production
 practices include:        ",       ,
  "Ģ -Triple-rinsing raw material = •   . "
 shipping containers and returning the  .'
 rinsate directly to the reactor;   .   .
   Ģ  Scheduling production to minimize
 changeover cleanouts;   ;_-'.;_  •  •      . •
     Se
 individual product or product
 ^families;"   ••'• . ." •-'...  "•   v'-'".:-:\.
  j • Packaging products directly out of
 jjeactors;       •         •'•.-'.-.:" .'•••"••:
  •[••• Steam stripping wastewaters to  ', ;
 recovery reactants or solvents for reuse;
   • Using raw material drums for
 packaging final products; and.   '. •...."
 '< 'Dedicating equipment for hard, to
 clean products. Housekeeping practices
 include:    •••'- ~  -        .'-.:''.    "
  ; • Performing preventive maintenance
 on all valves, fittings, and pumps;
 ;| • Promptly correcting any leaky '.  •
 valves and fittings;
   • Placing drip pans under valves and •
 fittings to  contain leaks; and      ':  •'.
 . • Cleaning up spills or leaks in bulk
 containment areas to prevent       :'  -
 iiontaminatidn of storm or .wash wasters.
 'Equipment promoting waste .  '
 minimization by reducing or
 eliminating waste generation include:  .
 • i" • Low-volume/high-pressure hoses .
 fprcleaning;  ./            . ,   •  '- ..'
  I • Drum triple-rinsing stations;
- ;i • Reactor scrubber systems designed • •
 tpģ return captured reactants to the next
 batch rather than to disposal;   .    .
  { • Material storage tanks with.inert
 1 biers to .prevent contamination of water
 blankets with contaminants which     :,
 vvould prohibit its use in the process;
''alnd  .'•     '          •''-.'.'...-. •  '•  • '
  . • Enclosed automated.-product     : .
 handling equipment to eliminate
 manual product packaging.
  • Waste minimization measures can be
 tailored to the needs of individual "
 industries, processes, and firms. This   '-:
 approach may make it possible to  .•".;  •
 achieve greater pollution reduction with
 less cost and disruption to the firm.
   Defined  process control and good •
 housekeeping practices often can result
 in significant waste volume or toxicity  ,
 reduction.  Evaluations of existing
 processes also may point out the need
 for more complex engineering    '•'','•
'approaches (e.g., waste reuse, secondary
 processing of distillation bottoms., and  ;.
.use of vacuum pumps instead of steam
 jets) to achieve waste minimization
 objectives. Simple physical audits of
 current waste generation and in-plant  • •
 management practices for the wastes
 also can yield positive results. These  :
audits often:turn up simple non-
 etigineering practices that can be
 implemented successfully.           ;

B, Waste Minimization Approaches in
 the Listing Program         .,'•'.
  [Section 1003 of the Hazardous and
 Soh'd Waste; Amendments of 1984 says „
tliat one of RCRA's goals is to promote
•'protection  of human health and the   ->;.
environment and to conserve valuable

-------
 66104     Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994  /Proposed Rules
 material and energy resources by
 "minimizing the generation of
 hazardous waste and the land disposal
 of hazardous waste by encouraging
 process substitution, materials recovery,
 properly conducted recycling, and reuse
 and treatment." Section 1003 further   ;'
 provides that ft is a national policy of
 the United States that, -whenever
 feasible, the generation of hazardous
 waste is to be reduced or eliminated as
 expeditiously as possible. To further
 EPA's waste minimization goals, the '
 Waste Minimization Branch [WMB) in
.EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
 established the RCRA Waste
 Minimization Action Plan to integrate
 source reduction and recycling into the •
Ģ National RCRA Program, and RCRA
 activities into the Agency's Pollution -
 Prevention Strategy.
   As described in that plan, EPA's
 program for evaluating which wastes
 should he listed as hazardous is an  • •
 example of a regulatory program that
 can provide opportunities for
 encouraging and promoting real waste
 minimization. When a wastestream is
 listed as hazardous, it enters the
 .hazardous waste management system.
 The requirements of that system can be
 costly and there are currently only
 limited ways for a waste entering the
 system to get out. Once it is listed as a
 hazardous waste, it remains a listed
 hazardous waste even after treatment
 and safe disposal, unless delisted
 pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
 Other than levels at which wastes •
 typically are deDsted, there is no target
 for a generator to shoot for which would
 allow their waste to be considered non-
 hazardous even if waste minimization
 actions are'taken that ensure the waste  "
 is not likely to pose a hazard to human
 health and the environment- However, if
 a waste minimization-based exemption
 to the listing could be provided,
 generators would have the regulatory
 and economic incentive to meet the
 exemption. When the exemption is
 tailored to encourage and reward waste
 minimization efforts, then the generator
 could obtain the benefit of not .
 generating a listed hazardous waste
 while furthering national waste      •  .
 minimization goals.
   The Agency  notes that there are
 several important considerations in
 developing listing Hpttģrmirģat>nn<; that  -
 encourage waste minimization. First,
 waste minimization-based listings must
 promote actual waste minimization and
 clearly not increase risk. In addition, the
 listings must be enforceable.
   3. Actual Waste Minimization Must
 Occur. The Agency is interested in
 taking comment on developing listings
 that encourage reductions in volumes,
 reductions in concentrations of .
 constituents of concern, (without  -\".
 diluting constituents in an effort to ... •'
 reduce concentration), reductions in   ..
 environmental loading of constituents of
 concern* and/or the removal of        ,-.
 constituents of concern (or process
 derivatives of concern) from the
 manufacturing process, and/or the .
 beneficial reuse,recycling, or  -. -.  ~.
 reclamation of the wastestreams
 themselves, provided human, health and
 the environment is protected. A waste
 minimization-based listing, for example;
 must be crafted so as .not to result     . x-
 simply in cross-media transfer; and so
 as not to leave uncontrolled wastes-
 reduced in volume or concentration, but
 still posing a significant hazard. The
 Agency believes that generators must
 make a commitment that waste*  .   . .
 .minimization in fact would occur, and .'
 that a real investment in waste.,
. minimization techniques', equipment.
 and process changes would.be carried   •
.out.     .  .         -  •        _.
   2. No Increase in Risk Can Occur^A
 waste minimization-based listing (or
 variable level) must protect human.
 health and the environment and not •;
 increase risk. A hazardous waste listing .
 achieves the goal of minimizing risk by
 placing a wastestream in the hazardous
 waste management system. Any
 exemption w.hich'takes a wastestream.-
 out of this system must be shown to
" provide an equivalent decrease in risk".
 as that provided by the Tf sting itself. It
 would be unacceptable, for example,'for
 waste minimization actions simply to
 result in cross-media transfer of wastes-.
 Chemical substitution that fails to   .''
 reduce the risks posed by a wastestream ,
 is another example of a practice that
 would not be considered to be waste
 minimizatipn. Another specific concern
 involves the possible presence of other  .
 constituents in a wastestream for which
 the waste was not specifically listed but -
 which also may pose, risk to human    ..
 .health or the environment:A waste . •  .
 minimization-based listing must '   '."•.•.
 consider the impact of letting the entire
 •wastestream out of the hazardous waste .
 management system.   ..     •."..'  .' -.".'.
   3. Enforceabflity. "The Agency is   •  -
 particularly concerned about the.  ..-  :
 enfbrceabilfty of waste minimization-
 based variance to a listing. In particular,
 the Agency has concerns about the   ••!,-.'
 following factors: •  ;   .-/•'.".--•-: .•-' ..-'
   • The amount of testing ox monitoring
 required,   .        ..  VĢ   . •
   • Ease by which a State inspector '
 could check compliance,"  "•     -
   • How a generator wonld "demonstrate
- compliance with the waste     .  •*
 minimization-based exemption, '•••
   • The likelihood that a State agency
 would adopt a waste minimization  .
 'approach in its listing regulations, and'
   " • The ability of a State agency to  : -.
 oversee an exemption.
 Any waste minimization-based fisting '
 must account for these concerns. (Many
 of these issues now are being considered
 in EPA's deliberations on the Hazardous
 Waste Identification Rule.)    -
 C. Specific Approaches to Waste
 Minimization      .'•••'•'    - "  '
   The Agency can and has used
 • different regulatory mechanisms to   - '
 promote waste minimization in the
 iisting program. The discussion below
 will describe several options the Agency
 has identified as an approach to
 tailoring listings that encourages
 generators to use waste minimization •'•
 , practices. This approach could apply to
 . any listing determination. Also included
 in this discussion are specific references
 to today's proposed listing
 determination for dyes and pigments.

