PB83-147983
.
Physical Properties and Leach Testing of
Solidified/Stabilized Industrial Wastes
(U.S.) Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab.
Cincinnati, OH
Dec 82
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
r®
-------
EPA-600/2-82-099
December 1982
PB83-H79B3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND LEACH TESTING OF
SOLIDIFIED/STABILIZED INDUSTRIAL WASTES
by
Environmental Laboratory
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D4-0569
Project Officer
Robert E. Landreth
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-82-099
3. RE
wy ACrtm 3
4. TITLE AMD SUBTITLE
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND LEACH TESTING OF SOLIDIFIED/
STABILIZED INDUSTRIAL WASTE
5. REPORT DATE
December 1982
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTMOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Environmental Laboratory
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORESS
Environmental Laboratory
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
BRD1A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
IAG D-4-0569
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO AOORESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory--Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
I
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERlOO COVEREO
nterim Final /Oct.. iq7A-Marrh igin
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Robert E. Landreth, Project Officer
513/684-7871
16. ABSTRACT
Physical property and leaching tests were conducted to assess the engineering
characteristics and pollution potential of five industrial wastes. Four
solidification/stabilization processes which are under development or
commercially available and represent different containment philosophies, were
employed to produce four very different types of treated-waste products; one
resembling low-strength concrete, one a rubber-like solid, one a solid
plastic-encased block, and one a soil-like material. Physical tests used
included determination of u'nconfined comprehensive strength, permeability,
bulk density, and durability. The major environmental problem posed by these
industrial wastes is the loss of inorganic constituents-heavy metals and high
salt concentrations. Leach testing was conducted using continuous column
leaching with ^-saturated, distilled water. A flow rate of 1Q"5 cm/sec
was maintained for one to two years and the leachate from each column was
collected and analyzed on a logarithmic schedule.
H7.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIf IERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. ccsati Fit Id/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
\¥9
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pagij
22. PRICE
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form 2120-1 (R««. 4-77) pmvious bdition 11 ohouti
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
/,
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are
tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural environment. The
complexity of that environment and the interplay of its components require a
concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution,
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and
solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community
sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies, and to minimize
the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.
This publication is one of the products of that research and is a most vital
communications link between the researcher and the user community.
This report presents results from small-scale laboratory testing to
determine the physical properties and chemical leaching characteristics of
untreated and chemically solidified or stabilized industrial wastes . It
provides basic data that can help estimate the potential for surface and
groundwater pollution from industrial waste disposal activities and estimates
of the strength and durability of the treated materials. Studies such as
these provide the basis for decisions regarding disposal or productive uses of
these rapidly accumulating waste materials and play a vital role in our
efforts for energy independence.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Physical property and leaching tests were conducted to assess the engi-
neering characteristics and pollution potential of five industrial wastes.
Similar tests using the products of four solidification/stabilization pro-
cesses suggest that in some cases solidification/stabilization may be a
useful technique for reducing environmental pollution from these wastes.
However, a gteat deal of work will be required to optimize treatment pro-
cedures for each waste being disposed, and additional work is required to
understand the behavior of treated industrial wastes under actual field
conditions.
Four solidification/stabilization processes which are under development
or commercially available and represent different containment philosophies,
were employed to produce four very different types of treated-waste prod-
ucts: one resembling low-strength concrete, one a rubber-like solid, one a
solid plastic-encased block, and one a soil-like material. Physical tests
used included determination of unconfined compressive strength, permeabil-
ity, bulk density) and durability. All tests were conducted in triplicate.
No correlation between the physical properties of the treated products and
their ability to contain the sludge constituents in the leach testing was
found. This resulted from the diverse containment strategies used in the
different treatments. The soil-like product had the highest permeability
and lowest strength and durability characteristics, but gave the best over-
all containment of all the solidification/stabilization products except the
polyethylene-jacketed waste. The rubber-like solid which had quite high
strength and durability produced leachate with by far the highest concen-
tration of potential pollutants. The large differences in treatment strate-
gies precluded any generalizations which might be applicable in comparing
treatment processes using more similar containment technologies.
The major environmental problem posed by these industrial wastes is
the loss of inorganic constituents—heavy metals and high salt concentra-
tions. Leach testing was conducted using continuous column leaching with
CC>2-saturated, distilled water. A flow rate of 10"5 cm/sec was maintained
for one to two years and the leachate from each column was collected and
analyzed on a logarithmic schedule. All tests were conducted in triplicate.
Leachates from all sludges had individual samples which were higher than
drinking water standards in heavy metals and anions. However, the amount
of these constituents leached was generally limited by the very low perme-
ability and high pH values of the sludges. Although the relative concen-
trations of the constituents lost varied greatly between the different
sludge types, leachate samples from different runs with the same untreated
waste sludge were quite consistent in their composition.
iv
-------
Results of the small-column leaching tests indicate that the average
concentration of many of the constituents in the leachate were lower in
leachates from the treated sludges than from the untreated control sludge
columns. However, in all cases some waste constituents were lost in greater
amounts from all treated waste products. Although no treatment process
(other than plastic encapsulation) uniformly reduced the concentration of
all potential pollutants in the leachate for all sludge types,
solidification/stabilization of the waste sludges did tend to lower their
pollutant potential. Reduction in the highest concentrations of sludge
constituents occurring in individual sludge samples is the most pronounced
effect of sludge treatment; but when the proportion of sludge solids con-
tained in the final solidified/stabilized product is considered, the bene-
ficial effect of sludge treatment on constituent containment is less appar-
ent. In some cases, additional leachable materials were apparently added in
the treatment process so that the losses of some constituents actually ex-
ceeded the amount of the particular constituent present in the sludge being
treated. Also, some treatment processes apparently increased the solubility
of certain constituents so that they were lost at higher rates from the
treated sludges than from the untreated control sludge columns.
As used in this study, the small sample size (with larger waste
surface-to-volume ratio), and continuous submersion in (^-saturated leach-
ing solution, appear to be a rigorous leaching condition. Most landfilling
operations would allow the use of much larger masses of treated sludge (with
smaller surface area/volume ratios) and surface water diversion and collec-
tion systems so that saturated conditions would only occur intermittently.
The conditions in an actual landfill may allow more effective containment
of waste constituents in the treated wastes than found in this study.
This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Interagency Agreement
No. EPA-IAG-D-4-0569 between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Munici-
pal Environmental Research Laboratory, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
Division (EPA, MERL, SHWRD) and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station (WES). Work for this report was conducted during the period of
October 1974 through March 1980.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables x
Acknowledgements xiii
1. Introduction 1
The Hazardous waste disposal problem 1
Hazardous waste types 1
Waste treatment options "2
Purpose of this study 2
2. Conclusions A
3. Recommendations 6
A. Materials and Methods 7
Sludge and treatment process sources and selection ... 7
Stabilization techniques 10
Chemical analysis 22
5. Physical and Engineering Properties of Treated and Untreated
Industrial Wastes 26
Physical property tests and results 26
Engineering properties tests and results 33
Summary of physical and engineering properties tests . . AO
6. Results of Chemical Analysis and Leaching Tests A2
Chemical analysis of untreated sludges 42
Leaching test results AA
Summary of chemical leaching data 69
7. Discussion 83
General Comments 83
Predicting containment efficiency 85
Correlation between containment and process or
sludge type 86
Leachate tests as predictors 87
References 88
Appendices
A. Results from non-priority leaching columns 90
B. Priority column loading and total amounts leached 97
C. Data set for priority leaching columns 103
Preceding page blank
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Untreated (raw) and solidified electroplating wastes
(No. 200) 15
2 Untreated (raw) and solidified Ni-Cd battery sludge
(No. 300) 16
3 Untreated (raw) and solidified pigment production sludge
(No. 700) 17
4 Untreated (raw) and solidified chlorine production
sludge (No. 800) 18
5 Untreated (raw) and solidified glass etching sludge
(No. 900) 19
6 Leaching column design and detail 20
7 Sample leaching columns in place in racks 21
8 Grain-size distribution for untreated electroplating
sludge (No. 200) 28
9 Grain-size distribution for untreated Ni-Cd sludge
Ni-Cd battery sludge (No. 300) 28
10 Grain-size distribution for untreated chlorine
production sludge (No. 800) 29
11 Grain-size distribution for untreated glass etching
sludge (No. 900) 29
12 Leaching pattern plot 45
13 Plot of ratio of overall concentration of each constituent
in the leachate from Process A treated columns (T) to
the corresponding value for the constituent in leachate
from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to the
first digit of sludge identification number 72
vi i i
-------
Number
14 Plot of ratio of highest concentration of each constituent
in the leachate from Process A-treated columns (T) to
the corresponding value for the constituent in leachate
from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to the
first digit of sludge identification number 73
15 Plot of ratio of overall concentration of each constituent
in the leachace from Process B-treated columns (T) to
the corresponding value for the constituent in leachate
from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to the
first digit of sludge identification number 74
16 Plot of ratio of highest concentration of each constituent
in the leachate from Process B-treated columns (T) to
the corresponding value for the constituent in leachate
from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to the
first digit of sludge identification number 75
17 Plot of correlation of ratios of overall and highest
leachate concentrations from treated (T) sludge
columns to those from untreated (U) sludge columns
for all sludge treated by Process A 77
18 Plot of correlation of ratios of overall and highest
leachate concentrations from treated (T) sludge
columns to those from untreated (U) sludge columns
for all sludge treated by Process A 78
19 Plot of cprrelation of ratios of overall leachate
concentration from sludge columns treated by
Process A to corresponding values from sludge
columns treated by Process B 79
20 Plot of ratio of overall concentration of each constituent
in the leachate from treated (T) electroplating sludge
(No. 200) columns to corresponding values for
constituents in leachate from untreated column (U).
The letters refer to the process used in
solidification/stabilization 80
21 Plot of ratio of highest concentration of each constituent
in the leachate from treated (T) electroplating sludge
(No. 200) columns to corresponding values for
constituents in leachate from untreated columns (U).
The letters refer to the process used in
solidification/stabilization . 81
ix
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Major Characteristics and Chemical Constituents of Sludges
Included in This Study 8
2 Listing of Identification Codes of Processors That
Evaluated and/or Treated Each Industrial Waste Sludge . . 10
3 Formulation and Leaching Column Loading for Industrial
Sludges 12
4 Sample Preservation for Chemical Analysis 22
5 Methods of Analysis for Anions and Other Parameters and
Their Limits of Detection 23
6 Limits of Detection for Metals in Low Resolution Samples
Analyzed by Flame Atomic Absorption and High Resolution
Samples Analyzed by Heated-Graphite-Atomizer Atomic
Absorption i 24
7 Test Schedule for Treated and Untreated Industrial Waste
Sludges 27
8 Specific Gravities of Treated and Untreated Industrial Waste
Sludges 30
9 Physical Properties of Treated Sludges 32
10 Atterberg Limits of Untreated Sludges and Those Treated by
Process B 34
11 Changes in Dry Unit Weight After Compaction at Optimum Water
Content of Sludges Treated by Process B 34
12 Summary of Unconfined Compression Tests for Treated
Industrial Waste Sludges 35
13 Summary of Falling-Head Permeability Test Data for Untreated
Industrial Waste Sludges 37
x
-------
Number Page
14 Summary of Falling-Head Permeability Test Data for Treated
Industrial Waste Sludges 38
15 Analysis of Selected Dry Sludge Solids of Industrial
Wastes Included in This Study A3
16 Volumes of Leachate Collected from Priority Columns and the
Calculated Volume of Leachate Per Day 47
17 Concentration of Selected Constituents in Leachate from
Treated and Untreated, Priority Columns Containing
Electroplating Waste (No. 200) 50
18 Comparison of Overall Concentrations of Selected Constit-
uents Leached from Treated, Electroplating Sludge
(No. 200), Priority Columns with Those Leaded from
Untreated Control Columns 51
19 Comparison of Highest Concentrations of Selected Constit-
uents Leached from Treated, Electroplating Sludge
(No. 200), Priority Columns with Those Leached from
Untreated Control Columns 52
20 Percent of Selected Constituents Leached from Priority
Columns Containing Treated and Untreated Electroplating
Sludge (No. 200) 54
21 Concentration of Selected Constituents in Leachate from
Treated and Untreated, Priority Columns Containing
Nickel-Cadmium Battery Sludge (No. 300) 56
22 Comparison of Overall and Highest Concentrations of Selected
Constituents Leached from Treated, Nickel-Cadmium Battery
Sludge (No. 300), Priority Columns with Those Leached from
Untreated Control Columns 57
23 Percent of Selected Constituents Leached from Priority
Columns Contained Treated and Untreated Nickel-Cadmium
Battery Sludge (No. 300) 59
24 Concentration of Selected Constituents in Leachate from
Treated and Untreated, Priority Columns Containing
Pigment Production Sludge (No. 700) ..... 60
25 Comparison of Overall and Highest Concentrations of Selected
Constituents Leached from Treated, Pigment Production
Sludge (No. 700), Priority Columns with Those Leached from
Untreated Control Columns 61
xi
-------
Number Page
26 Percent of Selected Constituents Leached from Priority
Columns Containing Treated and Untreated Pigment Produc-
tion Sludge (No. 700) 62
27 Concentration of Selected Constituents in Leachate from
Treated and Untreated, Priority Columns Containing
Chlorine Production Sludge (No. 800) 64
28 Comparison of Overall and Highest Concentrations of Selected
Constituents Leached from Treated, Chlorine Production
Sludge (No. 800), Priority Columns with Those Leached from
Untreated Control Columns 65
29 Percent of Selected Constituents Leached from Priority
Columns Containing Treated and Untreated Chlorine Produc-
tion Sludge (No. 800) 66
30 Concentration of Selected Constituents in Leachate from
Treated and Untreated, Priority Columns Containing
Glass Etching Sludge (No. 900) 67
31 Comparison of Overall and Highest Concentrations of
Selected Constituents Leached from Treated, Glass Etching
Sludge (No. 900), Priority Columns with Those Leached
from Untreated Control Columns 68
32 Percent of Selected Constituents Leached from Priority
Columns Containing Treated and Untreated Glass Etching
Sludge (No. 900) 70
33 Summary of Percent of Constituents Leached at Lower Con-
centrations from Treated Sludge Specimens than From
Untreated Specimens 71
Xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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 Protec-
tion Agency (EPA).
The coordinating authors on this report were Dr. Larry W. Jones and
Dr. Philip G. Malone. The design of the chemical leaching columns and the
leaching and analysis program resulted from the work of Dr. Jerome L.
Mahloch and D. E. Averett. The physical testing section of this report
results from the work of M. J. Bartos and M. R. Palermo.
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.
The guidance and support of Mr. Robert E. Landreth, Mr. Norbert B.
Schomaker, and the Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA, are gratefully acknowledged. The
Geotechnical Laboratory performed the physical testing under the direction
of Mr. G. P. Hale. The day-to-day operations with the leaching columns were
performed by Oscar W. Thomas and Johnnie E. Lee. The Analytical Laboratory
Group performed the chemical analyses under the direction of Mr. James D.
Westhoff, Dr. Donald W. Rathburn, and Mr. Jerry W. Jones. The diligent and
patient efforts of Ms. Rosie Lott, Ms. Connie Johnson, and Ms. Maureen Smart,
typists, and Mr. Jack Dildine, senior graphics coordinator, are gratefully
acknowledged. James H. Terry and Mark Reeves assisted in preparing data
presentations. Directors of WES during the course of this study were
COL J. L. Cannon, CE, and COL N. P. Conover, CE. Technical Director was
Mr. F. R. Brown.
xi i i
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM
The problem of hazardous waste and what can be done with it has re-
cently been given wide attention. In fact, the hazardous waste disposal
facility has become a scare-word in most areas of the United States. The
public has been sensitized to the issue by such famous and infamous examples
of mismanagement as the Love Canal site in New York and the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky. A recent survey has shown that twice as many people
would accept a nuclear power plant within a mile of their homes than would
accept a hazardous waste disposal facility (1). This realization has also
been motivation for the development and commercial application of the new
waste treatment and containment technology which is the subject of this
study.
HAZARDOUS WASTE TYPES
For wastes that are classed as hazardous because of an organic or in-
organic compound contained in the waste, the line of action that is becom-
ing more prevalent because of rising costs of disposal is to react, oxidize, or
in some way alter the offending compound to produce a new, less toxic mate-
rial before disposal is attempted. This approach which has often been used
with cyanide wastes and explosive materials in the past, is now generally
the most economical treatment alternative for a wide array of refractory
organic compounds like polychlorinated biphenyls or kepone which can be
destroyed by high-temperature incineration.
Wastes containing toxic or hazardous constituents of an elemental na-
ture become a very different problem since, short of nuclear transmutation,
no secondary treatment can alter them. In this case, if the wastes are to
be disposed of, the toxic elements must be in some way contained within the
waste disposal facility boundaries essentially forever, or at least losses
kept so low that no harmful effects occur to the environment. The most com-
mon elemental constituents in sludges in this category are the heavy metals,
many of which are toxic in very small quantities. For example, the destruc-
tion of organoarsenical wastes by incineration leaves an ash and a scrubber
sludge which are high in arsenic oxides. These wastes may be very nearly as
toxic and carcinogenic as the original material and often are more concen-
trated. A wide array of industrial wastes contain relatively high levels of
heavy metals and fall into this category, making their permanent containment
in the disposal area of paramount concern.
1
-------
Three sludges in this category were selected by the EPA to be included
in this study largely because of their high levels of heavy metals—an elec-
troplating waste, a nickel-cadmium battery sludge and a pigment production
sludge. All of these sludges contain very high levels of toxic heavy metals
in a form which is difficult to reclaim. These sludges have been tradition-
ally disposed of largely by ponding and/or shallow land burial, or by blend-
ing with other waste for placement in municipal landfills.
A second waste type with elemental contaminants that are difficult to
handle are those which contain very high levels of moderately soluble to
very soluble inorganic salts. While less frightening to the public, the
problem with these sludges will probably be with us longer and be more dif-
ficult to alleviate. These sludges may also contain substantial levels of
toxic heavy metals which cannot be ignored, but their major impact is caused
by the very high losses of inorganic salts. One type of sludge which is
being produced at astounding rates at the present time is the flue gas
cleaning (FGC) sludge which results from the scrubbing of sulfites from the
stack gases exhausted from power plants. These sludges consist almost ex-
clusively of calcium sulfate and contain variable amounts of heavy metals
which were present in the coal. Contacting waters will become saturated in
calcium and sulfate (containing 600 to 700 ppm calcium and 1250 to 1300 ppm
sulfate) until the total mass of the sludge is leached away. The
solidification/stabilization of five FGC sludges has been addressed in a
companion study using identical physical and leach testing and many of the
same solidification systems (2).
Two additional sludges are included in this study for which the loss of
inorganic salts appears to be the major environmental problem—a chlorine
production brine sludge and a glass etching sludge. Both have appreciable
heavy metals loads which must be accounted for but also contain large pro-
portions of soluble salts.
WASTE TREATMENT OPTIONS
Containment of waste constituents can be accomplished on several dif-
ferent levels (3). Technically, a 200-1 drum of is a containment system
even though it may not be effective for a very long period of time. Wastes
can and are placed unaltered in a containment vessel or buried directly so
that the landfill tested ultimately provides the containment. For smaller
scale containment, the wastes can be mixed with material that will coat or
"encapsulate" each separate particle or grain of the waste with an impervi-
ous, inert coating—often termed micro-encapsulation. Or perhaps the waste
is merely mixed with a binder that bonds the waste particles together with-
out necessarily coating each grain depending upon the reduction in leachable
surface area to lower leach losses. The smallest scale containment systems
use the production of new, inert, insoluble crystal lattices which bind the
toxic elements into a durable solid material. Techniques for embedding
waste materials in concrete or pozzolan concrete are well-established and
currently available commercially. The solid waste material produced can be
made to have high strength and relatively low rates of pollutant escape.
2
-------
The treatment materials (portland cement or flyash and lime), are commonly-
available.
- Encapsulation of a. large block of solidified waste (sometimes called
"macro-encapsulation") as proposed (4) would involve fusing an impervious
polymer coating to -the outside surface of-a large (greater than 1 cu m)
monolith of waste. In some ways this approach resembles simple vessel
containment such as a.200-1 drum, but it is .said to be. mare secure because the
wastes are cemented into a solid form before the flexible coating is bonded to
the waste.
The solidification/stabilization techniques used in this study were
selected to be a representative sampling of those technologies currently
commercially available or under extensive development (3). Treatment
processes included are: a lime-flyash, pozzolonic cement process producing a
solid, micro-encapsulation system; a cement/soluble-silicate treatment process
that produces a soil-like product; an organic polymer system producing a hard,
rubber-like solid; and a macro-encapsulation process which solidifies the
waste and then bonds it in a polyethylene jacket. Unfortunately, not all
processors elected to treat all of the five.wastes included in the study, but
a representative cross-section of the industrial wastes and vendor processes
are available.for the study.
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
This study was undertaken to.evaluate the containment efficiency and
physical properties of four different solidification/stabilization processes
when applied to common industrial wastes. - A complete analysis of the physical
and engineering properties of the treated and untreated industrial sludges was
combined with a long-termr small-scale leaching test. Comparisons were made
to ascertain whether the containment success of the treatment systems could be
related to any of the physical properties of the treated sludges.
3
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The physical and engineering properties and leaching characteristics are
reported for five industrial waste sludges and the treated products made from
these sludges by four solidification/stabilization processes. Data from these
investigations can be used to evaluate the pollution potential of these wastes
when they are disposed of in standard landfills or shallow land burial. The
industrial wastes represent those whose production rate and disposal
difficulty make them prime candidates for large-scale commercial
solidification/stabilization treatment techniques.
The treatment processes used in this study produced final products with a
wide array of physical properties varying from moderate-strength solids to a
soil-like granular material. A lime-flyash pozzolonic solidification process
produced a solid soil/cement-like product with good structural integrity but
poor durability. Concentrations of hazardous elements in leachates from this
treatment product were found at higher concentrations than in leachate from
similar untreated material in about half of the cases analyzed for the four
industrial sludges tested. The net benefit from treatment by this process was
marginal. The cement/soluble-silicate treatment process produced a soil-like
product. Physical property tests typical of structural solids could not be
run on this material. Containment of constituents from the same four sludges
when treated by this treatment system was better than for that containment
observed for the lime-flyash product in that about three-fourths of the
constituents were lost from the columns at lower rates when compared to the
untreated control columns. Two sludges treated using the urea-formaldehyde
formation lost most constituents at much higher rates than the control
columns, possibly because of the acidification (and resulting dissolution) of
the sludge that was required to produce the polymerization reaction used in
this process. Urea-formaldehyde as used here appears to be counterproductive
as a containment procedure. A polyethylene jacket procedure evaluated in this
study gave excellent containment of all constituents except cadmium.
Replicates of the leaching tests showed remarkable repeatability between
different columns using different samples of the same treatment batch from the
same sludge. However, the patterns of constituent loss from different sludges
treated by the same treatment process were not similar. Different waste
samples processed by the same treatment system sometimes would show more, and
sometimes less, loss of a particular contaminant. Since the sludges are
primarily metal hydroxide waste it would be assumed that each treatment
process would be more-or-less as effective in containing a particular
contaminant in most of the sludge types tested. The results observed indicate
4
-------
that complete leaching tests might be necessary for each new waste, even
though other wastes with similar constituents had previously been successfully
contained by that particular treatment system.
As might be expected, the same variability was found for constituent
losses from samples of the same sludge that were subjected to different
treatment processes. Thus no generalizations could be made concerning the
probable loss of a particular constituent either from different sludges
treated by the same process, or from the same sludge as treated by different
solid ification/stabilization systems.
Constituents were lost to leaching from the experimental columns typically
in one of two distinct patterns whether treated or not. Those constituents
whose concentration in the sludge greatly exceeded their solubilities in the
leaching medium (for example, calcium, nickel, lead, and sulfate) were found
at relatively constant concentrations in the leachates collected over the
length of the testing period. For these constituents, the rate of loss
depended on the volume of leachate produced and was independent of the length
of time over which the leaching took place. The second leaching pattern was
seen for those constituents whose solubilities were large compared with their
concentrations in the sludge (for example, chloride). These constituents had
very high concentrations in the initial leachate samples, followed by an
asymptotic drop in concentration as the element was depleted from the sludge
that was exposed to the leaching medium. Channelization of the leachate flow
in the untreated sludge columns greatly increased the rate at which the con-
centration of the soluble constituents in the leachate fell off, as this
process lessened the area of sludge that came in contact with the leaching
medium. A third, less common leaching pattern showed low initial
concentrations in the early leachate samples and slow increases as the
experiment progressed. This pattern was observed for constituents in which a
common ion effect might limit early concentrations which increase after the
levels of the interfering counterion are depleted or for constituents whose
solubility increases later because of changes in pH or redox conditions in the
leachate. The loss of such constituents would be missed completely in
short-term leaching tests, but they may be of great consequence in the
evaluation of the waste for land disposal.
The small sample size (large surface-to-volume ratio) and continuous
submersion in the CO^-saturated leaching solution used in this study, appear
to represent very rigorous leaching conditions. Most landfill operations
would allow the use of much larger blocks of treated sludge and would have
only intermittent saturated conditions occurring in the fill. The conditions
in such a landfill would thus favor the containment of the treated wastes.
This study may over-estimate the leaching losses that might be expected under
actual disposal conditions.
5
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has shown that solidification/stabilization of potentially
hazardous industrial wastes may be effective in lessening the losses of
undesirable constituents to environmental waters when the wastes are dis-
posed of by landfilling using proper engineering techniques. However, a
great deal more study involving long-term and large-scale operations is nec-
essary before the behavior of treated industrial wastes under actual field
conditions can be adequately understood. Such an understanding is neces-
sary before the disposal of industrial wastes may be carried out with the
confidence that no environmental degradation will occur over the long-term.
The physical and engineering properties thought to be important in
assessing the effectiveness of solidification/stabilization techniques
appear to have little predictive value based upon one to two years of leach-
ing data from this study. The wide diversity of treatment processes used
with their different containment strategies, make comparison and prediction
of performance from this study impractical. However, specific physical and
engineering properties may be of great value in assessing the relative con-
tainment ability of treatment processes using similar technology or contain-
ment strategy. Comparisons of physical properties similar to those used
here may be of great predictive value within treatments of similar type.
For instance, density and unconfined compressive strength may be of critical
importance to treatments which depend upon the limiting of the surface area
of the waste exposed to the leaching medium; or grain-size analysis may
indicate the future performance of a soluble silicate-based system.
To overcome the bias produced by the small sample size used in this
study, large-scale tests using treated sludge samples more nearly typical of
the surface-to-volume relationships actually encountered in monofill (single
waste) landfill situations are needed. Such tests would give a more real-
istic estimate of treatment benefits. Intermittent saturation of the
treated samples should also be considered in any future testing.
Calculation of solidification/stabilization benefits should be based
upon the actual sludge solids incorporated into the treated sludge product
to separate the effects of simple dilution of the waste by the treatment
reagents from those actually produced by the treatment process. The esti-
mated cost of the treatment procedures and additives should also be taken
into consideration if adequate selection criteria are to be formulated.
6
-------
SECTION 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SLUDGE AND TREATMENT PROCESS SOURCES AND SELECTION
The industrial waste (IW) sludges used in this study are representative
of those IW denoted by the Environmental Protection Agency as having a high
probability of deleterious environmental effects. Their selection for this
study is based largely upon their toxic composition, easy availability, and
difficult handling and disposal characteristics. The sludges used represent
some of the most difficult wastes to contain. As such they are good candi-
dates for judging the effectiveness of the solidification/stabilization
techniques being evaluated in this study. As all of the selected sludges
are primarily inorganic in nature, the primary thrust of this work lies in
the measurement of losses of inorganic ions from the treated sludges to
leaching waters. This loss of inorganic constituents to surrounding ground
waters constitutes the major problem encountered in IW disposal (6).
The sludges were collected directly from industrial waste streams or
disposal sites in £he northeastern United States. At the time of collec-
tion, the sludges were being dewatered by ponding and disposed of without
further treatment. None of the wastes were being reclaimed.
Sludge Descriptions
The five sludges selected are inorganic sludges with dangerous levels
of toxic, heavy metals, and/or other leachable ions, but with only traces of
organic materials. All are difficult to dewater and represent problems for
disposal. High U. S. production levels and lack of reclamation facilities
placed these wastes in a category of problem sludges. A comparison of their
major characteristics and constituents, along with the identification number
used in this study, are shown in Table 1. All of the sludges have appreci-
able levels of calcium which come from neutralization processes and/or
treatment with lime to precipitate the heavy metals. The anions present at
high levels in all sludges are chloride and sulfate. All are alkaline and
have percent solids between 25 and 60.
