TCLP AS A MEASURE OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS: RESULTS OF TCLP WORK
COMPLETED ON DIFFERENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CERCLA SOILS
by: Robert C. Thurnau
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
M. Pat Esposito
PEI Associates, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
ABSTRACT
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) require that EPA either ban the
disposal of hazardous wastes to the land or ascertain that such wastes
are acceptable for land disposal. The soil and debris associated with
the clean up of Superfund sites also fall under these statutes and must
be addressed. A significant part of the regulatory strategy adopted by
EPA involved the determination of best demonstrated available technology
for contaminated soils and debris. A series of soil treatment tech-
nologies that were considered as candidates for Superfund sites
(physical, chemical, thermal solidifcation) were tested on a laboratory
prepared feed sample and the waste product streams generated were pro-
cessed by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
The TCLP chemicals and mechanism have been cmpared to some of the
most severe leaching conditions experienced in the land disposal of
hazardous wastes, and therefore the results of these tests should
simulate the worst case situations. In this context, TCLP is being
studied as an indicator of treatment effectiveness, and may be one
of the criteria employed to determined if a waste is banned or land
disposed. This paper presents the TCLP data generated from the five
(5) different BDAT treatment technologies tested and helps to put
the use of this technique into practical perspective.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Under section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
EPA was charged with identifying those wastes which, if Improperly managed,
would pose a hazard to himan health and the environment. The statute also
specified that EPA identify such wastes through the development of lists of
hazardous waste characteristics. Characteristics are those properties
which, if exhibited by a waste, identify it as a hazardous waste, and are
established for levels of which there is a high degree of certainty that the
waste needs to be managed in a controlled manner. The Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Characteristic (EPTox) was developed to determine if specified
metals, insecticides and herbicides could be mobilized from a simulated
municipal sanitary landfill environment. As with most first generation
rules, improvement and expansion followed. The Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was subsequently developed to address the
mobility of a broad range of both organic and inorganic compounds and to
solve the operational problems of the EPTC protocol.
The work reported in this paper centers around a set of soils that
were synthetically prepared to simulate the soils found at a typical
Superfund site. The soils referred to herein as Synthetic Analytical
Reference Matrixes (SARM) were processed through five different treatment
technologies: incineration, low temperature thermal desorption, chemical
treatment, physical treatment and stabilization. The performance of each
technology was evaluated by comparing total waste analysis (TWA) and TCLP
analyses of the starting materials to the treated residues.
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE
A brief description of the TCLP is as follows: The sample is classi-
fied as liquid or solid by the percentage of solid material, reduced in
size if necessary (<9.5 mm), weighed and mixed with an acidic solution at
least 20 times the weight of the solid phase. The mixture is filtered and
the extract is retained for chemical analysis. The procedure is modified
somewhat when volatile organics are involved in that a zero headspace
specific extraction vessel is required. A TCLP flow chart is presented as
Figure 1.
EXPERIMENTAL
The basic composition of the soil used in the technology evaluations
was determined as a result of an extensive literature search of Superfund
records. The final soil composition selected consisted of (by volume):
30% by volume of clay (montmoril1inite and kaolinite), 25% silt, 20% sand,
20% top soil and 5% gravel. The components were air dried, and then mixed
2
-------
rivjurvc i. iV/Lr nuwcnun
Wet Waste Sample
Contains 0.5%
Non-Filterable „
Solids |
i I
J Representative Wsste !_
I Sample |~
I
I
I
t
Liquid/Solid
Separation
0.6-0.8 um
Glass Fiber
Filters
Discard
Solid
I
Dry Waste
Sample
I
I
I——
Wet Waste Sample
Contains 0.5%
Non-Filterable
Solids (
I
I
I
Solid
I
I
I
I
I
-Solid-
Reduce Particle Size If 9.5 mm
Or Surface Area 3.1 cm2
Liquid/Solid
Separation
0.6-0.8 um
Glass Fiber
Filters
Liquid
I
I
Store At
4° C
I
I
TCLP Extraction*
of Solid
O-Headspace Extractor
Required For Volatiles
Liquid/Solid
Separation
0.6-0.8 um Glass
Fiber Filters
Discard
Solid
I
Liquid
I ^
I
i
L TCLP Extract-
TCLP Extract
I
Analytical |
Methods
I
I
—TCLP Extract J
J
* The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the solid phase of the waste.
3
-------
together in two 15,000-1b batches 1n a standard truck mounted cement mixer.
A prescribed list of chemicals found to be widely and frequently occurring
at Superfund sites was added to the clean soil to produce the SARMs in a
series of small scale ml'xing operations utilizing a 15 ft3 mortar roixer.
The organic components added were: acetone, chlorobenzene, 1,2-dichloro-
ethane, ethyl benzene, styrene, tetrachloroethylene, xylene, anthracene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and pentachlorophenol. The metals added to
the clean soil were either salts or oxides of: arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc. Due to the fact that the contaminant pro-
files of Superfund soils differ widely from site to site in composition and
concentration, four different SARM formulas were prepared. Table 1 presents
the target contaminant concentration level of the four SARM samples as well
as the actual level achieved. The SARMs showed representative consistency
and homogeneity between formulations and approached the target levels
outl ined on Table I.
