Tuesday, February 13, 2001
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 148, et al. Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Paint Production Wastes; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION If these paint production wastes are original and two copies of CBI under AGENCY listed as hazardous waste, then they will separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document be subject to stringent management and Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste 40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271, and treatment standards under Subtitle C of (5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 302 RCRA. Additionally, this action Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. [SWH–FRL–6940–6] proposes to designate these wastes as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For hazardous substances subject to the general information, contact the RCRA RIN 2050–AE32 Comprehensive Environmental Hotline at (800) 424–9346 or TDD (800) Response, Compensation, and Liability 553–7672 (hearing impaired). In the Hazardous Waste Management Act (CERCLA) and to adjust the one System; Identification and Listing of Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call pound statutory reportable quantities (703) 412–9810 or TDD (703) 412–3323. Hazardous Waste; Paint Production (RQs) for these substances. Other Wastes; Land Disposal Restrictions for For information on specific aspects of actions proposed in this notice would the rule, contact Ms. Patricia Cohn or Newly Identified Wastes; CERCLA add acrylamide and styrene to the Hazardous Substance Designation and Mr. David Carver of the Office of Solid treatment standards applicable to Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Reportable Quantities; Designation of multisource leachate and designate n-Butyl Alcohol, Ethyl Benzene, Methyl Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania styrene as an underlying hazardous Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Isobutyl Ketone, Styrene, and Xylenes constituent. As a result, a single waste as Appendix VIII Constituents; (E-mail addresses and telephone code would continue to be applicable to numbers: [email protected] (703– Addition of Acrylamide and Styrene to multisource landfill leachates and the Treatment Standards of F039; and 308–8675); [email protected] (703– residues of characteristic wastes would 308–8603)). For technical information Designation of Styrene as an require treatment when styrene is Underlying Hazardous Constituent on the CERCLA aspects of this rule, present above the proposed land contact Ms. Lynn Beasley, Office of AGENCY: Environmental Protection disposal standards. Emergency and Remedial Response, Agency (EPA). DATES: EPA will accept public Analytical Operations and Data Quality ACTION: Proposed rule. comments on this proposed rule until Center (5204G), U.S. Environmental April 16, 2001. Comments postmarked Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to amend after this date will be marked ‘‘late’’ and Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, the regulations for hazardous waste may not be considered. Any person may [E-mail address and telephone number: management under the Resource request a public hearing on this [email protected] (703–603–9086)]. Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) proposal by filing a request with Mr. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: by listing as hazardous certain waste David Bussard, whose address appears solids and liquids generated from the below, by February 27, 2001. How Do I Submit Comments to This production of paint. EPA is proposing a ADDRESSES: If you would like to file a Proposed Rule? concentration-based listing approach for request for a public hearing on this We are asking prospective each of these wastes. Under this proposal, please submit your request to commenters to voluntarily submit one approach, the identified paint Mr. David Bussard at: Office of Solid additional copy of their comments on production wastes are hazardous if they Waste, Hazardous Waste Identification labeled personal computer diskettes in contain any of the constituents of Division (5304W), U.S. Environmental ASCII (text) format or a word processing concern at concentrations that meet or Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania format that can be converted to ASCII exceed regulatory levels. Generators Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (text). Specify on the disk label the word must determine whether their wastes (703) 308–8880. processing software and version/edition are listed hazardous wastes. If their If you wish to comment on this as well as the commenter’s name. This wastes are below regulatory levels for all proposed rule, you must send an will allow us to convert the comments constituents of concern, then their original and two copies of the comments into one of the word processing formats wastes are nonhazardous. We are also referencing docket number F–2001– used by the Agency. Please use mailing proposing a contingent management PMLP–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket envelopes designed to physically option for waste liquids. These wastes Information Center, Office of Solid protect the submitted diskettes. We would not be subject to the listing if Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental emphasize that submission of comments they are stored or treated exclusively in Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, on diskettes is not mandatory, nor will tanks or containers prior to discharge to HQ), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., it result in any advantage or a publicly owned treatment works or Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries disadvantage to any commenter. discharged under a Clean Water Act of comments should be made to the If you submit comments national pollutant discharge elimination RCRA Information Center (RIC) located electronically, identify comments in system permit. This proposal would at Crystal Gateway, First Floor, 1235 electronic format with the docket also add the toxic constituents n-butyl Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. number F–2001–PMLP–FFFFF. You alcohol, ethyl benzene, methyl isobutyl You also may submit comments must submit all electronic comments as ketone, styrene, and xylenes found in electronically by sending electronic an ASCII (text) file, avoiding the use of these identified wastes to the list of mail through the Internet to: special characters and any form of constituents that serves as the basis for [email protected]. See the beginning encryption. classifying wastes as hazardous, and to of the Supplementary Information establish treatment standards for the section for information on how to How Can I View Supporting Documents wastes. Due to the uncertainties in our submit your comments as well as view for This Proposed Rule? assessment of the management of paint public comments and supporting You may view either the paper or manufacturing waste liquids in surface materials. electronic form of public comments and impoundments, we are also considering Please do not submit any confidential supporting materials accompanying an alternative proposal not to list paint business information (CBI) today’s proposal. You may access the manufacturing waste liquids. electronically. You must submit an paper copies of these supporting
VerDate 11
documents in the RIC (See ADDRESSES • Tell us which parts of this proposal b. Selection of Waste Management section for address). The RIC is open you support, as well as those with Scenarios for Risk Assessment Modeling from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday through which you disagree. of Nonhazardous Paint Manufacturing Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To • Offer specific alternatives. Waste Solids • Provide solid technical data to c. Selection of Waste Management review docket materials, we recommend Scenarios for Risk Assessment Modeling that you make an appointment by support your views. For example, if you of Nonhazardous Paint Manufacturing calling (703) 603–9230. You may copy estimate potential costs, explain how Waste Liquids a maximum of 100 pages from any you arrived at your estimate. d. Survey Data as Input to Modeling regulatory docket at no charge. Contents of This Proposed Rule Parameters Additional copies cost $0.15/page. E. What Risk Assessment Approach Did You may also view these documents I. Overview EPA Use to Determine Allowable electronically on the Internet: http:// A. Who Potentially Will Be Affected by Constituent Waste Concentrations? www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/ This Proposed Rule? 1. Which Factors Did EPA Incorporate Into paint. B. What Impact May This Proposed Rule Its Quantitative Risk Assessment? We will keep the official record for Have? 2. How Did EPA Use Damage Case C. Why Does This Proposed Rule Read Information? this action in paper form. Accordingly, Differently from Other Listing Rules? 3. Overview of The Risk Assessment we will transfer all comments received D. What Are The Statutory Authorities for 4. How EPA Chose Potential Constituents electronically into paper form and place This Proposed Rule? of Concern them in the official record, which will II. Background a. Phase 1: How Did EPA Develop a also include all comments submitted A. How Does EPA Define a Hazardous Preliminary List of Constituents? directly in writing. The official record is Waste? b. Phase 2: How Did EPA Select Potential the paper record maintained at the B. How Does EPA Regulate RCRA Constituents of Concern for The Risk address under ADDRESSES at the Hazardous Wastes? Assessment? beginning of this document. C. How Does EPA Regulate Solid Wastes c. Phase 3: How Did EPA Choose EPA responses to comments, whether That Are Not RCRA Hazardous Wastes? Additional Constituents for The Risk D. Overview of The Hazardous Waste Assessment? the comments are written or electronic, Listing Determination Process for Paint 5. What Was EPA’s Approach to will be in a notice in the Federal Production Wastes Conducting Human Health Risk Register or in a response to comments 1. Suspension of Previous Listings Assessment? document placed in the official record 2. Consent Decree Schedule for This a. What Waste Management Scenarios for this rulemaking. We may, however, Proposal Were Evaluated? seek clarification of electronic E. Existing Regulations That Apply to This b. What Exposure Scenarios Did EPA comments that become garbled in Industry Evaluate? transmission or during conversion to F. What Industries and Wastes Are Covered c. How Did EPA Quantify Each Receptor’s paper form, as discussed above. in This Proposed Rule? Exposure to Contaminants? 1. Scope of Consent Decree d. How Did EPA Predict The Release and Customer Service 2. Scope of Listing: Off-Specification Transport of Constituents From a Waste Products Management Unit to Receptor Locations? How Can I Influence EPA’s Thinking on 3. Recycling Issues e. What Is The Human Health Toxicity of this Proposed Rule? G. Description of The Paint and Coatings COC’s Identified by EPA? In developing this proposal, we tried Industry f. What Are The Results From The Risk to address the concerns of all our H. What Information Did EPA Collect and Assessment? stakeholders. Your comments will help Use? g. What Is The Uncertainty in Human 1. Site Visits Health Risk Results? us improve this rule. We invite you to 2. DataBase of Paint Manufacturing 6. What Was EPA’s Approach to provide views on options we propose, Information from Published Sources Conducting The Ecological Risk new data, information on how this rule 3. The RCRA Section 3007 Survey Assessment? may affect you, or other relevant a. Overview a. How Were Ecological Exposures information. We welcome your views on b. Structuring The Survey to Capture All Estimated? all aspects of this proposed rule, but we The Wastes of Concern b. What Ecological Receptors Did The EPA particularly request comments on the c. Identifying The Universe of Paint Evaluate? items identified at the end of each Manufacturing Facilities c. How Did EPA Consider The Toxicity of section. Your comments will be most d. Constructing a Stratified Random Constituents in The Ecological Risk effective if you follow the suggestions Sample Assessment? e. Conducting The Survey and Analyzing 7. Did EPA Conduct a Peer Review of The below: • The Results Risk Assessment? Include your name, the date, and f. Meeting Our Objectives for The Survey IV. Proposed Listing Determinations and the docket number with your comments. III. Approach Used in This Proposed Listing Regulations Remember that your comments must be A. Summary of Today’s Action A. What Are The Proposed Regulations for submitted by the deadline specified in B. What Is a Concentration-Based Listing? Paint Production Wastes? this notice. C. Why Is a Concentration-Based Approach B. Why Are We Proposing to Use The Level • Reference your comments to Being Used for This Listing? of Constituents in The Waste Solids as specific sections of the proposal by D. How Did The Agency Use The Survey Total Waste Concentrations Rather Than using section titles, page numbers of the Results for This Proposed Listing Leachate Concentrations? preamble, or the regulatory citations. Determination? C. Why Are We Proposing to Exclude • Clearly label any confidential 1. General Assessment of The Paint Waste Liquids Managed in Tanks? business information (CBI) submitted as Industry’s Waste Generation and 1. On-Site Storage and Treatment Tanks Management Practices 2. Management of Liquid Paint part of your comments. • 2. Management Scenarios Currently Used Manufacturing Wastes in Off-Site Explain your views as clearly as at Paint Facilities and Our Selection of Treatment Tanks possible and provide a summary of the Waste Management Scenarios for Risk D. Why Are We Proposing a Contingent reasoning you used to arrive at your Assessment Modeling Management Listing for Liquid Paint conclusions as well as examples to a. Plausible Waste Management Selection Manufacturing Wastes, and What Other illustrate your views where possible. Criteria and Modeling Considerations Options Are We Considering?
VerDate 11
E. Potential for Formation of Non-Aqueous 2. What Are The Capacity Analysis D. What Consideration Was Given to Phase Liquids in Paint Manufacturing Results? Environmental Justice Under Executive Wastes 3. What Is The Available Treatment Order 12898? F. Scope of The Listings and The Effect on Capacity for Other Wastes Subject to E. What Consideration Was Given to Treatment Residuals Revised UTS and F039 Standards? Unfunded Mandates? G. Relationships of The Proposed Listings VII. State Authority and Compliance F. What Consideration Was Given to to The TC A. How Are States Authorized Under Federalism Under Executive Order RCRA? H. What Is The Status of Landfill Leachate 13132? from Previously Disposed Wastes? B. How Would This Rule Affect State G. What Consideration Was Given to Tribal V. Proposed Generator Requirements for Authorization? Governments Under Executive Order Implementation of Concentration-Based C. Who Would Need to Notify EPA That Listings They Have a Hazardous Waste? 13175: Consultation and Coordination A. Would I Have to Determine Whether or D. What Would Generators and With Indian Tribal Governments? Not My Wastes Are Hazardous? Transporters Have to Do? X. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 5 U.S.C. B. How Would I Manage My Wastes During E. Which Facilities Would Be Subject to 3501–3520 The Period Between The Effective Date Permitting? A. How is The Paperwork Reduction Act of The Final Rule and Initial Hazardous 1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit Considered in Today’s Proposed Rule? Waste Determination for My Wastes? Requirements XI. National Technology Transfer and C. What Procedures Would I Follow to 2. Existing Interim Status Facilities Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub L. 104– Determine If My Wastes Are 3. Permitted Facilities 113*12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 Note)) Nonhazardous? 4. Units A. Was The National Technology Transfer 1. Testing Wastes 5. Closure and Advancement Act Considered? 2. Using Knowledge of The Wastes VIII. CERCLA Designation and Reportable D. How Would The Proposed Contingent Quantities I. Overview A. What Is The Relationship Between Management Listing for Liquid Wastes A. Who Potentially Will be Affected by Be Implemented? RCRA and CERCLA? E. What Records Would I Need to Keep On- B. How Does EPA Determine Reportable This Proposed Rule? Quantities? site to Support a Nonhazardous C. Is EPA Proposing to Adjust The If finalized, this regulation could Determination for My Wastes? Statutory One Pound RQ for These F. What Would Happen if I Do Not Meet potentially affect those who generate Wastes? The Recordkeeping Requirements for and manage certain paint production D. How Would a Concentration-Based The Wastes That I Have Determined Are wastes. Landfill owners/operators may Hazardous Waste Listing Approach also be impacted. A common disposal Nonhazardous? Relate to My Reporting Obligations G. Could I Treat My Wastes to Below Under CERCLA? When Would I Need to practice for much of the paint Listing Concentrations and Then Report a Release of These Wastes Under production wastes of concern has been Determine That My Wastes Are CERCLA? in solid waste landfills. This proposed Nonhazardous? E. How Would I Report a Release? listing may result in leachate from some 1. Paint Manufacturing Waste Solids F. What Is The Statutory Authority for This of these landfills becoming hazardous 2. Paint Manufacturing Waste Liquids Program? VI. Proposed Treatment Standards Under under the derived-from rule (described G. How Can I Influence EPA’s Thinking on further in Section V.H). However, RCRA’s Land Disposal Restrictions Regulating K179 and K180 Under (LDRs) CERCLA? impacts to these facilities are projected A. What are EPA’s LDRs? IX. Analytical and Regulatory Requirements to be negligible under our proposed B. How Does EPA Develop LDR Treatment A. Is This a Significant Regulatory Action approach of a Clean Water Act Standards? Under Executive Order 12866? temporary deferral. This action may also C. What Treatment Standards Are B. What Consideration Was Given to Small affect entities that need to respond to Proposed? Entities Under The Regulatory Flexibility releases of these wastes as CERCLA D. Other LDR-Related Provisions Act (RFA), as Amended by The Small hazardous substances. These potentially 1. F039 Multisource Leachate and Business Regulatory Enforcement affected entities are described in the Universal Treatment Standards Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. E. Is There Treatment and Management 601 et.seq? Economics Background Document Capacity Available for These Proposed C. What Consideration Was Given to placed in the docket in support of Newly Identified Wastes? Children’s Health Under Executive Order today’s proposed rule. A summary is 1. What Is a Capacity Determination? 13045? provided in the table below.
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY EPA’S 2000 PAINT PRODUCTION WASTE LISTING PROPOSAL
Estimated number of Item SIC code NAICS code Industry sector name U.S. rel- evant facili- ties
1 ...... 2851 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing ...... 972 2 ...... 4953 562212 Solid Waste Landfill ...... 35–48
This list of potentially affected facility is regulated by this action, you particular entity, consult the person entities may not be exhaustive. Our aim should examine 40 CFR parts 260 and listed in the preceding section entitled is to provide a guide for readers 261 carefully along with the proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. regarding entities likely to be regulated rules amending RCRA that are found at B. What Impact May This Proposed Rule by this action. This action, however, the end of this Federal Register notice. Have? may affect other entities not listed in the If you have questions regarding the table. To determine whether your applicability of this action to a If you are a paint manufacturer and you generate wastes described in this
VerDate 11
proposed rule, then you would need to We are proposing that generators must C. Why Does This Proposed Rule Read determine if your wastes meet these meet the necessary conditions to Differently From Other Listing Rules? newly listed hazardous waste codes, if determine whether or not a waste is finalized. Your waste would become a hazardous based on the steps described Today’s proposed hazardous waste listed hazardous waste if it contains any in Section V.C, of today’s proposed rule. listing determination (or ‘‘listing of the constituents of concern at a If you determine that your wastes are determination’’) preamble and concentration equal to or greater than hazardous under this listing, then you regulations are written in ‘‘readable the hazardous concentration identified are also subject to all applicable regulations’’ format. The authors tried to for that constituent (see Tables IV–1 and requirements for hazardous waste use active rather than passive voice, IV–2). If you determine that your wastes generators in 40 part CFR 262. If you plain language, a question-and-answer are hazardous under this listing, then were not previously a hazardous waste format, the pronouns ‘‘we’’ for EPA and the wastes must be stored, treated and generator, and you determine you ‘‘you’’ for the owner/generator, as well disposed in a manner consistent with as other techniques, including an the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste generate this newly-listed hazardous waste; then you must notify the EPA, acronym list (see below), to make the regulations at 40 CFR parts 260–272. If information in today’s proposed rule your annual generation of these paint according to section 3010 of RCRA, that you generate hazardous waste. easier to read and understand. This new production wastes exceeds 40 metric format is part of our efforts towards tons of waste solids and/or 100 metric Following an initial determination regulatory reinvention. We believe that tons of waste liquids, you must also whether your wastes are hazardous or this new format will help readers perform certain routine testing of the nonhazardous under this listing, you understand the regulations and foster affected wastes and keep certain records would have a continuing obligation to of these wastes (as described in Section make such a determination at least on better relationships between EPA and V.E) on-site. an annual basis. the regulated community.
ACRONYMS
Acronym Definition
µm ...... Micrometer BDAT ...... Best Demonstrated Available Technology BFI ...... Browning-Ferris Industries (now Allied Waste Industries Inc.) BHP ...... Biodegradation, hydrolysis and photolysis BIF ...... Boiler and Industrial Furnace BRS ...... Biennial Reporting System CAA ...... Clean Air Act CalEPA ...... California Environmental Protection Agency CARBN ...... Carbon Absorption CAS ...... Chemical Abstract Services CBI ...... Confidential Business Information CERCLA ...... Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CERCLIS ...... Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System CESQG ...... Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations CHOXD ...... Chemical or Electrolytic Oxidation CMBST ...... Combustion COC ...... Constituents of Concern CSCL ...... Chemical Stressor Concentration Limit 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) EDF ...... Environmental Defense Fund 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 FR ...... Federal Register GDP ...... Gross Domestic Product GNP ...... Gross National Product HAP ...... Hazardous Air Pollutant HEAST ...... Health Effects Assessment Summary Table HQ ...... Hazard Quotient HSWA ...... Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments HWIR ...... Hazardous Waste Identification Rule ICR ...... Information Collection Request INC ...... Incineration IRIS ...... Integrated Risk Information System ISCST3 ...... Industrial Source Complex-Short Term LDR ...... Land Disposal Restriction MACT ...... Maximum Achievable Control Technology mg/kg ...... Milligram per kilogram mg/L ...... Milligram per liter MLF ...... Municipal Landfill MINTEQ ...... MINTEQ (model for geochemical equilibria in ground water)
VerDate 11
ACRONYMS—Continued
Acronym Definition
MINTEQA2 ...... MINTEQA2 (model for geochemical equilibria in ground water) Geochemical speciation model; originally a combination of Mineral Equilibrium Model (MINEQL) and the thermodynamic database WATEQ3 MSDS ...... Material Safety Data Sheet MSW ...... Municipal Solid Waste 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 NPCA ...... National Paint and Coatings Association NPDES ...... National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL ...... National Priority List NRC ...... National Response Center NTTAA ...... National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OEM ...... Original Equipment Manufacturing OMB ...... Office of Management and Budget OSW ...... Office of Solid Waste OSWER ...... Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OSWRO ...... Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations PBT ...... Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic POTW ...... Publicly Owned Treatment Works 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 RFSA ...... Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis RIC ...... RCRA Information Center RODS ...... Record of Decision System RQ ...... Reportable Quantity RTK ...... Right-To-Know SBA ...... Small Business Administration SBREFA ...... Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act SIC ...... Standard Industry Code SOP ...... Standard Operating Procedure SPIS ...... Superfund Public Information System SW–846 ...... Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes TC ...... Toxicity Characteristic TCLP ...... Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TOC ...... Total Organic Carbon TRI ...... Toxic Release Inventory TSDF ...... Treatment, Storage and Disposal facility TSDR ...... Toxic Substances and Disease Registry TSS ...... Total Suspended Solids UMRA ...... Unfunded Mandates Reform Act USC ...... United States Code USLE ...... Universal Soil Loss Equation UTS ...... Universal Treatment Standard VOC ...... Volatile Organic Compound WETOX ...... Wet Air Oxidation WMU ...... Waste Management Unit WMX ...... WMX Technologies, Inc.
D. What Are The Statutory Authorities and Recovery Act (RCRA), and are II. Background for This Proposed Rule? codified at Volume 42 of the United A. How Does EPA Define a Hazardous States Code (U.S.C.), sections 6901 to These regulations are being proposed Waste? 6992(k) (42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)). under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3001(b), 3001(e)(2), 3004(d)–(m), and Section 102(a) of the Comprehensive EPA’s regulations establish two ways 3007(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Environmental Response, of identifying solid wastes as hazardous 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6921(b) and (e)(2), Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 under RCRA. A waste may be 6924(d)–(m), and 6927(a), as amended, (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9602(a) is the considered hazardous if it exhibits most importantly by the Hazardous and authority under which EPA is proposing certain hazardous properties Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amendments to 40 CFR part 302. (‘‘characteristics’’) or if it is included on (HSWA). These statutes commonly are a specific list of wastes EPA has referred to as the Resource Conservation determined are hazardous (‘‘listing’’ a
VerDate 11
waste as hazardous) because it was various industries or types of facilities, B. How Does EPA Regulate RCRA found to pose substantial present or such as ‘‘wastewater treatment sludges Hazardous Wastes? potential hazards to human health or from electroplating operations’’ (see the environment. EPA’s regulations in code F006). Section 261.32 lists If a waste exhibits a hazardous the Code of Federal Regulations (40 hazardous wastes generated from characteristic or is listed as a hazardous CFR) define four hazardous waste specific industry sources, known as ‘‘K- waste then it is subject to federal characteristic properties: Ignitability, wastes,’’ such as ‘‘Spent potliners from requirements under RCRA. These regulations affect persons who generate, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (See primary aluminum production’’ (see transport, treat, store or dispose of such 40 CFR 261.21–261.24). As a generator, code K088). Section 261.33 contains waste. Facilities that must meet you must determine whether or not a lists of commercial chemical products hazardous waste management waste exhibits any of these and other materials, known as ‘‘P- requirements, including the need to characteristics by testing the waste, or wastes’’ or ‘‘U-wastes,’’ that become by using your knowledge of the process obtain permits to operate, commonly are hazardous wastes when they are that produced the waste (see referred to as ‘‘Subtitle C’’ facilities. discarded or intended to be discarded. § 262.11(c)). While you are not required Subtitle C is Congress’ original statutory to sample your waste, you will be Today’s proposed regulations would designation for that part of RCRA that subject to enforcement actions if you are list certain paint production wastes as directs EPA to issue regulations for found to be improperly managing K-waste codes under § 261.32. We are hazardous wastes as may be necessary materials that are characteristic also proposing to add constituents that to protect human health or the hazardous waste. serve as the basis for the proposed environment. EPA standards and EPA may also conduct a more specific listings to Appendix VII as well as to procedural regulations implementing assessment of a waste or category of add certain constituents to the list of Subtitle C are found generally at 40 CFR wastes and ‘‘list’’ them if they meet Hazardous Constituents in Appendix parts 260 through 272. criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11. As VIII that are not already included. All RCRA hazardous wastes are also described in § 261.11, we may list a hazardous substances under the waste as hazardous if it: ‘‘Derived-from’’ and ‘‘Mixture’’ Rules Comprehensive Environmental —Exhibits any of the characteristics Residuals from the treatment, storage, Response, Compensation, and Liability noted above, i.e., ignitability, or disposal of most listed hazardous Act (CERCLA), as defined in section corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity wastes are also classified as hazardous 101(14)(C) of the CERCLA statute. This (261.11(a)(1)); wastes based on the ‘‘derived-from’’ rule applies to wastes listed in §§ 261.31 —Is ‘‘acutely’’ hazardous, i.e., if they are (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). For example, ash through 261.33, as well as any wastes fatal to humans or in animal studies that exhibit a RCRA characteristic. Table at low doses, or otherwise capable of or other residuals generated from the 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 lists CERCLA causing or significantly contributing treatment of a listed waste generally hazardous substances along with their to an increase in serious illness carries the original hazardous waste reportable quantities (RQs). Anyone (261.11(a)(2)); or code and is subject to the hazardous —Is capable of posing a substantial waste regulations. Also, the ‘‘mixture’’ spilling or releasing a substance at or present or potential hazard to human rule (40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)) above the RQ must report the release to health or the environment when provides that, with certain limited the National Response Center, as improperly managed (261.11(a)(3)). exceptions, any mixture of a listed required in CERCLA Section 103. In hazardous waste and a solid waste is addition, Section 304 of the Emergency Under the third criterion, at 40 CFR Planning and Community Right-to- 261.11(a)(3), we may decide to list a itself a RCRA hazardous waste. Know Act (EPCRA) requires facilities to waste as hazardous if it contains Some materials that would otherwise report the release of a CERCLA hazardous constituents identified in 40 be classified as hazardous wastes under hazardous substance at or above its RQ CFR part 261, appendix VIII, and if, the rules described above are excluded to State and local authorities. Today’s after considering the factors noted in from jurisdiction under RCRA if they rule proposes to establish RQs for the this section of the regulations, we are recycled in certain ways. The newly listed wastes. ‘‘conclude that the waste is capable of current definition of solid waste at 40 posing a substantial present or potential CFR 261.2 excludes from the definition C. How Does EPA Regulate Solid Wastes hazard to human health or the of solid waste secondary materials that That Are Not RCRA Hazardous Wastes? environment when improperly treated, are used directly (i.e., without stored, transported, or disposed of, or If your waste is a solid waste but is reclamation) as ingredients in otherwise managed.’’ We place a not, or is determined not to be a listed manufacturing processes to make new chemical on the list of hazardous and/or characteristic hazardous waste, constituents on Appendix VIII only if products, used directly as effective then you may dispose these solid wastes scientific studies have shown a substitutes for commercial products, or at Subtitle D facilities. These facilities chemical has toxic effects on humans or returned directly to the original process are approved by state and local other life forms. When listing a waste, from which they are generated as a governments and generally impose less we also add the hazardous constituents substitute for raw material feedstock. stringent requirements on management that serve as the basis for listing to 40 (See 40 CFR 261.2(e).) As discussed in of wastes. Subtitle D is the statutory CFR part 261, appendix VII. the January 4, 1985, rulemaking that designation for that part of RCRA that The regulations at 40 CFR 261.31 promulgated this regulatory framework, deals with disposal of solid waste. EPA through 261.33 contain the various these are activities which, as a general regulations affecting Subtitle D facilities hazardous wastes the Agency has listed matter, resemble ongoing manufacturing are found at 40 CFR parts 240 thru 247, to date. Section 261.31 lists wastes operations more than conventional and 255 thru 258. Regulations for generated from non-specific sources, waste management and so are more Subtitle D landfills that accept known as ‘‘F-wastes,’’ and contains appropriately classified as not involving municipal waste (‘‘municipal solid wastes that are usually generated by solid wastes. (See 50 FR 637–640). waste landfills’’) are in 40 CFR part 258.
VerDate 11
D. Overview of the Hazardous Waste consent decree addresses the paint who discharge wastewaters generated Listing Determination Process for Paint production industry: from paint production to a publicly Production Wastes EPA shall promulgate a final listing owned treatment works (POTW) may be required to comply with general 1. Suspension of Previous Listings determination for paint production wastes on or before March 30, 2002. This listing pretreatment requirements (40 CFR part Under the Resource Conservation and determination shall be proposed for public 403) as established by the POTW. Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, Congress comment on or before January 28, 2001. This Finally, some paint manufacturers send directed EPA to establish a framework listing determination shall include the their wastewaters to privately-owned for RCRA’s Subtitle C hazardous waste following wastes: solvent cleaning wastes centralized wastewater treatment program. Congress also required EPA to (K078), water/caustic cleaning wastes (K079), facilities (CWTs) that are operated under propose and write timely rules wastewater treatment sludge (K081), and NPDES permits. The Agency recently identifying wastes as hazardous under emission control dust or sludge (K082) for which listings were suspended on January promulgated effluent guidelines for Subtitle C. EPA responded by proposing 16, 1981 (46 FR 4614), and off-specification these facilities at 40 CFR part 437. Subtitle C regulations on December 12, production wastes. Under the CAA there are two types of 1978 (43 FR 58957) which established a regulatory requirements that may apply framework for the Subtitle C program. Today’s proposal satisfies EPA’s duty specifically to paint production wastes: At the same time, EPA also proposed to under paragraph 1.d to propose National volatile organic compound list wastes—including four paint determinations for the specified paint (VOC) emission standards and national production waste streams from specific production wastes. emission standards for hazardous air (paint production) sources and two E. Existing Regulations That Apply to pollutants (NESHAP). VOC emission paint production waste streams from This Industry standards—which aim to reduce VOC non-specific (paint application) emissions and in turn reduce ozone RCRA authorizes EPA to evaluate sources—as hazardous. On July 16, levels—exist for architectural coatings industry waste management practices 1980, EPA promulgated an interim final (40 CFR part 59, subpart D; 63 FR and, if necessary, regulate how wastes rule (45 FR 47832) that designated four 48848, September 11, 1998) and are handled to ensure that present or paint production waste streams from automobile refinish coatings (40 CFR potential hazards are not posed to specific sources as hazardous waste part 59, subpart B; 63 FR 48806, human health and the environment. In under 40 CFR 261.32: September 11, 1998). These standards • Solvent cleaning wastes from addition to RCRA, the Clean Water Act specify VOC levels for categories of equipment and tank cleaning operations (CWA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) provide architectural and automobile refinish (K078), EPA with the statutory authority to coatings. • Water/caustic cleaning wastes from evaluate industry practices and, if Subpart DD in 40 CFR part 63, sets equipment and tank cleaning operations necessary, regulate industry releases of NESHAPs from off-site waste and (K079), pollutants to environmental media such recovery operations (OSWRO). These • Wastewater treatment sludge as water and air. standards, in part, limit air releases from (K081), and Currently, there are no regulatory off-site wastewater treatment facilities • Emission control dust or sludge requirements under RCRA that (CWTs) (July 1, 1996, 61 FR 34140). (K082). specifically—identify paint production Furthermore, EPA is planning to Commenters to this rule argued that waste streams as listed hazardous waste. propose a MACT (Maximum Achievable these listings were overly broad. EPA Paint production waste streams may, Control Technology) standard for paint consequently re-examined the data and however, carry hazardous waste listing manufacturers (Miscellaneous Organic initial analysis on these paint and/or characteristic codes if they are Chemical and Coatings Manufacturing) production waste streams and generated from the use of certain that would regulate hazardous air determined that further study of these common organic solvents (spent solvent pollutant (HAP) emissions from process wastes was necessary before a final wastes F001 through F005) or if they vents, storage tanks, transfer operations, listing could be promulgated. On exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic equipment leaks, and wastewaters.1 January 16, 1981, this interim final (ignitability—D001, corrosivity—D002, This would apply to wastewaters rule—identifying and listing these paint reactivity—D003, toxicity—D004— managed on-site and also if sent off-site production waste streams as D043). EPA is not soliciting comment on for treatment. hazardous—was temporarily suspended these existing hazardous waste listings F. What Industries and Wastes Are (48 FR 4614). and does not intend to respond to such comments if received. As well, paint Covered in This Proposed Rule? 2. Consent Decree Schedule for This production wastes subject to today’s 1. Scope of Consent Decree Proposal proposal remain subject to current Today’s proposed rule applies to The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste hazardous waste listings or paint and coatings manufacturers Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA require characteristics that render them generally categorized under subcodes EPA to make listing determinations for hazardous. 28511, 28512, and 28513 of Standard paint production wastes (see RCRA Regulatory requirements under the Industrial Code (SIC) 2851, or North section 3001(e)(2)). In 1989, the CWA (40 CFR part 446) specify effluent American Industry Classification Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) guidelines implemented through System (NAICS) 325510 (subcodes -1, filed a lawsuit to enforce the statutory national pollutant discharge elimination -4, and -7). This includes, but is not deadlines for listing decisions in RCRA system (NPDES) permits for certain limited to, entities who manufacture: section 3001(e)(2). (EDF v. Browner, paint production wastes that are D.D.C. Civ. No. 89–0598). To resolve discharged to navigable waters. These 1 These regulations would apply to coatings most of the issues in the case, EDF and regulations apply to paint production manufacturing facilities that are a major source and EPA entered into a consent decree, wastes that originate from the use, produce, or make a HAP. A major source of a which has been amended several times production of oil-based paint where HAP is located within a contiguous area and under common control and has the potential to emit to revise deadlines for EPA action. tank cleaning is performed using greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of any Paragraph 1.d (as amended) of the solvents. In addition, manufacturers combination of HAP or 10 tons/yr of a single HAP.
VerDate 11
paints (including undercoats, primers, record for the suspended interim final specifications; paint producers cite a finishes, sealers, enamels, refinish rule, we have determined that while variety of reasons for deciding not to paints, and tinting bases), stains, EPA did initially look at the entire paint sell them as originally intended. EPA varnishes (including lacquers), product and coatings SIC classification, which believes that any unused products, finishes for original equipment included miscellaneous allied products, whatever the reason they are unused, manufacturing and industrial we ultimately narrowed the scope of the could present similar risks. Moreover, application, and coatings (including suspended paint listings to exclude this facilities would find it cumbersome to special purpose coatings and powder category. Therefore, manufacturers of distinguish between off-specification coatings). Products produced by this allied products and allied products products and other unused products. industry that are included within the production wastes are not covered by EPA is proposing not to go beyond the scope of this proposed rule are referred the decree. Moreover, nothing in the scope of the consent decree to include to as ‘‘paints’’ and/or ‘‘coatings.’’ 1980 rulemaking record suggests that within the listing off-specification paint Today’s proposal does not apply to artist materials were considered in this products which retailers or users decide miscellaneous allied products (paint earlier listing development work. to discard or return to manufacturers. and varnish removers, thinners for Therefore, EPA does not interpret the However, EPA is proposing to go lacquers and other solvent-based paint decree to require assessment of solvent beyond consent decree requirements to products, pigment dispersions or putty) cleaning wastes, water/caustic cleaning include within the scope of today’s included under SIC subcode 28515 wastes, wastewater treatment sludge, proposed listing returned, unused (NAICS 325510A) or artist paint, which and emission control sludge or dust products once a manufacturer obtains is classified under SIC 3952 (NAICS from the production of artist paint. (For possession or control of them. EPA 339942). more information on how EPA believes that ‘‘returned’’ unused The waste streams included within determined the scope of the suspended products could pose risks similar to the scope of today’s proposal are the paint listings, refer to the accompanying those posed by unused products that following paint production wastes Listing Background Document.) never go off-site. And, as discussed generated by paint manufacturers: (1) Concerning ‘‘off-specification above, facilities would find it Solvent cleaning wastes as waste liquids production waste,’’ we believe that the cumbersome to distinguish between and solids generated from equipment most straightforward reading of the returned products and ‘‘never sent’’ and tank cleaning operations; (2) water consent decree is that this waste stream, products. EPA refers to all of these and/or caustic cleaning wastes as waste although not part of the suspended unused products that will not be sold liquids and solids generated from listings, has the same scope as the other for their original, intended use as ‘‘off- equipment and tank cleaning enumerated waste streams. In other specification’’ paint products. words, the decree does not require us to operations; (3) wastewater treatment 3. Recycling Issues sludge as waste solids generated in on- address off-specification allied products EPA notes that off-specification paint site or captive wastewater treatment and artist paints. Nothing in the decree production wastes can be recycled in processes solely or primarily for treating suggests that either party intended the ways that will not be regulated as paint production waste liquids; (4) off-specification production waste hazardous waste management. Under emission control dust or sludge as waste stream to apply more narrowly or more current regulations defining ‘‘solid solids collected in a facility’s particulate broadly than the other waste streams. wastes,’’ unused paint reused as a emission control devices such as Thus, EPA has assessed only off- legitimate ingredient in the manufacture baghouses; and (5) off-specification specification paint production wastes from subcodes 28511, 28512, and 28513 of other paint is not considered a production wastes as waste solids. ‘‘waste’’ and thus will not be subject to EPA bases many of its decisions as to of Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 2851. the hazardous waste regulations. EPA the scope of the industries and wastes EPA, however, interprets the decree to notes that paint manufacturers covered in this proposal on the EDF v. exclude off-specification paint products commonly reuse unused products to Browner consent decree. Paragraph 1.d that have been shipped out to retailers make new paints. EPA also understands of the consent decree states: or paint users. EPA believes that these downstream entities do not engage in that paint formulations are fairly Paint production wastes—EPA shall paint production. Consequently, EPA exacting, making it unlikely that a promulgate a final listing determination for has not evaluated off-specification paint manufacturer could successfully rework paint production wastes on or before March which a downstream entity decides to paint containing significant quantities of 30, 2002. This listing determination shall be proposed for comment on or before January discard or send back to the constituents that are not useful paint 28, 2001. This listing determination shall manufacturer. Moreover, as explained ingredients. Typically, this type of reuse include the following wastes: solvent below, EPA thinks that downstream of a commercial product (when cleaning wastes (K078), water/caustic entities can presume that unused paint legitimate) is not regulated as waste cleaning wastes (K079), wastewater treatment products returned to a paint production management, even if it involves sludge (K081), and emission control dust or facility will be legitimately reused and, reclamation. See 40 CFR 261.2 2 In sludge (K082) for which listings were thus, will not be solid wastes, even if addition, relatively small quantities are suspended on January 16, 1981 (46 FR 4614), they exhibit a hazardous waste sold for ‘‘lower-grade’’ uses; these and off-specification production wastes. characteristic. materials are still paint products, and no (Emphasis added) aspect of this activity is regulated under 2. Scope of Listing: Off-Specification For solvent cleaning wastes, water/ RCRA Subtitle C. caustic cleaning wastes, wastewater Products EPA wants to clarify the effect of treatment sludge and emission control EPA is proposing to include within today’s proposed listing on ‘‘take-back’’ sludge or dust, we believe that the the category of off-specification paints decree requires us to address only those all products which a paint manufacturer 2 See also: Letter from Sylvia K. Lowrance to industries and wastes included in the decides not to use—whether or not the Mark Schultz, May 16, 1991. This letter says that returned pharmaceutical products are not paint production wastes listing that the paint product meets applicable product considered solid wastes until a decision is made to Agency suspended on January 16, 1981. specifications. Not all of these unused discard them, because use/reuse is generally a After reviewing the original rulemaking products literally fail to meet product viable option.
VerDate 11
programs in which retailers or into three main groups according to end of cleaning reagent used, not by the customers return unused paint because use by the SIC classification as material that is being removed through it does not meet the customer’s architectural coatings, original the cleaning process. For example, you specifications or because it is unusable equipment manufacturing (OEM) can generate a solvent cleaning waste if for some other reason. EPA believes, product finishes, and special purpose you clean a wastewater tank with a based on what it knows of the industry, coatings. Architectural coatings, also solvent (or blend of solvent). that a retailer or customer returning referred to as trade sales paints, include Paint manufacturing facilities may unused paint to a paint manufacturer exterior and interior house paints, also generate waste solids and liquids can presume that the paint will be stains, varnishes, undercoats, primers, included within the scope of this legitimately used as an ingredient and and sealers. OEM product finishes are proposed rule when (1) emission control that, therefore, the paint being returned custom formulated for application to systems are emptied, (2) wastewaters are is not a hazardous waste even if it products during the manufacturing treated and (3) off-specification product exhibits a hazardous waste process. This includes coatings applied is discarded. Airborne material is characteristic. EPA understands that to automobiles, appliances, machinery generated when dry materials, such as paint manufacturers will typically take and equipment, toys and sporting goods, pigments, are loaded into processing such returned paint and use it as a wood furniture and fixtures, coil equipment. Air hoods and exhaust fans legitimate ingredient in the manufacture coatings, electrical insulation, factory- help control the level of airborne of another paint product. The retailer or finished wood, metal containers, paper, particulate material released into the user will be entitled to rely on this film and foil, and non-automotive paint production areas. Material is interpretation exempting returned paint transportation. Special purpose paints collected in emission control systems even if the manufacturer ultimately are formulated for specific applications such as baghouses. Pigments comprise a decides to discard the unused paint or extreme environmental conditions large fraction of the dry materials rather than reuse it. EPA has previously (fumes, chemicals, and temperature) collected in emission control systems. taken the position that retailers or users and include: high-performance Other raw materials, including additives of pharmaceutical products returning maintenance coatings (used in (such as fillers) and solvents, may also unused products to manufacturers are refineries, public utilities, bridges, etc.); be collected in emission control not managing wastes 3. However, should automotive refinishing; highway traffic systems. the paint production facility determine markings; aerosol paints; and marine Water-based wastewaters are it cannot or will not use the returned coatings. primarily generated when process Paint Production. Paints and coatings paint as an ingredient, we are proposing equipment is cleaned. Additional are formulated to protect and decorate that the paint would then become an sources include floor washdown and surfaces as well as enhance desired off-specification paint product waste spill cleanup. The most common surface properties such as electrical that would need to be evaluated against treatment for these wastewaters is conductivity and corrosion protection. the concentrations proposed in today’s physical-chemical. This usually Inorganic and organic chemicals rulemaking, as well as the hazardous involves chemical addition and gravity comprise raw materials—solvents, waste characteristics. settling of suspended solids which resins (or ‘‘binders’’), pigments, and generates a liquid and sludge. G. Description of The Paint and additives—that are mixed in a batch Coatings Industry process to make solvent or water-based As discussed above in Section II.F, paint according to desired end-use ‘‘off-specification’’ paint products Paint and coatings manufacturers are subject to this listing determination concentrated near large metropolitan specifications. Batches of paint, which may range in size from 10 to 10,000 include any unused paint products areas, with the majority of facilities which a paint manufacturer decides to located on the East Coast, and in gallons, are blended in stationary and portable equipment such as mixers, handle in a way that is regulated as California, Texas and the Midwest. We waste management. A paint may be estimate that there are 972 paint and blenders, sand mills, and tanks. Paint Production Waste Generation considered off-specification for a variety coatings manufacturing facilities and Management. Process equipment is of reasons. For example, it may not meet operated in the United States by about cleaned regularly to avoid product the original design specifications; it may 780 different companies (a few larger contamination and to restore be replaced by a new superior companies operate several facilities). operational efficiency. The equipment is production; or, the product’s shelf life For more information on how we also cleaned during manufacturing shut expires. As discussed earlier, off- estimated this universe, refer to Section downs and when a significant change in specification paint products may be II.H. Of this universe, we estimate that a production line occurs. Because paint reworked into saleable materials or about 95 percent of all these companies is a mixture of chemicals that does not discarded. Off-specification product that meet the Small Business Administration involve chemical reactions, the make-up is discarded by a paint manufacturer is definition of a small business (total of paint production wastes reflects subject to this listing. company employment of fewer than 500 chemicals used in batch production and Paint manufacturers may generate people, at the parent level, if a company any ancillary chemicals such as those some or all of these wastes. Waste is a subsidiary). We estimate that used in cleaning process equipment. generation is a function, in part, of around 600 facilities are generating Depending on the type of paint volume and type of paint produced, wastes that fall within the scope of this manufactured, process equipment may degree of automation, amount of rulemaking. be cleaned with either solvent, water, or recycling, and age of facility. Treating, The paint and coatings industry is aqueous caustic washes. These liquid handling, and disposing of these wastes classified by the type of paint product cleaning wastes consist of paint solids are costs associated with paint manufactured. Products are categorized and sludges which may contain production activities. Paint pigments, partially or completely cured manufacturers strive to reduce and/or 3 Letter from David Bussard to N.G. Kraul, February 23, 1993. This letter says that off- resins, and additives. Solvent cleaning eliminate waste produced which in turn specification paint is a non-listed commercial wastes, as well as water and/or caustic reduces overall costs and improves product and not a solid waste when reclaimed. cleaning wastes are defined by the type profitability and competitiveness.
VerDate 11
H. What Information Did EPA Collect 1. Site Visits concentrations of different raw materials and Use? To develop a better understanding of in selected paint formulations. The industry practices and as a basis for Bibliography of Documents Module lists Our primary sources of data to the published reference materials which support this proposed listing developing the industry survey, the Agency conducted site visits at ten paint were used as sources for other modules determination are a questionnaire (or in the database. These sources include ‘‘survey’’) of the paint and coatings manufacturing plants located throughout the country. When selecting technical texts, journal articles, EPA and manufacturing industry and existing sites, we considered: plant production other government studies, and literature. We conducted a survey under size, type of manufacturing process, publications from paint industry trade authority of RCRA section 3007, 42 Toxic Release Inventory (or ‘‘TRI’’) organizations. U.S.C. 6927.4 As part of the survey waste release information, and plant development process, we went on ten 3. The RCRA Section 3007 Survey location. The information we obtained a. Overview. The purpose of the site visits to paint manufacturing from these visits (other than that for survey was to gather information about facilities throughout the country. which a Confidential Business nonhazardous and hazardous waste Please note that we did not sample Information (CBI) claim has been made generation and management practices in waste streams generated by the paint and sustained) is available for public the U.S. paint and coatings and coatings industry to support this review in the docket for this manufacturing industry. Specifically, proposed listing determination. As rulemaking. (For more information we requested information on the five discussed earlier, there are about 1000 about CBI protection, please refer to 40 waste streams of concern (as outlined in paint manufacturing facilities in the CFR part 2 subpart B.) U.S. paint and coatings industry. These In particular, we collected the Consent Decree obligations, See facilities combine raw materials (chosen information on: (1) Types of production Section II.D.2), waste characteristics, from a potential universe of several and volume, (2) waste management and waste management practices. In addition to determining the content thousand constituents) in batch units used, (3) how each residual was of the survey, we also evaluated processes to manufacture products that managed (as hazardous or not), (4) whether it was necessary to conduct a meet market demands for a wide variety evidence of off-spec product storage and census of the industry in order to of architectural, original equipment tracking system, (5) volume of each accurately depict this industry’s current manufacture and product coatings, and residual generated and form and how waste generation and management special purpose needs. Waste streams each is stored on-site, (6) management practices. Due to the size of the paint generated at a facility (the same or practices for each residual for both on- manufacturing industry, and in different facility) may vary significantly site and off-site (POTWs, tanks), (7) consideration of our time and resource because the type of product types of constituents used at plant, (8) constraints, we could not conduct a full manufactured, as well as raw materials reuse of solvent/washwater (e.g., census of all the facilities in the used, vary significantly. As a result, we washwater used as ingredient in next batch), (9) pollution prevention and industry. Therefore, we surveyed a did not attempt to sample paint sample of the universe rather than production wastes described in this waste minimization practices, (10) presence or absence of solvent recovery conduct a full census. Random sampling proposal because we concluded it is a widely used statistical approach to would be impractical to conduct a data stills on-site, (11) presence or absence of any closed loop recycling practices, (12) collecting representative data from a collection effort that would account for large population. To ensure that this the wide variety of individual paint any appearance of unsafe operating practices or disposal practices by survey would provide the best overall products produced and the potential coverage for various industry subsets variability in the waste characteristics. facility, and (13) housekeeping practices on plant floor relative to waste and identify all significant waste Gathering sufficient samples to evaluate management practices throughout the all potential paint production wastes generation and management. We used information collected at industry, we used accepted statistical would require a large commitment of sampling methods to achieve a 90% scarce Agency resources that would these on-site visits combined with additional information provided by probability or confidence level that our have been beyond the reasonable scope survey would find a waste management of this rulemaking. In addition, an industry representatives to develop a RCRA 3007 survey. For example, we activity utilized by at least one in 20 advantage of the concentration-based paint manufacturing facilities within the listing approach that we have used in were able to include more appropriate questions on waste management various categories of generators we this proposal is that it does not rely on identified via our literature search extensive waste sampling. Instead, we practices and to distinguish wastes that are recycled more clearly. This survey (discussed below). In other words, we are relying on publically available determined a sample size such that it sources of information as well as data requests information on waste generation and management practices. would be large enough to ensure a high collected from survey responses to certainty (90% likelihood) of identifying characterize the constituents likely to be 2. Database of Paint Manufacturing any waste management practices with present and the chemical and physical Information From Published Sources more than 5% chance of occurrence. properties of paint manufacturing We also created an electronic Using a statistical stratified random- wastes. 5 Database of Paint Manufacturing sampling scheme designed to represent Information from Published Sources 4 See Federal Register notices 4 FR 46375 (August 5 Stratified random sampling is a statistical 25, 1999) and 64 FR 71135 (December 20, 1999) that is available in the docket. The procedure that first dividends the sampling announcing EPA’s data collection request submitted database consists of three modules. The population into subpopulations or strata with to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A Raw Materials Module contains respect to several characteristics such that within copy of the questionnaire is available in the public information on different categories of the individual strata there is as much homogeneity docket for today’s proposed rule. This information as possible, and then selects samples randomly collection request was approved by the OMB, raw materials that are combined to make from the individual strata. This procedure improves Clearance Number 2050–0168 (expiration date: June paints. The Paint Formulations Module generalizations about the whole population and, if 30, 2001). contains information on the Continued
VerDate 11
paint production types, sales volumes on five types of paint production same as SIC’s and the next four and TRI reporting status, we selected wastes. In the questionnaire, we proprietary to Dun & Bradstreet that sufficient paint manufacturing facilities classified these five waste streams into represent the classifications of the from an industry database developed by 20 specific residuals for more detailed facilities. The coding system used in the Dun & Bradstreet, a company of The waste characterization. These 20 Dun & Bradstreet database provided the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, 2000. We residuals, including ten hazardous and level of detail necessary to more believe this sampling survey adequately ten nonhazardous under current Federal accurately divide the paint industry into covered the industry while reducing the regulations, encompass liquid residual the necessary strata for our use. burden imposed by the survey on the from solvent cleaning, sludge residual d. Constructing a Stratified Random industry and reducing the time and from solvent cleaning, liquid residual Sample. We stratified paint money spent by the government in from wash water, sludge residual from manufacturing facilities into various performing the survey. wash water, liquid residual from caustic categories for this sampling survey Prior to finalizing the questionnaire, wash water, sludge residual from because we expected we might find we conducted a pilot test by sending the caustic wash water, sludges from differences in waste generation and questionnaire to three paint wastewater treatment, emission control management practices among various manufacturing facilities which were not dust, emission control sludge, and off- types of paint producers (architectural, included in the survey and modified the specification product. As discussed later OEM, etc.) and by sampling the various questionnaire based on their comments. in Sections III and IV, we eventually categories we would be more likely to Further, in order to assist the surveyed used the detailed waste characterization identify the full range of management facilities in understanding and information from the survey to divide practices. We also believed that larger responding to the questionnaire, we the paint production waste streams of facilities (with higher sales volumes) established toll-free telephone and e- concern into waste solids and waste conduct more waste management mail help lines, returned and answered liquids for today’s proposed listing. activities, and smaller facilities (with their calls or messages expeditiously, lower sales volumes) tend to have more c. Identifying The Universe of Paint and even helped some complete the recycling or reuse efforts in order to Manufacturing Facilities. Initially, using questionnaire over the telephone. Note compete in business. Furthermore, a variety of industrial and business data that, under RCRA section 3007, the manufacturing facilities subject to the sources described in the listing surveyed facilities are required to Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) 6 background document, we estimated provide accurate information and certify reporting are required to report annual under penalty of law. However, to that there are approximately one releases of toxic chemicals to waste ensure accuracy and completeness, we thousand paint manufacturing facilities management units and environmental conducted a quality assurance review of of interest in the United States. We media. As such, we were particularly the information and data provided in found no single, comprehensive listing interested in SIC 2851 paint the questionnaire responses, such as of all paint manufacturing facilities. manufacturers that are listed under TRI identifying data entry errors, missing However, we identified the 1998–99 because they would also likely provide data, and internal inconsistencies Dun & Bradstreet database as the data more information on waste constituents between answers. The review of each source that would provide the most and management practices of concern to facility’s response resulted in follow-up thorough listing of paint manufacturers this listing determination. Therefore, we telephone calls and/or letters to some in the United States that was available stratified the facilities based on three facilities seeking clarifications, in electronic format. We used the Dun categorization criteria: Paint types, sales corrections, and additional/missing data & Bradstreet database to develop a volumes, and TRI status, as elaborated where needed. We entered data from the sampling population and to stratify the below. questionnaire responses into a database sampling population into categories In the Dun & Bradstreet database, we known as the Paint Residual Master based on paint types and sales volumes. found a total of 1,764 facility entries Database, and conducted additional We also looked at the American identified under SIC 2851. We removed quality assurance reviews on the Business Directories List of paint and those entries that are either apparent database. Hard copies of the allied product manufacturers and the non-paint manufacturers, or entries we questionnaire responses and a CD–ROM 1999 Paint Red Book published by determined that are outside of the scope copy of the response database are Cygnus Publishing, but found that they of this listing determination, or entries available in the public docket for were less suitable to our needs for we found impossible to identify for review. sampling stratification purposes. We stratification purposes. In the end, we We compiled and analyzed these data found that there was insufficient adopted the remaining 884 facilities as to develop a general assessment of the information in the latter two databases the sampling population for this survey. paint industry’s waste generation and for us to distinguish the types of paint Next, we stratified the 884 potential management practices. We also used production by facilities and whether paint manufacturing facilities into 12 these data for our risk assessment, some facilities were clearly out of scope categories, based on the three economic analysis of the potential and classify them into our desired paint categorization criteria discussed above: impacts of hazardous waste regulation, production categories (architectural, paint types; sales volumes (less than and Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) OEM, etc.). The Dun & Bradstreet and treatment and management capacity database includes a well defined and 6 The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) of routine analyses. easily understandable breakdown of the and accidental releases of toxic chemicals to the various paint manufacturing types we environment reported by manufacturing facilities, b. Structuring The Survey to Capture established per Section 313 of the Emergency All The Wastes of Concern. As indicated used to classify them into OEM and Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of previously, the consent decree architectural related paint categories, 1986. Facilities conducting the specified obligations require the Agency to make and eliminate those apparently of no manufacturing operations are required to report on interest to this listing determination. releases of certain toxic chemicals into the air, hazardous waste listing determinations water, and land provided certain conditions (having Specifically, each entry in the Dun & ten or more full-time employees, and manufacturing properly executed, generally leads to a higher Bradstreet database is identified by an 8- or processes over 25,000 pounds of the designated degree edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. digit code, with the first four being the chemicals, etc.) are met.
