United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington DC 20460
SW-874
April 1983
Revised Edition
Solid Waste
Hazardous Waste
Land Treatment
-------
SW-874
April, 1983
HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND TREATMENT
Contract Nos. 68-03-2940
68-03-2943
Project Officer
Carlton Wiles
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay of its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is the first necessary step in problem solu-
tion; it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage
wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal
and community sources; to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies;
and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects
of pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research --
a vital communications link between the researcher and the user community.
This report provides state-of-the-art information on hazardous waste
land treatment units. Information is provided on site selection, waste
characterization, treatment demonstration studies, land treatment unit
design, operation, and closure, and other topics useful for design and
management of land treatment units.
Francis T. Mayo
Director, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
-------
PREFACE
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a Federal hazardous
waste management program. This program must ensure that hazardous wastes are
handled safely from generation until final disposition. EPA issued a series
of hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA that is published in
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 260 through 265 and 122 through 124.
Parts 264 and 265 of 40 CFR contain standards applicable to owners and
operators of all facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes.
Wastes are identified or listed as hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261. The Part
264 standards are implemented through permits issued by authorized States or
the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR Part 122 and Part 124 regulations. Land
treatment, storage, and disposal (LTSD) regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 issued
on July 26, 1982, establish performance standards for hazardous waste landfills,
surface impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles.
The Environmental Protection Agency is developing three types of documents
for preparers and reviewers of permit applications for hazardous waste LTSD
facilities. These types include RCRA Technical Guidance Documents, Permit
Guidance Manuals, and Technical Resource Documents (TRDs). The RCRA Technical
Guidance Documents present design and operating specifications or design evalua-
tion techniques that generally comply with or demonstrate compliance with the
Design and Operating Requirements and the Closure and Post-Closure Requirements
of Part 264. The Permit Guidance Manuals are being developed to describe the
permit application information the Agency seeks and to provide guidance to
applicants and permit writers in addressing the information requirements.
These manuals will include a discussion of each step in the permitting process,
and a description of each set of specifications that must be considered for
inclusion in the permit.
The Technical Resource Documents present state-of-the-art summaries of
technologies and evaluation techniques determined by the Agency to constitute
good engineering designs, practices, and procedures. They support the RCRA
Technical Guidance Documents arid Permit Guidance Manuals in certain areas
(i.e., liners, leachate management, closure, covers, water balance) by describ-
ing current technologies and methods for designing hazardous waste facilities
or for evaluating the performance of a facility design. Although emphasis is
given to hazardous waste facilities, the information presented in these TRDs
may be used in designing and operating non-hazardous waste LTSD facilities as
well. Whereas the RCRA Technical Guidance Documents and Permit Guidance Manuals
are directly related to the regulations, the information in these TRDs covers
a broader perspective and should not be used to interpret the requirements of
the regulations.
-------
A previous version of this document dated September 1980 was announced in
the Federal Register for public comment on December 17, 1980. The new edition
incorporates changes as a result of the public comments, and supersedes the
September 1980 version. Comments on this revised publication will be accepted
at any time. The Agency intends to update these TRDs periodically based on
comments received and/or the development of new information. Comments on any
of the current TRDs should be addressed to Docket Clerk, Room S-269(c), Office
of Solid Waste (WH-562), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460. Communications should identify the document by
title and number (e.g., "LLning of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities,"
SW-870).
VI
-------
ABSTRACT
>
This technical resource document provides state-of-the-art information on
all aspects of hazardous waste land treatment (HWLT) . The document is a practi-
cal reference for people involved in design and design review, beginning with
site selection and waste characterization and progressing through facility
design, operation, and closure. Information on the fate of both inorganic and
organic compounds in the soil environment is included and provides a basis for
developing treatment demonstrations. Non-hazardous waste constituents are
also discussed because they are likely to be important to the overall design
and management of the HWLT unit. Waste-site interactions that affect treatment
processes are discussed as well as laboratory, greenhouse, and field testing
protocols for assessing land treatment performance. Methods for calculating
loading rates and determining limiting constituents are presented.
Plot layout, water control, erosion control, management of soil pH and
fertility, vegetation establishment, waste storage facilities, waste application
methods and equipment, site inspection, and recordkeeping requirements are
discussed. Monitoring procedures for waste, soil cores, soil-pore liquids,
runoff water, ground water, and vegetation are presented. The contingency
plans and emergency equipment needed at HWLT units are also included. Finally,
closure requirements and recommendations are presented with the objective of
closing the site so that little environmental hazard will exist both during
and after the post-closure care period.
The information in this document supplements the permitting and interim
status standards in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 and related Agency guidance manuals
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for establishing the design
and management of hazardous waste land treatment units.
vii
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD r iii
PREFACE ..... v
ABSTRACT vii
LIST OF FIGURES , viii
LIST OF TABLES xxiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xxxi
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....... 1
1.1 The Role of Land Treatment 2
1.2 Controlling Contaminant Migration 5
1.3 Sources of Technical Information ........ 7
1.4 Overview of Regulations ........ 7
2.0 THE DYNAMIC DESIGN APPROACH 13
2.1 Site Assessment 15
2.2 The Treatment Medium 15
2.3 The Waste Stream 16
2.4 Expected Fate in Soil 16
2.5 Waste-Site Interactions .... 16
2.6 Design and Operating Plan . . , . 17
2.7 Final Site Selection 17
2.8 Monitoring 18
2.9 Contingency Planning 18
2.10 Planning for Site Closure 19
2.11 Permit Application/Acceptance ................ 19
2.12 HWLT Operation 19
2.13 Site Closure 19
3.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF SITES 21
3.1 Regional Geology 25
3.2 Topography and Drainage ........ 26
3.3 Climate 27
3.3.1 Winds 29
3.3.2 Temperature and Moisture Regimes 29
3.4 Soils 33
3.4.1 Soil Survey 33
3.4.2 Erosion 34
3.4.3 General Soil Properties 41
3.4.4 Leaching Potential 43
3.4.5 Horizonation , 44
3.5 Geotechnical Description 45
3.5.1 Subsurface Hydrology ..... 46
3.5.2 Groundwater Hydrology ..... 46
3.5.3 Groundwater Quality 46
3.6 Socio-Geographic Factors 47
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4.0 THE TREATMENT MEDIUM 51
4.1 Soil Properties 52
4.1.1 Physical Properties 52
4.1.1.1 Particle Size Distribution . 52
4.1.1.2 Soil Structure 55
4.1.1.3 Bulk Density 57
4.1.1.4 Moisture Retention 57
4.1.1.5 Infiltration, Hydraulic Conductivity and Drainage . 59
4.1.1.6 Temperature 61
4.1.2 Chemical Properties 66
4.1.2.1 Cation Exchange 67
4.1.2.2 Organic Carbon . . .' 67
4.1.2.3 Nutrients 68
4.1.2.4 Exchangeable Bases 70
4.1.2.5 Metals 71
4.1.2.6 Electrical Conductivity 71
4.1.2.7 pH 72
4.1.2.7.1 Acid Soils 72
4.1.2.7.2 Buffering Capacity of Soils 73
4.1.3 Biological Properties 73
4.1.3.1 Primary Decomposers 74
4.1.3.1.1 Bacteria 74
4.1.3.1.2 Actinomycetes 74
4.1.3.1.3 Fungi 76
4.1.3.1.4 Algae 76
4.1.3.2 Secondary Decomposers 76
4.1.3.2.1 Worms 76
4.1.3.2.2 Nematodes, Mites and Flies 77
4.1.3.3 Factors Influencing Waste Degradation 77
4.1.3.4 Waste Degradation by Microorganisms . 81
4.2 Plants 84
4.3 Atmosphere 86
5.0 HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS 92
5.1 Sources of Hazardous Wastes 92
5.1.1 Specific Sources 92
5.1.2 Nonspecific Sources of Hazardous Waste 95
5.1.3 Sources of Information on Waste Streams 95
5.2 Waste Pretreatment 95
5.2.1 Neutralization 103
5.2.2 Dewatering 104
5.2.3 Aerobic Degradation 104
5.2.4 Anaerobic Degradation 106
5.2.5 Soil Mixing 106
5.2.6 Size Reduction 107
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.3 Waste Characterization Protocol 107
5.3.1 Preliminary Waste Evaluation 108
5.3.2 Waste Analysis 108
5.3.2.1 Sampling and Preparation ..... 108
5.3.2.2 Physical Analysis 110
5.3.2.3 Chemical Analysis 112
5.3.2.3.1 Inorganic Analysis ...... 113
5.3.2.3.1.1 Elements 113
5.3.2.3.1.2 Electrical Conductivity 113
5.3.2.3.1.3 pH and Titratable Acids and Bases .... 113
5.3.2.3.1.4 Water 113
5.3.2.3.2 Organic Analysis 114
5.3.2.3.2.1 Total Organic Matter 114
5.3.2.3.2.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 114
5.3.2.3.2.1.2 Extractable Organic Compounds ... 118
5.3.2.3.2.2 Residual Solids 125
5.3.2.4 Biological Analysis 125
5.3.2.4.1 Acute Toxicity 127
5.3.2.4.2 Genetic Toxicity 127
5.3.3 Summary of Waste Characterization Evaluation 134
5.3.4 Final Evaluation Process 134
6.0 FATE OF CONSTITUENTS IN THE SOIL ENVIRONMENT , 148
6.1 Inorganic Constituents 148
6.1.1 Water 148
6.1.2 Plant Nutrients 150
6.1.2.1 Nitrogen 150
6.1.2.1.1 Mineralization 154
6.1.2.1.2 Fixation 157
6.1.2.1.3 Nitrification 160
6.1.2.1.4 Plant Uptake 160
6.1.2.1.5 Denitrification 163
6.1.2.1.6 Volatilization 166
6.1.2.1.7 Storage in Soil 166
6.1.2.1.8 Immobilization ... 167
6.1.2.1.9 Runoff 167
6.1.2.1.10 Leaching 169
6.1.2.2 Phosphorus . 170
6.1.2.3 Boron 176
6.1.2.4 Sulfur 177
6.1.3 Acids and Bases 179
6.1.4 Salts 180
6.1.4.1 Salinity 180
6.1.4.2 Sodicity 190
>,1.5 Halides 194
6.1.5.1 Fluoride 194
6.1.5.2 Chloride 195
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
6.1.5.3 Bromide 197
6.1.5.4 Iodide 198
6.1.6 Metals ..... 198
6.1.6.1 Aluminum 201
6.1.6.2 Antimony 202
6.1.6.3 Arsenic 205
6.1.6.4 Barium 209
6.1.6.5 Beryllium 209
6.1.6.6 Cadmium 211
6.1.6.7 Cesium 217
6.1.6.8 Chromium 217
6.1.6.9 Cobalt 220
6.1.6.10 Copper 224
6.1.6.11 Gallium 228
6.1.6.12 Gold 228
6.1.6.13 Lead 229
6.1.6.14 Lithium 232
6.1.6.15 Manganese 234
6.1.6.16 Mercury 238
6.1.6.17 Molybdenum 244
6.1.6.18 Nickel 247
6.1.6.19 Palladium 251
6.1.6.20 Radium 252
6.1.6.21 Rubidium 252
6.1.6.22 Selenium 253
6.1.6.23 Silver 256
6.1.6.24 Strontium 257
6.1.6.25 Thallium 257
6.1.6.26 Tin ..... 258
6.1.6.27 Titanium 259
6.1*6.28 Tungsten 259
6.1.6.29 Uranium 260
6.1.6.30 Vanadium 261
6.1.6.31 Yttrium 262
6.1.6.32 Zinc 262
6.1.6.33 Zirconium 270
6.1.6.34 Metal Interpretations 270
6.2 Organic Constituents 282
6.2.1 Hazardous Organic Constituents 282
6.2.2 Fate Mechanisms for Organic Constituents 295
6.2.2.1 Degradation 295
6.2.2.2 Volatilization 298
6.2.2.3 Runoff 299
6.2.2.4 Leaching 300
6.2.2.4.1 Soil Properties That Affect Leaching 300
6.2.2.4.2 Organic Constituent Properties That Affect
Leaching 304
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
6.2.2.5 Plant Uptake 305
6.2.3 Organic Constituent Classes 310
6.2.3.1 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 311
6.2.3.2 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 314
6.2.3.3 Organic Acids . 315
6.2.3.4 Halogenated Organics 317
6.2.3.4.1 Chlorinated Benzene Derivatives 319
6.2.3.4.2 Halogenated Biphenyls . 321
6.2.3.5 Surface-Active Agents 324
7.0 WASTE-SITE INTERACTIONS 365
7.1 Review of Available Information 367
7.2 Laboratory Studies 368
7.2.1 Degradability 368
7.2.1.1 Soil Respirometry 369
7.2.1.1.1 Sample Collection 371
7.2.1.1.2 Experimental Procedure 371
7.2.1.1.2.1 Soil Moisture 372
7.2.1.1.2.2 Temperature 372
7.2.1.1.2.3 Nutrient Additions 372
7.2.1.1.2.4 Titrations * 373
7.2.1.1.2.5 Application Rate and Frequency 373
7.2.1.2 Data Analysis 374
7.2.1.2.1 Degradation Rate 376
7.2.1.2.2 Half-life Determination 377
7.2.1.2.3 Considerations for Field Studies of
Degradation 378
7.2.2 Sorption and Mobility 378
7.2.2.1 Soil Thin-Layer Chromatography 379
7.2.2.2 Column Leaching 380
7.2.3 Volatilization 381
7.2.4 Toxicity 382
7.2.4.1 Acute Toxicity 382
7.2.4.1.1 Microbial Toxicity 383
7.2.4.1.2 Phytotoxicity 383
7.2.4.2 Genetic Toxicity 384
7.3 Greenhouse Studies 384
7.3.1 Experimental Procedure 384
7.3.2 Acute Phytotoxicity 385
7.3.3 Residuals Phytotoxicity 385
7.4 Field Pilot Studies 386
7.4.1 Degradation 387
7.4.2 Leachate 387
7.4.3 Runoff 387
7.4.4 Odor and Volatilization 388
7.4.5 Plant Establishment and Uptake 388
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
7.5 Interpretation of Results 388
7.5.1 Feasibility and Loading Rates 389
7.5.2 Management Needs and Monitoring Criteria 390
7.5.3 Calculating Waste Loads Based on Individual
Constituents 390
7.5.3.1 Organics 390
7.5.3.1.1 Volatilization 391
7.5.3.1.2 Leaching 391
7.5.3.1.3 Runoff 391
7.5.3.1.4 Degradability 393
7.5.3.2 Water 396
7.5.3.3 Metals 397
7.5.3.4 Nitrogen 398
7.5.3.5 Phosphorus 400
7.5.3.6 Inorganic Acids, Bases and Salts 400
7.5.3.7 Halides 401
7.5.4 Design Criteria for Waste Application and
Required Land Area 402
8.0 FACILITY DESIGN AND OPERATION 409
8.1 Design and Layout 409
8.1.1 Single Plot Configuration 412
8.1.2 Progressive Plot Configuration ..... 412
8.1.3 Rotating Plot Configuration 419
8.1.4 Overland Flow 419
8.1.5 Buffer Zones 422
8.2 Land Preparation 422
8.3 Water Control and Management ..... 422
8.3.1 Water Balance for the Site 423
8.3.2 Diversion Structures ..... 425
8.3.3 Runoff Retention ..... 425
8.3.4 Runoff Storage Requirement 426
8.3.4.1 Designing for Peak Stormwater Runoff 427
8.3.4.2 Designing for Normal Seasonal Runoff 429
8.3.4.2.1 Monthly Data Approach 429
8.3.4.2.2 Computer Methods 449
8.3.4.3 Effects of Sediment Accumulations 449
8.3.4.4 Summary of Retention Pond Sizing ......... 449
8.3.5 Runoff Treatment Options 450
8.3.6 Subsurface Drainage 451
8.4 Air Emission Control 452
8.4.1 Volatiles 452
8.4.2 Odor 452
8.4.3 Dust 454
8.5 Erosion Control 455
8.5.1 Design Considerations for Terraces 455
8.5.2 Design Considerations for Vegetated Waterways 459
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
8.6 Management of Soil pH 465
8.6.1 Management of Acid Soils 465
8.6.1.1 Liming Materials 467
8.6.1.2 Calculating Lime Requirements 468
8.6.2 Management of Alkaline Soils . 470
8.7 Vegetation 471
8.7.1 Management Objectives 471
8.7.2 Species Selection 474
8.7.3 Seedbed Preparation 475
8.7.4 Seedings and Establishment 496
8.7.4.1 Seeding Methods 496
8.7.4.2 Seeding Rate 496
8.7.4.3 Seeding Depth 497
8.7.4.4 Plant Establishment 497
8.7.5 Soil Fertility 498
8.7.5.1 Fertilizer Formulation 498
8.7.5.2 Timing Fertilizer Applications 499
8.7.5.3 Method of Application 499
8.8 Waste Storage 499
8.8.1 Waste Application Season 502
8.8.2 Waste Storage Facilities 503
8.8.2.1 Liquid Waste Storage .... 503
8.8.2.2 Sludge Storage 505
8.8.2.3 Solid Waste Storage 505
8.9 Waste Application Techniques 505
8.9.1 Liquid Wastes 506
8.9.1.1 Surface Irrigation 507
8.9.1.2 Sprinkler Irrigation . 507
8.9.2 Semiliquids 509
8.9.2.1 Surface Spreading and Mixing 509
8.9.2.2 Sursurface Injection 510
8.9.3 Low Moisture Solids 511
8.9.4 Equipment 512
8.9.5 Uniformity of Waste Application 513
8.9.5.1 Soil Sampling as an Indicator 513
8.9.5.2 Vegetation as an Indicator 514
8.10 Site Inspection 514
8.11 Records and Reporting 514
9.0 MONITORING 526
9.1 Treatment Zone Concept 528
9.2 Analytical Considerations 530
9.3 Statistical Considerations 531
9.4 Types of Monitoring 531
9.4.1 Waste Monitoring 532
9.4.2 Unsaturated Zone Monitoring 532
xv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
9.4.2.1 Locating Unsaturated Zone Samples 534
9.4.2.2 Depth to be Sampled 536
9.4.2.3 Soil Core Sampling Technique 536
9.4.2.4 Soil-Pore Liquid Sampling Technique 538
9.4.2.4.1 Pressure-Vacuum Lysimeters 539
9.4.2.4.2 Vacuum Extractor 541
9.4.2.4.3 Trench Lysimeters 541
9.4.2.5 Response to Detection of Pollutant Migration . . . 542
9.4.3 Groundwater Monitoring 544
9.4.4 Vegetation Monitoring ..... 545
9.4.5 Runoff Water Monitoring 546
9.4.6 Treatment Zone Monitoring ..... 546
9.4.6.1 Sampling Procedures .. 547
9.4.6.2 Scheduling and Number of Soil Samples 547
9.4.6.3 Analysis and Use of Results 548
9.4.7 Air Monitoring 548
10.0 CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 552
10.1 Routine Health and Safety 552
10.1.1 Site Security .' 552
10.1.2 Personnel Health and Safety 554
10.1.3 Personnel Training 555
10.2 Preparedness and Prevention Measures 555
10.2.1 Communications 555
10.2.2 Arrangements with Authorities 556
10.2.3 Equipment 557
10.2.3.1 Required Emergency Equipment 557
10.2.3.2 Additional Equipment 557
10.2.3.3 Inspection and Maintenance 558
10.3 Contingency Plans and Emergency Response 558
10.3.1 Coordination of Emergency Response 559
10.3.2 Specific Adaptations to Land Treatment 561
10.3.2.1 Soil Overloads 561
10.3.2.2 Groundwater Contamination 562
10.3.2.3 Surface Water Contamination 564
10.3.2.4 Waste Spills 564
10.3.2.5 Fires and Explosions 566
10.4 Changing Wastes 567
11.0 CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE 569
11.1 Site Closure Activities 569
11.1.1 Remedying Metal Overload 569
11.1.2 Preparation of a Final Surface 571
11.1.3 Vegetative Cover Requirement 571
11.1.4 Runoff Control and Monitoring 572
11.1.4.1 Assessing Water Quality 572
11.1.4.2 Controlling the Transport Mechanisms 573
xvi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
11.1.5 Monitoring 573
11.2 Post-Closure Care 574
11.3 Partial Closure 575
APPENDIX A - A Survey of Existing Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment Facilities in the United States ...... 577
APPENDIX B - Hazardous Constituents Regulated by the EPA 625
APPENDIX C - Soil Horizons and Layers 631
APPENDIX D - Industrial Land Treatment Systems Cited in
the Literature 635
APPENDIX E - Sample Calculations 644
APPENDIX E-l - Water Balance and Retention Pond Size Calculations . 645
APPENDIX E-2 - Loading Rate Calculations for Mobile Nondegradable
Constituents 649
APPENDIX E-3 - Calculation of Waste Applications Based on
Nitrogen Content 650
APPENDIX E-4 - Examples of Phosphorus Loading Calculations .... 652
APPENDIX E-5 - Choice of the Capacity Limiting Constituent .... 653
APPENDIX E-6 - Organic Loading Rate Calculations 654
APPENDIX E-7 - Calculation of Facility Size and Life 659
APPENDIX F - Glossary 663
APPENDIX G - Conversion Factors 670
xvn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.
2.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Title
Essential design elements and potential areas
of rejection to be considered when planning an
HWLT system
Factors considered during site selection
Standard wind rose using data presented in
Table 3.3
Areas where waste application may be limited
by excess moisture
Average annual values of the rainfall erosion
index
The soil-erodibility nomograph
Slope-effect chart
Characterization of the treatment medium for
HWLT
Textural triangle of soil particle size
separates
Schematic representation of the relationship
of the various forms of soil moisture to plants
Effect of temperature on hydrocarbon biodegra-
dation in oil sludge-treated soil
Average depth of frost penetration across the
United States
Diagramatic representation of the transforma-
Section
No.
2.0
3.0
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.4.2
3.4.2
3.4.2
4.0
4.1.1.1
4.1.1.4
4.1.1.6
4.1.1.6
4.1.2.3
Page
No.
14
22
31
32
36
37
38
53
56
58
64
65
69
tions of carbon, commonly spoken of as the
carbon cycle
4.7 Cycle of organisms which degrade land applied 4.1.3 75
waste
4.8 The influence of temperature on the biodegra- 4.1.3.3 79
dation rate of three oil sludges
xviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
No.
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
Title
Effect of treatment frequency on the evolution
of CC>2 from Norwood soil amended with petro-
chemical sludge and incubated for 180 days at
30 °C and 18% moisture
Characterization of the waste stream to be
land treated
Categories of hazardous constituents
generated by nonspecific sources
Typical acid-base extraction scheme for
isolating organic chemical classes
Mutagenic activity of acid, base, and neutral
fraction of wood-preserving bottom sediment
as measured with S. typhimurium TA 98 with
metabolic activation
Mutagenic activity of liquid stream from the
acetonitrile purification column as measured
with j^. typhimurium TA 98 with metabolic
activation
Constituent groups to be considered when
assessing the fate of wastes in the land
treatment system
Chemical composition of thundershower samples
Nitrogen cycle illustrating the fate of
sludge nitrogen
Influence of added inorganic nitrogen on the
total nitrogen in clover plants, the propor-
tion supplied by the fertilizer and that fixed
by the Rhizobium organisms associated with the
clover roots
Typical sigmoid pattern of nitrification in
soil
Effect of soil water content on denitrification
Effect of temperature on denitrification
Clay-fixed NH^"1" in three soils resulting from
Section
No.
4.1.3.3
5.0
5.1
5.3.2.3.-
2.1.2
5.3.2.4.2
5.3.2.4.2
'
6.0
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.1.2
6.1.2.1.3
6.1.2.1.5
6.1.2.1.5
6.1.2.1.1
Page
No.
82
93
97
120
132
133
149
153
155
159
161
164
165
168
five applications of a solution containing
100 mg/1 NH4+-N, without intervening drying
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Section Page
No. Title No. No.
6.9 Phosphate distribution with depth in non- 6.1.2.2 171
flooded soil and soil flooded with sewage
water
6.10 General Langmuir isotherms of Merrimac sandy 6.1.2.2 174
loam and Buxton silt loam after successive
phosphorus sorptions and following wetting
and drying treatments for regeneration of
phosphorus sorption sites
6.11 Correlation of salt concentration in the soil 6.1.4.1 183
to the EC of saturation extracts for various
soil types
6.12 Effect of increasing exchangeable sodium 6.1.4.2 192
percentage on hydraulic conductivity
6.13 Schematic diagram of the yield response to an 6.1.6 200
essential but toxic element and a nonessential
toxic element ,
6.14 Cyclical nature of arsenic metabolism in 6.1.6.3 206
different environmental compartments
6.15 Distribution of molecular and ionic species 6.1.6.6 212
of divalent cadmium at different pH values
6.16 Cobalt concentrations in tall fescue grown in 6.1.6.9 222
Marietta and Norwood soils at 400 mg Co kg"*
(added as 00(^3)2 • 6 E^O) with varying layer
thicknesses of uncontaminated soil overlying
the cobalt amended soil
6.17 Distribution of molecular and ionic species 6.1.6.13 230
of divalent lead at different pH values
6.18 The cycle of mercury interconversions in 6.1.6.16 239
nature
6.19 Removal of various forms of mercury from 6.1.6.16 241
DuPage landfill leachate solutions by
kaolinite, plotted as a function of pH at 25°C
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
No.
6.20
6.21
6.22
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
Title
Forms of selenium at various redox potentials
Distribution of molecular and ionic species
of divalent zinc at different pH values
Solubilities of some metal species at various
pH values
Topics to be addressed to evaluate waste-site
interactions for HWLT systems
Schematic diagram of a respirometer
The information needed to determine if a waste
may be land treated
A comprehensive testing format for assessing
the interactions of organic waste constituents
with soil
Topics to be considered for designing and
managing an HWLT
Hazardous waste compatibility chart
Possible layout of a land treatment unit in
a gently sloping uniform terrain when only one
plot is used
Possible layout of a land treatment unit in
a gently sloping uniform terrain when a
progressive plot configuration is used
Possible layout of a land treatment unit in
rolling terrain showing 12 plots and associated
runoff retention basins
Possible layout of a land treatment unit in
level terrain
25-year 24-hour rainfall for the United States
Estimating direct runoff amounts from storm
Section
No.
6.1.6.22
6.1.6.32
6.1.6.34
7.0
7.2.1.1
7.2.1.2
7.5.3.1
8.0
8.1
8.1.1
8.1.2
8.1.2
8.1.3
8.3.4.1
8.3.4.1
Page
No.
254
264
271
366
370
375
392
410
415
417
418
420
421
428
434
rainfall
xxi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Section Page
No. Title No. No.
8.9 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 437
tinental United States for the month of
January based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.10 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 438
tinental United States for the month of
February based on data taken From 1931 to 1960
8.11 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 439
tinental United States for the month of March
based On data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.12 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 440
tinental United States for the month of April
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.13 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 441
tinental United States for the month of May
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.14 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 442
nental United States for the month of June
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.15 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 443
tinental United States for the month of July
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.16 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 444
tinental United States for the month of August
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.17 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 445
tinental United States for the month of
September based on data taken from 1931
to 1960
8.18 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the con- 8.3.4.2.1 446
tinental United States for the month of October
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
8.19 Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the conti- 8.3.4.2.1 447
nental United States for the month of November
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
xxii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
No.
8.20
8.21
8.22
8.23
8.24
8.25
8.26
8.27
8.28
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Title
Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the conti-
nental United States for the month of December
based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
Schematic diagram of general types of terraces
Values of a and b in terrace spacing equation
Gross-sectional diagram of a parabolic channel
Nomograph for parabolic cross sections with a
velocity of 3 fps
The lime requirement curve for a Mawmeu
sandy loam
Major land resource regions of the United
States
Seeding regions in the U.S.
Estimated maximum annual waste storage days
based on climatic factors
Topics to be considered in developing a
monitoring program for HWLT
Various types of monitoring for land treatment
units
A modified pressure-vacuum lysimeter
Schematic diagram of a sand filled funnel
Section
No.
8.3.4.2.1
8.5.1
8.5.1
8.5.2
8.5.2
8.6.1.2
8.7
8.7
8.8.1
9.0
9.0
9.4.2.4.2
9.4.2.5
Page
No.
448
457
458
463
464
469
494
495
504
527
529
540
543
used to collect leachate from the unsaturated
zone
10.1 Contingency planning and additional considera- 10.0 553
tions for HWLT units
11.1 Factors to consider when closing HWLT units 11.0 570
xxiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.
1.1
1.2
1.3
• 3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Title
Land Treatment Usage by Major Industry Group
V
Land Treatability of the Six Main Groups of
Hazardous Materials Migrating from Disposal
Sites
Sources of Information on Land Treatment of
Waste
Use of Preliminary Site Assessment Information
The Influence of Atmospheric Variables on
Land Treatment Operations and Processes
Two-way Frequency Distribution of Wind Speed
and Direction
Typical Values for the C Factor
P Values and Slope-Length Limits for
Contouring
P Values, Maximum Strip Widths, and Slope-
Length Limits for Contour Strip Cropping
P Values for Contour-Farmed, Terraced Fields
Suitability of Various Textured Soils for Land
Treatment of Hazardous Industrial Wastes
Treatment Processes of Soil in a Land Treat-
ment Unit
Corresponding USDA and USCA Soil Classifi-
cations
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Classes for
Native Soils
Seven Classes of Natural Soil Drainage
The Effect of Soil Texture on the Biodegrada-
Section
No.
1.1
1.1
1.3
3.0
3.3
3.3.1
3.4.2
3.4.2
3.4.2
3.4.2
3.4.3
4.0
4.1.1.1
4.1,1.5
4.1.1.5
4.1.3.3
Page
No.
4
5
8
23
28
30
39
40
40
41
42
51
54
60
62
80
tion of Refinery and Petrochemical Sludge
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
No.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Title
Projected 1985 Waste Generation by Industry
Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams Generated
by Nonspecific Industrial Sources
Pretreatment Methods for Hazardous Wastes
Samplers Recommended for Various Types of
Waste
Minimum Number of Samples to be Selected from
Multiple Containers
Sampling Points Recommended for Most Waste
Containments
Purgable Organic Compounds
Scale of Acidities
Typical Hazardous Organic Constituents
Amenable to Acid-Base Extraction Techniques
Reactions of Various Compounds to Alkaline
Hydrolysis
Biological Systems Which May be Used to Detect
Genetic Toxicity of a Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste Evaluation
Chemical Composition of Sewage Sludges
Chemical Analyses of Manure Samples Taken from
23 Feedlots in Texas
Amounts of Nitrogen Contributed by Precipita-
tion
Ratio of Yearly Nitrogen Input to Annual
Nitrogen Mineralization Rate of Organic Wastes
Release of Plant-Available Nitrogen During
Section
No.
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.2
5.3.2.1
5.3.2.1
5.3.2.1
5.3.2.3.-
2.1.1
5.3.2.3.-
2.1.2
5.3.2.3.-
2.1.2 '
5.3.2.3.-
2.1.2
5.3.2.4.2
5.3.3
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.1.1
6.1.2.1.1
Page
No.
94
96
100
109
110
111
115
119
121
126
128
135
151
151
152
156
157
Sludge Decomposition in Soil
xxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
No.
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
Title
Nitrogen Fixed by Various Legumes
Nitrogen Gains Attributed to Nonsymbiotic
Fixation in Field Experiments
Removal of Nitrogen from Soils by Crops and
Residues
Nitrogen Returned to the Soil from Unharvested
or Ungrazed Parts of Stubble Above the Ground
Percentage of Added Nitrogen Lost During
Incubation of Waterlogged Soil with Nitrate
and Different Amounts of Organic Materials at
25 °C
Transport of Total Nitrogen in Runoff Water
From Plots Receiving Animal Waste
Summary of Phosphorus Adsorption Values
Removal of Phosphorus by the Usual Harvested
Portion of Selected Crops
Crop Tolerance Limits for Boron in Saturation
Extracts of Soil
Water Classes in Relation to Their Salt
Concentration
General Crop Response as a Function of Elec-
trical Conductivity
The Relative Productivity of Plants with
Increasing Salt Concentration in the Root Zone
Sodium Tolerance of Various Crops
Typical Total Halide Levels in Dry Soil
Phytotoxicity of Halides from Accumulation in
Section
No.
6.1.2.1.2
6.1.2.1.2
6.1.2.1.4
6.1.2.1.4
6.1.2.1.5
6.1.2.1.9
6.1.2.2
6.1.2.2
6.1.2.3
6.1.4
6.1.4.1
6.1.4.1
6.1.4.2
6.1.5.1
6.1.5.1
Page
No.
158
158
162
163
166
169
173
175
178
181
184
185
193
194
196
Plant Tissue and Applications to Soil
6.21 EPA Drinking Water Standard for Fluoride 6.1.5.1 197
XXVI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
No.
6.22
6.23
6.24
6.25
6.26
6.27
6.28
6.29
6.30
6.31
6.32
6.33
6.34
6.35
6.36
Title
Plant Response to Aluminum in Soil and
Solution Culture
Plant Response to Arsenic in Soil and
Solution Culture
Yields of Grass and Kale with Levels of
Beryllium in Quartz and Soil
Yield of Beans Grown on Vina Soil Treated with
Beryllium Salts Differing in Solubility
Cadmium Addition to a Calcareous Soil
Associated with a 50% Yield Reduction
of Field and Vegetable Crops
Plant Response to Cadmium in Soil and Solution
Culture
Cadmium Content of Bermudagrass on Three Soils
with Different Applications of Sewage Sludge
Plant Response to Chromium in Soil and
Solution Culture
Plant Response to Cobalt in Soil and Solution
Culture
Plant Response to Copper in Soil and Solution
Culture
Copper Concentration in Plant Tissue in Rela-
tion to Copper Addition in an Acid Soil
Copper Concentration in Plant Tissue in Rela-
tion to Copper Addition in a Calcareous Soil
Plant Response to Lead in Soil and Solution
Culture
The Influence of Leaf Lithium Concentration on
Plants
The Influence of Solution Culture and Soil
Section
No.
6.1.6.1
6.1.6.3
6.1.6.5
6.1.6.5
6.1.6.6
6,1.6.6
6.1.6.6
6.1.6.8
6.1.6.9
6.1.6.10
6.1.6.10
6.1.6.10
6.1.6.13
6.1.6.14
6.1.6.14
Page
No.
203
208
210
210
214
215
216
219
223
226
227
227
231
233
234
Concentration of Lithium on Plant Growth and
Yield
xxvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
No.
6.37
6.38
6.39
6.40
6.41
6.42
6.43
6.44
6.45
6.46
6.47
6.48
6.49
6.50
6.51
6.52
Title
The Influence of Leaf Manganese Concentration
on Plants
Plant Response to Manganese in Soil and
Solution Culture
The Influence of Mercury on Plant Growth and
Yield
Plant Concentration of Molybdenum from Growing
in Molybdenum Amended Soil
Nickel Concentration in Plant Tissue in Rela-
tion to Nickel Addition in a Calcareous
Soil
Nickel Concentration in Plant Tissue in Rela-
tion to Nickel Addition in an Acid Soil
The Influence of Solution Culture and Soil
Concentration of Nickel on Plant Growth and
Yield
Selenium Accumulator Plants
Plant Response to Zinc in Soil
Trace Element Content of Soils
Summary of Suggested Maximum Metal
Accumulations
Water Quality Criteria for Humans and Animals
Normal Ranges and Toxic Concentration of Trace
Elements in Plants
The Upper Level of Chronic Dietary Exposures
to Elements Without Loss of Production
Hyperaccumulator Plants
Suggested Metal Loadings for Metals with Less
Section
No.
6.1.6.15
6.1.6.15
6.1.6.16
6.1.6.17
6.1.6.18
6.1.6.18
6.1.6.18
6.1.6.22
6.1.6.32
6.1.6.34
6.1.6.34
6.1.6.34
6.1.6.34
6.1.6.34
6.1.6.34
6.1.6.34
Page
No.
236
237
243
246
249
250
250
255
266
273
274
276
277
278
279
281
Well-Defined Information
6.53 Properties of Hazardous Constituents 6.2.1 283
XXVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
No.
6.54
6.55
6.56
6.57
6.58
6.59
6.60
6.61
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.1
8.2
Title
Percent Degradation After 10, 20 and 30 Years
for Organic Constituents with Various Half-
Lives in Soil
Two Classes of Synthetic Organic Constituents
Widely Found in Groundwater
Depth of Hydrocarbon Penetration at Five
Refinery Land Treatment Units
Organic Constituents Absorbed by Plant Roots
Critical Soil Dose Level for Four Aliphatic
Solvents
Decomposition of Three Carboxylic Acids and
Glucose in Sandy Soil
Degradation of Chlorinated Benzenes, Phenols,
Benzoic Acids and Cyclohexanes and Their
Parent Compounds
Aerobic and Anaerobic Degradation of Phenol
and its Chlorinated Derivatives in Soil
Considerations in a Comprehensive Testing
Program for Evaluating Waste-Site Interactions
Soil Half-life of Several Oily Wastes as
Determined by Various Methods
Nitrogen Mass Balance
Waste Constituents to be Compared in Determin-
ing the Application, Rate, and Capacity Limit-
ing Constituents
Potentially Incompatible Wastes
Seasonal Rainfall Limits for Antecedent
Section
No.
6.2.2.1
"
6.2.2.4.1
6.2.2.4.1
6.2.2.5
6.2.3.1
6.2.3.3
6.2.3.4.1
6.2.3.4.1
7.0
7.5.3.1.4
7.5.3.4
7.5.4
8.1
8.3.4.1
Page
No.
296
301
303
306
313
316
321
, -
322
367
394
399
402
413
429
Moisture Conditions
8.3 Runoff Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil-Cover 8.3.4.1 430
Complexes
xxix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
No.
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.14
Title
Curve Numbers (CN) and Constants for the Case
Ia = 0.25
Maximum Terracing Grades
Terrace Dimensions: Level or Ridge Terrace
Terrace Dimensions: Graded or Channel Terrace
Permissible Velocities for Channels Lined with
Vegetation
Composition of a Representative Commercial
Oxide and Hydroxide of Lime Expressed in
Different Ways
Alternative Management Techniques to Replace
the Role of Plants in a Land Treatment System
Regional Adaptation of Selected Plant
Materials
Average Composition of Fertilizer Materials
Waste Consistency Classification
Checklist of Items Needed for a Thorough
Section
No.
8.3.4.1
8.5.1
8.5.1
8.5.1
8.5.2
8.6.1.2
8.7.1
8.7.2
8.7.6.1
8.8
8.11
Page
No.
432
459
460
460
462
468
473
476
500
506
516
Record of Operations at a Land Treatment Unit
9.1 Guidance for an Operational Monitoring Program 9.4.1 533
at HWLT Units
10.1 Costs of Constructing a Portland Cement Bottom 10.3.2.2 563
Seal Under an Entire 10 Acre (4.1 Hectare)
Land Treatment Facility
xxx
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This document was prepared by K. W. Brown and Associates, Inc. The
authors wish to express appreciation to Carlton C. Wiles whose valuable
assistance as Project Officer helped guide this work to a successful
completion. Michael P. Flynn of the Office of Solid Waste also provided
valuable assistance as the document was being revised, and a number of his
ideas and concepts have been included. Many others in the scientific
community, government and industry commented on the draft and their
suggestions have helped generate this document describing the emerging
technology of land treatment.
The following people were responsible for writing and editing this
document.
Kirk W. Brown
Gordon B. Evans, Jr.
Beth D. Frentrup
David C. Anderson
Christy Smith
Kirby C. Donnelly
James C. Thomas
D. Craig Kissock
Jeanette Adams
Stephen G. Jones
xxxi
-------
1.0 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The problem of eliminating vast and increasing quantities of hazardous
waste is an important issue facing any growing, industrialized society.
Waste products, the inevitable consequence of the consumptive process,
require proper handling to minimize public health and environmental
hazards. Historically, instances of poor disposal technology have caused
extensive environmental damage and human suffering. In the United States,
problems related to waste disposal surfaced whose real and potential rami-
fications led to the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
in 1976 to regulate the management of hazardous waste. The limitations of
many of the disposal technologies used in the past are becoming apparent to
representatives of industry, federal, state and local governments; and the
general public. Along with these realizations has come a reassessment of
the waste factor when evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of
any industrial process.
Development of best available technologies for handling hazardous
waste is essential. Ideally, a method of treatment and disposal results in
the degradation of any decomposable hazardous materials and the transforma-
tion and/or immobilization of the remaining constituents so that there
would be no risk to human health or the environment. Although all tech-
niques will fall short of this ideal, some methods will prove more effec-
tive than others.
Land treatment is one alternative for handling hazardous waste that
simultaneously constitutes treatment and final disposal of the waste.
Hazardous waste land treatment (HWLT) is the controlled application of
hazardous waste onto or into the surface horizon of the soil accompanied by
continued monitoring and management, to degrade transform or immobilize the
hazardous constituents in the waste. Properly designed and managed HWLT
facilities should be able to accomplish disposal without contaminating run-
off water, leachate water, or the atmosphere. Additionally, in some sys-
tems the land used for disposal may be free of undesirable concentrations
of residual materials that would limit the use of the land for other pur-
poses in the future.
Land treatment is already widely practiced by some industries for
handling hazardous industrial waste. Although many facilities have suc-
cessfully used land treatment for their waste, the lack of systematic stud-
ies or monitoring of most facilities has limited the amount of knowledge
available on important parameters and waste-site interactions. Additional-
ly, many potentially land treatable wastes have not been tested or have
been examined under only a limited range of conditions. To evaluate a pro-
posed HWLT unit, information is needed on site and waste characteristics,
soil and climatic conditions, application rates and scheduling,
-------
decomposition products, and contingency plans to avert environmental con-
tamination. In addition, the facility design should minimize potential
problems such as the accumulation of toxic inorganic and recalcitrant
organic waste constituents in the soil, as well as surface and groundwater
pollution and unacceptable atmospheric emissions. Given these many con-
cerns, the preparation and review of permit applications should be
approached with interdisciplinary expertise having a ready source of cur-
rent information on land treatment performance and practice.
The guidance presented in this document is to be used in assessing the
technical aspects of hazardous waste land treatment. Generally, the values
given in subsequent chapters for the parameters important to land treatment
(e.g., application rates) are intended to provide a guide to reasonable
ranges for these parameters as gathered from the best available sources.
Because the actual range for a given parameter will be largely site-
specific, design and operating parameters may frequently fall outside of
the ranges presented in this document. Instances where parameters fall
outside of these ranges signal that further information is needed or that
the waste or site may not be suitable for land treatment.
The objectives of this Technical Resource Document are to describe
current land treatment knowledge and technology and to provide methods to
evaluate the potential performance of a proposed or existing HWLT unit
based on information supplied about design parameters, operation and main-
tenance, monitoring, and closure plans. Unlike other documents in the
Technical Resource Document series, which present information only on
limited aspects of unit design or operation, this document presents infor-
mation on all aspects of land treatment unit design and management. This
document takes a comprehensive decision-making approach to land treatment,
from initial site selection through closure and post-closure activities.
Additional information sources are referenced liberally to help provide
state-of-the-art answers to the multitude of design considerations. As
noted in the preface, the EPA Technical Resource Documents provide state-
of-the-art information on hazardous waste technologies and are not intended
to be used to specifically interpret the hazardous waste regulations. This
document follows the approach of these other documents; however, the guid-
ance presented in this document is consistent with the current EPA regula-
tions which are briefly summarized in Section 1.4 of this chapter.
1.1 THE ROLE OF LAND TREATMENT
An understanding of the potential usefulness and associated environ-
mental risks of the various disposal options helps to place land treatment
in perspective as a sound means of waste treatment and disposal. Hazardous
waste disposal options are narrowing due to increasing environmental con-
straints, soaring energy costs, widespread capital shortages, and a desire
to decrease potentially high long-term liabilities. In a properly managed
-------
HWLT unit, treatment processes may decrease the hazard of the applied waste
so that the potential for groundwater contamination is lowered.
Compared to other disposal options, properly designed and managed land
treatment units carry low combined short and long-term liabilities. In the
short-term, the land treated wastes are present at or near the land surface
so that monitoring can rapidly detect any developing problems and manage-
ment adjustments can be made in a preventive fashion. Also by virtue of
using surface soils for waste treatment, management activities can exert
direct and immediate control on the treatment/disposal process. Since most
organic wastes undergo relatively rapid and near complete degradation, and
hazardous metals are practically immobilized in an aerobic soil environ-
ment, long-term monitoring, maintenance and potential cleanup liabilities
are potentially lower than with other waste disposal options if the HWLT
unit is properly managed. Many wastes are well suited to land treatment
and because of the potentially lower liabilities associated with this
method of waste disposal and the relatively low initial and operating
costs, this option is becoming increasingly attractive to industry.
In a recent nationwide survey of HWLT, 197 facilities disposing of
more than 2.45 x ICr kg of waste per year were identified. Over half of
these were associated with petroleum refining and production (K. W. Brown
and Associates, Inc., 1981; see Appendix A). In a study of the waste dis-
posal practices of petroleum refiners, 1973 records were compared with pro-
jections for 1983 and a general trend toward the increasing use of land
treatment was evident (Rosenberg et al., 1976). Approximately 15% of the
HWLT units were associated with chemical production. Industries providing
electric, gas and sanitary services and producing fabricated metal items
were the next largest users of HWLT, each having approximately 7% of the
total number of units (K. W. Brown and Associates, Inc., 1981). Table 1.1
shows the numbers of land treatment units classed according to industry,
using the standard industrial classification (SIC) codes for major indus-
trial groups. Geographically, land treatment units are concentrated in the
Southeastern United States from Texas to the Carolinas with a few scattered
in the Great Plains and Far West regions (Appendix A). Most are found in
areas having intensive petrochemical refining and processing activities and
moderate climates.
Ten to fifteen percent of all industrial wastes (roughly 30-40 billion
kg annually) are considered to be hazardous (EPA, 1980b). Many wastes cur-
rently being disposed by other methods without treatment could be treated
and rendered less hazardous by land treatment, often at lower cost. Of the
six main groups of hazardous materials which have been found to migrate
from sites to cause environmental damage (Table 1.2), three are prime can-
didates for land treatment. These three are (1) solvents (halogenated sol-
vents may benefit from some form of pretreatment to enhance their biode-
gradability), (2) pesticides, and (3) oils (EPA, 1980b). Land treatment is
not, however, limited to these classes of wastes and may be broadly appli-
cable to a large variety of wastes. The design principles and management
practices for land treatment of waste discussed in this document are
-------
TABLE 1.1 LAND TREATMENT USAGE BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUP*
SIC Code1"
29
28
49
34
97
24
36
20
22
39
35
26
13
44
76
02
30
33
37
51
82
Description
Petroleum refining and related industries
Chemicals and allied products
Electric, gas, and sanitary services
Fabricated metal products , except machinery
and transportation equipment
National security and international affairs
Lumber and wood products, except furniture
Electrical and electronic machinery,
equipment, and supplies
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
Machinery, except electrical
Paper and allied products
Oil and gas extraction
Water transportation
Miscellaneous repair services
Agricultural production - livestock
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Primary metal industries
-i
Transportation equipment
Wholesale trade - nondurable goods
Educational services
Number of
Units
105
30
16
12
9
7
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
* K. W. Brown and Associates, Inc. (1981).
' A listing of HWLT units by more specific SIC codes appears in
Appendix A.
-------
directed to the treatment and disposal of hazardous industrial waste. The
same principles and practices apply to the land treatment of any waste
material, whether or not it is presently described as being hazardous;
however, some of the controls and precautions necessary when disposing
hazardous waste may be unnecessary when disposing nonhazardous waste.
TABLE 1.2 LAND TREATABILITY OF THE SIX MAIN GROUPS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MIGRATING FROM DISPOSAL SITES**
Hazardous Material Group Land Treatability
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Solvents and related organics such as
trichloroethylene, chloroform and toluene
PCBs and PBBs
Pesticides
Inorganic chemicals such as ammonia, cyanide,
acids and bases
Heavy metals
Waste oils and greases
High
Limited
High
Limited
Limited
High
* EPA (1980b).
* High land treatability does not infer immunity from environmental
damage. Only through proper design and management of a land treatment
unit can the desired level of treatment be obtained and the migration of
hazardous materials be prevented.
1.2 CONTROLLING CONTAMINANT MIGRATION
In a well designed and operated HWLT unit, most hazardous waste con-
stituents become less hazardous as they degrade or are transformed or
immobilized within the soil matrix. In addition, the long-term maintenance
and monitoring liabilities and the concomitant risk of costly cleanup
efforts are minimized. However, it is important to remember that land
treatment activities use unlined surface soils which are subject to direct
contaminant losses via air, water or food chain; consequently, facility
management has a tremendous impact on both the treatment effectiveness and
the potential for contamination. If improperly designed or managed, land
treatment units could cause various types of human health or environmental
damage. The potential for such problems has not been closely studied for
land treatment of hazardous wastes, but, it is evident from research
-------
conducted on the land treatment of nonhazardous waste that damages some-
times occur. For land treatment to be an effective system, the process
must be managed to operate within given ranges for various design para-
meters. Frequent or consistent violation of these parameters could cause
the inadvertant release of pollutants to the environment. The following
brief discussion of the various means of contaminant migration emphasizes
the Importance of careful design and management.
Probably the most obvious pathway for contaminant migration at HWLT
units is runoff since waste materials are often exposed on the soil surface
or mixed into a nonvegetated soil surface. If control structures for run-
off are improperly constructed or maintained, high concentrations of sus-
pended and soluble waste constituents could be released to the environment.
Therefore, control structures that are adequate to prevent release of
untreated runoff water are obviously essential parts of a good design and
the management plan should ensure that these structures are inspected and
repaired, when necessary.
Since HWLT units are not lined, attention must be given to the poten-
tial for leaching of hazardous constituents to groundwater. Interactions
between the waste and soil at the site may either increase or decrease the
leaching hazard. Management practices, which can affect the biological,
physical and chemical state of waste constituents in the treatment zone,
can be designed to minimize leaching if the mobility of the waste constitu-
ents and their degradation products is carefully evaluated before opera-
tions begin. During the operating life of the facility, unsaturated zone
monitoring provides information that can be used to adjust management prac-
tices to control leaching.
Release to the atmosphere is the third pathway that should be con-
trolled. Emissions of volatile organic constituents can be reduced by
carefully choosing the method and time of waste application. Wind-blown
particulates can be controlled by management practices such as maintaining
a vegetative cover and/or optimal water content in the treatment zone.
Odors, another cause for concern, can also generally be controlled through
management practices.
Migration of contaminants to the food chain must be prevented. If
food chain crops are grown during the active life of the HWLT unit, the
crop must be free of contamination before it is harvested and used for
either animal or human food. In addition, waste constituents should not be
allowed to accumulate in surface soils to levels that would cause a food
chain hazard if food chain crops are likely to be grown.
Sites for HWLT units should be selected considering the potential
pathways for contamination. Testing methods that can be used to predict
waste-site interactions and the potential for contamination by each of
these pathways are presented in this document. Facility design and
-------
management to minimize operational problems during the active life and at
closure are also discussed.
1.3 SOURCES OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION
This document is not intended to encompass a thorough review of all
the literature pertinent to the topic of land treatment of waste. Instead,
information is provided which is specifically pertinent to the land treat-
ment of hazardous waste. For many considerations, specific information and
examples are sparingly few in the literature, therefore, it was necessary
to draw on professional experience, the available published information on
land treatment of municipal effluents and sludges, and associated litera-
ture concerning the fate of chemicals applied to soils. There are a number
of sources from which the reader may obtain additional information on the
principles and procedures of land treatment of waste. Some of the avail-
able books dealing with various aspects of this topic are listed in Table
1.3.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF REGULATIONS
Standards for all hazardous waste land disposal facilities regulated
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act were issued on July 26,
1982. These regulations were issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) after a wide range of regulatory options were considered.
Briefly, the regulations for land disposal facilities contain a groundwater
protection standard and certain design and operating requirements for each
type of land disposal unit (e.g., landfill, land treatment, waste pile,
etc.).
Part 264, Subpart M of the July 1982 regulations specifically deals
with HWLT units (EPA, 1982) and applies to /both new and existing land
treatment units. Of key importance to HWLT is the treatment program
established by the owner or operator to degrade, transform or immobilize
the hazardous constituents (Appendix B) in the waste placed in the unit*
The regulations define the three principal elements of the treatment
program as the wastes to be disposed, the design and operating measures
necessary to maximize degradation, transformation and immobilization of
hazardous waste constituents, and the unsaturated zone monitoring program.
HWLT units are also required to have a groundwater monitoring program.
A treatment demonstration is required to establish that the combina-
tion of operating practices at the unit (given the natural constraints at
the site, such as soil and climate) can be used to completely degrade,
transform or immobilize the hazardous constituents of the wastes managed at
the unit. The treatment demonstration will be used to determine unit-
-------
TABLE 1.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON LAND TREATMENT OF WASTE
Title
Author/Editor Publisher (Date)
Area
Proceedings of the International
Conference on Land for Waste
Management
Land Treatment and Disposal of
Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater
Soils for Management of Organic'
Wastes and Waste Waters
Land as a Wastewater
Management Alternative
Managing the Heavy Metals
on the Land
Sludge Disposal by Land-
Spreading Techniques
Design of Land Treatment
Systems for Industrial
Wastes-Theory and Practice
Decomposition of Toxic and Non-
Toxic Organic Compounds in
Soils
J. Tomlinson
R. L. Sanks
and T. Asano
T. F. Elliott
and F. J.
Stevenson
R. C. Loehr
G. W. Leeper
S. Torrey
M. R. Overcash
and D. Pal
M. R. Overcash
Agricultural
Institute of
Canada (1974)
Ann Arbor Science
Publications,
Inc. (1976)
ASA, SSSA, and
CSSA (1977)
Ann Arbor Science
Publications,
Inc. (1976)
Marcel Dekker,
Inc. (1978)
Noyes Data Corp.
(1979)
Ann Arbor Science
Publications,
Inc. (1979)
Ann Arbor Science
Publications,
Inc. (1981)
Overview of waste disposal and
its interaction with soils with
particular emphasis on northern
areas»
Summary of land treatment
technology as of March 1975.
A collection of papers dealing
mainly with municipal and
agricultural waste.
Proceedings of a symposium
dealing mainly with municipal
and animal waste disposal.
Summary of the movement and
accumulation of soil applied
metals.
A collection of a group of
government sponsored research
projects dealing with sewage
sludge disposal.
Provides information on land
disposal techniques for both
hazardous and nonhazardous
industrial wastewaters.
Provides information on the
terrestrial effect of various
organic compounds.
-------
specific permit requirements for wastes to be disposed and operating
practices to be used.
HWLT units must be designed, constructed, and operated to maximize
degradation, transformation and immobilization of hazardous constituents.
In addition, HWLT units must have effective run-on and runoff controls and
the treatment zone must be designed to minimize runoff. Runoff collection
facilities must be managed to control the water volume generated by a 25
year, 24 hour storm. Wind dispersal of particulate matter must be con-
trolled. If food chain crops are grown, the owner or operator must demon-
strate that the crops meet certain criteria.
HWLT units must follow a groundwater monitoring program similar to
that followed by all disposal facilities. The goals of the groundwater
monitoring program are to detect and correct any groundwater contamination.
HWLT units must also have an unsaturated zone monitoring program, including
both soil core and soil-pore liquid monitoring, to provide feedback on the
success of treatment in the treatment zone.
The July, 1982 regulations also set forth requirements for closure and
post-closure care. The owner or operator must continue managing the HWLT
unit to maximize degradation, transformation, and immobilization during the
closure period. A vegetative cover capable of maintaining growth without
excessive maintenance is generally required. During the closure and post-
closure care period the owner or operator must continue many of the activi-
ties required during the active life of the unit including. control of
wind dispersal, maintenance of run-on and runoff controls, continuance of
food chain crop restrictions, and soil core monitoring. Soil-pore liquid
monitoring may be suspended 90 days after the date of the last waste appli-
cation. The post-closure care regulations also contain a variance which
allows the owner or operator to be relieved from complying with the vegeta-
tive cover requirements and certain post-closure regulations if it is dem-
onstrated that hazardous constituents within the treatment zone do not
significantly exceed background values.
The regulations also contain requirements for recordkeeping, reactive
and ignitable wastes, and incompatible wastes. In addition to the general
recordkeeping requirements for all hazardous waste disposal units (Part
264, Subpart E (EPA, 1981)), records must be kept of waste application date
and rate to properly manage the HWLT unit. Special recordkeeping require-
ments for wastes disposed by land treatment are necessary to ensure that
the treatment processes are not inhibited.
The effective date of the Part 264 regulations is January 26, 1983.
Existing facilities with interim status authorization are subject to the
interim status standards (Part 265 regulations) until they obtain a Part
264 permit. This document provides useful guidance for interim status
facilities as well as new facilities with Part 264 permits.
-------
The information presented in this technical resource document can be
used to design and operate HWLT units that are technically sound. There
are a number of other guidances available to assist the owner or operator
in determining the specific HWLT design and operating procedures that will
comply with the EPA Part 264 regulations. Guidances are also available for
preparing the permit application and to assist the permit writer in evalu-
ating information submitted in applications for HWLT units. The availabil-
ity of these guidances is discussed in the preface of this document.
10
-------
CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES
Elliott, T. F. and F. J. Stevenson. 1977. Soils for management of organic
wastes and waste waters. Am. Soc. Agron., Soil Sci. Soc. Am., and Crop Sci.
Soc. Am. Madison, WI. 650 p.
EPA. 1980a. Interim status standards for owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 45,
No. 98, pp. 33154-33258. May 19, 1980.
EPA. 1980b. Damages and threats caused by hazardous material sites. Oil and
Special Materials Control Division, EPA. Washington, D.C. EPA 430/9-80-004.
EPA. 1981. Standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities: Subpart E - Manifest system, recordkeep-
ing, and reporting. 40 CFR 264.70-264.77.
EPA. 1982. Hazardous waste management system; permitting requirements for
land disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 143, pp. 32274-
32388. July 26, 1982.
K. W. Brown and Associates, Inc. 1981. A survey of existing hazardous waste
land treatment facilities in the United States. Submitted to the U.S. EPA
under contract no. 68-03-2943.
Leeper, G. W. 1978. Managing the heavy metals on the land. Marcel Dekker
Inc., New York. 121 p.
Loehr, R. C. (ed.) 1976. Land as a waste management alternative. Ann Arbor
Science Publ. Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 811 p.
Overcash, M. R. and D. Pal. 1979. Design of land treatment systems for
industrial wastes-theory and practice. Ann Arbor Science Publ. Inc. Ann
Arbor, Michigan, p. 481-592.
Overcash, M. R. (ed.) 1981. Decomposition of toxic and non-toxic organic
compounds in soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ. Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Rosenberg, D. G., R. J. Lofy, H. Cruse, E. Weisberg, and B. Beutler. 1976.
Assessment of hazardous waste practices in the petroleum refining industry.
Jacobs Engineering Co. Prepared for the U.S. EPA. PB-259-097.
Sanks, R. L. and T. Asano (eds.) 1976. Land treatment and disposal of muni-
cipal and industrial wastewater. Ann Arbor Science Publ. Inc. Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 300 p.
11
-------
Tomlinson, J. (ed.) 1974. Proceedings of the international conference of
land for waste management. Ottawa, Canada. October 1973. Agricultural
Institute of Canada. 388 p.
Torrey, S. 1979. Sludge disposal by landspreadxng techniques. Noyes Data
Corp., New Jersey. 372 p.
12
-------
2.0 CHAPTER TWO
THE DYNAMIC DESIGN APPROACH
This chapter outlines a comprehensive land treatment design strategy
based on sound environmental protection principles. Basic elements of the
design are described as they fit into a total system approach. An under-
standing of this dynamic design approach is essential and is the key to
using this document. The remaining chapters more thoroughly describe the
specific components of the strategy and show how each component is impor-
tant to an effective hazardous waste land treatment (HWLT) unit design.
Anyone involved with some aspect of land treatment of hazardous waste,
whether treatment unit design, permit writing, or site management, should
understand the basic concepts behind land treatment. The primary mecha-
nisms involved in land treatment are degradation, transformation and
immobilization of hazardous constituents in the waste so that the waste is
made less hazardous. Land treatment is considered a final treatment and
disposal process rather than a method for long-term storage of hazardous
materials. Thus, facilities are designed to prevent acute or prolonged
harm to human health and the environment. Land treatment of wastes is a
dynamic process. Waste, site, soil, climate and biological activity inter-
act as a system to degrade or immobilize waste constituents, and the prop-
erties of each of these system components varies widely, both initially and
temporally. Furthermore, land treatment is an open system which, if mis-
managed or incorrectly designed, can potentially lead to both on-site and
off-site problems with groundwater, surface water, air, or food chain con-
tamination. Therefore, design, permitting and operation of HWLT units
should take a total system approach including adequate monitoring and
environmental safeguards, rather than an approach which appraises the
facility only as a group of unrelated components.
The dynamic design approach discussed in this Chapter is based on a
logical flow of events from the initial choice of waste stream to be land
treated and potential site through operation and closure. This design
approach is used throughout the document and is presented as an appropriate
method for evaluating permit applications for HWLT units. This approach
assures that all critical aspects of hazardous waste land treatment are
addressed and provides the permit evaluator with a better understanding of
each individual HWLT unit. Although this document has been written to be
consistent with current federal regulations, it is important to note that
the approach presented here can be used to adequately evaluate all land
treatment systems regardless of regulatory changes because this approach is
based on scientific principles.
This strategy for designing and evaluating HWLT units is patterned
after a computer flow diagram (Fig. 2.1) and suggests the essential design
elements and choices to be made. Several others have dealt with
comprehensive planning, and their basic considerations are comparable to
this suggested strategy, although the format and emphasis of each vary
(Phung et al., 1978a & b; Overcash and Pal, 1979, Loehr et al., 1979a & b).
13
-------
WASTE
POTEilTIAL
SITES
CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE HASTE STREAM
/-"WELI HI NARY~\
/ASSESSMENT OF SITESV.
V FOR HWLT J
EXPECTED FATE OF SPEC-
IFIC COMPOUNDS AND
ELEMENTS IN SOIL
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
TREATMENT MEDIUM
f WASTE - SITE
\INTERACTIONS
1
MANAGEMENT DESIGN
AND OPERATING PLAN
MOHITORIfIG 3ESIGN
COHTINGENa PLAN
CLOSURE PLANS
PERMIT APPLICATION
HWUT OPERATION
DESIGN MODIFICATIONS
Figure 2.1. Essential design elements and potential areas of rejection to
be considered when planning and evaluating HWLT systems.
-------
For a given permit application, the particular approach may likewise vary
somewhat from Fig. 2.1 depending on the background of the facility planner
or conditions unique to the specific waste or site. However, all of the
elements introduced in the figure and discussed below should be considered,
and in all cases, conclusions must be supported by appropriate evidence.
2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT
The first fundamental decision to be made is locating the facility.
The preliminary assessment of a site involves a two faceted approach to
evaluating technical site characteristics (i.e., hydrogeology, topography,
climatology, soils, etc.) and socio-geographic factors (i.e., land use and
availability, proximity to the waste generator, public relations, local
statutes, etc.). In designing and permitting HWLT units, evaluation of the
technical site characteristics is emphasized since these factors directly
affect the environmental acceptability of a proposed site. The owner or
operator considers the socio-geographic factors to determine the
feasibility of land treatment among the available waste management options.
In situations where an HWLT unit will be located near a large population
center or where waste will be hauled long distances over public roads,
sociogeographic factors are also important to environmental protection.
Chapter 3 deals with the factors considered in the preliminary site
assessment in greater detail. However, the final choice of site often
cannot be made without considering the specific waste to be treated, the
results of waste-site interaction studies, and the preliminary management
design; these topics are discussed in Chapters 4 through 8.
2.2 THE TREATMENT MEDIUM
Soil is the treatment medium for HWLT. Although soils are considered
during the preliminary site assessment, a more thorough analysis of the
treatment medium is necessary to:
»
(1) develop a data base for pilot laboratory and/or field exper-
iments ; and
(2) identify any limiting conditions which may restrict the use
of the site as an HWLT unit.
The major components of interest are the variations in biological, physical
and chemical properties of the soil. Native or cultivated plants, if used,
and the climate modify the treatment medium. Methods for evaluating soil,
as the treatment medium, are discussed in Chapter 4.
15
-------
2.3 THE WASTE STREAM
Since wastes vary in their constituents, hazards and treatability, one
must determine if the waste is (1) hazardous and (2) land treatable. The
determination of whether a waste is hazardous is based on general knowledge
of the industrial processes involved in generating the waste and on the
chemical, physical and biological analyses of the waste as required by
regulation. Knowledge of waste generating and pretreatment processes helps
determine which compounds are likely to be present. In some cases, the
treatability of a waste stream can be improved by controlled pretreatment
or in-plant process changes. Chapter 5 presents information to be used in
evaluating waste streams proposed for land treatment.
2.4 EXPECTED FATE IN SOIL
Information on the expected fate of specific compounds and elements in
the soil, drawn from current literature and experience in land treatment,
is presented. This information helps to identify waste constituents which
may be resistant to degradation or that may accumulate in soils. Since
waste streams are complex mixtures, the fate of the waste mixture in the
environment can be estimated based on the information presented in Chapter
6. However, to specifically define waste treatability and the suitability
of the land treatment option, waste-site interactions need to be evaluated
by laboratory and/or field studies.
2.5 WASTE-SITE INTERACTIONS
The key to the successful design of land treatment units for hazardous
waste is the interpretation of the data emanating from preliminary waste-
site interaction pilot studies. To justify using land treatment, the owner
or operator must demonstrate that degradation, transformation, or immobili-
zation will make the waste less hazardous. In addition, preliminary test-
ing establishes the following:
(1) the identity of waste constituents that limit short-term
loading rates and the total allowable amount of waste over
the life of the HWLT unit;
(2) the assimilative capacity of soils for specific waste con-
stituents,
(3) criteria for management;
(4) monitoring parameters to indicate possible contaminant
migration into groundwater, surface water, air and cover
crops;
(5) the land area required to treat a given quantity of waste,
and
16
-------
(6) the ultimate fate of hazardous constituents.
The laboratory, greenhouse and field tests are set up to determine degrad-
ability, mobility and toxicity of the waste in the land treatment system
(Chapter 7). The amount of testing required depends on the amount of
available information on the specific waste disposed at similar sites.
Waste-site interaction studies are the major focus of HWLT design, since
the independent inputs of waste and site converge here and the results form
the foundation for subsequent planning and engineering.
2.6 DESIGN AND OPERATING PLAN
The design and operation of an HWLT unit are based largely on the
results obtained from the waste-site interaction studies. Management deci-
sions include design of both the structure of the physical plant and the
strategy for its operation. The various components considered in the
management plan, include:
(1) water control, including run-on control and runoff retention
and treatment;
(2) waste application, including technique, scheduling,, storage,
' and monitoring for uniform distribution,
(3) air emissions control which is closely related to waste
application considerations, including control of odor,
particulates, and and volatile constituents;
(4) erosion control, involving largely agricultural practices
which are employed to limit wind and water erosion,
(5) vegetative cover and cropping practices; and
(6) records, reporting and inspections.
The management plan must adequately control waste loading and to provide
effective waste treatment under varied environmental conditions; these
topics are discussed in Chapter 8.
2.7 FINAL SITE SELECTION
Where more than one potential site is being considered for an HWLT
unit, adequate knowledge of site limitations and facility economics, devel-
oped at this point in the design process (Fig. 2.1), provides the basis for
deciding the location. Detailed management plans need not be prepared to
determine the final site; however, consideration should be given to the
topography, method of waste application, and required controls to manage
water. These considerations affect the management, environmental protec-
tion, and the operating costs of the proposed facility and so should be
considered during site selection. Where severe environmental or treatment
17
-------
constraints have not already limited the choice of sites, the decision will
be based partly on economics and partly on the preferences of the owner or
operator. Since it is likely that no site will be ideally suited, final
site selection is often based on the best judgment of the owner or operator
and the permit writer after careful review of all the data.
2.8 MONITORING
Monitoring is intended to achieve the threefold purpose of (1) deter-
mining whether the land treatment process is indeed decreasing the hazard
of a waste, (2) identifying contaminant migration, and (3) providing feed-
back data for site management. Comprehensive monitoring includes following
hazardous constituents along all of the possible routes of contaminant
migration. Soil treatment is generally sampled in the treatment zone to
characterize waste treatment processes. Analysis of soil cores and soil-
pore liquid in the unsaturated zone below the treatment zone aids the soil
monitoring program in detecting the occurrence of contaminant leaching.
Surface runoff may be analyzed. Air sampling may be advisable where vola-
tile wastes are being land treated. Finally, since vegetation can trans-
locate some hazardous compounds into the food chain, crops should be moni-
tored when they are raised for human or animal consumption. Methods and
requirements for monitoring the possible routes of contamination are dis-
cussed in Chapter 9.
2.9 CONTINGENCY PLANNING
After final site selection and before the owner or operator of a pro-
posed HWLT unit applies for a permit, the final design must be completed
and several additional considerations must be addressed (Chapter 10).
Routine health and safety procedures must be developed as well as
preparedness for environmental emergencies. Contingency plans must also be
developed to determine the remedial actions that will be taken in the event
of:
(1) waste spill;
(2) soil overload;
(3) breach of surface water control structures;
(4) breakthrough to groundwater; or
(5) fire or explosion.
In addition, since permits for a particular waste stream are approved
on the basis of the results from preliminary testing, the decision to dis-
pose of an alternate waste or to drastically change the composition of the
approved waste stream may need to be accompanied by further data demon-
strating that the new treatment combination also meets the land treatment
objectives. Permits must then be amended as appropriate. The amount of
18
-------
additional testing required will depend on the waste stream, but the
requirements may range in scope from simple loading rate adjustments to a
complete preapplication experimental program.
2.10 PLANNING FOR SITE CLOSURE
Plans for closure must be completed before a permit can be approved
for an HWLT unit. Site closure relies on the philosophy of nondeteriora-
tion of the native resource and emphasizes the eventual return of the land
to an acceptable range of potential uses (Chapter 11). Plans must include
the method of closure and procedures for site assessment and monitoring
following closure. In addition, costs of closure and post-closure activi-
ties should be estimated.
2.11 PERMIT APPLICATION/ACCEPTANCE
In Fig. 2.1, an application-modification-acceptance feedback loop
illustrates the permit application process. Because of the need for treat-
ability data and the complexity of the design of any HWLT unit, the permit
writer and the owner or operator are encouraged to cooperate in interpret-
ing results from preliminary studies, evaluating data and modifying the
HWLT unit design. The permitting process may vary depending on whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or a State agency has the authority
for permit issuance. Administrative procedures of the permitting process
are not discussed in this document.
2.12 HWLT OPERATION
After receiving the appropriate permit, the owner or operator of an
HWLT unit begins operations following the design and monitoring plans out-
lined in the permit application. Wastes delivered to the unit should be
tested to determine if they contain the chemicals that are expected and for
which the unit was designed. Monitoring and inspections must be carried
out during the operation of the HWLT unit.
2.13 SITE CLOSURE
When the site capacity for which the HWLT unit has been designed is
reached, the unit must be properly closed. HWLT units may also be closed
for other reasons before this time. The closure plans submitted with the
permit application must be followed. The owner or operator is responsible
for implementing these plans and is financially liable for closure costs,
including any costs resulting from ensuing off-site groundwater pollution.
Site closure requirements are discussed in detail in Chapter 11.
19
-------
CHAPTER 2 REFERENCES
Loehr, R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S. Fried-
man. 1979a. Land application of wastes. Vol. 1. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York. 308 p.
Loehr. R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S. Fried-
man. 1979b. Land application of wastes. Vol. 2. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York. 431 p.
Overcash, M. R., and D. Pal. 1979. Design of land treatment systems for
industrial wastes - theory and practice. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ. Inc. Ann
Arbor, Michigan. 684 p.
Phung, T., L. Barker, D. Ross, and D. Bauer. 1978a. Land cultivation of
industrial wastes and municipal solid wastes: state-of-the-art-study. Vol.
1. EPA-600/2-78-140a. PB 287-080/AS.
Phung, T., L. Barker, D. Ross, and D. Bauer. 1978b. Land cultivation of
industrial wastes and municipal solid wastes: state-of-the-art-study. Vol.
2. EPA-600/2-78-140b. PB 287-081/AS.
20
-------
3.0 CHAPTER THREE
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF SITES
The assessment of sites proposed as locations for hazardous waste land
treatment units involves a technical evaluation of the characteristics of
each site and an evaluation of socio-geographic factors including area land
use. The following objectives are fundamental to decision-making.
(1) Site characteristics should minimize the probability of
off-site contamination via groundwater, surface water, or
atmospheric emissions.
(2) Site characteristics should minimize the associated risk to
the public and the environment in case of accidental fire,
explosion, or release of hazardous substances.
Chapter 2 presented a model showing the flow of events from site assessment
through site closure (Fig. 2.1). Figure 3.1 expands that model to indicate
the aspects of site assessment and selection discussed in this Chapter.
Careful selection of sites is critical because, once the HWLT unit is
in operation, the owner or operator has little control over natural proc-
esses (e.g., water table fluctuations, floods, winds) or over external
societal influences (e.g., urban or industrial development). The operator
of an existing HWLT unit can only adjust management practices to respond to
these influences since the unit cannot be relocated without great cost.
Site analysis is essentially the same for both existing and proposed
facilities. In permitting existing HWLT units, the permit evaluator must
determine the appropriateness of continued operation. For existing units,
the site assessment will indicate the aspects of the design or management
that need to be modified to assure protection of human health and the envi-
ronment. For example, a unit where excessive water during the wet season
has historically caused odor problems due to system anaerobicity might be
allowed to continue operation if water control devices and water management
were modified. In this case, reduction of wet season waste applications
and modification of water management techniques might be required before
permit approval.
In addition to determining the suitability of a given site for land
treatment, predesign site analysis provides input for the design of demon-
stration studies and for subsequent management design. Site data also
establish background conditions and furnish knowledge of the likely routes
of contaminant migration for damage assessment in the event of accidental
discharges. Table 3.1 shows how the information gained from the site
assessment can be used throughout the design and management of the unit.
Evaluating the technical acceptability of a site involves establishing
threshold conditions beyond which land treatment is not feasible, and the
failure of a site to meet any one of these criteria may eliminate land
21
-------
WASTE
REGIONAL c
GEOLOGY § 3.1
OROGRAPHY AND
RAINAGE §32
CLIMATE S 3 3
SOILS S 3.4
GEOTECHNICAL.
DESCRIPTION S3 5
SITE
ASSESSMENT
HAPTER THREE
IS THE PROPOSED SITE
^TECHNICALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY)!^ REJECT
SUITABLE FOR HWLT* (SECTIONS
31-35)
SWHlN^ X~X
MPATIBLE p*i REJECT )
CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE WASTE STREAM
CHAPTER FIVE
ARE THE SOCIO-GEOGRAPHIC
CONSIDERATIONS COMPATIBLE
.WITH HWLT? (SECTION 3 6K/ ^^^
\
^
YES
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
TREATMENT MEDIUM
CHAPTER FOUR
Figure 3.1. Factors considered during site selection.
22
-------
TABLE 3.1 USB OF PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
FACTORS
CONSIDERED
IN THE SITE
ASSESSMENT
PHASE
Regional
Geology
Topography
and Drainage
Climate
INFORMATION GATHERED IN THE SI IE ASSESSMENT PHASE USED IN DECISION-MAKING OF LATER PHASES
Waste-Soil
Interaction
Studies
o deteraine effect
on the ability
of the soil to
remain aerobic
o determine effect
on the ability
of the soil to
remain aerobic
o determine the
risk of mobile
constltuen s
being leached
to groundwater
o determine effect
of temperature
and moisture
regimes on waste
degradation
Management
Design
o determine facil-
ity layout — plots
roads, retention
basins, etc.
o consider modifi-
cations to natu-
ral topography
o deteraine waste
application
methods
o determine waste
storage capacity
required due to
wet or cold con-
ditions
o determine need to
control wind dis-
persal of con-
taminants
o determine (optimal)
timing of opera-
tions
Monitoring
Design
o determine the
placement of
monitoring
wells
o determine the
placement of
unsaturated
zone monitoring
devices
o determine the
placement of
air monitoring
devices
(optional)
Final Site
Selection
o determine if the
unit lies in a
floodplaln or aqui-
fer recharge zone,
over a fault zone,
etc.
o determine the local
availability of
suitable materials
for pond and levee
construction
o choose site to
minimize amount of
soil to be moved
o avoid unstable
areas
o choose location
downwind of major
population centers
Closure
Planning
o consider long-
ten stability
of the site
o consider drain-
age patterns
needed at time
of closure
o consider the
potential for
acid rain and
possible
effects on
waste constitu-
ent mobility
—continued—
-------
TABLE 3.1 (continued)
FACTORS
CONSIDERED
IN THE SITE
ASSESSMENT
PHASE
Soils
Geotechnical
Description
Sociogeo-
gcaphic
INFORMATION GATHERED IN THE SITE ASSESSMENT PHASE USED IN DECISION-MAKING OF LATER PHASES
Waste-Soil
Interaction
Studies
o determine effect
of physical and
chemical soil
properties on
waste degrada-
tion, transfor-
mation, and
immobilization
o determine if
groundwater will
adversely affect
treatment zone
Management
Design
o determine erosion
hazards ,
terrace
o consider
at ion
o consider
minimize
calculate
apacings
horizon-
how, to
public
Monitoring
Design
o consider how the
leaching poten-
tial of soil
will affect the
choice and
placement of
monitoring
devices
o determine the
placement of
upgradient
and down-
gradient moni-
toring wells
o consider exist-
ing quality of
water in under-
lying aquifers
risk from opera-
tions
o determine need for
buffer zones
Final Site
Selection
o determine overall
suitability of
soils as a treat-
ment medium for
HWLT
o consider depth to
water table
o consider other
potential sources
of groundwater pol-
lution in the area
o consider public
opinion, zoning,
current and future
land use, etc
o avoid special use
areas
o choose a site close
to waste generator
Closure
Planning
o consider ero-
sion potential
of soils fol-
lowing waste
application
o consider public
opinion and
future land use
when deter-
mining closure
method
-------
treatment as an option. Threshold values are determined on the basis of a
point or level beyond which the site constraints cannot be reasonably over-
come by management. In formulating criteria, some threshold values appear
rather arbitrary, even though an attempt has been made to remain flexible
to account for the diversity of needs and circumstances. However, many
limitations are ultimately a question of management extremes versus econom-
ics. For example, where alternate treatment or disposal techniques are not
reasonably available, an industry may, for economic reasons, choose land
treatment and use extreme management procedures to overcome site restric-
tions. The factors which determine the technical suitability of a site are
discussed in Sections 3.1 to 3.5. These sections present general guide-
lines based on a moderate level of management, and the permit writer must
recognize that exceptions to these could be acceptable. Section 3.6 dis-
cusses socio-geographic factors associated with the site selection
process.
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
An understanding of the regional geology of the area in which the HWLT
unit is located is an essential part of the site assessment. Knowledge of
the geology of the site also helps determine the proper design and monitor-
ing needs of the unit. Geologic information, published by federal and
state geological surveys, describes the location, physical make-up, thick-
ness and boundaries of geologic units which may be aquifers (EPA, 1977). A
map of the proposed site(s) should be prepared to show the significant
geologic features of the area, including:
(1) depth to bedrock,
(2) characteristics of the unconsolidated materials above the
bedrock;
(3) characteristics of the bedrock;
(4) outcrops,
(5) aquifer recharge zones; and
(6) discontinuities such as faults, fissures, joints, fractures,
s inkholes, etc.
The depth to bedrock and the characteristics of the unconsolidated
materials above the bedrock affect the conditions of the soil where treat-
ment of wastes will take place, such as the ability of the soil to remain
aerobic. Shallow water tables often occur in fine-grained geologic materi-
als with low hydraulic conductivities. This does not necessarily make the
site unacceptable for HWLT because these fine-grained materials may not
provide a groundwater resource. Fine-grained materials are more effective
than coarse-grained materials in slowing the movement of leachate and
removing contaminants and are, therefore, more effective in protecting
25
-------
aquifers (Cartwright et al., 1981). The characteristics of the bedrock
underlying the HWLT site also help to determine the potential for wastes to
reach the groundwater unchanged. For example, a site underlain by lime-
stone bedrock may be unacceptable because it may contain solution channels
or develop sinkholes through which wastes could be rapidly transmitted to
groundwater.
Outcrops of rock on or near the proposed site may indicate aquifer
recharge zones. If water in a shallow aquifer is of high quality, or is
being used as a drinking water source, this may be an unacceptable location
for an HWLT unit. In addition, if any discontinuities exist, they should
be carefully investigated to determine if they will allow contaminated
leachate to reach groundwater (EPA, 1975). Hazardous waste facilities are
required to be located at least 61 m (200 ft) away from a fault which has
had displacement in Holocene time (EPA, 1981). How the groundwater direct-
ly beneath the site is connected to regional groundwater systems and drink-
ing water aquifers is also an important consideration for choosing a site
and designing effective monitoring systems.
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
Sites selected for HWLT units should not be so flat as to prevent
adequate surface drainage, nor so steep as to cause excessive erosion and
runoff problems; however, in selecting a site, it is important to remember
that topography can be modified to some extent by facility design. The
advantages of a relatively flat location include the ability to make waste
applications by surface flooding in a slurry, minimization of erosion
potential, and easy access by equipment. A 1% grade is usually sufficient
to avoid standing water and prevent anaerobic conditions. One advantage of
rolling terrain is that with careful design, less earth needs to be moved
to construct retention basins and roads can be placed along ridges, provid-
ing all-weather site access. Slopes steeper than 4% may require special
management practices to reduce erosion hazards. Management designs for
different terrains are discussed in Chapter 8.
Generally the most desirable areas for HWLT units are upland flat and
terrace landforms where the probability for washouts is low. Washouts are
more likely in areas that are adjacent to stream beds or gullies or are in
a. floodplain. Site assessment and/or selection can be done by analyzing a
topographic map for the area surrounding the HWLT site. The map should
include the location of all springs, rivers and surface water bodies near
the proposed site. Drainage patterns for the area should be determined.
If the site lies within the 100-year floodplain, the level of the flood
should be indicated on the map. Management of HWLT units located in the
100-year floodplain must include provisions to prevent washout of hazardous
wastes (EPA, 1982).
The characteristics of the soil also affect the ability of the soil to
remain aerobic and to support traffic. Aerobic conditions are necessary
for the degradation of many wastes, so well drained or moderately well
26
-------
drained soils are needed. Poorly drained soils may become anaerobic and
may limit the use of heavy equipment, and very well drained soils in humid
regions may encourage rapid leaching of contaminants. Soil characteristics
are discussed in Section 3.4
3.3 CLIMATE
Although climate greatly influences waste treatment, climatic condi-
tions are not necessarily a major consideration in site selection. The
principal reason for this is that the owner or operator of a proposed or
existing unit has little choice about site location with respect to climate
since conditions do not usually vary greatly within a given region and long
distance waste shipment could be risky as well as uneconomical. An addi-
tional reason is that few regions within the United States exhibit such
restrictive climatic conditions that land treatment is economically or
technically infeasible. Careful design and a moderate level of management
can safely overcome most climatic restrictions. An exception to this
reasoning would be where inadequate land is available to treat the given
waste stream based on climatic constraints (i.e., extended periods of low
temperatures or excessive wetness).
The atmosphere directly affects the land treatment system by providing
transport mechanisms for waste constituents, and acts indirectly as a modi-
fier of soil-waste interactions. Table 3.2 lists these effects and the
controlling atmospheric parameters which are important considerations for
site selection. HWLT design and management plans should receive particular
scrutiny if a temperature or moisture regime is present which would greatly
influence treatment effectiveness. As a general rule, less land is
required to treat a given quantity of waste if the unit is located in a
warm, humid climate than in a cold, arid climate.
Since few if any HWLT sites have a sufficient historical data base to
make reliable design decisions, climatic data must be extrapolated from a
reporting station exhibiting conditions similar to those of the proposed
site. For reliable climatological data it is best to choose an official
National Weather Service reporting station. These stations have standard-
ized instrumentation, scrupulous instrument placement, and trained
observc\tional personnel. It is not always easy to choose a Weather Service
reporting station that has a similar climate. Simply extrapolating from
the nearest station is not necessarily acceptable. Due to orographic
effects and major climatic modifiers, such as large bodies of water, a
weather station 50 km from the proposed HWLT site may better match local
conditions than observations made at a station only 5 km away from the
site. Based on these considerations, the owner or operator of an HWLT unit
or the permit writer should consult the services of a professional
meteorologist.
27
-------
TABLE 3.2 THE INFLUENCE OF ATMOSPHERIC VARIABLES ON LAND TREATMENT OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES
Operation or Process
Atmospheric variable
Effect
Biodegradation
Temperature
Precipitation-
Evapotranspiration
Indirect - controls soil temperature which con-
trols microbial populations and activity
Indirect - controls soil moisture which controls
(1) soil aeration, the supply of oxygen for
microbes, and (2) adequacy of water supply
Waste application
Temperature
N3
oo
Precipitation-
Evapotranspiration
Winds
Atmospheric stability
Direct - cold temperatures increase waste viscos-
ity, thus decreasing ease of handling and hot
temperatures may restrict application due to
waste volatility hazard
Indirect - cold temperatures keep soil temperature
low, which can limit soil workability and waste
degradation, and may increase the amount of
runoff
Indirect - soil wetness can inhibit field access-
ability and enhance the waste leaching hazard
Direct - hazard of off-site pollution due to
transport of particulates and volatile con-
stituents
Direct - surface inversions can lead to fumigation
of the surface layer by volatile waste con-
stituents
Site selection
Winds
Direct - potential hazard to public from advected
particulates and volatile constituents
-------
3.3.1 Winds
Winds directly control site selection because of the need to minimize
public risk from treatment operations. Although management strives to
reduce air emissions to a minimum, atmospheric transport of contaminants
may unavoidably occur when:
(1) hot weather or recent waste applications cause volatiliza-
tion of waste constituents;
(2) aerosols from spray irrigation or suspended particulates
from surface erosion are carried by high winds; or
(3) noxious vapors are released due to an accident such as fire
or explosion.
Therefore, HWLT units should be placed downwind of major population centers
whenever possible. Methods to control wind dispersal of contaminants are
discussed in Section 8.4 and are particularly important during parts of the
year when winds may blow toward a population center.
Siting with regard to winds is based on an analysis of prevailing
winds during the waste application season. The application season is of
particular importance since fresh wastes have the greatest potential for
atmospheric emissions and applications often coincide with warm weather,
which increases volatility and ignitability. Atmospheric stability at the
time of waste application is also important. Accidents are more probable
during waste handling operations and in case of fire or other emergency
that release air contaminants, a knowledge of wind direction and speed
helps the operator to assess the hazard and plan the response. Wind is a
vector quantity, described by both magnitude and direction. Consequently,
a frequency analysis to determine prevailing winds uses a two-way frequency
distribution (Table 3.3) to construct a standard wind rose, (Fig. 3.2)
which.simultaneously considers wind speed and direction.
3.3.2 Temperature and Moisture Regimes
Although climatic variables other than wind have a very limited effect
on site suitability, two additional factors should be considered during the
site assessment since management of HWLT units is greatly influenced by
climate. An appreciation of two broad climatic relationships can illumi-
nate regions where particular scrutiny is required to determine if the
design properly accounts for climatic effects. First, the degradation of
organic wastes effectively ceases when soil temperatures remain below 5°C
(Dibble and Bartha, 1979). Therefore, units located in cold northern or
mountainous regions (Fig. 3.3) may have seasonal treatment restrictions and
will need to have storage capacities, pretreatment methods and/or land
areas that are adequate to handle the projected quantity of waste. Second,
when soil moisture content exceeds field capacity, aerobic decomposition,
29
-------
TABLE 3.3 TWO-WAY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION*
GJ
o
Rating
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SPEED,
1.8 -
3.2 -
4.5 -
5.9 -
7.2 -
8.6 -
9.9 -
11.3 -
12.6 -
14.0 -
15.3 -
16.7 -
18.0 -
m/sec
3.1
4.4
5.8
7.1
8.5
9.8
11.2
12.5
13.9
15.2
16.6
17.9
19.3
S
6
11
11
5
1
1
35
SW
8
12
16
8
5
1
1
41
W
2
2
5
10
9
6
5
4
4
2
1
50
NW
4
14
22
37
26
11
14
4
5
1
138
N
1
16
16
21
8
8
2
2
2
76
NE
13
8
7
1
29
E
1
17
15
6
5
1
2
47
SE
2
7
2
5
1
2
19
4
64
78
87
63
58
37
17
22
6
3
5
1
445
* Modified from Panofsky and Brier (1958).
-------
Strong Winds
I ] Moderate Winds
Q Weak Winds
NW
10% Occurrence
20% Occurrence
SW
SE
Figure 3.2. Standard wind rose using data presented in Table 3.3
(Modified from Panofsky and Brier, 1958). Reprinted
by permission of Pennsylvania State University.
31
-------
Figure 3.3. Areas where waste application may be limited by excess moisture.
-------
which is the primary treatment mechanism active in land treatment, is
inhibited (Brown et al., 1980). Seasonally wet climates promote soil
anaerobicity and may also restrict access to the field. Regions with
excess moisture (Fig. 3.3) may require special designs or operational pro-
cedures such as increased waste storage capacity, field drainage systems to
control water table depth, major runoff and run-on control structures,
careful waste application timing, and/or vehicles equipped with flotation
tires. A more detailed discussion of how management must respond to cli-
matic influences appears in Chapter 8.
As noted above, in some areas there may be seasonal restrictions on
waste application based on climate. The waste application season may be
restricted in the northern and mountainous regions because of prolonged
periods of low temperatures. The Southeast and Pacific Northwest may have
restrictions due to seasonal wetness. If these restrictions are severe
enough to halt the application of wastes, then sufficient waste storage
capacity must be provided for the wastes being produced during these
periods. Section 8.8.1 discusses how to determine the waste application
season.
3.4 SOILS
Since soil is the treatment medium for HWLT, careful consideration
must be given to selecting a site with soil properties suitable for reten-
tion and degradation of the wastes to be applied. The potential for ero-
sion and leaching of hazardous constituents must be evaluated.
3.4.1 Soil^Survey
A detailed soil survey conducted according to standard U.S. Soil Con-
servation Service (SCS) procedures should be completed to identify and map
the soil series on sites proposed for HWLT units. For each soil series, a
general description of soil properties is needed to select potential areas
for waste application and to determine uniform areas for monitoring. Soil
samples should be taken to adequately characterize the site and to deter-
mine the physical and chemical properties required for design (Chapter 5).
Information, usually included in soil survey descriptions, that is useful
during various phases of the design and management of HWLT units includes
the following:
(1) estimates of the credibility of the soil (Section 3.4.2),
used to calculate terrace spacings and other erosion control
structures (Section 8.5),
(2) information on the depth and texture of subsoils (Section
3.4.5), used to determine if suitable soil is available for
constructing clay berms and clay lined retention ponds
(Section 8.3); and
33
-------
(3) measurements of surface texture, used to estimate acceptable
waste application rates, water retention capacity, and types
and amounts of constituents that will be retained (Section
3.4.3).
An SCS soil survey may also contain information on the average and/or
seasonal water table height. Additional information on the historical
water table height can be gained from a visual inspection of the soil hori-
zons. Differences in soil color and patterns of soil color such as mottl-
ing and the gray colors that accompany gleying (a process that occurs in
soils that are water saturated for long periods) are good indicators of
poorly drained soils (USDA, 1951). Poor drainage can result from a season-
ally high water table, a perched water table, or the internal drainage
characteristics of the soil. In this inspection it is important to realize
that the soil color may indicate past conditions of poor drainage and that
drainage may be improving. In this case, soils will gradually become more
oxidized as indicated by red, yellow and reddish brown colors. Geotechni-
cal investigations described in Section 3.5 should be designed to verify
water table fluctuations if soil color indicates poor drainage.
3.4.2 Erosion
Erosion is a function of the climate, topography, vegetative cover,
soil properties and the activities of animals and man. The Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE) is commonly used to estimate soil lost due to erosion;
it is an empirical formula based on years of research and actual field
work. The equation includes factors that affect soil loss and considers
management alternatives to control soil loss. The USLE calculates loss
from sheet and rill erosion. This is not the same as sediment yield at
some downstream point; it equals sediment yield plus the amount of soil
deposited along the way to the place of measure (Wischmeier and Smith,
1978). The USLE equation and tables for each factor use English units
rather than metric for two reasons, 1) the USLE has traditionally used
English units and direct conversion to metric units produces numbers that
are awkward to use, and 2) data to be used in the USLE is more readily
available in English units. The value of soil lost per acre per year can
be multiplied by 2.24 to convert the value to metric tons per hectare per
year. Wischmeier and Smith (1978) provide additional guidance on using the
USLE with metric units for all factors. Although the soil losses calcu-
lated are estimates rather than absolute data, they are useful for select-
ing sites. Choosing management practices that minimize the factors in the
equation will minimize erosion. The USLE is written as:
34
-------
A = RKLSCP (3.1)
where
A = Soil-loss in tons/acre/year;
R = Rainfall factor;
K = Soil-erodibility factor;
L = Slope-length factor,
S = Slope-gradient factor;
C = Cropping management factor; and
P = Erosion control practice factor.
Rainfall (R). The amount, intensity and distribution of precipi-
tation determine the dispersive action of rain on soil, the amount and
velocity of runoff, and the losses due to erosion. Maps of the United
States with iso-erodent lines, indicating equally erosive annual rainfall
have been prepared; the R factor can be read off these maps. Wischmeier
and Smith (1978) developed a map for the continental U.S. (Fig. 3.4).
Soil-erodibility (K). Some soils erode more readily than others
even when all other factors are equal. This difference, due to the proper-
ties of the soil itself, is called soil erodibility. K values have been
determined experimentally and can be obtained from nomographs (Fig. 3.5).
Slope-length and Slope-gradient (LS). These factors are closely
interrelated and are considered as one value. Slope length is the distance
from the point of origin of overland flow to the point where the slope
gradient decreases to the extent that deposition begins or to the point
where runoff enters a well-defined channel. The soil loss per unit area
increases as the slope length increases. As slope gradient becomes
steeper, the velocity of the runoff water increases, increasing the power
of the runoff to detach particles from the soil and transport them from the
field. Figure 3.6 shows how to determine the LS factor for a given site.
Cropping Management (C). This factor shows the combined effect
of all the interrelated cover and management variables. The C factor is
the ratio of soil loss from land managed under specified conditions to the
corresponding loss from continuously fallow land. Values vary widely as
shown in Table 3.4. Vegetation to be selected for levees and land treated
areas between applications, or at closure, should have a minimum C value.
A dense stand of permanent vegetation will give a C value of 0.01 after
establishment.
35
-------
Figure 3.4. Average annual values of the rainfall erosion index
(Wischmeier and Smith, 1978).
-------
Procedure With appropriate data, enter scale at left and pro-
ceed to points representing the soil's sand ( 10-2 0 mm), % or-
ganic matter, structure, and permeability, in that sequence
Interpolate between plotted curves The dotted line Illustrates
procedure for a soil having si+vfa 65%, sand 5Z, OH 2 8%,
structure 2, permeability 4. Solution K «• 0 31
Where the silt fraction does not exceed 70%, the equation is
100 K - 2.1 M1 14 (10-*) (12 - a) + 3 25 (b - 2) + 2 5 (c - 3) where M = (percent si + vfs) (100 - percent c),
organic matter b •= structure code, and c » profile permeability class
percent
Figure 35 The soil erodibility nomograph (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978)
-------
oo
U
O
U
-------
TABLE 3.4 TYPICAL VALUES FOR THE C FACTOR
Cover C Factor
1. Bare soil conditions freshly disced to 15-20 cm 1.00
After one rain 0.89
Undisturbed except scraped 0.66-1.30
Sawdust 5 cm deep, disced in 0.61
2. Seedings
Temporary, 0 to 60 days 0.40
Temporary, after 60 days 0.05
Permanent, 0 to 60 days 0.40
Permanent, 2 to 12 months 0.05
Permanent, after 12 months 0.01
3. Weeds and brush
No appreciable canopy, 100% ground cover 0.003
No appreciable canopy, 29% ground cover 0.24
75% canopy cover* of tall weeds or short brush,
100% ground cover 0.007
75% canopy cover of brush or bushes,
100% ground cover 0.007
4. Undisturbed wood land
100% canopy cover with forest litter on 100% of area 0.0001
20% canopy cover with forest litter on 40% of area 0.009
* Portion of total area that would be hidden from view by canopy projec-
tion.
Erosion Control Practice (P). This factor is the ratio of soil
loss with the supporting practice to the soil loss with straight uphill and
downhill plowing. Support practices that slow the runoff water and reduce
the amount of soil it can carry include contour tillage, contour strip
cropping, and terrace systems (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978). Tables 3.5
through 3.7 show the P values that have been prepared for various conserva-
tion practices.
39
-------
TABLE 3.5 P VALUES AND SLOPE-LENGTH LIMITS FOR CONTOURING*
Land Slope
P Value
Maximum Length"
(feet)
1 to 2
3 to 5
6 to 8
9 to 12
13 to 16
17 to 20
21 to 25
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
400
300
200
120
80
60
50
* Wischmeier and Smith (1978).
' Limit may be increased by 25% if residue cover after crop seedlings
will regularly exceed 50%.
TABLE 3.6 P VALUES, MAXIMUM STRIP WIDTHS, AND SLOPE LENGTH LIMITS FOR
CONTOUR STRIPCROPPING*
Land Slope
(%)
1 to 2
3 to 5
6 to 8
9 to 12
13 to 16
17 to 20
21 to 25
P Values^"
A
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
B
0.45
0.38
0.38
0.45
0.52
0.60
0.68
C
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Strip Width*
(feet)
130
100
100
80
80
60
50
Maximum Length
(feet)
800
600
400
240
160
120
100
* Wischmeier and Smith (1978).
* P values:
A For 4-year rotation of row crop, small grain with meadow seeding,
and 2-years of meadow. A second row crop can replace the small
grain if meadow is established in it.
B For 4-year rotation of 2-years row crop, winter grain with meadow
seeding, and 1-year meadow.
C For alternate strips of row crop and small grain.
* Adjust strip-width limit, generally downward, to accomodate widths of
farm equipment.
40
-------
TABLE 3.7 P VALUES FOR CONTOUR-FARMED, TERRACED FIELDS**
Farm Planning Computing Sediment Yield'*
LAND SLOPE
Percent
1 to 2
3 to 8
9 to 12
13 to 16
17 to 20
21 to 25
Contour
Factor"*"
0.60
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Stripcrop
Factor
0.30
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Graded Channels
Sod Outlets
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Steep Backslope
Underground Outlets
0.05
0.05
0.50
0.05
0.06
0.06
* Wischmeier and Smith (1978).
* Slope length is the horizontal terrace interval. The listed values are
for contour farming. No additional contouring factor is used in the
computation.
jt
ff These values include entrapment efficiency and are used for control of
off-site sediment within limits and for estimating the field's contribu-
tion to watershed sediment yield.
"*" Use these values for control of interterrace erosion within specified
soil loss tolerances.
3.4.3 General Soil Properties
The description of each soil series should include information on soil
texture, permeability, available water holding capacity and the shrink-
swell potential. Soil texture is an important consideration in the site
selection process because texture influences many other soil properties,
including the infiltration and subsoil percolation rates and aeration.
Table 3.8 presents advantages and disadvantages of various soil textures
for use in land treatment units. In general, HWLT units should not be
established on extremely deep, sandy soils because of the potential for
waste migration to groundwater. Similarly, silty soils with crusting prob-
lems should not be selected since they have the potential for excessive
runoff. Generally, the soils best suited to land treatment of hazardous
waste fall into one of the following categories: loam, silt loam, clay
loam, sandy clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or sandy clay. The
leaching potential of soils, discussed in Section 3.4.4, depends greatly on
soil texture.
41
-------
TABLE 3.8 SUITABILITY OF VARIOUS TEXTURED SOILS FOR LAND TREATMENT OF
HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Texture
Advantages
Dis advantages
sand very rapid infiltration
usually oxidized & dry
low runoff potential
loamy sand high infiltration
low to medium runoff
loam moderate infiltration
fair oxidation
moderate runoff potential
generally accessible
good CEC
silt loam moderate infiltration
fair oxidation
moderate runoff potential
generally accessible
good CEC
silt low infiltration
fair to' poor oxidation
good CEC
good available water
silty clay medium to low percolation
loam fair structure
high CEC
silty clay good to high available
water
clay loam medium to low percolation
good structure
medium to poor aeration
high CEC
high available water
clay low percolation
high CEC
high available water
sandy clay medium to low percolation
medium to high CEC
sandy clay medium to high available
loam water
good aeration
very low CEC
very high hydraulic conductivity
low available water
poor soil structure
low CEC
moderate to high hydraulic con-
ductivity rate
low to medium available water
fair structure
some crusting
fair to poor structure
high crusting potential
poor structure
high runoff
medium to low infiltration
some crusting potential
moderate runoff
often wet
fair oxidation
medium to low infiltration
moderate to high runoff
often wet
low infiltration
often massive structure
high runoff
sometimes low aeration
fair structure
moderate to high runoff
medium infiltration
42
-------
Permeability of each horizon or zone should be determined by the
methods discussed in Section 4.1.1.5, from available soil surveys of the
area, or by the methods listed in other sources (Bouwer, 1978; Bouwer and
Jackson, 1974; Linsley et al., 1975). Permeability is an indication of the
length of time the mobile constituents of the waste will remain in the soil
(Sommers et al., 1978), and thus, is an indicator of the potential for
groundwater contamination. Hxgh permeabilities of 2.5 cm/hr indicate rapid
transmission of water associated with wastes and thus a high potential for
groundwater contamination. The permeability of lower horizons influences
the amount of water that will remain in the surface horizon following rain-
fall or irrigation. A textural discontinuity from coarse texture to fine
texture or vice versa will result in greater amounts of water being
retained above the discontinuity than would be retained in a deep uniform
profile, thus resulting in wetter conditions than would otherwise be expec-
ted. Permeabilities of less than 0.05 cm/hr for the most restrictive layer
in the top 1 m of soil may require artificial drainage.
Available water holding capacity (AWC) is a measure of the amount of
water held against the pull of gravity. High AWC reduces the chance of
runoff under high antecedent moisture conditions by permitting more mois-
ture to be held. Water holding capacity also affects the amount of leach-
ing. The higher the AWC the lower the chances for rapid contamination of
groundwater. For example, a medium textured soil, when dry enough so that
plants begin to wilt, with an AWC of 15-20% can adsorb 20-30 cm of water
from sludge, wastewater or rainfall in the upper 1.5 m of the soil profile
before transmitting the water to an underlying aquifer (Hall et al., 1976).
Acceptable values for the AWC of the top 1.5 m of the profile would be 7.5
to 20 cm for humid regions and no less than 7.5 cm for arid regions
(Sommers et al., 1978).
Shrink-swell potential, especially in montmorillonitic clay soils, can
increase groundwater contamination hazard due to formation of cracks deep
in the soil during extended periods of dry weather. Soils with a low to
moderate shrink-swell potential are preferred for HWLT.
3.4.4 Leaching Potential
Based on the minimum infiltration rate of bare soil after prolonged
wetting the SCS has developed a classification system which divides the
soils into four hydrologic groups, A through D (USDA, 1971). These groups
indicate the potential for water to flow through the entire soil profile.
They may also be used as an indicator for the transmission of contaminants
through the soil. Hydrologic Group A consists mainly of sands and gravels
that are well drained, have high infiltration rates and high rates of water
transmission. The greatest leaching potential is with Group A soils. The
danger from leaching is highest with deep sandy soils which may connect
with shallow aquifers. These soils have low cation exchange capacity (CEC)
and high infiltration and hydraulic conductivity and will not be as effec-
tive in filtering water as will a finer soil with a higher CEC, lower
infiltration and lower hydraulic conductivity (Groups B and C).
43
-------
Group B soils are moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well
drained, and moderately fine to moderately coarse in texture. They have
moderate infiltration rates and water transmission rates. Group C soils
are moderately fine to fine textured soils with a layer that impedes down-
ward water movement. Both infiltration rates and water transmission rates
are slow in this group.
Group D soils have the lowest leaching potential and one will need to
be very cautious in applying liquids to avoid excessive runoff because
these soils have very slow rates of infiltration and transmission. Group D
soils are generally clays with high swelling potential, soils with a
permanent high water table, soils with a claypan near the surface, or
shallow soils over nearly impervious materials.
Leaching of applied wastes can be minimized by good design and manage-
ment. High volume applications of liquid effluent to sandy soil may be
permissible only if there is no evidence of leaching or groundwater contam-
ination by mobile constituents such as nitrates or mobile organic
compounds. In most cases, soils in hydrologic Group C, or possibly D, are
best suited for the land treatment of hazardous wastes.
Soil structure as well as texture influences the leaching of waste
constituents. If an organic waste is applied to a soil via irrigation or
if the waste contains a high percentage of liquids, soils with very porous
structure (such as crumb) or a high percentage of pore space to soil par-
ticles (low bulk density) have a high leaching potential. Leaching is
increased in these soils because the detention time of the organic waste in
the soil is decreased and the surface area of soil particles available to
react with the waste is also decreased. Leaching of this nature can be
expected when the moisture holding capacity of the soil is exceeded.
3.4.5 Horizonation
Surface soil characteristics alone are not sufficient to assess the
suitability of a site for land treatment of hazardous waste. Many soil
profiles have properties which make them a poor choice for use as a dis-
posal facility. The specific properties that need to be examined include
the depth to bedrock, an impermeable layer and/or the groundwater table,
and the presence of an inadequate textural sequence within the soil.
The profile depth to bedrock should be approximately three times the
depth of the waste incorporation or 1.2 m (6 ft), whichever is greater.
Soils having an impermeable layer or a deep groundwater table may be well
suited to HWLT. If an impermeable layer is present, it should be at a
depth of 1.5 m or greater to allow sufficient soil profile to treat the
waste. Although data is available on which to base estimates of needed
profile depth to the groundwater table for nontoxic sludges (Parizek,
44
-------
1970), none is available for hazardous waste. Certainly, further work is
needed to clarify these needs. The presence of a sand or loam layer in the
profile, within 3 m of the surface, overlying a fine textured clay pan also
creates a potential for horizontal flow and contamination of adjacent
areas. Such a profile is thus unsuited for use as a hazardous waste dis-
posal medium without special precautions.
While deep soils of relatively uniform physical and chemical charac-
teristics are occasionally found, more often soils are characterized by
distinct horizons which differ in texture, water retention, permeability,
CEC and chemical characteristics. Appendix C lists the major horizons that
may be present in a soil. Most of the biological activity and the waste
decomposition is accomplished in the treatment zone which may range from
several inches to one foot. Therefore, the characteristics of this horizon
will be an important design consideration. Lower horizons will influence
the rate of downward water movement and may serve to filter and remove
other waste constituents or their degradation products which would other-
wise move below these depths.
There are advantages to selecting soils which have coarser textural
surface horizons over those with fine textured slowly permeable surface
materials. Such soils will generally have greater infiltration rates and
may be easier to work and incorporate large amounts of waste than those
with clay surfaces. A clay subsoil will, however, slow the movement of
leachate and protect groundwater. When such soils are selected, it is
essential that water retaining levees are keyed into the less permeable
subsurface materials.
3.5 GEOTECHNIGAL DESCRIPTION
A geotechnical description which characterizes the subsurface condi-
tions at the site should be prepared during the site assessment. The fac-
tors that need to be evaluated are the groundwater depths and flow direc-
tions, existing wells, springs, and other water supplies, and other activi-
ties located near the facility boundaries that might affect or come into
contact with the groundwater. Any nearby sources of potential groundwater
pollution other than the HWLT unit should also be considered. All data
should be compiled on a map to assess the subsurface conditions at the
site.
Some estimate of the groundwater recharge zone needs to be made during
the site assessment. Whenever possible, it is desirable to locate HWLT
units over areas with an isolated body of groundwater. If this is not pos-
sible, estimates of mixing between aquifers which may be impacted need to
be made.
45
-------
3.5.1 Subsurface Hydrology
Hydrologic characteristics of the soil and subsoil govern the speed
and direction of fluid movement through the soil. Surface and subsurface
hydrology are interrelated processes which are very important in evaluating
the feasibility of using a given site for HWLT. The depth of soil to the
seasonal water table is an important factor for judging potential ground-
water contamination. The soils at the site should be deep enough so that
the desired degree of treatment is attained within the treatment zone so
that hazardous constituents do not percolate through the soil and reach
groundwater. Shallow soils especially over karst formations and those with
a sand classification have a high potential for transmitting hazardous
wastes to groundwater. The maximum depth of the treatment zone should be
1.5 m and at least 1 m (3 ft) above the seasonal high water table to pre-
vent contamination of the water table with untreated waste, and to provide
sufficient soil aeration to allow microbial treatment and degradation of
hazardous wastes, and to provide room to install an unsaturated zone moni-
toring system.
3.5.2 Groundwater Hydrology
Water table data are needed to position upgradient and downgradient
monitoring wells and to determine if the water table is so close to the
surface that it will interfere with land treatment. The depth of the water
table tends to vary with surface topography and is usually shallower in
relatively impermeable soils than in permeable soils. Since local water
table depths and gradients cannot be accurately estimated from available
regional data, it may be necessary to install observation wells at various
locations within and surrounding the land treatment area. Sampling fre-
quency of these observation wells should be chosen to account for seasonal
changes. If care is taken in locating and properly installing these ini-
tial observation wells, future groundwater monitoring can use these same
wells, minimizing the requirement and cost of additional well placement.
Torrey (1979) recommends collection and analysis of three monthly samples
from each well prior to waste application at new sites. For existing
sites, only the upgradient well is useful for establishing background
values. More information on groundwater monitoring can be found in Chapter
9.
3.5.3 Groundwater Quality
Current uses of groundwater in the area should also be noted. Where
state regulations vary based on the current or potential uses of ground-
water, groundwater quality may be an important concern during site selec-
tion. Information on groundwater quality, available from the U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey and state agencies, can be used for preliminary site investi-
46
-------
gations, but site specific background quality data are needed for each HWLT
unit.
3.6 SOCIO-GEOGRAPHIC FACTORS
Land use considerations generally have little impact on the technical
grounds for site selection. Instead, land use encompasses the restraints
imposed by the public and local or regional governmental authorities on the
use of a parcel of land for HWLT. Occasionally past land use diminishes
the ability to manage the area as an HWLT unit. For example, areas former-
ly used for landfills or areas contaminated with persistent residues from
past chemical spills are likely to be unsuitable for HWLT units.
Evaluation of land use at and near a proposed or existing HWLT unit is
primarily the responsibility of the owner or operator. There are a number
of legal constraints that affect facility siting. Factors to consider
include zoning restrictions, special ecological areas, historic or archaeo-
logical sites, and endangered species habitats. Local, state and federal
laws concerning these factors will affect the siting of an HWLT unit. The
proximity of the unit to the waste generator and the accessibility of the
site both affect the transportation requirements. Ideally, a land treat-
ment operation would be located on-site or immediately adjacent to the
waste generator. If wastes must be transported to an off-site HWLT unit
via public roads, rail systems or other means, the transporter must comply
with 40 CFR Part 263, under the jurisdiction of the EPA, and 49 CFR Sub-
chapter C, enforceable by the Department of Transportation. The operator
may also want to route the waste through industrial areas rather than
through residential neighborhoods.
In addition to the legal constraints to be considered, there are a
number of social factors which must often be dealt with during the evalua-
tion of proposed sites. How the owner or operator handles these issues may
determine whether the public accepts or rejects the location of the unit.
Social factors may include wooded areas and bodies of water that may be
important visually or for recreational purposes, prime agricultural lands,
existing neighborhoods, etc. Although facility design should strive to
prevent deterioration of local resources while maximizing public and
environmental protection, the possibility for conflict exists since most
sites are less than ideal and are often situated near populated areas
or in zones of high growth potential. Some potential areas of conflict
include:
(1) proximity of the site to existing or planned community or
industrial developments,
(2) zoning restrictions,
(3) effects on the local economy, and
(4) relocation of residents.
47
-------
Socio-geographic considerations and interactions with the public are
beyond the scope of this manual, except for the above discussion which
points out the importance of including the public in the permitting proc-
ess. It is the responsibility of the owner or operator to maintain an open
and credible dialogue with local public officials and with individuals who
will be directly affected by the HWLT unit. The role of the EPA in this
respect is simply to assess whether the plans, as proposed, are technically
and environmentally sound.
48
-------
CHAPTER 3 REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater hydrology. McGraw - Hill Book Company, New
York. 480 p.
Bouwer, H., and R. D. Jackson. 1974. Determining soil properties, p. 611-
673. In Tom Van Schilfgaarde (ed.) Drainage for agriculture. Number 17,
Agron. Soc. Amer. Madison, Wisconsin.
Brown, K. W., K. C. Donnelly, J. C. Thomas, and L. E. Deuel, Jr. 1980.
Factors influencing the biodegradation of API separator sludges applied to
soils. Final report to EPA. Grant No. R 805474-10.
Cartwright, K., R. H. Gilkeson, and T. M. Johnson. 1981. Geological consid-
erations in hazardous waste disposal. Journal of Hydrology, 54:357-369.
Dibble, J. T., and R. Bartha. 1979. Effect of environmental parameters on
the biodegradation of oil sludge. Appl. and Environ. Micro. 37.729-739.
EPA. 1975. Evaluation of land application systems. EPA 430/9-75-001.
EPA. 1977. Process design manual for land treatment of municipal waste-
water. EPA 625/1-77-008. PB 299-665/1BE.
EPA. 1981. Standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 7, p. 2848.
January 12, 1981.
EPA. 1982. Standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 143, p.
32350. July 26, 1982.
Hall, G. F., L. P. Wilding, and A. E. Erickson. 1976. Site selection
considerations for sludge and wastewater application on agricultural land.
In Application of sludges and wastewaters on agricultural lands: A planning
and educational guide. (Research Bulletin 1090) B. D. Knezek and R. H.
Miller (eds.) Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster,
Ohio.
Linsley, R. K. Jr., M. A. Kohler, and J. L. H. Paulhus. 1975. Hydrology for
engineers. McGraw - Hill Inc., New York. 482 p.
Loehr, R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S. Fried-
man. 1979. Land application of wastes, Vol. 1. Van Nostrand Reinhold Envi-
ronmental Engineering Series, New York. 308 p.
Panofsky, H. A., and G. W. Brier. 1958. Some applications of statistics to
meteorology. The Pennsylvania State Univ. Press. University Park, Pennsyl-
vania. 224 p.
49
-------
Parizek, R. R. and B. E. Lane. 1970. Soil-water sampling using pan and depp
pressure-vacuum lysimeters. J. of Hydrology 11:1-21.
Sommers, L. E., R. C. Fehrmann, H. L. Selznick, and C. E. Pound. 1978.
Principles and design criteria for sewage sludge application on land. Pre-
pared for U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Information Center Seminar
entitled Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
Torrey, S. 1979. Sludge disposal by landspreading techniques. Noyes Data
Corp., New Jersey. 372 p.
USDA. 1951. Soil Survey Manual. Handbook No. 18. Agricultural Research
Administration. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
USDA, Soil Convervation Service. 1971. SCS national engineering handbook.
Section 4, hydrology. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Whiting, D. M. 1976. Use of climatic data in estimating storage days for
soils treatment systems. U.S. EPA, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA 600/2-76-250. PB
263-597/7BE.
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion
losses — a guide to conservation planning. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Agr.
Handbook No. 537. 58 p.
50
-------
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR
THE TREATMENT MEDIUM
Soil characterization is essential to the design of hazardous waste
land treatment units since soil is the waste treatment medium. When gener-
ally acceptable values for the various system properties are known,
analyses may reveal conditions that make land treatment unsuitable, and
consequently, may eliminate a proposed site (Chapter 3). In addition,
analysis of the treatment medium will aid in efficiently designing labora-
tory or field waste treatability experiments. Preliminary soil characteri-
zation can be used for the following:
(1) to choose the soil parameters to be studied that will be
most important in waste treatment;
(2) to determine the practical range of these parameters and the
specific levels at which tests will be made;
(3) to choose the extremes to be measured; and
(4) to provide background data for comparison against later
sampling results.
Many of the processes that occur in soils that treat the waste and
render it less hazardous are the same processes that are used in industrial
waste treatment plants. Table 4.1 lists soil treatment processes that
are similar to the categories of treatment to be used by industries in
describing their processes (from Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 264).
TABLE 4.1 TREATMENT PROCESSES OF SOIL IN A LAND TREATMENT UNIT
Absorption Flocculation
Chemical fixation Thickening
Chemical oxidation Blending
Chemical precipitation Distillation
Chemical reduction Evaporation
Degradation Leaching
Detoxification Liquid ion exchange
Ion exchange Liquid-liquid extraction
Neutralization Aerobic treatment
Photolysis Anaerobic treatment
Filtration
The treatment medium is a part of the larger system including soil,
plants and atmosphere. Plants and atmospheric conditions can modify the
processes occurring in the treatment medium. Plants can protect the
treatment zone from the adverse effects of wind and water. Plants may also
take up water and waste constituents and, if not harvested, supply the soil
51
-------
with additional organic matter. Atmospheric conditions control the water
content and temperature of the soil and consequently affect waste
degradation rates and constituent mobility. The modifying effects of
plants and atmosphere are briefly discussed. Figure 4.1 illustrates how
the information presented in this chapter fits into the overall design
process for HWLT units (Fig. 2.1).
4.1 SOIL PROPERTIES
Soil characterization is commonly done by conducting a soil survey,
either in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) or by a
certified professional soil scientist (Section 3.4.1). In such an
endeavor, the soil series present at a given site are identified and
sampled. Soil series are generally named for locations and are based on
both physical and chemical characteristics. These characteristics vary
widely from place to place, and classification distinguishes one soil from
another based on recognized limits in soil properties.
4.1.1 Physical Properties
Physical properties of a soil are defined as those characteristics,
processes or reactions of a soil that are caused by physical forces and are
described by physical terms or equations. Physically, a mineral soil is a
porous mixture of inorganic particles, decaying organic matter, air, and
water. The percentage of each of these components as well as the type of
inorganic and organic particles determine the behavior of the soil.
4.1.1.1 Particle Size Distribution
Particle size distribution is a measure of the amounts of inorganic
soil separates (particles < 2 mm) in a soil. This property is most often
called soil texture and is probably the most important physical property of
the soil. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) classifica-
tion is generally accepted and used by agricultural workers, soil scien-
tists, and most of the current literature. The USCS (Unified Soil Classi-
fication System) was developed for engineers and is based on particle size
distribution as influenced by the overall physical and chemical properties
of the soil. A comparison of the two systems is given in Table 4.2. The
standard methods used to measure particle size distribution are the hydro-
meter and pipette methods as described by Day (1965).
52
-------
r
WASTE
(
I
POTENTIAL
SI
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
TREATMENT MEDIUM
CHAPTER FOUR
PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES
§4.1
.1
CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
(BIOLOGICAL
(PROPERTIES
§4.1
§4.1
.2
.3
^•••M
HAS THE SOIL BEEN
ADEQUATELY CHARACTERIZED
TO PROVIDE DATA FOR PILOT
STUDIES AND DESIGN OF THE
HWLT UNIT'
(SECTION 4.1)
yes
ASK FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
no
HAVE THE MODIFICATIONS \
TO THE TREATMENT MEDIUM BY \
PLANTS AND THE ATMOSPHERE \
BEEN CONSIDERED? j
(SECTIONS
4.2 AND 4.3) /
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
WASTE STREAM
CHAPTER FIVE
FATE OF WASTE
CONSTITUENTS IN THE HWLT
SYSTEM CHAPTER SIX
yes
Figure 4.1. Characterization of the treatment medium for HWLT.
53
-------
TABLE 4.2 CORRESPONDING USDA AND USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS*
Corresponding Unified Soil
United States Department of Agriculture Classification System (USCS)
(USDA) Soil Textures Soil Types
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Gravel, very gravelly loamy sand
Sand, coarse sand, fine sand
Loamy gravel , very gravelly sandy
loam, very gravelly loam
Loamy sand , gravelly loamy sand ,
very fine sand
Gravelly loam, gravelly sandy clay
GP,
SP,
GM
SM
GM,
GW,
SW
GC
GM
loam
6. Sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loamy SM
very fine sand, gravelly sandy
loam
7. Silt loam, very fine sandy clay loam ML
8. Loam, sandy clay loam ML, SC
9. Silty clay loam, clay loam " CL
10. Sandy clay, gravelly clay loam, SC, GC
gravelly clay
11. Very gravelly clay loam, very GC
gravelly sandy clay loam, very
gravelly silty clay loam, very
gravelly silty clay and clay
12. Silty clay, clay CH
13. Muck and peat PT
* Fuller (1978).
The three dominant soil particles are sand, silt and clay. Sand and
gravel particles are the coarse separates. Coarse textured soils usually
have low water holding capacity, good drainage, high permeability and aera-
tion, and generally have a loose and friable structure. Sand grains may be
rounded or irregular depending on the amount of abrasion they have
received. They do not have the capacity to be molded (plasticity) as does
clay.
The silt and clay particles are the fine separates. Silt particles
are irregularly fragmental, have some plasticity, and are predominantly
composed of quartz. A high percentage of silt is undesirable and leads to
physical problems such as soil crusting. Clay particles are very small,
less than 0.002 mm in diameter, and therefore have a very high surface
54
-------
area. Clays are plate-like, highly plastic, cohesive, and have a very high
adsorptive capacity for water, ions and gases. This high adsorptive capac-
ity may be very useful to hold ions, such as heavy metals, in an immobile
form and prevent their movement.
The USDA has devised a method for naming soils based on particle size
analysis. The relationship between textural analysis and class names is
shown in Fig. 4.2 and is often referred to as a textural triangle. When
the percentages of at least two size separates are known, the name of the
compartment where the two lines intersect is the textural class name of the
soil being evaluated.
4.1.1.2 Soil Structure
Soil structure is the grouping of soil particles of a general size and
shape into aggregates, called peds. Structure generally varies in differ-
ent soil horizons and is greatly influenced by soil texture and organic
matter content. The arrangement of the primary soil separates greatly in-
fluences water movement, aeration, porosity and bulk density (Pritchett,
1979). Addition of organic matter and the use of sod crops helps build and
maintain good soil structure. Other factors which promote aggregation in-
clude 1) wetting and drying, 2) freezing and thawing, 3) soil tillage, 4)
physical activity of plant roots and soil organisms, 5) influence of decay-
ing organic matter, and 6) the modifying effects of adsorbed cations
(Brady, 1974). Sandy soils need to be held together, into granules, by the
cementing action of organic matter to stabilize the soil surface and in-
crease water retention. Fine textured soils also need adequate structure
to aid in water and air movement in the soil. Some types of organic waste
additions may help soil structure by increasing aggregation.
Four primary types of soil structure are recognized: platy, prism-
like, block-like and spheroidal. All structural types except platy have
two subtypes each. Subgroups for the prism-like structure are, prismatic
and columnar; for block-like, cube-like blocky and subangular blocky; and
for spheroidal, granular and crumb. The names of the categories imply the
form or shape of the aggregates, with crumb being the smallest structural
aggregate. Two or more of the structural conditions may exist in the same
soil, for example, a soil may have a granular surface horizon with a sub-
surface horizon that is subangular blocky.
Porosity and pore size distribution are related to soil structure as
well as soil texture. Nonaggregated (poor structured) fine-textured soils
have small pores with a narrow range of pore sizes. Nonaggregated coarse
textured soils have large pores also with a narrow range of pore sizes. An
intermediate situation is desirable in soils chosen for land treatment,
such as a soil with texture to give several pore sizes as well as good
structure for a wide distribution of sizes.
55
-------
10Q
7\ VVV V
SILT LOAM
V
PERCENT SAND
•fc
Figure 4.2. Textural triangle of soil particle size separates.
Shown is an example of a soil with 35% silt, 30%
clay and 30% sand, which is classified as a clay
loam.
56
-------
4.1.1.3 Bulk Density
Bulk density is a weight measurement in which the entire soil volume
is taken into consideration. It is defined as the mass of a unit volume of
soil and is generally expressed as gm/cm^ (lb/ft^). This measurement
takes into account both the volume of the soil particles and the pore space
between them. Techniques for measuring bulk density are outlined by Blake
(1965).
Soils that are loose and porous will have low weights per unit volume,
and thus, low bulk densities. Soils that are more compact will have high
bulk density values. Soil bulk density generally increases with depth
because there is less organic matter and less aggregation with depth and
greater soil compression due to the weight of overlying soil. Bulk density
is also influenced by soil texture and structure. Sandy soils which have
particles that are close together, that is, have poor structure, have high
bulk densities usually in the range of 1.20 to 1.80 g/cm . Fine textured
soils generally have a higher organic content, better structure, more pore
space and thus, lower bulk densities. Bulk densities for fine textured
soils generally range from 1.0 to 1.6 g/cmr (Brady, 1974).
Good soil management procedures will decrease surface bulk density
because the factors that build and maintain good soil structure will gener-
ally increase with management. Conversely, intensive cultivation and
excessive traffic by equipment generally increases bulk density values.
Land treatment management should minimize unnecessary tillage and traffic,
and maximize structural formation through Organic matter additions and
vegetative covers. Good structure and relatively low soil bulk densities
promote good aeration and drainage, which are desirable conditions for
waste treatment.
4.1.1.4 Moisture Retention
Moisture retention or moisture holding capacity is a measure of the
amount of water a given soil is capable of retaining and is generally
expressed as a weight percentage. The most common method of expressing
soil moisture percentage is grams of water associated with 100 grams of dry
soil. Soil tensions from the strong chemical attraction of polar water
molecules are responsible for the adsorption of pure water in a soil.
Water commonly considered to be available for plant and microbial use is
held at tensions between 1/3 and 15 atm. This water is retained in capil-
lary or extremely small soil pores. Moisture retained at tensions greater
than 1/3 atm is termed gravitational or superfluous water (Fig. 4.3).
Gravitational water moves freely in the soil and generally drains to lower
portions of the profile carrying with it a fraction of plant nutrients
and/or waste constituents. After all water has drained from the large soil
pores and the water is held in the soil at 1/3 atm the soil is at field
capacity. Moisture retained at tensions greater than 15 atm is termed
unavailable or hygroscopic water because it is held too tightly to be used
57
-------
w
HY6RO.
WATER
V
iltmg Point - 15 Alms. F
1
CAPILLARY
WATER
A J
100
eld Capacity - 1/3 Atms Pore S|
/ i
AIR SPACE AND
DRAINAGE WATER
V - - J
%
Dace
Ol
00
UNAVAILABLE
WATER
AVAILABLE
WATER
SUPERFLUOUS
WATER
Figure 4.3. Schematic representation of the relationship
of the various forms of soil moisture to plants
(Buckman and Brady, 1960). Reprinted by permission
of the Macmillan Publishing Co,, Inc.
-------
by plants. A soil is said to be at the permanent wilting point when the
water is held at >15 atm. Generally, finer textured high organic content
soils will retain the most water while sandy, low organic content soils
will retain only very small amounts of available water.
For management of a land treatment unit, knowledge of the moisture
retention of the soil is needed to help determine water loading rates that
will not cause flooding or standing water, to predict possible irrigation
needs, and to estimate leaching losses and downward migration of waste con-
stituents. At a minimum, the values for 1/3 and 5 atm of suction should be
measured to give an estimation of how much water will be available for
plant and soil chemical reactions. Moisture retention can be measured by
the pressure plate technique as outlined by Richards (1965).
4.1.1.5 Infiltration, Hydraulic Conductivity and Drainage
Infiltration is the entry of water into the soil surface, normally
measured in cm/hr. Knowledge of this parameter is critical for a land
treatment unit since application of a liquid at rates exceeding the infil-
tration rate will result in runoff and erosion, both of which are undesir-
able in such a system. Infiltration rates are also needed when calculating
the water balance of an area.
Permeability, also called hydraulic conductivity, is the ease with
which a fluid or gas can pass through the soil and is measured in cm/hr.
Once a substance enters a soil, its movement is governed, in part, by soil
permeability. Permeability is closely associated with particle size, pore
space, and bulk density. Table 4.3 lists the classes of hydraulic conduc-
tivity for soils. Fine textured clays with poor structure and high bulk
densities usually have very low permeabilities. Knowledge of the permea-
bility is necessary to estimate the rate of movement of water or potential
pollutants through the soil of the land treatment unit. The potential for
a given chemical to alter the permeability of the soils on-site needs to be
determined as a safeguard to prevent deep leaching and reduce the potential
for groundwater contamination.
Hydraulic conductivity (K) is conventionally measured in the labora-
tory by either the constant head or falling head techniques as outlined by
Klute (1965). For more exact, on-site determinations, field techniques are
available. If the soil is above the water table, the double tube or "per-
meameter" method (Boersma, 1965a) is used; if below the water table, the
auger hole or the piezometer method is used (Boersma, 1965b). More exten-
sive reviews of field and laboratory methods for measuring hydraulic con-
ductivity are given by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
(1961) and Bouma et al. (1982). These reviews cover most methods currently
used to measure permeability.
Drainage refers to the speed and extent of the removal of water from
the soil by gravitational forces in relation to additions by surface run-on
or by internal flow. Soil drainage, as a condition of a soil, refers to
59
-------
TABLE 4.3 SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CLASSES FOR NATIVE SOILS
Class*
Saturated
Hydraulic Conductivity*
cm/hr
Description
Very high
>36
High
3.6 - 36
Moderate
0.36 - 3.6
Moderately
low
.036 - 0.36
Low
0.0036 - 0.036
Very low
•C.0036
Soils transmit water downward so
rapidly that they remain wet for
extremely short periods. Soils are
coarse textured and dominated by
coarse rock fragments without
enough fines to fill the voids or
have large permanent cracks or
worm holes.
Soils transmit water downward
rapidly so that they remain satu-
rated for only a few hours. Soils
are typically coarse textured with
enough fines to fill the voids in
the coarse material. Soil pores
are numerous and continuous.
Soils transmit water downward very
readily so that they remain wet for
a few days after thorough wetting.
Soil layers may be massive, granu-
lar, blocky, prismatic or weak
platy and contain some continuous
pores.
Soils transmit water downward read-
ily so they remain wet for several
days after thorough wetting. Soils
may be massive, blocky, prismatic,
or weakly platy with a few continu-
ous pores.
Soils transmit water downward slow-
ly so they remain wet for a week or
more after a thorough wetting.
Soils are structureless with fine
and discontinuous pores.
Soils transmit water downward so
slowly that they remain wet for
weeks after thorough wetting.
Soils are massive, blocky, or platy
with structural plates or blocks
overlapping. Soil pores are few,
fine, and discontinuous.
* USDA (1981).
60
-------
the frequency and duration of periods of saturation or partial saturation
of the soil profile. Drainage is a broad concept that encompasses surface
runoff, internal soil drainage, and soil hydraulic conductivity. Seven
classes of natural soil drainage are recognized in Table 4.4. Drainage may
be controlled to maintain an aerobic environment and to minimize leaching
hazards. Surface drainage can be managed by diversion structures, surface
contouring, and ditches or grassed waterways to remove excess water before
it totally saturates the soil. An understanding of these principl ^s is
necessary since rainfall and runoff must be managed and directed to Appro-
priate locations. Subsurface drainage systems use underground drains to
remove water from the upper portion of the soil profile and can also be
successfully used to lower the water table and drain the treatment zone.
Section 8.3 provides additional information on managing water at HWLT
units.
4.1.1.6 Temperature
Soil temperature regulates the rate of many soil chemical and biologi-
cal reactions. Most biological activity is greatly reduced at 10°C and
practically ceases at 5°C, as illustrated in Fig. 4.4. Waste degradation
during the cool spring and fall months is lower than in summer when the
soil biological activity is at its peak. Thus, loading rates in some areas
of the country need to be varied according to the soil temperature on a
site-specific basis. In general, locations where soil temperatures are at
or near freezing for much of the year will need seasonal adjustments in the
amount of waste applied per application. Moreover, soil temperatures
should be considered when estimating application rates and the land area
required to treat the waste.
Freezing of the soil also changes many physical and chemical proper-
ties. Infiltration and percolation are nearly stopped when soil water
becomes frozen so that surface waste applications need to be curtailed
(Wooding and Shipp, 1979). Subsurface injection of wastes may be success-
ful in some cases if the soil is not frozen below a 10-15 cm depth. Figure
4.5 illustrates the area of the country where frost penetration is a con-
sideration.
Reliable predictions of soil temperature are needed for a sound HWLT
management plan, but there are few sources of soil temperature information.
Only recently have soil temperature measurements been taken routinely. The
owner or operator should check with the state climatologist to see if soil
temperature data are available for the area of the proposed HWLT unit. The
lack of extensive historical records is further complicated by the fact
that most observations have been only seasonal as they related to agricul-
tural needs. Therefore, a stochastic approach to soil temperatures in
facility design is not possible for most locations. No attempt has been
made to directly correlate soil temperatures with atmospheric parameters
for which better records exist.
61
-------
TABLE 4.4 SEVEN CLASSES OF NATURAL SOIL DRAINAGE
Class*
Physical Description
Use
Excessively Water is very rapidly removed from the
drained soil as a result of very high hydraulic
conductivity and low water holding
capacity. Soils are commonly very
coarse textured, rocky or shallow. All
soils are free of mottling related to
wetness.
Somewhat
excessively
drained
o\
to
Well
drained
Water is removed from the soil rapidly
as a result of high hydraulic
conductivity and low water holding
capacity. Soils are commonly sandy
shallow and steep. All are free of
mottling related to wetness.
Water is removed from the soil readily,
not rapidly, and the soils have an
intermediate water holding capacity.
Soils are commonly medium textured and
mainly free of mottling.
Moderately Water is removed from the soil somewhat
well slowly. Soils commonly have a layer
drained with low hydraulic conductivity, a wet
state relatively high in the profile,
receive large volumes of water, or a
combination of these.
Soils are not suited to crop production
without supplemental irrigation. Soils not
suited for land treatment due to possible
high leaching of constituents.
Soils are suited for crop production only
with irrigation but yield will be low.
Soils are poorly suited for land treatment
due to leaching and low water holding
capacity.
Soils are well suited for crop production
since water is available through most of
the year and wetness does not inhibit
growth of roots for significant periods of
the year. Soils are well suited for land
treatment.
Soils are poorly suited for crop production
without artificial drainage since free
water remains close enough to surface to
limit growth and management during short
periods of the year. Soils are not well
suited for land treatment as a result of
free water being at or near the surface for
short periods of time.
-continued—
-------
TABLE 4.4 (Continued)
Class
Physical Description
Use
to
Somewhat Water is removed slowly enough that the
poorly soil is wet for significant periods
drained during the year. Soils commonly have a
slowly pervious layer, a high water
table, an addition of water from seep-
page, nearly continuous rainfall, or a
combination of these.
Poorly Water is removed so slowly that the
drained soil is saturated for long periods.
Free water is commonly at or near the
surface but the soil is not contin-
uously wet directly below plow depth
(6"). Poor drainage is a result of a
high water table, slowly pervious layer
within the profile, seepage, continuous
rainfall or a combination of these.
Very Water is removed so slowly from the
poorly soil that free water remains at or
drained below the surface during much of the
year. Soils are commonly level or
depressed and frequently ponded yet in
areas with high rainfall they can have
moderate to high slope gradients.
Soils are not suited for crop production
without artificial drainage since free
water remains at or near the surface for
extended periods. Soils are poorly suited
for land treatment since they remain
saturated for extended periods.
Soils are not suited for production under
natural conditions since they remain
saturated during much of the year. Land
treatment operations are greatly limited
due to free water remaining at or near the
surface for long periods.
Soils are suitable for only rice crops
since they remain saturated during most of
the year. Soils are not acceptable for
land treatment unless artificially drained
due to excessive wetness.
* USDA (1981),
-------
50
Q 40
I
S
LU
Q
g
m 20
10
0
10 20
TEMPERATURE (°C)
30
40
Figure 4.4. Effect of temperature on hydrocarbon biodegradation in oil sludge-treated soil
(Dibble and Bartla, 1979). Reprinted by permission of the American Society of
Microbiology.
-------
-Depth ot trost pent ration, inches
Figure 4.5. Average depth of frost penetration across
the United States (Stewart et al., 1975).
65
-------
Work by Fluker (1958) is the only published study of an attempt to
predict the annual soil temperature cycle. Fluker presented a mathematical
expression to calculate soil temperature at a given depth from the mean
annual soil temperature, as follows:
ezt = avg. annual + 12.0e-°»1386zsin ( 2_t_i.840-0.132z ) (4.1)
soil temp. ^364 J
where
6zt- = the average soil temperature in °C at depth z;
z = the depth in the soil in feet; and
t = time in days after Dec. 31.
The average annual soil temperature can be approximated as equal to,
or slightly higher than, the average annual air temperature. The term
used to represent the change in temperature with depth is I2e~0«1386z> The
factor of 12 is defined as one-half the difference between the maximum and
minimum average soil temperatures. Short of measuring these values, an
estimate can be obtained by using the difference between the maximum and
minimum air temperatures and adding 20%. Although the equation was devel-
oped empirically for a particular locale, the coefficients may be similar
for other sites. The equation, however, should be used with caution,
particularly in extremely cold climates.
Based on the lack of better predictive tools for soil temperatures,
one approach is to collect data from one year at an on-site recording
station and use it as a reasonable approximation of future conditions.
Since a demonstration of waste treatability is required before an HWLT unit
may be permitted, there would generally be time to take soil temperature
measurements at the 10 cm depth. Climatic records can be consulted for
guidance as to how the recorded year compares with other years; however,
site topography and other factors cause local soil temperature variations.
4.1.2 Chemical Properties
Chemical reactions that occur between the soil and waste constituents
must be considered for proper HWLT management. There are large numbers of
complex chemical reactions and transformations which occur in the soil
including exchange reactions, sorption and precipitation, and complexation.
By understanding the fundamentals of soil chemistry and the soil components
that control the reactions, predictions can be made about the fate of a
particular waste in the soil. Fate of specific waste constituents is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
66
-------
4.1.2.1 Cation Exchange
Cation exchange capacity (GEG) is the total amount of exchangeable
cations that a soil can sorb and is measured in neq/100 g of soil. These
cations are bound on negatively charged sites on soil solids through elec-
trostatic bonding and are subject to interchange with cations in the soil
solution. Among the exchangeable cations are some of the essential plant
nutrients including calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, ammonium, alumi-
num, iron and hydrogen. In addition to these, the soil can also sorb non-
essential cations and effectively remove and retain heavy metals (Brown et
al., 1975). The CEC depends on the amount of specific types of clay, the
amount and chemical nature of the organic matter fraction, and the soil pH
(Overcash & Pal, 1979). The cation exchange reactions take place very
rapidly and are usually reversible (Bohn et al., 1979).
Cation exchange capacity is associated with the negatively charged
surface of the soil colloids which arises from isomorphic substitutions
(e.g., Al^+ for Si 4+) in many layer silicate minerals. The total
charge of soil colloids consists of a permanent charge as well as a pH
dependent charge. All cations, however, are not retained on the soil
colloid to the same degree. Usually, trivalent and divalent cations are
more tightly held than monovalent cations with the exception of hydrogen
(H+) ions. Also, ions are less tightly held as the degree of hydration
increases (Bohn et al., 1979). Generally, clays have large surface areas
and a high CEC. Sands, being relatively low in surface area, are usually
low in CEC.
Ions may also be bound to soil solids by covalent, rather than elec-
trostatic bonding. When this type of bonding predominates, specific sorp-
tion is observed for many cations as well as anions'. This phenomenon has
been observed with clays, aluminum and iron oxides, and organic matter.
Specific sorption is a more permanent type of sorption than cation exchange
and is not always related to CEC.
Measurement of the CEC is necessary to give an estimation of the
ability to the soil to sorb and retain potential pollutants. Methods used
to measure CEC are ammonium or sodium saturation (Chapman, 1965a), however,
laboratories in each region of the country may have developed other appro-
priate techniques for their area. If the ammonium displacement technique
is used to determine CEC, exchangeable bases can also be measured in the
extract (Chapman, 1965b).
4.1.2.2 Organic Carbon
Residual organic carbon found in soil is a result of the decay of
former plant and animal life. The organic fraction is in a constant state
of flux with more organic matter being added by roots, crop residues, and
dying plants, animals and microorganisms and organic matter being removed
by further decay. In the soil, microbial activity is constantly working to
67
-------
decompose organic residues, resulting in the evolution of carbon dioxide
(C02). Figure 4.6 illustrates the carbon cycle.
The effect of organic matter on the physical properties of soils has
already been discussed. It improves soil structure by increasing aggrega-
tion, reduces plasticity and cohesion, increases the infiltration rate and
water holding capacity, and imparts a dark color to the soil. The organic
fraction of the soil has a very high CEC, and consequently, increasing the
organic matter content of a soil also increases the CEC. However,
increases in organic carbon from large waste applications cannot be relied
upon to provide long-term increases in soil sorption capacity since the
organic matter decomposes over time and ultimately, the organic content of
the soil will return to near the original concentration. Measurement of
the amount of soil organic matter is normally done by using the Walkley-
Black method as outlined by Allison (1965).
Native soil organic matter is comprised of humic substances which have
a large influence on the soil chemistry. Soil organic matter exhibits a
high degree of pH-dependent affinity for cations in solution by a variety
of complexation reactions. Humic substances with high molecular weights
complex with metals to form very insoluble precipitates, however, low
molecular weight organic acids have high solubility in association with
metals. A discussion of the reaction of organic matter with metals is
found in Chapter 6.
4.1.2.3 Nutrients
There are sixteen elements essential for plant growth. Of these,
carbon (C), hydrogen 0^), and oxygen (02) are supplied from air and
water, leaving the soil to supply the other thirteen. Six of the essential
elements, nigrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magne-
sium (Mg), and sulfur (S), are required in relatively large amounts.
Nitrogen, P and K are considered primary plant nutrients while Ca, Mg and S
are referred to as secondary plant nutrients.
All three of the primary plant nutrients (N, P and K) are normally
included in inorganic fertilizers. Nitrogen is of prime importance since,
if deficient, it causes plants to yellow and exhibit stunted growth.
Nitrogen deficiencies also greatly inhibit the degradation of hazardous
organic wastes because N is also essential for microorganisms. If N is in
excess, it is readily converted to nitrate (NCvj) which is a mobile anion
that can leach and contaminate groundwater. Phosphorus is normally present
in low concentrations and is specifically sorbed by soil colloids. The
amount of K in the soil is sometimes adequate but often it is present in a
form that is unavailable for plant use.
Each state generally has an extension soil testing laboratory that
will analyze soil samples for primary and secondary plant nutrients.
Nitrogen analysis is usually done by the Kjeldahl method (Bremner, 1965)
68
-------
SOIL
REACTIONS
COl.HCOj
MICROBIAL ACTIVITY
CARBON
DIOXIDE
Figure 4.6. Diagramatic representation of the transformations of carbon,
commonly spoken of as the carbon cycle. Note the stress
placed on carbon dioxide both within and without the soil
(Buckman and Brady, 1960). Reprinted by permission of the
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
69
-------
and P and K are usually analyzed in an ammonium acetate extract as outlined
by Chapman (1965a, 1965b).
Calcium and Mg are also required in relatively large amounts when
plants are grown. Deficiencies in Ca usually occur in acid soils and can
be corrected by liming. Most lime contains some Mg, but if the soil is
deficient in Mg, the use of dolomitic lime is suggested. Sulfur, although
required by plants in large amounts, is usually found in sufficient quan-
tities in soils. Small amounts of S are normally in fertilizers as a con-
stituent of one of the other components. Sulfur compounds can be used to
lower soil pH.
Elements required by plants in relatively small amounts include iron,
manganese, boron, molybdenum, copper and zinc, and chloride ions. Most of
these micronutrients occur in adequate amounts in native soils. Excess
concentrations of certain elements often cause nutrient imbalances that
will adversely affect plant survival. Therefore, careful control of waste
loading rates and routine monitoring of soil samples for these elements is
essential to prevent buildup of phytotoxic concentrations when plants are
to be grown during the active life or at closure. The single most impor-
tant management consideration is pH since the solubility of each of these
elements is pH dependent. Chapter 6 discusses this issue in greater detail
for each element.
4.1.2.4 Exchangeable Bases
The exchangeable bases in a soil are those positively charged cations,
excluding hydrogen, held on the surface exchange sites that are in equilib-
rium with the soil solution. These cations are available for plant use as
well as for reaction with other ions in the soil solution. As they are
absorbed by plants, more cations are released into solution from the
exchange sites. This is a type of cation exchange reaction (discussed in
Section 4.1.2.1). The major cations include calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg),
sodium (Na), and potassium (K). Plants can tolerate a fairly wide ratio of
cations but the optimum ratio, as calculated by Homes (1955) is 33 K:36 Ca:
32 Mg. This ratio can be varied on a field scale as necessary by additions
of lime, Ca(C03); dolomite, CaMg(C03)2, or potash fertilizer.
Laboratory analysis for exchangeable bases can be done by the ammonium
acetate extraction procedure as outlined by Chapman (1965b) followed by
measurement of Ca, Mg, Na and K in the extract using atomic absorption
spectroscopy. The sum of the exchangeable bases expressed in meq/100 g is
multiplied by 100 and divided by the CEC to give the percent base satura-
tion. In essence, this tells what percentage of the CEC is occupied by
bases. The percentage of the CEC that is not occupied by bases is predomi-
nantly filled by hydrogen ions which form what is called the reserve
acidity. Percent base saturation depends on the climatic conditions, the
materials from which the soil was formed, and the vegetation growing on the
site (Pritchett, 1979). Generally, the percent base saturation increases
as the pH and fertility of the soil increases.
70
-------
4.1.2.5 Metals
Analysis of soil samples for metals content is normally done using an
air dried sample ground with a porcelain mortar and pestle to pass a 2 mm
sieve and digested using concentrated HNOj (EPA, 1979) or hydrofluoric
acid in an acid digestion bomb (Bernas, 1968). Extracts can be analyzed
for arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, iron, manganese, molybdenum, lead
and zinc using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Boron is normally
measured in a hot water extract as described by Wear (1965). Selenium
determinations can be done according to a procedure outlined by Fine
(1965). The EPA has also established methods for analyzing arsenic,
barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead,
magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nitrogen, nickel, potassium,
selenium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc (EPA, 1979). The normal ranges for
metals in soil and plants are presented in Chapter 6 (Tables 6.52 and
6.49). Prior to waste disposal by land treatment, the concentrations of
various metals in the soil and waste should be measured. From these data,
loading rates for waste can be calculated and background concentrations
established.
4.1.2.6 Electrical Conductivity
Electrical conductivity (EC) is used to measure the concentration of
salts in a solution. Since electrical currents are carried by charged ions
in solution, conductance increases as electrolyte concentration increases.
The standard method for assessing the salinity status of a soil is to pre-
pare a saturated paste extract and measure the EC using standard elec-
trodes (USDA, 1954). This can be related to the actual salt concentration
in the soil solution that might be taken up by plants. The EC measurement
of the saturated paste extract is considered to be one-half the salt con-
centration at field capacity and one-fourth of that at the permanent wilt-
ing point (-15 bars). As a general rule, where saturated paste extract EC
values are less than 4 mmhos/cm salts have little effect on plant growth.
In soils with EC values between 4 to 8 mmhos/cm salts will restrict yields
of many crops. Only a small number of tolerant species can be grown on
soils with EC values above 8 mmhos/cm.
When selecting a site and evaluating it for land treatment, careful
attention should be given to the soluble salt content of both the soil and
the proposed waste stream. Applications of large amounts of salty wastes
to an already alkaline soil may decrease microbial degradation and result
in barren conditions. These problems are most common to low rainfall, hot
areas and to areas near large bodies of salt water. Remedial actions to be
taken in the event of accidental salt buildup include stopping the addition
of all salt containing materials, growing salt tolerant crops, and if prac-
tical, leaching the area with water. In some cases leaching salts may not
be acceptable because hazardous constituents would also leach.
71
-------
4.1.2.7
Soil pH is probably the most informative and valuable parameter used
to characterize the chemical property of a soil. Standard measurement pro-
cedures are given by Peech (1965). There are three possible basic soil
conditions: acidic (pH<7.0), neutral (pH=7.0), and alkaline (pH>7.0).
Acidic soils are formed in areas where rainfall leaches the soluble bases
deep into the soil profile . Alkaline soils form in areas where rainfall is
small and evaporation is high, allowing the accumulation of salts and bases
in the soil profile.
Large amounts of lime or other neutralizing agents are needed to raise
the pH of acidic soils. In general the pH should be maintained between 6
and 7 to have adequate nutrient availability for plants and microbes with-
out danger of toxicity or deficiency. The addition of large quantities of
organic wastes may require liming over and above that required by the
native soil since many organic and inorganic acids are formed and released
from the decomposing of organic wastes. The decision to add large quanti-
ties of fertilizer should be based on the potential for soil acidification,
for example, ammonium sulfate may lower the soil pH.
Geographic areas of low rainfall and high evaporation tend to have
alkaline soils where cations (Ca, Mg and K) predominate. When base satura-
tion is above 90%, the formation of hydroxide is favored resulting in high
pH. These conditions alter the nutrient availability since boron, copper,
iron, manganese, phosphorus and zinc are only slightly available at a pH of
8.5 and above.
Measures commonly used for altering soil pH include liming and sulfur
applications. Liming is the most common procedure used to raise soil pH.
Normal agricultural lime, CaC03 is most often used, but dolomite
CaMg(CC>3)2 is also available for soils of limited Mg content. Lowering
soil pH is much less commonplace, but can be accomplished by addition of
ferrous sulfate or flowers of sulfur . Both of these compounds result in
the formation of 1128045 a strong acid. Sulfur flowers have a much
higher potential acidity; however, in special situations, sulfuric acid may
be used directly. Management of soil pH at HWLT units is discussed in
Section 8.6.
4.1.2.7.1 Acid Soils. As exchangeable bases are leached from the soil in
areas of high rainfall, surface soils gradually become more acidic. Local
acid conditions can also result from oxidation of iron pyrite and other
sulfides exposed by mining. Many conifers grow best at low soil pH and
simultaneously take up and hold basic cations from the soil while dropping
fairly acidic pine needles, thus, pine forests tend to increase soil
acidity. Continued use of ammonia (NHg) or ammonium (NH^"*") ferti-
lizers may also lead to a gradual increase in acidity as this reaction
takes place in the soil:
+ 202 > 2H+ + N03~ + H20 (Brady, 1974)
72
-------
Many plants grow poorly in acid soils due to high concentrations of
soluble aluminum (Al) or manganese (Mn). Aluminum at a solution concentra-
tion of 1 ppm slows or stops root growth in some plants . Solution concen-
trations of 1-4 ppm Mn produce symptoms of toxicity in many plants (Black,
1968). Although most plants can tolerate slightly higher levels of Mn than
Al, Mn levels in flooded or poorly drained acid soils can reach 10 ppm
(Bohn et al., 1979).
4.1.2.7.2 Buffering Capacity of Soils. The ability of the soil solution
to resist abrupt pH changes (buffering capacity) is due to presence of
hydrolyzable cations , specifically Al^+, on the surface of the clay
colloid. Thus, the buffering capacity is proportional to the cation
exchange capacity if other factors are equal (Brady, 1974).
In the soil environment Al ions sorbed on the clay surface
maintain equilibrium with Al^+ ions in the soil solution. As solution AJ.3+
ions are hydrolyzed and precipitated as A1(OH)3, surface-bound Al3+ ions
migrate into solution to maintain equilibrium. As the Al^+ ions hydrolyze
and remove OH~ from solution, the solution pH tends to remain stable.
Simultaneously as the sorbed Al^+ ions migrate into solution, other cations
replace the Al^"*" ions on the soil colloid. Cations such as Na+, Ca^+ and
and Mg2+ are defined as basic cations because of their difficulty in
hydrolyzing in basic solution as compared to Al^+. As the pH of the
soil solution is increased, the percentage of the cation exchange complex
occupied by basic cations (base saturation) increases. There is a gradual
rise in pH and the percent base saturation increases .
At the high and low extremes of base saturation in soils, the degree
of buffering is lowest. Buffering capacity is greatest at about 50% base
saturation (Peech, 1941). Titration curves vary somewhat for individual
soils. The pH of soils dominated by montmorillontic clay is 4.5-5.0 at 50%
base saturation. At 50% base saturation soils dominated by kaolinite or
halloyite are at a pH 6.0-6.5 (Mehlich, 1941).
Soils resist a sharp decrease in pH. When acid is added to a neutral
soil, A1(OH)3 dissolves, enters the soil solution, and the available
Al^+ ions replace the basic cations on the exchange complex. The decrease
in pH is gradual (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975) because of the stoichiometry of
the neutralization reaction.
Plants and microorganisms depend upon a relatively stable environment.
If the soil pH were to fluctuate widely, they would suffer numerous ill
effects. The buffering capacity of the soil stabilizes the pH and protects
against such problems (Brady, 1974).
4.1.3 Biological Properties
The soil provides a suitable habitat for a diverse range of organisms
which help to render a waste less hazardous. Hamaker (1971) reports that
73
-------
biological action accounts for approximately 80% of waste degradation in
soil. The types and numbers of decomposer organisms present in a waste
amended soil are dependent on the soil moisture content, available oxygen
and nutrient composition.
The population establishment of decomposer organisms following the
land application of a waste material begins with bacteria, actinomycetes,
fungi and algae (Dindal, 1978). These organisms have diverse enzymatic
capabilities and can withstand extremes in environmental conditions.
Following establishment of microbial decomposers, the second and third
level consumers establish themselves and feed on the initial decomposers
and each other (Fig. 4.7). Secondary and tertiary consumers include worms,
nematodes, mites and flies. As these organisms use waste components,
energy and nutrients from organic materials are released and distributed
throughout the immediate environment.
4.1.3.1 Primary Decomposers
4.1.3.1.1 Bacteria. Soils contain a diverse range of bacteria which can
be used to degrade a wide range of waste constituents. Bacteria are the
most abundant of soil microorganisms, yet they account for less than half
of the total microbiological cell mass (Alexander, 1977). Bacteria found
in soil may be indigenous to the soil or invaders which enter via precipi-
tation, diseased tissue, or land applied waste. The genera of bacteria
most frequently isolated from soil include Arthrobacter, Bacillus,
Pseudomonas, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, and Flavobacterium (Alexander,
1977).
Bacterial growth or inhibition is influenced by moisture, available
oxygen, temperature, pH, organic matter content, and inorganic nutrient
supply. In temperate areas, bacterial populations are generally greatest
in the upper layers of soil, although in cultivated soils the population is
less dense at the surface due to the lack of moisture and the bactericidal
action of sunlight (Alexander, 1977). Bacterial activity is usually great-
est in the spring and autumn months but decreases during the hot, dry
summer and during cold weather.
Soil bacteria may require organic nutrients as a source of carbon and
energy, or they may obtain carbon from carbon dioxide (CC^) and energy
from the sun. Fungi, protozoa, animals, and most bacteria use organic
carbon as a source of energy. Autotrophs, which obtain carbon from C02»
obtain energy from sunlight or the oxidation of inorganic materials.
4.1.3.1.2 Actinomycetes. Under conditions of limited nutrient supply,
actinomycetes become the predominate microorganism and use compounds which
are less susceptible to bacterial attack. They are heterotrophic organisms
that utilize organic acids, lipids, proteins, and aliphatic hydrocarbons.
These organisms are a transitional group between bacteria and fungi, and
appear to dominate other microbes in dry or cultivated areas (Alexander,
74
-------
Ul
HACROORGANISMS-*' ACTINOMYCETES BACTERM AUM
Fly (Diptera)
Nocardia Pseudoraonas
Roundwoi
Sowbug
Millipec
Earthwoi
Beetle i
White W(
Snails i
Soil fl
rms (nematodes) Streptouyees arthrobacter
isopod) Mycobacterlum Mlcrococcus
lea
•BS
sites
>rm
ind slugs -—^^^
\
itworms (tubellarlans)
/ i
Klebslella
Bacillus
\
Rotl
Proti
Nena
ieca Sprl
>zoa
bodes
J5 ^FUHGI
Penlcllllun
Cunnlnghaaella
Cephalosoorlum
Trlchoderma
/|
PRIMARY
CONSUMERS
/ '
/ Feathery winged
, J beetles
ngtalls Moldbeetle
/ mite
SECONDARY
CONSUMERS
Centipedes
Ant (fornllld)
Rove beetles (staphyllnld)
Predatory mite
Pseudoscorplon
Ground Beetles
(Carabld)
TERTIARY
CONSUMERS
Figure 4.7. Cycle of organisms that degrade land applied waste. (Jensen and Holm,
1972; Perry and Gerniglia, 1973; Dindal, 1978, Austin et al., 1977)
-------
1977). Primary ecological influences on actinomycetes include moisture,
pH, temperature, and amount of organic matter present. Addition of organic
matter to the soil greatly increases the density of these organisms.
Following the addition of organic matter, they undergo a lag phase of
growth after which they show increased activity indicating that they are
effective competitors only when the more resistant compounds remain. In
addition, actinomycetes seem to influence the composition of the microbial
community due to their ability to excrete antibiotics and their capacity to
produce enzymes capable of inhibiting bacterial and fungal populations
(Alexander, 1977).
4.1.3.1.3 Fungi. This group of heterotrophic organisms is affected by the
availability of oxidizable organic substrates. Other environmental influ-
ences affecting the density of fungal populations include moisture content,
pH, organic and inorganic nutrients, temperature, available oxygen, and
vegetative composition. Fungi can withstand a wide range of pH and temper-
atures . They also have the ability to survive in a quiescent state when
environmental conditions are no longer favorable for active metabolism.
These organisms, because of their extensive mycelial or thread-like net-
work, usually compose a significant portion of the soil biomass. One of
the major activities of fungi in the mycelial state is the degradation of
complex molecules. In addition, fungi are active in the formation of
ammonium and simple nitrogen compounds.
4.1.3.1.4 Algae. This group of organisms uses light as a source of energy
and CO £ as a source of carbon. Thus, algae are abundant in habitats
where light is plentiful and moisture is available. The population of
algae is normally smaller than bacteria, actinomycetes or fungi. Because
of the inability of algal populations to multiply beneath the zone of soil
receiving sunlight, the most dense populations are found between 5 to 10 cm
deep. Algae can generate organic matter from inorganic substances.
Normally, they are the first to colonize barren surfaces, and the organic
matter produced by the death of algae provides a source of carbon for
future fungal and bacterial populations. Surface blooms produced by algae
bind together soil particles contributing to soil structure and erosion
control.
4.1.3.2 Secondary Decomposers
4.1.3.2.1 Worms. The major importance of small worms in decomposing
organic material is their abundance and relatively high metabolic activity.
When sewage sludge is land applied, the total number of earthworms in the
biomass is enhanced with increasing treatment. Increased earthworm popula-
tions also enhance soil porosity and formation of water stable soil aggre-
gates, thus improving the structure and water holding capacity of the
soil.
76
-------
Mitchell et al. (1977) found sludge decomposition was increased two to
five times by the manure worm. Specific physical and biological character-
istics improved by the manure worm include: 1) removal of senescent bac-
teria, which results in new bacterial growth; 2) enrichment of the sludge
by nitrogenous excretions; 3) enhancement of aeration; 4) addition of
mineral nutrients; and 5) influence on the carbon and nutrient flux pro-
duced by interactions between the microflora, nematodes and protozoa. In a
later study they found that fresh anaerobic sludges killed earthworms,
although aging the anaerobic sludge for two months removed this toxicity
(Mitchell et al., 1978).