The SARMs produced in the first phase of this project were then pro-
cessed through five treatment technologies that were thought to be most
readily available and to have the greatest applicability to CERCLA site
restoration activities. The technologies studied were: incineration, low
temperature thermal desorption, chemical treatment (KPEG), physical treat-
ment (soil washing) and solidification/stabilization. The effectiveness
of the five different treatment technologies was measured by observing the
change in concentration of the identified compounds and elements. TWA was
used to measure changes in the total contamination levels in the treated
SARM residuals as a result of treatment. TCLP on the other hand was used
to track potential changes in leachate composition as a result of treatment.
The logic behind the TCLP aspect of the project was that if the treatment
reduces the total level of contamination or immobilizes it to a point
where it will not migrate with the acidic leachate, the residual will be a
good candidate for land disposal. Thus, residuals from each of the treat-
ment technologies were collected and processed through the TCLP, and
analyzed for the metals and organic compounds listed above.
RESULTS
Table II presents the results of the TCLP on the untreated soil SARM I.
The data indicate that the semivolatile organic compounds were not effi-
ciently extracted from the untreated soil. The volatile organic compounds
were extracted at higher concentrations than the semivolatile organic
compounds with the most volatile compounds (acetone and 1,2-dichloroethane)
being extracted completely. Figure 2 shows a plot of the percent of vola-
tile compound extracted by TCLP vs. the compound's boiling point. There
appears to be a trend toward lower extraction of volatile organic compounds
with increasing boiling point. The relatively lower water solubilities and
high boiling points of the semivolatiles are a logical extension of this
trend. This type of information would be useful in determining the minimum
soil concentration levels that would be necessary for the use of TCLP as a
predicting tool for organic compounds in residuals earmarked for land
di sposal.
4
-------
TABLE 1
Target and Actual Concentrations For SARMs
Total Waste Analysis (TWA)
Table 1
Compound
SARM I
mg/Kg
SARM II
SARM III
SARM IV
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
(1) Acetone
(2) Chlorobenzene
(J) 1.2dichk>roethane
(4) Ethylbenzene
(5) Styrerte
16) Tetrachloroethylene
(71 Xylene
6800
400
6O0
3200
1000
600
8200
4353+ 1933
316 ± 49
3541 143
33291 654
707 ± 96
4591 137
55551 1921
680
40
60
320
100
60
820
357 0 ± 184 0
13 2 ± 10 4
46 138
123 0 1 1110
48 0 1 38 0
19 0 t 110
165 0 1 72 0
680
40
60
320
100
60
820
358 0
110
49
144.0
32.3
201
325.0
6800
3059
400
329
600
491
3200
2708
1000
631
600
540
8200
5578
(8) Anthracene
(91 Bis(2 ethythexyOphthalate
(101 Rsntachlorophenol
6500 5361 t 3785
2500 1958 i 1104
1000 326 t 237
650
250
100
353 0 1 97 0
136 0 1 120 0
39 0 ± 55 0
650
250
100
1810
114.0
30 0
6500
2500
1000
19201 1992
646 ± 284
80 ± 23
(11) Arsenic
(12) Cadmium
(13) Chromium
114) Copper
(15)Lead
(16) Nickel
(17) Zinc
10
20
30
190
280
30
450
19 + 7
23 1 10
26 + 7
239 + 56
245 t 62
33 r 17
502 I 218
10
20
30
190
280
30
450
174 120
24 4 131
283 0 + 50
259 0 +48 0
305 0 158 0
354 + 15 2
4180 + 1790
500
702.0 1 204
500
5821 174
1000
1934 0 + 1352
1000
2897 + 2819
1500
1204 0 1 163
1500
1381 1 172
9500
9196 0 <- 1551
9500
11102 t 1811
14000
14695 0 + 1507
14000
15178 ± 2227
1000
14190 ~ 578
1000
1459 • 616
22500
361770 • 11878
22500
27428 « 5472
-------
TCLP SARM 1 UntrMftad Sample
mg/L
••
•
•-
u
a
Table 2
Compound
Soil Washing
PEI Associates
QC Sample *1
PEI Associates
QC Sample *2
Lee Wan Tech
QC Sample *1
N
•C tt
u
**
% E
Incineration
Project
Mean of All
Samples
Maximum Availat
For Extraction Ta
% TCLP
Components Extr
(11 Acetone
11000
2500. 2600. 320 0
220 0. 2300. 250 0
125 0. 155 0
134 00. 143 00
282 00
207 00 4 70 00
218 00 ± 97 00
95 00
12) Chlorobeniene
S 20
8 40. 7 90. 7 80
690. 7 50 7 00
7 20. 7 20
7 70. 7 80
650
7 30 ± 0 80
15 80 ±2 50
46 00
13) 1.2>
-------
Figure 2 Boiling Point vs. Extraction Coefficient
Boiling Point 0 C
-------
The third area reported was the release of metals by TCLP. Although,
the procedure was designed to simulate the worst case leachate, In these
studies the TCLP only dissolved about 30 percent of the original metal into
the leachate sample. Again, this 1s Important from a sample selection and
analytical detection limit standpoint. A sample like SARM I which has a
relatively a high clay composition and a relatively low concentration of
metals would not be a good choice for evaluating treatment effectiveness or
metals as measured by metal mobility on the basis of TCLP. As the
contamination level rises, the easier it becomes to evaluate both treatment
effectiveness and TCLP mobility.