The electroplating sludge (No. 200) contains waste from phosphatizing
and metal cleaning operations, and solids from the treatment of spent
plating liquors. The plating solutions containing chromates are acidified,
treated to reduce chromates to trivalent chromium with sulfur dioxide or
sodium metasulfite, and then raised to pH 8.0 with sodium or calcium hydrox-
ide to precipitate the trivalent chromium as Cr(0H)3. The cyanide plating
7
-------
TABLE 1. MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS AND CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF SLUDGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY
Sludge description
Ident. no.
this study
Annua 1
production
(metric
tons, wet)
%
Sol ids
Density
(kg/m3)
pH
Constituents
>10,000 mg/kg (dry)
Constituents
100-10,000 mg/kg (dry)
Constituents
1-100 mg/kg (dry)
Electroplating sludge
200
50
32
1266
7.6
Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, SO,,
Cl, Si *
Be, Cd, Pb, Mg, Mn,
Ni, Zn
As, Hg
Nicke1-Cadmium battery
300
100
40
1250
12.3
Ca, Ni, Cl, Si
Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb,
Mg, Mn, Zn
As, Hg
Pigment production sludge
700
17,000
25
1170
8.4
Ca, Cr, Fe, Pb,
Mg, S0A, Cl, Si
As, Cd , Cu , Mn , Ni,
Zn
"8
Chlorine production brine
800
3,000
59
1570
9.5
Ca, S0^, Cl, Si
Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni,
Zn, Hg
As, Cd, Cr, Pb
Glass etching sludge
900
2,000
47
1410
8.3
Ca, S0^, Cl, Si
Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn,
Ni, Zn
As, Cd, Cr, Hg
-------
liquors are treated with sodium hydroxide and chlorine gas or sodium hydro-
chlorite to oxidize the cyanide. The metals present, such as cadmium,
copper, and zinc, are precipitated as hydroxides. This sludge is quite
alkaline as a result of the addition of lime or caustic.
The nickel-cadmium battery production sludge (No. 300) is produced
during the precipitation of the nickel and cadmium from nitrates in forming
the electrodes for batteries. The precipitation takes place as the pH of
the solution of metal salts is raised to 11 or 12 with sodium hydroxide.
The excess Cd(0H)2 is washed off. This wash plus the material which is
remaining in suspension from the spent salt solution settle to form the
sludge. The pH of this sludge is very high—over 12. Although sludges 200
and 300 are produced in lower quantity than the other sludges, their high
heavy-metal-load makes the magnitude of their disposal problem comparable to
or even greater than the others.
The paint pigment sludge (No. 700) is produced in a waste treatment
system that neutralizes waste water with Ca(0H)2, and adds Na2S to precipi-
tate metals and a polymer to aid settling. Ferrous sulfate is then added to
remove excess sulfide and the waste water run through a clarifier to remove
solids. This sludge is also moderately alkaline and was the lowest percent
solids and"density of the five sludges. This sludge is produced in the
greatest volume of any of the sludges tested.
The chlorine production sludge (No. 800) consists primarily of material
present as impurities in rock salt, the salt is dissolved to form brine and
impurities (calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, and other less soluble mate-
rials) are left as a sludge in the brine saturator. This sludge constitutes
80 percent of the total chlor-alkali plant sludge. The additional 20 per-
cent is produced in treating the spent liquor from the mercury cell before
recycling. The blended sludge contains calcium sulfate and calcium carbon-
ate along with other metal carbonates and some sodium hydroxide. The pH of
the sludge is high due to the presence of NaOH. This sludge has the highest
percent solids and density.
The glass-etching sludge {No. 900) consists of solids from a neutrali-
zation and treatment plant. Calcium hydroxide is added to the wastewater and
a sludge forms that contains 20 percent Ca(0H)2, 8 percent calcium fluoride,
8 percent calcium silicates and silica, 3 percent calcium sulfate, and
2 percent aluminum oxide and hydroxide. Organic domestic wastes (3 percent)
and water comprise the remainder of the waste. The excess Ca(0H)2 added in
treatment keeps the pH high.
Selection of Sludge Processors
Four waste processors from the list provided by the EPA agreed to take
part in the test program on solidification/stabilization of the IW sludges
included in the study. The processors are identified only by letter
throughout this study to protect their anonymity. The processors and the
sludges they evaluated and/or treated are listed in Table 2.
9
-------
TABLE 2. LISTING OF IDENTIFICATION CODES OF PROCESSORS
THAT EVALUATED AND/OR TREATED EACH INDUSTRIAL
WASTE SLUDGE
Sludge Type
Identification
Number
This Study
Treated by
Processors
Electroplating
200
A,
B, C, D
Ni-Cd battery
300
A,
B, (C)*
Pigment production
700
c,
(A), (B)
Chlorine production brine
800
A,
B, (C)
Glass etching
900
A,
B, (C)
Note: Processors are listed by code letter only; a generic description
of each treatment process is given in the text.
* Parentheses indicates sludge evaluated by processor but not
treated for this study.
The processors were furnished a sample of each of the test sludges for
the purpose of optimizing their treatment system to each waste. This pre-
liminary evaluation allowed the processor to establish the best admixture
ratios and make preliminary leach and strength tests of their treated prod-
ucts. The results of these processor tests are discussed in the section on
stabilizing techniques. After this initial testing, processors A and B de-
clined to treat the pigment production (No. 700) sludge, and processor C de-
clined treatment of the Ni-Cd battery sludges (No. 300), the chlorine pro-
duction brine sludge (Nc. 800) and the glass etching sludge (No. 900). Pro-
cessor D initially agreed to treat all five waste types, but ultimately con-
fined its effort to only one sludge, the electroplating waste (No. 200), for
economic reasons.
STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES
Following the preliminary evaluation by the processors, the participat-
ing vendors in the program treated sludge samples for laboratory evaluation
10
-------
and physical testing at WES. This arrangement was made to allow WES project
personnel to observe the actual treatment procedure and to assist where
necessary in preparing test specimens. All solidification procedures in-
cluded within the program required a curing time for their product. At the
end of the curing time, the processors were invited to certify that the
treatment was adequate, and in some cases, to prepare additional samples for
testing.
Samples of the raw sludges obtained for this study were well mixed and
then split into several subsamples. One portion was used for preliminary
evaluation by the processors, a portion was used for raw sludge chemical and
physical testing, a portion was utilized for the actual sludge treatment,
and the remainder retained for supplementary testing. Sludge samples were
mixed in a large blade mixer in required batch sizes to insure uniformity.
Solidification/stabilization processes use£ in the project generated
products which could be classified into two specific groupings: the first
was a soil-like material which was highly variable in particle size; the
second was a solid, monolithic material. The procedures used for the
first group required pouring the treated sludge in square molds (122 x 122
* 9 cm). The molds were covered for curing. Physical testing was done on
square samples but the leached samples were broken into smaller sizes (about
5 cm in the largest dimension). These broken pieces were loaded into the
leaching columns without any bead-packing around the waste (see below). The
second group of samples (monoliths) was molded in 7.6 cm diameter, paraffin-
lined tubes which were 122 cm in length. Shorter tube lengths were used in
some cases for convenience. After curing, the tubes were removed and the
resultant solidified cores placed with packing beads in the leaching columns
for leach testing or subjected to physical testing. Any deviation from
these procedures is noted in the detailed description below.
The actual procedures used for solidification of the industrial waste
sludges are proprietary, but general comments can be made about each system.
All weights presented for sludges in the Table 3 and are wet weights and
weights for compounds used by the processors are given as supplied by the
individual processors.
Process A - Process A, which is patented, uses flyash and a lime addi-
tive to produce a pozzolan product. This processor treated all sludges ex-
cept 700. Bituminous flyash is used for the industrial sludges with the
amount of flyash added related to the amount of total solids in the waste
being treated. A final product with a high solids content (around 80 per-
cent) is considered optimum and dewatering the sludge often reduces the
amount of flyash required. All sludges that could be dewatered by settling
and decantation were dewatered at WES.
The sludge and fixation agents were mixed in a 0.14 cu m (5 cu ft)
mortar mixer. The fixed product was then placed into cylindrical molds,
covered, and allowed to cure for 30 days. Subsequent inspection of the
fixed specimens revealed that curing in the molds under dry conditions had
produced cracks, a situation which the processor felt was not representative
11
-------
of this process. Due to time limitations, a second solidification was per-
formed at the processor's laboratories. In this case, the specimens were
placed in shorter tubes (7.6 cm * 40.6 cm) and cured under humid conditions
to prevent cracking. The fixed specimens were then shipped to WES for chem-
ical and physical testing. This processor chose not to reveal the specific
additive to sludge ratios; however, the percentage of dry sludge solids for
each fixed specimen in presented in Table 3.
The small batch and mold size required for this study required mixes
slightly different from larger scale preparations. In a field scale opera-
tion, placement and consolidation of the sludges is commonly done with con-
struction equipment which requires a stiffer, lower moisture-content mix.
Process B - Process B, which is also patented, uses two additives to
produce a material of "soil-like" consistency. The relative proportions of
reagents in the final mix determines the physical properties of the treated
product. The consistency of the end product can be determined either by the
amount of reagents needed to effect pollutant immobilization, or by the
amount needed to effect a consistency necessary for the ultimate use of the
fixed sludge. In most cases for stabilizing waste for landfill disposal, an
soil-like material, which is most economical end product, is produced.
The sludge was mixed in 35 to 50 liter batches using an industrial pro-
peller mixer. This provided mixing equivalent to that produced by the pro-
cessor's equipment which includes an aerated, continuously stirred reactor
and a series of recirculating and transfer pumps designed to provide com-
plete mixing of the sludge and reagents. A type of cement was added at a
rate proportional to the weight of the sludge. Then a soluble silicate was
added slowly to the mixture and the mixture blended until uniform. Finally,
lime was added when necessary to raise the pH to around 7. Molds 122 cm
square by 9 cm high were used to hold the fixed sludge for curing. A poly-
ethylene cover was put over the samples during the 12-day curing period to
prevent excessive drying. The fixed specimens were broken into irregular
chunks, 2 to 5 cm in dimensions and placed in the leaching columns without
compaction. All sludges except No. 700 were treated. The percent dry
sludge solids, weight of sludge loaded in the column, and the weight of dry
sludge in the column for the four sludges fixed are given in Table 3.
Process C - Process C uses an organic resin, urea-formaldehyde plus a
catalyst solution (sodium bisulfate) in a polymerization process. Cross-
linking of sludge and resin mix requires an acidic medium which is provided
by addition of NaHSO^. For this study the reagents were manually mixed with
the sludge using a paddle stirrer. The mixture was immediately poured into
cylindrical molds and allowed to cure. Fixation was performed on sludges
No. 200 and No. 700 only and the formulations used appear in Table 3.
Process D - Process D is an encapsulation method utilizing a resin to
form an agglomerate with the waste. This solid product is subsequently sur-
rounded by a 0.64 cm plastic jacket which is fused to the agglomerate. The
process requires a dry residue for treatment which was provided by WES to
12
-------
TABLE 3. FORMULATION AND LEACHING COLUMN LOADING FOR INDUSTRIAL-SLUDGES
Sludge Number
% Dry
sludge solids
in product
Wt fixed product
in column (g)
Wt dry
solids
sludge (g)
in column
Untreated
sludges
200R
37
12305
4510
300R
45
13800
6150
700R
41
11720
4830
800R
61-
15480
9500
900R
47
13950
6570
Processor A
200A
25
7385
1850
300A
21
8500
1785
800A
41
8390
3440
900A
37
7060
2610
Processor B
200B
33
7260
2370
300B
40
8135
3260
800B
55
9360
5180
900B
—
—
—
Processor C
200C
25
6410
1570
700C
26
5590
1440
Processor D
200D
50
2505
1250
13
-------
the processor's laboratory. Actual treatment was performed at the proces-
sor's facility because of the specialized equipment needed to solidify and
encapsulate the samples." Only samples of the electroplating sludge
(No. 200) were treated using this process. The finished product was an
agglomerate containing 96-97 percent dry sludge and 3-4 percent treatment
reagent (organic binder) inside a 0.6 cm polyethylene jacket.
The encapsulated samples provided to WES were cylindrical in shape,
7.6 cm in diameter and 10.2 cm in height; each contained approximately 250 g
of dry residue. These cylinders were used as received for all chemical and
physical testing.
Photographs of untreated and treated sludge samples are shown in Fig-
ures 1 to 5. The treated sludges appear in the form in which they were
loaded into the leaching columns. Note that Processes A, C, and D produced
excellent cylindrical shapes. The material from Process B is shown in
chunks as broken from the large samples supplied by the vendor.
The primary concern in ultimate disposal of hazardous industrial
sludges is the rate of pollutant migration into the groundwater around the
wastes. Therefore, the leaching columns used in this experiment are de-
signed to simulate leaching from sludges buried in a saturated, unlined
landfill. This leaching test is aimed at measuring the rate of pollutant
movement into an aqueous medium under conditions simulating those encoun-
tered in the field.
The materials chosen for construction of the columns were those con-
sidered to be inert with respect to the test specimen and leachates. Be-
cause adequate information was not available regarding pollutant interaction
with materials in this study, only the highest grade plastics were chosen
for construction materials.
The leaching columns (Figure 6) were made from 152.A cm lengths of
10.2 cm (inside diameter) plexiglass pipe. The inlet port was located
19.0 cm below the top of the column, providing space for a fluid head of
2.5 cm on top of the sample. The tops of the columns were covered to mini-
mize contamination by dust from the air. The volume of these columns is
approximately 10 1. The columns were sealed with a Teflon stopcock at the
lower end and contained a perforated plate above the stopcock, leaving a
2.5 cm deep collecting well. The Teflon stopcock served as an outlet port
for collection of leachate. A 7.6 cm layer of 0.65 cm diameter polypropylene
pellets was placed in the bottom of the columns to slow movement of the
sludge into the collection system. Flow through the column was regulated by
the Teflon stopcock to maintain a fluid velocity of approximately 1
x 10 5 cm/sec (to simulate the leachate flow-rate through a fine sand).
Leachate was allowed to drain into 4.5 1 polypropylene containers which were
covered with plastic film to keep out dust.
The solidified sludges which set up into a definite physical shape and
demonstrated structural rigidity were molded into 7.6 cm diameter cylinders
121.9 cm in length. These samples were placed into the leaching columns and
14
-------
SLUDGE NO.
PROCESS A
PROCESS C
1
Figure 1. Untreated (raw) and solidified electroplating wastes (No. 200).
15
-------
SLUDGE NO
3
Figure 2. Untreated (raw) and solidified Ni-Cd battery sludge (No. 300).
16
-------
RAW SLUDGE PROCESS C
Figure 3. Untreated (raw) and solidified pigment production
sludge (No. 700).
17
-------
m '
ST"'
RAW SLUDGE
PROCESS B
Figure 5. Untreated (raw) and solidified glass etching
sludge (No. 900).
19
-------
1.59 cm
CAP
\\
w
18.26 cm
,79 cm OD
152.4cm
64 cm Plexiglass
NOTE' ALL JOINTS ANOSEAMS CEMENTED
10.16 cm
27crr
4.45 cm
79 cm
64 cm
TEFLON
STOPCOCK
DETAIL A
Figure 6. Leaching column design and detail.
20
-------
the space between the sludge and the column wall (1.25 cm) filled with poly-
propylene pellets. This created a dispersed flow around the outside of the
solidified waste similar to field conditions. The solidified sludges which
could not be molded into the cylindrical shape were broken into smaller
pieces as previously described and loaded into the columns. The raw sludges
were poured into the columns in a slurry. In all cases, leaching fluid was
backflooded into the columns from the bottom to remove any air spaces, and
the specimens were maintained in a saturated flowing condition. All sample
columns were set up in triplicate, one of which was selected for special
low-level analysis of heavy metals in the leachate. The selected columns
are referred to as priority columns.
The leaching fluid used in the experiments was deionized water satu-
rated with C02 which had a pH 4.5-5.0. All materials used in the leach
fluid distribution system were either polypropylene or Teflon to minimize
any contamination of the leaching fluid during the experiment. The leaching
columns were randomly assigned within a rack system (see Figure 7). Leach-
ing fluid for each rack of columns (30 columns per rack) was fed from a con-
stant head reservoir which was connected to a main reservoir of C02~purged
leaching fluid.
Figure 7. Leaching columns in place in racks.
21
-------
Two types of experimental controls were incorporated into the leaching
test. One type of control consisted of columns of raw sludges which were
leached in the same fashion as the treated sludges. The second type of
control utilized leaching columns with only the polypropylene beads. The
leaching fluid was sampled periodically and corrections made for any back-
ground effects of the leaching fluid, polypropylene and column apparatus.
Prior to loading the columns with samples, all materials were washed
with a laboratory detergent and rinsed with diluted HC1. The entire leach-
ing apparatus was preleached for one week at the design flow rate. No
provisions were made to retard biological activity within the leaching
apparatus.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
All samples of leachate from the columns were collected in A.5 1 plas-
tic bottles. After the pH and conductivity and volume was measured at each
sampling time, the samples were split into aliquots of appropriate size.
Each aliquot was preserved as required for each set of analysis as described
in Table 4. All samples were held at 4°C until analyzed. For samples of
volume too small to make all analyses, subsamples were first made for metal
analysis, then anion and cyanide analysis, and then total organic carbon and
chemical oxygen demand. Specific analyses made for nonmetal parameters and
their limits of detection are listed in Table 5. Of the three replicate
columns for each sludge type and solidification process, one was selected at
random for high-resolution metal analysis (priority column). The remaining
two replicates were analyzed using low resolution metal analysis (flame
atomic absorption). The limits of detections for these two levels of analy-
tical techniques are shown in Table 6. These parameters were selected to
describe the chemical properties of the treated and untreated sludge column
leachates and included all pollutants of specific interest.
TABLE 4. SAMPLE PRESERVATION FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS*
Parameter
Method
Metals (cations)
Ultrex nitric acid
Cyanide
Sodium hydroxide
Total organic carbon
Hydrochloric acid
Chemical oxygen demand
Sulfuric acid
Anions
None
* From Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, No. EPA-625/6-74-003, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1974.
22
-------
TABLE 5. METHOD OF ANALYSIS FOR ANIONS AND OTHER PARAMETERS
AND THEIR LIMITS OF DETECTION
Parameter
Method of Analyses
Limit of
Detection (ppm)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Dohrmann DC-50, Carbon
Analyzer*
1
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Technicon Analyzer**
5
Chloride
Manual Titration**
5
Cyanide
Technicon Analyzert
0.01
Mercury
Zeeman Atomic Absorption
0.002
Nitrite-N
Technicon Analyzer*,**
0.01
Nitrate-N
Technicon Analyzer*,**
0.01
Sulfate
UV-Visible Spectroscopy*,**
8
Sulfite
Manual Titration*,**
3
* Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-625/6-74-003,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1974.
** Standard Methods for the Examination of Wastewater, 13Ed, Am. Public
Health Assoc., Washington, D. C. 1971.
t Cyanide in Water and Wastewater, Technicon Industrial Method No. 315—
74W, Technicon, Comp., 1974.
23
-------
TABLE 6. LIMITS OF DETECTION FOR METALS IN LOW RESOLUTION SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY FLAME ATOMIC ABSORPTION AND HIGH RESOLUTION
SAMPLES ANALYZED BY HEATED-GRAPHITE-ATOMIZER ATOMIC
ABSORPTION
Metal Low Resolution (ppm) High Resolution (ppm)*
As 2.0 0.005
Be 0.05 0.005
Ca 0.2 **
Cd 0.05 0.003
Cr 0.5 0.003
Cu 0.2 0.003
Fe 0.3 0.003
Pb 1.0 0.002
Mg 0.02 **
Mn 0.1 0.002
Ni 0.3 0.005
Se 1.0 0.005
Zn * 0.014
* High resolution analysis was made only for samples from "priority
columns." See text.
** None reported.
24
-------
Leachate samples were collected from each of the columns at logarithmic
time intervals for a minimum of one year. Twelve samples were taken at 7,
14, 21, 28, 42, 56, 86, 116, 146, 206, 266, and 365 days. This sampling
schedule was selected as the best fit of leaching column performance as pre-
dicted by mass transport theory (7). Mass transport theory specifies a dif-
fusion mechanisms between the material surface and the leaching solution.
Although other reactions are occurring, the data represent an "effective"
diffusivity for a given pollutant. Leaching systems are generally charac-
terized by a stable or decreasing leach loss rate which approaches some
limiting value usually near zero. For this reason, the initial sampling
periods were deemed more critical and the columns were sampled using loga-
rithmic sampling intervals.
An extensive quality control program was implemented to assure preci-
sion and accuracy within the analytical program. Internal, intralaboratory
and extralaboratory procedures were used. The internal program included
replicate determinations and spiked additions to representative samples; the
intralaboratory program used spiked and reference samples within the column
leachate samples; and the extralaboratory program was coordinated between
the Analytical Laboratory Group of WES and the USEPA in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The extralaboratory program primarily concentrated on metals since they rep-
resent the major group of pollutants in the project.
25
-------
SECTION 5
PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF TREATED AND
UNTREATED INDUSTRIAL WASTES
A description of laboratory tests used to determine the physical prop-
erties of treated and untreated industrial sludges, and the results of those
tests, are the subject of a separate report (8) and are only summarized
here.
Tests commonly used in determining the properties of soil and concrete
were performed on treated and untreated sludges to determine their physical
and engineering properties. The use of standard tests allowed comparison of
sludge properties with those of common industrial and construction materials
whose properties are described in the literature. The treatment processes
used produced solidified wastes with three different characteristics; Pro-
cess B produced treated materials which were similar in appearance to ce-
mented soil, Processes A and C resulted in hard materials resembling low
strength concrete, and Process D coated the solidified sludges with a plas-
tic jacket so that many of the physical properties tests were not applicable
to it. Procedures used to test treated and untreated sludges were selected
on the basis of the appearance of the materials (i.e., soil-like or solid).
The testing schedule is shown in Table 7. Standard test procedures were
modified as necessary to prevent the alteration of sludge properties during
testing and to accomodate the non-standard test specimens. Specific devia-
tions from standard procedures are described where appropriate.
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TESTS AND RESULTS
Grain Size Analysis
The particle-size distributions of samples of untreated sludges were
determined by two grain-size analysis tests and these results were combined.
A sieve analysis was performed on that fraction of each sludge sample larger
than 0.074 mm (No. 200 sieve), and a hydrometer analysis was performed on
the finer fraction. Test procedures are described in Appendix V of Engi-
neering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1906 (see Reference 9) and in the American So-
ciety of Materials (ASTM) Standard Test D422-63 (see Reference 10). Samples
for grain-sized distribution testing were prepared in accordance with the
specifications of ASTM D421-58. The grain-size distributions are presented
in Figures 8 to 11, as grain-size in millimeters versus percent fines by
weight.
26
-------
TABLE 7. TEST SCHEDULE FOR TREATED AND UNTREATED
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGES
Untreated
Treatment
Processes*
Type of Test
Sludges
A
B
C D ~
Grain-size analysis
X
X
Specific gravity of solids
X
X
X
X X
Water Content
X
X
X
X X
Bulk and dry unit weight
X
X
X
X X
Porosity and void ratio
X
X
X
X X
Liquid limit
X
X
Plastic limit
X
X
15-blow compaction test
X
X
Unconfined compression test
X
X
X X
Permeability test
X
X
X
X X
Freeze-thaw test
X
X
X X
Wet-dry test
X
X
X X
* The sludge types treated by each processor are listed in Table 2.
27
-------
80ST0N CLUf CL*r.
u..y
i—
- ; \
SLUDGE 200
Figure 8. Grain-size distribution for untreated
electroplating (No. 200) sludge.
803r0N 8i.l>£ CLAY
5
I
i
i
s
c
I-
SLUDGE 300
Figure 9. Grain-size distribution for untreated Ni-Cd
battery (No. 300) sludge.
28
-------
OTTAWA
CLAV fCU.
? ^ 1.900
MT(*U
SLUDGE flOQ
Figure 10. Grain-size distribution for untreated chlorine
production sludge (No. 800).
r-r —
505TON BLUE CLAY
OTTAWA SAND
5
i
r
5
c
ff '900
SLWQE 900
Figure 11. Grain—size distribution for untreated glass
etching sludge (No. 900).
29
-------
Median grain-sizes of the untreated IW sludges, as determined by the
grain-size analysis, ranged uniformly between 0.015 and 0.044 mm. The
sludges were generally well-graded with a continuous distribution of grain-
sizes. A high-percentage of particles of the untreated sludges (90 percent
or greater in all IW sludges, except sludge No. 300) passed the No. 200
sieve (0.074 mm) indicative of materials displaying low permeability, low
strength, and high compressibility.
Specific Gravity of Solids
Specific gravity of solids for treated and untreated sludges is defined
as the ratio of the unit weight of the dry sludge solids to the unit weight
of water. The test procedures used to determine the specific gravity are
given in Appendix IV of EM 1110-2-1906 (9) and in ASTM D854-58 (10). Tests
were first performed using an oven at a drying temperature of 110 + 5°C.
However, due to loss of water of hydration at this temperature, tests were
repeated using a drying oven temperature of 60°C.
The specific gravities of treated and untreated IW sludges are pre-
sented in Table 8. Values varied from 2.41 to 3.96—a range extending some-
what higher than that of typical soils. In general, the various treatment
processes caused only slight changes in specific gravity. Process A re-
sulted in lower specific gravity values for all sludges treated. Process B
caused small and variable changes, resulting in values both slightly higher
and lower than the values of corresponding untreated sludges. Process C
reduced the specific gravity of sludges No. 200 and No. 700 significantly —
TABLE 8. SPECIFIC GRAVITIES OF TREATED AND UNTREATED
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGES
Specific Gravity
Sludge
Number
Untreated
Treatment
Process
A
B
C
D
200
2.70
2.49
2.73
1.77
1.18*
300
3.96
2.71
3.68
NT
NT
700
•3.09
NT**
NT
1.74
NT
800
2.82
2.67
2.84
NT
NT
900
2.76
2.58
2.73
NT
NT
* Bulk specific gravity of entire cylinder of fixed sludge,
including plastic coating and voids within sludge structure.
** NT = sludge not treated by that processor. See Table 2.
30
-------
values being 34 percent and 51 percent lower respectively than those of the
corresponding raw sludges. The use of dried sludges by Process D is indi-
cated in its lower specific gravity product. This effect is caused by voids
in the dried sludge. In general, changes in specific gravity did not seem
to be dependent on the type of sludge being treated.
Water Content (Dry Weight Basis)
The water content of the sludge sample is defined as the ratio of the
weight of water to the weight of solids in the sample and is normally ex-
pressed as a percentage. Calculated in this way, it is termed "dry-weight-
basis water content". The values of water content for treated sludges were
determined by the method presented in Appendix I of EM 1110-2-1906 (9) and
in ASTM D2216-71 (10). Sludge samples of known weight were oven-dried at
60°C to constant weight. The weight loss upon drying was attributed to loss
of interstitial water.
The water content of samples of treated sludge are listed in Table 9.
These data indicate that the relative amount of interstitial water available
after treatment is greatly process-dependent. Sludge treated by Process B
exhibited values of water content comparable to those of natural soils.
Process A produced treated products with a wide range of properties, but
mostly resembling concrete with low interstitial-water content. Process C
final products, being plastic or rubber-like masses, had relatively high
water content, but the conventional dry-weight-basis water content determi-
nation has little meaning for such materials. The water content of the
sludge portion of the electroplating sludge (No. 200) treated by Processor D
was unknown because the plastic coating on the sample prevented the escape
of water from within the sludge mass, but its low density implies that it
had a relatively high void ratio and lower water content.
Bulk and Dry Unit Density
The bulk weight of a sludge sample is defined as the ratio of total
weight (solids and water) to total volume. Dry unit weight is defined as
the ratio of oven-dried (60°C) weight to total volume. The standard proce-
dures for both tests are found in Appendix II of EM 1110-2-1906 (10). Vol-
umes were computed using linear measurements of a regularly shaped mass
obtained by trimming or cutting.
The bulk unit weight and oven dry unit weights of the treated sludges
are presented in Table 9. Process B and C yielded materials whose bulk
weight values were in the range of soils and whose bulk weight and dry unit
weight values differed, as would those of soils. Process A resulted in
materials having small differences between bulk weight and dry unit weight.
These small differences reflect the lower water content of these fixed
sludges. The two values obtained for sludge No. 200 were identical because
of plastic coating prevented water from escaping from within the sludge mass
during drying.