VerDate 11
five million dollars, five to twenty surveyed, but large manufacturing February and March of 2000 to a total million dollars, and greater than twenty facilities and TRI generators which of 299 facilities out of the sampling million dollars, based on the Census would likely provide more waste population of 884 from the Dun & Bureau’s figures); and TRI status management information could have Bradstreet database that we identified as (whether the facility reported under TRI been left out. the potentially impacted paint in 1997). These 12 categories comprise We developed a statistical weight for manufacturing facilities in the United large, medium, and small facilities of each category of surveyed facilities to States. the following combinations: extrapolate from those facilities we Of the 299 questionnaires we Architectural-related production and on actually surveyed to the larger sampling distributed, 292 facilities responded to the TRI list; OEM-related production population of 884 facilities. The weight the questionnaires. We found that in and on the TRI list; architectural-related for each surveyed facility in a category 1998, 187 of the survey respondents production and not on the TRI list; represents its relationship to the total manufactured paint products of interest OEM-related production and not on the number of facilities in the category. For to this listing determination. Thirty six TRI list. Also note that three categories example, we surveyed 28 facilities from of these 187 facilities identified contained no facilities: medium a category of 34 facilities; 63 facilities themselves as paint manufacturers, but architectural-related paint production from a category of 255 facilities; 13 in 1998 did not generate or dispose of and on the TRI list, large OEM-related facilities from a category of 99 facilities, any of the waste residuals within the paint production and on the TRI list, etc. As a consequence, each of the 28 scope of the questionnaire because they and medium OEM-related paint facilities sampled from the category of recycled or reused all paint residuals as production and on the TRI list. 34 facilities represents 1.2143 facilities feedstock in their manufacturing To select a sample from the 884 (34 ÷ 28 = 1.2143); each of the 63 processes.8 The other 151 sampling population for distributing the facilities sampled from the category of manufacturing facilities generated one questionnaire, we developed a stratified, 255 represents 4.0476 facilities (255 ÷ or more of the waste residuals of statistical random-sampling scheme 63 = 4.0476); and each of the 13 concern. They provided information on based on the above stratification process facilities sampled from the category of their waste generation and management and using the hypergeometric 99 represents 7.6154 facilities (99 ÷ 13 practices. Most of these 151 probability formula described in Steel = 7.6154), etc. These numbers (1.2143, manufacturing facilities also reused and Torrie,7 such that the sample size 4.0476, 7.6154, etc.) are the statistical their waste residuals on-site to some would represent a 90% probability of weighting values (or weights) to be extent, either as feedstock in the paint capturing a waste management practice applied to each facility in each of the 12 production or as an ongoing cleaning conducted by at least one in 20 facilities categories for analysis of the collected solution. The remaining respondents (discussed above). Under these criteria, data (such as waste quantities). For a identified themselves as either a paint higher percentages of facilities were detailed description of our statistical sales agent, a non-paint manufacturer, a selected in the medium and large methodology and stratification process, non-paint manufacturer until after 1998, facility categories. All selected facilities see ‘‘Supporting Statement— no longer a paint manufacturer, or a were then randomly chosen within the Information Collection Request for Paint paint-related manufacturer not under various categories to avoid bias when Manufacturing Industry Waste Survey, the scope of the questionnaire. Table sending questionnaires to the surveyed Part B’’ which was submitted to the II.H.-1 provides a summary of the facilities. This sampling approach OMB as part of the ICR for review and number of potential paint reduced the probability of including approval, and the listing background manufacturing facilities selected from known non-paint manufacturers or document available in the public docket the Dun & Bradstreet database, the manufacturers not of interest to this for this proposed rule. number of facilities surveyed, the rulemaking in the survey, and increased e. Conducting The Survey and number of facilities responded, and the the chance of capturing sufficient waste Analyzing The Results. Using this number of paint manufacturing facilities management activities. Otherwise, more stratified random-sampling scheme, we of interest found, in each category of of the small facilities would have been distributed the questionnaires in facilities.
TABLE II.H.–1.—SUMMARY OF THE NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL PAINT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES SELECTED, SURVEYED, RESPONDED AND PAINT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES FOUND
Number of Number of selected Number of Number of within-scope Dun & Brad- randomly survey re- paint manu- Facility category street facili- sampled fa- spondents facturers ties in cilities in in category found in category category category
Large, 2851–01, and TRI ...... 2 2 2 2 Medium, 2851–01, and TRI ...... 0 0 0 0 Small, 2851–01, and TRI ...... 6 6 6 6 Large, 2851–01, and non-TRI ...... 34 28 28 17 Medium, 2851–01, and non-TRI ...... 62 48 47 42 Small, 2851–01, and non-TRI ...... 379 77 75 44 Large, 2851–02, and TRI ...... 0 0 0 0 Medium, 2851–02, and TRI ...... 0 0 0 0
7 Steel, Robert G.D. and James H. Torrie, 8 As stated in the questionnaire instructions, substitutes for commercial products; or returned ‘‘Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A facilities were not required to report on any of the directly to the original process from which they are Biometrical Approach,’’ 1980, Second Edition, residuals that are used directly without reclamation generated as a substitute for raw feed stock. These McGraw-Hill, Inc. as ingredients in manufacturing processes to make residuals are excluded from the definition of solid new products; or used directly as effective waste. See 40 CFR 261.2.
VerDate 11
TABLE II.H.–1.—SUMMARY OF THE NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL PAINT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES SELECTED, SURVEYED, RESPONDED AND PAINT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES FOUND—Continued
Number of Number of selected Number of Number of within-scope Dun & Brad- randomly survey re- paint manu- Facility category street facili- sampled fa- spondents facturers ties in cilities in in category found in category category category
Small, 2851–02, and TRI ...... 7 7 7 7 Large, 2851–02, and non-TRI ...... 23 22 22 14 Medium, 2851–02, and non-TRI ...... 47 34 34 24 Small, 2851–02, and non-TRI ...... 324 75 71 31
Total number of facilities ...... 884 299 292 187
We believe the Dun & Bradstreet Y facilities with a weight of 8.8571 were × 1.7173 = 27,674 tons. We used such database properly represents the paint 1,000 tons, and if facilities in the other extrapolated universe waste quantities manufacturing universe categories did not report any, then the for our waste treatment and (notwithstanding the database combined residual quantities generated management capacity analysis (see inevitably includes some out-of-scope by the entire sampling population of Section VI.E) and economic impacts operations also listed under SIC 2851). 884 can be calculated as 2,000 tons × analysis (see Section IX.E). In general, We used sound, widely accepted 3.629 + 1,000 tons × 8.8571 = 16,115 these extrapolated figures appear statistical methods to construct our tons. We used weighted waste quantities consistent with data in the Biennial stratified random-sample covering the or volumes to represent the waste Report System (see the Economic variety of paint manufacturing types, volumes sent from each facility in the Assessment in the docket for today’s paint production wastes, and waste sampling population to a particular proposed rule). management practices of interest to this management practice for input to our f. Meeting Our Objectives for The listing determination. Therefore, we national risk modeling analysis. See Survey. We believe our statistical believe the survey results are discussions in Sections III.D and E. stratified random-sampling survey representative of the paint Overall, 64% (i.e., 187 ÷ 292) of the collected data are representative of the manufacturing facilities in the sampling 292 respondents are paint paint manufacturing industry in the population as well as the universe of manufacturing facilities of interest to United States, and that the responses paint manufacturers of interest. this rulemaking. Proportionally, there provided sufficient data for our use in Furthermore, based on our sample should be 566 paint manufacturing making this listing determination. We quality review, data analysis, and facilities in the sampling population of realize that uncertainties exist in our intensive follow-up with survey 884 (from the Dun & Bradstreet survey. There is uncertainty in the exact respondents, we believe that the data database). As explained earlier, because number of the U.S. paint manufacturing collected from the 187 survey there is no comprehensive, single listing facilities. In addition, despite our respondents are valid and reliable. of all paint manufacturing facilities, we quality assurance reviews, there could Nevertheless, we specifically request relied on a number of data sources to still be data source or sampling errors as data with which to evaluate our estimate that there are 972 paint in any other sampling or even census assumption that the Dun & Bradstreet manufacturers. This estimate of 972 surveys. For instance, some facilities database properly represents the paint paint manufacturers in the universe was might have entered inaccurate manufacturing universe, as well as derived from the total number of paint information inadvertently. Nevertheless, comments on our approach to sampling manufacturing facilities of interest (187) we have used our best efforts to collect and extrapolation of sampling results. found from the survey, by extrapolating representative data. By employing a We used survey data in three forms: through the percentages of SIC 2851 statistically representative stratification/ (1) Direct survey responses representing facilities in the Dun & Bradstreet categorization approach aimed at only the surveyed population; (2) database that are represented by the 187 surveying all types of manufacturing weighted data to extrapolate to the facilities. For a more detailed analysis, facilities and their waste streams, our sampling population; and (3) data see the listing background document in unequal sampling survey (higher extrapolated to the universe of paint the public docket for this proposed rule. percentages of facilities were surveyed manufacturing. To estimate the total waste generation for some categories of large and medium We used survey responses directly by the entire population of U.S. paint facilities) actually enhanced the chance when data extrapolation to the sampling manufacturers (or universe), weighted of identifying the rare waste population or the paint universe would data from the survey (representing the management activities practiced by the not be necessary, such as the patterns of quantities generated by the 566 paint paint manufacturing industry and in waste management practices (see manufacturing facilities in the sampling turn increased survey precision. This Section III.D). population, as described above) is approach is reasonable and an As previously discussed, we derived extrapolated using a multiplier of acceptable statistical tool to ensure the independent weighting values 1.7173 (= 972 ÷ 566). For example, if the best possible coverage. corresponding to the number of total quantities of a certain residual Our subsequent statistical re-analysis facilities represented by each surveyed generated by the 566 paint of the questionnaire returns indicated facility in each category. If the total manufacturing facilities in the sampling that we achieved satisfactory statistical quantities of a certain residual generated population were calculated as 16,115 probabilities for finding a waste by Category X facilities with a weight of tons, the universe waste quantities of management activity used by one in 20 3.629 were 2,000 tons and by Category this residual would become 16,115 tons facilities. The final probabilities
VerDate 11
achieved are discussed in the listing a hazardous waste determination for subject to K180 because your wastes are background document in the public those wastes. We believe that under this managed exclusively in tanks or docket for this proposed rule. In short, proposed contingent listing approach, containers and then discharged to a the probabilities achieved for two the vast majority of waste liquids would POTW or under an NPDES permit). We categories of paint manufacturing not pose unacceptable risks and would are proposing that all generators could facilities, 85% and 86.2%, were under not be subject to the listing. The use knowledge of the waste to make an 90%, while the probabilities achieved approach is discussed in detail in initial determination as to whether any for the other categories ranged from Section IV. The proposed listing of the regulated constituents are present 91.7% to 100%. More importantly, the descriptions are as follows: in the waste. If you determine that none survey successfully captured a wide • K179—Paint manufacturing waste solids of the constituents are present in your variety of intermediate and final waste generated by paint manufacturing facilities wastes at the point of generation, then management practices of most interest that, at the point of generation, contain any you would have no further obligation as discussed in Section III.D. Therefore, of the constituents identified in paragraph for determining whether or not your we believe we have made a reasonable (b)(6)(iii) of this section at a concentration wastes are K179 or K180 listed effort to identify all management equal to or greater than the hazardous level hazardous wastes (assuming the practices and that we have met the set for that constituent in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) regulated constituents are in fact not objective of our sampling survey of this section. Paint manufacturing waste present in your wastes). If you solids are: (1) Waste solids generated from designed for this listing determination. tank and equipment cleaning operations that determine that any of the constituents are present in your waste, then we are III. Approach Used in This Proposed use solvents, water and/or caustic; (2) proposing that you must either use a Listing emission control dusts or sludges; (3) wastewater treatment sludges; and (4) off- two-tiered approach (see Section V.C for A. Summary of Today’s Action specification product. Waste solids derived description) to determine whether the In listings promulgated by EPA, we from the management of K180 by paint constituent concentrations in your manufacturers would also be subject to this waste are below the concentration levels typically describe the scope of the listing. Waste liquids derived from the listing in terms of the waste material in the listing or assume that your wastes management of K179 by paint manufacturers are hazardous at the point of generation. and the industry or process generating are not covered by this listing, but such the waste. However, in today’s rule we liquids are subject to the K180 listing. For the Under the proposed two-tiered are proposing to use the recently purposes of this listing, paint manufacturers approach, if your total projected annual developed ‘‘concentration-based’’ are defined as specified in paragraph (b) of generation of paint manufacturing waste approach for listing paint manufacturing this section. solids is over 40 metric tons, and/or • wastes. This approach was originally K180—Paint manufacturing waste over 100 metric tons of paint proposed for wastes generated by the liquids generated by paint manufacturing manufacturing waste liquids, you would facilities that, at the point of generation, need to test your wastes annually to Dyes and Pigments industry (64 FR contain any of the constituents identified in 40192 of July 23, 1999). In a determine whether concentration levels paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section at a are below the listing concentrations. If concentration-based listing, a waste concentration equal to or greater than the would be hazardous unless a hazardous level set for that constituent in your wastes remained nonhazardous for determination is made that it does not paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section unless the three consecutive years of testing and contain any of the constituents of wastes are stored or treated exclusively in you have no significant changes to your concern at or above specified levels of tanks or containers prior to discharge to a product and/or manufacturing or concern. This approach draws from the POTW or under a NPDES permit. Paint treatment processes, the annual testing concept of the toxicity characteristic to manufacturing liquids are generated from requirement would be suspended. If you tank and equipment cleaning operations that made significant changes to product define a hazardous waste based on use solvents, water, and/or caustic. Waste concentration levels of key constituents and/or manufacturing or treatment liquids derived from the management of processes, the annual testing in the wastes. We describe this concept K179 by paint manufacturers would also be in detail later in this notice. subject to this listing. Waste solids derived requirements would be reinstated. If We are proposing two hazardous from the management of K180 by paint your projected annual waste generation waste listings for paint manufacturing manufacturers are not covered by this listing, is below these volumes, you would have waste solids, K179 and for liquids, but such solids are subject to the K179 the option of either using knowledge of K180. If you generate paint listing. For the purposes of this listing, paint the waste or testing to determine manufacturing wastes from tank and manufacturers are defined as specified in whether constituent concentrations are equipment cleaning operations that use paragraph (b) of this section. below the listing concentrations. If any Due to the uncertainties in our assessment solvents, water, and/or caustic; emission constituent is present at or above the of the management of paint manufacturing concentration level, then your waste is control dusts; wastewater treatment waste liquids in surface impoundments, we sludges; or off-specification product, as are seriously considering an alternative hazardous waste. We are proposing that specified in each listing description, proposal not to list paint manufacturing generators with annual waste generation you would need to determine whether waste liquids. We describe this alternative exceeding 40 metric tons of solids and/ your waste contains any of the and our reasoning for this option later in this or 100 metric tons of liquids keep constituents of concern identified for notice (see Section IV.D). The following limited records on-site. each listing at a concentration equal to discussion describes the approach we are If your wastes meet the listing or greater than the hazardous proposing if K180 is listed. description, they would be subject to all concentration level set for that If you generate any of these paint applicable RCRA subtitle C hazardous constituent. However, the liquid K180 is manufacturing wastes that you currently waste requirements, including LDR a contingent listing. If your waste believe are characteristically hazardous requirements. This means that any liquids are managed exclusively in or subject to another hazardous waste characteristically hazardous wastes or tanks or containers prior to discharge to listing, you would still need to wastes hazardous under other listing a POTW or under an NPDES permit, determine whether your waste is a listed codes (for example F codes) that are your waste would not be subject to the hazardous waste under K179 or K180 determined to be hazardous under these listing, and you would not need to make (unless as noted above you are not listings would also be subject to
VerDate 11
treatment requirements for K179 and concentrations for the constituents of relies on concentration levels K180, in addition to any other concern in your waste through sampling specifically set to protect human health. applicable treatment requirements. and analyses (depending on the Finally, a concentration-based listing There are several differences in the volumes of hazardous waste and approach may provide an incentive for way the ‘‘derived from’’ rule (40 CFR nonhazardous waste within the scope of hazardous waste generating facilities to 261.3(c)(2)(i) would be applied to these this listing that you generate each year). modify their manufacturing processes or wastes that have one or more You can use process knowledge to treat their wastes. For example, if a constituents above the proposed risk- demonstrate that the constituents of manufacturer has a listed hazardous based levels. Residues from the concern are not present in your waste. waste based on constituent-specific treatment of solid K179 wastes are no Your waste would be a listed hazardous concentration levels established by EPA, long hazardous wastes if their waste if it contains any of the he also knows that if the concentration constituent concentrations are below the constituents of concern at a levels are reduced below the regulatory concentration levels for K179. However, concentration equal to or greater than level due to raw material substitution or these treatment residues would still be the hazardous concentration identified process change, the waste would not be subject to all LDR requirements. As for that constituent. The detailed regulated as listed hazardous waste. explained in Section IV, liquid K180 descriptions of the steps you would be Therefore, the generator may decide to wastes, however remain subject to the required to follow to implement the substitute raw materials in order to derived from rule. Also, the listing concentration-based listing are generate a nonhazardous waste descriptions make it clear that if a liquid described later in this proposed rule. (assuming that the waste does not carry is generated from the onsite any other listed or characteristic management of the solid K179 waste, it C. Why Is a Concentration-Based hazardous waste codes). This approach is no longer subject to the K179 listing, Approach Being Used for This Listing? encourages waste minimization and rather it is subject to the K180 listing. Thousands of constituents, also reduced use of toxic constituents, goals If a solid is generated from the onsite referred to as paint raw materials or of both RCRA and the Pollution management of the liquid K180 waste, ingredients, are used in paint Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 it is no longer subject to the K180 formulations.9 At the same time, there et seq., Pub. L. 101–508, November 5, listing, rather, it is subject to the K179 are a number of chemicals that are very 1990). listing. Once K179 or K180 wastes are widely used in many different types of RCRA, section 1003 states that one sent offsite waste codes do not change. paints. Because paints are produced in goal of the statute is to promote These provisions are discussed in batch processes that generally do not protection of human health and the Section IV.F. involve chemical reactions among the environment and to conserve valuable raw materials, the finished paint and material and energy resources by B. What Is a Concentration-Based ‘‘minimizing the generation of Listing? wastes consist of a mixture of the different raw materials. Paint hazardous waste and the land disposal A concentration-based listing production wastes can also contain of hazardous waste by encouraging specifies constituent-specific levels in a constituents used for tank cleaning and process substitution, materials recovery, waste that cause the waste to become a other maintenance operations. As a properly conducted recycling, and reuse listed hazardous waste. In this proposed result, it is straightforward for a and treatment.’’ Section 1003 further rule, we identify constituents of concern manufacturer to know what constituents provides that it is a national policy of likely to be present in solvent, water, are likely to be present in his wastes. the United States that, whenever and/or caustic cleaning residuals; Taking these facts into account, a feasible the generation of hazardous wastewater treatment sludges; emission waste is to be reduced or eliminated as concentration-based approach to listing control dust or sludges; and off- expeditiously as possible. paint production wastes as hazardous specification products and which may The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 pose a risk above specified has a number of advantages. We can use provides a hierarchy of approaches. concentration levels. Using risk the approach to focus more narrowly on Pollution should be prevented or assessment tools developed to support ingredients that are likely to be widely reduced; pollution that cannot be our hazardous waste identification used in paint formulations and that are prevented should be recycled or reused program, we assessed the potential risks likely to pose risks to human health and in an environmentally safe manner; associated with the constituents of the environment. A concentration-based pollution that cannot be prevented/ concern in plausible waste management approach allows generators to evaluate reduced or recycled should be treated; scenarios. From this analysis, we the variable wastes they generate and disposal or release into the developed ‘‘listing concentrations’’ for individually for hazard, so only the environment should be chosen only as each of the constituents of concern in truly hazardous wastes are listed. This a last resort. If EPA provides a the waste categories listed above. can place less burden on paint concentration-based target in the listing, If you generate any paint manufacturers than a traditional listing generators would have the regulatory manufacturing waste liquids or solids that brings entire waste streams into the and economic incentive to meet the addressed by this proposed rule, hazardous waste system, regardless of reduced levels. including any listed or characteristically the characteristics of wastes generated Alternatively, we could have hazardous wastes, you would be by individual generators. The level of attempted to collect more information required either to determine whether or any burden reduction depends on the on these specific wastes to support the not your waste is hazardous or assume costs of testing and the amount and type traditional listing approach, i.e., without that it is hazardous as generated under of wastes generated by a given facility. any concentration limits. However, such today’s proposed K179 and K180 This approach is protective because it a data collection effort would have been listings. We are proposing that you must difficult due to the large number of make a determination whether your 9 Paint and Coating Raw Materials, 1996. Michael paint production facilities, coupled with and Irene Ash, Synapse Information resources, waste is a listed hazardous waste Gower Publishing Ltd, lists more than 11,000 trade the wide variety of individual paint through process knowledge or by names and generic raw materials from 1300 products and the potential variability in determining representative manufacturers that are available for use in paints. waste characteristics. Considering the
VerDate 11
extensive sampling effort that this these wastes managed? Table III.D–1 paint industry generation and would require, and the relatively small captures the weighted quantities of management practices, we focused quantities of wastes produced by wastes within the scope of this listing further analyses only on nonhazardous individual paint facilities, we do not reported by facilities completing the wastes. We believe that this approach is feel that such an effort was justified. 3007 survey. See Section II.H for a appropriate because hazardous paint discussion of the weighting process. D. How Did the Agency Use the Survey manufacturing wastes are currently With respect to total amounts of waste managed according to RCRA Subtitle C Results for This Proposed Listing generated our analysis showed the Determination? regulatory controls. From our survey of following: the industry, we found that about 36% We used the 3007 survey data for • We extrapolated from our estimated 566 of the paint manufacturing wastes were several purposes: (1) To provide the paint and coating manufacturers in the coded and managed as listed or information for a general assessment of sampling population of 884 to estimate that characteristically hazardous waste. The the paint and coating industry’s waste there are 972 paint and coating listed wastes typically carried a code for generation and management practices; manufacturers, as explained in Section II, H(e). Out of these 972, we estimate that about solvent wastes (F001 through F005), and (2) to identify plausible waste characteristic wastes usually exhibited management scenarios that are the basis 600 facilities annually generate about 107,000 metric tons of hazardous and the characteristic of ignitability or for our risk assessment and listing nonhazardous waste within the scope of this toxicity. Based on available data from determination; and (3) to serve as the listing.10 the survey, we believe that listed or data input for risk modeling parameters • About 36 percent of paint manufacturing characteristically hazardous waste are such as waste types and amounts sent wastes are already RCRA hazardous wastes, being properly managed under RCRA. to specific management practices. while 64 percent are currently nonhazardous. The data supplied voluntarily by survey This section primarily addresses the • A few paint manufacturers produce the respondents that we have on constituent survey results as a basis for choosing majority of the waste. Ten percent of concentrations in wastes classified as plausible management scenarios for risk manufacturers generating waste potentially within the scope of this listing generate about nonhazardous show that the assessment and listing determinations 80 percent of the total amount of waste; and concentrations of TC constituents are and for selecting data for input to our two percent of the manufacturers generate risk modeling parameters. In addition, well below the TC levels. By narrowing about 50 percent of the total waste. the scope of our analysis to include only we used the survey data for our land Approximately half of paint manufacturers disposal restrictions treatment capacity generate less than five metric tons of waste nonhazardous wastes, we were able to analysis and for our economic impact per year. concentrate risk assessment and analysis discussed in sections VI and IX. • Paint manufacturers mainly generate five subsequent listing decisions on the types of nonhazardous waste liquids and wastes that may not already be managed 1. General Assessment of the Paint waste solids: washwater cleaning liquid, in a way that adequately protects or Industry’s Waste Generation and washwater cleaning sludge, wastewater minimizes threats to human health and Management Practices treatment sludge, emission control dust and the environment. However, this off-specification product. As shown in Table Our first step was to characterize the III.D–2, these five waste types account for proposed listing would apply to any U.S. paint and coating industry’s over 99% of all nonhazardous waste paint manufacturing waste generated by generation and management practices. generated in 1998. the paint manufacturers from tank and We considered a series of questions, • About 27 percent of the manufacturers equipment cleaning operations that use such as: how much waste was generated do not generate any waste—all their waste solvents, water and/or caustic; emission in 1998; of that total, how much was liquids and waste solids are recycled back control dust; waste treatment sludges RCRA hazardous waste and into paint production processes. and off-specification production waste nonhazardous waste; what types of After a thorough review of the data regardless of how the waste has been or waste were generated; and how were and other general observations about the is currently being managed.
TABLE III.D–1.—PAINT MANUFACTURING WASTES GENERATED IN 1998
Paint manufacturing waste category Weighted waste quantities Water and/ (metric tons) Solvent or caustic Wastewater Emission Off-speci- cleaning cleaning treatment control dust/ fication Total waste waste sludge sludges product
Hazardous ...... 18507 1047 0 39 3029 22622 Nonhazardous ...... 39 34098 1490 1972 1948 39547 Hazardous and Nonhazardous ...... 18546 35145 1490 2011 4977 62169
10 Note that we used weighted waste quantities in because the weighted quantities are directly derived waste quantities represent the true distribution of our risk assessments (explained in Section II.H(e)), from our survey data and we are more certain these the sampled population.
VerDate 11
TABLE III.D–2.—NONHAZARDOUS waste solids disposed in industrial current or projected management PAINT MANUFACTURING WASTE LIQ- nonhazardous waste landfills; waste practices for each waste stream are UIDS AND SOLIDS GENERATED IN liquids stored and treated in off-site likely to pose significant risk based on 1998 tanks at centralized wastewater an assessment of exposure pathways of treatment facilities (CWTs) prior to concern associated with those practices. Weighted discharge to a POTW or under a NPDES To model plausible waste waste permit; waste liquids disposed in management practices in the paint quantity surface impoundments at CWTs; and, industry, we used the individual waste (metric tons) waste liquids stored and treated in tanks quantities going from the surveyed on-site at paint manufacturing facilities Nonhazardous Waste Liquids: facilities to a particular type of Solvent Cleaning Liquid ...... 4 prior to discharge to a POTW or under management unit. This data was used in Washwater Cleaning Liquid .. 31,036 a NPDES permit. The general criteria for a national risk modeling analysis to Caustic Cleaning Liquid ...... 66 selection of plausible waste capture the range of waste quantities management scenarios and the rationale from all facilities in the sampling Total Nonhazardous Liq- for choosing each of these four scenarios population sent to a particular type of uids ...... 31,106 is described in this section. waste management unit (the weighted a. Plausible Waste Management Nonhazardous Waste Solids: waste quantity distribution). Each waste Selection Criteria and Modeling quantity in the weighted distribution Solvent Cleaning Sludge ...... 35 Considerations. Our regulations at Washwater Cleaning Sludge 2990 has a weighting factor that represents Caustic Cleaning Sludge ...... 6 § 261.11(a)(3)(vii) require us to consider the number of facilities in the total Wastewater Treatment the risk associated with ‘‘the plausible sampling population that send a Sludge ...... 1490 types of improper management to which particular waste to a particular waste Emission Control Dust ...... 1972 the waste could be subjected’’ because management unit. We do not analyze Emission Control Sludge ...... 0 exposures to wastes (and therefore the Off-Specification Product ...... 1948 the total quantity of wastes (i.e., the risks involved) will vary by waste total universe waste generation data) management practice. The choice of going into a single waste management Total Nonhazardous Waste which ‘‘plausible management Solids ...... 8441 unit because this scenario never occurs. scenario’’ (or scenarios) to use in a As discussed later in this section, when listing determination depends on a 2. Management Scenarios Currently we found evidence that multiple waste combination of factors which are Used at Paint Facilities and Our streams from a single facility or wastes discussed in general terms in our policy Selection of Waste Management from more than one facility are sent to statement on hazardous waste listing Scenarios for Risk Assessment Modeling the same management unit, we added determinations contained in the those quantities to ensure that we This section summarizes our findings proposed Dyes and Pigments Listing accurately reflect the individual and and conclusions concerning current Determination (59 FR 66072, December combined quantities of paint paint manufacturing practices for 22, 1994). We have applied this policy manufacturing wastes that are sent to a nonhazardous waste management; the in several previous listings and, with single management unit. (Section plausible waste management scenarios some specific modifications that reflect III.D.2(c), below explains the that we chose to model for the risk unique characteristics of the paint assessment; and why we did not model industry, believe it is appropriate to methodology we used to compile the certain management practices. We also apply it here. survey data for input to the risk explain how we selected survey data Our approach to selecting waste assessment models.) from waste types and quantities going to management scenarios to model for risk EPA estimates that in 1998, the 884 specific management practices for risk analysis is to examine current industry facilities in the sampling population modeling parameters. This entire management practices; assess whether generated 8,441 metric tons of section presents weighted survey data or not other practices are available to nonhazardous waste solids and 31,106 (See Section II.H(e)), unless otherwise the industry; and to decide what the metric tons of nonhazardous waste noted. We believe that the weighted industry would reasonably be expected liquids. As would be expected, wastes data that is derived from the responses to use. There are common waste generated from paint production batches of the estimated 566 paint management practices, such as are also generated in batches rather than manufacturing facilities most closely landfilling, which we generally presume in a continuous stream. Generally, the represents the distribution of actual may be plausible for solid wastes and waste quantities associated with each paint facility waste quantities managed which we will evaluate for potential batch are relatively small, so that these at individual waste management units at risk. There are other practices which are smaller quantities are aggregated and the 884 facilities in the sampling less common, such as land treatment, added into containers or tanks as each population, which we assume are where we consider them plausible only new batch is produced. Liquid wastes representative of the universe of affected where the disposal methods have been are added into liquid wastes and solid paint manufacturers. Table III.D–2 reported to be practiced. Where a wastes are added into solid wastes, so summarizes non-hazardous waste practice is actually reported in use, that that a variety of waste types (for liquids and solids generation. practice is generally considered example sludges from tank cleaning We chose to model four waste ‘‘plausible’’ and may be considered for operations and wastewater treatment) management scenarios based upon our potential risk. In some situations, may be combined and sent off to one review of the current waste handling potential trends in waste management waste management unit. At the same practices reported in the survey and the for a specific industry suggest we will time, some waste types are managed plausibility that these scenarios need to project ‘‘plausible’’ management separately, if for example they have represent actual practices that are used even if it is not currently in use in order some value for fuel blending, rather or could be used by the paint industry to be protective of potential changes in than simply being sent off to land for disposal of paint manufacturing management and therefore in potential disposal or wastewater treatment and wastes. The scenarios that we chose are risk. We then evaluate which of these discharge. We were able to distinguish
VerDate 11
these management practices from the wastes volumes generated and waste estimated weighted quantities of each survey data. volumes disposed. type of nonhazardous waste solid going One final note, before looking at solid Before we proceed to the technical to each management practice for the 884 and liquid wastes separately. The total discussion of our rationale for choosing facilities in the sampling population. certain modeling scenarios and waste quantities that are accounted for The total amount of waste solids parameters, we will briefly explain why in all of the management practices that disposed in 1998 was 8,226 metric tons we chose to structure these discussions we discuss are not equivalent to the (weighted). Of these 8,226 metric tons, as they are presented in this preamble. total waste generation quantities. We 8,152 metric tons is made of the same We estimate that the 884 facilities in the four waste solids that comprised the believe there are several reasons for this. sampling population disposed of 44,278 First, because of the way the survey was majority of solid waste generated in metric tons of nonhazardous waste 1998: off-specification product, structured, we were not able to obtain solids and waste liquids in 1998 as an absolute balanced accounting of emission control dust, washwater shown in Tables III.D–3 and III.D–4. cleaning sludge and wastewater waste generation and waste These tables show that the disposal treatment sludge. We estimate that the management from each facility. Some of destinations, as would be expected, are major portion of these four solid waste the discrepancy reflects waste different for the waste solids and the streams, 6,926 metric tons, is disposed management situations that may span waste liquids. The same four waste one year to the next, e.g., when a facility solids that comprised the majority of the in Subtitle D municipal and industrial accumulates waste over a longer time nonhazardous waste solids generated in landfills (nonhazardous landfills). These period before sending it on to disposal. 1998 have very similar waste 6,926 metric tons includes 942 metric Second, some wastes (or residuals) may management patterns. In contrast, the tons of off-specification product, 1,947 be accumulated for a time, and then largest quantity of waste liquid metric tons of the emission control dust, recycled back into the manufacturing generated in 1998, washwater cleaning 1,440 metric tons of wastewater process instead of being disposed. liquid is managed differently from the treatment sludge and 2,597 metric tons Third, there may be some undetected solids and almost entirely through of washwater cleaning sludge disposed reporting errors in the database. In any discharge to off-site public and private in 1998. In addition, 35 metric tons of event, the discrepancy between waste wastewater treatment facilities. For solvent sludge goes to nonhazardous quantities generated in 1998 and waste these reasons, we split our analysis of landfills. The remaining 1,300 metric quantities disposed in 1998 is not the waste solids and waste liquids. It tons of waste solids disposed in 1998 go significant for risk assessment purposes. was clear that risk modeling for these to Subtitle C landfills, fuel blenders, In the risk assessment, we use a two types of wastes would differ, CWTs, waste piles, incinerators, cement distribution of individual waste therefore it seemed reasonable to kilns, boilers and industrial furnaces quantities actually sent to management analyze the waste management patterns and ‘‘other’’ management units. Note scenarios as input to the model, not for them separately. that tanks and containers are national total waste quantities. The b. Selection of Waste Management intermediate storage and treatment units distribution of individual waste Scenarios for Risk Assessment Modeling and their waste quantities are not quantities would not be significantly of Nonhazardous Paint Manufacturing counted in the total 8226 metric tons affected by the discrepancy between Waste Solids. Table III.D–3 lists the disposed in 1998.
TABLE III.D–3.—NONHAZARDOUS WASTE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Waste solids types (weighted quantities in metric tons) Waste mgt. units Emission Wastewater Washwater Caustic Solvent Off-spec. Emission control treatment cleaning cleaning cleaning product control dust sludge sludge sludge sludge sludge
Subtitle D/MLF ...... 942 1947 0 1440 2597 0 35 Subtitle C ...... 80 9 00352 00 On-site S. tank ...... 53 0 0 0 1814 0 0 Off-site S. tank ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On-site Trt. tank ...... 0 1066 0 487 0 0 0 Fuel Blending ...... 352 0021 4 00 POTW ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WWTF ...... 48 005 000 NPDES ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INC ...... 72 5 0 24 50 6 0 Cement Kiln ...... 56 000000 BIF ...... 3 000000 Container ...... 2023 3052 0 992 1154 6 2 Waste Pile ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Other ...... 133 11 001 00
Totals** ...... 1686 1972 0 1490 3004 6 68 **Total of each waste solid disposed in 1998 includes all disposal types except tanks and containers. The tanks and containers are considered intermediate handling, not final disposal destination steps. Note: The bolded numbers within the table are those that were used to derive the totals for each column. MLF=Municipal Landfill On-site S. tank=On-site Storage tank Off-site S. tank=Off-site Storage tank On-site Trt. Tank=On-site Treatment tank NPDES=National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System INC=incinerator
VerDate 11
BIF=Boiler & Industrial Furnace POTW=Publicly Owned Treatment Works WWTF=Wastewater Treatment Facility
Based on this information, we chose landfills. Also, Municipal Solid Waste must comply with protective regulations to model disposal of waste solids in landfills have a prohibition on disposal regarding releases from RCRA units and industrial nonhazardous landfills. This of liquids and we believe that the from the RCRA facility. Finally, for is a common disposal practice for a majority of commercial industrial these units it is also difficult to model large portion of the waste solids landfills do also (according to a 1995 what goes into the unit in relation to the disposed in 1998. There are only two EPA report ‘‘State Requirements for residual constituents that are released differences in modeling assumptions for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste from the unit to the air. industrial nonhazardous landfills as Management Facilities,’’ 28 states One last category of management unit compared to municipal landfills. restrict the placement of liquids in that we chose not to model is the Industrial nonhazardous landfills are industrial nonhazardous waste ‘‘other’’ category. For the waste solids slightly smaller than municipal landfills landfills). reported in this survey, ‘‘other’’ so the quantities of paint manufacturing The survey data contained encompassed a variety of waste waste modeled in the industrial landfill information about four types of waste management types. The total 145 metric are a relatively larger proportion of the management practices for waste solids tons of waste solids handled in ‘‘other’’ total waste quantities going into the that we chose not to model. The first of management units can be divided into unit. Also, industrial nonhazardous these is treatment of solvent sludge in four categories: Wastes that are disposed landfills are not assumed to have daily a waste pile. One facility reported using off-site at waste treatment facilities, cover. Both of these add to the a waste pile as an intermediate waste wastes that are reworked back into the conservatism of the protective management step for 33 metric tons of paint process, wastes that are sold to constituent levels predicted by the risk solvent sludge. Based on further other companies and wastes sent for assessment. For our inputs to the risk discussion with the facility contact, we precious metal recovery. Sixty-nine (69) modeling, we used quantities of off- determined that this waste was a free metric tons of off-specification product specification product, emission control flowing slurry that was piled on and emission control dust were sent to dust, wastewater treatment sludge, cardboard boxes inside a containment off-site waste treatment and disposal washwater cleaning sludge and solvent building to dry and then disposed in a facilities. Nine metric tons were treated sludge sent to nonhazardous landfills. nonhazardous landfill. We chose not to on-site and then sent to a Subtitle C We did not include the small volume of model this scenario because the waste is landfill. Fifty-nine (59) metric tons of caustic cleaning sludge because they managed in a closed facility. It is not off-specification product and emission were incinerated and they were not open to airborne wind transport and control dust were reworked back into disposed in nonhazardous landfills. does not involve placement directly on the paint process on-site. Small Emission control sludge was not the land. The remaining solidified waste quantities of off-specification product included either because it was not is disposed in a nonhazardous landfill. and emission control dust totaling 3.5 Another type of waste management generated by any of the survey metric tons were sold to other that we did not model is combustion in respondents in 1998. The risk companies who were not concerned incinerators, cement kilns, and boilers assessment in Section III.E, contains about the quality of the paint and industrial furnaces. In past listing more details about the methodology of manufacturing waste for the determinations where we have the risk modeling process. manufacture of a new product or the attempted to assess risks from At the outset of our analysis of the resale of a low grade paint. Less than incineration, we found that the potential survey data, we did not believe that a one metric ton (0.7) of emission control risks from the release of constituents landfill was a logical disposal dust was sent to an off-site precious through incineration would be at least destination for off-specification product. several orders of magnitude below metal recovery facility for recovery of We further investigated the disposal potential air risks from releases from the silver in the paint manufacturing information for off-specification product tanks or impoundments (see listing waste. Three metric tons of waste solids and decided that it should be in our determination for solvent wastes at 63 out of the 145 metric tons is emission waste solids quantity distribution for FR 64371, November 19, 1998). Further, control dust that was reported to be risk assessment. We contacted the it is difficult to model what goes into released to the air from pollution eleven facilities that reported generating combustion units in relation to the control devices that were not functional. off-specification paint. Nine of the residual constituents that are released The remaining one metric ton of eleven facilities stated that they sent from the combustion unit either in ash washwater cleaning sludge was sent to only dried paint wastes to or air.11 an off-site waste treatment facility. We nonhazardous landfills. The tenth We also chose not to model solid chose not to model any of these facility reported sending 7.5 metric tons wastes sent to fuel blenders. All of the scenarios because the scenarios we did of mostly dried paint and paint flakes fuel blending facilities reported in the decide to evaluate were likely to be the with small amounts of liquid paint survey were located at Subtitle C riskier scenarios and over half of these wastes to landfills. The eleventh facility permitted facilities. Since these fuel wastes going to ‘‘other’’ units were reported sending 14.7 metric tons of off- blenders receiving paint manufacturing either being reworked into the paint specification product of unknown waste solids are RCRA permitted, they process or used for manufacture of other physical characteristics to products. nonhazardous landfills in 1998. We 11 While other products of incomplete The paint manufacturing industry chose to model off-specification product combustion may present possible risks, it is recycles several of its waste streams. with waste solids sent to nonhazardous difficult for us to assess this potential for the One of these streams is air emissions chemicals of concern, especially for the likely landfills because large quantities (920 scenario of a small volume of paint manufacturing control dust. Sometimes this material is out of 942 metric tons) of this waste are wastes being treated with other much larger used on-site in the formulation of low- in dry form when sent to nonhazardous volumes of organic wastes. grade paint, or sent off-site to other
VerDate 11
paint manufacturers for the same and CWTs. About 27,625 metric tons of liquid goes to fuel blending units, purpose (in neither case is reclamation washwater cleaning liquid go to POTWs incinerators and cement kilns. A very involved). In either case, the dust would and 6407 metric tons go to CWTs. Some small amount of washwater cleaning not be considered a solid waste because of the 27,625 metric tons of washwater liquid, 3 metric tons was sent to it is used or reused as an ingredient in cleaning liquid is directly discharged to nonhazardous landfills in 1998. an industrial process to make a product POTWs, but a significant portion is The other two waste liquid streams, pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2(e)(I)). The stored and treated on-site prior to being solvent cleaning and caustic cleaning dust contains valuable raw materials sent to the POTW. Fourteen thousand liquid are disposed at fuel blending that are required to make paint five hundred thirty (14,530) metric tons facilities and at POTWs, respectively. products. We have therefore not of washwater cleaning liquids are POTWs received about 32 metric tons of included these recycled dusts when managed in on-site storage tanks and caustic cleaning liquids and fuel modeling our waste disposal scenarios. 7487 metric tons of washwater cleaning blenders received 4 metric tons of The Agency also notes that this practice liquids are managed in on-site treatment solvent cleaning liquid in 1998. Sixty- appears to be a form of legitimate tanks. These tanks are the intermediate one (61) metric tons of caustic cleaning recycling because paint (even low-grade storage and treatment units for almost liquid is stored or treated in on-site paint) must always meet certain all of the washwater cleaning liquids tanks and an additional 33 metric tons specifications to be usable. Recycled going to POTWs, CWTs and the is managed in ‘‘other’’ units. dust would only be added if it served as remaining waste management categories Based on these facts, we chose several a required ingredient in the paint. where these liquids are disposed. The Another method of recycling air survey results indicated that about modeling scenarios. The first of these pollution control dust involves sending 17,000 metric tons of washwater was the off-site storage of washwater the materials off-site for recovery of cleaning liquids are directly discharged cleaning liquids in uncovered tanks at precious metals (e.g., gold, silver, by paint facilities to POTWs. The CWTs. About 18% of the yearly total of platinum). These materials would be remainder of the washwater cleaning washwater cleaning liquid disposed considered solid and hazardous wastes liquids (10,000 metric tons) that are sent goes to CWTs. Another scenario we if they exhibit the toxicity characteristic to POTWs are stored or treated in on- modeled was the onsite treatment of for metals, or if they exceeded the site tanks prior to discharge to the washwater in tanks prior to discharge to concentration levels in today’s proposed POTW. One facility directly discharges a POTW or under a NPDES permit. We listing. Under those circumstances, they 76 metric tons of washwater cleaning also chose to model the on-site would be subject to the reduced liquid under a NPDES permit. These treatment of washwater cleaning liquids regulatory requirements of 40 CFR NPDES and POTW point source in tanks because a significant amount of 266.70. However, EPA has chosen not to discharges that are subject to regulation liquids are handled in on-site tanks. include these materials in our waste under Section 402 of the Clean Water This modeling scenario should account disposal scenarios because we believe Act are excluded from the RCRA for any exposure to washwater cleaning that their inherent economic value statutory definition of solid waste and liquids and sludges being treated in on- would ensure careful handling, thereby therefore are not subject to RCRA site tanks that are subsequently greatly minimizing the risk of releases. regulation. See 42 U.S.C. 6903(2) and 40 disposed through a POTW or NPDES See the 1985 rationale for the special CFR 261.4(a)2. However, while the discharge. regulatory regime for precious metal liquids are being collected, treated or We also chose to model waste liquids reclamation (50 FR614, 648–49 (January stored they are subject to RCRA managed in an unlined surface 4, 1985)). regulation. This also applies to any impoundment because we found one c. Selection of Waste Management sludges derived from the storage or lined surface impoundment at a CWT Scenarios for Risk Assessment Modeling treatment of the liquids. and we cannot, at this time, rule out the of Nonhazardous Paint Manufacturing Another destination for washwater possibility that some quantities of liquid Waste Liquids. EPA estimates that the cleaning liquid is offsite storage and paint manufacturing wastes may be 884 paint manufacturing facilities in the treatment tanks at CWTs. About 6407 managed in an unlined impoundment sampling population disposed of 36,052 metric tons of washwater is sent to which would present greater risks of metric tons (weighted) of waste liquids CWTs for treatment and then discharged release to the environment. Survey in 1998. Over 99% of this amount is to POTWs or under a NPDES permit. respondents did not report any on-site washwater cleaning waste. A very small The volumes of washwater liquid are impoundments for management of amount of solvent cleaning and caustic probably stored and treated in offsite liquid wastes. However, because we cleaning liquids make up the remaining tanks as our survey data showed that know that waste management in surface 69 metric tons. Table III.D–4 shows how they are onsite. impoundments, and particularly in the 36,052 metric tons of nonhazardous ‘‘Other’’ management units receive unlined impoundments, could pose waste liquids were disposed in 1998. 1309 metric tons of washwater cleaning significant risk, we chose to look for The predominant destinations for liquids. Five hundred sixty-three (563) other plausible scenarios that might washwater cleaning liquids are POTWs metric tons of washwater cleaning involve impoundments.
