LvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/540/A5-89/005
September 1990
Soliditech, Inc.
Solidification/Stabilization
Process
Applications Analysis Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
EPA/540/A5-89/005
September 1990
Applications Analysis Report
Soliditech, Inc. Solidfication/ Stabilization Process
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Notice
The information in mis document has been fundedby theU.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under the auspices of the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program (ContractNo. 68-03-3484). Ithasbeen subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and it has been approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program is a
joint effort between EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The purpose of the program
is to assist the development of hazardous waste treatment technologies necessary ito
meet new, more permanent cleanup standards. The SITE program includes
technology demonstrations to provide engineering and cost data on selected
technologies.
A field demonstration was conducted under the SITE program to evaluate
the Soliditech, Inc. solidification/stabilization technology. The technology dem-
onstration took place at a Superfund site in Morganville, New Jersey. The
demonstration provided information on the performance and cost of the technology
for use in assessing its applicability to this as well as other uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. The demonstration is documented in two reports: (1) a Technology
Evaluation Report that describes the field activities and laboratory results; and (2)
this Applications Analysis Report, which interprets the data and discusses the
potential applicability of the technology.
A limited number of copies of this report will be available at no charge
from EPA's Center for Environmental Research Information, 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. Requests should include the EPA
document number found on the report's front cover. When the limited supply is
exhausted, additional copies can be purchased from the National Technical Infor-
mationService,RavensworthBldg.,Springfield,Virginia,22161,(703) 487-4600.
Reference copies will be available at EPA libraries in the Hazardous Waste
Collection. Call the SITE Clearinghouse hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or 382-3000 in
Washington, D.C., to inquire about the availability of other reports.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
-------
Abstract
This Applications Analysis Report evaluates the Soliditech, Inc.,
solidification/ stabilization process for the on-site treatment of waste materials.
The Soliditech process mixes and chemically treats waste material with
Urrichem (a proprietary reagent), additives, pozzolanic materials or cement, and
water, in a ten-cubic yard concrete mixer to form a more stable material.
The Soliditech demonstration took place in December 1988 at the
Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemical Company Superfund site in
Morganville, New Jersey. Three types of contamination waste material were
chosen for this demonstration - contaminated soil, waste filter cake material,
and oily sludge from an abandoned storage tank. The wastes contain PCBs,
various metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Extensive sampling and analyses
were performed on the waste materials both before and after treatment so that
physical, chemical, and leaching properties could be compared.
The Soliditech process was evaluated based on contaminant mobility,
measured by leaching and permeability tests; structural integrity of the solidified
material, measured by physical, engineering, and morphological tests; and
economic analysis, using cost information supplied by Soliditech, Inc. and
supplemented by additional information generated during the demonstration.
The conclusions drawn from these evaluations are that: (1) the
Soliditech process can solidify waste materials containing high oil and grease
concentrations; (2) heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc are
successfully immobilized; (3) the short-term physical stability of the treated
waste was good, with significant unconfined compressive strength and low
permeability; (4) long-term testing of the treated wastes indicates a potential for
physical degradation, as evidenced by reduced unconfined compressive strength
after 12 cycles of wet/dry and freeze/thaw testing as well as crack and fissure
development on the treated wastes after 6 months of storage; (5) treatment
results in a volume increase of 0 to 59 percent (22 percent average) and a bulk
density increase of 25 to 41 percent (a quantity of cement, reagent, additives and
water approximately the weight of the waste was added during treatment); and
(6) the process is economical.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword »
Abstract . -y
Abbreviations , "v^
Conversion of U.S. Customary Units to Metric Units ; .. jx
Acknowledgments ,
»»»**»»...««....»........,...,....,..«»»....,.,.......,,...,..,...,,.....,><>>>>(><<>>i(>
-------
List of Tables
Table
Page
1 Federal and State ARARS for the Soliditech Technology 15
2 Itemized Costs 24
C-l Physical Properties 35
C-2 Chemical Analyses of Untreated and Treated Waste 36
C-3 Chemical Analysis of Sand 37
C-4 Chemical Analyses of TCLP Extract from Untreated and
Treated Waste Materials 38
C-5 Chemical Analyses of EP Extract from Untreated and Treated Waste 39
C-6 Chemical Analysis of BET Extract from Untreated and
Treated Filter Cake Waste 40
C-7 Chemical Analysis of BET Extract from Untreated and
Treated Filter Cake/Oily Sludge Mixture 41
C-8 Chemical Analysis of BET Extract from Untreated and
Treated Off-Site Area One Waste 42
C-9 Chemical Analyses of BET Extract from Reagent Mix 43
C-10 Chemical Analyses of ANS 16.1 Leachate from
Treated Filter Cake Waste 44
C-ll Chemical Analyses of ANS 16.1 Leachate from
Treated Filter Cake/Oily Sludge Mixture 45
C-12 Chemical Analyses of ANS 16.1 Leachate from
Treated Off-Site Area One Waste 47
C-13 WILT Test Results Through Week 28 47
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Soliditech Processing Equipment 7
2 Soliditech Process Schematic 7
C-l Soliditech Treatment Formulation 34
C-2 Closely Formed Stack of Treated Waste Monoliths 46
VI
-------
Abbreviations
AA
ANS 16.1
API
ARARs
BET
BDAT
°C
CAA
CERCLA
cfin
CFR
cm
DAF
DOT
Eh
EP
EPA
op
ER
ft
gal
HOPE
hr
HSWA
ICPES
Kg
L
Ib
LDR
mg
mg/Kg
mg/L
mil
mm
mo
mv
NA
NC
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
American Nuclear Society Leaching Procedure
American Petroleum Institute
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Batch Extraction Test
best demonstrated available technology
degrees Celsius
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
cubic feet per minute
Code of Federal Regulations
centimeter
dissolved air flotation
Department of Transportation
oxidation/reduction potential
Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test
Environmental Protection Agency
degrees Fahrenheit
Federal Register
foot (feet)
gallon
gallons per day
high-density polyethylene
hour(s)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy
kilogram
liter
pound
Land Disposal Restrictions
milligram
milligram per Kilogram
milligram per Liter
thousandth of an inch
millimeter
month-
millivolts
not analyzed
not calculated
(continued)
Vll
-------
Abbreviations (continued)
NCP National Contingency Plan
ND not detected
NJ DEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCB polychlorinatedbiphenyl
pH negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity
ppm parts per million
PRC PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
sec second
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
S/L solid to liquid ratio
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TCLP Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TWM treated waste monolith
UCS unconfined compressive strength
VOC volatile organic compound
WILT Waste Interface Leaching Test
wk week
wt weight
yd yard
yr year
jig micrograms
|Ig/L micrograms per Liter
vru
-------
Conversion of U.S. Customary Units to Metric Units
Length
Volume
Weight
Temperature
inches
inches
feet
gallons
cubic yards
pounds
short tons
5/9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2.54
0.0254
0.3048
3.785
0.7646
0.4536
0.9072
("Fahrenheit -32)
centimeters
meters
meters
liters
cubic meters
kilograms
metric tons
0 Celsius
Note:
1000 liters
1000 kilograms =
1 cubic meter
1 metric ton
IX
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared under the direction of Dr. Walter E.
Grube, Jr., U.S. EPA SITE project manager, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Contributers to and reviewers of this report were
Dr. Grube, John Quander of U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC; Steve James, Paul dePercin, Gordon Evans, and
Robert Olexsey of U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, Ohio; Carl Brassow of Soliditech, Inc.; Michael Lucas of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection; and Dr. Danny Jackson and Debra
Bisson of Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas.
This report was prepared for the EPA's Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation (SITE) program by Dr. Kenneth Partymiller, Sarah V. Wood-
land, Neil Morton, Sharon Weinberg, and Paul Dean, and edited by Aaron Lisec,
of PRC Environmental Management, Inc., under Contract No. 68-03-3484.
-------
Section 1
Executive Summary
Introduction
Soliditech, Inc. of Houston, Texas has developed a unique
technology to solidify and stabilize soils and sludges contami-
nated with inorganic and organic wastes. U.S. EPA selected the
Soliditech technology for inclusion in the SITE demonstration
program. As a part of this program, the Soliditech technology
was demonstrated in December 1988 at the Imperial Oil
Company/Champion Chemical Company Superfund site in
Morganville, New Jersey.
Soliditech, Inc. claims that its solidification/stabilization
process chemically and physically immobilizes hazardous
constituents in waste material. This immobilization occurs by
one or more of the following processes: encapsulation, adsorp-
tion, and incorporation into the crystalline structure of the
solidified material. The Soliditech process uses a proprietary
reagent (Urrichem); proprietary additives; pozzolans (such as
fly ash), Mm dust, or cement; and water to solidify solids and
sludge containing organic and inorganic chemicals typically
found at hazardous waste sites. The final product is claimed to
be a monolithic material with measurable structural strength
and significantly reduced leaching or extraction potential.
The Soliditech SITE demonstration was conducted during
the week of Decembers, 1988. Four test runs were performed
on three wastes and also on clean sand to serve as an analytical
blank for the reagent mixture (Urrichem, proprietary additives,
cement, and water). For each test run 2 to 6 cubic yards of
material were treated. The three wastes were contaminated soil,
waste filter cake material, and a mixture of waste filter cake
material and oily sludge. The treated waste was formed into
one-cubic yard blocks (treated waste monoliths or TWMs),
which will be periodically examined for up to five years.
Extensive sampling and physical and chemical analysis were
performed on both the untreated and treated waste and on the
reagent mix samples. Appendix C of this report describes in
greater detail the demonstration site, the chemical and physical
properties of the untreated and treated wastes, and the
technology's performance during the demonstration.
Appendix D briefly discusses several projects in which the
Soliditech process was applied.
Results
The results of physical tests, chemical tests, and the eco-
nomic analysis are summarized below.
Physical Tests
Extensive testing was conducted to determine (1) the
physical characteristics of the untreated and treated wastes, (2)
the short-term durability of the treated waste, and (3) the long-
term morphology of the treated waste.
First, physical testing was performed to characterize the
untreated and treated wastes. Bulk density of all wastes increased
an average of 30 percent due to the addition of cement and
additives, while water content and loss on ignition decreased.
The average volume increase due to treatment was 22 percent.
The permeability of the treated wastes was very low, with most
values less than 1 x Ifr7 cm/sec. These low permeability values
compare favorably with the specifications in RCRAregulations
for landfill liners (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N). The
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values for the treated
waste ranged from 390 to 860 psi. These values are well above
the U.S. EPA guideline of 50 psi for solidification/stabilization
andconcrete-based waste treatmentsystems(U.S.EPA,1986a).
The short-term durability of treated waste was also evaluated
by conducting wet-dry and freeze-thaw tests. Wet/dry and
freeze/thaw durability tests showed up to one percent weight
loss after 12 cycles. While subsequent UCS tests showed
approximately 70 percent loss of compressive strength, the
values were still above the U.S. EPA guideline. It should be
noted that while these tests measure only short-term durability,
they represent more severe conditions than would normally be
encountered by treated waste materials.
Long-term morphological examination of the solidified,
treated waste monoliths (TWMs) is being conducted to char-
acterize the homogeneity of mixing, extent of curing of the
concrete-like matrix, and other potential long-term effects.
After the 28-day curing period, an examination showed the oil
and grease widely dispersed in globules throughout both the
cast cylinders prepared for laboratory study and the TWMs.
The millimeter-sized globules appeared to be isolated and not
contained within a continuous pore system. Examination of the
TWMs from the first batch of waste processed during the
Soliditech demonstration showed a few large masses of oil and
grease, suggesting that this batch of waste may not have been as
thoroughly mixed as the latter batches. A few stress-relief
cracks were noted along corners of some of the TWMs. After
six months, several of the blocks contained distinct fractures
that appeared to penetrate at least 10 cm in depth. No distinct
color changes were evident on any of the blocks. Several of the
-------
blocks contained light salt deposits on the surface. After one
year, no additional fractures were observed; however, on a few
of the TWMs the cracks appeared slightly wider.
Chemical Tests
Chemical analyseswereperfbrmedonuntreated and treated
waste materials; on aqueous extracts generated by TCLP, EP
Toxicity, and Batch Extraction Test (BET) procedures; and on
leachates generated by non-destructive ANS 16.1 and Waste
Interface Leaching Test (WILT) procedures.
Total chemical analyses of untreated and treated wastes
showed the effects of die treatment process. The reagent
mixture (Soliditech reagent, additives, cement, and water plus
clean sand) contained 59 mg/Kg of arsenic, but analysis of the
sand used in the formulation of the reagent mixture only
contained 0.11 mg/Kg of arsenic. Chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc werenot detected in the sand, but were detected
at low concentrations in the reagent mixture. The presence of
these metals was attributed to the Soliditech reagent, additives,
or cement. Concentrations of several phenols were found atthe
low mg/Kg level in the treated wastes. .The origin of these
semivolatileorganic compounds (S VOCs) is unknown, although
laboratory contamination and contribution by the Soliditech
additives have been ruled out Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were detected at concentrations of up to 10 mg/Kg in
the Off-Site Area One soil and the filter cake/oily sludge
mixture. VOCs were not detected in the analyses of the treated
wastes or in theenvironmentabovethemixeras the wastes were
beingprocessed. Itis assumed that these VOCs were lost during
waste collection and treatment.
Data from the five extraction and leaching tests show the
Soliditech process to be generally effective at immobilizing
heavy metals. These data are described below.
TCLP
Arsenic was detected in the TCLP extract of treated Off-
Site Area One waste at a concentration of 0.017 mg/L, and lead
was detected in the extract of the treated filter cake/oily sludge
waste at 0.014 mg/L; these were the highest concentrations of
metals of concern detected in extracts of the treated wastes.
These concentrations represent reductions of 85 percent and
greater than 99 percent, respectively, over the concentrations of
these metals in the TCLP extract of the untreated wastes.
Chromium was detected at a concentration of 0.063 mg/L in the
extracts of both the treated filter cake waste and the reagent
mixture. PCBs were not detected in the TCLP extracts of either
the untreated or treated wastes.
EP Toxicitv
Analyses of EP extracts showed no detectable PCBs in
either the untreated or treated wastes. Arsenic and lead con-
centrations in the EP extract were reduced 55 to 99 percent by
treatment
BET
The BET extracts were obtained from three ratios of waste
to distilled water. Data from this test provide an indication of
the maximum solute concentration and the capacity of the
sample to provide a source of extractable solutes. No PCBs
were detected in any BET extracts of the untreated or treated
wastes. Aluminum, barium, calcium, and sodium were con-
tributed by the Portland cement in the mixture. These were the
major metal analytes found in the BET extracts. Lead con-
centrations were below the 0.050 mg/L detection limit in all but
one (0.090 mg/L) sample extract of the treated waste compared
to as much as 1.7 mg/L of lead in the extracts of the untreated
wastes. Arsenic was present in both the untreated and treated
waste extracts, but was reduced by up to 91 percent after
treatment.
ANS 16.1
ANS 16.1 test results (performed on treated waste only)
showed no detectable levels of PCBs, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, or zinc in the leachates generated from any of the three
treated wastes. Arsenic was present at 0.005 to 0.008 mg/L in
the leachate from the Off-Site Area One treated waste. This was
the only analyte of potential concern and its concentration was
quite low. Oil and grease concentrations of 1 to 3 mg/L were
detected in the leachates from this same waste, although no oil
and grease was detected in the solidified wastes from the other
two areas. Due to the absence of contaminants of concern in the
leachate, a "Leachability Index," as prescribed in the ANS 16.1
procedure, could not be calculated.
