EPA/600/2-89/013
March 1989
EVALUATION OF SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION AS A
BEST DEMONSTRATED AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS
By
Leo Weitzman and Lawrence E. Ham el
Acurex Corporation
Environmental Systems Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27713
Contract No. 68-03-3241
Technical Project Manager
Edwin Barth
Waste Minimization, Destruction and Disposal Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before complcimxi
1 REPORT NO. 2
EPA/600/2-89/013
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
PB89 1 6 9 9 0 8 /AS
4. title and subtitle
Evaluation of Solidification/Stabilization as a
Best Demonstrated Available Technology for
Contaminated Soils
S. REPORT DATE
Marrh 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION code
7. AUTHORCS! . .
Leo Wei tzrnan and Lawrence E. Hanel
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION name and address
Acurex Corporation
4915 Prospectus Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27713
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-3241
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory - Cincinnati, 0
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati . flH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Edwin F. Barth, Work Assignment Manager (513) 569-7669 FTS: 684-7669
16. ABSTRACT
This project involved the evaluation of solidification/stabilization
technology as a BDAT for contaminated soil. Three binding agents were used
on four different synthetically contaminated soils. Performance evaluation
data included unccnfined compressive strength (UCS) and the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) leaching test. Results indicated
that solidification/stabilization techniques were effective in reducing the ,,
Teachable metals of the contaminated soils.-, -
17, KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi Field/Group
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tim Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. Of PAGES
85
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pages
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) previous edition oasotete
1
-------
DISCLAIMEK
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3241 (Work Directive 2-18} to
Acurex Corporation. It has been subject to the Agency's review and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly
dealt with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water
resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate
and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research
to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing,
and managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA
with respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous
wastes, and Superfund-related activities. This publication is one of the products of that
research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
This project evaluated the performance of Solidification/Stabilization {BIS) as a means of
treating soil from "Superfund" sites. Tests were conducted on four different types of artificially
contaminated soil that are representative of the types of contaminated soils found at Superfund
sites. The soils were solidified using three commonly used S/S agents or binders. The resultant
products were tested to determine whether the S/S binders reduced the water and air releases
of the disposed soils.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This project evaluated the performance of solidification/stabilization
(S/S) as a means of treating soil from "Superfund" sites. Tests were
conducted on four different types of artificially contaminated soil (called
"Synthetic Analytical Reference Matrix" or "SARM") which are representative
of the types of contaminated soils found at Superfund sites. The soils were
solidified using the following three commonly used agents or binders:
1. Portland cement
2. Lime kiln dust
3. A mixture of lime and flyash
At ?, 14, 21, and 28 days after soil and binders were mixed, samples of
the solidified/stabilized material were subjected to Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) testing. Samples of those mixes that had a UCS minimally
greater than 50 psi (pounds per square inch) or which showed the highest UCS
below 50 psi after 14 and 28 days were subjected to Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Total Waste Analysis (TWA). The 50-psi level
was chosen as a performance screening criterion based on guidance from the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER Directive No.
9437.00-2A). The principal goal of this program was development of screening
data in support of the BDAT regulations for contaminated soils. The schedule
and experimental protocol were, therefore, geared to satisfying these
regulatory demands.
As an ancillary goal, the results were analyzed to determine if any
correlations could be obtained between the degree of toxicant immobilization,
as determined by the TCLP, and the following other parameters:
1. UCS results
2. Curing time
3. Contaminant level
4. Binder type
5. Water concentration
The impact of these parameters on the teachability of the contaminants
is complex. It was recognized at the start of the testing that this
abbreviated set of experiments was not likely to adequately address all of
these interactions. Furthermore, there is no set protocol for evaluating
Solidification/Stabilization, although the leaching tests conducted here were
consistent with the hazardous waste disposal regulations. Finally, only
three types of generic binders were used. It is possible that other binders
such as some proprietary ones which are designed for a given application
would have yielded different results.
iv
-------
The following results were observed:
1. The water-to-total-solids ratio appears to be a better measure of
the amount of water needed to solidify a given mix than the
water-to-binder ratio that is commonly used. This was clearly the
case for the SAHMs with these binders. This hypothesis needs to be
confirmed on other systems.
2. In general, solidifying/stabilizing the SAHM resulted in
significant reductions in the amount of metal salt contaminants
released, as measured by the TCLP.
3. Solidification/stabilization did not appear to result in a similar
reduction in the amount of organics released in the leachate as
measured by the TCLP. Because of the large losses of organics
during the mixing process, the effect of S/S on the organic
constituents in the leachate via the TCLP could not be determined.
The volatile and senivolatile organic contaminants did appear to
decrease during the S/S process; however, this decrease can probably
be attributed to their release to the air during processing and
curing.
4. No correlation between UCS and the results of the leaching tests was
observed.
This work was performed under Contract No. 68-03-3241, Work Assignment
No. 2-18 from the EPA.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figure viii
Tables viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 4
3. Experimental Procedure 13
3.1 Description of SARMs 13
3.2 Water Requirement Tests 16
3.3 Preparation of Binder-to-Soil Matrices 19
3.4 Monitoring of Volatile Organic Compounds 20
3.5 Mixing Procedure 21
3.6 Determination of Matrix Strength 21
3.7 TCLP and TWA Tests 22
4. Discussion of Results 23
4.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength . 24
4.2 Volatile Emissions 26
4.3 Results of TCLP Analyses 29
4.4 Results of TWA Analyses 31
5. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 34
5.1 Data Quality for Critical Measurements 34
5.2 Calibration 34
5.3 Sampling Procedure 35
5.4 Sample Custody and Labeling 36
References 37
Appendices
A. Results of Total Waste Analyses (TWA) of
Solidified SARMs 38
B. Results of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
of Solidified SARMs 51
C. Detailed Results of UCS Tests 64
vii
Preceding page blank
-------
FIGURE
Number Page
3-1 Mixing Apparatus 22
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Chemical Identification and Solubility of
SARM Metal Contaminants 7
2-2 Results of TWA for SAJIM Samples
Received for This Program . 9
2-3 Results of TWA for SARM Immediately After Mixing 10
3-1 Description of Uneontaminated SARM 15
3-2 Results of TWA for SARM Samples Received for This Program 16
3-3 Water Content of SARM Soils , 17
4-1 Mix Ratios and Results of UCS Tests for
Each Sample Set 25
4-2 Results of Headspace Analyses 27
4-3 Summary of TCLP Results for Metals 30
4-4 Summary of TWA Results for Metals 32
5-1 QA Objectives for Precision, Accuracy and Completeness 35
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 require the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop treatment standards or
treatment methods (called "Best Demonstrated Available Technology" or "BDAT")
for listed hazardous wastes before disposal. Treatment methods are to be
developed which reduce the toxicity or the likelihood of the migration of the
hazardous constituents in the waste. The Superfund Amendment and
Reauthorization Act (SARA or Superfund) requires that remedial actions meet all
applicable, relevant, and appropriate public health and environmentalstandards.
