Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Planning and Design of Hazardous Waste Treatment
Planning and Design of Hazardous Waste Treatment
This section focuses on the planning and engineering design of HWTCs and includes
information on the major types of hazardous waste treatment alternatives available. Volume II
includes an exercise to estimate waste generation from an industry producing lacquered
wooden utensils and to analyze the appropriate treatment technologies.
A centralized HWTC is actually only part of a larger system that can include: (1) a
collection system (road, rail, or a combination of the two) for obtaining wastes from individual
SMSEs (and larger enterprises), (2) transfer centers where wastes with similar characteristics
can be identified and combined, (3) a system for transport of bulk wastes from transfer centers
to the centralized treatment plant, (4) an HWTC designed to handle a wide range of hazardous
wastes, and (5) a secure landfill for disposal of solidified wastes and other treatment residuals
(e.g., incinerator ash, residual sludges).
The major differences involved in designing an HWTC compared with a CETP are (1)
HWTCs only use mobile collection systems are never sewer systems, and (2) treatment
systems at HWTCs need to be flexible enough to handle wastes with varying characteristics
because of the diversity of waste sources.
6-1
6.1.1 Solid and Liquid Waste Characteristics and Volume
Section 3 provides basic information on the types of wastes that an HWTC is likely to
handle. Because a large number of SMSEs might be involved, obtaining detailed information
on the waste characteristics and volumes for each enterprise may not be feasible. Detailed
audits of randomly selected enterprises in a particular industrial category can provide a basis
for estimating the overall waste characteristics and volume for that category, provided an
inventory of all existing enterprises is available. Efforts should concentrate on identifying the
volume of wastes in the major categories identified in Table A-2 of Worksheet A in Volume II
(e.g., cyanide wastes, heavy metal sludges and solutions, halogenated solvents, nonhalogenated
solvents). For the purpose of treatment method selection and the design of operating
parameters, it is important to have some idea of the range of concentrations of the major waste
streams (i.e., percent organics and the maximum concentrations of metals in wastewater, etc.).
For the following reasons, mobile rather than pipe systems are most cost-effective in
transporting wastes from SMSEs to an HWTC:
n Both solid and liquid wastes must be collected, so mobile pickup is still required
even if a pipe system is in place.
n When multiple liquid waste streams (spent solvents, contaminated wastewaters)
have to be handled separately, multiple pipe collection systems are prohibitively
expensive.
n Outlying SMSEs can be more easily served by mobile systems than a pipe network.
n More expensive construction materials are generally required for pipe systems
handling hazardous wastes.
Large quantities of liquid wastewaters and dilute sludge slurries are most economically
transported using vacuum inductor tank trucks. Tank trucks are manufactured in a variety of
capacities ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 gallons. Small volumes of waste (less than 500 gallons)
are most economically stored in drums and transported on flatbed trucks. A standard industrial
drum holds 55 gallons. Drums are especially applicable in situations where several small
volumes of different, incompatible wastes are generated at a single facility.
6-2
During the design of an HWTC, transportation maps are developed showing locations
of individual SMSEs in relation to roads, rail lines, and navigable waterways. Specific design
elements of a collection and transportation system include: 1) the selection of container
materials suitable for the types of wastes to be transported; 2) choosing types and sizes of
vehicles compatible with available transport routes; 3) choosing the number of vehicles to
ensure a waste pickup that is commensurate with the volume of waste generated with a safety
margin for delays and maintenance; and 4) the development of safe operating procedures for
tracking, handling, and transporting the hazardous materials.
An HWTC capable of handling the full range of hazardous wastes generated in a region
might be too far from many SMSEs to allow efficient transportation directly to the center.
Transfer centers allow preliminary classification and mixing of compatible wastes, thus
facilitating processing and treatment upon arrival at the HWTC. Waste storage at transfer
centers also facilitates equalization of the volumes of different waste types to further enhance
the efficient operation of the HWTC.
Location is a key consideration in the design of transfer centers. Centers should be near
major transportation corridors (rail lines, highways) to facilitate transporting large volumes of
waste from the transfer center to the HWTC. A transfer center should have enough land area
available to provide temporary storage of containerized waste and possibly larger volume
storage of several types of liquid wastes. Other important design elements for these centers
include: (1) designing facilities for chemical analysis of wastes for classification and
compatibility testing (see Section 6.1.4), and (2) designing containment systems to protect
onsite workers and nearby populations from exposure to hazardous materials.
n Explosions
n Fire
n Generation of flammable gas
n Generation of toxic gas
n Generation of heat
n Solubilization of toxins
6-3
Figure 6-1 identifies potentially incompatible combinations of 12 types of hazardous
waste. Compatibility is primarily a concern when different wastes are mixed to create larger
batches for treatment by a particular process. Compatibility might also be of concern in
designing waste storage facilities. These should be designed to minimize the possibility of
accidental releases being incompatible.
Screening tests that do not require sophisticated and expensive laboratory equipment are
usually used for compatibility testing. These tests are normally used during collection if liquid
wastes are mixed in the transport container, or at transfer centers. An HWTC should have a
laboratory capable of performing accurate analyses of a wide range of organic and inorganic
substances. Laboratory analyses allow identification of wastes that exceed specifications for
continuous treatment processes. Off-specification wastes must either be treated using an
alternative method or modified by mixing them with other wastes until they fall within
specifications. Laboratory analyses are also used to characterize wastes that are treated using
batch chemical processes for the purpose of determining required chemical inputs to complete
reactions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1984a) provides detailed guidance
of development of waste analysis plans. Appendix A contains several checklists that may be
useful in the development of waste analysis plans and a list of simple American Society for
Testing and Material (ASTM) test methods for screening waste characteristics. Appendix E
also includes a bibliography of major references on methods for chemical analysis of wastes
and wastewaters.
6-4
6.2 HAZARDOUS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
As with CETPs, methods for treating hazardous industrial wastewater can be broadly
classified as physical, chemical, and biological. Physical methods for component separation
(e.g., gravity, filtration) discussed in Section 5.2 for CETPs are equally applicable to
hazardous wastewaters and are generally used for the same purposes, including: (1)
preliminary (see Section 5.2.1) and primary treatment (see Section 5.2.2) to remove settleable
solids, and (2) clarification systems (see Section 5.2.2) to remove flocculated impurities and
precipitates following chemical treatment processes that generate suspended solids.
Figure 6-2 identifies the operational size ranges of different methods for physical
treatment of industrial wastewater. Physical treatment methods can be classified as component
separation methods that use size or density as the primary separation factor and phase
separation methods that generally operate on the ionic and molecular level to separate
contaminants from the liquid matrix. As shown in Figure 6-2, however, some phase separation
methods also operate within the molecular size range.
This section focuses on physical phase separation and chemical treatment methods that
are commonly used for treating hazardous industrial wastewaters. Most of the chemical
processes discussed in this section also are suitable for pretreatment of wastewater on site at an
SMSE prior to discharging to a CETP. When used on site, it is mainly the residuals
(concentrated liquid wastes and sludges) generated by these processes that would be collected
for treatment at a HWTC. In the absence of pretreatment and discharge to a CETP, toxic
wastewater should be collected and transported to an HWTC where the same or similar
treatment processes would be used. The advantage of pretreatment of industrial wastewater on
site is that a much smaller volume of more concentrated waste can be sent to the HWTC.
6-5
Figure 6-2. Operational size ranges of methods for treating industrial wastewaters
(Fresenius et al., 1989)
The descriptions of these materials are drawn largely from EPA's Development
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized
Waste Treatment Industry (EPA). This report contains much useful performance data on
treatment methods used in the centralized waste treatment industry.
Air stripping is an effective treatment method for removing dissolved volatile organic
compounds from wastewater. The removal is accomplished by passing high volumes of air
through the agitated wastewater stream. The process results in a contaminated off-gas stream
that, depending upon air emissions standards, usually requires treatment in air pollution control
equipment.
6-6
height of the packing. The countercurrent tower draws the entire air flow from the bottom. The
cross-flow towers are more susceptible to scaling problems and are less efficient than the
countercurrent towers. A countercurrent air stripper is shown in Figure 6-3.
6-7
The driving force of the air stripping mass-transfer operation is the difference in
concentrations between the air and liquid streams. Pollutants are transferred from the more
concentrated wastewater stream to the less concentrated air stream until equilibrium is reached;
this equilibrium relationship is known as Henry's Law. The strippability of a pollutant is
expressed as its Henry's Law Constant, which is a function of both its volatility and solubility.
Low temperatures adversely affect the air stripping process. Air strippers experience
lower efficiencies at lower temperatures, with the possibility of freezing occurring within the
tower. For this reason, depending on the location of the tower, it may be necessary to preheat
the wastewater and the air feed streams. The column and packing materials must be cleaned
regularly to ensure that low effluent levels are attained.
Air stripping has proved to be an effective process in the removal of volatile pollutants
from wastewater. It is generally limited to influent concentrations of less than 100 mg/L
organics. Well-designed and operated systems can achieve over 99 percent removals.
6-8
Figure 6-4. Carbon adsorption system diagram (U.S. EPA, 1995)
6-9
to be exhausted. This condition can be detected by an increase in the pollutant concentration of
the effluent from the bed and is called breakthrough.
GAC systems usually comprise several beds operated in series. This design allows the
first bed to go to exhaustion, while the other beds still have the capacity to treat to an
acceptable effluent quality. The carbon in the first bed is replaced, and the second bed then
becomes the lead bed. The GAC system piping is designed to allow switching of bed order.