TABLE III.D–4.—NONHAZARDOUS WASTE LIQUIDS MANAGEMENT
Waste Liquid types (weighted quantities in metric tons) Waste mgt. units Washwater Caustic Solvent cleaning cleaning cleaning liquid liquid liquid
Subtitle D/MLF ...... 300 Subtitle C ...... 0 0 0 On-site S. tank ...... 14530 33 0
VerDate 11
TABLE III.D–4.—NONHAZARDOUS WASTE LIQUIDS MANAGEMENT—Continued
Waste Liquid types (weighted quantities in metric tons) Waste mgt. units Washwater Caustic Solvent cleaning cleaning cleaning liquid liquid liquid
Off-site S. tank ...... 1 0 0 On-site Trt. tank ...... 7487 28 0 Fuel Blending ...... 455 0 4 POTW ...... 27625 32 0 WWTF ...... 6407 00 NPDES ...... 76 00 INC ...... 56 00 Cement Kiln ...... 52 00 BIF ...... 0 0 0 Container ...... 1517 0 4 Waste Pile ...... 0 0 0 Other ...... 1309 33 0
Totals** ...... 35983 65 4 ** Totals for each column are derived from addition of all the bolded numbers in each column. This total includes all disposal types except tanks and containers, these are considered intermediate handling, not final disposal destination steps. Note: The bolded numbers within the table represent the quantities of disposed waste that were summed to calculate the total waste disposed for each waste type. MLF=Municipal Landfill On-site S. tank=On-site Storage tank Off-site S. tank=Off-site Storage tank On-site Trt. Tank=On-site Treatment tank NPDES=National Pollution Discharge Elimination System INC=incinerator BIF= Boiler & Industrial Furnace POTW=Publicly Owned Treatment Works WWTF=Wastewater Treatment Facility
In other listing determinations, we determination) contains additional both cases, the washwater cleaning have found management in surface discussion concerning uncertainties liquid sent to the landfills was a liquid/ impoundments for a number of waste associated with this scenario and solids mixture. One facility reported streams, although on-site discussion of whether this is likely to be that the mixture was filter pressed at the impoundments are more often sufficiently rare that we should consider landfill, the water portion was associated with industries managing an alternative approach. discharged to a POTW and the larger quantities of liquids. As discussed Finally, we chose to model remaining sludges were dried and above, a number of facilities send their management of washwaters in on-site, disposed in a nonhazardous landfill. liquid waste to CWTs. These are the uncovered treatment tanks. Eight survey The other facility reported that the facilities that we believe could plausibly respondents reported that they had liquid portion was incinerated and the be managing wastes in surface uncovered on-site storage and treatment solids placed into a nonhazardous impoundments. We contacted nine tanks. Volatile emissions from the landfill. These scenarios are not, CWTs identified by survey respondents hazardous constituents contained in the therefore placement of liquids in a as receiving their wastes to determine washwater cleaning liquids could be landfill. The next type of waste liquids whether any of them employ released into the air from these management that we did not model is impoundments as part of their treatment uncovered tanks. Therefore we also the direct discharge of washwater processes. In fact, we found one facility chose to model management of waste cleaning liquids to a POTW. RCRA that uses a double-lined impoundment. liquids in uncovered on-site treatment regulation of waste liquids that are Twenty-one survey respondents tanks because treatment tanks represent stored or treated in tanks prior to indicated that they are sending liquid a more conservative modeling scenario waste to facilities they identified as (higher air emissions from aerated discharge to a POTW or under a NPDES wastewater treatment facilities. tanks) than storage tanks. We modeled permit is excluded under 40 CFR Considering the universe of estimated the scenario of waste liquids stored in 261.4(a)(2), at the permitted discharge 972 paint manufacturers, we estimate uncovered storage tanks. We used the point for the facility. The on-site that 4 or 5 other impoundments may be weighted quantities of waste liquids storage, collection and treatment of receiving paint manufacturing wastes (22,078 metric tons) reported in the liquids and sludges generated from (see the listing background document survey as being managed in on-site waste liquids are however, subject to for this analysis). It may be reasonable storage and treatment tanks. RCRA regulation. Another management to assume that management of paint There were five types of waste liquid type that was not modeled is the manufacturing wastes in an unlined management that we did not choose to combustion of washwater cleaning surface impoundment may occur. model. One of these management liquids and caustic cleaning liquids in Therefore, we assumed this is a scenarios is the disposal of washwater incinerators and cement kilns or via fuel plausible management scenario that we cleaning liquid in nonhazardous blending. In the previous section on modeled for our risk assessment. landfills. We contacted the facilities that waste solids we explain the Agency’s Section IV. D (proposed listing reported this practice and found that, in rationale for not modeling combustion
VerDate 11
or fuel blending. That rationale applies constituent concentration levels in the could inappropriately bias the modeling equally to waste liquids. waste streams are the levels that can be results toward the higher protective The categories of ‘‘other’’ units managed in the waste streams and constituent concentrations. Therefore, it reported for waste liquids that we remain below a target cancer risk level would be inappropriate to include these considered but did not select for of 1 X 10¥5 excess lifetime cancer risk small volumes in the risk modeling to modeling are: 541 metric tons of for individuals exposed to carcinogens develop the regulatory limits, since washwater cleaning liquids reworked in the waste streams and a target hazard these wastes would be excluded from back into the paint process; 570 metric quotient (HQ) of 1.0 for individuals the regulation. Also, including these tons of washwater cleaning liquids exposed to constituents in the waste small volumes in the modeling would treated on-site in tanks and discharged streams that produce noncancer health bias the results towards higher to POTW and NPDES point sources; 51 effects. protective limits because, all other metric tons of washwater and caustic We also needed to capture the things being equal, small volumes result cleaning liquids stabilized on-site and distribution of waste quantities going to in lower estimated risk and therefore sent to Subtitle C landfills and 179 individual waste management units. higher protective levels. Further, even if metric tons of washwater cleaning Once we determined that we could all the CESQG facilities’ wastes are liquids sent to on-site and off-site represent paint manufacturing wastes as hazardous, they could continue to treatment units. The washwater solids and liquids disposed in manage them in a municipal solid waste cleaning liquids reworked back into the nonhazardous landfills, on-site landfill, in accordance with appropriate paint process may not be in the scope treatment tanks, off-site wastewater individual state requirements. Twelve of this listing. However, our modeling of treatment tanks and surface facilities reported that they generated uncovered on-site treatment tanks does impoundments, we then developed a less than 1200 kilograms per year of estimate the risks from any of these methodology to assemble the waste hazardous and nonhazardous wastes washwater liquids that are within the quantity distributions for solids and combined. We did not use the data for scope of the listing. The washwater liquids sent from each facility in the these 12 for any of the risk assessment cleaning liquids reported under ‘‘other’’ sampling population to each of these modeling because the generators of that are discharged to a POTW should four types of waste management units. these conditionally exempt quantities have been reported as going to POTWs We used the individual weighted could continue to manage their wastes and included in that quantity of quantities of waste solids sent to as they are currently managing them washwater cleaning liquids. As nonhazardous landfills to compile the even if the wastes were listed. explained earlier, the on-site treatment waste solids distribution and the Next, we compiled separate waste or storage of any liquids being individual weighted quantities of waste quantity distributions for waste solids discharged to a POTW is covered by our liquids sent to tanks and surface and waste liquids. We also accounted risk modeling of on-site treatment tanks. impoundments at offsite wastewater for co-management scenarios as The washwater and caustic cleaning treatment facilities for the waste liquids reported in the survey responses. Co- liquids that are treated on-site and sent distribution. We considered several management scenarios are: (1) Waste to a Subtitle C landfill are also covered factors in developing the waste quantity solids or waste liquids generated at a by our on-site treatment tank modeling. distributions including the total single paint facility that are disposed at The last group of ‘‘other’’ units (the 179 quantities of each individual type of the same off-site management unit, and metric tons of waste liquids) consists of waste stream reported by the surveyed (2) waste solids or waste liquids from 23 metric tons of washwater cleaning facilities, whether any facilities that different paint facilities that are sent to liquid sent for off-site treatment and generate these wastes may produce the same off-site waste management disposal; and 156 metric tons of on-site quantities of waste conditionally unit. Each of these combinations results treatment conducted in tank type units. exempted under EPA regulations for in larger paint manufacturing waste The estimate of any risks posed from the small quantity generators and whether quantities being associated with treatment of washwater cleaning liquids any of the surveyed facilities reported disposal at particular waste in these units should be covered by our waste co-management scenarios. management units. We combined these risk modeling of on-site treatment in First, we identified conditionally quantities for 14 waste solid co- tanks of washwater cleaning liquids. exempt small quantity generators by management scenarios. d. Survey Data as Input to Modeling combining the entire hazardous and At this point, the waste solids Parameters. To conduct a risk nonhazardous paint manufacturing quantity distribution consisted of assessment for these wastes, we needed waste solid and liquid quantities for all quantities of nonhazardous off to assemble the survey data associated waste streams within the scope of this specification product waste, with disposal of waste solids and waste listing generated by each surveyed nonhazardous emission control dust, liquids into our chosen waste facility. We compared these quantities nonhazardous water/caustic sludge, management units of concern: industrial of waste to the amount specified in nonhazardous wastewater treatment nonhazardous landfills, on-site tanks, § 261.5 (a), the Conditionally Exempt sludge and nonhazardous solvent sludge off-site tanks and surface Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) sent to nonhazardous landfills. All impoundments. The specific data we exclusion criteria. This existing waste solid quantities from any of the used were the quantities of waste solids regulation excludes those facilities from surveyed facilities that did not meet the and waste liquids sent by each facility Subtitle C that generate no more than conditionally exempt small quantity to each of our four management units of 100 kilograms per month of hazardous generator exclusion were included. The concern. We used these data as input to waste or 1.2 metric tons per year. We waste solids quantity distribution had the modeling parameters in our risk separated the survey data from the 57 entries for single and co-managed assessment. The risk assessment CESQG facilities because under the waste streams. In addition to this estimated the concentration of Federal RCRA regulations, they could quantity distribution that combined all individual constituents that could be continue to send their small waste the types of waste solids (combined present in each waste and remain quantities to nonhazardous disposal waste solids), a second quantity protective of human health and the facilities. Including these very small distribution was constructed that environment. These risk based waste quantities in our risk modeling contained only nonhazardous emission
VerDate 11
control dust sent to nonhazardous nonhazardous liquid quantities of EPA conducted analyses of the risks landfills. The emission control dust nonhazardous washwater cleaning liquid that posed by the waste streams evaluated only distribution was constructed were disposed in off-site tanks at CWTs. This for this listing to determine the similarly to the manner in which the liquids distribution was used for risk concentrations of constituents that if modeling of waste liquids being sent to combined solids quantity distribution uncovered off-site treatment tanks. found in paint production wastes would was constructed. It did not include the • The fourth quantity distribution was meet the criteria for listing set forth in conditionally exempt small quantity exactly the same as the one above, but the 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3). This section generator facilities data and co- target management unit was a surface discusses the human health risk management of wastes was considered. impoundment instead of a tank. analyses and ecological risk screening The emission control dust only • The last quantity used for modeling was analyses EPA conducted to support our distribution was input into the risk a single quantity, the highest washwater proposed listing determinations for model with an accompanying low cleaning liquid quantity managed in paint and coatings production wastes. uncovered on-site treatment tanks as reported We consider the risk analyses in moisture content to represent a worst- in the survey. This was used to evaluate risks case scenario for wind blown materials from waste liquids managed in on-site developing our listing decisions for each that could be released from the storage and treatment tanks. of the waste streams. The risk analyses nonhazardous landfill. we describe in this section are presented Each of these quantity distributions We created three separate waste in detail in the Risk Assessment was used in the process of modeling the liquid distributions in the same manner Technical Background Document for risk to human and environmental as the solids distributions to correspond Paint and Coatings Listing receptors from the disposal of waste to the modeling scenarios for liquids. Determination which is located in the solids and liquids in nonhazardous Initially, any CESQG facilities that docket for today’s proposed rule. landfills, tanks and surface generated waste liquids were eliminated impoundments. The next section 2. How Did EPA Use Damage Case from consideration. The first waste describes the risk assessment approach Information? liquid distribution contained washwater and process in detail. cleaning liquid quantities sent off-site to We also considered whether any a CWT. We combined waste liquid E. What Risk Assessment Approach Did damage cases exist that indicate impacts quantities where we found co- EPA Use to Determine Allowable on human health or the environment management scenarios. We used this Constituent Waste Concentrations? from improper management of the quantity distribution to evaluate wastes of concern, which is required 1. Which Factors Did EPA Incorporate washwater cleaning liquid stored in under the listing regulations Into Its Quantitative Risk Assessment? uncovered off-site tanks at CWTs. Next, (§ 261.11(a)(3)(ix)). Damage incidents the surface impoundment waste liquid In making listing determinations, the might be useful in not only establishing quantity distribution was exactly the Agency considers the listing criteria whether there was any impact on same as the distribution of all quantities required in 40 CFR 261.11. The criteria human health or the environment from of washwater cleaning liquids that sent provided in 40 CFR 261.11 include improper management, but such to off-site CWTs. Because surface eleven factors for determining incidents might also provide some impoundments, when they exist, are a ‘‘substantial present or potential hazard information on plausible mismanagement practices, and on the part of the CWT’s treatment process, we to human health and the environment.’’ potential of the waste constituents to assumed that quantities of waste liquids Nine of these factors, as described migrate, persist, or degrade in the sent off-site to CWTs could be treated in generally below, are directly environment. We compiled damage unlined surface impoundments as well incorporated into EPA’s completion of a incidents involving paint production as in tanks. The third liquids quantity risk assessment for the waste streams of wastes and paint constituents, including distribution consists of the largest concern: paints disposed of by non-paint washwater cleaning quantity reported in • Toxicity (§ 261.11(a)(3)(i)) is considered manufacturing facilities. We found the survey. This single quantity was in developing the health benchmarks used in approximately 21 incidents that appear used to conduct a conservative risk the risk assessment modeling. • Constituent concentrations that pose a to involve the release of constituents assessment screening for exposure to from the management of paint product emissions from waste liquids in hazard to human health are determined in the risk assessment (§ 261.11(a)(3)(ii)). wastes either at the site of paint uncovered on-site treatment tanks. • manufacture, or at off-site facilities. We To summarize, we assembled five Waste volumes (§ 261.11(a) (3)(viii)) are used to define the initial conditions for the also found damage incidents for the separate quantity distributions using the risk evaluation. disposal of paint wastes by end-users, survey response information. • Potential to migrate, persistence, and numerous other possible incidents • One distribution consisted of all the degradation, and bioaccumulation of the for which we did not have adequate survey quantities of nonhazardous combined hazardous constituents and any degradation information to determine the type of products (sections 261(a)(3)(iii), waste solids from: nonhazardous solvent facility or the nature of the waste cleaning sludge, nonhazardous washwater 261.11(a)(3)(iv), 261.11(a)(3)(v), and cleaning sludge, nonhazardous waste water 261.11(a)(3)(vi)) are all considered in the involved. A report summarizing the treatment sludge, nonhazardous emission design of the fate and transport models used results of this search is in the docket for control dust and nonhazardous off to determine the concentrations of the today’s rule (Damage Incident specification product. This distribution contaminants to which individuals are Compendium and Report, July 2000). called, ‘‘combined solids’’ was used for risk exposed. A number of the data sources analysis as a sludge-like material in a • Finally, we consider two of the contained information on potential nonhazardous landfill. remaining factors, plausible mismanagement problems related to management or use • The second distribution consisted of all as discussed in the previous section and of paint materials at a variety of sites. other regulatory actions as discussed in nonhazardous emission control dust The information of most potential utility quantities only. This distribution was used Section IV on the proposed listing for risk assessment modeling as a dust-like determinations ((§§ 261.11(a)(3)(vii) and came from the Superfund Public material going to a landfill. 261.11(a)(3)(x)) in establishing the waste Information System (SPIS). The SPIS • The third distribution was a liquids management scenario(s) modeled in the risk contains data from the Record of distribution that consisted of all assessment. Decision System (RODS), which
VerDate 11
document remediation actions as sites wastewater treatment sludge; emission conducted a screening level ecological on the National Priority List (NPL), and control dust or sludge; and off- risk assessment to ensure that the the Comprehensive Environmental specification production wastes) nor concentration limits were dually Response Compensation and Liability allow us to determine concentrations protective of human health and Information System (CERCLIS), which above which paint manufacturing ecological life. contains other information on potential wastes could pose a hazard. Thus we are The following sections explain the and actual Superfund sites. Information unable to directly attribute selection of constituents that we from other sources proved to be less contamination observed from the evaluated in the risk assessment and useful. For example, a search of the mismanagement of paint manufacturing present an overview of the analysis the Right-to-Know network database (RTK) wastes to those the wastes that are Agency used to calculate risk-based provided some matches for paint as a specifically addressed by this proposed listing levels for solvent cleaning waste, pollutant in the database of civil cases listing. water and/or caustic cleaning waste, filed by the Department of Justice on Even if historical problems could be waste water treatment sludge, emission behalf of EPA, however these included traced to paint materials, they are not control dust and sludges, and off- violations of RCRA permitting, storage, very useful in assessing the potential specification product. You will find and reporting requirements, rather than risks for paint production wastes as they more details of how we selected the disposal problems, or violations of the are currently generated. The damage constituents of concern in the Listing CAA or CWA. The Defense Technical incidents may represent the potential Background Document. Details of the Information Center database provided for the migration, mobility, and risk assessment are provided in the information on defense installations on persistence of constituents in paint document in the docket entitled Risk the NPL and slated for closing, however manufacturing wastes. The damage Assessment Technical Background these appear to be end users, not paint cases do provide some anecdotal Document for the Paint and Coatings manufacturers. information in support of a conclusion Listing Determination (hereafter called EPA believes the damage cases have that some paint manufacturing wastes the Technical Background Document). limited utility for determining current may yield environmental contamination 4. How EPA Chose Potential plausible mismanagement scenarios. when managed in the ways that lead to Constituents of Concern The vast majority of damage cases the damage cases. However, because the (especially Superfund sites) were from wastes in the damage cases may include Our overall goal in choosing potential sites that operated prior to wastes now managed as hazardous, and constituents of concern was to identify implementation of the current RCRA because the cases may reflect commonly used, potentially hazardous regulations, and generally reflect management scenarios we do not constituents that could pose management practices that no longer believe are currently common or unacceptable risk if present in occur (such as an in ground solvent pit, plausible, it is difficult to use them to mismanaged paint manufacturing buried crushed drums and dumping reach conclusions as to which of the wastes. Waste sampling was not liquids in trenches). We believe these wastes under evaluation in today’s practical because we would have had to past damage incidents do not represent proposal may pose significant risks. conduct extensive sampling to current waste management practices by Certainly it is difficult to use damage adequately represent thousands of the paint manufacturing industry. This cases to ascertain at what concentration variable products and constituents. As is supported by the results from the the paint manufacturing wastes under an alternative, we chose to rely on 3007 Survey, which indicate that evaluation may pose such risks. Thus, published information and manufacturers are coding and managing while the damage cases supports that environmental databases to select many wastes as hazardous, especially some paint manufacturing wastes may constituents of concern. We believe our some of those likely to have the greatest sometimes pose risks, EPA is relying review of the literature available on solvent content. For example, all upon its quantitative risk assessment in paint formulation and manufacturing facilities that reported solvent cleaning formulating today’s proposal. combined with our search of specific wastes reported them to be hazardous, databases provided representative 3. Overview of The Risk Assessment except for one that was sent to fuel information on widely used raw blending. Therefore, we expect that For a concentration-based listing, EPA materials. In addition, we selected waste management practices have is proposing to calculate the constituents for which we had access to changed, since the promulgation of the concentration levels, or ‘‘listing levels’’ toxicity and fate and transport data to RCRA regulations, including the in the waste at or above which a waste conduct a risk assessment for each addition of a number of organics to the would be considered hazardous. Risk potential constituent of concern. We Toxicity Characteristic in 1990 and the assessment is used to identify the verified and supplemented these listings for certain waste solvents (F001 concentrations of individual sources with information provided by to F005) in 1980 (and as revised in constituents that can be present in each paint manufacturers when the 3007 1985). waste stream and remain below a survey data was available. In most cases, the available damage specified level of risk to both humans We used the following three-phased incident data rarely indicated the and the environment. approach to develop a list of potential composition of the paint or paint To establish these listing levels, the constituents of concern. In the first manufacturing waste, nor the source of Agency (1) Selected constituents of phase, we developed a preliminary list the waste. Instead, the data depicted the potential concern in waste, (2) evaluated of potentially hazardous constituents in material or waste in general terms, such plausible waste management scenarios, paint formulations which we could as ‘‘paint,’’ ‘‘paint manufacturing (3) calculated exposure concentrations readily evaluate for potential risks to waste,’’ or ‘‘sludges.’’ Thus, the by modeling the release and transport of human health, and for which we have databases did not categorize the damage the constituents from the waste test methods to detect their presence in incidents involving paint manufacturing management unit to the point of waste. In the second phase, we wastes into the specific waste categories exposure, and (4) calculated waste narrowed the list to constituents for of interest (solvent cleaning wastes; concentrations that are likely to pose which we would conduct a risk water/caustic cleaning wastes; unacceptable risk. In addition, the EPA assessment. In the third phase, we
VerDate 11
added a limited number of constituents other governmental sources, such as a Our next critical step in identifying a to the risk assessment, as additional National Institute of Occupational preliminary list of constituents was to information became available. Safety and Health (NIOSH) document determine which constituents we could a. Phase 1: How Did EPA Develop a characterizing hazardous worker readily analyze for potential human Preliminary List of Constituents? We exposures in paint manufacturing, as health effects and which constituents developed a preliminary list of well as our experience in the RCRA could be readily tested in wastes. We constituents in three steps: first, out of program dealing with a variety of looked for the following: the thousands of constituents that are hazardous and potentially hazardous Health benchmarks: values used to used as ingredients in paints, we constituents.) In the fall of 1999, when quantify a chemical’s possible toxicity and identified a subset of potentially we developed the preliminary list of ability to induce a health effect. Benchmarks hazardous constituents used in paint constituents, the Raw Materials Module are also specific to routes of exposure formulations; second, we identified contained approximately 500 (ingestion or inhalation) and duration of those constituents for which we have constituents. exposure. adequate data to complete a risk In developing the preliminary list of Physical/chemical properties: information assessment so that we could develop a constituents, we also considered other used to predict the behavior and movement sources that might provide information of constituents in the environment essential protective concentration level for the to model environmental fate and transport. listing, if appropriate; finally, we on specific constituents associated with Analytic methods: reliable methods ensured that test methods were paint manufacturing facilities. For this, available to test for the presence of available so paint manufacturers would we turned to the Toxics Release constituents at concentrations of concern in be able to identify the presence and Inventory (TRI) data base. Under the order to implement a concentration based concentration of constituents in their Emergency Planning and Community listing. We identified those constituents that wastes, as necessary. Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), all paint have available SW–846 analytic methods. Initially, we relied on the ‘‘Database manufacturing facilities with ten or We found that of the constituents in of Published Paint Information’’ more employees must report chemical the Raw Materials Module and the (available in the docket), a releases if they manufacture, process, or constituents reported in the TRI, 114 computerized database that otherwise use any EPCRA section 313 had health benchmarks. We then characterizes paint raw materials. In chemicals in quantities greater than the searched for data on physical/chemical particular, we used the ‘‘Raw Materials established thresholds. Facilities must properties and SW–846 analytic Module’’ which contains information on report the quantities of both routine and methods for each constituent. We finally the following types of ingredients that accidental releases. Facilities are had a list of 66 constituents with test are used to make paints (we believe that required to report quantities only for methods and sufficient data to conduct these categories cover the vast majority individual constituents. In the 1997 TRI, further analyses. We included the 66 of paint ingredients that could pose a a total of 646 facilities in SIC code 2851 constituents in the 3007 survey and concern): reported releasing 115 different asked respondents to identify which constituents into the environment. From Additives—Inorganic and organic metal- constituents occurred in each of their containing raw material additives such as these 115 constituents, we identified paint manufacturing waste streams. driers (siccatives), catalysts, stabilizers. approximately 60 additional Table III.E–1 lists the 66 constituents. Binders—Organic polymeric compounds constituents that were not already in the used to adhere the pigment particles and ‘‘Raw Materials Database,’’ but were TABLE III.E–1.—CANDIDATE other paint ingredients into a film on the associated with paint manufacturing CONSTITUENTS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT surface being painted. facilities. While TRI reports of Biocides—Compounds used to kill constituent releases cannot be tied microorganisms and larger organisms such as Acetone directly to the five waste streams in the Acrylamide and acrylamide derived polymers insects. Categories of biocides include scope of this rule, TRI releases do tell insecticides, anti-fouling compounds (e.g., Acrylonitrile and acrylonitrile derived poly- for use on ships), fungicides, algaicides, and us that the constituents are used by mers mildewcides. paint manufacturing facilities, released Allyl alcohol Pigments—Insoluble particulates used to into the environment, and could Antimony and compounds give the paint film color as well as structured potentially be found in the waste Barium and compounds strength, as well as in some cases imparting streams of concern. Benzene corrosion resistance or other properties to We recognize that the TRI data do not Benzyl alcohol paint film. correlate perfectly to the scope of Butyl benzyl phthlate Solvents—Solvents used both in traditional facilities and wastes potentially covered Cadmium and compounds ‘‘oil’’ based (solvent based) paints, as well as by this listing. For example, the SIC Chloroform those solvents used in waterborne paints. Chromium and compounds category also includes some facilities Cobalt and compounds The constituents in the ‘‘Raw that are not paint producers. Also, TRI Copper and compounds Materials Module’’ were identified from tracks releases of specific constituents. Cyanide an extensive set of reference materials, However, the TRI data do not Cyclohexane including textbooks, monographs, distinguish whether the releases are Dibutyl phthlate articles and Material Safety Data Sheets hazardous or non-hazardous wastes or 3-(3,4lDichlorophenyl-1)1 dimethylurea listed in the ‘‘Bibliography of whether the constituents are present in Diethyl phthlate Documents Module’’ of the database. a larger matrix with other materials. Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthlate We believe this survey approach While TRI does not contain sufficiently 2,4 Dimethylphenol allowed us to identify constituents that detailed information to associate 1,4 Dioxane Ethyl acetate are used in paint formulations based on releases directly with paint production, Ethylbenzene a variety of sources. We also it does provide the best available Ethylene glycol emphasized constituents we had reason information source on toxic constituent Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-derived to believe were more likely to pose a releases to waste management units and polymers risk to human health and the environmental media from facilities Isophorone environment. (For example, we used within the appropriate SIC code. Lead and compounds
VerDate 11
TABLE III.E–1.—CANDIDATE CON- waste management units and Third, while we did not have TRI data STITUENTS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT— environmental media. We then looked available for two additional constituents, at RCRA Biennial Reporting System cobalt and tin, we added them based on our Continued knowledge that they are commonly used as (BRS) data to find how frequently paint pigments in paints. M-Cresol manufacturing facilities generated Methanol hazardous wastes that contain each of We initially identified 35 constituents Methyl acrylate the 66 constituents. ( Hazardous waste that met our screening criteria. Methylene chloride However, we later dropped one of the Methyl ethyl ketone generators are required to report biennially the listed and characteristic 35 constituents (phthalic anhydride) Methyl isobutyl ketone because it degrades too rapidly to Methyl methacrylate and methyl methacrylate hazardous wastes that they generate by derivatives waste code—the Biennial Reporting model. In summary, we used the 34 2,2 Methylenebis (3,4,6-trichlorophenol) System. Each hazardous waste code for constituents listed in Table III.E–2 to Mercury and compounds listed or TC characteristically hazardous develop the risk assessment structure Molybdenum and compounds wastes is associated with specific and draft analysis. M-Xylene hazardous constituents that are the basis c. Phase 3: How Did EPA Choose Naphthelene of the listing.) We looked at the number Additional Constituents for The Risk N-Butyl alcohol Assessment? Before we completed the Nickel and compounds of paint manufacturing facilities that reported generating hazardous waste risk modeling, we added a limited Nitrobenzene number of constituents to the 34 we 2-Nitropropane codes associated with the specific chose initially. We looked at three O-Cresol constituents we were interested in. groups of constituents. First, since we O-Xylene While we know that these wastes are had chosen the initial group of P-Cresol already hazardous, we looked at these Pentachlorophenol constituents in the fall of 1999, we data as possible indicators of Phthalic anhydride identified five additional constituents constituents that might be associated Phenol (from the list of 114 constituents with with nonhazardous wastes at paint Selenium and compounds health benchmarks) that met the criteria Silver and compounds manufacturing operations. We also for risk assessment (the Agency’s Office Styrene and styrene-derived compounds considered TRI data for two reasons. of Research and Development identified Tetrachloroethene First, TRI ‘‘releases’’ cover a broader Tin and compounds physical/chemical properties and SW– range of materials than ‘‘hazardous 846 methods are available). Second, we Toluene wastes’’ (in the BRS) and include non- Toluene diisocyanate had 3007 survey responses reporting 1,1,1 Trichloroethane hazardous wastes that are not reported which of the 66 constituents (candidates 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene to BRS. Also, TRI data provide some for modeling, including the 34 we used Trichloroethene indication of the relative amounts or to develop the risk assessment modeling 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol frequency that constituents may be structure) occur in non-hazardous waste Vanadium and compounds released into the environment. Vinyl acetate and vinyl acetate derived poly- streams. Finally, we found TRI data for mers First, we looked at TRI for the volume of one additional constituent on the list of releases of each constituent from facilities in Vinylidene chloride and vinylidene chloride 66. Ultimately, we chose additional SIC 2851 to on-site landfills, solidification/ derived polymers constituents based on the 3007 survey stabilization, wastewater treatment, and Xylene (mixed isomers) reporting. offsite landfills and surface impoundments. Zinc and compounds We evaluated releases to these units first, First we considered the five because, while we did not yet have the constituents (from the initial list of 114, b. Phase 2: How Did EPA Select results of the 3007 survey, these management but not included in the 66) for which we Potential Constituents of Concern for units correspond most closely to waste received later information identifying the Risk Assessment? Before we began management scenarios we generally address physical/chemical properties, and SW– our initial risk assessment analyses in for listing purposes. We initially identified a 846 methods: these were acetophenone, the fall of 1999, and before survey data list of 20 constituents out of the 66 with the chlorobenzene, ethyl ether, p-chloro- were available, we selected a subset of largest volume releases to these management meta-cresol, and 34 constituents (from the 66) to use in units. Second, because solvents were heavily tetrachloroisophthalonitrile. As with the developing the risk assessment represented among the first 20 constituents first group of 34 constituents, we structure. We believe that it is important we identified from TRI data, we focused on considered the available data for further to select toxic constituents that are the remaining constituents that fell into other evidence associating the constituents likely to occur across a wider variety of use categories, such as pigments, binders, with paint manufacturing facilities. waste streams so that the concentration- and biocides. We believe that it is important Acetophenone and chlorobenzene are based listing will capture more wastes to have a broader representation of other TRI chemicals but had no TRI releases of concern. While it is possible that types of constituents, besides solvents, which reported by SIC 2851 facilities. Ethyl infrequently occurring constituents are used in paint formulations. (We note that some constituents serve more than one ether, o-chloro-meta-cresol, and could pose risks, we believe it is most purpose in paint formulations.) We tetrachloroisophthalonitrile are not effective to address risks from considered total TRI releases (including covered by TRI. In the BRS, four SIC constituents that could be associated releases to air, surface waters, etc., in 2851 facilities reported hazardous with more paint production wastes and addition to releases to the waste management wastes that were listed, at least in part occur in larger volumes. To select these units listed above) for each of the remaining based on chlorobenzene. We found no constituents, we looked for some constituents. We also looked at the number BRS reporting of hazardous wastes indicators that could give us insight into of RCRA facilities that are likely to generate associated with the other four which were more widely used or more the constituent in hazardous waste, based on BRS data. This resulted in adding 13 constituents. likely to occur in wastes. We started constituents, including all eight remaining Then, we also considered the with the 66 constituents identified in pigments, binders and biocides that had any additional information reported in the Table 1 and looked at 1997 TRI data first TRI releases and 5 that were only reported in 3007 survey. The survey listed the 66 to find constituent volumes released to the BRS. constituents that were candidates for
VerDate 11
risk assessment and asked respondents a frequently occurring constituent in as lead naphthenate, lead molybdate to identify which constituents occur in non-hazardous waste streams than other chromate, lead sulfate, lead chromate, lead each of their waste streams, both constituents that actually were reported oxide, etc. We believe that by modeling these hazardous and non-hazardous. While in the survey as occurring in non- 14 metals, we are in fact representing a response to this question was hazardous wastes.12 Therefore, we did broader range of compounds that are likely mandatory, the responses were based on not model trichloroethene. It is not a to be used in paints. As discussed in the existing knowledge or waste testing constituent considered as a basis for the Section III.E.3 (see discussion on uncertainty already available to the respondent. In concentration based listing. in human health risk results), we recognize discussing these results below, We decided to add additional that the ionic forms of metals we modeled may over or under represent the mobility of ‘‘reporting frequency’’ or ‘‘frequency of modeling constituents from those many of these metal compounds. However, occurrence’’ refers to the number of identified in the survey results rather times each constituent was reported to given that metal speciation may also change than any of the five constituents for as the constituents move from the waste into occur in a non-hazardous waste stream which we received additional data that the environment, we believe our modeling by a facility. The numbers reflect the would allow us to conduct risk efforts are a reasonable approach to assessing total number of waste streams that were modeling. We have no TRI data for any the risks presented by the metals. reported with identified constituents, of the five constituents with late- • Fifteen of the constituents are TC not the number of facilities. Some waste arriving information. BRS data provided constituents. We chose to model these streams were reported without any some evidence that chlorobenzene is because we were concerned that risk-based associated constituents. associated with hazardous wastes from levels derived from modeling might be lower In survey data, respondents identified four paint facilities. In contrast, the than TC concentration levels. We had 45 of the 66 constituents occurring in survey provides actual reporting from experience from the petroleum listing where their non-hazardous waste streams. paint manufacturers on the occurrence one TC constituent, benzene, was present in Frequency of occurrence ranged from of constituents in their nonhazardous the wastes below the TC concentration level 127 for barium to one for o-xylene and waste streams. We believe that BRS and potentially could pose a risk, (see 63 FR benzyl alcohol. Twenty-nine of the 34 reporting associated with chlorobenzene 42110, August 6, 1998). In addition, because constituents we chose initially for at four facilities is less compelling than we intended to conduct a multi-pathway risk modeling were among the 45. We reporting frequency in the survey as a assessment that would take into account initially modeled the top 22 in terms of basis for adding additional constituents direct and indirect risks from air and ground reporting frequency and out of the top for risk modeling. water as well as from ingestion of ground 26, we modeled 24. Five of the water, it was possible that risk-based Therefore, we added the following six concentrations for other exposure pathways constituents we modeled were not constituents for risk modeling based on identified by respondents as occurring might be lower than those for ingestion of reported frequency of occurrence in ground water alone, which is the basis for the in non-hazardous waste streams. These non-hazardous waste streams: butyl results support the interpretation that TC. benzyl phthalate with 26 occurrences; • Fifteen of the constituents are pigments; our initial approach to choosing acrylamide with 22 occurrences; constituents was appropriate. ten are biocides; 17 are solvents; five are benzene with 11 occurrences; and m-, binders; and two are driers (the numbers do Finally we considered o-, and p-cresol isomers with 14 not add up to the total number modeled trichloroethene, which was one of the occurrences (for m-cresol and o-cresol). because some constituents have more than 66 constituents, but was not initially We modeled all three cresol isomers one purpose). chosen for risk modeling. We found because they are sometimes difficult to • With the addition of the six new there were TRI releases reported for distinguish with available sampling modeling constituents, we modeled 34 trichloroethene, so we also looked at methods and they often occur together. constituents with 3007 survey reported waste survey responses to find how often Also, all three isomers are TC stream occurrences ranging from 127 to two. respondents identified it occurring in constituents. We modeled the top 30 in terms of reporting their waste streams. We found that In summary we modeled 43 frequency in waste streams, with the trichloroethene was not reported in constituents. There are several points to exception of acetone (discussed below). We either non-hazardous or hazardous also completed modeling for the five note concerning the constituents that we waste streams. We compared this to constituents modeled initially but not modeled: responses for several other widely used reported in the survey, because there is a solvents. Several were reported in both • There are 11 metals on our list of possibility that they may occur in the total non-hazardous and hazardous waste modeling constituents, and we actually universe of paint manufacturing wastes. streams and the frequency of reporting modeled 14 because we modeled elemental We did not model acetone, although it was was significantly higher in the mercury and divalent mercury, chromium III reported at 11 occurrences, because it was and chromium VI, and nickel and nickel hazardous waste streams. For example, removed from the TRI in 1995. It was oxide. Metals exist in a wide variety of toluene was reported in 38 non- removed from the TRI because ‘‘*** chemical species, and this may be an acetone: (1) Cannot reasonably be anticipated hazardous waste streams and 249 listed important factor in assessing the fate, hazardous waste streams. Xylene was to cause cancer or neurotoxicity and has not mobility, and toxicity of metals in our risk been shown to be mutagenic and (2) cannot reported in 33 non-hazardous waste analysis. For the metals noted above, we have reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse streams and 246 listed hazardous waste sufficient information on mobility and developmental effects or other chronic effects toxicity to model different species. Metals are streams. Ethylbenzene was reported in 6 except at relatively high dose levels.’’ present in paint manufacturing wastes as non-hazardous wastes and 126 listed (Federal Register: June 16, 1995 (Volume 60, hazardous waste streams. Comparing simple metal salts, or the metal could be part of a larger organic or inorganic metal Number 116), pp. 31643–31646.) On the ‘‘no reported occurrence’’ of same day, EPA also added acetone to a list trichloroethene in either non-hazardous compound. For example, for lead there are a number of compounds used in paints, such of compounds excluded from the definition or hazardous waste streams to the non- of a VOC under Title I of the Clean Air Act, hazardous/hazardous reporting for other 12 Also, generators should know if trichloroethene based on an Agency determination that widely used solvents led us to conclude is in their wastes because it is a TC constituent acetone has a negligible contribution to that trichloroethene is less likely to be (D040, trichloroethylene). tropospheric ozone formation.
VerDate 11
Table III.E–2 lists all the constituents occurrence when they were reported in that we modeled, the use category that non-hazardous waste streams. they fall under and their frequency of
TABLE III.E–2.—CONSTITUENTS MODELED FOR RISK ASSESSMENT
Weighted frequency of occurrence in Constituent Purpose non-hazardous waste streams
Barium 1 ...... Pigment ...... 127.4 Zinc ...... Pigment/Biocide ...... 126.8 Vinyl Acetate ...... Solvent/binder ...... 98.4 Ethylene Glycol ...... Solvent ...... 90.0 Copper ...... Pigment/Biocide ...... 86.7 Chromium III 1 ...... Pigment ...... 84.6 Chromium VI 1 ...... (Identified as chromium in the survey) Cobalt ...... Pigment/drier ...... 73.0 Styrene ...... Binder ...... 63.0 Formaldehyde ...... Biocide ...... 62.8 Lead 1 ...... Pigment/drier ...... 58.2 Antimony ...... Pigment ...... 45.9 Silver 1 ...... Pigment/biocide ...... 45.6 Methanol ...... Solvent/biocide ...... 40.0 Toluene ...... Solvent ...... 38.8 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 1 ...... Solvent ...... 36.9 N-Butyl Alcohol ...... Solvent ...... 35.6 Acrylonitrile ...... Binder ...... 35.0 Cadmium 1 ...... Pigment ...... 34.5 Xylene ...... Solvent ...... 33.5 Nickel ...... Pigment ...... 28.3 Nickel oxide ...... Pigment ...... (identified as nickel in survey) Phenol ...... Solvent/biocide ...... 28.0 Methyl Methacrylate ...... Binder ...... 27.2 Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 2 ...... Solvent ...... 26.6 Acrylamide 2 ...... Binder ...... 22.5 Dibutyl Phthalate ...... Solvent ...... 22.0 m-Cresol 1,2 ...... Solvent ...... 7.45 o-Cresol 1,2 ...... Solvent ...... 7.45 p-Cresol 1,2 ...... Solvent ...... Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ...... Solvent ...... 11.8 Benzene 1,2 ...... Solvent ...... 11.0 Tin ...... Pigment ...... 9.0 Mercury 1 ...... Pigment/biocide ...... 7.6 Divalent mercury ...... Pigment/biocide ...... (Identified as mercury in the survey) Ethylbenzene ...... Solvent ...... 6.1 Selenium 1 ...... Pigment ...... 5.1 Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate ...... Solvent ...... 2.2 Chloroform 1 ...... Biocide ...... Methylene chloride ...... Solvent ...... 2,4 dimethylphenol ...... Biocide ...... Pentachlorophenol 1 ...... Biocide ...... Tetrachloroethylene 1 ...... Solvent ...... 1 Indicates Toxicity Characteristic (TC) constituents. 2 Indicates constituents added to the risk assessment based on frequency of occurrence reported in the 3007 survey.
5. What Was EPA’s Approach to and hydro-geological conditions was of a constituent that can be managed in Conducting Human Health Risk selected for this listing because paint the waste streams reported in the 3007 Assessment? manufacturing is widespread, and survey and remain below a target risk facilities that generate the waste streams level for both cancer risk and noncancer Our human health risk analysis for of interest are found nationwide. human health hazards to 90% of the the paint and coating waste streams This risk assessment is intended to individuals living near waste estimates the concentrations of limit the risk to individuals who reside management units handling paint individual constituents that can be near waste management units used for manufacturing wastes. Human health present in each waste stream and paint manufacturing waste disposal by impacts are expressed as estimates of provide a specified level of determining the concentrations of excess lifetime cancer risk for protectiveness to human health and the particular constituents that can be individuals (called ‘‘receptors’’) who environment. The human health risk managed in paint manufacturing wastes may be exposed to carcinogenic assessment for the paints and coatings and remain below a specified individual contaminants and as hazard quotients listing determination evaluates waste target risk level. (HQ’s) for those contaminants that management scenarios that may occur For this listing, we generated risk- produce noncancer health effects. nationwide. A national analysis that based concentration limits in waste Excess lifetime cancer risk is the captures variability in meteorological streams by estimating the concentration probability of an individual developing
VerDate 11
cancer over a lifetime as a result of To calculate listing levels for location could result in a scenario that exposure to a carcinogen. A hazard constituents of concern, we needed to would not occur in nature. quotient is the ratio of an individual’s determine what concentrations at the The probabilistic analysis is chronic daily dose of a noncarcinogen to point of exposure would be associated conducted using a Monte Carlo a reference dose (an estimate of daily with levels in the waste for each waste methodology. Monte Carlo analysis exposure that is likely to be without stream and waste management unit. We provides a means of quantifying appreciable risk or deleterious effects used three types of analyses to variability in risk assessments by using over a lifetime) for exposures to the determine the risks associated with the distributions that describe the full range noncarcinogen. For this listing, the management of paint manufacturing of values that the various input Agency selected a target risk level for wastes: (1) A probabilistic analysis for parameters may have. Some of the excess lifetime cancer risk for all waste management scenarios; (2) a parameters in the probabilistic analysis individuals exposed to carcinogenic deterministic analysis for all waste are set as constant values because (1) (cancer-causing) contaminants of 1 management scenarios, and (3) a there are insufficient data to develop a chance in 100,000 (1E–05). For bounding analysis for on-site probability distribution function ; (2) constituents that are non-carcinogens, management of waste waters in EPA made assumptions to simplify the the Agency selected the measure of safe treatment tanks. The results of the analysis in cases where such intake levels to projected intake levels, bounding analysis demonstrated that simplifications would improve the a hazard quotient (HQ), of HQ=1. given the concentrations of constituents efficiency of the analysis without significantly affecting the results; and The use of these risk levels is that we expect in paint manufacturing (3) the analysis has not been shown to consistent with the EPA’s hazardous waste the risk generated from paint be sensitive to the value of the waste listing policy and the target risk manufacturing wastes managed in on- parameter, that is, even if the parameter levels used in past hazardous waste site tanks is not significant. The varies, the resulting risk estimate does listings (e.g., see 59 FR 24530, December following sections describe the risk not vary significantly. The result of the 22, 1994). Risk levels themselves do not assessment. probabilistic risk assessment is a necessarily represent the sole basis for (1) Probabilistic Analysis (Monte distribution of risk-based concentration a listing. There can be uncertainty in Carlo Method). A probabilistic analysis limits or ‘‘listing levels.’’ The EPA used calculated risk values and so other calculates distributions of results (in the results of the probabilistic risk factors are considered in conjunction this case protective waste assessment to determine the regulatory with risk in making a listing decision. concentrations for each constituent) by listing levels. EPA’s current listing determination allowing some of the parameters used in (2) Deterministic Analysis. The procedure uses as an initial cancer-risk an analysis to have more than one value. deterministic method uses single values ‘‘level of concern’’ a calculated risk The model is run numerous times (for for input parameters in the models to level of 1E–05 and/or environmental this analysis we ran the model 10,000 produce a point estimate of risk or risk quotients (EQ’s) of 1 at any one times) each time with different values hazard. We used the deterministic point in time. Waste streams for which selected from the distributions of input analysis to corroborate the results of the risks are calculated to be 1E–04 or parameters. A parameter is any one of probabilistic analysis. For the higher, or 1 HQ or higher for any a number of inputs or variables (such as deterministic analysis, we conduct both individual non carcinogen, or non waste volume or distance between the a ‘‘central tendency’’ and a ‘‘high end’’ carcinogens that elicit adverse effects on waste management unit and the deterministic risk assessment. These the same target organ, generally will be receptor) required for the fate and two analyses attempt to quantify the considered to pose a substantial present transport and exposure models and cancer risk or non-cancer hazard for the or potential hazard to human health and equations that EPA uses to assess risk. ‘‘average’’ receptor in the population the environment and generally will be In the probabilistic analysis, we vary (the central tendency risk) and the risk listed as hazardous waste. Such waste sensitive parameters for which or hazard for individuals in small, but streams fall into a category distributions of data are available. definable ‘‘high end’’ segments of the presumptively assumed to pose Parameters varied for this analysis population (the high end risk). For sufficient risk to require their listing as include waste volumes, waste central tendency deterministic risk hazardous waste. However, even for management unit size, parameters analyses, we set all parameters at their these waste streams there can in some related to the location of the waste central tendency values. For the paint cases be factors which could mitigate management unit such as climate and and coatings risk assessment, the central the high hazard presumption. Listing hydro-geologic data, location of the tendency values generally are either determinations for waste streams with receptor, and exposure factors (e.g., mean (average) or 50th percentile calculated high-end individual cancer drinking water ingestion rates). In some (median) values. We use high end risk levels between 1E–04 and 1E–06 cases, in order to maintain the inherent deterministic risk analyses to predict always involve assessment of additional correlation between parameters, we treat the risks and hazards for those factors. For today’s proposed listing multiple parameters as a single individuals exposed at the upper range there are several factors that we parameter for the purpose of conducting of the distribution of exposures. EPA’s considered in setting the risk level of the analysis. We do this to prevent Guidance For Risk Characterization concern, these included: (1) Certainty in inadvertently combining parameters in (EPA 1995) advises that ‘‘conceptually, the risk assessment methodology, (2) our analyses in ways that are high end exposure means exposure coverage by other regulatory programs, unrealistic. For example, we treat above about the 90th percentile of the (3) damage cases, and (4) presence of environmental setting (location) population distribution, but not higher toxicants with unquantifiable risks. We parameters such as climate, depth to than the individual in the population believe a target cancer risk level of 1E– groundwater, and aquifer type as a who has the highest exposure,’’ and 05 and an HQ of 1 is appropriate for this single set of parameters. We believe recommends that ‘‘* * * the assessor listing, but we welcome comments and that, for example, allowing the climate should approach estimating high end by supporting data if there is a compelling from one location to be paired with the identifying the most sensitive variables reason for an alternative target. depth to groundwater from another and using high end values for a subset
VerDate 11
of these variables, leaving others at their that can be managed in a tank and information on the national central values.’’ As such, for the paint remain protective of human health. To distributions of waste management unit and coatings risk assessment, high end conduct this analysis, the most sensitive characteristics (e.g., size and waste deterministic risk analyses, EPA or risk-driving parameters in the risk capacity) collected with surveys established a set of the parameters most assessment tank model were varied conducted for other rulemakings to likely to influence the results of the between their high-end and central establish the characteristics of the off- assessment and set two of these tendency values. The tank site waste management units. parameters at a time to their high end characteristics (i.e., capacity, surface (i) Type of Waste Management Units values (generally 90th percentile area, and diameter) used in the analysis and Their Characteristics. We evaluated values), and set all other parameters at were based on the tank reported by the commercial industrial non-hazardous their central tendency. The high-end facility with the highest waste volume landfills, surface impoundments, and deterministic analysis results are based managed in a tank. The tank modeled off-site tanks for the probabilistic and on the two most ‘‘sensitive parameters.’’ was a 9000 gallon, aerated waste water deterministic risk assessment. On-site These are the two parameters that when treatment tank. For the analysis we tanks were also evaluated in a bounding set at their high-end values, generated assumed there was no biodegradation in analysis. With the exception of the on- the highest estimate of risk or hazard. the tank. Similar to the deterministic site tanks, each type of waste These two most ‘‘sensitive parameters’’ assessment, two high-end parameters management unit has a distribution that vary according to the constituent and were varied at a time to determine the characterizes the units with respect to pathway evaluated. Appendix C of the greatest ‘‘high-end’’ risk combination. capacity and dimension (e.g., area and risk assessment technical background The greatest reported waste volume was depth). These dimensions and operating document shows the two most sensitive always used as one of the high-end characteristics are important parameters for each constituent and parameters in the two parameter determinants of the extent to which a pathway. The EPA did not perform a combination. The three other high-end contaminant may be released from the sensitivity analysis on all parameters in parameters were varied between their unit. Each type of waste management this risk assessment. Rather, the high-end and central tendency values. unit is assumed to have different parameters we selected to vary in the These three parameters were; the operational lifetimes (between 20–50 deterministic analysis were a smaller distance from the waste management years) and different lengths of time list based on sensitivity analyses unit to the receptor, the duration that during which constituents are assumed performed on the same models for other the receptor was exposed to the to be released from the unit (between 30 listing determinations that determined contaminant, and the meteorological and 200 years). the most sensitive parameters in our location of the waste management unit. For landfills and surface impoundments we evaluated the models. For the aboveground pathways, Based on the results of this analysis, we scenario of disposal in an unlined waste the parameters considered most likely to determined that the risk of waste water management unit and assessed the influence the results were the waste management in on-site tanks is impact of the release of leachate from management unit surface area, the insignificant for all constituents for one the landfill and surface impoundment to distance to the receptor, the of three different reasons: (1) The the groundwater. In addition, we meteorological station location, the estimated constituent concentration was assumed that the landfill did not have sorption coefficients for the waste greater than 1 million parts per million daily cover and the surface management unit and surficial soil, the and therefore was not physically impoundment was open to the air. The receptor’s exposure duration, and the achievable, (2) the estimated constituent primary source of data used to establish volume of paint waste in the waste concentration was above the the characteristics of landfills and management unit. For the groundwater constituent’s RCRA hazardous waste surface impoundments for both the pathways, the parameters considered toxicity characteristic and the waste probabilistic and deterministic analysis most likely to influence the results would already be classified as is our 1985 Screening Survey of included; the distance to receptor well, hazardous, or (3) we determined, based Industrial Subtitle D Establishments.13 depth to groundwater, the sorption on knowledge of paint formulations, There are over 2,850 landfills reported coefficients, the receptor’s exposure that non-hazardous paint manufacturing in this survey. Since paint duration, and the volume of paint waste waste waters would never contain manufacturing facilities reported that in the waste management unit. We did concentrations of the constituent at the their wastes were sent to off-site not use the deterministic analysis to level that may produce a risk (see landfills, the characteristics the sixty- develop today’s proposed listing levels. Section for further discussion). eight landfills reported in this survey to The deterministic analysis is discussed a. What Waste Management Scenarios accept wastes in all or in-part from off- in more detail in the Technical Were Evaluated? We evaluated four site sources were selected for Background Document waste management units that represent characterizing the landfills included in (3) Bounding Analysis. This type of plausible management scenarios that are this assessment. analysis is very conservative but likely destinations for paint and coating There were 1,930 surface presents a quick and simple way to production waste streams. The modeled impoundments reported in the 1985 ‘‘screen out’’ potential scenarios of units include landfills, surface Industrial D Screening Survey. Twenty- concern. A bounding analysis was used impoundments, on-site tanks, and off- seven of these surface impoundments for the on-site tank scenario because, site tanks. Section III.D describes in were not included in the distribution based on previous listing detail why these waste management used for this risk assessment because determinations, we did not think units were selected for evaluation in the the data were not complete in the volatilization from the small volumes risk assessment. The waste management survey or the facility indicated that the managed on-site was likely to generate scenarios for each of these units were a risk of concern. Similar to the created using information reported by 13 Schroeder, K.R. Clickner, and E. Miller, 1987. deterministic and probabilistic analyses, industry on the management of their Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D Establishments. Draft Final Report. Prepared for the the results of this risk assessment are non-hazardous paint manufacturing Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental the concentration of each constituent waste streams. In addition, we used Protection Agency. Westat, Inc. Rockville, MD.
