FR Doc 03-28783

[Federal Register: November 25, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 227)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66163-66230]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25no03-24]

[[Page 66163]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271, and 302

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Dyes and/or Pigments Production Wastes; Land Disposal
Restrictions for Newly Identified Wastes; CERCLA Hazardous Substance
Designation and Reportable Quantities; Designation of Five Chemicals as
Appendix VIII Constituents; Addition of Five Chemicals to the Treatment
Standards of F039 and the Universal Treatment Standards; Proposed Rule

[[Page 66164]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271, and 302

[RCRA-2003-0001; SWH-FRL-7587-6]
RIN 2050-AD80

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to list
nonwastewaters from the production of certain dyes, pigments, and FD&C
colorants as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), which directs EPA to determine whether these
wastes present a hazard to human health or the environment. EPA is
proposing a mass loading-based approach for these wastes. Under this
approach, these wastes are hazardous if they contain any of the
constituents of concern at annual mass loading levels that meet or
exceed regulatory levels. If generators determine that their wastes are
below regulatory levels for all constituents of concern, then their
wastes are nonhazardous. If their wastes meet or exceed the regulatory
levels for any of eight specific constituents of concern, the wastes
must be managed as listed hazardous wastes. However, even if the wastes
meet or exceed the regulatory levels, the wastes would not be hazardous
if two conditions are met: The wastes do not meet or exceed annual mass
loadings for toluene-2,4-diamine, and the wastes are disposed in a
Subtitle D landfill cell subject to the municipal solid waste landfill
design criteria or in a Subtitle C landfill cell subject to applicable
design criteria. When mass loadings meet or exceed the specified annual
levels, the generator may still manage as nonhazardous all wastes
generated up to the loading limit.
This proposal would also add the toxic constituents o-anisidine, p-
cresidine, 1,2-phenylenediamine, 1,3-phenylenediamine, and 2,4-
dimethylaniline associated with these identified wastes to the list of
constituents that serves as the basis for classifying wastes as
hazardous. In addition, this proposal would establish treatment
standards for the wastes.
If these dyes and/or pigments production wastes are listed as
hazardous waste, then they will be subject to stringent management and
treatment standards under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Additionally, this action proposes to designate these wastes as
hazardous substances subject to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The proposal would
not adjust the one pound statutory reportable quantity (RQ) for K181
waste, nor would EPA develop a ``reference RQ'' for the new
constituents identified for K181.
Other actions proposed in this notice would add o-anisidine, p-
cresidine, 1,3-phenylenediamine, toluene-2,4-diamine, and 2,4-
dimethylaniline to the treatment standards applicable to multisource
leachate and also to add these chemicals to the Universal Treatment
Standards. As a result, a single waste code would continue to be
applicable to multisource landfill leachates and residues of
characteristic wastes would require treatment when any of these
chemicals are present above the proposed land disposal treatment
standards.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
February 23, 2004. 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 filing a request with Mr. Robert Dellinger,
whose address appears below, by December 9, 2003. Consult the sources
of information in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the time and
location of the hearing, if such hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: OSWER Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-
0001. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as
provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
If you would like to file a request for a public hearing on this
proposal, please submit your request to Mr. Robert Dellinger at: Office
of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Identification Division (5304W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-7271 or via email at dellinger.robert@epa.gov.
See the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
information on how to submit your comments as well as view public
comments and supporting materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Call Center at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323 or review our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/dyes/index.htm.
For information on
specific aspects of the rule, contact Ms. Gwen DiPietro of the Office
of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (E-mail address and telephone number: dipietro.gwen@epa.gov, (703) 308-8285). For technical
information on the CERCLA aspects of this rule, contact Ms. Lynn
Beasley, Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response,
Emergency Response Center (5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (E-mail address and telephone number: beasley.lynn@epa.gov, (703) 603-9086).
For information on the procedures for submitting CBI data, contact Ms.
Regina Magbie (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (E-mail address and telephone number: magbie.regina@epa.gov, (703) 308-7909).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Who Potentially Will Be Affected by This Proposed Rule?

If promulgated as proposed, this regulation could directly impact
businesses that generate and manage certain organic dyes and/or
pigments production wastes. In addition, manufacturers that do not make
dyes or pigments, but that generate wastes containing selected
constituents of concern, may be indirectly impacted. This is because we
are adding new treatment standards for eight chemicals, and we are
adding five new constituents to the list of hazardous constituents on
appendix VIII of part 261. Thus, these actions may result in indirect
impacts on these manufacturers. In addition, landfill owners/operators
who previously accepted these wastes may be indirectly impacted. This
action may also affect entities that need to respond

[[Page 66165]]

to releases of these wastes as CERCLA hazardous substances. Impacts on
potentially affected entities, direct and indirect, are summarized in
section IX of this Preamble. The economics background document,
``Economic Assessment for the Proposed Loadings-Based Listing of Non-
Wastewaters from the Production of Selected Organic Dyes, Pigments, and
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Colorants,'' presents a comprehensive analysis
of all potentially impacted entities. This document is available in the
docket established in support of today's proposed rule. A summary of
potentially affected businesses is provided in the table below.
Our aim in the table below is to provide a guide for readers
regarding entities likely to be directly regulated, or indirectly
affected by this action. This action, however, may affect other
entities not listed in the table. To determine whether your facility is
regulated or affected by this action, you should examine 40 CFR parts
260 and 261 carefully, along with the proposed regulatory language
amending RCRA. This language is found at the end of this Federal
Register notice. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Summary of Facilities Potentially Affected by EPA's 2003 Dyes and/or Pigments Production Waste Listing Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC code NAICS code Industry sector name Estimated number of relevant facilities *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly Impacted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2865.................................. 325132-1................ Synthetic Organic Dyes.. 37
----------------------------------------------------
325132-4................ Synthetic Organic ............................................................
Pigments, Lakes, and
Toners.
---------------------------------------
Indirectly Impacted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2800.................................. 325..................... Chemical Manufacturing.. Less than 50 facilities total **
(except 2865)......................... (except 325132).........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4953.................................. 562212.................. Solid Waste Landfills ............................................................
and disposal sites,
nonhazardous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5169.................................. 42269................... Other Chemicals and ............................................................
Allied Products
(wholesale).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification.
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System.
* Note: The figures in this column represent individual facilities, not companies.
** Estimate based on 13 expanded scope facilities plus no more than 37 separate solid waste landfills (562212) potentially receiving wastes of concern.

How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0001. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
The docket for this proposed rulemaking currently contains no
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. If EPA receives such information
in comments or finds that it must use such information, it will place
it in the official docket, but will not make it available to the
public. The official public docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-
0270.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/, and you can make comments on this proposed rule at the Federal e-rulemaking portal, http://

http://www.regulations.gov.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Docket.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the RCRA Docket facility. EPA intends to work toward providing
electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials
through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,

[[Page 66166]]

will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute,
please follow the instructions provided later in this section. Do not
use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by
statute.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket
, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To
access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page,
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA-
2003-0001. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to rcra-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0001. In
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket,
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: OSWER Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0001.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
RCRA-2003-0001. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-0272, Attention
Docket ID. No. RCRA-2003-0001.

How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste
(5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0001. You may claim information that
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information
as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk
or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

[[Page 66167]]

6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

Readable Regulations

Today's proposed hazardous waste listing determination (or
``listing determination'') preamble and regulations are written in
``readable regulations'' format. The authors tried to use active rather
than passive voice, plain language, a question-and-answer format, the
pronouns ``we'' for EPA and ``you'' for the owner/generator, as well as
other techniques, including an acronym list (see below), to make the
information in today's proposed rule easier to read and understand.
This format is part of our efforts toward regulatory reinvention. We
believe that this format will help readers understand the regulations
and foster better relationships between EPA and the regulated
community.

Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC............................... Areas of Concern
AWQC.............................. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BDAT.............................. Best Demonstrated Available
Technology
BHP............................... Biodegradation, hydrolysis and
photolysis
BRS............................... Biennial Reporting System
CAA............................... Clean Air Act
CalEPA............................ California Environmental Protection
Agency
CARBN............................. Carbon Absorption
CAS............................... Chemical Abstract Services
CBI............................... Confidential Business Information
CCL............................... Compacted Clay Liner
CERCLA............................ Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act
CERCLIS........................... Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability
Information System
CFR............................... Code of Federal Regulations
CHOXD............................. Chemical or Electrolytic Oxidation
CL................................ Clay Lined
CMBST............................. Combustion
CMS............................... Corrective Measures Study
CoC............................... Constituent of Concern
CPMA.............................. Color Pigments Manufacturers
Association
CSF............................... Cancer Slope Factor
CWA............................... Clean Water Act
CWT............................... Centralized Wastewater Treatment
Facility (may also be referred to
as a wastewater treatment facility,
or WWTF)
ED................................ Environmental Defense (previously
the Environmental Defense Fund or
EDF)
EO................................ Executive Order
EP................................ Extraction Procedure
EPA............................... Environmental Protection Agency
EPACMTP........................... EPA's Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation
Products
EPCRA............................. Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act
ETAD.............................. Ecological and Toxicological
Association of Dyes and Organic
Pigments Manufacturers
EU................................ European Union
FB................................ Followed By
FDA............................... Food and Drug Administration
FD&C.............................. Food, Drug and Cosmetic
FR................................ Federal Register
GC/MS............................. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy
GCL............................... Geosynthetic Clay Liner
GM................................ Geomembrane
GRAS.............................. Generally Recognized as Safe
HAP............................... Hazardous Air Pollutant
HDPE.............................. High Density Polyethylene
HEAST............................. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Table
HELP.............................. Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance
HPLC/MS or UV..................... High Performance Liquid
Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy or
Ultraviolet Light
HPV............................... High Production Volume
HQ................................ Hazard Quotient
HSWA.............................. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IACM.............................. International Association of Color
Manufacturers
ICR............................... Information Collection Request
IRIS.............................. Integrated Risk Information System
IWAIR............................. Industrial Waste Air
KG................................ Kilogram
LDR............................... Land Disposal Restriction
MACT.............................. Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
mg/kg............................. Milligram per kilogram
mg/L.............................. Milligram per liter
MINTEQ............................ MINTEQ (model for geochemical
equilibria in ground water)
MSDS.............................. Material Safety Data Sheet

[[Page 66168]]