 Quantity-Based Listings     '
   A potential method of structuring a
 waste'listing to promote waste
 " minimization would be to establish a
 quantity-based exemption for the wastes
• listed. Under such  an approach, the
,; listing of a specific wastestream would .  •
 be accompanied by a quantity-based
 exemption for the specific wastestream
 involved. Quantity can refer to either a
 concentration of constituents in a waste
 (measured or calculated) or the mass' of
 constituents released to the v     •    '
 environment The Agency believes that
 this approach would encourage waste
 minimization because a facility would
 • have to meet a risk-based quantisation ,
 target for a wastestream in order to
 qualify  few the exemption, thereby ,
 , requiring reductions-in the mass or    •
.-concentration (or both) of the
 constituents of concern. In reducing
 mass loading or concentration (or both)
 -of the wastes, the Agency's waste    , •  :
 : minimization goals are achieved.
   A concentration  basis is easier to
 measure and track  than a limit based on
- - loading or mass. Setting a limit based on
 -.' loadings or mass addresses total *   •
 • loadings to the environment and .."
. recognizes waste minimization efforts
 that result in reductions in both mass of
 pollutant and volume of total..      .
 wastestream. However, a mass loading
 approach poses significantly more
 .' burden  in terms* of monitoring and
 .compliance and may not-take into :,
 account concentrations of constituents
• in a waste. The Agency requests
 comment on the use of production or
 mass-based hunts,  and on possible
 monitoring approaches.

-------
               Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22. 1994^7 Proposed Rules     6610&
      A variation on this approach is an
    adaptation of the "headworks rule" (40
    CFR 261.3(a3(2)(iv)(AHE)) to a listing.
    The original rule, promulgated on
    November 17,19S1 (46 FR 56582)
    allows for calculated amounts of certain
    spent solvents, commercial chemical
    products, petroleum refining wastes,
    and laboratory residuals to be sent to a
    facility's wastewater treatment plant,
    and for the wastewaters and sludges
    (beyond the headworks} to be exempted
    from toe mixture rule. The Agency also
   : proposed in the March 1,1994
    carbamates listing proposal (59 FR
    9808-^9864) to provide a similar
•  .  exemption "to a wastewater proposed for
,    listing in the same notice.
      Under the "headworks" exemption
    approach (e.g., 40 CFR
    261.3{a)(2)(iv)(H)), the wastewaters and
    treatment sludges would be exempt
    from the listing as long as the industry
    could show that the total quantity of 7
    hazardous constituents that pose risk in
    a wastestream, divided by the undiluted
    wastewater flow for wastewaters on an
    average weekly basis from the particular
    product process subject to the listing
    was less than a calculated quantity. The
    calculated quantity would be based on.
    a risk assessment.
      The Agency would have to be able to
    determine the relationship between the
    amount of raw material used and the
    presence of particular constituents in
  ' • the wastestream. The Agency requests
  •  comment on whether determining such
    a relationship is feasible for the dye and
    pigment industries. To qualify for such
    an exemption, the facility would have to
    use existing inventory records of raw
    materials that go Mo the process. The
    facility can subtract the quantity of
    materials that, in fact, do not go into the
    wastewater treatment system, either by
    chemical reaction or material recovery
    techniques [i.e., distillation, reuse,
:    reverse osmosis, etc.). The facility may
    not subtract any quantity assumed to
    volatilize. The quantity of material left
    then would be converted to resulting
    levels of constituents  expected to be    :
'-.    generated based on quantity of raw
    material used. The levels of .constituents
    then would be divided by the average
 •   weekly flow of the wastewaters into the
    headvyorks of the wastewater treatment
    system at the time the process is being
    run to determine total concentrations of
    constituents in wastewater. If the total
    concentration of constituents of concern
    is less; than the amount calculated based
    on the risk assessment, the wastewaters
    and treatment sludges would qualify for
    the exemption. This approach has the
,    advantage of determining
 /  concentrations in a mathematical, rather
    than ah analytical way. The    -'-,,?.- . -;
 disadvantage is that it requires    .
 collection of process flow data and
 specific planichenustr^! information.
   The Agency reauzes that constituent
 loading into the wastewater treatment
 system may have to be reduced    -     -
 significantly (up to two to three orders
 of magnitude in many cases) in order to
 qualify for an exemption of this sort
 Therefore, the Agency solicits comment
 on whether such levels are achievable,
 and what other calculation methods   •;"...
 may exist (such as one based on     -
 production mass). '     •  "-•••.  "
'•   Such an exemption would apply only
 after the wastewaters have arrived at the
 headworks of a facility's wastewater
 treatment system. The Agency would
 not allow it to apply to wastewaters
 before they reach the headworks.  •'< '.
 Generators who wish to qualify for such
 an exemption would be required to use
 flow statistics for the period in which .
 the processes generating the      ...
 wastewaters are being run. Finally, such
 an exemption would apply only to
 wastewater  flow for that wastestream,
 not to flow figures from unrelated
 processes that serve only-to dilute the -   '
 wastewaters.      * . ,,.-,•,•  ..,,.....-".
   In addition, generators would be
 required to keep records of average
 weekly flow in the production , , ', ",..
 processes, especially whan the •  ',, - ,,;..,
 processes generating the listed  ,.   ,*•   ..
 wastewaters are run. When land ••• ', - -  -
 disposal restrictions are applied to a   -  :
 waste subject to euch an exemption,    -
 generators would need to comply with
 40 CFR 268.7(a)(G), which states that the
 generator who has produced a waste
 subject to an exemption in 40 CFR   -
 261.2-261.6 must keep a notification in"
 the facility's file stating that such a
 waste has been generated, the fact that
 it is restricted, and the disposition of the.
 waste.       . \ • ..-• ..' : .,.'- ',  -.'..
   The Agency seeks comment on the
 recordkeeping burden that accompanies.
 its implementation. The Agency realizes'
 that facilities that would wish to take
 advantage of such an exemption would
 be required to allow compliance   .: '.-;
 personnel to examine) process records -  '..
 (reaction rates, reactaats, process flows,
 etc.) to verify that a facility; is able to     .
 achieve the exemption.Therefore, the
 Agency solicits comments on this topic
 as welL  '•-    .-•..   .     •.-'••  .'.-. ••• •'•-•
   A quantity-based exemption in a .'. -
 listing determination bears a strong
 relationship to another ongoing Agency
 project which seeks to establish an exit
 from the hazardous waste management
 program. The Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWffi) project is an
 effort^ in part, to Ģet exit criteria for Ģny --
 listed hazardous waste so that materials  .;
which dearly fail to pose a threatto  .
 huonan health and the environment can
 exit the Subtitle C system. The HWIR  .
 concept, as currently envisioned, would
 be expected to be similar to that of a.-.
" quantity-based exemption for a specific
 listed hazardous waste: a risk- based   .'•. *
. exemption process that employs        "
 analysis of multiple exposure pathways
• to determine a safe exit or exemption
 level. A principal difference between
 the HWIR concept under discussion and
 a quantity-based listing could be that  --
 HWIR is meant to apply to all listed
 wastestreams, while a quantity-based
 listing could be targeted to a specific '  -
 wastestream in a listing determination.
 In .that sense, a listing exemption could
 be considered to be more tailored to the .
 known exposure routes of a specific  -
 wastestream and may be able to generate
 an exemption level which is specific to
 that wastestream. For example, if the
 listing determination analysis shows a
 wastestream in a listing can be managed.
 only in tanks, then the exemption
 analysis could be focused on the  ^  ,
 exposure pathways affected only by
 tanks. The exemption levels for that
 wastestream could be tailored to those  -'.
• exposure routes  (air pathways) and
 could be different than HWIR exit
• criteria. The Agency solicits comment
-on the advantages and disadvantages Of
. a quantity-based exemption in listing  -
 determinations to a more generic  exit
 level Ikie that being contemplated in the
 H\VTR project discussions.

 Relationship to the Definition of Solid   •
 Waste     •••••-  :-
   The Agency has observed in the dye
 and pigment and other industries that
 material recovery may be discouraged
 due to restrictions placed on materials
 designated as "solid and then
 haisardous" waste, as denned by RCRA.
 Over the past two years, the Agency's  .
 Definition of Solid Waste Task Force in
 the Office of Solid Waste examined
.possible modifications to the definition
 of isolid waste to encourage         .
 environmentally sound recycling. A
 final report of the Task Force was issued '
on September 19,1994.   ,
   An example in the dye and pigment
industries of using as a product a
material that ordinarily would be  a
waste involves the blending and sale of
collected dusts and fines as inexpensive
black pigments useful to shoe polish
manufacturers.    .    , .            -

D. Waste Minimization and the Dye and.
Pigment Industries
   The dye and pigment industries have
expended considerable effort to
cooperate with the Agency on a -••••.•  ; •..-•
voluntary waste minimization program,
coordinated through ETAD. As part of -

