United;otates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-97/507
February 1998
Molecular Bonding System®
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
-------
EPA/540/R-97/507
February 1998
MOLECULAR BONDING SYSTEM®
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Offfice of Research and Development under
the auspices of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program funded the research
described here under Contract No. 68-C5-0001 to Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved
for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land,
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a
science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how
pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of
indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation
of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering
information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support
and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It
is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This project consisted of an evaluation of the Molecular Bonding System® (MBS®) developed by
Solucorp® Industries Ltd. to reduce the teachability of heavy metals in soils and other solid wastes.
As a part of this evaluation, a demonstration of the technology was conducted by the SITE Program
at the Midvale Slag Superfund Site in Midvale, Utah. The overall goal of the demonstration was to
evaluate the effectiveness of the MBS process in treating approximately 500 tons each of three
hazardous wastes/soils at the Midvale Slag Superfund Site. In addition, demonstration results and
other sources of cost information were used to develop detailed cost estimates for full-scale
application of the technology. Like other solidification/stabilization (S/S) technologies, the MBS
process does not reduce total metals concentrations but instead reduces the teachability of the
metals. Therefore, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Synthetic Precipitation
Leaching Procedure (SPLP) were used to evaluate leachable concentration reductions of arsenic
(As), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb).
The primary objective of the demonstration was to demonstrate that the mean concentration of TCLP
leachable Pb in each of three wastes/soils treated by the MBS process is less than the regulatory limit
of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), at a 90 percent confidence level (CL). The secondary project
objectives were to:
1) Measure TCLP, SPLP, and total metals concentrations (As, Cd, and Pb) and pH in untreated
waste/soil (results from these samples were used as a "baseline" to interpret treated sample
results.
2) Measure TCLP metals concentrations (As and Cd) and pH (TCLP) in MBS-treated
wastes/soils.
3) Measure SPLP and total metals concentrations (As, Cd, and Pb) and pH (SPLP and total)
in MBS-treated wastes/soils.
4) Measure hydraulic conductivity and unconfined compressive strength (DCS) in MBS-treated
wastes/soils.
5) Measure density in the untreated and MBS-treated wastes/soils.
6) Measure the volume increase of each treated waste/soil that could be attributed to the MBS
process using process measurements (mass throughput in tons, MBS agent addition in
pounds, and water addition in gallons) and density measurements performed on treated and
untreated sample composites.
7) Measure leachable metals (As, Cd, and Pb) concentrations in the leachate from a Multiple
Extraction Procedure (MEP) test performed on each treated waste/soil.
8) Measure reactive sulfide in untreated and treated composite samples.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
Foreword j|j
Abstract iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations x
English to Metric Conversion Chart xiii
Acknowledgments xiv
Executive Summary JES-1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Brief Description of Program and Reports 1
1.2 Purpose of the ITER 2
1.3 Technology Description 2
1.4 Description of the Demonstration Location 3
1.5 Description of Demonstration Activities 4
1.6 Summary of Demonstration Results 4
1.7 Key Contacts 5
2.0 Technology Applications Analysis 6
2.1 Regulatory Considerations 6
2.1.1 CERCLA 6
2.1.2 RCRA 9
2.1.3 CAA 13
2.1.4 SDWA 13
2.1.5 CWA 13
2.1.6 TSCA 13
2.1.7 OSHA 14
2.2 Operability of the MBS Unit 14
2.3 Technology Applicability 14
2.4 Key Features of the MBS Technology 15
2.5 Availability and Transportability of the Technology 15
2.6 Materials Handling Requirements 15
2.7 Site Support Requirements 15
2.8 Limitations of the Technology 16
2.9 References 16
3.0 Economic Analysis 17
3.1 Introduction 17
3.2 Basis of Economic Analysis 17
3.3 Issues and Assumptions 17
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs 18
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 19
3.3.3 Equipment Costs 19
3.3.4 Startup and Fixed Costs 20
3.3.5 Operating Costs for Treatment 21
3.3.6 Cost for Supplies 22
3.3.7 Cost for Consumables 22
3.3.8 Cost for Effluent Treatment and Disposal 23
3.3.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport Costs 23
3.3.10 Cost for Analytical Services 23
3.3.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 23
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs 24
3.4 Results of the Economic Analysis 24
3.5 References 25
4.0 Treatment Effectiveness 26
4.1 Background 26
4.1.1 SITE Demonstration Testing - April/May 1997 26
4.1.2 SW Re-treatment-June 1997 28
4.2 Methodology 28
4.2.1 Field Procedures 28
4.2.2 Analytical Procedures 29
4.3 Demonstration Results 30
4.3.1 TCLP Pb Results 30
4.3.2 TCLP As and Cd Results 31
4.3.3 SPLP As, Cd, and Pb Results 32
4.3.4 Total As, Cd, and Pb Results 32
4.3.5 MEP Results 32
4.3.6 Treated Waste/Soil Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS Results 33
4.3.7 Density of Untreated and Treated Wastes/Soils 33
4.3.8 Volume Increase Due to MBS Treatment 35
4.3.9 Reactive Sulfide in Untreated and Treated Wastes/Soils 36
4.4 QA/QC Summary 36
4.5 Residuals 37
4.6 References 37
5.0 Other Technology Requirements 38
5.1 Environmental Regulation Requirements 38
5.2 Personnel Issues 38
5.3 Community Acceptance 39
6.0 Technology Status 40
Appendix A. Predemonstration Results A-1
Appendix B. Performance Data B-1
Appendix C. Case Studies C-1
Appendix D. Vendor Claims D-1
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Schematic of the MBS Technology 3
2 Site Waste Area Locations - Midvale Slag Superfund Site 27
3 TCLP Pb Concentrations in Treated Wastes/Soils 30
D-1 MBS Onsite Process Flow Diagram D-3
D-2 MBS Inline Process Flow Diagram D-3
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
ES-1 Upper 90 Percent CL Concentrations of TCLP Leachable Pb, mg/L
ES-2 Superfund Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the MBS Process
1 Potential Federal ARARs for the Use of the MBS Process at a Superfund Site ...
2 Twelve Cost Categories for the MBS Technology SITE Demonstration
3 Site Preparation Costs
4 Wages and Levels of Effort for Labor During Startup and Demobilization
5 Startup and Fixed Costs
6 Operating Costs for Treatment
7 Cost of Supplies
8 Cost of Consumables
9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport Costs
10 Site Demobilization Costs
11 Costs for Treating 2.07 Million Tons with 5,000 TPD Throughput
12 Costs for Treating 0.47 Million Tons with 5,000 TPD Throughput
13 TCLP Pb Concentrations, mg/L
14 TCLP As and Cd Concentrations, mg/L
15 SPLP As, Cd, and Pb Concentrations, mg/L
16 Total As, Cd, and Pb Concentrations, mg/kg
17 Metals Concentrations in MEP Leachates from Treated Soils and Single
MEP Leachates from Untreated Soils
18 Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS Measurements for Treated Wastes/Soils
19 Density Measurements for Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
20 Overall Process Results
A-1 Treatability Study Waste/Soil Characterization Results, TCLP Leachates
A-2 Treatability Study Results, Untreated Wastes/Soils
A-3 Tier I Treatability Study TCLP Results, TCLP Leachates
A-4 Tier II Treatability Study Results, TCLP and SPLP Leachates (mg/L)
A-5 Tier II Treatability Study Results After Pretreatment, TCLP Leachates
A-6 Predemonstration Waste/Soil Characterization Results, TCLP Leachates
A-7 TM-SW Pretreatment Characterization Results, TCLP Leachates
B-1 Tabulated Values of Student's "t"
B-2 TCLP Pb Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations
B-3 TCLP As and Cd Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations ...
B-4 TCLP pH Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
B-5 SPLP As, Cd, and Pb Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations
B-6 SPLP pH Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
B-7 Total As, Cd, and Pb Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations
B-8 Soil pH and Percent Solids Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
B-9 Metals Concentrations in MEP Leachates - Treated Wastes/Soils
B-10 Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS Results - Treated Wastes/Soils
B-11 Density Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
ES-1
ES-2
. 7
. 18
. 19
. 20
. 21
. 22
, . 22
, . 23
,. 23
, . 24
, . 24
. . 25
. . 30
. . 31
. . 32
.. 33
34
33
35
36
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-5
A-7
A-7
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-3
B-6
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-8
B-9
B-9
VIII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
B-12 Reactive Sulfide Results - Untreated and Treated Wastes/Soils B-11
B-13 Process Monitoring Data Collected During SF Treatment B-12
B-14 Process Monitoring Data Collected During SB Treatment B-13
B-15 Process Monitoring Data Collected During SW Treatment B-14
B-16 Process Monitoring Data Collected During TM-SW Treatment B-15
B-17 Auger/MBS Agent Addition Results B-16
D-1 Commercial Project Summary D-2
D-2 Remediation Technology Comparison Matrix D-2
IX
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Ag silver
AOC area of contamination
AQ air-quenched
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirement
As
arsenic
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center
Ba barium
BD baghouse dust
BOAT Best Demonstrated Available
Technology
BLW Butterfield Lumber Waste
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
CAA Clean Air Act
CAMU corrective action management unit
Cd cadmium
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CI confidence interval
CL
CLU-IN
cm/sec
Cr
Cu
CW
CWA
EPA
ft2
gal
gpm
hr
H2S
ICP
ITER
Ibs/ft3
LDRs
LRL
MBS
MCL
confidence level
Cleanup Information
centimeter per second
chromium
copper
Calcine Waste
Clean Water Act
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
square feet
gallon
gallon per minute
hour
hydrogen sulfide
inductively coupled plasma
Innovative Technology Evaluation
Report
pounds per cubic foot
Land Disposal Restrictions
laboratory reporting limit
Molecular Bonding System
maximum contaminant level
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
MEP Multiple Extraction Procedure
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
min minute
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPL National Priority List
NRMRL National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
NTIS National Technical Information
Service
ORD Office of Research and
Development
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Pb
PCB
PEL
PM10
lead
polychlorinated biphenyl
permissible exposure limit
particulates less than 10 microns in
diameter
POTW publicly-owned treatment works
PPE personal protective equipment
ppm parts per million
psi pounds per square inch
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RPM remedial project manager
SAIC Science Applications International
Corporation
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SARA Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
SB Slag B
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
Se selenium
SF soil/fill
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching
Procedure
S/S solidification/stabilization
START Superfund Technical Assistance
Response Team
SW Miscellaneous Smelter Waste
Without Brick
SWB Miscellaneous Smelter Waste with
Brick
TBC to be considered
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
TER Technology Evaluation Report
XI
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
TM-SW SW collected for retest
tpd tons per day
tph tons per hour
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TU temporary unit
TWA time-weighted average
UCS unconfined compressive strength
UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
VISITT Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies
WAM
WLS
WQ
yd3
Zn
Work Assignment Manager
Wright Laboratory Services
water-quenched
cubic yard
zinc
xii
-------
ENGLISH TO METRIC CONVERSION CHART
English (U.S.)
cm = centimeter
ft = foot, ft2 = square foot, ft3 = cubic foot
gpm = gallon(s) per minute
hr = hour
kg = kilogram
L = liter
Ib = pound
m = meter, m2 = square meter, m3 = cubic meter
min = minute
ppm = part(s) per million
Pa = pascal
psi = pound(s) per square inch
sec = second
tpd = ton(s) per day
tph = ton(s) per hour
yd = yard, yd 2 = square yard, yd 3 = cubic yard
Metric (SI)
Area:
Concentration:
Density:
Flow Rate:
Length:
Mass:
Pressure:
Speed:
Volume:
1ft2
1 yd2
1 ppm
1 Ib/ft 3
1 ton/yd 3
1 gpm
1 Ib/hr
1 Ib/min
1 tpd
1 tph
1 ft
1 mile
1 yd
1 Ib
1 ton
1 psi
1 ft/min
1ft3
1 gallon
1 yd3
9.2903 x 10 -2m2
0.8361 m 2
1 mg/kg or 1 mg/L
16.01 8 kg/m3
1,186kg/m3
0.2271 2 m3/hr
0.45359 kg/hr
0.45359 kg/min
907. 18 kg/day
907.1 8 kg/hr
0.3048 m
1,609m
0.9144m
0.45359 kg
907.18kg
6,895 Pa
0.5080 cm/sec
2.8317x10'2m3
3.7854 x 10 -3m3
0.7646 m 3
XIII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program report was prepared under the
direction and coordination of Thomas J. Holdsworth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Work Assignment Manager (WAM). Gwen
Hooten of EPA Region 8 and Robert Stenburg of EPA-NRMRL reviewed the document. Gwen
Hooten, Ed Clement of Sverdrup, and Clark Whitlock of the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR) provided field planning and implementation support.
This report was prepared for EPA's SITE Program by the Energy and Environment Group of Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in Cincinnati, Ohio under Contract No.68-C5-0001. This
report was written by Evelyn Meagher-Hartzell, George Wahl, Kurt Whitford, and Sharon Krietemeyer
of SAIC. The authors are especially grateful to Mike Bolen, David Waite, and Tom Burrup of SAIC,
who performed various field activities, and to Lauren Drees, formerly of SAIC, and Tom Wagner of
SAIC who performed data validation and contributed significantly to the development of this
document. The SAIC WAM for the project was Jim Rawe.
xiv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document presents an evaluation of the Molecular
Bonding System® (MBS®) and its ability to chemically
stabilize three metals-contaminated wastes/soils during a
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
demonstration conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The patent-pending Solucorp®
MBS utilizes a solid-phase chemical stabilization process
to reduce the teachability of heavy metals such as arsenic
(As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead
(Pb), mercury, and zinc (Zn) contained in soils, sludges,
sediments, and other solid wastes. According to Solucorp,
the MBS process rapidly converts metal compounds (e.g.,
hydroxides, carbonates, and oxides) to less-soluble
metallic sulfides.
During the SITE demonstration, the MBS process treated
approximately 500 tons each of the following wastes/soils
from the Midvale Slag Superfund Site in Midvale, Utah:
Soil/Fill (SF), Slag Pile B (SB), and Miscellaneous Smelter
Waste Without Brick (SW). The primary objective of the
SITE demonstration was to demonstrate that the mean
concentration of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) leachable Pb, in each of the three
wastes/soils, was reduced to less than the regulatory limit
of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), at a 90 percent confidence
level (CL). Secondary objectives included measuring the
TCLP leachate concentrations of As and Cd, and Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) leachate
concentrations of As, Cd, and Pb in each of the treated
wastes/soils. An additional 500 tons of SW, designated
TM-SW, was treated at Solucorp's expense after the initial
treatment of SW resulted in TCLP Cd concentrations
exceeding the regulatory limit of 1 mg/L. Solucorp believes
that the MBS agent contained a low purity (approximately
50 percent of the target value) sulfide component that
resulted in higher than expected leachable metals
concentrations in the treated SW. The TM-SW treatment
reportedly utilized a higher purity sulfide component in the
MBS formula, but was otherwise similar to the SITE
demonstration tests.
A'Category II Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was
developed for this project. Samples were collected using
standardized procedures, and analyses were performed
using standard EPA and American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) methods to ensure the
representativeness and comparability of the data. For the
primary objective, all quality measurements were within
control limits. For the secondary objectives, only minor
quality issues were identified; their impact on project
objectives was negligible. Statistical analyses of results
consisted of calculating a mean value for TCLP, SPLP, and
total metals. A one-sided upper 90 percent CL was
calculated for TCLP and SPLP results; a two-sided 90
percent confidence interval (Cl) was calculated for total
metals results.
MBS demonstration results indicate that the mean and
upper 90 percent CL concentrations of TCLP leachable Pb
in each of the three wastes/soils were reduced to less than
the TCLP regulatory limit of 5 mg/L. Table ES-1 presents
the upper 90 percent CL concentrations of TCLP leachable
Pb in the untreated and treated wastes/soils.
Table ES-1. Upper 90 Percent CL Concentrations of TCLP
Leachable Pb, mg/L
Waste/Soil
SF
SB
SW
TM-SW
Untreated
33
20
46
17
Treated
0.20
1.0
3.4
0.40
Other demonstration results are:
• The mean TCLP leachable As concentrations
increased slightly with treatment, but were below
the TCLP regulatory limit of 5 mg/L in each of the
untreated and treated wastes/soils.
ES-1
-------
The mean TCLP leachable Cd concentrations
were below the TCLP regulatory limit of 1 mg/L in
both the untreated and treated SF and SB; the
mean TCLP leachable Cd concentrations in the
untreated and treated SW were 2.1 and 1.1 mg/L,
respec-tively. In the TM-SW, the mean TCLP Cd
concen-trations decreased from 0.5 to less than
0.01 mg/L.
SPLP leachable As, Cd, and Pb concentrations
were below their respective regulatory limits in the
treated and untreated SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW.
The mean volume increases in the treated SF, SB,
SW, and TM-SW were 16, 4,13, and 14 percent,
respectively, as compared to the excavated, un-
treated waste/soil.
Other than dilution effects, total metals con-
centrations were not affected by the treatment
process.
Process throughput of untreated waste/soil aver-
aged 52,59,56, and 61 tons per hour (tph) for the
SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW, respectively.
• Treated wastes/soils passed EPA's Multiple Ex-
traction Procedure (MEP) for As, Cd, and Pb; how-
ever, no conclusion could be drawn regarding the
effect of treatment on long-term stability because
there was no change in the measured leachable
metals concentrations from the treated to the
untreated wastes/soils.
• Total costs for treatment of approximately 2.07 mil-
lion tons [1,090,000 cubic yards (yd 3)] of SF, SB,
and SW were estimated assuming a system
capac-ity of 5,000 tons per day (tpd). Based on
scale-up from the demonstration and information
from Solu-corp and other sources, costs were
estimated at $20 per ton of waste/soil at the
Midvale Slag Site. The total treatment time,
including startup and demobilization, is estimated
to be 1.7 years.
The MBS process was also evaluated based on the nine
criteria used to evaluate technologies in the Superfund
feasibility study process. Table ES-2 presents the results
of this evaluation.
Table ES-2. Superfund Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the MBS Process
a,b
Evaluation Criterion
Performance
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
Federal ARAB0
Compliance
Long-term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Reduction of Toxlcity,
Mobility, and Volume
through Treatment
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementabllity
Cost"
State Acceptance
May provide protection by reducing leachability of contaminant metals.
Stabilizes, but does not destroy contaminants.
Demonstrated ability to reduce leachable concentrations of As, Cd, and Pb to less than their respective
TCLP regulatory limits of 5.0,1.0, and 5.0 mg/L.
May have to meet substantive requirements of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
treatment permit if treating hazardous waste.
Treated waste should meet Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) for leachability of metals.
Technology should meet air emissions limits, using appropriate pollution control technologies.
Compliance with Clean Water Act regulations should be attainable or not applicable.
Treated wastes/soils pass MEP test; however, no conclusion could be drawn regarding the effect of
treatment on long-term stability because there was no change in the measured leachable metals
concentrations from the untreated to the treated wastes/soils.
Treatment reduces mobility of contaminant metals, reducing routes of exposure.
Treatment increased the waste volume during SITE demonstration by 4 to 16 percent.
Treatment may reduce toxicity by converting some metal compounds to less-toxic forms.
Implementation of the MBS technology may produce odor concerns, but air pollution control equipment
should ameliorate short-term impacts to human health and the environment.
Technology should be implementable at sites with sufficient space for setup, support, and operation.
Technology does not require site infrastructure to operate.
Most equipment components are readily available, allowing faster setup and reduced downtime.
Technology may be amenable to in situ applications.
The cost of using this technology is estimated at $20 per ton of material treated.
Willingness of vendor to perform bench- and pilot-scale treatability tests should increase acceptability.
ES-2
-------
Evaluation Criterion
Performance
Community Acceptance
Odor concerns may be raised by community.
Use of the technology to decrease teachability, fled with institutional controls for treated material, should be
a readily understandable remediation approach.
a Based on the results of the SITE demonstration at the Midvale Slag Superfund Site
b Information contained in this table should not be used without examining all other parts of a complete treatment alternative.
c ARARs = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
d Actual cost of the technology is site-specific and dependent on soil characteristics and types, total mass, and contaminant concentrations.
ES-3
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A demonstration of the Molecular Bonding System®
(MBS®) was conducted by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL). Solucorp® Industries Ltd.,
the developer of the MBS process, was responsible for
system installation and operation during the demonstration.
EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program conducted sampling, analytical, and report writing
activities and evaluation of the MBS process in support of
this effort. Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC) was the SITE Program contractor for the
implementation of this demonstration.
This introduction provides an overview of (1) the SITE
Program, (2) the purpose of this Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report (ITER), (3) the MBS process, (4) the
demonstration location, (5) demonstration activities, (6)
demonstration results, and (7) additional sources of
information on the SITE Program and the demonstration.
Section 2 presents an applications analysis for the tech-
nology. Section 3 discusses the results of an economic
analysis of the technology. Section 4 presents the results
of the demonstration. Section 5 discusses requirements to
be considered when using the technology. Section 6 dis-
cusses the status of the technology. Appendix A contains
the results of treatability studies performed for the Midvale
Slag Superfund Site. Appendix B contains the performance
data from the demonstration. Appendix C contains the
case studies. Appendix D contains vendor claims for the
technology.
1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
AND REPORTS
In 1986, the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) established the SITE Program to
promote the development and use of innovative
technologies to clean up Superfund sites across the
country. Now in its eleventh year, the SITE Program is
helping to provide the treatment technologies necessary to
implement new Federal and State cleanup standards aimed
at permanent remedies rather than quick fixes. The SITE
Program is composed of four major elements: the Demon-
stration Program, the Emerging Technology Program, the
Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program, and
the Technology Transfer Program.
The major focus has been on the Demonstration Program,
which is designed to provide engineering and cost data for
selected technologies. To date, the Demonstration Pro-
gram projects have not included funding for technology
developers. EPA and developers participating in the pro-
gram share the cost of the demonstration. Developers are
responsible for demonstrating their innovative systems at
chosen sites, usually Superfund sites. EPA is responsible
for sampling, analyzing, and evaluating all test results. The
final product of each demonstration is an assessment of the
technology's performance, reliability, and costs. This in-
formation is used in conjunction with other data to select
the most appropriate technologies for the cleanup of
Superfund sites.
Developers of innovative technologies apply to the
Demonstration Program by responding to EPA's annual
solicitation. EPA also accepts proposals any time a
developer has a Superfund waste treatment project
scheduled. To qualify for the program, a new technology
must be available as a pilot- or full-scale system and offer
some advantage over existing technologies. Mobile
technologies are of particular interest to EPA.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, EPA and the developer
work with the EPA regional offices and State agencies to
identify a site containing waste suitable for testing the
capabilities of the technology. EPA prepares a detailed
sampling and analysis plan designed to evaluate the
technology thoroughly and to ensure that the resulting data
are reliable. The duration of a demonstration varies from a
few days to several years, depending on the length of time
-------
and quantity of waste needed to assess the technology.
The second element of the SITE Program is the Emerging
Technology Program, which fosters the further investigation
and development of treatment technologies that are still at
the laboratory scale. Successful validation of these tech-
nologies can lead to the development of a system ready for
field demonstration and participation in the Demonstration
Program.
The third component of the SITE Program, the Measure-
ment and Monitoring Technologies Program, provides
assistance in the development and demonstration of
innovative technologies to improve characterization of
Superfund sites.
The fourth component of the SITE Program is the
Technology Transfer Program, which reports and distrib-
utes the results of both Demonstration Program and
Emerging Technology Program studies through ITERs and
abbreviated bulletins. A Technology Evaluation Report
(TER) was also developed for the MBS SITE demonstration.
TheTER provides greater detail on the demonstration and
presents a complete package of measurement results. The
TER is on file at EPA NRMRL
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ITER
The ITER provides Information on the MBS process and
includes a comprehensive description of the demonstration
and its results. The ITER is intended for use by EPA
remedial project managers (RPMs) and on-scene coordi-
nators, contractors, and others involved in the remediation
decision-making process and in the implementation of
specific remedial actions. The ITER is designed to aid
decision makers in determining whether specific tech-
nologies warrant further consideration as applicable options
In particular cleanup operations. To encourage the general
use of demonstrated technologies, EPA provides infor-
mation on the applicability of each technology to specific
sites and wastes. The ITER includes information on cost
and site-specific characteristics. It also discusses ad-
vantages, disadvantages, and limitations of the technology.
This report represents an important step in the development
and commercialization of the MBS process. Each SITE
demonstration evaluates the performance of a technology
In treating a specific waste. The waste characteristics at
other sites may differ from the characteristics of those
treated during this demonstration. Therefore, successful
field demonstration of a technology at one site does not
necessarily ensure that it will be applicable at other sites.
Data from the field demonstration may require extrapolation
to estimate the operating ranges in which the technology
will perform satisfactorily. Only limited conclusions can be
drawn from a single field demonstration.
1.3 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The patent-pending MBS process uses a proprietary
chemical formulation to remediate heavy metal
contamination in soils, sludges, sediments, and other solid
wastes. Solucorp claims that the MBS technology:
Chemically converts metal compounds (e.g.,
hydroxides, carbonates, and oxides) into less-
soluble metallic sulfides.
• Does not modify the pH of the waste/soil to
achieve chemical stabilization, providing an
advantage when treating multiple metals with
different solubility points.
• Does not alter the physical properties of the
waste/soil during treatment.
• Does not require a curing process.
• Produces a volume increase of less than 5 percent
due to the addition of the stabilization chemicals
(i.e., the"MBS agent1).
Cannot effectively treat wastes/soils with high
chloride content (in excess of 15 to 20 percent).
Can be implemented in situ. (Note: An ex situ
system was used during the demonstration, and
this ITER primarily addresses ex situ applications.)
Can treat certain metals that are present in reduced
form [e.g., arsenic (As)] with the addition of an
oxidizing agent.
During ex situ applications, treatment occurs onsite in a
treatment system comprised of a feed hopper, variable
speed conveyers, a storage silo for MBS agent, and a
pugmill (see Figure 1 for a schematic of the MBS
technology). Excavated soil is transferred to the steel hop-
per. The material may be transferred from storage piles
using a front-end loader, as was done during the demon-
stration, or direct feed from excavation to the system may
be appropriate. Untreated soil is then carried into the
pugmill by a conveyor. During treatment, the MBS agent is
transferred from the silo into the pugmill using a chemical
feed auger. The MBS agent is mixed with the untreated soil
in the pugmill. Water may also be added to the pugmill to
minimize dust and promote uniform mixing; 15 to 25 per-
-------
Offgas Collection Points
Figure 1. Schematic of the MBS technology.
types of oxidizing agents can be added during treatment to
cent total moisture is optimum. A belt scale is used to convert certain metals present in reduced forms (e.g., As)
monitor the rate at which treated soil exits the pugmill. to improve treatment effectiveness.
Covered conveyors are used to transport treated soil from
the pugmill to a temporary storage pile at the end of the
process. The conveyors are enclosed and equipped with
blowers to minimize fugitive hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emis-
sions. Emissions are collected from vacuum ports along
the tops of the conveyors and discharged into a manifold
that serves as the vapor inlet to air pollution control
equipment. According to Solucorp, drums of specially-
coated carbon may be used to treat H 2S emissions to
approximately 2 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m 3). If air
emission standards are more stringent, as was the case
during the SITE demonstration, a packed scrubber tower
may be used to reportedly reduce H 2S emissions to ap-
proximately 1 mg/m3. Scrubber water percolates through
the scrubber, countercurrent to the vapor stream being
treated. Used scrubber water effluent is pumped back to
the top of the tower. Effluent vapor is vented to the
atmosphere through an opening at the top of the scrubber
unit. (Note: The effectiveness of the wet scrubber was not
evaluated during the demonstration.)
After treatment, the blended soil may be either returned to
the site with an appropriate cover or disposed of offsite in
a Subtitle D landfill. The ultimate fate of the treated material
will be site-specific and will depend in part on the material's
characteristics and site-specific regulations and institutional
controls. The volume increase of the soil, due to the
addition of the MBS agent, varies depending on the
concentration of metals present in the untreated soil.
Volume increases observed during the demonstration
ranged from 4 to 16 percent of the original excavated soil
volume. Larger volume increases may be experienced if an
oxidizing agent is needed; however, these increases have
not been estimated since oxidation was not performed
during the demonstration. Solucorp claims that several
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE
DEMONSTRATION LOCATION
The Midvale Slag Superfund Site is located 12 miles south
of Salt Lake City, Utah, in Midvale, Utah. Mining ores were
smelted and refined at the 530 acre site from 1871 to 1958.
