United States Effluent Guidelines Division EPA-440/1-84/019-b
Environmental Protection WH-552 July 1984
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 A Af\A r\ A r\
Water and Waste Management ^T^fU I O^rU I b/DO
Development Proposed
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Nonferrous Metals
Point Source Category
Phase II
Supplemental Development
Document For:
Secondary Uranium
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
for the
-*.
NONFERROUS METALS MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PHASE II
Secondary Uranium Supplement
Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator for Water
Edwin L. Johnson
Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
US. Fr-ylronrrenta! Protection Agency
Jeffery D. Denit, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E., Chief
Metals and Machinery Branch
James R. Berlow, P.E.
Technical Project Officer
July 1984
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
U,S. EwfeonmciTts! Protection Agency
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY
URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 3
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY
URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 7
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY ... 10
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY ... 13
III INDUSTRY PROFILE 17
DESCRIPTION OF SECONDARY URANIUM PRODUCTION. . . 17
RAW MATERIALS 17
URANIUM TETRAFLUORIDE PRODUCTION 18
MAGNESIUM REDUCTION PROCESS 18
PROCESS WASTEWATER SOURCES 19
OTHER WASTEWATER SOURCES 19
AGE, PRODUCTION, AND PROCESS PROFILE 19
IV SUBCATEGORIZATION 27
FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SUBCATEGORIZATION 27
FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SUBDIVIDING THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 28
OTHER FACTORS 29
PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETERS 29
V WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS .... 31
WASTEWATER FLOW RATES 32
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS DATA 33
DATA COLLECTION PORTFOLIOS 33
FIELD SAMPLING DATA 33
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FLOWS BY
SUBDIVISION 34
REFINERY FILTRATE 34
SLAG LEACH SLURRY 35
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE 35
DIGESTION OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. . 36
EVAPORATION AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL 36
HYDROGEN REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION KOH
WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 37
HYDROFLUORINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. . . 37
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 49
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
PARAMETERS 49
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
PARAMETERS SELECTED 49
TOXIC POLLUTANTS 51
TOXIC POLLUTANTS NEVER DETECTED 51
TOXIC POLLUTANTS NEVER FOUND ABOVE THEIR
ANALYTICAL QUANTIFICATION CONCENTRATION 54
TOXIC POLLUTANTS PRESENT BELOW CONCENTRATIONS
ACHIEVABLE BY TREATMENT 54
TOXIC POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION IN ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS
AND STANDARDS 54
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 57
CURRENT CONTROL AND TREATMENT PRACTICES 57
REFINERY FILTRATE 57
SLAG LEACH SLURRY 58
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE 58
DIGESTION OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. . 58
EVAPORATION AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL 58
HYDROGEN REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION KOH
WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 59
HYDROFLUORINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. . . 59
CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS 59
OPTION A 59
OPTION C 60
VIII COSTS, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS. . . 61
TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR EXISTING SOURCES 61
OPTION A 61
OPTION C 61
COST METHODOLOGY 61
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS 62
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS 62
SOLID WASTE 62
AIR POLLUTION 64
ii
-------
Section
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE 67
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT 67
INDUSTRY COST AND POLLUTANT REMOVAL ESTIMATES. . 69
BPT OPTION SELECTION 69
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES 71
REFINERY FILTRATE 71
SLAG LEACH SLURRY 71
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE 71
DIGESTION OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. . 72
EVAPORATION AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL 72
HYDROGEN REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION KOH
WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 72
HYDROFLUORINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. . . 73
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 73
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 73
X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE 81
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT 81
OPTION A 82
OPTION C 82
INDUSTRY COST AND POLLUTANT REMOVAL ESTIMATES. . 83
POLLUTANT REMOVAL ESTIMATES 83
COMPLIANCE COSTS 83
BAT OPTION SELECTION 84
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES 84
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 85
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 86
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 95
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS 95
OPTION A 96
OPTION C 96
NSPS OPTION SELECTION 96
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 96
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 97
iii
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
XII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PRETREATMENT . .
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
OPTION A
OPTION C
PSNS OPTION SECTION
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS ....
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
XIII BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY . 111
iv
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
III-1 INITIAL OPERATING YEAR (RANGE) SUMMARY OF
PLANTS IN THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
BY DISCHARGE TYPE 21
III-2 PRODUCTION RANGES FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY 22
II1-3 . SUMMARY OF SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
PROCESS AND ASSOCIATED WASTE STREAMS 23
V-1 WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
REFINERY FILTRATE 38
V-2 WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
SLAG LEACH SLURRY 39
V-3 WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE 40
V-4 WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR DIGESTION
OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 41
V-5 WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR EVAPORATION
AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. ... 42
V-6 WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR HYDROGEN
REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION KOH WET AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL 43
V-7 WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR HYDROFLUORINA-
TION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 44
V-8 SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY TREATMENT PLANT
INFLUENT RAW WASTEWATER SAMPLING DATA 45
V-9 SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT SAMPLING DATA 47
VI-1 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY RAW WASTEWATER . . 56
VII1-1 COST OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY DIRECT DISCHARGERS 65
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
IX-1 BPT WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 74
IX-2 BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY
URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 75
X-1 POLLUTANT REMOVAL ESTIMATES FOR DIRECT
DISCHARGERS 87
X-2 COST OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY 88
X-3 BAT WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 89
X-4 BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY
URANIUM SUBCATEGORY. . 90
XI-1 NSPS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 98
XI-2 NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY ... 99
XII-1 PSNS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 106
XII-2 PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY ... 107
vi
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
III-1 URANIUM TETRAFLUORIDE PRODUCTION PROCESS
IN THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 24
II1-2 MAGNESIUM REDUCTION PROCESS IN THE SECONDARY
URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 25
III-3 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY PLANTS 26
V-1 SAMPLING SITES AT URANIUM ORE MILL 48
IX-1 BPT TREATMENT SCHEME FOR THE SECONDARY
URANIUM SUBCATEGORY 79
X-1 BAT TREATMENT SCHEME FOR OPTION A 93
X-2 BAT TREATMENT SCHEME FOR OPTION C 94
Vii
-------
V3-1X
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Pursuant to Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement in
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train, 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C.
1976) modified, 12 ERG 1833 (D.D.C. 1979), EPA has collected and
analyzed data for plants in the secondary uranium subcategory.
EPA has never proposed or promulgated effluent limitations or
standards for this subcategory. This document and the adminis-
trative record provide the technical basis for proposing effluent
limitations based on best practicable technology (BPT) and best
available technology (BAT) for existing direct dischargers,
pretreatment standards for new indirect dischargers (PSNS), and
standards of performance for new source direct dischargers
(NSPS).
The secondary uranium subcategory is comprised of three plants.
Of the three plants, one discharges directly to a stream, and two
operate dry processes.
EPA first studied the secondary uranium subcategory to determine
whether differences in raw materials, final products, manufactur-
ing processes, equipment, age and size of plants, or water usage
required the development of separate effluent limitations and
standards for different segments of the subcategory. This
involved a detailed analysis of wastewater discharge and treated
effluent characteristics, including (1) the sources and volume of
water used, the processes used, and the sources of pollutants and
wastewaters in the plant; and (2) the constituents of waste-
waters, including toxic pollutants. As a result, seven subdivi-
sions have been identified for this subcategory that warrant
separate effluent limitations. These include:
Refinery filtrate,
Slag leach slurry,
Solvent extraction raffinate,
Digestion operation wet air pollution control,
Evaporation and calcination wet air pollution control,
Hydrogen reduction and hydrofluorination KOH wet air
pollution control, and
Hydrofluorination wet air pollution control.
EPA also identified several distinct control and treatment tech-
nologies (both in-plant and end-of-pipe) applicable to the sec-
ondary uranium subcategory. The Agency analyzed both historical
-------
and newly generated data on the performance of these technolo-
gies, including their nonwater quality environmental impacts and
air quality, solid waste generation, and energy requirements.
EPA also studied various flow reduction techniques reported in
the data collection portfolios (dcp) and plant visits.
Engineering costs were prepared for each of the control a.r
treatment options considered for the subcategory. These costs
were then used by the Agency to estimate the impact of implement-
ing the various options on the subcategory. For each control and
treatment option that the Agency found to be most effective and
technically feasible in controlling the discharge of pollutants,
we estimated the number of potential closures, number of employ-
ees affected, and impact on price. These results are reported in
a separate document entitled "The Economic Impact Analysis of
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Nonferrous Smelting and Refining Industry."
After examining the various treatment technologies, the Agency
has identified BPT to represent the average of the best existing
technology. Metals removal based on chemical precipitation and
sedimentation technology is the basis for the BPT limitations.
Steam stripping was selected as the technology basis for ammonia
limitations. To meet the BPT effluent limitations based on this
technology, the secondary uranium subcategory is expected to
incur an estimated capital cost of $28,600 and an annual cost of
$73,644.
For BAT, filtration is added as an effluent polishing step to the
BPT end-of-pipe treatment scheme. To meet the BAT effluent limi-
tations based on this technology, the secondary uranium subcate-
gory is estimated to incur a capital cost of $54,312 and an
annual cost of $86,452.
NSPS is equivalent to BAT. In selecting NSPS, EPA recognizes
that new plants have the opportunity to implement the best and
most efficient manufacturing processes and treatment technology.
As such, the technology basis of BAT has been determined as the
best demonstrated technology.
PSES is not being proposed for this subcategory because there are
no existing indirect dischargers in the secondary uranium subcat-
egory. For PSNS, the Agency selected pretreatment and end-of-
pipe treatment techniques equivalent to BAT.
The best conventional technology (BCT) replaces BAT for the con-
trol of conventional pollutants. BCT is not being proposed at
this time because the methodology for BCT has not yet been
finalized.
The mass limitations and standards for BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS
are presented in Section II.
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. EPA has divided the secondary uranium subcategory
into seven subdivisions for the purpose of effluent
limitations and standards. These subdivisions are:
(a) Refinery filtrate,
(b) Slag leach slurry,
(c) Solvent extraction raffinate,
(d) Digestion operation wet air pollution control,
(e) Evaporation and calcination wet air pollution
control,
(f) Hydrogen reduction and hydrofluorination KOH
wet air pollution control, and
(g) Hydrofluorination wet air pollution control.
2. BPT is proposed based on the performance achievable
by the application of ammonia steam stripping pre-
treatment for removal of ammonia, followed by
chemical precipitation and sedimentation technol-
ogy. The following BPT effluent limitations are
proposed:
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 15.310 6.264
Copper 66.120 34.800
Nickel 66.820 44.200
Ammonia (as N) 4,639.000 2,039.000
Fluoride 1,218.000 696.000
Uranium 139.200 78.300
Total Suspended 1,427.000 678.600
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
-------
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property _ Any One Day _ Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Uranium
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
1.672
7.220
7.296
506.500
133.000
15.200
155.800
Within the
0.684
3.800
4.826
222.700
76.000
8.550
74.100
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 2.332 0.954
Copper 10.070 5.300
Nickel 10.180 6.731
Ammonia (as N) 706.500 310.600
Fluoride 185.500 . 106.000
Uranium 21.200 11.930
Total Suspended 217.300 103.400
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
-------
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rag/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.013 0.005
Copper 0.057 0.030
Nickel 0.058 0.038
Ammonia (as N) 3.900 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.120 0.068
Total Suspended 1.230 0.585
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT MASS- LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
-------
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium
tetrafluoride produced
Chromium (total) 0.009 0.004
Copper 0.038 0.020
Nickel 0.038 0.025
Ammonia (as N) 2.666 1.172
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.080 0.045
Total Suspended 0.820 0.390
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
-------
BAT is proposed based on the performance achievable
by the application of ammonia steam stripping pre-
treatment for ammonia removal, followed by chemical
precipitation, sedimentation, and multimedia fil-
tration technology. The following BAT effluent
limitations are proposed:
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 12.880 5.220
Copper 44.550 21.230
Nickel 19.140 12.880
Ammonia (as N) 1,439.000 2,039.000
Fluoride 1,218.000 696.000
Uranium 93.260 52.550
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.406 0.570
Copper 4.864 2.318
Nickel 2.090 1.406
Ammonia (as N) 506.500 222.500
Fluoride 133.000 76.000
Uranium 10.180 5.738
-------
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.961 0.795
Copper 6.784 3.233
Nickel 2.915 1.961
Ammonia (as N) 706.500 310.600
Fluoride 185.500 106.000
Uranium 14.200 8.003
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.011 0.005
Copper 0.038 0.018
Nickel 0.017 0.011
Ammonia (as N) 3.999 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.080 0.045
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rog/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
-------
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rog/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.007 0.003
Copper 0.026 0.012
Nickel 0.011 0.007
Ammonia (as N) 2.666 1.172
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.054 0.030
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
4. NSPS are proposed based on the performance achiev-
able by the application of ammonia steam stripping
pretreatment for removal of ammonia, followed by
chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and multi-
media filtration technology. The following efflu-
ent standards are proposed for new sources:
-------
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property _ Any One Day _ Monthly Average
rag/kg (Ib/million
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Uranium
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
12.880
44. 550
19.140
4,639.000
1,218.000
93.260
522.000
Within the
5.220
21.230
12.880
2,039.000
696.000
52.550
417.600
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property _ Any One Day _ Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1 . 406 0. 570
Copper 4.864 2.318
Nickel 2.090 1.406
Ammonia (as N) 506.500 222.700
Fluoride 133.000 76.000
Uranium 1 0. 1 80 5. 738
Total Suspended 57.000 45.600
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
10
-------
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
fflg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.961 0.795
Copper 6.784 3.233
Nickel 2.915 1.961
Ammonia (as N) 706.500 310.600
Fluoride 185.500 106.000
Uranium 14.200 8.003
Total Suspended 79.500 63.600
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.011 0.005
Copper 0.038 0.018
Nickel 0.017 0.011
Ammonia (as N) 3.999 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.080 0.045
Total Suspended 0.450 0.360
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
11
-------
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rog/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride , 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.007 0.003
Copper 0.026 0.012
Nickel 0.011 0.007
Ammonia (as N) 2.666 1.172
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.054 0.030
Total Suspended 0.300 0.240
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
12
-------
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
5. PSES is not being proposed for this subcategory at
this time because there are no existing indirect
dischargers in the secondary uranium subcategory.
6. PSNS are proposed based on the performance achiev-
able by the application of ammonia steam stripping
pretreatment for removal of ammonia, followed by
chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and multi-
media filtration technology. The following pre-
treatment standards are proposed for new sources:
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 12.880 5.220
Copper 44.550 21.230
Nickel 19.140 12.880
Ammonia (as N) 4,639.000 2,039.000
Fluoride 1,218.000 696.000
Uranium 93.260 52.550
13
-------
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rog/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.406 0.570
Copper 4.864 2.318
Nickel 2.090 1.406
Ammonia (as N) 506.500 222.700
Fluoride 133.000 76.000
Uranium 10.180 5.738
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.961 0.795
Copper 6.784 3.233
Nickel 2.915 1.961
Ammonia (as N) 706.500 310.600
Fluoride 185.500 106.000
Uranium 14.200 8.003
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.011 0.005
Copper 0.038 0.018
Nickel 0.017 0.011
Ammonia (as N) 3.999 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.080 0.045
14
-------
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0. 000 0. 000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.007 0.003
Copper 0.026 0.012
Nickel 0.011 0.007
Ammonia (as N) 2.666 1.172
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.054 0.030
15
-------
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rag/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
7. EPA is not proposing BCT at this time for the
secondary uranium subcategory.
16
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION III
INDUSTRY PROFILE
This section of the secondary uranium supplement describes the
raw materials and processes used in producing secondary uranium
and presents a profile of the secondary uranium plants identified
in this study. For discussion of the purpose, authority, and
methodology for this study, and a general description of the non-
ferrous metals manufacturing category, refer to Section III of
the General Development Document.