-------
 66106     Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.  245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994  /Proposed Rules
 this effort, waste minimization, recycle,
 and reuse practices in the dye and
 pigment industries were described for
 all aspects of production in the
 "Pollution Prevention Guidance Manual
 for the Dye Manufacturing Industry"  .
 (EPA/741/B-92-001).
   The Agency is interested in options to
 modify today's proposed listing
 determinations to-support and enhance
 the voluntary waste minimization
' efforts already initiated by the dye and
 pigment industries. The Agency    •   ,
 requests comment on the feasibility of
 the waste minimization-based listing  •
 approaches described above for the dye
 and pigment industries. EPA also
 solicits ideas and comments on other
 possible approaches to tailor the
 hazardous waste listings and'promote
 waste minimization in the dye and
 pigment industries. In particular, the
 Agency requests comment -on other
 approaches that may provide more
 flexibility for waste minimization arid   •
 better assure that constituent reductions
 would be achieved through waste
 minimization (rather than through
 treatment).   , '       .   •
    EPA specifically requests comment on
 the feasibility of developing the
 quantity-based listing approach
 described above for the dye and pigment
 industries. The quantity-based approach
 is based on the Agency's experience
 with other industries in which
 production is continuous. Because of
  the batch nature of production and the
  multiplicity of chemicals involved in
  the dye and pigment industries, the
  quantity-based listing approach may be
  more difficult for this industry. The
  Agency requests comment on how these
  issues (i.e., batch processes, multiple _
  chemicals) might be addressed in a
  quantity-based listing approach or other
  waste mirumization-based option.
    The Agency also solicits comment on
  whether certain of the dye and pigment
  wastestreams are better candidates for
  waste minimization, and whether a
  waste minimization-based listing
  approach should target these wastes.
  Finally, EPA requests comment on the
  testing and monitoring needed to ensure
  proper implementation of a waste
  minimization listing approach. Based on
  the comments the Agency receives on  '
  the above issues, EPA may issue a
  supplemental proposal addressing a
  waste minimization-based listing
  approach for the dyes and pigments
  industry.              -
IV. Applicability of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Determinations

A. Request for Comment on the
Agency's Approach to the Development
ofBDAT Treatment Standards
  RQIA requires EPA to make a land
disposal prohibition determination for
any hazardous waste that is newly
identified or listed in 40 CFR part 261
after November B, 1984, within six
months of the date of identification or
final listing (RCRA Section 3004{g)(4),
42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)). EPA also is   .
required to set "* * * levels or methods
,of treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or  '
substantially reduce the likelihood of •
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to humanliealth and
the environment are minimized" {RCRA
Section 3004(m)(l), 42 ILS.C.
6924(m)(l)). Land disposal of wastes
that meet treatment standards thus
established by EPA is not prohibited.
The wastes being proposed for listing in
this action would be subject to this
requirement once a final rule is
 promulgated. •                   •
   A general overview of the Agency's
 approach in performing analysis of how
 to develop treatment standards for
 hazardous wastes can be found in
 greater detail in Section m.A.1 of the
 preamble to the final rule that set land
 dist	    *"
 ^sposal restrictions (LDR's) for the
 Third Third wastes (55 FR 22535, June
 1,1990). The framework for the
 development of the entire Land Disposal
 Restrictions program was promulgated
 November 7,1986. (51 FR 40572).
   While the Agency prefers source   "i
 reduction/pollution prevention and
 recycling/recovery over conventional .
 treatment, inevitably, some wastes (such
 as residues from recycling and
• inadvertent spill residues) will be
 generated. Thus, standards based on
 treatment using "best demonstrated
 available technology" (BOAT) will be
 required to be developed for these ,
 wastes if a final rule listing them as
 hazardous is promulgated. •   :•  ..  •
   Treatment standards typically are   .
 established based on the performance
 data from the treatment of the listed
 waste or wastes with similar chemical .
 and physical characteristics or similar
' concentrations of hazardous  '••'
 constituents. Treatment standards are'  .
 established for both wastewater and    '
 npnwastewater forms on a constituent- •
 specific basis. The constituents selected
 for regulation under the Land Disposal
 Restrictions Program are not necessarily
 limited to those identified as present in
 the listings proposed in this action, but
 include those constituents or parameters
that will ensure that the technologies
are operated properly.          .
  Although data on waste
characteristics and current management
practices for wastes proposed in this
action have'been gathered as part of the
administrative record for this rule, th?   .
Agency has not completed its evaluation
of the usefulness of these data for
developing specific treatment standards
or assessing the capacity to treat (or
recycle) these wastes.
  Some treatment technologies
previously promulgated for newly  ,
identified hazardous organic wastes are: -_
chemical oxidation, wet air oxidation,
activated sludge, steam stripping,
activated carbon, solvent extraction,
pyrolysis, thermal desorption, UV
photolysis, ozonation, and incineration. •
A current description of these          -
technologies and what types of wastes
they are used to treat is available as a   ,
background .document and can be
 obtained by contacting NTIS (National .
 Technical Information Service, 5285
 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161,
 (703)487-4650) and requesting
 document PB91-160556, "treatment
 Technology Document," L. Rosengrant,
 dated January, 1991, USEPA-OSW.
   EPA intends to propose treatment
 standards for K162 through K166 in a
 separate rulemaking. However, EPA  '
 specifically is soliciting comment and
 data on the following as they pertain to
 the proposed listing of dye and pigment
 industries wastes K162 through K166 as ~
 described in this action:  .
    (1) Technical descriptions of
 treatment systems that are or could be -
 used potentially for these wastes;     . .
    (2) Descriptions of alternative   ,
 technologies that'currently might be  .
 available Or anticipated as applicable;
  .  (3) Performance data for the treatment
 of-these or similar wastes (in particular, '
 •constituent concentrations in both
 treated and untreated wastes, as well as
 equipment design and operating
 conditions);   -,.      ,_   '   • ;  • '
 :   (4) Information on known or
 perceived difficulties in analyzing
 treatment residues or specific .
 constituents;
   •(5) Quality assurance/quality control
  information for all data submissions;
    (6) Factors affecting on-site and off-
  site treatment capacity;    v   ;... •
 ' ••' {7) Information on the potential costs
.  forset-up.and operation of any current
  and alternative treatment technologies .
  for these wastes;   .       .
"\ .(8) Information on waste :'     '  •  -
  minimization approaches.        - •  •

-------
              Federal Register /Vol. 59, No, 245 / Thursday, December 22 j
  B. Request for Comment on the Agency's
  Approach to the Capacity Analyses in
  the Wfl Program          -.-..,.

    In the land disposal restrictions
  determinations, the Agency must
  demonstrate that adequate treatment or:
  recovery capacity exists to manage a
  newly listed waste with BOAT
  standards before it can restrict the waste
  from further-land disposal. The Agency
  performs capacity analyses to determine
 " if sufficient alternative treatment or
  recovery capacity exists to
  accqmmodate the volumes of waste that
  willibe affected by the land disposal
  prohibition. If adequate capacity exists,
  the waste must be treated to meet the
  BOAT standard before land disposal. If
  adequate capacity does not exist, RCRA
  Section 3004(h) authorizes EPA to grant
  a national capacity variance from the
  effective date of the treatment standard
  for the waste for up to two years or until
  adequate alternative treatment capacity
 becomes available, whichever is sooner.
    To perform capacity analyses, the
 Agency needs to determine the volume
 of thp listed waste that will require
 treatment prior to land disposal. The
 volume of waste requiring treatment  " •
. depends," in turn, on the waste
 management practices employed by die
 listed waste generators. Data on waste
 management practices for these .wastes
 were collected during the development
 of this proposed rule. However, as the
 regulatory process proceeds, generators
 may decide to minimize or recycle their
 wastes or otherwise alter their         .
 management practices. Thus, EPA will
 update and monitor changes in
 management practices because these
 changes will affect the final volume of
 waste requiring commercial treatment
 capacity. Therefore, EPA needs
. information on current and future waste
 management practices for these wastes,
 including the volume of waste that are
 recycled, mixed with or co-managed
 with other waste and discharged under
 Clean; Water Act provisions; and the
 volume and types of residuals that are
generated by various management
practices applicable to newly listed and
identified wastes (e.g., treatment
residuals).
  The availability of commercial
treatment capacity for these wastes
determines whether or not a waste is
granted a capacity variance under RCRA
Section 3004(h). EPA continues to,
update and monitor changes in available
commercial treatment capacity because
the commercial hazardous waste
management industry is extremely
dynanjic. For example, national
commfercial treatment capacity changes
as ne>v facilities come on-line, as new
   units and new technologies are added at
   existing facilities, and as facilities
   expand existing uMts. The available
   capacity at commercial facilities also   :
   changes as facilities change their  •
   commercial status {e.g., changing from a"
   fully commercial to a limited     /  "
   commercial or captive facilityJ.'To r-
   determine the availability of capacity for
   treating these wastes, the Agency needs
   to consider currently available data, as
   well as the timing of any future changes
  in available capacity.     .' V  -'    .
    For previous land disposal restriction
   rules, the Agency performed capacity .  .
   analyses using data from national
   surveys, including the 1987 National
  Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
  Storage, Disposal, and Recycling
  Facilities (the TSDR Survey) and the
  1987 National Survey of Hazardous
  Waste Generators (the Generator
  Survey). However, these surveys cannot •
  be used to determine the volumes of dye
  and pigment wastes requiring treatment
  since these wastes were not included in
  the surveys. Additionally, these surveys
  may not contain adequate.information
  on currently available  capacity to treat
  newly identified wastes because the
  data reflect 1986 capacity and do riot
  include facility expansions or closures
\  that have occurred since then. Although
  adjustments have been made to   ,
  commercially available capacity to.
  account for changes in waste
  management through 1992, this was not
  done on a consistent basis across all
  waste management •practices.
   EPA gathered data on waste       :
  generation,, characteristics and  /
  management practices for the listing
,-  determination of dye and pigment
  wastes in the RCRA Section 3007
  Questionnaire of 1991. The Agency has
 compiled the capacity-related
 information from the survey responses
 and is soliciting any updated of
 additional pertinent informationi    ;
 ; To perform the necessary capacity - -
. analyses in the land disposal          ;
 restrictions rulemakirig, the Agency '
 needs reliable data on current waste
 generation, waste management
 practices, available alternative treatment
 capacity, and planned treatment
capacity. The Agency will need the
annual generation .volumes of waste by
each waste code including Wastewater
and nonwastewater forms, and soil or
debris contaminated with these wastes  :
and the quantities stored, treated, _  ,.
recycled, or disposed due to any change
of management practices. EPA also
requests data from facilities capable of
treating these wastes on their current
treatment capacity and any plans they
may have in the future to expand or-- '
reduce existing capacity. Specifically,   ;.,
  the Agency requests information on the
 ' determining factors involved in making
  decisions to build new treatment  '"'
  .capacity. Waste characteristics such as
  pH level, BTUs, anionic .character, total,
 . organic carbon content, constituents    '
  concentration, and physical form also  .;
  may limit the availability of certain  ; "
  treatment technologies. For these    •••--
  reasons, the Agency requests data and
 comments on Waste characteristics that
  mightlimit or preclude the use of any
  treatment technologies. ".'   .  ' = ••.
 \  I             '      •  '      . '   .'•''••*
  V. Compliance Dates  .   ,  ••*;•".•.-.'-   ',-