MSWLF............................. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
MT................................ Metric Ton
NAICS............................. North American Industrial
Classification System
NAPL.............................. Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NCV............................... National Capacity Variance
NESHAP............................ National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
NL................................ No Liner
NPDES............................. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPL............................... National Priority List
NRC............................... National Response Center
NSPS.............................. New Source Protection Standard
NTTAA............................. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OCPSF............................. Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers
OMB............................... Office of Management and Budget
OSW............................... Office of Solid Waste
OSWER............................. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
POTW.............................. Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ppb............................... Parts Per Billion
ppm............................... Parts Per Million
PRA............................... Paperwork Reduction Act
QA................................ Quality Assurance
QC................................ Quality Control
RCRA.............................. Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RFA............................... Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC............................... Reference Concentration
RfD............................... Reference Dose
RFI............................... RCRA Facility Investigation
RFSA.............................. Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis
RODS.............................. Record of Decision System
RQ................................ Reportable Quantity
SBA............................... Small Business Administration
SBREFA............................ Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
SIC............................... Standard Industry Code
SL................................ Synthetic Liner
SOCMI............................. Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry
SOP............................... Standard Operating Procedure
SRI............................... Stanford Research Institute
SW-846............................ Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes
SWMU.............................. Solid Waste Management Unit
TCLP.............................. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
TRI............................... Toxic Release Inventory
TSCA.............................. Toxic Substances Control Act
TSDF.............................. Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facility
TSS............................... Total Suspended Solids
UMRA.............................. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
USC............................... United States Code
UTS............................... Universal Treatment Standard
VOC............................... Volatile Organic Compound
WETOX............................. Wet Air Oxidation
WMU............................... Waste Management Unit
WWT............................... Wastewater Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents of This Proposed Rule

I. Overview
A. What Impact May This Proposed Rule Have?
B. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Proposed Rule?
II. Background
A. How Does EPA Define a Hazardous Waste?
B. How Does EPA Regulate RCRA Hazardous Wastes?
C. How Does EPA Regulate Solid Wastes That Are Not RCRA
Hazardous Wastes?
D. Overview of the Hazardous Waste Listing Determination Process
for Dyes and/or Pigments Production Wastes
1. Previous Proposals
2. Consent Decree Schedule for This Proposal
3. Effect on Proposals of Legal Actions Pertaining to
Confidential Business Information
E. Existing Regulations That Apply to This Industry
F. What Industries and Wastes Are Covered in This Proposed Rule?
1. Scope of Industry Classifications
2. Scope of Waste Classifications
G. Description of the Dyes and/or Pigments Production Industries
H. What Publicly Available Information Did EPA Collect and Use?
III. Approach Used in This Proposed Listing
A. Summary of Today's Action
B. Why Is a Mass Loadings-Based Approach Being Used for This
Listing?
C. What Wastes Are Generated by This Industry?
D. How Are These Wastes Currently Managed?
E. What Waste Management Scenarios Did We Select for Risk
Assessment Modeling?
1. Plausible Waste Management Selection Criteria and Modeling
Considerations
2. Selection of Waste Management Scenarios for Risk Assessment
Modeling of Dyes and/or Pigments Nonwastewaters
3. Selection of Waste Management Scenarios for Risk Assessment
Modeling

[[Page 66169]]

of Dyes and/or Pigments Production Wastewaters
F. What Factors Did EPA Incorporate Into Its Quantitative Risk
Assessment?
G. Overview of the Risk Assessment
1. How Did EPA Chose Potential Constituents of Concern?
2. What Was EPA's Approach to Conducting Human Health Risk
Assessment?
3. What Was EPA's Approach to Conducting the Ecological Risk
Assessment?
4. What Is the Uncertainty in the Risk Results?
5. How Did EPA Use Damage Case Information?
IV. Proposed Listing Determinations
A. What Are the Proposed Regulations for Dyes and/or Pigments
Production Nonwastewaters?
1. Landfill Scenarios Underlying Listing Loading Limits
2. Conditional Exemption for Certain Landfilled Wastes
3. Selecting K181 Constituents and Mass Loading Limits
4. Assessment of Biodegradation
5. Lead as a Potential K181 Constituent
6. Waste Analysis Concerns
7. Proposed Additions to Appendices VII and VIII of Part 261
8. Co-Generation With Out-of-Scope Wastes
B. How Does K181 Impact Wastes That Are Not Landfilled,
Combusted, or Previously Listed?
1. What Is the Status of Wastes That Are Not Landfilled?
2. What Is the Status of Wastes Destined for Combustion That
Trigger the K181 Listing Levels?
3. Applicability to Wastes That Are Already Hazardous
C. Why Are We Proposing Not To List Wastewaters?
1. Air Emissions From Tanks and Surface Impoundments
2. Groundwater Releases From Surface Impoundments
D. Scope of the Listings and the Effect on Treatment Residuals
E. What Is the Status of Previously Disposed Wastes and Landfill
Leachate From Previously Disposed Wastes?
V. Proposed Requirements for K181 Determinations
A. How Do I Demonstrate That My Wastes Are Nonhazardous?
1. Categorical Determination
2. No K181 Constituents of Concern
3. Low Quantity Versus High Quantity Wastes With K181
Constituents
4. Section (d)(2) Demonstrations for Waste Quantities Less Than
1,000 MT/yr
5. Section (d)(3) Demonstrations for Waste Quantities Greater
Than 1,000 MT/yr
6. EPA and State Oversight
B. How Do I Document Compliance With the Landfill Condition?
C. How Would I Manage My Wastes During the Period Between
Generation and Hazardous Waste Determination?
D. Implementation Examples
E. What Are the Consequences of Failing To Meet Recordkeeping
Requirements or Listing Conditions?
VI. Proposed Treatment Standards Under RCRA's Land Disposal
Restrictions
A. What Are EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)?
B. How Does EPA Develop LDR Treatment Standards?
C. What Treatment Standards Are We Proposing?
D. What Changes to Existing Treatment Requirements Are Proposed?
E. Other LDR-Related Provisions
F. Is There Treatment and Management Capacity Available for
These Proposed Newly Identified Wastes?
1. What Is a Capacity Determination?
2. What Are the Capacity Analysis Results?
VII. State Authority and Compliance
A. How Are States Authorized Under RCRA?
B. How Would This Rule Affect State Authorization?
C. Who Would Need to Notify EPA That They Have a Hazardous
Waste?
D. What Would Generators and Transporters Have to Do?
E. Which Facilities Would Be Subject to Permitting?
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit Requirements
2. Existing Interim Status Facilities
3. Permitted Facilities
4. Units
5. Closure
VIII. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities
A. What Is the Relationship Between RCRA and CERCLA?
B. How Does EPA Determine Reportable Quantities?
C. EPA Will Assign An RQ of One-Pound for The Waste
D. How Does a Mass Loading Limit Hazardous Waste Listing
Approach Relate to My Reporting Obligations Under CERCLA? When Would
I Need To Report a Release of These Wastes Under CERCLA?
E. How Would I Report a Release?
F. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Program?
G. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on Regulating K181 Under
CERCLA?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
1. Background
2. Need for the Proposed Rule
3. Consideration of Non-Regulatory Alternatives
4. Evaluation of Regulatory Options
5. Assessment of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Overview

A. What Impact May This Proposed Rule Have?

We are proposing to list nonwastewaters from the production of
certain dyes and/or pigments as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of
RCRA. If you are a dye, pigment or FD&C colorant manufacturer and you
generate nonwastewaters described in this proposed rule, then you would
need to determine if your wastes meet the new hazardous waste code,
K181, if finalized. Your waste would become a listed hazardous waste if
it contains annual mass loadings (kilograms/year, abbreviated as kg/yr)
of any of the K181 constituents of concern at a level equal to or
greater than the hazardous loading identified for that constituent (see
Table IV-1), unless you meet both of the following conditions: (1) Your
wastes do not contain annual mass loadings of the constituent for which
we are proposing a second, higher tier listing limit (see Table IV-2),
and (2) you manage your wastes in a Subtitle D landfill cell subject to
the design criteria in Sec. 258.40 or in a Subtitle C landfill cell
subject to Sec. 264.301 or Sec. 265.301. When mass loadings meet or
exceed the specified annual levels, you may still manage as
nonhazardous all wastes generated up to the loading limit. If you
determine that your nonwastewaters are hazardous under this listing,
then the wastes must be stored, treated and disposed in a manner
consistent with the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations at 40
CFR parts 260-272. If you were not previously a hazardous waste
generator, and you determine that you generate this newly-listed
hazardous waste, then you must notify the EPA or your authorized state,
according to section 3010 of RCRA, that you generate hazardous waste.
If you believe that your wastes do not exceed the K181 listing
levels, or that you meet the conditions for exclusion from the listing,
you can document your findings on an annual basis, and manage your
wastes as nonhazardous. If your annual generation of nonwastewaters
potentially subject to the K181 listing exceeds 1,000 metric tons and
you wish to demonstrate that your wastes do not exceed the K181 listing
levels, you must conduct sampling and analysis of the affected wastes,
calculate the constituent-specific mass-loadings, and keep certain
records of these wastes on-site. On the other hand, if your annual
generation of nonwastewaters potentially subject to the K181 listing is

[[Page 66170]]

less than 1,000 metric tons and you wish to demonstrated that your
wastes do not exceed the K181 listing levels, you can use your
knowledge of your wastes to calculate your wastes' mass loadings.
Following the initial determination that your wastes are nonhazardous
under this listing, you would have a continuing obligation to make such
a determination at least on an annual basis. After three consecutive
annual demonstrations that your wastes are not subject to K181, you
would be able to make subsequent determinations based on your knowledge
of the wastes, rather than by conducing waste analysis.
We are proposing not to list wastewaters from the production of
dyes and/or pigments.
Section II provides background on the Listing Program, past
proposed listing determinations for these wastes, relevant litigation,
the scope of this effort, an overview of this industry and the general
types of data that we used. Section III describes our approach to
conducting this listing determination. Section IV presents our basis
for concluding that nonwastewaters should be listed as K181 and that
wastewaters do not warrant listing. Section V describes the proposed
process for demonstrating that your wastes are not K181.

B. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Proposed Rule?

Except as specified below, these regulations are being proposed
under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3001(b), 3001(e)(2), 3004(d)-
(m), and 3007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a),
6921(b) and (e)(2), 6924(d)-(m), and 6927(a), as amended, most
importantly 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 6992(k) (42 U.S.C. 6901-
6992(k)).
Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is
the authority under which EPA is proposing amendments to 40 CFR part
302.

