EPA-600/2-83-088
FEASIBILITY OF IN SITU SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
OF LANDFILLED HAZARDOUS WASTES
by
J. Bruce Truett
Richard L. Holberger
Kris W. Barrett
The MITRE Corporation
McLean, Virginia 22102
Contract No. 68-02-3665
Project Officers
Wendy J. Davis-Hoover
Donald E. Sanning
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in
part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3665 to The MITRE Corporation. It has been sub-
ject to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommen-
dation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollu-
tion to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air,
foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimonies to the deterior-
ation of our natural environment. The complexity of that environ-
ment and the interplay of its components require a concentrated and
integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solution, and it involves defining the problem, measuring
its impact, and searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory develops new and improved technology and systems
to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and solid and hazardous
waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community sources, to
prevent and treat public drinking water supplies, and to minimize
the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution. Thi.3 publication is one of the products of that research
and is a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
The application of solidification/stabilization technology to
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites is considered a possible solution
to the problem of toxic discharges from landfilled hazardous sub-
stances. This report summarizes research that has been conducted to
determine if current technology is suitable for in situ application
at landfills as a solution to the problem.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the feasibility of solidifying or
stabilizing hazardous industrial wastes that are already in place at
a landfill. Solidification methods considered include (1) incorpor-
ating the waste in solids formed by cement, lime, or lime/siliceous
materials, organic polymers, or thermoplastic materials such as
bitumens; (2) fusing the waste with soil to form a vitreous solid,
and (3) isolating the waste by enclosing it in impermeable, inert
envelopes (surface encapsulation) or smaller capsules (microencap-
sulation), or by constructing an impermeable barrier of grout or
other material that completely surrounds the entire mass of land-
filled waste. Other waste stabilization methods that do not involve
solidification were also considered (e.g., neutralizing or destroy-
ing hazardous constituents by chemical reaction or immobilizing
toxic ions by ion-exchange mechanisms). The neutralizing or
immobilizing agents can be applied most effectively by injection
into the fill or surrounding soils.
None of the solidification methods appears generally applicable
to large landfills containing mixed industrial wastes, although two
methods (injection of reactive chemical agents and vitrification) ,
appear promising for some specific applications.
The more promising methods were examined for possible
application at a specific landfill—the 8.5 acre LaBounty site at
Charles City, Iowa. This fill poses several problems for in situ
remedial actions, including a diversity of chemical constituents
that are located partially below the water table and in contact with
highly-fractured bedrock containing an important aquifer system.
None of the solidification/stabilization methods appears suitable
for in situ application as a principal means of pollution control at
this site because of large variations in the permeability of the
fill material and the diverse chemical composition of the wastes.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number
68-02-3665 by The MITRE Corporation under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period
November 1981 to March 1982, and work was completed as of April 1982.
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword ........... iii
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables viii
1. Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background on In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
Technology ..... . 1
Selection of the LaBounty Demonstration Site 3
2. Conclusions 5
General Feasibility of In Situ Solidification/
Stabilization 5
Feasibility of In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
at the LaBounty Site 6
3. Methods of In Situ Solidification/Stabilization 7
Scope of In Situ Waste Treatment 8
Solidification Methods 10
Stabilization Methods 13
Advantages and Disadvantages of Selected Methods 15
4. Feasibility of Applying Solidification/Stabilization
Methods to Landfilled Wastes 23
Factors Relating to the Feasibility of In Situ
Solidification/Stabilization 23
Methods of Applying Solidifying/Stabilizing Agents
In Situ to Landfilled Wastes 25
Feasibility of In Situ Application of Solidification/
Stabilization Techniques 29
v
-------
5. DATA AND OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO IN SITU STABILIZATION
AT THE LABOUNTY SITE 37
Geological Characteristics 37
Hydrogeologic Characteristics 39
Waste Characteristics 45
Soil Characteristics . 45
Location of Wells; Drilling and Core Sample Sites 45
Results of the July i960 Field Investigation at the
LaBounty Site 47
Prognosis for In Situ Solidification/Stabilization at
the LaBounty Site 64
References 67
Appendix 71
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Soil Limits for Grout Injectivity 27
2 LaBounty Site Location Map ....... 38
3 Bedrock Topography at LaBounty Site 40
4 Generalized Geologic Section at the LaBounty
Site 41
5 Conceptual Model of Water Flow at the LaBounty
Site Before Capping - 1980 43
6 Groundwater Elevation Contours at LaBounty
Site 44
7 Locations of Wells and Bore Sites, July 1980 .... 48
VII
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Selected
Solidification/Stabilization Techniques
Considered for Potential In Situ Use 16
2 Compatibility of Selected Waste Categories
With Different Waste Solidification/
Stabilization Techniques .... 21
3 Quantities of Principal Hazardous Materials
at LaBounty Site, August 1977 46
4 Generalized Core Descriptions 50
5 Generalized Descriptions of Major Components
of Typical Core 52
6 Physical Characteristics of Core Bore Site L-l-80. . 53
7 Physical Characteristics of Core Bore Site L-2-80. . 54
8 Physical Characteristics of Core Bore Site L-7-80. . 55
9 Physical Characteristics of Core Bore Site L-8-80. . 56
10 Physical Characteristics of Core Bore Site L-17 . . 57
11 Principal Hazardous Constituents in Wells
Samples 59
12 Principal Hazardous Constituents in Borehole
Groundwater Samples (Bailer) and Leachate
Prepared from Core Samples 60
A-l Listing of Water Quality and Soil Investigations
in the Vicinity of Charles City 77
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The principal purpose of this report was to investigate the
feasibility of solidifying or stabilizing hazardous industrial
wastes that are already in place at a landfill. An ancillary
purpose is to investigate the potential applicability of solidifi-
cation/stabilization methods to the specific conditions at one waste
disposal site—the LaBounty site at Charles City, Iowa.
Background on In Situ Solidification/Stabilization Technology
Since the early 1970's, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has been involved in research, development, and
demonstration of methods for the proper management of hazardous
wastes. This activity was given added impetus by the passage of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) or Public Law
94-580, which amended the earlier Solid Waste Disposal Act and
focused attention on problems relating to hazardous wastes and the
need for improvement in hazardous waste management techniques.
EPA's Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (MERL) has
sponsored much of the research and development on methods for
managing solid and hazardous wastes. One of the approaches
investigated by MERL involves incorporating or encapsulating the
waste in an inert solid material in such a way as to prevent the
release of hazardous components to the environment, or to limit the
-------
rates at which hazardous materials are released (through leaching or
other mechanisms).
A number of techniques have been developed for stabilizing
liquid, semi-solid, or solid wastes in this manner. Some are
patented, and several are currently in commercial use. Under
contract to MERL, the Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station has surveyed the various solidification/stabilization
methods, described the procedures involved, identified the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each method, and prepared a "Guide
to the Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and Solidified Wastes."
With few exceptions, the methods developed thus far have been
designed to pretreat hazardous wastes before final disposal in
landfills or by other means. The wastes can be classified by size
(if appropriate), and thoroughly mixed with fixative agents under
controlled conditions. The materials being processed can be tested
at various stages to insure that chemical reactions are complete and
the product will have the desired properties of hardness, resistance
to leaching, etc.
MERL is interested in the feasibility of applying solidifi-
cation/stabilization methods to hazardous wastes already deposited
in landfills without first removing the wastes and treating them by
conventional solidification/stabilization technology. One solidifi-
cation method has been designed for in situ application: thermal
fusion caused by passing an electrical current through the mixture
-------
of waste and soils, and followed by vitrification upon cooling of
the fused materials. This report discusses the feasibility of in
situ application of this and other methods.
Selection of the LaBounty Demonstration Site
Chemical wastes from a manufacturer of veterinary pharmaceu-
ticals and agricultural chemicals had been deposited at the LaBounty
site in Charles City, Iowa, from 1953 until the site was closed in
1977. Following field investigations conducted in 1978, EPA Region
VII and State agencies concluded that contaminated leachate from the
site was entering the groundwater and the Cedar River in the vicin-
ity of the site. Remedial actions were proposed by the generator
who placed his wastes at the site. At the request of EPA Region
VII, and in response to a Congressional mandate, the LaBounty site
was surveyed by research personnel of the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, and the site has been considered as a possible
demonstration site for in situ stabilization techniques.
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions are presented here concerning the feasibility of
in situ solidification/stabilization in general, and its application
to the LaBounty site in particular.
General Feasibility of In Situ Solidification/Stabilization
• A number of methods are available for effectively
solidifying or otherwise stabilizing a great variety of
hazardous wastes, particularly inorganic wastes, but also an
increasing number of organics. Some of these methods have.
been demonstrated and are commercially available for
large-scale applications. All of the demonstrated methods
require thorough mixing of the waste and solidification/
stabilization agents.
• The effective use of existing solidification methods for
in situ application to wastes buried in landfills is
technically infeasible (with one possible exception) at the
current state of technology. The possible exception—
vitrification by electrical energy—is economically
infeasible for large-scale use with most industrial
hazardous wastes.
• Effective in situ application of existing stabilization
methods that do not involve solidification is feasible for
landfilled wastes under certain conditions where simple
neutralization and/or oxidation-reduction reactions are
possible.
• No actual examples of large-scale applications of in situ
solidification or stabilization in the U.S. were identified
during the present study.
• Two commonly encountered characteristics of industrial
landfills that militate against the in situ application of
solidification/stabilization technology are:
- Large variation in permeability of the landfilled wastes
(and intermixed soils) from one part of the fill to
another.
- Diversity in the chemical constituents of the wastes and
variations in their concentration from one part of the
fill to another.
-------
• Chemical components of some wastes may interfere with the
desired action of certain solidification/stabilization
agents, whether they are applied before deposition of wastes
in a landfill, in situ, or after the wastes have been re-
moved. There appears to be no generally available base of
quantitative data on how various concentrations of specific
interfering substances affect the performance of specific
solidification/stabilization agents.
Feasibility of In Situ Solidification/Stabilization at the LaBounty
Site
• Identified solidification/stabilization methods are infea-
sible for in situ application at the LaBounty landfill,
principally because of four conditions at this site:
- Large variations in permeability of the chemical fill and
soils from one part of the fill to another;
- The diverse chemical composition of the landfilled wastes
and their heterogeneous distribution within the fill;
The suitability of the principal hazardous constituents
of the site to currently available in situ methods; and
- The highly fractured condition of bedrock underlying the
site.
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS OF IN SITU SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
This section identifies methods for solidifying and stabilizing
hazardous waste materials and discusses their characteristics that
might affect their practicality for use with wastes in landfills.
The terms "solidification" and "stabilization" are used in
EPA's Guide to the Disposal of Chemically Stabilized and Solidified
Wastes to refer to treatments that (a) improve waste handling
and physical characteristics, (b) decrease the surface area across
which transfer or loss of contained pollutants can occur, and
(c) limit the solubility or detoxify any hazardous component of the
waste. Solidification implies that the treated wastes will be
contained in a solid mass, whereas stabilization implies that the
hazardous components of the waste will be rendered insoluble or
otherwise immobile or that their hazardous characteristics (e.g.,
toxicity) will be neutralized. Both the solidification and stabili-
zation approaches to waste treatment generally involve the addition
of materials to effect hardening or neutralization.
Most of the methods for solidification/stabilization were
developed for use with liquid, semi-solid, or solid wastes before
deposition in landfills or other disposal sites. Whether such
methods can be applied effectively to landfilled wastes in situ is
discussed in Section 4.
Whether the application of a given solidification/stabilization
method to a specific landfilled waste should be considered to be an
7
-------
in situ application is not always clear. Before specific solidifi-
cation/stabilization methods are described in this section, the
scope of in situ treatment will be discussed.
Scope of In Situ Waste Treatment
In this report, the term in situ treatment of landfilled waste
materials means that the treatment is applied to the landfilled
waste while located within the fill. It is not used to mean treat-
ment of wastes excavated from the fill, irrespective of whether the
waste is excavated as a total mass or removed in increments, and
irrespective of whether ;he solidified, stabilized product is
replaced in the original landfill or otherwise disposed of. When-
ever the solidification or stabilization process occurs external to
the fill, the application is not considered in situ in the present
report. Methods of non-in situ solidification/stabilization of
17 18 21
wastes have been adequately described in other EPA documents, ' '
19 30 20
vendor publications, ' and the open literature. These
methods do not require extensive treatment in this report.
There are two borderline cases that require clarification. One
occurs when the stabilization is effected by injection of a treat-
ment agent into the buried mass, producing a polluted leachate while
leaving the original waste in a stabilized, non-hazardous condi-
tion. The basic approach—injection of a stabilizing agent into the
buried mass—qualifies as an in situ procedure, although subsequent
treatment of the leachate (or perhaps gaseous byproduct), if pumped
-------
or otherwise removed from the fill, is not considered to be in situ
treatment.
