1

x.

CHALLENGES T O RECYCLE A N D REUSE OF DYEHOUSE WASTEWATERS

by Fred T. Eslirka

At present you wiii find many dyehouse water conservation practices i n textiles. Already many textile operations are using one bath dyeing procedure for fiber blends as opposed to earlier use of two step dyeing. A l l shades and all procedures, however, will not lend itself to one bath dyeing. Caustic recovery is fairly well standard procedure where mercerizing or Sanforizing i s done. There are many package dyeing facilities that reuse the dye liquor cool back water alone with fresh water as makeup water to replenish the hot water supply. Much of dyehouse wash water is presently reused. indigo dye recovery i s now in use. Energy conservation through recycle/reuse i s also practiced i n textiles. In caustic recovery the condenser water of the recovery unit is fed back to the hot water storage tank of the dyehouse. Easy shades utilizing simple dyeing procedures can be reused by adding necessary dyes to the recycle bath. There are, however, some problems with energy or heat recovery in most dyehouse operations. All viable dyehouse operations presently in textilesareequipped with dyehouse wastewater heat recovery systems. These systems normally can recover more waste heat than can be utilized by the dyehouse. A rule of thumb i s that only 70% of the heat recovered will actually be reused by the dyehouse. Systems are sized for peak loads hydraulically and thermally and no dyehouse will afford a solid heat balance that can reuse all heat recovered. I would like to share with you a few major activities of the Environmental Preservation Committee that will enhance your perspective of dyehouse wastewater recycle/reuse. Over the past eight years there have been three major projects conducted by the ATMI Committee in concert with the Northern Textile Association and the Carpet and Rug Institute. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (both R&D and Effluent Guidelines) also participated i n these projects. The major studies in chronological order were:
1.

lechnology Currently Available for the Textile Industry. This study was completed January 15, 1973. Hereinafter this will be called the Blue Book study. Source Assessment: Textile Plant Wastewater Toxics Study. Final Draft completed December, 1977. Hereinafter we will refer to this as the Monsanto study. Technical and Economic Evaluation of BATEA Textile Guidelines. This study was begun in 1976 and completed i n January, 1980. Hereinafter this will be called the BATEA study. O n July 24, 1972, representatives of A T M I were invited to Washington, D.C., for a meeting with the Director, Office of Enforcement, EVA. At this meeting, these representatives were presented with a copy of a document, entitled Effluent Limitation Guidance for the Refuse Act Permit Program - Textile Industry, and were asked to comment on the document as to its workability or suitability. As these guidelines were some 36 pages long, the A T M I representatives requested a sufficient length of time for study, before commenting on them. In answer to this request, ten days were granted, during which representatives of ATMI, the institute of Textile Technology (ITT), and Hydroscience, Inc., an independent consulting concern, held discussions on the content of these textile industry guidelines, and formulated a collective opinion o n them. As a result of thesedeliberations, a two-fold approach was decided upon. Firstly, the text of the guidelines was critically reviewed and commented on. Secondly, i t was decided that so far as the tables of values of permissible pollutant levels were concerned, insufficient data were available at that time, to form an opinion as to their workability and attainability. ATMI, therefore, returned to Washington on August 7,1972, to report to EPA with a constructive criticism of the text, and with a request for a 120-day period to carry out an allencompassing study of the textile industry waste situation, sponsored by ATMI, in conjunction with

Recommendationsand Commentsfor the Establishment of Best Practicable Wastewater Control

.,...~<_..

...

..