After the carbon is exhausted, it can be removed and regenerated. Usually, heat or
steam is used to reverse the adsorption process. The light organic compounds are volatilized,
and the heavy organic compounds are pyrolyzed. Spent carbon can also be regenerated by
contacting it with a solvent that dissolves the adsorbed pollutants. Depending on system size
and economics, some facilities may choose to dispose of the spent carbon instead of
regenerating it. For very large applications, as may occur at an HWTC, construction of an
on-site regeneration facility may be justified. For smaller applications, it is generally
cost-effective to use a vendor service to deliver regenerated carbon and remove the spent
carbon. These vendors transport the spent carbon to their centralized facilities for regeneration.
Poor GAC system performance sometimes results from competitive adsorption between
compounds in the waste stream. The pollutant methylene chloride is often used as a measure of
adsorption competition in a GAC system because it is readily adsorbed and also desorbed by
competitive compounds. Thus, low methylene chloride removals indicate competitive
adsorption effects. Oil and grease can adversely affect GAC performance by coating the carbon
particles, thereby inhibiting the adsorption process. A commonly applied limit on oil and
grease loading to a GAC system is 10 mg/L. Suspended solids also adversely affect GAC
performance by plugging the bed, resulting in excessive head loss. A commonly used total
suspended solids (TSS) loading limit to a GAC system is 50 mg/L. Poor performance of GAC
units used at centralized waste treatment plants in the United States of America has been
observed and attributed to the inherent difficulty of operating carbon adsorption units for
variable waste streams (EPA, 1995).
Other less commonly used physical treatment technologies used in the U.S. centralized
waste treatment industry include:
n Reverse osmosis
n Ultrafiltration
n Carbon dioxide liquid extraction
6-10
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a process for separating dissolved solids from water. It is
commonly used to treat oily or metal-bearing wastewater. RO is applicable when the solute
molecules are approximately the same size as the solvent molecules. A semipermeable,
microporous membrane and pressure are used to perform the separation. RO systems are
typically used as end-of-pipe polishing processes, prior to final discharge of the treated
wastewater.
Figure 6-5. Other physical treatment technologies: (a) reverse osmosis, (b) liquid carbon
dioxide extraction (EPA, 1995)
6-11
modules, other capital items needed for an RO installation include pumps, piping,
instrumentation, and storage tanks. The major operating cost is attributed to membrane
replacement.
EPA (1995) presents performance data for a single unit with an average reduction in the
concentration of oil and grease by 87.4 percent. Aluminum, barium, calcium, chromium,
cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and titanium were all reduced in this unit by
more than 98 percent.
Ultrafiltration (UF) is used for the treatment of metal-finishing wastewater and oily
wastes. It can remove substances with molecular weights greater than 500, including suspended
solids, oil and grease, large organic molecules, and complex heavy metals. UF is used when
the solute molecules are greater than 10 times the size of the solvent molecules and are less
than one-half micron. The centralized waste treatment industry applies UF to treat oil/water
emulsions. Oil/water emulsions contain both soluble and insoluble oil. Typically, the insoluble
oil is removed from the emulsion by gravity separation assisted by chemical addition. The
soluble oil is then removed through UF. Oily wastewater containing 0.1 to 10 percent oil can
be effectively treated using UF. A UF system is typically used as an in-plant treatment
technology, treating the oil/water emulsion prior to mixing with other wastewater. A schematic
UF system is similar to reverse osmosis (see Figure 6-5a), with the difference being in the
characteristics of the membrane.
U.S. EPA (1995) presents performance data for a UF system that treats oily
wastewater. The system removed 87.5 percent of the influent oil and grease and 99.9 percent
of the TSS. Removal of several organic and metal pollutants exceeded 90 percent.
Liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) extraction is used to extract and recover organic
contaminants from aqueous waste streams. A licensed, commercial application of this
technology, the "Clean Extraction System (CES)," is used in the centralized waste treatment
industry. The process can be effective in removing organic substances such as hydrocarbons,
aldehydes and ketones, nitriles, halogenated compounds, phenols, esters, and heterocyclics. It
6-12
is not effective in removing some compounds that are very water-soluble, such as ethylene
glycol, and low-molecular-weight alcohols. It can provide an alternative in the treatment of
waste streams that historically have been incinerated.
The waste stream is fed into the top of a pressurized extraction tower containing
perforated plates, where it is contacted with a countercurrent stream of liquefied CO2. The
organic contaminants in the waste stream are dissolved in the CO2; this extract is then sent to a
separator, which redistills the CO2. The distilled CO2 vapor is compressed and reused. The
concentrated organics bottoms from the separator can then be disposed or recovered. The
treated wastewater stream that exits the extractor (raffinate) is pressure-reduced and may be
further treated for residual organics removal if necessary to meet discharge standards. A
diagram of the CES is presented in Figure 6-5b.
Pilot-scale operational data for a commercial CES unit show high removals for the
organic compounds chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, and
toluene, with rates generally exceeding 99 percent (phenol removal was poorest with 83
percent). EPA sampled a CES operating unit and found significantly lower removal rates,
ranging from 48 to 88 percent.
6.2.4 Neutralization
Acidic corrosive wastes (pH less than 2) and alkaline corrosive wastes (pH greater than
12.5) typically require neutralization prior to use of subsequent treatment processes to limit
corrosion of processing equipment and to improve treatment efficiency. Neutralization or pH
adjustment is often required for wastes that do not classify as corrosive in order to optimize
chemical treatment such as precipitation (see Section 6.2.5) and biological treatment.
Major neutralization processes include (1) mixing of acid and alkali waste streams, (2)
use of alkaline materials to neutralize acids (limestone, lime, and caustic soda), and (3) used of
acidic reagents to neutralize alkaline wastes (sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, carbonic acids
and liquid carbon dioxide). Table 6-1 provides summary information on these processes,
including:
Mixing acid and alkali waste streams is the simplest and least expensive method,
provided the wastes are compatible. Cyanide-containing wastes generally require treatment to
destroy cyanides (see Section 6.2.6) before neutralization. Typically, a tradeoff exists between
the cost of neutralization reagents and length of time required for neutralization and the volume
6-13
of sludge the process creates. Cheaper methods generally take a longer time to complete
neutralization due to more dilute concentrations of reagents. Cheaper reagents, such as
limestone and lime, and sulfuric acid also tend to produce larger volumes of sludges.
Hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic is the most commonly used means of
chemical precipitation, and of these, lime is used more often than caustic. The chief advantage
of lime over caustic is its lower cost. Lime is more difficult to handle and feed, however, as it
must be slaked, slurried, and mixed, and can plug the feed system lines. Lime also produces a
larger volume of sludge, and the sludge is generally not suitable for reclamation due to its
homogeneous nature. Also, dewatered metal sludge is typically sold to smelters for reuse, and
the calcium compounds in lime precipitation sludge interfere with smelting. The metals from
caustic precipitation sludge can often be recovered. The reaction mechanism for precipitation
of a divalent metal using lime is shown below:
And, the reaction mechanism for precipitation of a divalent metal using caustic is:
6-14
Table 6-1. Summary of neutralization technologies (Wilk et al., 1988)
Limestone Dilute acid waste Well developed Requires stone sizes of Will generate voluminous Most cost-effective
streams of less than 0.074 mm or less. Requires sludge product when in treating
5,000 mg/l mineral 45 minutes or more of reacted with sulfate- concentrated wastes.
acid strength and retention time. Can only containing wastes. Stones May be cost-effective
containing low neutralize acidic wastes to over 200 mesh will in treating dilute
concentration of acid pH 6.0. Must be aerated to sulfonate, be rendered acidic wastes
salts remove evolved CO2 inactive, and add to sludge
product
Lime All acid wastes Well developed Requires 15 to 30 minutes Will generate voluminous More expensive than
of retention time. Must be sludge similar to limestone crushed limestone
slurried to a concentration (200 mesh)
of 10 to 35% solids prior to
use. Can under-(below pH
7) or over- (above pH 7)
neutralize
Caustic soda All acid wastes Well developed Requires 3 to 15 minutes of Reaction products are Most expensive of all
retention time. In liquid generally soluble, however, widely used alkaline
form, easy to handle and sludges do not dewater as reagents (five times
apply. Can under- or over- readily or as easily as lime the cost of lime)
neutralize including pH 13 or limestone
or higher
Sulfuric acid All alkaline wastes Well developed Requires 15 to 30 minutes Will generate large Least expensive of
except cyanide of retention time. In liquid quantities of gypsum sludge all widely used acidic
form, but presents burn when reacted with calcium- reagents
hazard. Highly reactive and based alkaline wastes
widely available
Hydrochloric All alkaline wastes Well developed, Requires 5 to 20 minutes of Reaction products are Approximately twice
acid but rarely retention time. Liquid form generally soluble as expensive as
applied due to present burn and fume sulfuric on a
high reagent cost hazard. More reactive than neutralization
sulfuric equivalent basis
Carbonic acids, All alkaline wastes Emerging Retention time 1 to 11/2 Will form calcium Approximately 3 to 4
liquid carbon except cyanide technology minutes. In liquid form, carbonate precipitate when times as expensive as
dioxide must be vaporized prior to reacted with calcium-based sulfuric. Therefore,
use. Can only neutralize alkaline wastes limited to
alkaline wastes to pH 8.3 applications using
and point more than 200 tons
of reagents per year
or with flow rate
greater than 100,000
gpd
In addition to the type of treatment chemical chosen, another important design factor in
the chemical precipitation operation is pH. Metal hydroxides are amphoteric, meaning that they
6-15
can react chemically as acids or bases. As such, their solubilities increase toward both lower
and higher pH levels. Therefore, each metal has an optimum pH for precipitation that
corresponds to its point of minimum solubility. Another key consideration in a chemical
precipitation application is the detention time, which is specific to the wastewater being treated
and the desired effluent quality. It may take from less than an hour to several days to achieve
adequate precipitation of the dissolved metal compounds.
