Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

v.y Fedeeal Begistar / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 23: limitations on tbe acteal amount of water teat could be reported as "process wastewater" te tee National Survey of Solid Wastes from Mteeral Processing Facilities, where EPA only solidted information on processing units associated wite the generation of process waters. According to tee commenter. EPA inappropriately reduced tee number of streams counted toward tee volume cutoff by focusing on only a few process water streams. The commenter mateteteed that its tetemal date tedicate teat tbe volumes of. process wastewater from primary lead production generated by its plants exceed the 1,000.000 metric ton threshold. Anoteer commenter was dismayed by EPA's condusion that process wastewater brxn primary lead processing was low volume, because teere is no way to verify tee numerical daU used to arrive at the average of 785^62 metric tons per year. EPA responds that tbe Natiooal Survey requested date on tbe quantity of wastewater generated by all mineral processing operations at each fadbty surveyed and that the responses provided tedicate that process wastewater is not a large volume waste. EPA is limited te the amount of information it can present on tbe waste generation cjlculations used to develop tee September 25 proposal because one of tee commenten hajs requested Confidential Business infnrmatinn atetas for teeir information. c Hazard One commenter objected to EPA's on-site sampling methods. IL te tee survey, the Agency requeste information on process wastewaters, oteer waste streams, such as process water from stetering. should not be sampled for tee ha^rd determination. Because of tee scheduling constratete imposed by tee Court of Appeals, EPA's waste sampling effort had to be conducted before tee final contoure of tee benefidation/processteg boundary had been established Thus, EPA sampled wastes teat are, in hlndaigbt. outside the scope of tbe current rulemaking. Tbe analytical residts for wastes teat an ariMda Hie scope of tfaia rulemaking (1.8.. pncesa water from smtertng) have BSl^mBn used te evaluating compBanoa wtib the low hazard criterion, bataad EPA has used resufts from samples of wastes teat are tee subiect of this rulemaking (I.e.. slag granulation water) te detemteilng that teis is not s low hazard waata. 6. Sulfate Process Waste Adda Praaa Titanium Dioxide Prodactka a, tiuunj. One oannentar slatad that sulfate proceea weste acida from ite facility meet BPA's km hazard critarian and should therefore be reteteed m tee Bevill exclusion. The commenter disputed tee selenium concentrations pablished te tee proposed rule, stating teat if EPA asserte that tee sample exceeding the criterion comes from the commenter's facility, teen tee Agency is mistaken. The commenter notes teat tee sulfate process waste add sample was essentially analyzed three times: once as is. once using tee SPLP, and once for EP toxidty. te the leaching procedures (SPLP and EP Toxidty) the sample is filtered and tee filtrate analyzed. The solids (if any) are leached and tee leachate is analyzed Stece teere were no solids, tee three analyses should have agreed, te actuality, tee concentration for selenium was below tee detecteble limit for two of tee samples, while selenium showed up on tee SPLP sample at a level of 6.3 mg/l. The commenter retamed a portion of tee sample teat was collected for EPA and had it analyzed for EP Toxicity. Selenium concentrations were below detectable limits. The commenter also claimed to have made fadlity improvements which have caused sulfate process waste adds to betxjme less sddic. The overall average pK trom 1984 throng 1988 was 1.02. EPA agrees teat tee reported'^^P seleniam concentratimi that is qeestioQed by the conunenter does sppear to be anomalous, but bebeves teat tee oteer data, tedudlng tee pH data, collected during EI'A's sampling visite are accurate and provide a auffident basis for applying tbe low hazard criterion to this waste stream. The average pH date provided by tee commenter are not relevant to tbia twtamaking because average pH values do not have meaning and are net consistent wite tbe date reqaireaents specified te the low hazard criterion for tee pH test 7. Se^te Process Waste SoRds From Titaniimi Dioxide ProdiKtion a. Volume. Two commenten urged EPA to reconsider its prelinunary condusion teat sulfate process waste solids fafl to meet tee high volume crtterion. One commenter tedicated teat sulfate process waste solids are generated te tee form of a slurry, at a rate of 86.800 short tons (78,728 metidc tons) per jrear as indicated te tee November 21.1988 comments and the response to EPA's National Survey of Solid Wastes from Kfineral Processing. Another faidnstry commenter daimed that EPA miscalculated tee vohme of sulfate pwceae waste sobds generated annually. Tbe commenter stated that a total of 4B.900 metric tons are bandied The values used for suspended solids were from tbe commenter's quarteriy samples, wbicb have been taken since 1984. According to tee commenter, tee; volumes confirm teose given, m comments provided m response to the October 10.1988 proposal of 85,000 tons/year, which teduded chloride wastes. The commenter