EPA/540/2-89/050
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY
CLEARINGHOUSE
Document Reference:
Acurex Corp. "BOAT for Solidification/Stabilization Technology for Superfund Soils
(Draft Final Report)." Prepared for U.S. EPA. 75 pp. November 17,1987.
EPA LIBRARY NUMBER:
Superfund Ttestability Clearinghouse - FHMF
-------
SUPERFUND TREATABILITY CLEARINGHOUSE ABSTRACT
Treatment Process: Immobilization - Solidification
Media: Soil/Generic
Document Reference: Acurex Corp. "BOAT for Solidification/Stabilization
Technology for Superfund Soils (Draft Final Report)."
Prepared for U.S. EPA. 75 pp. November 17, 1987.
Document Type: EPA ORD Report
Contact: Edwin Barth
U.S. EPA, ORD
HVERL
26 V. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7669
Site Name: BOAT SARM-Manufactured Waste (Non-NPL)
Location of Test: Acurex Corporation
Environmental Systems Division
485 Clyde Avenue
P.O. Box 7444
Mountain View, CA 94039
BACKGROUND; This report evaluates the performance of solidification as a
method for treating solids from Superfund sites. Tests were conducted on
four different artificially contaminated soils which are representative of
soils found at the sites. Contaminated soils were solidified using common
solidification agents or binders. Samples were tested for unconfined
compressibility at various times after solidification and certain samples
were subjected to the toxic contaminants/leach procedure (TCLP) tests and
total waste analysis. Volatile organics levels were also measured during
solidification and long term set up the soils.
OPERATIONAL INFORMATION; The testing was done on four different types of
Synthetics Analytical References Mixtures (SARM) prepared under separate
contract for the EPA. The SARMs varied in concentrations from high to low
with respect to organics (2,000-20,000 ppm) and metals (1,000-50,000 ppm).
Three different binding agents were used; Portland cement, lime kiln dust
and lime/flyash (50/50 by wt). Mixtures were molded according to ASTM
procedure 109-86 and the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) was measured
at 7,14,21, and 28 days after curing according to ASTM 104-86. Optimal
percentage of water in the mixture was determined by cone penetrometer
tests. Volatile organics (VOC) were analyzed after solidification of the
samples using a Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization
detector. Samples were tested on days 14 and 28 to determine whether VOC
levels changed during curing. Total Waste Analysis and Toxic Contaminants
Leach Procedure (TLCP) tests were conducted on samples having unconfined
compressibility greater than 50 psi. This study contains a section on
QA/QC procedures.
3/89-50 Document Number: FHMF
NOTE; Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
PERFORMANCE; Compressibility values increased with increasing cure time.
The Portland cement samples had the greatest Unconfined Compressibility
Test rating (UCS) followed by kiln dust SARM and then the lime flyash SARM
samples. The lime flyash samples took up to two weeks to set-up. The
amount of water in the samples is critical and has as much effect on the
final sample properties as the amount of binder used. Analysis of volatile
and semivolatile organics by GC/FID revealed that emissions dropped only
slightly during the 14 to 28 curing process. This observation is consis-
tent with earlier work that revealed that VOC emissions occur mostly during
the soil mixing period and are relatively constant during the curing
process. The result of the TCLP tests revealed that in certain instances
none of the heavy metals could be leached out, however other TCLP results
showed heavy metal concentrations greater than those in the initial SARM
soil samples. The report contained no analysis or comment on the results
of the TCLP tests. The results appear too variable to draw any definite
conclusions regarding the ability of solidification agents to immobilize
heavy metals.
CONTAMINANTS;
Analytical data is provided in the treatability study report. The
breakdown of the contaminants by treatability group is:
Treatability Group
VOl-Halogenated'Aroma tic
Compounds
W03-Halogenated Phenols,
Cresols and Thiols
WOA-Halogenated Aliphatic
Compounds
W07-Heterocyclics & Simple
Aromatics
W08-Polynuclear Aromatics
W09-0ther Polar Organic
Compounds
WlO-Non-Volatile metals
Wll-Volatile Metals
CAS Number
108-90-7
87-86-5
107-06-2
127-18-4
100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7
120-12-7
117-81-7
67-64-1
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7440-66-6
7440-38-2
Contaminants
Chlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
1,2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Acetone
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
3/89-50 Document Number: FHMF
NOTE: Quality assurance of data may not be appropriate for all uses.
-------
98D-T51 -
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
BDAT FOR SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
TECHNOLOGY FOR SUPERFUND SOILS
November 17, 1987
Project 8304
Contract 68-03-3241
Work Assignment No 2-18
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Edwin Barth
Technical Project Manager
By
Leo Weitzman
Lawrence E. Hamel
Acurex Corporation
Environmental Systems Division
485 Clyde Avenue
P. 0. Box 7444
Mountain View, CA 94039
ACUREX
Corporation
Environmental Systems Division
-------
r DRAFT
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
BOAT FOR SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
TECHNOLOGY FOR SUPERFUND SOILS
November 17, 1987
Project 8304
Contract 68-03-3241
Work Assignment No 2-18
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Edwin Barth
Technical Project Manager
By
Leo Weitzman
Lawrence E. Hamel
Acurex Corporation
Environmental Systems Division
485 Clyde Avenue
P. 0. Box 7444
Mountain View, CA 94039
-------
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Conclusions
3. Experimental Procedure
4. Results
5. QA/QC
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment Act (HSWA) of 1984 requires the EPA
to develop treatment standards for listed hazardous waste before they are land
disposed. The Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires
that Superfund remedial actions meet all applicable, relevant, and appropriate
public health and environmental standards. Therefore, the Superfund program
•ust establish best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) for contaminated
soils from Superfund sites before they are land disposed.
This project evaluated the performance of solidification as a means of
treating soil from "Superfund" sites. Tests were conducted on four different
types of artificially contaminated soil which are representative of the types
of contaminated soils found at Superfund sites. The soils were solidified
using three commonly used solidification agents or binders. At 7, 14, 21, and
28 day after soil and binders were mixed, samples of the solidified material
were subjected to Unconfined Compressibility (UCS) testing. Samples of those
•ixes that had a UCS minimally greater than 50 psi, or which showed the
highest UCS below 50 psi after 14 and 28 days, were subjected to Toxic
Contaminants Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Total Waste.analysis.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The experimental program performed by Acurex Corporation included mixing,
shipping, CP, and UCS for the SARM soils. The TCLP was done by Lee Wan
Associates, and the total waste analysis (TWA) was done by Hittman Ebasco.
Some difficulty was experienced in coordinating schedules for analysis and
testing. At the conclusion of the testing, all the data was sent to Acurex
for compilation.
The stabilized SARM samples did cure over time to increase the UCS value
as expected. The portland cement SAflM samples were the hardest, most
consistent, followed by the kiln dust SARM, and then the lime/flyash SARM
samples. The lime/flyash samples did not seem to set until they had been
stored for several weeks.
The amount of water in the samples appears to be a critical factor in the
stabilization process, with as much effect as the type or amount of binder.
The analysis of the volatile and semivolatile organic compounds by GC/FID
seemed to indicate that the emissions dropped only slightly from 14 days to 28
days. Earlier research done by Acurex (EPA contract 68-02-3993 W.A. 32 and
37) has shown that volatile organic emissions occur mostly during mixing, and
then continue at a steady rate after curing in a stabilized sample.
-------
SECTION 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The testing was performed on four different types of soils of Synthetic
Analytical Reference Matrix (SARM), defined as SARM 1 through SARM 4, which
were prepared for EPA under a separate program (Contract No. 68-03-3389) and
solidified using each of the following three different agents:
1. Portland cement, Type 1 (PC)
I
2. Lime kiln dust (KD)
3. Equal weights of technical grade lime and flyash (LF)
The research consisted of the following steps:
1. Determine the amount of water present in the each SARM and the amount
that must be added to each binder/soil combination so that it will
set into a monolithic block suitable for UCS testing.
2. Determine the minimum amount of binder needed to achieve 50 psi
compressive strength as determined by ASTM method C109-86, Unconfined
Compressibility Strength (UCS) tests.
3. Determine the effect of solidification on the leaching
characteristics of each binder/soil combination that (after 14 and 28
days of curing) minimally satisfied the 50 psi UCS or had the highest
UCS if this value could not be achieved by subjecting samples of each
to chenical tests.
The samples were solidified and the physical tests were performed at the
Acurex Corporation Southeastern Regional Office in Research Triangle Park,
N.C. The TCLP and analysis of the extracts were performed by Lee Wann and
Associates. The total waste composition analyses were performed by
Hittman-Ebasco.
-------
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF SARM SOILS
Synthetic Analytical Reference Matrix (SARM) soils were prepared by PEI
of Cincinnati Ohio. The following four types of SARM soil were tested under
this program1:
o SARM I — low metals, high organics concentration
o SARM II — low metals, low organics concentration
o SARM III — high metals, low organics concentration
o SARM IV — high metals, high organics concentration
Table 3-1 is a description of the uncontaminated SARM. Table 3-2 gives
the type and amount of contaminant that the terms "high" and "low" metals and
organics each represent.
TABLE 3-1. DESCRIPTION OF UNCONTAMINATED SARM
Soil Component
Sand
Gravel (No. 9)
Silt
Top soil
Clay
- Montlnorillonite
- Kaolinite
Volume *
20.0
5.0
25.0
20.0
30.0
(7.5)
(22.5)
100.0
Weight *
31.4
5.7
28.3
19.8
14.8
(5.4)
(9.4)
100.0
PEI obtained a complete screening of the soil prior to adding the conta-
minants. Analysis of bench-scale preparation of the clean SARM formula shown
in Table 3-1 showed the following set of physical properties:
Cation exchange capacity (Na), meq/100 g 30.9, 30.0, 34.5
Grain size distribution
weight * sand 48, 48
weight * gravel 7, 6
weight * silt 33, 33
weight * clay 12,13
-------
TABLE 3-2. TARGET CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SARMS
Ratio,
Contaminant percent Hi (ppm) Low (ppm)
Volatiles
Ethylbenzene 16 3,200 320
Xylene 41 8,200 820
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 600 60
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethylene 3 600 60
Acetone 34 6,800 680
Chlorobenzene 2 400 40
Styrene 1 200 20
100 20,000 2,000
Semlvplatlles
Anthracene 65 6,500 650
PCP 10 1,000 100
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 25 2,500 250
100 10,000 1,000
Metals
^••^••H
Pb
Zn
Cd
As
Cu
Cr
N1
100 50,000 1,000
28
45
2
1
19
3
2
14,000
22,500
1,000
500
9,500
1,500
1,000
280
450
20
10
190
30
30
-------
TOC, mg/kg 2.7, 3.4
pH 8.0, 8.2
Moisture content Not analyzed, expected to be
less than or equal to 5*
3.2 WATER REQUIREMENTS TESTS
The first step in this program was a determination of the amount of water
that needed to be added to each mixture of solidifying agent and soil in order
to obtain a nix that would set up into a monolithic nass. The water origi-
nally present in each soil had to be included in the amount of water required
for the solidification process, and this was determined for each of the soils
as the first step in the program.
The water content of the soil was measured by drying a known quantity to
constant weight and attributing the weight loss to water removed by
evaporation. To obtain this value, a known amount of soil was placed in
an oven at 60°C overnight and reweighed the following morning. Sample
weighing continued hourly until two consecutive readings did not differ by
•ore than 1*. The water content can be expressed as a percentage:
ttbO = 100* x (W» - Wf)/W,
where:
Wj = initial soil weight
Wf = final soil weight
Table 3-3 gives the water content of the four SARM soils.
TABLE 3-3. WATER CONTENT OF SARM SOILS
SARM Water Content, *
1
2
3
4
31.4
8.6
19.3
22.1
-------
It is recognized that this «ethod resulted in nooaqueous volatile
compounds appearing as water; however, these materials constituted no more than
1% of the weight of the contaminated soils and the error was therefore not
significant for this purpose.
Once the water content of the soils was known it was necessary to
determine what approximate range would result in potential water-to-binder
ratios. The nominal values selected prior to the testing were binder-to-soil
ratios of 0.20, 0.50 and 0.70; however, early tests showed that these ranges
did not produce suitable products.
To perform the UCS tests, it was necessary for the solidified material to
be a monolithic block, with no free liquid present except for a few drops on
the surface. Preliminary tests were therefore conducted to see if the
extremes of the above range of water content would result in such a product.
The amount of water required to form a satisfactory product was deter-
mined by preparing samples of each soil at three levels of binder-to-soil
(B/S) ratios for each of the three binders. Each of these resulting samples
were then split into three portions and each portion was mixed with a
different amount of water.
The samples were mixed to slurry and molded in plastic cups. They were
then cured at 70° and 90 to 100* Relative Humidity for a period of 48 h, after
which they were tested for penetration resistance using a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Cone Penetrometer (CP), according to Army TM-5-530, Section XV. The
water-to-binder ratio for each soil which offered the most resistance to
penetration was defined as the "optimal water percentage" and was used in the
binder-to-soil evaluation which followed.