WILT
The WILT includes submerging 3-inch and 6-inch diam-
eter by 18-inch long monolithic cylinders of treated waste in
distilled water, then draining and analyzing the leachates at
two-week intervals over a six-month time period. Data avail-
able after the first sixteen intervals showed no detectable PCBs.
Arsenic decreased over the first nine intervals, by factors
ranging from approximately 3 to 30 to values as low as 0.004
mg/L. Lead concentrations were generally below the detection
limit of 0.05 mg/L. Total dissolved solids decreased by a factor
of three from the first to the eighth interval. Calcium, a good
indicator solutederived from the Portland cement, decreased by
a factor of as much as five over these eight intervals.
Economics
An economic analysis of the Soliditech technology was
conducted. The cost to treat 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil using a 10-cubic yard capacity mixer was calculated to be
approximately $152 per cubic yard. Labor and supplies were
observed to be the major costs, accounting for approximately 33
and 41 percent, respectively, of the total cost. Section 4 of this
report details the assumptions used to arrive at this estimate.
Field Reliability
No major operational problems were encountered with the
Soliditech equipment during the demonstration. Mobilization
and demobilization of the equipment was straightforward. The
waste treatment phase of the demonstration was considered to
be a success. Overall, the Soliditech equipment was observed
to be reliable and easy to operate.
-------
Conclusions
After reviewing the analytical data and observations from
the Soliditech SITE demonstration, the following conclusions
were made about the technology's effectiveness and cost, as
well as the physical properties of the treated waste.
The Soliditech process can solidify contaminated
soils, filter cake, and filter cake/oily sludges
mixtures that are high in oil and grease content
Waste materials containing up to 17 percent oil
and grease and 58 percent water were successfully
solidified during the demonstration.
The process can immobilize heavy metals.
Extract/Leachateconcentrations of cadmium, lead,
and zinc were reduced by up to 99 percent.
The process can immobilize arsenic. Extract/
leachate concentrations of arsenic were reduced
by up to 85 percent
Although low concentrations of several volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in the
untreated waste, no VOCs were detected in the
treated waste samples or TCLP extract from the
treated waste. The VOCs may have been lost
during waste handling.
Severalsemivolatileorganiccompounds(SVOCs)
were detected in the treated wastes and the TCLP
extractsof the treated waste. Lower concentrations
of these SVOCs were detected in the untreated
wastes and untreated waste extracts/leachates,
butnone weredetectedin Soliditech's proprietary
reagents and additives. The reason for the higher
concentrations in the treated wastes and treated
waste extracts/ leachates is not known.
After a 28-day curing period, the treated wastes
exhibited high physical stability; however, the
stability may be reduced over the long-term.
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the
treated wastes was high; permeability was very
low. The weight loss after 12 wet/dry and 12
freeze/thaw cycles was negligible (one percent or
less). Visual inspection of thesolidified/stabilized
waste as well as the results of UCS testing after
the 12 wet/dry and freeze/thaw cycles indicated
long-term reductions in physical stability. Based
on TCLP results, this reduced physical stability
does not affect waste immobilization.
Treatment of the wastes resulted in volume
increases of up to 59 percent (22 percentaverage).
Bulk density increased from 25 to 41 percent (31
percent average). A quantity of cement, reagent,
additives, and water approximately equal to the
weight of the waste was added during treatment.
Immobilization of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides,
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) could not
be evaluated due to the low concentrations of
these analytes in the wastes. Wastes containing
such organics shouldbe subjected to a preliminary
treatability study.
The Soliditech process was observed to be
mechanically reliable. No equipment-related
problems occurred during the demonstration.
The Soliditech process equipment is capable of
mixing all components including the waste
material, intoa homogeneous, solidified product.
The Soliditech process is expected to cost
approximately $152 per cubic yard when used to
treat large amounts (5,000 cubic yards) of waste
similar to that found at the Soliditech
demonstration site.
-------
-------
Section 2
Introduction
This section of the Applications Analysis Report describes
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) pro-
gram, discusses the purpose of this Applications Analysis
Report, and describes the Soliditech technology. A list of key
personnel who may be contacted for additional information is
provided in Appendix A.
Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) directed the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) to establish an "Alternative or Innovative
Treatment Technology Research and Demonstration Program."
In response, U.S. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OS WER) and Office of Research and Development
(ORD) established a formal program called the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, to acceler-
ate the development and use of innovative cleanup technologies
at hazardous waste sites across the country.
The SITE Program is comprised of the following five
component programs:
Demonstration Program
Emerging Technologies Program
Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
Development Program
Innovative Technologies Program
Technology Transfer Program
This document was produced as a part of the SITE Dem-
onstration Program. The objective of the SITE Demonstration
Program is to develop reliable engineering performance and
cost data on innovative alternate technologies, so that potential
users can evaluate each technology's applicability to a specific
site, compared to other alternatives. Demonstrations are con-
ducted at hazardous waste sites (usually Superfund sites) or
under conditions that closely simulate actual wastes and condi-
tions, to assure the accuracy and reliability of information
collected.
Data collected during a demonstration are used to assess
the performance of the technology, the potential need for pre-
and post-treatment processing of the waste, applicable types of
waste and media, potential operating problems, and approxi-
mate capital and operating costs. Demonstration data can also
provide insight into long-term operating and maintenance costs
and long-term risks.
Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration
Program through annual requests for proposal (RFPs). Propos-
als are reviewed by OSWER and ORD staff to determine the
technologies with the most promise for use at hazardous waste
sites. Technologies are selected following interviews with the
developers. To be eligible, technologies must be at the pilot or
full-scale stage, must be innovative, and must offer some
advantage over existing technologies. Mobile technologies are
of particular interest. Cooperative agreements between U.S.
EPA and the developer set forth responsibilities for conducting
the demonstration and evaluating the; technology. The devel-
oper is responsible for demonstrating the technology at the
selected site, and is expected to pay the costs to transport,
operate, and remove the equipment. U.S. EPA is responsible
for project planning, sampling and analysis, quality assurance
and quality control, preparing reports,, and disseminating infor-
mation.
The Technology Evaluation Report
The results of the Soliditech SITE project are incorporated
in two basic documents - the Technology Evaluation Report
and the Applications Analysis Report. The Technology Evalu-
ation Report (U.S. EPA, 1990) provides a comprehensive de-
scription of the demonstration and its results. It is intended for
engineers making a detailed evaluation of the technology for a
specific site and waste situation. These technical evaluators
seek to understand in detail the performance of the technology
during the demonstration and the advantages and risks of the
technology for the given application. This information will be
used to produce conceptual designs in sufficient detail to make
preliminary cost estimates for the demonstrated technology.
Purpose of the Applications Analysis Report
The Applications Analysis Report is intended for decision
makers responsible for implementing specific remedial actions.
The report helps them to determine whether this technology has
merit as an option in cleaning up their specific site. If the
candidate technology appears to meet their needs, a more
thorough analysis will be made based on the Technology
Evaluation Report and on information from remedial investi-
gations for the specific site.
Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a
technology in treating the particular waste found at the demon-
stration site. To obtain data with broad applications, attempts
are made to select wastes frequently found at other Superfund
sites.
-------
In many cases, however, the waste at other sites will differ
in some way from the waste tested. The successful demonstra-
tion of a technology at one site does not assure that it will work
equally well at other sites. Data obtained from the demonstra-
tion may have to be extrapolated to estimate the total operating
range of the technology. The extrapolation canbe based onboth
demonstration data and other information available on the
technology. Additionally, information contained in Appendix
D was considered while preparing this report.
To encourage the general use of demonstrated technolo-
gies, U.S. EPA evaluates the applicabili ty of each technology to
sites and wastes other than those tested, and studies the likely
costs of these applications. The results are presented in the
Applications Analysis Report.
Soliditech Process Description
The Soliditech process blends waste material with pozzo-
lanic material (such as fly ash), kiln dust, or cement; water;
proprietary additives; and Urrichem, a proprietary reagent.
The process equipment, including a mixer, is readily transport-
ableon oneortwo trailers. The equipments self-contained and
requires minimal set-up time. Two personnel are required to
operate the equipment. OtherSoh'ditechpersonnelare required
for support activities such as quality control, chemical formu-
lation, and office support. Personnel are also required to load
the waste material and remove the treated waste.
The Soliditech waste treatmentprocess consists of thepre-
treatmentprocessingof the wastematerial, the actual treatment
of the waste, and the handling and disposal of the treated waste
and residuals. The Soliditech equipment is shown in Figure 1
of this report.
Principal Treatment Operations
Soliditech.Inc. uses abatch process to treat wastematerial.
A schematic diagram of this process is shown in Figure 2. The
operating capacity is governed by the size of the mixer, the
amountoftimerequiredtoloadanddischargethemixer.andthe
amount of mixing time required for the waste material and the
reagents and additives. The two mixers used during the SITE
demonstration had nominal capacities of 2 and 10 cubic yards.
Themaximum capacity of the 10-cubicyardmixerwas 13 cubic
yards.
The following materials are mixed during the processing:
Waste Material
Water
Urrichem
Additives
Cement
Materials are added while the mixer is operating to ensure
a thorough mixing. Once all the materials are added to the
mixer, they are thoroughly blended. The mixer works both by
circular rotation of the blades and end-to-end tilting. The
mixing process continues until the operator or chemist deter-
mines that the materials are thoroughly homogenized, any-
where from 15 to 60 minutes per batch.
Immediately after treatment, the treated waste material
must be discharged to prevent hardening inside the mixer. The
material may be placed on the ground, in a basin, in forms, or
in roll-off boxes for transport
After treatmentanddischarge.anyresidualmaterialsleftin
the mixer can be blended with the next batch of waste to be
treated. Alternately, the mixer can be decontaminated with a
high-pressure steam cleaner. If the residual material is left in
the mixerfor too long, itwill harden andmay impede further use
of the mixer. Wastewater and solid residual material from
decontamination can be used in treating the next batch of waste
or can be collected and stored for treatment or disposal.
Pre-Treatment Processing
The pre-treatment requirements of this process are mini-
mal. Waste materials to be treated should contain no solids
larger than approximately one foot in diameter. If not readily
broken up during mixing, particles larger than this can restrict
the rotation of the mixer blades and can clog the discharge port
of the mixer. Due to sampling constraints during the SITE
demonstration, all solid wastes were screened through a steel
screen with 4-inch by 4-inch square openings to remove large
objects.
Waste materials containing more than 30 percent oil or
water require pre-treatment to reduce the amount of free liquid.
For the SITE demonstration, the pre-treatment consisted of
blending the waste oily sludge with contaminated filter cake to
increase the solids content. This method allows both the oily
sludge and the contaminated filter cake to be treated together
and conserves both time and additives. Clean or contaminated
solids or other additives can be used for this pre-treatment.
Waste materials with low moisture contents are not con-
sidered to require special pre-treatment, since water is normally
added to the process.
If the waste material has a pH of greater than 12 or less than
2, it must be neutralized before treatment. Ambient tempera-
tures above freezing are normally required during the treatment
process and the first 24 to 48 hours of the curing period.
Residuals Handling
Residuals from the S oliditech process include treated waste
material; washwater and residuals from cleaning and decon-
taminating the mixer; any spilled treated or untreated waste
material; any treated or untreated waste material used for on-
site testing; any protective clothing, covering, or liner material;
and any personnel decontamination water.
The solidified waste material can be transferred directly to
its ultimate on- or off-site storage location or it can be placed in
drums, forms, or other containers for temporary storage. Re-
sidual solids and liquids from treatment and decontamination
can be treated immediately with the next batch of waste,
drummed for later treatment, or drummed for off-site treatment
-------
INTERNAL VIEW OF MIXER
POZZOLAN STORAGE
FRONT END LOADER
(LOADING CONTAMINATED SOIL)
gS PROPRIETARY ADDITIVES
CONTROL PANEL ~:
TREATED WASTE
Figure 1. Soliditech Processing Equipment
P
o
z
z
0
L
A
N
WASTE
TREATED
WASTE
Figure 2. Soliditech Process Schematic
-------
or disposal. Contaminated clothing and other materials can be
drummed for off-site disposal.
If the solidified waste material contains a listed hazardous
waste, it must continue to be treated as hazardous waste. Once
solidified, however, the waste material can be disposed of in a
permitted land-based hazardous waste storage facility. If this
process is used for theremediation of a CERCLA site, U.S. EPA
may consider allowing the treated waste to remain on-site with
appropriate safeguards, such as a double-liner containment
system with a leachate detection system and cap.
Innovative Features of the Soliditech Technology
The Soliditech process is similar to other cement-based
solidification processes, except that it uses a unique reagent
(Urrichem) to aid in stabilizing the waste material. The process
uses a batch type mixer which allows precise control of the
extent of mixing of the waste material with the reagent and
additives. This process also allows the use of a pozzolanic
material (such as fly ash) or kiln dust in place of Portland
cement
-------
Section 3
Technology Applications Analysis
This section of the report assesses the general applicability
of the Soliditech technology to contaminated waste sites. The
analysis is based primarily on the SITE demonstration results
since limited information was available on other applications of
the technology.
Technology Evaluation
The demonstration of the Soliditech, Inc. solidification/
stabilization process was designed to evaluate four primary
objectives:
Determine how well the Soliditech technology
solidifies and stabilizes waste materials found at
the Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemical
Company Superfund site in Morganville, New
Jersey.
Determine how well the solidifiedmaterialretains
its structure and stability over time.
Determine the volume and mass increase or
decrease of the solidified material after adding
treatment ingredients.
Develop reliable capital and operating costs for
the technology for use in the Superfund decision-
making process.
A SITE Demonstration Plan was prepared (PRC, 1988)
and the Soliditech technology was demonstrated in December
1988. Analytical tests were performed on samples of both the
untreated and treated waste materials collected during the
demonstration. These results are discussed in the Technology
Evaluation Report (U.S. EPA, 1990) and are summarized
below.
Effectiveness of Solidification/Stabilization Process
Three distinct waste types were treated during the Soliditech
demonstration -- soil, used filter cake, and filter cake/oily
sludge mixture. These three wastes were sampled for chemical
and leaching/extraction testing prior to treatment and again
after a 28-day curing period following treatment. Additionally,
the reagent, additives, cement, and water used by Soliditech
were mixed and sampled to check for possible chemical analyte
contributions. The effectiveness of the Soliditech process in
reducing the environmental impact of contamination was as-
sessed through various leaching or extraction tests performed
on samples generated during the demonstration. These tests
included the TCLP, EP Toxicity, ANS 16.1, BET, and WILT
tests, which are described in the Soliditech demonstration plan
(PRC, 1988).
The data indicate that the Soliditech process is effective in
immobilizing heavy metals. Arsenic, lead, and zinc concentra-
tions in the treated wasteextracts were generally reduced below
detection limits. Actual reductions in treated versus untreated
leachate concentrations for these metals can only be estimated.