The main thrust of the project was to evaluate the treatment effective-
ness of the five different technologies, by either destroying, removing or
containing the pollutants of interest. One of the ways to judge the treat-
ment effectiveness was to compare the leachability of the target compounds
after treatment with similar data before treatment. TCLP was the vehicle
selected to make this comparison. In making this selection it should be
remembered that because the TCLP is not totally effective in extracting the
different classes of compounds, the initial TCLP values for untreated SARMs
were in several cases quite small and often near the limit of analytical
detection. Thus in many cases the treatment effectiveness was judged on
the difference between two small numbers. With these thoughts in mind, the
TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratment technologies is presented.
Table 3 presents some typical TCLP data collected for the solidifica-
tion experiments. SARM I was treated with portland cement, kiln dust and
lime/fly ash and cured for 28 days. The stabilized materials were sampled,
examined by TCLP and summarized. Each of the individual chemicals in the
TCLP extract from the treated residuals were compared to the initial TCLP
concentrations for the untreated SARMs and the individual removal effi-
ciencies were calculated. Appropriate adjustments were made to account for
dilution when the binders were added to the SARM. These efficiencies were
sunmed and averaged for each class of compounds (volatiles etc.) and the
average number taken as the treatment effectiveness attributable to TCLP.
The bar graphs show the relationships for the different binders toward the
same class of compounds.
The type of data illustrated in Table 3 can be expanded across all the
technologies. Table 4 illustrates a typical TCLP data set for SARM I and
how it was affected by each of the five treatment technologies tested. The
TCLP data indicate that incineration did an excellent job of reducing the
Teachable organics in the residues. Surprisingly, the TCLP data for the
metals in incineration ash are 83 to 99+ percent lower than the untreated
SARM TCLP values, indicating that either metals were removed from the ash
during the incineration process or that the ash was altered so as not to
release as much metal in the TCLP test. Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
at 150°F was only moderately effective on the volatiles, but at 350°F and
was very effective. Semivolatile removal results exceeded 95% for
anthracene and bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate "at all 3 temperatures; results
for pentachlorophenol are somewhat erratic but seem to indicate the best
removal rate (about 90?) at the 550° temperature. The metals data point
toward a change in the soil matrix during heating which results in higher
8
-------
Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments
Table 3
c
Compound
TCLP
Regulatory
Valu« mg/L
Initial Value
As Determine'
By TCLP
mg/L
SARM 1
Portland Cerrv
%
Reduction
SARM 1
Kiln Dust
J
5
**
1
if
31
%
Reduction
ill Acetone
20700 t 7000
18000
1300
610
971
43 00
79 2
121 CNorobentene
14
7 30 1 0 80
130
82 20
006
99 2
160
781
131 1.2 dichtorrathane
04
223 00 i 5 50
<0 44
> 9800
010
99 6
< 010
>99 6
(4| Ectiylbentene
45 70 ± 8 40
10 30
77 50
<006
>99 9
18 00
606
151 Styrene
11001 310
<2 80
> 74 50
106
904
410
62 7
(61 tetrechloroethylene
01
6 60 t 1 70
0 72
8910
< 002
> 99 7
150
773
171 Xylene
810 ± 10 50
13 80
83 00
204
97 5
22 00
728
> 73 90
>97 6
>75 8
(81 Anthracene
19 80 ± 1810
<0 03
> 99 80
< 005
>99 8
<002
>99 9
191 Ebs<2 elhylheiyll
phlhglgte
1101 fVnl»chloiophenol
36
26 50* 27 00
4 10 1 3 70
102
3 87
96 20
560
< 005
< 013
>99 8
>96 8
016
0 40
99 4
902
62 70
>98 80
>96 5
1111 Artenic
so
009 ±007
< 015
NO
< 015
ND
<015
NO
112) Cadmium
10
067 1 0 28
< 0 01
> 98 50
< 001
>98 5
<001
>98 5
1131 Chromium
50
0 06 J 004
006
000
009
- 500
002
66 7
1141 Cooper
3 50 ± 1 80
006
98 30
003
991
003
98 3
1151 lead
50
160 t 0 80
<015
> 90 60
< 015
> 90S
<015
> 906
1161 Nickel
0 50 i 0 22
< 004
> 92 70
< 004
> 92 7
< 004
92 7
1171Zinr
1? 50 i 4 50
0 49
96 10
062
950
< 001
>99 9
95 20
95 2
911
\fchilw S«mivoiatflai
SARM I SARM I SARM I
TCLP TCLP TCIP
100"
75"
50«
U
£
f
o
-------
Table 4 Comparison of
Treatment Technologies for
SARMI Using TCLP
Compound
(II Acetone
(2) Chlorobenzene
13) 1.2-dichtoroethane
(4) Ethytbeniene
(51 Styrene
(61 Tetrechloroethytone
(71 Xylene
T3
tO 9 _,
a
o)
£5$ e
207 00 ± 7000
7 30 ±080
22 30 ±5 50
45 70 ± 8 40
1100±310
6 60 ± 1 70
81 00 ± 10 50
"2
<0
= 1
o •
•20
® 3(>
u »
c a> >.
