Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency
Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency
Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
2334 Foderal Ragiatar / VnU 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rales <strong>and</strong> ReguJations<br />
same hazardous charaderistic as tee<br />
Bevill excluded waste, tee J3evill status<br />
of tee resul ting mixture should not be<br />
witedrawn.<br />
Commenters also requested teat tee<br />
<strong>Agency</strong> clanfy the mixture rule te a<br />
number of vva vs. First, teey suggested<br />
teat EPA clanfy whether mteeral<br />
processing wastes that are temporarily<br />
excluded from R CRA SubtiUe C<br />
requirements may be used (e.g., as air<br />
pollution control scrubber water) te<br />
production units that dp not generate<br />
Bevill wastes, <strong>and</strong> similarly wheteer<br />
non-Bevill excluded wastes may be used<br />
m production units that generate Bevill<br />
excluded wastes, te particular,<br />
commenten requested clarification of<br />
tee states of a Bevill-exduded waste<br />
teat is used te a non-Bevill production<br />
unit when tee waste exhibits a<br />
characteristic or hazardous waste afier<br />
use te tee non-Bevill operation only<br />
because tee Bevill waste teat is an teput<br />
to tee non-Bevill process exhibito tee<br />
hazardous characteristic.<br />
te addition, commenten argued teat<br />
tee October 28.1989 supplemaat to tee<br />
proposed regulations for burning of<br />
hazardous waste te boilen <strong>and</strong><br />
muustrial furnaces (54 FR 43718)<br />
conflicte wite tee teterpretetion of the<br />
mixture rule established ta tee<br />
September 1.1989 fteal rule. The<br />
proposed rule on burning stetes' tbat<br />
residues would remate witbte tee Bevill<br />
exdusion if tee charader of tee residual<br />
is detennteed by tee Bevill materiaL In<br />
contrast tee September 1 final rule<br />
stetes teat any material burned with a<br />
low volume, non-Bevill waste would be<br />
regarded as hazardous even if tbe<br />
charaderistic exhibited Is tbe same aa<br />
tee characteristic of tee Bevill waste.<br />
Commenten requested tbat tee <strong>Agency</strong><br />
reconcile teese conflicting<br />
teterpretations of tee mixture rule by<br />
adopting tee approach te tbe pmpoeed<br />
rule on burning.<br />
b. Comments related to phosphoric<br />
acid production. Ccmmentata from tba<br />
phosphoric add industry teqoaated tbat<br />
tee <strong>Agency</strong> provide a i<br />
explanation of ite i<br />
as it relates to pho<br />
wastewaters, ajid i<br />
comment The ami<br />
fertilizer (APF) procesa i<br />
wastewater as an tefluant <strong>and</strong> than<br />
returns it to tee originating phosphate<br />
complex pond One commenter<br />
contended teat APF process wastewatat<br />
does not exhibit hazardous<br />
characteristics when generated<br />
separately from a facility tbat produces<br />
phosphoric acid Therefore, tba<br />
commenter argued APF wastewater<br />
must not contribute tee hazardous<br />
characteristic found te phosphoric acid<br />
process wastewater, <strong>and</strong> teus it should<br />
not trigger tee removal of phosphoric<br />
add process wastewater from tee Bevill<br />
exclusion. Phosphate industry<br />
commenten urged tee <strong>Agency</strong> to reject<br />
any teterpretation of tee mixture rule<br />
teat would remove phosphate complex<br />
pond water from tee BeviU exemption<br />
because it contamed process<br />
wastewater used te the APF process.<br />
CJommenters luged the <strong>Agency</strong> to<br />
adopt an teterpretation of the mixture<br />
rule consistent wite tee position<br />
advocated te tee October 28,1989<br />
proposal (54 FR 43718) on burning, <strong>and</strong><br />
allow small amounts of sulfuric add<br />
process wastewater to be combined te<br />
tee general process wastewater system<br />
witeout tee removal of tee entire system<br />
from tee Bevill exclusion. Phosphate<br />
tedustry commenten objected to tee<br />
mixture rule teterpretation contamed te<br />
tee September 1,1989 final rule te whicb<br />
tee addition of sulfuric acid process<br />
wastewater to a phosphoric add<br />
complex's water recirculation system<br />
would residt te tee entire system being<br />
removed from tee Bevill exdusion.<br />
According to one commenter. alteougb<br />
sulfuric add process wastewater<br />
displays tee same characteristic of<br />
