EPA-600/2-76-070
March 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
DISPOSAL OF FLUE GAS CLEANING WASTES:
EPA SHAWNEE FIELD EVALUATION
Initial Report
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available-to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-070
March 1976
DISPOSAL OF FLUE GAS CLEANING WASTES:
EPA SHAWNEE FIELD EVALUATION-INITIAL REPORT
R. B. Fling, W. M. Graven, F. D. Hess,
P. P. Leo, R. C. Rossi, and J. Rossoff
The Aerospace Corporation
Environment and Energy Conservation Division
P.O. Box 92957
Los Angeles, California 90009
Contract No. 68-02-1010
ROAP No. ABA-001
Program Element No. EHB-528
EPA Project Officer: Julian W. Jones
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the progress made during the
initial phase (September 1974 - July 1975) of a field evaluation pro-
gram, conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, to assess
techniques for the disposal of power plant flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) wastes. The site chosen for the evaluation was the Tennessee
Valley Authority Shawnee Power Station at Paducah, Kentucky. Two
10-MW prototype flue gas scrubber systems, one using lime and the
other limestone, produced wastes that were stored in five disposal
ponds on the plant site. Two of the ponds contain untreated wastes;
each of the remaining ponds contains wastes chemically treated by one
of three commercial contractors. Test samples of treated and un-
treated wastes, ground water, surface water, leachate, and soil cores
are being analyzed in order to evaluate the environmental acceptability
of current disposal technology. Based on this program, engineering
estimates of total costs (capital and operating) for FGD waste treat-
ment and disposal have been made.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-02-1010 by The Aerospace Corporation under the sponsorship
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
CONVERSION TABLE xiv
I. CONCLUSIONS 1
II. RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III. INTRODUCTION 5
IV. SUMMARY 7
4. 1 Untreated Sludge 9
4. 2 Treated Sludge 9
4.3 Soil 11
4. 4 Total Disposal Costs 13
4. 5 Potential Program Expansion 14
V. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 17
VI. SITE AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION 19
6. 1 General 19
6. 2 Test Facilities 19
6. 3 Ponds 22
6. 4 Climatological and Hydraulic Data Station 25
VII. OPERATIONS AND SCHEDULES 27
7. 1 Pond Filling and Fixation 27
7. 2 Schedules 42
VIII. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 49
8. 1 Sampling 52
8. 2 Results of Analyses 54
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
IX. TOTAL DISPOSAL COSTS 97
9. 1 General Assessment 98
9. 2 Capital Equipment and Land 103
9.3 Operating Costs 107
9. 4 Total Disposal Costs 108
9. 5 Other Cost Considerations 109
REFERENCES Ill
APPENDICES
A. Shawnee Field Sampling Procedures 115
B. Description of Chemical Analysis
Techniques 117
C. Data Records 125
VI
-------
FIGURES
1. Sample Plot of Total Dissolved Solids in
Supernate, Leachate, and Ground Water
Wells of Pond A 10
2. Sample Plot of Total Dissolved Solids in
Supernate, Leachate, and Ground Water
Wells of Pond E < 12
3. EPA Shawnee Disposal Field Evaluation,
Functional Organization 18
4. Shawnee Stream Plant 20
5. Prototype Scrubber Installation at Shawnee
Boiler No. 10 21
6. Shawnee Steam Plant Alkali Scrubbing Test
Facility, Sludge Ponds Location, and Details 23
7. Disposal Pond Well Nomenclature 24
8. Leachate Collection Well 26
9. Pond A One Month After Filling 29
10. Pond A Two Months After Filling . . 30
11. Pond D Two Months After Second Filling 31
12. Pond B Six Days After Filling 33
13. Pond B Three Months After Filling 34
14. Pond C Three Days After Filling 37
15. Pond C Three Months After Filling 38
16. Pond E During Filling, Before Contouring 39
17. Pond E Five Months After Filling and Contouring 40
18. Pond E Five Months After Filling and
Contouring (close-up) 41
19. Calcium in Pond A Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 57
VII
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
20. Sulfate in Pond A Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 58
21. Chloride in Pond A Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 59
22. Total Dissolved Solids in Pond A Supernate,
Leachate, and Ground Water Wells 60
23. Minor Constituents of Pond A Supernate and
Leachate Well 62
24. Calcium in Pond D Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 63
25. Sulfate in Pond D Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 64
26. Chloride in Pond D Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 65
27. Total Dissolved Solids in Pond D Supernate,
Leachate, and Ground Water Wells 66
28. Minor Constituents of Pond D Supernate and
Leachate Well 67
29. Calcium in Pond B Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 69
30. Sulfate in Pond B Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 70
31. Chloride in Pond B Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 71
32. Total Dissolved Solids in Pond B Supernate,
Leachate, and Ground Water Wells 72
33. Calcium in Pond C Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 74
34. Sulfate in Pond C Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 75
vm
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
35. Chloride in Pond C Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 76
36. Total Dissolved Solids in Pond C Supernate,
Leachate, and Ground Water Wells 77
37. Calcium in Pond E Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 79
38. Sulfate in Pond E Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 80
39. Chloride in Pond E Supernate, Leachate, and
Ground Water Wells 81
40. Total Dissolved Solids in Pond E Supernate,
Leachate, and Ground Water Wells 82
41. Weekly Precipitation and Water Levels for Pond A
Supernate and Leachate Well 86
42. Weekly Precipitation and Water Levels for Pond B
Supernate and Leachate Well 87
43. Weekly Precipitation and Water Levels for Pond C
Supernate and Leachate Well 88
44. Weekly Precipitation and Water Levels for Pond D
, Supernate and Leachate Well 89
45. Weekly Precipitation and Water Levels for Pond E
Supernate and Leachate Well - 90
46. Weekly Precipitation and Ground Water Well Levels
for Pond A 91
47. Weekly River Stages and Ground Water
Well Levels for Pond B 93
48. Weekly River Stages and Ground Water
Well Levels for Pond C 94
49. Weekly River Stages and Ground Water
Well Levels for Pond D 95
IX
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
50. Weekly River Stages and Ground Water
Well Levels for Pond E 96
51. Flow Sheet for an Operational Plant Used as a
Baseline for Costing the Chemfix Process 100
52. Flow Sheet for an Operational Plant Used as a
Baseline for Costing the Dravo Process 101
53. Flow Sheet for an Operational Plant Used as a
Baseline for Costing the IUCS Process 102
54. Aerospace Estimate of Total Disposal Costs
for Chemfix Process 104
55. Aerospace Estimate of Total Disposal Costs
for Dravo Process 105
56. Aerospace Estimate of Total Disposal Costs
for IUCS Process 106
x
-------
TABLES
1. Shawne e Pond Data 8
2. General Schedule, EPA/TVA Shawne e Sludge
Disposal Field Demonstration 43
3. Pond A, Lime Sludge Filter Cake-Untreated,
Fill Contractor: TVA 44
4. Pond B, Limestone Sludge Clarifier Underflow-
Treated, Fixation Contractor: Dravo 45
5. Pond C, Lime Sludge Centrifuge Cake-Treated,
Fixation Contractor: IUCS 46
6. Pond D, Limestone Clarifier Underflow—Untreated,
Fixation Contractor: TVA 47
7. Pond E, Limestone Clarifier Underflow-Treated,
Fixation Contractor: Chemfix 48
8. Water Analysis Parameters 50
9. Chemical Characterization Parameters 51
10. Significant Factors Affecting Full-Scale Cost
Projections, and Conditions Assessed by
Aerospace Based on Processor Data 99
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report, prepared by The Aerospace Corporation,
is the result of a continuing cooperative effort of many individuals
and organizations, all of whom have made valuable contributions
to this program. The authors wish to thank the following:
Frank W. Princiotta of EPA, for his guidance as the originial
Shawnee Project Officer; John Williams, the current EPA Shawnee
Project Officer; and Julian W. Jones, the EPA FGD Waste Disposal
Program Project Officer, .whose personal involvement and manage-
ment of this program have been significant factors in the development
of the data produced.
In addition to the authors, contributing organizations and
personnel are as follows:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
C. V. Ardis
J. B. Barkley
H. W. Elder
C. W. Holley
A. F. Little
H. P. Mathews
J. K. Metcalf
R. Tullis
The Bechtel Corporation
D. A. Burbank
M. Epstein
Chemfix, Inc.
Dravo Corporation
IU Conversion Systems, Inc.
Ronald C. Rossi, Head
Materials Analysis Department
Materials Sciences Laboratory
Jerome Rossoff, DIrVctor
Office of Stationary Systems
Environment and Energy
Conservation Division
eltz€r, General/Manager
ironment and Energ}CConservation
Division
Xlll
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
A list of conversion factors for British units used in this report
is as follows:
British
1 acre
1 Btu/lb
1 foot
1 ft3/min
1 inch
1 gallon
1 pound
1 mile
1 ton (short)
1 ton/ft2
Metric
4047 m2
2.235 J/g
0. 3048 meters
28.316 liters/min
2. 54 cm
3.785 liters
0.454 kg
1.609 km
0.9072 metric tons
9765 kg/m2
xiv
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
This evaluation program has been underway for less
than a year, and monitoring of treated sludge disposal for only a few
months. Although it is too early in the program to draw conclusions,
several significant results are evident from the information obtained
to date. These results are as follows:
• The leachates from ponds containing treated sludge
show significantly lower concentrations of major solu-
ble species and trace metals than do leachates from
ponds containing untreated sludge.
• The concentrations of major constituents in the leach-
ates from ponds containing untreated sludge are in-
creasing to levels approaching those in the input liquor.
• The ground waters being monitored for all ponds show
no effect from either treated or untreated sludge
disposal.
• The estimated total disposal cost for treated sludge of
the Shawnee type, including capital and operating costs,
is in the range of 0.9 to 1.4 mills/kW-hr. This esti-
mate is based on a 50% average annual power plant load
factor over a 30-yr service life. For a 65% average
annual load factor, these costs are reduced approxi-
mately 7%.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
At this point in the field evaluation program, no results
have been obtained that would indicate the need for any major change in
the program as currently planned. Further time is required to deter-
mine the long-term effects of the disposal of both treated and untreated
sludge. Therefore, it is recommended that the program be continued
as planned in order to produce sufficient field monitoring data and the
associated analyses necessary for an evaluation of sludge disposal
technology. Assessments of current data indicate that two to three
years of monitoring may be sufficient for correlation with laboratory-
accelerated test results such that knowledgable estimates of long-term
effects can be made.
Two techniques not now in the program have the poten-
tial for reducing sludge disposal costs: the use of oxidized sulfite
sludges and the removal of fly ash from the stack gases prior to scrub-
bing. Therefore, it is recommended that ponds be installed and moni-
tored to evaluate the following techniques:
• Use of oxidized sulfite sludge that has been dewatered
and compacted. During compaction, use would be
made of low-moisture-content fly ash as available.
• Use of sludge from a scrubber located downstream of
electrostatic precipitators. This sludge would be com-
pacted, covered with earth, contoured, and landscaped.
Low-moisture-content fly ash would be used during the
compaction process.
-------
It is further recommended that an assessment be made of the effect of
these techniques on scrubber system make-up water requirements and
total operating costs.
4
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
As the installation of power plant nonregenerable flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) systems and their resultant quantities of
scrubber wastes continue to increase, the need for evaluation of waste
disposal technology has become apparent. This need is based on the
potential impact on water quality posed by sludge disposal and the non-
structural quality of sludge in a landfill because of the high water re-
tention property of the sludge. Although several approaches to envi-
ronmentally sound disposal are offered commercially or are being
attempted by some power companies, the major sources of verifica-
tion of the environmental acceptability of the disposal approaches are
laboratory data or unpublished results of limited field demonstrations.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory has, therefore, initiated a power plant site field
evaluation of the disposal and monitoring of untreated and treated
sludges for the purpose of verifying several disposal techniques and
scrubbing operations, soil interactions, and field operation procedures
on the environmental quality of the disposal site. The program began
in September 1974.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Shawnee Power
Station at Paducah, Kentucky, was chosen as the site for the evalua-
tion. Two different scrubber systems operating in parallel upstream
of fly ash collection are treing operated at this station as an EPA/TVA
test facility, with the Bechtel Corporation as the scrubber test director.
Each scrubber system is capable of independently treating up to 10 MW
-------
(equivalent) of flue gas from one boiler. Sludges from these scrubbers
(i.e. , a UOP Turbulent Contact Absorber and a Chemico venturi fol-
lowed by a spray tower, using limestone and lime, respectively, as
the SO-j absorbent) are being used in the disposal demonstration.
These sludges are undergoing analysis in several laboratories under
EPA sponsorship. This program will provide a broader data base for
the evaluation of flue gas SO- control by combining evaluations of
scrubber performance and sludge disposal at the same site, while
analyses are conducted of the same materials in directly related
laboratory programs.
The initial plans for this program provide for five dis-
posal sites, each occupying approximately 0. 1 acre. All have been
filled to a depth of approximately 3 feet, two sites with untreated sludge
and three with chemically treated sludge. Potential expansion of the
program includes adding several sites that will contain sludge condi-
tioned by oxidation to gypsum, and possibly a site that will contain un-
treated sludge and be covered to simulate a retired pond throughout
as much of the program as possible. The disposal sites are being
monitored for leachate quality, ground water quality, soil chemistry
changes, and treated sludge chemical and physical qualities.
The program has been underway since September 1974
and, although insufficient data and analyses are available to arrive at
final conclusions, the findings and trends observed at this interim
point are reported in the following sections. The evaluation program
is scheduled to be completed by July 1976, and a final report issued
by December 1976.
The objectives of this program are as follows:
• Evaluate current disposal techniques under represen-
tative field operating conditions.
• Evaluate the environmental acceptability of current
disposal technology through periodic sampling, anal-
ysis, and assessment of water, soil, and sludge cores.
• Develop engineering cost estimates for alternative dis-
posal methods on an operational basis.
-------
SECTION IV
SUMMARY
The sludge disposal field evaluation program at the
Shawnee Steam Plant is being conducted in order to assess the pond-
ing of untreated sludge and the landfilling of chemically treated sludge
simulating two different disposal situations. Two of the five ponds
used in the program contain untreated sludge. Of the three treated
sludge ponds, one represents an impoundment behind a dam, and two
represent low spots (undrained) within a landfill. Sludges from two
10-MW (equivalent) scrubbers are used in the evaluations. A sum-
mary of the sludge types used in the program are shown in Table 1.
All sludges used contained approximately 40% fly ash on a dry weight
basis. The ponds are approximately 0. 1 acre in size and 6 feet deep,
and are filled to a depth of approximately 3 feet. The surfaces of the
three treated ponds are sloped to create a wet section consisting of a
combination of liquor and rainwater, and a potential dry section (de-
pending on weather conditions) for the observation of physical condi-
tions of dry material.
The ponds were filled between 7 October 1974 and 23
April 1975. Data taken until 1 July 1975 are discussed in this docu-
ment; therefore, it will serve as a status report since the effects of
time on program results have not been realized. It is expected that
these disposal ponds will be monitored for at least another 18 months,
thereby providing a muclrbroader data base for evaluation.
All ponds are monitored for leachate, for supernate
and ground water quality, and for the characteristics of the soil and
-------
Table 1. SHAWNEE POND DATA
Pond
Designation
A
B
C
D<
E
Scrubber
Type
Venturi/ Spray
Tower
Turbulent Contact
Absorber
Venturi /Spray
Tower
Turbulent Contact
Absorber
Turbulent Contact
Absorber
Sludge
Absorbent/ Source
Lime /Filter Cake
Limes tone /Clarifier
Underflow
Lime /Centrifuge
Cake
Lime stone /Clarifier
Underflow
Lime stone /Clarifier
Unde rflow
Solids
Content, wt%
46
38
55
38
38
Treatment
Contractor
Untreated
Dravo
IU Conversion
Systems
Untreated
Chemfix
00
-------
fixed sludge cores. Even though the monitoring period to date has
been relatively short, the data obtained have provided some signifi-
cant results, correlations with laboratory data, and possibly some
trends. These are summarized briefly in the following paragraphs.
4. 1 UNTREATED SLUDGE
In the ponds containing untreated sludge, the data ob-
tained from leachate samples to date show that the concentrations of
the major soluble species, i.e., calcium, sulfate, and chloride (and,
of course, total dissolved solids), progressively increase with time.
The data also indicate that the concentration levels are approaching
those measured in the input liquor. Simultaneously, the concentra-
tions of these same constituents in the pond supernate vary with time.
Neither the sludge nor the scrubber system liquor is replenished,
therefore, the supernate should become increasingly diluted with rain-
fall as the program progresses. Some fluctuation in this trend can be
expected as a result of evaporation during dry periods. The detection
of heavy metals in the leachate and supernate of the untreated ponds
shows trends similar to the major species, however, concentration
projections are not as easily made because of the relatively small
magnitude of the values. Continued monitoring is expected to clarify
this situation. Thus far, ground water quality shows no effect from
the constituents of the untreated ponds. A sample plot of water anal-
ysis from Pond A is given in Figure 1, and a presentation of all data
for the untreated ponds is given in Paragraph 8.2.3 and Appendix C. 2.
4.2 TREATED SLUDGE
The data from the ponds containing treated sludge, al-
though sampled over a shorter period of time, show trends similar to
those of the untreated sludge, except the reductions of concentrations
owing to chemical fixation are evident in the leachate analyses. Indi-
cations are that these concentrations either start at or quickly build up
to approximately 50% of the respective concentrations in the liquor of
-------
9000 r-
8000
7000
E 6000
co
05000
o 4000
CO
^ 3000
o
2000
1000
INPUT LIQUOR
IDS - 8285 mg/l
AVERAGE
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
a GROUND WATER
<§>
GROUND WELL A2
a
-3
-2
-1
1234
MONTHS FROM POND FILLING
Figure 1. Sample plot of total dissolved solids in supernate, leachate, and ground water
wells of Pond A
-------
the untreated input sludge. These data correlate with a large body of
data from analyses of laboratory-prepared samples, and if these cor-
relations continue, the field evaluations should show a reduction of
concentrations to relatively insignificant values after the effects of
fixation have stabilized. (These correlations will be contained in an
Aerospace report prepared for EPA entitled "Disposal of By-Products
from Non-Regenerable Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems," to be re-
leased early in 1976.) The time-dependent results of these evaluations
will be determined as this program progresses. As with the untreated
sludges, the supernates of the treated ponds are showing the effects of
change resulting from rainfall, evaporation, and seepage; thus far,
ground waters are unaffected. A sample analysis of Pond E is given
in Figure 2, and all data for the treated ponds are presented in Para-
graph 8. 2.4 and Appendix C. 2.
Results of physical analyses of laboratory-prepared
samples indicate that sludges treated for solubility control attain uncon-
fined compressive strengths of 4. 5 ton/ft or better, and permeability
coefficients are improved generally by one to two orders of magnitude
c / _ Y
to the range of 10 to 10" cm/sec, and in some cases to 10 . Sam-
pling is being continued at Shawnee to confirm the laboratory results
and to assess compressive strength and permeability of field-treated
sludges with respect to time. Moreover, an attempt will be made to
assess percentage of additive in relation to strength and permeability,
as possible.
4.3 SOIL
As noted, the ground waters show no evidence of altered
quality resulting from the filling of any of the five ponds. This result
is in agreement with expectations based upon the very low permeabili-
ties of the clay soils from the floor of the ponds. Analyses conducted
_ Q
by TVA show a typical permeability in the range of 10" cm/sec for
these soils. Thus, in one year, the sludge leachate constituents would
be expected to permeate to a depth of less than 0. 5 inch. Laboratory
11
-------
3500
3000
2500
on
2ooo
o 1500
00
1000
500
INPUT LIQUOR TDS
BEFORE TREATMENT - 6245 mg/l
AVERAGE
POND FILLING ~ 12-13-74 TO 12-7-74
A
LEACHATE
o
A
iBHM*
A
O SUPERNATE
A l£ACHATE
n GROUND WATER WELLS El AND E2
SUPERNATE
•a-
1
1
-5 -4-3-2-10 123
MONTHS FROM POND FILLING
Figure 2. Sample plot of total dissolved solids in supernate, leachate, and ground water
wells of Pond E
-------
analyses using an ion microprobe mass analyzer are underway at The
Aerospace Corporation to detect the progress of the constituents in suc-
cessive soil cores in order to verify long-range analytical predictions
over a relatively short time period, i.e. , within the time span of the
evaluation program. Details of the analyses are described in Sec-
tion 8. 2. 5. 2. Measurements have been completed on pond floor core
samples taken prior to filling the ponds in order to provide background
data for future tests. Results are shown in Appendix C. 7.
4.4 TOTAL DISPOSAL COSTS
Engineering cost estimates have been prepared for the
total costs associated with the disposal of treated Shawnee-type sludge
from a 1000-MW power station producing sludge at a rate of 125 ton/hr
on a dry basis. The costing was done for disposal at distances of 0. 5
and 5. 0 miles from the power plant. It was assumed that the service
life of the equipment involved was 10, 15, or 30 years, as appropriate.
Power plant average annual load factors of 50% and 65% were also
assumed over a 30-yr service life.
The results of the cost analysis, using fixation contrac-
tor inputs adjusted by The Aerospace Corporation to provide a common
base for capital and operating cost factors, are shown below.
Total Disposal Costs, 1975 Dollars
Per Ton of Sludge
(Dry Basis)
$7.30 - 11.40
Per Ton of Coal
(Eastern)
$2.07 - 3.24
Mills per kW-hr
0.9 - 1.4
These costs were determined for an average annual operating load fac-
tor of 50% over a 30-yr lifetime. Locating the disposal site 0. 5 mile
from the power plant rather than the 5 miles used as a baseline above
and increasing the annual operating load factor from 50 to 65% reduce
the disposal costs by approximately 9 and 7%, respectively.
13
-------
The sludge includes fly ash, which is collected along
with the SO2 waste. The estimates represent the total disposal cost
and do not reflect any credit for separate disposal of fly ash.
Total disposal costs are presented in Paragraph 9.4
for the three processes used under different conditions, as functions
of solids content in the sludge and of the percent of additive. In all
cases evaluated to date in this program, the higher the solids content
the lower the amount of fixation additive needed. As the cost of the
chemical additives is one of the major elements in the disposal cost,
an Aerospace analysis was made to determine the major parameter
associated with reducing additives, i.e., dewatering. This analysis
determined that a net saving in processing costs can be achieved by
dewatering, as the increased cost of dewatering is more than offset
by the corresponding reduction in additive and processing costs. In
addition, a reduction in sludge volume as a result of dewatering could
further reduce overall disposal costs. In this regard, comparative
economics achieved by separating the fly ash prior to treatment and
adding it to a clarifier underflow or to a filter or centrifuge cake will
be evaluated.
4. 5 POTENTIAL PROGRAM EXPANSION
Since the inception of this program, technological devel-
opments and assessments by various organizations, including EPA
research laboratories, power companies, and commercial waste han-
dlers, have indicated an increased potential for sludge ponding without
fixation. This process involves methods by which the sludge is de-
watered and placed in a pond where underflow and supernate are col-
lected and recirculated to the scrubber. The dewatered sludge would
be compacted after placement. Techniques suggested include the fol-
lowing: (1) oxidation and dewatering of sulfite sludges with and without
fly ash, and (2) scrubbing downstream from electrostatic precipitators
and dewatering of the sludge. Compacting with available low-moisture-
content fly ash would occur at the disposal site. These methods have
not been validated from an environmental standpoint, but the Shawnee
14
-------
disposal evaluation site could accommodate chemical and structural
evaluations of these types of disposal to determine whether they would
be feasible. Monitoring and evaluation techniques now being conducted
for the current program could be used. Additionally, evaluations of
the effects of increased water recirculation to the scrubber, i.e. ,
tightening the loop, should be made as well as economic studies. A
further advancement of disposal technology would include the retiring
of one of these ponds after filling. It would be capped with a clay
cover, contoured, and landscaped; the monitoring and evaluating of
well water samples would be continued; and the structural quality of
the site would be evaluated.
15
-------
SECTION V
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
This program is managed by the EPA Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. The functional relationships of the other organiza-
tions participating in the program are shown in Figure 3.
The Aerospace Corporation is responsible for program
coordination, writing and maintaining the program plans, selected
analyses, evaluation and assessment of all analytical results includ-
ing costing, and reporting of program activities and analyses.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is responsible
for all construction, filling of untreated ponds, supplying sludges to
fixation processors at the site, maintenance, sampling and analyses,
sample distribution, climatological and hydraulic data collection,
photographic documentation (still and motion picture), and contracting
with sludge fixation processors. TVA also provides analytical data,
climatological and hydraulic data, and photographic documentation to
The Aerospace Corporation for assessment and inclusion in formal
reporting to EPA.