The major use of depleted, or secondary, uranium is in ordnance
applications. The source of secondary uranium is depleted
uranium hexafluoride, UFg, resulting from enrichment of natural
uranium for nuclear applications. The high density and pyro-
phoricity of uranium metal reduced from depleted UFg make it
ideal for use in antitank and antimissile ammunition. Depleted
uranium metal is reportedly more effective than tungsten alloy
ammunition. Other uses of secondary uranium are containers for
spent nuclear reactor residues, radiation shielding applications,
ballast and counterweights on aircraft control surfaces, and
research.
DESCRIPTION OF SECONDARY URANIUM PRODUCTION
The production of secondary uranium can be divided into two
distinct stages. The first stage is production of uranium tetra-
fluoride, UF4, from secondary materials, and the second stage
is magnesium reduction of uranium tetrafluoride to pure uranium
metal. All the plants in this subcategory perform the second
stage process, but only one plant produces uranium tetrafluoride
from secondary materials. The secondary uranium production
processes are shown schematically in Figures III-1 and III-2, and
are described in the following paragraphs.
RAW MATERIALS
The raw material necessary for the production of uranium by the
magnesium reduction process is uranium tetrafluoride, UF4.
This material is generally obtained from enrichment plants which
produce uranium for nuclear energy applications. The enrichment
process involves separation of enriched UFg from depleted
UFg. Much of the depleted uranium hexafluoride is converted to
UF4 which is subsequently used as a raw material in the mag-
nesium reduction process. Uranium tetrafluoride is also produced
from uranium-bearing scrap. One of the plants in this subcate-
gory uses uranium scrap (mainly off-spec product or machining
17
-------
scrap), residues, and magnesium reduction slag as raw materials
in addition to using uranium tetrafluoride. The following
discussions describe the production of uranium from secondary
sources and the production of uranium metal from uranium
tetraflnoride in more detail.
URANIUM TETRAFLUORIDE PRODUCTION
One plant in the secondary uranium subcategory has the capacity
to manufacture uranium tetrafluoride from scrap uranium mate-
rials. This plant uses the manufactured UF4 in its magnesium
reduction operation as a supplement to \JF^ obtained from other
sources. This process is primarily a uranium recovery operation,
as the raw materials are scrap from machining operations, and
slag generated by magnesium reduction. The magnesium fluoride
slag is recycled to the recovery process whenever its residual
uranium content is economically recoverable.
The first step in the recovery process is acid leaching of the
raw materials to dissolve the uranium. Any remaining scrap or
residue is filtered out and discarded. Next, ammonia is added to
the uranium-bearing filtrate causing precipitation of an ammonium
diuranate solid. This solid is filtered and the filtrate dis-
charged to treatment. The precipitate is redissolved in acid so
that the uranium compound in solution, uranyl nitrate, UO (NO ) ,
can be extracted by an organic solvent such as kerosene/tributyl
phosphate. Following the discharge to treatment of the solvent
extraction raffinate, the purified uranyl nitrate solution is
stripped into an aqueous solution. This solution is concentrated
by evaporation and then calcined to burn off the nitrate, result-
ing in an end product of uranium trioxide, 003. The final
stage includes a hydrogen reduction process which converts U03
to uranium dioxide, U02, followed by hydrofluorination. The
hydrogen is produced by dissociating ammonia. U02 is contacted
with vaporized hydrofluoric acid at elevated temperatures. The
resulting product is uranium tetrafluoride, UF4, which is then
used in the magnesium reduction operation.
The potential waste streams associated with the production of
uranium tetrafluoride are generated in the preliminary acid
leaching steps and the solvent extraction and purification
operations. Wet air pollution controls are also used in this
process to scrub gases from the acid leaching, evaporation and
calcination, and hydrogen reduction and hydrofluorination
operations.
MAGNESIUM REDUCTION PROCESS
The magnesium reduction process is widely used to produce uranium
metal from uranium tetrafluoride. Uranium tetrafluoride is mixed
with magnesium and reduced to uranium metal in a thermite-type
-------
bomb reduction vessel. The reduction reaction requires about
three minutes and reaches a temperature around 1,900°C. The
magnesium fluoride slag and uranium metal separate and are
allowed to cool. No process water is associated with this
process, therefore no waste streams are generated.
PROCESS WASTEWATER SOURCES
Although a variety of processes are involved in secondary uranium
production, the process wastewater sources can be subdivided as
follows:
1. Refinery filtrate,
2. Slag leach slurry,
3. Solvent extraction raffinate,
4. Digestion operation wet air pollution control,
5. Evaporation and calcination wet air pollution control,
6. Hydrogen reduction and hydrofluorination KOH wet air
pollution control, and
7. Hydrofluorination wet air pollution control.
OTHER WASTEWATER SOURCES
There are other waste streams associated with the secondary
uranium subcategory. These waste streams include, but are not
limited to:
1. Stormwater runoff, and
2. Maintenance and cleanup water.
These waste streams are not considered as a part of this rulemak-
ing. EPA believes that the flows and pollutant loadings associ-
ated with these waste streams are insignificant relative to the
waste streams selected, or are best handled by the appropriate
permit authority on a case-by-case basis under authority of
Section 403 of the Clean Water Act.
AGE, PRODUCTION, AND PROCESS PROFILE
Figure III-3 shows the location of the three secondary uranium
plants operating in the United States. All three plants are on
the eastern part of the country. Table III-1 shows the relative
ages of the three plants. This shows that two plants were built
in the early years of the uranium industry, while the third plant
was built in the early 70's. It was probably built in anticipa-
tion of the growth of the uranium industry due to commercial uses
of uranium, primarily in power generation. Table III-2 gives the
yearly production ranges for the three plants in this
subcategory.
19
-------
Table III-3 provides a summary of the number of plants generating
wastewater for the waste streams associated with various pro-
cesses and the number of plants with the process.
20
-------
cd
T- O
CM| on
,_
1
1 1
M
1 1
0)
r-l
^K
AJ
cd
H
W
OH
>-i
CO EH
EH
z w
O CO
M
5* Q
OS
^! ^""
S PQ
2
3 SH
CO OS
o
x~vO
w w
O EH
Z<3
<3 U
OS PQ
» > 1 !
v ' tJ
CO
Pi
<3 S
W 3
>H M
r 1 ^f4
c. > <;
2 OS
M O
H
<;><
OS 05
W i
oo
C C
CO -r^
os
\_X Q)
Ct(
t, .**
Cd^
0) 4J
K^_J r*
* §
00 r-l
C O-i
1 k y
^ ^^^
4J
cd
j-i
0)
O4
o
1 1
CO
1-1
4->
iH
C
1 1
s-~\
i m
CO ON en
m r-
« T- CO
x^
«- O O| i-
^^
1 O
00
»- T- CSl
v^
0 0 <-! i-
s-^
i m
00 CTi CM
vo m i
O> O\ vO
s^
O O 0| 0
i m
CO CT\ T-
r^- vo i
co > H
0 Q
o
EH
21
-------
CO
4->
i-l H C
cfl 0) cfl
4J 42 r-l
O B PH
H S
Z M-l
O
^ O
CM|
CM
1
I 1
1 1
1 1
0)
i-l
rQ
Cfl
H
£
t-M
O
O
w
H
<:
O
PQ
1 V
M-J
co
a
3
**<
Oi
3
><
0!
<
Q
Z
O
O
w
CO
w
33
H
05
O
PM
CO
w
O
z
O
1 1
H
O
3
Q
O
05
0,
CM
00
CT>
»
I-l
O
M-l
0)
(X
C
cfl
05
C
O
I-l
4J
O
2
T3
O
1-1
PM
e
s
rH
C
cfl
H
3
0
O.
/^*
0 >J
- >
oo **.
I CO
r- C
0 O
O 4J
\O
0
O /-x
0 H
- >
o -^
1 CO
»- C
0 O
O 4-1
N^
*
0
O s-^.
0 H
- >>
>*^
1 CO
<- C
O O
iTl 4-)
.N_/
^"
S~\
O 5-i
0 >
m
« CO
«- c
1 O
O 4->
v^
i- O
O t-
O T-
(U
co
4-J OC|
M
O Q
4J
O
O
CU
22
-------
C 0)
CO 00 O 4-)
Jj 4J C -H CO
OJ C -H 4-> ^
^Q CO 4J CO Ol
§ r-l l-l l-l 4J
A< O O> CO
cd
*w 01
O 05
(4-1
O
O i-
(0
I
4J
CO
s
4)
4-1
CO
CO
TJ
H
l-l
O
r-l
M-4
cd
l-l
4-1
O>
H
i-i
C
cd
r"J
CD
OJ
4J
cO
l-l
4_>
r I
2!
^-»
M
01
(3
rl
tit
Ol
OS
1
^,
M
l-i
3
r-l
CO
^
O
cd
0)
,-J
t»C
cd
i-H
CO
1
Ol
4J
cd
C
1-1
IH
14-4
cd
«
C
o
i-i
4-1
O
cd
l-i
X
W
4-1
C
0)
^
l-l
o
CO
1
r Pollution
H
3
WfH
1
rofluorination
rol
TJ 4-1
*e
fC 0
0
-o
c c
cO O
r-l
C !->
O 3
rl r-l
4J r-l
0 O
TJ
CO i-l
01
O O*
n t»o
o cd
cd js
r-l O
CX CO
c-o
o
r-l 4J
4-1 O
CO C
O 4J
CO &
0) CO
CO
O O
o
0) l-i
CO CX
01 V-i
r-l CO
ecu
O 4J
H a
23
-------
To Atmosphere
Waste liquor
co Treatment
Scrap Metal, Residues. MsF- Slag
Acid.
Slag Leach Slurry
to Treatment (Only
Produced When Slat
is Being Processed)
Refinery Filtrate
to Treatment
Waste
Liquor
Vaporized HF
Magnesium Reduction
Operation
Figure III-l
URANIUM TETRAFLUORIDE PRODUCTION PROCESS
IN THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
24
-------
UF,
Mg
Blending UF,
and Mg Metal
\
r
Charging or
Preheating UF,
and Mg Blend
1
t
Magnesium
Reduction
Furnace
\
i
Separation
and
Air Cooling
\
r
Derby
Casting
I
"MgF? Removed
Uranium Product
Figure III-2
MAGNESIUM REDUCTION PROCESS IN THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
25
-------
26
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGOR
As discussed in Section IV of the i
the nonferrous metals manufacturin
gorized to take into account perti:
which affect the ability of the fa
limitations. This section summari
during the designation of the secoi
its related subdivisions. Product
each subdivision will also be disci
FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SUBCATEGORIZ^
The following factors were evaluat
the nonferrous metals manufacturinj
1. Metal products, co-produ
2. Raw materials;
3. Manufacturing processes;
4. Product form;
5. Plant location;
6. Plant age;
7. Plant size;
8. Air pollution control me
9. Meteorological condition
10. Treatment costs;
11. Nonwater quality aspects
12. Number of employees;
13. Total energy requirement
14. Unique plant characteris
Evaluation of all factors that cou
resulted in the designation of the
Three factors were particularly imp
classifications: the type of meta
ZATION
eneral Development Document,
category has been subcate-
ent industry characteristics,
ilities to achieve effluent
es the factors considered
dary uranium subcategory and
on normalizing parameters for
ssed.
TION
d for use in subcategorizing
category:
ts, and by-products;
lods;
; and
ics.
d warrant subcategorization
secondary uranium subcategory,
ortant in establishing these
produced, the nature of the
raw material used, and the manufacturing processes involved.
In Section IV of the General Development Document, each of these
factors is described, and the rationale for selecting metal prod-
uct, manufacturing process, and raw materials as the principal
factors used for subcategorization is discussed. On this basis,
the nonferrous metals manufacturing category (phase II) was
divided into 21 subcategories, one of them being secondary
uranium.
27
-------
FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SUBDIVIDING THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATE-
GORY
The factors listed previously were each evaluated when consider-
ing subdivision of the secondary uranium subcategory. In the
discussion that follows, the factors will be described as they
pertain to this particular subcategory.
The rationale for considering further subdivision of the second-
ary uranium subcategory is based primarily on differences in the
production processes and raw materials used. Within this subcat-
egory a number of different operations are performed which may or
may not have a water use or discharge, and which may require the
establishment of separate effluent limitations. While secondary
uranium is still considered a single subcategory, a more thorough
examination of the production processes has illustrated the need
for limitations and standards based on specific flow allowances
for the following subdivisions:
1. Refinery filtrate,
2. Slag leach slurry,
3. Solvent extraction raffinate,
4. Digestion operation wet air pollution control,
5. Evaporation and calcination wet air pollution control,
6. Hydrogen reduction and hydrofluorination KOH wet air
pollution control, and
7. Hydrofluorination wet air pollution control.
These subdivisions follow directly from differences within the
process of refining scrap, residues, and slag to produce uranium
tetrafluoride for use in magnesium reduction to uranium metal.
Leaching of the raw materials gives rise to the first, second,
and fourth subdivisions. A major source of wastewater is the
filtrate that is generated by leaching uranium from the raw
materials and precipitating uranium diuranate. When slag is
used, the residual solids are discharged as a slurry which may be
a significant source of pollutants. Wastewater from scrubbers
which are used to control acid fumes in the leaching operation is
also a source of pollutants.
Solvent extraction is used in the refining process to purify a
uranium intermediate product. Solvent extraction results in a
raffinate waste stream that contains significant quantities of
pollutants.
The last three subdivisions arise from wet air pollution controls
which control emissions from the processes used to refine scrap,
residues, and slag to a usable product. Evaporation, calcina-
tion, hydrogen reduction, and hydrofluorination are all opera-
tions that necessitate air pollution control systems. In some
28
-------
cases, water use is recycled into the process rather than dis-
charged. The potential sources of wastewater and associated
pollutants require that each subdivision be examined and handled
on an individual basis.
OTHER FACTORS
The other factors considered in this evaluation either support
the establishment of the seven subdivisions or were shown to be
inappropriate bases for subdivision. Air pollution control
methods, treatment costs, and total energy requirements are func-
tions of the selected subcategorization factors--metal product,
raw materials, and production processes. Therefore, they are not
independent factors and do not affect the subcategorization which
has been applied. As discussed in Section IV of the General
Development Document, certain other factors, such as plant age,
plant size, and the number of employees, were also evaluated and
determined to be inappropriate for use as bases for subdivision
of nonferrous metals plants.
PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETERS
As discussed previously, the effluent limitations and standards
developed in this document establish mass limitations on the dis-
charge of specific pollutant parameters. To allow these regula-
tions to be applied to plants with various production capacities,
the mass of pollutant discharged must be related to a unit of
production. This factor is known as the production normalizing
parameter (PNP).
In general, for each production process which has a wastewater
associated with it, the actual mass of uranium intermediate
product produced will be used as the PNP. Thus, the PNPs for the
seven subdivisions are as follows:
Subdivision PNP
1. Refinery filtrate kkg of uranium trioxide
produced
2. Slag leach slurry kkg of uranium trioxide
produced
3. Solvent extraction raffinate kkg of uranium trioxide
produced
4. Digestion operation wet air kkg of uranium trioxide
pollution control produced
29
-------
Subdivision PNP
5. Evaporation and calcination kkg of uranium trioxide
wet air pollution control produced
6. Hydrogen reduction and kkg of uranium tetrafluoride
hydrofluorination KOH wet produced
air pollution control
7. Hydrofluorination wet air kkg of uranium tetrafluoride
pollution control produced
30
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WAbTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
This section describes the characteristics of the wastewaters
associated with the secondary uranium subcategory. Water use and
discharge rates are explained and then summarized in tables at
the end of this section. Data used to characterize the waste-
waters are presented. Finally, the specific source, water use
and discharge flows, and wastewater characteristics for each
separate wastewater source are discussed.
Section V of the General Development Document contains a detailed
description of the data sources and methods of analysis used to
characterize wastewater from the nonferrous metals manufacturing
category. To summarize this information briefly, two principal
data sources were used: data collection portfolios (dcp) and
field sampling results. Data collection portfolios contain
information regarding wastewater flows and production levels.