ITT and Hydroscience. The outcome of this meeting was that the ATMl suggestions regarding the text of the guidelines Were taken note Oft and the 120-day study period was granted. A few days later, the carpet industry, i n the shape of The Carpet and Rug Institute joined A T M l i n sponsoring this project, which thus became an ATMI-CRI joint venture, using the knowledge and facilities of ITT and Hydroscience. The overall objective of this Blue Book Project, therefore, was to develop sound and reliable recommendations, which could be used by EPA i n the development Of valid, workable, and acceptable guidelines. The approach taken to developing these recommendations was three-fold, involving, firstly a critical survey of the literature; secondly, the mailing of a detailed questionnaire to ATMl and CRI members; and, thirdly, the sampling and testing of effluent from carefully selected ATMI-CRI member plants. Some 800 questionnaires were sent out to ATMl and CRI members, and 307 were completed and returned for analysis and classification on the Hydroscience computer. Basically speaking, both these questionnaires requested information on process water usage i n gallons per pound of product, on effluent generating processes within the mill, and on fiber types and weights of different products produced. Details were requested of any effluent testing program which the mill might be pursuing, together w i t h the characteristics of treated and untreated effluent, i f these were known. D a t a were also requested on a seasonal basis i n order to determine what fluctuations are experienced i n production and water usage in different mill processes throughout the year. The effluent testing program for this project involved the collection and analysis of both treated and untreated effluent a t carefully selected piants representative of the textile industry. These were chosen in the main, but not exclusively,from the ATMl and CRI membership. The selection of 18 plants was done carefully, i n order to give a representative sampling of the industry on geographic, product, process, and size bases. However, the main criterion which was used i n selection of plants for testing was that the plant should be operating one of the best waste treatment facilities. As a definition of best technology, it was required that plants should show:
1. Effective BOD5 reduction. 2. Evidence of disolved oxygen in aeration tanks. 3. Negligible settleable solids overflowing from the clarifier. 4. Compatibility with plant hydraulic design. 5. On-stream operation for a t least six months.

ent characteristics, was designed to provide information which would lead to: 1. Acategorization ofthetextileindustry into meaningful segments, based on water usage and amount of pollutants produced. 2. A determination of the characteristics of plant effluent, both before and after treatment. 3. A definition of the quantities of process water discharged per pound of product. 4. A definition of problem processes within the industry. 5. A definition of the term best practicablecontrol tech no logy cu rre nt I y ava ila ble ( BPT). To both condense and summarize, the recommendations set forth i n the Blue Book study for treated wastewater effluent guidelines became EPAs 1977 textile industry effluent guidelines. The industry categorization recommended in the study i s quite similar to those proposed i n 1977 and for 1984 BAT guidelines. Secondary biological treatment was accepted as BPT for textiles. The original Monsanto study really began as an offshoot of the overall BATEA project which began i n 1976. EPA wished to measure the influent wastewater to the 19 plants selected for the BATEA study for toxicity. This was done for 149 priority pollutants and only traces were found with the exception of chromium, zinc, phenols, and copper. Treated effluents of these plants, however, met their NPDES permits on copper, zinc, chromium and phenols. Concurrent with the original Monsanto study was a report done by a contractor to EPA which concluded that sludges from textile wastewater treatment plants might be hazardous and, under RCRA, EPA was considering listing the treatment sludges of woven fabric and knitted fabric dyeing and finishing plants as hazardous. ATMl and NTA, a t the request of EPA, had M o n santo to run whole sludge analyses on 59 textile dye house wastewater treatment sludges covering a l l textile categories. The results were that there was little difference in sludge corxenirations of the 149 priority pollutants i n a l l texiile categories dnd most of the concentrations were a t the trace levei. I n the case of zinc, chromium, copper, and phenols concentrations, these were found to be less than 10 times drinking water standards. One hGndred times drinking water standards in sludges isconsidered by EPA as the threshold level of toxicity for these pollutdnts. As a result of the Monsanto studies, no textile dyehouse wastewater sludge i s considered to be hazardous waste by EPA. Textile effluents from these treatment plants are not considered to be toxic by EPA. O n July 5, 1974 the EPA published Effluent Guidelines and Standards for textile industry point source

