United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-88/073 Mar. 1989
v°/EPA Project Summary
Field Measurements of Full-
Scale Hazardous Waste
Treatment Facilities - Organic
Solvent Wastes
Treatment of organic wastes by full
scale treatment facilities was evalu-
ated through field evaluations of
offsite hazardous waste treatment
facilities to provide data regarding
alternative treatment technologies to
land disposal and the applicability of
these technologies to specific waste
streams. Field sampling and analysis
provided characterization of the
waste, product and residues associ-
ated with technologies such as
distillation, steam distillation, thin
film evaporation, heated screw auger
evaporation, Incineration, steam
stripping, waste blending, carbon
adsorption, and activated sludge
treatment at the facilities tested. An
evaluation of treatment effectiveness
based on waste, product, and
residue characteristics and a
discussion on residue management
were prepared for each facility.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Risk Reduction Engi-
neering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to
announce key findi-ngs of the
research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report
ordering fnfbrmatfon at back).
Introduction
The technologies that were evaluated
in the study were distillation, steam
distillation, agitated thin film evaporation,
screw auger evaporation, incineration,
waste blending fuel substitution, steam
stripping, activated sludge, and carbon
adsorption.
The field evaluation of offsite (i.e.,
commercial) hazardous waste treatment
facilities was selected for the testing
activities because they have both a
variety of waste streams of interest and
the processes for treating hazardous
wastes.
Table 1 is a matrix of the treatment
technologies and waste streams that
were studied and the identification codes
for facilities where the sampling took
place. Selected studies that are
representative of the work documented in
the report are described below.
Distillation
Three of the facilities visited operated
distillation processes for solvent
reclamation. Facility 0 accepts organic
solvent wastes that are generated by
industries involved in metal finishing,
solvent cleaning, lacquering, and painting
operations. Facility 0 operated three stills
to process organic liquids: a main still, a
batch kettle, and a batch still reboiler.
Facility D's goals for the distillation
process were to recover solvents for
reuse and/or pretreat the waste so that it
is acceptable for treatment by inciner-
ators; to separate the water fraction for
discharge; and to produce a solid residue
for disposal.
Main Still (Facility D)
Facility D uses three distillation
operations to recover solvents and to
separate water fractions for further
treatment prior to their discharge to the
sewer. The still operations can be
modified to treat varying waste compo-
sitions. In this case, they were used to
treat the same wastes sequentially.
Table 2 presents the results of the field
testing performed at Facility D on the
main still. Two batches of organic liquids
- methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) mixed with
-------
Table 1. Treatment Technology/Waste Stream/Facility Matrix
Pumpable Organic Sludge
(>1% Solids)
(>10% Organics)
Dilute Aqueous Liquid
(<1% Organics)
Non-Pumpable
Solid Waste
Organic Liquid
(>50% Organics)
Batch
Distillation
Steam
Distillation
Steam Stripping
Agitated Thin Film
Evaporation
Heated Screw Auger
Evaporation
Waste Blending/Fuel
Substitution
Activated Sludge
Treatment
Activated Carbon
Treatment
A-D and F-N are facilities sampled by Metcalf & Eddy, Alliance and RTI for which results are summarized in this report. There is
no facility E designated in this report.
paint pigment and an oil water emulsion
- were processed through the main still
during the test program. The MEK
product concentration was 91 percent.
The major constituent in the second
product was 1,1,1-trichloroethane, also
at 91 percent.
Batch Kettle (Facility D)
Two batches of waste were treated by
the batch kettle. The waste influent
consisted of 1) water from the main still
process tank and still receiver and 2)
water, solids, and mixed "rag" layers
from the clarified solvent influent storage
tank. The primary components measured
in the influent stream were acetone,
isopropanol, and methyl ethyl ketone.
The results of the field testing are
presented in Table 3.
Batch Still Reboiler (Facility D)
The influent stream to the batch still
reboiler consisted of the overhead
product from the two batch kettle runs.
Table 4 presents the results of the field
testing of the batch still reboiler. No
discrete influent sample was taken of the
waste stream since the product streams
of the two batch kettle runs were
sampled. The finished solvent product
for the batch still reboiler was 89 percent
water by weight. The predominant
organics present in the product were
isopropanol and ethanol.
Batch Distillation (Facility A)
Facility A treated both halogenated and
nonhalogenated waste streams by batch
distillation. The wastes included
methylene chloride, isopropanol, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and methyl ethyl ketone.
