INVESTIGATION OF STABLEX® MATERIAL EMPLACED
AT WEST THURROCK FACILITY, ENGLAND
DRAFT REPORT
Environmental Laboratory
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Interagency Agreement No. IAG-AD-F-1-347
Project Officers
Robert E. Landreth
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
and
Matt Straus
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
AND •
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
WASHINGTON, T.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory and Office of Solid Waste USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Eitvironinertal
Protection Agency, nor.does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public ar.-i government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
the environment. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testi-
mony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity of the
environment and the interplay between its components require a concentrated .
and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is a 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 wasttwater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from munici-
pal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public drink-
ing water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of'the products of
that research; a most vi.al communications link between the researcher and the
user community.
Th:s study examines the Sealosafe®process used at the West Thurrock
Facility of Stab lex International Holding Ltd., West Thurrock, England that
treats hazardous industrial wastes. Studies such as this advance our under-
standing of techniques developed for managing (i.e. landfilling) industrial
waste with minimum Impact on. human health arid the environment.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
John H. Skinner
Direc.or
Office of Solid Waste
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
In the Spring of 19dl, the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta-
tion (WES) undertook a field and laboratory study to characterize the treated
rtsvdue generated at Stablex Limited's facility in Essex County, England. In
particular, thirteen cores of the solidified Sealosafe® treated waste were
collected from the Aveley ^lay Pit and Thurrock Chalk Quarry disposal areas at
Stablex Limited's West Thurrock site -in England to determine if, under routine
waste management conditions, these wastes would degrade with time and leach
significant concentrations of toxic heavy metals and cyanide and contaminate
the surrounding environment. In addition, samples of surface water, ground
water, of uncured oealosafa© treated waste, and of subwaste rock and soil were
also collected at the site to demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment
process used at the West Thurrock facility.
This report describes the methods used in collecting these samples as
well as the procedures used, including quality control, and results obtained
in testing and analyzing them. The primary testing procedure employed with
the cured and uncured treated waste was EPA's extraction procedure (EP).
Finally, the report presents a discussion on the analytical results and our
ccnclusions.
XV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables viii
Acknowledgements xiv
1. Introduction 1
Background 1
Objectives 2
Sealosafe® Process 3
Thurrock Plant Operations 3
Sample Collection and Analysis 7
2. Conclusions 10
3. Sample Collection and Documentation 13
Field Methods 13
Surface Water Sampling 13
Ground-Water Sampling 16
Sealosafe®-Treated Waste Slurry Sampling . . 21
Sealosafe®-Treated Waste and Soils Sampling 21
Location of Sampling Points 23
Laboratory Methods 27
Logging, Siibsampling, and Photography of Cored Waste
Materials 27
Logging, Subrampling, and Photography of Clay and
Chalk Samples 27
4. Sample Preparation, Testing and Analysis . 28
Quality Control and Quality Assurance Program 28
Representative Sampling . 28
Quality Control at Analysis 28
Sample Security 29
Data Validation 29
Cooperative Testing and Analysis at U.S. EPA 29
-------
Analyses and Results ...................... 45
Subsarapling and Analysis of Surface Water and Ground-
water Samples ....................... 45
Testing and Analyses of Sealosafe® Slurry Samples ...... 45
Testing and Analyses of Samples of Sealosafe® Treated Waste. . 45
Analyses of Extracts of Clay and Chalk Below the Treated
Waste ........................... 31
5. Discussion of Analyses .....
Surface Water Samples
Ground-water Samples ...................... 12Q
Unsolidif led (Slurry) Treated Wastes .............. ^26
EP Testing of Monolithic Treated Waste Cores .......... 126
EP Testing of Ground Sealosafe®Material ............ 127
Bulk Analyses for Cyanide and Distilled Water Leach Test
of Ground Sealosafe® Material for Cyanide ........... 130
Multiple Extraction Procedure Testing of Ground
Sealosafe® Material ...................... 130
Analyses of Waste for Total Organic Carbon ........... ^32
Analyses of Subwast.5 Clay and Chalk Samples .......... 133
References ............ . .................. 134
Appendices
A. Logs of Borings at Stab lex® Disposal Areas ............ 135
B. Descriptions of Core Sections Selected for Testing
and Analysis .......................... 150
C. Summary of Analytical Methods Used at EMSL and
Comparisons of Data on Duplicate Samples Tested
at EMSL and WES . . . ..................... 166
D. Multiple Extraction Procedure .............
VI
-------
FIGURES
Mumber Page
1 Diagram of the Stablex Facility at Thurrock England 4
2. Open-topped hopper truck releasing treated waste at the
Aveley Clay Pit Site 3
3 Sketch map showing th" locations of the Stablex Plant
and the disposal areas 9
4 Sketch map of the Aveley Clay Pit site showing locations
of surface water sampling points \5
5 Sketch map of Thurrock Chalk Quarry site showing
locations of monitoring wells • • • 17
6 Details of construction of the depth sampler monitoring
wells at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry disposal site 18
7 Details o'f construction of the standpipe monitoring
wells at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry disposal site • 19
8 Sketch map of the Aveley Clay Pit showing locations of the
boreholes used in sampling the Sealosafe®-treated wastes
and underlying geologic materials • • 22
9 Sketch map of the Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site showing
locations of the boreholes used in sampling the Sealosafe®-
trea'ted wastes and the underlying geologic materials • • • 24
10 Photo of tracked vehicle with boom-mounted rotary drill 25
11 Photo of drill stem and core barrel being raised from
the borehole 26
12 Variation of the Se concentration in the EP leachate
with the Se concentration in the treated waste 131
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Pa
1 Summary of Waste Input at the Thurrock Plant During
the Period July to December, 1980 by Type of Waste 5
2 Summary of Waste Input 'at the Thurrock Plant During the
Period July to December, 1980 by Type of Waste Producer 5
3 Conductivity and pH Measurements of Surface Water
Samples Collected at the Aveley Clay Pit Disposal Site,
April 6, 1982 14
4 Field Data on Ground-water Samples Collected from the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Monitoring Wells on April 6, 1982 20
5 Results of Testing and Analysis of Composited Samples
of Dried, Ground Waste from BH5 30
6 Results of Testing and Analysis of Conuosii'ed Samples
of Dried, Ground Waste from BH10 21
7 Results of Testing and Analysis of Composited Samples
of Dried, Ground Waste from BH13 • • • • 32
8 Summary of Duplicate Analyses of WES EP Extracts of
Composited Core 5 33
9 Summary of Duplicate Analyses of WES EP Extracts of
Composited Core 10 34
10 Summary of Duplicate Analyses of WES EP Extracts of
Composited Core 13 35
11 Comparison of Differences in Selenium Analyses of
EP Extractant Splits Submitted to General Activation
Analysis, Inc. EMSL and WES 37
12 Techniques and Instrumentation Used in the Analysis
of Ground-water and Surface Water Samples 38
13 Analyses of Surface Water Samples Collected at the
Aveley Clay Pit Disposal Site .40
viii
-------
Number Page
14 Analyses of Ground-water Samples Collected at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site (Wells Bl, B3-B6) 41
15. Analyses of Ground-water Samples Collected at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site (Wells B7, B8,
B10-B12) 42
16 Analyses of Ground-water Samples Collected at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site (Wells 313-B17) 43
17 Analyses of Ground-water Samples Collected at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site (Wells B18-B20) ....... 44
18 Techniques and Instrumentation Used in the Analysis
of EP Extracts and Bulk Digests of Sealosafe Waste and
Subwaste Chalk and Clay 48
19 Bulk Analyses of Sealosafe® Slurry Samples 50
20 Analyses of EP Extracts from Sealosafe® Slurry
Sample No. 1 51
21 Analyses of EP Extracts from Sealosafe® Slurry
Sample No. 2 52
22 Summary of Analyses of EP Extracts from Sealosafe®
Slurry Samples 53
23 Summary of Samples Selected for EP Testing in Ground
Condition and Structural Integrity and EP Testing 54
24 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe®-Treated
Wastes from Borehole 1 55
25 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe®-Treated
Wastes from Borehole 2 56
26 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes from Borehole 3 57
®
27 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes from Borehole 4 58
28 Analyser of Digests of Ground Sealosaf ^-Treated
Wastes f iOra Borehole 5 „ . 59
®
29 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosaf^-Treated
Wastes from Borehole 6 60
ix
-------
Number Page
30 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes from Borehole 7 ..... 61
fg\
31 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe^-Treated
Wastes from Borehole 8 62
32 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes from Borehole 9 63
®
33 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes from Borehole 10 54
@
34 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes from Borehole 11 65
®
35 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes from Borehole 12 66
36 Analyses of Digests of Ground Sealosafe -Treated
Wastes fi.om Borehole 13 67
37 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 1 t 68
38 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 2 . , . . 69
39 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 3 . . . . 70
40 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 4 71
41 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
' from Borehole 5 72
42 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 6 73
43 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 7 74
44 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 8 75
45 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 9 76
46 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 10 77
-------
Number Page
47 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 11 73
48 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 12 79
49 Analyses of Moist Samples of Treated Waste Core
from Borehole 13 80
50 Analyses of EP Extracts from Monolithic Samples of
Treated Waste Core Material 32
51 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 1 33
52 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 2 84
53 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 3 35
54 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 4 35
55 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 5 37
56 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 6 . . 33
57 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 7 39
53 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 8 9Q
59 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 9 91
60 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 10 92
61 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 11 93
62 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 12 94
63 Analyses of Extractant from EP Test of Ground
Sealosafe -Treated Wastes from Borehole 13 95
xi
-------
Number Page
64 ExtractaDle Cyanide in Dried, Ground, Treated Wastes 96
65 Results of Analysis of Multiple Extractions of Sample 1G .... 97
66 Results of Analysis of Multiple Extractions of Sample 2E .... 98
67 Results.of Analysis of Multiple Extractiors of Sample 5F . . . . 99
68 Results of Analysis of Multiple Extractions of Sample 6A .... IQO
69 Results of Analysis of Multiple Extractions of Sample 13B ..... 101
70 Analyses of Acid Digests of Clay from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 1 102
71 Analyses of Acid Digests of Clay from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 2 103
72 Analyses of Acid ligests of Clay from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 2 104
73 Analyses of Acid Digests of Clay from Below the Treated
Pastes in Borehole 4 105
74 Analyses of Acid Digests of Clay from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehol^ 5 106
75 Analyses of Acid Digests of Clay from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 6 107
76 Analyses of Acid Digests of Chalk from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 7 108
77 Analyses of Acid Digests of Chalk from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 8 109
78 Analyses of Acid Digests of Chalk from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 9 110
79 Analyses of Acid Digests of Chalk from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 10 Ill
80 Analyses of Acid Digests of Chalk from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 1'. 112
81 Analyses of Acid Digests of Clay from Below th- Treated
Wastes in Borehole 12 JL13
82 Analyses of Acid Digests of Clay from Below the Treated
Wastes in Borehole 13 J14
xii
-------
Number Page
33 Water Quality Criteria ..................... 116
84 Comparison of Analyses of Surface Water Sanples Collected
by the Thames Water Authority and by WES at the Aveley
Clay Pit Site ......................... 118
85 Comparison of Analyses of Surface Water Samples Collected
by Thames River Authority and by WES at the Aveley Clay
Pit Site ............................ 119
86 Drinking Water Standards .................... 121
87 Comparison of Analyses of Ground-water Samples Collected
by the Anglian Water Authority and by WES at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site (Borehole 18) ....... 123
88 Comparison of Analyses of Ground-water Samples Collected
by the Anglian Water Authority and by WES at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site (Borehole 19) .......
89 Comparison of Analyses of Ground-water Samples Collected
by the Anglian Water Authority and by WES at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site (Borehole 20) ....... 125
90 Percentage of Toxic Heavy Metals that Leach from the Ground
Sealosafe® Treated Wastes .................... 128
91 Summary of Data on Selenium Concentrations in EP Extracts
and Bulk Analysis Samples of Selected Treated Wastes ...... 129
xiii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This investigation was conducted by the Environmental Laboratory of the
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) under sponsorship of the
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
The authors oZ this report are Mr. Robert J. Larson and Dr. Philip G.
Malone. The field work was performed by Pollution Prevention (Consultants)
Ltd., Sussex, England, under the direct supervision of Mr. Larson. Coordina-
tion with Stable* Corporation was through David W. Robinson-Todd. The prepa-
ration of samples and extraction testing was supervised by Mr. Richard A.
Shafer with assistance from Steven Houston, L. G. Caviness, Michael Channel,
J. V. Vaughan, and J. E. Lee. Analyses were performed by the Analytical
Laboratory Group at WES under Ann B. Strong.
The guidance and support of Messrs. Robert E. Landreth and Norbert B.
Schomaker of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, Municipal Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory, EPA, and Alan Corson, Matthex* Strauss, David
Friedman, Myles Morse, and Kenneth Shuster, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Wastes,
are gratefully acknowledged. Dr. Werner Beckert, at the U.S. EPA Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) at Las Vegas Dr. Steven Simon and
Forest Gardner of Lockheed (a contractor to EMSL) provided valuable assistance
in the quality control program. A special thanks is also extended to
Drs. Steven I. Ta-ib and Donald V. Mossholder of the Stablex Corporation and
David W. Robinson-Todd of Stablex Limited who helped arrange and coordinate
this visit and allowed EPA to enter the facility to collect various samples at
Stablex Limited's facility in West Thurrock, England.
The project .was conducted under the general supervision of Dr. John
Harrison, Chief, Environmental Laboratory, Mr. Andrew J. Green, Chief, Envi-
ronmental Engineering Division, and Mr. Norman R. Francingues, Chief, Water
Supply and Waste Treatment Group. Director of the WES during the course of
this study was COL Tilford C. Creel. CE. Technical Director was F. R. Brown.
xiv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Under 'the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for a nationwide program to identify
wastes which, if mismanaged, pose a substantial hazard to human health or the
environment and to establish minimum standards for the management of such
hazardous wastes. In accord with this mandate, EPA has published regulations
identifying the characteristics of hazardous wastes and listing specific
hazardous wastes, and established management standards for such wastes. In
addition, EPA has established criteria by which generators or other persons
may demonstrate that a waste does not pose a hazard and thus should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
Several processes for treating inorganic type wastes involve chemically
treating the wastes with a variety of additives to render the wastes' inor-
ganic constituents relatively immobile in the environment. Among the pro-
cesses thought to be successful in achieving a low mobility of inorganic
constituents are the solidification/stabilization,.or fixation processes.
This project was aimed at determining if, under routine waste management con-
ditions, these processes yield relatively non-leachable products that will not
degrade with time and, thus, will not contaminate the surrounding environment.
(i.e., ground water or surface water).
The Stablex Corporation (a U. S. Company) is in the process of establish-
ing several commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities in the United
States that will use the Sealosafe® solidification/stabilization process.
Stablex and Stablex Limited, a licensee of the Sealosafe^ process, allowed the
EPA to undertake a field and laboratory investigation to characterize the
wastes which have been treated using the Sealosafe process at Stablex
Limited's facility in Essex County, England. The EPA requested that the
Waterways Experiment Station (WES) undertake an investigation of treated waste
at the West Thurrock facility and collect additional data at the site that
might demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment process.
It sho ild be noted that the treatment system employed by Stablex Corpor-
ation's recently opened facility in Blainsville, Quebec and the treatment
system proposed to be used in their U.S.-based facilities, although similar,
are different than that used at Stablex Limited's facility in West Thurrock,
England. For example, Stablex has indicated that the cyanide destruction
process incorporated at their Blainsville, Quebec facility and to be used at
their proposed U.S.-based facilities is more effective than that used by
1
-------
Stablex Limited. In addition, the placement of the treatment residue in the
final disposal area is also managed differeatly at Thurrock than at
Blainsville, Quebec or as proposed to be managed at Stablex Corporation's
proposed U.S.-based facilities. In particular, at Stablex Blainsvi1le
facility and at their proposed U.S.-based facilities, the Sealosafe treated
residue will be poured into heated molds to assist the curing process, at
least in the winter time, whereas in England the treated residue is simply
poured out of the truck and flows down a hill. Therefore, the results
obtained from the sampling visit must be viewed in this light. Furthermore,
since Stablex Liraited's facility in West Thurrock is not subject to any
U.S.-based standards and guidelines, the results from this report should not
be interpreted to mean that Stablex Limited is not in compliance with the
appropriate regulatory authorities.
Objectives
Over the past three years, EPA. has received several exclusion petitions
from the Stablex Corporation to exclude (or delist) temporarily the treatment
residue to be generated from Stablex's proposed facilities in Groveland,
Michigan and Hooksett, New Hampshire. In order to support their petitions,
Stablex submitted leachate test data on U.S. 'stock solutions) and English
stabilized wastes; total constituent analyses of the Stablex material; ground
water and surface water run-off monitoring data from their facility in West
Thurrock, England; and confidential information identifying stock solution
constituents, and mixing ratios of the various stabilizing agents used in the
treatment process. Based on this information, EPA granted conditional tempo-
rary exclusions for the Sealosafe® treated waste to be generated at Stablex
Corporation's proposed facilities in Grovelatd, Michigan, ,'nd Hooksett, New
Hampshire. Stablex also offered EPA the opportunity to undertake a field and
laboratory study to characterize the wastes which have been treated using the
Sealosafe®process at Stablex Limited's facility in West Thurrock, England.
One of the objectives of this study was to determine whether the data sub-
mitted as part o'f Stablex Corporation's petitions could be verified in a full
scale facility operating in field conditions. In addition, this study was
also conducted to provide data for the on-going EPA research program on
"stabilized wastes." More specifically, laboratory analyses of the samples
collected were undertaken to:
(5}
"Determine if the toxic heavy metals in the Sealosafe treated waste as
placed in the disposal area have been sufficiently immobilized.
o
Determine if the older, weathered Sealosafe^ treated waste leached higher
concentrations of toxic heavy metals compared to the newer material
emplaced in the disposal area.
'Determine if appreciable variation, with'respect to metal extractability,
occurred during long-terra commercial operation of the Sealosafe® process.
"Determine if samples of the fresh (uncured) Sealosafe treated waste met
the levels established as part of the Stiblex delisting decision.
-------
Ground water, surface water, and subwaste cl<*y and chalk samples from the
site were also analyzed to determine if elevated concentrations of the poten-
tial toxicants could be detected. This would be evidence that the toxic
constituents were escaping from the treated waste.
Sealosafe Process
The wastes as they enter the West Thurrock treatment plant are segregated
by waste type, ground, where necessary, and blended to produce a neutral
relatively homogeneous waste mixture. Some wastes (i.e., arsenic, chromium,
and cyanides) are pretreated to convert them to a less toxic form. The con-
ditioned wastes are then treated using the Stablex Corporation's proprietary
solidification process, called the Sealosafe® process. The Sealosafe® process
itself involves the addition of a calcium containing cement powder to the
waste that is dissolved or suspended in water. A setting (or polymerization)
reaction takes place within 24 to 72 hours that gives the resulting material
better containment properties.
The first commercial facility using the process was constructed near
Brownhills, northwest of Birmingham, England in 1^74, A second facility at
Brownhills with larger treatment capacity came on line in March, 1978. The
third facility was put in operation at Thurrock (20 miles east of London)
(Schofield, 1979). The plant at Thurrock and the adjacent disposal areas were
the facilities visited and sampled during this investigation.
ThurrockPlant Operations
The Thurrock Plant (Fig. 1) has a capacity fLr treating 400,000 metric
tons of waste per year. The wastes arrive at the plant through a reception-
area that includes three large concrete storage basins (total capacity
25,000 metric tons) equipped with slow speed stirrers and compressed-air
agitation. Drummed liquid wastes are tested and mixed with tank-discharged
wastes. The facility normally receives only inorganic wastes for processing
and wastes with low organic content. The wastes include liquid and solid
waste and may vary due to changing productivity and activities of client
industries. A large mixer/grinder reduces solids to a particle size that
allows all the materials to be handled as a suspension.
A general description of the wastes received during the period July to
December 1980 (by waste type) is provided in Table 1. A summary for the same
period by type of waste producer is given in Table 2.
Some waste require chemical pretreatment. Arsenic, chromium, and cyanide
wastes are converted to chemical forms suitable for mixing with the setting
agents. In some cases, it is necessary to pretreat the waste to prevent
certain waste components from interfering with the polymerization reaction.
The polymerization (or setting) reaction is produced by adding proprie-
tary reactants on a weight-controlled basis. Polymerization takes place at
normal temperatures and pressure. It is reported that no gases are produced
and no liquid is discharged during the process (Schofield, 1979).
-------
:>-•£-
..- .-..-,
b ThuriDCk Waste Management & Land Reclamation Centre
un.ua «MUB - ujua ntaakin ftcmat a
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF WASTE INPUT AT THE THURROCK PLANT
DURING THE PERIOD JULY TO DECEMBER, 1980 BY TYPE
OF WASTE*
Type of Waste
Percent of
Waste Received
Sulphuric acid
Hydrochloric acid
Chromic acid
Mixed acids/other acids
Aluminum chloride solution
Ferric chloride solution
Solid/liquid cyanides
Caustic solutions
Neutral sludges
Lime sludge
Other sludges
Filter cakes
Paint stripper washings
Ferrous sulphate
Others
4.7
4.6
0.6
6.6
lh.2
0.9
2.7
30.5
10.4
14.0
0.8
1.1
1.7
1.0
3.1
* Furnished by Stablex-Reutter, Inc., March 12, 1982.
Stablex-Reutter is an affiliate of Stablex Corp.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF WASTE INPUT AT THE THURROCK PLANT
DURING THE PERIOD JULY TO DECEMBER, 1980 BY TYPE
OF WASTE PRODUCER*
Percent of
Type of Waste Producer Waste Received
Plating shops 31.4
Chemical manufacturers 17.6
Metal and chemical refiners 31.8
Cosmetic producers 16.3
Porfer stations/oil refiners 1.0
Aircraft manufacturers 1.9
Furnished by Stablex-Reutter, Inc., March 12, 1982.
Stablex-Reutter is an affiliate of Stablex Corp.
-------
The polymer in slurry form is transported to the disposal site in open-
topped hopper trucks. The trucks are opened to allow the slurry to pour out
(Fig. 2) and then elevated to dump the bottom materials. The discharged
material then flows down a hill into the emplacement area. The operating dis-
posal area in March-April, 1982 was a fonner clay pit (Aveley Clay Pit)
approximately 5 km northwest of the plant (Fig. 3). Core samples taken from
this site and an area used for trial placement of the Stablex material in a
chalk quarry (Thurrock Chalk Quarry, Fig. 3) provided the material used in
this study.
Sample Collection and Analysis
This study was conducted by WES under the direction of the Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory and the Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). Jn particular, the selection of all sampling
points and the collection of all samples was conducted by EPA or WES and their
subcontractor (Pollution Prevention (Consultants) Ltd); also, the storage area
that was used to store the samples at Stablex Limited's facility in West
Thurrock, England prior to shipment was controlled entirely by the WES field
supervisor. In addition, although splits of all samples were provided to both
Stablex and Stablex Limited, all analyses reported in this report were con-
ducted by WES'.s .inalytical group and EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory (EMSL) in Las Vegas. The analytical laboratories carried
out this evaluation using a carefully developed quality control program to
assure accuracy, reliability, and comparability of results — namely, repli-
cate runs on single specimens, spiked samples, standards, and splits of
samples between laboratories were used to evaluate the quality and reliability
of the testing and analysis.
Finally, the discussion of the data included in the report and conclu-
sions reached are those made by WES and do not necessarily reflect the views
of Stablex or Stablex Limited.' It should also be noted -that the discussion of
the data in this report simply compares the levels reported in the various
samples (i.e., ground water, surface water, or leachate results) with levels
established by EPA (i.e., Water Quality Criteria or Drinking Water Standards)
or levels set by EPA as part of the Stablex delisting decision.
-------
231-r' • * ^<^*~2~0'%X " {•*^«£tff^~&f*
•:v^3r&3i^%& ~w#il$is&%4
'- ""'
Fig. 2. Open-topped hopper truck releasing treated waste
at the Aveley Clay Pit Site.
-------
SOUTH OCKENDON
AVEl.EY CLAY PIT
SANDY LANE
LONDON TILBURY TRUNK ROAD
(A13 MOTORWAY)
—THURROCK CHALK QUARRY
STABLEX WASTE
TREATMENT PLANT
WEST THURROCK
Tin.
