United States Risk Reduction Engineering EPA/540/5-89/011 a
Environmental Protection Laboratory September 1990
Agency Cincinnati OH 45268
Superfund
vvEPA Technology Evaluation
Report
ChemfixTechnologies, Inc.
Solidification/Stabilization
Process
Clackamas, Oregon
Volume
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
EPA/540/5-89/011a
September 1990
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
CHEMFIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION PROCESS
CLACKAMAS, OREGON
VOLUME I
TJ.S. rr'lrro .-'.' J">J T ""' ..... ; " - "' ' """
I -; ; o -; ), '
'. i) ' (...-, .~ " . . - , iiJu^i 1670
Chicago ,
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3483 and the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer review and administrative review
and it has been approved for publication as a U.S. EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program was authorized in the
1986 Superfund amendments. The program is a joint effort between EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The
purpose of the program is to assist the development of hazardous waste treatment technologies
necessary to implement new cleanup standards which require greater reliance on permanent
remedies. This is accomplished through technology demonstrations which are designed to provide
engineering and cost data on selected technologies.
This project is a field demonstration under the SITE program and designed to analyze the
Chemfix Technologies, Inc. solidification/stabilization technology. The technology demonstration
took place at a former recycling facility in Clackamas, Oregon. The demonstration effort was
directed at obtaining information on the performance and cost of the technology for assessing its
use at this as well as other uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Documentation consists of this
report that describes the field activities and laboratory results, provides an interpretation of the
data, and discusses the potential applicability of the technology.
Additional copies of this report may be purchased from the National Technical
Information Service, Ravensworth Bldg., Springfield, Virginia, 22161, (703) 487-4600. Reference
copies will be available at EPA libraries in their Hazardous Waste Collection. You can also call
the SITE Clearinghouse hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or (202) 382-3000 in Washington, D.C., to
inquire about the availability of other reports.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
The primary goal of the Chemfix Technologies, Inc., demonstration was to evaluate the
overall treatment performance and cost of the Chemfix process as applied to a specific hazardous
waste matrix at an uncontrolled hazardous waste site. The demonstration took place at the
Portable Equipment Salvage Company site in Clackamas County, Oregon. Contamination at the
site includes high concentrations of lead, copper, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil
and ash material. Analyses show that metallic lead is the predominant metal species present in
the raw waste.
The Chemfix technology is a continuous solidification/stabilization process in which waste
material is combined with a proprietary mixture of CHEMSET C-220, a patented silicate reagent,
and CHEMSET 1-20, a cementitious agent, in a pug mill designed by Chemfix. In general,
solidification/stabilization technologies act to reduce the mobility of pollutants. The unique
features of the Chemfix technology are the reagents and high capacity and mobility of the
process equipment.
The primary criterion used to evaluate the Chemfix technology was its ability to meet the
standards set forth in the Land Disposal Restrictions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act for lead concentrations in sludges (0.5 mg/L lead in the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) extract) and a soil treatment demonstration standard of 5.0 mg/L lead in the
TCLP extract. Other criteria used included its ability to reduce the concentrations of metals in
the leachates and its ability to dechlorinate PCBs over time. The evaluation of the process was
based on the results of leaching, chemical, and physical tests.
For all of the treated waste, there were significant reductions in the concentrations of
metals in the TCLP extract compared to the concentrations in the extract from the untreated
wastes. The physical test data showed the ability of the product to withstand stress due to
weathering. There was little to no weight loss as a result of freeze/thaw or wet/dry weathering
tests. The permeability of the treated material was generally less than 10 cm/sec. The
unconfined compressive strength varied between 27 and 307 pounds per square inch at 28 days.
The excavated material increased in volume between 20 and 50 percent with treatment.
Although some partial dechlorination of PCB was indicated, no conclusions regarding the
role of the treatment process in that dechlorination were possible because the by-products of
dechlorination were not identified in the treated material. There was no evidence of complete
dechlorination of the PCB.
The cost of this treatment process is $40 to $80 per ton of raw waste treated, based on the
cost information on the treatment supplied by Chemfix and the materials handling costs
experienced during the SITE demonstration. This cost does not include the cost of site
preparation, equipment transportation and final placement or disposal of the treated product.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLES ix
FIGURES x
ABBREVIATIONS xi
CONVERSIONS FOR METRIC UNITS xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xiv
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.2 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE
CHEMFIX PROCESS 1-2
1.3 THE DEMONSTRATION SITE 1-2
1.4 THE DEMONSTRATION 1-3
1.5 SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION RESULTS 1-3
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 PURPOSE 2-1
2.2 SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
PROGRAM 2-1
2.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 2-2
2.4 SITE DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND TEST
APPROACHES 2-2
3.0 CHEMFIX PROCESS 3-1
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.2 INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE CHEMFIX PROCESS 3-1
3.3 PROCESS CHEMISTRY 3-3
3.4 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS 3-3
3.4.1 Feed Hopper 3-3
3.4.2 Primary Conveyor 3-3
3.4.2 Weigh Feeder 3-4
3.4.4 Water Flow Control System 3-4
3.4.5 High Speed Shear Process Mixer (Homogenizer) .... 3-4
3.4.6 Dry Reagent Feeder 3-4
3.4.7 Dry Reagent Storage Silo 3-4
3.4.8 Liquid Reagent Storage Tank 3-4
3.4.9 Liquid Reagent Transfer Pump 3-4
3.4.10 High-Speed Shear Mixer (Process Mixer) 3-5
3.4.11 Modifications for Sludges and Liquids 3-5
3.5 CHEMFIX PROCESS LIMITATIONS 3-5
4.0 THE SITE DEMONSTRATION 4-1
4.1 PURPOSE 4-1
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 4-1
-------
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PESC WASTES TREATED IN THE
DEMONSTRATION 4-1
4.4 ACTIVITIES DURING THE DEMONSTRATION 4-3
4.4.1 Site Preparation 4-3
4.4.2 Waste Preparation 4-7
4.4.3 Chemfix Equipment Mobilization and Setup 4-7
4.4.4 Test Runs 4-7
4.5 SITE RESTORATION 4-10
4.6 WASTE DISPOSAL 4-10
4.7 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 4-11
4.7.1 Raw Waste Sampling 4-11
4.7.2 Reagent Mix Sampling 4-11
4.7.3 Treated Waste Sampling 4-12
4.7.4 Air Monitoring 4-12
4.7.5 Quality Control Procedures 4-12
4.8 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 4-13
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5-1
5.1 PURPOSE 5-1
5.2 LEACH TESTS 5-1
5.2.1 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 5-1
5.2.2 Reduction of TCLP-Extractable Lead, Copper, and Zinc ... 5-1
5.2.3 A Comparison of TCLP Results and Possible Regulatory
Standards 5-3
5.2.4 American Nuclear Society Test 16.1 5-4
5.2.5 Multiple Extraction Procedure 5-4
5.2.6 Batch Extraction Test 5-6
5.2.7 Interpretation of Test Results From Several Leach Tests .... 5-6
5.3 CHEMICAL TESTS 5-6
5.3.1 pH 5-10
5.3.2 Eh 5-10
5.3.3 Electrical Conductivity 5-10
5.3.4 Total Organic Carbon 5-10
5.3.5 Acid Neutralization Capacity 5-11
5.3.6 Oil and Grease 5-11
5.3.7 Metals 5-11
5.3.8 Volatile Organic Compounds 5-12
5.3.9 Semivolatile Organic Compounds 5-12
5.3.10 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 5-12
5.3.11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 5-12
5.3.12 Lead Compounds 5-13
5.3.13 Humic Acid 5-13
5.4 PHYSICAL TESTS 5-13
5.4.1 Particle Size Distribution 5-14
5.4.2 Water Content 5-14
5.4.3 Bulk Density 5-14
vi
-------
5.4.4 Specific Gravity 5-15
5.4.5 Hydraulic Conductivity 5-15
5.4.6 Unconfined Compressive Strength 5-16
5.4.7 Immersion UCS 5-16
5.4.8 Wet/Dry Weathering Test 5-19
5.4.9 Freeze/Thaw Weathering Test 5-19
5.4.10 Standard Proctor 5-19
5.4.11 Slump Test 5-19
5.5 POROSITY 5-22
5.6 PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATION 5-22
5.7 PCB DECHLORINATION 5-23
5.8 AIR MONITORING 5-23
5.9 LONG-TERM TESTS 5-26
5.10 MATERIALS BALANCE 5-26
5.10.1 Materials Balance 5-26
5.10.2 Dilution Factor 5-28
5.10.3 Volume Expansion Ratio 5-28
5.11 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
PLAN AND RESULTS 5-29
5.11.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan 5-29
5.11.2 QA/QC Results 5-30
5.12 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 5-31
6.0 COST ANALYSIS 6-1
6.1 PURPOSE 6-1
6.2 THE CHEMFIX COST MODEL 6-1
6.2.1 Processing Costs 6-1
6.2.2 Mobilization and Demobilization Costs 6-4
6.2.3 Summary Assessment of the Determinants of the
Chemfix Model Costs 6-5
6.3 OTHER OPERATING COSTS 6-5
6.3.1 Site Preparation Costs 6-5
6.3.2 Startup Costs 6-6
6.3.3 Capital Equipment Costs 6-6
6.3.4 Labor Costs 6-6
6.4 CONCLUSIONS AND COST SUMMARY 6-6
Appendices
A LIST OF CONTACTS
B TABLES OF DATA
vn
-------
Volume II
Appendix A ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Appendix B DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Appendix C QA/QC RESULTS
Appendix D DATA FROM THE TREATABILITY STUDY
Appendix E PCB DECHLORINATION
Appendix F ANALYSIS FOR LEAD COMPOUNDS
Appendix G PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Appendix H DEMONSTRATION TRIP REPORT
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Test Methods and Approaches for Meeting
the Demonstration Objectives 2-3
4-1 Chemfix Demonstration Chronology 4-5
4-2 Major Equipment Used for Chemfix Demonstration 4-6
4-3 Operating Data Obtained During the Demonstration Test Runs 4-9
4-4 Analytical Procedures Used For the Chemfix Demonstration 4-14
5-1 Mean Concentrations of Metals in Untreated and Treated
Material from CHEMFIX Demonstration 5-2
5-2 A Comparison of TCLP Results for Lead With
Three Potential Standards, Includes Data From All Areas 5-3
5-3 Flux and Leachability Index for Selected Metals from the ANS 16.1 Test 5-5
5-4 Bulk Density of Untreated and Treated Waste 5-15
5-5 Summary of Chemfix Operating Conditions 5-27
5-6 Summary of Demonstration Objectives, Test Methods, and Results 5-32
6-1 Chemfix Cost Model 6-2
6-2 Estimated Costs of Chemfix Treatment Technology by Category 6-7
6-3 Major Cost Variables for Site Remedies Involving
Solidification/Stabilization Technology 6-10
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3-1 Chemfix Technologies, Inc. High Solids Handling System Block Process Flow
Diagram 3-2
4-1 The Portable Equipment Salvage Company Site 4-2
4-2 Waste Feed Areas at the PESC Site 4-4
5-1 Mean Concentration of Lead in MEP Extract From
Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C 5-7
5-2 Summary of Extraction Data for Untreated Wastes
TCLP and MEP Data From All Areas 5-8
5-3 Summary of Extraction Data for Treated Wastes
TCLP and MEP Data From All Areas 5-9
5-4 Mean Unconfined Compressive Strength
for Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C 5-17
5-5 Mean UCS From Each Box of Samples
of Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C 5-18
5-6 Mean Immersion Unconfined Compressive Strength
for Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C 5-20
5-7 Mean Immersion UCS From Each Box of Samples
of Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C 5-21
5-8 Total PCB Concentrations in Treated
and Untreated Soils From Area A 5-24
5-9 Normalized PCB Concentrations for the
Treated and Untreated Soils From Area A 5-25
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
AAS Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
ANC Acid Neutralization Capacity
ANS 16.1 American Nuclear Society Leach Test
ASA American Society of Agronomy
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BET Batch Extraction Test
BNA Base, Neutral, and Acid Extractables
C Celsius
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm centimeter
CVAAS Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
EC Electrical Conductivity
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Eh Electromotive Potential
EP Extraction Procedure
F Fahrenheit
g gram
gal gallon
GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
GFAAS Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
hr hour
ICP Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Spectroscopy
kg kilogram
kwhr kilowatt/hour
L liter
Ib pound
M Molarity
MEP Multiple Extraction Procedure
mg milligram
mg/L milligrams per liter
min minute
mL milliliter
mm millimeter
mv millivolts
N Normality
NC Not Calculated
ND Not Detected
NPL National Priorities List
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PRC Planning Research Corporation
psi pounds per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
RPM Revolutions Per Minute
XI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
RSD Relative Standard Deviation
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
sec second
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
S/L Solid to Liquid Ratio
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TMSWC Test Methods for Solidified Waste Characterization
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
Mg micrograms
micrograms/liter
micrometer
Mmhos units of conductance
VER Volume Expansion Ratio
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WES Waterways Experiment Station
XRD X-Ray Diffraction
yd yard
ZHE Zero Headspace Extractor
xn
-------
CONVERSIONS FOR METRIC UNITS
Length
inches
inches
feet
X
X
X
2.54
0.0254
0.3048
= centimeters
= meters
= meters
Volume
gallons X
cubic yards X
Weight
pounds
short tons
Temperature
5/9
X
X
X
Note: 1,000 liters
1,000 kilograms
3.785
0.7646
0.4536
0.9072
("Farenheit - 32)
1 cubic meter
= 1 metric ton
liters
cubic meters
kilograms
metric tons
°Celsius
Xlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This document was prepared under the direction of Mr. Edwin Earth, EPA SITE Project
Manager in the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory of Cincinnati, Ohio. Reviewers included
Mr. Earth and Mr. Philip Baldwin of Chemfix Environmental Services, Inc.
The SITE demonstration of this technology was conducted in cooperation with Mr. John
Sainsbury, On-Scene Coordinator, EPA Region X, and Mr. Charles Allen of Portland Power and
Light.
The assistance of EPA's technical peer review team; Mr. Peter Hannak of Canviro
Consultants; Mr. Pierre Cote of Zenon Environmental, Inc.; Mr. R. Soundararajan of RMC
Environmental and Analytical Laboratories; and Mr. Richard McCandless of the University of
Cincinnati is greatly appreciated.
.This report was prepared for EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program by Mr. Mark Evans, Mr. Shin Ahn, Ms. Laurie Manderino, Mr. Steve Tsadwa, and Ms.
Nancy Willis of PRC Environmental Management, Inc., and Mr. Danny Jackson and Ms. Debra
Bisson of Radian Corporation, under EPA Contract No. 68-03-3484.
xiv
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Chemfix solidification/stabilization technology was demonstrated and evaluated
under the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program in March 1989. The
Chemfix technology is a patented process for solidifying and stabilizing hazardous wastes using
proprietary additives, such as CHEMSET C-220, a patented silicate reagent, and CHEMSET I-
20, a cementitious agent. The process is designed to be a continuous operation capable of treating
large quantities of hazardous wastes rapidly, creating either a friable, soil-like product or
monolithic solids.
In the past, Chemfix has used the process for its industrial clients to solidify/stabilize
liquids and sludge contaminated with metals. Recently, the firm has begun to test and market the
technology for the treatment of soils and wastes with high solid content to broaden the
applicability of the technology.
The SITE program conducted a demonstration of the Chemfix technology on soil from the
Portable Equipment Salvage Company (PESC) site in Clackamas, Oregon, in March 1989.
Chemfix supplied a full-scale unit, reagents, and trained personnel for the demonstration.
As part of the demonstration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sampled
and analyzed the untreated wastes from the site and the treated product. The primary objective
of the tests were to determine the following:
The ability of the process to solidify/stabilize wastes at the site. The
requirements of the Land Disposal Restrictions for electroplating sludges
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act were used as the
evaluation criteria. The leachate standard for lead in electroplating sludges
(0.51 mg/L) and a soil treatment standard of 5.0 mg/L were used as
benchmarks for evaluating the process.
Other objectives of the project included evaluation of:
The ability of the process to reduce the concentrations of lead, copper and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the extracts from the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
The ability of the process to dechlorinate PCBs
The extent to which the process alters the chemical and physical properties
of the wastes and the effect of the alteration on the long-term stability of
the material
The costs and major cost factors associated with the process
The reliability of the Chemfix equipment
This summary and the following sections have been designed to document the SITE
demonstration. Additional discussion of the SITE program and the reports produced under the
program is available in Section 2.0 of this document. Section 3.0 describes the Chemfix process.
Section 4.0 presents information on the PESC site and the procedures used during the SITE
demonstration. Section 5.0 discusses the analytical results from the samples taken during the
demonstration. The results of the economic analysis are presented in Section 6.0.
1-1
-------
A companion document, Volume II, contains the analytical data, QA/QC data, and other
information related to this SITE demonstration.
This Executive Summary briefly discusses the solidification/stabilization technology in
general and the unique aspects of the Chemfix process. It also describes the demonstration and
summarizes the results.
1.2 SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHEMFIX
PROCESS
Chemical solidification/stabilization of hazardous wastes using cement, lime, pozzolans,
and other inorganic material have been practiced for many years. Waste-solidifying formulations
vary widely and a variety of materials have been added to change the performance
characteristics. In general, solidification means making the waste a solid thus limiting the surface
area available for leaching. Stabilization implies there is a chemical reaction causing the
pollutants to be less mobile. For metals, the terms may be used interchangeably. For organic
pollutants, only solidification is appropriate. Because the demonstration focused on lead, the
term solidification/stabilization will be used throughout this document.
In general, solidification/stabilization technologies have the following three goals:
To improve the handling and physical characteristics of the wastes
To decrease the surface area across which transfer or loss of contained
pollutants can occur
To limit the water solubility of any pollutants contained in the waste
The Chemfix process is intended to solidify/stabilize solids, liquids, and sludge. The
unique features claimed by Chemfix include its relatively low cost, high rate of production in a
continuous process, controlled processing rate, mobility of the process equipment and patented
reagents for reductions in the mobility of pollutants. The limitations of the process defined by
Chemfix include the following: water content must be between 25 and 92 percent of the wastes,
oil and grease concentrations must be less than 15 percent, and waste feed material must be less
than 1 inch in diameter. In addition, some pollutants interfere with the setting of the product.
Furthermore, freezing conditions interfere with the ability of the product to cure.
1.3 THE DEMONSTRATION SITE
The PESC site operated as a transformer and metal salvage facility from the 1960s until
1985. It is an area of industrial activity with groundwater near the surface. Operations at the
site involved scrapping and recycling power transformers containing PCBs in oils. Salvageable
metals from internal wiring and transformer carcasses were processed and recycled. The
activities left the soil at the site heavily contaminated with lead, copper, and PCBs, as well as
other metals and oil.
Based on the RI/FS (Dames and Moore, 1988) and preliminary sampling by EPA's
contractors for the SITE program, EPA selected four areas of waste for the demonstration. The
results from analyses of raw waste from these four areas showed very high levels of metal
contamination (11,000 to 140,000 mg/kg mean lead concentration) and PCBs (134 to 500 mg/kg
mean total PCB concentration) in both soil and ash matrices.
1-2
-------
1.4 THE DEMONSTRATION
Site demonstration activities began on March 3, 1989, and lasted until March 24, 1989.
The site work included site preparation (providing decontamination facilities, utilities, and other
equipment), which required less than 1 week; waste preparation (excavation and sieving to
separate particles greater than 1 inch in diameter), which required 1 week; and delivery and setup
of the Chemfix equipment, which required 1 week. Many of the setup activities were conducted
concurrently. The demonstration of the process required 3 days during which approximately 23
tons of material were processed. This process included an initial test run with clean sand to
calibrate and test the operating speed of the equipment. After the tests, demobilization required
1 week.
The demonstration tested both the ability of the Chemfix reagents to immobilize the
contaminants in the soil and the ability of the Chemfix equipment and staff to deliver the
reagents in the proper proportions and mix them with the waste material.
Chemfix identified a number of factors unique to the demonstration which may have
made delivering and mixing the reagents more difficult than would be expected on a normal
hazardous waste site remedy. These factors follow:
Only small quantities of material were made available for treatment during
the demonstration to minimize the quantity of material generated. The
process equipment was designed to process 40 to 75 tons per hour. The
quantities used in the demonstration, 4 to 7 tons from each waste area,
made it difficult to achieve a steady production rate because of the limited
time for calibration of the equipment.
The electronic panel normally used to regulate the addition of reagents was
broken when the equipment arrived at the site. In the interest of
proceeding with the demonstration as rapidly as possible, experienced
Chemfix staff calibrated the equipment based on their judgement.
As a result of the small quantities to be treated and the equipment failure,
less reagent was delivered to the treatment process than was planned,
which may have affected the physical and chemical properties of the final
product.
The water content of the wastes appears to be different from that expected
from the preliminary sampling and therefore, less water was added than
required to optimize the chemistry of the treatment.
Very high concentrations of metals were in wastes and the TCLP extracts
from the wastes. Although Chemfix used wastes from a preliminary round
of sampling in a bench-scale test that showed adequate treatment with the
standard reagents, Chemfix personnel indicate that the addition of another
reagent would be expected to improve the results of the process. However,
EPA determined the mean concentrations found during the demonstration
were within 20 percent of the concentrations found during the preliminary
sampling.
1.5 SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATION RESULTS
The sampling and analysis conducted on the treated and untreated wastes for this
demonstration may be grouped into four classes: leaching tests, chemical tests, physical tests, and
tests for PCB dechlorination. In addition, air monitoring was conducted during the
1-3
-------
demonstration to determine whether PCBs were released to the air as the technology was
implemented.
The most important results from this extensive analytical program are presented below.
Three standards were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the process; the
lead concentrations in the TCLP extract from the treated product were
compared to the LDR standards for lead in electroplating sludges (0.51
mg/L), an arbitrary demonstration soil treatment standard (5.0 mg/L), and
the standard used in the Superfund program interim policy for
contaminated soil and debris (99 percent reduction). A comparison of the
data showed that 65 percent of the treated material passed the standard of
0.51 mg/L; 70 percent passed the standard of 5.0 mg/L; and 70 percent
passed the standard of 99 percent reduction.
The Chemfix process in this demonstration treated wastes that were
extremely variable within each test run. The concentration of lead in the
soils ranged from 11,000 mg/kg to 140,000 mg/kg. In the extracts from
the TCLP, the concentrations of lead ranged from 0.3 mg/L to 1,300
mg/L. To account for this variability, the mean concentration was used to
draw many of the conclusions regarding the nature of the untreated waste
and the treated material.
The results from the TCLP showed substantial reductions in the mean
concentrations of lead and copper in the extracts from the treated wastes
compared to those in the extracts from the untreated wastes. The
reductions varied from 94 percent to 99 percent for lead and 95 percent to
99 percent for copper. These reductions do not account for the volume
dilution by Chemfix reagents calculated in Section 5.0.
The results of the ANS 16.1 test indicate that the leachability index of the
treated product passed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission standard for
that parameter by several orders of magnitude. However, since lead
leached from the treated product in concentrations at a detectable flux,
results from this test and other leaching tests should be considered if site
specific groundwater conditions indicate a possible problem.
The multiple extraction procedure (MEP) analyses on the treated wastes
generally showed mean concentrations of lead exceeding the EP toxicity
standard for a characteristic waste under RCRA in the first extract.
Extractions two through ten had much lower mean concentrations of lead
although the mean concentration in the last two extractions showed an
upward trend. The MEP may be used in RCRA delisting petitions.
The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the treated material does
not increase significantly after 14 days, suggesting that the material sets up
within 14 days. It met the standard used in EPA's guidance for land
disposal (50 pounds per square inch).
The UCS data also suggest that the product of the treatment process varied
in strength. However, it could not be determined if this is the result of
poor mixing of the waste and reagent, the lack of homogeneity of the
waste, or variations due to the testing procedure. For a single area of the
site, the UCS of the product delivered at the beginning of the treatment
was very different from the UCS of the product delivered at the end of
the treatment process.
1-4
-------
The results from both the wet/dry weathering test and the freeze/thaw
weathering test indicated that the tested samples had no significant weight
loss compared to the control samples. These results suggest that the
products are likely to be durable over time in an exposed environment.
PCB extraction data show evidence of partial dechlorination of PCBs. The
analyses indicate that heavily chlorinated PCB molecules may lose one or
more chlorine atoms during treatment. However, the phenomenon may not
be due to the solidification/stabilization process only because no by-
products of complete dechlorination were found in the treated matrix.
Therefore, no conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the process in
dechlorinating PCBs can be drawn.
The air monitoring data show that the PCB concentrations found in the air
during treatment were not significantly different from the concentrations
found before treatment began. In addition, there was no difference in the
concentrations of PCB upwind and downwind of the treatment operations.
PCBs do not appear to volatilize from the treatment process under the wet
and rainy weather conditions of the demonstration.
The excavated waste material expanded in volume between 20 and 50
percent as a result of the addition of Chemfix reagents. Those reagents
increased the weight of the wastes between 30 and 40 percent.
The electrical conductivity of the waste increased significantly as a result
of the treatment, suggesting an increase in the number of ions in solution.
These results indicated the treatment process leaches soluble material.
However, the ions leached may be nontoxic.
1-5
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE
This section provides background information on the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program and the purpose of this report. It also outlines the objectives of the
SITE demonstration.
