Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLE 13.8
Comparison of Treated Waste to Raw Waste Analyses
- Case Study #3
Concentration in
Raw Waste
(mg/kg)
Concentration in
Treated Waste
(mg/L)
Contaminant
Ethylene glycol
66,000
NM
Diethylene glycol
2,000
NM
Sodium terephthalate
25,000
NM
Sodium chloride
8,300
NM
Sodium sulfate
9,000
NM
Ammonium chloride
11,000
NM
Antimony
234
0.1
Chloride
NR
a
160.0
Sulfate
NR
5.0
Chemical oxygen demand
NM
b
350.0
a
NR: Not measured and reported separately as the anion, but present in
compounds listed above.
b
NM: Not measured.
The test results on the treated waste are given in Table 13.8. Antimony leaching
was quite low by any standard and, based on the authors' experience, likely would
have met current TC and UTS (< 1.15 mg/L) limits, although the results cannot be
directly compared. Also, the very soluble chloride and sulfate leachate concentrations
are minimal and so is chemical oxygen demand (COD), representing the organic
content in the raw waste. The solid product had good compressive strength at 4 to
5 tons/ft
2
(~75 psi or ~517 kPa). These properties allowed the S/S product, provided
it duplicated the laboratory results, to be disposed of in a local sanitary landfill; in
fact, it was permitted as daily cover material, a higher end use. There was some
ammonia evolution from the waste during and after treatment, due to the high pH
of the product, but this was judged to be acceptable in view of the industrial location
of the site and the prevailing environment.
13.4.3.3
Delivery System
The delivery system used is shown in operation in Figure 13.10. It consisted of two
identical treatment units shown in schematic in Figure 13.11, one pre-treating the
waste with hydrated lime and the other treating with the S/S reagents. The primary
difference between this system and that previously described in Section 13.3.1 is
that the treatment units used here are completely mobile and are largely self-
contained.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search