DARTFORD TUNNEL
LONDON
32 KILOMETERS
Fig. 3. Sketch map showing the locations of the Stablex
Plant and the disposal areas.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
In evaluating the analytical data on samples collected from Stablex
Liraited's facility in West Thurrock, England, the following conclusions hava
been reached:
"Extraction Procedure (EP) testing on 52 ground samples of the solidified
Sealosafe treated waste shows that the concentration of all the toxic
heavy metals in the EP extract with the exception of selenium were at
levels below the level set as part of the Stablex delisting decision
(i.e., less than 30 times the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Standards (NIPDWS) for the EP xoxic metals and less ;han 20 ppm for
nickel). The Sealosafe® nateria1. contained maximum lead, chromium,
arsenic, barium, cadmium, and nickel levels of 3320, 1100, 635, 1730,
79.1, and 645 ppm, respectively. Thus, the fact that these high total
content levels did not leach significant concentrations demonstrates -.he
binding capacity of the treatment residue.
'Selenium was shown to leach corsistently at levels that are higher than
the level set as part of the Stablex delisting decision (i.e., greater
than .30 mg/1). Although none of the selenium extract levels exceeded
the maximum allowable EP levels, 11 of the 52 samples analyzed met or
exceeded EPA's level for delisting. No correlation was found between the
amount of selenium leached from the treated waste with its bulk selenium
content. Furthermore, there apears to be no consistent pattern relating
older to newer, or weathered to unweathered treated waste with selenium
release.
°Multiple extraction procedure (HEP) testing on five ground samples of tHe
Sealosafe® treated waste indicates that all the toxic heavy metals,
except for selenium, leached at levels below the level set as part of the
Stablex delisting decision. These tests indicate that the toxic metal
contaminants are sufficiently immobilized in the waste matrix. (The KZP
was developed to stimulate the leaching effect of long term percolation
of acidic rainfall on the waste.) Selenium was the only toxic metal that
leached at high levels; it was found in two of the five samples analyzed
and further confirms a potential problem of selenium leaching. In- ioth
samples (6A and 13B), the highest concentrations were observed in tne
fifth and sixth extractions.
"Quality control checks on an EPA-approved selenium analytical procedure
(hydride generation) suggest that this technique may consistently
10
-------
underestimate selenium concentrations in EP extractant samples by 40 to
60 percent Thus, more samples with unacceptably high selenium values
may have been found had other techniques been employed.
'Sixteen samples of the Sealosafe® treated waste from six cores were also
tested in a monolithic (or solid) condition using the Structural
Integrity Procedure (SIP). The resulting extracts were then composited
for each core. None of the composited extracts showed concentrations of
the toxic heavy metals at levels abov^ the level set as part of the
Stablex delisting decision; in most cases, the toxic heavy metals were
present at or below the limit of detection of the analytical techniques
employed in the testing.
"Two samples of the Sealosafe® treated waste slurry was collected in
sealed containers at the waste discharge point and tested after
approximately 20 days. With the exception of cadmium, the samples
leached very low levels of the toxic metals. This generally indicates
that the toxic metals are immobilized in the waste slurry. Cadmium, how-
ever, leached in both samples at levels above the level set as part of
the Stablex delisting decision (i.e., greater than .30 mg/1); the average
level seen Jn duplicate tests on the two samples was 0.709 mg/1.
"Eight samples of the Sealosafe^ treated waste were leached with distilled
water. In addition, 52 samples of the Sealosafe1^ treated residue were
analyzed for total cyanide a.id free cyanide (cyanide amenable to chlor-
ination). This data suggests a potential problem with cyanide leaching
(although only two of the eight samples leached at levels above the level
set in other EPA delisting determinations—namely 2 mg/1) because of the
relatively high concentrations of cyanide in the treated waste. Since
pozzolonic stabilization processes are not expected to immobilize
cyanide, it is important that any cyanide present in the wastes prior to
the metal stabilization step be destroyed.
(5)
"Analyses of the 52 Sealosafe treated waste samples revealed a total
organic carbon (TOC) content ranging from 3,130 to 14,750 pom (0.3 to
1.5 percent). These levels did not appear to increase the leachability
of the toxic heavy metals from the waste.
"Ground-water samples collected from the eighteen monitoring wells at the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal area generally indicate little, if any,
toxic metal contamination was occurring at the site from the treated
waste. Cyanide, however, was present in a number of the monitoring wells
at levels above the U.S. Public Health Service suggested drinking water
standard. Therefore, unless cyanides are destroyed in the pretreatment
process, cyanide leaching appears to be a real problem.
"Surface water samples collected at the Aveley Clay Pit generally indicate
very low levels of the toxic heavy metals. However, concenntrations of
some of the toxic heavy metals in the pond at the base of the disposal
area were present at levels as much as an order of magnitude higher than
the ponds th^t are west of the emplacement area. Therefore, there
appears to be some potential for contamination from the uncured
11
-------
Sealosafe treatment residue. This contamination probably results from
drainage of the excess process water not used in the pr-lyme rization
reaction or from leaching of the uncured material that flows into the
pond.
'Analysis of samples of the geologic strata (clay and chalk) directly
below the Sealosafe® treated waste shows no consistent pattern that could
be related to the leaching of toxic heavy metals from the treated waste.
This is considered significant in that it indicates that the inorganic
constituents are generally immobilized by the treatment process.
12
-------
SECTION 3
SAMPLE COLLECTION ^j DOCUMENTATION
FIELD METHODS
The sample collection at the Thurrork Site began on March 29, 1982 and
was completed on April 8, 1982 (Pollution Prevention, Ltd. 1982). The samples
include:
a) four surface water sampler collected from a large lagoon and two
small ponds at the Aveley Clay Pit disposal area.
b) eighteen groundwater samples from monitoring wells installed by
Stablex Corporation at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry Site.
c) two samples of treated waste in slurry form being discharged from a
hopper truck at the Aveley Clay Pit disposal area.
d) thirteen cores through treated waste emplaced at the two disposal
areas associated with the Thurrock Facility.- Ejght cores were from
the Aveley Clay Pit, the present active disposal site while five
cores were collected from the Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal Site.
The chalk quarry site was an experimental disposal area, where
12,000 metric tons of Sealosafe was disposed of in order to'deter-
mine the extent of contamination that can be expected in this type
of disposal environment. A fourteenth borehole was attempted; but
no core (only grab sample material) was recovered.
e) thirteen samples of subwaste geologic materials. At each boring,
core collection was continued through the Sealosafe -treated material
into the clay (Aveley Clay Pit site) or chalk site (Thurrock Chalk
Quarry) below the waste. There are eight samples of clay from the
Aveley Site and five samples of chalk from the Thurrock Site.
-Surface Water Sampling
Both the Aveley Clay Pit and the Thurrock Chalk Quarry are depressions
that receive runoff from the immediately surrounding .'.reas. At the time of
the WES visit, there was no surface water at the immediate study area in the
Thurrock Chalk Quarry. The Aveley Clay Pit, however, contained a large lagoon
and two small ponds. The water, prior to discharge, at Aveley is routinely
tested by Stablex International Holding Limited (SIHL) and the Anglian Water
Authority. When testing indicates the water is sufficiently low in contami-
nants as judged by the Anglian Water Authority, the Stablex Corporation pumps
13
-------
some of the water to a surface water system which drains to the Thames River
(eituary).
The location of all sampling points are shown in Figure 4. Sampling
point LI is on a small pond at the base of the disposal area. This pond
receives primarily runoff from the emplaced Sealosafe material and some dis-
charge water directly from the polymer dumping or tipping point. Uncured
Stablex material frequently flowed into this pond during the study. The other
surface water samples (L2, L3, and L4) were collected from other ponds that
received primarily surface water runoff. These ponds are separated from the
small pond located at the base of the disposal area by a dike or bond. How-
evar, during part of the study, a channel existed in the dike to enable free
flow from the pond at the base of the waste emplacement area into the large
lagoon. Upon each surge of i-ncured waste into the pond, an approximately
equal amount of water was displaced into the large lagoon.
Surface water samples were collected by the WES contractor on April 6,
1932, using a bailer-type sampler. The pH was measured on-site at the time of
collection using a battery-powered pH meter. Conductivity was also measured
uring a portable conductivity cell. The pH and conductivity measurements are
prerented in Table 3. No temperature measurements were reported. At each
sample point, a two-liter sample intended for general chemical analysis was
TABLE 3. CONDUCTIVITY AND pH MEASUREMENTS OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED
AT THE AVLLEY CLAY PIT DISPOSAL SITE, APRIL 6, 1982
Electrolytic pH
Sample conductivity conventional
designation (microS/cm) units(s)
LI 20200 9.6
L2 4480 8.0
L3 4500 8.1
L4 1700 7.4
filtered through a 0.45-micron membrane filter and acidified with reagent
grade nitric acid to pH 2.0. The acidified sample was transferred to two
clean, one-liter glass jugs for shipment to WES. The WES contractor also col-
lected a 2.5-liter u-vfiltered, unpreserved (unacidified) sample at each of the
four sampling points. These samples were originally collected to determine
the concentration of hexavalent chromium.
All surface water-samples were shipped in sealed, unrefrigerated cases.
The samples rfere received for analysis b/ the Analytical Laboratory Group,
WES, on April 22, 1982 and stored in a iocked refrigerator pending sample
preparation and analysis.
14
-------
EMPLACEO
r TREATED
WASTE
-N-
LEGEND
BOREHOLE POSITIONS
-«~r BUND WALL OH DIKE
FENCE LINE
\ T B M TEMPORARY BENCH MARK
\
\
SCALES
0 100 200 300 FT
Q 2b bO )'j 100 M
,00
X
FENCE LINE
DATUM 100.00 METERS
(ON MANHOLE COVER)
Fig. 4. Sketch map of the Aveley Clay Pit site showing locations
of surface water sampling points.
-------
Ground-water Sampling
No ground-water monitoring wells had been installed at the Aveley Clay
Pit site. Thus, all eighteen ground-water samples in this study were
collected from monitoring wells located at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry site.
Twenty monitoring holes had been installed in 1982 by SIHL personnel in
connection with the testing program designed to evaluate the placement of
Sealosafe -treated waste in chalk. Twelve thousand metric tons of treated
wastes were placed in tne test site from October 1981 to December 1931. (Some
Stablex treated waste was also placed in a hole dug in the chalk quarry in the
summer of 1979). With the exception of an unplanned discharge of treated
waste in January 1982, no waste had been placed in the test pit after the
December 1931 test disposal period. The ground-water samples were collected
on April 6, 1982, by th^ WES contractor. The locations of the monitoring
wells are shown in Figure 5.
Monitoring wells 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, .and 10 were constructed using depth
samplers as shown in Figure 6. The depth sampler was located 5 m below ground
level in borings numbered 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, and 10 m in boring No. 4.
The samples were obtained by displacing the water in the depth sampler with
aitrogen. Each sampler was evacuated four times before the sample was col-
lected. The sample volume from the depth sampler was approximately 2.5 liters.
The tops of these wells were not inside any protective enclosure, although the
access tubes to the samplers were clamped off.
Monitoring holes 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were constructed as
shown in Figure 7. The samples were taken by lowering a water sampler down
the standpipe. The height of the water standing in each holes was recorded
before the sample was taken, and the holes were baled dry before the sample
was collected. The depths to the water table, the depths to the bottom of the
hole, and the height of the- standpipes are all recorded in Table 4.
Boreholes 18, 19, and 20 were deep holes, located around the outside of
the site, constructed as shown in Figure 7. The samples were obtained by
pumping from a depth of approximately 25 m below ground level. The depths to
the water table, the depths to the bottom of the hole, and the height of the
standpipes are recorded in Table 4. Electrolytic conductivity and pH were
measured on site with battery-powered equipment and the results are also pre-
sented in Table 4.
The holes constructed as shown in Figure 7 (holes 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, and 20) were not protected by permanent structure or shield,
and were not covered. Samples from these holes are, therefore, subject to
contamination from rainwater and from material thrown down the casing.
The ground-water samples collected for general chemical characterization
were filtered through a 0.45-micron membrane filter and acidified to pH 2.0
with reagent-grade nitric acid. The samples were placed in labelled glass
bottles. The WES contractor also collected duplicate samples of unfiltered,
Mnpreserved (unacidified) water for the determination of hexavalent chromium
and included these samples in the WES shipment. All ground-water samples
were shipped in sealed, unrefrigerated cases. The samples were received for
16
-------
DATUM BIM 12-63
M ABOVE MSL
(ON BLOCK)
-N-
LEGEND
BOREHOLE POSITIONS
STANOPIPE POSITION
BUND WALL OR DIKE
FENCE LINE
T 8 M TEMPORARY BENCH MARK
SCALES
200 0 ?00 i
-------
NITROGEN
GAS
WATER
SAMPLE
NYLON PRESSURE HOSE
PEA GRAVEL
DEPTH SAMPLER
WATER
750 mm BOREHOLE
Fig. 6. Details of construction of the depth sampler monitoring
wells at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry disposal site.
18
-------
•*- 100 mm PIPE
GROUND SURFACE
SAND
BENTONITE
PEA GRAVEL
/\
/I
/I
I
XI
I
/I
I
/I
/I
I
/!
-^/HF7
i
- K
•=• I
- _ I/
|
_ - k
h-
- L/
- - I
V
- \ y
I/
~~ I
- -K
^ i
- - y
(
\
WATER TABLE
- WO mm PERFORA TED PIPE
-~—150 mm BOREHOLE
WA TER
Fig. 7. Details of construction of the standpipe monitoring wells
at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry disposal site.
19
-------
TABLE 4. FIELD DATA ON CROUNDWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THE THURROCK CHALK QUARRY MONITORING «ELL ON APRIL 6, 1982
Samp Le
designation
61
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
810
Ell
Bi2
B13
814
BIS
816
817
818
B19
B20
Type of
monitoring
veil
Depth sampler
Open top
standplpe
Depth semper
Depth sampler
Depth sampler
Depth sampler
Depth sampler
Depth to Depth to bottom Height of Internal
water from top of borehole from standplpe above diameter of
Method of sample of itandptpe top of standplpe ground level standplpe
extraction (m) (CD) (n) (a)
Depth sample -« -
pumped from 5 n
Dipped from 6. CM a. 53 1.4? 0.15
standplpe
Depth aample - -
pumped from 10 m
Depth sample - -
pumped from 5 n
Depth sample - -
pumped from 5 o
Depth sample - -
pumped from 5 m
Depth sample - - -
pumped from 5 m
Electrolytic
conducl.lv! ty
iH f S/co)
6.4 1,320
6.5 1.140
6.1 1.300
6.3 1,490
6.4 1,620
6.5 4,000
6.3 2,200
Insufficient volume to allow a sample to be taken
Depth sampler
Open top
standplpe
Open top
standplpe
Open tap
standplpe
Open top
standptpe
Open top
standplpe
Open top
standplpe
Open top
standplpe
Open top
standplpe
Open top
standplpe
Open top
standplpe
Depth sample - -
pumped from S m
Dipped from 4.39 7.20 1.43 0.1
standplpe
Dipped from 3.74 6.44 0.66 0.1
atandpipe
Dipped from 5.60 7.02 0.64 0.1
standplpe
Dipped from 5.55 7.93 1.36 0.1
standplpe
Dipped from 3.36 5.93 0.58 0.1
standpipe
Dipped from 3.19 5. SO 0.47 O.I
ncandplpe
Dipped from 4.22 6.14 1.36 0.1
standplpe
Deep BH pumped 0.94 23.07 0.1 0.15
via standplpe
from 25 m
Deep BH pumped 10.72 36.2 1.2 0.15
via atandpipe
froo 25 m
Deep BH pumped 14.68 35.25 0 (at 0.15
via standplpe ground
from 25 m level)
6.9 2,340
7.1 2,580
6.3 2.360
7.0 9,300
7.0 2,610
6.4 2.500
6.9 1,»|Q
7.1 2,040
7.0 1,550
6.9 3,406
7.2 3,000
Depth of water, depth to bottom, and related measurements cannot be made on "depth sampler'* wells.
-------
analysis by the Analytical Laboratory Group at WES, on April 22, 1932, and
stored in a locked refrigerator pending sample preparation and apalysis.
Sealosafe -Treated Waste Slurry Sampling
®
Sampling of the uncured, Sealosafe -treated waste slurry was scheduled
late in the field study to assure that the material would arrive at WES for
testing without becoming fully set. Two one-liter volume samples of the
Sealosafe® slurry were collected on April 8, 1982, from the Copper trucks dis-
charging into the Aveley Clay Pit disposal site. The first sample (Stablex^
slurry No. 1) was collected at 9:30 a.m. The second sample (Stablex® slurry
No. 2) came from a second truck that discharged (and was sampled) at
10:45 a.m. The samples came from the same run of material at the plant and
both had a brownish-grey appearance and both were pourable at the time of col-
lection. The samples were sealed in plastic jars and shipped in sealed,
unrefrigerated cases. The samples were received by the Analytical Laboratory
Group at WES, on April 22, L983, and stored in a locked refrigerator. The
samples were inspected on arrival at WES and at that time had retained the
brownish-grey color; but had reached a putty-like consistency and could no
longer be poured when mixed and solit to obtain a sample for EP testing. No
free liquid was present in the containers.
The treatment facility can change formulation in response to waste type
and other conditions. Such a change in formulation may have occurred on
April 7, just prior to sample collection. The slurry color had been grey from
the initiation of the site visit, but became noticeably brownish on April 7.
The slurry collected is a typical Stablex material; but was not identical to
the material being poured earlier \n the week.
©
Sealosafe -Treated Waste and Soil Sampl-ing
The original saraplirfg plan (Attachment A) called for randomly spaced
drill holes over all areas where the treated waste had been placed. However,
some of the waste areas were under water and in other places the waste was too
soft to bear the weight of the drill rig. For example, the lack of traffica-
bility made it impossible to core the center or eastern side of the etnplaced
wastes at the Aveley Clay Pit. The final selection of the sampling points,
therefore was a compromise between randomly placed holes and locations that
were accessible.
Eight holes were cored and samples were recovered at the Aveley Clay Pit
site (Boring numbers BH1 through 6, 12 and 13 in Figure 8). A ninth hole,
designated BH14 was attemped at the Aveley Clay Pit but the core could not be
recovered due to the very soft nature of the Sealosafe^-treated wastes. A
sample of loose material from the surface was collected at this sampling
point; but no testing was done on this sample.
Borings 1 through 6 were drilled into the older treated waste at this
site. Borings 12 and 13 were drilled into more recently deposited material.
The surface of the newly deposited material would not support the weight of
the drilling rig thus it was necessary to place the drill rig on the bund or
dike and drill by extending the drill arm out over the waste. Water was
encountered in all the drill holes at the Aveley Clay Pit site.
21
-------
;mpfc^;M»w«; [><>«» Ttx
^'imMrn^
.-• v- ' 'CN
__.--.--iT> ,\V
-N-
LCGTNO
• OOiiEMOtE POSITIONS
. l^.*. iHina \v»ti OH DIKE
M«iCt lint
\ TDM rtMHOHAIIY OE'ICH MAHK
\
\.
UU 700 i'M ft
:L.~ V*1-3TJ
bO IS I(>O M
FtNC£ LINE
DATUM ICO 00 Alf r£J)S
MANHOLE
Fig. 8. Sketch map of the Aveley Clay Pit showing locations of the boreholes
used in sampling the Sealosafef®-treat^d wastes and underlying
geologic materials.
4 *
-------
The other five holes were drilled at the Thurrock Chalk. Quarry site
(Fig. 9). The chalk at the base of the waste contained nodules of flint that
caused difficulties in recovering the chalk core. In some borings-, the total
chalk core could not be recovered because the chalk fragmented. Although the
chalk below the waste was soft and damp; no water was observed infiltrating
into the bore holes.
The treated wastes and underlying geologic materials were sampled using a
tracked vehicle with a boom-mounted, coring drill rig (Fig. 10) equipped with
a 2.6-in. (6.60-cm) diamond-tipped bit and a 5-ft- (1.6-meter) long core bar-
rel (Fig. 11). Compressed air was forced into the hole (instead of drilling
fluid) to remove cuttings and cool the drill bit. Rotary diamond drilling
with compressed air allowed the cores to be collected without being washed by
drilling fluid. The core was recovered in 1.6-meter-long runs. The drill was
allowed to penetrate 1.6 meters, then was withdrawn and the core barrel was
disassembled and the core was removed and laid out for inspection and logging.
The core barrel was cleaned by blowing off any material lodged in or stuck on
the barrel using compressed air. No attempt was nade to rinse the core barrel
with water since the barrel would immediately go back into the waste and would
have to pass through the waste before coring another interval. After cleaning,
the core barrel was then reassembled and drilled down another 1.6 m. The
holes were not cased but remained open long enough to allow the coring to be
completed. In all borings where the waste material could be cored, the core
barrel was drilled down into the underlying clay or chalk. The changes in
color, odor, and consistency made it easy to distinguish waste from geologic
materials.
As each borehole was opened, a tube was inserted into the boring and
borehole gas was pulled through a chemical HCN detector. This was done pri-
marily as a safety measure to protect the field party. In no case was there
any indication of HCN in any borehole. Each borehole was grouted with neat
cement immediately after all sampling was complete.
All cores were logged at the site and each section was marked as to
position in the borehole. Logs prepared by the WES contractor are given in
Appendix A. The logged core materials were sealed in tubes of heavyweight
polyethylene film and packed in core boxes. Each box was labeled, banded, and
sealed by the WES field supervisor prior to secure storage at the Stab lex
Thurrock plant and subsequent shipping. Access to the storage area was con-
trolled by the WES field supervisor. The core boxes on arrival at WES on
April 22, 1982, were inspected to assure the seals and bands were intact and
then stored in a secure area at WES prior .to logging, subsampling, and photog-
raphy.
Location of Sampling Points
Th3 location of each bore hole and the elevation of the top of each bor-
ing was determined by a survey crew supplied by the contractor. Approximate
locations of surface water sampling points at the Aveley Clay Pit were deter-
mined by the contractor when samples were taken. The locations of the
ground-water monitoring wells at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry were taken from a
base map supplied by Stablex Corporation.
23
-------
N
'-'NK^, J :^
<- xW-- *fc.-V,^
/ ?i; V
/ a^ P.
-N-
LEGEiJQ
BOatMOLc POSITIONS
POSITION
-^-^._ BONO V/AIL on DIKE
T8M TtMCOOAIIY OENCI1 MARK
SCALES
200 a ?oa
-------
'^w^sii^Mi&ff^m^^
m^^s^^^^Mif^^^^
Fig. 10. Photo of tracked vehicle wiih boom-mounted rotary drill,
The compressor furnished the compressed air to clear
cuttings and cool the drill bit.
25
-------
tv: - ^-' -~' -- •" '£- A--;<-^±^-
Fig. 11. Photo of driLL stem and core barrel being
raised from the borehole.
-------
LABORATORY METHODS
Logging, Subsarapling, and Photography of Cored Waste Materials
At WES, the core boxes were opened and each core was gently scraped and
brushed clean to remove the outer contaminated layer of material, measured,
and checked against the driller's log. Each core was.subdivided into eight
sections based on differences in characteristic hardness, color, and texture.
Each section or interval was measured and photographed. A hand penetrometcr
was used to judge approximate hardness. Color descriptions were based on com-
parison of samples with standard color chip charts. Samples of the cleaned,
photographed materials from each interval were then placed in clean, labelled,
wide-mouth, plastic jars and stored in a locked facility until preparation for
analysis.
Logging, Subsampling, and Photography of Clay and Chalk Samples
The clay and chalk beneath the treated waste showed little change in the
one- to two-meter interval that was sampled. These cores were divided and
subsampled in approximately three equal intervals, the measurements of each
interval and the core description is given in Appendix B (Table B15).
27
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLE I REPARATION, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS
QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
A quality control (QC) program involves those procedures used in the lab-
oratory to assure accuracy, reliability, and comparability of results. Qual-
ity assurance involves the total analytical program including interlaboratory
sample splits and evaluation and resolution of analytical problem areas. In
this solid waste evaluation program, replicate runs on single specimens,
spiked samples, standards, and splits of samples between laboratories (side-
by-side analysis) were used to evaluate the quality and reliability of the
testing and analysis. Duplicate analyses for some samples were performed by
tl:e U. S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL) , Las
Vegas. Split samples of the water samples, treated wastes, and soil were also
supplied to the Stablex Corporation for analyses, but no data was submitted by
the Stablex Corporation for incorporation in the report.