31
-------
TABLE 9. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF TREATED SLUDGES
Sludge
Number
Water
Content
%
Bulk*
Unit
Weight
(kg/m3)
Dry
Unit
Weight
(kg/m3)
Void
Ratio
Porosity
%
Process
A
200A
29.7
1610
1240
1.008
50.2
3 00A
20.6
1670
1380
0.963
49.0
8 00A
15.8
1650
1420
0.881
46.8
900A
20.9
1380
1070
1.418
58.7
Process
B
200B
83.6
1400
760
2.595
72.2
300B
97.2
1495
760
3.857
79.4
800B
30.3
1700
1304
1.181
54.1
900B
63.3
1380
850
2.225
69.0
Process
C
200C
43.2
1210
845
1.097
52.3
700C
45.6
1050
725
1.409
58.5
Process
D
200D
**
1180
1180
**
**
Note: Tests conducted using 60°C oven for drying. All values represent
average of three samples.
* Sample air-dried prior to determination of unit weight.
** The water content, void ratio and porosity of sample 200D could
not be determined because the sample was sealed in plastic.
Porosity and Void Ratio
The void ratio of a sludge sample is defined as the ratio of the volume
of voids to the volume of solids and is normally expressed as a fraction.
Porosity is defined as the ratio of the volume of void to the total volume
and is expressed as a percentage. Standard test procedures for determining
these parameters is found in Appendix II of EM 1110-2-1906 (9).
The values of void ratio and porosity of the treated sludges is also
presented in Table 9. Processes A and C produced treated materials whose
void ratio varied between 0.88 and 1.42 which corresponds with porosities of
between 37 and 50 percent. These values are comparable to values expected
from fine sands, silts, and silty clays. Process B treated materials showed
higher values more in the range of values for soils with increasing amounts
of clay particles. No determinations were made from the materials produced
32
-------
by Process D as its impervious plastic jacket precluded valid tests.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limit tests were performed on samples of treated and un-
treated IW sludges to determine the plasticity of the materials. The tests
were designed to determine the limiting water contents (plastic limit (PL)
and liquid limit (LL)) at which the material exhibits plastic and liquid
behavior. Plasticity index (PI), or range of water contents at which the
samples exhibit plastic behavior, is defined as a difference between LL and
PL and is normally expressed as a percentage. Test procedures for determin-
ing the PL and LL are presented in Appendix III and IIIA of EM 1110-2-1906
(9) and ASTM Standard Test D424-59 and D423-66 (10). The PL is defined as
the dry weight water content at which the sludge would start to crumble when
rolled into a l/8th-inch thread under the palm of the hand. The LL is de-
fined as the lowest water content of which two halves of a soil specimen
separated by a groove of standard dimension will close along a distance of
one-half inch under the impact of 25 blows of the standard device.
The Atterberg limits of the five untreated IW sludges and the four
sludges treated by Process B were determined. Values for LL, PL, and PI are
listed in Table 10. Treatment Process B increased the LL and PI values of
the sludge in some cases and decreased them in others. Evaluation of the
data indicates a general decrease in plasticity due to this treatment
process.
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES TESTS AND RESULTS
Compaction Test
A 15-blow compaction test was performed on treated sludge samples to
determine the optimum water content for compaction and the unit weights
which would be expected from field compaction of the treated sludge in a
landfill. The test procedure is given in Appendix IV of EM 1110-2-1906 (9)
and is identical with procedure of ASTM D698-70 (10) except that only 15
blows were used to compact each layer. A standard mold was filled as pre-
scribed with three layers of treated sludge, each of which was compacted
with 15 uniformly distributed blows using a 2.27 kg hammer with a 30.5 cm
draw. Following compaction, the dry unit weight and dry weight basis water
content were measured. The total process was repeated using different water
contents until the water content at maximum compaction was determined. The
test as described, simulates the compactive effort available when the
sludges are placed in a landfill using typically available compacting equip-
ment such as bulldozers. The total compactive effort of this test procedure
is equivalent to 3.5 x 106 N-m/m3.
Only sludges stabilized by Process B were amenable to this testing
procedure. Values found for dry unit weight and optimum water content for
these sludges are shown in Table 11. Optimum water content ranged from 37
to 73 percent for sludges treated by Process B. These values are well above
those of typical soils.
33
-------
TABLE 10. ATTERBERG LIMITS OF UNTREATED SLUDGES AND
THOSE TREATED BY PROCESS B
Liquid
Plastic
Plastic
Limit
Limit
Index
Sludge
(%)
(%>
(%)
Untreated Sludges
200R
107
58
49
300R
50
37
13
700R
201
109
92
800R
37
30
7
900R
NP*
NP
NP
Process B Treated Sludges
200B
98
76
22
300B
NP
NP
NP
800B
38
33
5
900B
51
47
4
* NP = non-plastic
TABLE 11. CHANGES IN DRY UNIT WEIGHT AFTER COMPACTION AT
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT OF SLUDGES TREATED BY
PROCESS B
Dry Unit Weight (60° oven)
Maximum Optimum
Without After Due to Water
Sludge Compaction Compaction* Compaction Content
Number (Kg/m3) (Kg/m3) (Kg/m3) %
200B 760 810 +50 73
300B 760 1225 +465 46
800B 1310 1195 -115 37
900B 850 965 +115 51
* 15-blow compaction test (3.5 * ]06 N-m/m3 compactive effort).
34
-------
Unconfined Compression Test
The unconfined compression test was used to determine the uniaxial, un-
confined compressive strength of cohesive or cemented materials. A cylin-
drical specimen of treated sludge was prepared and loaded axially until
failure. The peak compressive stress sustained by the material was consid-
ered the unconfined compressive strength of the material. The modulus of
elasticity was determined from composite stress-strain diagrams constructed
from the multiple compression test. The procedures used followed Appen-
dix XII of EM 1110-2-1906 (9) and ASTM Standard Method D 2166-66 (10) except
that a specimen height-to-diameter ratio of 2.0 was used instead of the
prescribed 2.1 ratio.
The unconfined compressive strength varied significantly between the
different treatment processes (Table 12). Process B produced material with
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTS FOR
TREATED INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGES
Sludge
and
Process
Initial
Dry Unit
Weight
(Kg/m3)
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(N/cm2)
Youngs
Modulus of
Elasticity
(N/cm2)
Process A
200A
1250
53
1.00 x 104
300A
1400
117
1.76 x ioA
800A
1435
92
1.59 x 104
900A
1150
18
1.61 x 103
Process B
200B
980
22
1.09 x io3
300B
1210
5.5
2.49 x io2
800B
1360
15
8.48 x io2
900B
1010
17
8.00 x io2
Process C
200C
855
515
5.31 x 104
700C
730
210
2.39 x io4
Process D
200D
1120
1065
1.32 x io5
35
-------
unconfined compressive strengths between 5.5 and 22 N/cm2 which is in the
same range as cohesive or cemented soils. Process A produced material more
typical of low-strength, soil-cement mixtures (18 to 117 N/cm2). Process C
treated products had higher strength nearing that of low-strength concrete
(200 to 500 N/cm2). The high value of unconfined compressive strengths
found for plastic encapsulated sample (No. 200D) is indicative only of
samples with the same configuration (i.e., cyclinders 6.7 cm in diameter by
10.2 cm high) due to its composite structure.
The ratio of stress to strain, Young's Modulous of elasticity are also
presented in Table 12. Sludges treated by Process B showed moduli of elas-
ticity about two orders of magnitude less than other treated materials
as would be expected for a low strength, soil-like material. Other treated
products had elasticity values similar to those of low-strength concrete.
Permeability Tests
The permeability of the treated and untreated sludges were determined
by two, common falling-head permeability-tests—the untreated sludges were
tested using an open vessel with a 20 cm head while the treated sludges were
tested in a triaxial compression chamber with back pressure of 6.9 N/cm to
insure complete saturation. These two testing procedures have been exten-
sively described in an earlier report (8).
The untreated sludges had very low permeabilities (from -x 10"5 to
6.5 x 10~6 cm/sec) as might be expected from their very fine grain texture.
A summary of the falling head permeability test for these sludges is shown
in Table 13. The chlorine production brine (No. 800) had the highest per-
cent solids and dry unit weight, the lowest void ratio and one of the high-
est permeabilities. The permeabilities of the other IW sludges were gener-
ally less than about 1 * 10'5 cm/sec. This permeability is equivalent to
water movement of only about 0.5 cm per week. These tests were run on newly
poured sludges which had been giving only enough settling time to give
short-time constant permeability results. The sludges would be expected to
densify to a greater (and unknown) extent with a concommitant further de-
crease in permeability as is indicated by the efforts of short-term vibrat-
ing given in the second set of data in Table 13.
The results of permeability tests on the treated sludge samples are
given in Table 1A. All treatments greatly increased the solids and dry unit
weight of the sludges, producing a denser solid with lower water content and
void ratio as might be expected. However, Processes A and B produced no
consistent change of permeability from that of the untreated sludge. Each
reduced the permeability of two of the sludges of one treatment (not the
same in all cases), but increased, or did not affect, the permeability of
the other two sludges. Process C increased the permeability of both treated
sludges by over two orders of magnitude, the treated sludges having perme-
ability more than 100 times those of the untreated sludges.
Results of laboratory determinations of permeability measured on
treated sludge samples are only valid under field conditions where the
36
-------
TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF FALLING-HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST DATA
FOR UNTREATED INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGES
Sludge
Number
Percent
Solids
(%)
Water
Content*
(%)
Dry
Unit
Weight
(Kg/m3)
Void
ratio
Coefficient of
Permeability**
(cm/sec)
200R
33
194
455
4.9
3.1 x 10~6
39
153
510
4.3
1.2 x 10~6
300R
43
132
710
4.6
5.7 x 10-6
46
116
890
3.5
1.3 x 10~6
700R
36
171
450
5.9
6.5 x 10-6
45
119
545
4.7
3.3 x 10~6
800R
60
66
1035
1.7
(No data)
62
61
1185
1.4
8.1 x io"5
900R
43
128
760
2.6
3.5 x 10"5
50
98
860
2.2
2.8 x io-5
Note: All drying done in 60°C oven. Two sets of data for each sludge—
samples were tested after settling then vibrated (densified)«and
retested (lower values).
* Dry weight basis.
** Corrected for water at 20°C.
37
-------
TABLE 14. SUMMARY OF FALLING-HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST DATA
FOR TREATED INDUSTRIAL WASTE SLUDGES
Sludge
Number
Percent
Solids
(%)
Water
Content*
a)
Dry
Unit
Weight
(Kg/m3)
Void
ratio
Coefficient of
Permeability**
(cm/sec)
Process
A
200A
71.4
40.6
1185
1.12
4.0
X
10 7
300A
82.0
22.4
1365
1.01
1.9
X
I0'b
800A
77.0
30.2
1335
1.02
8.5
X
10'7
90 OA
83.0
19.5
1100
1.37
3.8
X
io"5
Process
B
200B
64.6
55.6
855
2.21
1.1
X
io~3
300B
69.5
43.7
1190
2.12
2.0
X
io"4
800B
71.4
39.9
1155
1.48
3.6
X
io"5
900B
66.7
49.8
995
1.77
8.7
X
io"6
Process
C
200C
65.7
52.1
620
1.88
1.1
X
io-4
700C
60.6
64.7
590
1.93
1.6
X
io'A
Note: All drying done in 60° C oven.
* Dry weight basis.
** Corrected for water at 20°C.
38
-------
treated materials have not cracked or disintegrated and are fully saturated
with leaching media. Cracking or spalling greatly increases the permeabil-
ity of the sample as well as the surface area exposed. Complete saturation
of the solidified sludges requires an extremely large hydrostatic pressure
(head) or a very long time and may never be completed under actual field
conditions. Incomplete saturation lowers the effected permeability of the
sample so that, in this regard, the values given are "worst case" as far as
saturation is concerned.
Durability Tests
The long-term physical stability of these solidified sludges was evalu-
ated using two standard ASTM tests commonly used to estimate the durability
of soil cement mixtures—the freeze-thaw and the wet-dry testing procedures.
Although treated sludges disposed of properly in landfills are placed above
the water table and below the frost line, these are thought to be reliable
tests of the overall durability of the treated sludge samples even though
they may represent "worst case" or unusual situations.
Freeze-Thaw Test
Properly cured solidified sludge samples were subjected to the standard
freezing and thawing tests of compacted soil-cement mixtures, ASTM test
D560-57 (10). This test consists of 12 test cycles of 24 hours freezing of
a standard cylindrical sample, followed by thawing for 23 hours and two firm
strokes on all surfaces with a wire scratch brush. Performance is evaluated
by determining the weight loss after 12 cycles, , or the number of cycles to
disintegration, which ever occurs first.
Of the samples tested only one, the plastic encapsulated sample of
sludge No. 200 by Process D, survived the 12 test cycles. All other tested
samples disintegrated before 12 test cycles were completed, 62 percent after
only two test cycles. Evidently none of the processes used in this study
were designed to withstand freezing conditions on the assumption that such
circumstances might never be encountered if the treated wastes are disposed
of properly.
Wet-Dry Test
A much less severe durability test which is similar to the freeze-thaw
test is the standard ASTM wet-dry test as detailed in ASTM D 559-57 (10).
This is the standard wetting and drying test for soil-cement mixtures.
Cured cylinders of treated sludges are again subjected to 12 test cycles,
each consisting of 5 hours submergence in water, 42 hours of oven drying
(60eC) and two firm strokes on all surfaces with a wire scratch brush.
Again test results are presented as weight loss after 12 complete cycles, or
the number of cycles to disintegration, whichever occurs first.
Sludge treatment did not produce a product capable of undergoing 12
freeze-thaw or wet-dry cycles. Indeed, over half of all specimens treated
39
-------
disintegrated after one' or two cycles and except for the plastic encapsu-
lated samples of the electroplating sludge (No. 200D), no sample tested held
up over 9 full cycles, 70 percent disintegrating on the second cycle. Pro-
cess A produced samples with the greatest durability. Process B, which pro-
duced a soil-like product, disintegrated consistently after only one or two
cycles; but its products were not representative of durable solids. Both
solidified sludges (No. 200 and No. 700) treated by Process C were unusual
in that they both survived nearly 12 cycles of freeze-thaw tests but dis-
integrated after only one wet-dry cycle, which is considered to be the
milder test.
SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES TESTS
The industrial waste sludges selected for this study are typical of the
wide array of waste streams common in many manufacturing processes. Their
solids content averages around 50 percent solids. Further dewatering is
difficult and expensive since their median grain size averages about 25 mi-
crons and their specific gravities range from 2.70 to 3.96; the sludges con-
sist of small, heavy, hydrophilic particles which settle only slowly and are
easily resuspended. Another important aspect of this composition is the low
permeabilities of the raw sludges even after short-term settling. Further
decreases in permeability of the undisturbed sludge upon standing would be
expected since even brief densification by vibration decreased the perme-
ability of all the sludges by an average of 50 percent, and also decreased
the void ratio and water content. These sludges have poor handling charac-
teristics since they are largely liquid in nature and even after extensive
settling or dewatering remain thixotrophic and unable to carry loads.
The solidification/stabilization processes which treated the IW sludges
all produced distinct types of products: Process A produced a solid, mono-
lithic mass which resembled slow-strength concrete; Process B, a soil like
product which remained soft and friable and had a soil-like consistency;
Process C, a rubber-like solid; and Process D, a solid, plastic-coated pro-
duct which had properties quite different from the other treatment systems.
Sludges fixed by Process B, because of the soil-like nature, were ameniable
to several of the tests made on the untreated sludges such as grain size
analysis, Atterberg limits, changes in dry unit weight due to compaction,
and optimum water content.
Process B had little effect on the median grain size after disaggre-
gation—two of the sludges (No. 200 and No. 800) had identical median grain
sizes while two had slightly increased median grain sizes (No. 300 and
No. 900) after treatment. No consistent changes in the liquid or plastic
limits of the plastic index were noted which could be related to the treat-
ment process. The optimum water content of wastes treated by Process B as
determined by the compaction tests were generally higher or equal to values
commonly recorded for typical soils.
The specific gravity of the IW sludges was not changed materially by
either Process A or Process B—the treated sludges had a range of specific
gravities of 2.49 to 3.68 compared to 2.70 to 3.96 for the untreated sludge.
40
-------
The urea-formaldehyde treatment process (C) produced solids with specific
gravities of 1.74 and 1.77 for the two sludges treated—a little over half
of that of comparable untreated sludges. Process D, which encapsulated the
solidified and dried sludge No. 200, produced a product with a specific
gravity near that of water (1.18)—by far the lowest of any treatment tech-
nique. The contained dry sludge must have a high void ratio to have such a
low specific gravity.
Physical properties of the treated sludges produced by Process B were
typical of a soil or soil-cement mixture. They had a high water content,
and high void ratio and porosity. Sludges treated by Process A exhibited
the lowest water content and void ratios and porosities as might be expected
of low-strength concrete. Two sludges treated by Process C were interme-
diate in properties.
This same pattern is found in the results of the engineering properties
testing. Process B products have unconfined compressive strengths averaging
14.8 N/cm2 while the average for Process A products is 70 N/cm2. Products
produced by Process B also have moduli of elasticity one to two orders of
magnitude less than all other treated sludge. The permeability of the IW
sludges are generally increased by treatment by Process A but are generally
decreased by treatment by Processes B and C.
All treated sludges (except the plastic-coated samples) were suscept-
able to freeze-thaw and wet-dry damage—very few staying intact through more
than 1 or 2 cycles. An exception was those sludges treated by Process C
which, although susceptible to wet-dry cycles, withstood up to 14 freeze-
thaw cycles without damage. The lack of durability might not be surprising
since these processes were developed primarily to protect the contents from
loss to leaching waters at the lowest possible cost of materials. No physi-
cal property parameters were set forth in the original proposals to the
vendors in this study other than that the products were to be typical of
those disposed of in landfills.
No consistent changes in physical and engineering properties were found
between the treated products which could necessarily be correlated to the
containment efficiency. The four processes in this study produced products
with very different properties. Perhaps physical properties test designed
specifically for each type of treatment process might better distinguish
between the important aspects of the physical properties.
41
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND LEACHING TESTS
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF UNTREATED SLUDGES
Samples of the industrial waste sludges used in this study were dried
in a 60°C oven, digested in 6N nitric acid and analyzed for major consti-
tuents of interest as shown in Table 15. The percent recoveries ranged from
30 percent to 11A percent. Lower recoveries must reflect high concentra-
tions of those elements not included in the analysis list such as sodium
(especially for sludge No. 300), potassium, fluoride (sludge No. 900), phos-
phate and carbonate, and the possible presence of organic constituents. Al-
though the sludges represent a wide array of industrial process wastes, all
are high in a variety of heavy metals and/or anions which have a high poten-
tial for polluting soils and water supplies if not correctly handled.
The constituents generally present in the sludges at the highest con-
centrations are calcium, chloride, sulfate and silicon. Sludges 200, 700,
and 800 contain 60 to 85 percent of these constituents; while sludges 300
and 900 contain only 14 and 29 percent of these constituents, respectively.
The concentration of heavy metals in the sludges varies widely from
over 25 percent of the total material to less than 0.5 percent. Some con-
tain very high levels of known toxic metals. The electroplating sludge
(No. 200) contains several heavy metals at potentially dangerous levels:
chromium, 7.6 percent; copper, 4.5 percent; zinc, 0.75 percent; and nickel,
0.30 percent. The Ni-Cad battery sludge (No. 300) contains almost 17 per-
cent nickel, 0.6 percent iron, and 0.46 percent cadmium. The pigment pro-
duction sludge (No. 700) contains over 11 percent lead, 8 percent chromium,
6 percent iron, over 0.60 percent copper and cadmium, and 0.33 percent zinc.
The chlorine-production brine (No. 800) and the glass etching sludge
(No. 900) have only minor amounts of heavy metals. Only iron is present at
concentrations over 1 g/kg. These represent sludges having potential pol-
lution problems related to the production of leachates with high ionic
strength.
42
-------
TABLE 15. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED DRY SLUDGE SOLIDS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES IN THIS STUDY
Constituent
Electroplating
Sludge (200)
Ni-Cad Battery
Sludge (300)
Pigment Production
Sludge (700)
Chlorine Production
Brine (800)
Glass Etching
Sludge (900)
As
19.5*
BDL**
170
17.0
19.0
Be
305
12.9
BDL
BDL
BDL
Ca
125,500
24,200
19,000
282,000
30,900
Cd
710
4,647
6,350
6.4
4.8
Cr
75,800
151
86,500
10.0
94.0
Cu
45,850
322
6,950
313
498
Fe
12,050
6,260
68,500
4,670
6,450
Hg
1.0
4.5
57
125
2.6
Mg
7,285
1,070
27,300
2,900
9,950
Mn
215
170
2,590
115
264
Ni
3,050
168,900
1,410
153
708
Pb
878
102
114,000
81.0
330
Zn
7,570
1,439
3,280
217
580
CI
220,000
119,900
490,000
160,000
160,000
SO
270,000
10,000
160,000
53,500
37,500
Si4
57.0
19,390
167,000
10,900
61,600
% recovery
76
34
114
51
30
* All values are mg/kg In dry sludge solids.
** BDL = below detection limits.
-------
LEACHING TESTS RESULTS
General Patterns of Constituent Loss from Leaching Columns
The small-column leaching test was designed to simulate conditions
which might occur in the landfill disposal of treated and untreated indus-
trial waste sludges. It was assumed in the initial planning of the testing
procedures and leachate collection schedule that the concentrations of con-
stituents in column leachates would be high initially after which they would
fall rapidly in a logarithmic pattern (11). As discussed in a previous
report (2), three basic patterns of constituent loss were observed in the
flue gas cleaning sludge study. Two of these same patterns were evident in
this project.
The first pattern is produced by those constituents exhibiting the pre-
dicted high-early-loss-rate followed by an asymtotic drop to some low con-
stant value (often at or near zero). These constituents typically are those
which have high solubilities in the leaching medium compared to their con-
centrations in the waste sludges. This pattern was typical for anions in
leachates from treated and untreated sludges alike. Examples of this pat-
tern are shown for chloride and sulfate in Figure 12. Chloride is extremely
high in concentration in the early leachate samples (over 24 g/1) but
rapidly falls to near zero concentrations (averaging about 0.035 g/1) from
the 14th day to end of the experiment (814 days later). Evidently nearly
all of the leachable chloride is removed from the column at an extremely
rapid rate. Sulfate levels are nearly as high as chloride in the first two
sampling periods, but also rapidly fall off. However, in this case the
sulfate concentration falls not to zero but to the solubility of calcium
sulfate in the leaching median (average of about 1.5 g/1 S04) for the dura-
tion of the leaching period. Evidently the soluble sulfate salts are
rapidly lost from the columns. Although the actual amounts may vary, this
pattern is typical of that found for these anions for all columns whether
treated or not. Similar leaching patterns would likely be found for the
univalent cations (such as sodium and potassium) which must be accompanying
these high early anion losses. Some soluble cations may also be leached
from the samples with this pattern.
The second leaching pattern, which is exhibted by calcium in Figure 12,
is typical of constituents present in the sludge at levels well above their
solubility in the leaching median. The level of calcium in the leaching
median is very consistent, averaging near 0.6 g/1—near to that which would
be predicted from the solubility of calcium sulfate at the observed pH's.
Calcium sulfate must represent the major leaching species for both constit-
uents over the duration of the experiment. After 814 days of leaching this
sludge, the calcium concentration remains near 0.6 g/1 and sulfate at
1.6 g/1—representing their maximum solubility in the leaching medium.
The pattern of leaching of most polyvalent cations falls between the
two patterns just described. Often the first few leachate samples have
higher metal concentrations, possibly reflected the higher solubilities of
the metal chlorides in the high chloride leachates. As the leachate
44
-------
SLUDGE 800R, Untreated
A Calcium
~ Chloride
O Sulfate
W 0.5
10 25 50
100 200
LEACHING TIME, days
Figure 12. Leaching pattern plot.
concentrations begin to stabilize, the levels of metals decrease to a low,
consistent value similar to that exhibited by sulfate, but usually at lower
levels. The relative levels of the initial concentration peak and the later
stabilized leaching rate can be estimated from the highest and overall con-
centrations for the various constituents for all priority columns listed in
the tables in the next section.
The third leaching pattern observe only in the previous study with flue
gas cleaning wastes consists of low initial constituent concentrations fol-
lowed at some later time by increasing leach rates. This pattern is usually
due to changes in flow patterns, in or break-down of, the sludge (2).
45
-------
Examples of this pattern are not found in this study although individual
samples show increasing levels of many heavy metals because the leachate
from all columns generally became 1.5 to 2 pH units more acidic as the ex-
periment progressed. As the pH of the leachate shifts to more acid condi-
tions, the solubility of the major heavy-metal salts increases, and their
rate of loss accelerates.
Leaching Rates, Column Loading and Data Interpretation
Interpretation of the leaching data is complicated by the variations in
the column loading of dry sludge solids and by the low and variable leachate
production rates from several of the control (untreated) sludge columns.
The amount of dry sludge solids loaded into the columns (Table 3) varied
among the different columns containing treated and untreated sludges so that
different quantities of the sludge constituents were available for leaching
from the different columns. For instance, thfe amount of dry sludge solids
loaded into the untreated sludge columns varied between about 4.5 kg for
sludge No. 200 to over 9.5 kg for sludge No. 800. This was largely due to
the different amounts of moisture present in the sludge since fairly uniform
amounts of wet sludge (11.7 to 15.4 kg) were loaded into these columns.
A greater discrepancy occurred between the amount of sludge loaded into
the untreated (control) sludge columns and the treated sludge columns.
Smaller amounts of dry sludge solids were loaded into all treated sludge
columns due both to the dilution of the sludges by the treatment additives
and to the smaller space occupied in the column by the treated sludge cyl-
inders because of the outer bead-layer. For sludge No. 200, the untreated
sludge had 4.5 kg of dry sludge solids while Process A-treated columns only
contained 1.85 kg (41 percent); Process B, 2.37 kg (52 percent); Process C,
1.57 kg (35 percent); Process D, 1.25 kg (28 percent) of dry sludge solids—
nearly a four-fold difference. For sludge No. 300 the untreated sludge
column contained 6.15 kg dry sludge solids, while Process A No. 300 column
contained 1.78 kg (29 percent) and Process B No. 300 column had 3.26 kg
(53 percent) dry sludge solids. Sludge No. 700 was only treated by Pro-
cess C which loaded 30 percent (1.44 kg) of the amount of dry sludge solids
in the untreated columns. For sludge No. 800,- the columns containing sludge
treated by Processes A and B had 36 percent and 54 percent of the dry sludge
solids contained in the control (untreated) sludge columns. Similarly
sludge No. 900 treated by Process A loaded 40 percent of the 6.57 kg of dry
sludge solids loaded into the untreated sludge No. 900 column.
The low leachate flow rates from all untreated sludge columns (except
for No. 800 sludge column) is believed to be caused by the low permeability
of the settled sludges (see Table 13). The average flow rates from priority
columns containing untreated sludges 200, 300, 700 and 900 range from 11 to
17 ml per day (Table 16). These low flow rates resulted in the production
of too little leachate to perform all analysis which were planned at each
sampling time. Thus, data for the untreated sludge columns was often incom-
plete, so that comparisons with the data derived from treated sludge columns
were frequently difficult. The flow of leachate through the treated sludge
46
-------
TABLE 16. VOLUMES OF LEACHATE COLLECTED FROM PRIORITY COLUMNS AND THE
CALCULATED VOLUME OF LEACHATE PER DAY
Collecting Sludge No. 200 Sludge No. 300 Sludge No. 700 Sludge No. 800 Sludge No. 900
Sampling
Interval
Vol
Flow Rate
Vol
Flow Rate
Vol
Flow Rate
Vol
Flow Rate
Vol
Flow Rate
Day
(Days)
(1)
(1/Day)
(1)
(1/Day)
(1)
(1/Day)
(1)
(1/Day)
(1)
(1/Day)
1
1
0.14
0.14
0.36
0.36
0.14
0.14
0.92
0.92
0.28
0.28
8
7
0.26
0.037
0.26
0.037
0.29
0.041
4.5
0.643
0.26
0.037
14
6
0.29
0.048
0.35
0.058
0.19
0.032
3.70
0.617
0.33
0.055
21
7
0.22
0.031
0.30
0.043
0.14
0.020
4.06
0.580
0.26
0.037
28
7
0.21
0.030
0.22
0.031
0.14
0.020
3.25
0.464
0.22
0.020
39
11
0.22
0.020
0.10
0.009
0.10
0.009
1.70
0.154
0.14
0.013
63
24 .
0.16
0.007
0.19
0.008
0.09
0.004
3.10
0.129
0.21
0.009
91
28
0.64
0.023
1.00
0.036
0.43
0.015
4.5
0.161
0.93
0.033
126
35 .