  A. Notification

  ,j Under RCRA Section 3010, any    ;
  person generating, transporting, or
  managing a hazardous waste must notify
  EPA (or an authorized State) of its
  activities. 'Section 3010(a) allows EPA to
  vraive, under certain circumstances, the '
 notification-requirement under Section  ••'.
 3010 of RCRA. If these hazardous waste
 listings are promulgated, EPA is   "  ... ,
 proposing to waive the notification   -
 requirement as unnecessary for persons
 a!lready identified within the hazardous
 waste management universe (i.e.,
 persons who have an EPA identification
 number under 40 CFR 262.12). EPA is
 not proposing to waive the notification
 requirement for waste handlers who   -
 hiave neither notified the Agency that
 tliey may manage hazardous wastes nor
 received an EPA identification number.
 Such individuals will have to provide
 notification under RCRA Section 3010.   •'

 B:, Interim Status and Permitted
 Facilities                    ;   -

  .Because HSWA requirements are: •. -
.'•applicable in authorized States at the "
 same time as in unauthorized States,
 EPA will regulate EPA Hazardous
 Wastes Nos. K162 through K166 until
 States are authorized to regulate these
 wastes. Thus, once this regulation
 becomes effective as a final rule, EPA
 will apply Federal regulations to these
 wastes and to their management in both
 authorized and unauthorized States.
 VI. State Authority

 A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized
 States      .
  trader Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to  •:. - *.
administer and enforce the RCRA    . •
program within the State. (See 40 CFR' -
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)     l
Following authorization, EPA retains
enJ'orcement authority under Sections
3007,3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA,   ,
although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.    '; ••••'/

-------
 66108     Federal Register  / Vol. 59, No.  245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994  /  Proposed Rules
   Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste
 Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) amended
 RCRA, a State with final authorization
 administered its hazardous waste
 program entirely in lieu of the" Federal
 program in that State. The Federal
 requirements no longer applied in the
 authorized State, and EPA could not
 issue permits for any facilities located in
 the State with permitting authorization.
 When new, more stringent Federal
 requirements were promulgated or
 enacted, the State was obligated to enact
 equivalent authority within specified
 time-frames. New Federal requirements
 did not take effect in an authorized State
 until the State adopted the requirements
 as State law.
   By contrast, under Section 3006(g) of
 RCRA. 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
 requirements and prohibitions imposed
 by the HSWA (including the hazardous
 waste listings proposed in this notice)
 take effect in authorized States at the
 same time that they take effect in non- -
 authorized States. EPA is directed to  •
 implement those requirements and
 prohibitions in authorized Stales,
 including the issuance of permits, Until
 the State is granted authorization to do .
 so. While States still must adopt HSWA-
 related provisions as State law to retain
 final authorization, the Federal HSWA
 requirements apply in authorized States
 in the interim.
 *B. Effect on State Authorizations'.
   Because this proposal (with the
 exception of the actions proposed under
 CERCLA authority) will be promulgated
 pursuant to the HSWA, a State
 submitting a program modification is
 able to apply to receive either interim or
 final authorization under Section
 3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, oh
 the basis of requirements that are
• substantially equivalent or equivalent to
 EPA's requirements. The procedures
 and schedule for State program
 modifications under Section 3006(b) are
 described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
 noted that all HSWA interim
 authorizations currently are scheduled .
 to expire on January 1,2003 (see 57 FR
 60129, February 18,1992).    ,
    Section 271.21(e)(2) of EPA's state   .
 authorization regulations (40 CFR part
 271) requires that States with final
 authorization modify'their programs to
 reflect Federal program changes and
 submit the modifications to EPA for
 approval. The deadline by which the , -
 States must modify their programs to
 adopt this proposed regulation, if it is
 adopted as a final rule, will be
 determined by the date'of promulgation
  of a final rule in accordance with 40
 CFR 271.21(e)(2). If the proposal is ,
  adopted as a final rule, Table 1 at 40
 CFR 271.1 will be amended accordingly,
 Once EPA approves the modification,,
 the State requirements become RCRA
 Subtitle C requirements,   -    ..'...
   States with authorized RCRA   .    •
 programs already may have regulations
 similar to those in this proposed rule.  (
 These State regulations have not been
 assessed against the Federal regulations
 being proposed to determine whether
 they meet the tests for authorization.
 Thus, a State would not be authorized
 to implement-these regulations as RCRA
 requirements until State program  "•.. -•
 modifications are submitted to EPA and
 approved, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21.
 Of course. States with existing
• regulations that are more stringent than
 or broader in scope than current Federal
 regulations may continue to administer
 and enforce their regulations as a matter
 of State law.  '•-•      -   ••• '•'"  ••    '
   it should be noted that authorized  •
 States are required to modify their  ,   •••
 programs only when EPA promulgates •
 Federal standards that are more   	
 stringent or broader in scope than   .
 existing Federal standards. Section 3009
 of RCRA allows States to impose  -
 standards more stringent than those in
 the Federal program. For those Federal
 program changes that are less stringent •.
 or reduce the scope of the Federal
 program, States are not required to
 modify their programs. See 40 CFR
 271.21(e). This proposed rule, if  '    ". :
 promulgated, would expand the scope
 of the Federal program by adding
 additional listed wastes. Therefore,  -
 States would be required to modify their
 programs to .retain authorization to '.
 implement and enforce these •    ;" -•; .
 regulations.    ,".'  ,; •  -   / • •"   '• ;:'
• VII. CERCLA Designation and ;
 Reportable Quantities        I/, ;
   All hazardous wastes listed under   •
 RCRA and codified in 40 CFR 261.31  .
 through 261.33, as well as any solid   '
 waste that exhibits one or more of the .;
 characteristics of a RCRA hazardous    •'•
 waste (as defined in Sections 261.21   ; .
 through 261.24), are hazardous .      V
 • substances under the Comprehensive •
 Environmental Response,    ' ..."•'    •
 Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
 .(CERCLA), as amended. See CERCLA
 Section 101(14KC). CERCLA hazardous
 substances are listed in Table 302.4 at
 40 CFR 302.4 along with their leportable
 . quantities (RQs). RQs are the minimum
 quantity of a hazardous substance that,
 if released, must be reported to the '.•-••••"
' National Response Center (NRG)   •'. .':••'•.'
 pursuant to CERCLA Section 103. in •
 this action, the Agency is proposing to •
 .list the proposed wastes in tills action
 as CERCLA hazardous substances in  '-
 Table 302.4 of 40 CFR 302.4, but fe
 taking no action to adjust the one-pound
 statutory RQs for these substances.  , :-,
  Reporting Requirements. Under       ':
 Section10Z(b) of CERCLA, all       , "
 hazardous substances newly designated •
 under CERCLA will have a statutory RQ
 of one pound unless and until adjusted
 by regulation. Under CERCLA Section
 103(a), the person in charge of a vessel
 or facility from which a hazardous
 .substance has been released in a
 quantity that is equal to or exceeds its
 RQ immediately shall notify the NRC of
. the release as soon as that person has
 knowledge thereof. The toll-free number ,
 of the NRC is 1-800-424-8802; in the
 Washington/DC metropolitan area, the  :
 number is (202) 426-2675. In addition
 to this reporting requirement under
 CERCLA, Section 304>of the Emergency
 Planning and Community Right-to-   .;  .
 Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) requires
 : owners or operators of certain facilities
 to report the release of a CERCLA
 hazardous substance to State and local
 authorities. Immediately after the .
 release of a RQ or more, EPCRA Section
 304 notification must be given to the
 community emergency coordinator of
 the local emergency planning committee
 for each area likely to be affected by the
 release, arid to the State emergency.
 response commission of any State likely
 to be affected by the release.
   If this proposal is promulgated as a  ,
 final rule, releases equal to or greater
 than the one-pound statutory RQ will be..
 subject to the requirements described
 above, unless and until the Agency
 adjusts the RQs for these substances in
 a. future rulemakmg.   '"    ^      ' •-;  •
 VIIL Economic Impact Analysis   ,