Representative Sampling
Sub-sampling of all materials, except the Structural Integrity Procedure
(monolithic) samples and soil samples, was done only after the material had
been thoroughly mixed to assure replicate samples could be obtained. Liquid
and slurry materials were shaken or stirred while powdered samples were
tumbled. All sub samples were prepared under chain-of-custody procedures and
placed in clean, non-contaminating, labelled containers.
Quality Control at Analysis
Instrument Calibration and Verification—
An EPA Quality Control sample was analyzed following instrument calibra-
tion and prior to project sample analysis. Results within 10% of the EPA
published value were obtained or recalibration with fresh standards was under-
taken. Instrument drift was monitored by rerunning a working standard every
sixth sample. The instrument was recalibrated if drift exceeded 10%.
Analysis of Spiked Samples—
Spikes were introduced into approximately 20% of the samples being ana-
lyzea at both WES and the U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab-
oratory (EMSL) Las Vegas. Recoveries within ±15% of the spike value were
considered acceptable. These Ijw limits were used because the replicates were
run by the same operator on the same instrument during one sequence of
analyses.
23
-------
Duplicate Analyses--
Duplicate analyses within the laboratory were performed on approximately
20% of the samples analyzed at the WES and on all of the sample materials sub-
mitted to the EMSL. The samples were reanalyzed if reproducibility within the
laboratory was not within ±25%. These duplicates were not necessarily run
during the same analytical session by the same operator, consequently a larger
variation was permitted.
Sample Security
All samples used in this project were maintained under chain-of-custody.
Core and soil samples were kept in a locked storage facility. Samples subject
to deterioration were stored in a locked refrigerator. Access to analytical
laboratory areas where work was being done was limited to authorized laborar
tory personnel. All shipping of samples was done under chain-of-custody pro-
cedures.
DataValidation
Analytical data validation was performed by Ann B. Strong, Chief, WES
Analytical Laboratory Group. Data from EMSL was validated by Steven J. Simon,
Lockheed Principal Scientist (Lockheed is a contractor to EMSL).
Cooperative Testing and Analysis at U. S. EPA
Three samples of composited treated wastes from cores 5, 10, and 13 were
prepared specifically for QA/QC use. The samples were carried through the EP
test procedure by WES and EMSL, and the resultant extracts were analyzed anl
the results compared. [Stablex Corporation was also furnished splits of the
material.] This procedure compared the performance of the laboratories in
both running the EP test and performing the analytical work on the leachate.
The EP.test is a partial digestion that may introduce variation in the sam-
ples; therefore agreement similar to that obtained from running analytical
standards that are totally digested or in homogeneous solution was not
expected. The results of the laboratory cross-check on EP testing and extrac-
tant analysis on ground wastes are given in Tables 5 through 7.
Large variations in analyses of extracts were noted in some of the EP
samples when the laboratories did separate EP testing. Mo guidelines are
presently available to indicate acceptable variations in EP test data. In
order to determine how much variation in the result was due to chemical
analytical techniques employed at each laboratory, a sample of extractant
prepared by WES was analyzed by both WES and EMSL. The results are presented
in Tables 8 through 10. Agreement within ±50% would usually be expected.
However, two of the elements, chromium and selenium, did not fall in these
guidelines. The chromium data showed slightly higher levels of variation
between laboratories with WES showing a slight negative bias. Selenium, on
the other hand, indicated a major analytical problem. The laboratories had
separate techniques for running this element; EMSL used a heated graphite
atomizer (HGA) technique while WES used a hydride generation system. The dif-
ficulties were thought to result from chemical interferences in the matrices
associated with the extracts. Therefore, duplicate samples were sent to a
29
-------
TABLE 5. RESULTS OF TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITED SAMPLES
OF DRIED, GROUND WASTE FROM BH5
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
5A
<0.(K*
0.029
0.14
<0.01
0.004
0.010
0.24
<0.10
<0.10
<0.005
0.033
<0.01
<0,005
0.48
<0.005
<4.73
<0.10
5B
<0.01
0.032
0.11
<0.01
0.004
0.005
0.25
<0.10
<0.10
<0.005
0.032
<0.01
<0.005
0.77
<0.005
4.60
<0.10
Mean
—
0.030
0.125
—
0.004
—
0.240
—
—
—
0.032
—
—
0.62
—
4.66
—
WES Results
5A
<0.001
0.016
0.092
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.215
0.088
0.198
0.007
0.144
0.078
0.002
0.305
<0.050
4.72
<0.050
5B
<0.001
0.016
0.092
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.235
0.102
0.106
<0.0002
0.750
0.149
0.002
0.245
<0.050
4.82
<0.050
Mean % Difference'
--
0.016 +88%
0.092 +36%
—
—
—
0.225 -t-7%
0.095
0.152
—
0.447 -93%
0.114
0.002
0.275 +121%
—
4.77 . -2.3%
—
* All values
4- "/ PI-! Pfor-^«
are in
mg/1.
EMSL Mean -
WES ?-lean
v i on
WES Mean
30
-------
TABLE 6. RESULTS OF TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITED SAMPLES
OF DRIED, GROUND WASTE FROM BH10
EMSL
Parameters 10A
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg*
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
<0
0
0
<0
<0
<0
0
<0
<0
1
0
<0
<0
0
<0
6
<0
.01**
.011
.091
.01
.002
.005
.19
.10
.10
.79
.012
.01
.005
.39
.005
.95
.10
Results
10B
0.01
0.015
0.091
<0.01
<0.002
<0.005
0.16
<0.10
0.10
1.53
0.011
<0.01
<0.005
0.41
<0.005
6.83
<0.10
Mean
—
0.013
0.091
—
—
—
0.17
—
—
1.66
0.011
—
—
0.40
6.84
—
WES Results
10A
<0.
0.
0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
6.
<0.
001
008
042
005
050
050
154
126
222
71
050
062
002
180
050
62
050
10B
<0
0
0
<0
<0
<0
0
0
0
1
<0
0
0
0
<0
6
<0
.001
.009
.038
.005
.050
.050
.140
.127
.218
.68
.050
.066
.002
.180
.050
.62
.050
Mean % Difference'
—
0.008 +62%
0.040 +123%
—
—
—
0.147 +16%
0.126
0.221
1.70 -2.4%
—
0.064
0.002
0.151 +122%
6.62 +4.0%
—
* Mercury was
in
** Al
4- "A n
England
1 values
•i 'F^or*on/-*ei
introduced into the sample
when company
are in
EMSL
rag/1.
Mean
personnel
- WES Mean
were
. Y 1
at
the
drying
nn
Stablex Corp. Laboratory
the
s anp le .
WES Mean
31
-------
TnBLE 7. RESULTS OF TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITED SAMPLES
OF DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM BH13
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
EMSL
Results
13
<0.01*
0.12
0.12
<0.01
0.004
<0.005
0.28
< 0.10
0.19
< 0.005
0.010
< 0.01
< 0.005
0.47
< 0.005
• 5.72
< 0.10
WES Results
13A
<0.001
0.005
0.125
<0.005.
<0.050
<0.050
0.224
0.128
0.317
0.0006
<0.050
0.072
0.002
0.260
< 0.050
5.53
0.151
13B
.
are in mg/1.
EMSL Mean - WES Mean
WES Mean
32
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE ANALYSES OF WES EP EXTRACTS
OF COMPOSITED CORE 5
EMSL Results
Parameter
Cr
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
5A
0.28*
<0.005
0.49
<0.005
4.68
5B
0.26
< 0.005
0.43
4.72
5B
0.24
0.005
0.24
<0..005
. 4.32
Mean % Difference**
0.23 +17
—
0.27 +70
—
4.77 +0.2
* All values are in mg/1.
EMSL Mean - WES Mean
** % Difference =
WES Mean
x 100
33
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE ANALYSES OF WES E? EXTRACTS
OF COMPOSITED CORE 10
EMSL Results rfES Results
Parameter
Cr
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
10A
0.19*
< 0.005
0.30
< 0.005
4.77
10B
0.20
< 0.005
0.46
< 0.005
6.70
Mean 10A
0.20 0.15
<0.005
0.38 0.18
< 0.050
5.74 6.62
10B
0.14
< 0.005
0.18
< 0.050
6.62
Mean
0.14
—
0.18
—
6.62
% Difference"''
+42
+111
-13
* All values are in mg/1.
* „, n.c*
T % Difference =
Jjean - WES Mean
WES Mean
, nri
x 100
34
-------
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF DUPLICATE ANALYSES OF WES EP EXTRACTS
OF COMPOSITED CORE 13
EMSL Results
Parameter
Cr
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
ISA
0.29
0.005
0.91
<0.005
5.53
13B
0.30
<0.005
0.81
<0.005
5.58
Mean
0.29
—
0.86
—
5.56
WES Results
13A
0.22
<0.005
0.26
O.050
5.53
13B
0.24
<0.005
0.29
<0.050
5.57
Mean % Difference7
0.23 +26
—
0.28 +207
—
5.55 +0.18
* All values are in mg/1.
EMSL Mean - WES Mean
t % Difference
WES Mean
x 100
35
-------
contract laboratory (General Activation Analysis, Inc. San Diego, CA) for
selenium analysis by neutron activation, a technique remarkably f.-ee from
matrix problems for this element.
The samples and comparator standards were irradiated for 300rainutes in a
TRIGA Mark I nuclear reactor at a flux of 1.8 x 10 neutrons/cm'"-sec. After
decaying for seven days, 10 days, 14 days, and 17 days, the samples were
counted on a Ge(Li) detector coupled to a multichannel gamma-ray spectrometer.
Selenium produces selenium-75 with a half-lxf^ 'of 120 days. All results are
reported in Table 11.
The WES results obtained using the hydride generation system with atomic
absorption showed a strong consistently negative bias (lower values when com-
pared to activation analysis)'. The EMSL results obtained, by direct atomic
absorption analysis with a heated graphite atomizer were equivalent to those
obtained by neutron activation. While the hydride generation system is an
EPA-acce^ted procedure, the data obtained in this project suggest that its use
with some EP extractant matrices may result in low values. Therefore, selen-
ium values obtained using the hydride method at WES should be interpreted as
being low estimates and selenium levels may be higher than reported.
In addition, three of the analyses—2E, 3B, and 6A—indicated levels in
the EP leachate for mercury that are higher than the level set as part of the
Stablex delisting decision. However, these values could not be correct based
on the low levels of mercury found in the bulk analysis data. Positive chem-
ical interferences from organics in the samples are considered to have pro-
duced these anomalous values.
EMSL provided a second set of analyses on approximately 20% of the
routine samples tested in the project by WES. Significant differences (i.e.,
more than 50% difference in EP concentration between WES and EMSL) in EP
results was obtained in some cases "Appendix C." This was expected, however,
from the composite waste samples (Cores '5, 10, and 13) and may be attributed
to the complex procedure involved -in the partial solution of the sample where
the amount of acid added (and the amount of waste dissolved) depended on a
series of pH readings made during the extraction. Identical amounts of acid
were not added during EP testings, so identical extractants would not be
expected. In addition samples that could not be homogenized to produce a uni-
form sample (monolithic waste samples and soil samples) were also analyzed by
both laboratories to evaluate variation, with the understanding that these
were not true duplicates. Results are presented in Appendix C. The mono-
lithic waste samples all gave concentrations of the constituents selected for
analysis that were close to the limit of detection. The soil samples were
digested and the differences in concentrations may be directly related to the
normal variation between contiguous (but not identical) samples.
The EP test procedure used in the Stablex delisting decision is a go,
no-go test as it if employed in the contingency provisions of the Stablex
delisting decision. If the concentration for any of the EP toxic metals
exceeds 30 times the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard (NIPDWS)
or exceeds 20 ppra for nickel, the material is considered hazardous. When the
36
-------
TABLE 11. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN SELENIUM ANALYSES OF EP
EXTRACTANT SPLITS SUBMITTED TO GENERAL ACTIVATION
ANALYSIS, INC., EMSL AND WES
Results from General
Activation Analysis*
Sample (Neutron Activation Method)
Results from EMSL
(Heated Graphite
Atomizer AA)
Results from WES
(Hydride Technique)
5A
5B
10A
1'JE
13A
13B
0
0
0
0
0
0
.510**
.477
.503
.490
.843
.781
0
0
0
0
0
0
.49
.43
.30
.46
.91
.81
(-4)
(-10)
(-40)
(-6)
(+8)
(+4)
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0.
0.
305
245
180
180
260
290
(-40)
(-49)
(-64)
(-63)
(-69)
(-63)
* General Activation Analysis, Inc. San Diego, CA.
** All results are in mg/1.
Numbers in parentheses are percent difference between results from
activation analysis and other methods.
37
-------
TABLE 12. TECHNIQUES AND INSTRUMENTATION USED IN THF ANALYSIS OF GROUND-WATER
AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
00
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Method
Heated Graphije Atomizer
(HGA)
Hydride generation
(U.S. EPA Method 206.3)
DC Argon Plasma (DCAP)
DCAP
DCAP /HGA
DCAP
DCAP/HGA (U.S. EPA Method
213.2)
HGA (U.S. EPA Method 220.2)
HGA (U.S. EPA Method 236.2)
ColH 'apor Atomic
Absorption (U.S. EPA
Method 245.1)
HGA (U.S. EPA Method 243.2)
HGA (U.S. EPA Method 249.2)
HGA (U.S. EPA Method 239.2)
Hydride generation
(U.S. EPA Method 270.3)
Instrument
Perkin E^ier (PE) 5000
PE 305 with MHS-10
Spectramet ric Spectra-
span III
Same as above
Spectraspan III/PE5000
Spectraspan III
Spectraspan III/PE5000
PE306
PE5000
PE503
PE5000
PE306
PE5000
PE305
with MHS-10
Lowest
reporting
cone
(ppm)
0 001
0.005
0.050
0.005
0.100/0.001
0.001
C. 100/0. 001
0.001
0.010
0.0002
0.001
0.001
0.001
O.OG5
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
Spec trame tries,
Spec trame tries,
Spec trame tries,
U.S. EPA, 1980
Spec trame tries ,
Spectrametrics,
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. I-PA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12. (concluded)
Parameter
Method
Instrument
Lowest
reporting
cone
(ppm)
Reference
Sn HGA (U.S. EPA Method 282.2)
Sr DCAP
Zn DCAP
Total CM* Colorimetric (U.S. EPA
Method 335.3)
CN Colorimetric
amendable (U.S. EPA
to chlori- Method
nation* 335.1)
PE5000 0.001
Spectraspan III 0.100
Spectraspan III 0.050
Technicon Autoanalyzer 0.010
Technicon Autoanalyzer 0.010
U.S. EPA, 1980
Spectrametrics, 1981
Spectrametrics, 1981
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
* These analyses were run on unfiltered, unacidified samples.
-------
TABLE 13.
ANALYSES OF
AVELEY
SURFACE WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE
CLAY PIT DISPOSAL SITE.
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
CN**
CN
amenable to
chlorination
LI
0.016*
<0.005
0.136
<0.005
<0.010
0.138
0.064
1.34
0.486
0.0046
0.003
0.234
0.005
0.170
0.112
8.89
<0.050
13.0
11.0
Sampling
L2
0.003
<0.005
0.136
<0.005
<0.010
'O.G04
0.018
0.020
0.050
0.0020
0.034
0.018
0.001
0.008
0.1.-3
4.75
0.050
0.016
0.010
Locations
L3
<0.001
<0.005
0.121
<0.005
<0.010 .
0.004
0.019
0.012
0.035
0.0006
0.025
0.012
0.193
0.008
0.268
4.56
<0.050
0.016
0.010
L4
<0.001
<0.005
0.136
<0.005
<0.010
<0.001
<0.001
0.005
0.071
<0.0002
0.050
0.008
0.035
<0.005
0.199
1.11
3.18
0.066
0.056
* All values are in mg/1.
** CN and CN-araenable to chlorination were determined on a separate, non-
acidified sample.
40
-------
TABLE 14. ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE
THUR&OCK CHALK QUARRY DISPOSAL SITE (WELLS Bl. B3-B6).
Monitoring Well Numbers
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
CN**
CN
amenable to
chlorination
Bl
<0.001*
<0.005
0.071
<0.005
<0.010
O.001
<0.001
0.008
0.341
<0.0002
0.022
0.006
0.107
O.005
0.043
0.757
<0.050
0.024
0.010
B3
<0.001
<0.005
0.116
<0.005
<0.010
<0.001
<0.001
0.014
0.064
O.0002
0.049
0.006
0.001
O.005
0.045
0.587
0.130
0.030
0.020
B4
<0.001
<0.005
0.080
<0.005
<0.010
<0.001
0.014
0.004
0.042
O.0002
0.001
0.004
0.008
<0.005
0.088
0.625
O.050
0.058
O.010
B5
<0.001
<0.005
0.116
<0.005
<0.010
<0.001
0.010
0.006
0.086
-------
TABLE 15, ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE THURROCK
CHALK QUARRY DISPOSAL SITE (WELLS B7, B8, BlO-12).
Monitoring Well Numbers
Parameters
^8
As
Be
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
CN**
CN
amenab le to
chlorination
B7
-------
TABLE 16. ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE
THURROCK CHALK QUARRY DISPOSAL SITE (WELLS 813-817
Monitoring Well Numbers
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
fg
Mn
Hi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
. Zn
CM**
CN
amenable to
chlorination
B13
0.001*
<0.005
0.146
<0.005
<0.010
0.001
0.039
0.004
O.OA8
<0.0002
0.001
0.004
0.014
<0.005
0.138
0.690
0.052
1.88
1.56
B14
0.003
<0.005
0.202
<0.005
<0.010
0.006
0.008
0.006
0.065
<0.0002
0.266
0.018
0.022
<0.005
0.066
0.738
0.065
0.309
<0.010
B15
0.003
<0.005
0.110
<0.005
<0.010
0.003
0.052
0.010
0.025
<0.0002
0.010
0.008
0.007
<0.005
0.089
0.718
0.050
0.314
<0.010
B16
0.001
<0.005
0.157
<0.005
<0.010
0.002
0.051
0.002
0.030
<0.0002
0.004
0.006
0.011
<0.005
0.131
0.698
0.663
0.028
<0.010
B17
0.003
<0.005
0.173
<0.005
<0.010
0.016
0.010
0.028
0.117
0.0016
0.420
0.027
0.002
.0.014
0.261
0.977
0.073
0.103
0.006
* All values are in mg/1.
** CN and CN-amenable to chlorination were determined on a separate, non-
acidified sample.
43
-------
TABLE 17. ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED AT THE
THURROCK CHALK QUARRY DISPOSAL SITE (WELLS B18-B20) .
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
CN**
CN
amenable to
chlorination
B18
< 0.001*
< 0.005
0.091
< 0.005
< 0.010
< 0.001
0.008
0.002
0.022
< 0.0002
0.042
0.004
0.008
< 0.005
0.049
0.748
< 0.050
< 0.010
< 0.010
Monitoring Well Numbers
B19
< 0.001
< 0.005
0.071
< 0.005
< 0.010
< 0.001
0.032
0.004
0.018
< 0.0002
0.178
0.008
0.010
< 0.005
0.077
1.04
< 0.050
< 0.010
< 0.010
B20
<0.001
<0.005
0.069
< 0,005
<0.010
< 0.001
0.030
0.006
0.032
< 0.0002
0.144
0.008
0.013
< 0.005
0.079
1.04
0.050
0.024
0.014
* All values are in mg/1.
** CN and CN-atnenable to chlorination were determined on a separate, non-
acidified sample.
44
-------
criteria were applied to the EP results that were obtained in duplicate, the
laboratories are in agreement on the decision as t>j which materials in each
would or would not cause the sample to be classed as hazardous. The dif-
ferences in analytical procedures and the variability within the EP test,
therefore, were not of such magnitude as to produce any differences in
regulatory decisions based on these EP data.
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Subsatnpling and Analysis of Surface Water and Ground;_ater Samples
The water samples were stored in sealed glass bottles at 4°C in a locked
refrigerator. Subsamples of the filtered, acidified samples were run for the
metals shown in Table 12 using the methods and instrumentation specified.
Analyses were begun on May 6, L932, and completed October 28, 1982. The
analyses for all metals except lead and tin were completed within the 180-day
time limit recommended for storage of acidified samples (U.S. EPA, 1900).
Lead and tin samples showed some chemical interference and these analyses were
completed 203 days after sample collection. The results of the analyses are
presented in Tables 13-17.
Splits of the unpreserved water samples supplied by the WES contractor
were run to determine the concentration of total cyanide and the concentration
of cyanide amenable to chlorination. The samples were over aged for cyanide
determination (over 24 hours old) and had not been preserved at pH 12.0 with
NaOH as is standard practice (U.S. EPA, 1980). The cyanide concentrations in
these samples, thus, should be lower than that four.-I in freshly collected
water samples. These results are also presented in'Tables 13-17 and should be
considered as minimum-concentrations.
Testing and Analyses of Sealosafe® Slurry Samples
The two slurry samples of treated wastes were tested twice using the EP,
(each time the EP was run in duplicate). The slurry samples were first tested
when they arrived at WES in April, 1982, and retested in June. Each slurry
sample was digested for bulk analysis. Moisture determinations were also
made. The EP was performed in the manner described in 40 CFR 261,
Appendix II.
The slurry was soft and putty-like with no filterable water. The slurry
samples were mixed by hand in plastic collection jars. Clean plastic spatulas
were used to thoroughly blend each sample. Homogeneous sub samples of approxi-
mately 100 grams each were prepared for use in the EP. Separate subsamples of
each sludge were taken for moisture determination and bulk analyses.
Bulk Analysis of Sealosafe® Uncured Slurry —
Samples for bulk analysis were digested in HNO - HO - HC1 using the
procedure outlined in U. S. EPA (1979), CRL Method 571-598. An undigested
sediment sample was used for determination of mercury, cyanide, and moisture
content.
45
-------
The slurry digestates were analyzed using the procedures and instrunenta-
tion spec .fled in Table 18 except for mercury. The mercury analyses were per-
formed using the technique for mercury in sediment (CRL Method 393) given in
U. S. EPA, 1979. Method CRL 393 was u"ed because the routine drying procedure
for waste digestion can volatilize some mercury compounds and cause mercury to
escape. Cyanide analyses and the determination of cyanide amenable to chlori-
nation were carried out using the methods (CRL Method 366 and EPA method
335.1) given in U. S. EPA, 1979 and U. S. EPA, 1980. Moisture content was
determined on a separate sample aliquot by drying at 1Q5°C in tvj hours cycles
(drying and cooling) until a constant weight was attained. The results of the
analyses ar.-. presented in Table 19.
Extraction Procedure Testing —
No solid-liquid separation of the material was necessary; in addition the
samples were not submitted to the structural integrity procedure or ground.
The pH adjustment was done manually and the samples were stirred in a paddle
stirrer in an all-glass stirring apparatus. The separation of the EP extract
was done using pressure filtration.
EP rxtractants were analyzed using the methods and instrumentation given
in Table 1C. The results of the analyses are presented in Tables 20 and 2L.
Averages and ranges for parameters measured in the extracts are given in
Table 22.
Testing and Analysis of Samples of Sealosafe® Treated Waste
®
The Sealosafe -treated industrial waste cores were described and each
core was divided into eight intervals, designated A-H, based on differences in
characteristic, color, and texture. A description of the eight core sections
and' their positions with respect to the ground surface .are given in Appen-
dix B. A randomization procedure (Dixon and Massey, 1957) was used to select
four samples from each of the 13 cores far extraction (EP) testing in a ground
condition. The intervals selected in each core are given in Table 23.
/u\
Preparation of Bulk Analysis Samples of Sealosafe -treated Wastes —
Ground Stab lex*® samples prepared for EP testing (dried and ground) were
digested and analyzed to determine bulk composition. Samples of dried mate-
rial were digested in UNO - H 0_ - HC1 using the procedure outlined in
U. S. EPA (1979) CRL Method 571-^98. In each case, a separate undried,
unground sample of the corresponding core interval was also submitted for
determination of cyanide, mercury, moisture content, and total organic
carbon (TOC). These parameters could not be reliably determined in the dried,
ground materials because of possible losses due to volatilization during
drying.