0.24
0.007
1.34
0.038
0.57
0.016
4.01
0.114
1.26
0.036
189
63
ND
—
2.55
0.044
ND
—
ND
—
1.69
0.027
245
56
2.98
0.053
ND
—
3.02
0.054
3.56
0.063
ND
—
353
108
1.69
0.016
ND
—
1.69
0.016
3.06
0.028
1.69
0.016
451
98
ND
—
ND
—
1.69
0.017
1.89
0.029
ND
—
569
118
ND
—
ND
—
1.40
0.012
1.36
0.011
1.51
0.013
708
139
1.85
0.013
2.03
0.015
1.86
0.013
2.03
0.015
1.69
0.012
814
106
ND
—
1.69
0.016
2.12
0.020
1.86
0.017
ND
—
Total
814
8.90
0.011
10.38
0.013
13.83
0.017
44.50
0.054
10.45
0.013
NOTE: Samples collected until 4.51 had accumulated at which time flow was stopped. ND = not
determined or no flow.
-------
columns was uniformly high due to the highly permeable external layer of
polypropylene beads (Fig. 6).
The leaching data are presented in three different ways which address
different aspects of the potential for the sludges to lose pollutants to the
environment. The "overall" leachate concentration summary presents the con-
centration of the constituent under consideration as if all of the leachate
were pooled and analyzed at one time. These data give the average leachate
concentration over the duration of the experiment. A second view of the
data is presented by listing the "highest" concentration of the constituent
found in any single leachate sample throughout the entire experiment. This
number represents the "worst case" value and gives an estimate of maximum
concentration of the parameter which might be found in any leachate sample.
As this number represents a single value, a wide variation can be expected.
Comparison of the "overall" and "highest" values for any parameter give a
rough idea of the variability of the concentrations found throughout the
experiment—small differences between these two numbers indicate uniform and
consistent concentration while a large number is indicative of a larger con-
centration variability.
The "overall" and "highest" values are presented for all columns con-
taining the same type sludge in the same table to facilitate comparisons
between the values for different treatments and the untreated sludge
columns. A comparison of the leach rates of the various parameters from
those columns containing sludges processed by different processors with the
leachate from the corresponding untreated sludge columns is also presented.
The comparison is presented in two ways—a simple "H" or "L" if the treated
sludge column leachate value is higher or lower than the untreated sludge
(control) column leachate, and a T/U ratio which is the concentration of the
particular constituent in the leachate from the treated sludge column
divided by the concentration of the parameter in the leachate from the un-
treated sludge (control) column containing the same sludge type. The T/U
ratio gives a quantitative measure of the "H" and "L" relationship in the
Table.
A third presentation, the percent of each constituent leached from the
column, is calculated by accumulating the mass (concentration in mg/1 x the
volume leached in liters) of each constituent present in the leachate over
the total experiment. These masses are presented as the percentage of the
amount of that constituent present in the dry sludge solids actually loaded
-'.nto each column. (The total mass of each constituent leached and loaded
into each column is given in Appendix B). Any materials which might have
been added during processing are not included in this calculation of con-
stituents loaded into the column so that losses of over 100 percent are
possible. This calculation is included because it takes into account the
wide variation in column sludge loading between the "control" and treated
sludge columns. Most treated sludge columns contain half or less the dry
sludge solids of their respective untreated controlled columns. These
percent-leached figures are further compared for treated and untreated
sludge columns in an approach similar to that described above for the
48
-------
"overall" and "highest" values using the higher and lower designation and
the treated to untreated (T/U) ratio.
Electroplating VJaste Sludge (No. 200) Leach Testing Results
Leachate from the untreated electroplating waste contained five con-
stituents which had overall concentrations greater than current drinking
water standards (Table 17). Cadmium, copper, manganese, and lead had aver-
age concentrations one to three times drinking water standards, while sul-
fate levels in the leachate averaged over 36 times higher. Calcium, magnes-
ium, and chloride, while not at unacceptable levels, were in the problem
range of between 100 and 1000 mg/1. Nine constituents had highest concen-
trations above the standards. Cadmium, manganese, lead, selenium, and sul-
fate were found at least once at concentrations over ten times, and up to
76 times the drinking water standards. Arsenic, copper, and chloride had
highest concentrations 1.5 to 4 times higher than the standards. Calcium
and magnesium also have high levels of over 500 and 1000 mg/1, respectively.
Of the six constituents present in the dry sludge solids at over
30,000 mg/1, only zinc was not found at problem levels.
The loss of constituents from the untreated electroplating waste pre-
sents a serious problem to surrounding soils and waters. Besides the heavy
metal loss rates cited above, the very high loss rates of magnesium and
sulfate should be stopped by any successful waste treatment system. Even
though magnesium is present in lower quantities than calcium in the dry
sludge solids, the leachates of the untreated sludge contained nearly twice
the overall and average concentrations of magnesium than calcium. These
high magnesium levels must reflect the relatively greater solubility of
magnesium sulfate. This increased solubility is also reflected in the much
greater percent (13.5 percent) of magnesium which was lost from the column
in the leaching medium.
The concentrations of selected constituents leached from the priority
columns containing electroplating waste treated by Processes A through D are
also presented in Table 17. To aid in comparison of the composition of
leachate from the treated columns with those from the untreated sludge (con-
trol) column, these values are compared for the overall constituent concen-
trations in Table 18 and for the highest concentrations found in Table 19.
Both tables present a single H or L if the leachate levels from the treated
sludge columns were higher or lower, respectively, than the untreated sludge
(control) column. The ratio of the actual concentration values found in
leachate from the treated and untreated sludge columns, labeled T/U ratio,
indicates the factor by which the leachate from the treated sludge column is
higher or lower than the untreated control.
Of the four treatment systems which processed the electroplating
sludge, process D produced leachate which was consistently lower in all
constituents than leachate from the control columns. The higher cadmium
levels reflect a single high sample, 10 of 11 samples being below detection
limits of less than one thousandth of that single high value. Process D
49
-------
TABLE 17. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS IN LEACHATE FROM TREATED AND UNTREATED, PRIORITY
COLUMNS CONTAINING ELECTROPLATING WASTES (NO. 200)
Constituent
Untreated Sludge*
Column
Process
A Column
Process
B Column
Process
C Column
Process
D Column
Overall**
Highest
Overall
Hi ghest
Overall
Highest
Overall
Highest
Overa11
Highest
As
0.016
0.077
0.003
0.007
10t
0.004
0.001
0.010
.001
.010
Be
0.004
0.010
0.001
0.003
ID
0.004
1.830
4.44
ID
0.0004
Ca
288
519
555
1210
232
660
395
689
2.42
15.0
Cd
0.019
0. 110
0.013
0.079
ID
0.0017
7.98
20.9
0. 169
2.'24
Cr
0.043
0.095
0.038
2.50
4.53
24.80
46.0
300
0.001
0.005
Cu
1 . 175
3.700
0.703
3.60
2.38
13.60
295
800
.015
0.038
Hg
0.003
0.014
ID
0.0006
ID
0.0032
0.001
0.004
<0.0001
0.0007
Mg
507
1035
3.54
9.70
0.034
0.200
185
570
0.005
0. 100
Mn
0.155
0.790
0.063
0.922
0.002
0.020
1.85
6.30
0.001
0.005
Ni
0.284
2.50
0.017
0.083
0.038
0.168
33.8
123
0.001
0.015
Pb
0.057
0.975
0.009
0.034
0.038
0.384
0.095
0.700
0.049
0.400
Se
ID
0.646
ID
0. 168
ID
0.041
ID
ID
ID
ID
Zn
0.073
0.570
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.070
92.2
368
0.003
0.014
CI
140
1066
6.150
26.0
109
495
19.9
60.0
2.20
15.0
SO.
M
9220
18900
12.4
3000
3040
14500
4305
13800
214
450
COD
ID
BDL
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
7010
ID
127
TOC
ID
BDI.
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
2800
ID
6
- In mg/L.
** Overall is total mg leached/tota1 1 leachate collected; highest is highest concentration found in any individual sample,
t ID = insufficient or missing data.
-------
TABLE 18. COMPARISON OF OVERALL CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS
LEACHED FROM TREATED, ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE (NO. 200),
PRIORITY COLUMNS WITH THOSE LEACHED FROM UNTREATED CONTROL
COLUMNS
Process A Process B Process C Process D
Column Column Column Column
High or High or High or High or
Constituent Low T/U* Low T/U Low T/U Low T/U
As
L**
0.19
ID+
L
0.06
L
0.06
Be
L
0.25
ID
H
460
ID
Ca
H
1.9
L
0.80
H
1.4
L
0.008
Cd
L
0.68
ID
H
4200
L
8.9
Cr
L
0.88
H
105
H
1070
L
0.023
Cu
L
0.60
H
2.0
H
250
L
0.013
Hg
ID
ID
L
0.30
L
0.03
Mg
L
0.007
ID
L
0.36
L
io~5
Mn
L .
0.41
L
0.013
H
12
L
0.006
Ni
L
0.06
L
. 0.13
H
120
L
0.003
Pb
L
0.16
L
0.67
H
1.7
L
0,86
Zn
L
0.15
L
0.11
H
1260
L
0.041
CI
L
0.044
L
0.78
L
0.14
L
0.016
so,.
L
0.001
L
0.33
L
0.47
L
0.023
* T/U = overall concentration of constituent in leachate from treated
sludge divided by overall concentration in leachate from untreated
sludge column.
** H or L = overall concentration of constituent leached from treated
sludge column higher or lower than that from untreated sludge column,
t ID = insufficient or no data.
51
-------
TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS
LEACHED FROM TREATED, ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE (NO. 200), PRIORITY
COLUMNS WITH THOSE LEACHED FROM UNTREATED CONTROL COLUMNS
Process A Process B Process C Process D
Column Column Column Column
High or High or High or High or
Constituent Low T/U* Low T/U Low T/U Low T/U
As
L**
0.091
L
0.052
L
0.130
L
0.13
Be
L
0.30
L
0.40
H
440.
L
0.040
Ca
H
2.3
H
1.27
H
1.3
L
0.028
Cd
L
0.72
L
0.015
H
190
H
20
Cr
H
26
H
260
H
3160.
L
0.050
Cu
L
0.97
H
3.6
H
220.
L
0.010
Hg
H
0.043
L
0.23
L
0.28
L
0.50
Mg
L
0.009
L
0.0002
L
0.55
L
0.0001
Mn
H
1.2
L
0.025
H
7.9
L
0.006
Ni
L
0.033
L
0.067
H
49.
L
0.006
Pb
L
0.035
L
0.39
L
0.72
L
0.41
Zn
L
0.017
L
0.12
H
645
L
0.024
CI
L
0.024
L
0.46
L
0.056
L
0.014
SO.
4
L
0.16
L
0.76
L
0.73
L
0.023
* T/U = highest concentration of constituent in leachate from treated
sludge divided by highest concentration in leachate from untreated
sludge column.
** H or L = highest concentration found in leachate samples from treated
higher or lower than that from untreated sludge column.
52
-------
includes complete encapsulation of the solidified sludge in a 0.63 cm-thick,
polyethylene jacket which effectively isolates the sludge from the leaching
medium and as such successfully contained all constituents.
Processes A and B were both moderately successful in lowering the
"overall" and "highest" concentrations of the various constituents for which
the leachates were analyzed. Process A, which uses flyash and a lime addi-
tive to produce a pozzolan product which sets into a monolithic mass, re-
duced the overall concentration of all constituents except calcium. Eight
of the constituents were found at average levels less than one-tenth the
controls. Leachate from Process A had two constituents—calcium and chro-
mium at concentrations higher than controls in at least one leachate sample.
Chromium was much higher at 26 times the highest level in untreated control
leachate. Calcium was present at about twice the highest levels of constit-
uents analyzed in the controls.
Process B, which uses two additives to produce a soil-like final pro-
duct was only slightly less effective than Process A. The average overall
concentrations of two constituents (chromium and copper) and the highest
concentrations found for three constituents (calcium, chromium, and copper)
were higher than the levels in their respective controls. Chromium was pre-
sent at very high levels—105 times the overall control levels and 260 times
the highest level found in the control leachates.
Process C, which acidified the sludge during treatment to form a urea-
formaldehyde resin containing the treated sludge did not effectively contain'
the majority of sludge constituents. Six constituents—beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, nickel and zinc—had overall concentrations in the leach-
ate from treated columns greater than two orders-of-magnitude higher than
the level in untreated (control) column leachate. Cadmium, chromium, and
zinc had average concentration over 1000 times the controls. The highest
concentrations found in any single leachate sample indicated the same pat-
tern of high constituent loss with beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, and
zinc having highest concentrations over 100 times the highest control leach-
ate level.
The percent of each constituent leached from all priority electroplat-
ing waste columns is summarized in Table 20. Except for calcium, magnesium,
and sulfate much less than 1 percent of constituents were lost from the con-
trol columns over the course of the experiment. The small percentage of the
sludge materials lost would indicate that the loss of constituents could
continue from these sludges at rates similar to those found in this study
for many years. Magnesium was lost at high rates due to the high solubility
of magnesium sulfate.
The calculation of the percent of each constituent leached from the
treated sludge columns corrects for the smaller amount of dry sludge solids
loaded into the treated sludge columns. This lessens the advantage afforded
those processers who included large amounts of additives in the treatment
process. The "overall" and "highest" concentration calculations above give
an advantage to the processor who included the smallest amount of sludge in
53
-------
TABLE 20. PERCENT OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM PRIORITY COLUMNS CONTAINING
TREATED AND UNTREATED ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE (NO. 200)
Untreated
Sludge
%
Process A Treated
Process B Treated
Process C Treated
% High or % High or % High or
Constituent Leached" Leached Low T/ll** Leached Low T/U Leached Low T/U
Process D Column
% High or
Leached Low T/U
Ui
•E-
As
Be
Ca
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Zn
CI
SO,
%Low
0. 16
0.003
4.5
0.005
<0.001
0.005
13.7
0. 140
0.018
0.013
0.002
0.124
6.74
2.7
0.003
7.5
0.032
0.009
0.026
0.83
0.51
0.010
0.019
0.002
0.048
7.81
"T
H
H
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
17.
1.0
1.7
6.4
>9.
5.2
0.55
1.5
1.0
0.39
1.2
0.019
0.004
3.6
0.002
0.063
0.102
0.006 0.009
3.6 0.020
0.025
0.080
0.004
0.974
22.0
L
II
L
L
H
II
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
0. 12
1.3
0.8
0.4
>63.
20.
1.4
6.1
2.0
7.8
3.3
0.005
10.2
5.3
19. 1
1.03
10.9
0.0006 43.2
0.14 14.6
18.8
0. 185
20.6
0. 153
27.0
0.03 0.270
3400. 0.001
1.2
3800.
>1000.
2200.
3.2
104.
1050.
14.
10300.
1.2
4.0
0.057
0.700
<0.001
0.001
0.021
0.014
0.002
0. 165
0.001
0.029
2.32
1.69
0.33
0.013
H 140.
0.2
0.002
0.100
0.111
12.7
0.5
0.234
0.344
23%L
38%L
8%L
61%L
* Percent leached = total mg of constituent leached/mg constituent loaded into column (xlOO); data from Appendix A.
T/U = percent leached from treated sludge column/percent leached from untreated sludge coLumn.
t H or L = percent leached from treated sludge column in higher or lower than that from untreated sludge column.
-------
the final product. As can be seen, fewer constituents are effectively con-
tained by the treatment processes as determined using the percent lost.
Process D is still judged moderately effective in isolating the sludge con-
stituents; however, the greater part of the effectiveness of Processes A and
B is lost in that a higher percentage of a majority of the constituents
measured was lost from these columns than from the untreated sludge (con-
trol) columns. Process C lost more than 10 percent of over half of the
constituents analyzed, including about 20 percent of the cadmium, nickel,
and zinc and 43 percent and 27 percent of the magnesium and sulfate, re-
spectively. Evidently a large part of the benefit of the treatment pro-
cesses can be accounted for by simple dilution of the sludge solids by
treatment additives.
The relative difficulty for the containment of the constituents of the
electroplating sludge included in this study can be estimated from the data.
Constituents which were lost at lower rates or concentrations (i.e. more
successfully contained) in more than 75 percent of the meaurements were
arsenic, mercury, magnesium, nickel, chloride and sulfate. Lead and zinc
were contained almost as well. Those constituents which proved to be most
difficult to contain by all treatments were beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
copper and sulfate. These parameters were more prevalent in treated sludge
leachates from a majority of the treatments.
Nickel-Cadmium Sludge (No. 300) Leach Testing Results
The leachate from the columns containing untreated nickel-cadmium
sludge was found to have worst-case, highest single concentrations of
several constituents which equaled or exceeded the drinking water standards
(Table 21); these were cadmium, manganese, selenium, chloride, and sulfate.
Also present at levels sufficient to cause concern were nickel and nitrate
and nitrite. However, the only constituent which had an overall average
concentration at an excessive level was sulfate, which had average levels of
16 times the drinking water standard (250 ppm). The low levels of most
heavy metals and calcium in the leachate from the untreated sludge column
may reflect the high pH values of the leachate samples (averaging 12.2) and
the channelization in, and compaction of, the sludge solids (the average
leachate sample size in the first one-half of the study was less than
250 ml).
Process A was generally ineffective in lessening the loss of the major-
ity of the constituents analyzed (Table 22). Two-thirds of the constituents
had higher "overall" and "highest" concentrations in the leachate from the
treated sludges than in that from the untreated sludges. Calcium, chromium,
manganese, zinc, and cyanide showed concentrations 7.5 to 33 times those for
control leachates. Those constituents which were found at lower levels in
leachates from treated sludges were lower in both "overall" and "highest"
concentrations. These included copper, nickel, chloride, and sulfate.
Process B was more successful at containing the constituents analyzed.
Those elements found at lower "overall" and "highest" concentrations in
leachate from the treated sludges were cadmium, calcium, mercury, magnesium,
55
-------
TABLE 21. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS IN LEACHATE FROM
TREATED AND UNTREATED, PRIORITY COLUMNS CONTAINING
NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY SLUDGE (NO. 300)
Untreated Sludge*
Column
Process
A Column
Process
B Column
Constituent
Overall**
Highest
Overall
Highest
Overall
Highest
Be
ID+
0.0002
0.004
0.047
ID
0.0004
Ca
15.3
85.7
302.
1280.
225.
618.
Cd
0.010
0.050
0.043
0.226
0.002
0.0083
Cr
0.001
0.004
0.018
0.099
0.010
0.047
Cu
0.013
0.080
0.012
0.076
0.004
0.025
Hg
0.011
0.057
ID
0.0003
ID
0.0038
Mg
0.610
1.20
1.13
4.70
0.022
0.100
Mn
0.006
0.122
0.061
0.922
0.002
0.016
Ni
0.314
2.90
0.024
0.111
0.012
0.130
Pb
0.003
0.019
0.003
0.026
0.052
0.899
Se
0.006
0.020
0.010
0.073
ID
0.003
Zn
0.006
0.050
0.134
1.640
0.009
0.070
CI
35.1
704.
8.97
32.0
13.3
87.0
CN
0.002
0.010
0.015
0.110
0.024
0.14
n-no3
ID
1120.
ID
ID
ID
1190.
N-NO
ID
280.
ID
ID
ID
169.
4070.
16500.
499.
1300.
4.69
15.0
COD
ID
472.
ID
ID
ID
ID
TOC
ID
144.
ID
ID
ID
ID
* In mg/1.
** Overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest is
highest concentration found in any sample,
t ID = insufficient or no data.
56
-------
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF OVERALL AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED
CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM TREATED, NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY
SLUDGE (NO. 300), PRIORITY COLUMNS WITH THOSE LEACHED FROM
UNTREATED CONTROL COLUMNS
Overall Concentration* Highest Concentration
Process A Process B Process A Process B
Column Column Column Column
High or High or High or High or
Constituent Low T/U** Low T/U Low T/U Low T/U
Be
ID+
ID
Htt
240.
H
2.0
Ca
H
20.
H
15.
H
15.
H
7.2
Cd
H
4.3
L
0.20
H
4.5
L
0.17
Cr
H
18.
H
10.
H
25.
H
12.
Cu
L
0.92
L
0.31
L
0.95
L
0.31
HS
ID
ID
L
0.005
L
0.067
Mg
H
1.8
L
0.036
H
3.9
L
0.083
Mn
H
10.
L
0.33
H
7.5
L
0.14
Ni
L
0.076
L
0.038
L
0.038
L
0.045
Pb
1.0
H
17.
H
1.37
H
47.
Se
H
1.6
ID
H
3.65
H
0.15
Zn
H
22.
H
1.5
H
33.
H
1.4
CI
L
0.25
L
0.38
L
0.045
L
0.12
CN
H
7.5
H
12.
H
11.
H
14.
S04
L
0.12
L
0.001
L
0.078
L
0.001
* In mg/1 overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest
is highest concentration found in any sample.
** T/U = amount in treated sludge column leachate/amount in untreated
sludge column leachate.
t ID = insufficient or no data.
++ H or L = amount in leachate from treated sludge column is higher or
lower than sludge column leachate/amount in untreated sludge leachate.
57
-------
manganese, nickel, chloride, and sulfate. Only cadmium, chromium, lead,
zinc, and cyanide were lost at higher levels from the treated sludges.
By calculating comparable amounts lost for each constituent using the
percentage leached from each column (Table 23), the benefit due to treatment
was found to be smaller. Both treatment systems lost larger proportions of
80-90 percent of the constituents analyzed than the control columns. How-
ever, very low loss rates from the untreated control column are again evi-
dent. More than one-tenth of one percent of only two constituents (calcium
and mercury) was lost, and for a majority of constituents, less than one
hundreth of one percent was lost over the entire leaching experiment.
Pigment Production Sludge (No. 700) Leach Testing Results
The high levels of heavy metals present in the pigment production
sludge are also evident in the leachates from the untreated sludge column
(Table 24). Cadmium, chromium, manganese, lead, selenium, and sulfate are
typically well above drinking water standards In "overall" and "highest"
concentrations. Calcium and magnesium levels are also very high, having
overall concentrations of 492 and 470 (mg/1), respectively. Disposal of the
pigment production sludge presents a serious pollution problem.
The only treatment system used with the pigment production sludge was
Process C which acidified the sludge and than attempted to contain it in a
urea-formaldehyde resin. This process was somewhat successful in limiting
the overall level of arsenic, calcium, magnesium, chloride, and sulfafe in
the leachate, although only chloride was held to less than 50 percent of the
control (Table 25). Note that the overall average concentrations of the
heavy metals; cadmium, chromium, and zinc are more than 40 times that of the
control.
The small relative amounts of dry sludge solids present in the treated
sludge product is evident from the calculation and comparison of percent
loss as seen in Table 26. Only manganese and chloride were lost in lesser
amounts from the treated sludge columns. Very large relative percentages of
most toxic constituents were lost from the treated column. For example,
losses amounted to 10.6 percent of cadmium, 24.4 percent of the magnesium,
and between 1 and 4 percent of manganese, nickel, and zinc. Further, about
one-third of the calcium, magnesium and sulfate were lost from the treated
sludge. These are very high values.
Another problem with the urea-formaldehyde treatment system is seen in
the very high levels for total organic carbon (TOC) and chemical oxygen de-
mand (COD) found in the leachate from the treated sludge column as seen in
Table 24. Since no leachate samples from the untreated sludge columns which
were tested had detectable TOC and COD; the large amounts found in the
treated sludge column leachate must reflect the leaching of organics from
the urea-formaldehyde polymer. Leaching of organics has previously been
reported to be a problem in the solidification of radioactive wastes using '
this process (12).
58
-------
TABLE 23. PERCENT OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM PRIORITY COLUMNS
CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED NI-CO BATTERY SLUDGE (NO. 300)
Untreated
Sludge Process A Column Process B Column
% % High or % High or
Constituent Leached* Leached Low T/U** Leached Low T/U
Be
0.001
0.69
Ht
690
0.002
H
2.
Ca
0.106
27.3
H
260
13.5
H
130.
Cd
0.001
0.020
H
20
0.001
-
—
Cr
0.001
0.269
H
270
0.096
H
96.
Cu
. 0.007
0.083
H
12
0.019
H
2.7
Hg
0.423
0.025
L
0.06
0.143
L
0.34
Mg
0.096
2.3
H
24
0.031
L
0.32
Mn
0.006
0.79
K
130
0.016
H
2.6 .
Ni
0.001
0.001
-
—
0.001
-
—
Pb
0.005
0.066
H
13
0.742
H
150.
Zn
0.001
0.204
H
200
0.009
H
9.
CI
0.051
0.169
H
3.3
0.162
H
3.2
%Low
8.3%L
16.7%L
* Percent leached = total mg of constituent leached/mg constituent loaded
into column (*100); data from Appendix A, Table A-2.
** T/U = percent leached from treated sludge column/percent leached from
untreated sludge column,
t H or L = percent leached from treated sludge column in higher or lower
than that from untreated sludge column.
59
-------
TABLE 24. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS IN LEACHATE FROM TREATED
AND UNTREATED, PRIORITY COLUMNS CONTAINING PIGMENT PRODUCTION
SLUDGE (NO. 700)
Untreated Sludge*
Column
Process
C Column
Constituent
Overall** Highest
Overall
Highest
As
0.006
0.019
0.002
0.017
Ca
492.
599.
309.
450.
Cd
0.914
1.430
40.1
96.9
Cr
0.116
0.999
5.47
20.0
Cu
0.528
0.700
2.62
16.0
Hg
0.004
0.100
0.007
0.048
Mg
720.
1050.
394.
1620.
Mn
1.83
2.80
22.5
77.0
Ni
0.310
1.210
1.96
5.70
Pb
0.872
2.300
1.038
4.2
Se
0.011
0.066
ID+
—
Zn
0.050
0.092
7.37
30.0
CI
211.
266.
17.1
51.0
so4
8330.
14200.
3670.
15500.
COD
ID
BDL
ID
6900.
TOC
ID
BDL
ID
2600.
In mg/1.
** Overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest is
highest concentration found in any sample,
t ID = insufficient or no data.
60
-------
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF OVERALL AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED
CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM TREATED, PIGMENT PRODUCTION SLUDGE
(NO. 700), PRIORITY COLUMNS WITH THOSE LEACHED FROM UNTREATED
CONTROL COLUMNS
Process C Column
Constituent
Overall
Cone.*
Highest
Cone.
High or Low
T/U**
High or Low
T/U
As
Lt
0.17
L
0.89
Ca
L
0.62
L
0.75
Cd
H
44.
H
68.
Cr
H
47.
H
20.
Cu
H
5.0
H
23.
Hg
H
1.7
L
0.48
Mg
L
0.55
H
1.5
Mn
H
12.
H
27.5
Ni
H
6.3
H
4.7
Pb
H
1.2
H
1.8
Zn
H
130.
H
330.
CI
L
0.08
L
0.19
SO.
4
L
0.44
H
1.09
* Overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest is
highest concentration found in any sample.
** T/U = amount in treated sludge column leachate/amount in untreated
sludge column leachate.
t H or L = amount in leachate from treated sludge column is higher or
lower than that from untreated sludge column.
61
-------
TABLE 26. PERCENT OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM PRIORITY COLUMNS
CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED PIGMENT PRODUCTION SLUDGE
(NO. 700)
Untreated
Sludge Process C Column
% %
Constituent Leached* Leached High or Low T/U**
As
0.010
0.020
Ht
2.0
Ca
7.4
27.5
H
3.7
Cd
0.041
10.6
H
260.
Cr
<0.001
0.107
H
>110.
Cu
0.022
0.64
H
29.
Hg
0.023
0.21
H
9.1
Mg
7.5
24.4
H
3.2
Mn
20.4
1.46
L
0.07
Ni
0.063
2.34
H
37.
Pb
0.002
0.015
H
7.5
Zn
0.004
3.79
H
950.
CI
0.123
0.059
L
0.48
S°4
14.9
38.7
H
2.6
%Low
15%L
* Percent leached = total mg of constituent leached/mg constituent loaded
into column (xlOO); data from Appendix A.
** T/U = percent leached from treated sludge column/percent leached from
untreated sludge columns,
t H or L = percent leached from treated sludge column is higher or lower
than that from untreated sludge column.
62
-------
Chlorine Production Sludge (No. 800) Leach Testing Results
Although this waste itself is not particularly high in heavy metals,
samples of leachates from untreated chlorine production sludge exceeded
drinking water standards for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and selenium
(Table 27). Also extremely high "overall" and "highest" levels of the
anions, chloride, and sulfate were found. The overall level of sulfate was
5 g/1 and chloride near 3 g/1. Evidently large concentrations of monovalent
cations (esp. sodium) were being lost concomitantly since the loss of cal-
cium held steady between 500 and 600 mg/1 throughout the experiment.
Processes A and B had similar but only moderate success in containing
the constituents from the chlorine-production sludge (Table 28). From one-
half to two-thirds of the constituents had lower "overall" and "highest"
concentrations in the leachates from the treated sludge columns. Beryllium,
copper, mercury, lead and sulfate were most effectively contained of all the
potential pollutants. Those constituents most poorly contained were ar-
senic, calcium, chromium, manganese, and selenium.
When calculated as percent of the dry sludge solids loaded into the
column which were lost to the leaching solution (Table 29), the effectivenss
of the treatments were again less evident. A larger proportion of two-
thirds of the constituents were lost from the treated sludge columns. Cal-
cium and magnesium were better contained to some extent by both treatment
systems. The anions, chloride, and sulfate, were also lost to a slightly
smaller degree from Process A-treated sludges; and the cations arsenic and
copper contained to a greater degree in Process B-treated waste.
Glass-Etching Sludge (No. 900) Leach Testing Results
Leachates from the columns containing untreated glass-etching sludge
showed high and consistent levels of calcium, magnesium, and sulfate and
exceeded drinking water standards for manganese and sulfate (Table 30).
Single samples were collected which had concentrations exceeding drinking
water standards for chromium, manganese, lead, selenium, and sulfate. This
sludge also contained large amounts of monovalent cations (particularly
sodium) and fluoride which were not determined and must account for the low
analytical recovery found in the bulk raw sludge analysis (Table 15). The
leachates from this sludge would most likely show high levels of these con-
stituents in the early samples since their salts are quite soluble.
As evident from Table 31, Process A treated sludges lost greater
amounts and had higher peak concentrations of a majority (60-70 percent) of
the constituents determined. Only chromium, magnesium, chloride, and sul-
fate were contained to any degree and in most of these only moderate im-
provements can be seen. Cadmium, copper, and lead showed concentrations in
the leachate from treated-sludge columns that were 15 to 300 times those
from the untreated controls.
Process B-treated wastes, in contrast, retained the majority (60-
70 percent) of the constituents determined. Only copper, nickel, lead and
63
-------
TABLE 27. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS IN LEACHATE FROM TREATED
AND UNTREATED, PRIORITY COLUMNS CONTAINING CHLORINE PRODUCTION
SLUDGE (NO..800)
Untreated Sludge*
Column
Process
A Column
Process B
Column
Constituent
Overall**
Highest
Overall
Highest
Overall
Highest
As
0.004
0.029
0.012
0.033
0.002
0.016
Be
0.015
0.131
0.001
0.006
IDt
0.0005
Ca
531.
641.
1164.
1930.
293.
789.
Cd
0.032
0.042
0.022
0.166
0.010
20.00
Cr
0.003
0.030
0.036
0.159
0.015
0.064
Cu
0.363
2.700
0.068
0.537
0.037
0.200
Hg
0.007
0.280
0.001
0.002
0.0003
0.0027
Mg
10.7
11.4
3.10
11.20
0.035
0.300
Mn
0.013
0.030
0.120
1.820
0.011
0.062
Ni
0.131
1.160
0.120
1.300
0.033
0.165
Pb
0.217
7.100
0.095
0.600
0.026
0.999
Se
0.001
0.013
0.038
0.700
ID
0.006
Zn
0.007
0.030
0.006
0.006
ID
0.030
CI
2780.
24000.
1100.
3970.
13030.
95500.
SO.
4
4840.
32800.
1520.
4090.
3580.
24300.
COD
ID
57.
ID
ID
ID
ID
TOC
ID
54.
ID
ID
ID
ID
* In mg/1.
** Overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest is
highest concentration found in any sample,
t ID = insufficient or no data.
64
-------
TABLE 28. COMPARISON OF OVERALL. AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED
CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM TREATED, CHLORINE PRODUCTION SLUDGE
(NO. 800), PRIORITY COLUMNS WITH THOSE LEACHED FROM UNTREATED
CONTROL COLUMNS
Overall Concentration* Highest Concentration
Process A Process B Process A Process B
Column Column Column Column
High or High or High or High or
Constituent Low T/U** Low T/U Low T/U Low T/U
As
Ht
3.0
H
5.0
H
1.1
L
0.55
Be
L
0.06
IDtt
L
0.04
L
0.004
Ca
H
2.2
L
0.55
H
3.0
H
1.2
Cd
L
0.69
L
0.31
H
3.95
H
476.
Cr
L
0.08
H
5.0
H
5.3
H
2.1
Cu
L
0.19
L
0.10
L
0.20
L
0.07
Hg
L
0.14
L
0.04
L
0.007
L
0.0096
Mg
H
3.45
L
0.0032
L
0.98
L
0.03
Mn
H
9.2
L
0.85
H
61.
H
2.07
Ni
L
0.92
H
0.25
H
1.1
L
0.14
Pb
L
0.44
L
0.12
L
0.08
L
0.14
Se
H
38.0
ID
H
54.
L
0.46
Zn
L
0.86
ID
H
2.0
H
1.0
CI
L
0.395
H
4.7
L
0.165
H
3.97
SO.
4
L
0.31
L
0.74
L
0.12
L
0.74
* Overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest is
highest concentration found in any sample.
** T/U = amount in treated sludge column leachate/amount in untreated
sludge column leachate.
t H or L = amount in leachate from treated sludge column is higher or
lower than that from untreated sludge column,
tt ID = insufficient or no data.
65
-------
TABLE 29. PERCENT OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM PRIORITY
COLUMNS CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED CHLORINE
PRODUCTION SLUDGE (NO. 800)
Untreated
Sludge Process A Column Process B Column
% % High or % High or
Constituent
Leached*
Leached
Low
T/U**
Leached
Low
T/U
As
0.089
0.765
H+
8.6
0.078
L
0.87
Ca
0.78
4.28
H
5.5
0.88
H
1.1
Cd
0.21
3.5
H
16.7
1.23
H
5.8
Cr
0.13
3.7
H
28.
1.24
H
9.5
Cu
0.48
0.23
L
0.50
0.10
L
0.21
Hg
0.001
0.001
-
—
0.001
-
—
Mg
3.45
2.49
L
0.72
0.023
L
0.006
Mn
0.046
1.09
H
24.
0.081
H
1.7
Ni
0.355
0.815
H
2.3
0.185
L
0.52
Pb
1.11
1.21
H
1.09
1.15
H
1.03
Zn
0.013
0.028
H
2.1
0.018
H
1.38
CI
7.2
7.1
L
0.99
70.
H
9.7
SO.
4
37.5
29.5
L
0.79
57.6
H
1.5
%Low
31%L
31%L
* Percent leached = total mg of constituent leached/mg constituent loaded
into column (*100); data from Appendix A.
** T/U = percent leached from treated sludge column/percent leached from
untreated sludge column,
t H or L = percent leached from treated sludge column is higher or lower
than that from untreated sludge column.
66
-------
TABLE 30. CONCENTRATION OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS IN LEACHATE FROM
TREATED AND UNTREATED, PRIORITY COLUMNS CONTAINING GLASS
ETCHING SLUDGE (NO. 900)
Untreated Sludge*
Column
Process
A Column
Process B Column
Constituent Overall** Highest
Overall
Highest
Overall Highest
As
0.006
0.008
0.033
0.243
0.001
0.017
Ca
456.
1060.
473.
608.
47.2
172.
Cd
0.002
0.006
0.030
0.230
ID+
0.0016
Cr
0.031
0.899
0.030
0.070
0.004
0.030
Cu
0.003
0.013
0.936
6.260
0.205
2.10
Mg
59.4
113.0
2.73
4.90
0.028
0.100
Mn
0.060
0.114
0.178
2.620
0.002
0.010
Ni
0.361
1.180
0.749
2.900
4.92
21.00
Pb
0.003
0.050
0.253
1.900
0.003
0.030
Se
0.003
0.013
0.005
0.030
—
0.007
Zn
0.015
0.069
0.069
0.600
0.007
0.040
CI
11.5
43.0
3.53
21.00
35.03
285.
S°4
921.
2190.
914.
1800.
383.
1094.
COD
ID
BDL
ID
ID
ID
ID
TOC.
ID
BDL
ID
ID
ID
ID
* In mg/1.
** Overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest is
highest concentration found in any sample,
t ID * insufficient data.
67
-------
TABLE 31. COMPARISON OF OVERALL AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED
CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM TREATED, GLASS ETCHING SLUDGE
(NO. 900), PRIORITY COLUMNS WITH THOSE LEACHED FROM
UNTREATED CONTROL COLUMNS
Overall Concentration* Highest Concentration
Process A Process B Process C Process D
Column Column Column Column
High or High or High or High or
Constituent Low T/U** Low T/U Low T/U Low T/U
As
Ht
5.5 '
L
0.16
H
30.
H
2.1
Ca
H
1.03
L
0.10
L
0.57
L
0.16
Cd
H
15.
ID++
H
38.
L
0.26
Cr
L
0.97
L
0.13
L
0.08
L
0.03
Cu
H
312.
H
68.
H
480.
H
160.
Mg
L
0.046
L
0.001
L
0.043
L
0.001
Mn
H
2.96
L
0.03
H
23.
L
0.084
Ni
H
2.0
H
13.6
H
2.4
H
17.
Pb
H
84.
H
1.0
H
CO
CO
H
6.0
Se
H
1.6
ID
H
2.3
L
0.538
Zn
H
4.6
L
0.46
H
8.7
L
0.579
CI
L
0.31
H
3.0
L
0.49
H
6.6
SO,
4
L
0.99
L
0.415
L
0.82
L
0.499
* Overall is total mg leached/total 1 leachate collected; highest is
highest concentration found in any sample.
** T/U = amount in treated sludge column leachate/amount in untreated
sludge column leachate.
t H or L = amount in leachate from treated sludge column is higher or
lower than that from untreated sludge column,
ft ID = insufficient or no data.
68
-------
chloride were lost in higher "overall" and "highest" concentrations from the
treated-sludge columns. Process B most successfully contained chromium and
magnesium which were generally found at an order of magnitude lower concen-
tration in the treated sludge leachates.
The effect of taking into account the amount of dry sludge solids actu-
ally added to the columns by calculating the percentage of each constituent
lost from the treated and untreated sludge columns again greatly lessened
the assessment of containment effectiveness of both treatment processes
(Table 32). Process A treated sludges lost a higher percentage of all con-
stituents except magnesium from the leaching column. Sludges tested by Pro-
cess B lost a higher percentage of all constituents except calcium, chro-
mium, magnesium, and manganese.
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL LEACHING DATA
Considerable variation was found in the ability of the treatment pro-
cessor to lower the leaching loss of inorganic contaminants from the sludges
used in this study. Table 33 summarizes the percentages of those constit-
uents which were leached at lower rates from treated sludge columns than
from similar untreated sludge columns. Process A had quite variable
success—containing the electroplating sludge to a fairly high degree but
losing contaminants to a higher degree than the control columns for the
untreated Ni-Cad battery and the glass etching sludges. There was very
little difference between the loss of constituents from the Process A-
treated and the untreated chlorine production sludges. This variablity is
also apparent in the wide ranges of the relative loss rates as seen in over-
all leachate concentrations shown in Figure 13. For sludges treated by Pro-
cess A, the relative loss of each constituent as seen in Figure 14 varies by
a factor of over 100 between sludges. Only mercury, magnesium, chloride,
and sulfate were leached at lower "overall" concentrations from at least
three of the four treated sludge columns; while calcium, cadmium, chromium,
manganese, and selenium had higher individual concentrations from the
treated sludge columns.
Results from columns containing sludges treated by Process B were more
consistent than others with 60 to 70 percent of the leachate constituents
having relatively lower "overall" and "highest" levels in leachates from
treated sludge columns (Table 33). Again, the electroplating sludge was
most successfully contained with 70 to 80 percent of the leachate values
lower than the controls. Although still exhibiting considerable variations,
the relative containment values displayed by Figures 15 and 16 grouped to a
greater degree than similar display of the same values from Process A-
treated sludge columns (Figures 13 and 14). Calcium, cadmium, magnesium,
manganese, nickel, lead, zinc and sulfate were lost to the leaching medium
at lower overall concentrations than control columns from at least three of
the four treated sludge columns; while only chromium and copper were lost at
higher "overall" concentrations from a majority of the treated sludge
columns.
69
-------
TABLE 32. PERCENT OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS LEACHED FROM PRIORITY
COLUMNS CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED GLASS ETCHING
SLUDGE (NO. 900)
Constituent
Untreated
Sludge
Process A
Column
Process B Column
%
Leached*
%
Leached
High
Low
or
T/U**
%
Leached
High or
Low
T/U
As
0.048
1.86
H+
38.7
0.094
H
1.96
Ca
2.3
16.5
H
7.2
1.95
L
0.84
Cd
0.060
6.7
H
112.
0.073
H
1.2
Cr
0.053
0.341
H
6.4
0.051
L
0.96
Cu
0.001
2.03
H
2030.
0.53
H
530.
Mg
0.950
0.29
L
0.30
0.004
L
0.004
Mn
0.037
0.73
H
20.
0.008
L
0.21
Ni
0.081
1.14
H
14.
8.9
H
110.
Pb
0.002
0.83
H
415.
0.14
H
70.
Zn
0.004
0.13
H
3.2
0.015
H
3.7
CI
0.011
0.024
H
2.2
0.28
H
25.
SO.
4
3.9
26.3
H
6.7
13.1
H
3.4
%Low
8.3%L
33%L
* Percent leached = total mg of constituent leached/mg constituent loaded
into column (xlOO); data from Appendix A.
** T/U = percent leached from treated sludge column/percent leached from
untreated sludge column,
t H or L = percent leached from treated sludge column is higher or lower
than that from untreated sludge column.
70
-------
TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF PERCENT OF CONSTITUENTS LEACHED AT LOWER
CONCENTRATIONS FROM TREATED SLUDGE SPECIMENS THAN
FROM UNTREATED SPECIMENS
Sludge Type
Parameter Process A Process B Process C Process D
Electroplating
(200)
Overall
Highest
Percent
93
79
23
77
79
38
36
43
8
92
93
83
Ni-Cad Battery
(300)
Overall
Highest
Percent
31
33
8
59
60
17
A
*
*
*
*
*
Pigment Production
(700) .
Overall
Highest
Percent
*
*
*
*
*
*
38
31
15
A
*
*
Chlorine Production
(800)
Overall
Highest
Percent
66
53
33
66
60
33
*
*
*
*
*
*
Glass Etching
(900)
Overall
Highest
Percent
31
38
8
64
62
33
*
*
*
* Not processed by that treatment system.
71
-------
-v]
fo
As
Be
Co
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
S«
Zn
CI
S04
-2
0.01
cr
13
H"
ca
2 3
9 28
28
9 2
3D
8 9|
8 3
193
3
83|
51
8 31
E
3 9 81
8
_a
0.1 1 10
LOG T/U RATIO OVERALL CONCENTRATIONS PROCESS A
ID
100
Figure 13. Plot of ratio of overall concentration of each constituent in the leachate
from Process A—treated columns (T) to the corresponding value for the
constituent in leachate from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to
the first digit of sludge identification number.
-------
As
Be
Co
Cd
Cr
Cu
H0
Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
CI
S04
rr~ e 91
L_l
¦8 2 a I
I
2 8
n=|: g
fj" 8 32*1
1§ g 91
-83 2|
-2 9 8 31
j»g 3 9 8|
123 8 91
( | ,
|2 8 3 9)
j I9 3
»2 9 a|
I
12 3 8 ~il
Is 8 2 9|
I
J : L
O.OI 0.1 I 10 100
LOG T/U RATIO OF HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS PROCESS A
Figure 14. Plot of ratio of highest concentration of each constituent in the leachate
from Process A-treated columns (T) to the corresponding value for the
constituent in leachate from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to
the first digit of sludge identification number.
-------
Bo
Co
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
CI
S04
-69
O.OI
m
u
E
8 2
3
I3 8)
8 3
Gl
0.1 I 10
LOG T/U RATIO OVERALL CONCENTRATIONS PROCESS B
3
3)
d
100
Figure 15. Plot of ratio of overall concentration of each constituent in the leachate
from Process B-treated columns (T) to the corresponding value for the
constituent in leachate from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to
the first digit of sludge identification number.
-------
As
Be
Co
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hfl
Mfl
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
CI
S04
-a
- Gl
-8
-29 8
-3
E
E
E
3 9
IE
I]
9 3
'3 2 8
E
E
3 8l
E
82
m
"3
3
9 a "51
d
9 e
11
x
3
in
8 Si
ia
ui
u
D
0.01
0.1 1 10
LOG T/U RATIO OF HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS PROCESS B
100
Figure 16. Plot of ratio of highest concentration of each constituent in the leachate
from Process B-treated columns (T) to the corresponding value for the
constituent in leachate from untreated column (U). The numbers refer to
the first digit of sludge identification number.
-------
A high degree of correlation is seen between T/U ratios calculated from
"highest" and "overall" concentrations for either sludges treated by Pro-
cess A (Figure 17) and Process B (Figure 18). The data were converted to
logarithms so that smaller values would be equally weighted in the analysis.
The correlation coefficients for "overall" leachate concentration (0.924)
and "highest" concentration (0.852) show that columns having "overall"
leachate concentrations much higher (or lower) in the treated column leach-
ate have a very high probability of also having a proportionately higher (or
lower) "highest" concentration. Both measures therefore appear to be com-
parable measures of containment.
Little correlation is found if the values for the same constituents are
compared between leachates from sludges treated by Process A or by Process B.
As seen in Figure 19, a plot of the log of the "overall" concentrations of
constituents in leachates from Process A-treated sludges against the same
values from Process B-treated sludges gives a very wide scatter (correlation
coefficient = 0.369). The same wide scatter is seen in a comparison of
"highest" concentrations of percent leached values as might be expected.
There seems to be little relationship between the two treated products.
Comparison of the relative containment effectiveness between treatment
Processes A, B, C, and D can be made using data from the electroplating
sludge (200) since this sludge was treated by all four processors. Compara-
tive data are presented for "overall" T/U values in Figure 20 and for "high-
est" T/U values in Figure 21. Process D gave the best containment having
less than one-tenth the "overall" amount leached for 11 of 13 of the con-
stituents analyzed, and less than one-tenth the "highest" value found for 9
of the 13 constituents. Process C was least effective by a wide margin,
having both "overall" and "highest" leachate concentrations over ten times
those of the control sludge leachates in 7 of 13 cases and the highest
"overall" leachate concentration in 11 of 14 cases. Processes A and B were
both moderately successful at containment, each having the lowest and the
highest T/U ratios for 1 to 3 of the 14 parameters measured.
Of the three parameters calculated for use in the comparison of the
sludge leaching specimens—the "overall" leachate concentration, the "high-
est" single leachate concentration, and the percent of each sludge constitu-
ent leached—the latter, the percent leached is the most rigorous test of
the effectiveness of the treatment processes. This parameter which takes
into account the actual amount of waste material in the final product, con-
sistently lessened the estimate of effectiveness of the treatment. Only one
treatment system reduced more than 50 percent of the constituents measured
in the leachate when calculated on a percent lost basis. All other treat-
ment processes lost constituents at statistically higher rates than the un-
treated sludges when tested in the manner used in this study. Evidently,
the dilution factor due to the stabilization additives is greater than the
average containment effect of almost all of the treatments. On this basis
eight of the eleven treatments lost higher percentages of the constituents
analyzed than the untreated control sludges.
76
-------
1000
PROCESS A
100
UJ
0.1
0.01
OjOOI
10
100
1.0
0.1
0.01
LOG T/U RATIO FOR HIGHEST CONCENTRATION
Figure 17. Plot of correlation of ratios of overall and highest
leachate concentrations from treated (T) sludge
columns to those from untreated (U) sludge columns
for all sludges treated by Process A.
77
-------
100 _
PROCESS B
M
> 0.01
0.001
0.0001
100
10
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
LOG T/U RATIO FOR HIGHEST CONCENTRATION
Figure 18. Plot of correlation of ratios of overall and highest
leachate concentrations from treated (T) sludge
columns to those from untreated (U) sludge columns
for all sludges treated by Process B.
78
-------
1000 _
05
O
CC.
o
li.
<
£C
£
§
0.1
. I)
0.01
oooi
_L
_L
_L
0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100
LOG T/U RATIO FOR OVERALL CONCENTRATION OF PROCESS B
Figure 19. Plot of correlation of ratios of overall leachate
concentration from sludge columns treated by
Process A to corresponding values from sludge
columns treated by Process B.
79
-------
00
o
As
Be
Co
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
CI
S04
"HE
-AO
-DB
- nr
-A
0.01
E
(col
3
\£
1
H
B "c a!
I
I
u
[a"
B D
H
[O"
B A
B Cl
_L.
3
X
H
u
BC|
I]
3
0.1 1 10
LOG T/U RATIO OVERALL CONCENTRATION FOR SLUDGE NO. 200
100
Figure 20. Plot of ratio of overall concentration of each constituent in the leachate
from treated (T) electroplating sludge (No. 200) columns to corresponding
values for constituents in leachate from untreated column (U). The
letters refer to the process used in solidification/stabilization.
-------
oo
As
Be
Co
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Zn
CI
S04
- E
-D
-BAD
-O
-0
»B A CDl
E
E
E
E
E
A B
BC A|
B C Dl
3
BP CI
3
lOI
|D A
3 I
E
DCB]
J-
0.01
_L
3
13
3
13
3
j
0.1 1 10 100
LOG T/U RATIO FOR HIGHEST VALUES FOUND FOR SLUDGE NO. 200
Figure 21. Plot of ratio of highest concentration of each constituent in the leachate
from treated (T) electroplating sludge (No. 200) columns to corresponding
values for constituents in leachate from untreated columns (U). The
letters refer to the processes used in solidification/stabilization.
-------
The poor showing of the treatment processes used in this study can
probably be related to the low leach rates of most constituents from the
untreated sludges. Although appreciable amounts of most constituents were
lost from the untreated-sludge columns, higher rates of loss of most consti-
tuents would be expected. The small losses from untreated control columns
must be related to the very low permeability of the settled sludges, to the
resulting small volumes of leachate which did flow through, and to the chan-
neling of the leachate flow.
Dyes (fluorocene and rhodomine) added to the untreated sludge columns
at the end of the experiment indicated uneven and channelized flow of the
leachate through the settled sludge. The dye showed up in the effluent and
in pockets along the sides of the columns long before a complete void-volume
of leaching medium with dye had entered the sludge. Actual transit times
and surface areas exposed to the flowing leaching medium are therefore im-
possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy.
82
-------
SECTION 7
DISCUSSION
GENERAL COMMENTS
The overall aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of several
proposed and currently available containment technologies on the physical
properties and leaching behavior of several inorganic, industrial wastes
which are difficult to dispose of by conventional ponding or shallow land
burial. The experimental procedures for the leaching tests were designed
to simulate shallow burial conditions in saturated soils with flow rates of
approximately 10"5 cm/sec. Such flow rates would be expected in landfills
located in the eastern U. S. A study focusing on flue gas cleaning sludges
from different coal and desulfurization process types, and including many of
the same treatment technologies used in this study was carried out at the
same time; the report of this aspect of work has already been published (2).
Aspects of the work reported here also have previously been addressed at
several EPA symposia (13, 14, 15) and in prior reports (8, 11).
Four waste stabilization/solidification systems which use very different
containment schemes were included in the study. One, Process A, used poz-
zolonic flyash and lime to produce a solid waste product with good struc-
tural integrity and low pH which would render most heavy metals insoluble.
The physical strength of the solidified material could be varied depending
upon the needs of the final product by changing the proportion of additives;
the product used in this study was designed by the processor to be typical
of that which would be used in waste treatment for disposal in a shallow
landfill or monofill. The unconfined compressive strength of these products
varied between 18 and 117 N/cm2 (averaging 70 N/cm2) which is typical of a
low-strength concrete. The waste products generally had a high percent solids
(averaging 78 percent, about twice that of the untreated sludges) and rela-
tively low but variable permeabilities (ranging down to 4 x 10"7 cm/sec).
Process A solidified wastes also had quite varied success in containing the
constituents in the leaching test—the relative overall loss rates of the
constituents, as well as their highest concentrations typically varied by a
factor of over 100. Only magnesium, chloride and sulfate were lost at lower
rates from the treated sludges in three out of four treated sludge columns.
Calcium, cadmium, chromium, manganese and selenium were lost at higher rates
from the same number of columns. Although the patterns of leachate composi-
tion were changed by the solidificaton procedure, the overall effect was not
particularly beneficial to the leaching properties of the treated sludges
when compared to the untreated sludges.
83
-------
Process A is probably the least expensive of the treatment systems in
this study as it mainly consists of a second waste product; flyash, as its
primary treatment additive. Since this study was designed to check the con-
tainment of the industrial waste constituents only, any additional constitu-
ents which might have been added in the treatment reagents were not taken
into account.' It is possible that an appreciable proportion of certain non-
volatile constituents such as chromium, manganese and nickel which were
leached from Process A treated sludge columns may have entered the treated
product via the added flyash treatment reagent. Nevertheless for most con-
stituents measured the treatment did not prevent losses through leaching any
better than the raw sludges themselves. As two waste products—the indus-
trial waste and the flyash additives—are combined to produce a single prod-
uct, Process A appears to be the most economical of the processes included
in this study.
Treatment by Process B produced a semi-friable material with low
strength and a soil-like consistency! Containment is said to be accom-
plished via "microencapsulation" in a silicate lattice so that the ultimate
size of the tested product should not materially change its leaching charac-
teristics. In some testing procedures, this product is ground to a fine
powder before leaching. The products used in this study had low unconfined
compressive strengths (5.5 to 22 N/cm2), and moderate permeabilities (10~4
to 1CT7 cm/sec), which are typical of porous materials. They also had the
highest water content (dry weight basis) and void ratio (volume of voids/
volume of solids) averaging 68 percent and 2.46 respectively.
This waste treatment procedure produced more consistent containment
results with 60 to 70 percent of the constituents having lower levels in the
leachates from the treated sludge columns in all cases. Those constituents
most successfully contained were calcium, cadmium, magnesium, manganese,
nickel, lead, zinc, and sulfate; all of these had lower concentrations in at
least three of the four treated sludge column leachates than in the respec-
tive leachates from untreated control columns. Only chromium and copper
were lost at higher rates from the majority of the treated sludge columns.
Process C attempted to contain the industrial wastes in a plastic
matrix by polymerizing the waste directly in a urea-formaldehyde monomer
preparation. The polymerized product was designed to produce a sponge-like
mass which holds the waste. This system has seen application in low-level
radioactive waste disposal (12) and transportation. The rubber-like solid
products made for this study had the highest unconfined compressive
strengths (200 to greater than 500 N/cm2) but also the highest permeabil-
ities (approximately 10"4 cm/sec). The densities of these products were
much lower, and their modulus of elasticity much higher, than those of Pro-
cesses A and B, perhaps because of the organic matrix.
Only two wastes were treated by Process C—the electroplating waste
(No. 200) which all vendors treated, and the paint production sludge
(No. 700) which only Process C treated. Leachates from sludges treated by
Process C had high levels of most heavy metals. Losses from the electro-
plating waste treated by this process were greater than from the other three
84
-------
treated electroplating samples—as well as the untreated control sludge—for
seven of the eight heavy metals analyzed. This was true in both the "over-
all" and "highest" concentration parameters. This solubilization of the
heavy metals by the treatment system must result from the very low pH (less
than 3) required for the polymerization of the urea-formaldehyde waste mix-
tures. The leachates from these products were also quite acidic, averaging
pH values between 4 and 5. Leachates from these products also had high
chemical oxygen demand and total organic carbon levels,indicating a con-
tinuing loss of unpolymerized additive or breakdown of the organic matrix
itself.
Process D, after adding an organic resin to the waste to agglomerate it
into a more easily handled form, encapsulates the waste inside a 0.64 cm-
thick polyethylene jacket. The external Jacket precluded most physical or
engineering property tests on the solidified wastes. The encapuslated pro-
duct had the lower density and incorporated the smallest amount of dry
sludge solids into columns of any of the treatment systems. Only the elec-
troplating waste was treated by this process. Process-D-treated sludge had
the best overall containment of most of the constituents analyzed.
,It averaged "overall" and "highest" leachate concentrations better than an
order of magnitude lower than control sludge leachates. Only cadmium and
lead were lost at rates higher (Cd) or near (Pb) control levels.