— CC CO
c
o
¦o
«
oc
0 74
<004
010
0 65
011
004
105
99 64
> 99 50
> 99 60
98 60
99 00
>99 40
98 70
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption
150°
c
o
fj
3
350°
c
o
o
#1
550°
c
•8
U
J
Jr- cc
2000
903
19
9910
100
99 5
4 70
97 7
290
603
<010
>98 60
<010
>98 6
0 76
89 6
0 40
98 2
<010
>99 60
<010
>996
<;oio
99 6
44 00
37
<010
>99 80
<010
>998
810
82 3
310
99 0
<010
>9910
<010
>991
280
74 6
130
803
<010
>98 50
<010
>98 5
<010
>98 5
5510
321
011
99 90
<010
>999
10 70
86 8
lis 1
E £ "o
oi^cc Jrcc
99 21
99 23
(8) Anthracene
(9) Bis(2 ethylhenvllphthalate
(10) nntachlorophenol
19 40 t 1810
26 50 ± 27 00
4 09 ± 3 71
<001
<001
<002
>99 90
>99 90
>99 50
<0 02 >99 90 0 86 95 60 <001 >99 9
016 99 40 0 78 9710 <003 >999
161 60 60 6 27 28 80 0 35 914
0 40
004
110
>99 80
54 60
(11) Arsenic
(12)Cadrreum
(131 Chromium
(141 Copper
115) lead
(161 Nickel
(171 Zinc
009 ±007
067 ±028
006 ±004
3 50 ± 1 80
160 1080
0 55 ±0 22
12 50 ±4 50
<015
<001
<001
<0 02
<015
<0 04
<0 03
ND
>98 50
>83 00
>99 40
>90 60
92 70
>99 80
94 00
<015
130
010
6 80
2 80
140
27 30
<015
ND
<015
<015
NO
110
64 20
090
0 40
40 3
013
1160
004
0 28
92 0
513
46 60
004
<0 01
>830
2 30
43 80
0 20
0 22
86 3
110
10000
0 60
009
83 6
24 00
92 00
13 80
3 25
74 0
77 10
76 5
-------
Table 4 Comparison of
Treatment Technologies for
SARMI Using TCLP
CO
I ®
|o
Compound
¦?_
05:
.asl*
(1) Acetone
(2) Chlorobenzene
(3) 1,2-dichloroethane
(4) Ethylbenzene
(5) Styrene
(6) Tetrachloroethylene
(7) Xylene
207.00 ± 70.00
7.30 ±0.80
22.30 ±5.50
45.70 ±8.40
11.00 ±3.10
6.60 ± 1.70
81.00 ±10.50
Soil Washing
2 mm to 250 um
Surfactant
Solidification
Kiln Dust
•
2 5 ->
2*1 w
• J® e
QC> E
3
^"5
2 2-J
8*5 »
cc> E
0.65
0.12
0.03
0.97
0.25
0.10
2.20
99.7
98.4
99.9
97.9
97.7
97.4
97.3
6.10
0.06
0.10
<0.06
1.06
<0.02
2.04
c
o
'5
o
3
•o
K
97.1
99.2
99 6
>99.9
90.4
99.7
97 5
98.3
97.6
(8) Anthracene
(9) Bis(2 ethylhexyDphthalate
(10) Pentachlorophenol
19.40 ± 18.10
26.50 ±27.00
4.09 ±3.71
<0.02
>99.9
<0.05
>99.7
0.10
99.6
<0.05
>99.8
0.41
90.0
0.13
96.8
96.5 I
98.8
(11) Arsenic
(12) Cadmium
(13) Chromium
(14) Copper
(15) Lead
(16) Nickel
(17) Zinc
0.09 ±0.07
0.67 ±0.28
0.06 ± 0.04
3.50 ± 1.80
1.60 ±0.80
0.55 ±0.22
12.50 ±4.50
<0.15
0.26
<0.01
0.18
0.15
<0.06
1.90
NO
61.2
>83.3
94.9
90.6
89.1
84.8
83.4
<0.15
<0.01
0.09
0.03
<0.15
<0.04
0.62
ND
>98.5
-50.0
99.1
>90.6
>92.7
95.0
95.1
11
-------
TCLP values after treatment compared to before, hence the negative removal
efficiency values. This trend suggests that low temperature desorption may
not be appropriate for soils containing both organic and metallic contamina-
tion. Chemical treatment by KPEG reduced the chlorinated volatile compounds
(dichlorpethane and tetrachloroethylene)by >981 and the semlvolatlles by
about >90%. KPEG treatment was also effective in reducing metals; TCLP
values for metals in the residuals were overall 76.51 lower than for the
the untreated SARM. For soils washing, treatment of 2 mm to 250 m
fraction with surfactant reduced the volatiles in the TCLP by >98%, semi-
volatiles by >96%, and the metals by >83%. Stabilization utilizing kiln
dust reduced the metals by >95%. The apparent high removal rates for
organics (overall about 98%) following stabilization is thought to be the
result of offgasing during mixing rather than the results of chemical
reaction of the organics within the matrix.
The TCLP data collected around the five technologies, and four SARMs
have been summarized in order of decreasing treatment effectiveness as
shown in Table 5.
DISCUSSION
The TCLP system for evaluating the potential of a waste to release
hazardous contaminants was based on manipulating laboratory extraction
conditions until the results matched those from a pilot-scale system of
lysimeters containing 90% municipal waste and 10% industrial waste.