 ;'••  This section of the preamble       -
'•-summarizes the costs and benefits of .the
 dye and pigment hazardous waste
 listings. Based upon the E1A, the     ,
 Agency estimates that the listing of the
 five dye and pigment production wastes .
 discussed above may result in
 nationwide, pre-tax, annualized costs of
 approximately $18.1 million for
 .compliance in commercial Subtitle C
 landfills. The possible future costs of
 this listing including compliance with   '
 land disposal restrictions (LDRs) range
 from $20.3 to-$70.7 million per year.
 The 570.7 million represents, off-site
 incineration of non-wastewaters, while
 the $20.3 million assumes facilities with
 large non-wastewater waste volumes
 ; wifi construct on-site incinerators. A
 complete discussion of the EIA is  .  ;  ;'
 available in the regulatory docket       ;
 • entitled "Costs arid Economic Impact
 •Analysis of Listing Hazardous Wastes
 from the Organic Dye and Pigment
 Industries," November 28,1994.  ..

-------
             Federal Register 7 Vol.  59* No. 245  /Thursday, December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules      66109
 A. Compliance Costs for Listings
   Thfe remainder of this section, briefly
 describes (1) the universe of dye and  _
 pigment production facilities and
 volumes of the seven dye and pigment
 'production wastes proposed to be listed,
 (2) thJB methodology for determining
 incremental 095! and economic impacts
 to regulated entities, (3) the potential
 remedial action costs, and (4) economic '
 • impacts. Results of the analysis are
 summarized in Table VID-1..'    •
      I    "        •      '   • '
 1, Universe of Dye and Pigment.,
 Production Facilities and Waste  .-.'•
 Volumes    •   '•     :.
   In order to estimate costs for the EJA,
 it first was necessary to estimate the
. total annual generation of dye arid   ,
 ' pigment production wastes affected by '.
 this abtion. As described in Section II.B
 : of thi^.preamble, the portion of the dye
 and pigment industry producing  "
 prodtlcts affected by this listing is   -
 composed of 33 manufacturers         -
 operating 49 facilities producing dyes
 ' and pigments. In  1992, U.S. sales of all
 organic dyes and  pigments totalled 403
 million Ibs., with a value of $1,691
 million. Total annual product volumes
 and waste quantities generated by these
 affected facilities were derived from a
 1991 survey of the dye and pigment
 production industries. The production
 volume and, hence, waste volume for
 dyes and pigments varies year to year
 depending on which colors are popular.
 A season in which dark colors are in
 fashion will produce higher volumes of
 waste; it is not known which colors
 were predominant in the study year.  -•
 2. Method for Determining Cost arid
 Economic Impacts
   This section details EPA's approach
 for esjtimating the incremental
 compliance cost and the economic
 impacts attributable to the listing of dye
 and pigment production wastesi     "•   ,-'
 ' Because the dye and pigment
 production industries are moderately
 smallj (33 manufacturers currently   .-
 operating 49 facilities), EPA was able to
 collect facility-specific information and.
 estimate incremental costs at the      '
 wastestream level.,For ten of the 49
 facilities, however, some of the waste ~
 generation, data were missing. In these
 cases,' waste generation amounts were
 estimated. The information used in this
 analysis was collected in 1992 through
 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaires,
 engineering site visits, and sampling -
 and analysis of wastestreams.,
 Approach to the Cost Analysis
   EPA's approach to tfie cost analysis  :
 for this rule was to compare the cost of
 current management practices, as
 reported in the RCRA Section 3007
 Questionnaire by dye and pigment    :
 production facilities, with the projected
 cost of management to comply with tHe
 RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste  .
. program. An additional analysis ". r.
 included the future cost.to the industry
 of complying with land, disposal
 restrictions. This'difference in cost,
 when annualized,9 represents the
 incremental annual compliance costs  , •„*•
 attributable to the rule.    •>     .

 Baseline or Current Management / .
 Scenario  .  -   '  .'';.*•     -'•-•''      "•  •
   Relying on survey responses' and."
 engineering site visits, EPA was able to -  .
 determine the current (i.e., 1991)    •' \ >-'•
 management practices for the handling
.and disposal of dye and pigment      ,
 production wastes. Current management.
 practices varied among facilities and   -
. wastestreams, and included such -:. • ;....
 practices as on-site monofilling, off-site
 incineration, on-site destruction in  \
 boilers, and off-site landfilling in   „
 municipal, industrial or Subtitle C .• .'• ••'  :
 landfills-. These current management   •  •
 practices at each facility represent the
 baseline scenario of the analysis.  >---*.  -:
   As part of the survey, EPA.asked each
 facility to identify current costs for the ,
 manageirient of dye and pigment  , ,?
 production wastes.'For'this analysis,
 EPA relied on the industry's own waste-
 specific estimates concerning the cost of
 current management. EPA realizes that
 future events, such as waste    •..•   ••'•-.
 minimization efforts, may change waste
 generation volumes and, thus, future   ,;
 waste management costs. .-'.  : .   .,-.'
 Post-Regulatory Management Scenarios
 .  In estimatingrthe cost of compliance' .-
• with the listing of dye and pigment  •.-,
 production wastes as 'RCRA hazardous.
 wastes, EPA assessed the potential   -  .
 waste management on the part of ..- ;:-' •
 industry to the listing and also assessed
 the management cost in response to -:  .
•LDRs.  '..    -,>•'-;""•/..  '/.•;• -.'•••;:-•
   Initial waste management, excluding
 land disposal restrictions, assumes all  ..-
 non-wastewaters will be sent to off-site
 Subtitle C landfills. Wastewaters are .,
 assumed to be handled in tanks, at an  ;.
 estimated cost of $18.1 million/yr. It is .
 important to note that 81 to 95 percent -
 of the total, annual, incremental  -,;•   ; •
 compliance costs result from listing the
 non-wastewaters. The non-wastewaters "
 comprise less than one percent of the
 quantity of the affected wastes.   '
 .  There were two possible management
 .strategies examined for the dye and  ....,-.
 pigment industries following the  .    '- .
 promulgation of LDRs. The first strategy,
 the higher-Cost response, is waste
 management, including land disposal  ~
 restrictions, with all non-wastewaters  .:
 being sent to off-site incinerators.
 Wastewaters are assumed to be handled
 .in newly-constructed treatment  ; •.";"•;
 impoundments, which makes this.   .,.:.
 strategy an upper-bound estimate ($70.7:
. million/yr) because the other option for
 wastewaters, handling in tanks,, is
 marginally less expensive.
   The second strategy for waste     :
 management assumes facilities with
 high waste volumes will construct .on-
 .sil;e incinerators in which to treat their
 rion-wastewaters, with the remaining
 "facilities sending their wastes to off-site
 incinerators ($20.3 million/yr).
 Wastewaters are assumed to be handled
 .in newly constructed treatment
 impoundments.       . . *    •  - •.  ,.