The sludge fixation processors are Chemfix, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Dravo Corporation, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; and IU Conversion Systems, Inc., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
The Bechtel Corporation provides the technical inter-
face relating the scrubber test facility to the disposal demonstration.
17
-------
TVA SHAWNEE
PROJECT OFFICER
EPA
SHAWNEE
PROJECT OFFICER
BECHTEL
SHAWNEE
PROJECT MANAGER
THE AEROSPACE CORP.
Plans, Program Coordin-
ation, Analyses,
Evaluation, Reports
EPA
FGD WASTE
DISPOSAL PROGRAM
PROJECT OFFICER
BECHTEL
ONSITE (Scrubber)
TEST PROGRAM DIRECTOR
oo
TVA
DIVISION OF
POWER PRODUCTION
TVA
Construction, Maintenance,
Sampling, Analysis
ASST. TVA PROJECT OFFICER
TVA
POND AND TEST
EQUIP. CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE,
CORE SAMPLING, CORE
AND WATER ANALYSES
TVA
SHAWNEE TEST FACILITY
SUPERVISOR,
WATER SAMPLING,
SITE COORDINATION
CHEMFIX
DRAVO
IUCS
DIRECT SUPPORT
— — COORDINATION ONLY
Figure 3. EPA Shawnee disposal field evaluation, functional organization
-------
SECTION VI
SITE AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION
6.1 GENERAL
The site on which the disposal evaluation is being
conducted is located approximately 0.5 miles from the TVA Shawnee
Steam Plant near Paducah, Kentucky (see Figure 4). The Shawnee
plant has ten generating units capable of producing a total of
1, 750, 000 kW of electric power. At its typical level of operation,
Shawnee consumes 4, 500,000 ton/yr of bituminous coal from the coal
fields of western Kentucky and Illinois. This coal has an average
sulfur content of approximately 3.5%.
6.2 TEST FACILITIES
Two prototype wet lime/lime stone scrubbers, each
capable of treating approximately 30,000 ft /min (at 300°F) of flue
gas, are currently operating in parallel on Shawnee boiler no. 10
2
(see Figure 5). Gas is withdrawn from the boiler ahead of the
power plant particulate removal equipment so that entrained fly ash
is introduced into the scrubber. The two scrubbers, each of which
treats an equivalent of 10 MW of boiler capacity, produce an effluent
slurry containing sulfite, sulfate, chloride, and trace metals. The
effluent is pumped to a thickener area from which sludge can be
removed from a clarifier, centrifuge, or filter for placement in one
of five disposal areas. Both treated and untreated sludges are being
tested in the evaluation program.
19
-------
Figure 4. Shawnee steam plant
20
-------
TURBULENT
CONTACT
ABSORBER
VENTURI/
SPRAY
TOWER
Figure 5. Prototype scrubber installation at
Shawnee boiler no. 10
'
-------
6.3 PONDS
The five disposal areas identified as Ponds A, B, C,
D, and E are shown in relation to the power facility in Figure 6.
Pond A measures 85 by 105 feet, and the other ponds measure 37 by
133 feet. All ponds are 6 feet deep, have 2:1 side slopes, and have
bottom surfaces generally in the horizontal plane. All berms are
contoured to drain away from each pond. Sludge is placed in the pond
to a depth of approximately 3 feet. A wooden pier has been con-
structed at one end of each pond to serve as a support for a leachate
well and to provide a sampling station for obtaining leachate well
water. Pond A is filled with untreated lime sludge filter cake, and
Pond D with untreated limestone sludge clarifier underflow. Ponds B,
C, and E are filled with chemically fixed material by the Dravo
Corporation, IU Conversion Systems, Inc., and Chemfix, Inc.,
respectively. Pond well nomenclature and dimensions are shown in
Figure 7.
6.3.1 Ground Water Well Construction
A ground water well has been constructed at each pond
on the berm approximately opposite the leachate well to measure the
quality of ground water. The well is located downstream from the
pond, relative to the direction of ground water flow. The well shaft
extends 3 feet below the water table. A 4-in. -diameter plastic pipe,
anchored in concrete and packed with clay to prevent seepage down
the shaft, has been installed to extend below the ground water level.
This pipe is covered with a force-fit plastic dust cap.
A second ground water well has been constructed
approximately 100 feet from each pond in the ground water upstream
direction for background water quality measurements. These wells
are similar to those constructed on the berms. As an exception, the
background well for Pond B serves also as the background well for
Pond D.
22
-------
rSfortye Building
» 'Sfomy* Art a
OJ
OHIO
RIVER
Disposal Ponds
B, C, D, and E
Disposal
Pond A
Figure 6. Shawnee steam plant alkali scrubbing test facility, sludge ponds
location, and details (courtesy of TVA)
-------
to
*^
85'-»
i ^
t 1
105'^
1 1
\Y«: :-;/.: fj
£r j>
-®-
H >
^ 1 OC' k.
* < fcD ^
T^
125'
*" 1 I
•:^£r>^ T
•.;>i
(•;'
:\
<;
>
^-GWA2
1
POND SIZE
DIMENSIONS
TYPICAL FOR
3Q, PONDS B,C,D,E
GWE2
GWD1
GWC1 ©GWC2
LEGEND:
© DENOTES GROUNDWATER WELLS (GW)
• DENOTES LEACHATE WELLS (LW)
Figure 7. Disposal pond well nomenclature
-------
6.3.2 Leachate Well Construction
A leachate well has been constructed on the flat bottom
of each pond near a corner or one side and adjacent to the pier. The
purpose of these wells is to provide water samples that can be
analyzed to determine the quality of the water that seeps through the
sludge (either untreated or treated) and enters the soil of the pond
bottom.
The well is constructed using a 4-in.-diameter plastic
pipe implanted as shown in Figure 8. This configuration is arranged
to prevent solid material from blocking the entrance to the pipe. The
pipe extends approximately 5 feet above the base of the pond. It is
anchored to the pier and is covered with a force-fit plastic cap to
prevent entry of foreign matter (including rainwater) into the well.
The installation is such that surface water cannot freely flow between
the sludge and the pipe, or through the upper end.
6.4 C LIMA TO LOGICAL AND HYDRAULIC DATA STATION
A data-taking station, containing both recording and
nonrecording instrumentation, has been installed for the purpose of
determining weather conditions at the site that may affect the disposal
evaluations. Initially, this station was located in the vicinity of
Pond A; however, since February 1975, it has been located in the
vicinity of Pond D.
Measurements made at this station include the
following:
a. Air and water temperature
b. Precipitation
c. Evaporation
d. Wind movement
e. Relative humidity
f. Solar radiation
25
-------
^^m^v\\^\W\K'
\ > \\v \N \.\Y?\W • >VACV.^' ^ \x
JV\x^ - \^^^;^> W
OUART2ITE
ROCK
AND SAND
DIATOMA-
CEOUS
EARTH
Figure 8. Leachate collection well
26
-------
SECTION VII
OPERATIONS AND SCHEDULES
Operations began on this field evaluation program in
September 1974 with the completion of construction of the five disposal
ponds, A through E, previously described in Paragraph 6.3. Pond
filling for all ponds, for both treated and untreated sludges, was com-
pleted by mid-April 1975. Analyses are being conducted on soils,
input sludge, treated sludge, ground water, leachate, and supernate.
7.1 POND FILLING AND FIXATION
The five disposal ponds were filled with sludges repre-
senting a cross section of scrubber effluent conditions. The two ponds
filled with untreated sludge were selected to evaluate both lime and
limestone scrubbing waste disposal as well as a variation in the degree
of sludge dewatering as shown previously in Table 1. The operations
associated with the ponding of untreated sludges were as follows.
7.1.1 Untreated Ponds
7.1. 1. 1 Pond A
Pond A was filled between 24 September and 8 October
1974 with untreated sludge from the venturi/spray tower scrubber in
which lime was used as the absorbent. The sludge had been dewatered
by filtering and had a solids content of 46 wt% when it was placed in the
pond. Ash constituted approximately 43 wt% of the solids. A rotary
drum mixing truck was used to haul the sludge to the pond in order to
maintain a homogenous mix during loading and transport. Dispersal
27
-------
of the sludge in the pond was achieved by dumping the sludge at various
locations in the pond from which it was allowed to settle and seek its
natural level. The condition of the sludge in Pond A one month after
filling is shown in Figure 9. Rain water accumulated on the pond over
the next few weeks, as shown in Figure 10.
7. 1. 1.2 Pond D
Pond D was filled twice, i.e., from 11 to 20 October
1974 and from 13 January to 5 February 1975. The material used in
the first filling was subsequently transferred to Pond E; during the
transfer the material was chemically treated by Chemfix. The sludge
used for both fillings was clarifier underflow from the Turbulent
Contact Absorber, with limestone as the absorbent and a solids con-
tent of 38 wt%. Likewise, on both occasions, ash represented approxi-
mately 38 wt% of the solids. For both fillings a rotary drum mixing
truck was used to transport the sludge to the pond, and dispersal was
as described for Pond A. The condition of Pond D two months after
the second filling is shown in Figure 11.
7.1.2 Treated Ponds
The materials used in the evaluation of chemical fixation
also represented various disposal operating conditions. Pond B was
filled using clarifier underflow chemically treated by Dravo and placed
in the pond under conditions approximating disposal behind a dam.
Pond C was filled using sludge that had been dewatered by centrifuging,
fixed by IUCS, and stored in the pond under conditions representing
a landfill. Pond E was filled with clarifier underflow chemically
treated by Chemfix and placed in the pond under conditions repre-
senting a landfill. Processor recommendations on additive quantities
for each of these processes are contained in Sections 7. 1.2. 1 through
7. 1.2. 3 and in the cost discussion in Section IX. Liquor on the sur-
face and rainwater were allowed to remain in these ponds to repre-
sent a low spot in a landfill from which water foes not readily drain.
28
-------
i J
D
Figure 9. Pond A one month after filling
-------
Figure 10. Pond A two months after filling
-------
•
Figure 11. Pond D two months after second filling
-------
The operations associated with the filling of each of these three ponds
were as follows.
7.1.2.1 Pond B (Dravo)
Pond B was filled from 7 to 15 April 1975. The effluent
delivered to Dravo was lime stone/clarifier underflow from the Turbu-
lent Contact Absorber. The sludge was 38 wt% solids and the solids
contained 40 wt% ash. Dravo received the effluent from the clarifier,
used a rotary drum mix truck for transportation, and added the Dravo
proprietary additive (Calcilox ®) to each truck load from 55-gal
drums through the use of a fork lift. The amount of Calcilox® added
represented approximately 11 wt% of the dry solids being treated. In
the Dravo process, treated sludge is slurry transported to either an
interim pond or a permanent impoundment. The sludge settles to
approximately 45 wt% solids and stabilizes at a rate that is controlled
by Calcilox® content. Interim stabilization to permit excavation
and compaction as a landfill usually requires about ten days. If the
sludge is pumped directly to final disposal behind a dam, less
Calcilox® is required because rapid stabilization is unnecessary.
Delivery to the disposal site can be made by pipeline
or by other transport modes. Because of the small scale and tempo-
rary nature of this project, the treated sludge was dumped directly
into Pond B and allowed to settle and cure under the supernate and
subsequent rainwater. Under normal field conditions the supernate
would be returned to the scrubber loop. Views of Pond B six days and
two months after filling are shown in Figures 12 and 13, respectively.
Solids can be seen in the foreground in Figure 12.
The purpose of this process is to treat sludges of
various solids content. It produces a material that resembles
cemented soil in consistency for use as a material for landfill, either
by mechanical compaction or by stabilization behind a dam. (Dravo
has recommended Reference 3 for further information on their
process.) Pond B at Shawnee simulates the latter condition, except
32
-------
0
Figure 12. Pond B six days after filling
-------
.;.-
mam
Figure 13. Pond B three months after filling
-------
there is no recirculation of the supernate in the Shawnee evaluation.
In this evaluation, Calcilox® with some lime (approximately 0. 1%)
for pH adjustment was prepackaged for 10 to 11 wt% additive based on
an expected sludge solids content of 35 wt% that was diluted further by
pump seal water. Based on the experience gained at Shawnee and
their laboratory data, Dravo recommended a 7.5 wt% additive level
for a full-scale operation using Shawnee-type sludge, with an assumed
average of 38 wt% solids.
7.1.2.2 Pond C (IU Conversion Systems)
Pond C was filled from 31 March to 23 April 1975. The
sludge delivered to IUCS was from the venturi/spray tower scrubber
(using lime as the absorbent) and was clarifier underflow dewatered
by centrifuge. The average solids content was 55 wt%, and the ash
comprised 45 wt% of the solids. The centrifuged sludge was conveyed
to an IUCS-ope rated rotary drum mixer truck and transported to the
pond site where additive was mixed with the sludge prior to discharge
into the pond.
The IUCS process produces a material identified as
Poz-O-Tec®, which has applications as landfill, artificial aggre-
gate, and road base courses (see References 4 through 8). In this
evaluation, IUCS used a lime additive premixed with fly ash. The
quantity of lime is dependent on the moisture content of the sludge and
the reactivity of the fly ash already contained in the sludge. In some
cases, dewatering of the sludge is necessary for the desired reactions
to take place using economical amounts of the additives. In the
Shawnee field evaluation, the sludge solids content ranged from 47.5
to 59 wt%, and the average additive quantity used was approximately
4.8 wt% lime of the dry solids being treated plus approximately an
equal amount of fly ash. Delivery of the treated sludge to the disposal
site by truck is generally the transport mode recommended by IUCS
for a full-scale disposal operation under conditions similar to those of
the Shawnee evaluation.
35
-------
A significant benefit claimed for this method of fixation
is low permeability. In this evaluation, the sludge was dispersed by
manual raking, and some degree of compaction was achieved by this
process. Dispersal and compacting methods appropriate to handling
large quantities would be required in a full-scale operation.
Figures 14 and 15 show Pond C three days and three months after
filling, r e spe c tive ly.
IUCS reported that a lime additive of 1 to 4 wt% (dry)
would be used operationally for Shawnee-type sludges and that the
addition of dry fly ash is not mandatory, nor is it planned for full-
scale operations, when a substantial quantity of fly ash is present in
the sludge as is the case at Shawnee.
7.1.2.3 Pond E (Chemfix)
Pond E was filled between 3 and 7 December 1974 using
the sludge stored in Pond D as input material. This sludge was clari-
fier underflow from the Turbulent Contact Absorber in which lime-
stone was used as the absorbent. The solids content was 38 wt%, and
ash constituted 38 wt% of the solids. The sludge stored in Pond D
was thoroughly mixed before it was pumped from the pond into a
Chemifix processing trailer and then pumped into Pond E (see
Figure 16). The Chemfix process used the reaction of sodium silicate
and portland cement with the sludge to stabilize it. After the material
had cured, it was contoured with a back hoe so that it would more
evenly cover the pond surface and so that an evaluation could be made
of a fixed material that had been fractured and moved by heavy equip-
ment (see Figures 17 and 18).
The Chemfix process is designed to handle sludge
fixation over a broad range of percent solids and produces a material
having a soil-like appearance. Furthermore, it is not designed to
prevent the percolation of water'but rather to bind the constituents
chemically in order to accomplish pollution control, while also pro-
viding structurally stable properties (see References 9 through 13).
36
-------
!
>
Figure 14. Pond C three days after filling
-------
<•
Figure 15. Pond C three months after filling
-------
I
Figure 16. Pond E during filling, before contouring
-------
'
Figure 17. Pond E five months after filling and contouring
-------
••:' JH
i JeMflP
$
Figure 18. Pond E five months after filling and contouring (close-up)
-------
In accordance with the specification provided Chemfix
for the Shawnee evaluation, they treated clarifier underflow. In their
process, the amount of additives is significantly affected by the
moisture content of the sludge and the degree of drainage of the land-
fill. For the Shawnee evaluation, with 38 to 40 wt% sludge solids and
the treated sludge in an undrained landfill, Chemfix reported that the
additives required were 46 wt% of the solids content. Chemfix also
reported the following: (1) If the water in the pond above the treated
material were removed, the additive required to achieve an equivalent
condition would be reduced to 38. 8 wt%. (2) Dewatering of the sludge
to 50 wt% solids would reduce additive requirements to approximately
15 wt% of the dry solids content. (3) Dewatering to 55 wt% solids
would further reduce the additive requirements to about 9 wt% of the
dry solids content.
7.2 SCHEDULES
A general program schedule and separate schedules
for the activities at each pond are shown in Tables 2 through 7. The
activities that have been completed are indicated by solid triangles.
42
-------
Table 2. GENERAL, SCHEDULE, EPA/TVA SHAWNEE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FIELD DEMONSTRATION
TASKS
PONDS FILLED
POND A
POND B
POND C
POND D
POND E
PROGRAM REVIEW
MEETINGS
FIXATION REVIEW
MEETINGS
(1 day for oach fixation
contractor)
CLIMATOLOGICAL/
HYDRAULIC DATA
REPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
REPORTS
INTERIM
DRAFT
DISTRIBUTE
FINAL
DRAFT
DISTRIBUTE
AGENCIES/
CONTRACTOR
TVA
DRAVO |D)
LJCS (D
TVA
CHEMFIXIC)
EPA/TVA/
AEROSPACE/
BECHTEL
EPVTVV
AEROSPACE/
BECHTEL/
FIXATION
CONTRACTORS
TVA
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
CY 74
1
S
2
O
A
20
A
?
k
c
25
A
3
N
1
6
A
4
D
7
A
DC
34
JA
CY 75
5
J
21
A
6
F
5
A
7
M
8
A
15
A
23A
6
I
0,1
k9
9
M
10
J
C, D, j
18, 19,
.LEC
A
riON
11
j
29
A
y>
AND
12
A
tNAL
13
S
24
A
D
19
A
rsis-
14
o
15
N
20
A
16
D
L
A
CY 76
17
J
A
18
F
19
M
L
L
A
20
A
i
S
21
M
22
J
L
23
J
A
24
A
L
25
S
\
26
0
27
N
28
D
A
OJ
A TASK COMPLETED
A TASK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
-------
Table 3. POND A, LIME SLUDGE FILTER CAKE-UNTREATED, FILL CONTRACTOR: TVA
TASKS
1. POND CONSTRUCTION
AVAILABLE FOR FILLING
FILLING
2. SOIL CORING
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
SOIL LEACHATE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
3. INPUT SLUDGE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE AND STORE FILTER
CAKE DAILY
SAMPLE FILTRATE DAILY
ANALYZE
ANALYZE COMPOSITE SAMPLI
4. GROUND WATER WELLS
CONSTRUCTION (2 mill)
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
5. LEACHATE WELL
CONSTRUCTION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
6. SUPERNATE^
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
CONTRACTOR
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
A
A
A
A
A
A
CY74
t
S
3
*23
A.
23
A
23
'A
AC
23
A
A
2
0
T
A
7
A
7
t'
SA
7
A
7142
AAA
MA
A
A
A
ft.
r
A
A
A
3
N
i
^
4
D
ft.
^
i
t
t
A
I
t
CY 75
5
J
k
k
k
b
t
k
6
r
t
t
A
A
I
t
7
M
k
k
k
k
k
k
8
A
t
A
i
i
i
t
A
I
i
9
M
k
L
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
10
J
A
A
A
t
A
A
A
A
11
J
k
k
k
k
k
k
12
A
A
i
A
1
A
L
13
S
k
k
k
i
k
i
14
O
15
N
I
}
i
?
T
4
?
?
16
D
CY76 '
17
1
|
1
T
19
4
19
>
|
T
20
^
/
21
f
[
i
?
T
4
i
?
22
1
23
1
|
4
T
24
25
26
0
27
N
A TASK COMPLETED
A TASK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
Note: Activity dotes do not reflect dripping time
-------
Table 4. POND B, LIMESTONE SLUDGE CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW-TREATED,
FIXATION CONTRACTOR: DRAVO
TASKS
1. POND CONSTRUCTION
AVAILABLE FOR FILLING
FILLING
2. SOIL CORING
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
SOIL LEACHATE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
3. INPUT SLUDGE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CLARIFIER
UNDERFLOW DAILY
ANALYZE SEPARATED LIQUOR
ANALYZE COMPOSITE X SOLIDS
ANALYZE COMPOSITE LIQUOR
ANALYZE COMPOSITE DRY SOLIDS
4. GROUND WATER WELLS
CONSTRUCTION 12 ••lit)
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
5. LEACHATE WELL
CONSTRUCTION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
i. SUPERNATE
SAMPLE
ANALYZE'
ANALYZE
7. TREATED SLUDGE
INPUT MATERIAL
SAMPLE DAILY
RETAIN FOR CONTINGENCY
ANALYSIS
CORES
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
CONTRACTOR
TVA
DRAVO
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
AEROSPACE
CY 74
1
S
2
0
1
i
t
t
t
t
3
N
A
>
D
CY75
J
F
i
L
ll
A
A
A
M
,
A
7 15
AA
A-A
1 1
710
7
MM
A
A
A
1522
MM
MM
21
15
A
A
A
A
A
A
7 15
k_A
A
M
IS
A
A
5
»
15
A
A
j
15
A
A
t
i
1
i
4
1
IS
11
J
1
.
k
k
i
i
12
A
i
t
t
4
13
S
i
i
i
k
14
0
:
15
N
;
:
A
j
A
A
{
?
L
k
i
16
D
i
;
\
CY76
17
J
;
1
\
T
}
,
:
,
F
:
L
19
M
:
1
A
T
i
i
>
20
A
C
L
21
M
i
'
4
T
1
A
?
4
T
j
j
|
^
'<
22
J
:
;
\
23
J
:
^
i
T
i
j
:
^
24
A
25
S
26
0
27
N
28
D
A TASK COMPLETED
A TASK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
OU: Activity don* do not reflect shipping tlim
-------
Table 5. POND C, LIME SLUDGE CENTRIFUGE CAKE-TREATED,
FIXATION CONTRACTOR: IUCS
TASKS
1. POND CONSTRUCTION
AVAILABLE FOR FILLING
FILLING
2- SOIL CORING
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
SOIL LEACHATE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
3. INPUT UNTREATED SLUDGE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE CAKE DAILY
ANALYZE SEPARATED LIQUOR
ANALYZE COMPOSITE X SOLIDS
ANALYZE COMPOSITE LIQUOR
ANALYZE COMPOSITE DRY SOLIDS
4. GROUND WATER WELLS
CONSTRUCTION 12 »lll«l
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
!. LEACHATE WELL
CONSTRUCTION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
6. SUPERNATE
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
T. TREATED SLUDGE
INPUT MATERIAL
SAMPLE DAILY
RETAIN FOR CONTINGENCY
ANALYSIS
CORES
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
CONTRACTOR
TVA
IUCS
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
AEROSPACE
1
S
1
CY74
2
O
A
A
A
A
N
D
J
CY75
F
t
11
A
A
A
M
>
i
1
t
t
A
1 23
A.A
1 23
IA4
23j
4
A
23:
iA<
iA
23
A
A
A
A
A
A
1 23
kA
A
M
23
A
A
23
k
IS
»7
hA
>A
A
23
A
A
10
23
A
A
i
i
I
j
1
A
A
it
j
i
i
t
i
t
12
A
i
t
i
i
i
13
S
L
i
i
I
14
0
IS
N
:
t
4
1
4
4
4
1
4
I
/,
\
L
16
0
;
;
*
CY76
ir
j
;
>
4
T
1
1
i
;
,
ia
F
/
i
19
M
:
1
4
T
1
4
L
,
20
A
21
M
:
|
4
1
4
4
4
T
4
4
L
\
;
22
J
\
;
i
23
J
:
'
4
T
1
4
t
:
,
24
A
25
S
26
0
27
N
26
0
A TASK COMPLETED
&TASK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
xt: Adfvlty dons do not rvfltct •hipping tlm*
-------
Table 6. POND D, LIMESTONE CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW-UNTREATED,
FIXATION CONTRACTOR: TVA
TASKS
1. POND CONSTRUCTION.
AVAILABLE FOR FILLING
FILLING
SLUDGE REMOVAL
2. SOIL CORING
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE '
SOIL LEACHATE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE {toil only)
ANALYZE
3. INPUT SLUDGE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE AND STORE CLARIFIER
UNDERFLOW DAILY
ANALYZE SEPARATED LIQUOR
FROM UNDERFLOW
ANALYZE COMPOSITE SAMPLE
4. GROUND WATER WELL
CONSTRUCTION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
5. LEACHATE WELL
CONSTRUCTION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
6. SUPERNATE
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
CONTRACTOR
TVA
TVA
CHEMFIX
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
A
A
CY74
1
S
1
lit
A
A
it
i
A
ii
A
ii
ii
2
0
1 1 20
iHi
FILLI
Flfl
1M
i
1202
14^1
tFIL
A£4
FIL
A
FUL
A
A
3
N
NG
1
i
ING
21
k
Imo
A
.ING
ING
4
D
A
CY 75
5
J
^ —
6
F
C
i
[7 2nd"FILUNG
ft
k
Jf
"£
4
2nd
2nd
4-
A
i
A
•ILLI
A
5
ILL!