A lead reduction of 99 percent was found in EP leachates from
the filter cake waste. Lead and zinc reductions of greater man
98 percent were observed in the other TCLP, EP, and BET
extracts. One BET extract of treated Off-Site Area One waste
contained 0.090 mg/L of lead. This was the highest lead
concentration found in any treated waste extract/leachate. All
other TCLP, EP, BET, and ANS 16.1 extracts/leachates con-
tained less than 0.050 mg/L (the detection limit) of lead. One
ANS 16.1 leachate of treated filter cake/oily sludge contained
0.037 mg/L of zinc. This was the highest zinc concentration
found in any treated waste extract/leachate. All other TCLP,
EP, and BET extracts contained less than 0.020 mg/L (the
detection limit) of zinc. Arsenic reductions up to 91 percent
were observed in the extracts/leachates.
While Aroclors 1242and 1260 (PCBs) were detected in the
untreated and treated wastes, no Aroclors were detected in the
extracts/leachates of any of the untreated or treated waste
samples.
Low levels of several VOCs were detected in the untreated
waste samples and the TCLP leachates of these samples. None
of these compounds were detected in the TCLP extracts of the
treated waste samples.
Low levels of S VOCs were detected in the untreated waste
samples. Only one of these compounds was detected in the
TCLP extracts of an untreated waste sample. No SVOCs were
detected in the TCLP extracts of the treated waste samples.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) and oil and grease extract/
leachate concentrations were generally higher from the treated
waste than from the untreated waste. Total organic carbon
(TOC) analyses were performed on the BET extracts. In seven
of nine cases, the TOC concentrations in the BET extract were
greater in the treated waste samples.
The S oliditech process also appears to increase the concen-
trations of several analytes in the extracts/leachates collected
from the treated samples. Aluminum, barium, calcium, chro-
mium, copper, lead, nickel, and sodium were detected in the
-------
reagent mix. According to Soliditech, these metals originate
from the Portland cement. The presence of selenium in the
reagent mix EP extract has not been accounted for.
Phenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, o-cresol, andp-cresol were
found in the TCLP extracts of all of the treated waste samples
at higher concentrations than in the untreated waste samples.
These compounds wereonlyanalyzedforin the TCLP extracts.
Benzyl alcohol was also found in the TCLP extract of the
treated Off-Site Area One waste. None of these compounds
weredetectedintheTCLPextractcollectedfromtheSoMditech
reagent mix. The source of these phenolic compounds is
unknown.
Structural Stability of Treated Waste Material
The solidified waste was tested for unconfined compres-
sive strength (UCS), wet/dry durability, freeze/thaw durabil-
ity, bulk density, water content, loss on ignition, and perme-
ability. The morphology of the solidified materials was also
examined both in the field and in the laboratory, using various
techniques. These tests are summarized below.
The bulk density of the waste increased by an average of
31 percent due to the addition of cement and additives during
treatment process. The permeabilities of the treated wastes
were very low, with values of ranging from 8.9 x 10'9 to 4.5 x
1(F cm/sec. UCS values ranged from 390 to 860 psi. These
properties were directly related to the amount of cement used
in the treatmentprocess. Thewatercontentof the treated waste
ranged from 13 to 21 percent, while loss on ignition (a measure
of total water and organic content) ranged from 34 to 41
percent Wet/dry and freeze/thaw durability results were good,
with one percent or less weight loss over each cycle of the 12-
cycle test run.
The solidified wastes were examined for homogeneity of
mixing, the extent of curing of the concrete-like matrix, the
mineralogic composition of the solidified mass, the presence
of voids within the solidified matrix, and other potential long-
term effects. Examining the morphology of the treated waste
monoliths (TWMs) will provide long-term data on how well
these large blocks will withstand environmental exposure.
Preliminary observations showed oil and grease widely dis-
persed in globules throughout both the cast cylinders prepared
for laboratory study and the one-cubic yard TWMs. The
millimeter-size globules appeared to be isolated and not con-
tained within a continuous pore system. A detailed character-
ization will bepublishedwhenthelong-termstudyis completed.
The TWMs from the first test run showed a few large
masses of oil and grease. This first batch of waste processed
during the demonstration may not havebeen thoroughly mixed.
A few stress relief cracks were noted along the comers of some
of the TWMs. After six months, several of the large blocks
contained distinct fractures that appeared to penetrate at least
10 cm into the TWMs. These cracks are not unexpected, since
a mixture very rich in cement was used to solidify the waste, the
treated waste set very rapidly, and no reinforcement or aggre-
gate was used in the solidified waste. No distinct color changes
were evident on any of the blocks. Several of the blocks
contained light salt deposits on their surfaces, suggesting either
weeping from the blocks or surface flow of condensation that
may have developed under the cover protecting the TWMs.
After 1 year, no additional fractures were observed; however,
on a few of the TWMs the cracks appeared slightly wider.
Volume and Mass Increase Due to Solidification/
Stabilization Process
The weight or volume and the bulk density of all Soliditech
ingredients and waste materials were measured or calculated to
assess the volume and mass increase of the waste due to the
Soliditech treatment process. The bulk densities of the wastes
increased from 25 to 41 percent, with an average increase of 30
percentdue to addition of cement andadditives during treatment.
The volume change of the three wastes ranged from no change
to a 59 percent volume increase. The average volume change
was a 22 percent increase.
Capital and Operating Costs
The cost to treat a site containing 5,000 cubic yards of
contaminated waste using the Soliditech process is estimated to
be approximately $152 per cubic yard. This figure is based on
both actual and estimated cost information supplied by
Soliditech, actual costs incurred by U.S. EPA during the dem-
onstration, and estimates of costs to perform a large-scale
treatment and cleanup of a Superfund site containing similar
waste materials. Section4ofthisreportdetailstheassumptions
used to make this estimate.
Site Factors
Site-specific factors have an impact on the application of
the Soliditech technology. These factors should be considered
before using this technology.
Space
The Soliditech process can be applied to small or large
amounts of solids or sludge. Soliditech uses a mixer mounted on
a trailer that can readily be transported and moved around the
site. A 30- by 100-foot area is required for the mixer and
associated equipment. This area should be relatively level. It
can be paved or covered with compacted soil or gravel. Another
small area is required for material storage. The size of this area
depends upon the amount of waste to be treated.
Thecementorpozzolanicmaterialsstoragehopperrequkes
a firm foundation. This could be a concrete pad, a 15-foot
square base of 12-inch square lumber (as used for the demon-
stration), or some other type of firm base capable of supporting
up to 25,000 pounds. A 30- by 100-foot area is required for the
hopper, an air compressor, and an access area.
An area approximately 10- by 10-feet is required for a
portable scale and several other small pieces of equipment such
as a viscometer, used for formulating and testing the mixtures.
A trailer or indoor office space is useful for this equipment,
especially in winter, but not necessary. Figure 1 depicts the
10
-------
Soliditech processing equipment as operated during the SITE
demonstration.
Additional space is required for a field office, a decontami-
nation area, storage areas, and parking.
Emissions
The Soliditech process is primarily designed to treat solid.
and semi-solid (sludge) materials. Several sources of emissions
are possible. Spills can readily be picked up and treated with the
waste material. Volatile emissions from wastes containing
such compounds are difficult to control. Excavation, transport,
and treatment of waste containing volatile organic compounds
will result in volatile emissions.
As a preventative measure, the Soliditech mixer can be
enclosed under a cover. The air under the cover is maintained
at a negative pressure by pumping it through a carbon filter.
This reduces volatile emissions from the treatment phase of the
process. Losses during excavation and transport would be no
different from those for any other treatment process. Volatile
losses from the treated waste material should be minimal
especially when compared to the mixing process ~ since the
treated material is no longer being actively mixed, is relatively
impervious, and is usually configured to have a low surface-to-
volume ratio. Fugitive dust emissions during waste collection
and transfer can also be minimized by covering the mixer.
Site Access
Site access requirements are minimal. The site must be
accessible to tractor trailer trucks of standard size and weight.
The roadbed must be able to support such a vehicle.
Water and Wastewater
The Soliditech process can treat dry waste as well as waste
that contains moisture. The process requires water as one of the
ingredients. Waste containing up to 25 percent water (by
weight) can be accommodated. This water can be in the form
of wet soil, sludge, contaminated ground water, or even con-
taminated washwater. Wastes containing more than 25 percent
water require special formulation or pretreatment.
The process generates a small amount of wastewater from
cleaning the equipment and from personnel decontamination.
As previously mentioned, this water can be added to subsequent
batches of waste.
The technology normally should involve no discharge to or
disruption of surface water drainage.
Climate
Several climatic conditions can affect the Soliditech pro-
cess. To obtain optimal physical properties of the treated waste,
the temperature of the treated waste should remain above
freezing, especially during the first 24 hours after treatment.
Although adjustments can be made to treat wastes at freezing
temperatures, this may result in incomplete setting of the
solidified waste, with lower UCS, and poorer durability prop-
erties. At subzero temperatures, the water used in the additives
and the process will also freeze. The process should therefore
be used only when overnight temperatures are predicted to be
at least several degrees above freezing.
Heavy rain can slow or stop any operation that requires
earthmoving equipment, such as the Soliditech process, by
creating mud and slippery conditions. Excavation areas may
also fill with water, and workers may find it difficult to work.
High wind conditions can scatter particles during waste
collection and transport operations and also when adding waste
and cement or pozzolanic material to the mixer. The latter can
be controlled using covers, windbreaks, or alternate methods of
transferring the materials to the mixer. The potential user of this
technology should be aware of any possible high wind condi-
tions.
Electricity
A source of 30-amp, 120-volt electricity is required to
power the blower used to transfer the cement or pozzolanic
material from the storage hopper to the mixer. This same
service is adequate to power the field-testing equipment and a
portable steam cleaner used to clean the mixer. A portable
generator can supply this electricity.
Services and Supplies
A number of services and supplies are required for the
Soliditech technology. Most of these services and supplies can
be obtained locally.
The Soliditech process uses large quantities of water and
cement or pozzolanic materials. These materials can usually be
obtained locally. Certain additives may also be obtained locally
by Soliditech, Inc.
The Soliditech mixer is diesel-powered. Diesel fuel may
be obtained locally. Gasoline or iJiesel fuel for a portable
generator and earthmoving equipment may also be obtained
locally.
Equipment such as cranes, foirklifts, front-end loaders,
backhoes, steam cleaners, an office trailer, portable toilets, and
scales to weigh additives and waste can all be obtained locally
from industrial rental companies. Supplies such as tools,
drums, plastic sheeting, and lumber can be purchased locally.
A local security service may be necessary to protect the
equipment at night and to prevent access to the site by unautho-
rized personnel.
Appropriate Waste and Site Conditions
Whether or not the solidification/stabilization process is
appropriate for hazardous waste site remediation depends upon
the nature of the waste, the chemical and physical properties
desired or required for the treated waste, the overall treatment
cost, and the physical conditions at the site. These factors must
be assessed before selecting a site remediation method. The
suitability of the waste for treatment including the properties of
the waste is determined through treatability testing, while the
11
-------
physical conditions at the site are assessed during a site visit,
which includes the technology vendor. A thorough assessment
should include the following steps (U.S. EPA, 1989):
Review previous studies of similar wastes.
Perform treatability testing on wastes from the site.
Identifypotentialpretreatmentoptionstoimprove
the waste treatment process.
Assess site conditions affecting the treatment of
waste and the disposal of the treated waste.
Review site and process health and safety
requirements.
Determine waste disposal requirements and
overall costs.
Regulatory Requirements
This section discusses the Federal regulatory requirements
for th& Soliditech technology and analyzes these requirements
in view of the demonstration results. State and local regulatory
requirements, which may be more stringent, will also have to be
addressed.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorizes the
Federal government to respond to releases or potential releases
of any hazardous substance into the environment, as well as to
releases of pollutants or contaminants that may present an
imminent or significant danger to public health and welfare or
the environment.
As part of the requirements of CERCLA, U.S. EPA has
prepared the National Contingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous
substance response. The NCP is codified in Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 300, and delineates the
methods and criteria used to determine the appropriate extent of
removal and cleanup for hazardous waste contamination.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) amended CERCLA, and directed U.S. EPA to:
use remedial alternatives that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants;
select remedial actions thatprotect human health
and the environment, are cost-effective, and
involve permanent solutions and alternative
treatment or resource recovery technologies to
the maximum extent possible; and
avoid off-site transport and disposal of untreated
hazardous substances or contaminated materials
when practicable treatment technologies exist
(Section 121(b)).
The NCP includes solidification as a possible cost-effec-
tive technology for remediation of contaminated soils and
sediments (Section 300.70). The preference under SARA for
permanent solutions that reduce waste volume, toxicity, or
mobility applies to the use of solidification technologies at
CERCLA sites.
CERCLA Response Actions
In general, two types of responses are possible under
CERCLA - removals and remedial actions. Solidification
technologies are unlikely to be part of a CERCLA removal.
Unless the removal is part of a remedial action, removals are
limited in the amount of time and money that can be spent.
Superfund-financed removals cannot exceed 12 months in
duration or $2 million in cost, in most cases.
Remedial actions are governed by SARA amendments to
CERCLA. As stated above, these amendments promote rem-
edies that permanently reduce the volume, toxicity, andmobility
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. However,
U.S. EPA is required to review any remedial action in which
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the
site. A remedial action in which hazardous substances are
treated by solidification and disposed of at the site must be
reviewed by U.S. EPA every five years to assure the continued
protection of human health and the environment.
On-site remedial actions must comply with federal and
more stringent state applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). ARARs are determined on a site-by-
site basis. CERCLA provides only six waivers to meeting
ARARs during aremedial action (Section 121(d)(4)). ARARs
also dictate the degree of cleanup necessary at CERCLA sites.
If solidification is chosen as the sole technology for a remedial
action, then the solidification process must meet ARARs for
cleanup at that site.
Contaminated soil and debris are the primary type of waste
at most CERCLA sites. If the soil and debris contains hazard-
ous wastes that are subject to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR), it must be treated to comply with LDR treatment
standards or obtain a variance from U.S. EPA. See the RCRA
discussion below for further details.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA), an
amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), was
passed in 1976 to address the problem of how to safely dispose
of the enormous volume of municipal and industrial solid waste
generated annually. RCRA specifically addressed the identifi-
cation and management of hazardous wastes. The Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) greatly ex-
panded the scope and requirements of RCRA.
RCRA regulations concerning hazardous waste identifica-
tion and management are located in 40 CFRParts 124,260-272.
U.S. EPA and authorized States implement and enforce RCRA
regulations.
12
-------
The key to determining whether RCRA regulations apply
to the Soliditech process is the presence of hazardous wastes.
U.S. EPA defines hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 261. If
hazardous wastes are being treated by solidification, the owner/
operators of treatment or disposal facilities must obtain a
RCRA permit (40 CFR Part 270) from U.S. EPA or the au-
thorized state. Owners or operators are also subject to RCRA
permit or interim status standards defined in 40 CFR Parts 264
or 265, respectively, depending on the type of unit (tank,
container, or landfill) used for the solidification process.
Generators of hazardous wastes (defined in 40 CFR Part
260) do not need RCRA permits if they conduct the solidifica-
tion process in tanks or containers subject to generator accu-
mulation requirements. Generators should note that State
hazardous waste programs may be more stringent than those of
U.S. EPA, and may require a separate permit for the solidifica-
tion process.