 3. Potential Remedial Action Costs

   In addition to dye .and pigment ,•...-•'•-
 production wastes, this listing can affect
 the-managemeht of soils, ground water,: -
 and other remedial materials. The   -,.:,.;
 Agency's "contained in" policy defines.
 certain remediation wastes "containing"
 a  lasted hazardous waste as a RCRA
 haizardous waste. It is possible that areas
 of past dye and pigment waste   .,'.•'"
 management, spills, or disposal, which
 met the proposed listing description at
 the time ihey were placed on the land,
 still may have contaminant
 concentrations which exceed
 "contained in" levels. A person who
 disturbs^such material can become a .
 generator of RCRA hazardous waste.
 The likelihood of this imposing an
 additional burden is moderate because
 at least 9 of the 49 dye and pigment
 production facilities already are  — ;
 peirmitted TSDFs. Releases .from all    :;
 solid waste management units at these '
 TSDFs, including those that in the
 future may be found to contain a waste .
 meeting the dye and pigment listing
 descriptions, already are covered by
 facility-wide clean-up rules under 40
 ClfR 264.101. This issue .will be more.
, likely to arise from historical off-site
 management at facilities that were not.:
 TJJDFs. The pre-tax, incremental cost of
 corrective action liabilities has been '  .
 estimated -at less than $8.8 million.
  8 Cosjs are discounted at a pre:tax rate of 4
 percent overa 2iB-year period.  •    •'.'•'•:

-------
 66110     Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules
 TABLE Vlll-1.—TOTAL, INCREMENTAL,"PRE-TAX,.ANNUAUZED SOCIAL COSTS FOR THE DYE AND PIGMENT INDUSTRY FOR
     THE LISTING ACTION, AND LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS INCLUDING OFF-SITE iNciNERATioN.ANb ON-SITE INCINER-
     ATION BY EACH POST-REGULATORY WASTE CODE         .-.'_':'  .   -•"/-.            V-  ;    :       ,
Waste code
K162 •......_..._.....- 	 	
K164 .......... ~ 	 	
K166 """"':,:<-,:-
RCRA ......—— 	 -.
Total" . 	
Total annualized costs
(S millions)
•

••.

foresting™
Z.7T
2J64
-•.- aso
O62
&50
0.03
18,05
total annualized costs for LDR off-
site incineration11 . - ,
. . . ' . ($ rnHHons) • ° v '
-. : ' *. 24.76
r -2.66
•. ' .-. : -.: . ' , 38.98
V V -- '.-'•-' -0.70
;..'-••. . 3.53
" . . • - 0.06
- - • • ', ..70.69
Total annualized costs tor LDR on-
site IncineraBon^
... i • X$ H ijllions)
. • . '. -.:. ; - .,:•.• 5.83
-..-'• • 2.64
- - ; 7.38
. . 0.62
:.;'. "• : ;. ' .;•: ,. 353
-0.31
' •' .:".'-• . ; ••..• ... -.' . , 20.31
   10The Ustirw estimate assumes non-wastewaters win oe managea m ouuaae u era™ aim WSģIBWCĢBIB >Ģiu uc IK.I~.OU ... Ģģ•"ģ•     -:  ^
   "Thfe up^r-bound estate assumes nornwastewaters are incinerated off-site and wastewaters are handled in newly constructed treatment
        ^wertxxjnd estimate which includes LDRs assumes the construction of on-sfes incincerators for facilities with non-wastewater volumes
 over 635 MT/yr. Wastewaters are handled in newly constructed treatment impoundments.  •   .... •    •,-•-.      ....        -„     -, >,.
   ".Numbers may not add due to rounding.    .  •         '   ,  '     ':_".-•     .   '  -           :.   ./  "      '  '' :    . :
 ,4. Economic Impacts

   The following economic impacts
 potentially are overestimated as a result
 of inconsistencies in the reporting in the
 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire
 responses. S<5me facilities were found to
 have reported production quantities on
 a pure product hasis while reporting the
 average selling price per pound on a
 dilute product basis. This results in an
 underestimation of revenues, as a result
 of reduced production volumes, and an
 overestimation of economic impacts. In
 addition, some of the volume of several
 of the wasteslreams is for co-managed
 wastes. The values of production for the
 co-generated products were not
 available and, thus, further
 underestimated revenues which
 resulted in overestimated economic
 impacts. Economic impacts were
 evaluated based on incremental,
 annualized compliance cosfs discounted
 at an after-tax rate of 7 percent over a •
 20-year period. Of the 49 facilities 9
 facilities may incur potential
• "significant economic impacts" (i.e.,
 bear compliance costs that would
 require product cost increases of at least
 5 percent) with one of these facilities
 facing product-line discontinuation.
 Sixteen of the 49 facilities are estimated
 to incur potential significant impacts'
 assuming possible future costs for the
 high-cost LDR alternative. Economic
 ratios indicate potential closure or  .
 product-line discontinuation for 4 of the
 16 significantly affected facilities. Under
 the low-cost LDR alternative, 15 of the
 49 facilities are estimated to incur
 potential significant economic Impacts.
, Two of the .15 significantly affected
 facilities are estimated to incur closure
 or product-line discontinuation.
 5. Benefits of Listings    •--•"•'-.:•     -
   One objective of a population analysis
 is to estimate the number of cancer., •
 cases that could be avoided as a result  .
 of tie implementation of the proposed
 rule. People drinking contaminated
 water from residential wells located    -
 near the source of contamination;      ,.<
 people eating Jhome-grown vegetables
 contaminated by blowing dust or
 vapors, and people breathing air
 contaminated by a disposal unit are the
 potentially exposed population for this
 rule. The Agency did not estimate the
 population risks from current practices
 or the incremental risk reduction from
 future actions as a result of the proposed
 regulation; however, preliminary       ;
 analysis suggests that the incremental
 risk in terms of cancer cases avoided is ,
 expected to be near zero.    .. ..   ;
   One benefit associated with this
 rulemaking is to place wastestreams the
 Agency has determined could pose a ...•
 risk to human health and the  .„
 environment into the hazardous waste
• management system. When
 wastestreams are placed in this system,
 the risk associated with their disposal is
 minimized by the requirements of this  "
.system.'  •     •   ••-^•J-:.  .•-:..-.:•'•  .'••'
   The Agency, however, has historical
 information that shows damage to......  .
 ground water and other sensitive   "  •..
 environments has occurred during the
 management of wastes from the dye and
 pigment tnanyfiinhiring operations. At.
 ten dye and pigment facilities, the " _  -
 quality of ground water has been
 adversely affected by waste management
 activities, typically unlined waste
 trenches, aeration basins, and  .'--     '. :
 impoundments. One dye company had
 to purchase the deeds to three nearby
 residences and a gas station because
 VOC-contaminated ground water  • .'   •
 originating from the plant had  •
 contaminated surrounding drinkiag
 water wells. At another dye facility, a  -
 contaminated ground-water plume
 migrated under residential houses     .
'bordering the site. The residential wells,
 used for swimming pools and irrigation
 systems in the neighborhood, were
 condemned because of chemical       .
 contamination; Ground water was
 contaminated from land treatment of
 dye wastewater being sprayed onto a
 field, and passing through a layer of  • .-
 clay. Soil contamination near drum
 storage pads or drum wash areas has '
 been documented at 7 dye facilities. As
 a result, the leachate from these soils
 possibly contributed to the ground- • ^.
 -water contamination associated with,  -
 many of the sites. Concentrations of'
 volatile and semi-volatile organic
 compounds have been found in soils, •  •
 surrounding an on-site landfill at a dye
 facility. Finally, dye and pigment
 facilities are found on the Superfund
 National Priority list; further evidence
 that mismanagement of dye and
 pigment wastes have the potential to
 yield threats of concern to human   .
 health. In summary, although difficult
 to quantify precisely, a benefit of today's
 proposal is the prevention of additional
 or similar incidents occurring from
: similar management practices of dye
 :and pigment wastes that potentially ••'.
 could degrade the quality of ground
 water or other sensitive natural     '
/resources.      •   .-.'          "'••.-•'.-
    In addition to the reduction of human
 health risk associated with the
 mismanagement of dye and pigment
 wastes proposed for listing in this
• rulemaking, there are a number of other
 benefits that are even more difficult to  '.
. quantify.
    The Subtitle C management
 framework for generators and permitted
 treatment storage and disposal facilities

-------
Federal Register /  Vol.  59,.No. 245  / Thursday, December 22, 1994 / Proposed Rules     66111
   establishes standards for hazardous
   waste handling, management, and
   remediation that: Reduce ecological
   risks, reduce natural resource damage,
   redupe the likelihood and severity of
   accidents, improve worker safety,
   promote facility-wide remedial
   programs, insure that adequate t	
   assurance is established to handle
  'protective closure of waste management
   units, increase public participation,
  : imprpve information availability on
   waste quantity and movement, ensure
   minimum uniform national standards,
   and create incentivesTor pollution
   prevention.    .  .              -

  .Ecological arid Natural Resource
.   Damage Reduction            •
    The risk assessment for this listing "
   has focused on the human health risks
   associated with plausible management
  . of dyis and pigment wastes. An
   additional concern, given the proximity
   of several facilities to surface waters and
   their [associated wetland systems, is the
   potential for ecological damages' to biota
   inhabiting surface waters and wetlands.
   In some cases migration to the surface "•
   water'may be occurring via
  groundwater. EPA requests comments
  regarding the potential for ecological
  damages associated with the wastes
  proposed for listing in today's
  rulemaking.
    In addition to direct ecological and
 • humaiL health damage there is evidence
  from EPA's contaminant fate and
  transport modelling and case studies of
  ground water, surface water, and soil
  degradation. While use of and.'human
  exposure to these natural resources may
  not be occurring now, their use in the
  future could be limited if they are
  contaminated. The Subtitle C waste
  management program will limit future
  releases and prevent natural resource
  damages. These benefits have not been
  quantified.   -  '    ""' .       .  •  '•