Analyses of Sealosafe®-treated Wastes —
The sample acid digestates were analyzed using the procedures and instru-
mentation specified in Table 18. Moisture contents of the unground core mate-
rial were determined by drying preweighed samples at 105°C until a constant
weight was obtained. Mercury analyses were performed on unground moist core
slices using the technique (CRL Method 393) given in U.S. EPA (1979). Anal-
yses for total organic carbon were made using the method outlined in EPA 415.1
46
-------
(U.S. EPA, Methods 335.3 and 335.1), respectively. The results of the analy-
ses of the acid digests are given in Tables 24 through 36. The results ->f the
analyses performed on the moist core slides are given in Tables 37-49.
Preparation of Samples for EP Testing in Ground Condition —
Samples for EP testing in ground condition were selected and where neces-
sary brushed clean with a nylon-bristled brush. Each sample was placed in a
clean, labelled Pyrex beaker and dried for 12 hours at 105°C. Drying was
required to allow the samples to be ground and sieved. In some cases, it was
necessary to break the core up with a ceramic mortar and pestle to assure that
the material dried thoroughly. Some volatile constituents can be lost in dry-
ing, but this step had to be introduced to produce homogeneous samples.
The dried samples were ground in a ball mill in plastic jars using
ceramic grinding balls. The powdered samples were sieved through clean
100-mesh nylon sieve cloth and stored in clean, labelled, plastic containers.
All preparation of sample was done in a secure area and the samples were
stored in locked facilities.
Preparation of Samples for EP Testing in a Monolithic Condition —
Six cores were randomly selected for testing using the Structural Integ-
rity Procedure (SIP) and EP. The four samples (or intervals) from the orig-
inal eight intervals in these cores that were not selected for ground EP
testing were used for SIP/EP testing (see Table 23). At the EPA's direction,
all samples that were not hard, brittle materials that would fracture (rather
than deform plasticly) were rejected from SIP/EP testing. The selection of
only hard, brittle samples resulted in the rejection of eight soft samples and
the acceptance of 16 samples for SIP/EP testing.
Structural Integrity Testing of Monolithic Samples —
Samples for testing using the Structural Integrity Procedure were pre-
pared by cutting out an axial cylinder 3.3 cm (1.3 inches) in diameter from
the center section (parallel to the axis) of the 6.6-cm diameter core sample.
A specially designed, diamond-tipped bit was used in a low-speed concrete
sampling drill. Compressed air was used to cool the bit and clear cuttings as
necessary. The 3.3 cm diameter cylindrical sample was trimmed to 7.1 cm in
length using a clean, steel, hacksaw blade. The resulting monolith was tested
using the Structural Integrity Procedure outlined in 40 CFR 261, Appendix II.
EP Testing of Sealosafe^-treated Wastes —
The samples of Sealosafe^-treated waste (both ground and monolithic) were
subjected to the EP as described in 40 CFR 261, Appendix II. Stirring of the
samples was done using an all-glass paddle stirring apparatus. All pH
adjustments (acid addition) were done manually. Pressure filtration was used
to separate solid and liquid phases. All EP extracts were stored under
refrige -ation. The samples of extractant from the EP testing from the mono-
lithic core material were composited to form a single extractant sample from
each core. The extractants from the ground samples were each analyzed
separately.
47
-------
TABLE 18. TECHNIQUES AND INSTRUMENTATION USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF EP EXTRACTS
AND BULK DIGEST OF SEALOSAFE WASTES AND SUBWASTE CHALK AND CLAY.
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
X
CO
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Method
DC Argon Plasma
(DCAP)
Hydride generation
(U.S. EPA Method 206.3)
DCAP
DCAP
DCAP
DCAP
DCAP
DCAP
DCAP
Cold vapor Atomic
Absorption (U.S. EPA
Method 245. 1)
DCAP
DC A"
Instrument
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Perkin-Elmer (P-E)
305 with MHS-10
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Spectra".;: tries
Spectraspan III
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
P-E503
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Spectrametrics
Lowest
reporting
cone
(ppm)
0.050
0.005
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.0002
0.050
C.050
Reference
Spectrametrics,
U.S. EPA, 1980
Spec t rame t r ics ,
Spectrametrics,
Spectrametrics,
Spectrametrics,
Spectrametrics,
Spectrametrics,
Spectrametrics,
U.S. EPA, 1>)80
Spect rnme t r ics ,
Spectrametrics,
1981
1981
1981
1981
IQ81
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
Spectraspan III
(continued)
-------
TABLE 18. (concluded)
Parameter
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
Method
DCAP/Heated
Graphite Atomizer (HGA)
(U.S. EPA Method 239.2)
Hydride generation
(U.S. EPA Method 270.3)
DCAP
DCAP
DCAP
Instrument
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
P-E305
with MHS-10
Spectrametrics
Spectraspan III
Spectrametrics
Spectraoapn III
Spectrametrics
Spectrasran III
Lowest
reporting
cone
(ppm)
0.050/0.001
0.005
0.050
0.050
0.050
Reference
Spectrametrics, 1981
U.S. EPA, 1980
Spectrametrics, 1981
Spectrametrics, 1981
Spectrametrics, 1981
-------
TABLE 19. BULK ANALYSES OF SEALOSAFE^ SLURRY SAMPLES.
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg**
irln
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
s-
Zn
CN
CN amenable to
chlorination
% Solids
Sample 1
3.4*
190.0
229
3.85
77.8
49.6
1040
1030
22950
0.0007
16100
729
1460
78.0
51.9
305
5075
188
< 1
'•4.26
Sample 2
8.1
240.0
249
3.85
75.7
49.1
1030
1045
22800
0,0005
15750
715
1230
78.0
54.2
287
4875
203
< 1
44.32
Average
3.25
215.0
239
3.85
76.75
49.35
1035
1037.5
22875
0.0006
15925
722
1345
78.0
53.05
296
4975
195.5
< 1
44.29
* All analyses are in mg/kg dry wt.
** Hg, CN, and % solids analyses were determined on moist samples.
50
-------
TABLE 20. ANALYSES OF EP EXTRACTS FROM SEALOSAFE® SLURRY SAMPLE NO. 1.*
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
1A
<0.050**
0.015
0.251
< 0.005
0.909
0.454
0.798
2.12
0.334
< 0.0004
144.0
4.14
0.132
0.020
0.177
5.00
50.0
IB
<0.050
0.009
0.210
<0.005
0.915
0.452
0.814
0.608
0.279
< 0.0004
162.0
4.62
0.041
0.024
0.184
5.01
38.6
1C
< 0.050
0.006
0.110
0.005
0.832
0.451
1.31
1.46
0.126
< 0.0004
138.0
3.82
0.074
0.020
0.144
4.71
53.6
ID
<0.050
0.006
0.159
0.010
0.840
0.342
0.958
2.57
0.191
< 0.0004
116.0
3.59
0.168
0.012
0.138
4.64
53.7
* These EP tests were performed in April, 1982.
** All analyses are in rag/1.
t Analyses for Hg were performed as indicated in Table 18.
51
-------
TABLE 21. ANALYSES OF EP EXTRACTS FROM SEALOSAFE^ SLURRY SAMPLE NO. 2.*
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgtt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
2A
<0.050t
0.005
0.191
0.005
0.465
0.165
0.996
0.655
0.131
<0.0004
42.8
1.62
0.060
0.014
0.199
3.88
13.0
2B
< 0,050
0.007
0.188
0.005
0.554
0.234
0.646
1.02
0.155
< 0.0004
67.8
2.04
0.041
0.015
0.164
4.10
19.9
2C*
<0.050
0.006
0.186
0.006
0.434
0.207
0.930
1.63
0.095
<0.0004
73.8
2.34
0.176
0.014
0.072
4.46
28.7
2D**
<0.050
0.006
0.134
0.007
0.724
0.329
1.23
2.48
0.190
< 0.0004
i09.0
3.66
0.160
0.016
0.123
4.50
47.0
* These EP tests were performed in June, 1982
** Analyses were made on two separate splits of each of these extracts.
Results presented are averages.
t All analyses are in mg/1.
ft Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
52
-------
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF ANALYSES OF EP EXTRACTS FROM
SEALOSAFE® SLURRY SAMPLES.
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd •
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
Average* Slurry
Sample No. 1
B**
0.009t
0.182
B
0.874
0.425
0.970
1.69
0.232
B
140.0
4.04
0.104
0.019
0.275
4.84
49.0
Average* SI irry
Sample No. 2
B
O.OOC
0.187
B
0.544
0.234
0.963
1.45
0.143
B
73.35
2.42
0.069
0.015
0.270
4.24
27.1
Mean of
all Analyses
B
0.007
0.184
B
0.709
0.330
0.966
1.57
0.188
B
106.7
3.23
0.086
0.017
0.272
4.54
38.0
Range
<0
0.005
0.110
<0.005
. 0.434
0.165
0.646
0.608
0.095
<0
42.8
1.62
0.041
0.014
0.072
3.38
13.0
.005
- 0.015
- 0.251
- 0.010
- 0.915
- 0.454
- 1.31
- 2.12
- 0.279
.0004
- 162.0
- 4.62
- 0.168
- 0.024
- 0.491
- 5.01
- 53.7
* Each value is average of four separate extractions
** B = 50% or more of values are below the limit of detection for the
analytical technique employed.
t All values are in mg/1.
53
-------
TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF SAMPLES SELECTED FOR EP TESTING IN GROUND CONDITION AND
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY PROCEDURE AND EP TESTING
Bore Hole A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
SIP/EP
EP**
EP**
EP
ZP
EP/MEP
EP*
EP
NA
NA
EP
HA
SIP/EP
B
EP
EP
EP
EP
SIP/EP
NA
SIP/EP
EP*
EP
EP
EP
EP*
EP*/MEP
Sample Position
C D E
SIP/EP
SIP/EP
NA
NA
EP
EP
SIP/EP
£P
NA
EP**
EP
EP**
EP*
EP
SIP/EP
EP**
EP**
SIP/EP
NA
EP*
EP**
EP
EP
NA
NA
EP**
SIP/EP
EP*/MEP
NA
EP
EP*
EP
EP**
SIP/EP
EP
NA
NA
NA
SIP/EP
F
EP
SIP/EP
NA
NA
EP*/MEP
EP*
tP*
SIP/EP
NA
NA
NA
NA
SIP/EP+
G
EP/MEP
SIP/EP
EP*
NA
SIP/EP
NA
SIP/EP
SIP/EP
EP
EP
EP*
EP*
SIP/EP
H
SIP/EP
EP**
NA
NA
SIP/EP
NA
SIP/EP
SIP/EP
NA
NA
NA
EP*
EP*
SIP/EP = Structural Integrity Procedure done at WES, Environmental Monitoring
System Laboratory (EMSL).
EP = Sample .for extraction procedure at WES in ground condition.
EP* = Sample for extraction procedure at WES in ground condition (Samples sent
to EMSL).
EP** = Samples for extraction procedure in ground condition at WES and EMSL.
NA = Samples not selected via the random selection procedure.
+ = Sample amenable to SIP was not available for EMSL.
SIP/EP = Sample randomly selected was not amenable to SIP at WES.
HEP = Sample selected for multiple extraction procedure testing.
54
-------
TABLE 24. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 1
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Hi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
4.04*
128
961
7.19
10.4
25.4
194
317
20900
0.0494
384
158
872
35.2
12.0
397
770
D
3.16
138
326
7.34
5.53
27.6
141
233
27200
0.0355
374
119
964
25.2
15.0
326
630
F
3.51
137
341
7.12
5.46
26.1
140
228
22200
0.0688
355
117
1390
22.9
19.3
359
622
G
3.64
340
9^2
5.02
23.4 '
27.3
488
1040
loSOO
0.0460
329
360
2250
'46
87.3
628
2400
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
55
-------
TABLE 25. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE^-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 2
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
3.88*
249
1185
7.51
15.3
29.2
452
643
29150
0.1067
557
264
1075
92.5
25.9
399
1660
B
4.31
134
875
7 .28
4.51
28.2
140
233
22100
0.0370
333
115
987
24.9
6.61
351
611
E
3.63
206
252
7.27
18.0
26.3
485
695
26200
0.1260
560
295
1002
126
23.5
407
1730
H
2
223
1250
7
17
27
482
700
26400
0
569
290
1152
135
85
413
1740
.yo
.55
.9
.1
,1246
.8
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
56
-------
TABLE 26. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SE.*LOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 3
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sf
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
5.72*
213
969
6.69
9.11
28.7
218
354
26jOO
0.0517
426
165
1230
18.1
36.2
368
1280
B
3.94
158
1030
7.30
6.31
29.4
159
245
23600
0.0301
386
128
\ 110
22.7
7.10
- 332
.739
D
13.3
229
832
6.76
10.8
28.2
281
433
28300
0.0531
478
139
1630
61.6
16.9
369.
1550 '
G
6.30
260
1200
6.90
16.7
25.2
451
651
25700
0.1462
548
270
1120
114
28.1
398
1650
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
57
-------
TABLE 27. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TR.ATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 4
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
• Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Mi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
3.0U*
496
229
6.10
14.7
19.3
200
397
15300
0.0384
381
170
901
69,0
4.30
389
1040
Borehole
B
2.99
149
916
7.36
9.95
25.2
185
315
20500
0.0333
389
139
663
34.3
6.17
412
723
Interval
D
2.66
236
101
4.53
28.4
19.3
515
1050
16100
0.3772
914
296
443
120
19.6
591
2390
E
2.46
571
98.3
8.37
48.2
2S.9
1012
1465
29050
0.3326
762
531
728
191
21.5
358
3655
* All values are in rag/kg dry wt.
58
-------
TABLE 28. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE^-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 5
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
3.40*
173
93.5
8.00
41.7
22.8
590
1230
19400
0.2175
687
464
911
214
4.00
355
2130
C
7.22
158
787
6.73
5.64
27.2
141
247
22500
0.0337
378
119
1030
25.2
6.92
322
631
E
7.27
242
835
6.03
6.00
25.6
161
282
24500
0.0416
402
134
1320
30.9
15.4
326
1050
F
12.5
299
822
5.88
7.27
24.4
185
296
25100
0.0431
389
134
2090
43.8
45.2
311
1360
All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
59
-------
TABLE 29. ^ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE^-TREATED WA5TES FROM BOREHOLF 6
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
18.1*
635
174
7.74
56.8
28.6
1100
1740
29800
0.3484
792
645
1260
278
5.36
327
4300
C
6.17
269
944
5.97
8.46
27.5
203
348
27000
0.0j20
416
159
1687
34.3
12.0
349
1280
E
1.78
277
224
8.iO
18.0
26.9
453
700
26800
0.1380
577
296
979
90 9
18.0
414
1810
F
7.15
268
1230
7.36
17.3
27.5
455
662
25800
0.1117
554
278
844
93.4
10.1
405
1680
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
60
-------
TABLE 30. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 7
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
10.1
198
918
3.67
23.2
22.2
394
830
15300
0.0958
339
298
1260
109
10.7
601
2140
D
2.8
50
460
1.6
79.1
13.3
287
456
10400
**
243
175
389
1275
57.6
408
1110
E
3.94
128
1020
3.84
36.2
26.2
455
782
18500
0.1300
390
335
656
47.3
62.2
572
1800
F
6.
149
1160
3.
39.
26.
477
832
19800
0.
380
378
835
66.
43.
572
-2030
26
98
9
8
1524
6
2
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt,
** Analyses not available.
61
-------
TABLE 31. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 8
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
. A
3.00*
150
833
6.60
5.70
27.7
139
236
22400
0.0720
396
110
1130
26.5
9.40
352
638
B
5.67
109
1020
4.27
39.9
27.2
338
719
18100
0.0595
398
326
480
63.6
10.4
551
1660
C
6.26
129
1100
4.67
44.4
28.0
395
818
18400
0.1335
424
358
662
60.6
10.4
517
1670
D
1.55
193
732
3.87
17.6
17.4
350
713
13200
0.1038
277
239
1320
89.0
42.9
578
1830
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
62
-------
TABLE 32. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES F?OM BOREHOLE 9
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
' Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
. Sn
Sr
Zn.
B
5. 10*
224
31.5
4.10
20.5
27.7
322
849
13600
O.LL06
305
310
1650
146
13.0
586
2190
D
5.65
119
1130
5.25
41.7
29.7
330
787
18600
0.1562
405
327
641
64.5
39.1
590
1560
E
2.13
109
1010
3.86
39.6
26.6
323
703
17300
0.1476
387
303
549
rl.4
36.9
530
1660
G
3.04
103
568
4.71
40.0
27.6
394
794
18100
0.1554
397
3i4
494
51.0
24.8
534
1430
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
63
-------
TABLE 33. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEA.OSAFE^-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 10
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
*a
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
•'g
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
5.35*
139
134
3.35
14.4
21.7
228
536
ir/co
0.0850
277
216
1270
S9.0
1.60
577
1440
C
1.26
L26
775
3.50
24.2
19.5
324
565
14600
0.0924
312
230
746
45.7
38 :5
594
1440
D
3.00
90.9
101
3.90
36.4
29.6
268
658
14900
0.1870
367
273
577
57.0
5.90
476
1370
G
3
95
122
3
33
28
220
591
15300
0
377
241
498
61
5S
533
1420
.20
. ?
.10
.2
.5
.1784
.0
.0-
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
64
-------
TABLE 34. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 11
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
5.45*
216
62.0
3.80
' 17.5
18.9
284
736
13200
0.0893
291
267
1275
124
2.10
620
1860
B
3.70
69.0
97.8
2.80
21.1
23.7
256
570
12900
0.0902
296
178
376
30.5
28.0
614
1330
C
3.70
76.7
59.0
3.40
28.7
25.5
243
548
13900
0.1063
334
238
269
55.0
1.90
533
1220
G
3.15
88.7
858
3.35
36.9
21.6
293
642
16600
0.1133
368
284
479
60.1
22.1
526
1710
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
65
-------
TABLE 35. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 12
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
9.33*
169
1450
4.47
45.9
30.0
508
943
17400
0.1456
624
497
1040
163
55.7
574
2380
C
2.95
290
1650
5.70
41.6
33.2
718
1305
19350
0.2619
652
526
811
227
113
564
2580
G
13.4
420
1530
6.75
34.3
24.6
674
997
21900
0.2882
640
380
1350
225
62.2
371
2440
H
4
117
734
5
6
21
214
262
1S800
0
399
122
434
147
13
438
607
.01
.28
.10
.9
.0866
.4
All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
66
-------
TABLE 36. ANALYSES OF DIGESTS OF GROUND
SEALOS^FE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 13
Borehole Interval
Parameter
^g
As
Ba
Be
Gd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Hn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
7. 46*
368
710
3.78
18.1
33.8
596
1060
26800
0.1695
3490
485
3320
20T
80.3
300
3410
C
9.12
268
1730
5.55
43.3
33.1
638
1120
18000
0.2706
605
506
1000
248
83.6
577
2530
D
9.15
259
1550
5.57
27.0
28.0
627
1120
16700
0.2940
625
418
943
274
64.4
532
2480
H
7.63
89.2
901
3.47
27.3
21.9
426
744
16300
0.1856
353
245
485
42.6
61.0
616
1800
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
67
-------
TABLE 37. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 1
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Total CN
CN amenable
to chlorination
Hg**
TOG
Moisture
Content (%)
B
68.8*
5.0
0.0274
5230
40.0
D
31.4
<1
0.0138
5675
39.2
F
24.1
-------
TABLE 33. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 2
Borehole Interval
Parameter A 3
Total CM 45.5* 33.0
CN amenab le < 1 < 1
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0232 0.0198
TOC 4845 5265
Moisture 48.3 35.9
Content (%)
E
95.0
< 1
0.0732
5730
52.3
H
73. S
6.2
0.0804
7175
49.1
* All values except moisture content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhonoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
69
-------
TABLE 39. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE
Borehole Interval
Parameter A
Total CN 73.8*
CN amenable 13.6
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0491
TOG 5135
Moisture 42.5
Content (%)
B D
38.0 52.0
<1 <1
0.0525 0.0694
5675 5925
42.1 51.3
G
39.9
<1
0.0736
6280
50.0
* All values except moisture content are it, mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
70
-------
TABLE 40. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 4
Parameter
Total Ci<
CM amenable
to chlorination
Hg**
TOC
Moisture
Content (%)
Borehole Interval
A B D
75.1* 58.8 30.2
14.4 12.5 <1
0.0434 0.0242 0.0251
5670 4505 4250
41.6 40.0 29.8
E
72.1
<1
0.0164
6875
27. 9
* All values except moisture content are in rag/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
71
-------
TABLE 41. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 5
Borehole Interval
Parameter A C
Total CN 110.1* 32.1
CN araer.ab le < 1 < 1
to ehlorination
Hg** 0.0819 0.0290
TOG 6290 4355
Moisture U.I 36.0
Content (%)
E
35.9
< 1
0.0212
4940
35.7
F
52
7
0
4740
46
.8
.7
.0242
.2
* Al? values except moisture content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
72
-------
TABLE 42. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 6
Borehole Interval
Parameter A C
Total CN 133.4* 66.7
CN amenable <• 1 < 1
to chlorination
Hg** O.OG92 0.0237
TOC 7195 5035
Moisture 50.0 47.2
Content (%)
E
153.6
12.4
0.0224
6235
49.3
tr
132.2
< 1
0.0205
5700
49.2
* All values except mcisture content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
73
-------
TABLE 43. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 7
Borehole Interval
Parameter A D
Total CN 30.6* 37.4
CN amenab le < 1 6.7
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0164 O.OL95
TOC 4060 3440
Moisture 43.6 39.0
Content (%)
E
50.3
< 1
0.0213
4180
42.2
F
7.49
<1
0.0264
4975
47.6
* All values except moisture content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses xvere performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
-------
TABLE 44. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 3
Borehole Interval
Parameter A B
Total CN! 93.7* 166.4
CM amenable < 1 165.3
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0167 0.0094
TOC 4950 4335
Moisture 46.6 46.2
Content (%)
C
70.7
14.5
0.0273
5440
40.7
D
75
28
0
4290
39
.4
.0
.0294
§ 2
* All values except moisture content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
75
-------
TABLE 45. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTZ CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 9
Borehole Interval
Parameter B D
Total CN 75.9* 69.1
CN amenable <1 18.6
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0114 0.0319
TOG 3740 4825
Moisture 48.2 40.0
Content (%)
E
30.9
13.3
0.0290
4100
37.7
G
93.7
14.0
0.0256
4210
38.2
* All values except moisture content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the samp borehole interval.
76
-------
TABLE 46. ANALYSES UF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 10
Borehole Interval
Parameter B C
Total CM 114.9* 44.5
ON amenable 44.5 <1
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0132 0.0178
TOC 3130 3480
Moisture 37.4 _)9.1
Consent (%)
D
95.7
27.0
0.0282
4565
33.8
G
48
1
0
3310
35
.9
.6
.0236
.0
* All values except moisture content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhonoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the same borehole interval.
77
-------
TABLE 47. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED VJASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 11
Borehole Interval
Parameter A
Total CN 73.9*
CN amenable 14.6
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0122
TOC 4190
Moisture 41.5
Content (%)
B C G
52.4 71.0 61.7
-------
TABLE 43. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 12
Borehole Interval
Parameter B C
Total CN 135.0* 108.7
CN amenable 13.6 < 1
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0335 0.0414
TOC 5170 4355
Moisture 50.2 43.4
Content (%)
G
162.7
< L
0.0096
7030
54.2
H
76
30
0
5415
53
.1
.2
.0072
.7
* All values except moisture content are in rag/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried rr.-.teriaL from the same borehole interval.
79
-------
TABLE 49. ANALYSES OF MOIST SAMPLES OF TREATED '.,'ASTE CORE FROM
BOREHOLE 13
Borehole Interval
Parameter B C
Total Ci; 459.9* 100.9
CN amenable 1 26.5
to chlorination
Hg** 0.0156 0.0398
TOG 14750 5890
Moisture 50.2 50.0
Content (%)
D
77.6
1
0.0452
5435
46.4
H
72
1
0
5350
53
.5
.0196
.6
* All values except moisuire content are in mg/kg dry weight
** These analyses were performed on a separate moist sample of unhomoge-
nized material and may be greater or less than Hg concentrations
determined on dried material from the s.-.me borehole interval.
30
-------
Analyses of EP extracts —
The. EP extract ants were analyzed using the methods and instrumentation
given in Table 13. The results of the analyses of the extracts of the mono-
lithic samples (composited for the samples from each core) are presented in
Table 50. The results of the analyses of extracts from the ground core are
presented in Tables 51 through 63.