Once hazardous wastes are treated by solidification, the
treated waste or residue may still be a hazardous waste.
Applicable RCRA requirements could include a Uniform Haz-
ardous Waste Manifest if the treated waste is transported,
restrictions on placing the treated wastes in land disposal units,
time limits on accumulating treated waste, and permits for
storing treated waste.
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
HSWA mandated that U.S. EPA develop land disposal
restrictions (LDR) prohibiting the placement of untreated
hazardous waste in land disposal units. U.S. EPA set treatment
standards for restricted hazardous wastes based on the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT) determined for
each waste. Once arestricted waste is treated to meet treatment
standards, the waste may be land-disposed. By May 8,1990,
all RCRA hazardous wastes will have been evaluated and
treatment standards established as appropriate.
U.S. EPA may grant national variances to the LDRs if it
determines that the capacity to treat restricted wastes is pres-
ently unavailable. Other variances to the restrictions are issued
on a case-by-case basis and may extend for up to two years. A
restricted waste may be land-disposed without treatment under
such variances; however, the land disposal unit receiving the
waste must comply with minimum technological requirements
specified in Section 3004(o) of RCRA. U.S. EPA may also
grant treatability variances in cases where the restricted wastes
were formed by inadvertent mixing or where the restricted
wastes are different in physical form from those wastes used to
set the treatment standards.
Currently, U.S. EPA has granted several national capacity
variances from the LDRs for contaminated soil and debris
resulting from CERCLA responses and RCRA corrective ac-
tion measures. These variances will expire during 1990 and
1991. After 1991, all contaminated soil and debris must be
treated to meet LDR standards.
RCRA Corrective Action
HSWA greatly expandedU.S. EP A's authority under RCRA
to requirecorrective action. Section 3004(u) of HSWArequires
corrective action for releases of hazjirdous wastes or constitu-
ents from any solid waste management unit at a storage,
treatment, or disposal facility that is seeking or otherwise
subject to a RCRA permit. Section 3004(u) also requires that
these permits contain assurances of financial responsibility for
complying with corrective action. Moreover, Section 3004(v)
authorizes U.S. EPA to require corrective action beyond the
facility boundary. Section 3008(h) of HSWA authorizes U.S.
EPA to require corrective action or other necessary response
measures whenever itis determinedthatthere has been arelease
of hazardous wastes or constituents from a facility authorized
to operate under Section 3005(e) of RCRA. Under RCRA
regulations, the facility owner or operator is responsible for
conducting the corrective action.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The disposal of PCBs is regulated under Section 6(e) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). PCB treatment
and disposal regulations are described in 40 CFR Part 761.
Materials containing PCBs in concentrations between 50 and
500 parts per million (ppm) may either be disposed of in TSC A-
permitted landfills or destroyed by incineration at a TSCA-
approved incinerator; at concentrations greater than 500 ppm,
the material must be incinerated. Therefore, soil contaminated
with up to 500 ppm of PCBs may be suitable for solidification.
Where individual state standards are stricter than federal stan-
dards, solidification may be unacceptable as a pre-disposal
remedy.
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that treatment, storage,
and disposal operations comply with primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards. During the excavation, transpor-
tation, and treatment of the waste material, fugitive emissions
are possible. Steps must be taken to prevent or minimize the
impact from fugitive emissions, such as covering the waste
material with industrial strength (40-mil) plastic during trans-
portation and storage prior to processing. State air quality
standards may require additional measures to prevent fugitive
emissions.
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Superfund remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be performed in accordance with the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA) requirements detailed in 29 CFR Parts
1900 through 1926. State occupational safety and health
requirements must also be met, and may be stricter than the
federal standards.
Regulatory Requirements Applied to the Soliditech
Technology Demonstration
No federal, state, or local permits were required for the
Soliditech demonstration because any Superfund removal or
13
-------
remedial action conducted entirely on-site is exempt from such
permit requirements.
The hazardous waste materials at the Imperial Oil Com-
pany/Champion Chemical Company site were characterized
prior to the demonstration to determine whether they were
suitable for treatment with the Soliditech technology. Waste
materials from many different areas in and around the site were
analyzed for chemical and physical properties. These analyses
were performed in accordance with RCRA Section 261.24
(Characteristic of EP Toxicity).
Although no residual hazardous wastes were generated
from the Soliditech treatment process, contaminated clothing
and decontamination water from the demonstration constituted
hazardous waste. The New Jersey Department of Environmen-
tal Protection (NJ DEP) agreed to dispose of these wastes.
RCRA regulations will be followed for transporting contami-
nated clothing, decontamination water, and the solidified waste
material toadisposal facility. Any New Jerseyrequirements for
the transport of hazardous waste will also be met.
Although the TWMs are being stored on-site for longer
than 90 days, no storage permit was required because any
remedial or removal action conducted entirely on-site at a
Superfund site is exempt from the permit process as delineated
by Section 121 of CERCLAas amended by SARA. However,
all the substantive RCRA requirements for miscellaneous units
were met. The TWMs were entirely enclosed in plastic to
protectthern from precipitation andpreventany run-onandrun-
off. In addition, the TWMs are examined in detail semi-
annually.
Ordinarily, the treated waste material wouldhave to comply
with LDR treatment standards. However, in the case of the
Soliditech demonstration, the waste material was exempt by a
national capacity variance for contaminated soil and debris.
Under TSCA,PCB-contaminated wastes may be disposed
of in either a permitted landfill or destroyed by incineration if
concentrations do not exceed 500 ppm. Concentrations of
PCBs detected in the waste material at the Imperial Oil Com-
pany/Champion Chemical Company site did not exceed 500
ppm, and therefore can be disposed of in a permitted disposal
facility.
Approximately nine cubic yards of contaminated soil were
excavated from the waste pile and from an off-site area for the
Soliditech demonstration. Topreventorminimizethepotential
impactfrom fugitive emissions, the waste material was covered
with plastic during transportation and storage prior to treat-
ment The steps taken to minimize fugitive emissions were
consistent with State of New Jersey primary and secondary
ambient air quality requirements.
To meet OSHA requirements, all personnel were required
to wear appropriate personnel protective equipment, including
respirators, coveralls.boots, and gloves, during all on-site work
involving heavy equipment and hazardous waste.
Table 1 summarizes federal and state ARARs for the
Soliditech technology, the basis or applicability of the require-
ments, and the recommended response to the requirements.
Technology Performance During the
Demonstration
No major operational problems were encountered during
the Soliditech demonstration. Several minor problems did
occur and are discussed below.
Mobilization and Demobilization
Approximately one day each was required to mobilize and
demobilize Soliditech storage containers and treatment equip-
ment This mobilization and demobilization time is necessary
regardless of the size of the job, and does not include time for
site preparation and restoration. At an actual remediation on a
hazardous waste site, the time expended in mobilization and
demobilization would be insignificant compared to the actual
waste treatment activities.
The large Soliditech mixer, although cleaned prior to the
SITE demonstration, contained some residual material that
could have contributed chemical contamination to the test runs.
Soliditech personnel scraped as much of this material out of the
mixer as possible and then steam-cleaned the mixer prior to its
use. A sample of the material scraped from the mixer was
collected, chemically analyzed, and determined not to have
contributed to the contamination found in the treated waste.
Because of the lack of traction in the equipment mobiliza-
tion area, Soliditech personnel were not able to erect the
pozzolan storage hopper in the normal manner. A large tow
truck with an extendable boom was required to help lift this
storage hopper into position.
The electrical blower used to transfer cement out of the
pozzolan storage hopper required more amperage than could be
supplied by either a small portable generator or an outdoor
electrical outlet near the location of the demonstration. This
problem was solved by replacing a defective electrical circuit
breaker controlling the outdoor electrical outlet
Treatment
The waste treatment phase of the demonstration was
considered to be a success. No mechanical problems occurred
with the Soliditech equipment during the demonstration. The
Soliditech technology was observed to be very simple and
reliable. Therewerenohealthandsafety-relatedproblems. All
personnel present at the demonstration read and followed the
site-specific health and safety plan and observed OSHA health
and safety regulations.
There was a delay in the delivery of earthmoving equip-
ment and thus in the collection of the waste material. This
problem was not attributable to Soliditech but did cause a slight
delay in treatment operations.
14
-------
Table 1. Federal and State ARARS for the Soliditech Technology
Process Activity ARAR Description
Waste characterization
(untreated waste)
Excavation
Storage prior to
processing
Waste processing
RCRA 40 CFR
Part 261 or state
equivalent
Clean Air Act 40
CFR 50.6 and 40
CFR 52 or state
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR
Part 264 or state
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 265
or state equivalent
Identifying and
characterizing
the waste as treated
Management of
fugitive air emissions
Standards appli-
cable to the storage
of hazardous waste
Standards appli-
cable to the treat-
ment of hazardous
waste at permitted
and interim status
facilities
Basis
A requirement of RCRA
prior to managing and
handling the waste
Fugitive air emissions
may occur during
excavation and
material handling
and transport
Excavation may
generate a hazard-
ous waste that
must be stored in
a waste pile, con-
tainer, etc.
Treatment of
hazardous
waste must be
conducted in a
manner that
meets the operat-
ing and monitoring
requirements
Response
Chemical and
physical analyses
must be performed
Excavations
should be
conducted
using equipment
that will minimize
the development
of fugitive air
emissions; cover
waste material
with plastic during
transportation.
If in a waste pile,
the material
should be placed
on and covered
with plastic and
tied down to
minimize fugi-
tive air emissions
and volatilization.
Previous testing
indicates that
waste to be treated
is compatible
with the Soliditech
technology.
Equipment must
be operated and
maintained daily. Air
emissions must be
characterized by
continuous emissions
monitoring.
(continued)
-------
Table 1. (continued)
Process Activity
Storage after processing
(if applicable)
Waste characterization
(Treated waste)
ARAB
RCRA40CFRPart264
or state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part
261 or state equivalent
On-site/off-site
disposal
RCRA Subtitle D
(State Regulation) or
state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 268
or state equivalnet
Description
Standards that apply to
the storage of hazardous
waste
Standards that apply to
waste characteristics
Standards that apply to
the disposal of solid waste
Standards that restrict the
placement of certain wastes
in or on the ground
Basis
The treated material may be
be cured and stored prior to
final land disposal
A requirement of RCRA
prior to managing and handling
the waste
The treated waste may no
longer be a hazardous
waste but only a solid waste
The nature of the waste may
be subject to the LDRs
Response
The treated material
stored in a manner
that prevents the
deterioration, such as
erosion, runon, runoff,
etc.
Chemical, physical,
and extraction tests
must be performed.
The tests will be in
accordance with
those specified in this
section.
The state regulatory
agency must be
contacted to obtain
appropriate design
criteria for a solid waste
landfill.
The waste must be
characterized to
determine if the LDRs
apply; treated wastes
must be tested and
results compared.
(continued)
-------
Table 1. (continued)
Process Activity
On-site/off-site
disposal (continued)
Transportation for off-
site disposal
ARAB
RCRA 40 CFR Part
264 or state equivalent
TSCA40CFRPart
761 or state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part
262 or state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part
263 or state equivalent
Description
Standards that apply to
landfilling hazardous waste
Standards that restrict
the placement of PCBs
in or on the ground
Manifest requirements
and packaging and labeling
requirements prior to
transporting
Transportation
standards
The treated waste may still
be a hazardous waste and
subject to LDRs
Waste containing less than
500 ppm of PCBs may be
land disposed or incinerated
The material must be
manifested and managed
as a hazardous waste
The material must be
transported as a hazardous
waste
Response
Treated wastes must
meet applicable
standards or a variance
must be sought from
the U.S. EPA Admini-
strator . The land dis-
posal unit must meet
minimum technology
requirements.
The treated material
will analyzed for PCB
concentration. Ap-
proved PCB landfills or
incinerators must be
used for disposal.
U.S. EPA must issue
an I.D. number.
A transporter licensed
by the U.S. EPA must
be used to transport
the hazardous waste
according to U.S. EPA
regulations.
-------
Overall Demonstration Schedule
The overall demonstration schedule allowed one day to
mobilize the Soliditech equipment, three days for waste treat-
ment, and one day for demobilization. Because of delays in the
collection of the waste material and the above-mentioned
electrical problem, waste treatment did not start until the end of
Day Two. All waste treatmentruns were completed on sched-
ule. The Soliditech equipment was demobilized on schedule.
Site preparation, including setting up an office trailer, electrical
and phone connection, and procuring and staging other auxil-
iary equipment, required three days. Site demobilization and
restorationrequiredfour days after the equipmentwas removed.
Characteristics Influencing Performance
The Soliditech solidification/stabilization process has cer-
tain advantages and limitations. These are summarized below.
Contaminant Properties/Matrix Parameters
Theprocess is generally limited to treating wastes
withapHof 2to 12. Wastematerialwithaneutral
pHisidealfortreatment. The pH of the untreated
waste at the demonstration site ranged from 3.4
to 7.9.
The process has upper limits to the amount of
water oroiland grease that can beaccommodated.
These upper limits have not been accurately
determined. If large amounts of these materials
are present, adjustments to the amounts of
additives must be made. Waste material treated
during the demonstration contained up to 17
percent oil and grease and up to 58 percent
water.
The conditions imposed upon Soliditech during
the demonstration did not allow optimum
processing of waste, because each test run
treatedadifferenttypeofwaste.Nevertheless.the
process appeared to be relatively easy to run and
moderately fast.
The Soliditech process is able to solidify both
solid and semi-solid materials. Solids such as
rocks or other debris up to one foot in diameter
can be accommodated by the process.
Theprocessshouldonlybeusedwhentheambient
temperature is above freezing or when the treated
material can be maintained at above-freezing
temperatures during the first 24 hours after
treatment At lower temperatures the treated
material may not adequately solidify. The
temperature during the demonstration was above
35 degrees F during the day but below freezing
at night. As a result, all samples and one TWM
from each testrun were allowed to cure in aheated
warehouse at temperatures ranging from 50 to
70 degrees F. No differences in the integrity of
these TWMs was noticed.
It is difficult to assess when the treated material
is adequately mixed. Some minor problems were
observed during the demonstration. The initial
batch of treated waste material (filter cake/oily
sludge) was not totally blended, resulting in
unmixed clumps of waste material in the solidified
product.
The long-term stability of the treated waste
material is not known. U.S. EPA will monitor the
solidified wastes for the next five years.
Equipment/Material Requirements
The equipment required for the process is
relatively simple and easily transported on two
flatbed trailers. A dry solids storage hopper and
a mixer are the two major pieces of equipment.
The minimal electrical power requirements for
transfer of cement or pozzolans from the hopper
to the mixer can be met by a transportable
generator. The mixer is self-powered by a diesel
engine. Duringthedemonstration,theequipment
appeared to be problem-free.
Accurately determining the weights of materials
added to the mixer was required for the
demonstration, but was found to be difficult. If
this information is necessary for general operation,
more sophisticated gauges and weight feeders
could be added to the process; however, this
would increase the system's complexity.
Because the Soliditech process is a batch
process, a number of batches must be run to treat
large amounts of waste. Approximately 10 cubic
yards of waste can be treated in an hour, once the
equipment is set up and allreagents, additives,
and waste materials are ready to be added to the
mixer. During the demonstration, a total of 15
cubic yards of material was treatedinfour batches.
