vvEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Solid Waste and
           Emergency Response
           (OS-305)
EPA/530-SW-90-029B
March 1990
Characterization of
Municipal Waste
Combustion Ash,
Ash Extracts, and Leachates
Executive Summary

-------
Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent recycled fiber.

-------
                            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 This  report has been  prepared for the United States Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA) and the Coalition on Resource Recovery and the Environment (CORRE).
 EPA and CORRE have  cosponsored  this study, conducted by NUS Corporation, to
 enhance the data base  on the characteristics of Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC)
 ashes, laboratory extracts of MWC  ashes, and leachates from MWC ash disposal
 facilities.

 The Coalition on Resource Recovery  and the Environment (CORRE) was established
 to  provide  credible  information   about  resource  recovery  and  associated
 environmental issues to the public and to public officials. In providing information,
 CORRE takes no position  as to the appropriateness of one technology compared to
 others.  CORRE recognizes that successful waste management  is an integrated
 utilization of many technologies which taken as a whole, are best selected  by an
 informed public and informed public officials.

 Incineration of municipal solid  waste  (MSW) has become an important waste
 disposal alternative because it provides an effective means of reducing the volume
 of MSW as well as an important source of energy recovery. .Currently, 10 percent of
 MSW is incinerated.  Based  on the number of municipal waste combustion (MWC)
 facilities being planned  across  the country, this percentage is expected to increase to
 roughly 16-25 percent by the year 2000.

 As incineration has grown in  popularity, so has concern over the management of
 increasing volumes of ash. Ashes from MWC facilities have, on occasion, exhibited a
 hazardous waste characteristic as determined  by the EP Toxicity Test.  The debate
 regarding the regulatory status of ash and the  representativeness and validity of the
 EP test continues. Congress is considering several legislative initiatives that would
 give EPA clear authority to  develop  special management standards for ash under
 Subtitle D of RCRA.

To conduct this study, NUS collected combined  bottom and fly ash samples from five
 mass-burn MWC facilities  and  leachate samples from the companion ash disposal
facilities.
R339911
                                   ES-1

-------
The facilities sampled were selected by CORRE to meet the following criteria:

     •  The facilities were to be state-of-the-art facilities equipped with a variety of
        pollution control equipment.

     •  The facilities were to be located in different regions of the United States.

     •  The companion ash disposal facilities were to be  equipped with leachate
        collection systems or some means of collecting leachate samples.

The identities of the facilities are being held in confidence.

The  ash and  leachate  samples collected  were  analyzed  for the Appendix IX
semivolatile   compounds,  polychlorinated   dibenzo-p-dioxins/polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs),  metals for  which  Federal  primary  and  secondary
drinking water standards exist, and  several miscellaneous conventional compounds.
In addition, the ash samples were analyzed for major components in the form of
oxides.  The ash samples were also subjected to six laboratory extraction procedures
and the extracts were then analyzed for the same compounds as the ash samples.
The following six extraction procedures were used during this study:

     •  Acid Number 1 (EP-TOX),.
     •  Acid Number 2 (TCLP Fluid No. 1).
     •  Acid Number 3 (TCLP Fluid No. 2).
     •  Deionized Water  (Method  SW-924), also known  as the  Monofill Waste
        Extraction Procedure (MWEP).
     •  CQ2 satu rated deionized water.
     •  Simulated acid rain.

These extraction procedures have been used separately by a variety of researchers on
MWC ashes but never have all six procedures been used on the same MWC ashes.
This study was designed to compare the  analytical  results of the extracts from all six
procedures with each other and with  leachate collected from the  ash disposal
facilities used by the MWC facilities.
R339911                               ES-2

-------
All sampling, laboratory preparation, and laboratory analysis followed stringent EPA
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. The work was performed in
accordance with the Work Plan (Appendix A) prepared by NUS for this project and
with a QA/QC Plan prepared by NUS and approved by EPA.  A detailed listing of the
positive results is presented in  a data base which  is included in this Report as
Appendix B (Ash), Appendix C (Leachate), and Appendix D (Ash Extracts). The results
in the data base are presented as reported by the laboratories, complete with the
laboratory's qualifications.  Summaries of the results are presented in Sections 2.0
through 7.0. These summaries include the laboratory's qualifiers and also qualifiers
placed on the data as a result of data validation.