corrosivity as phosphoric add procesa<br />
wastewater, tee addition of sulfuric add<br />
process wastewater may constitete less<br />
tban ona percent of tee dady<br />
wastewater generated at an average<br />
facility, <strong>and</strong> teus should not affed tbe<br />
BeviU stetna of tee entire waste stream.<br />
c Caaunenta related to hydrofluoric<br />
acid production. One coinmenter<br />
requestad clarification on tee use of<br />
hydrofluoric acid process wastewater ta<br />
•n almnlanm fluoride plant <strong>and</strong> asked<br />
tbe Agancy to address tee use of Bevill<br />
exshidad charaderistic wastes as a<br />
source of influent to oteer processes.<br />
Tba on—nantw argued teat hazardous<br />
cfaaractarlstlcs displayed by water<br />
existing tba alumteum fluoride facility<br />
ara iolely from hydrofluoric add (HF]<br />
proossa wastewater. Thus, tee<br />
ommnantar asserted tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s<br />
iatarpretetion of tee mixture rule should<br />
have no bearing on wheteer HF process<br />
wastewater remains withm tee BeviU<br />
axchttton. The commenter requested<br />
that if tha <strong>Agency</strong> teterpreU the mixture<br />
rule sucfa teat tea use of process<br />
wastawatar ta tea alumteum fluoride<br />
plant resulte te all water ta tee pond<br />
whara that water is finaUy disposed<br />
being removed from tee BeviU exdusion.<br />
EPA should supplement tee proposed<br />
rule with Ite rationale for such a<br />
dedsioa <strong>and</strong> allow for additional public<br />
cominant<br />
d. CoBuaeata related to coal<br />
gasification. One conunenter objected to<br />
the <strong>Agency</strong>'s possible determteation.<br />
based upon tee mixture rule, that<br />
process wastewater from coal<br />
gasification is hazardous. The<br />
commenter asserted teat if process<br />
wastewater was disposed of<br />
immediately rateer than used in a<br />
cooling tower, tee waste stream would<br />
not demonstrate hazardous<br />
characteristics; however, important<br />
water conservation <strong>and</strong> disposal<br />
practices cotdd not teen be practiced.<br />
Thus, tee commenter concluded, the<br />
<strong>Agency</strong> should not withdraw the Bevill ,<br />
exclusion for coal gasification process<br />
wastewaten based upon hazardous<br />
characteristics when teose<br />
characteristics result from appropriate<br />
water conservation <strong>and</strong> disposal<br />
practices.<br />
e. Response to comments, te response<br />
to teese questions <strong>and</strong> issues raised by<br />
commenten regarding tee mixture rule,<br />
EPA makes tee fbUowing observations.<br />
Pint like tee criteria esteblished for<br />
identifying wastes eligible for tee Bevill<br />
exemption, tee <strong>Agency</strong>'s position mi tee<br />
mixture rule was finalized on September<br />
1.1968 <strong>and</strong> is not open for comment as<br />
part of this rulemaking. Second tba<br />
<strong>Agency</strong> plans to add commente to the<br />
docket for tee October 28te notice<br />
regarding tee aUeged contradiction<br />
between tee Odober 26.1989 (54 FR<br />
43718) supplement to tee proposed<br />
regidations for burning of hazardous<br />
waste ta boden <strong>and</strong> tedustrial furnaces<br />
<strong>and</strong> tee mixture rule te tee September 1,<br />
1986 final rule. Third wastes from<br />
operations that are not mteeral<br />
processing operations based on tee<br />
definition of mteeral processing<br />
contained ta tea September 1 final nde<br />
ara not mtaeral processing wastes<br />
regardless of tee nature of any tepute<br />
(teduding BeviU wastes] to teat process.<br />
Finally, tee mixture rule is not a factor<br />
ta today's decision to retata tee BeviU<br />
exemption for process wastewater<br />
becanse BeviU wastes are being<br />
evaluated not mixtures.<br />
2. L<strong>and</strong> Disposal Restrictions<br />
Two commenten expressed concern<br />
about tea impad of L<strong>and</strong> Disposal<br />
Restrictiona (LORs] on wastes newly<br />
removed from tha BeviU exdusion. One<br />
commentar steted teat tee <strong>Agency</strong><br />
cannot accurately estimate tee<br />
economic ioqiad of tee proposed rule<br />
untii tbe "Third Tbird" rule is<br />
promulgated<br />
Tba second commenter requested teat<br />
tba Agenoy considar mteerel processing<br />
wastaa removed from tea BeviU<br />
exdusion. "newly identified" wastes