vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas NV 89193-3478
EPA/600/8-89/069
June 1989
Research and Development
Bench Scale
of Soils from the
Tacoma Tar Pits
Superfund Site
Final Report
-------
BENCH SCALE FIXATION OF SOILS FROM THE
TACOMA TAR PITS SUPERFUND SITE
FINAL REPORT
by
Gretchen Rupp, P.E.
Environmental Research Center
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Cooperative Agreement Number 814701
Project Officer
Kenneth W. Brown
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory-Las Vegas
June 1989
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United State
Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement CR 814701 to the
Environmental Research Center. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative
review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
u
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES v
INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Treatability Study 1
The Tar Pits Site 1
Regulatory Status of the Site 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS 5
Field Methods 5
Bench Fixation Trials 5
Tests of Materials 8
Quality Assurance/Quality Control 11
Sample Tracking and Documentation 12
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 13
Characteristics of Onsite Materials 13
Chemical Concentrations 13
Physical Properties 16
Leaching Properties 23
Summary and Conclusions 38
REFERENCES 42
Appendix A: Sample Tracking Forms A-l
Appendix B: Chemical Concentration Data B-l
111
-------
FIGURES
Page
1. The Tacoma Tar Pits Site 2
2. Sampling locations 6
3. Material flow through the testing procedure 9
4. Development of compressive strength in a
fixed soihauto fluff mix 20
5. Unconfined compressive strengths of fixed materials 21
6. Permeabilities of fixed materials 22
7. ANS leachate pH vs. time 28
8. ANS leachate conductivity vs. time 29
9. ANS leachate phenols vs. time 32
10. ANS leachate pH for wet/dry stressed cylinders 36
11. ANS leachate conductivity for wet/dry stressed cylinders 37
12. Phenol concentrations in leachate from
wet/dry stressed cylinders 39
IV
-------
TABLES
Page
1. Cleanup goal performance standards, Tacoma Tar Pits Site 4
2. Chemical analytical specifications 10
3. Summary of chemical concentrations in raw materials 14
4. Chemical concentrations reported from the RI 15
5. Chemical concentrations in fixed materials 17
6. Physical properties of fixed materials 18
7. Chemical concentrations in TCLP leachates
from raw materials 24
8. Proposed standards for TCLP leachates 25
9. Chemical concentrations in TCLP leachates
from fixed materials 27
10. Concentrations of selected PAHs in ANS extracts
of fixed tar samples 31
11. Leachability indices for unstressed fixed materials 33
12. Projected leaching from an in situ fixed monolith 35
-------
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Treatabilitv Study
This report documents the results of a bench-scale soil fixation study conducted with
materials from the Tacoma Tar Pits Superfund Site. Chemical fixation (also called
stabilization/solidification) is a relatively new technique for remediating contaminated soils. It
entails both immobilization of contaminants via sorption or chemical reaction and physical
transformation of the soil into a firm, impervious "monolith." Fixation has been used for years
to immobilize metals in low-level radioactive wastes and specialized industrial wastes, such as
baghouse dusts. It has not been used for sites with organic contamination, however. A number
of studies have shown less-than-satisfactory results from fixation of soils heavily contaminated
with oil, grease, or organic solvents. These substances can seriously inhibit the cementing
reactions essential to the formation of an impermeable monolith (Cullinane et al., 1986). Thus,
site-specific testing is required before fixation can be applied with confidence at sites with
serious organic contamination.
The Tar Pits treatabiliry study utilized materials contaminated with metals and several
types of organic pollutants. Samples of heavily contaminated soils and wastes from the site
were chemically fixed using a proprietary product, and the resulting monoliths were subjected
to various physical, chemical, and leaching tests. The purpose was to assess the efficacy of
fixation for a complicated matrix, i.e., one that was physically heterogeneous and contained
several classes of contaminants. The study was part of a research program conducted by EPA's
Region 10. Bench- and pilot-scale soil fixation have been carried out at several Superfund sites
in the region. EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (Las Vegas) provides
overall direction for the program.
The Tar Pits Site
The Tar Pits site is located in Tacoma, Washington, on what was once the delta of the
Puyallup River. The area is adjacent to Commencement Bay, and was covered with fill and
developed for heavy industry early in this century. The Tar Pits Site (also known as the Tacoma
Historical Coal Gasification Site) is about 30 acres in extent. A coal gasification plant was
operated on the site from 1924 until 1956. The Washington Natural Gas Company owned the
facility at the time of its closure and demolished it in 1965-1966. Most of the site was purchased
by Joseph Simon & Sons, which has operated a scrap metal recycling facility there since 1967.
Current features of the site are shown in Figure 1. A sewer main corridor borders the
site on the southeast. The southwestern boundary is a Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-
way. To the northwest, the site is bordered by the Hygrade Meat Packing Plant, and the
northeastern border parallels the Puyallup River. Most of the site is occupied by the metal
recycling yard There is also a natural gas transfer station on the site.
Wastes from the coal gasification and metal recycling operations are found over the
entire site. A shallow pit at the southern corner of the site (the "tar pit") is filled with coal tar.
Part of the recycling yard is known as the "tar boil area": tar bubbles to the surface of the
ground following truck traffic or in hot weather. Two shallow ponds on the site are reported to
have a layer of tar-derived contaminants beneath the water. The total estimated volume of tar
on site is 5,000 cubic yards. Throughout the site, at shallow depths within the fill, are thin lenses
of organic liquid known as "non-aqueous-phase liquid," or NAPL. Several acres are covered to
-------
K)
N
Hygrade Meat
Packing Plant
approximate scale:
0 200 400 feat
Railroad track
Ibk. Building
imm Paved area
—— Drainage ditch
£TV3 Auto fluff cover
Joseph Simon & Sons
Metal Recycling Facility
Puyallup River
Tacoma Regional
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
North Pond
South Pond
hington Natural Gas
anitary sewer lines
Figure 1. The Tacoma Tar Pits Site.
-------
a depth of 1-3 feet with decaying "auto fluff," the foam, rubber, and non-ferrous metal products
of an automobile shredder. Other debris, including metallic scrap and building rubble, is mixed
with the fluff.
Several classes of contaminants are documented from the site (AGI, 1987). Phenols,
benzenes, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are the chief components of the coal
tar and NAPL found on the site. In the auto fluff and underlying fill, metal concentrations
(chiefly arsenic, mercury and lead) are elevated. PCBs are also found in the fluff and shallow
fill, and they are present discpntinuously at depths greater than five feet in the fill. PCB
concentrations vary widely. Within the fill there is a shallow perched aquifer, continuous with
the two ponds, during the winter months. Varying levels of metals, PAHs, phenols and
benzenes have been measured in the shallow groundwater. A complete description of the site
and the known contamination is given in the Remedial Investigation report (AGI 1987).
Regulatory Status of the Site
The Tar Pits site was identified as a potential CERCLA site in a 1981 EPA survey of
the Commencement Bay-Nearshore Tideflats area. Initial site characterization took place from
1981 through 1983. Simon & Sons, Burlington Northern Railroad, Washington Natural Gas
Company, and Hygrade Food Products Corporation were named potentially responsible parties
(PRPs). The Remedial Investigation was conducted in 1984-1986 by Applied Geotechnology,
Inc., on behalf of the PRPs. A Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study were performed by
Envirosphere Company; the final Feasibility Study report was issued in 1987 (Envirosphere,
1987). The Record of Decision for the Tar Pits Site was signed on December 30, 1987. No
consent decree had been signed as of February 1989.
The Feasibility Study considered a number of remedial alternatives for the site and
identified in situ soil fixation as the most promising strategy. Soil fixation would entail
excavating shallow fill and the overlying auto fluff to a total depth of 1 to 3 feet. The material
would be mixed on site with a sorbent, a cementing agent, and water and replaced in the
excavation. The fixed mixture would set up as a monolith about two feet thick and IS acres in
extent. An asphalt cap would be placed atop the monolith, and fences and runoff-runon control
structures would be erected.
The Record of Decision followed the feasibility study in naming fixation as the
preferred remedial alternative. The chosen alternative includes "...excavation of the most
severely contaminated soils, stabilization of these soils using a technique which immobilizes
contaminants, capping of the stabilized material (with asphalt), treatment of the surface water,
continued groundwater monitoring, regulatory controls on water usage for both surface and
groundwater, and restrictions on site access" (U.S. EPA, 1987a). In the Record of Decision
cleanup goals for the site were established for four classes of contaminants: lead, benzene,
PCBs, and PAHs. These goals are shown in Table 1.
-------
Table 1. Cleanup Goal Performance Standards, Tacoma Tar Pits Site
Contaminant or
Contaminant Qass
Lead
Benzene
PCBs
PAHsa
From:
Soils
(mgAg)
166 b
56 c
1.0 c
1.0 c
Record of Decision (U.S. EPA 1987)
Surface Water Surface Water
Boundary (/Jg/l) On-Site (/ig/1)
3.2 d 172 «
53 e 5300 »
0.2d 2*
5-30 f 219 »
Groundwater
(sand and fill
aquifers)(/ig/l)
50 h
53 e
0.2 d
5-30 f
a. Sum of concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo
(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene.
b. Acceptable concentration.
c. 10"6 Risk Level for cancer, as determined by the site Risk Assessment.
d. Chronic freshwater ambient water quality criterion. Performance based on detection limit.
e. Acute freshwater ambient water quality criterion x 1/100.
f. Estimated range of chronic freshwater ambient water quality criterion based on marine
criteria.
g. Estimated acute freshwater ambient water quality criterion.
h. Drinking Water MCL.
-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The methods to be used in the bench fixation study were set forth in a detailed protocol
prepared by MSI Detoxification, Inc. (1988). The protocol covers field activities, the fixation
trials, and all materials handling, analytical methods, data interpretation, and quality assurance
elements of the study. The protocol discusses in detail the rationale for sampling and
experimental design.
\
Field Methods
Field sampling was conducted January 19-21, 1988, by EPA Region 10 personnel. The
sampling design was deliberately biased towards the collection of highly-contaminated materials
that would challenge the fixation reagents. Sampling locations were selected based on
information generated during the Remedial Investigation. Sampling locations are shown in
Figure 2. Soil samples were collected near the southern corner of the site. In this area, hand
tools were used to excavate seven one-foot-deep pits. The subsample from each pit consisted of
a slice of the pit wall one foot deep, eight inches wide, and three inches deep. The seven
subsamples were screened through 3/8-inch hardware cloth and composited on-site in a shallow
plywood box. From the well-mixed composite, 14 one-gallon glass jars were filled by placing a
scoop of earth in each jar, in sequence. A smaller jar, to be used for soil chemical analysis, was
also filled at this time. In all, about 150 Ibs. of soil were collected.
VOA vials were filled with soil by pressing them into the walls of two soil pits.
However, these samples were not used because the septa could not be seated properly atop the
filled vials. The larger samples were subsampled in the laboratory for VOA analysis.
Two one-gallon glass jars were filled with coal tar. The tar was scooped from the tar pit
with a shovel and poured into the sample jars, after the crust atop the tar pit had been scraped
away.
Auto fluff was sampled from four locations along a curved transect between the ponds
and the scrap yard (see Figure 2). At each location, a shovel was used to dig to the base of the
fluff (about two feet). Depth-integrated samples from the four locations were passed through a
clean 3/8-inch screen and mixed in a wood box Sample containers (18 one-gallon glass jars, a
5-gallon plastic pail, and a 16-ounce glass jar) were filled with a trowel by placing one scoop of
fluff in each container until all were full
All samples were placed on ice as soon as they were collected. They were transported
the same day to the EPA Region 10 laboratory at Manchester, Washington, where they were
stored at approximately 40°F until the fixation trials.
Full-scale soil fixation at the Tar Pits would require processing materials much less
uniform than soil, e.g^ auto fluff and the associated heterogeneous debris. Therefore, a day was
spent excavating and photographing these surficial materials at six locations across the site, to
derive a simple classification according to size and material type.
Bench Fixation Trials
The raw-material samples were processed at the Manchester Laboratory January 25-26,
1988. Processing was performed by personnel from EPA Region 10, MDI, and Silicate
Technology Corporation (STC), the vendor of the proprietary fixation reagents used.
-------
Joseph Simon & Sons
Metal Recycling Facility
Puyallup
River
Washington
Natur
Tar
boil area
Soil sampling
Tar pit
Railroad track
Building
mszmi Paved area
Drainage ditch
Auto fluff cover
Sampling area
approximate scale:
200 400 feet
Figure 2. Sampling Locations.
-------
Prior to fixation, the field moisture contents of the soil and auto fluff were determined.
This was done by drying two-kilogram portions of each material to a constant weight at 103°C.
The materials that were fixed were:
pure soil
1:1 soikauto fluff
3:1 soilrauto fluff (3 sets of samples)
pure coal tar
1:1 soiktar
sand (clean commercial sand)
The materials were processed in two-kilogram batches. All mixtures were on a weight:weight
basis. Field-moist materials were weighed on a triple-beam balance and mixed in a Hobart
rotary mixer having a stainless-steel bowl of one-gallon capacity.
Each type of raw or mixed material was first sampled for chemical analysis and for
TCLP extraction. Separate containers were filled for TCLP extraction and for analysis of
phenols, volatile organics, semi-volatiles and PCBs, and metals. The samples were labeled,
stored on ice and dispatched to the analytical laboratories via overnight courier. Analytical
laboratories were chosen through the Contract Laboratory Program.
As sampled, the coal tar was extremely viscous and difficult to handle. Prior to mixing
and fixation, it was wanned overnight in a hot-water bath under a fume hood to improve its
handling properties. No attempt was made to capture or quantify escaping volatiles.
Before sample fixation was begun, STC personnel conducted two trial runs with
different proportions of sample, water, and reagents. The appropriate mixture was selected
based on the thickness (and ease of handling) of the final wet mixture. Because of the high
concentrations of organic compounds in the samples, a high reagentrsample ratio was used; no
trials were conducted to determine the minimum effective reagent concentrations (the
Optimum Mix of Record). The same proportions of materials were used when fixing soil, fluff,
and sand samples. The tar and tarsoil samples called for different proportions of materials and
an additional reagent to sorb the organic compounds. The general procedure followed was:
1. Weigh out two kilograms of raw material and mix for one minute at medium
speed in the Hobart mixer.
2. Add a small volume of liquid "activator solution" and mix two more minutes.
3. Add a measured volume of tap water and begin mixing again.
4. Add a weighed quantity of dry reagent while mixing for 10 minutes.
5. Pour mixture into molds. Tap filled molds gently on table to force out air
bubbles.
6. Label each mold with a sample tag. Store in covered trays at 100 percent
relative humidity.
Because of the requirements of the various tests, three sizes of cylindrical molds were
used for the fixed materials. Each type of fixed mixture was used to fill three PVC molds 3
-------
inches in diameter and 5 inches high, eight plexiglass molds 2 inches in diameter and 3 inches
high, and two teflon molds 1 inch in diameter and 3 inches high.