VerDate 11
surface impoundments were only used comprised the tank distribution. The basis. The Census, however, included as backup storage units. A stratified sampling was conducted to preserve the only States for which facility data can random sample of 200 of the remaining range and distribution of tanks in the be reported without disclosing 1,903 surface impoundments was used underlying database. To reflect emission confidential business information. Data in the analysis. Data on the surface characteristics associated with cannot be reported if the population of impoundment total capacity and total differences within the treatment tank paint manufacturing facilities is so 1985 waste quantity were used in the category related to aeration intensity, small that confidentiality cannot be analysis. Surface impoundments were three different tank categories were maintained if data were reported on a assumed to be operated with varying identified and modeled: high aerated State level. Since the States not degrees of aeration. Aeration treatment tanks, low aerated treatment included in the 1997 Census may only characteristics were not a parameter tanks, and nonaerated (quiescent) have a few paint manufacturing reported in the Industrial D survey and treatment tanks. Examples of quiescent facilities, not including these States in the absence of this data, the treatment tanks are clarifiers and filters does not impact this analysis. Locations distribution of aeration characteristics (such as sand or mixed-media filters). In for modeling were selected first for from the tanks database (described the absence of aeration, quiescent States according to the volume of paint below) was randomly applied to surface treatment tanks are still subject to small manufactured and then by the general impoundments. amounts of agitation during filling and location of paint manufacturing For the evaluation of off-site emptying operations if the tank has facilities within the State. The EPA’s management of waste waters in above-surface intakes. Sorting the tanks 1997 Toxic Release Inventory was used treatment tanks, a tank database was in the database into these three to determine the possible location of the developed for this analysis that categories was done using the data paint manufacturing facilities within a compiled flow rates, treatment methods, reported in the TSDR category. State. In many cases the majority of the and tank volumes. The primary source (ii) Location of Waste Management paint manufacturing facilities were for these data was EPA’s 1986 National Units. Determining the location of waste located in several clusters throughout a Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, management units is important for the State. Therefore, in some cases several Storage, Disposal, and Recycling selection of environmental setting data different meteorological stations and 14 Facilities (TSDR) Database. Although (e.g., meteorological and hydrological hydrological regimes within a single this database collected information on data) for constituent fate and transport State were modeled. Forty-nine hazardous waste tanks, this database modeling. Since we do not know the meteorological stations in 39 states were was used since it is the most location of all specific paint production used in the risk assessment. comprehensive collection available of waste disposal, we assumed that waste (iii) Waste Volumes. In Part III, information on tank characteristics. disposal locations are correlated with Section D, we explained how we Since similar treatment technologies are the location of the paint production identified waste volumes reported in the used for hazardous and non-hazardous facilities. We also assumed that 3007 survey data that represent the waste we believe that the characteristics nonhazardous waste from paint distribution of volumes of non- of non-hazardous tanks is not manufacturing facilities is disposed hazardous waste being sent to non- significantly different from hazardous within reasonable transport distances of hazardous landfills, surface tanks. This database is a result of a the facility. Therefore, we created a impoundments, and tanks across the comprehensive survey of 2,626 TSDR distribution of locations of paint nation. We compiled distributions of facilities, on 1986 waste management manufacturing waste treatment and waste solids sent to landfills and waste practices and quantities. A subset of the disposal facilities across the United liquids sent to tanks and surface data contained information on 8,510 States. The locations of waste impoundments. Each waste volume has tanks that received wastes from off-site. management in the distribution are a corresponding weighting factor that Since it was not computationally weighted according to the total dollar represents the number of facilities in the feasible to model all 8,510 of the tanks value of product shipments reported for total sampling population that sent a for this analysis, a sample from the a State. We assumed that the larger the particular waste volume to a particular tanks in this survey was used to develop total dollar value of shipments, the type of waste management unit. The risk the characteristics of off-site tanks. greater the volume of paint production assessment modeling requires the use of There were several criteria used in in the State and we weighted the volumes going to a waste management selecting a sample from the tanks in the probabilistic analysis accordingly. In unit, therefore the waste quantities here 1986 survey. Some of the criteria used other words, the meteorological are presented as volumes (in gallons) as were: (1) Only those tanks reporting locations in States with the larger opposed to mass (in tons), the waste flow rates (demonstrating they were reported dollar value of paint shipments descriptor that has been used in used for waste management) were in the probabilistic analysis had more of previous sections of this preamble. For included in the analysis, (2) only the 10,000 iterations. The source of the probabilistic risk assessment the treatment tanks were considered in the information on the dollar value of weights were used to determine the analysis and tanks that were closed or product shipments is the 1997 frequency a waste volume was covered were not included in the Economic Census of Paint and Coating evaluated in the 10,000 iterations distribution, (3) no reported tanks with Manufacturing (U.S. Department of comprising the Monte Carlo analysis. In a volume the size of a drum or smaller 15 Commerce, 1999). The Census general, the waste volumes reported were included since these are likely to reported the dollar value of shipments were relatively small when compared to be short-term units or containers. From made by paint manufacturing facilities the total waste capacity of the waste all the tanks that met the above by State. In all, 36 states reported paint management units. For the probabilistic mentioned criteria, a sample of 200 production volumes on a dollar value analysis, the volumes of emission tanks was drawn from the data that control dust going to a landfill range 15 U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Paint and 14 U.S. EPA. 1987. 1986 National Survey of Coating Manufacturing: 1997 Economic Census; from 40 gallons to 78,650 gallons, the Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Manufacturing Industry Series. EC97M–3255A. U.S. volumes of all the solids going to a Recycling Facilities Database. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. August. landfill range from 5 gallons to 426,739
VerDate 11
gallons, and the range of aqueous wastes 151 gallons to 104,225 gallons. For the each of the volume distributions was that can be managed in either a surface deterministic analysis, the 50th and used. These volumes are shown in Table impoundment or off-site tank is from 90th percentile waste volumes from III.E–3 below.
TABLE III.E–3.—WASTE VOLUMES USED FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT
Emission Combined Percentile control dust solids Liquid wastes (gallons/yr) (gallons/yr) (gallons/yr)
Minimum ...... 40 5 151 50th ...... 644 375 12,000 90th ...... 58,340 43,270 26,752 Maximum ...... 78,650 426,739 104,225
b. What Exposure Scenarios Did EPA onto soils, and dry and wet vapor deposition management unit. As such, we Evaluate? Prior to conducting the risk onto plants. determined that the following receptors assessment, we had to establish that 2. Particulate emissions can remain reasonably represent the types of there is a plausible scenario under dispersed in the air or be deposited through individuals that may be located near the which a receptor might be exposed to wet deposition (in precipitation) or dry waste management units and could be deposition (particle settling). We assume that contaminants managed in paint particulates may be deposited onto soil and exposed to contaminants in paint manufacturing wastes. Establishing this production wastes: surface water through both wet and dry • scenario required that we determine: deposition, and onto plants through dry An adult resident, how the waste is managed, how • The child of a resident, deposition. • contaminants can be released from the 3. Leachate can migrate through the A farmer, unsaturated zone to the saturated zone, • The child of a farmer, waste management unit, how • contaminants can be transported in the where contaminants are transported in A recreational fisher. Some of these receptors might be environment to a point of contact with groundwater to drinking water wells. exposed through several pathways and a receptor; and how a receptor can be 4. Constituents deposited onto soils from vapor and particulate emissions can erode some might only be exposed through exposed to a contaminant. For the into nearby surface water bodies. one pathway. Receptors are evaluated reasons discussed in Part II, Section D, (ii) Routes of Exposure. Human for exposures with respect to chemicals we chose to evaluate the risk receptors may come into contact with present in ambient air (both vapors and attributable to management of paint the chemicals of concern present in particles), soils, groundwater, fruits and production wastes in uncovered environmental media through a variety vegetables, beef and dairy products, and biological treatment tanks, uncovered of routes. In general, exposure pathways fish. The magnitude of the exposure and unlined surface impoundments, are either direct, such as inhalation of received by a receptor is dependant on and uncovered and unlined non- ambient air, or indirect, such as the chemical and environmental setting hazardous industrial landfills. consumption of contaminated food modeled. The following sections (i) Release Scenarios From Waste products. For this risk assessment, describe our primary assumptions Management Units. We determined that human receptors may come into contact regarding the characteristics and releases from all of the waste indirectly with vapors that diffuse into activities of each of the receptor types, management units (tanks, landfills, and vegetation, particulates that are and the routes by which each receptor surface impoundments) can occur deposited onto vegetation, or is exposed. through release of vapor emissions to contaminants that are taken up by Adult Resident and Child of the the air. In addition, particulate vegetation from the soil and ingested in Resident. We assume that an adult and emissions to the air from solids fruits and vegetables, as well as child can reside near the waste disposed in landfills is feasible. For the exposure to contaminated beef and management unit. The residential landfill and surface impoundment waste dairy products derived from cattle receptors inhale vapors and particulate management scenarios, it was also which have ingested contaminated matter that are dispersed in the ambient determined that releases could occur forage, silage, grain, and surface soil. air. We assume that household water is through leaching of waste into the Receptors that ingest fish may also supplied to the residential receptors by subsurface. We assumed that tanks were indirectly come into contact with a private groundwater well that is sufficiently impermeable that they were contaminants in air-borne vapors and located near their home. The adult highly unlikely to release volumes of particulates (through vapor diffusion resident and the child of the resident, waste sufficient to pose an unacceptable into surface water, vapor deposition drink water that comes from the well. groundwater risk. Therefore it was not onto surface water, and particulate We assume that the adult resident necessary to develop risk-based deposition onto surface water) and inhales vapors that are emitted from the concentrations for the groundwater runoff and eroded soil that has entered water used for showering. The pathway. The mechanisms and the surface water body. residential receptors do not ingest foods pathways we evaluated are as follows: (iii) Receptors Evaluated. Most paint that are grown in the vicinity of their 1. Vapor emissions can remain dispersed facilities transport wastes generated home, however, they do incidentally in the air, or can be deposited through wet during paint production to waste ingest surface soil from their yard. and dry deposition. Specifically, we modeled management units located off-site. For Groundwater exposures were only the concentration of vapor phase the off-site waste management units considered for the residential scenario. contaminants in air, the diffusion of vapor phase contaminants into plants, the diffusion identified in the RCRA 3007 survey It was assumed that contaminated of vapor phase contaminants into surface (e.g., landfills) it is not uncommon to groundwater was not used for crop water, wet deposition of vapors onto soils have residential, recreational, or irrigation or stock water for cattle. In and surface water, dry deposition of vapors agricultural land uses surrounding the addition, groundwater recharge and
VerDate 11
subsequent contamination of fish was well’’). ‘‘Distance to the receptor’’ for distances derived from our 1988 survey not considered. In general, the exposure non-groundwater pathways is the of Solid Waste (Municipal) Landfill to contaminants through the air distance to the residence where the Facilities. The 430 m value is the 50th pathway and contaminants in the receptor is inhaling air or contacting the percentile value in that same groundwater occurs at very different soil or the distance to the field where distribution. For the probabilistic time scales due to the long transport the receptor is growing crops or raising analysis, the distance from the waste times associated with most chemicals in livestock. Consequently, we use management unit to the receptor well is the groundwater medium. For example, different databases to establish based on the complete distribution of transport of contamination to a receptor ‘‘distance to receptor,’’ depending on distance to the receptor well reported by in ambient air can happen within a whether we are evaluating a the survey respondents, and ranges from matter of hours while transport of groundwater or a non-groundwater 0.6 m to 1610 m. For the Monte Carlo contaminants to a residential well in pathway. analysis we assume that the receptor groundwater can take hundreds, even For analysis of the air pathways risks well is located anywhere within the thousands of years. As such, we did not in the deterministic analysis we assume contaminant plume. add together the exposures from both that the receptors live either 75 meters The Technical Background Document the air pathway and groundwater (m) (high end) or 300 m (central for the risk assessment provides a pathway. There were a few organic tendency) from the waste management complete discussion of the values of constituents where the contaminant did unit. The distance of 250 feet (ft) additional parameters that define the travel to the receptor well in less than (approximately 75 m) is based on the characteristics of each receptor, such as 50 years, however, we did not add actual measured distance to the nearest the amounts of contaminated food and together the exposures from these two resident for the worst-case facility water they ingest, their inhalation rates, pathways since the receptor locations evaluated in the risk assessment and how long they live near the waste for the groundwater and air pathways conducted to support the 1990 management unit (i.e., their exposure are different, therefore adding the ‘‘Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, duration). exposures is not appropriate. We did and Disposal Facilities-Organic Air c. How did EPA Quantify Each add together the exposures from Emissions Standards for Process Vents Receptors Exposure to Contaminants? different routes for each receptor. For and Equipment Leaks Final Rule’’ (55 Exposure is the condition that occurs example, for carcinogens, we considered FR 25454), and was used as distance to when a contaminant comes into contact the additive exposure for an adult the nearest resident for that rulemaking. with the outer boundary of the body, resident from ingestion of groundwater In the same risk assessment, we such as the mouth and nostrils. Once we and inhalation of vapors while identified the receptor distance of 1000 establish the concentrations of showering when it was appropriate. ft (approximately 300 m) as the median contaminants at the points of exposure, Adult Farmer and Child of the distance in a random sample of we can estimate the magnitude of each Farmer. We assume that a farmer raises distances to the nearest residence. For receptor’s contaminant dose. Dose is the fruits, exposed vegetables, root the deterministic analysis, we used the amount of contaminant that crosses the vegetables, beef cattle, and dairy cattle average air concentration and outer boundary of the body and is in an agricultural field located near the deposition values around the available for adsorption at internal waste management unit. Approximately circumference at both 75 m and 300 m. exchange boundaries (lungs, gut, skin). 42 percent of the exposed vegetables, 17 For the probabilistic analysis, we For example, for exposure to a percent of the root vegetables, 33 identified the distance of 300 m as the carcinogen through ingestion of percent of the exposed fruits, 3 percent median or central tendency distance contaminated drinking water, dose is a of the protected fruits, 49 percent of the from the WMU to the receptor. We then function of the concentration of the beef, and 25 percent of the dairy used the 75 m distance as a 10th contaminant in the drinking water products eaten by the farmer are grown/ percentile closest location (high-end) (exposure point concentration), as well raised on the farmer’s agricultural field. and created a normal distribution of as certain exposure factors, such as how We assume that the farmer and the child receptor distances to sample from. The much drinking water the receptor of the farmer incidentally ingests soil lowest and highest receptor distances (0 consumes each day (the intake rate), the from his/her yard. and 100 percentile) of the distribution number of years the receptor is exposed Recreational Fisher. We assume that were constrained to be between 50 and to contaminated drinking water (the the residential receptor may be a 550 m. The distance from the WMU exposure duration), how often the recreational angler. Approximately 33 boundary to the resident location was receptor is exposed to contaminated percent of the fish eaten by the fisher randomly selected from this drinking water (the exposure are from a stream located near the waste distribution. In addition, the receptors frequency), the body weight of the management unit. The fisher’s other in the probabilistic analysis are located receptor, and the period of time over characteristics and activities are the in 16 directions around the entire which the dose is averaged. Our primary same as those of the adult resident. circumference (360 degrees) of the waste source of exposure factors is the We establish the locations of all the management unit. ‘‘Exposure Factors Handbook’’ receptors relative to waste management For evaluating the groundwater published by EPA in August 1997. For units based on information obtained pathway in the deterministic analysis, probabilistic analyses, we used the from previous national surveys. These we assume that a receptor well is distributions of exposure factor values surveys are discussed below. Exposure located 102 m (high end) or 430 m provided in the Exposure Factors to groundwater occurs through the use (central tendency) from the waste Handbook. The one situation where we of water from drinking water wells, and management unit, and that the receptor do not develop an expression of dose is exposure via non-groundwater well is located on the centerline of the the case where we use the Reference pathways occurs through releases to the plume (high end) or halfway between Concentration (RfCs) to estimate air. Therefore, ‘‘distance to receptor’’ for the centerline and the edge of the noncancer hazard for the inhalation the groundwater pathways is the contaminant plume (central tendency). exposure route. In this situation, we distance to the drinking water well that The 102 m distance is the 10th calculate noncancer hazard from the receptor is using (the ‘‘receptor percentile value in the distribution of concentration of the contaminant in air
VerDate 11
and the RfC, without considering requires one year to be filled. The reasons: (1) Dusts sent to landfills are exposure factors other than those formulation of the landfill model is typically contained, and are thus inherent in the RfC (e.g., inhalation rate, based on the assumptions that the unlikely to cause large scale releases body weight). contaminant mass in the landfill cells when placed in a landfill, (2) dust Children are an important sub- might be linearly partitioned into the volumes are relatively small, especially population to consider in a risk aqueous, vapor, and solid phases. The in comparison to the size of commercial assessment because they are likely to be partitioning coefficients are based on offsite landfills, and would likely be more highly exposed to contaminants in those reported in literature, and are covered with other wastes at the landfill the environment than adults. Compared listed in the risk assessment’s Technical in a short time period, and (3) to adults, children eat more food and Background Document. The model significant dusting would be minimized drink more fluids per unit of body simulates the active lifetime of the by both typical operating practices at weight. This higher rate coupled with a landfill (30 years) and continues landfills (e.g., dust suppressant lower body weight can result in higher simulating releases until less than one activities), as well as regulations average daily dose than adults percent of the initial mass is left or for controlling air releases (e.g., see: Federal experience. To evaluate childhood a total of 200 years, whichever occurs regulations for daily cover for municipal exposure for this analysis, a child of a first. We assume that the landfill has landfills at 40 CFR 258.21; widespread resident and a child of a farmer whose minimal controls with no liner and no State requirements for cover at non- exposure begins between the ages of 1 daily cover. However, we assumed that municipal Subtitle D,17 and and 6 was evaluated. For the there is no runoff and erosion from the requirements under State probabilistic assessment, a start age was unit. The cover at closure is a soil cover Implementation Plans approved randomly chosen between the ages of 1 that still permits volatilization. We used pursuant to section 110 of the CAA). and 6. The child was then aged for the the highest 9-year average leachate In addition, we simulated losses of number of years defined by the concentration predicted by the mass through both anaerobic and exposure duration. As children mature, partitioning model as input into EPA’s aerobic biodegradation and hydrolysis however, their physical characteristics Composite Model for Leachate within the landfill. We did not simulate and behavior patterns change. To Migration with Transformation Products the transport of constituents from the capture these changes in the analysis, (discussed in Section III.E(b)(vii)). landfill as non-aqueous phase liquids the life of a child was divided into Based on the design assumptions (NAPL’s). However, we do not believe several cohorts: Cohort 1 (ages 1–5), above, we simulated the annual release that the waste streams evaluated for the Cohort 2 (ages 6 to 11), cohort 3 (ages of chemical mass by leaching to the landfill scenario will form NAPL’s (see 12 to 19), and cohort 4 (ages 20 to 70). unsaturated zone underneath the Section IV E). In addition, due to the Each cohort has a discrete value (for a landfill, volatilization to the air variability of waste stream deterministic assessment) and a pathway, and particle emissions to the characteristics across the paint industry, distribution (for a Monte Carlo analysis) air pathway from wind erosion and it is impossible to know the exact of exposure parameters that are required truck movement during the active composition of the waste matrices (e.g., to calculate exposure to an individual. lifetime. It is assumed that the the constituents present and the exact The exposure parameter distributions contaminant mass emitted as a constituent concentrations), therefore, for each cohort reflect the physical particulate from the landfill is sorbed to modeling did not take into account the characteristics and behavior patterns for particles in the waste. The model effect of managing multiple solvents in that age range. estimates the emission rate of the same waste stream. The d. How Did EPA Predict The Release contaminant mass adsorbed to particle management of multiple solvents in a and Transport of Constituents From a µ waste may create a ‘‘co-solvency effect’’ Waste Management Unit to Receptor sizes less than 30 micrometers ( m). The where the solubility of a solvent may be Locations? We conduct contaminant fate amount of contaminant mass emitted is increased due to the presence of other and transport modeling and indirect assumed to be distributed between four µ solvents. exposure modeling to determine what particle size categories, 30 to 15 m µ µ The partitioning model incorporates the concentrations of contaminants will (40%), 15 to 10 m (10%), 10 to 2.5 m µ 16 other assumptions intended to improve be in the media that the receptor comes (30%), and less than 2.5 m (20%). the efficiency of the model. These into contact with. These concentrations While the emission control dust may be assumptions are described in detail in are called ‘‘exposure point comprised primarily of the smaller size the risk assessment technical concentrations’’ (that is, they are the particles, we assumed that the waste background document. The assumptions contaminant concentrations at the point material becomes mixed with other where the receptor is exposed to the wastes and soils before being released as include the lack of lateral transport contaminants.) There are a number of a particulate, therefore the particle size between cells, simulation of only a computer-based models and sets of distribution used for estimating the single cell and then aggregation of equations that we use to predict particulate releases represent the range results based on the time each cell is exposure point concentrations. In the of particles sizes for all the wastes that filled, and the assumption that waste is following sections we briefly discuss may be in a landfill. We did not attempt added at a constant concentration at a these models and equations and their to assess possible risks from short-term constant rate. application in the risk analyses. releases of unmixed dust particles that (ii) Surface Impoundment Partitioning (i) Landfill Partitioning Model. The might occur during initial placement of Model. The surface impoundment landfill model is designed to simulate wastes into the landfill cells. However, model simulates the disposal of liquid the gradual filling of an active landfill we do not believe such releases are wastes in an unlined surface and the long-term releases from the likely to be significant for several impoundment and the releases of active and closed landfill cells. The chemicals during the lifetime of the design assumes that the landfill is 16 ‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,’’ AP–42, Section 13.2.5: Industrial Wind 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office composed of a series of vertical cells of Erosion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, of Solid Waste, State Requirements for Industrial equal volume that are filled Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Air Non-Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, sequentially. We assumed that each cell Quality Planning and Standards, September 1995. October 1995.
VerDate 11
unit. The highest 9-year average settling and accumulation. In the liquid dispersion model. Annual averaging leachate concentration is then used as compartment, there is flow both in and periods were used for this analysis. input into EPA’s Composite Model for out of the WMU. Solids generation These long averaging times are Leachate Migration with Transformation occurs in the liquid compartment due to consistent with the use of chronic Products (see section vii) which biological growth; solids destruction benchmarks in this analysis. The estimates the movement of the plume occurs in the sediment compartment dispersion model uses information on through the saturated and unsaturated due to sludge digestion. Using a well- meteorology (e.g., wind speed and zone over a 10,000 year time period. mixed assumption, the suspended direction, temperature) to estimate the Runoff and erosion from the unit do not solids concentration within the WMU is movement of constituents through the occur because we assume the assumed to be constant throughout the atmosphere. Modeling was conducted impoundment is a sink in the tank. However, some stratification of using five years of hourly data obtained watershed. We assume that there is no sediment is expected across the length from 49 representative meteorological liner other than native soils and that the and depth of the WMU so that the stations throughout the country. unit is not covered. The model assumes effective total suspended solids (TSS) Meteorological stations were selected that the waste in the impoundment concentration within the tank is based on the location of paint consists of two phases: Aqueous liquid assumed to be a function of the WMU’s manufacturing facilities. and sediment. The model does not TSS removal efficiency rather than Currently, algorithms specifically simulate any additional phases, such as equal to the effluent TSS concentration. designed to model the dry deposition of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL’s). The liquid (dissolved) phase gases have not been verified for the However, we do not believe that NAPL contaminant concentration within the specific compounds in question formation is likely in the wastes tank, however, is assumed to be equal (primarily volatile organics). In place of evaluated for this listing (see Section IV to the effluent dissolved phase algorithms, we used a transfer E). The model simulates the changes at concentration (i.e., liquid is well coefficient to model the dry deposition the bottom of the impoundment over mixed). The tank model does not of gases. A concern with this approach time as settled solids fill pore space in consider separate non-aqueous phase is that the deposition is calculated native soils and act to reduce chemical liquid (NAPL) in the tank that might outside the model. As a result, the mass transport to underlying soils and exist if a constituent is above its that we estimate deposits on the ground groundwater. In addition, a fraction of solubility limit. We do not believe that from the plume is not subtracted from each surface impoundment is aerated, constituents managed in paint the air concentrations estimated by which enhances biodegradation and production waste will have high enough ISCST3. This results in a slight non- increases volatilization of some concentrations in waste waters to form conservation of the mass in the system. Due to the complexity of the analysis, chemicals. The surface impoundment is an oily film layer on top of the tank. As it was not computationally feasible to assumed to operate 50 years and then such, we believe the modeling run ISCST3 on an hourly basis for the undergoes clean closure (that is, all the performed with this tank model is lifetime of all the unit configurations. waste is removed from the unit). Based appropriate. To reduce the computational burden, on the design assumptions, the surface (iv) Air Dispersion and Deposition we made several simplifications to the impoundment module simulates annual Model. The atmospheric modeling air modeling. The dispersion model is release of leachate to the unsaturated performed for this risk assessment sensitive to the surface area of the waste zone and volatile emissions to the air. provides annual average estimates of air management unit. In order to make the The model does not account for concentrations of chemicals released dispersion modeling computationally redeposition of volatiles into the unit from the waste management units and feasible, we divided the different waste from precipitation. The model accounts annual deposition rate estimates for management unit configurations into for several biological, chemical, and vapors and particles at various receptor area-based bins that represented the physical processes including hydrolysis, points in the areas of interest. The distribution of surface areas for each of volatilization, sorption as well as chemicals that are emitted are either in the waste management unit types. For settlement, resuspension, growth and the form of volatilized gases or fugitive each waste management unit type, the decay of solids, activated dust. The simulated air concentrations median area for each bin was input into biodegradation in the liquid phase (that are used to estimate biological uptake ISCST3 and modeled at each of the 49 is, a higher rate based on the amount of from plants and human exposures due meteorological stations. For tanks, each biomass present) and hydrolysis and to direct inhalation. The predicted area-height combination was modeled anaerobic biodegradation in the deposition rates are used to determine for each of the 49 meteorological sediments. chemical loadings to watershed soils, locations. For any specific unit, the (iii) Tank Emissions Model. The tank farm crop areas, and surface waters. The median air concentration and model simulates time-varying releases atmospheric concentration and deposition values for the bin that most of constituents to the atmosphere. The deposition of chemicals were closely represented the specific unit’s tank unit only has volatile emissions (no determined through a steady-state surface area was used. Another particulate emissions) and the tank is Gaussian plume modeling approach simplification used in the dispersion assumed to have an impervious bottom using the Industrial Source Complex- modeling is that a scavenging coefficient so that there is no contaminant leaching. Short Term (ISCST3) model. Each of the for all gases was used based on The treatment tank is divided into two waste management unit types were approximating the gases as very small primary compartments: a ‘‘liquid’’ modeled as an area source with ISCST3. particles. This approach eliminates the compartment and a ‘‘sediment’’ ISCST3 provides hourly meteorological need for running ISCST3 for each compartment. Mass balances are data and estimates of contaminant specific chemical, thus reducing the performed on these primary concentration, dry deposition (particles overall runtime. This simplification compartments at time intervals small only) and wet deposition (particles and might lead to underprediction of wet enough that the hydraulic retention time gases) for user-specified averaging deposition for some gases and over- in the liquid compartment is not periods. Dry deposition of vapors was prediction for others depending on the significantly impacted by the solids also calculated, but outside the Henry’s Law coefficient of the gas.
VerDate 11
(v) Overland Transport Model. in Appendix I of the risk assessment’s the stream scenario is a conservative Addition of constituents to soils, called Technical Background Document. (environmentally protective) estimate of constituent loading, can result from (vi) Surface Water Model. We assume the constituent concentration in a atmospheric deposition and overland that fish are exposed to waste surface water body that results from soil movement of constituents. The primary constituents in surface water. runoff and air deposition. loading mechanisms of constituents Specifically our modeling assumes that (vii) Groundwater Model. We used onto soils is by wet and dry deposition fish are exposed to contaminants in the EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate predicted with the dispersion model. water column, contaminants sorbed to Migration with Transformation Products This constituent deposition was suspended solids in the water column, (EPACMTP) to model the subsurface predicted based on the average air and contaminants associated with the and transport of contaminants that leach concentration and deposition flux for bed sediment in the surface water body. from the waste management units both the buffer area and the agricultural The beef cattle and dairy cows are (landfills and surface impoundments) field. We assumed that there was no exposed to both dissolved and and migrate to a residential drinking erosion and runoff from the WMU to the suspended constituent concentrations in water well. We assume that the soil and surrounding soils since we assumed that the surface water. The model accounts aquifer are uniform porous media and the landfill and surface impoundment for four ways in which contaminants that flow and transport is described by were below grade. However, erosion and may enter the surface water body: (1) Darcy’s law and the advection- runoff (overland transport) were Contaminants may be sorbed to eroded dispersion equation, respectively. evaluated to predict the movement of soils that enter the surface water body, EPACMTP accounts for the following deposited contaminants onto (2) contaminants may be dissolved in processes affecting contaminant fate and agricultural fields and into nearby water runoff that enters the surface water transport: Advection, hydrodynamic bodies. Five constituent losses in the body, (3) contaminants may be bound to dispersion, equilibrium sorption by the surface soils were considered: (1) airborne particles that are deposited on soil and aquifer solids (both in the Leaching of the chemical due to the surface water body, and (4) vapor unsaturated and saturated zones), and precipitation; (2) erosion of the phase contaminants in air may be contaminant hydrolysis. EPACMTP chemical laterally along with the soil deposited on the surface water body in does not account for preferential due to water; (3) runoff of the dissolved precipitation (that is, wet deposition of pathways such as fractures, macropores, chemical with the lateral flow of water; vapor phase contaminants). The model or facilitated transport (i.e., any chemical process that has the potential (4) biodegradation of the chemical in also accounts for processes that remove to speed the transport of a pollutant situ; (5) volatilization losses of the contaminants from the surface water beyond what is expected), which may chemical. The Universal Soil Loss body. These include: (1) Volatilization increase the migration of constituents. Equation (USLE) was used to estimate of contaminants that are dissolved in soil erosion losses. The USLE is an the surface water body and (2) burial of The groundwater pathway consists of contaminants in the sediment at the two components: Flow and transport in erosion model originally designed to bottom of the surface water body. The the vadose zone (that is, the unsaturated estimate long-term average soil erosion model assumes that the impact to the zone directly below the unit), and flow losses from an agricultural field having water body is uniform, which is more and transport in the saturated zone. The uniform slope, soil type, vegetative realistic for smaller water bodies than primary transport mechanisms in the cover, and erosion-control practices. We for larger ones. The model estimates the subsurface are downward movement used a modified form of the USLE to concentrations of contaminants in the along with infiltrating water flow in the estimate the mass of soil lost per year water column and bed sediment. We unsaturated zone and movement along per unit from the soils around the waste used the water column or bed sediment with ambient groundwater flow in the management unit and deposited in the concentrations and bioconcentration saturated zone. The advective runoff directly onto the receptor site factors or bioaccumulation factors. The movement in the unsaturated zone is (agricultural field and residential lot) water body used in this analysis is a one-dimensional, while the saturated and into a nearby stream. We assume stream located down gradient of the zone module accounts for three- the receptor location is between the WMU. Depending on the receptor dimensional flow and transport. The waste management unit and the surface scenario that is evaluated, the stream is model also considers mixing due to water body. The area around the waste either adjacent to the buffer area (the hydrodynamic dispersion in both the management unit is considered for the area that separates the WMU from the unsaturated and saturated zones. In the purposes of our analysis to be an human receptor locations) or is located unsaturated zone, flow is gravity-driven independent, discrete drainage subbasin adjacent to the agricultural field on the and prevails in the vertically downward that is at steady-state. We estimate the side farthest from the WMU. For direction. Therefore, the flow is soil erosion load from the subbasin to modeling purposes, the stream is modeled in the unsaturated zone as one- the surface water body using a distance- shaped as a rectangle 5.5 m wide and as dimensional in the vertical direction. It based sediment delivery ratio, and long as the width of the agricultural is also assumed that transverse consider that the sediment not reaching fields. The assumption is that the stream dispersion (both mechanical dispersion the surface water body is deposited is a typical third-order fishable stream. and molecular diffusion) is negligible in evenly over the area of the subbasin. The stream segment modeled in this the unsaturated zone. This assumption Using equations, we estimate assessment is assumed to be is based on the fact that lateral contaminant contributions to the surface homogeneously mixed with a depth of migration due to transverse dispersion water body and the receptor soil. Soils 0.21 meters (including water column is negligible compared with the were characterized within a 20 mile and benthic sediments) and has a flow horizontal dimensions of the WMUs. In radius around each meteorological of 0.5 m/s. This stream is the smallest addition, this assumption is station using data obtained from the water body that would routinely environmentally protective because it 1994 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s support recreational fishing of allows the leading front of the State Soil Geographic Data Base and consumable fish. Because we modeled a constituent plume to arrive at the water other relevant sources that are described small stream with a constant flow rate, table with greater peak concentration.
VerDate 11
In the saturated zone, the movement resolved, EPA may again choose to use risk assessment to evaluate potential of constituents is primarily driven by the model in an appropriate form in noncancer and cancer risks. We use ambient groundwater flow, which in future rulemakings. For today’s reference doses (RfDs) and reference turn is controlled by a regional proposed rule, we used values for metal concentrations (RfCs) to evaluate hydraulic gradient and hydraulic Kd’s that have been derived from field noncancer health impacts from oral and conductivity in the aquifer formation. studies and have been published in the inhalation exposures, respectively. Oral The model does take into account the scientific literature. An empirical cancer slope factors (CSF’s), inhalation effects of infiltration from the waste distribution was used to characterize the unit risk factors, and inhalation CSFs source as well as regional recharge into variability of Kd for chemical are used to evaluate risk for carcinogens. the aquifer. The effect of infiltration contaminants for which sufficient The benchmarks are chemical-specific from the waste source is to increase the published data were available. However, and do not vary between receptors (i.e., groundwater flow in the horizontal for chemical contaminants having residents, farmers, recreational fishers) transverse and vertical directions relatively few published values, a log or age groups. We use several sources to underneath and in the immediate uniform distribution was used in which obtain human health benchmarks. vicinity of the waste source as may a three log unit (three orders of Health benchmarks for this risk result from groundwater mounding. magnitude) expansion was made around assessment were obtained primarily This three-dimensional flow pattern the geometric mean of the data. This from the most recent Integrated Risk will enhance the horizontal and vertical was done to better account for the Information System (IRIS) and the most spreading of the plume. The effect of variability most often seen in recent Health Effects Assessment regional recharge outside of the waste measurements of Kd and to capture the Summary Tables (HEAST). IRIS and source is to cause a downward dip in uncertainty that comes from having HEAST are maintained by EPA, and the the movement of the plume as it moves limited data. Our use of empirically values from IRIS and HEAST were used in the downgradient groundwater flow derived partition coefficients assumes in this analysis whenever available 19. If direction. that sorption is linear with respect to IRIS or HEAST chronic benchmarks In addition to advective movement concentration (i.e., the Kd isotherm is were not available, we sought along with groundwater flow, the model linear). However, sorption is not benchmarks from alternative sources. simulates mixing of contaminants with unlimited and will tend to level off as Provisional EPA benchmarks, Agency groundwater due to hydrodynamic groundwater concentrations increase for Toxic Substances and Disease dispersion, which acts in the beyond the linear range (i.e., Kd Registry minimal risk levels, California longitudinal, (i.e., along the isotherm becomes non-linear). This Environmental Protection Agency groundwater flow direction), as well as condition is most likely to occur in the (CalEPA) chronic inhalation reference in horizontal and vertical transverse unsaturated zone where dilution is exposure levels, and CalEPA cancer directions. The rate of movement of limited, if leachate concentrations are potency factors were used when values contaminants may be strongly affected sufficiently high. were not available from IRIS and by sorption reactions in both the (viii) Indirect Exposure Methodology. HEAST. The benchmark for lead is unsaturated and saturated zone. The We use a series of ‘‘indirect exposure unique. Instead of using the benchmarks effect of sorption is expressed in a equations’’ to quantify the described above, the Office of Solid retardation factor, which is directly concentrations of contaminants that Waste and Emergency Response related to the magnitude of the pass indirectly from contaminated (OSWER) soil screening level of 400 constituent-specific KD value (K.C. in the environmental media to the receptor. ppm was used as the benchmark for the case of organdies). Constituents with a For example, contaminants that are air pathways in this analysis. The SSL zero or low KD (or K.C.) value will have transported in air may be deposited on number developed by OSWER accounts a retardation factor of 1, or close to it, plants or onto the soil where they may for all identified sources of lead which indicates that they will move at accumulate in forage, grain, silage, or exposure (including background). The the same velocity as the groundwater, or soil that is consumed by beef cattle and soil screening level was derived by close to it. Constituents with high KD dairy cattle. Individuals may then ingest predicting the concentration of lead that values, such as certain semi volatile contaminated beef and dairy products. can be in soils in a child’s play area organic constituents and many metals, Similarly, contaminants may be such that a typical child would have an will have high retardation factors and transported in groundwater to domestic estimated risk of no more then 5% of may move many times slower than groundwater wells where the exceeding a 10 ug/dL blood lead level. groundwater. EPA has sometimes used groundwater is extracted and used for In addition, the EPA’s drinking water the MINTEQA2 equilibrium speciation showering. The water vapor generated action level for lead of 0.015 mg/L was model to estimate Kd’s for a variety of in the shower may be inhaled by the used for the groundwater pathway. We metals rather than relying solely on field receptor. The indirect exposure also used a drinking water action level measurements. However, recently a equations allow us to calculate exposure for the groundwater pathway analysis number of technical issues have been point concentrations for these pathways for copper since an ingestion benchmark raised concerning the model and its and routes of exposure. The indirect was not available. application.18 EPA is in the process of exposure equations we use to conduct Appendix Q of the Risk Assessment evaluating the model to address those this risk assessment are presented in the Technical Background Document issues. Therefore, we have decided not Technical Background Document for the contains the toxicological profiles used to use MINTEQA2 for today’s proposed risk assessment. in our analysis. The studies used as the rule. Once the evaluation is completed e. What Is The Human Health basis for each of these benchmarks have and the issues are satisfactorily Toxicity of COC’s Identified by EPA? To characterize the risk from human 19 We are aware that health benchmarks for 18 Norris, C.H. and C.E. Hubbard, 1999. Use of exposures to the constituents of several constituents of concern or potential MINTEQA2 and EPACMTP to estimate groundwater concern, toxicity information on each constituents of concern are currently being pathway risks from the land disposal of metal- COC is integrated with the results of reevaluated in IRIS. Reviewers should note that if bearing wastes. Prepared for Environmental Defense the IRIS health benchmarks change, the Agency Fund, Friends of the Earth, Hoosier Environmental exposure assessment. Chronic human would likely use the most current benchmarks as Council, and Mineral Policy Center. health benchmarks were used in this the basis for setting concentration levels.
VerDate 11
been reviewed and summaries of these had air pathway concentration limits the 95th percentile, to set the regulatory studies, along with reference to the below 1 million parts per million (ppm). concentration. If we used the 95th complete studies, are presented in In the tank scenario, only 3 constituents percentile results, the calculated listing Appendix Q of the Risk Assessment had protective waste concentrations that levels would be about a factor of 3 Background Document. were below 1 million ppm. lower. In addition, if we used the 95th f. What Are The Results From The Table III.E–2 shows the calculated percentile results, we would consider Risk Assessment? We developed risk-based concentration levels for all adding an additional constituent in the concentration limits based on the the possible constituents of concern in listing for liquid wastes (methanol; see following waste management unit/waste each of the waste stream scenarios Section IV.A for a list of the constituents stream combinations: evaluated20. The results are the total we are proposing for listing). Details of • Emission control dust managed in a concentration in either mg/kg for solids the levels calculated using the 95th landfill. (landfills) or mg/L for liquids (surface percentile are given in the Technical • Combined volumes of emission impoundments and off-site tanks) that Background Document for the risk control dust, sludges from waste water can be managed in the units and remain assessment. treatment, and solid off-specification protective of human health. The In this listing we are proposing to set production wastes (called ‘‘combined concentration levels in Table III.E–4 the levels at the 90th percentile, because solids’’ in the results table) going to a represent the probabilistic results at the we believe that the 90th percentile landfill. 90th percentile risk level based on levels are protective. We have limited • All waste waters managed in a individuals living closest to the waste information on constituent levels in surface impoundment. management unit. In other words, these wastes because, for the reasons stated • All waste waters managed in tanks. concentration numbers meet a target earlier, we did not sample waste cancer risk level of 10–5 or hazard streams. Thus, we do not know with any For the landfill and surface quotient of 1 for 90% of the receptor certainty that a large fraction of paint impoundment scenarios we have risk- scenarios we evaluated. As discussed production wastes will be close to the based concentration limits for the air previously, we are attempting to levels derived from either the 90th or and groundwater pathways. We calculate estimates of exposure in the 95th percentile. Based on the limited assumed that tanks were sufficiently upper end of the distribution (i.e., above data from our survey of the industry, we impermeable that they were highly 90th percent), while avoiding estimates expect that many of the paint unlikely to release sufficient volumes of that are beyond the true distribution. production wastes generated will not waste to pose an unacceptable EPA guidance for risk characterizations approach these concentrations, but will groundwater risk that therefore it was states that ‘‘the ‘high end’ of the risk likely be well below the proposed not necessary to develop risk-based distribution (generally the area of listing levels. Thus, we think that the concentrations for the groundwater concern for risk managers) is paint production waste that would pathway. Other than mercury, the air conceptually above the 90th percentile remain nonhazardous at the proposed pathway is not relevant for metals of the actual (either measured or levels would pose risks below that managed in waste waters because of estimated) distribution. This conceptual indicated by the benchmark risk-level at their low volatility. range is not meant to precisely define either the 90th or 95th percentile. The small waste volumes generated the limits of this descriptor, but should We are proposing to establish a by the paint and coatings manufacturing be used by the assessor as a target range concentration-based listing that sets a industry resulted in most of the for characterizing ‘high-end risk’.21’’ threshold level below which wastes potential constituents of concern not Therefore, a high-end estimate that falls would not be considered hazardous. creating an unacceptable risk. For within the range (at or above the 90th This is different from the usual listing example, the central tendency waste percentile but still realistically on the determinations we have made in the volume for emission control dust is 2.44 distribution) is a reasonable input to a past. In a traditional listing, all wastes m3 annually (approximately 644 decision.22 meeting the listing description are gallons). When compared to the central We are soliciting comment on our use regulated as hazardous, with no tendency capacity of a landfill cell (the of the 90th percentile risk level, rather provision to test for levels of hazardous annual capacity of a landfill over a 30 than other high-end risk levels, such as constituents present. In a traditional year life), the landfill cell is more than listing, if we determined not to list a 1000 times larger. This results in a 20 Reviewers should note that inputs used in he waste, then all of the waste would go thousand fold dilution effect for the modeling to support today’s proposal may change, unregulated and the risk remains leachate when waste is placed in a and minor modifications to the model itself may be unaffected. A concentration-based landfill. Another way to put the waste made as a result of ongoing internal quality listing, however, would regulate the assurance/quality control reviews, internal peer volumes into perspective is to consider review and public comments. As a consequence, higher risk wastes and potentially leave that the central tendency emission the proposed constituent levels may change as well. lower risk wastes unregulated. This control dust waste volume reported by Reviewers should bear in mind that levels that means that by setting the listing levels the paint and coating facilities increase or decrease sufficiently could result in at the 90th percentile, we are ensuring adding or deleting constituents from the listing, comprises only 0.07% of the capacity of based on whether the risk-based levels are likely to that the residual risk for the unregulated a median sized landfill. occur in paint production wastes. wastes would likely be below the risk Most of the constituents screened out 21 ‘‘Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk associated with the risk based on an of the air pathway because the predicted Managers and Risk Assessors’’, by then Deputy assessment of all wastes. Therefore, we concentration limits were either greater Administrator F. Henry Habicht, 1992. believe that using the 90th percentile 22 The distributions are distributions of than 1 million parts per million concentrations that when found in paint production levels to set the listing levels is (physically impossible) or greater than wastes will generate risks of 10–5 or an HQ of 1 for appropriate for this concentration-based what the EPA expects to be managed in individuals living closest to paint manufacturing listing. Note that we also recently paint manufacturing wastes. waste facilities. The ‘‘90th percentile’’ then is the proposed to use the 90th percentile risk concentration in paint manufacturing waste at Specifically, out of the 43 constituents which 90% of the individuals living closest to paint levels to set listing levels in the listing evaluated in both the landfill and manufacturing waste management facilities will be for two wastes from the dyes and surface impoundment scenarios, only 5 protected to these levels. pigments industries (64 FR 40192, July
VerDate 11
23, 1999); this was also a concentration- high-end risk results, including a range August 25, 1999) and inorganic based listing that established a of probabilistic results at or above the chemicals (65 FR 55684, September 14, threshold, below which wastes would 90th percentile, e.g., see the proposed 2000). not be listed. For traditional listing listings for wastes from the production decisions, we considered a range of of chlorinated aliphatics (64 FR 46476,
TABLE III.E–4.—CALCULATED RISK-BASED CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR POSSIBLE CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IN PAINT AND COATINGS WASTE 1
Emission control dust Combined solids Waste waters in sur- (mg/kg) (mg/kg) face impoundments Waste (mg/L) waters in Constituents off-site Air Ground- Air Ground- Ground- tanks pathway water pathway water Air water (mg/L) pathway pathway pathway pathway
Acrylamide ...... E 3.1E+02 E 4.7E+02 2.3E+05 1.2E+01 E Acrylonitrile ...... 1.3E+05 4.3E+01 1.7E+05 6.0E+01 1.9E+04 9.3E+00 6.9E+04 Antimony ...... E 2.3E+03 E 3.2E+03 M 3.9E+02 M Barium ...... EEEEMEM Benzene ...... 6.3E+05 3.1E+04 7.9E+05 4.7E+04 1.0E+05 5.6E+02 1.9E+05 Butylbenzylphthalate ...... E L E L E E E Cadmium ...... E 1.3E+05 E 2.8E+05 M 3.9E+04 M Chloroform ...... E 6.0E+05 E E E 1.5E+02 E Chromium III ...... EEEEMEM Chromium VI ...... E 6.8E+04 E 6.6E+04 M 8.8E+03 M Cobalt ...... EEEEMEM Copper ...... EEEEMEM Cresol, m ...... EEEEE2.2E+04 E Cresol, o- ...... EEEEE2.5E+04 E Cresol, p- ...... EEEEE2.6E+03 E Di(2-ethylhexylphthalate) ...... E L E L E E E Dibutylphthalate ...... E L E L E E E Dichloromethane ...... E 2.4E+05 E 3.3E+05 E 4.5E+03 E Dimethylphenol 2,4- ...... EEEEE1.7E+04 E Divalent mercury ...... 6.0E+05 E 8.7E+05 E 2.5E+04 6.4E+05 E Ethylbenzene ...... E L E L E 1.1E+04 E Ethylene glycol ...... EEEEE7.9E+05 E Formaldehyde ...... E 9.3E+05 E E E 8.2E+04 E Lead ...... EEEEMEM Mercury ...... 1.6E+05 E 2.1E+05 E 5.9E+03 E 1.0E+04 Methanol ...... EEEEE2.0E+05 E Methyl ethyl ketone ...... E 1.5E+05 E 2.2E+05 E 8.2E+03 E Methyl isobutyl ketone ...... E 7.3E+04 E 1.2E+05 E 3.4E+02 E Methyl methacrylate ...... E 2.8E+04 E 4.1E+04 E 2.1E+03 E N-butyl alcohol ...... E 9.7E+05 E E E 4.1E+04 E Nickel ...... EEEEMEM Nickel oxide ...... EBEBMBM Pentachlorophenol ...... E 9.6E+04 E 1.6E+05 E 1.0E+04 E Phenol ...... EEEEE2.7E+05 E Selenium ...... E 2.5E+04 E 3.4E+04 M 6.1E+03 M Silver ...... EEEEMEM Styrene ...... EEEEE4.6E+03 E Tetrachloroethylene ...... E 1.4E+04 E 2.1E+04 E 4.8E+02 E Tin ...... EEEEMEM Toluene ...... EEEEE1.2E+03 E Vinyl acetate ...... E G E G E G E Xylene (mixed isomers) ...... E L E L E 3.9E+03 E Zinc ...... EEEEMEM 1 Levels represent the 90th percentile protective waste concentration derived from the probabilistic analysis. L = screened out of the groundwater due to no leachate. E = risk-based waste concentration exceeds 1 million (1E+06) parts per million. B = screened out of the pathway due to a lack of a human health toxicity benchmark. M = not included in the risk analysis for that pathway since the constituent is a non-volatile metal.