Another borderline case that could logically be classified as
in situ stabilization is that of isolating the waste from any
driving force that would cause the release or dispersal of hazardous
components to the environment. In the case of an existing landfill,
this approach could involve sealing the entire mass of the fill—
top, bottom, and sides—by impermeable (or highly impervious)
barriers that prevent the infiltration of precipitation or the flow
of groundwater through the fill, thereby precluding the formation of
polluted leachate or the movement of pollutants from the site.
Several problems arise if macro-scale isolation is considered
as a form of in situ stabilization. The foremost among these is
that, in most practical situations, complete physical isolation of
1o iq 20
the waste mass is not undertaken as an initial remedial step. ' '
Instead, partial barriers such as upgradient cut-off walls, surface
caps, or bottom seals are installed sequentially until the desired
limitation of pollutant release is achieved. These separate steps
cannot logically be considered as either solidification or stabili-
zation. Second, this approach does not appear to fall within the
purview of those sections of the Environmental Research and
Development and Authorization Act of 1981 (PL 96-569) that pertain
to in situ solidification. Third, this approach does not fall
directly within the definition of in situ solidification/stabiliza-
17 1 8
tion given in EPA's guidance documents on solid waste treatment. '
-------
However, because the isolation/barrier approach to pollution control
can be used in conjunction with certain types of waste solidifica-
tion techniques, and since in its ultimate form it is a type of
in situ stabilization, this approach is discussed in the present
report. The feasibility of installing partial barriers or enclo-
sures that do not effect complete isolation is not evaluated.
Isolation of the hazardous materials can also be approached on
a less massive scale, in the form of "surface encapsulation" and
"microencapsulation" techniques. For the present study these
techniques will be considered as forms of solidification, and are
discussed further in that contsxt.
Solidification Methods
In most of the solidification techniques, the waste is
chemically or mechanically bound within a solid in such a way that
pollutants are not readily released upon exposure to air, water,
soil, or the mild acids commonly encountered in the atmosphere or
naturally occuring aquatic environments. Some of the methods can
produce solid blocks, pellets, or other forms that can be stored or
used in a load-bearing landfill. Other methods produce a slurry
that can be placed on a landfill to harden into a surface with
relatively high load-bearing capabilities.
The principal types of solidification/stabilization tech-
niques are outlined below. Most of these techniques have
limits on the proportion of organic pollutant species that
can be included within the mix. These summary descriptions
10
-------
17 18 21
are based mainly on earlier EPA publications, ' ' to which
reference is made for more complete descriptions of the respective
methods.
Crystalline Matrix Methods
One type of solidification process is based on the formation of
crystalline structures such as the hydrated limestone-type crystals
formed by portland cement. Processes of this type usually involve
mixing a solution or slurry of the waste material with the solidify-
ing agent, which may be lime, portland cement, various siliceous
materials, oriother inorganic materials that set up to form a rigid
crystalline or semi-crystalline substance. Vendors for some of the
patented solidification processes assert that ionic components of
the waste (e.g., metallic ions) are incorporated within the crystal
structure. This method is generally limited to wastes with low
organic content, especially when the organic material is in liquid
form. Various sources quote limits of organic content ranging from
10 28
5 to 20 percent. ' The allowable percentage could reasonably
be expected to depend on the type of solidifying agent, the type of
organic material, and the desired properties of the solid product.
Organic Polymer Methods
Another type of solidification process involves dispersing the
waste within a liquid organic monomer, then adding an agent that
causes the. monomer to polymerize, forming either a dense, rigid
solid (as from an epoxy monomer) or foam-like mass (as from urea-
formaldehyde) in which particles of the waste are trapped or
11
-------
enclosed. The urea-formaldehyde polymer system sometimes used in
this type of process is more susceptible to shrinkage or degradation
during long-term environmental exposure than solidification systems
employing polymers such as polyesters or styrenes.
Thermoplastic Matrix Methods
A third type of solidification process involves mixing the
waste with a bituminous material such as asphalt or other thermo-
plastic organic materials such as paraffin. The mixing may be
accomplished by stirring the waste with the molten thermoplastic
material, or by mechanical blending and compression of the waste
with the thermoplastic in solid .or semisolid form. Depending on the
type of thermoplastic and the conditions of mixing, the product will
be a thermoplastic material that can be extruded, spread on sur-
faces, or cast into blocks. Products of this type are generally
highly impervious to water.
Encapsulation Methods
A fourth type of solidification process involves placing the
waste in an inert, impervious coating. In one such process, some-
times termed "surface encapsulation", the waste is solidified into
blocks by processes as described in the preceding paragraphs, and
the blocks are coated with a heavy, seamless, impermeable layer of a
polymeric material such as polyethylene. A second process of this
type encloses much smaller quantities of the waste in a manner
12
-------
described as analogous in concept to pharmaceutical-type capsules,
although not of the same size or geometric shape. In this method,
sometimes termed microencapsulation, the waste is enclosed in a
stable, inert material or in a degradable material which
releases the was:te material to the environment at a slow,
controlled rate.
Thermal Fusion and Vitrification
A fifth type of solidification process involves vitrification
of the wastes by application of heat. In the case of in situ appli-
cations, the heat could be generated by passing electric current
through the mass of waste material. At sufficiently high tempera-
tures, any soil or rock components of the waste will melt, most
organic materials will decompose, and many metallic components will
either fuse or vaporize. Gases and vapors may require recovery
and/or treatment, depending on the composition of the wastes. Upon
cooling, the fused mass will solidify into a glassy or crystalline
product that has about the same chemical stability as granite;
however, the physical and chemical properties of the solid product
might reasonably be expected to depend on the composition of the
rock and soil.
Stabilization Methods
Stabilization by Addition of Chemically Reactive Agents
Some specific chemical constituents in wastes may be neutral-
ized, immobilized, or rendered less harmful by specific additives
13
-------
that react chemically with the hazardous constituent. A strongly
acidic (or alkaline) waste could be neutralized by the addition of
an alkaline (or acidic) material, or its level of acidity (or
alkalinity) could be controlled by an appropriate buffering agent.
A simple toxic species such as a cyanide might be de-toxified by
reaction with a strong oxidizing agent such as the hypochlorite
ion. Heavy metal ions may be immobilized by reaction with an
additive that forms a precipitate of very low solubility, or may be
rendered less harmful by reaction with a sequestering or chelating
agent, although the resulting chelate might pose a separate problem.
In general, each individual pollutant (or in some cases,
classes of pollutants such as heavy metal ions) in the waste could
require different chemical agents to render it non-hazardous.
Moreover, a particular chemical added to cope with one hazardous
constituent might cause antagonistic or counterproductive reactions
with other constituents. Thus the addition of an oxidizing agent
intended to destroy a specific organic compound might also change
the valence state of a metallic ion making the metal more toxic or
mobile•
Stabilization by the Action of Ion Exchange Resins
Wastes containing heavy metals and certain organic compounds
can produce leachate contaminated by toxic cations (e.g., heavy
metals) and anions (e.g., cyanide). When such leachates contact
selected ion-exchange resins under appropriate conditions, the toxic
ions in the leachate will attach to the resin while releasing an
14
-------
innocuous ion into the leachate. This approach has been applied for
the detoxification of certain hazardous wastes in equipment designed
for contacting the liquid waste within the resin. An alternative
approach that might prove useful in landfills is to inject into the
landfilled wastes or the surrounding soil, a fluid containing
ion-exchange materials and a material that will polymerize or form a
gel. Under appropriate conditions, the polymer or gel will form
in situ and will be imbedded with the ion-exchange resin. The solid
component (e.g., the polymer or gel, or a matrix of these materials
and soil) will tend to impede movement of leachate through the soil
while immobilizing toxic species in the leachate through the
mechanism of ion exchange. Laboratory experimentation with this
process indicates it to be technically feasible, but field
29
demonstrations have not yet been reported.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Selected Methods
The principal advantages and disadvantages of several classes
of solidification/stabilization methods, including those outlined
above, are summarized in Table 1. A listing of possible constit-
uents of the treated wastes which might adversely affect the use of
each technique is given in Table 2. The information in this table
is entirely qualitative. Although individual vendors have informa-
tion about the quantitative effects of specific interfering sub-
stances on the setting characteristics of grouts and the performance
of specific solidification agents or techniques, information of this
nature does not appear to be available in the open literature.
15
-------
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OP SELECTED SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
TECHNIQUES CONSIDERED FOR POTENTIAL IN SITU USE
Advantages
Disadvantages
CRYSTALLINE MATRIX METHODS
Cement-Based Methods
- The amount of cement used can be varied to produce high load bearing
capacities (making the waste concrete good subgrade and subfoundatlon
materials) and low permeability In the product.
- Raw materials are plentiful and inexpensive.
- The technology and management of cement mixing and handling is well
known, the equipment is commonplace, and specialized labor Is not required.
- Extensive drying or dewatering of waste is not required because cement
mixtures require water, and the amount of cement added can be adapted
through wide ranges of water contents.
- The system Is tolerant of most chemical variations. Tin; natural alkalinity
of the cement used can neutralize acids. Cement Is not affected by strong
oxldlzers such as nitrates or chlorates. Pretreatnent Is required only for
materials that retard of Interfere with the setting action of cement.
- Leaching characteristics can be improved where necessary by coating the
resulting produce with a sealant.
Lime/Siliceous Methods
- Product is generally a solid with improved handling and permeability
characteristics*
- The materials are often very low In cost and widely available.
- Little specialized equipment is required for processing, as lime is a
common additive in other waste streams.
- The chemistry of llme-pozzolanic reactions are relatively well-known.
Sulfate does not cause spilling or cracking.
- Extensive dewatering is not necessary because water Is required in the
setting reaction.
- Extensive pretreatment, more expensive cement types or
additives may be necessary for waste containing large amounts
of impurities such as borates and sulfates that affect the
setting or curing of the waste-concrete mixture.
- The alkalinity of cement drives off ammonium ion as ammonia gas.
- Relatively large amounts of cement are required for most treat-
ment processes (but this may partly be offset by the low cost
of material). The weight and volume of the final produce Is
typically about double those of other solidification processes.
- Uncoated cement-based products may require a well-designed land-
fill for burial. Experience In radioactive waste disposal
Indicates that some wastes are leached from the solidified
concrete, espcially by mildly acidic leaching solutions.
- Organic wastes, especially oils, may Interfere with setting or
may affect properties of resultant solid.
- Lime and other additives add to the weight and bulk to be trans-
ported and/or landfllled.
- Uncoated lime-treated materials may require specially designed
landfills to guarantee that the material does not lose potential
pollutants by leaching.
- There is no evidence that It will fix organ!cs.
-------
TABLE 1
(continued)
Advantages
Disadvantages
ORGANIC POLYMER METHODS
- Leas treatment reagent is required for solidifying the waste than in other
systems. The waste-to-reagent ratio is usually about 302 greater for a UF
organic polymer system than with cement.
- The waste material treated is usually devatered, but It is not necessarily
dried as in thermoplastic processes* (The finished, solidified polymer,
however, must be dried before ultimate disposal.)
- The organic resin used is consistently less dense (specific gravity is
approximately 1.3) than cement. The low density reduces the transportation
cost related to the reagents and to the treated products*
- The solidified resin is nonflammable, and high temperatures are not required
In forming the resin.
• No chemical reactions occur in the solidification process that
chemically binds the potential pollutants. The particles of
waste material are trapped in an organic resin matrix, and
breakdown or leaching of the matrix will relese many of the
waste materials*
- Catalysts used in the UF systems are strongly acidic, and the
waste-UF mixture must be maintained at pH 1.5 4; 0.5 for
solidification to occur in a rapid manner. The low pH can put
many waste materials into solution. If the pH is not lowered to
1.5, the polymerization is slow; solids will thus settle out,
and the waste material will not be trapped effectively.
• Unconbined or weep water is often associated with polymerized
water. This must be allowed to evaporate to produce a fully-
cured polymer. This weep water may be strongly acidic and may
contain high levels of pollutants.. Waste-UF mixtures shrink
as they age and will produce weep water during aging.
Some catelysts used In polymerization are highly corrosive and
require special mixing equipment and container liners.
• The reaction producing the resin may release fumes that can be
harmful or disagreeable even In low concentrations.
Some c
biodeg
cured resins, especially UF-based systems, are
gradable and have a high chemical oxygen demand.
Secondary containment in steel drums is a common practice in
the use of organic resins, which Increases the cost of
processing and transportation.
-------
TABLE 1
(continued)
Advantages
Pi sadvantages
OO
THERMOPLASTIC METHODS (Including Bitumens)
- Th« r««« of loam to contacting fluid* mr« algnlrlcantlr lowr than tho»«
observed with cenent-basad and poczolon ay§teo».
- By disposing of the waste In a dry condition, the overall volume of the
waste Is greatly reduced.
- Host thermoplastic matrix materials are resistant to attack by aqueous
solutions* and mlcroblal degradation Is minimal.
- Host matrices adhere well to Incorporated materials.
- Materials embedded In a thermoplastic matrix can be reclaimed If needed.