The batch operation aspect of chemical precipitation makes it an easily adapted process
for treatment at HWTCs, where the waste receipts can be highly variable. A facility can hold
its wastes and segregate them by pollutant content for treatment. This type of waste treatment
6-16
management, called selective metals precipitation, can be implemented to concentrate on one
or two major pollutants of concern. This application of chemical precipitation uses several
tanks to allow the facility to segregate its wastes into smaller batches, thereby avoiding
interference with other incoming waste receipts and increasing treatment efficiency. These
specific operations also produce specific sludges containing only the target metals, making
them suitable for reclamation.
The effluent quality achievable with chemical precipitation depends upon the metals
present in the wastewater and the process operating conditions. This technology is widely used
with possible removal efficiencies greater than 99 percent, and it often removes metal
pollutants down to levels of 1 µg/L or less.
Cyanide is a very toxic pollutant and, therefore, wastes containing cyanide are an
important environmental concern. Electroplating and metal finishing operations produce most
cyanide-bearing wastes. At least a dozen cyanide destruction technologies are available, but
only six are used commonly: alkaline chlorination, ozonation, ozonation with irradiation,
electrolytic hydrolysis, hydrogen peroxide oxidation, and precipitation processes (Weathington,
1988). The most commonly used method is alkaline chlorination with either gaseous chlorine
or sodium hypochlorite.
Destruction of the cyanide takes place in two stages. The primary reaction is partial
oxidation of the cyanide to cyanate at a pH above 9. In the second stage, the pH is lowered to
the 8 to 8.5 range for the oxidation of the cyanate to nitrogen and carbon dioxide (as sodium
bicarbonate). Each part of cyanide requires 2.73 parts of chlorine to convert it to cyanate and
an additional 4.1 parts of chlorine to oxidize the cyanate to nitrogen and carbon dioxide. At
least 1.125 parts of sodium hydroxide are required to control the pH with each stage.
6-17
Alkaline chlorination can also be conducted with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) as the
oxidizer. The oxidation of cyanide waste using sodium hypochlorite is similar to the gaseous
chlorine process. The reaction mechanism is:
Cyanide destruction efficiencies of greater than 99 percent are possible with this
technology but can vary greatly depending on the forms of cyanide present.
Reduction is a chemical reaction in which electrons are transferred from one chemical
to another. The main application of chemical reduction in wastewater treatment is the reduction
of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. This is a commonly used pretreatment process
in the leather tanning industry (see Section 2.3.3) and the electroplating industry (see Section
2.3.5). The reduction enables the trivalent chromium to be precipitated from solution in
conjunction with other metallic salts. Sulfur dioxide, sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite,
and ferrous sulfate are strong reducing agents commonly used in industrial wastewater
treatment applications. Two types of chromium reduction are discussed here:
6-18
chromium, while the amount of sulfuric acid is 1 part per part of chromium. The theoretical
retention time is about 30 to 60 minutes.
A second process uses sulfur dioxide (SO2) as the reducing agent. The reaction
mechanism is:
The hexavalent chromium is reduced to trivalent chromium using sulfur dioxide, with
sulfuric acid used to lower the pH of the solution. The amount of sulfur dioxide needed to
reduce the hexavalent chromium is reported as 1.9 parts of sulfur dioxide per part of
chromium, while the amount of sulfuric acid is 1 part per part of chromium. At a pH of 3, the
theoretical retention time is approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
U.S. EPA (1995) reported hexavalent chromium reduction efficiency of 99.99 percent
for the sulfur dioxide process based on one centralized waste treatment plant. Another plant
using the chromium reduction process with sodium metabisulfite actually showed an increase in
hexavalent concentration, indicating the importance of careful process control to achieve
treatment objectives.
The electrolytic recovery process uses an oxidation and reduction reaction. Conductive
electrodes (anodes and cathodes) are immersed in the metal-bearing wastewater, with electrical
energy applied to them. At the cathode, a metal ion is reduced to its elemental form
(electron-consuming reaction). At the same time, gases such as oxygen, hydrogen, or nitrogen
form at the anode (electron-producing reaction). After the metal coating on the cathode reaches
a desired thickness, it may be removed and recovered. The metal-plated cathode can then be
used as the anode.
A conventional electrolytic recovery system is effective for the recovery of metals from
relatively high-concentration wastewater. A specialized adaptation of electrolytic recovery,
6-19
called extended surface electrolysis (ESE), operates effectively at lower concentration levels.
The ESE system uses a spiral cell containing a flow-through cathode that has a very open
structure and therefore a lower resistance to fluid flow. This also provides a larger electrode
surface. ESE systems are often used for the recovery of copper, lead, mercury, silver, and
gold.
Ion exchange is commonly used for the removal of heavy metals from relatively
low-concentration waste streams, such as electroplating wastewater. A key advantage of the
ion exchange process is that it allows for the recovery and reuse of the metal contaminants. Ion
exchange can also be designed to be selective to certain metals and can provide effective
removal from wastewater that has high background contaminant levels. A disadvantage is that
some organic substances can foul the resins.
In an ion exchange system, the wastewater stream is passed through a bed of resin. The
resin contains bound groups of ionic charge on its surface, which are exchanged for ions of the
same charge in the wastewater. Resins are classified by type, either cationic or anionic; the
selection is dependent upon the wastewater contaminant to be removed. A commonly used
resin is polystyrene copolymerized with divinylbenzene.
The ion exchange process involves four steps: treatment, backwash, regeneration, and
rinse. During the treatment step, wastewater is passed through the resin bed. The ion exchange
process continues until pollutant breakthrough occurs. The resin is then backwashed to
reclassify the bed and to remove suspended solids. During the regeneration step, the resin is
contacted with either an acidic or alkaline solution containing the ion originally present in the
resin. This "reverses" the ion exchange process and removes the metal ions from the resin.
The bed is then rinsed to remove residual regenerating solution. The resulting contaminated
regenerating solution must be further processed for reuse or disposal. Depending upon system
size and economics, some facilities choose to remove the spent resin and replace it with resin
regenerated off site instead of regenerating the resin in-place.
Ion exchange equipment ranges from simple, inexpensive systems such as domestic
water softeners, to large, continuous industrial applications. The most commonly encountered
industrial setup is a fixed-bed resin in a vertical column, where the resin is regenerated
in-place. A diagram of this type of system is presented in Figure 6-8. These systems can be
designed so that the regenerant flow is concurrent or countercurrent to the treatment flow. A
countercurrent design, although more complex to operate, provides a higher treatment
efficiency. The beds can contain a single type of resin for selective treatment, or the beds can
be mixed to provide for more complete deionization of the waste stream. Often, individual
beds containing different resins are arranged in series, which makes regeneration easier than in
the mixed bed system.
6-20
Figure 6-7. Electrolytic recovery system diagram (U.S. EPA, 1995)
6.2.10 Ozonization
Ozone (O3) is a blue gas generated by the passage of air through a high potential
electric field (10,000 to 20,000 v). Ozone is used to disinfect wastewater because of its
oxidizing properties.
In industrial wastewater treatment, several contact units or chambers with ozone must
be available to guarantee oxidation of pollutants, virus and bacteria. If wastewater contains
flocculated material and an ozone disinfection is desired, it is appropriate to use a turbine
contact system. Indeed, bubbles produced by a porous diffuser system cannot create sufficient
turbulence to disintegrate the agglomerated matter or completely oxidize bacteria and virus.
The estimation of ozone dosage often requires a previous laboratory test.
6-21
Figure 6-8. Ion exchange system diagram (U.S. EPA, 1995)
If CETPs or conventional sewage treatment plants are able to treat the bulk of
nonhazardous organics in industrial wastewaters, biological treatment methods are not likely to
be a major component in an HWTC. If the HWTC does receive a significant volume of
nonhazardous industrial wastewater with organics, the treatment options would be similar to
those discussed for CETPs in Section 5.3. Biological treatment process choices might well be
different for an HWTC compared with a CETP because the need for maintenance is less of a
constraint.
Rotating biological contactor systems (RBCs) (see Section 5.3.4) are the conventional
biological treatment process that is most suitable for specific treatment of industrial
wastewaters containing up to 1 percent soluble organics, including solvents, halogenated
organics, acetone, alcohols, phenols, phthalates, ammonia, and petroleum products. RBCs also
can treat inorganic cyanides (EPA, 1992).
6-22
Slurry biodegradation is a treatment process where an aqueous slurry is created by
combining sludge with water and biodegraded aerobically using a self-contained reactor or a
lined aerated lagoon. The process is similar to the conventional activated sludge process or an
aerated lagoon, except that the system can handle highly contaminated soils or sludges that
have contaminant concentrations ranging from 2,500 mg/kg to 250,000 mg/kg. The main
applications of this technology are treating coal tars, refinery wastes, hydrocarbons, wood-
preserving wastes, and organic and chlorinated organic sludges. The required operational
parameters of the process are similar to the activated sludge process. As with activated sludge,
the presence of heavy metals may inhibit microbial metabolism of the slurry.
6-23
6.3 OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
Alternative treatment methods for hazardous wastes can be broadly classified as:
Incineration (see Section 6.3.2) is the most commonly used thermal treatment method,
but other thermal treatments are available (see Section 6.3.3). Use of both
solidification/stabilization and thermal treatment (most likely incineration) is an integral part of
an HWTC.
In situ S/S processes are applied to in place wastes or contaminated soils, and ex situ
S/S processes involve in-tank treatment. Ex situ S/S processes are most likely to be used at an
HWTC. Figure 6-10 shows generic elements of an in-tank treatment system. The key elements
of this system include separating and crushing large particles, and the mixing stage where
binding agents and water are added. At an HWTC, S/S technologies are most likely to be used
for two types of waste streams: (1) as-received solid wastes (e.g., plastics, resins, tars and
sludges that are not suitable for treatment using other processes, and (2) as a final treatment
step for residual solids and sludges generated from other treatment processes on site. The final
step in handling S/S treated wastes usually involve disposal in a secure landfill.