4.1.3.2.2 Nematodes, Mites and Flies. As these organisms use waste com-
ponents, energy and nutrients are released and made available to other
decomposers. Nematodes harvest bacterial populations while processing
solid waste material. Both nematode and bacterial populations in sewage
sludge are increased by the feeding of the isopod Oniscus sellus (Brown et
al., 1978). Mold mites will feed on yeast and fungi. Beetle mites and
springtails will also feed on molds, but usually under drier and more
aerobic conditions. Flies are vital in the colonization of new organic
deposits. These insects are used to transport the immobile organisms from
one site to another.
4.1.3.3 Factors Influencing Waste Degradation
Following the land application of a hazardous waste, macrobiological
activity is suppressed until the microorganisms stabilize the environment.
The full range of soil organisms are important to waste degradation, how-
ever, habitation by macroorganisms depends on microbial utilization and
detoxification of waste constituents. The rate at which microbes attack
and detoxify waste constituents depends on many factors including the
effect of environmental conditions on microbial life and the presence of
certain compounds which are resistant to microbial attack (Alexander,
1977).
The adverse effects of land treatment on the soil fauna may be reduced
by a carefully planned program which may involve modifications of certain
waste characteristics or environmental parameters. Through the use of pre-
treatment methods of in-plant process controls (Section 5.2) certain waste
characteristics may be modified to improve the rate of waste degradation.
The factors affecting degradation which may be adjusted in the design and
operation of a land treatment unit include soil parameters (moisture con-
tent, temperature, pH, available nutrients, available oxygen, and soil tex-
ture or structure) and design parameters (application rate and frequency).
In most cases, it is not feasible to adjust the soil moisture content
in the field to enhance degradation. However, when soil moisture is low,
it may be advantageous to add moisture through irrigation and when the
moisture content is high, to delay waste application until the soil
moisture content is more favorable for waste degradation. Water, although
77
-------
essential for microbial growth and transport, has a limited effect on the
rate of waste degradation over a broad range of soil moisture contents.
Only under excessively wet or dry conditions does soil moisture content
have a significant effect on waste degradation (Brown et al., 1982).
Dibble and Bartha (1979) found a negligible difference in the microbial
activity of oil-amended soil at moisture contents between 30 and 90% of the
water holding capacity of the soil.
Both moisture content and temperature will exert a significant effect
on the population size and species composition of microorganisms in waste
amended soil. The influence of temperature on the metabolic capabilities
of soil bacteria was observed in a study by Westlake et al. (1974) in which
enrichment cultures of soil bacteria grown on oil at 4°C were able to
utilize the same oil at 30°C, while enrichment cultures obtained at 30°C
exhibited little capacity for growing on the same oil at 4°C. At 4°C, the
isoprenoid compounds phytane and pristane were not biodegraded, while at
30°C the bacteria metabolized these compounds (Westlake et al., 1974). In
a six month laboratory study evaluating the rate of biodegradation of two
API—separator sludges in soil, the rate of biodegradation of both wastes
doubled between 10° and 30°C, but decreased slightly at 40°C (Brown et al.,
1982). Similarly, a 50 day laboratory study by Dibble and Bartha (1979)
showed little or no increase in the rate of hydrocarbon biodegradation
above 20°C. The influence of temperature on the biodegradation of oil
sludge in these laboratory studies is presented in Fig. 4.8. These results
indicate that the optimum temperature for degradation of these oily wastes
is between 20° and 35°C; and, that biodegradation increases with decreasing
application rates. While temperature adjustments in the field are
impractical, enhanced biodegradation rates may be achieved by delaying
or reducing waste applications according to the soil temperature. Measure-
ment of soil temperature is discussed in Section 4.1.1.6.
Through management activities such as the addition of lime, the soil
at a land treatment unit is generally maintained at or above 6.5 to enhance
the immobilization of certain waste constituents. This pH is also within
the optimum range for soil microbes. Verstraete et al. (1975) found the
optimum pH for microbial activity to be 7.4 with inhibition occurring at a
pH of 8.5. In addition, Dibble and Bartha (1979) found that lime applica-
tions favored oil-sludge biodegradation.
Another soil parameter which may be readily adjusted at a land treat-
ment unit is nutrient content. The land application of sludges with a high
hydrocarbon content stimulates microbial activity and results in the deple-
tion of available nitrogen which eventually slows degradation. Through the
addition of nitrogen containing fertilizers the C:N ratio can be reduced,
thus stimulating microbial activity and maintaining the rate of biodegrada-
tion. It appears that optimum use is made of fertilizer when the applica-
tion is delayed until after the less resistant compounds have been
degraded. In a field study by Raymond et al. (1976), the rate of biodegra-
dation in fertilized plots was not increased until a year after waste
application. The rate of fertilizer needed depends on the characteristics
of the waste. While the addition of proper amounts of nutrients can
increase biodegradation, excessive amounts, particularly of nitrogen,
78
-------
DEGRADATION (%)
•s
n
(D
00
eo cr /-» M
3^>?
g H 1
^ O l^ 3
P •— ' Hi
a> H M
pt a* m c
o o re
» 3 0 3
H* O
• BJ g n>
*O OQ
/-s-a o
1— M 3* M>
VO H-^
00 (D Cb rt
N> O. H (6
^-'» OS
• O "3
OS (D (D
1-1 H "I
O W 63
son
3 3 C
H
(D <» (D
Pt TJ
•0 0
0> H 3
H» H-
• fD Pt
G. Ef
/^\ w (U
t-«
vo e o*
00 H- M-
IsS D* O
v-> a* a-
». i-i n>
(D 00
^ H
X § g,
t a* pi
Xrt
60 H-
^/ pj o
H 3
ON Pt
NS 3* H
O P 0>
ft
g /~\ fl>
09 c-
o o
3* -vl Hi
VOQ cn
S
s
•o
m
30
*^»
MH|
f^
•S
J&
m
*— ••
c
^••Mi
-------
provide no benefit and may contribute to leaching of nitrates. Dibble and
Bartha (1979) determined that the optimum C:N ratio for the oily waste they
studied was 60:1; while, in a study by Brown et al. (1982) a refinery waste
exhibited optimum degradation at a C:N ratio of 9:1, and a petrochemical
waste at 124:1. Thus, it appears that optimum degradation rates can be
achieved when the fertilizer application rate is determined on a case-by-
case basis.
The texture and structure of the soil exerts a significant influence
on the rate of waste biodegradation. Although the choice of soil will in
many cases be restricted, a careful evaluation of the rate of biodegrada-
tion using the specific soil and waste of the land treatment unit will
result in the most efficient use of the land and minimize environmental
contamination. In a laboratory study evaluating the biodegradation rates
of two wastes in four soils, the most rapid degradation occurred in the
silt loam soil and the least rapid in the clay (Table 4.5) (Brown et al.,
1982). In fine textured soils where the availability of oxygen may limit
degradation, frequent tilling may increase aeration and enhance
degradation; although, excessive tilling can promote erosion.
TABLE 4.5 THE EFFECT OF SOIL TEXTURE ON THE BIODEGRADATION OF REFINERY AND
PETROCHEMICAL SLUDGE*
% Carbon Degraded as
Total Carbon Determined by
Applied!
Soil (mg) C02~C Evolved Residual C
Refinery Waste
Norwood sandy clay
Nacogdoches clay
Lakeland sandy loam
Bastrop clay
350
350
350
350
60
44
37
37
63
54
45
47
Petrochemical Waste
Norwood sandy clay
Nacogdoches clay
Lakeland sandy loam
Bastrop clay
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
15
9
13
0.3
34
32
30
19
* Brown et al. (1982)
t Sludge was applied at a rate of 5% (wt/wt) to soils at field capacity and
incubated for 180 days at 30°C.
The frequency and rate of application are design parameters that can
be used to enhance waste biodegradation. The amount of residual sludge in
the soil influences both the availability of oxygen and the toxic effects
of waste constituents on soil microbes. When small amounts of waste are
80
-------
applied frequently, the toxic effects of the waste on the microbes are
minimized and microbial activity is maintained at an optimum level. Brown
et al. (1982) observed that repeated applications of small amounts of
waste resulted in greater degradation over the same time than occurred if
all of the waste was applied at one time (Fig. 4.9). These results agree
with those of Dibble and Bartha (1979) and Jensen (1975) who found maximum
degradation at application rates of oily waste of less than 5% (wt/wt).
Thus, it appears that the best results will be obtained when a balance is
reached between the most efficient use of the land treatment area and the
optimum application rate and frequency. Calculations are described in
Sections 7.2.1.5 and 7.5.3.1.4 which can be used to assist in determining
these parameters.
Land treatment of hazardous waste is a dynamic process requiring care-
ful design and management to maintian optimum degradation and prevent
environmental contamination. The laboratory studies described in Sections
7.2-7.4 can be used to evaluate the value of each parameter that will allow
optimum biodegradation. In situations where an equivalent waste has been
handled at an equivalent land treatment unit such testing may not be
necessary. However, due to the variability of waste streams, soils, and
climatic conditions, a careful evaluation of environmental parameters is
required in order to obtain maximum degradation rates using the minimum
land area.
Environmental modifications to enhance biodegradation may take the
form of amendments applied to the soil, as discussed above, or they may
take the form of a microbial spike added to act on a specific class of com-
pounds. Soil particles in sludges may hold bacteria or fungi in a
resistant state. Once these organisms become acclimated to waste constitu-
ents, they may flourish whenever environmental conditions are improved. In
most cases, the addition of limited amounts of organic matter to the soil
results in increased microbial activity. Excessive additions of organic
matter, however, can result in microbial inhibition because of the nature
of the organic matter.
Pretreatment of recalcitrant waste constituents by chemical, physical,
or biological degradation may render a waste more amenable to degradation
in the soil. For example, pretreatment of PCB containing wastes by photo-
decomposition can remove one or two chlorine atoms per molecule (Hutzinger
et al., 1972). Since the most significant factor in the relative degrad-
ability of PCB wastes the degree of chlorination (Tucker, 1975), pretreat-
ment of PCBs could render the waste more susceptible to microbial attack.
Methods of pretreatment that may be useful for HWLT are discussed in
Section 5.2.
4.1.3.4 Waste Degradation by Microorganisms
It is difficult to predict the effect of a hazardous waste on the
microbial population of the soil. Most hazardous wastes are complex
81
-------
00
30
O
03
•S1
CM
o
o
O)
20
c
o
1
'a
0)
0}
DC
10
Petrochemicoi Wastes
o One-5% Appfication
•One-lO% Applications
a Two-5% Applications
AFour-5% Applications
D
a
A
a
A
•
* o
B
i8 o
A
o
a
a
• •
50
100
Time (Days)
150
200
Figure 4.9. Effect of treatment frequency on the evolution of C02 from Norwood soil
amended with petrochemical sludge and incubated for 180 days at 30 C
and 18% moisture (Brown et al., 1982).
-------
mixtures which contain a. variety of toxic compounds, resistant compounds,
and compounds susceptible to microbial attack. The application of a
readily available substrate to the soil stimulates the microbial population
and should provide a more diverse range of organisms to deal with the
resistant compounds once the preferred substrate has been degraded. Davies
and Westlake (1979) found that the inability of an asphalt based crude oil
to support growth was due to the lack of n-alkanes rather than the presence
of toxic compounds. Therefore, it appears that the effect of toxic
inorganic and organic compounds on microorganisms will be reduced if there
is a readily available substrate which can be used by these organisms.
Many hazardous wastes contain substantial quantities of toxic inor-
ganic compounds, such as heavy metals. Kloke (1974) suggests that concen-
trations of lead in soil above 2000 mg/kg inhibit microbial activity. In
addition, the recommended limit for total lead plus four times total zinc
plus forty times total cadmium is 2000 mg/kg (Kloke, 1974); however, this
calculation fails to account for both the synergistic effects between these
cations and the effect of soil characteristics. Doelman and Haanstra (1979)
found that a lead concentration of 7500 mg/kg had no effect on microbial
activity in a peat soil with a high cation exchange capacity. These
results were verified by Babich and Stotzky (1979) who found that lead
toxicity was reduced by a high pH (greater than 6.5), the addition of phos-
phate or carbonate anions, a high cation exchange capacity, and the pres-
ence of soluble organic matter. Thus, it is evident that no fixed limit on
heavy metal concentration can be generally applied to all waste-soil mix-
tures. Inorganic toxicity can be better determined empirically on a case
by case basis. Similarly, the toxicity of organic compounds in a hazardous
waste is dependent on the concentration of organic and inorganic constitu-
ents and the properties of the receiving soil. Under certain circum-
stances, the application of toxic organic compounds to soil may stimulate
fungal or actinomycete populations while depressing bacterial populations.
Applications of 5000 mg/kg 2,4-D reduced the number of bacteria and actino-
mycetes, but had little effect on the fungal population (Ou et al., 1978).
Since many hazardous wastes can have an adverse effect on biological forms
i,n the soil, land treatment should be carefully planned and monitored to
ensure that the biological forms responsible for degradation have not been
adversely affected.
There are indications that after long-term exposure to toxic com-
pounds, microbes can adapt and utilize some of these compounds. Results of
numerous experiments indicate that microbes have the capacity to adapt and
use introduced substrates. The majority of these studies, however, have
dealt with microbial utilization of a relatively pure substrate and even
those dealing with the use of crude oil are examining a substrate which is
predominantly composed of saturated hydrocarbons.
Poglazova et al. (1967) isolated a soil bacterium capable of destroy-
ing the ubiquitous carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene. This study indicated that
the ability of soil bacteria to degrade benzo(a)pyrene may be enhanced by
prolonged cultivation in media containing hydrocarbons. This indicates
that the land treatment of hazardous wastes may stimulate the growth of
microorganisms with the increased enzymatic capabilities to deal with toxic
83
-------
waste constituents. Jensen (1975) states that the most common genera of
bacteria showing an increase in activity due to the presence of hydrocar-
bons in the soil include Corynebactenum, Brevibacterium, Arthrobacter,
Mycobacteria, Pseudomonas and Nocardia. Of all groups of bacteria, Pseudo-
monas appear to have the most diverse enzymatic capabilities, perhaps due
to the presence of plasmids which increase their ability to use complex
substrates (Dart and Stretton, 1977). Friello et al. (1976) have trans-
ferred hydrocarbon degradive plasmids to a strain of Pseudomonas which
gives the bacterium a broader range of available substrates. Enrichment
cultures of such organisms may be useful for rapidly degrading certain
classes of compounds. It may be useful to apply this type of an enrichment
culture to enhance the degradation of a particular recalcitrant compound or
group of compounds, although in the case of many complex wastes, a mixed
microbial population is required to co-metabolize the various waste consti-
tuents .
Large additions of chlorinated hydrocarbons into the environment exert
selective pressure on microorganisms to detoxify or utilize these compounds
(Chakrabarty, 1978). As a result, bacteria are frequently isolated which
have the capacity to use compounds previously thought to be resistant to
microbial attack. For example, mixed or enrichment cultures of bacteria
have been shown to degrade PCBs (Clark et al., 1979), DDT (Patil et al.,
1970), polyethylene glycol (Cox and Conway, 1976), and all classes of oil
hydrocarbons (Raymond et al., 1976). However, some compounds, such as
hexachlorobenzene, appear to be resistant to microbial attack (Ausmus
et al., 1979).
Various strains of actinomycetes are capable of degrading hazardous
compounds. Walker et al. (1976) isolated petroleum degrading actinomycetes
from polluted creek sediments which composed over 30% of all the organisms
isolated. In addition, Chacko et al. (1966) isolated several strains of
actinomycetes that could use DDT.
Fungi capable of degrading the persistent pesticide dieldrin were iso-
lated in a study by Bixby et al. (1971). Perry and Cerniglia (1973) found
fungi able to degrade greater quantities of oil during growth than bac-
teria. This capability was probably due to the ability of fungi to grow as
a. mat on the surface of the oil. The most efficient hydrocarbon using
fungi isolated by Perry and Cerniglia (1973) utilized 30-65% of an asphalt
based crude oil. Davies and Westlake (1979) also isolated fungi that could
use crude oil. The genera most frequently isolated in their study were
Penicillium and Verticillium.
4.2 PLANTS
Plants modify the treatment functions that occur in soil. Primarily,
a crop cover on the active treatment site, protects the soil-waste matrix
from adverse impacts of wind and water, namely erosion and soil crusting.
Plants also function to enhance removal of excess water through transpira-
tion. Some of the more mobile, plant-available waste constituents may be
84
-------
absorbed along with the water and then altered within the plant. Absorbed
wastes ultimately are returned to the soil as the decaying plants supply
organic matter. The organic matter, in turn, enhances soil structure and
cation exchange capacity. The plant canopy may range from spotty to com-
plete coverage and may vary with the season or waste application schedule.
Also, cover crops are not required during the operation of an HWLT unit so
management decisions about the selection of species, time of planting,
desired periods of cover, or whether or not plants are even desirable are
all left to the discretion of the owner or operator. A cover crop is
advantageous in many cases but it is not essential. The functions plants
serve can be divided into two classes, protective functions and cycling and
treatment functions.
Plants protect the soil by intercepting and dampening the effects of
rainfall and wind. In climates where wetness is a problem for land treat-
ment , a plant canopy can intercept precipitation and prevent significant
amounts of water from ever reaching the soil; however, this depends on
plant species, completeness of cover, rainfall intensity, and atmospheric
conditions. Plants also decrease the erosive effects of raindrop impact on
the soil, preventing detachment of particles from the soil and decreasing
the splash transport of soil and waste particles. Plants enhance infiltra-
tion and lessen runoff transport of waste constituents by decreasing
surface flow velocities and by filtering particulates from runoff water.
Wind erosion is reduced since the plant canopy dampens wind speed and tur-
bulent mixing at ground level.
Cycling and treatment functions include translocation of substances
from soil to plant, transformations within plants, and loss from plants to
the atmosphere or back to the soil. Land treatment in a wet climate can
benefit from an established crop cover to enhance water loss through uptake
and transpiration. Certain soluble, plant available waste constituents and
plant nutrients can also be absorbed through plant roots. If testing of
plant tissues indicates no food chain hazard from these absorbed constitu-
ents, crop harvest can be a removal pathway. However, crops may not be
harvested either because tissue analyses have indicated unacceptable con-
centrations of hazardous constituents or because the expense of plant moni-
toring exceeds any potential benefit from harvesting. In such cases, the
crop residues can be returned to the soil organic matter pool.
Where it has been determined that cover crop is desirable, proper
selection of plant species or mixture of species can maximize the desired
function. The choice of plant species will vary depending on the season
and the region of the country. It is a good idea to consult with area
agronomists from the State Agricultural Extension Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, or the agronomy department at a nearby university to obtain
information on varieties and cultural practices which are suited to a given
region. Section 8.7 provides additional information on species selection.
85
-------
4.3 ATMOSPHERE
The atmosphere primarily operates as a modifier of treatment processes
in the soil. Atmospheric conditions control the water content and tempera-
ture of the soil which in turn control biological waste degradation rates
and waste constituent mobility. Winds act along with the heat balance and
moisture content to provide for gas exchange, such as the movement of
oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and waste volatiles between soil and
atmosphere. In addition to soil-atmosphere interactions, the atmosphere
exchanges gases with plants and transmits photosynthetically active radia-
tion to plants. Finally, shortwave radiation may be responsible for some
degree of photodegradation of some waste organics exposed at the soil sur-
face. Comprehension of soil, plants and atmosphere interactions and of the
various active treatment functions directs attention to those system
properties which influence treatment effectiveness and which should be
examined more thoroughly.
The important climatic parameters affecting land treatment should be
understood from the perspective of site history for design purposes. On-
site observations are essential as an input to management decisions
(Chapter 8). An off-site weather reporting station will ordinarily be the
source of climatic records. Section 3.3 discusses the selection of reli-
able sources of information that will be representative of site conditions.
During the operational life of the HWLT unit it may be useful to install an
instrument package and make regular observations of important climatic
parameters, such as temperature, rainfall, pan evaporation and wind velo-
city. Measurement of soil temperature and moisture and particulate emis-
sions may also be useful.
Climate affects the management of hazardous waste facilities. Air
temperature influences many treatment processes but has an especially pro-
found effect on the length of the waste application season, the rate of
biodegradation, and the volatilization of waste constituents. On an opera-
tional basis, temperature observations can aid in application timing for
volatile wastes and surface irrigated liquid wastes. Wind, atmospheric
stability and temperature determine application timing for volatile wastes.
The moisture budget at an HWLT unit is critical to timing waste applica-
tions and determining loading rates and storage requirements. Climatic
data can be used in the hydrologic simulation to predict maximum water
application rates, and to design water retention and diversion structures.
A discussion of how the management of the unit can be developed to respond
to climatic influences is included in Chapter 8. ,
86
-------
CHAPTER 4 REFERENCES
Alexander, M. 1977. Introduction to soil microbiology. John Wiley and Sons
Inc., New York. p. 1-467.
Allison, L. E. 1965. Organic carbon, pp. 1367-1378. In C. A. Black (ed.)
Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties.
Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1961. Measuring saturated
hydraulic conductivity of soils. Am. Soc. Agr. Engr. St. Joseph, Michigan.
p. 1-18.
Ausmus, B., S. Kimbrough, D. R. Jackson, and S. Lindberg. 1979. The
behaviour of hexachlorobenzene in pine forest microcosms: transport and
effects on soil processes. Applied Science Publ. Ltd., England. Environ.
Pollut. 0013-9327/79/0020-0103.
Austin, B., J. J. Calomiris, J. D. Walker, and R. R. Colwell 1977. Numeri-
cal taxonomy and ecology of petroleum degrading bacteria. Appl. and
Environ. Micro. 34(l):60-68.
Babich, H., and G. Stotzky. 1979. Abiotic factors affecting the toxicity of
lead to fungi. Appl. and Environ. Micro. 38(3):506-513.
Bernas, B. 1968. A new method for decomposition and comprehensive analysis
of silicates by atomic absorption spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 40:1682-1686.
Bixby, M. W., G. M. Boush, and F. Matsumura. 1971. Degradation of dielorin
to carbon dioxide by a soil fungus Trichoderma koningi. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 6(6):491-495.
Black, C. A. (ed.). 1968. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and
microbiological properties. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Blake, G. R. 1965. Bulk Density, pp. 374-390. In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods
of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical properties including
statistics of measurement and sampling. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Boersma, L. 1965a. Field measurement of hydraulic conductivity above a
water table, pp. 234-252. In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis.
Part 1. Physical and mineralogical properties including statistics of
measurements and sampling. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison,
Wisconsin.
87
-------
Boersma, L. 1965b. Field measurement of hydraulic conductivity below a
water table, pp. 222-233. In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis.
Part 1. Physical and mineralogical properties including statistics of meas-
urement and sampling. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Bohn, H. L., B. L. McNeal, and G. A. O'Connor. 1979. Soil chemistry. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Bouma, J., R. F. Paetzold, and R. B. Grossman. 1982. Measuring hydraulic
conductivity for use in soil survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Report No. 38. 14 p.
Brady, N. C. 1974. The nature and properties of soils. 8th ed. MacMillan
Co., New York. 639 p.
Bremner, J. M. 1965. Inorganic forms of nitrogen pp. 149-176. JLn C. A.
Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological
properties. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Brown, B., B. Swift, and M. J. Mitchell. 1978. Effect of Oniscus aesellus
feeding on bacteria and nematode populations in sewage sludge. Oikos
30:90-94.
Brown, K. W., L. E. Deuel, Jr., and J. C. Thomas. 1982. Soil disposal of
API pit wastes. Final Report of a Study for the Environmental Protection
Agency (Grant No. R805474013). 209 p.
Brown, K. W., C. Woods, and J. F. Slowey. 1975. Fate of metals applied in
sewage at land wastewater disposal sites. Final report AD 43363 submitted
to the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, Washington,
D.C.
Buckman, H. 0., and N. C. Brady. 1960. The nature and properties of soils.
MacMillan Co., New York. 239 p.
Chacko, C. I., J. L. Lockwood, and M. Zabick. 1966. Chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticides - degradation by microbes. Science 154:893-894.
Chakrabarty, A. M. 1978. Molecular mechanisms in the bio-degradation of
enviromental pollutants. Am. Soc. Micro. News 44(12):687-690.
Chapman, H. D. 1965a. Cation exchange capacity, pp. 891-900. ^n C. A. Black
(ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological
properties. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Chapman, H. D. 1965b. Total exchangeable bases, pp. 902-904. In C. A. Black
(ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Clark, R. R., E. S. K. Chian, and R. A. Griffin. 1979. Degradation of poly-
cholorinated biphenyls by mixed microbial cultures. App. Environ. Micro-
biol. 37(4):680-685.
88
-------
Cox, D. P. and R. A. Conway. 1976. Microbial degradation of some polyethy-
lene glycols. pp. 835-841. In J. M. Sharpley and A, M. Kaplan (ed.)
Proceedings of the Third International Bio-degradation Symposium. Appl.
Sci. Publ., London.
Dart, R. K. and R. J. Streton. 1977. Microbial aspects of pollution con-
trol. Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., Amsterdam, pp. 180-215.
Davies, J. S. and D. W. S. Westlake. 1979. Crude oil utilization &?• fungi.
Can. J. Microbiol. 25:146-156.
Day, P. R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle size analysis pp. 545-
566. In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and
mineralogical properties including statistics of measurement and sampling.
Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Dibble, J. T. and R. Bartha. 1979. Effect of environmental parameters on
biodegradation of oil sludge. Appl. Environ. Micro. 37:729-738.
Dindal, D. L. 1978. Soil organisms and stabilizing wastes. Compost Sci./
Land Utilization. 19(4):8-11.
Doelman, P. and L. Haanstra. 1979. Effects of lead on the decomposition of
organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 11:481-485.
EPA. 1979. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Office of Research and Development, EPA.
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 600/4-79-020. PB 297-686/8BE.
Fine, L. 0. 1965. Selenium, pp. 1117-1123. In_ C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of
soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Am. Soc.
Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Fluker, B. J. 1958. Soil temperatures. Soil Sci. 86:35-46.
Friello, D. A., J, R. Mylroie, and A. M. Chakrabarty. 1976. Use of
genetically engineered multi-plasmid microorganisms for rapid degradation
of fuel hydrocarbons, pp. 205-214. In CRC Critical Reviews in Micro.
Fuller, W. H. 1978. Investigations of landfill leachate pollutant attenua-
tion by soils. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. Office of
Research and Development, EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 600/2-78-158.
Hamaker, J. W. 1971. Decomposition: quantitative aspects, pp. 253-4340. In
C. A. I. Goring and J. W. Hamaker (ed.) Organic chemicals in the soil
environment. Vol. 2. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Homes, M. V. 1955. Anew approach to the problem of plant nutrition and
fertilizer requirements. Soils Fertilizers 18:1.
Hutzinger, 0., S. Safe, and V. Zitko. 1972. Photochemical degradation of
chlorobiphenyls (PCB's). Environ. Health Perspect. 1:15-20.
89
-------
Jensen, V. 1975. Bacterial flora of soil after application of oily waste.
Oikos 26:152-158.
Jensen, V. and E. Holm. 1972. Aerobic chemoorganotrophic bacteria of a
Danish beech forest. Oikos 23:248-260.
Kloke, A. 1974. Blei-zink-cadmium: anreicher in boden and pflanzen. Staub
34:18-21.
Klute, A. 1965. Laboratory measurement of hydraulic conductivity of satu-
rated soil. pp. 210-221. In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis.
Part 1. Physical and mineralogical properties including statistics of
measurement and sampling. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Mehlich, A. 1941. Base saturation and pH in relation to soil type. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 6:150-156.
Mitchell, M., R. M. Mulligan, R. Hartenstein, and E. F. Neuhauser. 1977.
Conversion of sludges into "topsoils" by earthworms. Compost Sci. 18(4):28-
32.
Mitchel, M. J., R. Hartenstein, B. L. Swift, E. F. Neuhauser, B. I. Abrams,
R. M. Mulligan, B. A. Brown, D. Craig, and D. Kaplan. 1978. Effects of
different sewage sludges on some chemical and biological characteristics of
soil. J. Environ. Qual. 14:301-311.
Ou, Li-tse, D. F. Rothwell, W. B. Wheeler, and J. M. Davidson. 1978. The
effect of high 2,4-D concentrations on degradation and carbon dioxide
evolution in soils. J. Environ. Qual. 7(2):241-246.
Overcash, M. R. and D. Pal. 1979. Design of land treatment systems for
industrial wastes—theory and practice. Ann Arbor Science Publ. Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 684 p.
Patil, K. C., F. M. Matsumura, and G. M. Boush. 1970. Degradation of
Endrin, Aldrin, and DDT by soil microorganisms. Appl. Micro. 19(5):879-
886.
Peech, M. 1941. Availability of ions in light sandy soils as affected by
soil reaction. Soil Sci. 51:473-486.
Peech, M. 1965. Lime requirement. Agron. 9:927-932.
Perry, J. J. and R. Cerniglia. 1973. Studies on the degradation of petro-
leum by filamentous fungi. In D. C. Ahearn and S. P. Meyers (ed.) The
microbial degradation of oil pollutants. Louisiana State Univ. Center for
Wetland Resources. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LSU-SG-7301.
Poglazova, M. N., G. E. Fedoseeva, and A. J. Klesina, M. N. Meissel, and L.
M. Shabad. 1967. Destruction of benzo (a) pyrene by soil bacteria. Life
Sci. 6:1053-1067.
90
-------
Pritchett, W. L. 1979. Properties and management of Forest Soils. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Raymond, R. L., J. 0. Hudson, and V. W. Jamison. 1976. Oil degradation in
soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 31(4):522-535.
Richards, L. A. 1965. Physical condition of water in soil. pp. 128-152. In_
C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralog-
ical properties, including statistics of measurement and sampling. Am.
Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Stewart, B. A., D. A. Woolhiser, W. H. Wischmeier, J. H. Carow, and M. H.
Frere. 1975. Control of water pollution from cropland: Vol I. A manual for
guideline development. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Report ARS-H-5-1.
Hyattsville, Maryland. Ill p.
Tisdale, S. L. and W. L. Nelson. 1975. Soil fertility and fertilizers. 3rd
ed. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York.
t
Tucker, E. S., V. W. Saeger, and 0. Hicks. 1975. Activated sludge primary
biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenyls. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxic.
14(6):705-713.
USDA. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. L. A.
Richards (ed.) Agriculture Handbook. No. 60. 160 p.
USDA. 1981. Examination and description of soils in the field. Revised
Chapter 4, pp. 4-31-4-37. In Soil survey manual. U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, D.C.
Verstraete, W., R. Vanlooke, R. de Borger, and A. Verlinde. 1975. Modeling
of the breakdown and mobilization of hydrocarbons in unsaturated soil
layers, pp. 98-112. In J. M. Sharpley and A. M. Kaplan (eds.) Proceedings
of the Third International Biodegradation Symposium. Applied Science Publ.,
London.
Walker, J. D., R. R. Colwell, and L. Petraskis. 1976. Biodegradation of
petroleum by Chesapeake Bay sediment bacteria. Can. J. Microbiol.
22:423-428.
Wear, J. I. 1965. Boron, pp. 1059-1063. In_ C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of
soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Am. Soc.
Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Westlake, D. W. S., A. Jobson, R. Phillippee, and F. D. Cook. 1974.
Biodegradability and crude oil composition. Can. Jour. Microbial.
20:915-928.
Wooding, H. N. and R. F. Shipp. 1979. Agricultural use and disposal of
septic tank sludge in Pennsylvania - information and recommendations for
farmers, septage haulers, municipal officials, and regulatory agencies.
Penn. State Univ. Cooperative Ext. Ser. Special Circular 257.
91
-------
5.0 CHAPTER FIVE
HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS
This chapter presents information to be used in evaluating waste
streams proposed for land treatment. There are three main factors that
need to be considered when evaluating the information on waste streams sub-
mitted with a permit application for an HWLT unit. These three factors are
the characterization of the wastes, the pretreatment options available and
the techniques used for sampling and analysis. Figure 5.1 shows how each
of these topics fits into the decision-making framework for evaluating HWLT
units, first presented in Chapter 2 (Fig. 2.1).
Each section in this chapter focuses on one of the topics shown in
Fig. 5.1. Section 5.1 briefly discusses sources of hazardous waste. A
number of pretreatment options are available that can reduce the hazards
associated with certain waste streams, Section 5.2 discusses these options.
Finally, in order to accurately predict the fate of a given waste in an
HWLT unit, the permit evaluator must know what analytical techniques were
used by the applicant in performing the waste analysis. Section 5.3
discusses procedures that are appropriate for analyzing hazardous wastes.
5.1 SOURCES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
The first step in evaluating a waste stream is to determine what the
expected waste constituents are based on what is known about the sources of
the waste. Hazardous waste sources fall into two broad categories as
follows:
(1) Specific industrial sources that generate waste streams
peculiar to the feedstocks and processes used by that
industry, such as leather, rubber or textiles, and
(2) Nonspecific sources of waste that cut across industrial
categories, but may still be characterized according to the
raw materials and processes used, such as solvent cleaning
or product painting.
5.1.1 Specific Sources
Industries that produce a waste unique to that industry are "specific
sources" of that waste. Examples of "specific" industrial sources are
textiles, lumber, paper, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, petroleum
products, rubber products, leather products, stone products, primary
metals and others. Table 5.1 ranks most of the specific sources according
to the volume of hazardous waste each is projected to generate in 1985.
92
-------
WASTE
fPOTENTIAL
I SITE
CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE WASTE STREAM
CHAPTER FIVE
HAS THE APPLICANT INCLUDED ADEQUATE \
INFORMATION ON HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITU-\
ENTS AND THE SOURCES OF THESE CONSTITU-
ENTS' / no
(SECTION 5 1)
ASK FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
yes
/IF THE APPLICANT MAKES IN-PLANT PRO- \
/CESS CHANGES OR PRETREATS THE WASTES, AREr*~
THESE METHODS GOING TO PERFORM CONSIS-
VTENTLY, so THAT THE WASTES REMAIN CONS- /no
\.TANT' (SECTION 5 2) ^T
yes
ASK FOR CONTIN-
GENCY PLANS FOR
WHEN WASTES VARV
SIGNIFICANTLY
FROM THE ANA-
LYZED WASTE
/^TRE THE ANALYTICAL PRO^
/ CEDURES USED TO ASSESS THE
V WASTES APPROPRIATE'
X (SECTION 5.3)
yes
ASSESS THE EXPECTED FATE
OF WASTE CONSTITUENTS
CHAPTER SIX
CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE TREATMENT MEDIUM
CHAPTER FOUR
\ i
WASTE - SITE
INTERACTIONS
CHAPTER SEVEN
Figure 5.1. Characterization of the waste stream to be land treated.
93
-------
TABLE 5.1 PROJECTED 1985 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY INDUSTRY*
Annual Volume of Waste Generated!
1985 Projection
O-LVj
Code
28
33
—
34
29
37
26
36
31
35
39
30
22
27
38
24
25
32
Industry
Chemicals & Allied Products
Primary Metals
Nonmanufacturing Industries
Fabricated Metal Products
Petroleum & Coal Products
Transportation Equipment
Paper & Allied Products
Electric & Electronic Equipment
Leather & Leather Tanning
Machinery, Except Electrical
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic
Products
Textile Mill Products
Printing & Publishing
Instruments & Related Products
Lumber & Wood Products
Furniture & Fixtures
Stone, Clay & Glass Products
1980 Estimate
25,509
4,061
1,971
1,997
2,119
1,240
1,295
1,093
474
322
318
249
203
154
90
87
36
17
Low*
24,564
3,699
1,882
1,807
1,789
1,309
1,201
1,145
342
330
299
226
162
145
99
75
29
15
High+
30,705
4,624
2,352
2,259
2,236
1,6.36
1,501
1,431
428
413
374
282
203
182
124
94
36
19
TOTAL
41,235
39,118 48,899
* Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. and Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc.
(1980).
* In thousands of wet metric tons.
* Based on a reasonable estimate of the potential reduction (20%) in
waste generation.
"*" Based on the industrial growth rate used to calculate 1980 and 1981
estimates.
94
-------
5.1.2 Nonspecific Sources of Hazardous Waste
There are several hazardous waste generating activities that are not
specific to a particular industry. For instance, many manufactured pro-
ducts are cleaned and painted before they are marketed. Product cleaning
is usually done with solvents and, consequently, many industries generate
spent solvent wastes. Similarly, industrial painting generates paint resi-
dues. Eighteen nonspecific wastes are listed in Table 5.2. There are
three main categories of hazardous constituents generated by these nonspe-
cific sources which are solvents, heavy metals and cyanide, and paint (Fig.
5.2).
5.1.3 Sources of Information on Waste Streams
The applicant and the permit writer can use published information on
the chemical analysis of similar hazardous wastes to help them determine
the constituents expected in the wastes to be land treated. In some cases,
this information may indicate the presence of constituents which may need
to be pretreated before they are disposed in an HWLT unit.
There is little information on the waste streams from the organic
chemicals industry because each plant uses a unique collection of feed-
stocks and unit chemical processes to produce its line of products. How-
ever, some information about the nature of the waste can be gained if
information is known about the chemical feedstocks and unit process used
(Herrick et al., 1979).
A document is currently being prepared for EPA by K. W. Brown and
Associates, Inc. that will pull together information on waste streams gen-
erated by the industries that produce hazardous wastes. This document will
present chemical analyses (where available) and information on the hazard-
ous constituents contained in the waste streams of these industries accord-
ing to the standard industrial classification. This document together with
waste analyses supplied to EPA should form a basis for a better understand-
ing of hazardous waste streams.
5.2 WASTE PRETREATMENT
Pretreatment processes may be used to render a waste more amenable to
land treatment. This can be accomplished by altering the waste in a way
that either changes its physical properties or reduces its content of the
waste constituents that limit the land treatment operation. Physical
alterations include premixing the waste with soil and reducing the unit
95
-------
TABLE 5 2 POTbHTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAKS GENERATED BY JlONSPECIt 1C INDUSTRIAL SOURCtS
Hazardous
Hod ifled Haste
SIC Code Number
LAND rUEATMhMT POTENTIAL*
Activity
Haste Stream
Rate (R) or Capacity (C)
Limiting Components
F001 Degreasing opera-
tions (halogenated
solvent)
F002 Halogenated solvent
recovery
F003 Nonhalogenated sol-
vent recovery
F004 Nonhalogenated sol-
vent recovery
F005 Nonhalogenated sol-
vent recovery
3471 1 F006 Electroplating
3471 2 F007 Electroplating
3471 3 F008 Electroplating
3471 4 F009 Electroplating
3398 1 F010 Metal heat treating
3398 i F011 Metal heat treating
3398 3 F012 Metal heat treating
F013 Metal recovery
K)14 Metal recovery
F015 Metal recovery
3312 1 F016 Operations involving
coke ovens & blast
furnaces
3479 1 F017 Industrial painting
3479 2 F018 Industrial painting
Spent halogenated
solvents & sludge
Spent halogenated
solvents s still
bottoms
Spent nonhalogenated
solvents & still
bottoms
Spent nonhalogenated
solvents a still
bottoms
Spent nonhaolgenated
solvents & still
bottoms
Wastewater treatment
sludge
Spent plating bath
Plating bath bottom
sludges
Spent stripping &
cleaning bath
solutions
Quenching oil bath
sludge
Spent salt bath
solutions
Wastewater treatment
sludge
Flotation trailings
Cyanidation wastewater
treatment tailing
pond bottom sediments
Spent cyanide bath
solutions
Air pollution control
scrubber sludge
Paint residues
Tetrachloroethylene (C), carbon tetrachloride (C),
Trichloroethyllene (C), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (C),
Methylene chloride (C), chlorinated fluorocarbons (C)
Tetrachloroethylene (C), methylene chloride (C),
Trichloroethylene (C), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (C),
l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-fluoroethane (C) Chlorobenzene (C)
o-dichlorobenzene (C), tnchloroCluoroethane (C)
Flammable solvents (R)
Cresols (R) and cresylic acid (R), nitrobenzene (C)
Methanol (R), toluene (R), methyl ethyl ketone (R),
Methyl isobutyl ketone (R), carbon disulfide (R),
Isobutanol (R), pyridine (R)
Cadmium (C), chromium (C), nickel (C),
Cyanide (complexed) (C)
Cyanide salts (C)
Cyanide salts (C)
Cyanide salts (C)
Cyanide salts (C)
Cyanide salts (C)
Cyanide (complexed) (C)
Cyanide {complexed) (C) and metals from the ore
Cyanide (complexed) (C)
Cyanide salts (C)
Cyanide (complexed) (C)
Cadmium (C), chromium (C), lead (C), cyanides (C),
toluene (R), tetrachloroethylene (C)
Wastewater treatment Cadmium (C), chromium (C), lead (C), cyanide (C),
sludge toluene (R), tetrachloroethylene (C)
* Values for waste constituents may vary, hence, loading rates and capacities should be based on the analysis of the
specific waste to be land treated and on the results of the pilot studies performed Organic compounds are labeled (C)
when it is believed that there may be some soil conditions under which the compound may not degrade rapidly enough to
prevent tosicity hazards, either due to accumulation in soil or migration via water or air
-------
NONSPECIFIC WASTE
CATEGORIES
HEAVY METAL OR CYANIDE
BEARING HASTES
Solvent Recovery
Sludges
Industrial Painting
Wastewater Treatment
Sludges
Figure 5.2. Categories of hazardous constituents generated by nonspecific sources.
-------
size of waste materials. Specific waste constituents can limit the ulti-
mate capacity, yearly loading rate, or the single application dosage of a
waste disposed in an HWLT unit (Section 7.5.1). Pretreatment processes are
available that will reduce the concentration of a limiting constituent.
Pretreatment may improve both the economic and environmental aspects of the
HWLT unit. When waste form or waste constituents warrant examining pre-
treatment options, in-plant process changes should also be explored.
It is beyond the scope of this document to review all the available
pretreatment techniques and their treatment efficiencies for the thousands
of pollutant species. However, EPA (1980a) has recently published a five
volume manual that exhaustively covers the following topics that can be
used to evaluate pretreatment.
(1) Volume one is a compendium of treatability data, industrial
occurrence data, and pure species descriptions of metals,
cyanides, ethers, phthalates, nitrogen containing compounds,
phenols, mono and polynuclear aromatics, PCBs, halogenated
hydrocarbons, pesticides, oxygenated compounds, and a number
of miscellaneous organic compounds. This volume focuses on
the 129 priority pollutants and other compounds that are
prevalant in industrial wastewaters and that do not readily
degrade or disappear from aqueous environments, which are
the ultimate receivers of leachates generated by land treat-
ment units.
(2) Volume two is a collection of industrial wastewater dis-
charge information and includes data for both raw and
treated wastewaters.
(3) Volume three is a compilation of available performance data
for existing wastewater treatment technologies.
(4) Volume four is a collection of capital and operating cost
data for the treatment technologies described in volume
three.
(5) Volume five is an executive summary and describes the use of
information contained in volumes one through four.
To determine the most desirable mix of pretreatments for a land treat-
ment system, total costs should be weighed against the degree of treatment
required. Possible pretreatment steps for enhancing the land treatability
of waste as presented by Loehr et al. (1979), are discussed below.
(1) Preliminary treatment (coarse screening or grinding) is used
to remove large objects such as wood, rags and rocks to
protect piping and spray systems.
(2) Primary treatment usually involves the removal of readily
settleable and floatable solids. The primary treatment
effluent can then be land treated by spray irrigation or
overland flow. Since the removed solids can clog both spray
98
-------
nozzles and the soil surface, these solids are usually land
treated by soil incorporation.
(3) Secondary treatment includes several biological treatments
(such as aerated lagoons, anaerobic digestion, composting
and activated sludge) and any subsequent solids settling.
Secondary pretreatment systems may be necessary where it is
desirable to remove soluble organics or suspended solids
that may clog the soil. Secondary treatment effluents are
usually suitable for spray irrigation while the secondary
treatment sludges can be incorporated into the soil. Land
treatment of a waste often results in the breakdown of
organics as rapidly as secondary treatment but the addi-
tional treatment may be necessary for some refractory
organics.
(4) Disinfection is the treatment of effluents to kill disease
causing organisms such as pathogenic bacteria, viruses and
amoebic cysts. Chlorination effectively kills pathogens but
may also generate chlorinated organics and have undesirable
effects on cover crops and leachate quality. Ozonation is
more expensive than chlorination, but effectively disinfects
a waste stream without the undesirable effects of chlorina-
tion. Coupling ozonation with irradiation by ultraviolet
light may improve its economic feasibility and enhance over-
all waste treatment. Compounds normally refractory to ozone
alone are rapidly converted to carbon dioxide and water when
subjected to the combination (Rice and Browning, 1981).
(5) Advanced (tertiary) wastewater treatment refers to processes
designed to remove dissolved solids and soluble organics
that are not adequately treated by secondary treatment.
Land treatment usually exceeds the results obtainable
through tertiary treatment for removal of nitrogen, phos-
phorous and soluble organics. In these cases a tertiary
treatment may not be useful; however, tertiary treatment for
the removal of dissolved salts (such as reverse osmosis or
distillation) may produce an effluent of drinking water
quality and circumvent the need for land treatment.
Table 5.3 lists the different pretreatment methods and their applic-
ability to hazardous waste treatment. Although, in many cases, pretreat-
ment of the waste is not necessary prior to land treatment, pretreatments
with the most potential for enhancing the land treatability of wastes are
examined in the following sections (5.2.1 through 5.2.6). Neutralization,
dewatering, degradation processes, premixing with soil, and size reduction
may greatly increase the effectiveness of land treatment for a given waste;
however, in-plant process changes may also be effective in reducing
troublesome waste constituents. In all cases, care must be taken when pre-
treatment processes are being considered to evaluate the cost effectiveness
of the process and to determine if the process (which may have originally
been developed to render a waste compatible with another disposal option)
is appropriate for land treatment operations.
99
-------
TABLE 5.3 PRBTREATMEHT HEniODS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES*
Pretreatment
Method
Activated
sludge
Aerated
lagoons
Anaerobic
digestion
Composting
Enzymatic
biological
treatment
Trickling
filters
Haste
stabilization
ponds
Carbon
adsorption
Resin
adsorption
Calcination
Catalysis
Centrifugation
Chlorinolysis
Dialysis
Dissolution
Distillation
Flectrolysis
Heavy
Metal
Removal
Yes
No
No
NO
No
No
No
Yes
Possible
Possible
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Organic
Removal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Ho
No
No
Yes
No
Organic
Destruction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Ho
Yes
No
Ho
No
No
Haste
Volume
Reduction Comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Ye-j
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Ho
Yes
No
Waste must have heavy metal content
less than It
Used in temperate climates
Very sensitive to toxic compounds
Least sensitive method of biological
treatment
Only works for specific chemicals
Low efficiency for organic removal
Haste must have dilute concentrations
of organic and inorganics
Efficient for wastes with less than 1%
organics
Extracts and recovers mainly organics
games solutes from aqueous waste
Hill require volume of nonorganics
and convert them into a form of low
leachability
Primarily used for dewatering sludge
Conversion of chlorinated hydrocarbons
to carbon tetrachloride
Separation of salts from aqueous
Removal of heavy metals from fly ashes
Recovery of organic solvents
Removal of heavy metals from concen-
trated aqueous solution
Physical Form Treated
Liquid,
Liquid,
Slurry,
Liquid,
Liquid,
Liquid,
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid,
Liquid
Slurry
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid,
Liquid,
Liquid
slurry.
slurry,
sludge.
slurry,
slurry.
slurry.
slurry.
slurry.
slurry,
sludge
sludge
liquid
sludgp
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
—continued—
-------
TABLE S 3 (continued)
Pcetreatment
Method
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
Precipitation,
flocculation,
sedimentation
Flotation-
biological
Freeze
crystallzation
Freeze drying
Suspension
freezing
Hydrolysis
Ion exchange
Liquid ion
exchange
Liquid-liquid
extraction of
organics
Microwave
discharge
Neutralization
Chemical
oxidation
Ozonol/sis
Heavy
Hetal
Removal
Possible
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Possible
No
Organic Organic
Removal Destruction
No
Possible
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Possible
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
Ho
No
Ho
Ho
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Haste
Volume
Reduction Comments
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Ho
Yes
No
No
No
Recovery of inorganic salts
Recovery of inorganic salts
Removal of metal precipitates
Removal or recovery of solids from
aqueous solution
Separation of solid particles sus-
pended in a liquid medium
Desalination of water
Separation of pure water from solids
Separation of suspended particles
magnetic particles from liquids
Hay increase toxicity of waste
Selective removal of heavy metals and
hazardous anions
Selective removal and/or separation of
free and complexed metal ions in high
concentrations
Solvent recovery
Developmental stages, primarily for
small quantities of toxic compounds
Renders waste treatable by other
Detoxification of hazardous materials
May be used to make toxic wastes more
Physical Form Treated
Liquid
Liquid
Slurry
Liquid, slurry
Slurry
Liquid, slurry.
Liquid, slurry
Liquid
Liquid, slurry.
Liquids
Liquid, slurry.
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid, slurry,
Liquid
Liquid
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
susceptible to biological action,
especially chlorinated hydrocarbons
—continued—
-------
TABLE 5.3 (continued)
Pretreatment
Method
Photolysis
Chemical
reduction
Reverse osmosis
Size reduction
Soil mixing
Steam
distillation
Air stripping
i— •
O
NJ Steam stripping
Ultra
filtration
Zone refining
Heavy
Metal
Removal
No
Possible
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Organic Organic
Removal Destruction
Ho
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Possible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Haste
Volume
Reduction Comments
No
No
Yes
Mo
No
Yes
Ho
Ho
Ho
No
Degradation of aromatic and
chlorinated hydrocarbons
Detoxification of hazardous materials
Purification dilute wastewaters
For spill debris such as contaminated
pallets and lumber
Volume of waste will increase, this
technique applies to stick or tarry
waste
Solvent recovery
Recovery of volatile compounds from
aqueous solutions
Recovery of volatile compounds from
aqueous solutions
Separation of dissolved or suspended
particles from a liquid stream
Purification technique for obtaining
high-purity organic and inorganic
materials
Physical Form Treated
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Solid
Liquid, slurry, sludge
Liquid, slurry
Liquid, slurry
Liquid
Liquid
* De Renzo (1978)
-------
5.2.1 Neutralization
Neutralization (pH adjustment) may be a desirable pretreatment for
strongly acidic or alkaline wastes being land treated. Biological
treatment systems, such as land treatment, rely on mLcrobial degradation as
the major treatment mechanism for organic constituents in the waste.
Microbial growth and, hence, treatment efficiency are optimized by
maintaining the pH near neutral.
Neutralization involves the reaction of a solution with excess hydron-
ium or hydroxide ions to form water and neutral salts (Adams et al., 1981).
Care should be taken to select a neutralizing agent that will not produce a
neutral salt that is detrimental to the land treatment process. For
instance, lime (CaC03) is vastly preferable to caustic soda (NaOH) as an
agent to neutralize an acidic waste. Lime adds calcium to the waste which
will improve the workability of the treatment soil. Calcium is also an
essential nutrient for cover crops and microbes . Conversely, caustic soda
adds sodium which can decrease the workability of the soil and, at high
concentrations, sodium is toxic to cover crops and microbes.
It should be noted that the biological treatment process that occurs
in land treated soils may itself change the pH of a waste-soil mixture.
The pH of treated soil is reduced by the following (Adams et al., 1981):
(1) Hydroxide alkalinity is destroyed by the biochemical produc-
tion of CO 2;
Carbohydrate + (n)02 -^> Biochemical _^ (n) Co2 + (n) H20
~ oxidation *• *•
C02 + OH~ -
(2) Reduced forms of sulfur can be biochemically oxidized to
sulf uric acid ; and
202 -> ggg -* H2S04
(3) Oxidation of ammonium releases hydrogen ions.
NH4+ + 202 - > N03~ + 2H+, + H20
The pH of treated soil is increased by the biochemical oxidation of organic
acids as follows (Adams et al., 1981).
R - COOH + (n)02 — > Biochemical —^(n) C02 + (n)H20
•^ oxidation ^ z
103
-------
5.2.2 Dewatering
Dewatering is a broad term referring to any process that reduces the
water content and, hence, the volume of a waste which increases the solids
content of the remaining waste. The oldest, simplest and most economical
method of dewatering a waste uses shallow evaporation ponds. However, for
such a system to be feasible, adequate land area must be available and
evaporation rates must exceed precipitation rates (Adams et al., 1981).
Evaporative rates can be increased by placing spray aerators on the
surface of the pond. Spray aeration has the added advantages of increasing
waste decomposition by exposing the wastewater to ultraviolet rays present
in sunlight and encouraging aerobic decomposition using oxygen adsorbed
during spraying.
A wastewater can be signficantly dewatered through freeze crystaliza-
tion. This process is used to segregate a liquid waste stream into fresh-
water ice cyrstals and a concentrated solution of the remaining heavy
metals, cyanides and organics. The ice crystals can then be removed ^T
mechanical means (Metry, 1980). Freeze crystalization is an especia
attractive dewatering technique in northern sections of the U.S. wh
evaporative rates are low and the cold climate provides cost-fi-e
freezing.
Drying beds are shallow impoundments usually equipped with sand
bottoms and tile drains. Typically, sludge is poured over the sand to a
depth of 20 to 30 cm. Free drainage out of the tile drains occurs for
several days and drying time ranges from weeks to months, depending on the
weather and sludge properties (Ettlich et al., 1978).
Filtration is the mechanism used in several dewatering processes. It
involves the separation of liquids and solids by forcing liquids through
porous membranes (screen or cloth) or media as in the drying beds discussed
above. Liquids are forced through by pressure, vacuum, gravity or centri-
fugal force and the dewatered solids can then be land treated.
Various processes are used to increase the ease or extent to which
sludge dewaters. The most widely used of these processes involves two
steps. First, a chemical conditioner (such as lime, ferric chloride,
aluminum chloride or a variety of organic polymers) is added to the
wastewater that causes dissolved or suspended solids to clump together into
suspended particles. Then these suspended particles clump together into
larger particles which either settle out of solution or can be more easily
removed by filtration.
5.2.3 Aerobic Degradation
Several aerobic degradation processes are used to pretreat land
treated wastes. These processes can effectively reduce the quantity of
104
-------
volatile and highly mobile organic species in a waste stream. Aerobic
processes discussed below are composting, activated sludge and aerated
lagooning.
Composting involves the aerobic degradation of a waste material placed
in small piles or windrows so that the heat produced by microbial action is
contained. Maintenance of an abundant supply of oxygen in the compost
pile, coupled with elevated temperature and sufficient moisture, results in
a degradation process which is much more rapid than that which would
otherwise occur. Pretreatment by composting can result in a product that
can be easily stored until land treated. This is a particularly useful
approach where a continuous stream of waste cannot be continuously land
treated due to frozen or wet soil conditions.
The Beltesville method of composting uses forced aeration through
windrows and has been used for composting oily wastes (Epstein and Taf fel,
1979; Texaco Inc., 1979). , In these studies, the oily waste is first mixed
with a bulking agent, such as rice hulls or wood chips, to reduce the mois-
ture content to 40-60%. Aeration of the mixed waste is maintained by draw-
ing air through a perforated pipe located under the waste pile using an
exhaust fan. The waste pile is covered with previously composted material
which acts as an insulator and helps to maintain an elevated temperature.
Air which has passed through the pile is filtered through another smaller
pile of previously composted waste to reduce odors. Epstein and Taffel
(1979) noted that composting of sewage sludge almost completely degraded
the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Activated sludge uses an aerobic microbial population that is accli-
mated to the particular waste stream to increase the rate of degradation.
The acclimated population is recycled and kept in constant contact with
incoming wastewater. Activated sludge has been extensively applied to
industrial wastewaters for the degradation of organic wastewaters that have
low heavy metal content. Tucker et al. (1975) demonstrated that PCBs can
be degraded in the activated sludge process, but others have found heavily
chlorinated molecules to be resistant to microbial degradation by this
method. Use of microorganisms acclimated to these chlorinated waste con-
stituents may improve efficiency of the activated sludge process for pre-
treatment of wastes containing these types of resistant compounds.
As with activated sludge, aerated lagoons are used for the treatment
of aqueous solutions with a low metals content. Aerobic lagooning is cur-
rently used by industry in temperate climates where sufficient land is
available. This method of aerobic degradation is land intensive and slow
compared to composting and activated sludge processes; however, it may be
less expensive and it serves as a convenient method for storing wastes
until weather or other limiting conditions are suitable for the waste to be
land treated. A major drawback of aerated lagooning is that it presents a
considerable risk of groundwater contamination. This risk has prompted
regulatory requirements (discussed in Section 5.2.4) for lagoons.
105
-------
5.2.4 Anaerobic Degradation
Anaerobic degradation involves microbes that degrade organics in the
absence of oxygen. These microbes use metabolic pathways that differ from
the pathways used by aerobic microbes and can, therefore, more effectively
degrade some organics that are resistant to degradation in the aerobic
soils of a land treatment unit. Two widely used methods for this type of
degradation are anaerobic lagooning and anaerobic digestion.
Anaerobic and aerobic lagooning of wastes has been widely used for
pretreatment and storage of wastes to be land treated. While the technique
has been inexpensive, recent regulatory requirements for lining, monitoring
and closing these facilities will increase the cost of lagooning hazardous
waste. Other disadvantages associated with both types of lagooning include
the following:
(1) wastes often require retention times of several months for
effective treatment;
(2) due to the long retention times, large amounts of land may
be required to handle all the waste; and
(3) there may be significant long-term liability associated with
lagoons due to their potential for groundwater contamina-
tion.
Anaerobic digestion of waste uses enclosed tanks to anaerobically
degrade waste under controlled conditions. Initially, the technique is
capital intensive; however, there are several advantages compared to
anaerobic lagooning, as follows:
(1) since the treatment process is completely enclosed, there
would be few, if any, long-term liabilities;
(2) retention time for waste, although dependent on waste
composition, may be less than 10 days (Kugelman and Jeris,
1981);
(3) short retention times mean less waste volume on hand at any
time and consequently less land is required for treatment
facilities; and
(4) useful by-products, such as methane and carbon dioxide, can
be obtained from the process.
5.2.5 Soil Mixing
Several industries produce tarry wastes that may be too sticky or
viscous to be easily applied to land. Examples of this physical state are
coal tar sludge and adhesives waste. Mixing of these wastes with soil is
difficult because the sticky wastes tend to ball-up or stick to the surface
106
-------
of discing implements. A treatment that eliminates most of these difficul-
ties is the premixing of soil with the waste in a pug mill. Pug mills cut
up the sticky mass as it combines with the soil, producing a soil-waste
mixture that can be easily applied to land.
5.2.6 Size Reduction
Often bulky materials are contaminated with hazardous waste during
production processes or accidental spills. Examples of contaminated bulk
materials are pallets, lumber and other debris saturated or coated with
hazardous materials. A common approach to making these wastes suitable for
land treatment is to grind or pulverize the debris.
5.3 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PROTOCOL
A waste characterization protocol serves an important function to pre-
vent adverse health, safety, or environmental effects from land treatment
of hazardous waste. It is required for the following reasons:
(1) to evaluate the feasibility of using land treatment for a
particular waste;
(2) to define waste characteristics indicative of changes in
composition;
(3) to evaluate results generated in pilot studies;
(4) to define management and design criteria;
(5) to determine application, rate, and capacity limiting con-
stituents (These design parameters are further discussed in
Chapter 7.);
(6) to determine if the treatment medium is effectively render-
ing the applied waste less nonhazardous; and
(7) to effectively monitor any environmental impact resulting
from the HWLT unit.
To satisfy these requirements, the applicant needs to provide an
acceptable characterization of the waste. Additionally, the permit writer
needs to be able to evaluate the results of the analyses to determine if
the appropriate parameters have been addressed or if additional analyses
are required. This section provides the information needed to evaluate the
waste characterization phase of the design process for HWLT.
Because of the complexity involved in both the characterization of
hazardous waste and the evaluation of the results submitted by the appli-
cant, a set of guidelines or analytical requirements are appropriate. The
following step-by-step approach to waste characterization will provide
guidance to both the permit applicant and permit writer. The following
107
-------
sections are designed to reduce and simplify the characterization and
evaluation processes.
5.3.1 Preliminary Waste Evaluation
There are a tremendous number of industrial process wastes which
contain a wide variety of complex chemical mixtures. Initial indicators of
the probable composition of a particular waste include the following:
(1) previous analytical data on waste constituents;
(2) feedstocks used in the particular industrial process; and
(3) products and by-products resulting from production processes.
By examining data presented on waste streams, the analytical requirements
for a particular waste may be sufficiently evaluated by both the permit
applicant and the permit writer to preclude any extensive, unwarranted
analyses. One must realize, however, that there may be toxic or recalci-
trant constituents present in a given hazardous waste that are either new
or previously unnoted. Therefore, all possible means need to be used to
thoroughly characterize the constituents found in waste samples.
5.3.2 Waste Analysis
The analytical chemistry associated with HWLT should include appropri-
ate analyses of the waste in conjunction with preliminary soil studies,
compound degradation determinations, and monitoring needs (Chapters 4, 7,
and 9). Most of the following discussion refers primarily to a general
approach to be used for analyzing the waste itself. Physical, chemical and
biological waste analyses are discussed.
5.3.2.1 Sampling and Preparation
In sampling hazardous waste and oLner media relevant to HWLT, one must
continually strive to ensure personal safety while correctly collecting
representative samples that will provide an accurate assessment of the
sample constituents. After obtaining some background information about the.
probable nature of the waste and the associated dangers, the analysis may
then proceed using the appropriate safety measures, as outlined by de Vera
et al. (1980). The person sampling a hazardous material must be aware that
it may be corrosive, flammable, explosive, toxic or capable of releasing
toxic fumes.
Since hazardous waste may be composed of a diverse mixture of organic
and inorganic components present in a variety of waste matrices (i.e.,
liquids, sludges and solids), it is necessary to use specialized sampling
108
-------
equipment to ensure that the sample is representative of the waste in ques-
tion. For instance, the Coliwasa sampler, which consists of a tube, shaft
and rubber stopper, may be used for sampling layered liquids: after inser-
tion of the tube into the liquid waste, the shaft is used to pull the stop-
per into place and retain the sample. Other examples of appropriate sam-
plers that may be used for sampling various types of wastes are listed in
Table 5.4. Additional information on sampling equipment, methods, and
limitations can be found in EPA (1982a).
TABLE 5.4 SAMPLERS RECOMMENDED FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF WASTE*
Waste Location
Waste type or Container Sampling Apparatus
Free flowing liquids Drums, trucks, tanks Coliwasa
and slurries Tanks, bins Weighted Bottle
Pits, ponds, lagoons Dipper
Dry solids or wastes Drums, sacks, waste Thief, scoops, shovels
piles, trucks, tanks
pits, ponds, lagoons
Sticky or moist solids Drums, trucks, tanks, Trier
and sludges sacks, waste piles,
pits, ponds, lagoons
Hard or packed wastes Drums, sacks, trucks Auger
* EPA (1982a).
It is very important that all sampling equipment be thoroughly cleaned
and free of contamination both prior to use and between samples. Storage
containers should be similarly free of contamination. Plastic or teflon
may be used for samples to be analyzed for inorganic constituents. Glass,
teflon or stainless steel may be used for samples intended for organic
analysis. Caution should be observed that both the sampler and storage
container materials are nonreactive with the waste. Ample room in the
sample container must be left to allow for expansion of water if the sample
is to be frozen in storage.
To ensure that the analytical methods employed in the waste character-
ization do not under or over-estimate either the potential impact or treat-
ment effectiveness, representative samples must be obtained. A representa-
tive sample is proportionate with respect to all constituents in the bulk
matrix. The probability of obtaining a representative sample is enhanced
by compositing multiple samples. These composites can be homogenized prior
to subsampling for subsequent analysis. Table 5.5 may be used to determine
the number of samples to be taken when a waste is sampled from multiple
containers. These numbers should be considered a minimum requirement. If
large variability is encountered in the sample analysis, additional samples
may be required. Similar precautions must be taken to ensure that the
109
-------
total waste substrate has been sampled. Table 5.6 suggests appropriate
sampling points to be selected for sampling various waste containments.
Descriptions of detailed statistical analyses for use in sampling can be
found in EPA (1982a).
TABLE 5.5 MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES TO BE SELECTED FROM MULTIPLE
CONTAINERS*t
Number of
Containers
1 to 3
4 to 64
65 to 125
126 to 216
217 to 343
344 to 512
513 to 729
730 to 1000
1001 to 1331
Number of Samples
to be Composited
all
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Number of
Containers
1332 to 1728
1729 to 2197
2198 to 2744
2745 to 3375
3376 to 4096
4097 to 4913
4914 to 5832
5833 to 6859
6860 or over
Number of Samples
to be Composited
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
* ASTM D-270
* Numbering the containers and using a table of random numbers would give
an unbiased method for determining which should be sampled.
Following sampling operations, all samples should be tightly sealed
and stored at 4°C (except, in some cases, soils). Freezing may be required
when organic constituents are expected to be lost through volatilization.
This may be easily accomplished by packaging all samples in dry ice
immediately after collection if other refrigeration methods are
unavailable. Prior arrangements should be made with the receiving
laboratory to ensure sample integrity until the time of analysis.
5.3.2.2 Physical Analysis
The physical characteristic of hazardous waste that is most relevant
to land treatment is density. Density determinations are required to
convert the volumes of waste which will be treated into their corresponding
masses. The mass measurements will then be used to determine loading rates
and other application requirements (Section 7.5).
The density of a liquid waste may be determined by weighing a known
volume of the waste. A water insoluble viscous waste may be weighed in a
calibrated flask containing a known volume and mass of water. The water
displaced is equivalent to the volume of waste material added. A similar
technique may be used for the analysis of water soluble wastes by replacing
water with a nonsolubilizing liquid for the volumetric displacement
measurement. In this case, a correction must be made for the density of
the solvent used.
110
-------
TABLE 5.6 SAMPLING POINTS RECOMMENDED FOR MOST WASTE CONTAINMENTS
Containment type
Sampling point
Drum, bung on one end
Drum, bung on side
Barrel, fiberdrum, buckets,
sacks, bags
Vacuum truck and similar
containers
Pond, pit, lagoons
Waste pile
Storage tank
Withdraw sample from all depths through bung opening.
Lay drum on side with bung up. Withdraw sample from all depths
through bung opening.
Withdraw samples through the top of barrels, fiberdrums, buckets,
and similar containers. Withdraw samples through fill openings of
bags and sacks. Withdraw samples through the center of the contain-
ers and different points diagonally opposite the point of entry.
Withdraw sample through open hatch. Sample all other hatches.
Visually inspect the area. If there is evidence of differential
settling of material as it enter the pond, this area needs to be
estimated as a percentage of the pond and sampled separately.
If the remaining area is free of differential settling, divide sur-
face area into an imaginary surface, one sample at mid-depth or at
center, and one sample at the bottom should be taken per grid.
Repeat the sampling at each grid over the entire pond or site. A
minimum of 5 grids should be sampled.
Withdraw samples through at least three different points near the
top of pile and points diagonally opposite the point of entry.
Sample all depths from the top through the sampling hole.
-------
5.3.2.3 Chemical Analysis
The chemical characterization of complex mixtures such as hazardous
waste consists of chemically specific analytical procedures which need to
be performed under a strict quality control program by well-trained person-
nel. Procedural blanks defining background contamination should be deter-
mined for all analytical techniques. Maximum background contamination
should not exceed 5% of the detector response for any compound or element
being analyzed. (For instance, if the concentration of a constituent
results in 95% full-scale deflection on a recorder, the background level
found in the analytical blank should not exceed 4.5% full-scale deflec-
tion.) The procedural blank should be taken through the complete analyti-
cal characterization, including all steps in collection and storage,
extraction, evaporative concentration, fractionation, and other procedures
that are applied to the sample. A general reference for the control of
blanks in trace organic analysis is Giam and Wong (1972).
The accuracy and precision of all detailed analytical methodology need
to be evaluated by no less than three reproducible, full procedural analy-
ses of reference standards. All data on procedural recovery levels
(accuracy) and reproducibility (precision) need to be reported as a mean
plus or minus the standard deviation. Analytical data should be reliable
to at least two significant figures or as defined by the measuring devices
used. Other quality control and assurance guidelines may be found in EPA
(1982a).
If a waste contains other hazardous constituents, not covered in
either the following general chemical characterization protocol or EPA
(1982a), it is the responsibility of the permit applicant to determine an
appropriate and reliable analytical technique for their determination.
This may be accomplished through a literature search or consultation with
regulatory officials or an analytical service. All techniques need to meet
the quality control requirements of EPA (1982a).
The following sections are designed primarily to provide relevant
information and explanations of chemical analytical techniques applicable
to hazardous waste and land treatment. For the permit applicant, it is
intended to provide some guidance and understanding of analytical chemistry
and the role it plays in HWLT. For the permit writer, these sections
should provide aid in understanding and evaluating the analytical data sub-
mitted by the permit applicant.
In providing a general overview of the analytical chemistry, refer-
ences are provided which describe specific methods which may be used for
analyzing waste and other media relevant to HWLT. The U.S. EPA in Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (EPA, 1982a) has developed detailed
methodologies which may be acceptable by the EPA as methods for analyzing
hazardous waste and used by the EPA in conducting regulatory investiga-
tions. However, many of the analytical methods described have not yet been
tested on actual waste samples. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the
individual laboratories to test all specific analytical methodologies under
112
-------
strict quality control and assurance programs to ensure that the analysis
is providing an acceptable chacterization of the specific waste in
question.
5.3.2.3.1 Inorganic Analysis. The inorganic chemical characterization of
hazardous waste and other samples will cover a diverse range of elements
and other inorganic parameters. Standard techniques that may be used for
inorganic analyses are presented in the following sections and are dis-
cussed in more detail by the EPA (1982a).
5.3.2.3.1.1 Elements, present in the waste, may include a large variety of
heavy metals and nutrients. Elemental analysis is necessary to determine
the numerical values needed to calculate the constituents that limit the
land treatment process (Section 7.5). The general method for determining
metals, nutrients and salts consists of appropriate sample digestion fol-
lowed by atomic absorption (AA) spectrophotometry or inductively coupled
plasma are spectrometry (ICP). Specific techniques may be found in EPA
(1982a), EPA (1979c) and Black (1965). Halides may be determined by vari-
ous techniques (EPA, 1979c and 1982a; Stout and Johnson, 1965; Brewer,
1965). Boron may be determined by colorimetric techniques (EPA, 1979c,
Wear, 1965). Total nitrogen may be analyzed by a Kjeldahl technique (EPA,
1979a; Bremner, 1965).
5.3.2.3.1.2 Electrical conductivity (EC) determination is necessary
because it provides a numerical estimation of soluble salts which may limit
the treatment process. EC may be directly determined on a highly aqueous
waste. For organic wastes an aqueous extract may be analyzed, and with
highly viscous or solid wastes, a water-saturated paste may be prepared and
the aqueous filtrate analyzed for EC. Specific methods applicable to waste
and other samples may be found in EPA (1979a) and Bower and Wilcox (1965).
5.3.2.3.1.3 .pH and titratable acids and bases may be determined by various
methods. The determination of hydrogen ion activity and the concentration
of inorganic acids and bases is important to the treatment processes of
HWLT due to possible adverse effects on soil structure, soil microbes, and
constituent mobility. The measurements of pH may be made on aqueous waste
suspensions and other samples according to procedures outlined in EPA
(1979a) and Peech (1965). Titratable acids and bases may be determined on
aqueous waste suspensions according to EPA (1979c). The use of indicators
to determine equivalence points may result in erroneous values unless
caution is taken to ensure that the titration is performed in a way which
would be sensitive to all acid and base strengths (Skoog and West, 1979).
This measurement may also determine titratable strong organic acids and
bases.
5.3.2.3.1.4 Water may be a limiting constituent in the land treatment of
certain wastes and so it is necessary to estimate the percent water (wet
113
-------
weight) of highly aqueous wastes. Determinations by such techniques as
Karl Fischer titrations (Bassett et al., 1978) are unnecessary because
water content is important only when it is present as an appreciable com-
ponent of the waste. In an organic waste, water may be present as a dis-
creet layer and thus may be easily quantitated. If water is present in an
emulsion, salts may be added to disrupt the emulsion to determine the quan-
tity of water. If water is the carrier solvent for a dissolved inorganic
waste, water concentration may be estimated as 100%. For viscous inorganic
wastes, in which water is present at a level comparable to the other inor-
ganic constituents, heavy metals or sludge-like materials may be filtered
from the aqueous phase following precipitation with a known amount of KOH.
5.3.2.3.2 Organic Analysis. The determination of organic constituents
present in waste and other samples may be reported with respect to the fol-
lowing sample classes and constituents:
(1) Total organic matter (TOM);
(a) Volatile organic compounds;
(b) Extractable organic compounds (acids, bases, neutrals
and water solubles); and
(2) Residual solids (RS).
The numerical concentrations should be reported on a wet weight basis for
both gravimetric determination of each individual class and specific deter-
mination of each compound contained in each class.
5.3.2.3.2.1 Total organic matter derived from this determination will
indicate the amount of organic matter available for microbial degradation
in HWLT. The percent TOM (wet weight) may be used for estimating organic
carbon necessary to calculate the C.N ratio. The percent TOM will be
numerically equal to the sum of the gravimetric determinations of percen-
tage of volatiles and extractables (acids, bases, neutrals, and water
solubles).
5.3.2.3.2.1.1 Volatile organic compounds are sample constituents that are
amenable to either purge and trap or head space determinations and gener-
ally have boiling points ranging from less than 0°C to about 200°C. This
upper limit is not an exact cut-off point, but techniques that rely on
evaporative-concentration steps may result in appreciable losses. Examples
of typical organic compounds which may be found as volatile constituents in
hazardous wastes are given in Table 5.7.
A gravimetric estimation of the concentration of these compounds
should be reported as percent wet weight for calculating total organic
matter (TOM). This may be accomplished by bubbling air through a vigorous-
ly stirred aqueous sample. The percentage loss in sample weight may be
used to estimate percent volatiles. A highly viscous or solid waste may be
114
-------
TABLE 5.7 PURGABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
I. Hydrocarbons
A. Alkanes (Rn)#— CI~GIO
B. Alkenes (R=RT) — Cj-
C. Alkynes (R=R") — CJ-
D. Aromatics (Ar)'* — benzene, ethylbenzene , toluene, styrene
II. Compounds containing simple functional groups
A. Organic halides (R-X, Ar-X)* — chloroform, 2-dichlorobenzene,
trichlorofluoromethane, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
vinyl chloride , vinylindene chloride
B. Alcohols (R-OH; OH-R-R-OH) — methanol, benzyl alcohol, ethylene
glycol , dichloropropanol
C. Phenols (Ar-OH) — phenol, cresols, o-chlorophenol
D. Ethers (R-O-R1, Ar-O-R' , C^O) — ethyl ether, anisole,
ethylene oxide, dioxan, tetrahydrofuran, vinyl ether, allyl
ether, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
E. Sulfur-containing compounds
1. Mercaptans (R-SH) — methylmercaptan
2. Sulfides (R-S-R' , C^S) — thiophene, dimethyl sulfide
3. Bisulfides (R-SS-R') — diethyldisulfide, dipentyldash
di sulfide
4. Sulf oxides (R-SO-R') — Dimethyl sulf oxide
5. Alkyl hydrogen sulfates (R-0-S03H) — methyl sulf ate
F. Amines
1. Alkyl (R-NH2, RR'-NH, RR'R"-N)— -methylamine, triethylamine,
benzylamine, ethylenediamine , N-nitrosoamine
2. Aromatic (Ar-NH2, etc.) — aniline, acetanilide , benzidine
3. Heterocyclic (C5H5N) — pyridine, picolines
— continued —
115
-------
TABLE 5.7 (Continued)
III. Compounds containing unsaturated functional groups
A. Aldehydes (R-CHO, AR-CHO)—formaldehyde, phenylacetaldehyde,
benzaldehyde, acrolein, furfural, chloroacetaldehyde,
paraldehyde
B. Ketones (R-CO-R1)—acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, 2-hexanone
C. Carboxylic acids (R-COOH)—Ci-C5 carboxylic acids
D. Esters (R-COO-R', AR-COO-R)—methylacetate, ethyl formate,
phenylacetate
E. Amides (R-CO-NHR1)—acrylamide
F. Mtriles (R-CN, Ar-CN)—acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzonitrile
* Hendrickson et al. (1970); Morrison and Boyd (1975).
' The following compound classes are not expected due to their
instabilities either in air and/or water:
acid halides and anhydrides
imines
oximes
^ R=* alkyl groups, eg., 013, 013012-, etc.
Ar= aromatic groups, eg., Cgl^-
X= halogen, eg., Cl, Br, etc.
116
-------
suspended in a known weight of previously boiled water and similarly ana-
lyzed. If a 10 g sample is used (and suspended in perhaps 100 g of water),
an accuracy to the nearest 0.1 g may be acceptable.
The two methods recommended for the specific determination of indi-
vidual volatile sample constituents are head space analysis and purge-and-
trap techniques (EPA, 1982a). In head space analysis, the sample is
allowed to equilibrate at 90°C, and a sample of the head space gas is with-
drawn with a gas-tight syringe (EPA, 1982a). The gaseous sample is then
analyzed by gas-chromatography (GC) and/or GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS).
The major limitations to the method appear to be variability in detection
limits, accuracy, and precision caused by the equilibrium requirement. For
instance, detection limits may be reduced with both increasing boiling
point and affinity of the compound for the sample matrix (EPA, 1982a).
The alternate technique using purge-and-trap methods appears to be the
most reliable of the two. It requires more sophistication, but can be
applied to a greater number of sample types and a larger range of compound
volatility (EPA, 1982a). The major limitation is that only one analysis
may be performed per sample preparation. Thus, if analysis by several GC
detectors is required, several samples may need to be prepared.
A simplified example of the purge-and-trap technique follows. An
aliquot of a liquid waste may be placed into an airtight chamber which is
connected to a supply of inert gas and an adsorbent trap. The carrier gas
is bubbled through the waste of room temperature and passes out of the
chamber through an adsorbent specific for volatile organics. Following
this purge step, the adsorbent trap may be flushed for a few minutes with
clean carrier gas to remove any residual water and oxygen, attached to the
injection port of a GC or a GC-MS, and heated to desorb the organics. As
the carrier gas passes through the heated trap, the volatiles are trans-
ferred onto the cooled head of the analytical GC column. Following heat
desorption, the GC is temperature-programmed to facilitate resolution of
all volatile compounds collected from the sample.
A variety of adsorbents may be used in this analysis (EPA, 1982a;
Namiesnik et al., 1981; Russell, 1975), but Tenax-GC (registered trademark,
Enka N.V., the Netherlands) appears to be the most widely used (Bellar and
Lichtenberg, 1979; Dowty et al., 1979). It is a hydrophobic porous polymer
which has a high affinity for organic compounds. Because of its high ther-
mal stability (maximum 375°C), it can be easily cleaned before use and
regenerated after use by heating and flushing with an inert gas. However,
there are some problems with Tenax-GC due to its instability under certain
conditions (Vick et al., 1977). Other general information concerning
Tenax-GC may be found in "Applied Science Laboratories Technical Bulletin
No. 24."
Tenax-GC has been shown to be an effective adsorbent for collection
and analysis of volatile hazardous hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons,
aldehydes, ketones, sulfur compounds, ethers, esters and nitrogen compounds
(Pellizzari et al., 1976). Technical descriptions of usable techniques may
117
-------
be found in Pellizzari (1982), Reunanen and Kroneld (1982), Pellizarri and
Little (1980), EPA (1982a and 1979b), Pellizzari et al. (1978), Bellar and
Lichtenberg (1979), and Dowty et al. (1979).
These methods may be used for a variety of hazardous wastes. Soils
may be analyzed by the procedure for solid wastes. Air samples for moni-
toring activities may be taken directly by pulling a known volume of air
through a similar adsorbent trap and analyzing it following heat desorption
(Brown and Purnell, 1979; Pellizzari et al., 1976).
To accurately analyze the different classes of volatile organics pre-
sent in samples, different GC detectors may be required. A flame ioniza-
tion detector (FID) may be used for hydrocarbons, a flame photometric
detector (FPD) for sulfur and/or phosphorus-containing compounds, an elec-
tron capture detector (BCD) for halogenated hydrocarbons and phthalates,
and a nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD) for nitrogen and/or phosphorus-
containing compounds. There are several other GC detectors on the market
available for analyzing different classes of organics. The final confirma-
tion, or even the complete analysis, of volatiles present in samples may be
determined by GC-MS computer techniques. Some general references dealing
with organic mass spectrometry are Safe and Hutzinger (1973), Middleditch
et al. (1981) and McLafferty (1973).
5.3.2.3.2.1.2 Extractable organic compounds are organic constituents that
are amenable to evaporative-concentration techniques and nay be analyzed by
methods based on the classical method of isolation according to functional
group acid-base reactions. Other methods have been developed for the
chromatographic fractionation of complex organic mixtures into individual
compound classes (Miller, 1982; Boduszynski et al. 1982a and b; Later et
al. 1981; Crowley et al., 1980; Brocco et al., 1973), but the liquid-liquid
acid/base extraction method appears to be the easiest and least instru-
mentally intensive. This technique has been used in the analysis of a
variety of complex organic mixtures (Colgrove and Svec, 1981), including
fossil fuels (Buchanan, 1982; Matsushita, 1979; Novotny et al., 1981 and
1982) and environmental samples (Adams et al., 1982; Stuermer et al., 1982;
Hoffman and Wynder, 1977; Grabow et al., 1981; Lundi et al., 1977). This
method is also the basic technique recommended by the U.S. EPA (EPA, 1982a;
Lin et al., 1979). Fractions derived from this analysis may be used in
biological assays and other pilot studies (Grabow et al., 1981).
The liquid-liquid acid/base extraction method is based on the acidity
constants (pKgS) of organic compounds. Compounds characterized by low
pKgS are acidic; compounds with high pKas are basic. If a complex mix-
ture is equilibrated with an aqueous inorganic, acid at low pH «2), the
organic bases should protonate to become water soluble positively-charged
cations, while the organic acids remain unaffected and water insoluble (and
thus extractable by an organic solvent). The neutral organics, which are
not affected by either aqueous acids or bases, will remain in the organic
solvent phase at all times. Similarly, if an aqueous inorganic base at
high pH (>12) is added to a complex organic mixture, the organic acids
should deprotonate to become water soluble negatively-charged anions, while
118
-------
the organic bases remain unaffected and water insoluble. Thus by selec-
tively adjusting the pH of the aqueous phase, a complex mixture may be
separated into its acidic, basic and neutral organic constituents. Table
5.8 lists some common organic chemicals and their pKas.
TABLE 5.8 SCALE OF ACIDITIES*
Conjugate Acid pl^ Conjugate Base
R-NH3+
RR'-NH2+
RR'R"-NH+
Ar-OH
HCN
C5H5N-H+
Ar-NH3+
RCOOH
HCOOH +
Ar2-NH2*
2,4, 6-Trinitrophenol
10
10
9.1
5.2
4.6
4.5
3.7
1.0
0.4
R-NH2
RR'-NH
RR'R"-N
Ar-0~
CN~
C5H5N
Ar-NH2
RCOO"
HCOQ-
Ar2-NH
(N02)3-Ar-0~
* Hendrickson et al. (1970). Note: the most acidic compound is the con-
jugate acid with the lowest pKa (i.e., 2,4,6-trinitro-phenol). Con-
versely, the most basic compound is the conjugate base with the highest
pKa (i.e., alkyl amines). Thus, at neutral pH, compounds with pKas _> 9
9 should predominantly exist as their conjugate acids, and compounds with
^. 5 should predominantly exist as their conjugate bases.
Figure 5.3 outlines the steps which may be taken in this initial class
separation scheme. Table 5.9 lists typical organic compounds that may be
present in hazardous waste and other samples which are amenable to this
type of separation. Air samples collected on Florisil (registered trade-
mark, Floridin Co.), glass fiber filters, or polyurethane foam may be first
extracted with appropriate solvents and then the extract may be similarly
analyzed by the above procedures (EPA, 1980b; Adams et al., 1982; Cautreels
and van Cauwenbergh, 1976). Either diethylether or dichloromethane may be
used as the organic solvent in the extraction procedures. Dichloromethane
has been recommended (EPA, 1982a) and has the advantage that it is denser
than water. Thus, it can be removed from the separatory funnel in the
extraction procedure without having to remove the aqueous phase. However,
it may be prone to bumping in evaporative concentration procedures (Adams,
1982). Ether, however, is more water soluble, and extra time is required
in the extraction procedure to allow the phases to completely separate.
Either solvent must be dried with an hydrous Na2SO^ prior to evapora-
tive concentration. For either solvent, a few grains of Na2SC>4 in the
evaporation-concentration flask should facilitate boiling and reduce bump-
ing (Adams et al., 1982). The EPA (1982a) has recommended the use of
Kuderna-Danish evaporative concentrators equipped with three-ball Snyder
columns for concentrating solvents. For the higher molecular weight
119
-------
K>
O
SAMPLE
|
organic solvent plus
aqueous acid
(pH<2)*
aq. phase |
(plus sample residue)
org. phase
aq. pha
n-butanol
aq. phase ore
evaporation
IRESIDUAL SOLIDS]
organic solvent aqueoi
(pH>12) (pi-
se org. phase aq. phase
js base
1>12)
org. phase
1 1
ORGANIC BASES organic solvent
(pH<2)
j. phase
1 aq. phase ora. pha<
WATER SOLUBLES | |
(NEUTRALS)
>e
~l
discard [ORGANIC ACIDS)
Initial acidic extraction may lessen severity of emulsions (Mousa and Vlhitlock, 1979).
Figure 5.3. Typical acid-base extraction scheme for isolating organic chemical classes.
-------
TABLE 5.9 TYPICAL HAZARDOUS ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS AMENABLE TO ACID-BASE
EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES
Extractable Neutral Organic Compounds
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropentadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
Naphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis (2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethy1 phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
Pesticides/PCB's
a-Endosulfan
g-Endodsulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
a-BHC
g-BHC
6-BHC
Y-BHC
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4,4'DDD
4,4'DDT
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodxbenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)
Extractable Basic Organic Compounds
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzidine
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Quxnoline
Isoquinoline
Acridine
Phenanthridine
Benz[c]acridine
—cont inued—
121
-------
TABLE 5.9 (continued)
Extractable Acidic Organic Compounds
Phenol Abietic acxd
2-Nitrophenol Dehydroabietic acid
4-Nitrophenol Isopimaric acid
2,4-Dinitrophenol Pimaric acid
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol Oleic acid
Pentachlorophenol Linoleic acid
p-Chloro-m-cresol 9,10-Epoxystearic acid
2-Chlorophenol 9,10-Dichlorostearic acid
2,4-Dichlorophenol Monochlorodehydroabietic acid
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
2,4-Dimethylphenol Tetrachloroguaiacol
122
-------
compounds, this method should provxde an easy, efficient and reproducible
method for concentrating solvents. However, some researchers (Adams et
al., 1982) have found that for microgram quantities of some lower molecular
weight extractables (i.e., 2- and 3-ringed aza-aromatics), optimum recover-
ies in the concentration step were achieved by using a vacuum rotary evapo-
rator at 30°C; the solvent receiving flask was immersed in an ice bath, and
the condenser was insulated with glass wool and aluminum foil. In any
case, samples for specific compound determination should not be evaporated
to dryness as this may cause significant losses of even high molecular
weight compounds such as benzo(a)pyrene (Bowers et al., 1981).
For each of the following classes isolated by this method, a separate
aliquot of the sample extract may be analyzed gravimetrically for use in
determining total organic matter. In this case, the solvent may be evapo-
rated to dryness at room temperature. To minimize losses, the vaporation
should be allowed to occur naturally without externally applied methods to
increase solvent vaporization (e.g., N2 blow-down, heat, etc.) as in
Bowers et al. (1981).
The following sections describe specific methods which may be used in
the analyses of the various classes obtained from the acid-base fractiona-
tion. Some general references which may be useful are McNair and Bonelli
(1968), Johnson and Stevenson (1978), Packer (1975), Hblstein and Severin
(1981), Hertz et al. (1980), and Bartle et al. (1979).
Organic Acids. This class of compounds may include a variety of car-
boxylic acids, guaiacols, and phenols (Claeys, 1979). They frequently are
determined following derivitization (Francis et al., 1978, Shackelford and
Webb, 1979; EPA, 1982a, Cautreels et al., 1977). With diazomethane, the
relatively non-volatile carboxylic acids are converted into esters which
may be determined by gas chromatography. Diazomethane similarly converts
phenols into their corresponding anisoles (ethers). Pentaflourobenzylbro-
mide converts phenols into their pentafluorobenzyl (PFB) derivatives.
Whereas carboxylic acids require derivitization prior to GC analysis,
phenols may be determined directly by GC (EPA, 1982a; Shackelford and Webb,
1979; Mousa and Whitlock, 1979). The direct determination of phenols
appears to be preferable because of problems encountered with both diazo-
methane and pentafluorobenzylbromide derivitization techniques (Shackelford
and Webb, 1979). Guaiacols may be determined as in Rnuutinen (1982).
These compounds may be characterized by GC with either capillary or
packed columns. For packed-column GC, the polarity of these compounds
requires the use of specially deactivated supports and liquid phases.
SP-1240A (manufactured by Supelco, Inc., Supelco Park, Beliefonte, PA
16823) has been recommended for use (EPA, 1982a; Shackelford and Webb,
1979). Detection may be accomplished by either flame lonization or elec-
tron capture, depending on the compounds being determined. GC-MS may be
used for further identification and/or confirmation.
Organic Bases. This fraction may contain a variety of nitrogen con-
taining compounds including alkyl, aromatic, and aza-heterocyclic amines.
123
-------
These compounds may be directly characterized by GC with either FID or
nitrogen-specific detection. As with the organic acids, either capillary
or packed-column gas chromatography with specially deactivated packing
materials may be used. For organic bases, Supelco, Inc. also manufactures
a packing material, SP-2250 DB, which provides good packed-column resolu-
tion with a minimum of peak tailing. The analysis of this class of com-
pounds should be performed soon after isolation because they tend to decom-
pose and polymerize with time (Tomkins and Ho, 1982; Worstell and Daniel,
1981; Worstell et al. 1981). Additional GC-MS confirmation and identifica-
tion may be performed.
Neutrals. This fraction may be composed of a variety of organic com-
pounds including aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, oxygenated and chlor-
inated hydrocarbons. This class may require further fractionation depend-
ing on whether the sample is to be analyzed for either hydrocarbons and
more polar compounds by flame lonization, flame photometric, or nitrogen-
phosphorus detection GC, or for chlorinated hydrocarbons and phthalic acid
esters by electron-capture detection GC.
For FID, FPD or NPD-GC analysis, an aliquot of the neutral fraction
may be separated into aliphatics, aromatics, and other semi-polar compounds
and polar compounds by column chromatography. Lin et al. (1979) used 5%
deactivated silica gel to separate neutral compounds isolated from drinking
and waste treatment water: hexane eluted aliphatics; hexane/benzene eluted
aromatics; dichloromethane eluted phthalic and fatty acid esters; methanol
eluted aldehydes, alcohols, and hetones. Anders et al. (1975), using
washed alumina, eluted hydrocarbons with pentane, moderately polar com-
pounds with benzene, and more polar compounds with methanol. The polar
fraction was then further characterized by chromatography on silica gel
using increasing ratios of ethyl ether in pentane. Other researchers have
used similar chromatographic methods for separating this class of compounds
into its constituents (Giam et al., 1976, Gritz and Shaw, 1977). A good
general review of methods applicable for this type of separation is
(Altgelt and Gouw, 1979).
Since esters and other hydrolyzable compounds may be present in the
aromatic and later fractions, the sample fractions may be analyzed prior to
and following alkaline hydrolysis. (Hydrolyzable compounds may not with-
stand the original acid-base extraction and perhaps may be determined by
other procedures). Alkaline hydrolysis may easily be accomplished by plac-
ing a small sample aliquot into a tightly capped vial containing 2% metha-
nolic KOH and heating on a steam bath. After cooling, water is added to
solubilize the resulting carboxylic acids and alcohols, and the organic
phase is brought to original volume with solvent. The organic phase is
then reanalyzed. The hydrolyzable compounds are thus confirmed through
their disappearance, and interference in the analysis of the aromatics is
removed.
For BCD-sensitive compounds, it may be possible to reduce analytical
requirements if the previously described alumina/silica chromatographic
separations can be co-adapted for use with halogenated hydrocarbons and
phthalates (Holden and Marsden, 1969; Snyder and Reinert, 1971).
124
-------
Additionally, with appropriate technology, it may be possible to simultane-
ously detect both FID- and BCD-sensitive compounds in the GC analysis
(Sodergren, 1978).
However, a separate aliquot of the neutral fraction may be analyzed
for halogenated hydrocarbons and phthalates. (Some of these compounds may
not withstand the original acid-base extraction and perhaps may be deter-
mined by other methods.) This procedure typically requires the use of
Florisil to separate different polarities of halogenated compounds and
phthalates (EPA, 1980b, 1979b and 1982a). If needed, clean mercury metal
may be shaken with the various fractions to eliminate sulfur interference.
For compound confirmation these samples also may be analyzed by ECD-GC
prior to and following alkaline hydrolysis. In this case, alkaline hydrol-
ysis saponifies the phthalic acid esters and dehydrochlorinates many of the
chlorinated organics. Table 5.10 lists compounds which can be confirmed by
alkaline hydrolysis. The experimental conditions must be carefully con-
trolled for obtaining reproducible results. Additional GC-MS confirmation,
using selective ion monitoring (SIM) if necessary, may be performed.
Water Solubles. This class of compounds may consist of constituents
which were not solvent extractable in any of the previously isolated
organic fractions. The use of n-butanol as extracting solvent may serve to
isolate this class of compounds (Stubley et al. , 1979). Since further
characterization of this class may be difficult, results of pilot studies
may be used to determine further analytical requirements.
5.3.2.3.2.2 Residual solids may be determined by evaporating the water
(110°C) from the original aqueous fraction isolated in the acid-base
extraction procedure (Fig. 5.3). Residual solids (RS) may consist of both
inorganics and relatively non-degradable forms of carbon such as coke,
charcoal, and graphite. This value may be used in waste loading calcula-
tions and for determining the rate of waste solids buildup. A buildup of
solids may increase the depth of the treatment zone.
5.3.2.4 Biological Analysis
A primary concern when disposing any waste material is the potential
for adverse health effects. Toxic effects resulting from improper waste
disposal either may be acute, becoming evident within a short period of
time, or they may be chronic, becoming evident only after several months or
years. Before a hazardous waste is disposed in an HWLT unit, biological
analyses should be performed to determine the potential for adverse health
effects. The complex interactions of the components of a hazardous waste
make it impossible to predict the acute or chronic toxicity of any waste by
chemical analysis alone. A solution to this problem is to use a series of
biological test systems that can efficiently predict the reduction of the
acute and chronic toxic characteristics of the waste. Biological systems
125
-------
TABLE 5.10 REACTONS OF VARIOUS COMPOUNDS TO ALKALINE HYDROLYSIS*
Compound
Chromatographic Appearance
After Hydrolysis
Esters (phthalic and fatty acid)
PCBs
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Lindane, other BHC isomers
Heptachlor epoxide
Dieldrin
Endrin
DDE
DDT
DDD
Chlordane
HCB
Mirex
Endosulfan I and II
Dicofol
Toxaphene
Alkylhalides
Nitriles
Amides
Disappear
Unchanged
Unchanged (under mild conditions)
Unchanged
Disappear
Unchanged (under mild conditions)
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Disappears as DDE appears
Disappears as DDE appears
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged (under mild conditions)
Disappear
Disappears
Changed (other peaks appear)
Disappear^
Disappear
Disappear
* EPA (1980c).
' Predicted according to reactions
typical of these compound types.
126
-------
can be used to determine the toxicity and treatability of the waste and to
monitor the environmental impact of land treating the waste.
5.3.2.4.1 Acute Toxicity. The acute toxicity of a hazardous waste should
be evaluated with respect to plants and microbes endemic to the land treat-
ment site. This evaluation will indicate the effects on the immediate
environment of the land treatment unit. Obviously, a waste which is toxic
to microbes will not be degraded unless it is applied at a rate that will
diminish these acute toxic effects. The acute toxicity of a waste with
respect to soil bacteria and plants can be evaluated in treatability
studies as described in Chapter 7. Specific methods for measuring acute
toxicity are presented in Section 7.2.4.1.
5.3.2.4.2 Genetic toxicity. Hazardous wastes should be managed so that
the public is protected from the effects of genotoxic agents in a waste.
Genotoxic compounds in a hazardous waste should be monitored to minimize
the accidental exposure of workers or the general public to mutagenic,
carcinogenic, or teratogenic agents, and to prevent transmission of related
genetic defects to future generations. Genetic toxicity may be determined
using a series of biological systems which predict the potential of waste
constituents to cause gene mutations and other types of genetic damage. A
list of some of the prospective test systems and the genetic events which
they can detect is given in Table 5.11. These are test systems for which a
standardized protocol has been developed, and the genetic events detected
are clearly understood.
The test systems used to detect gene mutations should be capable of
detecting frameshift mutations, base-pair substitutions, and deletions.
The systems that are used to detect other types of genetic damage should
exhibit a response to compounds that inhibit DNA repair and to those that
cause various types of chromosome damage. A minimum of two systems should
be selected that will respond to the types of genetic damage described
above and which can incorporate metabolic activation into the testing
protocol. All systems should include provisions for solvent control and
positive controls to demonstrate the sensitivity of the test systems and
the functioning of the metabolic activation system, and to act as an inter-
nal control for the biological system. Samples should be tested at a mini-
mum of four equally spaced exposure levels, all of which will yield between
10 and 100% survival. Cell survival should be estimated by plating exposed
cells on a supplemented minimal medium. The data from waste analysis
should be in the form of mutation induction per survivor or per surviving
fraction if the waste is overly toxic.
Typical results from mutagenicity testing using the Salmonella/micro-
some assay (Ames et al. , 1975) on the subtractions of a wood-preserving
bottom sediment and the liquid stream from the acetonitrile purification
column are presented in Figs. 5.4 and 5.5 (Donnelly et al., 1982). These
results demonstrate that constituents of these wastes have the ability to
induce point mutations in bacteria, such constituents may be mutagenic,
carcinogenic, or teratogenic (Kada et al., 1974).
127
-------
TABLE 5.11. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS WHICH MAY BE USED TO DETECT GENETIC TOXICITY OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE
co
Genetic Event Detected
Organism
PROKARYOTES
Bacillus subtilis
Escherichia coll
Salmonella
typhimurium
Streptomyces
coelicolor
EUKARYOTES
Aspergillus nidulans
Gene Mutation
Forward ,
reverse
Forward,
reverse
Forward ,
reverse
Forward
Forward ,
reverse
Other Types of
Genetic Damage
DNA repair
DNA repair
DNA repair
DNA repair
DNA repair,
chromosome
aberrations
Metabolic
Activation
Mammalian
Mammalian
plant
Mammalian
plant
Not
Developed
Mammalian
plant
References
Felkner et al., 1979; Kada
et al., 1974; Tanooka, 1977;
Tanooka et al., 1978.
Green et al., 1976; Mohn et
al., 1974, Slater et al.,
1971; Speck et al., 1978;
Scott et al., 1978.
Ames et al., 1975; Plewa and
Gentile, 1976; Skopek et
al., 1978.
Carere et al., 1975.
Bignami et al., 1974; Roper,
1971, Scott et al., 1978,
Scott et al., 1980.
Neurospora crassa
Forward
Not developed Mammalian
DeSerres and Mailing, 1971,
Ong, 1978; Tomlinson, 1980.
— continued
-------
TABLE 5.11 (continued)
VO
Genetic Event Detected
Organism
Saccharomyces
cervisiae
Schizosaccharomyces
pombe
PLANTS
Tradescantia sp.
Arabidopsis
thaliana
Hordeum vulgare
Pisum sativua
Triticum sp.
Glycine max
Gene Mutation
Forward
Forward
Forward
Chlorophyll
mutation
Chlorophyll
mutation
Chlorophyll
mutation
Morphological
mutation
Chlorophyll
mutation
Other Types of
Genetic Damage
Mitotic gene
conversion
Mi tot ic gene
conversion
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Metabolic
Activation
Mammalian
Mammalian
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
References
Brusick, 1972; Loprieno et
al., 1974; Mortimer and
Manney, 1971; Parry, 1977.
Brusick, 1972; Loprieno et
al., 1974; Mortimer and
Manney, 1971; Parry, 1977.
Nauman et al., 1976;
Underbnnk et al., 1973.
Redei, 1975.
Kumar and Chauham, 1979;
Nicoloff et al., 1979.
Ehrenburg, 1971.
Ehrenberg, 1971.
Vig, 1975.
— continued —
-------
TABLE 5.11 (continued)
w
o
Genetic Event Detected
Organism
Vicia faba
Allium cepa
INSECTS
Drosophila
melanogaster
Habrobracon sp.
Gene Mutation
Morphological
mutation
Morphological
mutation
Recessive
lethels
None
developed
MAMMALIAN CELLS IN CULTURE
Chinese hamster Forward,
ovaries reverse
V79 Chinese hamster
cells
Chinese hamster
lung cells
Human fibroblasts
Human lymphoblasts
Forward ,
reverse
Forward
Forward
Forward
Other Types of
Genetic Damage
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Non-
disjunction,
deletions
Dominant
lethels
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
DNA repair
DNA repair
Metabolic
Activation
Plant
Plant
Insect
Insect
Mammalian
Mammalian
Mammalian
Mammalian
Mammalian
References
Kihlman, 1977.
Marimuthu, et al., 1970.
Wurgler and Vogel, 1977.
Von Borstel and Smith, 1977.
Neill et al., 1977; Beek
et al., 1980.
Artlett, 1977, Soderberg et
al., 1979.
Dean and Senner, 1977.
Jacobs and DeMars, 1977.
Thilly et al., 1976.
— continued —
-------
TABLE 5.11 (continued)
Genetic Event Detected
Organism
L5178Y mouse
lymphoma cells
P388 mouse lymphoma
cells
Human peripheral
blood lymphocytes
Various organisms
Gene Mutation
Forward
Forward
Forward
None
developed
Other Types of
Genetic Damage
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Chromosome
aberrations
Sister
chromatid
exchange
Metabolic
Activation
Mammalian
Mammalian
Mammalian
Mammalian
References
. Clive and
et al . ,
Anderson,
Evans and
Perry and
and Wolff,
Spector, 1975; Clive
1972; Clive, 1973.
1975.
O'Riordan, 1975.
Evans, 1975; Stretka
1976.
-------
a:
LJ
^100
00
0)
|^50
LO
N3
PENT S
A-ACID
X - BASE
P-NEUTRAL
0.3
0,5 0.7
DOSE/pt (mg)
25
Figure 5.4. Mutagenic activity of acid, base, and neutral fraction of wood-
preserving bottom sediment as measured with S. typhimurium TA 98
with metabolic activation (Donnelly et al., 1982).
-------
I-
o
Q
O T
"1
LJ
LJ
a: o
^ o
CM
00
w
ACN WASTE
A ACID
O BASE
D NEUTRAL
+ METABOLIC
ACTIVATION
Q2
04
0.6 0*8 IX)
DOSE PLATE mg
5.0
10
Figure 5.5. Mutagenic activity of liquid stream from the acetonitrile
purification column as measured with S. typhimurium TA 98
with metabolic activation (Donnelly et al., 1982).
-------
The presence of genotoxic compounds in a waste indicates the need for
monitoring land treatment units using biological analysis when genotoxic
compounds are present in a waste stream. Bioassays can also be performed
at various stages of the waste-site interaction studies to determine the
reduction of genotoxic effects along with the other treatability data col-
lected. The data obtained from biological analyses of waste-soil mixtures
can be compared with the toxicity of the waste alone to determine the
degree of treatment (see Section 7.2.4).
5.3.3 Summary of Waste Characterization Evaluation
To adequately address the needs of both the permit applicant and the
permit writer, a standardized waste evaluation data processing procedure
should be devised. For instance, Table 5.12 gives an example summary of
the type of information (and appropriate section references to this manual)
needed to fulfill initial analytical requirements for an HWLT permit. The
preface of this document references guidance documents being prepared by
the EPA to help the applicant prepare a RCRA permit application. Ideally,
all permit applicants and officials would have access to a computerized
data bank containing a compilation of data describing standard waste
streams and analytical results derived from in-coming permit applications.
Thus, as analytical needs are evaluated and fulfilled, future permit appli-
cants and regulatory agencies would have a continuous up-date on toxic or
recalcitrant compounds determined in the wastes and analytical procedures
acceptable for their determination. This should reduce the necessity for
extensive analytical requirements in the future, as monitoring could be
limited to those compounds either found to restrict rate, application or
capacity of the HWLT unit, or to adversely affect environmental quality.
5.3.4 Final Evaluation Process
A critical question within the broad scope of waste stream character-
istics is whether all wastes are land treatable, given the proper design
and operation, or if there are any waste streams which should be unequivoc-
ably prohibited from land treatment. In view of this, one must be cogni-
zant of the acceptable treatment processes for HWLT units: degradation,
transformation and immobilization (EPA, 1982b).
Few compounds remain unchanged when incorporated into the active sur-
face horizons of soils. As previously established (Section 4.1.3), the
primary pathway of organic waste degradation in soils is biological, sup-
plemented by chemical alteration and photodecomposition. In contrast, many
inorganic waste constituents are adsorbed, complexed or precipitated to
innocuous forms within reasonable limits. Any given waste can, however, be
unacceptable for land treatment if proposed soils or sites lack the ability
to render the constituents less hazardous. For example, a highly volatile
waste may not be adequately treated in a coarse textured soil, or the
application of an acidic waste to an already acidic soil may present a high
134
-------
TABLE 5.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE EVALUATION
I. Applicant's Name
II. Waste SIC Code or Description of Source Process
III. Analytical Laboratory
A. Person Responsible for Analyses
B. Quality Control Certification
IV. Analytical Results
A, Method of Collection and Storage (5.3.2.1)
B. Density and Method of Measurement (5.3.2.2)
C. Chemical Analyses
1. Brief Description of Analytical Methods
2. Recoveries & Reproducibilities of Methods
3. Inorganics (6.1 and 5.3.2.3.1)
a. Elements (5.3.2.3.1.1)
(1) Metals (6.1.6)
(2) Nutrients (6.1.2)
(a) Nitrogen (N)
(b) Phosphorus (P)
(c) Sulphur (S)
(d) Boron (B)
(3) Salts (6.1.4)
(a) Calcium (Ca)
(b) Magnesium (Mg)
(c) Potassium (K)
(d) Sodium (Na)
(e) Sulfate (S04~2)
(f) Bicarbonate (C03~2)
(4) Halides (6.1.5)
(a) Flouride (F~)
(b) Chloride (Cl~)
(c) Bromide (Br~)
(d) Iodide (I~)
b. EC (5.3.2.3.1.2)
c. pH and Titratable Acids & Bases (5.3.2.3.1.3)
d. Water (6.1.1 and 5.3.2.3.1.4)
4. Organics (6.2, Table 6.53 and 5.3.2.3.2)
a. Total Organic Matter (TOM) (5.3.2.3.2.1)
b. Volatiles (5.3.2.3.2.1.1)
c. Extractables (5.3.2.3.2.1.2)
(1) Organic Acids
(2) Organic Bases
(3) Neutrals
(4) Water solubles
d. Residual Solids (RS) (5.3.2.3.2.2)
D. Biological Analysis
1. Acute Toxicity (5.3.2.4.1 and 7.2.4)
2. Genetic Toxicity (5.3.2.4.2)
135
-------
mobility hazard for toxic constituents. In addition, some compounds, such
as hexachlorobenzene, may not be altered within a reasonable time by soil
processes or may be mobile and subject to volatilization or leaching.
Dilution is not an acceptable primary treatment process for land
treatment. Dilution may in some cases serve as a secondary mechanism
associated with degradation, transformation or immobilization. Volume
reduction (i.e., evaporation of water) is also not acceptable as the pri-
mary treatment process in a land treatment system. Although evaporation
may be an important mechanism, application of hazardous waste to land
purely for dewatering should, in general, be restricted to lined surface
impoundments which are designed with ground and surface water protection in
mind. In an acceptable HWLT design, evaporative losses should, therefore,
be of secondary importance and only one among several mechanisms
operating.
In any case, one must be hesitant to set arbitrary prohibitions on
particular waste streams until their unacceptability has been adequately
demonstrated. Where dilution is functioning, supportive to treatment, the
question of what constitutes adequate dilution also requires restraint to
avoid setting arbitrary standards.
Due to the myriad of components and the complexities associated with
possible interactions, chemical analytical data may not adequately predict
acceptability of land treatment for a waste liquid, slurry or sludge.
Acceptability is perhaps best derived empirically. Thus, the final deci-
sion as to the acceptability of a waste needs to be based on evaluations
derived from the integrated results of waste analysis, preliminary experi-
ments such as waste degradability, sorption and mobility in soils, toxic-
ity, mutagenicity, and field pilot studies, and the ultimate design and
monitoring criteria relevant to HWLT. The following chapters are designed
to aid the evaluation and decision processes by addressing the integration
of these parameters.
136
-------
CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES
Adams, C. E., Jr., D. L. Ford, and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr. 1981. Development
of design and operational criteria for wastewater treatment. Enviro Press,
Inc. Nashville, Tennesee.
Adams, J. 1982. Unpublished results.
Adams, J., E. L. Atlas, and C. S. Giam. 1982. Ultratrace determination of
vapor-phase nitrogen heterocyclic bases in ambient air. Anal. Chem. 54:
1515-1518.
Altgelt, K. H. and T. H. Gouw (eds.) 1979. Chromatography in petroleum
analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York, New York. 500 p.
Ames, B. N., J. McCann, and E. Yamasaki. 1975. Methods for detecting car-
cinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian microsome mutagenicty
test. Mutat.Res. 31:347.
Anders, D. E., F. G. Doolittle, and W. E. Robinson. 1975. Polar constitu-
ents isolated from Green River oil shale. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 39:
1423-1430.
Anderson, D. 1975. The selection and induction of 5-iodo-2-deoxyuridine and
thymidine variants of P388 mouse lymphoma cells with agents which are used
for selection. Mutat. Res. 33:399.
Atlas, E. and C. S. Giam. 1981. Global transport of organic pollutants:
ambient concentrations in the remote marine atmosphere. Science 211:163-
165.
Arlett, C. F. 1977. Mutagenicity testing with V79 Chinese hamster cells, p.
175-191. ^n B. J. Kilbey, M. Legator, W. Nichols, and C. Ramel (ed.) Hand-
book of mutagenicity test procedures. Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amster-
dam.
Bartle, K. D., G. Collin, J. W. Stadelhofer, and M. Zander. 1979. Recent
advances in the analysis of coal-derived products. J. Chem. Tech. Biotech-
nol. 29:531-551.
Bassett, J., R. C. Denney, G. H. Jeffery, and J. Mendham. 1978. Vogel's
textbook of quantitative inorganic analysis. Longman, London, pp. 687-690.
Seek, B., G. Klein, and G. Obe. 1980. The fate of chromosomal aberrations
in a proliferating cell system. Biol. Zentralbl. 99(l):73-84.
Bellar, T. A. and J. J. Lichtenberg. 1979. Semiautomated headspace analysis
of drinking waters and industrial waters for purgable volatile organic com-
pounds, pp. 108-129. Ill C. E. Van Hall (ed.) Measurement of organic pollu-
tants in water and wastewater. American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM STP 686.
137
-------
BIgani, M., G. Morpurgo, R. Pagliani, A. Carare, G. Conte, and G.
DiGuideppe. 1974. Non-disjunction and crossing over induced by pharmaceuti-
cal drugs in Aspergillus nidulans. Mutat. Res. 26:159.
Black, C. A. (ed.). 1965. Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and
microbiological properties. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison,
Wisconsin. 802 p.
Boduszynski, M. M, R. J. Hurtubise, and H. F. Silver. 1982a. Separation of
solvent-refined coal into solvent derived fractions. Anal. Chem. 54:372-
375.
Boduszynski, M. M., R. J. Hurtubise, and H. F. Silver. 1982b. Separation of
solvent-refined coal into compaound-class fractions. Anal. Chem. 54:375-
381.
Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. and Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc. 1980.
Hazardous waste generation and commercial hazardous waste management
capacity, an assessment. Prepared for the U.S. EPA. SW-894. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Bower, C. A. and L. V. Wilcox. 1965. Soluble Salts, pp. 936-940. In C. A.
Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and microbiological
properties. Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Bowers, W. D., M. L. Parsons, R. E. Clement, and F. W. Karasek. 1981. Com-
ponent loss during evaporation-reconstitution of organic environmental
samples for gas-chromatographic analysis. J. Chromatogr. 207:203-211.
Bremner, J. M. 1965. Total nitrogen, pp. 1149-1178, In C. A. Black (ed.)
Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties.
Am. Soc. Agron. Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Brewer, R. F. 1965. Fluorine, pp. 1135-1148. JLn C. A. Black Methods of soil
analysis, part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Am. Soc. Agron.
Monogr. No. 9. Madison, Wisconsin.
Brocco, D., A. Cimmino, and M. Possanzini. 1973. Determination of aza-
heterocyclic compounds in atmospheric dust by a combination of thin-layer
and gas chromatography. J. Chromatogr. 84:371-377.
Brown, R. H. and C. J. Purnell. 1979. Collection and analysis of trace
organic vapour pollutants in ambient atmospheres. The performance of a
Tenax-GC adsorbent tube. J. Chromatogr. 178.79-90.
Brusick, D. J. 1972. Induction of cyclohexamide resistant mutants in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae with N-methyl-N-nitro-N-nitrosoguanine and
ICR-170. J. Bacteriol. 109:1134.
Buchanan, M. V. 1982. Mass spectral characterization of nitrogen-containing
compounds with ammonia chemical ionization. Anal. Chem. 54:570-574.
138
-------
Carere, A., G. Morpurgo, G. Cardamone, M. Bignami, F. Aulicino, G.
DiGuisepie, and C. Conti. 1975. Point mutations induced by pharamaceutical
drugs. Mutat. Res. 29:235.
Cautreels, W. and K. van Cauwenberghe. 1976. Extraction of organic com-
pounds from airborne particulate matter. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 6:103-
110.
Cautreels, W., K. van Cauwenberghe, and L. A. Guzman. 1977. Comparison
between the organic fraction of suspended matter at a background and an
urban station. Sci. Tot. Environ. 8:79-88.
Claeys, R. C. 1979. Colloquium—the impact of the consent decree on analy-
tical chemistry in industry, pp. 20-21. In C. E. Van Hall (ed.) Measurement
of organic pollutants in water and wastewater. American Society for Testing
and Materials. ASTM STP 686.
Clive, D. W. 1973. Recent developments with the L5178Y TK heterozygote
mutagen assay system. Environ. Hlth. Perspec. 6:119.
Clive, D. W., W. G. Flamm, M. R. Machesko, and N. H. Bernheim. 1972.
Mutational assay system using the thymidine kinase locus in mouse lymphoma
cells. Mutat. Res. 16:77.
Clive, D. W. and J. F. S. Spector. 1975. Laboratory procedure for assessing
specific locus mutations at the TK locus in cultured L5178Y mouse lymphoma
cells. Mutat. Res. 31:17.
Colgrove, S. G. and H. G. Svec. 1981. Liquid-liquid fractionation of com-
plex mixtures of organic components. Anal. Chem. 53:1737-1742.
Crowley, R. J., S. Siggia, and P. C. Uden. 1980. Class separation and
characterization of shale oil by liquid chromatography and capillary gas
chromatography. Anal. Chem. 52:1224.
Dean, B. J. and K. R. Senner. 1977. Detection of chemically induced muta-
tion in Chinese hamsters. Mutat. Res. 46:403.
DeRenzo, D. J. 1978. Unit operations for treatment of hazardous industrial
wastes, pp. 1-920. Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
DeSerres, F. J. and H. V. Mailing. 1971. Measurement of recessive lethal
damage over the entire genome and at two specific loci in the ad-3 region
of a two component heterokaryon of Neurosporacrassa. 2:311-341. In A.
Hollaender (ed.) Chemical mutagens, principles and methods for their detec-
tion. Plenum Press, New York.
de Vera, E. R., B. P. Summons, R. D. Stephens, and D. L. Storm. 1980.
Samplers and sampling procedures for hazardous waste streams. Municipal
Environmental Research Lab. Office of Research and Development, EPA.
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 600/2-80-018. PB 80-1B5353.
139
-------
Donnelly, K. C., K. W. Brown, and B. R. Scott. 1982. The use of bioassays
to monitor land treatment of hazardous waste. In M. D. Waters, S. S.
Sandhu, J. Lewtas, and L. Clayton (eds.) The application of short-term
bioassays in the analysis of complex environmental mixtures. Plenum Press
(in press).
Dowty, B. J., S. R. Antoine, and J. L. Laseter. 1979. Quantitative and
qualitative analysis of purgable organics by high resolution gas chroma-
tography and flame ionization detection, pp. 24-35. In C. E. Van Hall (ed.)
Measurement of organic pollutants in water and wastewater. American Society
for Testing and Materials. ASTM STP 686.
Ehrenburg, L. 1971. Higher plants. 2:365-386. In A. Hollaender (ed.) Chemi-
cal mutagens, principles and methods for their detection. Phenum Press, New
York.
EPA. 1979a. Development document for effluent limitations, guidelines, and
standards: leather, tanning and finishing point source category. EPA 440/1-
79-016.
EPA. 1979b. Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of
pollutants, proposed regulations. Fed. Reg. Vol. 44. No. 233. Dec. 3,
1979.
EPA. 1979c. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA
600/4-79-020. PB 297-686/8BE.
EPA. 1980a. Treatability manual (5 volumes). Office of Research and Devel-
opment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600-8-80-042 a-e.
EPA. 1980b. Analysis of pesticide residues in human and environmental sam-
ples. EPA, Research. Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 600/8-80-038.
EPA. 1980c. Interim status standards for owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No.
98. Book 2 of 3. May 19, 1980.
EPA. 1980d. Subtitle C, Resource conservation and recovery act of 1976.
Listing of hazardous waste, background document. U.S. EPA Office of Solid
Waste. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1982a. Test methods for evaluating solid waste: physical/chemical
methods. 2nd. ed. U.S. EPA. SW-846. July 1982.
EPA. 1982b. Hazardous waste management system; permitting requirements for
land disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 143, pp. 32274-
32388. July 26, 1982.
Epstein, E. and W. Taffel. 1979. A study of rapid biodegradation of oily
wastes through composting. U.S. Dept. of Transportation. U.S. Coast Guard
Report No. CG-D-83-79. 57 p.
140
-------
Ettlich, W. F., D. J. Hinrichs, and T. S. Lineck. 1978. Sludge handling and
conditioning. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430/9-78-002.
Evans, H. J. and M. L. O'Riodan. 1975. Human peripheral blood lymphocytes
for analysis of chromosome aberrations in mutagen tests. Mutat. Res.
31:135.
Felkner, I. C., K. M. Hoffman, and B. C. Wells. 1979. DNA - damaging and
mutagenic effect of 1,2 - Dimethylhydrazine on Bacillus subtilis repair-
deficient mutants. Mutat. Res. 28:31-40.
Florisil Properties Applications Bibliography. Floridin Co., 3 Penn Center,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235.
Francis, A. J., E. D. Morgan, and C. F. Poole. 1978. Flophemesy derivatives
of alcohols, phenols, amines and carboxylic acids and their use in gas
chromatography with electron-capture detection. J. Chromatogr.
161:111-117.
Giam, C. S., H. S. Chan, and G. F. Neff. 1976. Distribution of n-parrafins
in selected marine benthic organisms. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
16:37-43.
Giam. C. S. and M. K. Wong. 1972. Problems of background contamination in
the analysis of open ocean biota for chlorinated hydrocarbons. J.
Chromatogr. 72:283-292.
Grabow, W. 0. K., J. S. Burger, and C. A. Hilner. 1981. Comparison of
liquid-liquid extraction and resin adsorption for concentrating mutagens in
Ames Salmonella/microsome assays on water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
27:442-449.
Green, M. H. L., W. J. Muriel, and B. A. Bridges. 1976. Use of a simplified
fluctuation test to detect low levels of mutagens. Mutat. Res. 38:33.
Gritz, R. L. and D. G. Shaw. 1977. A comparison of methods for hydrocarbon
analysis of marine biota. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17(4):408-415.
Hendrickson, J. B., D. J. Cram, and G. S. Hammond. 1970. Organic chemistry.
3rd. ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 1279 p.
Herrick, E., C. J. A. King, R. P. Quellette, and P. N. Cheremisinoff. 1979.
Unit process guide to organic chemical industries, Vol. 1 of unit process
series. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Hertz, H. S., J. M. Brown, S. N. Chesler, F. R. Guenther, L. R. Hilpert, W.
E. May, R. M. Parris, and S. A. Wise. 1980. Determination of individual
organic compounds in shale oil. Anal. Chem. 52:1650-1657.
Hoffman, D. and E. L. Wynder. 1977. Organic particulate pollutants-chemical
analysis and bioassays for carcinogenecity. pp. 361-455. In A. C. Stern
(ed.) Air Pollution. Vol. II. 3rd ed. Academic Press, New York, New York.
141
-------
Holden, A. V. and K. Marsden. 1969. Single-stage clean-up of animal tisue
extracts for organochlorine residue analysis. J. Chromatogr. 44:481-492.
Holstein, W. and D. Severin. 1981. Liquid chromatography of coal oil
fractions. Anal. Chem. 53:2356-2358.
Jacobs, L. and R. DeMars. 1977. Chemical mutagenesis with diploid human
fibroblasts. pp. 193-220. In B. J. Kilbey, M. Legator, W. Nichols and C.
Ramel (ed.) Handbook of mutagenicity test procedures. Elsevier Biomedical
Press, Amsterdam.
Johnson, E. L. and R. Stevenson. 1978. Basic liquid chromatography. Varian
Associates, Inc. Palo Alto, California.
Kada, T., M. Morija, and Y. Shirasu. 1974. Screening of pesticides for DNA
interactions by REC-assay and mutagenic testing and frameshift mutagens
detected. Mutat. Res. 26:243.
Kihlman, B. A. 1977. Root tips of Vicia fava for the study of the induction
of chromosomal aberrations, pp. 389-410. In B. J. Kilbey, M. Legator, W.
Nichols, and C. Ramel (ed.) Handbook of mutagenicity test procedures.
Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.
Knuutinen, J. 1982. Analysis of chlorinated guaiacols in spent bleach
liquor from a pulp mill. J. Chromatogr. 248:289-295.
,i
Rugelman, I. J. and J. S. Jeris. 1981. Anaerobic digestion, pp. 211-278. In
W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr. and C. J. Santhanam (eds.) Sludge treatment. Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, New York.
Kumar, R. and S. Chauhan. 1979. Frequency and spectrum of chlorophyll muta-
tions in a 6 rowed barley Hordeum vulgare. Indian J. Agri. Sci. 49(11):831-
834.
Later, D. W., M. L. Lee, K. D. Bartle, R. C. Kong, and D. L. Vassilaros.
1981. Chemical class separation and characterization of organic compounds
in synthetic fuels. Anal. Chem. 53:1612-1620.
Lin, D. C. K., R. L. Foltz, S. V. Lucas, B. A. Petersen, L. E. Slivon, and
R. G. Melton. 1979. Glass capillary gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric
analysis of organics in drinking water concentrates and advanced waste
treatment water concentrates—II. pp. 68-84. In C. E. Van Hall (ed.)
American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM STP 686.
Loehr, R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S.
Friedman. 1979. Land application of wastes. Vol. I. Van Hostrand Reinhold
Co., New York, New York. 308 p.
142
-------
Loprieno, N., R. Barale, C. Bauer, S. Baroncelli, G. Bronzetti, A. Cammel-
lini, A. Cinci, G. Corsi, C. Leporini, R. Nieri, M. Mozzolini, and C.
Serra. 1974. The use of different test systems with yeasts for the evalua-
tion of chemically induced gene conversions and gene mutations. Mutat. Res.
25:197.
Lundi, G., J. Gether, N. Gjos, and M. B. S. Lande. 1977. Organic micropol-
lutants in precipitation in Norway. Atmos. Environ. 11:1007-1014.
Marimuthu, K. M., A. H. Sparrow, and L. A. Schairer. 1970. The cytological
effects of space flight factors, vibration, clinostate, and radiation on
root tip cells of Tradescantia and Allium cepa. Radiation Res. 42:105.,
Matsushita, H. 1979. Micro-analysis of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in
petroleum. Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Fuel Chem. 24:292-298.
Metry, A. A. 1980. The handbook of hazardous waste management. Technomic
Publishing Company. Westport, Connecticut.
McLafferty, F. W. 1973. Interpretation of mass spectra. W. A. Benjamin,
Inc., London.
McNair, H. M. and E. J. Bonelli. 1968. Basic gas chromatography. Varian
Associate, Inc., Palo Alto, California.
Middleditch, B. S., S. R. Missler, and H. B. Hines. 1981. Mass spectrometry
of priority pollutants. Plenum Press. New York, New York.
Miller, R. 1982. Hydrocarbon class fractionation with bonded-phase liquid
chromatography. Anal. Chem. 54:1742-1746.
Mohn, G., J. Eltenberger, and D. B. McGregor. 1974. Development of mutagen-
icity tests using Escherichia coli K-12 as an indxcator organism. Mutat.
Res. 23:187.
Morrison, R. T. and R. N. Boyd. 1975. Organic chemistry. Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., Boston, Massachusetts.
Mortimer, R. K. and T. R. Manney. 1971. Mutation induction in yeast.
1:289-310. In A. Hollaender (ed.) Chemical mutagens, principles and methods
for their detection. Plenum Press, New York.
Mousa, J. J. and S. A. Whitlock. 1979. Analysis of phenols in some indus-
trial wastewaters. pp. 206-220. In C. E. Van Hall (ed.) Measurement of
organic pollutants in water and wastewater. American Society for Testing
and Materials. ASTM STP 686.
Namiesnik, J., L. Torres, E. Kozlowski, and J. Mathieu. 1981. Evaluation of
the suitability of selected porous polymers for preconcentration of vola-
tile organic compounds. J. Chromatogr. 208:239-252.
143
-------
Nauman, C. H., A. H. Sparrow, and L. A. Schairer. 1976. Comparative effects
of ionizing radiation and two gaseous chemical mutagens on somatic mutation
induction in one mutable and two non-mutable clones of Tradescantia. Mutat.
Res. 38:53-70.
Neill, J. P., P. A. Brimer, R. Machanoff, G. P. Hirseh, and A. W. Hsie.
1977. A quantitative assay of mutation induction at the HGPRT locus in
Chinese hamster ovary cells: development and definition of the system.
Mutat. Res. 45:91.
Nicoloff, H., K. I. Gecheff, and L. Stoilov. 1979. Effects of caffeine on
the frequencies and location of chemically induced chromatid aberrations in
barley. Mutat. Res. 70:193-201.
Novotny, M. J. W. Strand, S. L. Smith, D. Wiesler, and F. J. Schwende.
1981. Compositional studies of coal tar by capillary gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry. Fuel 60:213-220.
Novotny, M., D. Wiesler, and F. Merli. 1982. Capillary gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry of azaarenes isolated from crude coal tar. Chroma-
tographia 15:374-377.
Ong, T. N. 1978. Use of the spot, plate and suspension test systems for the
detection of the mutagenicity of environmental agents and chemical carcino-
gens in Neurospora crassa. Mutat. Res. 54-121-129.
Packer, K. (ed.) 1975. Nanogen index, a dictionary of pesticides and chemi-
cal pollutants. Nanogens International. Freedom, California.
Parry, J. M. 1977. The use of yeast cultures for the detection of environ-
mental mutagens using a fluctuation test. Mutat. Res. 46:165.
Peech, M. 1965. Hydrogen-ion activity. Agron. 9:914-926.
Pellizzari, E. D. 1982. Analysis for organic vapor emissions near indus-
trial and chemical waste disposal sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:781-
785.
Pellizzari, E. D., J. E. Bunch, R. E. Berkley, and J. McRae. 1976. Deter-
mination of trace hazardous organic vapor pollutants in ambient atmospheres
by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry/computer. Anal. Chem. 48.802-806.
Pellizzari, E. D., N. P. Castillo, S. Willis, D. Smith, and J. T. Bursey.
1978. Identification of organic constituents in aqueous effluents from
energy-related processes. Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Fuel Chem. 23:144-155.
Pellizzari, E. D. and L. Little. 1980. Collection and analysis of purgable
organics emitted from wastewater treatment plants. EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA 600/2-80-017.
Perry, P. and H. J. Evans. 1975. Cytological detection of mutagen-carcino-
gen exposure by sister chromatid exchange. Nature (London). 258 121.
144
-------
Plewa, M. J. and J. M. Gentile. 1976. The mutagenicity of atrazine: a
maize-microbe bioassay. Mutat. Res. 38-287-292.
Redei, G. P. 1975. Arabadopsis as a genetzc tool. Ann. Rev. Genet. 9.111-
125.
Reunanen, M. and R. Kroneld. 1982. Determination of volatile halocarbons in
raw and drinking water, human serum, and urine by election capture GC. J.
Chromatogr. Sci. 20:449-454.
Rice, R. G. and M. E. Browning. 1981. Ozone treatment of industrial waste-
water. Pollution Technology Review No. 84. pp. 31-35. Noyes Data Corpora-
tion. Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Russell, J. W. 1975. Analysis of air pollutants using sampling tubes and
gas chromatography. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9.1175-1178.
Safe, S. and 0. Hutzinger. 1973. Mass spectrometry of pesticides and pol-
lutants. CRC Press. Cleveland, Ohio.
Scott, B. R., E. Kafer, G. L. Dorn, and R. Stafford. 1980. Aspergillus
nidulans; systems and results of test for induction of mutation and mitotic
segregation. Mutat. Res. (in press)
Scott, B. R., A. H. Sparrow, S. S. Lamm, and L. Schairer. 1978. Plant meta-
bolic activation of EDB to a mutagen of greater potency. Mutat. Res.
49.203-212.
Shackelford, W. M. and R. G. Webb. 1979. Survey analysis of phenolic
compounds in industrial effluents by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
pp. 191-205. In C. E. Van Hall (ed.) Measurement of organic pollutants in
water and wastewater. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM STP
686.
Skoog, D. A. and D. M. West. 1979. Analytical chemisty, 3rd ed. pp.
186-246. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Skopek, T. R., J. L. Liber, J. J. Krowleski, and W. G. Thilly. 1978. Quan-
titative forward mutation assay in Salmonella typhimurium using 8-azagua-
nine resistance as a genetic marker. Proc. Nat'l. Acad. Sci. 75.410.
Slater, E., M. D. Anderson, and H. S. Rosenkranz. 1971. Rapid detection of
mutagens and carcinogens. Cancer Res. 31:970.
Snyder, D. and R. Reinert. 1971. Rapid separation of polychlorinated
biphenyls from DDT and its analogues on silica gel. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 6.385-387.
Soderberg, K., J. T. Mascarello, G. Breen, and I. E. Scheffler. 1979.
Respiration deficient Chinese hamster cell mutants genetic characteriza-
tion. Somatic Cell Genet. 5(2).225-240.
145
-------
Sodergren, A. 1978. Simultaneous detection of halogenated and other
compounds by electron-caputre and flame-conization detectors combined in
series. J. Chromatogr. 160:271-276.
Speck, W. T., R. M. Santella, and H. S. Rosenkranz. 1978. An evaluation of
the prophage induction (inductest) for the detection of potential carcino-
gens. Mutat. Res. 54:101.
Stetka, D. G. and S. Wolff. 1976. Sister chromatid exchange as an assay for
genetic damage induced by mutagen-carcinogens. Mutat. Res. 41.333.
Stout, P. R. and C. M. Johnson. 1965. Chlorine and bromine, pp. 1124-1134.
In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and
microbial properties. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin.
Stubley, C., J. G. P. Stell, and D. W. Mathieson. 1979. Analysis of
azanaphthalenes and their enzyme oxidation products by high-performance
liquid chromatography, infrared spectroscopy, and mass spectrometry. J.
Chromatogr. 177:313-322.
Stuermer, D. H., D. J. Ng, and C. J. Morris. 1982. Organic contaminants in
groundwater near an underground coal gasification site in northeastern
Wyoming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:582-587.
Tanooka, J. 1977. Development and applications of Bacillus subtillus test
system for mutagens involving DNA repair deficiency and suppressible auxo-
trophic mutations. Mutat. Res. 48:367.
Tanooka, H., N. Munakata, S. Kitahara. 1978. Mutation induction with UV-
and X-radiation in spores and vegetative cells of Bacillus Subtillis.
Mutat. Res. 49:179-186.
Texaco, Inc. 1979. Composting of oily sludges. Report to the Solid Waste
Committee, Environ. Affairs Dept. of the Am. Petroleum Institute. 22 p.
Thilly, W. G., J. G. DeLuca, I. V. H. Hoppe, and B. W. Penmann. 1976.
Mutation of human lymphoblasts by methylnitrosourea. Chem. Biol. Interact.
15:33.
Tucker, E. S., V. W. Saeger, and 0. Hicks. 1975. Activated sludge primary
biodegradation of polychlorinated biphenlys. Bull. Environ. Contarn.
Toxicol. 14(6):705-713.
Underbrink, A. G., L. A. Schairer, and A. H. Sparrow. 1973. Tradescantia
stamen hairs. A radiobiological test system applicable to chemical mutagen-
esis. 3:171-207. Ill A. Hollaender (ed.) Chemical mutagens, principles and
methods for their detection. Plenum Press, New York.
Vick, R. D., J. J. Richard, H. J. Svec, and G. A. Junk. 1977. Problems with
Tenax-GC for environmental sampling. Chemosphere 6:303-308.
146
-------
Vig, B. K. 1975. Soybean (Glycine max): a new test system for study of
genetic parameters as affected by environmental mutagens. Mutat. Res.
31:49-56.
Von Borstel, R. C. and R. H. Smith. 1977. Measuring dominant lethality in
Habrobracon. pp. 375-387. In B. J. Kilbey, M. Legator, W. Nichols and C.
Ramel (ed.) Handbook of mutagenicity testing procedures. Elsevier Biomed.
Press, Amsterdam.
Wear, J. I. 1965. Boron, pp. 1059-1063. In C. A. Black (ed.) Methods of
soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and microbial properties. Am. Soc. Agron.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Worstell, J. H. and S. R. Daniel. 1981. Deposit formation in liquid fuels.
2. The effect of selected compounds on the storage stability of Jet A
turbine fuel. Fuel 60:481-484.
Worstell, J. H., S. R. Daniel, and G. Frauenhoff. 1981. Deposit formation
in liquid fuels. 3. The effect of selected nitrogen compounds on diesel
fuel. Fuel 60:485-487.
Wurgler, F. E. and E. Vogel. 1977. Drosophila as an assay system for
detecting genetic changes, pp. 335-373. jn B. J. Kilbey, M. Legator, W.
Nichols, and C. Ramel (ed.) Handbook of mutagenicity test procedures.
Elsevier Biomed. Press, Amsterdam.
147
-------
6.0 CHAPTER SIX
FATE OF CONSTITUENTS IN THE SOIL ENVIRONMENT
An understanding of the behavior of the various waste streams in the
soil environment at an HWLT unit may be derived from a knowledge of the
specific constituents that compose the waste. Chapter 5 provided general
information on the characterization of waste streams. After determining
the constituents present in the waste, this chapter can be used to gain a
better understanding of the fate of the wastes disposed by HWLT.
Knowledge about the specific components expected to be found in a
given waste stream can be gained from information on the sources of the
waste, any pretreatment or in-plant process changes, and waste analyses.
Although only hazardous constituents are regulated by EPA, there may be
other waste constituents, not listed as hazardous, that are nevertheless
significant. Once waste characterization (Section 5.3) has confirmed the
presence of a specific compound or element, this chapter will serve as a
source of information on the environmental fate, toxicity and land treat-
ability of individual components of the waste. Figure 6.1 indicates the
topics discussed and the organization of the material presented in this
chapter. Additional literature references are cited which can be used when
more detailed information is desired.
6.1 INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
Although inorganic chemical soil reactions have been more thoroughly
studied than organic, comprehensive information is still limited on the
behavior of some inorganic chemicals in the heterogeneous chemical, physi-
cal and biological matrix of the soil. Agriculturally important compounds
have received greater scrutiny than others. For instance, metals have only
recently begun to attract widespread interest as the use of land treatment
for municipal wastes has increased. The information developed from treat-
ing municipal wastes does not, however, address the entire range of con-
stituents that may be present in hazardous industrial wastes.
6.1.1 Water
Water is practically ubiquitous in hazardous waste streams and often
constitutes the largest waste fraction. In a land treatment system, water
has several major functions. As a carrier, water transports both dissolved
and particulate matter through both surface runoff and deep percolation.
Water also controls gas exchange between the soil and the atmosphere.
Thus, water may be beneficial by controlling the release rate of volatile
waste constituents. For example, where aeration is poor due to high soil
water content, biological decomposition of waste constituents is inhibited
148
-------
r
WASTE
FATE OF WASTE
CONSTITUENTS IN THE
HWLT SYSTEM
CHAPTER SIX
ASSESS THE EXPECTED
FATE OF THE INORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS
(SECTION 6.1)
ASSESS THE EXPECTED
FATE OF THE ORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS
(SECTION 6.2)
ffOTENTIAL
I SIT!
WATER §6.1.1
PLANT NUTRIENTS §6.1.2
ACIDS & BASES §6.1.3
SALTS §6 1.4
HALIDES §6.1.5
MCTALS §6.1 6
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS §6.2.3.1
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS §6.2,3 2
ORGANIC ACIDS §6 2.3.3
HALOGENATED ORGANICS §6.2 3
SURFACE ACTIVE AGENTS §6.2.3.5
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
TREATMENT MEDIUM
CHAPTER FOUR
Figure 6.1.
/WASTE-SITE INTERACTIONS \
\^ CHAPTER SEVEN J
Constituent groups to be consxdered when assissxng the fate
of wastes in the land treatment system.
149
-------
and may be accompanied by acute odor problems. A lack of soil water can
also inhibit waste degradation.
Since the application of waste may contribute significant amounts of
water in addition to precipitation inputs, a complete hydrologic balance
including the water content of the waste must be developed. Techniques for
calculating the hydrologic balance are presented in Section 8.3.1; these
calculations are used to estimate waste storage requirements, waste appli-
cation rates, and runoff retention and treatment needs.
6.1.2 Plant Nutrients
Many of the elements essential to plant growth may have detrimental
effects when excessive concentrations are present in soil. Some may be
directly toxic to plants, while others may induce toxic responses in ani-
mals. Further problems may involve damage to the soil physical properties
or to surface water ecosystems. Consequently, plant nutrients, present in
significant concentrations in the waste, that may adversely affect the
environment should be considered in determining the feasibility of land
treatment and appropriate waste loading rates. This section deals with the
plant essential elements not classified and discussed as metals or halides,
which may cause problems in an HWLT unit.
6.1.2.1 Nitrogen (N)
Land application of a waste high in nitrogen requires an understanding
of the various forms of N contained in the waste, the transformations that
occur in soils, and the rates associated with these transformations. A
knowledge of N additions to and losses from the disposal site can then be
used to calculate a mass balance equation which is used to estimate the
amount and rate of waste loading.
Wastes high in N have typically included sewage sludges, wastewaters,
and animal wastes. Table 6.1 lists the N content of several sewage types
and Table 6.2 gives the N analysis of manure samples. Pharmaceutical and
medicinal chemicals manufacturing generate wastes high in ammonia,
organonitrogen and soluble inorganic salts. In sewage and animal manure, N
is usually found as ammonium or nitrate. Industrial wastes often contain N
in small quantities incorporated in aromatic compounds, such as pyridines.
150
-------
TABLE 6.1 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SEWAGE SLUDGES*1'
Concentration'*
Component
Total N
NH4-N
N03-N
Number of
Samples
191
103
45
Range
(%)
0.1 - 17.
0.1 - 6.
0.1 - 0.
6
8
5
Median
(%)
3.3
0.1
0.1
Mean
(%)
3.9
0.7
0.1
Coefficient of
Variability
(%)+
85
171
158
* Sommers (1977).
* Data are from numerous types of sludges (anaerobic, aerobic, activated,
lagoon, etc.) in seven states: Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio.
* Oven-dry solids basis.
+ Standard deviation as a percentage of the mean. Number of samples on
which this is based may not be the same as for other columns.
TABLE 6.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF MANURE SAMPLES TAKEN FROM 23 FEEDLOTS IN
TEXAS*1"
Element
N
P
K
Na
Ca
Mg
Fe
Zn
H20
1.16
0.32
0.75
0.29
0.81
0.32
0.09
Range
- 1.96
- 0.85
- 2.35
- 1.43
- 1.75
- 0.66
- 0.55
0.005 - 0.012
20.9
- 54.5
Average
1.34
0.53
1.50
0.74
1.30
0.50
0.21
I
0.009
34.5
* Mathers et al. (1973).
' All values based on wet weight.
Precipitation adds to the N that reaches the surface of the earth and
several attempts have been made to quantitate this. Additions of N from
precipitation are greater in the tropics than in humid temperate regions
151
-------
and larger in humid temperate regions than in semiarid climates. Table 6.3
lists N values in precipitation from various locations. A study by Gamble
and Fisher (1964) revealed that most of the N reaching the earth is in the
N(>3 "and NH^ forms. Concentrations of N in the rain resulting from a
thunderstorm are shown in Fig. 6.2. The initial concentrations of NC>3~
are 8 ppm and decrease sharply as the precipitation cleanses the air of N
containing dust, eroded soil, and incomplete combustion products.
TABLE 6.3 AMOUNTS OF NITROGEN CONTRIBUTED BY PRECIPITATION*
Location
Harpenden, England
Gar ford, England
Flahult, Sweden
Groningen, Holland
Bloemfontein and Durban,
South Africa
Ottawa, Canada
Ithaca, N.Y.
Years
of
Record
28
3
1
—
2
10
11
Rainfall
(cm)
73.2
68.3
82.6
70.1
—
59.4
74.9
kg/ha/yr
Ammoniacal
Nitrogen
2.96
7.20
3.72
5.08
4.50
4.95
4.09
Nitrate
Nitrogen
1.49
2.16
1.46
1.64
1.56
2.42
0.77
* Lyon and Bizzell (1934).
Nitrogen exists in waste, soil and the atmosphere in several forms.
Organic N, such as alkyl or aromatic amines, is bound in carbon-containing
compounds and is not available for plant uptake or leaching until
transformed to inorganic N by microbial decomposition. Humus and crop
residues in the soil contain organic N.
Inorganic N is found in various forms such as ammonia, ammonium,
nitrite, nitrate and molecular nitrogen. Ammonium (NH^+) can be held in
the soil on cation exchange sites because of its positive charge. Ammonium
is used by both plants and microorganisms as a source of N. Ammonia (NH3)
exists as a gas, and NH^"*" may be converted to NH.3 at high pH values.
(N0£~) is a highly mobile anion formed in soils as an intermediate in
the nitrification process discussed in Section 6.1.2.1.3. Nitrite is toxic
to plants in small quantities. Nitrate (N03~) is a highly mobile anion
readily used by plants and microorganisms. Nitrates may be readily leached
from the soil and may present a health hazard. (The term N03~N is read
nitrate-nitrogen and is not the same as N03 (10 mg/1 N03~N = 44.3 mg/1
^3). Molecular nitrogen (N£) is a gas comprising nearly 80% of the
normal atmosphere.
152
-------
.04 .08 .12 J6
Total Rainfall (W
Figure 6.2. Chemical composition of thundershower
samples (Gamble and Fisher, 1964).
Reprinted by the permission of the
American Geophysical Union.
153
-------
The nitrogen cycle (Fig. 6.3) is often used to illustrate the addi-
tions and removals of N from the soil system and the subsequent changes in
form due to the prevailing soil environment. In addition to the N added to
the soil by wastes and precipitation (discussed previously), the nitrogen
cycle is affected by the processes of mineralization, nitrogen fixation,
nitrification, plant uptake, denitrification, volatilization, storage in
the soil, immobilization, runoff, and leaching. The amount of N added or
removed by each of these mechanisms, the rate at which they occur, and the
optimum soil conditions for each are discussed below.
6.1.2.1.1 Mineralization. The process of mineralization involves the con-
version of the plant unavailable organic forms of N to the available inor-
ganic state by microbial decomposition. Mineralization includes the ammon-
ification process which oxidizes amines into N02~ or N03~. Organic
N contained in wastes is not available for plant uptake or subject to other
losses until mineralization occurs. Only a portion of the organic N in the
waste will be converted to the available inorganic form during the first
year after application, and only smaller amounts will be mineralized in
subsequent years.
Table 6.4 shows an estimated decay series, or fractional mineraliza-
tion, for a given waste application. The table also shows a ratio of N
inputs necessary to supply a constant mineralization rate. The table,
developed by Pratt et al. (1973), is an estimate of decomposition based on
the type of animal waste and amount of weathering the waste has undergone.
For example, dry corral manure containing 2.5% N has an estimated decay
series of 0.40, 0.25, and 0.06 which means that at any given application,
40% of the N applied will be mineralized the first year, 25% of the remain-
ing N will become available the second year, and 6% of the remaining N will
be mineralized in the third and all subsequent years. If 22.5 metric
tons/ha of this manure (dry weight basis) were applied, of the 560 kg total
N, 224 kg would be mineralized the first year, 63.75 kg the second, 12.4 kg
the third, 11.6 kg the fourth, 10.9 the fifth, and 10.2 the sixth year
(Pratt et al., 1973). The ratios shown in Table 6.4 are useful for esti-
mating the amount of N that will be available given a decay series. In the
example above, 2.5 kg of total N must be added to furnish 1 kg of available
N the first year. If manure is added to the same field next year, only
1.82 kg must be added to provide 1 kg of available N, and so on.
Research by Hinesley et al. (1972) shows that considerable amounts of
organic N in sludge and soil organic matter are mineralized during a grow-
ing season. This research indicates that about 25% of the organic N in
sludge is mineralized in the first year of application, and 3-5% of the
organic N is converted to inorganic N during the next three years.
Another decay series of mineralization is given in Table 6.5 where the
values are calculated on the basis of having 3% of the remaining or resid-
ual organic N released as available inorganic N during the second, third,
and fourth growing seasons. For example, if 5 metric tons/ha of sludge
containing 3.5% (175 kg) of organic N were applied to a soil one year, dur-
ing the following growing season, 0.9 kg/metric ton of sludge would become
154
-------
Oi
Ul
NH3
VOLATILIZATION
PLANTS
SOIL
MIROORGANBSMS
GASEOUS LOSSES
t
(demtrification)
N03-
LEACHING LOSSES
Figure 6.3. Nitrogen cycle illustrating the fate of sludge nitrogen (Beaucharap and
Moyer, 1974).
-------
TABLE 6.4 RATIO OF YEARLY NITROGEN INPUT TO ANNUAL NITROGEN MINERALIZATION RATE OF ORGANIC WASTES*1"
Decay Series
Typical
Material*
Time (years)
10 15
20
0.90, 0.10, 0.05
0.75, 0.15, 0.10, 0.05
0.40, 0.25, 0.06
0.35, 0.15, 0.10, 0.05
0.20, 0.10, 0.05
0.35, 0.10, 0.05
Chicken manure
Fresh bovine
waste, 3.5% N
Dry corral
manure, 2.5% N
Dry corral
manure, 1.5% N
Dry corral
manure, 1.0% N
Liquid sludge,
2.5%
N input/mineralization ratio
1.11 1.10 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.04
1.33 1.27 1.23 1.22 1.20 1.15 1.11 1.06
2.50 1.82 1.74 1.58 1.54 1.29 1.16 1.09
2.86 2.06 1.83 1.82 1.72 1.40 1.23 1.13
5.00 3.00 2.90 2.44 2.17 1.38 1.13 1.04
2.86 2.33 2.19 2.03 1.90 1.45 1.22 1.11
* Pratt et al. (1973).
' This ratio is for a constant yearly mineralization rate for six decay series for various times
after initial application. The ratio equals kilograms of N input required to mineralize 1 kg of N
annually.
'* The N content is on a dry weight basis.
-------
available. Therefore, for a 5 metric ton/ha rate, 4.3 kg N/ha would be
mineralized to the inorganic form (Sommers and Nelson, 1976).
TABLE 6.5 RELEASE OF PLANT-AVAILABLE NITROGEN DURING SLUDGE DECOMPOSITION
IN SOIL*
Years After
Sludge Application
Organic N Content of Sludge,
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
kg residual N release per metric ton sludge added
1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.85 0.95 1.1 1.2
2 0.45 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.05 1.15
3 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 1.0 1.1
* Sommers and Nelson (1976).
Microbial degradation of complex aromatic compounds containing N
depends on the structure, nature, and position of functional groups. Gen-
eral results of many investigations are summarized as follows: short chain
amines are more resistant to mineralization than those of higher molecular
weight; unsaturated aliphatic amines tend to be more readily attacked than
saturates; resistance to decomposition increases with the number of chlor-
ines in the aromatic ring; and branched compounds are more resistant than
unbranched compounds (Goring et al., 1975).
6.1.2.1.2 Fixation. The process by which atmospheric nitrogen (N2) is
converted to available inorganic N by bacteria is called nitrogen fixation;
it may either be symbiotic or nonsymbiotic. Symbiotic N fixation is the
conversion of N£ to NH^+ by Rhizobium bacteria, which live in root
nodules of leguminous plants. Nonsymbiotic fixation involves the
conversion of N by free-living bacteria, Clostridium and Azotobacter.
Fixation by leguminous bacteria accounts for the great majority of N
fixation (Brady, 1974). Table 6.6 reports the N fixation of various
legumes in kg/ha/yr.
157
-------
TABLE 6.6 NITROGEN FIXED BY VARIOUS LEGUMES*
Crop (kg/ha /yr) Crop (kg/ha/yr)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
Sweet clover (Melilotus sp.)
Red clover (Trifolium
(pratense)
Alsike clover (Trifolium
hybridum)
281
188
169
158
Soybeans (Glycine max)
Hairy vetch (Vicia villosa)
Field beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris)
Field peas (Pisum arvense)
118
76
65
53
* Lyon and Bizzell (1934).
The amount of N fixed by Rhizobium depends on many factors. Soil
conditions favorable for microbial populations include good aeration,
adequate m>isture, and a near neutral pH. A high N containing waste or
fertilizer may actually discourage nodulation and thereby reduce fixation
(Fig. 6.4). Therefore, N input from N-fixing bacteria is of minor
significance on land receiving waste applications.
The exact amount of N fixed by nonsymbiotic bacteria in soils is very
difficult to determine because other processes involving N are taking place
simultaneously. Experiments in several areas of the U.S. indicate that
20-60 kg N/ha/yr may be fixed by nonsymbiotic organisms (Moore, 1966).
Table 6.7 lists amounts of N fixed nonsymbiotically.
TABLE 6.7 NITROGEN GAINS ATTRIBUTED TO NONSYMBIOTIC FIXATION IN FIELD
EXPERIMENTS*
Location
Utah
Missouri
California
California
United Kingdom
Australia
Nigeria
Michigan
Period
(years )
11
8
10
60
20
3
3
7
Description
Irrigated soil and manure
Bluegrass (Poa sp.) sod
Lysimeter experiment
Pinus ponderosa stand
Monoculture tree stands
Solonized soil
Latosolic soil
Straw mulch
Nitrogen Gain
(kg/ha/yr)
49
114
54
63
58
25
90
56
* Moore (1966).
158
-------
160
<
a.
e
01
O
o
z
80
§ 40
oc
TOTAL NITROGEN
Nitrogen fixed by rhizobia
20 40 80 120 160
RATE OF NITROGEN APPLICATION (mg/pot)
200
Figure 6.4. Influence of added xnorganic nxtrogen on the total
nitrogen in clover plants, the proportion supplied
by the fertilizer and that fixed by the rhizobium
organizations associated with the clover roots.
Increasing the rate of nitrogen application de-
creased the amount of nitrogen fixed by the organ-
isms in this greenhouse experiment (Walker, 1956).
Reprinted by permission of the author.
159
-------
6.1.2.1.3 Nitrification. The process of nitrification involves the
conversion of NH^"*" to NO2" by Nitrosomonas and the conversion of N0£~ to
N03~ by Nitrobacter via reactions that occur in rapid sequence and preclude
any great accumulation of N03~~. These nitrifying organisms are auto-
trophic (obtaining energy from oxidation or inorganic NH4+ or N02~) in con-
trast to the heterotrophic organisms involved in the mineralization proc-
ess. These organisms are strictly aerobic and can not survive in saturated
soils. The optimum temperature for nitrification is in the range of
30-36°C (Downing et al., 1964). Maximum oxidation rates for Nitrosomonas
are found at pF 8.5-9.0 (Downing et al., 1964) and at pH 8.9 for Nitro-
bacter (Lees, 1951). The activity of these bacteria may cease altogether
where the pH is 4.0-4.5 or below. Nitrification occurs at a very rapid
rate under conditions ideal for microbial growth. Daily rates of 7-12 kg
N/ha have been found when 110 kg ammonium nitrate/ha were added (Broadbent
et al., 1957).
The nitrification curves for most soils are sigmoid-like curves when
N03~ production is plotted against time. A typical nitrification pattern
is shown in Fig. 6.5. The NB^-N concentration decreases sigmoidally
until it disappears. The N0£~ and N03~ concentrations start rising from
the first day, but by the fourth day, the concentration of N02~N more
than doubles that of the N03~N. A steady state is reached after the
seventh day when the NC^-N concentration approaches zero and the N03~N
approaches total nitrogen.
6.1.2.1.4 Plant Uptake. Crop uptake of N by harvestable crops constitutes
a significant removal of N. Table 6.8 lists the N uptake for various crops
in kg/ha. Nitrogen is returned to the soil by crop residues (Table 6.9).
The fraction of total NC>3~ in the soil that is assimilated by the roots
of growing plants varies depending on the depth and distribution of root-
ing, nitrogen loading rate, moisture movement through the root zone, and
species of plant. In general, the efficiency of uptake is not high, and
grasses tend to be more efficient than row crops. Excess available N in
the soil does not cause phytotoxicity, yet corn silage and other grass
forages that contain greater than 0.25% N03~N may cause animal health
problems (Walsh et al., 1976).
160
-------
20
c 16
o
3
5
E
o
h
12 -
8 -
4 -
\ NO2-N
. Organic-N
345
Time (days)
8
Figure 6.5. Typical sigmoid pattern of nxtrification
in soil (De Marco et al., 1967).
Reprinted by permission of the American
Water Works Association.
361
-------
TABLE 6.8 REMOVAL OF NITROGEN FROM SOILS BY CROPS AND RESIDUES*1"
Annual Crop Yield Nitrogen Uptake
Crop (metric/tons/ha) (kg/ha/yr)
Corn (Zea mays) 9.4 207
Soybeans (Glycine max) 3.4 288*
Grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) 9 280
Peanuts (Archis hypogaea) 2.8 105
Cottonseed (Gossypium hirsutum) 2 69
Wheat (Triticum aestivum) 4.3 140
Rice (Oryza sativa) 6.7 87
Oats (Arena sativa) 3.6 168
Barley (Hordeum vulgare) 5.4 168
Corn silage (Zea mays) 71.7 224
Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) 56 24
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) 17.9 504#
Alfalfa hay (Medicago sativa) 15.7 372
Coastal bermuda hay 21.3 272
(Cynodon dactylon)
Orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) 13.4 336
Bromegrass (Bromus sp.) 11.2 186
Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) 7.8 151
Reed canary grass 13.4 493
(Phalaris arundinacea)
Reed canary grass hay
(Phalaris arundinacea)
Bluegrass (Poa sp.)
Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum)
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
Carrots (Daucus carota)
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
15.7
6.7
44.8
28
44.8
annual growth
189
224
80
38
65
10
* Hart (1974).
' Where only grain is removed, a significant proportion of the nutrients
is left in the residues.
* While legumes can get most of their N from the air, if mineral nitrogen
is available in the soil, legumes will use it at the expense of fixing N
from the air.
162
-------
TABLE 6.9 THE NITROGEN RETURNED TO THE SOIL FROM UNHARVESTED OR UNGRAZED
PARTS OF STUBBLE ABOVE THE GROUND*
Crop
Nitrogen Returned to Soil
(kg/metric ton)
Corn (Zea mays)
Wheat (Tritxcum aestivum)
Rye (Secale cereale)
Oats (Avena sativa)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
9
7
7
6
24
* McCalla and Army (1961).
6.1.2.1.5 Denitrification. The microbial process whereby N03~ is
reduced to gaseous N compounds such as nitrous oxide and elemental nitro-
gen xs termed denitrification. This reaction is facilitated by heterotro-
phic, facultative anaerobic bacteria living mainly in soil micropores where
oxygen is limited. As a waste is applied on land, the rate and extent of
denitrification is likely to be governed by the organic matter content,
water content, soil type, pH, and temperature of the soil. The degree of
water saturation has a profound influence on the rate of denitrification.
The critical moisture level is about 60% of the water holding capacity of
the soil, below which practically no denitrification occurs, and above this
level denitrification increases rapidly with increases in moisture content.
The amount of N lost through denitrification as a function of water content
(described as percentage of the water holding capacity) is illustrated in
Fig. 6.6 (Bremner and Shaw, 1958).
The rate of denitrification is also greatly affected by the pH and
temperature of the soil. It tends to be very slow at pH below 5.0. The
rate increases with increasing soil pH and is very rapid at pH 8-8.5. The
optimum temperature for denitrification is about 25°C. The rate of deni-
trification increases rapidly when the temperature is increaed from 2° to
25°C. Figure 6.7 illustrates the effect of temperature on N lost as gas
over time.
Organic matter content also affects the amount and rate of denitrifi-
cation. Denitrification of N03~ by heterotrophic organisms cannot
occur unless the substrate contains an organic compound that can support
the growth of the organisms. The rate of denitrification for these materi-
als varies with their resistance to decomposition by soil microorganisms
(Table 6.10). The rate is most rapid with cellulose and slowest with
lignin and sawdust.
163
-------
cr>
O 14
TIME (Days)
16 18 20 21
Figure 6.6. Effect of soil water content on denitnflcation. 5 g. samples
of soil 4 in 300 ml. Kjeldahi flasks were incubated at 25° C.
with 5 mg. NOj-N (as KM^) and 15 mg. C (as glucose) dissolved
in different volumes of water. Water content of soil is
expressed on each graph as percentage of waterholding capacity
of soil (Bremner and Shaw, 1958). Reprinted by permission of
the Journal of Agricultural Science.
-------
lOOi
16
TIME (Days)
Figure 6.7. Effect of temperature on denitrification.
5 g. samples of soil were incubated at
various temperatures with 11 ml. water
containing 5 mg. N03-N (as KNC^) and 15
mg. C (soil 1) or 25 mg. C (soil 6) as
glucose (Brenmer and Shaw, 1958).
Reprinted by permission of the Journal
of Agricultural Science.
165
-------
TABLE 6.10 PERCENTAGE OF ADDED NITROGEN LOST DURING INCUBATION OF WATER-
LOGGED SOIL WITH NITRATE AND DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF ORGANIC
MATERIALS AT 25°C*
Organic
Materials
Added
Lignin
Sawdust
Grass
Straw
Cellulose
4t
2
5
6
7
5
50 mg
12t
3
7
8
10
29
N
added
20t
6
8
11
12
83
30 f
8
9
13
14
90
Lost
(% of
100 mg
4t
5
6
14
16
5
12t
6
9
27
28
37
added N03-N)
added
20 f
8
10
30
33
87
30 f
11
12
36
37
91
200 mg
4t
7
9
27
20
5
12t
7
11
37
44
39
added
20*
9
16
49
56
88
301"
15
18
60
84
90
* Bremner and Shaw (1958).
' Length of incubation period in days.