- Expensive, complicated equipment requiring highly specialized
labor is necessary for processing.
- The plasticity of the matrix-waste mixtures may require that
containers be provided for transportation and disposal of tbe
materials, which greatly Increases the cost.
- The waste materials to be incorporated must be dried, which
requires large amounts of energy. Incorporating wet wastes
greatly increases losses through leaching.
- These systems cannot be used with materials that decompose at
high temperatures, especially citrates and certain types of
plastics.
- There Is a risk of fire In working with organic materials such
as bitumen at elevated temperatures.
- During heating, some mixes can release objectionable oils and
odors causing secondary air pollution.
- Some organlcs are readily leached.
- The incorporation of tetraborates of iron and aluminum salts In
bitumen matrices causes premature hardening, and can clog and
damage the mixing equipment.
- Strong oxidizers usually cannot be Incorporated into organic
materials with the occurrence of oxidizing reactions. High
concentrations of strong oxldizers at elevated processing
temperatures can cause fires.
- Dehydrated salts incoporated In the thermoplastic matrix will
slowly rehydrate if the mixture Is soaked In water. The
rehydrated salt will expand the mixture causing the waste block
to fragment and increasing its surface area greatly.
-------
TABLE 1
(continued)
Advantages
Disadvantages
SURFACE ENCAPSULATION METHODS
- The waste material never comes Into contact with water, therefore,
soluble materials such as sodium chloride can be successfully surface
encapsulated.
- The Impervious jacket eliminates all leaching Into contacting waters as
long as the Jacket remains Intact.
- The resins required for ensapsulatlng are expensive.
- The process requires large expenditures of energy In drying,
fusing the binder, and forming the jacket.
- Polyethylene Is combustible, with a flash point of 350°C,
making fires a potential hazard.
THERMAL FUSING AND VITRIFICATION METHODS
- The process is assumed to produce a high degree of containment of
wastes.
- The additives used can be relatively Inexpensive (syenite and lime)-
- Can be performed without close contact between workers and waste
materials.
- The system requires extensive capital Investment and equipment.
- Skilled labor Is required to operate the molding and fusing
equipment•
- Some constituents (especially metals) may be vaporized and
lost before they csn bind with the molten sillce if
high-temperature processes are used.
• The process Is energy-Intensive* The waste-silicate charge
must be heated (often up to 1350°C) for melting and fusion.
• Specialized equipment and trained personnel are required for
this type of operation.
• No experience with organlcs, potential to create dloxln and
other hazards.
IN SITU INJECTION OF NEUTRALIZING CHEMICALS
- When the chemistry and circumstances are such that a hazardous
material Is amenable to chemical control, chemical Injection may be
a cost-effective method to correct a problem due to leaching*
- The method could potentially control a hazardous situation In which no
other alternative is feasible.
• The fact that the source of the problem is burled deeply in
the ground Introduces many uncertainties such as the dimensions
of the affected landfill volume, the concentration gradients In
the system, whether any causative material Is retained in drums
only to continue to propagate the problem, etc.
• Some displacement of the pollutant, perhaps to environs outside
of the landfill, will occur due to the Injection of the added
volume of the chemical solution.
-------
TABLE i
(concluded)
Advantages
Disadvantages
ISOLATION BY BOTTOM SEALING AND SURFACE CAPPING
Bottom Sealing
- Grouting has been a standard practice for many years and IB very
effective In gravel and sand.
- Construction la relatively easy and can be performed at any tine of year.
Surface Sealing
- Surface seals can be Installed easily and economically.
- Contractors with equipment for major eorthmovlng projects are
available throughout the United States.
- Cover material may be available free of charge*
- Soil-cement and lime-stabilized soil construction ie relatively
inexpensive and can be accomplished with locally available equipment
- Soil-cement seals do not have to be covered with soil.
- Lime-stabilized soils can withstand some settlement without ruptura
- Bituminous paving can be used to cover large areas rapidly.
- In landfills where subsidence potential Is minor (I.e., those with shal-
low old veil-compacted wastes), no further maintenance will be required'
- Long service life is anticipated.
- Membrane seals can withstand some settlement.
- Drilling through cti« fill or vut« tucartal may bt difficult b«c*u*« of
••.nknovn lucerlaia.
• The grout-take may be erratic when uncharted pockets of
fire-grained soils are encountered.
• Methods of determining that all voids between boreholes have
been effectively grouted are not readily available. After
Installation, an ungrouted void would be difficult to locate.
Overdeslgn of the grout barrier Is almost unavoidable because
of the uncertainties Involved in creating a solidified mass
beneath the landfill t" prevent seepage.
• Bottom sealing has not yet been used on landfills and leachate
may haw a deleterious effect on the grout Integrity.
- The cover and seal are subject to settlement and/or subsidence
within the landfill.
- Vegetation will require maintenance until it has become firmly
established (1 to 2 years).
- Specific sealing materials:
a) Natural clay deposits may not be available.
b) Fossil-fueled energy stations are not located
In all parts of the country to supply fly ash
c) Heavy metals in fly ash used as cover material
can be mobilized by precipitation and cause pollution
d) Soil-cement caps may rupture with settlement of
the landfill.
e) Membrane materials are expensive.
- Large quantities of borrow materials may be necessary to
establish required slopes on the landfill surface.
- Gas venting must be provided with all surface seals.
Source: Adapted from Reference 17.
-------
TABLE 2
COMPATIBILITY OF SELECTED WASTE CATEGORIES WITH DIFFERENT WASTE SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES
Treatment Type
Waste
Component
Cement
Based
Lime
Based
Thermoplastic
Solidification
Organic Surface Thermal Fusion
Polymer (UF)a Encapsulation and Vitrification
Organlcs:
1.
2.
Inorg
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Organic solvents
and oils
Solid organlcs
(e*g* , plastics,
resins, tars)
,anics:
Acid wastes
Oxldizers
Suifates
Halldes
Heavy metals
Radioactive
Materials
Many Impede setting
may escape as vapor
Good — often increases
durability
Cement will
neutralize acids
Compatible
May retard setting
and cause spalllng
unless special cement
is used
Easily leached from
cement, may retard
setting
Compatible
Compatible
Many Impede setting
may escape as vapor
Good — often increases
durability
Compatible
Compatible
Coraaptible
May retard set,
most are easily
leached
Compatible
Compatible
Organ! ce may
vaporize on
heating
Possible use as
binding agent
Can be neutral-
ized before
incorporation
May cause matrix
May dehydrate
and rehydrate
causing
splitting
May dehydrate
Compatible
Compatible
May retard set
of polymers
May retard set
of polymers
Compatible
May cause
• Compatible
Compatible
Acid pH solu-
billzes metal
hydroxides
Compatible
Must first be
absorbed on
solid matrix
Com pa t i bl e — ma ny
encapsulation
materials are
plastic
Can be neutral-
ized before
May cause deter-
encapsulatlng
materials
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Compatible
Wastes decompose at
may form undesirable
pyrolysis products
Wastes decompose at
high temperatures
Can be neutralized
High temperatures
may cause undesir-
able reactions
Compatible in many
cases
Compatible in
many cases
Compatible in
many cases
Compatible
aUrea-Formaldehyde resin.
Source: Reference 17
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
22
-------
SECTION 4
FEASIBILITY OF APPLYING SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
METHODS TO LANDFILLED WASTES
This section outlines the conditions needed for effective
solidification or stabilization of hazardous wastes by the methods
identified in Section 3, and draws conclusions concerning the
prospect for successful in situ application.
Factors Relating to the Feasibility of In Situ Solidification/
Stabilization
All except one of the methods for waste solidification dis-
cussed in the preceding section require two conditions for success-
ful in situ application. The exception is the fusion/vitrification
method in Section 3. These conditions are:
• The composition of the waste must be known.
• The waste must be thoroughly mixed with the solidification
agent(s).
Information on waste composition is needed to determine whether
waste components will interfere with the proper "setting up" of the
solidification material by crystallization, polymerization, gelling,
adhesion, or other setting mechanisms. It is also needed to permit
formulation of the proper additives for neutralization or detoxifi-
cation, if this approach is used. The required level of detail
concerning waste composition and physical characteristics differs
for the various solidification methods.
In some processes such as containment of the solid within a
bituminous material, the efficiency of the process (in terms of
amount of waste contained per unit of solid formed) depends on the
23
-------
thoroughness of the mixing. In cases where the waste participates
directly in the chemical reactions that form the solid product (as
in providing water of hydration in a cement-setting process) or when
two or more additives must be blended (as with a polymerizing agent
and a monomer in addition to the waste), the thoroughness of the
mixing and blending is critical to the formation of a solid with the
desired properties.
In the discussions that follow, it is assumed that the required
information about the landfilled waste material, surrounding rock
and soil, and groundwater, is available or can be determined at the
required level of detail by established methods of sampling and
analysis. This information may include chemical composition and
physical characteristics of the waste; quantities and spatial
distribution of the wastes; types and characteristics of surrounding
and intermixed soils, rocks, and other geologic materials; and rates
and directions of groundwater movement. Methods for acquiring these
types of information are described in a variety of manuals,
handbooks, and other sources (References 22 through 25, for example)
and their use is demonstrated in the case study of the LaBounty
disposal site (Section 5 and Appendix A).
The second requirement—that of providing a sufficient degree
of mixing or contact between the landfilled wastes and the solidify-
ing agent(s)—presents a more fundamental and difficult problem in
the general case of multiple-constituent wastes buried and inter-
mixed with soils of different textures and hydraulic conductivities.
24
-------
Examination of the literature included in the References to
this report (Section 6) reveals that the degree of mixing or contact
that can be expected to occur when a solidification/ stabilization
agent is applied in situ to a given landfilled waste is dependant on
a large number of parameters. Several parameters that influence the
degree and rate of contact are:
• viscosity of the applied agent
• permeability* of the waste material
• permeability* of surrounding soils (if they are contaminated)
• porosity of the waste material and soils
• degree of saturation of waste material and soils
• spatial distribution of the waste material relative to
soils, rocks, and other surrounding materials
• setting time for solidification agents.
Methods of Applying Solidifying/Stabilizing Agents In Situ to
Landfilled Wastes
The number of in situ application methods identified in the
referenced literature or in vendor publications is very limited.
These include:
*It is recognized that "permeability" involves the penetration of
one substance (soil or waste) by another (usually a liquid). In
standard soil determinations, the liquid is considered to be
water. Permeability is sometimes reported in different units,
depending on the method of determination. Here, permeability is
considered synomymous with hydraulic conductivity and is reported
in units of distance/time, since these are units used in the case
study measurements in Section 5.
25
-------
• Injection of the solidifying/stabilizing agents in liquid,
slurry, or possibly gaseous form into the mass of landfilled
wastes. Injection could be by means of porous tube(s) that
penetrate the fill at strategic locations to the depth
required, with the injection liquid under pressure, as
required.21
• Application of the stabilizing agent to the surface of a
fill, with infiltration by gravity into the (shallow) fill.
• Application of electrical energy by electrodes placed at
strategic locations within the fill.
None of the referenced sources proposes methods of in situ
mechanical mixing of a stablizing agent with buried solid wastes.
Injection of Solidifying/Stablizing Agents
Conditions under which chemical agents can be successfully
applied by injection are limited by the extent to which the fill
will be penetrated by the injected agent. The referenced literature
contains few quantitative guidelines for determining degree or
extent of penetration from a knowledge of properties of either the
fill or the surrounding (or intermixed) soils.
One such guideline is available from the relationship shown in
Figure 1. The upper part of this figure indicates the textural
classes of soils in which various types of grouts with widely
different viscosities can be successfully applied.
It must be carefully noted that the "limits for injectability"
shown in Figure 1 relate to the injection of grout material into
soil for the purpose of forming a seal or other solid structure.
They are not designed for determining permeation into non-soil
26
-------
Gravel
Fine
Sand
1 1
Coarse Medium Fine
1 1
Clay-Soil
Coarse Silt
Silt (Nonplastic)
] Chrome-LJgnin
] Resins
0.0
| Silica
) Bentonrte
| Portland Cement
i i
tes
1.0 0.1
Grain Size (mm)
i
0.01 0.001
Source: Reference 21
Figure 1. Soil Limits of Grout Injectability
27
-------
materials such as chemical wastes, and do not indicate the degree to
which such material will be incorporated, enclosed, or otherwise
solidified or stabilized by the grout. The graph provides only
general guidelines as to the textural classification of solid wastes
(insofar as this parameter might be related to the particle size
distribution of the waste materials) that can be penetrated by
grouts of the types indicated. There is no implication of chemical
compatibility of the waste and grout material, or of the effect of
the waste on grout setting characteristics.
However, the figure does provide substantive guidance about
conditions where injection should not be undertaken. For example,
it would contraindicate the use of a siliceous—type material for
solidifying wastes with textures finer than that of fine sand (with
grain size of about 0.15 millimeters), or a lignin gel with wastes
of finer texture than coarse silt (or about 0.04 millimeters grain
size).