II. Background

A. How Does EPA Define a Hazardous Waste?

EPA's regulations establish two ways of identifying solid wastes as
hazardous under RCRA. A waste may be considered hazardous if it
exhibits certain hazardous properties (``characteristics'') or if it is
included on a specific list of wastes EPA has determined are hazardous
(``listing'' a waste as hazardous) because we found them to pose
substantial present or potential hazards to human health or the
environment. EPA's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (40
CFR) define four hazardous waste characteristic properties:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (see 40 CFR 261.21-
261.24). As a generator, you must determine whether or not a waste
exhibits any of these characteristics by testing the waste, or by using
your knowledge of the process that produced the waste (see Sec.
262.11(c)). While you are not required to sample your waste, you will
be subject to enforcement actions if you are found to be improperly
managing materials that are characteristic hazardous waste.
EPA may also conduct a more specific assessment of a waste or
category of wastes and ``list'' them if they meet criteria set out in
40 CFR 261.11. As described in Sec. 261.11, we may list a waste as
hazardous if it:

--Exhibits any of the characteristics noted above, i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (Sec. 261.11(a)(1));
--Is ``acutely'' hazardous, i.e., if it is fatal to humans at low
doses, or in the absence of human data, it has been shown in animal
studies to meet certain criteria, or otherwise capable of causing or
significantly contributing to an increase in serious illness (Sec.
261.11(a)(2)); or
--Is capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly managed (Sec.
261.11(a)(3)).

Under the third criterion, at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), we may decide to
list a waste as hazardous if it contains hazardous constituents
identified in 40 CFR part 261, appendix VIII, and if, after considering
the factors noted in this section of the regulations, we ``conclude
that the waste is capable of posing a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.'' We place a
chemical on the list of hazardous constituents on Appendix VIII only if
scientific studies have shown a chemical has toxic effects on humans or
other life forms. When listing a waste, we also add the hazardous
constituents that serve as the basis for listing the waste to 40 CFR
part 261, appendix VII.
The regulations at 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33 contain the various
hazardous wastes the Agency has listed to date. Section 261.31 lists
wastes generated from non-specific sources, known as ``F-wastes,'' and
contains wastes that are usually generated by various industries or
types of facilities, such as ``wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations'' (see code F006). Section 261.32 lists
hazardous wastes generated from specific industry sources, known as
``K-wastes,'' such as ``Spent potliners from primary aluminum
production'' (see code K088). Section 261.33 contains lists of
commercial chemical products and other materials, known as ``P-wastes''
or ``U-wastes,'' that become hazardous wastes when they are discarded
or intended to be discarded.
Today's proposed regulations would list certain dyes and/or
pigments production wastes as a K-waste code under Sec. 261.32. We are
also proposing to add constituents that serve as the basis for the
proposed listings to appendix VII of part 261, as well as to add
certain constituents to appendix VIII of part 261 that are not already
included.
``Derived-From'' and ``Mixture'' Rules
Residuals from the treatment, storage, or disposal of most listed
hazardous wastes are also classified as hazardous wastes based on the
``derived-from'' rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). For example, ash or
other residuals generated from the treatment of a listed waste
generally carries the original hazardous waste code and is subject to
the hazardous waste regulations. Also, the ``mixture'' rule (40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)) provides that, with certain limited
exceptions, any mixture of a listed hazardous waste and a solid waste
is itself a RCRA hazardous waste.

B. How Does EPA Regulate RCRA Hazardous Wastes?

If a waste exhibits a hazardous characteristic or is listed as a
hazardous waste then it is subject to federal requirements under RCRA.
These regulations affect persons who generate, transport, treat, store
or dispose of such waste. Facilities that must meet 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 regulations for hazardous wastes as may
be necessary to protect human health or the environment. EPA standards
and procedural regulations implementing Subtitle C are found generally
at 40 CFR parts 260 through 273.
All RCRA hazardous wastes are also hazardous substances under the

[[Page 66171]]

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as defined in section 101(14)(C) of the CERCLA statute. This
applies to wastes listed in Sec. Sec. 261.31 through 261.33, as well
as any wastes that exhibit a RCRA characteristic. Table 302.4 at 40 CFR
302.4 lists CERCLA hazardous substances along with their reportable
quantities (RQs). Anyone spilling or releasing a substance at or above
the RQ must report the release to the National Response Center, as
required in CERCLA section 103. In addition, section 304 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires
facilities to report the release of a CERCLA hazardous substance at or
above its RQ to State and local authorities. Today's rule proposes to
establish RQs for the newly listed wastes.

C. How Does EPA Regulate Solid Wastes That Are Not RCRA Hazardous
Wastes?

If your waste is a solid waste, but is not, or is determined not to
be a listed and/or characteristic hazardous waste, then you may manage
them at Subtitle D facilities. These facilities are approved by state
and local governments and generally impose less stringent requirements
on management of wastes. Subtitle D is the statutory designation for
that part of RCRA that deals with disposal of nonhazardous solid waste.
EPA regulations affecting Subtitle D facilities are found at 40 CFR
parts 240 thru 247, and 255 thru 258. Regulations for Subtitle D
landfills that accept municipal waste (``municipal solid waste
landfills'') are in 40 CFR part 258.

D. Overview of the Hazardous Waste Listing Determination Process for
Dyes and/or Pigments Production Wastes

1. Previous Proposals
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as
an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, Congress directed
EPA to establish a framework for RCRA's Subtitle C hazardous waste
program. Congress also required EPA to propose and write timely rules
identifying wastes as hazardous under Subtitle C.
In the early 1980's, the EPA's Office of Solid Waste began an
investigation of the wastes generated by the dyes and/or pigments
production industries. Then in 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA to significantly expand the scope
of RCRA, requiring EPA, in part, to make listing determinations for a
number of wastes including those from the manufacture of dyes and
pigments (RCRA section 3001(e)(2)). The Agency has made two listing
determination proposals with regard to organic dyes and pigments
manufacture, one in 1994 and another in 1999, according to the
deadlines set forth in a consent decree entered between EPA and
Environmental Defense (ED; formerly Environmental Defense Fund, or
EDF). The consent decree is described further in II.C.2.
On December 22, 1994, the Agency proposed its first listing
determinations for wastes from the production of organic dyes and
pigments (59 FR 66071). Specifically, the Agency proposed to list five
wastes, not to list six other wastes, and to defer action on an
additional three wastes. On July 23, 1999, the Agency proposed
concentration-based listings for two of the three deferred wastes from
the 1994 proposed rule (64 FR 40192). EPA redacted underlying data from
both proposals due to a court injunction that placed restrictions on
the Agency's release of underlying data with unresolved confidentiality
claims. (The court injunction is discussed further in II.C.3.) EPA has
not taken final action on either of these proposals.
Today's proposed rule completely supercedes the '94 and '99
proposals. We have transferred over to the new docket those non-CBI
materials that we are using as a basis for the new proposal.
2. Consent Decree Schedule for This Proposal
As noted above, HSWA established deadlines for completion of a
number of listing determinations, including for dyes and pigments
production wastes (see RCRA section 3001(e)(2)). Due to competing
demands for Agency resources and shifting priorities, these deadlines
were not met. As a result, in 1989, ED filed a lawsuit to enforce the
statutory deadlines for listing decisions in RCRA section 3001(e)(2).
(Environmental Defense v. Whitman, D.D.C. Civ. No. 89-0598.) To resolve
most of the issues in the case, in 1991 ED and EPA entered into a
consent decree which has been amended several times to revise the
deadlines for EPA action. Paragraph 1.h.(i) (as amended in December
2002) of the consent decree addresses the organic dyes and pigments
production industries:

EPA shall promulgate final listing determinations for azo/
benzidine, anthraquinone, and triarylmethane dye and pigment
production wastes on or before February 16, 2005 * * * These listing
determinations shall be proposed for public comment on or before
November 10, 2003.

Furthermore, paragraph 6.e. (as amended) stipulates that:

On or before November 10, 2003, EPA's Administrator shall sign a
notice of proposed rulemaking proposing land disposal restrictions
for dye and pigment wastes proposed for listing under paragraph
1.h.(i). EPA shall promulgate a final rule establishing land
disposal restrictions for dye and pigment wastes listed under
paragraph 1.h.(i) on the same date that it promulgates a final
listing determination for such wastes.

Today's proposal satisfies EPA's duty under paragraphs 1.h and 6.e
of the ED consent decree to propose listing determinations and land
disposal restrictions for the specified organic dyes and/or pigments
production wastes.
3. Effect on Proposals of Legal Actions Pertaining to Confidential
Business Information
In late 1994, just prior to EPA's issuance of the first listing
proposal for dyes and/or pigments production wastes, EPA was sued by a
number of pigment manufacturers who successfully sought an injunction
prohibiting EPA from releasing the companies' information that they had
submitted to EPA and claimed as Confidential Business Information
(CBI). (Magruder Color Co. v. EPA, Civ. No. 94-5768 (D.N.J.) The U.S.
District Court in New Jersey enjoined EPA from disclosing any of the
claimed CBI at issue in the litigation. As a result, EPA redacted
underlying data from both its 1994 and 1999 proposed dye and pigment
listing determinations. Members of the public (including ED) informed
EPA that they could not adequately comment on the proposals without
access to the redacted data.
EPA had intended to litigate the Magruder case and publish a notice
of data availability releasing any information that the Court
determined not to be CBI. However, litigation proved extremely time-
consuming. Consequently, in 2002 EPA decided to try a new strategy--
issuing a completely new proposal that did not rely on data subject to
the injunction in Magruder. EPA also reached a settlement with Magruder
plaintiffs that stayed the litigation during this new rulemaking and
permitted EPA to disclose certain specified masked and aggregated waste
sampling data. The Stipulation and Consent Order entered by the
District Court on June 30, 2003 is available in the docket for today's
proposal.
Today's proposal has been developed independently of the first and
second proposals. It does use some data developed for the 1994
proposal. First, it uses RCRA Sec. 3007 questionnaire

[[Page 66172]]

responses submitted by dyes and/or pigments manufacturers that were not
plaintiffs in Magruder and that we have determined are not CBI. We also
use the masked and aggregated data from EPA's record sampling and
analysis of dye and pigment wastes disclosed pursuant to the settlement
described above. Finally, we use some data submitted in public comments
that are not claimed as CBI. We are not using, however, any of the
analyses or background documents prepared for the two previous
proposals. We have conducted new analyses, prepared new background
documents, and reached new conclusions. Today's proposal completely
supersedes the 1994 and 1999 proposals. EPA does not intend to respond
to comments submitted on those proposals. Thus, if you believe that any
comments submitted on those proposals remains germane to today's
proposal, you should submit them (or relevant portions) again during
this comment period.