Leaching of Ground Sealosafe®-treated Wastes c.or Cyanide—
Eight dried, ground samples of treated wrste were subjected co a dis-
tilled water leaching test for total cyanide. The eight samples selected fron
available material th=it had previously bean tested using the EP procedure were
rerun in a similar extraction to the E?, but distilled water (not dilute
acetic acii) was used as an extractanc. No aH adjustment was made; the sus-
pended waste was simply, stirred with distilled water for 24 hours. Analyses
for cyanide were run using U.S. EPA Method 335.3. The results are presented
in Table 64 along with CN concentrations found in bulk analyses of moist core
slices from the same interval.
Multiple Extraction of Ground, Treated Wastes
Five samples of residue from the EP testing were selected for Multiple
Extraction Procedure. (MEP) testing on tho basis of high contaminant concen-
trations in the EP extracts or bulk analyses. The details of the MEP proce-
dure are given in Appendix D. The MEP involves the use of a dilute nitric and
sulfuric acid mixture (at pH 3) to leach the residue. The results of the MEP
tests are presented in Tables 65 through 69. Careful attention was paid to
background levels in blanks carried through the nine successive extractions.
Some contamination was noted from the acid mixture and the accumulated filter
paper. All values reported are corrected for blanks.
Analyses of_Extracts of Clay and Chalk Below the Treated Wastes
Samples of soil were selected from the top, middle, and-bottom portions
of each clay or chalk core obtained from beneath the Sealosafe®-treateci
waste. The position of each sample beneath the waste interface and a
description of each core are given in Appendix B, Table B15. The clay or
chalk samples were digested using the technique specified in CRL Method Mos.
571-593 (U. S. EPA 1979). Analysis of the digests were performed using the
techniques for metals specified in Tabl2 18. The results of the analyses are
presented in Tables 70-82.
81
-------
TABLE 50. ANALYSES OF EP EXTRACTS FROM
MJNOLITHIC SAMPLES OF TREATED WASTE CORE MATERIAL
Borehole
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sett
Sn
Sr
Zn
1*
<0.050**
<0.005
0.001
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
''0.0004
<0.050
<0.050
0.003
<0.005
.0.050
0.114
<0.050
2
<0.050
<0.005
0.064
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.052
<0.0004
<0,050
<0.050
0.001
0.084
<0.050
0.223
<0.050
5
< 0.050
<0.005
0.040
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
< 0.050
<0.050
<0.050
< 0.0004
<0,050
<0.050
0.003
0.021
<0,050
0.172
0.050
7
<0.050
<0.005
0.096
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.05,1
0.005
0.053
<0.050
0.005
0.031
<0.050
0.677
0.248
8
<0.050
<0.005
0.050
<0.005
< 0.050
<0.050
< 0.050
<0.050
< 0.050
< 0.0004
< 0.050
<0.050
0.002
<0.005
< 0.050
0.506
< 0.050
13
<0.050
<0.005
0.077
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
O.OOL4
1.74
C.054
0.011
0.054
<0.050
0.794
0.411
* Samples analyzed were composites of EP extracts from two to four sample
intervals from each core.
** All values are in mg/1.
t Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
tt Se analyses may be low estimates due to the analytical technique employed
(See QA/QC discussion).
82
-------
TABLE 51. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALQSAFE®-TR,iATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 1.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Or
Cu
Fe
Hg**
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
3
<0.050*
0.029
0.156
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.106
<0.050
0.173
0.0006
<0.050
0.077
0.002
0.290
<0.050
5.39
0.70
D
<0.050
0.025
0.211
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.095
<0.050
0.074
<0.0014
0.150
0.067
0.001
0.104
<0.050
5.28
<0.050
F
<0.050
0.024
0.230
-------
TABLE 52. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 2.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
-Zn
A*
<0.050**
0.028
0.234
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.0o6
0.119
0.202
0.0026
<0.050
<0.050
0.004
0.310
0.050
5.16
0.053
B
<0,050
0.009
0.237
<0.005
0.113
0.063
<0.050
0.069
<0.050
0.0060
1.26
0.234
0.220
0.040
<0.050
5.05
2.46
E
<0.050
0.042
0.174
<0.005
0.130
0.072
<0.050
0.084
0.417
0.1402
26.1
0.521
0.005
0.205
0.338
5.83
0.159
H
<0.050
0.029
0.224
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.074
0.102
0.144
0.0007
0.175
0.091
0.003
0.308
<0.050
5.29
0.0509
* Values are averages of duplicate extractions.
** All values are in mg/1.
t Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
tt Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
84
-------
TABLE 53. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE J.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sett
Sn
Sr
Zn
A*
<0.050**
0.041
0.274
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.081
0.088
0.0030
0.357
0.098
<0.005
0.132
<0.050
4.64
0.214'
B
<0.050
0.013
0.260
<0.005 .
<0.050
<0.050
0.067
<0.050
0.114
0.0970
0.176
0.068
0.004
0.091
<0.050
4.60
<0.050
D*
<0.050
0.038
0.152
0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.062
0.088
0.092
0.0017
0.237
0.096
0.003
0.213
<0.050
4.87
0.138
G
<0.050
0.027
0.240
-------
TABLE 54. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 4.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd .
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sett
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
<0.050**
0.029
0.048
<0.005
-------
TABLE 55. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 5.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg**
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
<0.050*
0.020
0.088
. <0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.356
0.096
0.494
0.0010
<0.050
<:0.0i>0
<0.001
0.490
0.062
4.59
<0.050
C
<0.050
0.012
0.217
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.156
<0.050
0.081
0.0008
0.335
0.106
0.004
0.078
<0.050
5.2.9
<0.050
E
<0.050
0.038
0.144
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.151
<0.050
0.120
0.0008
0.060
0.090
0.003
0.145
0.381
5.25
<0.050
F
<0.050
0.115
0.207
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.084
0.112
0.0004
<0.050
0.050
0.004
0.225
<0.050
4.75
< 0.050
* All values are in mg/1.
** Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
t Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
87
-------
TABLE 56. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SZALOSAFI^TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 6.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
te
Hg**
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
<0.050*
0.022
0.219
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
1.09
0.173
0.'79
0.1380
0.274
0.168
0.002
0..95
0.084
4.43
<0.050
C
-------
TABLE 57. ANALYS ES, OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALObAFtC-'-!REATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 7.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd"
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg**
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
<0.050*
0.019
0.161
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.315
0.135
0.296
0.0011
<0.050
<0.050
0.006
0.118
<0.050
8.54 '
<0.050
D
<0.050
0.010
0.140
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.232
0.130
0.188
< 0.0004
<0.050
<0.050
0.005
0.096
<0.050
7.16
< 0.050"
E
-------
TABLE 58. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM E? TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 3.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sett
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
<0.050**
0.012
<0.001
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.146
O.LOO
0.269
0;0005
<0.050
<0.050
0.0004
0.268
0.054
3.40
<0.050
B
<0.050
0.018
0.093
<0.005
<0.050
< 0.050
0.377
O.'l28
0.531
< 0.0004
<0.050
0.083
0.003
0.255
0.617
7.77
<0.050
C
<0.050
0.008
0.129
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.201
0.127
0.155
< 0.0004
0.377
0.111
0.003
0.104
0.085
7.76
0.064
D*
<0.050
0.007
0.195
< 0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.117
0.176
0.139
0.0007
0.370
0.085
0.005
O.OS3
<0.050
6.38
0.498
* Values are averages of duplicate extractions.
** All values are in mg/1.
t Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
tt Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
90
-------
TABLE 59. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE^-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 9.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg**
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
<0.050*
0.016
0.058
<0,005
<0.050
<0.050
0.373
0.126
0.861
0.0005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.001
0.220
0.066
7.42
<0.050
D
<0.050
0.012
0.188
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.535
0.117
0.219
< 0.0004
0.171
0.081
0.005
0.109
0.376
8.60
0.053
F
<0.050
0.011
0.176
<0.005 .
<0.050
<0.050
0.533
0.089
0.222
<0.0004
<0.050
0.067
0.006
0.128
0.071
7.73
<0.050
G
<0.050
0.009
0.135
< 0.005
<0.050
< 0.050
0.487
0.120
0.211
< 0.0004
0.424
0.169
0.002
0.106
0.399
7.12
0.099
* All values are in mg/1.
** Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
T Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
91
-------
TABLE bO. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-T!..EATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 10.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sett
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
<0.050**
0.014
0.053
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.136
0.080
0.593
< 0.0004
<0.050
<0.050
0.002
0.110
0.050
8.37
<0.050
C*
<0.050
0.005
0.225
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.238
0.131
0.2oO
0.0004
0.250
0.075
0.005
0.03"
<0.050
8.27
0.170
D
<0.050
0.012
0.064
<0.005
<0.050
< 0.050
0.278
0.116
0.520
0.0005
<0.050
0.13:
<0.001
0.225
0.057
6.12
<0.050
G
<0.050
0.007
0.069
<0.005
. <0.050
<0.050
0.245
0.071
0.447
0.0004
0.217
0.074
<0.001
0.056
0.053
7.74
< 0.050
* Values are averages of duplicate extractions.
** All values are in mg/1.
t Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
tt Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
92
-------
TABLE 61. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALC3AFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 11.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg**
ttn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
A
<0.050*
0.008
0.037
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.173
O.L04
0.613
0.0005
0.050
0.090
<0.001
0.135
0.053
8.02
<0.050
B
<0.050
<0.005
0.040
<0.005
<0.050
<0..050
0.107
0.071
0.427
<0.0004
<0.050
<0.050
<0.001
0.053
0.048
8.26
<0.050
C
<0.050
0.003
0.031
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.168
0.084
0.526
0.0004
<0.050
0.110
<0.001
0.165
0.054
7.01
<0.050
G
<0.050
0.009
0.202
< 0.005
< 0.050
<0.050
0.259
0.145
0.185
0.0005
0.067
<0.050
<0.001
0.082
<0.050
7.76
<0.050
* All values are in mg/1.
** Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
t Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
93
-------
TABLE 62. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOT.£ 12.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sett
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
<0.050**
0.011
0.174
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.419
0.154
0.692
< 0.0004
<0.050
0.067
<0.001
0.250
0.075
7.67
<0.050
C*
<0.050
0.008
0.093
0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.330
0.130
0.238
0.0005
0.180
0.066
0.004
0.240
<0.050
6.15
0.057
G
<0.050
0.025
0.096
<0.005
<0.050 .
<0.050
0.554
0.126
0.63:
0.0014
0.050
0.087
0.007
0.561
0.588
5.81
<0.050
H
<0.050
0.010
0.476
:0.005
< 0.050
<0.050
0.125
0.097
0.140
0.0047
0.265
0.038
0.008
0.295
<0.050
6.02
0.102
* Values are averages of duplicate extractions.
** All values are in mg/1.
t Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
tt Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
94
-------
TABLE 6J. ANALYSES OF EXTRACTANT FROM EP TEST OF GROUND
SEALOSAFE®-TREATED WASTES FROM BOREHOLE 13.
Borehole Interval
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hgt
Hn
Ni
Pb
Sett
Sn
Sr
Zn
B
<0.050**
0.024
0.095
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.150
0.091
0.229
0.0511
0.400
0.148
0.003
0.273
0.436
5.40
<0.050
C*
<0.050
0.010
0.073
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.329
0.164
0.234
0.001?.
<0.050
<0.050
0.015
0.425
<0.050
6.21
0.071
D*
<0.050
0.008
0.192
< 0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.370
0.154
0.262
0.0010
0.129
0.074
0.016
0.328
<0.050
6.26
0.126
H
<-0.050
0.017
0.336
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.194
0.107
0.223
0.0017
<0.050
<0.050
0.002
0.255
<0.050
5.60
<0.050
* Values are averages of duplicate extractions.
** All values are in mg/1.
t Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table IS.
tt Se analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (See QA/QC
discussion).
95
-------
TABLE 64. EXTHACTABLE CYANIDE IN DRIED, GROUND, TREATED WASTE
SAMPLE
5A
6A
6E
8B
9G
10D
12B
12G
CN in extractant
1.31*
1.38
1.65
1.91
0.97
1.37
3.44
2.38
CN in bulk
analyses
110.1**
133.4
153.6
166.4
93.7
• 95.7
135.0
162.7
* All values are in mg/liter.
** All values in mg/kg (dry wt)
96
-------
TABLE 65. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE EXTRACTIONS. OF SAMPLF. 1C.
Extraction
Parameter
AS
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
re
Hg**
Hn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
1
<0.050*
0.072
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.064
0.0104
<0.050
<0.050
0.016
0.075
<0.050
0.332
<0.050
2
<0.050
0.102
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0117
<0.050
<0.050
0.012
0.097
<0.050
0.256
<0.050
3
<0.050
0.104
<0.050
< 0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.092
<0.050
0.0106
<0.050
<0.050
0.002
0.075
<0.050
0.265
<0.050
4
<0.050
0,102
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0049
<0.050
<0.050
0.002
0.065
<0.050
0.331
< 0.0 50
5
<0.050
0.114
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0035
<0.050
<0.050
<0.001
0.065
<0.050
0.118
<0.050
6
<0.050
0.118
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0056
<0.050
<0.050
0.001
0.060
<0.050
0.148
<0.050
7
<0.050
0.128
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
'0.05U
0.0083
<0.050
<0.050
0.029
0.080
<0.050
0.134
<0.050
8
< 0.050
0.172
<0.050
< 0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.()50
<0.050
<0.050
0.0145
<0.050
<0.050
0.006
0.140
<0.050
0.122
<0.050
Q
< 0.050
0.138
<0.050
<0.005
<0.05()
< 0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0069
<0.050
<0.050
0.015
0.085
<0.050
0.123
<0.050
* All values are in ing/1.
** Hg analyses werti performed as indicated in Table 18.
t $v analyses may be low due to the analytical technique employed (see QA/OC discussion).
-------
TABLE 66. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE EXTRACTIONS OF SAMPLE 2E
<0
Extraction
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ilg**
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
1
<0.050*
0.038
0.159
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
O..n~
0.076
0.0226
2.26
<0.050
0.019
0.110
<0.050
1.04
<0.050
2
<0.050
0.034
0.097
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.097
<0.050
0.0169
2.71
0.114
0.019
0.160
<0.050
0.983
<0.050
3
<0.050
0.026
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.054
<0.050
0.0107
3.10
0.064
<0.001
0.200
<0.050
0.396
<0.050
4
<0.050
0.048
<0.050
'<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
. <0.050
<0.050
<0.0008
0.832
<0.050
0.002
0.230
<0.050
0.331
•iO.050
5
<0.050
0.052
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.0008
0.524
<0.050
<0.001
0.220
<0.050
0.207
<0.050
6
<0.050
0.04b
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.0008
0.661
<0.050
<0.001
0.195
<0.050
0.220
<0.050
7
<0.050
0.050
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.0008
0.598
-------
TABLE 67. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE EXTRACTIONS OF SAMPLE 5F
Extraction
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
llg**
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
1
O.050*
0.110
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.064
0.0086
<0.050
<0.050
0.013
0.120
<0.050
0.189
<0.050
2
<0.050
0.102
O.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0110
<0.050
<0.050
0.015
0.080
<0.050
0.199
<0.050
3
<0.050
0.092
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0119
<0.050
<0.050
<0.001
0.090
<0.050
0.245
<0.050
4
<0.050
0.106
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0039
<0.050
0.050
0.005
0.060
<0.050
0.133
<0.050
5
<0.050
0.102
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0025
<0.050
<0.050
<0.001
0.055
<0.050
0.105
<0.050
6
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0024
<0.050
^0.050
<0.001
0.040
<0.050
0.136
<0.050
7
<0.050
0.130
<0.050
<0.005
•=0.050
<0.050
-0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0189
<0.050
<0.050
0.007
0.070
<0.050
0,120
<0.050
8
<0.050
0.152
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
v'0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0154
<0.050
<0.050
0.014
0.085
<0.050
0.110
<0.050
0
<0.050
0.130
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0084
<0.050
<0.050
0.011
0.065
<0.050
0.123
0.050
* All values are in .mg/1.
** Hg analyses were performed as indicated in Table 18.
t Se analyses may be low due to tin- analytical technique employed (see QA/QC discussion).
-------
TABLE 68. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE EXTRACTIONS OF SAMPLE 6A
Extraction
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
O
0 Fe
Ug**
Mn
Ni
Vb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
1
<0.050*
0.034
0.158
0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0259
<0.050
<0.050
0,018
0.050
0.800
<0.050
2
<0.050
0.036
0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0250
0.093
0.091
0.005
0.235
<0.050
0.585
<0.050
3
<0.050
0.046
0.050
<0 . 005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0087
0.060
<0.050
0.001
0.272
<0.050
0.505
<0.050
,4
<0.050
0.048
0.050
-------
TABLE 69. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE EXTRACTIONS OF 'SAMPLE 1315
Extraction
Parameter
Ag
As
lia
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
l?e
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Set
Sn
Sr
Zn
1
<0.050*
0.038
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.132
0.0271
<0.050
<0.050
0.013
0.180
<0.050
0.461
<0.050
2
<0.050
0.042
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
0.057
<0.050
0.93
0.0093
<0.050
<0.050
0.006
0.290
<0.050
0.395
<0.050
3
<0.050
0.040
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0087
<0.050
<0.050
0.001
<0.050
0.360
<0.050
4
<0.050
0.050
<0.050
<0.005
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
<0.050
0.0079
-------
TABLE 70. ANAIYSES OF ACID DIGEfTS OF CLAY FROM
EELOW THE TREATED PASTES IN BOREHOLE 1
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
9.1*
10.9
57.2
1.65
<1.50
<20
70.0
31
34900
<0.0001
230
51
<20
<0.50
5.45
136
98.0
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
15.8
86.0
1.70
<1.50
20
70.0
31
3
-------
TABLE 71. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CLAY FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 2
Parameters
Ag
As
Sa
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
10.8
S5.8
1.70
<1.5
<20
74
30
32100
O.0001
166
42
20
<0.50
<5.0
233
92.3
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
15.6
49.5
1.30
<1.5
<20
61
25
29800
<0.0001
168
42
22
<0.50
<5.0
138
79.5
L
<6.0
10.6
79.3
0.90
<1.5
<20
49
27
27200
<0.0005
161
35
21
<0.50
<5.0
227
79.4
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
103
-------
TABLE 72. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CLAY FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 3
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
lin
Mi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zrr
J
<6.0*
12.2
57.8
1.40
<1.5
<20
59
29
32800
0.0008
240
49
<20
<0.50
<5.0
179
91.8
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
8.40
42.5
1.50
<1.5
<20
57
29
31300
0.0007
220
48
<20
<0.50
<5.0
138
94.4
L
<6.0
10.6
48.2
1.35
1.5
20.5
63
39.5
36000
<0.0001
250
52
<20
0.50
<5.0
143
137
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
104
-------
TABLE 73. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CLAY FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 4
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Hi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
10.3
35.8
1.95
<1.5
20
-73
33.5
34500
0.0001
234
50
<20
0.80
<5.0
28.3
100.2
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
13.6
47.5
1.90
<1.5
20
69
30
34850
<0.0001
222
50
<20
0.65
<5.0
110
98.15
L
<6.0
12.8
70.8
1.90
<1.5
20
69
31.5
34100
<0.0001
229
45
<20
0.50
<5.0
154
98
All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
105
-------
TABLE 74. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CLAY FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 5
Parameters
Ag
/>s
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Mi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
10.1
60.3
1.85
<1.5
<20
64
32
36300
<0.0001
242
45.5
<20
0.55
6.5
177
99.9
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
6.30
50.8
2.15
<1.5
<20
31.5
36
34550
<0.0001
216
44
<20
0.60
7.5
117
102
L
<6.0
7.30
65.8
1.55
<1.5
<20
61
30
29250
0.0001
208
39.5
<20
<0.50
<5.0
174
34.3 •
All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
106
-------
TABLE 75. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CLAY FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 6
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
13.3
95.5
1.50
<1.5
26
62
34
30800
0.0004
182
55
<20
0.050
<5.0
174
36.3
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
15.8
75.8
1.60
<1.5.
<20
72
32
34750
0.0005
189
41
<20
0.50
6.3
130
93.0
L
<6.0
3.5
111
1.60
<1.5
<20
62
32
31750
0.0005
186
38
<20
0.050
<5.0
194
88.8
All values are in mg/kg dry wt.
107
-------
TABLE 76. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CHALK FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BCUEHC^E 7
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Nl
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
0.600
82.8
<0.50
<1.5
<20
15
<10
424
<0.0001
no
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
56.3
19.6
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
<0.500
85.3
-------
TABLE 77. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CHALK FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 3
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Hn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
<0.500
151.8
0.50
<1.5
<20
14
<10
405
O.0001
166
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
845
13.8
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
<0.500
141.3
0.50
<1.5
<20
14
<10
477
<0.0001
177
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
763
14.2
L
<6.
0.
143.
0.
-------
TABLE 78. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CHALK FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 9
Sample Designation**
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
2.40
106.8
0.70
2.0
<20
18
21
1800
<0.0001
313.5
<15
<20
0.80
<5.0
716
35.4
* All values are in rag/kg dry wt.
** Only a single sample was available from this boring.
110
-------
TABLE 79. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CHALK FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 10
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
0.80
15
0.90
<1.5
<20
17
<10
783
<0.0001
212
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
723
22.8
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
<0.50
107
0.60
<1.5
<20
15
<10
634
<0.0001
194
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
730
.15.7
L
<6.0
<0.50
86.5
0.70
<1.5
<20
15
<10
525
0.0003
204
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
750
15.0
* All values are in rag/kg dry wt.
Ill
-------
TABLE 30. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CHALK FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 11
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Mi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
<0.50
92.3
0.50
<1.5
<20
14
<10
508
0.0003
214
<15
<20
<0.50
5.4
590
14.8
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
<0.50
L09.5
0.60
<1.5
<20
14
<10
519
0.0001
230
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
590
14.5
L
<6.0
<0.50
30.0
0.80
<1.5
20
14
<10
464
0.0001
182
<15
<20
<0.50
<5.0
675
15.0
* All values are in rag/kg dry wt.
112
-------
TABLE 81. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CLAY FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 12
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
6.0*
10.3
60.2
1.80
1.5
20
69
39
32200
0.000?
168
38
20
0.60
5.0
130
75.7
Sample Designation
K
6.0
9.00
36.3
1.45
1.5
20
52
29.5
27850
0.0001
182
30
20
0.50
5.0
130
78.8
L
6.0
9.40
39.8
1.20
1.5
20
49
23
28200
0.0003
148
31
20
0.60
5.0
127
74.2
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt,
113
-------
TABLE 32. ANALYSES OF ACID DIGESTS OF CLAY FROM
BELOW THE TREATED WASTES IN BOREHOLE 13
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
J
<6.0*
10.2
51.3
1.20
<1.5
<20
58
33
24600
0.0013
174
34
<20
4.80
<5.0
148
82.7
Sample Designation
K
<6.0
11.3
55.3
1.40
<1.5
<20
47
33
32200
0.0005
208
37
<20
0.60
<5.0
191
90.1
L
<6.0
3.80
S6.5
1.30
<1.5
<20
51
31
29600
0.0004
191
35
<20
0.70
<5.0
175
75.9
* All values are in mg/kg dry wt
114
-------
SECTION 5
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION OF ANALYSES
SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
Four surface water samples were collected at the Aveley Clay Pit Disposal
Site. One sample was taken from a pond at the base of the disposal area while
the other three samples were collected from a large lagoon and a small pond
that are just west of the emplaced treated .waste (see Figure 4 for location of
ponds and sampling points). In reviewing this data, several observations can
be made (see Table 13 for analytical data). Samples collected at points L2,
L3, and L4—ponds t/iat are west of the emplaced treated waste — were found to
contain very little, if any, contamination. This is not unexpected, however,
since these ponds received primarily surface water run-off from the surround-
ing area. (Although a channel existed in the dike to enable free flow from
the pond at the base of the waste emplacement area into the lagoon that is
west of the disposal area, a very small amount of water is discharged into
the lagoon.)