When the laboratories did not  report a  positive value for a  compound (i.e., the
compound was not present above laboratory detection  limits), the compound was
reported as  not detected (ND) in the tables in the text.  The laboratory detection
limits are the method detection limits for each specific method, unless interferences
were encountered during the analysis. When interferences occurred, the laboratory
adjusted the method detection jimits by an  appropriate dilution factor.  The
analytical methods used in this study were selected so that.the method detection
limits were  well  below present levels of human, environmental, or regulatory
concerns.

The  EPA publication  "Interim  Procedures for Estimating Risk  Associated  with
Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs
and  CDFs)" was used to evaluate the dioxin data.  These  procedures use Toxicity
Equivalency Factors (TEFs) to express the concentrations of the different isomers and
homologs  as  an equivalent  amount  of  2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro  Dibenzo-p-Dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD). The Toxicity Equivalents,  as calculated by using the TEFs, are  then.
totaled and compared to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended upper
level  of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity Equivalency of 1 part per billion  in residential soil
(Kimbrough, 1984).

The  major features of the five MWC facilities are provided in Table ES-1, and the
major features of the MWC Ash  Disposal Facilities are provided in Table  ES-2,
Pertinent information regarding the operating conditions of the MWC facilities, as
well as information about the air pollution control equipment used by the facilities,
is also provided in Table ES-1.
R339911
ES-3

-------
30
to
U)
           TABLE ES-1


MAJOR FEATURES OF MWC FAQLITIES
Operational
Features
Facility Type
Startup Date
Capacity
Combustion
Temperature
Temperature of
air entering the
boiler
Volume of air
entering boiler
C«i»i«-*-ja f\f act*
quench water
Air pollution
control
equipment
Approximate
waste
composition

ZA
Energy recovery,
continuous feed, reverse-
reciprocating grate.
May 1986
275 tons/day/boiler
2 boilers
1,800-2.000°F at stoker
Under fire: 250°F
Over fire: ambient
Under fire:
70,000-90,000 Ib/hour
Over fire:
41,000 Ib/hour
Clr\s\r rtr^ine mln t*i^+t*r

Lime slurry is injected
into flue gas after
economizer, fabric filter
baghouses.
Residential: 40%
Commercial/
Light Industrial: 60%

ZB
Energy recovery,
continuous feed,
reciprocating grate.
Early 1987
75 - 100 tons/day/boiler
2 boilers
1,800°F
Under fire: ambient
Over fire: ambient
Under fire:
1 0,890 cuft/min
Over fire:
5,900 cu ft/min
/VhAt tit A +A»*4A.- •vnj-J U.A;IA^
blowdowns, septic system
discharge, floor drains.
Dry lime is injected into flue
gas after economizer, fabric
filter baghouses.
Fly ash has phosphoric acid
added to it and is
agglomerated before being
mixed with bottom ash.
Residential: 80%
Commercial/
Light Industrial: 20%
Facilities
ZC
Energy recovery,
continuous feed, reverse-
reciprocating grate.
January 1987
400 tons/day/boiler
3 boilers
1,750-1.800°F
Under fire: 380°F
Over fire: ambient
Under fire:
34,000 ft3/min
Over fire:
11,000ft3/min
T^.^;-..,., «.«{!. .,»+ *,^_
neighboring sewage
treatment plant.
Electrostatic
precipitators.
Residential: 60%
Commercial/
Light Industrial: 40%

ZD
Energy recovery,
continuous feed,
reciprocating grate.
1975
750 tons/day/boiler
2 boilers
1 500-1 700UF flue gas as it
enters superheater
Under fire: ambient
Over fire: ambient
Under fire:
48,000 ft3/m in
Over fire:
32,000 ft3/min
/- I' J U -1
blowdowns.
Electrostatic precipitators
Residential: 90%
Commercial/
Light Industrial: 10%

ZE
Energy recovery,
continuous feed,
reciprocating grate.
September 1987
75^ tons/day/boiler
2 boilers
1,800°F at the grate
Under fire: ambient
Over fire: ambient

../ . t .
vvasiewdier irom piani
processes.
Lime slurry is injected into
flue gas after economizer,
electrostatic precipitators.
Fly ash has water added to
it and is agglomerated
before being mixed with
bottom ash.
Residential: 65%
Commercial/
Light Industrial: 35%
I/I