Tests of Materials
Immediately after fixation, the large cylinders were shipped to the physical-testing
laboratory to begin strength testing. The other cylinders of fixed materials were allowed to set
up for 28 days before being analyzed or leached. They were stored in closed trays at 100
percent relative humidity, at ambient temperature (40°-55°F).
Figure 3 shows the disposition of all samples of raw and fixed material. The tests
performed included chemical composition analysis, tests of physical/engineering properties,
and leaching tests.
Chemical analyses of solid samples and leachates were performed by the Manchester
Laboratory and various contract laboratories, according to CLP protocols. Analytical
specifications are listed in Table 2. The suite of analytes was chosen on the basis of the known
site contamination, suggested clean-up standards for the site (Table 1), and parameters that are
more generally named in Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). In
addition, it was desired to assess the success of fixation in immobilizing a wide range of
contaminants. The specified detection limits were based on the cleanup goals for this site, or
CLP Contract Required Detection Limits (contaminants for which goals were not established).
U.S. EPA's Center Hill Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, performed physical/engineering
tests according to protocols it has developed for chemically-fixed soils. Unconfined
compressive strength was tested via a soil-cement protocol (a modification of ASTM D
1633-84). Each type of fixed sample was tested for "ultimate strength" after curing for 29 days.
In addition, the development of strength was monitored by testing triplicate cylinders of the 3:1
soil-fluff mix at 3, 7, 14, 22, and 29 days after fixation. Permeability of cured cylinders was
tested in a pressurized up-flow apparatus using 0.01 N calcium sulfate leachant. Each test was
continued until a steady-state condition was achieved (i.e., calculated permeabilities stabilized
within 10 percent). This procedure was developed by the Center Hill Laboratory especially for
chemically-stabilized soils; it is very similar to EPA Method 9100-2.8, "Saturated hydraulic
conductivity, saturated leachate conductivity, and intrinsic permeability" from SW-846 (U.S.
EPA, 1986a). Durability was examined via a wet/dry stress test that is a modification of ASTM
D-SS9 (Center Hill, 1989). In this test, the cylinders were alternately immersed in deionized
water for 6 hours and air-dried at 60T for 18 hours. After 10 cycles, a final weight was
determined and compared to the initial weight to determine if material weathered from the
cylinder. Seasonal wet/dry exposure of the full-scale monolith via shallow groundwater could
be expected at the Tar Pits site, and this might influence the strength and permeability of the
monolith. Therefore, after wet/dry stressing one set of fixed samples was subjected to
compressive strength tests, and a second set was tested for permeability.
Two leaching tests were performed. Both raw and fixed materials were leached
according to the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (U.S. EPA, 1986b). This test,
under development by the EPA, is meant to characterize a wide variety of contaminants; it is
increasingly cited when ARARs are developed for Superfund sites. The TCLP is a batch
extraction test utilizing finely-ground sample material. TCLP extractions of unfixed materials
from the Tar Pits were begun soon after the materials were mixed. A set of fixed samples that
had cured for 100 days was also crushed and extracted. The parameters listed in Table 2 were
analyzed in the extracts. TCLP testing of the Tar Pits samples utilized standard and
zero-headspace extractors.
8
-------
VO
Composition Analysis
1:0 SoihFluff
1:1 Soil:Fluff
3:1 Soil:Fluff
blank sand
0:1 Soil: Tar
1:1 Soil: Tar
TCLP
Analysis
of Extracts
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
Durability
Test
Permeability
Test
Figure 3. Material flow through the testing procedure.
-------
Table 2. Chemical Analytical Specifications
Parameter
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
PCBs
(Seven Arochlors)
Total PAHs
Benzene, Toluene
and Xylene
Phenols
Detection Method8
AA
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
cold vapor
AA
AA
ICP
GC/MS
HPLQGC/MS
GC/MS
Colorimetry
Specified Detection Limit
Solids Leachates
(mg/kg) (/ig/L)
10
100
100
100
100
1
10
100
100
1
1
50
1
10
5
10
25
5
0.2
5
10
20
0.5
10
5
10
a. Contract Laboratory Program specifications (U.S. EPA 1987b,c).
10
-------
The second extraction was a modification of American Nuclear Society Test 16.1. This
test was specifically developed for chemically-fixed materials (ANS, 1986). For the ANS 16.1
test, small cylinders of fixed material were suspended in deionized water under quiescent
conditions. After 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 28, and 90 days, fresh water was substituted for the "old"
leachant, which was subjected to chemical analysis (including pH and conductivity). A full set
of fixed materials was tested this way. In addition, five cylinders of 3:1 soil-fluff were subjected
to a combination of wet/dry stressing and ANS leaching. In these tests, wet/dry stressing of 4,
12, or 20 cycles was followed by standard ANS leaching. The objective was to find whether the
cycles of immersion and drying influenced teachability of any contaminants. Between wet/dry
stressing and ANS leaching, the cylinders were suspended out of the water for 2-4 days. Thus
the effective stressing periods were 6, 14, and 24 days for the 4-, 12-, and 20-cycle tests,
respectively.
The complete TCLP and ANS 16.1 protocols are appended to the project protocol
(MDI 1988), which also discusses in detail the rationale for selection of the various tests and
analyses.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Field procedures followed the guidelines set forth in the first edition of the Soil
Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide (Earth and Mason, 1984). They included steps to
prevent cross-contamination, to create uniform, homogeneous composites of materials for the
various tests, to collect sufficient material to allow for breakage and replication, and to
document field activities according to standard CERCLA prescriptions.
Chemical analyses were performed according to CLP protocols (see the CLP
Statements of Work for Organics and Inorganics, U.S. EPA, 1987b, c). The physical and
engineering tests were conducted according to standard procedures developed by EPA's Center
Hill Laboratory (Center Hill, 1989), which are based on the ASTM standard methods for
determining strength and durability of concrete and permeability of soil All of the leaching
tests were conducted by the EPA's Manchester Laboratory, which is certified to perform TCLP
extractions (ANS 16.1 is not widely used, and there is no certification procedure for this test).
Sand blanks were tested alongside site materials in both types of extractions.
Data quality objectives for this project are described in the project protocol (MDI,
1988). All chemical composition data generated during the project were validated by
consultants to U.S. EPA Region 10, according to CLP standards (U.S. EPA, 1987b, c). A small
number of chemical values were judged unusable on the basis of QA/QC shortcomings. A
number of values were flagged as "estimated" because instrument calibration standards, spikes,
or surrogate sample results were outside CLP-mandated control limits. Slight exceedances of
recommended holding times for mercury and organic anah/tes caused many results to be
flagged as estimated. Many organic values were flagged as estimates because they fell between
the mass spectrometer detection and quantitation limits. In interpreting analytical data, care
was taken not to draw rigorous quantitative conclusions where data quality did not support such
conclusions.
It was originally planned to fix and test mixtures of site soil and auto fluff, which are the
only materials proposed for fixation in the Record of Decision. Shortly before the trials, it was
decided to also sample and test coal tar. The testing yielded valuable information about the
behavior and effects of volatile compounds in fixed mixtures. No attempt was made to
measure or contain escaping volatiles at any stage, and mass balances for volatiles were not
developed.
11
-------
Sample Tracking and Documentation
The various materials and samples handled during the project were tracked as follows:
The large jars of soil, fluff, and tar were labeled in the field according to their contents but were
not given sample numbers. In creating samples, no distinction was made among jars of one
type; it was assumed that each material collected in the field had been homogenized enough
there that the contents of all jars were identical Numbered samples were created at the time
fixation was carried out. From each type of material, these samples were created:
• 6 containers of raw material (for analysis of VOAs, phenols, metals, PAHs and PCBs,
for TCLP extraction, and to archive)
• 2 small fixed monoliths (ANS 16.1 and archive)
• 3 medium monoliths (TCLP and archive)
• 5 large monoliths (chemical analysis, physical/engineering tests and archive). 'j.-.
An EPA sample tag with a unique number was affixed to each container or mold; these
numbers served as the sample numbers. Each sample shipped for analysis at this time also had
a unique Organic Traffic Report (OTR) or Inorganic Traffic Report (ITR) number and was
listed on an Analysis Request Form. As the samples were created, a master set of
chain-of-custody forms was filled out. Those forms cross-referenced material type with sample
number and ITR or OTR number. Each batch of samples shipped at this time was
accompanied by its own chain-of-custody form.
Data received from the analytical labs referenced results by sample (tag) number or by
ITR or OTR number. The physical-testing laboratory referenced the samples by their original
sample numbers. In each case, the materials tested were readily ascertained by checking the
master custody forms. The TCLP extractions created two leachates per sample (one for
volatiles, one for all other anah/tes). The laboratory identified these by the original sample
number of the solid material extracted. Each ANS test created seven leachates per monolith.
Each was given a tag with a unique number as it was collected, and analytical results were
referenced to this number. A special form, kept by the laboratory performing the ANS
leaching, was used to document these sample numbers and cross-reference them to the sample
number of the monolith being tested. Appendix A shows a copy of this form and each of the
other forms used to track samples.
12
-------
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Characteristics of On-site Materials
At each of the locations where auto fluff was collected, it was spread on a plastic sheet,
photographed, and described. One-third of the fluff (by volume) passed the 3/8-inch screen.
This fine fraction consisted almost entirely of decaying foam derived from auto upholstery. The
large size fraction included debris of various kinds: large chunks of foam, rubber, plastic,
building rubble, and rock. The moisture content of the minus-3/8-inch fraction was 29 percent.
Its wet bulk density was 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf); the dry bulk density was 35 pcf. Simon
& Sons (AGI, 1987) reported a dry bulk density for fresh auto fluff of 20 pcf. The higher value
found in this study confirms that fluff left atop the ground for several years is considerably
broken down.
The site soil was very coarse; about 40 percent was larger than 3/8 inch. The moisture
content of the fine fraction was 19 percent. Soil bulk density was not measured.
The project protocol (MDI, 1988) sets forth an optional procedure for field
classification of on-site debris according to size and composition. This information will be
needed for pilot testing and full-scale fixation. It was not necessary for the bench fixation and,
since it is cumbersome and time consuming, it was not performed for this project.
Chemical Concentrations
Appendix B contains a full set of chemical concentration data for both solid materials
and leachates. Applicable detection limits and values for the sand blank are found therein. The
text discusses an abbreviated list of contaminants, focusing on those for which site cleanup
standards have been established.
Contaminant concentrations in the raw materials are shown in Table 3. Auto fluff alone
was not characterized, but comparison of the soil data with the mixed soikfluff results gives an
indication of concentrations in the fluff. Both soil and fluff contained 2000-3000 mg/kg lead.
Phenols, derived from tar, were apparently more concentrated in soil and fluff (>300 mg/kg)
than in raw tar (200 mg/kg). The BTX compounds were found at very low levels (< 10 /ig/kg) in
the soil and fluff; analytical problems invalidated the volatiles results for tar.
Among the PAHs, pyrene was found in the highest concentration in the soil and fluff
and is therefore, a sensitive indicator of tar contamination. Pyrene was found at low but
measurable levels (< 10 mg/kg) in soil and fluff. The six PAHs on which site cleanup standards
are based were found at very low concentrations in soil (0.9-3.4 mg/kg) and lower
concentrations in fluff ( < 0.2-2.5 mg/kg).
The PCBs were found in both auto fluff and soil; their total concentration was
apparently more than five times greater in fluff than in soil (33 vs 6.2 mg/kg, calculated from
results for the soil and the 3:1 mix). Among all the materials collected on site, Aroclors 1016,
1221, 1232, and 1248 were generally below detection (at 5-10 mg/kg), while Aroclors 1242,
1254, and 1260 could be estimated.
Table 4 summarizes RI contaminant data for surficial materials on the site. Values for
most parameters ranged very widely. In general, it appears that the materials collected for the
fixation study were representative of those found during the Remedial Investigation. Previously
reported lead and PCB levels ranged over two orders of magnitude. Results from the fixation
13
-------
Table 3. Summary of Chemical Concentrations in Raw Materials
Contaminant or
Contaminant Class*
Soil
Concentration (mg/kg)
Tar 1:1 SoilrFluff
3:1 SoiLFluff"
Arsenic
Lead
Total Phenols
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Total PCBsc
a. For a full listing
b. Results from
137
2490J
377
0.002J
0.008J
0.008J
8.3J
3.4J
2.6J
2.3J
3.0J
UJ
0.9J
6.2J
of contaminants
analysis of trip
-
201
R
R
R
3,200J
1.200J
350J
510J
740J
240J
200J
198U
analyzed, see
ilicate samp]
61.9
3080
584
0.007UJ
0.007UJ
0.007UJ
4.2J
1.8UJ
2.5J
1.8UJ
1.4J
1.1J
0.56J
32.4J
Appendix B.
ies, plus/minus
141 ± 14
2120 ± 134J
389 ± 66
0.007UJ
0.007UJ
0.007UJ
7.4 ± 4.1J
1.7UJ
2.8 ± 1.4J
1.8 ± 0.61J
2.6 ± 1.1J
1.4 ± 0.47J
0.84± 0.18J
13 ± 2.1J
the standard deviation
c.
Below-detection values are incorporated as the detection limit.
Sum of Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260. Below-detection values
excluded.
Note: J = approximate value; U = undetected at this level; R = data unusable; UJ = undetected
at approximately this level.
14
-------
Table 4. Chemical Concentrations Reported from the RI
Concentration Range (mg/kg)a
(Number of Samples)
Contaminant or
Contaminant Class
Arsenic
Lead
Shallow Soil
28-70 (2)
73-12,900(10)
Tar from
Tar Pit
<2.0 (1)
37(1)
Auto Fluff
< 0.5 -363(6)
2910-4700 (7)
Phenols
150 (1)
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Total PCBsc
<0.001 (1)
<0.001 (1)
<0.001 (1)
1.8 -< 9.5 (3)
0.4 -< 39 (3)
0.2- < 12.5(3)
0.24- < 12.5(3)
0.29- < 12.5(3)
< 0.37- < 18.5(2)
< 0.25- 2.3(3)
<0.7-135(15)
430 (1)
200-950(2)
350-1700(2)
1650-4000(2)
<25 -1300(2)
275 (1)
750-770(2)
660-900(2)
90(1)
890(1)
11-204(8)
a. PAH values are dry weight; all others wet weight basis.
b. 2,4-dimethylphenol only
c. Sum of seven Aroclors, below-detection values excluded
Reference: AGI (1987)
15
-------
studies fall within these ranges (note that the RI values are on a wet-weight basis;
corresponding dry-weight values may be up to 35% higher). PAH levels in soil also fall within
the previously reported ranges.