Denitrification can be a ma3or source of N removal from an HWLT unit
containing a high inorganic nitrogenous waste or an organic nitrogenous
waste that has been mineralized. Under the optimum conditions of neutral
to alkaline pH, high soil water or small pores filled with water, warm
temperatures, and the presence of easily decomposable organic matter,
almost 90% of the N03~N in the waste can be converted to gaseous N and
lost from the system (Bremner and Shaw, 1958).
6.1.2.1.6 Volatilization. Another mechanism for N loss is volatilization.
Ammonium salts such as (1^4)2003 can be converted to gaseous ammonia
(2HN3 + H2C03) when sludge is surface applied to coarsely textured alkaline
soils. The magnitude of such losses is highly variable, depending on the
rate of waste application, clay content of the soil, soil pH, temperature,.
and climatic conditions. In a greenhouse study, Mills et al. (1974)
reported that when pH values were above 7.2, at least half of the N applied
to a fine sandy loam was volatilized as NH3, generally within two days of
the application. In a laboratory study, Ryan and Keeney (1975) reported
NH3 volatilization from a surface applied wastewater sludge containing
950 mg/1 of ammonium-nitrogen. Volatilization values ranged from 11 to 60%
of the applied NH^-N. The greatest losses occurred in low clay content
soils with the highest application rate. Incorporating the sludge into the
soil decreases volatilization losses.
6.1.2.1.1 Storage in Soil. Both the organic and inorganic soil fractions
have the ability to fix NH^"*" in forms unavailable to plants or even
microorganisms. Clay minerals with a 2:1 type structure have this
capacity, with clays of the vermiculite group having the greatest capacity,
166
-------
followed by illite and montmorillonite. Ammonium ions fixed into the cry-
stal la'ttice of the clay do not exchange readily with other cations and are
not accessible to nitrifying bacteria (Nommik, 1965). The quantity of
NH^"*" fixed depends on the kind and amount of clay present. Figure 6.8
illustrates the amount of NH^"*" fixed by three soils receiving five con-
secutive applications of a 100 mg/1 solution of NH4+-N. The Aiken
clay, primarily kaolinite, fixed no NH^"*" and the Columbia and Sacra-
mento soils containing vermiculite and montmorillonite were capable of
fixation (Broadbent et al., 1957).
Like other cations in the waste, NH^"*" can be adsorbed onto the
negatively charged clay and organic matter colloids in soil. Retention in
this exchangeable form is temporary, and NH^"*" may become nitrified when
oxygen and nitrifying bacteria are available.
6.1.2.1.8 Immobilization. The process of immobilization is the opposite
of mineralization; it is the process by which inorganic N is converted to
an unavailable organic form. This requires an energy source for micro-
organisms such as decomposable organic matter with a carbon to N ratio
greater than 30 to 1. This condition may exist with certain industrial
wastes or cannery wastes and some crop residues, straws or pine needles.
In a study of immobilization of fertilizer N, only 2.1 kg/ha was immobil-
ized during the first 47 days after fertilization with 328 kg/ha. As soil
temperature increased above 22°C, the rate increased to an additional 60
kg/ha immobilized by day 107 (Kissel et al., 1977).
6.1.2.1.9 Runoff . At an HWLT unit containing a nitrogenous waste, the
runoff water may remove a significant amount of N, potentially polluting
adjacent waterways. However, a well designed and managed disposal site
should have minimum runoff since waste application rates would not exceed
soil infiltration capacity. Though surface runoff from HWLT units is col-
lected, it may be important to keep the runoff water of high quality if the
facility has a discharge permit. Soil and cropping management practices,
rate of waste application, and the time and method of application control
the amount of runoff. Of these factors, a highly significant correlation
between N loading rate and its average concentration in runoff water was
shown in a linear regression analysis (Khaleel et al., 1980). Application
of waste during winter and on the surface results in less rapid decomposi-
tion and high concentrations of N in runoff water. Reincorporation of
plant material into > the soil decreases N concentrations in runoff by one-
third over areas where all plant residues are removed at harvest (Zwerman
et al., 1974). Table 6.11 provides a summary of N concentrations in runoff
from areas receiving animal waste.
167
-------
40
£ 30
20
10
SACRAMENTO
NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
Figure 6.8. Clay-fixed NH^ in three soils resulting from
five applications of a solution containing
100 mg/1 NH^-N, without intervening drying
(Broadbent, 1976). Reprinted by permission of
the Division of Agricultural Sciences, Univer-
sity of California.
168
-------
TABLE 6.11 TRANSPORT OF TOTAL NITROGEN IN RUNOFF WATER FROM PLOTS
RECEIVING ANIMAL WASTE*
Location
Wisconsin
Alabama
Type of
Manure
Fresh dairy
liquid
Liquid dairy
Total N
Applied
120
95
5661
Total N
Runoff
12.7
3.6
13.8
Remarks
8 Plots, 10-
17% slope,
silt loam
12 Plots, 3.3%
Reference
Minshall et
al. (1970)
McCaskey et
Dry dairy
N. Carolina Swine
lagoon
3774
1782
7769
5179
2590
1344
al. (1971)
18.3
17.7
7.5
23.4
New York
effluent
Dairy
478
18.4
9 Plots, 1-3%
slope, sandy
loam, coastal
bermuda
24 Plots corn,
continuous
study
Khaleel et
al. (1980)
Klausner et
al. (1976)
* Total N = organic N+NH4~N + N03~N in ppm.
6.1.2.1.10 Leaching. Of all the losses of N from an HWLT unit, leaching
is the potentially most serious. Groundwater can become contaminated, and
drinking water containing greater than 10 mg/1 nitrate-nitrogen may cause
human health problems. Not only should high concentrations of N in leach-
ate be avoided, but also large amounts of leachate with a low concentration
of N. Methemoglobinemia, a reduction in the oxygen-carrying capacity of
the blood, can develop in infants when nitrate-nitrogen levels in drinking
water are greater than 10 ppm (or greater than 45 ppm nitrate).
Most studies of N leachate agree that the amount of N in percolating
water is site-dependent and difficult to extrapolate from one site to
another. Parameters that have the most direct effect on N content in
leachate are N application rate, cropping system, soil water content, soil
texture, and climate. A number of these parameters can be controlled or
modified by management practices.
A study by Bielby et al. (1973) investigates the quantity and concen-
tration of N03~ in percolates from lysimeters receiving liquid poultry
manure over three years. Nitrogen removal by corn (Zea mays), plus that in
the leachate, accounts for less than 25% of the amount applied to the soil.
The average concentration of N03~ in percolates from all treatments
exceeded the drinking water standard (10 ppm).
169
-------
6.1.2.2 Phosphorus (P)
Phosphorus is a key eutrophicatxon element and may be transported in
such forms as adsorbed phosphate and soluble phosphate by surface runoff
and groundwater, respectively. Enrichment of lake waters and sediments
with high P concentrations may create a potential for water quality
impairment and eventual extinction of aquatic life in a lake or stream.
The critical level above which eutrophication may occur has been set at
0.01 mg/1 of P. This level may be exceeded when surface runoff levels are
greater than 10 kg/ha/yr (Vollenweider, 1968). Runoff P concentrations
from well-managed agricultural lands are typically less than 0.1 kg/ha/yr
(Khaleel et al., 1980). Municipal wastewaters generally have total P
concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 40 mg/1 (Hunter and Kotalik, 1976;
Bouwer and Chaney, 1974; Pound and Curtis, 1973), while concentrations of
less than 20 mg/1 are average (Ryden and Pratt, 1980).
Phosphorus concentrations in waste streams that range from 0.01 to 50
mg/1 P pose little runoff or leachate hazard. However, P concentrations
found in waste from rock phosphate quarries, fertilizers and pesticides are
high enough to potentially contaminate runoff water or leach into the
groundwater beneath a soil with low P retention capacity. Once the
waste-soil parameters of P are adequately assessed, land treatment of P
laden hazardous wastes may be managed to successfully reduce soluble P
concentrations to the levels usually found in soil.
The soluble P concentration in the unsaturated zone of normal soil
ranges between 3 and 0.03 mg/1 (Russel, 1973), where the lower value is at
the normal level of groundwater (Reddy et al., 1979). Barber et al.
(1963) report that this value generally decreases with depth in the soil
profile. Surface soil layers tend to have a greater P adsorption capacity
than lower levels of the profile (Fig. 6.9).
Decomposition of organic wastes and dissolution of inorganic fertil-
izers provide a variety of organic and soluble forms of P in soil. Phos-
phorus may be present in such forms as soluble orthophosphate, condensed
phosphate, tripolyphosphate, adsorbed phosphate or crystallized phosphate,
thus, reflecting the chemical composition of the source and its phosphorus
content. Hydrolysis and mineralization convert most of the condensed and
polyphosphate forms to the soluble phosphate ion which is readily available
to plants and soil microorganisms. Hence, soluble orthophosphate is
released from organic wastes and soil humus through weathering and mineral-
ization. On the other hand, it is expected that organic compounds resis-
ted to decomposition will immobilize P, especially when the carbon:phos-
phorus ratio exceeds 300:1.
Given sufficient time, net mineralization will release P from organic
substrates and this solubilized P generally may be used as a nutrient
source by microbial populations degrading other carbonaceous substrates.
Degradation of organic P compounds accounts for only 10-15% of the removal
170
-------
H
a.
Ld
O
P205 IN mg/IOOg SOIL
100 200 300 400
500
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
on
-
-
j p1
i
i
i
i
••"••^^^^•p F"
ON -FLOODED SOIL
LOODED SOIL
Figure 6.9. Phosphate distribution wxth depth in non-
flooded soil and soil flooded with sewage
water (Seek and de Haan, 1973). Reprinted
by permission of the Canadian Society of
Soil Science.
171
-------
efficiency; however, microbes appear to be highly efficient in mobilizing
the natural P reservoir in soil. Phosphorus concentrations in soil in
quantities greater than the nutrient requirements for growth and substrate
decomposition will be attenuated on the adsortion sites in the soil profile
or reduced by dilution in the groundwater. Given sufficient retention
time, P will precipitate as iron, aluminum or calcium phosphate (Ballard
and Fiskell, 1974). The iron and aluminum oxides and hydrous oxides (e.g.,
hematite and gibbsite) are of primary importance since they have extremely
high absorptive capacities (Ryden and Pratt, 1980).
Retention efficiency of the soil for P is related to the soil pH,
cation exchange capacity, clay content and mineralogical composition. The
equilibrium time for soil-phosphorus interactions is influenced by the
retention time of the waste in soil, which is dependent on the soil infil-
tration capacity and permeability. The presence of organic anions and high
pH will tend to decrease P sorption (Ryden and Syers 1975). Subbarao and
Ellis (1977) and John (1974) report precipitation of calcium phosphates
following liming usually control the solubility of P in acidic soils.
Phosphorus released from point sources will move radially by diffusion
(Sawhney and Hill, 1975), thus increasing the P adsorption capacity through
additional underground travel distance. Retention time may be positively
influenced when waste leachate is slowed by the increased tortuosity or
some relatively impermeable layer. If insufficient soil volume is avail-
able above the water table, the equilibration time in shallow soil can be
drastically reduced and penetration to groundwater is likely to occur.
Phosphorus supplied in waste applications augmented over time may
saturate the P adsorption capacity of the soil , thus creating the potential
for extreme discharges to the groundwater. Adriano et al . (1975) showed
evidence of perched water table contamination by P from daily application
of food processing waste in quantities that exceed the adsorption maxima.
Lund et al. (1976) observed that coarsely textured soil is enriched with P
to a depth of 3 meters below sewage disposal ponds . Since soil has a
finite capacity to fix P, attention should be directed to the long-term
effect of waste applications containing P on the adsorption mechanisms.
The Langmuir isotherm has been used to estimate the P adsorption maxi-
mum of several soils (Table 6.12). To prepare a Langmuir isotherm test,
standard amounts of soil are shaken wich a known concentration of KH2P04
over a dilution range of 0 to 100 mg/1 of P. When the mass of the P
adsorbed per gram of soil is linear with the equilibrium concentration of
the P remaining in solution, the sorption maximum can be calculated from
the slope . The Langmuir equation is :
C/b = C/b^x + (l/Kb^) (6.1)
where
C = equilibrium P concentration (yg/ml);
b = P adsorbed on soil surface (yg/g soil);
= adsorption maximum of the soil (yg/g soil), and
K = constant related to the bonding energy.
172
-------
The Langmuir adsorption maximum must be evaluated with the mineralogy,
since P retention is known to improve when aluminum and iron are present in
the soil. Successive P sorptlons (Fig. 6.10) have been found to decrease
the P sorption capacities of the soil (Sawhney and Hill, 1975). After
wetting and drying treatments, the P sorption capacity may be reestablished
in some soils such as the Merrimac sandy loam. In the Buxton silty clay
loam the P sorption capacity was only partially reestablished. Thus, P in
waste leachate in quantities that exceed the adsorption capacity can be
expected to pass through the profile to groundwater.
TABLE 6.12 SUMMARY OF PHOSPHORUS ADSORPTION VALUES*
Compound
Location
Michigan
Florida
New Brunswick
New Jersey
Maine
No. of
Soil Samples
29-100
6
24
17
3
Notes
Average for 1 m depth
Average for 50 cm depth
Soils from upper B
horizon
A, B and C horizons
From column tests
Sorption Capacity
or b max.
mgP/100 g soil
1.81-49.0
nil - 28.0
227-1760
0.165-355
26-71
New York
Wisconsin
2
5
31
240
Average for 31 soils
A, B and C horizons
and deeper
A, B and C horizons
13.3-25.9
3.8-51.0
12.0
0.3-278
2.5-20
* Tofflemire and Chen (1977),
Harvested forage crops may be used to remove as much as 50 to 60% of
the P applied (Russel, 1973), however, annually harvested crops normally
remove less than 10% of the annual P application (Ryden and Pratt, 1980).
Furthermore, as the application of P increases, crop removal of the element
decreases (Ryden and Pratt, 1980). Maximum crop removal is dependent on
crops having a large rooting mass such as various grasses (Table 6.13).
Moreover, studies have shown that P is the most limiting plant nutrient for
production of legumes (Vallentine, 1971; Brady, 1974; Heath et al., 1978;
Chessmore, 1979). A grass-legume mixture with legume species dominating
may be a viable alternative to enhance P uptake in many land treatment
units. Various herbaceous species may be clipped either two or three times
a year, thus allowing significantly greater P removal.
173
-------
14
ia
10
9
lit
ftaqmratc
3rd
BUXTON 3IU
12349
P IN SOL., MxlO"4
Figure 6.10.
General Langmuir isotherms of Merrimac
sandy loam and Buxton silt loam after
successive P sorptions and following
wetting and drying treatments for regen-
eration of P sorption sites (Sawhney and
Hill, 1975). Reprinted by permission of
the American Society of Agronomy, Inc.
174
-------
TABLE 6.13 REMOVAL OF PHOSPHORUS BY THE USUAL HARVESTED PORTION OF
SELECTED CROPS
Crop Annual Crop Yield Phosphorus Uptake
(Metric tons/ha) (kg/ha/yr)
Corn (Zea mays) 11 35
Cotton (Gossyplum hirsutum)
Lint and seed 4.1 19
Wheat (Triticum aestivum) 5.2 22
Rice (Oryza sativa) 7.8 22
Soybeans (Glycine max) 3.0 25
Grapes (Vitus sp.) 27 11
Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) 90 34
Cabbage (Brassica oleracea) 78 18
Oranges (Citrus sp.) 60 11
Small grain, corn-hay
rotation 32
Reed canary grass 45
(Phalaris arundinacea)
Corn silage (gea mays) 30-40
Poplar trees (Populus sp.) 26-69
Barley (Hordeum vulgare)-
sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense)
rotation for forages* 84-95
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) 27 94
Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) 26 50
Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) 7.8 32
* Unpublished data for barley in the winter followed by sudan grass in the
summer. P.F. Pratt and S. Davis, University of California, and USDA-ARS,
Riverside, California.
175
-------
Application of P from wastewater may be described as either a low
application rate system, usually less than 10 mg/1 or a. high rate applica-
tion system, consisting of greater than 10 mg/1 (Ryden and Pratt, 1980).
Low rate systems use crop uptake as a sink for both the P and wastewaters
applied. The P rates applied and the crop yields are comparable to those
attained under good agronomic management of intensive cropland. Movement
of P in this type of system is generally very slow since the P is retained
near the zone of incorporation. The essential features of a low rate
system are removal of a large amount of P by a forage crop, control of
surface runoff to prevent erosion, and reduction of P concentrations to a
desirable level by using a long pathway of highly sorptive materials
between the soil surface and the discharge point of water into surface or
groundwaters (Ryden and Pratt, 1980).
High-rate wastewater treatment systems usually have large quantities
of water moving through the soil profile and the quantities of P applied
are higher than those normally used on intensively farmed croplands. Thus,
this system usually requires coarse gravelly soils which can maintain high
infiltration rates (Ryden and Pratt, 1980). Generally, a cycle of flooding
and drying is used to maintain the infiltration capacity of the system and
increase the P sorption capacity by enhancing the oxidation-reduction
cycle. Soils with a high sand or organic content that have low contents
of iron and aluminum hydrous oxides associated with a low surface area are
most likely to have the greatest leaching of P (Syers and Williams, 1977).
Ryden and Pratt (1980) report P removal by harvested crops, in a high rate
system, to be insignificant unless P concentrations are less than 1 mg/1.
6.1.2.3 Boron (B)
The B concentration in rocks varies from 10 ppm in igneous rocks to
100 ppm in sandstones. The average soil concentration of B is 10 ppm
(Bowen, 1966). High levels of B are most likely to occur in soil derived
from marine sediments and arid soils. In most humid region soils, B is
bound in the form of tourmaline, a borosilicate that releases B quite
slowly. Most of the available soil B is held by the organic fraction where
it is tightly retained. Boron is released as the organics decompose and is
quite subject to leaching losses. Some B is adsorbed by iron and aluminum
hydroxy compounds and clay minerals. Finer textured soils retain added B
longer than do coarse, sandy soils. Therefore, less B can be applied to
sandy soil than to fine-textured soil (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). Boron
sorption by clay minerals and iron and aluminum oxides is pH dependent,
with maximum sorption in the pH range 7-9. The amount of B adsorbed
depends on the surface area of the clay or oxide and this sorption is only
partially reversible, indicating the retention is by covalent bonding.
Boron is frequently deficient in acid soils, light-textured sandy
soils, alkaline soils, and soils low in organic matter. Boron availability
to plants is decreased by liming, but the increase of pH alone is not
sufficient to decrease B absorption. Fox (1968) found that both high
176
-------
levels of calcium and high pH values reduced B uptake by cotton by nearly
50%, but that high calcium concentrations or high pH studied separately had
little influence on reducing B uptake.
Boron in plants is involved in protein synthesis, nitrogen and carbo-
hydrate metabolism, root system development, fruit and seed formation, and
the regulation of plant water relations (Brady, 1974). The symptoms of B
deficiency vary somewhat from one plant species to another. Symptoms often
include dieback, chlorotic spotting of leaves and necrosis in fruits and
roots (Bradford, 1966).
The difference between the amount of B which results in deficiencies
and that which is toxic is very small. Boron-sensitive plants can tolerate
between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm available B in soils while boron-tolerant plants
usually show toxicity symptoms at 10 ppm B (Bingham, 1973). Table 6.14
shows the tolerance limits of several plant species to boron. The first
symptoms of B injury are generally leaf-tip yellowing, followed by a pro-
gressive necrosis of the leaf. Leaching of B below the root zone is recom-
mended in the case of moderate toxicity. Moderate liming of the soil or
liberal application of nitrogen fertilizers may be beneficial (Bradford,
1966).
If B can be leached from the soil at concentrations acceptable for
groundwater discharge, B may be applied continously in small amounts as
long as it does not accumulate to toxic levels. No drinking water stand-
ard has been set for human consumption; however, water used for cattle
should contain less than 5 ppm B.
6.1.2.4 Sulfur (S)
The earth's crust contains about 600 ppm S and soils have an average S
content of 700 ppm (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). Since S is a constituent of
some amino acids, it is an important plant nutrient. The widespread occur-
rence of S in nature ensures that it will be a common industrial waste
product. Wastes from kraft mills, sugar refining, petroleum refining, and
copper and iron extraction all contain appreciable amounts of S (Overcash
and Pal, 1979).
Because of its anionic nature and the solubility of most of its salts,
leaching losses of S can be quite large. Leaching is greatest when mono-
valent cations such as potassium and sodium predominate and moderate leach-
ing occurs where calcium and magnesium predominate. When the soil is
acidic and appreciable levels of exchangeable iron and aluminum are pres-
ent, S leaching losses are minimal (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
Land application sites where wastes containing large amounts of S are
disposed must be well drained. The hydrogen sulfide formed in reducing
conditions is toxic and has an unpleasant odor. Since acid is formed by
oxidation of S compounds, the pH of the site must be monitored and regu-
lated. In the soil under aerobic conditions, bacteria oxidize the more
177
-------
TABLE 6.14 CROP TOLERANCE LIMITS FOR BORON IN SATURATION EXTRACTS OF SOIL*1
Tolerant
Semitolerant
Sensitive
4.0 ppm B
2.0 ppm B
1.0 ppm B
00
Athel (Tamarix aphylla)
Asparagus officinalis
Palm (Phoenix canariensis)
Date palm (P_. dactylifera)
Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris)
Mangel (Beta vulgaris)
Garden beet (Beta vulgaris)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
Gladiolus (Gladiolus sp.)
Broadbean (Vicia faba)
Onion (Allium cepa)
Turnip (Brassica rapa)
Cabbage (Brassica oleracea
var. capitata)
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
Carrot (Daucus carota)
Sunflower (Hellanthus annus)
Potato (Solanum tuberosum)
Cotton, Acala and Pima
(Gossypium sp.)
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)
Sweetpea (Lathyrus odoratus)
Radish (Raphanus sativus)
Field pea (Pisum sativum)
Ragged-robin rose (Rosa sp.)
Olive (Plea europaea)
Barley (Hordeum vulgare)
Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Corn (Zea mays)
Milo (Sorghum bicolor)
Oat (Avena sativa)
Zinnia (Zinnia elegans)
Pumpkin (Cucurbita spp.)
Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum)
Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas)
Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus)
Pecan (Carya illnoensis)
Walnut, Black and Persian, or
English (Juglans spp.)
Jerusalem artichoke
(Hellanthus tuberosus)
Navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Plum (Prunus domestica)
Pear (Pyrus communis)
Apple (Malus sylvestris)
Grape, Sultanina and Malaga
(Vitus sp.)
Kodata fig (Ficus carica)
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
Cherry (Prunus sp.)
Peach (Prunus persica)
Apricot (Prunus armeniaca)
Thornless blackberry (Rubus sp.)
Orange (Citrus sinensis)
Avocado (Persea americana)
Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi)
Lemon (Citris limon)
2.0 ppm B
1.0 ppm B
0.3 ppm B
* Bresler et al. (1982).
' For each group, tolerant, semitolerant, and sensitive, the range of tolerable boron is indicated,
tolerance decreases in descending order in each column.
-------
reduced forms of S to form sulfate which will decrease the pH. In water-
logged soils, anaerobic bacteria reduce sulfides, generating hydrogen
sulfide.
Some soils have the capacity of retain sulfates in an adsorbed form.
At a given pH, adsorption is least when the cation adsorbed on the clay is
potassium, moderate when the adsorbed cation is calcium, and greatest when
the adsorbed cation is aluminum (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). Adsorption by
clay minerals is ranked as kaolinite
-------
mixed with the soil, then the acidic waste can be applied. This method
will prevent the solubilization and leaching of metals in the soil. Addi-
tion of acids and bases to the soil can increase the concentration of solu-
ble salts in the system. For a discussion of salts, refer to Section
6.1.4. Management of soil pH is discussed in Section 8.6.
6.1.4 Salts
By definition, a salt is any substance that yields ions upon dissolu-
tion other than hydrogen ions or hydroxyl ions. For all practical purposes
in agriculture and land treatment, this definition has been narrowed to
include only the major dissolved solids in natural waters and soils. The
principal ions involved are calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chlor-
ide, sulfate, bicarbonate and occasionally nitrate. Salts occur naturally
in many soils and are a common constituent of hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes. Salt inputs to the soil may occur from fertilizer applications,
precipitation, and irrigation. Typical irrigation practices may result in
annual salt applications to soil which exceed 4000 kg/ha. Table 6.15 lists
the salinity classes of water.
The behavior of salts in soil and thexr influence on plant growth has
been studied by agricultural scientists for many years and is still the
topic of extensive research. The U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (USDA,
1954) and Bresler et al. (1982) have reviewed various aspects of soil
salinity, including diagnosis and management of salt affected soils.
Salinity problems may result from the bulk osmotic effects of salts on the
soil-plant system and the individual effects of specific ions, especially
sodium.
6.1.4.1 Salinity
The concentration of salt in water can be expressed in terms of elec-
trical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), osmotic pressure,
percent salt by weight, and normality. Electrical conductivity in mmhoss/cm
is the preferred measurement for solutions of common salts or combinations
of salts. The following factors are useful for obtaining an approximate
conversion of units.
(0.35) x (EC mmhos/cm) = Osmotic pressure in bars
(651) x (EC mmhos/cm) = TDS mg/1
(10) x (EC mmhos/cm) = Normality meq/1
(0.065) x (EC mmhos/cm) = Percent salt by weight
Measuring the concentration of salts in soil first requires that an
aqueous soil extract be obtained. Extracts taken from soils at field mois-
ture content will seldom provide a sufficient quantity for analysis. On
the other hand, exhaustive leaching or extraction at very high moisture
contents will yield a sample that is not typical of the soil solution
180
-------
TABLE 6.15 WATER CLASSES IN RELATION TO THEIR SALT CONCENTRATION*
Electrxcal
Class Conductivity
of micromho Milligrams
Water per cm at 25°C per liter
Kilograms
per hectare-30 cm
Comments
00
Low 0- 400 0- 250 0- 800 These waters can be used for irrigat-
salinity ing most crops with a low probability
water that salt problems will develop. Some
leach is required, but this generally
occurs with normal irrigation prac-
tices .
Moderate 400-1,200 250- 750 800-2,200 These waters can be used if a moderate
salinity amount of leaching occurs. Plants
water with moderate salt tolerance can be
grown in most instances without spe-
cial practices for salinity control.
High 1,200-2,250 750-1,450 2,200-3,300 These waters should not be used on
salinity soils with restricted drain age. Spe-
water cial management is required even with
adequate drainage. Plants tolerant to
salinity should be grown. Excess
water must be applied for leaching.
Very high 2,250-5,000 1,450-3,200 3,300-9,600 These waters are not suitable for
salinity irrigation except under very special
water circumstances. Adequate drainage is
essential. Only very salt-tolerant
crops should be grown. Considerable
excess water must be applied for
leaching.
* Bresler et al. (1982).
-------
because of the effect of ion exchange and mineral dissolution. As a com-
promise, soil saturation has been selected for obtaining aqueous extracts
(USDA, 1954). A sufficient amount of solution can usually be extracted
with vacuum from 200-300 grams of soil. The concentration of salts in soil
is, therefore, commonly expressed as the EC of a saturated soil paste
extract. The relationship of salt concentration in the soil to the EC of a
saturation extract is influenced by the moisture holding capacity of the
soil as illustrated in Fig. 6.11. The EC of a saturation extract does not
directly reflect the salinity of the soil solution, but the saturation
extract is the best practical means to obtain such a measurement. Under a
typical irrigated crop system, the average salinity of the soil solution is
approximately twice the salinity of the saturation extract (Rhoades, 1974);
however, use of the saturation extract is so widely practiced that it is
the measure best correlated in the literature to plant growth responses,
soil structure, and other observations of soil condition.
In the absence of adequate rainfall or irrigation and subsequent
drainage, applied or naturally occurring salts can accumulate on the soil
surface and in upper horizons of the soil. Salt concentrations in the soil
that exceed 4 mmhos/cm can inhibit growth of sensitive plants and may
retard microbial activity. Physical and chemical characteristics of the
soil are also affected by salt accumulation. Severe salt accumulation can
be disastrous to a land treatment system and may require costly remedial
action. Furthermore, soluble salts are relatively mobile in the soil and
can easily migrate to ground or surface waters, resulting in pollution.
Management of salts applied in irrigation water or waste materials there-
fore requires that salt accumulation be controlled, while at the same time
pollution of ground or surface waters is prevented.
Many schemes for managing salt accumulation and migration assume
steady state conditions and that applied salts do not interact with the
soil matrix. Salts do, however, interact with the soil matrix. They may
be precipitated as insoluble compounds, sorbed by soil colloids, or dis-
solved in the soil solution. The extent of precipitation, sorption and
dissolution depends upon the salt concentration in the soil, the ionic
species present, soil physical and chemical properties, and the moisture
content of the soil. Predicting the concentration of salts in the soil
solution at any given time for a particular soil is therefore difficult.
The assumptions of steady state and no interactions may be valid in an
irrigated crop system, but is not applicable to many land treatment
systems, especially those receiving relatively heavy and infrequent waste
applications. Understanding soil and salt interactions may, and should,
be quantified and included in the waste application rate design.
f
Where inadequate water or poor soil drainage prevent leaching of salts
from the treatment zone or the plant root zone, salts will concentrate in
the soil through evaporation. The soil surface behaves like a semi-per-
meable membrane allowing soil water to enter the atmosphere through evapo-
ration while leaving dissolved salts at or near the soil surface. Once
salts are deposited at the soil surface in this manner, additional soil
water and its dissolved salts are driven to the surface by osmotic forces
in addition to evaporative demand. For this reason, many saline soils will
182
-------
75--
i -
25--
SATURATION
PERCENTAGE
24 6 S 10 12 14
EC OF SATURATION EXTRACT IN MMHOS/CM
Figure 6.11. Correlation of salt concentration in the soil to the EC of
saturation extracts for various soil types (USDA, 1954).
183
-------
appear to be moist, when in reality there is little or no water available
for plants or waste decomposing microbes.
Soil salinity inhibits plant growth by restricting plant uptake of
water. As the osmotic gradient between the soil solution and plant roots
increases, the plant uptake of water and nutrients decreases. This same
mechanism may also adversely affect the growth of soil microbes. Crop
sensitivity to salt damage varies between different species and varieties
depending on the specific salts present. See Table 6.16 for general crop
response to soil salinity and Table 6.17 for the salt tolerance of various
crops. For specific choice of the proper plant species, other factors,
such as drought tolerance and regional adaptation, must be considered.
Additional guidance on species selection is provided in Section 8.7.
TABLE 6.16 GENERAL CROP RESPONSE AS A FUNCTION OF ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY*
EC (mmhos/cm)
0-2
2-4
4-8
8-16
greater than 16
Degree of
None
Slight to
Many crops
Problem
none
affected
Only tolerant crops yield well
Only very
tolerant crops yield well
* USDA (1954).
Salts that accumulate in surface soils may be reduced by precipita-
tion, irrigation, and to a small extent by crop uptake. In the presence of
adequate precipitation or irrigation, the salts dissolve and are then car-
ried away in runoff or are leached into the subsoil. Leached salts may be
transported back to the soil surface as a result of evaporation if subse-
quent precipitation or irrigation does not occur. If a sufficient quantity
of drainage water passes through the soil profile, leached salts may be
carried farther into the subsurface and may intercept groundwater. The
concentration and quantity of salts present in drainage water and that re-
maining in the surface soil may be approximated by a mass balance approach
such as that proposed by Rhoades (1974).
In general, management of the soil-plant system to prevent damaging
salt accumulation in surface soils includes the following:
(1) limiting the amount of salt applied to the soil in
irrigation water or waste;
(2) using salt tolerant crops;
(3) maintaining a healthy vegetative cover or mulching;
(4) properly scheduling irrigation and waste applications; and
184
-------
TABLE 6.17 THE RELATIVE PRODUCTIVITY OF PLANTS WITH INCREASING SALT
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ROOT ZONE*t
X ftoducetvity
Relative Productivity I at Selected KG mho/en decrease per
-_..---_ -._ . _ - -.- -— -i • •- ....-- .-. , ..-- — , __ __hn/M
Plant
St-HSlTlVE
Algerian Ivy
(Hedera canarienvla)
(Pcunua dulclt)
(Halus aylvevtrl*)'
Apricot
(PrumiB anieniaca)
Avocado
(Percea a»erlcan«>
Bean
(Phaseolu* vulg'rif)
Blackberry
(Itubua flpp )
Boyaenberry
(Kubus urBJtiua)
BurCord holly
(Ilex cornuta)
Carrot
(Daucus carota)
Celery
(Aplim graveolenB)*
Grapefruit
(Cltru. par. dm)
j . Heavenly baaboo
m (Handlna do»eatlca)
{jl Hibiscus (HibiBCua
ro8«-elnenslB)
Lemon (CltruB lljonr
Okra (AbelaOBchua
esculentue)'
Onion (Allluai cepa)
Orange
(Cltrua alnenala)
Peach (PrunuB peraida)
Pear (PyruB app )*
Pinapple guava
(Feljoa aellovlana)
Plun
(PrunuB doncBtlca)
Prune
(Ecunua doKatlca)'
PittoBporuH
(Plttoaporum toblra.)'f
Raspberry
(Rubua Idaeus)'
Rose
(Rosa spp )
Strawberry
(Fragarla sp )
1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
91
91
91
90
81
89
89
82
86
90
97
88
86
91
90
87
95
94
91
71
91
91
89
80
74
67
62
73
75
68
70
62
67
67
59
72
75
81
75
72
75
71
79
73
75
34
73
75
79
62
36
33
35
55
45
43
44
44
36
58
65
61
58
55
63
52
0
55
69
0
n
0
36
23
25
22
22
14
44
48
47
42
39
48
31
36
60
-
18 0
0
6 0
0
0
0
10 15 10
32 16 0
34 20 70
28 15 0
23 6 0
32 16 0
10 0
18 0
50 40 30 20
- —
18
-
29
- —
18 9
22 2
22 2
—
14 1
16 1
—
—
16 1
15 9
18 8
18 2
_—
33 3
Salinity
Threahold
BC
1 0
1 5
1 0
1 6
1 0
1 0
1 1
I 5
I 0
I 0
i a
\ 8
1 0
1 0
1 0
I 2
1 7
3 2
1 0
1 2
1 5
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
-------
TAIU 6 I) (contlnu.J)
00
Relative rroductlvlty, t at Selected EC Mho/en
Plant
Star JaMlne
(TracheloiperBu*
Jatainoidea)
HODEKATBLt SOtStTIVE
Alfalfa
(Hedlcago eacLva)
Arborvttae
(Thuja orlentaua)+
Bottlebruah
(Calllttevon
vl»lnalia)'r
Boxwood
(Buxua Bicrophylla
var Japonlca)
Broadbean (Vlcla taba)
Cauliflower""""""" ~~^"~
(Braaaica oleraeea)'
Cabbage
(Braaaica oleracea
var Capltata)
Clover, alaike ladltw
red, atrawberrjr
(TrlfoUo. app )
Corn forage
(Zea ajajra)
Corn grain atfeet
(Zea «aya_)
Cowpea
(Vlgna ungulculata)
Cucunber
(Cuattuola aatlvua)
Dodonet (Dedonta
vlacoaa var
Atropurpurea)
Flax
(Vinun usitatlaaiBua)
Crape (Vitt« app )
Juniper
(Junlperua chinenaia)
Lantana
(Lantana caajera)
Lettuce
(Latuea aatlya)
Lovegraaa
(Eragroalla app )
Meadow foxtail
(Alopecurua
pratenatc)
Muskaelon
(Cucuaia Belo)'
I
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2
83
100
100
94
96
96
100
98
94
99
96
90
100
94
96
95
91
92
91
100
95
100
Z Itoductlvltr
decreaae per
Mho/t*
61
93
91
85
86
87
93
88
82
91
84
76
94
86
84
86
81
82
78
92
85
95
40
as
81
77
76
77
85
79
70
84
72
61
81
77
72
76
72
72
65
83
76
80
18
78
72
68
65
67
69
58
76
60
47
68
68
60
66
63
62
52
75
66
0
71
62
59
54
5»
59
40
69
48
33
55
59
48
57
54
51
39
66
56
64
52
50
43
48
50
34
61
36
19
42
51
36
47
45
41
26
58
47
56
43
41
32
38
40
22
54
24
4
29
42
24
38
36
30
13
49
37
49
33
33
21
29
30
10
47
12
0
16
33
12
28
27
20
0
41
27
42 34 27 20 12
24
11 0
19 10 0
20 11 I 0
0
39 32 24 17 10
0
3 0
25 17 90
0
18 9 0
18 9 0
9 0
32 24 15 70
17 8 0
7 3
—
10 8
9 6
9 7
12 0
7 4
12 0
14 3
13 0
7 a
12 0
9 5
9 5
13 0
8 5
9 7
—
Salinity
Thtettuld
EC
1 6
2 0
2 0
1 5
1 7
1 6
2 5
1 8
I 5
1 8
1 7
1 3
2 5
1 0
1 7
1 5
1 5
1 8
1 3
2 0
1 5
2 5
-------
TABLE 6 17 (continued)
Relative Productivity X at Selected EC nnho/ca
Plant
Oleander
(Nerium oleander)*
Pea
(Plaum aatlvua)'
Peanut
(Arachia Ityppgaca)
Pepper
(Capslcua anmin)
Potato
(Solanuq tuberosua)
Pyracantha
(Pyracancha braperi)
Radish
(Raphanus Bativua)
Rice Faddy
(Oryza sativa)
Sesbanla
(Sesbanla exaltata)
Spinach
(Spinacia oleracea)
Squash
(Cucurblta maxlaa)'
Sugarcane (Saccharua
officinarum)
Sllverberry
(Elaeagnus pungens)
Sweet potato
(Ipomoea batatas)
Texas privet
(Ligustrun lucidua)
Tomato (Lycoperslcon
esculentuo)
Trefoil Big
(Lotus uliginosus)
Vetch Common
(Vicla sativa)
Viburnum
(Viburnum spp )
Xylosoa
(Xylosma sentlcosa)
MODERATELY TOLERANT
Alkali sacaton
(Sporobolus
airotdes)^
Barley forage
(Hordeum vulgare)
Beet garden
(Beta yulgarla)
Broccoli
(Brasalca oleracea
var Capltata)
1
100
100
100
100
100
loo
100
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
93
96
99
90
100
100
100
100
98
°5
95
94
100
100
100
90
94
100
100
loo
100
93
90
100
79
84
90
77
100
95
92
90
92
87
84
85
95
87
100
73
81
100
100
98
86
77
65
72
81
64
88
88
85
74
86
78
73
75
85
68
89
58
67
100
100
89
79
49
51
60
72
51
76
81
77
81
69
62
66
75
49
78
44
54
100
91
80
72
20
37
48
62
38
63
74
70
75
59
51
56
65
30
67
32
40
100
82
71
65
0
23
36
53
25
51
67
62
69
50
40
46
55
11
56
20
27
93
73
61
58
8
24
43
12
39
60
55
63
41
29
36
46
0
44
10
14
86
64
52
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
51 44 37 30 24
0
12 0
34 24 14 6 0
0
27 15 2 0 »
53 47 40 33 26 19
47 39 32 24 17 9
57 51 45 39 34 28
32 23 15 16 0
18 7 0
26 16 7 0
36 26 16 6 0
33 22 11 0
0
0
79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30 23 15 8
55 46 38 29 20 11 2 0
43 34 25 16 6 0
—•continued—
I Productivity
decrease per
• ' • — anho/ca
23 24 Increase
28 6
14 1
12 0
9 1
13 0
12 2
7 0
7 6
—
5 9
—
11 0
9 1
9 9
18 9
11 1
13 2
13 3
—
7 0
9 0
9 1
Salinity
Threshold
EC
2 0
2 5
3 2
1 5
1 7
Z 0
1 2
3 0
2 3
2 0
2 5
1 7
I 6
1 5
2 0
2 5
2 3
3 0
1 4
1 5
—
6 0
4 0
2 8
-------
I 17
00
00
lalatln
Flaat
Clavar, aaraaa*
(TrlMlM
alaxaa4rlal*H)
Dcacaaa
(Oraeaaa aaJlrtaa)
laodraaa
(tin«r»n faaoalca
var graa41flo»)
Taaeaa
(faataca elaelar)
rif (ficaa earAea)'
•arflaffraM
(raalarla tvbaroaa)
Kala Ifctaaaica
eaaaaacria)"
Oliva lAlaa aarovaaa)
Orettarl graaa
(DattjUa iloaarata)
Veaafraaaea
(rttaiea craaataa)'
Kyairaaa, faraaaial
(Lollaa: aaraaaa)
lattloaar (Carthaaaa
tlactwlaaT1*
Moriha alcaltr)
aortaaa (Qreloa «a«)
tadaafraaa
(fefiaaai aaaaoaaaa)
Trafoll, MrOfoac
(Letaa eotaiealataa
taaalfollw)
Hhaac
(Irlttcoai aaatlaiaa)
Vlldrya, aaardlaaa
(Unaa erltleolaaa)
TOUUXTi
larlajr, fraia
(H»raaa« vnlgara)
tarwdagran
(Cyaodea a'aetylom)
•ougalarillaa
Cottcu
(Goaayalnai alcaataa)
Data
(n»aalx aactrlltara)
1
100
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2
n
100
100
100
100
100
100
t7
100
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
tl
100
100
100
100
100
too
tl
100
100
too
100
100
tt
100
100
tl
4
M
»*
M
100
100
too
100
M
100
100
100
100
100
H
100
100
t2
100
100
100
100
100
5
to
15
tt
to
t7
100
to
71
to
100
100
tl
100
"
too
100
It
100
100
too
100
96
1
74
71
It
15
II
100
15
72
15
t7
100
to
to
86
W
100
M
100
100
100
100
tl
7
,,
17
100
It
12
to
H
It
t7
It
M
12
W
tl
7t
100
tt
100
100
tt
1
11
51
77
71
7t
60
12
to
71
to
71
70
W
M
100
11
100
tl
M
i rtoaactl.ltj.
t
57
4t
52
71
<7
51
74
15
70
20
71
M
7t
W
t5
17
tl
12
10
51
to
27
M
5t
47
67
W
,j
0
tt
SO
71
56
to
W
II
71
II
tl
11
0
12
52
tl
5t
75
56
65
40
(4
50
15
74
I]
75
tat
12
40
22
57
44
15
52
50
50
fl
N
57
44
M
(7
71
71
lalactal 1C aaha/M
11
M
11
52
M
a
44
41
M
20
50
11
75
II
71
61
14
2t
4
47
2t
22
M
M
52
10
41
12
70
54
17
14
15 II 17 II It 20 21 22 21 24
21 17 II (0
0
tl It 11 25 20
21 14 i 0
11 10 4 0
2t 21 14 t 0
2t 22 15 1 0
41 41 11 15 10
0
16 2t 21 14 7
26 20 14 1 2
15 10 55 50 45 to 15 » 25 20
41 42 15 2t 22 It 10 1 0
U 57 52 47 41 36 11 26 21 II
<0 57 51 tt 46 »2 » 15 11 29
X rtoaactlitty
aacraaaa par
laeraaaa
5 1
t 1
__
5 1
—
7 1
— •
_^
6.1
— •-
7 t
—
200
t 1
too
7 1
i 0
50
4 4
*~~
3 2
It
taUaltr
TataahoM
K
1 5
40
7 0
It
4 2
4 1
1 5
4 0
1 5
—
5 1
t 5
4 1
50
2 1
50
10
2.7
1 0
t t
1 5
7 7
4 0
-------
TABU 6 17 (continued)
Relative
Plant 1 2
fetal Plm
(Carliai ftrandlflora)'
Rooeaary (Rojsgrlott*
lockvoodllT^
Sugarbeet
(Bete vulgarla)
Wheatgra»i crested
(Agropyron deseTtoriM)
UheatgraH fairway
(Ajtropyron crlstatua)
Vheatgraas, tail
(Agropyron elonxatua)
Ulldrye altal
(Elywa aaguBtua)
100
100
99
100
100
100
»5
100
5*
100
100
100
too
85
too
90
100
100
100
75
100
86
100
100
8
92
94
82
97
98
: Productivity
9
89
78
90
9*
10
68
82
74
83
89
11
76
70
Ik
85
tat
12
71
66
69
81
Selected K wiho/c*
1}
65
62
62
77
It
59
58
55
73
15
53
54
48
68
16
47
50
41
64
17
41
46
34
60
18
35
42
28
56
19
29
38
21
52
20
24
34
14
47
21
18
30
7
43
Z
i
22 23 24
12 6 0
26 22 18
0
39 35 31
Productivity
lecreaae per
B»ho/c»
Increase
5 9
4 0
6 9
4 2
~~~
Salinity
Threshold
EC
6 0
4 5
7 0
3 5
7 5
7 5
~
00
* Brealer et ml (1982)
* Salt concentration U chovn «s the electrical conductivity of Mturated «oU extract! (EC)
' Tabled values are estlwitei based on the EC for a relative yield of 901 and yield reduction* for similar crop! aa EC Increaoea
+ The lover part of the yield curve approaches zero asyaptottcaUy to the absicissa* only linear data ara atom
5 Tabled value* are baatd on three data pointa available in the literature
** Tabled value* an baawl on three data point! productivity drop* aharply towards zero for the lower SOX productivity
-------
(5) prudent leaching of salts below the root zone through
irrigation.
In addition, migration of unacceptable quantities of salts to ground or
surface waters may be controlled by.
(1) using soil erosion and runoff control practices;
(2) avoiding locations with shallow unconfined aquifers;
(3) limiting the amount of applied salt through optimum waste
application rates in conjunction with soil, soil water, and
groundwater monitoring, and
(4) using effective irrigation practices.
Where salts are anticipated to be a problem in a given waste, choice of a
site having at least moderately well drained soils is essential to maintain
the usefulness of the land treatment unit. In soils where a high water
table causes continued capillary rise of salts, subsurface drainage (e.g.,
drain tile or ditches) can be installed to lower the water table and the
associated capillary fringe.
Aside from these general guidelines, there is no reliable and widely
available means to quantify acceptable salt loading rates and management
practices. The approach described by the Salinity Laboratory Staff (USDA,
1954) is inappropriate to the case of intentional salt applications, and,
even if it were modified to better fit the given case, the method is too
simplistic to reliably yield results that are accurate enough for design
purposes. Therefore, it is recommended that this simplistic approach not
be patently applied to all situations. Some, more complex, computer models
which show promise are in developmental or modification stages (Dutt et
al., 1972; Franklin, personal communication). These models, however, would
require considerable alteration to apply generally and in a land treatment
context. Based on the current lack of a definitive solution to the prob-
lem, salt management questions in a land treatment system should be
referred to a soil scientist having specific experience regarding saline
and sodic soils. Other useful information can be found in a book by
Bresler and McNeal (1982).
6.1.4.2 Sodicity
Sodium, as a constituent of soluble salts contained in applied waste
or irrigation water, deteriorates soil structure and exhibits direct toxic
effects on sensitive crops. When soluble salts accumulate in the surface
soil, sodium salts may be preferentially concentrated in the soil solution
because of their higher solubility in comparison to the corresponding cal-
cium, magnesium, or potassium salts. Sodium ions are, therefore, more
available for plant uptake and to compete in cation exchange reactions with
soil colloids. Sodic effects on soils and crops can be minimized by limit-
190
-------
ing the amount of applied sodium and by maintaining a favorable balance
between sodium ions and other basic cations in the soil solution.
Sodium affects soil structure by dispersing flocculated organic and
inorganic soil colloids. Dispersion occurs when sodium ions are adsorbed
to clay surfaces and colloidal organic matter causing individual particles
to repel one another. In addition, sodium ions can hydrolyze water mole-
cules resulting in elevated soil pH and dissolution of soil organic matter
that holds soil aggregates together (Taylor and Ashcroft, 1972). As soil
aggregates are collapsed by raindrop impact and tillage, the infiltration
capacity and hydraulic conductivity of the soil decrease significantly.
Air and water entry into soil is then restricted so runoff increases, soil
erosion increases, plants die, and oxidative waste degradation processes in
the soil are slowed. Sodium affected soils can be reclaimed by adding
various soil amendments and intensively managing the site. Reclamation
efforts, however, can be costly and are often ineffective. The threshold
sodium concentration of the soil solution that results in dispersion of
soil colloids is influenced by several factors including the following.
(1) the relative concentration of sodium to calcium and magne-
sium is commonly expressed as the sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR) where concentrations are expressed in normality
(meq/1)
SAR - tNa] . .
SAR " /[Ca] + [MglW? (6'2)
(2) the salinity of the soil solution,
(3) physical and chemical soil properties,
(4) cropping and tillage practices; and
(5) irrigation and waste application methods.
Prediction of a threshold value in terms of sodium application to the soil
is therefore difficult. The USDA (1954) states that soil sodicity occurs
when the percentage of exchangeable sodium exceeds 15 or the SAR of a
saturated soil paste extract exceeds 12. Other researchers, however, have
observed decreased infiltration rates when SAR values are as low as 5
(Miyamoto, 1979). Permeability is also decreased when the exchangeable
sodium percentage (ESP) increases. Figure 6.12 illustrates that hydraulic
conductivity is decreased by over 50% when the ESP is raised from 5 to 10%.
As with soil salinity, management schemes for predicting and controlling
sodicity have been developed for irrigated agriculture and assume steady
state conditions. To the extent that these schemes apply to land treatment
systems, the general approach assumes that the SAR should be maintained at
or preferably below 12. Management to achieve this objective would
logically fall into one of the following approaches:
(1) waste pretreatment or addition of calcium or magnesium salts
to maintain the SAR of the waste below the critical level,
191
-------
VD
10 20 90 40
PERCENT EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM
Figure 6.12.
Effect of increasing ESP upon hydraulic conductivity
(Martin et al., 1964). Reprinted by permission of
the Soil Science Society of America.
-------
(2) calcium or magnesium salts (e.g., gypsum) amendements to
soils;
(3) applications of waste to larger areas of land; and
(4) allow SAR to exceed critical levels, then take corrective
action (the least attractive alternative).
Details of these approaches can be found in Overcash and Pal (1979).
Sodium affected soils can be diagnosed by the occurrence of decreased
infiltration rates, low aggregate stability, elevated levels of
exchangeable sodium, and elevated soil pH.
The phytotoxicity of sodium to various crops is listed in Table 6.18.
Sodium toxicity can occur through direct plant uptake of sodium and through
nutrient imbalance caused by an unfavorable calcium to sodium ratio (USDA,
1954).
TABLE 6.18 SODIUM TOLERANCE OF VARIOUS CROPS*
Tolerance Range
Crop
Extremely Sensitive
(Exchangeable Na = 2-10%)
Sensitive
(Exchangeable Na = 10-20%)
Moderatley Tolerant
(Exchangeable Na = 20-40%
Tolerant
(Exchangeable Na = 40-60%)
Most Tolerant
(Exchangeable Na exceeds 60%)
Deciduous fruits
Nuts
Citrus
Avocado (Persea americana)
Beans (Phaseolus spp.)
Clover (Trifolium spp.)
Oats (Avena fatua)
Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea)
Rice (Oryza sativa)
Dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum)
Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)~
Barley (Hordcum vulgare)
Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum)
Beets (Beta vulgaris)
Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum)
Fairway wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum)
Tall wheatgrass (Agropyron elongatum)
Rhodesgrass (Chloris gayana)
* Pearson (1960).
193
-------
6.1.5
Halides
The halides are the stable anions of the highly reactive halogens,
fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br) and iodine (I). Although halides
occur naturally in soils, overloading a land treatment facility with wastes
high in halides poses a toxic threat to soil microbes, cover crops and
grazing animals. Chloride, iodide, and probably fluoride are essential
nutrients to animals, however, only chloride is essential to plants. Each
of the halides is discussed below with respect to its sources in wastes,
background levels, mobility in soils, and plant and animal toxicity. The
fate of halogenated organic compounds is discussed in Section 6.2.3.4.
6.1.5.1 Fluoride
Fluoride is present in many industrial wastes including the process
wastes from the production of phosphatic fertilizers, hydrogen fluoride,
and fluorinated hydrocarbons and in certain petroleum refinery waste
streams. Fluorides occur naturally in soils at levels ranging from 30-990
ppm (Table 6.19).
TABLE 6.19 TYPICAL TOTAL HALIDE LEVELS IN DRY SOIL
PPM (Dry Weight)
Halide
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Iodide
(Mean)
10
100
200
240
345
5
2.83
(Range)
(2-100)
(10-40)
(30-300)
(70-990)
(2.5-3.9)*
(0.1-10)
Reference
Bowen (1966)
Martin (1966a)
Bowen (1966)
Bowen (1966)
Brewer (1966a)
Gilpin and Johnson
Bowen (1966)
Aston and Brazier (
Martin (1966b)
(1980)
1979)
* Iodide deficient soils.
The mobility of fluoride in soil depends on the percentage of the
total fluoride that is water soluble. Fluoride solubility is dependent on
the kind and relative quantity of cations present in the soils that have
formed salts with the fluoride ion (F~). Sodium salts of fluoride (NaF)
are quite soluble and result in high soluble fluoride levels in soils low
in calcium. Calcium salts of fluoride (CaF2) are relatively insoluble
194
-------
and serve to limit the amount of fluoride taken up by plants or leached
from the soil.
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient to plants but may be essential
for animals; however, soluble fluorides are readily taken up by plants at
levels that may be toxic to grazing animals. The upper level of chronic
lifetime dietary exposure of fluoride (dry weight concentration in the
diet) that will not result in a loss of production for cattle is 40 ppm and
for swine, 150 ppm (National Academy of Sciences, 1980). Chronic
fluorosis, a disease in grazing animals caused by excess dietary fluoride,
has reportedly resulted from industrial contamination of pastures and
underground water sources. Fluorosis can occur in grazing animals from the
consumption of water containing 15 ppm fluoride (Lee, 1975) or forage con-
taining 50 ppm fluoride (Brewer, 1966).
Phytotoxic concentrations of fluoride based on plant tissue content
and irrigation water fluoride content are given in Table 6.20. A tissue
concentration of only 18 ppm (dry weight) was toxic to elm, a sensitive
plant (Adams et al., 1957), yet, buckwheat survived tissue concentrations
of 990-2450 ppm fluoride (Hurd-Karrer, 1950). Tissue concentrations toxic
to various crops have been determined (Brewer, 1966a).
While liming a soil will temporarily decrease both plant uptake and
leaching of fluoride, the loading capacity allowed for fluoride in a land
treatment unit should take into account that liming will cease following
closure. Soils with high cation exchange capacities (CEC) that are high in
calcium and low in sodium have a higher long-term loading capacity for
fluoride than soils with lower CECs or higher sodium content. Leachate
concentrations of fluoride should not exceed the EPA drinking water stand-
ard. The EPA drinking water standard (Table 6.21) is dependent on climatic
conditions because the amount of water (and consequently the amount of
fluoride) ingested is primarily influenced by air temperature. The ration-
ale behind limiting the leachate concentration of fluoride to the drinking
water standard is that groundwater is a primary source of drinking water
and since groundwater is likely to remain in the same climatic zone (with
respect to where it may be used as drinking water) a graduated standard is
a reasonable guide for leachate quality.
6.1.5.2 Chloride (Cl)
Chlorides occur to some extent in all waste streams either as a pro-
duction by-product (i.e., chlorinated hydrocarbon production wastes, chlor-
ine gas production, etc.) or as a contaminant in the water source used. A
typical value for chloride in soil is 100 ppm (Table 6.19). Chloride is
very soluble and will move with leachate water.
195
-------
TABLE 6.20 PHYTOTOXICITY OF HALIDES FROM ACCUMULATION IN PLANT TISSUE AND
APPLICATIONS TO SOIL
Halide
Fluoride
Chloride
Bromide
Iodide
Tissue
Plant
Buckwheat (Fagopyrum
es culentum)
Elm (Ulmus sp . )
Apple (Malus sp.)
Alfalfa (Medicago
sativa)
Cabbage (Brassica
oleracea)
Citrus seedling
(Citrus sp.)
Tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum)
Buckwheat (Fagopyrum
esculentum)
Content
Toxic Level
in Tissue
(ppm dry wt.
2450-990
18
0.24%
0.27%
0.1%
0.17%
8.05
8.75%
Soil Applied in Irrigation Water (IW) or
Halide
Fluoride
Chloride
Bromide
Iodide
Plant
Tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum)
Red Maple seedlings
(Acer rubrum)
Pea (Pisium sativum)
Oats (Avena sativa)
Bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris)
Cabbage (Brassica
oleracea)
Tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum)
Buckwheat (Fagopyrum
esculentum)
Toxic Level
(ppm)
100 (IW)
380 (IW)
9 (IW)
120 (IW)
38 (WS)
83 (WS)
5 (WS)
5 (WS)
)* Reference
Hurd-Karrer (1950)
Adams et al. (1957)
Dilley et al. (1958)
Eaton (1942)
Martin (1966a)
Martin et al. (1956)
Newton and Toth (1952)
Newton and Toth (1952)
Water Soluble (WS)
Reference
McKee and Wolf (1963)
Maftoun and Sheilbany
(1979)
Eaton (1966)
Eaton (1966)
Stelmach (1958)
Stelmach (1958)
Newton and Toth (1952)
Newton and Toth (1952)
* Unless otherwise noted.
t Possible Cl-salt effect on toxicity.
196
-------
TABLE 6.21 EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARD FOR FLUORIDE*
Annual average of maximum daily
air temperatures (Degrees C)'
Fluoride maximum (mg/1)
12 and below
12.1 to 14.6
14.7 to 17.6
17.7 to 21.4
21.5 to 26.2
26.3 to 32.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
* EPA (1976a).
' Based on temperature data obtained for a minimum of 5 years.
When soils are carefully managed to avoid leachate generation, chlor-
ide concentrations in the soil may increase rapidly. To avoid chloride
buildup in soils, the amount applied in wastes and irrigation water should
be balanced with the amount removed by cover crops and leached through the
soil profile.
Chloride is an essential element to both plants and animals. Al-
though, plants readily take up chloride, animals are generally unaffected
by concentrations in forage. Phytotoxicity generally occurs before plant
concentrations reach levels that would adversely affect grazing animals.
Phytotoxic levels of chloride with respect to its concentration in plant
tissue and irrigation water are given in Table 6.20.
Plant removal of chlorides can be increased byJ regularly harvesting
the stalk and leafy portion of the cover crop. Corn plants remove only 3
kg/ha/yr of chloride when harvested as corn; however, when the same crop is
harvested for silage over 35 kg/ha/yr of chloride is removed (Kardos et
al., 1974).. The concentration of chloride in soil solutions associated
with yield reductions in various crops have been determined (Van Beekom et
al., 1953; Van Dam, 1955; Embleton et al., 1978).
Loading rate considerations for chloride should include the amount
removed by plant uptake and the amount lost in leachate while keeping the
concentration in the soil below the phytotoxic level. Additionally, the
leachate concentration should not exceed the EPA drinking water standard
for chloride of 250 mg/1.
6.1.5.3 Bromide
Bromide is present in several industrial wastes including synthetic
organic dyes, mixed petrochemical wastes, photographic supplies, production
wastes, Pharmaceuticals and inorganic chemicals. Hydrogen bromide is pro-
duced for use as a soil fumigant in agriculture. Naturally occurring
197
-------
bromide concentrations in soil range from 2-100 ppm (Table 6.19). In addi-
tion to the bromide ion, other forms of this element that occur naturally
in soils, though at smaller concentrations, are bromate (BrC>3"~) and bromic
acid. Most bromide salts (CaBr, MgBr, NaBr and KBr) are sufficiently solu-
ble to be readily leachable in water percolating through soils. Conse-
quently, most of the bromide found in soils is organically combined.
Bromide is not an essential nutrient to plants or animals. Although
bromide is strongly concentrated by plants, reports of toxicity to animals
are scarce. Table 6.20 lists bromide concentrations that are phytotoxic
with respect to plant tissue content and the water soluble content in
soils. The upper level of chronic lifetime dietary exposure of bromide
(dry weight concentration in the diet) that will not result in a loss of
production for cattle and swine is 200 ppm (National Academy of Sciences,
1980). Loading rates for bromide should include consideration of plant
uptake and leachate losses to maintain the concentration in the soil below
phytotoxic levels.
6.1.5.4 Iodide
Iodide is present in several industrial wastes including those gener-
ated by the pharmaceutical industry and the analytical chemical industry.
Iodides naturally occur in soils at levels ranging from 0.1-10 ppm (Table
6.19). It is only slightly water soluble (0.001 m) and ,is thought to be
retained in soil by forming complexes with organic matter and possibly by
being fixed with soil phosphates and sulfates (Whitehead, 1975).
Iodide is not essential for plant growth, but it is an essential
nutrient for animals. Soluble iodide in wastes will be readily taken up by
plants and animals consuming large quantities of iodide-rich forage may
ingest toxic levels. Phytotoxic concentrations of iodide in plant tissues
and of water soluble iodide in soils are given in Table 6.20. It should be
noted that toxic responses may be partially a result of excess salts not
iodide. The upper levels of chronic lifetime dietary exposure of iodide
(dry weight concentration in the diet) that will not result in a loss of
production for cattle is 50 ppm and swine, 400 ppm (National Academy of
Sciences, 1980).
Loading rate calculations for the land treatment of wastes containing
iodide should include iodide taken up by plants and leached, from the soil
to maintain the concentration in the soil below phytotoxic levels.
6.1.6 Metals
The metallic components of waste are found in a variety of forms.
Metals may be solid phase insoluble precipitates, sorbed or chelated by
organic matter or oxides, sorbed on exchange sites of xvaste constituents or
soil colloids, or in the soil solution. If an element is essentially
198
-------
insoluble at usual soil pH ranges (5.5-8.0) then the metal has a low con-
centration in the soil solution and cannot be absorbed by plants or leached
at an appreciable rate. If the metal is strongly sorbed or chelated, even
though it is not precipitated, it will have low plant uptake and low leach-
ing potential. If the metal is weakly sorbed and soluble, then it is
available for plant uptake or transport by leaching or runoff. When
present in this soluble form metals may accumulate in plants to excess.
Little specific information on metal immobilization is available so treata-
bility tests should be designed to determine the mobility of a given metal
in a given waste-site environment (Chapter 7).
Although many HWLT units will not use plants as a part of the ongoing
management plan, plant uptake of metals is discussed extensively in this
section since closure of sites generally requires a vegetative cover (EPA,
1982). Metals may be applied in excess of the phytotoxic level if they
continue to be immobilized in the treatment zone. However, since a vegeta-
tive cover will be necessary at closure (unless hazardous constituents show
no increase over background), highly contaminated soils may need to be re-
moved and disposed in another hazardous waste facility. This could
increase the cost associated with disposal and make consideration of more
land and lower loading rates a viable option.
Plants do not accumulate metals in a consistent proportional relation-
ship to soil concentrations. Thus, predictions of the plant concentrations
of a metal resulting from growing on metal containing soil is extremely
difficult. Due to the variability of soil properties and conditions, and
plant species, lists are given for each metal, when available, to provide
the broadest range of operating conditions.
The reaction of plants to metals in the growth media depends on
whether or not the element is plant essential. The upper half of Fig. 6.13
shows the response of plants to an essential nutrient. At low concentra-
tions the metal is deficient; at higher concentrations of the element the
plant reaches optimum growth and additional metal concentrations have
little effect; at very high concentrations the metal will become toxic.
The response of plants to nonessential metals, in which no deficiency
results, is shown in the lower half of Fig. 6.13.
Most positively charged metals remain in the treatment zone under
aerated conditions where they are immobilized, either temporarily or some-
what permanently, by the properties of the soil itself. The mechanisms of
metal retention by soil are described in Section 4.1.2.1 and include chemi-
sorption and electrostatic bonding. Chemical sorption is a more permanent
type of metal retention than electrostatic sorption and is primarily due to
the mineralogy of the soil. Electrostatic bonding, or ion exchange,
increases as the CEC of the soil increases and is reversible. A direct
comparison between CEC and the sorption capacity of the soil is not possi-
ble, however, since competition between ions in the waste or present in the
native soil will influence the quantity of metal ions sorbed by the soil.
A variety of mathematical relationships has been used to quantify
sorption of metals to soils. These models, generally called isotherms,
199
-------
10
-------
include the linear, Freundlich, Langmuir, two-surface Langmuir and various
kinetic sorption isotherms. The models provide a reasonably good basis for
interpolation of metal sorption and are extensively reviewed by Travis and
Etnier (1981) who include numerous references for a variety of metals.
Bohn et al. (1979) discuss isotherm theory in detail. Sorption isotherm
experiments may be included as part of laboratory analysis for treatment
demonstration of metal immobilization.
The partitioning of metals between various chemical forms is a dynamic
process, regulated by equilibrium reactions. The initial behavior of the
metal after addition to the soil largely depends on the form in which it
was added, which in turn, depends on its source. A complex set of chemical
reactions, physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, and a number
of biological processes acting within the soil govern the ultimate fate of
metallic elements.
This section discusses the sources of metal enrichment to the environ-
ment as well as background soil and plant concentrations. The soil chemis-
try of each metal including solubility, metal species and soil conditions
governing the predominant form of the metal are presented. Following a
review of metal chemistry, the fate of each metal in the soil, whether bio-
accumulated, sorbed by soil or waste constituents, or transported, is dis-
cussed. Finally, recommendations for metal loading are given based on
accumulation in the soil and plant and animal toxicity. These recommenda-
tions are generally based on the accumulation of the element within the
upper 15 cm (6 in) of soil, or "plow layer," which is estimated to be
2 x 10" Ib/acre or 2.2 x 10° kg/ha. In developing the recommendations,
consideration was given to the 20-year irrigation standards developed by
the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering
(1972) which are based on the tolerance of sensitive plants, to metal
chemistry, and to other sources of information on plant and animal toxic-
ity. There are more data available on plant and animal toxicity to metal
concentrations in the soil than on the ability of the soil to immobilize a
given element. Consequently, treatability studies are generally needed to
determine if adequate immobilization of metals is occurring in a given soil
since the factors affecting immobilization are very site—specific.
/
6.1.6.1 Aluminum (Al)
Hazardous wastes containing Al include paper coating pretreatment
sludge and deinking sludge. It is one of the most abundant elements in
soils, occuring at an average concentration of 71,000 ppm.
Aluminum exists in many forms in soil. There are several Al oxide and
hydroxide minerals including A1(OH)3 (amorphous, bayerite, and gibbsite)
and A100H (diaspore and boehmite) (Lindsay, 1979). In soils with pH less
than 5.0, exchangeable Al is found as the trivalent ion (Bohn et al.,
1979). In an alkaline medium, Al is present as (A1)OH4~. Aluminum in
soil may be precipitated as Al phosphates; this reaction removes plant
essential phosphate from the soil solution. Where the NaOH:Al ratio is
201
-------
greater than 3:0, polymerization of Al and hydroxide ions may lead to the
formation of crystalline Al hydroxide minerals (Hsu, 1977).
The most soluble form of Al found in most soils is A1(OH)3 (amor-
phous) and other Al oxides are somewhat less soluble. At pH 4.06, 96 ppm
soluble Al may be found in a particular soil solution, yet when the pH is
raised to 7.23, the Al concentration in the same soil solution is reduced
to zero (Pratt, 1966a). Aluminum is highly unstable in the normal pH range
of soils and readily oxidizes to A13+ (Lindsay, 1979).
There is no evidence that Al is essential to plants. Sensitivity to
Al varies widely and some plants may be harmed by low concentrations of the
element in the growing media (Table 6.22). Very sensitive plants whose
growth is depressed by soil concentrations of 2 ppm Al include barley
(Hordeum vulgare), beet (Beta vulgaris), lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and
timothy (Phleum pratense). Tolerant plants depressed by 14 ppm Al are
corn (Zea mays), redtop (Agrostis gigantea) and turnip (Brassica rapa). An
interesting Al indicator plant is the hydrangea which produces blue flowers
if Al is available in the growth medium and pink flowers if Al is not
available (Pratt, 1966a).
There are some accumulator plants that can tolerate large amounts of
Al. Accumulator plants that transport Al to above-ground parts include
club moss, sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), Australian silk oak, and
hickory (Juncus sp.). Aluminum concentrations of 3.0-30 ppm have been
reported for ash (Fraxinus sp.) and hickory (Pratt, 1966a).
Loehr et al. (1979b) state that Al poses relatively little hazard to
animals. Cattle and sheep can tolerate dietary levels of 1000 ppm Al.
Poultry, considered sensitive to the element, can tolerate dietary levels
of 200 ppm Al (National Academy of Sciences, 1980).
Aluminum levels in sludge seldom limit application rates, particularly
if the pH is maintained above 5.5 and the soil is well aerated (Loehr et
al., 1979b). With proper pH management, large amounts of Al may be land
applied.
6.1.6.2 Antimony (Sb)
The major producers of hazardous wastes containing Sb are the paint
formulation industry, textile mills, and organic chemical producers.
Concentrations of Sb range from 0.5-5 ppm in coal and 30-107 ppm in
petroleum, and urban air contains 0.05-0.06 ppm Sb (Overcash and Pal,
1979). The average concentration of Sb in plants is 0.06 ppm and the
average range of Sb in dry soils is 2-10 ppm (Bowen, 1966).
Naturally occurring forms of Sb include Sb sulfides (stibinite) and Sb
oxides (cervanite and valentinite). Antimony in soils usually occurs as
Sb3+ or Sb5+ and is very strongly precipitated as Sb203 or Sb£05 (Overcash
and Pal, 1979).
202
-------
TABLE 6.22 PLANT RESPONSE TO ALUMINUM IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
NJ
O
co
Al
Concentration
(ppm)
1-2
1-2
2-5
2-8
2-8
4
6-8
6
7
14
12
13
20
20
25
3"2-80
Media
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Soil
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Sand
Acid soil
Solution
Species
Barley (Hordeum vulgare)
Sorghum (Sorghum bi color)
Corn (Zea mays)
Kentucky bluegrass
(Poa pratensis)
Yellow foxtail
Sugar beet
(Beta vulgaris)
Rye (Secale cereale)
Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Cabbage
(Brassica oleracea)
Turnip (Brassica rapa)
Lovegrass (Eragrostis
secundiflora) &
tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea)
Pea (Pisum sativum)
Potato (Solanum
tuberosum)
Potato (S. tuberosum)
Cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum)
Colonial bentgrass
(Agrostis fenuis)
Effect
50% yield reduction
50% yield reduction
50% yield reduction
20% yield reduction
20% yield reduction
Significant root
growth reduction
31% yield reduction
Tolerant
No response
No response
Serious injury
Reduced growth
No response
Depressed growth
Damage
20% yield reduction
Reference
Pratt (1966a)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Keser et al. (1975)
Pratt (1966a)
Kerridge et al.
(1971)
Pratt (1966a)
Ibid.
Fleming et al.
(1974)
Klimashevsky et al.
(1972)
Pratt (1966a)
Lee (1971a)
Velly (1974)
Pratt (1966a)
—continued—
-------
TABLE 6.22 (continued)
Al
Concentration
(ppm)
32-80
60
100 kg/ha
120-130
2000
Media
Solution
Solutxon
Glacial
till soil
(pH 6.5)
Acid soil
Solution
Species
Red top (Agrostis
gigantea)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Barley (H. vulgare)
Maize (Zea mays)
Peach seedlings
(Prunus persica)
Effect
20% Yield reduction
Chlorosis of leaves
Significant yield
reduction
Damage
Severe toxicity
Reference
Ibid.
Cruz et al. (1967)
Hutchinson and
Hunter (1979)
Velly (1974)
Edwards et al.
(1976)
fO
o
-------
Very high concentrations of Sb may present a hazard to plants and ani-
mals, though little information is available. A concentration of 4 ppm Sb
in culture solution has been shown to produce a toxic response in cabbage
(Brassica oleracea) plants (Kara et al., 1977). Bowen (1966) points out
that Sb in industrial smoke may cause lung disease.
6.1.6.3 Arsenic (As)
Arsenic is contained in wastes from the production of certain herbi-
cides, fungicides, pesticides, veterinary Pharmaceuticals and wood pre-
servatives. Arsenic levels in municipal sewage are variable, ranging from
1-18 ppm (Loehr et al., 1979a). In addition, industries manufacturing
glass, enamels, ceramics, oil cloth, linoleum, electrical semiconductors
and photoconductors use As. The element is also used to manufacture pig-
ments, fireworks and certain types of alloys (Page, 1974).
In soils, the total As concentration normally ranges from 1-50 ppm,
though it does not generally exceed 10 ppm. Soils producing plants con-
taining As at levels toxic to mammals are found in parts of Argentina and
New Zealand (Bowen, 1966).
Research involving application of As compounds to agricultural soil-
plant systems has dealt primarily with an anions arsenate (As04~~3) an(j
arsenite (As03~3). Arsenate is an oxidized degradation product from
organoarsenic defoliants and pesticides. Arsenite may be formed both bio-
logically and abiotically under moderately reduced conditions (Woolson,
1977). The reduced state of As (arsenite) is 4 to 10 times more soluble in
soils than the oxidized arsenate and, consequently, more prone to
leaching.
Cycling of As in the environment is dominated by sorption to soils,
leaching and volatilization (Fig. 6.14). The most important mechanism for
attenuation is sorption by soil colloids (Murrman and Koutz, 1972).
Arsenic movement in soils may be reduced by sorption to, or precipitation
by, iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) oxides or calcium. The amount of As
sorbed by the soil increases as pH and clay, Al, and Fe content increase
(Jacobs et al. , 1970). Movement of As in aquatic systems often results
from As sorption to sediments containing Fe or Al (Woolson, 1977). Wind
borne particles may also carry sorbed As. Reduction of Fe in flooded soils
may resolubilize As from ferric arsenate or arsenite to arsine or
methylarsines (Deuel and Swoboda, 1972).
Reduction of As compounds under saturated conditions can result in As
volatilization. Some As may be reduced to As^~ and then lost as arsine, a
toxic gas (Keaton and Kardos, 1940). In a study by Woolson (1977), how-
ever, only 1-2% of arsenate applied at a rate of 10 ppm was volatilized as
dimethyl arsine [(0113)2AsH] after 160 days. High organic matter content,
warm temperatures and adequate moisture are the conditions conducive to
microbial and fungal growth. These conditions may cause the reduction of
205
-------
"NSOLUBt-E ARSENICALSI
(INSOLUBLE ARSENICALSI
Figure 6.14. Cyclical nature of arsenic metabolism
in different environmental compartments
(Woolson, 1977). Reprinted by permission
of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences.
206
-------
As and can drive the reaction toward methylation and subsequent volatiliza-
tion of As. Reducing conditions may also lead to an increase in As as
arsenite which increases the leaching potential of the element.
Biomagnification through the food chain does not occur with the arse-
nicals. Lower members of the aquatic food chain contain the highest As
residues (Woolson, 1977); typically brown algae contain about 30 ppm As and
mollusks contain about 0.005 ppm As (Bowen, 1966). In plants, the As con-
centration varies between 0.01-1.0 ppm. Even plants grown in soils
contaminated with As do not show higher concentrations of As than plants
grown on uncontaminated soil. The toxicity of As limits plant growth
before large amounts of As are absorbed and translocated (Liebig, 1966).
There is no evidence that As is essential for plant growth. Arsenic
accumulates in much larger amounts in plant roots than in the tops.
Arsenic in soils is most toxic to plants at the seedling stage where it
limits germination and reduces viability. The concentration of As that is
toxic to plants was determined to be greater than 10 ppm by the National
Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972). Initial
symptoms of As toxicity include wilting followed by reduction of root and
top growth (Liebig, 1966).
Arsenic at 1 ppm in nutrient solution reduces root and top growth of
cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) and concentrations of soluble As as low as 0.5
ppm in nutrient solution produce an 80% yield reduction in tomatoes
(Lycopersicon esculentum). Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense), considered to
be quite tolerant, does not show growth reduction until the As
concentration in the soil reaches 12 ppm (National Academy of Sciences and
National Academy of Engineering, 1972). Table 6.23 lists the response of
various crops to As levels in soil and solution culture, and it indicates a
wide response to As depending on the plant species.
The toxicity of As to animals results from its interaction with the
sulhydryl groups or SH radicals of some enzymes (Turner, 1965). The inor-
ganic forms of As are much more toxic than the organic forms which are more
rapidly eliminated by animals. Frost (1967) states that a dietary level of
10 ppm As will be toxic to any animal. There is little evidence that As
compounds are carcinogenic in experimental animals (Milner, 1969) although
studies indicate that human subjects chronically exposed to As compounds
have a significantly increased incidence of cancer (Yeh, 1973).
The greatest danger from As to livestock is in drinking water where As
is present as inorganic oxides. An upper limit of 0.2 ppm As is recom-
mended for livestock drinking water. A concentration of 0.05 ppm is the
upper allowable limit for As in water intended for human consumption
(National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, 1972).
A review by Overcash and Pal (1979) indicates that As is toxic to
plants at soil application rates between 200 and 1000 kg/ha. However,
Table 6.23 indicates that some plant species may be affected by less than
100 ppm As in the soil. A soil accumulation of between 100 and 300 ppm
appears acceptable for most land treatment units.
207
-------
TABLE 6.23 PLANT RESPONSE TO ARSENIC IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
to
o
oo
As
Concentration
(ppm) Media
2-26 Soil
Species
Potatoes ( Solanum
tuberosum)
Effect Reference
None Steevens
et al.
(1972)
8
85
100
100
450
Sand
50 Clay loam
80 Silt loam
Soil
Soil
Soil
Rye (Secale cereale)
Horse bean (Vicia faba)
Maize (Zea mays)
Loamy sand Blueberry
Reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea)
Apple (Malus sp.) trees
Apple (Malus ap.) trees
Translocated to
shoots and leaves
Decreased growth
Toxic
Plant injury
No effect
Decreased size
Zero growth
Chrenekova E. (1973)
Chrenekova C. (1977)
Jacobs and Keeney
(1970)
Anastasia and Render
(1973)
Hess and Blanchar
(1977)
Benson et al. (1978)
Benson et al. (1978)
-------
6.1.6.4 Barium (Ba)
Barium is found in waste streams from a large number of manufacturing
plants in quantities that seldom exceed the normal levels found in soil.
Normal background levels for soil range from 100-3000 ppm Ba (Bowen,
1966).
Although Ba is not essential to plant growth, soluble salts of Ba are
found in the accumulator plant Aragalus lamberti. Barium accumulation in
plants is unusual except when the Ba concentration exceeds calcium (Ca) and
magnesium (Mg) concentrations in the soil, a condition which may occur when
sulfate is depleted. Liming generally restores a favorable Ca:Ba balance
in soil (Vanselow, 1966a). All the soluble salts of Ba, which exclude Ba
sulfate, are highly toxic to man when taken by mouth. There is little
information available on which to base a Ba loading rate for HWLT
facilities.
6.1.6.5 Beryllium (Be)
Beryllium may be found in waste streams from smelting industries and
atomic energy projects. The major source of Be in the environment is the
combustion of fossil fuels (Tepper, 1972). Soil concentrations generally
range from 0.1 to 40 ppm, with the average around 6 ppm.
Beryllium reacts similarly to aluminum. It undergoes isomorphic sub-
stitution as well as cation exchange reactions. It is strongly immobilized
in soils by sorption. It is present in the soil solution as Be^"*" and
it may displace divalent cations already on sorption sites. It is readily
precipitated by liming.
Beryllium becomes hazardous when found in soil solutions or ground-
water supplies. It may be taken up by plants at levels that result in
yield reduction, phytotoxicity of Be is caused by the inhibition of enzyme
activity (Williams and LeRiche, 1968). The growth inhibiting effects
usually recognized in higher plants are reduced as the pH is raised above
6.0, and it has been proposed that the decreased toxicity is caused by Be
precipitation at high pH levels (Romney and Childress, 1965). The response
of plants to Be applied to soil is given in Table 6.24 which indicated that
40 ppm Be in soil did not cause a yield decrease in neutral pH soils but
substantially decreased plant yields in quartz soils. Table 6.25 illus-
trates that a very soluble Be salt will decrease plant yields substantially
when present in soil concentrations of 20 ppm.
209
-------
TABLE 6.24 YIELDS OF GRASS AND KALE WITH LEVELS OF BERYLLIUM IN QUARTZ AND
SOIL*
Soil pH
Lincolnshire 7 . 5
Hertfordshire 7.5
Quartz t
Soluble Be
Added (ppm)
0
0.4
40.0
0
0.4
40.0
0
0.4
40.0
Mean
Fresh
Grass
13.3
17.2
19.9
21.3
31.0
25.0
6.4
7.9
0.1
Yield of
Matter (G)
Kale
36.0
46.0
42.8
44.8
55.6
57.0
2.8
1.8
0.1
* Williams and LaRiche (1968).
t Not available.
TABLE 6.25 YIELD OF BEANS GROWN ON VINA SOIL TREATED WITH BERYLLIUM SALTS
DIFFERING IN SOLUBILITY*
Be Applied to Soil
Form
BeO
(Be05) CO 2 5H20
BeS04 4H20
Be(N03)2 3H20
Solubility of Be Salt
ppm g/100 ml Cold Water
2.3 x 10~5
0
10
20
Insoluble
0
10
20
42.5
0
10
20
Very soluble
0
10
20
Yield Dry Plant
Tops (g)
8.76
8.72
8.64
8.68
8.36
8.30
8.81
7.03
5.92
8.31
6.09
2.97
* Romney and Childress (1965).
210
-------
Beryllium is a suspected carcinogen. Experimental data indicate Be causes
cancer in animals and epidemiological studies report a significant increase
in respiratory cancers among Be workers (Reeves and Vorwald, 1967; Mancuso,
1970).
Recommendations established in the National Academy of Science and
National Academy of Engineering (1972) Water Quality Criteria limit irriga-
tion over the short-term to water containing 0.50 ppm Be; water for long-
term irrigation is limited to 0.20 ppm. The use of irrigation water con-
taining the upper limit of the acceptable Be concentration recommended by
the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972)
is equivalent to an accumulation of 50 ppm Be in the soil. Table 6.24 shows
that soil concentrations of 40 ppm do not cause a decrease in plant yields
if applied to a neutral pH soil. Thus, a comparison of the irrigation
water standard and the phytotoxic limit appears to provide a reasonable
estimate of the acceptable cumulative soil Be level of 50 ppm.
6.1.6.6 Cadmium (Cd)
Cadmium is used in the production of Cd-nickel batteries, as pigments
for plastics and enamels, as a fumicide, and in electroplating and metal
coatings (EPA, 1980a). Wastes containing significant levels of Cd include
paint formulating and textile wastes. The estimated mean Cd concentration
of soil is 0.06 ppm, ranging from 0.01-0.7 ppm (Siegel, 1974).
The soil chemistry of Cd is, to a great extent, controlled by pH.
Under acidic conditions Cd solubility increases and very little sorption of
Cd by soil colloids, hydrous oxides, and organic matter takes place
(Anderson and Nilsson, 1974). Street et al. (1977) found a 100-fold
increase in Cd sorption for each unit increase in pH.
Solid phase control of Cd by precipitation has been reported under
high pH conditions. Figure 6.15 illustrates that the formation of Cd(OH)4
controls the equilibrium concentration of Cd at high pH values. Precipita-
tion of Cd with carbonates (CdC03) and phosphates (Cd^PQ^^) may regu-
late Cd concentration in the soil solution at low pH values. Under reduc-
ing conditions, such as poorly drained soils, the precipitation of Cd sul-
fide may occur. Since this compound is relatively stable and slowly oxi-
dized, a lag occurs between the formation of Cd sulfide and the release of
Cd to the soil solution.
Cadmium may also be sorbed by organic matter in the soil as soluble or
insoluble organometallic complexes or by sorption to hydrous oxides of iron
and manganese (Peterson and Alloway, 1979). Evidence suggests that these
sorption mechanisms may be the primary source of Cd removal from the soil
solution except at very high Cd levels. Column studies by Emmerich et al.
(1982) show that no leaching of Cd occurred from sewge sludge amended
soils, all of which had CEC values between 5 and 15. Of the 25.5 ppm Cd
applied to the Ramona soil, 24.7 ppm or 97% of the Cd was recovered from
211
-------
o
10
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
cc
u.
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
H+ Cd(OH)§
Cd(OH|2
-10
-8
•6 -4
log [OH]
-2
8
10
PH
12
14
Figure 6.15.
Distribution of molecular and ionic species of
divalent cadmium at different pH values (Fuller,
1977).
212
-------
the columns, Yet, as the equilibrium between sorbed Cd and soil solution
Cd changes, some sorbed Cd may be released to the soil solution.
Land treatment of Cd containing waste can affect microbial populations
as well as plant and animal life. Microorganisms exhibit varying degrees
of tolerance or intolerance toward Cd. Williams and Wollum (1981) found
that 5 ppm Cd in the growing media retards Actinomycete and soil bacteria
growth, but at concentrations greater than 5 ppm, the microorganisms
exhibited a tolerant response and the tolerant population attained domi-
nance in the cultures. Borges and Wollum (1981) reported Rhizobium
3 aponicum strains associated with soybean (Glycine max) plants showed
tolerance to Cd and that after time, R. japonuim strains develop the abil-
ity to accomodate the element.
The long-term availability of Cd to plants is related to several soil
properties, the presence of other ions in the soil solution, and the plant
species. Soil organic matter, hydrous oxides, redox potential, and pH (the
dominant factor) influence the concentration of Cd in the soil solution as
well as its availability to plants. Liming reduces Cd uptake by plants and
increases Cd sorption by soil (CAST, 1976), while acidification releases
the Cd bound in hydrous oxides. High organic matter in soil reduces plant
uptake of the element (White and Chaney, 1980).
Cadmium absorbed by plant roots is slowly translocated to the leaf and
stem. The metabolic processes responsible for Cd absorption are influenced
by temperature (Schaeffer et al., 1975; Haghiri, 1974) and other minerals
in the nutritive solution (Cunningham et al., 1975, Miller et al., 1977).
Chaney (1974) proposed that zinc-cadmium interactions reduce the amount of
Cd taken up by plants when the concentration of Cd is less than 1% of the
zinc (Zn) content in the sludge. This is due to the competition of Zn and
Cd for -SH groups of proteins and enzymes in plants. Since the content of
Zn and Cd taken up by plants is not always related to the concentration in
waste, the principle of the Zn-Cd interrelationship should not be the sole
basis for determining loading rates. Calcium has been shown to depress Cd
content in plants because these divalent cations compete for adsorption by
roots.
Crops differ markedly in their Cd accumulation, tolerance and trans-
location. The foliar Cd concentrations associated with phytotoxicity vary
in different crops from 5 to 700 ppm, dry weight (Chaney et al., 1981) yet
the phytotoxicity of Cd does not limit Cd in crops to acceptable limits for
animal consumption. Soil additions of Cd at a rate of 4.5 kg/ha/yr for two
consecutive years raised the Cd content of corn (Zea mays) leaves from 0.15
to 0.71 ppm, while the increase was less significant to grain (Overcash and
Pal, 1979). Cadmium additions ranging from 11 to 7640 ppm in soil resulted
in reduced yields of various forage crops (Table 6.26). Melsted (1973)
suggested a tolerance limit of 3 ppm Cd in agronomic crops. The influence
of Cd concentration on the growth of various plants is given in Table 6.27.
The yield and Cd concentration in the leaves of bermudagrass grown in
sewage sludge containing Cd are given in Table 6.28. Recently, Cd toler-
ance has been found in grasses in some populations from Germany and Belgium
(Peterson and Alloway, 1979). Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and cabbage
213
-------
(Brassica oleracea) are considered Cd tolerant and soybean (Glycine max) is
considered rather sensitive.
TABLE 6.26 CADMIUM ADDITION TO A CALCAREOUS SOIL ASSOCIATED WITH A 50%
YIELD REDUCTION OF FIELD AND VEGETABLE CROPS*
Cd Addition rate
reducing yield 50%
Crop mg/kg
Soybean (Glycine max) 11
Sweet corn (Zea mays) 35
Upland rice (Oryza sativa) 36
Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense) 58
Field bean (Phaseolus sp.) 65
Wheat (Triticum aestivum) 80
Turnip (Brassica rapa) 100
White clover (Trifolium sp.) 120
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) 145
Swiss chard (Beta vulgaris var. Cicla) 320
Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) 320
Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) 400
Paddy rice (Oryza sativa) 7,640
* Page et al. (1972).
Cadmium can be quite toxic to aquatic organisms, even in concentra-
tions of less than 1 ppm Cd in water, therefore, runoff or movement of
particles containing Cd into water must be avoided. Coombs (1979) reviewed
the Cd content in fish, marine mammals, invertebrates, and plankton and
determined the toxic levels of Cd for each species. Experimental data
indicate that Cd causes cancer in animals (Lucis et al., 1972). However,
there have not been any large scale epidemiological studies to show signif-
icant association between occupational exposure to Cd and cancer in workers
(Sunderman, 1977). Acceptable Cd levels for crops used for animal feed or
human consumption have not been established although adverse health effects
from prolonged consumption of food grown on Cd enriched soils is well
documented (Tsuchiya, 1978; Friberg et al., 1974).
The National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering
(1972) and Dowdy et al. (1976) suggest maximum cumulative applications of
Cd should not exceed 3 mg/kg or 10 ppm when added in sewage sludge. EPA
cumulative criteria have adjusted application levels to 5 kg/ha Cd for
soils with a pH less than 6.5 and for soils with a pH greater than 6.5,
214
-------
TABLE 6.27 PLANT RESPONSE TO CADMIUM IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
Cd
Concentration
(ppm)
1
1
2
3-5
4
5
Media
Solution
Soil
Rooting
medium
Soil
Sand
Solution
Species
Purple nutsedge
Pin oak (Quercus
palustris)
Honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos)
Soybean (Glycine max)
Soybean (G. max)
Rice (Orzya sativa)
Effect
Growth reduction
Chlorosis
Reduced root
growth
Depressed growth
Severe growth
reduction
Growth redution
Reference
Quimby et al. (1979)
Russo and Brennan (1979)
Lamoreaux et al. (1978)
Miller et al. (1976)
Chaney et al. (1977)
Saito and Takahashi
1-0
10
25
25
30
50
50
65
100
100
600
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
(pH 7.3)
Solution
Sandy
soil
Soil
Yolo silt
loam
seedlings
Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Beans (Phaseolus aureus)
Maize (Zea mays)
(Rudbecki hirta)
Oats (Avena sativa)
Soybean (G. max)
Cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum)
Little bluestern
(Schizachyrium scoparium)
White pine (Pinus strobus)
Cotton (G. hirsutum)
Reduced growth
Growth inhibition
Depressed growth
25% germination
reduction
Chlorsis
Relatively
resistant
Yield reduction
Tolerant
Reduced yield
15% yield reduc-
tion
(1978)
Keul et al. (1979)
Jain (1978)
Hassett et al. (1976)
Miles and Parker (1979)
Kloke and Schenke (1979)
Boggess et al. (1978)
Rehab and Wallace
(1978d)
Miles and Parker (1979)
Kelly et al. (1979)
Rehab and Wallace
(1978e)
-------
ON
TABLE 6.28 CADMIUM CONTENT OF BERMDDAGRASS ON THREE SOILS WITH DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF SEWAGE
SLUDGE
Sludge applied
per hectare,
metric tons
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Cd added per
gram of soil
mg
0.40
0.59
1.08
1.56
2.05
3.03
4.00
pH
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
Domino Soil
Cd per gram of
dry matter, mg
0.41
0.40
0.78
0.85
1.30
2.64
3.56
pH
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.5
Harf ord Soil
Cd per gram of
dry matter, mg
0.44
0.49
1.60
1.73
2.95
4.00
3.52
PH
5.6
5.4
5.1
5.2
5.4
5.3
5.1
Redding Soil
Cd per gram
dry matter,
1.55
2.94
5.68
4.65
4.02
6.60
8.72
of
mg
* Page (1974).
-------
maximum cumulative amounts of Cd are allowed to increase with CEC
(5 meq/100 g, 5 kg/ha; 5-15 meq/100 g, 10 kg/ha; and >15 meq/100 g,
20 kg/ha) (EPA, 1982). It is recommended that the level of Cd in wastes be
reduced to below 15-20 mg Cd/kg waste by pretreatment if at all possible.
This review indicates soil microbial populations can be affected by soil
concentrations of 5 ppm, but plant populations exhibit a high tolerance for
the element. Therefore, the basis for Cd loading should not be phytotoxic
response but the ability of the soil to immobilize Cd. Liming the soil
supplies carbonates and calcium ions which help immobilize Cd. Liming also
serves to maintain an equilibrium between the soluble and precipitated
forms of Cd in soil, thus reducing the hazard of Cd mobilization.
6.1.6.7 Cesium (Cs)
Cesium metals are used in research on thermoionic power conversion and
ion propulsion. Cesium-137 contamination may occur by nuclear fallout.
Cesium-137 is a beta emitter with a half life of 33 years. Soil concentra-
tions range from 0.3-25 ppm Cs, with an average of 6 ppm (Bowen, 1966).
Although Cs is retained in field crops and grasses over long periods
of time, phytotoxic levels have not been reported. One explanation of Cs
tolerance may be that potassium (K) provides protection against plant con-
tamination by Cs since the two monovalent cations may compete for plant
absorption (Konstantinov et al., 1974). Cesium uptake in plants increases
with nitrogen fertilization, possibly reflecting exchangeable Cs concentra-
tions in soil. Fertilization with phosphorus and potassium decreases Cs
concentrations in most plants. Weaver et al. (1981) found that kale
(Brassica campestris) accumulated more Cs-137 in the early stages of growth
than after four weeks of growth. The average concentration of Cs in plants
is 0.2 ppm, and pytotoxicity would not be expected in Cs amended soils if
adequate K is available.
6.1.6.8 Chromium (Cr)
The sources of Cr in waste streams are from its use as a corrosion
inhibitor and from dyeing and tanning industries. Chromium is used in the
manufacture of refractory bricks to line metallurgical furnaces, chrome
steels and alloys, and in plating operations. Other uses of Cr include
topical antiseptics and astringents, defoliants for certain crops and
photographic emulsions (Page, 1974). Chromium is widely distributed in
soils, water, and biological materials. The range of Cr in native soils is
1-1000 ppm with an average concentration of 100 ppm Cr (Bowen, 1966).
Soils derived from serpentine rocks are very high in Cr and nickel.
The Cr in most industrial wastes is present in the +6 oxidation state
as chromate (Cr04~2) Or as dichromate (Cr20y~2). in this +6 or hexavalent
form, Cr is toxic and quite mobile in soil. Under acid conditions there is
a. conversion from chromate to dichromate. Soluble salts of Cr, such as
217
-------
sulfate and nitrate, are more toxic than insoluble salts of Cr such as
oxides and phosphates. This toxicity becomes more important as the acidity
of the soil is increased (Aubert and Pinta, 1977). Overcash and Pal (1979)
state that in an aerobic acid soil, hexavalent Cr is quickly converted to
the less toxic trivalent Cr or chromic, which is quite immobile, they con-
sider the trivalent form to be relatively inert in soils. The oxidation of
trivalent to hexavalent Cr has not been documented in field studies but
does warrant further consideration because of the extreme toxicity and
mobility of the hexavalent form.
Downward transport of Cr will be more rapid in coarse-textured soils
than in fine textured soils because of the larger pores, less clay and
faster downward movement of water. Chromium (III) forms precipitates
readily with carbonates, hydroxides and sulfides and would likely be a
means of reducing leaching (Murrmann and Koutz, 1972). These precipita-
tion reactions are also favored by a pH>6. Data from Wentink and Edzel
(1972) show that these different soils were capable of almost 100% reten-
tion of Cr(III).
Chromium has been shown to be toxic to plants and animals, and recent
studies indicate it may also be toxic to soil microorganisms. Ross et al.
(1981) found that levels as low as 7.5 ppm in the growth media were toxic
to gram negative bacteria including Pseudomonas and Nocardia. This indi-
cates that soil microbial transformations such as nitrification and hydro-
carbon degradation may be adversely affected by Cr. Rudolfs (1950)
reviewed the literature on metals in sewage sludge and recommended a 5 ppm
limit for Cr+6 in sewage sludge which is land treated. Mutations in bac-
terial populations have also been observed in bacteria grown in the
presence of Cr+6 (Petrilli and De Flora, 1977).
Many investigators have found that Cr is toxic to plants. Dichromate
is apparently more phytotoxic than chromate (Pratt, 1966b) and that both of
these tetravalent forms are more toxic than the trivalent state (Hewitt,
1953). Application of 75 ppm Cr to soil is not toxic to sweet-orange
(Citrus sinensis) seedlings, but additions of 150 ppm Cr are toxic. In
sand cultures, 5 ppm Cr as chromate ion was toxic to tobacco (Nicotiana
tabacum) and 10 ppm was toxic to corn (Zea mays) (Pratt, 1966b). Plants
affected by Cr toxicity are stunted and frequently have narrow, discolored
and necrotic leaves (Hunter and Vergnano, 1953).
There is some indication that Cr is accumulated in plant roots. The
influence of plant Cr concentration on plant growth is given in Table 6.29
which indicates that some plants experience decreased yield at soil concen-
trations as low as 0.5 ppm Cr. These data indicate that the phytotoxic con-
centration is greater than 10 ppm. Soane and Saunder (1959) found the Cr
content of tobacco roots to be twenty times higher than in the leaves of
plants showing symptoms of Cr toxicity. They found only slightly higher Cr
levels in the leaves of plants showing toxic symptoms than in leaves of
healthy plants. Therefore, translocation of Cr from roots to the plant
tops apparently is not a serious problem. This does not, however, elimi-
nate Cr as a toxic element since it has a definite toxic effect on roots.
218
-------
TABLE 6.29 PLANT RESPONSE TO CHROMIUM IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
Amount of
Cr (ppm)
.01
0.5
4.8
5.2
10
10
10
25
30-60
52
55
100-200
128-640
150
400
300-500
Media
Silt soil
Solution
Sand
Solution
Pot experiments
Solution
Soil
Pot experiments
Solution
Pot experiments
Sandy loam
Yolo loam
Sand & peat
Soil
Submerged soil
Soil
Species
Fescue (Festuca
clatior) & alfalfa
(Medicago sativa)
Soybean (Glycine
max)
Mustard
Cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum)
Mustard
Oat (Avena sativa)
Soybean (G. max)
Mustard
Soybean (G. max)
Potato (Solanum
tuberosum)
seedlings
Rye (Secale
cereale)
Bush bean
(Phaseolus
limensis)
Mustard
Sweet orange
(Citrus sinensis)
Rice (Oryza sativa)
Rice (0. sativa)
Effect
No increase in
plant Cr
Reduced yield
Decreased yield
83% yield reduction
Toxic
Iron clorosis
Reduced yield
Toxic
Toxic
Threshold of
toxicity
No increase in
plant Cr
Decreased yield
Reduced yield
Toxic
Slight yield
reduction
No effect
Reference
Stucky & Newman (1977)
Turner and Rust (1971)
Gemmell (1972)
Rehab and Wallace (1978b)
Andrziewski (1971)
Hewitt (1953)
Turner and Rust (1971)
Andrziewski (1971)
Turner and Rust (1971)
Mukherji and Roy (1977)
Kelling et al. (1977)
Wallace et al. (1976)
i
Gemmell (1972)
Pratt (1966b)
Kamada and Doki (1977)
Silva and Beghi (1979)
-------
Chromium is essential for glucose metabolism in animals and its activ-
ity is closely tied to that of insulin (Scott, 1972). Although Cr is
highly toxic to many invertebrates, it is only moderately toxic to higher
animals, and most mammals can tolerate up to 1000 ppm Cr in their diets.
In animals, however, experimental data have shown conclusively that Cr in
the hexavalent form can cause cancer (Hernberg, 1977). The predilection of
workers in Cr plants to respiratory cancer has been thoroughly documented
in several studies and has been reviewed by Enterline (1974).
The use of irrigation water containing the upper limit of the accept-
able concentration of Cr recommended by the National Academy of Sciences
and National Academy of Engineering (1972) is equivalent to an accumulation
of 1000 ppm Cr in the soil. Information obtained from this study indicates
that the phytotoxic level of Cr in soil is highly variable, depending on
the soil type and plant species, but can be as low as 25 ppm. Therefore, a
more suitable criteria on which to base loading rates would be the amount
of Cr immobilized by the soil as determined from demonstration of treat-
ability tests.
6.1.6.9 Cobalt (Co)
Cobalt is used in the production of high grade steel, alloys, super-
alloys and magnetic alloys. It is also used in smaller quantities as a
drier in paints, varnishes, enamels and inks. Compounds of Co are also
used in the manufacture of pigments and glass (Page, 1974). The concentra-
tion of Co in soils ranges from 1-40 ppm with an average of 8 ppm (Aubert
and Pinta, 1977). Extensive areas can be found where the Co level in soil
is deficient for animal health (Bowen, 1966).
The availability of Co is primarily regulated by pH and is usually
found in soils as Co2+. At low pH it is oxidized to Co^1" and often found
associated with iron (Ermolenko, 1972). Adsorption of Co 2+ on soil col-
loids is high between pH 6 and 7 (Leeper, 1978), whereas leaching and plant
uptake of Co are enhanced by a lower pH. Cobalt sorbed on soil exchange
sites is held more strongly than the common cations and can revert to a
more strongly sorbed form over time (Banerjee et al., 1953). Soils natur-
ally rich in Co have a high pH (Aubert and Pinta, 1977). If Co is added to
soils containing lime, precipitation of Co with carbonates can be expected
(Tiller and Hodgson, 1960).
Cobalt is water soluble when in the form of chloride, nitrate' and sul-
fate salts. At a pH of 7, Co is 50-80% soluble when it is associated with
cations such as ammonium, magnesium, calcium, sodium and potassium. At pH
8.5 Co becomes less soluble and cobaltous phosphate, a compound which is
relatively insoluble in water, may regulate solubility (Young, 1948). In
soils, Co is bound by organic matter and is very strongly sorbed or copre—
cipitated with manganese oxides (Leeper, 1978).
There is no evidence that Co is essential for the growth and develop-
ment of higher plants. It is, however, required for the symbiotic fixation
220
-------
of nitrogen by nodulating bacteria associated with legumes (Ahmed and
Evans, 1960 & 1961; Delwiche et al., 1961; Reisenauer, 1960). Excessive
amounts of Co can be toxic to plants. Symptoms of Co toxicity vary with
species but are frequently described as resembling that of iron deficiency
(Vanselow, 1966b). In solution cultures, Co concentrations as low as 0.1
ppm produce toxic effects in crop plants. Cobalt applications to soil of
0.2 ppm had no effect on bean (Phaseolus sp.) growth in a study by dos
Santos et al. (1979). In greenhouse experiments, Fujimoto and Sherman
(1950) found Sudan grass (Sorghum sudanense) to be unaffected by an appli-
cation rate equivalent to 224 kg/ha which resulted in a Co content in
plants of 3-6 ppm. Phytotoxicity from soil Co occurs in plants containing
50-100 ppm and foliar symptoms are apparent at these levels (Hunter and
Vergnano, 1953).
A recent study indicates that plants grown in a Co contaminated soil
overlain by uncontaminated soil will accumulate large concentrations of the
metal as shown in Fig. 6.16 (Pinkerton, 1982). This appears to be due to
healthy vigorously growing roots encountering the elevated soil Co as
opposed to having to develop in the high Co soil. This research implies
that proper mixing of the Co waste and the soil is essential to preventing
excessive plant accumulation of Co.
Most plants growing in soils with native Co concentrations do not
accumulate Co and values exceeding 1 ppm are rare. Yet when growing in Co
enriched media, these same species may accumulate the element and show
yield reductions (Table 6.30). Yamagata and Murakami (1958) found 600 ppm
Co in alder (Alnus sp.) leaves, while white oak (Quercus alba), chestnut,
saxifrage and dogwood (Cornus florida) growing in the same area had 2-5 ppm
Co in leaf ash. Swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) has also been found to
contain a higher concentration of Co than grasses growing in the same area
(Vanselow, 1966b). Blackgum is such a good indicator of Co status in a
soil that Kubota et al. (1960) consider an area to be Co deficient for
grazing animals when the concentration of Co in blackgum trees is less than
5 ppm; this method may be used to indicate soils suitable for amendment
with Co-rich waste. The level of Co in cucumbers (Cumcumis sativus) and
tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) is increased by increasing the Co
additions in nutrient solution (Coic and Lesaint, 1978), yet applications
of 0.5-2 kg Co/ha had no effect on the Co concentration of the metal in red
clover (Trifolium pratense) hay (Krotkikh and Repnikov, 1976).
221
-------
800-
700-
600-
6
§ J5 50°-
0 | 300-
1^ O)
2 • 2OO-
2
°" 100
n.
<
5
i
§
§
LU
i
|
ce
i
I
i
S
I
UJ
i
§
i
NO LAYER
3 CM
6 CM
9 CM
UNCONTAMINATED SOIL LAYER THICKNESS
Figure 6.16.
Cobalt concentrations in tall fescue grown
in Marietta and Norwood soils at 400 mg Co
kg"1 (added as Co(N03)2 • 6H20) with vary-
ing layer thicknesses of uncontaminated soil
overlying the cobalt amended soil
(Pinkerton, 1982).
222
-------
TABLE 6.30 PLANT RESPONSE TO COBALT IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
Co
Concent rat ion
(ppm)
Media
Species
Effect
Reference
25
40
100
400
Solution
Soil
Soil
Soil
Solution
Cabbage
(Brassica
pleracea)
Corn seedlings
(Zea mays)
Oats (Avena
sativa)
General
White bean
(Phaseolus sp.)
50% yield
reduction
Kara et al.
(1976)
Top injury Young (1979)
Toxic
Threshold
toxicity
34% yield
reduction
Young (1979)
Allaway (1968)
Rauser (1978)
Cobalt is required by animals because it is the central atom in vita-
min 8^2 (Rickles et al. , 1948). Although vitamin Bj^ is synthesized by
microorganisms in the ruminant gut, Co must still be supplied in the diet
(Sauchelli, 1969). Since Co is essential for ruminants, pasture plants
deficient in it cause a dietary deficiency of Co which is the cause of a
progressive emaciation of ruminants (McKenzie, 1975). Areas where Co
deficiency in animals was observed had forage which contained less than 2.5
ppm Co. Extremely high Co levels in forage can also result in toxicity to
grazing animals, however, Co toxicity in livestock has not been reported
under field conditions. The National Academy of Science (1980) established
100 ppm Co in plant dry matter as the acute level for ruminants.
The use of irrigation water that contains the upper limit of the
acceptable concentration of Co recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972) is equivalent to an
accumulation of 500 ppm Co in the upper 15 cm of soil. However plant
toxicity results at soil concentrations well below this value, depending on
plant species. Animal health is affected by plants containing 100 ppm Co.,
therefore loading rates should be based on soil concentrations which pro-
duce plants with Co concentrations less than 100 ppm. A conservative
value for cumulative Co of 200 ppm in the soil is suggested to immobilize
the element as well as to avoid excess plant uptake.
223
-------
6.1.6.10 Copper (Cu)
Significant amounts of Cu are produced in wastes from textile mills,
cosmetics manufacturing, and sludge from hardboard production. Soil Cu
contents range from 2-100 ppm with an average around 30 ppm (Bowen, 1966).
The abundance of Cu enrichment to the environment has prompted studies
of the behavior of the element in relation to soil properties. Copper
retention in soils is dependent on pH, sorption of Cu increases with
increasing pH. In kaolinitic soils where clay surfaces have a net negative
charge with increasing pH, the amount of Cu desorbed increased as the pH
was lowered from 6 to 2 (Kishk and Hassan, 1973). The lack of adsorption
of Cu at a low pH may be due to competition from Mg 2+ Fe 3H; H+ and A13+
for sorption sites. Soils selected to represent a broad range of mineral
and organic contents were found to have a specific adsorption maximum at pH
5.5 of between 340 and 5780 ppm Cu in soil (McLaren and Crawford, 1973).
Land treated Cu waste should be limed if necessary to maintain a pH of 6.5
or greater to ensure the predominance of insoluble forms of Cu, Cu(OH)2
and Cu(OH)3 (Hodgson et al., 1966 and Younts and Patterson, 1964).
Soil organic matter forms very stable complexes with Cu. Carboxyl and
phenolic groups are important in the organic complexing of Cu in soils
(Lewis and Broadbent, 1961). Sorption of Cu to organic matter occurs at
relatively high rates when the concentrations of iron and manganese oxides
in the soil are low. There is some evidence that Cu bound to organic
matter is not readily available to plants (Purvis and MacKenzie, 1973).
Organic matter may provide nonspecific sorption sites for Cu; however, the
loss of organic matter through decomposition causes a significant decrease
in this retention mechanism.
Clay mineralogy also plays a significant role in determining the
amount of Cu sorbed. Experiments have shown that Cu^+ is sorbed
appreciably by quartz and even more strongly by clays. The adsorption
capacity of clays increases in the order kaloninte to illite to montmoril-
lonite (Krauskopf, 1972). The strength of Cu sorption of soil constituents
are in the following order:
manganese oxides < organic matter < iron oxides < clay minerals.
A column study by Emmerich et al. (1982) indicated that Cu applied as
sewage sludge to a concentration of 512 ppm essentialy did not move below
the zone of incorporation and that 94% of that applied was recovered from
the soil. This soil had a pH between 5.2 and 6.7 and a CEC of 4.4 to 9.7
meq/100 g. Soil components which are less significant in Cu attenuation
include free phosphates, iron salts, and clay-size aluminosilicate
minerals.
Cation exchange capacity i& a soil property indirectly related to
mineralogy which may influence metal loading. Overcash and Pal (1979) have
suggested that loading rates based on CEC only be used as a suggestion of
the buffering capacity of the soil and critical cumulative limits have been
224
-------
adjusted to soil CEC (0-5 meq/100 g, 125 kg/ha, 5-15 meq/100 g, 250 kg/ha;
15 meq/100 g, 500 kg/ha).
Since the normal Cu concentration in plants (4 to 15 ppm) is lower
than Cu levels found in most soils, the soil Cu content appears to be the
most important factor in controlling plant levels of Cu. Management prac-
tices must be developed considering the chemistry of Cu in soils and Cu
toxicity to plants and animals. The data of Gupta (1979) indicate that the
toxic range of Cu in the leaves of plants is greater than 20 ppm, depending
on species. The influence of soil and solution culture concentration on
plant growth are given in Table 6.31, and indicates a soil concentration of
over 80 ppm is necessary before most plant growth is adversely affected.
Copper is essential to the metabolic processes common to decomposing
bacteria, plants and animals. Small quantities of Cu activate enzymes
required in respiration, redox-type reactions and protein synthesis.
Copper has been shown to be magnified within the food chain and moderate
levels of Cu ingested by ruminants may be poisonous unless the effect is
alleviated through proper diet supplements of molybdenum or sulfate
(Kubota, 1977).
Several researchers have reported a decrease in plant Cu when large
amounts of organic matter are present. Goodman and Gemmell (1978) reported
successful reclamation of Cu smelter wastes treated with pulverized fly
ash, sewage sludge or domestic refuse. In a greenhouse experiment, MacLean
and Dekker (1978) eliminated the toxic effects of Cu on corn (Zea mays) by
applying sewage sludge. Kornegay et al. (1976) found that additions of hog
manure containing 1719 ppm Cu did not affect the Cu content in grain when
compared to grain from control experiments. Purvis and MacKenzie (1973)
found that the organic form of Cu was not readily taken up by plants when
Cu-laden municipal compost was applied to soil at rates from 50 to 100
metric tons sludge/ha.
A study by Mitchell et al. (1978) evaluated Cu uptake by crops grown
in acidic and alkaline soils (Table 6.32 and Table 6.33). In this study,
wheat and grain growing in an acid soil showed the greatest amount of Cu
accumulation. Copper may be strongly chelated in plant roots; consequent-
ly, root concentrations are usually greater than leaf concentrations.
225
-------
TABLE 6.31 PLANT RESPONSE TO COPPER IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
Amount of
Cu (ppm)
.03
1
10
26
30
50-115
69
91
100
100
130
150
400
400
Media
Solution
Solution
Soil
Sand
Solution
Soil of
mining area
Soil
Soil
Rooting media
Soil
Soil
Soil
Yolo loam
Yolo loam
Species
Andropogon scoparius
Horse bean (Vicia faba)
Barley (Hordeum vulgare)
Barley (H. vulgare), pea
(Pisim sp.)
Coffee
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Corn (Zea mays)
Barley (H. vulgare)
Barley (H. vulgare)
Green alder
(Alnus americana)
Barley (H. vulgare)
Black spruce
(Picea mariana)
Cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum)
Cotton (G. hirsutum)
Effect
Root damage
Growth
inhibited
Stunted growth
Inhibition of
shoot growth
Toxicity
threshold
None
Decreased root
weight
Reduced yield
Stunted growth
Seedling damage
Accumulated 21
ppm in leaves
Growth decrease
Leaf yields
reduced by 35%
Leaf yields
reduced by 53%
Reference
Ehinger and Parker
(1979)
Sekerka (1977)
Toivonen and Hofstra
(1979)
Blaschke (1977)
Andrade et al. (1976)
Karataglis (1978)
Klein et al. (1979)
Davis (1979)
Toivonen and Hofstra
(1979)
Fessenden & Sutherland
(1979)
Davis (1979)
Fessenden & Sutherland
(1979)
Rehab & Wallace (1978a)
Rehab & Wallace (1978a)
-------
TABLE 6.32 COPPER CONCENTRATION IN PLANT TISSUE IN RELATION TO COPPER
ADDITION IN AN ACID SOIL (REDDING FINE SANDY LOAM)*
Cu
Concentration Plant
(ppm) Portion
5
5
5
80
80
320
320
640
640
* Mitchell
TABLE 6.33
Shoots
Leaves
Grain
Shoots
Leaves
Shoots
Grain
Shoots
Grain
Plant
Crop Concentration
Lettuce (Lactuca
sativa)
Wheat (Triticum
aestivum)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Lettuce (L. sativa)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Lettuce (L. sativa)
Wheat OT. aestivum)
Lettuce (L. sativa)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
et al. (1978).
COPPER CONCENTRATION IN PLANT TISSUE
ADDITION IN A CALCAREOUS SOIL (DOMINO
Cu
Concentration Plant
(ppm) Portion
5
5
5
80
80
160
160
320
320
640
Shoots
Leaves
Grain
Shoots
Leaves
Leaves
Grain
Leaves
Grain
Grain
6.8
10.7
7.3
8.9
10.7
10.7
12.3
18.3
33.0
IN RELATION TO
SILT LOAM)*
Plant
Crop Concentration
Lettuce
(Lactuca sativa)
Wheat (Triticum
aestivum)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Lettuce (L. sativa)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Lettuce (L. sativa)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Wheat CD. aestivum)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
6.4
10.7
6.7
7.9
14.8
8.2
7.9
15.4
9.1
9.2
Effect
None
None
None
None
None
60% yield
reduction
20% yield
reduction
90% yield
reduction
95% yield
reduction
COPPER
Effect
None
None
None
None
None
30% yield
reduction
None
Significant
yield
reduction
20% yield
reduction
40% yield
reduction
* Mitchell et al. (1978).
227
-------
In summary, the controlling factor in the prevention of toxic levels
of Cu in water, plants and animals is the level of Cu in the soil. While
Cu tolerance in plants can be explained by certain mineral interactions,
the ultimate sites for adsorption of Cu in the environment remain the
organic and inorganic colloid fractions in soil. The National Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972) recommend a soil
accumulation of 250 ppm Cu in the upper 15 cm of soil. Tables 6.31, 6.32
and 6.33 indicate that the phytotoxic concentration of Cu ranges from about
70 to 640 ppm Cu in the soil for most plants. A conservative recommenda-
tion of 250 ppm is given for Cu concentration in soil. However, if treat-
ability tests show immobilization at higher levels without toxicity, then
loading rates could be increased.
6.1.6.11 Gallium (Ga)
Gallium concentration in soil is commonly low, averaging 30 ppm (Kirk-
ham, 1979), except where it occurs in coal, oil, and bauxite ore. Since Ga
is sorbed by aluminum (Al) in soil, Ga concentrations are likely to be
higher in sandy acidic soils with dominant Al mineralogy. Disposal of Ga
present in waste streams of smelter or coal processing plants depends on
the degree of Ga retention in soils with dominant Al mineralogy.
6.1.6.12 Gold (Au)
Gold is rarely found in waste streams of any industry because it is a
precious metal. Since pure Au is quite dense (19 g/cm^), it is frequent-
ly concentrated in deposits called placers. In Mexico and Australia,
placers are concentrated by wind; as the lighter minerals are eroded away,
the Au remains in the deposit (Flint and Skinner, 1977). The average Au
concentration in igneous and sedimentary rocks is 4 ppb. Gold concentra-
tions in fresh water are normally less than 0.06 ppb, and Au is found in
sea water at 0.011 ppb as
Gold is not essential to plants or animals. Bowen (1966) ranks Au as
scarcely toxic which means that toxic effects rarely appear except in the
absence of a related essential nutrient, or at osmotic pressures greater
than one atmosphere. Overcash and Pal (1979) list Au as a heavy metal
which reacts with cell membranes to alter their permeability and affect
other properties. The Au concentration in land plants ranges from 0.3-0.8
ppb. The horsetail, Equisetum, is said to accumulate Au.
The isotope Au-198 is commonly used in medicine. In mammals, Au in
the colloidal form can accumulate in the liver. The typical Au concentra-
tion in mammalian livers is 0.23 ppb. The mollusc, Unio mancus, was found
to contain 0.3-3.0 ppb Au in its shell and 4.0-40 ppb Au in its flesh
(Bowen, 1966). It is expected that any Au present in a waste would be
recovered before land treatment.
228
-------
6.1.6.13 Lead (Pb)
The primary source of Pb in hazardous waste is from the manufacture of
Pb-acid storage batteries and gasoline additives (tetraethyl Pb). Tetra-
ethyl Pb production alone consumes approximately 264,000 tons of Pb per
year in the U.S. (Fishbein, 1978). Lead is also used in the manufacture of
ammunition, caulking compounds, solders, pigments, paints, herbicides and
insecticides (Page, 1974). The Pb content of sewage sludge averages 0.17%.
In coal, Pb content may range from 2-20 ppm (Overcash and Pal, 1979).
A Pb concentration of about 10 ppm is average for surface soils. Some
soil types, however, can have a much higher concentration. In soils
derived from quartz mica schist, the Pb content may be 80 ppm. The concen-
tration in soil derived from black shale may reach 200 ppm Pb (Barltrop et
al., 1974).
Lead is present in soils as Pb^+ which may precipitate as Pb sul-
fates, hydroxides and carbonates. Figure 6.17 illustrates the various Pb
compounds present according to soil pH. Below pH of 6, PbSO^ (anglesite)
is dominant and PbC03 is most stable at pH values above 7. The hydroxide
Pb(OH)£ controls solubility around pH 8. and lead phosphates, of which
there are many forms, may control Pb^ solubility at intermediate pH
values. Solubility studies with molybdenum (Mo) show that PbMo04 is a
reaction product and will govern Mo concentrations in the soil solution.
The availability of Pb in soils is related to moisture content, soil
pH, organic matter, and the concentration of calcium and phosphates. Under
waterlogged conditions, naturally occurring Pb becomes reduced and mobile.
Organometallic complexes may be formed with organic matter and these soil
organic chelates are of low solubility. Increasing pH and calcium (Ca^+)
ions diminish the capacity of plants to absorb Pb, as Ca^+ ions compete
with the Pb^+ for exchange sites on the soil and root surfaces (Fuller,
1977).
The Pb adsorption capacity of Illinois soils has been found to reach
several thousand kilograms per hectare (CAST, 1976). In another study,
only 3 ppm soluble Pb was found three days after 6,720 kg Pb/ha was added
to the soil (Brewer, 1966b). Lead is adsorbed most strongly from aqueous
solutions to calcium bentonite (Ermolenko, 1972).
Lead is not an essential element for plant growth. It is, however,
taken up by plants in the Pb^+ form. The amount taken up decreases as
the pH, cation exchange capacity, and available phosphorus of the soil
increase. Under conditions of high pH, CEC and available phosphorous, Pb
becomes less soluble and is more strongly adsorbed (CAST, 1976). This
insolubilization takes time and Pb added in small increments over long time
periods is less available to plants than high concentrations added over a
short period of time (Overcash and Pal, 1979).
Lead toxicity to plants is uncommon (Table 6.34). Symptoms of Pb
toxicity are found only in plants grown on acid soils. In solution cul-
229
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
- 0.6
<*—
| 0.5
§ 0.4
cc
u.
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-12
-10
-8
-6
log [OH]
-4
Pb(OH)4
-2
2
4
6
8
PH
10
12
14
Figure 6.17. Distribution of molecular and ionic species of
divalent lead at different pH values (Fuller,
1977).
230
-------
TABLE 6.34 PLANT RESPONSE TO LEAD IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
w
Pb
Concentration
(ppm)
0.4
3.6
5.0
21.0
50.0
66.0
100.0
200.0
1000.0
1000.0
1500.0
1500.0
2500.0
3775.0
Media
Soil
Soil
Solution
Solution
Solution
Soil
Solution
Sand
Acid Soil
Soil
Soil pH 5.9
Solution
Sand
Sandy clay
Species
Eggplant (Solanum
melongena)
Corn (Zea mays)
Corn (Z. mays)
Sphagnum f imbriatum
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
Loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) & autumn olive
Soybean (Glycine max)
Oats (Avena sativa)
Plantain (Musa
paradisiaca)
Red clover (Trifolium
pratense)
Corn (Zea mays)
Ryegrass (Secale
cereale)
Glyceria maxima
Corn (Z. mays) &
Effect
None
None
Reduced root
growth
None
None
None
None
Impaired
growth
None
None
None
None
Chlorosis
None
Reference
Watanbe and Nakamura
(1972)
Sung and Young (1977)
Malone et al. (1978)
Simola (1977)
John (1977)
Rolfe & Bazzar (1975)
Malone et al. (1978)
Kovda et al. (1979)
Dikjshoorn et al. (1979)
Horak (1979)
Baumhard and Welch
(1972)
Jones et al. (1973)
Raghi-Atri (1978)
Sung and Young (1977)
soybeans (Glycine max)
-------
ture, root growth of sheep fescue is retarded by 30 ppm and stopped by 100
ppm Pb. Lead content in plants grown on soil with a high Pb level
increases only slightly over that of plants grown on soil of average Pb
content. Clover tops (Trifolium sp.) show an increase of 7.55 ppm, while
kale (Brassica campestris) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) leaves show an
increase of less than 1 ppm. The Pb taken up by plants is rarely translo-
cated since it becomes chelated in the roots. Tops of barley (Hordeum
vulgare) grown on a soil extremely high in Pb contained 3 ppm while the
roots contained 1,475 ppm Pb (Brewer, 1966b). Translocation of Pb to grain
is less than translocation to vegetative parts (Schaeffer et al., 1979).
Applied sewage sludge containing 360 ppm Pb resulted in no significant
increase in Pb content of corn leaves and grain (Keefer et al., 1979).
Lead poisoning is quite serious and a major human health concern.
Perlstein and Attala (1966) estimate that 600,000 children each year in the
U.S. suffer from Pb poisoning. Of these, 6,000 have permanent neurological
damage and 200 die. One source of elevated Pb in children may be contact
with Pb-containing dust (Vostal et al., 1974). In fact, soil Pb content in
excess of 10,000 ppm may result in an increase in Pb absorption even by
children who do not ingest the contaminated soil (Barltrop et al., 1974).
Where high levels of lead are allowed to accumulate, children should be
prevented from entering the site throughout the post-closure period.
Cattle and sheep are more resistant to Pb toxicity than horses. There
is, however, some tendency for cattle to accumulate Pb in tissues, and Pb
can be transferred to milk in concentrations that are toxic to humans
(National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, 1972).
Based on human health considerations, the maximum allowable Pb content in
domestic animals is 30 ppm (National Academy of Science, 1980). Cattle
ingest large amounts of soil when grazing and may consume up to ten times
as much Pb from soil as from forage. Lead poisoning has been reported in
cattle grazing in Derbyshire, England, where the soil is naturally high in
the element (Barltrop et al., 1974).
The use of irrigation water that contains the upper limit of the
acceptable concentration of Pb as recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972) is equivalent to an
accumulation of 1,000 ppm of lead in the upper 15 cm of soil. Table 6.34
indicates Pb is generally not toxic to plants and the element does not
readily translocate to leaves or seeds. Growth of root crops should be
avoided and grazing animals should be excluded from the site to avoid Pb
toxicity to animals and humans. If demonstration of treatability experi-
ments verify immobilization of Pb at high concentrations, 1000 ppm total Pb
could be safely allowed to accumulate in the soil without phytotoxicity.
6.1.6.14 Lithium (Li)
Lithium normally occurs in saline and alkaline soils and is usually
associated with carbonates in soils derived from calcareous parent materi-
als. The average Li content of soils is 20 ppm. Because the concentration
232
-------
of total and soluble Li is not related to depth in the profile, clay con-
tent or organic carbon content (Shukla and Prasad, 1973, Gupta et al.,
1974), it is expected that Li is not fixed selectively in soil except by
precipitation after liming.
The usual Li concentration in plants and animals is low, but levels of
1,000 ppm in plant tissues, which are sometimes reached in plants grown on
mineral enriched soils, do not appear to be very phytotoxic. The data pro-
vided by the present review indicate that the toxic range of Li in the
leaves of plants varies from 80 to 700 ppm depending on species (Table
6.35). At low levels in a nutritive solution, Li stimulates phosphorylase
activity in tuber storage of beets (Beta vulgaris), while growth in corn
(Zea mays), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and fescue (Festuca sp.) is limited
as a result of Li substitution for Na in cellular functions. Tables 6.35
and 6.36 list plant concentrations of Li and crop responses to those con-
centrations, respectively. Lithium poses little threat to the food chain
since it is only slightly toxic to animals.
TABLE 6.35 THE INFLUENCE OF LEAF LITHIUM CONCENTRATION ON PLANTS
Li
Concentration
(ppm)
26
45
80
220
600
700
Portion
of plant
Leaf
Leaf
Leaf
Leaf
Leaf
Leaf
Species
Mean of 200
Cotton
(Gossypium
hirsutum)
Tomato
(Lycopersicon
esculentum)
Bean
(Phaseolus
sp.)
Bean
(Phaseolus
sp.)
Cabbage
(Brassica
oleracea)
Effect
None
None
Threshold
of toxicity
Yield
reduction
Severe
50% Yield
reduction
Reference
Romney et al.
(1975)
Rahab & Wallace
(1978c)
Wallihan et al.
(1978)
Wallace et al .
(1977)
Wallace et al.
(1977)
Kara et al .
(1977)
233
-------
TABLE 6.36 THE INFLUENCE OF SOLUTION CULTURE AND SOIL CONCENTRATION OF
LITHIUM ON PLANT GROWTH AND YIELD
Amount of
Li (ppm)
Media
Species
Effect
Reference
8
50
50
100
587
1000
Solution
Sand
Solution
Loam
Yolo loam
Soil
Loam
Loam
Tomato
(Lycopers i con
esculentum)
Toxicity
Wallihan, et al.
(1978)
Wheat (Triticum No influence
aestivum)
Barley (Hordeum
vulgare)
Bean (Phaseolus
sp.)
Cotton
(Gossypium
hirsutum)
Wheat
(T_. aestivum)
Barley
(II. vulgar e)
Cotton
((5. hirsutum)
Barley
(H. vulgare)
No seedlings Gupta (1974)
Severe injury Wallace et al,
(1977)
None
Rehab & Wallace
(1978c)
No influence Gupta (1974)
None
Severe
Wallace et al.
(1977)
Wallace et al.
(1977)
The use of irrigation water that contains the upper limit of the
acceptable concentration of Li as recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972) is equivalent to an
accumulation of 250 ppm of Li in the upper 15 cm of soil. Information
in Tables 6.35 and 6.36 indicates that the phytotoxic level of Li in soil
ranges from 50 to 1000 ppm. An acceptable estimate for cumulative Li in
the soil appears to be 250 ppm. However, if treatability tests show that
higher concentrations are immobilized without toxicity, then loading rates
could be increased.
6.1.6.15 Manganese (Mn)
The major sources of Mn bearing wastes are the iron and steel
industries. Other sources of Mn include disinfectants, paint and
fertilizers (Page, 1974). Manganese dioxide is found in wastes from the
production of alkaline batteries, glass, paints and drying industries.
234
-------
Concentrations of Mn in mineral soils range from 20-3000 ppm, though
600 ppm is average (Lindsay, 1979). When Mn is released from primary rocks
by weathering, secondary minerals such as pyrolusite (MnO£) and manganite
[MnO(OH)] are formed. The most common forms of Mn found in soil are the
divalent cation (Mn2+) which is soluble , mobile , and easily available , and
the tetravalent cation (Mn^"1") which is practically insoluble, non-
mobile, and unavailable (Aubert and Pinta, 1977). The trivalent cation
Mn3+, as Mn203, is unstable in solution. The tetravalent cation usually
appears in well oxidized soils at a very low pH. Under reduced conditions
found in water saturated soils, Mh^+ is the stable compound, and this
divalent ion is adsorbed to clay minerals and organic matter. In strongly
oxidized environments , the most stable , compound « is the tetravalent Mn
dioxide,
Manganese availability is high in acid soils and Mn2+ solubility
decreases 100-fold for each unit increase in pH. (Lindsay, 1972) At pH
values of 5.0 or less, Mn is rendered very soluble and excessive Mn accumu-
lation in plants can result. At pH values of 8 or above, precipitation of
Mn(OH)2 results in Mn removal from the soil solution.
Reduced conditions in the soil increase Mn solubility and produce
Mn^+ in solution. Oxidation of Mn occurs at a low redox potential in
an alkaline solution (Krauskopf, 1972). Under oxidizing conditions,
several Mn compounds may be formed including (MnSi)203, BaMn(II), MnOOH,
and the stable product of complete oxidation, pyrolusite
When the pH of the soil is greater than 7 , manganese (Mn^+) is ren-
dered less available by adsorption onto organic matter colloids. Thus,
soils of high pH with large organic matter reserves are particularly prone
to Mn deficiency. However, the affinity of Mn^~*" for synthetic chelates is
comparatively low, and chelated Mn2+ can be easily exchanged by Zn2+ or
Ca2*.
Interactions of Mn with other elements have been noted in soil adsorp-
tion and plant uptake. The formation of manganese oxides in soils appears
to regulate the levels of cobalt (Co) in soil solution and hence Co cobalt
availability to plants. Bowen (1966) reported that plant uptake of Mn was
greater in the absence of calcium and that Mn adsorption was reduced in the
presence of iron, copper, sodium, and potassium.
Concentrations of Mn in plant leaves generally range from 15-150 ppm.
The suggested maximum concentration value for plants is given at 300 ppm
(Melsted, 1973), however the data of the National Research Council (1973)
indicate that the toxic range of Mn in leaves is 500 to 2,000 ppm, depend-
ing on plant species. Vaccinium myrtillus plants appear healthy when the
foliage contains as high as 2431 ppm Mn and Lupinus luteus and Ornithopus
sativus are both Mn tolerant (Lohris, 1960). Young plants are generally
rich in Mn and the element can be translocated to meristematic tissues.
Tables 6.37 and 6.38 list various Mn concentrations in the soil that
produce toxic symptoms in plants.
235
-------
TABLE 6.37 THE INFLUENCE OF LEAF MANGANESE CONCENTRATION ON PLANTS*
Plant
Concentration
(ppm)
15-84
49-150
70-131
160
173-999
207-1340
300-500
400-500
770-1000
993-1130
1000
1000-3000
3170
4000-11,000
Media
Solution
Solution
Solution
Field
Solution
Soil
Soil
Field
Solution
Pots
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Portion
of Plant
Leaves
Roots
Tops
Leaves
Leaves
Whole plant
Leaves
Tops
Tops
Whole plant
Leaves
Tops
Roots
Leaves
Species
Soybeans
(Glycine max)
Soybeans
(G. max)
Lespedeza
(Lespedeza sp.)
Tobacco
(Nicotiana tabacum)
Soybeans
(G. max)
Bean
( Phas eolus sp . )
Orange
(Citrus sp.)
Lespedeza
(Lespedeza sp.)
Barley
(Hordeum vulgare )
Tobacco
(N. tabacum)
Orange
(Citrus sp.)
Bean
(Phaseolus sp . )
Tobacco
(N. tabacum)
Tobacco
(N. tabacum)
Effect
None
Toxic
None
None
Toxic
None
None
Toxic
Toxic
Toxic
Toxic
Toxic
Toxic
Toxic
* Chapman (1966)
Manganese is absorbed by plants as the divalent cation Mn"~. Its
essential functions in plants include the activation of numerous enzymes
concerned with carbohydrate metabolism, phosphorylation reactions , and the
citric acid cycle. Magnesium, calcium and iron depress Mn uptake in a
variety of plant species (Moore, 1972).
Manganese toxicity in young plants is indicated by brown spotting on
leaves. One to four grams of Mn per milliliter of solution may depress
yields of lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), soybeans ( Glycine max) and barley
(Hordeum vulgare) (Labanauskas , 1966). The threshold of toxicity for
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plants grown in soil was observed at a Mn
concentration of 450 ppm (Jones and Fox, 1978).
236
-------
TABLE 6.38 PLANT RESPONSE TO MANGANESE IN SOIL AND SOLUTION CULTURE
Amount of
Mn (ppm)
2.1
4-64
Media
Solution
Solution
Species
Legume
Weeping lovegrass
Effect
Toxicity
threshold
No effect
Reference
Helyar (1978)
Fleming et al .
(1974)
(Eragrostis curvula)
& fescue (Festuca sp.)
5 Solution Jacoine (Pinus banksiana)
& black spruce (Picea
mariana)
5 Solution Soybean (Glycine max)
15 Solution Soybean (£. max)
20 Sand Groundnut (Apios americana)
30 Solution Satsuma orange
(Citrus reticulata)
40 Sand Macroptilium
atropurpureum
65 Acid soil Soybean (G. max)
130 Soil Subterranean clover
(Trifolium subterraneum)
140-200 Soil Barley (Hordeum vulgare)
200 Soil Tobacco (Nicotiana
tabacum)
250 Soil Watermelon (Cucumis sp.)
450 Soil Tomatoes (Lycoperisicon
esculentum)
1400 Soil Kidney bean (Phaseolus
vulgare)
3000 Soil Peppers (Capsicum sp.)
5000 Soil Eggplant (Solanum melongena)
& melons (Cucumis sp.)
Toxic
No effect
Toxic
No effect
Reduced yield
Chlorosis
No effect
Toxicity
Toxic
Yield decreased
Reduced yield
Toxic
Toxicity
threshold
Toxic
Toxic
Toxic
Lafond & Laflamme (1970)
Lafond & Laflamme (1970)
Brown & Jones (1977)
Heenan & Carter (1976)
Benac (1976)
Otsuka and Morizaki (1969)
Hutton et al. (1978)
Franco & Dobereiner (1971)
Simon et al. (1974)
Prausse et al. (1972)
Link (1979)
Gomi & Oyagi (1972)
Jones and Fox (1978)
Gomi & Oyagi (1972)
Gomi & Oyagi (1972)
Gomi & Oyagi (1972)
-------
Manganese is an essential element in animal nutrition for reproduc-
tion, growth and skeletal formation. Maximum tolerable levels in animals
are cattle, 1000 ppm; sheep, 1000 ppm; swine, 400 ppm; and poultry, 2000
ppm (National Academy of Science, 1980).
In summary, the maintenance of certain conditions in the soil can be
used to prevent environmental contamination from land treating of Mn bear-
ing wastes. Manganese sorption is enhanced by organic matter colloids and
precipitation of Mn is enhanced by carbonates, silicates and hydroxides at
high pH values. The maintenance of a pH of greater than 6.5 is essential
to reducing Mn solubility. The use of irrigation water that contains the
upper limit of the acceptable concentration of Mn as recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972) is
equivalent to an accumulation of 1,000 ppm of Mn in the upper 15 cm of
soil. Information obtained from Jones and Fox (1978) and Tables 6.37 and
6.38 indicate that the phytotoxic level of Mn in soil is generally greater
than 500 ppm.
6.1.6.16 Mercury (Eg)
Mercury has become widely recognized as one of the most hazardous
elements to human health. The potential for Hg contamination exists where
disposal practices create conditions conducive for conversion of Hg to
toxic forms.
Mercury enters land treatment facilities from electrical apparatus
manufacturing, electrolytic production of chlorine and caustic soda, phar-
maceuticals, paints, plastics, paper products and Hg batteries. Mercury is
used as a catalyst in the manufacture of vinyl chloride and urethane. More
than 40% of pesticides containing metal contain Hg. Burning oil and coal
increases atmospheric Hg which eventually falls to the earth and enters the
soil (Page, 1974). Mineral soils in the U.S. usually contain between
0.01-.3 ppm Hg; the average concentration is 0.03 ppm (Lindsay, 1979).
Transformations in the soil and the forms of Hg resulting from these
reactions regulate the environmental impact of land application of mercuri-
cal waste. Figure 6.18 illustrates these conversions and the cycling of Hg
in the soil. Mercury moves very slowly through soils under field condi-
tions. Divalent Hg is rapidly and strongly complexed by covalent bonding
to sulfur-containing organic compounds and inorganic particles. These par-
ticles bind as much as 62% of the Hg in surface soils (Walters and Wolery,
1974). Mercury, as Hg2+, is also bound to exchange sites of clays,
hydrous oxides of iron and manganese, and fine sands (Reimers and Krenkel,
1974). Sorption of Hg by soil organic matter approaches 100% of the Hg
added to an aqueous solution and exceeds sorption of a variety of other
metal elements (Kerndorff and Schnitzer, 1980).
238
-------
MERCURIC ION,
CHELATED CATIONS & ANIONS
SIMPLE COMPLEXES,
OXIDES SULPHIDES
BACTERIAL OXIDATION
PLANKTON
PLANTS
INORGANIC
REACTIONS
Hgllll
BACTERIAL REDUCTION
FUNGI
PLANTS
INORGANIC REACTIONS
SUNLIGHT
ELEMENTAL MERCURY
AS VAPOUR LIQUID
OR DISSOLUTE
HglOl
BACTERIA _
SUNLIGHT"
co
BACTERIAL OXIDATION
PLANTS
INORGANIC REACTIONS
DISPROPORTIONATE AND
ELECTRON EXCHANGE
2Hg'l=HglOI + H, III)
^BACTERIAL REDUCTION
FUNGI
k PLANTS
JNORGANIC
FACTIONS
BACTERIAL SYNTHESIS
CHELATION
BACTERIA,
CONVERSION BY
ORGANIC OXIDANTS
Hgll)
MERCUROUS ION,
CHELATED CATIONS ANIONS,
SIMPLE COMPLEXES
R-Hg-X
R-Hg-R
m
)
ORGANO-MERCURY
COMPOUNDS
R,R'=ALKYL, ARYL,
MERCAPTO,
PROTEIN, etc
X = MONOVALENT AN ION
EG HALIDE, ACETATE,
etc
BACTERIAL SYNTHESIS
CHELATION
ORGANIC OXIDANTS
Figure 6.18.
The cycle of mercury interconversions in nature (Jonasson
and Boyle, 1971). Reprinted by permission of the Royal
Society of Canada.
-------
Removal of Hg by adsorption to clay colloids appears to be pH depen-
dent and proportional to the respective CEC value of the clay. A study by
Griffin and Shimp (1978) indicates that 20 to 30% of the observed Hg
removal is due to adsorption by clay, and that Hg removal from the soil
solution is favored by alkaline conditions. The amount of Hg^+ removed
from solution by a given clay at a specific pH can be determined as fol-
lows:
C = q (6.3)
R W
where
CR ^ amount of Hg+2 removed in mg/g clay;
Cj s initial Hg concentration in ppm;
Cgq s equilibrium Hg concentration in ppm,
Vp s total solution volume after pH adjustments in mis,
W s weight of clay in gms.
About two-thirds of the Hg removed by clay is organic Hg, Fig. 6.19 illus-
trates this removal.
Precipitation of Hg complexes is a means of removing Hg from the
leaching fraction. At pH values above 7, precipitates of Hg(OH)2, HgS04,
HgN03, and Hg (1^3)4 predominate and are very insoluble. Insoluble HgS and
HgCl3 can occur at all pH ranges (Lindsay, 1979).
Organic mercurials associated with soil organic matter or the well-
defined compounds such as phenyl-, alkyl-, and methoxyethyl mercury com-
pounds used as fungicides may be degraded to the metallic form, Hg°.
This reaction is common in soil when coliform bacteria, or Pseudomonas spp.
are present. This is a detoxication process which produces metallic Hg and
hydrocarbon degradation products; however, the metallic Hg may be
volatilized.
Microbial and biochemical reactions are not only capable of breaking
the link between Hg and carbon in organic mercurials; they may also mediate
the formation of such links. Elemental Hg can be converted to methyl mer-
cury by Me thanobacterium omilianskii and also some strains of Clostridium.
These anaerobic microbes are responsible for the formation of toxic Hg
forms, methyl and dimethyl Hg. Both methyl and dimethyl Hg are volatile
and soluble in water, although dimethyl Hg is less soluble and more vola-
tile. The formation of methyl Hg occurs primarily under acidic conditions,
while dimethyl Hg is produced at a near neutral pH (Lagerwerff , 1972). In
addition to being volatile and soluble, methylated forms of Hg are the most
toxic. Methylation of mercury by microbial transformation can be reduced
when nitrate concentrations in the soil are above 250 ppm nitrogen as
KN03 (Barker, 1941).
240
-------
07
06-
0.5-
0.4-
S 0.3
S
0.2-
0.1-
0.0
TOTAL Hg REMOVED
FROM LEACHATE
TOTAL Hg REMOVED BY CLAY
20 30 4.0
50
PH
60
70 80
Figure 6.19.
Removal of various forms of mercury from
DuPage landfill leachate solutions by
kaolinite, plotted as a function of pH
at 25° C (Griffin and Shimp, 1978).
241
-------
Methylation of mercury can also occur by a monoenzymatic process
involving vitamin B^£ or one of its analogs, such as methylcobalamine,
when CH3 is transferred from cobalt (Co^+) to Hg2+ as shown below
CH3 CH3Hg + CH4 + 2Co2+
1 /
2Co3+ + Hg° -^.
\.
(CH3)2Hg = 2Co2+
Another method of methylation is facilitated by the fungi Neurospora crassa
which can make this conversion aerobically without the mediation of vitamin
812 (Lagerwerff, 1972).
Plant content of Hg ranges from 0.001 to 0.01 ppm in plant leaves.
Mercury is a nonessential plant element and is taken up by plants in the
form of CH3Hg, Hg°, and Hg2+. The Hg enters through the roots or
by diffusion of gaseous Hg° through the stomata. Aquatic plants such as
brown algae tend to accumulate Hg relative to its concentration in sea
water and contain levels as high as 0.03 ppm (Bowen, 1966). As a result,
Hg bioconcentration presents a greater hazard in aquatic food chains than
in terrestrial food chains (Chaney, 1973).
The most serious contamination of Hg in the aquatic food chain occurs
where Hg exists as methyl mercury. The Hg poisoning in Japan resulted from
discharges of Hg containing waste from a plastics factory at concentrations
between 1.6 and 3.6 ppb. Local concentrations of Hg were. plankton, 3.5
to 19 ppm; bottom muds, 22 to 59 ppm Hg, and shellfish, 30 to 102 ppm mer-
cury on a dry weight basis (Irukayama, 1966).
No specific concentration of Hg has been shown to be phytotoxic.
Applications of 25-37 kg/ha Hg did not reduce yields of wheat, oats, bar-
ley, clover or timothy (Overcash and Pal, 1979). The concentration of Hg
in soil that is toxic to plants was determined to be greater than 10 ppm by
Van Loon (1974). Foliar treatment of rice in Japan has caused Hg concen-
trations as high as 200 ppb compared with 10 ppb in rice from untreated
fields. Mercury levels in tomatoes after application of a Hg containing
sludge on an alkaline soil were as high as 12.2 ppm (Van Loon, 1974).
Table 6.39 lists the effect of Hg on various plant species and indicates
that phytotoxicity does not result from growth in high Hg media.
242
-------
TABLE 6.39 THE INFLUENCE OF MERCURY ON PLANT GROWTH AND YIELD
Amount
of Hg
(ppm)
.05
10
10
25
250
445
Media
Loamy
sand
Soil
Solution
Sand
Sand
Soil
Species
Spring wheat
(Trxticum aestivum)
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa),
rape (Brassica sp.),
wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Pisum sativum
Oat (Avena sativa)
Oat (A. sativa)
Bentgrass (Agrostis sp.)
Effect
Shoots accumulated
5.5 ppm
No effect
Toxic
No effect
Reduced yield
No toxic effect
Reference
Findenegg & Havnold (1972)
Gracey & Stewart (1977)
Beauford et al. (1977)
Kovda et al. (1979)
Sorteberg (1978)
Estes et al. (1973)
-------
Reactions with selenium (Se) and cadmium can decrease Hg toxicity.
Methyl Hg readily complexes with Se and when present in equimolar amounts,
Se readily detoxifies methyl H,g. Dietary Se protects against the toxic
effects of Hg in both rats and quail (El-Begearmi, 1973). It is interest-
ing to note that fish taken from Minimata Bay in Japan had high concentra-
tions of methyl Hg but comparatively low concentrations of Se, with a molar
ratio of Se:methyl Hg of about 1:10. Cadmium also seems to react with Hg
and has been shown to reduce Hg toxicity in humans and animals (Perry and
Yunice, 1965).
In summary, the possibility of methyl mercury reaching the food chain
will regulate land treatment waste loading. Uptake of Hg by plant roots
can be minimized by maintaining a soil pH above 6.5. Mercury will precipi-
tate as a carbonate or hydroxide at this pH, therefore, maintaining soil pH
is a valuable mechanism for attenuating mercury. Adsorption of Hg onto
organic matter colloids occurs most readily at a low pH. Mercury is more
mobile in soils if it is organically complexed than if it is adsorbed onto
clays.
Wastes containing some Se can also alleviate the hazard of Hg toxicity
in animals. Application of a waste containing both elements would be less
likely to create toxicity problems than a waste that contains only Hg.
Sulfur in the waste can also help to attentuate Hg by precipitating HgS
which is very insoluble. Chaney (1974) recommends that wastes containing
greater than 10 mg/kg Hg not be land applied since extremely low concentra-
tions of Hg are allowed for drinking water. Alternate disposal methods
waste containing Hg at these levels should be considered.
6.1.6.17 Molybdenum (Mo)
The largest single use of Mo is in the production of steel and alloys.
It is also used in the production of pigments, filaments, lamps and elec-
tronic tubes, and is used in small amounts in fertilizers and as a catalyst
(Page, 1974). Soils typically have a median Mo concentration of 2 ppm with
a range of 0.2 ppm to 5 ppm (Lindsay, 1979). Shale and granite are the
major rocks contributing Mo to soils (Goldschmidt, 1954).
At soil pH values above 5, Mo is generally found as the molybdate
anion, MoO^". At low pH values (2-4.5) Mo is strongly sorbed by soil
colloids and organic matter. However, plants high in Mo are often produced
on organic soils, indicating that organic matter is not a major means of
rendering Mo unavailable. Sorption of Mo by soil colloids or iron a*"*
aluminum oxide coatings on soil colloids appears to be more effective in
rendering Mo unavailable for plant uptake. Reisenauer et al. (1962) and
Jones (1957) suggest that sorption of Mo by iron and aluminum oxides may be
due to the formation of relatively insoluble ferric and aluminum molybdate
precipitation at this low pH. Since Mo behaves as an anion at pH values
above 2, kaolinite which has a high anion exchange capacity, has been shown
to sorb more Mo than montmorillonite (Jones, 1957).
244
-------
Soil water relationships and their impact on oxidation-reduction rela-
tionships also regulate Mo solubility. Kubota et al. (1963) demonstrated
this relationship by growing alsike clover on two Nevada soils that con-
tained significant concentrations of Mo. Each soil was held at two mois-
ture levels. One was a wet treatment with the water table maintained 18 cm
below the soil surface; another was a dry treatment in which the soil water
potential was allowed to decrease to -10 to -15 bars before watering. The
clover grown in the wet soil contained greater than 20 ppm Mo, while that
grown in the drier regime contained 10 ppm Mo. Therefore, it seems reason-
able to suggest that pH measurements alone do not assure a correlation to
Mo solubility, and that some soil redox potential measurements should be
made.
Molybdenum is an essential plant micronutrient which is required in
amounts ranging from 50 to 100 g/ha for agronomic crops (Murphy and Walsh,
1972), and less than 1 ppm in the dry matter (Stout and Meagher, 1948). It
is absorbed into the plant as the molybdate anion (MoO^") and is trans-
ported to the leaves where it accumulates. The most important functions of
Mo in plants is as a component of nitrate reductase and nitrogenase, which
are enzymes associated with nitrogen metabolism (Schneider, 1976). Because
nitrogenase occurs in bacteria living in the roots of legumes, leguminous
plants contain higher amounts of Mo than other plants (Vlek and Lindsay,
1977), and sweetclover (Melilotus offininalis and M. alba) has been termed
an accumulator plant.
Plants that accumulate unusually high concentrations of Mo are gener-
ally found on high organic matter, alkaline, and poorly drained soils. The
element can accumulate in plants to high concentrations without toxicity.
Allaway (1975) found plants that contain over 1000 ppm Mo and show no symp-
toms of toxicity. Molybdenum generally accumulates in the roots and leaves
and little enters the seeds. Table 6.40 lists concentrations of Mo found
in crops from growth media containing Mo and the data indicate that Mo can
accumulate in plants to concentrations well above that contained in the
soil.
Interactions between Mo and other elements may also influence the
availability of the element for plant uptake. The presence of sulfate
reduces the plant availability of Mo, while the presence of ample phosphate
has the opposite effect (Stout et al., 1951). Phosphate increases the
capacity of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) to take up Mo by
displacing Mo sorbed to soil colloids. Sulfate ions have a similar ionic
radius and charge as molybdate ions and compete for the same absorption
sites on the root. Manganese decreases Mo solubility and thus uptake by
plants, by holding Mo in an insoluble form (Mulder, 1954).
Consumption of high Mo plants by animals may lead to a condition known
as molybdenosis, "teart" and "peat scours." Five ppm Mo in forage is con-
sidered to be the approximate upper limit tolerated by cattle. Teart pas-
ture grasses usually contain 20 ppm Mo and less than 10 ppm copper (Cu).
All cattle are susceptible to molybdenosis, but milking cows and young
stock are the most susceptible. Sheep are much less affected and horses
are not affected at all (Cunningham, 1950). The high levels of Mo in the
245
-------
TABLE 6.40 PLANT CONCENTRATION OF MOLYBDENUM FROM GROWING IN MOLYBDENUM AMENDED SOIL
NJ
•P-
Mo
Concentration
in the Media
(ppm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
6.5
13
15
25
26
Media
Soil
Organic soil
Soil
Alkaline soil
Alkaline soil
Organic soil
Clay
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Calcareous
clay loam
Clay
Clay
Clay
Sandy loam
Species
Grass
White clover
(Trifolium repens)
Legume
Clover Trifolium sp . )
Rhodesgrass
(Chloris gayana)
White clover
(T. repens)
Cotton
(Gossypium hirsutum)
Alfalfa
(Medicago sativa)
Bromegrass (Bromus ap.)
Orchardgrass
(Dactylis glomerata)
Legume
Bermudagrass
(Cynodon dactylon)
Bermudagrass
(C. dactylon)
Cotton (G. hirsutum)
Cotton (G. hirsutum)
Bermudagrass
(C. dactylon)
Mo
Concentr at ion
in Leaves
(ppm)
3.0
6.5
21.0
123.0
17.0
13.7
320.0
2.0
1-3.5
2-7
79.0
177.0
349.0
900.0
1350.0
449.0
Reference
Kubota (1977)
Mulder (1954)
Kubota (1977)
Barshad (1948)
Ibid.
Mulder (1954)
Joham (1953)
Gutenmann et al. (1979)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Kubota (1977)
Smith (1982)
Ibid.
Joham (1953)
Ibid.
Smith (1982)
-------
digestive tract of ruminants depresses Cu solubility, an essential micro-
nutrient, thus Mo toxicity is associated with Cu deficiency. The condition
can be successfully treated by adding Cu to the diet to create a Cu:Mo
ratio in the diet of the animal of 2:1 or greater. Symptoms of molyb-
denosis in ruminants include severe diarrhea, loss of appetite and, in the
severest cases, death.
The amount of Mo which can be safely added to the soil depends on the
soil mineralogy, pH, the hydrological balance, the crops to be grown, other
elements present, and the intended use of the soil. It is evident that
additions of Mo are less likely to cause toxicity problems if the soil is
acidic and well drained. Establishing vegetation with leguminous plants
should be avoided. Care must be taken to assure that leachate does not
contain excessive amounts of Mo. If Mo is allowed to leach from the soil,
as would occur under alkaline conditions, the loading rate of Mo should be
adjusted accordingly.
The use of irrigation water that contains the upper limit of the
acceptable concentration of Mo as recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972) is equivalent to an ac-
cumulation of 10 ppm of Mo in the upper 15 cm of soil. This recommendation
is based on the assumption that plants will accumulate Mo from the soil on
a 1:1 relationship, an assumption not always shown to be accurate. Since
the relationship between soil concentrations of Mo and plant uptake of the
element is difficult to predict, pilot studies are the only accurate means
to acquire this data. An estimate of acceptable Mo accumulation is given
as 5 ppm Mo in the soil to keep plant concentrations at 10 ppm or less.
6.1.6.18 Nickel (Ni)
The primary uses of Ni are for the production of stainless steel
alloys and electroplating. It is also used in the production of storage
batteries, magnets, electrical contacts, spark plugs and machinery. Com-
pounds of Ni are used as pigments in paints, lacquers, cellulose compounds,
and cosmetics (Page, 1974).
The average Ni content in the earth's crust is 100 ppm. In soils, the
typical range of Ni is 5-500 ppm (Lindsay, 1979). Soil derived from
serpentine may contain as much as 5,000 ppm Ni (Vanselow, 1966c).
Nickel in soil associates with 0~^ and OH"~ ligands and is pre-
cipitated as Ni hydroxyoxides at alkaline pH. In an aerobic system, Ni may
be reduced to lower oxidation states. Nickel present in the lower
oxidation state tends to precipitate as Ni carbonate and Ni sulfide (Bohn
et al., 1979).
Nickel sorption by soils has been measured as a function of soil prop-
erties and competitive cations. Korte et al. (1975) leached Ni from 10
soils and correlated the amount of metal eluted to various soil properties.
The percentage of clay and the CEC values were insignificant to Ni reten-
247
-------
tion. The amount of iron and manganese oxides in the soil was positively
correlated to Ni sorption. The magnitude of sorption of three cations to a
calcium bentonite was shown to be silvercopper>zinc>
cadmium>zinc (Biddappa et al., 1981). A column study by Emmerich et al.
(1982) indicated that when 211 ppm Ni was added as sewage sludge, 94% of
the Ni added was recovered from the column indicating essentially no Ni
leached below the depth of incorporation. Organic matter has the ability
to hold Ni at levels up to 2000 ppm (Leeper, 1978), maximum sorption of Ni
by soils is often near 500 ppm (Biddappa et al., 1981). However, other
studies show Ni sorption is decreased in the presence of a strong chelating
agent such as EDTA, and suggest Ni mobility would be enhanced when present
with naturally occurring complexing agents such as sewage sludge (Bowman et
al., 1981).
The effects on nitrification and carbon mineralization of adding
10-1000 ppm Ni to a sandy soil were studied by Giashuddin and Cornfield
(1978). These researchers found that high levels of the element may
decrease both processes by 35 to 68%. This result may imply that high Ni
concentrations in an organic waste may inhibit the decomposition of the
waste by reducing these processes.
Total Ni content in soil is not a good measure of the availability of
the element; exchangeable Ni is more closely correlated to the Ni content
of plants. Nickel is not essential to plants and in many species produces
toxic effects. Normally the Ni content of plant material is about 0.1-1.0
ppm of the dry matter. Toxic limits of Ni are considered to be 50 ppm in
the plant tissue (CAST, 1976). The early stages of Ni toxicity are
expressed by stunting in the affected plant.
Liming the soil can greatly reduce the extent of Ni toxicity. Yet, in
some cases, plants continue to absorb high amounts of Ni after liming. The
effect of lime on Ni toxicity is related to more than just the elevated pH,
as illustrated in a case where a small increase in pH from 5.7 to 6.5
resulted in a substantial reduction in Ni toxicity. Apparently, calcium
provided by liming is antagonistic to Ni uptake by plants (Leeper, 1978).
Potassium application also reduces Ni toxicity, the application of phos-
phate fertilizers results in increased toxic symptoms (Mengel and Kirkby,
1978).
When corn (Zea mays) was grown on a silt loam soil amended with a
sludge containing 20 ppm Ni, a slight increase in plant uptake was observed
as the loading rate was increased from 0 to 6.7x10^ kg/ha, however, there
was no significant increase in the Ni content in corn grown on a sandy loam
amended with 6.7x10^ kg/ha of sludge containing 14,150 ppm Ni was a less
soluble form. Although Ni was more concentrated in the second sludge, it
was less soluble and consequently less available to plants (Keefer et al.,
1979). Mitchell et al. (1978) studied Ni toxicity to lettuce (Lactuca
sativa) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants in an acidic and alkaline soil
(Tables 6.41 and 6.42). Nickel uptake and toxicity was found to be much
greater in the acidic soil. Solution and soil concentrations of Ni and
248
-------
the response in plants associated with each concentration are given in
Table 6.43 which shows a varied response depending on the plant species.
TABLE 6.41 NICKEL CONCENTRATION IN PLANT TISSUE IN RELATION TO NICKEL
ADDITION IN A CALCAREOUS SOIL (DOMINO SILT LOAM)*
Tissue
Concentration Plant Concentration
Ni (mg/kg) Portion Crop (mg/kg) Effect
5
5
5 '
80
80
320
320
640
640
Shoots Lettuce 6.0
(Lactuca sativa)
•Leaves Wheat 3.2
(Triticum aestivum)
Grain Wheat <1 . 0
(T. aestivum)
Shoots Lettuce 23
(L. sativa)
Grain Wheat <1.0
(T. aestivum)
Shoots Lettuce 61
(L. sativa)
Grain Wheat 26
(T. aestivum)
Shoots Lettuce 166
(L. sativa)
Grain Wheat 50
(T. aestivum)
None
None
None
20% yield
reduction
15% yield
reduction
35% yield
reduction
25% yield
reduction
95% yield
reduction
65% yield
reduction
* Mitchell et al. (1978).
249
-------
TABLE 6.42 NICKEL CONCENTRATION IN PLANT TISSUE IN RELATION TO NICKEL
ADDITION IN AN ACID SOIL (REDDING FINE SANDY LOAM)*
Concentration Plant
Ni (rag/kg) Portion
5
5
5
80
80
80
320
320
640
Shoots
Leaves
Grain
Shoots
Leaves
Grain
Shoots
' Grain
Shoots
Crop
Lettuce
(Lactuca sativa)
Wheat
(Triticum aestivum)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Lettuce
(L. sativa)
Wheat
(T. aestivum)
Wheat
(T. aestivum)
Lettuce
(L. sativa)
Wheat
(T. aestivum)
Lettuce
(L. sativa)
Tissue
Concentration
(mg/kg) Effect
6.6
2.6
1.7
241
46
64
960
247
1,150
None
None
None
25% yield
reduction
Significant
yield
reduction
20% yield
reduction
90% yield
reduction
90% yield
reduction
95% yield
reduction
* Mitchell et al. (1978).
TABLE 6.43 THE INFLUENCE OF SOLUTION CULTURE AND SOIL CONCENTRATION OF
NICKEL ON PLANT GROWTH AND YIELD
Amount
of Nickel
(mg/kg)
.8 kg/ha
2.5
10
28
28
100
Media
Soil &
sludge
Solution
Soil
Soil &
sludge
Soil &
sludge
Solution
Species
Fescuegrass
(Festuca sp.)