A slag screening operation was later operated at the
Midvale site from 1964 to 1992. The processed slag was
sold as fill and for use in shot and grit blasting. The
processed slag was also used in the construction of
railroad beds and road bases.
During refining and smelting activities, large quantities of
waste containing elevated heavy metals concentrations
were deposited directly on the surface. Soils and ground-
water underlying the site were contaminated by these
deposits. Currently, a large portion of the site is covered
with piles or layers of smelter waste, building demolition
debris, and mill tailings.
The site was placed on the Superfund National Priority List
(NPL) in 1986. In 1995, a removal action, consisting of
onsite solidification/stabilization (S/S) and disposal of
contaminated waste/soil in a clay covered disposal cell,
was approved. The contaminants of concern in the solid
media are As, cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb). The
contaminated media at the site have been divided into the
following six categories:
Calcine Waste (CW) - Roasted arsenopyrite ore
• Miscellaneous Smelter Waste - Tailings transported
from the adjacent Sharon Steel site, contaminated
baghouse bricks, pure As trioxide, and baghouse
-------
dust
• Soil/Fill (SF) - Mixture of slag, tailings, and native
soils
• Baghouse Dust (BD) - Material collected in a
"pond" structure washed from the smelter
baghouse
• Slag - Water-quenched (WQ) and air-quenched
(AQ) slags, iron slag, and copper (Cu) slag
Butterfleid Lumber Waste (BLW) - Contaminated
soB and demolition debris from Butterfield Lumber.
Because portions of the miscellaneous smelter waste
contain larger amounts of the contaminated baghouse
brick, the miscellaneous smelter waste can be broken into
two additional subcategories: 1) Miscellaneous Smelter
Waste with Brick (SWB); and 2) Miscellaneous Smelter
Waste Without Brick (SW).
1.5 DESCRIPTION OF DEMONSTRATION
ACTIVITIES
During the SITE demonstration, the MBS process treated
approximately 500 tons of each of the following three
contaminated wastes/soils from the Midvale site: SF, Slag
B (SB), and SW. About 7 weeks after the treatment of these
wastes was complete, Solucorp excavated and treated a
second batch of the SW (designated TM-SW). Solucorp
decided to re-treat the SW after being notified that Cd
concentrations in Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Pro-
cedure (TCLP) leachates from the treated SW samples
exceeded the TCLP limit of 1 milligram per liter (mg/L).
Although the re-treatment of the SW was funded by
Solucorp, the TM-SW was excavated, processed, and
treated according to the same procedures followed by the
SITE Program during the original treatment of the SW. To
reduce analytical costs, however, the samples were only
analyzed for total and TCLP As, Cd, Pb, and pH, and
density. The MBS agent used during the treatment of the
TM-SW also reportedly contained a higher purity sulfide
component than the MBS agent used during the treatment
oftheSW. Analytical results from samples collected during
TM-SW treatment are summarized in Section 4 of this ITER
with the demonstration results.
The SF and SB were treated from April 8,1997 through April
21, 1997. The SW was treated from May 5,1997 through
May 8, 1997, and the TM-SW was treated from June 23,
1997 through June 25, 1997. In total, the demonstration
was performed over approximately 18 days, of which 4
days were spent treating the 4 wastes/soils (1 day per
waste/soil). The remaining 14 days were consumed by
system startup testing and initial equipment calibration
checks (3 days), system repairs and operating problems (3
days), system decontamination and calibration checks
between wastes/soils and after the last waste/soil (4 days),
and delays associated with the delivery of the MBS agent (4
days).
1.6 SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION
RESULTS
The results obtained in support of the primary objective are:
• The mean and upper 90 percent confidence level
(CL) concentrations of TCLP teachable Pb in each
of the three wastes/soils were reduced to less than
the TCLP regulatory limit of 5 mg/L. Upper 90 per-
cent CL concentrations were reduced from 33,20,
46, and 17 mg/L in the untreated SF, SB, SW, and
TM-SW to 0.20, 1.0, 3.4, and 0.40 mg/L in the
treated SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW, respectively.
The results obtained in support of the secondary objectives
are:
• The mean TCLP leachable As concentrations
increased slightly with treatment, but were below
the TCLP regulatory limit of 5 mg/L in each of the
untreated and treated wastes/soils.
• The mean TCLP leachable Cd concentrations were
below the TCLP regulatory limit of 1 mg/L in both
the untreated and treated SF and SB; the mean
TCLP leachable Cd concentrations in the untreated
and treated SW were 2.1 and 1.1 mg/L, respec-
tively. In the TM-SW, the mean TCLP Cd concen-
tration decreased from 0.5 to less than 0.01 mg/L.
• SPLP leachable As, Cd, and Pb concentrations
were below their respective regulatory limits in the
treated and untreated SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW.
• The mean volume increases in the treated SF, SB,
SW, and TM-SW were 16, 4, 13, and 14 percent,
respectively, as compared to the excavated,
untreated waste/soil.
• Other than dilution effects, total metals concentra-
tions were not affected by the treatment process.
• Process throughput of untreated waste/soil
averaged 52,59,56, and 61 tons per hour (tph) for
the SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW, respectively.
-------
Treated wastes/soils passed EPA's Multiple
Extraction Procedure (MEP) for As, Cd, and Pb;
however, no conclusion could be drawn regarding
the effect of treatment on long-term stability be-
cause there was no change in the measured
leachable metals concentrations from the untreat-
ed to the treated wastes/soils.
Total costs for treatment of approximately 2.07
million tons [1,090,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of SF,
SB, and SW were estimated assuming a system
capacity of 5,000 tons per day (tpd). Based on
scale-up from the demonstration and information
from Solucorp and other sources, costs were
estimated at $20 per ton of waste/soil at the
Midvale Slag Superfund Site. The total treatment
time, including startup and demobilization, is
estimated to be 1.7 years.
1.7 KEY CONTACTS
Further information concerning the MBS process described
in this report can be obtained by contacting the individuals
listed below:
1. EPA Project Manager for the SITE Demonstration:
Thomas J. Holdsworth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Phone: (513)569-7675
Fax: (513) 569-7676
E-mail: holdsworth.thomas@epamail.epa.gov
2. Technology Developer Contact:
Noel Spindler, Director of Technology
Solucorp Industries Ltd.
250 West Nyack Road
West Nyack, NY 10994
Phone: (914)623-2333
Fax: (914) 623-4987
E-mail: kuhnb@solucorpltd.com
3. EPA Midvale Slag Superfund Site RPM:
Gweri Hooten
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
8 EPR-SR
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Phone: (303) 312-6571/(303) 312-6601
Fax: (303) 312-6897
E-mail: hooten.gwen@epamail.epa.gov
4. Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ)
Project Manager:
Steve Poulsen
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West, 1st Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Phone: (801) 536-4238/4478 or 4480
Fax:(801)536-4242
E-mail: spoulsen@deq.state.ut.us
Information on the SITE Program is also available through
the following on-line information clearinghouses:
The Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC) is a comprehensive, automated
information retrieval system that integrates data on
hazardous waste treatment technologies into a
centralized, searchable source. This data base
provides summarized information on innovative
treatment technologies. The modem access
number is (513) 569-7610. Voice assistance is
available at (513) 569-7272. The TeiNet number is
CINBBS.CIN.EPA.GOV.
Version 5.0 of the Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT) data
base contains information on 346 technologies
offered by 210 developers. VISITT can be down-
loaded from www.prcemi.com/visitt. Technical
assistance or a disk copy of VISITT can be
obtained by calling (800) 245-4505.
The OSWER Cleanup Information (CLU-IN)
electronic bulletin board contains information on
the status of SITE technology demonstrations. The
system operator can be reached at (301) 589-8268.
Modem access is available at (301) 589-8366 or
www.clu-in.com.
Technical reports can be obtained by contacting EPA-
NRMRL's Technology Transfer Branch, 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 at (513) 569-7562.
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section provides information on the ability of the MBS
process to meet regulatory and operational requirements
associated with the remediation of Superfund sites.
Subsection 2.1 presents a discussion of the considerations
associated with seven major regulatory programs. The
operability, applicability, key features, availability and trans-
portability, material handling requirements, site support
requirements, and limitations of the MBS process are
discussed in Subsections 2.2 through 2.8.
2.1 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
This subsection discusses seven major regulatory
programs, starting with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
CERCLA requires compliance with all applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs), providing the
entrance point for the other regulations discussed in this
subsection. Since the MBS process is designed to treat
solid-phase materials, emphasis has been placed upon the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations. The other regulatory statutes discussed are
the Clean Air Act (CAA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
Clean Water Act (CWA), Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), and Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
Each statute can have corresponding State or local laws
that are more stringent or broader in scope than analogous
Federal regulations. Because State and local ARARs may
be different for each site, only Federal ARARs are evaluated
In this document. Table 1 briefly discusses the Federal
ARARs that should be considered when using the MBS
process at a Superfund site.
air, water, and land. Section 121 of SARA, Cleanup
Standards, states a strong statutory preference for
remedies that are highly reliable and provide long-term
protection. It strongly recommends that remedial actions
use onsite treatments that"... permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
substances." In considering remedial actions, EPA must
evaluate the following nine criteria [1]:
• Overall protection of human health and the
environment
• Compliance with ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
Cost
• State acceptance
Community acceptance.
An evaluation of the MBS process, using these nine criteria,
is presented in Table ES-2 of the Executive Summary. The
information in the table, however, should not be used as a
substitute for a complete, site-specific analysis of alter-
natives.
2.1.1 CERCLA
CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, provides for Federal
funding to respond to releases of hazardous substances to
2.1.1.1 ARARs
Of the nine criteria, compliance with ARARs can be one of
the most complex to evaluate. ARARs consist of Federal,
State, and local statutory or regulatory requirements that
must be considered when evaluating potential remedies at
-------
Table 1. Potential Federal ARARs for Use of the MBS Process at a Superfund Stte
Process Activity
Waste
characterization
(untreated waste
or soil)
Storage prior to
processing
Waste processing
Management of
wastewater
ARAR
RCRA regulations in 40 CFR" part
261 or State equivalent
TSCA regulations in 40 CFR part
761 or State equivalent
<90 days: RCRA regulations in 40
CFR part 262 or State equivalent
> 90 days: RCRA regulations in 40
CFR part 264 or State equivalent
< 1 year: TSCA regulations in 40
CFR part 761 .65
> 1 year: TSCA regulations in 40
CFR part 761 .65
RCRA regulations in 40 CFR part
264 or State equivalent
CAA regulations or State equivalent
CWA regulations in 40 CFR parts
301, 304, 306, 207, 308, 402, and
403 or State equivalent
SDWA regulations in 40 CFR parts
144 and 145 or State equivalent
Description
Identification and
characterization of the waste or
soil to be treated.
Standards that apply to the
storage, treatment, and disposal
of wastes containing PCBsb .
Standards applicable to the
storage of hazardous waste.
Standards applicable to the
storage of waste or soil with >50
ppm PCBs.
Standards applicable to the
treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste at permitted
facilities.
Standards applicable to
emissions from treatment
equipment.
Standards that apply to
discharge of contaminated water
into sewage treatment plants or
surface water bodies.
Standards that apply to the
disposal of contaminated water
in underground injection wells.
Basis
A requirement of RCRA prior to managing the
waste or soil.
During characterization of the soil, PCBs may
be identified and, if present above regulatory
thresholds (50 ppm° for TSCA), the material is
subject to TSCA regulations.
Waste or soil that is being managed (e.g., has
been excavated) and that meets the definition
of hazardous waste must meet substantive
requirements of RCRA storage regulations.
Storage must meet structural requirements.
Storage must meet structural requirements
and receive an interim remedy waiver.
If the waste or soil has been determined to be
hazardous, treatment must be conducted in a
manner that meets the substantive
requirements of a RCRA Part B permit.
Offgas from treatment may have to be
controlled to meet the substantive
requirements of air emissions regulations.
Water from air emissions control equipment
and decontamination procedures may not
meet local pretreatment standards without
further treatment or may require a NPDESd
permit for discharge to surface water.
Injection of wastewater, which may be the
preferred option at remote sites, must comply
with SDWA standards.
Response
Characterization must be performed
using (1) chemical and physical
analyses or (2) knowledge of the
process that generated the waste.
PCB analysis of soil must be performed
if potentially present.
Ensure storage containers and tanks are
in good condition, waste piles are
properly maintained, provide secondary
containment (where applicable), and
conduct regular inspections.
Provide adequate roof, walls, floor, and
curbing above the 100-year flood plain.
Provide adequate roof, walls, floor, and
curbing above the 100-year flood plain,
and receive a waiver prior to 1-year limit.
Equipment must be operated,
maintained, and monitored properly.
Wastes must be stored in accordance
with unit -specific requirements.
Modeling and monitoring may have to
be performed; emission control devices
may have to be installed.
Determine if the waste water could be
discharged to a sewage treatment plant
or surface water body without further
treatment. If not, the water may need to
be further treated to meet discharge
requirements.
If underground injection is selected as a
disposal mans for wastewater, testing
must be performed and permission
must be obtained from EPA to use
existing, permitted, underground
injection wells or to construct and
operate new wells.
a CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations
b PCBs are polychlorinated biphenyls
c ppm is parts per million
d NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
-------
Superfund sites. Under SARA, CERCLA response actions
must consider and comply with, or justify a waiver from, all
ARARs [1].
In most cases, the types and concentrations of contam-
inants present at the site determine which statutes and
regulations are ARARs. Consequently, it is important to
characterize media and wastes for additional contaminants
[e.g., organic compounds, nontarget metals, and polychlo-
rinated blphenyls (PCBs)] in addition to target compounds.
Typically, onsite response actions must comply with the
substantive portions of ARARs, while compliance with the
administrative requirements (e.g., filing permit applications)
is not required. Both the substantive and administrative
portions of the ARARs must be satisfied for offsite actions
(e.g., hazardous waste must be properly packaged and
manifests must be completed for offsite shipment of
hazardous waste). ARARs are divided into two categories,
applicable requirements and relevant and appropriate
requirements.
2.1.1.2 Applicable Requirements
Applicable requirements are the substantive standards that
address the specific situation at a CERCLA site. In deter-
mining the applicability of a Federal, State, or local
requirement, the following must be asked [1]:
• Who is subject to the requirement?
• What types of substances or activities fall under the
authority of the requirement?
• What is the time period for which the requirement
is in effect?
• What types of activities does the requirement
mandate, limit, or prohibit?
Once a requirement has been deemed applicable, it must
be followed or waived.
2.1.1.3 Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
If a statutory or regulatory requirement is deemed not to be
applicable, a determination of whether it is relevant and
appropriate must be made. For a Federal, State, or local
requirement that is not applicable to be an ARAR, the stat-
ute or regulation must be both relevant and appropriate. In
order to be relevant, a requirement must address problems
or situations sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the
proposed action. For a requirement to be appropriate, it
must be well-suited for a site. In determining the relevance
and appropriateness of a Federal, State, or local require-
ment, the following questions must be considered [1]:
What are the respective purposes of the response
action and the requirement?
Is the site to be remediated of the same type as
that regulated by the requirement?
Are the media affected by the response action and
addressed by the requirement the same?
Are the substances found at the site and addressed
by the requirement the same?
• Are the activities proposed for the site the same as
those addressed by the requirement?
Are the types and sizes of structures at the site the
same as those addressed by the requirement?
• Are any waivers, variances, or exemptions from the
requirement available to the site?
• Is the potential use of the affected resources
covered by the requirement?
Once a requirement has been deemed both relevant and
appropriate, it must be followed or waived.
2.1.1.4 ARAR Waivers
Recognizing that site-specific factors may require solutions
other than those indicated by ARARs, Congress provided
six statutory waivers that allow EPA to choose technically
and financially preferable options over ARARs. The situa-
tions with statutory waivers are [1]:
• Interim Measures (temporary actions where the
final actions will meet ARARs)
• Greater Risk to Health and the Environment (when
an ARAR is less protective)
• Technical Impracticability (when an ARAR is not
feasible from an engineering perspective)
• Equivalent Standards of Performance (for alternate
cleanup methods that meet performance stand-
ards)
• Inconsistent Application of State Requirements (for
State requirements that have not been uniformly
applied)
-------
Fund-Balancing (when the cost of attaining an
ARAR does not strike a balance between available
trust fund monies and the amount of environmental
protection achieved).
2.1.1.5 To Be Considered Materials
Many agencies develop criteria, guidance, and advisories
that are not backed by the force of law. The information,
however, is often very useful in performing CERCLA
cleanups. These"to be considered" (TBC) documents and
policies assist in moving from the broad criteria of many
ARARs to the specifics of implementation at a site. For this
reason, TBCs play an important role in complying with
ARARs.
2.1.2 RCRA
RCRA and the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) are the primary legislation and regulations governing
solid and hazardous waste activities. Subtitle C of RCRA
specifies requirements for the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal (i.e., management) of haz-
ardous waste. Compliance with the substantive portions of
these requirements is mandatory for CERCLA sites manag-
ing hazardous waste. Since these regulations can signifi-
cantly impact applications of the MBS process at CERCLA
sites, emphasis has been placed on this subsection.
2.1.2.1 Definition of Solid Waste
The applicability of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations
to a CERCLA action is determined through a series of
decisions starting with the type(s) of material to be
managed. In order for material to be subject to hazardous
waste regulations, it must first be considered solid waste, or
be media (i.e., soil or water) contaminated with solid waste.
Solid waste, as defined by 40 CFR 261.2, is any discarded
material that is not excluded by regulation of variance. A
discarded material is any material which is abandoned (i.e.,
disposed of, burned/incinerated, or accumulated, stored,
or treated before or in lieu of being abandoned), recycled
(i.e., used in a manner constituting re-use or burned for
energy recovery), or inherently waste-like. Most of the
materials suitable for treatment by the MBS process would
be considered solid waste under RCRA. All six of the
materials identified in Subsection 1.4 as present at the
Midvale Slag Superfund Site would be considered solid
waste or soil mixed with solid waste. The materials treated
during the SITE demonstration (SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW)
would be considered by-products and soil contaminated
with by-products from industrial operations at the site.
2.1.2.2 Definition of Hazardous Waste
In order to be subject to RCRA hazardous waste
regulations, materials that meet the definition of solid waste
also must meet the definition of hazardous waste found in
40 CFR 261.3. A solid waste is a hazardous waste if: it is
not one of the materials specifically excluded from
hazardous waste regulations (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)); it is
listed in 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33 (referred to as listed
hazardous wastes); is a mixture of solid waste and listed
hazardous waste (referred to as "the mixture rule"); it is
derived from the treatment of listed hazardous waste
(referred to as "the derived from rule"); or it exhibits one or
more of the four hazardous characteristics identified in 40
CFR 261.21 through 261.24 (referred to as characteristic
waste). Media (e.g., soil or water) that contain a listed
hazardous waste or display a hazardous characteristic also
must be managed as hazardous waste.
2.1.2.3 Excluded Solid Waste
Federal regulations exclude certain types of solid waste
from regulation as hazardous waste. Samples of waste to
be used in treatability studies are conditionally exempt from
Federal hazardous waste regulation (see 40 CFR 261.4(e)).
Solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and minerals, commonly known as the
Bevill Amendment wastes, are another category of solid
waste excluded from Federal hazardous waste regulations.
(States, however, have the authority to regulate Bevill
Amendment wastes as hazardous by declining to adopt the
exemption into their hazardous waste regulations.) In 40
CFR261.4(b)7, EPA has adopted the following description
of "beneficiation" of ores and minerals:
"crushing; grinding; washing; dissolution;
crystallization; filtration; sorting; sizing;
drying; sintering; pelletizing; briquetting;
calcining to remove water and/or carbon
dioxjde; roasting, autoclaving, and/or
chlorination in preparation for leaching
(except where the roasting (and/or
autoclaving and/or chlorination)/leaching
sequence produces a final or intermediate
product that does not undergo further
beneficiation or processing); gravity con-
centration; magnetic separation; electro-
static separation; flotation; ion exchange;
solvent extraction; electro-winning; precip-
itation; amalgamation; and heap, dump,
vat, tank, and in situ leaching."
The same section defines solid waste from the "processing"
of ores as the following (wastes listed in the regulations
-------
which appear to be amenable to treatment by the MBS
process are presented in bold font):
"slag from primary Cu processing; slag
from primary Pb processing; red and
brown muds from bauxite refining; phos-
phogypsum from phosphoric acid produc-
tion; slag from elemental phosphorus
production; gasifier ash from coal gas-
ification; process wastewater from coal
gasification; calcium sulfate wastewater
treatment plant sludge from primary Cu
processing; slag tailings from primary
Cu processing; fluorogypsum from hy-
drofluoric acid production; process waste-
water from hydrofluoric acid production;
air pollution control dust/sludge from
iron blast furnaces; treated residue from
roasting/leaching of chrome ore; pro-
cess wastewater from primary magnesium
processing by the anhydrous process;
process wastewater from phosphoric acid
production; basic oxygen furnace and
open hearth furnace air pollution con-
trol dust/sludge from carbon steel
production; chloride process waste
solids from titanium tetrachloride pro-
duction; and slag from primary zinc (Zn)
processing" [2].
Treatment of these wastes, or soil that displays a hazardous
characteristic solely due to the presence of these wastes,
would not be subject to Federal hazardous waste
regulations. Based upon the available information, it
appears that the untreated SB would be excluded from
Federal hazardous waste regulations. Since the SF con-
tains slag (which is excluded), tailings, presumably from
Iron ore processing (which are not excluded), and native
soil, its regulatory status with regard to exclusion from
hazardous waste regulations is unclear (if the material
displays a characteristic of hazardous waste solely due to
the presence of the slag, it could still meet the exclusion).
The SW does not appear to be excluded from Federal
hazardous waste regulations (although the baghouse dust,
if produced by air pollution control devices supporting the
Iron blast furnace, would be excluded). Since the MBS
process appears to be suitable for treatment of several
Bevill Amendment wastes, RCRA regulations may not be
applicable to some applications of the technology (although
they may be relevant and appropriate).
2.1.2.4 Listed Hazardous Waste
Of the hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR 261.31 through
261.33, relatively few are amenable to treatment by the
MBS process, like many S/S technologies. Most of the
hazardous waste from non-specific sources (F-listed
hazardous waste) contain organic compounds of concern.
Of the hazardous waste from specific sources (K-listed
hazardous waste), the inorganic pigments, iron and steel,
primary Zn, secondary Pb, and inorganic chemicals
categories have wastes that appear to be suitable for
treatment by this technology. Cost-effective use of the MBS
process to treat pure discarded commercial chemical
products (U- and P-listed wastes) does not appear to be
feasible for the treatment of liquids; the feasibility for
powders is not known. Cost-effective treatment of soil
contaminated with certain U- and P-listed wastes should be
feasible; soil contaminated with As trioxide may require
oxidation to improve treatment results.
2.1.2.5 Mixture Rule
A more likely scenario is the use of the technology to treat
other wastes or soil that has been contaminated with K-, F-,
P-, or U-listed wastes. Under the aforementioned mixture
rule, a mixture of solid waste and listed hazardous waste is
regulated as hazardous waste regardless of the
concentration of listed hazardous waste in the mixture. The
untreated SW and TM-SW reportedly contained As trioxide
that was present either as discarded commercial chemical
product or manufacturing chemical intermediate. As such,
the SW and TM-SW would be contaminated with listed
hazardous waste number P012.
2.1.2.6 Derived from Rule
Residues from the treatment of listed hazardous waste or
mixtures of solid waste and listed hazardous waste retain
their hazardous waste status regardless of the
concentration or form of contaminants remaining in the
waste. Consequently, the SW would retain its hazardous
waste status even after treatment with the MBS process, or
any other process.
2.1.2.7 Delisting
While the treatment of mixtures of listed hazardous and
nonhazardous waste using the MBS process does not
automatically remove the residue from regulation as a
hazardous waste, it may make the waste more amenable to
redesignation as nonhazardous via the delisting process
[3]. For onsite actions, the substantive requirements of the
delisting process, including sampling and determination of
the potential hazard of the treated waste, must be met. If
the waste is being sent offsite, the administrative
10
-------
requirements also must be followed. The delisting re-
gulations are presented in 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. The
SW, once treated, could be a candidate for delisting, if it
can be shown that the MBS process successfully reduces
the leachable concentrations of all contaminants of concern
(via TCLP and MEP testing).
2.1.2.8 Contained-ln Policy
Although mixtures of listed hazardous waste and
nonhazardous waste are considered hazardous waste,
even after treatment, listed hazardous waste contained in
media (i.e., soil, groundwater, or surface water) causes the
combination to be regulated under Federal hazardous
waste regulations only until the media no longer contain the
hazardous waste. This"contained-in" policy removes the
need for obtaining a delisting for treated soil and water.
The determination of whether a medium no longer contains
a listed hazardous waste is made by the EPA Region or an
authorized State [4]. Since this determination could be
made based upon the teachability of listed wastes, the MBS
process could treat contaminated soil to the point where
the soil is considered to no longer contain a listed waste.
The contained-in policy, therefore, can greatly increase the
cost-effectiveness of treating media contaminated with
listed hazardous waste. This policy may apply to SW and
TM-SW, if they are found to contain a listed waste. If this
policy does not apply to wastes identified at the Midvale
Slag Superfund Site, its importance as TBC material at
other sites is noteworthy.
Characteristic hazardous wastes are not subject to the
mixture rule, derived from rule, delisting requirements, or
the contained-in policy as are listed hazardous wastes.
Instead, characteristic hazardous wastes, mixtures of
nonhazardous wastes and characteristic hazardous wastes,
and media containing characteristic hazardous wastes are
no longer subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations
once the wastes or media no longer display any hazardous
characteristic. The SF and SB treated during the SITE
demonstration should become nonhazardous wastes when
the concentrations of TCLP leachable Pb decrease to below
5.0 mg/L and no other characteristic is displayed. SW and
TM-SW, however, if determined to contain a listed waste,
would remain hazardous until delisted or determined to no
longer contain a listed waste.
2.1.2.10 Generator Requirements
Once it is determined that the material to be treated meets
the definition of hazardous waste, the substantive require-
ments of the Federal hazardous waste regulations become
ARARs. Requirements for generators of hazardous waste
are found in 40 CFR 262. Substantive requirements include
proper storage, training, and compliance with Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). The LDRs are discussed later
in this subsection. If the waste is being transported offsite,
both the substantive and administrative requirements of the
Federal hazardous waste regulations apply to the ship-
ments, including the use of a manifest and licensed hazard-
ous waste transporter.
2.1.2.9 Characteristic Hazardous Waste
The Federal hazardous waste regulations identify four
characteristics of solid waste that, if displayed, make the
waste hazardous. The characteristics of ignitability, cor-
rosivity, reactivity, and toxicity are described in 40 CFR
261.21 through 261.24. Of the four, the toxicity char-
acteristic appears to be the one that will be displayed most
often in waste and soil to be treated by the MBS process.
The toxicity characteristic is a measure of the leachability
of 8 metals and 32 organic compounds when exposed to
liquid formulated to simulate nonhazardous landfill leachate
using the TCLP test. If any of the 40 contaminants is
present in the leachate in concentrations equal to or greater
than the limits specified in 40 CFR 261.24, the waste is
subject to hazardous waste regulation. Untreated samples
of the SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW all displayed the toxicity
characteristic due to the concentrations of leachable Pb,
and the untreated SW also exceeded regulatory levels for
leachable Cd.
2.1.2.11 Treatment Requirements and Temporary Units
Treatment of hazardous waste at CERCLA sites must meet
the substantive requirements of a hazardous waste
treatment (referred to as a Part B) permit. These require-
ments are presented in 40 CFR 264 and 265 and include
standards for treatment units, waste analysis, training, and
security measures. Treatment of hazardous waste at non-
CERCLA sites may only be performed after meeting the
substantive and administrative requirements of the Part B
permit process. Use of the MBS process at the Midvale
Slag Superfund Site would have to meet the substantive
requirements of a Part B permit as an ARAR. For sites
undergoing remediation through the RCRA Corrective
Action Program, the EPA Regional Administrator may
approve the use of temporary units (TUs) for the treatment
of remediation wastes. TUs are subject to reduced require-
ments that facilitate implementation of remediations [5].
The MBS process equipment may be eligible for desig-
nation as a TU when used at RCRA Corrective Action sites.
