U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCF.
National Technical Information Service
PB80-118656
Effects of Flue Gas Cleaning Waste on
Groundwater Quality and
Soil Characteristics
(U.S.) Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab, Cincinnati, OH
Aug 79
-------
-EPA
*&l
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA GOO 2-79-164
Laboratory August 1979
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Effects of Flue Gas
Cleaning Waste on
Groundwater
Quality and Soil
Characteristics
H— 1 1
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
,
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please teed 1n r,uciions on the reierse before completing)
1. REPOA7 NO.
EPA-600/2—79—164
2,
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSIOf’NO.
‘ ‘ : :
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE -
EFFECTS OF FLUE GAS CLEANING WASTE ON GROUNDWATER
QUALITY AND SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
5. REPORT DATE
August 1979 (tssuin . Date)
8.PERF ORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7, AUTHOR(S)
5. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
U.S. Army Engineer Watery
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Environmental Laboratory
Vicksburg, Mississippi 3
ays Experiment Station (WES)
£ ANO ADDRESS
Experiment Station (WES)
9180
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC818 SOS 1 Task 27
11. CONTRACT/GAANT Nø.
EPA—IAG—D4—0596
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cia, OH
Office of Research and Development
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOO COVERED
Final July 1976 thru Dec.1978
14.SPONSOMINGAGENC Y CODE
U.S., Environmental Protec
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
tion Agency
.
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Robert
E. Landreth (513) 684—7871 —
15. n, nn ..
Soil and water samples from several test borings and hydrological data were collected
and analyzed for three flue gas cleaning sludge disposal sites in order to assess the
extent of migration of pollutants into the local groundwater and the effects on
surrounding soils.. Physical testing of soils indicated that two major types of sites
were included, one site was underlain by impermeable materials such as clay and
shale; and two othersites underlain by relatively permeable silty sands and gravel
with dtseontinousl.y dIstributed finer materials.
At the site underlain by impermeable substrata, no change in permeability or other
physical properties of the soils could be related to the presence of the disposal
site. At the two sites underlain by permeable substrata, only at one could variations
in permeability, dry density, water content, and percent fines be relat d to the
presence of the disposal site. Irregular occurrences of fine—grained materials
(clays and silty sands) at the other site obscured any variations in these parameters
which might have been caused by the disposal site.
Sludge/ash—derived constituents were found to have migrated out of the inunediate area
of the pit or pond at all three disposal sites degrading the quality of the local
groundwater.
‘7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENT1FIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI
FieLd/Group
Wastes, Stabilization, Lea
ching, Sludge
Leachate, Solid Waste
.
Groundwater, Permeability,
Pollution
Management
Sulfates, Sulfites
Flue Gas Cleaning,
13B
.
Chemical Stabilization
.
(Fixation)
T
19. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
tJNCLASSIFIED
20, SECURITY CLASS (This page)
CLaSSIFIW
22. PRICE .: ‘
EPA Fe ni 2220.1 ( 5.73)
U.*. 50YU. T 5NItRIB 0PFP : i g ss eo ssss
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency. have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Ter.hnology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
B Special Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has teen assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment. and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA—600/2—79—164
August 1979
EffECTS OF FLUE GAS CLEANING WASTE ON
GROUNThJATER QUALITY AND SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
by
U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station
Environmental Laboratory
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Interagency Agreement No. EPA—IAC—D4—0569
Project Officer
R bsrt H. Landreth
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
M micipsl Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincfiiv ati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH lABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. iIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 4526.8
‘‘ , .
I • ‘,
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. S. .Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or conmiercial products constitute endorsement or
recoimnendation for use.
11
-------
FOR.E WORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are
tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity
of that environment and the interplay between its components require a concen-
trated and integrated attack on the problems.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastevater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal
and co unity sources, for the preservation and.treatment of public drinking
water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products of
that resgarch; a most vital communications link between the researcher and the
user co unity.
This repórt’ presents results, frol the, field, investigation, of three power
plant waste disposal sites to determine the effects on surrounding soils and
groundwater. tt provides basic data on the potential pollution of waste from
coal—fired power plants and will add to the knowledge required to determine
the environmental consequences of conventional land disposal of these wastes.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Soil and water samples from several test borings and hydrological data
were collected and analyzed for three flue gas cleaning sludge disposal sites
in order to assess the extent of migration of pollutants into the local ground-
water and the effects on surrounding soils. Physical testing of soils indi-
cated that two major types of sites were included: one site was underlain
by impermeable materials such as clay and shale; and two other sites under-
lain by relatively permeable silty sands and gravel with discontinously dis-
tributed finer materials.
At the site underlain by impermeable substrata, no change in permeability
or other physical properties of the soils could be related to the presence
of the disposal site. At the two sites underlain by permeable substrata,
only at one could variations in permeability, dry density, water content, and
percent fines be related to the presence of the disposal site. Irregular
occurrences of fine—grained materials (clays and silty sands) at the other site
obscured any variations in these parameters which might have been caused by
the disposal site.
Sludge/ash—derived constituents were found to have migrated out of the
immediate area, of the pit or pond at all three disposal sites degrading the
quality of the local groundwater. The subsurface migration of the sludge/ash—
derived materials was least extensive at the site underlain by impermeable
substrata. At the sites underlain by sands and gravels, evidence to a typi-
cal pollution plume under and down the groundwater gradient from the disposal
site was found.
Analysis of distilled water extracts and nitric acid digests of soil
samples from underneath and around the sludge/ash disposal sites indicated
only slight changes in soil chemistry could be attributed to the presence of
the disposal pit or pond. Evidently FCC sludge/ash leachates moved through
the soils and sediments without appreciable interaction or attenuation of
pollutants.
This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Interagency Agreement
No. EPA—IAG—D4—0569 between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Munici-
pal Environmental Research Laboratory, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
Division (EPA, MERL, SHWRD) and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station (WES). Work for this report was conducted during the period of July
1976 through December 1978.
iv
-------
1. Introduction .
2. Conclusions .
3. Recouinendations .
4. Materials and Methods
Site selection
Sampling procedures
Sample handling and preparation techniques
Physical testing methods
Chemical analytical methods
5. Results and Discussion
Physical testing
Chemical analyses of groundwater
Chemical analyses of distilled water extracts
Chemical analyses of nitric acid digests
Stni nnry
References
Appendices
A. Sub—surface information for Site K
B. Sub—surface information for Site L
C. Sub—surface information for Site N
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract
Figures
Tables
Acknowledgment
iv
vi
viii
xii
1
13
15
16
16
20
24
27
27
32
32
37
47
73
88
93
96
96
103
110
V
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Sketch of a typical disposal area showing sampling plan . . . . 9
2 Topographic map of site K 18
3 Topographic map of site L 19
4 Topographic map of site N 21
5 Sketch of Hvorslev fixed piston sampler 22
6 Sketch of split spoon sampler 23
7 Variation of sulfate concentration in distilled water
extracts of soil/sediment samples with elevation
in borings 1 and 5 at site L 63
8 Variation of sodium concentration in distilled water extracts
o soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1 and 5
atsiteL 64
9 Variation of boron concentration in distilled water
extracts of soil/sediment samples with elevation in
boring 1 at site L 65
10 Variation in potassium, concentration in distilled water
extracts of soil/sediment samples with elevation in
boring 1 at site M 66
11 Variation of selenium concentration in distilled water
extracts of soil/sediment samples with elevation in
borings 1 at site N 67
12 Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled
water extracts at site K 69
13 Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled
water extracts at site K (continued) 70
14 Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled
water extracts at site L 71
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
15 Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled
water extracts at site N 72
16 Variation of iron concentration in nitric acid digests of
soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2 and 6
atsiteK 86
17 Variation of boron concentration in nitric acid digests of
soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 1 and 2
atsiteL 87
18 Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid
digests at site K 89
19 Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid
digests at site L 90
20 Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric
acid digests at site N 91
A—i Water table map of site K 96
3—1 Water table map of site L 103
C—i Water table map of site N 110
vii
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Projected Annual Production of Flue Gas Cleaning Sludge
in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Composition of Some Typical FCC Sludge Solids 4
3 Typical Concentrations of Trace Elements in Several FGC
Sludges and in a Variety of Coal Samples 5
4 Chemical Constituents Analytically Determined in Groundwater
Piltrates, Distilled Water Extracts and Nitric Acid Digests 11
5 Suimx ary of the Characteristics of the Three Power Generat ion
Sites Selected for Study 17
6 Methods of Preservation of Water Extracts and Filtered
Groundwater Subsamples for Chemical Analysis 26
7 Descriptions of USCS Soil Groups 28
8 Techniques Used in the Analysis. of Distilled Water Extracts
Nitric Acid Digests and Groundwater Filtrates 30
9 Physical Testing Data for Samples from Site K 33
10 Physical Testing Data for Samples from Site L 34
11 Physical Testing Data for Samples from Site M . . . . . . 35
12 Comparison of the Physical Properties of the Uppermost Soil!
Sediment Samples Collected Within and Outside the Disposal
Site • • . 36
13 Chemical Composition of Groundwater Obtained from Borings
atSiteK 38
14 Chemical Composition of Groundwater Obtained from Borings
atSiteL . 39
15 Chemical Composition of Groundwater Obtained from Borings
at Site N . . . . I I . . . . 40
viii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
1.6 Typical Concentrations of Selected Constituents in FCC
Sludge Pond Liquor and Elutriates and Surface Water
Criteria for Public Water Supplies 41
17 Results of Randomization Tests for Chemical Analysis of
Groundwater Samples from Sites K, L, and M 42
18 Chemical Composition of Groundwater from Wells Near
Site K . 44
19 Chemical Composition of Groundwater from Wells Near.
Site L 46
20 Chemical Composition of Groundwater from Wells Near
Site N 48
S
21 Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples
from Experimental Borings at Site K 50
22 Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples from
ControlBoringsatSiteK 51
23 Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples from
Experimental Borings at Site L 52
24 Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of oi1 Samples from
Control Borings at Site L 53
25 Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples from
Experimental Borings at Site N 55
26 Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples from
Control Borings at Site N 56
27 Results of Randomization Test on Distilled Water Extracts of
Soil Samples Directly- Under the FCC Disposal. Sites at
Comparable Depths Outside the Sites 58
28 Correlation of Chemical Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts
of Soils with Sample Elevation at SiteK 60
29 Correlationof Chemical Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts
of Soils with Sample Elevation at Site L 61
30 Correlation of Chemical Analyses of Distilled Water Extracts
of Soils with Sample Elevation at Site N 62
31 Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of SoilS Samples from
Experimental Borings at Site K 74
ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
32 Analyses of Nitrid Acid Digests of Soil Samples from
Control Borings at Site K
33 Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of Soil Samples of
from Experimental Borings at Site L
34 Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of Soil Samples from Control
BoringsatSiteL
35 Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of Soil Samples from
Experimental Borings .at Site N
36 Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of Soil Samples from Control
Borings at Site N .
37 Results of Randomization Test on Nitric Acid Digests of Soil
Samples Directly Under the PGC Disposal Sites and at
Comparable Depths Outside the Sites
38 Correlation of Chemica’ . Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of
Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site K
39 Correlation of Chemical Analyses of Nitric Acid Digests of
Soil Samples with Sample Elevation at Site L
75
76
77
79
80
83
84
.
85
A—i
Log of Boring 1
at Site K
.
.
97
A—2
Log of Boring 2
at Site K
.
97
A—3
Log of Boring 3
at Site K
. .
98
A—4
Log of Boring 4
at Site K
. .
98
A—5
Log of Boring 5
at Site K
. .
99
A—6
Log of Boring 6
at Site K
. 99
A—i
Log of Boring 7
at Site K
.
. . 100
A—8
LogofBoring8atSiteK
101
A—9
List of Samples
Examined
from
Site K
102
B—i
Log. of Boring 1
at Site L
104
B—2
LogofBoring2atSiteL
104
B—3
Log of Boring 3
at Site L
105
B—4
Log of Boring. 4
at Site L
105
x
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
B— 5
B—6
B—7
B—8
c—i
C—2
C—3
C—4
C—5
C—6
C—7
Log of Boring 5
Log of Boring 6
Log of Boring 7
List of Sa ies
Log of Boring 1
Log of Boring 2
Log of Boring 3
Log of Boring 4
Log of Boring 5
Log of Boring 6
Log of Boring 7
at Site L
at Site L
at Site L
Examined from Site L
at Site M
at Site N
at Site N
atSiteM
at Site N
at Site N
at Site M
Page
106
107
108
109
111
111
112
112
113
113
114
115
C—8 List of Samples Examined from Site N
xi
-------
ACK WLEDCMENTS
This field investigation was conducted by the Environmental Laboratory
and the Geotechnical Laboratory of the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station (WES) under sponsorship of the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Environmental Protec tion Agency.
The primary authors were Drs. Philip C. Malone and Larry W. Jones.
Major contributions on site hydrology and geology were prepared by Mr. John
H. Shamburger and Mr. Jerald D. Broughton. Significant technical input and
advice were provided by Mr. Richard B. Mercer and Mr. Toimny Myers. The
project was under the general supervision of Dr. John Harrison, Chief, En-
vironmental Laboratory, Mr. Andrew J. Green, Chief, Environmental Engineering
Division and Mr. Norman R. Francingues, Chief, Water Supply and Waste Treat-
ment Group.
The guidance and support of Mr. Robert E. Landreth, Mr. Norbert B. Scho—
maker, and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environinentil Protection Agency are grate-
fully acknowledged. The Geotechnical Laboratory performed the physical
testing under the direction of Mr. C. P. Hale. The Analytical Laboratory
Group performed the chemical anal ’ses under the direction of Mr. James D.
Westhoff, Dr. Donald W. Rathburri and Mr. Jerry W. Jones. The diligent and
patient efforts of Ms. Rosie Lott, Ms. Connie Johnson, and Ms. Maureen Smart,
typists, and Mr. Jack Dildine, senior graphics coordinator, are gratefully
acknowledged. The Director of WES during the course of this study was COL J.
L. Cannon, CE. Technical Director was Mr. F. R. Brown.
xii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The growth of the electrical power industry coupled with the increasing
use of coal as a primary fuel has resulted in a generally increased waste
disposal problem for coal—fired power plants. , The strict air pollution regu-
lations regarding sulfur oxides (SO ) emissions have caused many power plants
to add stack scrubbiftg systems. Th se plants now produce a flue gas cleaning
(FCC) sludge that must be disposed of along with flyash and bottom ash. Stack
scrubbing is a necessary step due to the fact that sulfur dioxide (SO )
particularly produces crop and plant damage, deterioration of many ma erials
such as ferrous metals, marble and concrete, and increased incidence of bron-
chitis and lung cancer. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates have
put the current total cost of SO 2 emission damage to property and people in
the U.S. at $22 billion per year (1).
The flue gas cleaning systems currently being installed, and those
planned for the majority of installations through 1985, are “throw—away” or
non—regenerative systems in which the product generated requires permanent
disposal. The end product is a fine—grained slurry of high watet content
called either flue gas desulfurization (FCD) or flue gas cleaning (FGC) sludge.
The term flue gas desulfurization sludge usually refers to only SOS—reaction
products, while flue gas cleaning sludge refers to more general mixture of
flyash and scrubber products (2). The twenty—one power plants now equipped
with FCC systems are already producing around eight million metric tons of wet
sludge per year (Table 1). By 1985, when power plants producing around 100,000
megawatts of power are projected to have installed FCC equipment, over 120
million metric tons of wet sludge will have to be disposed of annually.
Three major types of “throw—away” sludge ‘producing FCC systems are
currently being developed and installed on power plants in the U. S. One uses
a wet slurry of limestone (CaCO 3 ); one a wet slurry of hydrated lime (Ca(OH) 2 );
and one——the double alkali——uses a clear Na 2 SO 3 solution. Although the major
reaction product of all three processes is calcium sulfite hemihydrate (CaSO 3
½020), the constituents of the sludge produced will vary widely depending
upon the impurities in the scrubbing materials, the type of coal being burned,
the boiler configuration and the scrubbing method used. The overall reactions
of these processes •are (3,4):
Limestone :
CaCO 3 + SO 2 + ½R 2 0 - CaSO 3 ½H 2 9 + CO 2
1
-------
TABLE 1. PROJECTED ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF FLUE GAS CLEANING
SLUDGE IN THE U. S. (3)
Year
1977
.
1980
1985
Estimated on—line capacity
(MW) with FCC
6500
35,000
100,000
Dry FCC sludge*
1.75
9.5
27.0
Dry ash*
2.15
11.5
33.0
Total Dry Sludge*
Water (sludge at 50% water)*
3.9
3.9
21.0
21.0
60.0
60.0
Total Wet Sludge*
7.8
42.0
120.0
Approximate total volume
(m 3 /yr)
4.9
6
x 10
7
2.5 x 10
7
7.4 x 10
* metric tons/year
2
-------
Lime (hydrated) :
Ca(OH) 2 + SO 2 - CaSO 3 ½H 2 0 + ½H 2 0
Double alkali :
Na 2 SO 3 + SO 2 + H 2 0 - 2 NaHSO 3
2NaRSO 3 + 1 ,Ca(OH) 2 - CaSO 3 ½H 2 0 + 3/2 H 2 0 + Na 2 SO 3
The calcium can also oxidize to calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum) by the re-
action: 2 aSO 3 ½H 2 0) + 02 + 21120 -s- 2 [ CaSO 4 211 0J. Therefore, the
final product has variable proportions of calcium sulfate and sulfite, depend-
ing upon the amount of oxygen available during the scrubbing operation.
Chemical Composition of FGC Sludges
The composition of major solid components in several FGC sludges which
have been analyzed are presented in Table 2. The major component of the
sludge is seen to be variable amounts of calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate,
depending upon the amount of oxidation which has taken place. Oxidation (and
consequently the calcium sulfate—to—calcium sulfite ratio) is usually greater
in systems burning low-sulfur western coal. In all three systems, operation
of the burner and FGC system can be adjusted to produce almost pure calcium
sulfite sludges; or intentional oxidation can bring about the production of
almost pure calcium sulfate sludges.
Variable amounts of unreacted limestone (CaCO 3 ) will be found in the
limestone and dual alkali sludges, and in some lime systems where it enters as
an impurity in the lime or is produced by reaction with the large amount of
CO 2 in the stack gas. The amount of fly ash, the other major component in the
FCC sludge, will also vary widely depending upon the ash and sulfur content of
the coal burned and whether electrostatic precipitators or collectors are run
ahead of the FCC system. As new FCC equipment becomes operational, many
sludges may incorporate variable amounts of fly ash as the FCC systems also
are excellent fly ash collectors and separate fly ash removal equipment may
not be employed.
A variety of trace elements are also found in FCC sludges; typical
analyses are listed in Table 3. Note the wide range of concentrations found
in different sludges make generalizations as to composition difficult. The
original sources of these trace elements are the coal, the lime or limestone
and the makeup water. Those elements in the fuel which are not highly volatile
such as chromium, manganese and nickel, will be retained in the fly ash and
bottom ash. Therefore, the relative ash content controls the concentration of
these elements in the sludge. On the other hand, the concentration of the
highly volatile elements such as arsenic, cadmium, fluorine, mercury and
seleni t in the sludge depends largely upon the efficiency of their capture
from the flue gas by the scrubber (9). Mercury an d selenium will probably be
present in the flue gas as elemental vapors and be poorly scrubbed. Assuming
that the coal is the major source of trace metals and that sludge and ash
3
-------
TABLE 2. COMPOSITION OF SOME TYPICAL FCC SLUDGE SOLIDS
Process
Type of
coal utilized
.
CaSO 3 •½U 2 0 CaSO 4 2H 2 0
(% Vt) (% wt)
Ratio:
CaSO 4 /CaSO 3
CaCO 3
(% Vt)
Fly ash
CX Vt)
Other
(% wt)
(Ref.)
Limestone
Eastern
19—23
15—32
0.65—1.7
4—42
20—43
(5)
Limestone
Lime
Western
Eastern
11
13
17
19
2.8
2.2
2.5
0.2
59
60
14% GaS 03
‘6H 2
9.8% CaS 3 O 10
(5)
(5)
Lime
Eastern
50
6
0.12
3
41
(5)
Lime
Eastern
94
2
0.02
0
4
(6)
Dual Alkali
Western
0.2
64
400
11
9
18% CaSO 4
(5)
Dual Alkali
Eastern
,
14
52
5.1
8
7
20% CaSO 4
½112 0
(7)
-------
TABLE 3. TYPICAL CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN SEVERAL FGC SLUDGES (5)
MID IN A VARIETY OF COAL SA 4PLES (8)
Element
Conc. range
in sludges (ppm)
Median cone.
in sludges (ppm)
Conc. range
in coal (ppm)
Arsenic
3.4—63
33.0
3—60
Beryllium
‘0.62—11
3.2
0.08—20
Cadmium
0.7—350
4.0
-—
Chromium
3.5—34
16.0
2.5—100
Copper
1.4—47
14.0
1—100
Lead
1.0—55
14.0
3—35
Manganese
11—120
63.0
-—
Mercury
0.02—6.0
1.0
0.01—30
Nickel
6.7—27
17.0
——
Selenium
<0.2—19
7.0
0.5—30
Zinc
9.8—118
57.0
0.9—600
— • no analysis available
5
-------
production equals from 5—40 percent of the coal burned on a weight basis, the
trace elements will be concentrated in the sludge two to twenty times the
level in the coal. The form and availability of these trace elements is also
changed from that in the original coal where they are held in an organic
matrix and/or as suif ides and carbonates. The trace elements appear in the
sludge primarily as oxides (or in some cases in elemental form) which are more
soluble and chemically reactive than suif ides or solid organic complexes.