Field sampling was not performed for the secondary uranium sub-
category. In order to conduct an analysis of the subcategory
waste streams, the concentrations of toxic pollutants in the
wastewaters must be known. Since direct sampling data are not
available, data for use in this subcategory was obtained from
pilot plant raw wastewater characterization studies conducted at
a uranium ore mill. The ore mill uses an acid leaching process
to extract uranium from the ore. For this reason, it was judged
that the data could be applied, with limitations, to the process
waters generated in this subcategory. The data consist of
analyses for two classes of pollutants: toxic metal pollutants,
and criteria pollutants (which includes both conventional and
nonconventional pollutants). Samples were not analyzed for toxic
organic pollutants because it was not expected that organic
pollutants would be present in wastewaters generated in uranium
ore mill processing. For the same reason, cyanide, asbestos, and
TCDD were not analyzed.
As described in Section IV of this supplement, the secondary
uranium subcategory has been split into seven subdivisions or
wastewater sources, so that the proposed regulation contains mass
discharge limitations and standards for seven unit processes
discharging process wastewater. Differences in the wastewater
characteristics associated with these subdivisions are to be
expected. For this reason, wastewater streams corresponding to
each subdivision are addressed separately in the discussions that
follow. These wastewater sources are:
31
-------
1. Refinery filtrate,
2. Slag leach slurry,
3. Solvent extraction raffinate,
4. Digestion operation wet air pollution control,
5. Evaporation and calcination wet air pollution control,
6. Hydrogen reduction and hydrofluorination KOH wet air
pollution control, and
7. Hydrofluorination wet air pollution control.
WASTEWATER FLOW RATES
Data supplied by dcp responses were evaluated, and two flow-to-
production ratios, water use and wastewater discharge flow, were
calculated for each stream. The two ratios are differentiated by
the flow value used in calculation. Water use is defined as the
volume of water or other fluid required for a given process per
mass of uranium product and is therefore based on the sum of
recycle and make-up flows to a given process. Wastewater flow
discharged after pretreatment or recycle (if these are present)
is used in calculating the production normalized flowthe volume
of wastewater discharged from a given process to further treat-
ment, disposal, or discharge per mass of uranium produced. Dif-
ferences between the water use and wastewater flows associated
with a given stream result from recycle, evaporation, and carry-
over on the product. The production values used in calculation
correspond to the production normalizing parameter, PNP, assigned
to each stream, as outlined in Section IV. As an example,
refinery filtrate wastewater flow is related to the production of
uranium trioxide. As such, the discharge rate is expressed in
liters of refinery filtrate per metric ton of uranium trioxide
produced (gallons of refinery filtrate per ton of uranium
trioxide).
The production normalized discharge flows were compiled and sta-
tistically analyzed by stream type. These production normalized
water use and discharge flows are presented by subdivision in
Tables V-1 through V-7 at the end of this section. Where appro-
priate, an attempt was made to identify factors that could
account for variations in water use and discharge rates. These
variations are discussed later in this section by subdivision. A
similar analysis of factors affecting the wastewater flows is
presented in Sections X, XI, and XII where representative BAT,
NSPS, and pretreatment flows are selected for use in calculating
the effluent limitations.
The water use and discharge rates shown do not include nonprocess
wastewater, such as rainfall runoff and noncontact cooling water.
32
-------
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS DATA
Data used to characterize the various wastewaters associated with
secondary uranium production come from two sources--data collec-
tion portfolios and analytical data from sampling.
DATA COLLECTION PORTFOLIOS
In the data collection portfolios, the secondary uranium plants
were asked to specify the presence or absence of toxic pollutants
in their wastewater. Of the three secondary uranium plants, two
plants do not generate process wastewater because they use a dry
production process. The plant responding to this questionnaire
did not report the presence of any toxic organic pollutants. The
responses for the toxic metals and cyanide are summarized below:
Believed Present
(Based on Raw Materials and
Pollutant Known Present Process Chemicals Used)
Antimony 0 0
Arsenic 0 0
Beryllium 0 0
Cadmium 0 0
Chromium 1 0
Copper 1 0
Cyanide 0 0
Lead 0 0
Mercury 0 0
Nickel 1 0
Selenium 0 0
Silver 0 0
Thallium 0 0
Zinc 0 0
FIELD SAMPLING DATA
In order to quantify the concentrations of pollutants present in
wastewater from secondary uranium plants, analytical data are
used. Since none of the secondary uranium plants were sampled,
analytical data from a. uranium ore mill are being used to charac-
terize the .wastewaters of the secondary uranium subcategory. A
diagram indicating the sampling sites and contributing production
processes is shown in Figure V-1 (at the end of this section).
Raw wastewater data are presented in Table V-8. In this table,
analytical results are given for the combined wastewater influent
to the treatment system. Table V-9 presents analytical data on
the treated effluent prior to being discharged. Note that the
stream numbers listed in the tables correspond to those given in
33
-------
the plant sampling site diagram, Figure V-1. Where no data are
listed for a specific day, the wastewater samples for the stream
were not collected.
Several points regarding these tables should be noted. First,
the data tables include some samples measured at concentrations
considered not quantifiable. Toxic metal values reported as less
than a certain value were considered not quantifiable.
Second, the detection limits shown on the data tables for toxic
metals and conventional and nonconventional pollutants are not
the same in all cases as the published detection limits for these
pollutants by the same analytical methods. The detection limits
used were reported with the analytical data and hence are the
appropriate limits to apply to the data. Detection limit varia-
tion can occur as a result of a number of laboratory-specific,
equipment-specific, and daily operator-specific factors. These
factors can include day-to-day differences in machine calibra-
tion, variation in stock solutions, and variation in operators.
Third, the statistical analysis of data includes some samples
measured at concentrations considered not quantifiable. For data
considered as detected but below quantifiable concentrations, a
value of zero is used for averaging. Nonconventional and conven-
tional pollutant data reported with a "less than" sign are con-
sidered as detected, but not further quantifiable. A value of
zero, is used for averaging. Toxic metal values reported as less
than a certain value were considered as below quantification, and
consequently were assigned a value of zero in the calculation of
the average.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FLOWS BY SUBDIVISION
Since secondary uranium production involves seven principal
sources of wastewater and each has potentially different charac-
teristics and flows, the wastewater characteristics and discharge
rates corresponding to each subdivision will be described sepa-
rately. A brief description of why the associated production
processes generate a wastewater will also be discussed.
REFINERY FILTRATE
The source of this waste stream is in the refinery digestion
operation. Here the uranium scrap, residues, and compounds are
acid leached, dissolving the uranium into solution. The residual
solids are filtered and disposed as a filter cake. Ammonia is
then added to the filtrate to precipitate the uranium as an
ammonium diuranate solid. This solid is filtered and further
processed. The filtrate is discharged to the treatment system.
34
-------
The production normalized water use and discharge rates for
refinery filtrate are given in Table V-1 in liters per metric ton
of uranium trioxide produced.
This waste stream was not sampled at a secondary uranium produc-
tion plant. As previously mentioned, data were obtained from a
uranium ore mill which uses an acid leaching operation to extract
uranium from ore. Based on the similarities between these two
waste streams, the refinery filtrate waste stream may be expected
to contain treatable concentrations of toxic metals such as
copper and nickel, treatable concentrations of suspended solids,
ammonia, and an acidic pH.
SLAG LEACH SLURRY
This waste stream originates in the refinery digestion operation.
The slag that is used in the leaching operation comes from the
magnesium reduction process. The magnesium fluoride slag con-
tains residual levels of uranium and when it is economically
advantageous to do so, the slag is acid leached to recover the
uranium. After leaching, the remaining slag solids are filtered
and discharged to treatment as a slurry. The filtrate is then
combined with the uranium-bearing spent acid from other leaching
operations and goes through further processing. The production
normalized water use and discharge rates for slag leach slurry
are given in Table V-2 in liters per metric ton of uranium
trioxide produced.
Since no sampling data are available from the secondary uranium
industry, the wastewater characteristics of the slag leaching
slurry will be based on sampling data from a uranium ore mill.
Judging from the data, presented in Table V-8, the slag leach
slurry can be characterized by treatable concentrations of toxic
metals, fluoride, suspended solids, and acidic pH.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE
Solvent extraction follows the acid leaching operation and is
used for purification of the uranium compound. An organic
solvent, tributyl phosphate in a kerosene carrier, is used to
selectively extract the uranium compound from an acid solution.
The solvent extraction raffinate is discharged to treatment.
Table V-3 presents the production normalized water use and
discharge rates for the solvent extraction raffinate in liters
per metric ton of uranium trioxide produced.
Although this waste stream was not directly sampled, it can be
expected, based on the materials present in the process and the
process operation, that the solvent extraction raffinate waste
stream can be characterized by acidic pH and significant con-
centrations of some toxic metal pollutants, as well as ammonia.
35
-------
EPA also recognizes the possibility that organics from the
solvent extraction process may be carried over to the raffinate
stream and thus be present in the discharge. Based on data,
comments, and other information to be received prior to promul-
gation, EPA may find it necessary to regulate toxic organics in
this subcategory. The Agency solicits comments and data from the
industry in this regard.
DIGESTION OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
The acid leach operation, at the start of the uranium scrap,
residue, and slag refining process, includes a water scrubbing
system to control the discharge of acidic fumes and particulate
matter. The scrubber liquor is completely recycled within the
system until its scrubbing efficiency drops, then it is batch
discharged to treatment. The production normalized water use and
discharge flows for digestion operation scrubber water are pre-
sented in Table V-4 in liters per metric ton of uranium trioxide
produced.
This waste stream was not sampled at a. secondary uranium produc-
tion plant. Although no data are available, it is expected,
based on the process operation and the materials involved, that
the digestion operation scrubber water would be characterized by
acidic pH, treatable concentrations of suspended solids, and some
toxic metal pollutants.
EVAPORATION AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Multiple scrubbers are used to control vapors and fumes from the
evaporation and calcination operations. Evaporation is used to
concentrate the uranium solution (uranyl nitrate) after it has
been stripped from the organic phase into an aqueous phase.
After the evaporation operation, the concentrated intermediate
uranium product is calcined to drive off the nitrate bound to the
uranium and produce uranium trioxide in a dry form. The nitrates
in the air react to form nitric acid, and the scrubbers are used
to control these acid fumes. Table V-5 shows the production
normalized water use and discharge rates for the combined system
of scrubbers.
Because the scrubber liquor is relatively clean, and due to its
acid content, it is recycled for use in the digestion operation.
There it is used to dilute fresh acid that is used for acid
leaching. Because the scrubber liquor is entirely reused, no
discharge of wastewater is practiced in the evaporation and
calcination operations.
36
-------
HYDROGEN REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION KOH WET AIR POLLUTI N
CONTROL
This scrubber handles gas emissions from both the hydrogen
reduction and hydrofluorination operations. The first opera ion
includes cracking ammonia so that uranium trioxide can be re uced
by the hydrogen gas to uranium dioxide. This product then v der-
goes hydrofluorination and is converted to uranium tetrafluc ide.
The gases produced in both operations are scrubbed by this a r
pollution control unit. Production normalized water use and dis-
charge rates are presented in Table V-6 in liters per metric ton
of uranium tetrafluoride produced.
This waste stream was not sampled in the secondary uranium s b-
category. Considering the production processes contributing to
the exhaust gases cleaned by this scrubber, it is expected t at
this scrubber liquor would be characterized by suspended sol ds,
fluoride, and acidic pH.
HYDROFLUORINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
The hydrofluorination unit produces uranium tetrafluoride by
contacting uranium dioxide with vaporized hydrofluoric acid t
elevated temperatures. The off-gases from this operation cc tain
significant quantities of unreacted hydrofluoric acid. The
scrubber on this unit scrubs the acid fumes from the operati n by
absorbing the hydrofluoric acid in the scrubber liquor. Tab e
V-7 shows the production normalized water use and discharge ates
in liters per metric ton of uranium tetrafluoride produced.
Since the hydrofluorination scrubber cleans what is predomir ntly
vaporized unreacted hydrofluoric acid, the scrubber liquor c n-
centrates this acid as it is recycled through the system. V en
the desired concentration of hydrofluoric acid is attained, he
liquor is drawn off and sold for industrial use. For this
reason, no discharge of wastewater occurs from the hydrofluc -
ination operation.
37
-------
Table V-1
WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
REFINERY FILTRATE
(1,000 1/kkg of uranium trioxide produced)
Production
Production Normalized
Percent Normalized Discharge
Plant Code Recycle Water Use Flow
1175 0 34.8 34.8
38
-------
Table V-2
WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
SLAG LEACH SLURRY
(1,000 1/kkg of uranium trioxide produced)
Production
Production Normalized
Percent Normalized Discharge
Plant Code Recycle Water Use Flow
1175 0 3.8 3.8
39
-------
Table V-3
WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE
(1,000 1/kkg of uranium trioxide produced)
Production
Production Normalized
Percent Normalized Discharge
Plant Code Recycle Water Use Flow
1175 0 5.3 5.3
40
-------
Table V-4
WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
DIGESTION OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
(1,000 1/kkg of uranium trioxide produced)
Production
Production Normalized
Percent Normalized Discharge
Plant Code Recycle Water Use Flow
1175 NR NR 0.030
NR - Present but data not reported in dcp,
41
-------
Table V-5
WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
EVAPORATION AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
(1,000 1/kkg of uranium trioxide produced)
Production
Production Normalized
Percent Normalized Discharge
Plant Code Recycle Water Use Flow
1175 100 NR 0
NR - Present but data not reported in dcp,
42
-------
Table V-6
WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
HYDROGEN REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION
KOH WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
(1,000 1/kkg of uranium tetrafluoride produced)
Production
Production Normalized
Percent Normalized Discharge
Plant Code Recycle Water Use Flow
1175 NR NR 0.020
NR - Present but data not reported in dcp.
43
-------
Table V-7
WATER USE AND DISCHARGE RATES FOR
HYDROFLUORINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
(1,000 1/kkg of uranium tetrafluoride produced)
Production
Production Normalized
Percent Normalized Discharge
Plant Code Recycle Water Use Flow
1175 100 NR 0
NR - Present but data not reported in dcp
44
-------
PO
CO
Q
CM
M
£a
CO
C
O
4->
CO
S-i
4J
a*
o
c
o
o
d)
vO
00
CM
*
CO
o
V
m
CM
ro
o
m
o
ro
CM
O
O
O
*
O
V
O v-
rH
XI
CO
H
H W O
^ ' * ^I
U iJ t-l
gtt) (J
25 0_i
CO rH S
*5
ggw
W^ft f^
^L (£|
55 1-3 W
^^ CXj f-ii
S <
Sj r_l r i
>^* W t-l .