A
A
7
M
5
4
^
5
10
10
8
A
5
t
&
i
t
i
i
t
t
i
i
»
9
M
k
h
k
k
k
k.
k
k
k
10
J
t
t
t
{
,
i
11
J
,
k
k
k
k
k
12
A
1
L
i
i
t
t
13
S
h
^
k
i
h
k
14
O
i
t.
i
i
15
N
i
:
i
:
4
4
4
4
16
D
;
;
*
CY76
17
J
:
:
\
i
4
4
I
18
F
;
t.
i
19
M
:
:
\
i
4
4
T
20
A
i
i
i.
i
I
21
M
:
:
k
:
4
i
4
4
4
22
J
k
L
L
t
23
J
;
:
\
1
4
4
T
24
A
-
25
S
26
O
27
N
28
D
A TASK COMPLETED
A TASK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
Nort: Activity datn do not ntlKt Ihlpplng time
-------
Table 7. POND E, LIMESTONE CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW-TREATED,
FIXATION CONTRACTOR: CHEMFIX
oo
1. POND CONSTRUCTION
AVAILABLE FOR FILLING
FILLING
2. SOIL CORING
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
SOIL LEACH ATE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
3- INPUT UNTREATED SLUDGE0
SAMPLE POND 0 SLUDGE
DURING FIXATION 16 tompln
minimum)
ANALYZE SEPARATED LIQUOR
ANALYZE COMPOSITE X SOLIDS
ANALYZE COMPOSITE LtOUOft
ANALYZE COMPOSITE DRY
SOLIDS
4. GROUND WATER WELLS
CONSTRUCTION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
5. LEACH ATE WELL
CONSTRUCTION
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
6. SUPER HATJE
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
ANALYZE
7. TREATED SUJQGE
INPUT TREATED SLUDGE6
SAMPLE PERIODICALLY
(minimum of 6 tamplM)
RETAIN FOR CONTINGENCY
ANALYSIS
CORES
SAMPLE
ANALYZE
CONTRACTOR
TVA
CHEMFIX
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
AEROSPACE
TVA
AEROSPACE
CY74
1
S
0
i
A
A
A
4
i
,
ii
3 7
AA
3567
MM
A
A
A
m
Att,
T
A
A
A
I
A
A
a
A7
CY 75
T
I
^
1
7
4
ft.
T
A
A
t
i
7
A
i
i
<
i
t
i
i
k
k
10
"
t
i
1
1
i
k
k
1
4
z
»
t
k
'
:
4
T
^
;
i
4
4
?
4
4
i
^
t
'
CY 76
(
:
>
4
T
|
t
:
.
;
t.
:
*
4
T
I
i
,
20
:
21
(
22
i
4
T
i
,
\
j
I
4
4
4
4
4
i
,
,
;
i
23
24
j
|
i
k
4
T
4
L
'
.
25
26
27
21
A TASK COMPLETED
AT** TO S£ ACCOMPLISHED
A iNSUFFtCIENT SAMPLE AVAILABLE
t*: Activity MM do not r»f1»ct (hipping tlnw
a. mpat to Chtmfi* tralltr
b. Chwnfii trailer Input to Pond E
-------
SECTION VIII
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
In order to make a quantitative assessment of the water
pollution potential arising from the storing of scrubber wastes in ponds,
periodic monitoring and analysis of pond liquors, soil, and ground
water are necessary. These analyses must be conducted frequently to
provide sufficient data within the time frame of the program to evalu-
ate the environmental acceptability of the disposal method. The pro-
gram schedule requires bimonthly sampling of ground water from two
wells associated with each pond: one to provide background data, and
the other to monitor the quality of the water table beneath the disposal
site. A leachate well in the base of each pond is used to monitor
sludge liquor major constituents (e.g., calcium, sulfate, sulfite,
chloride, and total dissolved solids) as well as pH and trace elements
previously identified in Shawnee liquors and considered potentially
objectionable in public water supplies. Pond supernate liquor is also
monitored for the same items. In addition, the soil from the bottom
of each pond is monitored semiannually for some of these constituents
to determine the rates of their permeation into the soil. All param-
eters for which water analyses are performed are given in Tables 8
and 9. As this report is being prepared, the monitoring program is in
its initial stages, especially regarding the ponds containing chemically
fixed sludge. Therefore^ the resulting data are limited, and conclu-
sions drawn from these data are necessarily tentative, but definite
trends appear to be developing.
49
-------
Table 8. WATER ANALYSIS PARAMETERS0
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfiteb
Conductance, mmho/cm
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
PH
Chemical O2 Demand (COD)
Sodium
Concentration: mg/1 unless otherwise indicated
Applies to analyses of pond input liquors only
'Applies to analyses of waters associated with fixed
sludge disposal sites where sodium is one of the
additive constituents
50
-------
Table 9. CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION PARAMETERS*
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Total Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Carbonate
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfite
Sulfate
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Chemical O2 Demand (COD)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Alkalinity
Conductance, mmho/cm
Turbidity, Jackson units
PH
Concentration: mg/1 unless otherwise indicated
51
-------
8.1 SAMPLING
8.1.1 Pond Input Materials
During the filling of Pond A and during both fillings of
Pond D, TVA collected and stored duplicate one-liter samples of input
untreated sludges once a day. One-liter bottles were completely filled
and capped in order to protect the samples from COo and (X,. thus
preventing changes in pH and state of oxidation.
For Ponds B and C, TVA collected daily duplicate
samples as described for Ponds A and D except that these samples
were taken from untreated sludge supplied to Dravo and IUCS. How-
ever, for Pond E, since the Chemfix operation was a relatively short-
term procedure (i.e., a total of 4 hours), the collection of input
untreated sludge transferred from Pond D was made so that six dupli-
cate samples were taken.
One complete set of daily samples of input untreated
materials was retained by TVA. The other daily samples were shipped
to The Aerospace Corporation by TVA.
TVA collected daily one-liter samples of treated mate-
rials as they were put into the respective ponds. These samples were
not mixed. In the case of the Chemfix operation at Pond E, six
samples were taken. All input treated samples were shipped to The
Aerospace Corporation by TVA.
During the fillings of Ponds A, B, C, and E, and during
both fillings of Pond D, TVA analyzed the liquid portion of the input
untreated material. After separation of the solids by filtration through
0.45-p.m pore diameter Millipore filters, this liquor analysis included
the measurement of sulfite, sulfate, chloride, pH, and conductance.
A minimum of four samples was analyzed; these samples were col-
lected approximately at the beginning of, one-third of, two-thirds of,
and the end of the fillings of the ponds. Analyses were conducted
immediately after sampling. Unused samples were retained by TVA
as contingency samples.
52
-------
Each set of daily input sludge samples was mixed, and
Aerospace analyzed the composite for the percentage of total solids.
Aerospace also filtered this composite through 0.45-fim Millipore
filters and performed water analyses in accordance with the test
parameter list given in Table 8, for the liquid portion of these samples.
The dried solids were analyzed for calcium sulfite, calcium sulfate,
calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, and fly ash.
8.1.2 Pond Supernate
For Pond A, sludge liquor and natural precipitation
were allowed to remain in the pond, and any overflow was controlled
by a weir such that a maximum depth of 2 feet of surface water could
accumulate. For Pond D, surface water requirements were the same
as for Pond A except that a minimum water depth of 4 inches was
maintained over at least 85% of the pond surface at all times. Over-
flow was controlled by pumping off excess water. For Pond B, the
curing water used in this operation was allowed to remain in the pond.
Natural precipitation was allowed to build up and was controlled by
pumping to keep the water level below the pier in order to provide
access to the leachate well. For Ponds C and E, natural precipitation
was controlled in the same way as for Pond B. All water removed
from these ponds was disposed of such that it would not drain or seep
back to the evaluation site.
8.1.3 Leachate
Sampling of leachate wells for each pond was performed
by TVA at two-month intervals after pond filling had been completed.
Additionally, a control sample was taken prior to filling. TVA and
Aerospace each received samples from all samplings, and the fixation
contractors each received a sample if available from each sampling
taken from their respective ponds.
Leachate samples were analyzed by TVA and Aerospace
for the parameters given in Table 8. TVA analyzed all samples, while
Aerospace analyzed the initial sample (taken after filling), and one
53
-------
approximately every six months thereafter. As an exception, •
Aerospace will analyze the sample taken in January 1976 for the
parameters given in Table 9.
8.2 RESULTS OF ANALYSES
Analyses of supernate, leachate, and ground water were
performed independently by TVA and The Aerospace Corporation. The
raw data are presented in Appendix C, and overall results of the analy-
ses are discussed below, followed by a discussion of the results for the
individual ponds. Likewise, the results to date of analyses on soils
and climatological and hydraulic data are also presented.
8.2.1 Supernate and Leachate
The quality of supernate and leachate associated with
each of the ponds was monitored by conducting analyses for the param-
eters in Table 8. TVA performed analyses on each of the samples
taken at approximately two-month intervals, while Aerospace analyzed
samples at six-month intervals. The combined data from both labora-
tories have been arranged according to pond and well sources, and
tabulated chronologically by sampling dates in Appendix C.2 of this
report. The pH of initial samples of leachate and supernate from the
three ponds containing chemically fixed sludge ranged from 6 to 12,
and the pH of all other samples ranged between 6 and 9. The total
suspended solids ranged widely because the samples contained varying
amounts of soil sediments that were accumulated during sample col-
lection. Chemical oxygen demand was usually below 100 ppm, which
is normal for water containing only inorganic constituents. For solu-
tions of strong electrolytes, conductance measurements closely paral-
leled the measurements of total dissolved solids (TDS); only the results
of the latter measurements will be discussed here in detail. Sulfite
measurements were only conducted by The Aerospace Corporation.
As the sulfite found usually amounted to a few parts per million or a
few tenths of a part per million, the total alkalinity measured primar-
ily the carbonate content of the water. This alkalinity appeared to
54
-------
vary among the samples in a random manner, although the samples
with higher pH values showed higher total alkalinities. Discussions
relating to the remaining parameters of Table 8 will be grouped
according to the water types and the ponds.
8.2.2 Ground Water
The ground water in the vicinity of each pond was moni-
tored by means of two wells. One well, immediately adjacent to each
pond, was labeled well number one (Wl); the other, some distance
away in the upstream direction, was labeled well number two (W2).
Each well was sampled for some time prior to the filling of the pond
in order to obtain data representative of the water quality before intro-
duction of sludge to the pond. Because the ponds and wells were con-
structed at different times and because the fillings of several ponds
coincided with a particularly dry weather season, background water
quality data are not uniformly available for all wells. Although the
sampling of well number one for Pond A (GWA1) was begun as early as
February 1974, no other well was monitored prior to July 1974; there-
fore, only those data obtained subsequent to 1 July 1974 are being
reported. The six GWA1 samples taken between 1 July 1974 and the
beginning of Pond A filling on 24 September 1974 are adequate to estab-
lish the background quality.
The ground water samples from each of the five ponds
showed nearly identical composition with regard to the so-called minor
constituents: magnesium, boron, lead, arsenic, selenium, and mer-
cury. Thus far, in no case has there been a trend or even a fluctuation
that could be attributable to the filling of the pond with sludge. Although
a different range of concentrations was observed for each of the six
elements, in several the ground water from all five ponds showed the
same characteristic ranges. For four of the five ponds, the magne-
sium concentrations ranged from 3 to 24 ppm. For Pond A, the mag-
nesium content ranged from 4 to 74 ppm. For all five ponds, the boron
concentrations ranged from 2.5 ppm to below the detection limit of
0.1 ppm. For all ponds, the lead concentrations ranged from 0.5 ppm
55
-------
to below the detection limit of 0.01 ppm (see Appendix C.2). Except
for several samples from GWD1 taken before Pond D was filled, the
arsenic concentrations for all ground water samples was below the
detection limit of 0.005 ppm. The selenium concentrations for all
ponds ranged from 0.015 ppm to below the detection limit of 0.002 ppm.
The mercury concentration ranged from 0.05 ppm to below the detec-
tion limit, which varied from 0.0002 to 0.00005 ppm, depending on the
volume of sample available.
The ranges of concentrations of major constituents (cal-
cium, sulfate, and chloride) and the ranges of TDS in the ground water
samples are similar for all five ponds. The discussion of these results
will accompany the.presentation of results for leachate and supernate,
which have been grouped according to pond.
8.2.3 Untreated Sludge
8.2.3.1 Pond A
Pond A was filled with lime sludge filter cake during
the period of 23 September 1974 to 7 October 1974. Ground water,
leachate, and supernate were monitored at approximately two-month
intervals thereafter. Ground water results were compared with those
data taken prior to pond filling. The results for the three major con-
stituents and for TDS are plotted in Figures 19 through 22. Calcium,
sulfate, and chloride concentrations in the ground water samples
ranged between 10 and 280 ppm, and the TDS values ranged between
250 and 880 ppm, with no patterns that can be correlated with the time
of pond filling. In contrast, these same constituents of the leachate
and pond supernate showed significant changes after the pond was filled.
The concentrations in the supernate decreased and those in the leachate
increased with time. Although after six months the concentrations had
not Jeveled off in either case, from the shapes of the curves it appears
that the leachate values will level off at approximately the initial values
of the supernate (i.e., 2000 to 3000 ppm for calcium and sulfate, 3000
to 5000 ppm for chloride, and 8000 to 10, 000 ppm for TDS), while the
56
-------
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
E 1250
5
3 1000
c_>
750
500
250
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER
I
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 5 10 15
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14-74
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 19. Calcium in Pond A supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
Ul
00
16001-
1400
1200
1000
t 800
3 WO
400
200
a a
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 5
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74
o
la.
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
D GROUND WATER
GROUND WELL Al -
aGROUND WELL A2;
n
I.
O
M^
O
10 15 20 25 30 35
9-9-74 10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75
40 45 50 55
4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 20. Sulfate in Pond A supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
40001-
3500
3000
2500
~ 2000
1500
1000
500
0
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER
GROUND WELLS Al AND A2
j-, j i -.
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 05 10 15
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14-74
20 25 30 35
11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75
40 45 50 55
4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 21. Chloride in Pond A supernate, leachate, and ground water •wells
-------
9000i-
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
INPUT LIQUOR
IDS - 8285 mg/l
AVERAGE
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
D GROUND WATER
I
I
I
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 22. Total dissolved solids in Pond A supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
supernate values may decrease to the levels of the ground water.
Slight upturns in the curves for pond supernate at the midsummer
sampling are probably the net result of water loss by evaporation.
Somewhat similar patterns are observed for the six
minor constituents in the leachate and supernate, as shown by the
results plotted in Figure 23. However, because the levels of the con-
centrations of four of the elements are near the limits of detection,
only for magnesium and boron are the trends easily distinguished.
8.2.3.2 Pond D
Pond D was the second pond to be filled with untreated
sludge and was actually filled twice. It was initially filled from 11 to
V
20 October 1974 with clarifier underflow limestone sludge from the
Turbulent Contact Absorber. Most of this sludge was removed from
3 to 7 December 1974 for treatment and transfer to Pond E. Pond D
was refilled with clarifier underflow limestone sludge from 13 January
to 5 February 1975. The double filling schedule of Pond D has been
included in the plots shown in Figures 24 through 28. The monitored
data for the three major constituents and TDS of the ground water,
leachate, and supernate are shown in Figures 24 through 27, and the
minor constituents of the leachate and supernate are shown in Figure
28. No ground water well for background water quality data was con-
structed specifically for Pond D. However, both Ponds E and B are in
close proximity to Pond D. Prior to November 1974, background
water data were obtained from well GWE2. In November 1974, well
GWB2 was constructed, and subsequent background water data have
been obtained from it. The ground water from both wells, as well as
that from GWD1, showed uniform composition over the entire period of
monitoring. The concentrations of the three major constituents ranged
between 10 and 300 ppm, and the TDS ranged from 200 to 700 ppm.
In contrast, the compositions of the supernate and leach-
ate from Pond D changed during the monitoring period with a pattern
that can be related to the two fillings of the pond. The major constitu-
ents and the TDS of the supernate decreased with time between the first
61
-------
1000 FT
100
10
o
I—
<
o
o
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
-POND FILLING -- 9-24-74 TO 10-8-74
Pb(SUPERNATE)
j I
Pb (LEACHATE)
As (SUPERNATE)
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 9-9-74 11-18-74 1-27-75 4-7-75 6-16-75 8-25-75
Figure 23. Minor constituents of Pond A supernate and leachate well
(For the purpose of clarity, the data points have been
deleted. The data are tabulated in Appendix C. 2. )
62
-------
OO
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER WELLS
E2. Dl, AND B2
LEACHATE
0
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 5
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
9-9-74 10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75
J
55
7-21-75
Figure 24. Calcium in Pond D supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
£1000
750
500
250
SUPERNATE
A
LEACHATE
a
o
Q
O
'n
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
a GROUND WATER WELLS
E2, Dl. AND B2
SUPERNATE
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 5 10
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74
15 20
10-14-74 11-18-74
25 30 35
12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75
a
:£=£:
40 45 50 55
4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 25. Sulfate in Pond D supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
35001-
3000
2500
_ 2000
CT>
S 1500
o
C_5
1000
500
0
dfc
SUPERNATE
LEACHATE
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
D GROUND WATER WELLS
E2, Dl, AND B2
LEACHATE
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 05 10
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 26. Chloride in Pond D supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
o
oo
o
LU
O
to
80001-
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
INPUT LIQUOR
TDS = 5375mg/l
AVERAGE (2nd filling)
o
D-
o
LU
t/1
J I
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
a GROUND WATER WELLS
E2, Dl, AND B2
-B&B-
-&•
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
a
i
50
55
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 27. Total dissolved solids in Pond D supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
10001-
B (LEACHATE)
Mg (LEACHATE)
Mg (LEACHATE)
B (LEACHATE)
..
Mg (SUPERNATE)
o
I
I—
LU
O
o
o
0.001
0.0001
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
(SUPERNATE)|2
(
As
(SUPERNATE)
As (LEACHATE)
As (SUPERNATE)
Pb (LEACHAE
Se (LEACHATE
Pb (SUPERNATE)
Se (SUPERNATE)
Pb (LEACHATE)
ESe
-(SUPERNATE)
-Pb
-(SUPERNATE)
As
f(LEACHATE)
0.01 =-
Figure 28. Minor constituents of Pond D supernate and leachate well
(For the purpose of clarity, the data points have been
deleted. The data are tabulated in Appendix C. 2. )
67
-------
and second fillings and continued to decrease at a reduced rate from
approximately the same level following the second filling. In the leach-
ate, the concentrations of the major constituents increased with time
between the two fillings of Pond D and then increased slightly or re-
mained approximately constant following the second filling of the pond.
The TDS remained at a level of approximately 4000 ppm after the
second pond filling, or approximately equal to the input liquor TDS.
Similar patterns for the minor constituents of the leachate and super-
nate are apparent from the plots of Figure 28. However, the concen-
tration of mercury is below or near the limit of detection so that a
pattern cannot be distinguished.
8.2.4 Treated Sludge
For all three ponds containing the treated sludges, the
concentrations of the minor constituents in the leachates and supernate
were generally too low to establish trends with time. Therefore, these
results have not been plotted as were the data for Ponds A and D in
Figures 23 and 28; however, all the data are included in Appendix C.2.
The leachate wells of Ponds B and C were sampled once prior to the
filling of these ponds on 11 February 1975.
8.2.4.1 Pond B
Pond B was filled with limestone sludge chemically
fixed by Dravo during the period of 7 to 15 April 1975. Ground water
well GWB2 has been monitored since November 1974, and GWB1 has
been monitored since the pond was filled. Since data are only avail-
able for a three-month period following the filling of Pond B, only
tentative conclusions can be drawn with regard to the change in water
composition with time. The ground water composition was unchanged
during the post-filling period. The concentrations of the major con-
stituents ranged between 10 and 200 ppm, and the TDS ranged between
200 and 600 ppm. As shown in the curves in Figures 29 through 32
and the tables in Appendix C.2, these constituents of the supernate
decreased significantly in concentration during the post-filling period
68
-------
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
a
<
o
750
500
250
0
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER WELLS
Bl AND B2
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 ' 20 25 30 35
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75
I
40 45 50 55
-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 29. Calcium in Pond B supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
-j
o
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
o GROUND WATER WELLS
Bl AND B2
—D-
a
A
A
-QDr
1CL
ol \SUPERNATE
LEACHATE
2L-J
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
20 25 30 35
11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75
40 45 50 55
4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 30. Sulfate in Pond B supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
2700
2400
2100
1800
_ 1500
t
UJ~
2 1200
o
^
° 900
600
300
0
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 '
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER WELLS
Bl AND B2
-Q.
J
20 25 30 35
11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75
40 45 50 55
4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 31. Chloride in Pond B supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
7000
6000
- 5000
co
O
co
O
co
CO
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 ^
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER WELLS
Bl AND B2
INPUT LIQUOR TDS
BEFORE TREATMENT = 5685 mg/l
AVERAGE
1
I
I
I
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 32. Total dissolved solids in Pond B supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
as a result of dilution by rainfall. As was the case for the ponds
containing untreated sludge, the major constituents of the Pond B
leachate are increasing with time. However, it is difficult to compare
the current rates of increase, as they cannot easily be established from
the few data points currently available. In the leachate of Pond B, the
levels of the concentrations of the major constituents and the TDS cur-
rently are appreciably lower than those obtained for the input liquor
prior to fixation. Additional data for Pond B must be obtained before
the significance of these data can be ascertained.
8.2.4.2 Pond C
Pond C was filled with lime sludge that had been chemi-
cally treated by IUCS during the period of 1 to 23 April 1975. Monitor-
ing data are therefore available only for a three-month period after
pond filling. The ground water wells, however, had been monitored
since July 1974. No significant changes in the ground water quality
were observed in the samples taken after pond filling. Data for the
major constituents and for TDS have been plotted in Figures 33 through
36 and are shown in Appendix C.2. The concentration levels were
similar to those observed for the ground water of the other ponds. In
the pond supernate, the concentrations of the major constituents and
TDS were lower than in the input liquor as a result of rainfall dilution.
In the Pond C leachate, the TDS in the early samples was approximately
half that of the input liquor and then steadily dropped off with time.
Additional Pond C monitoring data must be examined before conclu-
sions can be reached with regard to the significance of these data.
8.2.4.3 Pond E
During the period of 3 to 7 December 1974, the sludge
from Pond D was chemically fixed by Chemfix and transferred to
Pond E. The ground water composition was unchanged during the
entire monitoring period. The concentrations of the three major con-
stituents in the ground water ranged between 10 and 120 ppm, and the
TDS ranged between 200 and 600 ppm. Curves of water analysis data
73
-------
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
= 1000
o
<
750
500
250
0
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER WELLS
Cl AND C2
tc
to
I
o
o
Q-
iLEACHATE
Q_
SUPERNATE
±
J
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 5 10 15 30 35
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14 1-27 3-3-75
40 45 50 55
4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 33. Calcium in Pond C supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
Ul
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
D G
—D—
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 5
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
o GROUND WATER
D
D
A
A
GROUND WELL Cl
1
tn-t
E GROUND WELL
•a
•n I I - l-J
^0 35 40
10 15 0
9-9-74 10-14 1-27 3-3-75 4-7-75
45 50 55
5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 34. Sulfate in Pond C supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
2700 r
2400
2100
1800
- 1500
5 1200
o
O
900
600
300
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
a GROUND WATER
GROUND WELL Cl
CM
O
o
o
a.