Had the initial guess at the water-to-solids (W/S) and binder-to-soil
(B/S) range resulted in an acceptable product, then this phase would have
resulted in a total of 216 samples with the following variables:
-------
2 B/S ratios (0.1 and 0.7)
x 4 Soil types .
x 3 Binders
x 3 W/B ratios
x 3 — Triplicate samples
216 samples total
As it turned out, the above ratios did not result in acceptable products
with any of the SAflM soils or binders. In fact, the results showed that the
water-to-binder (W/B) ratio was not an acceptable measure of the amount of
water required to achieve a monolithic block. Rather, it was found that the
water-to-total-solids (W/TS) ratio, where the total solids were binder plus
SAHM solids, resulted in better reproducibility of the results.
Based on this observation from the preliminary testing, the experimental
i
protocol was modified in the following manner:
1. The experimental protocol for the first of the triplicate tests was
expanded to cover a very wide range of B/S ratios. The range was
selected on the basis of quick tests to see what range of materials
could be mixed into workable mixes.
2. The three B/S ratios were chosen at each end and the middle of this
range.
3. For each B/S ratio, three or more samples of each SAflM soil were
prepared spanning the desired W/TS range.
4. The resulting mixes were tested with the CP after one day for signs
of setting. The new range of B/S and W/TS resulted in samples that
showed signs of hardening that were then used to establish a new test
matrix. The high and low values for B/S of the new range replaced
the 0.1 and 0.7 values in the initial test matrix, described above.
5. For each B/S ratio, mixes were prepared, 11 duplicate, at three (low,
middle, and high) W/TS ratios spanning the range identified in
Step 4.
6. These duplicate samples were then used to establish a workable W/TS
ratio following the procedure that was initially proposed for the
program.
The procedure resulted in well over 216 samples. The results, however,
showed that regardless of the soil or the binder used, a W/TS ratio of
approximately 0.4 resulted in some indication of solidification of the
-------
material. The results of the water-to-soil tests are presented in Table 3-4,
and Table 3-5 presents the water-to-total solids results for fixed binder
ratios in both cases. The final water-to-total solids, and binder-to-soil
test results are presented in Table 3-6 as a hardness test.
3.3 PREPARATION OF BINDER TO-SOIL MATRICES
Once an acceptable water-to-solids ratio had been established, tests were
conducted to determine the minimum soil-to-binder (B/S) ratio which would
result in a sample of solidified soil with an unconfined compressibility
greater than 50 psi. Actually, with some binders this UCS level could not be
achieved in 30 days. In that case, the sample that achieved the highest UCS
was used for subsequent testing.
The B/S ratio test was performed by mixing each soil (4 soils) with each
binder (3 binders) at three B/S ratios. Six samples of each mixture
constituted one complete set. Five of these were molded into cubes for UCS
testing. At 7, 14, 21, and 28 days, three cubes from each set were subjected
to DCS testing—a destructive procedure which destroys the cube. The fifth
and sixth s.ample were stored for future reference. Four samples of each mix
were placed in glass jars with Teflon lined lids and were sent to the
laboratories for TCLP and Total Waste analyses. The program resulted in a
total of 648 samples, as shown below:
4 Soil types
x 3 Binders
x 3 B/S ratios
x 3 Triplicate samples
x 6 samples at each condi t ion
648 Total samples
Binder and soil were mixed using the previously determined W/TS ratio.
The amount of binder, soil, and water was measured and recorded. Components
of each mixture were added in the same order for each preparation.
-------
Table 3-4.
WATER TO SOIL RA'ID
SOIL
I/PC4/LO 60-80 DRY
/f >100 osi
/H >100 0*1
I/PC7/. 80 BRITTLE
/* >100 BRITTLE
II/PC4/L
/M
/H
II/PC7/L
/H
III/PC4/L
/H
III/PC7/L
/M
/H
IV/PC4/L
/M
/H
IV/PC7/L
/M
/H
>100 HARD
>100 GLASSY
WET
50 BRITTLE
)80 HARD
>100 GOOD
20 BRITTLE
50 WET
25 WET
GOOD
GOOD
60 FIRM
20 SOFT
£0 SOFT
20 WET
>100 DRY
80 DAMP
80 DAMP
CODE
SOIL CONDITION
I/KD4/LO POWDER
/» POWDER
/H WET
I/KD7/I. POWDER
/I* POWDER
/H POWDER
II/KD4/L DRY
/« DRY
/H WET
II/KD7/L POWDER
/W POWDER
/H POWDER
III/KD4/L DRY
/M DRY
/H WET
III/KD7/L POWDER
/« POWDER
/H POWDER
IV/KD4/L SOFT
/« SOFT
/H WET
IV/KD7/L POWDER
/H POWDER
/H SOFT/DRY
SOIL
CONDITION
I/LF4/L DRY POWDER
/« DRY
/H DRY
I/LF7/L POWDER
/M POWDER
/H DRY
II/LF4/L DRY
/M DAMP. SOFT
/H WET
II/LF7/L DRY
/M DRY
/H DRY
III/LF4/L DRY
/M SOFT/DAMP
/H SOFT/WET
III/LF7/L POWDER
/M POWDER
/H POWDER
IV/LF4/L DAMP
/M WET
/H WET
IV/LF7/L DRY
/« DRY
/H DRY
SARM */ BINDER */ WATER * OF SOIL
PC * PORTLAND CEMENT
KD » KILN DUST
LF » LIME/FLYASH
WATER/SOIL (*>
L - 40 X
M - 55 *
H » 70 %
-------
SOIL
I/PC4/L
/«
/H
I/PC7/L
/M
/H
II/PC4/L
/M
/H
II/PC7/L
/M
/H
III/PC4/L
/M
/H
III/PC7/L
/M
/H
IV/PC4/L
/M
/H
IV/PC7/L
/M
/H
wfi'ER: BINDER *
80
100
120
40
60
60
80
100
120
40
60
80
80
100
120
40
60
80
80
100
120
40
60
80
Tdble 3-5, Part 1
WATER/SOLIDS TEST
FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
CONE PENETROMETER (CP)
WATER;SOLIDS *
32
40
48
28
42
56
32
40
48
26
40
56
32
40
48
28
42
56
32
40
48
28
42
56
CP
IWPC3/M 100 40
SftRM «/ BINDER */ WATER LEVEL
PC « PORTLAND CEMENT
KD » KILN DUST
LF « LIME/FLYASH
40
COMMENTS
100
220
>200
>300
>300
)200
>200
(29
>200
>200
>200
>200
90
(20
40
>200
120
<20
30
<20
30
>200
>200
180
HARD DRY
VERY GOOD
VERY GOOD
POROUS
EXCELLENT
GOOD
GOOD
NOT USABLE
WET
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
SOFT
SOFT
GOOD
GOOD
SOFT /WET
MOIST/SOFT
SOFT
SOFT
GOOD/ HARD
GOOD
SOFTER
POOR
-------
SOI-
I/KD4/L
I/KD7/L
/H
WATER;BINDER X
80
100
120
40
60
80
II/KD4/L
/M
/H
II/KD7/L
/M
/H
III/KD4/L
/M
/H
III/KD7/L
/M
/H
IV/KD4/L
/M
/H
IV/KD7/L
/M
/H
80
100
120
40
60
80
80
100
120
40
60
80
80
100
120
40
60
80
Table 3-5, Part 2
WATER/SO'-IDS "ST
FOR Klt_N DOS'
CONE PENETROmETER (CP)
WATER;SiJL:D£ X
32
40
48
28
42
56
32
40
48
28
40
56
32
40
48
28
42
56
32
40
48
28
42
56
COMMENTS
IV/KD3/M 100 40
SfiRM »/ BINDER It WATER LEVEL
PC * PORTLAND CEMENT
KD - KILN DUST
LF * LIME/FLYASH
<20 DRY POWDERY
<20 VERY DRY
50 SLIGHTLY MOIS1
(20 VERY DRY
150 600D
60 SOFT MUDDY
40 GOOD MOIST
<20 NOT USftBLE
<20 WATERY
<20 DRY
140 DRY
140 DRY
50 DRY
80 BRITTLE
<2/ SOFT MUDDY.
>200 POROUS
100 MOIST
<20 SOFT/WET
30 DRY FRIABLE
<20 SOFT
<20 SOFT
50 WET
20 SOFT
<20 WATERY
40 DRY FRIABLE
-------
Table 3-5, Part 3
WftTER/SOLlDS TEST
POR LIME/FLYOSH
CONE PEN£T*OW£TER
SOIL
I/LF4/L
/W
/H
I/LF7/L
/M
/H
WflTER -.BINDER %
80
WfiTER;50LlDS X CP
40
&0
80
II/LF4/L
/M
/H
II/LF7/L
/M
/H
80
100
120
40
£0
80
32 (20
40 (20
43 (20
28 <20
42 <20
SB <20
32
40
48
28
40
56
<20
20
<20
(20
<20
<20
DRV POWDERY
VERY DRY
CRUMBLY
VERY DRY
PASTY
PASTY
DRY POWDER
MOIST
WATERY
DRY
DRY
MOIST
III/LF4/L
/M
/H
III/LF7/L
/M
/H
IV/LF4/L
/M
/H
IV/LF7/L
/M
/H
IV/LF3/M
80
100
120
40
£0
80
80
100
120
40
60
80
100
32
40
48
28
42
56
32
40
48
28
42
56
40
<20
<20
29
60
<20
<20
39
<20
<20
40
<20
DRY,
DRY
SOFT MOIST
DRY
DRY
SOFT/WET
MOIST
MOIST
SOFT
DRY
MOIST
MOIST
MOIST
SftRM t/ BINDER */ WATER LEVEL
*
PC * PORTLAND CEMENT
KD « KILN DUST
LF » LIME/FLYftSH
-------
Talle 3-6, Part 1
IARDNESS TEST
FOR PORTLAND CEMENT BINDER
Soil ID
I/PC4/L A
B
I/PC4/H A
" " B
I/PC7/L A
II II II Q
I/PC7/H A
II tl II Q
I1/PC4/L A
w ii " B
II/PC4/H A
M II M Q
II/PC7/L A
•ii. . g
II/PC7/H A
* " * B
III/PC4/L A
• II II g
III/PC4/H A
... . g
III/PC7/L A
MM Mfi
III/PC7/H A
• H I. g
1V/PC4/L A
• ii • B
IV/PC4/H A
• II H g
IV/PC7/L A
... . B
IV/PC7/H A
• « " B
X H$0
of Soli as
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
Moisture
2
2
3
2-3
2
1-2
2-3
3
2-3
2
5
4
2
2-3
3
3-4
2
2
4
4
3
2
3
4
2
1
4
4
l,-2
2-3
3
4
Consistency
2
2-5
2-5
5-6
5-6
5-6
5
5-6
5-6
5
2-4
2-3
5-6
5-6
5-6
5
2-5
2
2-4
2-4
5
5
2-3
2-5
2
2
2-4
2
5
5-6
5
2
Physical
Sizing
w CftunK
L chunk
L chunk
mono! ithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
chunky
L chunk
monolithic
monol ithic
monolithic
monolithic
M chunk
M chunk
L chunk
L chunk
monolithic
monolithic
L chunk
L chunk
H chunk
S chunk
M chunk
H chunk
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
S chunk
Haroness
PS:
4*-&e
89-i0c>
130
>200
>200
>20e
>200
>209
>200
)200
80-100
60-80
>200
>20e
>200
>200
60
4«
30
39
>200
>200
100
80-109
20
40-60
<20
20
200
>209
>290
80-109
Consistency
Powdery (1)
Crumbly (2)
Lumpy (3)
Fudge-like (4)
Firm (5)
Unbreakable <6>
Moisture
Very dry (1)
Dry (2)
Moist, well set (3)
Wet (4)
Standing water (5)
-------
Figure 3-6, Part 2
HARDNESS TEST
FOR LIME/FLYASH BINDER
* HaO
Soil ID of Solids
I
tt
»1
ft
rf
fr
rf
?t
tt
if
ft
ft
tt
ft
tt
»
ff
tt
II
rf
It
ft
It
II
it
It
II
it
II
ft
tl
ft
ft
tl
III
ft
If
n
tt
ti
it
tt
it
tt
1:1/50 A
n g
" /60 A
" " B
" /70 A
" " B
1:2/50 A
ti ti g
" /60 A
„ A
" /70 A
1. .1 B
1:3/50 A
" " B
" /60 A
it it B
" /70 A
,t it B
1:1/40 A
it n g
" /50 A
ti ti B
" /60 A
" " B
1:2/40 A
tt n B
" /50 A
" " B
" /60 A
n n g
1:3/40 A
it » B
" /50 A
« « B
1:1/50 A
" " B
" /60 A
n t, B
" /70 A
ii it B
1:2/50 A
n it g
" /60 A
ti t, g
50
50
60
60
70
70
50
50
60
60
70
70
50
50
60
60
70
70
40
40
50
50
60
60
40
40
50
50
60
60
40
40
50
50
50
50
60
60
70
70
50
50
60
60
Moisture
3
2
4
4
4
4
2-3
2-3
4
4
4
4
2-3
2-3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4-5
2-3
2-3
4
3-4
4
4
2-3
2-3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4-5
4
3
4
4
4
Consistency
2-5
2
4
4
4
4
2-5
2-5
4
4
4
4
2-5
2-5
4
4
4
4
2-5
3-4
4
4
4
4
2-5
2-5
4
4
4
4
2-5
2-5
4-5
4-5
2-4
2-5
4
4
4
4
2-4
2-4-5
4
4
Chunk
Sizing
L
L & S
None
None
None
None
Large
Large
None
None
None
None
Large
Large
None
L
None
Large
L
L
None
None
None
None
L
L
None
None
None
None
L
L
L
L
L
L
None
None
None
None
L
L
None
None
Hardness
PS I
100
200
<10
<10
<10
<10
140
140
20
30 to bottom
10
10
150
120
30
50
<10
10
70
40
15
<10
<10
<10
140
140
30
30
<10
<10
Cup Split
200
60
60
60
60
30
20
<10
<20
80
80
10
20
continued
-------
Figure 3-6, Part 3
HARDNESS TEST
FOR LIME/FLYASH BINDER (concluded)
.
