Thursday
December 22, 1994
Part II
c ' »
'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;.-:i«.ri~.
::-v--.-'':^'':A.?.:J
'%'^₯'.,&/-
«'!.; ,:';;?. ? .>~'^ ^
: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 «
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-«348 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:«.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 ':':-.
-------
F«deral 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 C£R 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 those« '-'
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! £:-% ^ iaflisl:^of hazardpus wastes from specific
.generally at 40 CFTR pai4s'260 through ;S; asjSur.cesi^'hfese^liistsJiaviB been amended
272. - »-'-..;' i-i'.-T''-«^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^.>/-.^ .?-^«^-"«.-;-;
^ _ 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,«. 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 «UL1.0 fiCuOIX OS Xj£liXV>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:;>- -?';'.'
EI»A 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 "
haz£irdous 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; ,
-------
«6074 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. T3»e ,
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:
.» -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 i»ailding
' 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 £adh° 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 « 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)gg«>ggmpnt fnrtlnn plangihlp snfnafSn " '
Note that EPA considers the extent to '
which the plausible management »' " .''
scenario«alc«iated 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 ' - .
«nyironmental 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
l»iler by one facility but placed in ai \
, landfill 1>y another would be projected '
to cause exposure through both the air
r«nd 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 . '
-. ' ^,-£\ in : 1 '$
K\f'i«*ft' ' ,\' V A rt'."' "»
' 4"'''^ v-'T >'» '/'A;
/' '" ' ^fs:ifj ',-' ' j ""''' :;'^
".'' IJffe'/^K'V ;.',;;; \:
-"''' .' '"/ " -' '-' -$^v\ ' !'.'i", 'V-
' .-.' '' ' i1^ "t^ ' » '.' " J
* ' » . * *»
: " _ - ' . - " . '
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
«B.
»»
o.
en
"
p-
IS9
V
5
e
en
CL
01
">*
a
1
KI
l-»
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~-» 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 - --
lX10p«andlxlO-«: , :..'. _.
(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 .-»
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., ±25% .
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:' -=.,-.' --_".,':»".'>.".'
;. ; The uncertainty of measurements at
the limit of detection -(3 times the : '
standard deviation estimation [o]) :
approaches ±100% (3o±3o).
> At the point of reliable detection r.
(6o±3o), the uncertainty of
measurement approaches ±50%.
j« hi the area of accurate quantitation
(lOo to 120), uncertainty approaches
±30% to ±25%, 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 ±30% 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. .' ' -' -''« ",.*".'''" '"'-
-------
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
TechnologyVolume 8, "Dyes and 0ye . > ;'
Intermediates." -.' " '* - " '.-."''
* 1992 RCRA Section 3007 Questionnaire Data. -'
5 "PigmentsA 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' » '
. 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 (/.«., ._
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 IHuman 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
-------
£8086 " 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 h»gh 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
_i« j*_^_ £~.«Ji..«-^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 an£ 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 ESTIMATESK162WASTEWATER 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=1£-5 .
Risk=7E-6
HQ <1
:Risk<1£-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
HQ«cl
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 ' - .
SToisicity estimated based on metabolic similarity to chemical analog. . ; .-. r . . ..- ...
TABLE 11-3.K162RISK VALUES FOR DISPOSAL IN A MONOFILL {OTHER THAN DRINKING CONTAMINATED GROUND
j .: WATER) , ' . . . . , -
I . Constituent . '-;'... ...
i;3-Din5trobenzene. . ;,.'*. .
2-Aminotoluene . ... "
2 4 6-Trichlorophenol « .............. ............
3 S'-Dichlofobenzkiine '-** » ,..... ................
Acetoacet-o-toiuidine »»«.»«»..».«.' n«..»..».»*...... ...»».«».»«
Acetoacetanilide ^ .-. - , r^,,,,,,'--,,--^
Total Carcinogen Risk : .-._... ; -..
Vegetable ingestion
Central
R-4E-5 -
R=3E-6
«=1E-6
R=1E-
R=2E-3
R=4E-3
ft=3E-6 ,!
R=8E-3
High end
R=4E-5 -
«=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=4£-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 .
IE4 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 n4 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 «...*-
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.,
IE4 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
IE4 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 281Basis 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
«ignificant 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
»
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. ' , ' ' - - '" ' " "'.'-". , :'"'-; ' ;
JwSamples where estimated concerrtrations are below quantitation limits, '(#)' indicates number of samoles that
SToxiciry 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:, i3E4 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
261Basis 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, K154WASTEWATER 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=2£-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, K154WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE FROM THE
PRODUCTION OF Azo DYESContinued - - .
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. , "»'- -',.'..-.: .:..,,- -.--,:-
**" Exposure through Ingestion of ground nyater. - -..%»-'-,.. ........ -.-.-; .-;* j- --. - v .. » ^.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. ...-...