The contaminant concentrations found in cylinders of fixed material are summarized in
Table 5. Note that all of the results for the indicator contaminants have been qualified as
"approximate values," either because of low concentrations relative to the detection limit or
because of QA/QC outliers identified during data validation. Volatile compounds were not
analyzed in fixed materials. A separate analysis for total phenols was not done, and the
reported value is the sum of 12 individual assays from the B/N/A scan. This sum is only
roughly comparable to the result of the colorimetric "total phenols" test, which is sensitive to
many more phenolic compounds.
Mixing with the fixation reagents should change the contaminant levels. Concentrations
of organics should diminish simply because of dilution; levels of some metals might be
enhanced by the fixation reagents. Comparison of the raw and fixed materials (Tables 3 and 5)
indicates that lead concentrations declined somewhat, reflecting dilution. Arsenic levels
apparently increased in some materials and decreased in others. Assuming the fixaton reagents
were well-mixed, this could not happen, so the arsenic results for the fixed materials should
probably be discounted. Reported PAH and PC8 levels were generally similar in the raw and
fixed samples of each material In the soil sample, reported levels of organic compounds
increased slightly consequent to fixation. These low values must clearly be treated as estimates.
If considered as "soils," the fixed materials would not, themselves, meet cleanup criteria
established for the Tar Pits site (see Table 1). The soil lead standard of 166 mg/kg and the
PCB standard of 1 mg/kg would be exceeded. Most stabilized mixes of site materials would
probably also exceed the PAH cleanup goal of 1 mg/kg.
ghysical Properties
Selected physical properties of the fixed materials are listed in Table 6. For fixed site
samples, bulk density ranged from 82 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (for fixed tar) to 110 pcf
(soil). Moisture contents, as determined from drying of whole cylinders at 60°C, ranged from
13.3 percent for soil to 20.7 percent for tar. The correspondence of these "apparent moisture
content" data to results obtained from drying of crushed samples at 103-105°C is not well
established, but is thought to underestimate moisture content by no more than two percent for
the soil and soil-fluff cylinders (Center Hill, 1989). Enough volatile compounds were present in
the tar and tar-soil cylinders that their moisture contents may have been slightly overestimated
by this procedure.
Based on the bulk densities of raw and fixed materials, the volume change on fixation
can be calculated. For the proportions of sample, water, and reagents used in these tests, the
approximate volume increases were:
soil 95%
1:1 so&fluff 49%
3:1 sofl:fluff 75%
tar 45%
l:lsoil:tar 62%,
i.e., one cubic foot of field-moist soil (at 130 pcf) fixed according to this protocol yields 1.95
cubic feet of final product. This assumes the fixed mixture neither shrinks nor swells during
16
-------
Table 5. Chemical concentrations in fixed materials
Contaminant or
Contaminant Class
Soil
Tar
Concentration (mg/kg)
1:1 Soil:Tar 1:1 Soil:Fluff 3:1 SoihFluff*
Arsenic
Lead
Total Phenols
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Total PCBs
354 J
877 J
1450 U
17 J
7.2 J
51 UJ
51 UJ
63
51 UJ
51 UJ
6.6 J°
2.8 J
52.3 J
1050 U
2,600 J
810 J
870 J
b
800 J
330 J
140 J
28 UJ
27.5 J
410 J
5,050 U
1,100J
490 J
350 J
b
290 J
90 J
47 J
67 U
58 J
2770 J
1970 U
14 J
58 UJ
58 UJ
58 UJ
58 UJ
58 UJ
58 UJ
16.2 J6
55.8±1.1J
1790 ± 330 J
1900 U
13.2 ± 3.3 J
56 U
56 U
56 U
4.2 ± 0.4? J
56 U
56 U
8.8 ± 2.1 J
b.
Results from analysis of three cylinders, plus/minus the standard deviation. Below
detection values incorporated as the detection limit.
Sum of benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene shown under benzo(b)
fluoranthene
- c. Sum of seven Aroclors, excluding below-detection values.
Note: J = approximate value; U = undetected at this level.
17
-------
Table 6. Physical Properties of Fixed Materials
Mean Value, Standard Deviation, Number of Replicates
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:Fluff
3:1
Soil:Fluff
Tar
1:1
Soil:Tar
Sand
Blank
Wet Bulk
Density(pcf)
110 ±1
3
101 ±1
3
10513
9
82 ± 0.9
3
92.5 1 1.6
3
120
1
Apparent
Moisture
Content(%)a
133
1
17.0 ± 3.7
2
16.3 ± 3.2
6
20.7
1
18.6
1
8.5
1
Calculated
Dry
Density (pcf)
97.1
86.3
90.3
67.9
78.0
110
Wet/Dry
Weight
Loss(%)
3.0 ± 1.0
2
2.8 ± 0.6
2
1.712.1
6
6.4 1 7.6
2
5.1 1 5.8
2
3.7
1
a. Apparent moisture content determined by drying whole cylinders at 60°C.
18
-------
curing, and no weight is lost. Since soil makes up the great preponderance of material to be
fixed at the Tar Pits, the final monolith might have nearly twice the volume of contaminated
material fixed. If smaller amounts of reagents and water were used, there would be less of a
volume increase. In the vendor's experience fixing metal-contaminated soils using an optimum
Mix-of-Record, observed volume increases have been about 10 percent (Larsen, 1989).
The principal measure of durability associated with wet/dry stressing is weight change;
the less weight lost by a cylinder of fixed material, the more durable the material is considered.
Fixed Tar Pits samples showed weight losses ranging from -0.9 percent (water weight was
actually gained during the test) to 12 percent. There is no standard for performance in the
wet/dry durability test, but weight loss of five percent or less is generally judged acceptable
(Cullinane et al., 1986). In these tests, weight losses exceeding five percent were shown by tar
and tar-soil cylinders (11.8 and 9.2 percent, respectively). Soil and soil-fluff cylinders averaged
a three percent weight loss, or less.
Cylinders of 3:1 soihfluff were tested to trace the development of compressive strength
during curing. Most concrete formulations cure relatively quickly, and the 28-day compressive
strength is known as the "ultimate strength" (although strength continues to increase very slowly
for many years). The development of strength in the soil:fluff mixture is shown in Figure 4.
These cylinders achieved 85 percent of their ultimate strength in 21 days, and the time trend
suggests they were still gaining measurable strength at day 29. An average 29-day strength of
690 psi was attained by the cylinders. In these mixtures the presence of foam and free organic
compounds may slow the development of strength. A 50-day test may be a better measure of
ultimate strength than the standard 28-day concrete test.
Ultimate (29-day) compressive strengths of the various types of fixed materials are
shown in Figure 5. The mixes with higher proportions of soil developed greater strength; both
auto fluff and tar detracted from monolith strength. A slight effect of water content may be
reflected in these results. The ultimate strength of concrete is inversely related to the water
content of the formulation. In these tests, the soil formulation contained 11 percent less water
than the 1:1 soil:fluff mix and six percent less than the 3:1 mix. However, the tar formulations
contained considerably less water than the soil mix, but were nonetheless much weaker. Among
unstressed cylinders, fixed soil had the greatest strength (895 psi) while fixed tar had the least
(0). There are no general standards for unconfined compressive strength of soils fixed during
site remediation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that rigid waste materials
exhibit a strength of 150 psi or greater. Fifty psi is the proposed minimum strength for
land-disposed RCRA solid wastes. A three-foot-thick monolith of fixed Tar Pits soil would only
exert an overburden pressure of 2 psi, so these results indicate the fixed materials (other than
tar) would not collapse or fracture under their own weight, and could probably meet a
site-specific strength standard.
For every material type, wet/dry-stressed cylinders were stronger than unstressed
cylinders. This is probably attributable to temperature differences: during the "dry" portions of
the stress tests, the cylinders were held at 60°C. This undoubtedly accelerated their curing
substantially. Because of this, effects due solely to cyclic wetting and drying cannot be
distinguished.
The permeabilities of the fixed materials are depicted in figure 6. The experience of the
testing laboratory indicates these values should be regarded as accurate to about one-quarter of
an order of magnitude (Center Hill, 1989); additionally, coefficients of variation for triplicate
3:1 soil:fluff samples were 42 percent and 12 percent for unstressed and stressed cylinders,
respectively. The most permeable cylinder tested was fixed 1:1 soihtar that had been wet/dry
19
-------
700
600-
I 500 -
£
4-<
O>
o 400 H
300
(A
a
200 -
100-
5 10 15 20 25 30
Curing Time (days)
•Average • Experimental value
Rgure 4. Development of compressive strength in a fixed
3:1 soil:auto fluff mix.
20
-------
1400
Soil
1:1 3:1
soll:fluff soiUfluff
Tar
1:1
soihtar
Sand
Blank
unstressed
wet/dry stressed
Figure 5. Unconflned compressive strengths of fixed materials. Results
for 3:1 soihfluff mixture are means of triplicates; all others are
single determinations.
21
-------
o
03
Cfl
E
o
-------
stressed; its permeability was 6 x 10*7 cm/sec. The least permeable material, unstressed tar had
a permeability (or saturated hydraulic conductivity) of 1.2 x 10*9 cm/sec. Unstressed fixed soil,
1:1 soil.-fluff and 3:1 soil:fluff all had permeabilities within a factor of three. It appears that the
inclusion of auto fluff with soil altered the monolith permeability little, if at all. The tar cylinder
that was to be permeability-tested after wet/dry stressing developed cracks during the stressing,
rendering it infinitely permeable (and untestable).
Permeability criteria for site cleanups are developed on a site-specific basis, according
to site hydrologic conditions. Thus, there are no general standards for the hydraulic
conductivity of fixed materials. A soil having a permeability of 10"* cm/sec or lower would
generally be considered highly impermeable (permeabilities of natural clays are in the range
10-7-l(Kcm/sec).
For each type of fixed material, permeability was greatly increased by wet/dry stressing.
The increases ranged from a factor of 17 (for 1:1 soil:tar) to a factor of 30 (for 1:1 soil:fluff).
The unstressed cylinders were tested first, and hence cured for a shorter period before
permeability testing. It is possible that some of the observed permeability differences were
related to cylinder age. Alternatively, the cyclic wetting and drying may have opened
microscopic pores near the cylinder surface, by dissolution or other mechanisms. The ANS
leaching results (see following section) indicate that such dissolution did occur. Increased
permeability through dissolution, plus the failure of the tar cylinder during stressing, suggest
that the integrity of an in-place monolith would be greatly enhanced by keeping it dry.
Leaching Properties
Table 7 is a synopsis of results from the TCLP leaching of raw materials. Results for
the complete suite of anatytes are tabulated in Appendix B. High levels of lead leached from
soil-containing samples (> 10 mg/L). More than 5 mg/L total phenols and 0.5 mg/L of volatile
compounds were extracted from the raw tar. The PAHs of interest were generally undetectable
(at very low levels) in all of the leachates. Total PCB concentrations were below 0.2 Mg/L.
For those parameters that were quantified in the solid raw samples, the proportion
extracted by the TCLP can be calculated. This is based on the solid-phase and leachate
concentrations and the liquid-solid ratio in the TCLP (20:1 weight ratio). In these TCLP tests,
8-42 percent of the lead in the raw samples was leached into the liquid. Fifty-two percent of the
phenols in the raw tar were leached. The proportions of PAHs extracted were low, generally
less than three percent. As might be predicted from their solubility, only a tiny fraction of the
PCBs leached into the liquid (2x10^).
To aid in interpreting TCLP results, "regulatory levels" have been proposed by EPA for
a number of contaminants as quantified in TCLP leachates. Those applicable to the Tar Pits
data are listed in Table 8. Leachates from the raw materials were beneath the proposed upper
levels for arsenic, phenols, and toluene. Leachates from soil-containing material exceed the
proposed lead standard, and the benzene standard was exceeded by the tar extract. There are
no TCLP regulatory levels for PAHs or PCBs.
23
-------
Table 7. Chemical concentrations in TCLP leachates from raw materials
Concentration (pg/L)
Contaminant or
Contaminant Class
SoH
Tar
1:1 Soil:Fluff
3:lSoil:Fluff
Arsenic
Lead
Phenols
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Total PCBsb
164 J
51,000
135 U
5UJ
3J
5UJ
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
0.06
1U
165
5250
200 J
330 J
94J
26 U
26 U
3J
26 U
26 U
26 U
26 U
2.1U
131 J
12,520
139 U
5UJ
0.9 J
5UJ
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
035U
1381 50 J
44,290 ± 26,190
161 U
5UJ
0.6 ± 0.3 J
5UJ
0.2 ± 0.1 J
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
0.12 ± 0.05
a. Results from analysis of triplicate samples, plus/minus the standard deviation.
Below-detection values are incorporated as the detection limit.
b. Sum of Aroclors 1016,1221,1242,1248,1254, and 1260. Below-detection values excluded.
Note: J = approximate value; U = undetected at this level; UJ = undetected at approximately
this level
24
-------
Table 8. Proposed Standards for TCLP leachates
Proposed Regulatory Level
Parameter*
Arsenic 5.0
Lead 5.0
Phenol 14.4
Chlorinated phenols6 11.7
Benzene 0.07
Toluene 14.4
a. Partial list of regulated compounds; those of concern at the Tacoma Tar pits.
b. Includes penta, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
Reference: Federal Register, voL51 no. 114, Friday, June 13,1986, pp. 21647-21684.
25
-------
The TCLP leachates of raw materials exceeded the cleanup standards for surface and
groundwater on the site (see Table 1). Leachate concentrations of PAHs and PCBs were well
within the cleanup goals, but the tar extract exceeded the benzene standards, and the soil
leachates exceeded the lead standards by two orders of magnitude or more. It should be noted
that the version of the TCLP used for these samples is a fairly severe procedure, having an
initial pH of 2.9, whereas pH values for site surface and groundwater range from 6 to 7.5 (AGI
1987). In addition, the samples were finely ground prior to the extractions.
Table 9 summarizes results of the TCLP leaching of fixed materials. Volatile
compounds were extracted and analyzed in the tar and tar-soil cylinders only. PCBs were not
measured in these leachates. The results indicate that fixation was very effective in
immobilizing lead. The highest proportion of lead that leached from any crushed fixed material
was 4X10"4. The leaching of phenols was also decreased beyond the effect of simple dilution
(the fixed cylinders were about 60% raw material and 40% additives). Fixation did not inhibit
the leaching of volatile compounds from the cylinders in which they were very concentrated; the
BTX compounds leached from tar-containing cylinders at 72 mg/L. PAHs were extracted at
extremely low levels. In the two cases where they could be quantified, the proportions of PAHs
leached were 10"4 or less. Because of the many below-detection results, PAH leaching rates
cannot be compared between the raw and fixed materials.
Leachates from the fixed samples fell within proposed TCLP regulatory guidelines in
almost all respects (see Table 8). The sole exception was the leachate from fixed tar, which
contained more than 500 /ig/L benzene. The proposed regulatory level for benzene is 70 /ig/L.