Therefore, the Superfund program may need to be consistent with the BDAT
approach when contaminated SARMs and debris from Superfund sites are
disposed.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) assisted the Office of
Environmental and Emergency Response (OEER) in evaluating the five
technologies listed below for background data for developing BDAT standards or
methods for soil and debris.
1. Incineration
2. Low-temperature thermal desorption
3. KPEG reagent for dechlorination
4. Aqueous soil washing
5. Solidification/stabilization (S/S)
This project evaluated the performance of solidification/stabilization (S/S) as a
means of treating soil from Superfund sites. Tests were conducted on four
different types of artificially contaminated soil (called Synthetic Analytical
Reference Matrix or SARM) which are representative of the types of
contaminated soils found at Superfund sites. The SARMs were solidified/
stabilized (S/Sd) using three commonly used agents or binders. At 7, 14, 21, and
28 days after the SARMs and binders were mixed, samples of the S/Sd material
were subjected to Unconiined Compressive Strength (UCS) testing.
Samples of those mixes that had a UCS minimally greater than 50 psi
(pounds per square inch) or that showed the highest UCS below 50 psi after 14
and 28 days underwent Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and
Total Waste Analysis (TWA). The 50-psi level was chosen as a performance
1
-------
screening level consistent with guidance from the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER Directive No. 9437.00-2A). The principal goal of
this program was development of performance data in support of BDAT
regulations for contaminated soils. The schedule and experimental protocol
were, therefore, geared to satisfying these regulatory demands.
As an ancillary goal, the results were analyzed to determine if any
correlations could be obtained between the degree of toxicant immobilization, as
determined by the TCLP, and the following other parameters:
1. UCS results
2. Curing time
3. Contaminant level
4. Binder type
5. Water concentration
The impact of these parameters on the leachability of the contaminants is
complex. It was recognized at the start of the testing that this abbreviated set
of experiments was not likely to adequately address all of these interactions.
Furthermore, there is no set protocol for evaluating S/S, although the leaching
tests conducted here were consistent with hazardous waste disposal regulations.
Finally, only three types of generic binders were used. It is possible that other
binders such as some proprietary ones which are designed for a given application
would have yielded different results.
The various portions of this program were performed by the following
entities:
1. Mixing the SARM: PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati OH
2. Mixing the SARMs with the stabilizing agents, determining the
acceptable water content, performing hardness and UCS tests,
summarizing the results:
Aeurex Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
3. Total Waste Analyses (TWA): Hittman Ebaseo, Arlington, VA
4. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP):
Lee Wan Associates, Atlanta, GA
For the purpose of this program, the optimum data would have been obtained
if the UCS, TCLP, and TWA could have been performed at the same times or at
least on the same day. To facilitate the necessary coordination, Aeurex mixed
the SARM and binder to the appropriate ratios and prepared samples from this
mix which could be used for the UCS, TWA, and TCLP tests. The TWA and
2
-------
TCLP samples were sent to the appropriate laboratories well before the date
they were to be tested. On the scheduled date, the sample was subjected to the UCS
testing. Each of the laboratories responsible for the analytical testing was immediately
notified of the results and told which sample was to be tested. Unfortunately, conflicting
laboratory schedules resulted in slippage in some of the dates when samples were
subjected to analysis, although this slippage is not considered significant.
3
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The program described here had two major sets of goals. The first was to
determine whether the Synthetic Analytical Reference Matrixes (SAflMs) could
successfully be solidified/stabilized and, if so, to assess how S/S affected a
SAflM's unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and the release of the
contaminants as determined by the TCLP and by an approximate measurement of
the volatile releases. The second, ancillary goal was to determine if any
correlations could be obtained between the degree of toxicant immobilization,
as determined by the TCLP and the following other parameters;
1. UCS
2. Curing tine
3. Contaminant level
4. Binder type
The tests were conducted using three agents or binders:
1. Portland cement
2. Lime kiln dust
3. Equal weights of technical grade lime and flyash
The first conclusion that can be drawn from this program is based on an
observation made during the initial screening tests* The original test
matrix for this program was designed to determine the water-to-binder
(W/B) ratio which would yield a product that hardened within the 28-day time
frame of this program. Analysis of the early data showed that the
water-to-total-solids (W/TS) ratio was a more consistent indicator of the
mount of water needed to harden the mass than the W/B ratio.
This result may have been due to the high clay content of the SARMs or it
¦ay have a more general application. Further, the tests showed that, within
the context of the experiment, a W/TS ratio of approximately 0.4 by weight
produced a S/Sd product regardless of the binder used. This observation, if
confirmed with other systems, could result in a significant reduction in the
number of experiments required to test a series of waste/binder combinations.
4
-------
Prior to discussing the conclusions regarding the strength of the S/Sd
SAHMs, it is important to note that the UCS, TWA, and TCLP are only a few of
many tests which are intended to simulate the way a given material nay behave
in a landfill environment. No type of weathering or water resistance tests
were performed on these samples. Contaminants such as those used here have
been shown to decrease the solid's resistance to freeze-thaw cycles as well as
to exposure to water,"' Before these results are used for a given application,
the situation should be assessed to ensure that these tests are appropriate
and to determine whether other tests would also yield useful information.
In terms of overall strength as measured by the UCS, the Portland cement
produced the strongest product. Next stronger was the kiln dust, and then the
liae/flyash. Typically, the Portland cement resulted in a UCS exceeding 1,000
psi (the upper limit of measurement with the available equipment) for three of
the four SAflMs. Further, it achieved these levels at far lower binder-to-soil
(B/S) ratios than the other two binders, resulting in a smaller volume of
waste requiring ultimate disposal.
The strength of the product S/Sd with portland cement was significantly
lower for SAHM IV than for the other three SAHMs. SAHM IV was the most
heavily contaminated material tested here: high organic/high metal. A high
concentration of both types of contaminants (metals and organics) was required
to weaken the SAflM S/Sd with the portland cement. Neither SAHM I (high
organic/low metal) nor SARM III (low organic/high metal) showed the sane
dramatic decrease in strength.
The line kiln dust and the lime/flyash mixtures used for these tests did
not result in values of the UCS as high as those observed with portland
cement, even for SAflM IV. The samples S/Sd with these binders were generally
very weak. The strength (UCS), however, continued to increase during the
course of these tests. The trend in the data was very clear and confirmed the
general impression that lime-based binders will continue to harden over a
period of years. It may be that these binders, in the long run, can achieve
the strength of portland cement for many wastes.