2.2 SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROGRAM
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 to address past hazardous waste disposal practices and the
environmental and human health effects of those practices. The original act established a
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund to deal with costs incurred in cleanups of hazardous
materials; this fund has become known as the Superfund. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has proceeded to investigate and remedy potentially dangerous hazardous waste sites and to
establish national priorities for site cleanups. The ultimate objective of these efforts is to devise
and complete permanent, long-term site cleanups.
In the reauthorization of CERCLA, called the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), Congress expressed concern over the use of land-based
disposal and containment technologies to mitigate releases of hazardous substances at hazardous
waste sites. SARA directs EPA to use innovative, alternative, or resource recovery technologies
to the maximum extent practicable to permanently solve the problems of hazardous waste sites.
Solidification/stabilization technologies, such as the Chemfix process, can be considered
innovative treatment technologies for the reduction of mobility of contaminants.
In response to SARA, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) have established a formal program to accelerate
the development, demonstration, and use of new or innovative technologies. ORD has also
established a program to demonstrate and evaluate new innovative measurement and monitoring
technologies. These two program areas exist and are combined in the SITE program.
The primary purpose of the SITE program is to enhance the development and
demonstration of innovative technologies applicable to Superfund sites, thereby establishing the
commercial availability of these technologies.
The SITE program has four objectives:
1. To identify and, where possible, remove impediments to the development
and commercial use of alternative technologies
2. To conduct a demonstration program of the more promising innovative
technologies to establish reliable performance and cost information for site
characterization and cleanup decision making
3. To develop procedures and policies that encourage selection of available
alternative treatment remedies at Superfund sites
4. To structure a development program that nurtures emerging technologies
The demonstration of the Chemfix stabilization technology at the Portable Equipment
Salvage Company (PESC) site is one of a number of demonstrations and evaluations of selected
technologies conducted as part of the SITE Program. This demonstration program is a significant
2-1
-------
ongoing effort involving ORD, OSWER, EPA regions, and the private sector. The objective of
the demonstration program is to test and evaluate field-ready technologies. The demonstration
program provides Superfund decision makers with the information necessary to evaluate the use
of these technologies in future cleanup actions.
2.3 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This report has two objectives: (1) to document the demonstration of the technology under
the SITE program and (2) to provide an analysis of the cost and effectiveness of the technology
based upon the results of the SITE demonstration. In fulfilling the objectives, this report
provides a comprehensive description of the technology and the procedures used in the SITE
demonstration, a complete description of the analytical results from the SITE demonstration, and
an evaluation of the cost of the Chemfix technology.
2.4 SITE DEMONSTRATION OBJECTIVES AND TEST APPROACHES
The SITE demonstration utilized EPA's approach for establishing data quality objectives
(DQO) for the project. With this approach, the project managers identify and prioritize the
objectives of the study. These objectives are the focus of the sampling and analysis planned for
the project, with most of the resources allocated to the most important goals.
The overall goal of the SITE demonstration was to evaluate the performance, cost, and
reliability of the Chemfix technology as applied to contaminated soil from a hazardous waste site.
This goal was met through a series of objectives designed by a team consisting of personnel from
EPA's Office of Research and Development, Quality Assurance Management Staff, and Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response; EPA's contractors; and Chemfix. Table 2-1 shows these
objectives and the approaches planned to meet them.
EPA selected four areas of the site for the demonstration and all of the areas were
sampled and analyzed as part of the project. However, the sampling and analysis program
focused on one of these areas. The costs of the extensive analysis necessary to meet the
objectives of the project were too high to conduct such analyses on all four areas. EPA selected
one area for extensive analysis based on the preliminary sampling results, which indicated that it
contained moderate to high concentrations of PCB and lead in a soil matrix.
2-2
-------
Table 2-1
Test Methods and Approaches for Meeting
the Demonstration Objectives
Objectives
Primary
Determine whether wastes treated by
the technology meet or exceed
RCRA land ban and arbitrary soil
standards.
Approach /Method
Compare lead concentrations in TCLP
leachates of treated wastes to standards for
RCRA listed waste (electroplating sludges)
and arbitrary soil standards.
Secondary
Determine the effectiveness of the
process in reducing lead and copper
concentrations in leachates obtained
using the TCLP on raw and treated
wastes.
Determine the effectiveness of the
process in reducing PCB
concentrations in TCLP leachates to
1 ppm or less.
Determine whether the treatment
process dechlorinates PCBs over time.
Determine baseline physical
properties of the raw wastes to
establish a basis for evaluating
process performance.
Determine the chemical properties of
the raw wastes to establish a basis for
evaluating process performance.
Determine physical properties of
treated wastes to indicate their long-
term permanence and placability.
Compare lead and copper concentrations in
TCLP leachates from treated wastes with
those from raw wastes.
Compare PCB concentrations in TCLP
leachates from treated wastes with those
from raw wastes.
Compare PCB concentrations in treated
wastes at 15, 30, 45, and 60 days after
treatment using EPA Method 680. Identify
the presence of reaction products, using a
new analytical approach, to determine
whether dechlorination, rather than
adsorption, has occurred during the curing
process.
Analyze raw wastes for particle size, percent
moisture, standard proctor value, porosity,
bulk density, and specific gravity.
Analyze raw wastes for acid neutralization
capacity, TOC, pH, Eh, oil and grease,
electrical conductivity, total PCBs, total lead,
total copper, lead compounds, humic acid,
and dioxin.
Subject treated wastes to permeability,
wet/dry, freeze/thaw, unconfined
compressive strength, water content, bulk
density, specific gravity, and porosity tests.
2-3
-------
Table 2-1
Test Methods and Approaches for Meeting
the Demonstration Objectives (Continued)
Objectives
Approach/Method
Determine chemical properties of
treated wastes.
Determine leaching properties of
treated wastes to indicate their long-
term chemical stability.
Analyze treated wastes for lead, copper,
PCBs, TOC, pH, Eh, oil and grease,
electrical conductivity, and acid
neutralization potential.
Subject treated wastes to a number of
different leaching tests.
Determine the structural
characteristics of the treated wastes.
Determine whether significant PCB
concentrations are released to the air
by the treatment process.
Determine the dilution effects on any
reductions of lead and copper
concentrations in leachates obtained
from treated wastes.
Determine the effects of aging on the
leachability, acid neutralization
capacity, and strength of the treated
wastes.
Determine total cost and major cost
factors associated with the process.
Conduct x-ray diffraction, petrographic, and
scanning electron microscopy examinations
of the treated and raw wastes.
Monitor the PCB air concentrations in the
immediate vicinity of the Chemfix
processing equipment during the treatment
process.
Measure the mass of wastes, water, and
treatment reagents used in each test run and
use these measurements to calculate dilution
factors.
Conduct long-term analyses of TCLP and
ANS 16.1 leachable metals (copper, lead, and
pH) and test for unconfined compressive
strength and acid neutralization capacity.
Evaluate the costs of all materials,
equipment, and services needed to complete
the demonstration.
1 This objective could not be addressed because PCB concentrations in the TCLP leachates
of raw and treated wastes (preliminary sampling) did not exceed detection levels.
Note: RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TCLP, toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl; TOC, total organic carbon; ANS, American
Nuclear Society
2-4
-------
3.0 CHEMFIX PROCESS
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The Chemfix process is a chemical fixation and solidification/stabilization process that
can treat solids, liquids, and sludges, provided the wastes are between 8 and 75 percent solids by
weight. This technology uses the following materials, measured by weight or volume and added
to the continuous process:
Waste material (measured by weight)
CHEMSET 1-20 dry reagent (measured by weight)
CHEMSET C-220 liquid reagent (measured by volume)
Water (measured by volume)
The Chemfix process for treating solids includes the following operations:
A conveyor belt (primary conveyor) moves waste from the feed hopper
where it is stockpiled, to the weight feeder, where it is measured.
The homogenizer mixes the measured waste and water. The quantity of
water added to the homogenizer depends on the quantity of waste
measured and is controlled automatically.
The process mixer uses a Chemfix-designed pug mill to blend the wetted
waste, liquid reagent, and dry reagent. The dry reagent is fed into the
process mixer through a dry reagent feeder and the liquid reagent is
pumped into the process mixer using a variable-speed feed pump. When
mixing is complete, the product is discharged. During the demonstration,
a positive displacement pump was substituted for the variable-speed feed
pump.
Chemfix advertises the following features for its treatment process (Salas, 1980):
Relatively low cost
Readily available reagents
Controlled solidification rate
High continuous throughput rate
Mobility of process equipment
Figure 3-1 illustrates the Chemfix process.
3.2 INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE CHEMFIX PROCESS
The Chemfix treatment system is a mobile, self-contained, continuous processing unit
mounted on a flatbed trailer. It solidifies and stabilizes wastes based on chemical reactions of
complex silicates. It is intended to treat heavy metals and organic compounds with high
molecular weights. The innovative features of the system include the proprietary reagents, the
pug mill designed by Chemfix, and the continuous nature of the process. Because it is a
continuous process, waste material can be treated more quickly, lowering the cost per ton of
material treated.
3-1
-------
3-2
-------
3.3 PROCESS CHEMISTRY
The Chemfix process is based on the use of a proprietary family of polysilicates
(CHEMSET C-220) and dry calcium-containing reagents (CHEMSET 1-20). The chemistry is
assisted as needed by reaction-promoter additives. The combination and proportions of reagents
are optimized for the waste stream (solid, liquid, or sludge) requiring treatment. Chemfix
designed the process to reduce the mobility and toxicity of metals as well as base, neutral, and
acid (BNA) organics with high molecular weights. The two-part inorganic chemical system reacts
with polyvalent metal ions, certain other waste components, and itself to produce a chemically
and physically stable solid matrix (Chemfix, 1987).
Chemfix indicates that the matrix that is produced is based on tetrahedrally coordinated
silicon atoms alternating with oxygen atoms along the backbone of a linear chain. The charged-
side group (in this case, oxygen) reacts with polyvalent metal ions, resulting in strong ionic
bonding between adjacent chains. This bonding forms a cross-linked, three-dimensional polymer
matrix that has a high stability, a high melting point, and a rigid friable structure (Salas, 1980).
Chemfix explains that three classes of interactions take place. First are the very rapid
reactions between CHEMSET polysilicates, certain reaction promoters, and metal ions, producing
insoluble metal silicates that cannot be resolubilized and are resistant to breakdown under severe
environmental conditions. The second set of reactions occurs between the polysilicate molecules
and the reactive components, including calcium oxide within the dry reagent, to produce a gel
structure. The gel holds ions in place in chemical and physical bonding mechanisms, thereby
acting as an ion-exchange resin. Other waste components such as oils are also trapped in the
structure and thereby immobilized. The third class of reactions occurs between the dry reagent
and the waste and water (both free and contained) as the dry reagent undergoes a series of
hydrolysis, hydration, and neutralization reactions (Chemfix, 1987).
3.4 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
The Chemfix soil treatment system is a self-contained process unit mounted on a flatbed
trailer. The system consists of several pieces of equipment that are connected both physically and
electronically. This equipment is described below. In some cases the arrangement of the
equipment may vary with site conditions. The system used at the PESC site is designed to handle
40 to 75 cubic yards of material per hour. The demonstration project did not approach this
treatment rate, however, because of the small quantity of wastes to be treated. In each test run,
approximately 4 to 7 cubic yards of material were treated. Each of these test runs lasted from 10
to 20 minutes. The function of each important piece of equipment in the processing unit
demonstrated at the PESC site and its description are provided below.
3.4.1 Feed Hopper
The feed hopper is where waste material to be treated is introduced, by front-end loader
or other earth-moving equipment into the treatment system. The Chemfix feed hopper used at
the PESC site has approximate dimensions of 9 feet x 16 feet and a capacity of 15 to 20 cubic
yards. Only 30 percent of its capacity was used for each of the test runs at the PESC
demonstration.
3.4.2 Primary Conveyor
The 40-foot long conveyor belt transfers waste feed material from the feed hopper to the
weigh feeder. Its speed can be automatically adjusted.
3-3
-------
3.4.2 Weigh Feeder
The weigh feeder receives waste material from the conveyor belt and continually weighs
it as it enters the homogenizer. The feeder can feed up to 150,000 Ib/hour with an accuracy of
± 1,500 Ib/hour. The weigh feeder is electronically connected to the water flow control system
and the two reagent feed systems. Waste is moved through the weigh feeder to the homogenizer.
The weight of soil will regulate the water flow rate to the homogenizer through a flow-indicating
water control station.
3.4.4 Water Flow Control System
The water flow control system receives an electronic signal from the weigh feeder
signaling the amount of waste entering the homogenizer. This system then adds water to the
waste at a predetermined rate as the waste passes into the homogenizer. The amount of water to
be added depends on the amount of waste in the homogenizer. The system can deliver up to
9,000 gallons/hour with an accuracy of ± 450 gallons/hour. This system was not necessary at the
PESC site, because the liquid reagent was diluted before treatment.
3.4.5 High Speed Shear Process Mixer (Homogenizer)
The homogenizer mixes waste material from the weigh feeder and water from the water
flow control system.
3.4.6 Dry Reagent Feeder
The dry reagent to be used in the Chemfix process is transported to the treatment site and
placed in a dry reagent storage silo. From this silo it is transferred by an auger to the reagent
feeder and from the reagent feeder it is transferred to the mixer by gravity. The speed of the
auger is controlled in conjunction with the liquid reagent storage tank from a control panel so
that both are added to the process mixer in proportion to the waste feed material. It is designed
to handle up to 54,000 Ib/hour with an accuracy of ± 100 Ib/hour,
3.4.7 Dry Reagent Storage Silo
The design capacity of the silo is approximately 120,000 Ib. Only 25,000 Ib of dry
reagent were stowed during the demonstration at the PESC site. It is equipped with high- and
low-level sensors and alarms. The silo is also equipped with a baghouse dust collector. The
baghouse dust collector is operated only during the transfer of dry reagent from the bulk reagent
transport vehicle to the dry reagent storage silo.
3.4.8 Liquid Reagent Storage Tank
The 10-foot-diameter liquid reagent storage tank (100,000 Ib capacity) is used to hold the
liquid reagent that is transferred to the process mixer or homogenizer as required, by the liquid
reagent transfer pump.
3.4.9 Liquid Reagent Transfer Pump
The liquid reagent transfer pump regulates the amount of liquid reagent transferred from
the liquid reagent storage tank to the process mixer or homogenizer. The pumping rate is
manually set on the control panel and varies according to the weight signal received from the
weigh feeder.
3-4
-------
3.4.10 High-Speed Shear Mixer (Process Mixer)
In the process mixer, a Chemfix-designed pug mill is used for blending wetted waste
material from the homogenizer, dry reagent from the reagent silo, and liquid reagent from the
liquid reagent storage tank. The waste material is transferred to the process mixer by gravity.
The liquid reagent is pumped into the process mixer. The dry reagent is transferred to the
process mixer by gravity or an auger. After these ingredients are mixed, they are discharged.
For this demonstration, the product was discharged to 1/2-cubic yard plywood boxes.
3.4.11 Modifications for Sludges and Liquids
When sludges or liquid wastes are treated, the Chemfix equipment must be modified. A
typical mobile sludge treatment process consists of a sludge tank, magnetic flow meter, sludge
supply pump, and two product-transfer pumps instead of the feed hopper, conveyor belt, weight
feeder, and homogenizer.
3.5 CHEMFIX PROCESS LIMITATIONS
Although the Chemfix process has been used to treat various types of wastes such as
automotive wastes, fly ashes, metal-finishing wastes, mine tailings, municipal and industrial
sludges, and petrochemical wastes, it has specific limitations for which it may not be used.
The Chemfix process requires sufficient space to accommodate all its treatment
equipment. For example, it requires a 25 foot x 40 foot concrete pad with curb for the process
unit and a 50 foot x 150 foot graded process area covered with gravel for loading and parking.
Additional space is required to accommodate all the treated material, used protective equipment,
and other wastes generated until they are disposed of into a landfill.
According to Chemfix, the Chemfix process is not amenable to wastes with the following
characteristics:
Water content greater than 95 percent or less than 25 percent
Oil and grease concentrations greater than 15 percent in the soil
Waste feed material bigger than 1 inch
Soil pH less than 2 or greater than 12
3-5
-------
4.0 THE SITE DEMONSTRATION
4.1 PURPOSE
This section describes the site and wastes used for the demonstration of the Chemfix
process. It also presents the procedures used to characterize the waste and treated products and
documents the activities conducted during the demonstration.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected the Portable Equipment Salvage
Company (PESC) site for the demonstration of the Chemfix technology in cooperation with the
developer of the technology. This decision was based on the types and concentrations of
pollutants present. Located in an industrial area, the 2-acre site is rectangularly shaped, and the
most heavily contaminated part of the site is enclosed with a fence. The neighboring property,
the D&M Auto Wrecking Yard, has been found to be contaminated, also. Material from both
properties was used in the demonstration test. Figure 4-1 is a diagram of the site.
The PESC site served as a transformer and metals salvage facility from the early 1960s
until about 1985. Operations at the site involved scrapping and recycling power transformers
containing PCBs in oils. Salvageable metals from internal wiring and transformer carcasses were
processed and recycled. Transformers and other recycled electrical equipment were treated in a
furnace to eliminate insulation and other noneconomic elements. Waste transformer oil was used
to fire furnaces and metal smelters at the site.
Fill covers most of the PESC site and the D&M Auto Wrecking Yard. This fill consists of
coarse gravel, sand, and silt and has been placed on the site and spread to a thickness of 6 to 24
inches. The soil beneath the fill is a medium to dark brown silty soil that contains a few fine
roots and some clay. Ground water is found 5 to 13 feet below the surface. The area receives 45
inches of rainfall per year.
In 1986, after operations at the site had ceased, EPA conducted preliminary sampling and
confirmed the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in surface soils and waters on-site and near-site. EPA determined that
Pacific Power and Light (PP&L) had sold surplus transformers to PESC in 1981 and 1982. A
consent order (EPA Docket No. 2086-07-06-2615/106) dated May 7, 1987, required PP&L to
conduct a site stabilization and a focused remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the
site.
The site stabilization was conducted in 1987. The RI was conducted in late 1987 and
early 1988 by Dames and Moore for PP&L. This investigation consisted of sampling and
analyzing surface soils, surface water, subsurface soils, and ground water. (Dames and Moore,
1988).
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PESC WASTES TREATED IN THE DEMONSTRATION
Surface soil, subsurface soil, and ground water were sampled and analyzed under the
focused RI to chemically characterize the PESC site. In addition, an EPA sampling team visited
the site on July 26, 1988, to confirm the findings of the RI, collect samples for a bench-scale
treatability test with the Chemfix process, and conduct a sieve analysis to determine the
percentage of the soils that would pass a 1-inch sieve.
4-1
-------
Figure 4-1 The Portable Equipment Salvage Company Site
PESC Site
Property Line .
(Chain Link Fence) /
25-
0 50 100
(Scale in Feet)
D&M
Auto Wrecking
Roofed Hoist
Building
(Process Area)
Abandoned
Kiln
P-4
k Corrugated
Metal
Buildings
Legend
Building Location
Concrete Surface
p 3 I Pond Location and
~~~^ Number
o
Approximate Location
of+300 Gal Ion Gasoline
Storage Tank (Empty)
Fence
Surface Drainage
Reference : Figure 7-1. Dames andMoore RlReport, 1988
4-2
-------
The major contaminants at the site are PCBs from transformer oils and metals from the
smelting operations. Metals of concern include lead, copper, zinc, and mercury. The most
heavily contaminated areas within the site include the transformer-dismantling area on the south
side of the roofed hoist building, the roadway in and out of the site where vehicles may have
tracked contaminants, areas of surface runoff and ponding, and an ash disposal area located on
the D&M Auto Wrecking Yard. Soil contaminated with lead, copper, and PCBs is fairly
widespread on both the PESC site and the D&M property, but the contamination rapidly
attenuates with depth. Generally, only the top 2 to 4 feet of soil are contaminated, with the more
heavily contaminated soil occurring in the top 1 foot. Other contaminants in soils are present in
relatively minor concentrations at the same locations.
Based on analytical results from EPA's initial sampling effort and the focused RI, on-
site soil contamination can be summarized as follows:
Contaminant
PCB
Lead
Copper
Zinc
Mercury
Other priority pollutant metals
Chlorinated benzene8
VOCs
Oil and grease
PAHs
Dioxin and furans (ash)
Concentration(mg/kg)
0.1 to 4,900
11 to 139,000
14 to 126,000
86 to 11,000
<22
<427
55 (191 in the duplicate sample)
trace level
44 to 78,000
Not detected
<1.00 ug/kg
a This sample was taken below the concrete pad of the PESC site. Samples taken from
other areas exhibited trace levels.
Based on the results of the initial sampling effort, EPA decided to treat soil from four site
areas (Areas A, C, E, and F, Figure 4-2) in the demonstration of the Chemfix technology because
these areas exhibit medium to high concentrations of lead, copper, and PCBs and represent
different matrices (soil and ash).
4.4 ACTIVITIES DURING THE DEMONSTRATION
Table 4-1 presents the chronology of the major field demonstration events.
4.4.1 Site Preparation
Before the demonstration, the following tasks were performed to get the site ready for a
treatment operation:
Mobilizing equipment: Waste preparation and handling equipment such as
back hoes and loaders, screens, and fork lifts were brought to the site and
an office trailer was set up. Table 4-2 lists this equipment.
Providing utilities: Electrical and telephone service for the trailer, water
and electricity for the process equipment, and sanitary services for the
staff were provided.
Constructing facilities: A decontamination pad for vehicle
decontamination, a facility for personnel decontamination, and a storage
4-3
-------
Figure 4-2 Waste Feed Areas at the PESC Site
PESC Site
0 SO 100 ISO
(Scale in Feet)
D&M
Auto Wrecking
C3
Access Lane
Legend
Fence
,- Surface Drainage
|F j Waste Feed Locations
Note: A, C, E, and F Waste Feed Locations
Reference: Base map drawn from Figure 7-1 of Dames and Moore RI Report
4-4
-------
Table 4-1
Chemfix Demonstration Chronology
Waste Preparation Date
Office trailer setup March 3
Establishment of health and safety zones March 3
Establishment of excavation areas March 4
Excavation of waste material
Areas A, C, E March 6
Area F March 11
Completion of decontamination pad March 7
Screening of waste material
Area A March 7
Areas C and E March 8
Area F March 11
Raw waste sample collection
Areas A, C, and E March 8
Area F March 12
Operations Date
Arrival of Chemfix equipment March 9
Beginning of Chemfix equipment setup March 10
Completion of Chemfix equipment setup March 15
Chemfix equipment calibration, reagent mix run, and sampling March 15
Test runs and treated waste sampling
Areas A, E, and F March 16
Area C March 17
Decontamination, demobilization, and site
restoration activities March 18 through 24
4-5
-------
Table 4-2
Major Equipment Used for Chemfix Demonstration
Number Item
1 Office trailer (12 feet wide x 42 feet long)
1 416 Caterpillar loader/backhoe
1 910 Caterpillar loader
1 RD 40 Read Screen-All
1 Grove RF 522 crane (21-ton capacity)
1 JCB 930 fork lift
1 High-reach fork lift
1 Vibratory compactor
1 Caterpillar engine generator (481 amp) for Chemfix equipment
1 20,000-gallon Baker tank
1 MQ 40 generator for trailer
1 Weight-Tronix scale
7 Steel plates
1 Air compressor, air pump
1 2,000-psi Landa pressure washer
1 3,000-psi Landa pressure washer
1 Nonpowered roller conveyer
154 Plywood boxes
Chemfix equipment, including pug mill, homogenizer, conveyer, feed hopper with even
feeder, weight feeder, silo with baghouse, liquid reagent transfer pump, liquid reagent
storage tank (Matlack tank rented)
4-6
-------
facility for decontamination water (Baker tank) were set up. In addition,
storage areas for process and treated products were prepared and 0.5-
cubic yard plywood boxes for the treated waste were constructed. Finally,
steel plates were placed over an existing ditch to permit vehicular traffic.
Providing a security guard: A security guard was provided (8 hours per
day) during the demonstration period.
4.4.2 Waste Preparation
Approximately 7 to 8 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated from each of Areas
A, C, and E, using a backhoe and loader. The excavation depth was approximately I foot. The
excavated soil was mixed using the backhoe, piled near the excavated area and covered with a 6-
mil plastic sheet (polyethylene film).
The material that was screened through a 1-inch mesh was placed on a concrete pad, in a
pile between two layers of plastic sheet. The rejected material from the screen was returned to
the excavated area. The rejected material was approximately 30 to 40 percent of the original
material.
Area F (ash pit) was excavated to approximately 2 feet. The excavated material (ash and
soil mixture) was transported to the screening unit, screened and piled as described above.
Throughout the field demonstration, including waste and site preparation, all fieldwork in
the contaminated zone was performed in Level C protective equipment.
4.4.3 Chemfix Equipment Mobilization and Setup
Chemfix mobilized its equipment at Chemfix headquarters in Metairie, Louisiana, and
transported it on three trailer beds to the PESC site. Major equipment delivered to the site
included a hopper with even feeder, weigh feeder, homogenizer, pug mill, dry reagent feeder,
dry reagent storage silo, dust baghouse, liquid reagent transfer pump, control panel, operator's
platform, and instrumentation. A 40-foot conveyer belt was purchased locally and brought to the
site. Chemfix arranged for a local chemical supplier to deliver a liquid reagent storage tank
(Matlack tanker) containing the diluted liquid solution (CHEMSET C-220D). Table 4-2 lists the
major equipment used in site and waste preparation and in the test runs. A truck brought
approximately 25,000 Ib of CHEMSET 1-20, the dry reagent, which was transferred
pneumatically to the Chemfix silo. It took approximately 1 week to set up the equipment.