The reagents and additives required for waste
treatmentareeitherreadily obtainable (cement or
pozzolans and water) or are required in relatively
small amounts that can be readily shipped to the
treatment location (Urrichem and the other
additives).
Health and Safety Concerns
Both health and safety and community exposure concerns
were assessed prior to the Soliditech demonstration. These
concerns are discussed in this section.
Worker Safety
A site-specific Health and Safety Plan was prepared for the
Soliditech SITE demonstration (PRC, 1988). This plan cov-
ered all work for the demonstration. The plan was approved by
appropriate U.S.EPAand contractor health andsafety personnel
andreviewedby all personnel before they were allowed to work
18
-------
at the site. The plan included a facility description, a list of
chemicals of concern and their concentrations, health and
safety zones, monitoring procedures and equipment, personnel
safety procedures, personal protective equipment, decontami-
nation procedures, hospital routes and personnel to contact in
the event of an emergency, and a list of emergency equipment
that was required during all site work. The health and safety
plan was carefully followed during the demonstration. Daily
health and safety briefings were held each morning to discuss
any health or safety concerns.
In general, equipment operation is straightforward for the
Soliditech technology. Safety requirements are the same as
encountered during any activities involving heavy equipment
and potentially hazardous chemicals. Operators are thoroughly
trained in safe operating procedures and work habits, as well as
in OSHA-mandated hazardous waste safety guidelines.
Community Exposure
Due to the nature of the contamination at the Imperial Oil
Company/Champion Chemical Company site, community ex-
posure was determined not to be a significant concern. The
wastes to be treated during the demonstration contained very
low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Soil was
only excavated in one small area. This area was very remote and
located more than 300 yards from the nearest dwelling. During
excavation the soil in this area was moist, thus minimizing any
dust The soil was transported to the treatment area by a
licensed solid waste hauler and accompanied by a New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection inspector. The two
other wastes treated during the demonstration were obtained
from the active area of the facility. One of these wastes was a
waste oil containing low levels of VOCs. The other was an oil-
saturated filter cake material. Monitoring instruments for both
dust and VOCs wereconstanfly used during all waste collection
and transfer operations.
19
-------
-------
Section 4
Economic Analysis
One of the goals of the SITE Program is to develop
reliable cost data for unique and commercially available haz-
ardous waste treatment technologies. An economic analysis of
the Soliditech technology calculated the cost to treat 5,000
cubic yards of contaminated waste using a 10-cubic yard
capacity mixer at approximately $152 per cubic yard. Labor
and supplies were the major costs, accounting for approxi-
mately 33 and 41 percent, respectively, of the total cost.
Issues and Assumptions
This section summarizes the major issues and assump-
tions used to evaluate the cost of the Soliditech technology. In
general, assumptions are based on information provided by
Soliditech or from the actual costs incurred in planning and
conducting the SITE technology demonstration. Certain as-
sumptions were made to account for variable site and waste
parameters as well as the non-representative nature of the cost
of the demonstration on a waste unit basis. Some of the
assumptions will undoubtedly have to be refined to reflect site-
specific conditions.
Waste Volumes and Site Size
For the purposes of this analysis, the waste volume is
assumed to be 5,000 cubic yards (approximately 5,000 tons) of
contaminated soils. Contamination is assumed to extend to an
average depth of 3 feet below the surface and cover an area of
approximately 1 acre (43,560 square feet).
Major Technology Design and Performance Factors
The Soliditech technology is a batch operation, designed
to treat 10 cubic yards of contaminated waste per batch. For the
purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that eight batches (80
cubic yards) can be treated in a single mixer in an eight-hour
shift ~ allowing 10 minutes to load contaminated soils and
reagents, 40 minutes to mix, and 10 minutes to unload the
treated waste for each batch. It is further assumed that the
mixer will be operated five days per week, resulting in a
throughput rate of 400 cubic yards per week throughout the
remedial action. Although Soliditech estimated a throughput
of 100 cubic yards per mixer per day (Soliditech, 1989), we
have used the lower figure of 80 cubic yards per day to allow
for routine equipment maintenance, inclement weather, and
reduced winter daylight, and to avoid shift differential labor
costs for overtime. Using one mixer, it will take three months
(13 weeks) to remediate the 5,000-cubic yard site.
Technology Operating Requirements
Nine people per day are assumed to be required to accom-
plish the remedial action: four to operate the process equip-
ment; three to provide support in the field (such as sampling);
and two to provide off-site support (such as data tabulation and
reporting and administrative requirements). The four process
personnel include two process operators, one supervisor, and
one overall coordinator (Soliditech, 1989). Field support
personnel will operate soil-moving equipment (loader, back-
hoe, dump truck, and forklift), cooniinate site health and safety,
and collect samples. This analysis assumes that the seven
process and field support personnel will receive a per diem in
addition to regular compensation. Off-site support personnel
receive no per diem. Because it will take an estimated three
months to remediate a 5,000-cubic yard site, the job may
involve local hires. This analysis allows for three round trips
home (one per month) for the nine on-site staff, including the
initial and final travel to and from the site.
For every cubic yard of waste material processed during
the Soliditech demonstration, the following amounts of mate-
rials were used;
1000 Ibs cement
20 Ibs Urrichem
30 Ibs chemical additives
Water is used in the process and for decontamination, at a
rate of 5000 gallons per day (gpd). Depending on site and waste
variations, water usage may vary by plus or minus 20 percent.
Diesel fuel is used to run the S oliditech process as well as
supporting equipment, at arate of 15 gallons per hour. Because
non-fuel utilities (such as trailer electricity and telephone) are
not likely to average more than $5 per day after mobilization
(depending on climate), and potable water is costed separately
for the process, these non-fuel utility costs will be neglected for
this analysis.
Utilization Rates and Maintenance Schedules
As noted above, Soliditech claims that the throughput rate
for a full-scale remedial action will reach 100 cubic yards per
day permixer. However, basedon probable loading and mixing
times, it seems unlikely that this rale can be sustained in an 8-
hour day without overtime or shift differential costs. This
analysis instead assumes a throughput rate of 80 cubic yards per
day per mixer, at an effective utilization rate of 100 percent.
21
-------
Maintenance would be performed outside a 40-hour week.
(Alternatively, based on Soliditech's throughput estimate, a
utilization rate of 80 percent would apply).
Costs Sensitive to Specific Wastes and Site Conditions
Because mixing accounts for two-thirds of the time spent
in theSoliditechprocess, cost will presumably be unaffected by
variations in waste type or site conditions. That is, there should
be sufficient time between batches to collect 10 cubic yards of
contaminatedsoils.regardless of waste variability. Furthermore,
variability in site conditions, while potentially significant for
short-term remedial actions, should not significantly affect
costs for a remediation of three months. The variability of
factors such as temporary storage, transportation, and off-site
disposal of treated waste, on the other hand, will have a greater
effect on cost
Financial Assumptions
For thepurposesofthisanalysis.itis assumed thatfinancial
factors (such as depreciation, interest rates, and non-process
utility costs) will generally have a negligible effect on total
treatment costs. This assumption has several bases. First, the
Soliditech mixer will likely have little or no salvage value at the
end of its three-year life cycle; therefore, a straight-line depre-
ciation of $21,667 per year for the mixer will be assumed.
Second, the storage bins or tanks, compressor, pumps, and
associated piping, which are valued together at $6,000, are also
assumed to be discarded at completion of the project and have
no salvage value. Third, the depreciation of auxiliary support
equipment, such as backhoes and dump trucks will be included
in the cost of renting. For purchased equipment, depreciation
costs will be negligible compared to the full cost of the
remediation. Finally, in proportion to total site remediation
costs, the loss of present value for working capital and contin-
gency costs will be negligible. Therefore, interest rates will not
be addressed.
Itemized Costs
Table 2, at the end of this section, itemizes the cost
estimates for the Soliditech technology, using the assumptions
already described. The itemized costs are further described
below.
Site Preparation Costs
Site preparation costs include site design, surveys, legal
searches, access rights, preparation for support facilities and
auxiliary equipment (see below), and other costs. These
preparation costs, exclusive of site development, are assumed
to equal 500 staff hours at$50/hr.
Permitting/Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs may vary. The costs of
complying with regulatory requirements and permitting will
depend upon the nature of the site, its proximity to residential
areas, and the state where it is located. Typical permitting and
regulatory costs are estimated by Soliditech to be $10,000
(Soliditech, 1989).
Equipment Costs
Capital Equipment Costs
According to Soliditech, "the capital cost value of the
Soliditech mixer is $65,000... the [mixer] has a 3-year life. In
addition, storage bins or tanks for pozzolan, reagents, as well as
a compressor for transferring pozzolan, pumps for the liquid,
and associated piping and controls ... was assumed to be a
$6,000 cost to the project, whether the equipment was pur-
chased new or used or it was sold or discarded at project
completion (Soliditech, 1989)." Since this analysis assumes
that it will take 3 months using one mixer and associated
equipment to remediate a 5,000-cubic yard site, the capital
equipment will cost $11,417.
Auxiliary Equipment
Auxiliary equipment includes such items as a support
trailer or decontamination equipment that do not fall under the
category of capital equipment costs. For example, although a
dump truck is considered a major equipment item, it will not be
considered a piece of capital equipment for this analysis.
Auxiliary equipment items may be divided into two cat-
egories: rental and purchased equipment. Because of the high
cost of purchasing and transporting construction equipment, it
is assumed that this equipment will be rented locally, near the
site. The following rental equipment costs are assumed:
Site Trailer $400/month
Earthmoving equipment $5,325/month
(backhoe and loader)
Dump truck $2,400/month
Forklift $l,950/month
Tank truck $2,000/month
Truck scale $l,200/month
Purchased equipment includes miscellaneous expendable
materials (such as 55-gallon drums), and equipment that would
be cheaper to buy than to rent. For instance, a steam cleaner,
electric generator, and all necessary decontamination supplies
(including fuel to run the generator) may be purchased for
$6,500. The life cycles of the generator and steam cleaner are
assumed to be 1 year. It is assumed that this equipment will be
used on other projects during its life cycle. Auxiliary equipment
purchase costs are as follows:
Miscellaneous Equipment $3,200/month
(Dumpster, sludge pumps, plastic
sheets, 55-gallon drums)
Personnel Health & Safety $4,000/month
Equipment
(Disposable boots, gloves,
protective clothing, etc.)
Decontamination Equipment $6,500/year
(Steam cleaner, generator, fluids)
22
-------
Start-Up Cost
The start-up cost, including moving all equipment to the
site, on-site mobilization, equipment setup, and preliminary
chemical and physical testing, is estimated to be $21,000.
Labor
As described above, nine people per day are required for
the remediation. Labor costs are based on a 40-hour week, and
are assumed to be $40 per hour, including overhead and fringe
benefits. In addition, seven of the nine people will receive a per
diem of $55 per day to cover the costs of meals and lodging.
Since Soliditech envisions that its on-site people will be housed
near the site, this per diem will apply for 28 days each month.
Each on-site person will also be allowed one weekend of paid
"home leave" per month, at a cost of $500 in transportation per
on-site person.
In addition to Soliditech personnel, some type of after-
hours security service will be employed. This cost is assumed
to be $21 per hour for 60 hours per week.
An additional labor cost is training. Health and safety
training costs were incurred by Soliditech and are not included
in this cost estimate. Process and field support training is
assumed to be 16 hours in duration per field staff.
Supplies and Consumables
The cost for materials is as follows:
Cement
Urrichem
Chemical additives
$69/ton
$804/ton
$l,340/ton
In addition, it is assumed that a 3-month supply of
consumables and maintenance materials represents 10 percent
of the cost of maintenance or 1 percent of the cost of capital
equipment ($71,000) per quarter. This corresponds to $710 for
a 3-month project.
Utilities
Water for processing and decontamination is assumed by
Soliditech to cost $5 per thousand gallons. This includes
service fees associated with connect/disconnect or water trans-
fer activities, and comes to $ 125 per week. Fuel costs (at $0.90/
gal, 15gal/hr)cometo$13.50/houror$540/week. As indicated
earlier, the cost of telephone and electricity is assumed to be
negligible. (Electricity for the steam cleaner is assumed to be
provided by a portable generator, and is included in a separate
cost category.)
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
It is assumed that one 55-gallon drum of equipment rinsate
and decontamination solutions will be generated each week. It
should be possible to recycle this liquid to the process. Another
drum of disposable health and safety equipment will likely be
generated each week. The cost of disposal, including all
manifest and transportation charges, is assumed to be $500 per
drum.
Shipping, Handling, and Transport of Residuals and Waste
On-site disposal is assumed. Off-site transport and dis-
posal of 7,500 tons of treated waste (5,000 tons of waste plus
more than 2,500 tons of cement and additives) would signifi-
canflyincreasethecostoftreatmentfortheSoliditech technology.
As part of on-site disposal, the auxiliary support equipment and
personnel assigned to excavate and transfer waste would pre-
sumably develop and grade the site for disposal of the treated
waste at no additional cost.
Analytical Costs
Two types of sampling and analysis are involved in the
Soliditech process. Environmental sampling will be conducted
as the waste is being excavated to assure that the waste removal
is effective. Treated waste will also be sampled to demonstrate
both the effectiveness of the treatment as well as the structural
integrity of the solidified waste.: Costs for data tabulation and
sampling personnel have been included as labor costs.
This analysis assumes that one environmental sample will
be collected every other day. Normally, a full scan for metals,
volatile organic compounds, and semivolatile organic com-
pounds would cost approximately $1,200 per sample. How-
ever, an alternative "targeted" analysis for the site-specific
hazardous constituents is assumed to be available at $300 per
sample, or $750 per week. In addition, one QA/QC sample will
be collected for each 20 environmental samples, and subjected
to a full total waste analysis, at a cost of $ 150 per week.
For sampling a treated waste, it is assumed that 5 percent
of the batches will be sampled. Since the throughput rate for the
process is 40 batches per week, two treated waste samples will
be collected per week for both chemical and structural analysis.
The cost for TCLP (or similar leaching) analysis is assumed to
be $750 per sample. The cost for testing for unconfined
compressive strength is assumed to be $50 per sample. The
total cost for analyzing treated waste would thus be $ 1,600 per
week.
Facility Modifications/Repair/Replacement
Maintenance costs are assumed to be 10 percent of annual
capital equipment costs (Soliditech, 1989). Since the cost of
capital equipment is $71,000 per year, the cost of maintenance
will be $7,100 per year or $1,775 for the 3-month project.
Site Demobilization
The cost for site demobilization is assumed to be $ 15,000.
This includes final decontamination and removal of equipment,
site cleanup and restoration, and installing a security fence, as
well as any run-on/run-off or erosion control measures.
23
-------
Table 2. Itemized Costs
Site Preparation
Permitting/Regulatory
Equipment
Capital Equipment
Mixer ($65,000/36 mo)(3 mo)
Ancillary Equipment (per job)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Auxiliary Equipment
Site Trailer ($400/mo)(3 mo)
Backhoe & Loader ($5,325/mo)(3 mo)
Dump Truck ($2,400 mo)(3 mo)
Forklift ($1,950/mo)(3 mo)
Tank Truck ($2,000/mo)(3 mo)
Truck Scale ($1200/mo)(3 mo)
Miscellaneous Equipment
(Dumpster, sludge pumps, plastic sheets,
55 gallon drums) ($3,200/mo)(3 mo)
Personnel Health & Safety Equipment
(Disposable boots, glove.s,
protective clothing, etc.)