* HzO
Chunk
Hardness
Soil ID of Solids Moisture Consistency Sizing PSI
III " /70 A
M «t tt Tt
" 1:3/50 A
ft ft ft n
" " /60 A
«t M ff TJ
" " /70 A
,, „ „ g
IV " /40 A
tt 11 ff n
" " /50 A
tt tf ft TJ
" " /60 A
tt tt t, g
" 1:2/40 A
tt ti ti n
" " /50 A
ti tt ft T>
" " /60 A
tt tt n n
" 1:3/40 A
tt tt tt n
" " /50 A
tt tt ft n
" " /60 A
It »t ft n
" " /30 Bk
70
70
50
50
60
60
70
70
40
40
50
50
60
60
40
40
50
50
60
60
40
50
50
60
30
4
4
2-3
3
4
4
4
4
2
2-3
3
3
3-4
3-4
2
2
2-3
2-3
4
4
2
2-3
2-3
4
1
4
4
2-5
2-4
4
4
4
4
1-2
2
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-4
1-2
1-2
2-5
2-5
4
3-4
1-2
2-5
2-3
4
1-2
None
None
L
L
None
None
None
None
S
S
M
M
None
None - L
S
S.
L
L
None
L - None
M
S & M
S & M
None
Small
<10
<10
160
110
20
40
<10
<10
60
100
60
60
10
30
100
100
100
100
20
30
100
140
120
40
140
Consistency
Powdery (1)
Crumbly (2)
Lumpy (3)
Fudge-like (4)
Firm (5)
Unbreakable (6)
;— =======s=====r:
Moisture
Very dry
Dry
Moist, well
Wet
(1)
(2)
set (3)
(4)
Standing water (5)
-------
Figure 3-6, Part 4
HARDNESS TEST
FOR KILN DUST BINDER (concluded)
Soil
III 1:
If tf
tf fr
ft ff
" 1:
tt it
i* »t
tt M
t» ft
ti ft
IV 1:
it M
tt «
it it
n ii
ri tt
" 1:
ii ti
ri ft
»i t«
if tt
tt tt
" 1:
tt it
it ti
it it
ID
2/40 A
" B
/SO A
" B
3/30 A
" B
/40 A
" B
/50 A
" B
1/30 A
" B
/40 A
" B
/50 A
" B
2/30 A
" B
/40 A
" B
/50 A
" B
3/30 A
" B
/40 A
" B
" " /50 A
it tt
" B
* JfcO
Physical Hardness
of Solids Moisture
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
Consistency
Powdery (1)
Crumbly (2)
Lumpy ( 3 )
Fudge-like (4)
Finn (5)
Unbreakable (6)
2-3
2-3
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
2-3
2
4
4
2
2
3
2-3
3
3
Consistency
2-5
2-5
2-4
2
2-5
5
2-5
2-5
2
2-5
2
2
2-5
2
4
4
2
2
2-5
2-5
2
2
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-4
2-5
Sizing
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk 80
L chunk 100
L chunk
Monolith
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
M chunk 00
M chunk 100
L chunk 200
L chunk 120
L chunk
L chunk
L&S chunks
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
PS I
200
200
to bottom
to bottom
200
>200
200
200
140
160
to bottom
to bottom
to bottom
to bottom
<100
<100
200
200
200
200
100
100
>200
200
200
200
140
200
Moisture
Very dry
Dry
Moist, well
Wet
(1)
(2)
set (3)
(4)
Standing water (5)
/7
-------
Figure 3-6, Part 5
HARDNESS TEST
FOR KILN DUST BINDER
Soil ID
I 1:1/30 A
" " " B
" " /40 A
ft ft ft n
" " 50 A
tl ll It n
" 1:2/30 A
" " " B
" " /40 A
" " " B
" " /50 A
tt tt rt n
" 1:3/30 A
tt tt ft n
" " /40 A
tt ft ff Q
" " /50 A
It II II n
II 1:1/30 A
n ii ii g
" " /40 A
It It It n
" " /50 A
ft tf ft TJ
" 1:2/30 A
II tl II g
" " /40 A
ft rt ft n
" " /50 A
it n ii g
" 1:3/30 A
" " " B
" " /40 A
II II It g
" " /50 A
it n M 0
III 1:1/30 A
tf ff ft n
" " /40 A
tf tt tl TJ
" " /50 A
ii n ii 0
" 1:2/30 A
it it ii n
* HaO
of Solids
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
50
50
30
30
Moisture
2
2
2-3
3
5
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
2-3
2-3
3
3
2-3
2-3
3
3
4
4
2
2
2-3
2-3
3
3
2
2
2-3
3
4
4
2
2
2-3
3
4
4
2
2
Consistency
1
2
2-5
2-5
4
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-3-5
1-2
1-2
5
2-3
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2
2
2-3
2-3
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-5
1
1
5
2-5
2-5
2-5
2
2-5
2-5
2-5
4
4
2
2-5
Physical I
Sizing
powder
powder
L chunk
L chunk
nud
L chunk
L chunk
S & chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
Mixed
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
Mixed chunk
M chunk
M chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
M chunk
S chunk
Monolith
Monolith
L chunk
M chunk
M chunk
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
Wet
Wet
L chunk
L chunk
iardness
PS I
<20
60
140-200
140
<20
60
200
<100
140-200
200-140
<100
140-200
<140
60
>200
>i200
200
<100
140
200
140
200
40
180
200
200
200
200
140
140
100
<20
200
200
160
140
100
200
200
120
<20
80
140
200
continued
-------
Figure 3-6, Part 6
HARDNESS TEST
FOR PORTLAND CEMENT BINDER
Soil ID
I/PC4/L A
" " " B
I/PC4/H A
ff ft 1* Q
I/PC7/L A
" " " B
I/PC7/H A
11 ft t* «
II/PC4/L A
" " " B
II/PC4/H A
II II ii n
II/PC7/L A
II II II n
II/PC7/H A
II ii n g
III/PC4/L A
n n ti p
III/PC4/H A
II II M B
III/PC7/L A
ii ii ii p
III/PC7/H A
ii ii n B
IV/PC4/L A
n ii ii B
IV/PC4/H A
ft tt tf n
IV/PC7/L A
" " " B
IV/PC7/H A
ii ft if n
\ tizO
of Solids Moisture
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
30
30
50
50
Consistency
Powdery ( 1 )
Crumbly (2)
Lumpy (3)
Fudge-like (4)
Firm (5)
2
2
3
2-3
2
1-2
2-3
3
2-3
2
5
4
2
2-3
3
3-4
2
2
4
4
3
2
3
4
2
1
4
4
1-2
2-3
3
4
Consistency
2
2-5
2-5
5-6
5-6
5-6
5
5-6
5-6
5
2-4
2-3
5-6
5-6
5-6
5
2-5
2
2-4
2-4
5
5
2-3
2-5
2
2
2-4
2
5
5-6
5
2
Physical
Sizing
L chunk
L chunk
L chunk
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
chunky
L chunk
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
M chunk
M chunk
L chunk
L chunk
monolithic
monolithic
L chunk
L chunk
M chunk
S chunk
M chunk
M chunk
monolithic
monolithic
monolithic
S chunk
Hardness
PS I
40-60
80-100
130
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
80-100
60-80
>200
>200
>200
>200
60
40
30
30
>200
>200
100
80-100
20
40-60
<20
20
200
>200
>200
80-100
Moisture
Very dry
Dry
Moist, well
Wet
(1)
(2)
set (3)
(4)
Standing water (5)
Unbreakable (6)
-------
The mixtures were molded according to the specifications in ASTM C
109-86. The procedure calls for molding the material in specially fabricated
stainless steel or brass molds, which result in cubes two inches (5.08 cm) on
a side. The procedure requires that the molds used meet strict dimensional
and stiffness requirements. The resulting samples were allowed to harden for
one to four days at 70°F (±10°F) and 90 to 100* humidity, then unmolded and
each cube placed in a scalable plastic bag. The samples were then allowed to
cure at 70° and 90-100% relative humidity until they were tested.
The molds for this procedure were stainless steel cubes, two inches on a
side, that come in a set of three cubes per mold. Prior to pouring the mix,
the molds were coated with mineral oil to facilitate unmolding of the samples.
The samples were prepared by mixing the components to the specified ratios and
pouring the results into 15 to 18 cubes at one time. Most samples were tamped
into the molds following the procedures of ASTM 109-86. The samples
solidified with portland cement were too stiff to allow this. They were
tamped into the molds using a drop hammer developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experimental Station2 for this purpose. To avoid possible
sample contamination by the metal of the molds and the release agents, sepa-
rate samples from each pour were taken for chemical analysis. A represent-
ative part of the mixture was placed into a clean glass container closed with
a Teflon lined lid and was shipped periodically during the program to the
appropriate laboratory for analysis. While ideally the analyses should have
been performed on the 14th and 28th days, when the UCS tests were run, the
laboratory scheduling did not always allow this. Table 3-7 shows when each
sample was analyzed.
3.4 MONITORING OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPONENTS
Acurex analyzed the volatile emissions from the curing samples using a
gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (GC/FID). The
-------
DOTE
SAMPLE »
DOTE DPTE
TCLP TCLP
14 DAY 28 DPV
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
9/2/87
9/2/87
9/2/87
9/3/87
9/3/87
9/3/87
9/4/87
9/4/87
9/4/87
9/5/87
9/5/87
9/5/87
,dO 16 J>- I
TEST DOTES
DPTE DPTE
TUP TWO
14 DPY 26 DPY
9/22/87 9/30/87
9/22/87 18/1/87
9/23/87 18/2/87
9/22/87 10/3/87
UCS DPTE
7 DPY 14 DPY 21 DPV 28
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NO
NP
NP
NP
NO
NO
NA
NP
NP
NP
NP
NA
NP
NP
NO
NP
NP
NA
NP -
NP
NP
NA
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Mt
NP
NC
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
13 9/6/87 9/13/87 9/30/87 9/27/87 10/4/87
14 9/6/87 9/28/87 9/22/87 9/13/87 9/30/87 9/27/87 10/4/87
15 9/6/87 10/4/87 10/5/87 9/13/87 9/30/87 9/27/87 10/4/87
16 9/7/87 9/31/87 10/5/87 9/22/87 10/5/67 9/14/87 9/31/87 9/38/87 10/5/87
17 9/7/87 9/14/87 9/31/87 9/28/67 10/5/87
18 9/7/87 9/14/8.7 9/31/87 9/38/87 10/5/87
19 9/8/87 9/15/87 9/22/87 9/39/87 10/6/87
2tt 9/8/87 9/15/87 9/32/87 9/39/87 10/6/87
21 9/8/87 9/32/87 10/6/87 9/22/87 10/6/87 9/15/87 9/22/87 9/29/87 10/6/87
22 9/9/87 9/16/87 9/33/87 9/30/87 10/7/87
23 9/9/87 9/23/87 10/7/87 9/23/87 10/7/87 9/16/87 9/33/87 9/30/87 10/7/87
24 9/9/87 9/16/87 9/23/87 9/30/87 10/7/87
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
33
34
35
36
9/10/87 9/17/87 9/34/87 10/1/87 10/8/87
9/10/87 9/17/87 9/24/87 10/1/87 10/8/87
9/10/87 9/24/87 10/8/87 9/38/87 10/8/87 9/17/87 9/34/87 10/1/87 10/8/87
9/11/67
9/11/87
9/11/87 9/35/87
10/9/87
9/28/87
9/18/87 9/35/87 10/2/87 10/9/87
10/9/87 9/18/87 9/35/87 10/3/87 10/9/87
9/18/87 9/25/87 10/2/87 10/9/87
9/14/87 9/21/87 9/38/87 10/5/87 10/12/87
9/14/87 9/21/87 9/28/87 10/5/87 10/12/87
9/14/87 9/27/87 10/12/87 9/28/87 10/13/87 S/21/87 9/28/87 10/5/87 10/12/87
9/15/87
9/15/87 9/29/87
9/15/87
V22/87 9/29/87 10/6/87 10/13/87
9/30/87 9/22/87 9/29/87 10/6/87 10/13/87
10/13/87 10/13/87 9/22/87 9/29/87 10/6/87 10/13/87
NA - NOT ANALYSED (EXCEEDED MAXIMUM LIMIT FOR UCS)
-------
samples were tested on the 14th and 28th days to deternine whether the level
of volatile emissions had changed during the curing process.