further indicated teat'teese wastes, togeteer wite tee treatment residuals, will brinj tee total solids handled to well over 500,000 tons per year. It is EPA's position teat the waste of interest is Ae dewatered waste solids' taken from tee drum filter at one facili rateer tean tee slurry from the darifiei as suggested by the conunenter, becau tee available information indicates tec tee primary purpose of tee dewatering operation performed by tee drum filter to retura product solution to tee production process and thus, it resembles a processing operation more closely tean it does a waste treatment operation. Accordingly, EPA has used tee reported quantity of drum filter cal rather than tee quantity of slurry sent tee drum filter te evaluating tee compliance bf this waste stmam wite tee high volume criteria. A&er furteer analysis, tee Agency bas conduded te tee revised waste generation rates reported by tee second commenter are reasonable, though the underlying dati are not readily apparent in tee commenter's response to tee National Survey. Revised (and final) waste generation estimates, which tedicate teat this is not a high volume waste, ar presented te section QL below. D. Relationship ofthe Proposed Rule C Subtitle C of RCRA 1. The Mixtore Rule a. General comments, te teefr commente on tee September 25 proposaL a mnnber of commenters objected to tee Agency's mterpretatior of the mixture rule ta tee September 1, 1968 final rule and questitmed what thr impad of tbe mixtm^ rule would be upon tee Bevill determmations contained ta tee September 25 prcposf Commenten requested teat EPA reconsider its teterpretation of tee mixture rah as it applies to Bevill excluded wastes teat are mixed with relatively small vohnnes of nonexduded wastes. Commenten noted teat a mixture of a Bevill exduded waste and a diaracteristically hazardous waste wtrald be conside.'-ed non-excluded hazardcms waste. Particdaifyb) tbe phosphate industry, commenten obfetited to this dassBmtluu. arguing teat if tee nanexduded waste te a mixture shares th>
2334 Foderal Ragiatar / VnU 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rales and ReguJations same hazardous charaderistic as tee Bevill excluded waste, tee J3evill status of tee resul ting mixture should not be witedrawn. Commenters also requested teat tee Agency clanfy the mixture rule te a number of vva vs. First, teey suggested teat EPA clanfy whether mteeral processing wastes that are temporarily excluded from R CRA SubtiUe C requirements may be used (e.g., as air pollution control scrubber water) te production units that dp not generate Bevill wastes, and similarly wheteer non-Bevill excluded wastes may be used m production units that generate Bevill excluded wastes, te particular, commenten requested clarification of tee states of a Bevill-exduded waste teat is used te a non-Bevill production unit when tee waste exhibits a characteristic or hazardous waste afier use te tee non-Bevill operation only because tee Bevill waste teat is an teput to tee non-Bevill process exhibito tee hazardous characteristic. te addition, commenten argued teat tee October 28.1989 supplemaat to tee proposed regulations for burning of hazardous waste te boilen and muustrial furnaces (54 FR 43718) conflicte wite tee teterpretetion of the mixture rule established ta tee September 1.1989 fteal rule. The proposed rule on burning stetes' tbat residues would remate witbte tee Bevill exdusion if tee charader of tee residual is detennteed by tee Bevill materiaL In contrast tee September 1 final rule stetes teat any material burned with a low volume, non-Bevill waste would be regarded as hazardous even if tbe charaderistic exhibited Is tbe same aa tee characteristic of tee Bevill waste. Commenten requested tbat tee Agency reconcile teese conflicting teterpretations of tee mixture rule by adopting tee approach te tbe pmpoeed rule on burning. b. Comments related to phosphoric acid production. Ccmmentata from tba phosphoric add industry teqoaated tbat tee Agency provide a i explanation of ite i as it relates to pho wastewaters, ajid i comment The ami fertilizer (APF) procesa i wastewater as an tefluant and than returns it to tee originating phosphate complex pond One commenter contended teat APF process wastewatat does not exhibit hazardous characteristics when generated separately from a facility tbat produces phosphoric acid Therefore, tba commenter argued APF wastewater must not contribute tee hazardous characteristic found te phosphoric acid process wastewater, and teus it should not trigger tee removal of phosphoric add process wastewater from tee Bevill exclusion. Phosphate industry commenten urged tee Agency to reject any teterpretation of tee mixture rule teat would remove phosphate complex pond water from tee BeviU exemption because it contamed process wastewater used te the APF process. CJommenters luged the Agency to adopt an teterpretation of the mixture rule consistent wite tee position advocated te tee October 28,1989 proposal (54 FR 43718) on burning, and allow small amounts of sulfuric add process wastewater to be combined te tee general process wastewater system witeout tee removal of tee entire system from tee Bevill exclusion. Phosphate tedustry commenten objected to tee mixture