Surface Application
The stabilizing agent can be applied to the landfill surface in
solid or liquid form and allowed to penetrate the waste materials by
infiltration, provided the landfill is sufficiently permeable (and
provided a chemical applied to the surface in solid form is
dissolved or otherwise transported by rainfall or wetting).
Surface application would be appropriate primarily for very
shallow, permeable, loosely-packed fills in which simple chemical
28
-------
reac-tions are used for rendering a specific waste component less
hazardous. This type of application does not appear generally
useful where a buried waste is to be incorporated or enclosed in a
rigid solid mass.
Application of Electrical Energy
This approach uses electrical energy at a rate sufficient to
heat a mass of buried wastes to temperatures above the fusion point
of surrounding soils and rocks. The energy is applied through
electrodes inserted in the landfill on either side of the wastes (or
portions thereof) to be melted. The electrodes are placed in the
ground or fill by drilling or other appropriate means, and a strip
of graphite in contact with the fill material is connected across
the electrodes to act as a "starter" in melting the fill. A cover
is placed over the surface of that portion of the fill which will be
fused at a given placement of the electrodes. The cover is intended
to capture gases released during the fusion. Captured gases are
ducted to a treatment unit as necessary. The real world limitations
of this technique have not been ascertained at this time.
Feasibility of In Situ Application of Solidification/Stabilization
Techniques
All of the methods for waste solidification or stabilization
outlined in Section 3 have been reviewed for in situ applicability
to landfilled solid wastes. Our conclusion is that none of the
methods are generally applicable to all situations, although two of
them—chemical injection and vitrification—appear applicable in
29
-------
certain specific situations. Some of the solidification methods
appear useful if employed with other means of pollution control.
These conclusions are based on either technical or economic
considerations, or some combination of these.
Feasibility of Stabilization Methods Not Involving
Solidification
Stabilization by injection of chemical agents into a landfill
appears to be a technically and economically feasible approach to
pollution control onlj in specific, limited cases where the follow-
ing conditions exist:
• The waste contains a homogeneous waste stream that can be
neutralized, chemically decomposed, or otherwise rendered
harmless by relatively simple reactions with a single
stabilizing agent.
• The pollutant components are either in solution or are in
the form of a solid that is highly permeable* to the
stabilizing agent (presumed to be in liquid form).
• Soils intermixed with the waste material (and contaminated
soils which surround the waste and which must also be
neutralized) are highly permeable to the stablizing agent.
The cost of stabilizing a hypothetical 10-acre landfill con-
taining about 180,000 cubic yards of cyanide-polluted waste by
injection of sodium hypochlorite solution has been estimated to be
about 15 to 30 percent of the cost of excavating this quantity of
21
fill . Here the cost of excavating does not include the cost of
neutralization, transporting, or reburial.
*Here,"highly permeable" is used to mean a permeation rate similar
to that of clean sand to water—about lO-*- to lO"-' cm/second.
The term is used only as a rough indication of the soil or waste
permeability to the stabilization agent.
30
-------
In cases where chemical injection is considered as a feasible
method of stabilization, the following restrictive factors should be
considered. First, the procedure is pollutant-specific. Second,
long-term effectiveness of the procedure is predicated on the condi-
tion that the pollutant neutralized is not generated by continuing
chemical or biological processes within the fill. Third, if the
specific pollutant is in an undissolved solid form, the concen-
tration of the stabilizing agent and the contact time must be
adjusted to allow the reaction to proceed to completion. Fourth,
the neutralizing agent, if not completely reacted, may itself be
considered a pollutant.
Feasibility of Stabilization by the Action of a Solidifying
Agent
No situations were identified in this study where in situ
solidification of a landfilled waste by the action of crystallizing,
polymerizing, or gelling agents appeared technically feasible. This
approach to solidification requires intimate mixing or blending of
the waste and the agent, or thorough dispersion of the waste
throughout the solidifying agent. Thorough mixing or dispersion is
difficult to insure through in situ application.
The two principal impediments to the use of this type of
in situ stablization are (1) non-homogeneity of the landfilled
wastes, with respect both to physical properties and chemical
properties, and (2) the possible presence of waste components (not
necessarily pollutants) that would interfere with proper setting of
the solidification agent.
31
-------
Feasibility of Soldification by Fusion/Vitrification
In situ vitrification of landfilled hazardous inorganic wastes
appears technically feasible in concept, but very expensive relative
to the other methods discussed in this report (with the possible
exception of excavation-treatment-reburial, which is not considered
an in situ method). Its technical feasibility for use with wastes
containing materials that form toxic gases or vapors at high
temperatures (for example, arsenic, mercury or organic materials
that produce dioxins) depends on the effectiveness of the
vapor—capture cover and vapor/gas treatment, equipment.
The description of this method in a vendor brochure
indicates that it has been demonstrated in tests involving the
fusion and solidification of 100 pounds of contaminated soil. The
method was later demonstrated in tests involving over ten tons of
soil. Although the results of the latter tests were not avail-
able for review at the time this report is being written,* it is the
tentative assessment of the authors that tests of this magnitude
cannot be conservatively interpreted as demonstrating that this
method is suitable for large-scale applications involving complex
mixtures of wastes, such as the case-study landfill containing 350
million pounds of chemical sludge and 2.3 billion pounds of
underlying or surrounding soil (as described in Section 5).
*Results are expected to be available in June 1982.
32
-------
The estimated cost of fusion/vitrification falls in the range
of $10 to $70 per cubic foot (1981 dollars), of which about 12
percent is for energy, 10 percent for equipment, and the remainder
for labor. As with many developing technologies, the cost is
expected to decrease greatly as experience is accumulated and
improved techniques and equipment are developed. Comparison of
these estimated costs of fusion/vitrification with those of several
alternative methods for controlling pollution from landfills (as
presented in Reference 21 and updated to 1981 dollars) suggests that
most of the,alternatives, with the possible exception of complete
excavation-treatment-reburial, are substantially less costly. The
cost differential depends strongly on types of waste and other
site-specific factors (including labor costs).
If, for either technical or economic reasons, the fusion/vitri-
fication method should not prove feasible for use with large-scale
landfills containing complex mixtures of chemicals, it may neverthe-
less prove to be appropriate and cost effective for treatment of
lesser quantities of highly hazardous wastes in landfills,
especially if the removal of the wastes would present severe
problems of environmental contamination or threats to the health of
personnel involved in excavation and treatment.
Solidification/Stabilization Used in Combination with Other
Pollution Control Measures
The materials produced by some of the solidification/stabiliza-
tion methods discussed in Section 3 are suitable for use in the
33
-------
construction of cover caps or cutoff walls for controlling rainwater
infiltration or groundwater flow through a landfill. For example,
the slurry produced by incorporating certain inorganic wastes with
Portland cement will set up to form a solid with load-bearing
characteristics similar to that of conventional concrete and with
low leachate-forming characteristics. The specific characteristics
of the solidified materials depends on the nature of the waste, the
proportion of waste to cement, the use of other additives, the
thoroughness of mixing, and possibly other factors. An appropri-
ately blended slurry could be used to form a strong, rigid,
low-permeability, slow-leaching, upgradient barrier to direct
groundwater flow around a landfilled area and thus reduce the
quantity of leachate formed in landfill.
In general, a cement-, lime-, or silicon-based solidification
agent incorporates inorganic wastes more successfully than organic,
especially if the latter are of an oily nature. Some bitumen-based
agents can accommodate many organic as well as inorganic waste
materials. A stabilized waste formed by mixing with bituminous
materials or fly ash might also be used to construct a slow-leach-
ing, upgradient barrier or surface cover.
Regardless of the solidification/stabilization method applied
to produce materials for use in groundwater diversion structures or
surface covers, the wastes to which these methods are applied would
have to be first removed from the fill and then processed in
34
-------
equipment capable of effecting the required degree of mixing or
blending. Hence the process(es) would not be in situ applications
according to the definitions in Section 3. Nevertheless, combined
approaches of the types mentioned here do provide a possible means
of on-site treatment that can reduce the amount of materials to be
transported and can reduce the amount of unstabilized waste that
remains in the fill. The portions removed and stabilized could be
selected to include the most hazardous, or most soluble (leachable),
or most highly concentrated portions of the landfill, as appropriate.
35
-------
36
-------
SECTION 5
DATA ANT OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO IN SITU
STABILIZATION AT THE LABOUNTY SITE
The LaBounty waste disposal site was identified as a source of
chemical pollutants in the groundwater and in the Cedar River
through an extensive sequence of field investigations. Some of the
principal investigations are outlined in Appendix A.
This section briefly describes the prominent geophysical and
hydrogeologic characteristics of the LaBounty site and presents data
relating to its suitability for a case study of in situ stabiliza-
tion techniques. The general location of the site is shown in
Figure 2.
Geological Characteristics
The site is located on the west side of the Cedar River in the
alluvial deposits which include the floodplain and a low terrace.
The northeastern one-third of the site overlays a portion of an
abandoned channel of river. The alluvium is characterized by
various combinations of clay, silt, sand, and gravel and typically
becomes coarser at greater depths. For example, the coarser cleaner
sands are generally located near the alluvial-bedrock and the finer
sands, silts, and clays are closer to the alluvial surface. Under-
lying the alluvium is a fractured bedrock unit consisting primarily
of limestone, with dolostone and shale, the Coralville members of
the Cedar Valley formation. The upper few feet of the member has
weathered to a calcareous clay which is not considered to be a
continuous unit and does not act as an aquiclude. Contours of
37
-------
00
WfUrloo. \! Dubuque
AN I v»
2000
4000
Source.- Reference 1
Figure 2. LaBounty Site Location Map, Charles City, Iowa, and Vicinity
-------
the irregular upper surface of the upper bedrock (Coralville and
Rapid members) are shown in Figure 3. The map in this figure was
developed from borings data. The approximate boundaries of the
landfill are also shown. The surface of the site is at an elevation
of about 1000 feet, although this varies from one portion of the
site to another. The bedrock contours suggest that the fill
material lies above a bedrock bench that ranges in elevation from
970 to 990 feet. The bench is presumably cut into the Coralville
member. The contours in Figure 3 suggest that the bedrock surface
drops off steeply to the north and southeast and gently to the
4
east. Comparison of boring and seismic data suggest that two
valleys exist in the upper surface of the bedrock, and that one
valley passes beneath much of the chemical fill area (Figure 3).
The upper (Coralville) member of the Cedar Valley Formation is
underlain by two other limestone and dolomitic limestone members
separated by shale or shaley zones, as shown in Figure 4.
Hydrogeologic Characteristics
The Cedar Valley Formation includes an important aquifer system
that supplies water to an area with a population of over 250,000 in
northeast Iowa. The system involves upper and lower aquifers
separated by a shale aquiclude. The shale layer was encountered at
an elevation of about 870 feet (that is at a depth of about 120 feet
below the ground surface) at Well No. 3 (Figure 4). The extent and
15
thickness of the shale has not been determined. The upper
39
-------
50 0 100 200 Feet
Scale
Source: Adapted from Reference 15
North
Figure 3. Bedrock Topography at the LaBounty Site
40
-------
Formation Membef Elevation
2
i S»U
I
•
)
5
3
5.
0
c
o
w
~~^N^xv«
Sand and Gravel (Alluvii
Fossiliferous
Shaley
Limestone
Shaley Zone at Contact
Dolomitic Limestone
Grading Downward
Into Dolomite
Interceded With
Thin Shales
Shale
Limestone
and
Dolomitic Limestone
Source: Adapted Irom Reference 4
Figure 4. Generalized Geologic Section at the LaBounty Site
41
-------
bedrock aquifer (Coralville and Rapid members) is hydraulically
connected with the alluvium.
A generalized west-east cross-section diagram of the LaBounty
site indicating probable flow patterns is shown in Figure 5
(corresponding to section B-B in Figure 3. The Coralville member
contacts the alluvium on the western side of the landfill. On the
northern side, the Coralville member has been eroded and the Rapid
member is in contact with the alluvium. Groundwater is thought
to discharge into the Cedar Piver in this area. Glacial till is
encountered beneath the alluvium on the western side of the disposal
area and extends under the disposal area in some locations
(Figure 5). The hydraulic conductivity of the till is much lower
(probably by several orders of magnitude) than the alluvium or the
highly fractured upper bedrock, thus forming an impediment to
groundwater movement.
The lower aquifer (Solon Member) is artesian in this vicinity,
exhibiting a hydraulic pressure of 12-14 feet greater than the upper
aquifer (Coralville and Rapid members). This differential has been
.observed to vary with time and drought conditions.