The trace elements, therefore, represent a potential pollution hazard since
they can be leached from the sludge and contaminate surrounding surface water
and groundwater.
ysical Properties of FGC Slu4g
The physical properties of FGC sludges are of prime importance in their
handling, transporting, dewatering, and leaching characteristics. The morpho-
logy and size of sludge particles varies widely as a function of the sulfur
content of the coal, the way the boiler is operated, the type of particulate
control employed, and the type of FCC system and the mode in which it is
operated. -
The most striKing and troublesome physical characteristic of FGC sludges
is the uniform size and form of the crystals of the calcium sulfite (10).
Calcium sulfite crystals are in the form of thin platelets with 10—100 micron
lateral dimensions and of 0.1 to 0.5 micron thickness. Single crystals are
rare, most being found in loosely arrayed clusters. The preponderance of
small, uniformly—sized crystal aggregates produces a thixotropic sludge with
high moisture content and very poor settling character Stics. The high
moisture content is due to the highly open, porous or sponge—type configura-
tion of the crystal clusters. FGC sludges are not easily dewatered. For
example, twenty—five hours of centrifugation at 900 times gravity in a solid—
bottom centrifuge tube caused an increase from ti 0 percent solids to only 50
percent solids for an eastern coal, lime—scrubbing sludge (9). Slight shaking
or stirring will cause the centrifuged sludge to return to a liquid or plastic
state (thixotrophy), PGC sludges can present serious handling and storage
problems.
The permeability of uninodif led FCC sludges also varies greatly depending
upon their source and fly ash content. The permeability of several samples of
untreated FCC sludges were found to vary between 5 x 10 to 5 x 1O cm/ sec
if gravity settled, and from 1 x l0 to 1 x iO if compacted by vibration or
by the use of a plunger (4), These moderate permeability rates are comparable
to a clay or silty clay soil.
FCC sludges exhibit low coinpactability. When confined to a mold, sludge
samples exhibit significant resistance to the action of compaction hatiuners
but this resistance disappears when the mold is removed, tJnconfined com-
pressive strengths are quite low, ranging from nil to 1.5 kg/sq. cm (11).
6
-------
Methods of FCC Sludge Disposal
As FGC sludges began being produced, they were couunonly disposed of in a
manner similar to that which had been used for fly and bottom ash. Most
co nonly, fly ash was collected as a slurry which was pumped to settling or
decanting basins where the ash settled and the liquid was decanted to a river
(12). The amount of pollutants from the decanted water as well as that
leaching into the groundwater from these disposal ponds could have been signif i—
cant, but water quality data related to these operations are not readily
available.
Presently, lagooning of mixed ash and FCC sludges is the most common
method of dealing with the disposal problem (13). The sludge is usually
pumped with low solids content (20—40%) into a lagoon where the solids settle
out; the liquor is then reused as make—up water for the FGC process. Two
major problems with this method of sludge disposal are the high levels of Ca,
SO 4 , SO 3 , Cl, and trace metals which potentially could be leached out of the
sludge bed into the local groundwater, and the physical instability of the
sludge which may preclude use of the deposited sludge beds for any other
purposes for an indefinite period of time (14).
One alternative which deals directly with the leaching problems is that
of using lagoons which have been lined with impervious materials such as
polyethylene, butyl rubber, concrete, asphalt or pozzolan—stabilized soil
(13).. The liners, prevent the leaching of material or. seepage of liquors from
the- dispoSal ponds or lagoons into ground— or surface waters. The lining of
lagoons; is an effective technique over the lifetime of the liner. Long—term
service data applicable to sulfate/sulfite sludge containment do not exist for
any liner materials although short—term experimental data have been reported
(15). Lifetime estimates for different liner materials and sludge types vary
from about 20 to over 50 years normal life expectancy. The major problem in
the use of pond liners is their impermanence. When their integrity eventually
is lost by accident or deterioration, the original problem of permanent disposal
reoccurs. The use of pond liners, therefore, appears to be an effective
alternative for moderately long—time periods, but not an adequate permanent
disposal scheme with the technology presently available (13).
The sludge disposal techniques currently receiving the widest interest
and study are those that involve chemically.stabilizing or encapsulating the
FCC sludges. The aims of this sludge treatment are to produce a structurally
sound product (a solid, or friable, soil—like waste) that can be disposed of
so that the potential for surface or groundwater pollution is minimized or
eliminated (16,17).
Score of This Study
The disposal sites selected for this study include only unlined, unstabilized
power plant waste disposal ponds containing FGC sludges. The unlined ponds
are considered to present the werst risk for the release of pollutants to the
environment. The water released from the sludge into the soil beneath the
disposal pond will, be saturated with the contaminants found in the FCC sludge/ash
7
-------
mixture. This water is ref rred to as a leachate; and the capture or absorption
of potentially contaminating materials from this leachate by soil under the
disposal site is referred to as attenuation.
The objectives of this study are to examine three typical, unlined FCC
sludge/ash ponding or disposal operations that are situated in different
geological circumstances in order to:
a) discover if changes have occurred in the chemical characteristics of
the local groundwater because of the FGC sludge/ash disposal
operation,
b) determine the influence of any leachate from the ponded FGC sludge/ash
on the chemical characteristics and physical properties of the geologic
materials directly below the landfill,
c) determine what chemical constituents present in the soil beneath
the disposal site can be released into contacting water,
d) establish if a relationship exists between the depth below the
disposal site and the chemical proper ties of the earth materials, and
e) discover if chemical characteristics of the material beneath the
disposal site indicate contaminant attenuation is occurring.
To meet these objectives, a model or pattern (Figure 1) for leachate
movement and attenuation was developed to provide a rationale for the sampling
program. In this model precipitation falling on the disposal site saturates
the sludge/ash and then percolates through the soil directly below. A variable
portion of the filterable and exchangeable material in the leachate is de—
posited in the soil below the landfill and possibly selected constituents are
released from the soil. The attenuated leachate then continues downward to
the water table. Groundwater flowing under the landfill dilutes the leachate
and carries the pollutants in a plume down the groundwater gradient. Based on
this idealized model, borings were located in such a way as to produce:
a) groundwater from wells beneath the disposal site and from wells
located both up and down the groundwater flow gradient in the area
of the disposal site,
b) samples of soil from beneath the disposal site and from comparable
depths outside the disposal site,
c) soil samples collected at different levels down the boreholes both
outside and beneath the disposal site, and
d) sàm les collected near the top of the saturated zone (water table)
beneath and outside the disposal site.
Physical testing of soil samples collected below the disposal site and at
comparable depths outside the disposal site was undertaken to evaluate changes
related to the deposition of FCC sludge. The physical characterization included
8
-------
Figure 1. Sketch of a typical diaposal area showing sampling plan.
EXPERIMENTAL
-------
percent moisture, dry density, grain—size distribution, permeability and soil
classification. Randomization was used to test for significant differences in
physical properties (18). Vertical variability in selected bore holes was
also evaluated but the small sample sizes did not allow the use of statistical
tests in this case.
The samples of groundwater collected in this study were used to indicate
loss of contaminants from the sludge/ash or the soil beneath the disposal site
into the local groundwater. If contaminants were moving to the water table,
their concentrations should be higher beneath and downgradient from the disposal
site. A list of analyses run is given in Table 4. A randomization technique
was employed to assess the significance of changes in water quality.
Soil samples from beneath the sludge/ash and from comparable depths out-
side the disposal site were treated in two ways. One aliquot of soil was ex-
tracted with distilled water to remove all ions that could be dislodged by
water alone. A list of analyses run on this extract is given in Table 4. The
distilled water extract gives a rate of release of material from the soil into
the surrounding water. The water extract is assumed to represent the concentra-
tion present in water contacting the soil, not the maximum, total amount bound
or confined in the soil. The distilled water leach then indicates the mobility
of various ions being held in the soil. The most effective attenuation occurs
when the soil beneath the sludge/ash shows an ability to accumulate a contazni—
nant and to release the contaminant at a very slow rate. A statistical random-
ization technique was used to test the significance of differences observed be-
tween the composition of the distilled water extracts of soil samples collected
directly eneatb the sludge/ash and the composition of extracts from samples
collected at comparable depths outside the disposal site. The significant re-
sults of the randomization test point out those elements at each site whose
mobility in aqueous solution is effected by material from the landfill.
A second aliquot of fresh soil was digested with hot, 8N nitric acid to
bring all ions not bound into silicate lattices into solution. A list of
analyses run is also given in Table 4. This digest represents the total of
all materials that could potentially be leached from the soil under the most
severe conditions. Since it is assumed that there is no significant lateral
movement of leachate through the soil above the water table, differences in
composition between digests of these samples beneath and outside the disposal
area can be interpreted as the loss or gain of material in the soir due to the
presence of the sludge/ash. A statistical randomization technique was used to
test for significant differences in composition between acid digests of soil
samples collected directly below the sludge/ash and samples collected at
comparable depths (and above the water table) outside the disposal site. The
significant results from the randomization tests point out those elements at
each site that are being added to the soil or removed from the soil by the
movement of leachate from the disposal site.
If the soil beneath the disposal site was being altered by leachate from
the sludge/ash, any change should be most pronounced directly beneath the
sludge/ash and the magnitude of this change should decrease with depth.
Samples of soil were taken at intervals down the boreholes to determine if any
correlation between the concentration of materials in the soil and depth (or
10
-------
SO 4
so 3
C’
N0 3 -N
N0 2 —N
CN
TOC
Ca
Fe
K
Mg
Na
As
I
Re
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
S.
Zn
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
TA3LE 4 • CHRMICAL CONSTITUENTS ANALYTICALLY DETERMINED IN GROUNDWATER
FILTRATES, DISTILLED WATER xiicACTS AND NITRIC ACID DIGESTS
a
Groundwater
Water
Nitric
acid
Constituent filtrate
extract
digests
11
-------
sample elevation) could be observed. Correlation with sample elevation was
only attempted with those elements that had shown a significant contrast in
concentrations from samples, under and outside the disposal site. A Spearman
rank correlation technique was employed (18,19). The correlation technique
made it possible to see if consistent relationships could be observed between
sample elevation and sample composition in borings made inside and outside the
disposal site.
Samples of soil collected near the top of the saturated zone both outside
and inside the disposal site were x*m1ned to see if any effects of lateral
movement of leachate below the water table could be observed. Distilled water
leaches and nitric acid digests of these soil samples were analyzed. Plots of
an lyses were prepared to assess any changes in constituents that could be
related to the presence of the sludge/ash. No attempt was made to evaluate
these analyses statistically because of the small sample sizes involved.
12
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUS IONS
At all three FCC/ash disposal sites (IC, L, and M) investigated, indicat-
ions were found that FCC sludge/ash—related materials had moved into surround-
ing soils and groundwater. No consistent differences in physical properties
(dry density, water content, cci]. permeability and grain size distribution)
could be detected between the soil samples taken iimnediately below the disposal
sites and at a comparable depth outside the disposal area. No conclusive
evidence could be found that the untreated sludge/ash in the pits or ponds
form an effective liner.
Analysis of groundwater samples collected at each of the three sites
shoved some evidence of movement of FCC sludge/ash—derived materials from the
disposal pit or pond into the groundwater under the site. At all sites,
increased levels of some constituents cOuld be related to the presence of the
disposal pit or pond. Increased lead and mercury levels were found under the
disposal pond at site IC. At site L, increased concentrations in the trace
metals, iron, arsenic, chromium, and lead, could be found in groundwater under
the disposal pit. At site N, groundwater from beneath the dispàsal pond
showed significant increases in sodium, chloride, and sulfate. Distilled
water extracts from soil samples under and outside the disposal sites showed
very little contrast. The most consistent differenc.es observed were increases
in sodium and boron in the distilled water extracts from samples directly
under the disposal pits or ponds. Examination of distilled water extracts
taken from coil samples at or below the local water table showed that the
max 4 leachable levels of sodium, sulfate, and boron were consistently found
under or down the groundwater gradient from the disposal areas.
Nitric acid digests prepared from soils below and away from the disposal
sites shoved no consistent differences at the three sites. This suggests that
changes in soil composition cannot be easily related to the passage of leachate
through the soil. The only elements that appeared to be readily fixed or
exchanged into soil were calcium at site K and boron at siteL.
In the site investigations reported here:
a) there is no indication that FCC sludge/ash ponds or pits are self—
sealing,
b) there is evidence that FCC sludge/ash constituents move into surround-
ing soil and groundwater,
13
-------
c) there is no evidence that soils below the disposal sites are peru anently
retaining any FGC sludge/ash-derived materials with the exception of calcium
and boron.
14
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
FCC sludge/ash disposal sites can pollute surrounding groundwater and
thus pose a significant threat to high—quality drinking water aquifers.
Ponds or pits for the disposal or storage of FGC sludge/ash should be
engineered so as to prevent seepage from the pond or pits from moving into
surrounding water and soil. There is no evidence that unaltered FGC sludge/ash
in itself forms a suitable liner for a sludge and ash pond or pit.
Where the geologic and hydrologic conditions are such that contamination
of usable groundwater is a possibility, plans for unsolidified sludge/ash
disposal should include an artificial liner that will retain all water contact-
ing the sludge materials. Soil attenuation is not adequate in most cases to
prevent FCC sludgelash—derived material from contaminating shallow aquifers.
An effective groundwater monitoring program should be included in plans
for FCC sludge/ash disposal areas. Samples of water collected from wells
adjacent to and down the groundwater gradient from the disposal site should be
analyzed at regular intervals to insure the integrity of the containment
system.
Additional research requirements exist particularly in the areas of
evaluating the effectiveness and reliability of containment systems and design-
ing adequate groundwater monitoring systems.
15
-------
SECTION 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SITE SELECTION
Three electrical generating station disposal sites (containing mixed
FCC sludge and ash) at different geographic areas in the central United States
were selected for study. All sites were located in areas where precipitation
and infiltration rates were sufficient to produce significant amounts of
leachate. A brief stary of the important engineering and geologic charact-
eristics of each site is presented in Table 5.
Some major factors effecting the character of the contaminants leaching
from a disposal site are the type and amount of material placed in the site,
the fossil fuel burned at the generating plant, boiler and scrubber operating
conditions and the length of time the material has been in the site. Other
factors effecting the character of sludge/ash leachate are oxidation—reduction
conditions in the sludge and ash, and the temperatures in the disposal area.
Ultimately, the concentration of pollutants in the groundwater is also related
to the amount and chemical composition of local groundwater moving through the
iimuediate area.
At site K (Figure 2), a 65—hectar pond has been receiving 31,750 metric
tons per day of vet FCC sludge, fly ash and some bottom ash since the plant
vent on line in mid—1973. The pond can attain a maximum depth of 11 meters
and has a life expectancy of 3 to 4 years as of the time of sampling. mine—
diately to the south of the disposal pond is a large exposed coal storage
area. Runoff from the storage area also flows into the disposal pond.
The pit at site L covers 1.5 hectars with an average depth of approxi-
mately 11 meters (Figure 3). Dumping of fly ash began in the southern portion
of the pit in 1968. Beginning in mid—1973, FCC sludge and fly ash were dumped
in the northern part of the pit. The middle third of the pit has not received
any direct dumping of sludge or ash. Before the dumping of fly ash began, the
pit was freedraining. Shortly after dumping started, however, the pit began
to retain water and now a pond exists in the pit throughout the year. The
sludge disposal pit is approximately 2 kilometers from the generating plant.
The FCC sludge disposed here is filter cake with a moisture content of approxi-
mately 20L Imediately vest of the disposal area is a 40—hectar industrial
tailings pond.
16
-------
TABLE 5. SU! ’C4ARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE POWER
GENERATION SITES SELECTED FOR STUDY
Site K Site L
820 Mw 70 Mw
5.2% 3.0%
Limestone Lime
Settling pond Pit
Central Ohio Valley
Thin glacial Glacial outwash
outwash over (valley train
bedrock deposits)
91 cm 105 cm
13°C 14°C
FGC sludge, FCC sludge
fly and bottom and fly ash
ash
Liner used below waste
material
Thickness of waste
observed
Thickness of unsaturated
zone
Nature of material in
unsaturated zone
Average hydraulic
conductivity below
waste material
Dates of operation of
site
• Characteristic
Unit size
Coal sulfur content
Scrubber process type
Type of disposal
operation
Geographic area within
the U.S.
General geologic
setting
Site N
130 Nw
3.5%
Limestone
Settling pond
Central
Alluvium
Mean annual
precipitation
Mean annual air
temperature
Nature of waste
91 cm
13°C
FGC sludge,
fly and bottom
ash
None
None
None
2.49—5.49 in
(avg. 3.99 in)
2..90—14.48 in
(avg. 8.69 in)
2.29—4.36 in
(avg. 3.33 in)
2.44—9.00 in
(avg. 6.91 in)
3.66—16.04 in
(avg. 12.53 in)
4.36—7.86 in
(avg. 5.72 in)
Clay
•
Clay, silty sand
and gravel
Clay and silty
sand
2. 94xl0 8 cm/sec
2. lOxlO 4 cm/sec
2. O4xlO 3 cm/sec
1973 — present
1968 — present
1972 — present
17
-------
0
Figure 2. Topographic map of site K. 1 foot 0.305 meters.
Elevations are in ft above mean sea level.
A.
LAKE
0.5
SCALE
I I I
0.5 MI
LEGEWD
BORING
____ DISPOSAL AREA
UMIT FOR CONTOURS
18
-------
Figure 3. Topographic map of site L. 1 foot — 0.305 meters.
Elevations are in ft. above mean sea level.
I
I
SCALE
• LEGEND
•
SPOSAL AREA.
19
-------
At site N, a 34—hectar disposal area began receiving FCC sludge, fly ash
and bottom ash in 1972. Subsequent developments haveresulted in off—site
disposal of the majority of -the bottom aSh and some of the fly ash. Present
practice is to discharge bottot ash into the central portion of the disposal
area (see Figure 4) and fly ash and FGC sludge into the northern part of the
disposal area. The southern section has received only bottom ash. A large
coal storage area (approximately 30 hectars) is iimnediately southeast of the
disposal basin.
The source of water tnat -infiltrates the wastes is different;at all three
sites. At site K, the disposal pond was formed by damning a small valley that
drained into the cooling lake. The water avá lable for infiltration at this
site is derived from operation of the scrubbèrs, plus rainfall and appreciable
runoff from the surrounding hillsides. Water is recycled through the scrubber
and any excess water beyond the capacity of the impoundment escapes over a
spiliway in the dam and into the cooling lake. Site L is an abandoned borrow
pit and interrupts no natural surface drainage. The sludge as deposited
contains very little water; rainfall is the only source of water available-for
infiltration. Site N is a series of ponds formed by constructing dikes on the
floodplain. The sludge is pumped into the ponds as a slurry with high water
content. After settling, the supernatant watex is pumped either into a river
or a sewage treatment plant. Future plans c 4 1 for recycling the excess water
to the scrubbers. Recycling Will have no effect on the availability of water
for infiltration. Permanent ponds exist at all three sites; therefore, the
escape of contaminated vater into the groundwater is related to the area of
the bottom of the pond and the permeability of material belOw andk at the sides
of the pond, rather than the sourceof water.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
A general sampling plan for all sites was generated using the model
situation shown in Figure 1. This plan was modified to meet any specific
requirements at each site. The general sampling plan called for a series of
seven or eight borings at each disposal site. Where possible two experimental
borings were to be drilled through the sludge/ash mixture and five or six
control borings were to be drilled outside the disposal area. This sampling
pattern would allow comparison between typical, uneffectad groundwater and
soil, and groundwater and soil which was in direct contact with the leachate
draining from each site.
All sampling was done with a truck—mounted, rotary drill using 16.8 cm
OD, hollow—stem auger. The auger, with a central plug in place, was drilled
to the desired depth. The central plug was then removed and a Rvorslev fixed-
piston sampler (Figure 5) or split—spoon Sampler (Figure 6) was pressed into
the sediment or soil directly below the end of the auger using the hydraulic
cylinders Onthe drill rig. In this way, an undisturbed soil or sediment -
sample was obtained. The split—spoon sampler was used only in cases where
objects were encountered in the. subsurface that could t-be penetrated by the
thin-walled tube (Shelby tube) on the Rvorslev sampler.
20
-------
Figure 4. Topographic map of site 11. 1 foot — 0.35 meters.
Elevations are in ft. above mean sea level.
21
-------
94.49
cm
Figure 5.
RCD
BASE
Sketch of Hvorslev fixed piston sampler.
ELBY
TUBE
PISTON lOP
22
-------
I__HEAD
SOLID OR SPLIT
BARREL
5.O&tn, 635cm, 62crn, or 829cm
I.D 3BIcm,5.O8cm, 6.35cm,or 7.62cm
Figure 6. Sketch of split spoon sampler.
23
-------
The vertical distribution of soil/sediment samples collected down the
hole was arranged in a way to maximize the probability of collecting samples
at two critical points in the boring; the sludge/ash—soil interface and the
top of the saturated zone. Since the strongest effects of leachate on the
local material should occur directly below the wastes, a sample was always
taken at the sludge/ash—soil interface. Sampling was then continued at closely
spaced intervals down the hole. The top of the water—saturated zone was
predicted from water table measurements that had been recorded for other wells
in the area and a. series of closely spaced samples was taken in this interval.