PS S co
0
r-l »-
PL 0)
e a
cO >,
CO H
cO 0)
->
c
o
s
H
4-1
q
cO
*~
O -H
H r-l
C rH
0) r^
CO r4
J_j Q)
CO Xl
m r^
i ^~
g
3
H
s
CO
0
oo
"~~
cO
4J
0
4->
^^
s
H
e
o
S-i
o
cr>
*~
j_i
r-l
rH CO
*f*i t^^l
CO 4J
vo r-v
CM CM
0
.,_(
N
00
CM
45
-------
o
c
o
o
MlH
B
CO
£
o
o o
vO O
r^ CM
,-" CM
CM CO
oo
^ o
o
o
v£>
00 '-
r^
O '-
CO
-O
C
O
o
V
m
4J
cO
si
00
c
H
I
(0
CO
CO
CO
0)
3
c
H
4-)
C
o
o
00
i
0)
r-l
0)
r-1 +-
ex ai
IS
COH
CO 0>
c
o
U
c
o
cO
e:
o
V4
r-l
manganese
1
T3
^J
r>%
r-l
O
0
sulfate
C/2
Q
H
^-s
CO
-o
r-l
r-l
O
CO
-o
0>
>
r-l
O
CO
CO
H
T3
rH
CO
4J
O
4J
uranium
vanadium
1 Pollutants
cO
C
Conventio
vn
CO
H
^s
CO
"O
r-l
r-l
O
CO
TD
O
4J
<~y
CO
u
I-l
C
3
13
t-4
cO
o
c3
4J
CO
\~s
M
0-
*
|
o
c
js
H
0)
r-4
it
cO
CO
0)
J-l
o
@ V4
3 co
t-4 i-l
C1
CO 0
VJ-H
^ CO
cO
C CO
^
r-l r-l
CX4J
-------
co
CO
Q
CM
00
o£
4J
cO
C
CU
O
C
o
o
0 H
(0
0)
CO
00 O
m i o r^ m co
!» CM « «
« CO «tf CTi CM i
III III
O O CO v£> O O O
cr> co oo cr> ro CM
o o o o o
m
CU
co
C
?0
cu
cu
co
cu
CX
e
CO
PQ
WH
HC5
CU
I-l
.0
cO
e?H
CO
0)
1-1 «-
CX CU
B CX|
CO f
0)
CO
a)
m m m in m
CM CM CM CM CM
m in m m m m m
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
M-l
cu
cu
CO
4J
C
cO
o
CX
CO
4J
C
cO
4J
G
4-1
P CO
_J ^1
rH C
0 CO
pL| 4-1
p
r-f
iH
0
(X,
CJ
«J
r"i
o
H
0)
4J
O
4J
^^
g
p
f-l
}_l
_c*{
CJ
C^
T
T-
^
CU
a -o
CX CO
o cu
CJ i-l
O CM
CM CM
V~ T
I-l
CU
r^ O
O G
G N
sf oo
CN CM
» *
i-l
r-l
0
P-)
CO
G
O
i-i
4J
pj
CU
O
C
o
^z,
cO
rj
O
^
H
C
0) p
co C
cu cu
G t3
cO £>
OC f>s
C ^H
CO O
E B
Q
H
CO
-_ i
T"!
r-l
O
CO
TJ
CU
O
CO
CO
H
"° §
rH -i-l
cO C
4J CO
0 Vj
4-* p
G2
p
H
*O
cC
p
cO
>
o
G
cu
CX
cu
r-l
CX
§
CO
cO
cu
cu
CO
o
M-l
-o
cu
4-1
o
a
0)
CO
cu
&0
C
(0
cu
4-)
o
47
-------
Acid-
Other
Materials
Discharge
!_£
Acid
Leaching
Purification
and
Concentration
n.25
I
Ore Mill Product
Solids
Uranium Ore
Spent Acid
Waste Stream
3
)'" ~
^
*
Filtration
Neutralization,
Flocculatlon,
Sedimentation
1
Solids
Figure V-1
SAMPLING SITES AT URANIUM ORE MILL
48
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Section V of this supplement presented data which were used for
the secondary uranium subcategory. This section examines that
data and discusses the selection or exclusion of pollutants for
potential limitation.
Each pollutant selected for potential limitation is discussed in
Section VI of the General Development Document. That discussion
provides information concerning the nature of the pollutant
(i.e., whether it is a naturally occurring substance, processed
metal, or a manufactured compound); general physical properties
and the form of the pollutant; toxic effects of the pollutant in
humans and other animals; and behavior of the pollutant in POTW
at the concentrations expected in industrial discharges.
The discussion that follows presents and briefly discusses the
selection of conventional and nonconventional pollutants for
effluent limitations. Also described is the analysis that was
performed to select or exclude, toxic pollutants for further con-
sideration for limitations and standards. Pollutants will be
considered for limitation if they are present in concentrations
treatable by the technologies considered in this analysis. The
treatable concentrations used for the toxic metals were the long-
term performance values achievable by chemical precipitation,
sedimentation, and filtration. The treatable concentrations used
for the toxic organics were the long-term performance values
achievable by carbon adsorption (see Section VII of the General
Development Document - Combined Metals Data Base).
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIQNAL POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
This study examined samples for two conventional pollutant param-
eters (total suspended solids and pH) and several nonconventional
pollutant parameters.
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT PARAMETERS SELECTED
The conventional and nonconventional pollutants or pollutant
parameters selected for limitation in the secondary uranium
subcategory are:
49
-------
ammonia
fluoride
uranium
total suspended solids (TSS)
pH
Ammonia is used in the uranium scrap processing operation fol-
lowing acid leaching. To extract dissolved uranium present in
the spent leaching acid, ammonia is added to precipitate a
uranium-ammonia complex. This precipitate is filtered and the
filtrate discharged. Although there are no analytical data of
this waste stream, it is expected that substantial concentrations
of residual ammonia could be present in the filtrate and thus be
discharged. For this reason, ammonia is selected for limitation
in the secondary uranium subcategory.
Based on an examination of the raw materials and production pro-
cesses employed in the secondary uranium subcategory, it is
expected that significant concentrations of fluoride are present
in the wastewater generated in this subcategory. To produce ura-
nium tetrafluoride, uranium dioxide is reacted with hot vaporized
hydrofluoric acid. The reaction gases, containing unreacted
hydrofluoric acid, are scrubbed with either water or a caustic
scrubber, the latter being discharged to treatment. It is in
these liquors that fluoride is expected to be concentrated. For
this reason, fluoride is selected for limitation in this
subcategory.
Analytical data for uranium are present in the sampling data
transferred to this subcategory from a uranium ore mill. The
data show concentrations of uranium in the combined raw waste-
water that are treatable by chemical precipitation and sedimenta-
tion technology (17 mg/1 and 19.8 mg/1). It is expected that
treatable concentrations of uranium will also be present in
wastewaters of the secondary uranium subcategory because of
uranium's solubility in acid. Acid solutions are commonly
present in uranium scrap processing operations so it is likely
that uranium is present in wastewaters from those operations.
Therefore, uranium is selected for limitation in this
subcategory.
TSS concentrations of 40 and 168 mg/1 were observed in the two
raw waste samples analyzed for this study. These concentrations
are well above the 2.6 mg/1 treatable concentration. Most of the
specific methods used to remove toxic metals do so by converting
these metals to precipitates, and these toxic-metal-containing
precipitates should not be discharged. Meeting a limitation on
total suspended solids helps ensure that removal of these precip-
itated toxic metals has been effective. For these reasons, total
suspended solids are selected for limitation in this subcategory.
50
-------
The pH values observed during this study were 1.6 and 1.7. Both
of these values are outside the 7.5 to 10.0 range considered
desirable for discharge to receiving waters. Many deleterious
effects are caused by extreme pH values or rapid changes in pH.
Also, effective removal of toxic metals by precipitation requires
careful control of pH. Since pH control within the desirable
limits is readily attainable by available treatment, pH is
selected for limitation in this subcategory.
TOXIC POLLUTANTS
The frequency of occurrence of the toxic pollutants in the raw
wastewater samples taken is presented in Table VI-1. Table VI-1
is based on the raw wastewater data from stream 113 (see Section
V). These data provide the basis for the categorization of
specific pollutants, as discussed below. Treatment plant samples
were not considered in the frequency count. Note that sampling
was not done for any organic toxic pollutants.
TOXIC POLLUTANTS NEVER DETECTED
The toxic pollutants listed below were not detected in any raw
wastewater samples from this subcategory; therefore, they are not
selected for consideration in establishing limitations:
1. acenaphthene*
2. acrolein*
3. acrylonitrile*
4. benzene*
5. benzidine*
6. carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)*
7. chlorobenzene*
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene*
9. hexachlorobenzene*
10. 1,2-dichloroethane*
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane*
12. hexachloroethane*
13. 1,1-dichloroethane*
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane*
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane*
16. chloroethane*
17. bis (chloromethyl) ether (deleted)*
18. bis (2-chloroethyl) ether*
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)*
20. 2-chloronaphthalene*
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol*
22. parachlorometa cresol*
23. chloroform (trichloromethane)*
24. 2-chlorophenol*
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene*
51
-------
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene*
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene*
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine*
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene*
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene*
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol*
32. 1,2-dichloropropane*
33. 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)*
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol*
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene*
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene*
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine*
38. ethylbenzene*
39. fluoranthene*
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether*
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether*
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether*
43. bis(2-choroethoxy) methane*
44. methylene chloride (dichloromethane)*
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)*
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)*
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)*
48. dichlorobromomethane*
49. trichlorofluoromethane (deleted)*
50. dichlorodifluoromethane (deleted)*
51. chlorodibromomethane*
52. hexachlorobutadiene*
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene*
54. isophorone*
5 5. naphthalen e*
56. nitrobenzene*
57. 2-nitrophenol*
58. 4-nitrophenol*
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol*
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol*
61. N-nitrosodimethylamine*
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine*
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine*
64. pentachlorophenol*
65. phenol*
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate*
67. butyl benzyl phthalate*
68. di-n-butyl phthalate*
69. di-n-octyl phthalate*
70. diethyl phthalate*
71. dimethyl phthalate*
72. benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)*
73. benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)*
74. 3,4-benzofluoranthene*
75. benzo(k)fluoranthane (11,12-benzofluoranthene)*
52
-------
76. chrysene*
77. acenaphthylene*
78. anthracene*
79. benzo(ghi)perylene (1,11-benzoperylene)*
80. fluorene*
81. phenanthrene*
82. dibenzo (a,h)anthracene (1, 2, 5, 6-dibenzanthracene)*
83. indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene (w,e,-o-phenylenepyrene)*
84. pyrene*
85. tetrachloroethylene*
86. toluene*
87. trichloroethylene*
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)*
89. aldrin*
90. dieldrin*
91. chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)*
92. 4, 4'-DDT*
93. 4,4'-DDE(p,p'DDX)*
94. 4,4'-DDD(p,p'TDE)*
95. a-endosulfan-Alpha*
96. b-endosulfan-Beta*
97. endosulfan sulfate*
98. endrin*
99. endrin aldehyde*
100. heptachlor*
101. heptachlor epoxide*
102. a-Alpha-BHC*
103. b-Beta-BHC*
104. r-Gamma-BHC(lindane)*
105. g-Delta-BHC*
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)*
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)*
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)*
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)*
110. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)*
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)*
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)*
113. toxaphene*
116. asbestos (Fibrous)
121. cyanide (Total)*
129. 2, 3, 7,8-tetra chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
*We did not analyze for these pollutants in samples of raw
wastewater from this subcategory. These pollutants are not
believed to be present based on the Agency's best engineering
judgement which includes consideration of raw materials and
process operations.
53
-------
TOXIC POLLUTANTS NEVER FOUND ABOVE THEIR ANALYTICAL QUANTIFICA-
TION CONCENTRATION
The toxic pollutants listed below were never found above their
analytical quartification concentration in any raw wastewater
samples from this subcategory; therefore, they are not selected
for consideration in establishing limitations.
114. antimony
123. mercury
126. silver
127. thallium
TOXIC POLLUTANTS PRESENT BELOW CONCENTRATIONS ACHIEVABLE BY
TREATMENT
The toxic pollutant listed below is not selected for considera-
tion in establishing limitations because it was not found in any
raw wastewater samples from this subcategory above concentrations
considered achievable by existing or available treatment
technologies.
117. beryllium
Beryllium was detected below its treatability concentration of
0.20 mg/1 in one raw wastewater sample analyzed. The sample
contained 0.03 mg/1 beryllium; therefore, there is no reason to
further consider beryllium for limitation.
TOXIC POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN ESTABLISH-
ING LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
The toxic pollutants listed below are selected for further con-
sideration in establishing limitations and standards for this
subcategory. The toxic pollutants selected for further consider-
ation for limitation are each discussed following the list.
11 5. arsenic
118. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
122. lead
124. nickel
125. selenium
128. zinc
Arsenic was detected above its treatability concentration of 0.34
mg/1 in one sample. This sample showed 2.5 mg/1 arsenic in the
raw wastewater. Therefore, arsenic is selected for further con-
sideration for limitation.
54
-------
Cadmium was detected slightly above its treatable concentration
in a sample containing 0.05 mg/1. Treatability for cadmium
begins at 0.049 mg/1; thus, cadmium is selected for further
consideration for limitation.
Chromium was detected above its treatability concentration in two
samples analyzed. The analytical data showed 0.67 mg/1 and 0.86
mg/1 chromium in the raw wastewater. Since the treatable concen-
tration for chromium is 0.07 mg/1, chromium is selected for
further consideration for limitation.
Copper has a treatability concentration of 0.07 mg/1. Two
samples were analyzed showing copper concentrations of 3.2 mg/1
and 4.0 mg/1. Both samples are significantly above treatable
concentrations for copper; therefore, copper is selected for
further consideration for limitation.
Lead was detected in treatable concentrations in both samples
analyzed. The samples indicated 0.93 mg/1 and 1.3 mg/1 of lead
in the raw wastewater. Lead concentrations starting at 0.08 mg/1
are considered treatable. For this reason, lead is selected for
further considered for limitation.
Nickel was detected above its treatability concentration in two
samples analyzed. The analytical data showed 1,0 mg/1 and 1.4
mg/1 of nickel in the untreated wastewater. Since the treatable
concentration for nickel is 0.22 mg/1, nickel is selected for
further consideration for limitation.
Selenium was detected above its treatability concentration of
0.20 mg/1 in one raw wastewater sample. The result showed 2,0
mg/1 selenium in the untreated wastewater. Therefore, selenium
is selected for further consideration for limitation.
Zinc has a treatability concentration of 0.23 mg/1. One sample
analyzed showed zinc at a concentration of 6.1 mg/1 in the raw
wastewater. This sample is significantly above the treatable
concentration for zinc; for this reason, zinc is selected for
further consideration for limitation.
55
-------
4J c
T3 0)
0) Vj
tJ H
O
m QJ
u >
01 O
O C
C O
U 4J
CN CM CM CM < »
i i
*j c
XJ « 0)
oi a- o c
u V4 c o
o H o-i
01 O 4J
O 0) >>
0)
1.0
i «)
o
o
2 OS
o
s
u
0)
r-l
XI
£
U !
O
' W
>H
§
S C
o o c
.I -^ O
OI >-> -H
BO BJ 4J
U (0
O < (J
DWJ JJ
AJ-rf C
O *J 01
1) C O
C
Ql
zl
V4-I
O OJ"D
0> 0)
VJ f-l N
O ffi
e « to
3 CO C
z <
S V
M HI N
a>
XI VJI
e u w
>
4-1
u
01
t/3
0)
co
^x
ce
4J
cd
01
4->
.e
o
ai
4-1
P
o
a
01
O
f.
0)
o
c
«9
e
00
!H W
U CO
O"
OS
I
01 ce ^
iI »J J3
XI 4J C^'
CO C O
u 01 "J
us o u
Ol C OC
o c
-^ vJ O
O to 4-1 CO
I O CO--'
OOCSCJOOOOCSCSOCSO
.
4J 01 QC
cus
o oo
>< 3 e E E
eo-^es x3 3
O i I 3 -^ P Li ^i i Vi J
gc>-i-'-ieoi 3oicoi^
' 0) X E O d^O CJ ^ O1 > < O
cr
01
d.
e
o
o
Ol
CO
ce
§
**4
4-1
ro
Wi
4J
C
01
o
o
o
c
O cfi
-J C
4J O
« -^
o *->
-^ ce
0)
u
c
o
u
01
-J Xl
4J ce
>, 4J
-j ee
« 01
§ H
56
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The preceding sections of this supplement discussed the sources,
flows, and characteristics of the wastewaters from the secondary
uranium plants. This section summarizes the description of these
wastewaters and indicates the treatment technologies which are
currently practiced in the secondary uranium subcategory for each
waste stream. Secondly, this section presents the control and
treatment technology options which were examined by the Agency
for possible application to the secondary uranium subcategory.
CURRENT CONTROL AND TREATMENT PRACTICES
Control and treatment technologies are discussed in general in
Section VII of the General Development Document. The basic prin-
ciples of these technologies and the applicability to wastewater
similar to that found in this subcategory are presented there.