-------
        TABLE ES-1

        MAJOR FEATURES OF MWC FACILITIES

        PAGE TWO
Operational
Features
Amount of
electricity
generated
Amount of
electricity used
internally by
facility
Material
removed from
incoming refuse
Material
removed from
ash
Facilities
ZA
13.1 megawatts/hour
1.7 megawatts/hour
Large appliances, other
unacceptable material
diverted to demolition
landfill.
Ferrous metal removed
from ash at the MWC
facility.
ZB
4.5 megawatts/hour
0.63 megawatts/hour
Large appliances, material
that will not pass through
the boilers.
None.
ZC
29 megawatts/hour
2.5 megawatts/hour
Large appliances,
material that will not
pass through the boilers.
Ferrous metal removed
from ash at the MWC
facility.
ZD
35 megawatts/hour
2.5 to 3.5
megawatts/hour
Large appliances,
material that wilt not
pass through the boilers.
Ferrous metal removed
from ash at the MWC
facility.
ZE
45 megawatts/hour
7 megawatts/hour
Large appliances, material
that will not pass through
the boilers.
Items greater than
10 inches in diameter,
m
v>

-------
 U>
 ID
                  TABLE ES-2



MAJOR FEATURES OF MWC ASH DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Operational
Features
Facility Type
Startup Date
Disposal Capacity
Amount of Ash
Disposed
Materials other
than Ash
disposed of
Leachate
Collection System

Ash

ZA
Monofill - single clay
liner
1986
83.400 cubic yards
150 tons/day .
None
Perforated PVC pipe in a
coarse aggregate
envelope
Final cover -soil and
HOPE
Only as bulldozer spreads
ash in ash fill.
Facilities
ZB
Monofill - double liner
(HOPE and compacted till
soil)
October 1988
90,000-100,000 tons
60 tons/day
None
Slotted HOPE
Daily cover - sand. Non
working face covered by
plastic to limit leachate
generation
Bulldozer spreads and
compacts ash in 8- 1 2 inch
ifts.
ZC
Codisposed facility -
bottom-clay liner
synthetic sidewall liners
Landfill -1984
Ash Disposal- 1985
Total capacity 9 million
tons
400,000 tons/year.
40% ash (2/3 of ash from
ZC MWC facility).
Non-burnable materials
from 2 MWC facilities.
Overflow from 2nd MWC
facility.
Main header - PVC
collection trenches -
gravel with fabric filter
Daily -native soil and
shredded tires.
ntermediate - native
soils.
•inal - native soils.
Track mounted
compactor.
ZD
Monofill - unlined. Ash is
placed over trash
deposited before 1975
1975
Remaining capacity -
990,000 tons (6 years)
450 tons/day
None
None - leachate samples
were'collected from well
points installed in the ash
Daily cover -soil.
Intermediate -soil
compacted to 10-fi
Dermeability.
:inal- clay or HOPE.
Only as bulldozer spreads
ash in ash fill.
ZE
Monofill - double liner
(HOPE and clay)
1987
Pe ..utted for 20 years,
approximately 3.8 million
tons
525 tons/day
None
Slotted HOPE
Daily cover -soil.
Intermediate -soil
compacted to 10'6
Jermeability.
Final -clay of HOPE
Vibrating roller.
i
m
t/>

a\

-------
 The major findings of the ash sampling and analyses.during this study are described
 in the following paragraphs.

 Of the five ash samples (one  from each  facility) analyzed for the Appendix IX
 semivolatile compounds, four samples contained bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, three
 contained di-n-butyl phthalate, and one contained di-n-octyl phthalate. Two PAHs,
 phenanthrene and fluoranthene, were detected in only one of the five ash samples.
 These semi-volatile compounds were detected in the parts per billion (ppb) range.

 The  results for the  five  ash  samples  (one  from  each facility) analyzed  for
 PCDDs/PCDFs are presented in Table ES-3.  This table also includes the calculated
 Toxicity Equivalents (TE) for each homolog of PCDD/PCDF. These TEs were calculated
 using EPA's methodology (EPA, March 1987). The data in this  table indicate that
 PCDDs/PCDFs were found at extremely low levels in each ash sample. The Total TE
 for each ash sample was below the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended
 2,3,7,8-TCDD  Toxicity Equivalency limit of 1 part  per billion  in  residential  soil
 (Kimbrough, 1984).