($4000/mo)(3 mo)
Decontamination Equipment (steam cleaner,
generator, fluids)
($6,500/yr)(3 mo)
Start-Up
Miscellaneous Mobilization
Preliminary Analytical
Environmental (8 samples)($1200/samp!e)
TCLP (8 samples)($750/sample)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
(8 samples)($50/sample)
Labor
Process Operators (4)($40/hr)(40 hr/wk)(13 wk)
Field Support (3)($40/hr)(40 hr/wk)(13 wk)
Off-site Support (2)($40/hr)(40 hr/wk)(13 wk)
Security (1)($21/hr)(60 hr/wk)(13 wk)
Per diem (7)($55/day)(28 day/mo)(3 mo)
Home Leave (7)($500/mo)(3 mo)
Training (7)(16 hr)($40/hr)
Subtotal
Subtotal
5,417
6,000
1,200
15,975
7,200
6,000
3,600
9,600
Subtotal
5,000
9,600
6,000
400
83,200
62,400
41,600
16,380
32,340
10,500
4,480
$250,900
$25,000
$10,000
$11,417
5,850
12,000
1,625
$ 63,050
$ 21,000
(continued)
24
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
Supplies and Consumables
Cement (2,500 ton)($69/ton)
Urrichem (50 ton)($804/ton)
Chemical additives (75 ton)($1340/ton)
Consumables
Utilities
Fuel($540/wk)(13wk)
Water($125/wk)(13wk)
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
(1 drum/wk)($500/drum)(13wk)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport
Subtotal
Analytical
Environmental
(2.5 samples/wk)($300/sample)(13 wk)
Environmental QA/QC
(2 samples)($1200/sample)
TCLP (2 samples/wk)($750/sample)(13 wk)
Unconfined Compressive Strength
(2 samples/wk)($50/sample)(13 wk)
Facility Modificatlons/Repalr/Replacement
($7,100/yr)(0.25yr)
Site Demobilization
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
TOTAL
172,500
40,200
100,500
710
7,020
1,625
6,500
9,750
2,400
19,500
1,300
1,775
$ 313,910
$ £!,645
$ 6,500
$ 0
$ 32,500
$ 1,775
$15,000
$763,047
Note: This total corresponds to approximately $152 per cubic yard of untreated waste, assuming on-site, in-place
disposal. Off-site transport and disposal could significantly increase this cost.
References
FederalRegister, 1986. Volume 51, No. 216, Appendix I to Part
268, November 1986.
PRC, 1988. Demonstration Plan for the Soliditech, Inc.,
Solidification Process. Prepared for U.S. EPA, RREL,
Cincinnati, Ohio, by PRC SITE Team, November 30,
1988.
Soliditech, 1989. Economic Analysis of Soliditech SITE
Project. Soliditech, Inc., March 23,1989.
U.S.EPA, 1986a. Prohibition on the Placement of BulkLiquid
Hazardous Waste in Landfills, Statutory Interpretative
Guidance. U.S. EPA/530/SW86/016,1986.
U.S. EPA, 1986b. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
(SW-846). U.S. EPA Volumes IA, IB, 1C, and II, Third
Edition, U.S. EPA Document Control Number 955-001-
00000-1, November 1986.
U.S. EPA, 1989. Stabilization/Solku'ficationofCERCLAand
RCRA Wastes. U.S. EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/
625/6-89/022, May 1989.
U.S.EPA, 1990. Technology Evaluation Report, SITE Program
Demonstration Test, Soliditech, Inc. Solidification/
Stabilization Process. U.S. EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, Ohio,
U.S.EPA/540/5-89/005a, February 1990.
25
-------
-------
Appendix A
Key Contacts
Additional information concerning the Soliditech process
or the SITE program can be obtained from the following
sources:
The Soliditech Technology
Bill Stallworth
President
Soliditech, Inc.
1325 South Dairy Ashford
Suite 385
Houston, TX 77077
(713) 497-8558
The SITE Program
SITE Project Manager. Soliditech Demonstration
Dr. Walter E. Grube, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7798
Director. Superfund Technology Demonstration
Division
Robert Olexsey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7861
SITE Program. EPA Headquarters
John Kingscott
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-4362
27
-------
-------
Appendix B
Vendor Claims
[This appendix was prepared by the developer, Soliditech,
Inc. according to guidance provided by U.S. EPA. These
claims were evaluated during the SITE demonstration and are
reported on in this application analysis.]
Applicability
Soliditech, Inc., was formed to apply the solidification
process to field service remediation projects. The process was
designed for use on a wide variety of industrial and hazardous
wastes, and can be tailored to meet waste stabilization criteria
such as TCLP, EP Toxicity, and other tests for both inorganic
and organic waste streams.
Waste Types Compatible with Process
Bulk streams that have relatively high solids content,
moderate amounts of organic material (particularly VOCs) and
relatively high moisture content are appropriate for the process.
The process is best suited for large volume, low toxicity,
organic (API separator sludges, DAF sludges, tank bottoms) or
inorganic (plating sludges, spentcatalyst, incinerator ash) wastes.
The treated waste is best suited to shallow land disposal or
disposal in subterranean repositories. The process can handle
a wide variety of waste streams of all types, including municipal
waste water or water treatment sludges. The process is not
limited by the physical state of the waste. Wastes can be
delivered to the mixer by various methods, making both the
solidification process as well as the waste handling and pro-
cessing equipment very versatile.
Favorable Conditions for Execution of the
Technology
Soliditech'stransportable mixer units aredesignedtoprocess
solids, sludges, or liquids. The 10-cubic yard batch mixer unit
is open-topped and easily accommodates most common waste
transfer equipment. A smaller 2-cubic yard mixer accommo-
dates drummed wastes and pumped materials for smaller
projects. When necessary to control volatile emissions, the
mixers can be covered during mixing with the internal air
maintained under a slightly negative pressure and the exhaust
filtered through a carbon canister to absorb vapors.
The Soliditech technology can be applied to industrial
waste streams at operating facilities as well as for remediation
of RCRA and CERCLA sites. The concurrent operation of two
or more mixer units allows processing of larger volumes of
wastes. Soliditech believes one mixing unit can efficiently
process approximately 15 to 20 yards of waste per hour. The
amount of mixing time required depends on the homogeneity of
the waste as well as the treatment standard to be met. The open-
topped mixer allows continuous control over the degree of
mixing. Uniform industrial waste streams at operating facilities
may require a relatively short mixing time. CERCLA and
other RCRA wastes may require a longer mixing time to assure
high levels of homogeneity in the treated mixture and to provide
a treated waste that meets leachate toxicity criteria.
Pre-treatmentprocessesmayincluderemovinglargedebris,
segregating incompatible waste types, and pretreating wastes
containing high contents of oil and grease (preferably by
mixing them with another compatible higher solids content
wastestreamsuchcontaminated soil, filter cakeor spentcatalyst).
Advantages of Process Equipment
The technology is a significant improvement over other
solidification processes because the mixer design allows
complete control over the consistency and degree of mixing
(i.e., quality assurance). The open-topped design allows easy
access for the mixer operator as well as the field chemist to
evaluate mixing performance and to make adjustments as
necessary prior to discharge of contents. This construction also
allows easy decontamination and demobilization after use. The
simple but rugged construction makes the process essentially
unaffected by all but large debris. The support equipment is
simple in construction and is largely available throughout the
U.S.; this availability reduces the associated costs for projects
located some distance from the Soliditech offices.
Equipment lifetime (three to five years) far exceeds normal
project durations. The mixer and associated units have proven
to be very reliable; there are no revitalization or replacement
requirements other than normal machine maintenance. The
processing equipment can be easily transported to operating
facilities or can be designed for permanent on-site installations,
if desired.
The primary equipment consists of the mixer unit and the
reagent/additive tanks mounted on a low-boy trailer; this
equipment is fully transportable arid requires no assembly/
disassembly. A cement or pozzolan storage silo (which can be
simply off-loaded and set upright) with a capacity of up to 15
cubic yards can also be transported to a remote site; or if it is
more feasible, a cement silo can be obtained locally. The mixer
unit is self-contained and uses a diesel-powered engine; the
29
-------
pozzolan or cement transfer equipment can also be operated by
a portable compressor. External power sources are thus not
required; operations can easily be conducted at remote loca-
tions.
Pozzolan or cement and water storage f acilities are usually
located remote to the mixer and do not generally require
decontamination. The recommended enclosed steel tanks are
easily cleaned if necessary using conventional pressure/steam
cleaning equipment The mixer discharge chute facilitates the
collection of washwater for containment, treatment or disposal.
Equipment operation is straightforward. Safety require-
ments are the same as encountered during any activities involv-
ing heavy equipment and potentially hazardous chemicals.
Operators are thoroughly trained in safe operating procedures
and work habits, as well as in OSHA-mandated hazardous
waste safety guidelines.
Remediation Project Schedule
Based on the results of the SITE demonstration, a project
schedule for processing a similar waste was developed. The
oily filter cake material processed for the demonstration was
selected as arepresentative waste. This material had a soil-like
consistency and contained approximately 17 percent (by weight)
petroleum hydrocarbons in the matrix. The mix design for this
material contained 58.6 percent waste, 25.8 percent Type H
Portland cement, 14.1 percent water; 0.9 percent additives and
0.6 percent Urrichem. Soliditech believes that, for a typical
project treating approximately 5,000 cubic yards of waste,
using one mixer unit (or multiple mixer units to accelerate
productivity) at a production rate of 20 yards per hour, site
requirements would include:
A work area for the mixer unit of 30 x 100 feet
A pozzolan or cement storage area 30 x 100 feet
A compressor station 10 x 10 feet
Afield office/equipmentstoragearea20x40 feet
A decontamination/waste water storage area 20
x 30 feet
A vehicle parking/storage area 15 x 40 feet
A two-cubic yard front-end loader or other waste
delivery equipment
A 100 cfm diesel-powered compressor
A mobile steam cleaner
Poly-pak drums to store contaminated clothes
etc., for later disposal
Sampling equipment
Mobilization is assumed to beauthorized when all contrac-
tual negotiations have been completed and any regulatory
questions answered. The following table summarizes total
project duration, which includes non-productive weekends.
Description
1. Mobilization/preparation/setup
2. Project work days (at 160 yards/day)
3. Non-productive days
4. Decontamination/breakdown
5. Demobilization
Davs
2
32
12
1
48
Cost Information
The Soliditech process equipment is highly mobile and
transportable. Semi-permanent installations operations can
also be easily designed and achieved using essentially the same
equipment. The mixing unit, which is the primary piece of
equipment used with the process, is normally mounted on a
conventional low-boy trailer hauled by a conventional trailer
tractor unit.
The cost of the Soliditech mixing unit, complete with a
diesel power unit and hydraulically operated lifting legs, is
$65,000. The tractor/trailer combination is about $85,000; the
silo about $5,000; and miscellaneous tanks/pumps, etc., total
$1,000. These items constitute the major direct capital cost
items. Certain indirect capital costs can also be included, as
well as certain nondepreciable capital costs. Examples of
indirectcostsincludeadministration.permits and contingencies.
Nondepreciable items includedevelopingoperatingprocedures,
training programs, and working capital requirements.
Operating costs include variable, semivariable and fixed
costs. Variable costs are essential raw materials costs of the
process and power/fuel costs of the equipment and are related
to time of operation and/or throughput of the equipment. Raw
materials, particularly pozzolans or cement, have the greatest
variability not only as to the type of material (i.e., Portland
cement versus fly ash) but also with the particular formulation
forthewastestreams.Pozzolans,kihidust,andcementtypically
vary between $25/ton to $70/ton delivered, depending on site
location and the availability of these materials in the area.
Reagent cost (Urrichem) is $5/gallon, in small quantities, and
other special additives may range up to $2/pound. These special
additives are non-typical and are not included in this discussion.
Semivariable costs include labor, maintenance, special
equipment rental or consumables (Le., personnel protective
gear), and mobilization/decontamination/demobiu'zation costs.
Mobilization costs include site preparation, logistics, person-
nel, equipment material and set-up costs. Labor cost, typically
can vary between $10 and $20/hour for equipment operators,
laborers. Supervisors' rates can vary between $25 and $30/
hour, as do rates for a site coordinator and chemical technician.
Maintenance and consumable costs arebestreflected as flat day
rate allocation. Transportation (including labor) is set at $2.50/
mile.
30
-------
Finally, certain fixed costs include insurance costs, depre-
ciation or capital equipment and various taxes. These three
items for a single unit set-up can be estimated as $350/day in
total.
Certain items are generally not accounted for in establish-
ing costs for the process. These include analytical costs, efflu-
ent treatment or disposal, waste shipping or handling and any
special permitting or compliance costs. These costs are treated
as special or extraordinary items and are charged to the project
as special costs.
31
-------
-------
Appendix C
SITE Demonstration Results
Appendix C summarizes the Soliditech SITE demonstra-
tion results and briefly describes related applications.
Site Characteristics
The Imperial Oil Company/Champion Chemical Com-
pany Superfundsitein Morganville, New Jersey was chosen for
the demonstration. Past activities at the site include chemical
processing and oil reclamation. The active area of the site is
presently used by an oil blending and repackaging facility.
Contamination is present at the site in soil, a waste filter cake
pile, and an abandoned storage tank, as well as in the ground
water.
Waste Description
The chemicals of concern at this site include metals, such
as arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc; and
various organic chemicals, including polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs) and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Three types of contaminated waste material were treated
during the demonstrationsoil, waste filter cake material from
a site waste pile, and oily sludge. The contaminated soil and
filter cake were treated directly. To aid in treatment, the oily
sludge was mixed with additional filter cake material before
treatment
Untreated and treated waste samples were collected for
each test parameter from each of these three waste materials.
The samples were analyzed for chemical constituents and
physical characteristics and were subjected to leaching/extrac-
tion testing. The results were used to compare the physical and
chemical properties of the treated and untreated waste, and
determine the effectiveness of the treatment process. The
detailed results and operating summaries are contained in the
Technology Evaluation Report (U.S. EPA, 1990).
Waste Treatment Formulations
The waste treatmentformulationsusedbySoliditechinclude
Portland cement, Urrichem, proprietary additives, and water -
- all blended with the waste material. Figure C-l depicts the
treatment formulations (weight percent) used by Soliditech to
treat the three waste types that were solidified during the
demonstration. Pure sand was also treated to determine the
concentrations of analytes of concern originating from the
Soliditech reagent, additives, and cement. The mixture of sand,
reagent, additives, and cement is referred to as the reagent
mixture. The pure sand was first analyzed separately to deter-
mine its contribution to the analytes found in the reagent
mixture.
Physical Properties of the Wastes
Physical tests were performed on both untreated andtreated
waste samples. The treated wastes were tested after a 28-day
curing period. Some of the physical tests were not appropriate
fortheuntreatedwaste(unconfinedcompressivestrength[UCS],
wet/dry durability, freeze/thaw durability, permeability) or the
treated waste (particle size analysis).
The physical test results showed! that the Sou' ditech process
is capable of solidifying waste material with up to 17 percent oil
and grease content. The process produced structurally firm
material.