E. Existing Regulations That Apply to This Industry

RCRA authorizes EPA to evaluate industry waste management practices
and, if necessary, regulate how wastes are handled to ensure that
present or potential hazards are not posed to human health and the
environment. In addition to RCRA, the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Clean
Air Act (CAA) provide EPA with the statutory authority to evaluate
industry practices and, if necessary, regulate industry releases of
pollutants to environmental media such as water and air.
Currently, there are no hazardous waste listings under RCRA
specifically directed at organic dyes and/or pigments production
wastes. Organic dyes and/or pigments production waste streams may,
however, carry hazardous waste listing and/or characteristic codes if
they are generated from the use of certain common organic solvents
(spent solvent wastes F001 through F005) or if they exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic (ignitability-D001, corrosivity-D002, reactivity-
D003, toxicity-D004-D043). In addition, a variety of intermediates used
in dyes and pigments production are listed hazardous waste when
disposed as discarded commercial chemical products under Sec. 261.33.
EPA is not soliciting comment on these existing hazardous waste
listings and does not intend to respond to such comments if received.
As explained in section IV.B.3, EPA is proposing to exclude from
today's proposed listing dyes and/or pigments production wastes that
are subject to these existing listings or hazardous waste
characteristics.
Regulatory requirements under the CWA (40 CFR part 414) specify
effluent guidelines for wastewaters discharged from the organic
chemical industry, including certain dyes and/or pigments production
wastes that are discharged to navigable waters. These guidelines are
implemented through national pollutant discharge elimination system
(NPDES) permits. These regulations apply to dyes and/or pigments
production wastes that originate from the manufacture of cyclic crudes
and intermediates, dyes, and organic pigments classified under SIC 2865
(among various organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
(OCPSF) products). In addition, manufacturers who discharge wastewaters
generated from dyes and/or pigments production to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) may be required to comply with general
pretreatment requirements (40 CFR part 403) as established by the POTW.
Finally, some dyes and/or pigments manufacturers send their wastewaters
to privately-owned centralized wastewater treatment facilities (CWTs)
that are operated under NPDES permits. The Agency promulgated effluent
guidelines for these facilities at 40 CFR part 437.
Under the CAA, there are existing regulatory requirements for the
organic chemical industry that may apply to dyes and/or pigments
production facilities, such as:
[sbull] 40 CFR part 60--several subparts on standards of
performance for VOC emissions for new stationary sources.
[sbull] 40 CFR part 61--national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants on equipment leaks from fugitive emission sources,
benzene operations, etc.
[sbull] 40 CFR part 63--several subparts on national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the synthetic
organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI).
[sbull] 40 CFR part 68--chemical accident prevention provisions.
[sbull] 40 CFR part 82--protection of stratospheric ozone.
For example, 40 CFR part 60 subpart Kb provides standards of
performance for volatile organic liquid storage vessels; subpart III
provides standards of performance for VOC emissions from the SOCMI air
oxidation unit processes; and subpart RRR provides standards of
performance for VOC emissions from the SOCMI reactor processes. The
NESHAP in part 63 subpart F applies to chemical manufacturing
processing units; the NESHAP in part 63 subpart G applies to process
vents, storage vessels, transfer operations, and wastewater; the NESHAP
in part 63 subpart H covers equipment leaks; the NESHAP in part 63
subpart I applies to certain processes subject to the negotiated
regulation for equipment leaks; and the NESHAP in part 63 subpart Q
applies to industrial cooling towers.
There is also a proposed new source performance standard (NSPS) for
volatile organic compound emissions for wastewaters from the synthetic
organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) (see 59 FR 46780,
September 12, 1994; and 63 FR, 68087; and December 9, 1998, amendments
to the proposed rule based on public comments and changes to other
SOCMI rules). This SOCMI Wastewater NSPS proposal will most likely be
promulgated and published in the Federal Register in late 2003 or early
2004. Furthermore, the Agency proposed on April 4, 2002, Subpart FFFF
NESHAP, to reduce hazardous air pollutants from the miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing and the miscellaneous coating
manufacturing categories (67 FR 16154). This proposal would apply to
the production of a variety of SIC 28/NAICS 325 organic chemicals
including organic dyes and pigments.
In addition, the Agency has promulgated performance standards and
emission guidelines for new and existing commercial and industrial
solid waste incineration units burning nonhazardous wastes (see 65 FR
75337; December 1, 2002). The Agency also has recently proposed a
NESHAP for industrial/commercial/institutional boilers and process
heaters identified as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions (see 63 FR 1659; January 13, 2003).
There are also air emission regulations for steam generating
boilers under 40 CFR Part 60 Subparts D, Da, Dc and Db that provide New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) limiting emissions from boilers
built after certain dates. Moreover, the Agency has published an
amendment for standards of performance for industrial-commercial-
institutional steam generating units located at chemical manufacturing
plants and petroleum refineries burning high-nitrogen byproduct/wastes
(66 FR 49830; October 1, 2001).

F. What Industries and Wastes Are Covered in This Proposed Rule?

1. Scope of Industry Classifications
EPA based many of its decisions concerning the scope of the
industries and wastes covered in this proposal on the ED v. Browner
consent decree. Paragraph 1.h.(i) of the consent decree stipulates
that:

[[Page 66173]]

EPA shall promulgate final listing determinations for azo/
benzidine, anthraquinone, and triarylmethane dye and pigment
production wastes * * * The azo/benzidine listing determination
shall include the following azo/benzidine dye and pigments classes:
azo, monoazo, diazo, triazo, polyazo, azoic, benzidine, and
pyrazolone. The anthraquinone listing determination shall include
the following anthraquinone dye and pigment classes: anthraquinone
and perylene. The triarylmethane listing determination shall include
the following triarylmethane dye and pigment classes: triarylmethane
and triphenylmethane.

Today's proposal applies only to certain organic dye and/or pigment
production industries. The end-user markets for dyes and pigments,
which include textiles, paper, leather, inks, paints, coatings,
plastics, fibers, lacquers, varnishes, cosmetics, food items, and other
low volume markets, are not within the scope of our listing
determination. Similarly, we are not addressing wastes from the post-
production formulation and packaging of dyes and/or pigments.
Consistent with both HSWA Amendments of 1984 and the consent decree,
EPA is only making proposed determinations on wastes from the
production of the organic dyes and/or pigments at issue.
Facilities impacted by today's proposal manufacture a range of
products. Some are exclusive dye manufacturers, while others produce
exclusively pigments. Others produce both pigments and dyes, and many
of these facilities produce other products that are not dyes or
pigments. While the various trade associations have asserted over time
that wastes from dye manufacture differs from wastes from pigment
manufacture, we are not differentiating between the two types of
products for the purposes of this proposal. Dyes and pigments commonly
use similar raw materials, and pigments are often made by
insolubilizing dyes. The mass loadings-based approach proposed today
will only impact those facilities that generate wastes with significant
levels of the K181 constituents, irrespective of whether they are
associated with dyes, pigments or both processes. As a result, this
notice uses the terminology ``dyes and/or pigments'' to refer to all of
the facilities or processes potentially impacted by this proposal.
Products produced by the organic dyes and/or pigments industries
that are included within the scope of this proposed rule are referred
to as ``dyes,'' ``pigments'' or ``FD&C colorants.'' The consent decree
covers three major chemical classes of organic dyes and pigments: azo/
benzidine, anthraquinone, and triarylmethane. This includes entities
who manufacture azo, monoazo, diazo, triazo, polyazo, azoic, benzidine,
and pyrazolone categories of the azo/benzidine class; anthraquinones
and perylenes; and triarylmethane and triphenylmethane categories of
the triarylmethane class.
Commenters on the previous proposed listing determinations for
these wastes raised several questions about the range of products that
would be associated with any listed wastes from the production of dyes
and/or pigments. For the purposes of clarity, we are addressing those
particular concerns in today's proposal. One commenter \1\ stated that
wastes from the manufacture of polymeric colorants should not be
included in the proposed listings. The commenter noted that polymeric
colorants are not classified as dyes or pigments by various
authoritative sources and are not considered dyes or pigments by
industry or end-users. Specifically, the commenter noted that (1) no
polymeric colorant is listed in the worldwide dyes registry
administered by the United Kingdom-based Royal Society of Dyers and
Colourists, i.e., the Colour Index; and (2) polymeric colorants do not
appear to qualify as a conventional dye or pigment under the guidelines
provided in Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Fourth
Edition). The commenter described polymeric colorants as polymers with
much higher molecular weights (approximately 3,500) than either dyes or
pigments (less than 500). The commenter also noted that in prior
rulemakings (e.g., carbamate rulemaking \2\ and polymer exemption
provisions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)),\3\ EPA
recognized the reduced toxicity associated with higher molecular weight
molecules. The commenter further noted that producers of such products
claim that the manufacturing process and end uses of polymeric
colorants are different than dyes or pigments in that polymeric
colorants must be non-staining. The dyes manufacturers' trade
association, ETAD, noted in their comments that they do not classify
polymeric colorants as dyes.\4\ We agree that polymeric colorants do
not fall within the classes of products of interest to today's
proposal. Wastes from production of polymeric colorants, therefore, are
not within the scope of today's proposed listing determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Milliken comments on 1994 and 1999 proposals, available
in the docket for today's proposal.
\2\ 60 FR 7824, 7830 (February 9, 1995).
\3\ 40 CFR 723.250.
\4\ See ETAD's comments on 1994 proposal, available in the
docket for today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several commenters \5\ stated that perylene and perinone pigments
are misclassified as anthraquinones. They argue that although the
Colour Index classifies perylenes and perinones as being subclasses of
anthraquinone, these pigment classes are not structurally related to
anthraquinones and are not derived from anthraquinone-based raw
materials, and therefore, should be classified separately. While there
may be a question as to whether perylenes should be classified as
anthraquinones, we are proposing to retain wastes from the production
of perylene products within the scope of today's proposed listing
determination. The consent decree specifically requires us to assess
perylene products, and therefore we must make listing determinations
that cover any corresponding wastes, regardless of whether or not
perylenes are properly classified as anthraquinones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See comments on the 1994 proposal submitted by CDR, Bayer,
and CPMA, and on the 1999 proposal submitted by CPMA, available in
the docket for today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding perinone pigments, while the Colour Index groups
perinones under the broader classification of ``Anthraquinones and
Related Colouring Matters,'' we are persuaded by the commenters'
arguments that these products are sufficiently dissimilar from
anthraquinones. Perinones do not have the quinone-type structure that
is distinctive of anthraquinones, but rather perinones are derivatives
of naphthalene-1,4,5,8-tetracarboxylic acid.\6\ Therefore, we are not
proposing that perinones be covered by today's proposed listing
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ For example, see the perinone pigment: C.I. Pigment Orange
43; in this case the pigment has only one carbon bound to an oxygen
in a carbonyl group (instead of two in the typical anthraquinone)
and this carbon is bonded to a nitrogen in an amide linkage (instead
of a carbon in an anthraquinone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenters also stated that quinacridone pigments are not within
the anthraquinone pigment category since they are quinonoid in type and
carry Colour Index numbers outside of the anthraquinone category. We
agree that these products are sufficiently dissimilar from
anthraquinones. Quinacridones are classified as acridines, which have a
nitrogen in the fused ring system.\7\ Therefore, we are not proposing
to include their wastes