Its application to evaluating residues from different soil treatment
options, or judging treatment efficiency of CERCLA soils should be
approached with caution, and done on a case by case basis.
Each CERCLA site's soil will be different in some form and to this
extent the degree to which the TCLP will extract each compound from the
soil will also change. The attenuation of the individual compounds in
the untreated SARMs by 70 to 95% places a terrific burden on the analytical
techniques used to analyze the TCLP extract for two reasons. First, in
many cases, even though the concentration of a given contaminant may be
hundreds or thousands of parts per million in the untreated soil, the con-
centration produced in the leachate may lie at the fringes of the analytical
detection limit; when compared to a leachate value derived from the treated
residue, the two numbers may be virtually indistinguishable from each
other. Thus the limits of analytical detection can prevent a true, picture
from being formed regarding the effectiveness of a particular treatment.
This type of condition can be clearly seen in the data for arsenic and
chromium. Second and perhaps more importantly in many cases the treatment
efficiency will be based on the difference between two small numbers. This
was very evident in the metals data in Table 4 as well as all the metals
data collected on all the synthetic soils. The solubility of inorganic
compounds in an inorganic (i.e. aqueous) solvent system is the question
that must be dealt with when using TCLP, and this data indicates that
using this approach for evaluating treatment effectiveness could be risky.
However, when approaching TCLP from a health and safety standpoint
with impacts on the environment being quantitated, the use of TCLP would
12
-------
TCLP Evaluation of Treatment
Effectiveness for SARMs
I. II, III, IV
Table 5
SARM 1
%
Reduction
SARM n
3
**
jFff
SARM m
SARM IV
HI taw Imp Thermal Ottorp p "5SO* F
> 995
11) Sofcdrficahon IvnaJfty Ash 78 days
880
III Sorts Weshmg <7 mm water
908
111 Sods VWsNng *7 mm water
997
(21 So*i WwNng 750 um water
995
(71 lncmerel*on
*>87 8
l?l Sorts WhsNnp 250 um chelate
95 3
171 Sods Wwtwiy *7 mm swfectant
993
(31 Incmerehon
> 997
(3) SoUdUteatton Kin Dual 78 doyt
870
(31 Sorts W»sNng 7 mm to 750 um chelate
943
131 Sorts Wsrfwiu 7 mm to 750 i*n fcaw
991
14) Urw fcvnp Thermal Dmib 9 350* F
> 997
(4) Low Vnp Thermal Oeeovb 9 150* F
>814
(4| SoNdifcation Kin Oust 70 day
> 936
|4) Soils WesNng *7 mm iNISli
991
(51 Sorts WeaJ»>g 7 mm to 750 um water
997
151 C heme el teal KPCG fSasi ID
>810
(5) Sorts WfriNnq 750 um water
97 6
(5) Sorts W»i*w» 7 mm to 750 um aurfactant
988
i6l Sorts IVMhwj *2 mm water
999
(6) Low tamp Thermal Oeeerto 9 350" F
>80 8
(6) Sorts W^ihng >7 mm ehetate
97 7
(61 Sorts W*s**hj 2 mm to 750 i*n chela*
986
<71 So** Wiihwq *7 mm surfactant
988
17| Low Vamp Thermal Deturb 9 550" F
>79 0
17) Sohd>f>cet*>n Lwne^ty A«h 78 dey
903
(7) Sorts WMrtng 750 taw surfactant
970
(81 Serf* Wtfung 7 mm to 750 um surfectant
983
18) Sorts *7 rrvn chelate
714
18) Chemtcel fttat KPCG Test #1
B4 7
(8) Chemical teet KPCG »et ft
96 7
(91 Sohdrticshon Kiln Oust 70 dey
976
(91 Sort* Wattwrg 7 mm to 750 um chalets
664
191 Sofcdification fen Canebi 78 dvy
063
191 Sorts Wa#rt^ 750 wn wvtar
97 7
110) Sorts Wtohing 750 m surfactant
97 8
H01 Sorts VMasNng 750 um water
018
O0I Sods WIMing 750 um chaMe
60 7
HUChamcal leatment KPCG (#11
899
Oil SoMhtetton Krtn Dust 78 days
775
<17)SoMiftc«tion fen Cement 78 day
739
117) SoMficatkm Iwmfih, Ask
73 7
11) Chemcal "Wetment Tesi #11
> 994
01 Incineration
988
11) Sorts WesNng *7 mm chelate
884
(11 Sorts W%a>rtng *2 mm ihalaw
93 3
171 SoWrfcation Krtn Owl 78 dart
> 988
(71 Sofia WosNng *7 mm wotor
95 6
(71 Sohditcetion Krtn Oust 78 days
87 2
(71 Sorts Wbrfmiy •? mm surfactant
97 6
131 tncvwstton
988
131 Sorts Weafwig *7 mm chelate
947
(3) SoMfrhcetion Ivne/Fly Ash 78 days
548
13) Soh*ficahon UmeJfty Ash 78 day
BS 6
14) Sorts W^iWng *7 mm water
98 8
|4| Soil ttfrshmg *7 mm surfactant
94 7
f41 Sort WlasNng *7 mm watar
545
14) Sorts Wiring *7 mm water
87 4
151 Sorts 7 mm to 750 um surfactant
98 3
151 Sorts *frah*ng 7 mm to 750 um water
97 9
(51 Chemcel Weetmem KPCG *itt #1)
505
15) Chemical fteet KPCG laei #1
> 64 t
16) Sorts Wtstrtng *7 mm M*fect*it
981
101 Low lamp Thermal Desorb 9 550" 1
> 978
10) Sods Wwhmg 750 um chelate