The gas sample was withdrawn from the sealed bag the sample was stored in
and injected into the GC immediately. A 5 ml sample was taken in each
case, and the results were compared to liquid standards of the volatile
compounds.
The conditions used for the GC/FID were 30-ml/ninute He flow through the
30-»eter, DB-5 megabore column. The injector and detector temperature were
set at 280°C and 300°C, respectively. The temperature program was 40°C for
7 «in, ramping at 20°C/min to 270°C and holding for 4 min. This temperature
program adequately separated the volatile compounds of interest.
3.5 MIXING PROCEDURE
Previous studies and ongoing work conducted by Acurex (Contract
68-02-3993, WD 32 and 37) have shown that a large portion of any volatile
components in the waste is released to the.air while mixing with stabilizing
agents. A sealed mixing system was therefore devised to mix the components
for these tests.
The mixing system is shown in Figure 3-1. It consisted of a framework
that held up to three 1-gallon "paint cans" on a shaft that rotated them
end-over-end. This tumbling action mixed the contents. The dry components
for each of the samples were weighed into the cans, and just before placement
in the mixer the required amount of water was added. The system was then
turned on, and the mixing allowed to take place for as long as desired. One
hour was found to be adequate to make a homogeneous mixture.
This mixing system worked well for mixing all of the samples solidified
with portland cement. Those samples using lime or lime kiln dust released gas
during mixing and increased the temperature to such a level that they could
not be mixed in a closed system—there would have been a danger of explosion.
-------
3-1. NIKON APTAMATOB
-------
As a result, these samples were prepared in open containers and mixed by hand.
It is recognized that this procedure resulted in a greater loss of volatile
and semivolatile components, but that this was an unavoidable necessity.
3.6 DETERMINATION OF MATRIX STRENGTH
The samples obtained by the procedures described above were subjected to
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests described in ASTM C109-86.
Triplicate samples were tested at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after curing,
according to method ASTM C109-86.
Prior to testing, the surface area of each cube was accurately determined
by micrometer measurements of its dimensions. Each cube was then subjected to
uniform increments of pressure in a UCS apparatus until it broke. The
breaking pressure was recorded. The unconfined compressive strength was
calculated by dividing the force required to break the cube by the area
(approximately 4 square inches) over which the force was spread.
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS
The results of the tests performed on the solidified SARM's will be
detailed in this section. The results will be presented in tabular form for
ease of comparison, as well as in graphic form when applicable.
The tests conducted on the cubes of solidified SARM soils included
unconfined compressive strength and volatile emissions by gas chromatography
at the Acurex laboratory, and TCLP and Total Waste analysis done at other
laboratories.
4.1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
The unconfined compressive strength results were averaged for three
replicates of each sample at each condition, and the Bean UCS number is given
in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 also defines the component concentration for each
saaple, in addition to listing the date mixed and binder type.
Table 4-1 details the water-to-total solids ratio (W/TS) in addition to
the binder-to-soil ratio (B/S) for all three types of binder.
The UCS values for the portland cement samples were too high for the
equipment available to the Acurex laboratory to evaluate. In order to
determine these UCS values, Samples 1 to 12 were sent to the USEPA Center Hill
facility.
The results from the remaining solidified SARM soil samples were graphed
to compare the UCS of the different SARM soils at fixed B/S ratios. This
relationship was plotted as UCS (psi) versus days-after-mixing for each B/S
ratio and for both portland cement and for lime/flyash. Figures 4-1 to 4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1. SOLIDIFIED "SARM" SOILS
SAMPLE
STMBER
E DATE
R MIXED
9/2/87
9/2/87
9/2/87
9/3/87
9/3/87
9/3/87
9/4/87
9/4/87
9/4/87
9/5/87
9/5/87
9/5/87
9/6/87
9/6/87
9/6/87
9/7/87
9/7/87
9/7/87
9/8/87
9/8/87
9/8/87
9/9/87
9/9/87
9/9/87
9/10/87
9/10/87
9/10/87
9/11/87
9/11/87
9/11/87
9/14/87
9/14/87
9/14/87
9/15/87
9/15/87
9/15/87
SARM
TYPE
I
I
I
II
II
II
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
I
I
I
II
II
II
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
I
I
I
II
II
II
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
SOIL: SOLIDS:
BINDER BINDER WATER
TYPE RATIO RATIO
PORTLAND
CEMENT
TYPE 1
PORTLAND
CEMENT
TYPE 1
PORTLAND
CEMENT
TYPE 1
PORTLAND
CEMENT
TYPE 1
KILN
DUST
KILN
DUST
KILN
DUST
KILN
DUST
LIME/
FLYASH
LIME/
FLYASH
LIME/
FLYASH
LIME/
FLYASH
1:0.7
1:1.2
1:2.3
1:0.7
1:1.2
1:2.3
1:0.7
1:1.2
1:2.3
1:0.7
1:1.2
1:2.3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.45
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.40
1:0.42
1:0.43
1:0.40
1:0.45
1:0.45
1:0.45
1:0.45
1:0.48
1:0.49
1:0.48
1:0.49
1:0.50
1:0.45
1:0.40
1:0.45
MEAN UCS (psi)
DAYS AFTER MIXING
7 14 21 28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5 -
5
176
37.5
128
183
32.9
33
45.7
27.9
38.9
35.7
24.1
22.2
19.5
9.9
17.2
19.4-
21.9
30.3
34.8
34.9
29.8
36.9
977
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
28
99
71
15.8
167
177
72.9
51.8
211
59.7
190
225
36.6
38.4
44.7
28.1
55.7
38.2
27.3
29
30.4
17.1
24.2
31.4
28.7
33
48.8
36
38.7
35.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
93
54
215
78.3
164
275
37.1
40.8
43.7
26.8
52.4
33
26
33.9
32.9
17.3
26.9
41.2
29.1
36.4
48.2
34.8
36.3
37.9
1093
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
16.2
160
300
113
241
•81.1
85.1
216
252
38.5
39
79.8
32.2
52.2
40.1
32.3
40.4
46.6
28.8
62.4
73.4
30.7
36.5
50.9
37.9
40.5
42.2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
continued
-------
Figure 4-1. (concluded)
1? PDDE. r::
5- "£)~-~~2 "cao-v c~ • c
Sa*?>_£ » "I XED
SfiP
&INDE3
^
i
^
4
5
6
7
8
9
li?
11
12
, 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
£3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
9/2/67
9/2/37
9/2/67
9/3/87
9/3/67
9/3/87
9/4/87
9/4/87
9/4/87
9/5/87
9/5/87
9/5/87
9/6/87
9/6/87
9/6/87
9/7/87
9/7/87
9/7/87
9/8/87
9/8/87
9/8/87
9/9/87
9/9/87
9/9/87
9/10/87
9/10/87
9/10/87
9/11/87
9/11/87
9/11/87
9/14/87
9/14/87
9/14/87
9/15/87
9/15/87
9/15/87
T
T
1
I I
T T
A «
-II
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
T
i
I
II
II
II
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
I
I
I
II
II
II
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
DCR"'_AND
uS*EN.~
TYPE •.
:-C9T_AN&
CEftEN"
TYPE i
POR-LANO
CEMENT
TYPE 1
PORTLAND
CE MEN-
TYPE 1
KILN
DUST
KILN
DUST
KILN
DUST
KILN
DUST
LIME/
FLYASH
LIME/
FLYftSH
LIME/
FLYPSH
LIME/
FLYflSH
2. 65
«. 7?5
2. 235
*. :l
^
2. 25
2.9S
3. 585
2. 39
5.79
3.46
2.7
5.106
3. 375
1.73
3.555
2.37
1.77
4
2.7
2. 1
4.395
2.93
2. 195
5. 1
3.3
2.6
3.76
2.435
1.915
4.215
2.725
2.145
4.43
2.9
2.28
2. 45
: . 295
1.855
- * *'*',
2. 19
2. 55
1.375
1.63
2. li
i.48
1.8
2. 136
1.08
1.93
i.495
2.31
2.4
2. 12
1.488
1.77
1.97
1.735
2. 16
2. 135
3.25
4.2
4.95
3.15
4.86
5.6
2.455
2.685
3. 18
2.01
1.94
2. 2S
: . 6*
2. 795
5. tfj
2.51
3. 35
4.8
2. i 45
3.535
4.5
2.625
3.675
4.782
3.395
4.5
5. 16
3.255
4.32
4.86
3.23
8.825
9. 155
3.335
4. 44
5
3.4
4.4
5.2
3.4
4.4
5.2
3.4
4.4
5.2
3.4
4.4
5.2
c.1
-------
Pounds per Square Inch
— -»-»-»-»fgWMtofo
8S8SSS6888SSS8
rv»
(Q
C
3
>
35
>
ro
ro
1
J I
| co
? "O
-------
Pounds per Square Inch
3 5
3
I I
I I I I J I L 1
o ^%
! co
5 "D
I "'
S
-------
300
280 _
260 _
240 _
220 _
200 _
180 _
160 _
140 _
120 _
100 _.
80 _
60 _
40 _
20 _
0
UCS psi
for KHn Dtmt To SoNdi 1 '3 (by SARM)
SARM1
10
SARM 2
T—
14
18
DAYS AFTER MIXING
Figure 4-3
1
22
26
SARM 3
30
SARM 4
-------
Pounds per Square Inch
i I
Tl
(5*
3
t
I
O
01
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I c
51 O
-------
Pounds per Square Inch
•n
«5*
§
I
i
o
fS-
1 1 §
I I I I I I I I I I I I
o1 O
§co
, "S
M —
t
-------
Pounds per Square Inch
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
•n
<£f
5
o>
I
i
S O
CO
-------
show the comparison with measurements taken at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days
after mixing.
4.2 VOLATILE EMISSIONS
The measurement of the organic volatile and semivolatile emissions from
the solidified SARM soil samples was an experimental method developed as a
•cans of tracking the loss of organic components from the samples into the
surrounding air. After curing overnight, the SARM samples were placed into
plastic bags and sealed until tested for UCS. A 5-ml sample of the air in the
bag of the SARM sample was withdrawn for analysis before the bag was opened
and the cube measured. The 5-ml sample was injected onto a gas chromatograph
to determine which compounds were present. It should be noted that the
•ethods involved in sampling will only give an approximate concentration for
the compounds, therefore, the numbers reported in the tables below are
qualitative in nature.
Table 4-2, Parts 1 through 12, shows the estimated concentrations of each
of the added organic compounds in the head space expressed in milligrams per
liter (mg/L) of air at 14 and 28 days after mixing.