This section presents a summary of the control and treatment
technologies that are currently being applied to each of the
sources generating wastewater in this subcategory. As discussed
in Section V, wastewater associated with the secondary uranium
subcategory is characterized by the presence of the toxic metal
pollutants and suspended solids. This analysis is supported by
the raw (untreated) wastewater data, presented in Section V, from
a uranium ore mill. It is expected that these pollutants are
present in each of the waste streams at concentrations above
treatability, and these waste streams are commonly combined for
treatment. Construction of one wastewater treatment system for
combined treatment allows plants to take advantage of economic
scale and in some instances to combine streams of different
alkalinity to reduce treatment chemical requirements. The direct
discharging plant in this subcategory currently has a combined
wastewater treatment system including chemical precipitation and
sedimentation. The options selected for consideration for BPT,
BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment will be summarized toward the end of
this section.
REFINERY FILTRATE
Uranium production from scrap and residues begins with acid
leaching the raw materials. This dissolves the uranium to facil-
itate separation from residual solids by filtration. Ammonia is
added to the acid filtrate to precipitate dissolved uranium and
the solids are again filtered, but this time retained for further
processing. The filtrate is discharged, along with other process
57
-------
wastewater, to treatment which consists of neutralization, floc-
culation and sedimentation, and discharge to a surface water.
SLAG LEACH SLURRY
In addition to solid uranium scrap and uranium residues, magne-
sium fluoride slag from the magnesium reduction operation is
sometimes used as a raw material for uranium recovery. The
recovery process also involves acid leaching of the slag which
dissolves uranium so that it is carried away in the acid. Sepa-
ration of the uranium-containing acid and the leached slag is
done by filtration, after which the slag solids are discharged as
a slurry. The slurry goes to the treatment system, along with
other process wastewater, for lime and settle treatment, and
final discharge to a surface water.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE
Purification of the uranium compound that results from acid
leaching is done by solvent extraction. An organic solvent is
used to extract the uranium compound from the acid solution. The
organic solvent selectively extracts the uranium compound. Thus,
impurities from acid leaching are left in the acid solution.
This solvent extraction raffinate is discharged to combined
treatment consisting of neutralization and sedimentation,
followed by discharge to a surface water.
DIGESTION OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
The acid leaching operation includes a water scrubber for control
of acid fumes generated by leaching. The system completely
recirculates water to absorb particulates and acid gases until
scrubbing efficiency drops, and then the scrubber liquor is batch
dumped into a sump. In the sump, lime is added and the batch is
allowed to settle. The settled solids are collected and recycled
back into the digestion operation. The clarified liquid is dis-
charged to combined treatment including neutralization and
sedimentation, followed by discharge to a surface water.
EVAPORATION AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Evaporation follows the purification step in which the uranium
compound was extracted into an organic solvent. After re-extrac-
tion into aqueous solution it is concentrated by evaporation.
The calcination step which follows converts the uranium compound
to uranium trioxide. These off-gases contain much nitric acid.
Since the scrubber liquor absorbs the nitric acid, the liquor is
not discharged as a wastewater. Rather it is recycled to be used
to dilute fresh acid in the digestion operation. Therefore, no
wastewater is discharged from the evaporation and calcination
operations.
58
-------
HYDROGEN REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION KOH WET AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
Hydrogen reduction and hydrofluorination involve the final stages
of preparing uranium tetrafluoride for the magnesium reduction
operation. Hydrogen reduction converts uranium trioxide produced
in the calcination step to uranium dioxide. Hydrofluorination
involves contacting uranium dioxide with hydrofluoric acid to
produce uranium tetrafluoride. The off-gases from these
operations are scrubbed by a circulating KOH solution which
neutralizes and scrubs the acidic fumes. The scrubber liquor is
completely recycled until scrubber efficiency diminishes; then
the liquor is batch discharged to combined treatment. Treatment
consists of neutralization and sedimentation, followed by direct
discharge to a surface water.
HYDROFLUORINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Hydrofluorination, as described above, involves contacting ura-
nium dioxide with vaporized hydrofluoric acid at elevated temper-
atures. Within the off-gases is a substantial concentration of
unreacted hydrofluoric acid. These fumes are passed through a
water scrubber which absorbs much of the hydrofluoric acid. Some
gases pass to the second scrubber noted above. Since the scrub-
ber liquor over the hydrofluorination unit absorbs acid, and
since there are not expected to be many contaminants in the acid
fumes, the scrubber liquor is circulated until a desired concen-
tration of hydrofluoric acid is attained. Then the solution is
drawn off and sold for industrial use. Therefore, the hydro-
fluorination scrubber generates no wastewater that needs to be
treated or discharged.
CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
The Agency examined two control and treatment technology options
that are applicable to the secondary uranium subcategory. The
options selected for evaluation represent applicable end-of-pipe
treatment technologies.
Examination of the waste streams in this subcategory shows that
no further in-process flow reduction is achievable. Therefore,
options including flow reduction were not considered. On the
assumption that no organics are present ( discussed in Section
VI), options including activated carbon adsorption were not
considered.
OPTION A
Option A for the secondary uranium subcategory requires control
and treatment technologies to reduce the discharge of pollutant
mass.
59
-------
The Option A treatment scheme consists of chemical precipitation
and sedimentation technology. Specifically, lime or some other
alkaline compound is used to precipitate toxic metals as metal
hydroxides. The metal hydroxides and suspended solids settle out
and the sludge is collected. Vacuum filtration is used to
dewater sludge.
Preliminary treatment consisting of ammonia steam stripping for
waste streams containing treatable concentrations of ammonia is
also included in Option A. Steam stripping is an efficient
method for reducing the ammonia concentrations, as well as
recovering ammonia as a by-product. Steam stripping also
prevents the transfer of ammonia to the air.
OPTION C
Option C for the secondary uranium subcategory consists of all
control and treatment requirements of Option A (ammonia steam
stripping, chemical precipitation and sedimentation) plus multi-
media filtration technology added at the end of the Option A
treatment scheme. Multimedia filtration is used to remove
suspended solids, including precipitates of metals, beyond the
concentration attainable by gravity sedimentation. The filter
suggested is of the gravity, mixed- media type, although other
forms of filters, such as rapid sand filters or pressure filters
would perform satisfactorily. The addition of filters also
provides consistent removal during periods of time in which there
are rapid increases in flows or loadings of pollutants to the
treatment system.
EPA is investigating whether organic solvent is discharged as
part of the solvent extraction raffinate waste stream. If so,
the Agency will consider including organic removal technologies
such as activated carbon or chemical oxidation in the Option C
treatment scheme at promulgation.
60
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VIII
COSTS, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
This section presents a summary of compliance costs for the
secondary uranium subcategory and a description of the treatment
options and subcategory-specific assumptions used to develop
these estimates. Together with the estimated pollutant removal
performance presented in Section X of this supplement, these cost
estimates provide a basis for evaluating each regulatory option.
These cost estimates are also used in determining the probable
economic impact of regulation on the subcategory at different
pollutant discharge levels. In addition, this section addresses
nonwater quality environmental impacts of wastewater treatment
and control alternatives, including air pollution, solid wastes,
and energy requirements, which are specific to the secondary
uranium subcategory.
TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
As discussed in Section VII, two treatment options have been
developed and considered in proposing limitations and standards
for the secondary uranium subcategory. These options are summa-
rized below and schematically presented in Figures X-1 and X-2.
OPTION A
The Option A treatment scheme consists of chemical precipitation
and sedimentation technology.
Preliminary treatment consisting of ammonia steam stripping for
waste streams containing treatable concentrations of ammonia is
also included in Option A.
OPTION C
Option C for the secondary uranium subcategory consists of all
control and treatment requirements of Option A (ammonia steam
stripping, chemical precipitation and sedimentation) plus multi-
media filtration technology added at the end of the Option A
treatment scheme.
COST METHODOLOGY
A detailed discussion of the methodology used to develop the
compliance costs is presented in Section VIII of the General
Development Document. Plant-by-plant compliance costs have been
61
-------
estimated for the nonferrous metals manufacturing category and
are presented in the administrative record supporting this regu-
lation. The costs developed for the proposed regulation are
presented in Table VIII-1 for the direct dischargers in this
subcategory.
Each of the general assumptions used to develop compliance costs
is presented in Section VII1 of the General Development Document.
No subcategory-specific assumptions were used in developing
compliance costs for the secondary uranium subcategory.
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
A general discussion of the nonwater quality aspects of the con-
trol and treatment options considered for the nonferrous metals
category is contained in Section VIII of the General Development
Document. Nonwater quality impacts specific to the secondary
uranium subcategory, including energy requirements, solid waste
and air pollution are discussed below.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
The methodology used for determining the energy requirements for
the various options is discussed in Section VIII of the General
Development Document. Energy requirements for Option A are esti-
mated at 76,000 kWh/yr, and for Option C the estimated require-
ment is 85,000 kWh/yr. Option C energy requirements increased
over those for Option A because filtration is being added as an
end-of-pipe treatment technology. Since recycle and reuse of
scrubber liquor is already practiced in this subcategory, energy
requirement savings resulting from flow reduction measures are
not reflected in this analysis. Both Option A and Option C
energy requirements represent less than 1 percent of the energy
usage in the secondary uranium industry. It is therefore
concluded that the energy requirements of the treatment options
considered will have no significant impact on total plant energy
consumption.
SOLID WASTE
Sludge generated in the secondary uranium subcategory is due to
the precipitation of metals as hydroxides and carbonates using
lime. Sludges associated with the secondary uranium subcategory
will necessarily contain quantities of toxic metal pollutants.
Wastes generated by secondary metal industries can be regulated
as hazardous. However, the Agency examined the solid wastes that
would be generated at secondary nonferrous metals manufacturing
plants by the suggested treatment technologies and believes they
are not hazardous wastes under the Agency1s regulations imple-
menting Section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
62
-------
Act. None of the secondary uranium subcategory wastes are listed
specifically as hazardous, nor are they likely to exhibit a char-
acteristic of hazardous waste. This judgement is made based on
the recommended technology of lime precipitation and filtration.
By the addition of a small excess of lime during treatment, simi-
lar sludges, specifically toxic metal bearing sludges, generated
by other industries such as the iron and steel industry passed
the Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity test. See 40 CFR §261.24.
Thus, the Agency believes that the wastewater sludges will
similarly not be EP toxic if the recommended technology is
applied.
Although it is the Agency's view that solid wastes generated as a
result of these guidelines are not expected to be hazardous,
generators of these wastes must test the waste to determine if
the wastes meet any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(see 40 CFR 262.11).
If these wastes should be identified or are listed as hazardous,
they will come within the scope of RCRA's "cradle to grave" haz-
ardous waste management program, requiring regulation from the
point of generation to point of final disposition. EPA's genera-
tor standards would require generators of hazardous nonferrous
metals manufacturing wastes to meet containerization, labeling,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; if plants dispose of
hazardous wastes off-site, they would have to prepare a manifest
which would track the movement of the wastes from the generator's
premises to a permitted off-site treatment, storage, or disposal
facility. See 40 CFR 262.20 45 FR 33142 (May 19, 1980), as
amended at 45 FR 86973 (December 31, 1980). The transporter
regulations require transporters of hazardous wastes to comply
with the manifest system to assure that the wastes are delivered
to a permitted facility. See 40 CFR 263.20 45 FR 33151 (May 19,
1980), as amended at 45 FR 86973 (December 31, 1980). Finally,
RCRA regulations establish standards for hazardous waste treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities allowed to receive such
wastes.- See 40 CFR Part 464 46 FR 2802 (January 12, 1981), 47 FR
32274 (July 26, 1982).
Even if these wastes are not identified as hazardous, they still
must be disposed of in compliance with the Subtitle D open dump-
ing standards, implementing 4004 of RCRA. See 44 FR 53438
(September 13, 1979). It is estimated that the secondary uranium
subcategory will generate 262 metric tons of sludge per year when
implementing the proposed BPT treatment technology. The Agency
has calculated as part of the costs for wastewater treatment the
cost of hauling and disposing of these wastes. For more details,
see Section VIII of the General Development Document.
63
-------
AIR POLLUTION
There is no reason to believe that any substantial air pollution
problems will result from implementation of ammonia steam strip-
ping, chemical precipitation, sedimentation, and multimedia fil-
tration. Ammonia steam stripping yields an aqueous ammonia
stream. The other technologies transfer pollutants to solid
waste and are not likely to transfer pollutants to air.
64
-------
Table VIII-1
COST OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM
SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(March 1982 Dollars)
Total Required Total
Option Capital Cost Annual Cost
A 28,600 73,644
C 54,312 86,452
65
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECJhiNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
This section defines the effluent characteristics attainable
through the application of best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), Section 301(b)(a)(A). BPT reflects
the existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages, and
manufacturing processes within the secondary uranium subcategory,
as well as the established performance of the recommended BPT
systems. Particular consideration is given to the treatment
already in place at plants within the data base.
The factors considered in identifying BPT include the total cost
of applying the technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application, the age of equipment and facili-
ties involved, the manufacturing processes used, nonwater quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and other
factors the Administrator considers appropriate. In general, the
BPT level represents the average of the existing performances of
plants of various ages, sizes, processes, or other common charac-
teristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate,
BPT may be transferred from a different subcategory or category.
Limitations based on transfer of technology are supported by a
rationale concluding that the technology is, indeed, transfera-
ble, and a reasonable prediction that it will be capable of
achieving the prescribed effluent limits (see Tanner's Council of
America v. Train. 540 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1176JIBPT focuses on
end-of-pipe treatment rather than process changes or internal
controls, except where such practices are common industry
practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT
The Agency studied the nonferrous metals category to identify the
processes used, the wastewaters generated, and the treatment pro-
cesses installed. Information was collected from industry using
data collection portfolios, and specific plants were sampled and
the wastewaters analyzed. In making technical assessments of
data, reviewing manufacturing processes, and assessing wastewater
treatment technology options, both indirect and direct dis-
chargers have been considered as a single group. An examination
of plants and processes did not indicate any process differences
based on the type of discharge, whether it be direct or indirect.
67
-------
As explained in Section IV, the secondary uranium subcategory has
been subdivided into seven potential wastewater sources. Since
the water use, discharge rates, and pollutant characteristics of
each of these wastewaters is potentially unique, effluent limita-
tions will be developed for each of the seven subdivisions.
For each of the subdivisions, a specific approach was followed
for the development of BPT mass limitations. The first require-
ment to calculate these limitations is to account for production
and flow variability from plant to plant. Therefore, a unit of
production or production normalizing parameter (PNP) was deter-
mined for each waste stream which could then be related to the
flow from the process to determine a production normalized flow.
Selection of the PNP for each process element is discussed in
Section IV. Each plant within the subcategory was then analyzed
to determine (1) which subdivisions were present, (2) the spe-
cific flow rates generated for each subdivision, and (3) the
specific production normalized flows for each subdivision. This
analysis is discussed in detail in Section V. Nonprocess waste-
waters such as rainfall runoff and noncontact cooling water are
not considered in the analysis.
Production normalized flows for each subdivision were then
analyzed to determine the flow to be used as part of the basis
for BPT mass limitations. The selected flow (sometimes referred
to as the BPT regulatory flow or BPT discharge rate) reflects the
water use controls which are common practices within the cate-
gory. The BPT regulatory flow is based on the average of all
applicable data. Plants with normalized flows above the average
may have to implement some method of flow reduction to achieve
the BPT limitations.
The second requirement to calculate mass limitations is the set
of concentrations that are achievable by application of the BPT
level of treatment technology. Section VII discusses the various
control and treatment technologies which are currently in place
for each wastewater source. In most cases, the current control
and treatment technologies consist of chemical precipitation and
sedimentation (lime and settle technology) and a combination of
reuse and recycle to reduce flow. Ammonia steam stripping is
applied to streams with treatable concentrations of ammonia.
Using these regulatory flows and the achievable concentrations,
the next step is to calculate mass loadings for each wastewater
source or subdivision. This calculation was made on a stream-
by-stream basis, primarily because plants in this subcategory may
perform one or more of the operations in various combinations.