11
-------
2.1.2.12 LDRs
Concerned with the continued toxicity of land-disposed
hazardous waste, EPA adopted the LDRs found in 40 CFR
268. These regulations stipulate management and
treatment standards for both listed and characteristic
hazardous wastes that are to be land disposed. Treatment
standards are generally based on best demonstrated
available technologies (BDATs) and either specify the
technology to be utilized or the concentrations below which
the identified hazardous constituents must be present
before the waste may be land disposed. The triggering
action for LDRs Is the" placement' of hazardous waste into
a land disposal unit, such as a landfill, surface impound-
ment, waste pile, or underground mine. Placement occurs
when hazardous waste is: consolidated from different
hazardous waste units (e.g., waste piles) into a single unit;
moved outside a unit (for treatment or storage, for example)
and returned to the same or a different unit; or excavated
within a unit, treated by another hazardous waste unit (e.g.,
an Incinerator or pugmill) located within the original unit,
and redeposlted into the original unit. Treatment in situ, in-
place capping, intra-unit consolidation, and some types of
processing designed to improve structural stability are not
considered placement and do not trigger the LDRs [6].
Excavation of wastes at the Midvale Slag Superfund Site,
followed by treatment in the MBS unit and redeposition to
the site, would constitute placement.
The LDRs are ARARs for many CERCLA actions. For the
wastes treated during the SITE demonstration, As, Cd, and
Pb were the hazardous constituents that were evaluated.
The untreated SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW all displayed the
toxicity characteristic due to the concentrations of TCLP
leachable Pb, and the untreated SW also exceeded
regulatory levels for leachable Cd. The SW and TM-SW
reportedly also contain discarded As trioxide product (a
listed hazardous waste). The corresponding LDR treatment
standards are 5.0 mg/L of leachable As, 1.0 mg/L of
leachable Cd, and 5.0 mg/L of leachable Pb (the same
TCLP concentrations that make the waste characteristically
hazardous). Since the concentrations of leachable As and
Pb In all four treated wastes were below the LDR limits, the
treated wastes would not be prohibited from land disposal
due to Pb or As content. The treated SF, SB, and TM-SW
were also below the LDR limit for leachable Cd; however,
the treated SW exceeded the LDR limit for leachable Cd.
Application of the MBS process to other wastes, or at other
sites, may produce wastes that are effectively treated but
stl display concentrations above LDR limits. Recognizing
that the LDRs were adopted primarily to address hazardous
wastes generated from ongoing industrial operations, EPA
has developed several mechanisms to facilitate cleanups at
CERCLA and RCRA corrective action sites within the
requirements of the regulations. These mechanisms
include soil and debris treatability variances, areas of
contamination (AOCs), and corrective action management
units (CAMUs).
2.1.2.13 Treatability Variance
When soil or debris from CERCLA actions differs
significantly from the type of waste used to set the
applicable LDR treatment standards, a treatability variance
may be obtained [7]. The treatability variance provides
alternate concentrations, or percent reductions for
constituents based on prior experience with the treatment
of soil and debris. Onsite actions are required to comply
with the substantive portions of a variance. If the waste is
to be transported offsite, both the substantive and admin-
istrative aspects must be addressed [8]. Based upon the
results from the SITE demonstration, a treatability variance
would not be required for disposal of the four treated
wastes.
2.1.2.14 AOCs
An AOC is delineated by the areal extent of contiguous
contamination. For the purposes of compliance with LDRs,
an AOC is equivalent to a hazardous waste unit (e.g., a
landfill). As such, the concept of placement applies to an
AOC in the same manner as other units. This approach
allows certain activities to take place within an AOC, such
as waste consolidation, without triggering LDRs [6].
2.1.2.15 CAMUs
CAMUs were originally proposed as the RCRA corrective
action equivalent of AOCs. Their application, however, is
more formal. A Regional Administrator must designate an
area as a CAMU. CAMUs must be incorporated into RCRA
permits or orders, when these documents are required.
The final rule codifying their status as a hazardous waste
unit expanded the list of activities that could be performed
without triggering placement over those identified in the
proposal [5]. For example, remediation wastes originating
from outside a CAMU may be consolidated into a CAMU
without triggering LDRs. Similarly, wastes excavated from
a CAMU may be treated inside or outside a CAMU and
redeposited into a CAMU without invoking LDR require-
ments. Although the Midvale site is not being addressed
under the RCRA corrective action program, designation of
CAMUs and TUs at other sites where the MBS process
could be used might be an ARAR.
12
-------
2.13 CAA
CAA establishes primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards for the protection of public health and emission
limitations for six criteria air pollutants designated by the
EPA. Requirements under the CAA are administered by
each State as part of State Implementation Plans developed
to bring each State into compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Possible air
emissions from use of the MBS process include dust, H 2 S,
other sulfide compounds, and volatile organic compounds
present in the material being treated (the MBS reaction is
exothermic). During the SITE demonstration, MBS treat-
ment produced detectable concentrations of H2S in the
pugmill, and a sulfur odor was detected downwind of the
site. Solucorp utilized a wet-scrubber system to control
sulfur compound emissions during the demonstration. Dust
emissions were also detected adjacent to the material-
handling components of the equipment While dust (includ-
ing particuiates with a diameter less than 10 microns, or
PMio), H 2S, and sulfur dioxide emissions are regulated
under the CAA, the MBS equipment would not be consid-
ered a major stationary source. Use of a larger-scale MBS
unit may require additional air emissions modeling and
monitoring. State and local regulations may require the
installation and operation of additional pollution control
equipment to meet more stringent limits and reduce sulfur
odors. Additionally, State and local air toxics rules may
require monitoring for other compounds, including metals
associated with particuiates. (Note: The effectiveness of the
wet scrubber was not evaluated during the demonstration.)
2.1.4 SDWA
SDWA establishes primary and secondary national drinking
water standards. CERCLA incorporates these standards
and Section 121(d)(2) explicitly mentions two of these
standards for surface water or groundwater: Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Federal Water Quality
Criteria. Alternate Concentration Limits may be used when
conditions of Section 121 (d)(2)(B) are met and cleanup to
MCLs or other protective levels is not practicable. Included
in these sections is guidance on how these requirements
may be applied to Superfund remedial actions. The
guidance, which is based on Federal requirements and
policies, may be superseded by more stringent promulgat-
ed State requirements, resulting in the application of even
stricter standards than those specified in Federal regula-
tions. The only contaminated water produced by the MBS
process originates from the air pollution control process
and from equipment decontamination. Unless this water is
to be injected into groundwater at the site, including release
to a cesspool, SDWA requirements should not be ARARs.
2.1.5 CWA
CWA regulates direct discharges to surface water through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) regulations. These regulations require point-
source discharges of wastewater to meet established water
quality standards. The CWA also provides a regulatory
framework for State and local authorities to regulate
discharges of wastewater to sanitary sewer systems. This
is accomplished through authorized pretreatment pro-
grams.
If the contaminated water produced by the MBS air
pollution control process and from equipment
decontamination is discharged to a surface water body, the
discharge must meet all ARARs of the NPDES program (40
CFR 122), including the substantive requirements of a
NPDES permit. Since water from the treatment process
would likely be discharged in batches instead of
continuously, the water may need to be stored and tested
prior to release. In order to meet NPDES discharge limits,
treatment of the water may be required.
Depending on the location of the site, contaminated water
from the air pollution control equipment or decontamination
procedures could be discharged to a publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW). This type of discharge typically is
regulated according to the industrial wastewater pretreat-
ment standards of the POTW. These standards are spec-
ified in 40 CFR parts 401-471 for certain industries. Since
the water produced during treatment would not fall into one
of the established categories, the pretreatment standards
would be determined by the POTW and depend on site-
specific parameters such as the flow rate to the POTW, the
contaminants present, and the design of the POTW.
2.7.6 TSG4
TSCA grants EPA the authority to prohibit or control the
manufacturing, importing, processing, use, and disposal of
any chemical substance that presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to human health or the environment. With respect
to waste regulation, TSCA primarily focuses on the use,
management, disposal, and cleanup of PCBs. Regulations
for the management and disposal of PCBs are found in 40
CFR 761. Materials with less than 50 parts per million
(ppm) of PCBs are classified as non-PCB, those with a PCB
concentration between 50 and 500 ppm are classified as
PCB-contaminated, and those with a PCB concentration
greater than or equal to 500 ppm are classified as PCBs.
While TSCA contains an anti-dilution provision, requiring the
regulation of PCB cleanup materials under the same rules
applicable to the concentration of PCBs spilled, CERCLA
actions typically are allowed to manage PCB-contaminated
13
-------
materials under the rules applicable to the "as-found"
concentration [9]. State PCB regulations, however, may be
more stringent than TSCA regulations. RGBs were not
anticipated to be present at the demonstration site and,
therefore, no PCB analysis was performed on untreated or
treated materials. The MBS treatment would not remove or
reduce (other than by dilution) the concentration of PCBs
present in material being treated. If PCBs were present in
concentrations equal to or greater than 50 ppm in materials
to be treated by the MBS process at a CERCLA site, TSCA
regulations addressing storage and disposal would be
ARARs.
2.1.7 OSHA
OSHA requires personnel employed in hazardous waste
operations to receive training and comply with specified
working procedures while at hazardous sites. These
regulations (29 CFR 1910) stipulate that workers must
receive appropriate training to recognize hazardous
working conditions and to protect themselves adequately
from those conditions. This training typically includes an
initial 24- or 40-hour hazardous training course and sub-
sequent annual 8-hour refresher classes.
OSHA regulations also require the use of proper personal
protective equipment (PPE) while in areas where exposure
to chemical, physical, biological, or radiation hazards could
occur. During demonstration of the MBS process at the
Midvale Slag Superfund Site, levels of dust and H2S were
monitored. While concentrations of H 2S exceeded the
OSHA time weighed average concentration of 10 ppm at
vents to the pugmill, the threshold was not reached in
breathing zones around the equipment. Dust readings did
not exceed the demonstration threshold of 6 mg/m3 during
any monitoring cycle. Nonetheless, H2S and dust emis-
sions should be considered when establishing a health and
safety program for use of the MBS process.
2.2 OPERABILITY OF THE MBS UNIT
The MBS technology is described in detail in Subsection
1.3. The core component of the system is the pugmill, in
which the MBS agent is mixed with the soil. Before entering
the pugmill, the excavated soil is screened and crushed,
then conveyed to the hopper that feeds into the pugmill.
The MBS agent is fed into the pugmill from a storage silo.
After the soil and the MBS agent are mixed together in the
pugmill, the treated soil is conveyed to a dump truck or
storage pile.
The system is designed for continuous operation and
achieved a 100 percent on-line time during the treatment of
SW and TM-SW, which were the third and fourth
wastes/soils treated, respectively. During the treatment of
SF, which was treated first, the on-line time was 73 percent.
Downtime during the treatment of the SF consisted of
approximately 1.5 hours due to conveyor clogging and
malfunctioning and approximately 1.5 hours due to a frozen
water pump. During the treatment of SB, which was treated
second, the on-line time was 82 percent. Downtime during
the treatment of SB consisted of approximately 0.5 hours to
repair the auger (which delivered the MBS agent to the
pugmill) and 1.5 hours to address electrical problems.
These on-line times ignore delays associated with the
delivery of the MBS agent from the supplier to the site.
During the 18 days of the demonstration, more than 4 days
were spent waiting for MBS agent to arrive.
Solucorp has proposed full-scale remediation of the
Midvale Slag Superfund Site using two units, each having
a maximum capacity of 500 tph. The full-scale treatment
scenario assumes that two such units will be operated in
different areas of the site and will jointly provide an average
throughput of 5,000 tpd. This scenario also assumes that
treatment will occur 12 hours per day, 5 days per week.
One foreman, two plant operators, four equipment
operators, four truck drivers, two laborers, and one Health
and Safety Manager will be required to operate the two
plants. These positions will be staffed whenever treatment
operations are being conducted; personnel will work 16
hours per day, 5 days per week. In addition, a Site
Superintendent and a site Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) Manager will each work 40 hours per
week. One non-local field engineer will work 40 hours per
week during the initial 2 weeks of operation. The duties of
the plant operators will include routine inspection and
replacement of mechanical parts, monitoring of operational
parameters (e.g., flow rate), and sampling of the treated
soil. These labor requirements do not include those for
excavation/drying and screening/crushing activities.
Wastes to be treated include: 250,000 yd3 of SW; 108,900
yd3 of SF; and 729,990 yd3 of AQ slag. The total mass to
be treated is approximately 2.07 million tons.
2.3 TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY
The applicability of the technology is very dependent on the
characteristics of the soil present at the site. To estimate
the applicability of the technology at a particular site, the
developer recommends that site-specific treatability tests
be performed before using the technology. Results of
treatability studies performed for the Midvale Slag Super-
fund Site are presented in Appendix A. Appendix D con-
tains vendor claims for the technology.
Case studies in Appendix C summarize the results of the
14
-------
use of the technology at different sites. These case studies
and many of the vendor claims have not been independent-
ly evaluated by EPA-NRMRL or SAIC.
2.4 KEY FEATURES OF THE MBS
TECHNOLOGY
The patented Solucorp MBS process utilizes solid-phase
chemical stabilization to reduce the teachability of metals
(as measured by the TCLP method) in soils, slags, and
other solid wastes. Solucorp claims that As, Cd, chromium
(Cr), Cu, Pb, mercury, and Zn are rapidly converted to less-
soluble metallic sulfides, and that certain metals (e.g., As),
present in reduced forms, may require treatment with an
oxidizing agent to improve treatment effectiveness. In
addition, Solucorp claims that the MBS process, unlike
some other immobilization technologies, does not modify
the pH of wastes/soils to achieve chemical stabilization.
This provides an advantage when treating multiple metals
with different solubility points. Solucorp also claims that the
MBS process involves a smaller volume increase than
cement-based immobilization technologies, does not alter
the physical properties of the soil during treatment, and
does not require curing time.
2.5 AVAILABILITY AND
TRANSPORTABILITY OF THE
TECHNOLOGY
The primary components of the 60 tph unit used during the
demonstration are trailer-mounted and can be transported
using two flatbed trucks for the wet scrubber and
miscellaneous equipment, one full-size tractor trailer for the
pugmill, one stretch tractor-trailer for the conveyor (if the
large conveyor is needed), and a pickup truck or other
vehicle with a ball hitch to tow the silo. This unit and other
smaller systems have been used at several sites, described
in the case studies presented in Appendix C. Treatment
rates cited in these case studies vary from 300 tpd to 400
tpd, which is slightly below the short-term treatment rates
achieved during the demonstration.
The primary components of the proposed 500 tph unit will
be trailer mounted, and it is projected that each unit will be
able to be transported as 11 legal (not oversize) loads.
2.6 MATERIALS HANDLING
REQUIREMENTS
Soil typically must be excavated and screened prior to
treatment. As with other ex situ technologies, wet or clayey
soils may require drying to improve material handling
characteristics. During the demonstration, the SW and TM-
SW were dried before screening. The excavated SW was
tilled in lifts (layers) over a period of about 1 week to
enhance drying. The excavated TM-SW was mixed with a
trackhoe and allowed to dry for 1 to 2 days before it was
screened. Large clumps of SF were broken up with a track-
hoe before screening, but were not dried prior to screening.
SB did not require drying, screening, or crushing.
Apart from the treated soil, the only effluent from the system
was vapor collected from inside the covered conveyors.
This vapor stream was treated onsite using a wet scrubber.
The demonstration did not include analyses of the scrubber
emissions or the used scrubber water.
2.7 SITE SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS
The site must be prepared for the installation of necessary
equipment. Access roads are needed for equipment
delivery and installation. For the Midvale Slag Superfund
Site, Solucorp has proposed full-scale remediation using
two MBS units, each having a maximum capacity of 500
tph. A relatively flat area, at least 300 feet long and 100 feet
wide, will be required for the construction of each 500 tph
unit. A portion of the site may, therefore, require grading.
The site must also have space available for staging soil
before and after treatment. Space requirements for staging
untreated soil will depend on whether the soil needs to be
dried and whether excavation is concurrent with treatment.
it is projected that excavation will be conducted 16 hours
per day, and (provided the soil does not require drying)
there will be little or no staging of untreated soil. Space
requirements for staging treated soil will depend on the
frequency of soil sampling (assuming that analytical results
proving that the soil meets regulatory limits must be
available before the treated soil can be placed). For
example, treatment of 5,000 tpd of soil will require about
28,000 square feet (ft2) of staging area per unit for treated
soil pending confirmation that treatment has been
successful. This scenario assumes samples are collected
every day, analytical results are obtained in 2 days, and the
average soil depth is 10 feet. Additional staging area will be
needed if sample analyses require additional time.
Full-scale remediation using the MBS process requires that
electricity and water be available at the site. It is projected
that a diesel generator will be required to power auxiliary
equipment. Water should be available to each unit at a flow
rate of at least 75 gallons per minute (gpm).
A bermed area will be required for the decontamination of
the unit. Decontamination of personnel will likely be
15
-------
minimal. However, water used in decontamination activities
may be hazardous and its handling requires that a site plan
be developed to provide for personnel protection and
special handling measures. Storage should be provided to
hold these wastes until they have been tested to determine
their acceptability for disposal or release to a treatment
facility.
2.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
The MBS process is designed to reduce leachable heavy
metals concentrations. Other than dilution effects, total
metals concentrations are not affected by the MBS process;
therefore, treated wastes/soils with high total metals
concentrations need to be handled to minimize short- and
long-term exposure. Certain metals present in reduced
forms (e.g., As) may require treatment with an oxidizing
agent which Solucorp claims will improve treatment
effectiveness. In addition, the vendor states that soils or
wastes with high chloride content (in excess of 15 to 20
percent) cannot be effectively treated with this technology.
As with other ex situ processes, this technology is most
cost-effective for treatment of contaminants in shallow soils
because the soils are readily accessible. However,
excavation to greater depths, or use of in situ mixing may
provide cost-effective applications of the MBS technology
at certain sites. SoH/waste-specific treatability studies are
recommended to determine the effectiveness of MBS at
each site.
2.9 REFERENCES
1. CERCLA/Superfund Orientation Manual. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/542/R-
92/005, October 1992.
Code of Federal Regulations. Office of the Federal
Register, National Archives and Records
Administration. Title 40 Part 261.4(b)7, July 1996.
A guide to delisting of RCRA Wastes for Superfund
Remedial Responses. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Superfund Publication 8347.3-
09FS, September 1990.
Federal Register. Office of the Federal Register,
National Archives and Records Administration.
Vol. 61 p. 18795, April 29, 1996.
Federal Register. Office of the Federal Register,
National Archives and Records Administration.
Vol. 58, No. 29, pp. 8658-8685, February 16,1993.
Superfund LDR Guide #5 Determining When Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are Applicable to
CERCLA Response Actions. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. OSWER Directive 9347.3-
OSFS, July 1989.
Superfund LDR Guide #6A (2nd Edition) Obtaining
a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial
Actions, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Superfund Publication 9347.3-06FS, September
1990.
Superfund LDR Guide #6B, Obtaining a Soil and
Debris Variance for Removal Actions. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund
Publication 9347.306BFS, September 1990.
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites
with PCB Contamination. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA/540/G-90/007, August
1990.
16
-------
SECTION 3
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this economic analysis is to
estimate the costs (not including profit) for using the MBS
technology on a commercial-scale to remediate soil
contaminated with Pb, As, and Cd.
3.2 BASIS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the
overall cost into 12 categories. The cost categories and the
areas that each of them generally comprise are listed in
Table 2. Because some of the cost categories are very site-
specific, costs for these categories should be used with
caution. Values presented in this section have been
rounded to a realistic number of significant figures.
3.3 ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS
This subsection summarizes the issues and assumptions of
the economic analysis for this study. Because several of the
cost categories listed in Table 2 are affected by the total
amount of time the system is operational, an estimate of
cleanup time for a full-scale system is required.
For the economic analysis, the goal is to estimate
remediation costs of a full-scale system used to treat
250,000yd3 of SW/SWB; 108,900 yd3 of SF; and 729,990
yd3 of AQ slag. Using the density results from the demon-
stration, one would expect 372,000 tons of SW/SWB;
169,000 tons of SF; and 1,530,000 tons of AQ slag. The
treatment time required to treat the entire mass is nearly 1.6
years based on an average throughput of 5,000 tpd.
Two continuous mixing plants at different locations on the
site and adjacent to stockpiled material and areas of ex-
cavation will be employed. It is assumed that the full-scale
MBS unit will be scheduled to operate 16 hours per day, 5
days per week. An on-line factor of 75 percent (i.e., 12
hours per day of actual treatment) is assumed during
treatment to compensate for the fact that the system can
not be on-line constantly because of maintenance
requirements, breakdowns, and unforeseeable delays. The
total estimated time the equipment will be on site is
approximately 444 work days (1.7 calendar years). This is
based on the following time estimates:
Activity
Assembly
Shakedown and Testing
Training
Treatment
Disassembly and Decontamination
TOTAL
According to the American Association of Cost Engineers,
the actual cost is expected to fall between 70 percent and
150 percent of this estimate. Since this cost estimate is
based on a preliminary design, the range may actually be
wider. Subsections 3.3.1 through 3.3.12 describe assump-
tions that were made in determining project costs for the 12
cost categories. Costs for (1) permitting and regulatory act-
ivities; (2) residuals and waste shipping, handling, and
transport; and (3) analytical services are highly dependent
upon site-specific factors and, therefore, actual costs may
vary widely. Consequently, the actual cleanup costs in-
curred by the site owner or responsible party can be signif-
icantly higher than the costs shown in this analysis.
Insurance, property taxes, operating supplies, contingency
costs, and maintenance materials can be estimated as a
percentage of the fixed capital investment required for a
project [1]. The components of the fixed capital investment
that apply to this project are the following:
Total equipment cost applied to the project
(including freight and sales tax)
17
-------
Table 2. TWelve Cost Categories for the MBS Technology SITE Demonstration
1, Site preparation
construction of equipment pad
utility connections
excavation and screening
2, Permitting and regulatory
actual permit costs
system monitoring requirements
3. Equipment
equipment used during treatment
freight
sales tax
4. Startup and fixed
transportation of personnel to the site
wages and living expenses
assembly of the unit
shakedown, testing, and training
working capital
insurance
contingencies
property taxes
process monitoring equipment
5. Operating Costs for Treatment
wages and living expenses
6.
7.
8.
9.
Supplie
operating supplies
10.
11.
12.
Consumables
electricity/fuel
Effluent treatment and disposal
further treatment/disposal of effluent(s)
onsite storage of effluent(s)
Residuals and waste shipping, handling, and
transport
storage of residuals/wastes
transportation of residuals/wastes
treatment/disposal of residuals/wastes
Analytical services
sampling and analytical program
Facility modification, repair, and replacement
maintenance material costs
design adjustments
equipment replacements
Site demobilization
disassembly costs
site cleanup and restoration
wages and living expenses
• One year of operating supplies (1 percent of fixed
capital investment)
• Transportation (other than freight)
• Site Preparation (other than excavation and
screening)
• Assembly
• Shakedown, testing, and training
• Contingencies (10 percent of fixed capital
investment)
Fixed capital investment is calculated as follows:
FP - Fixed Capital Investment.
FP = £(lndependentvariables)+0.01FP+0.10FP
FP = ^(independent var!ables)/0.89
Since some of these components are estimated
Independently of the fixed capital investment (for example,
assembly), and others are percentages of the fixed capital
investment applied to the project (for example, contingen-
cies), the fixed capital investment can be calculated by
dividing the sum of the independent items by the factor
0.89, excluding the line items for 1 year of operating
supplies (1 percent) and contingencies (10 percent).
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs
The amount of preliminary site preparation required is
highly dependent on the site. Consequently, some site
preparation costs are not included in this cost estimate and
are assumed to be the responsibility of the site owner or
responsible party. Costs that were considered for this
analysis include the following: construction of two concrete
pads, excavation, and screening. It is essential to consider
that additional site preparation measures may significantly
increase the costs associated with this category. The cost
to construct two 20,000 ft2 concrete pads is estimated to
be $160,000. Rental equipment for excavation and drying
is estimated to be $1,320,000 for the project and includes
two crawler-mounted excavators, six dump trucks, two
front-end loaders, and a generator. Labor and fuel costs for
excavation/drying are $3,179,000 and $124,000,
respectively. Rental equipment for crushing and screening
is estimated to be $1,330,000 for the project and includes
two crushers, two portable vibrating screens, two front-end
18
-------
loaders, and four conveyors. Labor and fuel costs for
crushing/screening are $2,185,000 and $59,600, respec-
tively. It is assumed that excavation and screening
activities will be conducted simultaneously with treatment.
Site preparation activities are detailed in Table 3. The total
estimated site preparation costs are $8,360,000.
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs can vary greatly because
they are site- and waste-specific. For the purpose of this
analysis, this category includes air treatment/discharge
permit and construction permits. The cost of State and
Federal air treatment/discharge permits for the scrubbers
and reagent silos is estimated to be $16,000 including labor
for data review and estimating emissions, and permit fee.
The cost of permits for onsite disposal of processed waste
is assumed to be $32,000. Local permits for construction,
excavation, etc., are assumed to cost $2,000. The total
permitting and regulatory costs are assumed to be $50,000.
• 300-barrel silos (total of six)
Feed auger
• Short conveyor
• Long conveyors (two required)
• Belt scale
• Wet scrubber
• Blowers
Miscellaneous pumps, valves, piping, and controls
Equipment cost estimates are based on vendor quotes,
estimates from Solucorp, or information provided by
engineering textbooks [l][2]. When necessary, the
Chemical Engineering Cost Index [3] is used to estimate
current costs from earlier cost data. The annualized cost
(rather than depreciation) is used to calculate the annual
equipment costs incurred by a site. The annualized cost is
calculated using the following formula:
3.3.3 Equipment Costs
where:
mixing plants include:
Pugmill (500 tph)
Table 3. Site Preparation Costs
Description
Concrete Slab (1001 x 2001)
Excavation - Excavator/Backhoe
Excavation - Dump Trucks
Excavation - Front-end Loader
Excavation - 10-KW Generator
Excavation - Equipment Operator
Excavation - Truck Driver
Excavation - Laborer
Excavation - Fuel
Screening - Crusher
Screening - Screen
Screening - Conveyor
Screening - Front-end Loader
Screening - Equipment Operator
Screening - Laborer
Screening - Fuel
Total
Quantity
2
2
6
2
1
4
6
2
1
2
2
4
2
6
2
1
Unit
Ft2
Month
Month
Month
Month
Hour
Hour
Hour
Gallon
Month
Month
Month
Month
Hour
Hour
Gallon
A
P
i
n =
Cost
per Unit
$4
$11,000
$3,500
$13,000
$800
$45
$40
$30
$1.20
$10,000
$5,000
$3,500
$13,000
$45
$30
$1.20
annualized cost ($)
present value principal sum
interest rate
years
Total Units
20,000
19
19
19
19
6,624
6,624
6,624
103,500
19
19
19
19
6,624
6,624
49,680
(percent)
Total
Cost
$160,000
$420,000
$400,000
$490,000
$15,000
$1,192,000
$1,590,000
$397,400
$124,000
$380,000
$190,000
$270,000
$490,000
$1,788,000
$397,400
$59,600
$8,360,000
($)
Cost
per Treated Ton
$0.08
$0.20
$0.19
$0.24
$0.01
$0.58
$0.77
$0.19
$0.06
$0.18
$0.09
$0.13
$0.24
$0.86
$0.19
$0.03
$4.04
19
-------
The value "n" is the useful life of the equipment and varies
according to the equipment under consideration. For this
analysis, it will be assumed that the useful life of the MBS
unit is 10 years and the interest rate is 9 percent. The
annualized equipment cost is then prorated to the actual
time the unit is at the remedial site (including assembly,
shakedown and testing, treatment, and disassembly), which
is 1.7 years for this analysis. The annualized cost is then
divided by a utilization factor, in this case a factor of 0.5.
This accounts for the fact that the vendor needs to expense
the unit more during actual usage to cover times when it
may be idle.
The cost for each 500 tph mixing plant is estimated to be
approximately $440,000. This includes reagent silos, feed
system, scrubbers, blowers, conveyors, belt scale, and
miscellaneous processing equipment (e.g., pumps, motors,
controls, and piping). The equipment costs for both plants
would be $880,000.
Freight costs are assumed to be 6 percent of the total
purchase cost and estimated to be $52,800 for the project
[2]. Sales taxes are assumed to be 5.5 percent of the total
purchase cost and their costs are estimated to be $48,400
for the project.