Tomato
(Lycopersicon
esculentum)
Plantain
(Solanum
paradisiaca)
Ryegrass
(Secale
cereale)
Barley
(Hordeum
vulgar e)
Cotton
(Gossypium
hirsutum)
Effect
7 ppm Ni
in grass
Yield
reduction
Contained
2.5 ppm Ni
Contained
3.1 ppm Ni
Contained
3.9 ppm Ni
90% reduction
in plant mass
Reference
King (1981)
Foroughi et al.
(1976)
Dikjshoorn et al.
(1979)
Davis (1979)
Davis (1979)
Rehab and Wallace
(1978e)
250
-------
Grasses growing around Ni smelting complexes have been shown to
develop a tolerance for high concentrations of Ni in the growing media,
that is, they express no phytotoxic symptoms or yield reductions as a
result of the element. These grass species are 10 times more tolerant of
Ni than plants growing on a normal soil and have developed this tolerance
because selection pressure was high. Attempts are being made to use these
metal tolerant strains to revegetate metal contaminated soils, but few
tolerant crops are now available commercially. Wild (1970) found Ni accum-
ulators with foliar Ni over 2000 ppm and Ni tolerant excluder plants with
low foliar Ni at the same Ni rich site. Where available it seems wiser to
introduce excluder type tolerant species and strains to eliminate risk to
the food chain. "Merlin" red fescue and the grass Deschampsia cespitosa
are considered to be Ni tolerant (Cox and Hutchinson, 1980; Chaney et al.,
1981).
There is a possibility that Ni, in trace amounts, has a role in human
nutrition. However, there is also a strong possibility that Ni is carcino-
genic. Numerous investigations have shown Ni to be carcinogenic to animals
when administered by intramuscular, intravenous or respiratory routes
(Sundernam and Donnelly, 1965). Occupational exposure to Ni compounds has
been shown to significantly increase the incidence of lung and nasal cancer
in workmen (Sunderman and Mastromalleo, 1975). In small mammals, the
LD5Q of most forms of nickel is from 100 to 1000 mg/kg body weight.
Ni(CO)4 is extremely toxic (Bowen, 1966).
The use of irrigation water that contains the upper limit of the
acceptable concentration of Ni as recommended by the National Academy of
Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (1972) is equivalent to an
accumulation of 100 ppm of Ni in the upper 15 cm of soil. Information
obtained from Mitchell et al. (1978) and Tables 6.41-6.43 indicate that the
phytotoxic level of Ni in soil ranges from 50 to 200 ppm. A soil
accumulation of 100 ppm Ni appears to be acceptable based on phytotoxicity
and microbial toxicity. However, if demonstration of treatability tests
indicate that higher concentrations of Ni can be safely immobilized without
either plant or microbial toxicity, loading rates could be increased.
6.1.6.19 Palladium (Pd)
Palladium is a by-product of platinum extraction. It is used in
limited quantities in the manufacture of electrical contacts, dental alloys
and jewelry. In 1975 the American automobile industry began installing
catalytic converters containing Pd. Various industries use Pd catalysts
(Wiester, 1975). The average annual loss of Pd to the environment is 7,596
kg; much of it as innocuous metal or alloys.
Palladium has varying effects on plant and animal life. Palladium
chloride (PdC^) in solution at less than 3 ppm stimulates the growth of
Kentucky bluegrass, yet at concentrations above 3 ppm toxic effects appear.
Concentrations of 10 ppm or greater are highly toxic. The element was
detected in the bluegrass roots but not in the tops (Smith et al., 1978).
251
-------
Palladium (II) ions are extremely toxic to microorganisms. Palladium is
carcinogenic to mice and rats, however, rabbits show no ill effects from
dietary Pd. Aquatic life forms, particularly microflora and fish, may
suffer ill effects from the discharge of Pd (II) compounds by refineries
and small electroplaters (Smith et al., 1978). Palladium toxicity to lower
life forms suggests that losses to the environment should be monitored.
6.1.6.20 Radium (Ra)
Radium-226 is a radioactive contaminant of soil and water which often
appears in uranium processing wastewaters. Commercial uses of Ra includes
manufacture of luminous paints and radiotherapy. The lithosphere contains
1.8 x 10^-3 g Ra and ocean water contains about 10~" g/1.
Radium is highly mobile in coarsely textured soils and creates a
potential for polluting water. The attenuation of Ra is positively corre-
lated with the alkalinity of the soil solution and the retention time in
soil, which are governed by the exchangeable calcium content of the soil
solution and the soil pore size distribution, respectively (Nathwani and
Phillips, 1978). Liming increases Ra retention in soil by the formation of
an insoluble calcium-beryllium complex with Ra. The release of organic
acids may increase the mobility of Ra in the soil solution. The bound
forms of Ra are arranged in the order: acid-solubleExchangeable>water
soluble (Taskayev et al., 1977). Although the forms of Ra have been shown
to vary with depth, Ra should be tightly bound in limed soil by the effects
of pH and CEC on Ra fixation.
Radium should be prevented from reaching the food chain since it is
severely animal toxic and carcinogenic because of its radioactivity. Due
to its chemical similarities to calcium, Ra can concentrate in the bone
where alpha radiation can breakdown red blood cell production. Radium must
be applied so that the leachate does not exceed 20 pCi/day (National
Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, 1972). While the
soil may have the capacity to retain large amounts of Ra, the loading rate
must be controlled to prevent the Ra concentration in plants and leachate
water from reaching unacceptable levels.
6.1.6.21 Rubidium (Rb)
Rubidium concentrations range from 50 to 500 ppm in mineral soils,
with an average soil concentration of 10 ppm. Rubidium is typically con-
tained in superphosphate fertilizers at 5 ppm and in coal at 15 ppm (Lisk,
1972).
Most of the information about Rb in soils is derived from plant uptake
studies of potassium. Potassium and Rb ions, both monovalent cations in
the soil solution, are apparently taken up by the same mechanism in plants.
The quantity of Rb absorbed is controlled by pH. Rubidium adsorption by
252
-------
barley roots is greater at pH 5.7 than at 4.1 (Rains et al., 1964).
Rubidium has a toxic effect on plants in potassium deficient soils due to
increased Rb uptake and blockage of calcium uptake (Richards, 1941).
Average Rb levels in plants range from 1-10 ppm in the Graminae,
Leguminosae and Compositae plant families (Borovik-Romanova, 1944). Alten
and Goltwick (1933) observed a reduction in tobacco yield when plants were
grown in soil containing 80 ppm Rb. Rubidium is rarely phytotoxic in soil
that contains sufficient potassium for good plant growth.
6.1.6.22 Selenium (Se)
Selenium is used by the glass, electronics, steel, rubber and photo-
graphic industries (Page, 1974). Selenium concentrations in sludges from
sixteen U.S. cities ranged from 1.7 to 8.7 ppm (Furr et al., 1976). Fly
ash from coal burning power plants can be quite rich in Se when western
coals are burned (Furr et al., 1977). The average concentration of Se in
soils of the U.S. is between 0.1 and 2 ppm (Aubert and Pinta, 1977).
Most Se in the soil occurs in the form of selenites (+4) and selenates
(+6) of sodium and calcium, while some occur as slightly soluble basic
salts of iron. Selenium has six electrons in its outer shell (making it a
metalloid) and upon addition of two more electrons, Se is transformed into
a negative bivalent ion. These anions may combine with metals to form
selenides. Selenides formed with mercury, copper and cadmium are very
insoluble.
Selenium in soil is least soluble under acid conditions, which is the
reverse of most other metals with the exception of Mo. Ferric hydroxides
in acidic soils provide an important mechanism of Se precipitation by form-
ing an insoluble ferric oxide selenite. Under reducing conditions that
occur in water saturated soils, Se is converted to the elemental form.
This conversion provides a mechanism for attenuation since selenate, the
form which is taken up by plants, occurs only under well aerated, alkaline
conditions. Figure 6.20 illustrates forms of Se at various redox poten-
tials.
Selenium is closely related to sulfate-sulfur both chemically and bio-
logically. Both have six electrons in their outer shell and both ions have
an affinity for the same carrier sites for plant uptake. The incorporation
of Se into amino acids analagous to that of sulfur has been observed in a
number of plant species (Petersen and & Butler, 1962). It is theorized
that Se toxicity to plants may be a result of interference with sulfur
metabolism.
Little evidence exists to suggest that Se is an essential element for
plants, yet plants can serve as carriers of Se to animals for whom the ele-
ment is essential. Plants will translocate selenate only under aerated
alkaline conditions. Plants containing above 5 ppm Se are considered to be
accumulator plants since 0.02-2.0 ppm is the normal range of Se in plant
253
-------
>
tu
+ 1.2
+ 1.0
+0.8
+0.6
+0.4
+0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
'HSeO-l
1 1
\
Hi
\
x.
•" x
\
I N
ASSUMED BOUNDARY
OF NORMAL
SURFACE CONDITIONS
Se0
\
HSeO3~ \
I
Se
METALLIC
i\
02468101214
PH
Figure 6.20. Forms of selenium at various redox potentials.
(Fuller, 1977)
254
-------
leaves. A suggested maximum concentration value of Se in plants is given
at 3-10 ppm to avoid animal health problems (Melsted, 1973).
Plant species that have been identified as accumulator plants are
given in Table 6.44. It has been suggested that these accumulator plants
have the ability to synthesize amino acids containing Se, thus preventing
toxicity to the plant (Butler and Petersen, 1967).
TABLE 6.44 SELENIUM ACCUMULATOR PLANTS
Plant Genus Se (ppm)
Primary accumulators:
Zylorhiza 1400-3490
Stanelya 1200-2490
Oonoposis 1400-4800
Astragalus 1000-15,000
Secondary accumulators:
Grindelia 38
Atriplex 50
Gutierrezia 60
As tor 70
Excess concentrations of Se in plants result in stunting and chloro-
sis. The metal can be partially accumulated in growing points in seeds.
Watkinson and Dixon (1979) observed plant'leaf concentrations of 2500 ppm
in ryegrass (Secale cereale) and a reduced growth rate when the Se applica-
tion rate was 10 kg/ha. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown in a sandy soil
was tolerant to Se applied as sodium selenate, and phosphorus additions of
50 ppm increased tolerance (Singh and Singh, 1978). The data of Allaway
(1968) indicates that the toxic range of Se in the leaves of plants is from
50 to 100 ppm depending on species.
Selenium is an element for which both deficient and toxic levels exist
in animals. Selenium as an essential element is part of the enzyme gluta-
thione peroxidase which is necessary for metabolic functions in animals and
is required in concentrations of 0.05-1 ppm in the diet. Deficiency of Se
results in the "white muscle disease" of lambs, calves, chickens and cat-
tle. This condition gives rise to muscular dystrophy and loss of hair and
feathers. The deficiency can be corrected by the addition of Se in the
diet at concentrations of 0.1-1 ppm. Soils that are deficient in Se can be
found in the humid Pacific Northwest and the northeastern U.S.
Impacts of Se on aquatic animal species have been noted at concentra-
tions of 0.8 mg/1. Selenium toxicity to Daphnia magna, Hyallela azteca,
and fathead minnows was reported by Halter (1980) where the LC5Q value,
or the concentration which was lethal to 50% of the population, was .34 to
1.0 mg/1. Toxicity increased with increasing concentration up to 20 mg/1,
255
-------
at which 100% mortality was exhibited. Runoff containing Se would be
expected to severely impact aquatic life.
At concentrations in excess of 5 ppm in the diet of animals, there is
a danger of Se toxicity. The condition is known as "alkali disease," so
named because alkaline soils have the highest concentrations of available
Se, Animals that are affected by alkali disease eat well but lose weight
and vitality and eventually die. Lesions, lameness and organ degeneration
result from this condition. The minimum lethal dose of Se in cattle is
documented as 6-8 ppm in the diet after 100 days of feeding Se at this
level. Acute toxicity results when animals graze on plants that accumulate
Se. These animals develop "blind staggers" which is characterized by
emaciation, anorexia, paralysis of the throat and tongue, and staggering
(Allaway, 1968).
When land treating a waste high in Se, the quality of leachate and
runoff water from the site and the accumulation of Se in plants should be
considered. If proper precautions are used, Se additions to soils need not
pose environmental problems. Selenium can be concentrated in plants in
concentrations greater than that in the soil solution, so food chain crops
should be avoided and grazing animals excluded from the site. Maintenance
of low pH values to avoid Se solubility seems impractical as almost all
other metals are solubilized at low pH values. The use of irrigation water
that contains the upper limit of the acceptable concentration of Se as
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of
Engineering (1972) is equivalent to an accumulation of 10 ppm of Se in the
upper 15 cm of soil. However, if studies indicate Se is adequately immo-
bilized by the soil so that leaching does not occur and plant concentra-
tions of the element remain below 10 ppm, phytotoxic limits would allow
greater application rates of Se.
6.1.6.23 Silver (Ag)
Silver is found in waste streams of a diverse group of industries,
including photographic, electroplating, and mirror manufacturing. However,
with the increase in the price of Ag, reduction of the element in waste
streams is expected. Berrow and Webber (1972) observed Ag waste amended
soils often contained 5 to 150 ppm Ag. These concentrations are far in
excess of Ag concentrations normally found in soils, indicating that the
soil has a great capacity for retaining Ag from waste streams. Silver is
held on the exchange sites of soil and precipitated with the common soil
anions, chloride, sulfate and carbonates. The solubility of most Ag com-
pounds is greater in acid soil, but even under acidic conditions high
conditions high concentrations of soluble Ag are not taken up by plants
(Aldrich et al., 1955). However, leaching concentrations of .05 mg/1 must
be maintained for drinking water standards.
256
-------
6.1.6.24 Strontium (Sr)
Strontium in soil naturally occurs as two principal ores, celestite
(SrS04> and strontianite (SrCC^), which are often associated with
calcium and barium minerals. The sulfate and carbonate forms of Sr are
only slightly soluble in water, and it is thought that carbonates or
sulfates supplied in fertilizer improve the retention of Sr in soil. On
the other hand, calcium (Ca) has been shown to increase Sr movement in soil
columns because Ca reacts similarly to Sr in soil and plants (Essington and
Nishita, 1966).
Strontium is indiscriminately taken up by higher plants from soil and
has no nutritional value to plants. Strontium is able to partially replace
Ca in plant tissues and this form of Sr has a low toxicity. However, the
artificial isotopes, SR-89 and SR-90 are extremely hazardous. Consumption
of forage containing these isotopes can result in the incorporation of Sr
in bones and teeth by replacing Ca. Abbazov et al. (1978) report that the
uptake of strontium-90 by plants is inversely related to the exchangeable
Ca content of soils. Strontium levels exceeding 17,000 ppm are common in
the elm (Vanselow, 1966d). In view of the broad range of the Sr to Ca
ratio found in plants, liming may have little effect on Sr uptake from
soils (Martin et al., 1958).
With the advent of atomic testing, the contamination of soil with Sr
originating from atmospheric fallout has become a concern. Strontium-90 is
the fission element that is most readily absorbed by plant tissue. Exten-
sive harvesting of grasses has been shown to reduce Sr-90 in soil (Haghiri
and Himes, 1974), although this is a very slow process. Some researchers
have claimed that Ca and organic matter applications lower Sr-89 uptake
from agricultural soils (Mistry and Bhujbal, 1973; 1974). It is not clear
whether the applied Ca reduces uptake through precipitation mechanisms or
through substitution for Sr in plant tissues. It is known that pH effects
in neutral and alkaline soils are minimal, but these effects may become
significant in soils with low Ca content.
It is difficult to suggest a management plan for treatment of Sr-90
contaminated soil because Sr uptake by plants or leaching from soil is
poorly understood. Strontium exhibited little inability as a result of
leaching from the soil of a 20-year old abandoned strip mine (Lawrey,
1979). Strontium-90 is the most hazardous of the fission products to mam-
mals . Because of its toxicity and the lack of information on Sr attenua-
tion in soils, the loading rate for wastes containing Sr should be equiva-
lent to the loading rate for uranium.
6.1.6.25 Thallium (Tl)
Thallium occurs in the waste streams of diverse industries, including
fertilizer and pesticide manufacturing, sulfur and iron refining, and cad—
257
-------
mium and zinc processing. Thallium is transported in wastewaters and is
fixed in the monovalent form in soils over a broad pH range. Thallium in
sulfur ore is probably in the form of Tl sulfate under low pH conditions.
Acidic effluents may contain ligands (e.g., chlorine and organics) that
stabilize the thallic state and favor oxidation of Tl ions to T1203.
While Tl+3 can be formed in acidic soils under highly oxidized condi-
tions , it is more often fixed in basic soils on hydrous iron oxides. Sol-
uble Tl+, on the other hand, is removed by precipitation with common soil
anions to form sulfides, iodides or chlorides.
Phytotoxic levels of Tl, in excess of 2 ppm, occur in highly mineral-
ized soils. Because of the similarity of Tl chemistry to the group I ele-
ments, there are possible interactions with soil and plant alkali minerals
which are likely to occur. An imbalance between Tl and potassium (K) on
soil exchange sites can impair plant enzymes responsible for respiration
and protein synthesis by the substitution of Tl for K. Antimitotic effects
attributed to contamination may occur equally in plants as well as in
animals.
Plant tolerance to Tl in soil was observed by Spencer (1937) when high
concentrations of calcium (Ca), aluminum (Al) and K were present. As a
result, the assimilative capacity for Tl may be increased when Ca, K or Al
are present.
6.1.6.26 Tin (Sn) •
Tin in waste streams originates primarily from the production of tin
cans; it is also used in the production of many alloys such as brass and
bronze. Tin is used for galvanizing metals and for producing roofing
materials, pipe, tubing, solder, collapsible tubes, and foil (Page, 1974).
In addition, Sn is a component of superphosphate which typically contains
3.2 - 4.1 ppm Sn.
Tin is concentrated in the nickel-iron core of the earth and appears
in the highest concentrations in igneous rocks. The range of Sn in soil is
between 2 and 200 ppm, while 10 ppm is considered to be the average value
(Bowen, 1966). Casserite (Sn02), the principal Sn mineral, is found in
the veins of granitic rocks.
As a member of group IV, the chemical properties of Sn most closely
resemble those of lead, germanium and silicon. The numerous sulfate salts
of Sn are very insoluble as are other forms of Sn in soil; thus, their
impact on vegetation yield and uptake is slight (Romney et al., 1975). At
a lower pH, increased uptake of Sn occurs as a result of increased solubil-
ity. The translocation of Sn by plants is reduced by low solubility in
soil. Millman (1957) found that Sn concentrations in plants were not
related to the concentration in the soil. For soil pH near neutral, 500
ppm Sn had no effect on crops and did not increase foliar Sn. Several
studies show little uptake of Sn by plants even when soil Sn was quite high
(Millman, 1957; Peterson et al., 1976).
258
-------
Since there is no substantial evidence that Sn is beneficial or detri-
mental to plants and since there are no documented cases of animal toxicity
due to consumption of Sn-containing plants, loading of a waste containing
Sn should pose little environmental hazard. The insolubility of Sn at a
neutral to alkaline pH range prevents plant uptake and subsequent food
chain contamination.
6.1.6.27 Titanium (Ti)
Titanium is not a trace element by nature and is found in most rocks
of the earth's crust in high concentrations (Aubert and Pinta, 1977). The
average content of Ti in seventy Australian soils is 0.6%, tropical Queens-
land soil contains 3.4% (Stace et al. , 1968), tropical Hawaiian soil 15%
(Sherman, 1952), and up to 25% is found in some lateritic soils (Pratt,
1966c). The average Ti concentration in the soil solution is estimated to
be 0.03 ppm.
Soil Ti is a tetravalent cation, usually present as TiC>2« All six
common mineral forms of Ti02 (Button, 1977) are studied for their extreme
stability in soil environments. Titanium movement in soil is very slow,
and thus is used as a measurement of the extent of chemical weathering.
Even old, acidic, and highly weathered tropical soils have a Ti content in
the soil solution which is near 0.03 ppm. The absolute Ti content is high
because as other minerals have weathered the highly stable TiC>2 is left
behind. Titanium in soils may be considered essentially immobile and
insoluble.
Titanium is rated as slightly plant toxic (Bowen,1966). The toxicity
is believed to be due to the highly insoluble nature of Ti phosphates which
may possibly tie up essential phosphorus. The average value in dry plant
tissue is 1 ppm (Bowen, 1966). Titanium is so insoluble that no natural
uptake of toxic amounts has been reported. Similarly, there are no repor-
ted values for toxic or lethal doses of Ti in plants or animals.
The only suggested management for high Ti wastes is to maintain an
aerobic environment to ensure rapid conversion to Ti02« The presence of
25% Ti in tropical soils (Pratt, 1966c) suggests that high loading rates
would not pose an environmental hazard. Laboratory studies indicate that
Ti may form very insoluble complexes with phosphate. Where Ti wastes are
to be applied, the addition of phosphorus could be used to immobilize any
Ti and phosphate fertilization to maintain plant health may be necessary.
6.1.6.28 Tungsten (W)
The tungsten concentration in the earth's crust is relatively low.
Shales contain 1.8 ppm W, sandstones, 1.6 ppm, and limestones, 0.6 ppm.
Soils have an average W concentration of 1 ppm (Bowen, 1966). Radioiso-
259
-------
topes of W are the principal source of radioactivity from many of the nuc-
lear cratering tests.
The usual W content of land plants is about 0.07 ppm (Bowen, 1966).
Plants grown on ejecta from cratering tests concentrate very high levels of
radioactive W through their roots (Bell and Sneed, 1970). Tungsten is
moderately toxic to plants, with the effects appearing at 1-100 ppm W in
nutrient solution depending on plant species (Bowen, 1966).
Wilson and Cline (1966) studied plant uptake of W in soils. They
found that W was taken up readily by barley (Hordeum vulgare) . Tungsten
uptake was 55 times greater from a slightly alkaline, fine, sandy loam
than from a medium acid forest soil. Tungsten is probably taken up by
plants as
There has been no physiological need for W demonstrated in animals ,
and it is slightly toxic to animals. The LD5Q, or dose of the element
which is lethal to 50% of the animal species, for small mammals is 100-1000
mg/kg body weight (Bowen, 1966). The element is readily absorbed by sheep
and swine and concentrated in kidney, bone, brain, and other tissues (Bell
and Sneed, 1970).
Tungsten is chemically similar to molybdenum (Mo) , therefore its solu-
bility curves and other reactions in soil should resemble those of Mo.
Tungsten does not pose animal health risks as does Mo however, therefore
loading rates for W could be higher than those for Mo.
6.1.6.29 Uranium (U)
Concentrations of total U in soils range from 0.9 to 9 ppm with 1 ppm
as the mean value (Bowen, 1966). Uranium concentrations are also expressed
as pica Curies per gram (pCi/g) , thus U.S. soils contain from 1.1 to 3.3
pCi/g of U (Russell and Smith, 1966). There appears to be more U in the
upper portion of soil profiles. This U occurs naturally as pitchblende
(UgOg) and is found in Colorado and Utah, and in smaller amounts else-
where in the U.S.
Wastes generated by U and phosphate mining may contain very high con-
centrations of U and their disposal represents a problem of long duration
as the half- life of U is 4.4 X 10^ years. Alpha and gamma radiation are
associated with this element.
Uranium is strongly sorbed and retained by the soil when present in
the +4 oxidation state and may be bound with organic matter and clay col-
loids. Uranium concentrations of 100 ppm in water were almost completely
adsorbed on several of the soils studied by Yamamoto et al., (1973).
Changes in pH values had little or no effect on adsorption. However, U
present in the H-6 oxidation state is highly mobile, so care should be taken
to land apply U water or waste only when it will remain reduced, such as on
highly organic soils.
260
-------
Plant uptake of U from soils naturally high in this element provides
the only data available on plant accumulation. Because very high concen-
trations of U in plants are not phytotoxic, plants containing large amounts
of U may provide a food chain link to animals. Yet plant uptake of U is
usually rather low since U is so strongly fixed in surface soils.
Uranium and its salts are highly toxic to animals. Dermatitis, kidney
damage, acute necrotic arterial lesions, and death have been reported after
exposure to concentrations exceeding 0.02mg/kg of body weight. The EPA
guidelines for Uranium Surface Mining Discharge (FRL 923-7 Part 440 Subpart
E) set the average surface discharge level of 10 pCi/g total and 3 pCi/1
dissolved, with daily maximum levels at 30 pCi/1 total and 10 pCi/1 dis-
solved.
Wastes containing U should be applied to the soil at a rate that pre-
vents leaching of U to unacceptable levels. Uranium is strongly adsorbed
in soils that are high in organic matter, however, U may be mobile when
oxidized. Disposal of these wastes should follow guidelines set forth by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA.
6.1.6.30 Vanadium (V)
The major industrial uses of V are in steels and nonferrous alloys.
Compounds of V are also used as industrial catalysts, driers in paints,
developers in photography, mordants in textiles, and in the production of
glasses and ceramics. In sewage sludge the total concentration of V varies
from 20-400 ppm (Page, 1974).
Vanadium is widely distributed in nature. The average content in the
earth's crust is 150 ppm. Soils contain 20-500 ppm V with an average con-
centration of 100 ppm (Bowen, 1966).
In soils, V can be incorporated into clay minerals and is associated
with aluminum (Al) oxides. Vanadium in soils may be present as a divalent
cation or an oxidized anion (Barker and Chesnin, 1975). Vanadium may be
bound to soil organic matter or organic constituents of waste and also
bound to Al and iron oxide coatings on organic molecules.
Vanadium is ubiquitous in plants. The V content of 62 plant materials
surveyed ranged from 0.27 to 4.2 ppm with an average of about 1 ppm (Pratt,
1966d) and a survey by Allaway (1968) indicates a range of 0.1 to 10.0 ppm.
Root nodules of legumes contain 3-4 ppm V and some researchers feel that V
may be interchangeable with molybdenum as a catalyst in nitrogen fixation.
Although V has not been proven to be essential to higher plants, it is
required for photosynthesis in green algae (Arnon, 1958). In addition, low
concentrations of V increased the yield of lettuce (Lactuca sativa),
asparagus (Asparagus officinalis), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and corn (Zea
mays) (Pratt, 1966d).
261
-------
Vanadium accumulations in plants appear to vary from species to spe-
cies. Calcium vanadate in solution culture was shown to be toxic to barley
at a concentration of 10 ppm, and when the V was added as V chloride, a
concentration of 1 ppm produced a toxic response. Yet, rice seedlings
showed increased growth when 150 ppm V oxide was applied as ammonium meta-
vanadate. Toxic symptoms appeared when V oxide was applied at a level of
500 ppm, and a concentration of 1,000 ppm killed the rice plants (Pratt,
1966d). The data of Allaway (1968) indicate that the toxic level of V in
the leaves of plants is above 10 ppm, depending on species. However, some
studies involving application of sewage sludge and fly ash containing V did
not result in any change in the plant concentration of the element (Furr,
1977; Chaney et al., 1978).
When V is present in the diet at 10-20 ppm it has been shown to
depress growth in chickens (Barker and Chesnin, 1975). In mammals, V may
have a role in preventing tooth decay. The element is not very toxic to
humans and the main route of toxic contact is through inhalation of V in
dust (Overcash and Pal, 1979).
6.1.6.31 Yttrium (Y)
Concentrations of Y in rocks range from 33 ppm in igneous rocks to 4.3
ppm in limestones (Bowen, 1966). Soils contain 3-80 ppm Y (Bohn et al.,
1979). In soil, Y, like the other transition metals, associates with 0^~
and OH~ ligands and tends to precipitate as hydroxyoxides (Bohn et al.,
1979).
Yttrium is not an essential element for plant growth. It is found in
dry tissue of angiosperms at a concentration of less than 0.6 ppm. Gymno-
sperms contain only 0.24 ppm or less. Ferns usually contain about 0.77 ppm
Y and have been reported to be capable of accumulating this metal (Bowen,
1966).
Yttrium is only moderately toxic to animals. For small mammals, the
LD50 of Y is 100-1000 mg/kg body weight (Bowen, 1966).
6.1.6.32 Zinc (Zn)
Zinc wastes originate primarily from the production of brass and
bronze alloys and the production of galvanized metals for pipes, utensils
and buildings. Other products containing Zn include insecticides, fungi-
cides, glues, rubber, inks and glass (Page, 1974).
Most U.S. soils contain between 10-300 ppm Zn, with 50 ppm being the
average value (Bohn et al., 1979). Surface soils generally contain more
Zn than subsurface horizons. Zinc is abundant where sphalerite and sul-
fides occur as parent materials for soil (Murrman and Koutz, 1972).
262
-------
Zinc in the soil can exist as a precipitated salt, it can be adsorbed
on exchange sites of clay or organic colloids, or it can be incorporated
into the crystalline clay lattice. Zinc can be fixed in clay minerals by
isomorphic substitution where Zn2+ replaces aluminum (Al3+), iron
(Fe2+) or magnesium (Mg2+) in the octahedral layer of clay minerals. Zinc
substitution also occurs in ferromagnesium minerals, augite, hornblende and
biotite. Zinc bound in these minerals composes the majority of Zn found in
many soils.
Zinc interaction with soil organic matter results in the formation of
both soluble and insoluble Zn organic complexes. Soluble Zn organic com-
plexes are mainly associated with ammo, organic and fulvic acids. Zinc
sorbed on organic colloids may be soluble and easily exchangeable. Hodgson
et al. (1966) reported an average of 60% of the soluble Zn in soil is
present as Zn organic complexes. The insoluble organic complexes are
derived from humic acids.
Zinc found on the exchange sites of clay minerals may be absorbed as
Zn2+, Zn(OH)+ or ZnCl+. The intensity of this adsorption is increased at
elevated pH. It appears that potassium competes with Zn for the clay
mineral exchange sites.
When Zn is complexed with chlorides, phosphates, nitrates, sulfates,
carbonates and silicates at higher Zn concentrations, slowly soluble
precipitates are formed. The relative abundance of these precipitates is
governed by pH. On the other hand, the zinc salts, sphalerite (ZnFeS),
zincate (ZnO) and smithsonite (ZnCog), are highly soluble and will not
persist in soils for any length of time. Zinc sulfate, which is formed
under reducing conditions, is relatively insoluble when compared to other
zinc salts.
The predominant Zn species in solutions with a pH less than 7.7 is
Zn2"*", while ZnOH+ predominates at a pH greater than 7.7. Figure 6.21
illustrates the forms of Zn that occur at various pH values. The rela-
tively insoluble Zn(OH)£ predominates at a soil pH between 9 and 11,
whereas Zn(OH)3~ and Zn(OH)^2- predominate at a soil pH greater than 11.
The complexes, ZnSO^ and Zn(OH)2> control equilibrium Zn concentrations
in soil at a low pH and high pH, respectively (Lindsay, 1972).
Zinc interacts with the plant uptake and absorption of other elements
in soils. For example, high levels of phosphorus (P) induce Zn deficiency
in plants by lowering the activity of Zn through precipitation of Zn3(PO^)2
(Olsen, 1972). Furthermore, Zn uptake is decreased when copper is present
by competition for the same plant carrier site. Similar effects of
decreased Zn uptake are caused by iron, manganese, magnesium, calcuim,
strontium and barium. On the other hand, dietary Zn may decrease the
toxicity of cadmium in animals.
The normal range of Zn in leaves of various plants is 15-150 ppm and
the maximum suggested concentration in plants is 300 ppm to avoid phyto-
toxicity (Melsted, 1973). Zinc is an essential plant element necessary for
263
-------
0.0 -
-10
8
10
PH
12
_J
14
Figure 6.21. Distribution of molecular and ionic species
of divalent zinc at different pH values
(Fuller, 1977).
264
-------
hormone formulation, protein synthesis, and seed and grain maturation.
Table 6.45 lists plant response to various concentrations of Zn.
Toxic levels of Zn occur in areas near Zn ore deposits and spoil
heaps. Some plant species, however, tolerate Zn levels of between 600 and
7800 ppm. Agrostis tenuis (bentgrass), Armeria helleri, and Phaseolus
vulgar is (bean) have been shown to accumulate as much as 1000 ppm Zn in
their leaves (Wainwright and Woolhouse, 1975).
Zinc is an essential element for animals. Animals that have a Zn
deficiency are unable to grow healthy skin; poultry produce frizzy, brittle
feathers; domestic animals develop dull scraggly fur; and humans develop
scaly skin. In addition, animals with a Zn deficiency heal slowly. How-
ever, the element may become toxic to microorganisms such as Pseudomonas, a
hydrocarbon degrader, at soil concentrations of 500 mg/kg.
Animals are generally protected from Zn poisoning in the food chain
since high concentrations of Zn are phytotoxic. Levels of dietary Zn of
500 ppm or more have little adverse effect on animals (Underwood, 1971).
The National Academy of Science (1980) recommends maximum tolerable levels
of dietary Zn as follows: cattle, 500 ppm; sheep, 300 ppm; swine, 1000
ppm, poultry, 1000 ppm. Aquatic animals are more sensitive to zinc, how-
ever; the 96 hour LC5Q for fathead minnows exposed to Zn(II) was
2.6 ppm and that for rainbow trout is 14.6 ppb (Broderius and Smith,
1979).
Loading rates of Zn bearing wastes can be estimated using a Zn equiva-
lent. However, the use of a Zn equivalent is often unsatisfactory since
the equation developed by Chumbley (1971) neglects any toxic effects due to
elements other than Zn, nickel (Ni) and copper (Cu). The concentrations of
Cu, Zn and Ni (in ppm) in the waste are weighted in terms of Zn to give the
z inc equivalence (Z. E.)•
Z.E. ppm = Zn2+ ppm + 2Cu2+ ppm + 8 Ni2+
ppm
If proper precautions are used, Zn additions to soils need not pose
environmental problems since Zn is rendered insoluble in soils where the pH
values are maintained above 6.5. Plants rarely accumulate Zn levels that
would be toxic to grazing animals, although Zn can accumulate in plants to
high levels before becoming phytotoxic. The use of irrigation water con-
taining the upper limit of the acceptable concentration of Zn as recom-
mended by the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engi-
neering (1972) is equivalent to an accumulation of 500 ppm of Zn in the
upper 15 cm of soil. Information in this review indicates that the phyto-
toxic level of Zn in soil ranges from 500 to 2000 ppm. If the element can
be immobilized in soils and excessive plant uptake avoided, concentrations
over 500 ppm Zn can be land treated. This concentration (500 ppm) is
suggested as a conservative cumulative level.
265
-------
TABLE 6.45 PLANT RESPONSE TO ZINC IN SOIL
Zn soil
concentration
(ppm) Species
Comment
Plant
Response
Reference
NJ
2-4
2-6
2.7
3-5
11
27-49
40
49-237
89
140
Wheat (Triticum
aestivum)
Corn (Zea mays)
& Oats (Avena
sativa)
Wheat (T_. aestivum)
& Oats (A. sativa)
Corn (Z_. mays)
Rye (Secale cereale)
Rice (Orzya sativa)
Rye (S_. cereale)
& Wheat
(T. aestivum)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Alfalfa (Medicago
sativa) & fescue
(Festuca sp.)
Control soil was
Zn deficient
Highly alkaline
soils (ZnS04)
Counteracted root
fungi (ZnS04)
Soil
Sewage sludge
limed to pH 6.8
rye grown from
seed immediately
after spreading
Loam soil pH 9.2
sewage sludge
limed to pH 6.8
Rye grown from
seed, 7 weeks
prior to planting
As
Sewage sludge
Decreased yield
in acid soils
Yield increase,
earlier maturation
Reduced Zn defi-
ciency die back
Superior growth
relative to control
Toxic, plant leaf
level 81 ppm
Little yield
reduction rela-
tive to control
Slight yield
reduction
Little yield
reduction
No effect on yield
Yield increase
due to additional
macronutrients
Teakle and Thomas
(1939)
Barnette and Camp
(1936)
Millikan (1946)
Millikan (1938)
Takkar and Mann
(1978)
Lagerwerff et al.
(1977)
Brar and Sekhou
(1979)
Lagerwerff et al.
(1977)
Voelcker (1913)
Stucky and Newman
(1977)
-continued—
-------
TABLE 6.45 (continued)
Zn soil
concentration
(ppm)
Species
Comment
Plant
Response
Reference
156-313 Oats (Avena sativa)
179 Wheat (T. aestivum)
223 Cowpeas
(Vigna unguiculata)
248-971 Corn (£. mays)
300 Sorghum
M (Sorghum bicolor)
300 Barley
(Hordeum vulgare)
i
313 Corn (Z. mays)
480 Lettuce
(JL. sativa)
500 Corn (Z. mays)
500 Wheat (T. aestivum)
500 Beans
(Phaseolus sp.)
Zn from ore roast-
ing stack gases
Loamy soil pH 6.7
(ZnS04)
Norfolk fine
sand (ZnS04)
Sewage sludge
Alkalai soil, Zn
concentration
in tops, 697 ppm
Alkalai soil, Zn
concentration
in tops, 910 ppm
Norfolk fine sand
(ZnS04)
Clay soil pH 6.5
Alkalai soil ~, Zn
concentration
in tops, 738 ppm
Alkalai soil, Zn
concentration
in tops, 909 ppm
Alkalai soil,
Zn concentration
in tops, 235 ppm
Good yields rela-
tive to control
when crop nutrient
added
Promoted growth
Toxic effect above
this level
No yield effect
47% yield reduction
42% yield reduction
Toxic effect above
this level
No effect
45% yield reduction
45% yield reduction
Not significant
Lundegardh (1927)
Tokuoka and Gyo,
(1940)
Gall (1936)
Clapp et al.
(1976)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Gall (1936)
MacLean and
Dekker (1978)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
—continued—
-------
TABLE 6.45 (continued)
Zn soil
concentration
(ppm) Species
Comment
Plant
Response
Reference
N3
O>
O3
500
500
500
500
500
535.7 (14
exchangeable)
620.5
640
640
893
925
Alfalfa (M. sativa)
Spinach
(Spinacia oleracea)
Potato
(Solanum tuberosum)
Sugarbeet
(Beta vulgaris)
Tomato (Lvcopersicon
esculentum)
Wheat (T_. aestivum)
Corn (Z. mays) &
wheat (JC. aestivum)
Lettuce (L. sativa)
Wheat (T. aestivum)
Rice (0. sativa) &
wheat (T. aestivum)
Corn (Z. mays)
Alkalai soil, Zn
concentration
in tops, 345 ppm
Alkalai soil, Zn
concentraion
in tops, 945 ppm
Alkalai soil,
Zn concentration
in tops, 336 ppm
Alkalai soil, Zn
concentration
in tops, 1076 ppm
Alkalai soil, Zn
Foundry waste,
(pH 7.3)
Acid & alkaline
soils
Applied to acid
soil with sewage
sludge
Applied to cal-
careous soil
Alkaline soil
22% yield reduction
40% yield reduction
Not significant
40% yield reduction
26% yield
Good yields
No effect evident
50% yield reduction
70% yield reduction
Toxic action
evident
No effect
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971)
Knowles (1945)
Chesnin (1967)
Mitchell et al.
(1978)
Mitchell et al.
(1978)
Tokuoka and Gyo
(1940)
Murphy and Walsh
(1972)
—continued-
-------
TABLE 6.45 (continued)
N3
Zn soil
concentration
(ppm)
1161
1200
1500
2000
2143-3571
3839
Species
Grass
Chard
(Beta vulgaris
var. Cicla)
Tomatoes
(L. esculentum)
Rice (0. sativa)
Oats (A. sativa)
Vegetable crops
Comment
Galvanized metal
contamination
(ZnO)
Grown on paddy soil
(ZnO) silt loam
neutral pH
Naturally occuring
high Zn peat
Plant
Response
Toxic response
No toxicity
Damage
No toxic symptoms
No adverse effect
Nonproductive soil
Reference
Meijer and
Goldenwaagen
(1940)
Chaney et al.
(1982)
Patterson (1971)
Ito and Iimura
(1976)
Lott (1938)
Staker (1942)
-------
6.1.6.33 Zirconium (Zr)
Zirconium is not a major constituent of most materials usually asso-
ciated with pollution of soil and air. The Zr concentration in superphos-
phate fertilizer is typically 50 ppm and the range in coal is from 7-250
ppm. Sewage sludge usually contains 0.001-0.009% Zr. The average concen-
tration of Zr in urban air is 0.004g per cubic meter (Overcash and Pal,
1979). The principal Zr mineral in nature is zircon (ZrSiO^ which is
very common in rocks, sediments and soils (Button, 1977). Sandstones are
particularly high in Zr with a concentration of 220 ppm. Igneous rocks
contain 165 ppm Zr; shales, 160 ppm Zr; and limestones, 19 ppm Zr. The
average concentration of Zr in soil is 300 ppm. The immobility of the
element in soils makes it useful as an indxcator of the amount of parent
material that has weathered to produce a given volume of soil (Bohn et al.,
1979).
There is no evidence that Zr is essential for the growth of plants or
microorganisms. It is moderately toxic to plants. The symptoms of toxic-
ity appear at concentrations of 1-100 ppm in nutrient solution, depending
upon plant species (Bowen, 1966). It is less toxic to microorganisms than
nickel, but more toxic than thallium (Overcash and Pal, 1979).
Zirconium is not an essential element for animals and can be slightly
toxic. Its LD50 for small mammals is 100-1000 mg/kg body weight. The
element does not, however, accumulate in plants to a level toxic to animals
feeding on the plants (Pratt, 1966e).
6.1.6.34 Metal Interpretations
There is a growing consensus in studies on the fate of metals in soils
that the toxic effect of a trace metal is determined predominantly by its
chemical form (Florence, 1977, Allen et al., 1980). When a metal waste is
land treated, soil characteristics such as pH, redox potential, and miner-
alogy, as well as the source of the metal present in the waste stream,
determine the solubility and thus the speciation of the metal. Identifying
the metal form will also establish the expected behavior, thus fate of the
metal once it is land treated. Sections 6.1.6.1-6.1.6.33 provide informa-
tion on the toxicity of particular metal forms to microorganisms, plants
and animals, as well as the expected fate of each metal.
In the preceding discussion on individual metals, emphasis was placed
on soil properties that control the solubility and plant availability of a
metal. Of these properties, pH is probably the most important. The solu-
bility of most metal salts decreases as soil pH increases as indicated by
the data summarized in (Fig. 6.22). With the exceptions of antimony,
molybdenum, tungsten and selenium, which increase in solubility with
increasing pH, the normal recommendation for land treatment units is to
maintain the pH above 6.5. This is a valuable approach when the predomi-
nant metals decrease in solubility at neutral to high pH values. However,
270
-------
10
PH
Figure 6.22. Solubilities of some metal species at various
pH values.
271
-------
for a soil receiving a waste or combination of wastes containing both
metals that require a high and low pH, the appropriate pH will need to be
carefully determined and maintained to prevent problems. If the pH must be
maintained below 6.5, the amounts of metals applied may need to be less
than the acceptable levels suggested under each metal section.
It is well known that normally acid soils require repeated lime appli-
cations to keep the pH near neutral. While it is expected that pH values
will be properly adjusted and maintained during operation and closure, it
is likely that following closure, the pH will slowly decrease to the value
of the native soil. Therefore, it is possible that some insoluble or
sorbed metals will later return in the soil solution. Little information
is available on the release of precipitated metals, but when evaluating the
long-term impact of land treatment on a normally acidic soil, this possi-
bility should be considered.
There is little evidence that, upon the addition of sludge to soil,
significant amounts of metals are permanently held on the cation exchange
sites by physical sorption or electrostatic attraction. The soil cation
exchange capacity (CEC) has also been shown to make little difference in
the amount of metal which is taken up by crops (Hinesly et al., 1982).
Most of the metal inactivation in the soil is probably a result of chemical
or specific sorption, precipitation and, to a lesser extent, reversion to
less available mineral forms, particularly when a soil is calcareous.
Chaney (personal communication) suggests that the only reason for consider-
ing CEC is to limit the amounts of metals applied to normally acidic soils
that have a CEC below 5 meq/100 g since such soils would likely revert to
the original pH shortly after liming is discontinued. Consideration of CEC
as a measure of the buffering capacity more closely related to the surface
area of a soil, rather than as a guide to loading capacity, is the appro-
priate approach.
The maximum and normal concentrations of metals found in soil are
given in Table 6.46. One must be cautious, however, about using the upper
limit of the normal range of metal concentrations in soil as an acceptable
loading rate. These ranges often include soils that contain naturally high
concentrations of metals resulting in toxicity to all but adapted plants.
Table 6.47 is compiled from the National Academy of Science and
National Academy of Engineering (1972) irrigation quality standards, sewage
sludge loading rates developed by Dowdy et al. (1976), and an extensive
review of the literature. National Academy of Science and National Academy
of Engineering (1972) recommendations are primarily based on concentrations
of metals which can adversely affect sensitive vegetation. The irrigation
standards assume a 57.2 cm depth of water applied for 20 years on fine tex-
tured soil. Recommendations given by Dowdy et al. (1976) limit application
based on the soil CEC. The final column in Table 6.47 is compiled from the
literature review in this document and is based on microbial and plant tox-
icity limits, animal health considerations, and soil chemistry which
reflects the ability of the soil to immobilize the metal elements.
Although immobilization was considered in developing these recommendations,
there is little information in the literature on which to base loading
272
-------
TABLE 6.46 TRACE ELEMENT CONTENT OF SOILS*
Element
Ag
Al
As
Au
B
Ba
Be
Br
Cd
Cl
Co
Cr
Cs
Cu
F
Ga
Hg
I
La
Common Range
(ppm)
0.01-5
10,000-300,000
1-50
2-100
100-3,000
0.1-40
1-10
0.01-0.7
20-900
1-40
1-1,000
0.3-25
2-100
10-4,000
0.4-300
0.01-0.3
0.1-40
1-5,000
Average
.05
71,000
5
<1
10
430
6
5
.06
100
8
100
6
30
200
30
.03
5
30
Element
Li
Mg
Mh
Mo
Ni
Pb
Ra
Rb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
U
V
W
Y
Zn
Zr
Common Range
(ppm)
5-200
600-6,000
20-3,000
0.2-5
5-500
2-200
8 X 10"5
50-500
2-10
0.1-2
2-200
50-1,000
0.9-9
20-500
25-250
10-300
60-2,000
Average
20
5,000
600
2
40
10
10
.3
10
200
1
100
1
50
50
300
* Lindsay (1979).
273
-------
rates and treatability studies may indicate that higher levels are accept-
able in a given situation. As is true of any general guideline developed
to encompass a large variety of locations and conditions, these suggested
metal accumulations could be either increased or decreased depending on the
results of the treatment demonstration or the suitability of a particular
site.
TABLE 6.47 SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED MAXIMUM METAL ACCUMULATIONS WHERE
MATERIALS WILL BE LEFT IN PLACE AT CLOSURE*
Soil
Concentrations
Based on Current
Literature and
Experience"*"
(mg/kg)
Element
Sewage Sludge
Loading Rates'
(mg/kg soil)
Calculated Acceptable
Soil Concentrations*
(mg/kg soil) (kg/15 cm-ha)
As
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Li
Mn
MO
Ni
Pb
Se
V
Zn
10
250
100
1000
500
500
50
3
500
1000
250
250
1000
3
100
1000
3
500
500
1100
110
7
1100
2200
560
560
2200
7
220
2200
7
1100
1100
300
50
3
200
1000
250
250
1000
5
100
1000
5
500
500
* If materials will be removed at closure and plants will not be used as a
part of the operational management plan, metals may be allowed to
accumulate above these levels as long as treatability tests show that
metals will be immobilized at higher levels and that other treatment
processes will not be adversely affected.
t Dowdy et al. (1976); for use only when soil CEO15 meq/100 g, pH>6.5.
* National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineering (1972)
for 20 year irrigation application.
"*" See individual metal discussions for basis of these recommendations;
if metal tolerant plants will be used to establish a vegetative cover at
closure, higher levels may be acceptable if treatability tests support a
higher level.
To better understand the impact of metals on the environment, the ele-
ments are combined into three groups. Of primary importance are metals
which are established carcinogens including arsenic, chromium (as chro-
274
-------
mate), beryllium and nickel (Norseth, 1977). The second group includes
metals such as cadmium, molybdenum, selenium and perhaps nickel and cobalt
that are taken up by plants in sufficient quantities to be transmitted up
the food chain. Interestingly enough, molybdenum and selenium are also
metals that leach from the soil at elevated pH levels if soil properties
permit downward movement of solutes. Leaching of metals below the root
zone depends on soil physical and chemical properties, climate and the
presence or absence of soil horizons of low permeability. Downward trans-
port of metals is generally more rapid in coarse-textured soils than in
clays because larger pores allow faster movement of soil water. However,
clay soils with cracks have a fairly high leaching potential. Similarly,
transport is greater in high rainfall areas. Though coarse textured sur-
face horizons allow greater apparent leaching, an underlying horizon of low
permeability, such as an argillic or petrocalcic, will impede further
downward movement. If the system can be managed to allow leaching at con-
centrations that are acceptable to the receiving aquifer, the buildup of
these metals may be avoided, thus minimizing contamination of the food
chain. The concentration of metals leaching to aquifers should meet drink-
ing water standards; Table 6.48 lists the water quality criteria of inter-
est.
The third group of metals includes those metals that are excluded from
the food chain since they are toxic to plants at concentrations that are
less than levels toxic to animals. Common concentrations of metals in
plants and phytotoxic levels are given in Table 6.49. The upper level of
chronic lifetime diet exposure for cattle and swine are given in Table
6.50. A comparison of these data reveals that phytotoxicity would be
expected to protect the food chain from arsenic, copper, nickel and zinc.
However, some plants take up cobalt and mercury in concentrations that may
cause an adverse impact on animals consuming forage containing these ele-
ments. Cadmium, molybdenum and selenium are not toxic to plants at fairly
high concentrations and are, consequently, accumulated in plants in concen-
trations that are toxic to animals.
There is a wide range of tolerance among plants for heavy metals.
Certain species can withstand much greater metal concentrations in the soil
than others. Tolerant plants are often found around outcrops of metal-
bearing geological deposits, on spoils from mining activities, or on areas
where the soil has been contaminated due to the activities of man. Heavy
metal tolerance may be achieved by exclusion of the metal at the root sur-
face or by chelation inside the plant root (Giordano and Mays, 1977).
While metals are taken up by plants, it is generally not possible to
use plants to significantly decrease the metal content of soils. Plant up-
take typically amounts to less than one percent of the metal content in the
soil and thus several hundred years of growth and removal would be needed
to result in a significant reduction of the metal content of the soil
(Chaney, 1974). However, there are certain species that concentrate
selenium, nickel, zinc, copper and cobalt. These plants have internal
mechanisms that prevent the metals from reaching the sites of toxic action
in the plant. If these plants are grown and harvested, they could possibly
decrease metal concentrations to acceptable levels in a reasonable time.
Table 6.51 lists several plant genera that have exhibited hyperaccumulation
275
-------
TABLE 6.48 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR HUMANS AND ANIMALS*
Standards & Criteria for
Drinking Water in mg/1
EPA
NAS/NAE
Quality Criteria
for Drinking Water
for Farm Animals
in mg/1
Common Parameters
PH
Total dissolved solids
Common Ions
Chloride
Flouride
Nitrate (as N)
Metals
1.4-2.4
10
5-9
250
10
3000
Arsenic
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
0.05
1
0.01
0.05
0.05
.002
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0.01
0.05
1
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.01
5
0.2
5
5
0.05
1
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.1
25
* EPA (1976); National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engi-
neering (1972).
276
-------
TABLE 6.49 NORMAL RANGE AND TOXIC CONCENTRATION OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN
PLANTS
Concentrations of Elements in Plant Leaves (ppm Dry Weight)
Element Range* Toxic Source
As
B
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
Hg
I
Pb
Li
Mn
Mo
Ni
Se
V
Zn
0.01-1.0
5-30
10-100
1-40
0.2-0.8
0.01-0.30
0.1-1.0
4-15
2-20
20-300
0.001-0.01
0.1-0.5
0.1-5.0
0.2-1.0
15-150
1-100
0.1-1.0
0.02-2.0
0.1-10.0
15-150
>10
>75
—
>40
5-700f
200
10-20
>20
20-1500
—
>10
>10
Low plant
uptake T
50-700
500-2000
>1000
50-200
50-100
>10
500
National Academy of Sciences
and National Academy of
Engineering
Allaway (1968)
Williams and LeRiche (1968)
Pinkerton (1982)
Table 6.29
Gupta (1979)
Table 6.20
VanLoon (1974)
Newton and Toth (1952)
Table 6.34
Table 6.36 and Table 6.37
National Research Council
(1973)
Joham (1953) and Smith
(1982)
Tables 6.41, 6.42 and 6.43
Allaway (1968)
Allaway (1968)
Boawn and Rasmus sen (1971)
* Melsted (1973); Bowen (1966), Swaine (1955), Allaway (1968).
* Chaney, personal communication.
Note: Toxicity is defined by a 25% reduction in yield.
277
-------
TABLE 6.50 THE UPPER LEVEL OF CHRONIC DIETARY EXPOSURES TO
ELEMENTS WITHOUT LOSS OF PRODUCTION*
Element
Al
As
Ba
Bs
B
Br
Cd
Ca
Cr as Cl
Cr as oxide
Co
Cu
F
I
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
P
K
Se
Si
Ag
Sr
S
W
V
Zn
Cattle
(ppm)1"
1,000
50
20*
400#
150
200
0.5
20,000
1,000*
3,000#
10
100
40
50
1,000
30
5,000
1,000
2
10
50
10,000
30,000
2*
2,000
2,000
4,000
20*
50
500
Swine
(ppm)1"
200
50
20
400*
150*
200
0.5
10,000
1,000*
3,000*
10
250
150
400
3,000
30
3,000*
400
2
20
100*
15,000
20,000
2
—
100*
3,000
—
20*
10*
1,000
* National Academy of Sciences (1980).
' Concentrations in the diet on a dry weight basis unless
indicated otherwise.
* Concentration supported by limited data only.
278
-------
TABLE 6.51 HYPERACCUMULATOR PLANTS
Plant Species
Highest Metal
Concentration
Recorded
(mg/kg)
Reference
Mint family (Labitae)
Aeolanthus biformifolius
Haumaniastrum homblei
H. robertii
Legume family (Leguminosae)
Crotalaria cobalticola
Vigna dolomitica
Figwort family (Scrophulariceae)
Alectra welwitschii
Buchnera henriquesii
Lindernia damblonii
Crucifer family (Cruciferae)
Alyssum alpestre
A. corsicum
A. masmenaeum
A. syriacum
A. murale
Homaliaceae
Homalium austrocale donicum
H. francii
H. guillianii
Nod violet family (Hybanthus)
Hybanthus austrocaledoniaum
H. floribundus
Psychatria doyarrei
2820 Co
2010 Co
10200 Cu,
1960 Cu
3000 Co
3000 Co
1590 Co
352 Cu,
1510 Co
100 Co
3640 Ni
13000 Ni
15000 Ni
6200 Ni
7000 Ni
1805 Ni
14500 Ni
6920 Ni
13700 Ni
14000 Ni
34000 Ni
— continued —
279
Malaisse et al.
(1979)
Ibid.
Brooks (1977)
Brooks (1977)
Brooks et al.
(1980)
Brooks et al.
(1980)
Ibid.
Malaisse et al.
(1979)
Brooks and Radford
(1978)
Brooks et al.
(1979)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Brooks and Radford
(1978)
Brooks et al.
(1979)
Brooks et al.
(1977)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Brooks et al.
(1979)
-------
TABLE 6.51 (continued)
Plant Species
Highest Metal
Concentation
Recorded
(mg/kg)
Reference
Milk vetch family (Astragulus)
Astragalus beathii
A. crotalaria
A. osterhoutii
A. racemosa
Atriplex confertifolia
Catilleja chromosa
Oonopsis condensata
Stanleys pinnata
Xylorrhiza parryi
Achillea millefolium
Betula grandulosa
Equisetum arvense
Linaria vulgaris
Lobelia inflata
Populus grandidentata
Trifolium pratense
Viola sagittata
3100 Se
2000 Se
2600 Se
15000 Se
1700 Se
1800 Se
4800 Se
1200 Se
1400 Se
4100 Zn
22400 Zn
7000 Zn
4500 Zn
4400 Zn
2000 Zn
1300 Zn
3500 Zn
Beath et al.
(1941a)
Trelease and Beath
(1949)
Beath et al.
(1941a)
Beath et al.
(1941b)
Trelease and Beath
(1949)
Ibid.
Beath (1949)
Ibid.
Trelease and Beath
(1949)
Robinson et al.
(1947)
Warren (1972)
Robinson et al.
(1947)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
280
-------
of a particular metal. Although commercial propagation of these plants is
increasing, their availability at the present time is limited.
Caution should be exercised when evaluating plant toxicity data gener-
ated from experiments where large amounts of metal containing sludges were
applied at one time to simulate long-term loading. The metals may be bound
by the organic fraction of the waste and may not be released for plant up-
take until the organic matter degrades. If it is desirable to test metal
availability from single large applications, it is best to use waste that
has aged naturally or has been aged by composting.
Many industrial wastewater treatment sludges, particularly those from
the petroleum industry, have metal concentrations lower than those normally
found in sewage sludge. However, the use of specific catalysts or chemi-
cals in certain processes may result in much higher concentrations of one
or a few metals. If these metals limit land application, perhaps the waste
stream contributing the metal could be isolated and the metal disposed by
some other means, or an alternate catalyst or chemical could be found that
would allow the reduction of the limiting metal. In many instances, such
reductions have allowed the economical land treatment of wastes which would
otherwise not be acceptable.
Table 6.52 lists acceptable levels of metals for which less data are
available. This list is based on limited understanding of the behavior of
these metals in the soil and should be used only as a preliminary guide.
If a waste which contains excessive levels of these metals is to be dis-
posed, it is advisable to conduct laboratory or field tests to supplement
the limited information on their behavior available in the literature.
TABLE 6.52 SUGGESTED METAL LOADINGS FOR METALS WITH LESS WELL-DEFINED
INFORMATION
Element
Ag
Au
Ba
Bi
Cs
Fr
Ge
Hf
Hg
Ir
In
La
Nb
Os
Pd
Pt
Rb
TOTAL
kg/ha-30 cm
400
4,000
2,000
2,000
4,000
4,000
2,000
4,000
40
40
2,000
2,000
2,000
40
2,000
4,000
1,000
Element
Re
Rh
Ru
Sb
Sc
Si
Sn
Sr
Ta
Tc
Te
Th
Ti
Tl
' W
Y
Zr
TOTAL
kg/ha-30 cm
4,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
2,000
4,000
4,000
40
4,000
4,000
2,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
40
2,000
4,000
281
-------
The inclusion of the long list of metals given here should not be
taken to mean that any waste should be analyzed for all these metals.
Wastes may be analyzed only for the metals that are known to be included in
the plant processes, or that are an expected contaminant during storage.
There is little evidence that the rate a metal is added to a soil
influences its ultimate availability to plants. Thus, the total acccept-
able metal loading may be done in a single application if other constitu-
ents of the waste are not limiting or the applications may be stretched
over a 10 or 20-year period. The net result would be similar levels of
available metals once the summation of the periodic application equals the
amount that had been applied in a single application.
6.2 ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
To determine the suitability of a waste for land treatment, it is
essential to understand the probable fates of the organic constituents
in the land treatment system. Organic constituents are frequently part of
a complex mixture of hazardous and nonhazardous organic and inorganic com-
pounds. To simplify the determination of which organic constituents may
limit the capacity or rate of waste application, it is helpful to know the
feedstocks and industrial unit processes that are involved in generating
the waste.
Individual wastes are generated by a combination of feedstocks and
catalysts reacting in definable unit processes to give predictable products
and by-products. Often, enough can be determined from this readily avail-
able information to predict the predominant hazardous organic constituents
in a waste. Once these constituents are determined, options can be
explored for in-plant process controls and waste pretreatment (Section 5.2)
that may either increase the loading rate and capacity or reduce the land
area required for an HWLT unit. In addition, knowledge of the predominant
organic constituents in a waste greatly reduces the analyses necessary in
waste characterization and site monitoring. In the following sections,
hazardous organic constituents are defined and the fate of these waste
constituents are discussed in terms of fate mechanisms and the fate of
organic constituent classes.
6.2.1 Hazardous Organic Constituents
Understanding the probable fate of land treated hazardous organic con-
stituents is simplified if their basic physicochemical properties are
known. These include such properties as water solubility, vapor pressure,
molecular weight, octanol/water partition coefficient, boiling point and
melting point. These values are given in Table 6.53 for the 361 commercial
chemical products or manufacturing intermediates that have been identified
by the EPA as either an "acute hazardous waste" or a "toxic waste" if they
are discarded or intended to be discarded.
282
-------
TABLE 6.53 PROPERTIES OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
Hazardous Constituents
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrlle
3-(alpha-aeetonylbentyU-4-
hydroxycoumarln and salts
Acetophenone
2-AcetylamlnoCluorene
Acetyl chloride
J -Acetyl -2-thlourea
Acrolein
Acrylamlde
Acryl ic acid
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aluminum phosphide
hydro-8-(hydroxvmethyl)-8-
methoxy-5-methylcarbanate
ts> azurino(2 3 |3,4) pyrrolo
rn (1 2-a)indole-4 7 dlone
rj (ester)
^" 5-(Amlno«ethylI-3-lsoxazaolol
4-Aminopyridlne
Amitrole
Ammonium picrate
Aniline
Arsenic acid (•-)
(0-)
Arsenic pentoxide
Arsenic trloxide
Asbestos
Auramine
Azaserine
Barium cyanide
Benzlctacridine
Benzal chloride
Benz|a| anthracene
Benzene
Benzenesulfonyl chloride
Benzenethiol
Benzidlne
Hazardous
Haste 1
U001
U002
U003
P001
U004
U005
U006
P002
P003
U007
U008
U009
P004
POOS
P006
U010
P007
P008
U011
P009
U012
P010
P011
P012
U013
U014
U015
P013
U016
0017
U018
D019
U020
P014
U021
Density
0 78349 6 18 C
0 79728151:
0 7657 *
1 0281 3
1 11
0 8410
1 22
1 0511
0 8060
1 65
0 854
2 85625 C
1 719
1 02
2 0-2 5
4 32
4 09625 C
1 29
0 879
1 3842 615 C
1 0766
1 250
Molecular-
Height
44 05
58 08
41 1
120 14
78 5
56 1
71 1
72 1
53 1
365
58 08
57 96
94 12
84 1
246 14
93 1
123 9
150 9
229 8
197 8
267 4
189 4
229 3
161 03
228
78 11
176 6
110 2
184 23
Hater Solubility Octanol/watcr
Qualitative
soluble
•iscible
soluble
insoluble
PPM* Partition Coef
10 000 1 0
100,000 1x10"° 3S
decomposes in water IxlO*"1 *
(reacts vioientl)
soluble
highly soluble
mijciblo
alsclble
slightly soluble
mlsclble
soluble
soluble
slightly soluble
slightly soluble
insoluble
practically
Insoluble
slightly soluble
slightly soluble
r)
400,000 10-
1 to >1 IxlOl' '
lxlO~_
73,500 1x10 "J ??
0 025 1x10-° 14
35,000 1x10° '6
1 0
2300xlO(ppb
820 C,
21xl05ppb»25'C
0 0011 IxlO5 61
1 280 825 C IxlO2 Zfl
Ig in 2,447g612-c IxlO1 81
Vapor Pressure
(Torr)*
740620 "C
400634 5 C
74620 C
1»15 l.
150820 C
215620 C
1 6684 5 C
3 2620 C
1006228 >C
2 31xlO~:>e20 C
10610 5 C
1634 8-C
0 3620 C
95 2625 C
Melting Point
C,760Torr"
-12
-95 4
-46
20 5
-112
-
-86 95
84 5
13
-83 5
104
-129
159
decomposes
-6 3
decomposes 6315
31 5 (sublimes I
-16
162
5 5
-14 8
122-128
Boiling Point
C 760Torr"
20 8
56 2
81 6
202 0
50 9
53 0
125825Torr
142
77 5
97
180612Torr
explodes6430
184
136
214
435 sublimes
80
168 7
4006740Torr
1
75-07-0
(7-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
75-36-5
107-02-8
79-10-7
107-13-1
309002
107-18-6
20859-73 8
88-89-1
62-53-3
7778-39-4
1327-53-3
1332-21-4
60448-23-9
225-51-4
99-87-3
56-55-3
71-43-2
98-09-9
L08-98-5
92-87-5
-------
TMUt C S3 (continued)
HexardolM
Raxardoue Constituents Msste 1
.
po
Oo
4>
Ben xo|a| pyrene
Bentotrichlorlde
Beryllium (dust)
Bla(2-cnloroetboxy> Methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl> ether
H H-bis(2-chloroethyl|
2-HaphthylaMine
Bio(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bls(chloroaethyl) ether
Bls(2-ethylhexyl| phthalate
Brosnacetone
BroHOaethane
4-Broaophehyl phenyl ether
Bruelne
2-Butanoneperoxlde
n-Butyl alcohol
2-sec-Butyl-4,C-dlnUrophenol
Caleivat chcomate
Calcium cyanide
Carbon dlsulfide
Carbonyl fluoride
chloral
Chloreabucll
Chlordane (tech )
Chloroacetaldehyde
p-chloroaniline
Chlorobenxene
Chlorobenxilate
l-(p-Chlorobensoyl)-5-
•ethoxy-2-methylindole-
3-Acetic acid
p-Chloro-a-cresol
Ch lorod ibro*oaethane
l-chloro-2,3-epoxy propane
2-chloroetbyl vinyl ether
Chloroethene
chloroform
0022
t»2J
ms
U024
0025
002<
0027
ro»
0021
P017
U029
0030
nil
rai9
0031
K20
U032
P021
M22
0033
U03I
0035
003C
W23
F024
0037
0038
»25
0039
0040
0041
0042
0143
U044
tensity
tga/caJ)*
1 31(15 S*C
1 15
1 2199
1 321
0 915
1 (31(0*C
1 «76C-20%
0 «U(ip gr )
1 263
1 139(-114%
1 51
1 67
1 19
1 21
1 11
1 17C1
1.0525
0 910C
1 49
Molecular
Heiaht
252 3
19? 4t
4 01
173 1
143 02
260 2
171 07
114 96
391 0
136 99
94 94
391 0
394 45
II 1
74 12
192 2
150 1
92
76 14
C6 01
147 4
304 1
409 0
71 5
127 C
112 56
325
142 54
92 52
106 55
62 50
119 4
Hater (oMtllltr
Qualitative rm'
practically
Insoluble
Insoluble
low solubility
practically
insoluble
practically
insoluble
immediately
hydnlyses
alMost insoluble
very soluble
very soluble
very soluble
very soluble
•oderately
soluble
soluble
slightly soluble
relatively high
solubility
slightly soluble
highly soluble
6 0038
(25%
11,000(25%
10,200
1,700
22,000(22 C
0 4-1 3(25 C
900(20%
90,000(25%
2,200(25%
14,740
0 056-1 15
10,00*
10 000(20%
408(25%
3,850(29%
15 000
1 1(25%
1,200
Octanol/vater
Partition coef
IxlO* M
1,1.4 "
1 ?c
liloj "
IxlO1 !t
1,10* "
IxUf0 "
1x10* '
1 1
l*U\ 20
IxlO4 *'
M ••
1x10° "
100
uwl 41
IxlO2 "
1x10, .,
l*Ut 34-
ixio; :;
IxlO2 M
1x10* "
1 111
IxlO1 M
IxlO? *•
IxlO1 "
Vapor Pccaaurc
(Torr)«
7 32xlO"7Pn
<0 1(20 C
0 71»20-t
0 85(20%
30(22 C
2xlO"'(20 1.
1420(20 C
0 0015920 C
6 5(25%
60(20 C
5»20 C
_5
XlO 5
00(45%
(54 3%
015(20%
OCU 6%
6 75(20 C
,660
50 5(20 C
Heltlng Point Boiling Point
*c,760Torr« c,7»OTorr«
176 5
-5 C
1283
-46 0
-97
-41 5
-50
-54
-93 6
11 72
178
-79 9
decompoaes>350
-IK I
-114
-57 5
107 0-101 l(Cis)
103 0-105 OITrans)
-16 3
72 5
-45
66
-57 1
-70 )
-153 8
-63 5
221
2970
211 1
178
189
104
316 9(5Torr
136
4 <
310 14
117 7
46 5
<«3
97 S
175(2Torr
90 0-100 1
230 5
132
141(0 004Torr
235
117 9
109(740
-13 37
61 7
CAS
1
50-32-0
12002-48-1
7440-41-7
111-91-1
111-44-4
100-60-1
542-80-1
117-01-7
598-31-2
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
60448-22-8
75-15-0
75-87-6
12709-03-6
107-20-0
106-47-8
108-90-7
47S5-72-0
59-50-7
110-75-8
75-01-4
67-66-3
-------
TABLE 6 53 (continued)
Hazardous
Hazardous Constituents Haste 1
to
00
Ln
chloroaethane
Chloroiwthyl methyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
l-(o-Chlorophenyllthiourea
4-Chloro-o-toluidtne
hydrochloride
3-Chloroproplonltrile
alpha-chloro toluene
Chryaene
Copper cyanide
Creosote
Creaol
Crotonaldehyde
Cresyllc acid
Cumene
Cyanides
Cyanogen
Cyanogen bronlde
Cyanogen chloride
Cyclohexane
cyclonexanone
2-Cyclohexyl-4 6-4lnltrophenol
CyclophosptiaMide
DaunORiycin
DDD |p,p 1
DDT lp,p 1
Olallate
Dlbenxla hlanthracene
Dlbenxola.llpyrent
Dlbroxochloroitethane
1 2-Dibrono-3-chloropropane
1 2-DibroMOMethane
DlbroMoethane
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
1.2-Dichlorbenzene
1,3-Dichlorbenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3 3'-Dlchlorobenxldine
0045
0046
D047
0048
P026
V049
P027
F02C
1)050
POI9
1)051
1)052
1)053
0054
0055
P030
P031
P032
P033
U056
0057
P034
0059
0059
0060
U061
1)062
0063
0064
0065
1)066
ITO67
1)060
0069
0070
0071
0072
0073
(0./C.3)'
0 997(sp gr »
1 24
1 1363(25*C
1 1026(10*0
1 274
1 07
1 092(25*0
0 053
1 034-1 040
0 86(sp gr 1
0 066(17*0
2 015
1 1I6ISP or )
0 70
0 445
(liquid)
2 440(25*C
172(25*0
004(25 C
047
307
29
46
Molecular
Height
50 49
00 52
162 62
120 56
(9 5
126 50
226 20
115 61
94-136
100 15
70 09
100 73
120 19
52 04
105 93
61 40
04 16
98 15
266 23
261 1
526 6
320
354 5
270 2
270 36
302
200 24
236 4
187 00
118
270 34
147 01
147 01
147 01
253 12
OUalitattve
slightly soluble
practically
insoluble
alnost Insoluble
slightly
soluble
slightly soluble
insoluble
alnoflt insoluble
alfjost insoluble
slightly soluble
very soluble
very soluble
aiMost insoluble
reacts slowly
reacts slowly
slightly soluble
slnost Insoluble
soluble
soluble
alHost Insoluble
almost Insoluble
slightly soluble
aluoat insoluble
insoluble
insoluble
Insoluble
alsost insoluble
slightly soluble
slightly soluble
alltost Insoluble
aiMost insoluble
PPM*
400(25*0
6 74(calc I
28 500(20*C
<1000
0 002(25 C
5
2 4-3 1%
50(25*0
2500(25*0
45(25*0
24 000(25*0
02- 1
5 5 ppb(25*C
0 0005(25*0
13(25*0
145(25 C
125(25*0
79(25 C
4(22*0
Partition Coef
!,$ «
ixlo4 "
1X10?. "-
Ixlo2 "
ixlo3 "
1.105 "
1 - ,.
IxlO2 7I)
ixlo' "
IxlO3 "
l.io3 «-
IxlO3 Sl
1
IxlO5 "
3 48
mo5 "
(calc I
IxlO2 °»
1,10! 2,
IxlOf. ™
1x10, ,,
m°3 H
Ixlo3 °2
fMl*< I
Vapor Pressure
(Torr)*
3.765(20 C
0 017(20'C(calc )
2 2(20 C(calc )
6(50*0
11(66*0 ,
l«10-1I-lxlO~6(20
19(20 C
1(3B-53*C
3 2(20*0
3000(20*0
100(22 6*0
1610(20 0
77(20*C
10BK38 7,
5fM(26 4 C
10 2,10"7(30 C
1 5xlo"7(25 C
10'10(20 C
15(10 5 C
17 4(30*0
0 1(115 C
1 5(25*0
2 28(25*C
1 1>(25*C
Heltlng Point Boiling Point
•C^eOTorr" *C,760Torr*
-97 73
61
8 4
-51
-43
C 256
decomposes before melting
11-35
-76 0
10 9-35 5
-96 0
-34 4
52
-6 5
6 5
-45 0
41-45
deco»poses(190
112
108 5-109
25-30
270
281*5
<-20
9 3
-35
-17 0
-24 7
53 1
132
-24 2
256
175 6
176(decorjpo8es)
179 ,
448(1 Olxl05/Pa
191-203
104
191—203
152
-21 0
61 1
13 1
(0 7
115 6
105
150(9Torr
110-122(740T»rr
196
131 4
340
180 i
173
174
CAS
1
74-87-3
91—58-7
95-57-8
542-76-7
100-44-7
210-01-9
544-92-3
1319-77-3
4170-30-1
98-82-8
57—12—5
506-68-3
506-77-4
110-82-7
108-94-1
20830-81-3
72548
50
-------
w
e *
£ o
ft
3°
i'i
Is
~ 0
i
t>
s
li:
\l
s
IS
fl
2 **
41
3|
s
u
i|
4»
a
S
tl -4
*
TB
11
I'
n
|
4J
|
M
i
s
s
2?T7T.77?
i r- 1-1 i »i i o i *
u
, I
S ?
»^s «, 1
SS^I"^S2
J.7TTTTT5S
O
U •£
U S —
•> o
s||3£gKjS
^-Hl*COtMI*)O-«
t* tTv EB V
US
Zgg Sgg£
V - OO *
O • 0
Us !S3
pispft
Illflll?
J«-*-S:
u o>
u
s ££
- ------
i
i £
y £f
SHS5S -S-i
•f ll^llgll
llllllltt
llllljjll
?2 V??YS??
-^3 •HiH -4 -^ Q N (M
i* in? ->
p ^^
* 51
o "^w
e
2 ? g
L>
*
y 7
o u u o
5 II «
o * w -*
= 5 RS
u Si! v
•Q-Q*
339 >>
if, !!! !i
8ja *^<^ >M ^>U
s ss
•l •*•>
i ill §£
|!|||
f~^ee i
l*fll IB
i|?S^ §1
pJeO-^-H 33
0
T
vo
LI
i
4B U
u
o
i
e
o
I
§
S
«
1
1
1
«
ss 5
u
£
Si 5
r* *•<
O «H
"?
0^
1*
S u
lr*zln«
-(2- (ethyl
4iocothiol
IIS1
HI*
« *JSAM
<-> 0 0 O
ISli
O*HO «
^
?
D
i
«
s
¥
O
O
R
*"o
•M
K
as;
Is
21
|
1
1
*
!3
•n
3
ii
•u
o
•
»a
|8
fll
« 0-.
ill
o"S,n
22 53
N i™ lii!
TS 3T 33
ft
S, S S3
Si 5 32
I! £ ss
as -i ss
t M « -t»nr>
««£ *•»•> pi* *
ill isi g§ s
8SS
99°
— ^
I S =B|
s iM iflf
6 li? if!
I a v O B» C V;
dBf-i sii
isl&||i,as
is>,iaBs5S
-1*> •* 7L
-------
TABLE 6 S3 (continued)
Hazardous
Hazardous Constituents Haste 1
alpha, alpha-Dlsttthyl
benzylhydroperoxide
Disethylcarbasoyl chloride
1 , l-Dinetbylhydrasine
1 2-Dinethylhydrazine
3 3-Oi«ethyl-l-(«ethylthlo>-
2-butanone-0-«»ethyla«lno>-
carbonylloxl«e
Diwethylnitrosoanine
alpha alpha-Diiaethlyphenethyl-
anine
2,4-DlMthylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Dlmethly sulfate
4 6-oinitro-o-cresol and salts
2 4-Dtnltrophenol
2, 4-Dinltro toluene
co
e\n 2,6-dinitrotoluene
;*J Dl-n-octyl phthalate
^ 1 4-dioxane
1,2-dlphenylhydraiine
Dlpropylamlne
Di-n-propylnitrosaalne
2,4-Dlthlobluret
Emkwilfan
Endrln
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyleneblsdlthlocsrboute
Ethylenedianlne
Ethyenisiinc
Kthylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyl ether
Ethylmethacrrlste
EthylBethanesnlConate
Ferric cyanide
Fluoranthene
0096
V097
U098
U099
P045
010»
W46
0101
0102
U103
P047
0104, P048
0105
010C
0107
0101
0109
0110
0111
M50
TO51
0112
U113
M52
0114
P053
n>54
0115
OIK
0117
0119
0119
M55
0120
tensity
Igm/oV
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OS
679(20 "C
7I2(25«C
8724(20 C
005(20 C
0965(20 *C
1>9(25>C
3322(20 C
6*3(24 *C
S21(1SC
8711(20*0
7134(llqtlld)
911(25*C
Molecular
Height
152 2
107 6
60 1
60 1
74 08
121 10
122 16
194 18
126 13
198 13
184 11
1>2 14
182 14
391 0
88 10
104 24
101 19
130 19
135 20
406 9
374
88 10
100 12
55 08
78 12(hyd
60 Kanhyd
4307
44 05
102 5
74 12
114 07
124 2
214 99
202 26
Hater Solubility
Qualitative
•isclble
•Uclble
soluble
slightly soluble
slightly soluble
sparingly soluble
slightly soluble
insoluble to
slightly soluble
Insoluble
•lightly soluble
extrenely soluble
nearly insoluble
)extresmly soluble
•Isclble
highly soluble
lnsoluble(25>c
soluble
Insoluble
tm*
17,000(160 C
4,320»2S'C
100(20 -C
5 600(18*C
270»22-C
3(25 -C
0 252(20*C
10,000
9,900
(0 to 150ppb
200ppb(25*C
15 000(25*C
lxlO*(25'C
2,000
75,000(25*C
0 26(25>C
Octanol/Hater
Partition Coef
1.10° <*
IxlO2 "(calc
ixiof °:
1x10* "
l.io2 "
ixio; ?'
1x10' '(calc )
1x10, ?t
IxlO1 "
1,10* "
1»103 55
1,10s '(calc I
U101 01
—1 I
Ixio l 2
1 „ 55
1,10s "(calc
Vapor Pressure
(Torr)*
157S25 C
100028 *C
0 0621(20 1,
)<0 01(20 C
0 0013»59-C
<0 2(15 C
40(25 2 C
1(103 C
3OB25 C
9«10-3MO C
lxlO~S(25 C
2xlO"'(25 C
100(27 C
29(20 C
9(20 C
160(20 C
1,095*20 C
442(20 C
11x10 -lxlO~*(20'C
Bolting Point
C,760Torr'
-33
-58
-9
24 54
0
-31 8
85 8
114
70
65
-25
12
131
-40
181
10S
212
200 (decoMposes)
-83 6
<-72
-103 5
8 5
-71 5
-111 3
-IK 2
<-75
120
Boiling Point
c 760Torr«
153
165-167
63
81
151-15]
194 15
210 93
283 7
188
(nubllnenl
300
( decomposes )
285
220(4Torr
101 1
239 (decomposes)
105
205
decomposes
77 15
99 6
97 1
117 2
55-56
10 7
34 6
119
367
CAS
I
57-14-7
540-73-B
62-75-9
105-679
131-1 1-3
534-521
51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-840 0
122-66-7
142-84-7
621-64-7
115-29-7
7^-20-8
141-7B-6
107-15-3
151-56-4
75-21-8
60-29-7
37307-65-6
206-44-0
-------
TULE ( 9) (continued)
00
00
laurdow
Haxardoua Oxtftltuanti Naat* 1
FluociM
2-Pluoroacataailde
Pluoroacatic acid todim aalt
Fluorotrichloroatethan*
Fonuldehyoe
Fomic acid
Furan
FurCaral
Glycldylaldehyde
Heptachlor
Bexachlorobenxene
nexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane lalphal
{beta)
tga>«|
llexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroe thane
I, 2, 3, 4, 10, 10-Hexachloro-
1 4 4a,S,8,8a-hexahydro~
1 4t5 8-endo endo-diMethano-
naphthalene
Hexach lorophene
Hexacholotpropene
Hexaethyltetraphoaphate
Hydrailne
Hydrocyanic acid
HydroEluoric acid
Hydrogen aulfide
llydroxydiaethyl arain* oxide
Indeno(l,2,3-c d)pyren«
lodoaethane
Iron Dextran
Isobutyl alcohol
laocyanlc acid, •ethylester
Isoaatrole ITrana-l
F854
POS7
M5i
0121
0122
0123
0124
0125
U126
POM
U127
U128
U129
U130
U131
P0(0
0132
P0(l
P0(2
0133
P0(3
0134
V135
0136
0137
0130
01)9
0140
POC4
U141
txnilty Itolecalar
1 14(-100*C
1 4(4(17 2*C
0 I15(-20>C
1 220
0 94
1 Kl-C
1 58
3 (2dp gr I
1 68(15 \ Clap gr )
1 72(15-C(ap gr' 1
2 04(20"C(ap gr )
1 lOUMS'C
0 (87(ap gr )
0 99 liquid
(ep ge (13 (•€)
1 539g/l!0 C
1 95
2 279-C
0 748(25 C|ap gr I
1 14(0-C
IK 3
77
T8 9
137 38
30 •
46 0)
68 1
9( 08
16 2
)74
284 78
260 74
291
27)
236 74
406 9
248 1
506 4
32 05
27
19 91
34 08
138 0
276 34
141 95
180,000
74 1
4) 01
162 2
Kater Solubility Octanol/Hater Vapor rreaaure
OnaliUtlv*
•lightly soluble
•oluble
•liclble
•leclble
very aoluble
highly soluble
•Svoat InBolubl*
alaoat inaoluble
aliaost inaoluble
alwoafc Inaoluble
•lightly soluble
•lightly aoluble
*
•liaoat inaoluble
•iaclble
•Iscible
•laelble
very aolubla
•lightly soluble
in.oloble
•oluble
very aoluble
PPM* Partition Coet (Torn*
1 9t(2(*C I>104
10,000
83,000
0 056J25-C
0 015
!ppb(20>C
1 6)(25'C
0 70(25le«
:!?'
XlOI
1105
JlO*
27 3 txio;
SO 1x10*
0 004 lxl»J
"(calc |lxlo"3-lxlO"J«20'C
'
34
•*~
la
74_
(1
11
^4
34
54
83"
Ixlo! 1x10"°
1x10* 1
((7 1
lllO7
95,ooodtn: ixio"
*'
((
88
35(20 C
758(10-C
1(20*C
JxlO"*(155C
1 089x10 5(20-C
0 15(20-C
2 15xlO~S(25 C
2 8xlO~'>20 C
(25 C
0 08(25 C
0 4(20 C
14 4(25*C
400(40>C
400(25'C
15,200(25>C
10"i0(20t
:alc HOOJ25 3*c
12 2(2S*C
Iteltlng Point
•C.KOItorr*
-111
-111
-92
0 2
-» (5
-36 5
»5-»6
227-230
-21
157-158
309
9 4
166-1(7
-40
14
-1) 2
-03 1
-f 5 5
192
1(2 5-1(4
-S6 «
-108
-W
0 2
•oiling Point
•C,76«orr«
-107
1(3
24 1
-3-P
100 1
31 )(
1(1 7
322-325
215
2)9
186(777Torr
daeowpoaea
11) 5
25 7
19 54
-60 4
42 5
10> 3
2) 3
253
IAS
1
7782-41-4
(40-19-7
(2-74-8
75-69-4
50-00-0
(4-18-6
110-00-9
76-44-8
110-74-1
87-68-3
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
77-47-4
67-72-1
1888-71-7
above 15
302-01-2
74-90-8
7(64-39-)
7783-06-4
193-39-5
74-88-4
9004-66-4
78-83-1
624-83-9
-------
TABLE 6 53 (continued)
1
Hazardous Constituents
Kepone
Lasiocarplne
Lead acetate
Lead I -o- 1 phospha te
Lead subacetate
Halelc anhydride
Hsleic hydrazine
Halononltrlle
Helphalan
Hercury
Hercury fulminate
Hethacrylonltrile
Hethanethlol
nethanol
Hethapyrilene
He thorny!
fO 2-Hethylszirialne
GO Hethyl chlorocarbonate
,Q 3-Hethylcholanthrene
^* 44 -methylene-bls-(2-
chloroanlline)
Hethylethyl ketone(HBK)
Hethylethyl ketone peroxide(R)
Hethyl hydrazine
Hethyl Isobutyl ketone
2-Hethyllactonltrlle
Hethyl Methacrylate
2-Hethyl-2-(methylthio)-
propionaldehyde-o-(methyl-
carbonyDoxlne
H-Hethyl-N '-nitro-N-
nitrosoguanidine
Hethyl parathion
Hethylthlouracll
Naphthalene
hazardous
W««te 1
U142
H143
U144
U145
UH6
U147
U148
U149
U150
U151
U1S2
11X53
U154
U155
P066
P067
U156
U157
U1S8
U159
DUO
P068
P069
U162
P070
Ui<3
P071
U164
U16S
Density
2 55
6 9-7 3
0 734(sp gr |
1 049(34 C
13 546 (sp gr )
4 42|sp gr )
0 805
0 868(20 C
0 7195(»p gr )
1 2946(24 C
1 223
1 28
0 805(sp gr )
0 874
0 801(25 C(ap gr )
0 936(sp gr )
1 358
1 162
Molecular
Height
490 7
411 6
379 35
811 59
98 06
112 1
66 1
200 61
284 7
67 09
48 10
32 04
261 4
162 2
58 10
94 50
268 3
267 2
72 1
88 1
46
100 16
100 13
190 3
147 1
2C3
142 2
128 19
Hater Solubility Octanol/Hater
Qualitative PPN» Partition Ooef
•oluble
very soluble 163 000(30>c 1»10~° s'
somewhat soluble - m.
mlsclble 1x10 "
almost insoluble 19 JppbtS'C
81 3ppb(30*C
soluble in hot H,0 „ ,„
1 1»10° "
slightly soluble
in hot H_0 i» IK
•licible* IxlOj 7J5-
hlghly soluble 10,000-58,000 2
insoluble
very soluble 100 000(25 C 1
•lightly soluble
slightly soluble 19 000(25% 1
•lightly soluble >20 1x10° 74
•lightly loluble 55-60(25'C 82
•lightly soluble 34 4(25*C
slightly soluble 30-40 2,300
Vapor Pressure
(Torrl*
1(44 C
0 0012(20 C
65(25 C
C1520(26 C
100(21-C
5xlO"5(25 C
71 2(20 C
49 6(25 -C
16(20 C
28(20 C
0 97xlO~5(20 C
0 0492(20 C
Melting Point
C,760Torr«
decomposea0350*C
75,anhydrous2go
1,014
53
30 5
-38 87
explodes
-3C
-123 1
-97 8
78-79
180
-85 9
-86 75
-20 4
-84 7
-50
38
80 55
Boiling Point
C 760Iorr«
202
220
356-358(JOTorr
90 3
7 6
64 96
71 4
280(801torr
79 57
76 6
17 8
116 85
101 1
217 4
ens
108-31-6
109-77-3
7439-97-6
74-93-1
67-56-1
16752-75-5
75—55-8
56-49-5
101-14-4
60-34-4
80-62-6
91-20-3
-------
TMLE ( 53 (continued)
VD
O
Hazardous Constituents
1,4-Kaphthoqulnone
1-Haphthylamlne
2-Naphthyl»lne
l-«aphthyi-2-thiourea
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Nicotine and salts
Nitric oxide
p-Nltroanlline
Nitrobenzene
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen peroxide
Nitrogen tetroxide
Nitroglycerine
p-Hltrophenol
2-Nltropropane
B-Nitrosodi-n-butylo»ine
H-Nitrosodiethanolamlne
H-Nltrosodiethyl»ine
N-»itroflodJmethylamine
N-Nltrosodlplienylamine
H-Ni trosod i-n-propylaaiine
H-H1 trosod 1-n-ethylurea
K-N1 1 roso- n-we thyl urea
H-N 1 troso-n-pethylurethane
N-Nltrosomethylvlnylamlne
NHUtrosoplperldine
K-Ki troBopyrroJ idine
5-Nitro-o-toluidlne
Octamethylpyropbosphorasiida
oleyl alcohol condensed with
2 moles ethylene oxide
Osmium tetroxide
7-Oxablcyclo|2 2 llheptane-
2,3-Dicarboxylic acid
Pat-aldehyde
Parathion
Pentacttlorobenzene
Rafarooos
Haste 1
01(7
Ul(9
P072
P073
P074
P075
P07(
P077
01(9
P07»
P079
P090
P0I1
0170
U171
tU72
0173
U174
POJ2
•083
0175
U176
V177
U17I
P084
0179
U180
U181
P085
POX
P087
P098
01*2
P089
0183
Density
(0./C.V
1 422
1 131
1 0(1(9(*C
1 31(5(17 C
1 0092
1 3402g/l
liQuidf— JL5Q C
1 424
1 J05(25'C
I 491WC
1 3402g/l liquid
1 491(0 C
1 <01
1 27
0 992
0 9422
1 005
0 91(0
1 137(25*C
4 906(22 C
0 »943(«p gr )
1 2(7
1 834M7*C(sp gr
Molecular
Height
159 1«
143 18
143 18
170 9
110 9
1(2 23
30 01
139 1
123 11
4(
30 01
4(
227 09
139 11
(9 09
1*4 2
102 2
74 1
199 24
130 19
103 1
132 2
114 2
100 1
296 34
254 20
132 1C
291 3
) 250 34
Hater Solubility
Qualitative PPM-
•lightly soluble >200(25'C
soluble to 0 1(71
•lightly soluble
•lightly soluble 180
•lightly soluble 1900(20 C
•lightly soluble 1000(20*c
soluble in 16,000(25 C
hot oater
swderately
soluble
insoluble
soluble 9,900(25 C
soluble 120,800
•lightly soluble 24(25%
almost Insoluble 0 135
Octanol/Water Vapor Pressure
Partition Coel (Torr)'
1(104 3 C
1(108 0 C
400(25 8 C
1(61 8 C
, ., 1(142 4 C
IxlO1 " 1(44 4 C
400(60 C
400(80 C
. „ 1H2TC
IslO* " 2 2(146-C
10(15 t C
1.10? 5[(calc )
IxlO1 "(calc )
10(2(*C
.
lulO1 " 25 3(20 C
(,400 3 78x10 5(20 c
154 000
Melting Point
123-12(1(100
50
111 5
-25
<-to
-1(1
148 5
5 C
-9 3
-1(1
-93
13
113-114
-93
(4-6(
20-21
39 5-41
12 «
375
•6
Dolling Point
•c,7«OT»rr«
•tsrts to sublime)
300 9
306 0
43
247 3
-151 I«
332 0
211
21 (decomposes)
-151 IB
21 (decomposes)
-------
TABLE 6 53 (continued)
Hazardous Constituents
Pentachloroethane
Pentachlorophenol
Pentaehloroni troben rene
1,3-Pentadiene
Phenaeetin
Phenol
Phenyldichloroarsirre
Phenylmercury acetate
tl-Phenyl thiourea
morale
Phosgene
Phosphine
Phosphorothiolc acid, 0,0-
dimethlyeiter,0-e«ter vlth
N,H-dlmethyl benzene
aultonamlde
Phosphorous sul fide
Phthalic anhydride
2-Picollne
Potaa«ium cyanide
rO sliver cyanide
\Q Pronamlde
!_t 1 2-Propanediol
1 3-Propane sultone
Propionitrile
n-Propylamine
2-Propyn-l-ol
Pyrldine
Quinone
Reserpine
Reaorcinol
Saccharin
Oafrole
Selenlous acid
Selenium suicide
Selenourea
Silver cyanide
Sodium »zld«
Sodium cyanide
Streptozotocln
Strontium sulclda
strychnine and saltv
1 2,4,5-Tetrachlorobensentt
Rasardou*
Halte 1
0184
0185
ni86
U187
0188
P091
P092
P093
P094
P095
P046
P097
0189
0190
0191
»09S
P099
0192
P100
0193
P101
0194
P10J
019(
0197
0200
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205
P103
P104
•10$
PlOt
mat
run
tut
0207
Density
1 (73M5-C
1 978
1 718(25*C
1 07(25*C(sp gr )
1 (54
1 3
1 156
1 37
1 52 9/1WC
2 03
1 49(>p gr )
0 95(15 C
1 52 (U'C
1 0362M5-C
0 783(21-C
0 7191
t 9715
0 983OP gr )
1 318
1 285«15-C
1 09(0
3 004(15*C
3 056WC
3 95
1 M(
3 07115-C
1 35H18-C
1 85B(21-C((p gr }
Molecular
Height
202 3
2(6 35
295
179 21
94 11
222 92
336 75
152 2
260 4
98 92
34 04
222 24
148 12
93 13
(5 11
199 0
76 1
122 2
55 08
59 11
56 1
79 10
108 09
(08 7
110 11
183 2
1(2 10
128 98
Hater Solubility Oetanol/M«ter
Qualitative PPM* Partition co»f
•lightly soluble 500 UloJ Sf
•lightly soluble 14«20*C lilo! „
almost Insoluble 0 44(2««C 1»105
very soluble (7,000- U101
'
•lightly soluble
•lightly soluble 50(room temp 18
•lightly soluble
decoapoie* 1
•lightly soluble 0 24
soluble
soluble
soluble
mlsclble
n fift
mlsclbU 1»10°
•lightly soluble
In hot HjO
Insoluble
mlsclble
Vapor Pressure
(Torrl*
0 00011(20 C
7(0(40 1'C
0 021(20>C
0 00084(20 C
1180S20-C
15200(-3*C
2»10"*(20 C
10(24 4-C
0 08(20-C
248(20 C
11 6(20 C
14(20*C
considerable
1(108 4 C
1(63 8-C
K35CC
Melting Point
•C,7(0torr*
-29
190
146
135
40 90
-15 (
149
154
-118
-132 5
131 2
-70
(34 5
-103 5
-83
-50
-42
115 7
2 64-2(5, decomposes
110
11
Boiling Point
•C,7(OTtorr*
1(2
309-310 (decompose*)
328
181 75
255-275 '
116-120(0 BTorr
8 3
-87 5
295 (mibllmei)
129
188 2
97 1
41-49
115
115 3
(sublimes)
27( 5
(sublimes)
234 5
111 03 d*compOM>(118-119
133 90
« 02
49 82
2(5 3
119 7
334 40
215 9
decompooe*
a 99
almost Insoluble ( U10*
1(817 C
<0 1(25 C
decomposMaSJO
decompose*
563 7
115
268
138
1,4»(
270
245
CAS
1
7(-01-7
87-8(-5
82-68-8
504-509
108-95-2
103-65-5
298-02-2
75-44-5
7803-51-2
85-44-9
109-0(-8
1S1-50-8
506-64-9
57-55-6
107-12-0
107-10-8
107-19-7
110-86-1
106-51-4
108-4(-3
7446-34-6
(30-10-4
506-64-9
2(628-22-8
143-33-9
1314-96-1
57-24-9
95-94-3
-------
TAOLt C S3 (continue))
Raurdow
Daxardous Cbnttltutnts Mute 1
IO
VO
ro
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroe thane
1 1 2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetraehlocoetnene
Tetrachloronethane
2, 3, 4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetreethyldlthiopyrophoaphate
Tetraethyl lead
Tetraethyl pyrophoaphate
TetrahydroEuran
Te tran i trooethane
Thallic oxide
Tftalliun acetate
Thalliun carbonate
Thalliu* chloride
Thalllua nitrate
Thallium aelenite
Thalllui aullate
Th loacetaalde
Thlosenlcarbaxlde
Thiourea
Thiurai>
Toluene
Toluenedlamine
o-Toluidlne hydrochlorlde
Toluene dliaocyanate
Toxaphene
TribroMOM thane
1 1,1-Trichloroethane
1 1,2-Tricbloroethane
Trichloroethene
TrichloroEluoroM thane
Trichloro*e thane thlol
2 4 5-Trichlorophenol
2 4 6-Trichlorophenol
2,4 5-Trichlorophenoxy-
acetlc «cld(2,4,5-T)
0201
0209
0210
0211
0212
P10J
PUO
Pill
0213
P112
P113
0214
0215
0216
0217
P114
PUS
0211
PU6
0219
P117
0220
0221
0222
0223
0224
0225
0226
0227
0228
0229
me
0230
0231
0232
Density Molecular
l.!34(25'C<«t> gr )
1 5953
1 (23
1 8390(25'C10J(20
200
. 100(20 -C
100
200
(00(25'C
228(25 C
,10* "
IlS] »
ilO. ft
xioj J4-
xlO5 OB
,10° «
Ivtfl* "*-
I,"1 "
'25 , .„
lxlOS M
,$ "
xio? ?!
XlO2 "
xlO« "-
"**! 38
XlO3 S2
4
Vapor Prcaaure
(Torr)'
6(25 C
5(20-C
14(20 C
90(20 C
1(100 0 C
1(38 4 C
0 00015(20*C
176(25 *C
10(22 7 C
10(517 C.
28 7(25 C
1(106 5 C
0 05(25 C
0 2-0 4(25 C
10(34 C
96 0(20 C
19(20 C
57 9(20 C
667 4(20120
149 5
74 1
113 77
17
23 1
252
244 5
CAT
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-16-4
56-23-5
58-90-2
109-99-9
509-1 4-8
12651-21-7
13453-32-2
62-56-6
10B-B8-3
8001-3..-2
75-25-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-76-5
-------
TABLE 6 S3 (continued)
Hazardous Density
to
CO
Hazardous Constituents
2 4 5-Trichlorophenoxy-
propionic acid(2,4,5-TCPPA)
(1 3 5)-Trinitrobenzene
Tris(2,3-dlbro«opropyl)-
phosphate
Trypan blue
Uracil mustard
Urethane
Vanadic acid, antnonluM salt
Vanadlu* pentoxide(Dust)
Xylene |o-l
ln-l
1P-I
Zinc cyanide
Zinc phosphide
•Unless otherwise noted; at
Haste
U233
U234
U235
U236
U237
U23B
P119
P120
U239
P121
P122
28*C unle
1 |gm/c»J)*
1 688
»
2 27nretricton/n
0 9862
3 357(18 C
8 B8(25 C(sp gr )
8 0684(15 C(sp gr
0 86(25 C(sp gr )
4 55(13 C
ss otherwise noted
Molecular
Weight
269 5
213 11
697 7
968 B
>89 1
181 8
IOC
) 106
106
117
28S 10
Hater Solubility Octanol/Hatcr Vipor Pressure
Qualitative PPM* Partition CoeC (Torn*
slightly soluble . „
slightly soluble 358 Ixle' "
0 02S9Pie25 1
soluble
10(77 8 L
slightly soluble 175(25 C 1«10* " 10(12 1 C
slightly soluble 130 1*10 J ,, 10(28 3 L
slightly soluble 198 1«10J " 10(27 3-C
Melting Point
C,760Torr«
182
122
5 5
49
690
-25 5
-47 9
13-14
deconipoac8(800
428
noillng Point
C,760Torr*
decomposes
184
deconposrspl 750
144 4
139
138
1 100
< AS
1
99-15 4
95-47-6
180-3B-3
106-42-3
557-21-1
51810-70-9
-------
Commercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates that have
been identified as acutely hazardous have been assigned three digit numbers
preceded by the letter "P" (i.e., POOS for acrolein). An acutely hazardous
waste is defined by the EPA (1980b) as having at least one of the following
characteristics:
(1) it has been found to be fatal to humans in low doses;
(2) in the absence of data on human toxicity it has been shown
in studies to have an oral LD^Q toxicity to rats of less
than 50 mg/kg;
(3) it has an inhalation LC5Q toxicity to rats of less than
2 mg/1;
(4) it has a dermal LD5Q toxicity to rabbits of less than
200 mg/kg, or
(5) it is otherwise capable of causing or significantly contrib-
uting to an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitat-
ing reversible illness.
Commercial chemical products or manufacturing intermediates that have
been identified as toxic have been assigned three digit numbers preceded by
the letter "U" (i.e., U0222 for benzo(a)pyrene). A toxic waste is defined
by the EPA as having been shown in scientific studies to have toxic,
carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects on humans or other life
forms (EPA, 1980b).
Physicochemical properties listed in Table 6.53 were compiled from the
EPA background documents on the identification and listing of hazardous
waste (Dawson et al., 1980; Sax, 1979). The table is largely self-
explanatory (i.e., highly water soluble compounds may be leachable, and
compounds with high vapor pressures may be lost through volatilization),
with the possible exception of the octanol/water partition coefficient.
This is defined by Dawson et al. (1980) as "the ratio of the chemical's
concentration in octanol to that in water when an aqueous solution is
intimately mixed with octanol and allowed to separate." Dawson goes on to
say that this value reflects the bioaccumulative potential, which he
defines as the ratio of the concentration of the compound in an aquatic
organism to the concentration of the compound in the water to which the
organism is exposed. The octanol/water partition coefficient may also be
used to estimate the distribution coefficient (K
-------
It is important to understand the fate of hazardous organic constitu-
ents because of their potential impact on human health should they be
released from the treatment unit. Consequently, it would be helpful to
have a means of obtaining available data on the human health impact of the
hazardous constituents in a land treated waste. Table 6.53 lists the
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry numbers which are the primary
listing mechanism for a variety of computerized data searching services
such as the Dialog computerized listing of Chemical Abstract and Environ-
mental Mutagen Information Center (Oak Ridge, Tennessee). These data bases
are continuously updated and can therefore be extremely useful where more
information is needed on specific waste constituents.
6.2.2 Fate Mechanisms for Organic Constituents
To be considered suitable for land treatment, all major organic com-
ponents of a waste applied to soil must degrade at reasonable rates under
acceptable application rates and conditions. A reasonable rate of degra-
dation is a rate rapid enough that degradation, rather than volatilization,
leaching or runoff, is the controlling loss mechanism within the HWLT unit.
The allowable degree of loss by volatilization, leaching and runoff depends
on the types of compounds involved. Air and water leaving the site should
meet current air and water quality standards. Organic waste constituents
that are recalcitrant under land treatment conditions may limit the life of
a facility even though they may be present in relatively small concentra-
tions .
There are five primary mechanisms for the removal of organic waste
constituents from a treatment site. degradation, volatilization, runoff,
leaching, and plant absorption. Each of these mechanisms is examined in
the following discussions.
6.2.2.1 Degradation
Degradation is the loss of organic constituents from soil by chemical
change induced by either soil microorganisms, photolysis, or reactions cat-
alyzed by soil. While the nonbiologi,cal sources of chemical change can
play an important role in degradation, the primary mechanism of organic
chemical degradation in soil is biological.
While degradation of organic constituents over time may appear to be
exponential, it is actually made up of distinct components that will vary
in importance with climatic conditions, soil type (Edwards, 1973), and sub-
strate properties. If the approximate half-life of a constituent is known
for a given soil-climate regime, it is possible to estimate the amount of
the constituent that will accumulate due to repeated applications of the
constituent to the treatment soil. For instance, if 5,000 kg/ha/year of a
one year half-life constituent is applied to soil, there will still be
2,500 kg/ha left in the soil when the second 5,000 kg is applied.
295
-------
Consequently, the amount of the substance in the soil immediately after the
2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th yearly application would be approximately
7,500, 8,750, 9,315, 9,688, 9,844 and 9,922 kg/ha. For substances with
half-lives of no more than one year, and assuming that the substance is not
toxic to soil microbes at the maximum accumulated concentration, no more
than twice the amount applied yearly should accumulate in soil (Edwards,
1973; Burnside, 1974). More generally, the accumulation of an organic con-
stituent can be held at twice the amount placed in the soil in one applica-
tion so long as the applications are separated by the time length of one
half-life of the constituent. Degradation of approximately 99% of the sub-
stance should be attained within 10 years of the last waste application
(Table 6.54). After a 30 year post-closure period, an initial concentra-
tion in the soil of 0.5% or 10,000 kg/ha should have been reduced to 0.5
ppb or approximately 1 gm/ha. Methods for evaluating the degradation rate
or half-life of organic constituents in a waste are discussed in Section
7.2.1.2.
TABLE 6.54. PERCENT DEGRADATION AFTER 10, 20 AND 30 YEARS FOR ORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS WITH VARIOUS HALF-LIVES IN SOIL
Percentage of Substance Degraded
Half-Life In Soil
3 months
6 months
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
10 years
20 years
30 years
After 10 Years
100
99.9999
99.90
96.88
89.56
81.25
75.0
50.0
25.0
16.6
After 20 Years
100
99.9999
99.90
98.96
96.88
93.75
75.0
50.0
33.3
After 30 Years
100
99.9999
99.90
99.39
98.44
87.5
62.5
50.0
Both the rate and extent of biodegradation of waste in soil depend
primarily on the chemical structure of the individual organic constituents
in the waste. Other factors that affect biodegradation include the waste
loading rate and the degree to which the waste and soil are mixed. If, for
instance, an oily waste is applied too frequently or at too high a loading
rate, anaerobic conditions may prevail in the soil and decrease biodegrada-
tion. If toxic organic constituents are applied at too high a rate, either
microbial numbers may be reduced or a soil may even become sterilized
(Buddin, 1914). Adequate mixing of waste with soil tends to decrease
localized concentrations of toxic waste components while it increases both
soil aeration and the area of contact between soil microbes and the waste.
Soil factors that affect biodegradation include texture, structure,
temperature, moisture content, oxygen level, nutrient status, pH, and the
296
-------
kind and number of microbes present. In a study that evaluated the effect
of soil texture on biodegradation of refinery and petrochemical wastes, a
sandy clay soil consistently degraded more waste than a sandy loam soil and
two clay soils (Brown et al., 1981). The low degradation rate exhibited by
the clay soils was at least partly due to anaerobic conditions (excess
water and low oxygen levels) that developed in these soils. This condition
might be overcome with time if the waste applied were to impart a more
aggregated structure to the soils allowing better drainage and a higher
rate of oxygen transfer into the soil.
Soil pH strongly influences biodegradation rate, presumably by affect-
ing the availablity of nutrients to the soil microbes. Dibble and Bartha
(1979) noted a significantly higher biodegradation rate for oily sludge at
soil pH of 7.0 to 7.8 than at pH 5 to 6. In general, however, the availa-
bility of most nutrients is optimal in the pH range of 6 to 7. The most
common method of increasing soil pH to near 7 is the application of agri-
cultural lime. Management of soil pH is discussed in Section 8.6.
Soil temperature for optimal degradation of oily sludge has been
reported to be above 20°C but below 40°C (Dibble and Bartha, 1979).
Another study found that the biodegradation rate for petrochemical and
refinery wastes doubled when soil temperatures increased from 10°C to 30°C,
but decreased slightly when temperatures increased from 30°C to 40°C (Brown
et al., 1981).
Soil moisture content for optium biodegradation varies with soil type,
soil temperature, waste type, and waste application rate. Consequently,
the optium moisture level needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
However, very dry or saturated soils have been reported to exhibit lower
biodegradation rates than moist soils (Brown et al., 1981). As a general
rule, a soil water content that supports plant growth will also encourage
microbial degradation of waste (Huddleston, 1979).
The nutrient status of a soil-waste mixture depends on both the pres-
ence and availability of the necessary elements. Adding nitrogen ferti-
lizer to soils where oily wastes had been applied increased biodegradation
by 50% in one study (Kincannon, 1972), but the increase in biodegradation
was substantially less in similar studies (Brown et al., 1981; Raymond et
al., 1976). Nitrogen additions have the greatest effect on degradation of
wastes that are readily degradable but are nitrogen deficient. For more
slowly degradable organic wastes, lower levels of nitrogen are necessary
for optimal biodegradation (Huddleston, 1979). The amount of carbon in
relation to the amount of nitrogen needed to optimize degradation (the C.N
ratio) may be as low as 10:1 or as high as 150.1 (Brown et al., 1981).
Care must be taken when applying nitrogen fertilizer to avoid an excess of
nitrogen which could contribute to the leaching of nitrates. Fertilization
with potassium or phosphorus is usually not necessary unless the receiving
soil has a deficiency or large amounts of wastes deficient in these ele-
ments are land applied.
Both kind and number of soil microbes determine which and how much of
the organic constituents degrade in soil. In native, undisturbed soil, a
297
-------
large variety of microbes are present. After application of waste, the
microbes that cannot assimilate the carbon sources present in the waste are
rapidly depleted, while microbes that can use these carbon sources tend to
flourish. In this manner, the microbial population of the soil is automat-
ically optimized for the applied waste. In some cases, there may be an
initially low degradation rate as the number of microbes that can use the
waste as a food source multiply. Several studies report substantial
increases in total numbers of bacteria soon after addition of hydrocarbons
to soils (Dotson et al., 1971; Jobson et al., 1974). The two genera of
hydrocarbon-utilizing bacteria most often found to contribute to biodegra-
dation of oily wastes are Pseudomonas and Arthrobacter (Jensen, 1975).
6.2.2.2 Volatilization
Volatilization is the loss of a compound to the atmosphere. Two stud-
ies note that soil, as compared to water, decreased volatilization by an
order of magnitude (Wilson et al., 1981). Factors affecting volatilization
include the properties of the specific compound (vapor pressure, water
solubility, and Henry's Law Constant), the soil (air-filled porosity and
temperature), interactions between the waste and soil (application method
and degree of mixing), and atmospheric conditions (wind velocity, air tem-
perature, and relative humidity). One study found that the highest
emission rate of volatile organic components of waste occurred within min-
utes of application and decreased substantially within one hour (Wetherold
et al., 1981).
Compounds of most concern with regard to their potential volatiliza-
tion include both those that are persistent, toxic, and/or weakly adsorbed
to soil and those that exhibit either low water solubility or high vapor
pressure. Organic constituents with high vapor pressures are more readily
volatilized from soil. Compounds that are not soluble in water tend to be
available for volatilization longer because they are less likely to be
removed in leachate or runoff water. Persistent organic constituents may
similarly be more of a volatilization problem because they tend to be pre-
sent in the soil longer. In addition, organic compounds are more easily
volatilized if they are less strongly adsorbed by soil. Finally, the tox-
icity of the compound is of concern since the more toxic an organic consti-
tuent, the larger the environmental impact per unit of material volatil-
ized.
In a study of volatilization of oily industrial sludges from land
treatment, the amount of the total weight of the sludges volatilized within
the first 30 minutes after waste application ranged from 0.01 to 3.2%
(Wetherold et al., 1981). In this same study, emissions were measured for
oily sludges that were subsurface injected at two depths. When the waste
was injected to a depth of 7.5 cm, the emissions were relatively high
because the sludge bubbled to the surface. Sludge injected to a depth of
15 cm produced no detectable emissions, and no sludge appeared on the sur-
face.
298
-------
Reduction of waste volume through volatilization is not an acceptable
treatment process for organic chemicals. However, it can be a substantial
loss mechanism. For instance, Schwendinger (1968) noted that 41, 37 and
36% of a light oil volatilized from soil within 7 weeks when oil applica-
tion rates were 25, 63 and 100 ml oil/kg soil, respectively. In nine out
of ten cases, more oil was lost by volatilization than by biodegradation
(Schwendinger, 1968). Methods for evaluating volatilization of waste com-
ponents from soil are discussed in Section 7.2.3.
6.2.2.3 Runoff
Runoff is that portion of precipitation that does not infiltrate a
soil, but rather moves overland toward stream channels or, in the case of
HWLT units, to retention ponds. HWLT units should be designed to collect
all runoff from the active portion of the facility because this water may
be contaminated with various constituents of the waste. Methods for the
retention and treatment of runoff are discussed in Section 8.3.3-8.3.5 Fac-
tors affecting the loss of organic constituents by runoff include watershed
properties, organic constituent properties, waste-soil interactions, and
precipitation parameters.
The watershed of an HWLT unit is the area of land that drains into the
retention ponds. Since run-on, or surface drainage water from outside the
unit must be diverted, runoff will only be generated from the active por-
tion. The amount of the organic constituents removed in runoff is closely
tied to how much runoff is generated. Although organic constituents
removed in this manner will largely be those that are water soluble, some
may be removed through adsorption to suspended solids in the runoff water.
Edwards (1973) suggested that insoluble organics that strongly sorb to soil
particles could be transported off-site on soil particles in runoff water.
Since the amount of suspended solids increases as the rate of runoff
increases, removal of organic constituents adsorbed to these solids is also
expected to increase as the rate increases. The organic constituents that
are adsorbed to suspended solids vary with the nature of the suspended
solid and may be considerably different from the constituents dissolved in
the runoff water.
Waste-soil interactions that affect the amount of organic constituents
released to runoff water are waste loading rate, application timing, and
application method. A larger portion of the organic waste constituents can
be expected in runoff water as the loading rate is increased beyond the
adsorption capacity of the soil. Application timing can also increase the
organic constituents in runoff particularly when a large application of
waste is made just prior to a heavy rainstorm, or when a large portion of
the yearly waste produced is applied to a soil during a rainy season. The
release of organic constituents to runoff can be substantially reduced by
subsurface injection.
299
-------
6.2.2.4 Leaching
/
Leaching of organic chemicals from surface soil to groundwater is a
potential problem wherever these chemicals are improperly disposed. Some
of the most widely used organic chemicals, halogenated and nonhalogenated
solvents, have been found both in groundwater in the U.S. and to a lesser
extent in the other industrialized countries (Table 6.55). Though the
source of these constituents is not known, most of the synthetic organic
compounds found in groundwater are quite volatile, inferring that these
compounds were probably leaking from buried wastes rather than wastes
applied to soil. If the volatile and slowly degradable halogenated sol-
vents were land treated, the major loss mechanism would probably be volati-
lization rather than leaching. However, neither volatilization nor leach-
ing is considered an acceptable loss mechanism for these toxic organics.
Wastes containing chlorinated solvents should undergo a dehalogenation pre-
treatment before they are considered land treatable. With a properly man-
aged HWLT unit, numerous studies have shown that at least the nonhalogen-
ated hydrocarbons can be completely degraded before they leach from the
soil. Methods for evaluating the constituent mobility are given in Section
7.2.2 and techniques for the collection and treatment of leachate are dis-
cussed in Section 8.3.6.
Effective land treatment of readily leachable organics requires an
understanding of the soil and organic constituent properties that affect
compound leachability. Following are discussions of these properties and
how they effect the leachability of organic constituents.
6.2.2.4.1 Soil Properties that Affect Leaching. Soil properties that
influence the leaching of organic constituents of land treated waste are
texture, structure, horizonation, amount and type of clay present, organic
matter content, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and pH. Relative influence
of the soil properties can vary with waste composition, application method,
loading rate, and climatic conditions. While there are no simple methods
for predicting the rate at which a particular organic constituent will
leach, an understanding of how soil properties influence leaching can aid
in site selection and soil management. Determination of the leachability
of individual hazardous organic constituents should be determined by pilot
studies (Chapter 7). Discussions of how the soil properties affect
leaching of organic constitutents follow.
Soil texture and structure have been shown to have substantial influ-
ence on the leachability of organic constituents (Brown and Deuel, 1982;
Brown et al., 1982a). Leaching can be substantial from sandy soils due to
their low CEC, low clay content, low organic matter content, and relative
high number of large pores and resultant high permeability. Clay soils can
limit leaching due to their high CEC, high clay content, high organic
matter content, and high number of small intraaggregate pores and resultant
low permeability. For instance, in one study where industrial wastes were
applied to four soils and leachate was collected in field lysimeters, sandy
soil allowed the greatest amount of organic constituent leaching (Brown et
300
-------
TABLE 6.55 TWO CLASSES OF SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS WIDELY FOUND IN
GROUNDWATER*
Highest Level Detected
in Groundwater
(yg/D
Organic Constituent USA^ Netherlands*
HYDROCARBONS
Cyclohexane 540 30
Benzene 330 100
Toluene 6,400 300
Xylenes 300 1,000
Ethyl benzene 2,000 300
Isopropyl benzene 290 300
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
Chloroform
Dichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Dibr omo chlor ome thane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Dichloroethylenes
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
490
3,000
400
55
400
11,330
5,440
860
35,000
1,500
10
3,000
30
0.3
10
3
3,000
10
1,000
30
This list represents some examples of compounds in two classes of
organic compounds that have been found several times in groundwater and
is in no way a comprehensive list of the leachable constituents in those
organic constituent classes.
t Burmaster and Harris (1982); Dyksen and Hess (1982).
# Zoeteman et al. (1981).
301
-------
al., 1982a). In another study, deep soil cores were taken from five HWLT
units to examine the depth of penetration of land-applied hydrocarbons
(Table 6.56). An HWLT unit with a. sandy loam soil (site E) that received
large amounts of oily waste allowed hydrocarbons to move 180-240 cm in one
year. Another HWLT unit with a clay soil (site A) had not allowed detect-
able quantities of hydrocarbons to penetrate below the treatment zone (top
18 cm) after two years of operation. The potential benefits of horizona-
tlon can be seen in site B, where a clay subsoil seems to have minimized
the depth to which hydrocarbons penetrated into that soil.
While soil texture can be used to estimate the distribution of pore
sizes in sandy soils, the pore size distribution in clay soils can be
greatly affected by clay particles clumping into larger aggregate struc-
tures. These aggregates tend to allow the formation of larger pores
between aggregates, while they contain many small internal or intraaggre—
gate pores. When liquid waste is applied by either spray irrigation or
overland flow to structured clay soil, organic constituents may move
through the large interaggregate pores without being appreciably adsorbed
by the majority of the soil surface present in the intraaggregate pores
(Helling, 1971; Davidson and Chang, 1972). However, if organic constit-
uents are dewatered first and then incorporated into a soil surface, water
later percolating through the interaggregate pores may not have enough res-
idence time to desorb organic constituents adsorbed on the intraaggregate
surfaces. Dekkers and Barbera (1977) found that leachability of organic
constituents incorporated into soil decreased as the soil aggregate size
increased.
Both amount and type of clay present in a soil have been found to
affect the mobility of pesticides (Helling, 1971). Mobility of nonionic
pesticides was found to be inversely related to clay content. Soils high
in montmorillonitic clays were found to inhibit the movement of cationic
pesticides. Anionic or acidic pesticides were relatively more mobile in
montmorillonitic soils, suggesting possible negative adsorption. Acidic
pesticide mobility was found to be inversely related to nonmontmorillonitic
clay content.
Several studies have noted that the movement of organic chemicals in
soil is inversely related to the organic matter content of the soil
(Helling, 1971; Filonow et al., 1976; Roberts and Valocchi, 1981; Miles et
al., 1981; Nathwani and Phillips, 197;). Helling (1971) found that the
retardation of organic chemical movement through soils was highly corre-
lated to the adsorption of these organic chemicals by the native soil
organic matter.
Cation exchange capacity (CEC), the capacity of soil to adsorb posi-
tively charged compounds, decreases the mobility of cationic and nonionic
organic constituents and it may increase the mobility of anionic organic
constituents (Helling, 1971). CEC can be thought of as the capacity of the
negatively charged soil to attract and hold positively charged compounds
such as cationic organic constituents. The correlation between CEC and
reduced mobility of nonionic compounds is probably due to the component of
the CEC represented by native soil organic matter. Organic matter has the
302
-------
TABLE 6.56 DEPTH OF HYDROCARBON PENETRATION AT FIVE REFINERY LAND TREATMENT UNITS*
Site
A
B
C
D
E
Soil Type
Clay
Loamy surface
with clay subsoil
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Sandy loam
Depth of
Hydrocarbon
Penetration
(cm)
Less than in
untreated
area
23
30
91
180-240
Waste Types
Applied'
1,3,8
2,7
1,3,4,6
1,3,6
1-6
Time Between
Last Waste
Application
and Sampling
(Months)
4
16
3
11
<1
Approximate
Application
Rate
(M3/Ha/Yr#)
30
1-4% oil
(one time
application)
25
(one time
application)
54
7000
Length
of
Operation
(Years)
2
6
4
6
1
w
o
w
* Brown and Deuel (1982).
' Waste types applied were: (1) API separator sludge, (2) DAF sludge; (3) Tank bottoms; (4) Filter
clays; (5) ETP sludge, (6) Slop oil emulsion; (7) Treatment pond sludge; and (8) Leaded sludge.
#
Unless otherwise noted.
-------
capacity to adsorb cationic, nonionic and anionic organic constituents.
The increased mobility, or negative adsorption, of anionic organics is due
to the electrical repulsion between the negatively charged clay minerals
and the anionic organic constituents.
Soil pH has been found to be an important parameter affecting the
mobility of organic acids. Helling (1971) noted that as soil pH increased,
the mobility of acidic organic constituents increased. Organic acids exist
in soil as anions when the soil pH is greater than the dissociation con-
stant (pKa) of the compounds. As anions, these compounds exhibit nega-
tive adsorption and are increasingly mobile in clay soils.
6.2.2.4.2 Organic Constituent Properties that Affect Leaching. The main
properties of organic constituents that affect their leaching in soils
include water solubility, concentration, strength of adsorption, sign and
magnitude of charge, and persistence. Additional organic class-specific
information is given in Section 6.2.3.
Only when soil is saturated with oils or solvents will these fluids
flow in liquid phase (Davis et al., 1972). In a properly managed HWLT
unit, the percolating liquid will be water, and the concentration of organ-
ic constituents in the leachate will be limited to the water solubility of
the constituent (Evans, 1980). However, many land treated organics, and
especially their organic acid decomposition by-products, have unlimited
water solubility. Consequently, land treatment units should, if at all
possible, be maintained at water contents at or below field capacity. In
climatic regions of seasonally high rainfall, an effort should be made to
apply wastes only during dry seasons. Where this is not possible, under-
drainage may be a workable alternative. Leachate collection systems are
discussed in Section 8.3.6.
Generally, the higher the organic constituent concentration in an
applied waste, the higher the concentration of these constituents in the
leachate. Where substantial quantities of leachate are generated, waste
loading rates should not exceed the adsorption capacity of the soil.
Adsorption capacity can be considered as the concentration of a constituent
in soil above which an unacceptably high concentration of the constituent
will enter leachate generated on-site. Ideally, pilot tests should be con-
ducted to assure that the adsorption capacity of the soil for specific haz-
ardous organic constituents will not be exceeded at the planned waste load-
ing rates (Chapter 7). For cationic organic constituents, either increas-
ing valence, or number of positive charges per molecule, will increase the
adsorption capacity of the constituent. For anionic organic constituents,
the reverse is usually true. That is, the stronger the negative charge on
a compound, the stronger will be the negative adsorption and hence, the
greater rate of leaching for the compound. As discussed in Section
6.2.2.4.1, by maintaining the soil pH below the pKa of anionic organic
species, the leachability of these species can be minimized. Care should
be taken that the pH is not lowered to a point that will decrease degrada-
tion rates or increase leachability of heavy metals or other constituents
to be immobilized in the treatment zone.
304
-------
Persistance of organic constituents increases the likelihood that
these compounds will be leached by increasing the period of time over which
they are exposed to percolating water. Laboratory or field studies can be
designed to determine if the half-life of an organic constitutent is too
long to allow it to be degraded before it leaches from the treatment zone
(Chapter 7). It may be necessary to pretreat certain waste streams before
land treatment if the waste contains hazardous organic constituents that
are both readily leachable and persistent in the soil environment.
Leaching of trace level organics from a rapid infiltration facility
constructed in loamy sand was evaluated in a study by Tomson et al. (1981).
By comparing the concentration of various organics in the effluent and in
the groundwater underlying the site, it was possible to evaluate leaching
in terms of removal efficiency for various organic compound classes. Most
classes of compounds had 90-100% removal efficiencies, with low removal
achieved for chloroalkanes, alkylphenols, alkanes, phthalates, and amides.
Overall removal efficiency for organics was 92%. However, most HWLT units
are not designed for rapid infiltration, in part due to the incomplete
treatment usually exhibited by these facilities. In addition, the loamy
sand soil at the site would provide little attenuation of the applied
organics.
, HWLT units should not be designed for rapid infiltration of the
applied wastes when this would result in significant leaching of hazardous
constituents. When waste loading rates are designed to optimize retention
of organics in the zone of incorporation (top 30 cm of soil), degradation
efficiencies of well over 99% can be achieved (Table 6.54).
6.2.2.5 Plant Uptake
The ability of higher plants to absorb and translocate organic mole-
cules has been recognized for over 70 years. However, only within the past
thirty years has this phenomenon received much attention, mostly during
trials for possible systemic pesticides. Furthermore, until the relatively
recent advent of radioactive labeling techniques studying the uptake of
organic compounds was extremely difficult. Recent studies have shown that
plant uptake of toxic organic compounds may both pose environmental risk
and potentially threaten the quality of human food. Plewa (1978) has
reviewed recent studies indicating that various chemicals absorbed by
plants may become mutagenic, or that their mutagenic activity may be
enhanced through metabolic processes within the plant. Numerous toxic
organics, including PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, dimethylnitrosamine, 2,4,5-T,
and others, have been observed to be taken up by plant roots (Table 6.57).
However, insufficient data currently exist to predict the plant uptake of
particular compounds or groups of compounds. Also, the data are
insufficient to describe specific mechanisms of uptake and factors that
influence uptake. Empirical testing may, therefore, be required to
evaluate the absorption, translocation and persistence of toxic organic
compounds in higher plants.
305
-------
TABLE 6.57 ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS ABSORBED BY PLANT ROOTS
Organic Constituent
Class and Name References
Organic Nitrogen Compounds
-Alanine
-Alanine
Arginine
Asparagine
Aspartic Acid
Cystine
Glutamic Acid
Glycine
Histidine
Hydroxyproline
Isolecucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine
Phenylalanine
Proline
Serine
Threonine
Tryptophane
Tyrosine
Valine
Glutamine
ct-Amino-n-butyric acid
Norleucine
Oxime, a-keto-glutaric acid
Oxime, oxalacetic acid
Oxime, pyruvic acid
Casein hydrozolate
Cysteine
Peptone
Urea
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Cyanide
EDTA
EGTA
DTPA
Chloine Sulfate
Indole acetic Acid
Indole butyric Acid
Indole proprionic Acid
Nissen (1974), Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Nissen (1974), Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Nissen (1974); Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Nissen (1974), Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Nissen (1974), Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ghosh & Burris (1950)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Dean-Raymond and Alexander (1976)
Wallace et al. (1981)—applied as
l^C sodium cyanide; possible absorp-
tion as organic cyanide complex.
Hill-Cottingham and Lloyd-Jones
(1965)—compounds applied as metal
chelates.
Nissen (1974)
Bollard (1960)
Ibid.
Ibid.
continued —
306
-------
TABLE 6.57 (continued)
Organic Constituent
References
Organic Dyes
Methylene Blue
Malachite Green
Light Green
Orange I (a-Naphthol)
Toluidine Blue
Soluble Indigo
Aurantia
Indigo Red
Derivatives of Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Napthalene acetic acid
Phenyl acetic acid
Phenyl proprionic acid
Di-(2-ethyIhexyl)phthalate
Kolosov (1962).
root functions.
Dyes used to study
Sugars
Bollard (1960)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Kloskowski et al. (1981)
Nissen (1974)
Glucose
3-0-methyl glucose
Sucrose
Fructose
Antibiotics
Streptomycin
Clorotetracycline
Griseofulvin
Penicillin
Chlo rampheni co1
Cycloheximide
Oxytetracycline
Organic Sulfur Compounds
Sulfanilamide
Sulfacetamide
Sulfaguanidine
Sulfapyridine
Sulfadiazine
Sulfathiazole
4,4'-Diaminodiphenyl-sulfone
Bollard (1960)
Bollard (1960)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
— continued —
307
-------
TABLE 6.57 (continued)
Organic Constituent
References
Organic Sulfur Compounds (continued)
N-Dodecylbenzene-sulfonate
p-Chlorphenyl-methyl-sulfide
p-Chlophenyl-methyl-sulfoxide
p-Chlorphenyl-methyl-sulfone
Kloskowski (1981)
Guenzi et al. (1981)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Organochlorine Compounds (excluding pesticides)
Di chlo robipheny1
Trichlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Pentachlorobiphenyl
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Chloroalkylene-9
Trichloroethylene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachloroaniline
Insecticides
Bis(dimethylamino)fluoro-
phosphine oxxde
Sodium fluoroacetate
Schradan
Paraoxon
Parathion
Diethyl chlorovinyl phosphate
Dimethyl-carboxomethoxy-
propenyl-phos phate
Demeton
Diethyl-diethylaminoethyl-
thiophosphate
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Kepone
Heptachlor
Chlordane
Moza et al. (1979)
Moza et al. (1979); Kloskowki et al.
(1981)
(1979)
(1981); Weber &
(1981)
(1981), Smelt
Moza et al
Kloskowski et al
Mrozek, 1979
Kloskowski et al
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Kloskowski et al
(1981)
Smelt (1981)
Dejonckheere et al. (1981)
Bollard (1960)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Kloskowski et al. (1981)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Plewa (1978)
Ibid.
— continued —
308
-------
TABLE 6.57 (continued)
Organic Constituent
References
Fungicides
Benomyl
N-(trichloromethyl-thio)-4-
cyclohexane-1-dicarboximide
Thiabendazole
Pent achloroni t robenz ene
Herbicides
Picloram
Methabenzthiazuron
2,4-D
2,4,5,-T
Amino-triazole
Propham
Monuron
Trichloroacetic acid
Ammonium sulfamate
Maleic hydrazide
3-hydroxy-l,2,4-triazole
Chlorbis(ethylamino)triazine
Simazine
Atrazine
Linuron
Lenacil
Aziprotryne
S-ethyl-dipropyl-thio-
carbamate
N,N-dialyl-1-2,2-dichloro-
acetamide (herbicide
antedote)
Hydroxyatrazine (nonphyto-
toxic atrazine)
Cyanazine
Procyazine
Eradiacane
Metolachlor
Hock et al. (1970)
Stipes & Oderwald (1971)
Ibid.
Smelt (1981)
0'Donovan and Vanden Born (1981)
Fuhr & Mittelstaedt (1981)
Bollard (1960)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Walker (1971), Shone et al. (1972)
Walker (1971), Shone et al. (1972)
Walker (1971); Shone et al. (1972)
Walker (1971), Shone et al. (1972)
Walker (1971), Shone et al. (1972)
Gray & Joo (1978)
Ibid.
Shone et al. (1972)
Plewa (1978)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
309
-------
Evidence collected thus far indicates that plants may absorb organic
acids, organic bases, and both polar and nonpolar neutral organic
compounds. Absorption by roots is believed to be a passive mechanism which
is influenced by the rate of transpiration and soil moisture conditions
(Walker, 1971). Absorption is also influenced by conditions in the root
zone and soil properties. Weber and Mrozek (1979) observed that additions
of activiated carbon to a sandy soil inhibited the uptake of PCBs by soy-
beans (Glycine max) and fescue (Festuca clatior). Hock et al. (1970) noted
that absorption of the fungicide benomyl by American Elm (Ulmus americana)
seedlings was 1.5 to 2.5 times greater from sand culture than from silt
loam soil, and 2 to 6 times greater than from a soil, peat, and perlite
mixture. Soil applied surfactants were observed by Stipes and Oderwald
(1971) to enhance the absorption of three fungicides by elm trees in the
field. Nissen (1974), in a discussion of plant absorption mechanisms, sug-
gested that the absorption of choline sulfate and perhaps other compounds
was mediated by bacterial activity in the rhizosphere.
Once an organic molecule is absorbed by a plant, the compound may per-
sist, or be metabolized or removed by some other mechanism. PCB absorption
by pine trees in a three year study by Moza et al. (1979) indicated that
these compounds were not readily degraded by the plants. Dean-Raymond and
Alexander (1976) showed that both spinach (Spinacia oleracea) and lettuce
(Lactuca sativa) readily absorbed labeled dimethylnitrosamine to the
leaves, but the chemical disappeared over time. Rovira and Davey (1971)
noted that foliar applied agricultural chemicals were often exuded by roots
into the soil. Factors which influence the metabolism of organic chemicals
in plants include plant species, part of the plant in which the chemical
locates, maturity of the plant and the plant environment (Rouchaud and
Meyer, 1982).
Further research is needed to define both the mechanisms of plant
absorption of organics from soil and the fate of these compounds once they
are absorbed. Virtually no information exists regarding either phytotoxic-
ity or plant bioaccumulation which might threaten the human food chain.
Information is needed both to identify accumulator and nonaccumulator plant
species and the compounds that are selectively absorbed. Until adequate
research data are available, food chain crops grown on HWLT units that
receive toxic organics should be closely scrutinized for plant absorption
of toxic chemicals.
6.2.3 Organic Constituent Classes
Land treatability of organic constituents often follows a predictable
pattern for similar compound types. For instance, where all other proper-
ties are constant, the soil half-life of aromatic hydrocarbons increases
with the number of aromatic rings. Since it is beyond the scope of this
document to address the fate of each organic compound in soil, the follow-
ing sections discuss organic waste constituents based on their functional
groups or other chemical similarities. Where data are available, examples
of representative constituents within each group are used to illustrate the
310
-------
trend of land treatabillty of that group. Specific information given on
the degradation of organic constituents in soil is based partially on
extrapolation from studies of compounds in other aerobic systems.
6.2.3.1 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Aliphatic hydrocarbons are open chain or cyclic compounds that resem-
ble the open chain compounds. Included in this chemical family are the
alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, and their cyclic analogs (Morrison and Boyd,
1975). While only a few are listed as hazardous (Table 6.53), aliphatic
compounds can be the rate limiting constituents in many oily wastes genera-
ted by the organic chemical, petroleum refining, and petroleum re-refining
industries. In addition, a wide variety of industries generate aliphatic
solvent wastes. Animal and plant processing generates wastes high in ali-
phatic compounds, but these waste streams are not usually considered haz-
ardous .
A large portion of the wastes that are currently land treated are oily
wastes. These wastes generally range from 1 to 40% oil by weight. Oils in
these wastes are generally composed of three main organic constituent
classes: aliphatics (10-80%), aromatics (5-50%), and miscellaneous
(5-50%). If aliphatics and aromatics contain the pentane and benzene
extractable constituents, respectively, the miscellaneous compounds are
usually those extractable with polar solvents such as dichloromethane.
Examples of the names assigned to the constituents in the miscellaneous
include asphaltenes, resins, heterocycles, and polar organics.
Degradation of aliphatic hydrocarbons in soil depends on molecular
weight, vapor pressure, water solubility, number of double bonds, degree of
branching, and whether the compound is in an open chain or cyclic config-
uration. Perry and Cerniglia (1973) ranked aliphatic and aromatic hydro-
carbons from most to least biodegradable as follows: straight-chain
alkanes (Ci2~G18) > gases (02-04) > straight-chain alkanes (65-09) >
branched alkanes (up to Cj^) > straight-chain alkenes (C^-Cn) > branched
alkenes > aromatics > cycloalkanes. Microbial degradation of straight-
chain alkanes proceeds faster than with branched alkanes of the same
molecular weight (Humphrey, 1967). Degradation rate decreases with either
the number and size of alkyl groups or the number of double bonds present.
Straight or branched open chain aliphatics degrade much more rapidly than
their cyclic analogs. Degradation of straight chain aliphatics also
decreases with the addition of a benzene group. Microbial degradation of
alkanes to carbon dioxide and water begins at a terminal carbon and
initially produces the corresponding organic acid (Morrill et al., 1982).
Other degradation by-products of alkanes include ketones, aldehydes and
alcohols, all of which are readily degradable in aerobic soil.
Cycloalkane and its derivatives are remarkably less degradable in soil
than other aliphatic hydrocarbons. Haider et al. (1981) obtained no
311
-------
significant biodegradation of cyclohexane after the compound was incubated
in a moist loess soil for 10 weeks (see Section 6.2.3.4.1, Table 6.60).
Even the penta- and hexa-chlorinated cycloalkanes appeared to biodegrade in
soil to a greater extent than cycloalkane.
Moucawi et al. (1981) compared the biodegradation rates of saturated
and unsaturated hydrocarbons in soil. Four soils were amended with
2,000 mg/kg of an alkane (octadecane) and the corresponding alkene
(1-octadecene). While the percent of the added substrate that degraded
varied between soils (16.4-32.3% degradation in 4 weeks), the amount of the
alkane and alkene that biodegraded in a given soil was essentially the same
In the same study, the effect of chain length on n-alkane biodegradation.
was evaluated. Six soils were amended with 2,000 mg/kg of C-19 (nona-
decane), C-22 (docosane), C-28 (octacosane) and C-32 (dotriacontane)
alkanes and percent degradation for the compounds after 4 weeks incubation
in the soils ranged from 7.5 to 54.0%, 4.6 to 50.6%, 1.3 to 39.1%, and 0.6
to 43.3%, respectively. The authors noted a clear difference in the degra-
dation rates between acid and non-acid soils. Decomposition of both the
short and long chain alkanes was consistently greater in the non—acid
soils.
Decomposition of oily wastes high in aliphatics can be accelerated by
maintenance of optimal soil moisture, temperature, waste loading and nutri-
ent levels (Brown et al., 1981). The relative influence of each factor on
decomposition varies from waste to waste. Generally speaking, wastes high
in aliphatic hydrocarbons are both nitrogen and phosphorus deficient.
Kincannon (1972) found that the addition of nitrogen and phosphorus ferti-
lizers could double the decomposition of certain oily wastes. Nitrogen
additions have increased the decomposition rate of straight chain alkanes
(Jobson et al., 1974) and waxy cake (Gydin and Syratt, 1975). Fedorak and
Westlake (1981) incubated crude oil in a soil enriched culture for 27 days
with and without nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient additions. They obtained
essentially complete degradation of the n-alkane fraction and substantial
degradation of the branched alkanes with nutrient additions, but noted only
slight degradation of these constituents when nutrients were not added.
While aliphatic hydrocarbons are usually degraded rapidly in a well
managed land treatment unit, there may be a long-term accumulation of
recalcitrant decomposition by-products. Kincannon (1972) determined that
one major by-product of oil decomposition is naphthenic acid, which may
degrade slowly in soil (Overcash and Pal, 1979).
Volatilization can be a significant loss mechanism for low molecular
weight aliphatics. Wetherold et al. (1981) examined air emissions from
simulated land treatment units where hexane and several aliphatic rich
(oily) sludges were applied to the soil. Results obtained from the study
include the following:
(1) volatility of the material applied to the soil was the most
significant factor affecting emission levels;
312
-------
(2) emission rates increased with increasing ambient air humid-
ity, soil temperature and soil moisture,
(3) emission rates were highest in the first 30 minutes after
waste application; and
(4) emission rates decreased with depth of subsurface injection
of the waste, with a 7.5-10 cm and 15 cm depth of injection
yielding high and undetectable emission levels, respec-
tively.
Volatile aliphatic hydrocarbons (vapor pressure greater than 1) are
readily assimilated by soils at low application rates. However, at appli-
cation rates above the critical soil dose level, volatile compounds tempo-
rarily decrease the number and type of microorganisms present (Table 6.58).
In either case, where volatile aliphatic hydrocarbons are surface applied,
the dominant loss mechanism is volatilization. In addition, the rate of
volatilization of nonpolar organic chemicals (such as aliphatic hydrocar-
bons) would increase with the water content of the soil. This may be due
to displacement of the adsorbed nonpolar chemicals from the soil surfaces
by water (Spencer and Farmer, 1980).
TABLE 6.58 CRITICAL SOIL DOSE LEVEL (CSDL) FOR FOUR ALIPHATIC SOLVENTS*
Vapor Pressure
Aliphatic
Solvent
Heptane
Cyclohexane
Hexane
Pentane
mm HoO @
25°C
99
144
509
psi @
80°F
0.9
2.0
3.3
J. _Lillt: JLUJL rjLJ.UI.UUJ.ilJL
CSDL Population to Recover
(ppm) (Days)
10,000
840
430
7,200
24-63
<38
<20
30-53
* Buddin, 1914.
Runoff and leaching of aliphatic hydrocarbons are generally thought to
be minimal due to low water solubility (Raymond et al., 1976). It should
be noted, however, that large applications of oily wastes will, at least
initially, decrease the infiltration rate in soil and thereby both increase
runoff volume and decrease leachate volume (Plice, 1948). Within months,
the elevated level of microbial activity in oil-treated soil may lead to
improved soil structure, increased infiltration and leaching, and decreased
runoff volume. However, the increase in leachate volume may be less than
the decrease in runoff volume because the moisture holding capacity of the
soil often increases when soil structure is improved.
A study of organic constituent leaching in land treatment units indi-
cated the strong influence of both soil texture and soil layering on the
313
-------
depth of hydrocarbon penetration (Table 6.56). The least depth of penetra-
tion was obtained in a clay textured soil followed by a soil with a near
surface clay subsoil. As might be expected, hydrocarbons penetrated to the
greatest depth in the soil with the coarsest texture.
Although plants are known to produce and translocate unsubstituted
aliphatic compounds, no references could be found in literature concerning
the absorption of aliphatic compounds from soil.
6.2.3.2 Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Aromatic hydrocarbons are cyclic compounds having multiple double
bonds and include both mono- and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Monoaromatic
compounds are benzene and substituted benzenes such as nitrobenzene and
ethylbenzene. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons are composed of multiple fused
benzene rings and include compounds such as naphthalene (2 fused rings) and
anthracene (3 fused rings). Chlorinated aromatic compounds are discussed
in Section 6.2.3.4.
Aromatic compounds are usually present in oily wastes and wastes
generated by petroleum refineries, organic chemical plants, rubber indus-
tries, coking plants, and nearly all waste streams associated with combus-
tion processes. These compounds are typically present in native soils as a
result of open air refuse burning, vehicle exhaust, volcanoes and the
effects of geologic processes on plant residues (Groenewegen and Stolp,
1981; Overcash and Pal, 1979). The accumulation of polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons in a treatment soil is particularly important because these compounds
may be both carcinogenic and resistent to degradation (Brown et al.,
1982b).
At very low dose levels, the decomposition rate of aromatic compounds
depends more on substance characteristics than on the precise dosage
(Medvedev and Davidov, 1981). Furthermore, while general trends in the
decomposition rate of aromatics can be related to substance properties,
there are nearly always exceptions. One general trend observed for aro-
matic compounds is that the higher the number of fused rings in the struc-
ture, the slower its decomposition rate (Cansfield and Racz, 1978). While
aromatic compounds with five or more fused rings are not used as a sole
carbon source by microbes, there is evidence that these compounds are
slowly co-metabolized in the presence of other organic substrates
(Groenewegen and Stolp, 1981).
Another general trend with respect to decomposition rates of aromatic
compounds in land treatment soils is that the higher the water solubility
of the compound, the more rapidly it degrades in soil. As stated before,
there are exceptions to nearly every rule governing the decomposition of
aromatic compounds. For instance, the relatively insoluble compound
anthracene (75 mg/1) was found in one study (Groenewegen and Stolp, 1981)
to degrade more rapidly than the more soluble compound fluoranthene (265
mg/1).
314
-------
In a soil enriched culture, the aromatic constituents of a crude oil
were found to degrade in the following order: naphthalene 2: 2-methylnaph-
thalene > 1-methylnaphthalene > dimethylnaphthalenes » dibenzothiophene a
phenanthrene > C3-naphthalenes > methylphenanthrenes > C2~phenanthrenes
(Fedorak and Westlake, 1981). Parent aromatic compounds were generally
more readily degraded than their alkyl substituted counterparts.
A number of studies have noted short-term accumulation of aromatic
hydrocarbons after land treatment of oily wastes. This is apparently due
to the formation of aromatic hydrocarbons as by-products of aliphatic
hydrocarbon decomposition (Kincannon, 1972). In a well managed land treat-
ment unit, most of the rapidly degradable aliphatic hydrocarbons of oily
wastes will decompose within a few months after application. After that
point, aromatic hydrocarbons should decrease at a faster rate since they
will no longer be added to the soil as decomposition by-products.
Several of the lower molecular weight aromatic hydrocarbons have been
reported in large concentrations as organic constituents contaminating
groundwater (Table 6.55). In addition, several polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(such as benzo(a)pyrene) have been found at low concentrations in ground-
water (Zoeteman et al., 1981). While several of the polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons are naturally occurring pyrolysis by-products, the fact that they have
been found in groundwater contaminated by improperly disposed synthetic
organic compounds indicates their potential for leaching if they are
improperly disposed.
No references were found to indicate the plant absorption of unsubsti-
tuted aromatic hydrocarbons. However, plant absorption has been found to
occur with carboxylic acid derivatives of aromatics (Bollard, 1960) and
halogenated aromatic compounds (Kloskowski et al., 1981) (See Table 6.57).
6.2.3.3 Organic Acids
Organic acids are organic constituents with phenolic or carboxylic
acid functional groups. Where the pH of a -soil is above the dissociation
constant of an organic acid, the acidfyill exhibit a net negative charge
and, consequently have little adsorption to soil and high water solubility.
These factors combine to make organic acids relatively volatile, leachable
and able to enter runoff water. Organic acids are components of numerous
hazardous wastes, but the primary source in land treatment soil will be
from the biodegradation by-products oi the other organics present in the
waste treated soil. Chlorinated organic acids, including chlorinated
phenols, are discussed in Section 6.2.3.4.
Degradation of organic acids in soil can be relatively rapid under
favorable environmental conditions. Too high a loading rate of acids can
sufficiently lower the soil pH so that biodegradation is inhibited. Martin
and Haider (1976) showed that seveial carboxylic acids would degrade as
rapidly as glucose in a sandy soil Jable 6.59). Higher molecular weight
carboxylic acids may degrade more s^wly. Moucawi et al. (1981) compared
315
-------
the percent degradation of 2 long chain, saturated fatty acids (C-18
stearic acid and C-28 montanic acid) after these acids were incubated in 2
microbially active and 2 acid soils for 4 weeks. Stearic acid underwent
substantial degradation in the microbially active soils (23.6-31.2%) but
little degradation in the acid soils (3.9-5.1%). The longer chain acid
underwent very little degradation in all 4 soils (0-2.1%). An unsaturated
C-18 fatty acid (Oleic acid) underwent substantial degradation in both the
acid (23.4-24.8%) and microbially active soils (33.0-41.4%).
TABLE 6.59 DECOMPOSITION OF THREE CARBOXYLIC ACIDS AND GLUCOSE IN SANDY
SOIL*
% Decomposition
Organic Constituent^ After 7 days After 84 days
Acetic acid
Pyruvic acid
Succinic acid
Glucose
52-76
47-83
52-89
75
71-87
70-93
71-95
87
* Martin and Haider (1976).
^ All organics applied to the soil at 1000 ppm.
Phenolic acids are also rapidly degraded in soil at low concentrations
but can cause a lag phase of low microbial degradation at higher concentra-
tions. Scott et al. (1982) evaluated the curves representing cumulative
adsorbed and microbially degraded phenol with two soils in a batch test
using a 1:5 soil to solution concentration and continuous shaking. At con-
centrations <10~^H phenol the curves had the following three character-
istic phases:
(1) there was an initial lag phase whose length (of time)
increased with increasing phenol concentration;
(2) next, there was an exponential growth phase whose rate of
growth decreased with increasing phenol concentration, and
(3) finally, there was a stationary phase where essentially all
the phenol that was not adsorbed had been degraded.
In another experiment, repeated applications of phenols to soil first
increased and then decreased the rate at which phenol was biodegraded (Med-
vedev et al., 1981). The initial decomposition rate increase was thought
to be due to rapid multiplication of the phenol-decomposing microorganisms,
and the subsequent decrease, due to a gradual accumulation of toxic meta-
bolic by-products or the proliferation of another microbe that fed on
phenol-decomposing bacteria. Haider et al. (1981) studied the degradation
in soil of phenol, benzoic acid, and their chlorinated derivatives (See
Section 6.2.3.4.1, Table 6.60).
316
-------
Four phenolic acids (p-hydroxybenzoic, ferulic, caffeic and vanillic
acids) were found to be quickly metabolized when 5 mg of the compound was
incorporated into each gram of soil (5,000 ppm). After 4 weeks of
incubation, both extractable phenols and soil respiration rates had
returned to levels near that of the control soil (Sparling et al., 1981).
In another study that examined respiration after soil amendment with
phenolic acids, the soil respiration rate decreased substantially by the
fourth week of the study (Haider and Martin, 1975). However, less than 60%
of carbon-14 labelled caffeic acid had evolved as carbon dioxide (C0£) in
4 weeks and less than 70% had evolved in 12 weeks. This indicates that a
decrease in the respiration rate is not necessarily an indication that all
of the phenolic acids have been degraded.
Some phenolic compounds have been found to be relatively resistent to
biodegradation because they readily undergo polymerization reactions and
the higher molecular weight polymers are only slowly degraded. Martin and
Haider (1979) incubated two carbon-14 labelled phenols that readily poly-
merize (coumaryl alcohol and pyrocatechol) in moist sandy loam and found
that only 42% and 24%, respectively, of the ring carbons had evolved as
C02« When the pyrocatechol was linked into model humic acid-type poly-
mers, evolution of carbon-14 from five soils ranged from 2-9% after 12
weeks. When coumaryl alcohol was incorporated into a model lignin, evolu-
tion of carbon-14 from five soils ranged from 7-14% after 12 weeks. In
both cases where the phenols were linked into model polymers, the addition
of an easily biodegradable carbon source to the treatment soil had little
effect on the biodegradation rate of the phenols as measured by carbon-14
evolution.
Leaching and runoff of organic acids can be substantial due to the
high water solubility of these compounds. If the pH of the soil is greater
than the pKa of an organic acid, mobility of the acid will be increased
in clay soils (Section 6.2.2.4.1).
No information was found on vapor loss of organic acids from soil.
Judging from the vapor pressure of these compounds, low molecular weight
carboxylic acids may undergo substantial volatilization, while the vapor
loss of phenolic compounds would be somewhat less.
Plant uptake of organic acids has been shown in several studies (Table
6.57). Bollard (1960) showed that several carboxylic acid derivatives of
aromatic hydrocarbons can be,taken up by plants. Ghosh and Burris (1950)
found plants can take up several amino acids.
6.2.3.4 Halogenated Organics
Halogenated organics contain one or more halogen atoms (Cl, F, Br, or
I) somewhere in their molecular structure. Chlorinated organics comprise
the vast majority of halogenated organics found in wastes. A notable
exception is the group of brominated biphenyls, which until recently were
widely used as flame retardants. Halogenated organics can be further
317
-------
broken down into aliphatics, aromatics, and arenes (molecules that contain
both aromatic and aliphatic parts).
Most of the interest in the past few years has been directed toward
chlorinated aromatics such as chlorinated biphenyls (PCB), chlorinated ben-
zenes and their phenolic metabolic by-products. Little quantitative data
are available on such critical areas as the soil half-life, volatilization
or leaching rates from soil, or the ability of plants to absorb these
compounds. Land treatment of halogenated organics should be avoided unless
preliminary studies have assured that biodegradation (not volatilization or
leaching) will be essentially the only loss mechanism for these hazardous
constituents. In addition, preliminary studies should determine the soil
half-life of the halogenated constituents for the following reasons: (1)
to ensure that the loading rate schedule does not cause accumulation of
these compounds to the point that the concentration is toxic to the
raicrobial population or that the adsorption capacity of the soil is
exceeded causing leaching or volatilization to become significant loss
mechanisms; and (2) to ensure that the degree of degradation required
for closure is achievable within the operational life span of the HWLT
unit.
Many of the halogenated organics can not be expected to be satisfac-
torily degraded within the 10-30 year life span of HWLT units. The low
degradability, high leachability and high volatility of the halogenated
solvents make these compounds especially unsuitable for land treatment.
Wastes containing these compounds should either undergo some type of
dehalogenation pretreatment or be disposed in some other manner.
Halogenated organics span the range of leachability, volatility and
degradability. At one end of this range are some of the most toxic and
persistant compounds made by man. Many of the light weight chlorinated
hydrocarbons are among the most prevalent synthetic organic chemicals found
in groundwater (Table 6.55). For these reasons, wastes containing even
low concentrations of halogenated organics may require a dehalogenation
pretreatment prior to land treatment of the waste. Wastes that may contain
halogenated hydrocarbons include textiles, petrochemical, wood preserving,
agricultural, and pharmaceutical wastes. Halogenated organics may also be
found in the wastes of industries that use halogenated solvents.
Degradation of halogenated organics in soil has been documented. How-
ever, the range in degradation rates for these compounds may be anywhere
from rapid to extremely slow. As with all organic chemicals, the slower
the degradation rate, the more likely it is that the compound would be lost
by volatilizing, leaching or entering runoff water rather than through
biodegradation.
Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides are among the most resistant to
biodegradation of all pesticides (Edwards, 1973). Soil half-life of many
of the early chlorinated pesticides are measured in years rather than days
or weeks. With further research, it was discovered that factors such as
position of halogens on a ring structure could significantly alter its
degradation rate (Kearney, 1967). Isomers of the same chlorinated compound
318
-------
have been found to have order of magnitude differences in soil half-life
(Stewart and Cairns, 1974). Another problem that has been encountered with
chlorinated organics is that the terminal residue or metabolic by-products
may be either more toxic (Kiigemagi et al., 1958) or more persistent
(Smelt, 1981) than the parent compound.
6.2.3.4.1 Chlorinated Benzene Derivatives. Chlorinated aromatics are, as
a group, less degradable, volatile and leachable than their chlorinated
aliphatic counterparts. In many cases, however, the lower degradation rate
makes leaching, volatilization, runoff or plant uptake significant loss
mechanisms. Following are discussions of chlorinated benzenes (hexachloro-
benzene, pentachlorobenzene, trichlorobenzenes, dichlorobenzenes, and
chlorobenzene), and brominated and chlorinated biphenyls, along with
several derivatives and metabolic by-products of the chlorinated aromatic
compounds.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) has been found to be both a by-product of
numerous industrial processes and a contaminant in a variety of chlorinated
solvents and pesticides (Farmer et al., 1980). Beck and Hansen (1974)
found HCB, quintozene (PCNB), and pentachlorothioanisol (PCTA) to have soil
half-lives (in days) of approximately 969-2089 (calculated), 213-699, and
194-345, respectively. These three compounds follow the general trend in
that the less chlorinated otherwise similar compounds are, the more biode-
gradable they are likely to be. While the water solubility and vapor pres-
sure of these compounds are relatively low, their extreme persistence makes
both leaching and volatilization potential loss mechanisms.
Another problem encountered with HCB and its derivatives has been
their absorption and translocation in plants. Since these compounds are
relatively immobile in soil (Overcash and Pal, 1979), they may be present
near the soil surface for centuries and, consequently, accessable to plant
roots. Smelt (1981) found several studies that documented the plant
absorption of both HCB and PCNB. The ratio of crop to soil concentration
was as high as 29:1 for HCB and 27:1 for PCNB. Plants that were found to
accumulate higher concentrations of the chlorinated organics than was
present in the soil included lettuce (Lactuca sativa), carrots (Daucus
carota), grasses, parsley (Petroselinum crispum), radishes (Raphanus
sativus), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and tulip (Tulipa sp.) bulbs.
HCB and its derivatives could pose a hazard to grazing animals long
after closure of a land treatment unit. Consequently, there is a need for
HWLT operators to monitor incoming wastes to be sure that untreated chlori-
nated wastes are detected and rejected before they pass through the front
gates. It should also be noted that in soils where HCB is present, there
may also be several HCB metabolites. Smelt (1981) examined soil plots that
had previously been treated with compounds containing HCB and found the
following related compounds. quintozene (PCNB), pentachlorobenzene (QCB),
pentachloroaniline (PGA), and pentachlorothioanisol (PCTA). Since plant
absorption has been shown to occur for HCB and PCNB, the potential exists
for metabolites of these compounds to be either absorbed by plants or
formed in the plant as metabolic by-products of HCB or PCNB. PGA has been
319
-------
found in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) leaves (Dejonckheere et al., 1981) but it
could not be determined if it entered lettuce from the soil or formed in
the plant from decomposition of the PCNB that was also in the plant tissue.
Dejonckheere et al. (1981) pointed out that these compounds, if they were
consumed by grazing animals would either concentrate in fatty tissue (HCB)
or be passed into the milk of dairy cows (PCNB and PCA).
Trichlorobenzenes (TCB) are constituents of both textile-dying wastes
and transformer fluids containing polychlorinated biphenyls (EPA, 1976).
Two TCBs (1,2,3- and 1,2,4-TCB) were found to biodegrade very slowly (0.35
and 1.00 nmol/day/20 gms soil, respectively) when these compounds were in-
cubated in a sandy loam soil at concentrations of 50 yg TCB per gram of
soil (Marinucci and Bartha, 1979). Neither fertilizer additions nor the
addition of other microbial substrates appeared to increase TCB biodegrada-
tion rates.
Since anaerobic conditions are known to increase the rate of some
dechlorination reactions but may suppress aromatic ring cleavage, weekly
alterations of anaerobic and aerobic soil conditions were studied to see if
TCB biodegradation could be increased. The authors assumed that, since
this cycling of soil conditions failed to increase biodegradation, the
kinetics of TCB mineralization suggested rate-limiting initial reactions.
The only factor found to increase TCB biodegradation was increased tempera-
ture (28°C or above). Maximum biodegradation rate for the compounds was
obtained at TCB concentrations between 10-25 yg per gram of soil and this
rate was found to markedly decrease above that concentration range.
A mixture of dichlorobenzene has been shown to degrade in soil much
slower than benzene, chlorobenzene, or a mixture of trichlorobenzenes
(Haider et al., 1981). After incubation in a moist loess soil for 10
weeks, only 6.3% of the original 20 ppm carbon-14 labeled dichlorobenzenes
had evolved as carbon dioxide. This translates into a soil half-life for
these compounds of roughly 2 years. With a 2 year half-life it would take
approximately 14 years to achieve 99% degradation. By contrast, the tri-
chlorobenzenes were 33% biodegraded after 10 weeks. At this degradation
rate, 99% degradation of the trichlorobenzenes could be achieved in less
than 3 years. Chlorobenzene was degraded somewhat slower than the trichlo-
robenzenes but at four times the degradation rate for the dichlorobenzenes
(Table 6.60). While these rates of degradation are somewhat lower than
those reported elsewhere, the trends in the data indicate there are signi-
ficant exceptions to the general rule that "the less chlorinated an
organic, the more degradable it is."
320
-------
TABLE 6.60 DEGRADATION OF CHLORINATED BENZENES, PHENOLS, BENZOIC ACIDS AND
CYCLOHEXANES AND THEIR PARENT COMPOUNDS*'
Compounds
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzenes
Trichlorobenzenes
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenol
Dichlorophenols
Trichlorophenols
Benzole acid
3-Chlorobenzoic acid
Cyclohexane
Y-Hexachlorocyclohexane
y-Pentachlorocyclohexane
3 days
7.5
16.2
0.1
3.6
45.5
7.5
15.4
1.4
1.6
40
21
<0.02
0.05
0.01
1 week
24
18.3
1.1
20.3
48
13
22.2
31.4
35
44
28
0.1
0.3
0.3
2 weeks
37
20
1.2
22
52
14.7
24
35
38
49
32
0.2
0.7
0.8
5 weeks
44
25
1.7
30
60
21
31
43
47
57
38
0.3
1.8
2.3
10 weeks
47
27
6.3
33
65
25
35
48
51
63
59
0.3
2.6
3.5
Haider et al. (1981).
' Degradation was measured by the release of marked C02 from the
carbon-14 labeled organic compounds. Values given in the table are sum
values in % of added radioactivity.
Metabolic by-products of chlorinated benzenes include chlorinated
phenols and carboxylic acids. Degradation of phenol, benzoic acid, and
some of their chlorinated derivatives are given in Table 6.60. While the
chlorinated derivatives of these acids are generally less degradable in
soil than their nonchlorinated counterparts, they are usually more degrad-
able than their parent chlorinated benzene derivatives.
