Botkin Environmental Science Earth as Living Planet 8th txtbk

Table 23.3 COMPARISON OF HAZARD REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
DISPOSAL TREATMENT
INCINERATION
AND OTHER HIGH-
PARAMETER LANDFILLS AND INJECTION THERMAL TEMPERATURE CHEMICAL MICROBIAL
COMPARED IMPOUNDMENTS WELLS DESTRUCTION DECOMPOSITIONA STABILIZATION BREAKDOWN
Effectiveness: how Low for volatiles, High, for waste High High for many High for many metals High for many metals
well it contains high for unsoluble compatible with chemicals and some organic
or destroys solids the disposal waste such as oil
hazardous environment
characteristics
Reliability issues Siting, construction, Site history and Monitoring Mobile units; on-site Some inorganics still Monitoring uncertainties
and operation geology, well depth, uncertainties with treament avoids soluble during construction and
Uncertainties: construction, respect to high hauling risks operation
long-term integrity and operation degree of DRE: Operational simplicity Uncertain leachate
and cover surrogate measures, production
PICs, incinerability b
Environment media Surface water and Surface water and Air Air Groundwater Soil, groundwater
most affected groundwater groundwater
Least compatible Highly toxic, Reactive; corrosive; Highly toxic organics, Some inorganics Organics Highly toxic persistent
wastes c persistent chemicals highly toxic, mobile, high heavy-metal chemicals
and persistent concentration
Relative costs Low to moderate Low Moderate to high Moderate to high Moderate Moderate
Resource recovery None None Energy and some acids Energy and some Possible building Some metals
potential metals materials
a Molten salt, high-temperature fluid well, and plasma arc treatments.
b DRE=destruction and removal efficiency; PIC = product of incomplete combustion.
c Wastes for which this method may be less effective for reducing exposure, relative to other technologies.
Wastes listed do not necessarily denote common usage.
Source: Modified after Council on Environmental Quality, 1983.
541