[[Page 66174]]

within the scope of today's proposed listing determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ For example, see the quinacridone pigment: C.I. Pigment Red
202; this pigment has only one carbonyl group (instead of two in the
typical anthraquinone) and instead of another carbonyl moiety the
molecule has a nitrogen in the typical acridine ring structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional information on polymeric colorants, perylenes,
perinones, and quinacridones is presented in the ``Background Document
for Identification and Listing of Wastes from the Production of Organic
Dyes and Pigments'' (hereafter referred to as the Listing Background
Document) and in the referenced comments which are available in the
public docket for today's proposal.
2. Scope of Waste Classifications
Paragraph 1.h.(ii) of the consent decree describes the dyes and/or
pigments production wastes that must be addressed by our listing
determination:

Listing determinations under paragraph 1(h) of this Decree shall
include the following wastes, where EPA finds such wastes are
generated: spent catalysts, reactor still overhead, vacuum system
condensate, process waters, spent adsorbent, equipment cleaning
sludge, product mother liquor, product standardization filter cake,
dust collector fines, recovery still bottoms, treated wastewater
effluent, and wastewater treatment sludge.

In this proposal, we have grouped all of the wastes for these
industries that are identified in the consent decree into two major
categories of process wastes: Wastewaters and nonwastewaters. Some
manufacturers may commingle nonprocess wastes (i.e., cafeteria and
office refuse, sanitary wastes) with wastewaters or nonwastewaters from
dyes and/or pigment production. We consider these nonprocess wastes to
be outside the scope of the consent decree and we have not evaluated
them. However, if they are commingled with the process nonwastewaters
that we propose to list, they will be regulated as K181 hazardous
wastes under the RCRA mixture rule.

G. Description of the Dyes and/or Pigments Production Industries

Organic dye and/or pigment manufacturers are typically concentrated
near large metropolitan areas, with the majority of facilities located
on the East Coast and in the Midwest. We estimate that there are 37
dyes and/or pigments production facilities operating in the United
States by about 29 different companies (a few larger companies operate
several facilities).\8\ Of this universe, we estimate that about 15 of
these companies meet the Small Business Administration definition of a
small business (total company employment of fewer than 750 people at
the corporate level).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ ``Economic Assessment for the Proposed Loadings-Based
Listing of Non-Wastewaters from the Production of Selected Organic
Dyes, Pigments, and Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Colorants,'' U.S. EPA.
November, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kirk-Othmer defines dyes as intensely colored or fluorescent
organic substances which impart color to a substrate by selective
absorption of light.\9\ When applied, dyes penetrate the substrate in a
soluble form, after which they may or may not become insoluble. The
structure of dyes is temporarily altered during the application process
and colors are imparted only by selective absorption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ ``Dyes and Dye Intermediates.'' Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology, Fourth Edition. Volume 8. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dyes are used to color fabrics, leather, paper, ink, lacquers,
varnishes, plastics, cosmetics, and some food items. Several thousand
individual dyes of various colors and types are manufactured. This
large number is attributable to the many different types of materials
to which dyes are applied and the different conditions of service for
which dyes are required.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ ``Chemical Economic Handbook Marketing Research Report--
Dyes,'' SRI International, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synthetic dyes are derived in whole or in part from cyclic
intermediates. Approximately two-thirds of the dyes consumed in the
United States are used by the textiles industry to dye fabrics, and
about one-sixth are used for coloring paper, while the remainder are
used primarily in the production of organic pigments and in the dyeing
of leather and plastics.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ ``Synthetic Organic Chemicals United States Production and
Sales, 1991,'' USITC Publication 2607, February 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commercial dyes are sold in several physical forms including
granular, powders, liquid solutions, and pastes. The dyes contain color
at concentrations ranging from approximately 1 to more than 98
percent.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ ``Chemical Economic Handbook Marketing Research Report--
Dyes,'' SRI International, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organic dyes are classified in several ways, including their
chemical structure or class, general dye chemistry, and application
process. Chemical structure classifications include azos,
triarylmethanes, diphenylmethanes, anthraquinones, stilbenes, methines,
polymethines, xanthenes, phthalocyanines, sulfurs and so on. Kirk-
Othmer describes the common application process classes of dyestuffs to
include acid dyes, mordant dyes, metal complex dyes, direct dyes,
fiber-reactive dyes, basic dyes, vat dyes, sulfur dyes, disperse dyes,
ingrain dyes/azoic dyes, and other dyes. Using general dye chemistry,
textile dyes typically are grouped into the following categories: acid
dyes, direct (substantive dyes), azoic dyes, disperse dyes, sulfur
dyes, fiber reactive dyes, basic dyes, oxidation dyes, mordant (chrome)
dyes, developed dyes, vat dyes, pigments, optical/fluorescent
brighteners, and solvent dyes.\13\ The trade association representing
the dye industry is the Ecological and Toxicological Association of
Dyes and Organic Pigments Manufacturers (ETAD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ S. V. Kulkarni, C. D. Blackwell, A. L. Blackard, C. W.
Stackhouse, and M. W. Alexander, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, ``Project
Summary Textile Dyes and Dyeing Equipment: Classification,
Properties, and Environmental Aspects,'' EPA/600/S2-85/010, April
1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Color Pigment Manufacturers' Association (CPMA), which
primarily represents the pigments industry, defines pigments as
``colored, black, white, or fluorescent particulate organic or
inorganic solids, which usually are insoluble in, and essentially
physically and chemically unaffected by, the vehicle or substrate in
which they are incorporated.'' \14\ According to the CPMA, the primary
difference between pigments and dyes is that pigments are insoluble in
the substrate during the application process, while dyes are soluble in
the substrate. Pigments retain a crystalline or particulate structure
and impart color by selective absorption or by scattering of light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See, for example, CPMA comments on the Testing of Certain
High Production Volume Chemical; Data Collection and Development on
High Production Volume (``HPV'') Chemicals Proposed Rule and Notice
65 FR 81658, December 26, 2000, Docket Control No. OPPTS-42213A,
http://www.thecre.com/watchlist/20010423_cpma.html#start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The approximate percentage of synthetic organic pigments by use
during 1991-1995 was as follows: inks (60%), paints and coatings (25%),
plastics (10%), and other (5%). Pigments are used primarily in printing
inks. There are fewer pigments produced than dyes, however, pigment
batches generally are larger in size. U.S. production of organic
pigments increased by 5 percent during 1997-99, from 75,500 tons to
79,500 tons. Production is estimated to increase at an average annual
rate of 2.7 percent through 2005.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Data and estimates taken from Will, Raymond and Akihiro
Kishi. SRI International, The Chemical Economics Handbook, 2001. CEH
Marketing Research Report--Pigments (pages 3 and 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organic pigments are derived in whole or in part from benzenoid
chemicals and colors and are described as being toners or lakes. Toners
and lakes essentially are the same in final form, but differ in their
preparation method.

[[Page 66175]]

FD&C colorants are dyes and pigments that have been certified or
provisionally certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for
use in food items, drugs, and/or cosmetics. The International
Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) represents certain FD&C
colorant manufacturing facilities. Typically, FD&C colorants are azo,
anthraquinone, or triarylmethane dyes with azo representing the largest
category. These products are similar or identical to larger-volume dye
products not used in food, drugs, and cosmetics.
The dyes and/or pigments industries typically operate successive
batch processes producing varying dyes and/or pigments products. These
batch operations generate a wide variety of solid wastes periodically.
Wastes are often commingled from multiple processes prior to
management, and include secondary wastes generated from the treatment
of commingled waste (e.g., facilities commingle wastewaters prior to
managing them in tanks or impoundments, and generate commingled
wastewater treatment sludges). Some wastes may also be process-specific
wastes that are generated from a specific process and may be managed
independently of other wastes (e.g., spent filter aids).\16\, \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ ``Dyes and Dye Intermediates.'' Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology, Fourth Edition. Volume 8. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. 1993.
\17\ ``Pollution Prevention Guidance Manual for the Dye
Manufacturing Industry.'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Ecological and Toxicological Association of the Dyestuffs
Manufacturing Industry. 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more detailed information, see the Listing Background Document
available in the public docket for today's proposed rule.

H. What Publicly Available Information Did EPA Collect and Use?

In light of the constraints imposed by the Magruder injunction on
survey and analytical data with unresolved CBI claims, we identified a
variety of publicly available sources of information for today's
listing determinations. We used these data (as described elsewhere in
this proposal and in the docket materials available in the public
docket for today's proposal) for several purposes: (1) To support a
general assessment of the dyes and/or pigments industries' waste
generation and management practices; (2) to develop a list of potential
constituents of concern; (3) to identify plausible waste management
scenarios that are the basis for our risk assessment and listing
determination; and (4) to project potential impacts associated with the
proposal.
The more important data sources we used include the following:

--Non-CBI RCRA Sec. 3007 questionnaire information and data, collected
during the 1992 Agency survey of wastes generated in the dyes and/or
pigments industries, and supplemented, corrected, and updated (for the
year 1997) by the surveyed facilities. Surveys submitted by the twelve
plaintiffs in Magruder remain unavailable. The available surveys are
(1) surveys submitted by non-plaintiffs who made no CBI claims; (2)
surveys submitted by non-plaintiffs who made CBI claims, but later
withdrew them; and (3) surveys submitted by non-plaintiffs who made CBI
claims, which EPA denied under the procedures set out in 40 CFR part 2.
--EPA's analytical data from sampling and analysis of the wastes of
concern, developed in the early 1990s and used to support the 1994 and
1999 proposed listing determinations, as masked and aggregated per
Table 1 of the June 2003 settlement agreement with the Magruder
plaintiffs.
--Split sample analytical data submitted by the Color Pigments
Manufacturing Association (CPMA), in a letter dated April 20, 1994 from
J. Lawrence Robinson of CPMA to Ed Abrams of EPA.
--The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for Reporting Year 2000.
--The European Union (EU)'s directive for a community ban on
azocolourants (76/769/EEC, Annex I, point 43), relating to restrictions
on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and
preparations (azocolourants).
--Public comments without CBI claims submitted on the 1994 and 1999
proposed listing determinations.
--Colour Index 2.0, Intermediates Database, Third Edition, July 1999.
--Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Fourth Edition,
2001.
--The Stanford Research Institute (SRI)'s 2000 Directory of Chemical
Producers.
--Information provided by trade associations (CPMA and ETAD) in 2002-
2003 regarding the status of dye, pigment and FD&C facilities
potentially generating the wastes of concern.
--Information provided by trade associations (CPMA and ETAD) in 2002-
2003 regarding onsite waste management units for dyes and/or pigments
manufacturers potentially generating the wastes of concern.
--Dyes and/or pigments manufacturers' websites.