Leachate moving laterally from the disposal site has contami-
nated the alluvial sediments and entered the alluvial groundwater
and upper aquifer (Coralville and Rapid members) as well as the
river. Alluvial groundwater elevations at the site are indicated in
Figure 6. (Note: This figure is intended only to indicate the
general patterns of groundwater elevations at the site. These
42
-------
Precipitation
U)
NW
1010
1000
990
980
970
5 960
950
940
930
920
910
900
Cedar River
(Depth Estimated)
973.44
Alluvium
HMI mi
Limestone
Dolostone
I I Shale
® Groundwater Monitoring Point
rTop of Cored Malarial
Feel
Water Level Data j
Irom May 7, 1980 I
lAtter Munter. tSBOt
10 20 30
Mele'S
SE
Source.' Reference 11
Figure 5. Conceptual Model of Water Flow at the LaBounty Site Before Capping-1980
-------
Note: Water Level Contours Based on Measurements
at 1. 3, 12 and 16 During 6/22 to 7/1/77
Source. Reference 16
500
Figure 6. Groundwater Elevation Contours at LaBounty Site
-------
groundwater contours are based on data from 1977, and do not
correspond exactly with groundwater elevations shown in Figure 5,
which are based on an observation in 1980.)
Waste Characteristics
Extensive studies have been made of chemical wastes placed in
the LaBounty site. This subject has been investigated by analyzing
the chemical manufacturer's production operations, performing rough
materials balances, and sampling and analysis of both fill material
and leachate from the disposal site (see Appendix A).
Information about the chemical characteristics of the wastes,
as needed for investigating the feasibility of in situ stabiliza-
tion, are derived primarily from data developed during the July 1980
measurement program (see Section 5). Additional information on
chemical characteristics of the fill can be found in Reference 1.
Estimated quantities of some hazardous chemicals contained in
wastes deposited at the LaBounty site are summarized in Table 3.
Soil Characteristics
All data in this report pertaining to soils at the LaBounty
site, either in the fill material or underlying or surrounding the
fill, are based on the July 1980 field investigation, and are
reported with other results of this investigation in Section 5.
Location of Wells; Drilling and Core Sample Sites
Boring locations for the July 1980 field investigation were
selected jointly by representatives of EPA's Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory and the National Enforcement Investigations
o
Center on the basis of the following criteria:
45
-------
TABLE 3
QUANTITIES OF THE MORE PREVALENT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
DEPOSITED AT LABOUNTY SITE
(August 1977)
Compound
Kg
Ib
Asrenic
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Orthonitroaniline
Phenol
2,740,000
32,000
130,000
680,000
12,000
6,044,000
70,000
280,000
1,500,000
27,000
Source: Reference 8.
46
-------
• Borings penetrating thick chemical fill
• Borings with high arsenic concentration
• Sites representing older, intermediate, and more recently
deposited wastes (filling generally progressed from west to
east.
Results from the 1977 field investigations by Hickok and
Associates for the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
were taken into account in the selection of boring sites. The
former Hickok sites L-l, L-2, L-7, L-8, and L-17 were selected as
bore sites for the July 1980 work. These locations are shown in
.Figure 7, together with some of the permanent monitoring wells
existing at the time of the July 1980 survey.
Results of the July 1980 Field Investigation at the LaBounty Site
The principal types of information derived from the MERL
investigations in regard to the possible use of this site for
demonstrating in situ stabilization methods are:
• physical and chemical characteristics of the fill materials
and underlying alluvium (or upper surface of bedrock)
• chemical characteristics of leachate at various locations.
The investigations also acquired data on the chemical content of
water in monitoring wells, the uptake of hazardous chemicals by
vegetation, the head differential between the upper and lower
aquifers, and gaseous or vapor-phase pollutants in the atmosphere.
Field activities during the investigations of July 7-11, 1980, are
described in Reference 8.
47
-------
C] D
LaBounty Residence
»L-17-80
Sink Hole
Construction
Company
Auto Shop
A M0379-A
M0379-R
A M0279-A
M0279-R
Bowling
Alley
D
a
Legend
• Core Boring
A Permanent Monitoring Well
Well Identification
M0679-
Year
• Well Number
• Monitoring
A — Alluvial Well
R - Rock Well
D — Deep
S — Shallow
M0679-AD
M0679-RD
M0779-AS M0679-AS
M0179-A
M0179-R
A
0 50 100 200
=S5K
Scale in Feet
B IGS Rock Well
No. 3
Source: Reference 8 and 15
Figure 7. Locations of Wells and Bore Sites, July 1980
48
-------
Generalized Core Descriptions
Descriptions of cores from each boring site, as summarized from
drillers' field logs, are summarized in Table 4. General descrip-
tions of each of the major components of the cores—cover material,
chemical fill, and underlying alluvial material—are given in
Table 5.
Physical Properties of Core Materials
Continuous cores were collected where possible. In zones where
core materials were not retained, split-spoon samples were collected
at 5-foot intervals until bedrock was reached. Core samples for
various depths at each site were analyzed for:
• permeability
• density
• moisture content
• porosity
• grain size classification
Results of these analyses are given in Tables 6 through 10.
Chemical Testing Data
Analyses for chemical constituents were performed on ground-
water samples from wells and boreholes, and on leachates generated
by washing core samples taken at various depths at each bore site.
Locations of wells and bore sites are shown in Figure 7.
Bailer samples of groundwater were taken from each bore site except
L-2, where no groundwater was encountered.
*
49
-------
TABLE 4
GENERALIZED CORE DESCRIPTIONS3'13
Boring: L-l-80
Description
Cover soil
Chemical fill
Sand and gravel
Fractured limestone
Boring: L-2-80
Description
Cover soil
Chemical fill
Sand and gravel
Weathered rock
Boring: L-7-80
Description
Cover soil
Chemical fill
Fine to coarse sand
Fractured rock w/clay
Drilled: 7/8/80
Depth (ft)
0-3
3.0-22.5
22.5-28.0
28.0-28.3
Drilled: 7/7/80
Depth (ft)
0-5
5.0-18.5
18.5-22.4
22.4-22.5
Drilled: 7/9/80
Depth (ft)
0.4.5
4.5-26.0
26.0-31.0
31.0-34.5
No. Core Samples: 16
Thickness (ft)
3
19.5
5.5
0.3
No. Core Samples: 12
Thickness (ft)
3.0
13.5
4.0
0.1
No. Core Samples: 16
Thickness (ft)
4.5
21.5
5.0
3.5
50
-------
TABLE 4
(concluded)
Boring: L-8-80
Description
Cover soil
Chemical fill
Drilled: 7/8/80
Depth (ft)
0.5
5-21
No. Core Samples: 16
Thickness (ft)
5
16
Silt to fine and
medium sand
Fractured limestone
with clay
21-30
30-34.5
4.5
Boring: L-17-80
Description
Cover soil
Chemical fill
Fine to medium sand
Fractured limestone
with clay
Drilled: 7/9/80
Depth (ft)
0.0.5
0.5-13.0
13.0-37.0
37.0-39.0
No. Core Samples: 13
Thickness (ft)
0.5
13.0
24.0
2.0
aSummarized from the driller's field logs.
^Surface elevations for all borings were estimated to be 1,000 ft
(+1 ft) from an April 1979 topographic map prepared by the chemical
manufacturer.
Source: Reference 8.
51
,_,,ARi U.S.
-------
TABLE 5
GENERALIZED DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
OF TYPICAL COPE3
Description Depth (ft)
Cover Material - Yellowish gray to olive gray 0-5.3
(5Y7/2 to 5Y3/2)b poorly sorted fine to medium
silty sand, w/pebbles in upper portion, contained
plant roots and debris, some plastic film fragments
Chemical Fill - Moderate yellow to olive brown (5Y7/6 5.3-21.0
to 5Y5/6), varying from uniform to extensive
marbling, layered wet to saturated, fine grained
sludge-like material. Roots to 6-foot depth from
ground surface. Abundant plastic film fragments.
Underlying Alluvium - Interbedded light olive brown 21.0-30.0
to moderate olive gray (2.5Y6/4 to 5Y4/2) sandy silt
and yellowish gray (5Y7/2) well sorted medium sand.
Moist to saturated. Plant fragments.
aCore from boring L-8-80.
^Determined by comparison with "Manual Soil Color Charts", by Munsell
Color, Baltimore, Maryland (1975).
Source: Reference 8.
52
-------
TABLE 6
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CORE BORE SITE L-l-flO
Approximate
Sample Depth
No. (ft)
3 5
4 7
9 15
10 17
11 19
12 21
15 27
28.1
28.3
Remarks: NR - not r
NT • not t
(1) w
(2) e
NP ™ nonpl
Grain Size Distribution Atterberg
Limits
Driller's Gravel Sand Silt Clay
Description (Z) (Z) (Z) (Z) LL PL PI
Yellow moist chemical 0 14 83 3 NP
material
Yellow-black chemical 0 4 93 3 NP
material
Brown gravel, yellow 17 56 21 1 56 47 9
chemical material,
clay and wood
Yellow-black moist 0 7 88 5 57 49 8
chemical material
Yellow sticky moist 0 4 91 5 NP
chemical material
Same 7 17 14 8 34 15 19
Brown wet sand, gravel 4 95 1 — NR NR NR
Bedrock
End of Boring
orded
table
contamination throughout sample
rudcd In field; sample disturbed
tic
Dry
Unit
Moisture Weight
(Z) (Pcf)
113 38.3
130 35.2
39 NT(I)
100 40.8
139 NT<2'
96 86.9
NR NR
Permeability
kv Porosity
(cm/sec) (n)
7.74xlO"6 0.73
NR 0.76
NT") NT<0
6.08xlO~5 0.73
NR NT<2>
7.63xlO"7 NT
NR NR
— « not reported
Sources: References 5, 6, and 9
-------
TABLE 7
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CORE BORE SITE L-/-80
Sample
No.
4
5
6
7
8
10
Approximate
Depth
0.70
0.77
NR
NR
0.76
0.41
Remarks: MB - not recorded
NT • not testable
(1) wax contamination throughout sample
(2) extruded In field; sample disturbed
NP • nonplastlc
— - not reported
Sources: References 5* 6, and 9
-------
TABLE 8
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CORE BORE SITE L-7-80
Ul
Sample
No.
4
5
7
8
11
13
14
15
16
Approximate
Depth
(ft)
6
8
11
13
19
22
24
26
.30
34.5
34.5
Driller's
Description
Yellow-white fine
chemical material
Yellow-white fine
chemical material
Yellow-white fine
chemical material
Yellow-white fine
Olive and brown mixed
chemical material
Olive and brown mixed
Dark brown with yellow
chemical material
Saturated fine-coarse
sand, little gravel
Saturated fine-coarse si
little gravel; 6" fine
sand layer, 30.0'-30.5'
Hardweathered rock
End of boring
Grain
Gravel
(*)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ind, 0
Size
Sand
(I)
4
1
7
10
0
4
19
5
91
Distribution
Silt Clay
(I) (J)
92
89
81
86
86
89
68
90
4
4
10
12
4
14
7
13
5
—
Atterberg
Limits
LL PL PI
80 74 6
88 80 8
. 92 83 9
NP
78 69 9
65 59 6
99 72 27
58 46 11
NR
Unlf
Moisture Weight
(» (Pcf)
126 33.8
129 34.3
148 urd)
120 37.9
NR NR
151 32.3
NR NR
145 33.6
NR NR
Permeability
(cm/sec)
1.63xlO~5
NR
NR
3.81xlO~5
NR
2.99xlO~5
NR
1.73xlO~5
NR
Porosity
(n)
0.80
0.78
NTC1)
0.78
NR
0.78
NR
0.78
NR
Remarks: NR • not recorded
NT • not testable
(1) wax contamination throughout sample
(2) extruded in field; sample disturbed
NP ™ nonplastlc
— ~ not reported
Sources: References 5, 6, and 9
-------
TABLE 9
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CORE BORE SITE L-8-80
1-n
ON
Sample
No.
3
4
5
8
9
11
13
14
15
Approximate
Depth
(ft)
4
6
8
14
16
20
23
25
26
34.5
34.5
Grain Size Distribution Atterberg Dry
Limits Unit Permeability
Driller's Gravel Sand Silt Clay Moisture Weight kv
Description (1) (J) W W LL PL PI W (Pcf) (cm/sec)
Yellow with black 7 84 8 - 29 21 8 11 85.3 7.52jclO"3
chemical fill
Yellow with black 0 2 85 13 56 51 85 NR NR NR
chemical fill
Yellow with black 0 10 80 10 49 46 3 126 33.0 NR
chemical fill
Yellow chemical fill 0 0 89 11 50 40 10 124 37.1 NR
Yellow chemical £111 0 8 83 9 61 51 10 NR NR NR
Yellow chemical fill 0 5 90 5 51 44 7 158 28.2 2.34xlO"5
Dark brown fine sand, 10 84 6 - NR NR NR NR NR NR
some clay, tr. metal
Brown fine-coarse fill 0 65 26 9 41 20 21 10.2 94.5 1.60x10"*
Brown fine-coarse fill 0 52 38 7 44 26 18 NR NR NR
Rock
End of boring
Porosity
(n)
0.47
NR
0.78
0.75
NR
0.81
NR
0.43
NR
Remarks: NR - not recorded
NT - not testable
(1) wax contamination throughout sample
(2) extruded in field; sample disturbed
HP - nonplastlc
— » not reported
Sources: References 5, 6, and 9
-------
TABLE 10
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CORE BORE SITE L-17
Ul
Sample
No.