g. What Is The Uncertainty in Human because of the complexity associated explained below, limitations also result Health Risk Results? Uncertainty is a with simulating the behavior of a from the amount, type, and quality of description of the imperfection in chemical moving through the the data used in our assessment, the set knowledge of the true value of a environment from disposal in a of exposure pathways evaluated, and particular parameter. This risk management unit, to exposure points in the types of waste management units assessment has inherent limitations that various environmental media, and considered. Because of the number of lead to uncertainty in our risk estimates subsequent impacts on receptors. As facilities that manufacture paint and
VerDate 11
coatings, it was not feasible for us to being modeled, or (3) parameter values associated with the waste volume directly measure data such as facility/ cannot be measured precisely and/or distribution. This uncertainty may lead to an over or under estimate of risk. site characteristics (for example, unit accurately because of limitations in • area and volume; depth to groundwater; measurement technology. Random, or We typically use regional databases to obtain the parameter values necessary to aquifer thickness; hydraulic sample errors, are a common source of model contaminant fate and transport. conductivity; location of wells; type of parameter uncertainty that is especially Because the data that we used are not ecological receptors; behavioral critical for small sample sizes. More specific to the facilities at which the actual characteristics of receptors) at each difficult to recognize are nonrandom or wastes are managed, the data represent our representative site to estimate risk. systematic errors that result from bias in estimates of the generic site conditions. For This section discusses the major areas sampling, experimental design, or an analysis where waste management of uncertainty in risk assessments as choice of assumptions. locations are so variable, we believe this type of approach is reasonable and is the best classified by the EPA: scenario • The age of several of the databases used uncertainty, model uncertainty, and method to address the fate and transport of in this analysis to characterize the waste constituents. Nevertheless, the use of these parameter uncertainty. management units or the location of the databases in lieu of site-specific data may (a) Scenario uncertainty results from receptors leads to uncertainty in the analysis. result in either overestimates or the assumptions we make regarding These databases contain information underestimates of risk. how receptors become exposed to collected by the EPA in several surveys • Sources of uncertainty in toxicological contaminants. This uncertainty occurs during the mid- to late 1980’s. While these benchmarks include one or more of the because of the difficulty and general databases represent the best available following: extrapolation from laboratory information the Agency had at the time of impracticality of making actual studies animal data to humans, variability of this analysis, uncertainty exists in the response within the human population, of all activities involved in the analysis on changes in waste management management of a waste and the human extrapolation of responses at high practices or residential locations that may experimental doses under controlled activities that occur around the waste have occurred during the past decade. The conditions to low doses under highly management unit. uncertainty associated with these data may variable environmental conditions, and • lead to an over or under estimate of risk. adequacy of the database (number of studies This risk assessment does not consider • The sorption coefficient, K , which is d available, toxic endpoints evaluated, the additive risk from exposure to multiple used in the source partition model, the exposure routes evaluated, sample sizes, constituents. Chemical mixtures can display groundwater model, and in modeling length of study, etc.). Toxicological both synergistic and antagonist behavior with constituent concentration in surficial soils, is benchmarks are designed to be conservative regard to risk. In general, however, the an important parameter for modeling the fate (that is potentially overestimate risk) because overall risks of a mixture are very likely to and transport of metals in the environment. of the uncertainties and challenges associated be greater than that of exposure to a single In previous analyses, K values were d with condensing toxicity data into a single chemical. Therefore not adding exposures calculated using MINTEQ but, because of quantitative expression. Uncertainty factors across the chemicals is an area of uncertainty comments on the validity of some of the data that leads to an underestimate of total risk. upon which MINTEQ calculations are based, are applied to address limitations of the We did not calculate the additive effects from available toxicological data and are necessary EPA decided, for this analysis, that Kd values multiple-chemical exposure since there was would be derived from literature values. A to ensure the RfD or RfC is protective of not information on the concentrations or co- comprehensive review of the literature was individuals in the general population. The management of particular constituents. In use of uncertainty factors is based on long- undertaken to compile Kd data for an earlier addition, for a concentration based listing it rulemaking (Inorganic Chemicals Listing standing scientific practice. Uncertainty is not reasonable to set standards for a Determination, 65 FR 55684, September 14, factors, when combined commonly range constituent that are developed based on the 2000.) Despite this substantial earlier effort, from 10 to 1000 depending on the nature and assumed presence of other constituents that considerable uncertainty remains in the quality of the underlying data. The RfD/RfC methodology is expected to have an have the same health affect. Whether or not literature-based values of Kd used in this uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of a particular chemical mixture poses an analysis because data concerning Kd values additive risk or hazard depends on the targets for particular constituents reported in the magnitude. • (tissue, organ, or organ system), the literature were limited. In addition, reported We recognize that significant concentrations of all the constituents in the values often were not accompanied by uncertainties and unknowns exist regarding mixture, and the mechanisms of action of the qualifying information. Conditions that affect the estimation of lifetime cancer risks in individual chemicals. Without information Kd values (e.g., constituent concentration, children. We estimated the risk of developing on the co-management of constituents, it was metal species evaluated, pH, experimental cancer from the estimated lifetime average not feasible to consider additive risks. technique) are often not reported in the daily dose and the slope of the dose-response • In certain cases, EPA performs a risk literature making interpretation of results curve. A cancer slope factor is derived from assessment on wastes that contain difficult. For these reasons, substantial either human or animal data and is taken as contaminants that also are present in the uncertainty concerning the values of Kd the upper bound on the slope of the dose- environment as a result of both natural remain. response curve in the low-dose region, processes and anthropogenic activities. • Very little data were available on the generally assumed to be linear, expressed as Under these circumstances, receptors physical and chemical characteristics of a lifetime excess cancer risk per unit potentially receive a ‘‘background’’ exposure paint manufacturing waste. To address this, exposure. However, individuals exposed to that may be greater than the exposure assumptions on the waste characteristics are carcinogens in the first few years of life may resulting from release of contaminants from based on general knowledge of paint and be at increased risk of developing cancer. the waste. For national analysis like this other similar industrial wastes. In this • The non-cancer toxicological effects in assessment, the inclusion of background analysis, except for constituent children is also an area of uncertainty. Non- concentrations as part of the analysis is not concentration, which was calculated, EPA cancer reference doses and reference feasible due to (a) the variability of assumes that the paint manufacturing waste concentrations for children are based on background concentrations nationwide and is mixed with other generic industrial wastes. comparing childhood exposure, for which we (b) the lack of data on national background Therefore, general waste characteristics, have age-specific data, with adult toxicity concentrations for each constituent. including default assumptions for the waste measures, where adequate age-specific dose- response data is lacking. This mismatch (b) Parameter uncertainty occurs parameters (e.g., fraction of organic carbon, pH), were used. results in a large amount of uncertainty in the when (1) there is a lack of data about the • We used waste volume data in this risk estimation of hazard quotients for children. parameters used in the equations, (2) the assessment provided by the facilities as part This would sometimes result in an data that are available are not of our RCRA 3007 survey. Since the survey overestimation of children’s risk and representative of the particular instance was not a census, there is some uncertainty sometimes in an underestimation. This issue
VerDate 11
is still under investigation in the scientific were not modeled in this risk assessment due • Finally, there is uncertainty in predicting community and no consensus has been to a lack of information on how they behave the movement of contaminants over long reached. when introduced to the environment. Our periods of time. We assess the risk to (c) Model uncertainty is associated fate and transport modeling is limited to receptors for the groundwater pathway over those constituents for which we have (1) the a time period of 10,000 years. There are with all models used in all phases of a physical/chemical parameters necessary to significant uncertainties regarding how risk assessment, because models and run our models and (2) adequate information exposure, scientific, and environmental their mathematical expressions are on toxicity to understand potential health assumptions will change over time, and the simplifications of reality that are used to impacts from exposure. In selecting modeling methodology does not change these approximate real-world conditions and constituents of concern, we found multiple assumptions over this 10,000 year period. constituents that were complex inorganic processes, and their relationships. We request comments on each of Computer models are simplifications of compounds containing more than one metal of concern and organometallic compounds these areas of uncertainty, including reality, requiring exclusion of some (compounds containing both a metal and their potential impact on our variables that influence predictions but organic constituents) that can be used in conclusions and whether data are cannot be included in models due either manufacturing paint. For example, available to improve our analysis. to increased complexity or to a lack of compounds such as lead chromate molybdate data on a particular parameter. Models and lead naphthenate may be used as 6. What Was EPA’s Approach To do not include all parameters or ingredients in paint. An adequate set of both Conducting the Ecological Risk equations necessary to express reality the physical/chemical parameters and Assessment? toxicity information for modeling fate and because of the inherent complexity of transport and predicting risk to human health Waste management activities cannot the natural environment, and the lack of are lacking for these metal complexes. The only impact the health of individuals sufficient data to describe the natural technical background document for the risk living near a WMU, but can also have environment. Because this is a assessment contains the information we adverse effects on other organisms and probabilistic assessment that predicts found on a set of organometallics. Due to this natural systems. For example, wildlife what may occur with the management absence of data, we simulate the risk can come into contact with constituents of certain paint manufacturing wastes presented by these multiple compounds by modeling the ionic form of the metal. For released from WMUs by swimming or under assumed scenarios, it is not example, the model predictions for lead are living in contaminated waters or by possible to compare the results of our used to represent the complex lead inorganic drinking or catching prey such as fish models to any specific situation that metal compounds and lead organometallic from contaminated waters. For this risk may exist. The risk assessor needs to compounds that may be used in paints. Since assessment, the EPA conducted an consider the importance of excluded so little is known about these complex metal ecological risk screening analysis for all variables on a case-by-case basis compounds and what their fate may be in the the waste management units evaluated environment, our modeling may over or because a given variable may be for the human health risk assessment. important in some instances and not in under-estimate the actual risks. In addition, for metals transformations may take place as The purpose of this analysis was to others. A similar problem can occur the pH of the waste or media can change the identify whether there is potential for when a model that is applicable under state of the metal, sometimes to a less toxic adverse ecological effects from the average conditions is used for form and sometimes to a more toxic form. management of paint production waste conditions that differ from the average. The risk assessment did not model in landfills, surface impoundments, and In addition, in some instances choosing transformation products or changes in metal off-site treatment tanks. We performed the correct model form is often difficult species. this ecological risk assessment with a • Exposure modeling relies heavily on when conflicting theories seem to two tiered approach. For the first tier, explain a phenomenon equally well. In default assumptions concerning population activity patterns, mobility, dietary habits, we assumed that each of the other instances, the Agency does not body weights, and other factors. There are constituents evaluated had a have established model forms from some uncertainties associated with some of concentration in the waste of 750,000 which to choose to address certain the data used for these parameters. Although parts per million. This concentration phenomena, such as facilitated it is possible to study various populations to was a starting number for the analysis transport. We selected models used in determine various exposure parameters (e.g., and does not have any significance to this risk assessment based on science, age-specific soil ingestion rates or intake the way in which paint wastes are policy, and professional judgement. rates for food) or to assess past exposures currently managed. This waste Most of the models selected have been (epidemiological studies) or current exposures, risk assessment is about concentration was selected as a verified and some have been validated. prediction. Therefore, long-term exposure concentration level to perform a In addition, most of these models have monitoring in this context is infeasible. The screening analysis with since it is been peer reviewed. These models were Exposure Factors Handbook provides the greater than what the EPA expects selected because they provide the current state-of-the-science concerning would be managed in paint information needed for this analysis and exposure modeling and assumptions and is manufacturing wastes. All constituents because we generally consider them to used in this risk assessment. To the extent except for mercury and lead did not be state-of-the-science. Even though the that actual exposure factors vary from the pose an unacceptable risk to ecological models used in the risk analyses are assumptions in this risk assessment, risks could be underestimated or overestimated. receptors at this concentration. For used widely and have been accepted for • In modeling the fate and transport of these two constituents, we performed a numerous applications, they each retain chemicals in groundwater, we did not assess second level of analysis. For mercury significant sources of uncertainty. complex hydrogeology such as karst or and lead, we predicted what Evaluated as a whole, the sources of highly fractured aquifers. Some fraction of concentrations could be managed in model uncertainty in our analysis could the groundwater settings in this analysis have each waste management unit to ensure result in either an overestimation or fractured flow. In general, fractured flow in that all ecological receptors experience underestimation of risk. Specific areas groundwater can channel the contaminant a hazard quotient of 1 or less when of modeling uncertainty in this analysis plume, thus allowing it to move faster and more concentrated than in nonfractured flow compared to the 90th percentile are: environment. As a result, our modeling may environmental media concentrations. • There were constituents identified as under or over estimate the concentrations in These concentrations were 270,000 ppm materials used in paint manufacturing that the groundwater. and 7400 ppm for lead and mercury
VerDate 11
respectively. Based on these simulated contaminant concentrations both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. concentrations we determined that lead in the various environmental media and Within each habitat, risk was evaluated and mercury in paint manufacturing food items, pathway specific ingestion at all trophic levels (i.e., position within wastes do not pose a threat to ecological rates, and receptor type-specific body the food chain) and for all feeding life. Based on our knowledge of paint weights. For this analysis, however, the strategies (e.g., plant feeder, predator). formulations and information we EPA determined the upper bound Although actual WMU sites were not received on constituent concentrations constituent concentration that can be defined, it was assumed that WMUs from our 3007 survey, we do not expect present in the emission control dust, occur in a variety of settings that paint production wastes to contain combined solids, and aqueous waste include terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic either lead or mercury at the levels we and modeled the fate and transport of systems. Thus, the ecological receptors predicted would pose a hazard to these constituents into the environment. evaluated in this risk assessment ecological receptors. In addition, since The resulting media concentrations include representative plants and lead and mercury are regulated as were then compared to ecological animals from several different hazardous wastes with the toxicity receptor chemical stressor concentration terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic characteristic, we believe that paint limits. The exposure pathways included habitats. In general, the receptors occur manufacturing wastes that have high in this analysis were (1) root uptake of throughout most of the continental levels of these constituents will already constituents in soil or sediment by United States or throughout broad be regulated as hazardous waste.23 plants, (2) biological uptake of regions, such as east of the Mississippi Although we modeled high constituents in surface water by aquatic River. concentrations in the waste, we believe animals (e.g., fish or aquatic Relevant trophic levels and feeding that risks were not found to ecological invertebrates); (3) biological uptake of strategies (i.e., herbivorous, omnivorous, receptors in this screening level risk constituents in sediment by benthic and carnivorous diets) were established assessment because of the small waste invertebrates; (4) biological uptake of using simple food webs that describe volumes of non-hazardous waste that constituents in soil by soil invertebrates; dietary composition and predator-prey are being managed in the waste and (5) ingestion of constituents in relationships in each of the three habitat management units. surface water, soil, sediment, or food types. Receptors representing each The models described in Section III items (plants and animals) by terrestrial feeding strategy at each trophic level were used to estimate the release of vertebrates. This assessment did not were selected. In addition, the receptors these concentrations from the waste take into account the dermal absorption represent a cross section of general taxa management units, fate and transport of of constituents in surface water or soil at each trophic level. For example, the constituents in the environment, by terrestrial vertebrates or the invertebrates as well as vertebrates were and ultimately, the concentration of inhalation of volatile constituents in air. included, and vertebrate receptors each constituent in the different There are not enough data available on include amphibians, mammals, and environmental media (i.e., surface these types of exposures to wildlife to birds. waters, soils). The ecological screening include them in this risk assessment. The ecological assessment does not analysis compares these modeled media The 90th percentile media specifically address federally listed concentrations to ecologically protective concentrations were then compared to threatened or endangered species. media concentrations called chemical CSCLs to determine the hazard quotient c. How Did EPA Consider The stressor concentration limits (CSCL’s). for each ecological receptor evaluated. Toxicity of Constituents in The The result of this comparison is a ratio There were several simplifying Ecological Risk Assessment? The called a hazard quotient. When the assumptions made for this analysis that calculation of ecological risk for hazard quotient exceeds 1, there is over-estimated the potential hazard to receptor populations is based on the potential for adverse effects to the ecological receptors. For example, the implicit assumption that each receptor ecological receptor. If the hazard exposures are estimated assuming that species forages only within the quotient is equal to or less than 1, we the receptors derive all their food from contaminated area, regardless of the size do not expect adverse effects for a the contaminated area and the receptors of its home range. For smaller animals, particular ecological receptor. The diets consist predominantly of items this assumption has little impact on the amount by which the hazard quotient with the highest contaminant uptake estimates of exposure. However, for exceeds 1 suggests the potential for rates. The methodologies and equations larger animals with more extensive adverse ecological effects; however, the used for the ecological receptor foraging areas, this assumption may screening results do not demonstrate exposure estimates are fully described overestimate exposure if the animal’s actual ecological effects, nor do they in the Technical Background Document foraging patterns tend to be evenly indicate whether those effects will have for the risk assessment. spread over the home range that extends significant implications for ecosystems b. What Ecological Receptors Did The beyond the contaminated area. and their components. EPA Evaluate? Two general types of For the species specific receptors a. How Were Ecological Exposures receptors were evaluated in the (both mammals and birds), the overall Estimated? Similar to estimating human ecological assessment. For exposure approach used to establish receptor exposures, we estimated through direct contact with ecotoxicological benchmarks is similar ecological receptor exposures based on contaminated media, the receptors were to the methods used to establish RfDs multispecies communities such as the for humans. Each method uses a 23 Such high levels of mercury in paint soil invertebrate community or the hierarchy for the selection of toxicity manufacturing are also unlikely due to existing terrestrial plant community. For indirect data and extrapolates from a test species regulations controlling the use of mercury in paint. Prior to the 1990s, paint manufacturing used exposure through ingestion, the to the species of interest. However, there mercury in paints at low levels (e.g., receptors are single species populations, are fundamental differences in the goals phenylmercuric acetate was used as a biocide to such as white-tailed deer or raccoons of noncancer risk assessments for control mildew in latex paints). EPA restricted this and include representative trophic humans and ecological receptors. Risk use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), eliminating mercury in levels and feeding strategies. Evaluating assessments of humans seek to protect interior latex paints (55 FR 26754, June 29, 1990) risk to receptor populations and the individual while risk assessments of and in exterior paints (56 FR 105, May 31, 1991). communities included consideration of ecological receptors seek to protect
VerDate 11
populations or communities of IV. Proposed Listing Determinations solids are subject to the K179 listing. For the important species. and Regulations purposes of this listing, paint manufacturers First, because population viability are defined as specified in paragraph (b) of A. What Are The Proposed Regulations this section. was selected as an assessment endpoint, for Paint Production Wastes? Due to the uncertainties in our the benchmarks were developed from assessment of the management of paint measures of reproductive/ We are proposing that, if you generate any of the paint manufacturing wastes manufacturing waste liquids in surface developmental success or, if impoundments, we are seriously unavailable, other effects that could described in these listings, then you must determine whether or not your considering an alternative proposal not conceivably impair population to list paint manufacturing waste dynamics. In addition, the population- waste is a listed hazardous waste, or you must assume that it is hazardous. For liquids. We describe this alternative and level benchmark was preferred over our reasoning for this option later in this population-inference benchmarks. the wastes identified in the K179 and K180 listings, your waste would become notice (see Section IV.D). Population-level benchmarks are based Under the proposed listings shown a listed hazardous waste if it contains on studies of effects on an entire above, paint manufacturing wastes with any of the constituents of concern at a population (i.e., many interacting constituents of concern below the concentration equal to or greater than individuals) while population-inference concentration limits at the time of the hazardous concentration identified benchmarks are based on studies of generation would not be hazardous for that constituent. You would need to individuals with protection of the waste K179 or K180; such wastes would make a determination that all the population being inferred from be nonhazardous from their point of constituents of concern in your waste protection of the individual (e.g., no generation, and would not be subject to are below the hazardous concentrations observed adverse effect levels for any RCRA Subtitle C management to have your wastes remain individual organisms on reproductive requirements for generation, storage, nonhazardous. Waste liquids listed in endpoints). Although relatively few transport, treatment, or disposal K180, however, would not be subject to population-level benchmarks have been (including the land disposal the listing, if the wastes are stored or developed to date, these benchmarks are restrictions). Similarly, liquid paint treated exclusively in tanks or considered to be more rigorous than the manufacturing wastes would also be containers prior to discharge to a POTW point estimates gleaned from toxicity nonhazardous if the waste is managed or under an NPDES permit. We are studies. Once the appropriate or treated exclusively in tanks or proposing the following regulatory ecotoxicological studies were identified containers prior to discharge to a POTW language in § 261.32 for these wastes: for mammals and/or birds, the CSCLs or under an NPDES permit regardless of for each receptor were calculated for K179—Paint manufacturing waste solids whether it contained any of the each medium of interest by scaling the generated by paint manufacturing facilities constituents of concern. However, if toxicity benchmark from the test species that, at the point of generation, contain any paint manufacturing wastes are of the constituents identified in paragraph to the receptor species, identifying the hazardous waste due to another listing uptake/accumulation factors, (b)(6)(iii) of this section at a concentration equal to or greater than the hazardous level code or because they exhibit a identifying the exposures from dietary set for that constituent in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) hazardous waste characteristic under intake, and determining a risk-based of this section. Paint manufacturing waste section 261.24, the wastes remain concentration in each media. The solids are: (1) Waste solids generated from hazardous under these other benchmarks for the community tank and equipment cleaning operations that regulations. receptors were taken from various use solvents, water and/or caustic; (2) We are proposing that the sources such as the final chronic values emission control dusts or sludges; (3) constituents and the concentrations in developed for the National Ambient wastewater treatment sludges; and (4) off- the two above listings (which would be Water Quality Criteria. A detailed specification product. Waste solids derived from the management of K180 by paint specified in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of description of the benchmarks manufacturers would also be subject to this § 261.32) would be those shown in developed for all of the receptors listing. Waste liquids derived from the Tables IV.A–1 for waste solids (K179) evaluated is contained in the Technical management of K179 by paint manufacturers and in Table IV.A–2 for waste liquids Background Document for the risk are not covered by this listing, but such (K180). These are waste concentrations assessment. liquids are subject to the K180 listing. For the that represent risk-based concentrations 7. Did EPA Conduct a Peer Review of purposes of this listing, paint manufacturers for constituents we determined to be of The Risk Assessment? The Agency has are defined as specified in paragraph (b) of potential concern in paint this section. obtained a peer review from manufacturing wastes. The independent experts. Their comments K180—Paint manufacturing waste liquids concentration-based listing levels for have been received and are part of the generated by paint manufacturing facilities waste solids are based on the risk peer review document that is in the that, at the point of generation, contain any modeling for landfills, and the levels for of the constituents identified in paragraph docket for today’s proposed rule. The (b)(6)(iii) of this section at a concentration waste liquids are based on the risk peer review document also describes equal to or greater than the hazardous level modeling for surface impoundments. how the experts were identified and set for that constituent in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) We also evaluated potential air releases selected, contains information on the of this section unless the wastes are stored from treatment of waste liquids in tanks, experts experience and employment, or treated exclusively in tanks or containers but as described in Section IV.C, we did and provides a copy of the questions the prior to discharge to a POTW or under a not find significant risks for this peer reviewers were asked to address. NPDES permit. Paint manufacturing liquids management scenario. Therefore, we are Due to the time constraints for proposal are generated from tank and equipment proposing not to include wastes of this rule, the Agency has not yet cleaning operations that use solvents, water, managed exclusively in tanks within the and/or caustic. Waste liquids derived from reviewed and addressed those the management of K179 by paint scope of the listing for waste liquids. comments. Both the peer review manufacturers would also be subject to this See Section IV.D for further discussion comments and the public comments listing. Waste solids derived from the of our reasoning for structuring the will be addressed in the final management of K180 by paint manufacturers listing for waste liquids in this way, and rulemaking. are not covered by this listing, but such for other options we are considering.
VerDate 11
As described in Section III.E, we 2,4-dimethylphenol. The calculated wastewaters, both when managed on- developed risk-based concentrations for levels for ethylene glycol (790,000 mg/ site and when sent off-site for treatment. the larger set of constituents shown in L), phenol (270,000 mg/L) and methanol Furthermore, subpart DD in 40 CFR part Table III.E–4. In general, we relied on (200,000 mg/L) were so high that we 63 sets National Emission Standards for the modeling results to guide us in considered these unlikely to ever occur Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) deciding which constituents would be in liquid paint manufacturing wastes. from off-site waste and recovery most useful in defining these paint While all three are potentially used as operations, which may include off-site manufacturing wastes as listed water-soluble solvent ingredients, centralized wastewater treatment hazardous wastes. We chose phenol and methanol are also used as facilities (July 1, 1996, 61 FR 34140 ).26 constituents for listing from the list in biocides in water-based paints.24 While In addressing potential air releases from Table III.E.4 using a number of criteria. the Survey showed these chemicals such facilities, the CAA regulations are • We dropped constituents from further were found frequently in paint likely to prevent the levels of most concern if the risk-based levels for the waste manufacturing wastes, no generator chemicals at issue here (e.g., phenol and exceeded or approached 100% (i.e., reported levels in nonhazardous or methanol) from reaching the risk-based 1,000,000 mg/kg), because these constituents hazardous wastes that would approach levels under consideration in liquid could not present significant risks in the the modeled levels of concern (the only paint manufacturing wastes. This is paint manufacturing wastes we evaluated. waste with high levels was an off-spec • likely because such MACT standards We did not include constituents that are paint containing 20% of ethylene glycol often provide incentives to reduce HAPs already regulated by the TC. As discussed in that was sent to fuel blending). For through source reduction or Section IV.G, we found that the regulatory TC waste streams to approach these levels (see 40 CFR 261.24) would likely be pretreatment to avoid costly engineering below the protective levels we calculated for concentrations, the constituents would controls. these chemicals. Therefore, based on our have to start out at even higher We solicit comment on the proposed analysis, the existing TC regulations concentrations in the product. Such list of constituents and their levels. We adequately regulate risks from these high levels in the products are seek comment and supporting constituents in these wastes, because wastes unrealistic, because products with such information as to whether any other exhibiting the TC would have to be treated high concentration of these constituents constituents discussed above should be prior to disposal. would not have the attributes of paint. • added to the chemicals for listing paint We dropped constituents if their levels Therefore, we are not proposing to were so high that we believe it is highly solids or liquids and the basis for such include these chemicals as constituents action. We seek any information that unlikely that these chemicals would ever 25 exist at such levels in waste solids from paint in the paint listings. may assist us in deciding whether any manufacturing. We dropped 2,4-dimethylphenol as a of the constituents or levels in Tables constituent of concern for waste liquids For paint manufacturing waste solids IV.A–1 and IV.A–2 are so unlikely to be because the 3007 Survey showed that present at the levels of concern that we (K179) we used the risk levels in Table facilities did not report its presence in III.E–4 calculated for emission control should drop them from the listing. For nonhazardous waste. Furthermore, the example, the levels for the solids (K179) dust, because these were slightly lower only potential use in paint we found for than the levels for the combined solids. are high for methyl isobutyl ketone this chemical was possibly as a biocide. (73,000 mg/kg). The liquid level for Using the above criteria for the 43 Therefore the low concentrations constituents listed in Table III.E–4, we formaldehyde (82,000 mg/L) is also resulting from such a use would be unlikely for a chemical that has been dropped 24 constituents that have risk- unlikely to approach the risk-based used mainly as a biocide or in polymer based levels above 100% and 11 other level (17,000 mg/L). We also note that binders. In addition, we question constituents that are TC chemicals. We the TRI data showed only minimal whether the chemicals methyl dropped three others that are unlikely to releases (5 lbs.) to off-site wastewater methacrylate and styrene, which are exist in paint wastes at the calculated treatment for all facilities in SIC code used primarily as resins rather than in risk-based levels. Two of the three have 2851. risk-based levels that are close to 100% Regulations that limit air releases their monomeric forms, would be and are therefore implausible for waste from off-site wastewater treatment present at the high levels shown in (n-butyl alcohol—970,000 mg/kg, facilities are also likely to keep levels of Tables IV.A–1 and IV.A–2 for the solid formaldehyde—930,000 mg/kg). The these organic constituents below such or liquid paint manufacturing wastes. other constituent, methylene chloride high levels. EPA is planning to propose However, we believe levels of the (dichloromethane), has a level of 24% a MACT standard for paint monomeric forms of acrylonitrile and (240,000 mg/kg). This appears unlikely, manufacturers (Miscellaneous Organic acrylamide that are present in the resins given that manufacturers have moved Chemical and Coatings Manufacturing) may still present a potential risk at the away from using chlorinated solvents in that would regulate HAPs in relatively low levels set for waste solids paints. This is further supported by the and waste liquids not managed in tanks. responses to the 3007 survey, which 24 We found solvent uses for phenol were limited Therefore, we are proposing to include showed that the presence of this in a listing determination for solvent uses of this acrylonitrile and acrylamide as listing chemical was not reported by any chemical (see 61 FR 42318, August 14, 1996). constituents, because they may be in Primary uses as a solvent were in the petroleum paint manufacturing wastes at or above facility in nonhazardous waste. industry (extraction of lube oil) and in For waste liquids (K180), we used the microelectronic and automotive industries these levels (see discussion in Section risk-based levels in Table III.E–2 (removing coatings). While this previous analysis IV.C on potential risks from tanks). derived for wastewaters in surface did not focus on uses as ingredient, which is the Depending on comments, we may potential use in paint formulations, this indicates choose to add or remove constituents impoundments. We dropped 14 that the use of phenol for its solvent properties is constituents that have risk-based levels relatively rare. from the concentration-based listing. above 100% and 13 others that are TC 25 The proposed levels are based on the constituents. We also dropped four probabilistic risk results for the 90th percentile. If 26 EPA concluded that this group of wastewater we were to use the results for the 95th percentile, treatment plants would likely include some other constituents that have levels that we would consider including methanol, because facilities that would be major sources of HAPs (see appear unlikely for waste liquids: then the listing level for liquid wastes would drop 61 FR 34144/2). Thus, these major sources would ethylene glycol, phenol, methanol, and to 6.2%, which we believe is somewhat more likely. be subject to the MACT standard.
VerDate 11
As required under § 261.30(b), we are generators will be able to readily well above or below 15%. Thus, if we proposing to add the constituents that determine which waste category their were to set a level to define paint are the basis for the listings to Appendix wastes would be in, based on their manufacturing waste solids and liquids, VII of Part 261. We are proposing to add responses to the 3007 Survey, and their we believe we could allow the generator the constituents in Table IV.A–1 for reported management practices. to use his knowledge, rather than K179 and the constituents in Table However, we are considering setting a necessarily requiring a test. IV.A–2 for K180. In addition, a number clear definition to distinguish the waste of constituents in Tables IV.A–1 and solids and liquids, such that a generator Instead of setting a specific level of IV.A–2 are not currently listed in can readily determine which listing percent solids, another option is to use Appendix VIII to Part 261 as ‘‘hazardous applies. Thus, we request comment on the Paint Liquids Filter Test (method constituents.’’ EPA places constituents several options in establishing a clear 9095 in SW–846) to determine if the on Appendix VIII if scientific studies definition that would distinguish solids waste is a liquid or a solid. A paint show the chemicals have toxic, vs. liquids. manufacturing waste found to contain carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic Perhaps the most straightforward free liquid under this method would be effects on humans or other life forms approach would be to set a level of considered a liquid, and would be (see § 261.11(a)(3)). The Risk percent solids above which the waste evaluated under the K180 listing, while Assessment Background Document would be a solid paint manufacturing a paint manufacturing waste that does contains the detailed toxicological data waste and below which it would be a not contain free liquids would be for all constituents we evaluated, liquid paint manufacturing waste. One subject to the K179 listing. This method including the chemicals we are possible level could be 15%. Thus, this appears logical because it is presently proposing to add to Appendix VIII: n- option would define paint used in defining the term ‘‘liquid waste’’ butyl alcohol, ethyl benzene, methyl manufacturing waste solids as those in the solid waste disposal criteria for isobutyl ketone, styrene, and xylene. If containing 15% or above solids (by determining compliance with the we choose the alternative of not listing weight). This cutoff reflects the general prohibition on disposing of bulk or approach we used in our modeling for paint manufacturing waste liquids containerized liquid in municipal solids. In our assessment of releases (K180), then we would not need to add landfills (§ 258.28). Method 9095 is also from landfills we assumed that the the constituents to Appendix VII for used in a similar way for hazardous K180, and we would need to add only waste contained a maximum moisture level of 85% (for sludges; we assumed waste landfills (§ 264.313(c)). Thus, methyl isobutyl ketone to Appendix using this method to distinguish paint VIII. a maximum moisture level of 15% for dusts). Furthermore, because of the manufacturing waste solids from liquids would be consistent with the definitions TABLE IV.A–1.—CONCENTRATION restrictions on free liquids in municipal used in the operating practices for the LEVELS FOR WASTE SOLIDS (K179) nonhazardous landfills (e.g., see § 258.28), we do not envision wastes management scenario modeled for Concentra- containing less than 15% solids could solids, i.e., landfills. Constituent tion levels reasonably be managed in a landfill. A third option would be to use a (mg/kg) Therefore, we believe that wastes definition of liquids that is analogous to containing less than 15% solids will be Acrylamide ...... 310 the definition of wastewater used under Acrylonitrile ...... 43 managed in units associated with the land disposal restrictions. Antimony ...... 2,300 wastewater treatment, such as tanks or Wastewater is defined as waste with less Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ...... 73,000 surface impoundments. In addition, in than 1% total suspended solids (TSS) Methyl methacrylate ...... 28,000 most cases water will be separated from and less than 1% total organic carbon solids as part of routine wastewater (§ 268.2(f)); nonwastewater is defined as treatment. Thus, generators would be TABLE IV.A–2.—CONCENTRATION any waste that is not wastewater. While evaluating solid residues, which clearly using this approach would allow some LEVELS FOR WASTE LIQUIDS (K180) meet our solid definition, or treated water, which would typically be consistency in definitions in the listings Concentra- discharged to a POTW or under an and the LDR programs, we believe this Constituent tion levels would not be appropriate. A key (mg/L) NPDES permit, and would not be covered by the K180 listing in any case. disadvantage of this approach is that it Acrylamide ...... 12 Percent solids could be measured by defines wastes with greater than 1% Acrylonitrile ...... 9.3 an established method, such as the TSS as a nonwastewater, i.e., a solid, Antimony ...... 390 method for total suspended solids (TSS) even though such a waste is highly Ethylbenzene ...... 11,000 likely to be managed in wastewater Formaldehyde ...... 82,000 described in EPA guidelines for test Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ...... 340 methods used under the CWA (EPA treatment systems using tanks and Methyl Methacrylate ...... 2,100 method 160.1 in 40 CFR 136.3, Table surface impoundments, and not Methylene Chloride ...... 4,500 1B).27 However, generators may have landfills. Given this problem, we do not N-Butyl Alcohol ...... 41,000 the knowledge necessary to decide think using this definition would be Styrene ...... 4,600 whether their paint manufacturing useful to define wastes solids and Toluene ...... 1,200 waste was a liquid or a solid, based on liquids for purposes of the paint listings. Xylene (mixed isomers) ...... 3,900 past analysis or disposal practices. We We seek comment on the need for believe that in many cases, especially The listing levels we are proposing for specific definitions for paint for wastes that are clearly ‘‘wet’’ or K179 and K180 are different for the manufacturing waste liquids and solids, ‘‘dry,’’ the generator can easily tell from waste solids and waste liquids. These and the relative merits of the above a visual inspection that solids content is levels are based on the risk assessment options or similar approaches. We also for various scenarios for disposal of request comment on whether facilities 27 Another option would be to use section 7.1 in solids (landfill) and the liquids (surface the TCLP (method 1311) to measure filterable are likely to have information available impoundment). In general, we believe solids. on the percent solids in their wastes.
VerDate 11
B. Why Are We Proposing to Use the volatile, and will begin to volatilize as As shown in Table III.D–4, nearly all Level of Constituents in the Waste they are placed in the landfill. The of the liquid paint manufacturing wastes Solids as Total Waste Concentrations entire mass of constituent in the waste are managed in some type of wastewater Rather Than Leachate Concentrations? is not placed in the landfill at once, but treatment system (small volumes are We are proposing to set the rather is placed in cells over the life of sent to fuel blending or other treatment). Furthermore, as indicated in Table concentration levels for defining the unit. Therefore, as disposal occurs, III.D–4, liquid wastes are primarily hazardous paint solids using the the waste constituents are continuing to classified as water or caustic cleaning concentrations measured in the waste partition into air, soil, or leachate. Our liquids, except for one small volume of itself, i.e., the totals concentration.28 We model also factors in degradation of solvent cleaning liquid that went to a considered using the landfill leachate organics in the landfill. Such biodegradation is relatively slow for fuel blender. levels instead of the waste levels to For on-site tanks, as described in define the listed waste. Using landfill most chemicals, however this also assists in attenuating the levels of Section III.E, we conducted a bounding leachate levels would require generators risk analysis for on-site treatment tanks to evaluate their wastes using a test such constituents that are released to the subsurface. We recently published that evaluated the worst case scenario as the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching for on-site management in tanks, Procedure (TCLP).29 However, we related modeling results as part of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule including storage as well as treatment decided not to use the TCLP approach tanks. Our analysis identified some for a number of reasons. We believe that (HWIR) using the same modeling approach (64 FR 63382, November 19, potential constituents of concern: the partitioning model used to establish Benzene, chloroform, mercury, the totals concentrations is a more 1999, and 65 FR 44491, July 20, 2000), though this effort covered a wider methylene chloride, appropriate tool to assess risks posed by tetrachloroethylene, and acrylonitrile. the paint manufacturing wastes. This is distribution of waste volumes. The use of totals rather than leachate for a However, when the survey responses because the partitioning model factors provided data on constituent levels, in periodic placement of the specific concentration-based listing is also consistent with another recent EPA these data indicated that these waste volumes in cells within the constituents are unlikely to be present landfill, closure of the landfill after 30 proposal for listing hazardous waste from the Dye and Pigments industry (64 in these wastes at levels of concern. In years, volatilization of constituents from addition, for benzene, chloroform, the landfill through partitioning to the FR 40192, July 23, 1999). Therefore, we are proposing the mercury, and tetrachloroethylene, the air, and any degradation of organics concentration levels for the waste itself risk-based concentrations derived from while in the unit. The leaching values for the listing for waste solids from the bounding risk analysis are for the paint manufacturing waste solids paint manufacturing. However, we seek significantly higher than the respective result from the partitioning of comment on the option of setting the TC levels; therefore, the TC regulations constituents from the waste to water leachate concentrations from our provide some control for most of these infiltrating the unit. A test method like modeling as the listing levels for the constituents. For acrylonitrile, the the TCLP does not reflect these factors. paint solids, and on the potential calculated risk-based concentration of The TCLP approach is designed only to impacts (incremental costs and benefits) 1,500 ppm is significantly higher than assess groundwater impacts, and does of such an approach. We may still the projected range of concentration of not account for other releases or consider a final regulation based on the 1–40 ppm for acrylonitrile in liquid processes occurring in landfills. measurement of leachate with the TCLP waste streams; as such, it is not of Therefore, the estimated leaching method, as shown in Table IV.B–3, after concern. Most other constituents of numbers derived from our modeling further consideration and review of concern either bounded out (i.e., assessment of paint manufacturing comments. modeled levels were higher than wastes, where partitioning and 1,000,000 ppm), or were unrealistically degradation are occurring before the TABLE IV.B–3.—ALTERNATIVE CON- high for paint manufacturing wastes. constituents leave the unit, are not The risk-based levels derived from the CENTRATION LEACHING LEVELS FOR strictly comparable with the simple risk assessment for methylene chloride, leaching of constituents from wastes WASTE SOLIDS (K179) methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, vinyl represented by the TCLP. acetate, and xylene are so high that we Concentra- We recognize that the totals levels Constituent tion levels believe they are highly unlikely to exist appear somewhat high in comparison to (mg/L) at such levels in nonhazardous liquid the leachable levels we calculated for paint manufacturing wastes. This our assessment of paint manufacturing Acrylamide ...... 0.70 evaluation for on-site tanks is discussed wastes (Table IV.–3). For example, the Acrylonitrile ...... 0.91 in more detail in the following section leaching level calculated for Antimony ...... 58 (IV.C.1). Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ...... 42 For off-site treatment tanks, we dichloromethane is 390 mg/L, compared Methyl methacrylate ...... 160 to a total level of 240,000 mg/kg. conducted a probabilistic risk However, it is not surprising that assessment as described in Section III.E. C. Why Are We Proposing to Exclude This risk assessment identified three leachate levels derived from the waste Waste Liquids Managed in Tanks? would be lower than the levels in the potential constituents of concern: waste itself. Most of the organic We are proposing that liquid paint Mercury, benzene and acrylonitrile. The constituents assessed are relatively manufacturing wastes stored or treated survey responses showed that these exclusively in tanks or containers prior constituents are not likely to be present 28 This is not an issue for the listing for paint to discharge to a POTW or under an in the wastes at concentrations of liquid wastes, because any analysis of the liquids NPDES permit not be subject to today’s concern. In addition, the levels of would include an analysis of the total liquid proposed listing because these wastes mercury and benzene in the waste are mixture. managed in tanks do not pose sufficient 29 See method 1311 in OSW’s methods manual, also limited by the existing TC Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ risk to warrant hazardous waste regulations, i.e., the risk-based levels Chemical Methods, SW–846. regulation. derived from the risk assessment are
VerDate 11
well above the TC levels. As described xylene (830,000 ppm); we discuss these ppm, chloroform-5.0 ppm, mercury-0.2 below, we determined that acrylonitrile chemicals in detail below. ppm, and tetrachloroethylene-0.7 ppm). is unlikely to exist in paint In general we do not expect Consequently, we are not proposing manufacturing waste liquids at the risk- significant levels of organic chemicals regulating these constituents under based levels of 69,000 ppm. Therefore, in on-site wastewater treatment systems today’s proposed listing. there is no need to regulate paint for several reasons. First, the liquid Acrylonitrile is a monomer, i.e., a manufacturing waste streams managed wastes most likely to have high organic relatively small compound with low in off-site treatment tanks. See section content, solvent cleaning wastes, are molecular weight. It reacts with other IV.C.2 for a full discussion. managed as hazardous. Except for one monomers to form polymers (i.e., cross- facility, these wastes were coded as 1. On-Site Storage and Treatment Tanks link into large, high molecular weight hazardous waste, either due to a compounds) that are used as paint Based on our extrapolated survey F-listing or because of a characteristic. binders. However, the reaction is rarely results, we estimate that 14,564 metric The 3007 survey showed that all the 100% complete, and small amounts of tons (approximately 47%) of generators of hazardous waste liquids the individual monomers remain nonhazardous liquid paint reported the wastes were treated by unreacted as impurities in the polymer. manufacturing wastes generated are incineration, fuel blending, or they were Unreacted acrylonitrile monomers, not managed in on-site storage tanks and reused. Therefore, we have no data their polymers, are the targeted 7,514 metric tons, or approximately suggesting facilities are treating such constituents of concern in our risk 24%, of nonhazardous paint high organic liquids in on-site assessment. manufacturing waste liquids are wastewater treatment systems. Second, the 3007 survey shows that With respect to acrylonitrile managed in on-site treatment tanks. monomers, we do not expect this After these wastes are managed on-site none of the small number of facilities that treated wastes in on-site wastewater constituent to be present in paint in storage and treatment tanks, the manufacturing wastewaters above the wastes are then either directly treatment (WWT) tanks (8 facilities, representing about 18 facilities in our risk-based concentrations derived from discharged into a waterway under a the bounding analysis for tanks. To NPDES permit, discharged into a weighted sample) reported significant organic content in their wastes. Of the analyze whether concentration levels of POTW, or sent to centralized acrylonitrile at 1,500 ppm are wastewater treatment facilities. 8 facilities, only one reported the presence of any organic constituents of reasonable as a basis for listing liquids For tanks, we normally model air potential concern, but listed them only in on-site tanks, we developed a emissions. We assume that significant because they may occasionally be methodology to determine whether groundwater risks are unlikely because present in the waste. Of the other 7 these constituents are likely to occur in tanks do not leak liquids into the soil if facilities, most reported the presence of paint manufacturing waste liquids at properly maintained. Treatment tanks metals, a few reported vinyl acetate concentrations within the range of the represent a more conservative scenario polymers, and one reported the water- risk-based levels. We assessed potential for modeling purposes because they are soluble ethylene glycol. concentrations of acrylonitrile in paint typically used for the aeration and Finally, as noted in Section IV.A manufacturing liquid waste streams in a flocculation of liquid wastes to settle above, a MACT standard covering paint three-step process that involved tracking out solids, causing more constituents to manufacturers will soon be proposed the monomers from point of origin escape into the air than the relatively that will address potential air releases (binder) to the final destination (liquid quiescent accumulation of liquids in from these facilities. The MACT would waste streams): (1) We estimated the storage tanks. Accordingly, we place limits on HAPs in wastewater concentration range of acrylonitrile evaluated the potential risks from the treatment systems, and would likely monomers in the binder systems used to management of liquids in treatment keep organic levels in paint make paint; (2) we estimated the volume tanks to cover both scenarios. manufacturing wastewaters relatively percentage of the binder systems added As described earlier in Section III.E, low. into paints themselves; and, (3) we we conducted a bounding analysis of Turning to the constituents of estimated the monomer concentration the potential air releases from the possible concern (benzene, chloroform, range in paints in tank cleaning wastes. nonhazardous liquid wastes treated in mercury, methylene chloride, Based on these calculations (which are on-site treatment tanks. This tetrachloroethylene, and acrylonitrile), discussed in more detail below), we conservative analysis assumed tanks are the facilities reported in their survey estimated that the ranges of acrylonitrile uncovered, and modeled the largest responses that these chemicals were monomer concentrations in the liquid liquid residual volume and tank size either not present at all, or were present waste streams should be one to 40 ppm. reported by the surveyed facilities. The at only trace concentrations. Out of the We then compared these projected risk-based levels for most constituents 187 paint manufacturers surveyed, the concentration ranges of acrylonitrile in exceeded 100%, and would not present responses showed benzene was present the liquid waste streams to the risk- significant risks in the paint in trace amounts in only one facility’s based levels calculated in the risk manufacturing wastes for this scenario. nonhazardous water cleaning liquid; assessment. The risk assessment results showed mercury was present in only two As specified above, we estimated the somewhat lower risk-based facilities’ nonhazardous water cleaning likely range of unreacted monomer of concentrations for paint manufacturing liquid at trace levels (up to 0.06 ppm). acrylonitrile in the binders (i.e., wastes in tanks for some constituents, No facility reported the presence of any polymers) to be between 20 ppm and i.e., benzene (1,100 ppm), chloroform chloroform, methylene chloride, or 1,000 ppm. This is reflected in our (15,000 ppm), mercury (41 ppm), tetrachloroethylene in any liquid analysis of the use of acrylamide and tetrachloroethylene (22,000 ppm), residual. We discuss the possible acrylonitrile polymers in paint acrylonitrile (1,500 ppm), methylene presence of acrylonitrile in detail below. formulations 30 and the Material Safety chloride (17,000 ppm), methyl isobutyl Furthermore, the risk-based levels for ketone (780,000 ppm), toluene (120,000 most of these constituents are well 30 See the memo from Paul Danault, Dynamac ppm), vinyl acetate (100,000 ppm), and above their TC levels (benzene-0.50 Corporation, to David Carver and Cate Jenkins, EPA,
VerDate 11
Data Sheet (MSDS) data we obtained survey response indicated the presence As described earlier in Section III.E, from some paint manufacturers (copies of acrylonitrile and acrylonitrile-derived the risk assessment conducted for liquid available in the public docket for polymers in the nonhazardous water paint manufacturing wastes managed in today’s proposed rule), which show the cleaning liquids at 2.8%. Assuming the off-site treatment tanks identified monomer mixture in binders in the 500 polymers used by this facility include potential inhalation risks associated to 1,000 ppm range. Second, we the monomers in concentrations ranging with only a few constituents. The risk projected that the likely concentration from 20 ppm to ×1,000 ppm for assessment estimated risk-based ranges of monomers in a paint or acrylonitrile as estimated above, the concentrations for mercury (10,000 coating are approximately 10 ppm to maximum monomer concentration in ppm), benzene (190,000 ppm) and 500 ppm for acrylonitrile. This estimate this facility’s nonhazardous wash water acrylonitrile (69,000 ppm). was based on our examination of paint would be less than 28 ppm (i.e., 2.83% As discussed above, the survey formulations, which indicates that these x 1,000 ppm/acrylonitrile monomer in showed that facilities reported only paint formulations contain up to 50% polymer), which is consistent with our traces of benzene or mercury in a few by weight of acrylonitrile-acrylic assessment (i.e., between <1 ppm to 40 nonhazardous liquid residuals. polymer.31 Finally, we estimated the ppm). Furthermore, levels of both constituents projected monomer concentration in the The risk-based levels derived from the are controlled by the existing TC resulting water cleaning liquids is risk assessment for methyl isobutyl regulations. Therefore, there is no need approximately one ppm to 40 ppm for ketone (780,000 ppm, or 78%), toluene to regulate these TC constituents further acrylonitrile given that approximately (120,000 ppm, or 12%), vinyl acetate under today’s proposed listing. 50 gallons of water are needed to wash (100,000 ppm, or 10%), and xylene For acrylonitrile, the risk-based a typical paint mixing tank of (830,000 ppm, or 83%) are so high that concentration of 69,000 ppm is approximately 5 feet in diameter and 8 we believe they are highly unlikely to significantly higher than the estimated feet in height with a paint depth of 6 exist at such levels in nonhazardous range of acrylonitrile monomer in paint feet,32 and that a 0.0625-inch film of liquid paint manufacturing wastes. This manufacturing wastewaters (see paint is attached to the inside surface of is reflected in the responses to our previous discussions on liquid wastes the tank up to 6 feet (amounting to a Section 3007 survey, which indicated managed in on-site storage and total of 4 gallons of paint to be rinsed). that the highest levels of toluene, vinyl treatment tanks). Therefore, it is highly These projected acrylonitrile acetate and vinyl acetate-derived unlikely for this constituent to be concentrations in paint manufacturing polymers, and xylene in nonhazardous present in paint manufacturing liquid wastewaters are significantly lower than liquid residuals were 0.025 ppm, 16,000 waste streams at such a high level. the calculated risk-based concentration ppm, and 118 ppm, respectively. We note that 21 of the 187 surveyed of 1,500 ppm. For more details, see In conclusion, our analysis indicates paint manufacturing facilities reported ‘‘Potential Acrylonitrile Concentrations there are no significant risks posed by that they sent nonhazardous liquid in Paint Manufacturing Liquid Waste the modeled constituents in wastes to off-site wastewater treatment Streams’ in the public docket for today’s nonhazardous paint manufacturing facilities, of which only one reported proposed rule. Therefore, we believe it wastes that are managed in on-site having any of the three constituents of is highly unlikely for this constituent to storage and treatment tanks. We believe concern in the wastewater. Specifically, be present in paint manufacturing liquid the likely levels of the potential this facility sent a very small quantity of waste streams at such levels. constituents of concern in paint nonhazardous wash water (151 gallons/ In addition, according to the manufacturing wastewaters are year) containing an unknown amount of substantially lower than the risk-based information available to us, acrylonitrile acrylonitrile to a centralized wastewater concentrations derived from the is not widely used in the U.S. paint treatment facility. bounding risk analysis. Therefore, manufacturing industry, and its use is In conclusion, we believe there are no requiring the facilities to analyze or diminishing. For example, resin significant risks posed by the modeled otherwise evaluate these constituents manufacturers are marketing constituents in nonhazardous paint would impose an unnecessary burden ‘‘acrylonitrile free’’ resins. It is also a manufacturing wastes that are managed on paint manufacturers. Thus, we are practice within the resin manufacturing in off-site treatment tanks. We believe proposing that paint manufacturing industry to remove residual monomer the levels of the potential constituents waste liquids stored and/or treated in before selling the polymer for paint of concern in paint manufacturing on-site tanks at paint manufacturing production. wastewaters are substantially lower than facilities are not subject to today’s The low use of this binder in paints the risk-based concentrations derived proposed listing. is supported by our survey data. Six of from the risk assessment. Therefore, 187 surveyed paint manufacturing 2. Management of Liquid Paint requiring the facilities to analyze or facilities reported acrylonitrile-derived Manufacturing Wastes in Off-Site otherwise report these constituents polymers in their nonhazardous liquid Treatment Tanks would impose an unnecessary burden residuals (in particular nonhazardous on paint manufacturers. In addition, the water cleaning liquids). In addition, one Based on our extrapolated survey results, we estimate that 6,407 metric levels of some constituents are controlled by the existing TC dated September 6, 2000, which is in the docket for tons (approximately 21%) of liquid today’s proposed rule. nonhazardous paint manufacturing regulations. Furthermore, as noted 31 Ibid. wastes generated are disposed off-site in previously, EPA has recently proposed 32 That is, 50 gallons of water used for washing privately owned wastewater treatment a NESHAP for miscellaneous paints and per about 800 gallons of paint produced in the tank. coating manufacturing operations that This is a conservative assumption compared to the facilities where tanks and surface impoundments may be used as part of would regulate wastewaters, both on- information in Reference 7 of the Bibliography, 33 Development Document for Effluent Limitations the treatment process. Following site and if sent off-site for treatment. Guidelines and Standards for the Paint Formulating treatment, the wastes are typically Point Source Category, EPA 440/1–79/049B, which 33 As discussed previously, some off-site states that the median wastewater generation at discharged into surface waters under an nonhazardous wastewater treatment facilities may waterbone paint facilities is 0.2 gallons per gallon NPDES permit, or discharged to the also be covered by the NESHAP/MACT standards of paint produced. POTW system. Continued
VerDate 11
Thus, we are proposing paint limiting the exemption from the listing assessment. While we are proposing to manufacturing waste liquids treated in to the management practice that we list because of potential risks arising off-site treatment tanks are not subject to determined posed no significant risk, from unlined surface impoundments, today’s proposed listing. i.e., management in tanks. Therefore, we we are considering the alternative of not are proposing to list the paint listing this waste because this may not D. Why Are We Proposing a Contingent be a ‘‘plausible’’ management scenario. Management Listing for Liquid Paint manufacturing waste liquids, unless As noted above, while the survey data Manufacturing Wastes, and What Other they are managed in tanks prior to shows that management in an off-site Options Are We Considering? discharge under an NPDES permit or to a POTW. treatment facility is relatively common, We are considering various options As discussed in Section II.G, the 3007 we found only one case where a surface for the listing for paint manufacturing Survey showed that 21 paint impoundment was in use. We estimate waste liquid (K180). Under the listing manufacturers reported sending their that only 4 to 5 such impoundments proposed for K180, the wastes would liquid wastes to 24 off-site wastewater may be receiving any of the paint not be listed if they are managed in on- treatment facilities. We contacted 9 of manufacturing waste liquids from the site storage and treatment tanks or these 24 and found one treatment estimated 972 paint manufacturers. containers prior to discharge to a POTW facility that reported using a lined Thus, management of these wastes in or under a NPDES permit. (Of course, if surface impoundment to treat two surface impoundments appears to be an the concentrations of the listing different paint manufacturers’ liquid infrequent occurrence. The number of constituents are below the regulatory wastes. Based on the weighting factors unlined impoundments receiving this levels, the waste would not be used for our survey sample, we estimate waste is more uncertain due to our hazardous in any case.) We are these 24 off-site wastewater treatment limited data on surface impoundments, proposing this type of ‘‘contingent facilities represent about 40 facilities in but the probability of off-site management’’ listing because we did not the U.S. that may accept paint liquids. commercial treatment facilities treating find significant risk from treatment or While we cannot extrapolate the paint manufacturing wastes in such storage in tanks, as noted above. information from nine wastewater unlined units is likely to be even lower However, if a paint manufacturing waste treatment facilities to the overall than the number of facilities using generator intends to send the waste off- population, we estimate that there could impoundments. site for treatment outside of tanks (and be 4 to 5 treatment facilities that use The effectiveness of liner systems waste constituents are not below the impoundments of some kind. The one depends, in part, on how they are listing levels), the waste would be K180 facility with an impoundment indicated designed. Composite and double liners and would be subject to storage the unit was lined, however there are no that combine two or more layers of liner requirements under Subtitle C. We Federal regulatory requirements that material with leachate collection and recognize that the regulation of the ensure this would be the case for other leak detection should minimize leakage onsite storage and treatment of the impoundments throughout the country. to the subsurface during the period waste in tanks prior to the waste being Hence, it may be reasonable to assume when the leachate collection system is shipped offsite may be unwarranted that some of these impoundments may actively managed. While it is difficult to because our risk analysis for tanks be unlined for modeling purposes. We predict the level of protection afforded shows no significant risk for liquid note that surface impoundments are by a liner system due to the uncertainty paint manufacturing waste. Therefore, used to treat wastewaters in general, and concerning long-term performance, we we are soliciting comment on the option that a recent study confirmed that a believe the level of protection could be of exempting wastes stored or treated significant portion of impoundments in significant for a surface impoundment, on-site in tanks or containers from being some industries are unlined.34 which will contain liquid wastes only a hazardous waste while it is stored on- (However, this study focused primarily during its operating life.35 Therefore, site, regardless of what the ultimate on on-site impoundments used in our assessment of an unlined surface treatment or disposal practice might be. specific industries, and not commercial impoundment may overestimate This would mean that the point of off-site treatment facilities). Therefore, if potential risks from this disposal generation for K180 would be when the scenario. waste is sent off-site, and that it would we assume management of liquid wastes in an unlined impoundment is a The risk results from modeling not be classified as K180 hazardous surface impoundments may also waste while it is stored or treated in plausible management scenario, our assessment suggests that the risks from overestimate risks for other reasons. As tanks or containers on-site prior to noted in Section III.E, we used shipment off-site for disposal. such management may present a significant potential hazard to human impoundment data gathered in a 1985 The constituent levels we are Industrial D Screening Survey. We were proposing are based on the possible health and the environment for some constituents of concern. not able to distinguish off-site vs. on-site risks from management of the liquid impoundments from these data, so we wastes in an off-site centralized However, we are also seriously considering not listing paint used a sample from all units in the wastewater treatment system with an database. Because most impoundments unlined surface impoundment. We did manufacturing waste liquids, or using a not complete a risk assessment for different approach for a listing, due to the uncertainty in management 35 We believe there is greater uncertainty about possible risks for various other known the efficacy of liners in providing long-term or potential management practices. practices we assumed in our risk protection from releases from landfills, because the Given that we found risk in one wastes remain indefinitely. A synthetically lined management scenario, but did not assess 34 Based on an initial review of data from the impoundment with a finite operational life of Study of Industrial Non-hazardous Waste Surface perhaps 30 to 50 years is less likely to release risks from other major practices, we are Impoundments required under the Land Disposal wastewater during the life of the unit. During Program Flexibility Act. Also, in a 1995 EPA found operation, leaks in the liner system would be in 40 CFR part 63 (61 FR 34140, July 1, 1996), if only 26 States had requirements for liners under detected and presumably fixed; active use of an they are a major source of hazardous air pollutant State regulations: see State Requirement for impoundment can be stopped, drained, and liners (HAPs) emissions defined in section 112 of the CAA Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Management repaired. Also, the leachate collection system is amendments of 1990, and if the wastes they receive Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, likely to prevent a significant release during from off-site contain one or more HAPs. October 1995. operation.