Compared to the site cleanup goals (Table 1), these TCLP leachates were similar to
those from raw materials. They would probably meet the PAH and PCB standards for site
waters. Leachates from tarry wastes contained excessive benzene, relative to the standards.
Although the leaching of lead was considerably inhibited by fixation, pure TCLP leachates
would exceed the lead standard for surface waters at the site boundary.
In the ANS tests, fixed cylinders were leached in seven successive batches of deionized
water over a period of 90 days. Figure 7 shows leachate pH data from these tests. Figure 8
shows leachate electrical conductivity (EC), a measure of dissolved salts. All of the fixed
materials (including the sand blank) exhibited the same behavior: an initial release of alkalinity
into the leaching solution (as indicated by high pH and EC) which diminished after about four
weeks. These results indicate an early "washout" of alkaline oxides and hydroxides from the
surface layers of the fixed cylinders. These compounds were derived principally from the
cementitious fixation reagents, hence pH and EC trends for the fixed tar paralleled those for
the soil mixes, which contained much more natural alkalinity. The pH and EC trends suggest
leaching of soluble compounds was controlled by two phenomena. Initially, portions of the
surficial materials dissolved fairly readily and leached into solution. Towards the end of the
experiments, soluble surface materials were mostly gone, and leaching was limited by the low
rate of diffusion through the solid cylinders.
Contaminant concentrations in the ANS leachates were generally very low. Among the
metals analyzed, only copper and zinc were consistently detectable; their concentrations in most
leachates were below 30 pg/L, but ranged up to 78 Mg/L. Lead was never detected (at 50
/zg/L). In the leachates from fixed soil and soil:fluff mixes, PAHs were generally below
detection. Those compounds that were quantified (phenanthrene, anthracene, benzo(b)
fluoranthene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene) were present at levels of 100 ng/L or less. PAHs did
leach from the tar and tansoil cylinders. Leachate concentrations of selected PAHs are shown
26
-------
Table 9. Chemical concentrations in TCLP leachates from fixed materials.
Concentration (jig/1)
Contaminant or
Contaminant Class Soil Tar l:lSoU:Tar 1:1 SoihFluff 3:1 SoihFluff
Arsenic
Lead
2
17
2
1U
4
1U
8
23
6.3 ± 0.6
lit 8.7
Phenols" 418 U 420 1180 23 15 ± 4J
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
-
-
12U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
537
1000
674
4J
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
59
540
505
5J
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
12 U
-
-
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
13 U
-
-
62 U
62 U
62 U
62 U
62 U
62 U
62 U
a. Results from analysis of triplicate samples, plus/minus the standard deviation.
Below-detection values incorporated as the detection limit.
b. Sum of individual compounds quantified in the B/N/A scan. Below-detection values
excluded.
Note: J = approximate value; U = undetected at this level.
27
-------
I
Q.
20 40 60 80 ,
Elapsed Time (days)
Soil 1:1 Soil:Fluff 3:1 SoihFluff
20 40 60 80
Elapsed Time (days)
Tar
1:1 Tar: Soil
Sand
Figure 7. ANS leachate pH vs. time.
28
-------
800
600 -
400 -
o
HI
200 -
20 40 60 80
Elapsed Time (days)
•Soil 1:1 Soil:Fluff 3:1 Soil:Fluff
1000
800-
(A
O
.c
E
3.
o
Ul
600-
400-
200-
0
Tar
20 40 60
Elapsed Time (days)
1:1 Tar: Soil
30
•Sand
Figure 8. ANS leachate conductivity vs. time.
29
-------
in Table 10. Of these compounds naphthalene, fluorene, and pyrene were present at high levels
in the raw tar. Benzo(a)anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene were low-level constituents of tar, but
are named in the site cleanup goals. PAH levels in the leachates roughly reflected those in the
tar itself. Compounds with fewer rings were released more readily than those with more rings.
The raw tar contained one-fifth as much pyrene as naphthalene, but less than one one-hundreth
as much was found in the ANS leachates.
Detection levels for PCBs in the ANS leachates ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 jig/L. No PCB
was detected in any leachate from these tests.
Phenols leached from all of the cylinders in measurable quantities. Leachate phenol
levels are shown as a function of time in Figure 9. Leachates from tar-containing cylinders
averaged 300 /ig/L in total phenols, while leachates from the fixed soil and soilrfluff mixes
contained 5-50 /ig/L. In all of the experiments, there was a drop in the leachate phenol
concentrations after 1-2 weeks, then a rise toward the end of the leaching period.
Because of the unequal leaching intervals in the ANS tests, leaching rates cannot be
inferred directly from concentration-versus-time data. The duration of each interval and the
total elapsed time are taken into account by deriving the "teachability index" of a compound of
interest (ANS 1986). For each compound, for each leachate, a diffusivity (in cm^/sec) is
calculated. This is based on the incremental leaching time, the cumulative leaching time, the
geometry of the cylinder, and the fraction of the compound initially present in the cylinder that
was released into that leachate. The teachability index L is the inverse logarithm of the
diffusivity. It is calculated for each leachate and averaged over the entire test (seven leachates,
in this case); changes in L with time are also meaningful. Higher L values correspond to slower
release of the contaminant into the leachates. An L value of 5 would indicate a fairly mobile
compound (diffusivity = 10"5 cm*/sec) while a value of 15 would indicate an essentially
immobile compound (diffusivity = 10"15 cm2/sec).
Table 11 shows teachability indices for selected contaminants in fixed cylinders of Tar
Pits materials. In cases where the initial solid-phase concentration in the cylinder was known
but leachate concentrations were below detection, a "greater-than" value representing a
minimum leaching index was calculated. For most of the contaminants of interest in the Tar
Pits study, calculated teachability was greater than 10, indicating these contaminants were
relatively immobile in the fixed material. Furthermore, for most organic and inorganic
contaminants there was no time trend in leaching rate, as expressed by the seven L values. The
sole exception was total phenols. In tests of aU types of fixed cylinders, the index value for
phenols increased uniformly over time, indicating diminishing mobility with time. Increases in
L value ranged from 0.5 to 1.6.
The teachability index is inversely related to the fractional proportion of contaminant
leached. During these 90-day experiments about 14 percent of the phenols originally present in
the tar and tarsofl cylinders were extracted. For other constituents in these and other
cylinders, the proportion extracted was three percent or less. Among the PAHs greater
proportions of the lighter compounds were leached (2.5 - 3% for naphthalene in tar-containing
cylinders), while very small fractions of the heavier PAHs leached (.02% of benzo(a)pyrene, for
example). Presumably, both light and heavy PAHs are affected equally by physical entrapment,
but the b'ghter PAHs are both more soluble and less likely to be held within the cylinders by
adsorption. Almost all of the leachate PAH concentrations were below published solubility
limits (Mills et al, 1982); most were an order of magnitude below the limits. It appears that
adsorption, acting particularly strongly on the heavier compounds, may be important in
immobilizing PAHs under these leaching conditions.
30
-------
Table 10. Concentration of selected PAHs in ANS extracts of fixed tar samples
Elapsed Time
(days)
Concentration
Naphthalene Fluorene Pyrene
Benzo(a) Benzo(a)
anthracene pyrene
Fixed Tar
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
2,000
2,000
2,0001
1,000
600
10,000
700
80
100
100 J
100
100
900
80
20 U
20 U
20 UJ
20 U
60U
60 U
SOU
3U
3.2U
4UJ
0.08 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
7
3U
3.2U
4UJ
0.08 U
0.2 U
0.2 U
5
Fixed 1:1 TanSoil
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
2,000
2,000
4,0001
1,000
500
2,000
400
80
100
700 J
100
70
300
70
20 U
20 U
20 UJ
20 U
SOU
30 U
25U
3U
3U
4UJ
3U
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.1 U
3U
3U
0.25 J
0.20
0.2 U
0.2 U
4.1 U
Note: J = approximate value, U = undetected at this level, UJ = undetected at approximately
this level
31
-------
20 40 60 80
Elapsed Time (days)
Soil 1:1 SoihFluff 3:1 SoihFluff
600-
O)
.
•S 400-
0.
5 200H
20 40
60
80
Elapsed Time (days)
-Tar 1:1 Tar: Soil
Figure 9. ANS leachate phenols vs. time.
32
-------
Table 11. Leachability Indices for Unstressed Fixed Materials
Average Leachability Index*
Parameter
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Phenols6
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCBsb
Soil
>13.6
>12.2
12.4
>9.2
>12.5
>13.1
>12.1
Tar
—
-
8.9
10.9
>13.2
>15.2
-
1:1 SoilrTar
.
-
8.9
10.3
>12.7
>14.7
-
l:lSoil:Fluff
12.2
14.6
>13.2
11.7
>12.2
>13.4
a. Average of seven intervals.
b. Initial concentrations in the fixed cylinders not quantified; assumed to be half those in the
constituent raw materials.
33
-------
The teachability index can be used to estimate the cumulative contaminant leached from
a fixed monolith at specific times in the future (ANS, 1986). The calculation is:
F = 1.128(10-°-5L)(tn)°-5(S/V)
where F = fraction of total contaminant leached
L = average teachability index
t = total time of leaching
S = monolith surface area
V = monolith volume
For selected Tar Pits materials, estimates for 1, 10, 100, and 1000 years after full-scale in situ
fixation are shown in Table 12. In making these projections a monolith two to three feet thick
and several hundred feet in extent was assumed. The upper surface was assumed to be dry and
the lower surface was assumed to be in constant contact with slowly-moving groundwater.
Under these conditions, it is projected that metal leaching would be slight; even after 1000 years
less than 10 percent of each metal of interest would have been released. This projection does
not account for changes in leachate alkalinity, however. It is likely that, after all soluble
alkalinity had been released from the monolith, groundwater pH would fall and metal leaching
would accelerate. Leaching of organic compounds (including phenols) from fixed soil and
soikfluff monoliths would also amount to less than 10 percent over 1000 years. Such leaching
rates would result in undetectable levels of contaminants in the shallow groundwater. Phenols,
naphthalene, and possibly other PAHs are projected to leach from a fixed soil:tar mix at higher
rates, such that SO percent or more would be released in 1000 years. Because they are very
concentrated in the fixed material, these compounds might be detectable in slowly-moving
shallow groundwater.
On the site, a fixed monolith is much more likely to experience alternating periods of
wetting and drying than an unvarying hydrologic regime. How this variation would affect
leaching is not well understood. Therefore, three ANS 16.1 leaching experiments were
performed in conjunction with wet/dry durability stressing of the test cylinders. All cylinders
were of the 3:1 soil:fluff mix. One cylinder was subjected to six days (four cycles) of wet/dry
stressing, a second to 14 days (12 cycles) of stressing, and three cylinders underwent 22 days
(20 cycles) of stressing. After these cycles, standard ANS leaching tests were performed. In
addition, three unstressed cylinders of the 3:1 mix were subjected to ANS 16.1 extraction.
During the wet/dry stressing, cylinders were dried at room temperature, not 60°C as was done
in the engineering tests.
The ANS leachate pH and EC for the wet/dry stressed cylinders are shown in Figures
10 and 11, respectively. As expressed by these parameters, surface weathering of the cylinders
was accelerated by cyclic wetting and drying. Leachate pH for the 12 and 20-cycle cylinders fell
below 9 by the 15th day of the experiments, whereas leachates from the unstressed (see 3:1
curve on Figure 7) and 4-cycle cylinders did not fall below 9 until after the 28th day. Leachate
conductivity showed a roughly similar trend. The cylinders subjected to 12 and 20 weathering
cycles had relatively high - actually increasing - leachate EC values during the stressing periods.
In leachates from unstressed or briefly-stressed (4 cycles) cylinders, EC diminished
continuously from the beginning.
34
-------
Table 12. Projected Leaching from an In situ Fixed Monolith
Material/
Parameter
Year after Cumulative Proportion Leached
fixation: 1 10 100
1000
Fixed Soil
Arsenic
Lead
Phenols*
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCBs
Fixed l:lSoil:Fluff
Arsenic
Lead
Phenols8
Pyrene
PCBs
<5.0xlO'4
<2.5xlO"3
2.8xlO'3
<0.080
<8.9xlO'4
<2.8xlO-3
2.5xlO'3
< 8.0x10^
6.3xlO'3
<2.5xlQ-3
<6.3xlO'4
<1.6xlO'3
<7.9xlO'3
3.9X10-3
<0.25
<2.8xlO'3
<8.9xlO-3
7.9xlO'3
<2.5xlO'3
8.7xlO'3
<7.9xlO'3
<2.0xlO"3
<5xlO'3
<2.5xlO'2
73xlO'3
<0.80
<8.9xlO'3
< 0.028
0.025
<8.0xlO'3
0.016
< 0.025
<6.3xlO'3
<0.016
< 0.079
0.018
<.028
< 0.089
0.079
< 0.025
0.041
< 0.079
<0.02
Fixed 1:1 SoihTar
Phenols*
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.20
0.022
<1.4xlO'3
< 1.4X10-4
0.34
0.071
<4.5xlO-3
< 4.5x10'*
0.77
0.22
< 0.014
<1.4xlO'3
1
0.71
< 0.045
<4.5xlO'3
a. Based on lowest teachability index calculated from ANS 16.1 testing; all others based on
average index.
Note: projections are based on a number of assumptions (explained in text).
35
-------
I
a
period of stressing
20 40 60
Elapsed Time (days)
40 60 80
Elapsed Time (days)
x
Q.
100
period of stressing
100
period of stressing
20 40 60 80 100 110
Elapsed Time (days)
Figure 10. AIMS leachate pH for wet/dry
stressed cylinders
A. 4 wet/dry cycles
B. 12 cycles
C. 20 cycles (triplicate cylinders)
vO
Note: All cylinders 3:1 soil:fluff mix
-------
500
- 400
o
•—period of stressing
o
ui
300 -
200 -
100
20 40 60 80
Elapsed Time (days)
500 -
_ 400 -
CO
o
JC.
E
a.
- 300 -
O
ui
200
100
Ill
500-
100
period of stressing
I I 1 I I I
20 40 60 80 100
Elapsed Time (days)
100
20
40 60 80
Elapsed Time (days)
100
period of stressing
Figure 11. ANS leachate conductivity for wet/dry
stressed cylinders.
A. 4 wet/dry cycles
B. 12 cycles
C. 20 cycles (triplicate cylinders)
Note: All cylinders 3:1 soihfluff mix
-------
Concentrations of individual contaminants in leachate cannot be interpreted to either
confirm or contradict this apparent accelerated-weathering phenomenon. Because of the
alkaline leaching conditions, leachate metals were generally undetectable, preventing
comparisons among treatments. Among those quantified, there were no time trends in
leachability index Neither average teachability index nor total fraction leached differed among
the stressing regimes for the metals. In the leachates from the 12 and 20-cycle tests, copper
levels (which should have been quantified very precisely) showed perturbations over time,
possibly connected with the cessation of wet-dry stressing.