The still bottoms produced at Facility A
generally had a high Btu and low chlorine
content and were suitable for fuel
blending. The overheads were recovered
for reuse, e.g., as a paint thinner.
Steam Distillation (Facility C)
The steam distillation unit at Facility C
treated both halogenated and nonhalo-
genated organic solvents, recovered
these organics in the distillate, but pro-
duced a solvent-laden wastewater that
is a notable disadvantage of direct-
steam distillation and steam stripping.
Waste Blending/Fuel
Substitution (Facility B)
Facility B operates an organic waste
blending operation. Organic liquid wastes
are received in drums that often contain
a bottom layer of sludge and/or solids.
To incorporate sludges and solids into
the fuels, Facility B uses a mechanical
process to grind solids such as resins,
latex, still bottoms, and paint sludges to a
uniform particle size.
Two batches of low-chlorine fuel
substitutes were blended during the
sampling program. Batch 1 was a mixtu
of paints and paint sludges. Batch 2 w<
a mixture of varnish, paints, alcohols, ai
xylene. Table 5 presents the results
the blending operation.
Low-chlorine fuel blends produced
Facility B are sold to operators of kilns
furnaces that are permitted to store at
burn EPA-listed hazardous wastes. Tl
high-chlorine waste blends, whit
contain up to 45 percent chlorine, a
sold to a manufacturer of low-alki
cement for use in the cement kilns.
the time of this study (1986), U
nonpumpable sludges were mixed wi
lime and land-disposed.
Other Treatment Technologies
The following treatment processes a
presented briefly. They are describe
more fully in the project report.
Agitated Thin Film Evaporatio
(Facility K)
The thin film evaporator is effective
recovering nonhalogenated solvents ar
in producing still bottoms that can t
utilized as supplemental fuel. Hah
genated solvents can also be recover*
effectively by thin film evaporation, b
the bottoms use as a fuel supplement
dependent on the residual chlorir
content.
-------
Table 2. Main Still Analytical Results
- Facility D
Batch 1 - MEK Solvent
Pollutant
Principal Organic Compounds
Acetone
n-Butanol
Dioxane
Ethyl acetate
Isopropanol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
1 ,1 ,1 -trichloroethane
Toluene
Total unidentified concentration
Metals
Cadmium
Total chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Other Analysis
Total organic halide
Oil & grease
Total solids
% Water
% Carbon
Btu content
Viscosity
Paint filter test
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mglL
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
weight % Cl
ppm
ppm
weight %
weight %
Btu/lb
cst
see note
Clarified
Solvent
Influent
17,000
6,500
<2,500
10,000
27,000
< 2,500
850,000
27,000
<2,500
48,000
44,000
8
22
4
T6
76
<0.3
70
0.4024
780,000
90,000
6.43
65
NS
NS
NS
Finished
Water
Product
8,500
<500
<500
<500
9,000
9,900
4,400
<500
<500
<500
7,600
NSt
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.002
NS
NS
59.94
4
NS
NS
NS
Finished
Solvent
Product
20,000
6,000
< 2,500
13,000
41,000
<2,500
910,000
20,000
<2,500
51,000
25,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.470
NS
NS
12.82
63
NS
NS
NS
Still
Bottoms
T < 2,500*
11,000
< 2,500
4,700
9,600
< 2,500
500,000
30,000
<2,500
47,000
99,000
620*
2.20O*
270*
7,200*
2,200*
<730*
490*
0.500
260,000
370,000
3.48
68
74,788
4.3 @52C
Fail
Batch 2
Oil-Water Emulsion
Clarified
Solvent
Influent
6,400
510
40,000
<500
3,500
18,000
9,100
T <500
210,000
7,200
3,300
<0.2
0.6
5.0
75.0
7.0
<0.3
3.0
7.220
75,000
20,000
90.69
2
NS
7.7 @1C
NS
Finished
Product
4,700
T < 2,500
4,100
< 2,500
T <2,500
< 2,500
72,000
2,100
970,000?
4,700
<2,500
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
21.830
NS
NS
0.19
23
NS
NS
NS
"T = Trace concentration detected below the average reporting limit
t Per phone conversation 7/75/86 with analytical lab
tNS = Not sampled
* = Units are mg/kg
Note: Result based on qualitative observation
-------
CM
•c
a
CQ
«
CD
Q
^
m
lj
1
tf>
*5
~3
,2 m 3
O) ^ "O
.5 o 2
it Q.