VerDate 11
are part of on-site treatment processes proposal, we did not find significant Scoping Study to identify which for industrial process wastewater, the risks from management in tanks.36 chemicals have some potential to form data include a variety of types of units The other reported management NAPLs based on water solubility and that may not be realistic for the off-site practices of potential concern were other parameters.37 NAPL-forming commercial wastewater treatment thermal treatment in incinerators, chemicals generally have relatively low facilities we are attempting to model. cement kilns, and fuel blending. As water solubilities (less than 5,000 mg/L) Our database contains units with noted previously, in past listing and are liquids at ambient temperature. characteristics that are unlikely for large determinations where we have Applying these criteria, the only non-TC off-site treatment facilities, i.e., many attempted to assess risks from constituents of concern that may units are relatively small (median area incineration, we found that the potential potentially form NAPLs would be the about 3,200 m2) and have low flow rates risks from the release of constituents phthalates and the aromatic with long retention times (median through incineration would be at least hydrocarbons (ethylbenzene, styrene, retention time about 0.5 years, 90th several orders of magnitude below toluene, and xylenes). Any NAPL- percentile retention of 50 years). These potential air risks from releases from forming chemicals that are regulated characteristics mean that many of the tanks or impoundments (see listing under the TC (i.e., the slightly soluble impoundments used in the modeling determination for solvent wastes at 63 chemicals benzene and would have a fairly high fraction of FR 64371, November 19, 1998). tetrachloroethylene) are unlikely to form paint manufacturing waste, e.g., the Although metal constituents would not NAPLs in wastes, because the TC levels 90th percentile value for fraction of be destroyed in thermal treatment, we are well below their water solubility. paint manufacturing waste in the unit expect the metal content of Thus, wastes with TC constituents high was one. We believe that off-site nonhazardous paint manufacturing enough to form NAPLs would be commercial treatment units are more waste liquids sent to incineration to be regulated as hazardous, and would not likely to be larger and have much low; this is consistent with the 3007 be land disposed until treated. shorter retention time, thereby reducing Survey data, which show no We believe that paint manufacturing the average fraction of paint nonhazardous paint manufacturing wastes with the high organic content manufacturing waste in the treatment waste liquids with significant metal needed to form NAPLs are unlikely to units. While it is difficult to gauge the content. Limiting the listing to wastes be land disposed for several reasons. importance of these characteristics in only managed in impoundments would First, high organic wastes are typically our risk assessment results, these may reduce the overall burden of the listing, sent for thermal treatment or recycling. lead to an overestimate of impoundment so that it would apply only to the For example, see the final listing risks. We may use this factor, in practice of most potential concern, i.e., determination for solvents (63 FR conjunction with a full review of all surface impoundments. 64372, November 19, 1998); we found that solvent wastes with high organic comments, as an additional reason not E. Potential for Formation of Non- content are usually thermally treated, to list paint manufacturing waste Aqueous Phase Liquids in Paint and that wastes sent to landfills liquids. Manufacturing Wastes We solicit any information on the contained negligible amounts of solvent prevalence of surface impoundment We considered the possibility that (63 FR 64384). Also, many landfills are management of paint manufacturing some constituents in paint unlikely to accept wastes with free waste liquids, and any data related to manufacturing wastes might form liquids, and in fact such a practice is the use of surface impoundments, either distinct nonaqueous phase liquids restricted under Federal regulations for lined or unlined. After reviewing all (NAPLs). NAPLs can be an issue, municipal solid waste landfills comments and reconsidering all because once released to the subsurface (§ 258.28) and Subtitle C landfills available information on the possible a number of difficult problems may (§ 264.314). Similar restrictions, while risks from management of paint occur. Such problems include the not federally mandated, are in place in manufacturing waste liquids, we may creation of a long-term NAPL source in most States for off-site nonmunicipal decide not to list this waste. the subsurface and facilitated transport solid waste landfills.38 Assuming we decide to finalize a of contaminants that have an affinity for We believe that any paint listing for paint manufacturing waste the NAPL fraction. The formation of manufacturing waste liquids that may liquids due to the potential for risks NAPLs is strongly dependent on the be placed in impoundments or tanks at from surface impoundments, we are also specific wastes in question and the offsite wastewater treatment facilities soliciting comments and supporting management practice, and it is difficult are unlikely to contain significant data on an alternative listing that would to predict when NAPLs might be NAPLs. The nonhazardous paint exclude other practices, such as important. However, many of the manufacturing waste liquids are nearly incineration and fuel blending. We organic chemicals we evaluated for this all reported to be from aqueous washing could limit the scope of the listing so listing are highly water soluble and in of equipment, with only one facility that it would clearly apply only to many cases volatile, thus most have reporting generating a nonhazardous wastes managed in surface little potential for NAPL formation. EPA liquid from solvent cleaning; this impoundments. Thus, the listing could has used a general approach in the facility sent this waste to a fuel blender. specify that it would apply only if the Hazardous Waste Characteristics waste exceeded the regulatory 37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office concentration levels, and if the waste 36 Discharges to surface waters are controlled of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, was managed in a surface under the CWA and require an NPDES permit, Hazardous Waste Characteristic Scoping Study, while discharges to a POTW are subject to State and November 1996, and U.S. Environmental Protection impoundment. We may decide that such national pretreatment standards. Note that 40 CFR Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency an approach is appropriate in this case 261.4 reflects the RCRA statute and excludes ‘‘any Response, Evaluation of the Likelihood of DNAPL given that this was the only practice mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes that Presence at NPL Sites, EPA 540–R–93–073, modeled that presented unacceptable passes through a sewer system to a POTW for September 1993. treatment’’ (40 CFR 261.4(a)(1)(ii)), and industrial 38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office risk, and because the practice may be wastewater discharges that are point source of Solid Waste, State Requirements for Industrial very infrequent. For the paint discharges subject to regulation under Section 402 Non-Hazardous Waste Management Facilities, manufacturing wastes at issue in today’s of the CWA (40 CFR 261.4(a)(2)). October 1995.
VerDate 11
All other waste solvents were coded and organic levels in these units would be reasons discussed below, we are managed as hazardous waste. This is not sufficient to generate a NAPL phase that proposing that generators cannot use the surprising, given that many solvents would impact releases to groundwater. listing levels for paint manufacturing used for cleaning equipment would As noted previously in Section IV.A, waste liquids (K180) as exit levels, even yield wastes that are listed as hazardous EPA is planning to propose a MACT if the waste falls below those levels (F001 through F005), or exhibit a standard to address potential releases of through treatment. In the following characteristic, such as ignitability. volatile HAPs from paint manufacturing discussion we also clarify further the The nonhazardous water cleaning facilities. The proposed MACT would status of liquids derived from paint liquids are mixed with other place limits on HAPs in wastewaters manufacturing waste solids and vice- wastewaters when treated in offsite and keep organic levels in paint versa, and address mixtures or treatment centralized wastewater treatment manufacturing waste relatively low. residues that occur away from the paint systems, making significant NAPLs less As another check on the potential for manufacturing facility, such as at an off- likely. As noted above in Section IV.A, NAPL formation in paint manufacturing site treatment facility. existing and proposed regulations under wastes, we examined the Survey data We envision that the proposed listing the CAA would also tend to keep the for discarded off-specification paint. of the paint manufacturing waste solids organic content of wastewaters low for Our survey data indicated that disposal (K179) would function similarly to a any chemical designated a hazardous air of off-spec products in landfills was hazardous waste characteristic such as pollutant, or HAP. Nearly all fairly infrequent (13 facilities reported a toxicity, except that the concentration constituents of potential concern we total of 941 metric tons in 1998). From levels would be the basis for deciding a identified for paint manufacturing follow-up telephone calls to these waste is hazardous only when applied wastes are HAPs under the CAA. We generators, the facilities almost to the solids as generated or managed at believe that these rules make it unlikely uniformly indicated that the off- a paint manufacturing facility. Thus, a that NAPLs would form in offsite specification material was not in liquid waste would become hazardous K179 wastewater surface impoundments. form; the wastes were in solid resins, only if it meets or exceeds the listing The information in the 3007 Survey hard cured by drying, or otherwise levels at the paint manufacturing suggests that wastes with liquid or free solidified prior to disposal. facility. Structuring the listing for paint solvents are not disposed in landfills. F. Scope of the Listings and the Effect manufacturing waste solids in this way The waste data we collected from the on Treatment Residuals avoids implications for solids generated 3007 Survey indicates that few of the off-site from a nonhazardous waste that nonhazardous paint manufacturing Today’s proposal would result in two in part, or in whole, originated from a wastes of concern have the high organic new hazardous waste listings that differ paint manufacturing facility. For content necessary to form a separate from previously promulgated listed example, we avoid small quantities of NAPL phase. Of the nearly 200 hazardous wastes in that they include nonhazardous paint manufacturing nonhazardous wastes reported (125 constituent-specific concentrations to waste liquids treated at an off-site solids, 74 liquids), only 15 were define the scope of the listings. The commercial wastewater treatment reported to have levels of any organic primary purpose of these facility subjecting any liquid or solid constituent above relatively low levels ‘‘concentration-based listings’’ is to derived from them at an offsite (1%). In most of these 15 cases, the establish levels at the point of treatment facility to evaluation against organic constituents included levels of generation of a waste, above which that the levels proposed today for paint associated polymers (polymers of waste is considered to be a listed manufacturing wastes.40 acrylonitrile, styrene, and vinyl acetate). hazardous waste (i.e., ‘‘entrance’’ We are proposing, however, that the The few nonhazardous wastes with levels). Wastes that are generated below paint manufacturing waste solids that significant concentrations of a these levels would not be subject to are hazardous K179 may be treated to constituent that might form a NAPL (3 these listings. generate nonhazardous waste, if the wastes reported to contain 2% or 6% We are also proposing to use the treatment results in constituent butyl benzyl phthalate) went to listing concentrations as ‘‘exit’’ levels concentrations that are below the listing incineration (one waste with 10% for residues from paint manufacturing levels in K179. Note that land disposal xylene went to unspecified offsite waste solids (K179). Residuals from the restrictions would still apply, as they do treatment). The remaining wastes with treatment, storage, or disposal of listed to ‘‘decharacterized’’ waste that was significant organic content contained hazardous wastes are usually classified hazardous only due to a hazardous ethylene glycol, which is highly as hazardous wastes based on the waste characteristic, until the waste unlikely to form NAPLs given its ‘‘derived-from’’ rule (see 40 CFR meets the LDR treatment requirements extreme solubility in water. In any case, 261.3(c)(2)(i)).39 The use of the listing (see Section VI of today’s notice for the only one waste with organic content concentrations as exit levels for proposed standards). Thus, if treatment above 1% was reported to go to a treatment residues would terminate the of K179 yields constituent levels that landfill (an off-specification paint applicability of the derived-from rule are below the listing levels and meet the manufacturing waste with 2.5% and, therefore, the treatment residues appropriate LDR standards, the waste ethylene glycol). We recognize that the would no longer be considered a listed may be disposed as a nonhazardous information for constituents in the 3007 hazardous waste. We are specifically waste (e.g., in a Subtitle D landfill). We Survey is limited, however, the data in proposing to add language to the are specifically proposing to add hand show that generators do not standards in 40 CFR 261.3 to describe language to the standards in 40 CFR appear to be sending paint this self-implementing process for paint 261.3 to exempt solids that previously manufacturing waste with high organic manufacturing waste solids (K179). For content to land disposal. Even in the 40 Note that a paint manufacturing waste solid event some generators were sending 39 Also, the ‘‘mixture’’ rule (see 40 CFR could be nonhazardous when generated, but some wastes with higher potential 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)) provides that, with certain become hazardous later if management on-site led limited exceptions, any mixture of a listed to the waste becoming more concentrated and NAPL-forming chemicals to land-based hazardous waste and a solid waste is itself a RCRA exceeding the listing levels. If this occurs at the units, the volumes would be relatively hazardous waste. We are not proposing any changes paint manufacturing facility, it would become a small. This makes it unlikely that to the mixture rule in today’s action. listed K179 waste.
VerDate 11
met the K179 listing, if the constituent longer be K180, but would be subject to approach would indicate a significant levels are below the listing levels. We classification as K179, if the waste meet hazard would be posed that is not request comment as to whether the or exceed the listing levels for K179. already addressed by the TC. This might derived-from rule should apply to the Under this approach, solids generated have occurred, for example, if the K179 paint manufacturing wastes solids from K180 on-site that are below the windblown dust pathway had produced beyond the paint manufacturing site as listing levels for K179 would not be a significantly lower concentrations. they would in a traditional listing. hazardous paint waste. Similarly, a However, we found that, with one However, we believe that our evaluation liquid waste derived from K179 at the exception, the concentrations of concern of the risks of disposal of solid K179 site of paint manufacturing would be predicted in the paint-waste modeling would apply equally well to solids that evaluated against the K180 listing were above the levels already regulated have been treated. conditions; if such a liquid is either by the TC. The proposed listing of paint managed exclusively in tanks or For the fourteen constituents for manufacturing waste liquids (K180) containers, or if the constituents in the which the paint modeling yielded operates like a characteristic only in the liquid are below the listing levels for concentrations higher than TC levels, sense that if a paint manufacturing K180, the K179-derived liquid would we are not setting levels in this listing, waste is below the listing level at the not be hazardous paint waste. We have and the TC will continue to apply. We point of generation, it is not covered by included text in the listing descriptions are proposing to retain the more this listing. However, it would act as a for K179 and K180 to establish these restrictive TC levels for these traditional listing if a paint changes in waste codes for on-site constituents to protect human health manufacturing liquid waste generated at derived-from wastes. and the environment. The specific a paint manufacturing facility meets or We are not proposing that the above levels calculated for paint exceeds the listing levels, in that liquids change in waste codes would apply to manufacturing waste for this proposal derived from K180 remain subject to the waste residuals generated off-site. We represent amounts of constituents that listing even if they fall below those believe that changes in waste codes can be safely disposed for the relatively levels through dilution or treatment. We would be confusing for off-site small volumes of paint manufacturing are proposing that liquid residuals from treatment facilities and may be difficult waste solids and liquids subject to K180 wastes would remain hazardous, to track and enforce. Furthermore, K179 today’s proposed listing. The TC levels, because the surface impoundment or K180 wastes that are sent off-site for in contrast, broadly address all wastes scenario we used to set the listing treatment would likely be treated at a in the country subject to RCRA Subtitle concentrations for K180 assumed that facility that accepts and treats a wide C. They were designed to protect human the liquid paint wastes are mixed with variety of hazardous wastes, and any health and the environment from the other wastewaters in an off-site derived-from wastes generated from possibility that many waste streams treatment facility. The listing levels we treatment of K179 or K180 would likely from multiple generators could be set for K180 are for the waste prior to carry multiple hazardous waste codes. disposed of in a single landfill. any mixing and would necessarily be Therefore, we are proposing to allow the Consequently, our TC risk assessments higher than the levels of the mixture-derived from rules to operate reflect much higher waste volumes constituents that may exist in the off- normally off-site, except for the arising from a broad spectrum of site impoundment. We believe that the exemption for treated K179 noted industries and sources. If we analyzed listing levels for K180 would not be previously. This approach still allows a by itself any individual, small-volume appropriate for use in exiting the RCRA treatment facility to use the exemption waste stream subject to the TC, we hazardous waste regulatory program, to the derived-from rule we are might find that it did not pose risks at because they do not correspond to risk- proposing for waste solids (K179); the TC levels. However, a set of smaller based levels for the diluted waste in the treatment facility would have to treat waste streams from multiple sources impoundment.41 Therefore, we are only for the K179 hazardous could pose risks if disposed together proposing that any liquid wastes constituents of concern (provided no with other wastes. Consequently, we derived from K180 would remain listed new characteristics are imparted by the believe we need to retain the broad, 42 as K180 (unless the waste is excluded treatment process). multiple-waste TC approach. Finally, we stress that solids and For the remaining constituent, under the petition process set out in liquids derived off-site from pentachlorophenol, the paint listing §§ 261.20 and 261.22, typically known nonhazardous paint manufacturing modeling results (at the 90th percentile as ‘‘delisting’’). liquids are not listed paint We are proposing that the scope of the probabilistic level) showed a protective manufacturing wastes (i.e., not K179 or listings reflect the practical situations leachable concentration of 66 mg/L. K180). Such wastes are not paint that arise at the site of paint This is slightly lower than the existing manufacturing wastes, in that the waste manufacturing if derived-from wastes TC level (100 mg/L). Upon review of management facility is not directly are in a different form than the original 3007 survey data on prevalence, involved in the manufacture of paint paint waste, i.e., if liquid wastes are however, we found that this constituent products. Therefore, these wastes would derived from K179, and if waste solids is not currently used in paint not be subject to the listing criteria for are derived from K180. In such cases, production and it is not likely to be K179 or K180. we believe that is more appropriate to found in paint manufacturing wastes. evaluate these on-site derived-from G. Relationships of the Proposed While pentachlorophenol has wastes against the listing concentrations Listings to the TC apparently been used historically as a biocide in paint formulations, most that reflect the corresponding waste Fifteen constituents that we assessed form. Solids generated from K180 at the for paint manufacturing waste are also 42 This is consistent with current EPA regulations site of paint manufacturing would no constituents covered by the broadly- regarding ‘‘delisting petitions’’ under 40 CFR applicable Toxicity Characteristic (TC). 260.22(c) and (d). If modeling indicates the waste 41 Furthermore, wastes that are otherwise does not pose a significant hazard, EPA exempts it prohibited from land disposal may be treated in We modeled these constituents, along from the hazardous waste listing. However, as surface impoundments or series of impoundments with the constituents not covered by the required under the regulations, we do not exempt that meet certain conditions (see section 268.4). TC, to see if for any reason the modeling wastes that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic.
VerDate 11
pesticide uses of this chemical have exempt from RCRA regulation (40 CFR 64 FR 6806, February 11, 1999. We been halted.43 In addition, despite the 264.1(g)(6)). proposed listing determinations for fact that this is a TC constituent, this It is possible that waste solids within wastes from the dye and pigment chemical was not reported in any of the the proposed scope of K179 may have industries (64 FR 40192, July 23, 1999) wastes in the 3007 survey data. Given been disposed in landfills. Because we and from the inorganic chemical these facts we see no reason to include are proposing that liquids derived from manufacturing industries (65 FR 55684, pentachlorophenol as a listing the offsite management of K179 would September 14, 2000) that propose constituent for paint manufacturing continue to carry the K179 waste code, deferrals for similar wastes derived from wastes. The TC, of course, would leachate from a landfill that accepted landfills. We also promulgated a listing continue to apply to any paint paint manufacturing waste solids might determination for the chlorinated manufacturing waste containing be classified as K179. While we do not aliphatics industry (65 FR 67068, pentachlorophenol, and wastes believe that it is likely that liquid K180 November 8, 2000) that retains the exceeding the TC level would be wastes would have been disposed in deferral. regulated as hazardous. landfills in significant quantities, a At the time this issue was brought to landfill may have accepted a derived- the Agency’s attention in the context of H. What Is the Status of Landfill from K180 solid (as a result of offsite the petroleum refinery waste listings, Leachate From Previously Disposed treatment). However, the proposed EPA’s Office of Water had recently Wastes? listings for the two paint manufacturing proposed national effluent limitations Leachate derived from the treatment, wastes are concentration-based listings, guidelines and pretreatment standards storage, or disposal of listed hazardous and it would be difficult to know for wastewater discharges—most wastes is classified as a hazardous waste whether the previously disposed wastes notably, leachate—from certain types of by virtue of the ‘‘derived-from’’ rule in that meet the narrative description of landfills. See 63 FR 6426, February 6, 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). The Agency has K179 did in fact have constituent 1998. In support of this proposal, EPA been clear in the past that hazardous concentrations that would be at or above conducted a study of the volume and waste listings apply to wastes disposed the K179 listing levels. We don’t chemical composition of wastewaters of prior to the effective date of a listing, anticipate that records documenting the generated by both subtitle C (hazardous even if the landfill ceases disposal of the concentrations of proposed constituents waste) and Subtitle D (nonhazardous waste when the waste becomes of concern for these wastes exist for waste) landfills, including treatment hazardous. (See 53 FR 31147, August previously disposed wastes. Therefore, technologies and management practices 17, 1988). We also have a well- absent a finding that the disposed currently in use. Most pertinent to established interpretation that listings wastes would have met the listing being finalizing the temporary deferral for the apply to leachate derived from the proposed today, it is unlikely that the petroleum refining wastes, EPA did not disposal of listed hazardous wastes, previously disposed wastes would be propose (or subsequently finalize) including leachate derived from wastes classified as K179, and thus unlikely pretreatment standards for subtitle D meeting the listing descriptions that that landfill leachate and gas condensate landfill wastewaters sent to POTWs were disposed before the effective date derived from these wastes that are because the Agency’s information of a listing. We are not reopening nor actively managed would be K179. indicated that such standards were not taking comment on any of these issues However, if actively managed landfill required (see 65 FR 3008, January 19, with this proposed rulemaking. leachate and gas condensate derived 2000). Of course, as set out in detail in the from the newly-listed wastes proposed The conditions included in the August 1988 notice, this does not mean for listing in today’s notice could be temporary deferral we published on that landfills holding wastes that are classified as K179, we would be February 11, 1999 are that the leachate listed now as hazardous become subject concerned about the potential is subject to regulation under the Clean to Subtitle C regulation. However, disruption in current leachate Water Act, and the leachate cannot be previously disposed wastes now management that could occur, and the stored in surface impoundments after a meeting a listing description, including possibility of redundant regulation. This period of two years (February 13, 2001). residues such as leachate that are issue was raised to the Agency in the See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(15). We believe that derived from such wastes, and that are context of the petroleum refinery waste it was appropriate to temporarily defer managed actively do become subject to listings (see 63 FR 42173, August 6, the application of the new waste codes Subtitle C regulation. See 53 FR at 1998). A commenter expressed concern to such leachate in order to avoid 31149, August 17, 1988. In many, that, because some of the commenter’s disruption of ongoing leachate indeed most, circumstances, active nonhazardous waste landfills received management activities while the Agency management of leachate would be newly-listed petroleum wastes prior to decides if any further integration is exempt from Subtitle C regulation the effective date of the listing decision, needed of the RCRA and CWA because the usual pattern of the leachate that is collected and regulations consistent with RCRA management is discharged either to managed from these landfills would be section 1006(b)(1). We believe that it is POTWs via the sewer system, where classified as hazardous. The commenter still appropriate to defer regulation and leachate mixes with domestic sewage argued that this could lead to vastly avoid leachate management activities, and is excluded from RCRA jurisdiction increased treatment and disposal costs and to permit the Agency to decide (see RCRA section 1004(27) and 40 CFR without necessarily any environmental whether any further integration of the 261.4(a)(1)), or to navigable waters, also benefit. After examining and seeking two programs is needed. As such, we excluded from RCRA jurisdiction (see comment on this issue, we published a would be concerned about forcing RCRA section 1004(27) and 40 CFR final rule that temporarily defers pretreatment of leachate even though 261.4(a)(2)). In addition, management of regulation of landfill leachate and gas pretreatment is neither required by the leachate in wastewater treatment tanks condensate derived from certain listed CWA, nor needed. Therefore, we are prior to discharge under the CWA is petroleum refining wastes (K169–K172) proposing to temporarily defer the that were disposed before, but not after, regulation of landfill leachate and gas 43 See the cancellation for non-wood uses at 52 the new listings became effective, condensate derived from management of FR 2282, January 21, 1987. provided certain conditions are met. See K179 and K180 wastes that we are
VerDate 11
proposing for listing in today’s rule, the generator, from hazardous waste If you determine that your paint with the same conditions as described determination requirements for all other manufacturing waste solids or liquids in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(15) for petroleum wastes that do contain constituents of are nonhazardous, we are proposing to wastes. We request comment on this concern. require, under the authority of sections proposed conditional deferral. If your paint manufacturing wastes 2002 and 3007 of RCRA, that you keep contain one or more constituents of certain records (see Section E below) of V. Proposed Generator Requirements concern, then you would either use the your wastes at the generating site (on- for Implementation of Concentration- two-tiered approach to determine site). Following the initial Based Listings whether they are nonhazardous or nonhazardous determination, you We are proposing that these handle them as hazardous. Under this would be obligated to ensure that your concentration-based listings be self- proposed approach, if you generate or wastes continue to meet all of the implementing. This means that you (the expect to generate 40 metric tons or less proposed conditions and requirements waste generator) would be responsible of paint manufacturing waste solids or for the wastes to be deemed for determining whether or not your 100 metric tons or less of paint nonhazardous. Accordingly, you should wastes are K179 or K180 listed manufacturing waste liquids annually, also note that regardless of any type of hazardous wastes at the point of then you would have the option of nonhazardous determination that you generation based on the proposed testing the wastes or using knowledge of make for your wastes, the wastes would procedures we describe below.44 We are the wastes to determine whether they be hazardous if we test and find that proposing a two-tiered implementation are nonhazardous. However, if you they actually have constituents of approach for the concentration-based generate or expect to generate over 40 concern at or above the listing levels. listings, based on waste form (liquids or metric tons of paint manufacturing waste solids or over 100 metric tons of A. Would I Have to Determine Whether solids) and total annual quantity of the or Not My Wastes Are Hazardous? paint manufacturing wastes generated at paint manufacturing waste liquids, then each paint production facility, that you you would be required to test the wastes Yes, we are proposing that you must could use to determine whether your annually to determine whether they are determine whether or not your wastes wastes are nonhazardous. Before using nonhazardous. Our reasons for are hazardous K179 or K180 wastes. the proposed two-tiered approach, you proposing a two-tiered approach and This hazardous waste listing would determine if any of your paint requiring annual testing of larger determination could be made in either manufacturing waste solids or paint quantity wastes are discussed in Section of two ways. First, you could assume manufacturing waste liquids could V.C. The exception to the annual testing that your wastes are hazardous at the contain any of the constituents of requirement to determine whether point of generation. If you do this, then concern identified for these types of wastes are nonhazardous, regardless of you could forego the requirement for wastes (see Tables IV.A–1 and IV.A–2). annual waste quantities generated, testing or using knowledge of the wastes We are proposing that you could use would be for paint manufacturing waste to make a hazardous waste knowledge of your wastes (e.g., liquids that are stored or treated determination. In such a case, your knowledge of the constituents in your exclusively in tanks or containers and wastes would be subject to all wastes based on existing sampling and then discharged to a POTW or under a applicable RCRA Subtitle C hazardous analysis data and/or information about NPDES permit. waste requirements, including LDR requirements, either as of effective date raw materials used, production We are proposing the constituents of of the final rule or as of initial processes used, and degradation concern for the two types of wastes generation of the wastes. Second, if you products formed) to make this initial (solids and liquids) from paint production that are listed in Tables want the opportunity to determine that determination regardless of the quantity IV.A–1 and IV.A–2. We are also your wastes are nonhazardous at the of waste you generate. If any portion of proposing the listing (hazardous point of generation (and therefore not your wastes at the point of generation concentration) level for each of these subject to Subtitle C hazardous waste will not contain any of the constituents constituents that are in the same tables. requirements), we are proposing that of concern identified for your specific We are proposing that you use this you must either test the wastes or use type of wastes, you would not have to information, in conjunction with testing knowledge of constituent concentrations use the two-tiered approach to or knowledge of constituent levels in in the wastes using the procedures determine whether those wastes are your wastes, to determine whether or described in Section C below. The only nonhazardous (i.e., are not K179 or not the wastes are hazardous. exception to using procedures in K180 listed wastes). Paint Unless you make a determination that Section C to determine that your wastes manufacturing wastes described in the your wastes are nonhazardous for K179 are nonhazardous would be if you K179 or K180 listings, but which do not or K180, using either knowledge that the generate paint manufacturing waste contain any of the constituents of wastes do not contain any of the liquids that will be stored or treated concern for K179 or K180, would not be constituents of concern or the specified exclusively in tanks or containers. K179 or K180 hazardous wastes at the procedures described in section C point of generation. You should note, below, then we are proposing that your B. How Would I Manage My Wastes however, that absence of the wastes would be hazardous and you During The Period Between the Effective constituents of concern in some portion would be subject to the existing Date of The Final Rule and Initial of your wastes would not relieve you, requirements under RCRA for persons Hazardous Waste Determination for My who generate hazardous waste. Thus, if Wastes? 44 Due to the uncertainties in our assessment of the management of paint manufacturing waste you are not already a hazardous waste If you generate wastes that are liquids in surface impoundments, we are generator, you would have to notify the described in either K179 or K180, we considering an alternative proposal not to list paint EPA, according to section 3010 of are proposing that you could not manufacturing waste liquids. We describe this RCRA, that you generate a hazardous dispose of your wastes as nonhazardous alternative elsewhere in this notice (see Section IV.D). The following discussion describes the waste. You would also be subject to all until you complete an initial approach we are proposing for paint manufacturing applicable requirements for hazardous determination which shows that your waste liquids if K180 is listed. waste generators in 40 CFR Part 262. wastes are nonhazardous except for
VerDate 11
waste liquids managed exclusively in determine if your wastes, which contain liquids that you expect to generate. If you tanks or containers prior to discharge to one or more constituents of concern, are initially estimate that your waste generation a POTW or under a NPDES permit. In nonhazardous at the point of generation: would fall under the low volume tier and, at the interim (from the time you generate any time within the 12 month period, the 1. You must use the previous year’s waste actual quantities of wastes you generate fall the wastes to the time you make a generation data (previous 12 consecutive within the upper volume tier, from that determination on your wastes), you months) or, if this data is not available, point, you would be subject to the upper tier would be responsible for storing your estimate the total annual quantities of paint waste analysis requirements (see step 2 wastes properly. If your wastes are manufacturing waste solids and paint below). If you have not already tested your determined to be hazardous and you are manufacturing waste liquids that you expect to generate over the next 12 consecutive wastes, you must test your wastes. We are not complying with the Subtitle C proposing that a new 12 month period for storage requirements during the interim months based on current knowledge. You must combine the quantities of hazardous hazardous waste determination would start period, then you would be subject to an when you actually exceed the lower volume enforcement action for improper wastes (characteristic and otherwise listed) and nonhazardous wastes that meet the tier limit. storage. listing description for K179 or K180 to 2. You must use the recorded total annual C. What Procedures Would I Follow to separately determine the total annual waste quantities of paint manufacturing waste Determine If My Wastes Are quantities for both the paint manufacturing solids and paint manufacturing waste liquids generated by your facility to determine the Nonhazardous? waste solids and paint manufacturing waste liquids. Then, you must record the total appropriate annual waste analysis We are proposing that you use the annual quantities of paint manufacturing requirement for your wastes in accordance following procedures annually to waste solids and paint manufacturing waste with the following tables:
TABLE V.C–1.—TIERED WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLIDS
Total annual quantity of hazardous and nonhazardous paint manufac- turing waste solids Annual waste analysis requirement
40 metric tons and less ...... Test Wastes or Use knowledge of Wastes. Over 40 metric tons ...... Test Wastes.
TABLE V.C–2.—TIERED WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS FOR LIQUIDS
Total annual quantity of hazardous and nonhazardous paint manufac- a turing waste liquids Annual waste analysis requirement
100 metric tons and less ...... Test Wastes or Use knowledge of Wastes. Over 100 metric tons ...... Test Wastes. a This requirement does not apply if the liquid wastes are stored or treated exclusively in tanks or containers and then sent to POTW or dis- charged under a NPDES permit.
We are proposing to establish the concentration-based listings. The tiered nonhazardous determination based on volume cut-offs in the above tables approach will allow small generators knowledge turns out to be inaccurate. based on the § 3007 survey data on the the option of testing or using knowledge Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to annual quantities of solid and liquid of their wastes to determine whether or require larger quantity waste generators wastes generated by paint production not their wastes are hazardous. to test their wastes annually to make a facilities. We used these data to develop The annual quantity cut-off for wastes determination, while smaller quantity the distributions for total hazardous and above which testing is required (40 waste generators are given the option to nonhazardous solid and total hazardous metric tons for waste solids and 100 either test their wastes or use knowledge and nonhazardous liquid waste metric tons for waste liquids) is of their wastes annually to make a quantities generated across the sampled intended to ensure that the largest determination. We request comment on population of paint production facilities quantities of wastes generated by paint the appropriateness of giving smaller (see docket for Document on production facilities are tested and, at quantity waste generators the option of Distributions of Paint Production the same time, to minimize the burden using knowledge of their wastes Wastes Generated). It was evident from on small generators. Using the cut-off annually. We will consider requiring these distributions that a relatively large quantities should result in smaller quantity waste generators to test percentage of the total hazardous and approximately 90 percent of the total their wastes annually, like the larger nonhazardous paint manufacturing hazardous and nonhazardous paint quantity waste generators, if significant wastes are generated by a relatively manufacturing waste solids and paint and defensible arguments are presented small percentage of the paint production manufacturing waste liquids being by commenters to support these facilities. For both paint manufacturing tested annually. Using the cut-off requirements as necessary and waste solids and liquids, approximately quantities also means that fewer than 20 appropriate. 90 percent of the total hazardous and percent of the facilities would be We also request comment on an nonhazardous wastes are generated by required to test their wastes annually, alternative to the two-tiered fewer than 20 percent of the paint and more than 80 percent of the implementation approach discussed production facilities. Based on this facilities would have the option of using above for implementing the observation and in order to minimize knowledge. We believe that larger concentration-based listings proposed in the burden on small generators, we quantities of wastes have the potential today’s rule. We could adopt a more decided to propose this two-tiered for posing greater environmental risk streamlined approach for waste implementation approach for the than smaller quantities of wastes if a generators to use in implementing the
VerDate 11
concentration-based listings for these wastes and analyze each for the constituents constituents of concern at or above the wastes. The streamlined of concern selected in step (ii). listing levels. implementation approach would allow (iv) Compare the sampling and analysis We are not proposing whether you results for the constituents of concern in your must use grab or composite sampling to you to rely on process knowledge or wastes to the listing levels established for testing (i.e., lower volume tier these constituents to determine if your obtain samples that are representative of requirements) regardless of the volume wastes are nonhazardous. your wastes. However, we are proposing of waste generated. If the wastes contain (v) After completing annual testing that, following a nonhazardous any constituent of concern at or above requirements for your wastes, if all samples determination for your wastes, the final risk-based listing levels, the taken during any three consecutive years are enforcement by EPA or an authorized waste would be subject to Subtitle C determined to be nonhazardous, then the State would be based on grab samples. requirements. The streamlined annual testing requirements for your wastes It would be your responsibility to are suspended. ensure that your sampling and analysis implementation approach would be (vi) After suspension of the annual testing similar to the existing program for requirements for your wastes, if paint is unbiased, precise, and representative determining whether a waste exhibits a manufacturing, formulation, or waste of your wastes. We are not proposing to hazardous characteristic. Although we treatment processes are significantly altered require the use of SW–846 methods to prefer the two-tiered approach being (i.e., if it could result in significantly higher comply with these requirements. We are proposed in today’s rule, we will give levels of the constituents of concern for K179 proposing to allow the use of either careful consideration to any arguments or K180), then the annual testing SW–846 methods or alternative requirements for your wastes are reinstituted. presented or relevant waste analysis methods, so long as you can In order to again suspend the annual testing demonstrate that the selected methods data submitted in response to today’s requirements for your wastes, the proposal (e.g., data showing that only a requirement under step (v) above has to be have the appropriate sensitivity, bias, small portion of the waste streams in the met. and precision to determine the presence industry exceed the listing levels) in or absence of the constituents of a. Waste Sampling and Analysis Plan. concern at or below the listing order to decide whether a more Whenever you are required to test, we streamlined approach is warranted. concentrations. You would be required are proposing that you must develop a to document the: (1) Detailed standard 1. Testing Wastes waste sampling and analysis plan prior operating procedures (SOPs) for the to testing your wastes. In developing a If the total annual quantity of your sampling and analysis protocols that sampling and analysis plan, you would paint manufacturing waste solids or you used; (2) sensitivity and bias of the have to consider any expected paint manufacturing waste liquids measurement process; (3) precision of fluctuations in concentrations of which meet the listing description of the analytical results for each batch of constituents of concern over time. The K179 or K180 falls into the tier where waste (or ‘‘super’’ batch) tested; and (4) sample design should be described in testing is required (and you have analytical results. the waste analysis plan. The sample decided not to assume that your wastes We would consider the analytical design and the sensitivity of the are hazardous at the point of results adequate to demonstrate that analytical methods used should be generation), we are proposing that you concentrations for the constituents of sufficient to determine whether the must test your wastes to determine concern in your wastes are below the levels of the constituents of concern in whether they are nonhazardous. (Even if listing concentrations for these the wastes are above or below the listing testing is required to determine that constituents if: (1) You determined the concentrations for these constituents. your wastes are nonhazardous, you concentrations without dilution of the We do not propose to specify a could still use knowledge of your wastes wastes (i.e., no waste or other material particular number of samples that you to document that a constituent (or were added to your wastes, after the would need to collect annually to obtain constituents) could not be present in point of generation, which did not meet representative data for your wastes. The your wastes and not test for that the listing description of K179 or K180) number of samples required to constituent (or constituents)). However, and (2) you conducted an analysis in determine that the concentrations of knowledge of the wastes could not be which the constituents of concern constituents of concern in your wastes used to determine the level of spiked at their listing levels indicates are below the listing levels for these constituent in your wastes. that the constituents of concern are For those wastes that you must test, constituents would depend on how present at those levels within analytical we are proposing that you use the close the actual concentrations were to method performance limits (e.g., following procedures: the listing concentrations and on the sensitivity, bias, and precision). To variability of the wastes you generated determine the performance limits for a (i) Develop a waste sampling and analysis during the course of the year. method, we recommend following plan (if you do not already have one that is As stated in step (ii) of the procedures quality control (QC) guidance provided appropriate) to collect and analyze samples specified above, you would have to test that are representative of your wastes. We in Chapters One and Two of SW–846. discuss the waste sampling and analysis plan for the constituents of concern that are Following sampling and analysis, if later in this section. reasonably expected to be present in none of your waste samples contain any (ii) From the list of constituents of concern your wastes. Also, as discussed of the constituents of concern at for paint manufacturing waste solids or paint previously, you might use knowledge of concentrations equal to or greater than manufacturing waste liquids, select the the wastes to document that a the listing levels established for these constituents that are reasonably expected to constituent (or constituents) could not constituents, then you would determine be present in your wastes based on your be present in your wastes. If you that your tested wastes are knowledge of the wastes (e.g., knowledge of determine that a constituent (or nonhazardous. Once you have the constituents in your wastes based on constituents) could not be present in determined your tested wastes to be existing sampling and analysis data and/or information about raw materials used, your wastes, then you would not need nonhazardous, you would decide if production processes used, and degradation to test for it. However, if you determine these wastes are representative of the products formed). that your wastes are nonhazardous, then wastes that you will generate for the (iii) Collect an appropriate number of you would be responsible for ensuring remainder of the year. If your tested samples that are representative of your that your wastes do not have any wastes are representative (or you can
VerDate 11
reliably determine that these wastes and/or information about raw materials from the effective date of the final rule. exhibited the maximum concentrations used, production processes used, and If you generate a total annual quantity for the constituents of concern), then degradation products formed) to of paint manufacturing wastes that you could determine that the wastes (or conclude that concentrations for the exceeds 40 metric tons for paint certain type of wastes) that you generate constituents of concern in your waste manufacturing waste solids or 100 for the remainder of the year are also would be below the listing levels metric tons for paint manufacturing nonhazardous. As stated earlier, (nonhazardous waste). waste liquids, we are proposing that you following a nonhazardous D. How Would The Proposed Contingent keep the following records on-site for determination, you would have an Management Listing for Liquid Wastes the most recent three years: obligation to ensure that your wastes be Implemented? 1. The documentation supporting a continue to meet all of the conditions Under this proposed listing, paint determination that wastes are nonhazardous (i.e., constituents of concern in your based on knowledge that they do not contain wastes remain below listing levels) and manufacturing waste liquids that meet the K180 listing description would be any of the constituents of concern. requirements (i.e., records that support 2. If you determine that wastes are hazardous wastes unless managed a nonhazardous determination) for the nonhazardous based on testing, then you exclusively in tanks or containers prior wastes to be deemed nonhazardous. We must keep the following records on-site: are also proposing annual follow-up to discharge to a POTW or under a a. The sampling and analysis plan used for sampling and analysis for wastes that NPDES permit. If your liquid paint collecting and analyzing samples you determine to be nonhazardous to manufacturing wastes are going to be representative of your wastes, including check that these wastes continue to stored or treated in units other than detailed sampling methods used to account remain nonhazardous. However, if any tanks or containers, then they would be for spatial and temporal variability of the of your waste samples contain any of hazardous wastes unless you have wastes, and sample preparative, cleanup (if the constituents of concern at a determined (using the procedures necessary) and determinative methods. concentration equal to or greater than described in Section C) that the b. The sampling and analysis data the listing level set for that constituent, constituents of concern in the waste (including QA/QC data) and knowledge (if your wastes would be listed hazardous liquids are below the listing levels. used to determine that one or more wastes and are thereby subject to all Therefore, you would need to determine constituents of concern are not present in the applicable RCRA Subtitle C hazardous as soon as the paint manufacturing wastes) that support a nonhazardous waste requirements. waste liquids are generated whether determination for your wastes (for the most We are proposing that the maximum they will be stored or treated in units recent three years of testing). concentration of any constituent other than tanks or containers. If your 3. If storing or treating paint manufacturing detected in any sample must be below paint manufacturing waste liquids will waste liquids on-site in tanks or containers the established listing level in order for be stored or treated in units other than prior to off-site disposal, the documentation you to determine that the waste is tanks or containers, your wastes would showing that the paint manufacturing waste nonhazardous. We are proposing this be subject to the management liquids will be stored or treated solely in approach because we believe it is the requirements discussed in Section B tanks or containers off-site before discharge most straightforward to ensuring above. If you are storing or treating paint by a facility to a POTW or discharge under concentrations are below risk-based manufacturing waste liquids on-site in an NPDES permit. tanks or containers prior to off-site listing levels. However, we request We request comment on the adequacy disposal, you would need to maintain comment on whether the generator of the above recordkeeping documentation showing that the wastes should be allowed to average the requirements to support a nonhazardous will be stored or treated exclusively in concentrations of constituents detected determination. in multiple waste samples taken from tanks or containers off-site prior to their some quantity of waste generated or discharge to a POTW or discharge under F. What Would Happen if I Do Not Meet collected over a certain period of time a NPDES permit. If the off-site disposal The Recordkeeping Requirements for (e.g., 60 days). Under that approach, the facility does not store or treat your paint The Wastes That I Have Determined Are generator would calculate manufacturing wastes exclusively in Nonhazardous? concentrations using an upper tanks or containers and the waste confidence limit on the mean (e.g., 95th contains levels of constituents at or We are proposing to require percentile) to compare to the listing above the risk-based listing levels, then recordkeeping under the authority of levels established for the constituents. your wastes would be hazardous and sections 2002 and 3007 of RCRA. These We also request comment on whether you would need to store the wastes in are requirements and not conditions of the annual testing requirement should accordance with the Subtitle C the waste being nonhazardous. A be continued beyond three years, if the requirements applicable to storage of a condition is a standard that you or your generator determines the wastes to be hazardous waste. waste must meet in order for your waste nonhazardous for three consecutive to become or remain nonhazardous. If a E. What Records Would I Need to Keep years. Following suspension of annual condition is not fulfilled, then the waste On-site to Support a Nonhazardous testing requirements, the generator is hazardous and subject to RCRA Determination for My Wastes? would still be liable if testing by EPA or Subtitle C requirements. A requirement an authorized State finds the waste to be To support a nonhazardous is an obligation whose violation would hazardous. determination, we are proposing that not affect the nonhazardous status of the you must keep records of the total waste, but would be a violation under 2. Using Knowledge of The Wastes annual quantity of paint production RCRA. Failure to comply with these Where testing is not required, or as a waste solids and liquids from tank and requirements could result in an supplement to testing, we are proposing equipment cleaning operations that use enforcement action under section 3008 that you could use knowledge of your solvents, water, and/or caustic; emission of RCRA. This section of the statute wastes (e.g., knowledge of the control dusts or sludges; wastewater authorizes the imposition of civil constituents in your wastes based on treatment sludges and off specification penalties in an amount up to $27,500 for existing sampling and analysis data product for the most recent three years each day of noncompliance.