III. Approach Used in This Proposed Listing

A. Summary of Today's Action

In hazardous waste listings promulgated by EPA, we typically
describe the scope of the listing in terms of the waste material and
the industry or process generating the waste. However, in today's rule,
we are proposing to use a newly developed ``mass loadings-based''
approach for listing dyes and/or pigments production wastes. In a mass
loadings-based listing, a waste would be hazardous once a determination
is made that it contains any of the constituents of concern at or above
specified mass-based levels of concern.
In this proposed rule, we identify constituents of concern likely
to be present in nonwastewaters which may pose a risk above specified
mass loading levels. Using risk assessment tools developed to support
our hazardous waste identification program, we assessed the potential
risks associated with the constituents of concern in plausible waste
management scenarios. From this analysis, we developed ``listing
loading limits'' for each of the constituents of concern.
If you generate any dyes and/or pigments production nonwastewaters
addressed by this proposed rule, you would be required either to
determine whether or not your waste is hazardous or assume that it is
hazardous as generated under today's proposed K181 listing. (Note, we
are proposing that if wastes are otherwise hazardous due to an existing
listing in Sec. Sec. 261.31-33 or the hazardous waste characteristics
in Sec. Sec. 261.21-24, the listing under K181 would not apply.) We
are proposing a three-step determination process. The first step is a
categorical determination where you would determine whether your waste
falls within the categories of wastes covered by the listing (e.g.,
nonwastewaters generated from the production of dyes and/or pigments
that fall within the product classes of azo, triarylmethane, perylene
or anthraquinone) and whether any of the regulated constituents could
be in your waste. If you determine under this first step that your
waste meets the categorical description of K181 and that your waste may
contain any K181 constituent, you would then in the second step
determine whether your waste meets the numerical standards for K181
(e.g., compare the mass loading of the regulated constituents in your
waste to the numerical standards). Your waste

[[Page 66176]]

would be a listed hazardous waste if it contains any of the
constituents of concern at a mass loading equal to or greater than the
annual hazardous mass limit identified for that constituent. Under the
proposed approach, all waste handlers may manage as nonhazardous all
wastes generated up to the loading limit, even if the waste
subsequently exceeds one or more annual mass loading limits. The
detailed descriptions of the steps you would be required to follow to
demonstrate that your waste does not exceed the K181 listing limits is
presented in section V. Finally, in the third step, you would be able
to determine whether your waste is eligible for a conditional exemption
from the K181 listing. You would need to demonstrate that your waste
does not exceed a higher loading limit for one constituent and that it
is being disposed of a landfill subject to design standards set out in
Sec. 258.40, Sec. 264.301, or Sec. 265.301.

B. Why Is a Mass Loadings-Based Approach Being Used for This Listing?

We have previously proposed two concentration-based listing
determinations that were similar to today's proposal of a mass
loadings-based listing. These proposals (the 1999 dyes and pigments
listing proposal and the 2001 paint listing proposal) identified
concentrations that would have served as listing levels for the
constituents of concern for those wastes. Both proposals dealt with
industries that generate highly variable wastes. We believed these
proposals added a valuable level of flexibility to the listings, by
clarifying the levels at which the wastes of concern began to pose risk
that warranted hazardous waste control. These levels would have served
as both pollution prevention goals, whereby facilities could reengineer
their processes to minimize specific risks, and built-in delisting
levels, allowing generators to exit the Subtitle C system without
invoking the rulemaking process required by the current Delisting
Program.
As we assessed this approach, we concluded that a mass loadings-
based approach to listing dyes and/or pigments production wastes as
hazardous has all of the advantages of a concentration-based listing.
For example, a mass loadings-based approach allows generators to
evaluate the variable wastes they generate individually for hazard, so
only wastes that are hazardous are listed. As a result, there should be
less burden on dyes and/or pigments manufacturers than would be imposed
by a traditional listing that would bring entire wastes into the
hazardous waste system, regardless of the amount of constituents found
in wastes generated by individual generators. Also, a mass loadings-
based listing approach may provide an incentive for hazardous waste
generators to modify their manufacturing processes. For example, if a
manufacturer has a listed hazardous waste based on constituent-specific
mass loading levels established by EPA, the generator knows that if the
wastes' mass loading levels are reduced below the regulatory level due
to raw material substitution or process change, the waste would not be
regulated as a listed hazardous waste. Therefore, the generator may
decide to substitute raw materials in order to generate a nonhazardous
waste. This approach encourages waste minimization and reduced use of
toxic constituents, goals of both RCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990).
Section 1003 of RCRA states that one goal of the statute is to
promote protection of human health and the environment and to conserve
valuable 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 it 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.
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 provides a hierarchy of
approaches. Pollution should be prevented or reduced; wastes that
cannot be prevented should be recycled or reused in an environmentally
safe manner; wastes 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. If EPA provides a mass loadings-based
target in the listing, generators would have regulatory and economic
incentives to meet the reduced levels.
The mass loading approach also offers two additional advantages. It
will improve environmental protection by capturing large volume, dilute
wastes that would not be regulated under a concentration-based
approach. Also, since it requires less data from individual facilities,
it allows us to move forward on the last of the HSWA-mandated listings
without complete resolution of the Magruder CBI litigation.
While this approach represents a new way of assessing wastes, we
believe that the underlying concepts of assessing the mass of
constituents of concern are similar to other EPA programs, including
reporting that may be required for major sources under the CAA, for
facilities subject to the TRI, and for facilities subject to NPDES
permits. Many facilities potentially impacted by this listing will
already be assessing constituent masses under these types of programs.
EPA solicits public comment on all aspects of this mass-loading-
based approach to making a listing determination, including the impact
of such an approach compared to approaches used in the past (e.g.,
concentration-based approach) and its usefulness as a means of
encouraging pollution prevention.

C. What Wastes Are Generated by This Industry?

As explained earlier in Section II.G, we estimate that currently
there are 37 active dyes and/or pigments facilities operated by 29
companies (excluding those no longer making in-scope dyes and/or
pigments products and those due to be closed) based on the information
provided by the trade associations (CPMA, ETAD and IACM) in 2002-2003.
Based on the non-CBI portions of the 1992 RCRA Sec. 3007 survey
data (as supplemented and updated) submitted by entities who were not
plaintiffs in the Magruder litigation, organic dyes and/or pigments
manufacturers mainly generate the following types of waste: Wastewaters
(including process washes, equipment rinse waters, and other waste
liquors), spent solvents, still bottoms, wastewater treatment sludge
and other solid materials (such as emission control dust and fines,
off-specification products, spent filter aids/cloths, process sludge
and filter cake.)
We estimate that the 37 dyes and/or pigments production facilities
generate up to 22 million metric tons of wastewaters and 69,000 metric
tons of nonwastewaters per year.\18\ Our estimates of wastewater
generation rates were based on rates reported in NPDES permits for
those facilities that discharge directly to surface water. For
facilities that discharge their wastewaters indirectly through POTWs,
we estimated their wastewater generation rates using data compiled by

[[Page 66177]]

the Office of Water in support of the OCPSF effluent guidelines
development process. We estimated nonwastewater generation rates by
applying engineering estimates of wastewater treatment sludge
generation rates. Wherever possible, we used facility-specific
generation rates, including those provided in non-CBI public comments
and non-CBI portions of Sec. 3007 surveys. Note that our estimates of
nonwastewater generation rates do not include estimates of waste solids
other than wastewater treatment sludges (e.g., filter solids, off-
specification products, etc.). Our review of the non-CBI Sec. 3007
data show that these waste quantities are often significantly smaller
than wastewater treatment sludge quantities generated at the same
facilities. At the same time, our estimated nonwastewater quantities
are likely to be somewhat overstated due to our use of conservative
assumptions about the amount of sludge generated during wastewater
treatment. Consequently, we believe that our estimates of wastewater
treatment sludge volumes are large enough to encompass volumes of the
other types of solids generated by these facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See ``Economic Assessment for the Proposed Loadings-Based
Listing of Non-Wastewaters from the Production of Selected Organic
Dyes, Pigments, and Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Colorants' in the
public docket for today's proposed rule for a description of our
waste quantity estimation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. How Are These Wastes Currently Managed?