The borings were allowed to remain open for two to three days following the
actual drilling, with the augers left in place. The auger flights served as a
temporary well casing to prevent seepage from the surface from entering the
well. Depth to groundwater was measured with a chalked steel tape and ground-
water samples were obtained from the temporary wells by lowering a bailer into
the top of the hollow—stem augers. After a groundwater sample was obtained,
the auger was removed and the hole was backfilled with grout and/or bentonite
to a point well above the water table. The filling was then completed with
well cuttings. This was done to assure that the well would not act as a con-
duit for the flow of polluted water to the water table.
The locations for all borings at each FGC sludge/ash disposal site are
given in Figures 2 — 4. The most probable configuration of the water table at
each site, as deduced from water level measurements in the borings, is given
in Figures .A—l, B—i and C—i (in appendices). The descriptive well logs are
also presented in the appendices (Tables A—2——A—9, B—2——B—8, and C—2——C—8).
Tables A—lO, B—9 and C—9 list all soil/sediment samples examined from each
boring, giving their elevations and other relevant data.
Minor variations in the general sampling plan were necessary at sites L
and M. In three instances at site L, auger wrap was used for chemical testing.
These were samples lCl, 2Cl and 5C2. Auger wrap consisted of material removed
from the outside of the auger bit. Although the physical properties of auger
wrap samples were disturbed, the chemical properties should be consistent with
an undisturbed Hvorslev or split—spoon sample. At site M, the bearing capacity
of the recently disposed material was too low to support a drill rig. Con-
sequently, boring through the newly deposited sludge/ash material was impossible.
The drill rig was placed on older, firm FCC sludge and borings 1 and 4 were
made near the margin of the settling pond.
SAIIPLE HANDLING AND PREPARATION TECHNIQUES
Two differenttypes of soil samples were collected in the boring program;
samples for physical testing and samples for. chemical analysis. Groundwater
samples were also taken from each boring for chemical analysis. The set of
samples obtained for physical testing was used to determine soil class under
the unified soil classification system (20), dry density, grain—size distribu-
tion, water content and permeability. These physical parameters were deteriii—
med using standard engineering test procedures. This sample set was collected
without disturbing the soil more than necessary. The samples were carefully
packaged and sealed in coring tubes to retain the original moisture content
and sample texture.
24
-------
The groundwater bailed frOm each boring was transferred to polyethylene
bottles which were labelled and packed in an insulated chest filled with
crushed ice. The samples were stored under refrigeration and kept tightly
capped until they were prepared for chemical analysis. The preparation con-
sisted of centrifuging each sample at 2200 rpm for 30 minutes. The resulting
supernatant was membrane—filtered through a 0.45—micron filter and split into
five subsamples which were preserved as shown in Table 6.
Samples of soil for chemical analysis were collected simultaneously with
the samples for physical testing, but no attempt was made to maintain the soil
in an undisturbed condition. Each sample removed from the sampler or collected
from the auger, was placed in a wide—mouthed polyethylene bottle, labelled and
packed in an ice—filled chest. These soil samples were refrigerated during
all subsequent transportation and/or storage. Two extracts were made from
each soil sample; one with distilled water and one with 8N nitric acid. The
materials that could be easily extracted with distilled water were considered
transient and would readily be leached from the soil by dissolution in rain-
water. The nitric acid digest would contain the transient materials, and also
all the materials that could be solubilized by a strong, oxidizing acid.
Those elements present as carbonates or suif ides, or adsorbed to clay minerals,
to iron oxide or to insoluble organic materials would be freed (21); while
eleaents.i.n non—clay silicate lattices would be solubilized only to a minor
degree (22).
For distilled water extracts, the contents of each sample bottle were
mixed to assure a homogeneous sample. A 200—grain subsample of moist soil was
weighed out into.a 1000—mi polycarbonate centrifuge bottle and six hundred ml
of distilled—deionized water was added to each. The centrifuge bottles were
shaken on a rotary shaker for one hour, and then centrifuged at 2200 rpm for
30 minutes. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45-micron membrane
filter. The filtrate was split into five subsamples for chemical analysis.
The subsamples were preserved as outlined in Table 6.
A second subsample consisting of 50 grams of moist soil was taken from
each sample bottle for nitric acid digestion. In each digestion, the soil was
weighed into a 250—rn]. fluorocarbon beaker and 60 ml of SN reagent-grade nitric
acid was added. The soil—acid suspension was heated to 95°C for 45 minutes
and stirred every fifteen minutes. After cooling to room temperature, the
suspension was filtered through a 0.45—micron membrane filter. The digested
soil was washed in the filter three times with 20—mi portions of 8N nitric
acid. The filtrate was quantitatively transferred to a 250—mi volumetric
flask and brought up to vol mte with 8N nitric acid and then stored in a poly-
ethylene bottle. No preservation procedure was necessary.
A third subsample was taken from each sample bottle to determine the
moisture content of the soil. These moisture contents were used to correct
subsequent chemical analyses so that soil acid digests could be expressed in
milligrams per kilogram dry weight of soil.
25
-------
TABLE 6. METHODS OF PRESERVATION OF WATER xTRACTS A1’ D FILTERED GROUNIXJATER
SUBSAMPLES FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Chemical species to be determined
SO 4 , SO 3 , Cl, NO 3 , NO 2
Method of preservation
Refrigeration to 4°C
Samples brought to pH 11 with NaOR
0
Refrigeration to 4 C
Samples acidified with BC]. to pH 1
CN
Total organic carbon (TOC)
Ca, Fe, K, Mg, )hL, Na, As, B, Be,
Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Se, Zn
Hg EMn0 4 added and samples acidified with
HNO 3 to pH 1.
26
-------
PHYSICAL TESTING METHODS
The physical tests run on these samples included water content, sample
dry density, permeability, and grain—size analysis. Data gathered from these
tests and visual examination of the samples were used to classify.the materials
into standard soil engineering categories. All testing was done using standard
soil engineering methods (23).
To determine water content, a sample taken from the sealed coring tube
was weighed into a tared sample dish, dried at 110°C and weighed periodically
until a constant weight was obtained.
Sample dry density (or dry unit weight) is the weight of oven—dried soil
per unit volume of soil. This measurement can be made in two different ways:
by tri mning the soil sample into a precisely ‘measured regular shape and drying
and weighing the triumed sample; or, by sealing the surface of a soil specimen
with wax and measuring its vol mLe by water displacement, then removing the
sealing material and drying and weighing the specimen. The water displacement
procedure was used with samples containing gravel or other coarse material
that prevented the sample from being trii ed accurately.
Grain—size analysis was performed by sieving the dried, disaggregated
soil through a standard sieve series. Standard hydrometer density measurements
were run on a suspension prepared from the fraction passing the 200—mesh
sieve.
Permeability measurements were made using a constant—head test system
with coarse—grained soils, and a falling—head test system with fine sands or
clays. In all cases standard procedures and equipment were employed (23).
The major characteristics (especially grain—size analyses and charac-
teristics of the fine fraction) of the samples were used to classify the
soils. The uscs classification system is stm,marized and corresponding USDA
classes are given in Table 7.
CBE1ICAL ANALYTICAL METHODS
The techniques used in analyzing the filtered groundwater samples, dis-
tilled water extracts and nitric acid digests are stii’ rized in Table 8. In
all cases, the samples were run within the recouended time limits for the
storage of samples (24).
The analyses of groundwater samples are given in milligrams per liter of
filtered sample. The water extracts are also presented in milligrams per
liter of filtered extractant. The water extract represents an equilibri or
near equilibri solution with respect to the solid phases and the adsorbed
phases in the soil; therefore, the analytical data are presented on a solution
basis rather than a dry weight basis. The nitric acid digests are a deter-
mination of the total acid digestible fraction; therefore, the results are
presented as milligrams extracted per kilogram dry weight of soil.
27
-------
TABLE 7. DESCRIPTIONS OP USCS SOIL GROUPS (20)
Typical group description
Well—graded (poorly—sorted) gravels, gravel—sand mixtures,
little or no fines
Poorly—graded (well—sorted) gravels, or gravel—sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel—sand—silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel—sand—clay mixtures
Well—graded (poorly—sorted) sands, gravelly sands, little
or no fines
Poorly—graded (well—sorted) sands, gravelly sands, little
or no fines
Silty sands, sand—silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand—clay mixtures
Inorganic slits, very fine sands, clayey silts, low
plasticity
Inorganic clays, low to medium plasticity, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine, sandy
or silty soils, elastic silts
Example of
corresponding USDA soil
• textural description
Gravel, gravelly sand
Same as above
Very gravelly
silt loam
Very gravelly
Same as above
Coarse to fine sand
Loamy sand or sandy loam
Sandy clay loam or sandy
clay
Silt or silt loam
Silty clay loam or clay
loam
Mucky silt loam
Micaceous or diatomaceous
silt
Group symbol
GW
C?
GM
CC
SW
SP
SM
SC
)uJ
CL
OL
u1
sand or
clay loam
-------
TABLE 7 • DESCRIPTIONS OF USCS SOIL GROUPS (20) (continued)
Group symbol
Typical group description
Example of
corresponding USDA soil
textural description
CM
Inorganic clays
of high plasticity, fat clays
Silty clay
OH
Organic clays of
medium to high plasticity, organic
silts
Mucky silty clay
Pt
Peat and other h
ighly organic soils
Ilucks and peots
-------
TABLE 8. TECHNIQUES USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS,
NITRIC ACID DIGESTS AND GROUNIWIATER FILTRATES
Chemical
Lowest reporting
conceutr at ion
species
Procedures and/or instrumentation*
(ppm)
SO 4 Standard Turbidimetric Methodt in combination 8
with a Varian Model 635 Spectrophotometer
SO Standard Potassium lodide—lodate Titration 1
tnethodt
Cl Standard Mercuric Nitrate Titration methodt 5
N0 3 —N Technicon II Auto Analyzer, Industrial Method 0.01
no. lO0—7 J±
N0 2 —N Same as above 0.01
CN Technicon II Auto—Analyzer, Industrial Method 0.01
no. 315—74W±
TOC Determined with Envirotech Model No. DC 50 1
TOC Analyzer
Ca Determined with a Spectrametrics Argon Plasma 0.03
Emission Spectrophotometer Model II
Fe Determined with Perkin—Elmer Heated Graphite D.003
Atomizer Atomic Absorption Unit
K Determined with a Spectrametrics Argon Plasma 0.05
Emission Spectrophotometer Mode]. II
Mg Same as above 003
Mn Determined with Perkin—Elmer Heated Graphite 0.001
Atomizer Atomic Absorption Unit
Na Determined with Spectrametrics Argon Plasma 0.03
Emission Spectrophotometer Model II
(continued)
30
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Chemical
species
Lowest reporting
concentration
Procedures and/or instrumentation* (ppm)
As
Determined with a Gaseous Hydrid
Perkin—Elmer Atomic Absorption
e System, 0.001
Unit
B
Determined with a Spectrametrics
Emission Spectrophotometer Mod
Argon Plasma 0.02
el II
Be
Determined with a Perkin—Elmer Heated Graphite 0.0005
Atomizer Atomic Absorption Unit
Cd
Same as above
0.0003
Cr
Same as above
0.003
Cu
Same as above
0.003
Hg
Determined with a Nisseisangyo Zeeman Shift 0.0002
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
Ni
Determined with a Perkin—Elmner Heated Graphite 0.005
Atomizer Atomic Absorption Unit
Pb
Same as above
0.002
Se
Same as above
0.005
Zn
Same as above
0.014
* Mention of trade names or coimnercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recosuendation for use.
t Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American
Public Health Aa ociation, New York, 13th Edition, 1971.
+
T.clmicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown, New York.
31
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PHYSICAL -TESTING
The geologic materials under a FCC disposal site are subjected to several
different effects due to the presence of the waste materials. Any changes
observed in the soil are probably brought about by contact with leachate
saturated with respect to calcium, sulfate and sulfite. FCC sludge leachate
typically has a pH between 9 and 11 and contains high concentrations of sodium
and chloride. The goal of the physical testirrg program is to detect any
changes in the soil engineering parameters which could be related to the
presence of the FCC sludge/ash disposal site. Data for physical testing of
soil samples from all three sites are given in Tables 9—11. The most pronounced
effects should occur directly below the sludge/soil interface . For this
reason Table 12 compares physical properties of the topmost soil samples taken
below the disposal area with soil samples taken at comparable depths outside
the disposal area. Interaction between the sludge (and its leachate) and the
underlying soil would be expected to:
a) increase the dry density of the sediment (or soil) because the
calcium sulfate/sulfite sludge would be filling intergranular spaces
in the sediment under the disposal site;
b) increase water holding capacity in coarse—grained sediments due to
the increased surface area brought about by the addition of fine—
grained material;
c) decrease the permeability due to obstruction of interpore connections
in the sediment; and,
d) increase the percent fines in grain—size analyses due to the inf ii—
tration of small sludge crystals or crystal aggregates.
At site K, there was no consistent influence of the disposal site on the
physical characteristics measured in soil below the site. Only one sample was
tested from under the disposal site and it shoved a very slightly decreased
dry density, increased water content and a slightly higher permeability. The
percent fine—grained material was approximately the same under the site and
outside the site. The usual low permeability observed in shales and clays
found at this site minimizes any infiltration and therefore its effects on
physical properties. At site L, a pattern of changes in physical character-
istics closer to that predicted was observed. The most obvious change was the
32
-------
TABLE 9. PHYSICAL TESTING DATA FOR SAMPLES FROM SITE K
Boring
Sample
Depth
Dry
density
Water
content
Permeability or
hydraulic cond.
no.
no.
(m)
- (g/cc)
(%)
(cm/sec)
Classification
1 P3 5.76-5.91 Lean clay (CL) with sand, light brown
2 P1 5.76—6.10 1.49 29.2 2.94 x io8 Plastic clay (CR) with trace sand, brown
P3 8.70—8.92 —-- —— —— Silty clay (CL), dark gray
3 P1 1.74—2.15 1.72 18.5 2.55 x 101 Lean clay (CL) with sand, dark brown
P3 4.79—5.29 1.67 19.5 6.30 x 10 Plastic clay (C li), brown
P5 7.83—8.32 — — —— —— Lean clay (CL) with trace sand, dark gray
4 P1 3.26—3.75 1.73 17.7 6.20 x l0 Lean clay (CL) with sand, dark brown
P4 7.83—8.29 1.60 23.4 23.0 x 10 Plastic clay (CH) with trace sand,
dark gray
5 P1 1.74—2.20 1.58 24.9 4.70 x 101 Plastic clay (CII) with sand, dark brown
P2 2.65—3.12 1.71 20.0 1.03 x 10 Lean clay (CL) with sand, dark brown
6 P1 2.96—3.41 —— Lean clay (CL) with trace sand, light
brown
P2 3.87-4.19 1.81 18.0 6.80 x 10 Lean clay (CL) with sand, dark brown
7 P1 2.96—3.31 Sandy clay (CH), brown
Note: —— indicates no data available.
-------
TABLE 10. PHYSICAL TESTING DATA FOR SAMPLES FROM SITE L
Boring
no.
Sample
no.
Depth
(m)
Dry
density
(g/cc)
Water
content
(%)
Permeability or
hydraulic cond.
(cm/aec)
Classification
1
P1
3.14— 3.81
1.65
20.2
1.82 x io 6
Lean clay (CL) with sand, brown
2
P1
P2
14.72—14.78
15.67—15.97
——
1.84
9.5
—— 4
4.20 x 10
Silty sand (SM), light brown
Gravelly sand (SP—SM), brown
.
3
4
P1
P1
P2
6.64— 6.95
3.87— 4.30
8.20— 8.41
1.78
1.51
1.87
5.7
9.4
4.1
1.18 x lO
1.92 x iol
2.76 x 10
Gravelly sand (SP—SM), brown
Silty sand (SM), light brown
Gravelly, silty sand (SM), dark
brown
6
P1
P2
4.51— 4.69
12.71—12.80
1.61
——
8.3
——
1.02 x 1O
——
Silty sand (SM), gray
Gravelly sand (SF), gray
7
P1
4.51— 4.91
1.53
13.2
1.13 x 1O
Silty sand (SM), brown
Note: —— indicates no data available.
-------
TABLE 11. PHYSICAL TESTING DATA FOR SMIPLES FROM SITE H
1 P1 4.01—4.27
P2 5.85—6. 25
P3 7.10—1.62
2 P1 0.55—1.07
P4 4.36—4.82
3 Pt 0.55—1.01
P2 1.46—1.77
P3 3.63—4.08
P4 4.36—4 88
4 P1 2.53—3.05
P2 3.44—3.87
P3 5.58—5.88
P5 7.86—8.38
5 P4 5.12—5.64
6 P1 0.55—1.07
P2 1.46—1.92
P3 3.57—3.96
7 P1 0.55—0.76
P2 1.46—1.98
P3 3.60—4.11
—3
10_4
10 .3
10
8.2 2.41 x 101
22.2 2.94 x 10
—44
10..5
10_4
1O_3
10
—5
10_S
10_3
103
10
1.64 20.1 2.42 x 1O
1.60
19.3
1.96
1.49
3.1
1.95
1.60
12.2
2.29
1.29
30.4
4.42
1.33
36.2
1.79
1.21
45.0
1.86
—6
103
103
x 10
Sand (SP), gray
Silty sand (SM), gray
Sand (SP—SM), grays
Sand (SP—SM), gray
Sand (SP), light brown
Silt (ML), gray
Sandy silt (ML), brown
Silty sand (SM), brown
Silty sand (SM), gray
Plastic clay (CII) with sand, dark gray
Plastic clay (CII), gray
Silty sand (SM), brown
Sand (SP—SM), gray
Sand (SP), brown
Plastic clay (CII), gray
Silty sand (SM), gray
Sand (SP—SM), gray
Plastic clay (CU), gray
Plastic clay (CU), gray
Plastic clay (CU) with trace sand,
dark gray
Silty sand (SM), gray
Boring
Sample
Depth
Dry
density
Water
content
Permeability or
hydraulic cond.
no.
no.
(m)
(g/cc)
(Z)
(cm/sec)
Classification
12.7
13.5
23.5
2.44
1.92
2.89
U I
1.55
1.48
1.58
1.51
1.62
1.39
1.49
1.42
1.59
1.11
1.30
1.49
1.62
8.5
13.3
29.0
25.2
44.4
39. 2
4.5
22.3
1.74
7.27
4.94
1.80
1.54
2.17
1.75
2.42
—3
x 106
x l0_
x 1.0
P4 5.12—5.64 1.56 26.6 7.09 x 10
Note: —— indicates no data available.
-------
TABLE 12. COMPARISON OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE UPPERMOST
SOIL/SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED WITHIN ANT) OUTSIDE THE
DISPOSAL SITE
Sample
Location
(inside/outside)
Dry
density
(gm/cc)
Water
content
(%)
Permeability or
hydraulic cond.
(cm/sec)
Weight %
finer than
200 mesh
K2P1.
inside
1.49
29.2
2.94 x io 8
95
K3P1
X4P].
X5P1
K6P1
VJP1
outside
outside
outside
oustide
outside
1.72
1.73
1.58
—
—
18.5
17.7
24.9.
——
—
2.55 x 101
6.20 x 10_9
4.70 x 10
—
——
89
89
95
95
84
L1P 1
L2P2
L3P].
L4P].
L6P1
L7P1
inside
inside
outside
outside
outside
oustide
1.65
1.84
1.78
1.51
1.61
1.53
20.2
9.5
5.7
9.4
8.3
13.2
1.82 x 1O
4.20 x 10
1.18 x 101
1.92 x 1O_3
1.02 x.1O_3
1.13 x 10
91
—
8
15
15
27
M].P1
M4P 1
inside
inside
1.55
1.11
12.7
44.4
2.44 x iol
2.00 x 10
93
M2P].
M3P1
M6P1
M7P].
outside
outside
outside
outside
1.51
1.39
1.60
1.29
8.2
8.5
19.3
30.4
2.41 x iO
1.70 x 106
2.00 x 1O_4
4.40 x 10
6
99
98
98
Note: —— indicates no data available.
36
-------
decreased permeability found in samples from beneath the disposal pit. At
least one soil sample under the disposal area showed increased dry density,
increased water content and a higher percentage of fines. At site N, great
variability in sail type was observed at the disposal site (see Table 11) and
this masked the effects that might be produced by the disposal pond. If
homogenous coarse—grained sediments underlie the disposal area, it is possible
to detect physical changes that can be related to the presence of the disposal
site; but these effects are easily concealed by natural variations in sediment
types. Although there is some suggestion of decreased permeability at the
sludge—soil interface at sites L and M there is no conclusive evidence of
self—sealing under the sludge pit or pond.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER
The goal on the groundwater investigation is to determine if changes in
chemical parameters observed in different borings at each site could be related
to the position of the boring underneath or outside the disposal area. Data
for chemical analysis of the groundwater samples are given in Tables 13, 14,
and 15.