The UCS of the treated samples ranged from 390 psi for
filter cake to 860 psi for filter cake/oily sludge mixture. After
12 cycles of wet/dry and freeze/thaw testing, UCS tests were
performed on the residual treated material. The results of this
testing showed that the compressive strength of the treated
waste was significantly diminished. However, UCS values
meet the U.S. EPA guideline of atleastSOpsi (U.S. EPA, 1986).
The permeability, wet/dry durability, and freeze/thaw
durability properties for the treated wastes were also good. The
permeability values ranged from 8.9 x 10'9to 4.5 x K)-7 cm/sec,
which lie mostly below the U.S. EPA guideline of 10'7 for
hazardous waste landfill soil barrier liners (40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart N). The wet/dry durability tests indicated less than one
percent weight loss after 12 wet/diry cycles. No significant
weight loss occurred as a result of 12 freeze/thaw cycles.
The bulk density of the waste increased from 25 (filter
cake) to 41 percent (filter cake/oily sludge) due to the treatment
process. The increase in volume of the waste due to treatment
ranged from no increase (contaminated soil) to 59 percent (filter
cake/oily sludge mixture), with am average increase of ap-
proximately 22 percent. The values for the increase in volume
are considered to be approximate due to difficulties in accurately
measuring the weight or volume of the raw waste and cement.
Using the average value for volume increase, each cubic yard
of contaminated waste would result in approximately 1.22
cubic yards of treated waste.
Table C-l summarizes the physical properties of the
untreated and treated waste materials from the demonstration.
33
-------
.Added Water
(11.6%)
Off-Site Area One Soil
r
Urrlchom and AddHlve*
(0.6% + 0.9%)
Typ.ll
Portland
Urricham and Additive*
(0.6% -f 0.9%)
Waste Material
(58%)
Type II
Portland Cement
(25.8%)
Waste Material
(58.6%)
Filter Cake/Oily Sludge
Reagent Mixture with Sand
Added Water
Urrlchom and Additive*
(0.4% + 1.4%)
Typ.II
Portland Cement
(5041%)
Waste Material
(40.5%)
Added Water
(10.8%)
Urrlchom and Additive*
(0.6% + 1.2%)
Waste Material (Sand)
Figure C-1. Soliditech Treatment Formulations
Type II
Portland Cement
(31.1%)
Chemical Properties of the Wastes
Both untreated and treated wastes were chemically ana-
lyzed for metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and oil and grease. The treated waste was
analyzed after a 28-day curing period. The results, given in
Table C-2, are based upon total waste analysis. A reduction in
analytcconcentration after treatmentcanpartiallybeattributed
to the dilution of the waste with cement, water reagent, and
additives. Any increase in analyte concentration may be
attributed either to materials in the cement, water reagent, or
additives; or to chemical or physical changes as a result of the
treatment process. Total waste analyses detected PCBs, ar-
senic, aluminum, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in most of the untreated and
treated waste samples. Several VOCs were detected in the
untreated but not treated waste samples and several phenols
(SVOCs) were detected in the treated but not the untreated
wastes.
As previously mentioned, pure sand was used to form the
reagent mixture. Analysis of the pure sand used for the reagent
mixture showed the presence of arsenic, chromium, copper,
lead, nickel, and zinc. Table C-3 summarizes these results.
TCLP, EP Toxicity, and BET extraction tests were run on
the untreated and treated waste samples. Extraction tests grind
the untreated or treated waste samples to a specified size and
then extract contaminants from the waste material over a
specified period of time. The extracts are then chemically
analyzed. ANS 16.1 and WILT leaching tests were run on the
treated waste samples. Leaching tests place the monolithic
waste in the specified leaching fluid for a specified period of
time. The leachates are then chemically analyzed.
Extracts of the untreated and treated waste were generated
by the TCLP, EP Toxicity, ANS 16.1 (treated waste only),
BET.and WILT extraction or leachingprocedures. All extracts
were analyzed for metals, PCBs, and oil and grease. The TCLP
extract was also analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs. The results of
these analyses are summarized in Tables C-4 through C-13.
Table C-4 summarizes the chemical analyses of the TCLP
extracts generated from the untreated and treated waste mate-
rials. Analyses of extracts of both the untreated and treated
wastes showed no detectable amounts of PCBs. Lead concen-
trations of as much as 5.4 mg/L were foundin the TCLP extracts
of the untreated wastes, but were reduced to 0.01 mg/L or less
bythetreatmentprocess. Arsenic was present at up to 0.19 mg/
L in the untreated waste and 0.017 mg/L in the treated waste
from Off-Site Area One. Cadmium, nickel, and zinc were
reduced to below their respective detection limits due to treat-
ment. Aluminum, barium, and chromium were found in two or
three of the treated waste samples, as well as the reagent mix
sample.
The results of the EP Toxicity (Table C-5) and BET
extraction tests (Tables C-6 through C-9) showed similar re-
ductions in metal concentrations. The analytes generated by
34
-------
these procedures were not analyzed for VOCs or SVOCs.
Analyses of these extracts yielded results below the detection
limits for PCBs (from 0.10 to 0.90, depending upon Aroclor and
sample matrix) in both the untreated and treated waste samples.
The ANS 16.1 and WILT leaching tests simulate leaching
from a solidified mass. Results of these tests (Tables C-10
through C-13) showed low concentrations of metals and no
PCBs leaching from the solidified waste. Oil and grease
concentrations in these leachates were also less than those in the
TCLP extracts.
Placement of Treated Wastes
After the treatment process, the treated wastes were al-
lowed to cure at the site for the prescribed 28-day curing period.
The chemical and physical nature of the treated material is not
anticipated to change significantly past the 28-day curing
period.
Samples of the solidified soil were allowed to cure on-site
in a heated warehouse. The post-treatment solidified samples
were used to determine the physical, chemical, and leaching
characteristics of the stabilized wastes.
The remainder of the treated waste was placed in one-cubic
yard plywood' forms. The treated waste in the forms was
allowed to cure for 28 days before the forms were uncrated and
prepared for long-term storage. The treated waste monoliths
(TWMs) were placed in a closely formed stack that was
wrapped in 40-mil thick high-density polyethylene (HOPE)
film for protection. Periodically, the TWMs will be unwrapped
and examined as part of the long-term monitoring. Figure C-2
depicts the placement of the TWMs in the closely formed stack.
Table C-l. Physical Properties
Filter Cake
Untreated Treated'3'
Filter Cake/Oily
Sludae Mixture
Untreated Treated'3'
Bulk Density
(g/cm3)
Permeability
(cm/sec)
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
Initial'0'
Post Testing'*
Post-Testing'9'
Loss on
Ignition
(%)
Water Content
1.14
NA'b'
1.43
4.53 x10'7
1.19
NA
1.68
8.93 x10'9
Off-Site Area One
Untreated Treated'3'
1.26 1.59
NA 3.41 X10"8
NA
NA
NA
54
28.7
0.32
NA
NA
390
121
114
41
21 .0
NA
<1
Particle Size
(mean in mm)
Wet/Dry
Weathering
(% wt. loss)
Freeze/Thaw
Weathering
(% wt. loss)
Notes:
3 Treated waste sampled after a 28-day curing period.
b NA = Not analyzed.
0 Measured after 28-day curing period.
d Measured after 12 cycles of Wet/Dry testing.
8 Measured after 12 cycles of Freeze/Thaw testing.
NA
NA
NA
70
58 1
0.46
NA
NA
860
220
290
34
14.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
23.5
0.42
NA
NA
680
198
190
34
12.6
NA
35
-------
Table C-2. Chemical Analyses of Untreated and Treated Waste
Filter Cake/Oily
Filter Cake
Untreated
Treated
Sludge Mixture
Untreated
Treated
Off-Site Area One
Untreated
Treated
Reagent Mix
Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/Kg)
Ethyl Benzene <1 .5
Tetrachloroethene <1 .5
Toluene <1 .5
Trichloroethene <1 .5
Xylenes <1.5
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Butyl benzyl phthalate <1 0
o-Cresol <10
p-Cresol <10
2,4-Dimethylphenol <10
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate <1 0
2-Mathylnaphthalene <1 0
Naphthalene <10
Phenol <1 0
PCBs(mg/Kg)
Aroclor-1242 9.3
Aroclor-1260 19
Metals (AA) (mg/Kg)
Arsenic 26
Mercury <0.040
Selenium <0.20
Thallium 0.17
Metals (ICPES) (mg/Kg)
Aluminum 8,400
Barium 1,900
Beryllium 0.17
Cadmium 0.37
Calcium 1 ,000
Chromium 4.7
Copper 21
Lead 2,200
Nickel 2.7
Sodium 83
Zinc 26
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mv) 370
Oil and Grease,
infrared (mg/Kg) 170,000
pH (pH units) 3.4
<1.5
<1.5
<1.5
<1.5
<1.5
(mg/Kg)
<5.0
<5.0
14
<5.0
10
<5.0
<5.0
12
6.3
10
28
<0.040
<0.20
0.15
17,000
780
<0.10
0.50
110,000
20
28
680
11
430
23
-31
77,000
11.8
4.3
1.6
8.4
, 3.3
32
49
<10
<10
<10
<10
14
<10
<10
16
27
14
<0.040
<0.20
0.052
5,500
1,600
0.13
1.0
1,200
5.7
34
2,500
3.0
950
150
220
130,000
3.6
<2.2
<1.5
<4.9
<2.2
<18
<3.3
<3.3
4.4
3.7
<3.3
4.4
<3.3
4.8
6.2
8.4
40
<0.040
<0.20
0.12
18,000
1,000
0.23
1.0
190,000
28
43
850
16
1,800
54
-45
60,000
12.0
<1.5
<1.5
8.3
<1.5
2.2
49
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
24
6.2
<5.0
<5.0
29
14
94
0.16
0.23
<0.050
4,000
700
0.23
1.5
<1.5
<1.5
<7.9
<1.5
<2.2
4.3
<3.3
<3.3
<3.3
8.2
3.8
<3.3
<3.3
33
7.5
92
0.17
<0.20
<0.10
11,000
580
<0.10
0.70
4,600 150,000
11
33
650
2,7
93
120
100
28,000
7.9
29
43
480
13
480
95
-63
46,000
12.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<0.0020
<0.0040
59
<0.040
<0.20
0.17
22,000
1,700
0.54
1.2
180,000
38
60
20
21
2,500
39
-60
NA
12.1
NA: Not Analyzed
36
-------
Table C-3. Chemical Analysis of Sand
Metals (AA)
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Metals (ICPES)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
Note: Sand was used as a waste surrogate in the reagent mix test run.
(mg/Kg)
0.11
<0.050
<0.20
<0.20
(mg/Kg)
110
<1.0
<0.20
<0.50
<100
<3.0
<2.0
<5.0
<2.0
<100
<2.0
37
-------
Table C-4. Chemical Analyses of TCLP Extract from Untreated and Treated Waste Materials
Filter Cake
Untreated
Volatile Organic
Compounds (jig/L)
Acetone 250
Benzene <2.0
2-Butanone <1 0
Ethyl benzene <2.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 4.3
Methylene chloride 13
Tetrachloroethene <2.0
Toluene <2.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4.0
Trichloroethene <2.0
Xylenes <2.0
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (u.g/L)
Benzyl alcohol <10
Butyl benzyl phthalate <1 0
o-Cresol <10
p-Cresol <1 0
2,4-DimethylphenoI <10
Phenol <10
PCBs (ug/L)
Arcoclor-1242 <0.42
Arcoc(or-1260 <0.84
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.0050
Load NA
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum 0.50
Barium 1.4
Cadmium 0.0052
Calcium 9.0
Chromium <0.030
Copper 0.040
Lead 4.3
Nickel <0.020
Sodium 1,100
Zinc 0.28
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mv) 270
Filterable Residue
(TDS) (mg/L) 4,500
Oil & Grease,
infrared (mg/L) 1 .4
pH (pH units) 4.6
Treate
<210
<2.0
<10
<2.0
<2.0
<10
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<10
<10
62
440
20
630
<0.45
<0.90
<0.0020
0.0020
<0.20
1.3
<0.0050
1,800
0.063
0.023
<0.20
<0.020
13
<0.020
-28
8,500
4.4
10.8
Filter Cake/Oily
Sludge Mixture
Untreated Treated
1000
8.2
29
8.9
60
21
2.9
55
<2.0
27
57
44
47
93
200
<0.43
<0.86
0.014
NA
0.28
2.5
0.0093
21
<0.030
0.023
5.4
0.027
1,200
1.3
210
5,200
1.6
4.8
88
340
130
340
<0.11
<0.21
<0.0020
0.014
0.47
5.1
<0.0050
1,900
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
43
<0.020
-35
8,600
2.4
11.6
Off-Site Area One
Untreated Treated
57
36
18
10
<0.42
<0.84
0.19
0.55
0.60
1.6
-------
Table C-5. Chemical Analyses of EP Extract from Untreated and Treated Waste
Filter Cake/Oily
Filter Cake Sludae Mixture Off-Site Area One
Untreated
PCBs (n-g/L)
Aroclor-1242 <0.43
Aroclor-1260 <0.86
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.01 0
Lead 0.26
Mercury <0.00020
Selenium <0.0040
Thallium <0.0010
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum <0.20
Barium 0.21
Beryllium <0.0020
Cadmium <0.0050
Calcium 4.8
Chromium <0.030
Copper <0.020
Lead 0.25
Nickel <0.020
Sodium 1 .4
Zinc 0.032
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mV) 320
Filterable Residue
(TDS) (mg/L) 90
Oil & Grease,
infrared (mg/L) <0.40
pH (pH units) 3.8
Treated
<0.41
<0.82
0.0023
0.0023
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
<0.20
1.4
<0.0020
<0.0050
2,000
0.083
0.037
<0.050
<0.020
15
<0.020
-2.0
,
9,500
4.0
10.9
Untreated
<0.43
<0.86
0.011
0.55
<0.00020
<0.0040
0.0013
<0.20
1.1
<0.0020
0.0082
11
<0.030
<0.020
0.52
<0.020
58
0.86
220
330
<0.40
4.8
Treated
<0.42
<0.84
0.0020
0.015
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0010
<0.20
5.7
<0.0020
<0.0050
2,100
0.037
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
45
<0.020
-30
9,100
3.1
11.8
Untreated
<0.45
<0.90
0.18
0.12
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
0.40
0.58
<0.0020
0.0052
140
<0.030
<0.020
0.067
<0.020
2.1
0.26
130
790
2.6
4.8
Treated
<0.21
<0.42
0.028
0.012
<0.00030
<0.0050
<0.0010
0.20
2.4
<0.0020
<0.0050
2,100
<0.030.
0.060
<0.050
<0.020
16
<0.020
-10
9,400
11
11.7
Reagent Mix
<0.020
<0.040
<0.0020
<0.0020.
<0.00020
0.017
<0.0010
0.50
4.3.
<0.0020
<0.0050
1,900
0.067
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
35
<0.020
9.0
8,7qo
<0.40 .
11.3
39.