4.4.4 Test Runs
At this site, Chemfix demonstrated its technology in five test runs, one run to calibrate
the equipment and one run to treat waste material from each of four areas of the site (Areas A,
C, E, and F).
4.4.4.1 Calibration Run
Chemfix calibrated its equipment using approximately 10 cubic yards of clean sand.
Chemfix poured the weighted sand (948 Ib) into the feed hopper and it was carried through the
belt conveyer to the weigh feeder. The reading on the weigh feeder totalizer was 0.49 ton (980
Ib).
Therefore, the weigh feeder weighed 32 pounds or 3.4 percent more than the true weight.
This difference is accounted for in each of the readings listed in Table 4-3.
In addition to calibrating the weigh feeder, Chemfix used the clean sand to test the speed
of the equipment and the proportions of wet and dry reagent needed to produce a quality
product, based on the operator's observation. The demonstration equipment has a maximum
4-7
-------
treatment capacity of 75 tons per hour (TPH). Since the material to be treated was less than 10
cubic yards, the equipment was adjusted to run at about 20 to 30 TPH. The total operating time
was 37 minutes for the calibration run.
The following amounts of clean sand and reagents were used to calibrate the equipment.
Sand 9.07 tons
CHEMSET 1-20 2.3 tons
CHEMSET C-220 273 gallons
Technicians added water to the waste indirectly, by diluting the liquid reagent with water
(15 percent water, by weight) (reported by Chemfix). The chemical supplier delivered the
diluted liquid reagent to the site. This test run generated a total of 23 plywood boxes of treated
product and materials used to clean the equipment. The boxes for all the test runs were lined
with plastic sheeting.
r
During the operation, EPA's contractors worked with Chemfix operating personnel to
check the process data. The operating data for raw waste and cement were read from the weight
feeder totalizer and reagent totalizer, respectively. The data for the liquid reagent were recorded
from the flow meter. The operating time was checked with a stopwatch. Table 4-3 shows the
operating data from the test runs.
4.4.4.2 Area E Run
After the equipment calibration run was completed, the first actual test run was
performed on the screened waste material from Area E. The waste material was loaded into the
Chemfix hopper, using the front-end loader with a 1-cubic yard bucket.
The even feeder of the feed hopper fed the soil onto the belt conveyer, where the
conveyer lifted the soil onto the weight feeder. The amount of soil to be processed was measured
at the weight feeder. From the weight feeder, the soil was fed into the homogenizer by gravity.
The diluted liquid reagent was pumped into the homogenizer and mixed with the soil.
The homogenized soil was then transferred by gravity into the pug mill, where the soil was mixed
with the dry reagent that had been fed from the storage silo. After treatment, the treated slurry
was discharged into the reinforced 0.5-cubic yard plywood boxes on a nonpowered roller
conveyer placed under the pug mill unit. This process continued until the pug mill was emptied.
During the processing of this material, copper wires that passed through the vibrating
screen clogged the discharge end of homogenizer and the operation had to be stopped. After
these wires were removed, the operation was started again. Because of this problem, three boxes
of incompletely treated waste were generated (one box of mostly dry reagent and two boxes of
mostly liquid reagent).
Fifteen plywood boxes were filled with treated waste. From these, Chemfix selected six
boxes as representative samples of treated waste by observing the product's quality. Most of the
rejected boxes were generated during the initial equipment startup period and included
incompletely treated waste. The sampling crew sequentially numbered the selected boxes with
spray paint and collected treated waste samples from these boxes. Operating data obtained from
the first test run are presented in Table 4-3.
After treating the material, Chemfix decontaminated its equipment, including the even
feeder, homogenizer, and pug mill. The cleanup waste was collected in plywood boxes. It took
approximately 40 minutes to complete the decontamination activity.
4.4.4.3 Area A Run
The second test run was performed on the screened waste material from Area 4. The
operating data from the second test run are presented in Table 4-3. Thirteen boxes were
4-8
-------
?
u
i
11
|
14
rt
1
H
* iM
b do
§
B
S
1
SP S g o
H 3 ob <9
1 sP
8
0
S s ^
TO * ^ fl
Q 8££
I1 * S
1
£
o
g
baalf
fif£
C6
ID
u
&
If
Ib
J
<
O 0 N -<
** ^^ fH *^
^ O so f>
^H (N 7-1 rt
O\ *-| fS O
m ^S & rn
fl t^ W) O
o r- o T-«
(N »-<
CO
tfl
V
3
1
T3
W
o
r^ «o ^ oo &
n^ \o <> vo q
vd -^ t^i in O
03 < tt. U
Q
£
00
1
>^
i3
C
§
8.
VO
>,
o
3
£-
»
o
3
b
relimina
(X
P
£
U
3
1
o
-------
generated, from which Chemfix selected six boxes as representative samples. The staff from
Chemfix rejected the boxes that included incompletely treated waste to ensure the analyses were
run on good-quality product.
4.4.4.4 Area F Run
The third test run was performed on the screened ash and soil mixture from Area F (ash
pit). During this test run, the operation was stopped twice. In the first case, a large rock,
inadvertently mixed with the screened material, broke one flight blade of the flight screw shaft
of the even feeder. After the broken flight blade was removed, the operation was resumed. The
operation was stopped again when one of the boxes became stuck on the roller conveyer and
began to overfill with the treated product. The operating data obtained from the third test run
are presented in Table 4-3. Nineteen boxes were generated, from which Chemfix selected six
boxes as representative samples.
4.4.4.5 Area C Run
The fourth test run was performed on the screened waste material from Area C. During
this test run, one plywood box became stuck on the roller conveyer and overfilled with the
treated material. The operation had to stop for approximately 1 minute. The operating data
from the fourth test run are presented in Table 4-3. Eleven plywood boxes of treated material
were generated, from which Chemfix selected 10 boxes as representative samples. After
completing the fourth test run, Chemfix decontaminated its equipment. The cleanup waste was
contained in the plywood boxes.
4.4.4.6 Deviations
There were two deviations from the demonstration plan. First, the amount of waste
material processed was approximately 47 percent of the amount planned (10 cubic yards for each
test run) because the rejected material from the screening process was high and excavation was
slightly less than planned. Second, Chemfix added water indirectly into the homogenizer by
diluting the liquid reagent solution. Neither change affected the performance of the equipment
although Chemfix appears to have miscalculated the water needed.
4.5 SITE RESTORATION
After the test runs were completed, the following site restoration activities were
conducted. The excavated areas (Areas A, C, E, and F) at the site were back-filled, initially with
the rejected gravel from the screening operation, and then with imported crushed stone and
gravel. The areas were compacted with a wheel loader and leveled.
The vehicle decontamination pad was disassembled and back-filled with soil and sand.
In addition, general site cleanup was conducted. All wastes generated were placed in drums,
plywood boxes, and a dumpster, and these containers were properly stored at the site for disposal.
All Chemfix equipment and waste preparation equipment were decontaminated and demobilized.
The office trailer was cleaned and demobilized. Finally, the gate and security fence in the
contaminated area were restored to their original condition.
4.6 WASTE DISPOSAL
Several types of wastes required disposal after the demonstration. Unused waste feed
material, disposable health and safety gear, wastes generated during decontamination and
equipment startup, and products of the Chemfix process all required disposal.
The plywood boxes containing treated waste and cleanup waste were temporarily stored
on an existing concrete pad in front of the roofed hoist building. The concrete pad was lined
4-10
-------
with a 20-mil plastic sheet and the boxes were stacked four high and three wide. The liner was
folded to the sides of the boxes and stapled to the sides of the boxes. A 6-mil plastic sheet was
then placed over the top of the stack and stapled to the sides. Plywood boxes containing unused
cement and treated sand were also covered with a 6-mil plastic sheet.
EPA disposed of the treated waste and hazardous waste drums at a Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) - and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-approved landfill site.
The nonhazardous treated sand was sent to a sanitary landfill for disposal.
According to the analytical data, the decontamination water in the Baker tank contained
no PCBs. The metal concentration was less than 1 ppm. The settled soil (or sludge) in the tank
contained 170 ppm PCBs and 1,800 ppm lead, thus it is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste
with PCBs in excess of 50 ppm and is subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions. After the water
and sludge were separated, the sludge was shipped to the RCRA- and TSCA-approved
incinerator for high-temperature incineration. The water was discharged after a discharge permit
was obtained.
4.7 SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Samples were collected before and after each test run by the sampling and analysis
contractor. Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the established sampling and
analysis plan (PRC SITE Team, 1989). The sampling plan was designed to provide statistical
comparisons of the physical and chemical characteristics of the contaminated soils before and
after treatment. These statistical comparisons provide the basis for determining the effectiveness
of the Chemfix process.
This section describes sampling procedures for raw waste, reagent mix, treated waste, and
air-monitoring samples, and describes field quality control procedures.
4.7.1 Raw Waste Sampling
Raw waste samples were taken to establish the chemical and physical characteristics of the
waste material. Raw waste samples were collected in accordance with the established sampling
requirements, (PRC SITE Team, 1989). Prior to test runs, samplers collected raw waste samples
from each of the four screened waste piles (Areas A, C, E, and F), using an auger. Five depth-
integrated samples were collected randomly from each waste pile, placed on a plastic sheet, and
mixed with a stainless-steel scoop. The mixed sample, representing one replicate sample, was
scooped into several individually labeled sample glass jars for shipment to the laboratory for
analyses. In this way, required replicate samples were collected from each waste pile. Additional
samples were collected from each waste pile and held in reserve.
There were three deviations from the established sampling requirements. Because of
rocks and gravel in the ground at the four designated excavation areas, the Radian sampling crew
was unable to obtain bulk density samples using shelby tubes in any of the areas, or to conduct
in-situ hydraulic conductivity tests in Area C. As directed by the EPA project manager, bulk
density was determined on one sample of screened material from each of the four areas at the
site. The in-situ hydraulic conductivity tests were not conducted. The demonstration plan also
called for screening raw and treated waste material at the site for extract tests such as TCLP,
using the 3/8-inch screen. The sieved treated waste was to be poured into cardboard molds for
curing. Because of the difficulty of screening the treated material, neither raw nor treated
material was screened with the 3/8-inch screen. This change in plan is not expected to affect the
results of the tests.
4.7.2 Reagent Mix Sampling
As described in Section 4.4.4.1, Chemfix performed an equipment calibration run using
approximately 10 cubic yards of clean sand, as well as liquid reagent and dry reagent. Originally,
4-11
-------
all reagents were to be mixed in a 5-gallon mixing vat and samples were to be collected from the
mixing vat. However, the EPA field quality assurance contractor suggested that samples be taken
from treated sand so that any contaminants from Chemfix equipment would be accounted for.
The treated sand was sampled to determine whether additional contaminants were being added to
the reagent mix. Samples of the treated sand slurry were collected immediately after it had been
discharged from the pug mill. Slurry samples were transferred from the plywood boxes into
wax-coated cardboard molds for curing. Samples were collected in accordance with the
established reagent mix sampling requirements (PRC SITE Team, 1989).
4.7.3 Treated Waste Sampling
Samples of treated waste were needed to determine the extent of waste stabilization.
Treated waste samples were collected from the slurry after it had been discharged from the pug
mill and were transferred into wax-coated cardboard or molds. The molds were individually
labeled, placed in open storage containers, covered with plastic sheeting, and allowed to cure for
2 days at the site. After the curing period, the molded samples were transported to the laboratory
for testing and analysis. Treated waste samples were collected in accordance with the sampling
requirements (PRC SITE Team, 1989).
Samplers collected samples required for the on-site test by scooping slurry from the
plywood boxes after the treated material was discharged from the pug mill. For each test run,
the slump test (ASTM C143) was performed on the slurry in the first, middle, and last plywood
forms of those designated by Chemfix as representative.
Samples of treated waste also collected for the long-term testing program established for
the Chemfix demonstration (PRC SITE Team, 1989). This program was designed to determine
the effect of aging on the strength, acid neutralization capacity, and leaching potential of the
treated wastes.
4.7.4 Air Monitoring
To evaluate whether any reductions of PCBs in the treated waste could be attributed to
volatilization during each test run, the concentration of PCBs in the ambient air in close
proximity to and downwind of the Chemfix equipment was measured using a high-volume
sampling device. Another sampling device was located upwind of the Chemfix equipment to
measure the background concentration of PCBs in the air. The sampler consisted of a glass fiber
filter and a polyurethane foam (PUF) sorbent cartridge, designed to sample ambient air at a rate
of 200 to 280 liters per minute. The PCBs collected on both the filter and PUF cartridge were
recovered by Soxhlet extraction and the extracts were analyzed for PCBs using gas
chromatography with mass spectrometry detection.
4.7.5 Quality Control Procedures
As described in Section 4.4.4, the Chemfix weigh feeder used to determine the amounts of
waste processed during each test run was calibrated in the field, using clean sand weighed by a
commercial scale (Weight-Tronix). The commercial scale was also calibrated in the field, using
calibration weights (1,000 Ib) from the supplier. One plywood box containing clean sand was
weighed on a calibrated commercial scale and the sand was fed through the Chemfix weight
feeder. The two weights were then compared and a correction factor determined for the weigh
feeder.
Quality control (QC) during sampling included the following steps:
All sampling equipment was thoroughly cleaned before and after sampling
of each source area.
All sample containers were cleaned in accordance with specific sampling
method requirements. Glass containers were obtained from I-Chem
4-12
-------
Research, Inc. These containers were cleaned according to EPA protocols
and were QC analyzed. Wax-coated cardboard molds that met the
absorptivity, watertightness, and elongation requirements outlined in
ASTM C470 were used to sample the reagent mixes and the treated wastes.
All samples were preserved as required.
Duplicate field samples were collected for at least 10 percent of the total
samples collected.
An EPA designated contractor performed a field audit during the demonstration to ensure
that all quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were being followed. The audit
found the sampling activities satisfactory.
4.8 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The analyses were conducted in accordance with the sampling and analysis plan (PRC
SITE Team, 1989). Chemical analyses were performed according to EPA SW-846 (U.S. EPA,
1986), EPA 600 (U.S. EPA, 1979), ASTM (ASTM, 1987), and ASA (Page, 1982) methods.
Engineering and geotechnical tests were performed according to ASTM, TMSWC (Environment
Canada/U.S. EPA, undated), and ASA methods. Table 4-4 is a list of the procedures used in the
demonstration.
There were two minor deviations from the original sampling and analysis plan. First, the
Standard Proctor Test was not performed because of the large particle size of the raw waste. The
large particle size required a large test cylinder, which was not available at the laboratory. In
addition, this test was not critical to the overall evaluation of the Chemfix demonstration.
Second, the acid neutralization capacity test method was changed. The original method
(TMSWC 7: Acid Neutralization Capacity) using nitric acid was not strong enough to allow a
complete titration of the treated waste samples to acidic pH. Therefore, an alternative method
(U.S. EPA, 1988) using hydrochloric acid was used. In addition, the acid neutralization capacity
test was not conducted for raw waste because the pH of raw waste was low, indicating there is no
alkalinity in the raw waste.
4-13
-------
Table 4-4
Leaching Tests
TCLP
ANS 16.1
BET
MEP
Analytical Procedures Used For
the Chemfix Demonstration
Method
Modified 40 CFR Part 268 (Federal Register, 1986)
Modified ANS 16.1
Modified TMSWC-6 (C6te, 1988)
Modified EPA Method 1320
Chemical Tests
PH
Eh
Electrical Conductivity
Acid Neutralization Capacity
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Humic Acid
Oil and Grease
EPA Method 9045/9040
Modified EPA Method 9045
ASA-10-4.3
TMSWC-7
ASA 29-4.5.2
ASA-30-4.2
EPA Method 414.2
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).EPA Method 8240 for VOCs
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
(SVOCs), Metals, Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) and Pesticides,
Dioxins, and Furans
Lead Compounds
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
PCB Dechlorination
EPA Method 8270 for SVOCs
EPA Method 8080 for PCBs and
Pesticides
EPA Method 8280 for Dioxins and
Furans
EPA Methods 6010, 7060, 7421,
7740, 7841, 7470, 7471 for Metals
See Note a
EPA Method 160.1
EPA Methods 680 and 3540
(See Note b)
4-14
-------
Table 4-4
Analytical Procedures Used For
the Chemfix Demonstration (Continued)
Engineering/Geotechnical Tests
Particle Size Analysis
Water Content
Bulk Density
Specific Gravity
Wet/Dry Weathering Test
Freeze/Thaw Weathering Test
Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS)
Immersion/UCS
Hydraulic Conductivity
In Situ Hydraulic Conductivity
Slump of Portland Cement Concrete
Standard Proctor Test
Petrographic Examination
Method
ASTM D422
Modified ASTM D2216/TMSWC-4
ASA-13-2/TMSWC-2
ASTM D854
ASTM D4843-88 (Draft)
ASTM D4842-88 (Draft)
ASTM D1633
Modified ASTM D1633/ASTM C39
EPA Draft Protocol (CSS-13)
ASTM D3385-75
ASTM C143
ASTM D698
ASTM C856
Notes:
Lead compounds were determined by the method developed by Western Research Institute
One of the two PCB dechlorination analyses were conducted using the procedures
developed by RMC Environmental and Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
4-15
-------
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
5.1 PURPOSE
Performance data were collected from the Chemfix solidification/stabilization process
demonstration at the PESC site to evaluate the overall performance and cost of the Chemfix
technology as it was applied to wastes from this hazardous waste site. The following sections
describe the results in detail. The leach tests are discussed first and are followed by discussion of
the results of the chemical tests, physical tests, petrographic analysis, PCB dechlorination test, air
monitoring, and long-term tests. A discussion of the mass balance between raw and treated waste
completes the chapter.
Appendix B contains summary tables of data from the analyses conducted for the
demonstration.
5.2 LEACH TESTS
The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and PCB and metal analyses of the
extracts were performed on each of five samples of untreated waste from each test run. TCLP
extracts from five samples of pretreatment waste from each area were analyzed to compare lead
and copper concentrations after treatment and to determine percent reductions as a result of
treatment. Additional leaching procedures were used to evaluate the chemical stability and
leaching potential of the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes. These procedures included the
multiple extraction procedure (MEP) and the American Nuclear Society Test 16.1 (ANS 16.1).
ANS 16.1 was used only for the posttreatment waste products.
5.2.1 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
The TCLP is used to evaluate a waste's potential for leaching contaminants when the
waste is codisposed with municipal waste in a landfill. The material is ground to pass a 9.5-mm
standard sieve. Generally, it is the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
regulation of lead in solid waste under the Land Disposal Restrictions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Because the TCLP is a regulatory test for RCRA
hazardous wastes, it is likely to be considered to determine the success of future applications of
the Chemfix technology to other wastes. The test was a focus of this demonstration. Tables B-l
through B-5 present a summary of lead, copper, and zinc concentrations in TCLP extracts of
pretreatment and posttreatment waste samples from Areas A, C, E, and F and the reagent mix.
Overall, concentrations of lead, copper, zinc, and other metals were reduced substantially
in TCLP extracts of posttreatment wastes compared to pretreatment wastes. PCBs were not found
in TCLP extracts of pretreatment or posttreatment waste samples. PCBs and metals were not
found in TCLP extracts of the reagent mix samples. The treated wastes were not analyzed for
volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, and dioxins because these
contaminants were not found in the TCLP extract of the wastes during the preliminary round of
sampling.
5.2.2 Reduction of TCLP-Extractable Lead, Copper, and Zinc
Treatment of wastes from Areas A, C, E, and F resulted in reduced levels of TCLP-
extractable lead, copper, and zinc. Table 5-1 presents the percent reductions of mean TCLP-
extractable lead, copper, and zinc. The results show that the application of the Chemfix
technology resulted in significant reductions in the concentrations of those metals in the TCLP
extracts of the wastes for each of the four areas of the sites.
5-1
-------
Table 5-1
Mean Concentrations of Metals in Untreated and Treated
Material from CHEMFIX Demonstration
Mean Concentration
In Untreated
Wastes
(Total, rag/kg)
Mean Concentration
In TCLP From
Untreated Waste
(mg/L)
Mean Concentration
In TCLP From
Treated Waste
(mg/L)
% Reduction
In Mean
TCLP
Concentrations
Lead
Area A
Area C
Area E
Area F
Copper
Area A
AreaC
Area E
Area F
Zinc
Area A
Area C
Area E
Area F
21,000
140,000
92,000
11,000
18,000
18,000
74,000
33,000
1,800
4,200
8,000
5,100
610
880
740
390
45
12
120
120
16
30
71
42
<0.50
2.5
47.0
0.10
0.57
0.54
0.65
0.60
0.024
0.25
4.8
0.03
99.9
99.7
94.6
99.9
98.9
95.5
99.4
99.5
99.8
99.1
94.2
99.9
5-2
-------
5.2.3 A Comparison of TCLP Results and Possible Regulatory Standards
This demonstration was designed to test the ability of the Chemfix process to meet
potential regulatory standards under RCR4. The Land Disposal Restrictions are likely to be
considered applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for Superfund wastes treated with
the Chemfix process. Several land ban standards could apply to the waste treated at this
demonstration. The demonstration plan (PRC Site Team 1989) identified the standard for lead in
electroplating wastes as appropriate to consider. The standard requires RCRA listed plating
wastes (sludges) to have lead concentrations of 0.51 mg/L or less in the TCLP extracts before the
material can be land disposed. Because soil is often more difficult to treat than sludges, an
arbitrary soil treatment standard of 5.0 mg/L is also considered.
Under current EPA Superfund policy, the land ban standard for electroplating waste is
likely to be too stringent for the soils found at the PESC site. The soil at that site is a candidate
for a treatability variance under RCRA Section 268.44. Alternative treatment levels have been
set for contaminants found in soil and debris at Superfund sites. For wastes with initial
concentrations of lead in TCLP extracts greater than 300 ppm (soils at the PESC site had
concentrations over this level), the treatability variance under the Land Disposal Restrictions
requires treatment to achieve 99 to 99.9 percent reduction in the concentrations of lead in the
TCLP extracts. (Superfund LDR Guide #6A, July 1989).
A review of the data in Table 5-1 shows that the Chemfix process achieved at least 99
percent reduction in mean lead concentrations for wastes from three of the four areas of the site.
Table 5-2 presents comparisons of results from the TCLP extracts from all samples to
three standards. The first standard to which the results were compared is the standard for elec-
troplating under the Land Disposal Restrictions, which was discussed in the demonstration plan
for this work. That standard is 0.51 mg/L lead. The second standard used for comparison is 5.0
mg/1 lead in the TCLP extract. The third standard is 99 percent reduction of the concentration
of lead in the TCLP extract. This is the standard discussed in EPA's interim policy for soil and
debris.
Table 5-2 presents the percentage of the total number of samples that met each of the
standards. This comparison is consistent with both the Land Disposal Restrictions and the
definition of a characteristic waste. Both regulations compare an individual representative sample
to a standard and determine pass/failure of the waste based on that one sample. Therefore, from
Table 3-3, 70 percent of the samples passed the soil standard chosen for the demonstration for
lead (5.0 mg/L) and 30 percent did not.
The sampling and analysis plan for this demonstration (PRC SITE Team, 1989) suggested
using the Student T test to compare the results of the replicate analyses with the regulatory
standards for the treated wastes. Because the regulations that are likely to apply do not use
statistical analyses of the results to determine compliance with the standards, the Student T test
may not be an appropriate tool for comparing these results to the standards. In addition, the
extreme variability of the results in this test makes application of the Student T less valuable than
if the data were more closely grouped. For both of these reasons, the Student T test was not used
to analyze the data for this test.
Table 5-2
A Comparison of TCLP Results for Lead With
Three Potential Standards, Includes Data From AH Areas
% of Samples
Standard Passing the Standard
1. 0.51 mg/L 65%
2. 5.0 mg/L 70%
4. 99% Reduction 70%
5-3
-------
5.2.4 American Nuclear Society Test 16.1
The ANS 16.1 test is used by the nuclear industry to identify the mechanisms that control
leaching and indicate the amount of possible leaching from a monolithic solid. This dynamic
leaching procedure consists of sequentially leaching a cylindrical solidified waste sample in
distilled water for periods ranging from 2 hours to 43 days. This leaching procedure is used to
simulate contact of the solidified wastes with rapidly flowing ground water. Because the material
is not ground as part of the test, as it is in other leaching or extraction tests, ANS 16.1 provides
information on the structural ability of the treated material as a solid to contain contaminants.
Several facts should be considered in reviewing the results of this test. First, the test is
normally conducted on the monolith-like solids generated by the solidification/stabilization
projects in the nuclear industry. Although for this demonstration the Chemfix process generated
a monolithic-like solid, it does not always result in such a solid, depending on the application.
The results of this test may not be comparable to other test results and may have limited
applicability to other uses of the Chemfix technology. It was not performed on the untreated
wastes because they were friable soil.
The mean leachate lead concentrations per extract increased from 0.2 to 2.3 mg/L as the
test progressed from an initial contact period of 2 hours to one of 43 days. The mean leachate
copper per extract concentrations increased from 0.05 to 0.28 over this time. A concurrent
increase in the mean leachate pH values occurred and ranged from 9.9 to 11.0. Tables B-6
through B-15 show a summary of results for the 90-day ANS 16.1 leaching test of posttreatment
waste from Area C.
The leachability index was calculated from the results for lead, copper, arsenic, and zinc.