To assess the suitability of these two binders, the testing may have to
span several months or longer, rather than the 28-day period of this test.
The DCS values for these samples started very low, but as time progressed,
they increased. The test suggests that the curing time for these binders
should have been extended to determine how well the samples would cure over a
90- or 180-day period.
The program also included measurement of how the leachability and
volatility of the contaminants in the SAHM were affected by the S/S process.
The leachability of the contaminants was tested by subjecting S/Sd samples of
the SAHM to a TCLP and a TWA.5 The TWA is not intended to actually measure
the leaching characteristics of a waste in a landfill environment as is the
TCLP. It does, however, provide useful information to compare to the TCLP.
The results of the TCLP analyses for the metals were very encouraging.
The data show that the metals leaching from the SARMs are reduced
significantly by the S/S process. In fact, the reduction approached
5
-------
100 percent for many of the compounds. The only metal salts whose
leachabi1ity were not reduced by the S/S process were those which
already exhibited a low leachability because of the natural stabilizing
influence of the SARM itself.
The solid matrix of the uncontaninated SARM significantly reduced the
concentrations of almost all the metals even without the binders. The TCLP
results for the raw (unsolidified) contaminated SARMs were lower than the
expected values for almost all the metals. Some of the metals could not be
detected by the TCLP in the SARMs that had been heavily contaminated with
metals (SAfWS III and IV), Because the results were often very close to the
detection limit, the data sometimes proved difficult to interpret.
Nevertheless, the results clearly indicate a significant reduction in the TCLP
of all of the metals when their concentration in the TCLP leachate was well
above the detection limit. When it was close to or below the detection limit,
a small increase was frequently noted. This may be a true phenomenon or an
artifact of the test procedure. A detailed discussion of these results
follows.
It should be noted that the pH of the liquid used to extract the samples
for the TCLP was not measured after extraction was completed. The TCLP
procedure requires that the liquid be buffered to a specified pH; however,
because of the high alkalinity of the samples, the buffering capacity of the
liquid may have been exceeded. In addition, while measurements were made of
the »etals content of the portland cement and lime kiln dust (as part of
another project2) and none were found, no measurements were made of the
metals content of the lime or of the flyash used. It is possible that the
small amounts of some metals present in these components of the binder may
have created a positive bias to the results.
All the binders reduced the TCLP leachability of the arsenic, cadmium,
copper, nickel, and zinc. In all these cases, the S/Sd SARMs resulted in only
trace amounts or less of these metals in the leachate. The TCLP results for
lead were less consistent. All the samples that were S/Sd with Portland
cement showed very large reductions in the leachability of this ion. The kiln
dust showed some reduction in the leachability of the lead, although the
reduction was not as great as that for the portland cement.
The lime/'flyash binder showed no apparent reduction in the TCLP
leachability of the lead. In fact, the results actually showed an increase in
the leachability after correcting for dilution. The increase is most likely
due to the error introduced by the large amount of binder used for these
samples and the resultant large dilution factor, rather than it being an
actual increase. However, the results clearly showed no apparent reduction in
the leachability of lead with this binder.
The S/S process had virtually no effect on the chromium ion in this
program. In fact, as with the lead S/Sd by the lime/flyash mix, the TCLP
concentration of chromium in the leachate appeared to increase after
correcting the results of the TCLP on the S/Sd material for dilution.
Chromium is one of the ions that was fixed by the SARM itself. It was not
detected in the TCLP leachate of the raw SAHMs I, II, and III and was only
6
-------
detected at 0.06 ppm in the TCLP leachate of SARM IV prior to treatment. Its limit
of TCLP deteetability is 0.01 ppm. As a contrast, other metal ions were observed in
concentrations ranging from about 6 ppm to nearly 400 ppm in the leachate from
SARMs III and IV, which were spiked at the high metals level,
The reason for the negative results on the chromium for the three binders and (to a
lesser extent) the lead with lime/flyash is uncertain. Table 2-1 lists the actual metal
salts that were used to spike the SARMs and their solubilities in water. As can be
seen, the solubility of the salts may not appear to be a factor. Similarly, both the lead
and arsenic salts used are slightly soluble, yet they also behaved differently.
One possible reason for these results is that the SARMs themselves appear to bind
the chromic oxide. As discussed above, the concentration of this ion in the TCLP
leachate of the raw SARMs were very low. The S/S process may have caused an upset
in the properties of the matrix which resulted in a slight increase in the release of the
chromium salt. Conversely, the slight increase may be an artifact of the testing
procedure used.
The metal compounds do not appear to be subject to chemical reaction with the
binder. The metal oxides (represented here by zinc, arsenic, and chromium) may not be
reacting with the calcium oxide and hydroxide in the binders. Conceivably, the calcium
hydroxide in the lime-based binders could react with sulfates or nitrates, which are
represented here by the salts of lead, cadmium, copper, and nickel; the results were not
consistent enough to draw a conclusion. Further research into the chemical mechanisms
involved in the S/S process is needed to resolve these questions.
TABLE 2-1. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION AND SOLUBILITY OF
SARM METAL CONTAMINANTS
Chemical Type
Solubility in Water
Lead sulfate (PbS04)
Lead oxide (PbO)
Zinc oxide (ZnO)
Cadmium sulfate (3CdS04 ¦ 8H20)
Arsenic trioxide (AsaOa)
Copper sulfate (CuS04 1 5H20)
Chromium nitrate (Cr[N0Jj " 9H20)
Nickel nitrate (Ni[N03]2)
Slightly soluble
Insoluble
Insoluble
Soluble
Slightly soluble
Soluble
Soluble
Soluble to very soluble
Another observation made from the TCLP data was that the results for each sample
at 14 days were the same as those for the same sample at 28 days. This indicates
that there is little reason to cure samples for the longer period. In fact, it would be
desirable to compare the results for shorter time intervals. If this correlation could
be confirmed, a significant reduction in the time required for such testing could
be realized. This result is also of interest because it indicates that, at least for the
7
-------
1iae/flyash and the lime kiln dust, the UCS may not be a good indicator of how
well metals are immobilized in the SAHM. The UCS of the samples formed with
these binders continued to increase, even though there was little change in
the TCLP.
The TWA results for the metals appeared inconsistent. Before and after
S/S, some of the metals showed large increases in concentrations and some
showed decreases. These variations most likely are due to the variability
associated with the results of the TWA "leveraging" of any error by the
dilution correction. Overall, however, the results showed no clear-cut
increase or decrease in the TV/A for the metals from the raw contaminated SAHM
to the S/Sd material. The reason for this wide variability appears to be due
to normal variability in the results of the TWA on different samples.