When the freight and sales costs are added to the equip-
ment cost, the total equipment cost is estimated to be
$980,000. The annualized equipment cost for the 1.7 years
the equipment is on the site is $150,000. Assuming a util-
ization factor of 0.5 overthe useful life of the equipment, the
total equipment cost applied to the project is $510,000. The
equipment is assumed to have no salvage value.
3.3.4 Startup and Fixed Costs
Startup and fixed costs include the costs for transportation
of personnel and equipment; assembly; shakedown,
testing, and training; working capital; insurance; taxes;
monitoring; and contingencies.
Transportation activities include moving the MBS tech-
nology and personnel to the site. Transportation cost for
equipment, based on 22 legal loads transported 2,400 miles
at $1.65 per mile (with drivers), is $87,000. Transportation
of personnel is estimated to be $2,100 and is based on
three $700 round-trip airfares, two trips for the Field
Engineer, and one trip for the Safety/QA Trainer. The total
transportation cost is $89,000.
Assembly includes unloading the system from the trailers
and assembling it at the site. It is assumed that one
hydraulic crane at $2,000 per week will be required. The
cost to transport the crane to and from the site is $60 per
hour, and it is assumed that it will take a total of four hours
to deliver and pick up the crane. The cost of the crane is
estimated to be $4,240.
Table 4 lists the fully-burdened costs (including wages,
benefits, and overhead) and level of effort for all onsite
personnel involved with assembly, shakedown and testing,
training, and demobilization. Assembly should be complet-
ed within 10 days, shakedown and testing should take 5
days to complete, and training should be completed in 5
days. With the exception of the Field Engineer and
Safety/QA Trainer, all employees are assumed to be local
or will maintain residence near the site and will not be paid
for travel or living expenses. The estimated labor cost for
assembly, shakedown and testing, and training is $123,000.
Per diem for non-local employees is assumed to be $80 and
one rental car at $50 per day is assumed. Per diem and
rental car expenses for assembly, shakedown and testing,
and training are $2,800 and $1,400, respectively.
Table 4. Wages and Levels of Effort for Labor During Startup and
Demobilization
Job Title
Shakedown
Rate Assembly and Testing Training Demobilization
($/hr) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours)
Super-
intendent
Foreman
Plant
Operator
Equipment
Operator
Truck
Driver
80 80
60 80
45 —
45 80
40 —
40
40
80
160
160
40
80
160
320
320
80
80
—
80
—
Laborer
H&S
Manager
QA/QC
Manager
Reid
Engineer
Safety/QA
Trainer
30 240
50 80
50 —
75 80
75 —
80
40
40
40
—
160
80
40
40
40
240
80
—
80
—
Working capital consists of the costs of borrowing capital
for operating supplies, utilities, and labor necessary to keep
the MBS unit operating without interruption due to financial
constraints [1]. The working capital for this system is based
on maintaining 2 months of payroll for labor and 1 month of
inventory of the other items. The working capital cost is at
9 percent interest for the time the equipment is operating.
20
-------
The estimated required annual working capital cost is
$90,700. Therefore, the total working capital cost is
$154,000.
Insurance is assumed to be 2 percent of the fixed capital
investment and the cost is estimated to be $30,600 per year
and $52,000 for the project. Property taxes are assumed to
be 3 percent of the total fixed capital investment [1 ] and the
costs are estimated to be $45,900 per year and $78,000 for
the project.
The total cost of process monitoring programs is estimated
to be $4,000 for the project. Types of process monitoring
include qualitative and quantitative air monitoring for
particulates and H2S. It is assumed that field work will be
performed by the technician and his/her labor costs will be
covered in Subsection 3.3.5. Depending on the site, Fed-
eral, State, or local authorities may impose specific guide-
lines for monitoring programs. The stringency and frequen-
cy of monitoring requirements may have a significant
impact on process monitoring costs.
A contingency cost is included to cover additional costs
caused by unforeseen or unpredictable events, such as
strikes, storms, floods, and price variations [1]. The project
contingency cost is estimated to be 10 percent of the fixed
capital investment. The contingency cost is estimated to be
$153,000 for the entire project. The total startup and fixed
costs for this project are $662,000. Table 5 summarizes the
startup and fixed costs.
3.3.5 Operating Costs for Treatment
It is assumed that MBS treatment operations will be
conducted over 414 days, working 16 hours per day and 5
days per week. The 16-hour work day assumes 12 hours
per day of treatment and 4 hours per day for setup,
cleanup, personnel decontamination, and other daily
activities. Fully-burdened costs (including wages, benefits,
and overhead) and level of effort for all onsite personnel
involved with treatment operations are given in Table 6. It
is assumed that the Superintendent, QA/QC Manager, and
Field Engineer will work a maximum of 40 hours per week.
Furthermore, the Field Manager is non-local and will only be
present for the first 2 weeks of operation. All other positions
will work in 8-hour shifts in order to provide 16-hour
coverage each day. The labor cost for treatment is
estimated to be $4,411,000. Per diem for non-local
employees is assumed to be $80, and one rental car at $50
per day is assumed. Per diem and rental car expenses for
treatment operations are $1,120 and $700, respectively.
The total operating costs for treatment is $4,413,000.
Table 5. Startup and Fixed Costs
Description
Personnel Transport (round-trip)
Equipment Transport
Crane Rental
Crane Delivery/Pickup
Assembly Labor
Assembly Per Diem
Assembly Car Rental
Shakedown & Testing Labor
Shakedown & Testing Per Diem
Shakedown & Testing Car Rental
Training Labor
Training Per Diem
Training Car Rental
Working Capital
Insurance
Property Taxes
Monitoring Programs
Contingency
Total
Quantity
1
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Trip
Mile
Week
Hour
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Year
Year
Year
Each
Each
Cost
per Unit
$700
$1.65
$2,000
$60
$3,200
$80
$50
$6,440
$80
$50
$11,840
$80
$50
$90,700
$30,600
$45,900
Total Units
3
2,400
2
4
10
14
14
5
7
7
5
7
7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Total
Cost
$2,100
$87,000
$4,000
$240
$32,000
$1,120
$700
$32,000
$560
$350
$59,000
$1,120
$350
$154,000
$52,000
$78,000
$4,000
$153,000
$662,000
Cost
per Treated Ton
<$0.01
$0.04
<$0.01
<$0.01
$0.02
<$0.01
<$0.01
$0.02
<$0.01
<$0.01
$0.03
<$0.01
<$0.01
$0.07
$0.03
$0.04
<$0.01
$0.07
$0.32
21
-------
Table 6. Operating Costs for Treatment
Description
Superintendent'
Foreman
Plant Operator
Equipment Operator
Truck Driver
Laborer
Health and Safety Manager
QA/QC Manager'
Raid Engineer'-1"
Per Diem
Car Rental
Total
Quantity
(per shift)
1
1
2
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Day
Day
Cost
per Unit
$80
$60
$45
$45
$40
$30
$50
$50
$75
$80
$50
Total Units
3,312
6,624
6,624
6,624
6,624
6,624
6,624
3,312
80
14
14
Total
Cost
$265,000
$397,400
$596,200
$1,192,000
$1,060,000
$397,400
$331,200
$165,600
$6,000
$1,120
$700
$4,413,000
Cost
per Treated Ton
$0.13
$0.19
$0.29
$0.58
$0.51
$0.19
$0.16
$0.08
<$0.01
<$0.01
<$0.01
$2.13
a One 8-hour shift per day.
b The Reid Engineer will only be present during the initial 2 weeks of treatment operations.
3.3.6 Cost for Supplies
Forthts project, supplies consist of operating supplies and
MBS agent. Operating supplies include such items as
charts, lubricants, custodial supplies, PPE, and other mis-
cellaneous items not considered part of the maintenance
materials. Annual operating supplies costs are estimated to
be 1 percent of the fixed capital investment [1], which is
approximately $15,300 per year and $24,500 for the entire
project (1.6 years of treatment). Different MBS agent
formulations will be used for each type of waste. The agent
addition rates are based on the demonstration results and
are 0.069,0.070, and 0.135 for the SW/SWB, AQ slag, and
SF, respecth/ely. The cost for each agent is $70.20/ton for
the SW/SWB, $50.00/ton for the SF, and $65.00/ton for the
AQ slag. These costs include blending but not freight. The
MBS agent cost is estimated to be $9,900,000. Assuming
$33/ton to ship by rail, the shipping cost is $5,130,000. The
MBS agent cost for the entire project (including freight) is
$15,030,000. The total cost of supplies including MBS
agent and miscellaneous operating supplies is estimated to
be $15,054,000. Table 7 summarizes the cost of supplies.
3.3.7 Cost for Consumables
During the SITE demonstration, two diesel generators will
be employed to produce electricity for auxiliary equipment
such as pumps, motors, and lights. Each mixing plant has
a diesel motor to power the pugmill. The diesel fuel
consumption during treatment is estimated to be 25 gallons
per day per plant. Assuming $1.20 per gallon for diesel fuel,
the total cost for fuel for the project is $25,000. Water is
added during treatment to minimize dust. Assuming a
water addition rate of 2 percent and a cost of $2 per
thousand gallons, the total cost of water for the project is
$20,000. The total cost for consumables for the project is
$45,000. Table 8 summarizes the consumables costs.
Table?. Cost of Supplies
Description
Miscellaneous Operating Supplies
Reagent for SW/SWB
Reagent for SF
Reagent for AQ Slag
Shipping Cost (by rail)
Total
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Year
Ton
Ton
Ton
Ton
Cost
per Unit
$15,300
$70.20
$50.00
$65.00
$33.00
Total Units
1.6
25,703
22,787
106,798
155,288
Total
Cost
$24,500
$1,800,000
$1,140,000
$6,960,000
$5,130,000
$15,054,000
Cost
per Treated Ton
$0.01
$0.87
$0.55
$3.36
$2.48
$7.27
22
-------
Table 8. Cost of Consumables
Description
Quantity
Unit
Cost
per Unit
Total Units
Total
Cost
Cost
per Treated Ton
Diesel Fuel for Mixing Plants
Process Water
Gallon
Gallon*103
$1.20
$2.00
10,350
9,936
$25,000
$20,000
$0.01
$0.01
Total
$45,000
$0.02
3.3.8 Cost for Effluent Treatment and Disposal
A wet scrubber will be used on each mixing plant to control
H2S emissions generated during processing. The capital
and operating costs for this equipment are covered
elsewhere. It is assumed that if sodium hypochlorite is
periodically added to the scrubber water, its cost would be
insignificant. The need for additional treatment systems will
vary depending on the contaminants present in the soil and
regulatory requirements at the site. Wash water from PPE
decontamination may require treatment. Since these items
are either site-specific or addressed elsewhere, they are not
included in this report and are assumed to be the obligation
of the site owner or responsible party.
3.3.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling,
and Transport Costs
Residuals produced by the MBS technology can include
treated waste, scrubber water and sludge, and wastes for
the decontamination of equipment and personnel. It is
estimated that treated waste can be placed, compacted,
and capped onsite for $5 per ton or $11,200,000 for the
entire project. The disposal cost for water and sludge from
operation of the scrubbers is estimated to be $2,000 for the
entire project. One drum of PPE hazardous waste is ex-
pected every week. Assuming a disposal cost of $500 per
drum, the disposal cost for PPE is $42,000. The total resid-
uals and waste shipping, handling, and transport costs for
the project are $11,200,000. Table 9 summarizes the total
residuals and waste shipping, handling, and transport
costs.
3.3.10 Cost for Analytical Services
The responsible party may elect or may be required by
Federal, State, or local authorities to initiate a sampling and
analytical program at its own expense. If specific sampling
and monitoring criteria are imposed by Federal, State, or
local authorities, these analytical requirements can con-
tribute significantly to the cost of the treatment to confirm
that the site has been successfully remediated. It is
assumed that three composite analyses per day and an
additional 10 percent for QA/QC will be required during
treatment. With an assumed cost of $225 per TCLP anal-
ysis, the estimated cost for analytical services is $308,000
for the project. If more frequent sampling or other analyses
are required, additional costs would be incurred.
3.3.77 Facility Modification, Repair, and
Replacement Costs
Maintenance costs vary with the nature of the waste and the
performance of the equipment and include costs for design
adjustments, facility modifications, and equipment replace-
ments. For estimating purposes, annualized maintenance
costs (excluding labor) are assumed to be 3 percent of the
fixed capital investment [1] and are estimated to be $45,900
per year and $78,000 for the project.
Table 9. Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport Costs
Description
Landfill/Cap Treated Waste
Miscellaneous Scrubber Waste
PPE Waste
Total
Quantity
1
1
1
Unit
Ton
Each
Drum
Cost
per Unit
$5.00
—
$500
Total Units
2,230,000
—
83
Total
Cost
$11,200,000
$2,000
$42,000
$11,200,000
Cost
per Treated Ton
$5.41
<$0.01
$0.02
$5.43
23
-------
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs
It Is assumed that the equipment rental costs in the
demobilization phase will be equal to the equipment rental
costs of the assembly phase of the project. It is assumed
that a total of 10 days will be required for disassembly of the
above ground components and for preparation time
needed to remove the equipment from the site. Labor rates
and level of effort for demobilization are detailed in Table 4.
The total labor cost for site demobilization including labor,
per diem, and rental car is estimated to be $34,000. The
cost for a crane is estimated to be $4,240 (see Subsection
3.3.4). The cost to transport the system offsite is estimated
to be $87,000 (see Subsection 3.3.4). The total cost for
demobilization is $125,000. Table 10 summarizes the site
demobilization costs.
3.4 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
This subsection summarizes the results of the economic
analysis of the MBS technology treating a site consisting of
2.07 million tons of SW/SWB, SF, and AQ slag. The two
MBS mixing plants are assumed to be capable of treating
5,000 tpd. Table 11 summarizes the estimated treatment
costs per ton of waste. Table 11 also presents the treat-
ment costs of each of the 12 cost categories as a percent-
age of the total cost The actual cost is expected to fall be-
tween 70 and 150 percent of the estimated cost based on
the assumptions provided in Subsection 3.3.
Table 11 indicates that treatment of the wastes used for the
demonstration (i.e., AQ slag, SW/SWB, and SF) using the
MBS process will cost approximately $20 per ton of waste
at the Midvale Slag Superfund Site.
Table 11. Costs for Treating 2.07 Million Tons with 5,000 TPD
Throughput
Item
Cost Cost
($/ton) (% of total cost)
Site preparation
Permitting and regulatory"
Equipment
Startup and fixed
Operating costs for treatment
Supplies
Consumables
Effluent treatment and disposal
Residuals and waste shipping,
handling, and transport"
Analytical"
Facility modification, repair, and
replacement
Site demobilization
Total operating costs
4.04
0.02
0.25
0.32
2.13
7.27
0.02
0.00
5.41
0.15
0.04
0.06
20
20.5
0.1
1.3
1.6
10.8
36.9
0.1
0.0
27.4
0.8
0.2
0.3
100
a The cost for this item is highly dependent on site-specific factors.
The Region currently plans to treat 63,700 yd3 of CW and
250,000 yd3 of SW/SWB. All other wastes will be relocated
and capped if necessary. Another economic analysis was
performed for this scenario by assuming a chemical cost of
$91.20 per ton for the SW/SWB and $105.90 per ton for the
CW, a ratio of reagent to CW of 7.5 percent, a CW density
Table 10. Site Demobilization Costs
Description
Equipment Transport
Crane Rental
Crane Delivary/Pick-up
Demobilization Labor
Demobilization per Diem
Demobilization Car Rental
Total
Quantity
22
1
1
1
1
1
Unit
Mile
Week
Hour
Day
Day
Day
Cost
per Unit
$1.65
$2,000
$60
$3,200
$80
$50
Total Units
2,400
2
4
10
14
14
Total
Cost
$87,000
$4,000
$240
$32,000
$1,120
$700
$125,000
Cost
per Treated Ton
$0.04
<$0.01
<$0.01
$0.02
<$0.01
<$0.01
$0.06
24
-------
of 1.58 tons per yd3, and all other assumptions the same.
The results of the second economic analysis are sum-
marized in Table 12. The cost for treating the CW and
SW/SWB using the MBS process is estimated to be $23 per
ton of waste at the Midvale Slag Superfund Site.
3.5 REFERENCES
1. Peters, M.S. and K.D. Timmerhaus. Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers, Third Edition.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. 1980.
2. Baasel, W.D. Preliminary Chemical Engineering Plant
Design. Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc.,
New York. 1980.
3. Chemical Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Volume 102,
Number 1. January 1995.
Table 12. Costs for Treating 0.47 Million Tons with 5,000 TPD
Throughput
Item
Cost Cost
($/ton) (% of total cost)
Site preparation
Permitting and regulatory0
Equipment
Startup and fixed
Operating costs for treatment
Supplies
Consumables
Effluent treatment and disposal
Residuals and waste shipping,
handling, and transport"
Analytical"
Facility modification, repair, and
replacement
Site demobilization
Total operating costs
4.19
0.11
0.32
1.08
2.14
9.04
0.02
0.00
5.53
0.15
0.05
0.27
$23
18.3
0.5
1.4
4.7
9.4
39.5
0.1
0.0
24.2
0.6
0.2
1.2
100
a The cost for this item is highly dependent on site-specific factors.
25
-------
SECTION 4
TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
This section discusses the effectiveness of the MBS
technology during the SITE demonstration. Subsection 4.1
contains background information on the demonstration,
Including a discussion of predemonstration activities, a list
of the nine demonstration objectives, and text addressing
the treatment of a new batch of SW in June 1997.
Subsection 4.2 contains a brief description of the meth-
odology employed during SITE demonstration testing.
Subsection 4.3 contains the demonstration results.
4.1 BACKGROUND
4.1.1 SITE Demonstration Testing -
April/May 1997
The MBS process was tested on contaminated wastes/soils
from the following three locations at the Midvale Slag
Superfund Site (see Figure 2 for the waste locations): SF,
SB, and SW. These wastes/soils were selected for
demonstration testing based on results of initial site
characterization sampling and treatability testing performed
by Solucorp in January/February 1997. (Note: Site
characterization and treatability study results are presented
in Appendix A.) These wastes/soils had initial TCLP
leachable Pb concentrations of three to five times the TCLP
regulatory limit and were treated to less than the TCLP
regulatory limit during the treatability studies.
The three wastes/soils were excavated, processed, and
stockpiled for use in the demonstration during the week of
February 10,1997 according to the procedures defined in
the February 4, 1997 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP),
with minor field modifications [1]. Approximately 800 tons
(roughly 500 yd3) were collected and stockpiled for each
waste/sol. The SB was collected from a large pile (Pile B)
that had been stockpiled during screening operations
performed at the site from 1964 through 1992; the SF was
excavated (to a depth of 4 to 5 feet) from the southern
portion of the Floodplain SF Area; and the SW was
excavated (to a depth of 6 to 8 feet) from the southern end
of the SW Area near the access road from the Black Goose
Gate. Prior to treatment, all three wastes were stockpiled in
the demonstration staging area, adjacent to where the
Solucorp MBS equipment was later assembled. Prior to
stockpiling, the SF was screened to less than 2 inches and
the SW was spread, air dried/tilled, and screened to less
than 2 inches.
Predemonstration samples were collected from each
waste/soil as it was pretreated to verify the consistency and
adequacy of contaminant concentrations; analytical results
from these samples are presented in Appendix A.
Composite samples were also collected during pre-
demonstration activities as each waste/soil was pretreated;
these samples were treated by Solucorp to optimize the
MBS process for the demonstration.
Approximately 500 tons of each waste/soil were treated
during the demonstration. Each waste/soil was processed
at an estimated treatment rate of 60 tph. Although it took
approximately 8 hours to treat each waste/soil, field
activities lasted approximately 18 days. Approximately 2
days were spent on repairs, 4.5 days were spent awaiting
the delivery of the MBS agent, and 6.5 days were spent on
system startup, calibration checks, pretreatment activities,
decontamination, and shutdowns.
The primary objective of the demonstration was to:
1) Demonstrate that the mean concentration of TCLP
leachable Pb in each of three wastes/soils treated
by the MBS process was less than the regulatory
limit of 5 mg/L, at a 90 percent CL
The eight secondary objectives of the demonstration were
to:
2) Measure TCLP, SPLP, and total metals con-
centrations (As, Cd, and Pb) and pH in untreated
26
-------
MISCELLANEO US
SMELTER
WASTE
BLACK GOOSE
GATE
STA GING/TREA TMENT
AREA
(Not to Scale)
Figure 2. Site waste area locations - MIdvale Slag Superfund Site.
27
-------
wastes/soils. Results from these samples were
used as a "baseline" to interpret treated sample
results.
3) Measure TCLP metals concentrations (As and Cd)
and pH (TCLP) in MBS-treated wastes/soils.
4) Measure SPLP and total metals concentrations (As,
Cd, and Pb) and pH (SPLP and total) in MBS-
treated wastes/soils.
5) Measure hydraulic conductivity and unconfined
compressive strength (DCS) in the MBS-treated
wastes/soils.
6) Measure density in the untreated and MBS-treated
wastes/soils.
7) Measure the volume increase of each treated
waste/soil that can be attributed to the MBS
process using process measurements (mass
throughput in tons, MBS agent addition in pounds,
and water addition in gallons) and density
measurements performed on treated and untreated
sample composites.
8) Measure leachable metals (As, Cd, and Pb)
concentrations in the leachate from an MEP test
performed on each treated waste/soil.
9) Measure reactive sulfide in untreated and treated
hourly composite samples.
Treated and untreated composite samples were collected
and analyzed during the demonstration, as outlined in
Subsection 4.2. Analytical results from these samples and
process measurements collected during the demonstration
were used to evaluate the objectives. TCLP Pb results in
the treated samples were the only critical measurements,
since they were the only measurements used to evaluate a
primary objective.
4.1.2 SWRe-treatment -June 1997
A second batch of SW (designated TM-SW) was excavated,
processed, and treated in June 1997. Solucorp funded the
re-treatment of the SW after being notified that TCLP Cd
concentrations in the treated SW exceeded the regulatory
limit of 1 mg/L The TM-SW was excavated, processed,
and treated according to the procedures followed by the
SITE Program during the original treatment of the SW in
April/May 1997. The SWwas re-treated reportedly using
MBS agent with a higher purity sulfide component. To re-
duce analytical costs, however, the samples were only
analyzed for total and TCLP As, Cd, Pb, and pH, and
density. Although the samples were not collected as part
of the SITE demonstration, EPA provided oversight, and
SAIC provided field and technical support during the
excavation, treatment, and analysis of the TM-SW. (Note:
SAIC was under contract to Soiucorp during the re-
treatment of the SW.) TM-SW results have been included,
as appropriate, in the tables in Subsection 4.3 and
Appendix A.
4.2 METHODOLOGY
4.2.1 Field Procedures
Discrete samples of the untreated and treated waste/soil
were collected after every 20 to 30 tons of treated material
was processed. The sampling interval, in tons, was
determined in the field, based on the amount of MBS agent
provided for each waste/soil. Composites were generated
after every other discrete sample. A total of 20 discrete and
10 composite samples were collected during the treatment
of each waste/soil (both treated and untreated). One
treated waste/soil composite, representative of each total
run, was also collected by combining and homogenizing
equal portions of the 20 discrete treated samples.
Untreated soil was collected from the conveyer located
between the hopper and the pugmill; treated soil was
collected at the top of the second conveyer used to
transport treated soil from the pugmill to the temporary
storage pile.
All of the treated composites and half of the untreated
composites (the odd-numbered composites) were analyzed
for TCLP As, Cd, Pb, and pH. One half of the treated and
untreated composites (the odd-numbered composites)
were analyzed for total and SPLP As, Cd, Pb, and pH and
reactive sulfide. Samples of the odd numbered composites
were also forwarded to Kleinfelder for geophysical testing.
The untreated geophysical samples underwent Proctor and
density testing; the treated geophysical samples underwent
hydraulic conductivity, UCS, Proctor, and density testing.
(Note: The Proctor test was performed on the odd-
numbered composites to determine optimum moisture and
cylinder packing requirements for density testing.) The run
composites were analyzed for MEP As, Cd, Pb, and pH.
Mass throughput (totalized in tons), the silo's auger speed
(in hertz), and water addition (totalized in gallons) were
monitored after each discrete sampling event. Mass
throughput was obtained from the belt scale located on the
conveyer leaving the pugmill; the auger speed was
obtained from the auger hertz meter mounted on the side
28
-------
of the silo; and water addition was obtained from a meter
located upstream of the pugmill.
Belt scale and water meter calibration checks were
performed before and after each run. Because the auger
hertz meter did not provide MBS agent addition
measurements in pounds (totalized), field personnel
determined the hertz rate capable of delivering the
appropriate MBS agent addition rate at the beginning of
each run and then monitored hertz readings during
treatment to make sure they did not change. At the end of
the run, field personnel used the hertz rate monitored
during treatment to confirm that the MBS agent addition
rate had not changed.
4.2.2 Analytical Procedures
4.2.2.1 Metals
Untreated and treated waste/soil samples were extracted
according to the guidelines outlined in SW-846 Method
1311, the TCLP, and SW-846 Method 1312, the SPLP[7].
Treated wastes/soils were also extracted using Method
1320, the MEP. In this procedure, the waste/soil was first
extracted using the TCLP. Then subsequent extractions of
the filtered solids were performed using the MEP extraction
fluid (60/40 weight percent sulfuric and nitric acid to
deionized water to pH 3.0 ± 0.2).
The leachates were then digested using SW-846 Method
3015, a microwave procedure. Finally, the digestates were
analyzed by inductively coupled plasma (ICP) using SW-
846 Method 601OA. To increase sensitivity, trace ICP, in
which the plasma torch is positioned horizontally rather
than vertically, was used.
Untreated and treated waste/soil samples were also
digested for total metals using SW-846 Method 3050A, a hot
acid hotplate digestion procedure. Again, the digestates
were analyzed by trace ICP using SW-846 Method 601 OA.
Initial calibration was performed daily using three standards
and a blank. Standard concentrations covered the linear
range for each element. The initial calibration was verified
using a second source standard. Continuing calibration
was performed after every 10 sample runs using a blank
and the mid-level calibration standard. Interference check
standards were run at the beginning and end of each run to
verify the absence of spectral interference. Calibration
requirements were met in all cases. Serial dilutions were
analyzed on one untreated composite for each waste/soil
as required by Method 601 OA. Similarly, post-digestion
spikes were analyzed for one treated composite for each
waste/soil. All samples were extracted and analyzed within
the project-specified 180-day holding time.
4.2.2.2 Reactive Sulfide
Reactive sulfide analyses were performed as specified in
Chapter 7, Section 7.3.4 of SW-846. An aliquot of
waste/soil was added to 0.01 N H2SO4 in a closed system.
The generated gas was swept into a scrubber. After 30
minutes, the scrubber contents were analyzed for sulfide by
titration as described in SW-846 Method 9030A.
4.2.2.3 pH
The pH measurements for the leachates were performed
according to the procedures in SW-846 Method 9040B. For
the wastes/soils, SW-846 Method 9045C was used.
Calibration was performed using pH buffers 4.0 and 7.0 or
7.0 and 10.0 as needed to bracket the sample pH.
4.2.2.4 Physical Tests
Density
A Proctor test (ASTM D1557) was performed to determine
how the specimens should be compacted. The procedure
was repeated for a sufficient number of water contents to
establish a relationship between the density and water
content for the sample (a compaction curve is prepared).
The values of optimum water content and maximum density
were then determined from the compaction curve. A soil
sample at the optimum water content was compacted into
a mold of given dimensions and the density (dry unit
weight) was determined according to the procedures
outlined in ASTM D698.
Hydraulic Conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity measurements were performed
according to the procedures outlined in ASTM D5084. The
falling head test, using a rising tailwater elevation (Method
C), was employed.
UCS
UCS measurements were performed according to the
procedures outlined in ASTM D2166. UCS was measured
using strain-controlled application of the axial load. Four-
point Proctor tests were performed to determine the
cylinder packing requirements for density testing.
29
-------
4.3 DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
This subsection contains TCLP metals, SPLP metals, total
metals, MEP metals, hydraulic conductivity, UCS, density,
and reactive sulfide results for the treated and untreated
demonstration samples. Percent solid and pH results,
Including soil pH and pH of SPLP and TCLP extracts/are
reported In Appendix B. In general, mean values are
reported In this subsection, and individual sample results
are reported in Appendix B. The mean values are usually
accompanied by either a CL, a confidence interval (Cl), or
a range. Adjusted mean concentrations, which account for
decreases in As, Cd, and Pb concentrations due to the
physical addition of MBS agent to the wastes/soils, are also
reported in this subsection.