LEACHATE
-GROUND WELLC2
D
5 10 15 30 35 40 45 50 55
8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14 1-27 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 35. Chloride in Pond C supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
4800 r-
4200
3600
to
£ 3000
_i
o
to
INPUT LIQUOR TDS
BEFORE TREATMENT = 9530 mg/l
AVERAGE
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
D GROUND WATER WELLS
ELAPSED T
CALENDAR
E3
o
CO
to
0 1800
—1
s
*~ 1200
600
0
IME, weeks (
Cl AND C2
_
Do o D Esa
i
iz
^ — c^
^
/^UPERNATE
5 |fi^
1
J
rv
8
°d H ^r l gn
1 al 1 n I i ill 1 I
3 5 10 15" 30 35 40 45 50 55
DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14 1-27 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 36. Total dissolved solids in Pond C supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
are shown in Figures 37 through 40, and tables of all data points are
given in Appendix C.2. In the leachate, calcium and chloride concen-
trations decreased while sulfate and TDS concentrations increased with
time to a value approximately half that in the input liquor; then they
appeared to begin dropping off. In the supernate, concentrations gen-
erally reflected the effect of rainfall dilution. It will be necessary to
obtain additional data from monitoring Pond E before definitive trends
can be established. However, presently available data for the concen-
trations of the major constituents and TDS are appreciably lower than
those from the input (untreated) sludge.
8.2.4.4 Physical Properties of Treated Sludge
Tests are being conducted at The Aerospace Corporation
to determine coefficients of permeability, unconfined compressive
strength, and triaxial shear strength of treated sludges from samples
obtained from each of the treated ponds at the time of treatment and
from pond core samples taken approximately every six months. These
tests are in progress and will be reported as the data are available
and verified.
A significant output of this effort will be the assessment
of the time-related properties of the field samples as compared to
analyses of laboratory-prepared samples that indicate the following:
2
unconfined compressive strength equal to greater than 4.5 ton/ft , and
coefficients of permeability of 10~ to 10~ cm/sec.
8.2.5 Soil Characterization
8.2.5.1 Physical Properties
The soil cores taken from the pond bottoms prior to
filling and in the vicinity of the ponds when the ground water wells were
dug were analyzed by TVA to determine their physical characteristics.
The top soils are primarily lean clay, with some underlying layers of
sand. The lean clay that forms the bottom and walls of each pond has
Q
a specific gravity of 2. 6 to 2. 7, a permeability of ~ 2 x 10~ cm/sec,
and a natural moisture content ranging from 14 to 22 wt%.
78
-------
o
300,-
250
200
150
100
50
POND FILLING -- 12-3-74 TO 12-7-74
I
I
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
o GROUND WATER WELLS
El AND E2
LEACHATE
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 37. Calcium in Pond E supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
00
o
2j
CO
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
POND FILLING - 12-3-74 TO 12-7-74—^1 j
I I
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
n GROUND WATER WELLS
El AND E2
LEACHATE
1_J I
SUPERNATE
J I
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 38. Sulfate in Pond E supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
00
20001-
1750
1500
1250
=. 1000
o
o
750
500
250
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74
POND FILLING - 12-3-74 TO 12-7-74
.LEACHATE
O SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
d GROUND WATER WELLS
El AND E2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
8-5-74 9-9-74 10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75 4-7-75
45 50 55
5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 39. Chloride in Pond E supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
c»
ro
3500
_ 3000
i"
2 2500
o
S 2000
o
5 1500
g
1000
500
°
POND FILLING - 12-3-74 TO 12-7-74
INPUT LIQUOR TDS
BEFORE TREATMENT - 6245 mg/l
AVERAGE
1
D
•i-
1
0 SUPERNATE
A LEACHATE
D GROUND WATER WELLS
El AND E2
-&•
1
ELAPSED TIME, weeks 0 5 10
CALENDAR DATES 7-1-74 8-5-74 9-9-74
15 20 25 30 35
10-14-74 11-18-74 12-23-74 1-27-75 3-3-75
1
40 45 50 55
4-7-75 5-12-75 6-16-75 7-21-75
Figure 40. Total dissolved solids in Pond E supernate, leachate, and ground water wells
-------
Less than 5% of the soil has a grain size greater than about
0.1 mm. It is expected that permeation of sludge liquor constituents
will be exceedingly slow (i.e., less than 1 cm/yr) through the clay bed
that forms the bottom and walls of the ponds. The results of the TVA
analyses for the soils associated with each pond are tabulated in
Appendix C. 6.
8.2.5.2 Chemical Characterization
Using soil cores removed from the floor of each pond
prior to filling, The Aerospace Corporation has begun an analysis of
the chemical characterization of pond soils to serve as background for
subsequent sludge permeation analyses. An elemental analysis of the
soils is being conducted using the ion microprobe mass analyzer
(IMMA). The IMMA represents the newest and most powerful instru-
ment for microanalysis of solids.
Briefly, the instrument uses a focused beam of charged
ions impinging on the sample at high energy to create secondary ions
from the sample material. These ions are mass analyzed to obtain
characteristic elemental composition of the sample. For heteroge-
neous samples such as soil, the composition will vary with sample
location; therefore, an average (or median) composition must be ob-
tained. A limitation of the IMMA is that the analytical response and
sensitivity vary with element and with the sample matrix. Therefore,
an individual calibration for each element in the soil matrix must be
obtained so that the ion current obtained directly from the IMMA can
be correlated to concentration units.
Periodic IMMA analyses will be made at the sludge
interfaces of soil cores taken from the bottom of sludge ponds, and
increases in the relative amounts of specific elements present in the
soil will be determined. These elements will be analyzed at different
distances from the interface so as to obtain depth profiles of these
elements that will establish the depth penetration and the attenuation
of each element in the soil.
83
-------
Results for the first set of five pond soil cores have
been included in Appendix C.7 of this report. Analyses were made
for seven elements: boron, magnesium, calcium, arsenic, selenium,
sulfur, and chlorine.
Samples were cut from the tops of the soil cores. The
samples were oriented with a cross-sectional surface exposed for
elemental analysis with the IMMA. For each sample, analyses were
made at three positions, each approximately 0.1 mm away from the
top surface of the soil core. Because of the heterogeneous nature of
the clay soil, the probe was allowed to traverse a linear distance of
0.4 mm, and the integrated average current was recorded for each
ion. The median values for these integrated ion currents for each
of the seven elements are shown in Appendix C.7, together with the
standard deviations. These values of ion currents are proportional to
concentrations when compared with calibration standards. For all
elements, the data for the Pond A sample are significantly lower than
the corresponding data for the four other samples. This difference
may be due to the dilution of the clay soil at the Pond A site with an
inert ingredient such as sand. The median current values for the
samples from Ponds B, C, D, and E have been combined to obtain
elemental analytical data that are representative of the clay soil on the
bottoms of these four ponds.
Additional soil cores that were taken prior to the filling
of Ponds B, C, and E have not yet been analyzed. With these additional
samples, somewhat better determinations of the confidence limits of
the data can be made. However, the combined results for Ponds B, C,
D, and E shown in Appendix C.7 should form an adequate basis for
comparison with analysis of soil samples taken after the ponds were
filled with sludge.
8.2.6 Climatological and Hydraulic Data
In order to correlate pond water storage observations
with local climatological conditions, a program of periodic monitoring
84
-------
of weather conditions, e.g., total wind movement, rainfall, evaporation,
and maximum and minimum temperatures, was established, and mea-
surements were taken daily at the pond site beginning early in 1974.
On a weekly basis, the depths of water in the ponds, leachate wells, and
ground water wells were monitored beginning early in 1974 for GWA1
and early in 1975 for the other ground water wells and for supernate
levels of Ponds A and D. Starting in mid 1975, supernate and sludge
levels for the other ponds were monitored, as were the water levels
and bottom elevations of all the leachate wells. These weekly data
have been compiled and are included in Appendix C.4.
Correlations between weekly precipitation and pond
water levels are demonstrated by the graphs of Figures 41 through 46.
Qualitative correlations of pond performance with weather effects will
be made during the coming year. In Figures 41 through 43, the depths
of water in leachate wells and supernates of Ponds A, B, and D have
been plotted. Superimposed on the more gradual seasonal variation in
water levels, caused by imbalances of evaporation losses from the
ponds and rainfall replenishments, is a weekly fluctuation that in
almost every case can be associated with high (or low) precipitation
for that week. It should be noted that water level measurements,
although usually taken on Monday of each week, sometimes were taken
as late as Wednesday. Since rainfall data are cumulative for each
week, in some instances the rain might precede the water level mea-
surements and in others conversely, which would account for occa-
sional lags in the correlation. Similar curves have been plotted in
Figures 44 and 45 for Ponds C and E. However, comparable data for
pond supernate are not available for these two ponds because of little
or no supernate in the area of the leachate wells. In Figure 46, it is
apparent that the depths of water in the ground water wells associated
with Pond A also vary in step with the weekly precipitation. The sea-
sonal variation of water levels in these wells is distinctly different
from that of the remaining ground water wells. A possible explanation
is a perched water table in the adjoining ash storage dump.
85
-------
Q_
LLJ
(=3
bU
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2-1
— •- DEPTH OF WATER, LEACHATE WELL
— x— DEPTH OF WATER, SUPERNATE
. PRECIPITATION V A
\/\ \
—
—
—
—
0-75
/
/
V*
4-2
\
S
1-75
\
>
A
5-2
^4
s
6-75
Sj
>
I
S/
6-3
S
0-75
\
S
S
/
/
*1
•H
S
^
V
8-4-75
I
V-
Y
•
—
—
—
9-8-75
4
3
•s
"Z.
0
£
Q_
CJ
LU
Q_
2
1
0
CALENDAR DATES
Figure 41. Weekly precipitation and water levels for Pond A
supernate and leachate well
86
-------
60
55
50
45
•s 40
o
LLJ
35
30
25
20
15
10
DEPTH OF WATER, LEACHATE WELL
DEPTH OF WATER, SUPERNATE
PRECIPITATION
0
2-10-75 3-17-75 4-21-75 5-26-75 6-30-75 8-4-75 9-8-75
CALENDAR DATES
CJ
LJJ
QC
Q_
Figure 42. Weekly precipitation and water levels for Pond B
supernate and leachate well
87
-------
40
38
36
34
32
30
= 28
oc
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2-10-75
• DEPTH OF WATER, LEACHATE WELL
- PRECIPITATION
51
CJ
3-17-75 4-21-75 5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
Figure 43. Weekly precipitation and water levels for Pond C
supernate and leachate well
-------
DEPTH OF WATER, LEACHATE WELL
DEPTH OF WATER, SUPERNATE
PRECIPITATION
2-10-75 3-17-75 4-21-75
5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
Figure 44. Weekly precipitation and water levels for Pond D
supernate and leachate well
89
-------
DEPTH OF WATER, LEACHATE WELL
PRECIPITATION
3-17-75 4-21-75
5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
Figure 45. Weekly precipitation and water levels for Pond E
supernate and leachate well
90
-------
DEPTH OF WATER, GWA1
DEPTH OF WATER, GWA2
PRECIPITATION
50
3-17-75 4-21-75
5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
Figure 46. Weekly precipitation and ground water well levels for
Pond A
91
-------
In Figures 47 through 50, the depths of water in the
ground water wells of Ponds B, C, D, and E are compared with the
weekly stages of the Ohio River at Shawnee. Although for these wells
weekly variations in water levels that correspond to the weekly precipi-
tation are apparent, the purpose of these four graphs is to call attention
to the seasonal variation in the water table that correlates with the
level of the nearby river.
Mention should be made of the data obtained from moni-
toring the well bottom elevations. For all wells, the spread of these
data is no greater than 1 foot. Therefore, over the monitoring period
there is no evidence of any substantial silting of the wells. Well water
depths appearing in this report have been obtained from the differences
between weekly water level measurements and the averages of the
weekly well bottom measurements.
92
-------
DEPTH OF WATER, GWB1
DEPTH OF WATER, GWB2-
OHIO RIVER LEVEL
AT SHAWNEE
50
2-10-75 3-17-75 4-21-75
5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
Figure 47. Weekly river stages and ground water well levels for
Pond B
93
-------
150
140
130
120
.£110
of
LLJ
5
Jioo
CD
n:
S 90
70
60
50
40
30
2-10-75 3-17-75
DEPTH OF WATER, GWC1
DEPTH OF WATER, GWC2
OHIO RIVER LEVEL
AT SHAWNEE
330
325
320
c/o
315
310
QC
QC
4-21-75 5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
305
300
295
290
285
Figure 48. Weekly river stages and ground water well levels for
Pond C
94
-------
DEPTH OF WATER, GWD1 _
OHIO RIVER LEVEL
AT SHAWNEE
2-10-75 3-17-75
4-21-75 5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
Figure 49. Weekly river stages and ground water well levels for
Pond D
95
-------
130
120
110
100
~.90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
T
T
DEPTH OF WATER, GWE1
DEPTH OF WATER, GWE2
OHIO RIVER LEVEL
AT SHAWNEE
2-10-75 3-17-75
4-21-75 5-26-75 6-30-75
CALENDAR DATES
8-4-75 9-8-75
335
330
325
320
315
310
305
300
295
290
285
Figure 50. Weekly river stages and ground water well levels for
Pond E
96
-------
SECTION IX
TOTAL DISPOSAL COSTS
In order to assess the economics of the cross section
of disposal modes being evaluated (i.e. , simulations of dam and land-
fill), including variations in effluent conditions such as ash and solids
content, engineering estimates were requested from each of the three
fixation contractors for the cost of full-scale operations. The
Shawnee field evaluation experience provided a basis to relate pro-
cessing variables to the costs of an operation treating 125 ton/hr
(dry basis) of sludge, including fly ash, from a 1000-MW power
plant. Typically the solids in the sludges supplied to the processors
were comprised of approximately 45 wt% fly ash, and 45 to 50 wt%
calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate (in a 3 to 1 ratio), with the re-
mainder being unreacted limestone or precipitated calcium carbonate.
Capital and operating costs for the full-scale projections
were presented by the fixation contractors, including items such as
capital investment, additives, labor, processing, and transportation,
with disposal of the fixed material at sites both 0. 5 and 5.0 miles
from the power plant. ~ Other pertinent cost elements were
identified and total costs in terms of dollars per ton of dry sludge
disposed were provided. Those costs were evaluated and adjusted
by The Aerospace Corporation to produce estimates of total disposal
costs on a common basis as much as possible. Steps taken were as
follows: (1) the same method of determining capital charges was
97
-------
used, (2) land and dewatering costs were added as appropriate,
(3) transport and site preparation costs were adjusted as appropriate,
and (4) all costs were adjusted for average annual load factors of
50 and 65%. Total disposal costs (Aerospace estimates) in 1975
dollars based on Shawnee test conditions scaled up for a 1000-MW
power plant are described for a 30-yr plant life and a 50% average
annual load factor. The effects on total disposal costs for operating
at a 65% average annual load factor were also evaluated and are
summarized. Corresponding costs, adjusted by Aerospace, for
fixation conditions proposed by the processors are also provided; the
latter generally relate to reduction in the additive requirements re-
sulting from the application of their process, to projected full-scale
operations as compared to the Shawnee test conditions.
Since the cost data presented in this report are based
on the conditions described above and may not be universally applicable,
they are not intended to be a ranking of the disposal costs for the
three processes being evaluated. As a result of this evaluation,
however, the data developed by Aerospace provides a range within
which the total cost of sludge fixation and disposal as represented by
these three processes may be expected.
9. 1 GENERAL ASSESSMENT
Ground rules for fixation contractor costs projections
were specified in general rather than specific terms to allow origi-
nality by the contractors in defining variables and to minimize
artificial restrictions that might have resulted from the small-scale
field evaluations. As a result, full-scale cost projections were not
necessarily based on a direct scale-up of the Shawnee sludge treat-
ment conditions. The significant factors affecting the cost differences
are shown in Table 10. Flow diagrams of the various fixation pro-
cesses for an operational plant, based on the Shawnee evaluational
ground rules, are shown in Figures 51 through 53. The Aerospace-
derived cost for full-scale treatment and disposal are shown in
98
-------
Table 10. SIGNIFICANT FACTORS AFFECTING FULL-SCALE COST PROJECTIONS,
AND CONDITIONS ASSESSED BY AEROSPACE BASED ON PROCESSOR DATA
Proces s
Shawnee Operations
Disposal Conditions
Costed by
Processors
Conditions Assessed by
Aerospace Based
on Processor
Information
Chemfix
(Figure 54)
38 to 40 wt% sludge solids
40 wt% solids
(50 wt% also reported)
35 to 55 wt% solids,
drained disposal site
40 wt% solids, disposal
site under water
Dravo
(Figure 55)
32 to 38 wt% sludge solids
38 wt% solids, disposal
site behind dam
Dam-site return
ratio = 20
32 to 38 wt% solids,
dam return ratios
of 10 and 20
35 wt% solids, dam
return ratio of 15
IUCS
(Figure 56)
47. 5 to 59 wt% sludge
solids (weighted
average = 55%)
55 wt% solids
55 wt% solids (average),
varied percent
additive
-------
o
o
CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW:
38-40 wt% SOLIDS
k-
w
PUMP 0 OR 4.5 mi
^
w
DEWATER TO
50wt% SOLIDS
1
DISPERSE AT
DISPOSAL SITE
-^
PUMP 0.5 mi
^
TREAT WITH
ADDITIVE
Figure 51. Flow sheet for an operational plant used as a baseline for costing
the Chemfix process
-------
CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW:
32-38 wt% SOLIDS
TREAT WITH ADDITIVE
PUMP 0.5 OR 5 mi
PUMP SUPERNATE
TO SCRUBBER LOOP
DISPOSAL
SITE: DAM
Figure 52. Flow sheet for an operational plant used as a baseline for costing
the Dravo process
-------
CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW:
35wt% SOLIDS (nominal)
k-
DEWATERTO 55wt%
SOLIDS CONTENT
(average)
^
TREAT WITH
ADDITIVE
TRUCK 0.5
OR 5 mi
DISPERSE AND COMPACT
AT DISPOSAL SITE
Figure 53. Flow sheet for an operational plant used as a baseline for costing
the IUCS process
-------
Figures 54 through 56 for Shawnee-type conditions, procesor-proposed
conditions, and other conditions assessed by Aerospace based on
processor-furnished data.
Total disposal costs are summarized in Section 9.4.
These are presented in 1975 dollars per ton of dry sludge and are
converted to dollars per ton of coal burned and mills per kilowatt
hour of electricity.
9.2 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND LAND
A number of different capitalization factors and basic
operating assumptions were made by the processors. These included
lifetimes of equipment in the range of 10 to 30 years and average
annual operating load factors of 70 to 100%. In the Aerospace analysis,
equipment and replacement costs were adjusted as appropriate for
30 years, assuming average 50 and 65% annual load factors; the latter
is a value projected for improved power plant designs and operation
whereas the 50% load factor represents approximately current condi-
tions in the power industry. The capital equipment cost of the fixation
equipment was determined on a 100% load factor basis to account for
the capacity to process maximum loads, but the sludge tonnage used
in the calculations of annualized costs were based on 30-yr averages
at the 50 and 65% annual load factors.
In all cases, the capital charges were annualized to
include depreciation, insurance, cost of capital, replacements, and
taxes. With a 50-50 debt-equity funding, and straight line depreciation
for 30 years, the average annual charge on capital investment is 18%.
As disposal site land costs were not requested, they were
not included in processor cost estimates. However, Aerospace ad-
justed the estimates by adding these land costs. Assumed were land
acquisition costs of an average of $1000/acre and requirements of
500 and 650 acres, based on an arbitrary depth of 30 feet, for the
50 and 65% annual power plant load factors, respectively. Based
upon these assumptions, a charge of $0. 13/ton of dry sludge was
103
-------
oz
30
28
_ 26
^24
CD
a
3 22
oo
| 20
oo 18
< 16
00
CD
Q_
oo 14
o
£ 12
CD
\ —
10
8
6
<
I i i i i I i i i . I . . i i . .
\0 PUMPED TO DISP05
IAL SITE
A TRUCKED TO DISPOSAL SITE
x PUMPED TO UNDRAINED
DISPOSAL SITE
(46 wt% additive required)
_
_
—
—
DEWATERED
7 o
—
—
—
> SLUDGE PROVIDED AT SITE
A 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 1 i i i i 11
V 35 40 45 50
A
55
WEIGHT PERCENT SOLIDS IN SLUDGE - SHAWNEE/LIMESTONE
i |
54.7 38.8 14.8
8.7
CHEMFIX-RECOMMENDED PERCENT ADDITIVES (dry basis)
Figure 54. Aerospace estimate of total disposal costs for
Chemfix process. 1975 dollars, 1000-MW
plant, 30-yr plant life, 50% average annual
load factor, 5 miles to disposal site.
104
-------
9
s 8
CD
C3
ID
00
c
0
oo
O
CJ
00
CD
D_
OO
f*
CD
6
DAM RETURN
RATIO = 10
RETURN
= 20
O MID-RANGE CONDITION
O AEROSPACE ADJUSTMENT OF
DRAVO COST BASELINE
SLUDGE PROVIDED AT SITE
32 35 38 40
WEIGHT PERCENT SOLIDS IN SLUDGE - SHAWNEE/LIMESTONE
11 7.5
DRAVO-RECOMMENDED PERCENT ADDITIVE (dry basis)
Figure 55. Aerospace estimate of total disposal costs for Dravo
process. 1975 dollars, 1000-MW plant, 30-yr plant
life, 50% average annual load factor, 5 miles to dis-
posal site. Dam return ratio = storage volume to
embankment volume.
105
-------
10
CD
a
CO
d
O
CO
CD
CO
O
a_
oo
- SHAWNEE CONDITIONS (see Section 7.1.2.2)
- D AEROSPACE ESTIMATE AT MIDPOINT
OF IUCS PROPOSED ADDITIVE RANGE
PROPOSED BY IUCS FOR
•SHAWNEE-TYPE SLUDGE
AVERAGE LIME CONTENT —
IN SHAWNEE TEST
• LIME ADDITIVE RANGE-
SHAWNEE EVALUATION
(47.5 to 59 wt% sludge
solids provided at site)
I I I I
i i i
12345
WEIGHT PERCENT LIME ADDITIVE (dry basis) WITH AVERAGE
SLUDGE SOLIDS CONTENT OF 55wt% - SHAWNEE/LIME
Figure 56. Aerospace estimate of total disposal costs for IUCS
process. 1975 dollars, 1000-MW plant, 30-yr plant
life, 50% average annual load factor, 5 miles to dis-
posal site.
106
-------
estimated. The economic effect of land requirements (acre-feet) can
be approximated by prorating on a straight line basis and modifying
the total cost accordingly.
The cost of dewatering the clarifier underflow, if re-
commended by the processors to achieve a more favorable condition
for additive content or fixed sludge physical properties, was not in-
cluded in their estimates. The benefits derived from reducing water
content in the sludges are shown in Figures 54 and 55, and are due
primarily to a reduction in the amount of additives required.
Aerospace estimates for dewatering equipment capital
costs were based on information in Reference 18. The annualized
capital costs for dewatering clarifier underflow to 50 to 55 wt% solids
using vacuum drum filters is $0.66 and $0. 50/ton (dry) for the 50 and
65% annual operating factors, respectively. [A charge of $0. 12/ton
(dry) was estimated for labor and power, and was included in the costs
presented in Figures 54 and 56. ]
9. 3 OPERATING COSTS
The various factors considered in the Aerospace analysis
and adjustment of processor operating costs are discussed below.
The additive represents a significant fraction of the
annual operating costs. Considering the large quantities required for
a 1000-MW plant, the cost per ton of additive is unaffected by the
operating load factor. Therefore, no corrections were applied to the
unit cost of the additive when operating costs were computed for the
50 and 65% annual operating load factors.
In one case (see Figure 56 for IUCS), the cost of trans-
porting fly ash to the disposal operation was included for completeness
(see Section 7. 1.2.2), although this procedure is not recommended by
19
the processor. With a cost of $8. 00/ton of dry fly ash as delivered,
it was estimated that the disposal cost would be increased $0. 38/ton of
sludge (dry).
107
-------
Labor, maintenance, materials, spare parts, and power
costs were examined. The Aerospace-adjusted costs, based on pro-
cessor contractor inputs, were in the range of $1.00 to $1. 50/ton of
sludge (dry), exclusive of additive costs.
An annual cost for disposal site maintenance and moni-
toring totaling $35,000 was added to the estimates. This total re-
presents $0.06/ton (dry) and $0.05/ton (dry) for the 50 and 65%
annual operating load factors, respectively.