 All 25 of the ash samples (five daily composites from each facility) were analyzed for
 the metals on the primary and secondary drinking water standards lists as well as for
 the oxides of five major ash components. Although, the results from these analyses
 indicate that the ash is heterogeneous, this heterogenicity appears to have been
 reduced by the care taken  when  compositing the ash samples during this study.
 Comparison of the results of this study with results reported in the literature (EPA,
 October 1987) indicates that the variability of results for each compound appears to
 have been reduced in this study.

 Metals showing the widest range of concentrations among samples collected at each
 facility included barium (ZB); cadmium (ZB); chromium (ZD, ZE); copper (ZA, ZB, ZC);
 lead (ZD); manganese (ZA, ZC);  mercury (ZE); zinc (ZB, ZD, ZE); and silicon dioxide
 (ZA).

 Metals showing the widest variation  of concentrations between the  facilities
 included  barium (results for Facility ZC are lower than the  results for the other
facilities);  iron (results for each facility vary from all of the  other facilities); lead
 (results for Facility ZD are higher than the results for the other facilities);  mercury
(results for Facilities ZC and ZD are lower than the results for the other facilities);

R339911                               ES-7

-------
 30
 U>
 U)
    TABLE ES-3


ASH DIOXIN RESULTS
Compound
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Other TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Other TCDF
1,2,3.7,'8-PeCDD
Other PeCDD
1.2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2.3.4.7,8-PeCDF
Other PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD
1,2,3,6,7.8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8.9-HXCDD
Other HXCDD
1,2,3,4,7.8-HXCDF
1. 2,3,6, 7.8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF
2,3A3.7,8-HXCDF
Other HXCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Other HpCOD
1, 2,3,4,6, 7,8-HpCDF
123478 9-HpCDF
Other HpCDF
OCDD
OCDF
TOTAL TEs
Toxicity
Equivalency
Factor
(TEF)0>
1
0.01
0.1
0.001
0.5
0.005
01
0.1
0.001
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.0004
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0001
0.001
0.00001
0.001
0 001
0.00001
0
. 0

Samples (pg/g or ppt)
ZA-AH-003
Value
10
206
263
1,688
33
317
61
46
484
12
17
28
154
74
131
36
5
281
159
140
139
g
51
313
66

Toxicity
Equivalents
10
2.06
26.3
.1.69
16.5
1.59
6.1
4.6
0.484
0.48
0.68
1.12
0.062
0.74
1.31
0.36
0.05
0.0281
0.159
0.0014
0.139
0 008
0.00051
0
0
74.5
ZB-AH-001
Value
24
351
617
3,721
118
759
194
162
1,527
40
34
79
342
336
524
127
54
939
319
288
539
4R
197
544
243

Toxicity
Equivalents
24
3.51
61.7
3.72
59
3.80
19.4
16.2
1.53
1.6
1.36
3.16
0.137
3.36
5.24
1.27
0.54
0.0939
0.319
0.00288
0.539
OfldR
000197
0
0
211
ZC-AH-003
Value
16
• 281
236'
1,208
71
1,051
64
56
607
66
90
120
925
218
279
193
70
635
1,849
1,511
653
R3
254
6,906
563

Toxicity
Equivalents
16
2.81
23.6
1.21
35.5
5.26
6.4
5.6
0.607
2.64
3.6
4.8
0.37
2.18
2.79
1.93
0.70
0.0635
1.85
0.0151
0.653
A nft3
0 00254
0
0
119
ZD-AH-003
Value
35
541
626
2,633
NO
1,910
151
171
1,736
86
148
194
853
654
660
479
124
1,686
1.555
1,384
1,842
384
4,519
893
-- - -
Toxicity
Equivalents
35
5.41
62.6
2.63
0
9.55
15.1
17.1
1.74
3.44
5.92
7.76
0.34
6.54
6.60
4.79
1.24
0.169
1.56
0.0138
1 84
. 0.00384
0
0
189
ZE-AH-003
Value
10
120
176
1,136
35
248
52
43
448
11
11
22
"104
95
134
45
20
280
122
0
155
ID
44
294
59
- -- --
Toxicity
Equivalents
10
1.2
17.6
1.14
17.5
1.24
5.2
4.3
0.448
0.44
0.44
0.88
0.042
0.95
1.34
0.45
0.20
0.028
0.122
0
, 0.155
0.016
0.00044
0
0 '
63.7
do
        O)    Toxicity Equivalency factors are EPA's current recommended Factors, (EPA, March 1987).