One-sided CLs (upper 90 percent CLs) are only reported for
metals results which are compared to TCLP regulatory
limits (l.e., TCLP, SPLP, and MEP metals results). Two-
sided CIs (composed of an upper and lower 90 percent CL)
are reported for metals results which are not compared to
TCLP regulatory limits (i.e., total metals). Ranges are
reported for geophysical results. (Note: Procedures for
calculating one-sided CLs, two-sided CIs, and adjusted
concentrations are located in Appendix B.)
4.3.1 TCLP Pb Results
The MBS technology reduced TCLP leachable Pb
concentrations to below the TCLP limit of 5 mg/L during
demonstration testing in April/May 1997. As shown in
Table 13, upper 90 percent CL concentrations of TCLP Pb
dropped from 33,20, and 46 mg/L in the untreated SF, SB,
and SW, respectively, to 0.20, 1.0, and 3.4 mg/L in the
treated wastes/soils. Adjusted upper 90 percent CL con-
centrations were slightly higher (i.e., 0.23, 1.1, and 3.6
mg/L, respectively), but remained below the TCLP limit.
Although TCLP Pb concentrations were relatively consistent
within the sample sets, some variability was experienced
(see Figure 3). For example, TCLP Pb concentrations in
treated SB samples collected at the end of the run (i.e., the
last four samples) were on average four to five times higher
than TCLP Pb levels in the six treated samples collected at
the beginning of the run (i.e., 1.4 mg/L versus 0.26 mg/L,
respectively). A similar trend was noted with the treated SW
samples: the average TCLP Pb for the first six samples was
1.8 mg/L and the average TCLP Pb for the last four
samples was 4.0 mg/L.
Table 13. TCLP Pb Concentrations, mg/L
Waste/Soil
SFa
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
SB"
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
SWC
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
TM-SW*1
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
Untreated
28
33
17
20
36
46
15
17
Treated
0.18
0.20
0.70
1.0
2.7
3.4
0.33
0.40
Adjusted
0.20
0.23
0.75
1.1
2.9
3.6
0.35
0.43
a The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted Pb concentration
in the treated SF was 1.135, as shown in Subsection B.2.
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted Pb concentration
in the treated SB was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
c The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted Pb concentration
in the treated SW was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
d The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted Pb concentration
in the treated TM-SW was 1.067, as shown in Subsection B.2.
C5 C6
Sample Number
C8
C9
C10
Rjjura 3. TCLP Pb concentrations In treated wastes/soils.
30
-------
As noted in Subsection 4.1.2, Solucorp funded the
excavation, processing, and treatment of a new batch of
SW (the TM-SW) in June 1997, after being-notified that
TCLP Cd concentrations in the treated SW exceeded the
regulatory limit of 1 mg/L. During the re-treatment of the
SW, upper 90 percent CL concentrations of TCLP Pb in the
TM-SW decreased from 17 mg/L in the untreated
waste/soil to 0.40 mg/L in the treated waste/soil. Solucorp
attributes the eight-fold reduction in the mean TCLP Pb
concentration (i.e., from 2.7 mg/L in the treated SW to 0.33
mg/L in the treated TM-SW) to the higher purity sulfide
component in the MBS agent. It should be noted that the
mean TCLP Pb concentration in the untreated TM-SW was
slightly less than half of the corresponding concentration in
the SW. However, it is unlikely that this decrease in initial
concentration is wholly responsible for the improved
treatment results. TCLP As and Cd concentrations in the
treated TM-SW were also lower than in the treated SW, as
discussed in Subsection 4.3.2.
4.3.2 TCLP As and Cd Results
As shown in Table 14, the mean TCLP As concentration
increased slightly with treatment, but remained below the
TCLP As limit of 5 mg/L in each of the treated wastes/soils.
According to Solucorp, treatment with an oxidizing agent
should prevent future increases in leachable As (TCLP and
SPLP) concentrations.
The TCLP Cd concentrations in the untreated and treated
SF and SB were consistently below the TCLP limit of 1
mg/L. The mean concentration did, however, decrease
slightly with treatment, from 0.57 and 0.31 mg/L in the
untreated SF and SB to 0.056 and 0.084 mg/L in the treated
SF and SB.
Although mean TCLP Cd concentrations in the SW
decreased from 2.1 to 1.1 mg/L during treatment, the mean
TCLP Cd concentration in the treated SW remained above
the TCLP regulatory limit. Solucorp claims that they were
unable to reduce TCLP Cd in the treated SWto below the
TCLP limit because their supplier provided substandard
MBS agent during demonstration activities in April/May
1997.
During the re-treatment of the SW in June 1997 (i.e., the
TM-SW), Solucorp was able to reduce mean TCLP Cd
concentrations from 0.5 to less than 0.01 mg/L (Note:
Mean TCLP As concentrations increased from 0.17 to 0.72
mg/L and mean TCLP Pb concentrations decreased from
15 to 0.33 mg/L during the treatment of TM-SW.) It should
also be noted that although the mean TCLP Cd
concentration in the untreated TM-SW composite was less
than the TCLP regulatory limit, the relative decrease in the
mean TCLP Cd levels was greater than the-decrease
experienced during the original treatment of the SW in
April/May 1997.
Table 14. TCLP As and Cd Concentrations, mg/L
SF°
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
SB"
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
SW°
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
TM-SW d
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
Untreated
0.36s
0.55"
0.22
0.35
0.46"
0.61 e
0.17°
0.33s
As
Treated
1.1
1.1
0.46
0.54
0.88
0.94
0.72
0.78
Adjusted
1.2
1.3
0.49
0.58
0.95
1.0
0.76
0.83
Untreated
0.57
0.61
0.31
0.34
2.1
2.2
0.50
0.52
Cd
0.056
0.069
0.084
0.11
1.1
1.3
0.01s
o.or
0.064
0.078
0.090
0.11
1.2
1.3
0.01s
o.or
a The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SF was 1.135, as shown in Subsection B 2
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SB was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B 2
c The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SW was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B 2
d The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated TM-SW was 1.067, as shown in Subsection B 2
e Calculated using reporting limits, rather than detected calculations.
31
-------
4.3.3 SPLP As, Cd, and Pb Results
In all cases, mean and individual SPLP As, Cd, and Pb
concentrations in both the treated and untreated samples
were well below the TCLP regulatory limits of 5 mg/L, 1
mg/L, and 5 mg/L, respectively, indicating that the SPLP
method does not leach As, Cd, and Pb from the three
wastes/soils at concentrations which exceed the TCLP
regulatory limits (see Table 15 for summary SPLP results).
SPLP Pb, in particular, was never measured above its
detection limit, preventing the observation of any
measurable changes. A slight decrease in SPLP Cd
concentrations was also noted in the SW; otherwise, no
significant SPLP Cd changes can be noted.
As with TCLP results, mean SPLP As concentrations in-
creased slightly with treatment (i.e., from 0.06, 0.07, and
0.06 mg/L to 0.39, 0.23, and 0.11 mg/L in the SF, SB, and
SW, respectively). According to Solucorp, treatment with an
oxidizing agent should prevent future increases in leachable
As (TCLP and SPLP) concentrations.
4.3.4 Total As, Cd, andPb Results
As shown in Table 16, total metals concentrations in the
treated and untreated wastes/soils were similar. The re-
sults appear to indicate that the technology has little-to-no
impact on total metals concentrations, although, theoret-
ically, the physical addition of MBS agent to the untreated
waste/soil (between 7 to 14 percent MBS agent to soil by
weight) should cause some soil/contaminant dilution. It is
possible, however, that sample variability and waste/soil
heterogeneity masked this effect
4.3.5 MEP Results
Treated wastes/soils passed EPA's MEP test; however, no
conclusion can be drawn regarding the effect of treatment
on long-term stability because leachable metals
concentrations in the treated wastes/soils were equivalent
to those in the untreated materials. As shown in Table 17
(see page 34), concentrations of As, Cd, and Pb in the MEP
leachates from the treated wastes/soils were, with one
exception, below the TCLP regulatory limits for As, Cd, and
Pb. The only exception to this occurred when the sixth
extraction of the SF sample (i.e., SF-F) was accidentally
performed using the TCLP extraction fluid rather than the
MEP extraction fluid. The resulting Pb concentration in
ieachate SF-F was 18 mg/L, which is significantly above the
TCLP regulatory limit for Pb. Since these MEP metals
concentrations in both the untreated and treated samples
were reported at or near the detection limits, this appears
to indicate that the MEP extraction fluid does not effectively
leach metals from the three matrices treated during the
demonstration.
Table 15. SPLP As, Cd, and Pb Concentrations, mg/L
As
Cd
Pb
Untreated Treated Adjusted Untreated Treated Adjusted Untreated Treated Adjusted
SF'
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
SBb
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
SW°
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
0.06d
0.06d
0.07
0.085
0.06"
0.06d
0.39
0.45
0.23
0.30
0.11
0.14
0.44
0.51
0.25
0.32
0.12
0.15
0.096
0.11
0.01 d
0.01 d
0.31
0.31
0.01 d
0.01 d
0.01 d
0.01 d
0.01 d
0.01 d
0.01 1 d
0.01 1d
0.01 1 d
0.011"
0.01 1d
0.01 1d
0.1 1d
0.1 1d
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.11"
0.1 1d
0.1 1d
0.1 1d
0.11"
0.1 1d
0.12*
0.12*
0.121
0.121
0.12*
0.121
a The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SF was 1.135, as shown in Subsection B.2.
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SB was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
c The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SW was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
d Calculated using reporting limits, rather than detected calculations.
32
-------
Table 16. Total As, Cd, and Pb Concentrations, mg/kg
SFa
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
LOWER 90% CL
SB"
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
LOWER 90% CL
sw°
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
LOWER 90% CL
TM-SW d
MEAN
UPPER 90% CL
LOWER 90% CL
Untreated
720
920
520
380
550
210
1700
1800
1600
830
900
760
As
Treated
790
1000
560
360
410
300
1500
1600
1300
770
900
650
Adjusted
890
1100
630
380
440
320
1600
1700
1400
820
960
690
Untreated
92
98
87
34
45
23
120
140
100
31
33
29
Cd
Treated
82
85
80
38
51
25
100
110
91
28
29
27
Adjusted
94
96
91
40
54
27
110
120
97
30
31
28
Untreated
12000
13000
11000
7600
8500
6700
12000
16000
9300
7400
7900
6900
Pb
Treated
11000
12000
11000
7600
8100
7000
8900
9100
8800
6500
6700
6200
Adjusted
13000
13000
12000
8100
8700
7500
9600
9700
9400
6900
7200
6600
a The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SF was 1.135, as shown in Subsection B.2.
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SB was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
c The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SW was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
d The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated TM-SW was 1.067, as shown in Subsection B.2.
4.3.6 Treated Waste/Soil Hydraulic
Conductivity and UCS Results
An examination of results in Table 18 indicates that the
hydraulic conductivity of the SB was in general much higher
than the conductivities measured for the SF and SW. This
difference is probably due to the innate physical char-
acteristics of the wastes/soils, rather than any impacts
caused by the MBS process. (Note: SB is similar to road
bed material and the SF and SW are comparable to a
sandy-clay soil.) Table 18 also reveals that SF UCS results
ranged from 7 to 13 pounds per square inch (psi); SW UCS
results ranged from 3 to 14 psi. (Note: The SB samples
could not be tested for UCS since the samples fell apart
upon extraction.) Although the results provide some
information on the physical characteristics of the treated
wastes/soils, no conclusions can be drawn regarding
whether hydraulic conductivity and UCS were affected by
the treatment process, since untreated composites were
not measured.
Table 18. Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS Measurements for
Treated Wastes/Soils
Waste/Soil
Hydraulic Conductivity, cm/sec
Mean Range
SF
SB
SW
1.4E-06 1.2E-07 to 2.9E-06
2.1E-02 3.8E-08 to 3.8E-02
6.0E-06 3.2E-06 to 9.3E-06
10 7 to 13
NA" NA"
9.6 3 to 14
a The material was non-cohesive and fell apart upon extraction.
4.3.7 Density of Untreated and Treated
Wastes/Soils
In general, density results were reasonably consistent within
the untreated and treated sample sets. As shown in Table
19, the mean density of each treated material is only slightly
different from the mean density of the corresponding
untreated material.
33
-------
Table 17. Metals Concentrations In MEP Leachates from Treated Soils and Single MEP Leachates from Untreated Soils
Metals Concentrations in Leachate, mg/L
waste lype-
Extraction No.
Untreated SF
Treated SF-A
Treated SF-B
Treated SF-C
Treated SF-D
Treated SF-E
Treated SF-F*
Treated SF-G
Treated SF-H
Treated SF-1
Treated SF-J
Untreated SB
Treated SB-A
Treated SB-B
Treated SB-C
Treated SB-D
Treated SB-E
Treated SB-F
Treated SB-G
Treated SB-H
Treated SB-I
Treated SB-J
Untreated SW
Treated SW-A
Treated SW-B
Treated SW-C
Treated SW-D
Treated SW-E
Treated SW-F
Treated SW-G
Treated SW-H
Treated SW-I
Treated SW-J
As
0.06°
1.0
0.08
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06"
0.06°
0.06"
0.06"
0.06°
0.06°
0.56
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
1.1
0.19
0.17
0.30
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06°
0.06°
Cd
0.16
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.58
0.01"
0.01°
0.01"
0.01°
0.08
0.06
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01°
0.38
0.70
0.13
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Pb
0.17
0.12
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
18
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.13
1.3
0.11°
0.11"
1.4
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
— rinai pn OT
MEP Extract
7.11
5.20
6.29
6.61
6.09
6.44
5.30
6.39
6.52
5.60
3.58
6.83
4.98
4.76
5.62
3.77
2.87
5.58
6.40
6.60
3.95
6.55
3.32
5.38
5.96
6.35
5.82
6.46
6.64
6.36
6.97
6.73
6.15
« TCLP fluid #2 mistakenly used instead of MEP fluid.
a Not detected at the reporting limit; number shown is the reporting limit.
34
-------
Table 19. Density Measurements for Treated and Untreated
Wastes/Soils
Untreated. Ibs/ft3
Mean Range
SF
SB
SW
TM-SW
115.0
154.6
110.2
113.2
112.5 to 118.5
149.5 to 160.0
107.9 to 11 2.0
112.0 to 114.5
Mean
113.2
163.2
107.7
108.7
Treated. Ibs/ft3
Range
111.0to 115.0
155.0 to 170.0
105.0 to 11 0.0
107.0 to 112.5
Ibs/ft = pounds per cubic foot
MW, tons - (VW,
mn
lton
Ihr 2000/&s
Vw, gals = WD20, gals- WSTART, gals
4.3.8 Volume Increase Due to MBS Treatment
The volume increase that can be attributed to the MBS
process was calculated using density results and overall
results from process measurements. The overall results
(e.g., total mass of treated material, total mass of agent
added, etc.) for each waste/soil were calculated using
process measurements such as cumulative time (hours or
hrs), cumulative mass of treated material (tons), MBS agent
addition rate (Ibs/minute or Ibs/min), and cumulative water
addition (gallons or gals). The overall results for each
waste/soil were calculated based on the official run time,
which began at the "official start" and ended with the
collection of sample D20. Process monitoring data col-
lected before the "official start" and after sample D20 were
not used in the calculation of the volume increase.
The volume increase was calculated using the following
equations:
VTt yd3 - VTJ, yd3
VI,% = -ILL ^JL-
Vu, yd3
VT, yd3 =
Vu, yd3 =
MT, tons
pr, tons/yd3
Mv, tons
a, tons/yd3
M, tons = B, tons- B, tons
T,
D20,
START,
tons = MT, tons - Mw, tons - MA, tons
OT, hrs = CTD20, hrs=CT»T, hrs - CTrn
-------
and additional calibration checks. As a result, seven
different agent addition rates were calculated for SB.
The variations In agent addition rate observed during the
treatment of SB made it necessary to use modified
equations to calculate the mass of agent added during the
treatment of SB. The following equations were used to
calculate the mass of agent added during each time period
of SB treatment:
lbs
+R
Mj,
A lbs=
mn
mn
60 min>.
Ihr
OTv,hrs = CTj, hrs - CTt, hrs - CT
LOSTiJ,
hrs
where:
CT, »
CT,-
OT,, =
RAI -
BAJ s
cumulative time on meter at time /, hrs
cumulative time on meter at time/, hrs
total time between time / and time/ when time
meter was running but system was not
processing waste, hrs
mass of agent added from time / to time/, tons
operating time between time / and time/, hrs
agent addition rate at time /, Ibs/min
agent addition rate at time/, Ibs/min
The total mass of agent added during the treatment of SB
was calculated by summing the M AU's.
Table 20 presents average volume increases and
summarizes other process results for the four wastes/soils.
Table 20 also presents the 90 percent Cl associated with
the calculated volume increases. The 90 percent Cl associ-
ated with the volume increase was calculated based on the
90 percent CIs associated with the process measurements
that were used to calculate the volume increase. The 90
percent CIs associated with the process measurements
were calculated using the results of calibration checks
performed during the operation of the MBS system.
Detailed process measurements taken during the treatment
of SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW are presented in Appendix B in
Tables B-13, B-14, B-15, and B-16, respectively.
Mean volume increases for SF and SW were significantly
higher than the "typical" 2 to 5 percent volume increases
cited by Solucorp for other commercial applications. Only
SB had a mean volume increase within this 2 to 5 percent
range. The lower volume increase exhibited by SB may be
related to the nature of the material. Because SB consists
of relatively large (Vi- to 1-inch diameter) pieces of incom-
pressible material, much of the MBS agent can occupy
former void spaces. The other materials (SF and SW) are
primarily compressible soils with minimal void space.
Table 20. Overall Process Results
Parameter
SF
SB
SW
TM-SW
Operating time
(OT), hrs
Volume of water
added (Vw), gals
Mass of water
added (Mw), tons
Mass of agent
added (MA), tons
Mass of treated
material (MT), tons
Mass of untreated
material (M^.tons
Volume of treated
material (VT), yd3
Volume of untreated
material (VJ.yd3
Mean volume
increase (VI), %
90% Cl for volume
increase, %
8.1
1,041
4.34
56.8
483.3
422.2
316
272
16
8.8 to 24
8.9
2,650
11.1
36.7
573.5
525.8
260
252
3.3
-5.4 to 13
8.0
3,792
15.8
31.2
495.4
448.4
341
301
13
6.6 to 20
7.7
3,287
13.7
31.7
516.4
471.0
352
308
14
1.8 to 28
4.3.9 Reactive Sulfide in Untreated and Treated
Wastes/Soils
Reactive sulfide was measured in the odd-numbered
untreated and treated composite samples. Individual
reactive sulfide sample results are summarized in Appendix
B, Subsection B.3.8. Although the results were not
adjusted for concentrations detected in titration blanks, the
concentrations were still below the regulatory limit for
reactive sulfide (i.e., 500 mg/kg).
4.4 QA/QC Summary
The QC results for the TCLP metals analyses were
excellent. These QC results support the quality of the TCLP
metals results which were used to evaluate the project's
primary objective. Based on associated QC checks, the
metals results for the total metals analyses, SPLP metals
analyses, and MEP metals analyses are also of sufficient
quality for evaluating the project's related secondary
objectives.
36
-------
With respect to reactive sulfide, QC results indicated
potential problems with the results. Low LCS and matrix
spike recoveries seem to indicate a low bias in the results.
Reactive sulfide is defined as any sulfide which is released
under the specific conditions of the test. However, it is not
obvious from the method that the sodium sulfide standard
used for spiking should yield a recovery of 100 percent. In
addition, reactive sulfide was observed in method blanks,
which indicates that the sodium thiosulfate should have
been restandardized; and the relationship of the iodine
solution to the thiosulfate titrant re-established. The reac-
tive sulfide results generated should be used with caution.
4.5 RESIDUALS
The wet scrubber used during the demonstration produced
waste scrubber water, which the developer drained to a
retention pond during disassembly. The Department of the
Interior Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) was responsible for
collecting this water in drums and testing it for disposal.
Analytical results from these drums were not available when
this ITER was written. These results should be used to
determine whether the material is hazardous.
In general, vapor treatment residuals will be generated
when using the MBS system. The classification and the
material handling requirements for these residuals will vary
based on the design of the vapor treatment system and the
contaminants present in the soil. For example, if a dry
carbon vapor treatment system is employed, spent carbon
may be a residual. Again, this medium will need to be
analyzed to determine if it is nonhazardous.
Oversize material, which was been screened from the
waste/soil prior to treatment, was also generated. This
material was returned to the site without treatment.
Quantities and disposal requirements at other sites will vary
depending on the nature of the media requiring treatment
(e.g., size and types of contaminants) and site
replacement/disposal requirements.
4.6
1.
2.
REFERENCES
Final Predemonstration Waste/Soil Pile Character-
ization: Sampling and Analysis Plan for the SITE
Demonstration of the Sducorp MBS Process at the
Midvale Slag Site, Midvale, Utah. SAIC. February
1997.
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis at the
Midvale Slag Operable Unit 2 (OU2) Superfund
Site, Midvale Utah. Volume 1, Site Characterization
Report. May 1994.
37
-------
SECTION 5
OTHER TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
REQUIREMENTS
State regulatory agencies may require permits for the on-
site Installation and operation of an MBS unit. An air
emissions permit for construction and/or operation of the
vapor treatment system may be required. If offsite disposal
of contaminated residuals is required, the residuals must be
removed from the site by a licensed transporter. These
residuals must be treated or disposed of by a permitted (or
similarly authorized) facility.
5.2 PERSONNEL ISSUES
Appropriate PPE should be available and properly utilized
by all onslte personnel PPE requirements will be site-
specific and should be determined based on the
contaminants present at the site and on the work activities
being conducted. During the demonstration, PPE levels
were designated according to the potential hazards
associated with each work activity. At a minimum, Level D
PPE was required for all personnel within the work zone.
Level C PPE was worn by personnel collecting samples
within the exclusion zone.
Site monitoring should be conducted to identify the extent
of hazards and to document exposures at the site.
Monitoring results should be maintained and posted.
During the demonstration, a direct-reading dust monitor
was used to monitor the air during excavation, treatment,
and sampling activities. The lower action level for dust was
0.06 mg/m 3 above background levels. Respiratory pro-
tection (Level C PPE) was required above this level and
optional below this level. The upper action level was 6.0
mg/m3 above background levels for dust. When this level
was exceeded, dust suppression techniques (such as
application of water using a spray truck) were employed.
The OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs) for the MBS
agent are 15 mg/m3 for the total dust time weighted aver-
age (TWA) and 5 mg/m3 for respirable dust.
When the MBS unit was operating, dust monitoring was
supplemented by H 2S monitoring. The lower action level
for H 2S gas was 5 ppm. Breathing zone measurements
collected during the demonstration did not exceed 5 ppm
H 2S for any sustained period of time.
OSHA 40-hour training covering PPE application, safety
and health, and emergency response procedures should be
required for all personnel working with the MBS process.
Additional training provided prior to the operation of the
technology at a given site should include the following
information: emergency evacuation procedures; safety
equipment locations; the boundaries of the exclusion,
contaminant reduction, and support zones; PPE require-
ments; and site- and technology-specific hazards. Potential
hazards associated with the technology include personnel
exposure to contaminated soil and dust particles during
treatment. Safe operating procedures should always be
observed.
Onsite personnel should participate in a medical monitoring
program. Health and safety monitoring and incident reports
should be routinely filed and records of occupational
illnesses and injuries (OSHA Forms 102 and 200) should be
maintained. Audits ensuring compliance with the health
and safety plan should be carried out. In the event of an
accident, illness, hazardous situation at the site, or
intentional act of harm, assistance should be immediately
sought from the local emergency response teams and first
aid or decontamination should be employed when
appropriate. To ensure a timely response in case of an
emergency, workers should review the evacuation plan,
firefighting procedures, cardiopulmonary resuscitation
techniques, and emergency decontamination procedures
before operating the system. An evacuation vehicle should
be available at all times.
38
-------
5.3 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Community acceptance of a technology is affected by both
actual and perceived hazards. The only aspect of the MBS
technology that may uniquely affect community acceptance
is the potential for H2S odors during treatment. The levels
of H 2S gas measured during the demonstration did not
present a health hazard, but the odor was noticeable. The
other major factors that may impact community acceptance
are common to most ex situ remediation technologies.
Dust from material handling, truck traffic, and treatment and
stockpiling operations may be a concern to nearby
residents, especially if total metals concentrations are high.
Tarps and plastic covers for trucks and stockpiles have
been effectively utilized to reduce dust problems. Dust
suppression techniques, such as spraying water or foams
on roads and in excavation areas, have also been utilized;
the compatibility of any foam dust suppressants with the
treatment process should be investigated. Screening
operations and treatment processes can be partially
contained to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
Noise may be a concern to the community if residential
areas are close to remediation activities, especially if early
morning or late evening work is planned. Primary sources
of noise associated with the MBS technology are the
electrical generator, drive motor, and hopper and silo vibra-
tors. At some sites, local electrical sources may be a
practical alternative to use of a portable generator.
Alternatively, the generator can be guarded with sound
baffles or enclosed in a noise-insulated structure. Noise
from the drive motor could be similarly ameliorated. The
vibrators, used to ensure continuous flow of soil and MBS
agent to the treatment system, produce a loud noise when
the hopper and silo are not filled or void spaces occur. It is
not likely much can be done to mitigate this noise problem.
However, because these vibrators are not continuously
used, this may not be a significant issue.
Truck traffic may be an issue if the site is located in a busy
section of the community, temporary street lights or other
traffic control measures can be used to ensure safe
conditions and minimize the inconvenience to local
commuters. Mud and dirt carried out on truck tires can be
an issue, but proper decontamination procedures will
eliminate any associated hazard. Installation of gravel or
paved access roads can minimize any aesthetic issues.
A Visitors' Day was held on April 15, 1997. The event was
held at the Midvale City Building and included presentations
by personnel from Solucorp, the City of Midvale, EPA
Region 8, and EPA-NRMRL A brief tour of the site was also
conducted. Participants in Visitor's Day included regulatory
personnel, remediation contractors, and members of the
general public. This is an example of an activity to inform
the public and improve community acceptance.
39
-------
SECTION 6
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
Prior to the SITE demonstration, the MBS process had
reportedly been implemented at several sites. In Glasgow,
Scotland, the MBS process was used to treat soil con-
taminated with hexavalent and trivalent Cr. The MBS pro-
cess was applied to Pb contamination from a pigment dye
manufacturing site in New Jersey. The MBS process was
also applied to Pb- and Cd-contaminated soil and slag at a
brass manufacturing site in Connecticut. In West Virginia,
the MBS process was applied to a muddy Cu ash
contaminated with Pb. These case studies are discussed
in greater detail in Appendix C.
40
-------
APPENDIX A
PREDEMONSTRATION RESULTS
A.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND
TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS
In late October 1996, a project kickoff meeting was held at
the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) to
discuss potential matrices for treatment during the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program demonstration of Solucorp®'s Molecular Bonding
System® (MBS®). Region 8 requested the assistance of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (EPA-NRMRL) in
conducting a bench-scale treatability study in conjunction
with the SITE demonstration. Science Applications Inter-
national Corporation (SAIC) was tasked with overseeing the
performance of a treatability study to be performed gratis
by Solucorp. This treatability study was designed to
evaluate the ability of the MBS process to treat seven
wastes/soils collected at the Midvale Slag Superfund Site.
This treatability study was performed under the Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team (START) Program.
Sverdrup Site Characterization Results: The following
results were obtained from samples previously collected
during site characterization activities performed by
Sverdrup, the Region 8 contractor [1]. Contaminated me-
dia at the site have been divided into six categories: Butter-
field Lumber Waste (BLW), Soil/Fill (SF), Slag, Miscella-
neous Smelter Waste, Calcine Waste (CW), and Baghouse
Dust (BD). The following is a summary of the total and
leachable concentrations in each of these six wastes/soils:
BLW - Fourteen of the 18 samples in the BLW area
had lead (Pb) concentrations above 5,000
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); eight of these
were above 10,000 mg/kg, including three greater
than 50,000 mg/kg. Only two arsenic (As)
concentrations were above 5,000 mg/kg.