Although Process D produced the best constituent containment results,
its high material, equipment,and labor costs probably preclude its use for
all but the most hazardous wastes (4). The question of the lifetime of the
impervious, polyethylene coating and its interactions with the contained
wastes should also be investigated. Once the outer covering is penetrated
rather large constituent losses might be expected.
'PREDICTING CONTAINMENT EFFICIENCY
Physical Properties as Predictors
Comparison of the results of the physical property and leaching tests
show that none of the physical properties of the fixed sludges determined in
this study were correlated with the containment ability of the treatment
processes. Perhaps this is due to the diversity of the treatment processes
included in this study. Selected physical properties might be significant
in assessing the probable success of different processes using the same
containment strategy. For instance, unconfined compressive strength and
permeability might be excellent predictors of the efficacy of different poz-
zolonic waste treatment systems, but be of little value for those which en-
capsulate the waste materials in "microcrystaline" silicate lattices. High
density (or low void ratio) might be indicative of better containment for
jthose processes which limit leachate loss by lessening the diffusion of
materials from the inside of the solidified waste block.
Freeze-thaw and wet-dry durability tests, or ones of similar nature
might not be considered immediately applicable to properly buried treated
wastes. Proper landfilling requires placement above the water table and
85
-------
below the frost line. However, either test might be a good indicator of the
long term stability of the waste mass even under less rigorous landfill con-
ditions. The long term stability of the treated waste product is a contin-
uing problem.
Leachate pH appears to have some predictive value for the estimation of
heavy metal losses from the treated sludges. Leachates from Process B-
treated sludges had the most basic pH values, starting near pH 12 and aver-
aging around pH 10; these leachates also had consistently lower concentra-
tions of the sludge constituents. Process A treated wastes produced leach-
ates which started with pH values around 10 and averaged near pH 8 or 9;
concentrations in leachates from these products were more nearly like the
control values. The leachate from Process C treated wastes which began
around pH 5 or 6 and averaged between pH 4 and 5 had by far the greatest
concentrations of almost all sludge constituents. The same trend is appar-
ent for the leachates from the untreated control sludge columns—sludges
producing leachates nearer pH 12 having generally lower concentrations of
many of the sludge constituents in the leachates.
CORRELATION BETWEEN CONTAINMENT AND PROCESS OR SLUDGE TYPE
The successful containment of one sludge type cannot be taken as evi-
dence that the treatment process will be successful in containing other sim-
ilar sludges—even to the extent that successful limiting of a particular
constituent from one treated sludge does not necessarily mean that that con-
stituent will be contained in another sludge type. The patterns of constit-
uent loss rates from different sludges are not similar. For example, com-
parison of the "overall" leachate concentrations of chromium and copper from
different sludges treated by Process B (Figure 16) shows that chromium was
lost at about one-tenth the rate from sludge No. 900 compared to untreated
waste but was lost at over 10 times the rate of the control sludge loss from
sludge No. 800. The loss patterns for copper are exactly opposite—a higher
loss rate when compared to the untreated control from treated sludge No. 900
and a lower loss rate from treated sludge No. 800.
Replicate leaching tests made on samples of the same treatment batches,
as was done in this study (see Appendix A), give strong evidence that the
constituent leaching patterns are quite consistent when all test samples are
from the same treatment batch and are subjected to the same testing proto-
col. Excellent agreement between replicates was found for all constituents
which are present in the leachates at levels above the higher detection
limits of the analysis method used for the two "non-priority" columns in
each set of three. The leaching procedure used appears to give reproducible
results even from the unconsolidated, untreated sludges where low, variable
flow rates might be expected to produce the greatest variability.
The great variation in constituent leaching patterns from different
sludges treated by the same treatment process, as well as from the same
sludges treated by different treatment systems suggest that variations in
leaching patterns might be expected between different batches of the same
sludge type which are treated by the same treatment process but at different
86
-------
times and under slightly different conditions. Since only single batches of.
the treated sludges were used in this study, the data presented here do not
address this question directly. However, it is an important consideration
which should be Included in any evaluation of any solidified/stabilized
waste treatment technique.
LEACHING TESTS AS PREDICTORS
The leaching procedure used in this study appears to be a severe test
of the containment performance of the waste treatment processes. The
specific conditions and procedures used in any leaching evaluation will have
a large effect on the apparent efficiency of any stabilization/solidifica-
tion process. The test procedure used here requires that the specimens be
constantly immersed in water saturated with carbon dioxide. This leaching
medium is moderately aggressive in that it has a low pH (approximately 4.5)
and forms soluble bicarbonate complexes with many alkali earth and transi-
tion metals. Constant submersion can cause reactions such as the hydration
of calcium aluminum silicates present in the cement and flyash additives.
These conditions also support biological activity which may accelerate the
'Release of potential contaminants. These conditions are not typical of
those found in a properly designed landfill.
The small size of the treated waste specimens used in this leaching
protocol also is not typical of most landfilled, treated-wastes, especially
for Process A treated wastes which are typically placed in monofills to
produce a single, large waste block. The high surface-to-volume ratio of
these small column specimens greatly Increases the relative rate at which
the wastes constituents can diffuse to the surface of the solid and be
solubilized. While the results of small scale leaching tests such as these
can be used with confidence when comparing results between different, like-
•sized treated wastes, and between different batches produced by the same
^treatment system, extrapolation to field conditions should only be made with
jgreat caution.
1
This study begins to define the comparative effectiveness of different
waste treatment technologies as applied to several common, problem indus-
trial waste sludges. The difficulties and considerations necessary in de-
signing satisfactory physical and leaching testing protocols are also becom-
ing apparent. Projects on a scale more nearly reproducing landfilling
.'conditions are needed to give a complete evaluation of stabilization/
isolidification processes as applied to hazardous industrial wastes and to
^determine the reliability of bench-scale testing procedures such as those
'used here.
87
-------
REFERENCES
1. Civil Engineering. Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Major Problem
of the '80's. Civil Engineering 51(1) :14. 1981.
2. Jones, L. W., and P. G. Malone. Physical Properties and Leach Testing
of Solidified/Stabilized Flue Gas Cleaning Wastes. EPA-600/52-81-116.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1981.
157 pp.
3. Malone, P. G., and L. W. Jones. Survey of Solidification/Stabilization
Technology for Hazardous Industrial Wastes. EPA-600/2-79-056. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 48 pp.
4. Lubowitz, H. R., and Others. Development of a Polymeric Cementing and
Encapsulating Process for Managing Hazardous Wastes. EPA-600/2-77-045.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 167 pp.
5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste and Consoli-
dated Permit Regulations. Federal Register, Vol 45, No. 98, Book 2,
pp 33063-33285, 1980.
6. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Everybody's Problem: Hazardous
Waste. SW-826. U. S, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., 1980. 36 pp.
7. Anders, 0. U., J. E. Bartel, and S. J. Altschuler. Determination of
Leachability of Solids. Anal. Chem. 50(4):564-569, 1978.
8. Bartos, M. J., and M. R. Palermo. Physical Properties of Hazardous
Industrial Wastes and Sludges. EPA-600/2-77-139. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. 89 pp.
9. U. S. Department of the Army. Laboratory Soils Testing. Engineering
Manual EM 1110-2-1906, U. S. Department of the Army, Washington, D. C.,
1970. No pagination.
10. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Part 11, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1973. 717 pp.
11. Mahloch, J. L., D. E. Averett, and M. J. Bartos, Jr. Pollutant Poten-
tial of Raw and Chemically Fixed Hazardous Industrial Wastes and Flue
Gas Desulfurization Sludges—Interim Report. EPA-600/2-76-182, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 117 pp.
88
-------
12. Holcomb, W. F., and S. M. Goldberg. Available Methods of Solidifica-
tion for Low-Level Radioactive WaBtes in the United States. Tech. Note
OPR/TAD-76-4. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
1976. 39 pp.
13. Malone, P. G., R. B. Mercer, and D. W. Thompson. The Effectiveness of
Fixation Techniques in Preventing the Loss of Contaminants from Electro-
plating Wastes. In: First Annual Conference on Advanced Pollution
Control for the Metal Finishing Industry. EPA-600/8-78-010, Indus-
trial Environmental Research Lab, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978. pp 130-143.
14. Myers, T. E., and Others. Chemically Stabilized Industrial Waste in a
Landfill Environment. In: Disposal of Hazardous Waste, D. Shultz, ed.
EPA-600/9-80-010, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1980. pp 58-73.
15. Malone, P. G., and Others. Estimation of Pollution Potential of Indus-
trial Wastes from Small-Scale-Column Leaching Studies. In: Land Dis-
posal: Hazardous Waste, D. Shultz, ed. EPA-600/9-81-002b, U. S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981. pp 103-118.
89
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS FROM NON-PRIORITY LEACHING COLUMNS
Samples from each treated and untreated sludge types were set up in
triplicate leaching columns which underwent similar loading and leaching
conditions. Low-level analysis of metal concentrations were only made on
the leachates from one of each triplicate set of columns—the priority col-
umns from which the information in the body of this report was derived.
This appendix presents the results of the leaching tests from the remaining
two columns of each triplicate set—the non-priority columns. Detection
limits for both sets of analyses are presented in Table 6.
The data from all non-priority columns are given in a form comparable
to that used for the priority columns in the body of this report in
Tables A-l through A-5. These tables show the average and the highest con-
centrations found for the constituents of greatest interest, and the average
and highest volumes and pH values for all leachate samples collected. The
average concentrations were not calculated for those constituents with fewer
than five determinations. Below-detection-limit values were treated as
missing data. Averages which fell below the detection limits are reported
as below detection limits. Only those constituents with an appreciable
number of determined values are listed in the table. Constituents not
listed have too few analyses or too many values below the detection limits.
The data found for the non-priority columns follow patterns and are at
levels quite comparable with the priority columns discussed in detail in the
body of this report. Only a few of the more important trends will be dis-
cussed here to illustrate this confirmation of the data presented earlier.
The values found for a majority of the constituents in the leachates from
all five sludges were above the higher detection limits used for the non-
priority analyses. The electroplating waste, the pigment production sludge
and the chlorine production sludge all had 12 to 13 constituents which are
consistently above the detection limits. The Ni-Cad battery and glass etch-
ing sludges had fewer (8 or 9) constituents at these higher levels.
The untreated sludge columns all had appreciably lower leachate produc-
tion rates, all averaging around 1 1 per sample except the chlorine produc-
tion brine which averaged between 2 and 3 1 per sample. This is the same
pattern found for the priority columns (see Table 16) and is responsible for
the number of constituents showing missing data for the untreated sludge
columns. Frequently only enough leachate was available for a limited num-
ber of analyses. The flow rates through the treated sludge columns were
uniformly high, again reflecting the free flow of leaching fluid through the
90
-------
polypropylene beads which were packed around Che the fixed sludges. Com-
plete analyses were usually available for the leachates from the treated
sludge columns.
The pH values also reflect those found for the priority columns. All
of the untreated sludge columns produced basic leachates which tended toward
neutral as the experiment continued. The electroplating waste, pigment
production and the glass etching sludges are well buffered, having initial
high pH values less than one pH unit more basic than the average leachate
pH. Leachates from the Ni-Cad battery and chlorine production sludges be-
came much less basic over the course of the experiment, indicating a much
lower buffering capacity against the moderately acid leaching medium.
The leaching rates and patterns of the various constituents which were
found above detection limits in the leachates from treated and untreated
sludge columns are quite similar to those discussed for the priority columns
in the body of this report. No major inconsistencies are apparent. This is
also obvious in comparisons made between the duplicate, non-priority columns
in Tables A-l through A-5. Agreement between the independent columns is
excellent.
In general, Processes A and B are seen to be only moderately successful
in containment of the cations in the four sludges which they treated. Dif-
jferences in their containment efficiency are similar to those seen for the
priority columns—Process B being better overall, especially on constituents
in the glass etching sludge (No. 900). High levels of the anions, chloride
and sulfate are found in all leachates from sludges treated by either pro-
cessor. Again the differences between the containment loss from different
sludges being as large or larger than between losses from the same sludge
treated by either of the two processors.
Process C treatment is counterproductive for the containment of many
heavy metalB having leachate concentrations from 10 to 100 times the
untreated controls for beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese,
nickel and zinc. Losses of calcium, magnesium, lead and sulfate were in the
same range as the losses from control columns. Chloride was lost at much
lower rates from Process C treated sludges. Again, these results parallel
those of the priority columns very closely.
Although the solidification/stabilizaion processes used in this study
were successful in preventing the leaching of some of the contaminants from
some of the sludges, no solidification process was successful in containing
all of the contaminants from any one sludge type, or in containing any one
major contaminant in all sludge types treated. The same is true, but with
wider ranges of values, if the highest concentrations of the constituents in
any individual leachate sample are compared as reported in the body of this
report for the priority columns.
91
-------
TABLE A-I. AVERAGE AND HIGHEST VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS FROM LOW-PRIORITY LEACHING COLUMNS
CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED ELECTROPLATING WASTE SLUDGE (NO. 200)
Untreated Sludge Co loans
Process A Columns
Process B Columns
Process C Columns
Column 87 Column 119
(2G0R) (200R)
Column 32 Column 70
(200A) (200A)
Column 15 Column 36
(200B) (200B)
Column 57 Column 51
(200C) (200C)
Parameters Average Highest Average Highest
Average Highest Average Highest
Average Highest Average Highest
Average Highest Average Highest
Vol (1)
0.76
2.25
0.9B
2.29
2.57
4.5
2.91
4.5
2.90
4.5
3.08
4.5
1.88
2.92
2.29
3.32
pii
8.2
8.6
8.4
B.9
8.2
9.9
8.2
9 .8
9.9
11.9
9.93
11.8
4.7
5.2
4.8
5.6
Be
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
N
N
BDL
DDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.7
5.8
2.7
10.0
Cu
459
910
496
973
N
471
581
1,490
514
679
540
678
349
600
377
661
Cd
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.07
N
0.07
0.05
0.08
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
9.9
29.9
9.0
15.9
Cr
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
N
BDL
0.5
1.7
5.8
29. 1
2.7
8.1
69.2
370
25. 1
99.0
Cs
2.4
4.7
2.6
4.8
N
0.8
1.1
3.9
3.1
16.0
2.8
14.5
306
BOO
184
570
Mg
301.7
960.9
260.7
679.4
N
4.4
3.2
6.9
0.07
0.20
0. 17
0.30
260
789
191
461
Hn
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
N
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.8
8.2
2.3
5.1
Hi
0.3
0.4
0.5
2.2
N
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.6
BDL
0.6
48.6
160.0
36.9
78.0
Pb
BDL
1.0
BDL
1.0
N
BDL
BDL
1.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.0
BDL
BDL
Zn
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
N
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
146
486
118
264
CI
N
420
N
370
BDL
26
13
26
203
520
185
479
31
60
27
60
so4
N 22
,500
N IB
,000
2,090
2,725
2,770
5,100 3
,175
10,390
3,150
12,190
5,870 21
,900
4,260 13
,790
NOTE: BDL = Below detection Limits; N = Not enough values for meaningful comparison. AIL in mg/I except pH and volume.
-------
TABLE A-2. AVERAGE AND HIGHEST VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS FROM LOW-PRIORITY LEACHING COLUMNS
CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERY SLUDGE (NO. 300)
Untreated Sludge Column Process A Columns . Process B Columns ^
Column 54 Column 74 Column 26 Column 133 Column 37 Column 99
(300R) (300R) (300A) (300A) (3Q0B) (300B)
Parameters Average • Highest Average Highest Average Highest Average Highest Average Highest Average Highest
Vol (1)
]. 19
3.75
1.21
2.98
2.65
4.5
2.49
4.5
3.14
4.5
3.02
4.5
pH
10.6
12.4
11.4
12.4
8.2
9.6
8.4
9.6
10.5
12.9
10.9
12.7
Ca
1.4
2.0
1.4
2.0
357
1300
443
1490
248
464
317
579
Cd
BDL
0.09
BDL
0.05
0.09
0.15
0.19
0.57
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Mg
BDL
0.60
BDL
0.60
2.25
7.70
2.35
7.10
BDL
0.10
BDL
o
o
Hn
BDL
0.2
BDL
0.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.9
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Ni
0. 7
2.3
0.4
0.6
BDL
0.4
0.3
1.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.35
Pb
BDL
1.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.5
CI
N
250
N
170
110
400
139
562
47
102
119
459
SO.
4
N
N
N
N
1400
1675
1365
1780
N
9.0
11
21
N03
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
987
1810
360
1175
NOTE: BDL = Below detection limits; N = Not enough values for meaningful comparison. All in mg/1 except pH and volume.
-------
TABLE A-3. AVERAGE AND HIGHEST VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS FROM LOW-PRIORITY LEACHING COLUMNS
CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED PIGMENT PRODUCTION SLUDGE (NO. 700)
Untreated Sludge Column
Process C Column
Parameter
Column 78
(700R)
Column 92
(700R)
Average
Highest
Average Highest
Column 66
(700C)
Average Highest
Column 95
(700C)¦
Average Highest
Vol (1) 0.88 2.75 0.66 2.55 2.17 3.08
pH 8.0 8.A 7.6 8.5 6.1 7.2
Ca 517 731 515 759 348 499
Cd 0.75 1.50 0.82 1.29 31.60 57.93
Cr 0.3 1.2 BDL 1.0 0.5 1.3
Cu 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.4 0.6 1.6
Hg BDL 0.003 BDL 0.005 0.006 0.013
Mg 638 1012 736 937 731 3390
Mn 1.6 2.5 1.9 2.9 26.1 38.1
Ni 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.4
Pb 1.2 2.3 1.3 2.0 2.1 3.5
Zn BDL BDL BDL BDL 12 40
CI N 260 N 260 31 51
S04 6,930 11,000 4,430 7,000 4,660 12,890
COD N N N N 5,610 6,822
2.52 4.5
4.9 5.8
235 39p
36.52 53.98
21.6 80.0
4.6 9.5
0.004 0.008
267 545
26.9 85.0
2.4 4.0
1.9 3.8
11 20
20 51
3,380 8,091
4,225 5,234
Note: BDL = Below detection limits; N = Not enough values for meaningful comparison. All in mg/1
except pH and volume.
-------
TABLE A-4. AVERAGE AND HIGHEST VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS FROM LOW-PRIORITY LEACHING COLUMNS
CONTINING TREATED AND UNTREATED CHLORINE PRODUCTION SLUDGE (NO. 800)
Parameter
Untreated Sludge Columns
Process A
Columns
Process
B Columns
Column 3
(800R)
Column
77 (800R)
Column
7 (800A)
Column
94 (800A)
Column
50 (800B)
Column 1
18 (800B)
Average
Highest
Average
Highest
Average
Highest
Average
Highest
Average
Highest
Average
Highest
Vol (1)
2.32
4.5
3.27
4.5
2.45
3.58
2.44
3.58
3.92
4.5
3.17
4.5
PH
7.7
10.3
8.0
10.0
8.6
10.4
8.4
10.2
11.3
12.5
11.7
12.6
Be
BDL
0. 12
0.08
0.14
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Ca
518
729
455
730
658
1,970
629
1,910
520
1,058
469
811
Cd
N
BDL
N
0.05
0.05
0.18
0.06
0.47
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Cr
N
BDL
1.0
2.2
BDL
0.139
0.076
0.120
BDL
1.0
0.8
2.0
Cu
0.4
1.2
0.3
1.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Hg
0.031
0.205
0.056
0.340
0.001
0.005
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.003
0.006
0.040
Mg
A.3
14.0
32.5
130.0
4.6
14.1
3.9
11.3
BDL
0.1
BDL
0.2
Mn
0.2
1.0
N
0.2
BDL
0.1
BDL
1.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Ni
0.6
1.2
0.7
1. 1
4.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
BDL
0.5
BDL
0.5
Pb
BDL
1.7
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.2
BDL
1.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.0
CI
N
N
N
N
1,640
3,340
1,170
3,815
7,600
62,500
14,500
75,500
SO.
H
N
N
N
N
3,297
6,600
2,980
3,900
3,130
23,390
5,910
27,990
Note: BDL = below detection limits; N = not enough values for meaningful comparison. All in mg/1 except p!l and volume.
-------
TABLE A-5. AVERAGE AND HIGHEST VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS FROM LOW-PRIORITY LEACHING
COLUMNS CONTAINING TREATED AND UNTREATED GLASS ETCHING SLUDGES (NO. 900)
Untreated Sludge Columns Process A Columns Process B Columns
Column 11 Column 131 Column 64 Column 143 Column 30 Column 109
(900R) (900R) (900A) (900A) (900B) (900B)
Parameter Average Highest Average Highest Average Highest Average Highest Average Highest Average Highest
Vol
1 .60
4.5
1.74
4.5
2.83
4.5
2.37
4.5
2.87
4.5
2.87
4.5
pH
7.4
8.0
7.5
8.2
8.5
9.9
8.5
9.7
10.2
11.5
10.1
11.5
Ca
674
1019
662
1078
438
582
459
699
63
153
72
154
Cd
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.18
BDL
0.33
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Cr
BDL
0.8
BDL
1.1
BDL
0.10
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Cu
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.4
0.2
0.8
BDL
0.3
0.7
3.2
0.3
0.9
Mg
65
119
115
599
2.3
3.7
1.9
4.1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Ni
N
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.4
5.8
1.5
5.8
8.6
21.0
9.4
27.0
CI
N
N
N
N
BDL
9
BDL
11
46
115
41
135
So.
4
N
N
N
N
1315
1425
1430
1650
560
975
613
1089
Note: BDL = below detection limits; N = not enough values for meaningful comparison. All in mg/1 except pH and
volume.
-------
APPENDIX B
PRIORITY COLUMN LOADING AND TOTAL AMOUNT LEACHED
The actual mass of each sludge constituent in the dry sludge solids
which were loaded into each priority column is shown for each untreated and
treated sludge in Tables B-l to B-5. Materials added in the treatment
reagents are not included since the actual composition and, in some cases,
identity of these additives were not supplied by the vendor companies. Also
included in the tables is the accumulated mass of each constituent leached
from that column over the total leaching period. This latter number is cal-
culated by summing the products of the concentration of each leachate sample
in mg/1 times the sample volume in liters. These are the values from which
the overall leachate concentrations and percent leached data in Section 6 of
this report were derived.
97
-------
TABLE B-L. AMOUNT OF CONSTITUENTS IN DRY SLUDGE SOLIDS LOADED IN TREATED AND UNTREATED PRIORITY COLUMNS
AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF EACH CONSTITUENT LEACHED FOR SLUDGE NO. 200 (ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE)
Untreated
Sludge Column
Process
A Column
Process
D Column
Process
C Column
Process D
Column
Constituent
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
mg in col
Tota 1
mg
Leached
mg in col
Tota 1
mg
Leached
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
As
87.
95
0. 145
36.07
0.959
46.21
0.009
30.61
0.016
17.9
0.048
Be
1,378
0.039
565.2
0.019
724.0
0.028
479.3
48.83
280
0.002
Ca
56,600
2,565
232,200
17,520
297,400
10,753
197,000
10,530
115,000
£5.16
Cd
3,200
0.170
1,313
0.422
1,682
0.033
1, 114
212.8
651
4.56
C r
341,900
0.390
140,200
12.005
332,300
210. 1
119,000
1 ,227
69,600
0.016
Cu
206,800
10.46
84,820
22. 16
108,700
110.40
71,980
7,870
42,100
0.393
Hg
4.
51
0.028
1.85
0.003
2.370
0.02
1.57
0.016
0.92
0.002
Mg
32,850
4,512
13,480
111.7
17,260
1.600
11,440
4,943
6,690
1.421
Mn
969.
6
1.384
397.7
2.023
509.5
0. 100
337.5
49.33
197
0.027
Ni
13,750
2.525
5,642
0.549
7,228
1 .778
4,788
900.1
2,800
0.044
Pb
3,960
0.508
1,624
0.309
2,080
1. 766
1 ,378
2.54
806
1.335
Zn
34,140
0.654
14,000
0.349
9,511
0.365
11,880
2,456
6,950
0.096
CI
992,200
1,230
407,000
193.9
521,400
5,076
345,400
531.0
202,000
59.126
CN
ND
0. 194
ND
6.838
ND
ND
ND
338.5
ND
0.182
SO,
4
1,217,000
82,060
499,500
390.30
639,900
140,800
423,900
114,708
248,000
5,753
S°3
ND
3.003
ND
0.009
ND
292.9
ND
314.7
ND
219.9
Avg pH
8.22
8.24
9.34
4.30
7.12
(std. units)
Note: ND = no data
-------
TABLE B-2. AMOUNT OF CONSTITUENTS IN DRY SLUDGE SOLIDS LOADED IN TREATED AND
UNTREATED PRIORITY COLUMNS, AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF EACH CONSTITUENT
LEACHED FOR SLUDGE NO. 300 (NICKEL CADMIUM BATTERY SLUDGE)
Constituent
Untreated Sludge Column
Process
A Column
Process
B Column
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
As
BDL
2.099
BDL
0.284
BDL
0.008
Be
80.08
<0.001
23.19
0.160
42.35
0.001
Ca
149,500
159.0
43,340
11,840
79,160
10,690
Cd
28,620
0.102
8,294
1.680
15,140
0.089
Cr
929.5
0.013
269.3
0.724
491.9
0.473
Cu
1,982
0.137
574.4
0.479
1,049
0.197
Hg
27.66
0.117
8.02
0.002
14.63
0.021
Mg
6,585
6.330
1,908
44.31
3,484
1.066
Mn
1,046
0.061
303.2
2.405
553.8
0.091
Ni
1,040,000
3.263
301,400
0.929
550,500
0.562
Pb
627.9
0.029
181.9
0.118
332.2
2.466
Se
ND
0.061
ND
0.372
ND
0.008
Zn
8,864
0.060
2,568
5.241
4,691
0.428
CI
719,400
363.9
214,000
351.0
390,900
633.1
CN
ND
0.020
ND
0.580
ND
1.146
SO,
4
ND
42,240
ND
19,524
ND
223.3
S03
ND
33.53
ND
10.14
ND
93.96
Avg pH
11.54
8.87
11.01
Note: ND = no data; BDL = below detection limits.
-------
TABLE B-3. AMOUNT OF CONSITUENTS IN DRY SLUDGE SOLIDS LOADED IN TREATED
AND UNTREATED PRIORITY COLUMNS, AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF EACH
CONSTITUENT LEACHED FOR SLUDGE NO. 700 (PIGMENT PRODUCTION
SLUDGE)
Untreated Sludge Column
Process C Column
Constituent
mg in col
mg
Leached
mg
mg in col Leached
As
821.1
0.080
244.8 0.049
Be
BDL
0.07
BDL 1.161
Ca
91,770
6,803
27,360 7,514
Cd
30,670
12.64
9,144 974.2
Cr
417,700
1.543
124,500 132.9
Cu
33,560
7.308
10,000 63.63
Hg
275.3
0.062
82.08 0.172
Mg
131,800
9,958
39,310 9,586
Mn
12,500
25.36
3,730 546.3
Ni
6,810
4.295
2,030 47.50
Pb
555,400
12.06
165,000 25.21
Se
ND
0.152
ND ND
Zn
15,840
0.697
4,723 179.0
CI
2,366,000
2,913
705,600 415
S04
772,800
115,200
230,400 89,080
Avg pH
7.98
5.56
Note: ND = no data, BDL = below detection limits.
100
-------
TABLE B-4. AMOUNT OF CONSTITUENTS IN DRY SLUDGE SOLIDS LOADED IN TREATED AND
UNTREATED PRIORITY COLUMNS, AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF EACH CONSTITUENT
LEACHED FOR SLUDGE NO. 800 (CHLORINE PRODUCTION SLUDGE)
Constituent
Untreated Sludge Column
Process
A Column
Process
B Column
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
mg in col
Total
mg
Leached
mg In col
Total
mg
Leached
As
161.4
0.143
58.45
0.447
88.01
0.069
Be
BDL
0.578
BDL
0.044
BDL
0.001
Ca
2,678,000
20,890
969,800
41,520
1,460,000
12,840
Cd
60.71
0.127
21.98
0.770
33.10
0.407
Cr
94.91
0.122
34.37
1.274
51.75
0.641
Cu
2,972
14.28
1,076
2.443
1,621
1.629
Hg
118,700
0.280
42,980
0.033
64,730
0.013
Mg
12,240
421.8
4,434
110.5
6,677
1.514
Mn
1,092
0.499
395.5
4.309
595-. 5
0.481
Ni
1,453
5.158
526.2
4.287
792.3
1.469
Pb
769.3
8.556
278.6
3.376
419.5
4.834
Se
ND
0.058
ND
1.347
ND
0.011
Zn
2,061
0.263
746.3
0.205
1,123
0.205
CI
1,519,000
109,500
550,200
39,240
828,600
580,000
CN
ND
ND
ND
0.128
ND
ND
S04
508,100
190,500
184,000
54,330
277,000
159,600
Avg pH
7.69
8.69.