The mass loadings (milligrams of pollutant per kilogram of pro-
duction - mg/kg) were calculated based on the BPT regulatory flow
(1/kkg) and the concentration achievable by the BPT level of
68
-------
treatment technology (mg/1) for each pollutant parameter to be
limited under BPT. These mass loadings are published in the
Federal Register and in CFR Part 400 as the effluent limitations
guidelinesT
The mass loadings which are allowed under BPT for each plant will
be the sum of the individual mass loadings for the various waste-
water sources which are found at particular plants. Accordingly,
all the wastewater generated within a plant may be combined for
treatment in a single or common treatment system, but the
effluent limitations for these combined wastewaters are based on
the various wastewater sources which actually contribute to the
combined flow. This method accounts for the variety of combina-
tions of wastewater sources and production processes which may be
found at secondary uranium plants.
The Agency usually establishes wastewater limitations in terms of
mass rather than concentration. This approach prevents the use
of dilution as a treatment method (except for controlling pH).
The production normalized wastewater flow (1/kkg) is a link
between the production operations and the effluent limitations.
The pollutant discharge attributable to each operation can be
calculated from the normalized flow and effluent concentration
achievable by the treatment technology and summed to derive an
appropriate limitation for each plant.
INDUSTRY COST AND POLLUTANT REMOVAL ESTIMATES
In balancing costs in relation to pollutant removal estimates,
EPA considers the volume and nature of existing discharges, the
volume and nature of discharges expected after application of
BPT, the general environmental effects of the pollutants, and the
cost and economic impacts of the required pollution control
level. The Act does not require or permit consideration of water
quality problems attributable to particular point sources or
industries, or water quality improvements in particular water
quality bodies. Accordingly, water quality considerations were
not the basis for selecting the proposed BPT. See Weyerhaueser
Company v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
The methodology for calculating pollutant removal estimates and
plant compliance costs is discussed in Section X. Table X-1
shows the pollutant removal estimates for each treatment option
for direct dischargers. Compliance costs for direct dischargers
are presented in Table X-2.
BPT OPTION SELECTION
The technology basis for the BPT limitations is Option A, chemi-
cal precipitation and sedimentation technology to remove metals
and solids from combined wastewaters and to control pH, and
69
-------
ammonia steam stripping preliminary treatment to remove ammonia.
These technologies are demonstrated and economically achievable
since they are already in place at several discharging plants
throughout the nonferrous metals manufacturing category.
Ammonia steam stripping is demonstrated at seven facilities in
the nonferrous metals manufacturing category. These facilities
are treating ammonia bearing wastewaters associated with the
production of primary tungsten, primary columbium and tantalum,
primary molybdenum, secondary tungsten and cobalt, secondary
molybdenum and vanadium, and primary zirconium and hafnium. EPA
believes that performance data from the iron and steel manufac-
turing category provide a valid measure of this technology's per-
formance on nonferrous metals manufacturing category wastewater
because raw wastewater concentrations of ammonia are of the same
order of magnitude in the respective raw wastewater matrices.
Chemical analysis data were collected of raw waste (treatment
influent) and treated waste (treatment effluent) from one coke
plant of the iron and steel manufacturing category. A contractor
for EPA, using EPA sampling and chemical analysis protocols,
collected six paired samples in a two-month period. These data
are the data base for determining the effectiveness of ammonia
steam stripping technology and are contained within the public
record supporting this document. Ammonia treatment at this coke
plant consisted of two steam stripping columns in series with
steam injected countercurrently to the flow of the wastewater. A
lime reactor for pH adjustment separated the two stripping
columns.
The Agency has verified the proposed steam stripping performance
values using steam stripping data collected at a primary zir-
conium and hafnium plant which has raw ammonia levels as high as
any in the nonferrous metals manufacturing category. Data col-
lected by the plant represent almost two years of daily opera-
tions, and support the long-term mean used to establish treatment
effectiveness.
Implementation of the proposed BPT limitations will remove annu-
ally an estimated 1,280 kg of toxic metals, 283 kg of uranium,
and 1,763 kg of TSS. While the one discharging plant has most of
the equipment in-place to comply with BPT, EPA does not believe
that the plant is currently achieving the proposed BPT limita-
tions. The Agency projects capital and annual costs of $28,600
and $73,644 (1982 dollars) respectively for modifications to
technology presently in-place at the discharging facility to
achieve proposed BPT regulations. The end-of-pipe treatment
configuration for Option A is presented in Figure IX-1.
70
-------
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES
A BPT discharge rate is calculated for each subdivision based on
the average of the flows of the existing plants, as determined
from analysis of data collection portfolios. The discharge rate
is used with the achievable treatment concentrations to determine
BPT effluent limitations. Since the discharge rate may be dif-
ferent for each wastewater source, separate production normalized
discharge rates for each of the seven wastewater sources are dis-
cussed below and summarized in Table IX-1. The discharge rates
are normalized on a production basis by relating the amount of
wastewater generated to the mass of the intermediate product
which is produced by the process associated with the waste stream
in question. These production normalizing parameters, or PNPs,
are also listed in Table IX-1.
Section V of this document further describes the discharge flow
rates and presents the water use and discharge flow rates for
each plant by subdivision in Tables V-1 through V-7.
REFINERY FILTRATE
The BPT wastewater discharge rate for refinery filtrate is 34,800
1/kkg (8,350 gal/ton) of uranium trioxide produced. This rate is
allocated for those plants that acid leach scrap uranium mate-
rials to recover the uranium. After the dissolved uranium in the
acid is precipitated and filtered, the filtrate is discharged to
treatment. Only one plant in this subcategory employs this oper-
ation. This plant is a direct discharger and the waste generated
is treated with lime and settle technology prior to discharge to
a surface water. Production normalized flows for this waste
stream are presented in Table V-1.
SLAG LEACH SLURRY
The BPT wastewater discharge rate for slag leach slurry is 3,800
1/kkg (910 gal'/ton) of uranium trioxide produced. This rate is
allocated only for those plants which leach magnesium fluoride
slag, recycled from the magnesium reduction operation, to recover
the residual uranium in the slag. The method of recovery is by
dissolving the uranium by acid leaching the slag, then separating
the uranium-containing acid from the leached slag. The solution
goes to further processing while the slag is discharged as a
slurry and undergoes neutralization and sedimentation treatment.
Water use and wastewater discharge rates for slag leach slurry
are presented in Table V-2.
SOLVENT EXTRACTION RAFFINATE
The BPT wastewater discharge rate for solvent extraction raffi-
nate is 5,300 1/kkg (1,270 gal/ton) of uranium trioxide produced.
71
-------
This rate is allocated for those plants which purify the acid-
dissolved uranium compound by extracting the uranium compound
into an organic solvent, leaving behind all impurities that were
leached along with the uranium. One plant in this subcategory
employs such a purification process and it discharges the extrac-
tion raffinate to its lime and settle treatment system before
direct discharge. The production normalized flows for this
subdivision are presented in Table V-3.
DIGESTION OPERATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
The BPT wastewater discharge rate for digestion operation wet air
pollution control is 30 1/kkg (7.2 gal/ton) of uranium trioxide
produced based on partial recycle of scrubber liquor. This rate
is allocated only for those plants that incorporate a water
scrubber on the acid leaching system. The plant in this subcate-
gory that has a scrubber over its acid leaching operation pres-
ently practices complete recycling of the scrubber liquor until
scrubber efficiency drops and the solution is batch dumped.
Because recycle was already in use by the plant, the BPT dis-
charge rate was based on recycle. The wastewater from this
scrubber is pretreated to recover solids which are reused in the
digestion operation. The remainder of the wastewater is treated
and discharged. Water use and discharge rates for the digestion
operation scrubber are presented in Table V-4.
EVAPORATION AND CALCINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
No BPT wastewater discharge rate is provided for evaporation and
calcination wet air pollution control. This requirement is
applicable to those plants that use evaporators and calcinators
to respectively concentrate an intermediate uranium compound and
then effectively burn it to convert it to uranium trioxide. The
BPT discharge rate is proposed as zero because the one discharg-
ing plant in this subcategory that uses these operations recycles
all their scrubber liquor to the digestion operation to use for
dilution of fresh leaching acid. Because 100 percent recycle is
demonstrated in this subcategory, the BPT discharge rate reflects
this capability. This production normalized discharge rate is
also presented in Table V-5.
HYDROGEN REDUCTION AND HYDROFLUORINATION KOH WET AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL
The BPT wastewater discharge rate for hydrogen reduction and
hydrofluorination KOH wet air pollution control is 20 1/kkg (4.8
gal/ton) of uranium tetrafluoride produced based on partial
recycle. This rate is allocated only for those plants that use
hydrogen reduction to convert uranium trioxide to uranium dioxide
and then hydrofluorinate uranium dioxide to produce uranium
72
-------
tetrafluoride, and scrub the gases from these operations with a
KOH scrubber. Since this plant presently operates the scrubber
at a high recycle rate, the BPT discharge rate reflects this
demonstrated performance. Table V-6 also presents the water use
and discharge rates for this waste stream.
HYDROFLUORINATION WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
No BPT wastewater discharge rate is proposed for hydrofluorina-
tion wet air pollution control. This requirement is applicable
only to those plants which use a water scrubber to control acid
fumes from the hydrofluorination unit. The BPT discharge rate is
.proposed as zero because the one plant in this subcategory that
operates such a scrubber recycles the scrubber liquor to absorb
the hydrofluoric acid fumes until a desired concentration of
hydrofluoric acid is attained. Then the scrubber solution is
drawn off and sold for industrial use. Since this recycle tech-
nology is demonstrated within this subcategory, the BPT discharge
rate reflects that capability. Table V-7 also presents the water
use and discharge rate for the hydrofluorination wet air pollu-
tion control system.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and
the subcategory as a whole were examined to select certain pollu-
tant parameters for limitation. This examination and evaluation
was presented in Section VI. A total of eight pollutants or pol-
lutant parameters are selected for limitation under BPT and are
listed below:
119. chromium
120. copper
124. nickel
ammonia
fluoride
uranium
TSS
pH
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The treatable concentrations achievable by application of the
proposed BPT are discussed in Section VII of the General Devel-
opment Document and summarized there in Table VII-19. These
treatable concentrations (both one day maximum and monthly aver-
age values) are multiplied by the BPT normalized discharge flows
summarized in Table IX-1 to calculate the mass of pollutants
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations in milligrams of pollutant per kilogram of
product represent the BPT effluent limitations and are presented
in Table IX-2 for each individual waste stream.
73
-------
00
q
rl
N
CO r-l
8 0)
Z S
C H
O cO
rl f>4
4->
o
"O
o
o
T5
O
J-i
(U
T3
i-l
X
o
4J
S
C
CO
TJ
Q)
O
O
V-4
CX
(U
X
o
r-l
S-i
4J
C
cO
TD
0)
O
O
CX
0)
ID
'x
O
C
cfl
t-i
(U
U
TD
O
CX
CU
X
O
4-)
§
I-l
q
cO
(U
O
O
S-i
e
1-1
c
CO
(U
(-1
O
0
r-t
14-4
cO
l-l
4J
r-l
XI
cO
H
SH
03
<
Q
Z
O
U
w
CO
w
33
H
OS
O
fe
CO
w
H
<3
o
cu
N
I-l
r-l
CO
E
O
H
co
CU
4-1
CO
c*s
0)
0£
r-l
CO
r!
O
CO
r-l
Q
C
O
4-1
~-^
r-<
CO
OC
O
m
00
.
00
OC
K^
vj
^^
r-4
o
0
00
,3-
CO
0
o>
o
o
oo
m.
00
o
CJ
«
,_
o
0
00
«,
m
CM
r^,
O
CO
00
O
C-4
as
w
1
M
H
CO
H
CO
cu
cct
cu
CO
cO
cu
4-1
CO
cu
C
r4
cu
CO
CJ
CO
0)
00
CO
I-l
CO
cu
4-1
cO
C
I-l
14-1
(4-1
cO
C
O
l-l
4-1
O
CO
4J
X
C
cu
o
CO
cO
4-1
CU
O O
4J 4J
CO C
M O
cu u
CX
o e
o
o -w
H 3
4-1 r-l
CO r-4
(U O
00 CX
O O
4-> 4J
CO C
C O
r-l O
o
o
r-l
C
o
CO
U
CO r-l
ca
o
J-l .,-4
CO CO
i-l
O 4J
CX (U
CO S
X! «
^ 4-)
C cu
cO £
r-l
C 33 O
O O Vi
i"4 tvi !)
CJ C O
d o o
T3 ---I
CU 4-1 C
r-l CO O
q -H
C -r4 4-1
Q) >-i 3
00 O r-l
O 3 r-l
r-t r-l O
T"l U_l p,
CO
4-1
cu
ci V4
O -I-1
4J O
CO O
Sq
Vi O
O *!
M-l r-4
Or-l
5-i O
a cx
74
-------
Table IX-2
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 15.310 6.264
Copper 66.120 34.800
Nickel 66.820 44.200
Ammonia (as N) 4,639.000 2,039.000
Fluoride 1,218.000 696.000
Uranium 139.200 78.300
Total Suspended 1,427.000 678.600
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.672 0.684
Copper 7.220 3.800
Nickel 7.296 4.826
Ammonia (as N) 506.500 222.700
Fluoride 133.000 76.000
Uranium 15.200 8.550
Total Suspended 155.800 74.100
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
75
-------
Table IX-2 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rog/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 2.332 0.954
Copper 10.070 5.300
Nickel 10.180 6.731
Ammonia (as N) 706.500 310.600
Fluoride 185.500 106.000
Uranium 21.200 11.930
Total Suspended 217.300 103.400
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.013 0.005
Copper 0.057 0.030
Nickel 0.058 0.038
Ammonia (as N) 3.900 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.120 0.068
Total Suspended 1.230 0.585
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
76
-------
Table IX-2 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
ing/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium
tetrafluoride produced
Chromium (total) 0.009 0.004
Copper 0.038 0.020
Nickel 0.038 0.025
Ammonia (as N) 2.666 1.172
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.080 0.045
Total Suspended 0.820 0.390
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
77
-------
Table IX-2 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/mi11ion Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
78
-------
t>n
3
(0
u
1
o
o
w
a
u
PQ
3
cn
a
in
s.
0)
t>0
fa
(£
Q
2
o
o
CO
3J
H
35
O
H
2
?,-!
S3
S'6
CO CU
U 4J
g^
i
I
H
&4
CQ
c
o
u
5 P
U 0
01
a.
o
o
id
o
79
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984
are based on the best control and treatment technology used by a
specific point source within the industrial category or subcate-
gory, or by another industry where it is readily transferable.
Emphasis is placed on additional treatment techniques applied at
the end of the treatment systems currently used, as well as
reduction of the amount of water used and discharged, process
control, and treatment technology optimization.
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process used, process changes, nonwater
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and the costs of application of such technology (Section 304(b)
(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act). At a minimum, BAT represents the
best available technology economically achievable at plants of
various ages, sizes, processes, or other characteristics. Where
the Agency has found the existing performance to be uniformly
inadequate, BAT may be transferred from a different subcategory
or category. BAT may include feasible process changes or
internal controls, even when not in common industry practice.
The required assessment of BAT considers costs, but does not
require a balancing of costs against pollutant removals (see
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle. 11 ERG 2149 (B.C. Cir. 1978)). However,
in assessing the proposed BAT, the Agency has given substantial
weight to the economic achievability of the technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
The Agency reviewed a wide range of technology options and
evaluated the available possibilities to ensure that the most
effective and beneficial technologies were used as the basis of
BAT. To accomplish this, the Agency elected to examine two tech-
nology options which could be applied to the secondary uranium
subcategory as alternatives for the basis of BAT effluent
limitations.
For the development of BAT effluent limitations, mass loadings
were calculated for each wastewater source or subdivision in the
subcategory using the same technical approach as described in
Section IX for BPT limitations development. The differences in
the mass loadings for BPT and BAT are due to increased treatment
81
-------
effectiveness achievable with the more sophisticated BAT treat-
ment technology.