Baker and Mayfield (1980) studied the degradation of phenol and its
chlorinated derivatives in aerobic, anaerobic, sterile and non-sterile soil
(Table 6.61). Phenol, o-chlorophenol, p-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol,
2,6-dichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol were biodegraded rapidly in
the aerobic soil, while m-chlorophenol, 3,4-dichlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlo-
rophenol, and pentachlorophenol were degraded more slowly. The most slowly
degraded compounds under aerobic conditions were 3,4,5-trichlorophenol and
2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol. While nonbiological degradation occurred in
both the aerobic and anaerobic soil, no biological degradation of any of
the chlorophenols was indicated for the anaerobic soils.
6.2.3.4.2 Halogenated Biphenyls. Halogenated biphenyls are no longer pro-
duced in the U.S., but the extreme recalcitrance of these compounds and
their past widespread use in chemical industries indicates that they will
321
-------
TABLE 6.61 AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC DEGRADATION OF PHENOL AND ITS CHLORINATED DERIVATIVES IN SOIL*
to
10
Aerobic Degradation
Non-sterile
Compounds
Phenol
o-chlorophenol
m-chlorophenol
p-chlorophenol
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
2 , 6-dichlorophenol
3 , 4-dichlorophenol
2,4, 6-trichlorophenol
2,4, 5-trichlorophenol
3,4, 5-trichlorophenol
2,3,4, 5-tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Days
5.00
1.50
160.00
20.00
40.00
0.75
160.00
3.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
Degraded
100
100
87
83
81
100
88
95
72
17
31
80
Sterile
Days
40
40
160
20
40
40
160
80
160
160
160
160
Degraded
15
67
31
5
31
55
21
27
9
0
-1
20
Anaerobic Degradation
Non-sterile
Days
40
80
160
40
80
80
160
80
80
80
80
160
Degraded
20
78
37
13
62
82
-4
28
8
-2
5
7
Sterile
Days
40
80
160
40
80
80
160
80
80
80
80
160
Degraded
7
82
15
17
59
81
-3
25
5
4
7
5
* Baker and Mayfield (1980)
-------
be an important concern of the waste disposal community for at least
several decades. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) are still in widespread
use in transformers and capacitors around the world (Griffin and Chian,
1980). Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) were produced for use as flame
retardants in business machines, electrical housings, and textiles (Griffin
and Chou, 1982).
Degradation of PCBs has been found to be affected by the nature of the
chlorine (Cl) substituents as follows (Morrill et al., 1982, Kensuke et
al., 1978):
(1) degradation decreased as amount of Cl substitution in-
creased,
(2) PCBs with two Cl atoms in the ortho position on one or both
rings had very low degradability, and
(3) PCBs with only one chlorinated ring degraded more rapidly
than PCBs with a similar number of Cl atoms but with these
divided between the two rings.
In many cases, the mono-, di-, and tri-chlorinated biphenyls have been
found to be degradable by mixed microbial populations (Furukawa and
Matsumura, 1976, Metcalf et al., 1975). Most reports on the degradability
of tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorobiphenyls indicate that these compounds
degrade extremely slowly in most environments (Metcalf et al., 1975;
Nissen, 1981).
Nissen (1981) investigated the degradability of Arochlor 1254 (a mix-
ture of PCBs with from 4 to 7 chlorine substituents) in moist, warm soil
with nutrients added. No biodegradation was evident after 60 days of
incubation in the soil. Moein et al. (1975) returned to the site of a two
year old spill of Archlor 1254 on soil and found that no perceptable degra-
dation of the PCBs had occurred over that time period. In another study,
Iwata et al. (1973) found that the lower chlorinated biphenyls exhibited
significant degradation in 12 months on five California soils.
A study by Wallnofer et al. (1981) indicated that PCBs were absorbed
by the lipid rich epidermal cells on carrots (Daucus carota) and to a
lesser extent by radish (Raphanus sativus) roots. Moza et al. (1976), how-
ever, found a phenolic metabolic by-product of 2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl in
carrot leaves. Mrozek et al. (1982) demonstrated that salt marsh cordgrass
has the capacity to accumulate PCBs above the level of these compounds in
the soil. PCBs were taken up by the plant from sand and an organic mud
soil. Furthermore, the PCBs were translocated throughout the plant. While
PCBs are strongly adsorbed by organic matter in soils, they have been found
to be largely associated with the partially decomposed plant litter rather
than humic substances (Scharpenseel et al., 1978). These plant remnants
are readily taken up by soil fauna thereby providing a means for the PCBs
to enter the food chain. Several other studies that noted the plant uptake
of various chlorinated biphenyls are listed in Table 6.57.
323
-------
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) were found to be strongly adsorbed by
soils and not leached by water by Griffin and Chou (1982). Similar results
were obtained by Filonow et al. (1976). Jacobs et al. (1976) found that
PBBs were only very slowly degradable in soil and taken up in very small
quantities by plants. From all available data it would appear that PBB
contaminated soil will pose little threat to groundwater or crop purity,
with the possible exception of root crops. There is, however, no informa-
tion available concerning the toxicity, degradability, leachability or
ability for plants to take up metabolites of PBB (Getty et al., 1977).
6.2.3.5 Surface-active Agents
Surface-active agents (surfactants) are organic compounds with two
distinct parts to each molecule. One part is hydrophilic or water soluble
(such as a sulfonate, sulfate, quarternary amine or polyoxyethylene) and
the other part is hydrophobic or water-insoluble (such as an aliphatic or
aromatic group) (Huddleston and Allred, 1967). It is the presence of these
two different groups on the same molecule that causes these molecules to
concentrate at surfaces or interfaces. The presence of these molecules at
interfaces reduces the surface tension of liquids. Surfactants are common-
ly found in industrial wastes as a result of their use in various indus-
tries as detergents, wetting agents, penetrants, emulsifiers spreading
agents and dispersants. Industries that use large quantities of surfac-
tants include textile, cosmetic, pharmaceutical, metal, paint, leather,
paper, rubber, and agricultural chemical industries. The three main types
of surfactants produced are cationics, nonionics and anionics. These sur-
factants accounted for 6, 28 and 65%, respectively, of the total surfactant
production in the U.S. in 1978 (Land and Johnson, 1979).
Most cationic surfactants are salts of either a quarternary ammonium
or an amine group (with an aromatic or aliphatic side chain) and either a
halogen or hydroxide. Many of these surfactants can cause problems due to
their strong antimicrobial action.
Nonionic surfactants are so named because they do not ionize in water.
Two main types are alkyl polyoxyethylenes and alkylphenol polyoxyethylenes.
The former has been found to be readily biodegradable, but decreasingly so
as the polyoxyethylene chain is lengthened (Huddleston and Allred, 1967).
Half-life of an alkyl polyoxyethylene surfactant in a moist (28% H20)
sandy loam soil was found to be approximately 60, 90, 120 and 160 days when
the surfactant was applied at 250, 1,000, 5,000 and 10,000 ppm, respective-
ly (Valoras et al., 1976). Although the study did not extend long enough
to achieve 50% degradation of higher dosage levels extrapolation of the
data indicated that when applied to this soil at 20,000 ppm, the half-life
of the surfactant may have approached 1 year.
Anionic surfactants are negatively charged ions when in solution. The
three major forms are alkyl sulfates, alkylbenzene sulfonates and carboxy-
lates. Alkylbenzene sulfonates are the most widely used surfactants,
accounting for 35% of all surfactants produced in the U.S. in 1978 (Land
324
-------
and Johnson, 1979). Most widely used surfactants of this type are the
linear alkyl benzenes (LAS), which are composed of a benzene ring with both
a sulfonate and a roughly linear alkyl chain attached. Major factors
influencing the biodegradation rate for the LAS type surfactants are as
follows (Huddleston and Allred, 1967).
(1) the position of the sulfonate group relative to the alkyl
chain;
(2) the alkyl chain length and point of attachment of the
benzene ring; and
(3) the degree of branching along the length of the alkyl
chain.
Another type of alkylbenzene sulfonate called ABS is a mixture of
branched chain isomers of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate. While LAS and
ABS have both been found to inhibit nitrification activities, LAS is appar-
ently biodegraded more quickly in soil (Vandoni and Goldberg, 1981).
Neither of these surfactants is likely to volatilzze from the soil surface,
but both can be mobile in soils when they are in an ionic state. There is
some evidence that these and other surfactants may increase the leachabili-
ty of other organic constituents and some microorganisms under saturated
flow conditions. A discussion of the effects of anionic surfactants on
plants has been published by Overcash and Pal (1979).
Surfactants can have strong influences on the chemical, physical and
biological properties of a soil. If the hydrophilic portion of a surfac-
tant adsorbs to soil particles, the hydrophobic portion would extend out-
wards, imparting to soil particles a hydrophobic surface. Under these con-
ditions, the saturated flow (flow due to gravity) increases while the
unsaturated flow (flow due to capillary forces) decreases (Sebastiani et
al., 1981). Luzzati (1981) found that applying the equivalent of 3,200
kg/ha of nonionic and anionic surfactants to test plots slightly improved
soil structure but substantially inhibited soil enzyme activity. Vandoni
and Goldberg (1981) found that anionic surfactants significantly inhibited
nitrification (metabolism of ammonium in soil) while nonionic surfactants
seemed to slightly stimulate nitrification. Letey et al. (1975) showed
that infiltration rates were increased with soil application of nonionic
surfactants. Aggregation, aeration and water holding capacity of a soil
can be increased by surfactant applications to soil (Batyuk and Samoch-
valenko, 1981). However, Cardinali and Stoppini (1981) found that while
anionic surfactant dosages of 16-80 ppm improved the structural stability
of some soils, at dosages over 400 ppm the structural stability of the
soils always significantly decreased. When calculating the loading rates
for biodegradable surfactants, both the half-life and effect on soil prop-
erties of these constituents should be carefully considered.
325
-------
CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES
Abbazov, M.A., I. D. Dergunov, and R. Mikulin. 1978. Effect of soil
properties on the accumulation of strontium-90 and cesium-137 in crops.
Soviet Soil Sci. 10(l):52-56.
Adams, D. F., J. W. Hendrix, and H. G. Applegate. 1957. Relation among
exposure periods, foliar burn, and fluorine content of plants exposed to
hydrogen fluoride. J. Agr. Food Chem. 5:108-116.
Adriano, D. C., L. T. Novak, A. E. Erickson, A. R. Wolcott, and B. G.
Ellis. 1975. Effect of long term land disposal by spray irrigation of food
processing wastes on some chemical properties of the soil and subsurface
water. J. Environ. Qual. 4:242-248.
Ahmed, S. and H. J. Evans. 1960. Cobalt: a micronutrient element for the
growth of soybean plants under symbiotic conditions. Soil Sci. 90.205-210.
Ahmed, S. and H. J. Evans. 1961. The essentiality of cobalt for soybean
plants grown under bymbiotic conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
47:24-36.
Aldrich, D. G., J. R. Buchanan, and G. R. Bradford. 1955. Effect of soil
acidification on vegetative growth and leaf composition of lemon trees in
pot culture. Soil Sci. 79:427-439.
Allaway, W. H. 1968. Agronomic controls over the environmental cycling of
trace elements. Adv. Agron. 20:235-271.
Allaway, W. H. 1975. Soil and plant aspects of cycling of chromium,
molybdenum and selenium. J!n_ T. C. Hutchinson (ed.) Proc. of International
Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment, Vol. 1. Toronto, Canada.
Allen, H. E., R. H. Hall, and T. D. Brisbin. 1980. Metal Speciation.
Effects on aquatic toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14:441-443.
Alten, F. and R. Goltwick. 1933. A contribution to the question of the
substitution of Rb and Cs for K in plant nutrition. Ernahr Planze.
29:393-399.
Anastasia, F. B. and W. J. Kender. 1973. The influence of soil arsenic on
the growth of lowbush blueberries. J. Environ. Qual. 2:335-337.
Anderson, A. and K. 0. Nilsson. 1974. Ambio 3.198-200.
Andrziewski, M. 1971. Effect of chromium application on yields of several
plant species and on the chromium content of soil. Rocznik Nauk
Rolniczych. Agricultural College, Pozlon, Poland.
326
-------
Arnon, D. I. 1958. The role of micronutrients in plant nutrition with
special reference to photosynthesis and nitrogen assimilation, pp. 1-32. In
C. A. Lamb, 0. E. Bently, and J. M. Beate (ed.) Trace elements. Academic
Press, New York.
Aston, S. R. and P. H. Brazier. 1979. Endemic goitre, the factors
controlling iodine deficiency in soils. The science of the total
environment. 11:99-104.
Aubert, H. and M. Pinta. 1977. Trace elements in soils. Elsevier Sci. Publ.
Co., New York. 395 p.
Baker, M. D. and C. I. Mayfield. 1980. Microbial and non-biological
decomposition of chlorophenols and phenol in soil. Water, Air and Soil
Pollution 13:411-424.
Ballard, R. and J. G. A. Fiskell. 1974. Phosphorus retention in coastal
plain forest soils: I. Relationship to soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 38:250-255.
Banerjee, D. K., R. H. Bray, and S. W. Melsted. 1953. Some aspects of the
chemistry of cobalt in soils. Soil Sci. 75:421-431.
Barber, S. A., J. M. Walker, and E. M. Vasey. 1963. Principles of ion
movement through the soil to the plant root. pp. 121-124. Trans. Joint
Meeting, Comm. IV and V. Intern. Soc. Soil Sci., New Zealand, 1962.
Barker, D. E. and L. Chesnin. 1975. Chemical monitoring of soils for
environmental quality and animals and human health. Adv. Agron. 27:306-374.
Barker, H. A. 1941. Studies on methane fermentation. V. J. Biol. Chem.
127:153-167.
Barltrop, D., C. D. Strehlow, I. Thornton, and S. S. Webb. 1974.
Significance of high soil lead concentrations for childhood lead burdens.
Environ. Health Perspec. 7:75-82.
Barnette, R. M. and J. P. Camp. 1936. Chlorosis in corn plants and other
field crop plants. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rep. 45.
Barshad, I. 1948. Molybdenum content of pasture plants in relation to
toxicity to cattle. Soil Science 66:187-195.
Bartlett, R. and B. James. 1979. Behavior of chromium in soils: III.
Oxidation. J. Environ. Qual. 8:31-34.
Batyuk, V. P. and S. K. Samochvalenko. 1981. The influence of surface-
active substances on the water-physical characteristics of soil and the
physiological-biochemical characteristics of plants, pp. 407-418. JEn M. R.
Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic chemicals in
soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
327
-------
Baumhard, G. R. and L. F. Welch. 1972. Lead uptake and corn growth with
soil applied lead. J. Environ. Qual. l(l):92-94.
Beath, 0. A. 1949. Economic potential and botanic limitations of some
selenium bearing plants. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 360.
Beath, 0. A., C. S. Gilbert, and H. F. Eppson. 1941a. The use of indicator
plants in locating seleniferous areas in the western United States. I.
General. Am. J. Bot. 26:257.
Beath, 0. A., C. S. Gilbert, and H. F. Eppson. 1941b. The use of indicator
plants in locating seleniferous areas of the western United States. II.
Correlation. Am. J. Bot. 28:887.
Beauchamp, E. G. and J. Moyer. 1974. Nitrogen transformation and uptake. In
Proc. of Sludge Handling and Disposal Seminar, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment. Toronto, Ontario.
Beauford, W., J. Barber, and A. R. Barringer. 1977. Uptake and distribution
of mercury within higher plants. Physiologia Plantarium 39:261-265.
Beck. J. and K. E. Hansen. 1974. The degradation of quintozene, penta-
chlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, and pentachloroaniline in soil. Pestic.
Sci. 5:41-48.
Bell, M. C. and N. N. Sneed. 1970. Metabolism of tungsten by sheep and
swine, pp. 70-71 In C. F. Mills (ed.) Trace elements metabolism in animals.
E and S Livingston, Edinburgh.
Benac, R. 1976. Effect of the manganese concentration in the nutrient
solution on groundnuts. Oleagineaux 31:539-543.
Benson, N. R., R. P. Covey, and W. Hagland. 1978. The apple replant problem
in Washington state. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:156-158.
Bernstein, L. 1974. Crop growth and salinity JEn J. Van Schilfgaarde (ed.)
Drainage for agriculture. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin.
Berrow, M. L. and J. Webber. 1972. Trace elements in sewage sludges. J.
Sci. Food Agr. 23:93.
Biddappa, C. C., M. Chino, and K. Kumazawa. 1981. Adsorption, desorption,
potential and selective distribution of heavy metals in selected soils of
Japan. J. Environ. Sci. Health L.
Bielby, D. G., M. H. Miller, and L. R. Webber 1973. Nitrate content of
percolates from manured lysimeters. J. Soil and Water Cons. 28(3) 124-126.
Bingham, F. T. 1973. Boron in cultivated soils and irrigation waters, pp.
130-143. Jta Trace elements in the environment. Am. Chem. Soc., Washington,
D.C.
328
-------
Bingham, F. T. 1979. Bioavailability of Cd to food crops in relation to
heavy metal content of sludge amended soil. Environ. Health Perspec.
28:3943.
Blaschke, H. 1977. The influence of increased copper supply on some crop
plants and their root development. Zeitschrift fur Ackerund Pflanzenbau
144:222-229.
Boawn, L. C. and P. E. Rasmussen. 1971. Crop response to excessive Zn
fertilization of an alkaline soil. Agron. J. 63: 874-876.
Boggess, S. F., S. Willavize, and D. E. Koeppe. 1978. Differential response
of soybean varieties to soil cadmium. Agron. J. 70(5):756-760.
Bonn, H. L., B. L. McNeal, and G. A. O'Connor. 1979. Soil chemistry. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 329 p.
Bollard, E. G. 1960. Transport in the xylem. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiology
11:141-166.
Borges, A. C. and A. G. Wollum. 1981. Effect of cadmium on symbiotic
soybean plants. J. Environ. Qual. 10:216-221.
Borovik-Romonova, T. F. 1944. The content of Rb in Plants. Dokl. Aka. Nauk.
SSR 44:313-16.
Bouwer, H. and R. L. Chaney. 1974. Land treatment of wastewater. Adv.
Agron. 26:133-76.
Bowen, H. J. M. 1966. Trace elements in biochemistry. Academic Press, New
York. 241 p.
Bowman, R. S., M. E. Essington, and G. A. O'Connor. 1981. Soil sorption of
nickel: influence of solution composition. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
45:860-865.
Bradford, G. R., 1966. Boron, p. 33. JLn Chapman, H. D. (ed.), Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. University of Calif., Div. Agr. Sci.
Riverside, California.
Brady, N. C. 1974. The nature and properties of soils. 8th ed. MacMillan
Publ. Co., Inc., New York. 639 p.
Brar, M. S. and G. S. Sekhon. 1979. Effect of applied zinc and iron on the
growth of rice. Riso 28(2).125-131.
Bremner, J. M. and K. Shaw. 1958. Denitrification in soils II. Factors
affecting denitnfication. J. Agr. Sci. 51(1).22-52.
Bresler, E., B. L. McNeal, and D. L. Carter. 1982. Saline and sodic soils.
Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, New York. 236 p.
329
-------
Brewer, R. F. 1966a. Fluorine, jhi H. D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic criteria
for plants and soils. University of California, Riverside.
Brewer, R. F. 1966b. Lead. pp. 213-217, jEn H. D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. University of California, Riverside.
Broadbent, F. E., K. B. Tyler, and G. N. Hill. 1957. Nitrification of
ammonical fertilizers in some California soils. Hilgardia 27:247-267.
Broderius, S. and L. Smith. 1979. Lethal and sublethal effects of binary
mixtures of cyanide and hexavalent chromium, zinc or ammonia to the fathead
minnow and rainbow trout. J. Kish. Res. Board Can. 36:164.
Brooks, R. R. 1977. Copper and cobalt uptake by Haumaniastrum species.
Plant and Soil 48:541-544.
Brooks, R. R., J. Lee, R. D. Reeves, and T. Jaffre. 1977. Detection
of nickeliferous rocks by analysis of herbarium specimens of indicator
plants. J. of Geochem. Exploration 7:49-57.
Brooks, R. R., R. S. Morrison, R. D. Reeves, T. R. Dudley, and Y. Akman.
1979. Hyperaccumulation of nickel by Alyssum Linnaeus (Cruciferae). Proc.
R. Soc. Lond., B 203:387-403.
Brooks, R. R. and C. C. Radford. 1978. Nickel accumulation by European
species of the genus Alyssum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B 200:217-224.
Brooks, R. R., R. D. Reeves, R. S. Morrison, and F. Malaisse. 1980.
Hyperaccumulation of copper and cobalt—a review. Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot.
Belg. 113:166-172.
Brown, J. C. and W. E. Jones. 1977. Manganese and iron toxicities dependent
on soybean variety. Comm. in Soil Sci. and Plant Analysis 8:1-15.
Brown, K. W. and L. E. Deuel, Jr. 1982. Evaluation of subsurface landfarm
contamination after long-term use. Final Report of a Cooperative Study for
the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 116 p.
Brown, K. W., L. E. Deuel, Jr. and J. C Thomas. 1982a. Soil disposal of
API pit wastes. Final Report of a Study for the Environmental Protection
Agency (Grant No. R805474013). 209 p.
Brown, K. W., K. C. Donnelly, and B. Scott. 1982b. The fate of mutagenic
compounds when hazardous wastes are land treated, pp. 383-397. In David W.
Shultz (ed.) Proceedings at the Eighth Annual Research Symposium at Ft.
Mitchell, Kentucky. EPA-600-9-82-002b.
330
-------
Brown, K. W., K. C. Donnelly, J. C. Thomas, and L. E. Deuel, Jr. 1981.
Factors influencing the biodegradation of API separator sludges applied to
soils, pp. 188-199. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research Symposium
at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 16-18. U.S. EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600/9-81-002B.
Buddin, W. 1914. Partial sterilization of soil by volatile and nonvolatile
antiseptics. J. Agric. Sci. 6:417-451.
Burmaster, D. E. and R. H. Harris. 1982. Groundwater contamination: an
emerging threat. Technology Review 35(5):50-62.
Burnside, 0. V. 1974. Prevention and detoxification of pesticide residues
in soils, pp. 387-412. In W. D. Guenzi. (ed.) Pesticides in soil and water.
Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer., Inc. Madison, Wisconsin.
Butler, G. W. and P. J. Peterson. 1967. Uptake and metabolism of inorganic
forms of selenium-75 by Spiradela oligorrhiza. Australian J. Biol. Sci.
20:77-86.
Cansfield, P. E. and G. R. Racz. 1978. Degradation of hydrocarbon sludges
in the soil. Canadian Jour, of Soil Sci. 58:339-345.
Cardinal!, A. and Z. Stoppini. 1981. Detergent polluted waters and
hydrologic characteristics of agrarian soils. II. Research on Structural
Stability, pp. 419-433. In M. R. Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic and
nontoxic organic chemicals in soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc. Ann
Arbo r, Michigan.
CAST. 1976. Applications of sewage sludge to cropland appraisal of
potential hazards of the heavy metals to plants and animals. Office of
Water Program Operations, EPA. Washington, D. C. Report No. 64. EPA
420/19-76-013.
CAST. ,1980. Residual effects of sewage sludge on the cadmium and zinc
content of crops. Prepared by a Task Force for the Council for Agriculture
Science Technology. CAST Report No. 83. 250 Memorial Union. Ames, Iowa.
Chaney, R. L. 1973. Crop and food chain effects of toxic elements in
sludges and effluents, pp. 129-141 £n Recycling municipal sludges and
effluents on land. National Assoc. State Univ. and Land-Grant Colleges.
Washington, D.C.
Chaney, R. L. 1974. Recommendations for management of potentially toxic
elements in agriculture and municipal wastes, pp. 97-120. In Factors
involved in land application of agricultural and municipal wastes. USDA.
Beltsville, Maryland.
331
-------
Chaney, R. L., D. D. Kaufman, S. B. H. Jornick, J. F. Parr, L. J. Sikora,
W. D. Surge, P. B. March, G. B. Willson, and R. H. Fisher. 1981. Review of
information relevant to land treatment of hazardous wastes. Solid and
Hazardous Waste Research Divison, Office of Research and Development. US.
EPA. Draft.
Chaney, R. L., G. S. Stoewsand, A. K. Furr, C. A. Bache, and D. J. Lisk.
1978. Elemental content of tissue of guinea pigs fed swiss chard growth on
muncipal sewage sludge—amended soil. J. Agr. Food Chem. 26:994-997.
Chaney, W. R., R. C. Strickland, and R. J. Lamoreaux. 1977. Phytotoxicity
of cadmium inhibited by lime. Plant and Soil 47(1).275-278.
Chao, T. T., M. E. Harward, and S. C. Fang. 1963. Cationic effects on
sulfate adsorption by soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27:35-38.
Chapman, H. D. (ed.) 1966. Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. Univ.
of California, Division of Agr. Sci. Riverside, California, p. 484.
Chesnin, L. 1967. Corn, soybeans, and other great plains crops. Micronutr.
Manual Farm Tech. 23(6).
Chessmore, R. A. 1979. Profitable pasture management. Interstate Printers
and Publishers, Inc., Danville, Illinois. 424 p.
Chrenekova, C. 1977. Dynamics of arsenic compounds in soil Rostlinna Vyroba
23:1021-1030.
Chrenekova, E. 1973. Intensity of toxic effects of arsenate ion in relation
to method of application. Pol nohospodarstvo 19.921-929.
Chumbley, C. G. 1971. Permissible levels of toxic metals in sewage used on
agricultural land. A.D.A.S. Advisory Paper 10. p. 12.
Clapp, C. E., R. H. Dowdy, and W. E. Larcon. 1976. Unpublished data. Agr.
Res. Ser., USDA. St. Paul, Minnesota.
Coic, Y. and C. Lesaint. 1978. Microelement levels in tomatoes and
cucumbers grown in soilless culture. Supplementation with solutions of
microelements essential for man. Comptes Rendus des Seances de 1'Academie
d'Agriculture de France 64(10):787- 792.
Coombs, T. D. 1979. Cadmium in aquatic organisms, pp. 93-139. In The
chemistry, biochemistry and biology of cadmium. Elsevier. New York.
Cox, R. M. and T. C. Hutchinson. 1980. Multiple metal tolerances in the
grass Deschampsia cespitosa from the Sudbury smelting area. New Phytol.
84:631-647.
Cruz, A. D., H. P. Haag and J. R. Sarruge. 1967. Effect of aluminum on
wheat (Triticum vulgare v. Piratini) grown in nutrient solution. Anals.
Esc. Sup. Agric. Luiz Queiroz 24-107-117.
332
-------
Cunningham, J. D., D. R. Kenney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975. Yield and metal
composition of corn and rye grown on sewage sludge-amended soil. J.
Environ. Qual. 4:448-454.
Cunningham, J. J. 1950. Copper and molybdenum in relation to diseases of
cattle and sheep in New Zealand. In Copper metabolism, A Symposium on
Animal, Plant, and Soil Relationships. John Hopkins Press. New York.
Davidson, J. M. and R. K. Chang. 1972. Transport of Picloram in relation to
soil physical conditions and pore-water velocity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
36:257-261.
Davis, J. B., V. E. Farmer, R. E. Kreider, A. E. Straub, and K. M. Reese.
1972. The migration of petroleum products in soil and groundwater. princi-
ples and countermeasures. American Petroleum Institute Publication No.
4149. Washington, D.C.
Davis, R. D. 1979. Uptake of copper, nickel and zinc by crops growing in
contaminated soils. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30:937-947.
Dawson, G. W., C. J. English, and S. E. Petty. 1980. Physical and chemical
properties of hazardous waste constituents. Attachment 1, Appendix B in
background document (RCRA subtitle C) identification and listing of
hazardous waste. Office of Solid Waste, EPA. May 2, 1980.
Dean-Raymond, D. and M. Alexander. 1976. Plant uptake and leaching of
dimethylnitrosamine. Nature 262 394-396.
Dejonckheere, W., W. Steurbaut, and R. H. Kips. 1981. Problems caused by
quintozene and hexachlorobenzene residues in lettuce and chicory
cultivator. II. pp. 3-13. In M. R. Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic
and nontoxic organic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Dekkers, W. A. and F. Barbera. 1977. Effect of aggregate size on leaching
of herbicides in soil columns. Water Research 17:315-39.
Delahay, P., M. Pourbaix, and P. Van Rysselberghe. 1952. Diagrammes
d'equilibre potential-pH de quelques elements. Compt. Rend., Reunion
Comite Thermodynam. Cinet Electtrochim 1951:15-29.
Delwiche, C. C., C. M. Johnson, and H. M. Reisenauer. 1961. Influence of
cobalt on nitrogen fixation by Medicago. Plant Physiol. 36:73-78.
DeMarco, J., J. Jurbiel, J. M. Symons, and G. G. Robeck. 1967. Influence of
environmental factors on the nitrogen cycle in water. J. Am. Water Works.
Assn. 59(2):580-592.
Deuel, L. E. and A. R. Swoboda. 1972. Arsenic solubility in a reduced
environment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Pro. 36 276-278.
333
-------
Dibble, J. T. and R. Bartha. 1979. Effect of environmental parameters on
biodegradation of oil sludge. Applied Environ. Microbiol. 37.729-738.
Dijkshoorn, W., L. W. van Broekhoven, and J. E. M. Lampe. 1979. Phytoxicity
of zinc, nickel, cadmium, lead, copper, and chromium in three pasture plant
species. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 27:241-253.
dos Santos, A. B., C. Viera, E. G. Loures, J. M. Braga, and J. T. L.
Thiebalt. 1979. The response at Phaseolus vulgaris beans to molybdenum and
cobalt in soils from Vicosa dn Paula Candido, Minas Gerias. Revista Ceres
26(143):92-101.
Dotson, G. K., R. B. Dean, B. A. Kenner, and W. B. Gooke. 1971. Land-
spreading, a conserving and non-polluting method of disposing of oily
wastes. Proc. of the 5th Int. Water Pollution Conference Vol. 1, Sec. II.
36/1-36/15.
Dowdy, R. H., R. E. Larson, and E. Epstein. 1976. Sewage sludge and
effluent use in agriculture. In Land application of waste materials. Soil
Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, Iowa.
Downing, A. L., H. A. Painter, and C. Knowles. 1964. Nitrification in the
activated sludge process. Journal and Proc. of the Inst. of Sewage
Purification, Part 2.
Dyksen, J. E. and A. F. Hess, III. 1982. Alternatives for controlling
organics in groundwater supplies. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 74(8):394-
403.
Dutt, G. R., R. W. Terkeltouk, and R. S. Rauschkolb. 1972. Prediction of
gypsum and leaching requirements for sodium-affected soils. Soil Science
114(2):93-103.
Eaton, F. M. 1942. Toxicity and accumulation of chloride and sulfate salts
in plants. J. Agr. Res. 64:357-359.
Eaton, F. M. 1966. Chlorine, pp. 98-135. In H. D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. University of California, Riverside.
Edwards, C. A. 1973. Persistent pesticides in the environment. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Control, Vol. 1, No. 1. CRC Press, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Edwards, J. H., B. D. Horton, and H. C. Kirkpatrick. 1976. Aluminum
toxicity symptoms in peach seedlings. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 101:139-142.
Ehinger, L. H. and G. R. Parker. 1979. Tolerance of Andopogon scoparius to
copper and zinc. New Phytologist 83:175-180.
El-Bergearmi, M. M. 1973. Attempts to quantitate the protective effect of
Se against mercury toxicity using Japanese quail. Fed. Proc. 32:886.
334
-------
Embleton, T. W., W. W. Jones, and R. G. Platt. 1978. Tissue and soil
analyses as an index of yield. University of California. Riverside,
California.
Emmerich, W. E., L. J. Jund, A. L. Page, and A. C. Chang. 1982. Movement of
heavy metals in sewage sludge-treated soils. J. Environ. Qual. 11:174-181.
Enterline, P. E. 1974. Respiratory cancer among chromate workers. J. Occup.
Med. 16.523-526.
EPA. 1976a. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA
570/9-76-003.
EPA. 1976b. Study of the distribution and fate of polychlorinated biphenyls
and benzenes after a spill of transformer fluid. EPA No. 904-9-76-D14. U.S.
EPA. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1980a. Subtitle C resource and conservation recovery act of 1976.
Listing of hazardous waste, background document for RCRA, section 261.31
and 261.32. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1980b. Interim status standards for owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol.
45, No. 98, pp. 33154-33259.
EPA. 1982. Hazardous waste management system; permitting requirements for
land disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 143, pp. 32274-
32388. July 26, 1982.
Ermolenko, N. F. 1972. Trace elements and colloids in soils. Jerusalem.
Israel Program for Scientific Translation. National Technical Information
Service. Washington, D.C.
Essington, E. H. and H. Nishita. 1966. Effect of chelates on the movement
of fission products through soil columns. Plant and Soil 24 1-23.
Estes, G. 0., W. E. Knoop, and F. D. Houghton. 1973. Soil-plant response to
surface applied mercury. J. Environ. Qual. 2.451-452.
Evans, G. E. 1980. The mobility of water soluble organic compounds in soils
from the land application of petroleum waste sludge. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M
University. College Station, Texas.
Farmer, W. J., M. Yang, J. Letey, and W. F. Spencer. 1980. Land disposal of
hexachlorobenzene wastes, controlling vapor movement in soil. EPA/600-7-80-
119. U.S. EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Fedorak, P. M. and D. W. S. Westlake. 1981. Degradation of aromatics and
saturates in crude oil by soil enrichments. Water, Air and Soil Pollution.
16:367-375.
335
-------
Filonow, A. B., L. W. Jacobs, and M. M. Mortland. 1976. Fate of polybromi-
nated biphenyls (PBB's) in soils. Retention of hexabromobiphenyl in four
Michigan soils. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 24(6)-1201-1204.
Findenegg, G. R. and E. Havnold. 1972. Uptake of mercury by spring wheat
from different soils. Bodenkultur (Austria) 23.252-255.
Fishbein, L. 1978. Sources of synthetic mutagens. p. 257-348. In_ W. G.
Flamm and M. A. Mehlman (ed.) Advances in modern toxicology. Mutagenesis
Vol. 5.
Fleming, A. L., J. W. Schwartz, and C. D. Foy. 1974. Chemical factors
controlling the adaptation of weeping lovegrass and tall fescue to acid
mine spoils. Agron. J. 6(6):715-19.
Flint, R. F. and B. J. Skinner. 1977. Physical Geology. 2nd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, New York. 679 p.
Florence, T. M. 1977. Trace metal species in fresh waters. Water Res.
11:681-687.
Foroughi, M., G. Hoffman, K. Teicher, and F. Venter. 1976. The effect of
increasing levels of cadmium, chromium, and nickel on tomatoes in nutrient
solution. Stand and Leistung Agrikulturchemischer und Agrar biologischer
Forschung XXX. Kongressband (1975) Landwirt schastlicke Forschung.
Sonderhest 32(1):37-48.
Fox, R. H. 1968. The effect of calcium and pH on boron uptake from high
concentrations of boron by cotton and alfalfa. Soil Sci. 106:435-439.
Franco, A. A. and J. Dobereiner. 1971. Effect of Mn toxicity on soybean
Rhizobium symbiosis in an acid soil. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileria
6:57-66.
Franklin, W. T. Unpublished information. '
Friberg, L., M. Piscator, G. Nordberg, and T. Kjellstrom. 1974. Cadmium in
the environment. 2nd Ed. CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
Frost, D. V. 1967. Arsenicals in biology—retrospect and prospect. Fed.
Proc. 26(1):194-208.
Fuhr, F. and W. Mittelstaedt. 1981. The behavior of methabenzthiazuron in
soil and plants after application of methabenzthiazuron [Benzone Ring-U-
* C] on spring wheat under field conditions during the year of
application and subsequent cultivation, pp. 125-134. In M. R. Overcash
(ed.) Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in soils. Ann
Arbor Sci. Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Fujimoto, G. and G. D. Sherman. 1950. Cobalt content of typical soils and
plants of the Hawaiian Islands. Agron. J. 42:577-581.
336
-------
Fuller, W. H. 1977. Movement of selected metals, asbestos and cyanide in
soil: applications to waste disposal problems. EPA 600/2-77-020. PB
266-905.
Furr, A. K. , A. W. Lawrence, S. C. Tong, M. C. Grandolfo, R. A. Hofstader,
C. A. Bache, W. H. Gutenmann, and D. J. Lisk. 1976. Multi-element and
chlorinated hydrocarbon analyses of municipal sewage sludges of American
cities. Envir. Sci. Technol. 10:683-687.
Furr, A. K. , T. F. Parkinson, R. A. Hinrichs, D. R. VanCampen, C. A. Bache,
W. H. Gutenmann, L. E. St John, 1. S. Pakkala, and D. J. Lisk. 1977.
National Survey of elements and radioactivity in fly ashes. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 11-1194-1201
Furukawa K. and F. Matsumura. 1976. Microbial metabolism of polychlorinated
biphenyls. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 24(2):251-256.
Gall, 0. E. 1936. Zinc sulfate studies in the soil. Citrus Ind.
Gamble, A. W. and D. W. Fisher. 1964. Occurrence of sulfate and nitrate in
rainfall. J. Geophysical Res. 69(20): 4203-4210.
Gemmell, R. P. 1972. Use of waste materials for revegetation of chromate
smelter waste. Nature (London) 240:569-571.
Getty, S. M. , D. E. Rickett, and A. L. Trapp. 1977. Polybrominated biphenyl
(PBB) toxicosis: an environmental accident. CRC Critical Reviews in
Environmental Control. 7 (4): 309-323.
Ghosh, B. P. and R. H. Burris. 1950. Utilization of nitrogenous compounds
by plants. Soil Science 70(3) : 187-203.
Giashuddin, M. and A. H. Cornfield. 1978. Incubation study on effects of
adding varying levels of nickel on nitrogen and carbon mineralization in
soil. Environ. Poll. 15:231-234.
Gilpin, L. and A. H. Johnson. 1980. Fluorine in agricultural soils of
southeastern Pennsylvania. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44(2) : 255-258.
Giordano, P. M. and D. A. Mays. 1977. Effect of land disposal applications
of municipal wastes on crop yields and heavy metal uptake. National
Fertilizer Development Center, Tennessee Valley Authority. Muscle Shoals,
Alabama. EPA 600/12-77-014. PB 266-649/3BE.
Goldschmidt. V. M. 1954. Geochemistry. Clairdon Press. Oxford, United
Kingdom.
Goodman, G. T. and R. P. Gemmell. 1978. The maintenance of grassland on
smelter wastes in the lower Swansee Valley II. Copper smelter waste. J.
Appl. Ecol. 15:875-883.
337
-------
Gomi, K. and T. Oyagi. 1972. Manganese nutrition of vegetable crops.
Bulletin, Faculty of Agriculture, Miyazaki University 19.493-503.
Goring, C. A., D. A. Laskowski, J. W. Hamaker, and R. W. Meikle. 1975.
Principles of pesticide degradation in soil. p. 135-172. In R. Hague and V.
H. Freed (eds.) Environmental dynamics of pesticides. Plenum Press, New
York.
Gracey, H. I. and J. W. B. Stewart. 1977. The fate of applied mercury in
soil. pp. 97-103. In Proc. Int. Conf. Land for Waste Management, Ottawa,
Can. 1973. Dept. Environ./Nat. Research Council.
Gray, R. A. and G. K. Joo. 1978. Site of uptake and action of thiocarbonate
herbicides and herbicide antidotes in corn seedlings, pp. 67-84. In F. M.
Pallos and J. E. Casidia (eds.) Chemistry and Action of Herbicide Anti-
dotes. Academic Press, New York.
Griffin, R. A. and E. S. K. Chian. 1980. Attenuation of water-soluble
polychlorinated biphenyls by earth materials. EPA No. 600/2-80-027. U.S.
EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Griffin, R. A. and S. F. J. Chou. 1982. Attenuation of polybrominated
biphenyls and hexachlorobenzene by earth materials. U.S. EPA. Cincinnati,
Ohio. PB 82-107558.
Griffin, R. A. and N. F. Shnnp. 1978. Attenuation of pollutant in municipal
landfill leachate by clay minerals. EPA 600/2-78-157. PB 287-140.
Groenewegen, D. and H. Stolp. 1981. Microbial breakdown of polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons, pp. 233-240. Jin M. R. Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of
toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ.,
Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Guenzi, W. D., W. E. Beard, R. A. Bowman, and S. R. Olsen. 1981. Plant
uptake and growth responses from p-chlorophenyl methyl sulfide,—sulfoxide,
and—sulfone in soil. J. of Env. Quality 10(4):532-536.
Gudin, C. and W. J. Syratt. 1975. Biological aspects of land rehabilitation
following hydrocarbon contamination. Environ. Poll. 8(2).107-112.
Gupta, I. C. 1974. Lithium tolerance of wheat, barley, rice, and grain at
germination and seedling stage. Indian J. Agr. Res. 8*103-107.
Gupta, I. C., S. V. Singh, and G. P. Bhargava. 1974. Distribution of
lithium in some salt affected soil profiles. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci.
22:88-89.
Gupta, U. C. 1979. Copper in agricultural crops, pp. 255-288. In J. 0.
Nriagv (ed.) Copper in the environment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New
York.
338
-------
Gutenmann, W. H., I. S. Pakkala, D. J. Churey, W. C. Kelly, and D. J. Lisk.
1979. Arsenic, boron, molybdenum and selenium in successive cuttings of
forage crops field grown on fly ash amended soil. J. Agric. Food Chem.
27:1393-1395.
Haghiri, F. 1974. Plant uptake of cadmium as influenced by cation exchange
capacity, organic matter, zinc and soil temperature. J. Environ. Qual.
3.180-183.
Haghiri, F. and F. L. Himes. 1974. Removal of radiostrontium by leaching
runoff and plant uptake as influenced by soil and crop management
practices. Dept. of Agronomy, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development
Center. Wooster, Ohio. Bull. 1072, 1453.
Halter, M. 1980. Selenium toxicity to Daphnia magna, Hyallea azteca amd
fathead minnow in hard water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 24:102.
Haider, K., G. Jagnow, R. Kohnen, and S. U. Lim. 1981. Degradation of
chlorinated benzenes, phenols, and cyclohexane derivatives by benzene and
phenol-utilizing soil bacteria under aerobic conditions. XXIII. pp.
207-223. Jin M. R. Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic
organic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Haider, K. and J. P. Martin. 1975. Decomposition of specifically carbon-14
labelled benzoic and cinnamic acid derivatives in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 39(4):657-662.
Kara, T., Y. Sonada, and I. lawi. 1976. Growth response of cabbage plants
to transitional elements under water culture conditions. II. Cobalt,
nickel, copper, zinc, and molybdenum. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 22.317-325.
Kara, T., Y. Sonoda, and I. lawi. 1977. Growth response of cabbage plants
to arsenic and antimony under water culture conditions. Soil Sci. Plant
Nutr. 23(2):253-255.
Hart, R. H. 1974. Crop selection and management. In Factors involved in
land application of agricultural and municipal wastes. Agr. Res. Ser.,
USDA. Washington, D.C.
Hassett, J. J., J. E. Miller, and D. E. Koepe. 1976. Interaction of lead
and cadmium on maize root growth and uptake of lead and cadmium by roots.
Environ. Poll. 11(4).297-302.
Heath, M. E., D. S. Metcalfe, and R. F. Barnes. 1978. Forages: the science
of grassland agriculture (3rd ed.). Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.
755 p.
Helling, C. S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soil III. Influence of soil
properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35(5):743-748.
339
-------
Helyar, K. R. 1978. Effects of aluminum and manganese toxicities on legume
growth, pp. 207-231. Mineral nutrition of legumes in tropical and
subtropical soils. Proc. of a workshop held at CSIRO. Cunningham Lab.
Brisbane, Australia.
Hernberg, S. 1977. Cancer and metal exposure, pp. 147-157. In_ H. H. Hiatt,
J. D. Watson, and J. A. Winston (eds.) Origins of human cancer. Book A.
Incidence of cancer in humans. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Hess, R. E. and R. W. Blanchar. 1977. Arsenic determination and As, Pb and
Cu content of Missouri soils. Research Bulletin No. 1020 University of
Missouri.
Hewitt, E. J. 1953. Metal interrelationships in plant nutrition. I. Effects
of some metal toxicities on sugar beet, tomato, oat, potato, and marrowstem
kale grown in sand culture. J. Exptl. Botany (London) 4:59-64.
Hill-Cottingham, P. G. and C. P. Lloyd-Jones. 1965. The behavior of iron
chelating agents with plants. J. Exp. Botany 16:233-242.
Hinesly, T. D., R. L. Jones, and E. L. Ziegler. 1972. Effects on corn by
applications of heated anaerobically digested sludge. Compost Sci.
13(4):26-30.
Hinesly, T. D., K. E. Redborg, E. L. Ziegler, and J. D. Alexander. 1982.
Effect of soil cation exchange capacity on the uptake of cadmium by corn.
Soil Sci. Am. J. 46:490-497.
Hock, W. K., L. R. Schreiber, and B. R. Roberts. 1970. Factors affecting
uptake concentration and persistence of benomyl in american elm seedlings.
Phytopathology 60(11):1619-1622.
Hodgson, J. F., W. L. Lindsay, and J. F. Trierweiler. 1966. Micronutrient
cation complexing in soil solution II. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
30:723-726.
Horak, 0. 1979. Investigations on lead uptake by plants. Bodenkultur
30:120-126.
Hsu, Pa Ho. 1977. Aluminum hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. pp. 99-143. In J.
B. Dixon and S. B. Weed (eds.) Minerals in the soil environment. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer., Madison, Wis.
Huddleston, R. L. 1979. Solid-waste disposal: landfarming. Chemical
Engineering, Feb. 26. pp. 119-124.
Huddleston, R. L. and R. C. Allred. 1967. Surface-active agents: biodegrad-
ability of detergents, pp. 343-370. In A. D. McLaren and G. H. Peterson
(eds.) Soil Biochemistry, Vol. 1. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, New York.
Humphrey, A. E. 1967. A critical review of hydrocarbon fermentations and
their industrial utilization. Biotech. Bioeng. 9.3-24.
340
-------
Hunter, J. V. and T. H. Kotalik. 1976. Chemical and biological quality of
treated sewage effluents, pp. 6-25. In W. E. Sopper and L. T. Kardos (eds.)
Recycling treated municipal wastewater and sludge through forest and
cropland. Penn. State Univ. Press, Univ. Park, Pennsylvania.
Hunter, J. G. and 0. Vergnano. 1953. Trace element toxicities in oat
plants. Anal. Appl. Biol. 40:761-777.
Hurd-Karrer, A. M. 1950. Comparative fluorine uptake by plants in turned
and unturned soil. Soil Sci. 70:153-159.
Hutchinson, F. E. and A. S. Hunter. 1970. Exchangeable Al levels in two
soils as related to lime treatment and growth of six crop species. Agron.
J. 62:702-04.
Hutton, E. M., W. T. Williams, and C. S. Andrews. 1978. Differential
tolerance to manganese introduced and breed lines of Macroptilium
atropurpureum. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29.67-79.
Hutton, J. T. 1977. Titanium and zirconium minerals, pp. 673-688. In J. B.
Dixon and S. B. Weed (eds.) Minerals in soil environments. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Madison, Wisconsin.
Irukayama, K. 1966. The pollution of Minamata Bay and Minamata disease.
Third International Conference on Water Pollution Research. Section 3,
Paper 8. 13 p.
Ito, H. and K. Iimura. 1976. Absorption of zinc and cadmium by rice plants,
and their influence on plant growth 1. Effect of zinc. J. Sci. Soil Manure.
Japan. 47(2):21-24.
Iwata, Y., W. E. Westlake, and F. A. Gunther. 1973. Varying persistence of
polychlorinated biphenyls in six California soils under laboratory
conditions. Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 9.204.
Jacobs, L. W., S. F. J. Chou, and J. M. Tiedje. 1976. Fate of polybromi-
nated biphenyls (PBBs) in soils: persistence and plant uptake. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 24:1198-1201.
Jacobs, L. W. and D. R. Keeney. 1970. Arsenic-phosphorus interactions of
corn. Commun. Soil Sci. PI. Analysis 1:85-93.
Jacobs, L. W., J. K. Syers, and D. R. Keeney. 1970. Arsenic adsorption by
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 34*750-753.
Jain, V. K. 1978. Studies on the effects of cadmium on the growth pattern
of Phaseolus aureus varieties. Journal of the Indian Botanical Society
57(Suppl.):84.
Jensen, V. 1975. Bacterial flora of soil after application of oily waste.
Oikos 26(2):152-158.
341
-------
Jobson, A., M. McLaughlin, F. D. Cook, and D. W. S. Westlake. 1974. Effects
of amendments on the microbial utilizatxon of oil applied to soil. Applied
Microbiology 27(1):166-171.
Joham, H. E. 1953. Accumulation and distribution of molybdenum in the
cotton plant. Plant Physiol. 28:275-280.
John, M. K. 1974. Wastewater renovation through soil percolation. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution 3-3-10.
John, M. K. 1977. Varietal response to lead by lettuce. Water, Air, and
Soil Pollution. 8(2):133-144.
Jonasson, I. R. and R. W. Boyle. 1971. Geochemistry of mercury, pp. 5-21.
]In Mercury in man's environment. Proc. Roy. Soc. Can. Symp., Ottawa,
Canada. February 15, 1971.
Jones, J. P. and R. L. Fox. 1978. Phosphorus nutrition of plants influenced
by manganese and aluminum uptake from an Oxisol. Soil. Sci.
126(4):230-236.
Jones, L. H. P. 1957. The solubility of molybdenum in simplified systems
and aqueous soil suspensions. J. Soil Sci. 8:313-327.
Jones, L. P. H., C. R. Clement, and M. J. Hopper. 1973. Lead uptake from
solution by perennial ryegrass and its transport from roots to shoots.
Plant and Soil 38:403-414.
Kamada, K. and K. Doki. 1977. Movement of Cr in submerged soil and growth
of rice plants. 2. Effect of two different soils and the addition of Fe
(II) on injury caused by Cr (IV). J. Sci. Soil Manure. (Japan).
48(11-12):457-465.
Karataglis, S. S. 1978. Studies on heavy metal tolerance in populations of
Anthoxanthum odoratum. Berichte der Deutcaen Botanischen Gesellschaft
91:205-216.
Kardos, L. T., W. E. Sopper, E. A. Meyers, R. R. Parizek, and J. B.
Nesbitt. 1974. Renovation of secondary effluent for use as a water
resource. EPA 660/2-74-016. PB 234-176/6BA.
Karickoff, S. W., D. S. Brown, and T. A. Scott. 1979. Sorption of hydro-
phobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res. 13:241-248.
Kearney, P. C. 1967. Influence of physiochemical properties of
biodegradability of phenylcarbonate herbicides. J. Agr. Food Chem.
15:568-571.
Keaton, C. M. and L. T. Kardos. 1940. Oxidation-reduction potentials of
arsenate-arsenite systems in sand and soil medium. Soil Sci. 50:189-207.
342
-------
Keefer, F. F., R. N. Singh, D. J. Horvath, and A. R. Khawaja. 1979. Heavy
metal availability to plants from sludge application. Compost Sci./Land
Utilization (May/June 1979). p. 31-34.
Kelling, K. A., D. R. Keeney, L. M. Walsh, and J. A. Ryan. 1977. A field
study of the agricultural use of sewage sludge. III. Effect on uptake and
extractability of sludge borne metals. J. Environ. Qual. 4(6).352-358.
Kelly, J. M., G. R. Parker, and W. W. McFee. 1979. Heavy metal accumulation
and growth of seedlings of five forest species as influenced by soil
cadmium level. J. Environ. Qual. 8(3):361-364.
Kensuke, F., K. Tonomura, and A. Kamebayashi. 1978. Effect of chlorine sub-
stitution on the biodgradability of polychlorinated biphenyls. Applied
Environ. Microbiol. 35:223-227.
Kerndorff, H. and M. Schnitzer. 1980. Sorption of metals on humic acid.
Geochimica at Cosmo Chimica Acta 44:1701-1708.
Kerridge, P. C., M. D. Dawson, and D. P. Moore. 1971. Separation of degrees
of tolerance in wheat. Agro. J. 63(4):586-591.
Keser, M., B. F. Neubauer, and F. E. Hutchinson. 1975. Influence of
aluminum ions on developmental morphology of sugarbeet roots. Agr. J.
67(1):84-88.
Keul, M., R. Andrei, G. Lazar-Keul, and R. Vintila. 1979. Accumulation and
effect of lead and cadmium on wheat (Triticum vulgare) and maize (Zea
mays). Studii si Cercetari de Biologie, Biologie Vegetala 31(1):49-54.
Khaleel, R., K. R. Reddy, and M. R. Overcash. 1980. Transport of potential
pollutants in runoff water from land areas receiving animal waste: a
review. Water Res. 14:421-436.
Kiigemagi, U., H. E. Morrison, J. E. Roberts, and W. B. Bollen. 1958.
Biological and chemical studies on the decline of soil insecticides. J.
Econ. Entomology 51:198-204.
Kincannon, C. B. 1972. Oily waste disposal by soil cultivation process.
EPA-R2-72-110, Washington, D.C.
King. L. D. 1981. Swine manure lagoon sludge and municipal sewage sludge on
growth, nitrogen recovery and heavy metal content of fescuegrass. J.
Environ. Qual. 10:465-472.
Kirkham, M. B. 1979. Trace elements, pp. 571-575. In R. W. Fairbridge and
C. W. Finkl, Jr. (eds). The encyclopedia of soil science. I. Dowden,
Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
Kishk, F. M. and M. N. Hassan. 1973. Sorption and desorption of copper by
and from clay minerals. Plant and Soil 39:497-505.
343
-------
Kissel, D. E., S. J. Smith, W. L. Hargrove, and D. W. Dillow. 1977.
Immobilization of fertilizer nitrate applied to a swelling clay soil in the
field. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. Vol. 41:346-349.
KLausner, S. D., P. J. Zwerman, and D. R. Coote. 1976. Design parameters
for the land application of dairy manure. Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Athens, Georgia.
EPA-600/2-76-187.
Klein, H., V. E. Jensch, and H. J. lager. 1979. Heavy metal uptake by maize
plants from soil contaminated with zinc, cadmium and copper oxide.
Angewandte Botanik 53.19-30.
Klimashevsky, E. L., Y. A. Markova, M. L. Bernatzkaya, and A. S. Malysheva.
1972. Physiological responses to aluminum toxicity in the root zone of pea
varieties. Agrochimia 16:487-96.
Kloke, A. and H. D. Schenke. 1979. The influence of cadmium in soil on
the yield of various plant species and their cadmium content. Zeitshrift
fur Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkunde 142(2):131-136.
Kloskowski, R., I. Scheunert, W. Klein, and F. Korte. 1981. Laboratory
screening of distribution, conversion, and mineralization of chemicals in
the soil-plant-system and comparison to outdoor experimental data.
Chemosphere 10(10):1089-1100.
Knowles, F. 1945. The poisoning of plants by zinc. Agri. Prog. 20:16-19.
Kolosov, I. I. 1962. Absorptive activity of root systems of plants. English
translation by Indian Scientific Documentation Centre, New Delhi, India.
Konstantinov, G., D. Kovachev, A. Penchev, I. Ermolaev, and M. Mirchev.
1974. Effect of fertilizer application on 137-cesium accumulation in
lucerne grown on a leached chernozem. Pochvoznanie' Agrokhimiya 9.34-38.
Kornegay, E. T., J. D. Hedges, D. C. Martens, and C. Y. Kramer. 1976.
Effect of soil and plant mineral levels following application of manures of
different copper contents. Plant and Soil 45.151-162.
Korte, N. E., J. Skogg, E. E. Niebla, and W. H. Fuller. 1975. A baseline
study on tract metal elution from diverse soil types. Water, Air and Soil
Pollution 5:149-156.
Kortkikh, T. A. and A. D. Repnikov. 1976. Enrichment of red clover hay with
cobalt applied at different rate and by different methods. Trudy, Permskiy
Sel'skokhozyaistvennyi Institue 120 25-29.
Kovda, V. A., B. N. Zolotareva, and I. T. Skripnichenko. 1979. The
biological reaction of plants to heavy metals in the substrate. Doklady
Akademii Nauk SSSR 247(3)'766-768.
344
-------
Krauskopf, K. B. 1972. Geochemistry of microutrients. pp. 7-40. In
Micronutrients in agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Kubota, J. 1977. Molybdenum status of U.S. soils and plants, pp. 557-579.
_In W. R. Chappell and K. K. Peterson (eds.) Molybdenum in the environment.
Vol 2. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Kubota, J., V. A. Lazar, and K. C. Beeson. 1960. The study of cobalt status
of soils in Arkansas and Louisiana, using the black gum as the indicator
plant. Soil Sci. Am. Proc. 24.527-528.
Kubota, J., E. R. Lemon, and W. H. Allaway. 1963. The effect of soil
moisture upon uptake of molybdenum, copper and cobalt by alsike clover.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27:679-683.
Labanauskas, C. K. 1966. Manganese, pp. 264-285. In H. D. Chapman (ed.)
Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. University of California,
Riverside, Division of Agricultural Sciences.
Lafond, A. and V. Laflamme. 1970. Relative concentrations of iron and
manganese, a factor affecting jack pine regeneration and black spruce
succession, pp. 305-312. Iii C. T. Youngberg and C. B. Davey (eds.) Proc.
Third N. Am. Forest Soils. Conf. North Carolina State U. Press.
Lagerwerff, J. V. 1972. Lead, mercury, cadmium as environmental
contaminants, pp. 593-636. In J. J. Mortvedt, P. M. Giordano and W. L.
Lindsay (eds.) Micronutrients in agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Lagerwerff, J. V., G. T. Strickland, R. P. Milberg, and D. L. Brower. 1977.
Effects of incubation and liming on yield and heavy metal uptake by rye
from sewage sludged soil. J. Environ. Qual. 6(4):427-430.
Lamoreaux, R. J., R. C. Strickland, and W. R. Chaney. 1978. The plastochron
index as applied to a cadmium toxicity study. Environ. Poll.
16(4):311-317.
Land, E. and L. Johnson. 1979. Surface active agents, pp. 237-276. In
Synthetic Organic Chemicals. U.S. International Trade Commission
Publication No. 1001 U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Lawrey, J. D. 1979. Boron, strontium, and barium accumulation in selected
plants and loss during leaf litter decomposition in areas influenced by
coal strip mining. Can. J. Bot. 57(8):933-940.
Lee, C. R. 1971. Influence of aluminum on plant growth and mineral
nutrition in potatoes. Agron. J. 63(4) 604-608.
Lee, H. L. 1975. Trace elements in animal production, pp. 39-54. In D. J.
D. Nicholas and A. R. Egam (eds.) Trace elements in soil-plant-animal
systems. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
345
-------
Leeper, G. W. 1978. Managing the heavy metals on the land. Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York.
Lees, H. 1951. Isolation of nitrifying organisms from soils. Nature.
167:(335).
Letey, J., J. F. Osborn, and N. Valoras. 1975. Soil water repellency and
the use of non-ionic surfactants. Contribution No. 154, California Water
Research Center, Riverside, California.
Lewis, T. E. and F. E. Broadbent. 1961. Soil organic matter complexes. 4.
Nature and properties of exchange sites. Soil Sci. 91:341-8.
Liebig, G. F. 1966. Arsenic, pp. 13-23. In H. D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. University of California, Riverside.
Lindsay, W. L. 1972. Inorganic phase equilibria of micronutrients in soils.
pp. 41-57. jCn_ Micronutrients in Agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Lindsay, W. L. 1979. Chemical equilibria in soils. John Wiley and Sons, New
York. 449 p.
Link, L. A. 1979. Critical pH for the expression of manganese toxicity on
burley tobacco and the effect of liming on growth. Tobacco International
181:50-52.
Lisk, D. J. 1972. Trace metals in soils, plants, and animals. Adv. Agron.
24:267-325.
Loehr, R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S.
Friedman. 1979a. Land application of wastes. Vol. I. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York. 308 p.
Loehr, R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S.
Friedman. 1979b. Land application of wastes. Vol. II. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York. 431 p.
Lohris, M. P. 1960. Effect of magnesium and calcium supply on the uptake of
manganese by various crop plants. Plant Soil 12:339-376.
Lott, W. L. 1938. The relation of hydrogen ion concentration to the
availability of zinc in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.>Proc. 3:115-121.
Lucis, 0. J., R. Lucis, and K. Aterman. 1972. Tumorigenesis by cadmium.
Oncology 26:53-67.
Lund, L. J., A. L. Page, and C. 0. Nelson. 1976. Nitrogen and phosphorus
levels in soils beneath sewage disposal ponds. J. Environ. Qual. 5:26-30.
Lundegardh, H. 1927. The importance in the development of plants of the
quanitites of zinc and lead added to the soil from smoke gases. Meddel.
Centalanst. Forsoksv. Jordbruksomsad (Sweden) 326.14.
346
-------
Luzzati, A. 1981. The effects of surfactants on plants. III. Field
experiments with potatoes, pp. 389-394. In M. R. Overcash (ed.)
Decomposition of toxic and non toxic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor Sci.
Publ. Co., Ann Arbor, Michigan 455 p.
Lyon, T. L. and J. A. Bizzell. 1934. A comparison of several legumes with
respect to nitrogen secretion. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 26.651-656.
MacLean, A. J. and A. J. Dekker. 1978. Availability of zinc, copper and
nickel to plants grown in sewage-treated soils. Can. J. Soil Sci.
58:381-389.
Maftoun, M. and B. Sheibany. 1979. Effect of fluorine content of irrigation
water on the growth of four plant species in relation to soil salinity.
Trop. Agr. 56(3):213-218.
Malaisse, F., J. Gregoire, R. R. Brooks, R. S. Morrison, and R. D. Reeves.
1978. Aeolanthus biformifolius: a hyperaccumulator of copper. Science
199:887-888.
Malone, C. P., R. J. Miller, and D. E. Koeppe. 1978. Root growth in corn
and soybeans: effects of cadmium and lead on lateral root initiation.
Canadian J. Botany 56:277-281.
Mancuso, T. F. 1970. Relation of duration of employment and prior
respiratory illness to respiratory cancer among beryllium workers. Environ.
Res. 3:251-275.
Mannucci, A. C. and R. Bartha. 1979. Biodegradation of 1,2,3- and 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene in soil and liquid enrichment culture. Applied and
Environ. Microbiol. 38(5).811-817.
Martin, J. P. 1966a. Bromine, pp. 62-64. 3|n H. D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. Division of Agricultural Sciences,
University of California, Riverside.
Martin, J. P. 1966b. Iodine, pp. 200-202. Ir± H. D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. Division of Agricultural Sciences,
University of California, Riverside.
Martin, J. P. and K. Haider. 1976. Decomposition of specifically carbon-
labelled ferulic acid free and linked into model humic acid type polymers.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour. 40(3):377-379.
Martin, J. P. and K. Haider. 1979. Biodegradation of l4C-labelled model
and cornstalk lignins, phenols, model phenolase humic polymers and fungal
melanins as influenced by a readily available carbon source and soil.
Applied and Environ. Microbiol. 38.(2):283-289.
Martin, J. P., G. K. Helmkomp, and J. 0. Ervin. 1956. Effect of bromide
from a soil fumigant and from CaBr2 on the growth and chemical
composition of citrus plants. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 20:209-212.
347
-------
Martin, J. P., J. J. Richards, and P. F. Pratt. 1964. Relationship of
exchangeable Na percentage at different soil pH levels to hydraulic
conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28:620-622.
Martin, R. P., P. Newbould, and R. S. Russell. 1958. Discrimination between
strontium and calcium in plant and soils. Radioisotope Sci. Res.
International Conference Proc. Paris, 1957. 4:173-190.
Mathers, A. C., B. A. Stewart, J. D. Thomas, and B. J. Blair. 1973. Effects
of cattle feedlot manures on crop yields and soil conditions. Agr. Res.
Ser. USDA. Bushland, Texas. Tech. Report 11.
McCalla, T. M. and T. J. Army. 1961. Stubble mulch farming. Adv. Agron.
13:125-196.
McCaskey, T. A., G. H. Rollins, and J. A. Little. 1971. Water quality of
runoff from grassland applied with liquid, semiliquid and dairy dry waste.
pp. 44-47. In Livestock waste management and pollution abatement. ASAE
Proc. 271.
McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. State Water
Quality Publication, No. 3-1. California.
McKenzie, R. M. 1975. The mineralogy and chemistry of soil cobalt, pp.
83-93. JEri D. J. D. Nicholas and A. R. Egan (eds.) Trace Elements in
soil-plant-animal systems. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
McLaren, R. G. and D. V. Crawford. 1973. Studies on soil copper II. The
specific adsorption of copper by soils. J. Soil Sci. 24:443-452.
Medvedev, V. A. and V. D. Davidov. 1981. The transformation of various coke
industry products in chernozem soil. pp. 245-254. In M. R. Overcash (ed.)
Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor
Science Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Medvedev, V. A, V. D. Davidov, and S. G. Mavrodii. 1981. Decomposition of
high doses of phenol and indole by a chernozem soil. pp. 201-205. Iii M. R.
Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in
soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Meijer, C. and M. A. J. Goldewaagen. 1940. A case of zinc poisoning due to
galvanized from sheeting. Landbouwk. Tkidschr. 52:17-19.
Melsted, S. W. 1973. Soil-plant relationships p. 121-129. In Proc.
recycling municipal sludges and effluents on land. Proceedings from
conference in Champaign, Illinois. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Mengel, S. K. and E. A. Kirkby. 1978. Principles of plant nutrition.
International Potash Institute, Bern.
348
-------
Metcalf, R., J. R. Sanborn, P. Lu, and D. Nye. 1975. Laboratory model
ecosystem studies of the degradation and fate of radiolabeled tri-, tetra-,
and penta-chlorobiphenyl compared to DDE. Archives of Environ. Contam. and
Toxicology. 3(2):151-165.
Miles, J. R. W., B. T. Bowman, and C. R. Harris. 1981. Adsorption,
desorption, soil mobility and aqueous persistence of fensulfothion and its
sulfide and sulfone metabolites. J. Env. Sci. Health B16(3):309-324.
Miles, L. J. and G. R. Parker. 1979. The effect of soil-added cadmium on
several plant species. J. Environ. Qual. 8(2):229-232.
Miller, J. E., J. J. Hassett, and D. E. Koeppe. 1976. Uptake of cadmium by
soybeans as influenced by soil cation exchange capacity, pH, and available
phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual. 5(2):157-160.
Miller, J. E., J. J. Hassett, and D. E. Koeppe. 1977. Interaction of lead
and cadmium on metal uptake and growth of corn plants. J. Environ. Qual.
6:18-20.
Millikan, C. R. 1938. A preliminary note on the relation of zinc to disease
in cereals. J. Dept. Agr. Victoria. 36:409-416.
Millikan, C. R. 1946. Zinc deficiency in flax. J. Dept. Agr. Victoria.
44:69-88.
Millman, A. P. 1957. Biogeochemical investigations in areas of copper-tin
mineralization in southwest England. Geochim. Commochim. Acta. 12:85-93.
Mills, H. A., A. V. Barker, and D. N. Maynard. 1974. Ammonia volatilization
from soil. Agron. J. 66:355-358.
Milner, J. E. 1969. The effect of ingested arsenic on methylcholanthre
induced skin tumors in mice. Arch. Environ. Health 18:7-11.
Minshall, N. E., S. A. Witzel, and M. S. Nichols. 1970. Stream enrichment
from farm operations. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. J. Sanitary Eng. Div.
96(SA2):513-524.
Mistry, K. B. and B. M. Bhujbal. 1974. Effect of calcium and organic matter
addition on the uptake or radiostrontium and radium by plants from Indian
soils. Agrochemica 18:173-183.
Mitchell, G. A., F. T. Bingham, and A. L. Page. 1978. Yield and metal
composition of lettuce and wheat grown on soils amended with sewage sludge
enriched with cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc. J. Environ. Qual.
7(2):165-171.
Miyamoto, S. 1979. Fundamentals of salt management: recent development and
challenges, pp. 181-202. ^11 Proceedings of the interamerican conference on
salinity and water management technology. Texas A&M University Research
Center, El Paso, Texas. December 1979.
349
-------
Moein, G. J., A. J. Smith, Jr., and P. L. Stewart. 1976. Follow up study of
distribution and fate of PCB's and benzenes in soil and groundwater samples
after an accidental spill of transformer fluid, pp. 368-372. In Proceedings
of 1976 National Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills.
Rockville, Maryland.
Moore, A. W. 1966. Non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation in soil and soil-plant
systems. Soils and Fertilizers 29:113-128.
Moore, D. P. 1972. Mechanisms of micronutrient uptake by plants, pp.
171-198. In J. J. Mortvedt, P. M. Giordano and W. L. Lindsay (eds.)
Micronutrients in agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wis.
Morrill, L. G., B. C. Mahilum, and S. H. Mohiuddin. 1982. Organic compounds
in soil: sorption, degradation and persistence. Ann Arbor Science Publ.
Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Morrison, R. T. and R. N. Boyd. 1975. Organic chemistry. Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., Boston.
Moucawi J., E. Fustec, P. Jambu, A. Amblfs, and R. Jacquesy. 1981.
Biooxidation of added and natural hydrocarbons in soils, effects of iron.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 13.335-342.
Moza, P., I. Weisgerber, and W. Klein. 1976. Fate of 2,2'-dichlorodiphenyl-
^C in carrots, sugarbeets and soil under outdoor conditions. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 24(4):881-885.
Moza, P. N., I. Scheunert, W. Klein, and F. Korte. 1979. Long-term uptake
of lower chlorinated biphenyls and their conversion products by spruce
trees from soil treated with sewage sludge. Chemosphere 6:373-375.
Mrozek, E. Jr., E. D. Seneca and L. L. Hobbs. 1982. Polychlorinated
biphenyl uptake and translation by Spartina Alterniflora Loisel. Water, Air
and Soil Pollution. 17:3-15.
Mukherji, S. and B. K. Roy. 1977. Toxic effects of chromium on germinating
seedlings and potato tuber slices. Biochemie and Physiologie der Pfanzen.
171(3):235-238.
Mulder, E. G. 1954. Mo in relation to growth of higher plants and
microorganisms. Plant and Soil 5:368-415.
Murphy, L. S. and L. M. Walsh. 1972. Correction of micronutrient
deficiencies with fertilizers, pp. 347-381. In J. J. Mortvedt, P. M.
Giordano and W. L. Lindsay (eds.) Micronutrients in Agriculture. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am., Madison, Wis.
Murrmann, R. P. and F. R. Kountz. 1972. Role of soil chemical processes in
reclamation of wastewater applied to land. pp. 48-74. In Wastewater
management by disposal on land. Spec. Rept. No. 171. U.S. Army Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Lab, Hanover, New Hampshire.
350
-------
Nathwani, J. S. and C. R. Phillips. 1977. Adsorption-desorption of selected
hydrocarbons in crude oil on soils. Chemosphere 6(4).157-162.
Nathwani, J. S. and C. R. Phillips. 1978. Rates of leaching for radium from
contaminated soils an experimental investigation of radium bearing soils
from Port Hope, Ontario. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 9:453-465.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Mineral tolerance of domestic animals.
By Subcommitte on Animal Nutrition, Board on Agriculture and Renewable
Resources. Commission on Natural Resources., National Research Council.
Washington, D.C.
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. 1972.
Water quality and criteria. A report of the Committee on Water Quality
Criteria, Environmental Studies Board. EPA R3-73-033. March, 1973.
PB 236-199/6BA.
National Research Council. 1973. Medical and biological effects of
environmental pollutants, manganese. National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, D.C. p. 1-191.
Newton, H. P. and S. J. Toth. 1952. Response of crop plants to I and Br.
Soil Sci. 72 127-134.
Nissen, P. 1974. Uptake mechanisms, inorganic and organic. Ann. Rev. of
Plant Physiology 25:53-79.
Nissen, T. V. 1981. Stability of PCB in the soil. VIII. pp. 79-87. In M. R.
Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in
soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Nommik, H. 1965. Ammonium fixation and other reactions involving a
nonenzymatic immobilization of mineral nitrogen in soil. pp. 198-258. In
Soil Nitrogen. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin.
Norseth, T. 1977. Industrial viewpoints on cancer caused by metals as an
occupational disease, pp. 159-167. In H. H. Hiatt, J. D. Watson, and J. A.
Winsten (eds.) Origins of human cancer. Book A. Incidence of cancer in
humans. Colo. Spring Harbor Laboratory.
O'Donovan, J. T. and W. H. Vanden Born. 1981. A microauto radiographic
study of ^-^C-labelled picloram distribution in soybean following
uptake. Canadian Jour, of Botany 59(19).1928-1931.
Olsen, S. R. 1972. Micronutrient interactions, p. 243-264. In
Micronutrients in agriculture Ed. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Inc., Madison,
Wisconsin.
Otsuka, K. and T. Morizaki. 1969. Aluminum and manganese toxicities of
plants. J. Sci. Soil and Manure (Japan) 40.250-254.
351
9
-------
Overcash, M. R. and D. Pal. 1979. Design of land treatment systems for
industrial wastes—theory and practice. Ann Arbor Science. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Page, A. L. 1974. Fate and effects of trace elements in sewage sludge when
applied to agricultural lands. National Environ. Res. Center. Cincinnati,
Ohio. EPA 670/2-74-005. PB 231-171/OBA.
Page, A. L., F. T. Bingham, and C. Nelson. 1972. Cadmium adsorption and
growth of various plant species as influenced by solution cadmium
concentration. J. Environ. Qual. 1:288-291.
Paivoke, A. 1979. The effects of lead and arsenate on the growth and acid
phosphatase activity of pea seedlings. Annales Botanici Fennici 16.18-27.
Patterson, J. B. E. 1971. Metal toxicities arising from industry, pp.
193-207. In Trace elements in soils and crops. Great Brit. Ministry of
Agric., Fisheries, and Food Tech. Bull. 21. Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, London.
Pearson, G. A. 1960. Tolerance of crops to exchangeable sodium. USDA
Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 216. Washington, B.C.
Perlstein, M. A. and R. Attala. 1966. Neurological sequelae of plumbism in
children. Clin. Pediatr. 5:292.
Perry, H. M. and A. Yunice. 1965. Acute pressor effects of intraarterial
cadmium and mercuric ions in anesthesized rats. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med.
120:805.
Perry, J. J. and C. E. Cerniglia. 1973. Studies on the degradation of
petroleum hydrocarbons by filamentous fungi. In D. G. Ahearn and S. P.
Meyers (eds.) Microbial degradation of oil pollutants. Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Peterson P. J. and B. J. Alloway. 1979. Cadmium in soils and vegetation.
pp. 45-92. JCn M. Webb (ed.) the chemistry, biochemistry and biology of
cadmium. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press. Amsterdam.
Peterson, P. J. and G. W. Butler. 1962. The uptake and assimilation of
selenite by higher plants. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 15.126-146.
Peterson, P. J., M. A. S. Burton, M. Gregson, S. M. Nye, and E. K. Porter.
1976. Tin in plants and surface waters in Malaysian ecosystems. Trace
Subst. Environ. Health 10:123-132.
Petrilli, F. L. and S. DeFlora. 1977. Toxicity and mutagenicity of
hexavalent chromium on Salmonella typhimurium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
33:805-809.
352
-------
Pinkerton, B. W. 1982. Plant accumulation of cobalt from soils with
artificially elevated cobalt levels. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M Univ.,
Univ. Microfilms. College Station, Texas.
Plewa, M. J. 1978. Activiation of chemicals into mutagens by green plants:
a preliminary discussion. Environ. Health Perspec. 27:45-50.
Plice, M. J. 1948. Some effects of crude petroleum on soil fertility. Soil
Science Soc. of Am. Proc. 13.413-416.
Pound, C. E. and R. W. Curtis. 1973. Characteristics of municipal
effluents, pp. 49-61. In Recycling municipal sludges and effluents on
land. Nat. Assoc. State Univ. and Land Grant Colleges. Washington, D.C.
Pratt, P. F. 1966a. Aluminum, pp. 3-12. In H. D .Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. University of California, Riverside.
Pratt, P. F. 1966b. Chromium, pp. 136-141. In H. D. Chapman (ed.)
Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. University of California,
Riverside.
Pratt, P. F. 1966c. Titanium, pp. 448-449. In H. D. Chapman (ed.)
Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. University of California,
Riverside.
Pratt, P. F. 1966d. Vanadium, pp. 480-483. In H. D. Chapman (ed.)
Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. University of California,
Riverside.
Pratt, P. F. 1966e. Zirconium, pp. 400. In H. D. Chapman, Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. University of California, Riverside.
Pratt, P. F., F. E. Broadbent, and J. P. Martin. 1973. Using organic wastes
as nitrogen fertilizers. Calif. Agr. 27(6).10-13.
Pratt, P. F. and S. Davis. Unpublished data. University of California and
USDA-ARS, Riverside, California.
Prausse, A., K. Schmidt, and W. Bergmann. 1972. Excess Mn in Thuringian
acid soils and its effect on the" yield and quality of potatoes and spring
barley. Archiv fur Bodenfruchtbarkeit und Pflanzen produktion 16:483-494.
Purvis, D. and E. J. MacKenzie. 1973. Effects of application of municipal
compost on uptake of copper, zinc, and boron by garden vegetables. Plant
and Soil 35:361-371.
Quimby, P. C., Jr., K. E. Frick, R. D. Wauchope, and S. H. Kay. 1979.
Effects of cadmium on two biocontrol insects and their host weeds. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22(3) 371-378.
Raghi-Atri, F. 1978. Influence of heavy metals in the substate on Glyceria
maxima. Blei Angewandte Botanik 52 185-192.
353
-------
Rains, D. W., W. E. Schmid, and R. Epstein. 1964. Adsorption of cations by
roots. Effects of hydrogen ions and essential role of calcium. Plant
Phsyiol. 39:274-278.
Rauser, W. E. 1978. Early effects of phytotoxic burdens of cadmium, cobalt,
nickel, and zinc in white beans. Can. J. Bot. 56:1744-1749.
Raymond, R. L., J. P. Hudson, and V. W. Jamison. 1976. Oil degradation in
soil. Applied Environ. Microbiol. 31(4):522-535.
Reddy, K. R., R. Khaleel, M. R. Overcash, and P. W. Westerman. 1979.
Phosphorous - a potential nonpoint source pollution problem in the land
areas receiving long-term application of wastes. In Best management
practices for agriculture and silviculture. Ann Arbor Science, Inc., Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Reeves, A. L. and A. J. Vorwald. 1967. Beryllium carcinogenesis. II.
Pulmonary deposition and clearance of inhaled beryllium sulfate in the rat.
Cancer Res. 27.446-451.
Rehab, F. I. and A. Wallace. 1978a. Excess trace element effects on cotton.
2. Copper, zinc, cobalt and manganese in Yolo loam soil. Comm. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 9:519-527.
Rehab, F. I. and A. Wallace. 1978b. Excess trace metal effect on cotton: 3.
Chromium and lithium in solution culture. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
9:637-644.
Rehab, F. I. and A. Wallace. 1978c. Excess trace metal effects on cotton:
4. Chromium and lithium in Yolo loam soil. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
9:645-651.
Rehab, F. I. and A. Wallace. 1978d. Excess trace metal effects on cotton:
5. Nickel and cadmium in solution culture. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
9:771-778.
Rehab, F. I. and A. Wallace. 1978e. Excess trace metal effects on cotton:
6. Nickel and cadmium in Yolo loam soil. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
9:779-784.
Reimers, R. S. and P. A. Krenkel. 1974. Sediment sorption phenomena. CRC
Critical Rev. Environ. Control 4:265.
Reisenauer, H. M. 1960. Cobalt in nitrogen fixation in a legume. Nature
186:375-376.
Reisenauer, H. M., A. A. Tabikh, and P. R. Stout. 1962. Molybdenum
reactions with soils and the hydrous oxides of iron, aluminum and titanium.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 26.23-27.
354
-------
Rhodes, J. D. 1974. Drainage for salinity control. In J. Van Schilfgaarde
(ed.) Drainage for agriculture. ASA No. 17 Am. Soc. of Agron. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Richards, F. J. 1941. Physiological studies in plant nutrient. Ann. Bot.
(N.S.) 5:263-296.
Rickles, E. L., N. G. Brink, P. R. Koniuszy, I. R. Wood, and K. Folkers.
1948. Crystalline vitamin B12« Science 107:396-397.
Roberts, P. V. and A. J. Valocchi. 1981. Principles of Organic Contaminant
Behavior During Artificial Recharge. The Science of the Total Environment
21-161-172.
Robinson, W. 0., H. W. Lakin, and L. E. Reichen. 1947. Zinc content of
plants on Friedensville zinc slime ponds in relation to biochemical
prospecting. Econ. Geol. 42:572-583.
Rolfe, G. T. and F. A. Bazzar. 1975. Effect of lead contamination on
transpiration and photosynthesis of loblolly pine and autumn olive. Forest
Sci. 21:33-35.
Romney, E. M. and J. D. Childress. 1965. Effects of beryllium in plants and
soil. Soil Sci. 100.210-217.
Romney, E. M., A. Wallace, and G. V. Alexander. 1975. Response of bush bean
and barley to tin applied to soil and to solution culture. Plant and Soil
42:585-589.
Ross, D. S., R. E. Sjogren, and R. J. Bartlett. 1981. Behavior of chromium
in soils: IV Toxicity to microorganisms. J. Environ. Qual. 10:145-148.
Rouchaud, J. and J. A. Meyer. 1982. New trends in the studies about the
metabolism of pesticides in plants. Residue Reviews 82:1-35.
Rovira, A. D. and C. B. Davey. 1971. Biology of the rhizosphere. In. E. W.
Carson (ed.) The plant root and its environment. University Press of Vir-
ginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Rudolfs, W. (ed.). 1950. Review of literature on toxic materials affecting
sewage treatment processes, streams and B.O.D. determinations. Sew. Ind.
Wastes 22:1157-1191.
Russell, E. W. 1973. Soil conditions and plant growth, 10th ed. Longman
Group Limited, London. 849 p.
Russell, R. S. and K. A. Smith. 1966. Naturally occurring radioactive
substances the uranium and thorium series. In R. S. Russell and K. A.
Smith (eds.) Radioactivity and human diet. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
355
-------
Russo, F. and E. Brennan. 1979. Phytotoxicity and distribution of cadmium
in pin oak seedlings determined by mode of entry. Forest Science
25(2):328-332.
Ryan, J. A. and D. R. Keeney. 1975. Ammonia volatilization from surface
applied waste water sludge. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 47:386-393.
Ryden, J. C. and P. F. Pratt. 1980. Phosphorus removal from wastewater
applied to land. Hilgardia 48:1-36.
Ryden, J. G. and J. K. Syers. 1975. Use of tephra for the removal of
dissolved inorganic phosphate from sewage effluent. New Zeal. J. Sci.
18:3-16.
Saito, Y. and K. Takahashi. 1975. Studies in heavy metal pollution in
agricultural land. 4. Cadmium adsorption and translocation in rice
seedlings as affected by the nutritional status and co-existence of the
other heavy metal. Bull. Shikoku Agr. Exp. Sta. No. 31:111-131.
Sauchelli, V. 1969. Trace elements in agriculture. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York. 248 p.
Sawhney, B. L. and D. E. Hill. 1975. Phosphate sorption characteristics of
soils treated with domestic waste water. J. Environ. Qual. 4:342-346.
Sax, N. I. 1979. Dangerous properties of industrial materials. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Schaeffer, C. C., A. M. Decker, and R. L. Chaney. 1975. Effects of soil
temperature and sludge application on the heavy metal content of corn.
Agron. Abstr. (In Press).
Schaeffer, C. C., A. M. Decker, R. L. Chaney, and L. W. Douglass. 1979.
Soil temperature and sewage sludge effects on metals in crop tissue and
soils. J. Environ. Qual. 8(4).455-459.
Scharpenseel. H. W., B. K. G. Theng and S. Stephan. 1978. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (^C) in soils: adsorption, infiltration, translocation and
decomposition. Chapter 50. JEn W. E. Krumbein (ed.) Environmental biogeo-
chemistry and geomicrobiology, Vol. 2* The terrestrial environment. Ann
Arbor Science Publ. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Schneider, P. W. 1976. The chemistry and biological nitrogen fixation, pp.
197-204. 3In H. Sigel (ed.) Metal ions in biological systems. John Wiley and
Sons, N.Y.
Schwendinger, R. B. 1968. Reclamation of soil contaminated with oil. J.
Institute Petrol. 54:182-192.
Scott, M. L. 1972. Trace elements in animal nutrient, pp. 555-592. In J. J.
Mortvedt, P. M. Giordano, and W. L. Lindsay (eds.) Micronutrients in
agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Inc., Madison, Wisconsin.
356
-------
Scott, H. D., D. C. Wolf, and T. L. Lavy. 1982. Apparent adsorption and
mlcrobial degradation of phenol by soil. J. Env. Qual. 11(1):107-112.
Sebastian!, L. A., A. Borgioli, and A. D. Simonetti. 1981. Behavior of
synthetic detergents in the soil. Movement of hard detergents in the soil.
pp. 333-347. In M. R. Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic
organic chemicals in soils.
Sekerka, V. 1977. Influence of copper on growth and mitotic activity on the
cells in the apical meristems of the horse bean (Vicia faba L.). Acta
Facultis Rerum Naterallium Universitis Comenianae, Physiologia Plantarum
14:1-16.
Sherman, G. D. 1952. The titanium content of Hawaiian soils and its
significance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 16:15-18.
Shone, M. G~. T., D. T. Clarkson, J. Sanderson, and A. V. Wood. 1972. A com-
parison of the uptake of some organic molecules and ions in higher plants.
pp. 571-583. In W. P. Anderson (ed.) Ion Transport in Plants. Academic
Press, New York.
Shukla, V. C. and K. G. Prasad. 1973. Forms and distribution of lithium,
boron, and fluorine in some chernozem soils of Haryana. Indian J. Hort.
Sci. 43.934-937.
Siegel, F. R. 1974. Applied geochemistry. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Silva, S. and B. Beghi. 1979. The use of chromium containing organic
manures in rice fields. Riso 28(2):105-113.
Simola, L. K. 1977. The tolerance of Sphagnum fimbriatum towards lead and
cadmium. Annales Botanici Fennia 14:1-5.
Simon, A., F. W. Cradock, and A. W. Hudson. 1974. The development of
manganese toxicity in pasture legumes under extreme climatic conditions.
Plant and Soil 41:129-140.
Singh, M. and N. Singh. 1978. Selenium toxicity on plants and its
detoxification by phosphorus. Soil Sci. 125(5):255-262.
Smelt, J. H. 1981. Behavior of quintozene and hexachlorobenzene in the soil
and their absorption in crops, pp.3-14. In M. R. Overcash (ed.)
Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor
Science Publ., Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Smith, C. 1982. The influence of anions on soil sorption and plant uptake
of molybdenum. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M Univ., Univ. Microfilms, College
Station, Texas.
Smith, I. C., B. L. Carson, and T. L. Ferguson. 1978. Trace metals in the
environment, vol. 4 - palladium and osmium. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
357
-------
Sparling, G. P., B. G. Ord, and D. Vaughan. 1981. Changes in microbial
biomass and activity in soils amended with phenolic acids. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 13:455-460.
Spencer, W. F. and W. J. Farmer. 1980. Assessment of the vapor behavior of
toxic organic chemicals, pp. 143-161. JLa Rizwanul Haque (ed.) Dynamics,
exposure, and hazard assessment of toxic chemicals. Ann Arbor Science
Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Soane, B. D. and D. H. Saunders. 1959. Nickel and chromium toxicity of
serpentine soils in southern Rhodesia. Soil Sci. 88:322-330.
Sommers, L. E. 1977. Chemical composition of sewages and analysis of their
potential use as fertilizers. J. Environ. Qual. 6(2).225-232.
Sommers, L. E. and D. W. Nelson. 1976. Analyses and their interpretation
for sludge application to agricultural land. pp. 3.1-3.7. In B. D. Knezek
and R. H. Miller (eds.) Application of sludges and wastewaters on
agricultural land; a planning educational guide. N. Ctr. Reg. Res. Pub.
235. Ohio Agr. Res. Division Ctr. Reg. Bull. 1090. Wooster, Ohio.
Sorteberg, A. 1978. Effects of some heavy metals on oats in pot experiments
with three different soil types. J. Sci. Ag. Soc. Finland 50:317-334.
Spencer, E. L. 1937. Renching of tobacco and thallium toxicity. Am. J. Bot.
24:16-24.
Stace, H. C. T., G. D. Hubble, R. Brewer, K. H. Northcote, J. R. Sleeman,
M. J. Mulcahy, and E. G. Hallsworth. 1968. A handbook of Australian soils.
Rellim Technical Publications. Adelaide, South Australia.
Staker, E. V. 1942. Progress report on the control of Zn toxicity in peat
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 7:387-392.
Steevens, D. R., L. M. Walsh, and D. R. Keeney. 1972. Arsenic residues in
soil and potatoes from Wisconsin, potato fields. Pesticides Monitoring J.
6:89-90.
Stelmach, Z. 1958. Bromine retention in some soils and uptake of bromine by
plants after soil fumigation. Soil Sci. 88:61-66.
Stewart, D. K. R. and K. G. Cairns. 1974. Endosulfan persistence in soil
and uptake by potato tubers. J. Agr. Food Chem., Vol. 22. pp. 984-986.
Stipes, R. J. and D. R. Oderwald. 1971. Dutch elm disease: control with
soil-injected fungicides and surfactants. (Abstract) Phytopathology 61(8).
913.
Stout, P. R. and W. R. Meagher. 1948. Studies of Mo nutrition of plants
with radioactive molybdenum. Science 108:471-473.
358
-------
Stout, P. R., W. R. Meagher, G. A. Pearson, and C. M. Johnson. 1951.
Molybdenum nutrition in croplands. Plant and Soil 3:51-87.
Stover, R. L., L. E. Sommers, and D. T. Silviera. 1976. Evaluation of
metals in wastewater sludge. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 48:2165-2175.
Street, J. J., W. L. Lindsay and B, R. Sabey. 1977. J. Environ. Qual.
6:72-77.
Stucky, D. J. and T. S. Newman. 1977. Effect of dried anaerobically
digested sewage sludge on yield and element accumulation in tall fescue and
alfalfa. J. Environ. Qual. 6(3):271-273.
Subbarao, Y. V. and R. Ellis. 1977. Determination of kinetics of phosphorus
mineralizaiton in soils under oxidizing conditions. Ada, Oklahoma. EPA
600/2-77-180. PB 272-594/3BE.
Sunderman, F. W. 1977. Metal carcinogenesis. pp. 257-296. In R. A. Goyer
and M. A. Mehlman (eds.) Toxicology of trace elements. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Sunderman, F. W. and A. J. Donnelly. 1965. Studies of nickel
carcinogenesis. Metastasizing pulmonary tumors in rats induced by
inhalation of nickel carbonyl. Amer. J. Path. 46:1027-1041.
Sunderman, F. W. and E. Mastromatteo. 1975. Nickel carcinogenesis. In F. W.
Sunderman, F. Coulston, G. L. Eichorn, J. A. Fellows, E. Mastromatteo, H.
T. Reno, and M. H. Sanuitz (eds.) Nickel. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
i
Sung, M. W. and H. J. Young. 1977. Effects of various anions on absorption
and toxicity of lead in plants. Korean J. Botany 20:7-14.
Swaine, D. J. 1955. Trace element content of soils. Commonwealth Bur. Soil
Sci. Tech. Comm. No. 48. Herald Printing, York, England.
Takkar, P. N. and M. S. Mann. 1978. Toxic levels of soil and plant zinc for
maize and wheat. Plant and Soil 49(3):667-669.
Taskayev, A. I., V. Y. Ovchevov, R. M. Neksakhin, and I. I. Shok Tomora.
1977. Uptake of Ra^26 -fry plants and changes in its state in the
soil-plant top-litterfall system. Soviet Soil Sci. 9:79-85.
Taylor, S. A. and G. L. Ashcroft. 1972. Physical edaphology. W. H. Freeman
and Co., San Francisco, California.
Teakle, L. J. H. and I. Thomas. 1939. Recent experiments with 'minor'
elements in Western Australia. IV. The effect of 'minor' elements on growth
of wheat in other parts of the state. J. Dept. Agr. W. Australia
16:143-147.
Tepper, L. B. 1972. Beryllium. CRC critial reviews in toxicology 1:235.
359
-------
Tiller, K. G. and J. R. Hodgson. 1960. The specific sorption of cobalt and
zinc by layer silicates. Clays and Clay Min. 11:393-403.
Tisdale, S. L. and W. L. Nelson. 1975. Soil fertility and fertilizers. 3rd
ed. MacMillan Publ. Co., New York.
Tofflemire, T. J. and M. Chen. 1977. Phosphate removal by sands and soils.
p. 154. Iii R. C. Loehr (ed.) Land as a waste management alternative. Proc.
of the 1976 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conf. Ann Arbor Science
Publ. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Toivonen, P. M. A. and G. Hofstra. 1979. The interaction of copper and
sulfur dioxide in plant injury. Canad. J. Plant. Sci. 59:475-479.
Tokuoka, M. and S. Gyo. 1940. The effect of zinc on the growth of wheat. J.
Sci. Soil Manure, Nippon 14:587-596.
Tomson, M. B., J. Dauchy, S. Hutchins, C. Curran, C. J. Cook, and C. H.
Ward. 1981. Groundwater contamination by trace level organics from a rapid
infiltration site. Water Research 15:1109-1116.
Travis, C. C. and E. L. Etnier. 1981. A survey of sorption relationships
for reactive solutes in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 10.8-17.
Trelease, S. F. and 0. A. Beath. 1949. Selenium. Published by authors. New
York.
Tsuchiya, K. 1978. Cadmium studies in Japan: A review. Elsevier/North-
Holland Biomedical Press, N.Y.
Turner, M. A. and R. H. Rust. 1971. Effects of chromium on growth and
mineral nutrition of soya beans. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35.755-758.
Turner, W. W. (ed.) 1965. Drugs and poisons. Jurisprudence Publishers, Inc.
Rochester, New York.
Underwood, E. J. 1971. Trace elements in human and animal nutrition. 3rd
ed. Academic Press, New York.
USDA. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. L. A.
Richards (ed.) USDA Handbook No. 60. Washington, D.C.
Vallentine, J. F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Brigham Young
Univ. Press. Provo, Utah. 516 p.
Valoras N., J. Letey, J. P. Martin, and J. Osborn. 1976. Degradation of a
nonionic surfactant in soils and peat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jour.
40(l):60-63.
Van Beekom, C. W. C., C. van den Berg, T. A. deBoer, W. H. van den Mulen,
B. Verhoeven, J. J. Westerhof, and A. J. Zuvr. 1953. Reclaiming land
flooded with salt water. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 1(3):153-163, 1(4).225-244.
360
-------
Van Dam, J. G. C. 1955 Examination of soils and crops after the innundation
of February 1953. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 2:242-253.
Vandoni M. V. and F. L. Goldberg. 1981. Synthetic detergents behavior in
agricultural soil. Chapter 41. In M. R. Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of
toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ.,
Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Van Loon, J. C. 1974. Mercury contamination of vegetation due to the
application of sewage sludge as a fertilizer. Environ. Letters 6.211-218.
Vanselow, A. P. 1966a. Barium pp. 142-156. In H. D. Chapman (ed.)
Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. University of California,
Riverside.
Vanselow, A. P. 1966b. Cobalt, pp. 142-156. In H. D. Chapman (ed.)
Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. University of California,
Riverside,
Vanselow, A. P. 1966c. Nickel, pp. 302-309. JEn H. D. Chapman (ed.)
Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. University of California,
Riverside.
Vanselow, A. P. 1966d. Strontium, p. 763. In_ H. D. Chapman (ed.) Diagnostic
criteria for plants and soils. University of California, Riverside.
Velly, J. 1974. Observations on the acidification of some soils in
Madagascar. Agronomie Tropicale 29(12):1248-1262.
Vlek, P. L. G. and W. L. Lindsay. 1977. Molybdenum contamination in
Colorado pastures. JEn W. R. Chappell and K. K. Peterson (eds.) Molybdenum
in the environment. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Voelcker, J. A. 1913. Pot culture experiments. J. Royal Agr. Soc. (England)
74:411-422.
Vollanweider, R. H. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of
lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference to nitrogen and
phosphorus as factors in eutrophication. OED, DAS/CS 1-68-27. p. 159.
Vostal, J. J., E. Taves, J. W. Sayre, and E. Charney. 1974. Lead analysis
of house dust: a method for the detection of another source of lead
exposure in inner city children. Environ. Health Perpect. 7 91-97.
Wainwright, S. J. and H. W. Woolhouse. 1975. Physiological mechanisms of
heavy metal tolerance in plants, pp. 231-257. In M. J. Chadwick and G. T.
Goodman (eds.). The ecology of resource degradation and renewal. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Walker, A. 1971. Effects of soil moisture content on the availability of
soil applied herbicides to plants. Pesticide Science 2.56-59.
361
-------
Walker, T. W. 1956. Fate of labeled nitrate and ammonium nitrogen when
applied to grass and clover grown separately and together. Soil Science
81:339-352.
Wallace, A., E. M. Romney, J. W. Cha, and F. M. Chaudhry. 1977. Lithium
toxicity in plants. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 8:773-780.
Wallace, A., E. M. Romney. R. T. Mueller, Sr., and S. M. Soufi. 1981. Plant
uptake and transport of 2^1Am. Soil Science 132(1):114-119.
Wallace, A., S. M. Soufi, J. W. Cha, and E. M. Romney. 1976. Some effects
of Cr toxicity on bush bean plants grown in soil. Plant and Soil.
2(44):471-473.
Wallihan, E. F., R. G. Sharpless, and W. L. Printy. 1978. Cumulative toxic
effects of boron, lithium, and sodium in water used for hydroponic
production of tomatoes. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103:14-16.
Wallnofer, P., M. Koniger, and G. Engelhardt. 1981. The behavior of
xenobiotic chlorinated hydrocarbons (HCB and PCBs) in cultivated plants.
XI. pp. 99-109. fri M. R. Overcash (ed.) Decomposition of toxic and non-
toxic organic compounds in soils. Ann Arbor Science Publ., Inc. Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Walsh, L. M., M. E. Sumner, and R. B. Corey. 1976. Consideration of soils
for accepting plant nutrients and potentially toxic nonessential elements.
pp. 22-45. In Land application of waste materials. Soil Conser. Soc. Am.
Walsh, T., M. Neenan, and L. B. O'Moore. 1953. High Mo levels in herbage on
acid soils. Nature 171:1120.
Walters, L. T. and T. J. Wolery. 1974. Transfer of heavy metals pollutants
from Lake Erie bottom sediment to the overlying water. Ohio State Univ.
Columbus, Ohio.
Warren, H. V. 1972. Biogeochemistry in Canada. Endeavor 31:46-49.
Watanbe, T. and H. Nakamura. 1972. Lead absorbed by eggplant from soil and
its translocation. Agricultural Chemical Inspection Sta. Bull. No.
12:105-106.
Watkinson, J. H. and G. M. Dixon. 1979. Effect of applied selenate on
ryegrass and on larvae of soldier fly, Inopus rubriceps Macquart. New
Zealand J. Exptl. Agr. 7(3):321-325.
Weaver, C. M., N. D. Harris, and L. R. Fox. 1981. Accumulation of Sr and Cs
by kale as a function of age of plant. J. Environ. Qual. 10-95-98.
Weber, J. B. and E. Mrozek, Jr. 1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls.
phytotoxicity, absorption and translocation by plants and inactivation by
activated carbon. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23:412-417.
362
-------
Wentinik, G. R. and J. E. Etzel. 1972. Removal of metal ions by soil. J.
Water Poll. Control Fed. 44.1561-1574.
Wetherold, R. G., D. D. Rosebrook, and E. W. Cunningham. 1981. Assessment
of hydrocarbon emissions from land treatment of oily sludges, pp. 213-233.
In David Shultz (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research Symposium
at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. EPA-600-9-81-002b.
White, M. C. and R. L. Chaney. 1980. Zinc, cadmium and manganese uptake by
soybean from two zinc and cadmium-amended coastal plains soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 44:308-313.
Whitehead, D. C. 1975. Uptake by perennial ryegrass of iodide, elemental
iodine, and iodate added to soil as influenced by various amendments. J.
Sci. Food Agric. 26.361-367.
Wiester, M. J. 1975. Cardiovascular actions of palladium compounds in the
unanesthesized rat. Environ. Health Perspect. 12:41-44.
Williams, R. J. B. and H. H. LeRiche. 1968. The effect of traces of
beryllium on the growth of kale, grass and mustard. Plant and Soil
29-317-326.
Williams, S. E. and A. G. Wollum. Effect of cadmium on soil bacteria and
actinomycetes. J. Environ. Qual. 10:142-144.
Wilson, D. 0. and J. F. Cline. 1966. Removal of plutonium-239,
tungsten-185, and lead-210 from soils. Nature 209:941-942.
Wilson, J. T., C. G. Enfield, W. J. Dunlap, R. L. Cosby, D. A. Foster, and
L. B. Baskin. 1981. Transport and fate of selected organic pollutants in a
sandy soil. J. Env. Qual. 10(4):501-506.
Woolson, E. A. 1977. Fate of arsenicals in different environmental
substrates. Environ. Health Perspect. 19.73-81.
Yamagata, N. and Y. Murakami. 1958. A cobalt accumulator plant, Clethra
barbinervis. Nature 181:1808-1809.
Yamamoto, T., E. Yonoki, M. Yamakawa, and M. Shimizu. 1973. Studies on
environmental contamination by uranium: 2. Adsorption of uranium on soil
and its desorption. J. Radiat. Res. 14.219-224.
Yeh, S. 1973. Skin cancer in chronic arsenicalism. Human Path. 4:469-485.
Young, R. A. 1948. Some factors affecting the solubility of cobalt. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 13-122-126.
Young, R. S. 1979. Cobalt in plants, pp. 50-80. In_R. S. Young (ed.)
Biology and biochemistry. Academic Press, New York.
363
-------
Younts, S. E. and R. P. Patterson. 1964. Copper-lime interactions in field
experiments with wheat yield and chemical composition data. Agron. J.
56:229-232.
Zoeteman, R. C. J., E. De Greef, and F. J. J. Brinkman. 1981. Persistency
of organic contaminants in groundwater-lessons from soil pollution inci-
dents in the Netherlands. The Science of the Total Environment 21:187-202.
Zwerman, P. J., Klausner, S. D., and D. F. Ellis. 1974. Land disposal
parameters for dairy manure, pp. 211-221. In Processing and management of
agricultural wastes. Proc. Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference. Rochester, New York.
364
-------
7.0 CHAPTER SEVEN
PRELIMINARY TESTS AND PILOT STUDIES ON WASTE-SITE INTERACTIONS
The study of waste-site interactions is the key to demonstrating that
land treatment of a given waste at a specific site will render the applied
waste less hazardous or nonhazardous by degradation, transformation and/or
immobilization of hazardous constituents (Appendix B). These interactions
also determine the potential for off-site contamination. To understand
waste-site interactions, information gathered during the individual assess-
ments of site, soil and wastes must be integrated and used to plan prelimi-
nary tests and pilot studies that will provide data on the interaction of
system components. Laboratory, greenhouse and field studies provide more
valuable information than theoretical models because of the wide range of
complex variables involved.
In the flow chart presented in Chapter 2 (Fig. 2.1), Chapter 7 is in-
dicated as a decision point in the evaluation and design process for HWLT.
In many ways information gained from the testing procedure outlined in this
chapter is the key to decision-making for both the permit evaluator and the
facility designer. This chapter discusses a set of preliminary tests and
pilot studies used to determine whether a particular HWLT system will meet
the goal of rendering the applied wastes less hazardous or nonhazardous.
The permit writer must decide whether a unit meets this goal after evaluat-
ing test results and other information submitted by the permit applicant.
During the design of an HWLT unit, results from testing discussed in this
chapter will be used to predict whether the goal of HWLT will be met and
will form the basis for many operational and management decisions.
The topics to be discussed in this chapter are illustrated in Fig.
7.1. Sections 7.2 through 7.4 describe a comprehensive experimental
approach that considers all of the important treatment parameters,
environmental hazards, and potential contaminant migration pathways. The
currently available battery of tests, listed in Table 7.1, outlines one
possible experimental framework that would provide the data to understand
the treatment processes at a given HWLT system. As new and more efficient
tests are developed, it is expected that new testing procedures will
replace those listed in the table. All tests conducted should include an
experimental design based on statistical principles so that useful results
are obtained. Section 7.5 discusses the interpretation of test results.
Results from preliminary testing are used to establish the following:
(1) the ultimate fate of the hazardous constituents of the
waste,
(2) the identity of the waste fraction that controls the yearly
loading rate, referred to as the rate limiting constituent
(RLC);
(3) the identity of the waste constituent that limits the amount
of waste that can be applied in a single dose, referred to
as the application limiting constituent (ALC);
365
-------
WASTE
POTENTIAL
SITE
WASTE-SITE
INTERACTIONS
CHAPTER SEVEN
USE AVAILABLE INFORMATION
TO HELP DETERMINE THE
PRELIMINARY TESTS NEEDED
(SECTION 7.1)
USE LABORATORY STUDIES^N
TO CHARACTERIZE THE FATE \
OF APPLIED WASTES /
(SECTION 7.2) J
/USE GREENHOUSE STUDIES
I TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF
V HWLT ON PLANT GROWTH
\ (SECTION 7.3)
/USE FIELD PILOT STUDIES
/CHARACTERIZE WASTE-SITE INTERAC-N
TIONS, NOT DETERMINED BY LABORA-
V TORY OR GREENHOUSE TESTS
N. (SECTION 7.4)
r
DID THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE
TESTS SHOW THAT TREATMENT WILL
I OCCUR IN THE GIVEN HWLT UNIT"? IF YES,
V DETERMINE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
X^ (SECTION 7.J5)
DESIGN AND OPERATION
CHAPTER EIGHT
Figure 7.1. Topics to be addressed to evaluate waste-site
interactions for HWLT systems.
366
-------
(4) the identity of the waste fraction that limits the total
quantity of waste that can be treated at a given site,
referred to as the capacity limiting constituent (CLC),
(5) the criteria for management,
(6) the parameters that should be monitored to indicate
contaminant migration into groundwater, surface water, air,
and cover crops, and
(7) the land area required to treat a given quantity of waste.
A discussion of the basis for labeling a given waste fraction as either
rate, application, or capacity limiting is included in Section 7.5.
TABLE 7.1 CONSIDERATIONS IN A COMPREHENSIVE TESTING PROGRAM FOR EVALUATING
WASTE-SITE INTERACTIONS.
Waste-Site
Interactions
Test Method
Manual
Reference
Degradation of waste
Accumulation in soil
of nondegradables
Leaching hazards
Volatilization
hazards
Acute toxicity
Chronic toxicity
Plant uptake
Pretreatment
Respirometry 7.2.1.1
Field studies by soil testing 7.4.1
Waste analysis (inorganics) 5.3.2.3.1
Respirometry (organics) 7.2.1.1
Soil thin layer chromatography 7.2.2.1
Soil leaching columns 7.2.2.2
Field soil leachate testing 7.4.2
Environmental chamber 7.2.3
Field air testing 7.4.4
Respirometry (soil biota) 7.2.1.1
Beckman Microtox™ System 7.2.4.1.1
Greenhouse studies (plants) 7.3.2
Microbiological mutagenicity assays 5.3.2.4
Greenhouse studies 7.3
Assessment of processes generating 5.2
waste
7.1
REVIEW OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Although pilot studies are often needed to supplement existing data or
to answer questions posed by unique situations, a review of pertinent
literature and available data from similar HWLT units may reduce the need
367
-------
for extensive demonstration studies. From this review valuable information
may be found on soils, waste characteristics, and general data for predict-
ing the fate of waste constituents. This information may alert the permit
reviewer and the facility designer to potential problems with recalcitrant
or toxic compounds and provide data for assessing the potential of a par-
ticular waste to be land treated. A thorough review of the literature and
other available information, such as monitoring data, may considerably
reduce the amount of testing required and will provide guidelines for
developing an experimental design that will adequately address waste-site
interactions for the particular HWLT unit.
7.2 LABORATORY STUDIES
A series of laboratory studies should be initiated as the first phase
of the waste-site interaction assessment. The major advantages of labora-
tory or bench scale studies are that one may better standardize the method-
ology and have better control over the important parameters. Laboratory
techniques also act as rapid screening techniques by allowing the investi-
gator to look at extremes and individual treatment effects within a reason-
able time frame. However, some extrapolations to field conditions may be
difficult since bench scale studies involve small, disturbed systems which
cannot easily account for time series of events. Therefore, although some
definite conclusions can be drawn from laboratory results, field plot
and/or field lysimeter studies are usually necessary to verify laboratory
results and extrapolations to determine the treatability of a waste. The
following suggestions for conducting a comprehensive laboratory evaluation
are intended as a general guide and should be adapted to the given
situation.
7.2.1 Degradability
The complex nature of a hazardous waste makes it necessary to deter-
mine the degradation rate of waste constituents in a laboratory study
rather than through theoretical models. The half-life of specific waste
constituents cannot be applied to the waste as a whole because of the
synergistic, additive, or antagonistic effects of various waste-soil inter-
actions which may significantly alter the overall degradation rate. In
circumstances where an equivalent waste has been handled at an equivalent
HWLT unit, full-scale laboratory studies may not be necessary. Laboratory
studies can be used to define waste loading rates, and to determine if
reactions in the soil are producing an acceptable degradation rate for the
hazardous organic waste constituents.
Before land applying any waste material, it is necessary to determine
to what extent the soil may be loaded with the waste before the microbial
activity of the soil is inhibited to the extent that waste degradation
falls below acceptable levels. Land treatment of hazardous waste should be
designed to utilize the diverse microbial population of the soil to enhance
368
-------
the rate of waste degradation. When environmental parameters are main-
tained at optimum conditions for microbial activity, efficient use is made
of the land treatment site and the environmental impact is minimized. The
environmental parameters which can most easily be adjusted at the HWLT unit
include application rate and frequency, and the rate of addition of nutri-
ents. To adjust these parameters to optimal levels, waste degradation must
be monitored, and the effects of the various parameters on degradation
evaluated. An evaluation of waste degradation should include the estima-
tion of microbial populations, the monitoring of microbial activity, and
the measurement of waste decomposition products.
The soil respirometer method which is discussed in detail in the fol-
lowing sections is one of the available methods for evaluating the degrada-
tion of a complex waste-soil mixture. Use of the soil respirometer
requires only a limited amount of laboratory equipment. It is a method
that can be quickly set up in most laboratories and can be used to evaluate
a large number of parameters. While it does not provide a means for trac-
ing the degradation of the individual components of a complex mixture,
unless coupled with chemical analysis, it is a relatively simple and inex-
pensive method for evaluating the effect of environmental parameters on
waste degradation in soil. Other methods which have been used to measure
respiration from organic material include infrared gas analysis, gas
chromatography, and the Gilson respirometer (Van Cleve et al., 1979). In
addition, Osborne et al. (1980) discuss a method for studying microbial
activity in intact soil cores.
7.2.1.1 Soil Respirometry
One method to evaluate environmental parameters before field applica-
tion of waste is to monitor carbon dioxide (002) evolution from waste
amended soils in a soil respirometer. The soil respirometer consists of a
temperature controlled incubation chamber containing a series of sealed
flasks into which various treatments of waste and soil are placed (Fig.
7.2). The respirometer is an apparatus which allows temperature and mois-
ture to be kept at a constant level while other parameters, such as waste
application rate and frequency, are varied. A stream of humidified C02~
free air is passed through the flasks and the evolved C02 from the flasks
is collected in columns containing 0.1N NaOH. The air stream is purified
in a scrubber system consisting of a pump and a series of flasks one con-
tains concentrated 112804, two parallel flasks contain 4N NaOH, and a
pair of flasks in series contain (X^-free water. The two flasks of 4N
NaOH are placed parallel so that the air stream may be switched to a fresh
solution without interrupting the flow of air. Between the scrubber and
each flask is a manifold which distributes the air to the flasks through
equal length capillary tubes, thus providing an equal flow rate for each
flask. Each incubation chamber should include two empty flasks which serve
to monitor impurities in the air stream. The air leaving each flask is
passed through a 12 mm coarse Pyrex gas dispersion tube which is positioned
near the bottom of a 25 x 250 mm culture tube containing 50 ml of C02~
free 0.1N NaOH. The NaOH solutions are replaced approximately three times
369
-------
AIR FLOW-
VALVE
TRAP CONG. H2S04 TRAP AN NaOH TRAP
H20
TRAP
SCRUBBER SYSTEM
u>
•^i
o
AIR FROM THE
SCRUBBER SYSTEM
COPPER COIL CONNECTED TO
WATgl BATH FOR TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
SOIL AND WASTE
INCUBATION CHAMBER
0.IN NaOH COLUMNS
Figure 7.2. Schematic diagram of respirometer.
-------
a week, depending on C02 evolution, and are titrated with l.ON NCI fol-
lowing precipitation of evolved CC>2 with 3N BaCl2 (Stotzky, 1965) to
phenolphthalein end-point. The amount of CC>2 evolved can be determined
(Section 7.2.1.1.2.4).
The rate of C(>2 evolution is used as an indication of microbial
activity and relative waste decomposition (Stotzky, 1965). Upon termina-
tion of the experiment, subsamples may be taken from each flask to deter-
mine the residual hydrocarbon content (Section 5.3.2.3.2), and for an esti-
mation of the microbial population (Section 7.2.4.1.1). The data from
these tests can provide guidance on the appropriate application rate and
frequency to use, the optimum rate of nutrient addition, and the rate of
waste degradation in different soil types or at different temperatures.
Careful study of these parameters before field application can prevent an
accidental overload of the system and unnecessary additions of nutrients.
7.2.1.1.1 Sample Collection. Each hazardous waste stream may possess a
variety of compounds that are toxic or recalcitrant, and a unique ratio and
concentration of mineral nutrients. Therefore, to begin a laboratory
degradation study representative samples of the waste and soil must be col-
lected. Soil collected from the field for the respiration study should be
maintained at field capacity (about 1/3 bar moisture tension) and stored at
room temperature under a fixed relative humidity to preserve the soil
microorganisms. Soil collected where water content is above field capacity
should be air dried to reach field capacity, and soil which is collected
below field capacity should be wetted with distilled water to field capac-
ity. Since many wastes will require a diverse range of microorganisms to
degrade waste constituents, care must be taken in the handling and storage
of soil samples. The collection of a truly representative waste sample is
also critical to obtaining valid data from the laboratory. Although few,
if any, waste streams exist as homogeneous mixtures or have uniform com-
position. Over time, there are methods of obtaining representative sam-
ples; a more complete discussion of waste and soil sampling is presented in
Section 5.3.2.1 and Chapter 9, respectively.
7.2.1.1.2 Experimental Procedure. The respiration experiment is begun by
equilibrating the respiration chamber (Fig. 7.2) to the desired temperature
and starting the scrubber system at least 24 hours before adding the soil
to the flasks. Two days prior to waste addition, the soil is brought to
the desired moisture content by air drying or wetting with distilled water.
A soil sample equivalent to 100 g of dry soil is placed on a glass plate
and crushed to reduce the largest aggregates to approximately 1/2 cm. The
crushed and weighed soil sample is placed into a preweighed 500 ml Erlen-
meyer flask, which is then connected to the CC>2~free air stream and to a
column containing 0.1N NaOH. The flow of air through the chamber should be
adjusted so that neither stimulation of microbial activity nor inhibition
occurs. A flow rate of 20 ml per minute of C02~free air per 100 gm of
soil appears to provide an adequate supply of oxygen while not affecting
the rate of respiration. After the soil has been placed in the respiro-
meter and allowed to equilibrate for at least two days, a 20-40 gram
371
-------
subsample of soil is removed from the flask and placed in an evaporating
dish. The desired amount of waste is then mixed with the soil. After
mixing, the waste-soil subsample is mixed with the total soil sample from
the flask and the mixture is returned to the flask and then put back in the
respirometer. This mixing procedure may also be used to add water, or to
reapply the waste during the respiration experiment.
7.2.1.1.2.1 Soil moisture is a parameter which may be difficult to adjust
in the field. All HWLT units have runoff collection systems and some may
have leachate recycling pumps or irrigation systems that can be used to
increase the moisture content of dry soil. The optimum range of soil mois-
ture for microbial activity appears to be between the wilting point (about
15 bars moisture tension) and field capacity (1/3 bars moisture tension) of
the soil. This range of moisture is also optimum for waste degradation
since excess moisture reduces available oxygen and most organics are
degraded by an oxidative pathway. In a laboratory, flasks containing the
soil-waste mixture should be removed and weighed periodically so that the
moisture content of the soil can be adjusted. If the moisture content of
the soil becomes substantially above field capacity or below the wilting
point, the rate of degradation may be significantly altered, and the data
should be interpreted with caution.
7.2.1.1.2.2 The temperature of the initial respiration studies may be con-
ducted at 2(Pr5°C. This allows the experiment to be carried out at room
temperature without requiring temperature control, and provides information
on waste treatability. For warmer climates, additional degradation experi-
ments may be performed at 30°C are appropriate. When studying waste degra-
dation in a cold climate the respirometer temperature may need to be regu-
lated to as low as 5°C. Studies at different temperatures provide addi-
tional information that can be useful in determining seasonal application
rates and frequencies.
7.2.1.1.2.3 Nutrient additions may help stimulate biodegradation. Carbon
is used by most bacteria as an energy source and is present in most wastes
at much greater concentrations than nitrogen. The addition of large
amounts of carbon to the soil will stimulate excess bacterial growth, which
will cause nitrogen to be depleted unless nutrient additions are made. The
optimum carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus (C'N'P) ratio in a waste-soil mixture is
about 50:2:1. However, this ratio should be used only as a guide, and
optimum fertilizer rates for individual HWLT units should be determined
along with other site—specific parameters. The timing of nutrient addi-
tions is important to waste degradation. In some cases it may be more
effective to add nutrients after waste degradation has begun and the more
susceptible substrates have already been utilized by the microorganisms.
In addition to mineral nutrients, lime may be required to maintain the soil
pH between 6.5 and 8.5.
372
-------
7.2.1.1.2.4 Titration of the NaOH solutions are used to determine the
amount of C0£ evolved to indicate the rate of waste degradation.
Approximately three times per week the NaOH solutions are replaced to
determine the amount of CO2 absorbed from the air passing through each
treatment flask. The frequency of sampling and titration may be reduced or
increased as the rate of C0£ evolution requires. If it is determined
that the NaOH solution is nearing saturation, the sampling frequency should
be increased, and if the volume of acid required to titrate the treated
sample is almost equal to that required to titrate the blank samples, the
sampling frequency should be decreased.
The accumulated C02 is determined by titrating the NaOH solution
with l.ON HC1 following precipitation of evolved C02 with 3N BaCl2
(Stotzky, 1965). AJ.1 titrations are carried to a phenolphthalein end-
point. The amount of C02 evolved is determined by the following
equation:
(B - V)NE = mg C02 (7.1)
where
B = average volume of HC1 required to titrate the NaOH from blank
treatments;
V * volume required to titrate the NaOH from the specific
treatment;
N = the normality of the acid; and
E = the equivalent weight of the carbon dioxide.
Each time the NaOH solutions are replaced, the spent solutions should be
titrated and the amount of evolved carbon dioxide determined.
7.2.1.1.2.5 Application rate and frequency are interdependent and depend
on climatic conditions, including temperature and rainfall variations.
Optimum degradation rates are often achieved when small waste applications
are made at frequent intervals. A laboratory study may be used to deter-
mine the application rate and frequency that yields the most rapid rate of
waste decomposition in a given period of time at a constant temperature and
moisture. It is easiest to determine the optimum application rate and then
to evaluate the application frequency. Experimental application rate
should be varied over a 100-fold range, using a minimum of four treatments
with different application rates. One additional flask containing soil to
which no waste has been applied should be used as a control. All treat-
ments are conducted in duplicate so that the results can be properly evalu-
ated. Once the optimum application rate is determined for a specific waste
stream, the application frequency can be evaluated, using a minimum of
three alternate schedules. For example, if it is determined in the rate
study that the best compromise between efficiency of land use and biodegra-
dation is achieved when the waste is applied at a rate of 5% (wt/wt), the
frequency study would then evaluate the degradation rate of four 1.25%
applications, two 2.5% applications, and one 5% application during the same
time period. Chemical and biological analyses of the treatments, when
373
-------
evaluated with the cumulative C02 data, will indicate the treatment rate
and frequency that provide the most efficient degradation rate.
7.2.1.2 Data Analysis
The data provided by a laboratory respiration experiment may be used
to evaluate the potential of a waste to be adequately treated in the land
treatment system and to determine the half-life of the organic fraction of
the waste. Half-life is defined as the time required for a 50% disappear-
ance of applied carbon. The decision process for determining if a waste is
amenable to land treatment is outlined in Fig. 7.3. The first step in this
process is to determine how the waste will affect microbial activity when
mixed with the soil. If waste application inhibits microbial activity, the
following options are available to improve the treatability of the waste*
(1) reducing waste application rates,
(2) pretreating a hydrophobic waste by drying or mixing with a
bulking agent to improve the penetration of oxygen into the
soil;
(3) pretreating the waste by chemical, physical, or biological
means (Section 5.2) to reduce its toxicity; and
(4) making in—plant process changes to alter the waste.
If these options fail and the soil microorganisms cannot alter the nature
of the waste, it will not be adequately treated in the land treatment
system.
If, after mixing the waste and soil elevated microbial activity is
observed the waste is land treatable and the optimum parameters for waste
degradation should be determined. If the waste is to be applied at tem-
peratures which vary by more than 10°C from the temperature of the initial
respirometer study (20:*:5°C), the half-life of the waste at the other
temperatures should be determined. Chemical and biological analyses of
treated soils from the respirometer flasks after incubation indicate the
effect of land treatment on the hazardous waste constituents. If these
analyses indicate that a waste is rendered less hazardous by incorporation
into the soil, half-life calculations (yr) from laboratory application
rates (kg/ha) may be used to determine acceptable yearly waste loading
rates.
The initial waste loading rate is determined by calculating the time
required to degrade 50% of the applied waste constituents. Half-life
determinations can be made for the organic fraction of the waste and for
each subfraction (acid, base, and neutral). While chemical analysis can
define decomposition rates of specific waste fractions and hazardous con-
stituents , the only means of evaluating a reduction in the hazardous
characteristics of a waste is through biological analysis (Sections 5.3.2.4
374
-------
Respiration Study
Soil + Waste
NO
When waste and soil are mixed
does the soil evolve CC>2< and
does extraction of incubated
soil reveal reduced hydrocarbon
content?
YES
DETERMINE
1 application rate for maximum
microbial activity,
2 optimum ratio of mineral
nutrients for waste
decomposition,
3 optimum application
frequency,
4 impact of temperature on
degradation
Will respiration occur at
reduced application rate'
\i NO
Is waste excluding oxygen
from soil, can amendment to
waste stimulate respiration'
NO
YES
Can pretreatment of waste
reduce toxicity'
Does chemical and biological analysis
of treated soil reveal a reduction in
hazardous waste charactensitcs'
Does chemical and biological analysis
of treated soil reveal attenuation of
hazardous waste characteristics'
I
YES
WAbfb IS LAMO IRPAlABLt j
NO
Figure 7.3. The information needed to determine if a waste may be
land treated.
-------
and 7.2.4) or through a previous knowledge of the degradation pathways,
by-products, and toxicities of waste conponents.
7.2.1.2.1 Degradation Rate . In most laboratory studies the waste is
incubated for a period of six months. After the laboratory experiment is
terminated, the rate of degradation for the organic fraction of the waste
should be determined by two methods. The first method uses the following
equation:
(C02w-C02s)0.27
Dt = - c - (7.2)
where
Dt = fraction of total carbon degraded over time,
CO£W = cumulative CC>2 evolved by waste amended soil,
C02S - cumulative C0£ evolved by unamended soil; and
Ca = carbon applied.
The second method used to determine the rate of degradation requires the
extraction of the organic fraction from the soil (Section 5.3.2.3.2). The
percent of organic degradation is determined as follows .
_.
Dto
where
Dto s fraction of organic carbon degraded over time,
Cao « the amount of carbon applied in the organic fraction of the
waste;
Cro * the amount of residual carbon in the organic fraction of
waste amended soil; and
Gg = the amount of organic carbon which can be extracted from
unamended soil.
To determine the degradation rate of individual organic subfractions the
following equation is used:
cai~(cri~csi) /7 /N
Dt± = (7.4)
where
D££ = fraction of carbon degraded in subfraction i;
Caj[ = carbon applied from subfraction i in the waste,
Cr-£ = carbon residual in subfraction i in waste amended soil, and
CSjL = the amount of carbon present in an unamended soil from
subfraction i.
376
-------
The clarity of separation of all subtractions should be verified by gas
chromatography.
7.2.1.2.2 Half-life Determination. The half-life of the waste may then be
calculated for the waste as follows:
0.50 fc ,, _,
ti/9 = t (7.5)
' D£
where
t = time in days that the waste was degraded to generate the
data used in equations 7.2-7.4,
= half-life of waste organics in soil (days), and
Dt = fraction of carbon degraded in t days.
An optional method that may be used to calculate half-lives is to plot
cumulative percent carbon degraded as a function of time on a semi-log
scale graph. The point in time where 50% of the waste has been degraded
may then be read directly.
Of the half-lives determined by the above methods, the longest half-
life should be used as the half-life for the organic fraction of the waste.
This half-life is then used to calculate the initial loading rate which
will produce maximum microbial activity in the soil. Because of the great
number of variables influencing waste biodegradation in soil, it will be
difficult to predict the rate of degradation of wastes in the field by
using an equation. The preceding equations use zero order kinetics and are
designed to make the most efficient use of the land treatment area.
Laskowski et al. (1980) suggests that the degradation process for rela-
tively poorly sorbed chemicals appears to follow zero order kinetics at
high application rates. Data resulting from both laboratory and field
studies are compared in Section 7.5.3.1.4, this comparison indicates that
variables not accounted for in laboratory studies may result in an over-
estimation of the actual waste half-life.
In most cases the rate of degradation of the individual subfractions
will vary. In any case, the fraction that degrades at the slowest rate
controls waste loading rates. The waste should be applied at a rate that
will stimulate microbial activity while not reaching toxic levels of any
specific fraction. The degradation of the more resistant fractions will
occur after the preferred substrate has been degraded. Gas chromotography
can be used to scan the waste after degradation in soil to determine if a
specific compound is degrading at a slower rate than the calculated half-
life of the other waste fractions. If such a compound is identified, then
the half-life of the compound should be used to adjust loading rates. The
half-life of the most resistant fraction or compound will restrict loading
rates if the compound is mobile in the soil or will remain at an unaccept-
able concentration far beyond the time when waste applications cease.
377
-------
7.2.1.2.3 Consideration for Field Studies of Degradation. These calcula-
tions are used to provide guidance for establishing design loading rates
and developing appropriate field studies. Once the first waste application
has been made, waste degradation in the field pilot study should be moni-
tored by periodic soil sampling and subsequent analysis for hydrocarbon and
subfraction content (Section 7.4.1). Half-lives determined from experimen-
tal field data generally provide a more realistic evaluation of waste
decomposition rates. However, the amount of information required from the
results of field studies depends on laboratory study results. If, from the
laboratory study, it is determined that all waste fractions degrade at
equal rates and there is no specific compound which is less susceptible to
degradation than the organic fraction as a whole, then the soil sampling
need only monitor the removal of the total organics. However, if a parti-
cular compound or fraction is evidently resistant to degradation, then this
particular compound or fraction should be monitored in the field.
7.2.2 Sorption and Mobility
The potential for organic contamination of surface runoff and leachate
from land treatment sites depends on the erosion potential of the soil, the
concentration of water soluble constituents in the waste, the adsorptive
capacity of the soil, the kinetics of soil water movement, and the degrada-
bility of the potentially mobile waste constituents and their degradation
products. Proper erosion control and runoff water treatment practices will
effectively eliminate the runoff hazard to surface waters. Degradability
is discussed in Section 7.2.1 and the results of waste degradation experi-
ments should be integrated with the mobility findings. Therefore, a suit-
able method for evaluating mobility should account for waste solubility,
adsorption, and soil water kinetics. Transport mechanisms or potential
leachability may be assessed by soil thin-layer chromatography and column
leaching techniques. Where a hazardous waste constituent is demonstrated
to be leachable and only slowly degradable, field studies will be necessary
to determine the leachate concentrations of the mobile constituents for
establishing the maximum safe waste loading rate (Section 7.5.3.1.2).
Since the mobility of degradates is often important, laboratory studies may
include analyses of aged waste-soil mixtures.
Several modes of transport can be described for the movement of hazar-
dous organic compounds through the soil. As a continuous phase, oil can
move as a fluid governed by the same parameters as those which determine
soil water movement. Alternatively, water soluble or miscible compounds can
be transported by soil water. A small amount of movement might also occur
by diffusion, however, diffusion would not occur at a level that would
cause a leaching hazard. Sorption and/or degradation account for the
attenuation of leachable hazardous constituents. Adsorption capacity is
directly related to soil colloidal content and chemical nature of the waste
constituents (Bailey et al. 1968, Castro and Belser, 1966; Youngson and
Goring, 1962). Soil organic matter is perhaps most responsible for adsorp
tion of nonionic compounds, while polar constituents which are potentially
378
-------
solubilized in water may have a greater affinity to the mineral fraction of
soil. Precipitation to less soluble forms and complexation also immobi-
lize and thus attenuate, some waste constituents.
The primary objective of a laboratory leaching study is to evaluate
leaching potential rather than to assess actual mobility of a given com-
pound in soil. A disturbed soil can be tested to indicate extremes, but
the kinetics of water and solute movement in a bench scale test do not
ordinarily approximate field conditions, where precipitation is intermit-
tent and the intact soil profile retains its unique physical characteris-
tics. Soils chosen for leaching studies should be sampled from each hori-
zon in the zone of aeration where adequate microbial populations are ordi-
narily present for waste degradation. By testing for the mobility of waste
constituents in the lower soil horizons, one can establish whether the
rapid movement of a waste constituent through a less adsorptive surface
soil may be impeded by a more adsorptive subsoil to the extent that the
soil biota can adequately decompose the compound(s). Once an organic com-
pound has leached below the zone of abundant microbial activity, however,
it has been shown that degradative attenuation is extremely slow (Duffy et
al. 1977, Van Der Linden and Thijsse, 1965).
7.2.2.1 Soil Thin-layer Chromatography
The relative mobility of organic fraction components may be determined
by the technique of Helling and Turner (1968) and Helling (1971). This
technique is similar to conventional preparative thin-layer chromatography
(TLC) except that soil is used as the stationary phase rather than materi-
als such as silica gel or alumina. Mobility of a given substance can be
expressed by a relative measure, Rp, which describes the distance tra-
versed by a compound divided by the distance traversed by the wetting
front. The following description outlines the important aspects of the
procedure:
(1) Soil materials used are those passing through a 500 mm sieve
for sandy clays and coarser textured soils, or 250 ym sieve
for fine loams and clay soils.
(2) Plates are air-dried before use. A smooth, moderately fluid
slurry is made of water and sieved soil material and spread
on clean glass plates to uniform thicknesses of 500-750 ym
for fine textured soils, and 750-1000 ym for the coarser"
textured soils.
(3) A horizontal line is etched 11.5 cm above the the base.
Samples are spotted at 1.5 cm, providing a total leaching
distance of 10 cm.
(4) The atmosphere of the developing chamber is allowed to
saturate and equilibrate prior to plate development.
(5) Plates are developed in a vertical position in approximately
0.5 cm water. The bottom 1 cm may be covered with a filter
379
-------
paper strip to reduce soil sloughing and maintain the soil-
water contact. Development continues until water has risen
to the scribed line at 11.5 cm.
(6) Movement is determined by either radioautograms for radio-
active materials or scraping and eluting segments of soil
from the 10 cm development distance. Scraped materials can
be easily eluted with small volumes of solvent by using
capillary pipettes as elution columns.
(7) Up values are computed and correlated to soil properties.
Some drawbacks of soil TLC include the following:
(1) soil particles are oriented in two dimensions,
(2) waste-soil contact is maximized, most closely simulating
intraaggregate flow and negating the attenuating effects of
soil aggregation, and
(3) flow is rapid and closer to steady state conditions thus
minimizing adsorption-desorption kinetics effects.
Soil TLC is a useful rapid screening technique, but where waste constit-
uents are mobile as indicated by Rp values, soil column leaching and
field pilot studies will better quantify mobility. Soil column leaching
and field pilot studies will provide more accurate predictive data since
conditions of these studies more closely resemble conditions in the actual
land treatment system.
7.2.2.2 Column Leaching
Column leaching is an approximation of mobility under saturated condi-
tions . It, like the soil TLC method provides a relative index of the
potential for leaching. The choice of soils to be tested should be the
same as that used for soil TLC. At a minimum, duplicate columns and a
control should be used for each waste/soil mixture listed. The general
procedure is as follows:
(1) Glass columns (2-3 cm I.D.) are filled with 20 cm air-dry
soil previously ground and passed through a 2 mm mesh sieve.
Columns should be constructed of glass or other nonreactive
material which does not interfere with the analyses.
(2) Columns are filled slowly with soil and tamped to a bulk
density approximating that in the field to reduce solution
movement by direct channel transport and to more closely
resemble field conditions.
(3) Applications of waste are made by mixing waste with a small
amount of soil and applying the mix to the soil surface.
Alternatively, the organic fraction of the waste may be
380
-------
applied in a minimum amount of solvent to the top of the
soil in the column.
(4) Glass wool or a filter pad is placed on the soil surface and
leaching is begun by adding at least one column volume of
water at a controlled rate no faster than 1 ml/mm.
(5) Effluents are analyzed along with the soil extruded and
segmented at 2 cm intervals to evaluate depth of penetration
as a function of the effective volume partitioned. The
volume partitioned can be assumed to be the volume of water
retained by the soil at field capacity. Thus an effluent
volume equal to the volume of water retained at 1/3 atmos-
phere soil moisture tension approximates 1 pore volume.
(6) Concentrations of materials in effluent are determined and
plotted against cumulative drainage volume.
A soil column offers a better approximation to a natural system than does
soil TLC since the column provides a larger soil volume, larger aggregates,
and a more random particle orientation. Soil column leaching tests, how-
ever, lack the methodological standardization of soil TLC.
The potential leaching hazard of a given waste in a particular soil
can be estimated from consideration of the following:
(1) the mobility of waste constituents relative to water,
(2) the concentrations of constituents observed in the leachate
and soil,
(3) the degradability of mobile compounds;
(4) the flux and depth of soil solution percolate as observed in
the field water balance, and
(5) the toxicity of mobile waste constituents as determined
using bioassay techniques (Section 5.3.2.4).
Field pilot studies may be needed to correlate and verify laboratory
results. They are particularly important when laboratory data reveal a
substantial leaching hazard.
7.2.3 Volatilization
Volatilization is mostly important for those compounds with vapor
pressures greater than 10~^mm/Hg at room temperature (Weber, 1972).
Environmental variables affecting volatility are soil moisture, adsorption,
wind speed, turbulence, temperature and time (Farmer et al., 1972, Plice,
1948). One mechanism of volatilization is evaporative transfer from a free
liquid surface. The potential of this mechanism is roughly equivalent to
the purgable and easily volatilized fractions, however, the impact should
be lessened greatly upon waste-soil mixing. An assessment of volatiliza-
381
-------
tion. should include this aspect of attenuation. Within a soil, chemicals
are not at a free liquid surface and vaporization is dependent upon distri-
bution between air, water and solid surfaces.
Volatilization of waste constituents or degradates may be determined
empirically by measuring vapor losses from a known soil surface following
waste application. Laboratory investigations using a sealed, flow-through
system should consider the following:
(1) the effects of application technique and waste loading
rates;
(2) several soil moisture contents, including dry and wet soil;
(3) several temperatures, including the maximum expected surface
soil temperature;
(4) variations in air flow, and
(5) changes in volatilized fraction composition and flux with
time.
Generally, an air stream is passed over the soil surface and through solid
sorbents such as Tenax-GC or florisil and analyzed according to Section
5.3.2.3.2. Results are computed in both concentration (mass/m^) and flux
terms (mass/in^/ surface area).
7.2.4 Toxicity
Treatability tests may include a determination of the levels at which
the waste becomes toxic to plants or microbes and/or causes genetic damage.
These tests provide an additional qualitative measure of treatability.
During the operation of a land treatment unit, and after closure, the bio-
logical tests may also be used to monitor environmental samples to evaluate
waste degradation and to ensure environmental protection. In addition to
the tests described here and in Section 5.3.2.4, the procedure of Brown et
al. (1979) may be used to evaluate aquatic toxicity prior to the release of
runoff or leachate water from the site. All samples collected for biologi-
cal analysis should be frozen as described in Section 5.3.2.1 and samples
should be processed as soon as is possible after collection.
7.2.4.1 Acute Toxicity
Before a hazardous waste is land applied, it is a good idea to deter-
mine if the waste will be acutely toxic to indigenous plants and microbes.
Microbial toxicity is particularly important when degradation is one'of the
objectives of treatment. Methods for evaluating toxicity are discussed
below and toxicity testing can generally be combined with any other waste-
site interaction study.
382
-------
7.2.4.1.1 Microbial toxicity. The microbial toxicity of a waste-soil
mixture can be evaluated using information obtained from a pour plate
method which enumerates total viable heterotrophs and hydrocarbon utilizing
microorganisms. This involves collecting soil samples for microbial anal-
ysis before waste application and following incubation with the waste in
the respirometer. One gram of a soil sample is placed in 99 ml of phos-
phate buffer and mixed on a magnetic stirrer for fifteen minutes. Subse-
quent dilutions are made by adding 1 ml of the previous dilution to 99 ml
of the buffer. Samples should be assayed on four different media to deter-
mine the total number of soil microorganisms. Total viable heterotrophs
are enumerated using soil extract agar (Odu and Adeoye, 1969) with 10 mg/1
of Amphoteracin B. The presence of soil fungi is determined using potato
dextrose agar (Difco) or soil extract agar with 30 mg/1 of rose bengal and
streptomycin. Hydrocarbon utilizing bacteria and fungi may be detected by
replacing the carbon source used in soil extract agar with 6.25 g/1 silica
gel oil as suggested by Baruah et al. (1967). The silica gel oil is pre-
pared for each waste stream by combining 5.0 g of the waste with 1.25 g of
fumed silica gel (Cab-o-sil, Cabot Corporation).
In order to retard spreading of mobile organisms, 0.5 ml of each dilu-
tion should be added to 2.5 ml of soft agar (0.75% agar), mixed on a vortex
mixer, and poured onto the hard agar surface. Plates are incubated for a
minimum of two weeks at the temperature at which the soil waste mixture was
incubated. All estimations of viability should be assayed in quadrupli-
cate.
A second method for evaluating microbial toxicity developed by Beckman
Instruments, Inc. is currently being tested by the EPA to determine if the
procedure can be used as a rapid screening tool for assessing the land
treatability of a specific hazardous waste and as a method to determine
loading rates. The Beckman Microtox™ system measures the light output of a
suspension of marine luminescent bacteria before and after a sample of haz-
ardous waste is added. A reduction in light output reflects a deteriora-
tion in the health of the organisms which signifies the presence of toxi-
cants in the waste (Beckman Instruments, Inc., 1982).
Using these, or other, methods the acute toxic effects of land treat-
ing a hazardous waste on endemic microorganisms can be assessed. By deter-
mining the immediate effects of the waste on soil microorganisms, knowledge
is obtained which can aid in the determination of the maximum initial load-
ing rate and in the evaluation of the respiration data (Section 7.2.1.2).
7.2.4.1.2 Phytotoxicity. The phytotoxicity of a hazardous waste may be
evaluated in a greenhouse study (Section 7.3) for the types of vegetation
anticipated at the land treatment unit. The greenhouse study should evalu-
ate the toxic effects of the waste at various stages of growth, including
germination, root extension, and establishment. Root extension may be
determined for a water extract of the waste which has been degraded by soil
bacteria using the procedures of Edwards and Ross-Todd (1980). Plant bio-
concentration for chronic toxicity to humans via the food chain may be
measured by analyzing an extract from plants grown in waste amended soil in
383
-------
a biological test system. Plant activation of nonmutagenic agents into
mutagens has been demonstrated by Plewa and Gentile (1976), Benigni et al.
(1979), Reichhart et al. (1980), Matijesevic et al. (1980), Higashi et al.
(1981), and Wildeman et al. (1980).
7.2.4.2 Genetic Toxicity
The genetic toxicity of a waste-soil mixture can be measured using
selected bioassays and following the same protocols used to determine the
genetic toxicity of the waste itself (Section 5.3.2.4.2). It may be
desirable to separate the organic extract of the waste into subfractions
(Section 5.3) for determining genetic toxicity. Bioassays of samples taken
from the treated waste-soil mixture at different time periods and from
different waste application rates can be compared to bioassays of the
untreated waste. The reduction in hazardous characteristics following
treatment provides a qualitative measure of treatment.
7.3 GREENHOUSE STUDIES
Greenhouse studies are designed to observe the effects of waste addi-
tions on plant emergence and growth. Moreover, they can be used to assess
the acute and residual toxicity of the wastes to determine optimum loading
rates. Greenhouse experiments may also aid in selecting application fre-
quencies and site management practices.
In many cases, the concentration of one or more constituents in a
waste, rather than the bulk application rate, may control plant responses.
Therefore, research should include a characterization of which waste com-
pounds are phytotoxic and a determination of the residence times of these
compounds in soils. When short-term growth inhibition is caused by a
rapidly degradable phytotoxin, the quantity of waste which can be applied
in a single application is limited. A more resistant substance in the same
waste may potentially accumulate to toxic concentrations if the long-term
loading of this substance exceeds the rate of degradation. Thus, green-
house studies of plant responses should be designed to assess the acute
toxicity of freshly applied waste and the toxicities and degradation rates
of resistant compounds.
7.3.1 Experimental Procedure
One general approach to assessing plant toxicity in the greenhouse in-
volves planting a given species in pots containing soil mixed with varying
quantities of waste. The choice of plant species should be based on site
characteristics and the species which will probably be used to establish
the permanent vegetative cover as discussed in Section 8.7. Control plant-
ings receiving no waste must be included, and all pots should be ferti-
384
-------
lized, watered and carefully maintained to ensure that the results observed
are related to the waste additions. Allen et al. (1976) is a good refer-
ence on the proper care and management of greenhouse pot experiments.
Since the toxicity effects are greatest before the fresh waste has begun to
decompose, the emergence and growth tests should consist of only one plant-
harvest cycle of short duration (30-45 days). In practice, management at
an HWLT unit is not striving for maximum yields, therefore, a waste concen-
tration is considered to be toxic when yields are reduced to levels between
50 and 75% of the control yields. The toxic concentration of the waste or
waste fraction in soil is termed the "critical concentration" (Ccr£t).
7.3.2 Acute Phytoxicity
Using the procedures of 7.3.1, fresh wastes are applied to soil in a
range of concentrations in order to determine the critical concentration of
the waste. This Ccr£t value may be used in conjunction with half-life
(tj/2) determined from respirometer experiments to establish loading rates
(kg/ha/yr) based on the total organic fraction. If all of the organics in
the waste degrade at relatively the same rate, the loading rate established
in this manner will be valid for design purposes; however, most complex
organic mixtures found in hazardous waste streams do not degrade uniformly.
If a loading rate derived from the organic fraction half-life is used,
there is likely to be an accumulation of resistant organic constituents
with half-lives longer than the half-life of the total organic fraction.
Regardless of the portion of the organic fraction which is ultimately
established as the rate limiting constituent (RLC), expressed in kg/ha/yr,
the loading rate determined from the acute toxicity and degradation rate of
a fresh waste may still qualify the total organic fraction as the applica-
tion limiting constituent (ALC), expressed in kg/ha/application.
7.3.3 Residuals Phytotoxicity
Some particularly resistant organics, if they are not toxic, may pose
no special problems if they accumulate in soils. If these resistant com-
pounds are toxic when present in large enough concentrations, then they may
limit the loading rate, rather than total organic fraction. Gas chromato-
graphic (GG) analyses of applied waste or wastes incubated in respirometers
can quantitatively establish the half-lives of individual compounds and can
lead to qualitative determinations of resistant compounds by such tech-
niques as GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Phytotoxicity of these compounds
in a waste-soil environment can be determined by spiking the raw waste with
various concentrations of the pure compound or compounds, and repeating the
greenhouse study using the new mixtures.
Spiking simulates the accumulation of the compound in the land treat-
ment system after repeated waste applications, at the rate established by
the organic fraction degradation rate. The concentration which elicits
toxic responses by plants is the Ccrit value for that compound. Two pos-
sible scenarios are as follows.
385
-------
(1) First, establish an economical design life (in years) for
the unit. If the ccrit value for the resistant
compound would not be reached during this design life after
applying waste at the rate established using the organic
fraction degradation rate, then no hazard is posed.
(2) If the Ccrit value is reached before the design life is
attained, or if no specific unit life is specified, then the
resistant toxic compound is the RLC for the organic
fraction.
Therefore, greenhouse toxicity data can be used in conjunction with
respirometer waste degradation data to establish safe HWLT unit loading
rates (Section 7.5.3.1.4).
7.4 FIELD PILOT STUDIES
Field pilot studies are intended to verify laboratory results, dis-
cover any unforeseen methodological or potential environmental problems,
and investigate interactions which cannot be adequately assessed in the
laboratory. Field testing is the closest approximation to actual operat-
ing conditions, and all aspects of the waste-site system can be observed as
an integrated system. In addition to verifying of laboratory results,
field studies may function as follows:
(1) to evaluate possible odor or vapor problems,
(2) to provide information on the physical problems associated
with distribution and soil incorporation of a particular
waste;
(3) to evaluate the possibility of applying greater amounts of
waste than would appear possible from the available data or
from greenhouse, respirometer or column studies;
(4) to evaluate the runoff water quality,
(5) to provide information on the length of time required for
the runoff water quality to become acceptable for
uncontrolled release,
(6) to evaluate the fate and mobility of a specific organic
constituent or combination of constituents for which little
data are available; and
(7) to evaluate the compatibility of a new waste applied to a
site previously used for a different waste.
Field pilot studies should be kept small and facilities should be
available to retain runoff just as they would be for a fully operational
HWLT system. The EPA permit regulations contain certain requirements for
conducting demonstration studies (EPA, 1982). Typically, plots should not
be greater than 500 m^, although there may occasionally be justification
386
-------
for larger areas where special equipment for waste application or incorpo-
ration activities requires additional space. While field tests often pro-
vide much better data than laboratory or greenhouse tests, they are often
more costly to conduct. Also, fewer variables, such as application rate,
frequency or alternate treatments, can be tested. Furthermore, uncon-
trolled variables, such as temperature, rainfall and wind, make the data
more difficult to interpret.
Application rates to be used in pilot studies must be based on the
best available information and be developed in accordance with appropriate
procedures. If one of the objectives is to test the feasibility of appli-
cation rates greater than those that were indicated by the laboratory and
greenhouse information, it is often advisable to select waste application
rates of 2, 4 and possibly 8 times the optimal rate. Precautions must be
taken, however, to protect groundwater from mobile waste constituents
loaded onto the soil.
7.4.1 Degradation
Degradation of organic waste materials in the field should be evalu-
ated by determining the residual concentration of these materials in the
treatment zone. The soil should be analyzed for the hazardous constituents
and perhaps for general classes of organics, including total organics as
suggested in Section 5.3.2.3.2. Sampling procedures should be the same as
for functioning HWLT units. Samples should be taken on a schedule that
allows maximum sampling during the period of maximum degradation. Typical-
ly, a geometric sampling schedule of 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. weeks after
application is appropriate.
7.4.2 Leachate
Leachate water should be collected from below the treatment zone as
will be done when monitoring an operating HWLT unit. Samples should be
collected at sufficiently frequent intervals to be representative of the
water leaching below the normal root zone depth. Typical leachate sampling
depths are 1 to 1.5 m below the soil surface. This ensures an adequate
zone of aerated soil for decomposition and plant uptake. Any waste con-
stituents moving below the 1 to 1.5 m depth will usually continue to the
water table since oxygen availability, microbial populations and plant
uptake decrease markedly below this depth.
7.4.3 Runoff
Runoff water should be collected and analyzed if these data are needed
to evaluate treatability or the potential for release. The water may be
collected from retention areas if this method is appropriate for the site.
387
-------
If several treatment rates or options are being tested, it may be necessary
to have different retention areas for each treatment or to install devices
that will collect representative samples as they flow from each plot before
they reach the retention basin. Runoff water should be analyzed for the
constituents to be included in the discharge permit, the hazardous
constituents of the waste, and for the biological activity of the water.
7.4.4 Odor and Volatilization
If the objective of the test is to evaluate odor problems, periodic
field evaluations should be made by an odor panel as described in Section
8.4.2. Panel observations should be scheduled at frequent intervals fol-
lowing waste application and mixing activities. Again, a geometric sampl-
ing schedule may be appropriate. If the pilot test is to provide data on
volatilization, the gases emanating from the surface should be collected
and periodically sampled. A more detailed discussion of volatilization is
provided in Section 7.2.3
7.4.5 Plant Establishment and Uptake
If the objective of the test is to evaluate revegetation potential and
plant uptake, it may be desirable to plant several species and to try both
seeds and sprigs for species that can be planted either way. Planting
should not be initiated until the waste has been repeatedly mixed and
allowed to degrade. If initial plantings fail, the species should be
replanted after further mixing and adjustment of nutrients and soil pH. If
water is the limiting factor during germination and emergence, it may be
desirable to mulch and irrigate the site to assist establishment. If bio-
accumulation is a concern, plants should be harvested and analyzed for
accumulated waste constituents.
7.5 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Waste-soil interaction studies generate a variety of data that must be
carefully interpreted to determine treatment feasibility, acceptable waste
loads, special management needs, and monitoring criteria. Since experi-
ments should have been conducted using the bulk waste, synergistic and
antagonistic effects have been considered over the short-term and for
mobile or degradable species. However, the effect of long-term accumula-
tion of some waste constituents, especially metals, cannot be established
from such condensed investigations. Additionally, only scant information
exists regarding the joint toxic effects of several accumulated compounds
or elements. In any case, the interpretation of results from literature
review, experimental work and/or operational experience may safely consider
each important waste constituent independently.
388
-------
7.5.1 Feasibility and Loading Rates
Treatment feasibility and loading rates are closely related and can be
tentatively ascertained from data generated from tests described in Sec-
tions 7.2 through 7.4. Practically any hazardous waste may be land
treated, although allowable waste application rates may require excessive
land area commitments. Consequently, feasibility is essentially an econom-
ic decision based on allowable loading rates. The loading rates, on the
other hand, are established by calculating the acceptable rates for each
waste constituent and adopting the most restrictive value.
A central concept to the understanding of waste loading rates is the
way in which waste constituents behave in the given land treatment unit.
Basically, the behavior of any given constituent at a given site will fall
within one of the following categories.
(1) the constituent is readily degradable or mobile and can be
applied to soil at such a rate that the concentration
approaches some steady state value,
(2) the constituent is very rapidly lost from the soil system,
but overloading in a single application may cause acute
hazards to human health or the environment, or
(3) the constituent is not degraded appreciably or is relatively
immobile and thus, successive waste applications will cause
the concentration in soil to increase.
The waste fraction that controls seasonal loading rates (Case 1 above)
is referred to as the rate limiting constituent (RLC). Once the RLC is
determined, the land area required to treat the given waste can be deter-
mined simply by dividing yearly waste receipts (kg/yr) by the acceptable
waste loading rate (kg/ha/yr) based on the RLC.
In Case 2 above, where a constituent limits the amount of waste that
may be applied in a single dose, yet the constituent is either rapidly
decomposed, lost from the system, or immobilized, it is labeled the appli-
cation limiting constituent (ALC). The ALC sets the minimum number of
applications that can be safely made during a given waste application
season (see Section 3.3.3 for discussion of waste application season). If
the waste contains an ALC, then the minimum number of applications per year
is found by dividing the waste loading rate determined using the RLC (kg/
ha/yr) by the waste application limit basis on the ALC (kg/ha/application)
and rounding to the next higher integer. In some cases, the ALC may be the
same as the RLC.
The final parameter (Case 3 above) needed for determining waste appli-
cation constraints is what is termed the capacity limiting constituent
(CLC). This fraction of the waste is a conservative, accumulating species
and sets the upper boundary for the total quantity of waste that may be
treated at a given site (kg waste/ha). For a waste that contains a large
389
-------
concentration of a given metal, this metal may be both the CLC and the RLC.
However, many industrial wastes have a low metals content so that some
organic compound, water, or other constituent may control the application
rate while a metal may be the CLC. The CLC controls the maximum design
life of the land treatment unit unless some arbitrarily shorter life is
chosen. Maximum design life is found by dividing the CLC controlled waste
loading capacity (LCAP^^) expressed in kg/ha by the design loading rate
(LR) based on the RLC and expressed in kg/ha/yr. Section 7.5.4 more clear-
ly defines this relationship.
7.5.2 Management Needs and Monitoring Criteria
During the course of the pilot studies which include the necessary
treatment demonstration tests (EPA, 1982), conditions that influence waste
treatment are defined and waste consituents that present a significant risk
to the treatment process or the environment are identified. Special
management needs identified during pilot studies may include application
techniques and timing, pH control, fertility control, and soil aeration.
Further evidence gained from the treatment demonstration will dictate which
of the waste constituents should be monitored and will determine how the
operational program may be streamlined or simplified. All hazardous
constituents (Appendix B) of the waste must be monitored unless key
constituents can be demonstrated to indicate the success of the treatment
processes. These indicators are termed principle hazardous constituents or
PHCs (EPA, 1982). PHCs to be monitored should definitely include sampling
and analysis for the constituents that have been indicated as the ALC, RLC,
and CLC. Chemical analyses and the less specific toxicity bioassays are
appropriate analytical approaches to monitoring.
7.5.3 Calculating Waste Loads Based on Individual Constituents
As previously noted, results of pilot studies are interpreted con-
sidering each waste constituent independently. The following sections deal
with the methods and considerations involved when the entire range of waste
constituents are evaluated for the design of the HWLT units. Some elements
and compounds are discussed specifically while others are addressed by
classes according to their similar behavior. The constituents are dis-
cussed in order from most concern to least concern for the treatment of
hazardous constituents. For example, organics are discussed first since
the organic fraction of the waste is often the main reason for choosing
HWLT. Where hazardous organics are land treated, waste loading should be
designed so that degradation is maximized. Sample calculations for deter-
mining waste loading are presented in Appendix E.
7.5.3.1 Organics
Most hazardous waste streams that are land treated contain a sizeable
organic fraction and degradation of organics is usually the principal
390
-------
objective for land treating wastes. The range of possible hazards from
waste organics can be generally categorized as the acute or chronic toxic-
ity to soil biota, plants and animals, or the immediate danger of fire or
explosion. The potential pathways for loss of organics that must be con-
sidered include volatilization, leaching, runoff and degradation. Although
the pathways are interrelated, they are acted on by different mechanisms
and should be considered separately. Waste application rates, both per
application (ALC) and per year (RLC), are established by adopting the most
restrictive rate calculated from the four pathways; each of which further
discussed below. Plant uptake should also be considered if vegetation will
be used as a part of the ongoing management plan. Figure 7.4 illustrates
the format for assessing organics.
7.5.3.1.1 Volatilization. Volatility experiments can yield information on
vapor concentrations in the atmosphere above a soil, as a function of soil
moisture, temperature, surface roughness, wind speed, temperature lapse
rate, waste loading rate, or application technique. The acceptable appli-
cation rate under a given set of management and environmental conditions
may be established using air quality standards, mutagenicity assays, and/or
information on concentrations that may cause combustion. If an appreciable
quantity of the waste is volatile and hazardous, the quantities of waste
per application may be limited and the volatile constituent would be the
ALC. The interpretation of test results in this case would specify suit-
able waste application techniques and timing.
7.5.3.1.2 Leaching. If laboratory leaching tests show the potential for
significant movement of some constituents or their metabolites, field lysi-
meters or leachate samplers beneath an undisturbed soil profile may be used
to establish safe waste loading rates. For a mobile hazardous organic com-
pound, loading rates should be controlled to avoid statistically signifi-
cant increases of the compound in leachate water or soil below the treat-
ment zone. Both the mobility and degradability of an organic compound
influence the degree of hazard from leaching. For instance, where a
compound is highly mobile, but rapidly degradable in soil, calculations of
application limits should be made on a single application basis to reduce
the leaching hazard, and the compound is, therefore, a potential ALC. More
stable constituents that could potentially leach in the system may limit
applications on a yearly basis and may be the RLC.
7.5.3.1.3 Runoff. Since runoff water must be collected and either treated
or reapplied, hazards from waste constituents in the runoff do not exert
any control on the application rate. For waste fractions which may be
eroded by surface water, the emphasis with respect to runoff is to recom-
mend management practices that will minimize erosive waste transport. The
degree of management required is, therefore, a function of the degree of
hazard presented by mobile waste components. In many cases, the increased
management intensity will be more than compensated by decreases in runoff
water treatment requirements.
391
-------
Volatility
Assess concentrations in
air over
1 Wet aoll
1 Dry toll
for a renge of loading
retes and teeperatures
1 Acute-compare with air
quality standards for
and fire/exploalon
hazard
2 Chranlc-wcftgenlclty
1 Kecamaend suitable
application technique
and timing
2 Calculate naxlmu* *afe
wiate load per
application
teaching
latch adosrptlon-desorp-
tion teats
Coluan studies using
1 fresh vaite extract
2 Weathered viate
extract
for a range of loading rates
field lyaimeters or barrel
lyalMters
Health 4 Safety
1 Acute-drinking irri-
gation general use
water atandards
2 Chtonic-mutagenlcity
Calculate maximum safe
loading rate
1 Per Application if
are easily degraded
2 Per_ye«r if mobile
constituents are
relatively stable
t
Run-off
Rainfall a collator
Field plot
1 Apply aste on
•utltc
2 Hlx ul h soil
3 Subsur ace Inject
Health
4 Safety
1 Acute-drinking
Irrigation, general
use water standards
2 ChTonlc-mutagtolelty
'
Recommended
management
cover application
technique)
t
Ho loading rate
calculation
DC Readability
ReaplroMter studies at
1 Varied temperature
2 Varied soil malatute
3 Varied nutrient atatti
over severe! loading rates
t
Calculate haU-
abl* organlce
using CO] solu-
tion and resi-
dual carbon
r~
Calculate load-
ing rate (per
year) baaed on
half-life phyto-
toxiclty and
toxlclty to
decomposer
organisma
tUK-lt
the otj
K.U-U
•pcclfl
poUDd*
H
Celcula
rat* (j
based o
life f
toxlcil
toxicit
decoBpo
organ la
* '
lone of
[antes
late load-
«•£>
J.I-
Recoanend a per application and e per year loading
tat* by ctu>Q«lag the lowest «B!U«S Cro* the above
analyses
Figure 7,4. A comprehensive testing format for assessing the interactions
of organic waste constituents with soil.
-------
7.5.3.1.4 Degradability. Degradation of organics may be the major
objective for land treating a waste; consequently, pilot studies emphasize
the characterization of this mechanism by which organics are lost from the
HWLT system. Degradability greenhouse and/or field studies should
establish the following three facts about the behavior of the waste
organics in the given land treatment system:
(1) the quantity of waste that can be applied to a unit of soil
in a single application to achieve the best overall system
performance;
(2) the half-lives (t^/2) °f tne bulk organics, organic subfrac-
tions, or specific organic constituents, leading to a deter-
mination of the constituents that are a) most resistant and
b) present in significant concentrations in the waste; and
(3) the threshold concentrations in soil at which these resis-
tant fractions cause unacceptable toxicity to either plants
or, more importantly, waste degrading soil microorganisms.