This three-phase examination of textile industry waste

treatment methods, abatement programs and efflu-

dischargers. These guidelines reguired Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA) to be achieved by July 1,1983. O n October 1,1974, ATMl filed a petition for review of the textile industry BATEA guidelines with the US. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A T M I was joined in this action by the Northern Textile Association and the Carpet and Rug Institute. The parties involved subsequently filed a joint motion to delay the petition pending the review of the results of a cooperative study undertaken to evaluate the technical and economic achievability and impact on the textile industryof the promulgated BATEA discharge limitations. The objective of the BATEA study was to evaluate the treatment efficiency of processes identified as Best Available Technology Economically Achievable by EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division on textile industry wastewaters. The technical phase of this study consisted of defining the Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) processes to be tested, designing and constructing pilot units, surveying and selecting textile plants for pilot plant study, performing pilot plant studies, evaluating pilot plant data and preparing conceptual BATEA plant designs, developing key aspects of the cost functions for estimating BATEA costs, and preparing project reports. EngineeringScience, inc., (ES) was selected as the engineering consultant to conduct the technical phase of the study. To insure the success of the study and validity of results, i t was necessary to select a group of plants that would be representative of the textile dyeing and finishing industry. The following criteria were used to select the participating plants:

3. 4.

filter coagulant addition) Granular Activated Carbon Absorption Ozonation

These AWT processes could be tested individually or in combination with each other. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) was also tested with bench-scale equipment. The pilot plants visited a total of 19 textile mills between M a y , 1977 and September, 1978. Experimentation was done to first screen potential treatment processes, and then to collect sufficient continuous operation data on candidate processes for the development of preliminary design criteria. The selection of the recommended AWT process was made for each of the 19 textile plants basedon the following criteria: 1. Comparison of the treatment effectiveness of the candidate AWT processes tested a t the site. Comparison of the effluent quality of the candidate AWT processes tested with the 1974 BATEA guideline values calculated for the plant. Comparative evaluation of the capital and operational costs of the candidate AWT processes tested that can technically achieve the BATEA effiuent guideline values or if no AWT process i s capable of achieving the guideline values then comparative costs of the AWT technologies providing similar effluent quality.

2.

3.

1. The textile mills must have operating secondary wastewater treatment facilities. Z The effluent from the existing wastewater treatment facilities must be generally within NPDES permit levels. 3. The wastewater treatment effluent must normally be discharged directly to a natural water course. 4. The textile manufacturing company must be willing t o participate in the study (financially and otherwise). 5. The textile mill must be located such that i t wd5 compatible with location and other constraints of the study activities. Engineering-Science designed and constructed two mobile pilot units. The experimental equipment was built into two 40-ft. trailers to facilitiate relocation from one textile plant to another. The trailers contained all equipment necessary to test the following AWT processes on a pilot scale.

2.

1. Chemical Coagulation/Clarification Multi-Media Filtration (with and without pre-

If only one of the AWT processes tested achieved the 1974 BATEA guideline values then i t was the recommended AWT process for that plant. However, if all or none of the AWT processes could achieve the 1974 BATEA guideline values then a comparison of relative treatment effectiveness of the processes and/or capital and operational costs was made in order to select the recommended AWT process. An analytical quality assurance program was established for the study to guarantee the proper collection, analysis and record-keeping of the samples. The Quality Assurance (QA) Program required that approximately ten percent of all the samples were to be used to establish the reliability of a l l the data. The program utilized duplicate samples, reference samples, round robin blind samples, and spike samples. There were six laboratories involved in developing analytical data for the projects. The procedures used during the QA Program were reviewed and approved by the Process Measurement Branches of IERL/EPA (Research Triangle Park, N.C. and Cincinnatti, Ohio) prior to the initiation of program activities. Based on the data obtained from field experimentation, the treatment effectiveness of the various AWT technologies was determined for achieveing the July 5 , 1974, BATEA guideline values. The following i s a

summary of the conclusions and observations developed from this study. More detailed information on the study results i s available from EPA.