The treatment technologies considered for BAT are summarized
below:
Option A (Figure X-1):
Preliminary treatment with ammonia steam stripping
(where required)
Chemical precipitation and sedimentation
Option C (Figure X-2):
Preliminary treatment with ammonia steam stripping
(where required)
Chemical precipitation and sedimentation
Multimedia filtration
The two options examined for BAT are discussed in greater detail
below. The first option considered (Option A) is the same as the
BPT treatment and control technology which was presented in the
previous section. The second option represents substantial pro-
gress toward the reduction of pollutant discharges above and
beyond the progress achievable by BPT.
OPTION A
Option A for the secondary uranium subcategory is equivalent to
the control and treatment technologies which were analyzed for
BPT in Section IX (see Figures IX-1 or X-1). The BPT end-of-pipe
treatment scheme includes chemical precipitation and sedimenta-
tion, with ammonia steam stripping preliminary treatment of
wastewaters containing treatable concentrations of ammonia. The
discharge rates for Option A are equal to the discharge rates
allocated to each stream as a BPT discharge flow.
OPTION C
Option C for the secondary uranium subcategory-consists of all
control and treatment requirements of Option A (chemical precipi-
tation and sedimentation, with ammonia steam stripping prelimi-
nary treatment of wastewaters containing treatable concentrations
of ammonia) plus multimedia filtration technology added at the
end of the Option A treatment scheme (see Figure X-2). Multi-
media filtration is used to remove suspended solids, including
precipitates of toxic metals, beyond the concentrations attain-
able by gravity sedimentation. The filter suggested is of the
gravity, mixed media type, although other forms of filters, such
as rapid sand filters or pressure filters, would perform
satisfactorily.
82
-------
EPA is investigating whether organic solvent is discharged as
part of the solvent extraction raffinate waste stream. If so,
the Agency will consider including organics removal technologies
such as activated carbon or chemical oxidation in the Option C
treatment scheme at promulgation.
INDUSTRY COST AND POLLUTANT REMOVAL ESTIMATES
As one means of evaluating each technology option, EPA developed
estimates of the pollutant removals and the compliance costs
associated with each option. The methodologies are described
below.
POLLUTANT REMOVAL ESTIMATES
A complete description of the methodology used to calculate the
estimated pollutant removal, or benefit, achieved by the applica-
tion of the various treatment options is presented in Section X
of the General Development Document. In short, sampling data
collected during the field sampling program were used to charac-
terize the major waste streams considered for regulation. At
each sampled facility, the sampling data were production normal-
ized for each unit operation (i.e., mass of pollutant generated
per mass of product manufactured). This value, referred to as
the raw waste, was used to estimate the mass of toxic pollutants
generated within the secondary uranium subcategory. The pollu-
tant removal estimates were calculated for each plant by first
estimating the total mass of each pollutant in the untreated
wastewater. This was calculated by first multiplying the raw
waste values by the corresponding production value for that
stream and then summing these values for each pollutant for every
stream generated by the plant.
Next, the volume of wastewater discharged after the application
of each treatment option was estimated for each operation at each
plant by comparing the actual discharge to the regulatory flow.
The smaller of the two values was selected and summed with the
other plant flows. The mass of pollutant discharged was then
estimated by multiplying the achievable concentration values
attainable with the option (mg/1) by the estimated volume of
process wastewater discharged by the subcategory. The mass of
pollutant removed is the difference between the estimated mass of
pollutant generated by each plant in the subcategory and the mass
of pollutant discharged after application of the treatment
option. The pollutant removal estimates for direct dischargers
in the secondary uranium subcategory are presented in Table X-1.
COMPLIANCE COSTS
In estimating subcategory-wide compliance costs, the first step
was to develop a cost estimation model, relating the total costs
83
-------
associated with installation and operation of wastewater treat-
ment technologies to plant process wastewater discharge. EPA
applied the model to each plant. The plant's investment and
operating costs are determined by what treatment it has in place
and by its individual process wastewater discharge flow. As
discussed above, this flow is either the actual or the BAT regu-
latory flow, whichever is lesser. The final step was to annual-
ize the capital costs, and to sum the annualized capital costs,
and the operating and maintenance costs for each plant, yielding
the cost of compliance for the subcategory. The compliance costs
associated with the various options are presented in Table X-2
for direct discharges in the secondary uranium subcategory.
These costs were used in assessing economic achievability.
BAT OPTION SELECTION
EPA has selected Option C which includes chemical precipitation,
sedimentation, and multimedia filtration, with ammonia steam
stripping preliminary treatment of wastewater containing treat-
able concentrations of ammonia. The estimated capital cost of
proposed BAT is $54,312 (1982 dollars) and the annual cost is
$86,452 (1982 dollars). The end-of-pipe treatment configura-
tion for Option C is presented in Figure X-2.
EPA is proposing multimedia filtration as part of the BAT tech-
nology because this technology is demonstrated by 25 plants in .
the nonferrous metals manufacturing category, and results in
additional removal of toxic metals. In addition, filtration adds
reliability to the treatment system by making it less susceptible
to operator error and to sudden changes in raw wastewater flow
and concentrations.
Implementation of the control and treatment technologies of
Option C would remove annually an estimated 1,304 kilograms of
toxic metal pollutants and 289 kilograms of uranium, which is 24
kilograms of toxic metal pollutants over the estimated BPT
removal.
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES
A BAT discharge rate was calculated for each subdivision based
upon the flows of the existing plants, as determined from analy-
sis of the data collection portfolios. The discharge rate is
used with the achievable treatment concentrations to determine
BAT effluent limitations. Since the discharge rate may be dif-
ferent for each wastewater source, separate production normalized
discharge rates for each of the seven wastewater sources were
determined and are summarized in Table X-3. The discharge rates
are normalized on a production basis by relating the amount of
wastewater generated to the mass of the intermediate product
which is produced by the process associated with the waste stream
84
-------
in question. These production normalizing parameters, or PNPs,
are also listed in Table X-3.
The BAT discharge rates reflect no flow reduction requirements as
compared to the BPT option flows. In-process flow reduction was
not achievable for any waste streams in this subcategory. As an
example, the acid leach scrubber used at one of the secondary
uranium plants already operates with extensive recycle. Conse-
quently, the BAT and BPT production normalized discharge flows
are identical.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
In implementing the terms of the Consent Agreement in NRDC v.
Train, Op. Cit., and 33 U.S.C. 1314(b) (2) (A and B) (1976), the
Agency placed particular emphasis on the toxic pollutants. The
raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and the
subcategory as a whole were examined to select certain pollutants
and pollutant parameters for limitation. This examination and
evaluation was presented in Section VI. The Agency, however, has
chosen not to regulate all eight toxic pollutants selected in
this analysis.
The high cost associated with analysis for toxic metal pollutants
has prompted EPA to develop an alternative method for regulating
and monitoring toxic pollutant discharges from the nonferrous
metals manufacturing category. Rather than developing specific
effluent mass limitations and standards for each of the toxic
metals found in treatable concentrations in the raw wastewater
from a given subcategory, the Agency is proposing effluent mass
limitations only for those pollutants generated in the greatest
quantities as shown by the pollutant removal estimate analysis.
The pollutants selected for specific limitation are listed below:
119. chromium
120. copper
124. nickel
ammonia
fluoride
uranium
By establishing limitations and standards for certain toxic metal
pollutants, dischargers will attain the same degree of control
over toxic metal pollutants as they would have been required to
achieve had all the toxic metal pollutants been directly limited.
This approach is technically justified since the treatable con-
centrations used for chemical precipitation and sedimentation
technology are based on optimized treatment for concomitant
multiple metals removal. Thus, even though metals have somewhat
different theoretical solubilities, they will be removed at very
85
-------
nearly the same rate in a chemical precipitation and sedimenta-
tion treatment system operated for multiple metals removal.
Filtration as part of the technology basis is likewise justified
because this technology removes metals non-preferentially.
The toxic metal pollutants selected for specific limitation in
the secondary uranium subcategory to control the discharges of
toxic metal pollutants are chromium, copper, and nickel. Ammonia
is also selected for limitation since the methods used to control
chromium, copper, and nickel are not effective in the control of
ammonia. The following toxic metal pollutants are excluded from
limitation on the basis that they are effectively controlled by
the limitations developed for chromium, copper, and nickel:
115. arsenic
118. cadmium
122. lead
125. selenium
128. zinc
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The concentrations achievable by application of BAT are discussed
in Section VII of the General Development Document and summarized
there in Table VII-19. The treatable concentrations both one day
maximum and monthly average values are multiplied by the BAT nor-
malized discharge flows summarized in Table X-3 to calculate the
mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per mass of product.
The results of these calculations in milligrams of pollutant per
kilogram of product represent the BAT effluent limitations and
are presented in Table X-4 for each waste stream.
86
-------
o
TJ
C V
O >
H O
4-> B
ex o>
O &
00 ^" 00 00
m oen r-
CM en CM
o\ oo r**
oo
m
en
r- vo T- cs en
o o
i en
o> o
oo m
CO
w
O
P=5
O
CO
CJ
c
o
01
V-i V-i
cd >,
4J
CX-i-l
0 Q
O 60
CO
t"- CO <3* P*"- CO O^ ^ CO
o ^o ^^ *"~ P*» o T o "-d" {*o o
o
en
m r
t
eno>
H
O
W
P4
O
w
EH
S3
,-J
O
Pk
C 0)
O >
H O -
4-> E £XC
CXO>.
O &*
0\
m vo
o r-
r en oo en
o en CM m
m
en
oroenr>>OOMncMcsioocM
en * in » r en o
en
o
oo
CM
00 VO
VO 00
* CM CM
OO VO
CN r
1
X
0)
t-H
,Q
cd
H
g
CO
w
H
>i
O J3\
iH O C»C
4J CO r^
CX'r-lN_X
0 Q
a.
OO ON in
en * vo t
en
m
OOO"~'~OCM»~'^'inoOvO
0) V-i
15 4J tx
cd co \
o vo CM in
o o> r CM
m T- en i
^f ^^) C^ '
00
00
O 00 i
*- vO
CM
i vO OO O O OO
CM en o
o
Os
m
VO
CM
m
en
en
m en
CM vo
o r-
CM en
CM
en oo
o\ CO '
Q) !>, 3 3
M "O V-I r-1 'H V-I *H
O> -H 3 Ol C O> t-l
tauCT3O^i!a)>r-IO
pucdedJ^Oi-ir-icdC
O >, .1-1 43 -i-l
CJ CJ ,J
CO CO
to
o
o
EH
EH
o
CO
cd
0)
cd 13
I
I1
O (3
CO
CO
H
cu
B
H
4-1
CO
CO
01
4->
CCt
0
H
4J
CO
CD
-------
Table X-2
COST OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
Direct Dischargers
Total Required Total
Capital Cost Annual Cost
Option (1982 dollars) (1982 dollars)
A 28,600 73,644
C 54,312 86,452
88
-------
OS
w
H
O
03
CO
Z
iction Normalizing
Parameter
r>
"O
o
J-l
CM
im trioxide produced
^
H
C
V-i
£3
MB trioxide produced
**f
rH
C
CO
\_|
^
im trioxide produced
^
H
C
CO
V-i
JI3
im trioxide produced
r*
rH
C
cC
J-i
O
T)
o
o
Vj
CX
im tetraf luoride
*->
'c
CO
V-i
;=»
0)
o
0
V-i
ex
OS
CO
1
X
^
rH
O
0
00
en
o
T
CT>
o
o
00
»
en
O
r*«.
CM
.
^~
O
o
en
>
in
CM
r~-
O
en
00
o
CM
CJ5
04
O
CO
H
CO
H
<:
CQ
ream
4J
CO
V_i
01
4J
CO
[J
o
4J
CO
cO
J5
0)
4J
CO
V-i
4-)
rH
r-l
14H
r*~>
V-I
O
cO
>_l
4J
X!
0)
4-)
C
01
^
rH
O
CO
H
CO
4J
O>
C
O
r-l
4-1
cO
)_l
0)
CX
o
c
o
4-1
CO
01
00
H
Q
i-H
o
V-i
4-)
c
o
0
c
o
r-(
4_)
Jj
rH
i-H
O
CX
cination
rH
CO
o
T>
G
CO
c
O
iH
4-)
CO
V-i
0
CX
CO
^
U
control
£
o
4J
rj
rH
rH
O
CX
J_l
iH
cO
4J
OJ
^
1
O
V-i
T5
43
TJ
CO
C
0
rH
4J
CJ
3
(U
J-l
c
X
cO
4-1
X
o
w
c
o
r-|
4J
CO
C
V-i
o
rj
rH
<4H
rH
O
JH
4-)
C
o
o
g
O
4J
j3
rH
rH
O
a
V-t
r-l
CO
4J
0)
& rH
o
C rl
0 4J
iH ff
4-» O
CO O
C
H (3
M O
O -rH
d 4-)
rH ^
MH rH
O rH
J-l O
T3 CX
^
w
89
-------
Table X-4
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 12.880 5.220
Copper 44.550 21.230
Nickel 19.140 12.880
Ammonia (as N) 1,439.000 2,039.000
Fluoride 1,218.000 696.000
Uranium 93.260 52.550
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.406 0.570
Copper 4.864 2.318
Nickel 2.090 1.406
Ammonia (as N) 506.500 222.500
Fluoride 133.000 76.000
Uranium 10.180 5.738
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for . Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.961 0.795
Copper 6.784 3.233
Nickel 2.915 1.961
Ammonia (as N) 706.500 310.600
Fluoride 185.500 106.000
Uranium 14.200 8.003
90
-------
Table X-4 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.011 0.005
Copper 0.038 0.018
Nickel 0.017 0.011
Ammonia (as N) 3.999 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.080 0.045
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0. 000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.007 0.003
Copper 0.026 0.012
Nickel 0.011 0.007
Ammonia (as N) 2.666 1.1 72
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.054 0.030
91
-------
Table X-4 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rog/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
92
-------
E
0)
6
o
M
H
O
OS
g
w
w
OC
I "8
a B
£3
o e
o
a
5
H
H
<
PQ
b u
o ~
s
£ i
"8,3
s a
1 §
a u
n
00
H
o
o
4J
Ss
I
:s
M C.
§°
§'b
PH U
8 s
o u
93
-------
CM
I
X!
0)
OC
C -H
O U
H 3
o
1-4
H
Pu
O
OS
w
w
s
Ui
H
W
W
H
PQ
t-l 4J
§ g
2 §
n a.
c v<
53
O
e
u o
>* -H
U u
o .
Q. 0
IT CL,
-ss
94
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under
Section 306 of the Act is the best available demonstrated tech-
nology (BDT). New plants have the opportunity to design the best
and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment
technologies without facing the added costs and restrictions
encountered in retrofitting an existing plant. Therefore,
Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process
changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment techno-
logies which reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
This section describes the technologies for treatment of waste-
water from new sources and presents mass discharge standards for
regulatory pollutants for NSPS in the secondary uranium subcate-
gory, based on the selected treatment technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS
New source performance standards are equivalent to the best
available technology (BAT) selected for currently existing
secondary uranium plants. This result is a consequence of care-
ful review by the Agency of a wide range of technical options for
new source treatment systems which is discussed in Section XI of
the General Development Document. This review of the secondary
uranium subcategory found no new, economically feasible, demon-
strated technologies which could be considered an improvement
over those chosen for consideration for BAT. Additionally, there
was nothing found to indicate that the wastewater flows and
characteristics of new plants would not be similar to those from
existing plants, since the processes used by new sources are not
expected to differ from those used at existing sources. Conse-
quently, BAT production normalized discharge rates, which are
based on the best existing practices of the subcategory, can also
be applied to new sources. These rates are presented in Table
X-3.
Treatment technologies considered for the NSPS options are
identical to the treatment technologies considered for the BAT
options. These options are:
95
-------
OPTION A
Preliminary treatment with ammonia steam stripping
(where required)
Chemical precipitation and sedimentation
OPTION C
Preliminary treatment with ammonia steam stripping
(where required)
Chemical precipitation and sedimentation
Multimedia filtration
EPA is investigating whether organic solvent is discharged as
part of the solvent extraction raffinate waste stream. If so,
the Agency will consider including organics removal technologies
such as activated carbon or chemical oxidation in the Option C
treatment scheme at promulgation.