31 0
(61 Sorts Wheheiu 7 mm to 750 um UialpU
78 9
171 low lamp Thermal Dasort) 9 550* F
971
171 Chem Treatment KPCG THt #1
> 910
17) Sorts Wbshaig 2 to 750 um surfactant
700
181 SoMtfiCstion lime* hf Ash 70 deys
965
(8) low lamp Theimal Oesorb 9 150* F
>89 5
181 Sorts WfcsNng 7 mm to 750 um water
671
191 Umv temp Thermal Oeaorp 9 150* F
88 7
191 Sorts Waal*m ) mm to 750 ug water
814
(9) Suhi»lH.eiton Kin Ouat 78 days
57 t
1 >01 So4| W»>wig 7 mm to 750 i**» water
840
HO) Sorts WesNng 7 mm to 750 ug cheats
779
HI Sotefr'caten Kin Oi/sl 78 day*
> 951
H) Sorts Wlashem *7 mm surfectant
964
HI Sohdriceiton fen Cement 78 days
994
01 Sorts *7 mm thlais
93 3
l?l hcmvtaton
> 940
(71 Sorts Waalwig *7 mm chelate
94 7
17) Sorts WlaiFwog 7 mm to 750 um chelate
93 5
(71 Soils Wbrfmg *7 mm surfactant
97 6
13) Sotafcai«n Lime/Fly Ash 78 days
>97 3
(3) Sorts Wlashmg *7 mm water
94 6
13) Sorts WasNng *7 mm chelate
68 7
(31 Sorts Warfwm *7 mm water
R7 4
<4| Sorts WitNng •? mm surlactent
88 6
(4) Sorts Weshwig 7 mm to 750 um chelate
97 7
I4| Sorts WIssNng «7 mm water
874
I4l SoNMcanon fen Cement 78 dey
BS 3
lSi Sods Washing *7 mm water
874
15) Sol»dif»cat*on Lime'flv Ash 78 tli»y
> 971
(5t Sorts WajNng 7 mm to 750 um water
84 1
151 Sorts WWshmg 7 mm to 750 cMatv
i6> Sod* Washing 7 mm to 250 um suifacient
834
(61 SoHcfefcetion fertland Cemeni 78 day
> 630
(6) Snhtic4tion fVwl Cement 78 day*
871
<71 low lamp Thermal Desorp 9 150" F
870
(7| So'tfilf-Atmn limef hr A»h ?fl rfays
54 3
171 Sofc(M*cation Lrrwf hr Ash 78 dey
60 1
~R* U*mtral Treat KPfG 1111
> 701
181 Sorts WasNng 7 mm to 750 i*n surfactant
74 7
(8) Ch^mtcal Treat KPCG Vji fi
35 0
(8> Sorts Wfrihmg 7 mm to 750 um wate*
6/ 1
(91 SoMtlmtron Krtn Ousl 78 day
> 717
19) SnMrftcation Krtn Ousl 78 day
66«
H0H>tr*ners(ion
64 3
110)Cherrwcat Treat KPCG list fi
4H /
-------
be very useful. Table 3 shows the proposed TCLP Regulatory values
for eight of the compounds listed (the other compounds have no current
regulatory v&lue proposed). The data in Table 3 indicate that the
solidification binders of Portland cement and lime/fly ash when used on
SARM I could not bring the TCLP values for chlorobenzene, l,2-d1chloro-
ethane, tetrachloroethylene and pentachlorophenol below the proposed
regulatory limits implying that these compounds could still be released
from the landfilled stabilized mixture in sufficiently high concentrations
to have potential adverse impacts on the surrounding environment. The
data in Table 4 also show that for SARM I low temperature thermal desorp-
tion at 150°F could release harmful concentrations of chlorobenzene,
dichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and excessive cadmium could be re-
leased from the residuals regardless of the treatment temperature if land
disposed after treatment. None of the residues from the other technologies
had releases that would be flagged by TCLP standards.
Figure 3 expresses the TCLP data from Table 4 in bar charts by techno-
logy. This data can also be rearranged to study the treatment by compound
class, and this is shown in Figure 4. When displayed in this manner,
specific CERCLA problems can be isolated and the best treatment options
selected.
A logical extension of the TCLP work is to study how it compares with
the data determined by total waste analysis (TWA) of the untreated SARMs
and the tested residues. A series of parallel data sheets were developed
for TWA that corresponded to the same sets of treatment options outlined
for TCLP. Table 6 is a summary chart of the treatment efficiencies as
measured by TWA for the different technologies in in decreasing order of
effectiveness. Generally speaking, the thermal technologies did well
against the organic fractions, chemical treatment and soils washing did
well on the semivolatile fraction, and soils washing and solidification
did well against the metals.
Figure 5 compares the effectiveness results of both TCLP and TWA for
SARM I, for each technology by class of compound. For the volatile com-
pounds, the TWA and TCLP data for treatment effectiveness were very close,
and it didn't appear to make much of a difference which method was used
for measuring treatment effectiveness. The TCLP/TWA percent effectiveness
values for semivolatile organic compounds and metals appeared to be mixed,
with generally higher effectiveness values associated with the TCLP data.