In particular, in comparing.the analytical data to EPA's Water Quality
Criteria (WQC) for human health, it is found that most of the levels reported
by WES are2below the cited criteria (see Tab.le 83 for specific Water Quality
Criteria). In some cases, the analytical data reported by WES were above
1 EPA's Water Quality Criteria for human health represents, for non-
carcinogens, a level at which exposure to a single chemical is not antici-
pated to produce adverse effects in man while the criteria for suspect or
proven carcinogens represents a concentration in water associated with a
range of incremental cancer risks "to man. More specifically, the criteria
for cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and silver
are based on a calculated level, for non-crrcinogens, which is protective
to human health against the ingestion of contaminated water and contami-
nated aquatic organisms, while the criteria for arsenic and beryllium,
which are suspect or proven carcinogens, are based on an incremental
increase of cancer risk of 10 over a life time of exposure through
ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aqu£lic organisms
(see 45 FR 79318, November 28, 1980).
2 It should be remembered that the Stablex licensee located in West
Thurrock, England is not subject to any U.S.-based standards/guidelines.
Rather, they are subject to the standards/limitations imposed by the Thames
Water Authority.
115
-------
TABLE 83. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Water Quality
Parameter Criteria (ug/1)
Ag
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
Cn
50
.022
.037
10
50
2
1000
.144
3
635
50
10
2
5000
200
1 Except as otherwise noted, the values cited rep-
resent the Mater Quality Criteria for human
health through ingettion cf contaminated water
and contaminated aquatic organisms.
2 These Water Quality Criteria represent a level
to control taste and odor in water.
3 The Water Quality Criterion for nickel that was
originally published was 13.4 ug/1. However,
based on a further review, it was determined that
the study used by EPA to derive this level may
have had some technical problems. Therefore,
based on another study, the Office of Solid
Waste has been using a level of 635 ug/1 for
nickel as an interim water quality standard.
116
-------
the water quality criteria (e.g., sample L2 reported a level for mercury of
2 ug/1 whereas the WQC is 0.144 i-g/1; sample L3 reported a level for lead of
193 ug/1 whereas the WQC is 50 ug/1; etc.). However, these values should not
be directly compared with the WQC since these ponds are not used as a direct
source of drinking water nor are they used as a recreational facility.
Rather, the water from these ponds are eventually pumped to a surface water
system which drains to the Thames River (estuary). Thus, the concentration of
these toxicants downstream is expected to be much lower.
With respect to those metals for which no human health water quality
criteria have been established, the values reported by WES, based on existing
information, do not appear high. Iror example, the water quality criteria for
copper and zinc have been established using available organoleptic data for
controlling undesireable taste and odor .in water (see Table 33). Based on
these criteria—1.0 ing/1 for -copper and 5.0 mg/1 for zinc—the values reported
by WES, in most instances, were.two orders of magnitude lower.
In addition, it should be remembered that these samples were grab samples
and, thus, may not accurately reflect the average concentration of the toxic
heavy metals and cyanide over time. For example, in comparing the analyses
reported by WES with that performed by the Thames Water Authority (TWA) on
samples collected in 1981 for similar collecting stations, it is noted that
the levels reported by WES were, in many instances, lower (see Tables 84 and
35). Thus, the concentration of these toxicants as reported by WES for the
water samples collected at points L2, L3, and L4 are not considered high.
With respect to the sample collected at the point LI, the analytical
results also indicate that, for most -of the toxicant-, Che values reported by
WES were below the cited water qu^ilty criteria, although several values were
above these limits. However, for a number- of the heavy metals and cyanide ~
(i.e., cobalt, copper, cyanide, iron, nickel, selenium, and silver), the
difference between the values reported at sample point LI and sampling
points L2, L3, and L4 varied by as much as an order of magnitude or more.
Therefore, there may be some potential for contamination from the Sealosafe
treatment residue, especially in its uncured conditions.
This contamination may result from one of several sources. First, this
contamination could result from drainage of excess process water not used in
the polymerization reaction, especially since this pond receives some dis-
charge water directly from the polymer dumping or tipping point. Concrete
made from Portland Cement normally contains 17 percent water, 22 percent
cement, and 61 percent aggregate, by weight. This is a water:cement ratio of
0.77. This is sufficient water to assure that the Portland Cement is
hydrated. Water in excess of this, however, will evaporate or "weep out" of
the hardening product. Thus, any soluble contaminants in the waste could be
released in the weep water and form encrustations or efflorescences on the
solidified waste surface during setting. Any soluble salts on the sur'ace of
the exposed hardening waste would then dissolve and be washed into the site
pond during rainfall.
A second source could be from the uncured waste that runs into the pond.
It could be that the uncured material has different leaching properties and
117
-------
TABLE 84. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED
BY THE THAMES WATER AUTHORITY AND BY WES AT THE AVELEY CLA' PIT
SITE (EAST END OF PIT ADJACENT TO DISPOSAL AREA)
Parameter
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Pb
Zn
pli (units)
Conductivity
(micro S/cra)
Thames
Water Authority
Sample
V2163*
0.0 4tt
0.04
0.3
0.07
0.12
0.02
8.1
5990
Thames
Water Authority
Sample
V2215**
0.03
0.20
0.5
0.06
0.15
0.09
8.4
5850
Thames
Water Authority
S amp le
P0235***
ND?
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.4
ND
WES
S amp le
L2t
0.018
0.020
0.050
0.018
0.005
<0.050
8.05
4480
* Collected June 10, 1981
** Collected July 2, 1981
*** Collected Sept 15, 1981
t Collected April 6; 1982
tt All values are in mg/1 except as noted,
ttt ND = not determined
118
-------
TABLE 85. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED
BY THE THAMES WATER AUTHORITY AND 3Y WES AT THE AVELEY CLAY PIT
SITE (NORTHWEST CORNER OF PIT)
Parameter
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Pb
Zn
pH (units)
Conductivity
(micro S/cm)
Thames
Water Authority
Sample
V2164*
0.031"''
0.04
0.24
0.08
0.1
0.02
3.1
5760
Thames
Water Authority
Sample
V2213**
0.02
0.09
0.44
0.04
0.13
0.09
8.4
5450
Thames
Water Authority
Sample
P0233***
NDf
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.1
NDttt
WES
Sample
L3T
0.019
0.012
0.035
0.012
0.193
<0.050
8.1
4500
* Collected June 10, 1981
** Collected July 2, 1981
*** Collected Sept 15, 1981
t Collected April 6,- 1981
tt All values are in mg/1 except as noted,
ttt ND - not determined
119
-------
different setting-up characteristics when under water. A third source would
involve direct release of the toxicants from the solidified waste by rainwater
and surface run-off. This mechanism, however, appears very unlikely. The
results from EP testing of monolithic samples using the Structural Integrity
Procedure (SIP), a scenario most closely depicting actual field conditions,
indicates the toxicants do not leach from the waste. Thus, such contamination
from the weep water or from the uncured waste that flows into the pond appears
to be a logical conclusion.
In reviewing the analytical data from sample point Li, the reader must be
cautioned not to conclude that this is a problem, especially since most of the
data obtained by WES is shown to be below the cited water quality criteria.
However, this is an area that requires further investigation to determine it
there is a problem. Additional testing at Stablex1 facility in Blainsville,
Quebec may be appropriate to resolve this point.
GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
Samples of ground-water were collected from all eighteen of the mon-
itoring wells located at the Thurrock Chalk Quarry site. In evaluating this
data, it shows that, in general, the ground water contains very low levels of
the toxic heavy metals (see Tables 14 to 17 for ground water levels). In
particular, levels for arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, and
silver were below the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard
(NIPDWS) while levels for copper, iron, and 2inc were below the Secondary
Drinking Water Standard (SOWS). See Table 86 for specific drinking water
standards.)
In a few of the monitoring wells, however, certain of the toxic heavy
metals were found at concentrations slightly above the U.S.-based drinking
water standard. More specifically, sample Bl reported a level "for iron and
lead of 0.341 and 0.107 rag/1, respectively, whereas the drinking water
standard 'for iron and lead are 0.30 and 0.05 mg/1, respectively; samples B15
and B16 reported levels for chromium of 0.052 and 0.051 mg/1, respectively,
whereas the drinking water standard for chromium is 0,05 mg/1; and sample B17
reported a level for selenium of 0.014 mg/1 whereas the drinking water
standard for selenium is 0.01 mg/1. This data can not be evaluated indepen-
dently, however, without also reviewing background ground-water monitoring
data to determine whether the slightly higher concentrations of these
toxicants.were caused by leaching from the Sealosafe treatment residue or
whether these levels existed in the ground water prior to placement of the
treatment residue.
3 As indicated earl.er, the Stablex licensee in West Thurrock, England is
not subject to any U.S.-based standards/guidelines; thus, the Agency is
not implying that the facility is not in compliance with the TWA, the reg-
ulatory authority governing Stablex Limited in West Thurrock, England,
Rather, this comparison is made simply to assist the Agency in evalu-
ating the ground-water monitoring data.
120
-------
TABLE 86: DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Se
Zn
Source
NIPDWS*
NIPDWS
NIPDWS
NIPDWS
NIPDDW
SOWS**
SDWS
NIPDWS
NIPDWS
NIPDWS
SDWS
Drinking Water
Standard (mg/1)
0.05
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
1.0
0.30
0.002
0.05
0.01
5.0
* NIPDWS - National Interim I ritnary Drinking Water
Standard
** SDWS - Secondary Drinking Water Standard
121
-------
Therefore, to make this determination, WES reviewed previous ground-water
monitoring data from the West Thurrock facility provided by the Stab lex Cor-
poration in support of their exclusion petition for their proposed facility
in Hooksett New Hampshire (see letter dated October 28, 1980 from S.W. Robin-
son-Todd to S.I. Taub). However, since these ground-water samples were also
collected after placement of the Sealosafe treatment residue, no conclusions
u
could be reached. Water quality data available from the Anglian Water
Authority for water samples collected from wells B18, B19, and B20 in 1981 and
1982 (wells located outside the quarry) were also evaluated. These data indi-
cated levels roughly comparable to the WES samples in all three sampling wells
(see Tables S7 to 89). However, no conclusions could be reached from this
data regarding metal contamination of wells located inside the quarry.
Therefore, in an attempt to resolve this point, WES then evaluated
analyses performed on clay and chalk samples taken from below the treated
waste. These soil samples were analyzed for metals to determine whether a
concentration gradient exists with increasing core depth (i.e., a pattern of
increasing metal concentrations in the clay or chalk directly under the waste
would be strong presumptive evidence of potentially polluting materials being
leached from the treated waste). In reviewing this data (see Tables 69 to
81), no consistent pattern of increasing metal concentration toward the waste
interface could be detected that would suggest that the toxic heavy metals
have, in fact, leached from the waste. Therefore, it can not be concluded
that heavy metal contamination in the groundwater was due to placement of the
Sealosafe treatment residue. (Regardless of the above, background levels in
the ground water should be determined to conclusively determine whether
ground-water contamination occurred due to placement of the Sealosafe treat-
ment residue.
The ground-water samples were also analyzed for cyanide. This data indi-
cates that a number of the monitoring wells—B7, BIO, Bll, B12, B13, B14, and
B15—contained cyanide at levels above the U.S. Public Health Service sug-
gested drinking water standard of 0.20 mg/1. Unlike the toxic heavy metals,
cyanide is not expected to be immobilized by the Sealosafe®-treatment process;
this is true for any other pozzolonic stabilization process. Thus, if cyanide
is not destroyed, during pretreatment, it is not unexpected to find it in the
ground-water. Although Stablex does pretreat their cyanide wastes at their
4 These ground-water samples were collected and analyzed by Stablex Limited
and the Anglian Water Authority in 1979 and 1980 after initial placement
of the Sealosafe® treatment residue in the summer of 1979.. The Sealo-
safe® treatment residue was placed in a pit, 5 meters x 5 meters x 5 meters,
as an experiment before the major discharge of treatment residue in the
Chalk Quarry Pit in the Fall of 1981.
5 As indicated earlier, the ground-water samples for cyanide analysis we**e
over aged for cyanide determination (over 24 hours olds) and had not been
preserved at pH 12.0 with NaOH as is standard practice. Therefore, the
cyanide concentrations in the ground-water samples are lower than may be
expected if these samples were preserved and analyzed within the specified
time period.
122
-------
TABLE 87. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED BY
THE ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY AND BY WES AT THE THURROCK
CHALK QUARRY DISPOSAL SITE (BOREHOLE 18)
Parameter
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
Ch
pH (units)
Conductivity (micro S/cm)
Anglian Water
Authority Sample
4068*
<0.009^
O.005
O.012
0.075
<0.025
<0.027
0.072
0.030
0.02
7.0
•1800
Anglian Water
Authority Sample
3370**
<0.02
<0.15
<0.05
0.10
<0.05
<0.05
<0.2
<0.05
NDtt
7.0
1900
WES
Sample
B18***
<0.010
0.008
0.002
0.022
0.042
0.004
0.013
<0.050
0.010
7.0
1550
* Collected Dec 9, 1981
** Collected Feb 10, 1982
*** Collected AprU 6, 1982
T All values are in mg/1 except- as noted
tt ND = not determined
123
-------
TABLE 88. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED BY
THE ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY AND BY WES AT T!TE THURROCK
CHALK QUARRY DISPOSAL SITE (BOREHOLE 19)
Parameter
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN
pH (units)
Conductivity (micro S/cai)
Anglian Water
Authority Sample
3369*
<0.009t
<0.025
<0.012
0,075
<0.025
<0.027
<0.032
0.123
<0.02
7.4
1500
Anglian dater
Authority Sample
4061**
<0.0k
<0.15
-'0.05
0.17
<0.05
<0.05
<0.2
0.28
NDtt
7.5
1400
WES
Sample
B19***
<0.010
0.032
0.004
0.018
0.178
0.008
0.010
<0.050
<0.010
6.9
3406
* Collected Dec 9, 1981
** Collected Feb 10, 1982
*** Collected April 6, 1982
f All values are in mg/1 except as noted
tt ND = not determined
124
-------
TABLE 89. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED BY
T'iE ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY AND BY WES AT THE THURROCK
CHALK QUARRY DISPOSAL SITE (BOREHOLE 20)
Parameter
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Si
Pb
Zn
CN
pH (units)
Conductivity (micro S/cm)
Anglian Water
Authority Sample
3368*
<0.009t
0.046
<0.012
0.706
0.063
<0.027
0.048
0.031
0.04
7.4
3400
Anglian Water
Authority Sample
4062**
<0.02
<0.15
<0.05
0.19
<0.05
<0.05
<0.2
<0.05
NDtt
7.1
1700
WES
Sample
B20***
<0.010
0.030
0.006
0.032
0.144
0.008
0.013
<0.050
0.024
7.2
3000
* Collected Dec 9, 1981.
** Collected Feb 10, 1982.
*** Collected April 6, 1982.
t All values are in mg/1 except as noted.
tt ND = not determined.
125
-------
West Turrock facility, they may not treat it to the level necessary to preven*
cyanide from entering ground-water.
UNSOLIDIFIED (SLURRY) TREATED WASTES
Two samples of the uncured Sealosafe® treated waste were collected from
hopper trucks discharging into the Aveley Clay Pit disposal site to determine
the extent that heavy metals are immobilized in the uncured treatment residue.
Due to logistics, however, these slurry samples were not extracted and ana-
lyzed until at least 20 days later, thus, adequate time had elaosed for the
waste to set-up. The slurry material as received at WES was putty-like and
had no free (filterable) water.
These slurry samples were evaluated using the E? toxicity test (see
Tables 20, 21, and 22 for EP leachates). In reviewing this data, all analyses
indicated concentrations lower than the EP toxicity thresholds identified in
40 CFR Part 261.24. In addition, all metals, except cadmium, bad concentra-
tions in the EP extract below the level set as part of the contingency plan
incorporated into the Stab lex delisting decision. Thus, most of the data
show that these7metals are generally immobilized before the residue has com-
pletely set-up.
Cadmium, however, exceeded the contingency levels in all samples ana-
lyzed, ranging in values between .434 mg/1 (43 times the NIPDWS) and .909 mg/1
(91 times the NIPDWS). As already indicated, a contingency plan has been
incorporated into the Stab lex delisting decision to ensure that the treatment
process is operated as it was designed. Therefore, if these levels were
obtained at their U.S.-based facilities, these batches would have to be
handled as hazardous, in accordance with Subtitle C of RCRA.
EP TESTING OF MONOLITHIC TREATED WASTE CORES
Six of the waste cores collected at the West Thurrock facility were
randomly selected for testing using the Structural Integrity Procedure (SIP)
instead of grinding (see Table 50 for EP leachates). In reviewing this data,
it shows that all of the EP leachates are at very low levels. In most cases,
the toxic heavy metals were present at or below the limit of detection of the
6 As part of the Stablex delisting decision, the Agency is requiring the
company to test each batch of Stablex for: (1) leachable metals using the
EP toxicity test, (2) total organic carbon (TOC), and (3) cyanide content
(both complexed and free). If the organic content exceeds 0.1 percent,
free cyanide exceeds 0.001 percent, the extract concentrations of any of the
E"5 toxic metals exceeds 30 times the NIPDWS, or if the extract concentration
for nickel exceed 0.002 percent, then the material will either be treated
again or disrosed of as a hazardous waste at an approved Subtitle C haz-
ardous waste disposal facility.
7 As indicated above, no data was obtained on the "uncured" treatment resi-
due; therefore, no final determination can be made on this material.
126
-------
analytical techniques employed in the testing. However, these results are not
unexpected or surprising; in fact, to the extent that the Sealosafe treated
residue stays in a uonolithic form, the less likely it is that any leaching
will occur. However, as will be discussed in the next subsection, grinding of
the Sealosafe treated residue does not significantly increase the levels of
leaching of most of the toxic heavy raetals.
EP TESTING OF GROUND SEALOSAFE® MATERIAL
Thirteen cores were taken of the einplaced Sealosafe® treated waste from
both the Aveley Clay Pit and Thurrock Chalk Quarry Disposal site. A randomi-
zation procedure was then used to select four samples from each of the thir-
teen cores for testing. These 52 samples were dried anu then ground to pass
through a 100-mesh nylon sieve. The grinding simulates worst case physical
weathering conditions, exposing a much greater surface area to the extractant
than would normally be expected in a solid mass with low permeability.
The ground stabilized residue was evaluated using the EP toxicity test
(see Tables 51 to 63 for EP leachates). In reviewing this data, it shows
that, in general, the concentration of the toxic heavy metals in the EP
extract are below the level set as part of the contingency plan incorporated
into the Stablex delisting decision (i.e., less than 30 times the NIPDWS for
the EP toxicants and less than 20 ppm for nickel). In many cases, the level
in the EP extracts were less than the drinking water standards. Thus, these
results indicate that, in general, the toxic heavy metals are present in
essentially an immobile form. See Table 90 for percentage of EP leachates
that fall at different concentration limits.
For one of the metals, however, some of the analyses indicated levels in
the EP leachates that are higher than the level set as part of the Stablex
delisting decision. In this case,, selenium was shown to leach at levels above
the contingency level in 11 of the 52 samples (from six of the 13 borings).
(As discussed in Section 4, the values reported for selenium in the EP.extract
are probably low because of analytical difficulties; therefore, more than «
11 samples may actually have exceeded the contingency level (see Table 91).)
8 As indicated in Section 4, several of the EP extracts (i.e., 2E, 3B, and
6A,) indicated levels of mercury above the level set as part of the Stahlex
delisting decision. However, as already discussed, these levels could not
be correct based on the low levels of mercury found in the treatment resi-
due. (See Section 4 for details.)
9 It should be noted that none of the leach test previously published on the
leaching potential of the S"ealosafe® treated residue mention any problems
with regard to selenium. However, selenium was not usually analyzed for
in the EP extract. One leaching test on a treated copper waste did analyze
for selenium. However, the waste contained only 0.36 mg/kg of selenium and
the concentration in the leachate was only 0.020 mg/1.
127
-------
TABLE 90. PERCENTAGE OF TOXIC HEAVY METALS THAT LEACH
FROM THE GROUND SEALOSAFE® TREATED WASTES
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Pb
Se
Zn
No. of Samples
Analyzed
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
7, of Samples
less than DWS*
100%
96%
100%
1.1.5%
100%
71%
87%
96%
98%
% of Samples
Between DWS
and 30 times % of Samples
DWS Greater than DWS
4%
100%
88.5%
29%
7.5% 5.5%
4%
79% 21%
2%
* DWS - Drinking Water Standard
128
-------
TABLE 91. SUMMARY OF DATA ON SELENIUM CONCENTRATIONS
IN EP EXTRACTS AND BULK ANALYSIS SAMPLES
OF SELECTED TREATED WASTES*
Sample
2A
2H
4A
4E
5A
6A
6E
6F
12G
13C
13D
Concentration
in EP Leachate
0.310**
0.308
0.330
0.390
0.490
0.395
0.500
0.400
0.588
0.425
0.328
Concentration
in Bulk Analyses
92.5***
135
69.0
191
214
278
90.9
93.4
225
248
274
* As discussed earlier, the values reported for Selenium
in the EP extract are probably low because of analytical
problems (see Section 5 for details).
** Values are in tng/1.
*** Values are in mg/kg dry wt.
129
-------
In evaluating this data, it indicates that the eleven samples come from both
tha old and newly emplaced treated waste at the Aveley Clay Pit and include
samples from both the top and bottom of the cores. None of the samples from
the Thurrock Chalk Quarry Pit, however, showed EP extract concentrations above
the level set as part of the Stablex delisting decision. In an attempt to
correlate this data to determine whether a maximum allowable level of selenium
should be set in the final treatment residue, a very low correlation was found
(r=0.241) (see Figure 12 wbr'.ch plots the selenium concentrations in the EP
leachates from the 11 samples with bulk analyses for selenium in the same sam-
ples of treated waste). Therefore, further investigation is necessary regard-
ing the leaching potential of selenium from the Sealosafe® treated waste.
BULK ANALYSES BOFv CYANIDE aND DISTILLED WATER
LEACH TEST OF GROUND SEALOSAFE®MATERIAL FOR CYANIDE
In addition to analyzing the- extracts for the toxxc heavy metals, eight
samples were selected from six boreholes to determine the concentration of
cyanide released from the Sealosafe® treated waste (see Table 64 for extract-
able cyanide). These samples were extracted with distilled water only (i.e.
no., dilute acetic acid), however to ensure that cyanide was not released
during the extraction process. (A distilled water extract is used instead of
acetic acid since it is more agressive for cyanide.) Moreover, 52 samples of
the Sealosafe treated waste were also analyzed for both total and free
cyanide (see Tables 37 to 49).
In evaluating this data, it shows that in two of the eight samples ana-
ly.ed, cyanide was reported in the distilled water extracts at levels higher
than the U.S. Public Health Service suggested drinking water standard. These
two samples were, obtained from core 12 which was removed from the south side
of the Aveley Clay Pit where the recently treated, waste was emplaced. Further-
more, the .bulk analyses generally indicate that the concentration of cyanide
in. the treated waste itself is higher than would be expected; in fact, 16
of the 52 samples analyzed for free cyanide (i.e., cyanide amenable to chlor-
ination) were at levels above that set as part of Stablex' contingency plan.
As already discussed, pozzolonic stabilization processes are not expected to
immobilize cyanide. It is important, therefore, that any cyanide wastes
treated by Stablex be properly treated. .
MULTIPLE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE TESTING OF GROUND SEALOSAFE®MATERIAL
Concern has been raised over the eventual decrease in buffering capacity
of stabilized wastes (i.e., Sealosafe® treated waste) causing the leaching of
toxic heavy metals. In order to deal with the concern, EPA developed a mul-
tiple extraction test (MEP) to assist ii predicting the long-term leachability
of stabilized wastes. The'cest incorporates nine sequential extractions on
the same sample using synthetic rain (pH 3.0) to simulate multiple washings of
10 As already indicated, although Stablex does pretreat their cyanide wastes
at their West Thurrock facility, they may not be required to treat it to
the same levels as will be required at their proposed U.S.-based facilities.
130
-------
340
300
260
cc
Q
o>
^£
O)
«* 220
I
Q
LU
180
LL
O
O
cc
I-
LU
O
140
8 100
O OLDER TREATED WASTES
Q NEWER TREATED WASTES
i = 0.359 •*• 0.00027x
r = 0.241
60
0.30
J_
I
I
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
CONCENTRATION OF Se IN EP LEACH ATE, mg/£
0.60
Figure 12. Variation of the SE concentration in the EP leachate with
the Se concentration in the treated waste.
131
-------
percolating rainfall in the field (the details of the MEP are provided in
Appendix D).
Five samples of residue from the EP testing were selected for MEP
testing. These samples were selected based on the EP Leachate results and
bulk analyses of the Sealosaf'e® treated residue. However, since the EP
leachate results, in general, were low, the decision on which samples to test
was based primarily on the concentration of heavy uetals in the treated waste.