Given these data, a long-term waste loading rate can be calculated for
the waste based on the organic fraction that is found to be the most
restrictive. The half-lives for several oily wastes, as determined either
by residual carbon analysis or by monitoring C02 evolution, are presented
in Table 7.2. The results obviously depend on the type of oily waste, the
application rate, and, in some cases, the method of analysis. The half-
lives, which range from 125-600 days, indicate the need for determinations
on the particular waste proposed for land treatment. , The treatment demon-
stration should include tests to determine the half-life of the waste under
conditions as near as possible to those expected in the field. The degrad-
ability of the organic fraction of a waste may cause that fraction to be
the RLC. In addition, toxicity results may further classify some organic
fractions as the ALC. It should be noted that two entirely different
organic fractions or constituents in the waste may function respectively as
the RLC and the ALC.
The choice of an appropriate half-life is critical to the analysis of
degradability. Depending on waste characteristics, one of three tj/2
values may be chosen. If degradation is shown to be fairly uniform for all
classes of organics in the waste, the tj/2 °f the solvent extractables can
be used. If a given class of compounds which constitutes a large portion
of the waste is particularly resistant to decomposition, the t^/2 f°r that
class can be used. Finally, if a specific compound is present in a high
concentration and is only slowly degradable, the tj/2 f°r that compound can
be used.
In all three cases, "large" or "high" concentrations of constituents
do not indicate merely a quantitative ranking or comparison. Instead, the
comparison also considers the relative toxicities of the constituents to
decomposer organisms and, in some cases, plants. To sustain long-term use
of a land treatment unit, buildup to unacceptably high levels of constitu-
ents that are toxic to decomposer organisms should be avoided. Otherwise,
the system may fall short of the treatment objective. Where integrated
393
-------
TABLE 7.2 SOIL HALF-LIFE OF SEVERAL OILY WASTES AS DETERMINED BY VARIOUS METHODS
w
Application
Waste Rate (%)
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
API-Separator
(refinery)
API-Separator
(refinery)
API-Separator
(petrochemical)
API-Separator
(petrochemical)
Crankcase oil
Oil sludge
Oil sludge
10
20
9
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
Half-life
(days)
261
372
125
130
143
600
264
237
570
356
Method of Determination
C02 evolution
C02 evolution
Residual carbon (field)
(X>2 evolution
Residual carbon (lab)
C02 evolution
Residual carbon (lab)
Residual carbon (lab)
C02 evolution
Residual carbon (lab)
Reference
Brown (unpublished
Ibid.
Ibid.
data)
Brown, Deuel, & Thomas (1982)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Raymond , Hudson , &
(1976)
Dibble and Bartha
Ibid.
Jamison
(1979)
-------
cover crop management is included in the operating plan, phytotoxicity
should also be determined. The phytotoxicity threshold is considered to be
the concentration of the waste or constituents that reduce plant yields to
about 50% of controls. Yield reductions greater than this are an indica-
tion that management to provide a protective crop cover will be quite
difficult.
Two types of management plans are described which represent the
extremes of management for HWLT units. In the first case, the management
plan includes a temporary plant cover over the active treatment area, and
in the second case, a vegetative cover is not established until the
initiation of closure activities (see Section 8.7 for guidance on vegeta-
tive management options). Loading rate calculations for the two plans
would be as follows.
(1) When vegetation is a part of ongoing management plan, toxic
organics, exhibiting either microbial or plant toxicity, may
limit the loading rate. Assuming that loading rates are
relatively constant so that the designed area is adequate to
handle each year's waste production, the following equation
applies.
1/2 Ccrit
C = - ^^ (7.6)
yr ti/2
where
Cyr = the rate of application of the compound or fraction
of interest to soil (kg/ha/yr),
^e critical concentration of the compound or
fraction in soil at which unacceptable microbial
toxicity or plant yield reduction occurs (kg/ha);
and
half-life (yr)
The loading rate is then calculated as follows.
LR = E (7.7)
where
LR = loading rate (kg/ha/yr); and
Cw = concentration of the compound or fraction of
interest in the bulk waste (kg/kg).
395
-------
If t-[/2 is less than one year, then the year's loading rate
should be applied in more than one application. To calcu-
late the number of applications let l/tj/2 equal the small-
est t^/2 an<^ use t-*16 following equation
NA = l/tx/2 (7.8)
where
NA = number of applications /year.
(2) When a vegetated surface is desired only after site closure
begins, then applications of waste may exceed the phytotox-
icity threshold value. The only constraints would be that
the microbial toxicity threshold not be exceeded and that a
final vegetative cover can be established after a given num-
ber of years following the beginning of closure. Calcula-
tions are as follow:
Cmax = Ccrxt 2(n/t1/2) (7.9)
where
» the maximum allowable concentration of the compound
fraction of interest applied to the soil (kg/ha) ,
n = number of years between final waste application and
crop establishment (yr), and
fcl/2 = half-life (yr).
After Cjn^ is determined, loading rates are calculated by apply-
ing equations 7.6 and 7.7 substituting Cmax for Ccr£t in equation
7.6. For wastes with very short half -lives , the resulting load-
ing rate may appear to "be excessive, however, assuming that other
factors are held constant, a high Cmax merely indicates that
organics will not be limiting. The calculated Cmax should not be
interpreted literally in such cases. Before such high rates of
application are reached, some other parameter is likely to be
limiting; this possibility will need to be evaluated. For
instance, degradation of waste organics may be inhibited at much
lower levels than CmaK due to wetness and the resulting loss of
soil aeration.
7.5.3.2 Water
Most land treatable wastes have a high water content, and even fairly
viscous sludge may contain greater than 75% water. Therefore, particularly
in humid regions, waste water may be the RLC. Using the climatological
data on precipitation and evapotranspiration and soil permeability
396
-------
information from Section 4.1.1.5, a water balance model may be developed as
discussed in Section 8.3.
The two keys to properly using the water balance models for the given
site are first, determining the waste application season (Section 3.3.3)
and, second, deciding on a water management scheme (Section 8.3). The
waste application season depends on whether cover crops are to be grown
during, or only after, active treatment. Determination of the waste appli-
cation season is essentially the same for both options except that where no
cover crop will be grown during the active life of the HWLT unit, phytoxic-
ity need not be considered. The waste can accumulate with little degrada-
tion of organics but without presenting a phytotoxicity, leaching, volati-
lization, or runoff hazard, then the waste application season is based on
the period of time when water may be readily applied. If accumulation
leads to phytotoxicity or environmental hazards, then the season is based
on the time that degradation effectively begins and ends, generally when
soil temperature is 2;5°C and soil moisture can be maintained at or below
field capacity. The water balance model can be integrated over the appli-
cation season to yield the depth of water (1^0) that may be applied per
year to maintain the average soil moisture content at field capacity. The
waste analysis shows the percent water by volume and the waste density
(kg/liter). Therefore, the waste loading rate on the basis of water
content is:
LRH20
LR = —-^-x p , (7.10)
H20
where
LR = loading rate (kg/ha/yr);
volumetric l^O loading rate (1/ha/yr), noting that 1 cm
depth = 105 1/ha,
FJJ?Q = fraction of waste constituted by water, 1/1 and;
P = waste density (kg/1).
Field capacity, defined elsewhere (7.2.1.1.2.1), is chosen because it is
the optimum soil moisture content for organics degradation and decreasing
the likelihood of pollutant leaching.
7.5.3.3 Metals
Metals management strives to permanently sorb the applied elements
within the soil so that no toxicity hazard results. Some elements (e.g.,
molybdenum and selenium) may cause environmental damage through leaching
since these elements occur as anions in the soil system. Leaching of
mobile anions should be considered in a manner similar to halide leaching
(7.5.3.7). Toxicity assessment should account for phytotoxicity, food
chain effects, and direct ingestion of soil by grazing animals. Section
397
-------
6.1.6 provides background information on metals and suggests maximum con-
centrations that may be safely added to soils. These amounts are cumula-
tive totals for those metals for which no significant movement occurs. The
capacity of a given soil to immobilize a particular element can vary some-
what from the limits suggested in the tables in Section 6.1.6; therefore,
in all cases, the associated discussions and literature references should
be consulted. At this stage, one must have consciously decided upon a
general management plan in order to choose whether metal limits should be
based on phytotoxicity or toxicity to decomposer organisms. Many metals
are essentially untested at high concentrations in the soil environment
simply because, historically, there have been no major cases where these
metals have contaminated the soil. However, the increasing uses for vari-
ous elements in industry indicates that some land treated wastes may con-
tain high concentrations of metals. Therefore, a data base is needed on
many elements both from the standpoint of basic research and from observed
interactions in natural systems.
Accumulation of metals will often be the factor that controls the
total amount of waste that may be treated per unit area. Therefore, even
if another waste constituent limits loading rates, a metallic element fre-
quently is the capacity limiting constituent. To compare metals to deter-
mine the element potentially limiting total waste applications (potential
CLC), one can simply calculate the following ratio for each mstal in the
waste:
_, . . , . . Metal loading capacity (mg metal/kg soil) ... 11X
Metal loading ratio = & „ . —— —-^—-—-r- (7.11)
Metal content of the waste residual solids
(mg metal/kg RS)
Metal loading capacity is determined for each metal from Section 6.1.6 and
Table 6.46. The residual solids (RS) determination is found in Section
5.3.2.3.2.2. If the ratio is in all cases less than or equal to 1, then no
metal will ever limit the useful life of the land treatment unit. Where
one or mare of the ratios are greater than 1, then the metal with the larg-
est ratio is the potential CLC.
All of the allowable metal load may be applied during any chosen time
frame (e.g., a single application; continuously for ten years; or incre-
mentally over a twenty year period, etc.). However, other constituents in
the waste may limit the rate at which the waste is applied.
7.5.3.4 Nitrogen
The following estimates of nitrogen (N) additions and losses from a
land treatment unit (Table 7.3), are used to calculate a nitrogen mass
balance equation. Actual values for a given site can be estimated using
the guidance given in Section 6.1.2.1.
398
-------
TABLE 7.3 NITROGEN MASS BALANCE
Inputs
Removals
Total N in waste
N in precipitation
N fixation
Mineralization
Nitrification
Denitrification
Volatilization of ammonia
N storage in soil
Leaching
Runoff
Crop uptake
Immobilization
Inputs of nitrogen must equal nitrogen
levels of nitrates in runoff or leachate.
removals to maintain acceptable
The comprehensive equation presented below includes a number of
factors in the mass balance calculation. The depth of waste application is
computed by taking the sum of the N involved in crop uptake, leaching,
volatilization, and denitrification, subtracting the N from rainfall, and
then dividing by the N concentration of the waste. When using this
equation, estimates of denitrification and volatilization must also be
made. The equation is written as follows.
LR = 10
5 10 (C + V + D) + (Ld)(Lc) - (Pd)(Pc)
I + | (M)(0)
(7.12)
where
LR = waste loading rate (kg/ha/yr);
C = crop uptake of N (kg/ha/yr),
V = volatilization (kg/ha/yr),
D = denitrification (kg/ha/yr),
L^ = depth of leachate (cm/yr),
LC = solute (N) concentration in leachate (mg/1),
Pjj = depth of precipitation (cm/yr),
Pc = concentration of N in precipitation (mg/1),
I = concentration of inorganic N in the waste (mg/1 on a wet
weight basis),
M = mineralization rate given in Table 6.4,
0 = concentration of organic N in the waste (mg/1 on a wet
weight basis; if the concentration of N is known on a weight
basis (mg/kg) then the value of 0 equals mg/kg x waste
density in kg/1); and
t = years after waste application.
The concentration of N in the leachate (Lc) must be chosen with regard to
the groundwater quality objectives for the underlying aquifer. A value of
10 mg N/l is a likely choice since this reflects the primary drinking water
399
-------
standard for NC^-N. If the land treatment unit does not harvest a crop
from the active site, the plant uptake term is removed from the equation.
For comparison purposes, nitrogen may qualify as the RLC.
7.5.3.5 Phosphorus
Phosphorus (P) is effectively retained in soil as are the metals,
except that the soil has a more easily determined finite P adsorption
capacity. This adsorption capacity can be estimated from Langmuir isotherm
data. The calculations must include the horizontal area (ha), depth to the
water table (cm), and the previous treatment of the soil at the site. It
is expected that complete renovation occurs in the root zone, or within a
depth of 2 m (Beek and de Haan, 1973). Although the effect of organic
matter and long-term precipitation reactions on the P adsorption potential
are not well understood, the profile distribution of aluminum, iron, and
calcium may greatly influence sorption capacity. It is therefore necessary
to calculate the total permissible waste load as a function of the sorption
capacity of each soil horizon. The loading capacity can be calculated as
follows:
LCAP = 10 S d1P(bmax - Pex) (7.13)
i=l
where
LCAP = loading capacity (kg P/ha),
d^ - thickness of the i tnhorizon,
P - bulk density of soil (g/cm^),
bmax - apparent sorption capacity estimated from Langmuir
isotherm (yg/g); and
Pex « NaHC03~extractable phosphorus reported on a dry weight
basis (yg/g).
Total phosphorus application is the sum of the values for all horizons.
This total permissible load may be divided at the discretion of the site
manager who must consider the life of both the industrial plant and the
disposal site. Once this calculated capacity is reached, applied P may
leach without attenuation to shallow groundwater, consequently, phosphorus
may be the CLC.
7.5.3.6 Inorganic Acids, Bases and Salts
The accumulation of salts and the associated soil physical and
chemical problems, are primary management concerns when land treating
acids, bases, and salts or other wastes having significant incidental
concentrations of these constituents. Excessive applications of acidic or
basic wastes may necessitate mitigation of the adverse affects on soil.
400
-------
For example, lime may be used to control soil pH where waste acids are land
treated.
In any case, no broadly satisfactory method has yet been developed for
quantifying salt behavior in soil so that waste loading rates can be deter-
mined. Consequently, management of salts must consider two broad cases.
In the first case, water inputs or soil drainage are inadequate and salts
are conserved and accumulate in the surface soil. Salts would therefore
behave as a CLC, where limits are determined based on toxicity to plants or
waste decomposer organisms. See Section 6.1.4 for methods of salt measure-
ment and salt tolerance of variuos crops. Total waste loads (kg/ha) would
be based on the given management plan. In the second case, adequate site
drainage is present or can be artifically provided, salt can be an RLC and
some type of model would be needed to calculate loading rates with ground-
water quality criteria serving as the limits for leachate quality. Since,
as stated in Section 6.1.4, no satisfactory model is currently available,
consultation with a soil scientist having salt management experience is
recommended. Where a sodium imbalance in the waste could threaten soil
structure and cause associated problems, the waste loading rate will still
be controlled by salt content, but additional salinity may result from
amendments added to control the cation balance.
7.5.3.7 Halides
A halide may qualify as the RLC because loading rates should be con-
trolled to maintain acceptable groundwater quality and these anions will
leach readily from the soil. Calculations are similar in many respects to
those for the nitrogen model. Determinations may be modified to account
for precipitation into less soluble forms, such as
Two halide management cases are possible, depending on the site.
Where water inputs or soil drainage are not adequate to remove these anions
by leaching, concentrations of available halides will build up in soil. In
this case, assuming salt buildup does not physically damage the soil struc-
ture, the halide can behave as a CLC, with limits based on toxicity to
plants i or microbes (see Section 6.1.5). Calculations would be the same as
for metals. In the second case, conditions would be favorable for leaching
to occur and the given halide would be a potential RLC. A halide will have
little interaction with the soil matrix and should therefore leach readily.
Additionally, it is assumed that repeated waste applications will allow the
system to be approximated by a steady state solution, and the following
equation can be used:
(Ld)(Lc) x 105
LR - d * - (7.14)
401
-------
where
LR = waste loading rate (kg/ha/yr),
L
-------
decisions on the required land area (eq. 7.15) and the minimum number of
applications per year (eq. 7.16) are made using the following calcula-
tions :
PR
(7.15)
where
LRRLC
A = required treatment area (ha),
PR = waste (wet weight) production rate (kg/yr), and
waste loading rate based on the RLC (kg/ha/yr).
If the value calculated for A is greater than the area available for treat-
ment, then land treatment cannot accommodate all of the waste which is
being produced.
LRpj r
NA=-^£ (7.16)
AL
where
NA = number of applications per year and is equal to the
smallest integer greater than or equal to the actual value
calculated ,
LRgLc = waste loading rate based on the RLC (kg/ha/yr), and
AL = application limit based on the ALC (kg/ha/ application).
The land treatment unit life and concomitant choice of a CLC are not
predicted in such a straightforward manner. Three classes of potentially
conservative constituents have been identified, metals, phosphorus and
inorganic acids, bases, and salts. By calculating a unit life based on
each, the design unit life and CLG can be chosen to be that constituent
which is the most restrictive. Phosphorus is redistributed throughout the
treatment zone while salts, if conserved, tend to accumulate near the
surface and thus can be described using the following equation.
LCAPpo
UL=—— S- (7.17)
LRRLC
where
UL = unit life (yr),
LCAPps = waste loading capacity beyond which the CLC will exceed
allowable accumulations (kg/ha), and
= waste loading rate based on the RLC (kg/ha/yr).
403
-------
Metals, by contrast, are practically immobile and are mixed in the
waste with a heterogeneous matrix of water, degradable organics, mobile
constituents and nondegradable residual solids (see Section 5.3.2.3.2.2).
Waste application is therefore not merely the addition of a pure element to
soil. The residual solids fraction (RS) adds to the original soil mass.
Wastes containing high RS concentrations can significantly raise the level
of the land treatment unit as well as limit the amount of soil which can be
used to dilute the waste. As mentioned under Metals in Section 7.5.3.3, if
the concentration of a given metal in the RS of a waste is less than the
maximum allowable concentration in soil, then the given metal cannot limit
waste application. The metal with the largest ratio greater than one from
eq. 7.11 is the possible CLC and unit life is determined as follows:
(1) determine the concentration (ca) of the metal in the waste
residual solids (mg/kg);
(2) calculate the residual solids loading rate from the
equation;
LRRLC x (weight fraction of residual
solids in waste) ,r>-5 /-, io\
za = - p - '- - x 10 5 (7.18)
where
za = volumetric waste loading rate on a residual solids
basis (cm/yr),
PBRS = bulk density of residual solids , assumed to be the
same as that of the soil after tillage and settling
(kg/1); and
10 •* = conversion factor from 1/ha to cm;
(3) choose a tillage or waste-soil mixing method and determine
the "plow" depth (zp) in cm;
(4) from the background soil analysis, obtain the background
concentration (mg/kg) of the given metal (cpo);
(5) from reference to the specific metal in Chapter 6, determine
the maximum allowable soil concentration (cpn) of that
metal (mg/kg);
(6) using these quantities, solve for n in the following equa-
tion (Chapra, unpublished paper) where n is the number of
applications which result in the concentration of the sur-
face layer being Cn.
ln
cpn ~ c
404
-------
(7) the corresponding unit life is:
UL = nta (7.20)
where
ta = time between applications.
The equation idealizes the process of application and plowing as a
continuous process. To do this, a number of assumptions must be made.
(1) Assume that sludge is applied at equal intervals, ta in
length.
(2) Assume that the sludge always has the same concentration ca.
(3) Assume that the sludge is always applied at a thickness of
za-
(4) Assume complete mixing of the surface layer to depth zp
due to plowing.
(5) Assume that the plowed soil and the sludge have equal
porosity.
(6) The annually applied waste degrades and dries approximately
down to residual solids.
A design unit life (years) is then chosen from among salts, phosphorus
and metals. The shortest life of the three is the desired value. For many
waste constituents, inadequate information is available to properly assess
loading rates. Pilot experiments and basic research are suggested in this
document so that an understanding of the fate of various constituents in
soil can begin to be developed. Where land treatment is proposed for a
waste constituent about which only scant knowledge is available, pilot
studies should be conducted to evaluate that constituent, and the loading
rate for such a constituent should be conservative to provide a margin of
safety.
405
-------
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES
Allen, S. E., G. L. Terman, and L. B. Clements. 1976. Greenhouse techniques
for soil-plant-fertilizer research. TVA. Muscle Shoals, Alabama. TVA Bull.
Y-104.
Bailey, G. W., T. L. White, and T. Rothberg. 1968. Adsorption of organic
herbicides by montmorillonite, role of pH and chemical character of adsorb-
ate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:222-234.
Baruah, J. N., Y. Alroy, and R. L. Mateles. 1967. The incorporation of
liquid hydrocarbons into Agar media. Appl. Microbiol. 15(4)-961.
Beckman Instruments, Inc. 1982. Beckman Microtox® system operation manual.
Beek, J. and F. A. M. de Haan. 1973. Phosphorus removal by soil in relation
to waste disposal. Proc. of the International Conference on Land for Waste
Management. Ottawa, Canada, Oct. 1973.
Benigni, R., M. Bignami, I. Camoni, A. Carere, G. Conti, R. lachetta, G.
Morpurgo, and V. A. Ortali. 1979. A new in vitro method for testing plant
metabolism in mutagenicity studies. Jour, of Toxicology and Environ. Health
5:809-819.
Brown, K. W., D. C. Anderson, S. G. Jones, L. E. Deuel, and J. D. Price.
1979. The relative toxicity of four pesticides in tap water from flooded
rice paddies. Int. J. Environ. Studies. 14:49-54.
Brown, K. W., L. E. Deuel, and J. C. Thomas. 1982. Final report on soil
disposal of API pit wastes. U.S. EPA Grant No. R 805474013. Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Castro, C. E. and N. 0. Belser, 1966. Hydrolysis of cis- and trans-dichlo-
ropropene in wet soil. J. Agr. Food Chem. 14:69-70.
Chapra, S. C. A simple model for predicting concentrations of conservative
contaminants at land treatment sites. Unpublished paper.
Dibble, J. T. and R. Bartha. 1979. Effect of environmental parameters on
blodegradation of oil sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 37:729-738.
Duffy, J.J., M.F. Mohtadi, and E. Peake. 1977. Subsurface persistence of
crude oil spilled on land and its transport in groundwater. pp. 475-478 In
J. 0. Ludwigson (ed.) Proc. 1977 Oil Spill Conference. New Orleans,
Louisiana. 8-10 March, 1977. Am. Pet. Inst. Washington, D.C.
Edwards, N. T. and B. M. Ross-Todd. 1980. An improved bioassay technique
used in solid waste leachate phytotoxicity research. Environ. Exper. Bot.
20:31-38.
406
-------
EPA. 1982. Hazardous waste management system, permitting requirements for
land disposal facilities. Part 264. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 143. pp.
32274-32388. July 26, 1982.
Farmer, W. J., K. Ique, W. F. Spenser, and J. P. Martin. 1972. Volatility
of organochlorine insecticides from soil, effect of concentration, tempera-
ture, air flow rate, and vapor pressure. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36:443-
447.
Helling, C. S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soils I. Parameters of thin-
layer chromatography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:735-737.
Helling, C. S. and B. C. Turner. 1968. Pesticide mobility: determination
by soil thin-layer chromatography. Science 162: 562-563.
Higashi, K. , K. Nakashima, Y. Karasaki, M. Fukunaga, and Y. Mizuguchi.
1981. Activiation of benzo(a)pyrene by microsomes of higher plant tissues
and their mutagenicity. Biochemistry International 2(4): 373-380.
Laskowski, D. A., C. A. I. Goring, P. J. McCall, and R. L. Swann. 1980.
Terrestrial environmental risk analysis for chemicals. R. A. Conway (ed.).
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Matijesevic, Z., Z. Erceg, R. Denic, V. Bacun, and M. Alacenic. 1980.
Mutagenicity of herbicide cyanazine plant activation bioassay. Mut. Res.
74(3):212.
Odu, C. T. I. and K. B. Adeoye. 1969. Heterotrophic nitrification in soils
- a preliminary investigation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2:41-45.
Osborne, G. J., N. J. Poole, and E. Drew. 1980. A method for studying
microbial activity in intact soil cores. J. Soil Sci. 31.685-687.
Plewa, M. J. and J. M. Gentile. 1976. The mutagenicity of atrazine: a
maize-microbe bioassay. Mutat. Res. 38:287-292.
Plice, M. J. 1948. Some effects of crude petroleum on soil fertility. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 43:413-416.
Raymond, R. L., J. 0. Hudson, and W. W. Jamison. 1976. Oil degradation in
soil. App. Environ. Microbiol. 31.522-535.
Reichhart, D., J. P. Salaun, I. Benveniste, and F. Durst. 1980. Time course
of induction of cytochrome P-450, NADPH-cytochrome c reductase, and
cinnamic acid hydroxylase by phenobarbital, ethanol, herbicides, and
manganese in higher plant microsomes. Plant Physiol. 66:600-604.
Stotzky, G. 1965. Microbial respiration, pp. 1550-1572. In C. A. Black
(ed.) Methods of soil analysis part 2. Chemical and microbiological proper-
ties. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin.
407
-------
Tomlinson, C. R. 1980. Effects of pH on the mutagenicity of sodium azide in
Neurospora crassa and Salmonella typhimurium. Mutat. Res. 70(2).179-192.
Van Cleve, K. , P. I. Coyne, E. Goodwin, C. Johnson, and M. Kelley. 1979. A
comparison of four methods for measuring respiration in organic material.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 11:237-246.
Van Der Linden, A. C. and G. J. E. Thijsse. 1965. The mechanisms of micro-
bial oxidations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Adv. Enzymology 27:469-546.
Weber, J. B. 1972. Interaction of organic pesticides with particulate
matter in aquatic and soil: fate of organic pesticides in the aquatic
environment. Am. Chem. Soc. Washington, D.C. pp. 55-120.
Wildeman, A. G., I. A. Rasquinha, and R. N. Nazar. 1980. Effect of plant
metabolic activation on the mutagenicity of pesticides. Carcinogenesis,
AACR Abstracts 89:357.
Youngson, C. R. and C. A. I. Goring. 1962. Diffusion and nematode control
by 1,2 dibromoethane, and 1,2 dibromo-3-chloropropane. Soil Sci. 93.306.
408
-------
8.0 CHAPTER EIGHT
DESIGN AND OPERATION OF HWLT UNITS
This chapter discusses the management concerns that are important to
the design and effective operation of an HWLT unit. The topics discussed
in this chapter (Fig. 8.1) pull together information that has been gathered
from waste, soil and site characterizations and from pilot studies of
waste-soil interactions. Since system interactions are very site, waste-
and soil-specific, the management plan should specify how the design cri-
teria and operational plan address site-specific factors and anticipated
operational problems. This chapter considers several options for operating
HWLT units in an environmentally sound manner under different general con-
ditions. The specific design and management approach will be established
on a case by case basis, however, since each individual unit will have dif-
ferent needs. Permit writers and facility owners or operators should study
the principles discussed in this chapter and use those that apply to the
specific needs of the HWLT unit being considered.
8.1 DESIGN AND LAYOUT
Actual design and layout depends on the terrain, the number and type
of wastes being treated, and the area involved. In laying out a land
treatment unit, consideration should be given to minimizing the need to
construct terraces to divert water from uphill watersheds. Access roads
should be laid out along the top of the grade or on ridges to provide good
drainage and minimize traffic problems during wet periods, particularly if
waste is to be applied continuously. Disposal areas should be designed so
the waste can be easily and efficiently spread by irrigation, by surface or
subsurface spreading vehicles, or by graders or dozers after it is dumped.
If sludge is to be dumped at one end of an area, spread, and then tilled,
plots should be shaped to allow uniforiii spreading with the available equip-
ment. If equipment will become contaminated during unloading or mixing, a
traffic pattern should be established and a wash area or rack constructed
so that all equipment can be decontaminated before leaving the confined
watershed of the HWLT unit. If equipment remains on-site, a parking facil-
ity and possibly a service area should be included in the design.
If erosion is a potential hazard due to climate, topography or soil
characteristics, waste should be applied in strips across the slope
parallel to terraces or on the contour. Contour application involves
alternating freshly treated strips and vegetated areas. Once a vegetative
cover is established on the treated strips, applications begin on the pre-
viously vegetated buffer strips. This technique serves to reduce the
potential for erosion and also provides vegetated areas with better trac-
tion for equipment during inclement weather.
While many land treatment units are designed to receive only one type
of waste, there is no reason why they cannot be designed and managed to
409
-------
r
WASTE
OTENTIAL
SITE
1
FACILITY DESIGN AND LAYOUT § 8.1
LAND PREPARATION 1 8.2
WATER CONTROL AND
MANAGMENT § 8.3
AIR EMISSION CONTROL § 8.4
EROSION CONTROL § 8.5
MANAGEMENT OF SOIL pH § 8.6
VEGETATION § 8.7
WASTE STORAGE § 8.8
WASTE APPLICATION
TECHNIQUES § 8.9
SITE INSPECTION § 8.10
RECORDS AND REPORTING § 8.11
**m^m*
~
-
J
!
DESIGN AND OPERATION
CHAPTER EIGHT
HAVE THE FACTORS
THAT EFFECT THE DESIGN
AND OPERATION OF THE
HWLT UNIT BEEN
ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED ?
yes
(FINAL SITE
V SELECTION
I
/WASTE-SOIL INTERACTIONS
V CHAPTER SEVEN
}
F
MONITORING DESIGN
CHAPTER NINE
Figure 8.1 Topics to be considered for designxng and managing an HWLT.
410
-------
receive any number of wastes which would be rendered less hazardous in the
land treatment system. If more than one waste is to be disposed, separate
plots can be used for each type; or, it may be possible to dispose several
types of waste simultaneously on one plot, if application rates are
designed to stay within the constraints of the rate (RLC) and capacity
limiting constituents (CLC) of the waste mixture for the particular site.
In some cases, it may be beneficial to codispose wastes containing differ-
ent concentrations of the constituents that limit the application rate.
For instance, one waste may contain nitrogen, but be low in phosphorus,
zinc and lead, while another waste is deficient in nitrogen but contains
significant concentrations of phosphorus, zinc and lead. It should be
possible to select application rates for several wastes that achieve the
disposal objective without exceeding acceptable leachate concentrations and
without accumulating high levels of the constituents involved. Obviously,
a more detailed management and record keeping system is needed when several
wastes are codisposed. There are other instances where codisposal may be
advantageous. Certainly the codisposal of acidic and basic wastes will
result in neutralization and can be done provided excessive salts do not
result. For such disposal, it is often desirable to first dispose of the
basic waste and then apply the acidic waste to prevent the release of
immobilized waste constituents such as metals.
When waste characteristics are likely to change in the future, or when
it may be desirable to use the land for future disposal of another waste,
the site should not be fully loaded with any one constituent which would
prevent future addition of that particular constituent. For instance, if
there is the possibility that the CLC concentration of the waste may later
be reduced or that another waste having a different CLC may also be dis-
posed, it is desirable to cease loading when only a fraction of the allow-
able capacity has accumulated.
Although the soil is an excellent medium for deactivating and decom-
posing waste materials, there is the persistent danger at facilities where
a variety of wastes are disposed that incompatible wastes could come in
contact with each other. Problems can be reduced by thoroughly incorporat-
ing wastes that would otherwise be incompatible into the soil as soon as
they are received, since the soil will greatly buffer the reactions that
take place and can adsorb evolved heat or gases. The greatest dangers
occur when wastes come into contact with each other in receiving basins or
storage facilities. There have been several instances of deaths resulting
from incompatible wastes being mixed together at poorly managed disposal
facilities. To avoid such problems, incompatible wastes should be handled
separately and precautions should be taken to ensure that pumps and spread-
ing equipment are cleaned before being used for a different waste.
When wastes such as strong acids, strong bases, cyanides, ammonia com-
pounds , chlorine containing compounds, and other compounds that may react
with each other to generate toxic gases, or that may cause violent reac-
tions , are received the facility should have a detailed plan for separate
handling and the safeguards necessary to prevent mixing. One source of
information on the compatibility of binary mixtures of compounds is A
Method for Determining the Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes (Hatayama et
411
-------
al., 1980). This is a useful guide for predicting possible reactions
resulting from mixing wastes, but this information does not necessarily
apply to such mixtures within the soil matrix. Additionally, the informa-
tion does not address the issues of constituent concentrations or of the
heterogeneity or complexity of most waste streams. Lab and field testing
may be needed when knowledge about the possible reactions resulting from
mixing particular waste streams is insufficient. A list of incompatible
wastes is given in Table 8.1 and Fig. 8.2.
8.1.1 Single Plot Configuration
Size and subdivision of the land treatment area depend on the char-
acter of the waste involved, including the waste constituents and their be-
havior in soils (Chapter 6 and 7), the soil characteristics, the amount of
waste to be disposed, the disposal schedule, and the climatic conditions of
the area. Where applications are made only during one season of the year
or, on only a few specific occasions, and the limiting cumulative constitu-
ents are present in low concentrations, it may be desirable to spread the
waste uniformly over all the available acreage (Fig. 8.3). Such a configu-
ration can be used without subdividing the land treatment area if soils ar*
uniform, provided this procedure does not interfere with establishing a
vegetative cover if one is desired.
8.1.2 Progressive Plot Configuration
A controlling factor in the layout of any HWLT unit is the amount of
runoff to be collected and options available for disposal of runoff water.
Options for runoff are discussed in Section 8.3.5 and include on-site
disposal by evaporation and/or reapplication, use of a wastewater treatment
plant prior to release, and use of a retention pond to allow settlement of
solids and analysis prior to release. In climates where significant
volumes of runoff water will be generated, it is particularly important to
minimize the acreage from which runoff is generated if on-site disposal
will be used.
For some wastes that are high in metals and contain low concentrations
of nitrogen and toxic or mobile constituents, it may be possible to load
the soil to capacity in a short time. Subsequent waste applications would
then need to be diverted to new areas. This situation calls for several
small plots rather than a single large area (Fig. 8.4). Following the
final application on a particular plot, the closure plan is implemented
on the treated cell so that runoff water quality will be improved as
quickly as possible.
412
-------
TABLE 8.1 POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTES*
The mixture of a Group A waste with a Group B waste may have the potential
consequence as noted.
Group 1-A
Acetylene sludge
Alkaline caustic liquids
Alkaline cleaner
Alkaline corrosive liquids
Alkaline corrosive battery fluid
Caustic wastewater
Lime sludge and other corrosive
alkalines
Lime wastewater
Lime and water
Spent caustic
Group 1-B
Acid sludge
Acid and water
Battery acid
Chemical cleaners
Electrolyte, acid
Etching acid liquid or solvent
Liquid cleaning compounds
Pickling liquor and other
corrosive acids
Sludge acid
Spent acid
Spent mixed acid
Spent sulfuric acid
Potential consequences:
Group2-A
Heat generation, violent reaction.
Group 2-B
Asbestos waste and other toxic wastes
Beryllium wastes
Unrinsed pesticide containers
Waste pesticides
Potential consequences;
Group 3-A
Cleaning solvents
Data processing liquid
Obsolete explosives
Petroleum waste
Refinery waste
Retrograde explosives
Solvents
Waste oil and other flammable
and explosive wastes
Release of toxic substances in case of fire or
explosion.
Aluminum
Beryllium
Calcium
Lithium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc powder and other reactive metals
and metal hydrides
Group 3-B
Any waste in Group in 1-A or 1-B
Potential consequences:
Fire or expolsion; generation of flammable
hydrogen gas.
—continued—
413
-------
TABLE 8.1 (continued)
Group 4—A Group 4-B
Alcohols Any concentrated waste in
Water Groups 1-A or 1-B
Calcium
Lithium
Metal hydrides
Potassium
Sodium
S02C12, SOC12, PC12,
CH3SiCl3, and other water-
reactive wastes
Potential consequences: Fire, explosion or heat generation; generation of
flammable or toxic gases.
Group 5-A Group 5-B
Alcohols Concentrated Group 1-A or 1-B
Aldehydes wastes
Halogenated hydrocarbons Group 3-A wastes
Nitrated hydrocarbons and other
reactive organic compounds and solvents
Unsaturated hydrocarbons
Potential consequences; Generation of toxic hydrogen cyanide or hydrogen
sulfide gas.
Group 7-A Group 7-B
Chlorates and other strong Acetic acid and other organic
oxidizers acids
Chlorine Concentrated mineral acids
Chlorites Group 2-B wastes
Chromic acid Group 3-A wastes
Hypochlorites Group 5-A wastes and other
Nitrates flammable and combustible
Nitric acid, fuming wastes
Perchlorates
Permanganatesfuming
Peroxides
Potential consequences; Fire, explosion or violent reaction.
* Cheremisinoff et al. (1979).
414
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPATIBILITY CHART
'SONS'
*
>
>
4
t
t
1
1
•
10
II
12
1}
14
II
17
II
1*
20
21
22
U
24
a
it
n
»
30
31
M
IR
I«J
MM
IN
IN
REACTIVITY GROUP NAME
U-*—*Utt4n*
MttLM>ini.OiUU«|
Ad*. 0*1*
AMMfe**ar«*
AUtkyriv
A«UB
«»nui.»ll»lnlk»i«l \ininillc
An. C if link Wa/» C. IMHI«L «4 HUmtoi
CuhiKun
CamJk*
Crank.
DHtte.ta.~k.
Eum
Elkm
rWMcO.nr^li
lliliii»i«mOr^«iB
hncr-.«.
Kcowt
Mcrcatxaw and Other Orpnic Sulfidn
Mclah Alia* Md Alkaline Fjilh. Ekmenul
Hmk. OUMC Etagmul 4 Alkr> a fwdm. Vipn. >r Sr*«fn
Mtub. Oltar annul A A»n» a flora. *••>. Dnn. MeUtap. ««
Hrak «rf Jhul C«^~*. T«Ue
NMiMiM
MMta
HX*WW*MK. A«HwM Uwrtmwrf
HytfrwcjrbMH Altphittc SatMntfrf
Pn9ti4r« awl ll}druprro»dn. OtfMk
fV*ok»*dCiT»4>to
n h ft ^ t*TiH^MJil^^MB
t *"^ "^ Wf»i
T tn^ i ^^
SlMU*
»l)llll 1
n nii'i i.ii 1 1
»u«»rf»«.iiiii cmiiiHi limit
H
"r
H
H
H0
"c
H
GT
CF
H
H
M
cr
"
jl-
HF
GF
"f
"-H
s
cr
HF
V
H
HG
H
1
UT
GT
cr
"f
M,
".
'»
"CT
cr
N
1
J
C
M
Mr
Hr
"or
"or
GT
"GT
H
GT
GF
H
"r
"r
cr
H
"fn
'FGT
HF
\T
Cl-
»!•
Oh
H>
%
S
"'«
F
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPATIBILITY CHART (Continued)
Cmi*rqiitom
Mc»l
F
C
CT
InttocuoiM and nun flammable ,a ;Ci>r«lror»
TatHrfaffrnrnifMi
FlattMiuStle sa> irnentM*
14
Hr
If
I*
"r
17
II
"t
"E
"r
cr
H
HE
"CT
"i
IN
II
°FH
L'll
U
H
"r
M
r<»
qy
"a
l»
II
II
rr
H
•a
rlii
"F
"H
jjci
'r
"H
Mf
"ITT
"B
21
E
"f
i/r
HE
cr
H
H
HP
%
"E
1
"H
2.
"E
Hc
Hr
HE
'„
%
"H
11
8E
1
"r
24
1
HC
Hf
E
'n
9
a
•*»
cry
lrF
CFH
r
V
E
PH
''t
"ii
it
%
^n
"CF
27
"E
"E
r
s
u
MF
F(T
21
H,
",
2»
H,
JO
H
U
H
CT
•V
"r
H
'«
H
C
"E
11
H,
H
'H
",
^H
Itett ff wrali n far tixili «K|HGcncfaliuii
12
U
\
DO NOT MX MTU ANY CHEMICAL OK WAIT* MATERIAL! EXTREMELY REACTS
14
IS
u
17
II
it
»
it
22
2)
24
IS
2<
27
21
»
M
31
n
a
Hr *
101
f ||
SSS"E S '•*
H °*H "E 5 Hi "*
"OF *& '*
31 M 101 102 101 104 IM IM 187
Figure 8.2. Continued.
416
-------
DIVERSION TERRACE
~]WR
ROAD WAY
Water Retention Basin
Waste Application Area
—*- Pathway of Diverted Water
|WR| Wash Rack and Parking Area
— Diversion Terraces
SLOPE
Figure 8.3. Possible layout of a land treatment unit in a
gently sloping uniform terrain when only one
plot is used.
417
-------
» »».*«*
•'/•*•:;,
>*.-•/;;•
i+« * » "
r* * » • /
, »»» * .
*:•>"•
."•:•:* v
»"•::;:.•
*.*«•>»•
r.v:-v:
•:•-•;-;.
VZZtfifZZ
'<0Z(Z2f2
VZZZZ2.
____, _
[^ Revegetated Area
^ Water Retention Basin
r.l Future Cells
@ Areas presently being treated
•*r- Path of Water Flow
—•Diversion Terrace
Future Diversion Terrace
Figure 8.4. Possible layout of a land treatment unit in a gently
sloping uniform terrain when a progressive plot
configuration is used.
418
-------
8.1.3 Rotating Plot Configuration
The rotating plot configuration is a design approach which may be
used if waste is to be applied frequently or continuously when the rate
limiting constituent (RLC) is low enough to allow large applications. This
involves subdividing the land treatment area into plots which are treated
sequentially, cultivated, and then revegetated (Figs. 8.5 and 8.6). Fol-
lowing a period of six months or more, depending on the rate of degradation
of the applied materials, a given plot can be reused. The use of rotating
plots may require 6, 12 or even more plots, each capable of degrading a
proportionate fraction of the annual waste load. The use of individual
disposal plots offers the advantages of allowing the systematic use of
vegetation, minimizing the area exposed to erosion, and maximizing infil-
tration and evapotranspiration. Enhancement of infiltration and evapora-
tion is often of primary importance where no water treatment plant is
available for handling runoff water. Where a water treatment plant is
available, the layout may be similar to Fig. 8.6 with runoff water chan-
neled or piped from the retention basin to the treatment plant.
8.1.4 Overland Flow
Overland flow entails the treatment of wastewater as it flows at a
shallow depth over a relatively impermeable soil surface with a 2-8% slope.
Two treatment options having considerable applicability for industrial use
include: using overland flow to treat runoff generated by a land treatment
facility or using this method to treat wastewater effluent from industrial
processes. Either of these treatment options could be used in conjunction
with the treatment alternatives such as a land treatment system. This type
of complementary treatment could greatly reduce the cost of treating efflu-
ent or runoff water as well as reduce the load on existing wastewater
treatment plants.
Overland flow has been effective in removal of nitrogen, biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), a variety of metals, and
volatile trace organics (Carlson et al., 1974, Jenkins et al., 1981; Martel
et al., 1982). Carlson et al. (1974) reports overland flow as being effec-
tive in reducing the cadmium, copper, manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc
level of secondary effluent. Phosphorus removal by overland flow systems
is limited since the exchange sites are used up rather rapidly (Martel,
1982). A more detailed discussion of the topic and the important para-
meters to be considered during the design phase of an overland flow system
can be located in the following sources (Carlson et al. 1974, Hoeppel et
al., 1974, Carlson et al., 1974, Peters and Lee, 1978; Thomas et al., 1976;
Jenkins et al., 1981, Chen and Patrick, 1981, Dickey and Vanderholm, 1981,
Martel et al., 1982, Jenkins and Palazzo, 1981).
419
-------
Water Retention Basin
—*• Pathway of Diverted Water
— Diversion Terraces
GZHZZ3 Retention Levees
IWR! Wash Rack and Equipment Parking
Contour Lines
Figure 8.5. Possible layout of a land treatment unit in rolling
terrain showing 12 plots and associated runoff reten-
tion basins.
420
-------
ROADS
S3
ATER RETENTION BASIN
WASTE
APPLICATION
AREA
^PATHWAY OF DIVERTED WATER
-REVEGETATED AREA
Figure 8.6. Possible layout of a land treatment unit in
level terrain.
-------
8.1.5 Buffer Zones
Land treatment units should be laid out to provide adequate buffer
zones between the disposal site and the property boundaries. State regula-
tions concerning required buffer zones should be consulted when designing
the HWLT, where no specific regulations exist, the following suggestions on
buffer zones may be useful. For wastes which present minimal odor problems
and are incorporated into the soil surface shortly after application, the
buffer area is needed mainly for diversion terraces and aesthetic reasons.
Waste storage areas should be provided with larger buffer zones, particu-
larly if odors are associated with the storage or if aerators are used
which may cause aerosol drift. Water retention facilities should be
designed and constructed so the levees and spillways can be easily inspec-
ted and repaired. Enough area should be provided between the spillways and
the property boundary to allow implementation of emergency procedures, if
needed, to control runoff resulting from a catastropic storm event.
8.2 LAND PREPARATION
Preparing the surface of the treatment area generally consists of
clearing trees or bushes that obstruct the operations. Care should be
taken during construction to ensure that design specifications are strictly
followed. Surface recontouring may be needed to gather materials to con-
struct external diversion terraces and levees, or to establish grades and
internal terraces for water management. If recontouring is required, top-
soil should be stockpiled and then respread as soon as possible after re-
grading is completed. It is often desirable, however, to keep on-site dis-
turbances to a minimum to reduce soil erosion. If a vegetative cover is
established, it will tend to hold the soil together and provide traction
for the equipment used to spread the initial application of waste. There
is no need to plow a field before applying waste if the equipment available
for waste incorporation is able to break the turf and incorporate the
waste.
8.3 WATER CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT
Water is the primary means by which pollutants are transported from
HWLT units. Hazardous substances may either be dissolved or suspended in
water and subsequently carried to off-site land surfaces, surface waters or
groundwater. Consequently, water control is of primary importance in land
treatment design. When hazardous waste is mixed with the surface soil to
achieve the required degradation, almost, all water flowing over or through
the soil comes into contact with the waste. Water management strives to
limit the amount of water contacting treated areas by controlling run-on
from untreated areas to reduce the amount of water contaminated. Addition-
ally, runoff from treated areas is collected and either stored, disposed,
422
-------
or treated and released under a permit if the water is shown to be free of
contamination.
All water movement on an HWLT unit needs to be carefully planned.
When water is directly applied by an irrigation system, it must not be
applied at rates above the infiltration capacity of the soil. When inter-
mittent flooding or ridge and furrow irrigation techniques are used, care-
ful timing of applications is needed so applications immediately prior to
natural rainfall events are avoided as much as possible. Smaller, more
frequent applications are generally better than a few, very large volume
applications, however, this consideration should be based on the overall
design of the facility. Additionally, all water applications to sloping
land should be done in association with some type of erosion control prac-
tice such as contour strips, terraces, benches, diversion ditches, or con-
touring. It may also be desirable on some areas to leave buffer contour
strips of undisturbed vegetation to help slow water flow. Any activity
that disturbs the soil may decrease the effectiveness of erosion control
structures, consequently, these structures should be rebuilt and revege-
tated as soon after a disturbance as possible.
To provide overall water management, the operator should develop a
water balance for the HWLT site and keep a cumulative record of rainfall
and available storage volume. To properly manage water at an HWLT, other
important climatic parameters may need to be measured, including tempera-
ture and pan evaporation. Proper instrument exposures, calibration, and
use are essential in order to obtain reliable observations. The National
Weather Service establishes the standards for instrumental observations and
provides the best source of information on this topic. Additionally,
Linsley et al. (1975) provide good discussions of instruments and observa-
tions, and list sources of climatic data in their chapter references.
Manufacturers of meteorological instruments also provide pamphlets on
proper usage. Other useful measurements include wind velocity, soil tem-
perature, soil moisture, and particulate and volatile emissions.
During a wet season, the operator should endeavor to provide suffi-
cient storage capacity for anticipated rainfall runoff during the remainder
of the season. For facilities with no discharge permit where runoff water
is disposed by evaporation or spray irrigation, reapplication of water
should be concentrated during dry periods to reduce the stored volume. The
objective of all water management planning and effort is to avoid any
release of unpermitted or contaminated water.
8.3.1 Water Balance for the Site
The development of hydrologic information for a site can serve two de-
sign purposes, specifying acceptable hydraulic loading rates for liquid-
containing wastes and sizing runoff diversion (Section 8.3.2) and retention
(Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4) structures. Hydraulic loading rates are deter-
mined somewhat independently of the natural site water budget while the
423
-------
water budget is the direct means for determining runoff and the associated
control structures.
The amount of water which can potentially move into and through the
soil profile is primarily a function of the hydraulic conductivity of the
most restrictive soil horizon and the site drainage, which may have both
vertical and horizontal components available to remove water from the sys-
tem. Measures for these parameters are described in Section 4.1.1.5. It
should be recognized that the waste may dramatically affect the hydraulic
conductivity of the surface layer, and measurements obtained from this
layer should characterize the waste-soil mixture rather than the unamended
native soil. Additionally, the best results are obtained from field meas-
urements taken at enough locations to account for the spatial variability
of this parameter.
Once the hydraulic properties of the soils have been characterized,
the amount of wastewater that can safely be leached through the system
should be determined. This requires knowledge of the climatic setting of
the site, the soils, and the mobility of the hazardous constituents to be
land treated. In general, as the risk of significant leaching of hazardous
constituents increases, the acceptable hydraulic load decreases. At the
extremes are the two choices described below. The choice of hydraulic load
for intermediate risks should be guided by results of treatment demonstra-
tions (see Chapter 7 for test approaches).
Highly mobile hazardous constituents placed in a groundwater recharge
zone would be an example of an extreme case where the leaching risk is
great. The objective in this case would be to adjust hydraulic loading so
no leaching occurred. In arid regions, this objective may be practically
achieved by controlling waste applications to less than the site water
deficit. Humid sites may not practically achieve the zero leaching objec-
tive, so the unit should be designed so that natural leaching rates would
not be significantly increased. At least two approaches may be considered.
First, applications can be timed to coincide with dry months, such as
summer months in the southeastern U.S. Second, a site can be chosen to
include slowly permeable clay soils or soils with shallow clay restrictive
layers.
The other extreme is where the mobility of hazardous constituents is
minimal and loading rates are based on saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity data should not be used without adjust-
ment, however, because field experience with land treatment of nonhazardous
wastewater has shown that practical limits are much lower. Data are very
limited, but the USDA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (EPA, 1977) indicate
that the hydraulic loading rate should be a maximum of 2 to 12% of the
saturated hydraulic conductivity for loamy to sandy soils, respectively.
Some form of field testing is again necessary to provide an adequate
assessment and such information should be developed in conjunction with the
waste-site interaction studies (Chapter 7).
424
-------
8.3.2 Diversion Structures
The primary function of diversion structures on a land treatment unit
is to intercept and redirect the flow of surface water. For an HWLT unit
to function properly, it needs to be hydrologically isolated. This means
that if the treated area lies downslope, all runoff originating above the
treatment area should be diverted around the treatment site. Diversion
structures must at least be designed to prevent flow onto the treatment
zone from the peak discharge of a 25 year storm (EPA, 1982).
Run-on control is normally accomplished by constructing a berm of
moderately compacted soil around the site. Excess material from construc-
tion of the retention ponds is a good material to use for building these
berms. If native topsoil is used, it must be free of residual vegetation
that would prevent proper compaction. Berms should run at an angle up the
slope so that water moving downslope is intercepted and moved laterally.
This design minimizes ponding behind the berm and also allows construction
of a smaller berm. If the area draining to the berm is large, a terrace or
set of terraces may be needed above the berm to slow the velocity of the
water and to assist lateral movement. The terraces and the diversion berms
should discharge into a grassed waterway sized to safely divert runoff
water without causing serious erosion. For similar reasons, terraces and
diversion structures should be vegetated immediately following construc-
tion.
Just as diversion structures can be used to prevent run-on from enter-
ing the HWLT unit, they can be used to control water on-site. Water flow-
ing from upland portions of the HWLT unit can be carefully channeled to the
retention pond to prevent the release of contaminated water. Diversion
structures may be useful in some cases to divide the unit into plots.
8.3.3 Runoff Retention
All runoff from an HWLT unit must be controlled, this is usually
accomplished by using diversion structures, as previously discussed, to
channel water to a retention pond which is normally located in the lowest
spot. Another method for controlling runoff is to subdivide the unit and
contain the runoff from each smaller area in a separate retention pond.
One advantage to using several ponds is that if water in one pond becomes
highly contaminated by waste overloading in one plot, the volume of water
to be treated as a hazardous waste is minimized.
Ponds and retention basins must be designed to hold the expected run-
off from a 25-year, 24-hour return period storm (Schwab et al., 1971, EPA,
1982). There are two general approaches to meeting this requirement, one
is to design a pond for the runoff expected from the specified storm and
keep this pond empty and the other approach involves designing a pond to
contain rainfall runoff collected from previous storms as well as the run-
off for the specified storm. In any case, since the pond cannot be emptied
425
-------
instantaneously, some consideration of accumulated water must be included
in the design of runoff retention ponds. If the environmental damage would
be extremely high from an inadvertant discharge, the operator may want to
use the 50 to 100 year return period storm when sizing the basin. Sizing
calculations should take into consideration the potential carryover of
water accumulated during previous rainfall events so that the design capac-
ity can be mantained at all times. If a land treatment unit is divided
into plots and each plot is equipped with a retention basin designed for a
25-year, 24-hour return period storm, an additional, optional retention
basin can be installed to retain any overflow from the smaller ponds. This
basin can also be designed to hold the runoff expected to accumulate during
a wet season. Retention basins should be lined to comply with regulations
concerning surface impoundments (EPA, 1980a; EPA 1982) if the runoff is
hazardous. On-site clay materials may be suitable for use in compacted
clay liners.
It is imperative that the best available engineering principles be
used to design and construct retention basins. Earthern dams should be
keyed into the existing soil material whenever possible (Schwab et al.,
1971). There are also numerous sources of plastic or other composition
liners for sealing industrial storage ponds if clay is unavailable or
unsuitable for the given situation. All portions of the dam areas that
will not be submerged should be covered with 15 cm or more of topsoil and
revegetated with appropriate plant species.
Every pond and retention basin should have an emergency or flood
spillway. Whenever possible, ponds should be designed to use an existing
ongrade vegetated area as a spillway. Maintenance of a good vegetative
cover or riprap in the emergency spillway is needed to hold soil in place
and prevent dam failure in the event of an overflow.
8.3.4 Runoff Storage Requirements
Runoff control must be provided to reduce the probability of an uncon-
trolled release of contaminated runoff water. Obviously, protection
against all eventualities (zero probability) is unachievable, consequently,
the degree of protection provided should be based on knowledge of the site
and the risk associated with an uncontrolled release. The latter is
largely based on the characteristics of the waste and the damage which
could be caused by those constituents which are likely to be mobilized by
runoff water, with erosion control practices, waste application rates and
methods, and site management acting as modifiers.
Runoff retention ponds (impoundments) can be likened to multipurpose
reservoirs and, as such, can serve two functions, (1) control of normal
seasonal fluctuations in rainfall runoff and (2) maintenance of enough
reserve capacity to contain stormwater runoff from peak events. Probabili-
ties defining the degree of protection needed should be assigned to each of
these functions based on water balance calculations and severe storm
records, respectively.
426
-------
8.3.4.1 Designing for Peak Stormwater Runoff
Consideration of the climatic record for a site includes extreme
events, but the effects of these events are usually of little significance
to the long-term site water budget. Peak events can, however, have immedi-
ate, devastating effects. Therefore, regardless of the general water bud-
get, reserve capacity must be maintained for these singular events. The
length of the design storm is usually chosen to be 24 hours since this time
increment spans the length of singular storms in most cases while being of
short enough duration to be considered practically "instantaneous" in
comparison to the climatic record.
A minimum probability which is acceptable for hazardous waste sites is
the 25 year, 24 hour storm, which specifies a 4% annual probability that
this amount will be equalled or exceeded. Figure 8.7 is a map of the 25
year, 24 hour precipitation for the U.S. Greater values (i.e., lower prob-
abilities), for example the 100 year, 24 hour storm can be used where the
given site conditions pose a greater environmental risk. These are pre-
cipitation amounts, however, and not runoff. To translate the chosen pre-
cipitation value into runoff, a conservative approach would assume that
100% of the precipitation is lost as runoff. Storage volume is simply de-
termined by multiplying the depth of runoff by the total area of the site
watershed. For intense storms and high antecedent soil moisture content,
this assumption may be acceptable, but some refinement is usually
desirable.
Direct runoff from precipitation can be estimated using a procedure,
often called the SCS curve number, developed by the Soil Conservation
Service (1972). The estimate includes the effect of land management prac-
tices, the hydrologic characteristics of the soil, and antecedent soil
moisture content on the amount of runoff generated. Although this model is
a simple approach to a complex problem, it has an advantage over the more
physically realistic models in that the curve number method does not
require a great deal of input information and computer time.
To use the curve number method to determine the amount of runoff
(i.e., stormwater) retention necessary, first determine the hydrologic
group of the soil in the HWLT unit as described in Section 3.4.4. Next,
make an estimate of the rainfall amount which has occurred in the past five
days using Table 8.2. However, if fresh waste is applied frequently, the
soil may be continually moist and can be classified in antecedent moisture
condition (AMC) III. The runoff curve number can now be ascertained from
Table 8.3. For example, an HWLT unit planted with pasture grass in fair
condition on a soil in hydrologic group C yields a curve number of 79.
427
-------
JS
N>
00
25-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES)
Figure 8.7. 25-Year, 24-Hour rainfall for the United States (Herschfield, 1961),
-------
TABLE 8.2 SEASONAL RAINFALL LIMITS FOR ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITIONS*
Total 5-day antecedent rainfall (in inches)
AMC Group Dormant Season Growing Season
I
II
III
<0.5
0.5 - 1.1
>1.1
<1.4
1.4 - 2.1
>2.1
* Soil Converstion Service (1972).
The curve number acquired from Table 8.3 represents soils in AMC II
and must be converted if the soil is in AMC I or III. In this example, the
curve number of 79 is converted to a curve number of 91 using Table 8.4.
Figure 8.8 can now be used to estimate runoff amounts. If the 25-year,
24-hour rainfall event is the design parameter, and that equals 7.5 inches,
the intersection of 7.5 inches of rainfall with the curve number line of 91
yields direct runoff of 6.4 inches. Multiply this amount of runoff by the
acreage of the HWLT watershed, and the total runoff and retention pond size
can be calculated in acre-inches.
8.3.4.2 Designing for Normal Seasonal Runoff
Mindful of the two functions of runoff retention ponds, designing
ponds to control normal seasonal fluctuations, is more complex. This
requires knowledge of numerous independent variables, many simplifying
assumptions, and the choice of several management approaches. The complex-
ity of the hydrologic cycle is concomitant with the difficulty of charac-
terizing and measuring the important parameters make the job of predicting
the water budget and sizing retention ponds, somewhat of an art, based in
part on judgment and experience. Two possible approaches are discussed
here, one a relatively straightforward method which can be readily calcu-
lated manually and the other a general introduction to a computer modeling
approach. Where accumulated rainfall runoff is discharged or otherwise
managed so that the storage volume needed for the 25 year, 24 hour storm is
maintained, these calculations can be run using the maximum discharge rate
for the pump, or wastewater treatment plant used to empty the runoff stor-
age pond. These calculations can also help the site manager decide between
various discharge rates and pump capacities.
8.3.4.2.1 Monthly Data Approach. An underlying assumption in a water
budget for a site must be that, on the average, there is no net change in
the volume of runoff stored on a long-term basis. In other words, water
management cannot allow a continued increase in water stored because of the
"multiplying pond" syndrome (i.e., the need to periodically increase pond
429
-------
TABLE 8.3 RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS FOR HYDROLOGIC SOIL-COVER COMPLEXES*
(Antecedent moisture condition II, and Ia = 0.
Land use
Fallow
Row crops
Small grain
Close-seeded
legumes t or
rotation
meadow
Pasture
or range
Meadow
Woods
Cover
Treatment
or Practice
Straight row
Straight row
Straight row
Contoured
Contoured
Contoured
and terraced
Contoured
and terraced
Straight row
Straight row
Contoured
Contoured
Contoured
and terraced
Contoured
and terraced
Straight row
Straight row
Contoured
Contoured
Contoured
and terraced
Contoured
and terraced
Contoured
Contoured
Contoured
2 S)
Hydrologic
Hydrologic
condition
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Poor
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Good
A
77
72
67
70
65
66
62
65
63
63
61
61
59
66
58
64
55
63
51
68
49
39
47
25
6
30
45
36
25
B
86
81
78
79
75
74
71
76
75
74
73
72
70
77
72
75
69
73
67
79
69
61
67
59
35
58
66
60
55
soil group
C
91
88
85
84
82
80
78
84
83
82
81
79
78
85
81
83
78
80
76
86
79
74
81
75
70
71
77
73
70
D
94
91
89
88
86
82
81
88
87
85
84
82
81
89
85
85
83
83
80
89
84
80
88
83
79
78
83
79
77
—continued—
430
-------
TABLE 8.3 (continued)
(Antecedent moisture condition II, and Ia = 0.2 S)
Cover Hydrologic soil group
Treatment Hydrologic
Land use or Practice condition A B CD
Farmsteads 59 74 82 86
Roads (dirt)# 72 82 87 89
(hard surface)* 74 84 90 92
* Soil Conservation Service (1972).
' Close-dilled or broadcast.
* Including right-of-way.
431
-------
TABLE 8.4 CURVE NUMBERS (CN) AND CONSTANTS FOR THE CASE Ia - 0.2S
1
CN for
condition
II
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
2
3
CN for
conditions
I III
100
97
94
91
89
87
85
83
81
80
78
76
75
73
72
70
68
67
66
64
63
62
60
59
58
57
100
100
99
99
99
98
98
98
97
97
96
96
95
95
94
94
93
93
92
92
91
91
90
89
89
88
4
S
values^
(inches)
0
.101
.204
.309
.417
.526
.638
.753
.870
.989
1.11
1.24
1.36
1.49
1.63
1.76
1.90
2.05
2.20
2.34
2.50
2.66
2.82
2.99
3.16
3.33
5
Curve^ starts
where P =
(inches)
0
.02
.04
.06
.08
.11
.13
.15
.17
.20
.22
.25
.27
.30
.33
.35
.38
.41
.44
.47
.50
.53
.56
.60
.63
.67
1
CN for
Condition
II
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
2
3
CN for
conditions
I III
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
25
24
23
22
21
21
20
19
18
78
77
76
75
75
74
73
72
71
70
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
4
S
values '
(inches)
6.67
6.95
7.24
7.54
7.86
8.18
8.52
8.87
9.23
9.61
10.0
10.4
10.8
11.3
11.7
12.2
12.7
13.2
13.8
14.4
15.0
15.6
16.3
17.0
17.8
18.6
5
Curve' starts
where P =
(inches)
1.33
1.39
1.45
1.51
1.57
1.64
1.70
1.77
1.85
1.92
2.00
2.08
2.16
2.26
2.34
2.44
2.54
2.64
2.76
2.88
3.00
3.12
3.26
3.40
3.56
3.72
—continued-
-------
TABLE 8.4 (continued)
Co
1
ON for
condition
II
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
2
CN
3
for
conditions
I
55
54
53
52
51
50
48
47
46
1 45
44
43
42
41
III
88
87
86
86
85
84
84
83
82
82
81
80
79
78
4
S
values'
3.51
3.70
3.89
4.08
4.28
4.49
4.70
4.92
5.15
5.38
5.62
5.87
6.13
6.39
5
Curve* starts
where P =
.70
.74
.78
.82
.86
.90
.94
.98
1.03
1.08
1.12
1.17
1.23
1.28
1
CN for
Condition
II
34
33
32
31
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2
CN
3
for
conditions
I
18
17
16
16
15
12
9
6
4
2
0
III
54
53
52
51
50
43
37
30
22
13
0
4
S
values '
19.4
20.3
21.2
22.2
23.3
30.0
40.0
56.7
90.0
190.0
infinity
5
Curve' starts
where P =
3.88
4.06
4.24
4.44
4.66
6.00
8.00
11.34
18.00
38.00
infinity
* Soil Conservation Service (1972).
+ For curve number (CN) in Column 1.
-------
HYDROLOGY. SOLUTION OF RUNOFF EQUATION
P« 0 to 12 inches
0=0 to 8 inches
CO
Gurvti on lhl» thitl art for lh«
;COM Ia- 02S, so that;
P-Q zs>2:
P+08S
4,5 6 7 8
RAINFALL (P) IN INCHES
Figure 8.8. Estimating direct runoff amounts from storm rainfall (Soil Conservation
Service, 1972).
-------
capacity). Apart from storage, the means of control for management are en-
hanced leaching and evaporation and/or discharge under an NPDES permit
(Section 8.3.5). Given these considerations, the water budget can be
derived from the following basic expression:
P + W = EVTS + L + R (8.1)
where
P = precipitation;
W = water applied in waste,
EVTS = evapotranspiration,
L = leachate; and
R = runoff to be collected.
The equation assumes a negligible change in soil water storage. The runoff
(R) term can be broken into two components, storage (S) and discharge (D).
Using these terms and rearranging equation 8.1, the expression can be
written:
S = P + W - EVTS - L - D (8.2)
In the long-term, storage will vary approximately sinusoidally with a con-
stant mean.
Choosing a monthly basis as a convenient time increment, to maintain
sensitivity while simplifying data requirements, a water budget can be run
for the given site by using the climatic record, the watershed properties
of the proposed land treatment unit, and the assumption (for the purpose of
these calculations), that adequate storage is available to contain all
events (i.e. no spillway overtopping). Best results require using a cli-
matic record of at least 20 years. By simulating the entire record, month
by month, changes in storage can be seen with time. Appendix E provides an
example of how to run the calculations. Arriving at a design storage using
this method involves a four step process, as follows.
(1) Assume zero discharge and run the calculations. If there is
2 S^ _<_ 0; where S-L = annual change in storage from
]__ J_
the previous year), then no discharge is needed,
(2) If £ S* > 0; then some discharge and/or enhanced evapo-
i=l
ration or leaching is necessary. As a first approximation,
assume that the enhanced water losses equal the average
annual storage change (i.e. L SjL/n; where n = number of
years of record). Now rerun the calculations with the
modified values.
(3) Based on risk assessments, choose an acceptable probability
of equalling or exceeding the final design storage capacity
435
-------
and then choose a design storage capacity from the record
simulated in step (1) or (2) which xs equalled or exceeded
that portion of the time (e.g., if acceptable probability =*
0.1, then design storage should contain runoff all but 10%
of the time).
(4) Refinements in the storage capacity determined in step (3)
can be made to reflect other considerations. For example,
as water loss rates are increased, the storage needed
decreases. Therefore, cost considerations might encourage
an applicant to treat and discharge more water at some cost
to save even higher incremental costs of constructing and
maintaining larger retention ponds.
Estimating the input data for the water budget may be a difficult ex-
ercise. Monthly precipitation data are relatively easy to locate. Like-
wise, the amount of water included in the waste is directly ascertainable
from waste analyses and projected production rate (volumetric), and con-
verted to a monthly application depth (cm/mo) using the known unit water-
shed area. In contrast, monthly evapotranspiration and leaching,
especially with management modifications, are troublesome parameters to
estimate.
The watershed of the HWLT can be divided into areas which behave as
free water surfaces (e.g., ponds, ditches, continually wetted plots, and
well vegetated plots) and areas of bare soil or poorly cropped surfaces
which can vary dramatically in moisture conditions and evaporation rates
(e.g., plots, roads and levees). On a monthly basis, the portion of the
unit watershed falling in each category should be determined and an esti-
mated evapotranspiration (EVTS) rate determined for each. Free water sur-
face evaporation can be estimated using published monthly Class A pan evap-
oration data. The assumption may be made that true evaporation equals
about 70% of Class A pan evaporation. This assumption may be somewhat in-
accurate and can cause an error in estimates since pan coefficients vary
widely from month to month, but monthly pan coefficients are not available
from any source. If an annual pan coefficient is available for a nearby
reservoir, this may be used instead of the 70% figure. Pan evaporation
data for the U.S., summarized by Brown and Thompson (1976), is given in
Figures 8.9 to 8.20. No data are available for estimating EVTS from a bare
soil or the poorly cropped surface of HWLT units.
The only leaching which is of concern here is that which is lost to
deep percolation. Perched water having primarily a horizontal component of
flow should properly be intercepted by water containment structures and
ultimately contribute to the storage or discharge term of the site water
budget. A conservative, simplifying assumption which may be acceptable for
clay soils or those having shallow, restrictive clay horizons is that
leaching is zero. For less restricted conditions, there is unfortunately
very little information available for making good leaching estimates.
Therefore, unless sound data are provided from field measurements of leach-
ing losses (not hydraulic conductivity), then the conservative strategy is
to assume zero leaching or, in cases of heavy hydraulic loading by the
436
-------
Figure 8.9. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of January based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
-p-
w
00
Figure 8.10. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of February based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
Figure 8.11. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of March based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
Figure 8.12. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of April based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
Figure 8.13.
Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of May based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976) .
-------
.0
J^
to
Figure 8.14. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of June based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
Figure 8.15.
Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of July based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
Figure 8.16. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of August based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
.p-
-P-
Figure 8.17. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of September based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976) .
-------
.p-
CTi
Figure 8.18.
Average pan evaporation (xn cm) for the continental United States
for the month of October based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
Figure 8.19. Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of November based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brcwn and Thompson, 1976).
-------
•C-
00
Figure 8.20.
Average pan evaporation (in cm) for the continental United States
for the month of December based on data taken from 1931 to 1960
(Brown and Thompson, 1976).
-------
waste, use the same approach as previously discussed in Section 8.3.1 for
hydraulic loading rates.
8.3.4.2.2 Computer Methods. Computer approaches for water budgets have
been designed for a number of special purposes, but none are widely avail-
able which can be applied directly for sizing runoff retention ponds. The
deterministic model described by Perrier and Gibson (1980) is one useful
approach which is readily accessible to practically anyone having access to
a computer terminal, however, the model only goes so far as to generate
daily runoff data, which must then be manually integrated into a retention
pond water budget. Considerations in the manual calculations would be pond
evaporation, discharge and enhanced evaporation (EVTS) and leaching (L).
The enhanced EVTS and L terms would be handled as a feedback loop in the
model by treating them as though they were additional precipitation (an
exception is that the quantity reaching the plot must be reduced to account
for aerial evaporation losses before the water reaches the ground). There
is much need for a package model, possibly incorporating the Perrier and
Gibson (1980) model that includes these additional features. Other
references on computer modeling are listed and discussed in Fleming
(1975).
8.3.4.3 Effects of Sediment Accumulations
One final factor in retention pond sizing is an accounting for de-
creases in effective capacity because of sediment buildup. Periodic
dredging will often be necessary to maintain the designed useful capacity,
and some additional capacity must be included to handle sediment buildup
prior to dredging. The decision will primarily be based on management and
cost factors which are beyond the concern of this document; however, this
factor must be included in the pond design calculations.
8.3.4.4 Summary of Retention Pond Sizing
The final pond capacity design must account for the three influences
discussed previously: (1) peak storm runoff (8.3.4.1); (2) normal seasonal
runoff (8.3.4.2), (3) and sediment accumulations (8.3.4.3). The values for
each should be added to obtain a total design pond volume. The storage
facility need not be designed to hold all seasonal runoff plus the peak
storm runoff if the runoff storage facility will be emptied to maintain the
design capacity. However, in practice the storage facility cannot be
emptied instantaneously so some additional volume above the 25 year, 24
hour volume will be needed. The design also incidentally specifies design
discharge rate (size of water treatment plant, if needed) and/or the quan-
tity of runoff which should be irrigated onto the land treatment unit to
provide enhanced evaporation and in some cases leaching. Note that some
amount of irrigation is desirable under any circumstances to control wind
449
-------
dispersal of contaminants, provide water for growing cover crops, and
sustain optimal soil moisture conditions for organics degradation.
8.3.5 Runoff Treatment Options
Runoff collected in retention basins can be treated or disposed by one
of several methods. Water can either be released via a wastewater treat-
ment facility permit, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, or treated on-site in a zero discharge system. The method
of handling runoff should be considered during the design phase of the
facility. If the runoff from the land treatment unit is, itself, a hazar-
dous waste, then it must be handled accordingly. The definition and cri-
teria for identifying a waste as hazardous are found in 40 CFR Part 261
(EPA, 1980b).
If the plant or company that generates the waste owns and operates a
wastewater treatment plant, nonhazardous runoff water may be pumped to the
plant for treatment and disposal. An analysis of the discharge from the
wastewater treatment facility should be performed to determine if existing
permit conditions can still be met. Care must be taken to ensure adequate
water storage capacity in the runoff retention basins to hold water that
exceeds the capacity of the treatment plant.
Where the option of using an existing wastewater treatment facility is
not available, application for an NPDES permit may be appropriate if the
runoff water is nonhazardous. This would allow direct discharge of the
collected runoff water (with or without treatment) after analyses show that
the water meets water, quality standards set in the permit. Standard engi-
neering principles concerning diversion structures should be followed and
care must be taken to keep erosion of drainage ditches to a minimum.
If a company operates an HWLT unit as a zero discharge system, runoff
water may be used as a source of irrigation water when soils are dry enough
to accept more water. It may also be sprayed into the air above the pond
or treatment area to enhance evaporation if no hazard due to volatiles or
aerosols would result. When sprinkler irrigation systems are used for re-
application of runoff, the systems should be designed to apply water at a
rate not exceeding the soil infiltration rate to minimize runoff. Proper
pressure at the nozzles will help spread water uniformly, nozzles that form
large droplets are advisable when spray drift and aerosols must be mini-
mized. Collected runoff to be reapplied should be analyzed to determine if
it contains nutrients, salts and other constituents important in determin-
ing waste loading on the plots. If the water contains significant concen-
trations of these constituents a record of water applications should be
kept and the results used to determine the cumulative loading of the con-
stituents. In most cases, however, collected water contains negligible
concentrations of the constituents used in loading calculations when com-
pared to concentrations in the waste.
450
-------
Regardless of the method used for runoff control, irrigation during
dry, hot periods is beneficial to supply adequate moisture to maximize
microbial degradation of waste constituents. For this reason, it may be
desirable to move the irrigation system around to spread the water over as
much of the facility as possible. In some particularly dry seasons or
climates, additional irrigation water from off-site may be applied to
enhance waste degradation.
8.3.6 Subsurface Drainage
The primary purpose of subsurface drainage from below all or part of
an HWLT unit is to lower and maintain the water table below some desired
depth, to increase aeration in the surface soil, and to decrease the hazard
of groundwater contamination. This may be particularly valuable to help
maximize the utility of low lying or poorly drained areas of an HWLT unit.
The seasonal high water table should not rise higher than 1 meter (3 feet)
below the bottom of the treatment zone (EPA, 1982). If the soil is perme-
able with a shallow water table, a ditch cut to a specific depth below the
water table at the low end of the field may be sufficient to drain the sur-
face soil. Agricultural drainage systems are normally constructed by
digging sloped trenches and installing drain tiles or perforated plastic
pipe. The top of the pipe is protected by a thin paper or fiberglass
covering and the overlying soil is replaced (Luthin, 1957). By controlling
the depth of the unsaturated zone using subsurface drainage, a site which
would normally remain excessively wet because of a shallow water table
might be accessible and usable for land treatment.
Design and spacing of a drainage system can be accomplished using one
of several steady state or non-steady state relationships. The decision
about which relationship to use is generally based on experience and site
conditions. The Soil Conservation Service has historically used the clas-
sical Hooghaudt equation (Hooghaudt, 1937; Hillel, 1971), also known as the
ellipse steady state drainage equation, which includes a number of simpli-
fying assumptions. The relationship performs well in humid regions where
the steady state flow assumption is a fair approximation of site condi-
tions. In the western U.S., however, the Bureau of Reclamation uses a non-
steady state approach, particularly the Glover equation (Glover, 1964;
Dummn, 1964; Moody, 1966), which accounts for arid conditions where drain-
age is intermittent. Another non-steady state solution to drain spacing
design is the van Schilfgaarde relationship (van Schilfgaarde, 1963; van
Schilfgaarde, 1965; Bouwer and van Schilfgaarde, 1963). Additional steady
state and non-steady state relationships have been developed based on
varying approaches and assumptions, as discussed by Kirkham et al. (1974)
and van Schilfgaarde (1974). Two important considerations in choosing and
using a suitable relationship are that the explicit assumptions used in the
equation fit the particular HWLT site conditions and that the necessary
inputs are accurately estimated.
451
-------
Collection and treatment of the water collected should generally
follow guidelines discussed above for runoff water. In general, the water
should be collected in a pond or basin. From there it may be discharged to
a wastewater treatment plant, directly discharged under an NPDES permit, or
used internally for irrigation or other purposes. However, if the water is
a hazardous jwaste, it must be treated and/or disposed as a hazardous
waste.
8.4 AIR EMISSloN CONTROL
Air quality may be adversely affected by a land treatment operation if
hazardous volatiles, odors or particulates are emitted during storage,
handling, application and incorporation of waste or during subsequent cul-
tivation. Wind dispersal of contaminants and dust from traffic on facility
roads may also present a problem. Management plans should be developed to
avoid such emissions as much as possible and to handle these situations if
they arise. On an operational basis, wind, atmospheric stability, and tem-
perature are important considerations for timing the application of wastes,
especially volatile wastes.
8.4.1 Volatiles
Volatiles may be reduced to an acceptable level through management of
loading rates and proper placement of the waste as determined from pilot
studies (Section 7.2.3). Wastes containing a significant fraction of
easily volatilized constituents should be applied at a depth of 15 cm by
subsurface injection. Volatilization losses will effectively be reduced as
gases move through the soil profile.
Irrigation of the soil surface may also aid in reducing the net flux
into the atmosphere, lessening the impact of volatilized components.
Application of wastes containing significant quantities of volatiles should
be made when soils are in a moist but friable state. Soils which are too
wet are easily puddled by heavy machinery which could reduce aeration and
the capacity of the soil to degrade organic waste constituents.
8.4.2 Odor
If a waste contains sufficient easily decomposable organic matter and
if oxygen is limited, the waste may develop an undesirable odor. While
odors do not indicate that a land treatment system is malfunctioning or
that environmental damage is occuring, it has in some cases become a
serious enough to prevent the use of land treatment at a site which was
otherwise ideally suited. Odors from waste materials often are a result of
sulfides, mercaptans, indoles, or amines. Disposal techniques can be
designed to avoid the formation and release of these compounds.
452
-------
The land treatment of waste having potential for emitting an odor gen-
erally results in some odor during the period between application and com-
plete incorporation. Little can be done to avoid or circumvent this prob-
lem, just as the farmer can do little to avoid odors when he spreads
manure. Potential odor problems should be considered when a disposal site
is selected, and design should be based on the acceptable limits for odors,
volatiles and particulates. Proximity to housing and thoroughfares as well
as the prevailing wind direction need to be considered. Frequency and
severity of atmospheric inversions that may trap malodorous gases should
also be evaluated. Ideally, isolated sites should be selected but, in some
cases, this is not possible. When locations adjacent to public areas must
be used, certain steps can be taken to minimize odor problems.
Perhaps the best method of odor avoidance is subsurface injection.
Soil has a large capacity to absorb gases. If a waste is subsurface
injected and does not ooze to the surface, few odor problems are likely to
occur. In a properly designed system, the waste application rate depends
on the waste degradation rate. Although tilling helps to enhance aeration
and degradation, where a significant odor problem exists, tillage may
aggravate the odor problem.
If the waste is surface applied, either by dumping or spraying from a
vehicle or irrigation system, odor problems can be minimized by quickly
incorporating the waste into the soil. Odors often increase when organic
wastes are spread or when mixing occurs, particularly when heavy applica-
tions are made. It may, therefore, be desirable to spread and incorporate
wastes when the wind is from a direction that will minimize complaints.
Emission of maladorous vapors can often be reduced substantially by
thoroughly mixing the waste with the soil; this can be achieved by repeated
discing when the ratio of waste to soil is not too high. In other
instances, complete soil cover may be needed to prevent odors. This can be
achieved by using turning plows or turning (one-way) discs. Large plows,
such as those used for deep plowing, may also be used for covering thick
applications of maladorous waste.
Organic wastes that are spread on the land by flooding followed by
water decantation are likely to develop odor problems between decantation
and incorporation. As long as an adequate layer of water covers the waste,
odor is generally not a problem. Consequently, it may be desirable to
delay decantation until wind directions are favorble and clear weather is
likely. With proper design, including peripheral drainage ditches, it
should be possible to rapidly decant excess water so incorporation can
begin. While mixing is often desirable to hasten drying and to speed the
oxidation of the organic constituents, it may be necessary to minimize mix-
ing after the initial Incorporation for situations with potential odor
problems, since odor will often occur again when unoxidized material is
brought to the surface. Drying and oxidation may be slower, and it may not
be possible to repeat applications or establish vegetation as quickly as
with more frequent mixing. Therefore, more land may be required for land
treatment of a waste having this characteristic and odor might be the
application limiting constituent in this situation.
453
-------
There are many chemicals on the market for odor control.. These
include: disinfectants which act as biocides, chemical oxidants which act
as biocides and also supply oxygen to the microbial population, deodorants
which react with odoriferous gases to prevent their release, and masking
agents which may impart a more acceptable odor to cover the undesirable
odor. Hydrogen peroxide is a commonly used biocide and oxidizing agent.
Pountney and Turner (1979) have reported success using hydrogen peroxide to
control hydrogen sulfide odors in wastewater treatment facitilites. Strunk
(1979) suggests that hydrogen peroxide acts primarily by oxidizing reduced
sulfur compounds. Warburton et al. (1979) conducted a study testing the
effectiveness of twenty-two commercial odor controlling products including
chlorine, mechanical mixing, waste oil, wintergreen oil, and activated
charcoal. He found that only mechanical mixing and chlorination signifi-
cantly reduced odor from a swine manure. Chlorination may kill the active
soil microbes which are important to waste degradation. Thus, while it is
possible that some commercial products may be effective in reduction of
odors from certain wastes, alternate means including avoidance or oxidizing
agents should be considered first.
Odor controlling chemicals have been applied by direct incorporation
into the waste prior to application, by manual or solid set spraying along
borders or over entire areas, and by point spraying using a manifold
mounted on the rear of the machine that spreads or incorporates the waste.
Before an odor controlling chemical is employed, testing must demonstrate
that it does not inhibit the waste-degrading microbial population.
Presently, there are no instruments available that have the ability to
provide an objective determination of odor (Dolan, 1975). Therefore, odor
evaluation is accomplished by using a panel of individuals to provide an
odor intensity ranking. Experience has shown that an eight member panel,
consisting of 50% women yields the most reliable results. Generally, the
air sample collected in the field is diluted in varying proportions with
fresh air to allow the individuals to establish an odor threshold. The
only response that is required from each individual is a yes or no
response. Using semilogarithmic paper, the threshold odor concentration is
determined from the intersection of the 50% panel response line. From
these data the odor emission rate can be computed. A more detailed discus-
sion of the odor panel approach is included in the following sources
(Dolan, 1975; Dravinicks, 1975).
8.4.3 Dust
Dust problems often occur on access roads used to transport the waste
to various plots within an HWLT unit. Occasionally, dust will also be
raised during discing or mixing operations when the soil in the treatment
zone is dry. The wind dispersal of particulates from the treatment zone
must be controlled (EPA, 1982). One method of controlling particulates is
to surface apply water. A good source of water for this is often the
accumulated runoff. Dust suppressing treatments including oil or calcium
454
-------
chloride may be used on roadways, if desirable, but excessive application
should be avoided. Care should be taken in selecting a dust control pro-
duct to be sure that it does not adversely affect the treatment process or
cause environmental damage.
A windbreak may also be planted to help control the dispersal of dust
and aerosols. A study of the spread of bacteria from land treating sewage
sludge showed that bacteria were recovered 3 m downwind in a dense brushy
area and 61 m downwind in a sparsely vegetated area (EPA, 1977). Van
Arsdel (1967) and Van Arsdel et al. (1958) have used colored smoke grenades
to study the movement of wind around windbreaks and across fields. They
found that a spot of dry soil such as a levee or a bare spot in a field
produces warmer air which causes an updraft. A windbreak of a single row
of trees created a complete circulation cell around the trees. There was
an updraft on the sunny side of the tree line and a downdraft on the shady
side. The air on the shady side actually moved under the trees and up
along the sunny side of the windbreak (Van Arsdel et al., 1958). Although
windbreaks may be helpful in certain cases, there effectiveness should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
8.5 EROSION CONTROL
Control of wind and water erosion during the active life and closure
period for an HWLT unit is needed both to assist in the proper functioning
of the unit and to prevent contaminants from moving off-site. Soil conser-
vation methods, developed by the USDA, have been widely used to control
erosion on agricultural fields and can readily be adapted for use on HWLT
units. Wind erosion may be a particular problem during dry seasons or in
arid regions, but maintaining a vegetative cover *and moist soil should
lessen the problem.
When sloping land is used for an HWLT unit, terraces and grassed
waterways should be used to minimize erosion by controlling runoff water.
This is essential when large areas are left without vegetation for one or
more seasons by repeated waste applications, which may occur with a sludge-
type waste disposal operation. Proper conservation terracing is also
important if water is applied to a continuously vegetated surface.
Terraces slow the flow of intensive storm water, allowing optimal infiltra-
tion and putting less strain on retention basins. Furthermore, by decreas-
ing the slope length, less sediment will erode and accumulate in the reten-
tion structures. Runoff water quality will be improved before the water
enters retention structures; this will reduce the amount of accumulated
organics. Improved water quality decreases the load on the wastewater
treatment plant and increases the possibility of achieving water quality
acceptable for direct discharge.
8.5.1 Design Considerations for Terraces
Terracing is a means of controlling erosion by constructing benches or
broad channels across a slope. The original type of bench terrace was
455
-------
designed for slopes of 25 to 30% and resembled a giant stairway. They were
very costly and not easily accessible for field equipment. Modern conser-
vation bench terraces, which are adapted to slopes of 6-8% aid in moisture
retention as well as erosion prevention (Schwab et al., 1971). The third
type of terrace is the broadbase terrace which consists of a water conduct-
ing channel and ridge as shown in Fig. 8.21. The general placement of
terraces is across the slope with a slight grade toward one or both ends.
The collected runoff then drains off the terrace into a waterway.
The number of terraces needed is governed by the slope, soil type and
vegetative cover. The vertical interval (VI), defined as the vertical dis-
tance between the channels of successive terraces, is calculated as
follows:
VI = aS + b (8.3)
where
VI s vertical interval in feet;
a = geographic constant (Fig. 8.22);
b s soil erodibility and cover condition constants (Fig. 8.22);
and
S » slope of the land above the terrace in percent.
This is only an estimate of the amount of terracing needed and can be
varied up to 10% in the field without serious danger of failure.
Terraces can be constructed either level or with a grade toward one or
both ends. If level, barriers or dams are needed every 120-150 meters to
prevent total washout in the event of a break. The advantage to these is
that there is no length restriction nor is a grassed waterway needed at the
ends. The disadvantage is that the depth needs to be greater to accommo-
date a rainfall event without overtopping. For graded terraces, with well
and poorly drained soils, the minimum grades are 0.1 and 0.2%, respective-
ly. Suggested maximum grades decrease as terrace length increases (Table
8.5). The maximum terrace length is usually considered to be 300 to 550
meters for a one direction terrace and twice that for a terrace draining
toward both ends. As slopes increase, terrace width and channel depth in-
crease, resulting in more difficult construction and maintenance (Tables
8.6 and 8.7). The minimum cross sectional area for a sloping terrace is
0.5 to 1 m^, while for a level terrace 1 m^ is considered the minimum.
Most level terraces are only designed to hold 5 to 10 cm of rain and thus
may not be well suited to use at HWLT units in many parts of the country.
456
-------
<2% Slope
cut fill
J>% Slope \, i
50ft
BROADBASE
100 ft
.§% Slope
™ /-Level
|^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ T _
100 200 300
CONSERVATION BENCH
Slope
^ i
Level or /
reverse slope
25 ft
BENCH
50 ft
Figure 8.21.
Schematic diagram of general types of terraces
(Schwab et al., 1971). Reprinted by permission
of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
457
-------
Figure 8.22.
Values of a and b* in terrace spacing equation,
VI » aS + b (ASAE, Terracing Committee, 1980).
Reprinted by permission of ASAE.
*Values for b vary and are influenced by soil
credibility, cropping systems, and management
systems; in all zones, b will have a value of
0.3, 0.6, 0.9 or 1,2. The low value is appli-
cable to very erodible soils with conventional
tillage and little crop residue; the high value
is applicable to erosion resistant soils where
no-tillage methods are used and a large amount
of crop residue remains on the soil surface.
458
-------
TABLE 8.5 MAXIMUM TERRACE GRADES*
Slope (percent)
Terrace length (m)
or length from upper Erosive soil Resistant soil
end of long terraces (Silt loam) (Gravelly or Rocky)
153 or
153 or
61 or
31 or
more
less
less
less
0
0
1
2
.35
.50
.00
.00
0.
0.
1.
2.
50
65
50
50
* Beasley (1958).
Field layout of terraces may be done along the contours, often result-
ing in odd shaped areas, or they may be made parallel, allowing for easier
mechanical operations such as waste application, mowing and discing. When
parallel terraces are used, it may be necessary to smooth the slope prior
to construction. As noted above, variations of the vertical interval can
be made up to 10% and some lesser variances in channel grade can be toler-
ated.
When the land has a slope of less than 2%, as is the case along much
of the Gulf Coast, contour levees similar to those used in rice fields may
be used. The vertical interval between levees is typically 6 to 9 cm and
the levees are put in along the contour. For proper water management,
spillways should be provided to prevent wash out in the event of a heavy
storm. Ideally, spillways will conduct water across a grassed area to a
retention pond or treatment facility.
Construction is normally accomplished using graders and bulldozers.
Allowances of 10-25% must be made for settlement. Any obvious high spots
or depressions should be corrected quickly. All traffic on sloped areas
should be parallel to the terraces. All terraces should be vegetated as
soon as possible using lime and fertilizer as needed. Maintenance should
include monthly inspections, annual fertilization, and mowing. Since
terraces channel the flow of water, any terrace that is overtopped, washed
out, or damaged by equipment should be repaired as soon as conditions per-
mit to prevent excessive stress on lower terraces. Without proper mainten-
ance and repair, the whole terrace system may be ruined, resulting in the
formation of erosion gullies and highly contaminated runoff.
8.5.2 Design Considerations for Vegetated Waterways
A vegetated waterway is a properly proportioned channel, protected by
vegetation and designed to absorb runoff water energy without damage to the
459
-------
TABLE 8.6 TERRACE DIMENSIONS: LEVEL OR RIDGE TERRACE*1"
Approximate Slope Ratio*
Field slope Terrace Channel Depth
(percent) d (cm) CBS RFS RBS
2
4
6
8
10
12
15+
37
37
37
37
37
40
40
6.1
5 1
5:1
5:1
5:1
4:1
3.5:1
6:1
6:1
6:1
6.1
5:1
4:1
3.5:1
6:1
6:1
5:1
5:1
5:1
4:1
2.5:1
* Soil Conservation Service (1958).
' Channel capacity based on retaining 5 cm runoff.
* CBS » channel back slope; RFS = ridge front slope, RBS = ridge back
slope.
+ Terrace ridge and RBS to be dept in sod.
TABLE 8.7 TERRACE DIMENSIONS: GRADED OR CHANNEL TERRACE*1"
Terrace channel depth, d (cm)
(percent) 61
Terrace length (m)
122 183 244
Slope Ratio#
305 CBS RFS RBS
2
4+
6
8
10
12
15
24
21
21
21
21
18
18
27
27
24
24
24
24
21
30
30
27
27
27
27
27
37
34
30
30
30
30
30
37
34
30
30
30
30
30
10:1
6:1
6:1
4:1
4.1
4:1
10:1
8:1
8.1
6:1
6:1
4:1
10:1
8:1
8:1
6:1
6.1
2.5.1
* Soil Conservation Service (1958).
* Channel capacity based on retaining 5 cm runoff.
* CBS = channel back slope; RFS = ridge front slope; RBS = ridge back
slope.
+ Terrace ridge and RBS to be kept in sod.
460
-------
soil. Waterways are used to safely channel runoff from watersheds, ter-
races, diversion channels and ponds. Thus, in a typical HWLT unit, runoff
water from a sloping area is intercepted by either a terrace or diversion
channel and flows to a vegetated waterway which directs the water to the
retention basin without causing erosion. Emergency spillways for ponds are
-also frequently designed as vegetated waterways.
The three basic shapes for waterways are trapezoidal, triangular and
parabolic. Since many of the waterways at HWLT units flow near a berm, the
parabolic shaped waterway will function best with the least danger of
eroding the base of the berm. A cross section of a parobolic channel is
shown in Fig. 8.23.
When designing a waterway to fit a particular site, the main consider-
ations are vegetation, slope, flow velocity, side slope and flow capacity.
Suggested vegetation for use in vegetated waterways is presented in Section
8.7.2 (Table 8.11). The permanent vegetation selected needs to be chosen
on the basis of soil type, persistence, growth form, velocity and quantity
of runoff, establishment time, availability of seeds or sprigs, and compat-
ability with the waste being applied. Since the area periodically carries
large quantities of water, sod forming vegetation is preferred. In many
cases, the vegetation being grown on the waste application areas may also
be suitable for the waterways.
The design velocity, or flow velocity, is the average velocity within
the channel during peak flow. This can be estimated by applying the
Manning formula as follows.
i 40 a2/3 ol/2
V = Ii*i.5.' .S (8.4)
n p
where
V = flow velocity in feet/sec (fps),
n = roughness coefficient (0.04 is an estimate for most vegetated
areas);
t = design top width of water flow (ft),
d = design depth of flow (ft);
a = cross sectional area in ft^ calculated as 2/3 td;
p = perimeter calculated as
t + |*i; and
3t
S = slope of the channel in ft/ft.
Suitable flow velocities for various slopes are given in Table 8.8. The
product of flow velocity and cross sectional area of flow gives the flow
capacity, which is calculated as follows
461
-------
a v
(8.5)
where
Q
a
v
flow capacity in
cross sectional area of flow
velocity in fps.
j and
A properly designed waterway (Fig. 8.23) will carry away runoff from a
25-year, 24-hour storm at velocities equal to or less than the permissible
velocity shown Table 8.8. Nomographs such as the one illustrated in Fig.
8.24 are available to determine the channel size needed (Schwab et al.,
1971). To use these nomographs, place a mark on the slope scale equal to
the channel slope and work the two discharge scales with the designed
discharge rate. Using a straight edge, draw a line from the mark on the
slope scale through the mark on the nearest discharge scale and extend it
until it intersects the top width scale. This is the total construction
top width (T). From this point on the top width scale, extend a line
through the second discharge scale where marked and extend it until it
intersects the total depth scale. This value is the total construction
depth (D).
TABLE 8.8 PERMISSIBLE VELOCITIES FOR CHANNELS LINED WITH VEGETATION*
Permissible velocity (fps)
Erosion resistant soils
(percent slope)
Easily eroded soils
(percent slope)
Cover
0-5
5-10
Over 10
0-5
5-10
Over 10
Bermuda grass
Buffalo grass
Kentucky bluegrass
Smooth brome
Blue grama
Tall fescue
Lespedeza serica
Weeping lovegrass
Kudzu
Alfalfa
Crabgrass
Grass mixture
Annuals for
temporary
protection
3.5
3.5
NR1
4
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.5
NR
,2.5 NR
NR
NR
NR
* Schwab et al. (1971).
' NR * not recommended.
462
-------
LEGEND.
D = Total construction depth
d = Design depth of flow
T = Total construction top width
t = Design top width of water flow
Figure 8.23. Cross-sectional diagram of a parabolic channel.
463
-------
Slope, per cent
05r
v = 3 fps
Discharge
cfe
-|300
— 240
- 180
- 120
- 90 -
,.»60
.
- 30
- 20
-
- 10
Top width
ft
-,120
-
~
—
^-•^
~~
—
_
-V
-
—
—
~
100
90
80 — ^
70
60
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
{
Discharge
cfs
300 r-
240 -
180 -
120 -
""•-•fc^ "~
60 ^
-
30 -
20 -
-
10 -
Total depth
(including 0 3-ft freeboard)
ft
30
25
20
15
to
09
08
07
06
-"os
Figure 8.24.
Nomograph for parabolic cross sections with a
velocity of 3 fps (Schwab et al., 1971).
Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
464
-------
The actual construction of the waterway needs to be done carefully
using roadgraders and bulldozers, as necessary. Careful surveying and
marking of field areas is needed before beginning earthwork. The entire
waterway area should be vegetated as soon as possible after construction
and normal agricultural applications of lime and fertilizer used in accor-
dance with site-specific recommendations. Broadcast seeding is the most
common practice for planting but drilling, sprigging and sodding are other
possible techniques. If drilling or sprigging is used, rows should run
diagonally or crosswise to the direction of water flow. Due to the ex-
pense, sodding is usually done only on critical areas needing immediate co-
ver.
Maintenance practices for vegetated waterways include periodic mowing
to promote sod formation. Annual fertilization is necessary and should be
done according to local recommendations. Excess sediment and debris that
accumulates in waterways after heavy rains, should be cleaned out to pre-
vent damage to vegetation. A fan shaped accumulation of sediment is likely
to form where the waterway joins the retention pond. These deposits
need to be removed if they accumulate to a point that interferes with water
flow. A more complete discussion of waterway design and construction can
be found in Schwab et al. (1971).
In addition to preventing erosion, grassed waterways provide a second-
ary benefit by improving water quality. In one study, a 24.4 m waterway
removed 30% of the 2,4-D that originally entered the waterway (Asmussen et
al., 1977). Thus, areas which may potentially carry contaminated runoff
water should be vegetated to help improve water quality. Other critical
areas that should be vegetated are waterways leading into runoff retention
ponds and emergency spillways.
8.6 MANAGEMENT OF SOIL pH
Management of acid or alkaline soils generally requires the addition
of some type of chemical amendment for the land treatment unit to operate
properly. If a near neutral soil pH is not maintained, plant nutritional
problems may develop, soil microorganisms may become less active, and sur-
vival of symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria may be reduced, resulting in a
slower rate of waste degradation. Soil samples should be taken periodical-
ly and analyzed for pH. Based on the sample results, the appropriate quan-
tity and type of chemical amendment should be applied.
8.6.1 Management of Acid Soils
Numerous methods exist for measuring soil acidity. The three most
common methods are.
(1) titration with base or equilibration with lime,
465
-------
(2) leaching with a buffered solution followed by analysis of
the leachate for the amount of base consumed by reaction
with the soil; and
(3) subtracting the sum of exchangeable bases from CEC (Coleman
and Thomas, 1967).
Liming of soils refers to the addition of calcium or magnesium com-
pounds that are capable of reducing acidity (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
Although the term "lime" is frequently used for material such as Ca(OH)2,
CaC03, MgCC>3, and calcium silicate slags, it correctly refers only to
CaO. The other materials are properly referred to as limestone and liming
agents. When liming agents react with acid soils, calcium or magnesium
replaces hydrogen on the exchange complex (Brady, 1974), as follows.
Hx
Micelle + Ca(OH)2 — > Ca-Micelle + 2H20
Micelle + Ca(HC03)2 — > Ca-Micelle + 2H20 + 2C02
E/ In solution
Micelle + CaC03 — > Ca-Micelle + H20 + C02
Hx
As the soil pH is raised, plant nutritional problems that accompany
low soil pH are reduced. Soil microorganisms, such as those responsible
for decomposition of plant residues and nitrification, are more active at
pH 5.5-6.5 (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). Nonsymbiotic nitrogen fixation by
Azotobacter spp. occurs mainly in soils above pH 6.0 (Black, 1968).
Survival of symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria, Rhizobium spp., and
nodulation of legume roots is enhanced by liming acid soils (Pohlman,
1966). Many plant diseases caused by fungi are decreased by liming acid
soils . Infection of clover by Sclerotinia trifoliorum was greatly reduced
by liming acid soils in Finland (Black, 1968). It is also desirable to
maintain the pH of the zone of waste incorporation near neutral to minimize
the toxicity and mobility of most metals.
Good management practice requires application of enough liming agent
to raise soil pH to the desired level and addition of sufficient material
every three to five years to maintain that level. Soil sampling and test-
ing should be employed to predict the need for additional liming. The
hydrogen ion concentration of the soil will not reach the desired level
immediately. The change may take six to eight months and, in the case of
added dolomitic limestone, the pH may increase for five years after liming
(Bohn et al., 1979).
466
-------
8.6.1.1 Liming Materials
Liming agents must contain calcium or magnesium in combination with an
anion that reduces the activity of hydrogen, and thus aluminum, in the soil
solution (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). Many materials may be used as liming
agents; however, lime (GaO) is the most effective agent since it reacts
almost immediately. Thus, lime is useful when very rapid results are
needed. Lime is not very practical for common usage because it is caustic,
difficult to mix with soil, and quite expensive (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
The second most effective liming agent is Ca(OH)2, referred to as slaked
lime, hydrated lime and builder's lime. Like CaO, it is used only in
unusual circumstances since it is expensive and difficult to handle
(Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
Agricultural limestone may be calcitic limestone (CaCC^), dolomite
or dolomitic limestone, which is a mixture of the two.
Limestone is generally ground and pulverized to pass a specified sieve
size. If all the material passes a 10-mesh sieve and at least 50% passes a
100-mesh sieve, it is classified as a fine limestone (Brady, 1974). A
fine limestone reacts more quickly than a coarse grade. The neutralizing
value of these limestones depends on the amount of impurities, but usually
ranges from 65-100% (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
In some eastern states, deposits of soft calcium carbonate, known as
marl, exist. This material which is usually low in magnesium is occasion-
ally used as a liming agent. Its neutralizing value is usually 70-90%
(Barber, 1967). In areas where slags are produced, they are sometimes used
as liming agents but their neutralizing value is variable and usually lower
than that of marl (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
Some waste materials may be suitable as liming agents and can be used
when available, but, these materials are generally not as efficient as
agricultural limestone. An example of a waste that may be used for liming
is blast furnace slag from pig iron production, which is mainly calcium and
magnesium aluminosilicates and may also contain other essential micronutri-
ents (Barber, 1967). Basic or Thomas slag, a by-product of the open hearth
method of steel production, is high in phosphorus and has a neutralizing
value of about 60 to 70% (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). The composition of
slags varies quite a bit, another type of open hearth slag is high in iron
and manganese, but has a lower neutralizing value (Barber, 1967).
Electric-furnace slag, a by-product of electric-furnace reduction of phos-
phate rock, is mainly calcium silicate. It contains 0.9-2.3% ?2®5 an<^
has a neutralizing value of 65-80% (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975). Miscella-
neous wastes such as flue dust from cement plants, refuse lime from sugar
beet factories, waste lime from paper mills, and by-product lime from lead
mines have been used effectively as liming agents (Barber, 1967). Many fly
ashes produced by coal burning power plants are sufficiently alkaline to
increase the pH of soil and are frequently used to replace a portion of the
lime needed to reclaim mine sites (Capp, 1978).
467
-------
8.6.1.2 Calculating Lime Requirements
The lime requirement of a particular soil depends on its buffering
capacity and its pH. An equilibrium extraction of the soil with a buffered
salt solution followed by determination of exchange acidity is a common
method for determining the lime requirement (Peech, 1965b). Many state
experiment stations have determined lime requirements for their major soil
series and constructed buffer curves. These curves (Fig. 8.25) relate base
saturation percentage in the soil to soil pH by expressing milligrams of
acidity in soil as a function of soil pH. In addition, lime requirements
are expressed in terms of the calcium carbonate equivalent (Table 8.9).
TABLE 8.9 COMPOSITION OF A REPRESENTATIVE COMMERCIAL OXIDE AND
HYDROXIDE OF LIME EXPRESSED IN DIFFERENT WAYS*
Forms of
Lime
Commercial
oxide
Commercial
hydroxide
Conventional
Oxide
Content
%
CaO - 77
MgO = 18
CaO = 60
MgO = 12
Calcium
Oxide
Equivalent
102.0
76.7
Neutralizing
Power
182.1
136.9
Elemental
Content
%
Ca = 55.0
Mg = 10.8
Ca = 42.8
Mg = 7.2
Brady (1974).
When using CaC03 as a liming agent, the following formula can be used:
Required change in x ^ = kg CaCO
base saturation required/ha
Using Fig. 8.25 as an example, to raise the soil pH from 5.5 to 6.0, the
base saturation must change from 0.50 to 0.75. Assuming the soil CEC is 17
meg/100 gm, the lime requirement is calculated using equation 8.6 as
follows:
0.25 x 17 x 1121 «• 4764 kg CaC03 required/ha
When other liming agents are used, a correction factor is added to the
equation. This correction factor is the ratio of the equivalent weight of
the new liming agent to the equivalent weight of CaC03. For example, if
CaC03 (equivalent wt - 50) is replaced by MgC03 (equivalent wt = 42)
the lime requirement calculated using equation 8.6 would then be:
0.25 x 17 x 1121 x 42/50 = 4287 kg MgC03 required/ha
468
-------
8.0
7.0
6.0
Q.
-J
S
5.0
4.0
3.0
25 50 75
PERCENT BASE SATURATION
100
Figure 8.25. General shape for the lime requirement curve for a
sandy loam.
469
-------
8.6.2 Management of Alkaline Soils
An estimated 4 billion kilograms of waste sulfuric acid are produced
each year in the U.S., mainly as a by-product of smelting industries and
coal burning power plants (Phung et al., 1978). This acid may have poten-
tial for use in the reclamation of salt affected soils. In addition, sul-
furic acid could be disposed of by land treating these wastes on saline,
saline-sodic, and sodic soils. Using land treatment as a disposal mech-
anism for these wastes could provide numerous benefits. Land treating salt
affected soils with sulfuric acid could increase water penetration, aid in
vegetative establishment, and increase water soluble P. Thus, the use of
surplus sulfuric acid may be beneficial to both farmers and waste disposal
operators. The value of using surplus sulfuric acid from copper smelters
to increase water penetration into sodic soils was studied in the labora-
tory. At optimum application rates equivalent to 12,000-40,000 kg/ha, the
waste acid effectively increased water penetration in the sodium-affected
soil (Yahia et al., 1975). Another laboratory study showed 112804 to be
more effective in reclaiming of sodic soils than two other commonly used
amendments, CaS04 and CaCl2 (Prather et al., 1978). Mine spoils in the
Northern Great Plains are generally saline, calcareous shales that are
quite difficult to revegetate (Wali and Sandoval, 1975). Waste sulfuric
acid from coal burning power plants could help establish vegetation. One
study found that, even in the absence of fertilizer, 112804 amendments
increased the phosphorus content of thick spike wheatgrass and yellow
sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) grown on mine spoil (Safay and Wali,
1979). The amount of H2S04 needed to reclaim sodic soils depends on
individual soil and water properties, and ranges from 2,000-6,000 kg/ha for
moderately sodium affected soils to 6,000-12,000 kg/ha for severely sodium
affected soils (Miyamoto et al., 1975).
Waste acid may provide a solution to nutrient deficiencies which are
an ever present problem in calcareous soils in the Southwest. Acid appli-
cation to phosphorus (P) deficient, calcareous soils in Arizona increased
the water soluble P and the P-supplying capacity of the soils. Tomatoes
grown on these soils amended with waste acid from copper smelters showed a
significant increase in dry matter yield and P uptake (Ryan and Stroehlein,
1979). Spot applications of acid were effectively corrected iron deficien-
cies in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) (Ryan et al., 1974). The solubility of
the essential nutrients, manganese, zinc and iron, increased with applica-
tion of sulfuric acid to calcareous soils (Miyamoto and Stroehlein, 1974).
Surplus sulfuric acid may also be a valuable addition for irrigation
water that contains high levels of sodium relative to calcium. Such water,
if untreated, can adversely affect soil physical properties (Miyamoto et
al., 1975). Field studies in Texas showed that acidification of irrigation
water reduced the hardness of calcareous soils and lowered the exchangeable
sodium percentage of the soils (Christensen and Lyerly, 1965). Acid treat-
ment of ammoniated irrigation waters reduced volatile loss of NH3 by as
much as 50% and also prevented plugging a problem often caused by calcium
and bicarbonate (Miyamoto et al., 1975).
470
-------
8.7 VEGETATION
Although vegetation is not essential, it may form an important part
of the ongoing management plan for the facility. Revegetation is generally
required at closure, unless a regulatory variance is granted (EPA, 1982).
In all cases, it is desirable to establish a permanent cover following
closure to prevent long-term erosional hazards even when not strictly
required by the regulations for disposal facilities.
The site manager must be cognizant of the major components required to
obtain successful revegetation. The following factors are needed for
successful stand establishment and growth:
1) selecting species adapted for the site,
2) preparation of an adequate seedbed;
3) planting during correct season;
4) planting the proper quantity of seed or sprigs;
5) planting seed at the proper depth;
6) allowing sufficient time for plant establishment,
7) implementing a proper fertilization program, and
8) using proper management practices.
Contingency plans should provide for reseeding if the crop does not emerge
or fails after emergence.
8.7.1 Management Objectives
The specific objectives of the overall management plan for the HWLT
unit are critical to developing a vegetative management plan. Beneficial
uses of plants include use to improve site trafficability for waste appli-
cation or other equipment, to indicate "hot spots" where excessive quanti-
ties of waste constituents have accumulated, to minimize wind and water
erosion, and to take up excess nitrogen or metals and remove excess water
to promote oxidation of organic material. An optional and especially use-
ful function for vegetation at HWLT units is runoff water treatment, where
water will be discharged under a permit there are several choices for
treating the water. One of these options is to establish a water tolerant
species in an overland flow treatment system. The vegetation acts to re-
move certain types of contaminants from the runoff water through filtering,
adsorption, and settling. Other treatment mechanisms are enchanced with
increased wastewater detention time. Plants may also be used in land
treatment context for aesthetic appeal, since much of the public's
perception of a problem or hazard is linked to the visual impression of
the facility, a green, healthy crop cover will reassure the public.
471
-------
One must recognize that there are some limitations associated with
using cover crops. Some arguments against a plant cover include the
following:
(1) maintaining concentrations of waste in soil which are not
phytotoxic may limit the allowable waste application rates
to levels far below the capacity of the soil to treat the
waste;
(2) where wastes are applied by spray irrigation, hazardous
waste constituents may stick to the plant surfaces;
(3) plants may translocate toxins to the food chain, and
(4) a crop cover may filter ultraviolet radiation which could
aid in the decomposition of certain compounds.
Table 8.10 presents some of the alternative management techniques that
can be used to replace the role of plants in land treatment. The uses of
plants at HWLT units are further discussed below.
Where waste is stored and applied only during the warm season and a
vegetative cover is desired, the management schedule needs to allow enough
time for the establishment of at least a temporary cover crop following
waste applications before conditions become unfavorable. In situations
where waste is treated year-round, it may be desirable to subdivide the
area into plots so the annual waste application can be made within one or
two short periods. Following incorporation, surface contouring, or other
activities, each plot can be seeded.
If the objective of using vegetation is to take up excess nitrogen, it
may be desirable to harvest and remove the crop. The best use of harvested
vegetation is as mulch for newly seeded areas. The crop should not be
removed from the facility unless a chemical analysis demonstrates that it
is acceptable for the specific use. If it is not possible or necessary to
harvest the crop, it can be left in place and plowed down when another ap-
plication of waste is made. In this case, the nitrogen taken up by the
crop has not been removed from the system but it has been tied up in an
organic form. As the crop residue decomposes, nitrogen will be slowly
released. The mineralization rate of nitrogen should be taken into account
when determining the nitrogen balance for the site.
For liquid hazardous wastes, it may be possible to use spray irriga-
tion disposal in existing or newly planted forests. With proper design and
management, including controlled application rates to match infiltration
and storage, it may be possible to minimize direct overland flow of runoff
water. Water storage may be necessary to avoid application of waste during
unsuitable conditions such as when the site is already saturated. Such
systems have been used successfully for treatment of municipal sewage ef-
fluent (Myers, 1974; Sopper and Kardos, 1973; Nutter and Schultz, 1975;
Overcash and Pal, 1979). The use of such systems when applying hazardous
industrial effluents should be fully justified by pilot scale field studies
over a sufficient time period to demonstrate their effectiveness. In addi-
472
-------
TABLE 8.10 ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES TO REPLACE THE ROLE OF PLANTS
IN A LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Plant function
Alternative management
Protective:
Wind erosion
Water erosion
Maintain a moist soil surface
Wastes often provide the necessary stability when
mixed with the soil.
Minimize slopes and use proper contouring to
reduce water flow velocities
Some wastes, such as oily sludges, repel water and
stabilize the soil against water effects.
Design runoff catchments to account for increased
sediment load.
Runoff water may1 need some form of treatment
before release into waterways.
Cycling.
Transpiration
Removal
Dewater the waste
Control applications of wastewater to a lower
level.
Plants have only a very minor role in this
respect, for organics, manage for enhanced degra-
dation, for inorganics, reduce loading rates.
473
-------
tion, a method of collecting runoff from this type of system would need to
be designed.
At HWLT units where liquxd hazardous wastes are spread on the soil
surface by irrigation or subsurface injected, it may be desirable to main-
tain a continuous vegetative cover. Another use of vegetation where wastes
are spray irrigated is as a barrier to aerosol drift. In some cases a
border of trees may be desirable.
At closure, permanent vegetation is established following the same
procedures used for temporary vegetation. In some instances, it is desir-
able to cover earth structures with 10 to 15 cm of topsoil to assist in
establishing vegetation. Lime may need to be added to the final surface,
whether it is subsoil or topsoil, to adjust the pH for the species planted.
Liming of soils is discussed in Section 8.6.1. Fertilizer and seed may
then be applied by the methods described in the following sections. On
critical areas, the use of sod or sprigs may be desirable for establishing
certain species and mulching may be necessary to prevent erosion. It is
generally advisable to use a light disc or cultipacker to anchor the
material against displacement by wind and water.
8.7.2 Species Selection
Vegetation should be selected which is easily established, meets the
desired management goals, and is relatively insensitive to residual waste
constituents. Common residuals occurring at HWLT units include organics,
salts, nutrients and possibly excess water. Other important considerations
include disease and insect resistance. Grasses are often a good choice
because many are relatively tolerant of contaminants, can often be easily
established from seed, and can be used to accumulate nitrogen. Various
nitrogen accumulating species are discussed in Section 6.1.2.1.4.
Perennial sod crops adapted to the area are often the most desirable
surface cover since they provide more protection against erosion and a
longer period of ground cover than annual grasses or small grains. In cli-
mates where legumes are adapted, it may be desirable to include a grass-
legume mixture for the final vegetative cover to provide a low cost nitro-
gen supply for the grasses. Each species in a mixture will be better
adapted to specific site characteristics than other species in that mix-
ture. Rooting habits will vary according to the species planted, thus a
mixture of species may allow more efficient use of soil moisture and nutri-
ents at various depths. In cases where a species requires intensive man-
agement, it should be planted in a pure stand, many introduced grasses fall
into this category.
Water tolerance of vegetation is a concern at many HWLT units because
waste dewatering is a common practice. Many perennial grasses can with-
stand temporary flooding during dormant stages; however, most of the small
grains including barley (Hordeum vulgare), oats (Avena sativa), and shallow
rooted clovers are very sensitive to flooding. Some relatively tolerant
474
-------
species include Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatum), switchgrass (Panicum
yirgatum), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum),
Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea); however, rice (Oryza sativa) is the most water tolerant plant
available. Table 8.11 lists the relative water tolerance of various
plants.
Regardless of the specific management objectives, the species selected
must be adapted to the climate, topography and soils of the site. Vegeta-
tive parameters considered during plant selection include the following:
1) ease of establishment,
2) plant productivity;
3) ability to control erosion;
4) ability to withstand xnvasion by undesirable plants; and
5) availability of seed at a reasonable price.
Generally, seed of native species should be obtained from local sources or
within 200 miles north or south, and 100 miles east or west of the site
(Welch and Haferkemp, 1982). Introduced plant materials do not follow
these same guidelines, they may be obtained from sources over a relatively
broad geographic range. It is highly recommended that certified varieties
of either native or introduced plant materials be used when available.
Guidance on species adaptation is given in Table 8.11 and Figs. 8.26
and 8.27. Other sources of information which may be useful are the highway
cut revegetation standards available from most state highway departments
and recommendations from the Soil Conservation Service, state agricultural
extension services, and/or the agronomy departments at state universities.
In some instances selected plant materials may be used in climatic zones
other than those indicated when special conditions unique to the land
treatment unit would permit their use. For example, where irrigation is
available, the season for establishment is often longer than indicated in
Table 8.11. Thus, Table 8.11 is a general guideline and it is advisable to
check selections with local sources because some species are adapted only
to certain sites within a given geographic region.
8.7.3 Seedbed Preparation
Prior to seeding, all grading and terracing should be completed and a
good seedbed prepared. An ideal seedbed is generally free from live resi-
dent vegetation, firm below the seeding depth and has adequate amounts of
mulch or plant residue on the soil surface. The most important concerns of
seedbed preparation are to reduce existing plant competition and to create
a favorable microclimate for developing seedlings or sprigs.
Various methods of seedbed preparation exist; however, plowing is the
most common. Use of an offset disc one-way plow, or moldboard plow appears
475
-------
TABLE 8.11 REGIONAL ADAPTATION OF SELECTED PLANT MATERIALS
Comon and
scientific
naaes
Aeschynomene
Alfalfa
(Hedicaqo sativa)
Alfileria
(Erodium cicutariura)
Alyceclover
(Alysicarpus vaqinalis)
Bundlef lower, Illinois
(Desmanthus illinoensis
Burclover, California
(Hedicaqo hispid a)
Burclover
southern or spotted
Bur net, small
(Sanguisorba minor)
Bushsunf lower annual
Buttonclover
(Hedicaqo orbicularis)
Regional adaptation
41
S
u
u
«M
o
s
X
X
X
X
c
•rl
m
t»
%
g
M
V
4J
5
X
X
X
u
n
5
j£
a
I
X
X
X
X
c
«
•H
0.
£
O
C
s
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
u
u
»
T)
•Ft
X
X
*J
«
1
X
X
X
X
a
a
M
4
I
X
growth
s
o
n
1
„
H
M
C
C
C
C
ri
A
a
u
*
&
f
A
A
P
A
A
A
A
s
in trod u
o
•H
I
i
I
i
II
i
i
i
H
I
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
S
6 5-7 5
14
U
J
.C
X
1
2
3
3
3
3
*J
Oi
3
0
2
1-2
2
2-3
2
2
•a
3
1-2
2-3
3
3
1
3
s
u
c
•H
-4
2
3
3
3
3
Soil!
TJ
C
ra
u
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
t
!
t
1
!
1
!
1
!
u
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
o
u
S.S
D>
°*.5
as
4 1
3 I
1 S
3 0*
3 0*
7 9
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
M P R 15" Sod former Host widely used legume for range
and pasture mixtures Requires well-drained sandy loam to
clay soils Great value as soil improving crop A fine.
mellow, firm seed bed should be prepared Sensitive to low
boron levels Deep rooted
H P R 12" Bunchformer
H P R 16* Bunchforming Deep rooted Easily established
Seeding rate based on hulled seed Prefers moist , well-
drained fertile soils Short season annual which usually
Prefer soils high in calcium
Seeding rate based on hulled seed Prefers soils high in
calcium
Forb with persistent leaves
M P R 16 Bunchforraer
Prefer sods high in calcium Commonly used in overfeeding of
bermudagrass
—cont mued—
-------
LL*?
i
o
§
rt
g
(D
Cu
I
o n
0* O~
— < ~» <
*3 ft «-3 1 to
rt *r
c Q
a a
•— ta
n
X X
X
~
X
X
X X
X
i
> a
~
O*
O
-J
«
H" W
u> *-
M UJ
[0 N}
M.
M 10
O\ w
t\J N)
M P R 19 Bunchtorroer Biennial, acts as short-lived
perennial but readily reseeds under mesic conditions
Honcreeping Prefers fertile, well-drained soils high in
lime but will grow on moderately acid soils often seeded
with other legumes and grasses Susceptable to crown rot,
southern anthracnose, and mildew Hyperaccumulates zinc
H p R 12 Bunchforraer Widely seeded in California on
annual grassland and brush burns Readily reseeds Estab-
lished in T**xas Grows and persists well In areas of limited
rainfall (18-25* per year) Northeast Texas growth limited
to early spring season Will grow well in association with
summer perennial grasses Does not do well in poorly drained
ar^as
Clover, persian
(Trifolium resupinatum)
X
n
>
*,
M
-
Ul
M
,-
Ut
Used for soil improvement
Clover crirason
(Trifolium incarnatum)
clover, hop (small)
(Trifolium dubiuro)
Ol
X
X X
X
0 0
> >
~
•*•
U>
u<
-
N)
to
-
M
CTl
H p R 14 Bunchformer Winter legume Readily reseeds
itself Tolerant of medium soil acidity Thrive on both
clay and sandy soils Tolerant of wide range of climatic
conditions Thrives in association with other crops, such as
coastal bermudagrass Commonly have 30 to 75% hard seed
Shallow extensive root system Very competitive with the
associated grass Do not seed alone due to wind damage on
Clover, berseen
(Trifoliura alexandrinum)
X
o-
n
>
M
M
ut
Produces more forage in winter than most legumes Erect
growth habit
Clover, alsike
(Trifoliura hybridum)
Clover , arrowleaf
(Trifolium vesiculosura)
Clover, ball
(Trifolium nigrescens)
X
X
«
X
X t»
X
n o o
> > v
~
o\ tn
O o
Oi -J
NJ N>
M
to
Ul 1
to to 10
>- H- i-
M
»— 01 «
Noncreeping Adapted to cool, moist sites Commonly used in
irrigated pasture mixtures Generally dies after 2 years
Not recommended in areas of South where Ladino clover is
adapted Also produced in many parts of the northeast
Seeding rate based on scarified seed Less tolerant o£
acidity and low fertility than crimson clover Should use
Pelinor adhesive and arrowleaE clover invurlum (type 0)
Scarification Is beneficial due to hard seed content (>70*>
Tall growth form Produces growth one month later than
crimson clover Excellent reseeder
ss
SSI
3 a O
w »
rn 0>
r- 3
o a
Pacific Coast
Intermountain ^
Southwest §
Northern Great Plains *-
Southern Great Plains -•
Midwest £
Southeast -
Northeast
Season of growth
Growth habit
PH
High water £, 2
(9 fi>
fl> rr
Drought n &>
Cold »
Salinity D
Sand en
Loam f
Clay
Lbs PLS per acre
seeding rate
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
1
OO
n
o
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Common and
scientific
DBMCS
Clover, sour
(Helilotus indica)
Clover, strawberry
(Trifolium Cragiferum)
Clover, subterranean
(Trifoliua subterraneum
Clover, white (Ladino)
{Trifolium repena)
Cow peas
(Vigna sinensis)
Crown vetch
(Coronilla varia)
Field pea
(Pisun sativun
subsp arvense )
Flat pea
(Lathyrua sylvestris)
Gaillardia, slender
tGaiUardia
pinnatifida)
Indigo, hairy
Regional adaptation
*j
•
«
8
u
•w
S
X
X
X
x
c
ft
a
£
0
u
e
M
I
X
x
X
4*
M
w
X
S
i
i
X
X
M
C
0.
tt
M
O
M
O
£
S
x
i
c
4
S
«l
s
O
C
14
£
5
I
X
• X
X
„
V
c
X
x
X
JJ
a
JC
£
X
X
X
X
x
m
X
44
it
£
&
X
x
X
JS
u
o
0.
IM
O
O
M
a
H
C
C
H
C
C
w
•H
s
.c
f
1
A
p
A
P
A
p
p
p
K.
S
I
I
1
I
I
H
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
S
6 0-7 0
5 5-7 5
4 0-6 0
S 5-7 a
S
§
0»
*r(
1
2
1-2
2-3
2-3
2-3
u
f
3
1-2
3
1-2
1-2
•o
3
2
2-3
2
1
1-2
1
5
S
M
1-2
2
2-3
Soils
•D
1
1
2
2
1
2
i
i
i
Ef
a
i
i
i
t
2
1
2
2
^
3
!
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
u
14
US
z
3?
•*<
•o
3 0
13 4
1 5
30 0
3 0*
10 0
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
Seon in volunteer stands by roadsides Hill tolerate more
acid soils than other members of Melilotus genesis
M P R 19" Sod former Creeping by rhizomes; low growing
Best use is on wet, salty sites Very hardy legume
M P R 16" Sod former Hell adapted for interseeding mesic
annual grasslands in California Good winter growth Does
best on well-drained, fertile, loam soils with moderate rain-
fall Used for erosion control, hay, pasture, soil improve-
ment and seed production Prostrate growth habit Tolerant
of acid soils
H p R IB" Sod former Used in pasture mixtures on mesic or
irrigated sites Creeping by stolons Used in association
with grasses and other legumes Used for soil improvement,
erosion control and wildlife Requires adequate quantities
of available phorphorus, potash and calcium Stand thickness
decreases after several years
One of the most extensive legumes
M P R 18* Sod form ing Should scarify seeds Ifard seed
may be up to 90% Best adapted to fertile well -drained
soils however, will tolerate some degree of infertility and
acidity after established Excellent for erosion control
Slow to establish bub aggressive upon establishment Common-
ly seeded with ryegrass
sol 1 s except wet and poor I y dra ined types Grown for hay.
silage pasture, seed and green manure
Seed may be toxic to grazing animals Slow germination but
aggressive upon establishment Climbing growth form Moun-
tains a pure stand better than most legumes Rtuzomatous
H P R 15" Bunchformer Also adapted to part of Inter-
mountain region
Fairly deep rooted ind upright
•vl
oo
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Common and
scientific
names
Koctu, prostrate or
prostrate summercyproas
(Kochi prostrata)
Kudzu
(Pueraria labata)
Lespedeza, bicolor
(Lespedeza bicolor}
Lespedeza, common (Kobe)
(Lespedeza stnata)
Lespedeza, Korean
(Lespedeza stipulacea)
Lespedeza, prostrate
(Lespedeza daurica
var schimadaT)
Leapedeza, sericea
( Lespedeza cuneata )
Medic, black
(Yellow trefoil)
(Medicago lupulina)
a
8
U
rl
0
S
Regional adaptation
c
S
3
O
6
+J
X
n
1
3
S
X
W
£
X
Ul
c
1
X
X
n
ff
J
•0
H
b
b
b
b
M
a
V
£
%
S
X
a
a
X
X
41
O
•U
U
S
b
b
b
b
.c
J
£
VI
O
C
o
a
a
W
H
W
H
C
H
JC
J
0
-s
p
p
A
A
A
P
P
A
*
U
•0
S
•4J
C
Lt
5
s
2
5
i
i
i
i
i
r
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
a
5 0-6 0
5 0-6 0
5 0-7 0
5 0-7 0«
4 5-7 0
6 0+
0)
§
£
D>
X
3
2-3
2
2
2
2-3
0>
o
1
1
1-2
1-2
2
2
1-2
2
•0
5
i
3
2
2
2
H
c
•H
rH
1-2
3
3
1
Soils
?
a
tn
i
1
3
3
3
2
2
E
10
5
i
2
1
1
1
1
2
rt1
o
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
a)
«
S.41
2
§|
*O
n v
38
1 7
6 3*
6 3*
6 3*
1 5*
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
4 P R 12 Bunch former Long lived Extensive root
system
Plant at 4'x5' spacing Very little seed produced under
southern climatic conditions Slow to establish, however.
grows rapidly after etablishment Will not tolerate close
mowing Other legumes are better adapted in the Southeast
since they are easier to establish and more productive
Grows in low fertility soils Generally not used for
forage
Seed rate based on unhulled seeds Low growing Better
adapted to Texas than Korean lespedeza Important for pas-
ture, hay and soil improvement Grown in association with
other crops Neutral to acid soils Susceptible to bac-
terial wilt tar spot, powdery mildew( and southern blight
Hard seed 40-60% Responds to lime and fertilizer applica-
tions Good for "Joi! improvement, hay and seed Will grow
on most soil including poor and acid soils however, less
tolerant of acid soils than common ieipededeza Susceptible
to bacterial wilt, tar spot, powdery mildew, and southern
blight
S*>cd should be scarified Seeding rate based on scarified
s**Pd since there is usually 75% or more hard seed Valuable
on badly depleted soils as a pioneering legume Tolerant to
low fertility ShouH not be mowed in late summer — plant
reserve building Has not performed well in Texas Bunch-
like growth habit
Seed scarse (no commercial cultivers) Us\. altalfa in oculum
A^ipted to lime soils
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Connon and
scientific
nanea
Hilkvetch, cicer
(Astragalus cicer)
Pensteraon, palmer
(Pensteraon pa liner i)
Pensteraon t Rocky Mountain
(Pensteraon strictus)
Poppies, gold
(Eschscholtzia SPP 1
Prairieclover purple
(Petalosteraura
porpureuiQ
(Petalosteroun candidum)
Sainfoin
(Onobrychis viciafolia)
Singletary pea (Rough)
(Lathyrus hirsutus)
Sunflower, raaximilian
(Helianthus maximiliana
Sweetclover, stiff
(Helianthus
laetif lorus)
Sweetclover, white
(Helilotus alba)
Regional adaptation
I
"
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
3
i
M
C
H
X
X
X
X
X
n
O
V)
X
X
X
X
H
c
n
2
«
t>
U
C
V
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
c
a
o.
V
c
t)
J=
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
111
u
E
X
n
.c
S
a
X
X
X
n
V
s
b
b
•5
~
O
c
o
n
u
H
W
C
W
C
1
1
£
2
s
P
P
A
P
A
f
P
B
u
•o
s
c
\t
o
u
s
I
H
N
H
U
I
I
H
N
I
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
X
0.
5 0-6 0
6 0-8 0
14
V
§
m
•H
2
3
1
2
ji
•f
1
2
2
2
1-2
•o
5
1-2
2
1
1
>i
4J
c
H
a
2
3
3
1-2
Soils
TJ
c
0
W
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
e
3
i
i
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
•1
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
I
1
2
I
tt
8
b
S.S
U
(A
5* §*
Tl
n v
as
6 0
16 8
s a
0 3
3 4
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
H P R 18 SodEormer Low growing perennial Fair to good
production Rhizomatous Erratic in stand establishment
Non-bloating Does not accumulate selenium Hard seed coat
Long-lived
H P R 15" SodEorraer Short-lived Also adapted to part
of Intermountain region
H P R 15 Bunchformer Good seedling vigor Adapted to
parts of Intermountain and Southwest
H P R 10" Bunchformer
H P R 15" Bunchforraer Excellent seed producer
M P R 14 BunchEorraer
H P R 16" Bunchforraer Nonbloating legume Deep rooted
species Well adapted to dry calcareous soils
Should scarify seed Grows on soils too wet for other winter
legumes Used for hay Good soil improving crop Seed is
poisonous to animals
H P R 18" SodEormer Does not invade or spread like most
sunflowers Regeneration forms ring around previous years
growth Easily established
M P R 16 SodEormer
M P R 16" Bunchformer Seed of sweetclover should be
scarified Used for green manure more than forage Excel-
lent seedling vigor* Tall growing Good soil improving crop
due to large tap root Matures ahead of cotton root-rot
'nfection Unreliable seed production Susceptible to
sweetclover weevil root borer and aphid
CO
o
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Common and
scientific
names
Sweetclover, yellow
(Melilotus officinalis)
Trefoil, birdafoot
(Lotus corniculatus)
Vetch, American
(Vicia americana)
Vetch, common
(Vicia sativa)
Vetch, hairy
(Vicia villosa)
Vetch, narrowleaf
(Vicia sativa
var nigra)
Vetch winter (woodly pod)
(Vicia daaycarpa)
Zexmenia, orange
(Zexmenia hispida)
Regional adaptation
^
«
a
5
O
•w
t)
£
X
X
X
a
a
X
c
•B
U
c
i
14
C
X
X
X
X
4J
s
J
3
S
X
i
X
X
X
If
S
14
S
X
i
X
X
3
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
41
u
I
£
X
X
4J
Q
O
JS
•P
9
S
X
a
X
a
X
X
>
4>
a
0
J=
4J
(4
S
b
X
X
A
£
o
s,
0
c
o
n
Ki
a
c
H
C
C
c
c
4J
•rt
1
£
41
3
o
6
A
P
P
A
A
A
A
P
•o
s
I
I
N
I
I
I
N
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
a:
a.
6 0-8 0
5 0-7 5
5 0-7 5
(4
01
«
.C
m
•H
s
2
1-2
3
2
3
4J
£!
O>
d
O
fi
1
2-3
1-2
2
•o
»i
3
i
2
2
1-2
2
4J
H
C
•r*
•-I
40
Ul
2
1-2
1-2
Soils
•o
c
q
to
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
E
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
>i
fd
U
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
u
|Q
h
S.S
0
u
§g
-<-t
•o
n o
3 S
3 4
2 1
8 7*
5 6*
10 0
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
M P R 16" Bunch former More tolerant of drought and com-
petition but has a shorter growth period than white sweet>-
clover Reseeds better than white sweetclover Acts like
biennial if spring seeded One of the best soil improving
crops due to deep tap root Seeds should be scarified
Unusually susceptible to injury from a number of chemicals
used for weed control Can be established better than white
sweetclover in dry conditions Neutral to alkaline and well
drained soils Susceptible to sweetclover weevil, root borer
and aphid
M P R 18" Bunchformer Does not cause bloat Rhizoma-
tous Mostly used in irrigated pastures Nay be difficult
to establish Should be planted in mixture with a grass spe-
cies New varieties are being developed for the Southeast
which are resistant to crown and root diseases Also adapted
to part of Southern Great Plains
M P R 18" Sodformer
Used in combination with small grains — vetch-rye combination;
less winter hardy than other vetches Best adapted to well
drained, fertile loam soils
M P R 18" Sodformer Most winter-hardy of cultivated
vetches most widely grown
Often seen in volunteer stands Prefers well drained soils
Identified by black pods Limited use
M P R 12" Bunchformer Less cold tolerant and more heat
tolerant than hairy vetch Prefers well drained soils
M P R 18" Bunchformer
•P-
00
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Common and
scientific
Bahiagrass
(Paspalum notalum
and media)
Barley
(llordeum vulgare)
Beachgrass, American
( Atnmoph i la
bfeviTtqulata >
Bermudagrass
(Cynodon dactylon)
Bluegrass, big
(Poa ampla)
Bluegrass, bulbous
(Poa bulbosa)
Dlueg trass, Canada
I Poa compressa)
Bluegrass Canby
(Poa canbyi)
Bluegrass Kentucky
{Poa pratensis)
Bluegeass , upland
(Pga glaucantihal
Bluestems lAngelton,
Gordo Hedio)
(Dichanthium aristatum)
Bluestem big
(Andropogon gerardii )
Regional adaptation
I
0
u
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
m
u
§
e
t*
V
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
£
&
X
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
u
3
X
X
X
n
X
X
a
X
X
41
3
X
X
X
X
X
a
«
JC
tt
14
S
X
X
X
X
.c
u
5
O
C
o
n
a
s
H
C
C-H
H
C
C
C
C
C
C
VI
M
tt
•*4
.O
J5
O
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
^
S
T)
8
u
S
u
o
JJ
I
I
I
II
I
I
N
I
I
I
N
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
5,
4 5-7 5
5 5-7 B
4 5-7 5
4 5-7 5
5 5-7 0
5 0-7 5
li
S
§
JC
a-
1
2-3
2-3
1
1-2
3
2
2
2
2
£
in
9
O
2
2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1
2
2
1-2
2
•a
5
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
I
2-3
1
f.
41
C
S
I
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
Soils
•o
e
m
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
3
2
a
a
3
i
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
1
3
1
Q
U
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
e
u
u
&s
w U
si t?
T)
11 U
S 2
3 0*
3
1 0
1 5
1 9
8 7
0 8
1 0
6 0
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
H P R 30" Sod former Rhizomatoua Keep young by mowing
Commonly sprigged 17-18" apart Rhizomatous Adapted to
areas around the Great Lakes and the Bast Coast to North
Carolina Possible use in gully bottoms
M P R 16 Sod forming Keep young by mowing and ample
fertilization Host varieties must be grown from sprigs at
2 x2* spacing however, common and UK 37 can be seeded Does
best at pll of 5 5 and above
H P R 12" Bunchgrass Seed in pure stands
Good erosion control f spreads by serial bulbets and swollen
stem bases Low yield unreliable producer
Docs well on soil too low in nutrients to support good stands
of Kentucky bluegrass
H P R 10" Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow sites
Excellent sod formation Reproduced by seeds, tillers, and
rhi7ome
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Common and
scientific
names
Bluestem, cane
(Andropogon barbinodis)
Blues ten, Caucasian
(Bothriochioa
caucasica)
Bluestem, Kleberg
(Dichanthium annulatura i
Bluest em little
(Schizachyrium
gcoparium)
Bluestem, Old World
(Dicanthium spp -
Bothriochioa spp)
(blend)
Bluestem, sand
{Andropoyjn ge radii
or ha 1 111 var
paucipiiua )
Bluestem, yellow
(Bothriochioa
ischaemum)
Bristlegrass, plains
macros tachya)
Brorae California
(Bromus carinatus)
do
(Bromus biebersteirui)
Brorae, mountain
(Bromus marqinatus)
Regional adaptation
a
c
s
«n
c
X
X
c
<
c
D
I
C
M
X
X
u
3
3
O
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
n
c
n
0.
«
£
O
c
at
S
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
tJ
ft
E
X
£
dj
3
O
w
X
X
b
a
to
.c
4J
14
5
o
01
o
c
a
at
U)
H
W
M
H
H
H
W
W
C
C
H
a
n
*•
0
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
A
p
*0
8
3
•O
0
Jj
c
S
*
a
II
I
I
N
I
11
I
N
II
N
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
a
7 2-8 0
6 0-8 0
5 5-8 0
(
n
4)
4J
S
CP
X
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
£
3
o
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
>t
tt
H
Ul
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
Soils
*D
C
a
en
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
e
a
5
i
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
2
1
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
V
u
14
ei at
M"
*5
•o
(a v
1 2
1 2
3 4
1 2
6 0
1 2
3 0
12 4
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
H P R 12" Bunchgrass Adapted to calcareous sites Seed
available in limited quanities
H p R 18" Bunchgrass Generally seeded in pure stand An
Old World bluestem
H P R 20" Bunchgrass
H P R 16-20 Bunchgrass Dense root system with short
rhizomes Hoce drought tolerant than big bluestem Good
H P R 14"
M P R 14-18 Sod£ormer Rhizomatous Very productive on
nesic sandy soil
N P R 16" Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow and calcareous
sites
H P R 12" Bunchgrass Well adapted to disturbed sites
on moisture
H P R 14" Bunchgrass Self seeding
id establish ent
M P R Bunc grass ap men
M P R 18" Bunchgrass Not commonly used
oo
us
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
CoMton and
scientific
Bronte* red
(Broraua rubens)
Brome, smooth
(Bromus inernis)
Bromegrass , fie Id
(Bromus arvensis)
Buffalograss
(Buchloe dactyloides)
BuEEelgraas
(Cenchrus ciliare)
Canarygrass . reed
(Phalaris arundinacea)
Carpetgrass
(Axonopus compress us)
Centipedegrass
( Eremochlqa
ophiuroides)
Chess soft
(Bromus moll is)
Cottontop, California or
Arizona tDigitaria
califfornica, or
Trichachne californica)
Curl ymesqu its, common
(Hilaria belangerl)
Regional adaptation
41
1
u
u
u
&
b
X
X
X
e
-H
M
C
3
e
M
X
X
X
•
»
3
X
X
X
X
X
e
04
2
4
O
\t
5
S
X
X
X
M
c
2
*J
It
£
s
X
X
X
X
b
X
X
41
1
X
X
4J
5
a
X
X
a
X
X
•
£
8.
X
X
X
a
o.
«4
O
c
o
M
V
W
C
C
c
H
H
C
W
w
c
H
H
v<
£
a.
41
8
A
P
A
P
P
P
P
V
A
P
P
•a
I
s
tl
u
£
0
5
41
I
I
I
H
I
N
[
I
I
H
N
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
X
o.
5 5-8 0
6 0-7 0
6 5-8 0
5 0-7 5
u
3
3
o»
2
2
2
1
2
2-3
u
S
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
i
i
3
1
2-3
3
2
>.
e
rH
5
2
2
3
2
2
Soils
I
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
1
3
!
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
U
&:
8
°*5
a!
6 0
12 0
16 0
3 0
2 6
5 0
1 2
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
M P R 12* Bunchgraas Cultivars are unavailable
H P R 17" Sod for ming Excellent grass for use with alfal-
fa Reproduces by seed, tillers and rhizomes
Bunchgrass Extensive fibrous root system Rapid growth and
easy to establish
H P R 15" Sod for ming Seeding rate based on seed in bur
only in mixtures Seeded or transplanted by stolons or rhi-
zomes Also adapted to part of southwest region
H P R 16" Bunchgraas Mostly rhlzoraatous Biggins,
Nuecest and Llano ran be seeded at 1 5 lb PLS/A
Sod form ing Cut to prevent maturity, seeded, or spread by
sod or culm cuttings Hill endure submergence Seed does
not store well
Stoleniferous Forms a very dense sod
Hakes a close turf and is very aggressive Sod or stolons,
no seed available Easily established* forms a dense turf
Legumes not recommended because of its aggressive nature
H P R 15" Bunchgrass Self seeding Also used in Geor-
gia
H P R 15" Bunchgrass Reproduces by seed Good seed set
Adapted to calcareous -sites
M P R 14" Cultivars are unavailable Stoleniferous
oo
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Common and
scientific
names
DaJlisgrass
(Paspalum dilatalum)
Deertongue
(Paiucum clandestinura)
Dropseed, giant
(Sporobolus giqanteus)
Dropseed, mesa
(Sporobolus flexuosus)
Dropseed , sand
(Sporobolus
crypt andrus )
Dropseed, spike
(Sporobolus contractus)
Fescue, annual
(Festuca megalura)
(Festuca arizonica)
Fescue, hard
{Festuca oyijia
var duriuscula )
Fescue, Idaho
(Festuca idahoensis)
Fescue , meadow
(Festuca elatior)
Fescue, red (creeping)
Fescue, sheep
(Festuca ovina)
Regional adaptation
2
•
*
u
*
«*4
u
s
X
b
X
X
a
c
•H
5
g
jj
41
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VI
8
1
a
s
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
111
c
<0
r-t
0.
*>
S
tt
M
U
£
S
h
S
X
X
X
X
a
a
i
X
X
X
X
**
w
•a
-rt
z;
X
*J
n
a
OS
£
*»
a
£
X
X
41
a
4
41
J3
4J
u
s
X
X
X
-G
U
S
p
&
4J
5
i
N
tt
N
N
N
I
"
I
H
I
N
N
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
£
3 8-5 0
5 5-6 5
5 0-7 5
t
u
0)
«j
u
3
£
tr>
£
i
1-2
2
3
V
2
2
.P
£
o»
3
o
fi
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
*o
>i
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
>,
4t
•H
C
H
H
HI
C/1
2
2
3
3
3
Soils
tj
c
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
j_
2
2
3
2-:
1
E
a
3
i
i
2
1
1
2
1
2
i
i
2
1
1
>i
ft
u
1
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
U
flj
u
8,2
U
CO
•J 01
a c
•H
•o
« 01
3S
4 0
5 0
0 3
2 3
I 9
4 0
10
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
Difficult to establish stand because of low germinating seed
Use in combination with legumes
Bunchgrass with strong fibrous root system Spreads by
rhizomes Adapted to low fertility soils Requires 30 days
v«y e^rVspring i0"' t"ereCo'ce Plant ln late «»" or
region '" Bunohqcass Adapted to part of Intermountain
H P R 8" Bunchgrass Also adapted to part of Inter-
mountain region Short-lived
sites T ..Bu"ch9raf Adapted to shallow and calcareous
h.^f excellent wed producer Seeded on dry sites where
better forages not adapted
H PR 10- Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow sites Excel-
lent seed producer Cultivars not available
H PR 10" Bunchgrass Arid tolerant Aggressive Excel-
lent fibrous root system and seedling vigor
H P R 16" Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow sites
robust form Bunch9«s3 Used mostly in erosion control
H PR 16" Bunchgrass Reproduces by seeds Lack o£ good
seed yields restrict is use ^
Valuable in Pacific Coast region (La), of llmit-d value else-
soils DlsaPPcarln9 rather quickly, except on heavy moist
Slow'"3 9reen durl"9 summer GOO|J seeder Wide adaptation
M P R 10" Bunchgrass
oo
Ul
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Comon and
scientific
nancs
Fescue, tall
(Festuca arundinacea)
Fescue* Thurber
(Festuca thurberi)
Fountaingrass
(Pennisetum setaceura)
Foxtail , creeping
(Alopecurus
arundinaceus)
Foxtail, meadow
(Alopecurus
prat en s is)
Galleta, big
(Hilaria riqida)
Galleta, common
(Hilaria lamesii)
Grama, black
(Bouteloua eriopoda )
Grama, blue
( Bouteloua gracilis)
Grana, sideoats
{Bouteloua
curt ipendula )
Hardinggrass
(Phalaris tuberosa
var stenoptera)
Indiangrass
( Sor ghastr urn nutans)
Regional adaptation
Coait
u
•ft
•M
1
X
a
a
b
X
c
4
g
B
G
X
X
X
X
X
*>
tt
0
u
1
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
«
c
«
£
u
e
u
5
a
s
X
X
I
X
X
X
5
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
^
s
c
X
X
a
X
X
M
a
o
J3
u
5
X
a
X
u
a
0
*J
s
X
9
&
o
c
0
M
s
c
c
H
c
c
H
H
M
H
H
c
H
a
*
V
s
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
„
u
"D
o
c
o
«l
•H
s
I
a
I
I
I
N
„
u
H
N
I
H
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
£
S 0-8 S
6 0-8 5
6 0-7 5
5 5-7 5
5 5-7 5
u
q
3
-rt
X
1-2
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
^
f
i
2-3
2-3
1
1-2
1
1
2
2
3
•a
3
1-2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
4J
•H
C
•H
S
1
3
1
3
2
2
2
2
Soil!
•D
to
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
5
3
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
s
U
t
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
I
2
it
a
a*
0. C
-H
«0
3 n
3 8
2 2
I 5
1 5
5 5
2 5
4 5
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
H P R 20" Bunchgrass Generally seeded in pure stands,
however r best results will be obtained by planting with an
adapted legume Rapid germination and vigorous seedlings
Easy to establish Deep rooted
H P R 16" Bunchgrass
H P R 8* Bunchgrass Seed difficult to harvest
M P R !*• Sodforraer Acid tolerant Strong rhizomes
M P R 20" Sodformer Slightly rhizomatous Very useful
in mixture on wet sites
H P R 9 Sodforming Cultivars are not available
M P R 12" Sodformer Rhizomes No cultivars are avail-
able
H P R 10 Sod forming Good quality seed is scarce May
be difficult to establish Adapted to shallow and calcareous
sites
H P R 10" Bunchgrass Generally seeded in mixtures More
drought tolerant than sideoats Extensive root system Poor
seed availability
1! P R 14 Bunchgrass rarely forms a sod Grows well in
mixtures of warm-season grasses Rhizomatous Hay be re-
placed by blue gratna in dry areas Helps control wind ero-
sion Adapted to shallow and calcareous sites
M p R 16 Sodforming Also adapted to Southwest under
irrigated conditions Primary species for seeding California
coastal and inlind zones Rhizomatous
H P R 22 Sodforming Provides quick ground cover Rhi-
zomatous U*>avy seed producer
-p-
00
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
CoMon and
scientific
names
Johnsongrass
(Sorghum halpense)
Kleingrass
(Pan! cum coloratum)
Lovegrass, anthers tone
(Eragroatis
atherstonei)
Lovegras , Boer
(Erag ostia
chlo onelas.)
Lovegras , Korean
(Erag ostia
ferrunginea)
Lovegrass , Lehmann
(Eraqroatla
lehmanniana)
(E lehmanniana x
E trichophora)
Lovegrass r plains
Lovegrass, sand
Lovegrass, weeping
(Eraqrostis curvula)
Lovegrass, wi Iman
Regional
**
J
o
•*«
S
u
0
*
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
14
1
X
adaptation
0
1
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
s
sc
b
b
41
s
&
X
X
X
4>
s
J3
s
b
A
o
0.
o
(0
w
M
H
W
H
W
H
VI
M
H
|
|
I
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
I
I
I
I
I
N
II
I
I
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
a
5 5t
6 0-7 5
4 5-8 0
S
S
•ri
a
1
1
3
3
3
2
1-2
2
I
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
1-2
2
3
1-2
2
3
4J
C
A
Ul
2
2
2
3
2
^
Soils
1
1
2
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
rH
U
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
h
s
•o
« V
7 4
2 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
H P R 18" Bunchgrass Rhizomatous Difficult to eradi-
HCH potential Very productive
H P R 20" Bunchgrass Some varieties are rhiconatous
H P R 11" targe vigorous bunchgrass Generally larger and
wore productive than either Lehmann or weeping lovegrass
Good seedling vigor
M P R 10" Bunchgrass Productive
M P R 10" Bunchgrass Smaller and less cold tolerant than
Boer and weeping lovegrass Re seeds quickly after disturb-
ance Generally seeded in pure stands Also adapted to
Southern Great Plains (5) Adapted to calcareous sites
H P R 16" Bunchgrass
M P R 18" Bunchgrass Seed in mixtures Short lived but
read ily re seeds itself Fair seed avai lability Adapted to
calcareous sites
M P R 16" Bunchgrass Seeded mostly in southern Great
Plains and in pure stands Adapted to low-fertility sites
Rapid early growth Good root system Grows well on infer-
H P R 10" Bunchgrass Adapted to calcareous sites
-p-
00
—continued—
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Couon and
uclentific
nawtfl
Millet, browntop
(Panicun ramosunl
Millet, foxtail
(Setaria italica)
Hillet, Japanese
(Echijiochloa crusgalli)
Millet, pearl
(Pennisetura typhaldes)
Hillet, proso
(Panicuro miiiaceura)
Huhly, bush
(Huhlenbergia porter I)
Huhly, mountain
(Muhlenbecgia moot ana)
Huhly, spike
(Huhlenbergia wrightii)
Natalgrass
(Rhynchelytrum roseum)
Needle-and-thread
(Stipa comata)
Needlegrass, green
(Stipa viridula)
Oatgrass, tall
( Arrhenatnerum elatius
Oats
(Avena sativa)
Regional adaptation
W
I
s
u
s
X
X
X
c
•
c
i
5
o
*»
c
M
X
X
X
X
X
M
JZ
&
X
X
X
X
X
e
4
41
Ll
U
c
ti
s
u
s
X
X
H
c
5
4
Ll
u
JC
3
S
X
X
X
X
.
B
•rl
X
X
4J
«
5
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
u
It
u
s
X
X
X
X
•J
o
o>
t>
.
a
11
in
H
H
W
H
W
H
H
H
C
C
C
C
1
J
o
s
A
A
A
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
1
a
u
o
V
41
M
I
II
II
H
I
M
H
I
I
Plant adaptation
Tolecanco
X
Q.
4 5-7 0
5 0-7 5
5 5-7 0
14
5
ft
m
2
1
3
2
2-3
3
C.
a
3
3
1
1
2
2
•0
3
i
2
2
21
C
5
2
2
So I In
•d
c
in
^
2
i
i
i
2
1
8
a
3
1
i
i
i
2
1
1
>,
U
1
1
2
3
3
1
I
u
u
*
u
SJ
8
•O
a£
5*
5*
6 3*
4 e
11 6
20*
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
Rapidly growing Temporary erosion control
Bunchgrass Good seedbed preparation important
Requires good seedbed preparation Produces large amount of
organic material on poor or marginal soils
Bunchgrass Proper management is very important
M P R 9" Bunchgrass Adapted to Part of Intermountain
region Adapted to shallow eltes Seed generally unavail-
able
H P R 13" Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow sites
M P R 13" Bunchgrass
H P R 19" Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow sites Short-
lived
H P R 10" Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow and calcareous
sites Problem with seed harvesting and availability
H P R 15" Bunchgrass Seeded in mixtures Low seed qual-
ity delayed germination
Rapid-developing, short-lived bunchgrass adapted to mesic
sites Infrequently used in new seed ings Less heat toler-
ant than orchardgrass except in Northeast
Requires nitrogen for good growth
oo
00
-continued-
-------
c!
§
rt
s-
is
04
3
O
no* c
3" J) 3
P-Ul H
O n c
US C
uT en »
,0 r
I ~
u
-
X
X
X
T3
~
N)
*J
l*J
-
K»
-
1-
0
M P R 20 High sodium tolerance Also adapted to southern
parts of southwest and southern Great Plains Most useful in
dry portions of South Texas where other grasses are not as
well adapted
Rescuegrass
(Bromus ca
x
x
X
o
;»
i~i
M
1
p-
M
*-
10
O
N P R 25 Bunchgrass, Annual grass undef cultivation
Short-lived
33 SO » •
(0 (DO*
— • a- —a. — o < -o t
C 3" W -O 3* Ol
c ta w n {ft u 3
3 p- f» a» o |0 =r p- H
Qi ft ff 3 l(a **• Ol d
O3 ft a rr n n c
rr H« O 1»~ rf f— J
o. **• if 3 |w H«
3 " ft H"- (c
Ol t— c C PI
X CT 3 CT t
— ft >•' fl> C
: *~ tft n ^
— 0 fl
ft r
ta u ;
Ji U
X
X 1-1
x
X *"
X X
X
X XX
X
S ? n o
z
o
«J
U1
K.
to
W 1
w
H-
N) N
»- ^- KJ
(~ H- »-
W »— »-
O
Ul
M P R 18" Bunchgrass
Establishes well frout brod Jcasting on wet soils Widely
adapted to mixtures on soils too wet for other grasses
Spreads by rhizomes
H P R 30 Commonly planted at 1 to 1-1/2 rhizomes (12-18
long) per foot of row Creeping rhizomes and stolens
Established using vegetative ma tec Lai Heavy duty shoreline
protection
H P R 20" Sodforraer Also adapted to part of Southwest
Established using vegetative materials Grows to 10' tall
•o -o ti O
ft at w PI
n 3 3 o
cu —. >- — ta — , 3-
*Q *o o o O o 01
n a to *~ i— BJ n
at 3 rt fl oi no.
u HO) *- ia mo
« a 01 rr n — -»
X M
X
cr xx
X
s * « n
«
U)
o
•J
Ul
p- W M 1
w w U I
w
0. U »
V
w
Ki K> hJ
I- K- p-
p- »- N)
fO M
O *•
H P R 18* Bunchgrass Adapted to irrigated or naturally
fflesic sites Develops rapidly and is long lived Seeded in
mixtures Tolerates shade Hore summer growth than timothy
or bromegrass Natures early Tends to be inferior to tall
fescue for cover establishment and persistence
StoloniCerous Well adapted to tropical and subtropical
areas Established vegetatively by fresh stem and stolon
cuttings
H P R 20* bod forming Rhizornatous Highly productive on
good sites but will produce on droughty infertile soils
Propagated by planting pieces of stem or sod Seed generally
1
1
w n
n o
351
330
cn •-
m ft
>- 3
o a
Pacific Coast
Intermountain g
Southwest §
northern Great Plains *-
Southern Great Plains g-
Midwest £
Southeast ~
Northeast
Season of growth
Growth habit
native or introduced
pH
High water E, 3
<6 ft
(u n-
Drought o a
TJ
Cold £"
rr
O
Salinity D
Sand w
Loam -
CJay
Lbs PLS per acre
seeding rate
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
oo
o
o
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
CoMon and
scientific
Ricegrass, Indian
Rye, winter
(Secale cereale)
Ryegrass, annual
(Loliu* BtultUloruHi)
Ryegrass, perennial
(Loliua pecennel
Ryegrass, Wimaera
or Swiss
(Lolium rigidum)
Sacaton, alkali
(Sporobolus airoides)
Saltgrass. inland
(Distichlis stricta)
JC
•3
S
X
X
X
X
a
*;
«
o
£
u
X
X
5
O
g.
o
c
g
«
(A
C
C
C.
H
U
H
C
H
H
•H
1
S
S
M
O
P
A
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
•a
a
o
a
M
4J
5
g
0
^Jj
a
H
I
I
11
H
'
I
I
N
Plant Adaptation
Tolerance
S
5 4-7 5
6 0—8 0
ta
s
•§,
•rl
DC
3
2-3
2
i
1-2
2
3
4J
f
S
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
S
8
i
i
2
2
i
3
3
2
1
^
•H
C
rH
a
u
2
2
2
i
i
1
2
2
SoUl
^2
UI
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
a
S
1
2
1
1
1
2
L
1
I
1
J1
•H
U
3
2
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
2
U
U
IS
2
M
"i IX
Pi C
.0
38
4 6
30
3 5
3 5
1 0
1 5
15 0
1 7
Special
considerations
and
adaptations
H P R 7" Bunchgrass Hard, impermeable seed makes seeding
seeds
Extens i ve root system General 1 y used as temporary cover
Does not persist more than a year or two out of cultivation
H P R 25" Bunchgrass Excellent for temporary cover Can
be established under dry and unfavorable conditions Quick
germination i rapid seedling growth
H P R 25" Rapid developing, short-lived bunchgrass Gen-
erally used as short term seeding Easy to establish
M P R 11* Bunchgrass Short-lived
M P R 10" Bunchgrass Desirable for seeding on saline
areas Seed available from native harvest Seeds remain
viable for many years Reproduces by seeds and tillers
Cultivars not available
H P H 14 Sod forming Poor seed producer Seed unavail-
able
H P R 11" Sod forming Seeding limited by inadequate seed
supplies and low seed quality Seed common in native grass
seed harvest Rhizomatous
H P R 16* Bunchgrass Adapted to broadcast seedling after
disturbance Used principally in California Reproduces by
seeds and tillers Also adapted to portion of Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Virginia
H P R 18" Bunchgrass
M P R 10" Bunchgrass
fe
o
—continued—
-------
i
o
o
Excellent seedling vigor
Hheatgrass, intermediate
(Agropyron intermedium)
X
X
X
X
"
•0
~
N)
N
£
i
to
-
-
:
1500 m or more Easily established and extremely long lived
Reproduces by seeds and tillers
M P R 13" Sodformer Productive on mesic sites and under
irrigation Reproduces by seeds, tillers and rhizomes
I (Agropyron cristatum)
Seeded alone or with alfalfa Best results at altitudes of 1
Wheatgrass, fairway
crested
X
X
X
X
n
•o
_
UI
-
-
r
to
to
~
.-
*.
seeds Adapted to shallow and calcareous sites
H P R 8" Bunchgrass stands thicken sooner and spread
more than H desertorum, also leafier and finer stemmed
Wheatgrass bluebunch
(Agropyron spicatura)
X
o
-
u,
I
-
,0
KJ
1-
-
4*
Bunchgrass Adaptation and management similar to beardless
wheatgrass, but seed less available Reproduces primarily bv
Hheatgrass, beardless
(Agropyron inerme)
x
X
X
n
=
UI
^
-
10
to
1-
1-
"
M P 1 11" Does well in shallow sites Bunchgrass
Wheat, winter
(Tnticum aestivum)
x
n
o
o
UI
UI
-
i
u>
-
1-
UI
I
s
i
•D
s
fi>
T
•<
8
ft
n
Vine-nvesquite
(Panicum obtuaura)
x
X
£
2
-
ro
ro
ro
ro
t~
r-
t
Used principally for erosion control Reproduction by seeds
rhizomes, and stolens
Trichloris, two flower
(Trichloris crinita)
x
X
£
Z
-
h-
-
N)
M P R 8 Bunchgrass Adapted to shallow and calcareous
sites Seed not commercially available
Timothy
(Phleum pratense)
Tobosa
(Hilaria rautica)
x
x
x
-
x
X
X
X
£ ^
E
03
o
ro
1
.,
-
UI
u> ro
ro t—
t-
I
mesic sites Withstands eroded acid and low fertility soil
Useful in drainage ways, and terrace outlets
Leafy forage Seeded in mixtures such as alfalfa and clover
Stands are maintained perennially by vegetative reproduction
however, tends to be short-lived Shallow, fibrous root
system
M P R 12" Cultivars are not available
Switchgrass
(PanicuKi virqatum)
x
x
X
x
X
X
£
•Q
z
O
to
u
-
*0
t-
-
-
m
M P R 20-25" Sodforming Seeding rate for Alamo is 2 0
Rhizomatous Widely seeded in warm season qrass mixes on
Sudangrass
(Sorghum sudanense)
x
x
£
>
M
in
1
UI
-
*
|
ft
Oi
in
ft
0
n
I
8
n
Common and
scientific
names
Pacific Coast
Intermountain
Southwest
Northern Great Plains
Southern Great Plains
Midwest
Southeast
Northeast
Season of growth
Growth habit
Native or introduced
|
PH
High water £.
ft
o>
Drought o
o
Cold
Salinity
Sand u
Loam 11
Clay
Lbs PLS per acre
seeding rate
specia I
considerations
and
adaptat ions
i
5
5
EU
a,
tu
£
3
fil
£
•o
It
&
rr
O
3
i
I
oo
O
3
rt
H
(D
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Comon and
scientific
name a
Wheatgrass pubescent
( Ag rppyrgn
t ricophorum )
Hheatgrass, Siberian
(Agropyron siblricuro)
Hheagrass, slender
(Aqropyron trachycalum)
Hheatgrass, standard
crested
(Aqropyron desertorum)
Hheatgrass, stream bank
(Aqropyron riparium)
Hheatgrass, tall
(Aqropyron elongatum)
Wheatgrass, thickspike
(Aqropyron dasystachyro)
Hheatgrass western
(Agropyron sroithn)
(Elymus anqustus)
Hildrye, basin or giant
(Elymus cinereus)
Hildrye, beardless
(Elyiaus triticoides)
(Elynus canadensis)
Hildrye, nannonth
(Elymus qiganteus)
Regional adaptation
n
s
u
•H
ft
t)
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
ft
n
e
3
i
w
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
li
e
3
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
a
u
S
•o
*H
b
X
u
n
o
^j
S
u
n
4
c*
u
n
2.