Overall, TCLP as a measure of effectiveness gives at least equal and often
higher results than TWA despite the fact that the initial concentration
found in the TCLP leachate from the untreated SARM were more dilute than
the TWA data by a range of 2 to 200 and some of the metals and semivolatile
compounds were near the quantitation limit of the analytical equipment.
These findings, of course, are based on the treatment and analysis of
residues from a freshly prepared synthetic soil. Comparable studies uti-
lizing aged and weathered soils from actual Superfund sites are necessary
to put these results into proper perspective. Such studies are currently
in progress and results are expected to be available in late 1988.
14
-------
TCLP Comparison of Treatment Options for SARMI
Figure 3
Incineration
Low Temperature
Thermal Desorption
@ 350° F
Chemical
Treatment
KPEG
Soils Washing
2 mm to 250 urn
Surfactant
SoRdtfication
Kiln Dust
c
o
3
3
"8
K
100 <
80.
60 —
40'
20«
o
CN
00
O)
0)
cn
cn
V)
A
jd
(0
'5
(0
©
O
(0
>
5
E
®
V)
8
"
M
<0
©
5
#
CO
CM
oi
O)
v>
O
JO
#
O
ID
in
V)
0)
'£3
jo
o
>
'E
©
to
©
r<
i-»
I
JW
(0
0)
£
o
o>
o>
00
w
j»>
P
J5
S
#
O
CO
o
o>
V)
J5
o
>
E
<3
#
o
in
00
cn
w
_©
JO
£
O
in
V)
®
<0
E
V
to
#
o
u-
rj
oo
M
(0
*-*
©
5
#
O
o
00
(O
00
o>
CT)
V)
(A
©
_©
n~
'p
<0
to
o
§
>
E
©
CO
#
. O
u>
O)
§
©
2
-------
TCLP Treatment Comparison by Compound Class for SARMI
Figure 4
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Metals
c
o
«=
o
3
- "2
CTl J
#
100
80
60
40 —
20
to
CM
ai
o>
re
E
Q)
£
Ol
E
£
Z
3
N
o>
o>
c
.o
v
O)
c
!c
V)
¦SO
M
5
o
<0
c
o
TO
o
o
CO
§
O)
00
flj
5
re
u
E
V
-C
O
O
CO
ai
en
c
o
n>
«
c
G
c
O
oo
00
CD
c
o
(0
o
o
V)
0
in
(b
CT)
o>
c
1c
o
t/5
#
O
CO
o
cn
a
UJ
a.
*
o
(D
in
a.
E
|2
#
O
U)
o>
c
o
~3
re
u
o
CO
8
a>
c
o
V
re
k.
©
c
"o
c
5
CO
00
at
c
!£
co
S
<8
#
o
m
-------
Table 6 Summary of Treatment Efficiencies as Measured by TWA
SARM 1
SARM H
SARM m
SARM IV
»— a ^ i
ufQwci
Low Organic*
Low Organic*
Organic*
IMbto VI Low Mel ota
Low Metats
Higr
Matan
High Mittli
|1) incvwftoon
>9999
(1) Exoneration
>99 98
111 Soft WrtNng
•2 mm water
>99 99
111 Chemcal '(eat KPEG fl
9998
(2I So* Washing *2 mm water
>9990
(2) Soft Ww#w>
g al flections watrn
>99 90
(2) Soil Wtashmg
• 2 mm chelate
99 90
121 Soft WW*
ng *2 mm weSw
>9990
(3) Own iMt KPEG 11
9996
(3) Soft Wsahn
g a> fractions chelate
>99 70
(3) Cham Deat KPEG 11
99 50
13) Soft VtaM
ig <2 mm iJielete
>9990
141 So* Wtahng *2 mm sirfectant
>9982
(41 Soft WMm
g al li actions surfactant
>99 70
14) Sod Washing
2 mm to 250 um water
99 30
141 Soft Vteshi
ng '2 mm surfactant,
>9990
15) Sorf WHNng 2mm to 250um surfactant
99 82
(5) SoidtficJtion
Kin Ouat 28 day
99 70
151 Soil Wnhng
2 mm to 250 um chelate
9900
151 Soft "tost*
ng 2 to 250 um aurlactant
>99 70
(6) Soi WMang 2 mm to 250 on «mi
99 80
(61 Low Temp T1
leniiel Paaoib 9 150* F
98 70
16) SoWifcation
Kin Oust 28 day
9810
161 Soft VM#*
rig 2 to 250 tan chelate
>99 70
|7) Low lamp Thermal Daaorb f 350* F
99 79
17) Cham laat KPEG *at tl
98 20
(7) Chemcal feat KPEG 12
97 80
(71 Soi WM+t
g 2 mm to 250 um water
>99 70
IB) low *mp ThamWl Deeort) f 550" F
98 50
18) SuMflcalion
Uma/Fty Ash
9700
181 Soft Wfcahan
250 um clwlala
93 20
(8) Chemcjrf *
eat KPEG 12
9810
191 5u*tM*etlon Kin Dun ¦ 28 day
98 50
191 Oiam laat
KPEG 12
9630
19) Sokdifcalion Uma/Fty Arf) 28 day
9200
(91 SuMfcatan Kfr> Oust 28 day
95 30
110) Cham Inl KPEG 12
98 30
110) Low fjmp Tl
•wrmri p 550* F
9617
(10) Soft Wtahex
250 um water
88 70
(101 Sots WWa
ng 250 tan cnaMe
8180
>9998
>9987
(11 Chemcal *e«
n KPEG >1
9980*
111 Sol WMan
g *2 mm aurfactant
>98 30
(1) fcujimrtpn
|l| RUIPVIWI
97 80
12) Soft Wteslwtg >2 mm surfactant
>99 80
12) SoftWMur
g >2 mm wall
9390
(2) Chemical feat KFEG 12
9900
121 SofeVMsh
ng *2 mm Lhelela
131 Soft IWg >2 mm warn
>98 90
(31 Soft Wkahr
g »2 mm eurfactant
9350
13) Soft Wwhr.
