NPCA has submitted comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the Nov. 2003 proposed Dye and Pigment Production Waste Listing. The rule would list non-waste waters from the production of certain dyes, pigments and FD&C colorants as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) if these wastes contain certain levels of o-anisidine, p-cresidine, 1,2-phenylenediamine, 1,3-phenylenediamine, 2,4-dimethylaniline, and toluene-2,4-diamine. In addition, wastes containing these chemicals would be subject to treatment standards and land-ban restrictions.
NPCA opposed the listing of non-waste waters in question as hazardous waste, calling attention to the fact that in EPA has mistakenly assumed the dye and pigment manufacturing industries are one in the same, which they are not. The two industries use different raw materials and generate different wastes. As a result, EPA has overestimated the waste streams generated by the two industries, the concentrations of constituents of concern in the wastes streams of the two industries and inaccurately modeled its proposal using disposal methods not utilized by the two industries.
In addition, EPA has not substantiated risks from non-waste water solid wastes generated by the dye and pigment manufacturing industry. NPCA firmly maintains that dye and pigment non-waste waters do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment, and thus, there is no rationale for a hazardous waste-listing.
NPCA also alerted EPA that it overestimated risks of the non-waste waters because it modeled clay or unlined landfill disposal scenarios, not utilized by the industries. Synthetically lined landfills are the only kind used by dye and pigment manufacturing facilities for waste management. Thus, EPA’s modeling overestimated the risk from dye and pigment manufacturing wastes.
NPCA also reported that based on