        ND   Not detected below 221 pg/g.

-------
 sodium  (results for Facilities ZD and ZE are lower than the results for the other
 facilities); calcium  oxide (the results for Facilities ZA and ZB are higher than the
 results for the other facilities);  and silicon dioxide (the  results for Facility ZC are
 higher than the results for the other facilities).

 Some additional findings of the ash sampling and analyses are as follows:

      «  The ashes are alkaline with the pH ranging from 10.36 to 11.85.

      •  The ashes are rich in chlorides and sulfates.  The total soJuble solids in the
         ashes varied from 6,440 to 65,800 ppm.

      •  The ashes contained unburnt total organic carbon (TOC)  ranging from
         4,060 ppm (0.4 percent) to 53,200 ppm (5.32 percent).

 The major findings of the leachate sampling  and analysis during this study are
 summarized in the following paragraphs.

 Only four Appendix IX semivolatile compounds were found in the ieachates from the
 ash disposal facilities.  Benzoic acid was found in both leachate samples collected at
 one of the five ash disposal facilities.  Phenol, 3-methylphenol, and 4-methylphenol
 were found in some of the leachate samples from one of the other facilities. All of
 these compounds were detected at very low levels (2-73 ppb).

 PCDDs/PCDFs were  only found in the leachate from one facility.  The  homologs
 found are the more highly chlorinated homologs. The data obtained during this
 study appears to indicate that PCDDs/PCDFs do not readily leach out of the ash in the
 ash disposal facilities.  The low  levels  found in the Ieachates of the one facility
 probably originated from the solids found within the  leachate samples because
 these samples were not filtered nor centrifuged prior to analysis.

 None of the leachate samples exceeded the EP Toxicity Maximum Allowable Limits
 established for the eight metals  in Section 261.24 of 40 CFR 261.  In addition, the
data from this study indicate that although the Ieachates are not used for drinking
 purposes, they are close to being acceptable for drinking water use, as far as the
 metals are concerned.
R339911                               ES-9

-------
Some other findings of the leachate sampling and analyses are as follows:

     •  Sulfate values ranged from 14.4 mg/L to 5,080 mg/L, while Total Dissolved
        Solids (TDS) ranged from 924 mg/L to 41,000 mg/L.

     •  The field pH values ranged from 5.2 to 7.4.

     •  Ammonia  (4.18-77.4 mg/L) and nitrate (0.01-0.45 mg/L) were present  in
        almost all leachate samples.

     •  Total Organic Carbon values ranged from 10.6 to 420 ppm.

The  major findings from the analysis of the ash  extracts  during this study are
summarized as follows:

     •  Of the  five composite samples of the deionized water (SW-924) extracts
        analyzed  for the Appendix IX semivolatile compounds (one  from each
        facility), only one sample contained low levels of benzoic acid (0.130 ppm).

     •  None of the extracts contained PCDDs/PCDFs.  These data confirm the
        findings of the actual field leachate samples that PCDDs/PCDFs are not
        readily leached from the ash.

The data obtained during the metals analyses of the ash extracts indicate that,  in
general, the extracts from the EP Toxicity, the TCLP1, and the TCLP2 extraction
procedures have higher metals content than the extracts from the deionized water
(SW-924), the CO2, and the Simulated Acid Rain (SAR) extraction procedures. The EP
Toxicity Maximum Allowable Limits for lead and cadmium were frequently exceeded
by the extracts from the EP Toxicity, TCLP 1, and TCLP 2 extraction procedures. One
of the extracts  from the EP Toxicity extraction procedure also  exceeded  the EP
Toxicity Maximum Allowable Limit for mercury.

