Disposal to Surface Water

This book examines five methods used for concentrate management, namely disposal to surface water, disposal to sewerage, deep well injection, land applications and evaporation ponds. In particular, the book focuses on the design, siting, cost, and environmental impacts of these methods. While these methods are widely practiced in a variety of settings already, there are many limitations that restrict the use of certain disposal options in particular locations. 

Abstract This chapter discusses disposal to surface water, the most common method of concentrate management. This includes concentrate that is directly disposed of into rivers, creeks, lakes, oceans, bays, and other bodies of water. Concentrate is piped to the site of disposal, where it is discharged to the receiving body of water via an outfall structure. The environmental impacts of surface water disposal may be lessened by diluting the concentrate prior to discharge, or by dilution of the concentrate through the design of the outfall strucmre and diffusers. Pretreatment processes that lessen the impact on the environment should also be considered. 

The significance of these industrial effluent disposal options on the location of an industrial plant is essentially cost. As previously stated, the EPA does not, as yet, impose a cost on effluents complying with the Consent standards discharged to surface waters or to land. However, the cost of installing and operating treatment... 

Production, Import/Export, Use, Release, and Disposal. Humans are at risk of exposure to trichloroethylene because of its widespread use and distribution in the environment. Production, import, and use of the chemical are known to be relatively high, but recent quantitative data were not available (HSDB 1994). Trichloroethylene is released to the atmosphere mainly through its use in vapor degreasing operations (EPA 1985e). Landfills can be a concentrated source of trichloroethylene on a local scale. It is also released to surface water and land in sewage sludges and industrial liquid or solid waste. Trichloroethylene is... 

The technology of deep-well injection has been around for more than 70 years. Most Americans would be surprised to know that there is a waste management system already in operation in the U.S. that has no emissions into the air, no discharges to surface water, and no off-site transfers, and exposes people and the environment to virtually no hazards. 1 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has stated that Class 1 wells are safer than virtually all other waste disposal practices for many chemical industry wastes. 

As a result of human health concerns, production of mirex ceased in 1976, at which time industrial releases of this chemical to surface waters were also curtailed. However, releases from waste disposal sites continue to add mirex to the environment. Virtually all industrial releases of mirex were to surface waters, principally Lake Ontario via contamination of the Niagara and Oswego Rivers. About 75% of the mirex produced was used as a fire retardant additive, while 25% was used as a pesticide. As a pesticide, mirex was widely dispersed throughout the southern United States where it was used in the fire ant eradication program for over 10 years. 

Production of chlordecone ceased in 1975 as a result of human health concerns at that time industrial releases of this chemical to surface waters via a municipal sewage system were curtailed. However, releases from waste disposal sites may continue to add chlordecone to the environment. Major releases of chlordecone occurred to the air, surface waters, and soil surrounding a major manufacturing site in Hopewell, Virginia. Releases from this plant ultimately contaminated the water, sediment, and biota of the James River, a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. 

Chlordecone has been primarily released to surface waters in waste waters from a manufacturing plant in Hopewell, Virginia, and may be released in activities associated with the disposal of residual pesticide stocks, and as a result of the direct use of mirex. Chlordecone has been released directly as a contaminant of mirex and indirectly from the degradation of mirex. 

Disulfoton enters the environment primarily during its use as an insecticide/acaricide in crops and vegetables, and in homes and gardens. Other important pathways for disulfoton s entry into the environment are the disposal of liquid disulfoton wastes into soil evaporation pits, ditches, ponds (Winterlin et al. 1989), and hazardous waste sites. Thus, soil is the environmental medium most likely to be contaminated with disulfoton. The processes that may transport disulfoton from soil to other environmental media include leaching to groundwater, runoff to surface water, and absorption by plants (Holden 1986 Mostaghimi et al. 1993 Nash 1974 Plumb 1991 Sanborn et al. 1977 ... 

Discharge to surface water is the most economical form of concentrate management for seawater desalination plants, regardless of the discharge volume. Due to the availability of ocean discharge for seawater desalination plants, the cost of disposal tends to be less costly than for inland desalination. Costs include pumps and pipes. 

Releases of aniline in industrialized countries is considerable. According to the US Toxic Release Inventory, during 1998, eighty-two factories in the US released 1,449,754 lbs. of aniline, 217,223 to the atmosphere, 19,549 to surface waters, 1,161,911 by underground injection, 252 to land and 50,819 to disposal sites. While aniline waste is nowadays subjected to recovery, management, energy recovery and waste treatment, this was not so in the past, when anilines caused environmental injuries. The toxic impact of many dyes, e.g. in waste streams and releases to surface waters, arises from the fact that they are degraded, cleaved or reduced to aromatic amines. 

Determining the release rate of unattenuated or poorly attenuated contaminants from the disposal site to surface water or groundwater (aquifer) is a necessary step in evaluating a waste disposal site. A decision must be made as to which ions must be attenuated totally and which could be released to the environment in the primary movement of contaminants (Cartwright et al., 1977). A properly designed and operated site promotes the dilution of contaminants by restricting the rate of their release into the environment to some acceptable level at which the concentrations in the receiving natural waters will remain below an acceptable maximum. 

The amount of anthracene released to surface water and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) in 1992 by U.S. industrial facilities sorted by state is shown in Table 5-1 (TRI92 1994). Based on data in Table 5-1, only relatively small amounts of anthracene were discharged in hazardous waste sites from U.S. industrial facilities in 1992. However, some ofthe anthracene wastes transferred offsite (see Table 5-1) ultimately may be disposed of on land. The TRI data should be used with caution since only certain facilities are required to report. This is not an exhaustive list. TRI92 (1994) data were not available for other PAHs included in this profile. 

---