The leachability index is defined as:
L, = I log (1/D)
where D is the effective diffusivity. The values of the leachability indices are as follows:
Lead - L{ = 14.2
Copper - L, = 14.0
Arsenic - L, = 12.6
Zinc - L, = 14.2
These values successfully exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's leachability index
standard of 6 by several orders of magnitude. However, the standard for this index is not
sufficient to guarantee the products of the process are protective of human health and the
environment if they are placed in a landfill. The fluxes from the solids, shown in Table 5-3 with
the leachability indices, may be used in a site-specific ground water flow model to ensure
adequate protection of public health and the environment.
5.2.5 Multiple Extraction Procedure
The MEP was performed on pretreatment and posttreatment waste samples from Area C.
This procedure was used to determine the leaching properties of the waste using the RCRA
extraction procedure (EP) followed by nine sequential extractions with acidified distilled water.
Tables B-16 through B-25 summarize results of this procedure.
This test was included as part of the demonstration because the worst case results of the
test have been used in EPA's models for delisting RCRA listed hazardous wastes. Those models
assume a specific disposal facility scenario and evaluate the health effects to a receptor at that
facility from the leachate. The scenario results in dilution of the leachate ranging from 6:1 to
50:1 before it reaches the receptor.
5-4
-------
fe
w
H
S
<
^
2
0
g
3
2
M
1
fc
2
1
><
H
E3
1
|
b
S
9
H
1
iN
3
J
Ut
1
ll
3
X-N
W5
c* O*\
s n +
K< W
2P x
a
w
^^
£«
§ $
I'S
«-
u
J
12s
J^"*"" O\
01 1 ^
11 a
I -
&
IS
Cv *^
*S C!
w ^3
SS ^
,3
/^>
slT ?
£41 W
^ *
S
Leachability
Index
^
g^ +
E< W
SP x
J,
Leachate
COcOOOt^CScOCOTj-Tf
CO CO *' rf CO Tt Tf' V) V] *'
iHf tv-fi-Hi-HT-Hr-H* IrHr-t
OOONVOOo5oOr-l
^j vi IH TH <-i d d d d d
"I O O 00 CS Tt «O TH ^H SO
COCOCOCNCOCOCOCOCOCO
_J ^J ^J ^J _J _^ ^J _J _J ^J
E*Sr~soi-iooc-joN'-(0?
^^ONC^-TtScNTHr-lTt
^sooqoocNTtsopi-Hco
CO CO CO CO <*' rt rt rf rt rt
ONV-icSrfsoONON'O
ONCNONSOCOCS»-I>-IOO
SO CN
OXTHppCNCSCOONCOSO 1
rH CS CS CS CN CO CO CS CS CO
*HiH< li ll li-HiHiHi 1. 1
t^SP3'1<*'frOOCNOCO.^
COONCO>OOCN(SfNCNO
CNcor-)»H»Hooooo
iHOOOOOOOOO
oPi
Tt O
3°
1 %
S Q
S .
*o
4»l
&0
CO
ISO SO
r-i d
"
§4>
/''s
SQ.
"O
55
5-5
-------
The data from this test give several important pieces of information. First, the initial
extraction uses the same procedure as the EP toxicity test. The results from that extraction can
be used to determine whether the waste is a characteristic waste. Second, the data from the nine
sequential extractions provide information on the trend of leaching from the waste. Finally, the
test shows the total leaching from the waste under the conditions of the test for comparison with
other products.
Lead, copper, and zinc were found in first extraction of the MEP and acidified water
extractions of pretreatment and posttreatment waste samples. The mean lead concentrations in
the original (EP toxicity extraction) were 663 and 332 mg/L for pretreatment and posttreatment
waste, respectively. In addition, the mean concentrations of lead increased in the last two
replicates over time in some replicates. This increase suggests that some samples of the treated
material would be expected to leach as time elapses after disposal if buffering capacity is
decreased and structural integrity is lessened.
Figure 5-1 presents the mean concentration of lead found in each of the MEP extractions
from the treated wastes.
5.2.6 Batch Extraction Test
The Batch Extraction Test was run on samples of treated and untreated waste. The results
of this test are shown in Tables B-26 through B-28. Opinions of experts in the
solidification/stabilization field vary as to the usefulness of this test in representing the
teachability of metals from stabilized material. Therefore, no conclusions were drawn in this
report from this data.
5.2.7 Interpretation of Test Results From Several Leach Tests
For this demonstration, two types of leaching and extraction tests were used to analyze
the samples. The first type of test includes those used for regulatory purposes, the TCLP and
MEP, and the result from these tests have been compared to existing standards, as discussed
above. The second type of test includes technical tests, such as the ANS 16.1 and the BET, that
were conducted to provide information on metals concentrations leaching from the stabilized
wastes for use in site-specific ground-water models. The results of these ground-water models
should be considered to ensure the Chemfix products are protective of human health and the
environment before the technology is selected for a specific site. It is important to note that the
TCLP, BET, and MEP involve grinding of the treated solid material which may not occur in the
field.
Because of variations in testing procedures, it is impossible to directly compare the results
of the four leach tests used for this project. However, the information provided by each test can
be used to draw conclusions regarding the treated product from the Chemfix process.
The leach test results from TCLP and MEP were evaluated by plotting lead concentrations
against the final pH of extracts and leachates from the pretreatment and posttreatment waste
samples from all areas. These relationships are displayed in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. These
figures closely resemble the normal shape of the solubility curve for lead, with the concentration
of lead in the extracts or leachates decreasing as the pH moves above 4. The concentration is
generally less than 1.0 mg/L between 8 and 10 pH units and increases as the pH climbs above 10.
The figure indicates that pH is a major factor controlling the leach test results.
5.3 CHEMICAL TESTS
Tables B-29 through B-33 summarize the results of the chemical tests performed on the
pretreatment and posttreatment waste samples and the reagent mix solids. Chemical
characteristics determined for the wastes include pH, Eh, electrical conductivity (EC), total
5-6
-------
Figure 5-1 Mean Concentration of Lead in MEP Extract
From Chemfix-lreated Waste From Area C
330
10 -
8 -
6 -
Lead
Concentration
mg/L 4 .|
0
123456789 10
5-7
-------
I
C *>
> > tx
_ O
a
- ON
2
CO
CM
o
S
I
60
o
o
o
o
o
o
s
5-8
-------
U
_ o
E
a,
oo
ry
d
u
C
IT)
I
O
O
i
O
O
i
O
i
O
O
o
T3 t^
6
5-9
-------
organic carbon (TOC), acid neutralization capacity (ANC), oil and grease, metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), pesticides, PCBs, lead compounds, and
humic acid. These results are summarized below.
5.3.1 pH
The pH of the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes and the reagent mix was determined
by EPA Method 9045. The pH of pretreatment wastes for each of the areas ranged from 6.5 in
Area C to 7.2 in Area 4. After treatment the pH was much higher, ranging from 11.0 in Area E
to 11.8 in Area F.
The increase in pH observed is consistent with the alkalinity associated with the
cementitious additives in the solidification reagents. The pH of the reagent mixture ranged from
11.6 to 11.9 pH units.
5.3.2 Eh
The Eh is a measure of the reduction/oxidation potential of the material. EPA Method
9045 was used to determine Eh in waste and water slurries. The Eh was determined for the
pretreatment and posttreatment wastes and the reagent mix with an Eh electrode on the waste and
water slurries prepared for the pH test. The Eh of the pretreatment wastes ranged from 140 mv
in Area A to about 280 mv in Areas C and E. The Eh values of posttreatment wastes and the
reagent mix ranged from 24 to 53 mv. This decrease in the reduction/oxidation potential
indicates a less oxidizing environment as a result of treatment.
5.3.3 Electrical Conductivity
The EC of the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes and the reagent mix was determined
with a conductivity cell on waste and water slurries prepared for the determination of pH by
ASA Method 10-4.4. The EC of the pretreatment wastes ranged from 83 /imhos/cm in Area A to
about 340 /imhos/cm in Area F. The posttreatment wastes and the reagent mix had ECs ranging
from 2,500 /imhos/cm in Area E to 4,600 jUmhos/cm in Area 4.
This increase in electrical conductivity with treatment indicates an increase in the number
of ions in solution. These ions are probably the result of the addition of soluble compounds in
the reagent mix or the solubilization of waste components after treatment. It should be noted that
soluble compounds from the reagent mix may not be toxic.
5.3.4 Total Organic Carbon
TOC content of the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes was determined by the
Walkley-Black Procedure described in ASA Method 29-4.5.2. The organic carbon is contained in
the soil organic fraction and consists of the cells of microorganisms, plant and animal residues at
various stages of decomposition, stable humus synthesized from residues, and highly carbonized
compounds such as graphite, charcoal, coal, and organic contaminants. The TOC found in
contaminated soil from the PESC site can be attributed partially to the high oil and grease
content. This test was included in the demonstration to both characterize the wastes before and
after treatment and provide information on possible sources of interference if the chemistry did
not work. In general, high concentrations (greater than 25 percent) of TOC or oil and grease in
raw wastes will often interfere with most solidification/stabilization processes.
The concentration of TOC observed in the wastes did not change significantly during
treatment for any of the areas analyzed. The pretreatment and posttreatment wastes from Area A
contained approximately 4.2 weight percent TOC. The pretreatment waste from Area C
contained 4.6 weight percent TOC while the posttreatment waste contained 4.9 weight percent
5-10
-------
TOC. The pretreatment and posttreatment wastes from Area E contained 7.9 and 7.4 weight
percent TOC, respectively. The pretreatment and posttreatment wastes from Area F contained
approximately 4.2 weight percent TOC.
These concentrations do not reflect any analysis of or adjustment for dilution of the waste
material by the Chemfix reagents. Thus, the decreases in concentration may be the result of
either the variability of the original waste or dilution of the material. However, the Chemfix
reagents were analyzed for TOC and no detectable concentrations were found. Therefore, any
increase in the concentration of TOC between pretreatment and posttreatment reflects the
variability in the original waste, not addition of TOC with the Chemfix reagents.
5.3.5 Acid Neutralization Capacity
The ANC of the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes was determined by the method of
Sobek. The pretreatment soils were nonalkaline. The ANC of posttreatment wastes ranged from
2.8 meq/g in Area A to 4.9 meq/g Area C. The ANC of the posttreatment samples reflects the
amount of alkaline reagents added to the wastes in the treatment process (Sobek, 1978). This data
suggests that weak acid attack on the matrix will be limited by the alkalinity of the reagents.
5.3.6 Oil and Grease
The oil and grease content of the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes was determined
by a sonication extraction of the soil using a modified EPA Method 3550 followed by EPA
Method 414.2. The posttreatment wastes from Area F contained more oil and grease than the
pretreatment wastes. In this case the posttreatment and pretreatment wastes contained mean oil
and grease content of 0.4 and 1.4 weight percent, respectively. The mean oil and grease content
of Area E was 7.5 weight percent in the pretreatment wastes and 6.5 weight percent in the
posttreatment wastes. Oil and grease levels in samples from Areas A and C were the same before
and after treatment.
Analysis of the Chemfix reagent mix shows very small concentrations of oil and grease.
Any apparent increase in the concentrations after treatment is likely to be the result of variability
of the wastes.
5.3.7 Metals
Several EPA methods were used to determine the concentration of extractable metals in
the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes. The data show significant variability in the
concentrations of the metals of concern in the untreated wastes. The mean concentrations were
140,000 mg/kg for Area C, 21,000 mg/kg for Area A, 92,000 mg/kg for Area E, and 11,000
mg/kg for Area F. The relative standard deviations for concentrations of lead in these areas were
9 percent, 41 percent, 27 percent, and 78 percent, respectively, indicating that Area F had the
most variation in the lead concentration in the untreated wastes and Area C the least. The
concentrations of copper and zinc showed similar variability.
After treatment, the concentrations of the metals of concern also showed significant
variability. Posttreatment samples for Area A had a mean concentration of lead of 21,000 mg/kg.
Similarly, Area C had 52,000 mg/kg; Area E had 38,000 mg/kg; and Area F had 9,900 mg/kg in
the posttreatment samples.
The Chemfix process is intended to immobilize the metals of concern; it does not remove
or destroy the metals in the original matrix. Any apparent decrease in concentrations in the
solids between the pretreated and treated wastes may be attributed to the variability of the
original wastes or the dilution of the material with the reagents added during treatment.
5-11
-------
Similarly, any apparent increase in the concentrations of the metals of concern is most
likely attributed to variability of the wastes, not necessarily to the reagents added. The reagent
mix was tested and found to contain high concentrations of calcium, aluminum, and sodium as
expected for cementitious material and other reagents used by Chemfix. However, the reagent
mix contained low concentrations of lead, copper, and zinc.
5.3.8 Volatile Organic Compounds
The pretreatment and posttreatment wastes were analyzed for VOCs by EPA Method
8240. VOCs were not detected in the pretreatment wastes from Areas A, C, and E. The pre-
treatment Area F samples contained approximately 0.8 mg/kg tetrachloroethylene. VOCs were
not detected in any of the posttreatment waste samples. The slight decrease in concentrations of
VOCs indicated in Area F are likely to be the result of volatilization during treatment, dilution,
sample variability, chemical encapsulation, or a combination of several or all of these factors.
5.3.9 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
The pretreatment and posttreatment wastes were analyzed for SVOCs by EPA Method
8270. The pretreatment Area A samples contained detectable quantities of benzo(b)fluoranthene
(2 mg/kg) and benzo(k)fluoranthene (2 mg/kg). Posttreatment samples from Area A contained
about 4 mg/kg benzidine. SVOCs were not detected in the pretreatment Area C samples.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (7 mg/kg) and benzo(k)fluoranthene (7 mg/kg) were detected in the
pretreatment Area E wastes. The posttreatment samples from Area E contained about 18 mg/kg
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
The samples of both pretreatment and posttreatment material from Area F contained
similar levels of benzo(a)pyrene (3 mg/kg), benzo(b)fluoranthene (6 mg/kg), benzo(g,h,i)perylene
(3 mg/kg), benzo(k)fluoranthene (6 mg/kg), chrysene (3 mg/kg), indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene (3
mg/kg), pyrene (4 mg/kg), and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (7 mg/kg). This solidification/
stabilization technique did not reduce the levels of these SVOCs during the treatment process,
indicating that no significant volatilization occurred during treatment under the atmospheric
conditions of the demonstration. Further, the results suggest that SVOCs are not strongly
absorbed onto the treatment matrix.
5.3.10 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
EPA Method 8280 was used to determine the concentration of PCDDs and PCDFs in the
pretreatment wastes from Areas C and F. Tetra-, penta-, and hexa-PCDD congeners were not
detected in the pretreatment wastes from Areas C and F. Heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
were found at approximately 7 /ig/kg in the wastes from Area C and at approximately 14 /ig/kg
in Area F. Area C contained approximately 10 /ig/kg octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD).
Area F contained approximately 14 /ig/kg OCDD.
Hexa-, hepta-, and octa-PCDF congeners were found in the pretreatment wastes from
Area C at concentrations of approximately 10, 19, and 5 /ig/kg, respectively. Penta- through
octa-PCDF congeners were found in the pretreatment wastes from Area F at the following
concentrations: 6 /ig/kg PeCDFs; 35 /ig/kg HxCDFs; 23 /ig/kg HpCDFs; and 12 /ig/kg OCDD.
The treated material was not analyzed for dioxin.
5.3.11 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
The pretreatment and posttreatment wastes were analyzed for PCBs by EPA Method 8080.
Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1260 were found in the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes from all
four areas. The pretreatment samples from Area A contained approximately J5 and 120 mg/kg
of Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1260, respectively. The posttreatment samples from Area A
5-12
-------
contained approximately 24 and 95 mg/kg of Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1260, respectively. The
pretreatment wastes from Area C contained approximately 80 and 180 mg/kg of Aroclor 1016
and Aroclor 1260, respectively. The posttreatment samples from Area C contained approximately
50 mg/kg of Aroclor 1016 and 130 mg/kg of Aroclor 1260.
The pretreatment samples from Area E contained approximately 260 mg/kg of Aroclor
1016 and Aroclor 1260. The posttreatment samples from Area E contained 170 to 190 mg/kg of
each of these Aroclors. The pretreatment Area F samples contained approximately 17 mg/kg
Aroclor 1016 and 300 mg/kg Aroclor 1260. The concentrations of these Aroclors in the
posttreatment samples from Area F are 13 and 190 mg/kg for 1016 and 1260, respectively.
The differences between the concentrations in the pretreatment and posttreatment samples
are likely to be the result of variations in the waste material and dilution with the reagents during
treatment.
5.3.12 Lead Compounds
An analysis of three samples of raw waste was conducted to determine types and
quantities of the lead compounds found in the waste. The method uses X-ray diffraction (XRD)
procedures to identify lead phases. Semiquantification is possible by comparing integrated peak
areas to reference standards. The lead phases are verified by scanning electron microscopy/
energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM/EDX).
Mineralogical analysis of the three samples revealed that there was very little difference
between them. The samples differed only slightly in the peak intensities, which in turn can be
interpreted as a slight difference in abundances. Four different lead materials could be identified
in the samples. Metallic lead was by far the most abundant, with cerussite (PbCO3) next in
abundance. Litharge (PbO) and anglesite (PbSO4) were also present in all three samples, but in
slightly variable quantities and only at relatively minor abundances. Lead speciation controls the
solubility of the metal.
SEM/EDX verified the results obtained from XRD, From detailed examination of the
samples, it was apparent that the very large metallic lead particles were undergoing alteration to
other lead compounds, primarily cerussite in the natural environment (not due to treatment).
Some particles had been totally altered into the lead carbonate mineral.
5.3.13 Humic Acid
The humic acid content of the pretreatment wastes was determined by ASA Method 30-
4.2. The mean humic acid concentration in the pretreatment wastes from Area A was 5.2 percent
by weight. Pretreatment wastes from Area E contained 2.8 percent by weight humic acid. A
humic acid concentration of approximately 1.0 percent by weight was observed in the
pretreatment wastes from Areas C and F. Part of these values may be attributed to oil and
grease, which this analytical method may detect as well as humic acid.
5.4 PHYSICAL TESTS
Physical tests performed on the pretreatment and posttreatment wastes included particle
size distribution, water content, bulk density, specific gravity, hydraulic conductivity, UCS,
immersion UCS, wet/dry weathering, freeze/thaw weathering, and slump tests. Tables B-29
through B-33 summarize the results for particle size distribution, water content, and specific
gravity. These results are discussed in the following sections. Data from the UCS from Area C
samples, immersion UCS, wet/dry weathering, and freeze/thaw weathering are presented in
Tables B-34 through B-39.
5-13
-------
5.4.1 Particle Size Distribution
The particle size distribution of the pretreatment soils was determined by ASTM D422-
64. Generally, these curves show the particle size distributions are similar for all the areas of the
site although Area F waste had more fine particles. The mean particle size for the pretreatment
wastes ranged from 0.76 mm in Area F to 6.7 mm in Area C. Particle size was not determined
for the posttreatment wastes because they were solid blocks.
This particle size range is representative of the pretreatment wastes that were screened to
pass a 1-inch sieve. Approximately 40 percent of the pretreatment wastes were larger than 1-
inch and were not included in the particle size analysis. This estimate is based on a viewer's
judgment of the relative size of the waste piles, before and after sieving.
The particle size distribution is important for several reasons. First, it is important in
characterizing the site and establishing a baseline description of the waste. Second, the particle
size determines whether the waste may be treated with the Chemfix process without any
pretreatment. If the particles are larger than 1 inch, the waste must be pretreated by pulverizing
the large particles prior to treatment or separating the larger particles for application of another
treatment technology, such as soil washing. Finally, data on particle size are helpful in the
selection of the type of mixer.
5.4.2 Water Content
The water content of the pretreatment waste was determined by ASTM D2216-80. The
water content of the posttreatment wastes and the reagent mix was determined by TMSWC-4.
(Test Methods for Solidified Waste Characterization). The posttreatment samples were cured on-
site for 2 days before transport to the lab for analysis. The water content was determined within
2 weeks of the samples arrival in the lab.
The water content of the pretreatment wastes from Areas A, C, E, and F measured 17,
12, 19, and 31 wet weight percent, respectively. These results are reported in wet weight percent
(the weight of water divided by the weight of the total wet sample) because the protocol for the
treated material reports the results in this fashion. It is likely that Area F had a higher moisture
content because wastes from that area were ash with a higher fines content. After the
solidification treatment, these wastes contained 16, 13, 14, and 19 wet weight percent water,
respectively. As shown, the water content of Areas A, C, and E wastes remained essentially
constant after the solidification treatment, while the water content of Area F waste was reduced.
The reagent mix (liquid and solid reagents) had a water content of 8.0 wet weight percent.
5.4.3 Bulk Density
The bulk densities of the pretreatment wastes were to be determined in-situ using ASA
Method 13-2, as wet-weight bulk density measurement. The bulk density of the material before
and after treatment is important in the materials balance analysis to determine (1) the dilution of
the contaminants that may be expected due to the addition of the reagents and (2) the expansion
in the volume of the material that may be attributed to the treatment process. The bulk density
is also used in the calculation of porosity discussed in Section 5.5.
Because of the high rock content of the contaminated soils, the sampling crew was unable
to drive the Shelby tubes into the ground far enough to obtain usable samples for in situ bulk
density tests. Instead, two sets of analyses were conducted to determine the bulk densities of the
untreated wastes. The first set of analyses were field tests using uncompacted, excavated material
that was sieved to pass through a 1-inch screen. The second set of analyses were conducted in
the laboratory where the excavated, sieved samples were compacted. The samples were
compacted with a 5.5-lb tamper dropped 12 inches 25 times for each lift (ASTM D698-78).
There were three lifts per mold. Table 5-4 shows the results of both these analyses as well as the
bulk densities for the treated material. As can be seen, the compaction in the lab resulted in
higher bulk density readings.
5-14
-------
Table 5-4
Bulk Density of Untreated and Treated Waste
Untreated Waste Treated Waste
Field Analysis Lab Analysis
Area A 1.4 g/cm3 2.0 g/cm3 1.9 g/cm3
Area C 1.5 g/cm3 2.5 g/cm3 2.0 g/cm3
AreaE 1.4 g/cm3 2.2 g/cm3 1.9 g/cm3
Area F 1.4 g/cm3 2.0 g/cm3 1.6 g/cm3
The wet-weight bulk densities of the posttreatment wastes were determined by TMSWC-
2. Bulk densities for the posttreatment samples ranged from 1.6 to 2.0 g/cm4.
5.4.4 Specific Gravity
The specific gravities of the pretreatment wastes were determined by ASTM D854. This
analysis is necessary for the calculation of the porosity of the material, before and after
treatment. The specific gravities of the pretreatment wastes from Areas A, E, and F were all 2.7.
The specific gravity of the pretreatment waste from Area C was 4.1.
The specific gravities or true density of the posttreatment wastes were determined by two
methodologies, TMSWC-5A and TMSWC-5B. The results of the first method are reported in
Tables B-29 to B-32. These results are somewhat suspect because some components of the matrix
floated to the surface during the volume displacement test using water. To correct for this
difficulty, the second procedure, using a gas displacement method, was used.
Specific Gravity "True Density"
TMSWC-5A TMSWC-5B
Area A 1.1 2.4
Area C 0.9 2.7
AreaE 1.1 2.4
Area F 0.8 2.6
The true density results are used to calculate the porosity of the material.
5.4.5 Hydraulic Conductivity
The in-situ hydraulic conductivity of the pretreated waste from Area C was not
determined by ASTM D3385 because of the high rock content of the waste soil. The screened
pretreatment soils were compacted for the bulk density measurement described above, and the
hydraulic conductivity of the sample was determined using CSS-13, a draft EPA protocol. This
test measures the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity of three replicate
samples from Area C ranged from 2.4 x 10"6 to 2.7 x 10~4 cm/sec.
It is important to note that these values do not represent in-situ hydraulic conductivity
and should not be used to determine whether the treated product will have less permeability than
the adjoining soil if it is disposed of on-site.
The hydraulic conductivity of the treated waste from Area C was determined using CSS-
14. The hydraulic conductivity of three replicate posttreatment samples from Area C ranged
5-15
-------
from 4.6 x 10"7 to 1.2 x 10"6 cm/sec. Conductivities in the order of 10"6 or 10~7 cm/sec are
generally considered acceptable for clay liners and caps for landfills.
5.4.6 Unconfined Compressive Strength
UCS determinations were conducted for molded samples of solidified waste from Area C
according to ASTM D-1634. UCS was measured on nine sets of treated samples that had aged for
14, 21, and 28 days. Each of the nine sample sets represents the product from the demonstration
at a specific time during the treatment process. For example, if the material from Area C took
13 minutes for treatment, the nine sets of samples may be the product taken from the discharge
part of the process unit at 1 minute, 2 minutes, ..., and 9 minutes into the treatment process.
Table B-34 presents the UCS for each of the nine sets of samples at 14, 21, and 28 days.
Each box of samples was cured on the site for 2 days prior to shipment to the lab for
analysis. The curing conditions were not ideal because it was wet and cold. They modeled the
likely curing conditions expected in a field application of the Chemfix technology, not the ideal
curing conditions for a cementitious product.
The 14-day UCS measurements ranged from 243 psi for the first box to 55 psi for the
seventh box. The sample from the sixth box broke when the cardboard mold was removed, so it
had no measurable UCS, although it can be assumed to be low. The 21-day UCS values ranged
from 298 psi in the second box to 52 psi in the seventh box. The 28-day UCS values ranged
from 307 psi in the first box to 27 psi in the ninth box. The mean UCS for each test period was
131 psi for day 14, 136 psi for day 21, and 143 psi for day 28. Figure 5-4 shows the results of
the UCS tests.
