Laserfiche WebLink
2. A second source reduction measure was eliminating the use of hexavalent chromium <br />in cleaning and plating operations in the 2006 -to -2007 time period and using <br />alternative technologies that provide the benefits of hexavalent chromium without any <br />of the drawbacks. The elimination of hexavalent chromium provided several side - <br />benefits that are not easy to quantify, but definitely contributed to the following <br />achievements: <br />a. Eliminated the need to treat hexavalent chromium rinse waters in the MFPF, <br />thus helping to eliminate the tank that was used to convert hexavalent <br />chromium to trivalent chromium. <br />b. Reduced the generation of heavy metal sludge and treatment chemical usage <br />associated with the treatment of hexavalent chromium in the MFPF. <br />c. Eliminated the potential for worker exposure from hexavalent chromium in <br />the metal finishing and MFPF work areas. <br />Reductions in the quantity of filter cake generation are normalized relative to the quantity <br />of rinse water used. The SLAC MFO successfully reduced the quantity of filter cake <br />from an average of 0.0077 pounds per gallon of water treated (Ib/gal) from 2003 to 2006 <br />to an average of .0036 lb/gal in 2007 to 2010, a 50 percent reduction. Some of the <br />variations in the quantity of filter cake generated per gallon of rinse water treated are due <br />to the volume of aqueous hazardous waste (Category A) treated. Increased treatment of <br />aqueous hazardous waste results in increased filter cake per gallon of water treated <br />because the aqueous waste is significantly more concentrated than the rinse water. <br />Year <br />Quantity (lb)tions <br />Non- <br />Ilazardous <br />Rinse water <br />Treated <br />Ratio: Filter <br />Cake/Rlme <br />Water <br />Ib! Ilon <br />Percent <br />Reduction (1998 <br />Baseline <br />Quantity of <br />Aqueous <br />13azardous Waste <br />Treated allona <br />1998 <br />23,966 <br />2,110,000 <br />0.0114 <br />0 <br />0 <br />1999 <br />15,238 <br />1,050,000 <br />0.0145 <br />-28 <br />0 <br />2000 <br />9,669 <br />700,000 <br />0.0138 <br />-22 <br />0 <br />2001 <br />5,432 <br />745,524 <br />0.0073 <br />36 <br />1285 <br />2002 <br />7,961 <br />1,221,424 <br />0.0065 <br />43 <br />1795 <br />2003 <br />7,388 <br />1,234393 <br />0.0060 <br />47 <br />2765 <br />2004 <br />8,508 <br />720,039 <br />0.0118 <br />-4 <br />2275 <br />2005 <br />7683 <br />912,294 <br />0.0084 <br />26 <br />810 <br />2006 <br />6064 <br />1,295,519 <br />0.0047 <br />59 <br />550 <br />2007 <br />4323 <br />1 526 065 <br />0.0028 <br />75 <br />1312 <br />2008 <br />2778 <br />1557638 <br />0.0018 <br />84 <br />750 <br />2009 <br />6457 <br />1,167 088 <br />0.0055 <br />51 <br />2192 <br />2010 <br />4431 1 <br />1,089,525 <br />0.0041 <br />64 <br />785 <br />September 1, 2011 SB 14 Report <br />15 <br />Filter Cake Waste Generation <br />ar <br />R 30,000 <br />U 25,000 <br />20,000 <br />15,000 <br />LL 10,000 <br />o � 5,0000 <br />3 000�o°R`otio`5o°'&o`'6000°No <br />�o ryo ryo ,yo yo IPIPIyo ,yo ,yo If, ,yo <br />t7 <br />Year <br />Reduction in Filter Cake Waste <br />Relative to 1998 (Baseline) and Based <br />on Constant Rinse Water Usage <br />v 100 <br />2f 80 <br />60 <br />_ a, 40 <br />v, 20 <br />0 9 0 <br />-20 <br />40 <br />6 1 B O O <br />p0 0j0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O^ <br />Year <br />`w <br />a <br />September 1, 2011 SB 14 Report <br />16 <br />