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 1. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Portland Cement SARM I
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1.2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis C 2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY .' 28 DAY
Sample #1
90
19
51
40
560
1311
38
31
1
! 2
10
18
37
23
380
909
23
21
2
5
14 DAY 28 DAY
Sample #2
772
13
34
24
357
719
21
21
1
4
11
13
18
10
167
188
I
12
NT)
3
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample *3
531
5
ND
16
249
541
ND
18
1
ND
31
12
15
8
151
370
11
8
ND
4
ND = !iot Detected = Less than 1 mg/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 2. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Portland Cement SARM II
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 , 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pen t ach 1 oropheno 1
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #4
10
ND
ND
ND
18
47
^
3
1
ND
7
ND
11
ND
15
36
1
2
ND
4
14 DAY I 28 DAY
Sample #5
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
ND
o
ND
ND
o
ND
11
. ND
11
31
ND
2
ND
3
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #6
11
ND
ND
ND
35
91
3
3
1
ND
5
ND
11
ND
ND
8
ND
2
1
3
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 mg/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 3. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Portland Cement SARM III
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis ( 2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY 1 28 DAY
Sample #7
2
ND
ND
ND
22
56
2
1
4
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
11
29
ND
1
1
6
14 DAY 1 28 DAY
Sample #8
6
ND
ND
7
77
215
7
3
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
2
ND
5
14 DAY ; 28 DAY
Sample #9
3
ND
ND
5
67
187
6
A
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
0
0
7
ND
2
ND
3
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 mg/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 4. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Portland Cement SABM IV
Headspace Concentration («g/l)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY 1 28 DAY
Sample *10
47
ND
ND
ND
34
78
2
1
1
I
9
7
ND
ND
30
68
ND
1
ND
o
14 DAY , 28 DAY
Sample *11
55
ND
ND
2
22
51
1
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
ND
ND
37
78
ND
1
ND
2
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #12
6
ND
ND ,
ND
g
21
1
ND
ND
ND
40
ND
ND
ND
62
125
3
3
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 ng/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 5. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Kiln Dust SARM I
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis ( 2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY 1 28 DAY
Sample #13
7
6
ND
ND
13
30
ND
ND
ND
3
5
ND
ND
ND
56
143
4
2
ND
7
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #14
A
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
3
14 DAY ; 28 DAY
Sample #15
22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
2
2
ND
10
ND
13
35
ND
4
ND
5
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 mg/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 6. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Kiln Dust SARM II
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #16
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
4
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
3
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #17
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
4
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
ND
ND
ND
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #18
^
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
1
ND
ND
1
2
ND
ND
7
19
ND
3
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 «g/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 7. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Kiln Dust SARM III
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
B is ( 2-Ethylhexy 1 ) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #19
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
1
ND ,' ND
: 0 : 7
14 DAY : 28 DAY : 14 DAY ,' 28 DAY
Sample #20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
1
ND
9
1
ND
ND
. ND
ND
5
ND
1
ND
3
Sample #21
1
ND
ND
ND
9
24
ND
2
ND
6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
3
1
4
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 ing/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 8. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Kiln Dust SARM IV
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #22
12
5
ND
ND
12
33
ND
4
ND
2
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
12
ND
ND
14 DAY i 28 DAY
Sample *23
35
0
ND
ND
4
12
ND
3
5
ND
1
15
9
ND
19
52
ND
10
ND
3
14 DAY ! 28 DAY
Sample *24
36
0
ND
ND
30
103
3
5
1
4
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
5
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 ng/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 9. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Lime/Flyash SARM I
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-D ichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY . 28 DAY
Sample *25
115
17
37
11
163
357
12
1
1
6
18
15
44
15
239
525
12
3
ND
0
14 DAY , 28 DAY
Sample #26
172
20
61
16
296
633
12
1
ND
8
5
11
42
11
213
491
10
4
ND
0
14 DAY ; 28 DAY
Sample #27
157
25
73
22
410
842
2
3
2
13
21
41
54
18
265
556
12
5
4
3
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 mg/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 10. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Lime/Flyash SARM II
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 , 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis ( 2-Ethy Ihexyl )phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #28
12
ND
ND
ND
9
25
ND
1
2
12
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
ND
1
ND
5
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #29
3
ND
ND
ND
1
3
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
5
ND
ND
Q
22
ND
1
ND
ND
14 DAY 1 28 DAY
Sample #30
3
ND
ND
ND
6
16
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
1
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 mg/liter
-------
TABLE 4-2, PART 11. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Lime/Flyash SARM III
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis ( 2-Ethy Ihexyl ) phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY , 28 DAY
Sample #31
7
14
ND
3
9
26
ND
1
I
4
f\
6
ND
ND
\
4
ND
5
10
ND
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #32
4
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
\
5
ND
2
5
3
14 DAY 28 DAY
Sample #33
1
ND
ND
ND
1
6
ND
2
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
5
13
ND
2
3
ND
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 mg/liter
-------
TAfl-LE 4-2, PART 12. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSIS
Lime/Flyash SARM IV
Headspace Concentration (mg/1)
COMPOUND NAME
Acetone
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Styrene
Anthracene
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl )phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
DAYS AFTER MIXING
14 DAY : 28 DAY
Sample #34
23
25
18
ND
148
375
g
2
1
ND
12
ND
ND
8
ND
6
ND
n
ND
11
14 DAY ; 28 DAY
Sample #35
39 : 4
21 i ND
ND ; ND
ND : . ND
20 1 ND
76 I 4
3 ! ND
10 : 9
ND I ND
ND ! ND
14 DAY 1 28 DAY
Sample 436
5
17
ND
ND
49
153
4
6
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
1
3
ND
7
ND
ND
ND = Not Detected = Less than 1 ag/liter
-------
4.3 TOTAL WASTE ANALYSIS
The Total Waste Analysis (TWA) was performed by Hittman Ebasco Associates
under EPA contract # 68-01-7280. SW-846 methods were used in the extraction
and analysis of the samples. The first set of samples (14 day) were extracted
and analysed in duplicate as a check on the homogeneity of the samples, and
the performance of the laboratory. The results of the analyses are presented
ID Table 4-3 parts 1 through 12. The "TWA target" amount of each compound is
the quantity of each analyte that PEI put in the untreated SARM. The "TWA
actual" is the amount Hittman Ebasco found in the untreated SARM, all amounts
are reported in mg/kg.
Table 4-3 also lists the amount of each compound found at 14 days after
•ixing, 28 days after mixing, the apparent * reduction, and the actual reduc-
tion. The apparent reduction is the 28 day subtracted fro» the actual,
divided by the actual times 100 to convert to percent. The TWA actual *
reduction is the volume dilution factor multiplied by the 28 day value before
it is subtracted from the TWA actual, otherwise it is calculated in the same
•anner.
Each part of Table 4-3 also lists the characteristics of the sample,
including the sample number, binder, binder/soil ratio, density, the volume
dilution factor,the SAfiM type, and a relisting of the UCS values for that
saaple.
4.4 TCLP ANALYSIS
The TCLP analysis was done by Lee Wan & Associates under EPA contract *
68-03-3393. The analyses were done using SW-846 methods. The results are
presented in table 4-4 parts 1 to 12. The same comments as table 4-3
apply, except concentrations are in terms of the liquid extraction (mg/L).
These concentrations reflect a dilution of 20 times from the original.
-------
Table 4-3, Part 1
SARI* :
B1NDE? - PORTLAND
IN MG/K6
14 DAY
1
26 DAY
1
SAMPLE »
SOIL/BINDER RATIO 1:0.7 U0.7
VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR 1.7 1.7
DENSITY g/c»3 2.07 £.87
UCS 9 7.14,21.26 DAY >250. >250... >250
CONTAMINANT
"VOLATILE
*
I TWA ( TWO I TWA
• TARGET i ACTUAL 19 14 DAY
I I
i TWA I TWA
I TWA I APPARENT I ACTUAL
10 28 DAYI* REDUCTION i* REDUCTIC
I I I
ACETONE
OHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLCROETHANE
ETHYLBEN2ENE
STY RENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XVLENE
6800
SEWIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
600
3290
1999
690
6299
&S99
2590
1999
3150
330
3S0
3350
710
£90
4159
940
690
135
710
110
16
1999
249
119
1599
869
£29
58
560
95
11
940
229
B4
1490
939
639
59
82
71
97
72
69
86
66
1
-5
63
70
51
95
52
47
76
43
-68
-79
37
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
19
29
39
199
289
39
459
18
17
£7
193
199
27
392
18
18
49
195
453
37
393
15
17
56
1&4
189
32
329
17
0
-197
15
1
-19
IB
-42
-70
-253
-44
-69
-191
-39
-------
T»ble 4-3, part 2
9ARM II
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN NG/KG
SAMPLE ft
SOIL/BINDER RER RATIO
VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY
UCS 9 7. 14,21.26 DAY
14 DAY
110.7
1.7
1.92
> 250
28
4
1:0.7
1.7
, >25*
CONTAMINANT
I TWA I TWA
I TARGET I ACTUAL
I I
I TWA ! TWA
TWO • TWA I APPARENT I ACTUAL
19 14 DAY I* 28 DAY I* REDUCTION I* REDUCTIO'
: I I I
VOLATILE
ACETONE
OCOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
680
60
320
100
60
820
230
9.2
3.9
74
26
16
210
66
3
ND
31
7.3
3.3
49
250
0.9
ND
5.3
1.6
ND
11
-9
90
100
93
93
100
95
-as
63
100
66
66
100
91
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE 650 275
BIS(2-€THYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 250 34
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 100 62
150
43
63
150
41
50
45
-21
19
7
-105
-37
INORGANIC (METALS)
AftSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LJEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
10
20
30
190
260
30
450
18
23
37
260
240
32
544
15
16
47
125
149
34
351
23
24
45
216
294
39
479
-28
-4
-22
16
-23
-22
12
-117
-77
-107
-43
-106
-107
-50
-------
Table 4-3, Part 3
1* DAY
SARW III
BINDER - CHDRTLAND CEMENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN KG/K6
SAMPLE t
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
VOLUME DILUTION RATIO
DENSITY o/c«3
7
It0. 7
1.7
1.92
28 DAv
7
1:0.7
:. 7
1.92
UCS 9 7. 14,21.28 DflY >250 >250
CONTAMINANT
I TWA TWA I
I TARGET I ACTUAL 19 14 DAY
I • I
i TWA i TWA
TWA I APPARENT I ACTUAL
28 DAY IX REDUCTION IX REDUCTION
I I
ACETONE
OtLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
iiSl VOLATILE
660
40
60
320
100
60
620
220
6.9
3.1
100
24
13
150
150
5.4
1.4
63
14
6.4
100
150
2.6
0.7
34
8.7
2.7
59
32
71
77
66
64
79
61
-16
se
62
45
3d
65
33
ANTHRACENE 650 265
B1S(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 250 140
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 100 15
340
140
66
450
220
48
-70
-57
-220
-189
-167
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
500
1000
1500
9500
14000
1000
22500
904
1280
1190
9650
15200
1140
53400
528
797
6390
11&00
625
14800
584
934
1060
7960
12100
724
£2200
35
37
11
18
20
36
56
-10
-24
-51
-4«
-35
-a
29
-------
Table 4-3, Part
SAR* IV
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCENTRAT IONS IN MS/KG
DRY
SAMPLE *
SOIL/BINDER RER RATIO
VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY D/c»3
UCS 9 7. 14,21.28 DAY >250
28 DA>
10
1:0.7
1.7-
1.83
ll
1:0.7
^ ,
1.8.
CONTAMINANT
' TWA
' TARGET
i
1 TWA
1 ACTUAL
1
i
10
1
TWO
14 DAY
1 TWA
i TWA
I APPARENT
1* ZB DAY IX REDUCTION
i
1
1
1
1%
1
TWA
ACTUAL
REDUCTIC
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
THTRACHLOROETHYLENE-
6800
400
600
3200
1 000
600
8200
270
830
2500
540
3700
550
66
25
690
150
89
970
1500
150
33
1600
350
180
2300
88
44
96
36
35
67
36
81?
£
9S
_Q
-10
43
-6
ANTHRACENE 6500 775
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 2500 500
PCNTACHLOROPHENOL 1000 78
730
500
63
1200
670
49
-55
-34
37
•163
-126
-7
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
500
1000
1500
9500
14000
1000
22500
810
1430
1650
13300
16900
1380
28900
506
858
1060
7040
12:00
616
17500
563
952
1020
10100
7S3
21000
30
33
36
24
49
45
27
-18
-13
-5
-29
13
7
-24
€7
-------
Table 4-3, Part 5
1* DAY
26 DAY
sea* i
BINDER - KILN DUST
rONCENT RAT IONS IN MG/KG
I
CONTAMINANT >
i
VOLATILE
CCETONE
CHLOBOBENZENE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
S~YRENE
TTRACHLOROETHYLENE
JTVLENE
SEW I VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS <2-£THYLH£XYL>PHTHALATE
OCNTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CftDMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
!_£AD
NICKEL
ZINC
SAMPLE
*
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
TWA
TARGET
6830
400
600
3200
1000
600
8200
6500
2500
1000
10
20
30
190
2S0
30
450
VOLUME DILUTION
DENSITY
DCS » 7. 14.21.28
a
I TWA > TWP
FACTOR
0/c*3
DAY
1 ACTUAL 1C" 14 DAY
1 1
3150
330
360
3350
710
600
4150
940
600
135
18
17
27
193
190
27
392
79
1.5
0. a
19
4.3
1.5
30
670
410
640
15
12
31
113
183
65
299
14
1:2
3
1.75
5.52.54.241
1
TV«P :
1* 28 DAY IX
, i
120
7.3
7.3
8.3
5.6
7.3
20
520
230
50
12
12
22
101
119
69
238
15
1:3
4
1.86
136,211,215.