One-way rates for truck hauling of $0. 12/ton-mile were
used in the Aerospace evaluation. " Since "wet" tons are being
transported, the corresponding rate when converted to "dry" tons is
$0.24 (assuming the wet sludge has 50 wt% solids). Therefore, a
10-mile round trip would cost $1.20/ton (dry). Handling costs are
included separately as processing and placement costs as appropriate.
Placement and compacting rates of $0. 30/ton (wet) were
27 28
included, ' or estimates submitted by processors were adjusted to
that figure as appropriate. On a dry basis, the rate becomes $0.60/ton
(dry) for a sludge with 50 wt% solids.
9.4 TOTAL DISPOSAL COSTS
Total full-scale disposal costs estimated by The Aerospace
Corporation for each of the processes with the power plant operating at
an average annual load factor of 50% for 30 years and the disposal site
5 miles from the power plant are presented in Figures 54 through 56.
Values are given for two distinct cases, one based on Shawnee field
disposal treatment conditions and the others on conditions proposed by
the processors for full-scale operations.
The total cost for disposal of the sludge is in the range
of $7. 30 to $11. 40/ton of sludge (dry) in 1975 dollars. This cost is
based on an assessment of the options presented in Figures 54 through
56. Operating costs are in the range of 65 to 85% of the total disposal
costs; this variation is largely a function of the use of different quanti-
ties of additives by each of the three processors. The remaining 15 to
35% represents annual capital charges. If it is assumed that a coal
108
-------
with a thermal content of 12, 000 Btu/lb is burned at a rate of 0. 88
Ib/kW-hr, the total disposal costs are $2.07 to $3.24/ton of coal
burned and 0.9 to 1.4 mills/kW-hr. If a 65% annual plant load factor
is assumed, the above 50% load factor disposal cost reduction is in the
range of 4 to 11%. Total disposal costs are reduced by 5 to 13% if the
sludge disposal site is 0. 5 mile rather than 5 miles from the power
plant. Historical background related to these results is given in
References 29 and 30.
9. 5 OTHER COST CONSIDERATIONS
The engineering estimates provided are considered to
be representative of the cost of disposal by chemical fixation. Factors
that could affect disposal costs but are highly site-dependent were not
analyzed. These include access roads and rights-of-way whose costs
may be offset by the residual value of the land.
Credit for the cost of fly ash disposal was not applied in
this study. Consideration will be given to that factor in follow-on
assessments of the cost impact of sludge treatment over current
pollution control costs.
Another approach that may have merit in reducing dis-
posal costs is the removal of fly ash prior to scrubbing and, in some
cases, reintroducing it after the sludge is mechanically dewatered.
An appreciable increase in the percent solids would result, thereby
reducing the following: (1) fixation additive requirements, (2) the
total mass of material to be treated and handled, and (3) the acre-feet
of disposal site required. Cost trade-off studies to evaluate these
effects will be made.
109
-------
REFERENCES
1. Shawnee, F72113R, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville,
Tenn.
2. Lime/Limestone Wet-Scrubbing Test Results at the EPA
Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility, Second Progress Report,
Technology Transfer, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C.
3. W. H. Lord, "FGD Sludge Fixation and Disposal, "
Proceedings; Symposium on Flue Gas Desulfurization -
Atlanta, November 1974, Volume II, EPA-650/2-74- 126-b,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. (December 1974), pp. 929-954.
4. G. Kleiman, "A Practical Approach to Handling Flue Gas
Scrubber Sludge, " Paper presented 37th Annual Meeting of
the American Power Conference, Chicago, April 1975.
5. G. E. Weismantel, "Down-to-Earth Solutions Ease Sludge
Disposal, " Chemical Engineering JJ2_ (22), 76 (October 1975).
6. L. J. Minnick, "Stabilization of Waste Materials Including
Pulverized Coal Ash, " Paper presented Meeting of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Chicago,
8 May 1975.
7. L. J. Minnick, "Environmental Considerations for Disposal
of Industrial By-Products, " Paper presented Annual Meeting
of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York,
16-20 February 1975.
8. L. J. Minnick, "Utilization of Fly Ash Sulfate Sludge Based
Synthetic Aggregate for Highway Construction Use, " Paper
presented Coal and Environment Technical Conference and
Equipment Exposition, Louisville, Ky. , 24 October 1974.
Ill
-------
9. J. R. Conner, "Ultimate Liquid Waste Disposal Methods, "
Plant Engineering (19 October 1972).
10. J. R. Conner, "Ultimate Disposal of Liquid Wastes by
Chemical Fixation, " Paper presented 29th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Ind. , 7 May 1974.
11. L. D. Cowman, "Chemical Stability of Metal Silicates vs.
Metal Hydroxides in Ground Water Conditions, " Paper
presented Second National Conference on Complete WateReuse,
Chicago, 4 May 1975.
12. J. R. Conner, "Disposal of Liquid Wastes by Chemical
Fixation, " Waste Age 5 (6), (1974).
13. J. R. Conner, "Ultimate Disposal of Liquid Residues by
Chemical Fixation, " Paper presented National Conference on
Management and Disposal of Residues from the Treatment of
Industrial Wastewaters, Washington, D. C. , 3-5 February 1975.
14. C. A. Evans, Jr., "Secondary Ion Mass Analysis: A
Technique for Three-Dimensional Characterization, " Analytical
Chemistry 44 (13), 67A (November 1972).
15. Sludge Fixation Testing, Final Report, Chemfix, Inc. ,
Pittsburgh (15 January 1975) (TVA Contract No. 75F37-59404).
16. FGD Sludge Fixation and Cost Study, Dravo Corp. , Denver
(8 August 1975) (TVA Contract No. 75F71-59402).
17. Solid Waste Management Proposal for 1000-MW Power Plant,
IU Conversion Systems, Inc., Philadelphia (19 June 1975)
(TVA Contract No. 75F37-59396).
18. C. F. Cornell, Liquids-Solids Separation in Air Pollutant
Removal Systems, ASCE Preprint No. 2363, Paper presented
ASCE Annual and National Environmental Engineering
Convention, Kansas City, Mo., 21-25 October 1974.
19. Final Report, Technical and Economic Factors Associated
with Fly Ash Utilization, TOR-0059(6781)- 1, The Aerospace
Corp., ElSegundo, Calif. (26 July 1971).
20. F. T. Princiotta (Chairman), Sulfur Oxide Throwaway
Sludge Evaluation (SOTSEP) Final Report, Vol. II. Technical
Discussion, EPA-650/2-75-010-b, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C.
(April 1975).
112
-------
21. C. Gieck, personal communication, Wm. H. Hutchinson &
Sons Service, Wilmington, Calif., 21 March 1975.
22. Proceedings; Symposium on Flue Gas Besulfurization -
Atlanta, November 1974, Volume II, EPA-650/2-74- 126-b,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N. C. (December 1974).
23. Summary of National Transportation Statistics,
DOT-TSC-OST-74-8, Department of Transportation,
Washington, B.C. (June 1974).
24. G. G. McGlamery et al. , Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power
Plant Stack Gas (Magnesia Scrubbing - Regeneration),
EPA-R2-73-244, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, B.C. (May 1973).
25. R. Stone, "Sanitary Landfill Bisposal of Chemical and
Petroleum Waste, " ed. G. E. Weismantel, AIChE Symposium
Series, Chemical Engineering Applications in Solid Waste
Management 68 (122), 35-39 (1972).
26. R. A. Boettcher, "Pipeline Transporation of Solid Waste, "
ed. G. E. Weismantel, AIChE Symposium Series, Chemical
Engineering Applications in Solid Waste Management 68 (122),
205-220 (1972).
27. Personal communication, Los Angeles County Project
Planning and Pollution Control Bivision, 6 October 1975.
28. Engineering News Record, p. 49 (11 September 1975) and
p. 122 (18 September 1975).
29. J. Rossoff and R. Rossi, Bisposal of By-Products from Non-
Regenerable Flue Gas Besulfurization Systems; Initial Report,
EPA-650/2-74-037-a, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triagnel Park, N.C. (May 1974).
30. J. Rossoff, R. C. Rossi, L. J. Bornstein, and J. W. Jones,
"Bisposal of By-Products from Non-Regenerable Flue Gas
Besulfurization Systems, A Status Report, " Paper presented
EPA Control Systems Laboratory Symposium on Flue Gas
Besulfurization, Atlanta, Georgia, 4-7 November 1974.
113
-------
B-l. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Second
Edition, Methods Development and Quality Assurance Research
Laboratory, National Energy Research Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio (1974).
B-2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
Thirteenth Edition, American Public Health Association,
New York.
114
-------
APPENDIX A
SHAWNEE FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES
-------
APPENDIX A
SHAWNEE FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES
A. 1 GROUND WATER AND LEACHATE WELLS
The sampler is a cylindrical brass tube, 18 in. long
by 3-3/8 in. in outside diameter (Foerst Specialities Company,
Chicago). The bottom is sealed and has a spring-loaded valve for
transferring the sample. The sampler top is sealed with a loose-
fitting rubber stopper that allows the sampler to fill but falls into
sealed position when released. The device is lowered and raised by
means of a plastic rope held by the operator.
To sample, the device is lowered slowly slightly below
water level and allowed to fill. It is withdrawn and the samples are
drained through the spring-loaded bottom valve into appropriate bot-
tles. Filling the sampler is repeated as required to fill all sample
bottles. Samples are taken from standing water in the wells. After
the sampling of each leachate well is completed, any remaining water
is removed from the well. The sampler is washed carefully with
deionized water after taking each sample to avoid cross-contamination.
A. 2 TRUCK SAMPLES FOR SLUDGE FIXATION
These samples are collected directly in one-liter wide-
mouth plastic bottles. A holder for the bottles was fabricated from
expanded metal and conduit, and is dipped into the top of the filled
concrete truck after the contents are mixed. Duplicate daily samples
of unfixed sludge are taken from a single filled truck.
115
-------
A. 3 FIXED SLUDGE TO PONDS
When additives are mixed with sludge in the truck
(Dravo, IUCS), a fixed sample is taken midway during the discharge
of the truck contents into the storage pond. A single one-liter wide-
mouth plastic bottle is filled and capped.
A.4 POND SUPERNATE
Pond supernate is sampled by skimming into a one-
liter wide-mouth bottle. The sample is usually taken in the vicinity
of the pond leachate well.
A. 5 GROUND WATER WELL DEPTH
Well depths are measured using a graduated cord (Soil-
test, Inc. , Model DR 772 depth finder). The water surface is detected
by shorted electrical leads on contact. The operator observes this as
a meter deflection.
A. 6 SLUDGE DEPTHS, SUPERNATE DEPTHS
Sludge depths in untreated ponds (A and D) are measured
by sounding with a graduated stick. They are also measured by refer-
ence to a yardstick taped to the leachate well. The sludge-water and
the water-air interface distances from the top of the leachate well cas-
ing are reported.
A. 7 WEATHER STATION DATA
This information is taken as specified in "Weather
Bureau Observing Hand Book No. 2, Substation Observations," Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
116
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF CHEMICAL, ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
B. 1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix describes the analytical techniques used
by Aerospace to determine the concentration of constituents in the pond
water and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludges. (The analytical
techniques used by TVA are contained in References B-l and B-2.)
The constituents present in the liquor are divided into the following:
major chemical species (i.e., calcium, sulfate, and chloride), trace
metal species, and additional chemical species. Other water quality
tests are also described.
Consideration was given to the constituent's range of
concentration and to the corresponding costs of the analyses to obtain
*
data having high precision and high accuracy. Although the basis
for selecting the proper analytical technique was to minimize any
interference from other species, the presence of chemical species
interfering with a particular analysis was fully acknowledged. Only
when the interference was considered significant were corrections
applied.
Precision is defined as the relationship between a measured value
and the statistical mean of measured values, and accuracy is the
relationship between the true value and the measured value.
117
-------
B.2 MAJOR CHEMICAL SPECIES
B.2.1 Calcium Determination
The method selected from among several has an
accuracy of 40% and was one in which calcium oxalate was precipitated
and filtered from the solution, the filter cake was redissolved in HC1,
and the solution was titrated against KMnO4 to a characteristic purple
end point. Correction was then made for excess permanganate at the
characteristic end point.
Alternative techniques using a specific ion electrode
and atomic absorption spectrophotometry were eliminated because
they had lower accuracies resulting from interferences, primarily
from the sulfate ions.
B.2.2 Sulfate Determination
Standard nephelometry techniques were used for this
task. A barium sulfate precipitate was formed by the reaction of the
sulfate ion with a barium chloranilate reagent. The resulting tur-
bidity was determined by a spectrophotometer and compared to a
curve from standard sulfate solutions. Although multiple dilutions
are necessary to bring the concentration to a range of optimum reli-
ability, the resulting error is less than 10%.
B.2.3 Chloride Determination
A specific ion electrode was used to determine the
concentration of chloride ions. Comparisons were made with results
of titrations with silver nitrate. This method has a precision of about
1% and an accuracy of about 5%.
B.3 TRACE METAL SPECIES
Since most trace metal species are highly sensitive to
atomic absorption spectrophotometry, this technique was used for the
following elements: aluminum, antimony, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel,
118
-------
lead, silicon, silver, tin, vanadium, and zinc. Results were verified
by analyzing standards of the National Bureau of Standards and by
comparative analyses of elements present in relatively high concen-
trations through the use of gravimetric or volumetric methods. Pre-
cision and accuracy are dependent upon the means of activation, the
specific element, its relative concentration, and the extent of inter-
ference by other elements and matrix effects. The precision and
accuracy of the measurements of concentrations of all elements that
exceed water quality reuse criteria ranged between 5 and 20%. How-
ever, the precision, with furnace activation, of trace metals occur-
ring at very low levels is probably no better than 50%.
Mercury was also determined using this technique;
however, the mercury was reduced to the elemental state with
stannous chloride, and the absorption of the resulting mercury vapor
was measured. This method has a precision of about 20% and an
accuracy of about 20%.
Arsenic was determined by the Gutzeit method, which
reacts arsine with mercurous bromide to produce Hg,As; the un-
known was compared colorimetrically against standards. For this
application this technique has a precision of about 25% and an accu-
racy of about 25%.
A fluorimetric technique that has a sensitivity down to
micrograms per liter was used to determine selenium. It has a
precision of about 10% and is accurate to 60%.
B.4 ADDITIONAL CHEMICAL SPECIES
B.4.1 Sodium Determination
Atomic absorption spectrophotometry or flame photo-
metry was used to determine sodium ion concentrations, depending
on whether the concentrations were relatively low or high. Errors
are typically less than 10%.
119
-------
B.4.2 Sulfite Determination
Total sulfite was determined using a specific ion
electrode, and no significant interferences were observed. The
oxidation of the sulfite ion to sulfate in the scrubber liquor was found
to be a very rapid reaction. Liquor protected from the atmosphere
typically reveals concentrations of several hundred milligrams per
liter of the sulfite ion; however, a brief atmospheric exposure causes
oxidation and reduces these concentrations by one or more orders of
magnitude. The reported sulfite measurements were for samples
analyzed immediately upon arrival in the laboratory. No specific
action was taken to inhibit oxidation other than to ensure that the
samples were transported from the power plant scrubber to the ana-
lytical laboratory in sealed containers. The exposure to air during
sampling, filtering, and measuring, however, resulted in the sulfite
values reported. It is presumed that these concentrations would
probably .more closely represent the oxidation state of liquors in the
event of their potential discharge.
B.4.3 Phosphate Determination
The phosphate analysis was determined by spectro-
photometry methods, using ammonium molybdate to form the
molybdenum blue complex. Total range of phosphate content varied
from 0.5 mg/1 in an acid liquor (pH = 4.3) to 0.01 mg/1 in a base
liquor (pH = 10.4).
B.4.4 Nitrogen Determination
Total nitrogen was determined by the Kjeldahl method,
which reduces all nitrogen to ammonia with sodium thiosulfate. The
ammonia was then distilled and the amount determined by titration.
This method has a precision of about 10%, and accuracy at the levels
of the concentrations determined is about 25%. It is assumed that
most nitrogen in the scrubber system will exist as the nitrate and
nitrite ions; the latter will oxidize under conditions similar to sulfite
oxidation.
120
-------
B.4.5 Fluroide Determination
The fluoride ion was determined by the specific ion
electrode using a Beckman Model 4500 digital pH meter. There were
no significant interferences in the scrubber liquors. This method has
a precision of about 5%; an accuracy of 20% is attainable at the low
levels measured.
B.4.6 Boron Determination
Boron was determined spectrophotometrically with the
Hack DR2 using the Carmine method.
B.4.7 Magnesium Determination
Magnesium was determined by atomic absorption
spectrophotometry in the same manner as were the trace metals.
B. 5 OTHER WATER QUALITY TESTS
B. 5. 1 Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical oxygen demand was determined by reacting
the organics and sulfites present with potassium dichromate and
measuring the reduced chromium by spectrophotometry. While a
precision of 25% is attainable, accuracy depends on the same history
(i.e., degree of exposure to atmospheric oxygen) and is about 100%
for routine analysis.
B.5.2 Total Alkalinity
Total alkalinity was determined by titrating a 2 5-ml
sample with standard acid to a pH of 4.0. The Beckman Model 4500
digital pH meter was used as the indicating instrument. Total
alkalinity is expressed as milligrams per liter calcium carbonate,
but is actually a determination of the buffering capacity of the liquor
owing to a number of weak acid species (i.e., carbonate, sulfite,
borate, arsenite, selenite, and silicate). Precision is about 5%, and
accuracy is estimated to be 25%.
121
-------
B.5.3 Total Dissolved Solids Determination
The total dissolved solids were determined gravimetri-
cally by evaporating a 25-ml sample overnight in a tared weighing
bottle under vacuum at 120°F. Since two of the major constituents
(calcium and sodium sulfates) form stable hydrated salts and are very
hygroscopic in the anhydrous state, prolonged drying and minimal
exposure of the dried residue were mandatory. The precision is about
2%, and the accuracy is about 5%.
B.5.4 Total Conductance Determination
This measurement, which was made with a General
Radio Impedance Bridge Type 1650A, gave an estimate of the total
ionic strength of the liquor. Precision is about 1%, and accuracy is
estimated to be about 2%.
B.5.5 pH Determination
This parameter was measured with a Beckman Model
4500 digital pH meter to a precision of 0.002 pH units and an accuracy
of 0.005 pH units.
B.5.6 Turbidity Determination
Turbidity measurements were made by nephelometry
in which light absorption was compared to standards that were pre-
pared using a formazine mixture; this is a mixture of hydrazine sul-
fate and hexamethylene tetramine in a water solution.
B.6 ANALYTICAL METHODS APPLICABLE TO
SLUDGE SOLIDS
Sludge solids were analyzed for calcium, sulfate,
sulfite, and carbonate in addition to total solids and inert .material
(fly ash).
Calcium was determined by a volumetric method
following an oxalate separation. The sample, commonly 1/4 grams,
was dissolved in hydrochloric and nitric acids, diluted and filtered,
122
-------
and calcium oxalate precipitated by ammonium oxalate from a slightly
alkaline solution. The precipitate was filtered off, redissolved in
sulfuric acid, and titrated with standard potassium permanganate.
Sulfate was determined gravimetrically using a 1/4-
gram sample that was dissolved in hydrochloric acid. The solution
was filtered, and barium chloride added to the hot filtrate to precip-
itate barium sulfate. This was filtered off through a tared Gooch
crucible with a glass filter pad. It was then dried and ignited at 800° C
cooled, and weighed.
Sulfite was determined volumetrically. A 2-gram
sample was placed in a three-necked flask fitted with a dropping
funnel for adding sulfuric acid, an entrance tube for nitrogen used
to sweep out the evolved gases, and an exit tube dipping into an absor-
bent solution of N/10 sodium hydroxide. After evolving SO2 and
collecting it as sodium sulfite, the excess sodium hydroxide was
neutralized and the sulfite titrated with standard iodine.
Carbonate was determined by a gravimetric method,
after evolution as CCX, along with SO2, by acidifying a 2-gram sample
in a tared flask. The flask was warmed gently to expel all gases,
cooled, and weighed. The weight decrease represents CO- + SO-, and
must be corrected for the SO2 content as determined volumetrically.
123
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA RECORDS
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA RECORDS
This appendix contains the following information
regarding data taken during this program:
C. 1 Sample Designations 127
C. 2 Shawnee Input Sludge and Water
Analysis Records 131
C.3 Precipitation Data 175
C.4 Hydrological Records 181
C.5 Pond Water/Solids Level Records 187
C.6 Soil Characterization Records 191
C.7 Ion Microprobe Mass Analyzer Results 211
C. 8 Shawnee Pond Core Sample Locations 215
125
-------
APPENDIX C
C. 1 SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS
127
-------
Sample Designation to be used for all Shawnee Disposal
Demonstration Test Samples
sO
Digit No.
PC
1
2
3
Sample
Month
md Index
A
B
C
D
E
4
5
Date
Day
Year
Sample
6
7
Sample Type
Index
Type Index3"
Ground Water -- Well No. 1
Ground Water -- Well No. 2
Leachate Well
Pond Supernate
Untreated Input Sludge
8
Pond
Index
9
Aux.
Sample
Index
GW_1
GW_2
LW_
PS_
IS U
Treated Input Sludge
Composited Input Sludge
Soil Core -- Pond Bottom
Soil Core -- Well No. 1
Soil Core -- Well No. 2
Fixed Sludge Core -- Section No. 1
IS_T
IS_C
SC_P
SC_1
SC_2
FC 1
Insert appropriate pond index, i.e., A, B, C, D or E, in space indicated by underscore. See
examples next page.
-------
Matrix of Sample Type and Pond Indices
Pond
A
B
C
D
E
Ground Water
Well #1
GWA1
GWB1
GWC1
GWD1
GWE1
Well $2
GWA2
GWB2
GWC2
--
GWE2
Leachate
Well
LWA
LWB
LWC
LWD
LWE
Pond
Supernate
PSA
PSB
PSC
PSD
PSE
Input Sludge
Untreated
ISAU
ISBU
ISCU
ISDU
ISEU
Treated
ISAT
ISBT
ISCT
ISDT
ISET
Composite
ISAC
ISBC
ISCC
ISDC
ISEC
Soil Core
Well #1
SCA1
SCB1
SCC1
SCD1
SCE1
Well #2
SCA2
SCB2
SCC2
--
SCE2
Pond
SCAP
SCBP
SCCP
SCDP
SCEP
Fixed Sludge Corea
Section #1
--
FCB1
FCC1
--
FCE1
Section
-------
APPENDIX C
C. 2 SHAWNEE INPUT SLUDGE AND WATER
ANALYSIS RECORDS
131
-------
APPENDIX C
C. 2 SHAWNEE INPUT SLUDGE AND WATER
ANALYSIS RECORDS
Aerospace analyses are indicated by a sequential
number. Sequential numbers of TVA analyses are prefixed by the
letter N. All of the analytical data obtained are included in these
records and on the pertinent plots. Blank spaces denote that no
analyses were made, usually because of insufficient amounts of
sample from the test wells, or occasionally from losses in handling.
Additionally, sulfite analyses were required of Aerospace only, and
analyses for sodium were required only for leachates from Pond E.
133
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in rng/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type f-igrs.
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical On Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
N-R^
moq*4 duMM
1-q-lM
L,.q
ftso
rsi
i- \
-730
IO
l*4O
sO.ooS^
O.O_1_o
1"3uO
o.aMO
(•„_£*,
\ o ooo a.
^O C5C3O-
fsi-i«^4
0.^
T7O
MO
a^o
•xO.OC)^
C> CL';)f>)
\?iO
o.osft
MO.
r^j.cTi«o\C5
SDSM CotOAl
R- 5-7-7
u,8
UXO
ftU
S^O
^^O
aso
'Ccs.cx^S
0.2T7O
iqo
O-Olsft
SCO
O.OO\'3)
<^0.003L
M-1MO
r>qcB^ CbuiPil
q-S-7^
u.q
"ilO
AS"
-79O
aio
<(o.ooS"
IUO
Mfe
<^ O.OcXsS.