Figure 12 traces leachate phenol concentrations over time. The leaching rate for total
phenols decreased from the beginning to the end of every experiment (as measured by
increased L). However, leaching increased for several days following the cessation of wet-dry
stressing in the 12 and 20-cycle tests (the 20-cycle test was performed in triplicate and this trend
was observed in every replicate). This short-term increase did not affect the average
leachability of phenols or the total fraction leached. These statistics did not differ among the 0,
4,12, and 20-cycle tests.
The PAHs and PCBs were originally present in the 3:1 soil:fluff mix at very low levels
(see Table 5). PCBs were undetected (at 0.3 /Jg/L) in leachates from the wet-dry stressed
cylinders, and individual PAHs were quantified in fewer than 10 instances. Based on the
reported detection limits, the leaching rates for these contaminants in these tests were very low.
The corresponding leachability indices were in the range of 12 - 15. Because of the low values
no differences can be distinguished among the various stressing regimes.
Summary and Conclusions
The cursory debris classification carried out at the Tar Pits showed that a considerable
proportion of the surficial material there is too large to undergo stabilization/solidification
without prior processing. No attempt was made to determine what proportion could be milled
and what proportion would have to be segregated and treated or disposed.
Chemical-concentration data for site soil, tar, and auto fluff were in agreement with
previously-collected data. For most contaminants in most site materials, very wide ranges of
values have been reported. Although this study attempted to collect highly-contaminated
samples, concentrations did not exceed those previously reported. The materials studied were
representative for the site, not atypically contaminated.
Despite a twofold dilution, concentrations of many contaminants in fixed materials were
reported to be as high or higher than those in the corresponding raw materials. This occurred
because the concentrations were very low relative to instrument quantitation limits, limiting
analytical precision. In treatability studies where this situation is foreseen, experimenters may
consider spiking site samples with the contaminants of interest.
If considered as "soils," some of the site materials fixed according to this protocol would
exceed Tar Pits site cleanup goals for lead and PAHs.
Fixation of site materials by these procedures resulted in approximate volume increases
ranging from 45 percent (for fixed tar) to 95 percent (soil). These are much greater than
documented volume changes at sites where fixation has been conducted. This reflects the high
bulk density of the site soils and the very high reagent dosages used herein to assure effective
fixation. Reagent dosages for full-scale remediation may be different.
38
-------
80
60 -
O>
3.
A
,o
20 -
20
40 60 80
Elapsed Time (days)
100
120
4 wet/dry cycles
12 cycles
20 cycles (mean of triplicate values)
Note: detection limit = 5 pg/L
Figure 12. Phenol concentrations in leachate from wet/dry stressed cylinders.
39
-------
As measured by the wet/dry stress test, the durability of fixed soil and soil-fluff mixtures
was acceptable. Fixed tar and tar-soil cylinders failed the durability test, possibly because cyclic
drying was conducted at 60°C. High-temperature drying meant to simulate long time intervals,
is inappropriate for materials containing a high proportion of volatile and semi-volatile
compounds.
Tests of compressive strength vs. time showed the fixed cylinders were still gaining
measurable strength after 29 days, when the "ultimate strength" of concrete is tested.
Development of strength appears to be slowed in these heterogeneous materials, and later
testing of ultimate strength (after 42 or 50 days) would be appropriate.
The inclusion of tar or auto fluff diminished the ultimate compressive strength of the
fixed materials. Nonetheless, all fixed mixes except pure tar would probably meet site-specific
strength standards, and would not be expected to collapse under their own weight. All
wet/dry-stressed fixed materials were markedly stronger than their unstressed counterparts.
The probable cause was drying at 60°C, which accelerated the curing process. Stressed fixed
soil developed a compressive strength of 1380 psi.
The permeabilities of unstressed fixed materials ranged from 1.2 x 10"9 to 3.5 x 10"8
cm/sec. Neither auto fluff nor tar influenced permeability. Wet/dry stressing increased the
permeability of all materials by more than an order of magnitude, probably by accelerating the
development of micropores near the cylinders' surfaces. This implies that the physical
breakdown of a full-scale monolith could be partially forestalled by preventing contact with
groundwater.
One tar cylinder failed in compression at zero effective pressure and another cracked
during stressing, indicating that fixed tar would probably have insufficient physical integrity to
meet site remediation goals.
In TCLP testing of raw site materials, lead and phenols were readily extracted. Volatile
compounds leached freely from coal tar. Some of the raw materials exceeded proposed TCLP
standards for lead or benzene. Pure leachates also exceeded cleanup goals for these
contaminants in site surface and groundwater. TCLP extraction of lead (and other heavy
metals) was strongly curtailed by fixation. This phenomenon was studied by Bishop (1988) and
shown to be caused by the leaching of alkaline fixation reagents. Undiluted TCLP leachates
from fixed Tar Pits materials met site PAH standards. Leachates from fixed tar exceeded one
of the site benzene goals, and other leachates exceeded lead goals.
In the 90-day ANS 16.1 tests of fixed materials, leachate pH and EC showed a strong
initial flush of alkalinity from the solids. Most of the contaminants of interest had calculated
teachability indices greater than 10, indicating relative immobility under mild leaching
conditions. Leachabflity of these contaminants did not change with time, and less than three
percent of each contaminant was extracted. The PAHs and PCBs were probably held by
adsorption, and leaching of the heavy metals was solubility-controlled. Phenols behaved
differently; they initially leached freely from the sample surfaces. By the end of the 90-day
trials, their leaching rates were much slower, probably controlled by diffusion through the solid
cylinders.
Long-term projections of leaching from in situ monoliths of various types were made.
These indicate that low proportions of the contaminants of interest (probably undetectable in
the shallow groundwater) would leach from fixed soil or soil-fluff mixes. The projections do not
account for diminishing leachate alkalinity, and consequent increases in metal leaching. It was
40
-------
projected that phenols and some PAHs might be detectable in groundwater contacting a fixed
1:1 soil:tar monolith. Release of these constituents would be most marked in the early years
after placement of the monolith. Projecting the actual concentrations in groundwater would
require modeling the shallow aquifer using site-specific hydrologic data.
When wet/dry stressing was combined with ANS 16.1 leaching, weathering of the fixed
cylinders was accelerated. Few effects on the leaching of the contaminants of interest could be
discerned, chiefly because they were present at very low levels in all the leachates. Where
effects could be inferred, they did not appear to persist after cyclic stressing ended. For future
tests, it is suggested that contaminants be spiked into the materials to be fixed, and a control
(no wet/dry stressing) be paired with a continuous, 90-day stressing and leaching test.
41
-------
REFERENCES
American Nuclear Society. 1986. Measurement of the Leachability of Solidified Low-Level
Radioactive Waste by a Short-Term Test Procedure. ANSI/ANS-16.1-1986. American Nuclear
Society, LaGrange Park, IL.
Applied Geotechnology, Inc. 1987. Remedial Investigation, Tacoma Tar Pits, Tacoma, WA.
AGI, Bellevue, WA.
Earth, D., and B. Mason. 1984. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide. U.S. EPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
Bishop, P.L. 1988. Leaching of inorganic hazardous constituents from stabilized/solidified
hazardous wastes. Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials. V. 5, No. 2. pp 129-144. Spring
1988.
Center Hill Research Facility. 1989. Summary Test Report, Tacoma Tar Pits. Technical
Assistance for evaluation of solidification/stabilization treatment technologies. University of
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Cullinane, M.J., L.W. Jones, and P.G. Malone. 1986. Handbook for stabilization/solidification
of hazardous waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/540/2-86/001.
Envirosphere Company. 1987. Final Feasibility Study of the Tacoma Historical Coal
Gasification Site. Envirosphere Co., Bellevue, WA.
Larsen, S. January 1989. Personal communication to Gretchen Rupp. STC, Phoenix, Arizona.
Mills, W.B., J.D. Dean, D.B. Porcella, S A. Gherini, R J.M. Hudson, W.E. Frick, G.L. Rupp, and
G.L. Bowie. 1982. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and
Conventional Pollutants. Part I. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
EPA-600/6-82-004a.
MSI Detoxification Incorporated. 1988. Final protocol for bench fixation trials for soils from
the Tacoma Historical Coal Gasification Site. MDI, Bozeman, MT.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986a. Test methods for evaluating solid waste. EPA
SW-846, 3rd edition. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986b. Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. 40
CFR Appendix I to Part 268. Federal Register V. 51, No. 216. November 7,1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987a. Decision Summary and Record of Decision,
Remedial Alternative Selection, Final Remedial Action, Tacoma Tar Pits, Tacoma,
Washington. U.S. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA.
42
-------
Statement of Work for Organics Analysis. U.S.
Pr0gram' Envi™mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
r Statement of Work for Inorganics Analysk
Ve asNV aoratory Program. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
43
-------
APPENDIX A
Sample Tracking Forms
-------
Appendix A
Field Sample Data and Chain of Custody Sheet
Organic Traffic Report
Inorganic Traffic Report
Metals Analysis Form
Priority Pollutant Organics Analysis Form
ANS 16.1 Data Sheet
-------
FIELD SAMPLE DATA AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY SHEET
EPA Region 10
1200 Si«th AMKU*
Sonto WA 98101
Project Code:
Name/Location
Proj. Off.:
Case No.:.
.Account:.
IlPA t«A On*, li** ll*iHot Contact 1*1
Tel.f
D Enforcement/Custody
D Data Confidential
D Possible Toxic /Hazardous
D Data for Storet
Miscellaneous:.
. Sampling Crew:
Recorder:.
ISgnaura feguniM
SOURCE }
CODE \
-
MATRIX
§
fc
I
j
—
|
...
|
-
t CONTAINERS
6
-
u
3
-
8
(O
-
3
09
--
E
8
~~
-
E
9
-
,
-
LAB
NUMBER
Yc
-
-
-
Wk
-
-
Seq
-
_.
—
-
-
STORET STATION
NUMBER
-
--
r-
•-
-
--
•
SAMPLING
DATE ft TIME
Yr
-
Mo
-
-
Oy
-
-
Time
—
-
—
-
-
-
TRAFFIC REPORT NUMBERS
Oig.
--
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
Inotg.
-
-
-
-
SAMPLER'S
INITIALS
STATION
DESCRIPTION
LAB
NUMBER
Yi
-
-
Wk
-
-
Seq
-
-
...
DEPTH
-
--
...
-
c
-
-
j
-
COL
MTD
CD
OA
CODE
-•
-
-
TEMP
DEC
C
--
-
pH
-
CNDCTVTY
umfio/cm
-
-
-
-
COMPOSITE ONLY
ENDING DATE
Mo
-
-
-
Ov
_
Time
„
-
-
TVpe
-
Fteq
CONDITION OF SAMPLES UPON RECEIPT AT LAB:
CUSTODY SEALS INTACT: 1 lye«
I'lno Inona
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
RELINQUISHED BY • ****,,>
RELINQUISHED BV. ,:.<,,.,.„.>
RELINQUISHED BV: .5.,,-,-,.
RELINQUISHED BY. i^v^.i
RECEIVED BV %„..., DATE
RECEIVED BV: ,^,,*,.»., DATE
RECEIVED BV: .*„,..,.„, DATE
RECEIVED BV MOBILE LAB DATE
FOR FIELD ANALYSIS: <*v—-"
DISPATCHED BV. is*.-'-" DATE/TIME
RECEIVED FOR LAB BY: DATE
/TIME
/TIME
TIME
TIME"
TIME
-------
NU:
'APPLICABLE)
ORGANIC TRAFFIC REPORT
SUPERFUND— PA SI ESI RIFS RD
NPLD O&M OTHER.
(annual IPFHPIINO— PRC
RA ER
X3RAM
SITE NAME:
CITY. STATE:
SITE SPILL ID:
REGION NO: SAMPLING COMPANY
®
SAMPLER: (NAME)
CLP
SAMPLE
NUMBER
(FROM LABELS)
.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
STATION
LOCATION
SEE REVERSE FOR ADDITIONAL
INSTRUCTIONS
. ->,• r. — sJi-»-*fcp.-f •*-. . •
• !
-'•"• i'-:^ow
' i 'sfc**']fti '" " • •
t ; ^'. "•li^^ii^bf^r •'**• v
•. • • -*»i%'i' f*1 ' • ' ' ***"*^HP t)U^-?r«
. . .; . *.»- >*>^^r • *• i^iW VtfOWJW^Wi1
'^•"^Srffeiii' '•
'""i^::-
•;•»•.. w. :
EPA Form 2075-7 (e-«7)
WHITE - SMO COPY PINK - CLIENT COPY WHITE - LAB COPY FOR RETURN TO SMO
YELLOW - LAB COPY
-------
iNAGGMENT OFFICE
O BOXfl'8 ALFXANOfllA VA22JI3
CASE NO:
rau:
APPLICABLE
INORGANIC TRAFFIC REPORT
r03 ClP USE ONLY I
TYPE Of ACTIVITY (CIRCLE ONE) 0
SUPERFUND—PA SI ESI RIFS RO RA ER
NPLO O*M OTHER
NON-SUPERFUND— PROGRAM
SITE NAME:
CITY. STATE:
SITE SPILL 10:
REGION NO:
SAMPLING COMPANY
SAMPLER: (NAME)
SHIP TO:
ATTN:.
SAMPLING DATE:
BEGIN:
END:
DATE SHIPPED:.
AIRBILL NO:
. CARRIER:.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
(ENTER IN BOX A) 4. SOIL
1 SURFACE WATER 5. SEDIMENT
2. GROUND WATER 6. OH. (SAS)
3. LEACHATE 7. WASTE (SAS)
DOUBLE VOLUME REQUIRED FOR MATRIX
SPIKE^>UPUCATE AQUEOUS SAMPLE
SHIP MEDIUM AND HIGH CONCENTRATION
SAMPLES IN PAINT CANS
SEE REVERSE FOR ADDITIONAL
INSTRUCTIONS
CLP
SAMPLE
NUMBER
(FROM LABELS)
EPA Form 2075-6 (1-87)
WHITE - SMO COPY
o
RAS
ANALYSIS
HIGH
ONLY
(SAS)
SPECIAL
HANDLING
STATION
LOCATION
PINK — CLIENT COPY
WHITE - LAB COPY FOR RETURN TO SMO
YELLOW — LAB COPY
-------
EPA Region 10 Laboratory
Analyses Required
METALS
I
1
1
A
t
4
1
£
C
A
•
V
V
V
Matrix CodM tore* on» artyl
0 Water-Total
1 Water-Dissolved
10 Sediment/ Soil
16 Semi-Solid/Sludge
16 Sediment for EP Toxicity
U Tissue
10 Oil/ Solvent
» Other
Petals
cut* WGI »n4 ttvntntt nqumng
nifyta 6«towJ
Vorkgroup 30 • Standard Method
Vorkgroup 34 - EP Toxicity Method
Vorkgroup 47 • TCLP Method
Aluminum Al
Antimony So
Arsenic As
Barium Be
Beryllium Be
Cadmium Cd
Calcium Ca
Chromium Cr
•Chromium Hexavalent Cr + 8
Cobalt Co
Copper Cu
Iron Ft
Lead Pb
Magnesium Mg
Manganese Mn
Mercury Hg
Molybdenum Mo
Nickel Ni
Potassium K
Selenium Se
Silver Ag
Sodium Na
Thallium T»
Vanadium V
Zinc Zn
'
Sample Numbers
Save samples after analysis? NO
• The laboratory requint «dvsnce notice prior
Special Limits, methods and com
NE TSOME tA
vent
a:
Analy/ Comp
Init/Oate
LL III SOME, eirdt ump* numturjl
*«.
fltqutttir'i Sign»turt Ofti
Mt samples should be saved, why
?