I
u
IM
O
jj
n
u
10
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
«j
•fl
.C
?
S
8
t
P
e
e
t
P
p
P
p
p
p
I
i
i
M
I
N
I
II
11
N
H
I
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
S
6 0-8 0
4 5-1 0
Cl
S
J,
V
3:
2
2-3
1-2
2-3
1
1
2
1-2
2
f
0
1-2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2-3
2
•o
3
1-2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
"
^
to
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1-2
1
2
1
Soils
•0
c
a
(0
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
a
s
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
>1
4
C
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
I
&s
s
a|"
•0
V V
35
9 7
4 2
5 4
5 0
11 0
7 0
5 0
9 2
8 2
Special
considerations
and)
adaptations
M P R 12 Sod former Similar to intermediate wheatgrass
but somewhat more drought tolerant
I
H P R 8" Bunchgrass Similar to standard crested wheat-
grass in adaptation and use but less widely used
M p R 15" Bunchgrass Short life limits use Seed in
mixtures only Tends to be stemmy Reproduces by seeds and
tillers
H P R 9 Bunchgrass Refer to Fairway, crested wheatgrass.
full stands slightly more productive than fairway
H P R 9" Sodformer
H P R 13" Bunchgrass High sodium and salinity tolerance
Seed alone rather than in mixtures Easy to establish
Excellent seedling vigor
H P R 8" Sodforiner Excellent seedling vigor
M P R 16 SodEocmer Seeded in mixtures or in pure
stands Tolerates alkalinity and silting Rhizomatous
Long lived Slow germination, spreads rapidly, sod forming
Valuable Cor erosion control
H P R 14 Bunchgrass Vigorous, tall growing bunchgrass
Reproduces by seeds and tillers
M P R 18" SodEormer Poor seed production and problems
rfith seed dormancy
H P R 10" Sodforming Established using vegetative mate-
rial
VO
10
—continued-
-------
TABLE 8.11 (continued)
Common and
scienti f ic
Wildryp, Russian
( El ymus 3 unceus )
Regional adaptation
n
Q
U
•M
£
n
£
u
c
X
n
*
£
5
*
*
X
n
c
*J
¥
£
m
(0
£
5
-c
o
.C
¥
c
U
H
n
c
«j
s
s
o
7.
D
•D
0
U
c
H
0
>
«
I
Plant adaptation
Tolerance
£
ti
4J
?
rl
2
D»
3
S
1
•o
3
i
4J
C
H
3
i
Soils
•0
>v
Ul
2
E
3
1
>,
U
I
s
Li
S.2
m
(/I
& ^
•o
as
5 0
Special
considerations
adaptations
M P R 13" Bunchgrass Seed alone or with alfalfa Early
growth Very hardy once established Provide a weed-free
seedbed
NOTES This table was compiled from numerous sources, the following symbols are used in the table
Season of Growth W » warm; C * cool
Growth Habit A * annual P - perennial
Native or Introduced N a native I = introduced
Plant Adaptation 1 * well adapted
2 » intermediate
3 = poorly adapted
PLS =• pure live seed
* seeding rate based on bulk seed
H P R = minimum precipitation requirempnt
-------
j t Mountains
3 Wet land
ConipiM by Mom< E. Auttn
CM? WNl ovntr offtcat
Figure 8.26
Ma3or land resource regions of the United States.
(A) Northwestern forest, forage and specialty
crop region. (B) Northwestern wheat and range
region. (C) California subtropical fruit, truck
and specialty crop region. (D) Western range
and irrigated region. (E) Rocky Mountain range
and forest region. (F) Northern Great Plains
spring region. (H) Central Great Plains winter
wheat range region. (I) Southwestern plateaus
and plains, range and cotton region. (J) South-
western prairies, cotton and forage region. (K)
Northern lake states forest and forage region.
(L) Lake states fruit, truck and dairy region.
(M) Central feed grains and livestock region.
(N) East and Central general fanning and forest
region. (O) Mississippi Delta cotton and feed
grains region. (P) South Atlantic and Gulf
Slope cash crop, forest and livestock region.
(R) Northeastern forage and forest region. (S)
Northern Atlantic Slope truck, fruit and
poultry region. (T) Atlantic and Gulf Coast
lowlands, forest and truck crop region. (U)
Florida subtropical fruit, truck crop and range
region (Austin, 1965).
494
-------
Figure 8.27. Seeding regions in the United States (modified from Vallentine, 1971).
-------
to be the most practical for land treatment. The method selected depends
on the waste-soil interactions, present condxtion of the soil surface and
cost-benefit ratios of each method.
8.7.4 Seeding and Establishment
Seeding at the proper time is extremely important to successful stand
establishment since it affects the physiological development of the plant.
Cool season species usually perform best if seeded in late summer or early
fall. Warm season species are normally seeded during late winter or early
spring. Generally, the best time to seed is just prior to the period of
expected high annual rainfall. This provides favorable temperatures and
soil moisture conditions to the developing seedlings. Seeding method, rate
and depth also have a direct effect on the success of stand establishment.
8.7.4.1 Seeding Methods
The most commonly used methods of seeding are broadcasting and drill-
ing. Generally, drilling is preferred over broadcasting from an agronomic
standpoint because drilling places the seed into the soil, thus improving
seed-soil contact and the probability of seedling establishment. With
broadcasting, seeds are usually poorly covered with soil which tends to
slow stand establishment. Consequently, broadcast seeding is seldom as
effective as drilling without some soil disturbance prior to seeding.
Better results will be obtained if the broadcast seeding operation is also
followed with harrowing or cultipacking. These follow-up operations
enhance seed-soil contact, thus increasing the probability for seedling
establishment.
Broadcast seeding may be accomplished by either aerial or ground
application. Aerial application uses either a helicopter or an airplane
equipped with a spreader and a positive type metering device. Broadcasting
by ground application may be done by hand using the airstream or exhaust of
a farm implement, a rotary spreader, or a fertilizer-spreader type seed
box. Ground application tends to be slower than aerial application; how-
ever, aerial application is feasible only for large acreages due to the
cost involved.
8.7.4.2 Seeding Rate
Using the proper seeding rate is another critical factor to seedling
establishment. The actual quantity of seed applied per acre depends on the
species, the method of seeding, and the waste-site characteristics. Seed-
ing rates should be adequate for stand establishment without being excess-
ive. When broadcasting seeds, the rates should be increased 50 to 75%
since there is less seed-soil contact than is typical for drilling.
496
-------
The current practice, for calculating seeding rates is based on the
quantity (Ibs) of seed required to produce 20 live seeds per foot. Pure
live seed (PLS) is the percentage of the bulk seed that is considered live,
and it can be calculated using the following equation-
PLS = (% germination + % hardseed) X % purity (8.9)
The tag on the seed bag should contain all the information needed for the
various calculations. To determine pounds of available bulk seed needed
per acre use the following equation
Lb. PLS/acre * % PLS of available bulk seed = >„ -,
Lb. of available bulk seed/acre
For seeding mixtures, pounds of PLS needed per acre can be calculated by
using the following equation:
(decimal equivalent of the percentage for a specific
species desired in a mixture) X (Ibs. of PLS/acre for (8.11)
a single species seeding)
The quantity of available bulk seed (Ibs) needed per acre to obtain the
desired mixture can then be calculated using equation (8.10).
8.7.4.3 Seeding Depth
Optimum seeding depth of a. particular species depends on seed size and
quantity of stored energy and the surface soils at the site. The rule of
thumb is to plant seeds at a depth of 4 to 7 times the diameter of the seed
(Welch and Haferkamp, 1982). Many seedings fail because seeds are planted
too deep and not enough stored energy exists to allow the developing seed-
lings to reach the soil surface. The major problem with planting seeds at
too shallow a depth is the increased potential for desiccation. Seed may
safely be planted deeper in light textured soils than in heavy soils.
8.7.4.4 Plant Establishment
Vegetative establishment may require lime, fertilizer, mulch and addi-
tional moisture to assure success. Specific cultural practices needed vary
according to season and location. Soil tests should be used as a guide to
available nutrients and the need for pH adjustment. In most instances, the
area will have already been adjusted to a pH of 6.5 or above to obtain
optimal waste degradation. Without a proper balance of nitrogen, phos-
phorus and potassium, plant growth may be poor.
At sites where excessive heat or wind is a problem, a cover crop or
mulch can reduce surface soil temperatures, evaporation, crusting and wind
erosion. Numerous grasses including various sorghums and millets may be
497
-------
used as mulch; however, it is best to obtain recommendations from local SCS
offices or universities. Generally, seed production of a temporary cover
crop should be prevented. To accomplish this objective, the species should
be planted late in its growing season or cut prior to seed set. Permanent
species can then be seeded or sprigged without excessive competition from
remnants of the previous cover crop.
8.7.5 Soil Fertility
Soil fertility plays a major role in the ability of plants and
microbes to grow and reproduce in a land treatment operation. When vegeta-
tion is part of the management plan, nutrient imbalances may adversely
affect plant growth. Even if the unit operates without the use of
vegetation, nutrient toxicities or deficiencies may deter growth and
reproduction of microbes, thus limiting waste degradation.
Numerous macro- and micronutrients are considered essential to plants
and microorganisms. A general discussion of this topic is included in
Section 4.1.2.3. Micronutrients must be more carefully controlled since
there is a narrower range between the quantity of a particular nutrient
causing a deficiency or toxicity to plants than with the macronutrients.
Attention needs to be given to the total quantity of the nutrient contained
in the overall land treatment operation rather than just the quantity
present in the treatment medium or the waste alone.
Macronutrients are generally applied in rather large quantities when
compared to micronutrients. The three major macronutrients in fertilizer
are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). Other macroelements
which may need to be applied include calcium, magnesium and sulfur.
Micronutrients include such elements as copper, iron, boron, chloride,
molybdenum, zinc and manganese. Other trace elements essential to specific
plant groups include sodium, cobalt, aluminum, silicon and selenium
(Larcher, 1980). Additions of any one or a combination of micronutrients
may be required depending on the characteristics of the treatment medium
and the waste.
8.7.5.1 Fertilizer Formulation
Two systems currently exist for reporting composition percentages of
fertilizer components. Under the old system, a 13-13-13 fertilizer con-
tained 13% N, 13% P205 and 13% K20; however, under the new system
this same fertilizer would contain 13% total N, 30% available P and 16%
soluble K. Conversion factors for P and K are as follows
498
-------
x .44 = P K20 x .83 = K
P x 2.29 = P205 K x 1.20 = K20
The average composition of typical fertilizers are given in Table 8.12,
8.7.5.2 Timing Fertilizer Applications
The optimum time to apply fertilizer depends on the amount and distri-
bution of precipitation, the type of fertilizer and the growth character-
istics of the plant. Nitrogen is highly mobile in soils, yet phosphorus
and potassium move very slowly. Therefore, nitrogen needs to be applied
near the period of most active use by the plants, as long as sufficient
moisture is present. Phosphorus and potassium can be applied over a longer
time frame because precipitation will move them into the active root zone
where they eventually can be taken up and used by plants.
8.7.5.3 Method of Application
Two practical fertilizer application methods for land treatment units
are broadcasting and sprinkler irrigation. The application method must be
compatible with the specific type of fertilizer to be applied. Some ferti-
lizers such as anhydrous ammonia, aqueous ammonia and urea volatize rapidly
if they are broadcast so these must be incorporated into the soil shortly
after application.
Broadcasting is generally the most cost effective method of applica-
tion. This method is commonly used when applying granular fertilizers.
Minimal surface runoff of fertilizer occurs with this application method
since slopes and runoff of land treatment units are restricted.
Sprinkler irrigation may be effective for applying noncorrosive liquid
fertilizers. This application method could be easily incorporated into
existing land treatment irrigation systems. This method allows frequent
uniform applications of fertilizer at lower rates, thus increasing nitrogen
utilization by the plants (Vallentine, 1971).
8.8 WASTE STORAGE
Wastes may need to be stored at HWLT units for many reasons, including
1) holding to determine if the waste has the expected concentration of
hazardous constituents, 2) equipment breakdown, or 3) climatic restrictions
on waste application. If climatic factors will restrict waste application,
then sufficient waste storage capacity must be provided for wastes produced
during the season when wastes cannot be applied to the HWLT facility.
499
-------
TABLE 8.12 AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF FERTILIZER MATERIALS*
o
o
Fertilizers
NITROGEN FERTILIZERS
Ammonia, anhydrous
Ammonium nitrate
Ammonium phosphate sulfate
Ammonium sulfate
Di-ammonium phosphate
Mono-ammonium phosphate
Potassium nitrate
Urea
Sodium nitrate
%
N
82
33.5
16
20
21
11
14
45
16
%y j
/o fo
P K P£05
9 20
22 50
21 48
38
% P solubility
K£0 in water
Over 75%
Over 75%
46 Over 75%
CaC03 Equivalence t
/o
S Basicity Acidity
147
60
16 88
24 110
75
2.6 58
23
71
28
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS
(see also under nitrogen
fertilizers)
Calcium metaphosphate
Rock phosphate
Superphosphate, single
Superphosphate, triple
Phosphoric acid
Mono-potassium phosphate
POTASSIUM FERTILIZERS
(see also under nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers)
Potassium chloride
(muriate of potash)
Potassium sulfate
28
15
9
20
24
23
29
64
33
20
46
54
52
35
Slight
1% or less
Over 75%
Over 75%
Over 75%
Over 75%
12
1
Neutral
Basic
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
50 60
44 53
—continued—
Neutral
18 Neutral
110
-------
TABLE 8.12 (continued)
Fertilizers
SULFUR FERTILIZERS
(see also under nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers)
Calcium sulfate (gypsum)
Magnesium sulfate
Soil sulfur
Sulfate potash magnesia
LIMING FERTILIZERS
Calcium oxide
Dolomite
Limes tone, ground
Shell meal
N
K
% P solubility
K£0 in water
CaC03 Equivalence'*'
Basicity Acidity
ORGANIC
Manure
Manure
Manure
FERTILIZERS
9
>
»
dairy (fresh)
poultry (fresh)
steer (fresh)
0
1
2
.7
.6
.0
.13
.55
.24
.54
.75
1.59
.30
1.25
.54
.65
.9
1.92
50%
50%
40%
Slight
Slight
Slight
21.5
26
18.6
13
99
18
178
110
95
95
Acidic
Acidic
Acidic
Acidic
* Vallentine (1971)
t Compared to 100 basicity for
-------
8.8.1 Waste Application Season
The waste application season must be determined to enable the owner or
operator to determine the amount of waste storage capacity needed. If
accumulation of untreated waste in soil creates no potential toxicity or
mobility hazard, waste application will only be limited by freezing temper-
atures, snow cover and precipitation. Models, developed by Whiting (1976)
can be used to determine the waste application season based on various cli-
matic parameters. In the case above, the EPA-1 or EPA-3 model can be
applied directly (Whiting, 1976). The climatic data required are the mean
daily temperature (°F), snow depth, and daily precipitation for 20-25 years
of record.
If accumulation of untreated waste in soil can potentially lead to
unacceptable toxicities to plants or soil microbes and/or leaching or vola-
tilization of hazardous waste constituents, then wastes may only be applied
when soil temperature is greater than 5°C (41°F) and soil moisture content
is less than field capacity. These values are used as thresholds since
decomposition of organics and other treatment reactions essentially cease
at lower temperatures or greater moisture contents. Soil temperature
records are limited, so air temperatures are often used as described in
Section 4.1.1.6 to estimate soil temperature. The EPA-1 or EPA-3 models
described above may be applied to estimate the waste application season.
When the waste application season is limited by cold weather, the nonappli-
cation season for storage volume calculations can be defined as being the
last day in fall failing to exceed a minimum daily mean temperature to the
first day in spring exceeding the minimum daily mean temperature.
Additional constraints for application of hazardous waste must be
evaluated in terms of soil parameters and the 5-year return, month-by-month
precipitation for the particular HWLT site. Wetness is restrictive to
waste application operations primarily because saturated conditions maxi-
mize the potential for pollutant discharge via leachate or runoff and
inhibit organic matter degradation. An application season based on periods
of excessive wetness can be established in a straightforward manner by
applying the EPA-2 model described by Whiting (1976). The required cli-
matic data should be for a 20 to 25-year period of record. Specifically,
the required data inputs for the model are as follows:
(1) daily minimum, maximum and mean on-site temperatures (°F),
(2) daily precipitation (inches);
(3) site characteristics and climatic parameters for the station
including:
(a) I, the heat index;
(b) b, a coefficient dependent on the heat index;
(c) g, the tangent of the station's latitude;
502
-------
(d) W, the available water holding capacity of the soil
profile (in inches minus 1.0 inch as a safety factor),
and
(e) 4>> the daily solar declination, in radians.
Since the model is driven only by climatic factors, the results should be
interpreted carefully; biologic and hydrologic factors should also be con-
sidered. The model provides a valuable first estimate of the number of
storage days needed. The maximum annual waste storage days for the con-
tinental U.S., as estimated by the model are shown in Fig. 8.28. The
actual on-site soil profile characteristics including percolation, runoff,
profile storage, surface storage, and waste loading rates should be used to
determine storage days for a specific HWLT site when the limiting climatic
factor is excess precipitation.
8.8.2 Waste Storage Facilities
During the operation of an HWLT unit, there may be periods when waste
application is not possible due to wetness, low temperature, equipment
failure, or other causes. Suitable facilities must be provided to retain
the waste as it is generated until field application can be resumed. The
design of the necessary structure depends on the waste material and the
actual size of the structure depends on the required waste storage capa-
city. Waste storage facilities should be sufficient to store the
following:
(1) waste generated during extended wet and cold periods as
estimated in Section 8.8.1,
(2) waste generated during periods of field work, i.e., plowing,
planting, harvesting, etc.,
(3) waste generated during periods of equipment failure,
(4) 25-year, 24-hour return period rainfall over the waste
storage structure if it is open; and
(5) waste generated in excess of application capacity due to
seasonal fluctuations in the rate of waste production.
Runoff retention areas should not be used to store wastes generated during
the above situations, runoff retention areas are designed to retain runoff
from the active land treatment areas. Waste storage facilities are dis-
cussed below.
8.8.2.1 Liquid Waste Storage
Liquid wastes can be conveniently stored in clay lined ponds or
basins. An aeration system may be added to the pond to prevent the liquid
503
-------
Ul
o
-P-
Shading denotes
regions where the
principle climat
ic constraint to
land application
prolonged wet
spells. \
Figure 8.28. Estimated maximum annual waste storage days based on
climatic factors (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978)
-------
waste from becoming anaerobic. Wastes which are highly flammable or vola-
tile should not be stored in open ponds. Additionally, pond liners must
not be prone to failure. Clay liners and other liner materials may not
acceptable for waste storage if they are chemically incompatiable with the
waste.
A second approach to liquid storage is to construct a tank. The tank
may be either closed or open, is usually made of metal or concrete and can
be equipped with an aerifier. Tanks of this nature are more costly to
construct and require periodic maintenance, but they assure that no waste
is released to percolate through the soil. If differential settling occurs
during storage, some method of remixing the waste may be needed to assure
that the treatment site receives uniform applications. If any of the
liquid wastes being stored are hazardous wastes, the storage facilities for
the wastes must meet specific regulatory requirements for storage (EPA,
1981; EPA, 1982).
8.8.2.2 Sludge Storage
Sludges can be stored in facilities similar to those used for liquids.
Under certain conditions, filling and emptying tanks with sludge may become
a problem. Thus, a properly lined pond or basin may be more appropriate.
8.8.2.3 Solid Waste Storage
The most common method of solid waste storage is to stockpile the
material. If these piles are exposed to the weather, the area should be
bermed sufficiently to contain water from the 24-hour 25-year return period
storm over the storage area, in addition to the waste volume itself. A
buffer factor of at least 20% should be added to the berm to allow for
slumping of the stockpiled waste. The waste application season must,
therefore, be determined to enable the owner or operator to determine the
amount of waste storage capacity needed. Waste piles for hazardous wastes
must meet certain regulatory requirements (EPA, 1982).
8.9 WASTE APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
Waste characteristics such as the total volume and water content,
along with soil properties, topography and climate, need to be considered
to determine the appropriate waste application technique. Liquid wastes
containing between 95% and 100% water with a low volatility hazard may be
successfully applied by sprinkler irrigation, while, relatively dry, vola-
tile and/or toxic materials may require subsurface injection techniques.
Regardless of which application system is chosen, two basic considerations
must be examined. First, the waste application rate chosen should not
exceed the capacity of the soil to degrade, immobilize or transform the
505
-------
waste constituents. Second, the waste should be applied as uniformly as
possible. Waste applications cannot consist of merely pouring or dumping
the wastes in one spot. A definite plan must be developed and implemented
to uniformly apply the waste to the soil at the design rate over the
desired area. There are five basic considerations for choosing an
appropriate application system for a given site and waste. They are as
follows:
(1) effect on public health and the environment,
(2) operator-waste contact,
(3) ability to handle solids content;
(4) service life, and
(5) cost (capital and operational).
In the following sections, application techniques are discussed with regard
to the consistency of the waste as shown in Table 8.13.
TABLE 8.13 WASTE CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
Consistency Characteristics
Liquid Less than 8% solids and particle diameter less
than 2.5 cm
Semi liquid 3-15% solids or particle diameters over 2.5 cm
Low moisture solids Greater than 15% solids
Bulky wastes Solid materials consisting of contaminated
lumber, construction materials, plastic, etc.
8.9.1 Liquid Wastes
As a practical definition, a liquid waste is considered to have a
solids content of less than 8% and particles with diameters less than 2.5
cm. Handling and transporting many hazardous wastes may be more convenient
when the waste is in liquid form. Many wastes are generated in a moist
condition and usually require large amounts of energy to dewater them. The
cost of transporting a liquid waste from the source to the land treatment
unit is a function of distance. Pipelines may be the least costly for
short distances, while trucks may be necessary for greater distances.
Applications of liquid wastes are generally accomplished by spraying
waste with a sprinkler system or by surface irrigating with flood or furrow
irrigation techniques. Liquid wastes should be applied so that direct
runoff does not occur. Both techniques may cause air quality problems if
506
-------
the waste applied is highly volatile. Care should be taken when liquid
wastes are applied to ensure that leaching does not occur before treatment
of the hazardous constituents in the applied wastes is completed.
8.9.1.1 Surface Irrigation
Surface irrigation appears to be the easiest application technique for
a liquid waste and requires the least capital outlay. This method is com-
monly used so all necessary equipment is readily obtainable. One method of
surface irrigation involves laying out the area so that wastewater can be
applied by a set of trenches, canals and ditches. Waste is pumped to the
main canal where it flows by gravity through trenches and ditches to all
areas of the field where it infiltrates into the soil. There are, however,
some drawbacks to this system. Since the waste stands in the trenches
until the water infiltrates, there is a potential for odor and insect prob-
lems. Another disadvantage to this system is nonuniform application since
as the liquid flows through trenches and ditches, less of the waste is
carried to the far end of the field. In addition, if the waste is
especially dangerous, such as a strong corrosive agent, all persons and
animals must be kept away from the active area.
Another common means of surface application involves using a truck or
trailer mounted tank filled with waste to spread the material across the
field. The liquid waste is released by gravity flow or pumped through a
sprayer or manifold (Wooding and Shipp, 1979). Application rates with this
system are easily controlled by varying the flow rate or travel speed.
Difficulties encountered during periods of bad weather may require alter-
nate application technologies or storage facilities. One possible modifi-
cation is to construct all weather roads in a pattern that allows a truck
or spray rig to discharge wastes from the sides onto the disposal area.
This would make continued application during periods of inclement weather
possible. Waste spread this way should be incorporated as soon as the soil
conditions permit. One possible disadvantage of vehicular applications is
the resulting compaction and deterioration of soil structure (Kelling et
al., 1976). A listing of commercial equipment for land application of
wastes is included in the Implement and Tractor Red Book (1979).
8.9.1.2 Sprinkler Irrigation
Spray application of wastewater has enjoyed much popularity (Powell et
al., 1972), particularly for municipal wastewater effluents (Cassel et al.,
1979). This is primarily due to the availability and reasonable cost of
the equipment. Sprinkler systems for use in hazardous waste disposal need
to be designed by a qualified specialist to conform to the American Society
of Agricultural Engineers Standard 5376. Highest priority needs to be
given to attaining a uniform application pattern (coefficient of uniform-
ity) . A completely uniform application pattern has a coefficient of uni-
formity of 100%. Average irrigation systems attain a coefficient of uni-
507
-------
formity of approximately 60%. Information on uniformity, which is avail-
able from irrigation suppliers, should be considered before accepting a
system. When trying to achieve a uniform waste distribution, a higher
degree of uniformity is required than when disposing of runoff water or
wetting down plots for dust control. All materials need to be tested for
corrosivity with the waste to be disposed to ensure that premature
equipment failure does not occur.
The basic sprinkler irrigation system consists of a pump to move
waste from the source to the site, a pipe leading from the pump to the
sprinkler heads, and the spray nozzles. When choosing a pump, it must be
made of a material compatible with the proper capacity and pressure needed
for the given situation. For sludge applications, 1 to 2 inch nozzles re-
quiring 50-100 psi water pressure are recommended (White et al., 1975).
Pumps for these nozzles generally cost more and require more energy to
operate than those used for nonpressured systems such as surface
irrigation.
Sprinkler systems, if properly designed, are applicable to flat, slop-
ing and irregular terrain. A site can be vegetated at the time of waste
application, provided the vegetation will not interfere with the spray
nozzle operation and waste interception by the vegetative cover will not
present a hazard or inhibit waste treatment. Generally, sites are cleared
of trees and brush and planted to a pasture grass. In some cases, however,
it may be desirable to dispose of wastewater in a forested area with risers
placed in a pattern that avoids interference by trees. Pipes can be either
permanently buried below the frost line or cultivation depth, or laid on
the surface as with a portable irrigation system.
Although numerous configurations have been developed for sprinkler
irrigation systems, three variations are most widely used. The first of
the three main techniques is the fixed, underground manifold with risers
and rotating impact type sprinklers. This system is the most costly to
install and is permanent for the life of the installation. A second
approach is to use a traveling pipe and sprinkler. In this system, a
sprinkler connected by a flexible hose to the wastewater supply is mounted
on a self propelled trailer device which traverses a fixed route across
the field. The third commonly used spray system is the center pivot irri-
gation system. Here a fixed central wastewater supply comes up from an
underground main and a self propelled sprinkler system rotates around the
supply. The coefficient of uniformity with this system is as high as 80%.
Of the three major systems, the trailer mounted sprinkler has the most
versatility and can be easily moved from one location to another. Above
ground detachable irrigation pipe, normally used for agricultural irriga-
tion, is not commonly used because of the hazardous nature of the liquids
being handled. In general, most spray systems require little land prepara-
tion and can operate under a wide range of soil moisture conditions. The
major difficulties with spray irrigation of wastewater are odor control,
power consumption by high pressure pumps, clogging of nozzles causing a
nonuniform application, and aerosol drift of hazardous waste materials.
Low angle impact sprinklers have been developed to reduce aerosol drift.
508
-------
Terrain and weather conditions should also be considered when design-
ing a sprinkler system. Spray irrigation on sodded or cropped fields
should be done only on slopes of 0-15%. If the spray application area is
forested, application can be done on slopes up to 30%. Slopes at HWLT
units are generally less than 5%. Low lying, poorly drained areas need to
be drained as described in Section 8.3.6. Designers of spray irrigation
systems need to give particular attention to cold weather alternatives.
Pipes will need to be drained and flushed to prevent freezing and clogging
during down times. Provisions must be made to recycle the drained water
back to the original source.
Two other irrigation systems less frequently used for waste applica-
tion are the tow line and side wheel roll systems. These systems are gen-
erally limited to use with wastes having a very low solids since the small
nozzles clog easily. A review of irrigation systems and their suitability
for waste application is presented by Ness and Ballard (1979).
8.9.2 Semiliquids
Semiliquids, also called sludges, typically contain 5 to 15% solids by
weight. Application of Semiliquids is normally done either by surface
spreading with subsequent incorporation or by subsurface injection. Each
of these systems, with its inherent advantages and disadvantages, are
discussed below. Some general factors to be considered when choosing and
designing a system are vehicle traction and weight, power requirements,
topography and spreading patterns.
8.9.2.1 Surface Spreading and Mixing
Surface spreading and subsequent mixing is the conventional applica-
tion technique for farm manures. Sludge may be applied in a similar
manner, by loading the waste material on a manure spreader which applies it
uniformly over the area. The sludge is then mixed with the surface soil by
means of discing, deep plowing or rototilling. The main advantage to this
system is the low capital outlay required. Equipment is conventional,
readily available and of reasonable cost. Since this technique requires
traversing the land area twice, it is neither energy nor labor efficient.
Commercial waste applicators using this system often use large vacuum tank
trucks equipped with flotation tires and a rear manifold or gated pipe for
spreading the waste. Another option for moving sludges is to use a hauler
box or a truck equipped with a waterproof bed.
If the sludge is too thick to pump (over 15% solids), the only choice
may be to bring the material to the site and dump it. Typically, a pile
of sludge slumps to about twice the area of the truck bed. Additional
equipment is then needed to spread the waste over the soil surface. The
most efficient piece of equipment for uniform spreading appears to be a
509
-------
road grader with depth control skids mounted on the blade. A second
choice for this job is a bulldozer similarly equipped with depth control
skids on the blade. Dozer blades may require wings on the edges to avoid
formation of windrows. Backblading with a floating blade helps to achieve
a uniform distribution.
Uniformity of application must be stressed, excessive applications to
small areas result in barren "hot spots" and may lead to other environmen-
tal problems. Underapplication is inefficient and requires more land for
disposal than would otherwise be needed. Normal cultivation practices such
as plowing and discing cannot be relied on to evenly distribute waste over
a field. Windrows should be avoided in the spreading procedure. Conse-
quently, there must be a definite planned procedure to evenly distribute
the waste prior to incorporation.
There are several basic pieces of equipment that effectively mix waste
material with topsoil. First, there is the moldboard plow which very
effectively inverts the upper 15-30 cm of soil. Secondly, there are discs
which accomplish more mixing and less turning of the soil material than a
moldboard plow. Rotary tillers do an excellent job of thoroughly mixing
the waste with the surface soil, but it is generally slow and requires
large energy expenditures. It does, however, only require one pass to
accomplish adequate mixing while other types of equipment require two
passes. A tractor-like vehicle with a large auger mounted sideways is also
a very effective method for incorporating wastes into the soil in one pass.
A more extensive equipment review is provided in Section 8.9.4.
The surface spreading and mixing technique is not particularly well
adapted for use in applying hazardous volatile wastes since the material
lies directly on the soil surface and is exposed to the atmosphere. If
waste fumes will endanger the operator or the general public, or are objec-
tionable, this system will not be acceptable.
8.9.2.2 Subsurface Injection
Subsurface injection is the technique of placing a material beneath
the soil surface. It was originally developed by the agricultural industry
for applying anhydrous ammonia. Equipment has also been developed for sub-
surface injection of liquid manures and wastes. Basic equipment consists
of a tool bar with two or more chisels attached to the rear of a truck or
tractor. Adjustable sweeps are often mounted on or near the bottom of the
chisels to open a wide but shallow cavity underground. A tube connected to
the waste source leads down the back of the chisel, and as the sweep opens
a cavity, the waste is injected. With proper adjustment and use, very lit-
tle waste reaches the soil surface. If waste is forced back to the soil
surface in the furrow created by the chisel, blades may be attached which
fold the soil back into the furrow.
Subsurface horizontal spreading of the waste may be limited with this
technique, but a horizontal subsoiler may be added to the chisel injector
510
-------
to increase the subsurface area of incorporation. The horizontal subsoiler
moves through the soil prior to the injector. This also enhances the waste
degradation rate due to the increased waste-soil contact.
Common depths of application vary from 10 to 20 cm below the soil sur-
face (Wooding and Shipp, 1979). Application rates are usually about 375
liters/min/applicator with nominal loading rates of 22,000 to 66,000 kg of
dry solids per hectare (Smith et al., 1977, Brisco Maphis, personal
communication). An experienced operator can achieve a uniform application
across the field.
Where subsurface applications are made repeatedly over long periods of
time, an underground supply pipe is sometimes used to conduct the waste to
different areas of the field. A long flexible hose is then used to connect
from the supply pipe to the truck or tractor-mounted injectors. Sophis-
ticated systems have radio controlled shut-off valves so the operator can
turn the waste off when he needs to raise the injectors to make a turn.
8.9.3 Low Moisture Solids
Low moisture solids are characterized by moisture contents of less
than 85%. Basically, they can be handled much as one would handle sand or
soil. If the materials are dense and in large units, such as logs or rail-
road ties, it may be necessary to shred or chip the material before appli-
cation. A dump truck is the conventional method of transporting and apply-
ing solids. Piles of solids are then spread over the field using either a
roadgrader or bulldozer.
As is the case with surface spreading of sludge materials, the most
important concern is to achieve an even distribution. Another common
implement used for spreading solid wastes is the manure spreader, which is
particularly useful for wastes having moisture contents causing them to be
sticky or "chunky. The main disadvantage of this system is the small capa-
city, resulting in a large number of trips required to spread the waste.
If the material is granular and relatively free of large chunks, a sand
spreader on the back of a dump truck may be useful. Such broadcasting
methods are commonly used in northern states to spread sand and salt on icy
roads. Regardless of the spreading system selected, the waste needs to be
incorporated and mixed with the surface soil shortly after spreading. Gen-
erally, the sooner this is accomplished, the lower the potential for envir-
onmental damage. Waste incorporation can be done according to the options
listed for semiliquids (Section 8.8.2.1.).
If the application of low moisture solids will cause a significant
increase in the ground surface, special precautions may be required. Under
proper operation, the treatment zone will be a fixed depth from the surface
where aerobic conditions promote degradation. Excessive loading of wastes
could prohibit proper degradation by isolating nondegraded material below
the zone of aeration. Therefore, sufficient time must be allowed for
degradation of the waste before applying of additional waste. This may be
511
-------
accomplished by using a multiple plot design and rotating waste applica-
tions between these plots to allow sufficient time for proper degradation
to occur. Since this affects area and timing requirements it needs to be
considered in the original design of the land treatment unit.
The main disadvantage of using a low moisture solid disposal system is
the large energy requirements if wastes are initially wet. First, the
material must be dried, then transported to the disposal site, spread, and
finally incorporated. If the material is dry when initially generated,
such as an ash residue, the system becomes much more economical.
8.9.4 Equipment
In general, most HWLT units use specialized industrial equipment or
agricultural equipment adapted to satisfy to their needs. Care must be
taken to obtain compatible implements, often an agricultural implement can-
not be attached to an industrial tractor without special adaptors. Where
power requirements are high, the use of crawler type and 4-wheel drive
articulated tractors is common. As previously noted, a comprehensive sum-
mary of such equipment is available in the Implement and Tractor Red Book
(1979).
The equipment used to incorporate waste materials into the soil vary
according to the size and condition of the site. Discing is the most com-
monly used technique. Under adverse conditions, such as hard, dry soil, an
agricultural disc may not penetrate the soil adequately to obtain satisfac-
tory incorporation. In this case, industrial discs with weights may be
used to obtain sufficient penetration. After discing a field, a spring
tooth harrow is useful to further mix the waste into the soil. Moldboard
plows are excellent for turning under surface applied waste. The disadvan-
tages of the moldboard plow are the high power requirements, slow speed and
poor mixing. Inadequate mixing may result in a layer of persistent waste.
Chisel tooth plows may also be used for waste incorporation.
Tractor mounted rotary tillers may be used to create a thorough soil-
waste mixture and to provide effective aeration, in a single pass. Compac-
tion is kept to a minimum since only one pass is needed, while plows,
spring tooth harrows, disc harrows, etc. generally require multiple passes.
A rototiller also tends to be more maneuverable than many other types of
equipment. The power requirement for this piece of equipment is quite
high, however, these other considerations may be of greater importance and
a single pass with a rototiller may take less time and energy than multiple
passes with other equipment. A special tractor with an auger mounted on
its side has been developed for use in spreading, turning and incorporating
sludge. It has many of the same advantages of the rototiller.
Specialized equipment, such as tractors with low bearing pressure for
use in wet soils, are readily obtainable. Farm equipment such as spreaders
and tank wagons can often be purchased with flotation tires. Trucks
512
-------
designed for field use in spreading liquids can also be equipped with flo-
tation tires, if necessary.
Equipment for hauling and spreading liquid and solid wastes are com-
monly available. Tank trucks, vacuum trucks and liquid manure spreaders
are available for use with liquid wastes. Manure spreaders, broadcast type
fertilizer spreaders, dump trucks, road graders and loaders may be used for
working with dry solid wastes.
Subsurface injection equipment has been developed and there are a few
specialized sources. Many use chisel tooth plows often with sweeps on the
bottom. Other systems use discs to cut a trench followed with a tube that
injects the waste into the ditch immediately behind the disc. Still others
use a horizontal discharge pipe mounted on the side of a truck. The most
efficient systems, however, use large diameter flexible pipe to feed the
applicator, eliminating the need of nurse tanks and frequent stops for re-
filling. Illustrations of such equipment can be found in many publications
(EPA, 1979; White et al., 1975, Overcash and Pal, 1979).
8.9.5 Uniformity of Waste Application
Efficient use of the land in an HWLT unit requires that maximum quan-
tities of waste be applied while preventing microbial or plant toxicity and
minimizing the potential for contaminated leachate or runoff. Thus,
hazardous waste loading rates are selected that rapidly load the soil to a
safe limit based on the concentration of the rate limiting constituent
(S.LC). The benefits of this method include a relatively small land area
requirement, which minimizes the volume of runoff water to be collected and
disposed, and low labor and energy costs for operation. When wastes are
loaded to the maximum safe limit, uniformity of application is essential to
prevent the occurrence of "hot spots." Hot spots are areas that receive
excessive quantities of waste causing an increased probability of wastes
being released to the environment and requiring special treatment or
removal when closing the site.
8.9.5.1 Soil Sampling as an Indicator
Field sampling of soils, in the treatment zone may be used to deter-
mine if the hazardous wastes are being uniformly applied. Location of the
samples should be selected after first visually inspecting a given plot for
differences in color, structure, elevation or other characteristics that
may be indicative of uneven application. When such differences are
observed, samples of the treatment zone from these areas should be obtained
and analyzed for elements or compounds that are characteristic of the
waste. Often analysis of the RLC can be used to indicate hot spots.
513
-------
8.9.5.2 Vegetation as an Indicator
Despite efforts to achieve uniform application of waste, excessive
amounts of waste constituents may accumulate in relatively small areas of
the waste plot. Nonuniformity in soil characteristics may contribute to
the accumulation of certain constituents in isolated areas. For example,
areas containing preexisting salts or areas with lower permeability may
cause hot spots. Growing vegetation between applications of waste helps
Identify such hot spots so that they can be treated to correct the problem
or so that future applications to these areas can be avoided. In areas
where surface vegetation does poorly, it is also highly probable that
microbial degradation of organic constituents is inhibited. Thus, vegeta-
tion serves as a visual indication of the differential application or
degradation of the applied waste. Furthermore, if nonuniform application
has resulted in areas where substances have accumulated to phytotoxic
levels, these areas may also have an increased probability for waste
constituents to leach to groundwater. The soils in and below the treatment
zone should be sampled at vegetative hot spots to ascertain the cause of
unsatisfactory growth and to determine if any hazardous constituents are
leaching.
8.10 SITE INSPECTION
The site is required to be inspected weekly and following storm
events (EPA, 1982); however, daily inspections of all active portions of
the HWLT unit are desirable. These inspections should include observations
to assure that wastes are being properly spread and incorporated. Further-
more, daily observations should be made to assure that adequate freeboard
is available in the various retention structures at all times.
Weekly inspections are sufficient for all inactive portions and for
dikes, terraces, berms and levees. Observations should include indentifi-
cation of hot spots where vegetation is doing poorly. Dikes, terraces and
levees should be inspected for seepage and for evidence of damage by bur-
rowing animals or unauthorized traffic.
Operational, safety and emergency equipment should receive regular
inspection for damage or deterioration. Special attention should be given
to this equipment since it is used on an irregular basis. When this equip-
ment is needed it must perform properly; therefore, it should undergo test-
ing at appropriate intervals to ensure that it will be ready when needed.
8.11 RECORDS AND REPORTING
As mentioned previously, a land treatment unit must be a well planned
and organized operation. Records and on-site log books must be maintained
514
-------
since they are essential components of an organized facility, and serve to
aid the manager in assessing what has and has not been done and what pre-
cautions need to be taken. These records also serve as a permanent record
of activities for new personnel and off-site personnel including company
officials and government inspectors. Finally, records must be kept of mon-
itoring activities and pertinent data should be maintained throughout the
active life of the land treatment unit. Most of these records can be kept
in a log book accompanied by a loose leaf file containing lab reports,
inspection reports and similar items. A checklist of items to be included
in the operating record is presented as Table 8.14. All reporting should
conform to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 and 122 and any applicable
state regulations.
Records to be kept at the site should include a map showing the layout
of the land treatment units indicating the application rates for the wastes
disposed and the date and location where each waste was applied and results
of waste analyses. In addition, records need to be kept on the date, loca-
tion, and code number of all monitoring samples taken after waste applica-
tion. These records will include analyses of waste, soil, groundwater, and
leachate water from the unsaturated zone. This information may be needed
in case questions arise about the operation of the unit. Efforts to reveg-
etate the site may also be documented. This can be done by recording the
date, rate and depth of planting, species and variety planted, and the type
and date of fertilizer applications. Measurements of emergence and
groundcover should be determined at appropriate intervals and recorded.
Although climatic records are not required by regulation, they are
very useful for proper management. The amount of rainfall should be
measured on-site and recorded daily. Additional climatic data recorded
may include pan evaporation, air temperature, soil temperature and soil
moisture. When water is present in the retention ponds, the depth of water
should be recorded at least weekly during a wet season. These records are
easiest to use if results are graphed. This allows visual interpretation
of the data to determine important trends that influence management
decisions.
In addition, all accidents involving personal injury or spills of
hazardous wastes are to be recorded and remedial actions noted. Any viola-
tions of security (i.e., entry of unauthorized persons or animals) also
need to be recorded. Notes should be kept on all inspections, violations
and accidents. They should clearly indicate the problem and the remedial
actions planned or taken.
Another helpful management tool is to keep a balance sheet for each
section of the unit that receives waste applications indicating the maximum
design loading rate of each of the rate limiting constituents and those
within 25% of being limiting, as well as the maximum allowable cumulative
load of the capacity limiting constituent. As waste applications are made,
the amount of each constituent added is entered on the balance sheet and
subtracted from the allowable application to indicate the amount that can
be applied in future applications. A running account of the capacity of
each plot receiving waste is a valuable guide to the optimum placement so
515
-------
TABLE 8.14 CHECKLIST OF ITEMS NEEDED FOR A THOROUGH RECORD OF OPERATIONS
AT A LAND TREATMENT UNIT
1. Plot layout map
2. Inspections
a. weekly observations on levees and berms*
b. observations of odor, excessive moisture, need for maintenance,
etc.*
3. Waste applications
a. date
b. amount and rate
c. location
4. Waste analysis
a. original
b. quarterly waste analysis reports
c. any changes in application rate needed due to change in waste
5. Fertilizer and lime applications
a. date
b. amount
c. location
6. Vegetation efforts*
a. planting date
b. species planted
c. fertilizer applied
d. emergence date
e. groundcover
7. Monitoring sample analyses
a. soil samples
b. waste samples
c. groundwater samples
d. leachate samples
e. runoff samples
f. plant tissue samples
8. Climatic parameters*
a. rainfall
b. pan evaporation
c. air temperature
d. soil temperature
e. soil moisture
—continued—
516
-------
TABLE 8.14 (continued)
9. Water depth in retention basins*
10. Accidents
a. personal inj ury
b. amount and type of waste spilled
c. location
11. Breaches of security
12. Breaches of runoff retention resulting in uncontrolled off-site
transport
13. Maintenance schedule
a. levees and berms
b. regrading of plots
c. grassed waterways
d. tilling activities
e. roads
* Not required by regulation but important to successful management of an
HWLT unit.
517
-------
that the cumulative capacity of all of the available soil is used. Section
7.5 discusses how to determine the limiting constituents of the waste
streams to be land treated.
518
-------
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES
ASAE. Terracing Committee. 1980. ASAE standard S268.2. pp. 522-525. In ASAE
Agricultural engineers yearbook, 1980-1981. Am. Soc. Agr. Engr.
Asmussen, L. E., A. W. White, Sr., E. W. Hauser, and J. M. Sheridan. 1977.
Reduction of 2,4-D load in surface runoff down a grassed waterway. J.
Environ. Qual. 6:159-162.
Austin, M. E. 1965. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of
the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Agriculture handbook
296. S.C.S., U.S.D.A. 82 p.
Barber, S. A. 1967. Liming materials and practices. Agron. 12:125-160.
Beasley, R. P. 1958. A new method of terracing. Missouri Agr. Exp. Stat.
Bull. 699.
Black, C. A. 1968. Soil-plant relationships. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York. 792 p.
Bohn, H. L., B. L. McNeal, and G. A. O'Connor. 1979. Soil chemistry. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 329 p.
Bouwer, H. and J. van Schilfgaarde. 1963. Simplified method for predicting
fall of water table in drained land. Trans. Am. Soc. Agr. Engr. 6:288-291.
Brady, N. C. 1974. The nature and properties of soils. 8th ed. MacMillan
Publ. Co., Inc. New York. 639 p.
Brown, K. W. and L. J. Thompson. 1976. Feasibility study of general crust
management as a technique for increasing capacity of dredged material
containment areas. Contract Report D-77. Texas A&M University, Research
Foundation. College Station, Texas.
Buckman, H. W. and N. C. Brady. 1960. The nature and properties of soils.
6th ed. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York.
Capp, J. P. 1978. Power plant fly ash utilization for land reclamation in
the Eastern United States, pp. 339-354. In_ F. W. Schaller and P. Sutton
(eds.) Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Carlson, C. A., P. G. Hunt, and T. B. Delaney. 1974. Overland flow treat-
ment of wastewater. Misc. Paper Y-74-3. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exper-
iment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 63 p.
Cassell, E. A., P. W. Meals, and J. R. Bouyoun. 1979. Spray application of
wastewater effluent in West Dover, Vermont - an initial assessment. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover, New Hampshire. Special Report 76-6.
519
-------
Chen, R. L. and W. H. Patrick. 1981. Efficiency of nitrogen removal in a
simulated overland flow wastewater treatment systems. J. Environ. Qual.,
10: 98-103.
Cheremisinoff, N. P., P. N. Cheremisinoff, F. Ellerbusch, and A. J. Perna.
1979. Industrial and hazardous waste impoundment. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ. Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 257-280.
Chessmore, R. A. 1979. Profitable pasture management. Interstate Printers &
Publ. Danville, Illinois. 424 p.
Christensen, P. D. and P. J. Lyerly. 1954. Fields of cotton and other crops
as affected by applications of sulfuric acid in irrigation water. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 15:523-526.
Coleman, N. T. and G. W. Thomas. 1967. The basic chemistry of soil acidity.
Agron. 12:1-34.
Dickey, E. C. and D. H. Vanderholm. 1981. Vegetative filter treatment of
livestock feedlot runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 10: 279-284.
Dolon, W. P. 1975. Odor panels, pp. 75-82. In P. N. Cheremisinoff and R. A.
Young (eds.) Industrial odor technology assessment. Ann Arbor Science Publ.
Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Dravenieks, A. 1975. Threshold of smell measurement, pp. 27-44 In P. N.
Cheremisinoff and R. A. Young (eds.) Industrial odor technology assessment.
Ann Arbor Science Publ. Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Dummn, L. D. 1964. Transient flow concept in subsurface drainage, its
validity and use. Trans. Am. Soc. Agr. Engr. 7:142-146.
EPA. 1977. Process design manual for land treatment of municipal waste
water. EPA 625/1-27-008. PB 299-665/IBE.
EPA. 1979. Disposal to land* In Process design manual for sludge treatment
and disposal. EPA 625-1-79-011.
EPA. 1980a. Lining of waste impoundment and disposal facilities.,U.S. EPA
SW-870.
EPA. 1980b. Identification and listing of hazardous waste. Federal Register
Vol. 45, No. 98, pp. 33119-33133. May 19, 1980.
EPA. 1981. Hazardous waste management system; addition of general require-
ments for treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol.
46, No. 7. pp. 2802-2897. January 12, 1981.
EPA. 1982. Hazardous waste management system, permitting requirements for
land disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 43. pp. 32274-
32388. July 26, 1982.
520
-------
Flamming, G. S. 1975. Computer simulation techniques in hydrology.
Elsevier Sci. Publ., Amsterdam.
Glover, R. E. 1964. Ground-water movement. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bur.
Reclam. Engr. Monogr. No. 31. 67 p.
Graham, E. H. 1941. Legumes for erosion control and wildlife. U.S. Dept of
Agriculture. Misc. Pub. No. 412. 153 p.
Hafenrichter, A. L., J. L. Schwendiman, H. L. Harris, R. S. MacLauchlan,
and H. W. Miller. 1963. Grasses and'legumes for soil conservation in the
Pacific Northwest and Great Basin States. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Agriculture Handbook No. 339. Washington, D.C. 69 p.
Hanson, A. A. 1972. Grass varieties in the United States. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture. Agricultural Handbook No. 170. Washington, D.C. 124 p.
Hatayama, H. K., J. J. Chen, E. R. de Vera, R. D. Stephens, and D. L.
Storm. 1980. A method for determining the compatibility of hazardous
wastes. EPA-600/2-80-076.
Heath, M. E., P. S. Metcalfe, and R. F. Barnes. 1973. Forages: the science
of grassland agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 755 p.
Herschfield, D. M. 1961. Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States.
Engr. Division, Soil Conserv. Serv., USDA. Washington, D.C. Tech. Paper 40.
117 p.
Hillel, D. 1971. pp. 167-182 In Groundwater drainage. Academic Press, New
York.
Hitchcock, A. S. 1950. Manual of the grasses of the United States. U. S.
Dept. of Agriculture. Misc. Pub. No. 200. Washington, D.C. 1051 p.
Hoeppel, R. E., P. G. Hunt and T. B. Delaney. 1974. Wastewater treatment of
soils of low permeability. U.S. Army Eng. Wasteways Expt. Sta. Misc. Paper
Y-74-2. Vicksburg, Miss. 84 p.
Hooghaudt, S. B. 1937. Bijdregen tot de kennis van eenige natuurkundige
grootheden van den grand, 6. Versl. Landb. Ond. 43.461-676.
Implement and Tractor Red Book. 1979. Implement and Tractor Publications,
Inc., 1014 Wyandotte, St., Kansas City, Missouri.
Jenkins, T. F., D. C. Leggett, C. J. Martel, and H. E. Hare. 1981. Overland
flow: removal of toxic volatile organics. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory. Special Report 81-1. Hanover, New Hampshire.
15 p.
Jenkins, T. F. and A. J. Palazzo. 1981. Wastewater treatment by a prototype
slow rate land treatment system. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory. Report 81-14. Hanover, New Hampshire. 44 p.
521
-------
Kelling, K. A., L. M. Walsh, and A. E. Peterson. 1976. Crop response to
tank truck applications of liquid sludge. J. Water Pollution Control
Federation 48(9):2190-2197.
Kirkham, D., S. Toksoz, and R. R. van der Ploeg. 1974. Steady flow to
drains and wells, pp. 203-244. JCii J. van Schilfgaarde (ed.) Drainage for
agriculture. Agron. Monogr. No. 17. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisconsin.
Leithead, H. L., L. L. Yarlett, and T. N. Shiflet. 1971. 100 Native forage
grasses in 11 southern states. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural
Handbook No. 389. Washington, D.C. 216 p.
Linsley, R. K., Jr., M. A. Kohler and J. L. H. Paulhus. 1975. Hydrology for
engineers. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. 482 p.
Loehr, R. C., W. J. Jewell, J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson, and G. S.
Friedman. 1979. Land application of wastes, Vol. 2. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co. New York. p. 305.
Luthin, J. N. 1957. Drainage of irrigated lands, pp. 344-371. In J. N.
Luthin (ed.) Drainage of agricultural lands. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison,
Wisconsin. 611 p.
Martel, C. J., T. F. Jenkins, C. J. Diener, and P. L. Butler. 1982.
Development of a rational design procedure for overland flow systems. U.S.
Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Report 82-2.
Hanover, New Hampshire. 29 p.
Miyamato, S., J. Ryan, and J. L. Stroehlein. 1975. Potentially beneficial
uses of sulfuric acid in southwestern agriculture. J. Environ. Qual.
4:431-437.
Miyamato, S. and J. L. Stroehlein. 1974. Solubility of manganese, iron, and
zinc as affected by application of sulfuric acid to calcareous soils. Plant
and Soil 40:421-427.
Moody, W. T. 1966. Nonlinear differential equation of drain spacing. Proc.
Am. Soc. Civil Engr., J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 92(IR2):l-9.
Myers, E. A. 1974. Sprinkler irrigation systems. Design and operation cri-
teria, pp. 299-309. In Proc. Conf. on recycling treated municipal
wastewater through forest and cropland. EPA 660/2-74-003. PB 236-313/3BA.
Ness, L. D. and R. J. Ballard. 1979. Land application distribution equip-
ment alternatives. Paper presented at joint meeting of Am. Soc. of Agr.
Engr. and Can. Soc. of Agr. Engr. Univer. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
June, 1979.
Nutter, W. L. and R. C. Schultz. 1975. Spray irrigation of sewage effluent
on a. steep forest slope. I. Nitrate renovation. Agron. Abst. Am. Soc.
Agron. Madison, Wisconsin.
522
-------
Overcash, M. R. and D. Pal. 1979. Design of land treatment systems for
industrial wastes - theory and practices. Ann Arbor Science Pub. Inc. Ann
Arbor, Michigan. 684 p.
Peech, M. 1965. Lime requirement. Agron. 9:927-932.
Perrier, E. R. and A. C. Gibson. 1980. Hydrologic simulation on solid waste
disposal sites (HSSWDS). Prepared for the U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory. SW-868.
Peters, R. E. and C. R. Lee. 1978. Field investigation of advanced
treatment of municipal wastewater by overland flow. Vol. II. p. 45-50. In
H. L. McKim (ed.) State of knowledge in land treatment of wastewater. U.S.
Army Cold Regions Research and Eng. Lab. Hanover, N. H.
Phung, T., L. Barker, D. Ross, and D. Bauer. 1978. Land cultivation of
industrial wastes and municipal solid wastes; state-of-the-art study, Vol.
1. Technical summary and literature review. EPA 600/2-78-140a. PB 287-
080/AS.
Pohlman, G. G. 1966. Effect of liming different soil layers on yield of
alfalfa and on root development and nodulation. Soil Sci. 34:145-160.
Pountney, P. J. and H. Turner. 1979. Hydrogen peroxide makes an excellent
sludge deodorant. Water & Wastes Engineering, September 1979. p. 56-59.
Powell, G. M., M. E. Jensen, and L. G. King. 1972. Optimizing surface
irrigation uniformity by nonuniform slopes. Paper presented at the 1972
Winter meeting of the ASAE. Chicago, Illinois.
Prather, R. J., J. 0. Goertzen, J. D. Rhoades, and H. Frenkel. 1978.
Efficient amendment use in sodic soil reclamation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
42:782-786.
Ruffner, J. D. 1978. Plant performance on surface coal mine spoil in
Eastern United States. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, SCS-TP-155. Washington,
B.C. 76 p.
Ryan, J., S. Miyamoto, and J. L. Stroehlein. 1975. Preliminary evaluation
on methods of acid precipitation. Plant and Soil 41:11-13.
Ryan, J. and J. L. Stroehlein. 1979. Sulfunc acid treatment of calcareous
soils: effects on phosphorus solubility, inoranic phosphorus forms and
plant growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:731-735.
Safaya, N. M. and M. K. Wali. 1979. Growth and nutrient relations of a
grass-legume mixture on sodic coal-mine spoil as affected by some
amendments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:747-753.
Schwab, G. 0., R. K. Frevert, K. K. Barnes, and T. W. Edminster. 1971.
Elementary soil and water engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
316 p.
523
-------
Smith, J. L., D. B. McWhorter, and R. C. Ward. 1977. Continuous subsurface
injection of liquid dairy manure. EPA-600/2-77-117. PB 272-350/OBE.
Soil Conservation Service. 1958. Engineering handbook for soil
conservationists in the Corn Belt. Agr. Handbook #135. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, B.C.
Soil Conservation Service. 1972. National engineering handbook, Section 4,
Hydrology. Chapter 10. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Sopper, W. E. and L. T. Kardos. 1973. Vegetation responses to irrigation
with treated municipal wastewater. pp. 271-294. In Sopper, W. E. and L. T.
Kardos (eds.) Recycling treated municipal wastewater and sewage through
forest and cropland. Penn. State Univ. Press. University Park,
Pennsylvania.
Strunk, W. G. 1979. Hydrogen peroxide treats diverse wastewaters. Indus-
trial Wastes, January-February, 1979. p. 32-35.
Stubbendieck, J., S. L. Hatch, and K. J. Kjar. 1981. North American range
plants. Natural Resources Enterprises, Lincoln, Nebraska. 468 p.
Thomas, R. E., B. Bledsoe and K. Jackson. 1976. Overland flow treatment of
raw wastewater with enhanced phosphorus removal. EPA-600/2-76-131, U.S.
EPA, Washington, D.C.
Thornburg, A. A. 1982. Plant materials for use on surface rained lands in
arid and semi-arid regions. SCS-TP-157. EPA-600/7-79-134 .88 p.
Thornwaite, C. W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of
climate. Geog. Rev. 38:55-94.
Tisdale, S. L. and W. L. Nelson. 1975. Soil fertility and fertilizers. 3rd
ed. MacMillan Publ. Co., New York.
USDA. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington, D.C.
USDA. 1948. Grass: the yearbook of agriculture. Washington, D.C. 892 p.
USDA. 1960. Plant hardiness zone map. Agricultural Research Service. USDA
Misc. Pub. No. 814. Washington, D.C.
USDA. 1973. Kentucky guide for classification, use and vegetative treatment
of surface mine spoil. Washington, D.C. 31 p.
Vallentine, J. F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Brigham Young
Univ. Press. Provo, Utah. 516 p.
Van Arsdel, E. P. 1967. The nocturnal diffusion and transport of spores.
phytopathology, 57(11):1221-1229.
524
-------
Van Arsdel, E. P., E. C. Tullis, and J. D. Panzer. 1958. Movement of air in
a rice paddy as indicated by colored smoke. Plant Disease Reporter,
42(6).721-725.
van Schilfgaarde, J. 1963. Design of tile drainage for falling water
tables. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engr., J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 89(IR2):1-12.
van Schilfgaarde, J. 1965. Transient design of drainage systems. Proc. Am.
Soc. Civil Engr., J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 91(IR3):9-22.
van Schilfgaarde, J. 1974. Nonsteady flow to drains, p. 245-270. In J. van
Schilfgaarde (ed.) Drainage for agriculture. Agron. Monogr. No. 17. Am.
Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisconsin.
Wali, M. K. and F. M. Sandoval. 1975. Regional site factors and revegeta-
tion studies in western North Dakota, pp. 133-153. In M. K. Wali (ed.)
Practices and problems of land reclamation in western North America. Uni-
versity of North Dakota Press. Grand Forks, North Dakota.
Warburton, D. J., J. N. Scarborough, D. L. Day, A. J. Muehling, S. E. Cur-
tis, and A. H. Jensen. 1979. Evaluation of commercial products for odor
control and solids reduction of liquid swine manure. Paper presented at the
Illinois Livestock Waste Management Conference, March 6, 1979, Champaign,
Illinois.
Welch and Haferkamp. 1982. Seeding rangeland. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. B-1379.
10 p.
White, R. K., M. Y. Handy, and T. H. Short. 1975. Systems and equipment for
disposal of organic wastes on soil. Ohio Agricultural Research and Develop-
ment Center. Res. Cir. 197.
Whiting, D. M. 1976. Use of climatic data in estimating storage days for
soils treatment systems. U.S. EPA, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA 600/2-76-250.
PB 263-597/7BE.
Wooding, H. N. and R. F. Shipp. 1979. Agricultural use and disposal of
septic tank sludge. In Pennsylvania information and recommendations for
farmers, septage haulers, municipal officials and regulatory agencies.
Pennsylvania State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Spec. Circ. 257.
Yahia, T. A., S. Miyamota, and J. L. Stroehlein. 1975. Effect of surface
applied sulfuric acid on water penetration into dry calcareous and sodic
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39:1201-1204.
525
-------
9.0 CHAPTER NINE
MONITORING
A monitoring program is an essential component at any land treatment
unit, and should be planned to provide assurance of appropriate facility
design, act as a feedback loop to furnish guidance on improving unit man-
agement, and indicate the rate at which the treatment capacity is being
approached* Since many assumptions must be made in the design of a land
treatment unit, monitoring can be used to verify whether the initial data
and assumptions were correct or if design or operational changes are
needed. Monitoring cannot be substituted for careful design based on the
fullest reasonable understanding of the effects of applying hazardous waste
to the soil; however, for existing HWLT units (which must retrofit to com-
ply with regulations), monitoring can provide much of the data base needed
for demonstrating treatment.
Figure 9.1 shows the topics to be considered when developing a moni-
toring program. The program must be developed to provide the following
assurances:
(1) that the waste being applied does not deviate significantly
from the waste for which the unit was designed,
(2) that waste ( constituents are not leaching from the land
treatment area in unacceptable concentrations;
(3) that groundwater is not being adversely affected by the
migration of hazardous constituents of the waste(s); and
(4) that waste constituents will not create a food chain hazard
if crops are harvested.
To accomplish these assurances the current regulations (EPA, 1982a) require
the following types of monitoring.
(1) Groundwater detection monitoring to determine if a leachate
plume has reached the edge of the waste management area (40
CFR 264.98).
(2) Groundwater compliance monitoring to determine if the facil-
ity is complying with groundwater protection standards for
hazardous constituents (40 CFR 264.99).
(3) Soil pH and concentration of cadmium in the waste when cer-
tain food-chain crops are grown on HWLTs where cadmium is
disposed (40 CFR 264.276).
(4) Unsaturated zone including soil cores and soil-pore liquid
monitoring to determine if hazardous constituents are
migrating out of the treatment zone (40 CFR 246.278).
(5) Waste analysis of all types of waste to be disposed at the
HWLT (40 CFR 264.13).
526
-------
f WASTE
r
POTENTIAL
SITE
TREATMENT ZONE
CONCEPT (SECTION 9 1)
ANALYTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
(SECTION 9.2)
STATISTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
(SECTION 9.3)
TYPES OF
MONITORING
(SECTION 9.4)
DESIGN AND OPERATION
CHAPTER EIGHT
0
FINAL SITE
SELECTION
MONITORING
CHAPTER NINE
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
CHAPTER TEN
I
Figure 9.1 Topics to be considered in developing a monitoring program
for an HWLT unit.
527
-------
In addition to these required types of monitoring, other types of
monitoring may be needed in a thorough monitoring program (Fig. 9.2).
These secondary monitoring components, though not specifically regu-
lated are important to successful land treatment. For instance, to
complete the assurance that no unacceptable human health effect or environ-
mental damage is occurring, air emissions, surface water discharge and
worker exposure of hazardous constituents can be monitored. The treatment
zone can be monitored to determine if degradation of waste organics is
progressing as planned and whether adjustments in unit management (e.g.,
pH, nutrients, tillage) are needed to maintain the treatment process, and
to gauge the rate at which the capacity limiting constituent (CLC) is
accumulating in the land treatment unit and at what point closure should be
initiated. Any of these components could be dropped from the proposed
monitoring plan if treatment demonstrations show these types of monitoring
are not needed to determine the proper performance of the HWLT unit.
9.1 TREATMENT ZONE CONCEPT
As is depicted in Fig. 9.2, the entire land treatment operation and
monitoring program revolves about a central component, the treatment zone.
Concentrating on the treatment zone is a useful approach to describing and
monitoring a land treatment system. The treatment zone is the soil to
which wastes are applied or incorporated; HWLT units are designed so that
degradation, transformation and immobilization of hazardous constituents
and their metabolites occurs within this zone. In practice, setting a
boundary to the treatment zone is difficult. In choosing the boundaries of
the treatment zone soil forming processes and the associated decrease in
biological activity with depth should be considered. According to soil
taxonomists, the lower limit of a soil must be set at the lower limit of
biologic activity or rooting of native perennial plants, typically about 1
to 2 m (USDA, 1975). Since biological degradation of waste organics is
often the primary objective in land treatment, the lower boundary of the
treatment zone should not exceed the lower boundary of the soil. Current
land treatment regulations place the lower limit of the treatment zone at
1.5 m (EPA, 1982a).
The choice of a lower boundary must be modified where shallow ground-
water or perched water can encroach on this zone and thus increase the
likelihood of contaminant leaching. A distance of 1 m is the required min-
imum separation between the bottom of the treatment zone and the seasonal
high water table (EPA, 1982a). From soil physics considerations, this sep-
aration is necessary because the capillary fringe above the water table,
resulting in elevated soil moisture content, is often observed to rise as
much as 50 to 75 cm. A second reason for aim separation is that the
height of the seasonal high water table is generally an estimate based on
limited observation and there may be periods when the saturated zone is at
a higher elevation.
528
-------
NJ
DISCHARGE/
RUNOFF
(NPDES)
WASTE
SOIL-PORE
LIQUID
UNSATURATED ZONE
6ROUNDWATER
Figure 9.2. Various types of monitoring for land treatment units.
-------
A final aspect of the treatment zone that should be considered is the
rise in land surface elevation which may result from the accumulation of
nondegradable waste solids. In some cases, this rise can be significant
and the choice must be made whether to continually redefine the lower
treatment zone boundary or define the lower boundary as a static value
based on the original land surface elevation. The latter is the logical
choice. If the lower boundary were continuously redefined, the waste
material remaining below the redefined boundary would then be considered
unacceptable since waste consituents must be degraded, transformed or
immobilized within the treatment zone.
After considering the various aspects of the treatment zone, the gen-
eralized definition is the zone of waste and soil in which degradation,
transformation and/or immobilization occurs, extending no more than 1.5 m
below the original land surface and separated by at least 1 m from the
seasonal high water table (EPA, 1982a). What constitutes "complete"
treatment varies according to the specific hazardous constituent and the
degree to which the constituent and its metabolites must be degraded or
immobilized to prevent both short and long-term harm to human health or the
environment. Where data are available, the required level of treatment may
be relatively easy to designate, however, if data are lacking or
inconclusive, the desired level of treatment must be resolved through
laboratory, greenhouse, and/or field testing (Chapter 7).
9.2 ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Certain nonhazardous waste constituents and/or their metabolites,
either singly or in combination, are of concern when managing land treat-
ment facilities because of their effect on treatment processes. A sound
monitoring program should account for the potentially harmful effects of
all waste constituents. Properly designed and conducted waste-site
interaction studies should indicate the existence of environmental hazards.
Nonhazardous inorganic constituents that are significant to the land
treatment system should also be routinely included in the monitoring
program. These unlisted constituents are often dealt with under the
authority of State solid waste programs; therefore, facility permits should
jointly address both hazardous and nonhazardous constituents. The permit
officials and permit applicants should both recognize that in many cases a
waste constituent, not regulated as hazardous, will be the limiting factor
(ALC, RLC, or CLC) in facility design. Methods for determining the
constituents that limit the amount of waste, the number of waste
applications, and the cumulative capacity of a land treatment site are
discussed in Section 7.5.
530
-------
9.3 STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
A monitoring plan can be judged by its ability to provide realistic,
unbiased data from which valid comparisons between the values of monitored
parameters and background quality can be made. The use of statistical
principles in the monitoring design is therefore fundamental to providing
the maximum amount of relevant information in the most efficient manner.
In general, the most common monitoring approach compares the sample means
of two populations assumed to be independent and normally distributed
(i.e., parameter values from a uniform area or individual location compared
with background, ambient values). It is suggested that the land treatment
unit is designed and operated such that no significant movement of hazard-
ous constituents occurs. Thus, the null hypothesis to be tested is that
the population means are equal (Htyj = y£> A:yj ^ 1*2)• l^16 keys to valid
comparison between these populations are the choice of sample size (number
of replications) and the use of random sampling. Problems arise in plan-
ning monitoring systems when one must decide how best to meet the statisti-
cal requirements and what balance to establish between the needed data and
economy of design. After defining the type of comparisons, the choice of
test statistics can be made. The present problem is well suited to the
"t" statistic, which is in fact generally suggested in EPA monitoring guid-
ance and regulations (40 CFR 264 Subpart F in EPA, 1982a).
Often the difficulty of designing a monitoring plan is in choosing
what is to be measured, how replicate samples are to be obtained, and how
many replicates are needed. Basically, taking replicate samples is in-
tended to provide a measure of the variability of the sampled medium. EPA
(1982b) provides methods for developing a statistical approach for taking
and analyzing monitoring samples. One must be careful to avoid interpret-
ing analytical errors as actual differences in the sampled media. It is a
good idea to obtain several samples in a random fashion and analyze these
for the constituents of concern. For example, samples could be obtained
from monitoring wells or soil-pore liquid samplers at random times over a
period of several days, or soil core samples could be obtained from several
random locations. The number of samples taken should depend on sampling
variability and may be as few as three if variability is low. Sample vari-
ability must be established for the media to be sampled at the HWLT unit.
A good starting point is to obtain and analyze five replicate samples; if
the variance is low (e.g., 5-10% of the mean), then fewer samples would
suffice while a. high variance (e.g., >25% of the mean) indicates that more
than five samples may be needed.
9.4 TYPES OF MONITORING
As discussed earlier the monitoring program centers around the treat-
ment zone. The required types of monitoring for HWLT facilities are con-
tained in the EPA (1982a) regulations and are also listed in Section 9.0.
The frequency of sampling and the parameters to be analyzed depend on the
characteristics of the waste being disposed, the physical layout of the
531
-------
unit, and the surface and subsurface characteristics of the site. Table
9.1 provides guidance for developing an operational monitoring program.
Each of the types of monitoring are discussed below.
9.4.1 Waste Monitoring
Waste streams need to be routinely sampled and tested to check for
changes in composition. A detailed description of appropriate waste samp-
ling techniques, tools, procedures, and safety measures is presented in
Section 5.3.2.1. These procedures should be followed during all waste sam-
pling events. Analytical methods should follow established procedures for
the given waste described in Section 5.3.2 which are based on standard
protocols.
The frequency at which a waste needs to be sampled and the parameters
to be analyzed depends greatly on the variables that influence the quantity
and quality of the waste. When waste is generated in a batch, as would be
expected from an annual or biannual cleanout of a lagoon or tank, the waste
should be fully characterized prior to each application. When the waste is
generated more nearly continuously, samples should be collected and com-
posited based on a statistical design over a period of time to assure that
that the waste is of a uniform quality. For example, wastes which are
generated continuously could be sampled weekly or daily on a flow propor-
tional basis and composited and analyzed quarterly or monthly. When no
changes have been made in the operation of the plant or the treatment of
the waste which could significantly alter concentration of waste constitu-
ents, the waste should, at a minimum, be analyzed for (1) the constituents
that restrict the annual application rates (RLC) and the allowable cumula-
tive applications (CLC), (2) the constituents that are within 25% of the
level at which they would be limiting, and (3) all other hazardous constit-
uents that have been shown to be present in the waste in the initial waste
characterization. Since synergism and antagonism as well as unlisted waste
metabolites can create hazards that cannot be described by chemical analy-
sis alone, routine mutagenicity testing may be performed (Section 5.3.2.4)
if the treatment demonstration has indicated a possible problem. In addi-
tion, waste should be analyzed as soon as possible after a change in opera-
tions that could affect the waste characteristics.
9.4.2 Unsaturated Zone Monitoring
The (unsaturated zone as referred to in this document is described as
the layer of soil or parent material separating the bottom of the treatment
zone (defined earlier) and the seasonal high water table or groundwater
table and is usually found to have a moisture content less than saturation.
In this zone, the movement of moisture may often be relatively slow in re-
sponse to soil properties and prevailing climatic conditions; however, in
some locations, soils and waste management practices may lead to periods of
heavy hydraulic loading which could cause rapid downward flux of moisture.
532
-------
TABLE 9 1 GUIDANCE FOR AN OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM AT HWLT UNITS
Media to be Monitored
Purpose
Sampling Frequency
Number of Samples
Parameters to be Analyzed
Waste
Quality Change
Quarterly composites if continuous
stream, each batch if intermittent
generation
One
At least rate and capacity
limiting constituents, plus
those within 25Z of being
Uniting, principal hazardous
constituents, pH and EC
Soil cores
(unsaturated zone)
Determine slow movement
of hazardous constituents
Quarterly
One composited from
two per 1 5 ha (4 ac),
minimum of 3 composited
from 6 per uniform area
All hazardous constituents In
the waste or the principal
hazardous constituents,
metabolites of hazardous
constituents, and nonhazardous
constituents of concern
Ln
W
U>
Soil-pore liquid
(unsaturated zone)
Groundwater
Determine highly mobile
constituents
Determine mobile
constituents
Quarterly, preferably following
leachate generating precipitation
snowmelt
Semiannually
One composited from two
samplers per 1 5 ha
(4 ac), minimum of 3
composited from 6 per
uniform area
Minimum of four sug-
gested—one upgradient,
three downgradient
All hazardous constituents in
the waste or the principal
hazardous constituents,
mobile metabolites of hazard-
ous constituents, and impor-
tant mobile nonhazardous
constituents
Hazardous constituents and
metabolites or select indi-
cators
Vegetation (if
grown for food
chain use)
Phytotoxlc and hazardous
transmitted constituents
(food chain hazards)
Annually or at harvests
One per 1 5 ha (4 ac)
or three of processed
crop before sale
Hazardous metals and organics
and their metabolites
Runoff water
Soluble or suspended
constituents
As required for NPDES permit
As permit requires,
or one
Discharge permit and back-
ground parameters plus
hazardous organics
Soil in the
treatment zone
Determine degradation,
pH, nutrients, and rate
and capacity limiting
constituents
Quarterly
7-10 composited to one
per 1 5 ha (4 ac)
Air
Personnel and population
health hazards
Quarterly
Five
Particulates (adsorbed
hazardous constituents) and
hazardous volatlles
-------
An unsaturated zone monitorxng plan should be developed for two purposes.
1) to detect any significant movement of hazardous constituents out of the
system and 2) to furnish information for management decisions. In light of
the variability in soil water flux and the mobility of hazardous waste con-
stituents , the unsaturated zone monitoring plan should include sampling the
soil to evaluate relatively slow moving waste constituents (soil core moni-
toring) and sampling the soil-pore liquid to evaluate rapidly moving waste
constituents. Monitoring for hazardous constituents should be performed on
a representative background plot(s) until background levels are established
and immediately below the treatment zone (active portion). The number,
location, and depth of soil core and soil-pore liquid samples taken must
allow an accurate indication of the quality of soil-pore liquid and soil
below the treatment zone and in the background area. The frequency and
timing of soil-pore liquid sampling must be based on the frequency, time
and rate of waste application, proximity of the treatment zone to ground-
water, soil permeability, and amount of precipitation. The data from
this program must be sufficient to determine if statistically significant
increases in hazardous constituents, or selected indicator constituents,
have occurred below the treatment zone. Location and depth of soil core
and soil-pore liquid samples follow the same reasoning, but the number,
frequency and timing of soil core sampling differs somewhat from that
required for soil-pore liquid sampling. Thus, the unique aspects of these
topics will be considered together with discussions of techniques for
obtaining the two types of samples.
9.4.2.1 Locating Unsaturated Zone Samples
Soil characteristics, waste type, and waste application rate are all
important factors in determining the environmental impact of a particular
land treatment unit or part of a unit on the environment. Therefore, areas
of the land treatment unit for which these characteristics are similar
(i.e., uniform areas) should be sampled as a single monitoring unit. As
will be used in further discussions, a uniform area is defined as an area
of the active portion of a land treatment unit which is composed of soils
of the same soil series (USDA, 1975) and to which similar wastes or waste
mixtures are applied at similar application rates. If, however, the tex-
ture of the surface soil differs significantly among soils of the same
series classification, the phase classification of the soil should be con-
sidered in defining "uniform areas." A certified professional soil
scientist should be consulted in designating uniform areas.
Based on the above definition, it is recommended that the location of
soil core sampling or soil-pore liquid monitoring devices within a given
uniform area be randomly selected. Random selection of samples ensures a
more accurate representation of conditions within a given uniform area. It
is convenient to spot the field location for soil-coring and soil-pore
liquid devices by selecting random distances on a coordinate system and
using the intersection of the two random distances as the location at which
a soil core should be taken or a soil-pore liquid monitoring device
installed. This system works well for fields of both regular and irregular
534
-------
shape, since the points outside the area of interest are merely discarded,
and only the points inside the area are used in the sample.
The location, within a given uniform area of a land treatment unit
(i.e., active portion monitoring), at which a soil core should be taken or
a soil-pore liquid monitoring device installed should be determined using
the following procedure:
(1) Divide the land treatment unit into uniform areas under the
direction of a certified professional soil scientist.
(2) Set up coordinates for each uniform area by establishing two
base lines at right angles to each other which intersect at
an arbitrarily selected origin, for example, the southwest
corner. Each baseline should extend far enough for all of
the uniform area to fall within the quadrant.
(3) Establish a scale interval along each base line. The units
of this scale may be feet, yards, meters, or other units
depending on the size of the uniform area, but both base
lines should have the same units.
(4) Draw two random numbers from a random numbers table (usually
available in any basic statistics book). Use these numbers
to locate one point along each of the base lines.
(5) Locate the intersection of two lines drawn perpendicular to
the base lines through these points. This intersection
represents one randomly selected location for collection of
one soil core, or for installation of one soil-pore liquid
device. If this location at the intersection is outside the
uniform area, disregard and repeat the above procedure.
(6) For soil-core monitoring, repeat the above procedure as many
times as necessary to obtain the desired number of locations
within each uniform area of the land treatment unit. This
procedure for randomly selecting locations must be repeated
for each soil core sampling event but will be needed only
once in locating soil pore liquid monitoring devices.
Locations for monitoring on background areas should also be randomly
determined. Again, consult a certified professional soil scientist in
determining an acceptable background area. The background area must have
characteristics (i.e., at least soil series classification) similar to
those present in the uniform area of the land treatment unit it is repre-
senting, but it should be free from possible contamination from past or
present activities which could have contributed to the concentrations of
the hazardous constituents of concern. Establish coordinates for an arbi-
trarily selected portion of the background area and use the above procedure
"or randomly choosing sampling locations.
535
-------
9.4.2.2 Depth to be Sampled
Since unsaturated zone monitoring is intended to detect pollutant
migration from the treatment zone, samples should logically be obtained
from immediately below this zone. Care should be taken to assure that
samples from active areas of the land treatment unit and background samples
are monitoring similar horizons or layers of parent material. Noting that
soils seldom consist of smooth, horizontal layers but are often undulating,
sloped and sometimes discontinuous, it would be unwise to specify a single
depth below the land surface to be used for comparative sampling. A
convenient method for choosing sampling depths is to define the bottom of
the treatment zone as the bottom of a chosen diagnostic soil horizon and
not in terms of a rigid depth. Sampling depth would then be easily defined
with respect to the bottom of the treatment zone. At a minimum, soil core
and soil-pore liquid sampling should monitor within 30 cm (12 in) of the
bottom of the treatment zone. Additional sampling depths may be desirable,
for instance if analytical results are inconclusive or questionable. Core
samples should include only the 0 to 15 cm increment below the treatment
zone while soil-pore liquid samplers should be placed so that they collect
liquid from anywhere within this 30 cm zone.
9.4.2.3 Soil Core Sampling Technique
Waste constituents may move slowly through the soil profile for a num-
ber of reasons, such as the lack of sufficient soil moisture to leach
through the system, a natural or artificially occurring layer or horizon of
low hydraulic conductivity, or waste constituents which exhibit only a low
to moderate mobility relative to water in soil. Any one or a combination
of these effects can be observed by soil core monitoring„ Based on the
treatment zone concept, only the portions of soil cores collected below the
treatment zone need to be analyzed. The intent is to demonstrate whether
significantly higher concentrations of hazardous constituents are present
and moving in material below the treatment zone than in background soils or
parent material.
Soil core sampling should proceed according to a definite plan with
regard to number, frequency and technique. Previous discussions of statis-
tical considerations should provide guidance in choosing the number of sam-
ples required. Background values for soil core monitoring should be estab-
lished by collecting at least eight randomly selected soil cores for each
soil series present in the treatment zone. These samples can be composited
in pairs (from immediately adjacent locations) to form four samples for
analysis. For each soil series a background arithmetic mean and variance
should be calculated for each hazardous constituent. For monitoring the
active portion of the HWLT, a minimum of six randomly selected soil cores
should be obtained per uniform area and composited as before to yield three
samples for analysis. If, however, a uniform area is greater than 5 ha (12
ac), at least two randomly selected soil cores should be taken per 1.5 ha
(4 ac) and composited in pairs based on location. Data from the samples in
536
-------
a given uniform area should be averaged and statistically compared. If
analyses reveal a large variance from samples within a. given uniform area,
more samples may be necessary. The frequency with which soil coring should
be done is at least semiannually, except for background sampling which,
after background values are established, may be performed only occas-
sionally as needed to verify whether background levels are changing over
time.
It is important to keep an accurate record of the locations from which
soil core samples have been taken. Even where areas have been judged to be
uniform, the best attempts at homogeneous waste application and management
cannot achieve perfect uniformity. It is probable in many systems that
small problem areas or "hot spots" may occur which cause localized real or
apparent pollutant migration. Examples of "apparent" migration might in-
clude small areas where waste was applied too heavily or where the machin-
ery on-site mixed waste too deeply. The sampling procedure itself is sub-
ject to error and so may indicate apparent pollutant migration. Therefore,
anomalous data points can and should be resampled at the suspect loca-
tion(s) to determine if a problem exists, even if the uniform area as a
whole shows no statistically significant pollutant migration.
The methods used for soil sampling are variable and depend partially
on the size and depth of the sample needed and the number and frequency of
samples to be taken. Of the available equipment, oakfield augers are use-
ful if small samples need to be taken by hand while bucket augers give
larger samples. Powered coring or drilling equipment, if available, is the
preferable choice since it can rapidly sample to the desired depths and
provide a clean, minimally disturbed sample for analysis. Due to the time
involved in coring to 1.5 m and sometimes farther, powered equipment can
often be less costly than hand sampling. In any case, extreme care must be
taken to prevent cross contamination of samples. Loose soil or waste
should be scraped away from the surface to prevent it from contaminating
samples collected from lower layers. The material removed from the treat-
ment zone portion of the borehole can be analyzed if desired, to evaluate
conditions in the treatment zone. It is advisable to record field obser-
vations of the treatment zone even if no analysis is done. Finally, bore
holes absolutely must be backfilled carefully to prevent hazardous constit-
uents from channelling down the hole. Native soil compacted to about field
bulk density, clay slurry or other suitable plug material may be used.
Sample handling, preservation and shipment should follow a chain of
custody procedure and a defined preservation method such as is found in EPA
(1982), Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, or the analytical portion
of this document (Section 5.3). If more sample is collected than is needed
for analysis, the volume should be reduced by >either the quartering or
riffle technique. (A riffle is a sample splitting device designed for use
with dried ground samples).
The analysis of soil cores must include all hazardous constituents
which are reasonably expected to leach or the principal hazardous constitu-
ents (PHCs) which generally indicate hazardous constituent movement (EPA,
1982a).
537
-------
9.4.2.4 Soil-Pore Liquid Sampling Technique
Percolating water added to the soil by precipitation, irrigation, or
waste applications may pass through the treatment zone and may rapidly
transport some mobile waste constituents or degradation products through
the unsaturated zone to the groundwater. Soil-pore liquid monitoring is
intended to detect these rapid pulses of contaminants, often immediately
after heavy precipitation events, that are not likely to be observed
through the regularly scheduled analysis of soil cores. Therefore, the
timing of soil-pore liquid sampling is a key to the usefulness of this
technique. Seasonality is the rule with soil-pore liquid sample timing
(i.e., scheduled sampling cannot be on a preset date, but must be geared to
precipitation events). Assuming that sampling is done soon after leachate-
generating precipitation or snowmelt, the frequency also varies depending
on site conditions. As a starting point, sampling should be done quarter-
ly. More frequent sampling may be necessary, for example, at units located
in areas with highly permeable soils or high rainfall, or at which wastes
are applied very frequently. The timing of sampling should be geared to
the waste application schedule as much as possible.
Land treatment units at which wastes are applied infrequently (i.e.,
only once or twice a year) or where leachate-generating precipitation is
highly seasonal, quarterly sampling and analysis of soil-pore liquid may be
unnecessary. Because soil-pore liquid is instituted primarily to detect
fast-moving hazardous constituents, monitoring for these constituents many
months after waste application may be useless. If fast-moving hazardous
constituents are to migrate out of the treatment zone, they will usually
migrate at least within 90 days following waste application, unless little
precipitation or snowmelt has occurred. Therefore, where wastes are
applied infrequently or leachate generation is seasonal, soil-pore liquid
may be monitored less frequently (semi-annually or annually). A final note
about timing is that samples should be obtained as soon as liquid is pres-
ent. Following any significant rainfall, snowmelt or waste application,
the owner or operator should check the monitoring devices for liquid at
least within 24 hours.
The background concentrations of hazardous constituents in the soil-
pore liquid should be established by installing two monitoring devices at
random locations for each soil series present in the treatment zone.
Samples should be taken on at least a quarterly basis for at least one year
and can be composited to give one sample per quarter. Analysis of these
samples should be used to calculate an arithmetic mean and variance for
each hazardous constituents. After background values are established,
additional soil-pore liquid samples should occasionally be taken to deter-
mine if the background values are changing over time.
The number of soil-pore liquid samplers needed is a function of site
factors that influence the variability of leachate quality. Active, uni-
form areas should receive, in the beginning, a minimum of six samplers per
uniform area. For uniform areas greater than 5 ha, at least two samplers
per 1.5 ha should be installed. Samples may be composited in pairs based
538
-------
on location to give three samples for analysis. The number of devices may
have to be adjusted up (or down) as a function of the variability of
results.
To date, most leachate collection has been conducted by scientists and
researchers and there is not an abundance of available field equipment and
techniques. The EPA (1977) and Wilson (1980) have prepared reviews of
pressure vacuum lysimeters and trench lysimeters. The pressure vacuum
lysimeters are much better adapted to field use and have been used to moni-
tor pollution from various sources (Manbeck, 1975), Nassau-Suffolk Research
Task Group, 1969; The Resources Agency of California, 1963, James, 1974).
These pressure vacuum samplers are readily available commercially and are
the most widely used, both for agricultural and waste monitoring uses. A
third type of leachate sampler is the vacuum extractor as used in the field
by Smith et al. (1977). A comparison of in situ extractors was presented
by Levin and Jackson (1977).
9.4.2.4.1 Pressure-Vacuum Lysimeters. Construction, installation, and
sampling procedures for pressure-vacuum lysimeters are described by Grover
and Lamborn (1970), Parizek and Lane (1970), Wagner (1962), Wengel and
Griffen (1971) and Wood (1973). Some data indicate that the ceramic cups
may contribute excessive amounts of Ca, Na, and K to the sample and may re-
move P from the sample (Grover and Lamborn, 1970); however, more recent
work (Silkworth and Grigal, 1981) comparing ceramic samplers with inert
fritted glass samplers showed no significant differences in Ca, Na, Mg, and
K concentrations. No studies as yet have been done on the permeability of
ceramic samplers to organic samplers. Recent data by Brown (1977) indicate
that ceramics are permeable to some bacteria, while Dazzo and Rothwell
(1974) found ceramic with a pore size of 3-8 m screened out bacteria. A
special design (Wood, 1973) is needed if samples are to be collected at
depths greater than 10 m below the soil surface. The basic construction of
these devices is shown in Fig. 9.3 and consists of a porous ceramic cup
with a bubbling pressure of 1 bar or greater attached to a short piece of
PVC pipe of suitable diameter. Two tubes extend down into the device as
illustrated. Data by Silkworth and Grigal (1981) indicate that, of the two
commercially available sampler sizes (2.2 and 4.8 cm diameter), the larger
ceramic cup sampler is more reliable, influences water quality less, and
yields samples of suitable volume for analysis.
Detailed installation instructions for pressure-vacuum lysimeters are
given by Parizek and Lane (1970). Significant modification may be neces-
sary to adapt these instruments to field use where heavy equipment is work-
ing. To prevent channelling of contaminated surface water directly to the
sampling device, the sampler may be installed in the side wall of an access
trench. Since random placement procedures may locate a sampler in the mid-
dle of an active area, the sample collection tube should be protected at
the surface from heavy equipment by a manhole cover, brightly painted steel
cage or other structuie. Another problem associated with such sampler
placement is that its presence may alter waste management activities (i.e.,
waste applications, tilling, etc. will avoid the location); therefore, the
sampler would not yield representative leachate samples. This problem may
539
-------
I"
£.3
TUBING TO SURFACE
CONNECTORS
PIPE-THREAD SEALANT
PVC PIPE CAP
PVC PIPE
PVC CEMENT
POLYETHYLENE TUBING
BRANCH "TM
FEMALE ELBOW
POPPET CHECK VALVE
CONNECTORS
EPOXY CEMCNT
POLYETHYLENE TUBING
POROUS CU*
Figure 9.3. One example of a pressure-vacuum lyaimeter (Wood, 1973).
Reprinted by permission of the American Geophysical Union.
540
-------
be avoided by running the collection tube horizontally underground about
10 m before surfacing.
For sampling after the unit is in place, a vacuum is placed on the
system and the tubes are clamped off. Surrounding soil water is drawn into
the ceramic cup and up the polyethylene tube. To collect the water sample,
the vacuum is released and one tube is placed in a sample container. Air
pressure is applied to the other tube which forces the liquid up the tube
and into the sample container. Preliminary testing should ensure that
waste products can pass into the ceramic cup. An inert tubing such as
Teflon may need to be substituted for the polyethylene to prevent organic
contamination. Where sampling for possible volatiles in leachate, a purge
trap such as suggested by Wood et al. (1981) or as described for volatiles
in the waste analysis section (5.3.2.3.2.2) of this document may be used.
The major advantages of these sampling devices are that they are
easily available, relatively inexpensive to purchase and install, and quite
reliable. The major disadvantage is the potential for water quality alter-
ations due to the ceramic cup, and this possible problem requires further
testing. For a given installation, the device chosen should be specif-
ically tested using solutions containing the soluble hazardous constituents
of the waste to be land treated. Several testing programs to evaluate
these devices are currently in progress, including programs sponsored by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American Petroleum
Institute.
9.4.2.4.2 Vacuum Extractor. Vacuum extractors were developed by Duke and
Raise (1973) to extract moisture from soils above the groundwater table.
The basic device consists of a. stainless steel trough that contains ceramic
tubes packed in soil. The unit is sized not to interfere with ambient soil
water potentials (Corey, 1974), and it is installed at a given depth in the
soil with a slight slope toward the collection bottle which is in the bot-
tom of an adjacent access hole. The system is evacuated and moisture moved
from adjacent soil into the ceramic tubes and into the collection bottle
from which it can be withdrawn as desired. The advantage of this system is
that it yields a quantitative estimate of leachate flux as well as provides
a water sample for analysis. The volume of collected leachate per unit
area per unit time is an estimate of the downward movement of leachate
water at that depth. The major disadvantages to this system are: it is
delicate, requires a field vacuum source, is relatively difficult to
install, requires a trained operator, estimates leachate quantity somewhat
lower than actual field drainage, and disturbs the soil above the sampler.
Further details about the use of the vacuum extractor are given by Trout et
al. (1975). Performance of this type device is generally poor when
installed in clay soils.
9.4.2.4.3 Trench Lysimeters. Trench lysimeters get their name from the
large access trench or caisson necessary for operation. Basic installation
as described by Parizek and Lane (1970) involves excavating a rather large
trench and shoring up the side walls, taking care to leave open areas so
541
-------
that samplers can be placed in the side walls. Sample trays are Imbedded
in the side walls and connected by tubing to sample collection containers.
The entire trench area is then covered to prevent flooding. One signifi-
cant danger in using this system is the potential for accumulation of
hazardous fumes in the trench which may endanger the health and safety of
the person collecting the samples.
Trench lysimeters function by intercepting downward moving water and
diverting it into a collection device located at a lower elevation. Thus,
the intercepting agent may be an open ended pipe, sheet metal trough, pan,
or other similar device. Pans 0.9 to 1.2 m in diameter have been success-
fully used in the field by Tyler and Thomas (1977). Since there is no va-
cuum applied to the system, only free water in excess of saturation is
sampled. Consequently, samples are plentiful during rainy seasons but are
nonexistent during the dry season.
Another variation of this system is to use a funnel filled with clean
sand inserted into the sidewall of the trench. Freewater will drain into a
collection chamber from which a sample is periodically removed by vacuum.
A small sample collection device such as this may be preferable to the
large trench since the necessary hole is smaller, thus making installation
easier (Fig 9.4).
9.4.2.5 Response to Detection of Pollutant Migration
If significant concentrations of hazardous constituents (or PHCs) are
observed below the treatment zone, the following modifications to unit
operations should be considered to maximize treatment within the treatment
zone:
(1) alter the waste characteristics;
(2) reduce waste application rate,
(3) alter the method or timing of waste applications;
(4) cease application of one or more particular wastes at the
unit;
(5) revise cultivation or management practices, and
(6) alter the characteristics of the treatment zone, particular-
ly soil pH or organic matter content.
Hazardous constituents movement below the treatment zone may result from
improper unit design, operation, or siting. Problems related to unit
design and operation can often be easily corrected, while serious problems
resulting from a poor choice of site are more difficult to rectify.
Certain locational "imperfections" may be compensated for through careful
unit design, construction, and operation.
542
-------
SOIL SURFACE
. -• -«rf '••-" *i
- S » *
SAND
I VACUUM
I SOURCE
' . • . . .
» . •
•
'
./ • •
Fxgure 9.4. Schematic dxagram of a sand filled funnel used to collect
leachate from the unsaturated zone.
543
-------
If statistically significant increases of hazardous constituents are
detected below the treatment zone by the unsaturated zone monitoring pro-
gram, the owner or operator should closely evaluate the operation, design
and location of the unit to determine the source of the problem. The char-
acteristics of the waste should be evaluated for possible effects on treat-
ment effectiveness. The rate, method, and timing of waste applications
should also be examined. Management of the treatment zone including main-
taining the physical, chemical and biological characteristics necessary for
effective treatment, should also be reevaluated. Soil pH and organic
matter content of the treatment zone are two important parameters that
should be assessed. Finally, the owner or operator should determine if the
design or location of the unit is causing the hazardous constituents to mi-
grate. Topographic, hydrogeologic, pedalogic, and climatic factors all
play a role in determining the success of the land treatment system.
In certain cases, the necessary unit modifications may be very minor,
while in other cases they may be major. Numerous unit-specific factors
must be considered to make this determination, and the exact elements of
the determination will vary on a case-by-case basis. Activities occurring
near the unit should be carefully investigated to confirm the source of the
contamination. The procedures used in the unsaturated zone monitoring pro-
gram should also be closely examined. Resampling of the unit may be re-
quired to determine if errors occurred in sampling, analysis, or evalua-
tion.
9.4.3 Groundwater Monitoring
To assure that irreparable groundwater damage does not occur as a
result of HWLT, it is necessary that the groundwater quality be monitored.
Groundwater monitoring supplements the unsaturated zone monitoring program,
but does not replace it. A contamination problem first detected in the
leachate water may indicate the need to alter the management program and
groundwater can then be observed for the same problem. It is through the
successful combination of these two systems that accurate monitoring of
vertically moving constituents can be achieved.
The complexity of groundwater monitoring is beyond the scope of this
document, and the reader is referred to a few of the numerous publications
which together cover much of what is to be known about the topic. These
sources of information include the following.
(1) Manual of Ground-Water Sample Procedures, (Scalf et al.,
1981);
(2) Ground-Water Manual, (USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, 1977);
(3) Procedures Manual for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities (EPA, 1977); and
(4) Ground-water Monitoring Systems, Technical Resource Document
(EPA, in preparation), and
544
-------
(5) Ground-water Monitoring Guidance for Owners and Operators of
Interim Status Facilities, (EPA, 1982c).
In general, the success of a groundwater monitoring program is a function
of many site-, soil- and waste-specific variables. The various aspects of
planning and developing an appropriate groundwater monitoring program are
interdependent and thus, design and development should be performed simul-
taneously. Mindful of these points, the following is a general outline of
the major steps and considerations in establishing a groundwater monitoring
program-
(1) develop an understanding of the potentially mobile constit-
uents in the waste to be land treated and their possible re-
actions and behavior in groundwater, compatability with well
casing and sampling equipment, and toxicity;
(2) perform a thorough hydrogeologic study of the land treatment
site;
(3) choose well drilling, installation and sampling methods that
are compatible with monitoring needs,
(4) locate wells based on hydrogeologic study results, but sam-
ple and analyze wells one by one as they are installed to
help guide the placement of subsequent wells; and
(5) begin sampling and analytical program.
The wells should be placed to characterize background water quality
and to detect any pollutant plume which leaves the site. The number of
wells needed will vary from site to site based on local conditions. Wells
should be sealed against tampering and protected from vehicular traffic.
Finally, the frequency of sampling should be at least semi-annually for
detection monitoring and at least quarterly for compliance monitoring (EPA,
1982a).
9.4.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Where food chain crops are to be grown, analysis of the vegetation at
the HWLT unit will aid in assuring that harmful quantities of metals or
other waste constituents are not being accumulated by, or adhering to
surfaces of, the plants. Although a safety demonstration before planting
is required (EPA, 1982a), operational monitoring is recommended to verify
that crop contamination has not occurred. Vegetation monitoring is an
important measurement during the post closure period where the area may
possibly be used for food or forage production. Sampling should be done
annually, or at each harvest. The concentrations of metals and other con-
stituents in the vegetation will change with moisture content, stage of
growth, and the part of the plant sampled, and thus results must be care-
fully interpreted. The number of samples to analyze is again based on a
sliding scale similar to that used for sampling soils. Forage samples
545
-------
should include all aerial plant parts, and the edible parts of grain,
fruit, or vegetation crops should be sampled separately.
9.4.5 Runoff Water Monitoring
If runoff water analyses are needed to satisfy NPDES permit condi-
tions (EPA, 1981), a monitoring program should be instituted. This program
would not be covered under RCRA hazardous waste land disposal requirements,
but it would be an integral part of facility design. The sampling and
monitoring approach will vary depending on whether the water is released as
a continuous discharge or as a batch discharge following treatment to
reduce the hazardous nature of the water. Constituents to be analyzed
should be specified in the NPDES permit.
Where a relatively continuous flow is anticipated, sampling must be
flow proportional. A means of flow measurement and an automated sampling
device are a reasonable combination for this type of monitoring. Flow can
be measured using a weir or flume (USDA, 1979) for overload flow water pre-
treatment systems and packaged water treatment plants while in-line flow
measurement may be an additional option on the packaged treatment systems.
The sampling device should be set up to obtain periodic grab samples as the
water passes through the flow rate measuring device. A number of program-
able, automated samplers which can take discreet or composite samples are
on the market and readily available.
For batch treatment, such as mere gravity separation or mechanically
aerated systems, flow is not so important as is the hazardous constituent
content of each batch. Sampling before discharge would, in this case,
involve manual pond sampling, using multiple grab samples. The samples
would preferably represent the entire water column to be discharged in each
batch rather than a single depth increment. Statistical procedures should
again be used for either treatment and discharge approach.
9.4.6 Treatment Zone Monitoring
Treatment zone monitoring of land treatment units is needed for two
purposes. One main purpose is to monitor the degradation rate of the
organic fraction of the waste material and parameters significantly affect-
ing waste treatment. Samples are needed at periodic intervals after appli-
cation to be analyzed for residual waste or waste constituents. Such
measurements need to be taken routinely as specified by a soil scientist.
These intervals may vary from weekly to semi-annually depending on the
nature of the waste, climatic conditions, and application scheduling. The
second major function of treatment zone samples is to measure the rate of
accumulation of conserved waste constituents as it relates to facility
life.
546
-------
9.4.6.1 Sampling Procedures
In order to monitor the treatment zone, a representative sample or set
of soil samples must be collected. Since all further analysis, data, and
interpretation are based on the sample(s) collected, the importance of ob-
taining a representative sample cannot be over-emphasized. Some of the
needed samples may be obtained from soil cores taken from unsaturated zone
monitoring, but additional samples are often desirable. The total area to
be sampled should be first observed for its overall condition (i.e., waste
application records, soil series, management techniques, soil color, mois-
ture, vegetation type and vigor, etc.) and those areas having obvious
differences need to be sampled separately. Where possible, sampling should
most conveniently coincide with the "uniform areas" used in the unsaturated
zone monitoring, but some deviation may be necessary. Uniform areas should
be divided into 1.5 ha (4 ac) subsections. When sampling, care needs to be
taken to avoid depressions, odd looking areas, wet spots, former fence
rows, and edges of the field. Surface litter should not be included in the
samples. Compositing of samples, when necessary, should be done in large
inert containers, and subsampling of the mix should be done by the quarter-
ing technique or with a riffle subsampler.
Background soils should be sampled to the extent of the defined verti-
cal treatment zone, while sampling an area that has had waste previously
applied need extend only to about 15 cm below the depth of waste incorpora-
tion. If the waste is mixed poorly or not at all, the soil and waste
should be mixed manually to the approximate expected depth of incorporation
prior to sampling. Notes should be taken as to how well the waste is
incorporated at the time of sampling. Plots that have had subsurface
injections should be sampled by excavating a trench 10 to 20 cm wide and as
long as the spacing between bands, perpendicular to the line of application
and to a depth of 15 cm below the depth of incorporation. Useful equipment
may include shovel, post hole digger, oakfield auger or bucket auger.
9.4.6.2 Scheduling and Number of Soil Samples
The sampling schedule and number of samples to be collected may depend
on management factors, but a schedule may be conveniently chosen to coin-
cide with unsaturated zone soil core sampling. For systems which will be
loaded heavily in a short period, more (and more frequent) samples may be
needed to assure that the waste is being applied uniformly, and that the
system is not being overloaded. About seven to ten samples from each
selected 1.5 ha (4 ac) area should be taken to represent the treatment
zone, and these should be composited to obtain a single sample for analy-
sis. In addition, if there are evidently anomalous "hot spots," these
should be sampled and analyzed separately.
547
-------
9.4.6.3 Analysis and Use of Results
Parameters to be measured include pH, soil fertility, residual con-
centrations of degradable rate limiting constituents (RLC), and the concen-
trations of residuals which limit the life of the disposal site (CLC), plus
those which if increased in concentration by 25% would become limiting.
Hazardous constituents of concern should also be monitored. Based on the
data obtained, the facility management or design can be adjusted or actions
taken as needed to maintain treatment efficiency. Projections regarding
facility life can also be made and compared to original design projections.
Since the treatment zone acts as an integrator of all effects, the data can
be invaluable to the unit operator.
9.4.7 Air Monitoring
The need for air montitoring at a land treatment unit is not neces-
sarily dictated only by the chemical characteristics of the waste. Wind
dispersal of particulates can mobilize even the most immobile, nonvolatile
hazardous constituents. Therefore, it is suggested that land treatment air
emissions be monitored at frequent intervals to ensure the health and
safety of workers and adjacent residents. This effort may be relaxed if
the air emissions are positively identified as innocuous compounds or too
low in concentration to have any effect. In any case, although air moni-
toring is not currently required, it is strongly suggested since this is a
likely pathway for pollutant losses from a land treatment unit.
Sampling generally involves drawing air over a known surface area, at
a known flow rate for a specified time interval. Low molecular weight vol-
atiles may be trapped by solid sorbents, such as Tenax-GC. The high mole-
cular weight compounds may be sampled by Florisil, glass fiber filters, or
polyurethane foam.
548
-------
CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES
Brown, K. W. 1977. Accumulation and passage of pollutants in domestic
septic tank disposal fields. Draft report to Robert S. Kerr, Environ.
Research Lab. EPA.
Corey, P. R. 1974. Soil water monitoring. Unpublished report to Dept. of
Agr. Eng. Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Dazzo, F. B. and D. F. Rothwell. 1974. Evaluation of procelain cup water
samplers for bacteriological sampling. Applied Micro. 27:1172-1174.
Duke, H. R. and H. R. Haise. 1973. Vacuum Extractors to assess deep perco-
lation losses and chemical constituents of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 37:963-4.
EPA. 1977. Procedures manual for groundwater monitoring at solid waste
disposal facilities. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. SW-616.
EPA. 1980. Hazardous waste management systems; identification and listing
of hazardous waste. Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 98, pp.33084-33133. May
19, 1980.
EPA. 1981. Criteria and standards for the national .pollutant discharge
elimination system. Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 125. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1982a. Hazardous waste management system; permitting requirements for
land disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 143. pp.
32274-32388. July 26, 1982.
EPA. 1982b. Test methods for evaluating solid waste. U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. SW-846.
EPA. 1982c. Ground—water monitoring guidance for owners and operators of
interim status facilities. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, D.C. SW-963.
Grover, B. L. and R. E. Lamborn. 1970. Preparation of porous ceramic cups
to be used for extraction of soil water having low solute concentrations.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 34:706-708.
James, T. E. 1974. Colliery spoil heaps, pp. 252-255. In_ J. A. Coler (ed.)
Groundwater pollution in Europe. Water Information Center. Port Washington,
New York.
Levin M. J. and D. R. Jackson. 1977. A comparison of in situ extractors for
sampling soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 41:535-536.
Manbeck. D. M. 1975. Presence of nitrates around home waste disposal sites.
Annual meeting preprint Paper No. 75-2066. Am. Soc. Agr. Engr.
549
-------
Nassau-Suffolk Research Task Group. 1969. Final report of the Long Island
groundwater pollution study. New York State Dept. of Health. Albany, New
York.
Parizek, R. R. and B. E. Lane. 1970. Soil-water sampling using pan and deep
pressure-vacuum lysimeters. J. Hydr. 11:1-21.
The Resources Agency of California. 1963. Annual report on dispersion and
persistence of synthetic detergent in groundwater, San Bernadino and
Riverside Counties. In a report to the State Water Quality Control Board.
Dept. of Water Resources. Interagency Agreement No. 12-17.
Scalf, M. R., J. F. McNabb, W. J. Dunlap, R. L. Cosby, and J. Fryberger.
1981. Manual of ground-water sampling procedures. National Water Well
Association, Worthington, Ohio. 93 p.
Silkworth, D. R. and D. F. Grigal. 1981. Field comparison of soil solution
samplers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:440-442.
Smith, J. L., D. B. McWhorter, and R. C. Ward. 1977. Continuous subsurface
injection of liquid dairy manure. EPA-600/2-77-117. PB 272-350/OBE.
Trout, T. J., J. L. Smith, and D. B. McWhorter. 1975. Environmental effects
of land application of digested municipal sewage sludge. Report submitted
to city of Boulder, Colorado. Dept. of Agr. Engr. Colorado State Univ., Ft.
Collins, Colorado,
Tyler, D. D. and G. W. Thomas. 1977. Lysimeter measurements of nitrate and
chloride losses and no-tillage corn. J. Environ. Qual. 6:63-66.
USDA. 1975. Soil taxonomy, a basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. Soil Conservation Service USDA Agriculture
(Handbook No. 436. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
USDA. 1979. Field manual for research in agricultural hydrology. USDA
Agricultural Handbook No. 224. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
USDI, Bureau of Reclamation. 1977. Groundwater manual. U.S. Government
Printing, Washington, D.C.
Wagner, G. H. 1962. Use of porous ceramic cups to sample soil water within
the profile. Soil Sci. 94:379-386.
Wengel, R. W. and G. F. Griffen. 1971. Remote soil-water sampling tech-
nique. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:661-664.
Wilson, L. G. 1980. Monitoring in the vadose zone: a review of technical
elements and methods. U.S. EPA. EPA-600/7-80-134.
Wood, W. W. 1973. A technique using porous cups for water sampling at any
depth in the unsaturated zone. Water Resources Research. 9:486-488.
550
-------
Wood, A. L., J. T. Wilson, R. L. Cosby, A. G. Hornsby, and L. B. Baskin.
1981. Apparatus and procedure for sampling soil profiles for volatile
organic compounds. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:442-444.
551
-------
10.0 CHAPTER TEN
CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Managers of all hazardous waste management facilities must take pre-
cautions to safeguard the health of both workers and nonworkers during nor-
mal facility operation and in the event of an environmental emergency.
Routine health and safety considerations are discussed in Section 10.1.
Preparedness and prevention measures and contingency plans appropriate for
HWLT units are also discussed. Figure 10.1 indicates the key points con-
sidered by the permit evaluator. During the active life of an HWLT unit,
changes in the management or operation of the unit may be made that require
updating the closure plan. In some cases, changes in the waste stream be-
ing disposed may require modification of the permit as well as changes to
management and closure plans. Changing waste streams are considered in
Section 10.4. Requirements for contingency planning and other health and
safety concerns are given in the EPA regulatons (EPA, 1980; EPA, 1981) and
are discussed below.
10.1 ROUTINE HEALTH AND SAFETY
Although the management plans for HWLT units are designed to reduce
the hazards associated with the particular waste being disposed (Chapter
8), there are some additional health and safety considerations that need to
be specifically addressed. The type and amount of employee training neces-
sary to safeguard human health and reduce environmental impacts from sudden
or nonsudden releases of contaminants are based on the characteristics of
the waste. Routine health and safety procedures must be developed and
followed at all times. To protect the health of the nonworker population,
access to the HWLT unit should be restricted.
10.1.1 Site Security
The necessary site security measures vary with the. location of the
facility, the presence or absence of on-site storage, and the nature of the
wastes being disposed. There are, however, certain minimum standards that
apply to all HWLT units. For example, access to the site must be con-
trolled at all times. At a minimum this may require fencing the entire
HWLT site. When unknowing entry will not cause injury to people or live-
stock barbed wire fences are generally sufficient for the outer perimeter
but fences intended to exclude people may be desirable around storage faci-
lities, runoff retention ponds and office buildings. In heavily populated
areas where the public can easily gain access, fences to exclude people may
be needed around the entire perimeter to keep children and others off the
site.
552
-------
WASTE
r
POTENTIAL
SITE
ROUTINE HEALTH AND SAFETY
(SECTION 10.1)
CONTINGENCY PLANNING
CHAPTER TEN
PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION
(SECTION 10.2)
ASK FOR
ADDITIONAL
PLANNING
ARE CONTINGENCY PLANS
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEASURES ADEQUATE?
(SECTION 10,3)
/^DO CHANGES IN WASTES
/ OR CONDITIONS REQUIRE RE-
IEVALUATION OF THE ABOVE STEPS?
\_ (SECTION 10.4)
PLANNING FOR SITE CLOSURE
CHAPTER ELEVEN
I
Figure 10.1. Contingency planning and additional considerations
for HWLT units.
553
-------
Appropriate warning signs designed to keep out unauthorized personnel
should be posted at the main facility entrance, at all gates and at inter-
vals along the site perimeter where access could be made by foot. Traffic
control should be established to restrict unauthorized entry either through
use of gates or a surveillance system. When the land treatment area is
adjacent to the industrial plant where wastes are generated and where
access can be gained only by passing through normal plant security, no fur-
ther actions may be needed to restrict access.
10.1.2 Personnel Health and Safety
Events that endanger the health of workers at land treatment units in-
clude accidents while operating heavy equipment, fires and explosions. Ex-
posure to toxic or carcinogenic wastes is also of concern since acute and
chronic health effects may occur if proper precautions are not taken. The
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the primary
responsibility for determining the adequacy of working conditions to ensure
employee safety. This agency has developed specific operational criteria
for most situations in the work place and may be consulted during the deve-
lopment of safety standards for a specific HWLT unit. Quick medical atten-
tion is often critical; an excellent guide to first-aid information is
American Red Cross Standard First Aid and Personal Safety published by
Doubleday and Company, Inc. It deals with such topics as heavy bleeding,
stopped breathing, artificial respiration, shock, poisoning, burns, eye
damage, heat stroke, and moving injured victims.
Accidents, fires and explosions often occur as a result of careless-
ness or vandalism and can therefore be reduced through proper training
(Section 10.1.3) and controlled access (Section 10.1.1). Probably the most
common cause of injury at land treatment units is operator error while
handling heavy equipment; however, by following standard operating proce-
dures, accidents such as these can be minimized. Fires are a continuous
threat at facilities handling flammable wastes; waste storage areas may
be set afire by vandalism, carelessness, sparks from vehicles or even
spontaneous combustion. All sources of ignition including vehicles (where
possible) and cigarette smoking should be prohibited near waste storage
areas. Because the possibility of spontaneous combustion is greatly en-
hanced on very hot days, it may be ad\isable to keep certain storage tanks
cool by continuous spraying with water or by a permanent cooling system.
Waste storage areas and the actual land treatment area may be sources of
explosive gases. Products of hazardous waste decomposition, oxidation,
volatilization, sublimation or evaporation may include gases that are
explosive. In sufficient concentrations, these low flash point gases might
cause employee injury during tilling and waste spreading operations as well
as during storage or handling operations. Fires, explosions or releases of
toxic gases can also result from mixing incompatible wastes. Section 8.9
deals with this subject in detail and includes tables that can be used to
determine incompatible waste combinations.
554
-------
Acute or chronic exposure to toxic wastes may cause immediate sickness
or long-term illness. Many wastes give off toxic vapors during storage or
when they are applied to the soil. A simple respirator is often sufficient
to eliminate the dangers associated with breathing these vapors. Long-term
carcinogenic risks may be harder to protect against. If the hazardous
waste being handled is known to be carcinogenic or acutely toxic, special
protection is needed. Information on protective equipment may be obtained
from the OSHA. ' >
10.1.3 Personnel Training
As mentioned in the previous section, many sources of worker injury
can be reduced through proper training. Training should be designed to en-
sure that facility personnel are able to respond effectively during an
emergency and are able to implement contingency plans (Section 10.3). In
addition to training sessions on standard operating procedures and use of
equipment, two additional types of specialized training are appropriate for
HWLT facility perosnnel, as follows:
(1) familiarization with the possible equipment or structure
deterioration or malfunction scenarios that might lead to
environmental or human health damages; and
(2) procedures for inspecting equipment and structures to
determine the degree of deterioration or probability of
malfunction.
10.2 PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION MEASURES
Preparedness and prevention measures are intended to minimize the pos-
sibility and effects of a contaminant release, fire or explosion which
could threaten human health or the environment. Good management practices
are the basis of preparedness; HWLT units should be operated to minimize
the likelihood of spills, fires, explosions, or any other discharge or
release of hazardous waste. Management concerns for HWLT are discussed in
Chapter 8. Specific preparedness and prevention measures include adequate
communications, arrangements with local authorities and regulatory agen-
cies, and proper emergency equipment. Additionally, aisle space and
roads should be clear and maintained to allow the unobstructed movement of
emergency response personnel and equipment to any area of the facility at
all times.
10.2.1 Communications
The following two types of communications systems may be needed at
HWLT units (40 CFR 264.34; EPA, 1980):
555
-------
(1) an internal communications or alarm system that is
of providing immediate emergency instructions to facility
employees; and
(2) a device capable of summoning external emergency assistance
from local response agencies (e.g., telephone or 2-way
radio).
Whenever hazardous waste is being mixed, poured, spread or otherwise han-
dled, all personnel involved in the operation must have immediate access to
an internal alarm or emergency communication device, either directly or
through visual or voice contact with another employee. In addition, if
there is ever only one employee on the premises while the facility is oper-
ating, he must have immediate access to a device, such as a telephone
(immediately available at the scene of operation) or a hand held two—way
radio, capable of summoning external emergency assistance.
10.2.2 Arrangements with Authorities
It is advisable to make arrangements to familiarize local and state
emergency response authorities (such as police, fire, health, and civil de-
fense officials) with the following:
(1) the layout of the unit;
(2) entrance to roads inside the unit that could be used as
possible evacuation routes;
(3) places where personnel would normally be working; and
(4) the quantities and properties of the hazardous waste being
handled at the unit along with any associated hazards.
When more than one police and fire department might respond to an emer-
gency, an agreement should be made designating primary emergency authority
to a specific department. This should be accompanied by agreements with
other agencies to provide support to the primary emergency authority.
Agreements should also be made with state emergency response teams, emer-
gency response contractors, and equipment suppliers for their services or
products if there is a potential need for these.
Arrangements should be made to familiarize local hospitals with the
properties of the hazardous waste handled at the unit and the types of in-
juries or illnesses which could result from fires, explosions, waste
releases, or other emergency related events.
All of the above arrangements agreed upon by local police departments,
fire departments, hospitals, contractors, and state and local emergency
reponse teams to coordinate emergency services should be included in the
contingency plan for the HWLT unit (Section 10.3). In addition, a con-
tinuously updated list of names, addresses, and phone numbers (office and
556
-------
home) of all persons qualified to act as the emergency coordinator should
be included in the contingency plan. Where there is more than one person
listed, one must he named as the primary emergency coordinator and the
home) of all persons qualified to act as the emergency coordinator should
be included in the contingency plan. Where there is more than one person
listed, one must be named as the primary emergency coordinator and the
others must be listed in the order in which they will assume responsibility
as alternates.
10.2.3 Equipment
To facilitate a quick response during an emergency, a continuously up-
dated list of emergency equipment available at the unit should be kept.
This list should include the location and physical description of each item
and a brief outline of its capabilities.
10.2.3.1 Required Emergency Equipment
Federal regulations require certain types of emergency equipment to be
maintained on-site (40 CFR 264.32; EPA, 1980). The types of communication
equipment required are discussed in Section 10.2.1. The following equip-
ment should also be maintained on—site:
(1) portable fire fighting equipment including special extin-
guishing equipment adapted to the type of waste handled at
the facility;
(2) spill control equipment;
(3) decontamination equipment; and
(4) water in an adequate volume and pressure to deal with emer-
gency situations.
10.2.3.2 Additional Equipment
In addition to the emergency equipment required by federal regula-
tions , there are several other types of emergency equipment or material
that are specifically needed at HWLT sites. Materials that may be needed
on-site include the following:
(1) bales of hay and other materials that could be used as tem-
porary barriers and as absorbents to soak up or slow the
spread of spilled or accidentally discharged materials;
(2) sand bags and other materials that could be used for filling
or blocking overflow channels in waste storage or water re-
tention facilities;
557
-------
(3) auxiliary pumps and pipelines to move or spray-irrigate ex-
cess water to prevent overflow of retention facilities;
(4) appropriate boots, rain gear, gloves, goggles, and gas res-
pirators for personnel;
(4) appropriate boots, rain gear, gloves, goggles, and gas res-
pirators for personnel;
(5) basic hand tools to make "quick response" repairs to damaged
or deteriorating equipment or structures; and
(6) lists of the closest emergency equipment suppliers or con-
tractors (including sources of large vacuum trucks, and/or
waterproofed dump trucks) to receive spill debris.
Plans and equipment should be available for removing, retaining, or
redistributing previously applied waste. This may become necessary where
waste has been accidentally applied at too high a rate or where waste which
has been applied is found to differ from that for which the application
rates were developed. Additionally, plans and equipment should be avail-
able to deal with the full variety of natural and man-made disasters which
may occur. Examples of these disasters include excessive rainfall, soil
overloads and surface water or groundwater contamination. When materials
are spilled in transit or in nontreatment areas of the facility, cleanup
will require the types of equipment described above.
10.2.3.3 Inspection and Maintenance
Development of and adherence to a written schedule for inspecting all
monitoring equipment, safety and emergency equipment, security devices, and
operating and structural equipment (such as dikes, waste storage or handl-
ing equipment, and sump pumps) that are important to preventing, detecting,
or responding to environmental or human health hazards is critical. The
frequency of these inspections is based on the rate of possible deteriora-
tion or malfunction of the equipment and the probability of an environ-
mental or human health incident if the deterioration, malfunction, or an
operator error goes undetected between inspections. Areas subject to
spills (such as waste loading, unloading and storage areas) should be
inspected at least daily while they are in use. Any deterioration or mal-
function of equipment or structures should be corrected to ensure that the
problem does not lead to an environmental or human health hazard. Where a
hazard is imminent or has already occurred, remedial action must be taken
immediately.
10.3 CONTINGENCY PLANS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Contingency plans and emergency responses are intended to minimize
hazards to human health due to emergencies such as fire, explosions, or any
558
-------
unplanned sudden or nonsudden release of hazardous wastes to air, soil,
groundwater or surface water. The plan must be carried out immediately
whenever such an emergency occurs and should describe the actions that fac-
ility personnel must take. Copies of the contingency plan (and any revi-
sions to the pl«n) should be maintained at the HWLT unit and supplied to
all state and local emergency response authorities. At a minimum the plan
should include the following (40 CFR 264.52; EPA, 1980):
(1) arrangements agreed upon with local and state emergency res-
ponse authorities (Section 10.2.2);
(2) a continuously updated list with names and phone numbers of
the people qualified to act as the emergency coordinator
(Section 10.3.1);
(3) a continuously updated list of emergency equipment available
on-site (Section 10.2.3); and
(4) an evacuation plan for personnel including signals to be
used to begin evacuation, evacuation routes and alternate
evacuation routes (in cases where the primary routes may be
blocked as a result of the emergency situation).
The contingency plan and should be reviewed on a regular basis and
amended as necessary. Examples of situations that would require amending
the contingency plan include the following:
(1) the applicable regulations are revised,
(2) the plan fails in an emergency;
(3) the facility changes (in its design, operation, maintenance
or in any way that would change the necessary response to an
emergency);
(4) the list of emergency coordinator changes; and
(5) the list of emergency equipment changes.
10.3.1 Coordination of Emergency Response
At least one of the qualified emergency coordinators should be at the
HWLT site or on call (i.e., available to respond to an emergency by reach-
ing the site within a short period of time) at all times. The emergency
coordinator has the responsibility for coordinating all emergency response
measures. Specific responsibilities of the emergency coordinator are as
follows:
(1) to be familiar with all aspects of the contingency plan, all
operations and activities at the facility, the location and
characteristics of the hazardous waste handled by the facil-
ity, the location of all records within the facility, and
the facility layout;
559
-------
(2) to have the authority and be able to commit the resources
needed to carry out the contingency plan;
(3) to activate internal facility alarms or communication sys-
tems in case of emergency;
(4) to notify the appropriate emergency response authorities;
(5) to immediately identify character, exact source, amount, and
extent of any released materials; and
(6) to immediately assess possible hazards to human health or
the environment that may result from the emergency situation
including both direct (fire, explesions, comtaninant re-
leases) and indirect (generation of asphyxiating gas or con-
taminated runoff) effects of the emergency.
If, during an emergency response, the emergency coordinator determines
that there may be a threat to human health or the environment outside the
facility, he must report these findings. If his assessment indicates that
evacuation is advisable, he must immediately notify the appropriate local
authorities and be prepared to assist them in assessing whether local areas
need to be evacuated. In addition, he must immediately notify either the
government official designated as the on-scene coordinator for that geo-
graphical area or the National Response Center (using their 24-hour toll
free number: 1-800-424-8802). His report should include the following:
(1) name and telephone number of reporter;
(2) name and address of the facility;
(3) time and type of accident;
(4) name and quantity of material involved;
(5) extent of injuries; and
(6) possible hazards to" human health or the environment outside
the facility.
During the emergency, he should take all reasonable measures so that fires,
explosions, and waste releases do not occur, recur, or spread to other
hazardous waste at the HWLT unit. ,
Immediately after an emergency, the emergency coordinator must provide
for the treatment, storage or disposal of the recovered waste, contaminated
soil or surface water, or any other material that results from the emer-
gency (40 CFR 264.56; EPA, 1980). He must ensure that (in the affected
areas of the facility) no wastes that may be incompatible with the released
material are stored, disposed or otherwise handled until the released
material is completely cleaned up. In addition, before operations resume,
all emergency equipment listed in the contingency plan must be cleaned,
refilled and made ready for its intended use. To prevent repetition of the
emergency, the coordinator may need to do the following, where applicable:
560
-------
(1) reject all future delxveries of incompatible waste,
(2) correct facility deficiencies;
(3) improve spill control structures,
(4) obtain proper first aid or other emergency equipment to
address identified deficiencies, and
(5) retrain or dismiss responsible employees.
Before operations can resume, the owner or operator must notify the
proper federal, state and local authorities that all cleanup procedures are
complete and all emergency equipment is restored and ready for its intended
use. The owner or operator must also record the time, date, and details of
any incident that requires implementation of the contingency plan and,
within fifteen days of the incident, he must submit a written report on the
incident to the appropriate regulatory agency that includes the following.
(1) name, address, and telephone number of the owner or opera-
tor;
(2) name, address and telephone number of the facility;
(3) date, time, and type of incident;
(4) name and quantity of material(s) involved;
(5) the extent of injuries, if any;
(6) an assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health
or the environment, where applicable; and
(7) estimated quantity and disposition of recovered material
that resulted from the incident.
10.3.2 Specific Adaptations to Land Treatment
In addition to the general contingency plans discussed above that
apply to all types of hazardous waste management facilities, some problems
or emergency responses are uniquely characteristic of HWLT systems. Such
contingences should be recognized and specifically addressed in an HWLT
permit.
10.3.2.1 Soil Overloads
The capacity of the soil to treat and dispose of wastes may be over-
loaded despite the best of plans. There is always the possibility that
occasional shipments of wastes will contain constituents which the facility
was not designed to handle or in concentrations which exceed the designed
application rates. In some cases it may be possible to see or smell that
the waste is off-specification and, in such cases, it should be placed in a
placed in a special holding basin or area. The waste should be sampled and
analyzed before it is applied to the soil. In other cases, the differences
561
-------
may not be observed until the waste is applied to the land. In such
instances, as much of the waste as possible should be picked up and placed
in the off-specification holding area. In other instances, it may not be
possible to pick up the waste and remedial treatment may be necessary.
Areas that need remedial treatment can often be identified because
they have a different color or odor, remain wetter or drier, or do not
support vegetation. On-site observations combined with reports from soil
samples sent for analysis should be sufficient to determine the source of
the problem. Several options for remedial measures to deal with waste "hot
spots" are discussed below. One option is to physically remove the mat-
erial and store the soil in an off-specification storage area until it
can be analyzed to determine if the material can be respread over a larger
area and degraded, or if it should be disposed elsewhere.
Certain remedial treatments and changes in HWLT management may be used
to overcome the problem without removing the soil. Acids or bases may be
used to neutralize areas which have become too basic or acidic. In most
cases, it is advisable to use HC1 or CaCC>3 or other neutralizing agents
selected to avoid the accumulation of excess salts. If excessive sodium
(Na) salts are causing the problem, it may be possible to overcome the pro-
blem by applying CaS04 or CaC03 to replace the Na with Ca. When exces-
sive volatile organic materials cause a problem, it may be advisable to
apply and incorporate powdered activated charcoal or other organic mat-
erials to adsorb and deactivate the chemicals until they can be degraded in
the HWLT system. Where excessive amounts of oil have been applied, decom-
position can often be enhanced by incorporating appropriate amounts of
nutrients (particularly nitrogen) and hay or straw, which will help loosen
the soil, absorb the oil, and allow oxygen to enter the system. In some
instances where hot spots are small, it may be possible to solve the pro-
blem by spreading the treated soils over a larger area and subsequently
regrading to eliminate any depressions.
In a few cases, however, a soil may become so overloaded with a toxic
inorganic or nondegradable organic chemical that it is not economically
feasible or environmentally sound to spread the soil over a larger area as
a remedial measure. If there is no feasible on-site treatment that will
alter the contaminated soil sufficiently to render it nonhazardous, the
zone of contamination should be removed and disposed in a landfill author-
ized to accept hazardous waste. The zone of contamination will include the
soil in the treatment area at least down to the depth of the waste incor-
poration (20 to 60 cm) and any additional underlying soil that is also con-
taminated*
10.3.2.2 Groundwater Contamination
The potential for migration of waste constituents to groundwater can
be predicted from pilot studies (Sections 7.2.2 and 7.4) performed before
land treatment of the waste begins. Thus, the facility can be designed to
minimize this potential through waste pretreatment, in-plant process con-
562
-------
trols to reduce, eliminate, or alter the form of the waste constituents, or
soil amendments. Groundwater contamination may occur at HWLT facilities
when water percolates through soil if contaminants occur in leachable
forms. Water enters contaminated soil in the treatment zone from direct
precipitation, surface water run-on, applied wastes containing water, and
from irrigation of the land treatment area to enhance waste biodegradation
or cover crop growth. Where groundwater contamination occurs, remedial
actions can be very extensive and costly. Hence, the key to minimizing the
impact of the contamination incident and the resulting expenses is the
early detection of contaminant migration. This can be accomplished through
the proper use of unsaturated zone monitoring discussed in Chapter 9.
If the waste constituent that is leaching has not yet reached the
groundwater, contingency plans may involve pressure-injecting a bowl-shaped
grout bottom seal above the groundwater table and below the zone of con-
tamination. The leachate contained by the bowl-shaped seal can then be
pumped out and treated or land treated at rates that preclude water perco-
lation. Further information is available in the publication, entitled
Technical Information Summary; Soil Grouting, (Applied Nucleonics Company,
Inc., 1976). Cost estimates for constructing portland cement bottom seals
are given in Table 10.1. In some cases, it may be possible to remove the
zone of waste incorporation to cut off the source of the leachate. Soil
and waste in the zone of incorporation could then be disposed at another
location.
TABLE 10.1 COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING A PORTLAND CEMENT BOTTOM SEAL UNDER AN
ENTIRE 10 ACRE (4.1 HECTARE) LAND TREATMENT FACILITY*
Thickness of injected Voids in soil Cost of portland cement
grout layer receiving grout cement bottom liner
Meters Feet (%) (Millions of 1978 dollars)
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
4
4
6
6
20
30
20
30
1.115
1.672
1.667
2.500
- 2.786
- 4.180
- 4.166
- 6.250
* Tolman et al. (1978).
If the leaching waste constituents have already reached the ground-
water, the leachate may be recoverable downgradient from the land treatment
facility by using a well point interception system. This involves install-
ation of short lengths of well screen on 5-8 cm diameter pipe that extend
into the water table. These well points should be spaced on 90 to 150 cm
centers (depending on the soil permeability) downgradient from the area of
563
-------
leachate infiltration (Tolman et al., 1978). If suction extraction is
used, the depth of extraction is limited to 10 m. For extraction of
leachate from greater depths, air injection pumps may be required.
10.3.2.3 Surface Water Contamination
Surface water contamination may occur due to a break or leak in the
earthen wall of a water or waste retention facility or due to water runoff
from a treatment area. These problems can generally be avoided and
remedied with readily available earth moving or excavating equipment and
suitable fill material.
Prevention is the best approach to surface water pollution, as pre-
viously described in Section 8.3 and summarized below. To prevent surface
water from running onto active treatment areas, earthen berms or excavated
diversion ditches should be constructed upslope of active areas to direct
the water toward natural drainage ways downslope from the treatment area
(Tolman et al., 1978). These structures should be designed to control and
withstand water from the 25-year 24-hour storm. To prevent contaminated
water from leaving the land treatment unit, earthen berms or excavated
diversion ditches should be constructed to establish drainage patterns
which direct the water into the appropriate water retention facility. With
this in mind, water retention facilities should be constructed at the
lowest possible downslope position within the HWLT unit boundary while
leaving enough buffer area to permit access of emergency vehicles between
the facility boundary and the retention pond.
Breaks or leaks in water diversion or storage facilities can be reme-
died by placing sandbags or fill material at the problem area. To prevent
this problem from recurring, vegetation should be established on the sides
of the diversion or storage structures. However, the vegetation may take a
year to become fully established, so it may be necessary to use mulching
and hay bales to maintain soil stability in the meantime.
Overflow of water or waste storage facilities usually can be overcome
by sandbagging the low side wall. Unless the overflow is caused by an ex-
traordinary event (i.e., one-time waste load, hurricane, or a 100-year
storm), the owner or operator should immediately consider enlarging the
existing water and/or waste capacity at the HWLT unit.
10.3.2.4 Waste Spills
Waste spills may affect soils, surface water and groundwater and, con-
sequently, procedures developed in the sections dealing with soil over-
loads, surface water contamination, and groundwater contamination may all
be important when dealing with spills. Spills of volatile wastes may also
cause air quality problems. In the case of spills, rapid action is the key
to limiting environmental damage.
564
-------
If the spill occurs while the waste is being transported to the land
treatment unit, the appropriate emergency equipment should immediately be
dispatched to the scene. This equipment may include sandbags or fill dirt
to check the spread of the spilled material, a vacuum truck to remove
liquids from surface pools, and a backhoe or front-end loader and a water-
proof dump truck to begin the excavation and removal of contaminated soil.
If the waste was spilled at the land treatment unit, it may be a relatively
simple matter to excavate the contaminated soil and respread it within the
actual treatment area. If solid debris such as lumber pallets or trash are
contaminated with the hazardous materials, they may also be disposed
on-site after being ground.
Specialized equipment may be needed for some types of hazardous waste
spills. The response time to spills of volatile wastes is particularly im-
portant to minimize air pollution. Techniques for handling spills of vola-
tile hazardous substances have been reviewed (Brown et al., 1981). The use
of dry ice or liquid nitrogen to cool the spill to reduce volatilization
and the use of vapor containment methods were found to be most effective
for dealing with volatile spills (Brown et al., 1981). If the spilled mat-
erial is flammable, appropriate extinguishing equipment is needed at the
accident site. If the material is toxic, breathing gear and protective
clothing will be needed for all personnel active in the cleanup operations.
If the spill involves explosive materials, an effort should be made to
determine if there are deactivating procedures to reduce the chance of ex-
plosion. In any of these cases, area evacuation may be advisable. Where
public health is threatened, the speed and appropriateness of the emergency
response is of special importance.
For spills of oily liquids on soil, an approximation can be made for
the volume of soil required to immobilize a known volume of the liquid
(Davis, 1972), as follows:
vc • °-20 . (lo.i)
(P) (sr)
where
Vg = Volume of soil in cubic yards (1 yd^ = 0.76 m^);
V0 = Volume of liquid in barrels;
P = Porosity of the soil (percant); and
Sr = Residual oil saturation of the soil (percent).
Residual saturation (Sr) values which may be used in the equation are
0.10 for light oil or gasoline, 0.15 for light fuel oil or diesel, and 0.20
for heavy fuel oil or lube oil (Davis, 1972).
565
-------
10.3.2.5 Fires and Explosions
Fires and explosions are ever present threats where hazardous materi-
als are stored, disposed or otherwise handled. Safe handling of these
wastes requires a knowledge of their physical and chemical properties.
This information, as well as an understanding of any dangers associated
with the waste, such as flammability, shock sensitivity and reactivity,
should be obtained prior to transporting, storing, or disposing hazardous
wastes. Where ignitable waste is to be land treated, subsurface injection
is the suggested application technique. Subsurface injection reduces the
rate of flammable vapor release and decreases the possibility that ignit-
able gases will accumulate to critical concentrations in the air at the
HWLT unit. Timing applications to correspond with cooler weather will help
to minimize the risks associated with treating ignitable wastes.
Flash point and ignition temperature are the most commonly used indi-
cators of the hazards associated with ignitable materials. Although liq-
uids do not burn, the flammable vapors given off by the stored or handled
liquids can cause fires or explosions (Stalker, 1979). These low flash
point vapors given off from hazardous wastes can travel long distances
downwind or downhill to reach an ignition source and then flash back (NFPA
Staff, 1979). Fires involving unconfined liquids resulting from a spill,
leak, or storage vessel overflow may spread over a much greater area than
is represented by the extent of the flammable liquid spill. During emer-
gencies involving ignitable materials, immediate evacuation may be neces-
sary to save lives.
Three types of explosions are possible at HWLT units. Combustion
explosions involve the quick combination of flammable vapors with air where
heat, light and an increase in pressure result. To explode, the flammable
vapor and air must be within the explosive range and then ignited. Deto-
nation explosions are similar to combustion explosions except the heat
release is considerably higher for the detonation explosion and is accom-
panied by a shock wave that moves at approximately 1.5 to 8 km per second
(Stalker, 1979). Boiling-liquid, expanding-vapor explosions (BLEVE) occur
when sealed containers of flammable liquids are heated past their boiling
points by an external heat source. The explosion occurs when released
vapors are ignited by the external heat source. Explosions generally occur
only in poorly ventilated areas where one of the following conditions
exists (Stalker, 1979):
(1) the flash point of the liquid is less than -6.7°C;
(2) the flash point of the liquid is less than 43°C and the
liquid is heated to greater than 16°C above its flash point;
or
(3) the flash point of the liquid is less than 150°C, and the
liquid is heated above its boiling point.
Sensitivity to shock is another important factor to consider when handling,
storing or disposing explosives such as organic peroxides or wastes from
566
-------
the explosives industry. Another cause of explosions is the occurrence of
a critical dust concentration in the presence of an ignition source.
The potential for an explosion can be minimized by the following:
(1) prevent a critical dust or vapor concentration from
occurring;
(=2) eliminate sources of ignition;
(3) keep all work areas well ventilated,
(4) train facility personnel about the dangers; and
(5) post warnings in critical areas.
Although fires and explosions are very similar processes, there is a dif-
ference in the speed of the reaction. With explosions, the event is almost
instantaneous and hence cannot be controlled. This makes preventive meas-
ure even more important.
10.4 CHANGING WASTES
Since land treatment is a dynamic process, the demonstration of effec-
tive treatment considers the interaction of given waste applied to a par-
ticular treatment site. Not only is the waste altered by treatment, but
the waste residuals continually change the character of the treatment
medium. The characteristics of the waste and the specific waste-soil
interactions form the basis for design and management decisions. Permits
are also issued to HWLT units based on specific waste-soil combinations.
Consequently, if waste stream characteristics change or if new wastes are
substituted or added to the waste mixture being applied to the soil,
changes may be necessary in both the design and management of the HWLT unit
and permit modifications may also be required.
Assessing the capacity of an HWLT unit to accept a different waste
often involves calculating a new application rate based on the new waste-
soil combination (Chapter 7). In the case of a drastic change in waste
characteristics, a complete facility redesign may be required. Waste char-
acterization and pretreatment options should be reevaluated using the new
waste mixture. To show that the goal of land treatment will be met, addi-
tional laboratory and/or field studies may be necessary to demonstrate that
the wastes will be made less hazardous. If the soil is already in use for
waste treatment, the demonstration must use the loaded soil and account for
accumulated waste constituents. Modifications to the management, monitor-
ing, contingency, and site closure plans may also be necessary.
567
-------
CHAPTER 10 REFERENCES
Applied Nucleonics Company, Inc. 1976. Technical information summary: soil
grouting. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protectxon Agency. 15 p.
Brown, D., R. Craig, M. Edwards, N. Henderson, and T. J. Thomas. 1981.
Techniques for handling landborne spills of volatile hazardous substances.
EPA-600/S2-81-207. PB 82-105-230.
Davis, J. B. 1972. The migration of petroleum products in soil and ground-
water: principles and counter measures. Am. Petr. Inst. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1980. Hazardous waste and consolidated permit regulations. Federal
Register Vol. 45, No. 98, pp. 33066-33258. May 19, 1980.
EPA. 1981. Hazardous waste management system; addition of general require-
ments for treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Federal Register
Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. 2802-2897. January 12, 1981.
NPPA Staff. 1979. Industrial waste control, p. 901-918. In Gordon P.
McKinnon (ed.) Industrial fire hazards handbook. National Fire Protection
Assoc., Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
Stalker, R. D. 1979. Flammable and combustible liquid handling and storage.
p. 719-743. In Gordon P. McKinnon (ed.) Industrial fire hazards handbook.
National Fire Protection Assoc., Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
Tolman, A. L., A. P. Ballestero, Jr., W. W. Beck, Jr., G. H. Emrich. 1978.
Guidance manual for minimizing pollution from waste disposal sites. EPA-
600/2-78-142. PB 299-206/AS.
568
-------
11.0 CHAPTER ELEVEN
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
The satisfactory completion of a land treatment operation depends on
carefully planned closure activities and post-closure care. The necessary
considerations in formulating closure and post-closure plans can be de-
scribed, but the point of distinction between closure and post-closure is
somewhat vague. This is because land treatment closure is a continuing
process rather than a set of distinct engineering procedures. An exception
would be the case where the treatment zone or the contaminated portion of
the treatment zone is removed and disposed in another hazardous waste
facility. Certification of the completion of closure and initiation of
post-closure care would be based on the approved closure plan and such
things as monitoring results, the degree of treatment achieved, changes in
runoff water quality, and the condition of the final cover. Following the
closure certification, the post-closure care period begins, this period is
characterized by decreasing management and monitoring requirements over
time. Figure 11.1 indicates the various aspects of closure and post-
closure care discussed in this chapter.
11.1 SITE CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
After the last load of waste is accepted for treatment, the process of
closing the land treatment unit begins. In practice, management and moni-
toring during closure differ very little from routine management during
operation. The application of stored wastes continues along with cultiva-
tion to stimulate degradation. Cultivation, fertilization, liming to
assure proper pH, and possibly irrigation continue until the organic con-
stituents are sufficiently degraded. The required degree of degradation
depends on the procedure to be used for final closure. Monitoring con-
tinues as before with some modification, as do run-on and runoff control.
The time required for closure will vary considerably from site to site
based on the rate at which waste organics are degraded and final cover is
established.
11.1.1 Remedying Metal Overload
If immobile metallic elements have accumulated in the zone of waste
incorporation to phytotoxic concentrations, consideration may be given to
the use of deep plowing to mix the zone of incorporation with subsoil or
addition of uncontaminated soil for mixing. Such a procedure will lower
the concentrations of the phytotoxic elements to levels tolerated by
plants. This option should be exercised only if there is sufficient field
evidence that (1) the practice will not lead to mobilization of hazardous
constituents, (2) deep plowing or dilution with clean materials will not
disrupt a soil horizon which is instrumental in preventing migration, and
569
-------
REMEDYING METAL
OVERLOAD § 11.1.1
PREPARATION OF A FINAL
SURFACE § 11.1.2
VEGETATIVE COVER
REQUIREMENT S 11.1.3
RUNOFF CONTROL AND
MONITORING § 11.1.4
MONITORING § 11.1.5
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
PLANS CHAPTER ELEVEN
SITE CLOSURE
ACTIVITIES (SECTION 11.1)
POST CLOSURE
CARE (SECTION 11.2)
PARTIAL CLO'SURE
(SECTION 11.3)
PERMIT APPLICATION/
ACCEPTANCE
HWLT OPERATION
Figure 11.1. Factors to consider when closing HWLT units.
570
-------
(3) the organic components of the waste have degraded sufficiently to allow
deeper incorporation without endangering groundwater. Furthermore, if the
subsoil or the soil added has a pH below 6.5, sufficient lime to neutralize
the mixed soil may need to be incorporated prior to plowing or soil addi-
tions. Greenhouse or field data should be used to determine if these
actions will remedy the metal overload and allow the establishment of a
permanent vegetative cover before deep plowing or dilution with uncontami-
nated soil is begun.
11.1.2 Preparation of a Final Surface
Closure generally requires that the treatment zone be revegetated
(EPA, 1982). Planting can proceed as soon as the waste is sufficiently de-
graded, immobilized and detoxified to allow the establishment of a perma-
nent vegetative cover» If the closure plan calls for the removal of the
treatment zone, it will be advantageous to continue management until the
last application of waste is sufficiently degraded to minimize the amount
of material that needs to be removed. Whether or not material has been re-
moved, the remaining surface should be terraced, fertilized, and limed as
necessary and planted to establish vegetation. In the event the soil or
subsoil exposed by removal of the treatment zone is not physically suitable
to support vegetation, or if the desired contours cannot be achieved, it
may be necessary to bring in additional suitable soil materials. Except
for fairly level terrain, the final grade of any of the surfaces should be
developed into a. system of terraces and waterways to minimize erosion. The
details of design procedures have been discussed in Section 8.5.
11.1.3 Vegetative Cover Requirement
Except where no significant concentrations of hazardous constituents
remain in the treatment zone, the final surface must be covered with a. per-
manent vegetative cover to prevent water and wind borne erosion and off-
site transport of soil and/or waste materials (EPA, 1982). Where the soil
in the treatment zone is removed or no hazardous constituents otherwise
remain, a vegetative cover is not required by regulation, however, in the
interest of soil erosion control, a vegetative or other cover (e.g., build-
ing construction) should be provided in any case. Following preparation of
the final surface, the soil should be fertilized and limed again, if
needed, and a seedbed should be prepared and planted. Depending on the
season, it may be desirable or necessary to plant a temporary crop to pro-
vide a protective cover until the proper planting season for the permanent
vegetation. If this is done, a clear plan must be provided for removing or
destroying the 'temporary vegetation at the proper time in order to allow
optimum conditions for establishing permanent vegetation. Guidance on the
selection and establishment of permanent vegetation has been discussed in
Section 8.7. Preferably, the permanent cover will consist of native, low
maintenance plant species to eliminate the need for intensive long-term
crop management.
571
-------
11.1.4 Runoff Control and Monitoring
Along with the establishment of permanent vegetation, the collection,
treatment, and on-site disposal or permitted discharge of runoff water must
continue. As waste organics degrade and disturbances of the land surface
decrease in frequency and effect, runoff water quality will gradually im-
prove. This Improvement is significant in two respects. First, better
quality runoff means that less rigorous treatment may be needed to meet
NPDES permit conditons. If a discharge permit had not been feasible be-
fore, improved runoff quality might make such a permit possible or econom-
ically more attractive. Second, when runoff monitoring reveals that water
is practically free from hazardous and key nonhazardous constituents, this
is one indication that closure is nearly complete and less management will
be required at the HWLT unit.
11.1.4.1 Assessing Water Quality
Various criteria may be used to assess the quality of the runoff
water. Certainly the runoff water should be analyzed for the hazardous
constituents which were disposed at the site. Water quality criteria data
should then be consulted to determine when concentrations are acceptable
for direct discharge. Most states have developed discharge standards, but
they often do not include guidelines on hazardous constituents and their
metabolites. In general, water quality criteria depend on the type of
receiving stream or the uses to be made of the receiving stream. Water
quality standards for drinking water, for irrigation, and for watering
cattle are given in Table 6.48. For organic constituents, data on the
specific biological activity should be consulted. For compounds which are
toxic to organisms present in the receiving streams, concentrations should
be less than 10% of the LD5Q. Additional constraints will need to be
applied to compounds which are bioaccumulated or which are known to cause
genetic damage. A supplementary approach to chemical analysis of the
individual constituents and their metabolites is to use bioassay tests to
demonstrate the acceptability of runoff water quality (Section 5.3.2.4).
Classical indices of water quality, including BOD, COD, TOG, and oil
and grease, are valuable as indications of changes in the release of
organics from areas to which hazardous wastes have been applied. The
indices do not, however, adequately assess the degree of hazard, nor do
they provide assurance that the concentrations of hazardous waste constitu-
ents are decreasing, since many hazardous organic chemicals are biologi-
cally active at very low concentrations.
There is only scant information available on the concentrations of
hazardous chemicals or the biohazard in runoff water from soil which has
been treated with hazardous waste. However, there are data available for
selected pesticides which have been applied to lawns or agricultural
fields. The data have been summarized by Kaufman (1974).
572
-------
Acceptability of runoff water quality for direct discharge should be
based on a series of samples taken over a period of time. Often there will
be only one or two parameters of concern. The impact of seasonal
variability on the release rate is likely to affect the data, but a general
trend should be evident. Runoff should be sampled at least quarterly on a
flow proportional basis from the entire hydrograph of a variety of
antecedent rainfall intensities and durations. Samples should be obtained
from channels leading from previously active plots to the retention ponds
rather than from grab sampling the ponds. The use of flumes or weirs along
with automated sample collectors is one possible approach. Runoff water
quality acceptability should be based on at least three consecutive
sampling events from representative storms.
11.1.4.2 Controlling the Transport Mechanisms
Chemicals applied to soil may be transported in the runoff waters
either in solution or in association with suspended particulate matter.
Water soluble organics are often rapidly degraded, so that it is antici-
pated that the major mode of transport will be in association with sus-
pended particles. Thus, methods for decreasing runoff and erosion during
closure will probably decrease the amounts and concentrations of hazardous
chemicals which enter the runoff. Terracing and vegetative cover, both in
the treatment area and in adjacent buffer zones through which runoff water
will pass, may be effective in trapping suspended solids and thus decreas-
ing transport.
The decreased concentration of organic constituents in runoff water
with time is likely to depend on the mechanisms and rate of degradation.
For materials which are photodegraded, the amount of material on the soil
surface likely to be transported will decrease rapidly once cultivation
ceases. For compounds which are metabolized by microorganisms, the
decrease at the surface will depend on the impact of environmental para-
meters on the rate of decay. These factors and probable decay data are
discussed in Section 7.2.1.
11.1.5 Monitoring"
During the closure period soil core and groundwater monitoring must
continue as in the operational plan. Soil-pore liquid sampling may be
discontinued 90 days after the last application of waste. Runoff water
monitoring (discussed above) and treatment zone monitoring are optional
during closure. The treatment zone plan should be patterned after that
described as optional during active land treatment unit operation (Section
9.4.6), particularly emphasing analyses of the entire treatment zone by
horizon or depth increments. Treatment zone monitoring allows the owner or
operator to make a determination of the degree of degradation of hazardous
constituents. This type of monitoring will also be needed to obtain a
variance from certain post-closure requirements if the analyses show no
573
-------
significant increase over background of hazardous constituents. Even where
a vegetative cover is not required, it may be important to establish vege-
tation to control soil erosion.
Cessation of soil-pore liquid monitoring is possible during closure
due to the nature of the system and what it is intended to detect. Rapidly
moving hazardous constituents are the targets for detection by the system,
so movement of these constituents would logically occur very soon after the
last waste application. Although soil-pore liquid monitoring may be termi-
nated 90 days after the last waste application, it may be wise to continue
monitoring these liquids until three consecutive samples are free of signi-
ficant increases of hazardous constituents over background.
Monitoring of food chain crops if they are grown during closure, is
also needed to provide assurance that residual materials in the soil are
not being taken up by plants in concentrations that are phytotoxic or that
could be bioaccumulated in animals. There is little information at this
time, other than for selected pesticides and metals, on the uptake of
hazardous materials by crops. If food chain crops are grown during
closure, the pH must be maintained at a level sufficient to prevent signi-
ficant crop uptake of hazardous constituents (e.g. pH 6.5 or greater) and
all other food chain requirements must be met (EPA, 1982). Additionally,
the harvested portion of the crop should be determined to be free of unac-
ceptable concentrations of hazardous constituents.
11.2 POST-CLOSURE CARE
During the post-closure period management activities are reduced.
Present regulations call for continuation of post-closure activities for up
to 30 years unless it can be demonstrated that a shorter period is
acceptable (EPA, 1982). The intent of post-closure care at a land treat-
ment unit is to complete waste treatment and stabilization of the remaining
soil and waste residuals while checking for any unforseen long-term changes
in the system. For example, if pH of a naturally acidic soil has been
artificially raised to control metal mobility, gradual return to the native
soil pH or some new equilibruim pH may mobilize metals.
An obvious advantage of land treatment is that wastes are degraded or
otherwise made unavailable to the environment with time. Other land dis-
posal techniques, especially landfills and surface impoundments, present
long-term risks of contaminant leakage and lead to continued intensive
monitoring liabilities. The post-closure monitoring schedule may be
relaxed to include a decreasing number of samples over time. A land treat-
ment unit that has been properly designed, managed, and closed should
exhibit little potential for releasing undesirable constituents into the
unsaturated zone or into the groundwater. A typical schedule for soil core
and groundwater monitoring following the initiation of post-closure should
include samples collected on a geometric progression at 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16
and 30 years. The parameters of interest should be plotted with time and
additional samples should be taken, as needed, in the event unacceptable
574
-------
concentrations are found. Post-closure care should include activities for
enhancing and sustaining treatment, and precautions for managing against
unacceptable releases (e.g., run-on/runoff controls). Therefore, treatment
may be completed during the post—closure care, period without increased
environmental risk. Soil pH, nutrient levels, and significant physical,
chemical, or biological disturbances of the treatment zone may all play a
major role in sustaining treatment and site stabilization. These factors
should be examined and corrected periodically, if necessary, throughout the
post-closure care period to ensure maintenance of treatment processes.
Management should strive, however, for a system requiring only minimal
attention since ultimately (after 30 years) all maintenance may cease and
the system will then revert to an uncontrolled condition.
11.3 PARTIAL CLOSURE
Considerable management and expense may be involved in treatment or
on-site disposal of runoff water from large areas; therefore, it may be
desirable to design a land treatment unit with plots which will be care-
fully loaded to the CLC maximum in a few years or even one year, and then
to proceed to close the area. In the meantime, waste would be applied to
new plots which would be opened as needed. The system would need to be
designed so that runoff water from the individual plots would be collected
either in separate retention basins, or in a central retention basin. A
more detailed description of this type of design is presented in Section
8.1.2. Once runoff water quality from a given plot is acceptable, its run-
off can then be diverted and released under less restrictive permit condi-
tions. Another advantage is that a portion of the unit can be released
from long-term post-closure care sooner than remaining active plots.
Finally, information learned through partial closure may be helpful in
improving the management of active portions. The timetable for partial
closure depends greatly on the rate at which the waste constituents of
concern are degraded or sorbed by the soil.
575
-------
CHAPTER 11 REFERENCES
EPA. 1982. Hazardous waste management system, permitting requxrements for
land disposal facilities. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 143 pp.
32274-32388. July 26, 1982.
Kaufman, D. D. 1974. Degradation of pesticides by soil microogranisms. pp.
133-202. In W. D. Guenzie (ed.) Pesticides in soil and water. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Madison, Wisconsin.
Nash, R. G. 1974. Plant uptake of insecticides, fungicides and fumigants
from soils, pp. 257-314. La W. D. Guenzi (ed.) Pesticides in soil and
water. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Madison, Wisconsin.
576
-------
APPENDIX A
The enclosed survey was conducted for EPA by K. W. Brown and Associ-
ates, Inc., during 1980 and some of the information contained in the survey
may be out of date. In addition, the source of most of the information was
permit files arid no attempt was made to verify either the types or quanti-
ties of the wastes disposed at the listed facilities. Even so, this survey
provides a useful overview of hazardous waste land treatment facilities,
their location and size, and types of waste disposed.
577
-------
A Survey of Existing Hazardous Waste
Land Treatment Facilities
in the
United States
by
K. W. Brown & Associates
707 Texas Ave. S., Suite 2070
College Station, Texas 77840
Contract No. 68-03-2943
Project Officer
Carl ton Wiles
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
August 1981
578
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES 111
LIST OF FIGURES 1v
FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS AND SURVEY OBJECTIVES 1
INFORMATION ACQUISITION 3
SURVEY FINDINGS 5
579
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Sources consulted for Information listed 1n the
survey 3
2 Existing hazardous waste land treatment
facilities 1n the United States 7
3 Geographic distribution, by region and state, of
the 197 facilities described 1n the survey 44
4 Industrial classification of land treatment
facilities 46
5 Land treatment usage by Industry 52
580
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Area! distribution of land treatment facilities .'.... 43
2 Size distribution of land treatment facilities ..... 53
581
-------
FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS AND SURVEY OBJECTIVES
The practice of land treatment for disposing of various types of wastes
has been employed by industries for a considerable number of years. The
petroleum refinery industry has historically been the primary industrial user,
with records of organized landfarming operations dating to the early 1950's
(Exxon Co. U.S.A., Personal Commumcation). Even predating what one would
consider organized landfarming, it was recognized in a 1919 journal article
that oil is degradable in soil. In the years hence, it became common practice
to treat oily and leaded tank bottoms by first "weathering" them in soil to
degrade the oil and oxidize the tetraethyl lead to less toxic form. However,
it has not been until the last decade that land treatment was recognized as an
environmentally sound and effective treatment and disposal technique which
could be useful for many classes of industrial waste.
Consequently, the data base for determining what constitutes a
well-designed land treatment operation and which wastes are readily amenable
to land treatment has been slow to develop. As the state of the art advances,
some past practices have been found to be inadequate while important design and
management considerations have begun to be understood. However, many
potentially land treatable wastes have not been tested, and many facilities at
which land treatment is practiced have until recently lacked sufficient
documentation as to their effectiveness and environmental safety. Therefore,
the objectives of this survey are to: (1) identify the existing hazardous
waste land treatment facilities in the United States, (2) identify the types
and amounts of hazardous waste which are being land treated at these
facilities; and (3) determine which industries have member companies utilizing
land treatment. Such expanded information can better clarify important
582
-------
research and regulatory concerns as well as lead to a better prediction of how
a given waste will fare under the varied influences of climate, site and soil.
583
-------
INFORMATION ACQUISITION
The lists of land treatment facilities, along with the important
descriptive information, were compiled using numerous sources of information.
A large core of the information was obtained from the Part A RCRA permit
applications which are on file in the EPA regional offices. Eight of the ten
regions were visited, and their permit application files were thoroughly
reviewed. Of the remaining two regions, Region I probably would not have
yielded any identifications since other information sources did not note any
land treatment facilities in this region. Other sources did note several
facilities in Region V, but it was expected that there would not be many
additional facilities in the regional files because of the region's cold
climatic regime. In addition to the EPA records, all of the state and
territorial environmental agencies were contacted, and, in most cases, these
agencies willingly provided information on facilties under their jurisdiction.
Although the bulk of the information was obtained from governmental agencies,
several other sources proved useful in identifying or confirming facilities and
in providing any missing data (Table 1).
Table 1. Sources consulted for information listed in the survey.
Category Source
Governmental EPA regional offices
State environmental agencies
Territorial environmental agencies
Industrial Industrial associations
Petroleum refiners
Waste disposal companies
Disposal equipment manufacturers
Companies identified as operating land treatment facilities.