be as effective a method for TSS reduction as the coagulation/clarifier process. Both the textile industry and EPA learned from the BATEA study. The 1974 BATEA Guidelines were set by EPA using outside contractors who used review of existing literature as a primary source of information. Some of the results of these technologies were taken from other industries and mathematically transferred to textiles. When you scale u p from laboratory tests to full operation on these processes, you obtain quite different results. You can transfer technology, but you cannot consistently transfer results. To summarize the BATEA study, none of the AWTs performed as expected for textiles as a whole. Most AWTs showed a great deal of variation within a segment of textile dyeing and finishing. All the AWTs were extremely expensive to construct and operate. AWTs will treat toxic materials better than secondary biological treatment for many of the priority pollutants. Having shared the history of cooperative effort between the textile industry and EPA with you, one might ask How does this affect recycle reuse of dyehouse wastewaters? I n my view there are both economic and environmental justifications for dyehouse wastewater treatment that would allow recycle/reuse. Environmentally these AWTs would be justified to treat toxic wastes to allow reuse or direct discharge to a stream. The BATEA study and Monsanto study have furnished EPA a broad data base showing that textile dyehouse wastewaters are not toxic and the sludges generated by biological secondary waste treatment of these wastewaters are not hazardous. Environmental justification cannot be made for application of AWTs to dyehouse wastewaters that have been properly tredted with biological secondary treatment. O n the economic issue, it i s still far less expensive to treat surface or groundwater or purchase water from municipalities than to use AWTs that will allow recycle/reuse of dyehouse wastewaters. The state of the art i n wastewater heat recovery i s such that energy costs can be reduced a t far less cost and better control as compared to AWTs. To be sure, there are a few site specific dyeing and finishing operations where an economic case might be made, but these are few and fa i between. While economics i s a formidable challenge to recycle/reuse o i dyehouse wastewaters, particularly when there i s little need for the AWTs environmentally, recycle/reuse has other challenges. Firstly, there are no minimum standard specifications set for process water required for dyeing textiles. Most dyers want the process water as close to chemically pure water as the dyehouse filter plant will produce, or the municipality will furnish. To my knowledge, little

1.

Of the 19 plants tested, ten (53 percent) could

meet the 1974 BATEA guideline values (technical parameters not necessarily economical parameters) with one or more of the AWT process technologies. Nine of the plants (47 percent) failed to meet the BATEA guideline values with any combination of AWT process technologies evaluated. The ability of the AWT processes to achieve the BATEA guidelines was judged based on statistically predicted 30-day average and maximum day effluent concentrations. 2. The treatment effectiveness of the individual AWT processes were as follows: a. Coagulation/clarification was a candidate process in wool finishing, knit fabric finishing, carpet mills, and stock and yarn dyeing plants and demonstrated reasonable treatment effectiveness for reduction of most of the parameters measured. However, coagulation/clarification was not a feasible process in wool scouring and woven fabric finishing plants due to the inability to identify an effective coagulant or very high coagulant dosage requirements. b. Multi-media filtration performed well in most cases for TSS removal. If the TSS value of the BPT effluent was approximately 100 mg/l or less, then multi-media filtration was effective as an initial process for TSS reduction. Multimedia filtration was also an effective process for reducing TSS after coagulation/clarification. c. Granular carbon adsorption performed well when compared to other AWT processes for organic and color removal i n wool scouring, wook finishing, woven fabric finishing, knit fabric finishing, and carpet mills. However, granular carbon adsorption was not effective i n achieving the BATEA guideline values a t one of the two stock and yarn dyeing plants, nor a t six of the ten woven fabric finishing plants. I n some cases, i t was observed that a portion of the organic removal occurred from physical filtering rather than an adsorption mechanism. I n certain instances, soluble organics were re-introduced into the wastestream as a result of the desorption. d. Ozonation did achieve color reduction below the BATEA guideline values at selected sites, but did not reduce C O D below the BATEA limits. e. Dissolved air flotation (DAF) was not found to

research has ever been done to set minimum process water standards for a l l categories of dyeing. Secondly, the use of sizes i n knitting and weaving plus use of carriers and electrolytes i n dyeing interfere with many wastewater treatment systems, or pass through them. To conclude, let me list for you the challenges that must be met before recycle/reuse of dyehouse wastewaters will be commonplace in textiles: 1. Development of economic, reliable treatment systems that can handle non segregated waste

2.

3.
4.

streams from dyehouses. Research to determine minimum standards for dye process water by textile industry category. Institution of size recovery by textiles in general prior to dyeing. Research to eliminate or minimize the use of carriers and electrolytes i n dyeing.

aChairman, ATMl Environmental Committee, American Thread Company, P.O. Box 880, Old Fort, N C 28762