'io.Oo'SL
0-S
O9DMM &UORI
q.^.7^
ft.t^
\19
»4
^O
O.c\\
G,aO
©
<(cxooS"
o-M
MO
O.oS
no-
O.OOO &
o.oo M
O.M
134
-------
Shawnee Disposed Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical OT Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
N-SM4
locrmr^ujftv
\0-~1-7M
T.SL
^ec*
•XI
&a.o
ft?>
a.i,,o
Mq
f*l f~W~}C'. "^
^O.oo'a.
t\)-q\\
mvsU Gojft \
\O-V5-1^
~7.O
MlO
2>Lj
I.SL
830
I.SO
O-^O
^>.cxi5
d.Tsao
luo
<^OOlO
H*-*
o ocs I Q
^r>.r-<^a
tj-^nu
\CY3Aa GuJfSV
\a-n.8-7<4
-7.O
^9O
rio
\.9L
~7~7O
•M9
\fio
.7^O
\ 2LO
•^O-dvO
^-11
o.cooa.
38
loas^GuxM
)0-OS-7^
T.94
Bu
O &.L,
SftS
v?^o
\ns
Qo4
O-MO
^40
O.OS3
?S^.2L
Xrj ooooS
"OiOO— i-O
Yo \
KS-MO.^
) HOW d»OUW
\i-oS
O.M8O
no
^. o oiO
3O^
o-coo^
Co%.Odo>^
to-ao')
e»*\S tuJfvi
n-ll-TS"
Co-1
?AO
a.5T
Lplf,
l.O
U1O
I MO
^p.OoS
0-2>SO
\SO
O.OMO
3(o
("».OC) ^S"
^o,.C>oCL
135
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation |
Sample Type Q.gir>iOY">o>
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
\OM
nMilfi^ ft1"*1!!
U~ US-IS'
u.q?>
CL&U
e*a
^5
r»-qi
>4MO
•x^so
O^O~J
f»l?>
/^.iOi<-ic'-.S
ffs.csi PT
G-FT
O^O
•5L,
O^C3llft
?S^4
o.qft
LoSO
•M^iO
\ 5O
C5.no s
Cs-MUO
no
O.pVJS"
3Co
.iM~|O
<^O.oo9L.
136
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation f-\
Sample Type CoV^xTy^TvO VA)f\Tt,^-
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
^^ —1 j.V\ ^}
^iQO.*4 /%LL)PJi
-1-QQ.-1H
~1.^>
ColO
y^ i
\.\
*i O fN
1 OO
aa
1QO
r> cbft^
US
\ CIO
o os £L
uu
O- 1 qo
^o.f^o-3-
tVi-USla
oeost 00 I S"
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in rng/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type C
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
W-QlS
iHiO-^l C2*Jt5-aa-7<-i
.T.I
HSO
3.2L
o.qn
5AO
nr>
Mil,
<^O c>oS
<^O lOCi
U"2,
SO-r-ii Ci
•ML,
^fa OOd^l
JdO d
A4\
IrOSM &oift3
|C^-QR-7^(
ft.Ta
2x?bO
T?>
MO
O.uQ
MHO
SI
xO.ooS
O.9L_
3i
~)0
-.O-OCiSL
o.q
yo-n.^o
iio^MGaJAft
^a-q-T4
ft.O
i-JOO
•30
\l«
0.85
SSO
\ft
UU
^O-CsoS
a
fO-'iiO
oiHS &uOT0
\?0
OOS
Cj^fHoO
MO
f4.C5CL8
\ft
Q.oooM
^C>.C>c\fl
\?,b
o<-O8Scuird
M-aS'"7?T
1.^0
ss
<^
s
r»^"7
^Mft
VI K
'(o-ooS
<0. I
2L8
(T>.C>CL
\~i>M
Q-Cxr)O<-J
O.no*-<
o.-x
138
-------
Shawnce Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical 02 Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
Ni-CTl^
DM5J5S feoJPQ
M-ELS-~?S
1.M
SR
lu
8
0.<4^
?^a.o
p>q
Rft
o,S
e>.a<-»O
?>a.
CXOVLr>
\^
r>-C>o\ \
Ko-ooa
VO-a8,(o
olcnS (auOftO
-7-1- ~?5
7. \
IOO
•^0
MT
o.ua
5?iO
l^ooo
vqo
"Co.ooS
t>^?)?3O
\ 10
C5. Q.OO
-q.a.
Or^oirT
^.O.ooQ^
139
-------
Shawnoc Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical C^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
N-CUSL
\OlSM l_U)P\
\0-IS-7W
Lfl.L,
M9O
5^0
»C3io
Ml
(*1.CE3D2>
S
OS
3L\oo
O.OCiS
q&
O.C3OIO
<^o.cao3i
\^>3
OMO8S LUJf
M-3«-75
-7.-?!
(ol
Q IO>O
q.R
-72.93.
m :xS
^O-QOS
as-
CXOHO
^-•iv^
;^.fl
C^j no^^)
0.008
ro-013
QMiSS LLOfl
<-J~z8-lS
"7.(*
6,/
33OO
ISO
q.a
T70O
p>\
\OOC>
<(o.ooS
31
IV^sOO
O.035L
-7SL
d-ootS
O. OV3L
140
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type L
Test Organization
f\
Scqviential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
N-QJ3-?
cncns Lu)ft
-?--?- 75
-/.S
^•3-
7SSOO
|i-4OO
^o.o
PjVC50
(OO
qso
O.O^LO
•M3-
aaoo
O.OtoQ.
©o~
O.COlD~~l
0.01^
141
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation _
Sample Type •r^
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Cal cium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
tvi-qnj,
1020_M Pbft
10-02-7^
R.I
^ oc>
O-OOO
_B,0_
-MOO
ta
^O^D
O.oiO
it,,
3-dOo
nL
\ac#m Pbf\
i^-9--;i/
A.Q-
LaO
^ao
uo
M.ta
M?)00
0.1
\\oo
f^.ow1^
i.a.
I IOO
^Q.OVO
11
a-/a-?s
a.s
^q
U75O
CX4
3>.a
a&oo
u
1 \OO
3^0
50
t.8
>SMO
(^SO
"Co ooS
US
SHO
o.»o
M.^
0.0008-
C>.OOi~?
o.ao
1Vi-0-)(o
oaaas- Psfl
^-as-7S"
PS.O
M^
O.SO
\M
\.a
\*oOO
~}
-------
Shawnce Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type ?>
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical Cu Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
W-^S'A
on ens 96f\
-i--i--]
CflUCl
^O.OlO
O_\
r».oc>\~l
O-ao*^
143
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Input Sludge Analysis Record
(All liquor concentrations in mg/1)
(All solids analyses in wt %)
Pond Designation
Sample Type TA\ OoT
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Sample Designation
Sample Date
Liquor Analysis:
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O- Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
Solids Analysis:
Total Solids
Calcium Sulfite
Calcium Sulfate
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium carbonate
Fly Ash
rwoVilSfvJ
°l- n-s-^M
ft P.O
SUtoM
In.O
-1UO
^nM
1 qSO
^\?>
/«M
5(0
\^.~l
<4u.5
1 i.fe
3>.M
HO..?;
5*3-
HSP\Cv
R-5>S
<^
•MUC5O
IO.
QSLzt^
iSCLS
r^-r>n<-\
•MM.O
Q.IOO
0-Oo \
O.OoCT
H.-*
vbOSM TSAO
\n-5~TA
•
T.qs
^-ift^S
(O..M
c^-MUO
\MBft
o_io~i ^r
•3-\O.
?>SL
IS
'O.M.^
'SS.to
W-\
s.q
•qu.q
'
The data presented reflect the analyse* conducted as of July 1975.
The complete analysis will be included in the next report.
144
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation _ Q,
Sample Type CX er^. w^ C\ V ji
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
qu
rv4i=;56,uja
M-15-15"
l.urS
on
^S
IS
O-lol
'-lOO
Q.0>;
^O-Oc-,.1^
Cs.q
MD
o o"^
is.e
o jooo 1
£5,«CiCn
»S3L
^i~C3(o\
OH\5< (dLllftl
UMS-lS
(o.q
a<40
UR
o.u\
^£LO
\ -3.O
&M
•C'&.CioS
iT^.lTSO
3\
o.\ SO
\^
c^ Ooc; ^
^O-riOaL
^-Ou5
tvoiS C^ofti
>4-3a-~)S
u.q
O.MO
0,4
-MO
MqO
\q
«aft
o.osu
lUa
r?).OoC>1
)
"-\-i2R-nS
u.q
O.MO
ly.U
rno
0_~?3L
3OO
a?i
a^
C>
CTb CiOO^i
^o.c>o Q.
10 -ass
cnoas G>UX>\
-i - Q-15T
t^.9
a^o
ft9^.
\MOO
O.Lr,q
s\o
\csoo
a*4
<^O-DCbS
OJ^O
c* ooo S^
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation "v^
Sample Type C-AgoorvO) V
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
M-lOCLU
lui4
i"3c-«O
8S
\O r^r>S
^.MSO
as
<[b.o»O
8.°!
^o.ooa
VM-^o.^
CanSCboJCK
a-l\-is
U.8
no
SSL
1.=;
O.'S"!
•iMO
ao
•sO.OcsS'
O_USC>
TbM
O.OV5T
R.T
^O.oooSt
oQ
~\^
oo\is ^ujaa
^-\\-"lS'
-7^M
\~1 1
SO
3S
o»S^S
33.0
18
•^CxCX^S
U9L
MO
0.05^
\^~
^.OjZXyo\
Ci Oo^
o..-=> .
MO-OS^
tans f-iui&a
-j.-n-iS
ta.l
\10
F^O
l«
o.S~l
33O
\a
<^o.ooS
\
O.\\O
•R.O
O.OooS
<^O.(T5C>SL
'Ni-as"?
fflSMiT frrti iW
•x-an-75
U.I
AUO
^5>
q
o.uo
3,30
to I
\-M
so.ooS"
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in rng/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type (
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
.Sulfite
Sodium
<*S
c»4i<;S ftuicvS
<-\-\5-T5
•7.KP,
\Sft
-??>
15
O.M>4
ft r^O
\ 3-S
5
Q-R
\ •SL.
c->.c>q
\^.u
o.ocoM
O ooT
O_a^~7
VV»-r>uO.
cwiSS faujafli
UA-IS-1S
i«.n
\UO
sa-
8
o-s'A
3OO
Ml
\c\
\Q OOS
f-..U2LO
O.O02SL
CS tO*^ ""^
Kl-OUlo
cy4ilS fctofia
i-4-!ia-->5;
1^
^o.ooS
r->.\?,O
o_q
G> O*-l (o
\ \
Q.OOOS
CSiCXi'J
^-C5-|^
CM3SSC4a>b0
>-\-a8-"7S
u-l
| UO
53
"7
Q.S?i
?>IO
\»-
\S
< o.ooS
d.loO
aq
r~5 CjSO
\ \
O.oo l •=»»
o.oo:=>
v^-0.cin
t^caas tuJBS
-7-fi^5T
U.9
no
1-0.0
\O
O.~l \
M7O
O5OO
SM
<^Q OC^
(T»- Q5TO
•M3L
<^C).O\O
1 Co
^r>.CX!=jo£}_
<^r\.ooQ
147
-------
Shawnee Disposed. Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in rng/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical C^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
M-2LV4
r^Q\\S L.UJ&
a.- u-ns
A.,^
•?,so
MO
WA
U1^
"4MO
.85
O.OCb~I
(D_qu
toM
r>»osfe
LoJ*.
\o ocofil
\o-f3r-) a
na_
p,o.ns LUJft
ta.~\\-is
S-.^a.
o
\-?o
ns
Ci-Aft
SOo,
ISTO
o.rM ^4
C5*4
ft
d3_ <~^<^> 1
O-C3l~7
o.n
qn
PMlSS L.U3&
M-vS-~lS
U-l.^
O.R
I MO
O
O.3O
?sao
ISO
^O r^ciS
l.O
0-&
C^.OQL
e>.o
O-OOO*-)
cT3 -OO fe
O. 1 O
to-Qu^
crtiSS LoiR
•4-VS-1S
IM
VC^s
!=^O
•MlO
o e>i^
^>U
^f^.rv-i-O
O.ou'^-
^-0,11
twaaKLuifi
u- as-is
u.q
aa_
t-i LaO
Ma.
^ftoo
^A
53,0
f>.C>SC>
S30
OjQOJB
as
Ci-OoSS
n. l?,O
148
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type L
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample.
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
M-o_q\
oicns UiiB
-\--7-75
lO. I
aso
«IMO
\o_oo
fl.M
auoo
\2lOOC5
Mqo
O.oMO
fto£L
2.?iC)Ci
o.GMP
^1
rt.CsCO~l
r~>.aoo
149
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical C^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
•^s
CHVSS P5B
M-\5-~?S
IQ-.\5T
\2LC\4
QiMOCi
1.^
^SL>O
fa~|S
•^o.oo'A
fiia
PMO
o.as:
<^O-0 I
<^r> ooc^l
•^p.oR<»
1O
?><-!
t^-oi«<4
omss PS&
M-lS-15
M.S
\3oo
\SOO
L=O
8.L
StoOO
\L«O
SLoO
<^o.ooS
6>3ooO
ar^oo
<^O.OIO
o. QL
f*l CiC^r-iQ
(r^.o*lO
v^-c>u»s
o'Aa.is PSR
M-n'n-OS
^An
\c\O
\«7OO
\ \ o
ISO)
<^O.C30S"
UO
\~70O
D -CiD C~l
O.P
<£o oooS
e».oai
>^-O8O
n-4^8S PS0
u-o-a-is
PO
iR
loOO
Qs
n.Cp
Qpoo
ft
M3O
^o.oo5~
a4
ftMO
O.oMO
M.SL
^C5.OCao3l
i^ Oo Ci
O -O.S6
hTGS?: PSP
"7-8 ~"7S
S.M
ao
?S!3_O
ta.5
CL.1^
ie>oo
4
qoo
O.OlO
»O
SlO
^O -0 1 C5
Q.-'S
O^ooo3
£).oC>^"
150
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Input Sludge Analysis Record
(All liquor concentrations in mg/1)
(All solids analyses in wt %)
Pond Designation
Sample Type _
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Sample Designation
Sample Date
Liquor Analysis:
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O~ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
Solids Analysis:
Total Solids
Calcium Sulfite
Calcium Sulfate
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium carbonate
Fly Ash
'Y-»\'V^T"5>PJ)
'A-l'VTK
~7.OO
assa-
u.o
lala^O
IQ55
IR3LS"
^>HS
So
i-\5
•ASO
£.0 -~|
\C\. \j>
\q.?>
?,5.5
rt4lS5 TiISP>U
M- 1K-15
1.\G
O^l^ft
M.SS
Sta~7O
15 \R
1Q-IO
MO.^
| UG
?~>\
^-\(A
aa.q
\1.S
D-Q-.M
^.M.O
The data presented reflect the analyses conducted as of July 1975.
The complete analysis will be included in the next report.
151
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type r
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical Cu Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
y\. 1 -Co 7^
£n a.a<-i r^uL^ii
-7-3:1-"? 4
1.1
V?O
\O
• .MO
!\RO
•ina
SLo
Co.oo 5"
^O. \OC->
aq
o- 10,0
^. \
r>S
lr> -iC5O»
R:S
•^>o5
^.C\. \CXT5
MBO
Ci.Ci5C
\ft
r>.coo~l
Ci.OQ^
C,_£L
TO-SMLa
IccilM fouitl
\r-r-1-~l<4
1-0
•~>7
V^,
'iTO
VaOQ
ia
•^o.ocsS"
Ko. \oc^
•?,A
•Cd o>\Pi
-7. A
<^\.c>C)oa^
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type r
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
!M-H\ Q_
10--^ -~)^
.oc3£L
VO- QLlft
<^jnii? &>LIY ^
p.-\\ -T5
IJ--IP
\ "3. O
IM
1 >X
-•M1^
R?to
S5
SL
•so
•^Ci.OCiS'
. i lO
IS
fi-O^Ti
a.i
r>.r-idi i
•vO.ooa.
\ aa_
r*4^RS ^iOJCL\
M-0^-~)5
i.?n
q?^
i^S
-MS
.r1,^
OSO
-is
•Co-oosr
^o. \
I Q-
^.oaxi
<-t.\
f^.r^c^oi"3)
C^.OtQ-
O.|^
wi-oS"3-
r^M^RS f-ioC \
«-i- 1>5"~)S
~7.La
JHS
\\
S"
.fiS
3OO
IS
^420
C>S
^ O. \ CsO
>q
O.OQ9L
a. I
^> r>^-NC!>Cl
.Tv£>S?V
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
M- ac^
k~)oiR.?;c>ijjc-i
1- 8-1 S
1.0
1 'Xf^
. MO
5"
-M4
U5O
•^.OOO
>«C>
<0^
MO
O ISO
9.a
O^fN~-iCiP
<^rs-TV"«ci
K) -USft
iT%fiOS^^-il3Cj
A-S-H
l.S
(o&
m
a?sO
9-1 O
Mft
oK
<<->.\
n\
O O^*^
p,.(^
O.rv-sf i c*
•^Q.Qoa
S
<0. 1
O_°)
8.M
^f> e^f*c*,£L
•M\
-dS
\sM
•?n
\Cs-C)CiS"
O.M
.^U
O.O"=S
1"^
O.QCx^iLi
^n.v
VO-AMl
I0o^a (oUJCJ
/0->7*/
1-3
«i'q
a^u
a^o
\ CLO
TSO
•Ccs.ciCiS
c>S"
<:o.\
<^
-------
Shawnee Disposed. Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type ("--,gr^ir\o
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical C^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
iO-H^
e>:i i > S CjuJCJ
a-n-~7r?
1.31
\MO
UTS
13
-to\
•2DO.O
•S-SL
\fi-oo5r
f"vo><4<-\
cr.*4
o rx->c>>aJ
^O-rv^ifl
\o-cno
c«a"»S'fauoO
H-a?)-"7s
l.SL
IS'D
SR
s
.5U
^ao
MR
O
•^O_C>C>5C
. oo
aie
c>-oa n.
\a.
0-cy>»>A
•^ci-ooQ.
\OUj
riM3.8S AuicJ
H-S8-1S
lo3>S
i^q
s^
">?
-SX
!3,MO
QuS
«,»
.^?5.
Q o<;
\?,.M
CS-dO>Q?^
C3 C3 V C)
O-'Xfe
VO-o©2>
O4d_6S ^-AASC3
<-/-ag--75"
~?-3_
\5O
ULs
1
.51
S,AO
ELO
as
cxK
^O COSL
Wi-O^M
osoS^ ^^^
<-5T-75'
~i:i
\|^>O
t OO
Ift
U'N
MOO
ftl
SSL
.OOS
- CLSO
M^
£> C>Sft
\X
o.Qc>o-a
•<.c>.ooa_
1NJ -^9<-l
O7O8S faLi^C
1-8-75"
1.0
\^0
UQ
\ Q_
.&S"
SMO
c^aco
\\0
"NO. COS"
&.5T
o.ooc,q
•CcvOoSL
155
-------
Shawnee Disposed Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation £ ^
Sample Type ^tfVLt^^T^"
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical 02 Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
tO-CLVl
^u<_ LOLjt
CL- 1 1-15"
-7.1
S(a
5-
\~\
O.SO
n^O
n-o
<0or^
0 l~1
£U«
dS
^0 \
iqj^p
0-?,^
2,.fe
^O^QCil
fVCM *
M.S
«0-Oft\
cy^lfiS LAiJC
J4-0_ft-7^
\0-M
qci
aMo-o
1-5
M-700
-,0,
ISO
y ^
f^ iq0
CLCsCiO
(Tv-OSlL
S-M
<00oe.a
0.01 I
^-o-i \
cvAaqsiiuc,
H-aq-15
t\.a
UOCs
C110Q
\MO
S-S
MUOO
3U
Hq
40.00S
0 V^O
aooo
o_i\e>
O.M
Q
\QOO
C..VO.O
0,\
CXde-lO
G^xrv
156
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
M-oAS
rncns LuJd.
-1--7--7S
IL«4
%OO
1 £>oC>
\?»OO
5.lp
aa.oo
Q-8OO
|9O
xio.Qo^r
O.ilO
6,50
O.tloO
SR-.^S
f>_r^a.e;r>
O.cioft
157
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type O
IIS
<(o.OO55
O_\
•^.so
O.\M
•^.loR
r^ ooc^"^*
C3.OC~)«4
O.ftS
»\i -cb~i a
'NU2AS PEaO
U-OROS
»\.a.
no
StoO
Q_O
a.M
|lr,OO
q
O.OO
o.ooft
n.3HQ
S9O
O.OI Lo
O.QL
/C^-/-»^(P)^
O.Cif-i12!
.2>
f\\
SHO
n
Q...3,
15CO
31
Q-OO
^o^2>c>S
o.atao
MfiO
("^.Cs^iLo
O.<-4
^cs.Ocsd^D
r~»-CbC)CL
to- as a.
(S7Q&S Ptfl/
"I-S-IS"
A. 3
0.1
•M^O
l&
a. i
aioo
s
u>oo
0.00 ~i
US'
MSO
C Qjr\*v"^ CL
^ri-OCi Q_
158
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Input Sludge Analysis Record
(All liquor concentrations in mg/1)
(All solids analyses in wt %)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
OT
(Clarifier underflow to centrifuge)
Sequential Number
Sample Designation
Sample Date
Liquor Analysis:
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
Solids Analysis:
Total Solids
Calcium Sulfite
Calcium Sulfate
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium carbonate
Fly Ash
rvicx^Tftco
M-u-IS
ft.PSfT
Sk8~H
t-.M
(o98G
1 U3~13L
iqqs
\LoS
•~?a_
EM
as.\
M^-^t
i a.. s
"i-Lo
^L^l
QH2V?"tfiCU
M-a^-is
l.~l?T
fS.S(j,Lo
»o.o
V\ DID
'
\5?1S
^ais"
aos
RR
LaS
aa..3L.
•?>a-K
15. M
?).&
•HC..S
The data presented reflect the analyses conducted as of July 1975.
The complete analysis will be included in the next report.
159
-------
Shawnee Disposed Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type C-^r
Test Organization
l_i y
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
VO-lolAn
o~)Q.n*^ -frtn»r»i
~l-aa--~)M
~>- 1
13
SLO
.as
9Lin
QlOO
llo
o-Q\==r
<^O ooo Q.
•^o.ool
vo - L=> Til
ma.q«4 fotiiDI
~i-a^-~>^
U.ft
\\O
KO
.M9.
dloD
1 OC^
O.a
C"> . OO ft
\oO
ftO
d.nMq
\\
^.O OOO *3L
\O OCi*3^
vo-^qci
f^qo ^t| CxAirt I
q--s--)ct
-).O
mo
^ vO
•MiO
IQ.
£ O e>oc>Q_
(o
tcvflil£»^JOt
10-T-TM
1.1O
lln
vl O
as"
.3&
l^slo
O.c\
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
MSL
lOiSM 6>uUOl
in-as-i^l
1 .HP,
•3^10
Aolo
•2>D.<-1
\OlC)
aq
^o.oo«4
•Q 'iO
irt
<"C5 O\ ?>
\>.!3L
o e>r>l "^
o.^oP-r)
<0_»
»\i-q-ift
lO'iftMCaUjOl
O-1P,-Ti4
Lo."^
59L
no
-laT
M'a.o
ColnOO
AS
< o.oos
i f^i
1-^
(*oj~if>c>O
*4M CaLi^Dv
\\-M-TM
n.s
1 Ot~l
1 ")
-In!
SlO
QL-S-OO.
|u>O
•(o.ooS
e~>.'i5O
•^O-OnO-
«O -\O3LS"
uu*-\ C»ujO\
I \ - \ \ -~\ H
-/-ft
53^
\-3-
.L»O
95HO
^O-OoS
< ("i v oO
lO-VV'2!^
llOIMfaiijOl
, rDL-q-TM
< O.oo S"
<^O- \ OO
3 &UJOI
o. -\\-T5"
u.q
\MO
(SO
\<-l
.TO
H3-O
a-\
<. o.oo 5"
a od
Lol^
. O\ U->
C|. |
{ o .oco a
^ O-Cv>a
161
-------
Shawnee Disposed Demonstration Water Analysis Record'
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation \^
Sample Type GagQiv-vP
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical Oo Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
~1ft
rv3.nKf->i^O\
QL-M-15T
~).M^
i^a
\ ^
*-IO
o.(«<-|
'Via'
|O
^ O Qd'C
I-O
Q^R,
CXO*4-
\ "7
O.Ooe,;^
O.oe>cr
O.tp
tsJ-IS1^
ori\1S(-,i_ijO
0--11-15
u.~I
\SO
100
a<4
C)-ir I P
^>fto
1
\ (O.OoS^
r~i
3ft
O.O»3'Q_
8.9.