2
3
4
7
8
9
11
13
Approximate
Depth
(ft)
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
25
35
39
39
Grain Size Distribution Atterberg Dry
• Limits Unit Permeability
Driller's Gravel Sand Silt Clay Moisture Weight fc.
Description W (J) W (I) LL PL PI (JO (Pcf) (cm/sec)
Creamy white with
rust colored marbling
chemical material 0 2 91 7 74 70 4 NR NR NR
Creamy white with
rust colored marbling
chemical material 0 2 89 9 80 79 1 126 31.9 7.06xlO"5
colored marbling
chemical material 0 3 89 8 - - NP 137 33.5 NR
Creamy white, very
Creamy white, very
moist chemical material 0 9 87 4 77 72 5 129 35.8 1.15xlO"3
Brown moist sandy clay,
tr. pebbles 0 10 87 3 46 60 6 128 36.8 5.96x10-"
Tr. organics 0 54 39 6 37 20 17 18 94.7 1.8 xlO"6
Brown fine sand 0 99 1 - - - NR NR NR NR
Brown saturated fine-
medium sand 0981---NR NR NR NR
Weathered rock
End of boring
Porosity
(n)
NR
0.78
0.77
NR
0.75
0.75
0.43
NR
NR
Remarks: NR " not recorded
NT - not testable
(1) wax contamination throughout sample
(2) extruded In field; sample disturbed
NP * nonplastic
— • not reported
Sources: References 5, 6, and 9
-------
A summary of the primary hazardous constituent content of well
samples is given in Table 11. Similar information for bore-site
samples (both bailer samples and lechates) is given in Table 12.
More detailed results of the chemical analyses are presented in
Appendix C.
Geophysical Interpretations Relevant to In Situ Stabilization
The following observations and interpretations are derived from
examination of data from the June 1980 field investigation, except
where otherwise referenced.
Bedrock Surface. The July 1980 borings support earlier find-
ings that the upper bedrock surface is weathered in some locations
and generally highly fractured. The following observations are
based on Tables 6 through 11 and Table 12.
• At Bore Site L-l, weathered bedrock was encountered at
22.4 ft. Groundwater was found at approximately this same
depth. The bedrock was overlain by about 2 feet of
medium-to-coarse gravel.
• Almost the same conditions were found near the bedrock
surface at Bore Site L-2 except that no groundwater was
encountered.
• At Bore Site L-7, hard-weathered and fractured bedrock was
found at 34 feet, with clay in the fractures. The surface
of the rock was covered with a 6-inch layer of fine sand,
all of which was saturated.
• At Bore Site L-8, rock was encountered at about 34 feet,
covered by a 4-foot layer of fractured limestone layered
with clay.
• At Bore Site L-17, weathered rock was found at 39 feet
overlain by about 2 feet of fractured limestone with clay in
fractures, which lay under about 3 feet of saturated sand.
58
-------
TABLE 11
PRINCIPLE HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN
LABOUNTY WELL SAMPLES
Sample
Identification
4A
6AD
7AS
7AD
9A
9A (acid)
ONA
0.56
16.00
2.30
23.00
65.00
69.00
mg/1 of solution
PNA
ND
3.90
0.59
4.50
18.00
65.00
(ppm)
As
18.2
232
140
382
336
NA
As /ONA
33
15
61
17
5
—
Note; ONA = ortho-nitroaniline = 2-nitrobenzenamine
PNA = para-nitroaniline = 4-nitrobenzenamine
As = arsenic
NA = not analyzed
ND = not detected
As/ONA = ratio of As to ONA
ONA and PNA determined by gas chromatography
As determined on HN03~digested sample by ICAP
Source: Reference 4.
59
-------
PRINCIPAL HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN BOREHOLE OROlINnWATER SAMPLES (BAILER) AND
LEACHATE PREPARED FROM CORE SAMPLES
Sample
Identification
Bore Site L-l
3 ft.
14.5 ft.
17 ft.
Bailer (23 ft.)
Bore Site L-2«
21 ft.
22.5 ft.
Bore Site L-7
1.5 ft.
16.5 ft.
18 ft.
18.5 ft.
21 ft.
Bailer (14.5 ft.)
Bore Site L-8
3 ft.
17 ft.
31 ft.
Bailer (24.5 ft.)
Bore Site L-17
9 ft.
9.5 ft.
21 ft.
31 ft.
Bailer (29.5 ft.)
mg/l of Solution (ppn)
1st
7.9
2.4
0.40
—
3.6
0.16
26
1.8
1.9
2.0
3.1
—
2.6
4.0
ND
—
ND
0.18
ND
ND
ONA
2nd Uq
1.9
4.6
0.52 —
— 130
0.015 —
0.021 —
27
0.32 —
0.24 —
0.24 —
ND
16
1.1
0.30 —
ND
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.81
1st
0.075
ND
ND
—
0.24
ND
0.26
ND
ND
ND
ND
—
ND
1.5
ND
—
ND
ND
ND
ND
PNA
2nd Liq
ND
ND
ND
4.4
ND —
ND
0.32 —
ND
ND —
ND
ND
ND
ND —
0.37
ND
3.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1st
2.5
101
2.6
--
14.2
2.3
7.2
68.4
35.6
41.2
27.1
—
2.0
40.4
0.9
—
5.6
12.0
ND
ND
—
As
2nd Llq
1.8
141
8.4 —
374
1.4 —
4.0
14.2 —
48.4
24.8 —
35.9 —
21.1 —
— 635
3.4
8.1 —
1.4
284
4.2 —
5.6
ND
ND
64
As/ONA
1st
0.3
—
4
14
0.3
38
19
21
9
—
0.8
10
—
—
„
67
—
—
—
2nd Liq
0.9
3
93 —
190
0.5 —
142
103 —
150
—
— 40
3
27
— —
20
„
—
—
79
NOTE: 1st " leachate generated by washing with D.I.
2nd - leachate generated by 24 hour tumbling with D.I. I^O, S:L - 1:20 (W/V)
To convert leaching8 from mg/ -solution to mg/Kg-solld, multiply by 20
Liq = liquid taken by means of the bailer - not filtered prior to analysis.
ONA • ortho-nitroaniline ™ 2-nitrobenzenamine
PNA " para-nltroanlline " 4-nitrobenzenamlne
As " arsenic
NA « not analyzed
ND - not detected
As/ONA - ratio of As to ONA
ONA and PNA determined by gas chrotoatography
As determined on HN03-digested sample by ICAP
*No bailer sample could be taken; dry bore hole.
-------
The fractured condition of the bedrock surface, together with
the apparent variation in the physical characteristics of adjacent
overlying materials, could strongly influence any decision to
stabilize the disposal site by bottom sealing against bedrock. Very
little orthonitranaline (ONA) or other organic compounds that might
be expected to interfere with the setting of either cementitious or
chemical grouts were detected in extracts from the deepest core
samples at four of the five bore sites (site L-7 being the
exception).
Location of Chemical Fill Relative to Groundwater. Data from
the July 1980 borings confirm the findings of earlier investigations
that portions of the chemical fill extend below the water table, as
depicted in Figure 5. (The configuration of the liquid saturated
portion of the fill is based on Sisk's interpretation of the
July 1980 data. ) This condition implies that, unless the water
table is substantially lowered by the construction of impermeable
surface cover and upgradient groundwater barriers or by other
methods, any effort to stabilize or solidify the material in situ
would involve working below the level of the water table as well as
in the unsaturated zone.
The description of fill materials in Tables 6 through 10
suggests that the chemical fill was generally saturated at the time
of the survey (July 1980), although the deeper alluvial materials
were not saturated. The permeability data of these tables indicate
61
-------
that much of the fill material is less permeable than the underlying
alluvium.
Groundwater Movement Through Fill Material; Production of
Leachate. Before the impervious cap was placed over the disposal
site in 1980, pollutant-bearing leachate could be generated by the
generally downward movement of rainfall through the chemical wastes,
or by the generally lateral flow of groundwater through the wastes.
Since the installation of the cap, the groundwater that moves
through the waste material probably consists only of flow from
(1) precipitation on lands upgradient of the site and (2) discharge
from the upper bedrock aquifer.* Its movement through the wastes is
the result of the gravity gradient toward the river (generally
northeast, east, and southeast).
A study of the relation between rainfall and groundwater levels
in monitoring wells, based on data acquired during the period
October 1979 to February 1981, indicates that groundwater levels are
*A third, but less likely possibility, is that groundwater occa-
sionally enters the fill as the result of "bank recharge" from the
river. This would occur when the level of the river is signifi-
cantly higher than both the base of the fill and the alluvial
groundwater. Such conditions may arise during periods of heavy
rainfall in the Cedar River watershed upstream from the site.
Such conditions occur only as a transitory and relatively infre-
quent state, and therefore, are not likely to have a signficant
effect on the production of leachate. However, in less extreme
situations, when the river stage is higher than alluvial ground-
water levels (though not necessarily high enough to affect the
fill), bank recharge from the river could temporarily affect the
pollutant concentrations and shape of the plume. The long term
effects of these conditions would be minor, since the river would
remain the primary discharge point of the flow system'-'--''.
62
-------
strongly affected by rain falling on the area upgradient from the
site (upgradient rainfall). From this it is inferred that the
volume of groundwater movement through the fill is also increased by
upgradient rainfall. The rate of groundwater movement could be
expected to increase the amount of leachate produced. The relation
between rainfall and the pollutant concentration in one well
(M0879A—See Figure 5) points to the tentative conclusion that
upgradient rainfall appears to be a primary driving force in the
production of leachate at the LaBounty site.
Permeability of Soils and Fill Materials. The permeability and
porosity of the fill and adjacent contaminated soils and rock
strongly influence their amenability to in situ stabilization by
injection of neutralizing or solidifying agents. Extensive measure-
ments of the permeability of core sample materials were made in
conjuction with the July 1980 field measurements. Results are
summarized in Table 7 through 10. Measured permeabilities in the
chemical fill samples are relatively low (generally in the range of
-5 -7 -3
10 to 10 cm/sec) although two samples are as high as 10
cm/sec.
Alluvium samples consisting mainly of sand, or containing
;c
15,16
-3 -4
pebbles, show permeabilities in the order of 10 to 10 cm/second.
These results are consistent with results from previous studies,"
which report permeabilities (hydraulic conductivities) of alluvial
-2 -9
material to range from about 10 to 10 cm/sec, and note that
-4
clean sand shows values between 1 and 10 cm/sec.
63
-------
Chemical Constituents of the Fill. The types of chemicals and
their concentration and spatial distribution within the fill would
have direct implications on any undertaking to solidify, neutralize,
or immobilize the hazardous landfill constituents in situ. Examina-
tion of Table 11 and 12 reveals that arsenic was found at
essentially all depths at all boreholes sampled. As noted earlier,
ONA was not detected in most samples from depths near bedrock.
However, ONA and other organic constituents were found at shallower
depths (less than 18 feet) in all five boreholes and in all
well-water samples. The concentration of these organics generally
decreased with depth, although this pattern was not uniform at all
bore sites.
Prognosis for In Situ Solidification/Stabilization at the LaBounty
Site
All available data at the LaBounty site were reviewed to assess
the amenability of the site for the in situ application of solid-
ification/stabilization techniques of pollution control. Our
conclusion is that this site does not exhibit any of the special
circumstances or conditions under which the identified techniques
are technically and economically feasible, and, therefore, none of
these techniques is appropriate for in situ application at the site
at this time. The reasons underlying this conclusion are summarized
below.
It is acknowledged at the outset that an exceptionally complete
data base for the LaBounty site is available both from the July 1980
64
-------
field survey and the sequence of investigations that preceded it.
Although some additional data would be desirable (such as the nature
of chemical or biological processes that may be occurring within the
fill), the conclusion of non-applicability is in no sense a result
of lack of information about the site.
1. The permeability of the landfill (both the chemical wastes
and the intermixed and underlying alluvial materials)
varies greatly—by several orders of magnitude—from one
location to another within the fill. This variability
appears too great to permit adequate distribution and
mixing of either:
a. solidification agents injected or otherwise applied
in situ, thus precluding adequate incorporation and
retention of hazardous components of the waste; or
b. reactive (non-solidifying) agents injected to
neutralize any single chemical pollutant of the waste.
The prospect for neutralizing the various combinations
of pollutants found throughout large portions of the
fill appears even less promising.
2. The diversity of chemical constituents of the fill, and the
variability of their concentration from one location to
another, militates against the use of chemical agents
injected into the fill to immobilize or decompose the
identified pollutants. Also, even if a solidifying agent
could be adequately distributed within the fill to insure
proper incorporation of hazardous constituents, the diverse
mix of the chemicals in the fill is likely to contain some
substances that would interfere with the setting up of
lower-viscosity solidifying agents such as polymers.