It should be noted that the results from the UCS tests are subject to several sources of
variability. First, the waste from the PESC site is variable. Second, the sampling procedures are
somewhat variable, for example, the procedures used for molding the cylinders for the test and
the curing conditions may vary. Third, the test itself introduces some variability. Finally, the
Chemfix treatment process may introduce variability if the waste matrix and reagents are not
delivered at a consistent rate or they are not well mixed during treatment.
The results of this test indicate the UCS of the products of the Chemfix process generally
meets the EPA guidance of 50 psi for placement in a landfill. These results also suggest that the
UCS value does not change much with additional curing after 14 days. In fact, Chemfix staff
indicate that their experience with their product has been that it sets up in a very short time,
within 24 to 72 hours. The results also show that there was significant variability between the
sample sets taken at different times during the treatment of the wastes during the demonstration.
The results show that the UCS of the samples taken 1 minute into the process are
significantly different from the UCS of samples taken 9 minutes into the treatment process.
Figure 5-5 shows this drift in UCS of the products indicating that variability.
5.4.7 Immersion UCS
UCS has two components. Part of the strength of a cured product is the result of the
drying of the particles in a matrix and part of the strength comes from actual adhesion between
particles. The immersion UCS test distinguishes between these components. If there is no
reduction in strength after prolonged immersion in water, the product demonstrates real adhesion
between particles. There is no generally accepted standard for this test but it is included in this
demonstration for comparison with the UCS.
Eighteen posttreatment samples from Area C were immersed in water. Six cores, one
from each of the first sampling boxes, were removed at 30, 60, and 90 days after immersion.
The UCS of each of these cores was determined by ASTM D1634. The 30-day immersion UCS
5-16
-------
Figure 5-4 Mean Unconfined Compressive Strength
for Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C
UCS
(psi)
160
140-
120
100-
80
60
EPA
Recommended
UCS for
Land Disposal 40-
20-
0
14 Days
21 Days
28 Days
5-17
-------
Figure 5-5 Mean UCS From Each Box of Samples of
Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C
UCS
(psi)
Box Number - Boxes are representative of product from beginning
to end of treatment of wastes from Area C. Box 1
was taken at start of treatment operations; Box 9 at
the end of operations.
5-18
-------
values ranged from 334 psi for the second box to 62 psi for the sixth box. The sample from the
fifth box broke while soaking, so it had no measurable UCS. The 60-day immersion UCS values
ranged from 313 psi in the second box to 74 psi in the fifth box. The 90-day immersion UCS
values ranged from 54 psi in the first box to 391 psi in the third box. The mean UCS values for
each test period were 177 psi for day 30, 188 psi for day 60, and 204 psi for day 90. Table B-
35 and Figure 5-6 show these results. These results indicate no decrease in strength as the result
of increasing periods of immersion. This data suggests that the strength found is the result of
adhesion between the particles of the matrix.
Like the other test, the variability of the results from samples of product taken at
different times during the operation of the treatment process suggests that the treated material
emitted from the pug mill was not uniform in composition throughout the operations. Figure 5-7
shows a trend of decreasing immersion strength in the boxes produced throughout the treatment
process.
5.4.8 Wet/Dry Weathering Test
Wet/dry weathering tests were performed on molded samples of the posttreatment wastes
from Area C according to method TMSWC-12. Results reported from this test shown in
Table B-36 are expressed as the cumulative weight loss incurred through 12 wet/dry cycles
normalized to a control that is not subjected to the wet/dry cycles. Results of the tests for all the
replicates indicate that less than 1 percent of the core weight was lost from the 12 wet/dry cycles.
For this test, the control samples lost 0.3 to 1.5 percent of their weight. The results suggest the
material successfully withstood the stresses of the wet/dry weathering test with little weight loss,
indicating durability in an exposed environment.
5.4.9 Freeze/Thaw Weathering Test
Freeze/thaw weathering tests were performed on molded samples of the posttreatment
wastes from Area C according to method TMSWC-11. Results of this test shown in Table B-37
were reported in the same manner as the wet/dry weathering tests. No significant weight loss
from test cores was found as a result of 12 freeze/thaw cycles. For this test, controls lost
between 0.8 and 1.5 percent of their weight. The results suggest the treated material withstood
the stresses of the freeze/thaw weathering test well and will be durable in an exposed
environment.
5.4.10 Standard Proctor
The standard proctor test was not performed because the standard method requires an
oversized mold if the wastes have high rock content. Such a mold was not planned for and was
unavailable for the test.
5.4.11 Slump Test
Slump tests of the posttreatment wastes were determined by ASTM C144. The tests were
performed on three representative samples on-site from Areas A, C, E, and F. This test was
intended as a real-time indicator of the adequacy of the treatment process to produce a product
of consistent quality.
A sample was placed in a dampened slump-test mold on a flat, moist, nonabsorbent
surface. The mold was filled in three equal-volume layers. Then, each layer was rodded with 25
strokes of the tamping rod. After the top layer was rodded, excess treated waste was struck off.
The mold was immediately removed from the concrete by raising it vertically. The slump was
measured by determining the vertical distance between the top of the mold and the original
center of the top surface of the specimen. Each test was completed in 2.5 minutes.
5-19
-------
Figure 5-6 Mean Immersion Unconfined Compressive Strength for
Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C
250
200-
Immersion
UCS
(psi)
30 Days
60 Days
90 Days
5-20
-------
Figure 5-7 Mean Immersion UCS From Each Box of Samples of
Chemfix-Treated Waste From Area C
Immersion
UCS
(psi)
Box Number - Boxes are representative of treatment from beginning
to end of treatment of wastes from Area C. Box I was
taken at the start of treatment; Box 6 at the end of
treatment.
5-21
-------
Posttreatment waste samples from Areas F and C had average slumps of 2.3 inches and 2.5
inches, respectively. The samples from Area A were too hardened to perform slump tests except
for one sample, which had a slump of about 2 inches. The samples from area E did not have any
measurable slump.
5.5 POROSITY
The porosity of the treated material is the percent of the volume of material which is air
space. It is calculated from the bulk density, percent moisture, and specific gravity using the
following equation:
Porosity = 1 - Bulk Density (1- moisture content)
Specific Gravity
The porosities of the material treated with the Chemfix process are as follows:
Area A - 34 percent
Area C - 36 percent
Area E - 32 percent
Area F - 50 percent
These values for porosity are within the range normally found for solidification/
stabilization products. In another study, using a variety of wastes and solidification/stabilization
vendors, an analysis of 69 samples showed a range of porosity of 16 percent to 81 percent with a
median of 57 percent (Stegmann and Cote, Draft 1989).
5.6 PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATION
Samples of the untreated waste and treated waste, after at least 30 days, curing of the
treated wastes, were prepared as polished sections and polished thin sections. Petrographic
examination was conducted in accordance with ASTM C856, modified as necessary by the
petrographer for the nature of these samples. These tests are traditionally done on rocks to study
mineralogical associations. They were used here to assess the uniformity of the treated product at
a very small scale.
The untreated soil sample contained particles under 1 inch; many of the soil particles were
coated with a dusty, oily film. The major constituents were natural materials, including basalt,
andesite, and other volcanic rocks. Other constituents were particles of wood, vegetable matter,
and manmade materials, such as pieces of metal, glass, ceramic and carbonaceous particles, and
bituminous material.
The treated sample consisted of volcanic (soil) filler uniformly distributed in a binder of
cement hydration product. Use of Portland cement was indicated by the presence of some
unhydrated Portland cement clinker particles in the binder. The contaminated soil appeared to be
uniformly distributed in the cementitious binder. Randomly oriented fine cracks were present in
all the cylinders. The cracks may be due to nonuniform shrinkage of the cementitious binder
because of poorly controlled curing conditions.
The reader is cautioned that the scale and sample size of this examination are extremely
small. No conclusions should be drawn regarding the void space or the mixing of the product as
a whole based on this examination.
5-22
-------
5.7 PCB DECHLORINATION
Two sets of analyses were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the Chemfix process
in dechlorinating PCBs. EPA incorporated these tests into the demonstration because Chemfix
had preliminary data suggesting such dechlorination. (Chemfix Technologies, Inc., 1987)
The two analyses examined the treated material in two different ways because there was
no agreement on the best approach to measure dechlorination. The first test evaluated the
concentrations of total PCBs and individual PCB congeners in the waste before and after
treatment. Quantifying the concentrations of the individual congeners makes it possible to look
at the relative concentrations of the congeners with high chlorine content and low chlorine
content. An increase in the concentration of low-chlorine congeners with a corresponding
decrease in the concentration of high-chlorine congeners would suggest some dechlorination of
the PCB molecule.
Individual PCB homologs (mono through deca) were determined in pretreatment soil
samples and treated soil samples aged for 15, 30, 45, and 60 days. Total PCB concentrations are
shown in Figure 5-8. These data show considerable variability in total PCB content that was not
related to the amount of aging. For example, total PCBs in samples aged 15 and 30 days were
approximately 49 and 32 mg/kg, respectively. Samples aged for 45 and 60 days contained 68 and
65 mg/kg, respectively. These differences are attributed to sample heterogeneity created by
variation in the amount of Chemfix additives in the waste and the variation in PCB
concentrations in raw waste entering the Chemfix processor.
Concentrations of individual PCB homologs (mono through deca) are presented in
Table B-38 for each sample type analyzed. This table shows the quantitative distribution of each
homolog in each sample type. These data were normalized in relation to the hexa homolog to
evaluate the relative distribution of homolog concentrations found in raw waste samples versus
those found in treated waste samples. Normalized data are shown in Figure 5-9. These data
clearly show the presence of elevated concentrations of di, tri, tetra, and penta homologs in
treated samples relative to the raw waste. Marginal decreases were found in hepta and octa
homologs, although these differences may not be significant.
In the second set of analyses, the treated product was examined for the presence of any of
the by-products of complete dechlorination of PCBs. These by-products, dihydroxy biphenyls,
were not found in any samples of the treated wastes. In fact, a library search match between the
untreated and treated wastes showed excellent agreement, indicating no chemical change from
PCBs to another compound as a result of treatment. Finally, one sample of treated waste was
spiked with dihydroxy biphenyls to test the ability of the solvent used in the tests to extract the
compound. The spike was recovered at a rate of 92 percent, indicating that the by-products of
complete dechlorination would have been found in the treated matrix if they were present.
The results of these two sets of analyses suggest limited dechlorination of the PCB
molecules after treatment. It is not known if this partial dechlorination is the result of the
treatment process or some other phenomenon such as analytical error, biodegradation, etc. There
is no evidence of the products of complete dechlorination, indicating that this limited process of
dechlorination does not completely dechlorinate the PCB molecule. No conclusions can be drawn
at this time regarding the efficacy of the Chemfix process in dechlorinating PCB.
5.8 AIR MONITORING
The concentration of PCBs in ambient air in close proximity to and downwind of the
Chemfix equipment was measured with a high-volume air sampling device. This sampler
consisted of a glass fiber filter for particulate capture and a polyurethane foam (PUF) sorbent
cartridge for retention of vapor-phase PCBs. PCBs were determined for the combined extract of
5-23
-------
2 I
§3
U 05
51
&M g
31
00
V)
«
CO
U
, SI
g-
o
U
5-24
-------
H)
s
C
i-i
+-*
CD
k-i
PH
cd
TD
m
KJ
73
O
CO
T3
10
S*
S|
II
a i
8"
fln ^
T3
-------
filter and PUF samples, providing an indication of total PCB content in sampled air. Table B-
39 presents results from the air monitoring activities.
PCBs were not found in either field or trip blank samples, indicating that there was no
PCB contamination associated with the assembly and disassembly of the sampling apparatus, the
clean filters, or the PUF cartridges. The ambient blank sample was collected at the center of the
PESC worksite 1 day before demonstration activities began. This sample contained mono
through hexa-PCB congeners at concentrations ranging from 0.7 to 12 ng/m*. These
concentrations are characteristic of an urban environment in the United States. PCB analysis of
remaining samples indicated PCB concentrations were not different from the ambient control
sample. In addition, there were no apparent differences in PCB concentrations between upwind
and downwind samples associated with Areas A, E, and F.
These data suggest that no volatilization of PCBs occurs during the treatment process.
However, the weather conditions during the demonstration were wet and cool, conditions that
would tend to limit volatilization.
5.9 LONG-TERM TESTS
Samples of treated material from the PESC site will be analyzed using the TCLP, ANS
16.1, UCS, and acid neutralization capacity (ANC) tests for five years. The results of the first
round of tests, six months after the demonstration, show results for the ANS 16.1, UCS, and
ANC which are very similar to those reported above. The teachability index for lead from the
ANS 16.1 at 6 months is 14.6, the mean UCS is 166 psi, and the mean ANC is 5.0 meq/g.
The results of the TCLP after 6 months shows higher concentrations of metals in the
extracts than reported above. The mean concentration of lead in the TCLP extracts from Area C
is 12 mg/L and all of the samples would have failed the demonstration-specific soil standard of
5.0 mg/L. The reader should note that tests run after a period of aging in the lab may not be
comparable to earlier analyses because the specimens may have changed chemically.
The results for the long term monitoring to be conducted in the future will be available
from EPA after they are completed.
5.10 MATERIALS BALANCE
This section describes materials balance, the dilution factor, and the volume expansion
ratio. These analyses provide information on the dilution of wastes that occurred as a result of
treatment. When comparing the concentrations of contaminants in the TCLP extracts or total
contaminant concentrations in the wastes before and after treatment, it is important to consider
the dilution that occurred as a result of the addition of reagents as part of the process. In
addition, this analysis provides information on the quantity of material that will require land
disposal capacity if this process is used. The volume expansion ratio can be used to estimate final
disposal capacity needed for a known quantity of raw waste.
5.10.1 Materials Balance
Table 5-5 presents materials balance information for each of the four test runs performed
by Chemfix during the demonstration. The data in this table are based upon information
collected during the demonstration and information obtained from laboratory analysis.
Approximately 4 to 7 tons of wet soil material (as measured at the Chemfix weight
feeder) were treated for each test run. Dry reagent was added for each test run in amounts that
varied from 12 to 21 percent of the wet soil material by weight, with an average value of 17
5-26
-------
Table 5-5
Summary of Chemfix Operating Conditions
Area A Area C Area E _ Area F Average
Total soil (screened) kga 4,218 5,153 5,779 5,434 5,146
Total dry reagent, kgb 526 780 1,070 1,143 880
(Chemset 1-20)
Total liquid reagent, kgc 886 1.082 1.017 1.027 1.002
(water included)
(Chemset C220)
Total weight, kg 5,630 7,014 7,865 7,604 7,029
Slurry bulk density, g/cm3 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.7
Total volume, m3 2.9 4.4 4.1 4.5 4.7
Dry reagent-to-soil ratio 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.17
Liquid reagent and water-to-soil ratio 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.20
Soil-to-total-feed ratio 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.73
Operating time, secondsf 1200 780 1140 960 1020
Soil feed, kg/sec 4.5 6.6 5.1 5.7 5.0
Dry reagent, kg/sec .44 1.0 .94 1.2 .9
Liquid reagent, kg/sec .74 _ \_A _ .89 _ LJ _ LQ
Total feed addition, kg/sec 4.7 9.0 6.9 7.9 6.9
8 The weight of soil used was obtained from Chemfix weight feeder totalizer.
b The weight of dry reagent added was obtained from Chemfix reagent totalizer.
0 The weight of diluted liquid reagent added was based on reading from Chemfix flow
meter (gallon) and 11.04 Ib/gallon.
d Slurry bulk density was obtained from Radian's laboratory analysis.
e Total volume was calculated based on total weight and bulk density.
f The operating time was checked with a stopwatch.
5-27
-------
percent. However, the amount of diluted liquid reagent added was relatively consistent for each
test run (an average 20 percent of wet soil weight). Each test run produced approximately 4 to 6
cubic yards of treated material.
5.10.2 Dilution Factor
Reductions in leachable lead or copper concentrations in the treated wastes may result
from diluting the raw wastes with binders used in the treatment process. Therefore, a dilution
factor was calculated for each test run, using the following equation:
DF Wr + WH
where
DF = dilution factor
Wr = mass of raw waste
WH = mass of Chemfix reagents and water
For example, the mass of raw waste treated for Area C was 5,153 kilograms. The mass of
the Chemfix reagents for the Area C test run was 1,862 kilograms. The calculation of the
dilution factor follows:
Dilution factor = 5153 + 1862 = 1.4
5153
The dilution factor determined for each area waste is shown below:
Area Dilution Factor
Area A 1.3
Area C 1.4
Area E 1.4
Area F 1.4
5.10.3 Volume Expansion Ratio
The volume expansion ratio (VER) between treated waste and screened raw waste was
calculated for each test run using the following equation:
VER = (Ws + Ww)Bs
where
VER = volume expansion ratio
W = mass of screened raw waste
Ww = mass of Chemfix reagents and water
Bg = bulk density of screened raw waste (1.7 to 2.0 g/cm3)
Bt = bulk density of treated wastes (1.8 to 2.0 g/cm )
The bulk density values for the excavated, screened raw waste used in this calculation are
the average of the measurements made in the field using unpacked material and those made in
the laboratory with packed material. The difficulty in obtaining in-situ bulk density
measurements affects the validity of these calculations. The total volume expansion of the wastes
front before excavation until after treatment will not be calculated because of the lack of
information on in-situ bulk density. This total VER would provide the most accurate measure of
the actual volume needed to dispose of the wastes.
5-28
-------
For example, the factors for Area C are as follows:
Ws = 11, 360 pounds
Wu = 4,105 pounds
B, - 2.0 g/cm3( 123 lb/ft3)
Bt = 2.0 g/cm3 (123 lb/ft3)
(11,360 + 4,105) Ibs 123 lb/ft3
_ X _ - 1.4
1 1 ,360 Ibs 123 lb/ft3
The VER determined for each area waste is shown below:
Area Volume Expansion Ratio
Area A 1.2
AreaC 1.4
Area E 1.3
AreaF 1.5
The contaminated soils from the PESC site increased in volume between 20 percent and
50 percent as a result of treatment, based on this calculation.
The VER may allow prospective users of the Chemfix technology to estimate the volume
of treated waste that will need to be disposed of and transported or stored if they know how
much raw waste is present at a site. It should be noted, however, that the VER is a site-specific
value, because it requires an estimate of the in-situ bulk density of the raw waste.
5.11 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN AND RESULTS
5.11.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
The Chemfix demonstration plan included a quality assurance project plan (QAPjP) that
detailed QA/QC procedures for the demonstration sampling and analysis activities. These
QA/QC procedures included the following:
QC check samples -- Standard samples of known analyte concentrations
were checked.
Laboratory blank samples -- The laboratory analyzed calibration,
extraction, and method blanks. Calibration blanks consisted of deionized
water and were not taken through any sample preparation steps.
Extraction blanks were deionized water that had been taken through the
organic extraction procedures only. Method blanks consisted of deionized
(or organic-free) water and were taken through all sample preparation
steps, including addition of reagents and digestion/extraction procedures.
Calibration check compounds -- Standards were used for ongoing
calibration verification.
Matrix spike samples -- A small subset of the samples was spiked with
known concentrations of either reference materials or surrogate standards
and taken through the sample preparation process. Spiked samples allowed
the laboratory to assess the efficiency of extraction processes, the accuracy
of the analyses, and possible matrix effects.
5-29
-------
Matrix spike duplicate samples -- Matrix spikes were prepared in
duplicate and analyzed. These samples provided a measure of sampling
and analytical variability in a given matrix.
Replicate samples -- These samples were prepared in duplicate at a 10
percent frequency. The replicate sample analyses provided a measure of
sampling and analytical variability.
Duplicate analyses -- Sample extracts, digestates, or leachates were
analyzed in duplicate at a 10 percent frequency. Duplicate sample analyses
provided a measure of analytical variability.
EPA performed a laboratory audit to ensure that all QA/QC procedures were being
followed. The laboratory audit found the analysis activities satisfactory.
5.11.2 QA/QC Results
Many different types of analyses (engineering and geotechnical, leaching tests, and
chemical and physical tests) were performed on the samples collected for this project. The two
major sample matrices for this project were pretreatment (or untreated) soils and treated
(solidified) soils. An additional three sample submatrices were generated through leaching tests
performed on the two major sample matrices. These additional sample types were extracts from
the following leaching procedures:
Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
American Nuclear Society 16.1 Test (ANS 16.1)
Modified EPA Method 1310 (MEP)
The major analyses performed for which quality control (QC) results are available were
metals (by ICPES, cold vapor atomic absorption spectroscopy, and graphite furnace atomic
absorption spectroscopy methods), PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, dioxins and furans, oil and grease, TOC,
filterable residue (also known as total dissolved solidsTDS), and PCB dechlorination by GC/MS.
QC tests associated with the methods used for this project included multipoint calibrations
(mixed standard calibrations for metals by the ICPES system); measure of precision through the
use of duplicate samples and duplicate analyses; matrix spike and surrogate spike sample; and
calibration, analytical, preparation, and leaching (TCLP, BET, ANS 16.1, or MEP) blanks.
Pretreatment samples analyzed for the Chemfix project consist of three submatrices: soil
samples, MEP leachates of soil samples, and TCLP leachates of soil samples. Problems associated
with these matrices include the following:
High variability and low recovery of metals matrix spike samples in
pretreatment soil samples due to the high levels of metals contained in the
sample
Low recoveries of one matrix spike compound and one surrogate spike
compound in pretreatment soil samples analyzed by Method 8270
Low surrogate spike recoveries for some soil samples analyzed by Method
8280
High variability of field duplicate samples of TCLP leachates analyzed for
metals
Low matrix spike recovery of selenium in TCLP leachates.
5-30
-------
Posttreatment samples for the Chemfix project consisted of four submatrices:
posttreatment solid samples, TCLP leachates, MEP leachates, and ANS 16.1 leachates of
posttreatment solid samples. The following concerns are associated with the posttreatment solid
samples:
High metal concentrations in the posttreatment field samples may have
caused low recovery and high variability in matrix spike results.
Matrix spike recoveries suggest that field results for arsenic, selenium, and
thallium in posttreatment samples may be underestimated.
Matrix spike recoveries for Method 680 were low, which may mean that
results for posttreatment field samples are slightly underestimated.
Low matrix spike recoveries were reported for selenium, lead, and
mercury in TCLP leachates analyzed by ICPES and A4.
Low matrix spike recoveries were reported for selenium in MEP leachates.
Copper and sodium were detected in the ANS preparation blank.
Overall, the QC results were excellent. Approximately, 89 percent of the duplicate tests,
86 percent of the matrix spike tests, 89 percent of the surrogate spike tests, and 97 percent of the
blank tests yielded results within the acceptable criteria for both pre- and posttreatment samples.
5.12 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Table 5-6 summarizes the objectives of the demonstration, the test methods to meet those
objectives, and the results of the analyses.
5-31
-------
O CM
eu
J8«
I?
a |
*
«!ij
« S3
Sis
H o «>
o E c
u v (d
CO -O £>
«
ill's*
J« "t>'O
S =^5
S 5 TZ
III
*O 5 IH
c * o
a -o^,
o S^.
38g>
J 22
bJ -o"0
^2»
| S-s
o & c
Ed"
«*« 3 ^^
o eTS
. E g
e P-^
See Table 3-4.
Percent reductioi
concentrations ft
94.5 to 99.9 (for
E^^
.S J g..g
»> .. £ -°
I 8 8-S
5 £ t) 13
l-gg
c *- ^
OS"
O > WJ O
c ul C *
0 S 0 _
Compare TCLP lead and copper c
TCLP leachates from treated wasti
raw wastes. These percent reducti
to interim standards for Superfunc
RCRA land ban.
5
-i.
2 .
° 1
8-i
a v
g-0
CO -O
2. "3
£8
«* w>
.s §
n w
e 2
3 O
.0 e
See Table B-1.
PCBs were not f
Therefore, no co
g
i
M
U
13
j=
CJ
CO yi
i S3
J g
i i f
U ^>
Compare PCB concentrations in T
treated wastes with those from rav
&2-C
8 --2
ca j=
- "° U o
E|^^
to .5 o "* 4>
«° sii
* s -B £ a
ra e
to g c §
S 8 -n B -a
folll
M ^J ns
_ w « M .0
2 CQ " 5 w
« CJ -3 f to
Q a, 2 -o o
^ o S 2
See Figure 4-10.
dechlorination ol
No evidence of t
another compoui
may not be due
-"8 M
2.S.S -o
«! 3 >. 6
w *^ «r o 3
u < o 6 o
tn p , 3 ft> O
lwll a
^. tso s x:
o r- o. v
H'5 e.S c
« 3 O P O
Compare PCB concentrations in ti
30, 45, and 60 days after treatmeni
680. Identify the presence of reac
a new analytical approach, to dete
dechlorination, rather than adsorp
during the curing process.
S
W4
o
3
CQ
V)
V
1
1
S
3
»"§
o g
e £
11
el *O
0.2
u" 3
Analyze raw wastes for particle siz
standard proctor value, porosity, b
specific gravity.
1
'3
3
£
1
O
H
u
c
a
v &
s-o
If?
c w
n o «
D a
a
O-
1
w.
o
1/5
ffectivenes:
u
V
.e
rmine t:
o
o
Q
concentral
k.
i
03
T3
M
.22
Du
B
u
.c
*-
2D
O.H
£.s
** W
0 §
ilned using
wastes.