Wide variations in the TWA (after doping with the contaminants) were
obtained by PEI Associates, Inc., on different samples of the sane SAHM. PEI
took a number of samples of each SATO and subjected them to a TWA. Table 2-2
shows the results of the TWA samples that were obtained as part of this
program. Table 2-3 shows the number of each that were so evaluated. The
variabilities in the results were large. These results fell within the
variability band identified by PEI. The reader is referred to References (1)
and (6) for further details. Comparison of the two tables illustrates the
levels of variability that were expected.
This high variability is probably due to sampling errors rather than
analytical errors. It was determined that the size of the analytical error is
small based on the TOA for the metals for each mix after 14 and 28 days. For
example, SAHM III, which was S/Sd with portland cement (PC) after 14 days
(sample 7), showed 528 ppm arsenic. The same sample at 28 days showed 584
ppm. Generally, the metals analyses for each sample at 14 and 28 days agreed
very well, which indicated that the analytical protocol gave reasonably
consistent results. Although this conclusion is not pertinent to this
discussion, the analyses also showed that the mixing procedures used in this
program produced a homogeneous product.
The analysis of the volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in the
headspace by a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector
(GC/FID) seemed to indicate that the emissions dropped only slightly from 14
to 28 days. This decrease is consistent with other research done by Acurex2
which showed that in a stabilized sample, most volatile organic emissions
occur during mixing; the rate continues at a steady rate after curing but
drops as the organic content of the S/Sd material is reduced.
The S/Sd SAHMs generally showed a lower TCLP value for the volatile
organic contaminants than the original SAHMs. The nature of this program did
not permit quantitative evaluations of these releases, but analysis of the
air in the headspace above the curing S/Sd samples clearly identified all
the organic constituents present in the SAHMs. On the basis of this
information, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the organic
constituents were released to the air, and as a result, no firm conclusions as
to how well they were S/Sd can be drawn.
8
-------
The TCLP for the semivolatile organics, in general, showed a significant
decrease because of S/S processing. The results showed that the percent
decrease in the TCLP leachate for the semi volatile organics was greatest for
SAHMs I and IV (those contaminated with high levels or organics) and least for
SARMs II and III. SARMs II and III also showed a greater variability for the
semivolatile reduction, but this is most likely due to analytical errors
caused by the low concentration of the semivolatile compounds. However, large
concentrations of the semivolatile organics were found in the headspace of
the sample bags.
TABLE 2-2. RESULTS OF TWA FOR SARM SAMPLES
RECEIVED FOR THIS PROGRAM
Analvte
SARM 1
High organic,
low metal
Metals Concentration (mg/kg)
SARM 2
Low organic,
low metal
SARM 3
Low organic,
high metal
SARM 4
High organic,
high metals
Volatiles
Acetone 3,150
Chlorobenzene 330
1,2-dichloroethane 380
Ethylbenzene 3,350
Styrene 1,000
Tetrachloroethylene 710
Xylene 4,150
230
9.2
3.9
74
26
16
210
220
8.
3.
100
24
13
150
13,000
270
830
2,500
540
540
3,700
Semivolatiles
Anthracene 940
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate 600
Pentachlorophenol 135
275
34
62
265
140
15
775
500
78
Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
18
17
27
193
190
27
392
18
23
37
260
240
32
544
904
1,280
1,190
9,650
15,200
1,140
53,400
810
1,430
1,650
13,300
16,900
1,380
28,900
9
-------
TABLE 2-3. RESULTS OF TWA FOR SARMS IMMEDIATELY AFTER MIXING<1 >
(As determined by PEI
from main blend prior to shipping samples)
Metals Concentration (mg/kg)
SARM 1 SARH 2 SARM 3 SARM 4
High organic, Low organic, Low organic, High organic,
Analyte low metal low metal high metal high metals
ii i ii ii ~ ~ — — ~ ^ i in
Volatiles
Acetone
4,500
(7)
360
(8)
360
(2)
8,030
(2)
Chlorobenzene
320
(7)
13
(6)
11
(2)
330
(2)
1,2-dichloroethane
380
(7)
7
(85
5
(2)
490
(2)
Ethylben2ene
3,460
(7)
120
(8)
140
(2)
2,710
(2)
Styrene
730
(7)
48
(7)
32
(2)
630
(2)
Tetrachloroethylene
480
(6)
19
(8)
20
(2)
900
(2)
Xylene
5,720
(7)
210
(8)
320
(2)
5,580
(2)
Sanivolatiles
Anthracene
4,390
(7)
350
(7)
270
(3)
1,920
(3)
Bis(2-ethylhexy1)
phthalate
1,830
(7)
140
(6)
270
(3)
1,920
(3)
Pentachlorophenol
270
(5)
40
(4)
30
(3)
80
(3)
Inor^sn x cs
Arsenic
21
(8)
18
(7)
690
(45
540
(4)
Cadmium
27
(6)
32
(6)
2,380
(2)
3,790
(25
Chromium
30
(6)
32
(6)
1,260
(4)
1,400
(4)
Copper
260
(8)
280
(8)
9,550
(45
11,250
(4)
Lead
270
(85
320
(8)
15,100
(4)
15,680
(4)
Nickel
39
(8)
40
(8)
1,540
(4)
1,550
(4)
Zinc
570
(6)
680
(8)
34,450
(4)
28,660
(45
Note; Values in parentheses indicate number of samples analyzed.
dO
-------
Based on this program, the decrease in the concentration of the volatile
and semivolatile organics in the TCLP leachate cannot be attributed to the
binding of the volatile compounds into the solid matrix by the S/S process.
The decreases can also be explained by a simple release of the organic
compounds during the mixing process and during the sample preparation
(grinding and sieving) prior to extraction. Other work on this subject
indicated that the handling and mixing associated with the S/S processes can
result in the release of a large fraction of the volatile and semivolatile
organics in a waste and that the release was only slightly dependent on the
vapor pressure of the substance. It also showed that neither portland cement
nor kiln dust/flyash produced an S/Sd product with a significant decrease in
the release of organics to the air from the untreated waste.2
The fact that a decrease in the concentration of the volatiles in the
TCLP leachate can be attributed to loss to the atmosphere is enhanced by the
fact that the TOA analyses of the SARMs for volatile organics were much lower
for the S/Sd than for the untreated materials. The S/Sd SAflMs contained on
the order of 80 to 90 percent fewer volatile organics than the original
material. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the volatile organics
were released to the air rather than trapped in the solid. Had the volatile
organics truly been solidified, the TWA would have shown a constant
value for these materials while the TCLP would have shown a decrease.