VerDate 11
G. Could I Treat My Wastes to Below are the so called ‘‘land disposal standards or numerical treatment Listing Concentrations and Then restrictions’’ or LDRs. For any standards. Should EPA elect to use Determine That My Wastes Are hazardous waste identified or listed technology-specific standards (i.e., Nonhazardous? after November 8, 1984, EPA must mandate use of a particular type of promulgate LDR prohibitions and treatment technology), all wastes that 1. Paint Manufacturing Waste Solids treatment standards within six months meet the listing designations would If your paint manufacturing waste of the date of identification or final have to be treated by the technology or solids are hazardous (K179) at the point listing (RCRA section 3004(g)(4), 42 technologies specified before disposal. of generation, we are proposing that you U.S.C. 6924(g)(4)). RCRA also requires These technologies are also identified in could treat the wastes to make them EPA to set as these treatment standards the Table at § 268.40 and are further nonhazardous (i.e., remove the K179 ‘‘* * * levels or methods of treatment, described in § 268.42. Should EPA elect hazardous waste code from your if any, which substantially diminish the to use numerical treatment standards, wastes). However, if your wastes are toxicity of the waste or substantially the Agency allows the use of any K179, they would be required to be reduce the likelihood of migration of technology (other than impermissible treated to meet the proposed LDR hazardous constituents from the waste dilution) to comply with the treatment treatment standards (see Section VI D.) so that short-term and long-term threats standards. before placement in a land-based unit. to human health and the environment With the advent of the so-called Following LDR treatment, you could are minimized.’’ RCRA section Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) choose to use the initial hazardous 3004(m)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(1). Once (the same numerical standards for waste determination procedures for a hazardous waste is prohibited, the common hazardous constituents in all K179 wastes (see Section C above) to statute provides only two options for prohibited hazardous wastes), EPA has determine if your treated waste legal land disposal: meet the treatment somewhat refined this approach. Thus residuals are nonhazardous. If your standard for the waste prior to land some of the evaluation of treatability treated waste residuals are determined disposal, or dispose of the waste in a goes to the issue of how well the UTS to be nonhazardous, they would no land disposal unit that satisfies the express potential treatability of a longer be subject to the requirements of statutory no migration test. A no prohibited hazardous waste. Given that Subtitle C. In other words, the derived migration unit is one from which there the UTS typically reflect performance of from hazardous waste code would no will be no migration of hazardous the best treatment technologies and longer attach to such treatment constituents for as long as the waste minimizing threats, and the enormous residuals. remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004 savings in administrative expense to (d), (e), (f), and (g)(5). both the regulated communities and to 2. Paint Manufacturing Waste Liquids EPA, EPA seeks to apply the UTS B. How Does EPA Develop LDR wherever technically justified. See If your paint manufacturing waste Treatment Standards? liquids are hazardous (K180) at the generally 59 FR 47988–991 (September point of generation because the To establish LDR treatment standards, 19, 1994). concentration of the constituents of EPA first identifies the best After developing the LDR treatment concern are not below the listing levels demonstrated available technology standards, we must also determine if and they are not stored or treated solely (BDAT) for the hazardous constituents adequate treatment capacity is available in tanks or containers prior to discharge, present in the hazardous waste, and to treat the expected volumes of wastes. then they would also be required to be then determines what constituent If so, the LDR treatment standards treated to meet the proposed LDR concentrations can be achieved by the become effective essentially at the same treatment standards (see Section VI.D). technology or technologies identified as time a listing does. If not, EPA may However, we are proposing that the BDAT. grant up to a two-year national capacity EPA typically has established treatment of the K180 liquid wastes variance (NCV) during which time the treatment standards based on (e.g., to meet the proposed LDR LDR treatment standards are not performance data from the treatment of treatment standards) would not result in effective. the waste at issue, if such data are the removal of the K180 hazardous For a more detailed overview of the available, and also from the treatment of waste code from your liquid residual Agency’s approach for developing wastes with similar chemical and wastes. This is because the proposed treatment standards for hazardous physical characteristics or similar listing levels for K180 are for the waste wastes, see the final rule on solvents concentrations of hazardous prior to any mixing and would and dioxins (51 FR 40572, November 7, constituents. Treatment standards necessarily be higher than the levels of 1986) and section III.A.1 of the typically cover both wastewater and the constituents that may exit in the preamble to the final rule that set land nonwastewater waste forms on a liquid paint wastes mixed with other disposal restrictions for the ‘‘Third constituent-specific basis. The wastewaters in an off-site Third’’ wastes (55 FR 22535, June 1, constituents selected for regulation impoundment. Therefore, we believe 1990). EPA also has explained its BDAT under the LDR program are not that the use of listing levels for K180 procedures in ‘‘Best Demonstrated necessarily limited to those present in a would not protect against paint Available Technology (BDAT) proposed listing, but also may include manufacturing waste liquids being Background Document for Quality those constituents or parameters that placed on land. Assurance/Quality Control Procedures will ensure that treatment technologies and Methodology (EPA/OSW, October VI. Proposed Treatment Standards are operated properly. For listed waste 23, 1991)’’. This document is available Under RCRA’s Land Disposal EPA identifies these as ‘‘regulated in the docket supporting this Restrictions (LDRs) constituents’’ and they appear rulemaking. individually in the Table at 40 CFR A. What Are EPA’s LDRs? 268.40, along with their respective C. What Treatment Standards Are The RCRA statute requires EPA to treatment standards. Proposed? establish treatment standards for all EPA may develop and promulgate For the hazardous constituents found wastes destined for land disposal. These either technology-specific treatment in wastes from the manufacture of
VerDate 11
paints, hazardous waste numbers K179 wastewater standard of 0.028 mg/L multipathway risk assessment that and K180, we are proposing to transfer based on activated sludge treatment and could potentially lead to treatment existing numerical or universal a nonwastewater standard of 28.0 mg/kg standards which could be either more treatment standards to the hazardous based on thermal destruction of sludge. lenient or stricter than current constituents identified in the wastes, Alternatively, we propose the transfer of standards. with the exception of formaldehyde and the ethylbenzene treatment standards of However, the listing levels proposed styrene. We believe that it is technically 0.057 mg/L for wastewaters, and 10 mg/ for K180 are for the waste prior to any feasible to apply these existing kg for nonwastewaters, because of its mixing, and would necessarily be higher numerical standards to the hazardous structural similarity and similar than the levels of the constituents that constituents of K179 and K180, because physical properties with styrene similar may exist in the off-site impoundment. the waste compositions are similar to treatment technologies have been Therefore, we believe the listing levels other wastes for which applicable demonstrated. Ethylbenzene and styrene for K180 may not be appropriate for use treatment technologies have been have the same number of carbon atoms, in estimating minimized threat levels, demonstrated. Due to the uncertainties and differ only in that styrene has one because they do not correspond to risk- in our assessment of the management of additional double bond and hence two based levels for the diluted waste in the paint manufacturing waste liquids in fewer hydrogen atoms in its structure. impoundment. The levels indicated surface impoundments, we are also See supporting background documents would not be applicable as ‘‘universal’’ considering an alternative proposal not for the additional discussion on the risk-based treatment standards (as we to list paint manufacturing waste derivation of the UTS for this new hope HWIR could eventually be). liquids. We describe this alternative constituent. elsewhere in this notice (see Section Wastes identified as K179 or K180 Our preference is to develop a single IV.D). If we do not list wastes under may already be subject to hazardous set of treatment levels that would be K180, then there would be no need for waste regulation, because they exhibit a applicable to all hazardous wastes. any standards for formaldehyde or characteristic or are listed F001–F005 Waste-by-waste modeling would not styrene. The following discussion wastes. If promulgated, the treatment only be highly resource intensive, but describes the approach for treatment standards for K179 and K180 will apply could lead to the potentially false standards assuming that paint in addition to any treatment conclusion that higher levels are manufacturing waste liquids are listed requirements the wastes are currently justified only to realize that if we look under K180. subject to. Section 268.9(b) of current at a range of wastes together we might The hazardous constituents rules states that if a treatment standard conclude that more stringent treatment formaldehyde and styrene do not have for a listed waste which also exhibits a standards are needed to minimize threat existing numerical standards. For characteristic addresses the hazardous to human health and the environment. formaldehyde, we are proposing to constituent which causes the waste to Therefore, we believe the proposed require treatment by designated exhibit the characteristic, then, the listing levels are not minimized threat methods. When formaldehyde is present waste is only subject to the treatment levels across all wastes and have chosen in K180 at levels triggering the listing, standard for the listed waste. Applied to to propose treatment standards based on formaldehyde thus would be treated by these paint manufacturing wastes, the performance of the best determined the required technologies. (The other therefore, the most likely result is that available technology (BDAT). We hazardous constituents must, of course, these wastes would be subject only to believe that there is still uncertainty as be treated to meet the applicable the treatment standards for K179 and to what quantified levels minimize numerical standards.) Wastes that do K180 assuming that presence of organic threats to human health and the not trigger the listing based on hazardous constituents addressed in the environment, and therefore, we are formaldehyde would not be subject to treatment standard for the listed waste proposing standards based on the the formaldehyde technology causes these wastes to exhibit a performance of the BDAT. See HWTC requirement, but would be subject to all characteristic. vs. EPA.886 f. 2d 355, 361–63 (D.C. Cir. other numerical standards. The The treatment standards proposed are 1989) (accepting this approach). technology standards proposed for based on technology performance and The proposed treatment standards are formaldehyde-listed K180 wastewaters not upon the listing levels of concern set out in Table VI–1 below. Where EPA are wet air oxidation (WETOX) or derived from the Paint Risk Assessment. is proposing numerical concentration chemical or electrolytic oxidation In the Hazardous Waste Identification limits the use of any technology capable (CHOXD) followed by carbon adsorption Rule proposed November 19, 1999, we of achieving the proposed treatment (CARBN); or combustion (CMBST). For outlined ways in which the HWIR risk standards would be allowed, except nonwastewaters forms of K180, the assessment could be used to develop those treatment or reclamation practices technology standard proposed is risk-based LDR levels (see 64 FR 63444, constituting land disposal or combustion. These are the same November 19, 1999), because the HWIR impermissible dilution (see 40 CFR treatment standards currently applicable risk assessment evaluated the potential 268.3). As stated above, when to discarded product, off specification, for constituent migration through the formaldehyde is present in K180 at container residues, and spill residues of most significant environmental fate and levels triggering the listing, we are formaldehyde (EPA hazardous waste transport pathways, looked at the total proposing that formaldehyde must be U122). impact of those pathways, and treated by the required technologies. For styrene, we are proposing considered a great number of ecological The other hazardous constituents numerical standards developed for this benchmarks. In the Paint Risk would, of course, be treated to meet the rulemaking. We are proposing a Assessment, we also have a substantial applicable numerical standards.
VerDate 11
TABLE VI–1.—TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE K179 AND K180
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Concentration in mg/ K179 solids K180 liquids Concentration in mg/ 4 1 2 kg unless noted as Common name CAS No. L, or technology ‘‘mg/L TCLP’’, or tech- code 3 nology code 3
Acrylamide ...... 79–06–1 X X 19 ...... 23 Acrylonitrile ...... 107–13–1 X X 0.24 ...... 84 n-Butyl alcohol ...... 71–36–3 ...... X 5.6 ...... 2.6 Ethyl benzene ...... 100–41–4 ...... X 0.057 ...... 10 Formaldehyde 5 ...... 50–00–0 ...... X (WETOX or CHOXD) CMBST fb CARBN; or CMBST. Methylene chloride ...... 75–09–2 ...... X 0.089 ...... 30 Methyl isobutyl ketone ...... 108–10–1 X X 0.14 ...... 33 Methyl methacrylate ...... 80–62–6 X X 0.14 ...... 160 Styrene ...... 100–42–5 ...... X 0.028 ...... 28 Toluene ...... 108–88–3 ...... X 0.080 ...... 10 Xylenes—mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xy- 1330–20–7 ...... X 0.32 ...... 30 lene concentrations). Antimony ...... 7440–36–0 X X 1.9 ...... 1.15 mg/L TCLP 1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 3 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1–Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards. 4 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O, or Part 265, Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples. 5 Wastes that do not exceed the § 261.32 listing criteria for this constituent are not subject to the treatment technology requirements, but are subject to all other numerical standards.
D. Other LDR-Related Provisions We are proposing these changes, E. Is There Treatment and Management because acrylamide and styrene are Capacity Available for These Proposed 1. F039 Multisource Leachate and toxic constituents. When paint Newly Identified Wastes? Universal Treatment Standards manufacturing (or production) wastes 1. What Is a Capacity Determination? F039 applies to multiple listed are managed with other wastes at hazardous waste landfill leachates in commercial treatment facilities, the EPA must determine whether adequate alternative treatment capacity lieu of the original waste codes, and combined waste residues that result for exists nationally to manage the wastes F039 wastes are subject to numerical disposal would need to meet all part subject to LDR treatment standards. treatment standards applicable to all 268 requirements, including RCRA Section 3004(h)(2). Thus, LDRs to listed wastes. To maintain the requirements for C disposal, if the paint be made effective immediately—in this regulatory implementation benefits of listing codes were retained or mixed case when the new listings are effective having one waste code for multisource with other listed wastes. The new listing (typically 6 months after the new leachate, the treatment standards for codes may also be retained if treatment listings are published in the Federal F039 must be updated to include the meets only the LDR standards and not Register)—unless EPA grants a national constituents of newly listed wastes. the listing levels. Thus, leachates that capacity variance from the otherwise- Otherwise, multiple waste codes would could be subject to multiple codes could applicable date and establishes a again be applicable. Therefore, we be formed. By adding these constituents different date (not to exceed two years propose to add to F039 the additional to F039, the regulatory benefits of beyond the statutory deadline) based on constituents acrylamide and styrene. We having one waste code for multisource ‘‘the earliest date on which adequate also propose to add the numerical leachate is maintained. alternative treatment, recovery, or standards for styrene to the Universal Based on the treatment studies disposal capacity which protects human Treatment Standards of 40 CFR health and the environment will be 45 compiled for acrylamide and styrene, 268.48 Characteristic wastes are available’’ (RCRA Section 3004(h)(2), 42 already subject to treatment standards we believe the proposed treatment standards for these constituents can U.S.C. 6924(h)(2)). for acrylamide. As a result, Our capacity analysis methodology characteristic wastes subject to readily be achieved in the F039 leachate wastes, and in characteristic wastes. focuses on the amount of waste treatment requirements for underlying currently disposed on the land, which Nevertheless, we request comments on hazardous constituents will also have to will require alternative or additional this assumption. comply with these treatment standards. treatment as a result of the LDRs. The quantity of wastes that is not disposed 45 As noted previously, we are considering an on the land, such as treatment in tanks, alternative proposal not to list paint manufacturing waste liquids. If we do not like K180, then there is not included in the quantities would be no need to add styrene to the F039 or UTS requiring additional treatment as a standards. result of the LDRs. Also, land-disposed
VerDate 11
wastes that do not require alternative or practices for the wastes, waste mixtures, Section 3007 Survey (Section II.G )). additional treatment (i.e., those that and treatment residuals. K179 is paint manufacturing waste currently are treated to meet the LDR For available capacity to meet the solid, so it is generated as a treatment standards) are excluded from LDR requirements, we request data on nonwastewater, as defined in 40 CFR the required capacity estimates. Land- the current treatment or recovery 268.2(d) and (f) (i.e., nonwastewaters are disposed wastes requiring alternative or capacity capable of treating these wastes that do not meet the criteria for additional treatment or recovery wastes, facility and unit permit status wastewaters which contain less than 1% capacity that is available on-site or related to treatment of the proposed by weight total organic carbon (TOC) within the same company also are wastes, and any plans that facilities may and less than 1% by weight total excluded from EPA’s estimates of expand or reduce existing capacity or suspended solids (TSS)). K180 is a paint needed commercial capacity. EPA then construct new capacity. In addition, we manufacturing waste liquid and could compares the resulting estimates of request information on the time and be a nonwastewater or wastewater form required commercial capacity to necessary procedures required for based on the above definition. estimates of available commercial permit modification for generators or Generally, facilities may combine a capacity. If adequate commercial commercial treatment or disposal variety of wastes (for example, sludges capacity exists, the waste is restricted facilities to manage the wastes, required from tank cleaning operations and from further land disposal. If protective changes for operating practices due to wastewater treatment) and send their alternative capacity does not exist, EPA the proposed listings or proposed wastes off to one waste management has the authority to grant a national additional constituents to be regulated unit. Some waste types are managed capacity variance. in the wastes, and any waste separately (for example, wastes with In making the estimates described minimization activities associated with some value for fuel blending). We used above, the volume of waste requiring the wastes. Of particular interest to us weighted and extrapolated universe treatment depends on the current waste are chemical and physical constraints of waste quantities from approximately management practices employed by the treatment technologies for these wastes one thousand paint manufacturing waste generators before this proposed and any problems for disposing of these facilities for our capacity analysis. After regulation is promulgated and becomes wastes. Also of interest are any examining waste generation quantities effective. Data on waste management analytical difficulties associated with and their management practices, we practices for these wastes were collected identifying and monitoring the estimated that approximately 17,000 during the development of this regulated constituents in these wastes. tons per year of K179 and K180 wastes may require alternative or additional proposed rule. However, we realize that 2. What Are The Capacity Analysis treatment to meet the LDR standards. as the regulatory process proceeds, Results? This amount of waste covers the generators of these wastes may decide to This preamble only provides a quantities which are currently land minimize or recycle their wastes or summary of the capacity analysis disposed, managed in a Subtitle D otherwise alter their management performed to support this proposed combustion unit, or uncertain on their practices. Thus, we will monitor regulation. For additional and more management practices. changes and update data on current detailed information, please refer to the The quantities requiring alternative or management practices as these changes ‘‘Background Document for Capacity additional treatment could be smaller will affect the volume of wastes Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions: because much of the proposed and ultimately requiring commercial Newly Identified Paint Production newly identified paint manufacturing treatment or recovery capacity. Wastes (Proposed Rule), January 2001’’ (or production) waste is mixed with The commercial hazardous waste (i.e., the Capacity Background existing listed and/or characteristic treatment industry may change rapidly. Document). wastes which already had to meet the For example, national commercial For this capacity analysis, we LDR requirements for at least some of treatment capacity changes as new examined data on waste characteristics the proposed constituents for K179 and facilities come on line or old facilities (such as whether the waste is a solid, K180 wastes. Also, most of the surveyed go off line, and as new units and new solvent, or an aqueous waste) and facilities that reported generation of technologies are added at existing management practices gathered for the waste residuals of concern under this facilities. The available capacity at paint manufacturing hazardous waste listing determination reported that they commercial facilities also changes as listing determination. We also examined recycled or reused the residuals to some facilities change their commercial status data on available treatment or recovery extent. Furthermore, waste generated (e.g., changing from a fully commercial capacity for these wastes. The sources from the production batches are also to a limited commercial or ‘‘captive’’— for these data are the 2000 RCRA section generated in batches rather than in a company owned—facility). Thus, we 3007 survey and site visits (see the continuous stream. We recognize the also continue to update and monitor docket for this proposed regulation for volume and type of paint produced, changes in available commercial more information on these survey degree of automation, amount of non treatment capacity. instruments and facility activities), the land-based recycling, age of facility, and For wastes required to meet today’s available treatment capacity data the speed at which facilities may change proposed treatment standards, we submission that was collected in the product formulations can affect types request data on the annual generation 1990’s, and the 1997 Biennial Report and amount of waste generated. volumes and characteristics of wastes (BR). Therefore, the actual annual quantity of affected by this proposed rule, including We derived our estimated quantities waste requiring commercial treatment proposed hazardous wastes K179 and requiring alternative or additional may fluctuate due to these variations. K180 in wastewater and nonwastewater treatment to meet the LDR treatment However, we find that there is no forms. We also request data on soil or standards from the estimated population shortfall for available commercial debris contaminated with these wastes, for paint manufacturers (i.e., treatment capacity for these wastes residuals generated from the treatment approximately one thousand paint proposed in today’s rule. For a more or recycling of these wastes, and the manufacturing facilities in the United detailed analysis regarding the amount current and planned management States, as discussed earlier for RCRA of paint manufacturing (or production)
VerDate 11
wastes requiring treatment to meet the wastes are managed in an impoundment receive data and information to warrant LDR standards, see the Capacity not satisfying requirements of any revision. Background Document in the public 3005(j)(11) (e.g., an unlined surface We request comments on the docket for this proposed rule. impoundment) of a wastewater estimated quantities requiring As discussed in the section for the treatment system, the wastes would be alternative treatment and information LDR treatment standards, we are subject to land disposal prohibitions. on characteristics of the affected wastes, proposing that numerical or technology- However, we anticipate that very few management practices for these wastes, specific treatment standards be applied facilities, if any, would manage the and available treatment, recovery or to K179 and K180 wastes, depending on newly identified paint manufacturing disposal capacity for the wastes. We the constituent in the wastes. For wastes in such impoundments. also request comments on whether any nonwastewater forms of these wastes, Based on the foregoing, we expect that facility uses surface impoundment or we anticipate that commercially sufficient capacity exists to treat the underground injection to manage these available incineration, followed by proposed K179 and K180 wastes that wastes. In addition, we solicit stabilization if necessary (for antimony), would require alternative or additional comments on our decision not to grant can be used to meet these numerical treatment. Therefore, we are proposing a national capacity variance for any of treatment standards. For one organic to not grant a national capacity variance the affected wastes. We will consider all constituent (formaldehyde) in for these wastes. available data and information provided wastewater and nonwastewater forms of Further, soil and debris contaminated during the public comment period and K180, we are proposing to require with these newly identified wastes may revise our capacity analysis accordingly treatment by specified methods. For be subject to the LDRs (see LDR in making the final capacity formaldehyde in K180 wastewater we Treatment Standards for Soil in LDR determinations. Please note that the are proposing the following Phase IV Final Rule, 63 FR 28602, May ultimate volumes of wastes estimated to technologies as methods of treatment, 26, 1998; 40 CFR 268.45 Treatment require alternative or additional wet air oxidation (WETOX) or chemical Standards for Hazardous Debris), but we commercial treatment may change if the or electrolytic oxidation (CHOXD) believe that the contaminated soil and final listing determinations change. followed by carbon adsorption debris, if any, would not require Should this occur, we will revise the (CARBN); or combustion (CMBST). For substantial commercial treatment capacity analysis accordingly. this constituent in the nonwastewater capacity. There are no data showing 3. What Is the Available Treatment form of K180, the required technology such contaminated soil and debris are Capacity for Other Wastes Subject to standard proposed is combustion. We currently generated. We expect that the Revised UTS and F039 Standards? assume that facilities would achieve majority of contaminated soil and waste treatment standards using With respect to the revisions to the debris, if generated, will be managed on- combustion, stabilization, or both for F039 and UTS lists, as discussed earlier site. Therefore, we are not proposing to K179 and K180 wastes. The quantity of in the section on K179 and K180 grant a national capacity variance for commercially available combustion treatment standards, we are proposing hazardous soil and debris contaminated capacity for sludge, solid, and liquids is to add acrylamide and styrene to the list with these wastes covered under this well over one million tons per year of regulated constituents in F039 (40 proposal. based on 1997 Biennial Report data. The CFR section 268.40). We are also quantity of commercially available Based on the RCRA section 3007 proposing to add styrene to the UTS stabilization capacity is at least seven Survey conducted in early 2000 (which table (40 CFR section 268.48). million tons per year based on 1995 collected 1998 data), there are no data Acrylamide is currently listed in the Biennial Report data. Also, based on the showing that the newly proposed wastes Appendix VIII of part 261. EPA is data submittals in the early 1990’s and are managed by underground injection proposing to add styrene in the 1997 BR data, we estimated that at least wells. Also, based on the 2000 RCRA Appendix VIII as discussed in the 34 million tons per year of commercial section 3007 Survey, there are no data earlier section (Section II). We have wastewater treatment capacity are showing mixed radioactive wastes estimated what portion of the F039 or available. Please note that facilities associated with the proposed listings. characteristic wastes (which require could use any available technologies We are proposing to not grant a national treatment of underlying hazardous (except impermissible dilution) to capacity variance for underground constituents to UTS levels) may be achieve the LDR numerical standards injected wastes, mixed radioactive required to meet these new treatment for these wastes. wastes (i.e., radioactive wastes mixed standards. We request comments on the Based on the results of the RCRA with K179 and K180), or soil and debris estimates, the appropriate means of section 3007 survey and the site visits, contaminated with these mixed treatment (if necessary), and the we did not identify any paint radioactive wastes, if such wastes are sufficiency of available treatment manufacturing facilities that manage generated. capacity for the affected wastes by the these proposed wastes in on-site surface Therefore, we propose that LDR addition of these constituents to the impoundments. From the available treatment standards thus become F039 and UTS lists. information, we found that at least one effective when the listing When changing the treatment wastewater treatment plant accepted determinations become effective for the requirements for wastes already subject proposed paint manufacturing waste wastes covered under today’s rule. This to LDR (including F039 under 40 CFR liquids (K180) from the paint conforms to RCRA section 3004(h)(1), 261.31 and characteristic wastes under production industry, and the facility which indicates that land disposal 40 CFR 261.24) for which the potential managed these wastes in a lined surface prohibitions must take effect capacity variance periods have expired, impoundment. Assuming such an immediately when there is sufficient EPA no longer has authority to use impoundment satisfies requirements of treatment or disposal capacity available RCRA section 3004(h)(2) to grant a section 3005(j)(11) (in essence, meets for the wastes. However, we may need capacity variance to these wastes. minimum technological requirements to revise capacity analyses or capacity However, EPA is guided by the overall and is dredged annually), such wastes variance decisions if final listing objective of section 3004(h), namely that would not require treatment. If any determinations are changed or if we treatment standards which best
VerDate 11
accomplish the goal of RCRA section Even if we have underestimated the enacted, the State was obligated to enact 3004(m) (to minimize threats posed by projected volume of wastes requiring equivalent authority within specified land disposal) should take effect as soon treatment, we believe that there still time-frames. New Federal requirements as possible, consistent with availability would be no shortage of treatment did not take effect in an authorized State of treatment capacity. capacity. Based on data submittals in until the State adopted the requirements We expect that only a limited quantity the early 1990’s and 1997 BRS data, as State law. of hazardous waste leachate, if any, may EPA has estimated that at least 34 By contrast, under section 3006(g) of be generated from the disposal of newly- million tons per year of commercial RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new proposed K179 and K180 wastes and wastewater treatment capacity are requirements and prohibitions imposed added to the generation of leachates available, and approximately 1.6 million by the HSWA (including the hazardous from other multiple restricted hazardous tons per year of liquid, sludge, and solid waste listings finalized in this notice) wastes already subject to LDR. commercial combustion capacity are take effect in authorized States at the For the amount of characteristic available. Also, as discussed earlier in same time that they take effect in non- wastes or leachates generated from those this section, there are seven million tons authorized States. While States must previously regulated hazardous wastes of available stabilization capacity. These still adopt HSWA-related provisions as that would be subject only to the new are well above the quantities of F039 or State law to retain final authorization, treatment standards for these characteristic wastes potentially EPA is directed to implement those constituents, we evaluated the universe requiring treatment for the proposed requirements and prohibitions in of wastes that might be impacted by additional constituents even under the authorized States, including the revisions to the lists of regulated conservative screening assumptions issuance of permits, until the State is constituents for F039 and UTS based on described above. Therefore, we are granted authorization to do so. limited information. Based on 1997 proposing a decision not to delay the Authorized States are required to Biennial Report data and some effective date for adding these modify their programs only when EPA assumptions of waste compositions and constituents to the lists of constituents promulgates Federal standards that are their potential for land disposal, we for F039 and UTS. more stringent or broader in scope than were able to estimate the potential need We request comments on our existing Federal standards. Section 3009 for additional treatment. For example, proposed decision to not delay the of RCRA allows States to impose we estimated an upper bound of 7,000 effective date for adding these standards more stringent than those in tons per year of nonwastewaters mixed constituents to the lists of constituents the Federal program. See also 40 CFR with other waste codes, the F039 for F039 and UTS. We request data on 271.1(I). For those Federal program leachate from which would be the annual generation volumes and changes, both HSWA and non-HSWA, potentially impacted by the revision to characteristics of wastes affected by the that are less stringent or reduce the the F039 treatment standards. In a proposed changes to UTS and F039 in scope of the Federal program, States are similar fashion, we estimated that wastewater and nonwastewater forms (if not required to modify their programs. approximately 250,000 tons per year of any), and the current and planned Less stringent regulations, both HSWA characteristic nonwastewaters management practices for the wastes, and non-HSWA, do not go into effect in potentially might be affected by the waste mixtures, and treatment residuals. authorized States until those States proposed changes. We also request data on the current adopt them and are authorized to These upper bound estimates are most implement them. treatment or recovery capacity available likely significantly overstated since only for treating the affected wastes. a portion of each estimated waste B. How Would This Rule Affect State Authorization? volume may contain the proposed VII. State Authority and Compliance additional constituents at We are proposing today’s rule concentrations above the proposed level A. How Are States Authorized Under pursuant to HSWA authority. The specified in the UTS table and the F039 RCRA? listing of the new K-wastes is list. The estimates assume that these Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA promulgated pursuant to RCRA section constituents are present at levels above may authorize qualified States to 3001(e)(2), a HSWA provision. the proposed treatment standards in all administer and enforce the RCRA Therefore, we are adding this rule to of these F039 and characteristically hazardous waste program within the Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which hazardous wastes and require State. (See 40 CFR Part 271 for the identifies the Federal program alternative treatment, when it is likely standards and requirements for requirements that are promulgated that this may be true in only a small authorization.) Following authorization, pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all subset of the cases (as described in the EPA retains enforcement authority States, regardless of their authorization Capacity Background Document). under sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and status. The land disposal restrictions for Furthermore, EPA does not anticipate 7003 of RCRA, although authorized these wastes are promulgated pursuant that waste volumes subject to treatment States have primary enforcement to RCRA section 3004(g) and (m), also for F039 or characteristic wastes would responsibility. HSWA provisions. Table 2 in 40 CFR significantly increase because waste Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste 271.1(j) is modified to indicate that generators already are required to Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) amended these requirements are self- comply with the treatment requirements RCRA, a State with final authorization implementing. States may apply for for other already regulated organic or administered its hazardous waste either interim or final authorization for metal constituents that may be present program entirely in lieu of the Federal the HSWA provisions in 40 CFR in the wastes. The volumes of wastes for program in that State. The Federal 271.1(j), as discussed below. Until the which additional treatment is needed requirements no longer applied in the States receive authorization for these solely due to the addition of these authorized State, and EPA could not more stringent HSWA provisions, EPA constituents to the F039 and UTS lists issue permits for any facilities located in would implement them. are therefore expected to be small. See the State with permitting authorization. A State submitting a program the Capacity Background Document for When new, more stringent Federal modification for the portions of this detailed analysis. requirements were promulgated or proposed rule promulgated pursuant to
VerDate 11
HSWA authority could apply to receive the management of other hazardous E. Which Facilities Would Be Subject to either interim authorization under wastes. The Agency is proposing to Permitting? RCRA section 3006(g) or final waive this notification requirement for 1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA authorization under 3006(b), if the State persons who handle wastes that are Permit Requirements requirements are, respectively, covered by today’s listings and have substantially equivalent or equivalent to already (1) notified EPA that they Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of wastes that are subject to RCRA EPA’s requirements. States can only manage other hazardous wastes, and (2) regulation for the first time by this receive final authorization for program received an EPA identification number. proposed rule (that is, facilities that modifications implementing non-HSWA However, any person who generates, requirements. The procedures and have not previously received a permit transports, treats, stores, or disposes of pursuant to Section 3005 of RCRA and schedule for final authorization of State these wastes and has not previously program modifications are described in are not currently operating pursuant to received an EPA identification number 40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that interim status), could be eligible for would need to obtain an identification all HSWA interim authorizations are interim status (see section currently scheduled to expire on number pursuant to 40 CFR 262.12 to 3005(e)(1)(A)(ii) of RCRA). To obtain January 1, 2003 (see 57 FR 60129, generate, transport, treat, store, or interim status based on treatment, February 18, 1992). dispose of these hazardous wastes 90 storage, or disposal of such newly Section 271.21(e)(2) of EPA’s State days after the effective date. identified wastes, eligible facilities authorization regulations (40 CFR part D. What Would Generators and would be required to comply with 40 CFR 270.70(a) and 270.10(e) by 271) requires that States with final Transporters Have to Do? authorization modify their programs to providing notice under section 3010 and reflect Federal program changes and Once a final rule is promulgated, submitting a Part A permit application submit the modifications to EPA for persons that generate newly identified no later than 6 months after date of approval. The deadline by which the hazardous wastes may be required to publication of the final rule. Such States would need to modify their obtain an EPA identification number if facilities would be subject to regulation programs to adopt this proposed they do not already have one (as under 40 CFR part 265 until a permit is regulation is determined by the date of discussed above). In order to be able to issued. promulgation of a final rule in generate or transport these wastes after In addition, under Section 3005(e)(3) and 40 CFR 270.73(d), not later than 6 accordance with section 271.21(e)(2). the effective date of this rule, generators months after date of publication of the Table 1 at 40 CFR 271.1 is amended of the wastes listed today would be accordingly. Once EPA approves the final rule, land disposal facilities newly subject to the generator requirements set modification, the State requirements qualifying for interim status under forth in 40 CFR part 262. These would become RCRA Subtitle C section 3005(e)(1)(A)(ii) would also requirements. requirements include standards for need to submit a Part B permit States with authorized RCRA hazardous waste determination (40 CFR application and certify that the facility programs already may have regulations 262.11), compliance with the manifest is in compliance with all applicable similar to those in this proposed rule. (40 CFR 262.20 to 262.23), pretransport groundwater monitoring and financial These State regulations have not been procedures (40 CFR 262.30 to 262.34), responsibility requirements. If the assessed against the Federal regulations generator accumulation (40 CFR facility fails to submit these being finalized to determine whether 262.34), record keeping and reporting certifications and a permit application, they meet the tests for authorization. (40 CFR 262.40 to 262.44), and import/ then interim status would terminate on Thus, a State would not be authorized export procedures (40 CFR 262.50 to that date. to implement these regulations as RCRA 262.60). The generator accumulation requirements until State program provisions of 40 CFR 262.34 allow 2. Existing Interim Status Facilities modifications are submitted to EPA and generators to accumulate hazardous Pursuant to 40 CFR 270.72(a)(1), all approved, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21. wastes without obtaining interim status existing hazardous waste management Of course, States with existing or a permit only in units that are facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 270.2) regulations that are more stringent than container storage units or tank systems. that treat, store, or dispose of the newly or broader in scope than current Federal These existing regulations also place a identified hazardous wastes and are regulations may continue to administer limit on the maximum amount of time currently operating pursuant to interim and enforce their regulations as a matter that wastes can be accumulated in these status under section 3005(e) of RCRA, of State law. In implementing the units. If, however, the wastes covered in would need to file an amended Part A HSWA requirements, EPA will work today’s proposed rule are managed in permit application with EPA no later with the States under agreements to units that are not tank systems or than six months after date of publication avoid duplication of effort. containers, then these units would be of a final rule. By doing this, the facility could continue managing the newly C. Who Would Need to Notify EPA That subject to the permitting requirements listed wastes. If the facility fails to file They Have a Hazardous Waste? of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, and the an amended Part A application by that generator is required to obtain interim Under RCRA Section 3010, the date, the facility would not receive status and seek a permit (or modify Administrator may require all persons interim status for management of the who handle hazardous wastes to notify interim status or a permit, as newly listed hazardous wastes and may EPA of their hazardous waste appropriate). Also, current regulations not manage those wastes until the management activities within 90 days require that persons who transport facility receives either a permit or a after the wastes are identified or listed newly identified hazardous wastes to change in interim status allowing such as hazardous. This requirement may be obtain an EPA identification number as activity (40 CFR 270.10(g)). applied even to those generators, described above; such transporters will transporters, and treatment, storage, and be subject to the transporter 3. Permitted Facilities disposal facilities (TSDFs) that have requirements set forth in 40 CFR part Facilities that already have RCRA previously notified EPA with respect to 263. permits would need to request permit
VerDate 11
modifications if they want to continue monitoring and financial responsibility VIII. CERCLA Designation and managing newly listed wastes (see 40 requirements no later than 6 months Reportable Quantities CFR 270.42(g)). This provision states after the date of publication of a final A. What Is the Relationship Between that a permittee may continue managing rule. If the facility fails to submit these RCRA and CERCLA? the newly listed wastes by following certifications, authority to manage the certain requirements, including newly listed wastes under 40 CFR CERCLA (Comprehensive submitting a Class 1 permit 270.42(g) will terminate on that date. Environmental Response, modification request by the date on Compensation, and Liability Act of which the waste or unit becomes subject For states which have not yet picked 1980) defines the term ‘‘hazardous to the new regulatory requirements (i.e., up the permit modification tables of 40 substance’’ to include RCRA listed and the effective date of a final rule), CFR 270.42, ‘‘major’’ and ‘‘minor’’ characteristic hazardous wastes. When complying with the applicable permit modifications should be applied EPA adds a hazardous waste under standards of 40 CFR parts 265 and 266 as appropriate to the permit RCRA, the Agency also will add the and submitting a Class 2 or 3 permit modification request. waste to its list of CERCLA hazardous substances. EPA establishes a reportable modification request within 180 days of 4. Units the effective date. quantity, or RQ, for each CERCLA Generally, a Class 2 modification is Units in which newly identified hazardous substance. EPA provides a appropriate if the newly listed wastes hazardous wastes are generated or list of the CERCLA hazardous will be managed in existing permitted managed would be subject to all substances along with their RQs in units or in newly regulated tank or applicable requirements of 40 CFR part Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4. If you are container units and will not require 264 for permitted facilities or 40 CFR the person in charge of a vessel or additional or different management part 265 for interim status facilities, facility that releases a CERCLA hazardous substance in an amount that practices than those authorized in the unless the unit is excluded from such equals or exceeds its RQ, then you must permit. Please note that under this permitting by other provisions, such as report that release to the National proposal, liquids managed in tanks or the wastewater treatment tank containers would only become newly Response Center (NRC) pursuant to exclusions (40 CFR 264.1(g)(6) and listed waste if they meet the listing CERCLA Section 103. You also may 265.1(c)(10)) and the product storage description for constituent have to notify State and local tank exclusion (40 CFR 261.4(c)). concentration levels and if they are not authorities. managed solely in tanks and containers Examples of units to which these exclusions could never apply include B. How Does EPA Determine Reportable and then discharged directly from a Quantities? POTW or centralized wastewater landfills, waste piles, incinerators, and treatment facility. A Class 2 any other miscellaneous units in which Under CERCLA, all new hazardous modification requires the facility owner these wastes may be generated or substances automatically have a to provide public notice of the managed. statutory one-pound RQ. EPA adjusts the RQ of a newly added hazardous modification request, a 60-day public 5. Closure comment period, and an informal substance based on an evaluation of its meeting between the owner and the All units in which newly identified intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxic public within the 60-day period. The hazardous wastes are treated, stored, or properties. These intrinsic properties— Class 2 process includes a ‘‘default disposed after the effective date of this called ‘‘primary criteria’’—are aquatic provision,’’ which provides that if the regulation that are not excluded from toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral, Agency does not reach a decision within the requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, 120 days, the modification is and 265 would be subject to both the reactivity, chronic toxicity, and automatically authorized for 180 days. If general closure and post-closure potential carcinogenicity. EPA evaluates the data for a hazardous substance for the Agency does not reach a decision by requirements of subpart G of 40 CFR each primary criterion. To adjust the the end of that period, the modification parts 264 and 265 and the unit-specific RQs, EPA ranks each criterion on a scale is permanently authorized (see 40 CFR closure requirements set forth in the that corresponds to an RQ value of 1, 10, 270.42(b)). applicable unit technical standards 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. For each A Class 3 modification is generally subpart of 40 CFR part 264 or 265 (e.g., appropriate if management of the newly criterion, EPA establishes a tentative Subpart N for landfill units). In listed wastes requires additional or RQ. A hazardous substance may receive addition, EPA promulgated a final rule different management practices than several tentative RQ values based on its that allows, under limited those authorized in the permit or if particular intrinsic properties. The newly regulated land-based units are circumstances, regulated landfills or lowest of the tentative RQs becomes the involved. The initial public notification surface impoundments to cease ‘‘primary criteria RQ’’ for that and public meeting requirements are the managing hazardous waste, but to delay substance. same as for Class 2 modifications. Subtitle C closure to allow the unit to After the primary criteria RQs are However, after the end of the 60-day continue to manage nonhazardous waste assigned, EPA further evaluates public comment period, the Agency will for a period of time prior to closure of substances for their susceptibility to grant or deny the permit modification the unit (see 54 FR 33376, August 14, certain degradative processes. These are request according to the more extensive 1989). Units for which closure is secondary adjustment criteria. The procedures of 40 CFR part 124. There is delayed continue to be subject to all natural degradative processes are no default provision for Class 3 applicable 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 biodegradation, hydrolysis, and modifications (see 40 CFR 270.42(c)). requirements. Dates and procedures for photolysis (BHP). If a hazardous Under 40 CFR 270.42(g)(1)(v), for submittal of necessary demonstrations, substance, when released into the newly regulated land disposal units, permit applications, and revised environment, degrades rapidly to a less permitted facilities must certify that the applications are detailed in 40 CFR hazardous form by one or more of the facility is in compliance with all 264.113(c) through (e) and 265.113(c) BHP processes, EPA generally raises its applicable 40 CFR Part 265 groundwater through (e). RQ (as determined by the primary RQ
VerDate 11
adjustment criteria) by one level. TABLE VIII.C–1.—PROPOSED RQS sampling and analysis only for large- Conversely, if a hazardous substance FOR CONSTITUENTS IDENTIFIED IN volume generators of the proposed degrades to a more hazardous product K179 AND K180 WASTES—Contin- waste streams. Therefore, many smaller after its release, EPA assigns an RQ to ued generators may not know the the original substance equal to the RQ concentrations of the constituents in for the more hazardous substance. Constituent their wastes. For these reasons, EPA The standard methodology used to Constituents in K179 & K180 RQ (lbs.) believes that many, if not a majority, of adjust the RQs for RCRA hazardous waste streams (40 CFR the generators of these wastes may not waste streams differs from the 302.4) know the concentrations of every methodology applied to individual constituent in these wastes, and may Methyl methacrylate ...... 1000 hazardous substances. The procedure Styrene ...... 1000 not, therefore, be able to apply the for assigning RQs to RCRA waste Toluene ...... 1000 mixture rule. streams is based on the results of an Xylene ...... 1000 analysis of the hazardous constituents of E. How Would I Report a Release? the waste streams. The constituents of D. How Would a Concentration-Based To report a release of proposed K179 each RCRA hazardous waste stream are Hazardous Waste Listing Approach or K180 (or any other CERCLA identified in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix Relate to My Reporting Obligations hazardous substance) that equals or VII. EPA first determines an RQ for each Under CERCLA? When Would I Need To exceeds its RQ, you would need to hazardous constituent within the waste Report a Release of These Wastes Under immediately notify the National stream using the methodology described CERCLA? Response Center (NRC) as soon as you above. The lowest RQ value of these have knowledge of that release. The toll- constituents becomes the adjusted RQ Today’s proposed hazardous waste free telephone number of the NRC is 1– for the waste stream. When there are listings are based on the concentrations 800–424–8802; in the Washington, DC, hazardous constituents of a RCRA waste of the hazardous constituents in the metropolitan area, the number is (202) stream that are not CERCLA hazardous wastes. Adjusted RQs of 100 pounds are 267–2675. substances, the Agency develops an RQ, being proposed for these wastes based You could also need to notify State called a ‘‘reference RQ,’’ for these on the lowest RQ of the hazardous and local authorities. The Emergency constituents in order to assign an constituents in the wastes. Notification Planning and Community Right-to- appropriate RQ to the waste stream (see is required under CERCLA when wastes Know Act (EPCRA) requires that owners 48 FR 23565, May 25, 1983). In other meeting the listing descriptions are and operators of certain facilities report words, the Agency derives the RQ for released into the environment in a releases of CERCLA hazardous waste streams based on the lowest RQ quantity that equals or exceeds the RQ substances and EPCRA extremely of all of the hazardous constituents, for the waste. hazardous substances (see list in 40 CFR regardless of whether they are CERCLA For CERCLA reporting purposes, the part 355, appendix A) to State and local hazardous substances. Clean Water Act mixture rule (40 CFR authorities. After the release of an RQ or 302.6) applies to releases of these wastes more of any of those substances, you C. Is EPA Proposing to Adjust the when the quantity (or concentrations) of must report immediately to the Statutory One Pound RQ for These all of the hazardous constituents in the community emergency coordinator of Wastes? waste are known. In such a case, the local emergency planning committee In today’s proposed rule, EPA is notification is required where an for any area likely to be affected by the proposing to assign 100-pound adjusted amount of waste is released that release, and to the State emergency RQs to the K179 and K180 wastes. The contains an RQ or more of any response commission of any State likely RQs for each of the constituents hazardous substance contained in the to be affected by the release. contained in the two proposed wastes waste. When the quantity (or are presented in the table below.46 concentration) of one or more of the F. What Is the Statutory Authority for hazardous constituents is not known, This Program? TABLE VIII.C–1.—PROPOSED RQS notification is required when the Section 101(14) of CERCLA defines FOR CONSTITUENTS IDENTIFIED IN quantity of waste released equals or the term hazardous substance by K179 AND K180 WASTES exceeds the RQ for the waste stream. referring to substances listed under Although today’s proposed hazardous several other environmental statutes, as Constituent waste listings are based on the well as those substances that EPA Constituents in K179 & K180 RQ (lbs.) concentrations of the hazardous designates as hazardous under CERCLA waste streams (40 CFR constituents in the wastes, the Agency section 102(a). In particular, CERCLA 302.4) recognizes that it may not be necessary section 101(14)(C) defines the term Acrylonitrile ...... 100 for a generator of these wastes to learn hazardous substance to include ‘‘any Acrylamide ...... 5000 the concentrations of every hazardous hazardous waste having the Antimony ...... 5000 constituent in the wastes in order to characteristics identified under or listed N-butyl alcohol ...... 5000 determine whether one of the listing pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Methylene chloride descriptions applies. This is because a Waste Disposal Act.’’ CERCLA section (dichloromethane) ...... 1000 waste stream need exceed only one of 102(a) gives EPA authority to establish Formaldehyde ...... 100 the constituent-specific regulatory levels Ethylbenzene ...... 1000 RQs for CERCLA hazardous substances. Methyl isobutyl ketone ...... 5000 to meet one of the listing descriptions. CERCLA section 103(a) requires any Moreover, many generators, after testing person in charge of a vessel or facility 46 We are considering an alternative proposal not their waste streams initially, may use that releases a CERCLA hazardous to list paint manufacturing waste liquids (see knowledge of the waste, or of the substance in an amount equal to or Section IV.D). If we do not list wastes under K180, process generating the waste, to greater than its RQ to report the release then there would be no need to promulgate adjusted determine that their waste is or is not immediately to the federal government. RQs for the following constituents: n-butyl alcohol, methylene chloride, formaldehyde, ethylbenzene, hazardous under 40 CFR 262.11. EPCRA section 304 requires owners or styrene, toluene, and xylene. Today’s proposed rule requires operators of certain facilities to report
VerDate 11
releases of CERCLA hazardous annual compliance costs of this rule, as different companies. Total production is substances and EPCRA extremely proposed, are estimated to be less than estimated to range from 1.2 billion and hazardous substances to State and local $100 million. We are unable to quantify 1.5 billion gallons per year between authorities. the benefits of the proposed rule, but 1992 and 1998, with a total product anticipate that such benefits would also value of $17.2 billion in 1998. This G. How Can I Influence EPA’s Thinking be less than $100 million. Furthermore, industry segmentation includes all on Regulating K179 and K180 Under we do not expect this proposed rule to facilities identified in Standard CERCLA? adversely affect, in a material way, the Identification Classification (SIC) 2851 In developing this proposal, EPA tried economy, a sector of the economy, and under the North American to address the concerns of all our productivity, competition, jobs, the Industrial Classification (NAICS) code stakeholders. Your comments will help environment, public health or safety, or 325510; this includes some us to improve this proposal. We invite State, local, or tribal governments or manufacturers of miscellaneous allied you to provide your views on this communities. paint products which will not be proposal and how it may affect you. We We have prepared two economic impacted by the proposed rule. also are interested in receiving any support documents for this proposed Approximately 1,146, or 95 percent of action. These are: Economic Assessment comments that you have on the the paint manufacturing companies in for the Proposed Concentration-Based information provided in Table VIII.C–1, the U.S. are estimated to be small Listing of Wastewaters and Non- including the hazardous constituents according to the Small Business Wastewaters from the Production of identified for proposed K179 and K180 Administration (SBA) definition for Paints and Coatings, and, Regulatory and the maximum observed small (fewer than 500 employees) based Flexibility Screening Analysis for the concentrations for each constituent. on corporate level data.47 Many of these Proposed Concentration-Based Listing facilities (and companies) are very IX. Analytical And Regulatory of Wastewaters and Non-Wastewaters small, with fewer than ten full-time Requirements from the Production of Paints and employees. A. Is This a Significant Regulatory Coatings. The Economic Assessment Action Under Executive Order 12866? addresses, among other elements, While the Census of Manufacturers compliance costs to the regulated identifies 1,495 facilities, not all of these Under Executive Order 12866, EPA community, industry economic impacts, facilities are actually paint must determine whether a regulatory qualitative benefits, children’s health, manufacturers potentially affected by action is significant and, therefore, unfunded mandates, regulatory takings, the proposed waste listing. The Agency subject to comprehensive review by the federalism, and environmental justice. has estimated, using a RCRA 3007 Office of Management and Budget The Regulatory Flexibility Screening survey of the industry, that there are 972 (OMB), and the other provisions of the Analysis (RFSA) examines impacts to facilities that manufacture paints and Executive Order. A significant small entities that may result from this coatings in the U.S. Of this total, we regulatory action is defined by the Order action, as proposed. These analyses estimate that 615 facilities operated by as one that may: cover not only the impacts on the paint 494 companies generate the waste (1) Have an annual effect on the economy industry, but also the potential impacts streams of concern for this proposed of $100 million or more or adversely affect on land disposal facilities that have listing. On the basis of the extrapolated in a material way the economy, a sector of disposed of the wastes considered in survey, we estimate that these facilities the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, this rulemaking. Because of the generate nearly 107,000 metric tons of the environment, public health or safety, or proposed listing, leachate from these the targeted waste streams (K179 and State, local, or tribal governments or K180), of which about 36 percent is communities; landfills may be hazardous under the (2) Create a serious inconsistency or Derived-from Rule. Also, when the currently managed as hazardous waste. otherwise interfere with an action taken or leachate from these two wastes mixes This analysis relies primarily on data planned by another agency; with leachate from other wastes generated through the Agency’s survey (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of disposed in these landfills the entire of the industry, augmenting this entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan leachate quantity may be considered information with Census and other programs or rights and obligations or hazardous under the Mixture Rule. A industry specific information as recipients thereof; or summary of findings from this appropriate. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues Economic Assessment is presented We have developed impact estimates arising out of legal mandates, the President’s directly below. The RFSA is priorities, or the principles set forth in for the concentration-based listing Executive Order 12866. summarized in Part B of this Section. proposal (the Agency’s preferred The complete Economic Assessment approach) and two key options: A no- OMB has determined that today’s and RFSA documents are available in list or status quo option and a proposed rule is a ‘‘significant the RCRA docket established for this traditional or standard listing approach regulatory action,’’ because it may raise action. option. Under the proposed approach, novel legal or policy issues. As such, Paint manufacturers produce we also evaluated two alternative this action was submitted to OMB for varnishes, lacquers, enamels and scenarios: A nonwastewaters option review. Changes made in response to shellac, putties, wood fillers and sealers, which limits the listing to waste solids OMB suggestions or recommendations paint and varnish removers, paint and (K179) and a sensitivity analysis will be documented in the public brush cleaners, and allied products. The scenario where wastes currently going record. products are produced for four end-use to hazardous fuel blending and cement Based on the results of our economic markets: architectural coatings, product kilns would be diverted to a commercial analysis of the proposed rule, we finishes for original equipment hazardous waste incinerator. believe that the annual economic effects manufacturers, special purpose of this proposed rule do not meet the coatings, and allied paint products. 47 Small Business Size Standards—Matched to requirements for an economically According to Census data for 1997 there North American Industrial Classification System significant regulatory action (see point are approximately 1,495 facilities in (NAICS) Codes, Effective October 1, 2000, Small one above). On the national level, the operation in the U.S., owned by 1,206 Business Administration (SBA)
VerDate 11
A supplementary analysis of our levels. We assumed that one-hundred hazardous waste fuel blending will be RCRA 3007 survey data shows that an percent of all targeted wastes were diverted to commercial incinerators (the estimated 50 percent of the designated as hazardous under the sensitivity analysis) we estimate nonwastewaters and 20 percent of the aggregate findings for the traditional or aggregate cost of $18.1 million per year. wastewaters generated by survey standard listing option. The traditional or standard listing respondents did not contain any of the The estimated impacts associated option is estimated to cost $10.9 million constituents of concern. We used these with the Agency proposed approach, per year. The no-list or status quo ratios for our analysis of the percentage alternative scenarios to the proposed option would result in no incremental approach, and alternative waste listing of wastes that would be listed hazardous costs to industry. The impact estimates options are presented in the table below. waste for the concentration-based listing in Table IX.A–1 are fully weighted to As indicated, we estimate that the approach (the Agency’s proposed nonwastewaters scenario under the account for model facility option), e.g., 50 percent of proposed approach is the least costly, at representation. These figures (except the nonwastewaters and 80 percent of $6.7 million per year for all impacted Traditional Option) also assume wastewaters would become hazardous. facilities. Our proposed approach has baseline conditions where 50 percent of Our findings under this approach may estimated annual costs of $7.3 million the nonwastewaters and 20 percent of overestimate compliance costs for waste per year, or $600,000 more than the the wastewaters are nonhazardous, as streams containing listed constituents nonwastewaters scenario. If we assume managed under the proposed waste that fall below risk-based concentration that the wastes currently going to listing option.