None of the extracts from the deionized water (SW-924), the CO2, and the Simulated
Acid Rain (SAR) extraction procedures exceeded the EP Toxicity Maximum Allowable
Limits.  In addition, the majority of the extracts  from these three extraction
procedures also met the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards for
metals

R339911                              ES-10

-------
 Table ES-4 compares the range of concentrations of the metals analyses of the ash
 extracts with the range of concentrations for leach-ate as reported in the literature
 (EPA, October 1987). and the  range  of  concentrations  for  the  leachates  as
 determined in this study. For the facilities sampled during this study, the data  in
 Table ES-4 indicate that the extracts from the deionized water (SW-924), the CC>2,
 and the SAR extraction  procedures simulated  the  concentrations for lead  and
 cadmium in  the field  leachates better  than the extracts  from the other three
 extraction procedures.
R339911                              ES-11

-------
30
UJ
                                                           TABLE ES-4
                                        COMPARISON OF ASH EXTRACT METAL ANALYSES RESULTS
                                              WITH LEACHATE METAL ANALYSES RESULTS
Parameter
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc

EPTOX
Extracts

23-455
25-1,200
ND-86
24-5,170
ND-82,000
ND- 19,700
250-8,540
ND-203
ND
ND
33,600-
225,000
67-95,600

TCLP1
Extracts
ND
161-1,850
ND-1,150
ND-8.0
5-858
ND-7,220
ND-1 0,500
ND-5,170
ND-3.8
ND
ND
1.380,000-
1,640,000
9.7-79,500
Samples (ng/L)
TCLP2
Extracts
ND-60
12-809
ND-1, 560
ND-799
5.4-1,400
ND-1 62,000
ND-26,400
3.8-7,370
ND-4.6
ND
ND
38,700-
228,000
26-164,000
CO2 Extracts
ND-53
126-530
ND-354
ND-9.8
8.8-620
ND-304
ND-504
ND-2,390
ND-1 55
ND
ND-1 6
24,800-
168,000
5-127,000
DIH2O
Extracts
ND-45
139-3,050
ND-7.6
ND-1 6
12-534
ND-115
ND-3,410
ND-20
ND-0.96
ND
ND
24,100-
209,000
5.4-1,340
SAR Extracts
ND
129-3,960
ND-6.0
ND-10
8.5-610
ND-97
ND-3,940
ND-6.4
ND-1.1
ND-23
ND
24,200-
201,000
12-1,290
Leachate
(Literature)O)
5-218
1,000
ND-44
6-1,530
22-24,000
168-
121,000
12-2,920
103-4,570
1-8
2.5-37
70
200,000-
4,000,000
ND-3,300
Leachate
(CORRE)
ND-400
ND-9,220
ND-4
ND-32
ND-1 2
108-10,500
ND-54
310-18,500
ND
ND-340
ND
188,000-
3,800,000
5.2-370
m
NJ

-------
s
UJ
10
TABLE ES-4
COMPARISON OF ASH EXTRACT METAL ANALYSES RESULTS
WITH LEACHATE METAL ANALYSES RESULTS
PAGE TWO
Parameter
Aluminum Oxide*
Calcium Oxide*
Magnesium Oxide*
Potassium
Monoxide*
Silicon Dioxide*
Samples (pg/L)
EPTOX
Extracts
ND-1 50.000
592,000-
4,810.000
27,300-
130;000
10,100-
189,000
5,090-98,700
TCLP1
Extracts
ND-62,800
666,000-
2,750,000
55-375,000
14,600-
210,000
379-51,700
TCLP2
Extracts
ND-1 52,000
692,000-
3,640,000
623-137,000
15,100-
1,110,00
820-143,000
COj Extracts
ND-90,700
398,000-
1,920,000
207-59,300
12,300-
155,000
418-71,800
DIH2O
Extracts
ND-203,000
. 141,000-
1,740,000
21-379
13,100-
189,000
402-3,990
SAR Extracts
ND-1 18,000
142,000-
1,800,000
12-430
14,500-
181,000
364-3,770
Leachate
(Literature)C)
NR
21,000
NR
21,500
NR
Leachate
(CORRE)
ND-920
64,600-
8,390,000
14,800-
367,000
79,700-
1,620,000
470-15,300
m
i/>
       ND   Not Detected.                                                                        .
       NR   Not Reported in the literature.
       <»    EPA, October 1987.
       *     The ash extracts were analyzed as ions for these compounds and reported as oxides. The leachates were analyzed and are reported as ions for
             these compounds.

-------

-------