Published analyses of FCC sludge liquors and elutriates indicate that
high and variable levels of many chemical constituents can be xeleased to
contacting waters (Table 16). As would be expected, calcium and sulfate are
found at extremely high levels —— >700 and >2000 ppm respectively in typical
sludge liquor samples. Calcium levels in high quality water supplies are
normally around 10 ppm, and the calcium limit for water of good potability is
about 200 ppm, producing a very hard water. Water quality standards (25)
recoi.nend sulfate levels of less than 250 ppm due to taste and laxative
effects; ideal drinking water having none or a trace. Sludge liquors also
contain trace metals which are contributed mainly by ash co—disposed with the
FGC sludge. Many of these trace metals occur in quantities which are well
above the levels permitted in public drinking water supplies. The most fre-
quent problems are excessive amounts of boron, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead,
manganese, and selenium (16). Chloride typically runs about 10 times (median
of 2300 ppm) the drinking water standards and thus constitutes a major problem
as it is always present in soluble forms which are easily leached into contac-
ting waters.
The randomization test (Table 17) did indicate significant contrasts
between groundwater samples taken underneath and outside the disposal sites.
Significant increases in means between samples under the site as contrasted to
outside the site could be found in mercury and lead at site K; iron, arsenic,
chromium and lead at site L; and in sulfate, chloride and sodium at site M.
The experimental borings at site K were made through pads of bottom ash
dumped into several feet of standing water in the pond. At this site, o e of
the holes under the disposal site (boring 2) showed indications of being badly
conteadnated by sludge pond liquor. Sulfate, iron, manganese, boron and
chromium all were found at higher concentrations .chan are acceptable for
drinking water. In contrast, boring 1 which is also within the pond and only
about 100 meters from boring 2, showed no evidence of infiltrating pond liquor
37
-------
TABLE 13. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUNDWATER OBTAINED FROM BORINGS AT SITE K
•
Parameters
Up groundwater gradient
Boring
6
Under
Boring
1
site
Boring
2
Down groundwater
Boring
3
gradient
SO
5014
Cl 3
900
1
10
180
<1
5
11400
1
5
142
<1
5
N0 . -!
N0 —N
2
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
< .O ].
0.11
<0.01
<0.01
TOC
10
5
12
6
Ca
95.00
)49.00
59.00
65.00
Fe
0.100
0.055
O.531
0.079
Mg
70.00
18.00
39.00
20.00
Mn
0.117
0.009
14.1430
0.123
Na
310.00
82.00
23.00
95.00
As
ND
ND
ND
ND
B
0.314
0.22
1.07
0.03
Be
0.0390
0.1130
0.0280
0.0390
Cd
0.00014
<0.0003
0.0003
<0.0003
Cr
<0.003
<0.003
0.076
cO.003
Cu
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
Hg
<0.0002
0.0017
0.00014
<0.0002
Ni
0.1456
0.251
1.360
0.365
Pb
0.002
0.002
0.003
<0.002
Se
ND
ND
NI)
NI)
Zn
0.170
0.082
0.090
0.170
Note: All values are in rng/t.
ND Not determined.
-------
TABLE 14. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CROUNDUATER OBTAINED FROM BORINGS AT SITE L
Parmetors
Up groundwater
Boring
3
gradient
Boring
$
Under
Boring
1
site
Boring
2
Down
Boring
5
groundwater
Boring
6
gradient
Boring
1
S0
SO.
Ci
NO -N
N0 -N
CU
T OC
2 1s9
<1
35
5.08
0.05
0.01
11.
139
‘1
30
6.6o
0.06
0.01
12
U i)
Kr)
ND
ND
N t)
<0.01
19
ND
ND
ND
ND
NI)
<0.01
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.01
29
1399
‘1
50
.25
O.OIe
0.01
22
299
‘1
35
3.142
0.0 ).
ND
ND
ç,a
Fe
Mg
Mn
Na
215.00
<0.003
11.90
9.230
22.140
169.10
<0.003
68.80
6.390
18.90
325.00
0.117
614.60
1.290
18.60
272.00
0.103
50.90
2.81
60.00
235.00
<0.003
93.10
3.780
22.70
1432.00
‘0.003
160.00
12.000
30.20
212.l
‘0.003
614.80
2.010
31.90
A
B
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
<0.005
0.76
0.0050
0.0003
<0.003
<0.003
ND
0.062
<0.002
0.005
-------
TABLE 15. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUNDWATER OBTAINED FROM BORINGS AT SITE M
Paremeters
Up groundwater
Boring
2
gradient
Boring
3
Under
Boring
1
site
Boring
14
Doim
Boring
5
groun
dvater
Boring
6
gradient
Boring
7
S0
30
Cl 3
N0,—N
N0 -N
CN
1214
<1
15
9.214
0.09
<0.01
69
<1
10
ls.10
0.13
0.01
259
<1
145
0.61
0.06
‘0.01
1499
<1
30
0.12
0.03
‘0.01
514
2
‘5
0.68
0.05
<0.01
99
‘1
15
0.149
0.014
<0.01
219
1
15
o. 1 1 4
o.oI
<0.01
TOC
11
10
18
13
13
18
21’
C a
158.30
177.80
121.60
221.00
1148.70
151.90
225.00
Fe
(0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
Mg
314.00
147.140
2.80
11.50
143.50
141.90
914.10
Mn
0.716
1.7140
‘0.002
0.566
1.130
1.350
2.314
Ne
8.20
10.60
87.70
81.140
11.70
21.50
61.70
As
<0.005
0.005
‘0.005
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
B
0.32
0.22
0.614
l . 1 4o
0.25
0.814
0.82
Be
‘0.0005
‘0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
<0.0005
.
<0.0005
‘0.0005
Cd
<0.0003
‘0.0003
<0.0003
<0.0003
<0 0003
<0.0003
‘0.0003
Cr
<0.003
<0.003
0.0114
‘0.003
<0.003
(0.003
‘0.003
Cu
<0.003
‘0.003
‘0.003
<0.003
<0.003
‘0.003
<0.003
Hg
0.00014
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
<0.0002
‘0.0002
<0.0002
Ni
0.008
0.011
o.Oib
<0.005
0.011
<0.005
<0.005
Pb
0.009
0.002
0.006
<0. o02
0.002
0.002
‘0.002
Se
0.009
0.035
<0.005
0.011
<0.005
0.011
0.008
Zn
o. 0i 1 4
<0.0114
<0.0114
0.0141
0.090
0.0 18
o.01 1 4
C
Note: All values are in mg/i.
ND • Not determined.
-------
TABLE 16. TYPICAL CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS IN FCC SLUDGE
POND LIQUOR AND ELUTRIATES (3) AND SURFACE WATER CRITERIA FOR
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES (25,26)
Constituent
Eastern coal
median conc.
(ppm)
Western coal
median cone.
(ppm)
Maximum
permissible
level
(ppm)
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
0.020 (l5)*
0.014 (6)
41.0 (1)
0.023 (11)
700 (15)
0.009 (7)*
0.013 (7)
8.0 (1)
0.032 (11)
720 (6)
0.05
—
1.0
0.01
——
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
0.020 (15)
0.35 (3)
0.015 (15)
0.026 (5)
0.12 (15)
0.08 (7)
0.14 (2)
0.20 (7)
4.3 (2)
0.016 (7)
0.05
——
——
0.3
0.05
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
0.17 (8)
0.00]. (10)
5.3 (1)
0.13 (II)
0.11 (14)
0.74 (6)
<0.01 (7)
0.91 (1)
0.09 (6)
0.14 (7)
0.05
—
—
0.01
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
118 (6)
0.046 (15)
2,300 (9)
3.2 (9)
2,100 (13)
—
0.18 (7)
—
1.5 (3)
3 7O0 (7)
—
250
1.0
250
Total dissolved
solids
7,000 —
12,000 (3)
500
* Total number of observations recorded.
41
-------
TABLE 17. RESULTS OF RANDOMIZATION TESTS FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES PROM SITES K, L AND M
Parameters
Site K
Site L
Site N
SO 4
SO
ci 3
NS
NS
S(decreases)*
ND
ND
ND
S(increases)
BDL
S(increases)
NO-N
N0 3 -N
CN 2
MS
BDL
NS
ND
ND
S(decreases)
NS
NS
S(decreases)
TOC
MS
NS
NS
Ca
Fe
S(decreases)
NS
NS
S(increases)
NS
NS
Mg
N S
S(decreases)
S(decreases)
Mn
NS
S(decreases)
S(decreases)
Na
S(decreases)
NS
S(increases)
As
NS
S(increases)
MS
B
NS
NS
NS
MS
Be
BDL
NS
Cd
NS
NS
NS
Cr
BDL
S(increases)
BDL
Cu
BDL
BDL
NS
Hg
S(increases)
ND
BDL
Ni
NS
S(decreases)
NS
Pb
S(increases)
S(increases)
MS
Se
ND
NS
MS
Zn
S
NS
NS
MS = Not significant at 80% confidence level.
S — Significant at 80% confidence level.
BDL Below detection limits.
ND Not determined.
*Refers to increase or decrease of constituent under disposal site relative
to outside.
42
-------
and was below the maximum permissible level for public water supplies for all
constituents measured (25,26).
The groundwater sampling program at site K was complicated by impervious
rock units and a low water table associated with the Pennsylvanian shales and
limestones in the area. Five of the holes drilled failed to reach the satura-
ted zone before encountering rock units that could not be penetrated by the
auger. The well bored as a control up the postulated groundwater gradient from
the disposal pond ( ,oring 6) appears to have encountered a local, saturated
zone created by infiltration of pond liquor into the colluvium and weathered
shale forming the valley wall. The water level (elevation 260.06 in) measured
in the well is 2.37 meters below the elevation of the surface of the disposal
pond, suggesting the ponding has caused invasion (for distance of at least 200
meters) into the local colluvial materials.
In boring 3, which is down the apparent groundwater gradient from the
disposal pond, levels for most chemical constituents are present in lower
concentrations than that observed for boring 6 (the upgradient control hole).
Boring 3 is in close proximity (approximately 10 meters distance) to the
margin of a 1052—hectar cooling lake. Uncontaminated water from the lake
could easily infiltrate the boring and bring about the low concentrations
found in this groundwater sample. The elevation of water in the well is less
than a meter below the level of the lake surface suggesting an hydraulic
connection.
Of the two experimental borings through the disposal pond, one (boring 2)
yielded a groundwater sample that approaches pond liquor in composition (see
Table 16); while groundwater from the other (boring 1) appears to be much less
effected by the surrounding waste. In fact, groundwater from boring 1 i
(with the exception of sulfate content) within the range of composition
observed for groundwater from other wells in the county (Table 18). The
sulfate level was 190% higher than the highest value obtained from local water
wells. The difference in water levels observed in experimental borings 1 and
2 (approximately 7 in) suggests no hydraulic connection exists between the two
veils. The materials in the disposal pond include ash and FGC sludges. Sludge
was noted, mixed with ash, in the hole during the drilling of boring 2.
Boring 1, on the other hand, penetrated only ash and clay. The differences in
water samples may be related to this inhomogeneous distribution of FCC sludge
and ash in the disposal pond. The only trace metals that the randomization
test indicated were sigificantly increased in groundwater below the disposal
pond are lead and mercury; two elements probably associated with ash, present
in both experimental borings.
In s” ry, at site K, only the groundwater in borings 6 (control boring)
and 2 (experimental boring) show the effects of contamination from disposal
pond liquor. The lack of wider contamination is probably due to the low
permeability of the ash, clay and shale at and around boring 1, and the 1a k
of permeability in the clay and shales under the disposal pond and between the
pond and boring 3.
At site L, the experimental borings were made directly through the surface
of the solid sludge that had been dumped into the pit. The material had
43
-------
TABLE 18. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUNDWATER FROM WELLS NEAR SITE K
Local veil
number
31
36
3
19
32
29
Range
Cone.
(ag/t)
) .i-62.D
so
62.0
52.0
.1
30.0
30.0
8.0
Cl
5.0
ih.0
1030.0
6.0
9.0
•
F
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
-
o.b
0.1-0.8
CO 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127-566
HCO 3
127
25h
1405
310
566
239
6.2
O. 1 4 14h.0
MO 3
12.0
8.9
8.0
1i 1 4.o
12.0
7.5—11.0
8i0 2
12.0
17.0
17.0
7.5
Ca
143
•
99
315
il ls
28
65
28—315
Fe
0.18
0.05
0.014
0.214
2.30
0.15
0.014—2.30
K
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Mg
13.0
5.1
69.0
•
5.1
13.0
15.0
0.00
5.1—69.0
0
Mn
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Na
12.0
9.7
330.0
9.9
209.0
9. 1 *
9. *—330.0
ND Not determined.
-------
sufficient bearing capacity to support the drill rig. No standing water was
present. At this site, all of the wells show some effects of pollutants. Even
groundwater from upgradient borings show high levels of nitrate, manganese and
boron. In the case of nitrate and manganese most of the groundwater samples
analyzed in this study exceeded the levels obtained from other wells in the
general area that intercept the same surface aquifer (Table 19). Groundwater
from all the borings made in this investigation exceeded the concentration
limits recommended for public water supplies for manganese and all except
boring 3 exceeded the limits for boron. These high background levels are
probably due to materials added to the groundwater by other industrial disposal
pits in the area.
The most severe groundwater contamination at site L was not observed in
the borings directly through the disposal pit (borings 1 and 2), but rather in
the borings made down the groundwater gradient from the pit (borings 5, 7 and
expecially 6). The randomization test points out significant differences
between groundwater from the borings inside and outside pit; therefore in this
case, the results are not as helpful in pointing Out the materials leaching
from the pit as they might be if the maximum pollutant concentrations had
occurred (as would be expected) in borings through the waste. The randomiza-
tion test did show significantly increased concentrations of iron, arsenic,
chromium and lead in groundwater direct ly under the disposal pit. With the
exception of calcium, magnesium and manganese the concentrations of all elements
measured directly under the disposal area were within the range observed for
water from wells drilled into this same aquifer (Table 19). Calcium in water
from directly under the disposal pit was only 30% higher than the highest
values obtained from local water wells. Concentrations of magnesium increased
by about 40% under the disposal area and manganese increased by 3%. In the
down gradient holes, calcium levels increased by 73% over the highest values
for local water wells. Concentrations of magnesium increased by 208% and
manganese by 344%. Sulfate levels, where measured, exceeded limits for public
water supply and were up to 191% above highest level in local water wells.
The results of groundwater analyses at site L were unexpected in that the
contaminants reached maximum levels in wells down the groundwater gradient
from the disposal pit. These high levels may be due to the flow pattern in-
volved in movement of groundwater through and under the disposal site. The
borings in the pit are approximately centered so that the half of the disposal
pit up the groundwater flow gradient is the otiiy part contributing pollutants
to the groundwater collected from the experimental borings. The down gradient
control holes, on the other hand, (especially boring 6) are located on the
edge of the disposal pit and receive water contaminated during travel under
the entire width of the pit. In addition, water washing across the surface of
the sludge and infiltrating at the edge of the pit may be a source of some of
the contaminants appearing in the dowodip borings.
At site M, the sludge is placed in the pond as a slurry and in some
places has such 1.0w bearing capacity that it will not support the drill rig.
At this site, the results of the randomization test indicate that sulfate,
chloride and sodium levels are significantly increased in the groundwater
under the disposal pond. This is as would be expected if typical sludge pond
liquor were moving into the groundwater. Groundwater samples from borings
45
-------
TABLE 19. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUNDWATER FROM WELLS NEAR SITE L
Local
veil
number 1 3 1. 5 6 7 8 10 Rsng.
Cone. (mg/i)
so 56 1.80 96 61. 130 290 56 — 1 .Bo
Cl 21. 13 82 1 1.0 1.2 15 190 18 13—190
F 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2—0.5
CO 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HC O 3 122 1.73 1 .i8 363 1.35 1.21. 1.50 1.1.0 122—1.73
NO 3 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.1.0 1.30 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00—2.70
8102 1.6 17.0 16.0 16.0 20.0 19.0 17.0 19.0 7.6—20.0
Ca 1.0 250 120 11.0 100 120 220 120 1.0-250
Fe 0.10 6.30 1.50 1h.000 0.30 1.30 3.60 6.90 0.iO _i I*.O0
K 3.0 3.9 2.9 2.14 3.0 2.6 7.5 1.1. 1.I ._7.5
Mg 10 52 38 .1.0 35 36 1.9 35 10—52
o. 18 i.6o 0.90 1.20 0.00 0.50 2.70 O.21 0—2.70
Na 18 10 1.6 26 35 i I 65 11 10—65
ND Not determined.
-------
under the disposal site contain concentrations of sulfate, manganese, boron
and selenium that exceed the levels reconm ended for public water supply systems.
Concentrations of sulfate, chloride, calcium and sodium in groundwater under
the site are above the maximum concentrations found in published well water
analyses in the same gravel aquifer (Table 20). Sulfate levels are up to 177%
higher, chlorIde 32% higher, calcium 16% higher and sodium 47% higher.
At site M, the location of the control holes and the flow pattern in the
aquifer allowed dilution to be observed in down gradient control borings 5 and
6. These two hol s may be on the margin of the pollution plume. Control
boring 7, however, has the highest levels of total organic carbon, calcium,
magnesium and manganese observed in any groundwater sample from this site.
Boring 7 may be showing the maximum effect of the plume from the disposal pond
with possible added effects of pollution from coal storage pile drainage.
From the groundwater analyses of all three sites sampled, it can be con-
cluded that FCC sludge (and ash) disposal degrades groundwater quality if
contaminated water from the site is allowed to escape into the water table. At
site K contaminants are found only in borings penetrating directly through FCC
sludge or through a local, perched water table associated with the disposal
pond. The lack of permeable geologic materials around the pond appears to be
responsible for the high degree of pollutant containment that could be observed.
At site L, the surrounding materials are permeable sands and gravels, but
relatively dry sludge is being placed in a pit not in a settling pond and
little water is maintained above the sludge and ash. Greatest contamination
is observed in borings down the groundwater gradient rather than under the
disposal pit. At site H, the settling/disposal pond is also situated on
permeable sands and gravel. Degradation of groundwater quality was detected
both beneath and down the groundwater gradient from the disposal pond.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS -
The goal of the distilled water extraction procedure was to determine the
availability of chemical constituents to water contacting the soils. The
content of this soil extract varies depending on the following:
a) the original components of the soil and their solubilities in
distilled water,
b) the way in which these components have interacted with leachate from
the FCC sludge/ash mixture,
c) the extent to which water—soluble and leachate—solubie components of
the soil have heen removed through solution,
d) the solubilities of materials that are precipitated, filtered or
absorbed from the leachate, and
e) the amount and content of the interstitial water present in the
samples.
47
-------
TABLE 20. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUNDWATER FROM WELLS NEAR SITE H
Local
well
number 1 16 1.5 113 Range
Cone. (mg/f)
SO 133 180 52 130 52—180
Cl 313 21 16 16 16—313•
F 0.5 0.13 0.2 0.3 0.2-0.5
Co 3 ND ND ND ND
HCO 3 390 219 790 337 219—790
NO 3 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1—1.1
Sf0 2 20 i6 30 18 16—30
Ca 105 70 190 85 70-190
Fe 3.30 0.22 3.80 0.59 0.22-3.80
K 5.13 6.1 9.1 5.7 5.13—9.1
Mg 313 20 135 23 20—135
Mn 1.9 0.30 5.60 o.13 1 3 0.30-5.60
Na 136 60 23 55 23-60
ND = Not determined.
-------
Examination of pond liquor and elutriate from FGC sludges (Table 16)
indicates that leachate from FCC disposal areas will be saturated with respect
to calcium sulfate, will have a high pH, and will contain appreciable amounts
of sodium, chloride, boron, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese and
selenium. In passing through the soil/sediment, this solution will undergo
ion exchange with clay minerals encountered, bring about increased. solubilization
of silica or aluminum, and cause some precipitation of metals dissolved in
interstitial water but the major portion of material in solution in the leachate
will remain in solution and will be carried into the groundwater. It is
expected that attenuation by filtration, adsorption or ion exchange will
reduce the pollution potential of the leachate only slightly.
Comparison of Distilled Water Extracts Beneath
and Outside the Disposal Sites
The results of the chemical analyses of the distilled water extracts of
the soil samples are given in Tables 21—26. The results of the randomization
test are given in Table 27. At site K, significant differences in the com-
position of the distilled water extracts were observed only for nitrate and
mercury. Nitrate showed a small increase in water extracts of sub—site soils.
This may have been due to the presence of nitrates scrubbed from the flue gas.
The small decrease in mercury observed in the distilled water extract from the
sub—site soil may be related to the increased alkalinity (high pH) of the
leachate from the sludge pond. Host metals have low solubility un’ler moderately
alkaline conditions.
At site L, the randomization test showed significant increases in sul-
fate, sodium and boron in distilled water extracts from soil directly beneath
the &sposal site as compared to soil samples taken at comparable depths
outside the disposal site. These were the only significant contrasts noted at
this site. High sodium and sulfate levels would be expected from a FGC sludge
leachate because the interstitial water in the sludge cousnonly contains both
of these constituents. Elevated levels of boron are usually associated with
ash, not FCC sludge. Therefore it is likely that the boron is derived from
ash co—disposed with the air cleaning sludge.
At site H, sulfate, boron, potassium, arsenic and selenium showed signi-
ficantly increased levels in the distilled water extracts from under the
disposal site as contrasted with the soil/sedijnent samples collected at similar
elevations outside the disposal site. The latter four elements are associated
with ash more often than with FCC sludges, therefore the increases detected in
these elements can probably be related to the ash co—disposed with the FGC
sludge. Significant decreases in nitrite, iron, magnesium and manganese were
detected in the distilled water extracts from under the disposal site. The
lower nitrite level was probably related to low levels of nitrite in the
FCC/ash leachate and the lack of vegetation that releases nitrogen compounds
in the disposal pit as compared to the surrounding area. The lover iron,
magnesium and manganese levels were probably related to the higher pH that
would lower the solubility of these metals under the disposal site.