2*0
f^3
-
0 0
8 8
O) ^f
co co
1 1
o" CM"
QO \t
8 8
CM 10
oj CM
V
o c5
!*• tf)
V CM"
V
|8
o" CM"
CM v
1 §
O IO
CM" CM"
Oi w
i i
s ?
-j -i
Q) O)
s s
-2
73
§
O
Q
§
Principal Organic Ci
Acetone
Ethanol
0
o
Is."
CM
8
10"
fs.
0
o
o
T^
0
8
8
|
§
0
o
O
e
o
evT
T^.
|
10
co
|
O"
¥».
r*
§
IS."
CO
—1
Isopropanol
0
O
rC
T^
|
CM"
CM
§
o
o>
0
§
CM"
V
8
10
V
8
CM
V
8
IO
CM"
V
8
IO
CM
V
1
CM"
V
8
IO
CM"
V
-j
O)
6
Methanol
0
O
W}
CM
|
IS."
o>
§
O
o
CM
CM
0
8
1
8
0)
M-
8
10
CM
V
8
IO
CM"
V
i—
8
IO
CM
V
1
^
8
CO
-J
O)
s
I
Methyl ethyl ketone (
Total unidentified
8
CO
CM"
|
co"
8
10
CM"
V
0
8
CO
1
co"
V
8
IO
CM"
V
8
IO
CM"
V
I
CM"
8
00
^
§
IO
concentration
Other Analysis
Q CO
CO
0
§ §
o
0 CO
CO
o
O CO
CM ^
II
o CM"
O CO
o
o
is. CO
CM 2
o *•
o
§8
0
IS
c>
CO O
8 i
o 10
Q
^
S?
*J"
s ^
'S 0)
i 6
Total organic halide
Oil & grease
CO
CO
CO
CO
2
§
«
co
z
CO
CO
8
10"
-J
0)
E
1
I
CO
oj
00
X
IS.
0
'J-
Is!
^
00
CO
CM
CM
00
o>
ui
0)
IO
rs.
IO
o>
O)
00
co
CO
oj
00
CO
CD
J?
^J
1
i
a
i
••5
.6
1
1
s
5
%
co
CO
£
i
s
•a
•Q
o
0
"D
-------
Table 4. Batch Still Reboiler Results
Pollutant
Principal Organic Compounds
Acetone
n-Butanol
Dioxane
Ethanol
Isopropanol
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
1, 1,1-Trichloroethane
Total unidentified concentration
Metals
Cadmium
Total chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Other Analysis
Total organic halide
OH & grease
Total solids
% Water
Btu content
Viscosity
Paint filter test
- Facility D
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ppm
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
weight % C/
mg/L
mg/L
weight %
Btu/lb
cst
see note
Still Bottoms
2,600
1,700
13,000
10,000
7,400
5,800
4,900
2,000
23,000
0.3
<0.3
27.0
1.0
<0.5
<0.3
4.0
0.030
420
7,400
95.33
<200
2.2 @67c
Fail
Finished Solvent
Product
7,200
4,500
17,000
29,000
47,000
< 2,500
11,000
<2,500
4,400
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.065
NS
NS
88.65
NS
NS
NS
Thinning Tank
NS-
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<0.6
<0.9
<1.8
11.0
<1.5
<0.9
<0.9
0.000
1,600
40,000
NS
NS
NS
NS
"NS = Not sampled
Note: Result based on qualitative observation
Heated Screw Auger (Facility K)
At Facility K, the heated screw auger
achieved significant reductions in waste
solvent concentration for nonpumpable
solid waste and pumpable organic
sludges at a temperature of 550°F.
Metals were concentrated in the residual
stream.
Incineration (Facilities F and H)
Facility F incinerated organic wastes
containing common solvent compounds
such as acetone, benzene, chloroform,
methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloro-
ethylene, and xylene. The ash did
contain several organic compounds that
may be indicative of incomplete com-
bustion because of inadequate retention
time, mixing, or temperature in the
incinerator. Facility H's waste contained
a large concentration of toluene along
with several semivolatile organic com-
pounds, all of which were not detected in
the ash. The scrubber wastewater for
both facilities contained no detectable
quantities of organic compounds.
Steam Stripping (Facilities G, M,
andN)
The effluent from the steam strippers
evaluated at Facilities G and M was
discharged to wastewater treatment
systems for final treatment. The effluent
at Facility N was discharged to a river
since the effluent met National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPOES)
permit requirements. Facility G recovered
methylene chloride for reuse; Facility M
recovered 1,2-dichloroethane for recy-
cle and reduced the volatile organics in
the wastewater; Facility N recovered
chlorinated solvents from process
waste waters.