^ P»,or^Q^
»O -"^-Sto
^•aaMStujoi
rL-OM-TS
U.l
\MD
\OO>
\U3
O-l^fi,
,^,AO
l=lO
q
ILo
(i->l ^"V^^ O
^ o rv^Ti
<\j -oaio
Drafts ^aio\
M-a.ft-7S
U.^
VsO
O-HO
\M
r5.inq
•MiO
I O-
3ft
^O.OoS
C~N- I loo
_JGC>CiX_
CO* OO*^
\ =sO
m oi S"&ujoi
-i-i-")^
1.01
\ -ifi
O-ZO
HO
O.-7Q
MdO
i t
^Cj.CtfiM
O a^
•50
r~s. |
IS.CL
4r> ooooS"
<. f\-rv^rv5"
O.M
VJ-Ci^T
moACCjoooi
T-S-75
Ir,.^
\MO
VloD
rx£L
o.ftq
"IMO
")ao
-i^j
^ o.ooS^
Q O Q.
S3.
O. au
P.O.
o fx3\ \
•Co.riOQ .
162
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type V
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical C^ Demand
Conductivity1
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
U\S"
loOJ^S U^A)O
\<-\- ^ R-T-I
l.ua
•3L85
~\ fS
\ ~Lp
\ O.IO
nqo
M IS
^CxooM
l.fto
1 SO
x P> OV'-S
8.05-
\ dr-tpoo fn
<( OOLoU
\.2i
«O-HftO
\
\<^-3.'&~-IL{
1-U
MO
O-^O
\."1
l^OOi
ie5O
5 SO
O-oo"5>
Ol O
as
O.G2.O
sq
1 50o
<^o 01 O
-11^
^r-> Occ.3-
<^Cx,o<-lR
tO— d!XQ
r\ai\S LUJO
O.-U-1S
^.O
1 UO
1 MO O>
\"2>
S.O
MQ-CO
l^-OC3
ca.o^rt
SA
v aoo
O.O 1 ^
UU
O.OoCi'T
-11
r-iiUS' *-UjD
U-\\-15~
R.CIU
^s ~*,
1^00
S.O
3,9 6,0
ISXS
O O"^>
5^.0
9^0
C2> Q_(o
^3
<.o.coco5
CD.\
AO-riJS'M
f-,iv~7«CL_UJf
Q-n -IS
9.\
IMO
2>^0
15"
H.3
^,700
O. v\O
Hft
sqr,
O.O^Sl
5^«
Q.cVC>?bS
Q. iOO
163
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in rng/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type L
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
ro-o.sft
r-,1.ie,5Ul)0
a.-dfc.-75
q^
t "3^2
5CoC>
?,.a_
-^sco
•JM
\O_r^d
o.criO
^
V 'XOci
O c-o^?>»
e^i
<~\ r*-^ > ^
C~) C^>l l^.
tV»-OAS
QMOftS LUlO
M-Oft-TS'
a.T
1 'XO
1 50O
ai
-M.M
•MOOO
SLO
i uoo
C~5 ll«O
-MT
|IOC5
C~l C~5"2,C>
IHO
f~^ oc>c±>S
O. (--,-, £*.
\S »
07075 UJOD
7-TO3
ft.dft
l?0
CIMO
q?;
•M O.T
M 2lMO
ItoOO
O Q_l
se
C(C>O
O Ci'S
ift
O ooo "3^.
Ci.oSS
O.M
'M-aS^
OlnTi UU°
-7-T7S
S.'1,
HO
e,»g
ao
M-U
•MSOO
IMC3T5
\ \C3O
c^"> f~io>A
5S
SMO
OiiS
\6o
O>. OC>~7 f?
Ci-Cyt-l ft
164
-------
Shawnee Disposed Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
M>4
ioiS4 PSD
\o,-18--Tl
fr.-]0
^Oc*^,
R.V^
U~SMO
tso
tSKO
O.OoS
^a
\toMO
O.OMO
Sr^.t* |
Q
Q..&
vo-qp.1
loa&'-V PSD
io-.aa--K
?\_^
9^~lO
1 <-4 OO
q.o
~) IsOO
^\B
\~ioO
O.lftO
1 \O
\ 5cx^
xC^\ C5 \ C)
1 QO
^CXCXJsOSL
cs.x^^-lO
XO-\\3>U
i^CrtM PSD
la-^-iM
q.QL
*MO
Ior)f3
\1O
.=;.SL
^MOO
I ~1OO
q8o
O. OO.O)
'-lO^
1 IOO
•Co.oio,
MO
^.O-OooO-
o c>u_&
\ \
•M.O
3MOO
•SL^OO
> lOCi
00
ioM
vOoO
^)HD
CLOO
<^d.oo^a^
O O«C)
165
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O, Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
1M- asq
Qia<4S PSD
O-O-^A-lS'
R.I
no
'lo-|C>
1M
1/1
">,OOO
•so
qso
<*i-\'XO
^5
^TT>
C"1 -O I 3
iRo,
1P«^
AJ-OAT
pi^ap,f; ffjj)
^l-aS-V
a.o
7>5
auG
i^>
\.^
noo
A
~rsd
O-QCi"^
It
'iloO
<^O.OtO
?.M
<^o Q^O a.
Cs^CilA
1 SCL
cno-tS P&O
l-T-TS"
1 <-l6
^5
C1KS
qs
a.MM
2>3QLO
l~)QfO
O O<^
A
•MloO
o,oS
\s.s
CQ.COoC»P^
*— ' '^Vlli
.ISU,
wj-aqi,.
mofte foD
T - ft - -7 «T
R.a
MO
O-OO
P>1
OL.~)
CL^OO
-1
\2
(-7
GjTMla
O.
166
-------
Shawnee Disposed. Demonstration Input Sludge Analysis Record
(All liquor concentrations in mg/1)
(All solids analyses in wt %)
Pond Designation
Sample Type T .OOIJT
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Sample Designation
Sample Date
Liquor Analysis:
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O- Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
Solids Analysis:
Total Solids
Calcium Sulfite
Calcium Sulfate
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium carbonate
Fly Ash
IOQV-4 TSDO
10 -•*» -T-t
^.OS
o.iPqM
M ^
lo MC-><~>
1 M^ 1
\"7ftO
Q-«=; ^
M6
SLo
•2>C,-5
•3CX.4
\ M.S
S,\.K
^1.9
IO1IU TSDO
io-ai- T4
a ftO
•XT la^
S p
l^f^iAS
\~inc>
i^an
O^uO
na_
S8
•^1.9.
^^. \
n.l
IQ ~|
=vM.T
O»CS TSOO
i - \S--7S
~i.ao
\SL,O
?> oS
^o\ o
>^1S ^
°\\-l
•&q5T
!XU
M\
^•a.b
•?>o.q
\ (.0 . U
i i-.q
2>8. ?5
1\ TSOO
^
e.a.i
\MSO
S T
?^p,^a
1O.CTOC)
.0.-4
qo
1 V OO
.2U
•QiS"?
Q_MftM
\ ^S?»O
^33u
Q.M
MSL
The data presented reflect the analyses conducted as of July 1975.
The complete analysis will be included in the next report.
167
-------
Shawnce Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type f
Tost Organization
I X
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
J1S
Date Collected
Time Collected
a~i\-is
M-
-1-1-15
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
O.'XO
_3_L
_SS_
Chemical
Demand
_05_
Conductivity
go
LQ_
O
O.toR
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
TO
Sc,
Arsenic
Boron
C).OC)S
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in rng/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Tcst Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical Cu Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
M-uqo
ftaosM Cauit:
ft-S-14
-i.o
\10
SO
Moo
SMOO
MS
O.O-i.^
to.\ oo
•2LSL
O.Ol Lf,
s.u
^O.ocoCL
^.AMq
ioa-4 Gu>ta
.0-1--1M
-1-SL
\10
S10
qo
<^O.OOS
oo
15.0
O.ooM
0.?,
»vi-c\8b
iross 6>uJ6Cl
Ll-H-7^
~LO
\oo
_Q_-±i3_
•?>o.o
Aqo
Cr.q
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in ing/I)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical Cu Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
-aos
ooiis cbuoea
a-u-is
i».q
Q-TiO
u?»
P.UO
\.o
MUO
5 £
^o.oo s
O.SO
~T3~
o aqo
\2L.O
o.oooS
•^rvOoa.
-IM
COllS (oLDtQ
M-a8-"J5
T.U?>
\as
O-UM
SM-4
su
<0.ooS
CD.lo
•D.O
O.oq
17L.O
O.OoA
o.f
w-j-oqo
onass &vue:
-I--7-75
in.&
11^,0
Hu
?>l
e>.sq
IbSO
0-S
so
^
^O.OIO
R.S
o.cjcsoa.
^O CJO'U-
\5M
oncns r,u3£3
"7-S-7S
U.8S
\-?U
(oM
IS
O.SO
-MOO
\\O
ej
Uofe
\?TC)
si
) ri_O
cCs.loO
MftO
-7SCJO
»q
_ooS
O.( R
(^.CL
o.as
IL>
{QUOPQ^L
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in rng/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type L E4V
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical C^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
N-^ot^,
fOll^; LUX£
p-\l--)?T
~I.q
\?L1C>)
^oor^
5U
U .O
Q.Mo.0
^C>O
O-CJQ")
r^.L-.R
qft
O-O^-lP,
^. \
f~> -OiT)r>5^'
^yQ^TO) 5L
qa_
n^ms Livfea
•^~\C\^S
ft.ftO
lUSl
\es~o
so
a.q
a-iao
aso
o.o\
\ -1.0
< is
O=\"b
rso
<^oj^ooS
C3 CM O_O
O.SL
cno
w-oaP,
r*4')ft'C Lu)fJ5
M-aS-75
\\.\
MQO
2>a.O
?5^Oo>
\^4
l^,"7O
Oo\MO
Ool^tO
\i
^.DO.O
C..S
O.f>C)V3>
O.O-1 V<3
\S5
ciTOTS LvjOEfl
1-1-75"
io.q^
(^loft
~IMO
O.H5T
M.llo
•^n.oo
&OO
C..O&
O= U>
< CLO
<(o oS
o.s
o.oooS
O.C~>M^
0^^
qio
yo-soa
(Yin!5! UlfW
1-7-75"
\\.a_
nDO
L^SO
\AO
M.^
aqoo
C\AOO
?T)0
O.\\O
-------
Shawnee Disposed Demonstration Water Analysis Record
(All concentrations in mg/1)
Pond Designation
Sample Type f>i
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Designation Sample
Date Collected
Time Collected
PH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O^ Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Sodium
~13
esaivT P5?
Q.-I \--7S"
ll."7^
5SU
•Pit^s
C^Q
O..S
1MMO
O.SO
»o<-t
^.•4
3H4
O-O?N
?io
\O oodCfcfT
O-oCi i ?i
Q.R
(\^-rj_oS"
oaus PS^
0.-//-7.T
u.5^
MiOi
no
1
Oi.ft
17VOO
la
QiO-O
xCs.coS
Cs.» \
IS
jCMC>
c..-^
Cb.oooB
•^O.OdO.
MO-O^I
r-»iiR=r V^St.
M-fl^-TS"
ICj.eL
3M
I \O
q
l.L
\o-oo
1-3^
aqn
^C5»CO^
0.3>^>
110
O.O^U
\.o
^CtCiOOO.
O.OCb^
V Slo
cncns P^c
-J--7-75"
u.^s
o_a
a. MS
fto
\.(«U
n^LO
IOOO
^.o.ooM
o.~?
.?.
Ci O>C>O I
o.o>» ^
-!«.
A°lO
^-DL^R
csioss" Rse.
1-&-7S
1.5
on
too
-?
a.o
noo
\q
ftMO
O QlO
o.uu
OAoO
O.ci\ \
b.T
<^Cb CdoSL
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Input Sludge Analysis Record
(All liquor concentrations in mg/1)
(All solids analyses in wt %)
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Sample Designation
Sample Date
Liquor Analysis:
pH
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Chemical O2 Demand
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Arsenic
Boron
Calcium
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Selenium
Sulfite
Solids Analysis:
Total Solids
Calcium Sulfite
Calcium Sulfate
Calcium hydroxide
Calcium carbonate
Fly Ash
US
tp>ec^
q.^.^
3fMSO
Kq^o
n-i^
The data presented reflect the analyses conducted as of July 1975.
The complete analysis will be included in the next report.
173
-------
APPENDIX C
C.3 PRECIPITATION DATA
175
-------
Week
Sequen-
tial
No.
t
CL
,3
M
5
U
1
<&
q
IO
\i
\a
\^s
IM
15
IL,
n
IA
iq
Q.O
Ql
_Q3
ai
Q4
Date
3-lt-X
via
S-n:s
•4-1
M-S
^4-1 S
•M-na^
•M-^
S-LJ
s-v>>
s-ao
s-a~)
n-^
liTlO
i0-n
(0-Q^\
i-i
n-P,
n-15"
"7-aa.
7-aq
=v-s
?,-ia^
%-\°»
Precip-
itation
(Inches)
klft
O.M5
\.O&
O.S9
UM9
O.CLft
\.a&
o.ri"^
o /«u
o.qft
1 .tlo
C)."?^
O.QR
l-R"3^
O.\
~ .Q-l/>
- ^l~I
- .!?>
- .n
- _8S
.L&
- .is
~ .2>S
-1.5,^
- i.a^
-u»^
~ i .)«i»
- .41
~ I.Q.A
.SS
.oft
177
-------
Week
Sequen-
tial
No.
QS
CLL>
a")
0-&
as
7^0
?U
^0
•?>3
^U
a?:
7SL,
3-)
38
39
«4O
•Ml
UO
<4^S
«44
•MS
m*
•41
•M6
Date
ft-au
q-o.
q-q
q-iLs
9\-O?j
9-?O
io-l
10-14
\0-Hl
lo-Qfi
il-M
\\-ll
H-lf^
I-Q5T
0-0.
o-q
a-llp
x-n^s
p-^^o
~La-l^
-ft
-on
-en
O-?>
Precip-
itation
(Inches
n.M~l
"^ 1R
o !iS
O.LoU
c^.C)"!
r^.lol
O e>c>
C>.oo
<^^\(j>
O.oo
Q.ST7
0.99S
Ci^-jU
1 .3=1
O.M2i
o,sa
o.ioU
O.l1^
> .~?s
IMS
».i2>
o.^-U
<^.\^
i -i^
Net
Increase in
Moisture *
(Precipitation
minus 6/1 X
Evaporation)
(Inches)
- A^
a.io
- _ul
.Ol
.nu
- .^?i
.•57
\ .19
.S°(
Evaparation data are not available after week
number 38 because of equipment difficulties
at the evaluation site. Alternative data
•ources are being sought to complete this
information.
178
-------
Week
Sequen-
tial
No.
M^
f^f}
51
51
-53
52
to"3)
Io4
us
(of*
u~)
UP,
(o9
~7O
71
TX
Date
~15
O_-\O
a-n
p.-^4
•^-^
?i-lO
•2>-n
^-DM
?5-Al
M-l
M-l4
•M-^il
M-Oft
5-5
5-l^_
s-w
S-2.L
/n-o
L,-q
io-lL,
U-O^
<--*r>
1-1
7-W
•?-3?»
I
Precip-
itation
(Inches)
O.D.M
(Ti.51
"3>-0<4
O.oo
O.ftS"
\ .f59
\.MLj
M.O^>
to O"^
O_5<0
oj=5,a
Q 79
0^?>
MS
CsOo
O_i4l«
Q.SR.
I.^Q
q-s?>
t,.77
G.C)P>
Q.M^
rv-M^.
O^d
Net
Increase in
Moistur.e
(Precipitation
minus O»lX
Evaporation)
(Inches)
Evaporation data are not available after week
niimber 38 because of equipment difficulties
at the evaluation site. Alternative data
sources are being sought to complete this
information.
179
-------
Week
Sequen-
tial
No.
T^
1M
-75
-IL,
~]~l
-7R
-?S
?3n,
Date
~l-O5l
ft-M
A- 1 1
Srlft
»-O.<
<=«-\
C»-R
Cf-lS"
Precip-
itation
(Inches
o. l S^
\ .qq
<^>.8^
O.(/>O
r>i.oO
>.iq
O.c>C)
iTr>Q
Net
Increase in
Moisture
(Precipitation
minus — &7x
Evaporation)
(Inches)
Evaporation data are not available after week
•umb«r 38 because of equipment difficulties
at the evaluation site. Alternative data
sources are being sought to complete this
information.
180
-------
APPENDIX C
C.4 HYDROLOGICAL RECORDS
181
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Hydrological Data Weekly Record
Depth of Water (Inches)
Date
Ground Water Wells
Al
A2 Bl
B2
Cl
C2
Dl
El
E2
Qr-\7-7S
7L.8M
.cC.TM"
R'lIi'
5"!
IO^.SQ.
.-10-15
-2,-n-TS
77.&OS
107-8^
•M- 1 -15
i 0=^.27
MLSC
115"
M-8-7S
\i-U3C
- 15-75
S-Lo-75
R-1V75
01.
5-0.1-75
15.0Q_
(0-3-75
S7.80."
7- "75
7-SL-75
77
78.09
"7-8-75
47 A" 81
503 V
7-2 V75
76.
R0.77
7-59-75
U77
D.O")
183
-------
Shawnce Disposal Demonstration Hydrological Data Weekly Record
Depth of Water (Inches)
Date
Ground Water Wells
Al
A2
Bl
B2
Cl
C2
Dl
El
E2
135.83.
15'IM
ioa.0-
tiS-lS lOL^cn
I.T?
Od
1 ^/.foft
184
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Hydrological Data Weekly Record
Week
Sequen-
tial
No.
Date
fr-n-IS
Depth of Water (Inches)
Leachate Wells
A
•
a-na-isl
7>-l>-lS
"5-iO-lS
•v/i-is'
i-a^-is
M-/-75
H-8-7S
W-/S-75
M -OO-75
H-39-95
5-k-lS
S-/3-75"
£T-a/-7S
?-0
^S-ftV
i,
sSo&
LA -OB
*
to^AZ)
/'
^Q Sfi
a
^.oS
c
II
?»a.,.o2L
A
CL^."7")
iq.ll"
a-^.-ii"
ai-ai1'
\U.«SQ_"
m.ai"
D
(pO.\X'
'/
Sfe ?)!&
/i
51 .\^
/<
uo?)8
//
MS. I"3)
/I
51 a ^
SS.iS
E
2)5.19"
sa.i9"
2."^ -5<-l"
-^M.oM'
^0 .5M"
^0.3.^"
D-».o<-<"
185
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Hydrological Data Weekly Record
Week
Sequen-
tial
No.
Date
fl-H-15
er\\-is
SV-1&-1
R-35-75
q-i-15
q-6-15"
c»-»5-T5
Depth of Water (Inches)
Leachate Wells
A
^•"vOS
51.15
5\.C,OS
M@Das
Mq.s
Ml. IS
H&.0.5
B
UDA2,
u\,a3
/-0,5ft
5^.^)3
SR.c,sS
DH.58
Ml. 58
C
0.0.0
^ U.OQ_
m.a~i
iCisa.
10,50.
i .11
D
51.2.R'
S5J^8"
/
SS.S&
sM-ae,1'
5L^.i8"
i,
5Q U^S
^a-u3 "
E
*
•a*r--?q
HS.s^''
ti
ai.a^
*
\l.o^
at.sM '
//
>O..O^-l
n.aRx'
186
-------
APPENDIX C
C. 5 POND WATER/SOLIDS LEVEL RECORDS
187
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Pond Water/Solids Level
Weekly Record
Week
Sequen-
tial
No.
Date
Q-/7-7S"
d-M'-IS
a,- ^ -7S
•V/O-75
1-/7-7S-
*-.3S'
7-X2 -75"
7'8 - 7S
-7-/4-7S
7_2^ _75-
7-a9-75"
R-/>-7s-
8-^-75
^-Q«r-7S
=?-J -75"
q-ft-75-
9-/S-75
Supernal* Water Level (Inches)
Pond
A
O.C C^
"^»O. "*^
-^\ .8
-a^q
23.1
3q s
ia.u
^>3oft
3M.A
%M D
•^s ;^"
3u.ft
^,ft.A
^=s,s-
2H.O
•3f7 R
SS O
^TJ 0
^,-7.5-
3S-=S
2P, ^
^q.Ts
^IOA
B
\~) ft
|q 3
n =s
1-7.8
IS.R.
liii.S-
00.8
O.3.O
*
9A»O
Measurements taken from top of
(c*
C
**
-b\ 5
•S>3^>
30 S-
^oft
ao o
-><•) s
^S'-i.O
a^s*
2>(™0t
D
du^>
SHo.S
•3.^^
0.^.^
Q^.\
en.'?
a^./0
•SLi.S
Q.Q o
Qo.8
Q-H.?>
!iia^^
i^s.
a^.s
OS.S
OD 2,
DS.\
as^a.
Ol_^
(~\ f& c~
S£L^L
"•^Cl O
Q.9.S
leachate well
E
**
sn -^
QM.O
ao.o
iq.ft
a\.k
3-M.S
Q^S
rj_uJ5^
Qt^O^
casing.
#
Solids Level (Inches)
Pond
A
M| A
qa ^
4/.«?
M(^0
4I.R
^/.R
B
Q).r>
0.1 0
ai.o
QI.O
CH.O
Q.UO
t^J.O
O.UO
dLO
C
01^
OW2)
iu.i
au.l
au^s
aifiA
£u.v
au.i
D
0,M c,
^5=S
as-S
^c^^
ss.s
33.B
3S.S
0,3ft
-'S.S'
2SJS
o,LO
•?ss.s
2S*5L
2S^_
-2>Sja,
'iS.S'
35.S
^ss-
ss.s
::s^_
^s.s
^SJS
E
,^_3
\M 8
\S_O
IS.O
IS.O
\^ a
IS.O
\5.0
is.n
J« /™
-«. ii t- J. C W d O J.llOU.J.J.l.V,ldll. OU. MC •*• liet L-v CLt UllC f'-' *•*<
and E to obtain a valid water level reading.
189
-------
APPENDIX C
C.6 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION RECORDS
191
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Characterization Record
Pond Designation
Sample Type S>\_
Test Organization TV
Sequential Number
Sample
Designation
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
(from surfaced
Permeability
Coefficient
(cm/sec)
Natural Moisture
Content
(wt«&)
Liquid
Limit
(wt%)
Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
(wt%)
Specific
Gravity
Mechanical
Analysis
1) Sand (%)
2) Silt(%)
3) Clay (%)
Soil
Classification
\
AQ.V3XSCPM
\O.-»"?>-"1.3
/
a.s
15.1
5>a.M
\2.l
\^.?»
D.(^\
&.
14
oa
LC.WJ CJ«u
-13i
/
5.\
o.\.\
aan
\>>.L>
\ F-Ja$ (* \fyj
3
\OA?^i«^aV
\a-\3-i2>
/
~ °(
QO..L.
Q-l.S
u.a
?.UTLl (L\«J
1
•^.CjPkP
-s
a?o< in
ao.O
'bS.S
I.B.O
0_
T3>
Q«=C
V £^t^ Cr^PlM
193
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Characterization Record
Pond Designation j^
Sample Type S>QIU C_og.£.
Test Organization \ V
Sequential Number
Sample
Designation
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
(from surface)
Permeability
Coefficient
(<-m/sf>r)
Natural Moisture
Content
(wt%1
Liquid
Limit
(wt%)
Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
(wt%)
Specific
Gravity
Mechanical
Analysis
1) Sand (%)
2) Silt(%)
3) Clay (%)
Soil
Classification
\
li05MSC,Bl
ll-S-74
/
-2>.2>
18. i<,
2>1.8
JJ2S.S
I fcAK) CiAM
CL
>\OK'4Sj>ai
\\~K-~]4
R.MX
I&1
M3J~)
0.1.9
l_.(L.
3
\OS14SC&\
n-s--j^
-l.~>'
\S.9
3O.M
ft.ja,
^\.lf
Q.
16
ao
L..CL.
H
1 lf\«\<4 Sr Bl
II-S-TJ
\\.u'
tfi.a.
o.q.\
q.q
L.CL.
5"
HOSU 5>cn)
H-S-7V
1 S.O
dQuS
"SM.^
\M.S
(S.q
.^
i— (L.
U
|lOS<-ISCfll
I/-S-7W
/
~ a.p
\u.s
QM.&
n. a.