The TOA results for the semivolatile organics was unexpected. S/S
appeared to result in an apparent increase in almost all the values, although
this increase most likely is an artifact of the analytical method. The TWA
results appear to have a very wide variation, which, although the reason for
this is unclear, may be due to the physical nature of the semivolatile
compounds. They are heavy solids that go into solution slowly. As a result,
the amount of each constituent in the liquid for analysis after the extraction
may be more of a function of how much of the material actually dissolves than
of the total amount of that compound in the waste. Under normal conditions,
this error is not significant; however, in this case, the TOA values are
corrected for dilution. This results in a "leveraging" of any error and a
much higher degree of uncertainty for the TWA results.
In conclusion, it appears that S/S can reduce the leachability of many
metals to near the normal detection limits. Even in this case when no effort
was made to optimize the S/S process, most of the metal contaminants were
effectively immobilized as determined by the TCLP. It is likely that with a
proper choice of binder and avoiding interference compounds, it should be
possible to S/S many inorganic contaminant.
Definitive conclusions concerning organic contaminants are another
matter. There is strong evidence that the binders used in these tests did not
appear to reduce their leachability at all. The act of mixing and handling
the SARMs and binders did result in lower levels of organics in the S/Sd
product; however, this reduction can be attributed to the loss of the volatile
and semivolatile compounds to the air during mixing and curing. In fact, all
the volatile and semivolatile organics were identified in the headspace air of
the curing samples.
'11
-------
I
Attempts were made to correlate the following properties of the TCLP for the metal
salts;
o Leachability compared to time
o Concentration of the metals in the leachate compared to UCS
o Leachability of the metals in the leachate compared to the SARM
composition.
o Leachability of the metals compared to binder type
The comparison of leachability to time was tested by comparing the TCLP results
for the samples at 14 and 28 days. The results for the organics were far too variable
to permit this type of comparison. The TCLP for the metals, however, proved to be
reasonably reproducible. These showed a high degree of reproducibility between the
14- and 28-day analyses. In fact, these data indicate that there is little reason not
to rely on the 14-day tests. In almost all cases, the metals concentration in the TCLP
extract for the 14- and 28-day tests was the same to well within normal errors in
this test.
No correlation was found between UCS and leachability. On the other hand, the
leachability was strongly related to the amount of metal in the SARM. The SARMs
with a high metals concentration showed higher levels of the metals in the leachate
than did those with a low concentration. The metals concentration in the leachate
was not, however, affected by the organics in the SARMs. Both SARMs that had
been contaminated with high levels of metals produced approximately the same
quality leachate in the TCLP, even though one of them had been contaminated with
low and the other with high levels of organics.
There is clearly a strong relationship between the leachability and the binder
type. It is discussed above in greater detail. In these tests, die Portland cement
proved to be a superior binder by many criteria and appears to be the binder of
choice of the three evaluated here.
12
-------
SECTION 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
As briefly discussed in section 1, this program involved the evaluation
of the effect of solidification/stabilization (S/S) on four types of
Synthetic Analytical Reference Matrixes (SARM). The SARMs were prepared for
EPA under a separate program and S/Sd using each of the following three
different agents:
1. Portland cement, Type 1 (PC)
2. Lime kiln dust (ID)
3. Equal weights of technical grade line and flyash (LP)
The Portland cement was standard Type 1 manufactured by the W. R, Bonsai
Company of Charlotte, North Carolina, It was identified as meeting ASlM
specification C-150 and Federal Specification SS-C-1960-3A for Type 1 and 2.
The lime kiln dust was obtained from the Mississippi Lime Company's plant in
Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, The lime was hydrated agricultural lime
manufactured by the Tennessee Lime Division of Tenn Luttrell Company,
Luttrell, Tennessee, The flyash was a nonpozzolanic flyash obtained from a
local power plant.
The testing on the SARMs consisted of the following steps;
1. Determine the amount of water present in each SARM and the amount
that must be added to each binder/soil combination so that it will
set into a monolithic block suitable for UCS testing,
2. Determine the minimum amount of binder needed to achieve 50-psi
compressive strength as determined by AS Method C 109-86,
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests.
3. Determine the effect of S/S on the leaching characteristics of each
binder/soil combination whose UCS, after 14 and 28 days of curing,
minimally exceeded 50 psi or had the highest UCS if this value could
not be achieved.
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF SARMs
The SARMs were prepared by PEI Associates, Inc. of Cincinnati, Ohio. The
following four types of SARM were tested under this program:6
13
-------
o SARM I — Low niptals, high organics concentration
o SARM II — Low metals, low organics concentration
o SARM III — High metals, low organics concentration
o SARM IV — High metals, high organics concentration
Table 3-1 is a description of the uncontaminated SARM. It is a screened
and washed mixture of sand, soil, gravel, and clay. Its composition also is
given in table 3-1.
The clean SARM matrix was contaminated (under a different project6) to
both a "high" and "low" level of the metal salts organic compounds. This
resulted in the four SARMs which were used for this program. The target
concentrations of the contaminants in each of the SARMs that were the goal
(or target concentrations) of each constituent are shown in table 3-2. The
clean SARM was doped with the specified materials by nixing it well in a
small cement mixer and adding the target amounts of the contaminants to it.
The mixture was then blended until it appeared homogeneous.
The material was tested for homogeneity by taking and analyzing multiple
samples. The results of these analyses are summarized in table 2-3. As can
be seen, some compounds appeared to have distributed themselves better than
others throughout the SARM matrix, probably because the matrix absorbed some
better than others. Two sealed 5-gal pails of samples from each of the four
SAflMs were shipped to Acurex. These were kept tightly sealed until the start
of the program, at which time, the pails were opened, and samples of each of
the four contaminated SARMs were taken.
Prior to being used in this program the contents of each pail were,
thoroughly mixed manually. Then samples taken from different parts of the
mixed material and put into a clean half-gallon bowl and again thoroughly
nixed. Then samples were taken from different parts of the bowl and put
into glass jars with Teflon-lined lids, and sealed. This procedures resulted
in four jars of each SARM (a total of 16 jars) filled with essentially the
same sample. These jars were sent to the laboratories for both TWA and TCLP
analyses.
3.2 WATER REQUIREMENT TESTS
The first step in this progran was a determination of the amount of water
that needed to be added to each mixture of binder and SARM to obtain a mix
that would set up into a monolithic mass. The water originally present in
each SARM had to be included in the amount of water required for the S/S
process, and this was determined for each of the SAflMs as the first step in
the program.
The water content of the SARM was measured by drying a known quantity to
constant weight and attributing the weight loss to water removed by
evaporation. To obtain this value, a known amount of SARM was placed in an
14
-------
oven at 60°C overnight and reweighed the following morning. Sample weighing
continued hourly until two consecutive readings did not differ by more than 1 percent.