SToxIcity 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'£"-'- "- 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 four«zo 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 «xposure 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 261Basis 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 261Hazardous
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 11-7WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND'RISK ESTIMATES K165WASTEWATERS 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
- ' > .
>».........»
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'
',"'''«;-*
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.
SToxicity estJinated based on metabolic similarity to chemical analog. '. .,«,.. '.~'~''.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,' £
-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'"- "-'":.« :
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
261Basis 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. «3*»«*J £«n« 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 .-. »-,.-. -.
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 »
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 .,±.
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 ha«a»H nn HRI (far 1 9-Hinhonuthur4ra7ina ' .-.-.;.. ^ ..,. ..... -i ;v .»-.-
#ofpts
f.n.
'tri. V''.
ta
Notes
J(2) ' -
i .. '.'*"
'-*' ^
"Inhalation exposure through air pathway. ' , ' :...... ;,-. r-, r,, y. ,,:.?«, ,...,....;..-,_-. .. .--.;.
*" Exposure through Ingestion of ground water., . - ,-i.-. . ' ^-.~ '^^:'^---:^-:.-:f.^^ ^\:-;^: >>,.,-.,-.. ^
in. Relevant data are not Included at the present time due to business confidentiality cbrx»ms. ., . , , --;v v...>
Noles: All concentrations are In mg/l. . . - . . ..,..,- . ..,.- . / ;, , ..,.-,.
J(«)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 IE4
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*v«« w««<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 foci«6eSZfinfi&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..~,,'- ».- ia ^. on the risk associated with treatment in
«*w-f*w**i*.A»«. ivM. v»t/c.imjmx lAJzttpouiiQSi, iHUKSj to© 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 « S^11 *>o«oras or feeayy ends from .^^ted with management in an oa-
t^^tift^ *_ _« .1 . the production of triarylmeJhans d ves or ^ tooller* ^practice which is both a «
pigments (K166). . - baseline manageme, at practice and a
Summary . ' ~ plausible jnanagement scenario.
The.Ageacyfa proposing to list «titl -^ IHl?cas^on. .'...: _
'Rhis wastestrram includesdistillation
bottoms from the production of
-"~" *««"-«*Ot3«*»»JXilCfIX&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: «- U tnsurymaeUiane dye and pigments, which
was^reammeets &«CT,tena setoutat are.generated from solvenfand raw
recovery
e, dbnethylaniline, «w
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.
«=2E-6
HOeJ
no air
HBL
R=2E-6
.
*RisV«wmbefSoase
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=?£^
HQ=3
no air
HSL
R^2E-5
end
fl-JE-5
noaJr
^~
^
R=SE-5
.
uwngeraent
OjvsiteraonofiH
Centra!
lend.
R>9E-«
- . ~-
£i1
1 :
JW5E-3
(
. ";. :
'ligih
«nd
1 HI 1 »»^-^^^
'ffc>i9F^?
'Tia'WcO
- .
ft«E-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
6E5 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 261Basis 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 HB£
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: ", ,
"« -Triple-rinsing raw material = . "
shipping containers and returning the .'
rinsate directly to the reactor; . .
« 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
tp» 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
« 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 Hptt»rmir»at>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, . .. V« .
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 «et exit criteria for «ny --
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 WS»IBWC«BIB >«iu uc IK.I~.OU ... «»"» -: ^
"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
ProtectiTe£losmre 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 261IDENTIFICATION 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^^%^'-.;:' '£%$$&%!§ $'Z&:--. '"--':;'.' '' ''!';'".->'';' '""'." -''.- '
1 EPA hazardous waste No.
'." APPENDIX VllBASIS 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.
* - - «'
Acetoacetanilide
Acetoa'cet-o-anisidide ..... .....:
Acetoacet-o-toluidide ...a.
= /-*- ' ' *
,2-Aminoaniline
4-Amirjoaniline .« ...- ....'.
.1 '
; *
3-Aminotoluene '...
Azoberizene
-* *
2,4-Dirfiethylaniline
2,6-Dimethylaniline
* " *
1 ,3-Diriitrobenzene .»..'....".
"* 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
' « . ' . . -.-;:.''"».. .i.
Benzenamine .2-methoxy- -*.
-' ' ' . . : » '..". '. ' t-
.; .'........ ;..;. Benzenamine 2-methoxy-5-nitro ' '
.-... ;..;.......... Phenol 4-rnethyl- .>
; .'. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine '
:-:: ' .'; « : '.'''- ...'.
v» 1U^ Ul 2
°- '" .' ..'*' , ' '
*'-"'. \. * j
*.-"*-' .". ' * ;. "';'. ' "'" :-'' - *" '
-*.............. " ' Sfr-66 1 "
:»«« 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 271REQUIREMENTS 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 1REGULATIONS 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 302DESIGNATION,
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-
AIndicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
TIndicates 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
------- |