S»»i,»OO4
LEftVvi
CA.ftVA
194
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Characterization Record
Pond Designation
Sample Type fiehve.L,
1) Sand (%)
2) Silt (%)
3) Clay (%)
Soil
Classification
a
ilrVSV.'V-ftl
1 \-S-lM
"aa-fi'
\4.1
a^.a_
lU.I/i
IQL-.LO
au
sa
^LP
1 U
-\
cuf»se-M
SAAJf-J
^
nnsws>c.ftj
11-S-TM
^s-j.s'
iu,.M
?>a.n
n.s
•Sf>>»OO4
a2>.q
\q.6
espwevx.'a
c*_»v^eM
SP*\/uC5>
195
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Characterization Record
Pond Designation
Sample Type
C c->
Test Organization
~rxy
Sequential Number
Sample
Designation
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
("from surface)
Permeability
Coefficient
(cm/sec)
Natural Moisture
Content
(wt%)
Liquid
Limit
M%)
Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
(wt%)
Specific
Gravity
Mechanical
Analysis
i
I.^L
o.a.o
2>>.0
IO.L,
Le*«»o
CJi_*v^
^
l2_\^"*.SC£.l
\U.- \i-13
/
\O.EL
a.\.fe
.-^a.0!
> M-M
L-C^
-^
\3L\i^<~jCT1
\a-ia-i3
i
\M T,
cya l
•2>3>.3
\5.L,
\-*L>
M
la-a-ix
- n'
v^.i
sa.-M
IM.'-A
V-O
S
\a\a^?stc.i
\a-»x-")3
^Q-a-S
\M.S
ao.q
\\.>
«»f\«oc>u
U6.AWi
Ca_^u
L,
»a.\x^ sec i
\-X-ii-13
/
^ ao
VM.U
d-a..-)
VO..O
io.~i
u
<-n
3o
Mo
CjufVM^M
Sf\Aj£>
\
StdP
-6
\ .^ y 1 o
o.\.u
bM.O
VU.L,
-5
~12>
aa
UCAV^I
C-^-^v-^
196
-------
Sliawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Charade rizalion Record
Pond Designation
Sample Type c.
Test Organization ~\ \/f\
Sequential Number
Sample
Designation
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
(from surface)
Permeability
Coefficient
(cm/secj . .
Xnlnral Moisture
(wt% )
Liquid
Limit
(wt%)
Plasticity
Inriex
Plastic
Limit
(wt%)
Specific
Gravity
Mechanical
Analysis
1) Sand (%)
2) Silt (%)
3) Clay (%)
Soil
Classification
ia ii- 13,
"iS. 3
15.5"
sir
,™
0 3'
ilo.O
L-«i.
3
,
^^
™
~ n'
-*> 7
33.1
C-C_
/S.'ii-iCj3i
-^Q S'
u,t5
. ,- M
^-C
ic.
Q<^3.SCO/
~- s'
\o. S
OQS
!o.U_
ciLlT^e^^
~
- i-s'
q i
_
H
.11. _._
11 -
197
-------
Pond Designation
Sample Type
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Characterization Record
1)
Test Organization
Sequential Number
Sample
Designation
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
(from surface)
Permeability
Coefficient
(cm/sec)
Natural Moisture
Content
(wt%l
Liquid
Limit
(wt%)
Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
(wt%)
Specific
Gravity
Mechanical
Analysis
1) Sand (%)
2) Silt (%)
3) Clay (%)
Soil
Classification
I
*>CLDP
IV //
TK.ftC.F-
O.O. lo
O.0*. M
ft.R.
1
~\5
a-4
i_e^vC)
C.U&.VJ
198
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Characterization Record
Pond Designation
Sample Type *5»o\..v
Test Organization T V
Sequential Number
Sample
Designation
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
(from surface)
Permeability
Coefficient
(rm / Ri*c}
Natural Moisture
Content
(w«U
Liquid
Limit
(wt<%1
Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
(wt%)
Specific
Gravity
Mechanical
Analysis
1) Sand (%)
2) Silt (%)
3) Clay (%)
Soil
Classification
\
>ioin»l
^0.3,
MO.QL
li-O-SL
do.o
a.uM
~l
Uu
an
l_Eif\«0
CLUCXv^l
•^
un^^i SCEI
/;-6.-"7V
L,.V
\sn
•sa.u
i \.i^>
uc
i
l/Ot,M SCE-I
//-/,-7a.M
\0..8>
l~o
M
i/Ohi/ see./
ll'(^-T-l
/
\~\, \
\q.~i
rs-^-OL
\S.M
ud,
S"
;/ot>^scei
n-u-T-l
t
\^A
SLl.1
•aLo.'X
VA.io
L-C^
Co
)/(*„ SCE/
n-(*-T-l
~ \a '
'Xo. i
'iu.a.
\ci.q
v- CL.
1
HOW&Ct/
//-6,-TV
/
•^•aa.s
\i.ct
38.8
n^.u
\~ t.
199
-------
Shawnee Disposal Demonstration Soil Characterization Record
Pond Designation
Sample Type
SOU-
Test Organization
' V
Sequential Number
Sample
Designation
Sample
Date
Sample
Depth
(from surface)
Permeability
Coefficient
(cm/sec)
Natural Moisture
Content
(wt%)
Liquid
Limit
(wt%)
Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
(wt%)
Specific
Gravity
Mechanical
Analysis
1) Sand (%)
2) Silt (%)
3) Clay (%)
Soil
Classification
8
IID/,,'-! 5C£(
\\-L,-T-i
^ I
ai.s
\u,.3>
3- MO
\UM
t-C.
q
//CXo^ SC£/
]\-L,--T-i
~?,a.s
m.T
^o.2>
VT.&
Q,LPv^e^
S^«uO
ID
IIO4.4 SC£
;/-6,-7V
~2>T5
iq.a
ftM.I
I6.Q.
\S.S
\3L.
58
-J^y
\_&P>tO
C.«-Av^
. .
- -
200
-------
ro
o
100
to
to
70
S
|M
•r
K
70
10
0
5
U.S. STANDAID SIEVt O'EN'NG IN INCHES U.S. STANDAID SIEVE NUMSEHS HYOHOMETH
» i 3 J 1V4 1 % V, H 3 4 6 1 IO 1416 70 30 40 50 70 IOO 140 300 ...
i i
Tl
I
1 I
90 100 50 10
couus
CtAVEl
co«ni : nn
r T
1
1 1
T^
-n
— l
— l— a..
s
^
^
y
\
\
1
V
\
\
\
\
'>
•
^
s^
V,
0
10
N
"1
50 |
60 1
70 *
10
n
100
5 1 0.5 O.I 0.05 0.01 0.005 O.OOI
CHAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
SANO 7 «-*ri
CO*'U M10IUIH nMf
7^
-------
to
o
ICC
£0
;c
o
j 60
5
30
10
0
5<
U.S. STAN3AO S'EVE OPSNINO !N INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUM2ERS HYDBOMETE*
4433 I'.i 1 Vi '.': =i 3 4 6 8 10 1414 30 30 40 30 70 100 UO 300
J
r
u
J_
1
-
_
0
Soil S-~:'.)3l
''oir.t;ire Content , 7
Specific Gravity
_
*~
l i . i
'M
1
"1 i
_
—
-
II
1
i
II
! 1!
l!
jl
il
~H — 1"
H
U_
' 1
. ! J
1
1 1
i 1
I
1
1
l
i r
I
1 1
1
ICO 30 10 i
coe
•Ml C"Vtl
" 1 CO..J! 1 >M
i
i
—i
— l — (•
i
S
^
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
"1
V
\
\
\ i
*
s
s
s^
— <0«BX|O>U*»>l-'S'~C
JOOOOOOOOO
Ml CENT COA8SEI IV WEIGH!
1 0.5 O.I O.O5 0.01 O.OO5 O.OOI
GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
s»Nt> --:••% i
C0»'!l
-',-
'
3
Liquid Lir.iit, % ^
Plastic Lirit, 7 ,-/
jpiasticity Inc'cx, ' ^ f
,S;r.-inka;',e Lirr.it, 7.
^
^
-IO.UM | FINt |
z-s^c. »»o.a*» soy*
Reir.a.rks: ^Dt;«.-/ , -/ '
Project.^ *s/9 '^/rtf^ c> <.'. P,
Feature
Bering No. // ////-^
Station/—./ •?' ^'5
Date/A-
,'-;' - Z^/7
Sa-inlc Ko... ^*
Offset
Elf vat i^n
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
-------
tSJ
O
OJ
1
ICO
5J
CO
70
3;
O
>
u
0.
30
JO
1C
0
,3<
U.S. S7ANDAKO Si£VJ O-£N.NG IN INCHES U.S. STANOAB3 SIEVE NUM3SRS HYDROMETM
4432 I'/i 1 Vi 'A H 3 4 4 3101414 23 30 40 30 70 !00 140 200
-
\ I 1
1
• 11
|!
i|
|l
|i
1!
II
•
1
1
rtf
l|
1
It 1 i: »
1 *
i
i i i
— i — i..
\
V
^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
30 s-
s
*
40 *
«
30 S
60 'z
u*
O
70 «
80
90
100
X) ICO 30 10 3 1 0.3 O.I 0.03 001 0.003 O.OOI
GRAIN SIZE MllUMETERS
COSMtS
OV.vfi
CC*»SE ! l*
-------
100
50
to
70
O
> 60
i
= 50
*40
^
30
20
1C
0
5(
~i
— i —
u
U.S.
6 4
~1 1
i-
i
i
— !____
)0
iTANOHO SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES US SlANOAtO SIEVE NUM8EIS HYPtOMJTe*
3 2 >Vi 1 V. V4 H 3 4 4 » 10 1416 :0 30 40 50 70100140 700
ijlll.
i! ll
^
- 4-
ft
I!
{! ;
i|
i
I
1
-
r
j
|
1
i! 1
ill i
1!
il
T
1L.1.
|tl !
_
i
i
\
i
I
1
i ' r
i
r
i
H
r
i
u
1
i
1 1 1 1
100 JO 10 5
COU.ES
Soil Sy::., -•!
.Moisture Content , /=
Specj fie Gravity
t - f
i
r:
/ _
G^-AVfl '/- ;',.,
CO'if ' »*(
""-—•- a.
|
ll
!
1
i i
J _
*>s
1
1
T
I
i
II
S
'
^
1 1
ll
\
s
1
V
I
^
^
>^
"S^
I
1
4
* *
"i
i
i
1 0.5 0.1 0.05 O.01 0001 O.C
GRAIN SIZE Mim«nE«S
- . SAND -; .. •; '-
ec*nl 1 MtoiuM nut
L:q:i. L^r-it, 'L ?
P'.astic LI-.:-., 7 //
Plattii.- itv I !-.• 'c ::,"•/•
;S '••'•a o L
•. i
:, 7.
1
— i
>, ^ I
.
, •— -— -'— **-
-ID. ^ ! ti
•
i-S~'~
,^* /^. 3' sat 01 OAT / f~* ^~
y_.
0
10
10
"I
"I
60 |
U
70 *
80
90
100
K)l
* • * j
O.I
6/,.'9;-K-0^ :", -
Fc a L u r e
!>-•::•;• ''^.^/l\/-<^' Sa -> :•-. ^ -.-•
GRAIN"
'.&..*••***
7<£ E1-'- .r
SIZE AK'ADS.S
-------
IV
o
U.S. STANDARD SIEVt OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUM»E«i HTDKOMTTtt
)00 6 4 3 J 1W 1 M ft H 3 t » t 1O 14 16 JO 30 10 50 70 WO 140 JOO ' . .
to
10
70
> *°
s
| so
s«
m
t
w
20
10
0
J
1 1 i
1
I!
1
1
•V1 'i
^..
30 10O SO 10
count
covu /y &-
CO&nt 1 f»^(
l i
• = = ^
1
Ww
1 1
1 — -..•
i i
* ^
i
\
1
\
\
1 1
v
\
\
1 >
S 1 O.S O.I
GKAIN SIZE MIUIMETEKS
JANO G. T, 0;
CO*nf MfD*UM MM!
1
^
'v
\
\
X
. . _
e
10
10
10 S
"1
so S
"X
70 2
10
to
100
O.OS 0.01 O.OOS 0.001
3O fc. i»T 01 OAT / £ ?i
Soil Symbol
Moisture Content . 7.
Specific Gravity
r -
— 5^..
/•i.6
Liquid Limit, 7. 2.2.
Plastic Limit, 7. JQ
'iasticity Inc'ex,}/^
S ..'ir.ka^e Limit, 7.
.7
7
>O
Remarks:
Project SHfiVJ HE'-'. C-e-
Feature P e H Q l"% ' " (•."
Boring No./y^- 2.
Station
Date /- 3- 74
Sarripte No- (a ft
Offset
Elevation
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
-------
8OOOOOOQPO O vt
_*SK«*>'»"'i-
IHOHM AI KINU inn IM
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STAKOAtO SIEVE NUMtEU HTO*O«TM
t t 3 5 1W 1 * H H 3 4 6 I 10 14 14 70 30 40 SO 70 100140 300 .
i i i
» 100
couus
1
1
1 1 •
50 10
CtAVtl .'/ ' -
co«nt 1 ' rui
1
-mm<
1 I 1
*
i
\
i
1
\
\
. )
i i i
\
\
\
\
•j
5 1 O.S O.I
CHAIN SIZE MIIUMFTEKS
tt.no -?/ iSr,
COAISI wfCXU* AMI
^v
•**
*^
"
O.Oi 0.01
• <-L_
i^
^^_
0
10
SO
*!
to 8
70?
eo
to
too
0.005 0.001
/4«(.«To.eL.T;/ -P'
Feature ./^Ot/D ^ ' ' -1^ "
Boring Vo.^/S-3
Station
Date /- 3- 74
Sample Nc. 7 A
Offset
Elevaticn
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
-------
CO
C3
70
X
0
ii 60
[j SC
o
o.
30
30
10
0
SC
-
_
-
U.S. STAND
—
—
-4-
1
._! ._ ,
1
u'L
1 I
1
1
j
| ||
II
1
1
II
II
I!
|l
]|
II
Tir
U» SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANOAR3 SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
-
1-
1
1
.--, ^
II
•II
T 1
I
1 1 '»
Y^
t
1
, r,
...
~~r
r i
'•
0 100 10 10 i 1 0.5 O.I
GRAIN SIZE MilllMETERS
CO..US
CiUVfl
CO.'!! 1 IM
SAND '/ O' .
CC"lf Wt-IUH HMf
s.
s.
\_
\
.\
\
\
\
\
*
^
1^.
^
- « • •" o " fc tt K S °
DO O O O O O O O O
PER CCNT COARSER »Y WEIGHT
O.OS 0.01 0.00} O.O01
(•: c "/' **' °' aAY 2. 7 "%
Soil Sy::.:.,ol
"oisture Ccnrrnt , 7
Osncific Gravity
,"'
*•> .' .'•>
^~' / /" *
-j.— 7.*«V^
T.iquid Linit, 7. ^/>
Plastic Lir-.it, 7. °'"
Plasticity Incex, / .""/
E'.ivinka;',e
Limit, 7.
;-«
•^
',.
Ren-.a.'.:s: T>..-> r.i !- $••£ '
'
Project vr?/)'9.'://'7,-') -° ,' i. /-•
Feature
Borir.- No. •/,.;/- .'
Sta-i-r. r
*-,
I'd ^
Date /./*- ?-7<3
Sar-.rle N'o. /
Offset
Elevation
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
-------
o
oo
U.S. STANDARD
t * ! 1
:
c;
f
30
50
1C
0
1C
L! 1.' j'i'L
J. J ijJL
l 1 | "jili
j. _r ni
!. L. ^
••' ; ! 1
•|T^ l!
J ! .L . : !.:
1 1 - Tu
r- _._ _ LL
til
L m
L ~_L ILL
L (.Hi
r r ni r
-..4 ..i I.LI
1 iir
i • ii
. _ 4- -, - ~ -
0 100
CCIWS —
~' • 1 T -'
:•.•!> tore Content , 7
Specific Gravity
1
u
.
S'=VE Of£N!N3 IN INCMIS
'.'i 1 K !i ••', 3 t fi 3
jl ,) 1
_
1 1
--h
'(•
r
_
~
-!r
-H
JO
—
Ittf
II
1
II
|
t
m
tto,
II
1
i
n
l! 1
i
1 1
-
-
i
-
U.S. SIAfiOASJ SIEVE
10 I* H 71 Z1 'j •
i n H
—
10 S
G«VSI ^
Lir.it, 7, .
-' •';•:• Plastic L
?;>'/ rusticity
PI I*, i !"!f. 3 ^
0
ir-.it, 7= '
Im.'ex, /
Lir.it, 7,
"^
-,
1
!
S>1
n
ii
ii
i
jj
"
ii
i
JUMPERS MYOBOMEIE*
T /O 100 UO 300
rn
•
i
i
i
i i
i
' I
|
v
\
1
\
\
\
\
1
\
\
\
\
j
t
1
1
\
)
--
\
s
~~^
t 0.5 o.| 0.05 0.01 0005 OC
GBAIN SIZE WHLIMETERS
S*ND '/ ~, .
~1 iTTti i J5S
Re-s.-'.:s:
'. _ •'- - ' s*r ot OAT ? T7 ~'-
-7-..,
J.li:_-_i±
.
0
10
30 ~
0
O— « « s< » ut K
•*g O O O O O O
f{« Cf NT COA«S£S tY WEI
Project "~ / 9 / -//~> : ": •'-• , .' ,-•-
Feature
Eorip-
Sta'
; ^
No.
Date /-
p..
CL
.. . j— / .
7'5
Sn:-,!-le No. /
Offset
Elevati-n
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
-------
Kl CENT FINER >Y WFIGHT
_*IU»U»N£«>Q
u. O OOOOOOOOOO
U.S. STANOAUD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMS(«S HTOIOMITU
6 4 J 7 IV> 1 V> '/i S J * 6 » !0 UI4 70 30 40 30 70 100 1<0 700
1
1 1
|_
_
1 ii1
n
i
-}--
-
:o
S; il Sv::..,ol
Ui.t^roCmrnt.%
5; •••;: : i . C: avity
.._
II
||
II
(I
ll
ii
i
i
i i
I i
1 1
i!
it
II
|!
•I!
HI
II
II!
1
hi
I
1
u iT
1
1
1
ll
1
1 '!' ' **•••!.
1
" r
IN
I
1
•H
ll
II 1
^
1
1
•*•
»^,
1 1 1
^X.
' ^
i
||
^
^
X
S.
\
l\
V
\
\
V
i '
1
.,
s
^
0
30
"I
"I
-I
u
40 S
S
M
70 *
10
»0
100
100 50 105 10. 5 O.I 0.05 0.01 0-005 0.001
CCiwfi
Ct>v(l
CO*»1( ! '»*!
S*NO /^ **/„
CO-M* ' »rotyM riNi
SS^'c™0'"*'1 £4-1*
ri-
i/. -^
i
i
',2
Llq-.:.. Li--.il, 7. ^..r
Plastic Li-
t"
Piasiic : tv ]
. .. ?: -.;
•.•'••a c L
in.-
• * J5
**,'/*
,,..,,:
//
i0
*f
.J
.R.?.-?---".s.L3?*;
il
^5'-
—
P. >:c.-t ^?,^-yi.-\/,^^^ ^ /'->
Feature
rr- ':•;-, "
•>.
'*./\/J-$
) Sa ' » " • . ^" -^A
W-r/(::3-7 E-.-.I-; -
"~GRAfN~SIZE ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX C
C. 7 ION MICROPROBE MASS ANALYZER RESULTS
211
-------
ro
Median Values of Integrated Ion Currents (nanoamps) Measured by IMMA with Associated
Standard Deviations for Pond Soil Samples Taken Before Introduction of Sludge
Pond
A
B
C
D
E
B,C,D,
and E
Median
Std. Dev.
Median
Std. Dev.
Median
Std. Dev.
Median
Std. Dev.
Median
Std. Dev.
Median
Std. Dev.
"B+
0. 150
(0.15)
1.73
(0.45)
0.54
(0.080)
0.69
(0.30)
1.54
(0.69)
1. 11
(0.58)
Mg
90
(96)
498
(87)
336
(85)
650
(245)
510
(119)
504
(154)
40Ca+
79
(67)
426
(55)
321
(42)
314
(89)
357
(67)
339
(55)
75As +
0.049
(0. 122)
0. 52
(0.32)
0.307
(0.046)
0.228
(0.065)
0.68
(0.29)
0.41
(0.22)
8°Se+
0. 132
(0. 115)
0.65
(0.55)
0.52
(0.43)
2. 16
(0.41)
1. 16
(0.98)
0.91
(0.80)
34s-
0.077
(0.066)
0. 102
(0.31)
0. 168
(0.065)
0. 135
(0. 128)
0.066
(0.025)
0. 118
(0.050)
35cr
9.1
(16.5)
48
(75)
29.7
(6.3)
28.0
(19)
56.4
(8.3)
38.8
(13.9)
-------
APPENDIX C
C.8 SHAWNEE POND CORE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
215
-------
ro
WALKWAY -
SLUDGE POND A
'POMD OUTLfNE AT
CREST OF DIKE"
($2/27/75 CORE SAMPLE:'
© 7/29/75 CORE-
SHAWMeE' STEAM PLANT
WET SCR.UB8EK. PROJECT
• 3'Lh" 3/5/75"
Courtesy of TVA
-------
00
>.') 5/29/7S COR.E
K' Gl 121 7:5 CORE SAMPLE
v. 7/29175 CORE SAMPLE
N
POND OUT LI ML' AT
CREST OF DIKE
SLUDGE POND 8
SJ-/AWNZF
WET
f-'L,'\NT
PKOJECT
Courtesy of TVA
-------
POND OUTLINE A T
CREST OF DIKE
133'
(7) 2/27/75 COfic
• 5/29/7S COR? SAMPLE
S> 6//2/75" CORE SAM PL. £
-4-2.'
SLUDGE POND C
"SHAVJNEE STEAM PLANT
SCRUBBER PROJECT
Courtesy of TVA
219
-------
.A/
POND OUTLINE AT
CREST Or DIKE'
I © 2/27/75 COKE SAMPLE
I ® 5/29/75 CORE SAMPLE
SLUDGE POND D
SHAWN'EE STEAM PLANT
WET SCRUBBER PROJECT
BLP 8/7/75
Courtesy of TVA
230
-------
/y
'POfJD OUTLINE
CREST OF DIKE
(/) 2/27/75 COfU' SAM!'•<-.••'
© . 5/??/ 75 CORi: SAMPLfr
& &//Z/75 CORE SAMPLE
'& ''7/2.91 73 COKE S/)MFt.fi
SLUDGE POND E
SHAWMEC STCAM
Y/£T
Courtesy of TVA
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read /naructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-070
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Disposal of Flue Gas Cleaning Wastes: EPA
Field Evaluation- -Initial Report
L Shawnee
7 AUTHOR(S)R. B. Fling, W.M. Graven, F.D.He'ss,
P.P.Leo, R.C.Rossi, and J.Rossoff
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Aerospace Corporation
Environment and Energy Conservation Division
P.O. Box 92957
Los Angeles , California 90009
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Labora
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES PrOTCCt
Ext 2915.
lory
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
ATR-76 (7297-01)-!
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHB-528; ROAP ABA-001
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1010
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Initial; 9/74-7/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
officer for this report is J.W. Jones, Mail Drop 61,
16. ABSTRACT Tne report describes progress made during the initial phase of a field
evaluation program, conducted by EPA, to assess techniques for the disposal of
power plant flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastes. The site chosen for the evaluation
was TVA's Shawnee Power Station, Paducah, Kentucky. Two 10-MW prototype flue
gas scrubber systems — one using lime, the other limestone — produced wastes that
were stored in five disposal ponds on the plant site. Two of the ponds contain untrea-
ted waste; each remaining pond contains waste chemically treated by one of three
commercial contractors. Test samples of treated and untreated wastes, ground
water, surface water, leachate, and soil cores are being analyzed in order to
evaluate the environmental acceptability of current disposal technology. Based on
this program , engineering estimates of total costs (capital and operating) for FGD
waste treatment and disposal have been made.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Pollution Field Tests
Flue Gases Calcium Oxides
Desulfurization Limestone
Waste Treatment Ponds
Waste Disposal Evaluation
Electric Power Engineering Costs
Plants
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI I'lcld/Group
Stationary Sources 13B 14B
21B 07B
07A,07D 08G
08H
14A
05A
10B
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis Keport) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 219
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |