Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale Incinerators. Facility Report No. 2, Surface Combustion Division, Midland-Ross Corporation.
Author Adams, J. W. ; Harris, J. C. ; Levins, P. L. ; Stauffer, J. L. ; Thrun., K. E. ;
CORP Author TRW Defense and Space Systems Group, Redondo Beach, Calif. ;Little (Arthur D.), Inc., Cambridge, Mass.;Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Year Published 1976
Report Number EPA-68-01-2966; EPA/530/SW-122c.2;
Stock Number PB-268 232
Additional Subjects Waste treatment ; Incinerators ; Rubber ; Styrene ; Petroleum ; Industrial wastes ; Solid waste disposal ; Pyrolysis ; Chemical analysis ; Sampling ; Process charting ; Performance evaluation ; Monitoring ; Heat recovery ; Field tests ; Cost analysis ; Capitalized costs ; Operating costs ; Feasibility ; Gravimetric analysis ; Manufacturing ; Liquid waste disposal ; Toledo(Ohio) ; EPA method 5
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
NTIS  PB-268 232 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 06/23/1988
Collation 162p
Tests were conducted at Surface Combustion Division, Midland-Ross Corporation, Toledo, Ohio, to determine the effectiveness of pyrolysis for treatment of three selected chemical wastes: centrifuged API separator bottoms, styrene production wastes and rubber manufacturing wastes. The average conversion of organic material in the waste to organic material in the gaseous pyrolyzer effluent was 70% for API waste, 60% for styrene waste, and 80% for rubber waste. In each case the vapor stream contained a wide variety of organic compounds from methane and acetylene to high boiling (500C) aromatic liquids and tars, including appreciable concentration of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. The residual ash in each case was 80% inorganic material. Test results suggest that pyrolysis is technically and economically feasible for rubber wastes, technically feasible but not economically attractive for the API waste, and not an appropriate treatment for the liquid styrene production waste.