Cartoon Adsorption (Facilities B
andC)
Carbon adsorption was the final
treatment operation in the aqueous
treatment processes at two commercial
treatment facilities. The effluent from the
granular activated carbon (GAG) system
at Facility B was discharged to the local
municipal sewer system. At Facility C,
-------
CM
S
I
i
Q
ut
TJ- <0 i-
11
i
8
1
o
8
001010(0000
i-»-OOIO»- ^C\l
CSOCJO'OO v O
V V V V V
!••» O)
O co
Y- K »O
Sr* Y-
. co 3
t- 10 >-
i
111
8 8
10 CM
IO" CD
CO ^
(O
oooooooo
cN
°
v
.
O O
v v
O O O
v v
»- O
O O O
Ol IO co
co fo co
§ S
CM
CM
V
111
CM
urn
10 co S S
~ co I I
n. a> O
IO IO »»
1111
§ §
IO IO
11111
mm
8 S 8 8 § 8
^ CM »- o CM to
CO Ul O CO
1
1111
11111111
OO 5 5
«\ 6 i< * 2
urn
CM o>
CM co
^8838
o o o o
": •-: is.' co
O v T. i-
V
o o o
~ CO N. O O ~
CM CM >- oo o
8 8 8 8 ^
c5 c> « 10"
K IO IO ^
C>
-------
the effluent was sent to a nonhazardous
surface impoundment on site for natural
evaporation. The effluent stream from
Facility C will be discharged to a creek
when an NPDES discharge permit is
obtained.
Activated Sludge (Facility I)
The activated sludge treatment system
at Facility I removed more than 90
percent of the volatile organic
compounds from an aqueous waste
(methanol, methyl ethyl ketone,
methylene chloride, and toluene).
Removals of total organic carbon and
biochemical oxygen demand were
greater than 85 and 94 percent,
respectively. The final effluent was
discharged to a nearby river.
Conclusions
The technologies included in this study
were evaluated for treating organic waste
streams to recover organic solvents,
produce residues to be used as fuel
blends, and reduce levels of hazardous
constituents to make residues more
suitable for final disposal. The effec-
tiveness of the treatment technologies
and the conclusions drawn are based on
a limited number of facility tests.
Distillation and thin film evaporation
were effective in solvent recovery and in
reducing the quantity of material for final
disposal by recovering the waste solvent.
Waste blending is effective at
producing fuel blends from organic
wastes. This includes solid organic
wastes that are used as substitutes for
conventional fuels in high-temperature
industrial processes such as industrial
boilers and kilns. Wastes that are
unacceptable for fuel substitution
because of a low heating value, high
chlorine concentration, high ash content,
or high viscosity may be blended with
higher quality organic wastes or with fuel
oil to produce a mixture of acceptable
quality for fuel substitution.
GAC adsorption is effective at remov-
ing dissolved organic compounds from
aqueous wastes containing low concen-
trations of organics after upstream
processes have removed heavy metals
and suspended solids.
The heated screw auger evaporation
unit reduced the xylene in the feed from
19 to 2 percent in the residue. The lead
concentration was 15,000 micrograms
per gram in the residue and 0.35
milligram per liter in the EP test solution.
The residues from the unit would still be
hazardous under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act.
Properly designed and operated
incinerator systems can achieve virtually
complete destruction of many organic
compounds. The incineration systems of
Facilities F and H had demonstrated
99.99 percent destruction during the trial
burn stack tests. Comparison of the
wastes fed to Facility F's incinerator and
the corresponding ash indicated 99.93
percent destruction of organic com-
pounds. The metals in the feed were
concentrated in the ash from both tests.
Steam stripping was effective in
treating the aqueous waste streams
containing halogenated organic com-
pounds. For example, reduction of
methylene chloride from Facilities G and
N was nearly 100 percent. The final
stripper effluent concentrations were 0.19
and 0.01 parts per million methylene
chloride, respectively.
The full report was submitted in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-3316
by Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers, Inc.,
under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
This Project Summary was prepared by staff of Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, Inc.,
Wakefield, MA 01880.
Ronald J. Turner is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled, "Field Measurements of Full-Scale Hazardous
Waste Treatment Facilities - Organic Solvent Wastes," (Order No. PB 89-138
853IAS; Cost: $28.95, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-88/073
0000329 PS
U 3 ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCT
RESION 5 LIBRARY
230 S DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO It 60604
------- |