TWA t
APPARENT I
REDUCTION IX
I
96
96
96
100
99
99
100
45
62
63
33
29
19
46
37
-156
41
61
TWA
ACTUAL
REDUCTIO
8S
91
92
99
97
95
98
-121
-53
-48
-167
-182
-226
-109
-151
-922
-137
-------
Table 4-3, Part 6
SARI* i:
BIDDER - K3LN DUST
CONCENTRATIONS IN WG/KG
SAMPLE «
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY g/c»3
UCS 9 7, 14,21.28 DAY
14 DAY
16
1:1
2
1.77
37, 60, 78. 85
28 DOv
1
l:
1.7
CONTAMINANT
I TWA I TWA I TWA
i TARSET I ACTUAL I? 14 DAY
I I I
I TWA l TWA
TWA I APPARENT .! ACTUAL
28 DAY IX REDUCTION t* REDUCTIC
I l
VOLATILE
ACETONE 680 £30
CHLOROBENZENE 40 9.2
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 60 3.9
ETHYLBENZENE 320 74
STYRENE 100 26
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 60 16
XYLENE 820 210
55
0.1
0.02
e.e
0.4
NO
1.9
4.2
8.006
9.017
0.03
0.02
ND
0.08
98
100
100
108
100
100
100
96
10P
95
100
ANTHRACENE 65« 275
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 250 34
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 100 62
170
42
63
140
28
49
49
18
21
-2
-65
-58
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
10
20
30
190
280
30
450
IB
23
37
260
240
32
544
14
17
51
133
£30
50
363
15
20
27
153
193
53
404
17
13
27
41
20
-66
26
-67
-74
-46
-18
-61
-231
-49
-------
Table 4-3, Part 7
1* DAY
III
BINDER - KILN DUST
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
VOLUME DILUTION Rfl'IC
DENSITY o/e»3
UCS « 7, 14,21.28 l*v
21
1:3
*
1.86
*6. AS.
28 DAY
2.
1:3
*
1.86
, 80
CONTAMINANT
VOLATILE
i TWA
1 TARSET
1
! TWA i
1 ACTUAL 1 9
1 i
TWfi
14 DAY
TWO i TWA
i rye • APPARENT i ACTUAL
<» £6 DAYm REDUCTION I* REDLC":>
I 1 I
OCETONE
CH-OROBENZENE
1,2-DICHi.OROETHftNE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRPCHi_OROETHYLEN€
XYLENE
40
320
68
820
220
8.9
3.1
im
24
13
150
39
0.03
0.03
0. 16
0. 11
0.01
0.3d
20
0.19
•.85
2
0.79
NO
4.2
91
98
98
98
97
100
97
9:
9*
92
87
100
89
SEWIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE 650 26S
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHfiLATE 250 140
PCNTACHLOROPHENOL 100 IS
210
78
&ee
250
77
62
6
45
-313
-277
-120
-1553
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
500 994
1000 1280
1509 1190
9500 9650
14000 15200
1000 114*
22500 53400
223 233
315 326
391 432
2*20 2668
4710 4390
300 388
7600 7690
74
75
64
72
71
73
.86
-3
-Z
-45
-10
-16
-6
42
-------
Table 4-3. Part 8
14 DAY 28 DAY
IV SAMPLE » 23 23
BINDER - KILN DUST SOIL/BINDER Rfi^IO It2 1:£
CONCENTRATIONS IN WG/KG VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR 3 2
DENSITY 5/c«3 1.83 1.83
UCS 9 7.1*, 81.28 DAY 39,56.52.52
TWA I TWA
I TWA ! T«ft | TWO . Twp fippftRENT , flCTUOu
CONTAMINANT I TARGET iACTUAL If* 14 DAY I* 26 DAYiX REDUCTION I* REDUCTION
I ' i i > I _
VOLATILE
ACETONE 680* 1300* 419 180 99 96
CHLOROBENZENE 400 270 25 15 94 63
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 600 830 1.6 8 99 97
ETHYLBENZENE 3200 2500 270 170 93 89
STYRENE 1090 540 69 45 9S 75
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 60« 540 25 13 98 93
XYLENE 8200 3700 410 260 93 79
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE 6500 775 438 840 -8 -225
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 2500 500 33» 590 -18 -254
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 1000 78 62 64 18 -146
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC 500 810 298 271 67 0
CADMIUM 1000 1430 541 490 66 -3
CHROMIUM 1500 1650 550 516 69 6
COPPER 9500 13300 *£30 4660 63 -10
LEAD 14000 16900 6320 5190 69 8
NICKEL 1000 1380 418 449 67 2
ZINC 22500 28900 11200 12300 57 -28
-------
Table 4-3, Part 9
14 DAY 28 DAY
SfiRW I SAMPLE » 27 27
BINDER - LlME/PLYftSH SOIL/BINDER RATIG Is3 U3
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR 4 4
DENSITv 1.54 1.54
•JCS 9 7,14,21.26 DAY 20.30.33.47
a TWA I
I TWA ' TWfi ! TUA TUA ' APPARENT ; AC
CONTAMINANT I TARGET I ACTUAL II? 14 DOY 10 28 DAY * REDUCTION 1% REDUC'IC'
I I I I I I
VOLATILE
ACETONE &B00 3150 1900 800 75 -2
CHuOROBENZENE 400 330 51 55 83 33
1.2-D1CHLOROETHANE 600 380 12 9.6 97 90
E-HYLBENZENE 3200 3350 440 700 79 16
S^YRENE 1000 710 100 150 79 15
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE - 600 600 59 73 88 51
rYi_£NE 8200 4150 660 960 77 7
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE 6500 940 370 790 16 -236
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 2500 600 350 490 18 -227
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 1000 135 70 710 -426 -2004
INORSANIC (METALS)
A*SENIC 10 18 29 30 -67 -567
CADMIUM 20 17 6. 4 8.5 50 -100
CXROMIUW 30 27 14 19 30 -181
COPPER 190 193 78 62 68 -28
LEAD 280 190 89 113 41 -138
MICHEL 30 27 19 16 41 -137
ZINC 450 392 182 151 61 -54
-------
Table 4-3, Part 10
1* DAY 28 DAY
S«Rf II SAMPLE t 39 2*
BINDER - Ll^E/PLYflSH SOIL/BINDER RfiTIO 1:3 1:
CONCENTRATIONS IN MS/KG VOLJME DILUTION FACTOR * - 2
DENSITY B/OB3 1.59 l.Sfc
uCS * 7. 14.21.26 DAY 19.31,41.73 17.24.27.6i
I TWO : TUP
TWA I APPARENT ACTUAu
CONTAMINANT I TARGET (ACTUAL It
1 1
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLORQETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
JfYuENE
SEMI VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
P€NTAC-_OROPH£NOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
660
40
60
320
100
60
820
650
250
100
10
20
30
190
280
30
450
230
9.2
3.9
74
26
16
210
275
34
62
16
23
37
260
240
32
544
14 DAY i
1
13
0.04
0.012
0.5
0.06
0.024
0.89
56
12
72
28
9.6
15
85
97
21
161
* 28 DAYI* REDUCTION 1%
1 >
57
0.069
0.11
0.95
0.14
0.033
1.8
77
12
73
32
11
19
106
134
20
276
75
99
97
99
99
100
99
72
65
-18
-78
52
49
59
44
38
49
REDUCTIC
26
9e
92
96
96
99
97
16
-6
-253
-433
-43
-54
-22
-66
-88
-52
-------
Table 4-3, Part 11
DAY
26 DAY
SARM III
BINDER - LIWE/FLYASH
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/K5
« 33
SOIL/BINDER RATIO Ij3
VOLUME DILUTION RATIO 4
DENSITY g/e*»3 1.49
JCS 9 7.14,21.28 DAY 35.49,48,57
32
1:3
CONTAMINANT
! TWA I TWA I TWA
I TARGET I ACTUAL i» 14 DAY
i I
I TWA I TWA
i TWA I APPARENT i ACTUAL
i» 26 DAY IX REDUCTION I % REDUCTION
i I !
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STY RENE
TETRACHLDROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHftLATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
680
40
60
320
100
60
820
650
250
100
500
1000
1500
9500
14000
1000
22500
228
6.9
3. 1
100
24
13
150
265
140
15
904
1280
1190
9650
15200
1140
53400
25
«. 35
0.23
0.6
0.42
0.23
2.9
180
51
73
196
258
299
1910
3330
216
5850
140
0.32
0.2
3.5
1.2
0.22
7.9
200
64
69
180
251
279
1660
2780
169
4830
36
96
94
97
95
98
95
25
,34
-360
80
80
77
83
62
85
91
-155
86
74
86
80
93
79
-202
-83
-1740
20
22
6
31
27
41
64
-------
T»bU 4-3, Part 12
14 DAY 28 DAY
SfiRW IV SAMPLE » 33 3t
BIDDER - LIME/R.YASH SOlL/B!vDER RATJO 1,3 1-3
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG VOLJWE DILUTION PftCTQR 3 «
DENSITY p/c«3 1.44 :.*£
UCS ? 7. 14.21.28 DAY 30,39,36,41 37.36.38.*c
I TWA I ^WA
I TWP i TWA I TWO i TWA I APPARENT i ACTUAL
CONTAMINANT I TARGET I ACTUAL 19 14 DAY 18 28 DAY IX REDUCTION IX REDUCTC
i I ! I I I
VOLATILJE
ACETONE 6800 13990 1000 690 95 79
CHLOROBENZENE 400 270 110 43 84 36
1,2-DICHUDROETHANE 600 830 54 19 98 91
ETHYLBEN2ENE 3200 2500 1100 730 71 -17
STYRENE 1000 540 220 130 76 4
TET RACHLOROETHYLENE 600 540 140 66 88 5:
XYLENE 8200 3700 1600 920 75 1
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE 6500 775 780 540 39 -179
BIS(2-€THYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 2500 500 460 280 44 -124
P€NTACHLOROPHENOL 1000 78 73 68 13 -249
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC 500 810 £81 225 72 -11
CADMIUM 1000 1430 448 306 79 14
CHROMIUM 1500 1690 *61 386 77 6
COPPER 9500 13300 4440 3430 74 -3
LEAD 14000 16900 6530 4590 73 -9
NICKEL 1000 1380 374 233 82 26
ZINC 22500 28900 9390 7020 76 3
-------
Table 4-4, Pare 1
1* DAY 28
sew : SAMPLE • i i
gJSDEP - PORTLAND CEMENT SOIL/BINDER Rft-lC 1:0.7 1:0.7
CONCENTI'flTIONS IN ag/L EX'RftCT VOLJME DILUTION PflCTCR 1.7 1.7
DE-NSITY g/c«3 £.07 2.07
UCS 9 7.14.21.26 DAY > 250 > 250
CONTftMINftNT
VOLATILE
i TCLP
i TARGET
i
a
1 TCLP
i ftCTUftL
1
i TCLP
(9 14 DAY
1
i TCLP i TCLP
i TCLP : OPPPRENT 1 ACTUAL
i* 28 DAYI* REDUCTION IX REDUCTIO'
! 1 1
340 110 61 180 -64 -178
OCOROBENZENE 20 5.2 2.39 1.32 75 57
:.2-DICHtOROETHftNE 30 76 10 0.44 99 99
ETHYLBENZENE 160 27 6.28 10.3 62 35
STYRENE 50 9 5.84 2,78 69 47
TETRftCHLOROETHYLENE 30 3.3 10 0.72 78 63
JTYLENE 410 62 35 13.8 78 62
SEMIVOLPTILE
QMTHRACENE 350 2.6 0. 02 0.03 99 98
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALftTE 125 2.3 0.01 1.02 56 25
PENTftCHLOROPHENOL 50 7.8 7 3.87 53 16
INORGANIC (METftLS)
AftSENIC 0.5 0. 15 9. IS 0. 15 0 -70
CADMIUM 1 0.53 9.01 0.91 98 97
CHROMIUM 1.5 9.01 9.96 0.86 -500 -920
COPPER 9.5 0.61 0.07 0.06 90 83
LEAD 14 0.49 0.15 0,15 69 48
NICKEL 1.5 0.27 0.04 0.04 85 75
ZINC 22.5 9.2 0.23 0.49 95 91
-------
Table 4-4, Part 2 . _. ..
14 DAY 28
SAR» !t SAMPLE « 4
E.I-JDER - PORTLAND CEMENT SOI^/BINDER RCTIO n0.7
CONCENTROTI ON IN wo/L EXTRACT .VOLUME DILUTION ^ACTOR 1.7
uCS 9 7.14,21.28 DAY >25«. ..
TCLP i TCLP
1 TCLP i TCLP I TCLP I TCLC' • APPARENT I ACTUAt
CONTAMINANT I TARGET iACTJAL I* 14 DAY '9 28 DAY IX REDUCTION IX REDUCT!