  Reduce the Likelihood and Severity of
  Accidents

   An important component of the  '
  Subtitle C system for both generators
- and permitted treatment, storage and ~
  disposal facilities is the need to    --
  establish waste analysis plans,
 . contingency plans, emergency  ,,
t procedures, inspection programs,
' constrjuction quality assurance and
•  personnel training programs. In ,
  addition, permitted facilities also must
 have in place inspection programs and
  location standards. The costs of these
 prograjms have been included in the cost
 analysis, but the benefits are difficult to
 quantify. These Subtitle C programs
 may reduce risk to workers and nearby
 populations by reducing the chance of
                          contaminant releases, accidental  •
                          exposures, and catastrophic failures. In
                          the event that accidents occur, these
                          Subtitle C provisions increase the
                          likelihood of quick action and ensure
                          protection of human health and the
                         1 environment There are other programs
                          that require similar planning {e.g.,
                          OSHA, Section 112{r) of the Clean Air
                          Act) and indirectly affect hazardous
                          waste handling; RCRA regulatory
                          provisions deal directly with accident
                          prevention standards associated with
                          the handling of hazardous wastes.
                          Promote Facility-Wade Remedial     ;
                          Programs   :      „-  '   -,     .
                            Those facilities thai choose to obtain
                          Part B permits for the treatment, storage
                          and disposal of hazardous wastes will
                         .have the responsibility of ensuring that
                          adequate corrective action, program's are
                          in place to control releases from all
                          solid waste management units. The cost
                          analysis included an evaluation of the "
                          cost of facility-wide corrective action  ' :
                         while the risk assessment focused only
                         on the risks associated with hazardous
                         waste management units.  Although
                         difficult to quantify, there are risk-  ~ -
                         reduction benefits associated with the
                         cleanup of releases from the solid waste
                         management units in addition to those
                         benefits associated with the handling of
                         listed waste.
                         Financial Assurance  To Insure
                         ProtectiTeŖlosmre of Waste     •'   '  • -
                         Management Units           '.....''
                           Permitted facilities are required to
                         support financial mechanisms which '.'--.
                         ensure that adequate funds are available
                         to close hazardous waste treatment,
                         storage and disposal units in a manner.
                         that ensures long-term protection of   "  •
                         human health and the environment. The
                         costs of those financial assurance
                         requirements have been included in the
                         cost analysis; however, the benefits are
                         difficult to quantify. Financial assurance
                         has the benefit of insuring that owners
                         and operators of hazardous waste
                         facilities have sufficient financial   .   -
                       .  resources to close their facilities in an ' v
                         environmentally-protective manner.   •'".
                         Increase Public Participation and
                         Improve Information Availability   :
                          The Subtitle C system has the benefit
                         of providing the information needed to
                         empower local communities and waste
                         managers, those most affected by and
                         able to improve substandard waste
                       .management practices. The public '  .
                         participation provisions of the Subtitle
                         C system ensure that information is
                        provided to stakeholders regarding the
                         risks to human health and the
                         environmentdf a new  or expanding • -
  vraste management facility. Biennial
  reporting, required of all large quantity
  generators of hazardous waste, allows   .
  for more informed waste management
  decisions and capacity management.
  Finally, the manifest system, which is •'*•>
  used to track the movement of wastes,  ..-'
 " ensures protective handling of.  •. . . ",   .
  hazardous wastes as they move in •'•""'"
•'• commerce.       .       ">.   :•' . V
  EL Executive Order 12&66
    [Executive Order 12866 requires that   .
:  regulatory agencies determine whether a
: mew regulation constitutes a significant -
  regulatory action. A significant   
-------
 66112      Federal Register  /  Vol. 59, Tjo. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994  /  Proposed  Rules
 governmental jurisdictions subject to
 regulation."      ,
   For SIC 2865, Cyclic Crudes and
 Intermediates, the Small Business
 Administration defines small entities as
 those firms employing less than or equal
 to 750 employees. Based on this
 employment cutoff, approximately 61
 percent, or 20 of th'e 33 affected dye
 and/or pigment manufacturers (i.e.,
 companies) are considered small ..,
i entities. Under the listing alternative,  .
 •which assumes disposal of wastewater .
 treatment sludges/solids in an off-site
 commercial Subtitle C landfill.and
 management of wastewaters in tanks, 7
 of the 33 affected companies, are
 estimated to incur potential significant
 economic impacts. Four of the 7
 companies estimated to incur potential
 significant economic impacts are small
 entities. Although small entities are
' predominant in the affected industry,
 the proposed listings do not adversely
 affect small entities to a greater extent
 than large entities.
   Under the Agency's Revised
 Guidelines for Implementing the ,  . . '
 Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Agency .is
 committed to considering regulatory
 alternatives in rulemakings when there
 are any estimated economic impacts on
 small entities. The Agency obtained
 firm level employment data for the
 purpose of identifying and evaluating
 economic impacts on small entities. The.
 statutory requirements of the RCRA
 program do not provide legal avenues to
 grant relief from the proposed listings to
  small entities. Because of statutory
  restrictions, the Agency is unable to
  exempt small entities or develop
  options to reduce economic impacts on
  small entities. The Agency must identify
  waste streams for listing without regard
  to the size of the entity being regulated.
  However,  the possibility of enforceable,
  agreements described previously may
ameliorate the impact of listing on small
entities. -  . :/•„:••. •  -.-.;-•  ;   ;• :
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act   ..

  This rule does not contain any new
information collection requirements -
subject to QMB review under the : .',
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44   .
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Facilities will have
to comply with the existing Subtitle C
record keeping and reporting ;     -.;••>.
requirements for the newly listed    ; .
wastestreams; •'    :"'.;•'..  '...'," , .v-\ '
   To the extent that this rule imposes'
any information collection requirements
' under existing RCRA regulations
promulgated in previous rule makings,
those requirements have been approved
by the Office of Management.and
 Budget (OMB) imder the Paperwork    .:
 Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.~
 and have been assigned OMB control •
 numbers 2050-120 (ICR no. 1573, Part
 B Permit Application); 2050-120 (ICR
 1571,'General Facility Standards); 2050-
 0028 (ICR 261, Notification to Obtain an
 EPA ID); 2050-0034 (ICR 262, Part A
 Permit Application); 2050-0039 (ICR
 801, Hazardous Waste Manifest); 2050-
 0035 (ICR 820, Generator Standards);
 and 2050-0024 (ICR 976, Biennial
 Report).
   Release reporting required as a result
.of listing wastes as hazardous   .  ' ^,
 substances under CERCLA and
 adjusting the reportable quantities (RQs)
 has been approved under thejgrovisions
 of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44    ,
 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., .and has been ,   "-
 assigned OMB control number 2050-.
 0046 (ICR 1049, Notification of Episodic
 Release of Oil,and Hazardous   :      .
 Substances).    -    -   ....      -    •
 List of Subjects    .-'•;  ...   .     ;

 40CFRPart261    '':..
    Environmental protection, Hazardous.
 materials, Waste treatment and disposal,
 Recycling. •-,..         ,      ..     ~
 40CFRPart271    ••-•    v        •  - ;
   Environmental protection, "       .  "
 Administrative practice and procedure,
 'Confidential business information, •_.;
. Hazardous material transportation,    "
 Hazardous waste, Indians-lands,
 .Intergovernmental relations. Penalties,
 Reporting and recordkeeping  ..
 requirements, Water pollution control,
 Water supply. ,!„,-.'r'..-.:.    •' '   "'

 40CFR Part302    •
   Environmental protection, Air     ;~
 pollution control, Chemicals,        .':...
 Emergency Planning and Community   ,
 Right-to-Know Act, Extremely         •'.
 hazardous substances, Hazardous
 •.chemicals, Hazardous materials,
 Hazardous materials transportation,
 Hazardous substances, Hazardous'
' wastes, Intergovernmental relations,
 '. Natural resources, Pesticides and pests,.
 Reporting and recordkeeping
 requirements, Superfund, Waste
 treatment and disposal, Water pollution
. control, Water supply..
   Dated: December 5,1994.  '
 Carol M. Browner, '  , "••,    "  '   .''-•••
. Administrator.     '•,.•"         r   .
    For the reasons set out  in the
 .preamble, it is proposed to amend title
 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
• • follows:   .  "  .  ,.      -       '   ; '.•-'

 PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
 LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for Paft.26.1
 • continues to read as follows:   '-••     • •-
 '  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921,
 6922, and 6938.          '          >.
    2. In § 261.32, the table is amended by
 adding the subgroup "Organic .dyes and
 pigments," and adding to this subgroup
 the following wastestreams:

 §261.32  Hazardous wastes from specific
  sources. *           ,.   .-•-.'  •."•.-'•"'
  *•"..*.,'*.   * •  . *  .  ,    "" •"
     Industry and EPA hazardous waste No.
                                                                   Hazardous waste
                                                                        Haz-
                                                                        • ard
                                                                        code
  Organic dyes and pigments:
                   ,/ . r   	_  Wastewater treatment s.lpdge from the production of azo pigments	.;...	  (T)
             		   Wastewaters from the p>oduction of azo pigments  ...^.............~......;..;.:	,..;.\.r..........  (T)
         !"""™!ZZ""™"~		-	-  Wastewater treatment  sludge from the .production of  azo dyes, excluding FD&C  (T)
                                        *  colorants.     • •     .. • •-      —  '••• • -  - - "~:-     .••'• •     •-  •-'    ; ••  -  -"~'"•'
   K165         •                    .  Wastewaters from the production of 'azo dyes, excluding FD&C colorants		...... ft)
   K166 .""!!™.r"IZ"~"""""""~"!Z"!"".	  Still bottorris or Navy ends from the production of triarylmethane dyes or pigments .......  (7)  .