£
o
w>8
C *-
c 5
.§§
E
c
JL>
C
o
4>
n
S
13
C
I
M
ffectivenes
w
u
J=
rmine t
v
u
Q
*g
concentra
CQ
O
cu
M
C
'u
3
Q
S
c
*
%
l_
O
i
&
f*
o
i/i
O
15
-6
CO
JU
S
Ct,
^
v
eo
S
t>
^
w
0>
_f-;
^>
r-
rmine v
o
1>
Q
o
£
V*
U
s
£
u
ft.
M
lorinate
£
CJ
&)
O
aa
u
o
8.
c.
8
T3
5-32
-------
2
o
8
I
Ji
I!
.= o
"0
JU-
3
is -o
KI . _ » ;>-.
,
S-S
og
S.t:
0.0
11
a?
w
.S O .
lit
an
o
c
?:
:s
1
ii
5-33
-------
O 4-
E
vo
Ul
u
I
s
p
*5T
I
o w u» ** "^ U
£3 gS 5"£
n
lity,
h of
o 'e O C 'e "X -C
E t'gg"S E|S>
~ oXS-i ««c
i sn§i in
12
o
fls
"I
V TJ ~
5-34
-------
6.0 COST ANALYSIS
6.1 PURPOSE
One objective of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration
program is to establish reliable cost information for use in analysis and decision making regarding
future site cleanups. Costs of treatment for this technology come from the Chemfix process itself
and the operations necessary before and after application of the technology. Many of the latter
costs would be incurred regardless of the solidification/stabilization process used and are not
unique to the Chemfix process.
It is not possible to directly analyze the process costs by comparing them with competitive
prices because the Chemfix process uses proprietary and patented equipment and reagents.
Instead, this section analyzes the cost model provided by Chemfix Technologies, Inc. based on
EPA experience, information from the SITE demonstration, and general cost information on
solidification/stabilization processes. Although the costs associated with the SITE demonstration
are considered here, it is understood that many of the costs of the demonstration may not be
representative of any actual site operation.
Uncertainty and variability in the cost of using the Chemfix technology come from two
sources: (1) site-specific and waste-specific differences in the operations needed before the
application of the technology, and (2) differences in the rate at which the waste can be processed.
6.2 THE CHEMFIX COST MODEL
Chemfix Technologies, Inc., provided a cost model for estimating the cost of operating
the treatment process. The model includes a range of expected costs per ton of material treated
for reagents, labor, miscellaneous operating expenses, and capital equipment, as well as an
estimate of mobilization and demobilization costs. Table 6-1 summarizes this cost model.
Because the model provides the range of costs in terms of cost per ton processed, the
accuracy of the estimates will depend on the rate at which material can be processed. According
to Chemfix, its standard processing unit can treat liquid wastes at a rate of 200 to 300 gallons per
minute. The Chemfix estimate for solid wastes is 200 to 500 cubic yards per day. These rates
were used to calculate the cost ranges for the treatment. Lower processing rates will result in
higher costs per ton for equipment and labor, while higher rates of processing will lower the costs
per ton.
During the SITE demonstration, material was processed at a rate of 15 tons per hour
including both processing and downtime. As described in Appendix A, the processing of the
material during the demonstration was done in relatively small test runs that were interrupted
several times due to processing problems that were not attributable to the Chemfix process. In
general, the rate of processing for a demonstration is likely to be less than that found on a full-
scale operation. A conservative estimate of processing rate is 20 tons per hour or 160 tons per
day, assuming 8 hours of processing per day. Therefore, the range of processing rates provided
by the Chemfix cost model appears somewhat high.
6.2.1 Processing Costs
The costs of reagent, labor, capital equipment, and miscellaneous expenses are considered
processing costs that depend on the quantity of material treated. The following sections compare
the ranges of costs provided for these categories by the Chemfix cost model to cost information
on similar items.
6-1
-------
Table 6-1
Chemfix Cost Model
Category
Labor
Reagent
Miscellaneous operating
expenses with
maintenance (includes
health and safety)
Capital equipment
Processing Costs
Rate
$5 to $15 per ton. Will vary with speed
of processing and quantity to be
processed.
$25 to $30 per ton. Will vary with
moisture content of the waste (moisture
or lack of moisture in the soil).
$2 to $4 per ton.
$3 to $5 per ton. Will vary with
processing rate.
EPA Commentary
Realistic*
Realistic
Realistic
Slightly low*
Category
Equipment transfer
expense
Labor costs per day with
expenses
Miscellaneous site
expenses
Travel expenses for crew
Mobilization and Demobilization Costs
Rate
$2.50 per loaded mile (from point of
origin to site and return) x number of
trucks used
$380 per day x number of people
employed x number of days
$100 per day x number of days
$500 (approximate x number of people)
EPA Commentary
Realistic
Realistic
Very low
Realistic
The costs of labor and equipment shown here are realistic for the Chemfix process only.
The labor and equipment needed to get the waste to the unit (excavation and materials
handling) and process it will approximately double the costs shown here.
6-2
-------
6.2.1.1 Reagent Cost
The cost impact of reagent input to the Chemfix process depends on the required
concentrations. The exact proportions of the dry (CHEMSET 1-20) and liquid (CHEMSET C-
220) reagents in the Chemfix process are proprietary information. The company quotes a cost
range of $25 to $35 per ton of material handled. This range appears to be broadly consistent with
costs associated with alternative reagents and reagent concentrations that can be used for this type
of mixing plant stabilization/solidification process. For example, treatment with Portland cement
(30 percent by weight) and sodium silicate (2 percent by weight) (reagents similar to those used in
the Chemfix process) yields a cost of $21 per ton of waste treated. Other materials that can be
used in mixing plant stabilization/solidification processes also yield reagent costs per ton in the
range quoted by Chemfix. Alternative processes not using cement, such as pozzolanic processes
(for example, those based on reaction of fly ash with lime), can require similar costs for reagents.
Fly ash (Type F) (80 percent by weight of reagent) and lime (20 percent by weight of reagent)
can be used at a cost of $34 per ton of waste.
6.2.1.2 Labor Cost
As mentioned above, the rate at which waste material is processed will affect the labor
cost significantly. Chemfix estimates that the processing equipment alone will require a crew of
four to five workers. If this crew includes four technicians and one senior project engineer
working 10-hour shifts, the labor costs per day are as follows:
4 Trained Technicians 4 x $366 = $1,464
1 Engineer 1 X $468 = $ 468
Total Daily Cost of Crew $1,932
If one assumes expenses of $100 per day per worker, the total cost of the labor to run the
Chemfix process equipment for each day is $2,432. The labor cost for the Chemfix process itself
will therefore range from $5 to $15 per ton of material processed, depending on the processing
rate. This figure is a typical national average; regional variation is significant, with higher rates
expected in New England, New York/New Jersey, and California. This cost range compares with
the labor costs provided by the Chemfix cost model of up to $15 per ton, including expenses.
It should be noted that this labor cost is for the operation of the Chemfix equipment only.
In addition to this labor, workers are needed to excavate the waste material, transport it to the
treatment unit, take samples, monitor health and safety conditions, and generally maintain the
site. The costs for this labor are discussed in Section 6.3, Other Operating Costs.
6.2.1.3 Capital Equipment Cost
Since Chemfix does not sell the patented capital equipment used in the process, it must be
rented from the company at a rate of $5,000 per week. This rental rate includes the cost of the
homogenizer, feed hopper, reagent units, mixer, and other pumps and equipment. This cost may
be compared with the cost to rent a common concrete mixer for a week, $3,000 to $4,800. Based
on this comparison, the Chemfix rental rates appear to be within a reasonable range for similar,
nonpatented equipment.
Assuming a weekly rate of $6,000 and a production rate of 160 to 500 cubic yards per
day, the capital equipment cost is $2.50 to $7.50 per ton of wastes processed. The Chemfix cost
model gives a range of $3 to $5 per ton.
6-3
-------
6.2.1.4 Miscellaneous Operating Expenses With Maintenance
The Chemfix model estimates miscellaneous operating costs to total $2 to $4 per ton.
These costs include utilities (fuel, water) and supplies and consumables other than the reagents
(containers, liners, decontamination and waste storage materials, etc.).
6.2.2 Mobilization and Demobilization Costs
Chemfix's cost model also provides an estimate of the costs to mobilize and demobilize for
a hazardous waste site cleanup. Mobilization costs include equipment transfer expense, labor
costs per day with expenses, miscellaneous site expenses, and travel expenses for crew. Chemfix
has indicated that overall demobilization costs could range from 60 percent to 100 percent of the
mobilization costs. Mobilization and demobilization costs are fixed costs. They will decrease as a
unit cost per ton of material treated as the volume of material treated increases.
6.2.2.1 Equipment Transfer Expense
Chemfix's estimate of $2.50 per loaded mile per truck of the required two-way trip
between the equipment point of origin and the site appears to be realistic considering the cost of
labor and gas. Only the Chemfix process equipment is likely to be transported over long
distances. However, transport costs of many of the other pieces of equipment required for
mobilization, processing, and demobilization can add significantly to costs even if they are
supplied locally. Depending on specific conditions, transport could add hundreds of dollars to
costs.
6.2.2.2 Labor Costs Per Day With Expenses
Labor costs for the pre- and postprocessing phases in the Chemfix model appear to be
roughly correct, although the average for the type of personnel in the crew is likely to be
somewhat lower, as specified above in the assessment of processing phase labor costs. Again, per
diem expenses will depend on the nature of the project and whether local crews are used.
6.2.2.3 Miscellaneous Site Expenses
In the SITE demonstration of the Chemfix process, mobilization and demobilization of the
equipment at the test site each took approximately 7 days. The Chemfix model gives an estimate
of $100 per day for miscellaneous site expenses for mobilization and demobilization, or about
$700 for mobilization and $700 for demobilization, based on these estimated durations.
Given the nature of the costs incurred in site preparation, startup, and demobilization for
the SITE demonstration, this component of the costs in the Chemfix model appears to be low.
Many of the site preparation, startup, and demobilization costs incurred for the demonstration of
the Chemfix process are indicative of costs likely to be incurred in actual process application.
For the demonstration, site preparation costs related to installation of power hookups totaled
about $2,050, for example. Expenses totaled over $5,500 for other equipment and material used
in the startup phase, such as a crane to lift the equipment into place, an arc welder, a trash
pump, a four-way cable pack, an air wrench, protective clothing for the crew, and miscellaneous
items. Costs for the 1-week demobilization of the demonstration, including garbage pickup and
earth-moving equipment costs, plant dismantling, and protective clothing for the crew totaled
over $6,000. None of these costs include equipment costs during the period of actual waste
processing. The costs of mobilizing and demobilizing the Chemfix equipment itself for the SITE
demonstration exceeded $12,000. Miscellaneous expenses for mobilization and demobilization are
likely to substantially exceed the amount indicated by the Chemfix model.
6-4
-------
6.2.2.4 Travel Expenses for Crew
Chemfix estimates travel expenses to be $500 per person on average. The required
distance for personnel travel will be the determining factor, making actual costs somewhat lower
for shorter trips and somewhat higher for longer trips. For waste processing projects of a long-
term nature, it is possible that local crews could be hired to save on travel (particularly home
leave).
6.2.3 Summary Assessment of the Determinants of the Chemfix Model Costs
The Chemfix model appears to be fairly realistic for most of the components of
processing costs, including reagents, labor, miscellaneous operating expenses with maintenance,
and capital costs of the Chemfix process equipment. The rate of processing is a determinant of
both process equipment costs and labor costs per ton, and the maximum feasible rate is a function
of the qualities of the waste material handled. Processing rates for contaminated solids are
significantly lower than for liquids and low-solid-content slurries. Geographical variation in
labor rates and the exact composition of the crew can also affect labor costs. Reagent costs per
ton of waste depend on optimal reagent concentrations and the costs of these materials.
Some components of mobilization and demobilization costs in the Chemfix model appear
realistic, including equipment transfer expenses (although local transport of ancillary equipment
must not be overlooked), labor costs, and travel expenses for the crew. However, the Chemfix
model appears to substantially underestimate the ancillary equipment rental costs during
mobilization and demobilization. Key variables determining mobilization and demobilization
costs are the Chemfix equipment transfer distance, duration of these phases of the work, and
ancillary equipment rental rates and labor rates.
6.3 OTHER OPERATING COSTS
Chemfix's cost model provides an estimate of many of the costs associated with the direct
mobilization, use, and demobilization of the Chemfix process. In addition to these costs, there
will usually be substantial costs associated with getting the Superfund site ready for a cleanup
action, excavating the wastes, and clearing the site after the treatment process. In other words,
the Chemfix cost estimates are valid for most of the costs of actually running the process but they
do not account for substantial costs associated with the following activities:
Setting up the decontamination facilities
Establishing phone lines to the site
Preparing gravel roads and parking areas
Excavating the wastes
Back-filling the excavation, if necessary
Taking samples
Monitoring health and safety conditions
The costs for these activities will vary significantly, depending on site conditions. In
addition to these common items, some sites will require additional materials handling and
pretreatment operations that will also add costs. This section will describe some of the additional
costs that may be expected in preparing a site for an application of the Chemfix technology. It is
assumed that only one Chemfix unit is used and the cost of labor and materials is calculated to
support only one unit.
6.3.1 Site Preparation Costs
The site preparation costs for the SITE demonstration were approximately $5,000. This
cost excludes the cost of travel to the site for work crews. The most expensive components of
6-5
-------
these costs were plates for the decontamination pit, transport of the command trailer, rental of an
electric generator and telephone hookups. These costs do not include transportation costs for the
work crews.
6.3.2 Startup Costs
The startup costs for the SITE demonstration were approximately $7,000. These costs are
in addition to those included in the Chemfix cost model. The most expensive components of
these costs were rental of a backhoe to excavate the decontamination pit and rental of a front-
end loader.
6.3.3 Capital Equipment Costs
Additional capital equipment costs for the SITE demonstration included such things as a
generator, protective clothing for the crew, a backhoe for excavation of the wastes, and pressure
washers for decontamination of equipment. These costs, which are in addition to the costs
included in the cost model, totaled approximately $6,000 per week, doubling the costs of the
Chemfix process equipment. Assuming the process can treat 160 to 500 cubic yards per day,
these miscellaneous capital equipment costs will add approximately $2.50 to $7.50 per ton of
wastes treated to the cost of the process, for a total cost of $5 to $15 per ton of waste treated.
6.3.4 Labor Costs
In addition to the labor costs identified in the cost model to run the Chemfix equipment,
a work crew will be needed to excavate soil and deliver it to the Chemfix equipment, sample the
soil and the treated wastes, monitor the health and safety conditions, and direct the overall
project. The estimated cost for the labor of these workers follows:
2 Technicians (sampling technician and
health and safety officer) $ 366 x 2
2 Laborers (backhoe operator and 1 general crew) 315x2
1 Resident Engineer 468
$1,830 per day
Based on the same assumptions regarding the processing rate, this labor will add $4 to
$11.50 to the costs of processing each ton of material, for a total cost of $9 to $26.50 per ton of
waste treated.
6.4 CONCLUSIONS AND COST SUMMARY
The costs discussed above may be summarized in 12 categories based on the information
gathered during the SITE demonstration, the Chemfix cost model, and engineering judgment.
These categories are those traditionally used for SITE economic analyses. They are shown in
Table 6-2.
Site Preparation Costs
These costs are not included in the Chemfix cost model. They are discussed in Section
6.3.1. An estimate of site preparation costs is $5,000.
Regulatory/Permitting Costs
These costs vary. The costs of compliance with regulatory requirements and permitting
will depend on the nature of the site, its proximity to a community, and the state where it is
located.
6-6
-------
Table 6-2
Estimated Costs of Chemfix Treatment
Technology by Category
Cost Category
Site preparation
Permitting/regulatory
Capital equipment
Startup/mobilization
Chemfix equipment
Labor
Supplies and consumables
Utilities and miscellaneous expenses
Effluent treatment and disposal
Residuals and waste shipping,
handling, and treatment
Analyses
Facility modification/repair/
replacement
Site demobilization
TOTAL UNIT COSTS
VARIABLE COSTS
Subtotal
$6,000
Variable
$5 to $15 per ton of raw material
$6,000 + $2.50 per round trip mile per truck for
$9 to $26.50 per ton of raw material
$25 to $35 per ton of raw material
$2 to $4 per ton of raw material
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
$6,000
$42 to $80 per ton of raw material
plus $20,000
plus $2.50 per round trip mile per truck to
transport the Chemfix equipment
plus cost of permitting
plus cost of effluent treatment
plus cost of residual disposal
plus cost of analyses required
plus cost of facility modification
6-7
-------
Startup Costs
Mobilization, setup, and shakedown testing and analysis costs are included in this
category. Some of these costs are variable; for example, the cost to transport the Chemfix
equipment varies with the distance from Louisiana. This cost comes from the Chemfix model.
Also included are the costs to rent equipment such as backhoes, cranes, front-end loaders, and
trucks for general site startup work. The estimated costs for this category of work is $6,000 +
$2.50 per mile per truck for the round trip in distance from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Capital Equipment Costs
Capital equipment costs are associated with both the cost of the Chemfix equipment itself
($2.50 to $7.50 per ton of waste) and the other pieces of equipment necessary to excavate the
waste and move it around the site ($2.50 to $7.50 per ton of waste). Total cost for capital
equipment is estimated to be $5 to $15 per ton processed, depending primarily on the rate of
processing.
Labor Costs
Like capital equipment costs, labor costs are derived from both the Chemfix cost model
and an estimate of the labor required to move the wastes to the Chemfix equipment and move the
treated product from the process. From the Chemfix cost model, labor costs are $5 to $15 per ton
of raw waste processed. Additional labor expected for site work is estimated to cost $4 to $11.50
per ton of waste. Thus, the total labor cost is estimated to be $9 to $26.50 per ton of raw wastes
processed.
Supplies and Consumables
The primary consumables used with the Chemfix process are the reagents. The estimated
cost for the reagents, from the Chemfix model, is $25 to $30 per ton of raw wastes processed.
Utilities
The cost of utilities is estimated with other miscellaneous operating expenses in the
Chemfix cost model. The estimated cost is $2 to $4 per ton of raw waste processed.
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
For the Chemfix process, the only effluent that might need treatment would be generated
during the decontamination of personnel and equipment. Therefore, the cost of effluent
treatment is expected to be small. The costs will vary with the nature of the site and the
contaminants.
Analytical Costs
Analytical costs will also vary, depending on the nature of the contaminants and the
regulatory requirements for the site.
Residual and Waste Shipping. Handling, and Transport
Costs of waste shipping, handling, and transporting will vary. If the processed waste can
be placed in the pit from which the wastes were excavated, disposal costs will be minimal. If,
however, the treated waste must be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C facility, costs for residual
shipping and disposal could double the costs of treatment.
6-8
-------
Facility Modification Cost
Facility modification will vary, depending on the nature and configuration of the site.
Site Demobilization
The cost to demobilize, fill in decontamination pits, and remove equipment is estimated to
be $6,000. The cost to transport the Chemfix equipment back to Baton Rouge is included in the
cost of mobilization.
The major factors influencing the cost of solidification/stabilization technologies are
shown in Table 6-3.
6-9
-------
Table 6-3
Major Cost Variables for Site Remedies Involving
Solidification/Stabilization Technology
Variable
Physical
pretreatment needs
Chemical
pretreatment needs
Comment
If the physical nature of the
waste is not compatible with the Chemfix
process, pretreatment is necessary.
Costs extremely variable based on composition
of waste matrix.
Cost Implication
$2 to $5 per ton
Rate of processing
Quantity of waste
Location
Method of disposal
The cost model is very sensitive to the rate
of processing. The cost of labor and
equipment per ton of raw waste will increase
if the process is slower than expected.
The costs of mobilizing the Chemfix
treatment unit and preparing the site are
fixed costs. Therefore, as the quantity
decreases, the cost for mobilization per
ton of waste treated increases.
The cost of moving the Chemfix treatment
unit from Louisiana to the site will
increase with an increase in distance
from Louisiana.
Placement of the treated material in the
excavation pit will have nominal costs. If,
however, the nature of the wastes requires
disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C facility,
costs will be high.
Up to $40 per ton
$1 to $30 per ton
$1 to $5 per ton
$1 to $175 per ton
6-10
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF CONTACTS
The principal contacts for further information on the Chemfix process, the SITE
demonstration, and the Portable Equipment Salvage Company site are:
EPA ORD:
Mr. Ed Earth
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7669
CHEMFIX:
Mr. Philip Baldwin
Chemfix Environmental Services, Inc.
2424 Edenborn Avenue, Suite 230
Metairie, Louisiana 70001
(504)831-3600
EPA Region 10:
Mr. John Sainsbury
U.S. EPA (HW-093)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)442-1196
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES OF DATA
B.I TABLES OF DATA
The sampling and analytical contractor for this demonstration supplied the tables which
are referenced throughout this chapter. These tables generally present the minimum, maximum,
mean value, and relative standard deviation for the parameter under consideration. Because only
3 to 5 data points are available for each test, the median was not included.
It should be noted that these summary tables report the minimum and maximum value in
the data set for each parameter, regardless of which sample included that value. Thus, the
minimum pH may have been from the same sample as the maximum concentration of lead.
Appendix A includes complete data sets with information on the concentrations of each
parameter for each sample.
B-l
-------
g
u.
(/>
CO
UJ
ce
CO
>^ >
CO I
u
a.
~i
u
m
ui
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II C
ii 1
II CO
II 41
II L.
II f
II «x
II in
II O
II Q.
II
ii
u
u
ii
Q
Of
C
s
X
CO
z
i
'c
z
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
8
o
o
0
o o
j- oo
o o
J- 00
o o
-» 00
Nt
O
N- CM z in in
o IN. o o *
in in in o CM
O CM O
o «- o
IN. in
«- o
O 00 O O O
CM 10 tn «- rj
. . o «- o
90
0 o
V V
*- o m *-
o o 41
° 8 8
CO I- L.
en < <
o
a.
in
2 <
41
CO
Ul
a.
u
2 § & "S --5 8
CO ' O 41 O -
4J < O -J CO N
4>
n
u
i
i
n
n
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
u
II in
i
.
\ 1
Nt 1
in
. II
«- II CO
1
1
o
i
1 4-*
i g
i
i
o
.
Q
"
1 4->
one
II 41
1
I in
4)
i i_
! 8-
II L.
1 II C
i a
i in
i in
1 41
1 U
1 41
1 C
i
1 4-*
i o
> II C
i
o
oo
O
°J
in
4-»
in
4)
CO
u
'»
>.
a.
CO XN
a -
0 C
S a:
CJ NX
C_
1 l
O
i in
i i.
1 41
1 4->
1 4>
i §
i a
i t-
i 4->
i S
i «-
1 41
1 N-
1 1-
1 O
II M-
II
II "D
II 4)
II 4*
II l~
is a
II 4)
II <-
ii in
ii J>
II 3
II "g
II
ii S
II 6
II .-
II X
It m
II E
II CO
II
II S
ii I
n >-
II C
II Z
II
II
It
II CO
0>
^
3
<£
a
u
o
CJ
it
*
ll C
4) CO
4-> 4>
S.^
CO
in
2 5
4-> 0
O ^
" -8
p c
V CO
N tJ
> 00
CO II
CO X"N
1 s
to .
CO 4X
3 CO
4> >
_, u
Q- 0
S
CO T3
V) (-
_4> C
"§ CO
u
t- 41
"fr '*"
CO CO
0 Of
X
< 8
x of
B-2
-------
II
II
1!
jj
I!
M 4-»
II C
»E
4->
II
II 41
II <-
II <->
1 4->
i !
1
1
1
II
1!
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
&
ae
c
x
1
9C
I
c
X
0 II
II
< II
UJ II
5 II
II
Sll
U
U. II
II
II
H- II
I II
13 II
II
UJ II
ae n
H- ?- !!
UJ 3 II 4->
t- U) II C
u ae HE
t- n w
< >- n a
z ae II 41
U < II t.
< £ II 4->
UJ X II 41
a i!
-j n
t- ii
n
n
u
O II «
*~ "~ 1 O
O 1 -
1 *>
i I
o OKiorgo roll'"
- oj v» m co INI i||«j
§ O O r^ II C
O O II 41
V O O II M
O V V II 41
II Q.
II 41
II I-
II x
II
(V fO CO CO O CO flic.
II O
h- <4-(MOOO ' II C O
** vcgoKj ii o
O «M CO » Mi *~
- II "O
O II *
ii n
ML. 1- C
II OJ 41 CO
II 5 jj x
II E E V
St O^OOOK) v-||(0 ^E
«- - ii 8. a. *<
o ii a
I! ? .2 >
II * JI 41
8C_ WO
41
II **- 1. *Q
O OOOOO INIIt- O t.
O O O - II "O C
0 O II 1. 41 S
9V II O N *»
II H- X (A
II *
|| "8 8 "
II W CO ^»
II t- M
ii g 4-> w
US- 2 c
4J II I. O
CA II V>
41 II W CO *
1- II i X _<0
. II 41 '>
s ii 5 a!