Not*: Any Element mty bt dttarmined by AA or ICP
i
t
i
(
1
\
EP* X-B L»k COPT
-------
p
<
/
1
EPA Region 10 Laboratory Analyses Required
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS • ORGANICS
rnjurt Nam*- Project Code: Arrni.nt Cod«:
Matrix Codes >e>ra» <*» on*)
10 Water-Total
11 Watar-Oitsolved
40 S«dim«nt/Soit
45 Semi-Solid/Sludge
46 Sediment for EP Toxicity
70 Tissue
80 Oil/Solvent
00 Other
QC/MS Organic!
51 Vototifc Orgcnic* VOA
82 B«M/NMtril« Only B/N
06 Acidt Only Acid
SB BMC/Ntutnto/AckU B/N/A
60 Spccrfie IGC/MS) Organici list bttow
ItdOMon*
iKMtoontt *cwn » tor « prmntKl Dttawl
-
Specific Orgenlct/Other Miscellaneous
40 PoryAromHydra (HPLC) PAH
07 Oil Identification 00-M
Sample Numbers
Save samples after analysis? NONE tSOME
List any additional specific organics:
Special detection Limits and comments.
•
Anary/Comp
Inri/Oate
tALL IH SOME, cirdt ttmplt numbfni
Itouuttr'i Signttun
If samples should he saved r why?_ ,
IP* X 11 Uk Copy
-------
ANS 16.1 DATA SHEET
Tacoma Tar Sample#_
Initial Sample mass
Initial surface area
gr-
cm'
Sample Description^
Start Date/Time
Length
cm
Scheduled
eachate
sampling
Actual
sampling
date/time
Sampler's
signature
pHof
leachate
EC of
leachate
Leachate
sample
number
Volume of
replacement
D.I. water
Comments:
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
Chemical Analytical Data
-------
APPENDIX B
Chemical Concentration Data
Table Number Page
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
BIO
Bll
B12
B13
B14
B15
Contaminant concentrations in raw sand (blank)
Contaminant concentrations in raw soil
Contaminant concentrations in raw tar
Contaminant concentrations in raw 1:1 soihfluff
Contaminant concentrations in raw 3: 1 soihfluff
Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP leachate from
raw sand (blank)
Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP leachate
from raw soil
Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP leachate from
raw tar
Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP leachate from
raw 1: 1 soiktar
Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP leachate from
raw 3:1 soilrfluff
Contaminant concentrations in fixed sand (blank)
Contaminant concentrations in fixed soil
Contaminant concentrations in fixed tar
Contaminant concentrations in fixed 1:1 soihtar
Contaminant concentrations in fixed 1:1 soil:fluff
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-ll
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-l
-------
Table Number Page
B16 Contaminant concentrations in fixed 3: lsoil:fluff B-19
B17 Contaminant concentrations in TCLP leachate from
fixed sand (blank) B-20
B18 Contaminant concentrations in TCLP leachate from fixed soil B-21
B19 Contaminant concentrations in TCLP leachate from fixed tar B-22
B20 Contaminant concentrations in TCLP leachate from
fixed 1:1 soihtar B-23
B21 Contaminant concentrations in TCLP leachate from
fixed 1:1 soihfluff B-24
B22 Contaminant concentrations in TCLP leachate from
fixed 3:1 soil:fluff B-25
B23 Contaminant concentrations in ANS leachate from
soil and soil-fluff mixtures B-26
B24 Contaminant concentrations in ANS leachate from
tar, tar-soil mixtures and blank samples B-34
B25 Contaminant concentrations in ANS leachate from
wet/dry-stressed fixed cylinders B-42
B-2
-------
Data Qualifiers and Descriptors
U Parameter was analyzed but not detected. Concentration shown is the applicable detection
limit.
J Estimated value. Either the value was less than the quantitation limit but greater than zero
(in the B/N/A scan, peak area could not be integrated), or laboratory QA/QC shortcomings
were identified for this sample, during the data validation.
UJ Parameter was analyzed but not detected; value shown is the approximate detection limit.
R Data unusable. Sample never analyzed, or associated QA/QC sample results were seriously
out of bounds.
Sample analyses were conducted between January 1988 and August 1988 according to the Statements
of Work for the Contract Laboratory Program. Data validation assessed laboratory performance in
meeting the quality control specifications outlined in the Statements of Work for Inorganic Analysis
(Revision 12/87) and Organic Analysis (Revision 2/88).
B-3
-------
Table Bl. Contaminant Concentrations in Raw Sand (Blank)
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total phenols
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Concentration
mq/ka
9.0
l.OUJ
18.1
11.0
1.8J
0.86J
23.4
0.4UJ
0.1UJ
mq/kq
100U
uq/kq
5UJ
50
6J
2J
uq/kq
Approximate
Detection
Limit"
mg/kq
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.4
0.1
mq/kq
100
uq/kq
5
5
5
5
uq/kq
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Di benz(a, h)anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248
Aroclors 1254, 1260
All "undetected" at 330 ug/kg (UJ)
uq/kq
79UJ
160UJ
uq/kq
79
160
"Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
B-4
-------
Table B2. Contaminant Concentrations in Raw Soil
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total Phenols
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Acenapthylene
Fluorine
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo ( a) anthracene
Benzo (b)fluoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016,1221,
1248
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Concentration
mq/kq
137
24. 2 J
366
3810
2490J
19. 2 J
3090
5.0UJ
1.6J
mq/kq
377
uq/kq
2J
80
80
U
uq/kq
540J
1300J
2700J
1600J
4600J
4200J
8300J
3400J
2600J
2300J
30000
13000
9000
uq/kq
2000UO
14000
27000
21000
Approximate
Detection
Limit9
mq/kq
1
0.5
1
2.5
0.5
1
2
5.0
0.02
mq/kq
100
uq/kg
6
6
6
6
uq/kq
All 1700
uq/kq
2000
2000
4000
4000
"Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
B-5
-------
Table B3. Contaminant Concentration In Raw Tar
Parameter
Concentration
Approximate
Detection
Limit
Metals
Arsenic
Cadi urn
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total phenols
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polycvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorine
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248
Aroclors 1254, 1260
mg/kq
mq/kq
Metals data missing - sample lost
mq/kq
201
69,OOOR
160.000R
160,OOOR
15.000R
Kg/kg
14, 000, 000 J
14,000,0000
4, 500, 000 J
3,400,0000
7, 400, 000 J
1,900,0000
3,200,0000
1,200, 000 J
350,0000
510,0000
740, 000 J
240,0000
200,0000
uq/kq
22.000UO
44.000UO
mg/kg
100
uq/kq
14,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
ug/kg
All 950,000
22,000
44,000
B-6
-------
Table 64. Contaminant Concentrations In Raw 1:1 Soil:Fluff
Parameter
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadml urn
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenol s
Total Phenols
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2 -Methyl naphtha! ene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Concentration
mq/kq
61.9
36. 5 J
299
2020
3080J
14.80
6060
4.4J
3.4J
mq/kq
584
uq/kq
7UJ
7UJ
7UJ
7UO
uq/kq
300J
440J
2000J
1100J
1400J
2100J
4200J
1800UJ
2500J
1800UJ
1400J
1100J
560J
uq/kq
5500UJ
9700J
5800J
56000
7500J
38000
Approximate
Detection
Limit3
mq/kq
1
0.5
1
2.5
0.5
1
2
0.5
0.02
mq/kq
100
uq/kq
7
7
7
7
uq/kq
All 1800
uq/kq
5500
5500
5500
5500
11,000
11,000
"Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
B-7
-------
Table B5.
Parameter
Contaminant Concentration in Raw 3:1 Soil:Fluff
Approximate
Detection
Concentration8 Limit5
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total phenols
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo ( a ) anthracene
Benzo(b) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
01 benz(a, h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016,1221,
1232,1248
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
mq/kq
141±14
27.814.5J
364161
24801280
21201134J
ll.6ll.3J
517011710
17113J
3.412.0J
mq/kq
389166
ttq/kq
7UJ
7UJ
7UJ
7UJ
uq/kq
4531210J
7171421J
377011630J
19301404J
400012360J
427011940J
740014080J
1700UJ
277011360J
1830161 U
26301 1140J
1 4201470 J
8401177J
uq/kq
5200UJ
34301510J
547011 50 J
453011470J
mq/kq
1
0.5
1
2.5
0.5
1
2
5.0
0.02
mq/kq
100
uq/kq
7
7
7
7
uq/kq
All 1700
uq/kq
5200
5200
10,400
10,400
"Results from analysis of triplicate samples, plus/minus the standard
deviation. Below-detection values are incorporated as the detection
limit.
Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
B-8
-------
Table 86. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Raw Sand (Blank)
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total phenols3
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fl uorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo (b) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a.h) anthracene
Concentration(/tg/L)
50UJ
5U
10U
62
71
2.9
761
1U
0.05U
303U
5UJ
2J
2J
5UJ
0.4J
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
9U
Approximate
Detection
Limit(/ig/L)
50
5
10
25
5
0.2
20
1
0.05
285
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248,
1254, 1260
0.1U
0.1
a. Total of individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-9
-------
Table 67. Contaminant Concentrations In TCLP Leachate from Raw Soil
Parameter
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Z1nc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total Phenols8
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvcllc Aromatlcs
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(b) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(k)fl uoranthene
Benzo( a) pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
D1benz(a,h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1242, 1248, 1254
Aroclor 1260
Concentration(/jg/L)
164J
843
206
9180
51,000
0.5
117,600
1U
0.05U
135U
5UJ
3J
5UJ
5UJ
0.2J
4U
4U
4U
0.1J
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
0.05U
0.06
Approximate
Detection
Lim1t(/ig/L)
10
5
10
25
5
0.2
20
1
0.05
120
5
5
5
5
All 4
0.05
0.05
"Total of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-10
-------
Table B8. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Raw Tar
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenol s
Total phenols
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
PolvcvcHc Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoran thene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a.h) anthracene
Concentration(/tq/L)
1U
5U
10U
62
165
0.2U
1060
1U
0.05U
5250
200J
330J
94J
16J
1100
310
26U
78
77
26U
26U
26U
3J
26U
26U
26U
26U
Approximate
Detection
Limit(0g/L)
1
5
10
25
5
0.2
20
1
0.05
250
5
5
5
5
All 26
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232 0.3U 0.3
1242, 1248, 1254,
1260
B-ll
-------
Table B9. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Raw 1:1
Soil:Fluff
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenol s
Total phenols*
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(b) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz (a, h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248,
1254, 1260
Concentrations/I)
131J
206
234
16,400
12,520
0.2U
58,600
1U
0.05U
139U
5UJ
0.9J
5UJ
5UJ
0.6J
0.2J
0.2J
0.4J
0.2J
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
0.05U
Approximate
Detection
LimitUg/L)
10
5
10
25
5
0.2
20
1
0.05
125
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.05
'Total of individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-12
-------
Table BIO. Contaminant Concentrations In TCLP Leachate from Raw 3:1
Soil:Fluff.
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total phenols8
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvcllc Aromatlcs
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fl uorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo ( b) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
D1benz(a,h)anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232
1242, 1248, 1254
Aroclor 1260
Concentrate on (jig/L)
138150J
472±91
226±20
11,08011930
44,290126,190
0.2U
94,550114,540
1U
0.05U
161U
5UJ
0.610. 30
5UJ
5UJ
_
0.510. U
0.210J
0.210.1J
0.110.1J
0.210.1J
4U
0.2J10.1
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
0.05U
0.1210.05
Approximate
Detection
Limit(Mg/U
10
5
10
25
5
0.2
20
1
0.05
145
5
5 ;
5
5
V
•.;
All 4
0.05
0.05
aTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
Note: Concentrations are the average from analyses of three samples,
plus/minus the standard deviation.
B-13
-------
Table 811. Contaminant Concentrations in Fixed Sand (Blank)
Parameter
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Phenol
All others'"
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Acenapthylene
Fl uorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo (k)fluoranthene
Benzo( a) pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
D1benz(a,h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248
Aroclors 1254, 1260
Concentration
mq/kq
0.85UJ
1.1U
37. 3J
11. U
10. 2J
l.OUJ
41. 3J
0.36UJ
0.1UJ
mo/ ko
1.4
12. 6U
uq/kq
1400J
6300
140J
390UJ
290J
390UJ
54J
390UJ
390UJ
390UJ
390UJ
390UJ
390UJ
uq/kq
39UJ
78UJ
Approximate
Detection
Limit"
mq/kq
0.85
1.1
1
2.5
0.5
1
2
0.36
0.1
mq/kq
0.39
12.6
ttq/kq
390
390
390
390
390
390
390
390
390
390
390
390
390
uq/kq
39
78
"Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
bTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
Note: Volatile compounds were not analyzed in fixed samples.
B-14
-------
Table BIZ. Contaminant Concentrations in Fixed Soil.
Parameter
Concentration
Approximate
Detection
Limit"
Metals mq/kq
Arsenic 3540
Cadmium 6.5
Chromium 247J
Copper 14100
Lead 8770
Silver 1.60
Zinc 1220
Selenium 1.40
Mercury 0.910
Phenols mq/kq
Total phenols" 14500
Polvcvclic Aromatics uq/kq
Naphthalene 40000
2-Methylnaphthalene 51,OOOUO
Acenapthylene 51.000UO
Fluorene 51,OOOUO
Phenanthrene 86000
Fluoranthene 64000
Pyrene 17,0000
Benzo(a)anthracene 72000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 51,OOOUO
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 51,OOOUO
Benzo(a)pyrene 60000
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 51.000UO
01benz(a,h)anthracene 51,OOOUO
mq/kq
1
0.5
1
2.5
0.5
1
2
0.5
0.02
mq/kq
1450
uq/kq
All 51,000
PCBs
Aroclors 1016,
1232,
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
1221,
1242
640UO
1600
1300UO
5000
uq/kq
640
640
1300
1300
'Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
bTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
Note: Volatile compounds were not analyzed in fixed samples
B-15
-------
Table B13. Contaminant Concentrations In Fixed Tar
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Z1nc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
2, 4-Dimethyl phenol
All others6
Polvcvcllc Aromatlcs
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo (b) f 1 uroanthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dlbenz(a.h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221
1232,1242, 1248
Aroclors 1254, 1260
Concentration
mq/kq
2.8J
l.OU
37. 7J
29. 5 J
52. 3 J
0.96UJ
103J
1.8UJ
0.1UJ
mq/kq
44J
1050U
uq/kq
8,100,0000
7,600,0000
2,900,0000
2,700,0000
4,800,0000
1,200,0000
2,600,0000
810,0000
sum - 870,0000
800,0000
330,0000
140,0000
uq/kq
3100UJ
6200UO
Approximate
Detection
L1mita
mq/kg
1
1.0
1
2.5
0.5
0.96
2
1.8
0.1
mg/kg
310
1050
uq/kq
620,000
620,000
620,000
620,000
620,000
620,000
620,000
620,000
310,000
310,000
310,000
310,000
310,000
uq/kq
3100
6200
'Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
bTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
Note: Volatile compounds were not analyzed In fixed samples.
