Oil Waste Reduction and Recycling Pilot Test

Triad Engineering under the direction of the Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center (HWRIC) conducted a study comparing ultrafiltration and vapor recompression recovery technologies on the water soluble die lubricant (die lube) waste produced at the OMC Waukegan facility. Water soluble die lube waste disposal represents an annual disposal expense of approximately 123,000 dollars. A side-by-side comparison of ultrafiltration technology and vapor recompression technology was conducted for a period of 25 days. This period of time was considered adequate to evaluate both technologies' ability to perform under normal production conditions. The permeate quality from the ultrafiltration system was generally somewhat poorer than the condensate from the vapor recompression system. However, field trials utilizing both permeate and condensate from the systems indicated they could be used in the water soluble die lube make up process. Biological growth and sulfide odors would be a problem with both systems. The capital costs and operation and maintenance costs of the ultrafiltration system are slightly lower than the vapor recompression system for this application. A single sample was also collected and evaluated using atmospheric evaporation. The capital costs and operating costs for an atmospheric evaporation system are higher than either the ultrafiltration or the vapor recompression system, primarily due to the addition of a condenser system to recover distillate. The payback period for the ultrafiltration system would be 1.19 years with an annual savings after payback of 90,275 dollars per year. The payback period for the vapor recompression system would be 1.48 years with an annual savings after payback of 77,900 dollars per year. The estimated payback period for the atmospheric evaporator system would be 1.51 years with an annual savings after payback of 56,200 dollars per year.