11.15
Note: ND = no data, BDL = below detection limits.
-------
TABLE B-5. AMOUNT OF CONSTITUENTS IN DRY SLUDGE SOLIDS LOADED IN TREATED AND
UNTREATED PRIORITY COLUMNS, AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF EACH CONSTITUENT
LEACHED FOR SLUDGE NO. 900 (GLASS ETCHING SLUDGE)
Untreated
Sludge Column
Process, A
Column
Process B
Column
Total
Total
Total
Constituent
mg in col
mg
Leached
mg in col
mg
Leached
mg in col
mg
Leached
As
124.7
0.060
49.54
0.924
64.91
0.061
Be
BDL
0.206
BDL
0.045
BDL
0.002
Ca
203,500
4,771
80,850
13,308
105,900
2,068
Cd
31.47
0.019
12.50
0.836
16.38
0.012
Cr
617.1
0.327
245.2
0.837
321.2
0.163
Cu
3,269
0.031
1,299
26.35
1,702
9.004
Hg
17.02
ID
6.760
0.003
8.858
0.015
Mg
65,390
621.0
25,970
76.93
34,030
1.235
Mn
1,733
0.639
688.5
5.013
902.2
0.075
Ni
4,655
3.770
1,849
21.07
2,423
215.8
Pb
2,167
0.036
860.7
7.111
1,128
0.137
Se
ND
0.036
ND
0.138
ND
0.018
Zn
3,814
0.155
1,515
1.943
1,986
0.302
CI
1,050,000
120.3
h—•
OJ
o
o
99.34
546,800
1,535
SO.
4
246,100
9,630
97,800
25,729
128,100
16,800
/g pH
7.62
8.39
11.24
Note: ND = no data; BDL = below detection limits; ID = insufficient data.
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA SET FOR PRIORITY LEACHING COLUMNS
Tables C-l through C-16 give the actual concentrations of all constit-
uents analyzed in each leachate sample collected from the priority columns.
Volumes, pH, and conductivities are also included. The data have been blank
corrected and are presented in order of the column number. The majority of
the data presentations discussed in this report are taken from the first
12 sampling periods only (first year), but the data for the second year's
leaching (numbers 13-16) are included in these tables when available.
-------
TABLE C-L. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 2 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 900 TREATED BY PROCESS A.
SAMPLE
: time
VUL
PH
COND
AS
BE
c t
LD
cm
CU
Mb
. Mb
MN
SEO
NUM
(DAYS)
(LITbRS)
(mmmOS/Cm)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
( H P M )
(PPM)
(PPM)
( PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
1 .
1«.
1,^149
9,8
3300.
0 ,008
HDL
608,0
BOL
0.(1 U5
0,410
BOL
4 . 7
0,009
2,
21.
1,7710
8.7
300,
0,005
BDL
5 38.2
BOL
0.069
0.115
BOL
4.1
2,622
3.
26,
1,9450
9,4
26M,
0.007
0,0020
312.5
BOL
0.070
0.169
0,0006
2.B
0,003
h- «.
Q
35.
2,0310
9,6
2 39#,
0,013
0,0007
179.3
0,*298
0,022
0.086
BOL
4.9
HDL
^ 5.
56.
1,6869
9.3
Hit.
0,012
0.0040
O70.0
0,u 0 30
0.015
0,090
0,0005
2.1
0,015
6.
77,
1,6697
8,0
2IH.
0,006
BDL
588.9
bul
0.003
0 ,030
0 . 0 0 U 4
2.9
BOL
7,
13 J.
1,8S90
8,6
a#5«.
0.003
BOL
479,2
BOL
0 .054
0,103
BOL
1.4
HDL
e.
161.
3,2353
8.1
2311,
0,007
0,0020
269,3
0.O00H
0.042
0 .099
BOL
1.0
BOL
196,
2,0611
7.8
32M.
0.273
0,0030
590.0
BOL
0,047
0.170
BOL
2.2
0,003
>0,
259,
3.23S3
6,7
2IM,
0.009
0,0060
478,3
0,1000
0,047
6.260
BOL
0.9
0.015
li.
329,
3,3214
7.6
2l«*.
0,007
BOL
589. 1
O.O021
BOL
0,110
BOL
2.4
0,018
12.
392.
3,«074
7.1
22**.
0,020
BOL
553.0
0,
BDL
0.046
BOL
2. 1
0,012
13.
"51.
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
l«.
569,
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
15.
708.
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
16.
ND
ND
N»
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND ¦ NOT DETERMINED.
BDL * BELOw DETECTION LMITS,
-------
TABLE C
SAMPLE
NI
PB
St
in
CL
SES
NUH
(PPM)
(PPM)
; (ppm)
(PPM )
(PPM)
1.
2.<>00
o.ote
0.030
0 .600
NO
2.
I.TOO
o.oo#
0.022
BDL
ND
3.
1 .TOO
8DL
NO
0,010
ND
«.
I.100
i.8<>9
NO
0.010
Ml)
5.
0.
-------
TABLE C-2. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 5 WHICH
CONTAINED UNTREATED SLUDGE 200.
SAMPLE
TIME
VOL
PH
CONO
A3
BE
CA
LD
CH
CU
KG
mi;
MN
SEO
NUM
( 0 A V S )
(LITERS)
(MMH03/CM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1 .
I.
O.JJ85
NO
NO
ND
0,0065
412,0
0,0400
0,025
2.500
NO
22 0.0
0.790
2.
a.
0.2589
8,3
18800.
ND
0,0095
519,2
0,0700
0.014
0 . 760
NO
219.5
0.522
3.
i".
0.2934
6.5
1.
NO
0,0070
299.5
0.11U0
0 , 020
3.229 .
NU
2.1
0, 1«5
~ «•
21.
0.2245
8. J
18000.
NO
0,0044
479, J
0.0B9B
0.021
3.300
o.ooio
229,3
0, 192
O
5.
26.
0.2073
8.5
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
6.
JO.
0.2245
8.4
2200.
ND
0.0030
348.9
0,0400
0.019
3, 1 00
0.0022
639 , 4
0, 166
7.
63.
0.1557
8.2
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
8.
91 .
0.6374
8.2
18200.
' NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
9.
126.
0.2417
8.4
18000.
NO
NO
ND
BOL
NO
UOL
NO
NO
NO
>0.
169.
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
11.
215.
2.9773
8.2
15000.
NO
0,0090
359,1
O.U05i
0.050
1 ,450
0 . 0003
1034.9
0. 150
12.
153.
1 ,68t>9
8.0
21000.
0,001
NO
191,0
0.0 105
0.095
1.086
0 .0003
280 .0
0 .240
1 J.
451.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
11.
569,
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NU
NO
IS.
706.
1.8590
8.2
21000.
0,077
BOL
175.1
0,0097
0,027
U.65U
0.0137
363,0
0,063
16.
Bid.
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
MO
NO
NO
NIJ
NO
NO
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED.
BDL « BELOW DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
IAMPLE
NI
PB
St
2N
>EU
IUH
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPH)
I.
0. J00
0, ISO
NO
0,260
2 ,
2,500
V.
0,076
NO
ND
J.
0,100
0,051
NO
0,570
0,400
0.591
0,061
0,400
5.
NO
NO
NO
NO
6.
NO
0,975
NO
0.130
7,
NO
NO
NO
NO
a.
ND
NO
NO
NO
«.
0.090
NO
ND
NO
10,
ND
ND
ND
NO
11.
0.410
NO
NO
0.010
12.
0,152
NO
ND
0.129
1 J,
NO
NO
NO
NO
1#,
ND
NO
NO
NO
is.
0,05}
BOL
0,616
BOL
16,
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO a NUT DETERMINED,
BOl ¦ BELOw DETECTION LIMITS,
TABLE C-2. CONCLUDED.
CI
(PPM)
NO
530.
1066,
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
5.
u
-------
TABLE C-3. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 9 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 800 TREATED BY PROCESS B.
SAMPLE
SEQ
NUM
TIME
(DAYS)
VOL
(LITERS)
PH
CONO
(MMHOS/CM)
AS
(PPM)
BE
(PPM)
CA
(PPM)
to
(PPM)
CR
(PPM)
CU
(PPM)
HC
(PPM)
MC
(PPM)
MN
(PPM)
1.
7.
3.42(16
12.5
110000,
HDL
BDL
190.0
0,0920
NO
0,038
0.0012
0,1
0,006
2,
14.
2.7192
12,3
ioeooo.
0,002
BOL
358,2
BUL
0,064
0,100
BDL
BDL
0,062
3.
21.
3.9751
12.5
50000,
BOL
BOL
209.5
BOL
ND
0,049
0,0007
BOL
0,005
4,
i—¦
28,
2,4955
12.4
18000,
0.002
BOL
283,3
BDL
0,062
0,200
BOL
BDL
BDL
§ 5.
«2.
2,7 364
12.1
14700,
BDL
BDL
484 .0
BOL
0.030
0,020
BOL
BOL
0,001
6.
56.
2.0654
13.0
9500.
BOL
BOL
788.9
BOL
ND
0,013
BOL
BOL
BOL
7.
91.
1.8590
11.3
7000,
BDL
BDL
099.2
BDL
0.009
o.oie
0.0002
BDL
BOL
8.
12b.
2. 1 310
11.4
9000.^
BDL
BOL
188.3
Bl>L
0.003
0.050
BOL
BOL
BDL
9.
161 .
I.9450
0.1
7200.
BOL
BOL
750,0
SOL
BOL
0.040
0,0027
O.J
0,005
10.
22«.
1.8590
11.1
aooo,
0,002
0,0005
3«fl.3
20.0000
BOL
BDL
0,0002
ND
o.oot
11.
273.
J,0977
11.2
5300.
ND
ND
539.1
0,0003
BDL
BOL
NO
BDL
ND
12.
365.
3.407«l
U.2
4500,
0.016
BOL
451.0
BOL
0.055
0,026
BDL
0,0
BOL
13.
«98,
a. 5000
7.5
370.
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
14.
611.
3.9375
11.4
3400,
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
15.
735.
4,5000
6.2
500,
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
NO
16.
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO » NUT DETERMINED.
BDL ¦ BELO" DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-3. CONCLUDED.
SAMPLE
NI
PB
SE
In
CL
CN
n>n03
N-N02
SOU
S03
TOC
CUO
SEQ
(PPM)
NUH
(PPM)
(PPM) .
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPH)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1 ,
0. 165
0.686
NO
0.020
95500,
ND
0,10
0,10
24289,
35.
NO
ND
2.
0,036
0.00)
NO
SDL
61172,
ND
0.15
0,22
15991,
2.
NO
ND
3.
BOL
0.023
NO
0.001
20390,
NO
BDL
BOL
2920.
1.
NO
ND
4,
0.150
0,010
NO
BOL
BOL
NO
BDL
0,15
509.
1.
ND
ND
5.
0,018
0.022
ND
0,003
HDL
0,02
0,06
0.02
4000.
2.
NO
NU
6f
UOL
0.024
ND
BDL
581,
0,01
0,02
0,01
4125.
NO
NO
NO
7.
0,012
0.010
0.006
0.003
ND
0.02
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
8.
0,020
0 .9*19
ND
BDL
BDL
0.02
NO
NO
BDL
1.
NO
ND
9.
0.110
0.012
ND
BDL
1684 .
0.01
ND
NO
100.
«.
ND
ND
10.
NO
0.013
ND
0,030
204,
0,01
ND
ND
55.
8.
ND
NO
I 1.
NO
NO
ND
HDL
130,
NO
ND
NO
BDL
BOL
NO
NO
12.
0.023
0.012
ND
HDL
75 ,
BOL
NO
ND
7,
BDL
ND
NO
13.
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
10.
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
15.
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
16.
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
no ¦ not determined,
BOL « UELOW DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-4. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 22 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 900 TREATED BY PROCESS B.
SAMPLE
sto
NUM
TIME
VOL
ILITERS)
PH
COND
(HMHOS/CM)
AS
(PPM)
BE
(PPM )
CA
(PPM)
CD
(PPM)
CR
(PPM )
CU
(PPM)
HG
(PPM)
MG
(PPM)
MN
(PPM)
1.
7.
0,5000
11.#
3600 .
BDL
BDL
95.0
BDL
0,010
ND
0.0011
BDL
0,008
2.
1«.
2.109S
11,0
2800.
BDL
BDL
71.1
BUL
0,001
2, 1 0 0
BOL
BDL
BDL
J.
21.
2.<4716
11.1
2580.
BDL
BDL
«9.5
BUL
BDL
0.699
BOL
BDL
BOL
«.
28.
1 .7730
11.1
2150.
HDL
BDL
8 0.1
BDL
0.002
0.500
BOL
BUL
BDL
5.
2.0f>5«
11,0
• 4090.
BDL
BDL
70.0
0,0005
0.0U2
0.0«S
(l„.0 0 10
0.0
BUL
6.
56,
2.0998
10,7
1120.
BDL
BDL
12.9
BUL
ND
0.018
UDL
BDL
BDL
7.
91.
2.5172
9.5
1100.
BDL
0.0004
12.2
BUL
0,00)
0.063
0.0002
BDL
0.010
8.
126.
2.289)
10,6
200,
BDL
BDL
70.9
BUL
0.00 J
0. 1 «0
BDL
BUL
BDL
9.
161.
1,7J8S
9.1
1500.
BDL
BDL
172,0
BUL
BOL
0.090
0,0021
0.1
BDL
10.
221.
1.7710
981,
0.002
0.0005
91.1
O.OOlb
0,001
BDL
0.0002
ND
0.001
1 I ¦
271.
1.21S1
9.0
1090.
NO
NO
15.1
O.UOOJ
BDL
0.050
ND
BUL
ND
>2.
165.
1.1071
9.0
1 100.
0.017
HDL
57.0
BUL
BOL
O.Obe
0,0002
0.0
BUL
IS.
«98.
<1,5000
8,6
1 100.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
1«.
611.
1.5000
11.0
1 100.
ND
ND
NO
NU
ND
NU
MO
NU
NU
15.
715.
i.sooo
7.5
880,
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
16,
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO « NOT DETERMINED,
BDL « BELOw DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-4. CONCLUDED.
SAMPLE
NI
PB
SE
2N
CL
CN
N-N03
N-N02
SOU
SO J
TUC
tuo
SEQ
(PPM )
MUM
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
( PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
( PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1,
21 .000
0.007
NO
0,040
115.
ND
BOL
0.20
10") <1.
BO,
NU
NO
2.
19.000
bdl
ND
BDL
100,
0,31
o.«o
0,15
791.
au.
NO
NU
J.
9. 300
0.002
NO
0.003
5.
NO
BOL
NO
750.
70,
NO
NO
«.
7, JOO
0.00)
NO
BDL
265,
NO
UOL
0,50
71«.
60.
NO
NO
5.
5.200
0 . 0 30
NO
0.006
15.
0,09
BDL
0,01
675.
au.
NO
NO
6.
J. 100
O.OOU
ND
BOL
HDL
o
o
BOL
BOL
«T5.
NO
NO
NO
7.
2,)9«
BDL
0,007
0,003
NO
0,03
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
8.
2,095
0.002
ND
BOL
32,
0,05
o.iu
0,01
Uill ,
55.
NU
NO
9,
1.700
0.007
NO
BOL
63,
©
O
O
O
c
0,02
312,
11,
NO
NO
10.
1 .600
BOL
NO
0,030
BOL
0,05
NO
ND
«50.
3.
NO
NO
M.
NO
ND
ND
ND
UOL
0,01
ND
ND
122,
HOL
NO
NO
12,
1.619
BOL
NO
UOL
BOL
NO
NO
270,
HDL
NO
NO
U.
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
I«.
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
15.
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
16.
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
XD
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO « NOT DETERMINED.
HDL ¦ BELOm DETECTION LIMITS,
-------
TABLE C-5. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 47 WHICH
CONTAINED UNTREATED SLUDGE 800.
sample
TIME
VOL
PH
CONO
AS
BE
CA
ID
CP
CU
HO
MG
MN
SEO
NUM
(DAVS)
(LITERS)
(MMHOS/CM)
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
t.
1.
0.9106
8,6
60000.
ND
0,
310,0
BUL
ND
1.200
NO
1.6
NO
2.
e.
4.5000
9.6
130000,
ND
0,0008
518,2
ND
ND
2.700
0 , U2H0
0,8
BDL
3.
i«.
1.6999
9,6
86000,
ND
0,0001
544,5
ND
ND
0,039
0,0084
0,6
ND
«.
21.
4.0612
9,0
2600,
ND
NO
569.3
0.0003
NO
0.045
0.006U
0.9
BOL
M 5.
28.
3,2525
7.1
2390,
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
6.
39.
1.704 1
6,0
240,
ND
ND
578.9
HUL
ND
0.003
0.0080
«. 1
0 ,000
7.
63.
3.0977
7.1
2000.
NO
NO
592.2
NO
0.003
0.025
0.0005
1.6
NO
8.
91,
4.5000
6.2
1960.
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
9.
126,
4.0095
6.6
2000.
ND
NO
680,0
ND
BDL
U.013
ND
3.5
NO
10.
189,
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
11,
2«5.
3.5622
7.3
2050.
NO
0,0005
429, 1
0.0004
0,002
0.038
0.0005
11,4
0,009
12.
353,
3.0633
7.1
2500.
0,029
0,1260
641 ,0
0.0009
BDL
0.036
0.0045
5.9
0,000
13.
"51,
2.8912
7.1
2700.
HDL
BDL
587,0
0,0007
0.030
0.021
0.0052
BDL
0.025
11.
569.
1.3600
7."
2700,
0.
0,1310
559,6
0.U422
0.
0.045
0.0077
7,1
0.018
15.
708,
2.0310
7.4
2600,
BOL
BDL
531 . 3
0,0005
BDL
0,008
0,0125
60,9
0.030
1<>.
810.
1.8590
7.2
2600,
BDL
BOL
559.8
bUL
0.001
0,004
0,00b9
9B, 1
NO
NO « NOT DETERMINED,
BOl ¦ BfclOH DEJECTION LIMITS.
-------
SAMPLE
SCO
NUN
1.
2.
3.
1.
5.
6.
r.
a.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1 J.
I«.
15.
16.
NI
(PPM)
NO
ND
o.ots
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
1.159
0.008
0.990
BOL
0.
P6
(PPM)
7.100
0 .449
0.002
0,00b
NO
0.003
NO
NO
0.004
NO
NO
NO
BOl
0.
BOL
NO
SE
(PPM)
NO
NO
NO
0.013
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
0.
BDL
BOL
ZN
(PPM)
NO
NO
0,030
NO
NO
0.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HDL
0,072
BOL
BOL
TABLE C
CL
(PPM)
NO
20000.
177.
68.
NO
20.
35.
HDL
NO
NO
37.
35.
BOL
10.
20.
20.
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED.
BOL ¦ BELOw DETECTION LIMITS.
CONCLUDED.
CN N-N03 N.M02 Sl>« SOi TOC COO
(PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (PPM)
0.01 0.75 0,05 32789. 0, 51, ND
NO 1.20 0, 21991. NO 5«. NO
0,01 BOL 0, 2190, 0. BDL 57,
NO HOL BDL 1389, 0, 6, 53,
NO NO NO NO NO ND NO
BDL ND NO li«5. ND 5. NO
BOL ND ND 1600, ND NO NU
BDL ND ND 2066, NO NO NO
0,15 NO NO 1372, BOL ND NO
ND NO ND NO NO NO NO
HOL NO ND 1691, 5, NO NO
ND NO NO 1720, 2. NO ' NO
ND NO ND 1693, 1, NO NO
NU NO NO 209a, NO ND NO
NO NO NO 1800, NO no NO
ND ND NO 1597, NO NO NU
-------
TABLE C-6. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 58 WHICH
CONTAINED UNTREATED SLUDGE 200.
SAMPLE
SEO
NUM
TIME
(DAYS)
VOL
(LITERS)
PH
COND
(MMHOS/CM)
AS
(PPM)
BE
(PPM)
CA
(PPM )
LU
( HPm )
CH
(PPM)
cu
(PPM)
HU
(PPM)
M(i
(PPM)
MN
(PPM)
1.
1.
0. I56S
6.6
ND
ND
BDL
120.0
0,5300
0.999
0 . 380
0.1000
620.0
0,790
2.
e.
0.2762
8.2
ND
ND
ND
505.2
0, MOO
0,699
0.600
NU
699,5
1,122
J.
i«.
0.1901
8,«
ND
BDL
0.0003
519.5
0,»100
0.090
0,319
ND
2.7
1,191
21.
0.1385
8.1
ND
ND
ND
559.3
0,9998
0 ,0V0
0,100
ND
719,3
1 , 792
H
^ 5.
26.
o.ues
B.I
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
6.
J'.
o.ion
8,0
"850,
ND
NO
59H.9
0,0200
0,060
0,700
ND
919 ,1
2,261
7.
63.
0.0869
7.9
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.
VI.
0.1310
7,8
7100,
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NU
ND
9.
126,
0.5686
8,2
0,
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
10.
189.
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
11.
215.
J.0177
8.1
7000.
NO
ND
139, 1
1 ."300
0.060
0, 360
0,0020
1019,9
1.700
12.
35 J.
1.6869
8,1
10200.
0,001
ND
721 .0
0.5291
0.153
0 ,286
0,0001
7 09, V
2,798
1 J.
«51 .
I.6869
8,0
9u 00 ,
HDL
BOL
627.0
I,0997
o.oea
0,387
0.0009
699,9
2,200
10.
569.
1.3915
8,1
10000.
0,001
0,0130
539.6
1 .2772
0,067
0,590
0.0015
679.8
2,109
IS.
708.
1.8590
CD
9200,
0.019
HOI
138.3
0,6087
0,123
0,871
0.0177
720.0
1,869
ie>.
614.
2.1170
7.8
8800,
BOL
BOL
502.8
0. '535
0,117
1 .001
0.00 12
613,8
1,730
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED.
BDL ¦ BELON DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-6. CONCLUDED.
IAHPLE
N|
PB
SE
ZN
CL
CN
N-N03
N-N02
SUM
SUi
TOC
CUI
IEQ
IUM
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(HP*)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPl
1 .
NO
1.800
NO
0.020
NO
ND
2.70
0.05
5«89.
NO
NO
NO
2.
0.700
1 .199
NO
NO
163.
ND
0,50
©
o
72H .
Nil •
NO
NU
3.
1.210
I ,
-------
TABLE C-7. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 84 WHICH
CONTAINED stUDGE 800 TREATED BY PROCESS A.
SAMPLE
TIME
VOL
PH
COND
AS
HE
CA
ID
CH
cu
HO
MO
MN
SEQ
NUM
(DAYS)
(LITERS)
(MMHOS/CM1
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(KP^ )
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1.
10.
1,5119
to.a
50000.
0,033
BDL
19 30.0
BUL
0.025
0.209
0 . 0 U 2 1
B . B
BDL
2.
21.
2,2375
10.1
3800,
0,020
0,0025
1019.2
BOL
0, 159
0 . 0 0b
0,001b
11.2
1 .622
3.
26.
2,0310
9.2
25000,
0,018
0,0060
395.5
0,0200
0. 1 30
0,537
0,OUOB
5.7
BDL
«.
35.
2,0310
10.2
19000,
0.018
0,0005
683.3
0,16bd
0,0 11
0. 105
0,0005
7.1
bUL
h- 5.
56.
1,0805
8.3
8700,
0.011
HDL
110.0
0.0200
0.010
0 , ObO
0,0009
1 . J
0,002
I—4
b.
77.
1.7385
7.1
10600,
0,009
BOL
718.9
BUL
0.003
0,026
0,0011
1 .J
BUL
r.
13}.
3,321«
8.9
10620,
0,01b
BDL
129,2
0,0096
BDL
0.OS2
0.000b
1 .b
BUL
8.
161 .
3.1071
8.1
13000,
0.019
0.0050
219.3
0.U052
0. Obi
0,011
0,0001
1 . 1
BUL
o.
196.
2.8052
8.8
11010.
0.018
0.0030
550.0
0,0016
0.039
0 . ObO
o.ool 1
2.1
HUL
10.
259.
1.5000
8.1
2800,
O.OOS
BDL
208.3
0.0027
O.OHO
BUL
O.OU09
BDL
0.002
u.
329,
u.sooo
7.0
1000.
0,002
BDL
81,1
O.UlbO
BDL
0,005
BOL
0.3
BUL
12.
392,
a,5000
7.8
2900,
0,007
BDL
2B7.0
0,0057
BUL
BUL
O.UOOU
1.3
0.005
15.
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
Nl)
NU
NU
NO
NU
1".
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NU
NU
NU
15.
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
NU
lb.
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
NU
ND
NU
ND • NOT DETERMINED.
SDL » BELOW DETECTION LIMITS,
-------
TABLE C-7. CONCLUDED.
sample
SEO
NUM
NI
(PPM)
PB
(PPM)
SE
(PPM)
2 N
(PPM)
CL
(PPM)
CN
(PPM)
N«N03
(PPM)
n«nd2
(PPM)
SU«
(PPM)
SO J
(PPM)
TUC
(PPM)
I III)
(PPM)
1 ,
t .300
0. too
0,700
0,008
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
2.
0.0S1
o.ouu
0,092
BDL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
J.
0.100
BOL
NO
BOL
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
«.
0.310
0.010
NO
BOL
NO
O
•
o
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
5.
'0.H0
0.015
NO
BOL
2864.
NO
ND
NO
3200,
BDL
ND
ND
6,
0.120
0.006
NO
BOL
HSU,
NO
ND
NO
3000.
ND
ND
ND
7.
BDL
0.001
ND
0,006
3967.
0,01
NO
ND
4050,
BDL
ND
ND
8,
0.012
0.025
NO
BOL
2536.
©
•
©
NO
ND
<1091 .
ND
NO
ND
9,
0,015
BOL
ND
BOL
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
to.
0,026
0,600
ND
0,002
275.
BDL
NO
NO
1050,
3,
ND
ND
I 1 .
BOL
BDL
0,012
BOL
1«5.
NO
NO
ND
311 .
BDL
ND
ND
12.
BOL
0.013
0.006
BOL
175.
NO
NO
NO
1*60.
BDL
NO
ND
11.
NO'
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
10.
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
IS.
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
16.
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NI)
ND
ND
ND
NO ¦ NOT OETERMINEO.
HDL • UELOm DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-8. PARAfffiTERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 86 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 200 TREATED BY PROCESS B.
SAMPLE
SEQ
NUM
TIME
0 OS
BUL
UUL
e.
126,
2.3751
10,0
2500,
BDL
BDL
498 , 3
BUL
1. ISO
2.800
BDL
BUL
bOL
9.
161 ,
1.7730
6,6
2200.
BDL
0,0020
660.0
bul
0 . 968
2 , SSO
BDL
0.2
HUL
10.
221 .
2,0310
9,6
2200,
ND
ND
N(1
ND
ND
NU
ND
NU
nD
u.
27 J,
3,0977
6.9
2300,
ND
ND
ND
ND
NL)
ND
ND
NO
NU
>2.
365.
4,5000
10.0
2300,
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
NU
IS.
496 ,
4,5000
7.6
2300,
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
NU
14.
611.
3,9235
9.5
2000,
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
NU
15.
735.
4.5000
7.7
1600,
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NU
ND
NU
NU
16.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
NU
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED,
BDL ¦ BELOH DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-8
SAMPLE
Nl
PB
SE
ZN
CL
8EQ
NUN
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
t.
0, 168
0.384
NO
0.070
495,
2.
0,16)
BDL
NO
BOL
305.
J.
0.
0,004
ND
0,018
<189,
J «.
0.03b
0.011
NO
BOL
51 .
5.
0.034
BOL
NO
0.003
45.
6.
0.025
BDL
NO
BOL
15.
7.
0.017
SDL
0.041
0,002
NO
8.
0.005
BDL
NO
BOL
HOL
9.
0.008
BOL
NO
BOL
65.
to.
NO
ND
ND
NO
BOL
11.
NO
NO
ND
NO
BOL
12.
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
»J.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
14.
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
15.
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
16.
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO * NOT DETERMINED.
HOL ¦ BELOw DETECTION LIMITS.
CONCLUDED.