In general very little contrast in concentration of distilled—water
extractable materials was detected under the disposal sites. The most con—
49
-------
TABLE 21. ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE K
Boring
and e*unple
id
1C2
1C3
- 1C 1 4
2C1
2C2
2C3
2Ch
Elevation (in)
261.23
260.112
258.30
256.32
260.01
258.0 ) 1
257.17
255.01
Depth below
aludge/soil
interface (in) 0.23 1.11* 3.26 —1.83 0.11* 1.01 3.11
lit, above water
table (in) —0.23 —3.26 5.00 3.17 2.16 o.o6
Conc. (mgIt)
so 1*2 211 8 20 i’ 00 20 20 16
80
-------
TULE 22. ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL DORINGS AT SITE K
bring
and
a 1* )C5 5C 1 5C2 6ci 6C2 6C3 7C1 7C2 7C3 —
• N i. above water
table (rn) - 7.65 (dry) (dry) 2.36 1.1.5 —2.11 (dry) (dry) • (dry) (dry)
Poiitio* in
groundwater
gradient Dovndip Downdip Dovndip Updip Updip Updip Updip Updip Updip Updip
Conc. (ag/i)
801. 120 180 1.6 68 18 1.0 28 214 16 16
80% 3. 1 ‘1 <1 ‘1 1 <1 1 ‘1 <1
Cl <5 <5 ‘5 <5 <5 <5 5 ‘5 <5 <5
NO3 N 0.06 0.05 0.02 <0.01 ‘0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01. 0.01.
N0 2 —N <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01
CN <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 <0.01
TOC 38 1.2 jI . 2 10 8 1 11 5 16
Ca 8.00 13.00 9.00 6.50 6.00 2.50 1.00 6.00 8.00 14.50
Fe 35.000 .180.000 3 1i.500 0.690 2.500 1.210 0.623 10.500 1.130 8.000
K ND ND ND ND ND MD ND ND ND NI)
Mg 8.00 314.00 16.00 3.50 3.10 2.80 14.20 3.20 3.20 14.1 .0
Mn 0.1402 0.57( 0.227 ‘0.002 o. 0i8 0.011 0.010 0.116 o.oo 1 . 0.071.
Na 14.30 25.00 25.00 36.00 514.00 114.00 16.00 9.00 15.00 11.00
ND ND ND NI) ND ND ND ND ND ND
8 o.o6 0.214 0.10 o.ob 0.05 0.06 0.10 <0.02 o.o146 0.0143
Be 0.0060 0.0180 0.0080 <0.0005 0.0010 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0010 <0.0005 0.0020
Cd - <0.0003 0.0011 0.0011 0.0006 <0.0003 0.0001 0.0005 o. 0 0 06 0.0001. 0.0003
Cr 0.081 0.1.01 0.138 <0.003 0.0014 <0.003 <0.003 0.099 <0.003 0.003
Cu 0.025 0.110 0.030 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 ‘0.003 0.055 <0.003 0.003
o.ooo 1 4 0.0015 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0012 o.ooo1. <0.0002 .zO.0002
Ni o.io6 0.283 0.1314 0.035 0.035 <0.005 <0.005 0.067 <0.005 o.oo6
Pb 0.012 0.090 0.026 0.002 <0.002 0.081 o.oo6 0.016 <0.002 0.012
Se ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Zn 0.317 o.i6 1 . 0.326 o.o66 0.033 0.050 0.058 0.135 0.102 0.130
ND Not determined.
-------
TABLE 23. ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE L
Soring
end sesuple
id
1C2
1C3
1C 1 1 2C1 2C2 2C3 2C 1 1
E1ev tion
(in)
132.02
130.118
129.56
127.1 48 130.25 123.39 122.91 121.98
Depth below
eludge/noll
interface (in) _i. 145 0.09 1.01 3.10 —0.38 0.10 1.03
Ut. above water
table (in) 10.75 9.21 8.29 6.21 8.149 1.63 1.15 0.22
Conc. (mg/t)
SO 11 1721 226 116 ‘ cC 316 1496 1116 66
SO c i <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
ci 3 <5 <5 15 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
NO -N ‘0.01 0.21 0.011 0.2 1* 0.50 0.58 0.02 0.311
U’ N0 -N 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02 <0.01 ‘0.01
C l i ‘0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
TOC 6 11 11 <1 <1 <1 ‘1 16
Ca 1178.30 211.70 iT.6 0 12.00 1 1*9.30 2511.30 13.30 20.30
P. <0.003 (0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 ‘0.003 <0.003 <0.003
K NI) ND ND ND ND NI) NI) ND
14€ 0.9110 11.600 7.300 2.1100 1.000 0.1100 0.250 i.6oo
Mn ‘0.002 <0.002 11.720 <0;002 <0.002 <0.002 0.038 <0.002
Na 12.20 5.110 1.110 0.59 5.80 3.10 21.20 iB.6o
Ae 0.058 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.025 0.025 <0.005 <0.005
8 8.io 2.19 0.15 ‘0.02 11.25 3.95 0.51 0.511
1 e <0.0005 <0.0005 <0,0005 <0.0005 0.0100 0.0100 <0.0005 <0.0005
Cd <0.0003 0.0220 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 ‘0.0003 <0.0003
Cr 0.003 <0.003 <0.003. <0.003 0.035 0.036 <0.003 <0.003
Cu <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Hg <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Ni ‘0.005 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Pb <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Se 0.058 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.035 0.0111 <0.005 <0.005
Zn <0.0111 <0.0111
-------
TABLE 24. ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTUCTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORINGS AT SITE L
Iorta$
ø4 easpis
tcs
ACt
4C2
AC)
4C4
4C5
S d
5C2
SC)
Elevettos
(.)
121.30
132.97
128.70
124.60
123. 55
121.42
130.60
129.69
127.59
Ni. abovs water
gab ls’(ui) —0.41 10.93 6.66 2.56 1.51 —0.62 9.22 8.31 6.21
Po.ttton In
irondwaisr
r adIsnt Up4tp Updip Updtp UpdIp Upd lp UpdIp Doundip Downdtp Downdtp
ColIc. (./t)
SO 8 14 <6 <8 cS ‘8 21 56 14
SO. <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1
C1 35 <5 15 <5 100 25 ‘5 ‘5 <5
NO -N 0.50 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.19 0.67 1.14 1.60
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01
CM <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01
LI tOG 2 <1 11 18 <1 10 <1 <1 <1
C 38.30 4.30 15.10 8.50 69.10 33.50 16.10 27.50 13.80
Fe <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.290 <0.003 <0.003 0.100 <0.003 <0.003
K ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Kg 6.60 3.10 6.00 2.20 7.90 6.20 6.50 11.50 5.00
Ha 0.020 0.003 <0.002 0.016 0.044 0.120 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
N a 1.00 0.97 0.51 0.38 0.38 1.10 1.40 4.10 1.20
Aa <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
B 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.10 0.30 0.17
Be <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005
Cd <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003
Cr 0.011 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.004 <0.003
C c <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Hg <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Ni <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Pb <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 -<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Se 0.008 <0.005 . O.O05 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Zn <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014 <0.014
(continued)
-------
TABLE 24 (CONTINUED)
Boring
u d
seinpie 5C 1 1 5C5 5C6 6C5 id 7C2 7C3 ch 7C5
Elevetton (in) 125115 123. 1 *11 121.30 121.6 4 133.22 128.69 1211.98 123.911 121.90
Nt. above water
t b1e (m) 11.07 2.06 —0.08 0.33 11.37 7.01 1 3.13 2.09 0.05
Position in
groundwater
gradient Downdip Dovndip Downdip Doimdip t lovndip Dovndip Dovndip Dovndip Dornalp
Conc. (mg/i)
9011 15 <6 - <8 ii <8 <8 <8 ‘8 4
‘1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 ‘1 <1 ‘1
Ci’ <5 15 10 (5 25 (5 <5 <5 <5
NO -N 2.90 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.011 0.12
N0 3 -N <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 (0.01
CR 2 (0.01 <0.01
-------
TABLE 25. ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACI S OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE H
• Boring
and seisple
LC I
1C2 1C3 l ci l iC2
1 4C3
C5
Klevstion (is)
222.17
220.81 218.96 211
.13 221.98 221.01
218.93
217.141
216.65
Depth belqu
sludge/aol 1
Interface (a) -.1.89 0.01 1.92 3.15 0.09 1.00 3.114 ‘ .66 5.142
lit. above utter
table (es) 5.96 I..00 2.15 0.92 5.03 14.12 1.98 o.I 6 —0.30
Cone. (.(/t)
S0 76 ‘8 28 39 150 ii <8 141 39
SO 3 190 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 <1 <1
Cl 10 <5 <5 <5 10 ‘5 <5 <5 ‘5
110 3 —N ‘0.01 ‘0.01 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.02 0. O le 0.02 0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01 ‘0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01
C I I ‘0.01 ‘0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ‘0.01 <0.01
U I TOC 5 3 2 2 11 18 2 <1 9
Ct 56.20 5.10 10.10 10.50 13.20 ii.8 0 6.20 114.10 13.10
Fe 0.003 ‘0.003 0.320 <0.003 ‘0.003 0.1470 0.320 0.530 0.380
K 35.00 114.80 3.00 1.30 18.20 9.10 1.80 3.70 3.10
Mg <0.03 ‘0.03 1.10 2.00 0.22 0.76 0.52 1. 1 .0 0.61
Mn <0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.030 0.010 0.011 o.oo6
Na 20.30 3.20 3.90 14.30 214.50 16.00 2.60 6.10 14.80
0.011 0.031 tL OO7 <0.005 0.018 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 ‘0.005
B 0.014 0.13 0.05 0.014 2.15 1.01 0.11 0.91 0.36
Be <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 ‘0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005
C4 0.0019 ‘0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 ‘0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003
Cr <0.003 <0.003 ‘0.003 ‘0.003 <0.003 <0.003 ‘0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Cu <0.003 ‘0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
I lK <0.0002 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
Ni 0.0214 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Pb <0.002 <0.002 0.009 0.005 <0.002 0.0014 0.001 <0.002 0.002
Se 0.0114 0.009 0.005 <0.005 0.151 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Zn <0.0114 <0.0114
-------
TABLE 26. ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORINGS AT SITE M
Boring
.
and
awnple
2C1
2C2
2C3
2C 1 4
3C1
3C2
3C3
Elevat.
ion (a)
221.18
220.87
218.12
211.91
221.70
220.19
218.614
lit, above water
table (a) 3.96 3.05 0.90 0.15 3.69
Poeition in
groundwater
gradient Updip Updip Updip Updip l.lpdip Updip Updip
Conc. (mg/t)
S0 12 <8 16 c8 16 21 8
SO <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 ‘1
C l 3 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 (5
NO -N 0.92 0.16 0.30 0.214 ND 0.01 0.07
.1s N0 3 —N 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 O.OIi ‘0.01
CN 2 ‘0.01 (0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
TOC 7 3 5 2 6 14 14
Ca 12.80 ii.6o 19.00 17.10 30.10 17.10 19.90
Fe 0.620 0.Iil O 1.100 <0.003 0.620 3.000 <0.003
K 0.77 0.53 1.80 1.10 1.60 0.95 5.00
Mg 3.00 5.10 14.30 3.70 14.70 3.60 1.00
Mn 0.007 0.053 0.018 . 0.002 0.0114 0.039 0.012
Na 0.83 0.96 1.20 1.20 0.83 o. 1 1 4 14.50
<0.005 ‘0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
-------
TABLE 26 (CONTINUED)
boring
ant sample
3CIe
5C 1 4
6C%e
id
1C2
1C3
I d e
Elevation
(.)
217.89
217.17
216.114
221.09
220.18
218.05
216.52
Ut. above water
table m) 0.79 0.03 -0.03 3.93 1.80 0.27
Position in
groundwater
gradient Upd ip Downdip Downd ip flovudip Downdip Downdip Downdip
Conc. (mg/i)
s0 8 <8 <8 1 .5 37 145 35
50 <1 <1 ‘1 <1. <1 <1 <1
Cl 3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
NO -N 0.12 0.01. 0.01 2.12 1.02 0.62 0.01
N0 3 -N <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.13 <0.01
C M 2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
TOC 3 c i <1 9 I 8 <1
Ca 12.70 1.20 6.20 31.10 33.50 38.50 20.80
Fe 0.290 0.650 0.710 0.1.140 0.230 0.120 <0.003
Ic i.8o 0.814 0.95 5.10 3.00 6.oo 3.50
Mg 14.00 2.140 2.80 3.80 6.70 9.70 7.10
Mn 0.003 0.007 0.015 0.006 o.0o6 0.007 0.002
Na 1.10 o.6i 1.00 1.60 2.10 8.30 6.70
As <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
B 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03
Be <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005
Cd <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 0.0007 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003
Cr <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Cu <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.14314 <0.003
Hg <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 ‘0.0002
Ni <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 ‘0.005 <0.005
Pb 0.002 0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.010 <0.002
Se <0.005 <0.005 O.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Zn <0.0114 <0.0114
-------
TABLE 27. RESULTS OF RANDOMIZATION TEST ON DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF
SOIL SAMPLES DIRECTLY UNDER THE FCC DISPOSAL SITES AND AT
COMPARABLE DEPTHS OUTSIDE THE SITES
Parameters
Site K
Site L
Site M
SO
SO 4
c 3
NS
NS
BDL
S(increase)
BDL
BDL
NS
BDL
BDL
N0 3 —N
N0 2 —N
CN
S(increase)*
NS
EDt
NS
BDL
EDt
NS
S(decrease)
EDt
TOC
NS
MS
NS
Ca
NS
MS
NS
Fe
MS
BDL
S(decrease)
K
ND
ND
S(incre.ase)
Mg
MS
MS
S(decrease)
I’fri
NS
NS
S(decrease)
Na
MS
S(increase)
S(increase)
As
ND
ND
S(increase)
B
•
NS
S(increase)
S(increase)
Be
NS
BDL
EDt
Cd
NS
EDt
MS
Cr
NS
BDL
BDL
Cu
MS
BDL
BDL
Hg
S(decrease)
BDL
MS
Ni
NS
BDL
BDL
Pb
MS
BDL
MS
Se
ND
BDL
S(increase)
Zn
MS
BDL
BDL
MS Not significant at 80% confidence level.
S Significant at 80% confidence level.
BDL — Below detection limits.
ND = Not deteru ined.
* Refers to increase or decrease of constituent under disposal site
relative to outside.
58
-------
sistent changes found were increased levels of sodium and boron. Elevated
concentrations of sulfate were detected at site L. The immobilization of some
metals, probably due to high pH levels, was detected at sites K and N.
Vertical Variations of Concentrations in
Distilled Water Extracts of Soil Samples
For those elements that did show a significant difference between control
(outside disposal site) samples and experimental (inside disposal site) samples,
a test was made for a significant relationship between the available concentra-
tion of a particular constituent and sample elevation. As suggested by the
model (Figure 1), th’ ose materials present in the sludge liquor should show a
positive correlation with elevation in experimental borings (these below the
disposal area). A significant negative correlation would be predicted by the
model for those soil constituents that are being dissolved by the sludge liquor
and moved down out of the soil and into the groundwater. In control borings
the distribution of available soil constituents depends on weathering processes
and th. concentration and solubility of the particular material, and could
therefore have a significant positive or negative correlation with elevation
or no significant correlation at all.
A non—parametric test of association, the Spearman rank correlation
coefficient, was used to assess the strength of association between the con-
centration of a particular soil constituent and sample elevation. This techni-
que is suited especially for use with small sample numbers where the statistical
distribution is not known. In several cases, the small number of samples
having detectable quantities of a particular constituent made it impossible to
judge the significance of the correlation coefficients obtained. The results
of the statistical tests are given in Tables 28—30. Plots of concentration
versus sample elevation for all constituents in experimental borings that
showed statistically significant relationships with depth are presented in
Figures 7—11. Plots of significant relationships in control borings are
included for contrast. At site K, no soil/sediment constituents, as tested
above, showed any significant relationship with sample elevation. This was not
unexpected, as only nitrate and mercury showed any contrast under and outside
the disposal pond. The pond itself is underlain by impervious Pennsylvanian
shales and limestones which decreases the likelihood of vertical migration of
sludge constituents.
Site L (especially boring 1) comes closest to giving results predicted by
the model for pollutant migration. The pattern of leachable constituents
observed under the disposal pit (a significant positive correlation with
elevation) indicates that the sludge/ash in the pit is contributing boron ,
sodi , and sulfate to the soil below the pit in a water—extractable form.
The sands and gravels below the pit in this hole have low cition exchange
capacities and most of the material in these samples is probably reflecting
the concentration of these constituents in the infiltrating water.
At site M, many soil constituents showed significant contrasts beneath
and outside the disposal pond; but, only potassium and selenium (in boring 1)
showed a significant correlation of concentration in distilled water extracts
versus sample elevation under thesite. The most striking aspect of this data
59
-------
TABLE 28. CORRELATION OP CH ICAL ANALYSES OF DISTILLP.T WATER EXTRACTS OF
SOILS WITh SAMPLE ELEVATION AT SITE K
Boring
1
2
6
7
N0 3 —N
NS(O.80)*
NS(—O.40)
NS( -O.50)*
NS(—O.80)
Hg
NS(—O.20)
NS(O.40)
**
SP(l.OO)
SP — Significant positive correlation at 95% level.
SN — Significant negative correlation at 95% level.
NS - No significant correlation.
* — Significance level reduced to 83% because of small sample size for this
constituent in this boring.
— Too few samples above detection limits.
Number in parentheses is the calculated value of r 5 , the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient.
60
-------
TABLE 29 • CORRELATION OF CUDIICAL ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF
SOILS WITH SA)WLE ELEVATION AT SITE L
3oria
1
2
4
5
7
$04
SP(l.OO)
NS(O.80)
**
SP(O.88)
N.
SP(1.OO)
NS(—O.60)
NS(O.OO)
SP(O.88)
NS(—O.30)
I
SP(1.OO)
•NS(O.80)
NS(O.60)
S? • Significant positive correlation at 95% level.
SN • Significant negative correlation at 95% level.
NS • No significant correlation.
** . Too fee saaples above detection limits.
Ni er in parentheses is the calculated value of rS, Speartnan rank
correlation coefficient.
61
-------
TABLE 30. CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF DISTILLED WATER EXTRACTS OF
SOILS WITH SA LE ELEVATION AT SITE 11
Boring
1
4
2
3
7
N0 2 —N
**
**
AL
NS(0.80)
**
Fe
**
NS(—O.50)
NS(O.40)
•
NS(0.60)
SP(l.0O)
x
SP(1.OO)
NS(0.70)
NS(—0.60)
NS(—O.60)
NS(0.00)
Mg
NS(—O.80)
NS(—O.50)
NS(—O.20)
NS(O.O0)
NS(—0.80)
fri
NS(—0.40)
NS(—0.lO)
NS(O.40)
NS(0.80)
NS(O.40)
Na
NS(O.80)
NS(0.70)
NS(—0.80)
NS(—O.60)
NS(—O.80)
As
NS(0.80)
**
**
**
**
B
NS(O.40)
NS(O.70)
NS(0.40)
SP(1.0O)
Se
SP(1.0O)
**
**
**
**
SF — Significant positive correlation at 9.5% level.
SN Significant negative correlation at 95% level.
NS — No significant correlation.
** — Too few samples above detection limits.
Number in parentheses is the calculated value of r 5 , the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient.
62
-------
10
so. CONCENTRATION,
40 60 j 200
I Vr I
‘I
) I 0 tL
0 5L
I S/S SOU./SLUOGE
I INTERFACE
250 A 1,500 apoo
i,r I I
Figure 7. Variation of sulfate concentration in distilled water
extracts of soil! sediment samples with elevation in borings 1 and 5 at site L 0
0
I
I
134
32 -
130
OF DETECIION
I $
I
?
f 12$
I,.
24
Ill
eQ
LEGEND
63
-------
0 2 Nt CONC N1 ATlOH,
I2
‘4
Figure 8. Variation of sodium concentration in distilled water extracts of
soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 1 and 5 at site L.
134
32
I0
130
za
120
124
22
LEGEND
o IL
o si
S i’s SOIL/SLUDGE
INTERFACE
120
64
-------
• CONCENTRATION, r n 9 1 4
0. 5 1.0 I;5 2:0
•DL
iI
-j
21
LEGEND
0 IL
S/s SOIL/SLUDGE:
INTERFACE
BOL BELOW DETECTION
LIMITS
22
Figure 9. Variation of boron concentration in distilled water extracts of.
soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 1 at site L.
65
-------
P CONCENTRATlON rr 3,4
10 20 30
40
I I I I I I I I
Figure 10. Variation of potassi m concentration in distilled water extracts
of soil/sediment samples with elevation in boring 1 at site N.
0
224
222
E
220
>
-J
2 1 5
2 16
LEGEND
o IM
SOIL/SLUDGE
— INTERFACE
66
-------
S* CONCENTRATION, r g/l
0.005 0.010 0.015
I
I
I
I
I
S
S
/
21$ —
7
2 1$ -
Pigurs 11. Variation of seleniua concentration in distilled water extracts
of soil/sediment saaples with elevation in boring 1 at site N.
