United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
J,~-
s.
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-85/078 Aug. 1985
v>EPA Project Summary
Technical Assistance for
Huntington Park Group
Treatment Facility
Donald S. Harrison
Group treatment is one alternative for
firms faced with the problem of compli-
ance with pretreatment regulations
whereby they may achieve the benefits
from economics of scale. A preliminary
study of the concept as applied to the
plating firms within Huntington Indus-
trial Park, Providence, Rl, was con-
ducted under an earlier (1980) effort. It
was found at that time that, with the
assumed ten participating firms, sub-
stantial savings could be realized.
The phase of the work described here
investigated the current (1982) status
of pollution control in Huntington In-
dustrial Park through three case studies.
The studies reveal that thee plants are
either meeting or show promise of
meeting pretreatment regulations on
levels of cyanides and heavy metals at
the present time. This was achieved
through in-plant changes to reduce
water consumption, installation of re-
covery equipment, and elimination of
cyanide process solutions. In some
cases, the installation of electrolytic
recovery systems has eliminated the
need for expensive treatment equip-
ment, the generation of metallic hy-
droxide sludge, and associated disposal
problems.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce key finding of the research
project that is fully documented in a
separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
The Huntington Industrial Park in
Providence, Rl, presents a unique situa-
tion for studying pretreatment of wastes
from electroplating operations. No other
area of comparable size has such a high
concentration of electroplating firms. The
jewelry industry is heavily represented in
the park. The Narragansett Bay Water
Quality Management District Commission
Treatment Plant which serves the Provi-
dence area receives large concentrations
of the industrial park's influent. In 1980 it
was determined that as much as $30,000
per week worth of silver was discharged
into Narragansett Bay.
Nationally, compliance with pretreat-
ment regulations may be difficult for the
smaller job shops, who lack the expertise
and/or economic capability to install and
operate treatment systems. Regionally,
projected impacts in the Providence area
are significant. Huntington Industrial Park
is located within Providence at the
Cranston, Rl, boundary. With easy access
to highways, the park is ideally located in
respect to the many electroplating and
jewelry firms in the area. Although not
planned as an electroplating park when
constructed about 10 years ago, 11 plants
in the park now fall into that category.
With the exception of one plating job shop
and one electronics concern, all are in the
business of jewelry manufacturing. In the
11 firms, employment ranges from 25 to
350. The avrage number of working days
per year is 242. All except two oprate on
one 8-hour shift.
-------
These plants are faced with the prob-
lems of compliance with environmental
regulations. Because of their proximity,
thee possbility for reducing waste treat-
ment costs through group treatment was
investigated. Group treatment refers to
the joint establishment of a waste treat-
ment facility by a group of shops in close
proximity, discharging wastes. Owner-
ship, management, and operation would
generally involve the participating com-
panies themselves, although a number of
variants are possible. The Group Treat-
ment Facility (GTF), while primarily in-
tended for the benefit of its members,
could offer to treat the wastes of other
small shops having similar waste consti-
tuents.
In early 1980, CENTEC Corporation
performed a preliminary analysis of group
treatment at Huntington Industrial Park.
Wastewater from each of the 10 potential
participants was sampled and analyzed,
and flows were measured. The CENTEC
joint treatment mathematical model was
used to size and cost the GTF and to
indicate the economic decision for each
of the participants. Transportation of
wastes by both truck and by private sewer
system was evaluated. Preliminary con-
tacts were made with SBA, State of
Rhode Island Department of Environmen-
tal Management, Providence Department
of Public Works, Rhode Island Department
of Economic Development, and the Bank
of Wisconsin (a potential underwriter). As
a result of that earlier feasibility study's
conclusion that the proposed GTF was
feasible and might result in savings, the
potential participants decided to move
ahead with the project.
The Group Treatment Facility design
completed under the earlier study called
on each plant to install counter-current
rinsing and initiate other innovative
techniques to minimize the volume of
rinsewater requiring shipment to the GTF.
Each plant was to achieve flow reductions
of 60 to 90 percent. The tretment of
cyanides would be the most costly GTF
process. In fact, the earlier study found
that if cyanides could be eliminated from
the plants' production process, the need
for a joint treatment facility would have to
be reevaluated.
Since the 1980 study, most of the
plants in the park have instituted the
recommended in-plant changes to signif-
icantly reduce the volumes of wastewater
being treated. In addition, and perhaps of
most significance, most plants have re-
placed some cyanide baths and cleaners
with non-cyanide types while retaining
product quality.
The three-case study project described
in this report had a its objective the
evaluation of the changes made by the
platers at Huntington Park since the
original study, and the reevaluation of the
course of action needed to achieve com-
pliance in light of those changes.
Discussion
In the full report, the three plants
surveyed are referred to by plant number
and by case number. In this Project
Summary they will be referred to as case
numbers 1, 2, and 3. In each of the three
plants surveyed, data from this study and
from the 1980 study were compared. In
cases 1 and 2 improvements made since
1980 consisted of installation of counter-
current rinsing, aerating rinsewater flow
restrictors, and electrolytic recovery units
and utilization of non-cyanide baths. In
case study 3, the improvements included
installation of an automatic plating
machine and rinsewater flow restrictions.
The new plating machine now accounts
for 80 percent of the plant's production.
In all three plants, surveyed water
consumption in cases 1, 2, and 3 was
reduced by 62.5 percent, 64.5 percent,
and 88.2 percent, respectively. Total
regulated metals discharged were re-
duced 12.7 percent, 82.3 percent, and
83.6 percent.
In cases 1 and 2, cyanide concentra-
tions were reduced 98.2 percent and 97.0
percent. In case 3, a higher concentration
of cyanide was noted. The full report
recommends elimination of an excess
rinse to reduce cyanide concentrations.
Analytical results of the composite
effluent sample indicatethat case 1 and 2
plants are meeting EPA pretreatment
regulations without need for further in-
plant changes or the installation of addi-
tional treatment equipment.
Many calculations involving rinsing of
plated parts and recovery of metals
require a determination of the quantity of
process solution clinging to the parts and
rack, the so-called "dragout." To deter-
mine a reasonable dragout for case 2 the
following experiment was conducted.
The first rinse tank following the nickel
plating tank was emptied, thoroughly
cleaned, and refilled with fresh water. An
initial sample from the rinse tank was
analyzed for nickel concentration. Addi-
tional samples of the "dead" rinse tank
were analyzed after 10, 27, and 40 racks
had passed through the tank. A sample of
the nickel plating tank was also analyzed
for nickel concentration. From these
analyses, the dragout was calculated to
be 0.20 liters per rack for the plants in all
three cases.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 compare plant
performance in 1982 against perform-
Table 1. Huntington Industrial Park Plant Performance Comparison—Case 7
February 1980—February 1982
Parameter
Effluent Flow, gpd
Analyses, mg/l
All Metals
C/V,
Au
Rh
Ag
Cd
Cr,
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
Sn
2/80
64,000
1.74
29
•
*
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.68
0.95
<0.001
0.06
*
2/82
24,000
4.05
0.14
<0.5
<0.5
0.05
<0.01
0.22
1.04
2.56
0.007
0.17
<1.0
Percent
Reduction
62.5
12.7
98.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'not analyzed.
Dragout Experiment Results: DRAGOUT = 0.020 I/rack
-------
Table 2. Huntington Industrial Park Plant Performance Comparison — Case 2
Effluent Analysis
February 1 980— February 1982
Parameter
Effluent Flow, gpd
Analyses, mg/l
All Metals
CN,
Au
Rh
Ag
Cd
Crt
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
Sn
*not analyzed.
2/80
32.000
1.85
3.9
*
*
0.13
-------
Donald S. Harrison is with Centec Corporation, Reston, VA 22090.
Alfred B. Craig is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Technical Assistance for Huntington Park Group
Treatment Facility," (Order No. PB 85-222 768/AS; Cost: $10.00, 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 Protect Officer can be contacted at:
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research 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/S2-85/078
0000329 PS
U S ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
R5GION 5 LIBRARY
230 S DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO IL 60604
------- |