NSPS OPTION SELECTION
EPA proposed that the best available demonstrated technology for
the secondary uranium subcategory be equivalent to Option C
(ammonia steam stripping, chemical precipitation, sedimentation,
and multimedia filtration). Filtration technology is demon-
strated in 25 plants in the nonferrous metals manufacturing
category. Ammonia steam stripping technology is transferred from
the iron and steel category as noted in the discussion of the BAT
option selection in Section X.
The wastewater flow rates for NSPS are the same as the BAT flow
rates. Flow reduction measures for NSPS are not feasible as a
review of the industry indicates that no new demonstrated tech-
nologies that improve on BAT technology exist. EPA does not
believe that new plants could achieve any additional flow reduc-
tion beyond the 90 to 100 percent scrubber effluent recycle
presently practiced in the industry.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The Agency has no reason to believe that the pollutants that will
be found in treatable concentrations in processes within new
sources will be any different than with existing sources.
Accordingly, pollutants and pollutant parameters selected for
limitation under NSPS, in accordance with the rationale of
Sections VI and X, are identical to those selected for BAT. The
conventional pollutant parameters TSS and pH are also selected
for limitation.
96
-------
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The NSPS discharge flows for each wastewater source are the same
as the discharge rates for BAT and are shown in Table XI-1. The
mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per mass of product is
based on the product of the appropriate treatable concentration
(mg/1) and the production normalized wastewater discharge flows
(1/kkg). The treatable concentrations are listed in Table VII-19
of the General Development Document. The results of these calcu-
lations are the production-based new source performance stand-
ards. These standards are presented in Tables XI-2.
97
-------
W
H
CQ
3
CO
25
3
00
e
r-l
N
r-l
r-l
CO
£3
Si
o
z
C3
0
.,_(
4J
O
3
o
o
Si
ix.
T3
CU
5-1
CU
4-1
CU
E
cO
Si
cO
Q-<
O
rj
'O
0
5J
CX
CU
T3
r-l
X
o
l-l
M
4-i
E
1-1
C
CO
V-4
13
CU
o
3
*o
o
J.J
CX
CU
T3
H
X
o
l-l
S-i
4-1
E
r-l
C
cO
5-i
TJ
CU
CJ
j3
u
O
Si
CX
11
T3
r-l
X
O
r-l
J-l
4-1
E
S
H
C
CO
Si
rQ
CU
O
rj
*o
0
l_l
CX
CU
*o
r-l
X
0
i-l
r-l
4J
a
3
l-l
C
cO
5-i
a
cu
o
3
T3
O
>_i
a
CU
o
H
X
o
H
S-J
4-1
E
3
r-l
C
cO
V-i
CU
"O
i-i
V-i
o
r-l
(4_(
CO
VJ
4J
CU "O
4J CU
O
E 3
H O
C Si
CO CX
!-i
CU
""O
i-l
V-i
o
3
r-l
4-1
CO
5-<
4J
CU
4J
S
r-l
C
cfl
V-i
T3
CU
O
jj
"O
0
5-i
CX
t
1
M
X
QJ
J
^^
^
cC
H
23
0
O
w
CO
w
H
QC
O
fa
CO
w
H
^
t3
CU
N
r-l
r-l
cO
E
O
2
CO
CM
J5
cu-
4J
cO
rv*
CU
OC
V_i
a)
0
CO
H
Q
C
O
4J
^.
rH
CO
OC
O
m
CO
«
00
01
y
V
r-l
0
o
00
-
en
o
T
C3\
0
o
bo
CO
o
r*«
CM
.
«
0
0
CO
»
m
CM
r*-
O
CO
00
W
O
o
CO
w
H
w
H
co
co
(Xi
co
cO
CU
4-1
CO
(-1
0)
CU
4J
CO
rt
CU
CO
4-1
r-l
H
M-l
CU
C
CU
OS
r-l
5-1
CO
O
CO
CU
OC
«
r-4
CO
CU
4-1
CO
C
i-4
<4-l
4-1
CO
C
o
l-l
4-1
o
CO
4-1
X
CU
4-1
C3
CU
O
CO
Si
r-l
cO
4-1
CU
Cr-l
O O
r-l r-l
4J 4->
CO C
Si O
CU O
o c
o
P «i-4
O 4J
4-1 r-l
CO rH
CU O
00 CX
Cr-l
o o
r-l 5-1
4-1 4J
CO C
c o
H O
o
I C
CO O
O -r-l
CO r-l
o
c a
o
4J -r-<
cO CO
O 4J
a cu
co ;$
O
CN
1
o
co
"O 4-1
C cu
CO 9
r-l
C 33 O
O O Si
r-l ^ 4-1
4J C
o c o
3 O O
cu 4-> q
S-i CO O
C -< -P
cu Si 3
00 O i-H
O 3<-i
S-I r-l O
T3 4-4 CX
S-4
H
CO
4-1
cu
o
O 4J
H C
P O
CO O
c
H C
Si O
3 4-1
rH 3
4-1 r-4
OrH
Si O
^O P-;
98
-------
Table XI-2
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property _ Any One Day _ Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Uranium
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
12.880
44.550
19.140
4,639.000
1,218.000
93.260
522.000
Within the
5.220
21.230
12.880
2,039.000
696.000
52.550
417.600
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.406 0.570
Copper 4.864 2.318
Nickel 2.090 1.406
Ammonia (as N) 506.500 222.700
Fluoride 133.000 76.000
Uranium 10.180 5.738
Total Suspended 57.000 45.600
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
99
-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property _ Any One Day _ Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million
Chromium (total)
Copper
Nickel
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Uranium
Total Suspended
Solids
pH
Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
1.961
6.784
2.915
706.500
185.500
14.200
79.500
Within the
0.795
3.233
1.961
310.600
106.000
8.003
63.600
range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property _ Any One Day _ Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium, (total) 0.011 0.005
Copper 0.038 0.018
Nickel 0.017 0.011
Ammonia (as N) 3.999 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.080 0.045
Total Suspended 0.450 0.360
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
100
-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0. 000 0. 000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 1 0. 0
at all times
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.007 0.003
Copper 0.026 0.012
Nickel 0.011 0.007
Ammonia (as N) ' 2.666 1.172
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.054 0.030
Total Suspended 0.300 0.240
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
101
-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
Total Suspended 0.000 0.000
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.5 to 10.0
at all times
102
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES), which must be achieved
within three years of promulgation. PSES are designed to prevent
the discharge of pollutants which pass through, interfere with,
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly
owned treatment works (POTW). The Clean Water Act of 1977
requires pretreatment for pollutants, such as heavy metals, that
limit POTW sludge management alternatives. Section 307(c) of the
Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates NSPS. New
indirect discharge facilities, like new direct discharge facili-
ties, have the opportunity to incorporate the best available
demonstrated technologies, including process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies, and to use
plant site selection to ensure adequate treatment system instal-
lation. Pretreatment standards are to be technology based,
analogous to the best available technology for removal of toxic
pollutants.
Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) will not be
proposed for the secondary uranium subcategory because there are
no existing indirect dischargers in this subcategory. However,
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) will be proposed.
This section describes the control and treatment technologies for
pretreatment of process wastewaters from new sources in the sec-
ondary uranium subcategory. Pretreatment standards for regulated
pollutants are presented based on the selected control and
treatment technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PRETREATMENT
Before proposing and promulgating pretreatment standards, the
Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry
pass through the POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or its
chosen sludge disposal practices. In determining whether pollu-
tants pass through a well-operated POTW achieving secondary
treatment, the Agency compares the percentage of a pollutant
removed by POTW with the percentage removed by direct dischargers
applying the best available technology economically achievable.
A pollutant is deemed to pass through the POTW when the average
percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTW meeting
103
-------
secondary treatment requirements, is less than the percentage
removed by direct dischargers complying with BAT effluent limita-
tions guidelines for that pollutant. (See generally, 46 FR at
9415-16 (January 28, 1981)).
This definition of pass through satisfies two competing objec-
tives set by Congress: (1) that standards for indirect dis-
chargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers while
at the same time, (2) that the treatment capability and perfor-
mance of the POTW be recognized and taken into account in regu-
lating the discharge of pollutants from indirect dischargers.
The Agency compares percentage removal rather than the mass or
concentration of pollutants discharged because the latter would
not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged to the
POTW from non-industrial sources or the dilution of the
pollutants in the POTW effluent to lower concentrations due to
the addition of large amounts of non-industrial wastewater.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Options for pretreatment of wastewaters from new sources are
based on increasing the effectiveness of end-of- pipe treatment
technologies. All in-plant changes and applicable end-of-pipe
treatment processes have been discussed previously in Sections X
and XI. The options for PSNS, therefore, are the same as the BAT
options discussed in Section X.
A description of each option is presented in Section X, while a
more detailed discussion, including pollutants controlled by each
treatment process is presented in Section VII of the General
Deve1opment Document.
Treatment technologies considered for the PSNS options are:
OPTION A
Preliminary treatment with ammonia steam stripping
(where required)
Chemical precipitation and sedimentation
OPTION C
Preliminary treatment with ammonia steam stripping
(where required)
Chemical precipitation and sedimentation
Multimedia filtration
104
-------
EPA is investigating whether organic solvent is discharged as
part of the solvent extraction raffinate waste stream. If so,
the Agency will consider including organics removal technologies
such as activated carbon or chemical oxidation in the Option C
treatment scheme at promulgation.
PSNS OPTION SELECTION
Option C (ammonia steam stripping pretreatment, chemical precipi-
tation, sedimentation, and multimedia filtration) has been
selected as the regulatory approach for pretreatment standards
for new sources. The basis of this selection is in accordance
with the rationale for selection of the BAT option in Section X.
The wastewater discharge rates for PSNS are identical to the BAT
discharge rates for each waste stream. The PSNS discharge rates
are shown in Table XII-1. No additional flow reduction measures
for PSNS are feasible; EPA does not believe that new plants
should achieve flow reduction beyond the 90 to 100 percent
scrubber effluent recycle presently practiced in the industry.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Pollutants selected for limitation, in accordance with the
rationale of Sections VI and X, are identical to those selected
for limitation for BAT. It is necessary to propose PSNS to
prevent the pass-through of chromium, copper, nickel, ammonia,
fluoride, and uranium, which are the limited pollutants.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Pretreatment standards for new sources are based on the treatable
concentrations from the selected treatment technology, (Option
C), and the discharge rates determined in Section X for BAT. A
mass of pollutant per mass of product (mg/kg) allocation is given
for each subdivision within the subcategory. This pollutant
allocation is based on the product of the treatable concentration
from the proposed treatment (mg/1) and the production normalized
wastewater discharge rate (1/kkg). The achievable treatment
concentrations for BAT are identical to those for PSNS. These
concentrations are listed in Table VII-19 of the General
Development Document. PSNS are presented in Table XII-2.
105
-------
X
QJ
EH
Q5
W
H
O
03
CD
CO
3
rH
Z
05
Q
Z
O
O
w
CO
w
H
05
O
Cu
CO
w
EH
w
o
05
Q
Cd
W
H
CO
Tj
QJ
bC
C
«J
M
N
r-|
rH
CO V4
B
Z B
cO
C V-i
O cO
H CM
O
3
T3
O
V-i
PM
o
3
O
V-i
P-
d)
*o
H
X
o
H
Jj
4->
S
3
r-l
C
cO
V-i
C
13 O
0 QJ 4J
N 4J --
H CO rH
rH 05 CO
CO OC
O
m
CO
«
CO
B QJ
V-I M
O V-»
Z cO
43
CO O
Z co o£
CO -H ^
CM Q .M
rH
o
o
00
^.*
CO
13
QJ
o
3
o
V-i
Pu
QJ
13
H
^
o
H
V-i
4-1
e
H
c
CO
*
o
r
cy>
-
o
o
00
CO
13
QJ
0
3
o
V-i
p.
QJ
13
r-l
^
o
H
V-i
4->
H
c
cO
V-i
o
r>.
cs
»
,
o
o
CO
in
""O
4)
o
-0
o
V-i
p-
0)
"O
r-l
X
o
H
V-i
>->
B
H
c
cO
V-i
CM
p-
o
CO
cfl
0)
V-i
4-1
V-i
QJ
4J
CO
QJ
co
CO
QJ
4J
cO
V-i
QJ
C
H
M-l
QJ
05
ID
QJ
O
O
V-i
a
QJ
H
X
o
c
cO
V-i
QJ
V-i
O
CO
V4
4-1
QJ 13
4-) QJ
O
§r2
rJ ^J
H O
C Vi
co a.
V-i
00
QJ
o
CS
co
V-i
4J
QJ 13
4J QJ
C
CO
V-i
^
Jj
>J
3
rH
CO
f^
o
cO
QJ
rH
00
CO
rH
CO
OJ
4J
CO
C
H
4-4
U-l
CO
V-i
c
o
H
4J
O
CO
V-i
4-1
X
QJ
4->
C
QJ
rH
o
CO
5-4
H
cO
4J
QJ
^
C ^
0 O
H V-I
4J 4J
CO C
H O
QJ O
P-
0 C
o
£4 "^
O 4-1
4J rH
CO rH
QJ O
OC CX
H
Q
C rH
O 0
H U
4J 4J
CO C
C 0
H O
o
rH (3
cO O
O -H
4J
13 3
C rH
CO rH
O
C P-
o
H V4
4-J "H
CO CO
V-i
O 4-»
p, gj
CO £
^
b3
O
V-i
T3 Vj
>S'H
JC CO
13 4->
C Q)
CO £
r-l
c as o
o o n
H ^ 4J
4J C
o c o
3 O O
13 -H
QJ 4J C
V-i cO O
C 'H
C -H 4->
QJ V-I 3
OC OrH
O 3rH
U rH O
13 M-l PH
r^>
il
V-i
H
CO
4J
QJ
^ rH
O
C V-i
0 4J
H C
4J O
cd 0
p5
H (3
V-i 0
0-H
^ 4-J
r-l 3
M-lrH
OrH
V-I O
-o P-
>*>
i
106
-------
Table XII-2
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(a) Refinery Filtrate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rag/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 12.880 5.220
Copper 44.550 21.230
Nickel 19.140 12.880
Ammonia (as N) 4,639.000 2,039.000
Fluoride 1,218.000 696.000
Uranium 93.260 52.550
(b) Slag Leach Slurry
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.406 0.570
Copper 4.864 . 2.318
Nickel 2.090 1.406
Ammonia (as N) 506.500 222.700
Fluoride 133.000 76.000
Uranium 10.180 5.738
(c) Solvent Extraction Raffinate
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 1.961 0.795
Copper 6.784 3.233
Nickel 2.915 1.961
Ammonia (as N) 706.500 310.600
Fluoride 185.500 106.000
Uranium 14.200 8.003
J07
-------
Table XII-2 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(d) Digestion Operation Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.011 0.005
Copper 0.038 0.018
Nickel 0.017 0.011
Ammonia (as N) 3.999 1.758
Fluoride 1.050 0.600
Uranium 0.080 0.045
(e) Evaporation and Calcination Wet Air Pollution
Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium trioxide produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0,000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
(f) Hydrogen Reduction and Hydrofluorination KOH Wet
Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.007 0.003
Copper 0.026 0.012
Nickel 0.011 0.007
Ammonia (as N) 2.666 1.172
Fluoride 0.700 0.400
Uranium 0.054 0.030
108
-------
Table XII-2 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
(g) Hydrofluorination Wet Air Pollution Control
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (Ib/million Ibs) of uranium tetrafluoride
produced
Chromium (total) 0.000 0.000
Copper 0.000 0.000
Nickel 0.000 0.000
Ammonia (as N) 0.000 0.000
Fluoride 0.000 0.000
Uranium 0.000 0.000
109
-------
SECONDARY URANIUM SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XIII
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
EPA is not proposing best conventional pollutant control technol-
ogy (BCT) for the secondary uranium subcategory at this time.
Ill
------- |