B-16
-------
Table B14.
Parameter
Contaminant Concentrations in Fixed 1:1 Soil:Tar
Approximate
Detection
Concentration Limit*
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total Phenols"
mq/kg
27. 5J
2.3
1120J
671J
410J
1.9J
647J
0.35UJ
0.4J
mq/kq
5050U
mq/kq
1
0.5
1
2.5
0.5
1
2
0.35
0.02
mq/kq
5050
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Oi benz(a,h)anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016, 1221,
1232,1242,1248
Aroclors 1254, 1260
uq/kq
3,700,0000
3,600,0000
1,500,0000
1,400,0000
2,700,0000
670,0000
1,100,0000
490,0000
sum • 350,000
290,0000
90,0000
47,0000
uq/kq
7400UO
15,OOOUJ
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
uq/kq
7400
15,000
'Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are Listed.
bTotal of individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
Note: Volatile compounds were not analyzed in fixed samples.
B-17
-------
Table B15. Contaminant Concentrations in Fixed 1:1 Soil:Fluff
Parameter
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
Phenols
Total phenols5
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo (b) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Oibenz (a, h) anthracene
PCBs
Aroclors 1016,1221,1232,
1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Concentration
mq/kq
58. OJ
32.6
194J
16,6000
27700
1.2J
10,5000
1.8UJ
1.60
mg/kq
1970U
uq/kq
58,OOOUJ
58,OOOUO
58,OOOUO
58.000UO
58,OOOUO
73000
14,0000
58.000UO
58,OOOUO
58,OOOUO
58,OOOUO
58,OOOUO
58.000UO
uq/kg
720UO
5200
1400UJ
11,000
Approximate
Detection
Limit9
mq/kq
1
0.5
1
2.5
0.5
1
2
1.8
0.02
mq/kq
1970
uq/kq
All 58,000
uq/kq
720
720
1400
1400
'Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
bTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
Note: Volatile compounds were not analyzed in fixed samples.
B-18
-------
Table B16. Contaminant Concentrations in Fixed 3:1 SoilrFluff
Parameter
Concentration3
Approximate
Detection
Limitb
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromi urn
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Selenium
Mercury
mq/kd
55.8ll.lJ
15.9±6.6
264±32J
2650112400
1790±330J
1.11±0.35UJ
3550±1680J
1.410. 8J
2.412.1J
mq/kq
1
0.5
1
2.5
0.5
1.0
2
0.5
0.02
Phenols
Total phenols0
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
mg/kq
1900U
uq/kq
56,OOOUJ
56,OOOUJ
56,OOOUJ
56,OOOUJ
7250±780J
7070±2060J
13,200132700
56.000UO
56,OOOUO
56,OOOUJ
4200±420J
56,OOOUJ
56,OOOUJ
mq/kq
1900
All 56,000
PCBs
Aroclors 1016,1221
1232,1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
uq/kq
700UJ
2870±680
1400UJ
593011410
uq/kq
700
700
1400
1400
'Results from analyses of three cylinders, plus/minus the standard
deviation.
Applicable detection limits for metals are unavailable; for metals above
detection, the Contract Required Detection Limits are listed.
GTotal of individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
Note: Volatile compounds were not analyzed in fixed samples.
B-19
-------
Table B17. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Fixed Sand
(Blank)
Parameter
Metal s
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Silver
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Phenols
Phenol
All others*
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Concentration
(M/U
R
0.1U
R
R
R
R
0.08U
R
220
11 5211
Approximate
Detection
Limit(tfg/U
-
0.
_
1
0.
1
0.
-
36
1152
1 .;..
1
0%
,?-
•»
••t'r
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
All "undetected" at 36 /jg/L
aTotal of individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-20
-------
Table B18. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Fixed Soil
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Silver
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Concentration
(iw/L)
2.0
7.0
3
17
1.6J
1U
0.08U
R
Approximate
Detection
Limit(/ig/L)
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.08
Phenols
Total phenols8 418U
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene 2J
2-Methyl naphthalene 12U
Acenapthalene 12U
Fluorene 12U
Phenanthrene 12U
Fluoranthene 12U
Pyrene 12U
Benzo(a)anthracene 12U
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 12U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 12U
Benzo(a)pyrene 12U
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 12U
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 12U
418
All 12
"Total of individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-21
-------
Table B19. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Fixed Tar
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromi urn
Lead
Silver
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Phenols
Phenol
All others3
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo( bjfluoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Oibenz(a,h) anthracene
Concentration
(nq/L)
2
10.1
13
1U
0.1U
1U
0.1
R
420
4790U
537
1000
674
82
3100
1200
360
89J
80J
120U
4J
12U
12U
12U
12U
12U
12U
Approximate
Detection
Limit(/*g/L)
.
0.1
_
1
0.1
1
0.08
-
120
3890
5
5
5
5
120
120
120
120
120
120
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
aTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-22
-------
Table 820. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Fixed 1:1
Soil:Tar
Approximate
Concentration Detection
Parameter (tfg/L) Lim1t(tfg/L)
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Lead
Silver
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Phenols
Phenol
2 -Methyl phenol
4-Methyl phenol
All others3
Volatile Compounds
Benzene
Tol uene
Total Xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo ( b) f 1 uor anthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Oebenz ( a , h ) anthracene
4
1.4
35
1U
0.1U
ID
0.08U
R
460
170
550
377U
59
540
505
55
3100
1200
330
110
71
40
5J
12U
12U
12U
12U
12U
12U
-
0.1
_
1
0.1
1
0.08
-
120
12
120
360
24
24
24
24
120
120
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
aTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-23
-------
Table B21. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Fixed 1:1
Soil:Fluff
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Silver
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Phenols
Phenol
All others8
Concentration
(H8/L)
8
10.1
6
23
0.4
1U
0.2
R
23
412U
Approximate
Detection
Limit(/ig/L)
_
0.1
_
1
0.1
1
0.08
-
13
412
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
01benz(a,h)anthracene
6J
1J
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
All 13
aTotal of individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-24
-------
Table 622. Contaminant Concentrations in TCLP Leachate from Fixed 3:1
Soil:Fluff
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Silver
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Phenol s
Phenol
All others6
Polvcvclic Aromatics
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthal ene
Acenapthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Fl uoranthene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo (b) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo ( k) f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Concentration3
(JH/L)
6.3±0.6
5.0±2.3
12.5±3.5
11±8.7
0.1710. 12U
4±1
O.lliO.OSU
R
15±4J
2046U
6.3±6.7J
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
62U
Approximate
Detection
L1mit(/ig/L)
.
0.1
_
1
0.1
0.08
-
36
2046
All 62
•Results from analyses of three cylinders, plus/minus the standard
deviation.
bTotal of Individual phenols reported from the B/N/A scan.
B-25
-------
Table B23. Contaminant concentrations in ANS leachate from soil and
soil-fluff mixtures
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
Arsenic
SOU
2
1U
1U
1U
6J
16
SOU
3J
1U
1U
1U
1U
2
SOUJ
4
1U
1U
1U
3
1U
SOU
2
1U
1U
1U
2
4
SOU
2
1U
1U
1U
4
1U
Concentration (/jg/L)
Mercury Selenium Silver Cadmium
0.05
0.05U
0.05U
0.05U
O.OSU
O.OS
O.OSU
O.OSU
0.1
O.OSU
0.005U
O.OSU
0.05
0.08U
0.11
0.1
O.OSU
O.OSU
O.OSU
O.OS
0.08U
0.05
O.OSU
O.OSU
0.1S
O.OSU
0.05
0.08U
0.11
O.OSU
O.OSU
0.005U
O.OSU
0.05
O.OSU
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
10
16
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
5
17
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
10
14
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
10
16
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
10
5
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
41)
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
5U
5U
5U
5U
51)
5U
5U
5U
511
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
511
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
B-26
-------
Table B23. (Continued).
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
Chromium
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
11
26
10U
10
10U
10U
10U
23
22
10U
15
10U
10U
12
12
26
10U
10U
10U
10U
11
13
26
10U
14
10U
10U
10U
10
26
Concentration (pg/L)
Copper Lead Zinc
11
9
9
14
13
22
28
38
25
13
14
34
55
64
39
28
22
22
40
57
64
32
30
19
14
45
78
71
29
25
18
12
31
39
56
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
20U
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
sou
20U
SOU
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
20U
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
20U
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
20U
14
16
9
8
3U
3U
4U
18
23
12
9
6
5
411
17
53
9
8
7
3U
4U
29
25
2U
4
5
3U
4U
20
22
15
9
7
3U
4U
B-27
-------
Table 823. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
Naphtha-
lene
4700U
4400U
4600UJ
5200U
1E4U
13E3U
1E4U
4600U
4300U
4900UJ
4500U
1E4U
12E3U
1E4U
4400U
4400U
4700UJ
5100U
1E4U
12E3U
1E4U
4700U
4700U
5000UJ
4600U
1E4U
12E3U
R
4400U
4300U
4700UJ
4400U
1E4U
12E3U
1E4U
Acenaph-
thylene
8100U
7600U
7900UJ
8900U
2E4U
22E3U
2E4U
7900U
7300U
8400UJ
7700U
3E4U
21E3U
2E4U
7700U
7500U
8100UJ
8800U
2E4U
21E3U
2E4U
8000U
8100U
8500UJ
7900U
2E4U
20E3U
R
7600U
7400U
8000UJ
7500U
2E4U
20E3U
2E4U
Acenaph-
thene
8100U
7600U
7900UJ
8900U
2E4U
22E3U
2E4U
7900U
7300U
8400UJ
7700U
3E4U
21E3U
2E4U
7700U
7500U
8100UJ
8800U
2E4U
21E3U
2E4U
8000U
8100U
8500UJ
7900U
2E4U
20E3U
R
7600U
7400U
8000UJ
7500U
2E4U
20E3U
2E4U
Fluorene
1000U
900U
900UJ
1000U
3000U
2600U
2600U
900U
900U
1000UJ
900U
3000U
2500U
2600U
900U
900U
950UJ
1000U
3000U
2500U
2600U
900U
900U
1000UJ
900U
3000U
2400U
R
900U
900U
900UJ
900U
3000U
2300U
2600U
B-28
-------
Table 823. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
Phenan-
threne
80
90
700
90
200U
200U
200U
140
100
100J
80
200U
200U
200U
100
90
70J
70U
200U
200U
200U
200
100
100J
80
200J
200J
R
100
100
70J
600
200U
200U
200U
Anthra-
cene
100
100
10UO
100
40U
40U
40U
30
100
200
100
40U
40U
90
30
100
100
10U
40U
40U
4QU
50
30
100
100
40U
300
R
20
100
10UO
100
40U
30U
40U
Fluoran-
thene
100U
100U
100UO
100U
400U
400U
400U
1000
100U
100UO
100U
400U
400U
400U
100U
100U
100UO
100U
400U
400U
400U
100U
100U
100UO
100U
400U
300U
R
100U
640
100UO
100U
400U
300U
400U
Pyrene
400U
400U
400UO
400U
1200U
1000U
1100U
400U
400U
400UO
400U
1300U
1000U
1100U
400U
400U
400UO
400U
1200U
1000U
1100U
400U
400U
400UO
400U
1100U
1000U
R
400U
400U
400UO
400U
1000U
1000U
1100U
B-29
-------
Table B23. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
Benzo(a)-
anthra-
cene
70U
60U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
200U
70U
60U
70UJ
60U
200U
200U
200U
60U
60U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
200U
70U
70U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
R
60U
60U
70UJ
60U
200U
200U
200U
Chrysene
70U
60U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
200U
70U
60U
70UJ
60U
200U
200U
200U
60U
60U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
200U
70U
70U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
R
60U
60U
70UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
Benzo(b)-
fluoran-
thene
40U
40U
40UJ
40U
100U
100U
100U
400
40U
40UJ
40U
100U
100U
100U
40U
40U
40UJ
40U
100U
100U
100U
40U
40U
400UJ
40U
100U
100U
R
40U
40U
40UJ
40U
100U
100U
100U
Benzo(k)
fluoran-
thene
10U
10U
10UJ
10U
40U
40U
40U
10J
10U
10UJ
10U
40U
40U
40U
10U
10U
10UJ
10U
40U
40U
40U
100J
10U
10UJ
10U
40U
30J
R
10U
10U
10UJ
10U
40U
30U
40U
B-30
-------
Table 823. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
Benzo(a)
pyrene
70U
60U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
200U
70U
60U
70UJ
60U
200U
200U
200U
60U
60U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
200U
70U
70U
70UJ
70U
200U
200U
R
60U
60U
70UJ
60U
200U
200U
200U
Dlbenzo-
(a, ^an-
thracene
300U
250U
300UJ
300U
800U
700U
800U
300U
200U
300UJ
300U
900U
700U
800U
300U
300U
300UJ
300U
800U
700U
800U
300U
300U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
R
250U
200U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
700U
Benzo(gh
1)pery-
lene
300U
250U
300UJ
300U
800U
700U
800U
300U
200U
300UJ
300U
900U
700U
800U
300U
300U
300UJ
300U
800U
700U
800U
300U
300U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
R
250U
200U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
700U
Indeno(l,
2,3-cd)
pyrene
100U
100U
100UJ
100U
400U
400U
400U
100U
100U
100UJ
100U
400U
400U
400U
100U
100U
100UJ
100U
400U
400U
400U
100U
100U
100UJ
100U
400U
300U
R
100U
100U
100UJ
100U
400U
300U
400U
B-31
-------
Table B23. (Continued).
Concentration (pg/L)
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
PCB
1016
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.1U
PCB
1221
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.1U
PCB
1232
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.1U
PCB
1242
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.311
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.1U
B-32
-------
Table B23. (Concluded).