Other Literature (e.g., journals, proceedings, and magazines)
Environmental consultants
584
-------
In accordance with the survey objectives, the information which was sought
was of a general descriptive nature. Facility identifiers consisted of
facility name, address and EPA ID number along with the name and phone number
of the environmental contact person. Descriptive information Included facility
size and the type and amount of waste applied annually. The industry
generating or disposing of each waste was also identified by type and by its
standard industrial classification ($IC) code.
585
-------
SURVEY FINDINGS
The land treatment facility listings are presented in various ways for
user convenience. The master list is a table containing all of the acquired
information and categorized according to facility location (Table 2). Table 3
1s a tally of the number of facilities in each state and region totaling 197
facilities. As expected, land treatment is most frequently utilized in the
South, Southeast and West (Regions VI, IV and IX), where warm climate allows
year-round operations and where the petroleum refining industry, the most
frequent user of land treatment, is concentrated. Selected information about
all facilities is rearranged into a listing according to industrial waste
source (SIC code) in Table 4. Summarizing land treatment use by industry
(Table 5), the petroleum refining industry is by far the biggest user with 101
facilities. Other Industries which have several locations relying on land
treatment Include commercial disposers, which land treat largely petroleum
industry wastes, and the industrial organic chemicals and wood preserving
industries.
Some broad observations about facility characteristics may be enlightening
at this point. First, of the 182 facilitiesefor which areas are reported, the
facility sizes range from 0.005 to 1668 acres; however, the median size is only
13.5 acres. Therefore, although there are a few very large facilities, the
distribution 1s strongly skewed toward the small facilities, as illustrated by
a bar graph (Figure 2). Second, with regard to quantities of waste applied,
the range is similarly very large. However, the methods used by industry for
reporting waste quantities were Inconsistent and yielded questionable results.
For instance, a common method was where a permit applicant reported the applied
quantity of a listed waste stream and then separately listed the quantities of
586
-------
the waste stream components. Such an approach would yield a double accounting
of some wastes. Additionally, a listed waste stream can vary widely from
company to company (e.g., water content, metals content), and one waste type
can differ greatly from the characteristics of another. Therefore,
generalizations about waste type and quantity results are not possible.
587
-------
Table 2. Existing hazardous waste land
United States.
treatment facilities in the
Region
I
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region State
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
II
III
IV
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Del aware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VII
VIII
IX
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
—Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
588
-------
RESIOH
Nam
and Address
ID
EPA
NtMbw
Phone Nwber
and Contact
Size
(acres)
Is*
tat.
ami
Mast*
«t/yr)
Industrial Source
SIC Description
Additional
Inf omat Ion
TO THE BEST OF MR KNOWLEDGE. THERE ARE HO LANDFARMS IN THIS REGION
cn
00
10
-------
REOIOH II
H«n«
and Address
ID
EPA
Hurt or
Phono Hwbtr
and Contact
Size
(acres)
Typ.
Aat.
and
Waste
(t/yr)
Industrial Sourco
SIC Description
Additional
In f emotion
St«t« of Hen J«ri«y
Exxon Refinery
HOO Park Avo.
Linden, (Union Co.) HJ 07036
Texaco USA
Box 98
Hostvllle, HJ 08093
Location
Junction ol liny 295 1 130
W. Deptford, HJ
HJT000029447 201/474-0100
Royal Al trout or
6.5
K049 105: KOJI 8500
609/645-8000 18 t/4 K050, K05I, K052
R J. Flschboch acr* plots
2911 Roflnory
2911 Refinery
Temporarily Inactive
Peralt Is Halting N J.
revised rejs. State
pornIt expired I960.
Statn ot Hoi York
Borden Chenlcal A t C Division
108-112 N. Main Street
Balnbrldge (Chenango Co.) NY 13733
HYD 000691865
518/967-2111
RayiKKid Hedllnger
32
utae 2:0
3999
Liquid S solid
resins nanu.
Ui
VD
O
Virgin Islands
Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.
P. 0 Box 127
Klngsvllle, St. Crolx 00850
VITOOOOI002S
809/773-1101
32
K050 200, K05I 15,512, K052 74 2911 Refinery
Puerto Rico
Carbaroon Services
Phillips Core
Guayarca, Puerto Rico
Serailes Oestlllerles
Pones, Puerto Rico
Travenol Labs
Trujlllo Alto
609/836-1678
Carlos Bartoloxe1
609/864-15)5
Rolando H. Hendoz
809/843-1000
Sra Silvia Santiago
809/762-0050
Have appllsJ for land
treatment pernlt
Have applied for land
treatment penult
Have appled for land
treatment permit
Have applied for land
treatment permit
-------
REGION III
Name
and Address
ID
EPA
Number
Phone Nunber
and Contact
Size (acres)
IX
and
Waste
(t/yr)
Industrial Source
SIC Description
Additional
Information
State of Delaware
Getty Refining i Marketing Co.
Wrangle Hill Rd
Del aware City, DE 19706
060002329738 502/634-6162
Richard W. Ladd
Prof. Specialist
47
K048 2600; K049 9500; K050 50; 2911 Refinery
K051 2600, K052 500
State of Maryland
Chevron USA Inc.
1955 Chesepeake Av«
Baltimore, MD 21226
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
Warton Rd.
Chestertown, MD 21620
M00990666156
HDOOOI 890060
301/355-7800
jamas P. McQueen
Ret. Manager
301/776-1991
H Grubor
Plant Manager
0 75 K048, KOS1
2911 Refinery
2.0 U028 200; U069 15, D002 4250 222 Weaving mil Is
synthetIcs
IF slta Is currently
Inactive (7-81)
Stata of Pennsylvania
Arco Petroleum Products Co
Passyunk Ave
Philadelphia, PA
GROWS Inc Landfill
Bordentoun i Nev Ford Mill Rd.
Morrlsvllle, (Bucks Co.) PA 19067
PA00022B9700 215/339-2000 13.5
George Smith
Env Manager
PA0000043818 215/295-8114 64
Rhett D. Ragsdal*
President
K04B 11,600; K049 5500; K05I 200 2911 Refinery
Industrial landfill leachata 4951 Refuse system
Haste amount Is unknown
State of Virginia
Amoco 011 Co.
479 Good*In Neck Rd.
Yorktovn, VA 23690
Hercules, Inc.
Off thy 158
Franklin, VA 23851
VA0050990357
VA0003122I65
804/898-9739
Morton Boston, Jr.
EC I S Supt.
804/562-3121
Henry J. Edvln
Plant Manager
45.75 K049 2.5, K050 6.5. K05I 250; 2911 Refinery
KOSI 264
2.5 F003 76,700 2911 Refinery
-------
W3ICN IV
Kaae EPA
and Address ID Number
State of Alabaoe
Brain Hood Preserving Co., Inc. ALD082066I92
County Rd. 34
Brovnvllle (Morthport),
(TiHcalaosa Co.) N. 35476
Evens Transportation Co. AW086547M3
P. 0. Box 958
Mar ley Hill Rd.
Ozark. (Dale Co.) AL 36360
Hercules, Inc. AUXXM009I63
P. 0. Box 190
HcAdary Jet.
BMSOHOT, (Jefferson Co.) AL 35020
Hunt Oil Co. Tuscaloose Refinery ALD004009320
P. 0. BOK 1850
Sanders Ferry Rd.
Tuscaloosa, (Tuscaloosa Co.) AL 35401
*•* MaxNell AFB A10570024IB2
JS 3800 Air Base. Group Dee
Haxnel 1 AFB (Montgomery Co.) AL 361 12
Plantation Plpel Ine Co., HE Facll Ity AIOOM3673I7
Shelby County Rd. 52
Helena, (Shelby Co.) AL 35080
Rel table Metal Products, Inc. ALD03I6I2732
P. 0. Box 580
H»y. 27 North Rt. 1
Geneva, (Geneva Co.) AL 36340
T. R. Hitler Hill Co.. Inc. AID008161416
Treating Plant
708 01 er SY.
Brenton, (Escanbla Co.) AL 36426
State of Florid*
ATIKO, Inc. FL0064673978
Rt. 2 Box IA
Hlldxood, (Sunter Co.) FL 32765
Ben Hill Griffin. Inc. FL0000823369
P. 0 Box 127
A 1 1 US 29 I Fifth Ave.
Frostproof. (Polk Co.) Fl 33843
Holly Hill Fruit Products Co. FLTI300I034I
Springfield
P. 0. Box 708
Phone Nuefcer
md Contact Size (acres)
205/339-4666 10
Ray G. Bobo,
Vlce-Pres.
205/774-2621 1.38
W. E. Baxter
PUnt Hjr.
205/428-2391 1
Herbert Knight
Tech. Supv.
205/758-6675 21
Ted Johnson
Coord, of Safety
205/293-6908 0.01
Lt. John Hlkulka
404/261-2137 8 5
George Jeff ares
Supv. Engineer
205/684-362 1 5
Janes E. McDowell
Finishing Manager
205/867-4331 t
R. Bart Hank
VP, Treating
904/748-1313 4.4
Albert Wresh
Plant Engineer
813/635-2251 330
Preston Troutun
Vlce-Pres Ident
813/422-1131 54
John H. May
Vlce-Pres Ident
Ty,e «d
tat. Haste (t/yr)
KOOI 9
0002 1; U05I t; U019 0.5;
UI05 1; U054 1; UII5 0.5;
UI54 1; UI59 It UISS 1;
0169 1; UI22 0.5, DIM 1,
UI90 1; UI47 1; U220 1
F005 0.05; U002 0.2S
F003 12,500, K044 1300
K048 69. K049 5 K052 1.
K05I proposed. K087 proposed
0008 0.15. solvents, vaste oil/
1 ubr 1 cants
DOOO 37.1. tank btn sludge
5 tanks/yr
F002 1.43, F003 0 94, F018 0.03
KOOI 1; D004 0 01 . 0005 0 01 .
P090 0.5. U05I 0.1
K063 31
DOOI 0.005; 0002 900 caustic.
P053 0.001. PI05 0 001. U044
0.001. UI22 0.001, UI44 0 OOt.
UI59 0 001. UI88 0.001. U220 0 001
UI54 0.001 . 0001 0.03. 0002
250 caustic
Industrial Source Additional
SIC Description Information
2491 Wood preserving
3743 RR equipment repair Tank car cleaning affluent
2892 Explosives nanu.
2911 Refinery
9711 National security
29 Petroleuia prod.
349 Alinlnum prod
2491 Mood preserving
3498 Steal pipe nanu.
203 Citrus processing
203 Fruit processing
U S. Hvy. 17 * 92 at N. Blvd.
Davenport, (Polk Co.) FL 33937
-------
REGION IV {continued)
L/l
Name
and Address
01 In Corp.
P 0. Box 222
Corner of US 98 4 SR 363
St. Marks (Hakulla) FL 32355
Orange Co. of Florida, Inc.
P 0. Box 351
U S 17 South
Bartow, (Polk Co » FL 33830
Tropical Circuits Inc
P. 0 Box 2 1355
1981 SH 36 St.
Ft Lauderdale, (Broward Co ) FL 33315
Tyndall AFB
4756 Air Base Group/OEEV
U.S Hwy 98 (10 "lies E. Panama City)
Tyndall AFB (Bay Co ) FL 32403
State of Georgia
Anoco Oil Co. Savannah Refinery
Foundation Dr.
Savannah, (Chatham Co ) GA 31408
General Electric Co
P 0 Box 5646
New Savannah Rd
Augusta, (Richmond Co ) GA 30906
Gilbert I Bennett Manu Corp.
Liberty HIM Rd.,
Meadow Brook Ind. Park
Toccoa, (Stephens Co ) GA 30877
Glldden C 1 R 01 v of SCM Corp
P 0. Box 296
White Rd
Oafssood, (Hall Co ) GA 30566
Southern Mills Inc Senola Olv.
P 0 Box 218
Andrews Pkwy
Senola, (Coweta Co ) GA 30276
Union Carbide Agricultural Co Inc
P 0 Box 428
Harrltt's Bluff Rd
Woodbine, (Camden Co ) GA 31569
Wo Hrlgloy, Jr Co
Routes 13 * 365
Flowery Branch, (Hall Co ) GA 30542
EPA
10 Number
FUKM 7096524
FL0059398842
FLD 083 114421
FLI570024I24
GA0003292877
GAD 06 06 59208
GAT 0006081 66
GAT000622985
GAD079386694
GAD030035356
GAD0562067I7
Phone Number
and Contact SI ze (acros)
904/925-61 1 1 25
J. R. Katie
Olr. PDR 4 GOCO op
813/533-0551 40
Dean Hayes
Tech. Dlr
305/467-3771 0 15
Robert G Smith
Vice-president
904/283-4354 83
Arturo McDonald
Env. Coord
912/964-6)30 1
John Consldlne
Supv Environ
404/793-7610 0.23
Francis E Nlmons
Shop Manager
404/886-8136 4
Grant Preble
Plant Manager
404/967-2030 2 2
Howard J Her ton
Plant Manager
404/599-6659 1 1
Clyde C. Lunsford
Plant Manager
912/265-0180 5
D. B Cunningham
Dept Head EA/0 H
404/967-6181 5
Joseph H Hajek
Factory Manager
Type and
Ant Waste
K044, K046 • total 250
0001 0 03, 0002 250 caustic,
PI20 0 001
F006 1.25, F009 0 5
0001 18, 0002 0 2, 0006 0 53,
F017 22.5, U159 1.25, (1220 0 42,
U238 0 21 U239 0 09, Ind. 18,250
K05I 250; 0001 2, 0002 1 , 0003 5
0002 9 34
K063 283, K062 285
K079 1564
U004 19.1, U239 0 05, 11123 16 2
P070 17347
FOOt 0 68, 0001 1 85, 0002 1 44
Industrial Source
SIC Description
348 Ordnance
203 Fruit processing
3679 Printed circuit
board manu
9711 National security
29)1 Refinery
3589 Ind. equipment repair
3496 Wire products manu
2851 Paints i
allied products
222 Weaving nil Is
synthet fcs
2879 Pesticides
2067 Chewing gun) manu
Addlt tonal
Information
Sprayfleld
Spray Irrlgat Ion
Steam cleaner effluent
Steel rod cleaning
effluant
Spray Irrigation
-------
KQIOH IV
Ul
VO
.p-
Kaae
•IK) Address
St»t« of Kentucky
Bordon Chealcal A i C
6200 Cmf Ground Rd.
Louisville, (Jefferson Co.) KY 40216
General Electric Co.
Appliance Park Bldg. 1-312
Louisville, (Jefferson Co.) KY 40225
Lexington - 61 ua Grass Depot Activity
Haley Rd.
Lexington. (Fayette Co.) KY 40911
State of Mississippi
Amerada Hess Corp.
P. 0 Box 425
U S. Hny. II
Purvis, (Lamar Co ) MS 5947S
Anerlcnn Bosch Electrical Products
P 0 Box 2228
HcCrary Rd.
Colmbus, (Lovindes Co.) MS 39701
Chevron Refinery
P. 0 Box 1300
Bayou Casotte
Ind H»y.
Pascagoula. MS 39967
Coppers
P 0 Box 160
Tie Plant, MS
Pearl River Hood Preserving Corp.
P 0 Box H
1900 Rosa St.
Picayune, (Pearl River Co.) MS 39466
Plantation Pipeline Co.
H»y 588
Collins (Covlngton Co.) MS 39428
Rogers Rental 1 Landfill - Exxon
P 0 Box 125
Centrevllle, MS 39651
State of North Carol In*
XVIII Airborne Corps I Fort Bragg
Attn. AFZA-fE-EE Butner t Rellly Rds.
Fort Bragg, (Cumberland Co.) NC 28307
EPA
ID Hueber
KYD05583209I
101)006387021
KY02 100205 09
MS007946I406
HS00040I0724
MSD054I79403
HS0008I94I44
HS02900I027I
HS0835433009
NC82 10020121
Phono Nuiber
«re) Contact Size (acres)
502/447-1322 10
Ha- old Amtrong
Eng. Manager
302/452-3934 4.8
Horrls Hoser
Env. Pregran Hgr.
606/293-4201 15
Gary L. Hotcall
Civil Engineer
601/794-8021 34
S. Lonnes
Ref. Hgr
601/328-4150 7.6
John H. East
Ind. Eng. Mgr.
601/938-4290 15
Bob Mai lace
601/226-4581 3
Ray Bar tic*
601/798-8603 20
R. B. Jones
VP 4 Gen. Hgr
404/261-2137 0 17
George Jef fares
601/645-5972 72 5
Lynn Wallace
919/396-8207 100
Bruce Parker
Env. Officer
Type «rd Industrial Source
tat. Waste (t/yr) SIC Description
0000 5 i 3999 Hanu. InJ.
F006 3700 3999 Hone appl 1 ance umt.
0001, 0003 - total 600 348 Ordnance
K048 2750; K05I, K049, K050 « 2911 Refinery
total 310, K052, PI 10 - total 3.5
0006, 0003 362 1 Motors nanu.
K048 250; K049 800; K05I 150 2911 Refinery
2491 Hood preserving
KOOt 1 2491 Hoed preserving
0000 30 29 Petroleun (rod
K048, HWT blosludge 60,000 2911 Refinery
D002, 0000 - total 30 5. D002, 971 1 Hat lonal secur Ity
0000 - total 6.S. 0002, DODO *
total 0 85, 0002, DOOO - total 2.5
Additional
Information
Blosludge LT
Electroplating sludge
Amy supply depot
LF site Is currently
Inactive (7-81)
LF site Is currently
Inactive (7-81 )
0000 1.5, DOOO 5 5, D002, DOOO
total 13.5, 0002, DOOO, 0003 -
total 3. UI22 0.6. (1239 0.3, DOOO,
0002 - total 0 6, DOOO 0.6
-------
REGION IV (continue)
Ui
>X>
Ui
None
and Address
Flnetex Inc - Southern Dlv.
Box 164
Hackett Street
Spencer, (Rowan Co.) NC 28159
General Electric Co.
P. 0. Box 865
Spartanburg H»y
East Flat Rock, (Henderson Co) NC 26726
Neuse River Mastewater Treatment Plant
P. 0 Box 590 Utility Dept.
End of Battle Rd. (SR 2552)
Raleigh, (Wake Co.) NC 27602
Seymour Johnson AFB
4CES/DEEV
Jet of NC Rt. 70 * Rt. 13
Goldsboro, (Wayne Co.) NC 27530
U. S Industries Inc.
P. 0. Box 68
Canton Rd
Thcnasvllle (Davidson) NC 27360
State of South Carol In*
Abco Industries Inc
P 0 Box 335
Railroad Street
Roebuck. (Spartanburg Co.) SC 29376
Carolina Eastman Co.,
(Dlv. of Eastnan Kodak)
U S. 21 t 1 26
W Columbia (Calhout Co.) SC 29169
General Electric Co.
2490 Debonair Street
Charleston, (Charleston Co ) SC 29405
Sand 07 Inc Martin Works
Itay. 102
Martin, (Al lendala Co ) SC 29836
EPA
ID Nunber
NCO0063273I3
NCD079044426
NCT380010496
NC0572 124474
(C007782I296
SCD003360393
SCD04 138 7762
SCDQ3Q092373
SC0082228347
Phone Number
and Contact Size (acres)
704/633-8028 t
Anthony f. Bolton
704/693-2578 21.7
Bernard Under
Mgr. Qua). Assur.
919/779-2010 426
Billy R. Creech
Super Intenlent
919/736-650) 0 5
Henry LaBrecque
Env. Coord.
919/475-1348 6
Charles Thaggard
General Manager
803/576-682 1 7
John Broadnax
Plant Manager
615/246-2111 31.4
Jas Edwards
Mgr. Clean Env.
803/747-7644 0.06
Stephen Wilson
Shop Manager
803/584-4321 26
W. B Yarborough
VP, Works Manager
Type and
Amt. Waste (t/yr)
UI54 3.63, UI47 0.15. U009 0.01 1
POOS 1.05
F006 300
FOOI 0.6, F007 1.4; F009 IS,
F017 0.75
0003 0. 13
UI22 9
0006, 0007, FOOI, F002, F003,
F004, F005, F006, F007, F008,
F009. K052, P049, U002, U007,
U008. U009, UOI2, UOI7. UOI9,
U03I, U037. U043. U044, U056,
U092, UII2. UII3, UII5. UI22,
UI40, UI47. UI54, UI59. UI62,
UI6S, UI88. UI97, U2I9. 0220,
U226, (1228, U239, 0001. 0002,
0003 - total 8000
F002, F003, F005 > total 9 1
D002 5
F003 3.5, U002 3 5, U009 03,
U092 06; UI69 6
Industrial Source
SIC Description
229 Misc. textile goods
3641 Lighting fixtures
•ami.
3471 Plating
971) National security
249 Misc. wood products
289 Misc. chemical prod.
289 Misc. chemical prod.
35S9 Ind. equipment repair
229 Misc. textile goods
Addlt tonal
Inf ormat Ion
Electroplating operations
sludge
In the process of
del 1st Ing wastes
-------
REGION IV (continue*)
Home
and Address
EPA
ID Nu»to«r
Phono Hunter
and Contact
Slz* (acres)
Typo «rd
tat. Waste (t/yr)
Industrie) Source
SIC Description
Additional
Intonation
ShB* AFB
365 CSG/DEEV 7 mil** V. of Sunter
H*y. 378
Suitor Co., SC 29152
507570024*66 80J/668-8HO EX 3257 800
Kenneth Man
Env. Coord.
P001 .012; POOS .0003; P025 .018,
P042 .021, POM .002, P09B .002,
PI03 .0001; PI22 .06 S/yr; UOOI
.012, 1)002 .042, (1034 .006, U055
.006, U036 .004, U044 .014, U056
.003, U073 021, U080 .042, UII7
.003; UI2I .001, UI34 .004, UI38
.01; UI39 .006, UI54 .02, UI59
.042, UI6I 042, UI88 024, UZOO
.006, U20I .006, U205 .006, U2I3
.001, U220 .05, U223 .007, U226
.05, U228 5 25, U239 .05, 0006
.007, D007 .007
9711 Hat tonal security
Stat* of
Arapahoe Chemical s Inc. TND0667I2308 615/623-6151 19
P. 0 8ox460 Claronca C. Hill
Chonwood Rd Env. Manager
Noxport, (Cocko Co.) IN 37821
McGhea Tyson Air Natl. Guard Base TN4570024I96 615/970-3077 100
McGhoe Tyson Airport Lt. Dan Bock
Kncxvlllo, (Blount Co.) TN 37901 Base Engineer
F002 25; F003 25, F005 850
D002, D008 - total 0 5
2834
025
Pharmaceutical
preparat Ions
Poultry feed
9711 National security
-------
REGION V
Name
and Address
Stata at Illinois
Marathon Oil
33V S Main Street
Flndlay, OH 49840
location
Marathon Ava
Robinson, IL
Mobil Oil
P 0 Box 874
Jollott, IL 60434
EPA Phono Number Type and
10 Number and Contact Size (acres! A»t Waste (t/yrt
618/544-2121 Unavailable Oily waste
Larry HcGrlvy
ILD064403I99 815/423-5571 Unavailable
Industrial Source
SIC Description
2911 Rellnery
Unavailable
Additional
Information
Amount of waste Is
unavailable
LF site was closed 10/80
Union Oil Co of California
Lumont, IL
Proposed If facility
Ui
State of Indiana
Indiana Farm Bureau Coop Assoc
P 0 Box 271
Ml Vornon. IN 47620
Rock Island Refining Corp.
5000 H 86th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46268
IND044908663 812/836-4341
Gary Roehr
110006417430 317/291-1200
Mil Ma* E Laque
40
K048. K05I > total 25,000 2911 Refinery
rtVmontn
K049. K050. K05I, K052 " total 312 2911 Refinery
30 acres used for I tine
only appl , 10 acres are
currently In use
State ot Michigan
Simpson Paper Co
Vlcksburg, HI
MID049240658 616/649-0510
Raymond Wagner
3-19 acre
fields
Primary clarlfler waste water
2611
2621
Pulp Kill
Paper nil)
Spray Irrigation Alfalfa
Is harvested on 2 fields
State of Minnesota
Conoco Inc
Car I ton MN
Koch Refinery
P 0 Box 435%
it Paul MN 55164
218/384-4174
HND006I6I30I 612/437-4141
10
12
All oily wastes and bios fudges 2911 Refinery
Sep fetus I, OAF I digestive
residues 50, tank cleaning
residues 50, pro-coat filter
residues 15, flare drum residues
2, desalter residues 2
2911 Refinery
State of Ohio
ctcos
5092 Aber Rd
Ml I Hamburg at 45176
0)0067433744 513/681-5711
Mary Bauer
220
4953 Refuse systems
IF site Is currently
Inactive (7-81)
-------
RE8IOH V tcoatlMM*')
Ul
VO
03
Homo
and Address
Fondessey Enterprise
FEI Undfarn Sight 12
Cedar Point i Mayno Rd.
Oregon, OH
Fondessey Enterprise
FEI Undform Sight K
Oupont Rd.
Oregon, (HI
Fondessey Enterprise
FEI londlarm Sight 14
676 Otter Creek Rd.
Oregon, OH
Gulf Oil Co US
P. 0. Box 7
Cleves, OH 45002
Gull Oil
Toledo, Oil
Standard 01 1 Co
Cadar Pt Rd.
Toledo, Oil 43694
Standard 01 1 Co (Ohio)
1150 S MetcaM St
Lima, Oil 45804
Sunoco Rellnery
Betwoan Brown & Dickie 4 1-280
Toledo, OH
EPA Phone Number
ID Humtwr anil Contact
OIG00072UI5 4I9/726-IS2I
JAMS Hanllton
OC00072I423 419/725-1521
Jo«03 Haul 1 ton
OHS045243706 419/726-1521
Jamas HMllton
413/353-3400
EdHaxy
419/698-6040
OtD005057542 419/693-0771
E. J. Stehel
010005051826 419/226-2300
R F. Guenther
419/691-3561
Ed Hoti lor
Env. Coord
Type and Industrial Sourco
Six* (acres) Mt. Wosto (t/yr) SIC Description
49 Petro.sludgos 2430 2911 Rtflnary
14 Patro. sludges 2450 2911 Rellnary
25 Patro sludges 3125 2911 Rellnery
35 KOSI 2911 Rellnery
4 KOSI, K052 2911 Rellnery
20 K04B, K049, K05I > total 15,600 2911 Refinery
10 K048, K049, K05I > total 938 2911 Refinery
8x 150' plots K048, KOSI, K052 2911 Rellnery
Additional
Information
Proposed If, Hill begin
operation approx 10-81
Proposed LF to begin
operation mid- 1982
-------
REGION VI
Name
and Address
State of Arkansas
Arkansas Eastman Co
(Olv. of Eastman Kodak Co )
P 0 Box 511
Klngsport, TN 37662
Location
Gap Road
Batesvllle, AR 72501
Tosco Corp
McHenry Ave
El Dorado, (Union Co ) W 71730
State of Louisiana
Chevron Chemical Co
P 0 Box 70
LA Hwy 23
Belle Chase, (Plaquealnes Parish) LA
Cities Service Co
P 0 Box 1562
LA Hwy 108
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(Tj Conoco Int. , Lake Charles Refinery
ij3 P 0 Box 37
Old Spanish Trail
WesMako, LA 70669
Exxon Co USA Baton Rouge Refinery
P 0 Box 551
4045 Scenic Hwy
Baton Rouge, (E Baton Rouge Parish)
bull Oil Co -US
Alliance Refinery
P 0 Box 395
LA Hwy 23 S
Belle Chasse (Plaquealnes Parish) LA
Gull Oil Corp
P 0 Drawer G
Tidewater Rd
Venice (Plaquenlnes Parish) LA 70091
Marathon Oil Co LA Refining Olv
P 0 Eox AC
US Hwy 61
Garyvllle (St John the Baptist Co ),
Murphy Oil Corp
P 0 Box 100
St Bernard Itwy
EPA
10 Number
AR0089234884
AR000002I998
LA0034 199802
70037
LA0008080350
LA09906837I6
LA0062662887
LA 70807
LA005602439I
70037
LAD04I5I48H
LA008 1999724
LA 70091
LAD00805047I
Phone Number
and Contact Size (acres)
615/246-2111 66
James C. Edwards
Manager CEP
501/862-8111 5
Donald Comer
Env Engineer
504/394-4320 10
E. C Hofnann
Env Specialist
318/491-6318 22
Wm. A Wad sack
Env Sup
318/491-5222 6 9
Irv F Wagner
Ref Manager
504/359-8430 14 6
Robert Denbo
Env Coord
504/656-7711 9
Charles Sanders
Process Engr
504/534-7452 0 65
Charles Coarsey
Director Proc Engr
504/535-2241 4
W E Oows
Env Coord
504/271-4141 3
Allden froderlckson
Mgr CP 4 E
Type and
A*t Waste (t/yr)
K048 21,700, K049 17,540
K048, K05I, K052
0007 4257, K048 1419
K048 45,500, K049 1400,
K051 12,100
K048 1000, K049 1000, K050 500,
K05I 1000, 0002 100
K048 175, K049 150, K050 75,
K05I 75, 0002 20
K04fl |7, K049 14, K050 5,
K05I 35, K052 1, 0001 220
K048 1400, K05I 2200
Industrial Source
SIC Description
2865 Organic Intermediates
2869 Ind organic chemicals
2911 Refinery
2869 Ind organic chemicals
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
4441 Marine terminal
2911 Refinery
2869 Ind organic chemicals
2911 Refinery
1321 Natural gas proc
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
Additional
Information
LF site Is currently
Inactive (7-81)
LF site Is currently
Inactive (7-81)
Ant of waste wasn't
recorded In the past
Horaux, (St Bernard Co ) LA 70075
-------
KCIOH VI
ON
o
o
HAM
and Address
Plantation Plpa Lin* Co.
HO Facility
P. 0 Box 1(5616
Atlanta, GA
location
Blount Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70607
Rollins Environmental Services
P. 0 flux 73377
13351 Scunlc Ihy.
Baton Rouge, (E. Baton Roug« Perish)
Shall Oil Co.
P 0 Box 10
River Road
Horco, (St. Charles Parish) LA 70079
Shreveport Sludge Disposal Facility
P 0. Box 30065
liny. 1
Shroveport, (Caddo Parish) LA 71153
Taxaco USA (Olv of Texaco Inc )
P 0 Box 37
Convent, (St Jaws Parish) LA 70723
State ol Hex Mexico
Olmaa Heath Co.
4901 E Main
Faralngton, (San Juan Co ) NM 87401
Shall Oil Co Inc
Hlngata Star Rt
Gallup, (HcKlnley Co ) m 87301
EPA
ID feitttr
LAD000726224
LAOOI0395I27
LA 70807
LA006I865793
LAD000709774
LAD065485I46
NHD007 105380
W00003332I 1
White Sands Mlssfla Range W27502II23S
Stews FE
Mhlte Sands Hlsslla Range (Dona Ana Co.), NH 88002
State ol Oklahow
Basin Refining Inc.
P O Box 918
1001 H Porter Street
Oknulgea (Otaulgee Co ) OK 74447
Chanplln PetroleuM Co
P 0 Box 552
26th & Mil Ion
OKD004998225
OKD0072J4586
PfxJno Huftar
and Contact SUo (acres)
404/261-2137 54
George J«l fares
Sup Engineer
504/778-1234 60
Charles Calllcott
Vice President
504/441-7767 3.6
W. L. Caughoan
Env. Con.
318/797-7550 353
Walter A Klrkpatrlck
Superintendent
504/562-3541 37.3
Jorry Bramar
Sup. A 1 WC
505/325-4508 600 ft.2
Rodney Heath
President
505/722-3833 15
C 0 Shook
Supt of Operation
505/678-5924 3 5
Francis R Gelsel
Col CE
918/756-6600 4
G E Moore
Vice President t
General Manager
405/233-7600 13 4
Bruce Hodgdan
Foreman
Typ* end Industrial Source Additional
Mt. Vut* (t/yr) SIC Doscrlptlon Inlorwtlon
DOOO 165 2911
K048 50.100 4953
K05t 675, K052 350. PIIO 20, 29tl
0001 20, 0001 1000, 0007 1000 2821
0004 .013, 0005 .767, 0006 .005. 4953
0007 .26, 0008 .26, 0009 0015,
0010 .026. Mil .26
K049 501.356, K050 25, K05I 530, 29)1
K052 6 5, PUO 1, 0007 12.450, 2819
0007 700 4463
5171
FOI7 300 gal Ions 349
K050 1, K052 5, K049 2.5, 2911
K05I 250
0008 .06, D009 .0001. DO) 1 0001. 9711
0001 .07. 0002 1 37, 0003 13 85,
0004 16 25
K048 92, K049 2160 2911
K048 834, K049 5004, K05I 625 5, 2911
K052 104
Rollnery
Refuse systems
Refinery
Plastic «at«rlols,
synthetic resins, and
nonvulcanlzabl* •lastcnors
Refuse systaas
Refinery
Sulfur recovery
Marine cargo handling
Potroloua ternlnal
Fabricated Mtal FOI7 Is paint thinner
Refinery
National security
Refinery
Raf Inery
-------
RESIGN VI (centlmiWI
Name
and Address
Conoco Inc. Ponca City
P. 0 Box 1267
1000 S. Pine
Ponca City, (Kay Co.) OK 74601
Dayton Tire 1 Rubber Co.
P. 0 Box 24011
2500 S. Council
Oklahoma City, (Oklahoma Co.) OK 73124
Hudson Refinery
P 0 Box 1111
401 M Maple
Gushing, OK 74023
Kerr McGee Refinery Corp.
P. 0 Box 305
906 S. Panel 1
Wynnevaod, (Garvln Co.) OK 73098
Lee C. Moore Corp.
P 0 Box 216
1105 N. Peorla Ave.
Tulsa, (Tulsa Co.) OK 74101
Sun Petroleum Products Co.
P. 0 Box 2039
1700 S Union
Tulsa, (Tulsa Co ) OK 74102
Texaco USA (Dlv. of Texaco Inc.)
P 0 Box 2389
902 W. 23th Street
Tulsa, (Tulsa Co ) OK 74101
Tosco Corp. - Duncan Refinery
P 0 Box 620
Duncan, (Stephens Co.) OK 73523
Vlckers Petroleum Corp.,
Industrial Add'n
P. 0 Box 188
142 Bypass
Ardmore. (Carter Co-.) OK 73401
State ot Texes
American Petroflna Co of
TX 4 Cosden Oil 4 Chan leal
P. 0 Box 849
Hwy 366 4 32nd Street
Pt Arthur, (Jefferson Co ) TX 77640
Amoco 01 1 Co Land Farm
P 0 Box 401
2401 5th Ave S.
EPA
10 Number
OKD007233836
OW> 000603205
OKD08247I988
OKD000396549
OKD007222I28
OKD 05 8078 775
OKD 990750960
OKD045349982
ONM57705972
TXD065099I60
TXD072IBI38I
Phone Number
and Contact Size (acres)
405/767-3916 38
George O'Brien
Rel. Manager
405/745-3421 16. S
R. K. Raid
Sr. Staff Eng.
918/225-1000 10.7
Ray Russell
•Env. Protection
405/665-4311 32
John Dobson
Hgr. Tech Serv.
918/583-4127 1.49
R. D. Moods
Plant Manager
918/586-7275 120
R. 6. Hawthorn
Ref. Manager
918/584-3863 70
D. M. Cunningham
Plant Manager
405/255-4400 0.5
E. D. Curtis
Wjr. Product Control
405/723-0534 7
1 W. Scrqjgln
Ref Manager
713/962-4421 5.3
Kleth Par-due
Env Coord.
713/945-1151 215
C V Rice
Supt. Env. Cntrl
Type an)
Amt. Waste (t/yr)
K049 342.5; K05I 37.5. DOOI 550
DOOI, FOOI, F002. F003, F005 -
total 1250
Cooling tower sludge 7; K05I 6,
K052 50, WMT sludge 81 , palro.
coke I
K049 780; K050 4, K051 1300;
K052 2300
F003 . 18. DOOI 1.96
D002 2400; K052 23, 0000 550
K049 2300; K050 1 , K05I 250;
K052 1; D007 170
K052 2.5
K049 618 3, K050 2.08, K05I
218.2, K052 1.67, PI 10 .004,
U002 004, (1078 .017, UI33 .004;
U134 .042. UI54 .02. U220 .004,
U239 004, P053 .012, K048 272.8
K048 33,112, K049 5, K050 5,
K05I 5
K048 2350; K049 25, K050 10,
K05I 3500, U002 .5, UOI9 2,
UI54 .5, U220 2, U239 2
Industrial Source Additional
SIC Description Information
2911 Refinery
2869 Ind. organic cnmlcal aux.
3011 Pneumatic ttr« unu.
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
3533 Derricks, oil 1 gas
field substructures &
relate! Itens
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
2819 Sulfur (rod
2911 Refinery
Texas City, (Galveston Co.) TX 77590
-------
REGION VI (continued)
Hand EPA
and Address ID Humber
Arco Petroleum Products Co. TXD0626SB979
Houston Refinery
P. 0 Box 2451
12000 Lawndala
Houston, (Harris Co.) TX 77001
CelanesD Tract K
P 0 Box 937
Pampa, TX 79065
Champl In Petroleum Co. TXD051161990
P 0 Box 9176
1801 Nueces Bay Blvd
Corpus Chrlstl, (Nueces Co.) TX
Coastal States Petroleum Co. TX0008I32268
P 0 Box 521
Cantvell Drive
Corpus Chrlstl, (Nueces Co.) TX 78403
Comlnco American Inc. Canex Operations TX006 17 15302
P 0 Box 5067
FM 1551
Borger, ( Hutch Inson Co ) TX 79007
Cosden Oil
(Subsidiary of Amer Petrol Ina)
Phone Number
«ut Contact Size (acres)
713/475-4507 172
James T. Adams
Hgr. Env. Engr.
606/665-1801 34 74
Brian Hanson
512/882-8871 20
Davis Scharff
Env. Affairs Coord
512/887-4247 388
Kindle Taylor
Env Engineer
806/274-5204 100
Kenneth H. Wright
Manager
915/263-7661 Unavailable
Ted Narln
Type end Industrial Source Additional
Ait. Waste tt/yr) SIC Description Information
K050 6, K05I 1700, K052 I2j 2911
D007 2.5
K05I; K052 2869
K048 3900; K05I 4500, 0007 400 2911
K05I 7598, 0001 6838 1, KOS2 8 37, 2911
DOOI 16.9, 0001 6838 1,
DOOI 37,987 3
0002 31,000, 0007 90,000 2873
WHT sludge, K052 2911
Refinery
Ind. organic Ant of waste Is unknown,
chemicals sine* wastes go to
landfill t LF
Refinery
Ref 1 nery
Nitrogen fertll Izer manu.
Refinery Masts amounts are
unavailable
P 0 Box 2159
Dallas, TX 75221
Location
RefInery Rd
1-20 (F of Big Spgs )
Big Spring, TX
Crown Central Petroleum Corp TXD008091290
P 0 Box 1759
Houston, TX 77001
Location
111 Red Bluff Rd
Pasadena, TX 77506
Exxon Co - TXD00078269B
Baytown Refinery S Chemical
P 0 Box 3950
2800 Decker Dr
Baytown (Harris Co.) TX 77520
Gulf Coast Waste Authority
910 Bay Area Blvd
Houston, TX 77058
Location
loop 197 S
Texas City, TX
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority TXD600835249
P 0 Box 1026
La Marque, (Galveston Co ) TX 77562
713/472-2461 176
G W. Hunson
Sr Env Eng
713/428-3115 40
J E Hendon
Sup Solid Waste
713/488-4115
Charlie Ganze
713/935-4783 80
Robert H Dyer
Fac. Manager
KOSO 9, K049 450, K05I 1250,
P022 0005, PI 10 0005, POI9
0005, P077 0005, U1J3 0005,
UI34 0005. UI54 0005, U188
0005, U2II 0005, U220 0005,
. U239 .0005, 0010 0005
K051 8212 5
K048. K049, K050, K051, K052
total 70
DOOI 4067, 0003 946, 0004 7866,
0007 6228, F003 20, F005 20,
K048 4000, K049 4544, K05I 954,
K052 1015, U054 1266
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
4953 Refuse systems
-------
REGION VI (continued)
Name
and Address
Korr-McGoa Chemical Corp
155 Buckanan Rd.
Texarkana, TX 75501
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Hvy 82 W
Texarkana, (Bowie Co ) TX 75501
Mobil Oil Corp
End of Hurt St.
Boauraont, (Jefferson Co ) TX 77704
Phillips Petroleun
Box 866
Sweeney, TX 77480
Quanox Corp Gul f States Dlv.
P 0 Box 952
Rosenberg, (Ft Bend Co.) TX 77471
Rolchold Chemicals
P 0 Box 9608
Houston, TX 77015
Roman Hire Co
P. 0, Box 1253
Sherman, (Grayson Co ) TX 75090
Shell Oil Co Odessa Refinery
P 0 Box 2352
S Grandvlow St.
Odessa, (Ector Co.) TX 79760
Slgmor Refining Co
P 0 Box 490
Three Rivers, (Live Oak Co ) TX 78071
Southwestern Refining Co. Inc
P 0 Box 9217
Corpus Christ), (Nouces Co.) TX 78408
Sun 01 1 Co of PA
P 0 Box 2608
Sun tide Rd
Corpus Christ), (Nonces Co.) TX 78403
Sweeney Refinery & Petroche*. Ccwpl
1004 Phillips Building
Bartlesvllle, OK 74004
Location
Sf H»y 35 & FM 524
Old Ocean, TX 77463
Texaco Inc
P 0 Box 30110
315 S Grand
EPA
ID Number
TX00571 11403
TX72I382I83!
TX09907977I4
TX00482 10645
TXD000449397
TX000295426I
TXD026896290
TXD990709966
TXD000807859
TXD088474663
TXD04B2 10645
TX0007378995
Phone Number
and Contact Size (acres)
214/794-5169 4
Robert Compton
Manager
214/838-1305 20
Jerry Me II to
Chief Engineer
713/839-3328 54
R 6 Sanders
Manager Conservation
713/647-4431 300
Larry Chiles
713/342-5401 6.8
P. Klrkham
Sup. Eng I Malnt
713/453-5431 2 LF sites
Bob Redd In 1 27 each
214/893-7474 2
Dale Duenslng
General Manager
915/337-5321 81
Dan McNeil), Sr
Process Engineer
512/786-2536 4
Fred Ulenlk
Plant Manager
512/884-8863 319 9
H R Sager
Vice President
512/241-481 1 17
J R. Kaophenkel
Env. Engineer
918/661-5330 300
B F Sal lard
Dlr. Env.
806/374-4691 50
E A Enloe
Plant Manager
Type and Industrial Source Additional
Ant. Waste (t/yr) SIC Description Information
KOOI 9 2491
3483
K048 36,500 2911
K048 2500. K050 39. K051 488, 2911
K052 415, 0001 3.5, 0007 2125,
K049 473, UOI9 1400
K063 168 3317
Phenol formaldehyde glue waste 2821
2869
K062 60 4 30 3496
K05Z 15, K05I 400, 0007 30,500; 2911
0003 4.5, D007 200, 0007 4 5
K05I 1200 2911
K048 132, K049 519 5, K050 1 05, 2911
K05I 323 25, 0007 63 5, FOOI 1.78,
F002 .0003, F003 1.2, F005 ) 96
K05I 3900, K048 3410, K049 70, 2911
K050 2 18} K052 37 5, K087 112.5.
0001 250, FOOI, F003, F004, F005,
PI 10
DOOI 3.5, K048 2500, K05I 488, 2911
K052 415, K050 39, K049 473,
0007 2125, UOI9 1400
K048 185, K049 5 5, K05I 12 5. 2911
K052 5
Wood preservative
Ammunition LF site Is currently
Inactive (7-81)
Refinery
Refinery
Steel plpo & tubing nanu
Plastic materials Haste ant Is unknown
1 resins since waste goes to
Ind organic chemicals different systems.
Hlra prod.
Refinery
Refinery
Refinery
Refinery FOOI, F003, F004, FOOS and
PI 10 go directly to API
separator
Refinery
Refinery
Amarlllo, (Potter Co > TX 79120
-------
I
•25
ll
~
si
1!
•s 2
Is
^
£
1 ll
I |H
5 '
i ' I
1 s
M
M
il
V
§1
S
1
i!
5
he
e?
:1
M
1
1
•g
e
e
J Si1
— M •
K SI —
— —o>
N SR
8
«f
1
§
5
rf
1
S 8
•
SsS si .
Vbi. 7-515
8J'< K°t
gj . gd..
Sc£* K»iS
K S
S in
I i
I §
§
R
s
I
6
i £ 1 S
i * S s
2= 5SP e
six's" l«jf ^c
-If slsster
Id Id 'Sf*
V .^ £ *i- el^S
KO.Q. Sa.b*J(£in
f
L.
' b
a{
o J§
in a,
ss
11
*+•
a.
w >•
s i
3 ••
i 1
i i
1
* s
N 1
s ~
X tn
S
i si
i II
(O
0 |C
CM N
512/364-1246
Frmklln Kelly
Owner
817/838-2346
S g
1 *
_. e
i 1
• ^
•* ^ o
o e u
Mast* Disposal Ctr.
P. 0. Box 109$
SInton, (San Patriot.
Mlniton Refining Co.
P. 0. Box 1508
H.E. 28th I N, Sylva
Ft. Morth, (Tarrant 1
604
-------
REGION VII
Mania
and Address
State of Iowa
Chevron Chemical Co
P 0. Box 282
Ortho Rd
Ft. Mad (sen, (Lee Co.) IA 52627
Landfill Service Corp.
1509 E Hashburn
Waterloo, IA 50703
Stata of Kansas
CRA, Inc
Rural Rt. 2, Box 608
Phllllpsburg, KS 67661 (H. of town)
CRA, Inc
P 0 Box 570
North linden Street
gr, Coffeyvllle, KS 67337
o
(j\ Derby Refining Co.
P. 0 Box 1030
1100 E 21st Street
Wichita, KS 67214
Getty Refining 4 Marketing Co.
P. 0 Box 1121
1401 S Douglas Rd.
El Dorado, KS 67042
Kansas Industrial Waste Facll Ity, Inc.
P. 0. Box 3220
Shawnea, KS 66203
Mobil Oil Corp.
P 0 Box 546
Second & Oak Street
Augusta, KS 67010
Pester Refining Co
P 0 Box 751
El Dorado, KS 67042
Total Petroleum Inc
Box 857
1400 S M Street
Arkansas City, KS 67005
State of Missouri
Amoco Oil Co Sugar Creek Refinery
11400 E Kentucky Rd
Sugar Creek, MO 64054
EPA
10 HiMber
IAD0051 73992
IAD07584BOB5
KS00071 34695
K SO 0071 38605
KSD0006IOS43
KS0007233422
K 50000689950
KSD007235I38
K SO 000829846
KSD0874 18695
HOC 0071 61 425
Phone Number
and Contact Size (acres)
319/372-6012 4
John L. Maler
Fac. Rep.
319/345-6316 16
Cardell Peterson
President
913/543-5246 14
Craven Brent
Ref Supt.
316/251-4000 5
John Prultt
Hgr. Env 1
Safety Sys
316/267-0361 12 66
David Erlckson
Proc. Engr
316/321-2200 6.6
R. B Miller
Pollution Control Olr.
913/631-3300 160
Hark Rosenau
Manager
316/775-6371 4.5
Donald Robinson
Tech. Manager
316/321-9010 3 12
Jla Pierce
Env Control Coord.
316/442-5100 2.0
Leo Relnkemeyer
Ref. Manager
816/252-4800 20
John C. Latnkln
Supt. of Labs
Type and
Ant. Haste (t/yr)
0016 2.5
0001 , 0002, 0003, 0006, 0007.
0008, 0010, FOOI, F002, F006,
F007; F008, F009, F010; F012)
K05I, K049, K048 < total 600
K048, K049 - total 20
K048 14, K049 144, K050 2 5,
K05I 130
K050 3, K05I 750; K052 14,
K048 100. K049 11
K048, K049, K05I , K052, 0000;
0001, 0008
K049 1000; K05I 50; K050 . 1
K049. K050 » total 500; K05I ,
K052, PI 10, U022, U054, UI34
- total 500
K049 5, K05I 50. K052 8,
K050 2, 0008 2.3
K048 1200; K049 275, K050 350;
K05I 8400, K052 80, K05I 6000
Industrial Source
SIC Description
Additional
Informat Ion
2873 Nl trigonous fertilizers
2674 Phosphatlc fertilizers
3471 Plating
2851 Paints 4 allied
products
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
291 1 Ref 1 nery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
291 1 Ref 1 nery
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
Proposed LF
Proposed LF
-------
REGION VII (eontlntwi)
Hone
and Address
Alias Ponder Co., At Ins Plant
P. 0 Dox 67
Jopl In, HO 64601
Kerr HcGoo Oumlcal Corp.
P. 0 Box 2815
2600 M High Stroot
Springfield, HO 69603
Syntax Agribusiness Inc.
P. 0. Bex 1246
555 First Street
Verona, HO 65769
St«t» of Nebraska
Offutt Air Force Basa
3902 ABW/CE
Offutt AFB, NB 68113
EPA Phone tluttar
10 Nurter aid Contact Size (acres)
H00077B97909 417/624-0212 2
G. E. Pollock
Plant Manager
HQD007I29406 417/931-2638 1
C. H. Durban
Superintendent
HOD007452154 4I7/B66-729I 10
Gone Wallace
Group Leader
NE0571 924648 402/294-5500 0.005
Col. Ralph Holtnann
Type anJ
tat. Wast* (t/yrJ
0000 30, 0000 43l 0000 300 Oj
DOOI 2.5. F003 .9
KOOI 1200; KOOI 12
F003 1.5
DOOI .35
Industrie! Source
SIC Description
2892
2873
2491
2869
29
Explosives aanu
Fertilizer
Wood preserving
Organic chenlcals
Petroleum prod.
Additional
Information
-------
RESIGN VIII
Name
and Address
State of Colorado
Colorado State University
Environmental Health Services
Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Gary Refining Co
Rural Area
Frulta, CO 81521
U.S. Army
DFAE Bldg. 304
Ft Carson, CO 80913
State of Montana
Conoco Oil Refinery
P 0. Box 2548
401 S. 23rd*
Billings, HT 59103
Conoco Land farm
P. 0 Box 2548
Alexander Rd.
Billings, MT 59103
Exxon Billings Refinery
P. 0 Box 1163
Billings, HT 59103
Farmers Union Central
Exchange/Cenex
P. 0 Box 909
Hxy. 310
Laurel, MT 59044
General Electric Co
6554 S. Frontage Rd.
Billings, MT 59102
EPA
ID Number
COOOS97I2792
COD0673I5390
C022I0020I50
MT00062 29405
MTD0006I8096
HTDOI 0380574
MTD0062 38083
MTD 06028091 4
Phone Number
and Contact Size (acre*)
305/491-6745 0.25
M. Morrison Summer
303/B5B-98M 140
Lloyd Nordhausen
303/579-4828 250 yds.5
Robert Rottman
406/252-3841 20
R. B. Blcmeyer
406/252-384 1 10
R. 8. Bloneyer
406/657-5361 35
Tim Snug
406/628-4311 10
Mil Ham Starr
406/656-8700 0 25
Dave Johnson
Type ant
Amt. Waste (t/yrt
P037 .005, P05I .005] P07S .005,
POB9 .005, U036 .125, UOSt .005,
U224 .25
FOOI, F003, FOOS, K049, K050,
K051 • total 40
0002 12
K048 1250; KOSI 300
K048 1550; K049 100; KOSO, KOSI
- total 750
K049 1300; K05I 2000; K052 35
K048 43.2, K049 97.2, KOSI 75 6
D002 .75
IndiK
SIC
8221
2911
9711
2911
2911
2911
2911
7699
7694
i trial Source Additional
Oescr Ipt Ion Inf ormat Ion
Blucat Ion
Refinery
National security
Refinery
Ref 1 nery
Refinery
Refinery
Repair & related
services (NEC)
Armature rewind shop
Phillips Great Falls
Petroleum Refinery
1900 10th Street
Block Eagle, HT 59414
HT0000475I94 406/453-4371
R. E. Jones
0001 .5, K048 24. K049 10,
K050 .1, KOSI 5. K052 5
2911 Refinery
State of Utah
Amoco Oil Co. SIC Tank Farm
1700 H 1200 N
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Husky Oil Co of Dolaxore
P 0. Box 175
333 H. Center
North Salt Lake. UT 84054
UTD000626370
801/364-3015
Daniel Drunller
Superintendent
UT0045267I27 801/328-2292
T. Ferris
0001 3, K048 23,000; K049 300;
K050 4, KOSI 6000, KOS2 5
K049 10; KOSO .2, KOSI 75j
KOS2 .25
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
-------
REGION VIII (continued)
llama
and Address
Phillips Potrolou, Woods Cross Refinery
P. 0 Box 196
Woods Cross, UT 84067
Location
»J S' 800 W
W Bountiful, UT 84087
State of Wyoming
Amoco Pipe) Ine Tank Fare)
P. 0 Box 160
Casper, WY 82602
Locat Ion
1 Mile H of Casper Refinery
West of Casper 62602
Husky Oil
P 0 Box 380
Cody, WY 82414
Location
Cheyenne, WY
O Husky Oil Co of Oelaxare
CO P 0. Box 380
Cody, WY 82414
Little America Refining Co. Inc.
P 0. Box 510
Evansvllle, WY 82636
Sinclair Oil Corp
P 0 Box 277
Sinclair, NT 82334
Wyoming Refining Co,
P 0 Box 820
740 W Main Street
Newcastle, WY 82701
EPA
10 Nu*ber
UTDOO 90 90560
WYTOOOOIOI 16
WY00062 30189
WYO 048743009
WYD079959I85
WY0043705I02
Pat Havener
Phone Host or
and Contact Size (acres)
80I/295-2JU t.5
J. Doxoll
307/265-3390 8.5
Lor In Lefeyre
Superintendent
307/578-1445 Unavailable
Donald R. Nafus
307/578-1445 14
Donald R. Nafus
307/265-2800 6
Frank C louse
307/524-3404 600
L Corpuz
307/746-^445 I.I
Type and
A»t. Waste (t/yr)
Industrial Source Additional
SIC Description Inforaatton
DOOO, DOOt, 0002 - total It. 5, 2911 Refinery
F003, F004, F005 » total 2,
K04B, K049, K050, K05I - total 500j
K052 .6, UOI3 25, UI34 50;
PtIO .5, 0004, 0007, 0003 - total 5
DOOI 120; 0007 It. K049 15,
K05I 710
Unavailable
K049 37, K050 45, K05I .9,
K052 .45
K05I 100.5, K052 52.5, K049,
0002 5650
K05I 1 2, K052 130
2911 Refinery
Unavailable
2911 Refinery
K050 2911 Refinery K049 I K050 go directly to
API separator
2911 Refinery
2911 Refinery
-------
REGION IX
Name
and Address
10
EPA
Number
Phone Nunfcer
and Contact
Size
(acres)
Type
Ant
and
Waste
(t/yr)
Industrial Source
SIC Description
Addlt tonal
Inf onuat Ion
State of California
Casual la Disposal
NTU Rd.
Casual I a, (Sta Barbara Co ) CA 93429
CAD02074BI25
805/969^5897
James HcBrlde
Dlr. Tech Services
20 F006 780. F007 1060. F008 780.
F009 780, FOIO IS, K048, K049,
K050, K05I, K052 ' total 380,
K056. K057, K058, K059 - total
10; K062, K063 » total 10, DOOO
61.300, DOOO S6.600, DOOO 1200.
D002 50% DOOO 700; D002 240;
DOOO 500
4953 Refuse system
Chemical Waste Management Inc
P 0. Box 157
Kettleman City, CA 92329
CAT000646II7
209/935-2002
John Market ey
220
Chevron USA
324 W. El Sogunda Blvd.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Environmental Protection Corp.
Eastslde Disposal Far*
3040 19th Street
Baker sf I eld, (Kern Co ) CA 93301
CAD00833690I
CA0030384267
213/322-3450
Norman Leroy
805/327-9681
Mi. H Park
President
520
K048 16,000, K049 2350, K050
2350; K05I 15.000; K052 10,720
DOOI 58,557, DOOI 4, 0004 218,
FOOI 30, F002 64. F003 120; F004
136, F005 215. F006 3200, KOOI
18. K009 8, KOIO 7, KOI6 197.
KOI7 210, KOI8 320, KOI9 211,
K020 195, K022 160; K023 175;
K024 246. K02S 88, K026 194. K027
7. K023 60; K029 70; K030 id;
K06I 205, K063 258. K064 274.
K065 182. K066 307, K067 29. K068
251, K069 257, K072 27) K073 36,
K078 12,000; K079 2300; K08I
2750, K082 85, K083 2. K085 4,
K086 3245, POOS 7, POJO 625, POM
2100. POI8 400. P020 60. P022
29.450; P030 104, P047 4480, P048
5200; P053 9400; P054 10,400;
POM 4500, UOOI 4400, U002 545,
U004 2150; UOI2 2790. UOI9 4275,
U020 2000. U02I 2095, U03I 2790.
U037 2790, U039 2790. U044 3,
U045 2790, U05I 2790, U052 2790.
U056 6. U057 2790, U065 2565;
U066 2620, U067 2760, U068 2790,
U070 3050; U07I 2790, U072 3377.
U075 3000. U076 2790. U077 3377;
U078 4131. U08I 1125, U082 1125,
U092 20. 0104 19, W08 H, UII2
15; UII4 12, UI22 110; UI33 IB,
UI34 10.300, UI35 28, UI40 320,
UI53 3, UI54 98, UI59 1475; UI6I
2768, UI65 2790, UI69 2790, UI82
ItS, Uiae 8900; U220 310; U226
88. 1)227 124, U228 95, U239 200
K04B 4023, K05I 4828, KOS2 612,
cooling toner sludge 66
4953 Refuse syste
2911 Refinery
25 additional acres are
being developed.
Oil su»p sludge 23,400; oil Meld 2911
brine 24,500. drilling fluid
rotary Mud 68,200; tank btms
sediments 14,800. scrubber wastes
80,000; other 30,000
Refinery
-------
REGION IX
KM*
and Address
Environmental Protect lot Cory.
Uestsld* Disposal F«r»
3040 I9tt> Street Suit* 10
Bakorsfletil, (Kent Co.) CA 93 Ml
The Grass Valloy Group, Inc.
13024 Bltney Springs M.
Grass Valley. (Kevada Co.t CA 95945
Hughes Rasaarch Laboratories
3011 Hallbu Canyon M.
Halltau, (Los Angeles Co.) CA 90265
IT Corp. - Benson Ridge Foe.
316 H Anaheim St.
Location
7260 Iky. 29
Ketseyvltle, CA 95457
IT Corp.
Hontezwa Hills
336 U Anahelai St.
CT. Nllinlngtan. CA 90744
i-1 Location
O Hwy. |2
Rio Vista, CA
IT Corp.
336 W. Anaheim St.
Kiln Ing ton. CA 90744
Location
End of Arthur Rd.
Martinez, CA
IT Corp.
336 M Anaheim St
Wilmington, CA 90744
Location
Lake Herman Rd.
Benlcta, CA
IT Transportation Co. - Imperial
336 H Anaheln St.
HIlHlngton, CA 90744
H.P. Disposal Co., Inc.
4506 He lavish Ct.
Bakersfleld, (Kern Co.) CA 93306
Oakland Scavenger Co.
Altamont Landfill
Eng. Dept. 2601 Peralta St.
EPA Phon* Nusfcsr
ID Number tat Contact Size (acres)
CAT0800I028J 809/327-9681 72.43
Mm. H. Park
President
CAD071 557029 916/273-8421 9
Ken Myers
Fee. Manager
CA0041 156969 213/456-6411 0.17
Albert J. Slieon*
Health t Safety
CAD000633289 213/830-1781 3.9
David L. Bauer
Vice President
213/830-1761 13
David Bauer
Vice President
213/850-1781
David Bauer
Vice President
213/830-1781 40
David Bauar
Vice President
CAD000633I64 213/830-1781 450
David L. Bauar
Vice President
CAT000624056 805/393-1151 12.5
Ron Pecarovlch
Pres Ident
CM0800I0770 415/465-2911 75
John S. Sheanan
Chemist
Type wrf
tat. Mast* (t/yr)
Oil suv sludge 40,650; oil field
brine 115,400; drilling fluid
rotary mui 242,500] tanks btas
tad (vents 22,000; scrubber Kastes
2900. other 13,900
F007 3000
K048. K049, K050, DOOO, DOOI,
D002, 0003 - total 60,000
Unavailable
Unavailable
K048, K049, K050, K05I « total
20.000. 0000. DOOI, D002, 0003
- total 20.000
K049 15,000
K049. K050. K051, K052 - total 240
Industrial Source Additional
SIC Description Information
2911
2875
28SI
2969
3662
3679
4993
1389
2911
49
2911
49
2911
49
49
2911
4953
4990
Refinery
Fertilizers
Paints I •Illed (roducts
Ind. organic ch**lcal>
TV Broadcast Equip. Spray disposal
Electronic components LF site Is currently
t accessories Inact Ive (7-81 )
Refuse system
Oil 1 gas services
Refinery
Geothermal energy prod
Refinery LF site Is currently
Geothermal energy Inactive
prod
Re( 1 nery
Geothermal energy
prod.
Geothennal energy 60 acres currently In use.
prod
Refinery
Refuse systea
Ref use col lect Ion &
disposal
CA 94607
Location
10840 Altanont Pass Rd.
Llvernore, CA 94550
-------
REGION IX (continued)
Name EPA
and Address ID Number
Shell Oil Co. CAD009I6402I
Martinez Manu Complex
P. 0. Box 711
Marina Vista Ave.
Martinez (Contra Costa) CA 94553
Slnl Valley Sanitary Landfill CAD990638395
III E. Los Angeles Ava.
Slnl Valley, (Ventura Co.) CA 93065
Union Oil Co. of CA Santa CAT080010796
Maria Refinery
Rt. 3 Box 7600
Arroyo Grahdo, (San Luis Oblspo Co.) CA 95420
Union Oil Co. of CA CA00091 00705
County Rd.
Rodeo, (Contra Costa Co.) CA 94972
sas.
Anderson AFB GU65719995I9
Hq. 43rd Coibat Support Group
N>O San Francisco, CA 96334
Location
Perimeter Rd.
Ylgo, Guam 96912
Phone Numbar
and Contact Slzo (acres)
415/228-6161 15
James Hanson
Staff Engineer
805/659-2130 35
Andy Holguln
Civ. Eng Asst. 2
805/343-1776 2
Jack N. Nest
Manager
415/799-1411 6.4
0. W. Oebusa
EnV Eng. Supv.
366-7101 2
Patrick McReaken
Dep. B Civ, Eng.
Typo and
Ant. Waste (t/yr)
K048. K049, K050, K052 - total
50, K05I 50, 0001 1000, D002
10,000; D003 100; 0017 10,000,
F003. F005 - total 100, F007,
F008. F009, FOIO. FOI 1 - total
FOI5 10
K048. K049. K050, K05I
0001 670; D003 300; K048 1750;
KOJI 230
0000 27
Industrial Source Additional
SIC Description Information
2869 Organic chew leal MUIU. IF site Is cirrently
2911 Refinery Inactive (7-81 )
4953 Refuse system Hydrojoolojlc study
In progress
10;
29 Petroleum prod. IF site Is cirrently
Inactive (7-81 )
2911 Refinery
348 tamui It Ion
-------
REGION X
Na/w EPA
and Address ID Number
State ol Alaik*
HAH Spool al Haste Site, Inc. AKT0400IOI34
HI la 3 Swanson Rlvor Rd.
Sterl Ing, (Kanal PonlmuU Borough) AK 99572
Hailing Address
P.O Box I&60
Soldorna, AK 99609
Phono Number
ond Contact
907/262-4875
Ray O'Docharty
President
Type
Size < acres 1 tat.
w root,
Foia,
007),
UI02,
UI27,
UI44,
UI59,
U172.
U2II,
U225,
POOI,
P037,
UOI2,
U03B,
K052
and
Waste
F002.
U043j
U072,
UII2.
UI32,
UI48,
UI6I,
U188,
U2IB,
U226,
P008,
P09B,
UOI3,
K048,
(t/yr)
F003,
U044,
UOBO)
UII7,
UI33,
UI5I,
UI62,
UI96,
U220,
U227,
P022,
PI05,
U022,
K049,
F005,
U066,
U06I,
UI22|
UI34,
UI54,
UI65,
U201,
U222,
U233,
P030,
U002,
U03I,
K050,
Industrial Sourco Additional
SIC Description Information
FOI7, 4953 Refuse system II acres currently In uso.
U069,
U092,
UI23,
UMO,
UI58,
UI69,
U2IO,
U223,
U239,
P033.
UOIIt
U036,
KOSI,
Stat» of Idaho
OmarK Industries, Inc.
P 0 Box 666
Low I s ton (Nez Porco Co ) ID 03901
IDD00906648I
208/746-2351
James Word
Chief Che«.
6000 ft.2
Clarlflec wasto containing
Pb, HI, Cu. In
3471 Electroplating Ant of waste Is unknown
3482 Snail Arms ^munition
NJ
State of Oregon
Chen-Security System, Inc.
Cedar Springs Rd. (Star Rt.)
Arlington (6111 la* Co 1 OR 97812
CRW69452353
W3/454-2777
Frank Deownt
Site Manager
1.5 K03S 24, K042 6, K043 2, K049
20; KOSt 10, K052 450, K060 45,
P090 60, PI02 6, UOOI 2, U002 5,
DO 19 40, U02I I, U037 6, U039 2,
0044 10, U05I 50, U070 15. U072
5, 1)076 5, 1)077 15, U078 15.
0079 5, U06I 4, UOB2 3, UII2 S,
UI22 120, UI27 I, UMO 5. U154
100, UI59 200, UIB3 2, UI88 750;
U202 I, U2IO 15 U220 50; U239
15, UI34 1000
2911 Refinery
Partially land filled,
partially land farmed
State of Washington
ARCO Petroleum Products Co. HW06954BIS4 206/384-2216
P 0 Box 1127 Richard Ogar
4519 Granvlow Rd Manager Air I
Ferndale (Whatcom Co } HA 90248 Water Control
Boise Cascade/Paper Group W0009052432 509/547-2411
P 0 Box 500 Dennis Ross
Mallula, MA 99363
Mobil Oil Corp. WAD009250366 206/384-1011
P. 0 Box B Cloyce HI I ler
3901 Unlck Rd. Tech Manager
Ferndale, HA 98248
60
50
K049 1000. K050 50, KOSI 1500, 2911 Refinery
K052 875, K087 10
Clarlfler sludge 7,000
2600 Paper products
25 acres currently In use
K049 1400, KOSt 540 K050 IS 2911 Refinery
-------
REGION X (continued)
Nam EPA
and Address ID Hunter
Phillips Pacific Chemical Co. WAD044593226
Gams farm Rd., East End
Flnley, < Ban tern Co ) HA
Prlngle Hanu. Co . Inc. WA008H82457
3301 E Isaacs
Walla Walla (Walla Walla Co.) HA 19362
Shell Oil Co. KA0009275082
P 0 Box 700
Anacortes (Skaglt Co ) MA 98221
Texaco USA (Olv of Texaco, Inc.) HA0009276I97
March's Point. P. 0. Box 622
Anacortes, (Skaglt Co ) WA 98221
Yaklina Firing Center WAB2 14053995
Yak Iran, WA 9890 1
cr>
GJ
Phone Nunber
and Contact Size (acres)
918/661-5350 15.8
B. F. Ballard
Olr. Env Control
509/525-4425 Unaval lable
Hark Warner
Prod Manager
206/293-3111 7.9
R. C Fllcklnger
Env Con BY Manager
206/293-2131 M 5
C. R Ferguson
Plant Manager
206/967-4076 1668
Stephen Miller
Chief OFAE-EECO
Type and Industrial Source Additional
A»t. Wast* (t/yr) SIC Description Infonutlon
D003 26 2875
Fertilizer wmu.
K062 no, D007 1000 Unavailable
«M9 690. K050 20; K05I 330; 2911
K052 1
X049 1660; K050 10; K052 5, 2911
DOOI 1 (tank scale FoS), 0002 20
(acid i caustic tank btns), 0002 20
(Poly catalyst), 0007 450 (xastevater
treating sludge), D007 30 (cooling
toner sludge), 0001 10 (filter clays)
DOOI. 0003 - total 80 97
Refinery
Refinery
National security Disposal of Ignltables
and react Ives
-------
Figure 1. Areal distribution of land treatment facilities.
-------
Table 3. Geographic distribution, by region and state, of the 197 facilities described In the
survey.
Region
Regional Office
Number of facilities
VI
IV
IX
VIII
V
VII
X
II
III
1
Da 1 1 as , Texas
Atlanta, Georgia
San Franc 1 sco , Ca 1 1 f orn 1 a
Denver, Colorado
Chicago, Illinois
Kansas City, Missouri
Seattle, Washington
New York City, New York
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Boston, Massachusetts
58
45
19
18
16
15
12
8
7
0
State or territory
Number of faclIItles
Texas
Cat If orn I a
Lou i sI ana
Oklahoma
Ohio
Alabama
Kansas
Wash Ington
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Montana
North Caro11na
WyomIng
South CarolIna
Missouri
Puerto Rico
Colorado
Illinois
Kentucky
New Mexico
Utah
Arkansas
Indiana
Iowa
New Jersey
Maryland
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Virginia
AI aska
DeI aware
Guam
Idaho
Michigan
Nebraska
29
18
13
11
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
615
-------
Table 3. (continued)
State or territory Number of facilities
New York 1
Oregon 1
Vlrgtn Islands 1
American Samoa 0
Arizona 0
CommonweaIth of the Northern Marianas 0
Connecticut 0
District of Columbia 0
HawatI 0
Maine 0
Massachusetts 0
Nevada 0
New Hampshire 0
North Dakota 0
Rhode Island 0
South Dakota 0
Vermont 0
West Virginia 0
Wisconsin 0
616
-------
Table 4. Industrial classification of land treatment facilties.
SIC Code Region
025
1321
1389
203
2067
222
229
249
2491
2600
2611
2621
2819
2821
2834
2851
2865
2869
Poultry Feed
Natural Gas Proc.
01 1 4 Gas Services
Fruit Processing
Chewing Gum Manu.
Weaving Mills, Synthetics
Misc. Textile Goods
Misc. Wood Products
Wood Preserving
Paper 4 Al 1 led Products
Pulp Mills
Paper Mills
Industrial Inorganic
Chem 1 ca 1 s
Plastics, Materials & Resins
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Paints S. Allied Products
Cycl Ic Crudes 4
1 ntermed I ates
Industrial Organic Chemicals
IV
VI
IX
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
VI
VII
X
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
IV
IV
VII
IX
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
State
Tennessee
Louisiana
Ca 1 1 f orn I a
Florida
Florida
Florida
Georg i a
Maryland
Georgia
North Carolina
South Carol ina
North Carol ina
Alabama
Alabama
Mississippi
Mississippi
Texas
Missouri
Washington
Michigan
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Lou i s I ana
Texas
Texas
Tennessee
Georgia
Iowa
Ca 1 1 f orn i a
Arkansas
Arkansas
Louisiana
Lou i s ! ana
Ok 1 ahoma
Texas
Land farm Fad Ilty
Arapahoe Chemicals Inc.
Gulf Oil Corp.
IT Corp. - Benson Ridge Facility
Ben Hil 1 Griffin, Inc.
Holly Hill Fruit Products Co.
Orange Co. of Florida, Inc.
Wm. Wrlgley, Jr. Co.
Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
Southern Mills Inc. Senola Div.
Finetex Inc. - Southern Olv.
Sandoz Inc. Martin Works
U.S. Industries, Inc.
Brown Wood Preserving Co., Inc.
T. R. Mi 1 ler Co., Inc.
Coppers
Pearl River Wood Preserving Corp.
Kerr-McG«e Chemical Corp.
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
Boise Cascade/Paper Group
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co,
Texaco USA (Div. of Texaco Inc.)
American Petrofina Co. of Texas 4
Cosden Oil & Chemical
Shel 1 Oil Co.
Relchold Chemicals
Union Carbide Corp.
Arapahoe Chemicals Inc.
Glidden C1R Olv. of SCM Corp.
Landfill Service Corp.
En v Ire mental Protection Corp. -
Wests ide Disposal Farm
Arkansas Eastman Co.
Arkansas Eastman Co.
Chevron Chemical Co.
Exxon Co. USA Baton Rouge Refinery
Conoco Inc. Ponca City
Celanese Tract K
617
-------
Table 4. (continued)
SIC Code
Region
2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals VI
(continued)
2873 Nitrogenous Fertilizers
2874 Phosphatlc Fertilizers
2875 Fertilizers, Mixing Only
2879 Agricultural Chemicals
289 Misc. Chemical Products
2892 Explosives
29 Petroleum Production
2911 Petroleum Refinery
Vt
VII
IX
VI
VII
VII
VII
IX
X
IV
IV
IV
IV
VII
IV
IV
VII
IX
II
1
1
1
1
1
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
State
Texas
Texas
Missouri
Cal Jfornia
Texas
Iowa
Missouri
Iowa
Cal Ifornla
Washington
Georg I a (
South Carol Ina
South Carolina
Alabama
Missouri
Alabama
Mississippi
Nebraska
California
New Jersey
New Jersey
Virgin Islands
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Virginia
Alabama
Georgia
Mississippi
Mississippi
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
M 1 nnesota
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Land farm FacI 1 Ity
Retchold Chemicals
Union Carbide Corp.
Syntex Agribusiness Inc.
Shel 1 01 1 Co. - Martinez Manu.
Complex
Comlnco American Inc. Camex
Operations
Chevron Chemical Co.
Atlas Powder Co., Atlas Plant
Chevron Chemical Co.
Environmental Protection Corp. -
Wests I de Disposal Farm
Phillips Pacific Chemical Co.
Union Carbide Agricultural Co. Inc.
Abco Industries Inc.
Carolina Eastman Co. (Div. of Eastman
Kodak)
Hercules, Inc.
Atlas Powder Co., Atlas Plant
Plantation Pipeline Co., HE Facility
Plantation Pipeline Co.
Offutt Air Force Base
Union 01 1 Co. of CA - Santa Maria
Ref 1 nery
Exxon Refinery
Texaco U.S.A.
Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.
Getty Refining & Marketing Co.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Arco Petroleum Products Co.
Amoco 01 1 Co.
Hercules, Inc.
Hunt Oil Co., Tuscaloosa Refinery
Amoco 01 1 Co. Savannah Refinery
Amerada Hess Corp.
Rogers Rental & Landfill - Exxon
Marathon 0 1 1
Indiana Farm Bureau Coop. Assoc.
Rock Island Refining Corp.
Koch Refinery
Fondessey Enterprise LF Site #2
Fondessey Enterprise LF Site #3
Fondessey Enterprise LF Site #4
Gulf Oil Co. U.S.
Sunoco Refinery
Standard 01 1 Co.
Standard Oil Co. (Ohio)
618
-------
Table 4. (continued)
SIC Code Region
2911 Petroleum Refinery VI
(continued)
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
State
Arkansas
Louisiana
Louisiana
Lou 1 s 1 ana
Lou I s I ana
Lou I s I ana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Mew Mexico
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
' Ok 1 ahoma
Oklahoma
Ok 1 ahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma ,
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Kan. is
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Missouri
Land farm Facility
Tosco Corp.
Cities Service Co.
Conoco Inc., Lake Charles Refinery
Exxon Co. U.S.A. Baton Rouge Refinery
Gulf 01 1 Co. - U.S.
Gulf Oil Corp.
Marathon Oil Co. LA Refining OIv.
Murphy 01 1 Corp.
Plantation Pipeline Co.
Shell Oil Co.
Texaco U.S.A. (OIv. of Texaco Inc.)
Shell Oil Co. Inc.
Basin Refining Inc.
Champ 1 1 n Petro 1 eum Co .
Conoco Inc. Ponca City
Hudson Refinery
Keri — McGee Refinery Corp.
Sun Petroleum Products Co.
Texaco U.S.A. (01 v. of Texaco Inc.)
Tosco Corp. - Duncan Refinery
VIckers Petroleum Corp.
American Petrofina Co. of Texas &
Cosden OH 4 Chemical
Amoco 01 1 Co. Land Farm
Arco Petroleum Products Co.
Champ 1 In Petroleum Co.
Coastal States Petroleum Co.
Cosden Oil
C^own Central Petroleum Corp.
Exxon Co. - Baytown Refinery &
Chemical
Gulf Coast Waste Authority
Mob! 1 Oil Corp.
Phi 1 1 ips Petroleum
Shell Oil Co. Odessa Refinery
Slgmor Refining Co.
Southwestern Refining Co. Inc.
Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania
Sweeney Ref I nary i Petrochem. Comp 1 .
Texaco Inc. - Amarillo
Texaco Inc. - Pt. Arthur
Winston Refining Co.
CRA, Inc. - Phllllpsburg
CRA, Inc. - Coffeyvll le
Derby Refining Co.
Getty Refining i Marketing Co.
Kansas Industrial Waste Facility, Inc.
Mob! 1 01 1 Corp.
Pester Refining Co.
Total Petroleum, Inc.
Amoco Oil Co., Sugar Creek Refinery
619
-------
Table 4. (continued)
SIC
2911
2969
3011
3317
3471
348
3483
349
3496
Coda
Petroleum Refinery
(continued)
t
**
Ind. Organic Chemicals
Pneumatic Tire Manu.
Steal Pipe & Tubing Manu.
Plating 4 Pol Ishlng
Ordnance 4 Accessories
Ammunition
Misc. Fabricated
Metal Products
Misc. Fabricated Wire
Products
Region
VI 1
VI 1
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI 1
VI 1
VII
VII
VII
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
X
X
X
X
X
IX
VI
VI
IV
VII
IV
IV
X
X
VI
IV
VI
IV
VI
State
Colorado
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
Utah
Utah
Utah
Wyom 1 ng
Wyoming
Wyom 1 ng
Wyoming
Wyoming
Cal Ifornla
Cal Ifornla
Cal ifornla
Cal Ifornla
Cal Ifornla
Cal Ifornla
Ca 1 1 f orn I a
Ca 1 1 f orn 1 a
Cal Ifornla
Oregon
Washington
Washington
Wash I ngton
Washington
Cal Ifornla
Oklahoma
Texas
North Caro 1 1 na
Iowa
Florida
Kentucky
Guam
Idaho
Texas
Alabama
New Mexico
Georgia
Texas
Land farm FacI 1 Ity
Gary Refining Co.
Conoco Oil Refinery
Conoco Land farm
Exxon Billings Refinery
Farmers Un Ion Centra 1 Exchange/Cenex
Phillips Great Falls
Amoco 01 1 Co. SLC Tank Farm
Husky 01 1 Co. of Delaware
Phi 1 1 Ips Petroleum Woods
Cross Refinery
Amoco Pipeline Tank Farm
Husky 01 1 Co. of Delaware
Little .America Refining Co., Inc.
Sinclair 01 1 Corp.
Wyoming Refining Co.
Chevron U.S.A.
Environmental Protection Corp. -
Easts I de Disposal Farm
Environmental Protection Corp. -
Wests Ide Disposal Farm
IT Corp. - Ben id a
IT Corp. - Martinez
IT Corp. - Montezuma HII Is
IT Transportation Co. - Imperial
Shell Oil Co., Martinez Manu. Complex
Un 1 on 0 II of Ca 1 1 f orn I a
Chem-Securlty Systems, Inc.
Arco Petroleum Products Co.
Mob! 1 Oil Corp.
Shel 1 01 1 Co.
Texaco U.S.A. (OIv. of Texaco. Inc.)
Environmental Protection Corp. -
Wests Ide Disposal Farm
Dayton Tire 4 Rubber Co.
Quanex Corp. Gulf States DIv.
Neuse River Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Landfill Service Corp.
01 In Corp.
Lexington - Blue Grass Depot Activity
Anderson AFB
Omark Industries, Inc.
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Reliable Metal Products, Inc.
Olman Heath Co.
Gilbert 4 Bennett Manu. Corp.
Roman Wire Co.
620
-------
Table 4. (continued)
SIC Code Region
3498
3533
3589
3621
364 1
3662
3679
3743
3999
4441
4463
49
4953
4990
5171
7694
7699
8221
Fabricated Pipe i Fittings
Ot 1 Field Machinery
Service Industry Machinery
Motors & Generators
Electric Lamps
Radio 4 TV Communication
Equipment
Electronic Components
Railroad Equipment
Manufacturing Industries
Marine Terminal
Marine Cargo Handling
Geothermal Energy Production
Refuse Systems
Refuse Col lection & Disposal
Petroleum Terminal
Armature Rewind Shop
Repair & Related Services
Colleges 4 Universities
IV
VI
IV
IV
IV
IV
IX
IV
IX
IV
II
IV
IV
VI
VI
IX
IX
IX
IX
III
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
VI
VI II
VII 1
VI 1 1
State
Florida
Oklahoma
Georgia
South Carol Ina
Mississippi
North Carol Ina
Ca 1 1 f orn i a
Florida
Cal If orn fa
Alabama
New York
Kentucky
Kentucky
Louisiana
Louisiana
Ca 1 1 f orn I a
Cal Ifornla
California
Cal ifornla
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Louisiana
Louisiana
Texas
Texas
Ca 1 1 f orn 1 a
Cal Ifornla
Cal Ifornla
Cal Ifornla
Cal ifornla
Cal Ifornla
Louisiana
Montana
Montana
Co 1 orado
Land farm Faci llty
Armco, Inc.
Lee C. Moore Corp.
General Electric Co.
General Electric Co.
American Bosch Electrical Products
General Electric Co.
The Grass Valley Group, Inc.
Tropical Circuits, Inc.
Hughes Research Laboratories
Evans Transportation Co.
Borden Chemical A&C Division
Borden Chemical A&C
General Electric Co.
Conoco Inc., Lake Charles Refinery
Texaco U.S.A. (Div. of Texaco Inc.)
IT Corp. - Ben Ida
IT Corp. - Montezuma Hll Is
IT Corp. - Martinez
IT Transportation Co. - Imperial
G.R.O.W.S. Inc. Landfl II
Cecos
Rollins Environmental Services
Shreveport Sludge Disposal Facility
Guff Coast Waste Disposal Authority
Waste D 1 sposa 1 Center
Casmalla Disposal
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
IT Corp. - Benson Ridge Facility
M. P. Disposal Co., Inc.
SIml Valley Sanitary Landfill
Oakland Scavenger Co.
Texaco U.S.A. (Div. of Texaco Inc.)
General Electric Co.
General Electric Co.
Colorado State University
621
-------
Table 4. (continued}
SIC Codo
9711 National Security
Region
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
VI
VIII
X
State
At abama
Florida
North Carol Ina
North Caro 1 1 na
South Carol tna
Tennessee
New Mexico
Colorado
Washington
Landfarm Facility
Maxwel 1 AFB
Tynda 1 1 AFB
XVIII Airborne Corps 4 Fort
Seymour Johnson AFB
Shaw AFB
Bragg
McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base
rihlte Sands Missile Range
U.S. Army
Yaklma Firing Center
622
-------
Table 5. Land treatment usage by Industry,*
SIC Code
2911
4953
2869
9711
2491
49
29
348
203
2821
2851
2873
3999
222
229
2819
2875
289
2892
3471
349
3496
3589
3679
025
1321
1389
2067
249
2600
2611
2621
2834
2865
2874
2879
2969
3011
3317
3483
3498
3533
3621
3641
3662
3743
4441
4463
4990
5171
7694
7699
8221
Description
Petroleum Refinery
Refuse Systems
Industrial Organic Chemicals
National Security
Wood Preserving
Geothermal Energy Production
Petroleum Production
Ordnance 4 Accessories
Fruit Processing
Plastics, Materials 4 Resins
Paints 4 Allied Products
N I trogenous Pert 1 1 1 zer s
Manufacturing Industries
Weaving Mills, Synthetics
Misc. Textile Goods
industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Fertilizers, Mixing Only
Misc. Chemical Products
Explosives
Plating 4 Pol Ishlng
Misc. Fabricated Metal Products
Misc. Fabricated Wire Products
Service Industry Machinery
Electronic Components
Poultry Feed
Natural Gas Proc.
01 1 4 Gas Services
Chewing Gum Manu.
Misc. Wood Products
Paper 4 Allied Products
Pulp Mil Is
Paper Mills
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Cyclic Crudes 4 Intermediates
Phosphatic Fertilizers
Agricultural Chemicals
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Pneumatic Tire Manu.
Steel Pipe & Tubing Manu.
Ammunition
Fabricated Pipe 4 Fittings
01 1 Field Machinery
Motors 4 Generators
Electric Lamps
Radio 4 TV Communication Equipment
Ra 1 1 road Eq u I pment
Marine Terminal
Marine Cargo Handling
Refuse Collection & Disposal
Petroleum Terminal
Armature Rewind Shop
Repair 4 Related Services
Colleges 4 Universities
Number of facilities
100
11
9
9
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
In some cases, the land treatment facility handled waste from more than one Industry.
623
-------
ft, IT. is » i-.
« * it H it » liu i! ii ii i» n « s « « ,» H -* ss »
isr ist
I000+
ACREAGE
Fhgure 2. Size distribution of land treatment facilities.
-------
APPENDIX B
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
REGULATED BY THE EPA
Acetaldehyde
(Acetato)phenylmercury
Acetonitrile
3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-
hydroxycoumarin and salts
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acetyl chloride
l-Acetyl-2-thiourea
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Aflatoxins
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Aluminum phosphide
4-Aminobiphenyl
6-Amino-l,la,2,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-
8-[hydroxymethyl]-8a-methoxy-
5-methylcarbamate azirino[2',3':
3,4]pyrrolo[1,2-a]indole-4,7-dione
[ester] [Mitomycin C]
5-[Aminomethyl]-3-isoxazolol
4-Aminopyridine
Amxtrole
Antimony and compounds, N.O.S.*
Aramite
Arsenic and compounds, N.O.S.
Arsenic acid
Arsenic pentoxide
Arsenic trioxide
Auramine
Azaserine
Barium and compounds, N.O.S.
Barium cyanide
Benz[c]acridine
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzene
Benzenearsonic acid
Benzenethiol
Benzidine
Benzo[ajanthracene
Benzo [b!] f luoranthene
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
Benzo[ajpyrene
Benzotrichloride
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium and compounds, N.O.S.
Bis[2-chloroethoxy]methane
Bis[2-chloroethyl]ether
N,N-Bis[2-chloroethyl]-2-naphthyl-
amine
Bis[2-chloroisopropyl] ether
Bis[chloromethyl] ether
Bis[2-ethylhexyl] phthalate
Bromoacetone
Bromomethane
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Brucine
2-Butanone peroxide
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dimtrophenol [ DNBP ]
Cadmium and compounds, N.O.S.
Calcium chromate
Calcium cyanide
Carbon disulfide
Chlorambucil
Chlordane [alpha and gamma isomers]
Chlorinated benzenes, N.O.S.
Chlorinated ethane, N.O.S.
Chlorinated naphthalene, N.O.S.
Chlorinated phenol, N.O.S.
Chloroacetaldehyde
Chloroalkyl ethers
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
1-[p-Chlorobenzoyl]-5-methoxy-2-
methylindole-3-acetic acid
p—Chloro—m—cresol
l-Chloro-2,3-epoxybutane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethyl methyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
1-[o-Chlorophenyl]thiourea
3-Chloropropionitrile
alpha-Chlorotoluene
Chlorotolueo.e, N.O.S.
Chromium and compounds, N.O.S.
Chrysene
625
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
Citrus red No. 2
Copper cyanide
Creosote
Crotonaldehyde
Cyanides [soluble salts and
complexes], N.0.S.
Cyanogen
Cyanogen bromide
Cyanogen chlorxde
Cycasin
2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dxnitrophenol
Cyclophosphamide
Daunomycin
DDD
DDE
DDT
Diallate
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[a,j]acridine
Dibenz[ a, h ]anthracene(Dibenz o[a,h]
anthracene)
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromomethane
Dibromomethane
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dichlorobenzene, N.O.S.
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
trans-1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloroethylene, N.O.S.
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
[2,4-D]
Dichloropropane
Dichlorophenylarsine
1,2-Dichloropropane
Dichloropropanol, N.O.S.
Dichloropropene, N.O.S.
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Diepoxybutane
Diethylarsine
0,0-Diethyl-S-(2-ethylthio)ethyl
ester of phosphorothioic acid
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
0,0-Diethyl-S-methylester
phosphorodithioic acid
0,0-Diethylphosphonc acid, 0-p-
nitrophenyl ester
Diethyl phthalate
0-0-Diethyl-0-(2-pyrazinyl)
phosphorothioate
Diethylstilbestrol
Dihydrosafrole
3,4-Dihydroxy-alpha-(methylamino)-
methyl benzyl alcohol
Di-isopropylfluorophosphate (DFP)
Dimethoate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
p-Dimethylaminoaz obenz ene
7,12-DimethyIbenz[a]anthracene
3,3'-DimethyIbenzidine
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
3,3-Dimethyl-l-(methylthio)-2-
butanone-0-[(methylamino)carbonyl]
oxime
DimethyInitrosoamine
alpha,alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine
2,4-DimethyIpheno1
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrobenzene, N.O.S.
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol and salts
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene Di-n-octyl
phthalate
1,4-Dioxane
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Disulfoton
2,4-Dithiobiuret
Endosulfan
Endrin and metabolites
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl cyanide
Ethylene diamine
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (EBDC)
626
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
Ethyleneimine
Ethylene oxide
Ethylenethiourea
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Fluoranthene
Fluorine
2-Fluoroacetamide
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
Formaldehyde
Glycidylaldehyde
Halomethane, N.O.S.
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide (alpha, beta,
and gamma isomers)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
l,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-l,4,4a,5,
8,8a-hexahydro-l,4:5,8-endo,endo-
dimethanonaphthalene
Hexachlorophene
Hexachloropropene
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate
Hydrazine
Hydrocyanic acid
Hydrogen sulfide
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
lodomethane
Isocyanic acid, methyl ester
Isosafrole
Kepone
Lasiocarpine
Lead and compounds, N.O.S.
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lead subacetate
Maleic anhydride
Malononitrile
Melphalan
Mercury and compounds, N.O.S.
Methapyrilene
Methomyl
2-Methylaziridine
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylene-bis-(2-chloro-
aniline)
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
Methyl hydrazine
2-Methyllactonitrile
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methanesulfonate
2-Methyl-2~(methylthio)propional-
dehyde-o-(methylcarbonyl) oxime
N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguani-
dine
Methyl parathion
Methylthiouracil
Mustard gas
Naphthalene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
l-Naphthyl-2-thiourea
Nickel and compounds, N.O.S.
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Nicotine and salts
Nitric oxide
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen mustard and hydrochloride
salt
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide and
hydrochloride salt
Nitrogen peroxide
Nitrogen tetroxide
Nitroglycerine
4-Nitrophenol
4—Nitroquinoline-1—oxide
Nitrosamine, N.O.S.
N-Nitrosodi-N-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitros odimethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N—Nitrosodi—N-propylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nit ros o-N-methylu rea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N—NitrosomethyIvinylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
627
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
N-Nitrososarcosine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide
Oleyl alcohol condensed with 2 moles
ethylene oxide
Osmium tetroxide
7-Oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane-2,3-
dicarboxylic acid
Parathion
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Pentacholorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenol
Phenyl dichloroarsine
Phenylmercury acetate
N-Phenylthiourea
Phosgene
Phosphine
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl
ester, 0-ester with N,N-dimethyl
benzene sulfonamide
Phthalic acid esters, N.O.S.
Phthalic anhydride
Polychlorinated biphenyl, N.O.S.
Potassium cyanide
Potassium silver cyanide
Pronamide
1,2-Propanediol
1,3-Propane sultone
Propionitrile
Propylthiouracil
2-Propyn-l-ol
Pryidine
Reserpine
Saccharin
Safrole
Selenious acid
Selenium and compounds, N.O.S.
Selenium sulfide
Selenourea
Silver and compounds, N.O.S.
Silver cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Streptozotocin
Strontium sulfide
Strychnine and salts
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
Tetrachloroethane, N.O.S.
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloro-
ethylene)
Tetrachloromethane
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Tetraethyl lead
Tetraethylpyrophosphate
Thallium and compounds, N.O.S.
Thallic oxide
Thallium (I) acetate
Thallium (I) carbonate
Thallium (I) chloride
Thallium (I) nitrate
Thallium selenite
Thallium (I) sulfate
Thioacetamide
Thiosemicarbazide
Thiourea
Thiuram
Toluene
Toluene diamine
o-Toluidine hydrochloride
Tolylene dusocyanate
Toxaphene
Tribromomethane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene)
Trichloromethanethiol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4,5-T)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic
acid (2,4,5-TP) (Silvex)
Trichloropropane, N.O.S.
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
0,0,0-Triethyl phosphorothioate
Trinitrobenzene
Tris(l-azridinyl)phosphine sulfide
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
628
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
Trypan blue
Uracil mustard
Urethane
Vanadic acid, ammonium salt
Vanadium pentoxide (dust)
Vinyl chloride
Vinylidene chloride
Zinc cyanide
Zinc phosphide
629
-------
APPENDIX B REFERENCE
EPA. 1980. Identification and Ixsting of hazardous waste. Part 261. Federal
Register Vol. 45, No. 98. pp. 33132-33133. May 19, 1980.
630
-------
APPENDIX C
SOIL HORIZONS AND LAYERS
Organic Horizons
0—Organic horizons of mineral soils. Horizons: (1) formed or forming in
the upper part of mineral soils above the mineral part; (2) dominated
by fresh or partly decomposed organic material; and (3) containing more
than 30 percent organic matter if the mineral fraction is more than 50
percent clay, or more than 20 percent organic matter if the mineral
fraction has no clay. Intermediate clay content requires proportional
organic-matter content.
01—Organic horizons in which essentially the original form of most vegeta-
tive matter is visible to the naked eye.
02—Organic horizons in which the original form of most plant or animal
matter cannot be recognized with the naked eye.
Mineral Horizons and Layers
Mineral horizons contain less than 30 percent organic matter if the
mineral fraction contains more than 50 percent clay or less than 20 percent
organic matter if the mineral fraction has no clay. Intermediate clay con-
tent requires proportional content of organic matter.
A—Mineral horizons consisting of: (1) horizons of organic-matter accumu-
lation formed or forming at or adjacent to the surface, (2) horizons
that have lost clay, iron, or aluminum with resultant concentration of
quartz or other resistant minerals of sand or silt size; or (3) hori-
zons dominated by 1 or 2 above but transitional to an underlying B or
C.
Al—Mineral horizons, formed or forming at or adjacent to the surface, in
which the feature emphasized is an accumulation of humified organic
matter intimately associated with the mineral fraction.
A2—Mineral horizons in which the feature emphasized is loss of clay, iron,
or aluminum, with resultant concentration of quartz or other resistant
minerals in sand and silt sizes.
A3—A transitional horizon between A and B, and dominated by properties
characteristic of an overlying Al or A2 but having some subordinate
properties of an underlying B.
631
-------
AB—A horizon transitional between A and B, having an upper part domxnated
by properties of A and a lower part dominated by properties of B, and
the two parts cannot conveniently be separated into A3 and Bl.
A&B—Horizons that would qualify for A2 except for included parts consti-
tuting less than 50 percent of the volume that would qualify as B.
AC—A horizon transitional between A and C, having subordinate properties
of both A and C, but not dominated by properties characteristic of
either A or C.
B—Horizons in which the dominant feature or features is one or more of
the following: (1) an illuvial concentration of silicate clay, iron,
aluminum, or humus, alone or in combination; (2) a residual concentra-
tion of sesquioxides or silicate clays, alone or mixed, that has formed
by means other than solution and removal of carbonates or more soluble
salts; (3) coatings of sesquioxides adequate to give conpicuously
darker, stronger, or redder colors than overlying and underlying hori-
zons in the same sequum but without apparent illuviation of iron and
not genetically related to B horizons that meet requirements of 1 or 2
in the same sequum; or (4) an alteration of material from its original
condition in sequuras lacking conditions defined in 1, 2, and 3 that
obliterates original rock structure, that forms silicate clays, libera-
tes oxides, or both, and that forms granular, blocky, or prismatic
structure if textures are such that volume changes accompany changes in
moisture.
Bl—A transitional horizon between B and Al or between B and A2 in which
the horizon is dominated by properties of an underlying B2 but has some
subordinate properties of an overlying Al or A2.
B&A—Any horizon qualifying as B in more than 50 percent of its volume
including parts that qualify as A2.
B2—That part of the B horizon where the properties on which the B is based
are without clearly expressed subordinate characteristics indicating
that the horizon is transitional in an adjacent overlying A or an adja-
cent underlying C or R.
B3—A transitional horizon between B and C or R in which the properties
diagnostic of an overlying B2 are clearly expressed but are associated
with clearly expressed properties characteristics of C or R.
C—A mineral horizon or layer, excluding bedrock, that is either like or
unlike the material from which the solum is presumed to have formed,
relatively little affected by pedogenic processes, and lacking proper-
ties diagnostic of A or B but including materials modified by. (1)
weathering outside the zone of major biological activity, (2) reversi-
ble cementation, development of brittleness, development of high bulb
density, and other properties characteristic of fragipans; (3) gleying,
(4) accumulation of calcium or magnesium carbonate or more soluble
salts; (5) cementation by such accumulations as calcium or magnesium
632
-------
carbonate or more soluble salts; of (6) cementation by alkali-soluble
siliceous material or by iron and silica.
R—Underlying consolidated bedrock, such as granite, sandstone, or lime-
stone. If presumed to be like the parent rock from which the adjacent
overlying layer or horizon was formed, the symbol R is used alone. If
alone. If presumed to be unlike the overlying material, the R is pre-
ceded by a Roman numeral denoting lithologic discontinuity as explained
under the heading.
SYMBOLS USED TO INDICATE DEPARTURES SUBORDINATE
TO THOSE INDICATED BY CAPITAL LETTERS
The following symbols are to be used in the manner indicated under the
heading Conventions Governing Use of Symbols.
b—Buried soil horizon
ca—An accumulation of carbonates of alkaline earths, commonly of calcium.
es—An accumulation of calcium sulfate.
en—Accumulations of concretions or hard nonconcretionary nodules enriched
in sesquioxides with or without phosphorus.
f—Frozen soil
g—Strong gleying
h—Illuvial humus
ir—Illuvial iron
m—Strong cementation, induration
p—Plowing or other disturbance
sa—An accumulation of salts more soluble than calcium sulfate
si—Cementation by siliceous material, soluble in alkali. This symbol is
applied only to C.
t—Illuvial clay
633
-------
APPENDIX C REFERENCE
USDA. 1975. Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. Agricultural Handbook No. 436.
754 pp.
634
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRIAL LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS CITED IN THE LITERATURE
A variety of experiences with land treatment of industrial wastes have
been reported in the literature. No attempt was made to to verify whether
the reported wastes were classified as hazardous, however, the list ex-
cludes references to wastes which were identified as likely to be non-
hazardous .
Industry
References
Textile (SIC 22)
Industrial Wastewater
Industrial Wastewater
Wool Preserving
Wool Scouring
Lumber (SIC 24)
Wood Distillation
Pulp and Paper (SIC 26)
Pulpmill
Pulpmill
Pulpmill
Pulpmill
Pulpmill
Pulpmill
Papermill
Papermill
Papermill
Papermill
Papermill
Papermill
Papermill
Hard Board
Paper Board
Straw Board
Insulated Board
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sayapin (1978)
Wallace (1976)
Wallace (1976)
Wadleigh (1968)
Hickerson and McMahon (1960)
Wadleigh (1968)
Hayman (1978)
Watterson (1971)
Blosser and Owens (1964)
Kadamki (1971)
Flower (1969)
Vercher et al. (1965)
Jorgenson (1965)
Dolar et al. (1972)
Das and Jena (1973)
Aspitarte et al. (1973)
Wallace (1976)
Hayman (1978)
Parsons (1967)
Koch and Bloodgood (1959)
Meighan (1958)
Phillip (1971)
Crawford (1958)
Wisniewski et al. (1955)
Billings (1958)
Blosser and Owens (1964)
Gellman and Blosser (1959)
Kolar (1965)
Kolar and Mitiska (1965)
Hashimoto (1966)
Yokota and Hashimoto (1966)
Pasak (1969)
Yakushenko et al. (1971)
Minami and Taniguchi (1971)
635
-------
APPENDIX D (continued)
Industry
References
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Sulfite Pulp Mill
Kraft (sulfate)
Kraft (sulfate)
Kraft (sulfate)
Semi-Chemical
Drinking
Not Specified (saline)
Other Inorganic Chemicals (SIC 2819)
Waste Sulfuric Acid
Chemicals (SIC 282-289)
Biological Chemical
PCB
PCS
PCB
Pharmaceuticals (SIC 283)
Mycelial Waste
Fermentation
Antibiotic Production
High Nitrogen Industrial Wastewater
High Nitrogen Industrial Wastewater
High Nitrogen Industrial Wastewater
High Nitrogen Industrial Wastewater
Explosives (SIC 2892)
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Ref inery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-De comp
Ref inery-De comp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Refinery-Decomp
Ref inery-Decomp
(SIC 2911) and
(SIC 2992)
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
. of Oily Waste
of Oily Waste
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
in Soil
Knowles et al. (1974)
Flaig and Sochtig (1974)
Blosser and Owens (1964)
Crawford (1958)
Wallace et al. (1975)
Voights (1955)
Flower (1969)
Hayman (1979)
Wallace (1977)
Shevstova et al. (1969)
Woodley (1968)
Griffin et al. (1978)
Tucker et al. (1975)
Griffin et al. (1977)
Nelson (1977)
Colovos and Tinklenberg (1962)
Uhliar and Bucko (1974)
Brown (1976)
Wallace (1976)
Deroo (1975)
Woodley (1968)
Lever (1966)
Jensen (1958)
Grove (1978)
Dhillon (1973)
Dotson et al. (1971)
Franke and Clark (1974)
Jobson et al. (1974)
Kincannon (1972)
Lewis (1977)
Maunder and Waid (1973)
Giddens (1974)
Nissen (1970)
Plice (1948)
Raymond et al. (1975)
Raymond et al. (1976)
Ongerth (1975)
636
-------
APPENDIX D (continued)
Industry
References
Refinery-Decomp. of Oily Waste in Soil
Refinery-Decomp. of Oily Waste in Soil
Refinery-Decomp. of Oily Waste in Soil
Tank Bottom
Refinery Wastes: Biosludge, Tank
Bottoms, API Separator Sludge
Refinery Waste
Refinery Waste
Refinery (1) Tank Bottom Crude
(2) Slop Oil Immulsion
(3) API Separator Sludge
(4) Drilling Mud
(5) Cleaning Residue
Leather Tanning and Finishing (SIC 3111)
Leather
Leather
Leather
Leather
Leather
Leather
Tanning
Tanning
Tanning
Tanning
Tanning
Tanning
and Finishing
and Finishing
and Finishing
and Finishing
and Finishing
and Finishing
Blast Furnace Slag (SIC 3312) Steel
Primary Aluminum Smelting (SIC 3334)
Waste Oil from Aluminum Manufacturing
Electricity Production (SIC 4911)
Utility Waste
Fly Ash
Fly Ash
Fly Ash
Fly Ash
Dibble and Bartha (1979)
Knowlton and Rucker (1978)
Baker (1978)
Cansfield and Racz (1978)
Cresswell (1977)
Akoun (1978)
Huddleston (1979)
Lewis (1977)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Parker (1965)
Parker (1967)
Jansky (1961)
Wallace (1976)
S.C.S. Engineers (1976)
Volk et al. (1952)
Ongerth (1975)
Neal et al. (1976)
Page et al. (1977)
Martens (1971)
Plank and Martens (1974)
Plank et al. (1975)
Schnappinger et al. (1975)
637
-------
APPENDIX D REFERENCES
Akoun, G. L. 1978. Hydrocarbon residues biodegradation in the soil. Study
conducted by: Esso Saf, Shell Francaise, and Inra Rouen.
Aspitarte, T. R. , A. S. Rosenfeld, B. C. Sarnie and H. R. Amberg. 1973. Pulp
and paper mill sludge disposal and crop production. Tech. Assoc. Pulp Pap.
Ind. 56:140-144.
Baker, D. A. 1978. Petroleum processing wastes, p. 1269-1270 In J. Water
Poll. Control Fed. June 1978.
Billings, R. M. 1958. Stream improvement through spray disposal of sulfite
liquor at the Kimberly-Clark Corp., Proc. of the 13th Industrial Waste Con-
ference. Purdue Univ. 96:71.
Blosser, R. 0., and E. L. Owens. 1964. Irrigation and land disposal of pulp
mill effluent. Water and Sewage Works 3: 424-432.
Brown, G. E. 1976. Land application of high nitrogen industrial waste
water. In Water - 1976 II biological waste water treatment. ALCHE symposium
series. 73(167):227-232.
Cansfield, P. E., and G. J. Racz. 1978. Degradation of hydrocarbon sludges
in the soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 58:339-345.
Colovos, G. C., and N. Tinklenberg. 1962. Land disposal of pharmaceutical
manufacturing wastes. Biotech. Bioengr. 4:153-160.
Crawford, S. C. 1958. Spray irrigation of certain sulfite pulp mill wastes.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes 30(10):1266-1272.
Cresswell, L. W. 1977. The fate of petroleum in a soil environment. Pro-
ceedings of 1977 Oil Spill Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana. March 8-10.
p. 479-482.
Das, R. C., and M. K. Jena. 1973. Studies on the effect of soil application
of molybdenum, boron and paper mill sludge on the post harvest qualities of
potato tuber (Solanum Tuberosum L.) Madras Agr. J. 60 (8):1026-1029.
Deroo, H. C. 1975. Agricultural and horticultural utilization of fermenta-
tion residues. Connecticut Agr. Exp. Sta. New Haven, Connecticut. Bull.
750.
Dhillon, G. S. 1973. Land disposal of refinery wastes. Environmental Devel-
opment, Bethel Corp. San Francisco, California.
Dibble, J. T. and R. Bartha. 1979. Leaching aspects of oil sludge biodegra-
dation in soil. Soil Science 0038-075 x/79 p. 365-370.
638
-------
Dolar, S. G. , J. R. Boyle, and D. R. Kenny. 1972. Paper mill sludge dispo-
sal on soils: effects on the yield and mineral nutrition of oats (Avena
Satival). J. Environ. Qual. (4) 405-409.
Dotson, G. K. , R. B. Dean, B. A. Kenner, and W. B. Cooke. 1971.
spreading, a conserving and non-polluting method of disposing of oily
wastes. Proc. of the 5th Int. Water Poll. Conference. Vol. 1 Sec. II.
36/1-36/15.
Flaig, W. , and H. Sochtig. 1974. Utilization of sulphite waste of the cel-
lulous industry as an organic nitrogen fertilizer. Netherlands J. of Agr .
Sci. 22 (4): 255-261.
Flower, W. A. 1969. Spray irrigation for the disposal of effluents contain-
ing deinking wastes." Tech. Assoc. Pulp Pap. Ind. 52:1267.
Francke, H. C. , and F. E. Clark. 1974. Disposal of oily waste by microbial
assimilation. Union Carbide, Doc Y-1934. May 16. Prepared by U. S. Atomic
Energy Commission.
Gellman, I., and R. 0. Blosser. 1959. Disposal of pulp and paper mill waste
by land application and irrigation use. Proc. of the 14th Industrial Waste
Conference. Purdue Univ. 104:479.
Giddens, P. H. 1974. The early petroleum industry. Porcupine Press, Phila-
delphia, 1950. 195 p.
Griffin, R. , R. Clark, M. Lee and E. Chain. 1978. Disposal and removal of
polychlorinated biphenyls in soil. Proc. of the Fourth Annual Research Sym-
posium. August. EPA-600 9/78-016. p. 169-181.
Griffin, R. A., F. B. Bewalle, E.S.K. Chain, J. H. Kim, and A. K. Au. 1977.
Attentuation of PCBs by soil materials and char wastes, p. 208-217. In S.
K. Banerji (ed.) Management of gas and leachate in landfills. Ecological
research series, EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 600/9-77-026.
Grove, G. W. 1978. Use land farming for oily waste disposal. Hydrocarbon
Processing. May. p. 138-140.
Hashimoto, T. Y. 1966. Edaphological studies on the utilization of waste-
pulp liquor. 2. Effects of the liquor on the absorption of nutrient ele-
ments by crops. J. Sci. Soil Manure Tokyo 37 223-225; J. Soil Sci. PI.
Nutr. 12 (3) 39.
Hayman, J. P. 1978. Land disposal of mineralised effluent from a pulp and
paper mill. In Progress in water technology. Vol. 9, No. 4.
Hayman, J. P., and L. Smith. 1979. Disposal of saline effluent by con-
trolled-spray irrigation. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 51(3)- 526-533.
Hickerson, R. D., and E. K. McMahon. 1960. Spray irrigation of wood distil-
lation wastes. J. Water Poll. Control. Fed. 32(55).
639
-------
Huddleston, R. L. 1979. Solid waste disposal- landfarming. Chemical Engi-
neering. February 26. p. 119-124.
Jansky, K. 1961. Tannery-waste water disposal. Kozarstvi 2:327-329, 355-
360.
Jensen, V. 1958. Decomposition of oily wastes in soil. Dept. of Microbiol-
ogy and Microbial Ecology Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.
Copenhagen, Denmark. Rolishedsvej 21.
Jobson, A., Mclaughlin, F. D. Cook, and D.W.S. Westlake. 1974. Effects of
amendments on microbial Inc. utilisation of oil applied to soil. Appl.
Microbiol. 27(1):166-171.
Jorgensen, J. R. 1965. Irrigation of slash pine with paper mill effluents.
Bull. La. State Univ. Division of Engineering Res. No. 80. p. 92-99.
Kadamki, K. 1971. Accumulation of sodium in potted soil irrigated with
pulpmill effluents. Consultant 16: 93-94.
Kincannon, C. B. 1972. Oily waste disposal by soil cultivation process.
EPA. EPA-R2-72-110.
Knowles, R., R. Neufild and S. Simpson. 1974. Acetylene reduction nitrogen
fixation by pulp and paper mill effluent and by klebsiella isolated from
effluents and environmental situations. Appl. Microbiol. 28 (4):608-613.
Knowlton, H. E., and J. E. Rucker. 1978. Land farming shows promise for
refinery waste disposal. Oil and Gas Journal, May 14. p. 108-116.
Koch, H. C. , and D. E. Bloodgood. 1959. Experimental spray irrigation of
paper board mill wastes. Sew. Ind. Wastes 31:827.
Kolar, L. 1965. Alteration of moisture properties of soil and technical
soil constants by application of waste waters from cellulose works. Rada.
3 (5):91-95.
Kolar, L., and J. Mitiska. 1965. The influence of the presence of sulphide
waste liquor in irrigation water on the biological, chemical and physico-
chemical conditions of the soil. Budejovic. 3 (4):11-20.
Lever, N. A. 1966. Disposal of nitrogenous liquid effluent from irndder
fontein dynamite factory. Proc. of the 21st Industrial Waste Conference.
Purdue University 121:902.
Lewis, R. S. 1977. Sludge farming of refinery wastes as practiced at
Exxon's Bayway refinery and chemical plant. Proceedings of the National
Conference on Disposal of Residues on Land. Information Transfer, Inc.
Rockville, Maryland, p. 87-92.
640
-------
Martens, D. G. 1971. Availability of plant nutrients in fly ash. Compost.
Sci. 12:15-19.
Maunder, B. R.» and J. S. Waid. 1973. Disposal of waste oil by land spread-
ing. Proceedings of the Pollution Research Conference. Wairakei, New Zea-
land. June 20-21.
Meighan, A. D. 1958. Experimental spray irrigation of straw board wastes.
Proc. of the 13th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue University 96:456.
Minami, M., and T. Taniguchi. 1971. Effects of water pollution on the
growth and yield of rice plants. 1. Effects of waste water from a pulp fac-
tory. Hokkaido Perfectual Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 24. p.
56-68.
Neal, D. M., R. L. Glover and P. G. Moe. 1976. Land disposal of oily waste
water by means of spray irrigation. Proc. of the 1976 Cornell Agr. Waste
Management Conference. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ. Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan, p.
757-767.
Nelson, D. 1977. Laboratory and field scale investigation of mycelial waste
decomposition in the soil environment. Presented to the Soc. for Industrial
Microbiology meeting. Michigan State Univ. East Lansing, Michigan. Aug.
1977.
Nissen, T. V. 1970. Biological degradation of hydrocarbons with special
reference to soil contamination. Tidssk 2 PI. Arl. 74:391-405.
Ongerth, J. E. 1975. Feasibility studies from land disposal of a dilute
oily waste water. To be presented at the 30th Industrial Waste Conference.
Purdue Univ.
Page, A. L., F. T. Bingham, L. J. Lund, G. R. Bradford, and A. A. Elseewi.
1977. Consequences of trace element enrichment of soils and vegetation
from the combustion of fuels used in power generation. SCE research and
development series 77-RD-29. Rosemead, California.
Parker, R. R. 1965. Spray irrigation for industrial waste disposal. Cana-
dian Municipal Utilities 103:7:28-32.
Parker, R. R. 1967. Disposal of tannery wastes. Proc. of the 22nd Indus-
trial Waste Conference. Purdue Univ. 129:36.
Parsons, W. 1967. Spray irrigation from the manufacture of hard board.
Proc. of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue Univ. p. 602-607.
Pasak, V. 1969. Sulphite waste liquor for protecting soil against wind ero-
sion. Ved. Prace Vyskum. UST. Melior. 10:143-148.
Philipp, A. H. 1971. Disposal of insulation board mill effluent by land
irrigation. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 43:1749.
641
-------
Plank, C. 0., and D. C. Martens. 1974. Boron availability as influenced by
application of fly ash to soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Proc. 38:974-977.
Plank, C. 0., D. C. Martens, and D. L. Hallock. 1975. Effects of soil
application of fly ash on chemical composition and yield of corn (Zea Mays
L.) and on chemical composition of displaced soil solutions. Plant Soil
42:465-476.
Plice, M. J. 1948. Some effects of crude petroleum on soil fertility.
Proc. of The Soil Sci. Soc. 13:412-416.
Raymond, R. L., J. 0. Hudson, and V. W. Jamison. 1976. Oil degradation in
soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 31:522-535.
Raymond, R. L., J. 0. Hudson, and V. W. Jamison. 1975. Assimilation of oil
by soil bacteria, refinery solid waste proposal. Proc. 40th Mid-Year
Meeting, API. May 14. p. 2.
Sayapin, V. P. 1978. Nutrition value of fodder harmlessness of plant output
grown with textile industry waste water irrigation. Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory. Draft Translation 671.
Schnappinger, M. G., Jr., D. C. Martens, and C. 0. Plank. 1975. Zinc
availability as influenced «by application of fly ash to soil. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 9:258-261.
S.C.S. Engineers. 1976. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste practices
- leather tanning and finishing industry. NTIS PB 261018.
Shevtsova, I. I.,; V. K. Marinich; and S. M. Neigauz. 1969. Effects waste
water from capron production on higher plants and soil micro-organisms.
Biol. Nauk. (4):91-94. Chem. Abstr. 71.
Tucker, E. S., W. J. latschg, and W. M. Mees. 1975. Migration of poly-
chlorinated biphenyls in soil induced by percolating water. Bull. Envi-
ron. Contam. Toxicol. 13:86-93.
Uhliar, J., and M. Bucko. 1974. The use of industrial wastes for anti-
biotic production in crop production. Rostlinna Vyroba 20 (9):923-930.
Vercher, B. D., M. B. Sturgis, and 0. 0. Curtis. 1965. Paper mill waste
water for crop irrigation and its effect on the soil. Bull. La. Agr. Exp.
Stat. No. 604. p. 46.
Voights, D. 1955. Lagooning and spray disposal of neutral sulfite semi-
chemical pulp mill liquors. Proc. of the 10th Industrial Waste Conference.
Purdue Univ. 89:497.
Volk, G. W., R. B. Harding, and C. E. Evans. 1952. A comparison of blast
furnace slag and limestone as a soil amendment. Res. Bull. 708, Ohio Agr.
Exp. Sta., Columbus, Ohio.
642
-------
Wadleigh, Cecil H. 1968. Wastes in relation to agriculture and forestry.
USDA. Washington, B.C. Misc. Publication 1065.
Wallace, A. T. 1976. Land disposal of liquid industrial wastes, p. 147-162.
In R. L. Sanks and Asano (ed.) Land treatment and disposal of municipal and
industrial wastewater. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc. Ann Arbor, Mich-
igan.
Wallace, A. T. 1977. Massive sulfur application to highly calcareous
agricultural soil as a sink for waste sulfur. Res. 2:263-267.
Wallace, A. T., R. Luoma, and M. Olson. 1975. Studies of the feasibility of
a rapid infiltration system for disposal of Kraft Mill effluent. To be pre-
sented at the 30th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue Univ.
Watterson, K. G. 1971. Water quality in relation to fertilization and pulp
mill effluent disposal. Consultant 16:91-92.
Wisniewski, T. K., A. J. Wiley, and B. J. Lueck. 1955. Ponding and soil
infiltration for disposal of spent sulphite liquor in Wisconsin. Proc. of
the 10th Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue Univ. 89:480.
Woodley, R. A. 1968. Spray irrigation of organic chemical wastes. Proc.
of the 23rd Industrial Waste Conference. Purdue Univ. Lafayette, Indiana.
132:251-261.
Yakushenko, I. K., I. Y. Kazantsev, and V. G. Ovsyannikova. 1971. Waste
sulphite liquors of the cellulous industry and their use for irrigation.
Vest. Sel'- Khoz. Nauki. Mosk 1:87-92.
Yokota, H., and T. Hashimoto. 1966. Bdaphological studies on the utiliza-
tion of waste pulp liquor. 3. Effects of the liquor on phosphorus fixa-
tion. J. Sci. Soil Manure, Tokyo 37.294-297; J. Soil Sci. PI. Nutr. 12
(4):40.
643
-------
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
In order to illustrate the interpretation of data from the site
assessment, waste analysis and pilot studies, sample calculations and
design recommendations are given for a hypothetical land treatment unit and
a given waste. The components of the waste are considered individually and
compared to determine the application limiting constituents (ALC), rate
limiting constituent (RLC) and capacity limiting constituent (CLC). The
assumptions and calculations used in the design of the HWLT unit are
discussed in detail in Section 7.5. The required treatment area size and
the useful life of the HWLT unit are then calculated for the example waste
(Appendix E-7). Additionally, an example of water balance determinations
and runoff retention pond sizing is presented.
644
-------
APPENDIX E-l
WATER BALANCE AND RETENTION POND SIZE CALCULATIONS
As discussed in Section 8.3.1.1 the water balance method can be used
to evaluate hydraulic load and required storage for surface runoff. This
is a very simplified approach to calculating the water balance and conserv-
ative values should be used to guard against any inaccuracy in parameter
estimates used in the method. The value used in these calculations for
discharge can be varied to account for the method of runoff water control,
in this case the storage volume calculated includes the seasonal accumula-
tion of water.
Initially, climatological data or estimates should be made for the
parameters in the water balance. Precipitation values are derived from the
long-term rainfall data collected at a nearby weather station, chosen
according to the criteria given in Section 3.3. Estimates of the
evapotranspiration can be obtained by using the class A pan evaporation
value for each month (Figs. 8.9-8.20 show monthly pan evaporation data for
the U.S.). This value is then multiplied by an appropriate annual pan
evaporation coefficient. These coefficients are used to relate pan data to
evaporation expected from lakes. An estimation of the amount of leachate
may be calculated based on the hydraulic conductivity of the most
restrictive layer as reported in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil
series description ("blue sheets") or, preferably, as measured for the
soil. The actual leaching may be only 10-15% of that listed by SCS data
yet to maintain a liberal estimate of runoff, leachate should be set at
zero since waste application may affect the soil permeability. The depth
of water applied monthly in the waste is calculated from water content of
the waste, waste production rate, and total area of the land treatment unit
watershed. In this example it is assumed that waste quality and quantity
are relatively constant, but if it is known that these assumptions are
false, monthly estimates will vary and can be ascertained from a more
detailed accounting of the waste stream. For this example, water content
of the waste is 70% and waste production rate (PR) is 20 metric tons or
about 20,000 liters/day. The total watershed area of the HWLT unit is 6.6
hectares. Therefore, water application per month is calculated as
IT/ , ,. PR x water content x 10~~5 x # of days in the month
W(cm/mo) = ——
Watershed area (ha)
= 2.0 x 104 I/day x 0.7 x 10~5 x # of days/month
6.6 ha
= 0.021 (days in the given month).
Watershed area is generally larger than the unit area actively receiving
wastes (A), to be determined later, but the watershed is a function of A.
This is because for any unit area A, there are usually additional areas in
the watershed made up of runoff ponds, waterways, roads, levees, etc.
645
-------
Now using the water balance method from Section 8.3il.l, first use the
entire climatic record assuming zero discharge (Table E.I). The example
shows only two years of record for illustrative purposes only. A much
longer record is needed in practice (20 years if available). Since the
last column in the table, cumulative storage, never drops to zero, some
discharge or enhanced water loss will be necessary.
Next, one chooses a discharge rate (D) by taking the average annual
increase in cumulative storage (CS) for the simulated period of record. In
this example, CS is 9.66 and 8.76 for years one and two, respectively. The
CS is thus 9.2 and D will assume a monthly value of 0.77 (9.2/12 = 0.77).
Now rerun the simulated record, this time using the D term in the budget
(Table E.2).
Based on the potential hazards of an uncontrolled release of water, a
0.10 probability is considered acceptable in this example. The storage
value corresponding to this from the second run water budget is not readily
apparent due to the short record.
If 20 years of data were available, then the highest annual value
which is exceeded only in 10% of the years (i.e., in 2 years of the 20
years) would be chosen as the design value for normal seasonal storage.
For convenience in this example, 15.62 cm storage is chosen.
In addition to this volume, capacity must be available to store the
runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour storm. The 25-year, 24-hour rainfall for
this site is 20.1 cm. Using the SCS curve number method described in Sec-
tion 8.3.4, the runoff from the site would be 19.5 cm assuming antecedent
moisture group III, fallow land use, and soil hydrologic group C.
Finally, management chooses to design an additional 10% volume for
sludge and sediment buildup in the ponds. This would amount to 0.10(15.6 +
19.5) s 3.5 cm. Minimum freeboard (does not contribute to storage) of at
least 60 cm should be provided above the 38.6 cm spillway level to guard
against levee overtopping or failure. Since the HWLT unit area is 6.6 ha,
this 38.6 cm storage translates into 254.75 ha-cm.
The assumption of zero leaching will be invalid in many circumstances,
but it allows a sufficiently conservative water balance for safe retention
pond design. Where leaching of waste constituents is of concern, however,
better estimates of leaching are needed. In this case, use of the Perrier
and Gibson (1980) computer model is suggested. Aside from computer tech-
niques, a Liberal leaching estimate can be estimated by assuming runoff and
discharge are zero and setting leaching equal to the runoff values found in
the first run of the water balance (Table E.I).
646
-------
TABLE E.I FIRST RUN WATER BALANCE, ASSUMING DISCHARGE RATE (D) EQUAL TO
ZERO
Month
S
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
Precip.
(cm)
6.4
6.0
6.5
8.1
8.2
7.2
6.7
8.3
7.8
4.3
5.4
6.4
5.2
5.8
9.4
7.3
6.1
6.3
6.9
9.8
8.2
5.0
4.1
5.8
Water
in
Waste
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.59
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.59'
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
Evaporation
(cm)
6.0
5.4
4.6
3.8
4.0
4.9
6.1
6.9
7.6
9.4
10,6
8.7
6.3
5.2
4.7
4.1
4.1
5.1
5.9
6.8
7.5
9.7
10.8
8.4
Deep
Percolation
(cm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
Storage
(cm)
1.03
,1.25
2.53
4.95
4.85
2.89
1.25
2.03
-0.45
-4.47
-4.55
-1.65
-0.47
1.25
5.33
3.85
3.85
1.79
1.65
3.63
1.35
-4.07
-6.05
-1.95
Cumulative
Storage
(cm)
1.03
2.28
4.81
9.76
14.61
17.50
18.75
20.78
20.33
15.86
11.31
9.66
9.19
10.44
15.77
19.62
19.62
23.86
25.51
29.14
30.49
26.42
20.37
18.42
647
-------
TABLE E.2 SECOND RUN WATER BALANCE, ASSUMING CONSTANT DISCHARGE RATE (D)
OF 0.77 CM/MO
Month
S
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
Precip .
(cm)
6.4
6.0
6.5
8.1
8.2
7.2
6.7
8.3
7.8
4.3
5.4
6.4
5.2
5.8
9.4
7.3
6.1
6.3
6.9
9.8
8.2
5.0
4.1
5.8
Water
in
Waste
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.59
0.05
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.59
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.63
0.65
0.65
Evapo-
ration
(cm)
6.0
5.4
4.6
3.8
4.0
4.9
6.1
6.9
7.6
9.4
10.6
8.7
6.3
5.2
4.7
4.1
4.3
5.1
5.9
6.8
7.5
9.7
10.8
8.4
Deep
Perco-
lation
(cm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discharge
(cm)
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0,77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
A
Storage
(cm)
0.26
0.48
1.76
4.18
4.08
2.12
0.48
1.26
0.08
-5.24
-5.32
-2.42
-1.24
0.48
4.56
3.08
1.68
1.02
0.88
2.86
0.58
-4.84
-6.82
-2.72
Cumulative
Storage
(cm)
0.26
0.74
2.50
6.68
, 10.76
12.88
13.36
14.62
14.70
9.46
4.14
. 1.72
0.48
0.96
5.52
8.60
10.28
11.30
12.18
15.04
15.62
10.78
3.96
1.24
648
-------
APPENDIX E-2
LOADING RATE CALCULATIONS FOR MOBILE
NONDEGRADABLE CONSTITUENTS
Since mobile constituents are relatively free to migrate to the
groundwater, some limits should be set for the acceptable leachate concen-
tration of each species. The following concentrations in the leachate will
be assumed to be the acceptable maxima (Table 6.48 contains a list of other
elements). These values are the permissible water criteria for public
drinking water supplies.
Concentration in Water
Constituent mg/1
N 100.0
Se 0.01
Cl 250.0
The values to be used in actual design may vary from site to site depending
on the state regulations or the possible use of the groundwater. The
leachate concentration limits may be used in conjunction with the composi-
tion of the waste and the depth of water leaching water (Appendix E-l) to
compute the amount of a given waste that, if applied, will result in the
maximum acceptable concentration in the leachate.
All soils will have some capacity to adsorb and retain limited amounts
of mobile species. Additionally, plants may take up N, Se and Cl. If the
adsorption capacity and plant uptake rates are known, they may be taken
into account in the calculation. Once the adsorption capacities are satis-
fied, however, subsequent additions will likely leach to the groundwater.
Since plant uptake is limited and sorptiori capacities will eventually be
satisfied, it is best to calculate the required treatment area assuming
that both are negligible.
For example, a waste containing 10 mg/kg Se and 580 mg/kg Cl is pro-
duced at a rate of 20 metric dry tons/day and is to be land treated on a
site having an estimated leaching rate of 29 cm/yr. From the above infor-
mation, the following can be computed.
Waste
Concentration Annual Loading
in Waste Application Rate
Constituent mg/kg (kg/yr) (kg/ha/yr)
Se 10 7.3 1.5 x 106
Cl 580 420 1.3 x 106
Chloride is the most limiting of the mobile constituents, with a maximum
waste loading rate of 1.3x10 kg/ha/yr to maintain leachate concentra-
tions at or below 250 mg/1.
649
-------
APPENDIX E-3
CALCULATION OF WASTE APPLICATIONS BASED ON NITROGEN CONTENT
The fate of applied nitrogen (N) in soil has been extensively dis-
cussed in Section 6.1.2.1. There are many processes by which N may be lost
from the system, but N transported in runoff and leachate water is of pri-
mary interest since it can have an adverse impact on the environment.
Since direct discharge from HWLT units will be prevented, only the N con-
centration leaving the site in the leachate is generally of concern.
Typically, 10 ppm nitrate-nitrogen is taken as the upper limit for drinking
water and as the upper limit of acceptable leachate concentration. The
equations used to calculate the acceptable load of nitrogen-containing
waste are given in Section 7.5.3.4 and are shown below.
LR = 105 [ 10(C + V + D) + (L,)(L ) - (P,)(P )
1 d c d c
I + Z (M)(0)
t=l
where
LR = waste loading rate (kg/ha/yr);
C = crop uptake of N (kg/ha/yr);
V - volatilization (kg/ha/yr);
D = denitrification (kg/ha/yr);
L^ - depth of leachate (cm/yr);
Lc s N concentration in leachate (mg/1),
Pjj s depth of precipitation (cm/yr),
Pc - concentration of inorganic N in the waste (mg/1);
I ^ concentration of inorganic N in the waste (mg/1);
M s mineralization rate given in Table 6.4;
0 » concentration of organic N in the waste (mg/1), and
t ** years of waste application.
Example
A waste containing 30 mg/1 inorganic N and produced at a rate of 20
metric tons/day, is to be land treated. From this information and that in
Table E.3 loading calculations can be made and are shown in the following
equation:
105 FlOCC + V + D) + (Ld)(Lc) - (Pd)(Pc)[
105 F10(280 + 0 + 0) + (29)(10) - (63.5)(.5)
|_ 30 + (.35)(260)
2.53 x 106 kg/ha/yr
650
-------
TABLE E.3 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS USED IN EXAMPLE FOR NITROGEN
LOADING RATE CALCULATIONS
Parameter Value
I (mg/1) 30
Lc (mg/1) 10
0 (mg/1) 260
Pc (mg/1) 0.5
M 0.35, 0.1, 0.05
Pd (cm/yr) 63.5
C (kg/ha/yr) 280
D (kg/ha/yr) 0
V (kg/ha/yr) 0
Ld (cm/yr) 29
p (cm/gm3) 1
651
-------
APPENDIX E-4
EXAMPLES OF PHOSPHORUS LOADING CALCULATIONS
The equation presented in Section 7.5.3.5 is used to calculate the
acceptable phosphorus application limit. Among the parameters that must be
known are soil horizon depth (d^), the P sorption capacity (b^x),
P content of the waste, C^ex^' ^he rate of waste production, and the
crop cover, if any. Using these values and the equation one can calculate
the area needed for land treatment of a waste containing P.
A waste having wet weight P content of 2000 mg/kg is to be land
treated on a soil having a 20 cm deep A horizon, 30 cm deep B horizon and
50 cm deep C horizon. The sorption capacities of the horizons are 54, 23
and 89 mgP/100 g, respectively.
Horizon
A
B
C
Depth
(cm)
20
30
50
P
g/cm3
1.3
1.35
1.45
bmax
mg/kg
540
230
890
^ex
mg/kg
2
1
3
The applicable equation LC = (10) v d p(b - P )
, i max ex
t=l
where
d-£ - thickness of the ith horizon,
p s bulk density of the soil (g/cnr*);
b^x - P sorption capacity estimated from Langmiur isotherms (mg/kg),
Pex - NaHC03 extr actable P (mg/kg), and
LC « phosphorus loading capacity (kgP/ha).
Using the above data the P loading rate can be calculated as follows:
LC - 10 $ (20)(1.3)(540 - 2) + 10 \ (30)(1.35)(230-1)
+ 10 | (50)(1. 45)(890 - 3)
» 139,800 + 92,745 + 643,075 = 875,700 kg P/ha.
The phosphorus loading capacity (LC) of the soil is 875,700 kgP/ha, which
for a waste containing 2000 mg P/kg is equivalent to a waste loading
capacity of
875.700 kgP/ha g
___ , , „ , = 4.38 x 10 kg waste/ha
2000 kgP/10 kg waste 6
652
-------
APPENDIX E-5
CHOICE OF THE CAPACITY LIMITING CONSITUTENT
The example contained in this section is designed to illustrate the
appropriate approach to identifying the potential capacity limiting
constituent from among the conserved species of a waste. Conserved refers
to those constituents, usually only metals, which are practically immobile
and nondegradable in the soil. It is important to be sure that the soil pH
is at or adjusted to 6.5 or above before application. The soil CEC needs
to be measured and if less than 5, the loading capacities should be reduced
by 50%. For most purposes, the loading capacities presented in Table 6.47
are acceptable estimates.
A waste is to be land treated on a soil that has a pH of 7.0 and a CEC
of 12.0 meq/lOOg. The choice of potential CLC is made easily using the
ratio of each metal concentration in the waste residual solids fraction
(RS) to its respective acceptable concentration in the soil as shown in the
table below. The most limiting metal is Cr since it has the largest ratio,
4.1.
TABLE E.4 CHOICE OF CAPACITY LIMITING CONSERVED SPECIES BY THE RATIO
METHOD
Metal
mg/kg in
Waste Residual
Solids
Metal Loading
Capacity*
(mg/kg)
Ratio
As
Cr
Cd
Cu
Pb
Ni
V
Zn
230
4,097
3.4
4.98
1,740
53
387
96
300
1,000
3
250
1,000
100
500
500
1.30
4.1
1.13
0.02
1.74
0.53
0.77
0.19
* Taken from 6.47.
653
-------
APPENDIX E-6
ORGANIC LOADING RATE CALCULATIONS
This appendix includes examples of waste characteristics and the cal-
culations which are used to determine the organic loading rate for each
waste. The second example is the general example being used elsewhere in
this appendix. The greenhouse and respirometer studies that can be used to
generate data for these calculations are described in Sections 7.3 and
7.2.1, respectively. The first step in determining the organic loading
rate is to determine the phytotoxicity or microbial toxicity limit. This
limit is used as the maximum tolerable level of organic waste constituents
from which the organic half-life is determined. There are two equations
which are used in the determination of organic half-life. The first equa-
tion determines the fraction of the applied carbon evolved as C02«
(C02w - C02s)0.27
D =
ca
where
Dj- s the portion of the applied carbon which is evolved as
from the organic fraction after time t.
C02W - the cumulative C02 evolved by waste amended soil;
C02S - the cumulative C02 evolved by unamended soil ;
t - time; and
Ca ** carbon applied.
In addition to the fraction calculated from equation 1, the rate of degra
dation should be determined for the extractable organics and organic sub
fractions using the following equation.
where
cai
dfc. s the portion of the carbon degraded from the organic
fraction or fraction 1, 2 or 3,
ca . » the carbon applied in the organic fraction or fractions 1 ,
2 or 3;
cr. s the residual carbon in the organic fraction or fraction 1,
2 or 3, and
cs. « the background concentration in unamended soil of the
organic fraction 1, 2 or 3.
The loading rate can be calculated for the bulk organic fraction or for any
subfraction of interest which may better indicate the rate of degradation
of the hazardous constituents.
654
-------
The residual values given in the waste characteristics tables were
calculated with the soil carbon content already subtracted. The lowest
fraction of organics degraded (Dt) as calculated above is used to deter-
mine the half life of the waste, as follows:
0.5t
tl/2 = -^-
The half-life is then used to calculate the organic loading rate in (Cvr)
in kg/ha/yr.
Cyr = 1/2 Ccrit
where Ccr^t is the maximum tolerable limit (kg/ha) of organic waste con-
stituents as determined by plant or microbial toxicity. This loading rate
is based on laboratory data obtained under controlled conditions , and
should be verified by field data. It is assumed that the waste has been
demonstrated to be land treatable and will also be monitored in the field.
The units are derived from laboratory data, an assumed plow or mixing
depth, and the waste-soil mix bulk density.
The bulk waste loading rate (LR) based on organics applied is calcu-
lated as follows :
LR = (Cyr)/Cw
where C^ is the fraction of the bulk waste constituted by degradable
organics .
Example 1: An oil waste which is produced at a rate of 20 metric dry
tons/day is to be land treated on a vegetated site. CCrit
is determined to be 2.7% (1.2x10^ kg/ha-15 cm) organics in
soil. Waste characteristics are as follows (Data from
Schwendinger (1968):
Waste characteristics:
Extractable organics (mg) Total Fj F£ F3
Carbon applied (Ca) 2500mg Data not given
Carbon residual (Cr) Data not given
Respiration data - C02 (mg) Day 14 28 49
Waste + soil 620 1563 2104
soil 20 63 104
655
-------
Calculations:
1) Residual Carbon:
data not given
2) Evolved C02'-
(2104-104).27 _ _0
1J S I - -• • .-- .. — .- — !.!-... = \J9 ££
3) Half-life:
= °-5t
1/2 Dt
4) Organic loading rate:
= 111 days = .30 yr
Cvr = 1/2(1.2 x 105 kg/ha) —— = 2 x 105 kg/ha/hr
y tl/2
5) LR - 2n*in° = 2 x 106 kg/ha/yr
u • J.u
where the organic content of the waste C^. is 10% (0.10).
Greenhouse studies indicated that 2.7% oil in soil reduces the yield of rye
grass by 25% compared to the yield of unamended soil, therefore Ccr£t is
2.78% or 1.2 x 10-* kg/ha. A respiration study was conducted for 49 days
and the cumulative C0£ evolved determined for the entire time period.
The percent of carbon evolved as 002 Was calculated to be 22% over the 49
day period. The half-life of the carbon applied was then calculated to be
111 days, or 0.30 years. Using the half-life value, it was then determined
that 2 x 10 kg/ha/yr oil or 2 x 10° kg waste"/ha/yr could be applied to
the soil at the land treatment facility "while still retaining a vegetative
cover. One limitation of this study is that no information is provided
which describes the degradation of the organic subfractions.
656
-------
Example 2: An API separator sludge from a petroleum refinery is
produced at a rate of 20 metric tons /day and is to be land
treated. The site will be vegetated with ryegrass. Waste
characteristics are as follows (Brown et al. , 1980):
Waste characteristics .
Extr actable organics (mg) Total Fj F£ $3
Carbon applied (Ca)
Carbon residual (Cr)
Respiration data - C02 (mg)
Waste + soil
soil
550
220
Day 45
675
85
396
153
90
954
149
121
52
135
1111
215
33
14
180
1241
271
Calculations :
1) Residual Carbon:
550-220
396-153
-396-
121-52
°t3 = 33
2) Evolved C02:
(1241-271).27 _
D180 = 550 - • 8
3) Half-life:
.50 .50
fcl/2 = Dt t * .48(180) - 187 " '
4) Organic loading rate:
Cvr - 1/2 (Ccrit) —— - 1/2(2.2 x 105 ^g-)_l__ = 2.2 x 105 kg/ha/yr
yL t-J"LU tj/2 ha (.51 yr)
7 7 v 1 n5 f
5) LR = •;: ^ u = 2.2 x 106 kg/ha/yr
U • 1U
657
-------
It was determined in a greenhouse study that the yield of rye grass 100
days after application of 5% wt/wt (2.2 x 10^ kg/ha) sludge was reduced
40% below control yields. After 180 days of incubation in a soil
respirometer, the hydrocarbon was extracted and separated into
subfractions. Data analysis indicated that the slowest rate of degradation
was for carbon evolved as CC>2> the value 48% was used to calculate the
half-life which was determined to be 187 days. This value was then used to
determine the maximum loading rate with plant cover which was 2.2 x 10^ kg
organics/ha/yr. For this organics applicatiqn rate, 2.2 x 10^ kg/ha/yr
of bulk sludge would be applied to the top 30 cm of soil.
658
-------
APPENDIX E-7
CALCULATIONS OF FACILITY SIZE AND LIFE
The waste loading rate, unit size and the unit life are dependent on
the waste and site characteristics. For the following calculations, the
characteristics of the waste, the climate, and the soil used in the above
examples (Appendices E-l through E-6) will be assumed, and the resulting
design conditions will be determined.
For the case under study, the RLC and the design waste loading rate
are determined by a tabular comparison of values previously calculated for
each waste constituent (Table E.5). By comparison, the RLC is found to be
bulk organics degradation with a loading rate of 2.2 x 10 kg/ha/yr. For
this example, no constituent was found to limit the size of individual
applications (ALC).
Calculation of the required land treatment unit area is done using the
equation from Section 7.5.4.
LR
where
A = required treatment area (ha),
PR = waste production rate (kg/yr) on a wet weight basis, and
LR = waste loading rate (kg/ha/yr) on a wet weight basis.
Waste production is 20 metric tons/day, so the required area is as fol-
lows.
A = 20 mt/day(103 kg/mt)365 days/yr _
2.2 x 103 kg/ha/yr
The capacity limiting constituent and unit life are determined by
calculating unit lives for chromium (Cr) (the most limiting conserved
species) and phosphorus and choosing the more restrictive value. For
phosphorus, unit life is easily determined directly from the equation:
UL= LCAP
where
UL = unit life in years,
LCAP = maximum allowable waste load based on phosphorus (kg/ha),
and
LRRLC = loading rate based on RLC (kg/ha/yr).
659
-------
_,. . , _ 4.4 x 108 kg/ha
This reduces to: - z - ^ -
2.2 x 10b kg/ha/yr
for the example and thus the facility will last 200 years based on phos-
phorus .
For chromium calculations , several choices or determinations must be
made. In this case, assume a plow layer (Zp) of 30 cm and a time between
applications (ta) of 1 for each plot. Given that the residual solids
(RS) content of the waste is 0.2 and a bulk density ( BRS) of the residual
solids mix of 1.4 kg/1, the application depth (Za) is found as follows:
=
PBRS
- 2.2 x 106(0.2) 5
1.4 X W
= 3.1 cm
The background soil contains 100 mg/kg Gr (Gpo), the application limit
(Cpn) for Cr from Table 6.47 is 1000 mg/kg, and the given concentration
of Cr in the waste residual solids (Ca is 4097 mg/kg. The number of
applications of waste (n) may be made can thus be calculated'
H - ^ m Cpo"Ca
za cpn~ca
30 . 100-4097
* T— . In
3.1 1000-4097
= 2.5
Unit life (UL) based on Cr is n ta, and since ta is one year, UL equals
2.5 yr. Comparing this with results for phosphorus, Cr is more limiting
and is thus the CLC. In addition to hazardous constituents, the above
results aid in the choice of monitoring parameters in the subsequent site
monitoring program.
660
-------
TABLE E.5 WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO BE COMPARED IN DETERMINING WASTE
APPLICATION (ALC) AND RATE (RLC) LIMITING CONSTITUENT
Potential Potential
Constituent ALC (kg/ha/application) RLC (kg/ha/yr)
Organics x 2.2 x 106
o volatization x
o leaching x
o degradation 2.2 x 106
Nitrogen x 2.53 x 106
Inorganic acids,
bases and salts
Halides x
661
-------
APPENDIX E REFERENCES
Brown, K. W., K. G. Donnelly, J. G. Thomas, and L. E. Deuel. 1980. Fac-
tors influencing biodegradation of an API separator sludge applied to
soils.
Perrier, E. R. and A. C. Gibson. 1980. Hydrologic simulation on solid waste
disposal sites (HSSWDS). Prepared for the U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory. SW-868.
Schwendinger, R. B. 1968. Reclamation of soil contaminated with oil. J.
Inst. Petroleum 54 (535):182-197.
662
-------
APPENDIX F
GLOSSARY
acute toxicity: An adverse effect which occurs shortly after exposure to a
substance.
adsorption: The attraction of ions or compounds to the surface of a solid.
Soil colloids adsorb large amounts of ions and water.
aerosols: Microscopic droplets dispersed in the atmosphere.
ammonification. The biochemical process whereby ammoniacal nitrogen is re-
leased from nitrogen-containing organic compounds.
anaerobic: (i) The absence of molecular oxygen. (li) Growing in the
absence of molecular oxygen (such as anaerobic bacteria). (iii)
Occurring in the absence of molecular oxygen (as a biochemical proc-
ess) .
annual crop: A crop which completes its entire life cycle and dies within
1 year or less, i.e., corn, beans.
application limiting constituent (ALC)- A compound, element, or waste
fraction in a hazardous waste which restricts the amount of waste
which can be loaded onto soil per application (kg/ha/application).
aquifer: Stratum below the surface capable of holding water.
available water: The portion of water in a soil that can be readily ab-
sorbed by plant roots. Considered by most workers to be that water
held in the soil against a pressure of up to approximately 15 bars.
base-pair mutation. Substitution mutation in which the wrong base is
inserted into the DNA which then pairs with its natural partner during
replication which results in a new pair of incorrect bases in the
DNA.
base-saturation percentage: The extent to which the adsorption complex of
a soil is saturated with exchangeable cations other than hydrogen. It
is expressed as a percentage of the total cation-exchange capacity.
biodegradation. The breaking down of a chemical compound into simpler
chemical components under naturally occurring biological processes.
bulk density: The mass of dry soil per unit bulk volume. The bulk volume
is determined before drying to constant weight at 105°C.
calcareous soil. Soil containing sufficient calcium carbonate (often with
magnesium carbonate) to effervesce visibly when treated with cold 0.1N
hydrochloric acid.
663
-------
capacity limiting constituent (CLC): A compound, element, or waste frac-
tion in a hazardous waste which restricts the total amount of waste
which can be loaded onto soil (kg/ha).
carbon cycle: The sequence of transformations whereby carbon dioxide is
fixed in living organisms by photosynthesis or by chemosynthesis,
liberated by respiration and by the death and decomposition of the
fixing organism, used by heterotrophic species, and ultimately re-
turned to its original state.
carbon-nitrogen ratio: The ratio of the weight of organic carbon to the
weight of total nitrogen in a soil or in organic material. It is
obtained by dividing the percentage of organic carbon (C) by the per-
centage pf total nitrogen (N).
carcinogen: A chemical, physical, or biological agent which induces
formation of cells that are no longer affected by normal regulations
of growth; such formations are capable of spreading cells to other
tissues resulting in the loss of the specific function of such
tissues.
cation exchange: The reversible exchange between a cation in solution and
another cation adsorbed onto any surface-active material such as clay
or organic matter.
cation exchange capacity. ,The sum total of exchangeable cations that a
soil can adsorb. Sometimes called "total-cation capacity," "base—
exchange capacity," or "cation-adsorption capacity." Expressed in
milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil (or of clay).
chelating properties: The property of certain chemical compounds in which
a metalic ion is firmly combined with the compound by means of multi-
ple chemical bonds.
chromosome aberration: Changes in the number, shape, or structure of
chromosomes.
chronic toxicity: A prolonged health effect which may not become evident
until many years after exposure.
clay: (i) Soil separate consisting of particles <0.002 mm in equivalent
diameter, (ii) Soil material containing more than 40 percent clay,
less than 45 percent sand and less than than 40 percent silt.
compost: Organic residues, or a mixture of organic residues and soil, that
have been piled, moistened, and allowed to undergo biological decom-
position. Often called "artifical manure" or "snythetic manure" if
produced primarily from plant residues.
664
-------
composite To make up a sample of distinct portions so the sample is
representative of the total material being sampled rather than any
single portion.
denitrification. The biochemical reduction of nitrate or nitrite to gas-
eous nitrogen either as molecular nitrogen or as an oxide nitrogen.
diversion terrace. A terrace to divert runoff from the watershed above the
land treatment area.
DNA repair. Repair of genetic material by cellular enzymes which can
excise or recombine alterations in structure of DNA to restore origi-
nal information.
drain tile. Concrete or ceramic pipe used to conduct water from the soil.
effluent: The liquid substance, predominately water, containing inorganic
and organic molecules of those substances which do not precipitate by
gravity.
electrical conductivity. An expression of the readiness with which an
electrical impulse (generated by ionic activity) flows through a water
or soil system.
erosion: (i) The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind,
ice, or other geological agents, including such processes as gravita-
tional creep. (11) Detachment and movement of soil or rock by water,
wind ice, or gravity.
eutrophication: The reduction of dissolved oxygen in surface waters which
leads to the deterioration of the aesthetic and life-supporting quali-
ties .
evapotranspiration. The combined loss of water from a given area, and dur-
ing a specified period of time, by evaporation from the soil surface
and by transpiration from plants.
exchange acidity. The titratable hydrogen and aluminum that can be re-
placed from the adsorption complex by a neutral salt solution. Usu-
ally expressed as milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil.
fertility, soil. The status of a soil with respect to the amount and
availability to plants of elements necessary for plant growth.
field capacity (field moisture capacity). The amount of water remaining in
the soil after excess gravitational water has drained away and after
downward movement of water has practically ceased (normally considered
to be about 1/3 bar soil moisture tension).
forage crop A crop such as hay, pasture grass, legumes, etc., which is
grown primarily as forage or feed for livestock.
665
-------
frameshift mutation: Mutation resulting from insertion or deletion of a
base-pair from a triplet codon in the DNA, the insertion or deletion
produces a scrambling of the DNA or a point mutation.
gene mutation: A stable change in a single gene.
genetic toxicity: An adverse event resulting in damage to genetic mater-
ial; damage may occur in exposed individuals or may be expressed in
subsequent generations .
groundwater: Water that fills all of the unblocked pores of materials
underlying the water table , which is the upper limit of saturation .
heavy metals: Generally, those elements in the periodic table of elements
which belong to the transition elements. They may include plant
essential micronutrients and other nonessential elements. Examples
are mercury, chromium, cadmium and lead.
heterotrophic organism. Requires preformed, organic nutrients as a source
of carbon and energy.
hydraulic conductivity: The proportionality factor in Darcy's law as
applied to the viscous flow of water in soil, i.e., the flux of water
per unit gradient of hydraulic potential.
hydrologic cycle: The fate of water from the time of precipitation until
the water has been returned to the atmosphere by evaporation and is
again ready to be precipitated.
infiltration rate: A soil characteristic determining or describing the
maximum rate at which water can enter the soil under specified condi-
tions, including the presence of an excess of water. It has the
dimensions of Velocity (i.e., cnr* cm~^ sec"*- = cm
land treatment: The controlled application of hazardous wastes onto or
into the aerobic surface soil horizon, accompanied by continued moni-
toring and management, to alter the physical, chemical, and biological
state of the waste to render it less hazardous . The practice simul-
taneously constitutes treatment and final disposal.
leachate: Soil solution moving toward the groundwater under the pull of
gravity.
lime requirement: The mass of agricultural limestone, or the equivalent of
other specified liming material , required per acre to a soil depth of
15 cm to raise the pH of the soil to a desired value under field
conditions .
666
-------
loading rate. The mass or volume of waste applied to a unit area of land
per unit time (kg/ha/yr).
lysimeter: (i) A container used to enclose a volume of soil and its con-
tents and associated equipment used to measure the evaporative and/or
drainage components of the hydrologxcal balance. (ii) A device used
to collect soil solution from the unsaturated zone.
metabolic activation: The use of extracts of plant or animal tissue to
provide enzymes which can convert a promutagen into an active mutagen,
or a procarcinogen into an active carcinogen.
metal toxicities: Toxicities arising from too great a content of metals in
the soil.
micelle: A minute silicate clay colloidal particle that generally carries
a negative charge.
microorganism: An organism so small it cannot be seen clearly without the
use of a microscope.
moisture volume percentage- The ratio of the volume of water in a soil to
the total bulk volume of the soil.
moisture weight percentage: The moisture content expressed as a percentage
of the oven-dry weight of soil.
mulch: (i) Any material such as straw, sawdust, leaves, plastic film,
loose soil, etc., that is spread upon the surface of the soil to pro-
tect the soil and plant roots from the effects of raindrops, soil
crusting, freezing, evaporation, etc. (ii) To apply mulch to the
soil surface.
mutagenic: Compounds with the ability to induce stable changes in genetic
material (genes and chromosomes).
nitrification: The biochemical oxidation of ammonium to nitrate.
permeability, soil. (i) The ease with which gases, liquids, or plant
roots penetrate or pass through a bulk mass of soil or a layer of
soil. Since ^different soil horizons vary in permeability, the par-
ticular horizon under question should be designated. (ii) The prop-
erty of a porous medium itself that relates to the ease with which
gases, liquids, or other substances can pass through it.
pH, soil. The negative logarithm of the hydrogen-ion activity of a soil.
The degree of acidity (or alkalinity) of a soil as determined by means
of a glass, quinhydrone, or other suitable electrode or indicator at a
specified moisture content or soil-water ratio, and expressed in terms
of the pH scale.
667
-------
primary degradation: Conversion of waste constitutes into a form which no
longer responds in the same manner to the analytical measurement used
for detection.
rate limiting constituent (RLC): A compound, element, or waste fraction in
a hazardous waste which restricts the amount of waste which can be
loaded onto soil per year (kg/ha/yr).
respirometer: An apparatus which can be used to measure microbial activity
and monitor waste decomposition under controlled environmental condi-
tions .
retention basin: A basin or pond used to collect or store runoff water.
runoff: Any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid that drains over land
from any part of a waste treatment or disposal facility. That which
is lost without entering the soil is called surface runoff and that
which enters the soil before reaching the stream is called groundwater
runoff or seepage flow from groundwater. (In soil science, "runoff"
usually refers to the water lost by surface flow; in geology and
hydraulics, "runoff" usually includes both surface and subsurface
flow. )
run-on: Any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid that drains onto any
waste treatment area.
sand: (i) A soil particle between 0.05 and 2.0 mm in diameter. (ii) Any
one of five soil separates, namely: very coarse sand, coarse sand,
medium sand, fine sand, and very fine sand.
silt: A soil separate consisting of particles between 0.002 and 0.05 mm in
equivalent diameter.
soil horizon: A layer of soil or soil material approximately parallel to
the land surface and differing from adjacent genetically related lay-
ers in physical, chemical, and biological properties of characteris-
tics such as color, structure, texture, consistency, kinds, and num-
bers of organisms present, degree of acidity or alkalinity, etc.
soil profile: A vertical section of the soil from the surface through all
its horizons, including C horizons.
soil series: The basic unit of soil classification being a subdivision of
a family and consisting of soils which are essentially alike in all
major profile characteristics except the texture of the A horizon.
soil solution: The aqueous liquid phase of the soil and its solutes con-
sisting of ions dissociated from the surfaces of the soil particles
and of other soluble materials.
soil texture: The relative proportion of the various soil separates in a
soil. The textural classes may be modified by the addition of suit-
668
-------
able adjectives when coarse fragments are prese'nt in substantial
amounts, for example, "stony silt loam," or "silt loam, stony phase."
sorption. See "adsorption."
subsurface injection. A method applying fertilizer and waste materials in
a band below the soil surface.
suspended solids: Solid particles which do not precipitate out of solution
or do not easily filter out. They may be colloidal in nature.
terrace: (i) A raised, more or less level or horizontal strip of earth
usually constructed on or nearly on a contour and supported on the
downslope side by rocks or other similar barrier to prevent acceler-
ated erosion, (ii) An embankment with the uphill side sloping toward
and into a channel for conducting water, and the downhill side having
a relatively sharp decline, constructed across the direction of the
slope to conduct water from the area above the terrace at a regulated
rate of flow and to prevent the accumulation of large volumes of watert
on the downslope side.
toxicity The ability of a material to produce injury or disease upon
exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation by a living organ-
ism.
treatment zone* the area of a land treatment unit that is located wholly
above the saturated zone and within which degradation, transformation,
or immobilization of hazardous constituents occurs.
uniform area Area of the active portion of an HWLT unit which is composed
of soils of the same soil series and to which similar waters are
applied at similar application rates.
unsaturated flow The movement of water in a soil which is not filled to
capacity with water.
uptake. The process by which plants take elements from the soil. The
uptake of a certain element by a plant is calculated by multiplying
the dry weight by the concentration of the element.
volatilizaton - vaporization. The conversion of a liquid or solid into
vapors.
waste: Any liquid, semiliquid, sludge, refuse, solid, or residue under
consideration for disposal.
watershed. The total runoff from a region which supplies the water of a
drainage channel.
water table. The upper surface of ground water or that level below which
the soil is saturated with water, locus of points in soil water at
which the hydraulic pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure.
669
-------
APPENDIX G
USEFUL LAND TREATMENT CONVERSION FACTORS
1. a. 1 cubic yard (yd.3) = 27 cu. ft. (ft3)
b. 1 gal. water - 8.34 Ib.
2. a. 1 acre-inch of liquid = 27,150 gallons = 3,630 ft3 =
102,800 liters = 0.01028 hectare-meters
b. 1 hectare-cm of liquid = 100,000 liters = 100 m3
3, 1 metric ton - 1,000 kg. = 2,205 Ib.
4. cu. feet per second x 5.39 x mg./liter = Ib./day
5. a. million gallons per day x 8.34 x mg./liter = Ib./day
b. (8.34 x 10~3) x mg./liter = lb./l,000 gal.
6. 1 acre - 4,480 yards2 = 43,560 feet2 = 4,047 meters2 = 0.4047 hectare
7. acre-inches x 0.266 x mg./liter = Ib./acre
8. ha.-cm. x 0.1 x mg./liter = kg./hectare
9. English-metric conversions
a. acre-inch x 102.8 = meter3
b. quart x 0.946 = liter
c. English ton x 0.907 = metric ton
d. English tons/acre x 2.242 = metric tons/hectare
e. Ib./acre x 1.121 - kg./hectare
f. I Ib. - 0.454 kg.
10. a. Ibs. P x 2.3 = Ibs. P2°5
b. Ibs. K x 1.2 = Ibs. K20
11. Sludge conversions in English units
a. wet tons sludge x % dry solids/100 = dry tons sludge
b. wet tons/.85 = cubic yards sludge*
c. wet tons sludge x 240 = gallons sludge*
d. 1,700 Ib. wet sludge = 1 yd3 wet sludge*
12. Concentration conversions
a. 10,000 ppm - 1%
b. % x 20 = Ib./ton
c. (ppm/500) or (ppm x .002) = Ib./ton
13. Wet weight conversions
a. micrograms/milliliter ( g/ml) = milligrams/liter (mg/1) ppm (wet)
b. ppm (wet) x 100/% solids = ppm (dry)
14. Rate Conversions
a. 1 Ib/acre - 1.12 kg/ha
b. 1 ton/acre = 2.24 ton (metric)/hectare
* Assumes a sludge density of about 1 g/cm.
670
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
U S
Name
acre
acre-foot
cubic foot
,
cubic feet per second
degrees Fahrenheit
feet per second
foot ,(feet)
gallon(s)
gallons per acre per day
gallons per day
gallons per minute
horsepower
inchfesj
inches per hour
mile
miles per hour
million gallons
million gallons per acre
million gallons per day
parts per million
pound (s)
pounds per aqre per day
pounds per square inch
square foot
square inch
square mile
ton (short)
tons per acre
U S
Customary Unit
Abbreviation
\
acre
acre-ft
ft3
ft3/s
°F
ft/s
ft
'gal
gal/acre d
gal/d
gal/nun
hp
in
in /h
mi
mi/h
Mgal
Mgal/acre
Mgal/d
ppm
Ib
Ib/acre d
Ib/in 2
ft2
in 2
mi2
ton (short)
tons/acre
Customary to SI
Multiplier x
0 405
1.234
28 32
0 0283
^28 32
Ox555(°F-32)
0 305
0 305
3 785
9 353
4 381xlO-5
0 0631
0 746
2 54
2 54
1 609
0 45
3 785
8 353
43 8
1 0
0 454
1 12
0 069
0 69
0 0929
6 452
2 590
' 0 907~
2 24
(Metric)
Symbol
ha
xm3
IT
m3
1/s
°c
m/s
m
1
1/ha d
1/s
1/s
kw
cm
cm/h
km
m/s
Mi
m3/ha
1/s
mg/1
kg
kg/ha d
kg/cm2
N N/cm2
V,
cm^
knj2
Mg (or t)
Mg/hir
SI
Name
-hectare v
cubic meter
liter
cubic meter
liters per second
degrees Celsius
meters per second
meter (s)
liter(s)
liters per hectare per day
liters per second
liters per second
kilowatt
cen t ime terTs-l^
centimeters^ ptr^hour
kiJometer
meters per second
megaliters (liter x 106)
cubic meters per hectare
1 i ters per second
milligrams per liter
kilogram(s)
kilograms per hectare per day
kilograms per square centimeter
Newtons per square centimeter
square meter
square centimeter
square kilometer
megagram (metric ton)
megagrams per hectare
-------
-------
|