I I I i ! |
VOLATILE
ACETDNE 34 0.92 238 15 -1530 -267;
CHLOROBENZENE 2 0.85 2.4 0.17 -240 -47(
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 3 0.05 10 0.05 0 -7t
ETHYLBEN2ENE 16 0.12 19.2 4.78 -3*83 -667£
STYRENE 5 0.03 8.52 0.03 0 -7C
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 3 0.05 1.4 0.16 -22« -444
XYLENE 41 0.3 34.5 5.15 -1617 -2816
ANTHRACENE
BIS (a-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
PENTftCHLOROPHENOL
32.5
12.5
5
0.01
0.22
0.9
0.08
0.91
0.41
0.01
0.99
0.11
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
0 -70
59 30
68 79
0.5
1
1.5
9.5
14
1.5
22.5
0.15
0.73
0.01
0.89
0.7
0.4
14.6
9. 15
e. 0:
0.03
0.04
e. is
0.04
0.09
0. IS
0.01
0.03
0.06
e. is
0.04
0.54
0
99
-£99
93
79
90
96
-70
98
-410
69
64
63
94
-------
Table 4-4, Part 3
14 DAY
28 DAv
so** :::
r:M>£R - POLAND CEMENT
SAMPLE »
"SC:_/&INOER RP'IO
CONCENTRATION IN mo/L EXTRACT
!
CONTAMINANT i
1
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
:. 2-DICK.OROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMI VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEX YL ) PHTHALATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
AftSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MICKEL
ZINC
TCLP
TARGET
34
2
3
1&
5
3
41
32.5
12.5
5
25
se
75
475
708
50
1125
1 TCLP
i ACTUAL
t
7. 1
0.38
0.5
4.6
0.5
0.33
11
0.01
0.0S
0.34
6.39
33.1
0.01
60.7
19.9
17.5
358.5
VOLUME DILUTION
DENSITV o/onJ
UCS 9 7. 14.21. 28
1 TCLP '
19 14 DAY 19
i '
40. 1
0.06
0. 1
1.67
0.6
0.09
E.55
0.01
0.01
1.1
a. is
0.01
«.07
0. 15
0.63
0.04
0.56
RA-IO
DAY
TCLP
26 DAY
1£. 1
8,01
0.01
4,21
0.02
0.01
0.52
0.02
0.26
0.9
0.15
0.01
0.07
0.09
0.15
0.04
0.69
7
U0.7
1.7
J.88
> 250
TCLP 1
I APPARENT 1
1% REDUCTION I*
1 1
-70
97
96
95
96
97
95
-100
-169
-165
96
100
-600
100
99
100
100
7
l:«
1.7
i.se
>2S0
TCLP
ACTUAL
REDUCTIO'
-190
96
97
92
93
95
92
-240
-391
-350
96
100
-1090
100
99
100
100
-------
Table 4-4, Part 4
14 DAY
28 DO"
SOR* IV
BINDER - OORT-AND CEMENT
CONCENTRATORS IN BID/L EXTR(
t
CONTAMINANT !
1
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1 , 2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBEN2ENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMI VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
B IS (2-ETHYLHEX YL ) PHTHALATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
*CT
TCLP
TARGET
340
20
30
160
50
30
410
325
125
50
25
50
75
475
700
50
1125
1 TCLP
t ACTUAL
I
130
6.7
13
47
11
4.5
100
3.4
3
3.8
9.56
35.3
0.06
159.9
70.4
26.6
395.9
SAM
SOL/BINDER RA-H
VOLUME DILUTION
DENS I TV 9/cm3
DCS 9 7. 14,21. 28
I TCLP 1
i» 14 DAY I*
I
68
2.2
0.77
28.8
6
1.6
37.2
0.04
0.01
5.9
0. 15
0.01
0.06
0.14
0.39
0.04
0.32
PLE »
c
FACTOR
DAY
TCLP
28 DAY
1.57
4.06
0.4
149
37.5
3.36
244
1.06
1.06
12.1
6.15
0.01
0.06
0.17
0.37
6.04
0.74
10
1:0.7
1.7
1.83
>250. . . .
1 TCLP
1 APPARENT
IX REDUCTION
I
99
39
97
-217
-241
25
-144
1
69
65
-216
96
100
0
100
99
100
100
if
1:0.7
1 » '
i.a:
. . . . > 250
i TCLP
1 ACTUAL
IX REDUCTIO
i
98
-4
95
-439
-480
-28
-315
47
40
-441
97
100
-70
100
99
100
100
-------
Table 4-4. Part 5
1* DAY
28 DAY
BINDS" - KILN DUST
IN rno/L EXTR«CT
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
VOLUME DILUTION PftCTOR
DENSITY
14
1:2
3
1.75
15
1:3
4
i.as
LJCS * 7.14.21.28 DAY 5.52.54,24: 176,211,215.81
CONTAMINANT
I TCLP I TCLP I TCLP
i TARGET I ACTUAL 1C" 14 DAY
I I I
I TCLP
I TCLP i APPARENT 1 ACTUAL
I* 28 DAY)* REDUCTION IX REDUCTIO
i ! I
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
: , 2-D1 CHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STY RENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEW I VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MICHEL
ZINC
340
20
30
160
50
30
410
350
135
50
0.5
1
1.5
9.5
14
1.5
22. 5
110
5.2
76
27
9
3.3
62
2.6
2.3
7.8
0.15
0.53
0.01
0.61
0.49
0.27
9.2
3.87
0. 11
0.01
1.54
0.59
0. 12
2.71
0.05
0.01
0.06
0. 15
9.91
0.36
0.04
0. 15
0.04
0.27
6. 14
0.06
0.1
0.06
1.06
0.02
2.04
0.0S
0.05
0.13
0.15
.01
.09
.03
.15
.04
0.62
94
99
100
100
88
99
97
98
98
98
0
98
-800
95
69
89
93
76
9S
95
9S
53
96
67
92
9;
93
-300
92
-3500
80
-22
41
73
(/
'
-------
Table 4-4, Part (,
14 DAY
28 DAV
SARW 11
BISDt' - KluN DUST
CONCENTRATION IN mo/L EXTRACT
1
CONTAMINANT i Tf
1
VOLATILE
OCETONE
CHLORQBENZENE
1 . 2-DI CHLOROETHANE
ETHVLBENZENE
STY RENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEW I VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
TCLP
>RGET
34
2
3
16
5
3
41
32.5
12.5
5
0.5
1
1.5
9.5
14
1.5
22.5
( TCLP
1 ACTUAL
1
0.92
0.05
0.05
9. 12
0.03
9.05
0.3
0.01
0.22
0.9
0. 15
0.73
0.01
0.89
0.7
0.4
14.6
SAM
SOIu/BINDER RA'I
VQLJWE DILUTION
DENSITY o/c«3
UCS 9 1. 1*. Si. 28
I TCLP 1
1* 14 DAY 1?
I 1
2. 13
0.01
0.01
0.26
0.05
0.02
0.36
0.01
0.01
0. 16
0. 15
0.01
0.08
0.07
0.39
0.04
0.25
OLE •
0
FACTOR
DPY
TCLP
26 DAY
1.65
•. 1
0.01
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.09
0.01
0,05
0.04
0.15
0.01
0.05
0.09
0,37
0.04
0.78
16
1:1
2
1.77
37,60,76
i TCLP
: APPARENT
I* REDUCTION
i
-79
-100
80
75
-233
-100
70
0
77
96
0
99
-490
90
47
99
95
H
i l .
i
1.7-
.65
TCLP
1 ACTUAL
IX REDUCTIC
i
-259
-30e
6?
se
-567
-30«
40
-100
55
91
-100
97
-900
80
-6
80
89
-------
Table 4-4, Part 7
14 DAY
28 Dfiv
SARM III
BIDDER - *JLN DUST
SAMPLE »
SD:<_/&INDER RATIO
CONCENTRATION If) mg/L EXTRACT
!
CONTAMINANT i
1
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1.2-DICHLCROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMI VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (3-ETHYLHEX YL > PHTHALATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
TCLP
TARGET
34
2
3
16
5
3
41
se.5
12.5
5
as
50
75
475
7M
50
iias
TCLP
i ACTUAL
1
7. 1
0.3d
0.5
4.6
0.5
0.33
11
0.01
0.99
0.34
6.39
33.1
0.01
60.7
19.9
17.5
356.5
VOLu'KE DILUTION
DE^SI'V c/on3
UCS 9 7. 14,21.28
i TCLP i
!C» 14 DAY 18
i 1
2. 17
1
e. «
a.ea
0.01
i
0.03
0. 0e
0.01
0.36
«. 15
0.01
0.22
i.0e
13.3
0.04
4.38
RATIO
DAY
TCLP
28 DAY
1.01
0.01
0. 1
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.12
0. n
0.11
0.06
0.21
0.01
0. 12
0.85
18.3
0.04
4.07
21
1:3
tt
1.86
46, 45. 44
» TCLP f
1 APPARENT 1
i% REDUCTION 1
i 1
86
97
80
98
98
97
99
-10&0
-22
76
97
100
-1100
99
8
10*
99
2;
A « »
4
1.66
.80
TCLP
ACTUAL
X REDUCTTO'
43
89
20
93
92
88
96
-43TO
-389
6
87
100
-4700
%
-268
99
95
-------
Table 4-4, Part 8
SARW IV
BINDER - KILN DUST
CONCENTRATIONS IN tno/L EXTRAC1
SAMPLE »
SOIL/BINDS' RATIO
VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR
DENS I TV 9/cti3
UCS 9 7. 14,21.28 DAY
DAY
28
23
1:2
3
1.83
39. 56, 52, 52
2:
1:2
;
1.62
CONTAMINANT
I TCLP I TCLP i TCLP
I TARGET I ACTUAL IS 14 DAY
I I >
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CXLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLDROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMI VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS <2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
PCNTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MICHEL
ZINC
340
20
30
160
50
30
410
325
125
50
25
50
75
475
700
50
1125
130
6.7
13
47
11
4.5
100
3.4
3
3.8
9.58
35.3
0.06
159.9
70.4
26.8
395.9
24.4
0.05
0. 1
7.92
1.15
0. 11
10.9
0.01
0.01
3.2
0. 16
0.01
0. 11
1.88
12.4
0.04
4.57
73
81
100
71
63
79
76
IS
44
100
14
-1£
36
23
TCLP I TCwP
TCLP ! APPARENT I ACTUAL.
28 DAY I* REDUCTION iX REDUCTIC
I I
35.2
1.26
0.0£
13.5
4.1
0.96
24.1
0.03
0.27
5.23
0.27
0.01
0.12
1.67
21.4
0.04
3.77
99
91
-3d
97
100
-100
99
70
100
99
97
73
-313
92
100
-500
97
9
100
97
-------
Table 4-4, Part 9
14 D«V
28 DAY
SPR* 1
BI^DE* - LIME/FLYASH
CONCENTRATIONS IN «o/L EXTRACT
SOIL/BINDER
VOLUME DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY
UCS il 7. 14,21. 28 DAY
CONTAMINANT
"VOLATILE
1 TCLP i TCLP i TCLP
i TARGET i ACTUAL i0 14 DAY
I I I
27 27
1:3 1:3
4 4
1. 54 1. 54
20.30.33.47
• TCLP i TCLP
• TCLP i APPARENT I ACTUAu
I* 28 DAY'* REDUCTION IX REDUCT10
1 I
ACETONE 340 110
CK.OROBENZENE 20 5.2
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 30 76
ETHYLBENZENE 160 27
STYRENE 50 9
TETRPCHLOROETHYLENE 30 3.3
XYLENE 410 62
iiMIVOLATlCI
35.6
1.3
0.4
16.9
0.4
1.4
21.5
43
1.6
0.1
18
4. 1
1.5
22
61
69
100
33
54
55
65
-56
-22
99
-167
-82
-82
-42
ANTHRACENE 350 2.6
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYUPHTHALATE 125 2.3
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 50 7.8
0.02
0.05
0.36
0.02
0.16
0.4
99
93
95
97
72
79
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
0.5
1
1.5
9.5
14
1.5
22.5
0. 15
0.53
0.01
0.61
0.49
0.27
9.2
0. 15
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.15
0.04
0. 14
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.15
0.04
0.01
0
98
-100
95
69
85
100
-300
92
-700
80
-22
41
100
-------
Table 4-4, Part 10
14 DAY 28
SAMPLE » 30 2*
rINDER - uI^E/^uYASH SOL/BINDER RATIO U3 ::£
CONCENTRATION IN iiig/L EXTRACT VO_J*E DILUTION FaC^OR *
DENSITY p/c*3 1.58 1.5t
UCS 0 7. 14.21.28 DOY 19.31.41.73 17.24,27.6i
i TCLP I TCLP
1 TCLP i TCLC- i TCLP i TCLP i APPARENT i ACTUAL.
CONTAMINANT i
1
VOLATILE
ACETONE
OtLOROBENZENE
1 , 2-DI CHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
S^YRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMIVOLAT1LE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
L£AD
NICKEL
ZINC
TARGET (ACTUAL iff )4 DAY '.9 28 DAY 1 % REDUCTION IX
1 ! 1 ! 1
34
2
3
16
5
3
41
32.5
12.5
5
0.5
1
1.5
9.5
14
1.5
22.5
0.92
0. 05
0.05
0. 12
0.03
0.0S
0.3
0.01
0.22
0.9
0.15
0.73
0.01
0.89
0.7
0.4
14.6
1.84
0.01
0.1
0.08
0.01
0.1
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0. 15
0.01
0.01
0.02
0. 15
0.04
0.22
3
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.03
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.15
0.01
0.01
0,03
0.15
0.04
0,02
-226
80
80
-25
0
80
33
0
95
88
0
99
0
97
79
99
100
REDUCTIC
-87fi
4*
40
-275
-200
4*
-10*
-20e
86
63
-28*
96
-20e
90
36
70
100
-------
Table 4-4, Part 11
DAY
28 DAY
SA»" III
BINDER - LlME/FLYASt-
CONCENTRATION IN mo/L EXTRftC
1
CONTAMINANT '
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLORDETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMI VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
B I S < 2 -ETHYLHE X YL ) PHTHAUA TE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
SAMPLE «
7
TCLP
TARGET
34
2
3
16
5
3
41
32.5
12.5
5
25
50
75
475
700
50
1125
1 TCLP
1 ACTUAL
i
7. 1
0.38
0.5
4.6
0.5
0.33
11
0.01
0.09
0.34
6.39
33.1
0.01
80.7
19.9
17.5
358.5
SOIL/BINDER I»TI
VOLUME DILUTION
DENSITY o/e»3
DCS 9 7. 14.SJ.28
i TCLP 1
19 14 DAY S>
i
3.07
0.03
0.01
0.55
0.06
0.01
0.86
0.01
0.01
0.24
*. 81
0.02
0.03
2.96
51
0.04
3.81
0
RATIO
DAY
TCLP
28 DAY
2.3
0.02
0.01
0.26
0.06
0.02
0.4
0.01
0.02
0.3
0.79
0.0S
0.07
2.59
51.2
0.05
3.97
33
1:3
tt
1.49
35. 49. 48.