We used the following sources to characterize the management of
those wastes covered by this listing determination:
[sbull] Non-CBI portions of RCRA Sec. 3007 surveys submitted by
facilities that are not plaintiffs in the Magruder litigation.
[sbull] Non-CBI public comments on the 1994 and 1995 proposed
listing determinations for this industry.
[sbull] State agencies.
[sbull] TRI.
[sbull] Industry trade associations.
[sbull] Facility Web sites.
The non-CBI surveys (available in the docket for today's rule)
provided limited historical data about the waste management practices
performed by the surveyed facilities, including: Wastewater treatment
in tanks, wastewater treatment and/or storage in surface impoundments,
discharge of wastewaters to a POTW or under NPDES, solvent recovery,
combustion of waste solids/liquids onsite or offsite, fuel blending in
industrial furnaces, and disposal of nonwastewaters in nonhazardous
landfills onsite or offsite, and disposal of nonwastewaters in
hazardous offsite landfills.
We explored a number of more recent publicly available data sources
to update the non-CBI survey information on the waste management
practices at the operating dyes and/or pigments production facilities
and to understand current management practices at facilities whose
survey data were unavailable due to the Magruder injunction. We
reviewed non-CBI information from public commenters on the December 22,
1994 and July 23, 1999 proposed rules. The commenters claimed that all
the onsite land disposal units of concern (nonhazardous waste landfills
and surface impoundments) described in the 1992 RCRA Sec. 3007 survey
were equipped with protective liners, or had been replaced with tanks,
or were closed or undergoing closure. (These comments have been placed
in the docket for today's proposal.)
In 2002 we contacted nine State agencies to learn about the
existing status of onsite land disposal units located at potential dyes
and/or pigments production facilities in those States.\19\ None of the
State contacts identified any facilities with active onsite land
disposal units, with the exception of a single facility slated for
closure that was described as operating surface impoundments equipped
with double high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See ``On-Site Waste Management Determination,'' dated May
20, 2003 in the public docket for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, we reviewed the most recent available TRI data
(reporting year 2000) for onsite and offsite chemical releases of
interest at the dyes and/or pigments production facilities. As
summarized in the Listing Background Document, the TRI data describes a
variety of management practices, including: discharge to POTW or
surface water; thermal treatment in offsite incinerators, cement kilns,
energy recovery facilities, or fuel blenders; disposal in onsite
landfills; disposal in offsite landfills; and shipment to waste brokers
or treatment facilities.
We also met with the three primary trade associations (CPMA, ETAD,
and IACM) in December of 2002. The trade associations reviewed our
compilation of available information regarding onsite waste management
practices at known dyes and/or pigments production facilities. (See
meeting summaries available in the public docket for today's proposed
rule.) Both CPMA and ETAD collected additional information, and
provided input on the status of those identified onsite waste
management practices (copies available in the public docket for today's
proposed rule). ETAD indicated that the only active onsite landfill was
at a facility that treats waste by incineration prior to disposal. This
is consistent with TRI reporting data, which show that the only
constituents of concern that were disposed of in the onsite landfill
were metals (presumably the organic constituents were effectively
destroyed). Furthermore, ETAD confirmed that the production of dyes at
this facility was a very small fraction of the onsite production
processes. Thus, we believe that the use of this one onsite landfill
was not representative of management practices for the waste we are
evaluating. Based on all of this information, we concluded that all
wastes of concern going to landfills are disposed of in offsite
landfills. As discussed further in the following sections, we
ultimately concluded that all of the landfilled wastes are placed in
municipal solid waste landfills.
Consistent with their comments on the 1994 and 1999 proposals, the
trade associations asserted that there are currently no active unlined
surface impoundments at operating dyes and/or pigments production
facilities that receive untreated in-scope wastes, since the previously
identified unlined or clay-lined onsite impoundments had been closed.
The trade associations were also able to confirm that one production
facility treats wastewater in an impoundment with double composite
liners (including synthetic materials) and a leachate collection
system, and that one other facility with a double-lined impoundment was
scheduled to close.
In a subsequent review of some facility websites, we discovered
that one facility operates onsite surface impoundments. According to
the State regulating authority contacted, these impoundments are clay-
lined and are used to store wastewater after treatment and prior to
NPDES discharge. This facility is discussed in more detail in section
IV.C.

E. What Waste Management Scenarios Did We Select for Risk Assessment
Modeling?

This section summarizes our findings and conclusions concerning
current dyes and/or pigments production practices for nonhazardous
waste management; the plausible waste management scenarios that we
chose to model for the risk assessment; and why we did not model
certain management practices.
We chose to model three waste management scenarios based upon our
review of the current waste handling practices reported in the publicly
available data and the plausibility that these scenarios represent
actual practices that are used or could be used for disposal of dyes
and/or pigments production wastes. The scenarios that

[[Page 66178]]

we chose are nonwastewaters disposed in nonhazardous municipal solid
waste landfills; wastewaters stored and treated in on-site tanks prior
to discharge to a POTW or under a NPDES permit; and wastewaters managed
in onsite surface impoundments prior to discharge to a POTW or under a
NPDES permit. The general criteria for selection of plausible waste
management scenarios and the rationale for choosing each of these
scenarios are described in this section.
1. Plausible Waste Management Selection Criteria and Modeling
Considerations
Our regulations at Sec. 261.11(a)(3)(vii) require us to consider
the risk associated with ``the plausible types of improper management
to which the waste could be subjected'' because exposures to wastes
(and therefore the risks involved) will vary by waste management
practice. The choice of which ``plausible management scenario'' (or
scenarios) to use in a listing determination depends on a combination
of factors which are discussed in general terms in our policy statement
on hazardous waste listing determinations contained in the first
proposed Dyes and Pigments Listing Determination (59 FR 66072, December
22, 1994). We have applied this policy in all subsequent listings and
believe it is appropriate to continue to apply it here.
Our approach to selecting waste management scenarios to model for
risk analysis is to examine current industry management practices;
assess whether or not other practices are available to the industry;
and to decide what practices the industry would reasonably be expected
to use. There are common waste management practices, such as
landfilling, which we generally presume are plausible for solid wastes
and which we will evaluate for potential risk. There are other
practices which are less common, such as land treatment, which we
consider plausible only where the disposal methods have been reported
to be practiced. Where a practice is actually reported in use, that
practice is generally considered ``plausible'' and may be considered
for potential risk. In some situations, potential trends in waste
management for a specific industry suggest we will need to project
``plausible'' management even if it is not currently in use in order to
be protective of potential changes in management and therefore in
potential risk. We then evaluate which of these current or projected
management practices for each waste are likely to pose significant risk
based on an assessment of exposure pathways of concern associated with
those practices.
2. Selection of Waste Management Scenarios for Risk Assessment Modeling
of Dyes and/or Pigments Nonwastewaters
The majority of nonwastewaters are landfilled. Based on information
available as we started our risk analyses, we decided to model disposal
of nonwastewaters in both offsite municipal solid waste landfills and a
small number of onsite and offsite nonhazardous industrial waste
landfills. After we began these analyses, ETAD submitted additional
information indicating that our initial information regarding an onsite
landfill was not relevant, as the facility operating that landfill
treats waste by incineration prior to disposal. In addition, we
obtained information from the State of Illinois regarding the offsite
landfill that we had initially identified as an industrial landfill,
clarifying that this landfill in fact accepts municipal wastes.
Consequently, we decided that disposal in an industrial landfill is not
a plausible management practice for these wastes, and we are basing our
proposed listing decision solely on our assessment of disposal in
MSWLFs. Upon receipt of this information, we modified our subsequent
modeling runs to reflect a landfill distribution that was solely made
up of MSWLFs.
The primary difference between modeling industrial nonhazardous
landfills and municipal landfills is that industrial nonhazardous
landfills are slightly smaller than municipal landfills so the
quantities of dyes and/or pigments production waste modeled in an
industrial landfill would be a relatively larger proportion of the
total waste quantities going into the unit. Given the linear nature of
our modeling for the organic loading limits, we do not believe that the
model results would differ significantly if the landfill size
distribution reflected industrial landfills. The preliminary runs that
we conducted on a distribution of industrial and municipal landfills
reflected our preliminary (and incorrect) characterization of some of
the currently used landfills as industrial nonhazardous landfills.
These preliminary results were very similar to the results for MSWLFs
only (that serve as the basis for today's proposal).
We modeled three liner scenarios: unlined, clay-lined, and
synthetic-lined landfills. The risk assessment in section III.G.2.d.i
contains more details about our risk modeling for landfills and the
three liner scenarios. In past listings, EPA has not included the
effect of liners in the modeling of releases from landfills.
Previously, we generally assumed that liners may fail over the long
term, and therefore we modeled landfills as if they were unlined. We
have been reluctant to take liners into account due to the
uncertainties in the long term efficacy of liners and because we lacked
data that we could use to project infiltration rates from a lined
unit.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ For example, we argued this most recently in the
chlorinated alphatics listing, where we concluded that uncertainties
regarding the long-term effectiveness of landfill liners were
sufficient to support a decision to list. We emphasized, however,
that this decision was specific to a waste containing high
concentration of mercury, a highly toxic, very persistent
constituent. 65 FR 67101 (Nov. 8, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

More recently, EPA has modeled reduced infiltration rates for lined
landfills to support the Guide for Industrial Waste Management. The
Industrial Waste Evaluation Model (IWEM) incorporated models to
evaluate the groundwater protection afforded by various liner
systems.\21\ For modeling composite liners, the IWEM used empirical
data for infiltration rates collected from lined landfills. As part of
the effort to characterize and develop distributions for the
infiltration rates through liners, EPA collected information for
nonhazardous waste management unit liner systems (i.e., the rates of
leachate infiltration through liners).\22\ EPA is today proposing to
use data collected in this effort to construct distributions of
infiltration rates for modeling of Subtitle D MSWLFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM)
Technical Background Document. EPA530-R-02-012, U.S. EPA, August
2002. See also http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/industd/iwem_tbd.htm
.
\22\ ``Characterization of Infiltration Rate Data to Support
Groundwater Modeling Efforts,'' Draft Final TetraTech, Inc.
September 28, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe it is appropriate to consider liners in today's listing
determination for several reasons. First, we have no indication that
these wastes are (or are likely to be) landfilled in cells without
liners. In comments on the earlier listing proposals for dye and
pigment wastes, industry groups (ETAD and CPMA) stated that industry
does not use unlined landfills; ETAD went further and identified the
landfills being used by their members and described the liner systems
in place at these landfills. Second, CERCLA liability concerns create
strong incentives against the operation of such units by landfill
owners and against the placement of these wastes in such units by waste
generators. Third, our data show that the industry uses municipal solid
waste landfills. These units have been subject to the Part 258
standards