SF - Ten of the 11 samples in the southwestern
floodplain had total Pb concentrations above 5,000
mg/kg; two were above 10,000 mg/kg. Samples
in this area also exhibited Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Pb concentrations of
60.1 and 144 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Slag - There were 144 samples described as air-
quenched (AQ) slag, water-quenched (WQ) slag,
or AQ/WQ slag. Only one of these samples had a
total As concentration above 5,000 mg/kg. Total
Pb, however, was above 5,000 mg/kg in almost all
of the 144 samples, including values above 10,000
mg/kg in approximately 20 of those samples. Slag
Pile A and Slag Pile B (SB) in the AQ Slag Area had
consistently high TCLP Pb concentrations (11.3 to
27 mg/L) in all twelve samples analyzed (six for
each pile). The concentrations appear to be slightly
higher in SB. No other metal exceeded TCLP
regulatory limits and no Synthetic Precipitation
Leaching Procedure (SPLP) concentration was
greater than its respective TCLP limit. Also, all six
of the samples marked Railroad Berm Slag had
total Pb concentrations greater than 5,000 mg/kg;
these ranged from 5,712 to 7,241 mg/kg.
Miscellaneous Smelter Waste - Thirteen of the 26
samples in the Miscellaneous Smelter Waste Area
had total As concentrations above 5,000 mg/kg,
with four of those above 10,000 mg/kg, including
one at 462,957 mg/kg. Seventeen of the 26
samples had Pb concentrations above 5,000
mg/kg, including nine above 10,000 mg/kg. Three
samples of waste/fill from the this area had TCLP
Pb concentrations ranging from 6.3 mg/L to 12.6
mg/L One sample from this area had a TCLP As
concentration of 1,890 mg/L. Marginal TCLP
cadmium (Cd) concentrations were detected in two
of the samples and the third sample had SPLP As
at 4,050 mg/L and SPLP Cd at 9.5 mg/L. Three
smelter waste site-wide samples were collected;
one had TCLP Pb at 58.1 mg/L and the other two
had no leachable Pb or As. For the purposes of
A-1
-------
this demonstration, the miscellaneous smelter
waste was subdivided into two categories:
Miscellaneous Smelter Waste with Brick (SWB) and
Miscellaneous Smelter Waste Without Brick (SW).
CW - Forty-four soil, soil/fill, calcine, AQ Slag, and
waste/fill samples were collected from the Calcine
Waste Area Total As and Pb concentrations were
above 5,000 mg/kg in 26 and 33 of these samples,
respectively. One composite soil/fill sample had
total As and Pb concentrations of 35,785 and
143,053 mg/kg, respectively.
BD - Three of the nine samples in the Baghouse
Dust Pond Area had total As concentrations above
5,000 mg/kg; two of these were near or above
20,000 mg/kg. Total Pb was above 5,000 mg/kg
in all nine samples, with five of those above 10,000
mg/kg, including two above 400,000 mg/kg. Two
samples of BD also had elevated leachable
concentrations: one sample had TCLP Pb at 312
mg/L; the other sample had TCLP As at 22.3
mg/L The first sample had 19.1 mg/L TCLP Cd,
plus SPLP Cd at 27.4 mg/L; the second sample
had TCLP Cd at 7.8 mg/L, plus SPLP As at 8.2
mg/L
Treatability Study Waste/Soil Collection: Based on site
characterization results, locations were selected for
collecting wastes/soils for the treatability studies. In mid-
December 1996, SAIC and Sverdrup collected 10 gallons
each (two 5-gallon buckets) of seven wastes/soils for
treatabllfty studies using the MBS process. Additional
waste/sol! volumes were collected for solidification/
stabilization treatability studies being conducted indepen-
dently by Sverdrup. SAICs Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) dated December 13, 1996 [2] documents the
planned approach for characterization sampling and
analyses of the seven matrices. Sverdrup's Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) dated December 12,1996 [3], which
was included as Appendix A of SAICs December 13th
QAPP, documents the planned approach for waste/soil
collection. SAIC collected characterization samples directly
from the buckets of waste/soil that had been filled for the
MBS treatability study. Samples from the two buckets
collected for each waste/soil were composited into a single
characterization sample for each waste/soil. A total of
fourteen 5-gallon buckets were shipped to O'Brien & Gere,
which was performing these treatability studies under
contract to Solucorp.
Treatability Study Waste/Soil Characterization
Analyses: Waste/soil characterization samples were
shipped to Wright Laboratory Services, Inc. (WLS), which
performed TCLP extractions and metals analyses of the
TCLP leachates under contract to SAIC. The results of
those characterization analyses are shown in Table A-1;
shaded areas indicate TCLP concentrations greater than
the applicable TCLP regulatory limits. All seven
wastes/soils contained TCLP leachable metals concen-
trations above the respective TCLP limit for at least one
metal. Only SWB had a TCLP As concentration (6.4 mg/L)
slightly greater than the regulatory limit of 5 mg/L. Five of
the wastes/soils had TCLP Cd concentrations greater than
the regulatory limit of 1 mg/L; SB and SF were the two
wastes/soils with low TCLP Cd concentrations. Five of the
wastes/soils had TCLP Pb concentrations greater than the
regulatory limit of 5 mg/L; BLW and SWB were the two
wastes/soils with low TCLP Pb concentrations.
Table A-1. Treatability Study Waste/Soil Characterization Results,
TCLP Leachates "
TCLP Concentrations (mg/L)
Waste/Soil
TCLP Regulatory Limit
BLW
SF
SB
SW
CW
SWB
BD
As
5.0
2.2
ND (0.06)
0.11
ND (0.06)
0.13
- T/M
0.71
Cd
1.0
.•
0.38
0.43
•MS
>f
• ,2,3
«L
' ' "'fVf'
Pb
5.0
„" 0.32b
r " H s
' ,1S
t v $ .. «"• .-
-------
.3WB -Approximately 85% passed through during 1st pass
screening. Oversize consisted of 1- to 3-inch chunks of
brick and rock.
SW - Approximately 97% passed through during 1st pass
screening.
.SF. - Approximately 99.9% passed through during 1st pass
screening. Material had a greenish tint.
SB - Approximately 70% passed through during 1st pass
screening. Oversize consisted of larger slag and rock
fragments.
BD - Approximately 80% passed through during 1st pass
screening. Finer material had a powder-like consistency.
Oversize consisted mostly of rocks, some greater than 3-
inches in diameter.
Samples of each of the seven untreated, homogenized
matrices were collected and analyzed for total, TCLP, and
SPLP metals. The metals included in these analyses were
As, barium (Ba), Cd, chromium (Cr), Pb, selenium (Se), and
silver (Ag). These results are summarized in Table A-2.
These results indicate that all seven matrices had TCLP
concentrations for at least one metal above its respective
TCLP regulatory limit (see shaded areas). Six of the seven
wastes/soils had TCLP metals concentrations, for at least
one metal, at three to five times the respective regulatory
limits. It was thought that leachable concentrations in this
range would be required to positively demonstrate the
effectiveness of the technology in reducing teachable
metals concentrations if sample variability was high.
Resources were not available to analyze field replicates to
make a determination of sampling and matrix variability.
Each of the seven wastes/soils was treated with four
different MBS formulas (designated F1 through F4).
Samples of the treated matrices were collected and TCLP
leachates were analyzed by SAIC. Table A-3 presents these
results. Of the seven wastes/soils, three were successfully
treated (i.e., the TCLP leachate concentrations for all three
metals were below the respective TCLP regulatory limits in
at least one treated batch per waste/soil) during the initial
Tier I tests. The three wastes/soils that were successfully
treated during the initial Tier I tests were SB, SW, and CW.
Initially, the remaining four wastes were not successfully
treated (TCLP concentrations greater than the respective
regulatory limits are shaded). The four wastes/soils that
were not successfully treated during the initial Tier I tests
were BLW, SF, SWB, and BD. One of these wastes, BD,
was determined by Solucorp to be an inappropriate waste
Table A-2. Treatablllty Study Results, Untreated Wastes/Soils'
Concentration
Waste/Soil
Metal
Total
TCLP
mg/kg (drywt.) mg/L
BLW
SF
SB
SW
CW
SWB
BD
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
ND Not detected above
shown in
a Shaded E
parentheses
treas indicate
4900
280
510
13
5100
8.6
16
490
480
86
21
13000
ND (12)
31
520
2500
68
31
10000
22
19
1000
1000
79
23
9400
ND (11)
30
6400
490
160
13
5400
16
29
14000
230
2300
15
15000
36
36
10000
2000
9400
23
100000
540
60
laboratory
) TCLP con
2.4
ND (0.56)
'.. %4>6 ••'
ND (0.02)
0.39
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.56)
0.48
ND (0.02)
- 26 '
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
0.08
2.3
0.47
ND (0.02)
'14 ,
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.56
"W"'
ND (0.02)
~ 3&' ' "
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
0.17
ND (0.56)
' 1>7% '
ND (0.02)
3.7
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
'&&
ND (0.56)
~ 18
ND (0.02)
1.3
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
ND(1.1)
ND (1 1)
53
ND (0.44)
' 300",
ND (1.1)
ND (0.89)
reporting limit
centrations area
SPLP
mg/L
0.87
ND (0.56)
0.12
ND (0.02)
ND(0.11)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.56)
0.10
ND (0.02)
0.14
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
ND (0.06)
ND(0.11)
ND (0.01)
ND (0.02)
ND(0.11)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.56)
0.22
ND (0.02)
ND(0.11)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
0.07
ND (0.56)
0.79
ND (0.02)
ND(0.11)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
3.1
ND (0.56)
0.47
ND (0.02)
ND(0.11)
ND (0.06)
ND (0.04)
ND (0.28)
ND (0.56)
23
ND(0.11)
1
ND (0.28)
ND (0.22)
(LRL); LRLs are
ter than or eaual
to the applicable TCLP regulatory limits.
A-3
-------
Table A-3. Tier I Treatablllly Study Results, TCLP Leachates"
Waste/Soil
BLW
SF
SB
TCLP
Analysis
As
Cd
Pb
As
Cd
Pb
As
Cd
Pb
TCLP mg/L
Untreated11
2.4__,
0.39
ND
0.48
"^a&lj'j
0.08
0.47
iiilplpiillf
F1b
,'13t'""
3 "
ND
0.41
0.46
"JOf
0.08
0.02
0.17
F2b
" Hs
-- | "
ND
0.44
0.48
, 7>7
0.09
0.02
0.12
F3b
1J"
4 '
0.23
0.52
0.44
'"f,¥"
0.1
ND
ND
F4b
S"
'' 13
1+3
ND
0.64
0.63
9
0.08
ND
0.11
F5°
14>9,
ZA*
0.07
0.94
0.18
0.48
NA"
F6C
t6<9
"' S£Z
0.10
0.69
0.14
0.34
NAd
F7°
TTiS %s*
Z<%3
0.09
1.25
0.12
0.31
NAd
F8°
1&6
1*39
0.11
1.05
0.03
0.31
NAd
As
ND
0.2
0.14
0.37
0.31
NAd
NAd
NAd
NA"
sw
CW
SWB
BD
Cd
Pb
As
Cd
Pb
As
Cd
Pb
As
Cd
Pb
£%1*',, -
,v «fr
0.17
f ~iy-
" ""a?"
•MSB^fff ss*"""
sfa&'$&fM'^ "• fj ff'
im3%s,$£
l".3
ND
^-^cr^ 7
r* loi" »
0.64
2.1
1.9
0.74
0.12
"M
s" v\
8 A
0.19
ND
St
\ 200 , %
0.8
2.1
1.4
0.01
ND
34
a5
0.18
1.2
76
.,,260
NAd NAd
••••3Z-,Z 35<4
740 ' 6,37
0.15 0.16
NA8 NAe
NAd
35,2 '
ass
0.28
NAe
NAd
- SS>^
S>55
0.10
NA"
ND Not detected above LRU LRLs are: As (0.06), Cd (0.01), and Pb (0.11).
a Shaded areas Indicate TCLP concentrations greater than or equal to the applicable TCLP regulatory limits.
b Analyzed by WLS.
o Analyzed by Southern Spectrographic Laboratory.
d Not applicable; test not re-run because initial Tier I results were less than TCLP limits.
o Not applicable; test not re-run because Solucorp decided that this waste cant be treated by its process.
for treatment with the MBS process. Solucorp's evaluation
indicated that this waste was generated by an electric arc
furnace or similar technology and likely contained a high
chloride content that interfered with the MBS process
(chloride content was not analyzed). Therefore, BD was
eliminated from the treatability studies and any future
consideration for use during the SITE demonstration. The
three remaining wastes/soils were re-treated (still Tier I)
using four new formulas each (designated F5 through F8).
Because this work was beyond the scope of work for SAIC
and WLS, analyses of TCLP leachates were the
responsibility of Solucorp and O'Brien & Gere. O'Brien &
Gere selected a different laboratory, Southern Spectro-
graphic Laboratory, to analyze these samples. [Note: This
decision was made without SAICs knowledge. As soon as
SAIC was made aware that a different laboratory had been
used, it requested that Solucorp use WLS for future
analyses to ensure consistency; Solucorp complied with
this request] These results are also presented in Table A-3.
SF was treated to below TCLP limits. Solucorp was again
unable to treat the two remaining wastes/soils (BLW and
SWB) to below TCLP limits. At this point, Solucorp
suspected that the metal contaminants in these two wastes
were in reduced form and needed to be oxidized to permit
adequate treatment of these two wastes/soils. Due to
schedule constraints, the Tier II studies had been initiated
before the Tier I results were available, and no oxidation
pretreatment was performed. After reviewing the Tier I
results, Solucorp agreed to perform additional treatability
studies during Tier II using an oxidation step as
pretreatment of the BLW and SWB wastes/soils.
Tier II Treatability Study Results: Tier II treatability studies
were performed on six wastes/soils since BD was
eliminated in Tier I, as discussed previously. One Tier II
formulation was selected for each waste/soil. Tier II
samples were analyzed for TCLP and SPLP metals (seven
metals were analyzed in Tier II). These results are pre-
sented in Table A-4. For all six wastes/soils, the TCLP
leachable concentrations of the four non-critical metals (Ba,
Cr, Se, and Ag) were below the respective regulatory limits.
A-4
-------
Table A-4. Tier II Treatablllty Study Results, TCLP and SPLP
Leachates (mg/L) °
WASTE/
SOIL
BLW
SF
SB
SW
CW
SWB
FORMULA METAL
F4 As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
F6 As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
F3 As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
F2 As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
F3 As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
F2 As f
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Se
Ag
TCLP
, 20
ND
"s* v*
ND
0.29
ND
ND
0.98
ND
0.18
ND
0.20
ND
ND
0.09
ND
ND
ND
0.12
ND
ND
0.21
ND
0.74
ND
1.8
ND
0.04
4.7
ND
0.60
ND
ND
ND
ND
'" ££ '
ND
9»e'^
ND
0.16
0.07
ND
TCLP SPLP
DUP SPLP DUP
1.9 1.9"
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
0.27
ND
ND
- ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.09
ND
_ ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.82
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
$t &1
ND ND
&A^ 0.17
ND ND
0.19 ND
0.09 ND
ND ND
TCLP regulatory limits for the four non-critical metals were
100 mg/L Ba, 5 mg/L Cr, 1 mg/L Se, and 5 mg/L Ag; For
four of the wastes/soils (SF, SB, CW, and SW), TCLP
leachable concentrations of the three critical metals (As,
Cd, and Pb) were below the respective TCLP regulatory
limits. For BLW and SWB, TCLP As and Cd were still above
TCLP since no oxidation pretreatment was initially
performed.
Additional studies were run independently by Solucorp and
samples were shipped to WLS for analysis under contract
to Solucorp. During these studies, the BLW and SWB
wastes/soils were pretreated with an oxidation step. The
oxidized wastes/soils were then treated with one
formulation each and samples were collected by O'Brien &
Gere and forwarded to WLS. These results are presented
in Table A-5.
Table A-5. Tier II Treatablllty Study Results After Pretreatment,
TCLP Leachates °
Waste/Soil
BLW
SWB
Metal
As
Cd
Pb
As
Cd
Pb
TCLP Concentration,
mg/L
ND
ND
ND
0.31
ND
ND
ND Not detected above LRL; LRLs are: As (0.06), Ba (0.56), Cd (0.01), Cr
(0.02), Pb (0.11), Se (0.06), and Ag (0.04).
a Shaded areas indicate TCLP or SPLP concentrations greater than or
equal to the applicable TCLP regulatory limits.
ND Not detected above LRL; LRLs are: As (0.06), Cd (0.01), and Pb
(0.11).
a Shaded areas indicate TCLP concentrations greater than or equal to
the applicable TCLP regulatory limits.
A.2 COLLECTION AND CHARACTER-
IZATION OF WASTES/SOILS FOR
THE DEMONSTRATION
Three wastes/soils were selected for this SITE demon-
stration based on results of initial site characterization
sampling and the first phase (Tier I) of treatability testing
(Tier II results were not available at the time this decision
was made). The three wastes/soils had initial leachable Pb
concentrations of three to five times the TCLP regulatory
limit and were treated to less than the TCLP regulatory limit
during Tier I treatability studies. The three wastes/soils
selected for the SITE demonstration were SF, SB, and SW.
During the week of February 10, 1997, approximately 800
tons of each of these three wastes/soils were excavated
and stockpiled for use in the demonstration. Predemon-
stration characterization samples were collected from these
A-5
-------
wastes according to the SAP [3] and the field modifications
documented In the trip report Predemonstration waste/soil
pile characterization results are presented in Table A-6.
These waste/soB characterization results and results of Tier
II treatability testing were used to confirm the applicability
of these wastes/soils for treatment by the MBS process
during the SITE demonstration. Additionally, these results
were used to establish an estimate of the matrix variability
for calculation of the appropriate number of samples to be
collected during the SITE demonstration.
Composite samples collected during the excavation and
waste/soil pile characterization were treated by Solucorp to
optimize its process for the demonstration. Analytical
results were provided by WLS under contract to Solucorp.
Based on the results of the optimization studies, Solucorp
determined the process operating conditions that would, be
used for each waste/soil treated during the demonstration.
A.3 SAMPLING AND MONITORING
CONTRACTED BY SOLUCORP
The analytical results for the SW samples treated during the
SITE demonstration Indicated that the treated SW did not
meet the TCLP regulatory limit for Cd. [Note: Measuring
TCLP Cd was a secondary objective of the demonstration;
compliance with the TCLP Cd regulatory limits was not
included In the objective.] Solucorp reported that tests of
MBS agent sulflde content indicated that the purity of the
sulfide component was approximately 50 percent of its
target level. After reviewing the results for the treated SW,
Solucorp decided to re-treat a second batch of the SW
using MBS agent with a higher purity sulfide component.
To further evaluate the ability of the MBS system to treat
SW, Solucorp funded a second field-scale treatability study
for SW only. Approximately 635 cubic yards (yd3) of SW
(hereafter referred to as the TM-SW) were excavated. Five
composite and four discrete samples were collected by
SAIC during excavation. Analytical results from these
characterization samples are presented in Table A-7. As
shown in Table A-7, only one of the five composite samples
had a TCLP Cd concentration above the TCLP regulatory
limit of 1.0 mg/L. Solucorp decided to proceed with treat-
ment of the TM-SW, despite the lower than expected TCLP
Cd concentrations.
A.4 REFERENCES
1. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis at the
Midvale Slag Operable Unit 2 (OU2) Superfund
Site, Midvale, Utah. Volume 1, Site Characterization
Report. May 1994.
2. Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team
QAPP (Final), Molecular Bonding System
Treatability Study for the Midvale Slag Superfund
Site, Midvale, Utah. SAIC. December 1996.
3. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Remedial
Design, Amendment No. 4, Revision 0 for Midvale
Slag Operable Unit No. 2, Midvale, Utah. Sverdrup.
December 1996.
A-6
-------
Table A-6. Predemonstratlon Waste/Soil Characterization Results, TCLP Leachates •
Sample
Waste/Soil Type
SB Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite Duplicate
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
Composite
Composite
SF Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite Duplicate
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
Composite
Composite
SW Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite Duplicate
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
Composite
Composite
Sample Number
P-SB-C1-P
P-SB-C2-P
P-SB-C3-P
P-SB-C3-D
P-SB-D09-P
P-SB-D10-P
P-SB-D11-P
P-SB-D12-P
P-SB-C4-P
P-SB-C5-P
P-SF-C1-P
P-SF-C2-P
P-SF-C3-P
P-SF-C3-D
P-SF-D09-P
P-SF-D10-P
P-SF-D11-P
P-SF-D12-P
P-SF-C4-P
P-SF-C5-P
P-SW-C1-P
P-SW-C2-P
P-SW-C3-P
P-SW-C3-D
P-SW-D09-P
P-SW-D10-P
P-SW-D11-P
P-SW-D12-P
P-SW-C4-P
P-SW-C5-P
TCLP As
(mg/L)
0.11
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.17
ND
0.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TCLPCd
(mg/L)
0.36
0.49
0.31
0.32
0.24
0.36
0.27
0.19
0.28
0.32
"'< - t&
0.48
0.86
0.93
v~ ' ' ' ?<2
0.61
" ,\\fr.
'v, 'i£,, "'
*• ^-j " , '
0.46
.. x" - '"tfiu "
- ; ,'&?""
„ *„,,,,„,, YA ' , ^
'••""--'^3"
0.60
0.78
" - '" " SA '
5,t4 -?
'•"*£ V'&r ~ '
" --'•' "U'
TCLP Pb
(mg/L)
,v/ ,^g| v— -r^s
'- "'" ^ " " .. /'
raC'' v-'^'' ^ ~\
"M, ^%V '"
' " %* ^$' "'"* "''
:-"' V(?^ " ;~.
.> - '> V %
f? -^- Sf v^r ,
""">% '*££.«,- """ ;%
" ' ' * ITD'/" '
'H™I,^"" ".
"'„, , ""^Ml!"'™,,/
,„„.: 460 „/
% , ,^x" 180 ~ '
,^;^g 'f"'x''
" ~, ^\ m..:';,, /
" - " \ 2S "
* "' ^ ""> m ' ~
' - , ^™ ™. '-
,r», /^ ,. ' ;
"120 «-^t
-- -'||'" ,'4,,
"' ^ sV"*1"'" *'
2S '""-
" ' *& " ,
ND Not detected above LRL; LRLs are As (0.06), Cd (0.01), and Pb (0.11).
a Shaded areas indicate TCLP concentrations greater than or equal to the applicable TCLP regulatory limits.
Table A-7. TM-SW Pretreatment Characterization Results, TCLP Leachates
Sample Type
Sample Number
TCLP As, mg/L
TCLP Cd, mg/L
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite Duplicate
Composite
Composite
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
Discrete
T-SW-C1-P
T-SW-C2-P
T-SW-C3-P
T-SW-C3-P
T-SW-C4-P
T-SW-C5-P
T-SW-D11-P
T-SW-D12-P
T-SW-D13-P
T-SW-D14-P
0.06°
0.56°
0.06°
0.56°
0.56°
0.56"
0.56°
0.06°
0.39
0.06°
1.1
0.94
0.74
0.78
0.99
0.91
0.59
0.66
0.68
0.59
31
40
29
40
38
42
36
27
27
9.7
a Not detected at the reporting limit; the number shown is the reporting limit.
A-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
PERFORMANCE DATA
B.1 PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING
ONE-SIDED CONFIDENCE LEVELS
AND TWO-SIDED CONFIDENCE
INTERVALS
Mean concentrations, one-sided confidence levels (CLs),
and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated
using analytical data from treated and untreated com-
posites collected during the demonstration of Solucorp®'s
Molecular Bonding System® (MBS®). One-sided CLs
(upper 90 percent CLs only) were calculated for Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) results and
compared to the TCLP regulatory limits for arsenic (As),
cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb). Two-sided CIs (composed
of upper and lower 90 percent CLs) were calculated for
total metal results.
Upper one-sided 90 percent CLs were calculated using the
following equation, where f0.10 was obtained from the first
column in Table B-1:
Upper 90% CL = x + CI
CI =
s- = Standard Error = —
s = Standard Deviation =
\
~\2
E (*,-*>
n-l
where
x = mean concentration
x, = individual sample concentrations
n = number of samples
Two-sided, 90 percent CIs were calculated using the
following equation, where t 0.05 was obtained from the
second column in Table B-1:
CI =
B.2 PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING
ADJUSTED TREATED WASTE/SOIL
CONCENTRATIONS
Adjusted concentrations are reported in this Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) which account for
decreases in As, Cd, and Pb concentrations due to the
physical addition of MBS agent to the wastes/soils.
Adjusted concentrations (in milligrams per liter or mg/L)
were developed by multiplying the analytical results for the
treated wastes/soils by dilution factors calculated for each
waste/soil and then rounding to the appropriate number of
significant figures. Dilution factors were calculated based
on the amount of MBS agent added to the wastes/soils
during treatment. The dilution factors for the different
wastes were calculated as follows:
SF Since 422.2 tons of Soil Fill (SF) were combined
with 56.8 tons of MBS agent during this
stabilization demonstration, the treated material
was 1.135 (i.e., (422.2+56.8)/422.2 = 1.135)
times more dilute by mass than the untreated SF.
B-1
-------
Table B-1. Tabulated Values of Student's "t"
r010 -used for a90
Number of degrees percent one-tailed
of freedom (n-1)' confidence levelb
f005 -used for a 90
percent two-tailed
confidence intervalb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Infinite
3.078
1.886
1.638
1.533
1.476
1.440
1.415
1.397
1.383
1.372
1.363
1.356
1.350
1.345
1.341
1.337
1.333
1.330
1.328
1.325
1.323
1.321
1.319
1.318
1.316
1.315
1.314
1.313
1.311
1.282
6.314
2.920
2.353
2.132
2.015
1.943
1.895
1.860
1.833
1.812
1.796
1.782
1.771
1.761
1.753
1.746
1.740
1.734
1.729
1.725
1.721
1.717
1.714
1.711
1.708
1.706
1.703
1.701
1.699
1.645
a The number of degrees of freedom is one less than the number of
samples collected (n).
b Values for 1010 and f OM taken from Probability and Statistical for
Engineers and Scientists. Third Edition, by R.E. Walpole and R.H.
Myers, Macmlllan Publishing Company, New York, 1985 [1].
SB Since 525.8 tons of Slag Pile B (SB) were
combined with 36.7 tons of MBS agent during this
stabilization demonstration, the treated material
was 1.070 (i.e., (525.8+36.7)/S25.8 = 1.070) times
more dilute by mass than the untreated SB.
SW Since 448.4 tons of Miscellaneous Smelter Waste
Without Brick (SW) were combined with 31.2 tons
of MBS agent during this stabilization demon-
stration, the treated material was 1.070 (i.e.,
(448.4+31.2)/44S.4 = 1.070) times more dilute by
mass than the untreated SW.
TM-SW Since 471.0 tons of the re-treated SW (TM-SW)
were combined with 31.7 tons of MBS agent during
this stabilization demonstration, the treated
material was 1.067 (i.e., (471.0+31.7)/471.0=
1.067) times more dilute by mass than the
untreated TM-SW.
B.3 DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
B.3.1 TCLP Pb Results
Ten treated and five untreated composites (the odd-
numbered composites) of each waste/soil were collected
during field testing and analyzed for TCLP Pb. TCLP Pb
concentrations in the treated and untreated SF, SB, SW,
and TM-SW are reported in Table B-2. Mean concen-
trations, standard deviations, standard errors, CIs, and
upper 90 percent CLs are summarized at the bottom of
Table B-2. Since TCLP Pb results in the treated
wastes/soils from April/May 1997 were critical measure-
ments (i.e., they were collected to support the primary
objective of the demonstration), these results are reported
in bold. The mean and upper 90 percent CLs for the treated
wastes/soils have also been underlined, to make them
stand out in the table.
B.3.2 TCLP As, Cd, and pH Results
Ten treated and five untreated composites (the odd-
numbered composites) of each waste/soil were collected
during field testing and analyzed for TCLP As, Cd, and pH.
TCLP As and Cd concentrations in the treated and untreat-
ed SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW are reported in Table B-3 (see
page B-4); TCLP pH results for the three wastes are report-
ed in standard units (SU) in Table B-4. Mean concen-
trations, standard deviations, standard errors, CIs, and
upper 90 percent CLs are included in Table B-3 (see page
B-4).