/
0
I I
I
O
DETECTION
• 224
222
E
‘. 220
LEGEND
O IM
S/s SOIL/S4..UDGE
INTERFACE
I
ci
67
-------
set is that most of the soil constituents were so uniformly distributed through
the soil/sediment column. Possible explanations of this uniformity are that
the interstitial water is the major source of the materials measured and that
this water moves unchanged through the soil/sediment column, or that the
removal capacity of the soil has been exhausted.
As expected, the soils beneath the disposal sites did not hold any appreci-
able quantities of water—extractable materials that could be related to the
pollutants from the FGC sludge/ash. The high levels of contamination observed
in the groundwater indicate that pollutants have passed through the soil, but
the low levels of contaminants found in the distilled water extracts indicate
the polluting material does not remain in the soil in a water soluble condition.
Horizontal Variation in Distilled Water Extracts of
Soil/Sediment Samples Below the Water Table
Analyses of distilled water extracts of soil/sediment samples collected
below the water table were examined in order to determine if sludge—derived
materials were accumulating below this horizon in a water—extractable form.
Plots of cross—sections through the site versus concentration are shown in
Figures 12-15. The model of groundwater movement assumes all significant
lateral migration of pollutants occurs below the water table. Two factors
should effect the concentration of contaminants in distilled water extracts;
the concentration of sludge—derived materials in infiltrating water and the
character of the soil/sediment.
At site K, the highest values for all constituents measured were found
under the disposal pond or downdip from the pond as predicted from the model
situation. Sulfite, nitrate, nitrite, cyanide, calcium, magnesium, sodium,
boron, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, and lead were found in their
maximum amounts in water extracts from directly under the disposal pond.
Sulfate, total organic carbon, iron, manganese, mercury, nickel and zinc were
found in their maximum concentrations down gradient from the disposal site.
With the exception of boring 1, the level of contamination in the groundwater
is not reflected by the level of constituents in the distilled water extract
from soils. The low correlation with groundwater chemistry may reflect the
strong influence of the original composition of the material that was extracted.
At site L, maximum concentrations in distilled water extracts were observed
in borings under the disposal pit for sulfate, total organic carbon, sodium
and boron. Maximum concentrations for chloride, nitrite, calcium, magnesium,
manganese, chromium and selenium were found in upgradient borings. Maximum
concentrations for cyanide and beryllium were found in down gradient borings.
These results agree with the groundwater analyses in that elevated sodium and
boron levels were noted under the disposal pit. For other constituents there
seems to be no consistent pattern and all were found in low concentrations.
At site M, maxima for sulfate, total organic carbon, .boron and lead were
fo md under the disposal area. Maxima for nitrate and mercury were foun in
upgradient borings. Maximum levels for calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium,
manganese and sodium occurred in the down gradient borings. At both sites N
and L where the substrate is sand and gravel many consistuents were below
68
-------
___________________________ cc ,L..
: i .
g
t— -
S 21
— ?Y T
WELL BORING NUMBERS -
Figure l2. Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled water extracts at site K.
BDL indicates below detection limits.
$0
8
p.
01
U
U
SW N I
3
S 2
U .S
C
SW
L=== 9 11
St
I
40
20
C
,-
-
a
U.S
f
TTTTTTT
z
1 _________________________
I
2 I 3
-------
I C SW SW
01 TTT.TTTT 2
$ 2 I 3
_______
6
3
• 21 3
a2O [ _________________ oop:{ _______________________________
$0 1.,,
R
S 2 I 3 6 2
° 8
003
c i t- -
• 2 I 3 6 2 I 3
02 r
C
I-
U
N
________________ $01
• 2 I 3 2 I 3
UP UNDER DOWN
op DISPOSAL SITE DIP
WELL 9O 1NO M)MBERS
Figure 13. Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled water extracts at site K, continued.
BDL indicates below detection limits.
-------
£
w
0.Ia
Q04
4 3 2 •1 6 5
80L BDL 6DL
_____________________________ I
7 65
DOWN DIP
z
• 05
0’•’
_12
- 0-
40
1
0 20
WIlL bORING NUMB(RS 0
Figure 14. Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled water extracts at site L.
BDL indicates below detection limits.
f I — _______
OFIT-
4 3 2
1
•6
C
L OL
•6
$0
40
20
0
50
0
DL a
0
— I
I- ’
4 3 2 7 1 6
20
0
Z 10
f 0
E
Z’ 04
a:
00 2
001
0
002
L
0 o
0
4 3 2 1 6 5
Fr r r - r’
4 T-T
z 005
Q0N I
6 L
I— 0
z
U
002
06 00111
0
B Ot
L 0L
4 3 2
7
6 5
001
0
DOL
I
UOL
I
bIL. --
L I
4 3
2
7
6 5
UP DIP UNDER
DISPOSAL SITE
4 3 2
7
6 5
I
2 7 6 5
-------
.f : — — ---(i
L
I
L
3 24 I 57
SW NC
50
3 24 I 510
z 025
570
00005
L ‘ 801 801 001 801
x
0 ‘g
3 24 I 570
10
--
C . .k __1__
34 I
DISPOSAL SITE
Figure 15. Horizontal variation in chemical composition of distilled water extracts at site M.
BDL indicates below detection limits.
SW
‘i ,
-4
I ’ .,
V. —
24 I 510
3
3 24
•1
_ /‘02,.8I ,OL
I — 2 4
z
570
2
24
r_________
o 0 e
0 24
00 5
570
DOWN DIP
WELL DORING MJMO(RS
-------
detection limits in all borings. In this situation where the underlying
material is relatively uniform, the highest levels of sulfate, total organic
carbon and boron are consistently associated with borings under the disposal
area.
The use of analytical data from distilled water extracts to indicate the
presence of loosely bound pollutant materials is limited because of the large
differences produced by the changing nature of the geologic materials under—
neath the disposal areas, the background levels of exchangeable constituents
that are likely to be present under an industrial area, and the limited capa-
city of many materials (expecially sand and gravel) to exchange or absorb
incoming materials. Several major constituents (sulfate, sodium and boron)
associated with FCC pond liquors did show a consistent distribution with
maxima occurring under or down the groundwater gradient from the disposal
areas.
CH 1ICAL ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS
The goal of the nitric acid digestion procedure was to determine the
total amount of material that could be removed from the soil by rigorous
treatment with a strong, oxidizing acid. This digest brings into solution all
materials that are not tightly bound in a silicate lattice. Contaminants
leached from the FC c disposal area and deposited in the soil should be released
in the nitric acid digest. The evidence that attenuation is occurring would
be the higher concentration of the attenuated materials under the disposal
site as compared to similar samples outside the site and decreasing concentration
in nitric acid digests of samples taken at decreasing elevations (increasing
depths) below the disposal site. Evidence that mobilization of material from
soil under the site is occurring would be the lower concentrations of material
under the disposal site as compared to similar samples outside the site. In
this case, concentrations of mobilized constituents would increase with de-
creasing elevations (increasing depth) below the disposal site. The absence
of any significant difference between the concentrations of constituents in
the nitric acid digest from the soils would indicate either no leachate is
passing through the soil, or leachate passing through the soil is not inter-
acting with the soil. Analyses of groundwater obtained from borings under and
down the groundwater gradient from the disposal sites can indicate if sludge’-
derived constituents get through the soil into the groundwater.
Published analyses of pond liquor or elutriates (Table 16) indicate any
leachate escaping from the disposal areas is saturated with calcium and sul-
fate, and is high in sodium and chloride. Common pH’s are between 8 and 10.
Leachate with a composition similar to pond liquor would be expected to pass
through the soil with ‘little interaction except possibly the displacement of
exchangeable cations with calcium and loss of boron and potassium into clays
in the soil. My calcium, boron and potassium fixed in the soil should be.
brought into solution by the nitric acid digestion procedure.
Comparison of Nitric Acid Digests Beneath and Outside the Disposal Area
The chemical analyses for all the nitric acid digests are given in Tables
31—36. The results of the randomization test on nitric acid digests of soil
73
-------
TABLE 31. ANALYSIS OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAHPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE K
Iorthg
and
asaple IC! id 1C3 1C4 2C 1 2C2 2C3 2C4
1evatton (in) 261.33 260.42 258.30 236.32 260.01 258.04 237.17 255.07
Depth below
sludge/aol!
interface (in) 0.23 1.14 3.26 5.24 0.14 1.01 3.11
lit, above water
table (in) —0.23 —1.14 —3,2.6 —5.24 5.00 3.17 2.16 0.06
Conc. (mg/kg
dry wt.)
Ca 3416.96 46D7.68 12240.04 31579.70 299450.35 2138.04 3456.53 14404.11
Fe 41649.47 83009.96 57120.11 25078.00 14518.80 30543.44 45595.02 51562,27
K 140 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Mg 4334.94 11414.38 9384.03 7244.75 4083.41 2660.24 4781.92 8515.94
Mn 60.52 89.64 63.97 27.86 32.67 40.69 37.83 44.96
Na 86.70 699.22 261.12 380.61 204.17 128.09 211.29 107.06
A ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
B ND ND ND ND ND ND MD ND
Be 3.13 3.80 2.57 3.66 4.72 1.99 3.14 2.71
Cd 5.10 0.70 0.03 0.03 28.92 0.04 0.51 0.08
Cr 24.14 37.29 23.66 23.68 19.74 19.41 27.36 23.16
Cu 13.16 20.80 57.28 7.52 19.51 .9.85 15.35 30.37
Hg ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ni 41.14 78.17 56.06 60.65 79.11 23.65 44.06 64.72
Pb 15.64 10.22 2.86 14.86 86.21 13.79 17.79 5.06
S i n ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Zn 39.61 85.88 57.28 26.24 969.81 34.88 56.05 57.03
ND — Not determined.
-------
TABLE 32. ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SA?WLES flOW CONTROL BORINGS AT SITE K
Dorin
sad asaple 3C5 5C 1 6C 1 6C2 6C3 TC1 7C2 7C3 7C 1 4
glevatiuc (.) 251.145 257.30 262.1.2 261.51 257.89 262. 1 .2 261.20 259.1.0 257.81.
Mt. above vste
table (a) —1.65 (dry) 2.36 i.h (dry) (dry) (dry) (dry)
.
Position in
•roundvst.r
iradient Dovndip Dovndtp Updip Updip Updip Updip Updip Updip Updip
Conq. (ag/i)
C c 2568.73 2386.07 2527.65 1149314.53 30.76 2918.62 18014.83 627211.06 56 1 .1. 1 4.98
Ye 28966.50 5671.9.82 5356 1e.75 1.2750.09 1481.26 ‘1.1.530.1.2 561.99.06 38116.93 22003.98
K ND ID ID ND ND ND ND ND ND
M g 2732.69 31408.61 5593.11 7560.61 80.90 1.560.31. 301.0.75 13220.30 11958.68
611.93 59.70 93.58 29.12 0.53 90.99 100.05 1.0.114 147.26
M c 98.38 690.95 516.29 7714.73 2.73 386.29 196.18 299.15 31.14.141
As ND ND M V I I ) ND ND ND ND ND
B ND ND ND ID ID ND ND lID ND
B. 2.11. 2.51 2.20 3.96 0.02 2.37 1.78 3.66 3.1.6
Cd 0.13 0.10 0.32 o.oI. ID 0.50 0.5 11 0.08 0.07
Cr 17.71 211.114 23.66 . 26.1 1 . 0.21 22.96 i8. 1 . 1 . 21.52 20.57
12.2 1 . 15.02 23.1.5 19.014 o.o8 13.31 i 1 4.ii 8.99 5.93
Hg ND ND NI ND ND ND ND ND ND
Mi 28.86 30.95 149.91 614.87 0.112 1411.75 38.75 58.86 614.58
Pb 114.21 22.11 12.91 11.1.8 0.03 i6.iO 15.69 14.05
S. ND ND I I I) ND II I ) ND ND ND ND
Zn 36.81. 1 .9.15 13.66 1.2.147 0.50 60.20 63.76 50.37 113.91
ND • Not determined.
-------
TABLE 33.
ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE L
a’
I D — Not determined.
C I — Chemice.1 interference.
.
Boring
end sempla
id
1C2
1C3
1C I
2C 1
2C2
2C3
2C 1 1
Elevetion Cm)
132.02
130.118
129.56
127. 1s8
130.25
123.39
1 2.91
121.98
Depth below
sludge/soil
interfece (a)
-i. 1 15
0.09
1.01
3.10
—1.211
—0.38
0.10
1.03
,
.
Ht. above water
table (a)
10.15
9.21
8.29
6.21
8.119
1.63
1.15
0.22
Cone. (n/kg
dry vt.)
Ca
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
s e
69119.21
111192.03
21311.1 12
9331.88
75.79
368.31
3D 1.
15800.211
5 lsi. 1 16
12811.01
37 1i. 03
50.39
BDL
27819.67
580.23
216011.33
659.38
19.55
9 7063. 1s3
55 1 15.00
186.22
220551.1 12
377.58
85.31
10023.27
16277.116
1611.31
9752.59
90.16
332.75
111768.90
196511.31
1572.66
80118.80
88.01
320.56
38920.79
10056.00
351.60
85932.112
572.111
129.90
605211.81
8166.02
253.00
1 1s3099.23
1185.39
103.08
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Wi
Pb
Se
Zn
CI
3811.20
3.20
9.13
23.85
19.56
ID
20.56
29.78
1.08
363.20
CI
ii. 1 $ 1 1
1.31
1.15
11.39
6.511
ND
11.79
11.08
0.68
117.19
CI
8.7 1s
0.60
2.13
12.119
16.61
ND
i 5.6 1
9.26
BDL,
56.32
C I
Ie.59
0.26
BD I .
5.118
11.12
ND
111.18
3.61 $
0.18
15.91
CI
li3i.bi
2.31$
9.11
22.35
16.99
ND
19.19
19.33
0.99
152.611
C I
1116.30
2.53
3.51
19.12
13.51
ND
17.30
28.23
0.55
1011.811
CI
8.711
0.22
P ITh
11.65
5.92
ND
12.116
11.38
0.52
22.56
C I
6.911
0.23
PITh
5.22
5.611
ND
13.26
2.91
0.1111
20.36
BDI. — Below detection limits.
-------
TAILS 34. ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAIU’LES T )N CONTROL DOIINCS AT SITE L
I.t L as
..4
... 1s 3CS 4C1 4C2 4C3 4C4 4C 1 3d 5C2 SC)
11.,.IL.. (.) 121.30 1)2.11 128.10 12)53 121.42 130.40 129.69 121.59
It. .buvu v.Isr
tbl. (a) —0.41 10.1) 2.54 1)1 l.22 1.31 4.21
Poettlo. In
•ro èater
•radIo.t Up dIp Updtp Updip IJpd Ip IJpdtp Updlp Dovndtp Downdip Dowadip
Couc. (us/ks
dry at.)
Ca 99471.09 $1154.64 60559.13 45323.21 111154.91 64621.96 1076)1.12 92233.30
V. 2451.31 20153.26 3900.41 6006.69 1965.15 3153.95 7869.32 10247.30 6132.6$
1 169.94 460.40 180.31 147.91 100.44 141.87 183.01 276.67 125.21
261724.70 19211.41 304)080.13 129430.15 111607.14 199605.68 152993.14 513523.11 206783.56
Mn 168.74 465.40 4390.36 225.43 314.49 263.20 357.30 490.53 275.27
- .1 Na 83.99 28.54 101.1$ 61.03 33.15 96.26 52.99 139.33 81.50
As C I C l CI CI Cl CI CI CI CI
I 5.30 5. 3 5.25 4.74 3.10 5.55 4.72 1.21 7.01
B. 0.21 - 0.44 0.49 0.32 0.28 0.42- 0.15 0.34 0.27
Cd 1.40 1.51 1.04 1.52 1.16 BDL 1.63 0.99
Cr 5$? 9.32 1.96 4.62 4.49 6.36 4.08 11.43 6.63
C o 3.63 15.90 6.23 3.13 3.47 3.56 7.62 10.05 5.27
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
NI 8.73 18.49 32.43 9.39 7.68 6.99 13.79 15.88 9.77
Pb 2.02 69.91 4.40 4.81 4.74 3.33 1.97 14.74 4.78
S. 0.4$ 0.82 0.43 0.43 0.50 0.52 BDL 0.43 0.22
Zn 13.77 55.23 22.61 15.72 16.00 15.34 21.92 39.01 17.10
(continued)
-------
TABLE 34 (CoNTINUED)
Boring
snd
semple 5C 1 1 5C5 5c6 6c IC 1 7C2 7C3 7C 1 1 7C5
Zievation (m) 125.145 123.) 41 1 2l.30 121.6 s 133.22 128.89 1214.98 123.911 121.90
lit, above water
table (m) 1 4•Q7 2.06 —0.08 0.33 11.31 7.0 1 . 3.13 2.09 0.05
Position in
groundwater
gradient Dovndip Downdip Dovndip Dovndip Dovndip Dovndtp Dovndip Dovmlip Downdlp
Cone. (mg/kg
dry wt.)
Ca 59016.09 75296.65 1138118.83 831497.61 BDL 118910.61 51865.90 10160.66 61100.25
Fe 58146.68 8301.914 5110.91 6691.011 iiiio.814 51426.91 5501.117 6913.72 11039.06
K 116.11 814.52 128.68 183.00 220.31. 1146.91 96.65 i6i.5’ . 159.30
Mg 201118.52 1111110.26 231000.00 139865.911 7085.311 3611113.30 2142151.06 200115.614 1091150.09
Mn 372.63 291.53 1911.31 1111.23 1 3Db 1452.12 1110.20 1118.76 115.32
Na 71.00 61.30 87.02 714.60 9.3 1 1 1011.50 15.61 73.01 60.59
As C I C I CI CI CI CI CI CI C I
B 5.80 3.17 14.50 11.72 2.17 6.80 2.90 11.96
Be 0.23 0.22 0.31 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.21 0.25
Cd 1.02 8Db 0.96 BDL 1.12 13Db BOb 0.95 3301.
Cr 5.66 14.87 6.58 7.08 5.28 7.31 Is.9 1 4 6.36 6.01
Cu 5.86 3.811 9.16 6.11 8.38 5.12 1 1.8 5.11 5.66
Hg ND l tD ND ND ND ND N V ND ND
I I I 114.514 12.22 9.50 10.51 10.55 12.70 10.01 9.20 9.66
Pb 2.011 2.29 2.91 5.83 5.37 5.11 1 3 01. 14.56 14.89
Se 0.13 0.16 0.33 0.26 PDI . 0.23 BOb ‘0.16 1301.
Zn 18.03 15.05 11.31 20.98 31.60 16.16 ROb 20.11 17.110
ND • Hot determthed.
CI = Chemical interference.
1 3 01. Below detection limita.
-------
TABLE 35. ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM EXPERIMENTAL BORINGS AT SITE H
o In(
snd . 1.
1C I
1C2
1C3
1C 1 4
1.C1
1 4C2
1 4C3
I.C5
Elevetion ( )
222.77
220.81
218.96
217.73
221.98
221.07
218.93
217.1.1
216.65
Depth below
$1%14e/Soi 1
intert cs C.)
-.1.89
0.07
1.92
3.15
0.09
1.00
3.11.
•
L66
5.142
Ut. sbove vster
tebi. (m)
5.96
14.00
2.15
0.92
5.03
I ..12
1.98
o. 1 46
—0.30
Conc. (.g/kg
dry wt.)
C.
122338.27
681414.07
8119.09
314.140
146103.96
314146.29
117614.91.
211.32.61
30114.33
Fe
19277.514
5520.36
8001.76
2726.38
251481.03
33521.89
51614.61
7976.06
21458.31
K
1167.77
330.1414
1418.21
123.83
114614.51.
14352.11
2614.21
5146.09
126.10
I4
66729.97
21571.57
311214.15
9365.143
31826.149
521473.91
27916.81
147758.52
8290.52
Mn
250.18
93.29
1143.140
140.914
3114.714
523.614
100.614
150.65
23.314
,i .
81 .0.61
90.21
102.014
149.95
366.71
267.58
70.79
130.16
148.37
As
CI CI
CI
CI
CI
CI
CI
CI
C I
8
225.06.
3.21
3.92
0.72
118.1.8
18.89
3.03
8.63
1.93
Be
14.21
0.22
0.29
0.10
2.08
1.61
0.12
0.20
BDL
Cd
2.09
BDL
1.01
BDL
7.52
14.55
BDL
BDL
BDL
Cr
29.51.
3.71.
6.02
1.66
214.98
26.1.0
5.35
7.25
1.93
Cu
29.66
1.97
5.59
BDL
38.1.0
214.68
1.77
3.31
BOL
Hg
ND
NI)
ND
NI)
ND
ND
ND
NI)
ND
Ni
31.57
7.13
9.21.
3.53
37.61 .
31.07
7.19
9.07
3.31
Pb
53.75
2.21
2.91 .
2.1.7
38.06
15.62
2.81.
14.89
1.38
Se
- 0.33
0.10
0.11
0.06
2.142
0.914
0.05
BDL
o.i6
Zn
95.1.6
17.814
23.11.
6.88
351.72
98.70
19.11.
214.96
8.614
ND • Not determined.
CI • Chemical interference.
BDL = Below detection limits.
