The burning of such a water mixture can lead to the formation of persistent organochlorine compounds, including dioxins. I advise you to test the adsorption oxidation method for water purification. I can provide the necessary materials for testing in your laboratory.
Try scaled up rocket stoves, since this design allows for burning of bio-mass, while giving no smoke at all. Beware, however, that quite frequently rocket stoves are describes as such, while not being the genuine article.
Decision makers and implementers should not succumb to the temptation to plan large scale waste disposal. Rather, such projects should be small scale, as arguably best explained in the book, ‘Small is Beautiful,’ by E. F. Schumacher.
I agree with most of the comments that say to remove the water from the waste by filtering or any other technique. Incineration of waste water will be high cost. Incineration above 4000 C will not remain any metals.
Maybe you should have a look at hydrothermal liquefaction, although I am not sure if one can already work at rates of 60t/h. However, they might be interested to give it a try at for instance pnnl/genifuel.
60 tons/h of water is too much water (60.000 kg/h). You will need at least 257 million Btu/h (75243 kw) at 1 atm and 50% heat efficiency to evaporate it if all this water is at 212 F (100 Celsius degree). I suggest to you explore the analysis separating the water, the solids and the other liquid substances and after further treatment of each stream.
Better filter off water then or use a drying bed since water has a high specific heat capacity. I encourage natural drying then incinerate using available small amount of solid waste then core fire with some fuel. Really needs good energy analysis and good explanation and details of project for us or anyone to come up with a specific solution.
I suggest you consider sharing this question with Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) at www.no-burn.org. As a member, I think they have great ideas on waste incineration. One of the rallying arguments of GAIA has been that based on the scientific principle of "matter cannot be destroyed but can only be converted from one form to another". This debate was very hot in civil society groups when they were discussing the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (PoPs). So the debate was whether incineration really turns PoPs into less harmful or more harmful substances. This question could also be asked about the three substances in the first bullet of your question.
It takes an enormous amount of energy to incinerate water. It would be best to either concentrate the organics into a smaller waste stream before incineration or use wet oxidation and then wastewater treatment . If you stick with incineration the combustion process should incorporate a waste to energy design so you can recover as much energy as possible.
Burning although convenient is not part of earth's natural recycling matrix. Microbial biodegradation has worked for a few billion years. Current technology can reduce all trash back into its elemental form and resupply the building blocks of life. Decentralized bioremediation is still the preferred way.
Il y a une autre façon de procéder moins couteuse, moins polluante, plus efficace: l'assainissement Biologique .
Aller directement à la source de la production d'eaux usées et de la matière organique et tout en la réduisant au maximum, la traiter sur place par une biotechnologie d'épuration
That the amount of waste to incinerate at 60 tonnes per hour suggests (depending on the waste and how it's generated) that this scheme is centrally located over a large area; just a thought, please. How would it be if there were lots of small, environmentally responsible incinerators, scattered over such large areas?
Could you inform in detail parameters for BOD, COD, NH3-N, pH and TDS? You could treated with UASB be better than incenaratiion process which will given CO2 emissions in the globe.