3. The highly fractured upper surface of the bedrock would
make it difficult to anchor any type of vertical barrier to
form a seal that would prevent inflow of groundwater or
outflow of leachate. Probable patterns of groundwater
flow, together with the possibility of bank recharge from
the river, require that the macro-isolation approach
include an effective bottom seal as well as impermeable
vertical barrier. The fractured bedrock surface would also
complicate the already questionably-effective procedure of
emplacing an impervious bottom seal against the bedrock.
65
-------
The magnitude and configuration of the fill (in terms of
its depth) appear to render the energy-intensive
fusion/vitrification method economically infeasihle, even
if the method is proven technically effective in
large-scale applications.
66
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hickok, Eugene A. and Associates. Waste Characteristics,
LaBounty Site, Salsbury Laboratories. Charles City. Prepared
for Iowa Department of Environmental Quality. 29 August 1977.
2. U.S. EPA Region VII, Surveillance and Analysis Division.
Report of Investigation: Ground Water Monitoring at the
LaBounty Dump Site, Charles City, Iowa. Kansas City, Missouri,
11 September 1978.
3. U.S. EPA Region VII, Surveillance and Analysis Division.
Report of Investigation, Salsbury Laboratories, Charles City,
Iowa. Kansas City, Missouri. February 1979.
4. Sisk, Steven W., Summary of Major Hydrogeologic Studies
Conducted at the LaBounty Chemical Dump Site, Charles City,
Iowa. U.S. EPA Region VII. Kansas City, Missouri.
9 October 1979.
5. Drillers' Log. July 1980. (Provided by U.S. EPA Region VII).
6. Log of Boring. July 1980. (Provided by U.S. EPA Region VII).
7. Medical Reports, Floyd County Hospital Pathology Lab.
July 1980. (Provided by U.S. EPA Region VII).
8. Sisk, Steven W., Preliminary Work for In Situ Demonstration
Project. EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center and
EPA Region VII. Kansas City, Missouri. August 1980.
9. Soil Evaluation, LaBounty Landfill, Charles City, Iowa.
4 September 1980. (Provided by EPA Region VII.)
10. Kuhlman, Carol and Stuart Haus. A Summary of Hazardous Waste
Disposal Technologies. Report No. WP-82W00052 (Draft).
Prepared by The MITRE Corporation for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. McLean, Virginia. 17 February 1982.
11. Sisk, Steven U., Rainfall Effects on Leachate Production at the
LaBounty Site. Memorandum to Martha R. Steincamp, EPA
Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri. 11 May 1981.
12. Mehta, Anil K. Investigation of New Techniques for Control of
Smelter Arsenic Bearing Wastes: Vol. 1 - Experimental
Program. Report No. EPA/600/2-81-049a, NTIS PB 81-231581.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. July 1981.
67
-------
13. Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: Summary of Panel Discus-
sions (18-22 May 1981). Report No. EPA/SW-947. Prepared by
The MITRE Corporation for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
14. LaBounty Landfill Samples Constituent Profile, Undated.
(Provided by U.S. EPA Region VII).
15. Hunter, James A., Evaluation of the Extent of Hazardous Waste
Contamination in the Charles City Area. Iowa Geologic Survey,
Iowa City. 30 July 1980.
16. Hickok, Eugene A. and Associates. Soil Characteristics—
LaBounty Site. Prepared for Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality. Wayzata, Minnesota. 15 August 1977.
17. Malone, Phil and Larry Jones. Guide to the Disposal of
Chemically Stabilized and Solidified Wastes. Report
No. SU-872, PB 81-181-505. Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station for J.S. Enviornroental Protection
Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. September 1980.
18. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Survey of
Solidification/Stabilization Technology for Hazardous
Industrial Wastes. Report No. EPA-600/2-79-056, NTIS
No. PB299206. Prepared for. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. July 1979.
19. Halliburton Pressure Grouting Service. A brochure from
Halliburton Services Division of the Halliburton Company.
Duncan, Oklahoma. April 1971.
20. Pojasek, Robert J. (Editor). Toxic and Hazardous Waste
Disposal, Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979 and 1980.
21. Tolman, Andrew J. et_ al_., Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollu-
tion from Waste Disposal Sites, Report No. EPA-600/2-78-142.
Prepared by A. W. Martin Associates, Inc. for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio.
August 1978.
22. Fenn, Dennis, et_.al_. , Procedures Manual for Ground Water
Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. Report
No. SW-611. Prepared by Wehran Engineering Corporation and
Gereghty and Miller, Inc., for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. December 1980
68
-------
23. The Prevalence of Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Chemical
Substances at Selected Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites,
Report No. EPA/530/SW-634. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. October 1977.
24. Todd, David Keith, Ground Water Hydrology. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. New York. 1967
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods of Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1979.
26. Alexander, T. (of Halliburton Company, Duncan, Oklahoma).
Personal Communications. February 18, 1982.
27. Greer, J.S., et al., Sodium Fluxing and In-Situ Gasification
for Hazardous Materials Disposal. Report Number
EPA/600/S2-82-021, NTIS/PB 82-196 155. Prepared by MSA
Research Corporation for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. May 1982.
28. Toxic Waste Assessment Group, Governor's Office of Appropriate
Technology. Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes: An Assessment for California (No number). Sacramento,
California. 1981
29. Porter, J.F., Investigation of In-Situ Gelation to Control
Emissions from Abandoned Waste Sites, NTIS No. PB82-103508.
Prepared by Energy and Environmental Engineering, Inc., for the
National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C. 29 May 1981.
30. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. In Situ Immobiliza-
tion of Hazardous Wastes. (A brochure for Battelle Northwest,
Richland, Washington.) Undated.
31. Bonner, U. F. (of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,
Richland, Washington). Personal communication.
30 January 1982 and 22 March 1982.
69
-------
70
-------
APPENDIX A
EVENTS LEADING TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE
LABOUNTY SITE AS A MAJOR POLLUTION SOURCE*
Background
An abandoned quarry located near the Cedar River within the
city limits of Charles City, Iowa, was formerly used as a source of
sand, gravel, and fill material. Subsequently it was used as a land
disposal site for construction and demolition debris, sanitary
wastes, and chemical sludges and other chemical wastes from an
industrial manufacturer of veterinary feed additives, pharmaceu-
ticals, other biologic preparations and intermediate organic
chemicals. The quarry, located on land owned by Duane LaBounty and
leased to the chemicals manufacturer, Salsbury Laboratories, is
referred to as the LaBounty site. Chemical wastes were deposited at
the site from 1953 through 1979.
Process wastewater from the Salsbury Laboratories has been
treated at the current Charles City municipal wastewater treatment
plant since 1965. Wastewaters from the manufacturing plant are
pretreated by the manufacturer before being conveyed via the
municipal sewer system to the municipal plant for final treatment at
the municipal plant. The purpose of the pretreatment is to render
the industrial wastewater (1) amenable to treatment by the processes
in use at the municipal plant and (2) compatible with these
*Material in this Appendix is based principally on References 1,
2, 3, 4, 8, and 9.
71
-------
processes. Sludges from the pretreatment operation were among the
chemical wastes deposited in the abandoned quarry. Prior to 1964,
sludges from the municipal treatment plant were deposited at a
municipal dump site about one-half mile east and slightly downstream
of the LaBounty site. Since 1974, municipal plant sludges have been
deposited on private farm land.
In 1974, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Regional
Office in Kansas City became aware of concern, based on visual
observations and preliminary measurement data, about the compatibil-
ity of the chemical plant wastewater with the biological treatment
processes of the municipal plant. This concern lead initially to a
study of the influent and effluent characteristics and removal
efficiencies of the municipal treatment plant, and later to an
extensive series of field investigations by EPA, the Iowa Department
of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), the Iowa Geologic Survey, and the
manufacturer. These investigations have extended over a period of
years, and have included hydrogeologic studies as well as sampling
and analysis of groundwater, river water and soils at several
locations in Charles City, and river water at various downstream
locations. Results have pointed to the conclusion that toxic
materials, including arsenic compounds and aromatic organics found
in the sludges and wastewater from the chemical plant, were entering
the Cedar River and groundwater in sufficient quantities to cause
serious concern about potential public health impacts.
72
-------
The various field investigations undertook to determine the
types of chemical pollutants in the Cedar River, the quantities and
rates of pollutant release, the specific sources of pollutant
release, and the pathways by which the pollutants travelled from
source to the river, the groundwater, or the general environment.
These investigations revealed that hazardous chemicals were entering
the water from several locations, including the manufacturing plant
site through runoff, leaking or broken sewer lines, effluent from
the municipal wastewater treatment plant, and the abandoned quarry
used as a land disposal site. Hazardous constituents released from
these sources included a number of derivatives of benzene, analine,
and phenol; orthonitroanaline is among the more prevalent. However,
the pollutant of predominant concern is arsenic (and its compounds)
because of its toxicity, its concentration in the local environment,
and the vast quantities of this material in wastes from the
manufacturing plant.
The field investigations and studies of waste production by the
manufacturer indicated that the quarry disposal site received some
8.7 million cubic feet of "total waste" during the interval
1953-1977, of which about 0.9 million cubic feet (or 11 percent) was
classified as "arsenical waste", and that, in 1977, the disposal
site contained some six million pounds of arsenic. The investiga-
tions also indicated that leachate from this site, produced by
rainfall or groundwater flow, contained arsenic in significant
73
-------
concentrations. The arsenic-bearing leachate apparently flows with
the groundwater and enters the Cedar River, which passes within
about 500 feet of the disposal site. The investigations have caused
EPA and State agencies to conclude that the waste disposal site is
the major source of arsenic in the Cedar River.
As a result of information developed by the field studies and
on the recommendation of EPA's Region VII and the IDEQ, the
manufacturer discontinued the use of the LaBounty site for waste
disposal in December 1977, and developed a plan for remedial
mea sure s.
The manufacturer has since undertaken to implement a revised
plan that incorporates monitoring and interim remedial measures,
based in part on his initial plan of May 1978 with modifications
recommended by EPA and IDEQ. This plan involves a three-phased
approach. The first consists of installing wells for monitoring
groundwater quality and levels at the site. Installation was
completed in 1979 and monitoring has been in progress since that
time. The second phase consists of surface modifications designed
to prevent infiltration of rainwater into the landfill and thereby
reduce the amount of leachate produced. These modifications consist
of installing a low-permeability clay cover over the filled area and
re-routing of surface water runoff around the site (completed in
1980). The third phase may consist of additional measures
-------
to be installed if continuing monitoring of the leachate indicates that
the previous measures had not adequately reduced the release of
pollutants.
Monitoring of leachate and evaluation of the second-phase
abatement measures was in progress as this report is being prepared.
Concurrent with the period of concern and investigation of the
LaBounty site, EPA's Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
(MERL) in Cincinnati has been researching in situ stabilization of
chemical waste dumps. This work has included extensive field
measurement programs, evaluation of methods for control and abate-
ment of pollution from chemically contaminated landfills, and
development of computer models for predicting the effectiveness of
such abatement measures. It has also specifically addressed
problems associated with arsenic-bearing wastes.
At the request of EPA Region VII, the LaBounty site was
examined by MERL research personnel, and has been considered as a
possible demonstration site for selected in situ stabilization
techniques. An intensive data acquisition project was conducted in
July 1980, by MERL and its contractors, in cooperation with person-
nel from EPA's Region VII and National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC). These studies, together with selected data and
interpretations from other investigations that relate to the
feasibility of in situ stabilization, are the primary sources of
site data for the present report.
75
-------
Other Information about Water Pollution in the Charles City Area
As general background for this report, a listing of some of the
principal field investigations conducted in the Charles City area
during 1973-1981 is presented in Table A-l. No claim is made for
comprehensiveness of this listing; it is intended to provide only
the most general overview of the scope and timing of the various
surveys and studies as summarized in a few of the references used in
the preparation of this report. To compile and summarize all of the
data and findings from sources pertaining to water and soil pollu-
tion that might be associated with waste discharges from Salsbury
Laboratories would be far beyond the scope of the present report.
It should be noted that two of the documents used in developing this
report provide valuable summaries of the results of numerous field
studies conducted in the period 1973-1979. These are References 2
and 3, both of which were prepared by EPA's Region VII Surveillance
and Analysis Division.
As additional general background, a chronological listing of
events relating to Salsbury Laboratories' waste disposal operations
is presented in Section A.
Chronological Summary of Events, Relating to Salsbury Laboratories'
Solid Waste Disposal Operations*
"In an executive order issued by the Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) in December of 1977, Salsbury was
directed to stop using the LaBounty site..." In response to this
*Material in this Section is quoted from Reference 3.
76
-------
TABLE A-L
LISTING OF WATER QUALITY AND SOIL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF CHARLES CITY
Approximate
Time Frame
jiponsor*
Other Participants
Water Quality and Soil Sampling
1953-1966 Salsbury Laboratories
1971-1976 Salsbury Laboratories3
Engineering Sciences* Inc.