The apparent water content can be expressed as a percentage:
%H,0 = 100% x (W, - Wf)/W,
where:
W, = initial SARM weight
Wr = final SAKM weight
Table 3-3 gives the water content of the four SARMs as determined at the start
of this program and as determined during the preparation of the SARM,* As can be
seen, the differences between the two values are small enough to be classified as
sampling errors, indicating that no significant loss of water had occurred during
handling.
TABLE 3-1. DESCRIPTION OF UN CONTAMINATED SARM8
Soil Comnonent
Volume %
Weight %
Sand
20,0
31.4
Gravel (No. 9)
5.0
5.7
Silt
25.0
28.3
Top soil
20.0
19.8
Clay
30.0
14.8
- Montmorillonite
(7.5)
(5.4)
- Kaolinite
(22.5)
(9.4)
100.0
100.0
Cation exchange capacity
(Na), meq/100 g . . . . 133
Grain Size Distribution
weight % sand 48
weight % gravel 7.5
weight % silt 33
weight % clay 12.S
TOC, mg/kg 3.2
pH 8.5
Moisture Not analyzed;
expected to be
less than or
equal to 5%
15
-------
TABLE 3-2. TARGET CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SARMS5
Metals Concentration (mg/kg)
SARM 1
SARM 2
SARM 3
SARM 4
High organic,
Low organic,
Low organic,
High organic,
Analyte
low metal
low metal
high metal
high metals
Volatiles
Acetone
6,800
680
680
6,800
Chlorobenzene
400
40
40
400
1,2-dichloroethane
600
60
60
600
Ethylbenzene
3,200
320
320
3,200
Styrene
1,000
100
100
1,000
Tetrachloroethylene
600
60
60
600
Xylene
8,200
820
820
8,200
Segivolatiles
Anthracene
6,500
650
650
6,500
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
2,500
250
250
2,500
Pen t ach1oropheno1
1,000
100
100
1,000
Inorganics
Arsenic
10
10
500
500
Cadjaium
20
20
1,000
1,000
Chromium
30
30
1,500
1,500
Copper
190
190
9,500
9,500
Lead
280
280
14,000
14,000
Nickel
30
30
1,000
1,000
Zinc
450
450
22,500
22,500
It is recognized that this method resulted in nonaqueous volatile
compounds appearing as water; however, these materials constituted no more
than 1 percent of the weight of the contaminated SARMs, and the error was,
therefore, not significant for this purpose. Once the water content of the
SARMs was known, it was necessary to determine the approximate range for the
water-to-binder (W/B) ratio which would result in an acceptable monolithic
solid mix. Because of the short time frame that was available for these
tests, the tests had to quickly identify an acceptable range, even if the
result was less than optimum.
16
-------
TABLE 3-3 WATER CONTENT OF SARM SOILS
Water content, *
SARM From these tests From Reference 6
1 31.4 22.B
2 8.6 7.2
3 19.3 20.6
4 22.1 30.1
To perform the UCS tests, it was necessary for the S/Sd material to be a
monolithic block, with no free liquid present except for a few drops on the
surface. Preliminary tests were conducted, therefore, to see if the extremes
of the above range of water content would result in such a product.
The amount of water required to form a satisfactory product was
determined by preparing samples of each SARM at three levels of binder-to-soil
(B/S) ratios for each of the three binders. Bach of these resulting samples
was then split into three portions, and each portion was mixed with a
different amount of water.
The arbitrary values selected prior to the testing were B/S ratios of
0.20, 0.50, and 0.70 and W/B ratios of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.70, Using the
Portland cement mix, a set of samples in this range of values was prepared and
allowed to cure overnight. None of these produced the monolithic, smooth mass
which was defined as a suitable product.
The original protocol called for the samples to be mixed to slurry and
molded in plastic cups. The samples were to be mixed in triplicate—three
samples at each W/B and B/S value. They were to be cured at 70°C and 90 to
100 percent relative humidity for a period of 48 h, after which they were to
be tested for penetration resistance using a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cone
Penetrometer (CP) according to Army TM-5-530, Section XV.3 The W/B ratio for
each SARM which offered the most resistance to penetration was defined as the
"optimal water percentage" and was to have been used in the B/S evaluations
which followed.
Had the initial guess at the W/S and B/S range resulted in an acceptable
product, this phase would have resulted in a total of 216 samples with the
following variables:
2 B/S ratios (0.1 and 0.7)
x 4 Soil types
x 3 Binders
x 3 W/B ratios
x 3 —Triplicate samples
216 samples total
17
-------
As it turned out, the above ratios did not result in acceptable products
with any of the SARMs or binders. The first set of tests conducted with
Portland cement as a binder showed that no B/S ratio in the 0.1 to 0.7 range
resulted in a product which would set up. Because no hardening resulted, the
samples could not be tested. Based on this observation frcm the preliminary
testing, the experimental protocol was modified in the following manner;
1. Small samples of each SARM/binder combination were made up over a
very wide range of relative mixes.
2. Each of these combinations was then split into separate parts, and
each part was mixed with a different amount of water. These parts
were allowed to stand overnight, and those ratios of B/S/W (binder/
SAJRM/water) that were set up were identified. The CP was used as
an aid to this evaluation.
The middle of the range that resulted in a product which appeared to be
hardening was then chosen as the midpoint of the next set of tests. In
evaluating these data, it was noted that the water-to-soil or W/B ratios were
not good indicators of the amount of water that should be used to form an
acceptable product under these circumstances. It was noted, however, that the
type of product produced could be correlated reasonably well to the
water-to-sol ids (W/TS) ratio of the mix. This ratio is simply the mass of
water used versus the sum of the solid component of the SAfiM and of the
binder- In virtually all cases tested, a W/TS ratio of 0.4 to 0.5 resulted in
an acceptable product.
A new test matrix was then set up to "home in" on the optimum amount of
water that should be used for the subsequent testing, with the "optimum" as
defined by the original test plan. This was done in the following manner:
1. The three B/S ratios were chosen at each end and the middle of this
range. The middle value was the B/S ratio obtained from the
preliminary set of tests described above.
2. For each B/S ratio, three or more samples of each SAflM spanning the
desired W/TS range were prepared.
3. The resulting mixes were tested with the CP after one day for signs
of setting. The range of B/S and W/TS ratios that resulted in
samples that showed signs of hardening were then used to establish a
new test matrix. The high and low values for B/S ratios of the range
replaced the 0.1 and 0.7 values in the initial test matrix, described
above.
4. For each B/S ratio, mixes were prepared in duplicate at three (low,
middle, and high) W/TS ratios spanning the range identified in
step 3.
5. These duplicate samples were then used to establish a workable W/TS
ratio following the procedure that was initially proposed for the
program.