B-2
-------
Table B-2. TCLP Pb Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations
SF
SB
SW
TM-SW
Composite
Number Untreated Treated Adjusted11 Untreated Treated Adjusted0 Untreated Treated Adjusted*
TCLPPb (mg/L)
C1 34 0.11° 0.12 14 0.50 0.54 18 2.1 2.2
C2 NA 0.19 0.22 NA 0.11" 0.12 NA 1.8 1.9
C3 21 0.20 0.23 24 0.11" 0.12 56 2.0 2.1
C4 NA 0.11° 0.12 NA 0.43 0.46 NA 1.2 1.3
C5 18 0.26 0.30 16 0.11° 0.12 46 1.4 1.5
C6 NA 0.20 0.23 NA 0.30 0.32 NA 2.2 2.4
C7 34 0.18 0.20 16 0.83 0.89 31 6.1 6.5
C8 NA 0.20 0.23 NA 1.7 1.8 NA 4.1 4.4
C9 33 0.20 0.23 14 0.71 0.76 27 1.8 1.9
C10 NA 0.12 0.14 NA 2.2 2.4 NA 4.1 4.4
MEAN 28 0.18 0.20 17 0.70 0.75 36 2.7 2.9
STDDEV 7.8 0.049 0.055 4.1 0.71 0.76 15 1.6 1.7
STDERR 3.5 0.015 0.018 1.9 0.23 0.24 6.8 0.50 0.53
Cl (+/-) 5.4 0.021 0.024 2.8 0.31 0.33 10 0.69 0.73
UPPER 90% CL 33 0.20 0.23 20 1.0 1.1 46 3.4 3.6
NA Not analyzed
STD DEV Standard deviation
STD ERR Standard error
Untreated Treated Adjusted8
13 0.22 0.23
NA 0.24 0.26
16 0.51 0.54
NA 0.47 0.50
12 0.51 0.54
NA 0.42 0.45
16 0.46 0.49
NA 0.23 0.25
18 0.12 0.13
NA 0.11° 0.12
15 0.33 0.35
2.4 0.16 0.17
1.1 0.05 0.054
1.7 0.07 0.075
17 0.40 0.43
a Not detected at reporting limit; number shown is the reporting limit
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SF was 1 .135, as shown in Subsection B.2.
c The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SB was 1 .070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
d The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SW was 1 .070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
e The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated TM-SW was 1 .067, as shown in Subsection B.2.
Table B-4. TCLP pH Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
Composite SF SB SW
Untreated Treated Untreated Treated Untreated Treated
TCLPpH (SU)
C1 5.95 5.40 5.44 4.90 5.93 5.37
C2 NA 5.34 NA 4.99 NA 4.72
C3 5.99 5.35 5.46 5.22 5.44 4.73
C4 NA 5.39 NA 5.03 NA 4.86
C5 6.03 5.39 5.47 5.89 5.48 4.88
C6 NA 5.35 NA 5.31 NA 5.33
C7 5.95 5.36 5.48 4.94 5.74 4.39
C8 NA 5.25 NA 4.95 NA 4.44
C9 5.95 5.35 5.49 5.02 5.65 5.39
C10 NA 5.28 NA 4.91 NA 4.49
TM-SW
Untreated Treated
5.87 5.67
NA 5.61
5.80 5.48
NA 5.50
5.86 5.52
NA 5.58
5.92 5.49
NA 5.58
5.69 5.56
NA 5.69
NA
Not analyzed
B-3
-------
Table B-3. TCLP As and Cd Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations
Composite
Number
TCLPAs(mfl/L)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
MEAN
STDDEV
STDERR
CK+A)
UPPER 90% CL
TCLP Cd (mg/L)
C1
C2
C3
C4
OS
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
MEAN
STDDEV
STDERR
C!(+/->
UPPER 90% CL
SF
Untreated Treated Adjusted6
0.56°
MA
0.06°
NA
0.06'
NA
0.56°
NA
0.56°
NA
0.36"
0.27
0.12
0.19
0.55°
0.64
NA
0.59
NA
0.59
NA
0.54
NA
0.49
NA
0.57
0.057
0.025
0.039
0.61
1.4
0.98
0.98
1.2
0.97
0.90
0.98
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.15
0.047
0.065
1.1
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.056
0.030
0.0095
0.013
0.069
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.17
0.053
0.073
1.3
0.023
0.11
0.091
0.023
0.023
0.079
0.045
0.068
0.068
0.10
0.064
0.034
0.011
0.015
0.078
Untreated
0.19
NA
0.56°
NA
0.11
NA
0.11
NA
0.12
NA
0.22
0.19
0.087
0.13
0.35
0.34
NA
0.36
NA
0.23
NA
0.30
NA
0.30
NA
0.31
0.050
0.022
0.034
0.34
SB
Treated
0.83
0.66
0.47
0.41
0.20
0.22
0.50
0.44
0.39
0.49
0.46
0.19
0.059
0.081
0.54
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.01°
0.06
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.17
0.084
0.050
0.016
0.022
0.11
Adjusted0
0.89
0.71
0.50
0.44
0.21
0.24
0.54
0.47
0.42
0.52
0.49
0.20
0.063
0.087
0.58
0.11
0.064
0.021
0.086
0.011
0.064
0.12
0.15
0.096
0.18
0.090
0.053
0.017
0.023
0.11
Untreated
0.06°
NA
0.56°
NA
0.56°
NA
0.56"
NA
0.56°
NA
0.46°
0.22
0.1
0.15
0.61°
1.8
NA
2.3
NA
2.2
NA
2.0
NA
2.0
NA
2.1
0.19
0.087
0.13
2.2
SW
Treated
0.78
1.0 .
1.0
0.81
0.91
0.67
0.77
1.0
0.90
1.0
0.88
0.12
0.038
0.053
0.94
0.86
1.2
1.1
0.92
0.80
0.74
1.7
1.3
0.78
1.6
1.1
0.35
0.11
0.15
1.3
Adjusted"
0.83
1.1
1.1
0.87
0.97
0.72
0.82
1.1
0.96
1.1
0.95
0.13
0.041
0.056
1.0
0.92
1.3
1.2
0.98
0.86
0.79
1.8
1.4
0.83
1.7
1.2
0.40
0.12
0.16
1.3
Untreated
0.06°
NA
0.06°
NA
0.60°
NA
0.06°
NA
0.06°
NA
0.17°
0.24
0.11
0.17
0.33°
0.50
NA
0.49
NA
0.52
NA
0.46
NA
0.52
NA
0.50
0.025
0.011
0.017
0.52
TM-SW
Treated
0.74
0.71
0.61
0.63
0.53
0.60
0.67
0.86
0.83
0.98
0.72
0.14
0.04
0.06
0.78
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01'
0
0
0
0.01 f
Adjusted8
0.79
0.76
0.65
0.67
0.57
0.64
0.71
0.92
0.89
1.05
0.76
0.15
0.047
0.065
0.83
0.01'
0.01°
o.or
o.or
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
o.or
0.01°
0.01 f
0
0
0
0.01 f
NA Not analyzed
STD DEV Standard deviation
STD ERR Standard error
a Not detected at reporting limit; number shown is the reporting limit
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SF was 1.135, as shown in Subsection B.2.
o The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SB was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
d The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SW was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
a The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated TM-SW was 1.067, as shown in Subsection B.2.
f Calculated using reporting limits, rather than detected calculations.
B-4
-------
B.3.3 SPLPAs, Cd, Pb, andpH Results
Five untreated and treated composites each (the odd-
numbered composites) of the SF, SB, and SW were
collected during field testing and analyzed for SPLP As, Cd,
Pb, and pH. Table B-5 contains SPLP As, Cd, and Pb
concentrations in the treated SF, SB, and SW; SPLP pH
results for the three wastes are reported in Table B-6. Mean
concentrations, standard deviations, standard errors, CIs,
and upper 90 percent CLs are also reported in Table B-5.
vided in pounds per cubic foot (Ibs/ft 3), and were con-
verted to tons per cubic yard (tons/yd3) using the following
equation:
(Density,^ lton
ft3 2000 Ibs
V27/P, n ., tons
X—!*-r) =Density,-—
lyds6 yds3
Table B-11 presents density results for the untreated and
treated SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW.
B.3.4 Total As, Cd, Pb, pH, and Percent Solids
Results
Total metals concentrations (in milligrams per kilogram or
mg/kg) were determined using analytical data from five
untreated and treated waste/soil composites (the odd
numbered composites) of each waste/soil collected during
treatment. Table B-7 contains total As, Cd, and Pb
concentrations in the untreated and treated SF, SB, SW,
and TM-SW; mean concentrations, standard deviations,
standard errors, CIs, and upper and lower 90 percent CLs
are also reported. Soil pH and percent solids results are
presented in Table B-8.
B.3.5 Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP)
Results
One run composite was collected for each waste/soil treat-
ed during the SITE demonstration and leached using the
Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP). The As, Cd, and Pb
results for the MEP leachates are presented in Table B-9.
B. 3.6 Treated Waste/Soil Hydraulic Conductivity
and Unconfined Compressive Strength
(UCS) Results
Hydraulic conductivity and UCS measurements were
performed on five treated waste/soil hourly composites (the
odd numbered composites) collected for each waste/soil
treated during the SITE demonstration. Table B-10 contains
the hydraulic conductivity and UCS results.
B.3.7 Density Results
Densities were determined for five of the ten composites
(the odd-numbered composites) collected for each
waste/soil treated during the demonstration and during the
Soiucorp-funded testing. Density measurements were pro-
B.3.8 Reactive Sulfide Results
Reactive sulfides were measured in the odd-numbered
untreated and treated composite samples collected during
the SITE demonstration. Reactive sulfide results are
summarized in Table B-12. These results have not been
corrected for concentrations detected in the trtration blanks.
B.4 PROCESS MEASUREMENTS
The volume increase for each waste/soil was calculated
using density results and overall results from process
measurements. The overall results (e.g., total mass of
treated material, total mass of agent added, etc.) for each
waste/soil were calculated using process measurements
such as cumulative time (hours or hrs), cumulative mass of
treated material (tons), MBS agent addition rate (in pounds
per minute or Ibs/min), and cumulative water addition
(gallons or gals). The overall results for each waste/soil
were calculated based on the official run time, which began
at the "official start" and ended with the collection of sample
D20. Process monitoring data collected before the "official
start" and after sample D20 were not used in the calculation
of the volume increase. Process measurements for the
treatment of SF, SB, SW, and TM-SW are presented in
Tables B-13, B-14, B-15, and B-16, respectively.
Table B-17 contains the auger measurements used to
calculate MBS agent addition rates. Each time Solucorp
adjusted the auger speed, SAIC and Solucorp performed
auger calibration checks to determine the agent addition
rate associated with the selected auger speed. In general,
three consecutive calibration checks were performed prior
to treatment using a given auger speed, and one to three
calibration checks were performed at that same auger
speed after treatment at that speed was complete. Boxed
numbers in Table B-17 were used to calculate average
agent addition rates for a given auger speed; as noted in
Subsection 4.3.8, these "average" addition rates were used
in the volume increase calculations.
B-5
-------
Table B-5. SPLP As, Cd, and Pb Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations
Composite
Number
SPLP As (mg/L)
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
MEAN
STDDEV
STD ERR
ci (+/-)
UPPER 90% CL
SPLP Cd (mg/L)
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
MEAN
STDDEV
STD ERR
CI (+/-)
UPPER 90% CL
SPLP Pfa (mg/L)
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
MEAN
STDDEV
STD ERR
ci(+/-)
UPPER 90% CL
Untreated
0.06"
0.06°
0.06*
0.06°
0.06°
0.06*
0
0
0
0.06°
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.096
0.013
0.006
0.0092
0.11
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°"
0.11°
0.11°
0.11"
0
0
0
0.11°
SF
Treated
0.54
0.32
0.34
0.38
0.37
0.39
0.087
0.039
0.060
0.45
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01"
0
0
0
0.01°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11*
0
0
0
0.1 1"
Adjusted11
0.61
0.36
0.39
0.43
0.42
0.44
0.099
0.044
0.068
0.51
0.011°
0.011°
0.011s
0.011°
0.011"
0.01 1"
0
0
0
0.011°
0.12"
0.12"
0.12°
0.12"
0.12'
0.12"
0
0
0
0.12°
Untreated
0.11
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.07
0.022
0.01
0.015
0.085
0.01°
0.01°
0.01 a
0.01"
0.01°
0.01'
0
0
0
0.01°
0.13
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11
0.0089
0.004
0.0061
0.12
SB
Treated
0.30
0.30
0.08
0.20
0.28
0.23
0.094
0.042
0.065
0.30
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01 "
0
0
0
0.01 e
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.1 1"
0
0
0
0.11'
Adjusted0
0.32
0.32
0.09
0.21
0.30
0.25
0.10
0.045
0.069
0.32
0.011s
0.011'
0.011°
0.011°
0.01 r
0.011s
0
0
0
0.011s
0.12s
0.12°
0.12s
0.12s
0.12s
0.12"
0
0
0
0.12s
Untreated
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0
0
0
0.06s
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.0084
0.0037
0.0057
0.31
0.11°
0.11°
0.1 1°
0.11°
0.12
0.11
0.0045
0.002
0.0031
0.12
SW
Treated
0.12
0.06°
0.06°
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.049
0.022
0.034
0.14
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01s
0
0
0
0.01s
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11s
0
0
0
0.1 r
Adjusted"
0.13
0.064
0.064
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.052
0.023
0.036
0.15
0.011s
0.011s
0.011s
0.011s
0.011s
0.011s
0
0
0
0.011s
0.12"
0.12°
0.12s
0.12s
0.12"
0.12s
0
0
0
0.12"
STD DEV Standard deviation
STD ERR Standard error
« Not detected at reporting limit; number shown is tne reporting limit
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations for the treated SF was 1.135, as shown in Subsection B.2.
c The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations for the treated SB was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
d The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations for the treated SW was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B.2.
e Calculated using reporting limits, rather than detected calculations.
Table B-6. SPLP pH Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
SF
SB
SW
SPLPpH (SU)
01
C3
C5
C7
C9
Untreated
7.50
7.14
7.39
7.38
7.22
Treated
7.23
7.37
7.17
7.07
7.18
Untreated
7.17
9.02
8.80
8.74
6.93
Treated
7.22
7.24
8.60
6.66
7.26
Untreated
7.28
7.00
7.21
3.62
3.85
Treated
6.08
5.29
7.12
6.97
7.28
B-6
-------
Table B-7. Total As, Cd, and Pb Results - Treated, Untreated, and Adjusted Concentrations
Composite
Number |
TOTAL As (mg/kg)a
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
MEAN
STDDEV
STD ERR
Cl (+/-)
UPPER 90% CL
LOWER 90% CL
TOTAL Cd(mg/kg)a
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
MEAN
STDDEV
STD ERR
Cl (+/-)
UPPER 90% CL
LOWER 90% CL
TOTAL Pb (rug/kg)"
C1
C3
C5
C7
C9
MEAN
STDDEV
STD ERR
Cl (+/-)
UPPER 90% CL
LOWER 90% CL
SF
Untreated Treated
590
880
530
600
1000
720
210
93
200
920
520
90
100
87
87
98
92
6.2
2.8
5.9
98
87
11000
12000
12000
13000
13000
12000
840
370
800
13000
11000
1200
740
660
600
730
790
240
110
230
1000
560
81
80
81
86
84
82
2.5
1.1
2.4
85
80
11000
11000
11000
12000
11000
11000
450
200
430
12000
11000
Adjusted"
1400
840
750
680
830
890
270
120
260
1100
630
92
91
92
98
95
94
2.8
1.3
2.7
96
91
12000
12000
12000
14000
12000
13000
510
230
480
13000
12000
SB
Untreated Treated
680
300
370
230
310
380
180
79
170
550
210
51
35
36
21
27
34
11
5.1
11
45
23
8700
6600
8200
6500
8000
7600
990
440
950
8500
6700
440
380
290
310
360
360
59
27
57
410
300
35
40
38
19
57
38
14
6.1
13
51
25
7400
7600
6900
7400
8500
7600
590
260
560
8100
7000
SW
Adjusted1" Untreated Treated
470
410
310
330
390
380
64
28
61
440
320
37
43
41
20
61
40
15
6.5
14
54
27
7900
8100
7400
7900
9100
8100
630
280
600
8700
7500
1700
1800
1700
1600
1900
1700
110
51
110
1800
1600
140
130
98
110
120
120
16
7.4
16
140
100
11000
12000
18000
10000
11000
12000
3200
1400
3100
16000
9300
1400
1300
1500
1500
1700
1500
150
66
140
1600
1300
110
94
88
100
110
100
9.7
4.4
9.3
110
91
9100
9100
8800
8800
8900
8900
150
68
140
9100
8800
Adjusted0
1500
1400
1600
1600
1800
1600
160
71
150
1700
1400
120
100
94
110
120
110
10
4.7
9.9
120
97
9700
9700
9400
9400
9500
9600
160
73
160
9700
9400
TM-SW
Untreated Treated
740
920
770
860
870
830
75
33
71
900
760
29
32
28
33
31
31
2.1
0.93
2.0
33
29
6600
7400
7200
8000
7600
7400
520
230
.490
7900
6900
670
660
950
880
700
770
130
60
130
900
650
27
29
29
26
29
28
1.4
0.63 .
1.3
29
27
6200
6500
6900
6400
6300
6500
270
120
260
6700
6200
Adjusted*1
720
700
1000
940
750
820
140
64
140
960
690
29
31
31
28
31
30
1.5
0.67
1.4
31
28
6600
6900
7400
6800
6700
6900
. 290
130
280
7200
6600
STD DEV Standard deviation
STD ERR Standard error
a The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SF was 1.135, as shown in Subsection B 2
b The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SB was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B 2
c The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated SW was 1.070, as shown in Subsection B 2
d The dilution factor used to calculate the adjusted concentrations in the treated TM-SW was 1.067, as shown in Subsection B 2
-e Dry weight basis ' '
B-7
-------
Table B-8. Soil pH and Percent Solids Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
Composite SF
Number Untreated Treated
SollpH (SU)
C1 7.10 7.31
C3 7.28 7.59
C5 7.21 7.39
C7 6.86 7.44
C9 7.15 7.50
Percent Solids (%)
01 88 84
C3 83 82
C5 91 77
07 83 83
09 82 83
SB
Untreated Treated
7.57 7.59
7.30 7.46
7.82 7.85
7.86 7.84
7.86 7.68
98 96
98 96
98 97
97 95
99 97
A U-SW-Cfl was spilled bythe laboratory before a total solids analysis was performed.
for the other four U-SW samples.
Table B-9. Metals Concentrations In MEP
Leachates - Treated Wastes/Soils
SW
Untreated Treated
7.24 7.51
6.94 7.37
6.91 7.34
6.84 7.48
6.98 7.48
81 78
83 82
82 75
83 78
82 82°
TM-SW
Untreated Treated
7.47 7.88
7.39 7.89
7.34 7.98
7.32 7.82
7.30 7.98
86 84
84 83
83 83
86 84
83 83
Percent solids was generated using the average solids content
Metals Concentrations in Leachate, mg/L
Waste Type-
Extraction No.
SF-A
SF-B
SF-C
SF-D
SF-E
SF-F*
SF-G
SF-H
SF-I
SF-J
SB-A
SB-B
SB-C
SB-D
SB-E
SB-F
SB-G
SB-H
SB-I
SB-J
SW-A
SW-B
SW-C
SW-D
SW-E
SW-F
SW-G
SW-H
SW-I
SW-J
As
1.0
0.08
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.56
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
0.06°
1.1
0.19
0.17
0.30
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06°
0.06°
Cd
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.58
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.06
0.01°
0.01°
0.01°
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01°
0.70
0.13
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Pb
0.12
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
18
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
1.3
0.11°
0.11°
1.4
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
0.11°
Final pH of
MEP Extract
5.20
6.29
6.61
6.09
6.44
5.30
6.39
6.52
5.60
3.58
4.98
4.76
5.62
3.77
2.87
5.58
6.40
6.60
3.95
6.55
5.38
5.96
6.35
5.82
6.46
6.64
6.36
6.97
6.73
6.15
" TCLP fluid #2 mistakenly used instead of MEP fluid.
a Not detected at the reporting limit; number shown is the reporting limit.
B-8
-------
Table B-10. Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS Results - Treated Wastes/Soils
SF
SB
SW
Sample
Number
T-SF-C1
T-SF-C3
T-SF-C5
T-SF-C7
T-SF-C9
MEAN
RANGE
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
2.9E-06
1.9E-06
1.4E-06
1.2E-07
8.5E-07
1.4E-06
1.2E-07to
2.9E-06
UCS
(psi)
13
12
11
7
7
10
7 to 13
Sample
Number
T-SB-C1
T-SB-C3
T-SB-C5
T-SB-C7
T-SB-C9
MEAN
RANGE
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
3.8E-02
2.6E-06
3.2E-02
3.8E-08
3.7E-02
2.1E-02
3.8E-08 to
3.8E-02
UCS Sample
(psi) Number
a T-SW-C1
a T-SW-C3
a T-SW-C5
a T-SW-C7
a T-SW-C9
NA MEAN
NA RANGE
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
5.0E-06
3.2E-06
3.4E-06
9.3E-06
8.4E-06
6.0E-06
3.2E-06 to
9.3E-06
UCS
(psi)
17
3
3
11
14
9.6
3 to 14
NA Not Applicable
cm/sec Centimeters per second
psi Pounds per square inch
a Material was non-cohesive;
Table B-11.
; samples fell
I apart upon
extraction; unable to test
Density Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils
Maximum Density
Sample Number
Treated SF
Untreated SF
Treated SB
T-SF-C1
T-SF-C3
T-SF-C5
T-SF-C7
T-SF-C9
Mean
U-SF-C1
U-SF-C3
U-SF-C5
U-SF-C7
U-SF-C9
Mean
T-SB-C1
T-SB-C3
T-SB-C5
T-SB-C7
T-SB-C9
Mean
(Ibs/ft d)
113.0
115.0
112.0
111.0
115.0
113.2
115.0
116.0
112.5
118.5
113.0
115.0
155.0
168.0
160.0
163.0
170.0
163.2
Optimum Moisture
( percent)
17.0
16.0
17.5
17.5
15.0
16.6
16.5
16.5
18.0
15.5
17.0
16.7
5.5
7.5
6.0
6.0
7.0
6.4
B-9
-------
Tabia B-11. Density Results - Treated and Untreated Wastes/Soils (continued)
Sample Number
Untreated SB U-SB-C1
U-SB-C3
U-SB-C5
U-SB-C7
U-SB-C9
Mean
Treated SW T-SW-C1
T-SW-C3
T-SW-C5
T-SW-C7
T-SW-C9
Mean
Untreated SW U-SW-C1
U-SW-C3
U-SW-C5
U-SW-C7
U-SW-C9
Mean
Treated TM-SW TM-T-SW-C1
TM-T-SW-C3
TM-T-SW-C5
TM-T-SW-C7
TM-T-SW-C9
Mean
Untreated TM-SW TM-U-SW-C1
TM-U-SW-C3
TM-U-SW-C5
TM-U-SW-C7
TM-U-SW-C9
Mean
Maximum Density
(Ibs/ft 3)
155.5
151.0
149.5
157.0
160.0
154.6
108.5
105.0
107.0
108.0
110.0
107.7
110.5
108.5
112.0
107.9
112.0
110.2
112.5
108.5
107.5
108.0
107.0
108.7
112.0
113.0
113.0
113.5
114.5
113.2
Optimum Moisture
( percent)
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.3
17.5
21.5
19.5
18.5
18.0
19.0
15.5
18.5
17.0
18.5
17.0
17.3
17.5
20.5
20.0
20.5
20.5
19.8
17.5
17.5
17.0
17.0
17.5
17.3
Ib/ft3 Pound per cubic foot
B-10
-------
Table B-12. Reactive Sulfide Results - Untreated and Treated Wastes/Soils
Sample No.
Reactive Sulfide, mg/kg (Dry Weight Basis)
Untreated SF U-SF-C1
U-SF-C3
U-SF-C5
U-SF-C7
U-SF-C9
Treated SF T-SF-C1
T-SF-C3
T-SF-C5
T-SF-C7
T-SF-C9
Untreated SB U-SB-C1
U-SB-C3
U-SB-C5
U-SB-C7
U-SB-C9
Treated SB T-SB-C1
T-SB-C3
T-SB-C5
T-SB-C7
T-SB-C9
T-SB-C5D
Untreated SW U-SW-C1
U-SW-C3
U-SW-C5
U-SW-C7
U-SW-C9b
Treated SW T-SW-C1
T-SW-C3
T-SW-C5
T-SW-C7
T-SW-C9
68 B
78 B
27 B
60 B
43 B
54 B
61 B
32 B
54 B
42 B
46B
46 B
<10°
41 B
33 B
36 B
68 B
41 B
81 B
70 B
<10°
56 B
42 B
49 B
42 B
55 B
170 B
49 B
47 B
45 B
43 B
a Not detected at reporting limit; number shown is the reporting limit.
b The reactive sulfide concentration for U-SW-C9 was adjusted to a dry weight basis using the average solids content for the other four U-SW samples
because U-SW-C9 was spilled by the laboratory before a total solids analysis was performed.
B Analyte was present in the titration blank at a significant level. The blank for all SF samples plus U-SB-C1, U-SB-C3, T-SB-C1 and T-SB-C3
contained 45 mg/kg reactive sulfide on an as-received basis. The blank for U-SB-C5, U-SB-C7, U-SB-C9, T-SB-C5, T-SB-C7 and T-SB-C9 contained
16 mg/kg reactive sulfide on an as-received basis. The blank for all SW samples contained 35 mg/kg reactive sulfide on an as-received basis
B-11
-------
Table B-13. Process Monitoring Data Collected During SF Treatment
Treated Material-Belt Scale
Meter
Agent Addition Rate
Sample No.
(if collected)
"Official Start
01
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Unit
On/Off
Start
On
Date
04/12/97
04/12/97
(Estimated Values)*
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
Off
04/12/97
04/12/97
04/12/97
04/12/97
04/12/97
04/12/97
04/12/97
04/12/97
Time
10:30
11:34
15:49
15:59
16:13
16:39
17:07
17:36
18:07
18:33
18:43
Cumulative
Time (hrs)
236.5
236.8
239.0
239.2
239.4
239.8
240.3
240.8
241.4
241.8
242.0
Cumulative
Mass (total
tons)
5995.5
6011.5
6078.1
6091.8
6108.1
6136.7
6166.4
6197.2
6230.1
6257.7
6269.8
Mass Flow
Rate
(tons/hour)
70.1
-
67
70
65.8
74.0
64.5
71.2
74.3
-
Water
Meter
(total gal.)
-
183
426
451
498
556
631
688
763
852
885
Recorded
Auger Speed
(Hertz)
-
23.4
-
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
-
Calculated
Row Rate
(Ibs/min)
-
234
-
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
-
*End for day/start next day. Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with system off = 0.4 hours
Start 04/13/97 09:30 -
D7 On 04/13/97 09:51 242.6 6287.6 68.4 931
*Shut down to clean conveyor. Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with system off = 0.2 hours
D8 On 04/13/97 10:22 243.2 6316.0 74.5 990
"Problems with clogging. Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with system off = 0.6 hours
23.4
23.4
234
234
D9
D10
D11
D12
"Lunch break 12:
D13
D14
D15
D16
On
On
On
On
Off
04/13/97
04/13/97
04/13/97
04/13/97
04/13/97
25 to 13:55. Estimated
On
On
Off
Tmp
On
•Conveyor malfunction.
D17
D18
D19
D20
On
On
On
On
**
04/13/97
04/13/97
04/13/97
04/13/97
11:26
11:44
12:02
12:17
12:31
244.2
244.5
244.8
245.1
245.3
6341.9
6363.3
6385.0
6401.7
-
70.0
76.7
72.6
79.2
-
amount of time that time meter was running with system
14:11
14:28
14:45
15:14
245.6
245.9
246.2
246.7
6423.6
6444.6
6460.6
6482.9
Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with
04/13/97
04/13/97
04/13/97
04/13/97
-
16:35
16:54
17:25
17:46
-
248.0
248.3
248.9
249.2
-
6504.4
6521.4
6541.4
6561.4
6625.5
73.4
80.4
-
53.6
system off =
90.0
19.0
81.2
72.0
-
1042
1089
1125
1162
1178
off = 0.1 hours
1219
1252
1283
1322
0.8 hours
1363
1409
1438
1467
-
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
-
23.4
23.4
—
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.5
23.4
-
234
234
234
234
-
234
234
—
234
234
234
234
234
-
** Initial reading for belt scale calibration on 4/14/97 (ran SF from 6561.4 to 6625.5 to consume extra agent).
- Not recorded or monitor off.
B-12
-------
Table B-14. Process Monitoring Data Collected During SB Treatment
Treated Material-Belt Scale
Meter
Agent Addition Rate
Sample No.