" II B
tii s S-o
II 3 Ml-
HE a
II - «« TQ
3 g ? 1! § 5 ± 1
^ ~ g^!!g-g-8S5
E (0 || -n -* 0
*-* -^ * +* II C 3 »- ft>
JS S c I! S I a 1
5 t e 'i ' !! I 5 ? S
S." Ce«_ E f S. H -5 *« *< "Z
** '£ w = $ 5 «5 ^» II 'E S o ae
^28 ^§|l?^g L. llx**
2 i 5 < fi 5 I S ^ S II - - gj
41 41 4^ It O «C ^
x X oiitoacz*
B-3
-------
DC
O
ro
m
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
4-*
i
4-»
CO
C!
4-*
4J
«
O
Q.
8
ac
0
z
._
CO
z
c
'£
4-*
C
*Q «-
* in * -o
ro
«- in o o >»
' -O O IM
«- «si T- ro
o -o o «- o
(M «~ in l>- <\i
in
r-
o
o
o
o
o
«- *- in o co
«- co in in
CM o o o «-
CM >» O N-
CM «- r- v»
O O O O O
(MOON
in .
f.
?
CO ^
CO
4-*
CO
£ S
§ =
.c a
u *-*
u
£ 5.
4-»
o
II
n
u
n
n
n
ii
n
u
n
M
n
H
n
u
u
ii
n
u
u
u
n
n
n
H
n
n
II
ii
u
n
u
u
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
u
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
u
n
n
n
u
ii
n
ii
n
ii
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
u
to
v
1
CD
at
CO
u
4J
S
TJ
4-»
C
at
CA
4)
(_
a.
41
L.
>-
1_
CO
U)
V)
41
4-»
E
-8
V)
t_
Q>
4-»
U
to
a.
4-*
(_
0)
<4_
**-
T3
L.
o
"+-
"8
4-«
L.
a
0)
i_
D
to
>
£
tg
x
§
g
CO
1
c
I
CO
(
V
JD
CO
"3
u
_^
4^
o
z
la
o
z
t_
o
4-*
L.
s.
(A
_c
4-*
(_
o
H-
g
N
>.
CO
4-*
8
V)
to
3
Oi
i-
CO
41
Q
n
"
CO
"E
CD
4^
C/>
II
^*
)*
*^
§
4-»
CD
'E
a
o
c.
1
C
CD
4-*
CA
>
4-»
CO
41
Of
O
CO
QC
B-4
-------
ii
::
n
!!
N
N
i
I
*»
4-»
0
o.
II
II
II
::
N
N
u
u
H
II
II
s>
Of
g
x
1
X
x
1
c
'£
U. II ~
II
211
II
CX. II
«t U
II
gll
II
u. II
II
-1 II
111 P II 4J
1-5) ii c
Ul II W
ui ce HE
1- II V
< >- II CD
X CX II 4)
O < II «-
< X II V
31 II t
a * 8 «
d :;
i- n
M
n
u
» n
i !
i
IU 1
_1 1
3 !
Q
ae
C
CD
£
I
1
g
C
X
H- 1
II
II
II
II
II
!!
ii
n
H
H
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
«~
* O O O Kl
CM CM -O «-
O O O O O
- I 2 8 3
CM O O O O
- 10 ~ -'
O
9 v
«» in o CM
«- o ro o
o «
ID CM O 00 (M
c\i ^ M **
i- O
ra
O
O
O C\J
o -j-
in p o o
» c> ** o
ro in in
o o o o o
CM in
| ^
CO C
*«
CO '^
4=1
* 1
$ CO
2 g
«) .^
s s
> ~Q.
I
c o
.. (J
CO 31
- CO
« s;
I 5
8: «
CO CO
** Q>
o a:
< 8
z a:
B-5
-------
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -M
1 C
1 E
t 4-*
1 ID
1 3
| L.
1 4J
1 4-*
I M
! S.
1
|
t
1
J
II
I)
II
II
il
II
ll
Of
01
X
1
'x
to
3E
C
X
ll ~~
ll
ll
II
ll
II
5
in
(M
m
C\J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
r\j
o
o
o
^s
I
^.
*"k
2 0
E
U) 01
in
ID I-
«-> <
tt
X
i- O (J (M CO
in z z o
» «-
h- O O O l"-
o* r\J in o rvj
o o -* o
0 .-
o o o
V V
ro o o o o
rvi in o o
«- o o -* o
O O O
V V
O O O O O
-4- CM in o r\i
0 0 1*1 0
o *-
o o o
y y v
^^
_i
1
vx
^s
UJ
Q.
u E
"- Q> D
IA E Q. "D "- U
5 a ra -o c
ID O 0> O
4-* «£ (J 1 (/> IVJ
01
31
II
II
II
II
i II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
i II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
o- !!
n
«- u
« n
u
n
n
u
n
u
n
r\j u
n
« n
« it
u
n
ii
n
n
u
u
u
n
u
IA II
W II
V) II
01 II
>- II
II
II
ID II
O II
II
ID - II
U C II
3 II
£ II
0> 3: ll
.c O- ll
(J *^ ll
ll
t- ll
01 3: II
.can
V II
O II
01
1
ID
(0
ID
U
?
01
D
V
C
01
tn
01
u
a
01
i_
_>.
c_
ID
IA
S
8
C
4~<
8
O
-D
(A
(_
0
4-1
i
L.
S.
4-J
§
1_
0)
H-
H-
o
L.
O
H-
U
4J
I-
8L
01
L.
IA
s
ID
>
§
'x
g
ID
1
E
'£
ID
01
JQ
ID
"3
U
"io
u
M
O
Z
(J
z
L.
0>
4-*
i
U
8.
CA
x:
4-*
fe
H-
"S
H
>.
0)
C
ID
4-*
8
CO
ID
3
01
Q
U)
aT
S
CD
U
&
ID
**
O
z
01
a
D
t_
ID
?
ra
*-
CO
01
>
*->
ID
U
OC
O
CO
a:
B-6
-------
TABLE B-6. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (Z HOURS) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT3
==========================================================================
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
<0.20
0.030
0.10
13
0.30
0.070
0.20
15
0.20
0.047
0.17
14
50
45
35
8.1
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic <0.0010 0.0010 <0.0010 35
Metals (1CPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Sodium
Zinc O.020 <0.020 <0.020 NC
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 9.8 9.9
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (%) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-7
-------
TABLE B-7. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (7 HOURS) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT3
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
Metals (AA> (mg/L)
Arsenic <0.0010 0.0010 <0.0010 43
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum 0.30 0.60 0.43 35
Copper <0.020 0.070 0.037 83
Lead 0.20 0.33 0.27 24
Sodium 15 21 17 20
Zinc <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 NC
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.1 10.2
SSSSSSSISSSSSSSSSvSSSSSSSSEZSSSS'SSSSS&S'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSESaSSSSS^ SSSSSSSS'SSSSS SSS
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-8
-------
TABLE B-8. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (1 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT8
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
Metals (AA> (mg/L)
Arsenic
<0.0010 0.0020 0.0015 58
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum 0.50 1.1 0.73 44
Copper 0.030 0.12 0.063 78
Lead 0.40 0.74 0.62 31
Sodium 19 30 23 25
Zinc <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 NC
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.7 10.9
S35;S=S333S333=5S33S33S3SS333335=SS!S333BXXS333S3SBSB3SB33B3BBB33BBBKBS3S3B33SB8BBB
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSO: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-9
-------
TABLE B-9. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (2 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT8
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic <0.0010 0.0020 0.0015 58
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Sodium
Zinc <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 NC
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.4 10.8
0.50
0.030
0.57
17
1.1
0.11
0.97
28
0.73
0.063
0.74
22
44
66
28
26
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSO: Relative Standard Deviation (%) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-10
-------
TABLE B-10. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (3 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT3
Posttreattnent
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic <0.0010 0.0020 0.0015 58
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Sodium
Zinc
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.5 10.6
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
0.50
0.030
0.46
13
<0.020
0.90
0.070
0.73
18
0.030
0.63
0.047
0.60
15
<0.020
36
45
23
18
69
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-11. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (4 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT8
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 NC
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum 0.40 0.60 0.50 20
Copper 0.030 0.050 0.043 27
Lead 0.34 0.62 0.50 29
Sodium 8.9 11 9.9 11
Zinc <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 NC
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.6 10.7
ssssaaasassssaaaaasssBMXsaaasaasasaaaaaaassaasaaasasaasaaasraBSsaassaasaaasaEssssa
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-12
-------
TABLE B-12. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (5 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT8
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic <0.0010 <0.0010 O.0010 NC
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum 0.50 0.70 0.57 20
Copper 0.020 0.060 0.037 57
Lead 0.36 0.63 0.51 27
Sodium 7.9 11 9.6 16
Zinc <0.020 0.020 <0.020 43
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.4 10.4
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-13
-------
TABLE B-13. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (19 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT8
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSO
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic
0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0
2.7
0.17
2.0
58
1.020
5.0
0.36
2.8
65
0.020
3.7
0.24
2.5
61
<0.020
33
42
17
5.9
47
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Sodium
Zinc
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.8 10.9
S5S=SSSSS=5=SS=S=SSSSS=5SS=SS===SS=S=Sr==5=SS=S===SSS===SSS==S==SSSSS=£=
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-14
-------
TABLE B-U. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (47 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT8
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSO
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic
0.0051 0.0067 0.0057 15
Metals (ICPES) (mg/L)
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Sodium
Zinc <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 NC
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) NA NA NA NA
2.3
0.18
2.6
34
3.0
0.32
3.0
48
2.6
0.23
2.8
39
14
34
7.1
19
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Not Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSO: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-15
-------
TABLE B-15. ANS 16.1 LEACHATE (90 DAY) TEST RESULTS FOR AREA C
SUMMARY RESULT3
Posttreatment
Minimum Maximum Mean RSD
Metals (AA) (mg/L)
Arsenic O.0010 0.0030 0.0018 69
Metals (ICPES> (mg/L)
Aluminum
Copper
Lead
Sodium
Zinc
Other Chemical and Physical Tests
pH (pH units) 10.9 11.0
2.1
0.23
1.6
20
0.044
2.7
0.36
2.9
40
0.049
2.5
0.28
2.3
29
0.047
13
25
29
35
5.4
a: Minimum and maximum values reported for different parameters do not
necessarily represent identical samples.
NC: Hot Calculable
NA: Not applicable, sample was not analyzed for this parameter.
RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (X) = Standard Deviation/Mean * 100
B-16
-------
O
o
o
OB
IU
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
*
i
i
«
CO
Ol
c.
V)
o
«X
g
et
i
g
g
X
2
£
'c
£
4-»
CO
41
l_
4-*
CD
0.
8
Of
c
CO
V
5
'x
-
o to o o
CM »- O O
(M f>
« oo
to o o in
CM -o
-* fSI
i
to
o
CO
in
0
in
*'
(A
4-»
01
*~
CO
o
I
.e
CL
~g
(0 ^**
V)
« 4-*
(0
I S
x: Q.
LJ ^s
V I
.c a
4-"
0
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
U
II
II
ferent parameters do not necessarily represent identical samples.
»4-
5
U
o
»*-
"8
4»»
U
CA
S
"co
'x
1
TB
(0
3
c
3E
CD
01
JO
CO
U
CO
o
4-*
0
2
O
2
r this parameter.
o
1
CD
4-*
O
c
(A
CO
3
41
1
(A
2
CO
O
ft
CO
o
2
x.
§
*
C
to
!
-------
S 3
o
u
ui
g «
*
S
10
UJ
I
m
UJ
S
3 55
o ^ o
o
d
s s R s a
i
O- O -O
in
O
V
o o- o o «-
~
a
I
3 <
£
§
'8:5g
O O -
J CO fSJ
t
1
in
<*
1
N.
r\i
(/>
*-»
v>
V
i
««
S
I
a.
L
(A
(0 «
.? S
1^
O ^x
u
1 *
0
u
n
H
II
n
n
n
ii
n
H
1
n
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
!!
H
n
n
u
n
n
n
H
1
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
n
u
H
n
n
n
u
u
u
u
u
n
n
u
u
n
n
H
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
8
1
«l
U
I
V
I
>.
Z
a
m
8
U
*«
%
(.
to
f
t.
4J
C
Q>
L.
0)
*^
M-
L.
O
**-
I
L.
1
<
i
g
a
I
'c
Z
(
a
a
2
0)
u
a
u
o
z
>t
u
z
ll
41
L.
in
JC.
4^
L.
"8
N
X
c
W
1
ID
X
41
"a
E
a
*
41
S
a
u
1
ID
«->
O
z
!s
<
z
I
«
S
4)
I
a
>
41
a
ID
ID
*-*
v>
II
g£
S
t-f
a
'>
41
o
o
1
ID
*«
>
4-1
a
_^
4)
Of
^
I/I
DC
B-18
-------
u
<
Ul
<
o
Kl
Ul
u
U
2
CO
CO
It
n
u
u
n
jj
II *
II C
II E
II 4->
II CO
II tl
II 1-
II 4->
II 4->
II CA
II 0
ii a.
ii
u
u
ii
u
u
n
n
u
u
u
u
n
te.
c
a
£
J
i
X
a
._
c
X
n
n
u
u
u
ii
u
n
u
n
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II 4-»
II C
II 0)
II E
II 4->
II CD
II CU
II t.
II 4-*
II 01
II 1-
ii a.
n
u
u
n
u
u
u
n
ii
n
n
n
n
o
to
c<
c
CD
0
3
X
CO
X
§
c
£
u
ii
u
u
u
u
n
n
ii
u
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
ii
u
n
ii
u
n
n
u
u
n
n
n
ii
u
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
u
^
10
o
o
o
o
d
o
s
o
o
in
o
^-*
IM
O
O
0
o
in
o
o
0
0
o
o
o
V
J
g
^
w 'c
(A tl
en
CO I.
01
X
_J
"N.
I
Z.
o
w
IA
CO
4-*
01
X
CM
0
ro
d
(^
c
o
o
d
V
u
2
O
C\J
d
V
o
CM
d
V
o
0
V
£
_5
o
CM
O
^
1
o
«~
«;
o
CO
in
T_
*O
O
0
Iw
o
u
to
IO
10
o
^
o
^-
**!
0
in
in
o
CM
O
O
V
o
CM
O
O
V
0
CM
O
O
V
o
in
O
CM
in
to
t
^
ID
U
CA
Q_
2
CO ^\
V)
CO -
2 i
16 a:
o -^
t_
01 I
.c Q.
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
ii
n
ii
u
n
n
n
u
ii
u
u
it
ii
u
n
n
u
n
u
ii
u
n
u
i
ii
n
n
i
ii
ii
u
n
u
n
ii
u
u
n
i
n
n
n
u
n
u
u
I
N
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
II
II
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
1
II
II
II
1
1
1
I/)
01
I
in
ID
u
4-»
c
o>
en
01
t_
CD
in
oT
XI
ID
CJ
&
ID
O
^
0
o
*
c
ID
01
§
4-*
ID
01
TJ
l_
ID
1
CD
4-*
II
C
o
4-»
ID
">
01
0
T3
1
ID
4-»
to
4-*
CO
a:
o
B-19
-------
ia
1
<
<
o-
%
i
CO
II
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
ii
n
n
u
n
n
n
u
ii
ii
n
n
u
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
u
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
it
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
n
n
u
u
ii
u
n
n
u
u
n
n
n
u
4-*
B
8
l_
+-»
O
Q.
v>
oc
z
r~
X
C
C
C
I
CD
01
L.
4-*
01
<_
a.
Of
c
CO
01
z
.^
X
CO
B
'c
£
«- * O- CO (J
O (M in «- z
S
o
o
o
o
o
3
o
-O CO
in
CO O
to o
o . o
§ ^
000
rj
«- K1 o
« in oj
st in < U -1 CA
Ol
in
t
CO
u
>.
.c
a.
CO
^*
ID
O
x:
u
c.
01
o
c!
in
f-
~*
S*L
Cfl
1
a
a
H
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
ii
u
u
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
u
n
ii
n
u
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
n
ii
u
u
M
u
u
n
u
u
n
n
u
it
u
u
n
n
n
n
ii
u
u
n
n
n
u
M
u
n
ii
u
n
u
n
n
ii
u
u
n
u
M
n
u
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
u
u
n
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
u
n
u
n
n
u
n
u
n
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
do not necessarily represent identical samples.
CA
(_
-------
Ul
a
u
u
u
s
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
8
II
u
Ij
II
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
[j
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
u
II
!!
ii
M
u
n
u
u
M
u
n
u
u
M
H
u
n
n
n
n
n
M
»
n
u
u
N
n
u
n
n
n
M
u
n
n
u
n
u
u
u
n
n
u
n
»
i
CD
t>
t.
*>
V>
O
a.
o
Of
8
se
t«_
X
CD
I
3
E
'E
at
*-»
CO
01
L.
**
01
L.
a.
a
to
a.
c
CO
0>
{£
X
CO
'E
*">»
_l
v»
2>
E
vx
s*
*^
in
CO
4-f
01
X
>* c> O O CO
« CM CM CM CO
O " «
o o o o
o
O O CM CM O vj
O «M «-
O 00
o
O O -^ N» O O
«- CM «- «- 00
o «- o
O O O V
V O
?
1
-v.
+^
/^
z
o
CO
N-
CO
in
V)
t
(Q
u
Vi
>*
£
a
"O
Q
<0 *"*
4 4-1
(D
o c
-- D
j: a.
L.
5 °"
o
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
If
II
II
n
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
1
II
II
II
1
1
1
1
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
1
1
1
H
II
II
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
1
II
II
II
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
ameters do not necessarily represent identical samples.
SL
C
C-
H-
H-
o
o
H-
1
a
01
l_
CO
01
(A
01
JO
CO
u
CO
4-1
o
X
,,
z
o
o
*
c
CO
01
z:
c
o
4-'
CO
01
o
TO
C-
CO
g
CO
00
II
/-N
"
c
o
4-*
CO
01
o
TO
CO
Q
CO
4-*
01
CO
01
C£
o
CO
B-21
-------
<
o
NO
ai
CJ
< t
9.
(M
CO
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
C
g
4-»
a
01
L.
*^
Vt
o
a.
4-»
CO
01
i.
II
L-
CL
Of
g
*
£
c
f
X
CO
X
c
X
of
V
X
^
'!<
10
X
g
'c
aE
in
2
o
g
>O fO 00 O
*» oo ro z
3 a. n -fa c
CO O 0) O -
1
1
1 1
1
1
{
1
1
1
1
1
1
> 1
CM
o
»-
^*
*
o
«;
"^
ro
in
«
V
ii <-
n a>
n *-
n »-
n -
II -O
i
i i.
1 O
i **-
i
1 T3
1 Ol
1 4-»
1 1-
! &
11 CD
II L-
II
1 v>
! S
i
1 CO
II >
II
ii G
n 2
ii e
II X
II E
II
ii -o
II C
II <0
ii
it
ii 2
n §
ii
II C
u -
II £
II
II
II
1 ra
01
2
CO
D
u
CO
u
0
z
0
z
(_
01
4-*
o>
1_
8.
(A
-C
4-f
u
o
H-
"8
ISl
>^
g
(D
M
g
CO
(0
2
(U
1
CO
at
£
^
g
*^
(0
s
a
O
u
CO
1
4-*
cn
n
s<
^^
§
v
CO
>
a>
0
o
u
i
CD
4^
CO
01
>
4-1
CO
"3
cc
o
C/)
IX
B-22
-------
o
2
UJ _J
os o
< «
iti
oe
g
u- >-
v>
ui
<
z
u
<
111
_l
a.
O
d
o
§
S»- IM O O
-* «O » Z
o o 4) o o
r>j fsi K> r\j
o « o
o _ o y
O O S. o O
* K» « -eg
o «- o
o o
o o
V
o o o o o
(\j <\i r\j CM
o o *- o
O V .
x tn
i
o
§
§
o
o
f
t^
^s
5 o
v «P-
U V
(I)
a <-
1
1
CM
O
»
^^
»
,
^y
ts.'
00
<>
(A
V
CA
41
t
a
u
"E
I.
(A
* 4-1
!!
j: Q.
u .?
b.
41 Z
x: a
4-»
O
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
!!
n
N
n
u
H
u
n
n
u
n
||
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
u
u
n
n
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
||
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
,
t~"
(A
«^
4*
1
+j
^
8-
_>.
"L.
a
in
in
V
§
4-*
8
V)
u
a>
4->
I
^
z.
4_«
5
U
A)
14-
**-
o
L.
O
**-
u
4->
L.
8.
41
L.
^
X 4)
1 1
1|
§a
u
c o
4 2
I
((
.. u
to z
§
*
<-' c
4i a
+ 41
i
1- O
8. w
a
(A
2 2
«" O
«- u
0 t.
H- re
y e
flu a
N H
> u>
1:
K
n
IA ^
re w
x a
- E
IS
« L-
-------
in o co
m >t »*
u
z
ae
a
<
u
a
< i-
UJ -I
of n
< (A
a.
x
CO
Ul
s
u
n
n
!i
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
ii
n
n
I
I
i
u
!!
n
n
n
ii
u
H
n
n
n
n
n
n
i|
n
»
I
£
o tn CM o o
CM 10 ro -CM
o «- o
o
o
o
o
o
o o in o o
K> in in -CM
o « o
o o
o o
o o o o o
(M CM CM -CM
O O V
V O O
01
D
1
3
x
^
CD
|
C
ID
41
la
ID
"3
U
CD
O
4-*
0
1.
u
x.
L.
41
4"»
U
a
(A
'2
4-*
U
O
«^-
^
N
>-
1
CO
4-*
8
«
10
X
01
1
4)
Q
D
U
CO
?
CO
*J
V)
II
«
^^
§
4^
CO
'>
41
o
TJ
t.
w
41
>
«3
CO
a:
o
(7>
a:
B-24
-------
S
o
-o o
o> >o o
N- <\i
§
o
o
o
CM M
o *- o
o-o
v o o
V
o o »- o o
ru in cj
o (M CM o
o o o o o
CM OJ C\J CM
O «- O
? O V
o o
0
Ul
X
U
<
UJ
_j
i
U
a
< i-
LU -J
tf v)
Ul
§ "
CO «C
J I
Ul
K
h-
Ul
t-
Ul
s
U
Ul
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II C
ii !
i! S
II 4)
II t-
ii a.
n
J'
',!
|j
n
n
n
Of
c
CO
4)
X
1
X
CO
X
1
lr-
c
£
o o o
V o
O
o
o o in o co
<\j co O CM
. o «-
o v o
V O
§ »
to at
§ s
~ c u I
to E a. TO "- o
S ti co TJ c
co o 0) o -
4-> < t_> i cn rvi
d
in
-O
s*\
U)
c
D
OC
a
a
n
n
n
n
ii
n
!!
n
n
J
n
n
|j
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
II
H
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
&
CO
at
.-*
CO
B-25
-------
I
N
N
n
n
N
N *
l i
N **
U, | |
U HO
3 | *
Z It
* n
3
o
Ul II
»- II
< H
3= II
< ii
-I II
OB
Ul -1
S 3
Ul II W
gat u C
U J!
u- >- HE
to < ii a
t- 2 M «
£35 II *J
C? 55 i! 4i
Ul Ml.
a: !i "
i- n
- N
U II
< U
Ul II
1 II
H
CL II
Ul II
3C II
&
at
*
|
I
I
C
X
g
g
4>
J
'x
a
X
|
c
y
i
o
o
d
0
i
o
u
z
o
o
o
d
V
o
§
?
0
o
o
o
V
o h- s> «o o
*» r* *o co »
^3 ^% PO IA IA
M N. W
« O xT »- O
v d d
o -O in o o
O r- O O> O-
eo N- ro Kj ro
o «- o> co M
(M (M CO M
do "~ d
V
O C\J O O ^T
* »» IM M
«- t\j
o o o
o »- o o ro
(M « ^ . «
00 0
II
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ii
1 II
II
II
II
H
:: s
H
u a
II £
>o j! v>
* ii s
II
II *-
II s
II
O II
°~ II £
!! ?!
:: &
II L.
II X
II ^
i II tl
ii a
u II t-
*O II "O
II
II U
II O
II H-
II
ii *n
a 4>
o
0
1
i- C
II
ID II
.2 § II
Sit
Z II
6Q. II
~ II
I. II
41 X II
£ a. ii
L^ i
.1
a 4->
2 o
41 '>
<0
a o
X 4)
s I
(0
? 3 £
wo
Uf
" "S
<0
c o
z
ID (/)
U
v~ Q)
& '*^
ID ID
< S
X OC
E-26
-------
ui co
Of t-
rg
i
m
UJ
i
i
i
i
i
i
! «
' F
1 W
1 S
1 4J
1 «J
1 01
1 C,
1 V
1 4J
! !
i
i
i
i
I
I
DC
c
I
'x
co
3C
I
C
X
i
i
i
!
!
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1 4->
i 1
1 4J
1 ID
1 01
1 (.
1 4-1
! t
i a.
i
i
i
i
!
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
cc
g
1
1
*^
X
a
z
c
i
(M
O
o
*
o
o
O)
I
i o
^ s
-4 «- <\J r\j >o
o g o o «>
o o
O. i- O O PJ
* N. CM
tn «- rt «*
o
tn co o o >o
in cv r- «-
- d M M c!
*^ >» K> «- O»
CO O CO O- O
>t S tn co o
°
K- -. - " 8
O
0
«- O * in p
in IM
II
52 ' ii
|
n
N
n
u
u
81 n
u
ft II
~ !!
N
n
n
n
u
n
*° *7 !!
in c«i n
CM «- It
II
II
II
II
u
CO 0 II
S. . II
O CM II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ro - t!