1972-1974 Salsbury Laboratories3 Engineering Research Institute
Iowa State University, Ames
Ref.
August 1974 EPA Region VII Surveillance3
and Analysis Division (SVAN)
August 1975 EPA Region VII SVAN3
1975 Iowa Geologic Survey and Iowa
Department of Environmental
Quality*
February 1976 EPA Region VII SVAN3
February 10-
11, 1977 EPA Region VII SVAN3
1977 Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality1*4
1976
E.A. Hlckok and Associates
E.A. Hlckok and Associates
Placed 7 sandpolnt wells (15-20 feet deep) between LaBounty fill
area and the Cedar River*
Summarized available data on Salsbury process wastewater and
combined Industrial/domestic wastewater at the municipal treatment
plant.
Sampled municipal treatment plant influent and effluent (DOD and
nonfilterable solids)•
Sampled Influent and effluent at Charles City municipal wastewater
treatment plant.
Sampled:
Cedar River water samples at 2 locations 2-to-3 Inches upstream
of LaBounty site; also 9 miles and 44 miles downstream
- Salsbury Laboratories process water discharge
- Municipal treatment plant influent and effluent
- Municipal treatment plant raw sludge, digested sludge, and
sludge supernatant.
- Replaced 3 bedrock wells (depths: 56 ft., 65 ft., and 335 ft)
between LaBounty landfill and river. Logged cuttings data. In-
stalled 2 sandpoints on smaller-diameter casings in the deeper
well (to different depths)
- Interpreted groundwater data from Salsburg Laboratories wells at
LaBounty site
Sampled:
Municipal treatment plan Influent and effluent
Observed yellow discharges and other features of soil, ice, and
river near LaBounty site. Obtained Information for structuring
later field Investigations-
Sank 26 shallow borings (to depths of 6 to 40 feet) and surround-
ing soil at LaBounty site. Obtained core samples and groundwater
samples. (Boreholes were filled upon completion of survey).
Sank 15 shallow borings at disposal site for municipal treatment
plant sludge, (not LaBounty site).
^Superscripts In "Sponsor" columns denote reference sources.
-------
TABLE A-l
(continued)
Approximate
Time Frame Sponsor* Other Participants Water Quality and Soil Sampling
Feb. 22-23, EPA Region VII SVAN3 Sampled:
1977
- Cedar River water at 4 locations tn Charles City and locations
several miles downstream
- Water from ground seep, from abandoned sand pit, and from cltv
well
- Municipal treatment plant effluent and Salsbury Laboratories'
cooling wjter discharge
Sediments from open face of LaBounty site and at ground seep
April 1977 EPA Region VII SVAN3 Sampled:
- Cedar River sediments at 6 locations within a 20-mile reach
extending upstream and downstream of Charles City
- flush of fish collected at upstream and downstream locations
Aug.-Sept. EPA Region VII SVAN3 Iowa Department of Sampling program:
1977 Environmental Quality
- Cedar River water at (at least) 6 locations in or near Charles
City; some .1 ear LaBoi*nl-y site
Cedar River streambcd sediments at several locations In or near
Charles City
- Influent, effluent & sludge at Salsbury wastewater pretreatment
plant
- Groundwater at seven municipal and private wells In or near
Charles City and one municipal well at Waterloo (downstream)
- Boll on rlverbank
- Groundseep discharge
- Salsbury Laboratories cooling water
- 9 shallow (6 inch) soil borings from Salsbury plant grounds
- Air samples at LaBounty site and at waste treatment plants
Jan. 1978 Salsbury Laboratories — Sampled Cedar River at 6 locations near LaBounty site
June-Sept. Salsbury Laboratories* Layne-Western Corporation - Made seismic reflection readings at 40 stations at LaBounty
1978 site to determine bedrock depth, contours
Made thermonlc survey Involving temperature profiles in
boreholes at 12 locations at LaBounty site, as basis for
predicting permeability and pathways of water flow
- Installed six test wells in LaBounty site or between landfill
and Cedar River. Maintained logs of boring materials. Sampled
groundwater in wells.
*Superscripts tn "Sponsor" columns denote reference sources.
-------
TABLE A-l
(concluded)
Approximate
Time Frame
Sponsor*
Qther Participants
Water Quality and Soil Sampling
Summer 1979
EPA National Enforcement
Investigations Center
(NEIC)2
Salsbury Laboratories
EPA Region VII (SVAN)
EPA Region VII
EPA Consultant William Walker
Layne-Western Corp.
Soil Exploration Co.
Eraplaced sandpoint wells for continued groundvater monitoring at
4 locations between the LaBounty chemical fill and the Cedar
River.
Install piezometers for monitoring groundwater elevation and
measuring hydraulic pressure
Eraplaced nested veils at eleven locations In or surrounding the
LaBounty site, each nest comprising one well finished in the
alluvial material and one finished in bedrock (except at 3
locations where only the rock well would be Installed, or where
additional alluvial wells were installed). These have been used
for routing monitoring by Salsbury Laboratories since October
1979.
July 1980
EPA Municipal Environ-
mental Laboratory**
EPA Region VII
NEIC
> Army Corps of Engineers (CE)
IDEQ
Salsbury Laboratories
Central Illinois Drilling Co.
Battelle
Borings ranging in depth from 22 to 44 feet at five locations
on the chemical fill portion of the La Bounty site
Acquired 12 to 16 core samples at each location
Sampled groundwater at 4 locations
Sampled vegetation at the site
Backfilled all boreholes
•Superscripts in "Sponsor" columns denote reference sources.
-------
order and a number of news releases by IDEQ and EPA, Salsbury
reported their position in a full page statement in the Des Moines
Register.* In this newspaper, they released a list of the
chronological events relating to Salsbury solid waste disposal
operations. For background information, this list of events has
been reproduced in its entirety as follows:
"1953, July 10 - Salsbury notifies Iowa State Department of Health
(ISDH) results of the test drilling in LaBcmnty site. Type of
wastes to be deposited described."
"1953, August 7 - ISDH informs Salsbury it can start disposing of
the wastes with city garbage at the LaBcunty site. Salsbury's first
disposal of material at site."
"1953, August 10 - Letter from Iowa Geological Survey (IGS) indicat-
ing use of the LaBounty site would be okay."
"1953, August 26 - Letter from ISDH approving use of the LaBounty
site."
"1953, August 31 - Salsbury letter informs ISDH that recommended
four sand point wells are installed."
"1953, November 13 - Salsbury notifies ISDH of results of well
samples taken on 9/04/53, 10/02/53, and 10/22/53."
"1953 to 1972 - Salsbury reports results of well testing to ISDH."
"1963, May 15 - Salsbury notifies ISDH that amount of material being
deposited is four times greater than in 1962."
1966, October 6 - The LaBounty site on the agenda for the Iowa Water
Pollution Control Commission meeting. Salsbury present."
"1966, December 2 - Three additional test wells at the LaBounty
site."
"1967, April 12 - Dr. E.R. Baumann, Iowa State University (ISU), was
engaged by Salsbury Laboratories as its pollution control consultant•
*Issue of January 31, 1977.
80
-------
"1968, January 16 - Salsbury and consultant report "Disposal of
Solid Wastes from Salsbury Laboratories Production Operations" to
ISDH and IGS."
"1970, July 20 - IGS recommends observation wells into the Cedar
Valley limestone with a water analysis program be carried out over
several seasons."
"1970, September 3 - Meeting of IGS and Salsbury recommends monitor-
ing wells be put into limestone at LaBounty site."
"1972, January 13 - IGS communicates to Salsbury initial thoughts on
criteria and sites for hazardous waste disposal."
"1972, May 9 - Letter from IGS to Salsbury on sites that have deep
beds of Juniper Hill shale (blue clay)."
"1972, September 13 - IGS, Salsbury meeting. State proposed four
wells into the Cedar Valley Aquifer at LaBounty site."
"1973, May 12 - IGS reports Electrical Resistivity results on pro- •
posed Rockford site."
"1973, May 29 - IGS reports drilling logs from test drilling on
Rockford site looks good."
"1973, December 4 - First soil and bedrock investigation report at
Rockford site by Soil Exploration Company."
"1974, February 24 - Salsbury purchases a 140.68 acre farm southwest
of Rockford, Iowa, with intentions of this farm being developed as a
hazardous waste disposal site, for Salsbury's chemical wastes. This
farm has the thick deposit of Juniper Hill clay thought to be
desirable for this purpose."
"1974, June 18 - Salsbury notifies DEQ of waste materials destined
for future hazardous landfill site."
"1974, September 11 - IGS visits Salsbury and LaBounty site.
Indicated that IGS would drill 7 or 8 sets of wells into the Cedar
Valley limestone."
"1974, September 25 - IGS proposal for groundwater monitoring pro-
gram at LaBounty site. Recommended 7 drive point wells and 12
drilling wells."
"1974, December 20 - Meeting of DEQ, IGS, Salsbury on LaBounty
site. Salsbury consultant cautions against drilling in the actual
dump site."
81
-------
"1975, July 9 - Signed agreement with DEQ granting from $4,000
toward their expenses for drilling 3 wells at LaBounty."
"1976, December 15 - Meeting with DEQ, IGS, INRC, ISHL, Salsbury to
discuss findings of November 1976 report on LaBounty site by IGS and
DEQ."
"1977, January 18 - Meeting with DEQ and Salsbury on subject of
solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment."
"1977, February - EPA carries out investigation of Salsbury disposal
site and river sampling."
"1977, February 21 - Salsbury responds to DEQ request for informa-
tion from January 18, 1977, meeting."
"1977, February 25 - Salsbury meets with DEQ, EAP, IGS, INRC, and
Engineering-Science (ES) on solid waste disposal."
"1977, March 17 - Salsbury receives first DEQ Executive Order."
"1977, April 13 - Salsbury responds .positively to all provisions of
March 17 Executive Order."
"1977, April 29 - Date of Amended Executive Order. Expanded on the
same points as in the original Order."
"1977, May 20 - Salsbury responds positively to all provisions of
amended Executive Order of April 29."
"1977, June 9 - Date, of Amendment to DEQ Executive Order."
"1977, June 10 - INRC approves construction of dike at LaBounty
site."
"1977, June 13 - Salsbury sends DEQ soil testing program for
Rockford site."
"1977, June 24 - Salsbury responds positively to Executive Order as
amended June 9, 1977."
"1977, June 28 - DEQ indicates that proposed Soil Testing Program at
the Rockford site is adequate."
"1977, July 1 - DEQ approves construction of dike at LaBounty site."
"1977, July 29 - Copy of bid package for interim storage basin sent
to DEQ."
82
-------
"1977, October 20 - Letter from Salsbury transmits to DEQ report
entitled, "Preliminary Engineering Report for Wastewater Treatment"
authored by Engineering-Science (Salsbury consultant). Request
prompt review."
"1977, November 8 - Meeting at DEQ. First agreement to a reasonable
approach to solid waste characterization."
"1977, November 16 - Meeting at Salsbury with DEQ. Agreement on
solid waste stream characterization. Draft of executive order
presented for review."
"1977, December 9 - Salsbury receives phone call from DEQ advising
Salsbury the contents of a new Executive Order to be issued December
14, 1977. This Order drastically different than drafts previously
agreed upon."
"1977, December 12 - Phone conversation between Salsbury and DEQ.
Salsbury not given chance to meet with DEQ before the issuance of
Executive Order."
"1977, December 15 - Salsbury receives Executive Order, ceases all
disposal operations at LaBounty site and stops all chemical produc-
tion."
"1977, December 16 - DEQ approves use of the interim storage, basin
which is lined with two clay and one polyethylene liners."
"1978, January 3 - Salsbury resumes limited chemical production."
"1978, January 4 - DEQ withdraws approval to use the interim storage
basin because of failure to the top clay liner."
83
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
FEASIBILITY OF IN SITU SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
OF LANDFILLED HAZARDOUS WASTES
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. Bruce Truett, Richard L. Holberger,
Kris W. Barrett
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Mitre Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
McLean, Virginia 22102
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
TEJY1A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3665
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final - Nov. 1981 to March 198!
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer; Donald E. Sanning (513)684-7871
16. ABSTRACT
This report discusses the feasibility of solidifying or stabilizing hazardous
industrial wastes that are already in place at a landfill. Solidification
methods considered include (1) incorporating the waste into solids, (2) fusing
the waste with soil, and (3) isolating the waste by enclosing it in
impermeable inert envelopes or smaller capsules. None of the solidification
methods appears generally applicable to large landfills containing mixed
industrial wastes, although two methods appear promising for some specific
applications. The more promising methods were examined for possible
application at the 8.5 acre LaBounty site at Charles City, Iowa. None of the
solidification/stabilization methods appears suitable for in situ application
at this site because of large variations in the permeability of the fill
material and the diverse chemical composition of the wastes. This report.was
submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3665 by the Mitre Corporation
under sponsorship of the USEPA. This report covers the period November 1981
to March 1982 and work was completed as of April 1982.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
93
20. SECURITY CLASS (TMspagel
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |