Sample disposal treatment

Fluid sampling systems generally consist of four main sections, viz. the probe, the sample line, sample treatment and sample disposal. 

For over a decade, LNAPL occurrence has been investigated beneath an active refinery site in southern California. Numerous monitoring wells along with LNAPL samples have been used to evaluate the extent and character of LNAPL occurrence. LNAPL was found to occur as five pools. The main pools each consist of individual accumulations of distinct product types occurring under both perched and water table conditions. Two different recovery and mitigation strategies have been utilized. In relatively high permeability zones, a system of two-pump recovery wells was used to recover fluids recovered water is reinjected without treatment. In relatively low permeability zones, a system of one-pump recovery wells was used. In the latter case, recovered water is treated prior to disposal. 

A method is proposed to assess the Odom Potential of slurries and sludges by sampling in the liquid phase, followed by extraction of odorous components under reproducible conditions. The approach has inherent advantages in providing speedy and less costly information for the prediction of odour nuisance, scheduling land disposal, and for comparing methods of sludge treatment and stabilisation. 

The three samples which follow illustrate work done at the University of Bradford on the assessment of odours from sludge treatment disposal(3). 

Several emerging processes may be applicable for treatment of oily drilling muds prior to disposal. One process being tested in Europe involves the use of an electric distillation kiln to break down solids-laden oil-based drilling muds [13]. Another process uses critical fluid to extract oil and organics from oily sludges so that they can be landhlled [34]. Copa and Dietrich [14] treated a sample of spent drilling mud with wet air oxidation. The COD content was reduced by 45 to 64% and the dewaterability of the mud was improved. 

Based on 1995 estimates, the cost for the removal of a hot spot with dimensions 40 ft by 60 ft by 10 ft deep with the grouting extending 10 ft beyond the hot spot was estimated at 3,295 million. These costs could double or triple based on the project management, the need for containment devices other than weather shields, health physics support, and sampling required during cleanup operations. No cost estimate is provided for treatment and final disposal (D13730E, pp. vi, 120). Details of the cost estimates are given in Table 3. 

The treatment cost to remediate 20,000 tons of contaminated soil using a 10-tph VRU is estimated to be 137 per ton, if the system is online 90% of the time. Treatment costs increase as the online factor decreases. Projected unit costs for a smaller site (10,000 tons of contaminated soil) are 171 per ton projected unit costs for a larger site (200,000 tons) are 106 per ton for a 10-tph VRU and 72 per ton for a 100-tph VRU. These costs do not include site preparation, permits, regulatory requirements, monitoring, waste disposal, sampling and analysis, or posttreatment restoration, which are considered to be the obligation of the responsible party or site owner. Also not included in these estimates is profit on the part of the vendor (D10056R, pp. 16, 24). 

Johnson, L. D. James, R. H. (1989). Sampling and analysis of hazardous wastes. In Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, ed. H. M. Freeman, pp. 13.3-13-44. New York McGraw-Hill. 

To test the effectiveness of the CHEMFIX process as a treatment option, the solidified samples were subjected to the TCLP test and a comparison made with the TCLP results on a raw sample. This test was designed to determine the mobility of contaminants present in liquid, solid and multiphasic wastes. If the TCLP extract from a representative sample contained any of the listed contaminants above the regulatory levels it would be considered a hazardous waste and should adhere to the strict disposal requirements. )... 

Low-Level Waste Low-level waste (LLW) consists of contaminated dry trash, paper, plastics, protective clothing, organic liquids such as liquid scintillation samples, and the like. LLW is produced by any facility that handles radioactive materials such as nuclear power plants, medical facilities, colleges, and so forth. In the United States, commercial LLW is sent to one of three disposal sites (Barnwell, South Carolina, Richland, Washington, and Clive, Utah). Due to the limited size of these sites (and similar disposal sites through the world) and steeply escalating costs for waste disposal, the primary goal of LLW treatment prior to disposal is volume reduction, either by incineration or compaction, followed... 

Finally, a means must be available for the disposal of the sample after it leaves the analyser. Direct discharge to atmosphere or to drain is possible only where it is safe to do so. In some cases this is done after suitable treatment and in others the sample is pumped back to the process. 

At present, physical and biological methods are applied in Germany for the disposal of ammunition waste. Figure 6.3 shows the LC-NMR chromatogram of an extract of a TNT-contaminated soil sample from Tanne (Lower Saxony, Germany) before biological treatment. 

Almost all the PTS chemicals being lipophilic, non-degradable and not easily excreted from animal bodies were not found in considerable concentrations in the animal excreta like feces and urine. The only study by Singh et al. (2004) on impact assessment of sewage treatment plants on the environmental quality of the waste disposal area in Varanasi and Kanpur, two big cities in India showed that the mean values of HCHs and DDTs in the urine samples of the people in the exposed area were higher than those living in unexposed areas, the levels being lower than those in blood of the same subjects. Other than these, we could not find any other data available in the published literature on the levels of PTS in Indian human urine or feces. 

---