Table C-4 in Worksheet C (Volume II) provides summary information on major S/S
processes. Solidification through the addition of cement, lime, or other pozzolanic materials
such as flyash are the most commonly used and are suitable for the large majority of inorganic
wastes. Other S/S processes, such as embedding waste in thermoplastic materials such as
bitumen, paraffin or polyethylene, and microencapsulation are more expensive and are usually
used only for problem-causing wastes such as those with a high organic content. Physical
stabilization involves blending sludge or semiliquid wastes with a bulking agent such as
pulverized fly ash to produce a soil-like consistency that can be readily transported by truck,
conveyor, or rail car to a disposal site.
6-24
stabilization or solidification process. Table 6-2 identifies factors that might interfere with
these processes.
(4)
Crusher
6-25
Table 6-2. Summary of factors that may interfere with stabilization and solidification
processes (U.S. EPA)
Semivolatile organics or polyaromatic hydrocarbons Organics may interfere with bonding of waste materials.
(PAHs)
Oil and grease Weaken bonds between waste particles and cement by
coating the particles. Decrease in unconfined
compressive strength with increased concentrations of oil
and grease.
Fine particle size Insoluble material passing through a No. 200 mesh sieve
can delay setting and curing. Small particles can also
coat larger particles, weakening bonds between particles
and cement or other reagents. Particle size > ¼ inch in
diameter not suitable.
Halides Reduced physical setting, easily leached for cement and
pozzolan S/S. May dehydrate thermoplastic
solidification.
Soluble salts of manganese, tin, zinc, copper and lead Reduced physical strength of final product caused by
large variations in setting time and reduced dimensional
stability of the cured matrix, thereby increasing
leachability potential.
Cyanides Cyanides interfere with bonding of waste materials.
6-26
Characteristics Affecting Processing Feasibility Potential Interference
Sodium arsenate, borates, phosphates Retard setting and curing and weaken strength of final
product.
Sulfate Retard setting and cause swelling and spalling in cement
S/S. With thermoplastic solidification may dehydrate and
rehydrate, causing splitting.
Presence of coal or lignite Coals and lignites can cause problems with setting,
curing, and strength of the end product.
Sodium borate, calcium sulfate, potassium Interferes with pozzolanic reactions that depend on
dichromate, and carbohydrates. formation of calcium silicate and aluminate hydrates.
Nonpolar organics (oil, grease, aromatic May impede setting of cement, pozzolan, or organic-
hydrocarbons, PCBs) polymer S/S. May decrease long-term durability and
allow escape of volatiles during mixing. With
thermoplastic S/S, organics may vaporize from heat.
Polar organics (alcohols, phenols, organic acids, With cement or pozzolan S/S, high concentrations of
glycols) phenol may retard setting and may decrease short-term
durability; all may decrease long-term durability; all may
decrease long-term durability. With thermoplastic S/S,
organics may vaporize. Alcohols may retard setting of
pozzolans.
Solid organics (plastics, tars, resin) Ineffective with urea formaldehyde polymers; may retard
setting of other polymer S/S.
Oxidizers (sodium hypochlorite, potassium May cause matrix breakdown or fire with thermoplastic
permanganate, nitric acid, or potassium dichromate) or organic polymer S/S.
Metals (lead, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, mercury) May increase setting time of cements if concentration is
high.
Nitrates, cyanides Increase setting time, decrease durability for cement-
based S/S.
Soluble salts of magnesium, tin, zinc, copper and May cause swelling and cracking within inorganic matrix
lead exposing more surface area to leaching.
Environmental/waste conditions that lower the pH of Eventual matrix deterioration.
matrix
Flocculants (e.g. ferric chloride) Interference with setting of cements and pozzolans.
Soluble sulfates > 0.01% in soil or 150 mg/L in Endangerment of cement products due to sulfur attack.
water
Soluble sulfates > 0.5% in soil or 2000 mg/L in Serious effects on cement products from sulfur attacks.
water
Oil, grease, lead, copper, zinc and phenol Deleterious to strength and durability of cement, lime/fly
ash, fly ash/cement binders.
Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons Increase set time for cement.
6-27
Characteristics Affecting Processing Feasibility Potential Interference
Chlorinated organics May increase set time and decrease durability of cement
if concentration is high.
Metal salts and complexes Increase set time and decrease durability for cement or
clay/cement.
Inorganic acids Decrease durability for cement (Portland Type I) or
clay/cement.
Inorganic bases Decrease durability for clay/cement; KOH and NaOH
decrease durability for Portland cement Type III and IV.
6.3.2 Incineration
Incineration is the most commonly used method for thermal treatment of organic
liquids, and solids and sludges contaminated with toxic organics. Figure 6-11 shows a flow
diagram with the following key elements of an incinerator system: (1) waste processing, which
includes screening, size reduction, and waste mixing, (2) a waste feed system, (3) a
combustion unit, (4) air pollution control equipment to collect/treat products of incomplete
combustion, particulate emissions, and acid gases, and (5) facilities for handling and disposing
residual ash from the combustion unit, and particulates and residual wastewater from the air
pollution control system.
Incinerators are usually classified by the type of combustion unit, with rotary kiln,
liquid injection, fluidized bed, and infrared units being those most commonly used for
hazardous wastes. Existing industrial boilers and kilns, especially cement kilns, are also
sometimes used for thermal treatment of hazardous wastes. Table 6-3 identifies major waste
properties that affect the performance of an incinerator. Table C-5 in Worksheet C (Volume II)
provides additional information about qualifying factors relevant to different types of
incinerator units. Appendix B identifies major references that provide more detailed
information about the selection and design of incinerators.
6-28
Exhaust to Atmosphere
Acid Gas
Control
Waste
Processing Auxiliary Combustion
Fuel Air Particulate
Removal
Ash Residual
Treatment
Removal
Wastewater To Disposal
Figure 6-11. Incineration system concept flow diagram (U.S. EPA, 1991)
Table 6-3. Waste properties affecting incineration system performance (U.S. EPA, 1991)
6-29
6.3.3 Other Thermal Treatment Technologies
Other thermal treatment technologies include a variety of methods that use heat (but not
primarily oxidation by direct air combustion as with incineration) to remove or destroy organic
contaminants. Available technologies include:
n Pyrolysis
n Wet air oxidation
n Thermal desorption
Wet air oxidation uses elevated temperature and pressure to oxidize dissolved or finely
divided organics. Its main application is to treat waste streams that are too dilute (less than 5
percent organics) to treat economically by incineration and that have contaminant levels above
those considered ideal for biological treatment. This technology can also be used to treat
wastewaters with pesticides, phenolics, organic sulfur, and cyanide. It is not suitable for
halogenated aromatic organics or for treating large volumes of waste.
The main difference between the two is that low-temperature systems target volatile
organic compounds, whereas high-temperature systems target semivolatile organics.
6-30
Table C-5 in Worksheet C (Volume II) provides additional information about the above
thermal treatment methods and a number of innovative thermal treatment technologies (electric
reactor, molten glass, molten salt, and radiofrequency thermal heating), and also identifies
references where more detailed information can be obtained.
n Waste medium. Wastewater, organic liquids, sludge, and solids containing the same
type of contaminants may often require different treatment processes (see Section
6.4.1).
n Waste volume. Some treatment methods, such as incineration, require large volumes
of waste to be cost-effective. Other methods, such as wet air oxidation (see Section
6.3.3), are better suited for small volumes of waste. Process efficiency requires a
reasonably good match between the volume of waste at which a process works
efficiently and the volume of waste to be treated.
6-31
n Availability. The importance of reliable performance of treatment technologies
generally restricts technology choices to those that are commercially developed.
Testing and development of innovative and emerging technologies may be possible
but probably not as a central feature of any treatment train that handles large
volumes of waste.
n Cost. Cost will probably be the major factor for choosing between two or more
treatment options that satisfy all the other criteria. As discussed in Section 5.4.2,
evaluating treatment costs requires considering the overall cost and the relative
significance of capital, and operation and maintenance costs.
n Residuals. Most treatment processes produce residuals that may require further
treatment (e.g., off gases) or disposal (e.g., ash, sludges). The type and volume of
residuals generated should be considered when selecting a treatment technology.
The types of wastes received at an HWTC depend on the specific industrial processes
used by the industries sending wastes to the facility. Numerous treatment options could be
suitable for a particular batch or stream of waste. Worksheet A in Volume II describes a
procedure for identifying waste characteristics and treatment options for specific industrial
categories.
Table 6-4 identifies potential treatment alternatives for various types of liquid and solid
hazardous wastes for (1) waste minimization, (2) pretreatment, and (3) treatment and disposal.
Table 6-4 indicates that treatment options are often dependent on the concentration of the waste
stream. Thus, options identified for recycling of concentrated inorganic liquids differ from
those for treating dilute inorganic liquids, except for electrodialysis. Figure 6-12 identifies the
approximate ranges of applicability of commercially available treatment techniques (solid bar)
as a function of organic concentration in liquid waste streams. The dashed lines indicate
potential extensions of available technologies and the emerging technology of supercritical
water oxidation.
6-32
The pretreatment options for various waste media identified in Table 6-4 are mostly
physical methods, many of which are discussed in Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.5.2. Major
chemical pretreatment methods include neutralization, cyanide destruction, and chromium
reduction. Treatment and disposal methods identified in Table 6-4 are discussed in Sections 6.2
and 6.3.
Neutralization of corrosive wastes was discussed in Section 6.2.4. Table 6-6 provides
the following information on eight treatment technologies for recovery and reuse of corrosive
wastes:
6-33
Table 6-4. Hazardous waste management alternatives (Wilk et al., 1988)
Waste minimization
Waste exchange Concentrated liquids Recycling Reuse in process with Mutual neutralization
lower raw material
specifications
Dilute organic liquids Mutual neutralization
6-34
Figure 6-12. Approximate ranges of applicability of treatment techniques as a function
of organic concentration in liquid waste streams (Breton et al., 1987)
6-35
Table 6-5. Onsite waste treatment technology matrix (U.S. EPA, 1991)
6-36
Table 6-6. Summary of recovery/reuse technologies for corrosive wastes (Wilk et al., 1988)
Recovery of Several in Works best when Chromic acid can be Low capital
plating rinses operation copper returned to plating investment; cost
(particularly concentrations are bath; rinse water effective for
chromic acid rinse in the 2 to 4 oz/gal can be reused specific
6-37
Applicable Waste Stage of Residuals
Process Performance Cost
Streams Development Generated
waster) usage application
(chromic acid
rinses)
Recovery of Marketed, none in 3 M HF/HNO3 2M KOH Soln Cost-effective for
HNO3/HF pickling operation to date recorded which can be large quantity
liquors recycled back to the generator
pretreatment step
for this ED
application
Reverse osmosis Plating rinses Corrosive waste 90% conversion Recovered plating Cost-effective for
membranes achieved with solution returned to limited
marketed by four cyanide plating plating bath (after applications.
companies. RD rinses being concentrated Development of a
module systems by an evaporator). more chemically
applicable to Rinsewater reused resistant
corrosives membrane would
available from two make it very cost-
companies effective for a
wider area of
application
Donna Plating rinses; Donnan analysis Data not available Data not available No cost data
dialysis/coupled potentially only lab-scale for Donna analysis for Donnan analysis available for
transport applicable to acid tested (further testing Donna analysis
baths required)
Coupled transport Coupled transport For chromate Average capital
lab and field has demonstrated plating rinse cost for plating
tested. Coupled 99% recovery for applications, sodium shop is $20,000.
transport system is chromate from chromate is Can be cost-
currently being plating rinses. generated: can be effective for
marketed Other plating used elsewhere in specific
rinses should be plant or subjected to applications
applicable, but not ion exchange to
fully tested recover chromic
acid for recycle to
plating solution
Solvent HNO3/HF pickling Commercial-scale 95% recovery of Metal sludge (95% Not available
extraction liquors systems installed HNO3; 70% iron can be
for development recovery of HF recovered by
purposes in thermal
Europe and Japan. decomposition)
No commercial-
scale installations
in U.S.
Thermal Acid wastes Well-established 99% regeneration 98-99% purity iron Expensive capital
decomposition for recovering efficiency for oxide which can be investment. Only
spent pickle pickling liquors reused, traded, or cost-effective for
liquors generated marketed large quantity
by steel industry. waste acid
Pilot-scale stage generators
for organic wastes
(1) RFIEL Reverse flow ion exchange
6.4.3 Solvent Wastes
6-38
Many industries generate solvent wastes through cleaning equipment. Solvents are used
extensively in the metals treatment/finishing industries and the electronics industries. Fresh
solvents are organic liquids and can be either halogenated (such as tetrachloroethylene) or
nonhalogenated (such as methanol and toluene). Solvent wastes can be either, single- or multi
component waste streams (i.e., mixed with water, solids, or both).
Table 6-7 provides an overview of solvent waste minimization and treatment options,
and Table 6-8 provides the following information on more than two dozen specific
recovery/treatment options: (1) applicable waste streams, (2) stage of development of the
process, (3) performance, and (4) residuals generated.
The main treatment option for concentrated waste solvents for which reclamation is not
feasible is thermal treatment. Table 6-8 identifies four incineration options and seven other
thermal technologies; of these seven technologies, only pyrolysis (see Section 6.3.3) is
commercially available. Most of the physical and chemical treatment options identified in
Table 6-9 are for aqueous waste streams contaminated by relatively low concentrations of
solvents. Figure 6-12 can be used as a guide for identification of potential technologies based
on the concentration of solvents and other organics in wastewater.
6-39
Table 6-7. Solvent waste management alternatives to land disposal (Breton et al., 1987)
Waste
Applicable waste
management Potential waste management alternative
type(s)
objective
Waste All Raw material Process redesign
Minimization substitution Waste segregation
Product
reformulation
Recycling All Reclamation Reuse (e.g., as a fuel or process solvent)
Pretreatment
Liquid with solids Screening Sedimentation Filtration Distillation
Floatation Settling Centrifugation
Liquid – Two Phase Decanting Floatation Centrifugation Extraction
Distillation
Sludge Vacuum filtration Filter press Centrifugation Other
dewatering
Bulky solids Shredders Hammermills Crushers
Low Btu/High Blending
Viscosity
Treatment
Physical Liquid Distillation Evaporation Fractionation Extraction
Steam stripping Air stripping Carbon Resin
adsorption adsorption
Chemical Liquid Wet air oxidation Supercritical water oxidation Ozonation
Other chemical Chlorinolysis
oxidations
Biological Liquid Activated sludge Aerated lagoon Trickling
filter
Incineration All Liquid inyection Rotary kiln Fluidized- Starved air
bed
Other All Pyrolysis Molten glass Circulating
thermal processes Electric reactor fluid bed
Plasma systems Molten salt
Post-treatment
Organic liquid Decanting Dehydrating Fractionatio Thermal
n destruction
Solid/sludge Solidification Encapsulation Thermal
destruction
Aqueous Liquid Carbon adsorption Resin adsorption Air stripping Biological
Ozonation Other oxidations Treatment
6-40
Table 6-8. Summary of solvent treatment processes (Breton et al., 1987)
Applicable waste
Process Stage of development Performance Residuals generated
streams
Incineration
Liquid injection All pumpable liquids Estimated that over 219 Excellent destruction TSP, possibly some PICs and
incineration provided wastes can be units are in use. Most efficiency (>99.99%). HCl if halogenated organics
blended to Btu level of widely used Blending can avoid are fired. Only minor ash if
6500 Btu/lb. Some solids incineration technology problems associated with solids removed in
removal may be residuals, e.g., HCl pretreatment processes
necessary to avoid
plugging nozzles
Rotary kiln incineration All wastes provided Btu Over 40 units in Excellent destruction Requires APCDs. Residuals
level is maintained service; most versatile efficiency (>99.99%) should be acceptable if
for waste destruction charged properly
Fluidized bed incineration Liquids or nonbulky solids Nine units reportedly in Excellent destruction As above
operation-recirculating efficiency (>99.99%)
bed units under
development
Fixed/multiple hearths Can handle a wide variety Approximately 70 units Performance may be As above
of wastes in use. Old technology marginal for hazardous
for municipal waste wastes, particularly
combustion halogenated wastes
Use as a Fuel
Industrial kilns Generally all wastes, but Only a few units now Usually excellent Requires APCDs. Residuals
Btu level, chlorine burning hazardous destruction efficiency should be acceptable
content, and other waste (>99.99%) because of long
impurity content may residence times and high
require blending to temperatures
control charge
characteristics and
product quality
High temperature All pumpable fluids, but Several units in use Most units tested have Waste must be blended to
industrial boilers should blend halogenated demonstrated high DRE meet emission standards for
organics. Solids removal (>99.99%) TSP and HCl unless boilers
particularly important to equipped with APCDs
ensure stable burner
operation
tÒher Thermal Technologies
Circulating bed combustor Liquids or nonbulky solids Only one U.S. Manufacturer reports high Bed material additives can
manufacturer. No units efficiencies (>99.99%) reduce HCl emissions.
treating hazardous Residuals should be
waste acceptable
Molten glass incineration Almost all wastes, Technology developed No performance data Will need APC device for
provided moisture and for glass available, but DREs should HCl and possibly PICs; solid
metal impurity levels are manufacturing. Not be high (>99.99%) retained (encapsulated) in
within limitations available yet as a molten glass
hazardous waste unit
Molten salt destruction Not suitable for high Technology under Very high destruction Needs some APC devices to
(>20%) ash content development since efficiencies for organics (six collect material not retained in
wastes 1969, but further nines for PCBs) salt. Ash disposal may be a
development on hold problem
Furnace pyrolysis units Most designs suitable for One pyrolysis unit Very high destruction TSP emissions lowers than
all wastes RCRA permitted. efficiencies possible those from conventional will
Certain designs (>99.99%). Possibility of need APC devices for HCl
available commercially PIC formation
6-41
Applicable waste
Process Stage of development Performance Residuals generated
streams
Plasma arc pyrolysis Present design suitable Commercial design Efficiencies exceeded six Requires APC devices for
only for liquids appears imminent, with nines in tests with solvents HCP and TSP, needs flare for
future modifications H2 and CO destruction
planned for treatment of
sludges or solids
Fluid wall advanced Suitable for all wastes if Ready for commercial Efficiencies have exceeded Requires APC devices for
electric reactor solids pretreated to ensure development. Test unit six nines in tests with HCP and TSP, needs flare for
free flow permitted under RCRA solvents H2 and CO destruction
In situ vitrification Technique for treating Not commercial, No date available, but Off gas system needed to
contaminated soils, could further work planned DREs of over six nines control emissions to air. Ash
possibly be extended to reported contained in vitrified soil
slurries. Also use as
solidification process
Physical Treatment Methods
Distillation This is a process used to Technology well Separation depends upon Bottoms will usually contain
recover and separate developed and reflux (99 + percent levels of solvent in excess of
solvents. Fractional equipment available achievable). This is a 1,000 ppm; condensate may
distillation will required from many suppliers; recovery process require further treatment
solids removal to avoid widely practiced
plugging columns technology
Evaporation Agitated thin film units Technology is well This is a solvent recovery Bottoms will contain
can tolerate higher levels developed and process. Typical recovery appreciable solvent. Generally
of solids and higher equipment is available of 60 to 70 percent suitable for incineration
viscosities than other from several suppliers;
types of stills widely practiced
technology
Stream Stripping A simple distillation Technology well Not generally considered a Aqueous treated stream will
process to remove volatile developed and final treatment, but can probably require polishing.
organics from aqueous available. achieve low residual solvent Further concentration of
solutions. Preferred for levels overhead steam generally
low concentrations and required
solvents with low
solubilities
Air Stripping Generally used to treat Technology well Not generally considered a Air emissions may require
low concentration aqueous developed and available final treatment, but may be treatment
streams effective for highly volatile
wastes
Liquid-liquid extraction Generally suitable only Technology well Can achieve high efficiency Solvent solubility in aqueous
for liquids of low solid developed for industrial separations for certain phase should be monitored
content processing solvents/waste combinations
Carbon adsorption Suitable for low solid, Technology well Can achieve low levels of Adsorbate must be processed
low concentration aqueous developed; used as residual solvent in effluent. during regeneration. Spent
waste streams polishing treatment carbon and wastewater may
also need treatment.
Resin Adsorption Suitable for low solid Technology well Can achieve low levels of Adsorbate must be processed
waste streams. Consider developed in industry residual solvent in effluent. during regeneration.
for recovery of valuable for special resin/solvent
solvent combinations.
Applicability to waste
streams not
demonstrated
6-42
Applicable waste
Process Stage of development Performance Residuals generated
streams
Chemical Treatment Processes
Wet air oxidation Suitable for aqueous High Pretreatment for biological Some residues likely which
liquids, also possible fortemperature/pressure treatment. Some compounds need further treatment
slurries. Solvent technology, widely used resist oxidation
concentrations up to 15% as pretreatment for
municipal sludges, only
one manufacturer
Supercritical water For liquids and slurries Supercritical conditions Supercritical conditions Residuals not likely to be a
oxidation containing optimal may impose demands achieve high destruction problem. Halogens can be
concentrations of about on system reliability. efficiencies (>99.99%) for neutralized in process
10% solvent Commercially available all constituents
in 1987
Ozonation Oxidation with ozone Now used as a Not likely to achieve Residual contamination likely;
(possibly assisted by [UV] polishing step for residual solvent levels in the will require additional
suitable for low solid, wastewaters low ppm range for most processing of off gases
dilute aqueous solutions wastes
Other chemical oxidation Oxidizing agents may be Oxidation technology Not likely to achieve Residual contamination likely;
processes highly reactive for well developed for residual solvent levels in the will require additional
specific constituents in cyanides and other low ppm range for most processing
aqueous solution species (phenols), not wastes
yet established for
general utility
Chlorinolysis Suitable for any liquid Process produces a Not available Air and wastewater emissions
chlorinated wastes product (e.g., carbon were estimated as not
tetrachloride). Not significant
likely to be available
Dechlorination Dry soils and solids Not fully developed Destruction efficiency of Residual contamination seems
over 99% reported for likely
dioxin
Biological Treatment Aerobic technology Conventional treatments May be used as final Residual contamination likely;
Methods suitable for dilute wastes have been used for treatment for specific will usually require additional
although some years wastes, may be processing
constituents will be pretreatment for resistant
resistant species
6-43
Figure 6-9. Industrial wastewater process applicability matrix (McArdle et al., 1987)
6-44
6.4.4 Other Contaminant-Specific Options
Table 6-11 is a matrix rating the effectiveness of six technologies for treating
contaminated solids for 11 major types of hazardous contaminants. These 11 groups were
developed for the EPA Superfund program to facilitate tests for the treatability of materials at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The nine categories for organic contaminants represent a
more detailed breakdown than shown in other tables in this guide. A more complete list of
applicable treatment technologies for these treatability groups as they relate to pesticide
chemical waste groups is contained in Table B-5 in Worksheet B (Volume II).
Finally, Table C-8 in Worksheet C (in Volume III) provides a screening matrix for
more than 50 treatment technologies in relation to the following five major groups of
contaminants: (1) volatile organic compounds (VOCs), (2) semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), (3) fuels (petroleum hydrocarbons), (4) inorganics, and (5) explosives. Information
on how to use this matrix is presented in Worksheet C.
Although the matrices in Tables 6-5, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, and C-9 overlap somewhat, each
contains significant information that is not covered elsewhere.
6-45
Table 6-10. Treatment technology screening guide contaminants in soil and sludges
(U.S. EPA, 1988)
6-46
Table 6-11. Predicted treatment effectiveness for contaminated solids
(Offut and Knapp, 1990)
6-47
6.4.5 Industry-Specific Options
Table 6-12 is a matrix that identifies the applicability of 27 candidate treatment and
control technologies for 34 industries. This table provides a somewhat quicker way to prepare
a preliminary list of candidate treatment technologies for a particular industry than the
procedure described in Worksheet A (Volume II), but should not be used as a substitute for a
more detailed screening process.
Typically, HWTCs need to have the ability to treat the full range of hazardous wastes
that are produced by industrial processes, unless industrial production in a region is so
specialized that certain categories of hazardous waste are not generated. Compared with
CETPs, treatment processes at HWTCs need to handle concentrated liquid, sludge, and solid
wastes, which mainly require physical, chemical, and thermal treatment, and also use of S/S
technologies. If an HWTC also receives large amounts of industrial wastewater, then
biological treatment processes are also likely to be significant, and the HWTC would also
function as a CETP.
Table 6-13 summarizes the results of a survey that EPA conducted in 1994 of 85
centralized waste treatment facilities in the United States to identify the types of treatment
technologies in actual use. All of these facilities mainly treat liquid wastes received from
industries. The 22 technologies in Table 6-13 are classified as (1) physical pretreatment, (2)
physical phase separation, (3) chemical, (4) biological, and (5) sludge dewatering.
Equalization is the most commonly used pretreatment method (81 facilities) with
clarification/flocculation (35 facilities) and gravity separation (18 facilities) also commonly
used. Granular media filtration (equally divided between sand filters and multimedia filters)
and carbon adsorption are the most commonly used physical treatment methods.
Precipitation is by far the most commonly used chemical treatment method, and
multiple applications at a single facility are typical. Cyanide destruction and chromium
reduction were performed at a little less than half the facilities.
Activated sludge was the most commonly used biological treatment process and was
usually used only at facilities with onsite manufacturing operations that produced a relatively
constant waste stream that could support a continuous biological treatment system.
Plate and frame press filtration was the most commonly used sludge dewatering method
(34 facilities), followed by vacuum filtration (10 facilities) and belt pressure filtration (6
facilities).
Chapter 8 includes a case study of an existing HWTC that outlines the mix of
technologies likely to be required at HWTCs.
6-48
Table 6-12. Candidate treatment and control technology for 34 industries (Saltzberg
and Cushnie, 1985)
6-49
Table 6-13. Frequency of use of treatment technologies at industrial centralized waste
treatment facilities
6-50
6.5 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
Several types of residuals (i.e., waste products) are generated from the treatment
processes employed at CETPs and HWTCs including: sludges, solids, incinerator ash, air
emissions, and concentrated liquid waste streams.
Table 6-14 provides an overview of the major types of residuals associated with
wastewater treatment processes. Table 6-1 identifies residuals associated with specific
neutralization processes, and Table 6-8 identifies residuals associated with solvent treatment
processes. Treatment and disposal options for the major types of residuals produced by CETPs
and HWTCs are discussed below.
Residuals
Air Concentrated Spent
Treatment process Sludges
emissions liquid waste stream carbon
Pretreatment operations
Sedimentation X
Granular media filtration X
Oil/water separation X
Physical/chemical treatment operations
Neutralization X
Precipitation flocculation/sedimentation X
Oxidation/reduction X
Carbon adsorption X X
Air stripping X
Steam stripping X
Reverse osmosis X
Ultrafiltration X
Ion exchange X
Wet-air oxidation X
Biological treatment operations
Activated sludge X X
Sequencing batch reactor X X
Powdered activated carbon treatment (PACT) X X
Rotating biological contactor X X
Trickling filter X
The treatment processes described in Sections 5 and 6 concentrate solids from liquid
wastes into sludges that must be treated (e.g., stabilized and dewatered) before being finally
disposed. The following discussion addresses sludge treatment processes relevant to both
CETPs and HWTCs.
6-51
Figure 6-13 shows a general schematic for handling sludge at municipal wastewater
treatment plants. Most processes shown in this figure are intended to remove water, reduce
volume, or reduce the mass of solids in the initial sludge, which is typically only a few percent
solids and the rest water. Many of these processes, such as aerobic and anaerobic digestion,
lime stabilization, and composting, also reduce pathogens in municipal wastewater sludges.
Table 6-15 describes the effect of major sludge treatment processes on sludge and their
significance for sludge use and disposal options. If CETPs are likely to receive human as well
as industrial wastewaters, reduction of pathogens should be a significant design consideration,
especially if land application for agricultural purposes is desired. In HWTCs, pathogen
reduction generally is not a concern unless the facility processes medical wastes.
Sludge thickening methods typically increase sludge solids from a few percent solids to
as much as 10 percent solids. Raw primary sludges that have not received biological treatment
also require stabilization to control odors and pathogens. WPCF/WEF (1980) provides more
detailed information on sludge thickening.
THICKENING TREATMENT
PRIMARY
SLUDGE * Compost
* Source thickening in the * Incineration
primary clarifier * Drying
* Gravity
Figure 6-13. General schematic for solids handling showing most commonly used
methods of treatment and disposal (U.S. EPA, 1987)
6-52
Table 6.15. Effects of pretreatment and sludge treatment processes on sludge and
sludge use/disposal options
6-53
Sludge conditioning involves physical (heat, freeze-thaw) or chemical treatment to
reduce moisture content and modify sludge characteristics to increase the rate of subsequent
dewatering processes. WPCF/WEF (1988) provides more detailed information on sludge
conditioning.