The results of the MEP tests are presented in Tables 65 to 69.
The test results, in ganeral, indicate that very low levels of the toxic
heavy metals leach from the waste after the final extraction, again indicating
the relative immobility of the toxic heavy metals. Only one parametei.-
(selenium) in-two samples showed concentrations in the MEP extract at levels
greater than the level set as part of the Stablex delisting decision. This
confirms, however, that selenium leaching may be a problem in the Sealosafe
treated residue.
It should be noted that for a number of the toxic heavy metals (i.e.,
arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium), the concentration of these contaminants
in the extract either increased from the first to last extraction or the con-
centration fluctuates over the nine extractions (see, for example, arsenic in
samples 1G and 13B and mercury in sample 5F). However, in some cases, the
concentration of the contaminant in the extract does not even exceed the
drinking water standard (see, for example, lead in samples 1G, 2E, and 5F).
Therefore, the MEP data supports the EP testing results in this report and
indicates that the toxic heavy metals with the possible exception of selenium
are in a relatively immobile form in the Sealosafe® treated residue.
•ANALYSIS OF WASTE FOR TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
This project also evaluated the effect organic contaminants may have on
the mobility of the toxic heavy metals. In particular, certain organic com-
pounds (e.g., sugars) are known to have a detrimental effect on the ability of
the cement mixture to set-up and, thus, increase the leaching potential of the
toxic heavy metals. The Stablex Corporation has stated that concentrations of
three to five percent of total organic carbon '(TOC) is commonly found in the
Sealosafe treated waste generated at their English facilities with no inhibi-
tory effects on the solidification of the treated waste and no effects on the
leachability of the bound constituents. Therefore the Sealosafe treated
residue was analyzed for TOC to determine if the organic content in the waste
has any effect on the leaching potential of the toxic heavy metals (see
Tables 37 to 49 for TOC analyses).
11 It has also been argued that the Stablex process will not immobilize
organic contaminants. Thus, if the level of organics in the Sealosafe
treated residue is too high, the potential exists for organic toxicants to
leach frota the residue.
132
-------
In evaluating this data, it indicates that the concentration of TOC found
in the samples appear to have no affect on metal leachability. The levels
found — 0.3 to 1.5 percent TOC — were less than the three to five percent
estimate provided by Stablex so that it is not possible, based on this data,
to validate their claim.
ANALYSES OF SUBWASTE CLAY AND CHALK SAMPLES
In collecting cores of the Sealosafe® treated residue, the contractor
also collected samples of clay and chalk from below the treated waste. These
soil samples were analyzed for metals to determine if the metals have, in
fact, leached from the emplaced Sealosafe® treated waste. This was done by
analyzing slices taken from the top, middle, and bottom of the core to deter-
mine if a concentration gradient exists with increasing core depth. These
samples were partially digested and the digestate was analyzed for metal con-
centration (see Tables 69 to 81).
As already discussed, no consistent pattern of increasing raetal concen-
tration toward the waste interface could be detected. Neither the chalk nor
the clay samples showed systematic changes in chemical composition that could
be related to the leaching of metals from the treated waste. Therefore,
little, if any, leaching of toxic heavy metals has occurred at the West
Thurrock facility to date. However, since only four years has passed since
the first Sealosafe® material has been placed in the ground, the absence of
any contamination does not in itself indicate long-term stability of the
treated material.
133
-------
REFERENCES
1. Dixon, W. J. and F. J. Massey, Jr., 1957. Introduction to Statistical
Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, 488 pp.
2. National Sanitation Foundation. 1979. Leach Testing of Hazardous Chemi-
cals from Stabilized Automotive Wastes. National Sanitation Faundatioi,
Ann Arbor, MI, 40 pp.
3. Pollution Prevention Ltd. 1982. The Results of the Drilling and Water
Sampling Programme Carried Out at the Sandy Lane, Aveley Site and the
Thurrock. Chalk Quarry. PPG Rept. No. 5/82/710. Pollution Prevention
(Consultants) Ltd. Sussex, England, unpaginated.
4. Schofield, J. T. 1979. SealosafeSM. In: Tox:c and Hazardous Waste
Disposal. Vol 1, R. B. Pojasek, ed. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.
Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 297-319.
5. Spectrametrics, 1981. Spectraspan IIIB Emission Spectrometer Technical
Manual. Spectrometrics Inc. Haverhill, MA, Loose-leaf.
6. U. S. EPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. Publ. 440/9-76-023, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
7. U. S. EPA.. 1979. Chemistry Laboratory Manual for Bottom Sediments and
Elutriate Testing. EPA-905/4-79-014, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, IL.
8. U. S. EPA. 1980. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes. Physical/
Chemical Methods. SW-846, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., unpaginated.
134
-------
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF BORINGS AT STABLEX DISPOSAL AREAS
135
-------
TABLE Al. LOG OF BORING 1 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY PIT SITE
u>
Core run*
Type of Material
Weathered, soft grey material
Hard,
Hard ,
Firm,
3.71
grey, wet material
grey material
dark brown clay, core lost from
- 3.80m.
From
0
0
2
3
.00
.30
.10
.40
0
2
3
4
To
.30**
.10
.40
.20
No
1
2
3
4
From
0.10
2.10
3.30
3.80
To
2.10
3.30
3.80
4.20
Core Recovery
From
0.
2.
3.
3.
10
10
30
80
To
2.10
3.30
3.71
4.20
,
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 5.58 m below Local Datum
(TBM1 in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A2. LOG OF BORING 2 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
A.VELEY CLAY PIT SITE
Tyjje of Material
Weathered, friable, grey material
Hard, dark, grey, fine-grained materials
Wet, grey, fine-grained material
Wet, grey, fine-to-medium-grained material
Hard, wet, dark, grey, fine-grained pitted
material with soft horizons at 3.50-3.60,
3.85-3.90, 4.1-4.2 metres.
Soft, brown clay
Core lost
Firm, grey-brown clay
From
0.00
0.15
1.40
1.70
2.40
5.00
5.05
5.40
To
0.15**
1.40
1.70
2.40
5.00
5.05
5.40
6.60
Core run*
No From To
1 0.00 1.60
2 1.60 2.20
3 2.20 3. 60
4 3.60 4.20
5 4.20 5.40
6 5.40 6.60
Core
From
0.00
1.60
2.20
3.60
4.20
5.40
Recovery
To
1.60
2.20
3.60
4.20
5.05
5.90
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 6.38 m below Local Datum
(TBM1 in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A3. LOG OF BORING 3 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY PIT SITE
Type of Material From To
Weathered, brown, soft material 0.00 0.05**
Hard, grey,
Hard, grey,
fine-grained material 0.05 2.20
fine-to-medium-grained wet 2.20 3.42
Core run* Core Recovery
No From To From To
1 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.9P
2 0.98 1.45 0.98 1.45
3 1.45 2.20 1.45 2.20
4 2.20 2.90 2.20 2.90
5 2.90 3.70 2.90 3.42
6 3.70 5.65 3.70 5.65
material with soft horizon at 2.85-2.90
to
OO
Core lost
Firm, brown
3.42 3.70
clay 3.70 5.65
* All coring was done with 2,6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 6.69 m below Local Datum
(TBM1 in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A4. LOG OF BORING 4 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY PIT SITE
Core run*
Hard,
Broken
Hard,
Type of Material
brown, fine-grained material
, hard, grey material
grey, wet material with a soft
From
01.00
0.40
1.04
To
0.40**
1.04
2.95
No
1
2
3
From
0.00
1.50
2.84
To
1.50
2.84
3.46
Core Recovery
From
0.00
1.50
2.84
To
1.50
2.84
3.46
horizon at 2.34-2.52
Pebbles and sand
Firm, grey-brown clay
Core lost
3.46
2.95
3.'27
4.3
3.27
4.30
4.46
4.46
3.46
4.30
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 3.51 m below Local Datum
(TBM1 in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A5. LOG OF BORING 5 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY PIT SITE
Core run*
Type of Material From
Hard, grey, fine-grained, pitted material -0.00
with soft horizons at 0.28-0.30 and 1.50-
1.55m.
Wet, hard,
Firm, brown
grey material 1.55
clay 3.20
To No
1.55** 1
2
3.20 3
4
4.90
From
0.00
1.55
2.45
3.60
To
1.55
2.45
3.60
4.90
Core Recovery
From
0.00
1.55
2.45
3.60
To
1.55
2.45
3.60
4.90
g * All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 5.73 m below Local Datum
(TBM1 in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A6. LOG OF BORING 6 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY PIT SITE
Hard, damp,
material.
Soft,
Hard,
Hard,
Soft,
Hard,
Core
Firm,
damp,
damp ,
wet,
wet,
grey,
lost
brown
Type of Material
grey, fine-grained pitted
Broken between 1.25-1. 30m.
g~ey material
grey, fine-grained material
grey, fine-grained material
grey material
fine-grained material
clay
From
0
1
1
2
4
4
4
5
.00
.30
.46
.60
.00
.25
.45
.90
1
1
?
4
4
4
5
7
To
.30
.46
.60
.00
.25
.45
.90
.60
Core run* Core Recovery
No From To From To
1 0.00 1.30 0.00 1.30
2 1.30 2.00 1.30 2'.00
3 2.00 2.60 2.00 2.60
4 2.60 3.65 2.60 3.65
5 3.65 4.25 3.65 4.25
6 4.25 5.90 4.25 4.45
7 5.90 7.60 5.90 7.60
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 6.39 m below Local Datum
(TBM1 in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A7. LOG OF BORING 7 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
THURROCK CHALK QUARRY SITE
Type of Material
Hard, grey, material with pink, mottled
spots. Dry, soft horizons at 0.3m,
0.68m, 1.16m, 1.61m, 1.98-2. 00m.
Soft, wet chalk
Hard, white chalk
Soft, chalk
Core lost
From
0.0,0
2.00
2.54
2.80
2.96
To
2.00**
2.54
2.80
2.96
3,70
Core run*
No From To
1 0.00 1.54
2 1.54 2.54
3 2.54 3.70
Core Recovery
From To
0.00 1.54
1.54 2.54
2.54 2.96
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) .diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 0.80 m above MSL.
-------
LO
TABLE A8. LOG OF BORING 8 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
THURROCK CHALK QUARRY SITE
Type of Material
Hard, grey, pitted material with pink,
mottled spots. Dry, soft horizons at
1m, 1.07-1. 12m, and 1.61-1. 70m.
Hard, fine-grained, damp, dark-grey
material with pink mottled spots. Soft
horizon at 2.4m.
Soft, white chalk
Hard, white chalk
Soft, cha^-k
Core lost
From
0.00
1.90
2.76
2.80
3.U
3.30
To No
1.90** 1
2
3
2.76
2.80
3.11
3.30
3.80
Core run* Core Recovery
From To From To
0.00 1.90 0.00 1.90
1.90 2.80 1.90 2.80
2.80 .3.80 2.80 3.30
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 1.21 m above MSL.
-------
TABLE A9. LOG OF BORING 9 AT THE STABLEX W\STE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
THURROCK CHALK O'^RRY SITE
Soft,
pink,
Hard,
PTLtlK,
0.24-0
Soft,
Type of Material
grey, fine-grained material with
mottled spots.
grey, fine-grained, material vith
mottled spots. Soft horizons at
.30m, 0.74-0. 87m, 3. 92-3. 94m.
white chalk
Core run* Cove Recovery
From To No From To From To
0.00 1.10** 1 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00
2 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00
1.1Q 3.94 3 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00
3.94 4.00
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 2.76 in above MSI..
-------
TABLE A10. LOG OF BORING 10 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
THURROCK CHALK QUARRY SITE
Type of Material
Dry, hard, grey material
mottled spots.
Damp,
broken, hard, grey
with pink,
material
Soft, damp, grey, material
mottled spots.
Hard,
spots
_ Soft,
grey
*
damp
material with
, grey, broken
°* Dry, dark-grey material
mottled spots.
Soft,
Core
damp
lost
chalk.
with pink,
pink, mottled
material .
with pink,
From
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
4
.00
.50
.68
.74
.43
.50
.17
.33
0
0
0
1
1
4
4
4
To
.50**
.68
.74
.43
.50
.17
.33
.50
Core run* Core Recovery
No From To From To
1 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.50
2 1.50 2.70 1.50 2.70
3 2.70 3.80 2.70 3,80
4 3.80 4.50 3.80 4.33
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring hits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 4.28 m above MSL.
-------
TABLE All. LOG OF BORING 11 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
THURROCK CHALK QUARRY SITE
Type of Material
Hard, grey, material with pink, mottled
spots.
Soft, damp, grey material with pink,
mottled spots.
Hard, grey, mottled material with pink,
mottled spots.
Soft, grey material with .pink, mottled
spots.
Hard, grey, mottled material with pink,
mottled spots and soft, damp bands.
Hard, damp grey material with pink,
mottled spots. Soft bands at 2. 37-2. 4m,
and 2. 46-2. 52m.
Hard, damp, grey material with pink,
mottled opots.
Chalk with flint.
Core lost
From
0.00
0.33
0.47
0.67
0.76
1.70
2.90
3.10
3.45
Core run*
To No From To
0.33** 1 0.00 1.70
2 1.70 2.90
0.47 3 2.90 3..6S
0.67
0.76
1.70
2.90
3.10
3.45
3.65
Co-e Recovery
From To
0.00 1.70
1.70 2.90
2.90 3.45
* All coring was done with 2.6-inch (6.67 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface IK 2.17 m above MSL.
-------
TABLE A12. LOG OF BORING 12 At THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY rIT SITE
Type of Material
Soft, dark grey, fine-grained material.
Soft, damp, grey material with a clay
texture
Hard, grey-brown, pitted material
Soft, damp, broken grey-brown material
Hard, light-grey, pitted material
Firm, brown clay
Core lost
From
0,00
1.00
1.28
1.70
2.50
3.50
5.20
To
1.00**
1.28
1.70
2.30
3.50
5.20
5.50
Core run*
No From To
1 0.00 2.50
2 2.50 3.50
3 3.50 4.00
4 4.00 5.50
Core
From
0.00
2.50
3.50
4.00
Recovery
To
2.50
3.50
4.00
5.20
* All coring was done with 4-inch (10.2 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 21.12 m below Local Datum
(TBM1 in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A13. LOG OF BORING 13 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY PIT SITE
00
Type of Material
Core lost
Soft, dark-grey, material.
Hard, wet, grey-brown, pitted material
Soft, broken grey-brown material
Soft, grey-brown material
Hard, grey-brown material
Grey-brown material with alternating
soft and hard bands
Soft, broken, damp, brown material
Soft, damp, grey "••• Serial with hard
bands at 3.46-3.58, 3.65-3.69, and
4. 00-4. 03m.
Soft, wet, grey material
Hard, wet, fine-grained material
Fine-to-medium-grained, hard, grey
material
Hard, grey, fine-grained material
Firm, brown clay
From
0.00
0.10
1.40
1.55
1.71
L.87
2.Q8
2.55
3.46
4.10
4.22
4.34
4.44
5.17
To
0.10**
1.40
1.55
1.71
1.87
2.08
2.55
3.46
4.10
4.22
4.34
4.44
5.17
5.60
Core run* Core Recovery
No From To From To
1 0.00 1.40 0.10 1.40
2 1.40 2.55 1.40 2.55
3 2.55 4.10 2.55 4.10
4 4.10 5.60 4.10 5.60
* All coring was done with 3-inch (7.62 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 20.62 m below Local Datum
(TBMl in Fig. 4).
-------
TABLE A14. LOG OF BORING 14 AT THE STABLEX WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY,
AVELEY CLAY PIT SITE
Core run*
Soft,
Type of Material From To
grey material
A bag of loose material recovered from
the area was provided.
No
1
2
3
From
0.00
0.00
3.00
To
3. -00**
3.00
6.00
Core Recovery
From To
No recovery
No recovery
No recovery
* All coring was done with 3-inch (7.62 cm) diam. diamond coring bits.
** All measurements are in meters below ground surface. Ground surface is 20.10 m below Local Datum
(TBMl in Fig. 4).
vO
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTIONS OF CORE SECTIONS SELECTED FOR TESTING AND ANALYSIS
150
-------
TABLE Bl. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH1.
,
Sample
designation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Depth to top of
interval sampled Length
(cm) (cm)*
10
52
91
137
177
202
255
294
6.1
11.7
8.4
11.2
10.2
10.5
10.3
7.5
Soft,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Description
fine
gray
fine
gray
gray
fine
fine
fine
, gray brovm
brown mottled
, gray brown
brown mottled
'brown weak mottling
gray brown
gray brown
gray brown
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
151
-------
TABLE B2. SECTIONS OF STABLEX®CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH2.
Depth to top of
Sample interval sampled Length
designation (cm) (cm)*
A 12
B 54
C 160
D 210
E 290
F 335
G 405
H 467
8
10
10
12
11
11
8
9
.3
.9
.2
.8
.3
.5
.8
.7
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Soft,
Soft,
Description
fine,
fine,
fine,
dusky brown
dusky brown
dusky brown
pitted
fine-med, dusky brown
fine,
fine,
fine,
fine,
dusky brown
gray brown
gray brown
gray brown
, pitted
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
152
-------
TABLE B3. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH3.
Sample
designation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Depth to top of
interval sampled
(era)
7.1
69.8
127.8
143.8
222.4
259.2
280.4
308.0
Length
(cm)*
14.9
11.0
9.3
9.8
11.6
12.8
12.5
7.4
Description
Hard, fine, dusky brown,
pitted, mottled
Hard, fine, dusky brown
Hard, fine, dusky brown
Hard, fine, dusky orown
Hard, fine-med, dusky brown,
pitted
Hard, fine-iped, dusky brown,
pitted
Soft, fine, dusky brown,
pitted
Hard, fine-med, dusky brown,
mottled
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
153
-------
TABLE 84. SECTIONS OF STABLEX^ CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE 3H4.
Depth to top of
Sample interval sampled
designation (cm)
A 7
B 44
C 83
D 110
E 163
F 214
G 239
H 230
.5
.1
.2
.1
.5
.0
.1
.4
Length
(cm)*
12
10
7
11
11
9
9
10
.5
.2
.9
.8
.4
.2
.0
.3
Hard,
Soft,
Hard,
Hard,
Hard,
Soft,
Soft,
Hard,
Description
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
, dusky
dusky
, dusky
, dusky
, dusky
, dusky
, dusky
, dusky
brown
brown
brown
brown
brown
brown
brown
brown
pitted
, pitted
, pitted
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
154
-------
TABLE B5. SECTIONS OF STABLEX^ CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH5.
Sample
designation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Depth to top of
interval sampled
(cm)
20
52.8
80.9
L3.0.3
142.9
170.9
211.6
264.7
Length
(cm)*
10.5
10.6
7.7
12.2
12.3
14.5
12.6
8.4
Description
Soft, fine, olive black
Soft, fine, dusky brown
Hard, fine, dusky brown
Hard, fine, dusky brown
Soft, fine, dusky brown,
sparsely mottled
Soft, fine, dusky brown,
sparsely mottled
Soft, fine, dusky brown
Soft, fine, dusky brown
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
155
-------
TABLE B6. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH6.
Sample
designation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Depth to top of
interval sampled
(cm)
14
65
124
166
214
255
337
405
.2
.3
.1
.7
.5
.9
.3
.1
Length
(cm)*
9
8
6
10
10
8
7
8
.5
.8
.6
.1
.3
.6
.9
.3
Hard,
Hard,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Description
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
, brown,
, olive
, olive
, dusky
, dusky
pitted
black
black
brown,
brown,
pitted
patted
dusky brown
, dusky
, dusky
brown
brown,
pitted
Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the
core.
156
-------
TABLE B7. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH7.
Depth to top of
Sample interval sampled
designation (cm)
A 16
B 29
C 51
D 72
E 98
F 123
G 154
H 177
.2
.4
.0
.6
,4
.6
.2
.6
Length
(cm)*
12
7
6
7
9
9
6
7
.1
.2
.2
.0
.2
.2
.8
.6
Description
Soft, fine
mottled
Soft, fine
Hard, fine
Hard, fine
to fine
Hard, fine
Hard, fine
Hard, fine
mottled
Hard, fine
mottled
, brown
, brown
, gray
» gray
mottled
, gray
, gray
, gray
, gray
, pitted,
, mottled
brown,
brown,
brown,
brown ,
brown,
brown,
mottled
coarse
mottled
nettled
coarse
coarse
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature oc the core.
157
-------
TABLE B8. SECTIONS OF ST*BLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH8.
Depth to *.op of
Sample interval sampled
designation (cm)
A 5.0
B 38.3
C 77. H
D 119.2
E 142.0
F 171.7
G 214.8
H 253.2
Length
(cm)*
10.4
7.7
7.0
5.5
6.4
8.5
6.6
6.4
Description
Hard, fine, brown, pitted,
mottled
Hard, 'fine, gray brown, coarse
pitted, mottled
Hard, fine, gray brown, coarse
pitted, mottled
Soft, fine, gray brown, pitted,
mottled
Haid , fine, brown, pitted,
mottled
Hard, fine, brown, pitted,
mottled
Soft, fine, gray brown, pitted,
mottled
Soft, fine, gray brown, mottled
* Some lengths are approximate dut to the fragmented nature of the core.
158
-------
TABLE B9. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH9.
Depth to top of
Sample interval sampled
designation (cm)
A 8
B 66
C 127
D 185
E 220
F 258
G 318
H 359
•6
.4
.3
.6
.6
.1
.8
.5
Length
(cm)*
11
9
11
12
10
12
9
11
.1
.6
.3
.8
.9
.9
.5
,8
Description
Soft, fine
mottled
Soft,
Soft,
fine
fine
Hard, fine
mottled
Hard,
fine
S^ft, fine
coarse,
Hard, fine
mottled
Hard,
fine
. gray
» gray
, brown
, gray
» gray
, dusky
mottled
, dusky
, dusky
brown ,
brown ,
pitted,
mottled
, mottled
brown ,
brown ,
brown
brown
brown
coarse
mottled
, pitted,
, coarse
, mottled
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
159
-------
TABLE BIO. SECTIONS OF STABLEX®CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH10.
Depth to top of
Sample interval sampled
designation (cm)
A 5.0
B 55.6
C 103.1
D 146.4
E 230.5
F 275.6
G 327.6
H 355.8
Length
(cm)*
11.7
12.6
10.3
10.9
10.3
13.6
11.6
13.6
Description
Hard, fine,
Soft, fine,
mottled
Soft, fine,
Soft, fine,
mottled
Soft, fine,
mottled
Hard, fine,
Hari, fine,
Hard, *ine,
brown, mottled
brown, pitted,
gray brown, mottled
brown, pitted,
dusky brown, pitted,
brown, mottled
dusky brown, mottled
dusky brown, mottled
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
160
-------
TABLE Bll. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH11.
Depth to top of
Sample interval sampled
designation (eta)
A 10
B 45
C 90
D 132
E 146
F 185
G 241
H 270
.0
.2
.3
.1
.7
.2
.6
.8
Length
(cm)*
10.
11.
9.
9.
10.
9.
10.
11.
6
25
9
8
3
7
8
2
Description
Soft, fine,
mottled
Soft,
Soft,
fine,
fine,
Soft, fine,
sparsely
Hard,
fine,
Hard, fine,
mottled
Hard,
Hard,
fine,
fine,
dusky
brown,
dusky
dusky
mottled
dusky
dusky
dusky
dusky
brwn,
pitted,
mottled
brown,
b rovn ,
brown,
brown,
brown ,
brown,
mottled
mottled
coarse
mottled
mottled
Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
161
-------
TABLE B12. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN BOREHOLE BH12.
Sample
designation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Depth to top of
interval sampled
(cm)
9
31
66
100
121
144
172
212
.0
.2
.0
.1
.8
.1
.6
.3
Length
(cm)*
10
11
12
7
9
10
9
12
.1
.4
.5
.7
,0
.1
.1
.4
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft.,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Description
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
fine
, brown
, brown
, brown
, brown
, brown
, brown
, gray brown
gray brown, pitted
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
162
-------
TABLE 313. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLE! IN BOREHOLE BHL3.
Depth to
Sample interval
top of
sampled
designation (cm)
A 33
B 87
C 125
D 235
E 244
F 311
G 355
H 407
.3
.0
.3
.1
.9
.5
.7
.6
Length
(cm)*
15.