-------
TABLE 36. ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FROM CONTROL BORINGS AT SITE H
Boring
and aemple 2C1 2C2 2C3 2C s 3C1 3C2 3C3 3C
Elevation (a) 221.78 220.87 2]8.72 217.97 221.70 220.79 218.614 217.89
fit. above water
table (a) 3.96 3.05 0.90 0.15 14.60 3.69 1.514 0.79
Position in
groundwater
gradient Updip Ilpdip Updip Updlp Updip Upd lp Updlp Upd!p
Cone. (mg/kg
drywt.)
Ca 1 1900.145 70814.11 23589.01 12068.92 7891.82 12529.70 22318.88 27196.65
Fe 23119.05 14880.18 13138.22 6123.80 20179.09 11676.214 10213.72 8269.148
K 2588.514 290.99 1031.18 328.09 1997.93 1i78.6 1 4 856.82 616.17
o Mg 61255.61 26588.65 682914.145 36791.23 59538.29 1481418.57 69226.36 61192. 146
Mn 615.116 102.21 261.65 109.83 520.110 269.63 263.80 13 4.23
Na 92.87 63.22 1214.68 70.30 99.90 1114.68 125.78 108.79
As CI CI CI CI CI CI CI CI
B 8.89 2.314 6.oo 2.18 9.93 6.20 6.145 14.92
Be 1.214 0.23 0. 1 48 BDL 0.714 0.1 10 0.140 0.32
Cd 2.66 0.95 1.67 BDL 2.11 1.89 1.29 i.or
Cr 18.05 1 1.149 10.76 5.07 17.75 11.21 9.81 7.93
Cu 19.56 1.62 111.914 2.57 214.27 9.86 7.20 li.8 1
Hg NI) ND ND ND ND ND N t) NI)
Ni 22.58 8.112 20.38 7.62 22.311 13.21 11.12 11.78
Pb 114.82 2.32 8.99 2.21 9.99 5.31 11.73 14.25
Se 0.06 0.07 0.25 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.07 0.13
Zn 77.56 27.15 116.811 18.86 67.113 141.62 32.14 1 1 31.96
(c ontinued)
-------
TA8LE 36 (CONTINUED)
poring
sud
sanpis 5C ) 4 6c 1 6C ) 4 7C1 7C2 TC3 7C ) 4
El.vntion (ii) 211.17 220.77 216.114 221.09 220.18 218.05 216.52
Mt. nbovs vster
t b1e (ii) 0.03 4.60 -0.03 3.93 1.80 0.27
Position in
groQndwster
grsdisnt Do dtp Dovudip Dovn dip Downdip Dovndip Doimdip Downdip
Conc. (,4Ikj
dry Vt. )
Cs ) 4T95.95 11083.92 96114.80 6826. 1 .7 2758. 1 .0 141.81.85 19333.81.
Fe 3386.38 17960.39 1 .8114.58 111914.91 229614.75 221405.08 8726.38
167.78 216)4.50 21.0.37 11.15.1.6 2822.80 2573.714 1.87.33
Mg 1514)40.91 1481485.67 28060.91. 3135)4.10 1489141.514 1.611.8.1.1 147835.09
M m 17.62 511.25 59.26 222.11 395.98 1.83.61 170.35
38.63 95.15 60.96 79.73 89.08 126.).? 112.61
As CI CI CI CI CI C I CI
B 1.33 6.73 1.314 14.87 7.87 7.53 2.70
as 0.10 o.68 BDL 0.1.8 1.17 0.98 0.13
Cd M D I. 2.98, 1.17 2.13 3.149 3.15 1.62
Cr 2.11 1)4.07 3.914 9.91 20.214 18.92 5.87
Cu 1.15 15.148 1.70 9.05 11.71 17.08 5.21
Hg ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
L 45 19.1.9 7.28 12.13 22.80 22.68 10.140
Pb 2.35 13.59 2.21. 10.75 ii.8i 13.31 I ..98
Se 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.19 0.10
Zn 12.92 71.91. 17.31 72.65 72.77 71.22 30.10
ND Noc determined.
CI Chemical interrerence.
BDL Belov detection limits.
-------
samples beneath and from comparable depths outside the disposal area are given
in Table 37. At site K, significant differences in concentrations in the
nitric acid digests were observed only for iron, sodium and copper. All three
metals showed a decrease in concentration in soil below the disposal site.
The reduction in sodium noted below the landfill is very likely related to the
replacement of sodium by calcium in clays beneath the disposal pond. Mobili-
ation and ion exchange may also account for the slightly smaller amounts of
iron and copper reported in the soil samples from below the pond. The only
other significant, difference between samples inside and outside any of the
other disposal areas was an increase in boron concentration in soil samples
below the disposal pit at site L. Boron is a co on contaminant associated
with leachate from ash. Ash was co—disposed with sludge at site L; therefore
the occurrence of boron was not unexpected. Boron also was found in signif i-
cantly larger quantities in the ‘distilled water extracts from soil under site
L.
The lack of significant increases in sludge—derived constituents in soil
beneath the disposal areas indicates very little of the contaminating material
is being trapped and removed as the leachate passes through into the ground-
water. The major materials derived from the FCC sludge/ash are in solution at
high concentrations. Typical soils below the disposal sites showed few changes
in composition that can be related to the passage of leachate through them.
At only one site (site K) was there evidence that calcium was displacing other
ions from the available exchange positions, and becoming fixed in the soil.
Vertical Variations of Concentrations in the Nitric
Acid Digests of Soil Samples
For elements that showed a significant difference between experimental
and control samples, a test was made for a significant relationship between
the concentration of a particular constituent and sample elevation in the
boring. As suggested by the model (Figure 1), those materials attenuated from
the sludge leachate should show a positive correlation with elevation in
experimental borings (those below the disposal area). A significant negative
correlation would be predicted for those soil constituents that are being
mobilized by the sludge leachate and moved down into the groundwater. In
control borings the distribution,of soil constituents depends upon the weather-
ing processes; therefore, the concentration of any particular material could
have a positive or negative correlation or have no correlation at all. The
Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to assess the strength of the
association between concentration of a particular constituent and sample
elevation. The results of these statistical tests are given in Tables 38 and
39. Plots of concentration versus sample elevation for all constituents in
experimental borings that showed significant relationships with depth are
shown in Figures 16 and 17. Significant trends in control borings are shown
for contrast.
At site K, only iron in boring 2 showed a significant correlation with
sample elevation. The amount of iron in the samples increased with increasing
elevation. This is the effect which would be expected if iron were being
added to the soil/sediment. At site L, boron showed a positive correlation in
both borings one and two under the disposal pit. This increase is what would
82
-------
TABLE 37. RESULTS OF RA 1DC*(IZATION TEST ON NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOIL
SAMPLES DIRECTLY UNDER THE FCC DISPOSAL SITES AND AT COMPARABLE
DEPTHS OUTSIDE THE SITES
Parameters
Site K
Site L
Site H
Ca
MS
NS
NS
Fe
.
S(decrease)*
NS
NS
K
ND
MS
NS
Mg
MS
NS
NS
**
MS
NS
NS
Ma
S (decrease)
MS
NS
As
ND
ND
ND
S
ND
S(increase)
NS
3.
MS
NS
NS
Cd
MS
NS
NS
Cr
MS
NS
NS
Cu
S(decrease)
MS
NS
Hg
ND
ND
ND
Ni
MS
NS
NS
Pb
MS
NS
NS
S.
ND
NS
NS
Zn
MS
MS
NS
$5 • Not significant at 802 confidence level.
S — Significant at 502 confidence level.
ND — Not determined.
* Refers to increase or decrease of constituent under disposal site relative
to outsidi.
83
-------
TABLE 38. CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF
SOILS WITH SAMPLE ELEVATION AT SITE K
Boring
1
2
6
7
Fe
NS(O.40)
SN(—l.OO)
SP(l.OO)*
NS(O.80)
Na
NS(—O.40)
NS(O.40)
NS(O.50)*
NS(O.20)
Cu
NS(O.20)
NS(—O.40)
SP(l.OO)*
NS(O.80)
SP — Significant positive correlation at 95% level.
SN — Significant negative correlation at 95% level.
NS No significant correlation.
* Significance level reduced to 83% because of small sample size for this
constituent in this boring.
Number in parentheses is the calculated value of r 5 , the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient.
84
-------
TABLE 39. CORRELATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF NITRIC ACID DIGESTS OF SOILS
WITh SAMPLE ELEVATION AT SITE L
Boring
1
2
4
5
7
B
SP(1.OO)
SP(1.OO)
NS(O.60)
NS(O.08)
NS(—O.30)
SP Significant positive correlation at 95% level.
SN — Significant negative correlation at 95% level.
NS — No significant correlation.
Number in parentheses is the calculated value of r 5 , the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient.
85
-------
264
282
280
£
z
0
- 255
-j
256
254
252
Figure 16. Variation of iron concentration in nitric acid digests of
soil/sediment samples with elevation in borings 2 and 6 at site K.
0 10,000
F CONCENTRATION, vc g / tg DRV WEIGHT
20,000 30000 40,000
50,000
• LEGEND
• 2K
• 6
SOIL/SLUDGE
INTERFACE
86
-------
• CONCENTRAflOPI, /kg
10 IS
DR’ WEIGHT
350 4.00
I I r T
450
o IL
• 2L
S/S SOIL/SLUDGE
— INTERFACE
FIgure 17. Variation of boron concentration of nitric acid digests of
soil/s.die.nt aaaples with elevation in borings 1 and 2 at site L.
0
34 —
13 1
/
‘30 -
I i .
I I.
E
-I
hi
sal
I to
—
LEGEND
87
-------
be expected if boron was being added from the disposal pit.
As noted above, there was only slight evidence of attenuation. Only iron
at site K and boron at site L showed the patterns indicating they were being
removed by the soil. The most striking feature of the data was the lack of
other demonstrable interaction of leachate with the soil.
Horizontal Variation in Nitric Acid Digests of
Soil/Sediment Below the Water Table
Analyses of nitric acid digests of soil/sediment samples collected below
the water table were examined in order to determine if contaminants were
migrating with the grcundwater flow below the disposal site. The model for
groundwater movement ass es al1 significant lateral migration of contaminants
takes place below the water table. The increased concentrations of contami-
nants in the nitric acid digests should be a measure of the attenuation
occurring during lateral migration of the pollutants. Plots of metal con-
centrations in the nitric acid digests versus the positions of the borings are
given in Figures 18—20.
At site K, all of the constituents measured in nitric acid digests of
soil/sediment, with the exception of manganese, showed maximum levels under-
neath the disposal pond. This distribution pattern suggests that the materials
being leached from the sludge (FCC wastes and ash) are being attenuated or
contained in soils under the landfill. The sediments at this site are largely
clays, shales and limestone that are impervious and could prevent dispersal of
incoming constituents down the groundwater gradient.
Sites L and M are both underlain by porous sands and gravels. No con-
sistent patterns could be found that related concentrations of various materials
in the nitric acid digests to the position of the soil samples with respect to
the disposal areas. There was no increase in contaminants under the disposal
areas that could be interpreted as indicating that attenuation or containment
of the pollutants had taken place.
SUMMARY
The physical testing data indicate two major types of sites vere included
in this study; one type underlain by impermeable materials, clay and shale,
etc. (site K), and a second type underlain by relatively permeable, silty,
sands and gravel with discontinuously distributed finer material included
(sites L and M). At the site underlain by clay and shale the typical per-
meabilities or hydraulic conductivities were very low (‘ .2 x 10° cm/see) and
no change in permeability could be related to the presence of the sludge/ash
disposal site. At site M, changes in permeability could be noted, but these
changes appeared to be more related to the irregular occurrences of fine—
grained materials (clays and silty sands) than to the presence of the disposal
facility. Only at site L could variations in physical properties (permeability,
dry density, water content, percent fines) measured in soil samples from test
borings be related to the disposal. of FCC sludge and ash.
88
-------
SW
a 14000
1
a i 3 S a I 3
_F
b —a 4000
It
0
CS ii S a
• p
..& SO 14000
r
___ S0
o 0 40
20
2:1:
S 21 1 2 I 3
120
Cl.
40
6 2 I S 2 I 3
60
5
I’1
!i r ____________________________
_LTTTT
6 2 I 3 0
UP UND(R DISPOSAL DOWN
S TE DIP
WELL BORING NUMB RS
Figure 18. Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid digests at site K.
BDL indicates below detection limits.
-------
C w
20 . £ W
20000
(0
01 - ---___ U ______
4 3 2 7 6 S 4 _________________________________
• 4 3 2 7 I S
lO
r eooo
_________ I - ______________________
4 3 2 7 e 5 4 3 2 7,65
I0 [ _
U
o (00
4 3 2 7 6 5 4 3 2 7 65
304000
: (04000 3 2 7
?o o
z _____________________
4 3 2 1 65
— z
S00
z 60
_
4 3 2 1 65
0 ‘ - •- -- -•—
4 3 2 7 6 8 II0
2 oI-
r
so
06 4 3 2 7 $ 5
(0
4 3 2 7 6 0 r 1 I I I I
4 3 2 7 6 5
C
L I I I
N
o
2 7 6 0
UP DIP UND(R DO DIP WEL.L BORING P&)MB(RS 4 3 2 7 6 5
DISPOSAL SUTE
Figure 19. Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid digests at site L.
BDL indicates below detection limits.
-------
m SW
, —/
, 3zqooo
0t
3 24 I $76
3 24 I $76
14000
(0
3 24 I $76
3 24 I 67$
60
3 241 57S
ao l _ ..,./‘
I el-.
, S40OO
3 2 4 I S 7 S t Im 4 ooot:
3 24 I 57$
lao
2
4.O _____ _____
C —i—-—-— —f-——-—— + 3 2 4 I 5 7 S
(20
t 401:
0 & I I I I I C t I I I I I I
3 24 I 3 24 876
02
QIF ____________
4 .
C l - I I a 3 24 I 570
-3 24 I 576
08
__ q
3 2 4 I 5 7 8.
4 I 5 7 6
UP DIP UNDCR DOWN DIP
DISPOSAL SITE WELL bORINO NUM8EiIS
Figure 20. Horizontal variation in chemical composition of nitric acid digests at site M.
BDL indicates below detection limits.
-------
Although the potential of FCC sludge and ash for pollution of local
groundwater has been noted, (13) no field evidence of such pollution occurring
has been reported. At all .three sites in this study, it could be shown that
sludgef ash—derived constituents had migrated out of the immediate area of the
disposal site and were found in local groundwater. The subsurface migration
of FCC! ash—derived materials seemed to be most limited at the site where the
pond was underlain by impermeable strata (site I C). Although one boring out—
side the pond was severely contaminated, additional borings around the pond
showed no groundwater when drilled to comparable depths. The only other
boring from which a groundwater sample was obtained at this site was down the
apparent groundwater gradient from the pond and near a large cooling lake. No
contaminants from the pond were detected in this boring. At the other sites
(L and M) which were underlain by sands and gravels, evidence of a typical
pollution plume under and down the groundwater gradient from the disposal site
was found.
The investigation of distilled water extracts and nitric acid digests of
soil samples from underneath and around sludge/ash disposal sites indicates
only slight changes in soil chemistry can be attributed to the presence of the
disposal site. Evidently FCC sludge/ash leachates can move through the soils
and sediments studied without appreciable interaction.
92
-------
REFERENCES
1. Evans, R. 3. Potential Solid Waste Generation and Disposal from Lime and
Limestone Desulfurization Processes. U. S. Bureau of Mines, I. C. 8633,
Washington, DC, 1974. 22 pp.
2. Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. State—of—the—Act of FGD Sludge Fixation. Final
Report, Research Project 786—1. Electric rower Research Inst., Palo
Alto, CA, 1978. 276 pp.
3. Lunt, R. R. and others. Evaluation of the Disposal of Flue Gas Desulfuri—
zation Wastes in Mines and the Ocean: Initial Assessment. EPA—600/7—77—
051, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
1977. 318 pp.
4. Princiotta, P. T. and W. H. Ponder. Current Status of SO 2 Control Tech-
nology. Paper presented at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Seminar on
Sulfur, Energy and Environment, Berkeley, CA, April 1974.
5. Lao, P. P. and 3. Rossoff. Control of Waste and Water Pollution from
Paver Plant Flue Gas Cleaning Systems: First Annual R and D Report.
EPA—600/7—76—018, October 1976.
6. Ifeadi, C. N. and H. S. Rosenberg. Lime/Limestone Sludges——Trends in the
Utility Industry. Proceedings, Sympositm on Flue Gas Desulfurization,
Atlanta, CA, November 1974. (as cited in 4)
7. Interess, B. Evaluation of the General Motors’ Double Alkali SO 2 Control
System. EPA—600/7—77—005, January 1977. (as cited in 5)
8. Easo Research and Engineering Co. Potential Pollutants in Fossil Fuels.
NTIS. (as cited in 4)
9. Iadian Corporation. The Environmental Effects of Trace Elements in the
Pond Disposal of Ash and Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludge. Final Report,
Research Project 202, Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA, 1975.
10. Selaeczi, 3. G. and R. C. Xnight. Properties of Power Plant Waste Sludges.
Paper presented at Third International Ash Utilization Symposium, Pitts-
burgh, PA, March 1973.
11. A Laboratory and Pilot Plant Study of the Dual Alkali Process for SO 2
Control. Unpublished results under EPA Contract 68—02—1071. (as cited
in 4)
93
-------
12. Nemerow, N. L. Liquid Waste of Industry——Theories, Practices and Treat—
ment. Addison—Wesley, Reading, MA, 1971. 584 pp.
13. Rossoff, 3. and R. C. Rossi. Disposal of By—Products from Non—Regenerable
Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems: Inital Report. EPA— 50I 2—74—037—a,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May 1974. 274 pp.
14. Leo, P. P., R. B. Fling, and J. Rossoff. Flue Gas Desulfurization Waste
Disposal Study at the Shawnee Power Station. In: Proceedings: Symposium
on Flue Gas Desulfurization—Hollywood, FL, November 1977. (Vol. II)
EPA—60017—78—058b. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1978. pp. 496—536
15. Pry, Z. B. The Use of Liner Materials for Selected FGD Waste Ponds.
In: Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. EPA—600/9—78—016, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1978. pp. 256—272.
16. Fling, R. B. and others. Disposal of Flue Gas Cleaning Wastes; EPA
Shawnee Evaluation——Initial Report. EPA—600/2—76070, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, March 1976.
17. Barrier, 3. W., H. L. Faucett, and L. 3. Henson. Economic Assessment of
PGD Sludge Disposal Alternatives. Jour. Environmental Engineering Div.
Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers. 1O4(E1 5):95l—996, 1978.
18. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behaviorial Sciences.
McGraw—Hill Book Co., New York, 1956. 312 pp.
19. Siddiqui, and R. R. Parizek. Application of Nonparametric Statistical
Tests in Hydrogeology. Groundwater, 10(2):26—31, 1972.
20. U. S. Army Engineer, Waterways Experiment Station. The Unified Soil
Classification System. Tech. Memorandum No. 3—257, Vol. 1, USAB Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1960. 30 pp.
21. Levinson, A. A. Introduction to Exploration Geochemistry. Applied Pubi.
Co., Ltd. Calgary, Canada, 1974. 612 pp.
22. Foster, 3. R. The Reduction of Matrix Effects in Atomic Absorption
Analysis and the Efficiency of Selected Extractions on Rock Forming
Minerals. In: Geochemical Exploration, The Canpdian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy. Special Vol. 11, Ottawa, Canada, 1971. pp. 554—560.
23. U. S. Dept. of the Army. Laboratory Soils Testing. Engineering Manual
EM.lllO—2—1906, U. S. Dept. of the Army, Washington, DC, 1970. No Pagination.
24. Ii. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Manual of Methods of Chemical
Analyses of Water and Wastes. EPA 652/6—74—003, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1971. 298 pp.
25. National Academy of Sciences — National Academy of Engineering. Water
Quality Criteria — 1972. EPA—R3—73—033, March l973 594 pp.
94
-------
26. U. S. Department of the Interior. Report of the Coninittee on Water
Quality Criteria. Reprinted by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, 1968 (Reprinted 1972). 234 pp.
95
-------
K
.1.
853 .0
ISLAM
.AKE
ELEV: 840.00
c834 £7
<847.47
0.5
SCALE
0
I I
0.5 M l
.1
857.Q3
LEGEND
BORING
SP0SAL AREA
GR )NDWATEP ELCV
< LESS THAN
Figure A-i. Water table aap of site K. Elevations are in feet above an
sea level. 1 foot 0.305 ters.
96
-------
TABLE A-].. LOG OF BORING 1 AT SITE K
Elevation above MSL*
( )
Depth (m)
Description
264.00 — 261.56
0.00 — 2.44
Bottom ash
261.00 — 260.49
2.44 — 3.51
Clay, brown, wet
260.49 — 258.36
3.51 — 5.64
Clay, brown, moist,
hard
258.36 — 256.26
5.64 — 7.74
Shale, green, hard
* MSL — Mean sea level.
.
Water table elevation above MSL
— 261.56 m
TABLE A-2.