18
-------
The procedure resulted in more than 216 samples. The results, however,
showed that regardless of the SARM or the binder used, a W/TS ratio of
approximately 0.4 resulted in some indications of hardening of the material.
3.3 PREPARATION OF BINDER-TO-SOIL MATRICES
Once an acceptable W/TS ratio had been established, tests were conducted
to determine the minimum binder-to-soil, or more accurately binder-to-SARM,
(B/S) ratio which would result in a sample with an unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) greater than 50 psi. Actually, with some binders this UCS
level could not be achieved in 30 days. This may have changed had the amount
of binder been increased beyond the high levels used for these tests. In that
case, the sample that achieved the highest UCS was used for subsequent
testing.
The B/S ratio test was performed by mixing each SAW! (4 SARMs) with each
binder (3 binders) at three B/S ratios. Six samples of each mixture
constituted one complete set. Five of these were molded into cubes for UCS
testing. At 7, 14, 21, and 28 days, three cubes from each set were subjected
to UCS testing, a destructive procedure which destroys the cube. The fifth
and sixth sample were stored for future reference. Four samples of each mix
were placed in glass jars with Teflon-lined lids and were sent to the
laboratories for TCLP and TWA. The program resulted in a total of 648
samples, as shown below:
4 Soil types
x 3 Binders
x 3 B/S ratios
x 3 Triplicate samples
x 6 Samples at each condition
648 Total samples
Binder and SARM were mixed using the previously determined W/TS ratio.
The amount of binder, SARM, and water was measured and recorded. Components
of each mixture were added in the same order for each preparation.
The samples that were to be used for UCS testing were molded according to
the specifications in ASTM C 109-86. The procedure calls for molding the
material in specially fabricated stainless steel or brass molds, which result
in cubes 2 in (5.08 cm) on each side. The procedure requires that the molds
used meet strict dimensional and stiffness requirements. The resulting
samples were allowed to harden for 1 to 4 days at 70 °F ( + 10 °F) and 90 to
100 percent humidity. They then were unnolded, and each cube was placed in a
seal able plastic bag. The samples were then allowed to cure at 70 °F and 90
to 100 percent relative humidity until they were tested.
The molds for this procedure were stainless steel cubes, 2 in on each
side, that come in a set of three cubes per mold. Before the mix was poured,
the molds were coated with mineral oil to facilitate immolding of the samples.
The samples were prepared by mixing the components to the specified ratios and
19
-------
pouring the results into 15 to 18 cubes at one time. Most samples were tamped
into the molds following the procedures of ASTW C 109-86. The samples S/Sd
with portland cement were too stiff to allow this. They were tamped into the
molds using a drop hammer developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experimental Station for this purpose.4
To avoid possible sample contamination by the metal of the molds and the
release agents, separate samples from each pour were taken for chemical
analysis. A representative part of the mixture was placed into a clean glass
container, closed with a Teflon-lined lid, and shipped periodically during the
program to the appropriate laboratory for analysis. While ideally the
analyses should have been performed when the UCS tests were run on the 14th
and 28th days, the laboratory scheduling did not always allow this.
The mixing schedule was set up so that on each day, one SAKM and one
binder were mixed at three different binder-to-SARM (B/S) ratios. For
example samples 16, 17, and 18 were prepared on the sane day. These were SARM
II S/Sd with kiln dust at B/S ratios of 1:1, 2:1, and 3:1, respectively. The
ratios used were determined by the procedure described in section 3.2. The
mixing and molding procedures are described in section 3.3. Then on September
14, 21, and 28 and on October 5 (7, 14, 21 and 28 days after mixing), three
cubes of each sample were subjected to the UCS. On the 14th and 28th days,
the results of the UCS were:
For this particular SARM/binder mix, the 2:1 B/S ratio (sample 16)
resulted in a product that had a UCS which was minimally above 50 psi.
Therefore, first thing on the morning of the 14th and 28th days when the UCS
tests were completed, the results were relayed by telephone to the
laboratories performing the TCLP and WA tests. In this case, they were told
to analyze sample 16 and not analyze samples 17 and 18. All the samples had
been sent to the laboratories in the glass jars and had been received by the
analytical laboratories prior to these days, as described in section 3.3. This
procedure was repeated for each set of samples.
Note that in a few cases, different B/S ratios satisfied the UCS
criteria at the 14th and 28th days. For example, sample 30 satisfied the UCS
criteria after 14 days of curing while sample 29 satisfied them after 28
days.
3.4 MONITORING OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPONENTS
The volatile emissions from the curing samples were checked by
withdrawing a gas sample from the polyethylene bag that they were stored in
and analyzing the gas with a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame
14-day 28-day
Sample UCS (psi) UCS (psi)
16
17
18
60
190
225
85
216
252
20
-------
ionization detector (GC/FID). The samples were tested on the 14th and 28th
days to determine whether the level of volatile emissions had changed during
the curing process. The gas sample was withdrawn from the sealed bag that the
sample was stored in and injected into the GC immediately. A 5-mL sample was
taken in each case, and the results were compared to liquid standards of the
volatile compounds.
The following conditions were used for the GC/FID: 30-mL/min Helium flow
through the 30-m DB-5 megabore column. The injector and detector temperatures
were set at 280 °C and 300 °C, respectively. The temperature program was
40 3C for 7 nin, ramping at 20 °C/min to 270 °C, and holding for 4 rain. This
temperature program adequately separated the volatile compounds of interest.
3.5 MIXING PROCEDURE
Previous studies and ongoing work conducted by Acurex Corporation for EPA
(Contract 68-02-3993, Work Directives 32 and 37) have shown that a large
portion of any volatile components in the waste is released to the air while
mixing with stabilizing agents. Therefore, a sealed mixing system (see figure
3-1) was devised to mix the components for these tests. It consisted of a
framework that held up to three 1-gal "paint cans" on a shaft that rotated
them end-over-end. This tumbling action mixed the contents. The dry
components for each of the samples were weighed into the cans, and, just
before placement in the mixer, the mixing was allowed to take place for as
long as desired. One hour was found to be adequate to make a homogeneous
mixture.
This mixing system worked well for mixing all the samples solidified
with portland cement. Those samples using lime or lime kiln dust released
gas during mixing and increased the temperature to such a level that they
could not be mixed in a closed system; there would have been a danger of
explosion. As a result, these samples were prepared in open containers and
mixed by hand. It is recognized that this procedure resulted in a greater
loss of volatile and semivolatile components but that it was an unavoidable
necessity.
3.6 DETERMINATION OF MATRIX STRENGTH
The samples obtained by the procedures described above were subjected to
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests described in ASTM C 109-86.
Triplicate samples were tested at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after curing,
also according to method ASTM C 109-86.