rule teterpretation contamed te tee September 1,1989 final rule te whicb tee addition of sulfuric acid process wastewater to a phosphoric add complex's water recirculation system would residt te tee entire system being removed from tee Bevill exdusion. According to one commenter. alteougb sulfuric add process wastewater displays tee same characteristic of corrosivity as phosphoric add procesa wastewater, tee addition of sulfuric add process wastewater may constitete less tban ona percent of tee dady wastewater generated at an average facility, and teus should not affed tbe BeviU stetna of tee entire waste stream. c Caaunenta related to hydrofluoric acid production. One coinmenter requestad clarification on tee use of hydrofluoric acid process wastewater ta •n almnlanm fluoride plant and asked tbe Agancy to address tee use of Bevill exshidad charaderistic wastes as a source of influent to oteer processes. Tba on—nantw argued teat hazardous cfaaractarlstlcs displayed by water existing tba alumteum fluoride facility ara iolely from hydrofluoric add (HF] proossa wastewater. Thus, tee ommnantar asserted tee Agency's iatarpretetion of tee mixture rule should have no bearing on wheteer HF process wastewater remains withm tee BeviU axchttton. The commenter requested that if tha Agency teterpreU the mixture rule sucfa teat tea use of process wastawatar ta tea alumteum fluoride plant resulte te all water ta tee pond whara that water is finaUy disposed being removed from tee BeviU exdusion. EPA should supplement tee proposed rule with Ite rationale for such a dedsioa and allow for additional public cominant d. CoBuaeata related to coal gasification. One conunenter objected to the Agency's possible determteation. based upon tee mixture rule, that process wastewater from coal gasification is hazardous. The commenter asserted teat if process wastewater was disposed of immediately rateer than used in a cooling tower, tee waste stream would not demonstrate hazardous characteristics; however, important water conservation and disposal practices cotdd not teen be practiced. Thus, tee commenter concluded, the Agency should not withdraw the Bevill , exclusion for coal gasification process wastewaten based upon hazardous characteristics when teose characteristics result from appropriate water conservation and disposal practices. e. Response to comments, te response to teese questions and issues raised by commenten regarding tee mixture rule, EPA makes tee fbUowing observations. Pint like tee criteria esteblished for identifying wastes eligible for tee Bevill exemption, tee Agency's position mi tee mixture rule was finalized on September 1.1968 and is not open for comment as part of this rulemaking. Second tba Agency plans to add commente to the docket for tee October 28te notice regarding tee aUeged contradiction between tee Odober 26.1989 (54 FR 43718) supplement to tee proposed regidations for burning of hazardous waste ta boden and tedustrial furnaces and tee mixture rule te tee September 1, 1986 final rule. Third wastes from operations that are not mteeral processing operations based on tee definition of mteeral processing contained ta tea September 1 final nde ara not mtaeral processing wastes regardless of tee nature of any tepute (teduding BeviU wastes] to teat process. Finally, tee mixture rule is not a factor ta today's decision to retata tee BeviU exemption for process wastewater becanse BeviU wastes are being evaluated not mixtures. 2. Land Disposal Restrictions Two commenten expressed concern about tea impad of Land Disposal Restrictiona (LORs] on wastes newly removed from tha BeviU exdusion. One commentar steted teat tee Agency cannot accurately estimate tee economic ioqiad of tee proposed rule untii tbe "Third Tbird" rule is promulgated Tba second commenter requested teat tba Agenoy considar mteerel processing wastaa removed from tea BeviU exdusion. "newly identified" wastes
Page 2 and 3: RHC«.IOG LlSl tSoLi^ l>i>u:-k. 5t.
Page 4 and 5: IVA RscciOG liSîSoiîp U lO ^ XMD.
Page 6 and 7: IVA feccioc LlSiiSoiîi? Ur\J^ ^ IM
Page 8 and 9: Tuesclay Januaiy 23, 1990 Part HI E
Page 10 and 11: M 2324 Federal Ragiater / Vol 55. N
Page 12 and 13: 2328 Federal Regiater / Vol. 55, No
Page 14 and 15: 2328 Fednai Register / Vol. 55. No.
Page 16 and 17: Federal RegUter / VoL 55> No. 15 /
Page 18 and 19: yp . • Faiaral Rag^star / Vd. 55.
Page 22 and 23: Federal Regirt» / Vol. 55, No. 15
Page 24 and 25: 11 Fadand Reêr / VoL 55. No. 15 /
Page 26 and 27: Fadaral SagiBtar / VaL 55. No. 15 /
Page 28 and 29: -ft,, / VoL 5S, Wo. 15 / Tnesday, J
Page 30 and 31: Fa«leral Ragiatiy / Vot. S5, No. 1
Page 32 and 33: *. t J 1 Federal Registar / Vol. 55
Page 34 and 35: Fedwal ReglStor / ¥ci 55. Nc. 15 /
Page 36 and 37: J^daral Bagiatar / Ual. Si,Ho. IS J
Page 38 and 39: ;J]-'.|. Federal Register / VoL 55.
Page 40 and 41: •H Fadanl Register / VoL 55, No.
Page 42 and 43: l^€U_tJerM5 l^m Cakill ^2 ^ ^5 )i
Page 44 and 45: ..l(a tejL^_£i)ck.^ 1 • ^ rwmos
Page 46 and 47: — - m4i(îo-î5^ - - • ••
Page 48 and 49: mV^S'VilOHjK?-AZ _. __ ^73 Fn^^M-M-
Page 51 and 52: -£% B C D N. 800 E N. 600 N. 400 G
Page 53 and 54: vmx. desfH aose PliaiTIWlWa AOMtNis
Page 55: 3D ID 130 200 SWHE SCALE IN FEET '-

Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?