LOG OF BORING 2 AT
SITE
K
Elevation above MSL*
( )
Depth (m)
Description
263.67 — 261.84
000 — 1.83
•
Bottom ash
261.84 — 258.18
1.83 — 5.49
FCC sludge, wet
258.18 — 257.88
5.49 — 5.79
Clay, black
257.88 — 257.27
5.79 — 6.40’
Clay, brown
257.27 — 255.13
6.40 — 8.54
Clay, brown, wet
235.13 — 254.52
8.54 — 9.15
Clay, green, dry,
hard
254.32 — 253.61
9.15 — 10.06
Clay, green
253.61 253.46 1
0.06 — 10.21
Bedrock
* MSL . Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL — 253.01 m
97
-------
TABLE A-3. LOG OF BORING 3 AT SITE K
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
259.15 —
251.53
0.00 — 7.62
Clay, dark brown with
trace of black clay
in lower portion
251.53 —
250.80
7.62 — 8.35
Shale, dark, weathered
* MSL — Mean sea 4.evel.
Water table elevation above MSL - 259.10 in
TABLE A-4. LOG OF BORING 4 AT SITE K
Elevation
above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
263.53 —
262.92
0.00 — 0.61
Road
bed
262.92 —
255.91
0.61 — 7.62
Clay,
brown
255.91 —
254.54
7.62 — 8.99
Clay,
black,
wet
* ) L - Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL (dry hole)
98
-------
TA3LE A-5. LOG OV BORING 5 AT SITE K
Elevation above ) L*
(m) Depth (in)
Description
258.90 — 256.46 0.00 — 2.44
Clay, brown
256.46 — 252.99 2.44 — 5.9].
LImestone, brown, weathered
with some interbedded
silty layers
* MSL • Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL — (dry hole)
TABLE A-6. LOG 0! BORING 6 AT SITE K
Elevation above MSL*
(in) Depth (a)
Description
265.24 — 264.33 0.00 — 0.91
Clay, black, wet
264.33 — 261.58 0.91 — 3.66
Clay, gray—brown,
wet
261.58 — 260.06 3.66 — 5.18
Clay, brown with
weathered limestone
colluvial material
260.06 — 258.08 5.18 — 7.16
Shale, gray
258.08 — 256.86 7.16 — 8.38
Shale, gray, wet
* ) L • Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL s 260.06 a
99
-------
TABLE A-7. LOG OF BORING 7 AT SITE K
Elevation above NSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
.
Description
265.24 —
264.33
0.00 — 0.9].
Clay, black
264.33 —
262.50
0.91 — 2.74
Clay, brown
262.50 —
260.06
2.74 — 5.18
Clay, brown with
decomposed limestone
material
260.06 —
259.94
5.18 — 5.30
Competent layer
259.94 —
258.84
5.30 — 6.40
Shale, green, hard
258.84 —
257.70
6.40 — 7.54
Shale, gray, hard
* MSL Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL (dry hole)
100
-------
TABLE A-8. LOG OF BORING 8 AT SITE K
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
265.24
—
264.63
•
•
0.00 — 0.61
Roadbed (bottom ash)
264.63
—
264.02
0.61 — 1.22
Clay, black, hard
264.02
—
263.41
1.22 — 1.83
Clay, brown, hard
263.41
—
262.50
1.83 — 2.74
Clay, brown, hard, moist
262.50
262.19
2.74 — 3.05
Clay, brown, with limestone
pebbles
262.19
—
261.73
3.05 — 3.51
Clay, brown with shale chips
261.73
—
261.58
3.51 — 3.66
Competent layer
261.58
—
260.36
3.66 — 4.88
Clay, brown with shale chips
260.36
—
257.31
4.88 — 7.93
Shale, brown, hard
257.31
—
257.07
7.93 — 8.17
Shale, gray, hard
* MSL — Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL — (dry hole).
101
-------
TABLE A-9. LIST OP SAMPLES EXAMINED FR( 1 SITE K
Elevation
of top of
hole
Roring(m)
Elevation
of
water table
Cm)
Total
depth
Cm)
Thickness
of cover
(vi)
Thickness
of fill
Cm)
E1ev tion
sludge/soil
interface
Cm)
Sempled
Interval
Erovi
tepth
( v i)
To
Elevation of sampled
intervals (a)
Erc To
Type of
sample
ileriple
ntriiber
p6’i.o O p6 1.56 1.71. 0 2.1.1. 261.56 2.59 2.71. 261.1.1 261.26 Chemic J W i
3.51 3.66 260.1.9 260.31. Chemical 1C?
5.61. 5.76 258.36 256.21. ChemIcal 1C3
5.76 5.91 258.21. 258.09 PhysIcal 1P3
7.62 i.ih 256.38 256.26 Chemical 101.
2 263.67 255.01 10.21 0 5. 1 .9 258.18 3.61 3.73 260.06 259.91. Chemical. 201
5.55 5.10 258.12 257.97 Chemical 2C2
5.16 6.10 257.91 257.57 PhysIcal 21’l
6.1.0 6.59 257.27 257.08 Cheni ical 203
8.53 6.66 255.11. 255.01 Chemical 201.
8.72 8.93 251..95 51..ili Physical 2P3
1 259.15 259.10 8.35 NA NA NA i. 1. 2.15 251. 1 .1 257.00 Physical 3P1
I ..79 5.29 25h.36 253.86 Physical 3P3
1.62 7.11 251.53 251.38 ChemIcal 305
I— ’ 7.83 8.32 251.32 250.53 PhySIcal 3 1’5
0
1. 263.53 (4ry) 8.99 NA NA NA 3.26 3.15 260.21 259.18 Physical t .pj
7.83 8.29 255.70 255.21. Physical hrl .
5 258.90 (dry) 5.91 NA NA NA 1.52 1.68 251.38 257.22 ChemIcal 501
i.11. 2.20 257.16 256.70 Physical 51’l
2.1.1. 2.59 256.1.6 256.31 Chemical 502
2.65 3.12 256.25 255.18 PhysIcal 5P2
6 265.2” 260.06 8.38 NA NA NA 2.71. 2.90 262.50 262.31. Chemical 6ci
2.96 3. 141 262.28 261.83 PhysIcal 6P 1
3.66 3.81 261.58 261. s3 ChemIcal 602
3.81 1..91 261.37 260.33 PhysIcel 6P2
7.32 1.39 251.92 251.85 Chemical 603
7 265.21. ( iry) 7.51. NA NA NA 2.71. 2.90 262.50 262.31. Chemical 7Cl
2.96 3.31 262.28 261.93 Physical 1P1
3.96 14.11 261.28 261.13 Chemical 1C2
5.79 5.91 259.1.5 259.13 Chemical 7C3
1.32 1.1.8 257.92 251.16 Chemical 7c1.
NA — Not applicable
Note: All elevations are given with respect to mean sea level.
-------
APPENDIX B
SUBSURFACE DATA PROM
I
/
400
0
400 rr
L GEN
•‘ BORING
C 3 DISPOSAL AREA
Pi urs 1-1. Water tibi. sap of sits L. Elevations are in feet above an sea
1a*sl. 1 foot • 0.305 saters.
103
-------
TABLE B-i. LOG OF BORING 1 AT SITE L
Elevation above MSL*
(in) Depth (in)
Description
133.47 — 130.57 0.00 — 2.90
Fill (FGC sludge)
130.57 — 127.68 2.90 — 5.79
Clay, light gray to light
brown, silty
127.68 — 127.53 5.79 — 5.94
Sand, fine to coarse, silty
with small gravel
127.53 — 126.00 5.94 — 7.47
Gravel, small to large
126.00 — 119.90 7.47 — 13.57
Sand, fine to coarse, silty,
with small gravel, light
tan
*MSL — Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL 121.27 in
TABLE B-2. LOG OF BORING 2 AT
SITE L -
Elevat ion above MSL*
(a) Depth (in)
Description
137.49 — 137.19 0.00 — 0.30
Backfill (clay)
137.19 — 123.01 0.30 — 14.48
Fill (FCC sludge)
123.01 — 122.09 14.48 — 15.40
Sand, fine, silty with
gravel, dark tan
122.09 — 120.87 15.40 — 16.62
-
Sand, fine to coarse, with
gravel, wet
* L — Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL — 121.85 in
104
-------
TA3LE B-3. LOG OP BORING 3 AT SITE L
Elevation above ) $T *
(a) Depth (in)
Description
133.70 — 131.26 0.00 — 2.44
131.26 — 129.74 2.44 — 3.96
Clay, brown
Sand, wet, dark brown
129.74 — 125.16 3.96 — 8.54
Sand, fine to coarse with some
gravel, damp, dark brown
125.16 — 123.34 8.54 — 10.36
Sand, fine to coarse, some
gravel, damp, light tan
123.34 — 121.50 10.36 — 12.20
Sand, fine to coarse, gravely,
moist, light tan
121.50 — 119.68 12.20 — 14.02
Sand, fine to medium, some
gravel, wet, light tan
* MSL • Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL — 121.58 a
TABLE 3-4. LOG OP BORING
4 AT SITE L
Elevation above ) L*
(a) Depth (a)
Description
136.1]. — 133.05 0.00 — 3.66
Clay, brown
133.05 — 131.47 3.66 — 5.24
Sand, fine, silty, light brown
131.47 — 124.67 5.24 — 12.04
Sand, fine to coarse with
small to large gravel
124.61 — 121.16 12.04 — 15.55
Sand, fine to coarse with
small gravel
* MSL — Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL a 122.05 a
105
-------
TABLE B-S. LOG OF BORING S AT SITE L
Elevation above MSL*
( in)
Depth (in)
Description
133.73 —
132.51
000 — 1.22
Silt, sandy with gravel
132.51 —
131.90
1.22 — 1.83
Clay, silty, light brown
131.90 —
130.83
1.83 — 2.90
Gravel, clayey
130.83 —
130.76
2.90 — 2.97
Gravel, sandy
130.76 —
128.24
2.97 — 5.49
Sand, fine to coarse, silty
with small to large gravel
dark tan
128.24 —
127.79
5.49 — 5.94
Gravel, small to large
127.79 —
125.68
5.94 — 8.05
Sand, fine to coarse with
small to large gravel
125.68 —
121.53
8.05 — 12.20
•
Sand, fine to coarse with
gravel
121.53 —
119.43
12.20 — 14.30
Sand, fine to coarse, with
some gravel, moist
* MSL — Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL — 121.38 in
106
-------
TABLE 3-6. LOG OP BORING 6 AT SITE L
Elevation above NSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
137.34
—
133.07
0.00 — 4.27
Clay, light brown
133.07
—
131.85
4.27 — 5.49
Sand with gravel
131.85
—
124.84
5.49 — 12.50
Sand, fine to coarse with
small to large gravel
124.84
—
123.93
12.50 — 13.41
Sand, fine to coarse with
gravel
123.93
—
121.79
13.41 — 15.55
Sand, fine to coarse, with
gravel, damp
121.79
—
120.57
15.55 — 16.77
Sand, fine to coarse with
some gravel, damp
* MSL — Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL — 121.30 in
107
-------
TABLE B-7. LOG OF BORING 7 AT SITE L
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
.
Description
137.58 —
133.31
0.00 — 4.27
Clay
133.31 —
130.87
4.27 — 6.71
Sand, fine, silty, ligit
brown
130.87 —
128.74
6.71 — 8.84
Sand, fine to coarse, with
small to large gravel
128.74 —
126.00
8.84 — 11.58
Gravel, small to large
126.00 —
125.08
11.58 — 12.50
Sand, fine to coarse, with
gravel
125.08 —
120.81
12.5 — 16.77
Sand, fine to coarse with
some gravel
* MSL Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL 121.85 in
108
-------
TABLE 8-8. LIST OF SA WLES EXAMINED FROM SITE L
E evat1om
of top of
holu
Horing .)
1evatiun
of
vater table
(ii)
Total
d.ptb
(a)
Thickness
of cover
(a)
Thickness
of 1111
(.)
Elevation
sludge/soil
interlace
(a)
Sa.pled
interval
From
depth
a)
To
Elevation of sampled
intervals (a)
From To
Type of
sample
Sample
number
I- ’
0
‘ .0
1
133.117
121.27
13.57
0
2.90
130.51
0.00
2.90
3.1k
3.81
5.911
2.90
3.08
3.81
3.99
6.o4
133.1,7
130.51
130.33
129.66
127.53
130.51
130.39
129.66
129.118
127.113
Chemical
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Chemical
1C1
1C2
lI ’l
1C3
ic1
2
131.1.9
121.85
16.62
0.30
123.01
1.18
13.80
111.1,8
111.72
15.39
15.61
7.30
111.40
111.66
111.78
15.61
111.91
130.31
123.69
123.01
122.77
122.10
121.82
130.19
123.09
122.83
122.11
121.88
121.52
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Physical
2Cl
2C2
2C3
2P1
2C11
2P2
3
133.70
121.58
111.02
NA
NA
6.61.
12.20
6.95
12.59
127.06
121.50
126.75
121.11
Physical
Chemical
3Pl
3C5
11
136.11
122.05
15.55
NA
IA
NA
3.66
3.87
7.92
8.20
12.011
12.95
15.09
3.81
11.30
8.08
8.1.1
12.16
13.35
15.1.8
133.05
132.81.
128.19
128.51
124.67
123.76
121.62
132.90
132.1.1
128.63
128.30
1211.55
123.36
121.23
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
ChemIcal
Chemical
bCl
11P1
l .C2
1.P2
1.C3
11CI 4
1eC5
5
133.73
121.38
114.30
NA
NA
NA
2.97
3.81
5.94
8.05
10.06
12.19
3.28
4.27
6.19
8.50
10.52
12.65
130.76
129.92
127.79
125.68
123.67
121.514
130.115
129.146
127.54
125,23
123.21
121.08
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
5Cl
5C2
5C3
5C 1 4
5C5
5C6
6
137.31 .
121.30
36.71
NA
NA
NA
14.51
12.71
i .514
14.69
12.80
i .85
132.83
1211.63
121.80
132.65
1214,51.
121.119
Physical
Physical
Chemical
691
6P2
6c5
I
137.58
121.85
i6.77
NA
NA
NA
14.27
li,51
8.53
12.50
13.111
15.55
11.145
4.91
8.84
12.71
13.81
15.82
133.31
133.07
129.05
125.08
124.11
122.03
133.13
132.67
128.11.
1211.87
123.11
121.76
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
7C1
fP l
1C2
7C3
TC11
7C5
NA Not applicable.
Note: All elevations are given with respect to mean sea level.
-------
APPENDIX C
SUBSURFACE DATA PROM SITE M
Figure C—i. Water table map of site M.
Elevations are in feet above mean sea level.
1 foot 0.305 meters.
110
-------
TABLE C—i. LOG OF BORING 1 AT SITE N
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
224.68 —
220.88
0.00 — 3.80
Fill
(FCC sludge)
220.88 —
217.82
3.80 — 6.86
Sand,
fine, silty,
light
tan
217.82 —
216.14
6.86 — 8.54
Sand,
wet
fine, silty,
light
gray,
* MSL — Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL 216.82 in
TABLE C-2. LOG OF BORING 2 AT SITE N
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
222.18
—
221.88
0.00 — 0.30
Top soil
221.88
—
221.42
0.30 — 0.76
Silt, light
tan
221.42
—
218.83
0.76 — 3.35
Sand, fine,
silty,
light
tan
218.83
—
216.39
3.35 — 5.79
Sand, fine,
trace of
silty,
organic
wet, with
matter
* MSL a Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL 217.82 in
111
-------
TABLE C-3. LOG OF BORING 3 AT SITE N
Elevation above )fSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
222.10 — 221.80
0.90 — 0.30
Topsoil
221.80 — 220.88
0.30 — 1.22
Clay, silty, dark gray
220.88 — 220.58
1.22 — 1.52
Silt, light tan to dark gray
220.58 — 218.75
1.52 — 3.35
Sand, fine, silty, light tan
218.75 — 218.44
3.35 — 3.66
Clay with silt and sand,
soft, dark gray
218.44 — 216.31
3.66 — 5.79
Sand, fine, vet
* MSL = Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above
MSL 217.10 in
TABLE
C-4. LOG OF BORING 4 AT SITE N
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
224.36 — 222.07
0.00 — 2.29
Fill (FCC sludge and soil)
222.07 — 219.02
2.29 — 5.3 1 +
Clay, silty, vet, dark gray
219.02 — 217.50
5.34 — 6.86
Sand, fine, silty, light
tan
217.50 — 215.21
6.86 — 9.15
Sand, fine, silty, vet
* MSL = Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL 216.77 in
112
-------
TABLE C-S. LOG OF BORING 5 AT SITE N
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
222.14 — 221.84
0.00 — 0.30
Topsoil
221.84 — 221.23
0.30 — 0.91
Clay, silty, dark gray
221.23 — 217.26
0.91 — 4.88
Sand, fine, silty, light tan
217.26 216.19
4.88 — 5.95
Sand, fine, silty, wet
* MSL Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above
MSL 217.14
in
TABLE
C-6. LOG OF
BORING
6 AT SITE N
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
221.17 — 220.87
0.00 — 0.30
Topsoil
220.87 — 219.34
0.30 — 1.83
Clay, silty, dark to light brown
219.34 — 215.32
l 83 — 5.85
Sand, fine, silty, light tan
* MSL Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL 216.17 in
113
-------
TABLE C -7. LOG OF BORING 7 AT SITE N
Elevation above MSL*
(in)
Depth (in)
Description
221.49 —
221.19
0.00 — 0.30
Topsoil
221.19 —
218.14
0.30 — 3.35
Clay, silty,
dark
gray
218.14 -
216 6l
3.35 — 4.88
Clay, silty,
dark
gray,
soft
2l5 6l —
215.33
4.88 — 6.16
Sand, fine,
silty,
wet,
gray
* MSL Mean sea level.
Water table elevation above MSL = 216.25 in
114
-------
TABLE C—8. LIST OF SAMPLES EXAMINED FROM SITE M
Elevation
of top of
hole
boring (is)
Elevation
of
i ater table
(m)
Total
depth
(a)
Thickness
of cover
(a)
Thickness
of fill
(a)
Elevation
sludge/Boll
interface
Cm)
Sampled
interval
From
depth
Cm)
To
Elevation of sampled
intervals (a)
From To
Type of
sample
Sample
number
2214.68 216.82 8.514 0 3.80 220.88 1.52 2.13 223.16 222.55 Chemical id
3.79 3.95 220.89 220.73 Chemical 1C2
14.01 Ii.27 220.67 220.141 physical 1P1
5.614 5,79 219.014 218,89 Chemical 1C3
5.85 6.25 218.83 218. 1i3 Physical 3P2
6.86 7.o14 211.82 217.611 Chemical lC Ii
7.10 7.62 217.52 217.06 Physical 1P3
2 222.18 211.82 5.79 NA NA NA 0.30 0.149 221.88 221.69 Chemical 2C1
0.55 1.07 221.63 221.11 Physical 2P1
1.22 1.140 220.96 220.78 Chemical 2C2
3.35 3,57 218.83 218.61 Chemical 2C3
14.11 14.30 218.07 217.88 Chemical 2C14
14.36 14.82 217.82 217.36 Physical 2P14
3 222.10 217.10 5.79 NA NA NA 0.30 0.149 221.80 221.61 Chemical 3C1
0.55 1.01 221.55 221.09 Physical 3Pl
1.22 i. 1 0 220.88 220.70 Chemical 3C2
1.16 1.77 220.614 220.33 Physical 3P2
3.35 3.57 218.75 218.53 Chemical 3C3
3.63 14.08 218.147 218.02 Physical 3P3
14.11 14.30 217.99 211.80 Chemical 3C14
14.36 i .S8 217.714 217.22 Physical 3P14
2214.36 216.71 9 . 5 0 2.29 222.01 2.29 2.147 222.01 221.89 Chemical 14C1
2.53 3.05 221.83 221.31 Physical IP1
3.20 3.38 221.36 220.98 Chemical IIC2
3 ,lli 3.81 220.92 220.149 Physical 14P2
(continued)
-------
TABLE C—8 (CONTINUED)
Elevation
E1 vatlon
F . luit lon
of top of
of
Totel
Thickneita
Thicknene
aludge/eoiI
Sampled
depth
Elevation of eanipled
Boring
hole
(m)
water table
(in)
depth
(a)
of
cover
(in)
of
till
(m)
interface
(a)
interval
From
(a)
To
intervain (in)
From To
Type of
sample
Sample
number
5.33
5.58
6.86
7.62
7.86
5.52
5.88
T.O1;
1.83
8.38
219.03
218.18
211.50
216.71;
216.50
218.81;
210.118
211.32
216.53
225.98
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
ChemIcal
Physical
IiC3
1iP3
hcl ,
1sC5
11P5
5
222.11;
217.11;
5.95
.
NA
NA
NA
11.88
5.12
5.06
5.61,
217.26
217.02
217.08
216.50
Chemical
Phyeical
5c11
5P11
6
221.17
216.17
5.85
NA
NA
NA
.30
0.55
1.116
3.57
l ,.88
0.119
1.07
1.92
3.96
5.18
220.87
220.62
219.71
217.60
216.29
220.68
220.10
219.25
217.21
215.99
Chemical
Physical
Physical
Phyinical
Chemical
6Cl
61’i
6r2
6P3
6c11
7
221.119
216.25
.
6.16
NA
NA
NA
.
0.30
0.55
1.22
1.1,6
3.35
3.60
11.88
5.12
0.119
0.16
1.110
1.98
3.51
11.11
5.09
.6h
221.19
220.91;
220.21
220.03
218.111
217.89
216.61
226.37
221.00
220.73
220.09
219.51
217.92
211.38
216.110
215.85
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Physical
Id
7Pl
IC2
7P2
7C3
7P3
id,
7f’)i
p -a
‘-a
a’
NA • Not applicable.
Note: All elevations are given with respect to mean sea level.
------- |