TCLP 1
I APPARENT 1
'.* REDUCTION)*
• 1
68
95
98
94
88
94
96
0
78
12
88
100
-600
97
-157
100
99
3:
1 :3
4
1.4$
51
TCLP
ACTUAL
REDUCTION
-30
73
92
77
52
76
85
-300
11
-253
51
100
-2700
87
-929
99
96
-------
Table 4-4, Part 12
DOY
28 DA*
SftR* IV
BINDER - Ll«IE/FLYASH
SAMPLE •
SOIu/PJNDER RATIO
CONCENTRATIONS IN mp /L EXTRACT
1
CONTAMINANT 1
1
VOLATILE
ACETONE
CH.OROBENZENE
1 . 2-DI CHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMI VOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
PENT ACHL OROPHENOL
INORGANIC (METALS)
MtSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
TCLP
TARSET
340
20
30
160
50
30
410
325
125
50
25
50
75
475
700
50
1125
1 TCLP
1 ACTUAL
1
130
6.7
13
47
11
4.5
100
3.4
3
3.8
9.58
35.3
0.06
159.9
70.4
26.8
395.9
VOLUME DI'_UTION
DENSITY o/c«3
UCS 9 7. 14.21.28
1 TCLP 1
10 14 DAY ;»
1 1
42.8
0.39
0.5
18.1
2.06
0.61
29.8
0.02
0.05
14.4
1.61
0.01
0.07
1.92
91.8
0.04
3.22
PAC-OR
DAv 3
I
TCLP i
28 DAYI
I
24.1
1.7
0.65
11.6
3.59
2.49
22.9
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.96
0.02
0.07
2.18
65
0.05
3.64
35
1:2
3
1. 44
i0. 39. 36. 41
TCLP
APPARENT
* REDUCTION
81
75
95
75
67
45
77
100
97
93
90
100
-17
99
a
100
99
3d
i :2
A
1. 5i
37, 36. 38. *
1 TCLP
1 ACTUAL
IX REDUCTIC
1
26
-1
8*
1
-31
-121
8
99
87
74
59
100
-367
95
-269
99
96
-------
SECTION 5
QA/QC
5.1 DATA QUALITY FOR CRITICAL MEASUREMENTS
This project was designed to measure the leaching performance of soils
from superfund sites that have been solidified using specified commonly used
techniques. The actual leaching performance of the samples was determined by
the TCLP tests that were performed under a different project. These
measurements are not covered by the QAPP for this project. This project was
responsible for mixing the materials (which were provided by EPA), performing
routine tests on the resultant samples and sending selected samples to the
other laboratories for TCLP, and total waste analysis.
The semi-volatile emissions were measured qualitatively. No
quantification of these was necessary. The elution ti«e for each of the
components selected was determined by the daily injection, into the GC/FID, of
solutions of each component in a suitable solvent.
The ancillary measurements performed under this project were made using
extremely stable, reliable devices. The thermometers are all mercury in
glass, and are accurate to within ±0.5 C°. The relative humidity was measured
by a sling wet bulb/dry bulb sling psychrometer which is the primary standard
for this measurement.
Data quality objectives are listed in Table 5-1.
-------
TABLE 5-1
QA Objectives for Precision, Accuracy, and Completeness
Measurement Method Accuracy Precision Completeness
Penetration
resistance
Unconfined
compressive
strength
Semi-volatiles
analysis
Weight
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Cone +10*
Penetrometer
DCS tester +10%
GC/FID Qual.
Laboratory +5*
Balance
Thermometer + 1°C
Sling
Psychrometer +5*
-10*
90*
±10*
Qual.
+5*
+10*
90*
90*
90*
90*
90*
-------
5.2 CALIBRATION
The major tests that were performed under this program are the UCS AND CP
tests. The CP is a rugged device designed for field use which measures the
force required to push a cone into a sample. It is calibrated by simply
pushing it down against a scale and comparing the force it records against
that of the scales.
The compression testing machine, used for the UCS measurements is an ASTM
standard device in its own right.
The semi-volatile emissions were measured qualitatively. A quantitative
measure of the emissions was considered unnecessary for the scope of this
study. The elution time for each of the components selected was determined by
the daily injection of solutions of each component.
The GC is the only instrument used which is susceptible to drift and
other variation. Because of such instability, its performance on the
standards was checked daily by daily monitoring of the elution times for the
desired components. Since surrogate wastes of known composition are used,
sample spikes for positive peak identification are unnecessary.
Cube dimensions were determined using standard machinists' calipers.
These were purchased new for the project. 5.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE
The only sampling activity that took place was the collection of the
semi-volatile emission sample for the GC analysis. This was performed in
accordance with EPA Method 18, "Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound
Emissions by Gas Chromatography."
5.4 SAMPLE CUSTODY AND LABELING
Upon receipt the soil samples were labeled and logged in according to
their type of SARM, date received, receiving technician, and other pertinent
information. Every time a portion of the sample was taken for testing or the
sample otherwise handled an appropriate entry was made in the log. This
-------
included the amount removed or replaced, the responsible technician, date of
the activity, soil destination or source, and any other pertinent comments.
Each entry was signed by the person performing the activity. This log forms
the "chain-of-custody" document for all samples while at Acurex.
The chain-of-custody was maintained with all samples sent to the
analytical laboratories or other entity for further work.
-------
i- H
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF TCLP RESULTS FOR METALS
(SARM)
SAMPLE BINDER Arsenic ! Cadaiua t Chroaiua ! Copper ! Lead
NO. (DAYJ a b ! a b | a b ' a b ! _. _a b
I
I RAW ND
1 PC(14) ND
14 KD(14) ND
27 LF(14) ND
1 PC(28) ND
15 KD(28) ND
27 LF(28) ND
II RAW ND
4 PC(14) ND
16 KD(14) ND
30 LF(14) ND
4 PC(28) ND
16 KD(28) ND
29 LF(28) ND
III RAW 6.39
7 PC(14) ND
21 KD(14) ND
33 LF(14) 0.81 52
7 PC(28) ND
21 KD(2R) 0.21 98
33 LF(28) 0.79 51
IV RAW 9.58
10 PC(14) ND 100
23 KD(14) 0.16 95
LF(14) 1.61 50
10 PC(28) ND 100
23 KD(28) 0.27 92
LF(28) 0.98 59
0.53
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
0.73
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND .100
ND 100
ND 100
33.1
ND
ND 100
0.02 100
ND 100
ND 100
0.02 100
35.3
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
0.02 100
DETECTION LIMIT 0.15 ! 0.01
ND
0.06 +
0.06 +
0.02 4
0.06 +
0.09 +
0.02 +
ND
0.03 +
0.08 +
ND
0.03 +
0.05 +
ND
ND
0.07 +
0.22 +
0.03 +
0.07 +
0.12 «•
0.07 +
0.06
0.06 +
0.11 +
0.07 *
0.06 +
0.12 «•
0.07 *
0.01
0.61
0.07 81
0.04 81
0.03 98
0.06 83
0.03 80
0.03 98
0.89
0.04 92
0.07 79
ND 100
0.06 89
0.09 89
0.03 90
80.7
0.15 100
1 . 02 96
2.96 87
0.09 100
0.85 96
2.59 87
160
0.14 100
1.88 97
1.92 96
0.17 100
1 . 67 97
2.18 95
0.02
0.49
0.15 75
ND 100
ND 100
0.15 75
ND 100
ND 100
0.7
0.15 82
0.44 +
ND 100
0.15 83
0.37 +
ND 100
19.9
0.63 95
13.3 *
51 +
ND 100
18.3 +
51 +
70.4
0.39 99
12.4 43
91.8 +
0.37 99
21.4 9
65 +
0.15
Nickel
a b
0.27
0.04 70
NO 100
ND 100
0.04 70
ND 100
ND 100
0.4
0.04 83
ND 100
ND 100
0.04 83
ND 100
ND 100
17.5
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
0.03 99
26.8
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
ND 100
0.04
Zinc
a b
9.2
0.23 96
0.27 94
0.14 94
0.49 91
0.62 73
ND 100
14.6
0.09 99
0.25 97
0.22 99
0.54 94
0.78 89
0.02 100
359
0.58 100
4.38 95
3.81 96
0.69 100
4 . 07 95
3.97 96
396
0.39 100
4.57 97
3.22 96
0.74 100
3.72 97
3.64 96
0.01
Notes: (a) TCLP results in pp* ND - below detection li»it
(b) % reduction, corrected for dilution •»• - increaae over raw SARM
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF TWA RESULTS. METALS
(SARM)
SAMPLE
KO.
I
1
14
27
1
15
27
II
4
16
30
4
16
29
III
7
21
33
7
21
33
IV
10
23
35
10
23
36
BINDER
(DAY)
RAW
PCU4>
KD(14)
LF(14>
PC(28>
KD<28>
LF(28>
RAW
PC(14>
KDU4>
LF(14)
PC(28>rf
KD(28>
LF(28)
RAW
PC(14>
KD(14>
LFU4>
PC<28>
KD<28)
LF(28>
RAW
PCU4)
KD(14>
LF<14)
PC(28>
KD(28>
LF<28>
As
18
18
15
29
15
12
30
18
15
14
28
23
15
32
904
528
223
196
584
233
180
810
506
290
281
563
271
225
Cd
17
18
12
8
17
12
9
23
18
17
10
24
20
11
1.280
797
315
258
934
326
251
1.430
858
541
448
952
490
306
TWA
Cr
27
49
31
14
56
22
19
, 37
47
51
15
45
27
19
1.190
1.010
391
299
1.060
432
279
1.650
1.060
550
461
1 . 020 '
516
386
RESULTS
Cu
193
195
113
78
164
101
62
260
125
133
85
216
153
106
9.650
6.39O
2.420
1.810
7.960
2.660
1.660
13.300
7.040 .
4.230
4.44O
1O.1OO
4.860
3.430
D*>
Pb
190
453
183
89
189
119
113
240
149
280
97
294
193
134
15.200
11.600
4.710
3.830
12.100
4.390
2.780
19.9OO
12.100
6.320
6.590
8.680
5.190
4.590
Ni
27
37
65
19
32
69
16
32
34
50
21
39
53
20
1.140
625
300
216
724
300
169
1.380
616
418
374
753
449
255
Zn
392
393
299
182
320
232
151
544
351
383
161
479
404
276
53.400
14.800
7.600
5.850
22.200
7.690
4.830
28.900
17.500
1 1 . 200
9.890
21.000
12.300
7.020
TABLE 8
CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION AND SOLUBILITY
OF 5ARK KETAL CONTAKIHANT5
CHEMICAL TYPE
Lead aulfate
Zinc oxide (ZnO)
Cad»iu» aulfate (3CdS04 8H20)
Arsenic trioxide (As20?>
Copper aulfate (CuS04 5H20)
Chromic oxide
Nickel nitrate CHi23
SOLUBILITY IK WATER
Slightly soluble
Insoluble
Soluble
Sliahtly soluble
Soluble
Insoluble
Soluble to very soluble
------- |