-------
                              1
 	     Federal-Register  /  Vol. 59,  No.  245  / Thursday, December  22, .1994 / Proposed  Rules      66113


 Appendix VII to Part 261  [Amended] -   wastestreams in aipiianumeric order fljy                      .       .       ..    -
   3. Appendix Vn to Part 261 is    -      the first coluinn) to read as follows: ..s      ";!".. •'.._..'...  '-•.„•...!.:•-:.';'.    .   -.     . ,
 amended by adding the. following    ''. ^r^.f^^%^'-.;:••' '•Ŗ%$$&%!§ $'Z&:--. '"--'••:;'.' •  '' ''!';'".->••'••';'•   •'"•"'•."• •• -''.- '
         1 EPA hazardous waste No.
'." APPENDIX Vll—BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE

                                 ;   1-tazartJous constituents for which listed
 K162 .".

      i'
> '     i'
 K163:..


 K164 •)..

 -    [

'K165J.

 K166 '..
          .  AnUine,  2-aminoaniline, 4-arninoaniline, 2-methoxya°niline, 2-aminbtoluene, 4-aminotoluene,
            ,  acetoacet-Oranisidide,   •acetaacet-o-taluidide,   . acetoacetaniCde. '   1,3-dinitrobenzene,
            - 3,3'dimethylbenzidine, nitrobenzene, 2,4-dinitrophenol.  . ...'        -  •            -   ,  '
          .  2-aminoanilini,  4-arninoaniline,  .2-methoxyanili*)e,  2-aminotoluene,  3-aminotoluene,  4-
              xaminotoluene, aniline, acetoacet-o-anisidide,  jacetoacet-o-toluidide, acetoaceta'nUide - 2 4-
              dimethylaraline,2,6^dimethylaniline..   -   -  .":;-.'.      .
          .  2-aminoanHine,    4-aminoaniline,    2-methoxyaniline,    aniline,    diphenylamine,    N-
              nitrosodiphenylamine,  3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine,  4-methylphenol,  1,3-dinilrobenzene   2-
              ^fne{hoxy-5-nttroanHlne, 2,4-djnttrophenol, 2-aminotoluene, 4-armnotoJuene.
          .  2Taminoaniline,  4-aminoaniline,  2-methoxyaniline,: 2-aminotoluene, ~ 3-aminotoluene   4-
          ,,,  aminotoluehe, aniline.       '         .     :  .      .
          .  1^-diphenylhydrazme, azobenzerje, aniline, diphenylamine, N^nitrosocSpnenylamine.
    4.!  Appendix  VIII  to Part 261
 to read as follows:.          -    ,
        .    Appendix VIII to Part 261  '[Amended]     !'    -         '   '           .•   :

      is  amended by  adding  'tiie following hazardous constituents  in alphabetical order
                   Common name
                                                            .  .  Chemical abstracts name
                                                                        ablS    Hazardous
                                                                          No    •  waste No.
• * - - Ģ'
Acetoacetanilide 	 	
Acetoa'cet-o-anisidide ..... 	 .....:
Acetoacet-o-toluidide ...a. 	
= •/-*- ' ' •* •
,2-Aminoaniline 	 	 	
4-Amirjoaniline .Ģ 	 ...- 	 ....'. 	
.•1 '
• ; *
3-Aminotoluene 	 	 '...
Azoberizene 	 	 	 	
-* *
2,4-Dirfiethylaniline 	 	 	 	
2,6-Dimethylaniline 	 	 	
* " *
1 ,3-Diriitrobenzene .ģ..'....". 	 	
"* i' . • ' • *
-2-MethoxyanHirie 	 ,.;..
.
2-Methoxy-5-nitroaniline .............
4-Methylphenol ...:. 	 	 	 	 	
* , . *
i :
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 	 ....
* . . * ••
"•' . . •'•*-'•'"•..' •'' • •' •* ' • -• '-,.'..•'.. •
	 	 	 Butanamide N-(2-meihoxyphenyI)-3-
	 	 	 	 	 Butanamide N-(2-methylphenyT>-3-oxo-
	 	 	 	 	 Benzenediamine 1,2-
	 	 	 	 	 r Benzenediamine, 14-..
	 	 	 Benzenamine 3-methyf- • - •
'••. •- • . *' •' ' - . • •' . i . ' •' " • '..-.- •".*
	 	 	 Azobenzene
' Ģ . ' . . -.•-•;•:.'••'"•ģ.. .i.


	 	 	 	 	 	 Benzenamine .2-methoxy- -*•.••
-' ' ' . . : ģ '•..•". '. ' t-
.; 	 .'.......„.„ 	 ;..;. Benzenamine 2-methoxy-5-nitro •' '
.-...„ 	 	 	 ;..;..........„ Phenol 4-rnethyl- .>
	 ; 	 .'. 	 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine • '

•:-:: • ' .'; Ģ :• '.''•'- ...'.
vģ 	 1U^— Ul— 2



°- '" .' ..'*'• , • • ' '
*'-"•'. \. * •j •
*.-"*-'• .". ' * ;. "';'. ' "'" :-'' - *" '
-*.............. " ' Sfr-66— 1 "
•••:ģĢĢ• 	 F. o/— o^:— f
' * - , "• . • *
QA_n^i_n
' • • -• • 	 L ; i - ' ,''"'',--
- " ,, "'*',.'. • _ * •
• • " '* - • ' ' *.-"".
* * \ • ' -. • '* . • ' '•"',* ••
AR-^H-fi
,,.'-. _ .*..'- • " • *. '-.'•

-------
66114     Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 1994  / Proposed Rules
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
                                       Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), and
                                     6926.    •. •.   •-,-"  ..,-i.i-: • '••• ::•••'.•:'••..'
                                                                         •§271.1  Purpose and scope.
                                                                         *    *   ;' * ... *    ,it
                                     6. Section 271.1(j) is amended by .       (j) * *  *
                                    adding the following entry,to Table 1 in ;  "   .   .
                ...,_„..    chronological order by date of
5. The authority citation for Part 271    publication to read as follows.     ,       -  .".  "
tvttiniiae #n roan ac tmmwc*'     -      ' r           .   v> ^         '  ~-'    ,-   ..' "• -  '  . •
continues to read as follows:'
          TABLE 1—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
       Promulgation date
                                  Title of regulation
Federal Register reference
                                                                                            Effective date
December 22,1994 .......
                           Usting Wastes from the Produc-' [Insert Federal Register page in- (Insert effective date].
                             tion of Dyes and Pigments.     :  numbers].,   . "   ' _,    ,: .'..;•...
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
                                      § 302.4  (Amended]     . .\     .
  7. The authority citation for Part 302      8_i Section 302.4 is amended by •
                                     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602,9603, arid 9604;  3d2.4 to read as follows. The
                                    33 U.S.C. 1321.and 1361.         .    ,     appropriate footnotes to Table 302.4 are
                                                                         republished without change.
continues to read as follows:
                                    adding the following entries to Table
                   TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES     :,  ,
                                                                           Statutory
                                                                                                 Final RQ
                Hazardous substance
                                                  ~.ODKI
                                                  CASRN
                                                                                  RORA
                                                                          code^  -W^te. -Category
K162 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of •

K164 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of . ' • . . "o' .
K1 65 Wastewaters from the production of azo dyes, exclud- _ " *
K166 Still bottoms or heavy ends from the production of tri- , ;: ,:1 • . ,^ -
• . ••••';'.•:•-...••..'' "". ••;•••' . ''>."''- •-
' 4
4
"4
• A
A
K162 , , . .-.'•-.-
K163 .
-K164. "• ' . ' '
... K168 .'•'. > "-.. • ... •'}•'_ .. "- . .'
* ' ' ' •
  ^—Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1,2,3. and 4 below.        •  -  •    ____...  _„„A 0  ...   --x-
  A—Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
  T—Indicates that the 1 pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory flQ.  ,            .     , ,-
 iFRDoc. 94-30767 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
 BH.UNO CODE 45W-60-P

-------