<\i n
u
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
O ' II
N- II
K> II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CVJ v II
3 i \
II
ii
II
II
II
(M -O II
,M <; !!
u
n
n
n
n
H
n
u
n
H
CO II
V II
0> II
4J II
1- II
II
II
a n
U II
CO II
s^ II
fll
H
II
a a
C II
CO <> II
CO II
5 5 '$ ii
g g 5 !!
fi w 5 g
1 s s. ii
*-> n
O II
CO
01
1
CA
^
U
4-*
1
£
1
-^
*j^
co
CO
«l
o>
8
^
CO
L.
01
i
i
4-*
S
u
«»-
L.
O
<*-
2
c
F
i/i
cu
5
CD
._
X 01
CD
? ~5
CD U
§CO
O
'E O
Z
z
u
CD Z
O
O
. *
L. C
01 CO
V 41
I
c. O
8. 4^
CD
(A **
2 I
4J O
^
w a
51 55
g
CD ^^
4^ \^
!i
CO 4->
Z CO
01 >
V
Q. o
Z -Q
01 L.
_«r c
CD U>
U
it Qf
& V
-------
O Kl O O -O
oc
o
CM
CO
Ul
§
O
ro o
*
Vt
01
h~
CO
u
I
jc
a.
"g
CO f*
at
a
u
1
c
01
(A
01
if
CO
U)
Ul
01
U
0)
c
-8
L.
4-*
u
&
4-*
c
01
L.
0)
H-
5
L.
o
H-
IS
8-
CA
CO
X
i
1
1
'c
,,
a
01
(0
01
4-*
-------
o
o
u
2
3
g
o
o
(M ro in in
^ ^ »~ Kl
t>- (\J O »- O
«- ^ (M in
in T- o
0 o
10 «» Q in o
«d -. 5 ~ fe
o
CM T- O O O
« ^ » X*
Kl ^ S
o
O
O sj-
fxl «-
i
O
O
in
o
o
^ g
in o
o
3
o in o o
§ «i ^ S
d d
g
*»
, g
i1
5 § &^ =5 S
<0 O D 8
*> < O I «/> IM
1
1
fNJ
N
«
^
i
K1
O
^-
st
0
-
'
ID
U
«
SH
£
g
c
a ^
M
' «>
a
5 §
§ «
5 S-
u
41 =C
J= OL
«-
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 M
1 41
! i
\*
1 O
I £
: s
1 TJ
1 ~-
1
1 +»
C
1 41
1 (A
1 41
1 L.
i 9-
1 4)
1 L.
1
1 X
1 >
1 >-
1 i-
1
1 U
1 41
1 C
1
1 4->
: 8 d
1 0
1 O «-
1 "D
1 *
UU)
" U C
1 41 41 (D
1 *> *- 41
1C. t- O
10 A «^
i a a *-
a
c -2 '>
41 £ 41
1. 4-- O
4)
1 »- I- TJ
1 «f- O <-
1 13 "D
II- 5(0
1 O N -M
1 «*- >.
-------
CO
a
2
ee.
S
a.
o
o
(\J
II
II
n o
II (/>
u at
n
n
n
n
ii
n
II
II 4-> (0
II CO
II JJ X
II 4->
!! 8
II L.
II « i
!! a S
||
u
II E
n 3
H
II C
II X
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II O
II GO
ii at
u
n
n
n
u
u
u
n
It C
II <-> (0
II CO
II O. X
H E
II *»
II ID
II 01
n L.
II v E
II c. E
n a. -
II X
n in
II X
n
u
n
u
n E
n 3
i! c
u
II X
II
n
ii
u
u
n
n
n
n
u
n
u
n
u
u
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
u
n
jj
jj
i!
i!
n
u
N.N- o «- o» CM o -»
i- *- . .- . IM «-
in in o
«» in o ooooo
CM & CM OOOOO
o o o ro -o
«- «- CM *~
00 O T- OOOOO
CM «- CM OOOOO
«- O O O O CO
2 « 3 * -
OOO O^ OOOOO
CMt>- - OOOOO
ro D>
(A O) 0)
S < I
'o t ^
*J ^ ^ «>
SO CM UJ
« « ^N Q.
a u ^ So ^ §
?00 --E ~ C u §
«J O O « 1) « E Q. T3 -- o
oo w 3 d. ro TJ c
ca<< u* *j<<-ocM
K) O Z O
o >o «- - o >»
*~ «M
5 o J2 z *t o "*i
^ K - - - g "
oocorot>K)r~--o
CM ^- «- M
§^
«- *
OJOO-OOS-OOO-4-
N.S O*CM^CMO^J
- o
ooooooiof-or-
V
D>
(A ^
I 1
rf ^N
1 1^112
> V) 1^ O) *-. 2
"g c^S^^.S
a t^ .^ o>
u> 4-> a> > ca <->
'4-> >»CXNIB*-UOJ(-
uc -{-'-wen!-*-'
0^3! >4-* O (U~^*^*O
JCQ.EU TD O *- C >.
o vx ii D L. '^.^a^
*D 4) -** ^ O
+-
o
u
^f ^f
^ «-
^ ?
CM II
n
H
}j
K) II
II
n
1
2^ i
CM II
II
II
II
CM O II
II
II
CM 0 !i
in jj
II
jj
CM X H
CO
II
o> i jj
CJ II
II
o>
1
»«
4-> a ii
2 - II
C II
»- a. i
S § !
1
2* S !
0 2
S"" 3 1
4) 1
- * i
1
B-30
-------
^
1
I
oe
c
a
V
X
I
i
X
3
.*
c
X
«
_«»
a
0
I
£
4)
M
|
>.
C
ID
(A
8
4-*
g
o
o
parameters <
4-*
U
41
H-
H-
5
L-
o
M-
"8
4-»
L.
8.
41
U
(A
4>
*
a
>
e
x ci
ID ^
? s -8
N -a -.
X c 3
- 0 0
S
E a
< 3 o
4J - 4rf
o c o
X
j: o
4^ O
I- "O
0 L.
* |
V ID
££
a ii
a **
tt
«i
lA »^
(D 4-»
3 (D X
± 'i -E
8- ° r
« TJ a
IA 1- ^
it «
-^ ID 41
^24^
ID J3
o a
r $ 3
O. (A
S 4-> a
ID a u
4- "S E
O tt O
z z
o
X
z oe z
B-31
-------
!!
ii
ii
i
i
i
i *j
II C
II $
II E
!! S
ii £
ii 2
ii §
II 0.
II
II
!!
i
0 II
i ii
H
0 II
< !
« i
5 !
U. 1
II
(A II
5 !!
w !!
Ul II
" t- !!
ft 3 II w
ui 5» u c
K- 111 II 6
ef II E
-J II 4-f
S>- II 10
ee n «i
< n i.
i i s t
OL V) II ^L
2 j
i
_i i
I i
s ii
n
n
n
0 II
w
4f
i
1
§
i
_'£
'£
£
oc
i
i
i
i
x
i
'c
'£
^ < <
"~ c> z z
K) 0 < <
in K) z z
So < <
vt Z Z
r*^ o ^ »
9999
^ t t
*~ «o ""
0 0 0
SD 's^ CM
«- «- in
§||
? !P ^
^ ^ st
fo co fo
o o o
o o o
III
0 O O
o o o
S § s
~
§ 1 1
s s §
»
s s
0 0
It fM
§ §
K> ^"
sf ro
§ §
8 !Q
°. s
o g
sr o
<0 ev
o o
« 3
g §
m fo
s
i
u>
8 8
O
8
CA N-
O oT
§u- o u. o u. C
OOOOOOU- WCtf
uDtjuDoo ->M
oa>oxxQ.o.uo oji-
»-o.a.xzzxoo <-><
_ eT o &
«- < o
B-32
-------
v>
5
19
X
1
c
X
£5
ee
CO
4)
«g
|
X
CO
X
1
X
* * CO
h» »- «-
» » o in
CM O
CM CM
in o o CM
ro o o o
^ in N. o
»- i CM «-
* CM in >o
>j* «
. 0 0 Kl
ft £ CM
K. O 0 CM
O ^5
>O M AJ %t
1 (C fc ~
O CM O
£ 5. £ U 5
O
CO
^f
O
CM
O
CM
2
CO
in
CM
0
CM
CM
I
OJ
N^
X
4-*
i
m
in <
r>. <
§ z
j
CM
in *>
P
x 8
S .2
co u
C u
41 ID
O. Q.
^
0
fe
O
ro
o
o
0
ro
,-
ro
CM
fO
o
ro
01
4J
I
Ut
u
H-
o
8.
o ro
in
§^
o >?
§CM
in
10
|5
ro
«- sf
* T^
0 -O
o ro
o in
ro
O ^
o ro
ro
2
I
and grease, infrared
by titration (wt X)
iS
<
z
S
<
3f
^
>O
v
O
*-
^
fO
0
^^
M
4rf
3
vx
1
"o
tn
o"
IS
u
1
in
O
CO
in
^
u
z
o
z
jr
Z
1
D>
I
ralization potential
s
z
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
!!
n
u
n
n
M
u
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
ii
n
n
ii
u
u
ii
n
n
n
n
ii
j|
ii
ii
jj
i[
»
H
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
ot Analyzed.
z
(0
41
1
CD
CO
O
44
1
4-t
S
(A
O
U
_>
C-
X
B-33
-------
II
i!
i1, 8
n o:
n
n
ii 4, g
II C V
1 E
I a
1 4>
i £ £
1 4-1 3
1 (A E
| 2 '5
n
S E
II e
O ME
j !! 'E
O li-
en II X
i.
< n
UJ II
Of II
< ii
g ! a
u- (/>
to "*
1-
-1 II
3 II
II
UI II
at a n
i i
H~ -J 1 C
(A3 ii 4-> ra
ui n co>
t- ui n i! X
u ll 6
1 II 4-»
S>- II ID
OC II V
< II L.
co x n <- g
>- x ii "5
S !! a. -
II X
o n a
z n x
< n
n
i n
O II 6
I ii 'E
U II -
II X
II
II
« II
ro n
CO II
n
UI II
1 II
CO II
1 II
II
II
II
ll
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
» «- O in ^ in lO CM
~ * ro- N: <>: » ~ -
in Kl QO (M in
00 - 00000
CNJ (NJ ^3 C3 ^3 ""O m
«- ro %»
OO CO OOOOO
rom ro ooooo
«- o o o in CM
* t- in CM in
«- ro ro
«-ro «- T-eoh-ocM
«- CM CM CM
OO N- OOOOO
CM CM O O O -O O
«- * c\j co
i h- o
S& S ooooo
CM CM OOOOO
CM h- O O
"- O> CM «-
ro«- CM ooooo
in^- m ooooo
CM CM O O O ^k v^
'o ?
4>J 1 >O (A
SO CM UJ
«- «- ^ Q.
a. *f o g
C. L. < U ^-» 3
-DOO ^-^ v^Cl- E
a'u'o tna> i o. "o o
oo -in 3 CL co TJ c
M i- L. ai. to o *rt»-(^:z»-»-CM
CM - *" '"in
O
^is.oroo.«roo«
*~ "^ *O ** ^~ ^3 00
ts-
O<-O(MCO-oo
1C
ooO'Oro^eoO'O
§
O* CJ ^3 CO w~ *"" ^ ^3 ^
. Jo o o
^>CMCMCOCM«--CMON.
in
o>
tt> *
ui ra
" £
1 I ^ 115
x ^ S w «. *
^ ^o'i'v''c^'
TJ "1 8 » C X "" C
"M w 41 '> « 'S
s .r ^ g £ r 2 s 2
.2 § > ^ « M ra fe .-
e»N'!-oc»o**
oSw3 i_"°.Si n^1
5 u j< 4-1 o
j: a.uju3caa.c/>OH-
4^
O
II
3 s
< O 1
Z 1
» 1
j
i
x-. \
ro |
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
§<-> i
x
i
i
i
i
00 U 1
CM
** X
^
in I
(M Z
o
o>
w
4-> a
1 1
- 8.
8 S
N
o
u >-
g 4J
z z
B-34
-------
^
*n
g
g
u
^
f
m
u
m
H-
4-*
4-*
a
at
C-
4-*
4-*
a.
g
ae
c
X
|
'x
a
X
Q
£
j=
ID
01
L.
01
c.
Q.
a
§« «
^
I- O
a-^
a
V)
2 J;
*-» a
H- tg
H I
N 4-1
>- (/>
1^
2 g
W
tO 4^
3 to
0)
1?
ID 1-
«T ?
^ 10
a u>
u
"3.
a 4->
a a
4J U
O A"*
Z
< 8
z ae
X
c
1
"3
JJ
o
a
M
ID
i
o
z
X
z
B-35
-------
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u
II v
1! £
ii e
u v
n a
u «>
u u
u <>
1 V
i «
1 0
i a.
i
i
u
8 ii
0 ii
n
a
oc
i
£
>^
*
|
IE
ii
u. II
U
i ii
< n
ii
O H
II
1- II
-I II
n n
VI II
Ul II
B a n
i- n
t- _i n
8 3 ii «
*- ui ii «;
a: n E
-J II **
< > n a
o ee u v
< n i.
I n w
>- £ II W
a. (/> I! a
u
O II
' ii
d ii
H
SC II
Ul II
X II
U II
II
3
I
g
1^.
X
CM
O
s
a
O CM
O *~
-O CO vt
o 10 in
cvj ro
o o o
o o o
go o
ro o
CM CM »-
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o f> in in
* CO O> CM Kl
CM -
N. in co in
ir- p^ »-
oo
c
KI «- CM «-
CM ro «- «-
ft
000
o o o
o o o
»- Kl «-
ro K> »-
o
o
o o o o o
o o o «- o
o o o to in
in «o o in
Kl K) (M
ininm«- *
0 O 0
V V V
co Is-
oooo
o o o ^j-
o o ro CM
in «- CM
CM ro
§
s
»^,
8O CM
«- «-
*" t. t.
D O O
0 8 1
» «- c.
3 O
" 8
g
a u. o u. o
opooo
UOOOO
aivxxa.
wo
->v>
at-
B-36
-------
*9
4-*
g
0
(M
to
CO
J
t-
C
S
4-*
a
4>
i_
**
a.
4_i
C
ID
01
C_
0)
a.
0
oc.
c
o
g
5
X
1
'E
X
8
a.
c
ID
41
X
_
J
X
CO
X
g
c
X
i CM O
CM CM
to o
CM
09 tO 0
^J O
«- in
«- 10
O O O
* o
«- o
«- CM
1 «- CO
v_
' S 3
CM IO
«- u\ o
N- 00
N- CM IO
W g 0
1^ r*.
5 a: ;? '£
6 3- I *
L. g
JC O. U U
o
H
I)
»-N.<«O>O»-^** u
*~ o CM *~ £ *o
*. * S £ B ". $ ".
CO «- O IO tO
«- o in
*~ oinii
o«- o to ion
CM O CO II ID
«- II u
1 "
c:
II 0)
\ 2
flO
o »- o to to it c
- 0 10 II 41
- ii in
II 41
II <-
II Q.
II 4>
II L.
II
II X
II
II *-
ocoo«-xO»-moii L.
o o CM to ii in
M tn
II 41
II 0
H 4>
11 C
II
II 4->
II O
<-o^Of>-oiMinuii c o
. ts. O O Z II O
.-CM'tMlOtO- II O »-
to o * o ii "o
II *
ii in
II c. t. c
II 41 01 10
II 4-* *rf 4)
II 4> 4> X
II g gx.
inOCMN-OtO<-XII CO
II 4) J= 0»
II L. 4-> O
II 4)
II *- L. "O
cooto-OO'-rjin H- o L.
in o co z ii » *- a
CM O CM C3 II TJ C
ii i- s> a
II O N «->
!! - > M
l T? ra II
1 4) C
II 4-> CD r*
lit. M
-^ <^ 1 O *- v^
o> en i a o
^ *x II 4) C C
"^ of !! * °
^ I ii v I ^ >.
*-N II 3 - 4-»
- X II > 41 >
lO'O'N II ID 4>C
e si « t. o ii > a o
01- 3 - II E
<-N v, ra JJ -^ *j ii c 0)°D<0
IQ O) l- 3 Cll '3 W t. jrf
EO^'<*-V* w ii e to--
-^ o g c at v ii -no
e^5x-K5&|| .8555.
sx *j . o ii -p e .Q .0 *-
~ 41 O C II 4i <] a OT XI
4-> 4>>W)*J N CO (0 O II X C 3 41 u
41 4-- t- «) t- . 4J II ra O >>3
^.-wcnt-w-OBi o -- a - »
CCA O> N II C g o CL *^ <0
Og_4ji04JO.p-lj<3t>«J_»4|
o o H- c >. a n + v * ~Z
t- t-a> CJEPI x
(0 D CO Q. O 3 4> 1
3 oo a. to o t- x z ii .. o ..
II < O < W X
II 3C ID Z Z CC Z
B-37
-------
\
I
Kl
i
CD
<
II
n
u
n
n
!!
N
II
!!
n
u
u
u
n
M
n
II 4J
II C
II 4;
II 6
II *
II 10
II 01
II <-
II V
II «-
II CO
II 0
II 0.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Q
at
C.
I '
'x
ID
z
3
c
I
I!
II
II
II
!!
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1!
1!
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
M
n
n
u
II
Ji
II
II
o
in
00
N.
CD
NX
< U
c
M
S *"
4>
Z
«- K >o in in
«- OJ « «- r-
§
4-*
!>
%
^N
S. i
^X N^
Z f
Q. UJ
o
(M
O
O
CM
IO
O
O
O
S
IM
|
8
I
>«
4-t
'>
4J
O
l_)
oo
in
r-
od
0
o
«
A)
§
u
L.
41
ID
3
IM
O
O
o
IM
O
D)
I
1
03
t.
H-
c
v>
CD
0)
L.
o>
?
ID
o
o
x
o
°
o
V
O
O
o
V
o
»?
3
s
+J
(D
L.
4->
^
8
in
«»
IM
ro
>!
h-
O)
i
ID
4-»
C
41
4^
a
o
4_l
CD
N
10
l_
4-f
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
!!
n
n
u
n
n
n
M
u
n
n
u
!!
u
u
u
H
n
M
n
c_
CO
CO II
a g
CO
41 >
_. «
IS
V> L-
0)
- "Q
1 1
(0 C/>
^ ^
a
-------
g
u.
CO
on
UJ
1
g
1
o
UJ
s
UJ
X
h-
5
3C
UJ
a:
1- U
V)
tu ui
CO
00 X
uj o
ae oe
OL U-
o en
O 1
0 S
UI 00
3=
. 0
U. UJ
Z 1
o «t
O UJ
^ l-_
^
CO
1
co
UJ
_J
H
II
II
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
S
s
H
H
H
n
H
H
H
II
II
H
H
H
II
II
H
fl
H
II
8
u
H
II
H
N
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
n
H
H
II
II
H
N
II
II
H
II
H
H
II
II
II
H
II
II
H
H
H
H
H
H
J
II
II
H
H
»
»
H
II
II
N
H
H
II
II
II
II
S
N
M
N
H
N
^
0)
§
z
X
o
CO
0)
i
ID
CO
CU
10
O
a.
cu
Q£
CO -
^^
1;
o
CO
%
0
*o
4-*
c
to
9)
CD
CO
ac
r--
i
ac
CD
i
LT>
QC
^f
i
CO
1
CM
1
1
a:
^
Q
J
10
3
j
>
en < to *
« in to ii
n
S
H
to r>. en ii
H
it
u
II
t-l to CO H
CO CO * »
n
N
H
H
U
S^r r>- ii
O CM II
i «
H
II
H
co r- co II
o CM o n
n
H
N
in CM co H
in in CM n
«
--~ u
J3 II
in oo N
O 00 CO M
H
II
H
N
II
cn 00 cr> u
n
H
ii
N
--. a> cn n
Tf to co ii
*-l .-I *-l H
N
H
H
0 « tO II
v co -^ n
N
H
n
0 CO O K
CD CO CO H
1 CM CM II
H
II
II
CO CM I II
*r oo o u
CM < CO K
II
II
II
II
1
H
II
II
H
II
H
II
II
n co v> H
0 "0 «J «
o a o n
« -. « 3
.-< CM CM H
II
T3
D "5
£ *
&- Q)
fl) C
ex. +^
O) E
t- <*-
5 *
0) ^
^ t=
If- f-
o
m
0 J
cu
j, C
n
a> 2
+J
-g
m t-
-S a,
i.
If- O
o u
t- cu
it
Z CO
"*" 5
B-39
-------
>-
g
I
oc
x
*-
h
*c
o
UJ
§
en
2
t
LU
£
co
UJ
0
UJ
ac
u.
s
=
o
»«*
oe
UJ
*
in
co
i
m
UJ
>-
o
UJ
s
1
co
_i
S
o
UJ
I
UJ
*~
i
u.
^
of.
Ul
h-
H
H
H
II
H
II
H
II
II
II
H
H
H
II
H
H
II
H
II
II
H
II
II
II
H
S
H
II
H
II
!!
n
H
H
H
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
|
n
n
n
u
H
H
1!
it
»
u
H
5
n
8
H
II
II
H
jj
H
H
n
u
1
It
^^
t-
1
E
5
at
X
eg
0)
1
en
l^rf*
v
4->
s
s-
QC.
M *
r
§ *
< £
O
en
SI
£
o
*->
C/»
C
(0
3C
CD
1
QC
in
o;
i
*
CO
i
Of
CM
1
DC
^H
oti
^
o
^
u
J
s
m co o
r*t in r*.
co w> cs*
CO O ^*
^s OO ^f
Fv. CO O
i -* CM
U
CM GO «-*
to r^ 10
U
X) ^"* -Q
^^
U
§0> 0
^ ^H
^* ^H f-t
CM co ^H
Is. ^H O>
CM CO
^9- CO CM
CO «- I
CO CO CO
r*K oo v
o o> in
CO CM
in in in
a a o
O 0 0
CO CO O>
II
H
1
1
I
1
I
!
»
M
H
n
n
it
H
II
II
rx i/> co H
o> to irj n
H
II
H
U
H
<** o o !!
r*- u
II
n
H
n
H
U
||
CO CO <-H (I
CM CM CM
CM «-»
0 * , S
CM -H H
CO II
II
s
1
o co in n
CM CO r^. H
CM -H U
II
n
II
*J
- -° x
V t- 0
%. £.0
CO U
O > V
3 fl) ex
C 0
10 TO CO
£ £ S
!!
II
n
|
8.
O)
c
3
0
J!
4-1
O
a
c
0)
1
u
o>
«B
1'
O
<-
g
x
~
^-'
5
i
5
4->
|
o
0)
>
*-
10
*
4-*
c
J!
a>
0)
u
0)
t
«B
CO
21
*-^
T3
0
t-
B-
CO
~
* '
B-40
-------
1
1
.
0
UJ
g
i
Sf
!
UJ
t
5
Ul
or
1
fe
2
Oi
UJ
(
-
g
g
m
i
to
UJ
_1
s
-
1
1
1
1
u
&
-^
«->
I
-
4->
10
=
§
0
1
1
1
1
1
^
> -^
> fl
$ a.
**^
o>
'Rs
0
w
u *-*
X -H
o
0)
o o
>V v~«
0
V
0,0,
o
_«
u
0)
^_J
0)
u to
u
tt
I*
4!
U ^"
u
0)
>, ***
o
"o CM
o
01
u
u
1 1
m z
co
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
d
g
o
o
o
o
g
o
g
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
o
g
o
_
1
cc.
CO
g
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
0
g
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
c>
g
o
o
o
o
CM
ce
eo
to
o
o
m
o
o
c*)
o
o
CM
O
O
CM
O
O
CM
O
O
0
o
~l
o
o
«-4
o
o
*-l
o
d
§
d
3
o
CO
ae.
in
§
(0
i
o
g
1!
4-1
0
tn
4-t
3
m
£
*2
t-
1
DC
^^
, ^
B-41
-------
o
<
UJ
o
Ifl
a:
UJ
a:
Nl
UJ
UJ
Of
H
II 4->
II <0
II
SO)
c*:
n
H 0)
II -t->
H U
H 0)
n i-
II t-
II O
H O
II
H 0)
II >
u ~-
H 4->
n
U O>
O
0)
U GO
>i
O
H
ono
H *
II VI-
II 0
^ It
OHC
OHO)
n E
S |
o n
0 N 01
OUR)
II
II OT
3 ?
o N in
o n u
K t-
0 H
n -o
H 0)
H *>
H <-
n o
K a.
SO)
ae
«
CO »
i n
-------
CO
«
I~^
§
4
a
o
a
X
4
Q
in
X
4
a
o
en
X
4
a
2
^
c
g
*J
4
U
u
u
ft*
s
S
2
Q
£
S
£
Q
*
S
at
e
4
>
X
o
ofi
s
*
Q-r N v
rl fM rf
uocoo4
in <* w ao *%
oooooooooo
r>4-«ooooooino
f-«
9>
oooooooooo
C4CMOOOOOOOO
vvco-*ooo«ia>4
mm 4
<*X»-J-?^-?-»"
gJsss-ss^-gi
oujoeeououuh
Soou-j^e^eoo
-i u ej3^-^^:-4-<-i
&
2
2
i
u
ul
1
§
4
4
2
4
Hoc Calculable.
Biilatlvii Stand
u i
B-43
-------
v
PQ
u
flS IH
! O JM O
oq oq
V V
C4 c4
V V
ri ts
V V
* *
*O vo
V V
<-( rH
V V
o o
V V
* *
o o
V V
2 *
a u
o u
a -o
B-44
------- |