) >2 mm chelate
>96 40
131 Chemc* 1
•at KPEG 12
98 20
141 Own hM KPEG 92
97 00
(4) SahWMai
ig <2 mm chelete
9010
141 Soft Wtatwi
g >2 mm water
>948
14) Chemical 1
aat KPEG fl
95 90
(5) Cham teal 11
9560
151 Low Temp T
ImhiW Onot) 9 550* F
8893
IS) SoidAcetion Lanaffty Aah 28 day
4790
161 Low lamp Thermal Daaorb 9 550" F
94 60
161 Channel *est KPEG Teat tl
8380
16) Soft Wnh
ng 2 to 250 LtiafaW
32 30
171 Soft W»I*«<9 2 mm to 250 eurfactant
82 30
(7) Soft V*sNr
ig 2 to 250 surfactant
87 50
17) SoftVMsft
ng 2 10 250 awfactan)
2940
IB) SoMrfication Ume/Ry Ajh eurfactant
8020
181 Soft What*
ig 2 to 250 water
52 70
(8) Sokdificatran Kfci Oat 28 day
28.30
19) SoMfcatnn Kiln Dutt
8020
(9) Soft WMw
qj 2 to 250 chelate
4730
IX)) Soft WwNng 50 um water
59 70
1101 Cham leet KPEG 12
42 30
(11 Soft WWng »2 mm nmar
92 20
11) Soft Wsshai
ig <2 mm water
>98 70
11) Soft WWani
g 2 mm to 250 im chelate
98 40
(11 Soft WMI
ng >2 nan swfsctam
98 40
(2) Soft WW'm <2 nan eurfactant
9150
(21 Soft WMm
ig <2 mm chelate
9590
121 SoHstMn
g *2 mm chelate
98 40
121 Soft Wfheh
Ing *2 mm ulalali
9810
131 Soft WfaNng 2 10 250 um watei
8160
13) Soft Wtaha
ig '2 mm surfactant
95 70
13) Soft DMn
g >2 mm weter
98 00
131 Soft V*>sh
tig *2 mm wotcr
9710
141 Soft 2 to 250 um surfactant
7550
|4| Soft Mkaha
ig 2 to 250 um chelate
9160
14) Soils WWI«i
g 2 mm to 250 um water
96 40
141 Soft VMnh
ing 2 K> 250 tan sufactant
9180
151 SoMificetion Lane/Fly Ajh 28 day
5060
(5) Soft Wbsha
ig 2 to 250 um surfactant
8510
15) Solidification Lme/Fty Ash
82 30
151 SoftWtash
aig 2 M 250 «*n water
90 70
(61 Sofcdifcation Kiln Dual 28 day
40 20
(61 Soft WMwig 2 lo 250 um wam
82 70
(61 Soft Wtatw-
g 250 um chelate
78 20
16) Sohdricetion L«na/F»y Ash
7390
(7) tncr-^alron
38 70
171 tnciwation
64 30
171 Sohdification Kin Dust 28 day
73 20
17) SoWilcation Kin Dust
6050
(8) Chemical Ireat KPEG 11
39 40
(8) Chem Trealment 11
49 40
-------
Figure 5.
1001
80
60
CD
JZ
z
3
1
DC
401
20
o
CN
(O
c
o
-------
Figure 5. Comparison of Analytical Protocols
for the Treatment of Soil
(Volatiles)
100
1
80 —
60
c
.2
S
3
1
tc
40 —
20
#
O)
#
O)
CO
O)
CN
O)
O)
A
CT)
1
i
a.
_j
>
a
f-
h-
c
c
o
o
4-*
(0
co
©
©
c
c
o
o
c
_c
CO
O)
o>
CD
c
a>
E
£
o
o
UJ
a.
#
o
o>
0>
oo
a.
_i
P
c
4>
E
to
.e
(0
u
'E
©
x:
U
O
LLi
Ql
00
cri
O)
o>
c
£
(/)
I
w
$
o
CO
00
o>
a.
_i
p
CD
c
1c
to
S
-S2
<8
<*
o>
r~-
a>
o>
c
o
o
V)
0)
0
1
(D
JZ
h-
Q.
E
.2
3
o
CM
O)
CT>
Q.
—I
P
C
o
o
W
©
o
"5
E
©
a.
E
£
s
3
IT)
ir>
oo
o>
<»
3
a
c
2
(0
o
¦g
I
0
-------
Figure 5. Comparison of Analytical Protocols
for the Treatment of Soil
(Semivolatiles)
------- |