Sludge dewatering increases solids content to the point where sludge can be more or
less handled as a solid for use or disposal (see Section 6.5.1.1). The solids content of
dewatered sludges varies greatly depending on the characteristics of the sludge and the
dewatering method used but typically ranges from 20 to 50 percent. Table 6-16 outlines
operational selection criteria for sludge dewatering processes based on plant size. Major
references for additional information on municipal sludge dewatering include EPA (1987) and
WPCF/WEF (1983, 1987a). The next section provides additional information on commonly
used dewatering methods at hazardous waste treatment facilities.
A plate and frame filter press consists of a number of filter plates or trays connected to
a frame and pressed together between a fixed end and a moving end (Figure 6-14a). Filter
cloth is mounted on the face of each plate. The sludge is pumped into the unit under pressure
while the plates are pressed together. The solids are retained in the cavities of the filter press
and begin to attach to the filter cloth until a cake is formed. The water or filtrate passes
through the filter cloth and is discharged from a drainage port in the bottom of the press. The
sludge influent is pumped into the system until the cavities are filled. Pressure is applied to the
plates until the flow of filtrate stops. At the end of the cycle, the pressure is released and the
plates are separated. The filter cake drops into a hopper below the press. The filter cake can
then be disposed of in a landfill. The filter cloth is washed before the next cycle begins. The
key advantage of plate and frame pressure filtration is that it can produce a drier filter cake
than other methods of sludge dewatering can, and the fact that it is a batch process is an
advantage when sludges from different waste streams need to be handled separately. Because
of the batch operation, however, a plate and frame filter press is more labor intensive.
6-54
Table 6-16. Operational Selection Criteria for Sludge Dewatering Processes (U.S. EPA,
1987)
Rotary vacuum filters come in drum, coil, and belt configurations. The filter medium
can be made of cloth, coil springs, or wire-mesh fabric. A typical application is a rotary
vacuum belt filter (see Figure 6-14b). A continuous belt of filter fabric is wound around a
horizontal rotating drum and rollers. The drum is perforated and is connected to a vacuum.
The drum is partially immersed in a shallow tank containing the sludge. As the drum rotates,
the vacuum that is applied to the inside of the drum draws the sludge onto the filter fabric. The
water from the sludge passes through the filter and into the drum, where it exits via a
discharge port. As the fabric leaves the drum and passes over the roller, the vacuum is
released. The filter cake drops off the belt as it turns around the roller. The filter cake can then
be disposed of. Because vacuum filtration systems are relatively expensive to operate, they are
6-55
usually preceded by a thickening step that reduces the volume of sludge to be dewatered. It is a
continuous process and therefore requires less operator attention.
Belt pressure filtration uses gravity followed by mechanical compression and shear
force to produce a sludge filter cake. Belt filter presses are continuous systems that are
commonly used to dewater biological treatment sludge. Most belt filter installations are
preceded by a flocculation step, where polymer is added to create a sludge that has the strength
to withstand being compressed between the belts without being squeezed out. A typical belt
filter press is illustrated in Figure 6-14c. During the press operation, the sludge stream is fed
onto the first of two moving cloth filter belts. The sludge is gravity-thickened as the water
drains through the belt. As the belt holding the sludge advances, it approaches a second
moving belt. As the first and second belts move closer together, the sludge is compressed
between them. The pressure is increased as the two belts travel together over and under a
series of rollers. The turning of the belts around the rollers shears the cake, which furthers the
dewatering process. At the end of the roller pass, the belts move apart and the cake drops off.
The feed belt is washed before the sludge feed point. The dropped filter cake can then be
disposed of. The advantages of a belt filtration system are its lower labor requirements and
lower power consumption. One disadvantage is that belt filter presses produce a poorer quality
filtrate and require a relatively large volume of belt wash water.
Residual sludges that remain after any recyclable constituents have been removed are
dewatered as much as possible before being ultimately disposed. Further stabilization, such as
adding a bulking agent (see Section 6.3.1), may be required to create a sludge consistency that
is easier to handle for transport to the location of ultimate disposal. Final disposal options for
sludge include beneficial uses such as (1) land application and (2) distribution and marketing of
composted sludge, or non-beneficial uses such as (1) landfilling, (2) incineration (see Section
6.3.2), and (3) ocean disposal.
The main difference between CETPs and HWTCs is that if SMSE pretreatment
programs are successful for a CETP, it should be possible to put sludge to a beneficial use by
land application for agricultural production, forestry, or land reclamation, whereas sludges
generated at HWTCs generally are unsuitable for beneficial uses. The general approach to
residuals management at an HWTC it is to treat them on site to minimize volume and toxicity,
and dispose of the remainder in a secure landfill. Figure 6-15 rates the relative importance of
sludge constituents, major sludge characteristics, and costs for the five use/disposal options.
Solids created using solidification processes, and incinerator ash, also require
placement in a final disposal area. The main disposal options for such residuals are landfilling
and ocean disposal.
6-56
Major general references for additional information on sludge treatment, use, and
disposal include HMCRI (1974-1989), EPA (1979, 1984b, 1985b), and WPCF/WEF (1989).
Figure 6-14. Selected sludge dewatering systems: (a) plate and press pressure filtration,
(b) vacuum filtration, and (c) belt pressure filtration (U.S. EPA, 1995)
6-57
Table 6-17. Pollution limit for land application of sludge
Description (*)
Maximum concentration Pollutant accumulation Permissible Annual pollutant
Pollutant limit (**) rate concentration limit (***) accumulation rate
(mg/kg) (kg/ha) (mg/kg) (kg/ha/year)
Arsenic 75 41 41 2.0
Cadmium 85 39 39 1.9
Chrome 3000 3000 1200 150
Copper 4300 1500 1500 75
Lead 840 300 300 15
Mercury 57 17 17 0.85
Molibdene 75 18 18 0.90
Nickel 420 420 420 21
Selenium 100 100 36 5.0
Zinc 7500 2800 2800 140
(*) All limits in a dry basis; (**) absolute values; (***) monthly averages.
USEPA. 40 CFR Part 503, Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. 1993.
Major references for additional information on land application of sewage sludge include
HMCRI (1974-1989), EPA (1983, 1994), and WCPF/WEF (1989).
Composting of sludge produces a stable product that can be bagged and marketed.
Composting requires mixing of dewatered sludge with a bulking agent such as wood chips,
bark, rice hulls, or straw, and further aerobic decomposition. Major references for additional
information on sludge composting include Benedict et al. (1987), HMCRI (1974-1989), and
EPA (1985a).
6-58
Figure 6-15. Importance factors affecting sludge use/disposal options: (a) sludge
constituents, (b) sludge characteristics, and (c) cost factors
6-59
6.5.2.3 Landfilling
Modern landfills are coming under increased regulatory scrutiny, and as a result, will
be more protective of the environment in the future. A variety of specific technologies are
associated with a state-of-the-art landfill including: liner systems, leachate collection systems,
leachate treatment, landfill gas control and recovery, improved closure techniques, provisions
for post-closure care, and monitoring systems, all of which are discussed below. If landfills
are properly planned and operated, a completed landfill site can ultimately be used by the
owner for recreational or other purposes, such as open space. Batstone et al. (1989) address
technical requirements for safe disposal of hazardous waste in landfills. Table B-1, in
Appendix B, identifies major references on the design of secure landfills.
Siting a Landfill
Siting a hazardous waste landfill involves analyzing a number of factors associated with
location alternatives. Because of environmental concerns, careful scientific and engineering
analysis must take place during potential site evaluations. Surface and subsurface geology,
hydrogeology, and the environmental nature of surrounding areas must be evaluated for
potential impacts. Ground water resources must be protected, and the integrity of soils must be
preserved. A substantial hydrogeological investigation and prediction of leachate quantities are
usually performed early in the planning stages. When siting a new landfill, decision makers
also will have to consider logistical factors such as access roads, travel distance, and travel
time.
Cells are the basic building blocks of landfills. During daily operations, waste is
confined to defined areas where it is spread and compacted throughout the day. At the end of
the day (or several times a day), the waste is covered by a thin layer of soil, which also is
compacted. This unit of compacted and covered waste is called the cell. Several adjacent cells
(all the same height) are referred to as a lift. A landfill consists of a series of lifts.
n Foundations
n Dikes
n Liner Systems
- Low-permeability soil liners
- Flexible membrane liners (FMLs)
- Leachate collection systems
n Final cover systems
6-60
Foundations
The foundations for hazardous waste landfills should provide structurally stable
subgrades for the overlying landfill components. The foundations also should provide
satisfactory contact with the overlying liner or other system components. In addition, the
foundations should resist settlement, compression, and uplift resulting from internal or external
pressures, thereby preventing distortion or rupture of the landfill components.
Dikes
Liner Systems
The primary function of a liner system is to minimize and control the flow of leachate
from the site to the environment, particularly towards ground water. Liners are made of low-
permeability soils (typically clays) or synthetic materials (e.g., plastic). Landfills can be
designed with more than one liner, and a mix of liner types may be used (these are referred to
as composite liners).
There are two types of liner systems currently used in land disposal facilities in the
U.S. A single liner system consists of one liner and one leachate collection system as shown in
Figure 6-16. A double liner system includes two liners (primary and secondary), with a
primary leachate collection system above the primary (top) liner and a secondary leak
detection/leachate collection system between the two liners, as shown in Figure 6-17.