[[Page 66179]]

since the regulations were promulgated in 1991. Fourth, we previously
have considered the attenuative properties of liners in prior listing
determinations for surface impoundments (e.g., see the proposal for
listing paint manufacturing wastes at 66 FR 10108, February 13, 2001),
as well as in the Guide for Industrial Waste Management. Finally, we
now have data describing infiltration rates through various liner
systems, allowing us to build distributions reflective of real
landfills. For these reasons, we believe it is now appropriate to
assess the impact of liners on the attenuation of toxicants in waste
management units, where such liners are widely used for the disposal of
the wastes of interest. We request comments on this approach.
Available data suggests that a relatively small portion of the
nonwastewaters from dyes and/or pigments production are combusted and,
consequently, that combustion is a plausible management method. We
chose not to model combustion. In past listing determinations where we
have attempted to assess risks from incineration, we found that the
potential risks from the release of constituents through incineration
would be at least several orders of magnitude below potential air risks
from releases from tanks or impoundments (see listing determination for
solvent wastes at 63 FR 64371, November 19, 1998). Further, it is
difficult to model what goes into combustion units in relation to the
residual constituents that are released from the combustion unit either
in ash or air.\23\ We believe the existing and proposed air regulation
can effectively regulate these combustion units, as described in
section II.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Whle other products of incomplete combustion may present
possible risks, it is difficult for us to assess this potential for
the chemicals of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, we did not model management in Subtitle C landfills.
Subtitle C modeling is unnecessary, since we modeled a less protective
MSWLF scenario. Finally, we also did not model management scenarios
that involved recycling. We had no information to lead us to believe
that such practices involved land placement. As explained below, we
modeled air releases from wastes in tanks and found no risks warranting
listing. We think secondary materials stored in tanks prior to
recycling would pose similarly low risks.
3. Selection of Waste Management Scenarios for Risk Assessment Modeling
of Dyes and/or Pigments Production Wastewaters
As delineated in section III.D, the publicly available data showed
a number of management scenarios of interest for wastewaters from
production of dyes and/or pigments: management in tanks or surface
impoundments prior to discharge to a POTW or under an NPDES permit;
incineration; and fuel blending in industrial furnaces.
We modeled two scenarios: (1) Onsite treatment of wastewater in
tanks, and (2) onsite management of wastewaters in clay-lined and
synthetic-lined surface impoundments. As described in the previous
section, currently operating organic dyes and/or pigments production
facilities manage their wastes in these types of units. We also modeled
unlined surface impoundments, although we did not use these results as
the basis for our listing determination. We believe unlined
impoundments are unlikely to be utilized for untreated wastewater, not
only because our data do not indicate that such units are currently in
use, but also because storage or treatment in an impoundment without
any kind of liner seems unlikely.
For surface impoundments, EPA has recently relied on the
effectiveness of liners in deciding not to list wastewaters from paint
manufacturing.\24\ Although we did not try to model liner performance
for paint wastewaters, we assumed that composite liners provide
significant protection during the relatively short operational life of
an impoundment (30 to 50 years). As noted in the final determination
for paint manufacturing wastes, we believe that the level of protection
afforded by a liner system would be significant (67 FR 16267).
Furthermore, if leaks occurred during its operating life, the unit can
be drained and repaired. Since we do not have data on infiltration
rates for lined surface impoundments, we used calculated infiltration
rates. This is the same approach used for the IWEM guidance, referenced
above for lined landfills; see the Risk Background Document for today's
proposal for more discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See the proposed rule at 66 FR 10108 (Feb. 13, 2001) and
the final rule at 67 FR 16267 (Apr. 4, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We believe it is appropriate to consider liners in modeling surface
impoundments in today's listing determination for reasons similar to
those noted for landfills in the above section. Specifically, our data
indicate that the untreated wastewaters in scope are not (and are not
likely to be) managed in impoundments without liners. Industry groups
(ETAD and CPMA) have confirmed that there are no active unlined surface
impoundments at operating dyes and/or pigments production facilities
that receive untreated in-scope wastes. We believe it is less likely
that unlined landfills would be in operation in the future, given
liability concerns. Also, we are using an approach similar to that we
used for describing infiltration rates through various liner systems
for the IWEM guidance. We request comments on this approach.
We did not assess discharges of wastewaters by dye and/or pigment
facilities under NPDES permits or discharges to POTWs. The discharges
to surface waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act by means of
NPDES permits or national pretreatment standards. Many of these
discharges are excluded from RCRA hazardous waste regulation. See 40
CFR 261.4(a)(1) and (2). We also chose not to model combustion of
wastewaters in incinerators, cement kilns or industrial furnaces. In
the previous section on nonwastewaters, we explain the Agency's
rationale for not modeling combustion or fuel blending. That rationale
applies equally to wastewaters.

F. What Factors Did EPA Incorporate Into Its Quantitative Risk
Assessment?

In making listing determinations, the Agency considers the listing
criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11. The criteria provided in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3) include eleven factors for determining ``substantial
present or potential hazard to human health and the environment.'' Nine
of these factors, as described generally below, are incorporated into
EPA's risk assessment for the wastes of concern:
[sbull] Toxicity (Sec. 261.11(a)(3)(i)) is considered in
developing the health benchmarks used in the risk assessment modeling.
[sbull] Constituent concentrations (Sec. 261.11(a)(3)(ii)) and the
quantities of waste generated (Sec. 261.11(a) (3)(viii)) are combined
in the calculation of mass loading levels that pose a hazard.
[sbull] Potential to migrate, persistence, degradation, and
bioaccumulation of the hazardous constituents and any degradation
products (Sec. Sec. 261(a)(3)(iii), 261.11(a)(3)(iv), 261.11(a)(3)(v),
and 261.11(a)(3)(vi)) are all considered in the design of the fate and
transport models used to determine the concentrations of the
contaminants to which individuals are exposed.

[[Page 66180]]

As discussed in the previous section, we considered two factors,
plausible mismanagement and other regulatory actions ((Sec. Sec.
261.11(a)(3)(vii) and 261.11(a)(3)(x)) in establishing the waste
management scenario(s) modeled in the risk assessment.
One of the remaining factors of the eleven listed in 261.11(a)(3)
is consideration of damage cases (Sec. 261.11(a)(3)(ix)); this is
discussed in section G.5 below. The final factor allows EPA to consider
other factors as appropriate (Sec. 261.11(a)(3)(xi)).
EPA conducted analyses of the risks posed by the wastes evaluated
for this listing to determine the mass loadings of constituents that,
if found in dyes and/or pigments production wastes, would meet the
criteria for listing set forth in Sec. 261.11(a)(3). Section G
discusses the human health risk analyses and ecological risk screening
analyses EPA conducted to support our proposed listing determinations
for dyes and/or pigments production wastes. We consider the risk
analyses in developing our listing decisions for each of the wastes.

G. Overview of the Risk Assessment

We conducted a risk assessment to calculate the mass loadings of
individual constituents that can be present in waste and remain below a
specified level of risk to both humans and the environment.
To establish these listing levels, we: (1) Selected constituents of
potential concern in wastes from dyes and/or pigments production, (2)
evaluated plausible waste management scenarios (as described previously
in section III.E), (3) calculated exposure concentrations by modeling
the release and transport of the constituents from the waste management
unit to the point of exposure, and (4) calculated waste constituent
loadings that are likely to pose unacceptable risk. In addition, we
conducted a screening level ecological risk assessment to ensure that
the loading limits were protective of the environment.
The following sections explain the selection of the constituents
that we evaluated in the risk assessment and present an overview of the
analysis we used to calculate risk-based listing levels for
nonwastewaters and wastewaters from dyes and/or pigments production.
Details of the risk assessment are provided in the Risk Assessment
Background Document, which is in the docket for today's rule.
1. How Did EPA Chose Potential Constituents of Concern?
Our overall goal in choosing potential constituents of concern was
to identify a list of chemicals that could reasonably be expected to be
associated with wastes from the production of azo, triarylmethane,
perylene or anthraquinone dyes or pigments and that could be derived
entirely from sources that were not restricted by the Magruder
injunction.
We first created a primary list of all of the chemicals identified
in a series of non-CBI data sources, and then removed from that list
those compounds not expected to have toxicity benchmarks and those
chemicals not expected to be directly linked with the manufacture of
the dyes and pigments of concern. This process ultimately resulted in
the identification of 35 constituents of concern (CoC) (see Table III-1
below) that we further assessed via risk assessment. The details of
this analysis are described in ``Background Document: Development of
Constituents of Concern for Dyes and Pigments Listing Determination,''
available in the docket for today's proposal.

Table III-1.--Dyes and Pigments Constituents of Concern
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical compound Synonyms CAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aminoanthraquinone............. 2-Aminoanthraquinone... 117-79-3
Aniline........................ Benzenamine; 62-53-3
aminobenzene.
o-Anisidine.................... 2-Methoxyaniline, 2- 90-04-0
methoxybenzenamine.
Azobenzene..................... Diphenyldiazene, 103-33-3
diphenyl diimide.
Barium......................... ....................... 7440-39-3
Benzaldehyde................... ....................... 100-52-7
Benzidine...................... ....................... 92-87-5
4-4'-bis(dimethylamino) ....................... 90-94-8
benzophenone.
4-Chloroaniline................ p-Chloroaniline........ 106-47-8
Copper......................... ....................... 7440-50-8
p-Cresidine.................... 2-Methoxy-5- 120-71-8
methylbenzenamine, 3-
amino-4-methoxytoluene.
p-Cresol....................... 4-Methylphenol......... 106-44-5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene............ o-Dichlorobenzene...... 95-50-1
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine......... 3,3'-Dichlorobiphenyl- 91-94-1
4,4'-ylenediamine.
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine........ Dianisidine............ 119-90-4
2,4-Dimethylaniline............ 2,4-Xylidine........... 95-68-1
N,N-Dimethylaniline............ N,N-Dimethylbenzenamine 121-69-7
3,3-'Dimethylbenzidine......... 4,4'-bi-o-Toluidine, 119-93-7
diaminoditolyl.
Diphenylamine.................. N-Phenylbenzeneamine... 122-39-4
Formaldehyde................... ....................... 50-00-0
Lead........................... ....................... 7439-92-1
Methanol....................... ....................... 67-56-1
4,4'-Methylenedianiline........ p-p'-Diaminodiphenyl 101-77-9
methane; 4,4'-
methylene-
bis[benzenamine].
Naphthalene.................... ....................... 91-20-3
5-Nitro-o-anisidine............ 2-methoxy-5- 99-59-2
nitroaniline.
5-Nitro-o-toluidine............ 2-methyl-5- 99-55-8
nitroaniline; 2-amino-
4-nitrotoluene.
Phenol......................... ....................... 108-95-2
1,2-Phenylenediamine........... o-phenylenediamine, 2- 95-54-5
aminoaniline.
1,3-Phenylenediamine........... 3-Aminoaniline, m- 108-45-2
phenylenediamine.
1,4-Phenylenediamine........... 4-aminoaniline; p- 106-50-3
Phenylenediamine.
Sodium nitrite................. ....................... 7632-00-0
Toluene-2,4-diamine............ 4-m-tolylenediamine, 95-80-7
2,4-diaminoto