Process and sites diagram - US Environmental Protection Agency

2340
Federal Ragistw / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and RegtdatioHa
or quantity of sludge generated from
scndiber water settling] were tee
volumes ascribed to teose fadUties for
purposes of developing the sector-wide
annual waste generation rate. 'Ihe
average per-fadUty volume of this waste
contteues to be below tee high volume
criterion.
6, Process Wastewater From
Hydrofluoric Acid Production
The Agency proposed to witedraw
this waste stream as a low volimie
waste due to tee fadure of tee fadUties
to provide waste generation date te tee
commente te which tee waste streams
were origteaUy nomteated or te teeir
responses to the National Survey. Bote
faculties reportedly producing BieviU
waste from hydrofluoric add production
have subsequenUy presented tee
Agency with volume date ta commente
and (ta one case) a revised faciUty
survey. The Agency has reviewed teese
tedustry commente and tee additional
survey date and has concluded that
process wastewater bom hydrofluoric
acid production satisfies tee high
volume criterion for Uquids. As tee
waste stream has been determtaed to be
low-hazard the process wastewater u
retateed te tee BieviU exclusion.
7. Process Wastewater from Primary
Lead Production
The Agency has reevaluated its
meteodoiogy for volume estimation of
this waste stream, and has subsequenUy
removed from tee analyste one fadUty
which was not operated on a consistent
basis (37 days te 1988). The Agency's
analysis tedicates, however, that
alteougb removal of this faciUty from
tee analysis tecreases tee average
annual per-fadUty waste volume, tee
process wastewater te not generated on
a sector-wide basis ta quantities
suffident to meet tee high volume
criterion. The waste stream, teerefore.
has been %vite(frawn from tee BeviU
exclusion. The value reported te Table 1
is tee volume of process wastewater
from tee remaining non-CBI fadUty^ this
is not tee acteal sedor fadUty average
used to make tee high volume
determination.
8. Air poUution control dust/sludge from
lightweight aggregate production
EPA has revued its estimate of tee
volume of this waste stream based on
additional analysis of information
tecluded ta tee surveys submitted by tee
majority of tee lightweight aggregate
fadUties. Waste management date
submitted ta tee survey were analyzed
to determine mora accurately tee actual
generation of solids, ta Ueu of basing tee
estimates on solids entzateed te
wastewaten. These revised estimates,
confirmed by date submitted by
commenten addressing tee earUer
proposed retaterpretetions, were used to
calculate a new sector average for tee
»aste stream. Tbe Agency
acknowledges tbat tee faciUties teat use
air poUution contols oteer tban wet
scrubbers, a mtaority ta the sedor, have
not been represented te tee analysis
because date are not available on tee
quantities of APC dust teat teese
faciUties may generate. Data coUected ta
tee National Survey for tee iron and
steel tedustry. however, tedicates teat
APC dust resulting from dry coUection
methods te typicaUy of lower volume
tban sludges generated bom wet
scrubbara. As a rasult EPA beUeves teat
tedusion ol APC dust volume data te
tee analysis would not tecrease tee
faciUty average, much less double tee
average as would be needed to meet tee
higb volume criterion. Based on EPA's
revised estimate, air poUution control
dust/sludge from lightweight aggregate
production does not pass tee high
volume criterion and is hereby
withdrawn from tee BeviU exclusion.
9. Sulfate Process Waste SoUds from
Titanium Dioxide Production
Waste soUds from tbe production of
titanium dioxide using tee sulfate
process are removed from tee
processing operations and managed m
mtdtiple ways at tee two faciUties teat
employ tee sulfate process, te iU
origmal response to tee 1989 National
Survey, one faciUty reported an
aggregated volume of waste soUds from
chloride and sulfate processing
operations. Because EPA was unable to
disaggregate tbe volume of wastes from
chloride v. sidfate processing operations
at tbte faciUty, EPA used date provided
by tee oteer sulfate process faciUty as
tee basis for tee everage aimual per
faciUty waste generation rate te tha
proposal, ta commente on tee proposed
nde. tee faciUty teat had previously
reported aggregated volume date
provided separate volume data for
choride and sulfate process waste
soUds. As a result for today's proposal.
EPA bas developed a revised per-facility
average annual waste generation rate
teat is based on date from bote
faciUties. However, as ta tee proposal,
tee waste te not high volume. The waste
stream, teerefore, has been witedrawn
from tee BeviU exdusion.
TABLE 1.—RESutTs OF APPLYING THE HKJH VOUAK CRTTSWON TO TWENTY CoNomoNALLY RETAINED PROCESSING WASTES*
Coalgae-
Coatgaa..
Eiafnante ptioaphorus.
H^^Soauofic add
Iran.
Sodwa
CofTvnotfty Mctor SoMorlqUd
4P«i hearth tedust/eudoa.
c9Sh haarti %M'
SoSd
Uqud
Sow
Sold.
So«d.-
SoW...
Uquid..
Sold.
Sow.
UquM-
SOW.,
UMd-
Uqud-
Sow..
Sow.
Sow.
Tnrtwn dtadds.. Uedd-
Avaragapar
OanaraDOfi
24aooo
4330,000
78,000
SOMIS
11.044
208.780
4.300.000
St,a8t
724,506
866.000
1SA13
2,468^)00
67,402.000
W/H
Vrt.111
W/H
B
c
AB.D
C
AC
C
C
ac
B
KCO
a.c
B
Aa.c
AB
ACf
AB
AB
Naof hign
voi««ns
1
1
2
3
S
2
2
24
16
S
17
1
16
2
29
26
2
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Na
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Yaa.
Na
Na
Yaa.
Yaa
Yaa.
Yaa.