(if collected)
Official Start
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
Unit
On/Off
Off
On
On
On
Off
Off
On
On
On
On
On
Stop
Date
04/14/97
04/14/97
04/14/97
04/14/97
04/14/97
04/15/97
04/15/97
04/15/97
04/15/97
04/15/97
04/15/97
04/15/97
Time
17:05
17:34
18:01
18:28
18:35
10:24
10:41
11:04
11:27
11:53
12:19
12:38
Cumulative
Time (hrs)
253.2
253.6
254.1
254.6
254.7
254.7
255.2
255.5
255.9
256.3
256.8
257.1
- Cumulative
Mass (total
tons)
6645.6
6664.2
6699.2
6730.2
6737.4
6737.4
6760.0
6790.2
6818.8
6850.2
6880.0
6900.2
Mass Row
Rate
(tons/hour)
-
70.8
70.1
74.2
-
-
73.8
75.2
63.4
71.2
72.3
-
Water
Meter
(total gal.)
1644
1705
1823
1954
1981
1981
2108
2245
2386
2569
2736
2855
Recorded
Auger Speed
(Hertz)
-
13.4
13.5
13.5
-
- '
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
~
Calculated
Row Rate
(Ibs/min)
-
134.1
134.1
134.1
-
-
134.1
134.1
134.1
134.1
134.1
-
*Solucorp worked on auger. Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with system off = 0.2 hours
Start 04/15/97 13:05 257.3" - - - . -
D8 On 04/15/97 13:12 257.4 6910.0 72.0 2920 13.5 179.0
Off 257.5 6918.2 - 2962 .
*End for day/start again a couple days later. Amount of time that time meter was running with system off = 1.8 hours
Start 04/.19/97 14:32 259.3 6919.2 ~ 2965 9.03 128.8
D9 On 04/19/97 14:52 259.6 6944.2 70.5 3106 9.02 128.8
D10 On 04/19/97 15:12 260.0 6970.1 71.0 3225 8.98 128.8
*Shut down to calibrate. Amount of time that time meter was running and system was not processing soil = 0.5 hours
Start 04/19/97 15:56 260.7 6980.8 - 3270 -
D11 On 04/19/97 16:09 260.9 6995.8 72.3 3346 11.1 139.1
D12 On 04/19/97 16:28 261.3 7019.7 74.0 3456 11.1 139.1
*Agent calibration. Amount of time that time meter was running and system was not processing soil = 0.2 hours
Off 04/19/97 16:53 261.7 - - 3517
*End for day/start again a couple days later. Amount of time that time meter was running with system off = 0.3 hours
Start 04/21/97 08:35 262.0 7034.5 - 3518
D13 On 04/21/97 08:48 262.3 7045.2 73.0 3562 11.1 137.5
*At 09:00, system shutting down momentarily every 3 minutes or so due to electrical overload problems.
D14 On 04/21/97 09:13 262.7 7069.7 71.3 3675 11.1 137.5
D15 On/Off 04/21/97 09:54 263.3 7094.6 - 3783 11.1 158.9
D16 On 04/21/97 10:21 263.8 7121.2 72.3 3911 11.1 158.9
*Solucorp and electrician adjusting system. Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with no soil = 0.5 hours
On/Off 04/21/97 11:49 - 7145.7 - -
*Shut down for lunch. Amount of time that time meter was running and system was not processing soil = 1.3 hours
Start 04/21/97 13:05 - -
a
**
D17
D18
D19
D20
Estimated
After nnlihrntii
On
On
On
On
On
**
r»n elan hi
04/21/97
04/21/97
04/21/97
04/21/97
04/21/97
04/21/97
04/21/97
ari Hoon run thr
13:10
13:15
13:34
13:55
14:17
14:35
15:45
nunh tho ov
266.1
266.2
266.5
266.9
267.3
267.6
268.8
rofam /Artn\/a\n
7159.0
7163.5
7187.5
7211.7
7237.7
7251.8
7335.9
•M- ntt\
74.3
80.1
66.5
68.5
71.0
-
-
~
4073
4170
4270
4355
4411
4909
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
-
-
126.3
126.3
126.3
126.3
126.3
_
-
- Not recorded or monitor off.
B-13
-------
Table B-15. Process Monitoring Data Collected During SW Treatment
Treated Material-Belt
Scale Meter
Agent Addition Rate
Sample No. Unit
(if collected) On/Off
Start
•Official Start*
D1
D2
On
On
Stop
Date
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
Time
08:45
09:10
09:33
09:56
10:20
Cumulative Mass Flow Water Recorded
Cumulative Mass Rate Meter Auger Speed
Time (hrs) (total tons) (tons/hour) (total gal.) (Hertz)
270.7
271.0
271.5
271.9
272.2
7392.0
7412.1
7443.6
7467.2
7479.6
-
74.3
72.4
62.5
-
"Stopped to assess size of SW pile. Amount of time that time meter was running with system off =
03
D4
D5
D6
lunch.
D7
D8
D9
D10
Start
On
On
On
On
Off
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
10:50
10:52
11:14
11:32
11:50
11:57
272.4
272.5
272.8
273.2
273.5
273.7
Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with
On
On
On
On
On
Off
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
05/06/97
13:20
13:30
13:50
14:15
14:36
14:52
-
275.1
275.5
275.9
276.3
276.6
-
7482.9
7507.7
7532.7
7560.0
7570.7
system off = 1 .
-
7584.8
7607.6
7633.0
7658.2
7674.0
-
70.6
68.8
100
98.7
-
,2 hours
-
77.0
68.8
55.3
79.4
-
*End for day/start next day. Estimated amount of time that time meter was running with system off
D11
D12
D13
D14
D15
D16
D17
D18
D19
D20
On
On
On
On
On
On
On/Off
On
On
On
Off
On**
On
On
On
On
Off
***
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/07/97
05/08/97
07:55
08:19
08:41
09:03
09:28
09:52
10:15
10:41
11:06
11:28
11:54
12:02
13:25
13:40
14:10
14:30
15:15
15:21
15:42
15:44
15:58
-
276.6
277.0
277.4
277.8
278.2
278.7
279.0
279.5
279.9
280.3
280.7
280.9
-
281.2
281.8
282.1
-
7674.7
7684.9
7708.2
7732.0
7757.4
7782.2
7807.4
7832.2
7857.9
7881.9
7907.5
7915.5
-
7924.5
7946.0
7948.3
-
Collected grab sample of treated
Collected grab sample of treated
283.3
283.5
-
7984.6
-
7989.0
~
70.3
72.4
60.1
56.8
60.7
72.2
66.2
68.7
72.5
71.4
-
-
-
56.0
48.2
-
4925
5089
5218
5447
5549
0.2 hours
-
5610
5816
5941
6072
6108
~
6195
6335
6583
6849
6986
= 0.3 hours
6986
7090
7281
7494
7731
7950
8147
8358
8553
8716
8881
8922
-
8973
9033
9138
-
-
11.4
11.4
11.4
-
11.4
11.4
11.3
11.3
0*
-
-
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
~
-
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
-
-
11.5
23.0
33.5
27.0
Calculated
Flow Rate
(Ibs/min)
_
130
130
130
-
130
130
130
130
0*
-
-
130
130
130
130
_
_
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
~
-
-
-
-
_
material from loader bucket.
material from loader bucket.
34.8
-
-
9419
9438
-
41.5
-
-
-
-
-
* Due to a misunderstanding, Solucorp turned the system off after the influent sample was taken instead of waiting until after the effluent sample
was taken.
** Turned system back on to consume agent.
*** Initial reading for belt scale calibration on 5/8/97.
- Not recorded or monitor off.
B-14
-------
Table B-16. Process Monitoring Data Collected During TM-SW Treatment
Treated Material-Belt
Scale Meter
Sample No.
(if collected)
Startup
begins
Official start
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
Feed
stopped
Lunch
After lunch
D11
D12
D13
D14
D15
D16
D17
D18
D19
D20
Shutdown
Unit
On/Off
Initial
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
Off
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
On
Off
**
Date
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
06/24/97
Time
07:55
08:03
08:15
08:36
08:57
09:20
09:42
10:05
10:27
10:51
11:12
11:35
11:57
12:01
12:04
13:27
13:43
14:05
14:29
14:52
15:14
15:36
15:59
16:21
16:46
17:08
17:15
14:52
Cumulative
Time (hrs)
286,4
-
286.7
287.1
287.4
287.8
288.2
288.6
288.9
289.3
289.7
290.1
290.5
-
290.6
290.7
290.9
291.3
291.7
292.1
292.5
292.8
293.2
293.6
294.0
294.4
294.5
-
Cumulative
Mass
(total tons)
8072.6
-
8085.9
8111.6
8136.0
8161.6
8188.6
8213.5
8241.4
8266.1
8291.4
8314.7
8341.4
•-
8349.4
-
8367.4
8393.3
8420.0
8447.0
8472.1
8498.4
8523.5
8549.8
8576.1
8602.3
8610.7
7989.0
Mass Flow
Rate
(tons/hour)
-
-
71
75
69
66
70
71
67
67
72
62
68
-
0
-
68
72
68
69
72
69
69
69
72
65
0
-
Water
Meter
(total gal.)
9515.4
-
" 9603.5
9732.5
9866.4
9990.5
10133.5
10295.2
10468.0
10618.0
10770.0
10919.0
11078.0
-
11115.2
-
11269.0
11425.0
11583.4
11760.0
11930.4
12108.0
12271.9
12466.0
12670.3
12890.0
-
-
Agent Addition Rate
Recorded
Auger Speed
(Hertz)
-
-
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
~8.53
-
-
-
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
8.53
-
8.53
Calculated
Flow Rate
(Ibs/min)
-
-
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
.. 137
137
-
-
-
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
~
137
** Turned system back on to use up agent.
- Not recorded or monitor off.
B-15
-------
Table B-17. Auger/MBS Agent Addition Results
Auger Speed,
Hertz
Dat9 Target
Pretreatment Check
04/11 16
04/11 16
04/11 16
04/12 21
04/12 21
04/12 25
04/12 25
04/12 23.5
04/12 23.5
04/12 23.5
Actual
15.9
15.9
15.9
20.9
20.9
24.8
24.8
23.6
23.6
23.6
Elapsed
Time
(sec)
30.4
30.47
30.53
29.84
30.18
30.09
30.28
30.35
30.32
30.22
Number
of
Rotations
18
19
19.4
25
25
30
30
28.5
28
27.5
Rotations per '
Minute
(rpms)
36
37
38
50
50
60
59
56
55
55
Weight of Pails
(Ibs)
Empty
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.55
5.6
5.6
Full
80.5
82.7
84.1
99.1
102.05
123.95
127.95
121.3
119.25
131.25
Agent Addition Rate
(Ibs/min)
Target Actual
Difference in the Agent
Addition Rate
(Ibs/min)
233 147.8 -85.5
233 151.8 -81.5
233 154.3 -79.1
233 188.0 -45.3
233 191.7 -41.6
233 236.0 2.7
233
233
233
233
Post-Treatment Check
04/14 23.5
Pretreatrnant Check
04/14 13.5
04/14 13.5
04/14 13.5
23.5
13.4
13.4
13.4
29.84
30
29.9
29.91
28
17
16.5
16
56
34
33
32
04/14 13.5 13.4 29.88 16 32
After the Addition of a Link to the Auger Chain/During Agent Transfer
04/19 13.5 13.4 29.97 16 32
04/19 13.5
04/19 13.5
13.4
13.4
29.9
29.88
16
16
32
32
5.6
5.6
5.55
5.6
5.6
120.8
79
73.05
71.75
72.35
233
242.4
228.8
224.9
249.5
231.6
9.1
-4.5
-8.4
16.1
-1.7
-•Average = 233.7
(all SF samples)
133
133
133
133
146.8
135.5
132.7
134.0
13.8
2.5
-0.3
1.0
-•Average =134.1
(SB samples D1-D7)
5.6
5.6
5.6
93.2
97.6
90.6
133
133
133
After the Addition of a Link to the Auger Chain/Agent Transfer Complete
04/19 13.5
04/19 10
04/19 9
04/19 9
04/19 9
After C5
04/19 9
04/19 9
04/19 9
After C5 (continued)
04/19 11
04/19 11
04/19 11
After C6
04/19 11
04/19 11
04/19 11
13.4
10.1
9.03
9.03
9.03
8.96
8.96
8.96
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
29.98
29.9
30.06
29.97
29.97
29.91
29.94
29.97
30
29.94
29.94
30
29.93
30.03
16.5
12.5
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
33
25
22
22
22
22
22
22
26
26
26
26
26
26
5.55
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
98.1
89.4
78.2
72.9
71.9
69.6
63.9
63.15
69.2
72.85
72.95
83.7
74.25
77.65
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
175.4
184.6
170.7
185.2
168.2
144.9
134.7
132.7
128.4
116.8
115.2
127.2
134.8
135.0
156.2
137.6
144.0
42.4
51.6
37.7
-Avg=179.0
(D8 only)
52.2
35.2
11.9
1.7
-0.3
~Avg=128.8
(09,010)
-4.6
-16.2
-17.8
-5.8
1.8
2.0
-Avg=139.1 (D1 1,012)
23.2
4.6
11.0
B-16
-------
Table B-17. Auger/MBS Agent Addition Results (continued)
Date
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
After C7
04/21
04/21
After C8
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
04/21
SW:
Auger Speed,
Hertz
Target Actual
9.7
9.7
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9.65
9.65
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
10
10
10
10.2
Elapsed
Time
(sec)
29.91
30
29.94
30.03
29.94
30.4
29.97
30
29.97
30.04
29.82
29.94
30.07
29.9
Number
of
Rotations
12
12
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
14
13.5
14
12
12.5
12.5
12.5
Rotations per
Minute
(rpms)
24
24
27
27
27
27
27
28
27
28
24
25
25
25
Weight ol
(Ibs)
Empty
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
Pails Agent Addition Rate Difference in the Agent
(Ibs/min) Addition Rate
Full Target Actual (Ibs/m.n)
59.7 133 108.5 -24.5
55.8 133 100.4 -32.6
66.8 133 12
69.7 133 12
69.7 133 12
89.6 133 16
76.8 133 14
i
i
2.6 -10.4
8.1 -4.9
8.5 -4.5
-Avg=137.5 (D13.D14)
5.8 32.8
2.5 9.5
-Avg=158.9
! (D15.D16)
92.5 133 173.8 40.8
85.9 133 160.8 27.8
81.6 133 ^51^ 18.8
70.1 133 129.8 -3.2
67.9 133 124.8 -8.2
68.5 133 125.5 -7.5
68 133 125.2 -7.8
^Average = 126.3
(D17 through D20)
Pretreatment Check
05/05
05/05
05/05
05/05
05/05
05/05
05/05
05/05
05/05
After C5
05/07
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.3
30.37
30.22
29.75
30.3
30.31
30.22
30.25
30.28
30.31
30.35
12
12
12
13.5
13.5
14
14
14
14
14
24
24
24
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
73.0 133 133.2 0.2
58.5 133 105.0 -28.0
63.4 133 116.6 -16.4
67.6 133 122.8 -10.2
69.3 133 126.1 -6.9
69.8 133 12
72.1 133 13
75.2 133 13
71.6 133 13
67.7 133 12
Post-Treatment Check
05/07
TM-SW:
11.4
11.4
30.5
NR
NR
5.6
71.2 133 12
7.5 -5.5
1.5 -1.5
7.7 4.7
0.5 -2.5
-Avg=129.8
(all SW)
2.6 -10.4
9.0 -4.0
Pretreatment Check
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
11.5
11.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.00
9.00
9.00
11.5
11.4
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.09
9.09
9.03
30.35
30.56
29.34
29.50
30.32
30.31
29.41
30.50
30.12
13.5
13.5
11.5
12
12.5
12.5
11
11.2
11.3
27
27
24
24
25
25
22
22
23
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.65
5.6
5.85
5.7
5.6
78.7 133 144.5 11.5
88.7 133 162.8 29.8
85.3 133 162.6 29.6
79.75 133 150.8 17.8
82.97 133 153.0 20.0
86.8 133 160.7 27.7
82.90 133 157.2 24.2
75.80 133 137.9 4.9
75.7 133 139.6 6.6
B-17
-------
Table B-17. Auger/MBS Agent Addition Results (continued)
Data
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
06/23
Auger Speed,
Hertz
Target Actual
9.00 9.03
9.00 9.03
9.00 9.03
8.50 8.53
8.50 8.53
8.50 8.53
8,50 8.53
8.50 8.53
8.50 8.53
Elapsed
Time
(sec)
30.50
29.88
30.28
30.50
30.19
30.34
30.62
30.34
30.31
Number
of
Rotations
11.2
10.7
11
10.6
10.4
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.5
Rotations per
Minute
(rpms)
22
21
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
Weight of Pails
(Ibs)
Empty
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.75
5.6
5.65
5.7
5.6
5.6
Full
81.65
73.9
80.20
85.6
67.5
79.65
75.8
75.4
75.7
Agent Addition Rate
(Ibs/min)
Target Actual
Difference in the Agent
Addition Rate
(Ibs/min)
133 149.2 16.2
133 136.9 3.9
133 147.8 14.8
133
133
133
133
133
133
Post-treatment Check
06/23
8.50 8.53
30.28
10.5
21
5.6
73.8
133
157.1
123.0
146.3
137.4
138.0
138.8
135.1
24.1
-10.0
13.3
4.4
5.0
5.8
-Avg=137
(all TM-SW)
2.1
rpms Rotations per minute
soo Seconds
B.5 REFERENCES
1. Walpole, R.E. and R.H. Myers. Probability and
Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Macmillan
Publishing Company, New York, 1985
B-18
-------
APPENDIX C
CASE STUDIES
The information provided in these case studies was
prepared in summary form by Solucorp® and has not been
independently verified by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or its contractor Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC).
C.1 PIGMENT DYE MANUFACTURING
FACILITY
This pigment dye manufacturing facility, located in Jersey
City, New Jersey, contained veins of pigment dye buried in
the ground over a period of 50 years. As a result, the soil
was contaminated with lead (Pb). The average Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) leachable Pb
concentration was 77 milligrams per liter (mg/L); portions
of the soil contained TCLP leachable Pb concentrations in
excess of 600 mg/L.
Solucorp conducted a laboratory treatability study and a
subsequent pilot test on the site to demonstrate the
effectiveness of Molecular Bonding System® (MBS®) prior
to a full-scale application. For the pilot test, soil was
excavated, screened, and crushed to 2.5 cm prior to
treatment. Solucorp's equipment was set up within the
confines of a 125 foot by 60 foot area. An average of 400
tons of soil were reportedly processed per day. TCLP Pb
levels in the treated soil were reportedly reduced from 77
mg/L to non-detectable (<0.25 mg/L). Solucorp reported
a volume increase of only 1.8 percent due to addition of the
MBS reagent.
C.2 BRASS MANUFACTURING PLANT SITE
This brass manufacturing plant, located in Waterbury,
Connecticut, was contaminated from leaks in an
underground pickle liquor drain that ran across the site. Soil
and slag were contaminated with cadmium (Cd), copper
(Cu), Pb, and zinc (Zn).
Solucorp's mobile equipment was set up on a concrete pad
approximately 450 feet long by 200 feet wide. All screening,
processing, and stockpiling took place on this pad.
Screening and crushing operations were performed
simultaneously with treatment, which was reportedly at an
average throughput of 400 tons per day (tpd).
TCLP leachable Pb concentrations were reportedly reduced
from an average of 33 mg/L to non-detectable levels
(<0.10 mg/L); TCLP leachable Cd concentrations were
reduced from an average of 6 mg/L to non-detectable
levels (<0.01 mg/L). The volume increase due to addition
of the MBS agent was reportedly only 1.6 percent.
C.3 Cu WIRE BURNING SITE
This site in West Virginia was contaminated from the
burning of Cu wire over a 20-year period. Tires were used
as a heat source, causing elevated levels of Pb and Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in a muddy ash.
Solucorp's mobile equipment was set up at the bottom of a
mountainside next to a highway. All soil and ash were
screened and crushed to 2.5 cm prior to treatment.
Treatment rates reportedly averaged 300 tpd in severe
weather conditions that included torrential rains, two feet of
snow, and sub-freezing temperatures.
TCLP leachable Pb concentrations were reportedly reduced
from an average of 62 mg/L to less than 1 mg/L. The
vendor estimates that the volume increase was 2 percent.
C.4 CHROMIUM (Cr) ORE PROCESSING
FACILITY
Sandy/clayey soils at this site in Glasgow, Scotland were
contaminated with hexavalent and trivalent Cr as a result of
waste associated with chromite ore processing. Total Cr
C-1
-------
concentrations In the soil ranged from 153 milligrams per
klogram (mg/kg) to 12,850 mg/kg, with TCLP teachable Cr
ranging from 88 mg/L to 107 mg/L
Sducorp conducted a treatability study; results reportedly
Indicated that both teachable hexavalent and trivalent Cr
could be successfully treated. During this treatability study,
conversion of hexavalent Cr to trivalent Cr was not required
prior to chemical stabilization; the MBS agent served as a
reducing agent and stabilization agent in one step.
Preceding onsite treatment, soil was excavated and
screened to 2.5 centimeters. TCLP leachable Cr
concentrations were reduced to 1.3 mg/L and <0.1 mg/L
for trivalent and hexavalent Cr, respectively.
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
VENDOR CLAIMS
NOTE: This appendix was prepared by Solucorp®. Claims
and interpretations of results made in this appendix are
those of the vendor and have not necessarily been
substantiated by this demonstration or otherwise
independently verified by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or its contractor, Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC).
D.1 INTRODUCTION
The Solucorp Molecular Bonding System® (MBS®)
provides simple, environmentally sound and cost effective
stabilization of heavy metals contamination. MBS has been
proven effective commercially for all Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals and will
permanently reduce the leachability of soils, sludges, slag
and ashes to levels well below regulatory limits and with
lower volume increases than competitive technologies.
Processed material is chemically transformed into a metallic
sulfide (the least soluble form for most heavy metals), is pH
balanced, nonhazardous and unchanged in physical
characteristics. In addition to the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, MBS has been subjected
to and passed other regulatory methods such as Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), SWEP, CAL
WET, and the Humidity Cell and Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP) long term stability tests.
MBS operations may be completed either in situ or ex situ
using standard mixing equipment. MBS mixing systems
can easily be installed in a manufacturing operation to
convert hazardous heavy metal wastes, such as slag or
baghouse dust, into a non hazardous, non-leachable
material. This means a safer facility with lower insurance,
compliance, training and disposal costs.
Unlike other heavy metal technologies, MBS is not pH
dependent. This insures the solubility of the treated metal (s)
is not significantly altered by the addition of acids or
caustics to the media. MBS has been designed (and
proven successful in commercial-scale applications) for
wastes classified as D004 through D011, as well as K-listed
wastes. Its ability to chemically transform the hazardous
contaminants into a non-hazardous compound provides a
unique, cost effective and permanent solution to the
treatment of heavy metals. MBS treated material has
consistently passed the test designed to measure the long-
term stability of treated waste.
D.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
As depicted in the attached process flow diagram, the MBS
treatment process is completely mobile and easily
transportable to allow for onsite treatment. Processing rates
range from 25 tons per hour (tph) to more than 500 tph.
Waste material is screened and crushed to reduce particle
size to an average 2-inch diameter. The waste is then mixed
with MBS powdered reagents in a closed hopper pugmill
system. The reagent mixture is established through
treatability studies for the site-specific conditions. Water is
added to catalyze the reaction and to ensure homogeneous
mixing. The treated material is then conveyed to a stockpile.
With MBS there is no curing time or change in the physical
characteristics of a treated waste. Solucorp's fully enclosed
pugmill uses a negative pressure system to pull the exhaust
vapors through a regenerate wet scrubber prior to dis-
charge to the atmosphere. The treated material may then
be either returned to the original site or disposed in a Sub-
title D landfill. MBS has also been approved for beneficial
reuse in landfills as cover, fill or contouring material.
D.3 PROCESS RESULTS
In extensive bench- and pilot-scale testing, the MBS
process produced dramatic reductions in the TCLP levels
of hazardous contaminants. Table D-1 presents several
D-1
-------
recent commercial projects, showing that the same results
(in milligrams per liter or mg/L) achieved in the laboratory
can be achieved in the field.
D.4 COMPARISON WITH OTHER
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The MBS process is the most effective system to chemically
alter the form of heavy metal contaminants into a nonhaz-
ardous, stable compound. Conventional solidification or
stabilization methods (e.g. cement, CKD, lime or silicate-
based additives) require the addition of large volumes of
reagents to the waste which significantly increase offsite
transportation and disposal costs. If increases in compres-
s'we strength or reductions in permeability are desired, MBS
is completely compatible with cement or bentonite.
The simplicity of MBS combined with its modular/ trans-
portable design and fully enclosed operational system (pre-
venting the release of contaminants or secondary wastes),
will bring lower operating costs, enhanced safety and re-
duced emissions/secondary wastes. Table D-2 compares
various remediation technologies to the MBS process. It
demonstrates that MBS is far superior to other remediation
technologies in every category especially long-term stabil-
ity. Its inherent ability to transform hazardous contaminants
into a non-hazardous, insoluble compound can facilitate
onsite disposal and reduce the owner's future liability.
When offsite disposal is necessary, MBS results in much
lower transportation and disposal costs since the treatment
process does not add large volumes of reagents or water.
Table D-1. Commercial Project Summary
LOCATION
WASTE TYPE
SOURCE OF
POLLUTION
PRE-TCLP
CONNECTICUT
Lead & Cadmium
Contaminated Soil
With Elevated Levels
Of Zinc And Copper
Lead Contaminated
Slag
Lead 33 mg/L
Cadmium 6 mg/L
NEW YORK CANADA MASSACHUSETTS
Lead Lead, Cadmium Lead Contaminated
Contaminated And Zinc Soil
Soil Contaminated Soil
Lead Paint Chips Steel Production Skeet Shooting
Range
Lead 66 mg/L Lead 188 mg/L Lead 34 mg/L
Cadmium 3.78 mg/L
SCOTLAND
Chromium Contaminated
Soil
Metal Plating
Tri Chrome 1 1 1 mg/L
Hex Chrome 100 mg/L
MISSOURI
Lead Contaminated
Slag
Lead Smelting
Lead
5 mg/L - 600 mg/L
POST TCLP • Lead 0.10 mg/L
Cadmium <0.01 mg/L
REGULATORY Lead 5.0 mg/L
LIMIT Cadmium 1 mg/L
VOLUME
ADDITION
1.6%
Zinc 1300 mg/L
Lead 0.34 mg/L Lead 0.9 mg/L Lead <0.1 mg/L
Cadmium 0.29 mg/L
Zinc 128 mg/L
Lead 5.0 mg/L Lead 5.0 mg/L Lead 5.0 mg/L
Cadmium 1.0 mg/L
Zinc 500 mg/L
1.85% 3.4% 1.75%
Trl Chrome <0.03 mg/L
Hex Chrome <0.02 mg/L
Tri Chrome 5.0 mg/L
Hex Chrome 5.0 mg/L
7.5%
(Including Reduction)
Lead <0.50 mg/L
Lead 5.0 mg/L
2.8%
Analysis conducted daily by independent, state certified laboratories.
Tablo D-2. Remediation Technology Comparison Matrix
VARIABLE
MBS PROCESS
LIME/PORTLAND CEMENT/CKD
CHEMISTRY
CHEMICAL COST
VOLUME/BULKING
MATERIALS HANDLING
TRANSPORTATION AND
DISPOSAL
TOTAL COST
Chemical reagents are combined with metals
to form an insoluble metallic sulfide
compound which prevents leaching in the
TCLP test and in the natural environment.
Chemical expense is usually lower due to low
chemical dose.
Generally <5% volume change.
No physical change in soil characteristics; low
volume addition improves production thus
shortening project duration. No curing time.
Lower transportation and disposal cost due to
less material to be transported and disposed.
Savings of up to 50% or more are feasible.
Chemical additives neutralize the acid in the TCLP test
(or in an acidic disposal environment) to produce a final
pH that is near the minimum solubility for the metal
concerned.
Chemical expense usually high due to high dosage
requirements.
Typically 15% - 30% or more increase in bulk.
High bulking factor increases material handling which
decreases production rate resulting in a longer project
duration. Curing time necessary.
High transportation and disposal cost due to significant
increase in treated material.
Higher cost due to chemicals, material handling, volume
increases, transportation and disposal expenses.
D-2
-------
Figure D-1. MBS onslte process flow diagram.
Figure D-2. MBS Inline process flow diagram.
D-3
-------
------- |