6-61
Figure 6-16. Schematic of a single clay liner system for a landfill (U.S. EPA, 1988)
Figure 6-17. Schematic of a double liner and leak detection system for a landfill
(U.S. EPA, 1988)
6-62
The term "liner system" includes the liner(s), leachate collection system(s), and any
special additional structural components such as filter layers or reinforcement. The major
components of both single and double liner systems are the following:
Low-permeability soil liner design is site- and material-specific. Prior to design, many
fundamental yet important criteria should be considered such as: in-place permeability of the
liner; liner stability against slope failure, settlement, and bottom heave; and the long-term
integrity of the liner. Natural and manmade soil amendments (e.g., soil-cement, bentonite,
lime) may be specified in a soil liner design to enhance the performance of natural soil.
The design of a lined sewage sludge surface disposal site requires consideration of more
than the performance requirements of the FML; it also requires careful design of the
foundation supporting the FML. The foundation provides support for the liner system,
including the FMLs and the leachate collection and removal systems. If the foundation is not
structurally stable, the liner system may deform, thus restricting or preventing its proper
performance.
6-63
The designer must specify the necessary criteria for each of these properties based on
engineering requirements, performance requirements, and the specific site conditions.
Leachate Collection Systems. Leachate refers to liquid that has passed through or
emerged from landfilled waste and contains dissolved, suspended, or immiscible materials
removed from the waste. The purpose of a primary leachate collection system in a landfill is to
minimize the leachate head on the top liner during operation and to remove liquids from the
landfill through the postclosure monitoring period. The leachate collection system should be
capable of maintaining a leachate head of less than 30 cm (1 foot). The purpose of a secondary
leachate collection system (sometimes referred to as a leak detection system) between the two
liners of a landfill is to rapidly detect, collect, and remove liquids entering the system through
the postclosure monitoring period. If uncontrolled, landfill leachate can be responsible for
contaminating ground water and surface water.
Leachate is generally collected from the landfill through sand drainage layers, synthetic
drainage nets, or granular drainage layers with perforated plastic collection pipes, and is then
removed through sumps or gravity drain carrier pipes.
Once leachate has been collected and removed from the landfill, it must undergo some
type of treatment and disposal. The most common methods of management are:
An extensive body of literature has been developed on the design of liners and leachate
collection systems. For additional information on these systems, including information on
materials specifications, construction procedures, and quality control issues, see the references
U.S. EPA, 1988, and U.S. EPA, 1993.
Closure is the procedure, once waste placement in a landfill ends, that renders the site
safe and acceptable to the public. Closure is intended to minimize the environmental and
public health and safety hazards, and prepares the site for the post-closure period. During the
post-closure period, the site may be secured to allow degradation of the waste to proceed.
Once the site has stabilized, it is converted to its planned final end use.
Final cover systems for hazardous waste landfills are designed to provide long-term
minimization of liquid migration and leachate formation in the closed landfill by preventing the
infiltration of surface water into the landfill for many years. Final cover systems also control
the venting of gas generated in the facility and isolate the wastes from the surface
environment. These cover systems are constructed in layers, the most important of which are
the barrier layers. Other layers are included to protect or to enhance the performance of the
barrier layers. A final cover system must be constructed so that it functions with minimum
6-64
maintenance, promotes drainage and minimizes erosion or abrasion of the cover,
accommodates settlement and subsidence so that the cover's integrity is maintained, and has a
permeability less than or equal to the permeability of the bottom liner system component with
the lowest permeability.
Ground-water protection is the most difficult and costly environmental control measure
required at many hazardous waste landfills. Additionally, contamination of surface water and
methane gas buildup must be avoided.
Monitoring
To ensure the components of a landfill are performing their designed function, surface
water and ground water monitoring should be included at all landfills. By sampling from
ground water wells located near the solid waste disposal facility, the presence, degree, and
migration of any leachate can be detected. The main concern with environmental monitoring is
ensuring that the number and location of sampling points are adequate to characterize
background levels (for ground water) and that sampling is frequent enough to determine
whether any performance or other environmental quality standards are being met.
The purpose of a run-on control system is to collect and redirect surface waters to
minimize the amount of surface water entering the landfill. Run-on control can be
accomplished by constructing berms and swales above the filling area that will collect and
redirect the water to the stormwater control structures.
6-65
limits in the facility structures. Once methane is collected, it is usually vented into the
atmosphere, flared (burned), or recovered as an energy source.
In ocean disposal, municipal wastewater sludge is released into a designated area of the
ocean either from outfall pipes or vessels at the ocean surface. This option has the potential for
severely degrading the local marine environment. Batstone et al. (1989) address the technical
requirements for safe disposal of hazardous waste in the ocean.
Processes such as reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration create concentrated liquid waste
streams. Concentrated wastewaters containing inorganic constituents can be further treated by
precipitation and then dewatered. Evaporation is an alternative method for obtaining residual
solids from concentrated liquid waste streams. Concentrated organic liquid waste streams are
usually incinerated. Deep well injection is another alternative for concentrated liquid wastes.
6-66
6.6 REFERENCES
Batstone, R., J.E. Smith, Jr., and D. Wilson, eds. 1989. The Safe Disposal of Hazardous
Waste: the special needs and problems of developing countries. World Bank Technical Paper
Number 93.
Benedict, A.H., E. Epstein, and J. Alpert. 1987. Composting Municipal Sludge: A Technology
Evaluation. EPA/600/2-87/021.
Breton, M., et al. 1987. Technical Resource Document: Treatment Technologies for Solvent
Containing Wastes. EPA/600/2-86/095 (NTIS PB87129821). Washington, DC.
Fresenius, W., W. Schneider, B. Böhnke, and K. Pöppinghaus (eds.). 1989. Waste Water
Technology: Origin, Collection, Treatment and Analysis of Waste Water. Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1974. Municipal sludge management. HMCR.
Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1975. Municipal Sludge Management and
disposal. HMCRI. Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1977. Disposal of residues on land. HMCRI.
Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1977. Composting of municipal residues and
sludges. HMCRI. Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1978. Acceptable sludge disposal techniques.
HCMRI. Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1978. Treatment and disposal of industrial
wastewater HMCRI. Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1978. Design of municipal sludge compost
facilities. HMCRI. Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1980. Composting of municipal and industrial
sludges: design, operations, marketing, health, rules & regs. HMCRI. Sludge/Wastewater
Management Series.
6-67
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1980. Municipal and industrial sludge
composting-materials handling. HMCRI. Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1982. Composting of Municipal and Industrial
Sludges. HMCRI. Sludge/Wastewater Management Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1980; 1983. Municipal and Industrial Sludge
Utilization and Disposal Proceedings Series. HMCRI. Municipal and Industrial Sludge
Utilization and Disposal Proceeding Series.
Hazardous Material Control Research Institute. 1986; 1987; 1988; 1989). Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plant Sludge Management Proceedings Series.
McArdle, J.L., M.M. Arozarena, and W.E. Gallagher. 1987. A Handbook on Treatment of
Hazardous Waste Leachate. EPA/600/S8-87/006 (NTIS PB87152328). Washington, DC.
Offut, C.K., and J.O. Knapp. 1990. The Challenge of Treating Contaminated Superfund Soil.
In: Superfund '90, Hazardous Material Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp.
700-711.
Saltzberg, E.R., and J.C. Cushnie, Jr. 1985. Centralized Waste Treatment of Industrial
Wastewater. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.
U.S. EPA. 1979. Sludge Treatment and Disposal (Process Design Manual). EPA/625/1-79-
011 (NTIS PB80200546). Washington, DC. [See also U.S. EPA (1974, 1978a).]
U.S. EPA. 1983. Land Application of Municipal Sludge (Process Design Manual).
EPA/625/1-83-016. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1984b. Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge (Environmental
Regulations and Technology). EPA/625/10-84-003. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1985b. Estimating Sludge Management Costs at Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (Handbook). EPA/625/6-85/010 (NTIS PB86124542). Washington, DC.
6-68
U.S. EPA. 1987. Dewatering Municipal Wastewater Sludges (Design Manual). EPA/625/1-
87/014. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Guide to Technical Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities.
EPA/625/6-88/018. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Issues Affecting the Applicability and Success of Remedial/Removal
Incineration Projects. Superfund Engineering Issue. EPA/540/2-91/004. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, Technical Manual. EPA/530/R-
93/017 (NTIS PB94-100-450). Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993. 40 CFR Part 503, Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Process Design Manual for Land Application of Sewage Sludge and
Domestic Septage. Draft Report Submitted by Eastern Research Group to U.S. EPA Center for
Environmental Research Information, September 16, 1994.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. EPA/821-R-95-006. Washington, DC.
Wilk, L., S. Palmer, and M. Breton. 1988. Technical Resource Document: Treatment
Technologies for Corrosive-Containing Wastes, Volume II. EPA/600/2-87/099 (NTIS
PB88131289). Washington, DC.
Water Pollution Control Federation; Water Environment Federation. 1980. Sludge thickening.
MOP FD-1. WPCF/WEF. Alexandria, VA.
Water Pollution Control Federation; Water Environment Federation. 1983. Sludge dewatering.
MOP 20. WPCF/WEF. Alexandria, VA.
Water Pollution Control Federation; Water Environment Federation. 1987a. Operation and
maintenance of sludge dewatering systems. MOP OM-8. WPCF/WEF. Alexandria, VA.
Water Pollution Control Federation; Water Environment Federation. 1987b. Activated sludge.
MOP OM-9. WPCF/WEF. Alexandria, VA.
6-69
Water Pollution Control Federation; Water Environment Federation. 1988. Sludge
conditioning. MOP FD-14. WPCF/WEF. Alexandria, VA.
Water Pollution Control Federation; Water Environment Federation.. 1989. Beneficial use of
waste solids. MOP FD-15. WPCF/WEF. Alexandria, VA.
6-70