CN N-N03 N.N02 SOU SOi IUC COO
(PPM) (PPM) trf>») (PHM) (PPM) (PPM) (PPH)
ND NO 0.07 1«<4B9. 4. NO HO
1.9 (I O.OB 0.11 8791 . JO. NO NO
NO HDL HOL <1100. 85. Nil NU
ND 0. 0, <10 2B4, 1. NO NO
0.44 0.20 0.02 2580. 2. NO NO
0.39 0.06 0,0a 2200. NO NO NO
o.ja no no no no no no
0.53 NO NO 1781. 2. no no
0,3t> NO NO 1867, 1J. NO NO
0,59 NO ND ISOO, 2. NO no
NO NO Nt> l«OI. HOL NO NO
NO NO no no no NO no
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO ND no no no no no
NO NO no no NO NO NU
NO NO NO NO NO NO NU
-------
TABLE C-9. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 102 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 200 TREATED BY PROCESS D.
SAMPLE
time
VOL
PH
COND
*s
BE
CA
LD
CM
CU
HU
Ml,
MN
SEQ
NUN
(DAYS)
(LITERS)
(MMHOS/C*)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
( PPM )
[PPM )
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
I.
7.
2.1515
7.1
2«.
0,001
BDL
1.2
BDL
BDL
0.035
ND
BDL
0.004
2.
l«.
2,0826
7.1
160.
0,010
BDL
3.5
BUL
BDL
0.028
HDL
HDL
BDL
3.
21.
1 .8590
7.3
40.
BOL
0,0004
0.5
BDL
0.001
0,036
BDL
AiD
BDL
«.
28.
1.8590
7.0
51.
BDL
BDL
1.3
2.1998
0,001
0.002
BDL
ND
BDL
5.
"2.
1.5493
7.4
63.
0,004
BDL
15.0
0.0036
SDL
0.003
BDL
O.I
0.005
6.
56.
1.8590
7.2
«2.
0,006
ND
BOL
BDL
0.
BDL
BUL
BDL
BDL
7.
"»1.
2.2891
7.1
16.
BDL
0,0002
NO
0,0006
0,005
0,015
0,0007
ND
BDL
«.
112.
1.6161
7.#
33.
BDL
BDL
0.8
0,0017
BDL
0.U1 7
BDL
BDL
BDL
<>.
147.
1.5321
7.2
25.
BDL
BDL
2."
BDL
BDL
bUl
BDL
BDL
BDL
10.
210.
3,3211
7.1
33.
0.001
0.0002
1.2
0,0017
BDL
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
11.
273.
2.2719
7.1
«2.
0,001
BOL
3.0
0,0020
BOL
0.038
BDL
0.1
BDL
12.
364.
4,5000
6,4
76.
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13.
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
1«.
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
15.
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16.
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ¦ Nur DETERMINED.
BDL • BELOW DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-9. CONCLUDED.
SAMPLE
NI
PB
SE
ZN
CL
CN
N-N03
N-N02
SU4
SOI
IOC
cuo
SEQ
NUM
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1.
0,015
NO
ND
NO
BOL
BOL
1H.80
NO
BOL
5u.
NO
NU
2.
BOL
BOL
NO
BOL
15.
BDL
NO
BDL
ND
NO
BOL
UOL
1.
BOL
BOL
NO
BDL
15.
BOL
BDL
BOL
ubO,
NO
bOL
53.
«.
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
HOL
BDL
BDL
69.
30.
BOL '
l«i'.
5.
0.006
BOL
ND
BOL
ND
BOL
ND
ND
ND
NO
i.
NO
6.
BOL
0.001
ND
BOL
ND
NO
0.02
BDL
BOL
1.
NO
">5.
7.
BOL
0.002
ND
0.010
ND
0,07
0.01
BOL
NO
NO
I.
63.
a.
BOL
BDL
NO
BOL
HDL
0.00
0.07
0,01
BDL
«.
6.
NU
BOL
BOL
NO
0.014
BOL
BOL
NO
NO
uug.
1 .
NO
NO
to.
HDL
0.400
ND
BOL
BOL
NO
NO
NO
V.
10.
NO
NO
It.
0.001
BOL
NO
BOL
HOL
NO
l"u
o
•
O
HDL
1 .
NO
NO
NU
12.
ND
NO
ND
NO
BOL
NO
ND
NO
1 1 .
BDL
NO
NO
13.
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
1«.
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
15.
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
nd
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
lb.
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED.
BOl ¦ BELOw DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-10. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 110 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 300 TREATED BY PROCESS B.
SAMPLE
SEQ
NUN
T J ME
(DAYS)
VOL
(LITERS)
PH
COND
(MMMOS/CM)
13
(PPM)
Bt
(PPM)
C A
(PPM)
to
(P|>M)
CH
(PPM)
CU
(PPM )
HG
(PPM)
MU
(PPM)
MN
(PPM)
I.
7.
a.5000
12,6
30000,
BOL
BDL
108.0
BDL
0.020
0.025
O.OU12
0.0
0,016
2.
1«.
3.321 A
12.5
19000,
BOL
BDL
1 6 B » 1
Bl'L
0 .047
0.006
0,0003
BUL
BOL
J.
21.
2.6160
11.9
11400.
0,003
BDL
269.5
BDL
0 .006
BOL
0,0003
BOL
BOL
«.
28.
I.9966
12.0
9400.
0OL
HDL
351.3
0.U0B3
0.0)7
0.004
D,0020
BOL
BOL
~ 5
ho '•
«2.
2.3579
n.v
11100.
BDL
BDL
452.0
0.OQ70
0.U11
0.U06
0,OUitt
BOL
0,001
6.
56.
2.2375
12,2
6500.
BOL
BDL
618.9
BOL
0,005
0,002
BOL
BOL
UDL
7.
91.
2,5472
11 .6
6000.
BOL
0.0001
549,2
0.
0.004
0.00b
0,0001
BOL
BOL
e.
ia<>a
1.9450
11.«
5200 .
BOL
BDL
445.3
8UL
0.063
0.005
BOL
BOL
BDL
9.
It. 1,
3.3215
1 1.0
4600 .
BDL
BDL
450 .0
BOL
UDL
BOL
BOL
o.l
BOL
to.
224.
1.9050
10.7
760.
BDL
BDL
Bft.3
0 .0024
BOL
BOL
BOL
NO
BOL
u.
273.
4.5000
H.2
3900.
NO
NO
409. 1
BOL
NO
BDL
NO
0.
NO
u.
365,
a.5000
10.0
260 0.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
13.
498.
0.5000
»,«
140.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
iu.
611 ,
1,0268
8. J
170.
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
15.
735,
3,2353
9.5
700.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Nl)
NO
NO
NO
16.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
Nl)
NO
Nl)
ND
NO « NO! OE TERM INt D.
BDL ¦ BELO* DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-LO
SAMPLE
SfcQ
NUH
>.
2.
J.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
>0.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
NI
(PPM)
0,0)7
0.007
BDl
0.015
0.01)
0.010
0.009
BDL
BDL
0. 130
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
PB
(PPM)
0.091
BDL
0.028
0.025
0,030
0.003
0.025
0.899
0.010
BDL
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
3E
(PPM)
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
0.003
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ZN
(PPM)
0.070
BDL
0.006
BDL
0,005
BDL
0.003
BOL
0.001
BDL
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED,
BOL ¦ BELOh DETECTION LIMITS.
CL
(PPH)
BDL
BOL
87.
10.
BDL
«0.
ND
BDL
83.
BDL
BOL
BDL
NO
ND
NO
ND
CONCLUDED.
CN
(PPM )
NO
0.12
ND
ND
0,14
0.04
0.07
0,04
0,00
0.01
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
fcl-NOJ
(PPM)
529,80
1190,00
7 4 J,40
221,80
(118,00
100.20
NO
ND
NP
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
N.N02
(PPM)
169.80
90.00
37.90
29.50
20.00
6.BO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
SOM
(PPM)
BDL
BDL
».
ND
8.
a.
NO
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
16.
ND
NO
NO
NO
SO)
(PPM)
I .
15.
1 .
1 .
1.
NO
ND
1,
5,
2,
BOL
BOL
NO
NO
NO
NO
1UC
(PPM)
NO
NU
NO
NO
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NO
NU
NU
NO
cuo
(PPM)
NU
NO
NO
NO
NU
NO
NO
NU
NO
NU
NO
NO
NU
NO
NO
NU
-------
TABLE C-ll. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 113 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 300 TREATED BY PROCESS A.
sample
TIME
VOL
PH
COND
* s
BE
C»
ID
CR
CU
HC*
MG
MN
9CQ
NUM
(DAYS)
(LITERS)
(MMHOS/CM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM )
(HPm)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
1.
1".
I.8590
10.1
9000.
0.012
0.0013
109o,0
BDL
0,041
0.076
BDL
4.7
0,001
2.
21.
2.3751
11.2
500.
0.012
o.ooou
2 39. 1
0.1IhO
0,099
0,037
BOL
2.5
0.922
3.
28.
2.1170
8.9
3600.
0.008
0.0020
200,
«DL
0.020
ND
0.0003
0,0
BDL
«.
35.
2.3751
9.9
2800,
0.011
HDL
1279,3
0,2258
o.oie
0,038
BDL
1.4
BDL
5.
50.
2.2203
8. J
2900.
0.010
HDL
250.0
0,0700
0,025
0.013
0.0003
1.0
BDL
0.
77.
1.8590
7.8
2300.
o.ooe
HDL
2«fl,9
0.
0.011
0,007
BDL
1.0
BDL
7.
135.
1 .0809
8.5
2300.
0.024
BDL
199.2
BDL
bOL
0,00b
BDL
0.2
BDL
8.
101 .
3.2214
8.7
2680.
0.014
HDL
1 ^9,3
0,001 1
0 .030
U . OOS
BDL
0.7
BDL
0.
196,
2.7192
8.0
21 SO.
o.ooe
BDL
250.0
BOL
0,020
BOL
HDL
0.0
0,005
10.
25-».
3.1493
7.8
1500.
0 .007
0,0470
239.3
0, 1000
0,026
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
11.
J2<>.
3.4074
e.«
1800.
0.002
HDL
319,1
0.O200
BDL
0.005
0.0002
0.9
BDL
12.
1,500 0
8.1
1900.
o.oou
BDL
279,0
O.Ul74
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.9
BDL
13.
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
I«.
NO
NO
NO
ND
nD
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
15.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
*D
Ntl
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
10.
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NU
ND
NO
ND ¦ NOT OETEHHJNED.
BDL « BELO* DETECTION LIMITS,
-------
TABLE Oil
SAHPLC
Nl
PB
SE
ZN
CL
SEO
HUM
(PPH)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1.
0,111
0,026
0.072
0,002
ND
2,
0.051
0,01 3
0.073
BOL
ND
3,
0.020
0.000
ND
BDL
NO
4.
0.050
BOL
NO
BOL
ND
5.
0.020
0,001
ND
BDL
31
6,
0.012
0.001
ND
BDL
32
1.
0,005
BDL
NO
0,006
5
8.
0.027
0,003
NO
BDL
3
9.
0,018
0,003
NO
BDL
ND
10.
O.OUU
0.002
NO
1 ,640
5
U.
0,014
801
0.011
BDL
BDL
12.
0.00 J
HDL
0.00b
BDL
30
1 J.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
14.
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
15.
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
16.
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO « NOT DETERMINED.
HDL * BELOh DETECTION LIMITS,
CONCLUDED.
CN N-N03 N-N02 SOU SOJ TUC CUD
(PPM) (PPM) (PPM) (PPh) (PPM) (PPM) (PPM)
ND ND ND NO NO NO NO
ND NO NO ND NO ND ND
NO ND ND NU NO NO NO
NO ND ND Nl) ND NO NO
0,11 NO ND 1275. 0. NO NO
O.OB ND NO 1300, J. NO NO
0,11 ND NO 1075, ttOL NO NO
ND ND NO t 1 V1 . 0. NO NO
ND ND ND NO NO NO NO
NO NO ND 750. 1. NO no
ND NO no 791. HDL NO NO
ND ND ND 780. BL)l NO NO
NO NO ND NO NO Nl) NO
NO ND ND NO NU NU NO
NO ND ND NO NU NO NO
ND NO NO NU NO NU NO
-------
TABLE C-12. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 122 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 200 TREATED BY PROCESS C.
SAMPLE
SEQ
SUM
TIME
(DATS)
VOL
(LI 1EKS)
PH
COND
(mhhoS/Cm)
AS
(PPM)
Ht
(PPM )
CA
(PPM)
CD
(KPM)
CR
(PPM )
CU
(PPM)
H(i
(PPM )
MG
(PPM )
MN
'(PPW)
1.
7.
2.1607
«.l
1*5500.
HDL
0,2098
28 J . 0
20.9300
299.999
700,000
0,U030
570.0
6.300
2.
1«.
2.1687
0.3
11100.
BDL
0 ,4 400
359.2
10,9700
129,999
600,000
0.OOOO
359.5
2.822
J.
21.
1 .9622
a.o
9000.
HDL
3,0700
365.S
15,V8O0
78.000
669.999
BOL
379,5
o.ooo
»—• a
K> •
28.
3.18S7
0.5
0950.
HDL
2,0000
312.3
8.1908
16,000
30.000
80L
20 0, 3
2.392
ON
5.
«2.
2. ISIS
s.o
5700.
BDL
2,0000
<110.0
9,0000
20,000
310.000
ND
230,0
1.500
6.
56,
3.0633
2500.
HDL
0.7500
263.9
3,1700
6,000
180.000
BDL
59,0
0.88b
7.
<»1.
1.6009
«.8
OOOO.
0.010
1,5900
6B9.2
5,V970
7,000
200.0 00
DDL
109,7
1,600
8.
12b,
1 ,9u50
5.0
3300 ,
BDL
1,1500
30(1 .3
5.297S
3,900
115.000
BOL
1«5,0
0.577
«.
1".
1.7557
S.t
2500.
BDL
1 .0300
560.0
0,3972
2,098
159.990
8UL
59,5
0,760
10.
210,
3.0930
5.0
2250,
BDL
1,0600
008.3
3."000
1 .990
179.060
BDL
52,8
0.796
il.
266.
3. M93
a. 6
1700.
NO
HO
5?9.1
e.oooo
ND
150.000
ND
30,9
NO
12.
36a,
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
U.
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND ¦
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO-
1«.
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
IS.
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NU
16.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
UO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND » NOT DETERM INED.
80I a HtL0« DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-12
SAMPLE
NI
PB
SE
2N
CL
SEU
NUH
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1.
121.000
0.700
NO
168,000
60,
2,
69.500
0.219
NO
200.000
50,
J.
69.000
0. 1 16
NO
180.000
51,
«.
36.000
BOL
NO
101.000
20,
5.
18,000
ND
ND
ND
JO,
b.
11.000
0,020
ND
18.980
10,
7.
21,994
0.011
ND
71.000
10,
8.
12,095
0.016
ND
50.7S0
NO
12.200
0.010
ND
18.1184
10,
10.
8.820
BOL
NO
39.100
BOL
11.
ND
NO
NO
ND
HDL
12.
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
11.
NO
NO
NI)
ND
NO
1".
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
15.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
16.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND a NOT DETERMINED.
BDL a BELOw DETECTION LIMITS.
CONCLUDED.
CN
(PPM)
0.07
ND
0.10
ND
0,07
109.99
0.09
0,11
0 , Ob
0.1b
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
n«n03
(PPM)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
N-N02
(PPM )
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SOU
(PPM )
I 3789.
10191.
1 15.
64B9,
5500,
4250,
140.
NO
2117,
1800.
1871 .
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
SOI
(PPM)
10.
«0.
9.
1 .
50.
NO
7.
NO
#.
1 .
bOL
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
TOt
(PPM)
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
£000.
ND
2600,
1900.
1 700.
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
CUD
(PPM)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
7005,
4692,
b07H,
69//.
6210,
NO
NO
Nt<
NO
NO
-------
TABLE C-13. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 123 WHICH
CONTAINED UNTREATED SLUDGE 300.
SAMPLE time
VOL
PH
COND
AS
HI
CA
LI)
CW
CO
HO
HO
MN
SEO
NUM
(DATS)
(LITERS)
(MMHOS/CM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(HPM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1 .
1.
0 .3622
10,9
24800.
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
o.oso
NO
0.2
NO
2.
8.
0.25a9
12.1
ND
ND
0,0002
0.9
o.uioo
o.oot
0,040
NO
BOL
0. 1<>2
J.
1«.
0.3US0
12.2
21000.
6.000
ND
NO
0.
0.004
o.oos
NO
NO
0,003
«.
21.
0.29J5
12.«
21000.
ND
ND
1.7
0.U498
ND
0.040
0.0021
HDL
BOL
5.
28,
0,2245
12.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
6.
39.
o.ioai
11.9
23000.
0, 002
ND
1.2
0.U200
ND
0,060
NO
NO
0.019
7.
63,
0,1901
12.0
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NL)
8.
«1.
0.9987
12.0
21500.
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
9,
126,
1,3426
12.1
25000.
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
10.
189,
2.5972
12,«
21000,
0,002
NO
SDL
0.UI 48
o.oo J
eoL
NO
»•*
NU
11.
2«5,
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
Nl)
NO
NO
NO
12.
553.
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
13.
«5l.
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
1«.
569 ,
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NU
15.
706.
2.0)10
9.«
10000.
0,012
BOL
BDL
0.U049
BDL
BOL
0,Ub69
BOL
0.
16.
814.
1,6869
8.6
8000.
BDL
BDL
85.7
0.0061
0,001
BOL
BDL
BOL
NO
NO • NOT DETERMINED,
BDl ¦ BELOx DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-13.
SAMPLE
NI .
PB
8E
ZN
CL
3ES
NUM
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
1.
ND
NO
0.007
0.040
NO
2.
2.900
0.019
NO
0,050
5.
J.
0, JOO
0.019
ND
ND
704.
4.
0.200
0.018
0.011
ND
NO
5.
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
6.
0.400
0.019
NO
0.050
NO
7.
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
e.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
9,
MO
NO
NO
ND
ND
10.
0,670
0.002
NO
ND
»7.
11.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
12.
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
1).
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
1«.
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
15.
0.201
0.002
0.020
BDL
BOL
16.
0.113
NO
0.004
BOL
BOL
NO « NOT DETERMINED.
BOL ¦ BEIOM DETECTION LIMITS.
CONCLUDED.
CN
N»N03
n»no2
804
SO)
TOC
CUD
(PPM)
(PPM)
(HPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
( HPM )
NO
919,80
479,80
245.
0.
144,
472,
ND
1120.00
480.00
181 .
NO
NO
NO
NO
2.iS
13,10
101 .
0.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Ni)
NO
O
o
NO
NO
16500,
1.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
10,
15.
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
».
NO
NO
NO
-------
TABLE C-14. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 124 WHICH
CONTAINED UNTREATED SLUDGE 900.
sample
TIME
VOL
PH
COND
AS
Bt
CA
CD
CR
CU
Mli
M(i
MN
SEO
NUM
(DATS)
(LITERS)
(mmhoS/CM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
1 PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
1.
1.
0,2762
6.5
3610,
ND
BDL
850.0
BUL
o.oos
0,010
ND
59,0
0,090
2.
e.
0,2509
8,2
NO
NO
0.0001
860.2
BUL
0.H99
0.001
ND
56.5
0.062
J.
I«.
0,1278
8,1
3200,
ND
0.0003
7HU.S
HUL
NO
o.ooi
ND
2.1
0,075
«.
21.
0.2589
8.1
3000.
NO
NO
819.1
0.0001
Ml
0,010
ND
59.1
0.075
5.
28.
0.2215
8,J
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
6.
39,
0,1185
7,9
3800,
0. 002
NO
1058.9
HUL
NO
0,011
NU
111,1
0.051
7,
63,
0.207 J
7,7
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
NU
ND
8,
"1.
0,9299
7,2
2510.
NO
NO
NO
ND
Nil
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.
126,
1.2568
7.8
3000,
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
10.
169.
1.6869
7.8
2700.
0.008
ND
515.1
0.U0I2
NO
HDL
NO
H1 ,1
0,010
M.
2«5.
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NU
ND
12.
353,
1,6869
6.8
3«00.
0.008
NO
611 .0
0, U05«>
0,017
BDL
NU
70.9
0.111
13.
151.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NU
NO
11.
569,
1,5119
6,«
3500,
HDL
0.130U
529.6
HDL
BDL
bOL
BDL
85. b
0,091
15.
708,
1.6869
8,1
3100.
0.011
BOL
097,1
0.0001
0.001
0.001
0.0007
97.0
0 . Otott
16.
811,
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
NO
NU
NIJ
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED.
BDL * BELON DETECTION LIMITS.
-------
TABLE C-14.
SAMPLE
NI
PB
SE
Zn
CI
SES
HUM
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
1.
NO
0.0J5
ND
NO
NO
2.
0,018
0.013
NO
ND
4).
1.
0,040
0.002
ND
0.040
22.
«.
NO
0.050
0.011
NO
NO
S.
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
t>.
NO
0.003
NO
0.030
NO
7,
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
a.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
to.
0,050
0,001
NO
NO
NO
II,
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
12,
1 , 179
NO
NO
0.069
ND
1 J.
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
'?•
0,950
0.
0.001
HOL
20.
>5.
0,022
0,001
0.011
HDL
20.
16,
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO ¦ NOT DEURMINEO.
0DL » BELOw OETECUON LIMITS,
CONCLUDED.
CN
(PPM)
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
N-NO J
(PPM)
2,00 .
0.40
DDL
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N-N02
KPM)
0,05
0.10
I .SO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
sua
(PPM)
2069 ,
2191 .
162b.
NO
NO
NU
NO
NO
NU
NO
ND
NO
NU
2794,
2200.
NU
SOi
(PPM)
UOL
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
TUC
(PPM)
ND.
NU
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
'40
NO
NO
MO
ND
NU
NU
NU
NU
CUD
(PPM)
ND
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
NU
ND
NU
NU
NU
-------
TABLE C-15. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN
CONTAINED SLUDGE 700 TREATED BY PROCESS C.
134 WHICH
S*«PLE
SEQ
NUM
TIME
(DATS)
VOL
(LITfcWS)
PH
CDND
(MMHOS/CH)
IS
(PPM)
HE
(PPM)
CA
(PPM)
LD
(CPU)
CH
(PPM )
cu
(PPM)
HU
(PPM)
MG
(HPW)
MN
(PPM)
t.
7,
i,6tei
1,8
1*1790,
0,002
ND
2J8.0
96.9J00
<(.099
16,000
0,0120
1620,0
7/,000
2.
14.
2,2719
a,9
10200,
0,017
BDL
219.1
57.9700
19,999
i.eoo
0.0«80
669,5
7 ,922
3,
21.
2.2S«7
5,8
7500.
BDL
BDL
237.5
41,9800
8.600
2.099
0.0082
609,5
3 7,295
«.
28.
2.0a«2
S.7
5800.
BDL
HOL
199,3
7,9998
3,"00
1 .600
0,0095
182, J
21.992
B 5-
IS.
2.2891
6,1
5U00,
DDL
0,5000
210.0
37,0000
20.000
1. 500
NO
110.0
28,000
6.
56.
1.9
-------
TABLE C-15. CONCLUDED.
SAMPLE
Ml
PB
St
Zn
CL
Cm
N-KOS
N-N02
SOU
30J
TOC
CUD
SEQ
MUH
(PP«)
(PPM)
IPPM J
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
IPPM )
(PP M ]
(PPM)
CPV>«)
(PPM}
IPPN)
1.
5,700
t.ioo
NO
JO.000
SO.
100.00
NO
NO
15U8S.
25.
NU
NO
2.
5.600
NO
IS.OOO
to.
0,10
NO
ND
»l«l .
6S.
NU
NO
1,
2.900
o.«m
NO
10.000
51.
0.16
NO
NO
650.
1 .
NO
NO
4,
1 .000
0.00J
MO
S.BOO
50.
NO
NO
NO
5.
HO
NO
5.
2.000
NO
NO
NO
10.
0.05
NO
NO
sooo.
10.
NO
NL>
b.
1 .500
J.000
NO
0.180
20.
0, IS
NO
NO
4000,
NO
NO
NU
J.
BOL
0.A5S
NO
b . 200
BDL
0.10
NO
NO
1 •
2600,
1100,
*6.
1.6*5
BOL
NO
T.230
ND
0. 1 3
NO
NO
NO
NU
NO
A7i«.
1.500
5.200
NO
b.ieu
BOL
NO
MO
NO
HIT,
•».
I'iUtt.
10.
2.020
BDL
NO
t>.aoo
BOL
nO
NO
NO
lt50.
1,
ta70.
11.
NO
ND
ND
no
BDL
ND
NO
NO
14U 1 ,
9DL
if«C0,
Sltt.
13.
NO
MO
nO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
NO
NO
•
is.
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
WD
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
I«.
NO
MD
NO
NO
ND
NO
Nf>
NO
NO
NO
NO
Nil
15.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
KO
Nt)
MD
MJ
r-C
NU
NO
16.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Nl>
NO « NOT f)£ T£WH] NED.
BOL « BELO« OeitCHOH LI*1U.
-------
TABLE C-16. PARAMETERS OF LEACHATES FROM PRIORITY COLUMN 139 WHICH
CONTAINED SLUDGE 200 TREATED BY PROCESS A.
SAMPLE
time
VOL
PM
CONO
AS
BE
C A
(.0
- CR
CU
HG
HG
MN
SEQ
NUM
(RAYS)
(LI 1ERS)
(MMHOS/CM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
t.
It.
1,6869
9.3
14000.
0,007
0.0035
1210.0
HUL
2,499
3,600
HDL
9.7
0.002
2.
21.
1.9790
9.4
900.
0.002
HDL
460.2
0,0750
1 .599
1 ,900
BOL
2.6
0.922
3.
28. .
1 .6869
8.1
6000.
0.003
0.0010
569.5
0.
0,800
1,799
0.0006
4.9
BOL
4.
IS.
1 .8590
9.0
4600.
0.004
0,0005
468. 3
0,0 786
0,300
0,956
VOL
4.4
BOL
^ 5.
56.
1 ,979a
7.#
3500.
0,002
0,0020
510.0
0,0020
0,001
1.100
0.0006
3'3
BOL
6.
77.
2.0462
7.5
3100.
0.003
0,0010
658.9
BOL
0,080
0,860
BDL
5.7
BOL
7.
133.
2,5172
e.j
3060.
0.002
BDL
509.2
HUL
0,041
0.463
BOL
2.0
0.002
e.
161.
4.5000
a.6
2000.
0.004
0.0010
509.3
BUL
0,060
0,009
BOL
J.l
BOL
9.
1*6.
0.8267
8.1
2950.
0.006
BOL
540.0
BOL
0,055
U.200
BOL
3.2
0.002
10.
259.
0.5000
7.6
2300.
0.006
HDL
528.3
0,0007
0.226
BOL
BDL
0.9
BDL
It.
329.
3.4074
7.1
2000.
O.OOI
BDL
559.1
0,0012
0,241
0. too
O.OOOi
2.3
0,004
12.
3«2.
4.5000
8.3
1900,
HDL
BDL
451.0
BUL
0,059
0, I 76
BDL
2.4
0.
11.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
1«.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NU
NO
15.
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
16.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
¦ NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO ¦ NOT DETERMINED,
BOL • BELOw OETECTION LIMITS,
-------
TABLE C-16. CONCLUDED.
SAMPLE
NI
PB
SE
in
CL
CN
N»NO)
N.N02
SOU
SO)
IOC
COO
SEQ
NUM
(PPM)
(PPH)
(PPM)
(PPH)
(PPH)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM)
(PPM )
(PPM )
(PPM)
(PPM )
1.
o.oaq
0.0V2
0.16ft
0.005
NO
1.6)
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
2.
0 a 06]
O.OJfl
0. 122
eoL
NO
1.11
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
J.
0.012
0.002
NO
BOL
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NU
«.
DDL
0.003
ND
0,010
ND
O.lil
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
5.
BDL
0.001
NO
BOL
26.
O.J)
NO
NO
J000.
BOL
NO
NU
6.
0.008
0.006
NO
BOL
26.
0,17
ND
NO
2QS0,
BOL
Nl)
NO
7.
BOL
BOL
ND
0,007
5.
O.O)
NO
ND
2100.
BOL
NO
NO
».
0.017
0.0)4
ND
BDL
BDL
ND
ND
NO
1641,
NO
NO
NO
«.
0.011
0.001
ND
BOL
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
10.
0.024
BOL
NO
0,008
BOL
NO .
NO
NO
1 JSO.
ND
NO
NO
11.
SOL
60L
0.010
BOL
BOL
NO
NO
ND
1441 .
BDL
NO
NO
12.
0.00)
BDL
0,000
BDL
BDL
ND
NO
ND
1020,
HDL
NU
NO
1 J.
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
11.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
fcD
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
15.
NO
NO
KID
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
16.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO ¦ NOT OETEHHINED,
0DL ¦ 0ELON DETECTION LIMITS.
------- |