TABLE IX.A–1.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED IMPACTS FROM ALL WASTE LISTING OPTIONS AND SCENARIOS
Average weighted in- Aggregate an- cremental an- nual compli- Listing option/scenario nual cost as a ance cost im- percent of pacts gross annual (million 1999 sales dollars)
Proposed Concentration-Based Listing—Agency Preferred Approach (APA) ...... 0.07 1 7.3 Agency Preferred Approach-Sensitivity Analysis Scenario (APA 1) (Waste going to all fuel blending is diverted to commercial incineration) ...... 0.19 18.1 Agency Preferred Approach—List Solids (K179) Only (APA 2) ...... 0.06 6.7 Traditional or Standard Listing Option ...... 0.10 1 10.9 No List—Status Quo Option ...... 0.0 0.0 1 While cost estimates under the APA represent only 50 percent of total nonhazardous solids and 80 percent of the nonhazardous liquids, ag- gregate impacts do not directly reflect this difference. The unweighted and unscaled waste management costs under the APA are estimated at $1.8 million. The unweighted and unscaled waste management costs under the Traditional Listing Option are estimated at $3.5 million. Applying the weighting and scaling factors, plus transportation, administrative, and analytical (APA only) costs results in aggregate annual nationwide com- pliance costs of $7.3 million for the APA and $10.9 million for the Traditional Option.
In addition to the costs presented leachate. It also is likely that not all approach (APA). However, these figures above, incremental costs expected to be landfills that received paint wastes prior assume that 100 percent of all of the incurred by the landfill industry are to this proposed action have leachate waste generated is hazardous, as a high- estimated to be approximately $300,000 collection systems, which would lower end scenario. In general, cost impacts as to $400,000 annually for the proposed the cost estimates. Finally, there is a percent of sales are modest, averaging option (The Clean Water Act Exemption likely some overlap from paint facilities just over 0.1 percent of gross annual with Two-Year Impoundment disposing in the same landfill, which revenues. For three of the 151 ‘‘model Replacement Deferral regulatory will result in lower costs to the landfill facilities,’’ impacts exceed 1.0 percent of option). However, the costs may be industry. gross sales; these three model facilities considerably lower as the result of Table IX.A–2 presents impacts for are estimated to represent six total possible savings gained through contract different size classes of the model facilities. (The reader should note these negotiations for repeat customers who facilities, based on employment. The provide consistent revenue streams to impacts presented in this table represent findings are at the facility, not the shipping companies through their the impacts on the facilities associated company or parent firm level.) regularly scheduled shipments of with the proposed waste listing
TABLE IX.A–2.—ESTIMATED COST IMPACTS ON MODEL FACILITIES FROM THE AGENCY PREFERRED LISTING APPROACH
Unweighted in- Estimated cremental cost Average 1999 average range per unweighted in- Model facility size range annual gross facility* cremental cost (number of employees per facility) sales (percent of as a percent (thousand dol- gross annual of sales* lars) sales)
1–19 ...... 3,661 0.04–3.77 0.11 20–49 ...... 11,484 0.01–0.50 0.05 50–149 ...... 31,839 0.01–4.06 0.11
VerDate 11
TABLE IX.A–2.—ESTIMATED COST IMPACTS ON MODEL FACILITIES FROM THE AGENCY PREFERRED LISTING APPROACH— Continued
Unweighted in- Estimated cremental cost Average 1999 average range per unweighted in- Model facility size range annual gross facility* cremental cost (number of employees per facility) sales (percent of as a percent (thousand dol- gross annual of sales* lars) sales)
150 & Above ...... 85,791 0.01–1.33 0.17 * Estimates derived assuming 100 percent of all waste streams generated by the model facilities are hazardous.
The proposed rule is intended to economic impact on a substantial for purposes of this analysis. We have reduce the potential for environmental number of small entities. In determining determined that paint manufacturing releases of hazardous wastes. Depending whether a rule has a significant facilities are not owned or operated by on current and future exposure patterns, economic impact on a substantial small (or large) entities (not-for-profits, the proposed rule could yield benefits number of small entities, the impact of local governments, tribes, etc.), other in terms of reductions in health risks concern is any significant adverse than businesses. due to stricter controls on the economic impact on small entities, We estimate that, under the proposed management of this waste. The Agency since the primary purpose of the regulatory option, impacts on small regulatory flexibility analyses is to has not monetized or quantitatively companies would average about 0.06 identify and address regulatory estimated the human health or percent of annual gross revenues. Three alternatives ‘‘which minimize any environmental benefits, but anticipates small companies (operating four significant economic impact of the that such benefits would be less than facilities) out of the total of 460 small proposed rule on small entities’ (5 $100 million. Furthermore, additional companies potentially subject to rule data are necessary to determine whether U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a requirements were found to experience there will be net benefits (i.e., benefits annual compliance cost impacts greater exceeding costs) from the proposed rule. significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if than 1.0 percent of annual gross B. What Consideration Was Given to the rule relieves regulatory burden, or revenues. We also examined potential Small Entities Under the Regulatory otherwise has a positive economic effect economic impacts to small businesses Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by on all of the small entities subject to the under three alternative regulatory the Small Business Regulatory rule. options. Impacts to small businesses Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 We have completed a screening under these options all averaged less (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.? analysis (Regulatory Flexibility than 0.5 percent of annual gross revenues. Introduction Screening Analysis for the Proposed Concentration-Based Listing of The Agency is required to make an The RFA generally requires an agency Wastewaters and Non-Wastewaters from initial determination if any regulatory to prepare a regulatory flexibility the Production of Paints and Coatings), action may have a ‘‘significant economic analysis of any rule subject to notice in support of today’s proposed action. impact on a substantial number of small and comment rulemaking requirements Findings from this Regulatory entities,’’ as required by the RFA as under the Administrative Procedure Act Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA), amended by SBREFA. However, the or any other statute, unless the agency as described in the previous section legislation presents no explicit certifies that the rule will not have a above, suggest that today’s rule, as guidelines regarding what constitutes a significant economic impact on a proposed, will not result in significant significant impact or what constitutes a substantial number of small entities. economic impacts on a substantial significant number of small entities for Small entities include small businesses, number of small business paint small organizations, and small this particular industry. Based on a manufacturers potentially subject to rule review of overall impacts we believe governmental jurisdictions. requirements. For purposes of assessing the impacts that the impacts on small entities, as of rules on small entities, a small entity Findings estimated in this report, should not be is defined as: (1) A small business that Between 93 percent and 95 percent of considered ‘‘significant.’’ It is also has fewer than 1000, 750, or 500 all paint and coatings manufacturing anticipated that the industry will pass at employees per firm depending upon the companies are estimated to be ‘‘small,’’ least some of these costs on in the form SIC code the firm is primarily classified based on the SBA definition. Census of higher paint prices, thereby reducing in; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction data from 1997 indicate a total of 95 the actual effect on individual small that is a government of a city, county, percent are small companies, while our entities. town, school district or special district research based on the RCRA 3007 The paint and coatings industry is with a population of less than 50,000; or survey data on 1998 practices and dominated by small entities, at least in (3) a small organization that is any not- research on representative companies terms of number of facilities. for-profit enterprise which is indicate approximately 91 percent of all Accordingly it may be argued that there independently owned and operated and companies may be small. An average of could be a substantial number of small is not dominant in its field. these sources indicates approximately entities impacted. However it appears After considering the economic 93 percent, or 460 out of the total of 494 that the impacts on these small entities impacts of today’s proposed rule on different companies operating 615 are modest, especially compared with small entities, we believe that this facilities potentially subject to rule large facilities, as illustrated in Table action should not have a significant requirements may be considered small IX.B–3 below.
VerDate 11
TABLE IX.B–3.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED IMPACTS FROM ALL WASTE LISTING OPTIONS SMALL AND LARGE FACILITIES *
Aggregate an- Number of Average incre- nual cost Listing option Entity size unweighted mental cost as impacts model a percent of (million 1999$/ facilities ** sales year)
No List Option ...... Large ...... 14 0.00 0.0 Small ...... 137 0.00 0.0 Traditional or Standard Listing ...... Large ...... 14 0.16 3.6 Small ...... 137 0.08 7.4 Agency Preferred Approach (APA) ...... Large ...... 14 0.09 2.1 Small ...... 137 0.06 5.2 Agency Preferred Approach (Sensitivity Analysis Scenario APA1) ...... Large ...... 14 0.42 9.4 Small ...... 137 0.11 8.7 Agency Preferred Approach (Scenario to List Solids Only APA2) ...... Large ...... 14 0.09 2.0 Small ...... 137 0.05 4.7 * Large entities include all facilities which could be identified as being owned by companies with more than 500 employees. The small entity category contains all other facilities. ** The estimated total number of small entities affected by the rule industry-wide is 572; there are an estimated 43 large entities affected.
Conclusions Executive Order because it is not risks to children in its risk assessment After considering the above findings, economically significant as defined in and set allowable concentrations for E.O. 12866. Furthermore, the Agency constituents in the waste at levels that I certify that this proposed action does not have reason to believe that are believed to be protective to children, should not result in significant environmental health or safety risks as well as adults. The management economic impacts on a substantial addressed by this action present a practices proposed in this rule are number of small paints and coatings disproportionate risk to children. intended to reduce the potential for manufacturing businesses subject to rule The topic of environmental threats to unacceptable risks to children requirements. Furthermore, this rule, as children’s health is growing in potentially exposed to the constituents proposed does not require further regulatory importance as scientists, of concern. analysis and evaluation under a full policy makers, and village leaders The public is invited to submit or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The continue to recognize the extent to identify peer-reviewed studies and data, RFSA document: Regulatory Flexibility which children are particularly of which the agency may not be aware, Screening Analysis for the Proposed vulnerable to environmental hazards. that assess results of early life exposure Concentration-Based Listing of Recent EPA actions have been in the to the proposed hazardous constituents Wastewaters and Non-Wastewaters from forefront of addressing environmental from paint manufacturing wastes the Production of Paints and Coatings, threats to the health and safety of addressed in this Proposal. is available for review in the docket children. Today’s proposed rule further D. What Consideration Was Given to established for today’s action. reflects our commitment to mitigating Environmental Justice Under Executive Concerned stakeholders are encouraged environmental threats to all citizens, Order 12898? to conduct a comprehensive review and including children. evaluation of this document and A few significant physiological Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal provide non-restricted data and characteristics are largely responsible Actions to Address Environmental comments designed to improve this for children’s increased susceptibility to Justice in Minority Populations and analysis. environmental hazards. First, children Low-Income Population’’ (February 11, C. What Consideration Was Given to eat proportionately more food, drink 1994), is designed to address the Children’s Health Under Executive proportionately more fluids, and breathe environmental and human health Order 13045? more air per pound of body weight than conditions of minority and low-income do adults. As a result, children populations. EPA is committed to ‘‘Protection of Children from potentially experience greater levels of addressing environmental justice Environmental Health Risks and Safety exposure to environmental threats than concerns and has assumed a leadership Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) do adults. Second, because children’s role in environmental justice initiatives applies to any rule that: (1) Is bodies are still in the process of to enhance environmental quality for all determined to be ‘‘economically development, their immune systems, citizens of the United States. The significant’’ as defined under E.O. neurological systems, and other Agency’s goals are to ensure that no 12866, and (2) concerns an immature organs can be more easily and segment of the population, regardless of environmental health or safety risk that considerably affected by environmental race, color, national origin, income, or EPA has reason to believe may have a hazards. The connection between these net worth bears disproportionately high disproportionate effect on children. If physical characteristics and children’s and adverse human health and the regulatory action meets both criteria, susceptibility to environmental threats environmental impacts as a result of the Agency must evaluate the are reflected in the higher baseline risk EPA’s policies, programs, and activities. environmental health or safety effects of levels for children. In response to Executive Order 12898, the planned rule on children, and Today’s proposed rule is intended to and to concerns voiced by many groups explain why the planned regulation is reduce potential releases of hazardous outside the Agency, EPA’s Office of preferable to other potentially effective wastes to the environment. Depending Solid Waste and Emergency Response and reasonably feasible alternatives on current and future exposure patterns, (OSWER) formed an Environmental considered by the Agency. This any risks associated with such releases Justice Task Force to analyze the array proposed rule is not subject to the would also decrease. EPA considered of environmental justice issues specific
VerDate 11
to waste programs and to develop an expenditures to State, local, and tribal unless the Federal government provides overall strategy to identify and address governments, in the aggregate, or to the the funds necessary to pay the direct these issues (OSWER Directive No. private sector, of $100 million or more compliance costs incurred by State and 9200.3–17). in any one year. Before promulgating an local governments, or EPA consults with We have assessed whether today’s EPA rule for which a written statement State and local officials early in the proposed rule may help mitigate, or is needed, section 205 of the UMRA process of developing the proposed result in disproportionate effects on requires EPA to identify and consider a regulation. EPA also may not issue a minority or low-income populations. reasonable number of regulatory regulation that has federalism Due to budgeting and scheduling alternatives and adopt the least costly, implications and that preempts State constraints, we have not compiled data most cost-effective, or least burdensome law, unless the Agency consults with correlating individual paint facility alternative that achieves the objectives State and local officials early in the locations with minority/low income of the rule. The provisions of section process of developing the proposed populations. However, our risk 205 do not apply when they are regulation. assessment did not identify risks from inconsistent with applicable law. Before Section 4 of the Executive Order management of paint manufacturing EPA establishes any regulatory contains additional requirements for waste liquids in tanks onsite at the paint requirements that may significantly or rules that preempt State or local law, manufacturing facility. Therefore, we uniquely affect small governments, even if those rules do not have believe that any populations in including tribal governments, it must federalism implications (i.e., the rules proximity to paint manufacturing have developed under section 203 of the will not have substantial direct effects facilities are not adversely affected by UMRA a small government agency plan. on the States, on the relationship waste management practices within the The plan must provide for notifying between the national government and purview of this proposal. This proposed potentially affected small governments, the states, or on the distribution of listing is intended to reduce enabling officials to have meaningful power and responsibilities among the unacceptable risks associated with and timely input in the development of various levels of government). Those managing paint manufacturing wastes in regulatory proposals, and informing, requirements include providing all nonhazardous waste landfills and in educating, and advising small affected State and local officials notice, surface impoundments. This would governments on compliance with the and an opportunity for appropriate reduce risks for any populations living regulatory requirements. participation in the development of the in proximity to such facilities who rely This rule does not include a Federal regulation. If the preemption is not on groundwater for drinking water mandate that may result in expenditures based on expressed or implied statutory supplies. of $100 million or more to State, local, authority, EPA also must consult, to the The affected paint manufacturing or tribal governments in the aggregate, extent practicable, with appropriate facilities, however, are distributed because this rule imposes no State and local officials regarding the throughout the country and many are enforceable duty on any State, local, or conflict between State law and federally tribal governments. EPA also has known to be located within highly protected interests within the agency’s determined that this rule contains no urbanized areas. Furthermore, the waste area of regulatory responsibility. regulatory requirements that might management units in question are This proposed rule does not have significantly or uniquely affect small estimated, on average, to be located federalism implications. It will not have within 50 miles of the manufacturing governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected substantial direct effects on the States, facilities. Because the proposed rule on the relationship between the national would provide incentives for reducing to incur costs exceeding $100 million. Therefore, today’s proposed rule is not government and the States, or on the the use of hazardous constituents and is distribution of power and intended to reduce environmental risks subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, and 205 of UMRA. responsibilities among the various associated with the management of the levels of government, as specified in targeted waste streams, the Agency F. What Consideration Was Given to Executive Order 13132. This rule, as believes that this rule could help Federalism Under Executive Order proposed, is projected to result in mitigate health risks to minority and 13132? economic impacts to privately owned low income communities living near Executive Order 13132, entitled paint manufacturing facilities. Marginal impacted facilities. Furthermore, we ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, administrative burden impacts may have no data indicating that today’s 1999), requires EPA to develop an occur to selected States an/or EPA proposal would result in accountable process to ensure Regional Offices if these entities disproportionately negative impacts on ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State experience increased administrative minority or low income communities. and local officials in the development of needs, enforcement requirements, or E. What Consideration Was Given to regulatory policies that have federalism voluntary information requests. Unfunded Mandates? implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have However, this rule, as proposed, will federalism implications’’ are defined in not have substantial direct effects on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the Executive Order to include States, intergovernmental relationships, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct or the distribution of power and Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public effects on the States, on the relationship responsibilities. Thus, Executive Order Law 104–4, establishes requirements for between the national government and 13132 does not apply to this rule. Federal Agencies to assess the effects of the States, or on the distribution of In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, their regulatory actions on State, local, power and responsibilities among the and consistent with EPA policy to and tribal governments and the private various levels of government.’’ promote communications between EPA sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Under Section 6 of Executive Order and State and local governments, we EPA must prepare a written analysis, 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation specifically solicit comment on this including a cost-benefit analysis, for that has federalism implications, that proposed rule from State and local proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal imposes substantial direct compliance officials. mandates’’ that may result in costs, and that is not required by statute,
VerDate 11
G. What Consideration Was Given to Furthermore, today’s proposal would incremental increase in paperwork Tribal Governments Under Executive not significantly or uniquely affect the burden under five existing Information Order 13175: Consultation and communities of Indian tribal Collection Requests (ICRs). We estimate Coordination With Indian Tribal governments, nor would it impose the total annual respondent burden for Governments? substantial direct compliance costs on all information collection activities to be Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation them. Tribal communities are not approximately 8,361 hours, at an annual and Coordination With Indian Tribal known to own or operate any paint/ aggregate cost of approximately Governments,’’ was signed by the coatings manufacturing facilities, nor $639,747. Of the total respondent President on November 6, 2000. As of are these communities burden, only 1,457 hours per year, or January 6, 2001, Executive Order 13175 disproportionately located adjacent to or 17.4 percent results from new paperwork requirements. The remaining (65 FR 67249) took effect and revoked near such facilities. Finally, tribal 6,904 hour increase is derived from five Executive Order 13084. Please note that governments will not be required to existing paperwork requirements. These we addressed tribal considerations assume any administrative or permitting include: The Biennial Report, Generator under Executive Order 13084 because responsibilities associated with this Standards, Land Disposal restrictions, we developed this proposed rule during proposed rule. Manifest, and Notification. the period when this Order was in X. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 5 Burden means the total time, effort, or effect. We will analyze and fully comply U.S.C. 3501–3520 financial resources expended by persons with the requirements of Executive to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose, Order 13175 before promulgating the A. How is the Paperwork Reduction Act Considered in Today’s Proposed Rule? or provide information to or for a final rule. Federal agency. This includes the time This Order applies to regulations not The information collection needed to review instructions; develop, specifically required by statute that requirements in this proposed rule have acquire, install and use technology and significantly or uniquely affect the been submitted for approval to the systems for the purpose of collecting, communities of Indian tribal Office of Management and Budget validating, and verifying information, governments, and that impose (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction processing and maintaining substantial direct compliance costs on Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information, and disclosing and Indian tribal governments. If any rule is Information Collection Request (ICR) providing information; adjust the projected to result in significant direct document has been prepared (ICR No. existing ways to comply with any costs to Indian tribal communities, EPA 2006.01) and a copy may be obtained previous applicable instructions and cannot issue this rule unless the Federal from Sandy Farmer by mail at requirements; train personnel to be able government provides funds necessary to Collection Strategies Division; U.S. to respond to a collection of pay the direct costs incurred by the Environmental Protection Agency information; search new data sources; Indian tribal government or the tribe, or (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, complete and review the collection of consults with the appropriate tribal Washington, DC 20460, by email at information; and transmit or otherwise government officials early in the process [email protected], or by disclose the information. of developing the proposed regulation. calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also An agency may not conduct or If EPA complies by consulting, we be downloaded off the internet at http:/ sponsor, and a person is not required to must provide the Office of Management /www.epa.gov/icr. respond to a collection of information and Budget (OMB) with all required This rule is proposed under the unless it displays a currently valid OMB information. We must also summarize, authority of sections 3001(e)(2) and control number. The OMB control in a separately identified section of the 3001(b)(1) of the Hazardous and Solid number for EPA’s regulations are listed preamble to the proposed or final rule, Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. in 40 CFR part 9, and 48 CFR Chapter a description of the extent of our prior The effect of listing the wastes described 15. consultation with representatives of earlier will be to subject industry to Comments are requested on the affected tribal governments, a summary management and treatment standards Agency’s need for this information, the of their concerns, and a statement under the Resource Conservation and accuracy of the provided burden supporting the need to issue the Recovery Act (RCRA). estimates, and any suggested methods regulation. Also, Executive Order 13175 This proposed concentration-based for minimizing respondent burden, requires EPA to develop an effective listing is designed to be self- including through the use of automated process permitting elected and other implementing. Under this proposed collection techniques. Send comments representatives of Indian tribal approach, generators of the K179 and/or on the ICR to the Director, Collection governments to, ‘‘provide meaningful K180 wastes must determine if their Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental and timely input in the development of waste is nonhazardous. This Protection Agency (2822); 1200 regulatory policies on matters that determination will ensure that Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, significantly or uniquely affect their concentration levels of the constituents DC 20460; and to the Office of communities.’’ of concern in the targeted wastes are Information and Regulatory Affairs, Today’s rule implements mandates below the regulatory levels. As a result, Office of Management and Budget, 725 specifically and explicitly set forth by this rule, as proposed, represents only 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, the U.S. Congress. This action is an incremental increase in burden for marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for proposed under the authority of sections generators and subsequent handlers of EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any 3001(b)(1), and 3001(e)(2) of the the newly listed wastes in complying correspondence. Since OMB is required Hazardous and Solid Waste with existing RCRA information to make a decision concerning the ICR Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. These collection requirements. between 30 and 60 days after February sections direct EPA to make a hazardous The total annual respondent burden 13, 2001, a comment to OMB is best waste listing determination for ‘‘paint and cost for all paperwork associated assured of having its full effect if OMB production wastes.’’ Accordingly, the with the proposed rule is represented by receives it by March 15, 2001. The requirements of Executive Order 13175 the new paperwork requirements for proposed rule will respond to any OMB do not apply to this rule. listing paint wastes, plus the or public comments on the information
VerDate 11
collection requirements contained in Reporting and record keeping 4. Section 261.3 is amended by this proposal. requirements, Water pollution control, adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(F) to read as Water supply. follows: XI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub L. 104– 40 CFR Part 302 § 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste. 113, *12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 Note)) Environmental protection, Air * * * * * A. Was The National Technology pollution control, Chemicals, (c) * * * Transfer and Advancement Act Emergency Planning and Community (2) * * * Considered? Right-to-Know Act, Extremely (ii) * * * hazardous substances, Hazardous (F) Treatment residues from paint Section 12(d) of the National manufacturing waste solids that met the Technology Transfer and Advancement chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous materials transportation, K179 listing, when they are below the Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law constituent concentration levels 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 Hazardous substances, Hazardous wastes, Intergovernmental relations, specified in the listing at note) directs EPA to use voluntary § 261.32(b)(6)(iii) and a new hazardous consensus standards in its regulatory Natural resources, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Superfund, waste determination is made following activities unless to do so would be the procedures specified in § 261.32(b). inconsistent with applicable law or Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply. These exempted treatment residues otherwise impractical. Voluntary must still meet all requirements consensus standards are technical Dated: January 25, 2001. specified in part 268 of this chapter standards (e.g., materials specifications, W. Michael McCabe, prior to land disposal. test methods, sampling procedures, and Acting Administrator. 5. Section 261.4 is amended by business practices) that are developed or For the reasons set out in the revising paragraph (b)(15) to read as adopted by voluntary consensus follows. standards bodies. The NTTAA directs preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, of Federal Regulations is proposed to be § 261.4 Exclusions. amended as follows: explanations when the Agency decides * * * * * not to use available and applicable PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE (b) * * * voluntary consensus standards. INJECTION RESTRICTIONS (15) Leachate or gas condensate This proposed rulemaking may collected from landfills where certain involve voluntary consensus standards 1. The authority citation for part 148 solid wastes have been disposed, related to sampling and analysis continues to read as follows: provided that: procedures for waste characterization. (i) The solid wastes disposed would Authority: Secs. 3004, Resource Our implementation approach for waste Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. meet one or more of the listing characterization allows standard SW– 6901, et seq. descriptions for Hazardous Waste Codes 846 methods, or appropriate K169, K170, K171, K172, K174, K175, alternatives. NTTAA does not apply to 2. Section 148.18 is amended by K179 and K180 if these wastes had been today’s proposal because we are not adding paragraphs (n) and (o) to read as generated after the effective date of the requiring paint facilities to employ follows: listing; nonvoluntary consensus standards § 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions— (ii) The solid wastes described in which they may deem as ‘‘appropriate newly listed and identified wastes. paragraph (b)(15)(i) of this section were alternatives.’’ disposed prior to the effective date of * * * * * the listing; List of Subjects (n) Effective [insert date six months (iii) The leachate or gas condensate do 40 CFR Part 148 after date of final rule], the wastes not exhibit any characteristic of specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA hazardous waste nor are derived from Administrative practice and Hazardous Waste Numbers K179 and procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting any other listed hazardous waste; K180 are prohibited from underground (iv) Discharge of the leachate or gas and record keeping requirements, Water injection. supply. condensate, including leachate or gas (o) The requirements of paragraphs (a) condensate transferred from the landfill 40 CFR Part 261 through (n) of this section do not apply: to a POTW by truck, rail, or dedicated Environmental protection, Hazardous (1) If the wastes meet or are treated to pipe, is subject to regulation under materials, Waste treatment and disposal, meet the applicable standards specified sections 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Recycling. in Subpart D of part 268 of this title; or Water Act. (2) If an exemption from a prohibition (v) After [insert date 24 months from 40 CFR Part 268 has been granted in response to a date of promulgation], leachate or gas Environmental protection, Hazardous petition under subpart C of this part; or condensate derived from K179 and/or materials, Waste management, (3) During the period of extension of K180 will no longer be exempt if it is Reporting and record keeping the applicable effective date, if an stored or managed in a surface requirements, Land Disposal extension has been granted under impoundment prior to discharge. There Restrictions, Treatment Standards. § 148.4 of this part. is one exception: if the surface impoundment is used to temporarily 40 CFR Part 271 PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND store leachate or gas condensate in Environmental protection, LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE response to an emergency situation (e.g., Administrative practice and procedure, shutdown of wastewater treatment Confidential business information, 3. The authority citation for part 261 system), provided the impoundment has Hazardous material transportation, continues to read as follows: a double liner, and provided the Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, leachate or gas condensate is removed Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 6922, 6924(y), and 6938. from the impoundment and continues to
VerDate 11
be managed in compliance with the 6. Section 261.32 is amended by end of the table and by adding conditions of this paragraph after the designating the introductory text and paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: emergency ends. the table as paragraph (a), and by amending the newly designated table by § 261.32 Hazardous wastes from specific * * * * * sources. adding a new subgroup ‘‘Paint Manufacturing’’ and its entries at the (a) * * *
Industry and EPA hazardous Hazardous waste Hazard waste No. code
******* Paint Manufac- turing K179 ...... K179—Paint manufactuirng waste solids generated by paint (T) manufacturing facilities that, at the point of gen- (T) eration, contain any of the constituents identified in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section at a concentration equal to or greater than the hazardous level set for that constitutent in paragraph (b)(6)(iiiI) of this section. Paint manufacturing waste solids are: (1) waste solids generated from tank and equipment cleaning oper- ations that use solvents, water and or caustic; (2) emission control dusts or sludges; (3) wastewater treatment sludges; and (4) off-specification product. Waste solids derived from the management of K180 by paint manu- facturers would also be subject to this listing. Waste liquids derived from the management of K179 by paint manufacturers are not covered by this listing, but such liquids are subject to the K180 listing. For the pur- poses of this listing, paint manufacturers are defined as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. K180 ...... Paint manufacturing waste liquids generated by paint manufacturing facilities that, at the point of generation, (T) contain any of the constituents identified in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section at a concentration equal to or greater than the hazardous level set for that constituent in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section unless the wastes are stored or treated exclusively in tanks or containers prior to discharge to a POTW or under a NPDES permit. Paint manufacturing liquids are generated from tank and equipment cleaning operations that use solvents, water, and/or caustic. Waste liquids derived from the management of K179 by paint manufactur- ers would also be subject to this listing. Waste solids derived from the management of K180 by paint manu- facturers are not covered by this listing, but such solids are subject to the K179 listing. For the purposes of this listing, paint manufacturers are defined as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
*******
* * * * * analysis data and/or information about waste analysis requirements for your (b) Procedures for paint raw materials used, production wastes: manufacturers to determine potential processes used, and degradation (i) You must either use the previous K179 and K180 wastes to be products formed) to determine that the year’s (previous 12 months) waste nonhazardous. For purposes of § 261.32 potential K179 or K180 wastes do not generation data, or, if these data are not the term ‘‘paint manufacturing facility’’ contain any of the constituents of available, estimate the total annual means a facility that produces paints concern identified for these types of quantities of paint manufacturing waste (including undercoats, primers, finishes, wastes (see tables under paragraph solids and liquids that you will generate sealers, enamels, refinish paints, and (b)(6)(iii) of this section), you can use over the next 12 months based on tinting bases), stains, varnishes this knowledge, in lieu of the annual current knowledge. You must determine (including lacquers), product finishes waste analysis requirements described total annual quantities separately for for original equipment manufacturing in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, to paint manufacturing waste solids and and industrial application, and, coatings make a nonhazardous determination. liquids, including the quantities of (including special purpose coatings and hazardous wastes (characteristic and (1) Dilution Prohibition. Prior to powder coatings), but the term does not otherwise listed) and nonhazardous making a determination, you may only include a facility that exclusively wastes from tank and equipment mix potential K179 wastes with other produces miscellaneous allied products cleaning operations that use solvents, potential K179 wastes or potential K180 (including paint and varnish removers, water, and/or caustic; emission control wastes with other potential K180 thinners for lacquers or other solvent- dusts or sludges; wastewater treatment wastes, that is paint manufacturing based paint products, pigment sludges and off specification product. dispersions or putty) or artist paints. wastes from tank and equipment Then, you must record the total annual The term also does not include a facility cleaning operations that use solvents, waste quantities you expect to generate. that exclusively prepares paint products water, and/or caustic; emission control (ii) You must use the recorded total (such as adding pigments to a tinting dusts or sludges; wastewater treatment annual quantities of paint base) for sale to end users of the sludges and off specification product. manufacturing waste solids and liquids product. If you generate wastes that You must not dilute potential K179 or to determine the appropriate annual potentially fall within the K179 or K180 K180 wastes with other waste or waste analysis requirement for your listing descriptions, you must use the material before making a determination. wastes in accordance with the tiered waste analysis and handling procedures (2) Determine annual waste analysis approach described in the applicable described below if you want to requirements. If you generate paint table below. If you initially estimate that determine that your wastes are manufacturing wastes that contain one your waste generation would fall under nonhazardous. If you have knowledge or more constituents of concern, you the low volume tier, and, at any time (e.g., knowledge of constituents in must at least on an annual basis, use the within the 12 month period, the actual wastes based on existing sampling and following procedures to determine the quantities of waste you generate fall
VerDate 11
within the upper volume tier, from that (iii) You must test the wastes for each the constituents of concern for K179 or time, you would be subject to the upper constituent of concern that is reasonably K180), then you must resume annual tier waste analysis requirements. If you expected to be present in the wastes (see testing for your wastes. In order to again have not already tested your wastes, you paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) of this section). suspend the annual testing requirements must test your wastes. A new 12 month (A) The constituents of concern and for your wastes, the requirement under period to make a hazardous waste listing concentration levels for the paint paragraph (b)(3)(viii) of this section has determination for your waste also starts manufacturing waste solids and liquids to be met. when the actual quantity of your waste are identified in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of (4) Nonhazardous determination for exceeds the expected lower volume tier this section. wastes based on knowledge. If the total limit. (B) From the list of constituents of annual quantity of paint manufacturing concern for paint manufacturing waste wastes your facility generates is 40 TIERED WASTE ANALYSIS solids or liquids, you must select the metric tons or less for waste solids or REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLIDS constituents of concern that are 100 metric tons or less for waste liquids, reasonably expected to be present in you can use knowledge of the wastes Total annual quantity your wastes based on your knowledge of (e.g., knowledge of constituents in of hazardous and Annual waste anal- the wastes (e.g., knowledge of the wastes based on existing sampling and nonhazardous paint constituents in the wastes based on manufacturing waste ysis requirement analysis data and/or information about solids existing sampling and analysis data raw materials used, production and/or information about raw materials processes used, and degradation 40 metric tons and Test Wastes or Use used, and degradation products formed). products formed) to conclude that less. knowledge of (C) You must test for all constituents concentrations for the constituents of Wastes of concern that are reasonably expected concern in the wastes are below the Over 40 metric tons Test Wastes to be present in the paint manufacturing listing levels. wastes, regardless of their (5) Waste holding and handling. concentrations in the wastes. During the interim period, from the TIERED WASTE ANALYSIS (iv) You must conduct sampling and point of generation to completion of REQUIREMENTS FOR LIQUIDS analysis in accordance with your waste hazardous waste determination, you are sampling and analysis plan developed Total annual quantity responsible for storing the wastes of hazardous and under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section. Annual waste anal- (v) You may use any reliable properly. If the wastes are determined to nonhazardous paint 1 be hazardous and you are not complying manufacturing waste ysis requirement analytical method to demonstrate that liquids the concentrations of constituents of with the Subtitle C storage requirements concern in the waste samples are not at during the interim period, you are 100 metric tons and Test Wastes or Use or above the listing levels (see subject to an enforcement action for less. Knowledge of applicable list under paragraph improper storage. Wastes (6) Hazardous or nonhazardous Over 100 metric tons Test Wastes (b)(6)(iii) of this section). It is your responsibility to ensure that the determination for wastes at the point of 1 This requirement does not apply if the liq- sampling and analysis are unbiased, generation. You must make a hazardous uid wastes are stored or treated exclusively in precise, and representative of the or nonhazardous determination for your tanks or containers and then sent to a POTW wastes at the point of generation based or discharged under a NPDES permit. wastes. (vi) You must ensure that the on the test data and/or knowledge (see (3) Nonhazardous determination for measurements are sufficiently sensitive, nonhazardous determination for wastes wastes based on testing. If the total accurate and precise to demonstrate that under paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this annual quantity of paint manufacturing the maximum concentrations of the section). wastes your facility generates exceeds constituents of concern in any sample (i) Hazardous determination. If any of 40 metric tons for waste solids or 100 analyzed are not at or above the listing the waste being evaluated at the point metric tons for waste liquids, you must levels. of generation contains any of the test the wastes according to the (vii) In an enforcement action, you, as constituents in the applicable list under following procedures: the generator, bear the burden of proof paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section at a (i) You must develop a waste to establish that the concentrations of concentration equal to or greater than sampling and analysis plan (if there is constituents of concern in your wastes the hazardous level set for that no appropriate existing plan) to collect are below the listing levels. For wastes constituent, the waste is a listed samples that are representative of the determined to be nonhazardous, hazardous waste and subject to all wastes. compliance with the requirement that applicable RCRA Subtitle C hazardous (ii) At a minimum, the plan must concentrations of constituents of waste requirements. include: concern are below the listing levels is (ii) Nonhazardous determination. If (A) A discussion on the number of based on grab sampling. none of the waste being evaluated at the samples representative of the wastes (viii) If all samples you test during point of generation contains any of the that are needed to fully characterize the any three consecutive years are constituents in the applicable list under wastes; determined to be nonhazardous (see paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section at (B) The sampling method used to paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section), then concentrations equal to or greater than obtain samples representative of the the annual testing requirements for your the hazardous levels set for these wastes; wastes are suspended. constituents, the waste is determined to (C) A detailed description of the test (ix) After suspension of the annual be nonhazardous. method(s) used; and testing requirements for your wastes, if (iii) Hazardous (listing) levels. All (D) How the design of the sampling your paint manufacturing, formulation, concentrations in the waste for any plan accounts for potential variability of or waste treatment processes are constituents identified in this paragraph the wastes. significantly altered (i.e., if it could (b)(6)(iii) that are equal to or greater result in significantly higher levels of than the following levels:
VerDate 11
CONSTITUENTS AND CONCENTRATION LEVELS OF CONCERN FOR K179, PAINT MANUFACTURING WASTE SOLIDS
Chemical ab- Concentration Constituent stracts No. levels (mg/kg)
Acrylamide ...... 79–06–1 310 Acrylonitrile ...... 107–13–143 Antimony ...... 7440–36–0 2,300 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ...... 108–10–1 73,000 Methyl Methacrylate ...... 80–62–6 28,000
CONSTITUENTS AND CONCENTRATION LEVELS OF CONCERN FOR K180, PAINT MANUFACTURING WASTE LIQUIDS
Chemical ab- Concentration Constituent stracts No. levels (mg/kg)
Acrylamide ...... 79–06–112 Acrylonitrile ...... 107–13–1 9.3 Antimony ...... 7440–36–0 390 Methylene chloride ...... 75–09–2 4500 Ethylbenzene ...... 100–41–4 11,000 Formaldehyde ...... 50–00–0 82,000 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ...... 108–10–1 340 Methyl Methacrylate ...... 80–62–6 2,100 N-Butyl Alcohol ...... 100–42–5 41,000 Styrene ...... 100–42–5 4,600 Toluene ...... 108–88–3 1,200 Xylene (mixed isomers) ...... 1330–20–7 3,900
(7) Hazardous or nonhazardous waste or caustic; emission control dusts or variability of the wastes, and sample determination for wastes after sludges; wastewater treatment sludges preparative, cleanup (if necessary) and treatment. If wastes that have been and off specification product. If your determinative methods. determined to be K179 listed hazardous annual generation of paint (ii) The sampling and analyses data waste are treated to below hazardous manufacturing wastes exceeds 40 metric (including QA/QC data) and knowledge levels, you, as the waste generator or tons for waste solids or 100 metric tons (if used) that support a nonhazardous treater, may make a determination that for waste liquids, you must also keep determination for the wastes. the residue of the treatment process is the following records on-site for the (4) If storing or treating liquid paint nonhazardous by applying the most recent three years of testing (from wastes on-site in tanks or containers procedures described for wastes at the the effective date of the final rule): prior to off-site disposal, the point of generation, in paragraphs (b)(1) (1) The documentation supporting a documentation showing that the liquid through (b)(4) of this section, to the determination that wastes are paint manufacturing wastes will be treated waste. However, the residue nonhazardous based on knowledge that stored or treated exclusively in tanks or remains subject to the LDR treatment they do not contain any of the containers off-site before discharge by a standards for K179 as appropriate. constituents of concern. facility to a POTW or discharge under (c) Record keeping requirements for (2) If the wastes are determined to be an NPDES permit. generators who have determined their nonhazardous based on testing, then the 7. Appendix VII to Part 261 is wastes to be nonhazardous. You must following records must be kept: amended by adding the following waste keep records documenting the total (i) The sampling and analysis plan streams in alphanumeric order (by the annual quantity of paint manufacturing used for collecting and analyzing first column) to read as follows. waste solids and liquids you generate samples representative of the wastes, from tank and equipment cleaning including detailed sampling methods Appendix VII to Part 261—Basis for operations that use solvents, water, and/ used to account for spatial and temporal Listing Hazardous Waste
EPA haz- ardous waste Hazardous Constituents for which listed No.
******* K179 ...... Acrylamide, Acrylonitrile, Antimony, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl methacrylate K180 ...... Acrylamide, Acrylonitrile, Antimony, Methylene Chloride, Ethylbenzene, Formaldehyde, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Meth- acrylate, N-Butyl Alcohol, Styrene, Toluene, Xylene (mixed isomers)
*******
* * * * *
VerDate 11
8. Appendix VIII to Part 261 is amended by adding in alphabetical sequence of common name the following entries: Appendix VIII to Part 261—Hazardous Constituents
Chemical Common name Chemical abstracts name abstracts Hazardous No. waste No.
******* n-Butyl alcohol ...... 1-Butanol ...... 71–36–3 U031
******* Ethyl benzene ...... Same ...... 100–41–4 ......
******* Methyl isobutyl ketone ...... 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ...... 108–10–1 U161
******* Styrene ...... Ethenylbenzene ...... 100–42–5 ......
******* meta-Xylene ...... 1,3-Dimethylbenzene ...... 108–38–3 ...... ortho-Xylene ...... 1,2-Dimethylbenzene ...... 95–47–6 ...... para-Xylene ...... 1,4-Dimethylbenzene ...... 106–42–3 ...... Xylenes—mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene Dimethylbenzene ...... 1330–20–7 U239 concentrations).
*******
* * * * * contaminated with radioactive wastes (c) To determine whether a hazardous mixed with these wastes are prohibited waste identified in this section exceeds PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL from land disposal. the applicable treatment standards RESTRICTIONS (b) The requirements of paragraph (a) specified in § 268.40, the initial of this section do not apply if: generator must test a sample of the 9. The authority citation for part 268 (1) The wastes meet the applicable waste extract or the entire waste, continues to read as follows: treatment standards specified in Subpart depending on whether the treatment Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, D of this part; standards are expressed as and 6924. (2) Persons have been granted an concentrations in the waste extract or exemption from a prohibition pursuant the waste, or the generator may use Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land to a petition under § 268.6, with respect knowledge of the waste. If the waste Disposal to those wastes and units covered by the contains regulated constituents in 10. Section 268.20 is added and petition; excess of the applicable subpart D §§ 268.21 through 268.29 are added and (3) The wastes meet the applicable levels, the waste is prohibited from land reserved to subpart C to read as follows: treatment standards established disposal, and all requirements of this pursuant to a petition granted under part 268 are applicable, except as § 268.20 Waste specific prohibitions— § 268.44; otherwise specified. paint production wastes. (4) Hazardous debris has met the 11. In § 268.40, the Table of Treatment (a) Effective [Insert date six months treatment standards in § 268.40 or the Standards is amended by adding entries from date of publication of final rule], alternative treatment standards in to F039 in alphabetical order and by the wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 § 268.45; or adding in alphanumeric order new as EPA Hazardous Wastes Numbers (5) Persons have been granted an entries for K179 and K180 to read as K179, and K180, soil and debris extension to the effective date of a follows: contaminated with these wastes, prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with radioactive wastes mixed with these respect to these wastes covered by the § 268.40 Applicability of treatment wastes, and soil and debris extension. standards.
VerDate 11
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES [Note: NA means not applicable]
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Concentration in Waste Waste description and treatment/regulatory sub- 5 1 3 mg/kg unless code category 2 Concentration in mg/L , or Common name CAS No. 4 noted as ‘‘mg/L Technology Code TCLP’’, or Tech- nology Code 4
******* F039 Leachate (liquids that have percolated through ******* land disposed wastes) resulting from the dis- Acrylamide 79–06–1 19 23 posal of more than one restricted waste classi- ******* fied as hazardous under Subpart D of this part. Styrene 100–42–5 0.028 28 (Leachate resulting from the disposal of one or ******* more of the following EPA Hazardous Wastes and no other Hazardous Waste retains its EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s): F020, F021, F022, F026, F027, and/or F028.)
******* K179 Paint manufacturing waste solids generated by Acrylamide 79–06–1 19 23 paint manufacturing facilities that, at the point Acrylonitrile 107–13–1 0.24 84 of generation, contain any of the constituents Methyl isobutyl ketone 108–10–1 0.14 33 identified in paragraph § 261.32 (b)(6)(iii) at a Methyl methacrylate 80–62–6 0.14 160 concentration equal to or greater than the haz- Antimony 7440–36–0 1.9 1.15 mg/L 0 TCLP ardous level set for that constituent in para- graph § 261.32(b)(6)(iii). Paint manufacturing waste solids are: (1) waste solids generated from tank and equipment cleaning operations that use solvents, water and or caustic; (2) emission control dusts or sludges; (3) waste- water treatment sludges; and (4) off-specifica- tion product. Waste solids derived from the management of K180 by paint manufacturers would also be subject to this listing. Waste liq- uids derived from the management of K179 by paint manufacturers are not covered by this listing, but such liquids are subject to the K180 listing. For the purposes of this listing, paint manufacturers are defined as specified in para- graph § 261.32(b) K180 Paint manufacturing waste liquids generated by Acrylamide 79–06–1 19 23 paint manufacturing facilities that, at the point Acrylonitrile 107–13–1 0.24 84 of generation, contain any of the constituents n-Butyl alcohol 71–36–3 536 2.6 identified in paragraph § 261.32(b)(6)(iii) at a Ethyl benzene 100–41–4 0.057 10 concentration equal to or greater than the haz- Formaldehyde 13 50–00–0 (WETOX or CHOXD) fb CMBST ardous level set for that constituent in para- CARBN; or CMBST graph § 261.32 (b)(6)(iii) unless the wastes are stored or treated exclusively in tanks or con- tainers prior to discharge to a POTW or under Methylene chloride 75–09–2 0.089 30 a NPDES permit. Paint manufacturing liquids Methyl isobutyl ketone 108–10–1 0.14 33 are generated from tank and equipment clean- Methyl methacrylate 80–62–6 0.14 160 ing operations that use solvents, water, and/or Styrene 100–42–5 0.028 28 caustic. Waste liquids derived from the man- Toluene 108–88–3 0.080 10 agement of K179 by paint manufacturers Xylenes—mixed isomers 1330–20–7 0.32 30 would also be subject to this listing. Waste sol- (sum of o-, m-, and p-xy- ids derived from the management of K180 by lene concentrations) paint manufacturers are not covered by this Antimony 7440–36–0 1.9 1.15 mg/L 0 TCLP listing, but such solids are subject to the K179 listing. For the purposes of this listing, paint manufacturers are defined as specified in para- graph § 261.32(b)
***** ** ***** Footnotes to Treatment Standard Table 268.40. 1 The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR Part 261. Descriptions of Treatment/Regulatory Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards. 2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical with its salts and/ or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 4 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42 Table 1—Tech- nology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards. 5 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples. ***** 13 Wastes that do not exceed the § 261.32 listing criteria for this constituent are not subject to the treatment technology requirements, but are subject to all other numerical standards. *****
VerDate 11
12. In § 268.48 The Table—Universal following entries under the headings § 268.48 Universal treatment standards. Treatment Standards is amended by ‘‘organic constituents’’: (The footnotes (a) * * * adding in alphabetical sequence the are republished without change.)
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS [Note: NA means not applicable]
Wastewater Nonwastewater standard standard
Regulated constituent common name CAS 1 No. Concentration in Concentration in mg/Kg 3 unless mg/L 2 noted in ‘‘mg/L TCLP’’
Organic Constituents:
*******
Styrene ...... 100–42–5 0.028 28
*******
******* 1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples. 3 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O, or Part 265, Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples. *******
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR Subpart A—Requirements for Final 2 in chronological order by effective AUTHORIZATION OF STATE Authorization date in the Federal Register, to read as HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS follows. 14. Section 271.1(j) is amended by 13. The authority citation for Part 271 adding the following entries to Table 1 § 271.1 Purpose and scope. continues to read as follows: in chronological order by date of * * * * * Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and publication in the Federal Register, and (j) * * * 6926. by adding the following entries to Table
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date
******* [insert date of signature of final Paint Manufacturing Listing...... [insert Federal Register page [insert effective date of final rule] rule]. numbers for final rule].
*******
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register reference
******* [Insert effective date of final rule] ... Prohibition on land disposal of 3004(g)(4)(C) and 3004(m)...... [Insert date of publication of final K179 and K180 wastes. rule], [Insert FR page numbers].
*******
VerDate 11
PART 302—DESIGNATION, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; appropriate footnotes to Table 302.4 are REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. republished without change.) NOTIFICATION 16. In § 302.4, Table 302.4 is amended § 302.4 Designation of hazardous by adding the following new entries in substances. 15. The authority citation for Part 302 alphanumeric order at the end of the continues to read as follows: table, to read as follows. (The * * * * *
VerDate 11
TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES [Note: All Comments/Notes Are Located at the End of This Table]
Statutory Final RQ Regulatory Hazardous Substance CASRN synonyms RCRA Pounds RQ Code † waste No. Category (Kg)
******* K179 ...... 1* 4 K179 X 100 (45.4) Paint manufacturing waste solids generated by paint manufacturing facilities that, at the point of generation, contain any of the con- stituents identified in paragraph § 261.32 (b)(6)(iii) at a concentration equal to or greater than the hazardous level set for that constituent in paragraph § 261.32(b)(6)(iii). Paint manufacturing waste solids are: (1) Waste solids gen- erated from tank and equipment cleaning operations that use solvents, water and or caustic; (2) emission control dusts or sludges; (3) wastewater treatment sludges; and (4) off-specification product. Waste solids derived from the management of K180 by paint manufacturers would also be subject to this listing. Waste solids derived from the management of K179 by paint manufacturers are not covered by this list- ing, but such solids are subject to the K180 listing. For the purposes of this listing, paint manufacturers are defined as speci- fied in paragraph § 261.32(b). K180 ...... 1* 4 K180 X 100 (45.4) Paint manufacturing waste solids generated by paint manufacturing facilities that, at the point of generation, contain any of the con- stituents identified in paragraph § 261.32(b)(6)(iii) at a concentration equal to or greater than the hazardous level set for that constituent in paragraph § 261.32(b)(6)(iii) unless the wastes are stored or treated exclusively in tanks or containers prior to discharge to a POTW or under a NPDES permit. Paint manufac- turing liquids are generated from tank and equipment cleaning operations that use solvents, water, and/or caustic. Waste liq- uids derived from the management of K179 by paint manufacturers would also be sub- ject to this listing. Waste liquids derived from the management of K180 by paint manufacturers are not covered by this list- ing, but such liquids are subject to the K179 listing. For the purposes of this list- ing, paint manufacturers are defined as specified in paragraph § 261.32(b).
*******
† Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4 below. ******* 4—Indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001. 1* Indicates that the 1-pound RQ is a CERCLA statutory RQ. *******
[FR Doc. 01–3087 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–U
VerDate 11