12.
12.
9.
8.
9.
10.
10.
2
3
1
3
3
4
3
0
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Soft,
Description
fine,
fine,
fine,
fine,
fine,
fine,
fine,
fine,
dusky
dusky
brown,
brown
mottled
moderate brown
moderate brown
gray brown
dusky
dusky
dusky
brown
brown
brown
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
163
-------
TABLE B14. SECTIONS OF STABLEX® CORE SAMPLED IN. BOREHOLE BHU.
Depth to top of
Sample interval sampled Length
designation (cm) (cm)*
A 0 Grab Sample
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Description
Soft, fine, black
* Some lengths are approximate due to the fragmented nature of the core.
Two corings to a depth of 6 ra, resulted in no core.
164
-------
TABLE B15. POSITIONS OF SUBWASTE CLAY AND CHALK SAMPLES
Borehole
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Sample
J
10.2*
10.2
7.6
10.2
10.2
7.6
10.2
7.6
7.6**
5.1
7.6
7.6
2.5
Depth Below
K
41.2
22.9
',0.6
45.7
45.7
33.0
35.6
30.5
17.8
25.4
30.5
10.2
Waste
L
66.0
43.2
91.4
88.9
91.4
66.0
71.1
58.4
38.1
45.7
50.8
15.2
Description
Clay, brown
Clay, grey brown
Clay, brown
Clay, grey brown
Clay, brown
Clay, brown
Chalk, white
Chalk, white
Chalk, white
Chalk, soft
Chalk, with flint
Clay, brown
Clay, brown
Total
Length
68.6
45.7
195.6
100.0
116.8
71.1
76.2
63.5
15.2
40.6
50.8
55.9
17.8
* All values are in cm mea-.ured below the treated waste interface.
•** Only one sample taken in this boring.
165
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL METHODS USED AT EMSL AND .COMPARISONS OF DATA OH
DUPLICATE SAMPLES TESTED AT EMSL AND WES
166
-------
TABLE C-l. TECHNIQUES AND INSTRUMENTATION USED IN ANALYSIS OF QC/QA
SAMPLES RUN AT EMSL
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Mi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
Method
Flame AAS
Heated Graphite Atomizer (HGA)
Flame AAS/DC plasma
Flame AAS
Flame AAS
Flame AAS
Flame AAS/DC plasma
Flame AAS
Flame AAS
Cold Vapor AAS
Flame AAS
Flame AAS
HGA/Flame AAS
HGA
HGA /DC plasma
Flame AAS (N 0/C H )/
DC Plasma
Flame AAS/DC plasma
Instrument
Perkin-Elmer (PE) 5000
Same as above
Same as above/
Spectraspan III B
Perkin-Elmer 5000
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Spectraspan III B
Perkin-Elmer 5000
Same as above
PE 603 with MHS-20
. Perkin-Elmer 5000
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above/
Spectraspan III B
PE 5000 /Spectraspan
III B
PE 5000 /Spectraspan
III B
Reference
EPA Method
272.1
206.2
208.1
210.1
213.1
219.1
213.1
220.1
236.1
245.1
243.1
249.1
239.2/239.1
270.2
289.1
167
-------
TABLE C-2. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 2A.
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cr
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
2A1
<0.01
0.024
0.25
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.27
0.07
0.70
0.020
0.07
<0.01
<0.005
0.37
<0.01
5.57
0.08
2A2
<0.01
0.029
0-26
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.13
0.07
0.16
0.015
0.06
<0.01
<0.005
0.46
<0.01
5.68
0.05
Mean
-
0.027
0.26
-
-
-
0.20
O.C7
0.43
0.018
0.07
-
-
0.42
-
5.63
0.07
WES Results
2AA
<0.050
0.031
0.237
<0i005
-------
TABLE C-3. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 2H.
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
2H1
<0.01
0.018
0.21
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.15
0.04
'0.10
<0,010
0.07
<0.01
<0.005
0.46
<0.01
5.68
0.04
2H2
<0.01
0.024
0.23
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.13
0.06
<0.010
0.010
0.04
<0.01
<0.005
0.33
<0.01
5.67
0.02
Mean
-
0.021
0.22
-
0.01
-
0.14
0.05
-
-
0.06
-
-
0.40
-
5.68
0.03
WES Results
2HA
<0.050
0.028
0.207
'0.005
<0.010
<0.050
0.075
0.115
0.175
0.0007
0.175
0.090
0.007
0.335
<0.050
5.33
<0.050
2MB '
<0.050
0.029
0.233
<0.005
<0.010
<0.050
0.073
0.096
0.129
0.0007
0.175
0.092
<0.001
0.295
<0.050
5.27
0.050
Mean
-
0.029
0.220
-
-
_
0.074
0.106
0.152
0.0007
0.175
0.091
-
0.315
-
5.30
-
'% Difference
-
-26
0
-
-
-
+89
-53
-
-
-66
-
-
+27
-
+ 7
-
t 7. ruffe-
re>nre> =•
EMSL Mean
- WES Mean
. „ i nn
WES Mean
169
-------
TABLE C-4. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 3A.
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
3A1
<0.01
0.034
0.28
<0.01
O.C1
<0.01
0.08
0.03
0.30
<0.010
0.10
<0.01
0.035
0.43
<0.01
6.27
0.06
3A2
<0.01
0.042
0.26
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.03
<0.10
<0.010
0.08
<0.01
<0.005
0.39
<0.01
5.20
0.06
Mean
-
0.038
0.27
-
-
-
0.06
0.03
-
-
0.09
-
-
0.41
-
5.74
0.06
WES Results
3AA
<0.050
0.044
0.275
<0.005
0.0112
<0,050
<0.050
0.083
0.064
0.0035
0.341
0.095
0.004
0.129
<0.050
4.53
0.211
3AB
0.050
0.036
0.273
<0.005
0.0203
<0.050
<0.050
0.078
0.076
0.0025
0.388
0.104
0.005
0.138
<0.050
4.88
0.222
Mean
-
0.040
0.274
-
C.158
-
-
0.081
0.070
0.0030
0.365
0.101
0.005
0.124
-
4.71
0.217
' % Difference
-
-5
-1
-
-
-
-
-65
-
-
-75
-
-
+230
-
+22
-72
t 7. n-if foi
rar»r»o n •
EMSL Mean
- WES Mean
. -v, i nn
WES Mean
170
-------
TABLE C-5. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 3D.
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
.Sn
Sr.
Zn
3D1
<0.01
0.069
G.23
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.12
0.04
<0.10
<0.010
0.02
<0.01
<0.005
0.30
<0.01
5.41
<0.01
3D2 Mean
<0.01
0.076 0.073
0.22 0.23
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.10 0.11
0.04 0.04
<0.10
<0.010
0.02 0.02
<0.01
<0.0d5
0.50 0.50
<0.01
5.00 5.21
<0.01
WES Results +
3DA
<0.050
0.033
0.154
0.004
0.0245
<0.050
0.069
0.093
0.072
0.0028
0.424
0.142
0.003
0.136
<0.050
4.90
0.227
3DB
<0.050
0.043
0.150
0.005
<0.010
<0.050
0.055
0.082
0,113
0.0005
<0.050
<0.050
0.003
0.290
<0..050
4.85
<0.050
Mean
-
0.038
0.152
0.005
-
-
0.062
O.OS8
0.093
0.0017
-
-
0.003
0.213
-
4.88
-
% Difference
-
+92
+51
-
-
-
+77
-55
-
-
-
-
-
+ 135
-
7
-
t* niff *„*,.- - EMSL Mean - WES Mean
WES Mean
171
-------
TABLE C-6. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEAJHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 7E.
EMSL Results WES Results A
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
7E1
<0.01
0.010
0.21
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.51
0.08
0.26
<0.010
<0.01
0.01
0.005
0.56
<0.01
7.23
<0.01
7E2
<0.01
<0.010
0.15
-------
TABLE C-7. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 4D.
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
4D1
<0.01
<0.010
0.22
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
0.16
0.04
0.36
0.025
0.35
0.13
0.017
0.40
<0.01
6.00
1.2
4D2
<0.01
<0.010
0.15
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.23
0.08
0-.34
0.017
0.12
0.03
<0.005
0.41
<0.01
6.09
0.1-1
Mean
-
-
0.19
-
0.07
-
0.20
0.06
0.35
0.021
0.24
0.08
-
0.41
-
6.05
0.66
WES Results
4 DA
<0.050
0.009
0.141
-------
TABLE C-8. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 8D.
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
8D1
<0.01
O.010
0.12
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.22
0.10
<0.10
<0.010
0.12
<0.01
<0.005
0.42
0.01
6^.97
0.05
8D2
<0.01
O.010
0.14
<0.01
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.11
<0.10
<0.010
0.08
<0.01
<0.005
0.39
0.01
6.99
0.05
Mean
-
-
0.13
-
0.02
-
0.21
0.11
-
-
0.10
-
-
0.41
-
6.98
0.05
WES Results ^
8DA
<0.050
0.008
0.154
<0.005
<0.010
<0.050
0.140
0.182
0.116
<0.0004
<0.050
<0.050
0.005
0.114
<0.050
•6.43 — •
<0.050
8DB Mean
<0.050
0.006 0.007
0.215 0.185
<0.005
0.2603
<0.050
0.106 0.123
0.174 0.178
0.069 0.093
0.0015
0.531
0.103
0.005 0.005
0.068 0.091
<0.050
6.35 6.39
0.723
' % Difference
-
-
-30
_
-
-
+71
-38
-
-
-
-
-
+351 .
-
+9
-
EMSL Mean
- WES Mean
x inn
WES Mean
174
-------
TABLE C-9. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES 0* EP LEACriATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE IOC.
EMSL Results WES Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Hi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
10C1
<0.01
<0.010
0.22
<0.0i
<0.01
0.01
0.28
0.07
<0.10
<0.010
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.46
<0.01
7.46
0.04
10C2
<0.01
<0.010
0.22
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.26
0.07
<0.10
<0.010
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
0.45
<0.01
7.75
0..02
Mean IOC A
<0.050
0.005
0.22 0.234
<0.005
0.0263
0.02 <0.058
0.27 0.211
0.07 0.132
0.286
0.0007
0.367
0.092
0.010
0.46 0.038
<0.050
7.61 8.08
0.03 0.241
IOCS
<0.050
0.005
0.216
<0.005
0.010
<0.050
0.266
0.130
0.125
<0.0004
0.134
0.059
<0.001
0.032
<0.050
8.46
0.098
Mean
-
-
0.225
-
-
_
0.239
0.131
0.206
-
0.251
0.076
-
0.035
-
8.27
0.170
T% Difference
-
-
-2
-
-
-
+ 13
-47
-
-
-
-
-
+ 1214
-
-8
-82
T *L TH f f i^ronfa =
EMSL Mean
- WES Mean
175
-------
TABLE C-10. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 12C.
EMSL Results WES Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Be
Sn
Sr
Zn
12C1
<0.01
<0.010
0/13
<0.01
-------
TABLE C-1L. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF EP LEACHATE FROM
DRIED GROUND WASTE FROM SAMPLE 13D.
EMSL Results WES Results
Parameters
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Kg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
13D1
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
<.0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.52
0.18
<0.10
<0.010
0.02
<0.01
<0.005
1.18
<0.01
6.01
<0.01
13D2
<0.01
<0.01
0.15
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.52
0.18
<0..10
<0.010
0.02
<0.01
<0.005
1.20
<0.01
5.93
<0.01
Mean 13DA
<0.050
0.005
0.19 0.205
<0.005
0.01 0.0414
<0.050
0.52 0.355
0.18 0.163
0.100
0.0015
0.207
0.093
0.020
1.19 0.270
<0.050
5.97 6.32
0.202
13DB
<0.050
0.012
0.180
<0.005
<0.010
<0.050
0.384
0.145
0.313
0.0008
0.050
0.050
0.012
0.385
<0.050
6.21
0.050
Mean
-
0.009
0.193
-
-
-
0.370
0.154
0.207
0.0012
-
_
0.016
0.328
-
6.27
-
'% Difference
-
-
-2
-
_
-
+41
+ 17
-
-
-
-
-
+263
-
-5
-
t "L ni ff^i
EMSL Mean
- WES Mean v . nn
WES Mean
177
-------
TABLE C-12. ANALYSES OF EP EXTRACTANT IROM TESTING OF MONOLITHIC SAMPLES
OF TREATED WASTES FROM BORINGS 1 AND 2 TESTED AT EMSL
Sample Designation
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
1C
<0.02
<0.005
<3.5
<0,08
<0.01
<0.10
<0.05
0.03
<0.05
<0.001
<0.10
<0.25
<0.05
0.04
<0.01
0.16
0.10
2C
0.02
<0.005
<3.5
<0.08
0.17
<0.10
<0.05
0.35
<0.05
<0.001
0.69
<0.25
<0.05
0.14
<0.01
1..64
3.41
2D
<0.02
^0.005
<3.5
<0.03
0.11
<0.10
<0.05
0.18
0.05
<0.001
0.52
<0.25
<0.05
0.10
<0.01
1.08
2.49
2F
<0.02
0.005
<3.5
<0.08
0.18
<0.10
<0.05
0.32
<0.05
<0.001
0.71
<0.25
0.05
0.13
<0.01
i.38
3.71
2G
<0.02
<0.005
<3.5
0.08
0.09
^0.10
<0.05
<0.03
<0.05
<0.001
0.41
<0.25
<0.05
0.12
<0.01
0.81
1.95
178
-------
TABLE C-13. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 4J
EMSL Results
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Mi
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
4J1
<0.75
6.8
130
1.7
<0.75
16
33
26
28000
0.08
184
40
12.4
0.5
5
122
96
4J2
<0.75
6.1
156
1.9
<0.75
18
42
31
25900
0.02
200
46
12.0
0.6
<5
126
94
Mean
-
6.
143
1.
-
17
38
29
27000
0.
192
43
12.
0.
-
124
95
WES Results
4JA
<6.0
5 9.80
35.8
8 1.70
<1.5
<20
66
32
32900
05 <0.1
226
48
2 <20
6 0.80
<5.0
28.8
97.3
4JB
<6.0
10.8
2.20
<1.5
<20
80
35
36100
<0.1
243
52
<20
0.80
103
Mean :
-
10.3
35.8
1.95
-
-
73
34
34500
-
235
50
-
0.8
-
28.8
100
^ Difference
-
-37
+299
-8
-
-
-48
-15
-22
-
-18
-14
-
-25
-
+331
-5
t 7. Di
f f orenr«o =
EMSL Mean
- WES
Mean u inn
WES Mean
179
-------
TABLE C-L4. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 4K
EMSt, Results
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
4K1
<0.75
12.4
108
1.5
<0.75
18
37
26
24350
<0.02
194
'»6
12.4
<0.1
<5
94
82
4K2
<0.75
13.6
112
1.3
<0.75
18
38
25
30900
<0,02
191
47
12.6
<0.1
<5
90
104
Mean
-
13.0
110
1.4
-
18
38
26
27600
-
193
47
12.5
-
-
92
93
WES Results
4KA
<6.0
14.0
47.5
1.90
<1.5
20
69
28
34800
<0.1
222
51
<20
0.60
<5.0
110
98.9
4KB
<6.0
13.2
1.90
<1.5
20
69
32
34900
<0.1
223
49
<20
0.70
97.4
Mean '
-
13.6
47.5
1.90
-
20
69
30
34900
-
223
50
_
0.65
-
110
98.2
% Difference
-
-4
+132
-26
-
-10
-45
-13
-21
_
-13
-6
-
-
-
-16
"-5
t 7. PH
•F f& fCn-ir* & as
EMSL Mean
- WES Mean
. v i nn
WES Mean'
ISO
-------
TABLE C-15. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 4L
EMSL Results
Parameters
Ag
As
3a
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
.Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
4L1
<0.75
11.3
164
1.8
<0.75
17
37
29
29150
<0.02
210
44
10.9
<0.1
<5
135
88
4L2
0.75
13.0
165
1.9
<0.75
17
39
28
33050
0.02
214
44
10.9
0.1
<5
135
88
Mean
-
12.
165
1.
-
17
38
29
31100
-
212
44
10.
-
-
135
88
WES Results
4LA
<6.0
6 13.6
70.8
9 2.20
<1 .5
<20
79
31
36100
<0.1
231
48
9 <20
<0.50
-<5.0
154
103
4LB
<6.0
11.9
1.60
<1.5
<20
59
32
32100
<0.1
227
42
<20
0.50
92.0
Mean "*"%
-
12. S
70.8
1.30
-
-
69
32
34100
-
229
45
-
-
-
154
98.0
Difference
-
-2
+133
+6
-
_
-45
-9
-9
_
-7
-2
-
-
-
-12
-10
t ? n-i
f £ ta vonr* o =
EMSL Mean
- WES
Mean „ inn
WES Mean
181
-------
TABLE C-16. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 5J
EMSL Results
Parameters
AS
As
B.i
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
?ln
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
5J1
<0.75
13.2
184
1.6
<0.75
20
38
28
31200
<0.02
208
50
12.6
0.1
<5
162
96
5J2
=
EMSL Mean
- WES Mean
. v i no
WES Mean
182
-------
TABLE C-17. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 5K
EMSL Results
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ug
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
5K1
<0.75
0.8
158
1.5
<0.75
15
33
25
12500
<0.02
180
37
3.8
<0.1
<5
115
82
5K2
<0.75
5.0
27
1.6
<0.75
15
32
25
24400
<0.02
178
35
10.7
0.2
<5
113
82
Mean
-
2.
93
1.
-
15
33
25
18500
-
179
36
7.
-
-
114
82
WES Results
5KA
<6.0
9 6.80
50.8
6 1.90
<1.5
<20
78
35
34900
<0.1
219
45
3 45
0.60
7.5
117
102
5KB
<6.0
6.80
2.40
<1.5
<20
85
37
34200
<0.1
212
43
35
0.60
99.3
Mean '
-
6.80
50.8
2.20
'
-
82
36
34&00
-
216
44
40
0.60
7.5
117
102
% Difference
-
-57
+83
-27
-
-
-60
-31
-47
-
-17
-18
-82
-
-
-3
-20
t '/ n-i
f f OT on/-*o =
EMSL Mean
- WES
Mean v i nn
WES Mean
183
-------
TAB^E C-L8. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 5L
EMSL Results
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
5L1
<0.75
7.5
J4
1.8
<0.75
18
40
29
;1900
^0.02
208
42
12.0
0.1
5
134
90
5L2
<0.75
6.7
29
1.8
<0.75
17
38
31
28850
<0.02
206
-'.2
12.3
0.2
5
125
97
Mean
-
5.
32
1.
-
18
39
30
30400
-
207
42
12.
-
_
130
94
WES Results
5LA
<6.0
1 8.20
65.8
8 1.60
<1.5
<20
63
34
33200
<0.1
228
44
2 20
0.50
5.0
174
93.3
5LB
<6.0
6.40
1.50
<1.5
<20
59
26
24800
<0.1
188
35
20
0.50
76.4
Mean "*
-
7.30.
65.8
1.55
-
-
61
30
29300.
-
208
40
-
-
-
174
84.9
% Difference
-
-30
-51
+ 16
-
-
-36
0
+4
-
0
5
-
-
-
-25
+ 11
t v_ in
££&v~ar\r+^ ;=
EMSL Mean
- WES
Mean „ inn
WES Mean
184
-------
TABLE C-19. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 6J
EMSL Results
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Nl
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
6J1
0.75
12.7
44
1.5
0.75
26
36
34
25500
0.08
165
54
14.1
0.
5
150
86
6J2
0.75
13.3
46
1.5
0.75
26
34
40
25200
0.08
157
52
15.0
0.4
5
150
88
Mean
-
13.
45
1.
_
26
35
37
25350
0.
161
53
14.
0.
-
150
87
WES Results
6JA
<6.0
0 13.6
95.5
5 1.80
<1.5
26
56
33
29500
08 0.4
175
53
6 20
4 0.50
5.0
174
83.6
6JB
6.0
14.0
1.20
1.5
26
63
35
32100
0.4
190
57
20
0.50
89.0
Mean ^
-
13.8
95.5
1.50
-
26
62
34
30SUO
0.4
183
55
-
-
-
174
86.3
% Difference
_
-6
-53
0
-
0
-44
+9
-13
-80
-12
-4
_
-
-
-4
+ 1
t 2 ri-i
EMSL Mean
- WES
Mean nn
WES Mean
185
-------
TABLE C-20. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 6K
EMSL Results
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Or
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
6K1
0.75
9.2
26
1.5
0.75
18
35
28
2490U
0.07
165
39
12.5'
0.2
5
108
86
6K2
0.75
10.6
20
1.8
0.75
16
35
25
25200
0.05
154
36
10. 0
0.2
5
97
79
Mean
-
9.9
23
1.7
-
17
35
27
25050
0.06
160
38
11.?
0.2
_ •
103.^.
73
WES Results
6KA
6.0
14.6
79.0
1.70
1.5
20
73
32
33500
0.5
188
41
20
0.50
7.6
125
92.9
6KB
6.0
17.0
72.5
1.50
1.5
20
72
32
36000
0.5
190
41
20
0.50
5.0
134
93.0
Mean
-
15.8
75.8
1.60
-
-
73
32
34750
0.5
189
41
-
0.50
_
130
93.0
*% Difference
-
-37
-70
+6
-
-
-52
-16
-30
-88
-15
-7
-
-60
-
-21
-22
t 7. n-i
EMSL Mean
.- WES Mean
~ i nn
WES Mean
186
-------
TABLE C-21. COMPARISON OF ANALYSES OF PARTIAL DIGESTS OF SAMPLE 6L
ErlSL Results
Parameter
Ag
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Sn
Sr
Zn
6 LI
0.75
5.8
43
1.7
0.75
14
32
28
24600
0.05
162
36
11.6
0.1
5
138
82
6L2
0.75
4.4
44
1.6
0.75
13
32
33
24300
0.05
162
36
11.6
0.1
5
136
99
Mean
-
5.
44
1.
-
14
32
31
24450
0.
162
36
11.
-
-
137
91
WES Results
6LA
6.0
1 9.00
111
7 1.50
1.5
20
64
32
32000
05 0.5
182
38
6 20
0.50
5.0
194
90.0
6LB
6.0
8.00
1.70
1.5
20
61
31
31500
0.5
191
37
20
0.50
87.6
Mean
-
8.50
111
1.60
-
-
63
32
31750
0.5
187
38
-
-
-
194
83.8
t% Difference
-
_4
-60
-1-6
-
-
-49
-3
-23
-90
-13
-5
-
-
-
-29 .
+2
t '/. n-i
f fckVAnr'A =
EMSL Mean
- WES
Me'ln „ inn
WES Mean
187
-------
APPENDIX D
MULTIPLE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE
i) Grind samole to particle size capable of passing through 100 mesh screen.
2) Run the EP toxicity test on this sample .(sample size 100 grams) as des-
cribed in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste U.S. EPA Publication
SW 346.
3) Analyze the extract for those listed in Table 2 using DC Plasma for
screening and the analytical methods indicated in Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846) for final quantification.
4) Prepare a synthetic acid rain extraction fluid by adding a 60/40 weight
percent mixture of sulfuric and nitric acids to distilled deionized water
until the pH is 3.0 ± 0.2.
5) Weight the solid phase of the waste sample remaining after step 2 and
place it in the extractor with 20 times its weight of the synthetic acid
rain-extraction fluid. Do not allow the material to dry before weighing.
Use the sam: extractor as used in the EP,
6) The pH should be recorded between 5 and 10 minutes after the solid mate-
••rial and the synthetic acid rain are placed in the extractor and agitation
has been started.
7) Agitate the mixture for 24 hours. Maintain the temperature at 20-40°C
(68-104°F) during this time. The pH should again be recorded at the end
of the 24 hour extraction period.
3) Separate the material in the extractor into its component liquid and
solid phase as described in the Separation Procedure of the EP.
9) Analyze the extract as in st-?p 3.
1U) Repeat steps 5-9 eight (8) additional times. Use the same procedure for
these additional extractions and analyses as used in the initial
synthetic acid rain extraction.
11) If after completing the 9th synthetic rain extraction the concentration
of any of the analyses is increasing over that found in the 7th and
8th extractions, then, continue extracting with synthetic acid rain until
the concentration in the extract ceases to increase.
138
-------
12) Report the initial and final pH of each extraction and the concentration
of each listed constituent of concern in each extract.
189
------- |