-------
Table C-6. Chemical Analysis of BET Extract from Untreated and Treated Filter Cake Waste
Solid-to-Liauid Ratio
1:4
Untreated Treated
PCBs (ng/L)
Aroclor-1242 <0.42 <0.43
Aroctor-1260 <0.84 <0.86
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.072 0.011
Mercury <0.00020 <0.00020
Selenium <0.0050 <0.0040
Thallium <0.0020 <0.0010
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mV)
Filterable Residue
(TDS) (mg/L)
Oil & Grease,
infrared (mg/L)
pH (pH units)
Total Organic
Carbon (mg/L)
1.9
0.14
<0.0020
0.0073
30
<0.030
0.050
0.87
0.063
2.3
0.27
270
440
0.65
3.7
91
0.20
6.3
<0.0020
<0.0050
850
0.046
0.063
<0.050
<0.020
84
<0.020
-82
3,800
6.3
11.7
140
1:
Untreated
<0.41
<0.82
0.014
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0020
0.23
0.28
<0.0020
<0.0050
7.3
<0.030
<0.020
0.42
<0.020
<1.0
0.047
290
120
0.53
3.5
20
Treated
<0.41
<0.82
0.0037
<0.00030
<0.0040
<0.0010
0.47
3.4
<0.0020
<0.0050
480
0.037
0.027
<0.050
<0.020
19
<0.020
-92
1,700
2.7
11.7
1:
Untreated
<0.42
<0.84
0.020
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0020
0.37
0.47
<0.0020
<0.0050
1.2
<0.030
<0.020
0.18
<0.020
<1.0
0.020
270
40
<0.40
3.9
:100
Treated
<0.21
<0.42
0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
1.1
0.92
<0.0020
<0.0050
230
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
4.3
<0.020
-82
760
<0.40
11.5
28
43
11
14
40
-------
Table C-7. Chemical Analysis of BETExtract from Untreated andTreatedFilter Cake/Oily Sludge Mixture
PCBs
ArocIor-1242
Arocior-1260
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Untreated
<2.2
0.042
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0020
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Other Chemical Tests
240
Eh (mV)
Filterable Residue
(TDS) (mg/L)
Oil & Grease,
infrared (mg/L)
pH (pH units)
Total Organic Carbon
(mg/L) 200
1,800
3.2
3.7
Treated
<0.42
<0.84
0.0080
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
0.36
0.83
<0.0020
0.036
44
<0.030
<0.020
1.7
0.049
230
2.7
0.23
17
<0.0020
<0.0050
730
<0.030
0.030
<0.050
0.023
250
<0.020
-101
3,500
4.9
12.0
110
Solid-to-Liquid Ratio
1:20
Untreated Treated
<0.44
<0.88
220
470
2.2
4.2
60
<0.42
<0.84
-99
2,300
1.3
11.9
32
1:100
Untreated Treated
<0.22
<0.44
<0.82
0.035
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0020
0.0023
<0.00030
<0.0040
<0.0020
0.0083
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0020
0.0030
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
<0.20
0.78
<0.0020
0.0062
9.1
<0.030
<0.020
0.43
0.028
80
0.69
0.43
9.6
<0.0020
<0.0050
750
<0.030
0.023
<0.050
<0.020
58
<0.020
<0.20
0.48
<0.0020
<0.0050
2.1
<0.030
<0.020
0.14
0.1322
17
0.16
1.3
2.6
<0.0020
<0.0050
440
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
13
<0.020
220
110
1.3
4.4
21
-93
1,200
0.43
11.8
8.0
41
-------
Table C-8. Chemical Analysis of BET Extract from Untreated and Treated Off-Site Area One Waste
PCBs (ug/L)
ArocIor-1242
Aroc(or-1260
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Untreated
<2.3
JJ4
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Other Chemical Tests
Eh(mV) 110
Filterable Residue
(IDS) (mg/L) 1,100
Oil & Grease,
infrared (mg/L) 16
pH (pH units) 8.3
Total Organic
Carbon (mg/L) 190
Treated
<0.43
<0.86
Solid-to-Liquid Ratio
1:20
Untreated Treated
1:100
Untreated Treated
<2.2
<0.21
<0.42
-77
4,600
26
12.1
120
150
390
12
8.6
73
-78
2,600
15
12.1
54
<0.43
<0.86
100
330
4.4
9.0
30
<0.10
<0.20
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
0.38
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
0.067
<0.00020
0.0070
<0.0020
0.29
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
0.022
<0.00030
0.0060
<0.0020
0.19
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
0.0097
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
<0.20
0.11
<0.0020
0.0068
150
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
5.0
<0.020
<0.20
9.7
<0.0020
<0,0050
1,000
<0.030
0.17
<0.050
0.033
80
<0.020
<0.20
0.047
<0.0020
0.0055
58
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
2.2
<0.020
<0.20
5.5
<0.0020 ,
<0.0050
860
<0.030
0.057
0.090
<0.020
19
<0.020
0.69
0.023
<0.0020
<0.0050
19
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
1.1
<0.020
0.83
1.4
<0.0020
<0.0050
410
<0.030
0.020
<0.050
<0.020
4.0
<0.020
-50
980
'3.7
11.8
14
42
-------
Table C-9. Chemical Analyses of BET Extract from Reagent Mix
PCBs (ng/L)
Aroclor-1242 <0.11
Aroclor-1260 <0.22
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.0030
Mercury <0.00020
Selenium <0.0020
Thallium <0.0020
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum 0.37
Barium 27
Beryllium <0.0020
Cadmium <0.0050
Calcium 540
Chromium <0.030
Copper <0.020
Lead <0.050
Nickel <0.020
Sodium 160
Zinc <0.020
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mV) -69
Filterable Residue (TDS)(mg/L) 2,900
Oil & Grease, infrared (mg/L) <0'.50
pH (pH units) 12.0
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 36
Solid-to-Liquid Ratio
1:20
<0.11
<0.22
0.0037
<0.00020
<0.0020
<0.0020
1.8
10
<0.0020
<0.0050
560
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
39
<0.020
-80
1,700
<0.50
12.0
9.7
HL2Q
<0.22
0.0073
<0.00020
<0.0020
<0.0020
4.8
1.6
<0.0020
<0.0050
210
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
9.0
<0.020
-71
620
<0.40
11.8
3.0
43
-------
Table C-10. Chemical Analyses of ANS 16.1 Leachate from Treated Filter Cake Waste
DAY1 DAYS DAY 7 DAY 14
PCBs (u.g/L)
Aroctor-1242 <0.11
Aroclor-1260 <0.21
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mV) -20
Filterable Residue (TDS) (mg/L) 310
Oil & Grease, infrared (mg/L) <0.40
pH(pH units) 10.7
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 6.6
<0.10
<0.21
-15
270
<0.40
10.9
5.2
<0.22
-36
310
<0.50
11.0
5.3
<0.020
<0.040
-41
340
<0.40
10.7
6.3
DAY 28
<0.22
<0.0020
<0.00030
<0.0040
<0.0020
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
<0.0020
<0.00030
<0.0050
<0.0020
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
<0.20
0.17
<0.0020
<0.0050
63
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
7.3
<0.020
0.27
0.19
<0.0020
<0.0050
63
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
5.2
<0.020
0.30
0.22
<0.0020
<0.0050
72
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
4.4
<0.020
<0.20
0.25
<0.0020
<0.0050
81
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
5.3
<0.020
0.37
0.28
<0.0020
<0.0050
100
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
5.0
<0.020
-57
490
<0.40
11.3
7.0
44
-------
Table C-11. Chemical Analyses of ANS 16.1 Leachate from Treated Filter Cake/Oily Sludge Mixture
PAY1 DAYS DAY 7 DAY 14 DAY 28
RGBs (u.g/L)
Aroclor-1242 <0.11
Aroclor-1260 <0.21
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mV) -24
Filterable Residue (TDS) (mg/L) 380
Oil & Grease, infrared (mg/L) <0.40
pH (pH units) 11.1
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 6.3
<0.10
<0.20
-22
310
<0.40
11.1
5.3
<0.22
<0.020
<0.040
-33
340
<0.40
11.2
5.3
-52
350
<0.50
10.9
5.3
<0.10
<0.20
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0020
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0010
<0.0020
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
0.57
0.32
<0.0020
<0.0050
93
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
17
<0.020
0.57
0.35
<0.0020
<0.0050
95
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
11
<0.020
0.53
0.37
<0.0020
<0.0050
98
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
9.8
0.037
0.50
0.39
<0.0020
<0.0050
93
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
12
<0.020
0.70
0.40
<0.0020
<0.0050
88
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
16
<0.020
-62
340
<0.40
11.3
6.0
45
-------
Figure C-2. Closely Formed Stack of Treated Waste Monoliths
46
-------
Table C-12. Chemical Analyses of ANS 16.1 Leachate from Treated Off-Site Area One Waste
DAY1 DAY 3 DAY 7 DAY 14 DAY 28
PCBs (u,g/L)
Aroclor-1242 <0.21
Aroclor-1260 <0.42
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Sodium
Zinc
Other Chemical Tests
Eh (mV) . -32
Filterable Residue (TDS) (mg/L) 610
Oil & Grease, infrared (mg/L) 1.9
pH (pH units) 11.1
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 13
<0.21
<0.42
-28
570
1.7
11.4
11
<0.22
-48
620
1.9
11.4
13
<0.020
<0.040
-G7
740
1.1
11.1
11
<0.11
<0.22
0.0070
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
0.0053
<0.00020
<0.0040
<0.0020
0.0063
<0.00020
<0.0050
<0.0020
0.0063
<0.00030
<0.0040
<0.0010
0.0080
<0.00020
' <0.0040
<0.0020
<0.20
0.33
<0.0020
<0.0050
110
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
17
<0.020
0.30
0.42
<0.0020
<0.0050
130
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
11
<0.020
0.37
0.54
<0.0020
<0.0050
150
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
9.9
<0.020
0.43
0.(37
<0.0020
<0.00i>0
170
<0.030
<0.020
0
<0.020
11
<0.020
0.73
0.90
<0.0020
<0.0050
220
<0.030
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
13
<0.020
-78
870
3.2
11.7
20
Table C-13. WILT Test Results Through Week 28
Off-Site
Parameter
PCBsa (|xg/cm2)
Metals3 (ng/cm2)
Aluminum
Calcium
Sodium
Lead
TOG" (ng/cm2)
TDSa (mg/cm2)
pHd
Area One
Column
Small Large
NDb ND
19 47
5500 2100
1100 1100
ND 0.04
NCC 770
NC 20
11.9 11.6
Filter Cake
Column
Small Large
ND ND
24 32
3600 4000
620 890
0.09 0.13
NC 610
NC 23
11.4 11.3
Notes:
Filter Cake/
Oily Sludge
Column
Small Large
ND ND
34
1900
1100
ND
NC
NC
11.7
53
1400
1100
0.27
200
9.4
11.4
Cumulative amount leached from cylinders over 28 weeks is expressed as mass per cm2 of cylinder surface area.
The small cylinders are 3 inches in diameter and 18 inches in height. The large cylinders are 6 inches in diameter and
18 inches in height.
Not detected.
Not calculable.
d The pH value represents the average pH over the length of the 28 week test.
47
-------
Overall Demonstration Schedule
The overall demonstration schedule allowed one day for
mobilization of the Soliditech equipment three days for waste
treatment, and one day for demobilization of the Soliditech
equipment. Due to delays in the collection of the waste material
and the minor electrical problem, waste treatment did not start
until the end of the second day. All waste treatment runs were
completed on schedule. The Soliditech equipment was demo-
bilized on schedule. Site preparation required three days and
site demobilization required four days after the equipment was
removed.
References for Appendix C
U.S. EPA, 1986. Prohibition on the Placement of Bulk Liquid
Hazardous Waste in Landfills, Statutory Interpretative
Guidance. EPA/530/SW86/016,1986.
U.S.EPA, 1990. Technology EvaluationReport, SITE Program
Demonstration Test, Soliditech, Inc. Solidification/
Stabilization Process. U.S. EPA, KREL, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/540/5-89/005a, February 1990.
48
-------
Appendix D
Case Studies
[This appendix was prepared by the developer, Soliditech,
Inc. according to guidance provided by U.S. EPA.]
Soliditech has only recently initiated the commercial de-
velopment phase. Although extensive research and develop-
ment programs have been conducted, they have no extensive
history of commercial projects. However, the process equip-
ment and solidification technology have been used by
Soliditech's subcontractor, Malone Service Company, on a
variety of projects. The nature and scale of these projects are
described below.
Remediation of Site Contaminated with Oil Field
Chemicals
This project consisted of the solidification of approximately
3,000 drums of sand, top soil, clay and rock from the west Texas
area (Odessa) contaminated with oilfield chemicals (primarily
amines). Mobilization to the site was approximately 400 miles.
Preparation at the site included constructing and lining (with
PVC) a small pad used for the mixing equipment and for
discharging the treated waste from the mixer. A specially
equipped front-end loader for drum handling was used to
transport the drummed waste from the holding area to the
mixing unit. Other equipment used included the 10-cubicyard
mixer, the pozzolan silo (kiln dust), a drum crusher and a 2 to
4 inch grating over the mixer to screen out large objects. The
site owner disposed of the treated waste and handled negotia-
tions and arrangements with state regulatory authorities.
The project required two full-time equipment operators
on-site and was completed in approximately three and one-half
weeks. Although minor equipment maintenance was required,
the mixing and solidification process was completed without
incident. The project was conducted on a day-rate basis because
of the variables introduced by handling materials packaged in
drums. All-inclusive billable project costs were approximately
$850 per day.
Monthly Chemical Industry Servicing
This is an ongoing service contract to stabilize drainage
sump material containing various organic chemicals, such as
styrene, benzene, and oxy-alcohol; and heavy metals, such as
mercury and chrome. The solidif icafion is conducted using the
10-cubic yard mixer mounted on a low-boy trailer and an
additional trailer to transport 85 gallon drums of pozzolan (fly
ash). The fly ash is transferred into the mixer using a drum-
handling device. Each service job requires approximately six to
eight hours, because the waste is transferred into the mixer by
the client's personnel because of plant policies. The treated
material is discharged into one or more 20-yard roll-off con-
tainers, where it is allowed to cure for one to four days prior to
disposal at an appropriate landfill facility.
Remediation of Superfund Site - PCS
Contaminated Soil
This project consisted of processing approximately 1,200
severely deteriorated drums of soil and clay contaminated with
SOOparts per million (ppm)ofpolychlorrnatedbiphenyls(PCBs).
The drums had been stored uncovered on unprotected ground
and had become damaged to the degree that normal drum
handlingprocedures were ineffective. Drums had to bemanually
removed from contents and manually lifted onto the forklifts.
This required five field technicians (including operators) for
approximately three weeks. Equipment used included the 10-
cubic yard mixer, pozzolan silo (fly ash), a front-end loader,
drum crusher, two forklifts (one all-terrain), one backhoe (John
Deer 690), and roll-off containers for receiving treated waste
discharge.
The above-described projects illustrate that waste handling
and transport to the mixer are among the most significant
factors determining the time and cost required for field service
remediation projects. As such, jobs are typically costed on a
day-rate basis.
These examples, although limited, demonstrated that the
process is applicable to containerized waste as well as waste
streams in bulk form. The process can be applied effectively
and economically in a variety of settings.
49
-------
-------
-------
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Please make all necessary changes on the above label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE a;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
EPA/540/A5-89/005
------- |