Concentration (M9/L)
Fixed
Material
Soil
1:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
3:1
Soil:
Fluff
El apsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
PCB
1248
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.1U
PCB
1254
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.1U
PCB
1260
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
Total
Phenol s
12
8
5
5
8J
10
280
38
28
15
12
28J
30
45J
28
15
10
5
20J
20
45J
25
20
12
5
15J
20
40J
50
20
12
10
20J
25
8J
B-33
-------
Table B24. Contaminant concentrations in ANS leachate from tar, tar-soil
mixtures and blank samples
Concentration
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
Arsenic
SOU
4
1U
1U
1U
2
1U
SOU
1
1U
1U
1U
2
1U
SOU
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
sou
1
1
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
Mercury
0.05
0.05U
0.05U
0.05U
0.05U
0.05
0.082
0.05
0.05U
0.05U
0.05U
0.05U
0.05
0.08U
0.11
0.05
0.05U
0.1
0.05U
0.05
0.08U
0.11
0.05U
0.05U
0.05U
0.05U
0.05
0.05
0.08U
Selenium
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
9
16
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
9
13
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
5
15
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
2
1U
Silver
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2UJ
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
4U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
Cadmium
5U
5U
511
5U
511
5U
5U
511
51)
5U
5U
5U
5U
511
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
511
5U
511
5U
5U
5U
5U
511
51)
B-34
-------
Table 824. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
Chromium
10U
10U
10U
10
10U
10U
14
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
13
10U
11
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
10U
Copper
3U
3U
3U
27
3U
4
4U
3U
3U
3
3U
9
13
4
3U
3U
4
3U
3U
8
4U
3U
3U
3U
3U
3U
3U
10
4U
Lead
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
20U
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
sou
sou
20U
SOU
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
20U
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
20U
Zinc
14
15
7
25
3U
3U
4U
14
15
19
9
3U
4
4U
12
13
2
5
3U
3U
4U
12
16
16
5
7
3U
3U
4U
B-35
-------
Table B24. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
Naphtha-
lene
2E6
2E6
2E6J
1E6
6E5
10E6
7E5
2E6
2E6
4E6J
1E6
5E5
2E6
4E5
9700
4700U
5400UJ
5400U
1E4U
12000U
1E4U
4700U
4200U
4400U
5700UJ
5700U
1E4U
12000U
1E4U
Acenaph-
thylene
4E5U
4E5U
4E5UJ
5E5U
1E6U
2300U
5E5
4E5U
4E5U
4E5UJ
4E5U
1E6U
21000U
3E5
14000U
8000U
9200UJ
9200U
2E4U
2E4U
2E4U
8100U
7300U
7600U
9800UJ
9800U
2E4U
20000U
2E4U
Acenaph-
thene
4E5U
4E5U
4E5UJ
5E5U
1E6U
2300U
7E5U
4E5U
4E5U
4E5UJ
4E5U
1E6U
21000U
5E5U
14000U
8000U
9200UJ
9200U
2E4U
2E4U
2E4U
8100U
7300U
7600U
9800UJ
9800U
2E4U
20000U
2E4U
Fluorene
•i
8E4
1E5
1E5J
1E5
1E5
9E5
8E4
8E4
1E5
7E5J
1E5
7E4
3E5;
7E4
1600U
900U
1100UJ
1100U
2000U
2400U
2400U
1000U
800U
900U
1100UJ
1100U
3000U
2400U
2300U
B-36
-------
Table B24. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
Phenan-
threne
3E4
8E4
7E4J
9E4
1E5
6E5
6E4
4E4
1E5
4E4J
1E5
4E4
2E5
6E4
200
100
80UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
70U
60U
60U
80UJ
80U
200U
200U
200U
Anthra-
cene
6000
1E4
1E4J
1E4
3E4
5E4
1E4
7000
1E4
7000J
1E5
1E4
2E4
9000
40
100
20UJ
20U
40U
30U
30U
10U
10U
10U
20UJ
20U
40U
30U
30U
Fluoran-
thene
9000
1E4
3E4J
8000U
2E4J
6E4
2E4
1E4
2E4
7000UJ
6000U
2E4J
9000U
9000U
200U
100U
200UJ
200U
400U
300U
300U
100U
100U
100U
200UJ
200U
400U
300U
300U
Pyrene
2E4U
2E4U
2E4UJ
2E4U
6E4U
6E4U
3E4U
2E4U
2E4U
2E4UJ
2E4U
5E4U
3E4U
25000U
700U
400U
500UJ
500U
1000U
1000U
1000U
400U
400U
400U
500UJ
500U
1100U
1000U
1000U
B-37
-------
Table B24. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
Benzo(a)-
anthra-
cene
3000U
3200U
4000UJ
80U
200U
200U
7000
3000U
3000U
4000UJ
3000U
200U
200U
4100U
100U
70U
80UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
70U
60U
60U
80UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
Chrysene
3000U
3200U
4000UJ
100
500
800
7000
3000U
3000U
4000UJ
3000U
200U
500
4100U
100U
70U
80UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
70U
60U
60U
80UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
Benzo(b)-
fluoran-
thene
2000U
1900U
2000UJ
SOU
100J
200
5000
2E4U
2000U
40UJ
200
1100U
100U
2500U
70U
40U
50UJ
SOU
100U
100U
100U
40U
40U
40U
50UJ
SOU
100U
100U
100U
Benzo(k)
fluoran-
thene
600U
60U
700UJ
20J
40J
400
4000
600U
600U
40J
50
40U
30U
800J
20U
10U
20UJ
20U
40U
30U
30U
10U
10U
10U
20UJ
20U
40U
30U
30U
B-38
-------
Table B24. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
Benzo(a)
pyrene
3000U
3200U
4000UJ
SOU
200U
200J
5000
3000U
3000U
250J
200
200U
200U
4100U
100U
70U
80UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
70U
60U
60U
80UJ
SOU
200U
200U
200U
Dibenzo-
(a,h)an-
thracene
1E4U
1E4U
500J
300U
800U
800U
2E4U
1E4U
1E4U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
16E4U
500U
300U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
700U
300U
200U
300U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
700U
Benzo(gh
i)pery-
lene
1E4U
1E4U
300UJ
300U
800U
800U
2E4U
1E4U
1E4U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
16E4U
500U
350
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
700U
300U
200U
300U
300UJ
300U
700U
700U
700U
Indeno(l,
2,3-cd)
pyrene
6000U
6000U
200J
200U
400U
400U
1E4U
6000U
6000U
100UJ
100U
400U
300U
8000U
200U
100U
200UJ
200U
400U
300U
300U
100U
100U
100U
200UJ
200U
400U
300U
300U
B-39
-------
Table B24. (Continued)
Concentration (/*g/L)
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
El apsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
PCB
1016
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
PCB
1221
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
PCB
1232
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
PCB
1242
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.21)
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
B-40
-------
Table B24. (Concluded).
Concentration
Fixed
Material
Tar
1:1
Tar:
Soil
Sand
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
5
7
14
28
90
1
3
4
5
7
14
28
90
PCB
1248
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
PCB
1254
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
PCB
1260
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
Total
Phenols
230
145
95
75
190J
248
548J
375
240
140
118
265J
328
662J
5U
5U
5
5U
5UJ
5U
30J
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5UJ
5U
20J
B-41
-------
Table B25. Concentrations in ANS leachate from wet/dry-stressed fixed
cylinders
Wet/Dry
Cycles
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
41
104
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
Arsenic
8
1U
1U
1U
11
11
R
8
1U
8
8
11
11
2
5
1U
9
2
15
8
3
7J
1U
5
1U
13
3
7
6
1U
7
2
10
7
4
Concentration (ng/L)
Mercury Selenium Silver Cadmium
0.05U
0.05U
0.1
0.1
0.05U
0.05
0.08UJ
0.1
0.05U
0.31
0.05U
0.05
0.08
0.08U
0.05U
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05U
0.086
0.08U
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05U
0.11
0.08U
0.1
0.21
0.05
0.2
0.1
0.074U
0.08U
1U
1U
1U
1U
1U
6
R
1U
1U
1U
1UJ
3
1U
1U
1U
1U
6
6
1U
1U
8
1U
1U
4
6
1U
1U
5
1U
1U
5
4
1U
1U
6
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.21)
0.2U
0.2U
R
0.2U
0.2U
0.2UJ
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2UJ
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2UJ
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
R
5U
5U
14J
51)
5U
5U
6
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
11
5
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
Note: All cylinders used in these tests were fixed 3:1 soil:auto fluff.
B-42
-------
Table B25. (Continued).
Concentration (/*g/L)
Wet/Dry
Cycl es
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
El apsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
41
104
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
Chromium
22
25
10U
10U
15
11
R
25
49
17
11
11
10U
18
30
55
31
13
18
16
13
30
48
28
10U
15
14
13
26
38
26
10U
15
14
11
Copper
72
48
25
183
142
34
R
88
54
403
94
40
3U
42
78
64
38
15
3U
387
30
90
68
44
13
3U
85
29
81
54
36
12
3U
81
30
Lead
SOU
50U
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
R
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
20U
SOU
SOU
sou
sou
sou
20U
20U
SOU
sou
sou
sou
sou
20U
20U
SOU
sou
sou
sou
sou
20U
20U
Zinc
15
7
6
94
5
3U
R
25
4
20
6
3D
3U
6
16
3U
3U
3U
3U
3U
4U
26
9
3U
3U
3U
6
41)
15
6
3U
3U
3D
3U
4U
B-43
-------
Table B25. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Wet/Dry
Cycles
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
El apsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
41
104
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
Naphtha-
lene
R
1E4U
1E4U
1E4U
12000U
13000U
1E4U
4600U
12000U
12000U
13000U
12000U
12000U
1E4U
R
12000U
12000U
12000U
11000U
12000U
1E4U
4700U
12000U
12000U
12000U
1200U
15000U
1E4U
4800U
13000U
12000U
11000U
11000U
13000U
1E4U
Acenaph-
thylene
R
2E4U
2E4U
2E4U
2E4U
22000U
2E4U
7900U
21000U
21000U
22000U
21000U
21000U
2E4U
R
21000U
2E4U
2E4U
19000U
2E4U
2E4U
8100U
21000U
21000U
2E4U
2E4U
25000U
2E4U
8300U
23000U
2E4U
19000U
2E4U
22000U
2E4U
Acenaph-
thene
R
2E4U
2E4U
2E4U
2E4U
22000U
2E4U
7900U
21000U
21000U
22000U
21000U
21000U
2E4U
R
21000U
2E4U
2E4U
19000U
2E4U
2E4U
8100U
21000U
21000U
2E4U
2E4U
25000U
2E4U
8300U
23000U
2E4U
19000U
2E4U
22000U
2E4U
Fl uorene
R
3E3U
3E3U
2E31)
2300U
2500U
2900U
900U
2400U
2400U
2600U
2400U
2400U
2400U
R
2400U
2300U
2300U
2300U
2300U
2400U
900U
2400U
2400U
2400U
2400U
3000U
2400U
970U
2700U
2300U
2300U
2300U
2500U
2500U
B-44
-------
Table B25. (Continued).
Concentration (ng/L)
Wet/Dry
Cycles
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
El apsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
41
104
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
Phenan-
threne
R
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
90
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
R
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
90
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
100
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
Anthra-
cene
R
40U
40U
30U
30U
40U
40U
10U
30U
30U
40U
SOU
30U
30U
R
30U
30U
30U
30U
30U
30U
10J
30U
30U
30U
30U
40U
SOU
100
40U
30U
30U
30U
40U
40U
Fluoran-
thene
R
400U
400U
300U
300U
400U
400U
900
300U
300U
400U
300U
300U
300U
R
300U
300U
300U
300U
300U
300U
100U
300U
300U
300U
300U
400U
300U
100U
400U
300U
300U
300U
400U
350U
Pyrene
R
1000U
1200U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1200U
400U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
R
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
500
1000U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1300U
1000U
400U
1200U
1000U
1000U
1000U
1100U
1000U
B-45
-------
Table B25. (Continued).
ANS Leachate Concentration (ng/L)
Wet/Dry
Cycles
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
41
104
3
15
29
36
27
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
Benzo(a)-
anthra-
cene
R
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
70J
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
R
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
70U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
70U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
Chrysene
R
200U
2001)
200U
200U
200U
200U
70U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
R
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
70U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
70U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
Benzo(b)
fluoran-
thene
R
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
40U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
R
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
40U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
40U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
Benzo(k)
fluoran-
thene
R
40U
40U
30U
30U
40U
40U
100U
30U
SOU
40U
SOU
30U
30U
R
30U
SOU
30U
SOU
SOU
30U
30
30U
30U
30U
30U
40U
30U
10U
40U
SOU
30U
30U
40U
40U
B-46
-------
Table B25. (Continued)
Concentration (ng/L)
Wet/Dry
Cycles
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
41
104
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
Benzo(a)
pyrene
R
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
70U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
R
200U
200U
8200U
200U
200U
200U
10U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
70U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
200U
Oibenzo-
(a,h)an-
thracene
R
700U
800U
700U
700U
700U
800U
300U
700U
700U
700U
700U
700U
700U
R
700U
700U
700U
600U
700U
700U
300U
700U
700U
700U
700U
800U
700U
300U
800U
700U
600U
700U
700U
700U
Benzo(gh
i)pery-
lene
R
700U
800U
700U
700U
700U
800U
300U
700U
700U
700U
700U
700U
700U
R
700U
700U
700U
600U
700U
700U
300U
700U
700U
700U
700U
800U
700U
300U
800U
700U
600U
700U
700U
700U
Indeno(l,
2,3-cd)
pyrene
R
400U
400U
300U
300U
400U
400U
100U
300U
300U
400U
300U
300U
300U
R
300U
300U
300U
300U
300U
300U
100U
300U
300U
300U
300U
400U
300U
100U
400U
300U
3001)
300U
400U
350U
B-47
-------
Table B25. (Continued).
Concentration (/ig/L)
Wet/Dry
Cycles
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
50
104
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
PCB
1016
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.25U
0.10U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
PCB
1221
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.25U
0.10U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
PCB
1232
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.25U
0.10U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
PCB
1242
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3tf
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.25U
0.10U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
B-48
-------
Table B25. (Concluded).
Concentration
Wet/Dry
Cycles
4 Cycles
12 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
20 Cycles
Elapsed
Time
(Days)
3
8
10
12
19
31
92
3
15
17
19
27
41
104
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
3
15
27
29
36
50
112
PCB
1248
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.25U
0.1 OU
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.21)
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
PCB
1254
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.25U
0.10U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
0.3N
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.25U
0.20U
PCB
1260
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.3U
0.2U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.3U
0.25U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.2U
0.3U
0.25U
0.2U
0.2U
0.25U
0.1U
0.3U
0.25U
0.25U
0.3U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
Total
Phenols
68
45
15J
15J
22
22J
70
60
78
20
10
5U
5
8
42
68
58
12
5U
5U
5J
90
85
70
15
5U
5U
5J
68
70
62
15
5U
5U
5J
B-49
------- |