COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alan Ito September 16, 1991 Page 3 not byproducts (e.g. , spent acids) . Thus, if materials are not byproducts, they are not necessarily coproducts. The federal register referenced above also defines "spent material" . The Register describes spent material as ; "those rmaterials] that have been used, and as a result of that use become contaminated by physical or chemical impurities, and can no longer serve the purpose for which they were produced. " Based on the above summary of the federal interpretation and the information you provided, ATD has concluded the following: • SWPC's "Ferrorich" is not a coproduct, because it does not meet the criteria set forth above. For example, it is not intentionally produced. SWPC's use of a dilute sulfuric acid bath (concentration was not specified) to remove scale and rust from coil rolls of steel rods is a required preliminary step to adding a rust-preventive coating to the rods . Therefore, the used acid, containing ferrous sulfate that resulted from reaction of the acid with the scale and rust, is always produced, regardless of SWPC's intent. The used sulfuric acid is better described as a "spent material" which would be regulated as a waste. Also, "Ferrorich" appears to be unsuitable for end use as- is, and appears not to be, in its existing state, ordinarily used as a commodity-in-trade by the general public. The wide variations in concentrations of desired ingredients in "Ferrorich" (25 percent range) indicate that it needs substantial processing to make it suitable for use even by J. R. Simplot Company (JRSC) in fertilizer manufacture, let alone for use in its existing state by the general public. Furthermore, until SWPC discovered "Ferrorich" , SWPC apparently considered the used acid to be a byproduct (Document No. 1) . As the above summary indicates, byproducts cannot be coproducts (CFR) . • SWPC modified its process by changing the dilute sulfuric acid bath more frequently (criteria for doing so were not explicitly stated) than the process itself required, in order to produce "Ferrorich" (Document No. 3 ) . Although this modification presumably increased the used-sulfuric- acid concentration and (of course) decreased the pH, it also presumably decreased the concentration of ferrous sulfate produced, ostensibly the desired ingredient if the name "Ferrorich" means anything. Thus, "Ferrorich" presumably became poorer with respect to ferrous sulfate concentration