On each of the above four days, three cubes were selected at random from
each mixture. The surface area of each cube was accurately determined by
micrometer measurements of its dimensions. Each cube was then subjected to
uniform increments of pressure in a UCS apparatus until it broke. The
breaking pressure was recorded. The unconfined compressive strength was
calculated by dividing the force required to break the cube by the area
(approximately 4 in2, 6.45 cm2) over which the force was spread. The results
are triplicate measurements for each SAHM, binder, and B/S ratio.
21
-------
3.7 TCLP AND TWA TESTS
As discussed in section 3.3, whenever a mixture was solded, a portion of
the sane mass was placed into glass jars. The jars were periodically shipped
to a laboratory where the contents were subjected to TOA, to determine the
amount of each of the contaminants in the SAflM, and to TCLP to determine the
amount of these contaminants that would leach using this standard procedure.
These tests were conducted on samples at 14 and 28 days after mixing, although
it should be noted that deviations from this schedule occurred for the IV/As
because of laboratory scheduling. The results of the TWA are presented in
appendix A and of the TCLP in appendix B.
Not all the samples subjected to the UCS were also subjected to the
chemical analyses. The protocol for this program required that only those
mixtures that resulted in a product which at 14 and 28 days after mixing
satisfied the following criteria would be subjected to these two chemical
analyses.
1. A UCS which was minimally above 50 psi
2. If the UCS for all mixtures of a given blend did not achieve a UCS
greater than 50 psi, that one showing the highest value was
subjected to the analyses
Reproduced from
best available copy
Figure 3-1. Sealed Mixing Apparatus
•22
-------
SECTION 4
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The first tests under this program were conducted to determine the amount
of binder and water that was required to achieve an acceptable product.
Because these tests were used to design the main portion of the program, the
results are discussed in section 3.2. The major conclusion that can be drawn
from them is that SARMs require a large amount of binder and water to form a
hard, monolithic mass. It was found that roughly equal parts of binder and
SAflM were required to get signs of setting up in 24 to 48 h. The portland
cement consistently provided the products with the highest UCS and CP hardness
and the most rapid (within a few hours) setup time. The UCS test results are
discussed further in section 4.1.
The other useful piece of information which resulted from the preliminary
tests was that the total solids content of a waste may be a better indication
of the amount of water needed to harden it than the normally used
water-to-binder (W/B) ratio. In virtually all cases tested, a
water-to-total-solids (W/TS) ratio in the 0.4 range resulted in a monolithic
mass. It is recommended that other data be examined to see if this
observation is unique to the systems studied here or if it can be applied to
other S/S processes and wastes.
The organic emissions from the S/Sd SARMs were measured during the
course of this experiment. These measurements were highly qualitative;
however, they did not appear to indicate that S/S with the binders tested
reduced air emissions. This is consistent with other data available in the
literature. These measurements are discussed in section 4.2.
The final set of data that needs to be discussed is the results of the
TWA and TCLP evaluations of the untreated and S/Sd SAHMs. One of the goals
of this work was the determination of a correlation between the UCS and
reduction in the TCLP. The results did not indicate that this type of
correlation exists. S/S clearly reduced the leaching of the metals as
measured by the TCLP especially with portland cement as the binder.
The TOA results did not lend themselves to evaluation. In principle,
the TOA is not actually an indication of how well the contaminants are fixed
by a given process; rather, it indicates whether a given analyte is removed
from the waste, chemically converted to another compound, or bound to an
inert matrix so tightly that even grinding and extraction with solvents would
not remove it. In this case, after allowing for dilution by the binders and
water, the amount of metal in the SAHMs appeared to actually increase for most
of the samples. The TWA results are discussed in section 4-4.
23
-------
4.1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
The UCS tests were conducted on three samples or cubes of each
SAEM tinder type and ratio. The results of each of the tests are given in
appendix C, table C-l, and in figures C-l through C-6. As can be seen, the
results show little variation in the UCS values for each replicate. This
gives a preliminary indication that the mixing of the SARM, binder, and water
was thorough. The UCS is sensitive to inhomogeneity in the mixture.
The three measurements of the UCS taken on the same mixture were
averaged. The mean for each condition is given in table 4-1, which also
gives the component concentration for each sample, the date mixed, and binder
type. To facilitate evaluation of the results, table 4-1 duplicates key
information from other experiments, such as the W/TS ratio and B/S ratio.
When the testing was first started, the samples S/Sd with Portland cement
proved to be too strong to test on the available UCS apparatus after 7 days of
curing. To get a UCS reading, it was necessary to ship these samples to the
Environmental Protection Agency in Cincinnati, which used the facilities at
the University of Cincinnati to test samples 1 through 12. The UCS tests on
these samples were only done at 14 and 28 days because of shipping delays and
equipment scheduling constraints.
The UCS of these samples proved also to exceed the range of the equipment
available at the University of Cincinnati. It was therefore decided that
because all samples (except for one set which apparently did not set up well)
exceeded the minimum required UCS (50 psi), the minimis) B/S ratio samples
would be subjected to the TCLP and TOA. It is worth noting that a few samples
proved to have a substantially lower UCS than the majority of the Portland
cenent set. This can be explained by the fact that a sealed mixing apparatus
was used to mix these samples. As discussed earlier, the samples using lime
kiln dust and 1ime/flyash as binders could not be mixed in the sealed system
and had to be mixed by hand. The sealed system, therefore, while providing
adequate mixing, did not do as thorough a job as did hand mixing.
The results of the UCS tests are presented in appendix C and summarized
in table 4-1. Table C-l in appendix C gives the results of each UCS test,
consisting of three cubes. The mean of these three measurements is defined as
the DCS value for that mixture of SARM and binder. Table 4-1 shews the means
of the UCS as well as the ratios of water, binder, and SARM (also called soil)
that was used in the preparation of each sample. Figures C-l through C-6 in
appendix C are graphical representations of the mean UCS versus time for each
mixture. They illustrate how this value varied at fixed B/S ratios versus
days-after-mixing for each SARM. As discussed above, the IKS for those SARMs
S/Sd with portland cement exceeded 1000 psi by the 14th day. They certainly
exceeded the 50-psi value within a few hours of mixing.
The lime kiln dust appeared to make a softer product than did the
Portland cement. This may be due to interference from the contaminants in the
SARM or simply to the fact that curing required more than 30 days. The trends
show the product continually hardening. This is to be expected, as lime kiln
dust will cure slowly as it absorbs carbon dioxide from the air.
24
-------
TABLE 4-1. Mix RATIOS AND RESULTS OF UCS TESTS FOR EACH SAMPLE SET,
Sample
SAHM
Binder
B/S
W/TS
Days After Mixing
Number
Type
Type
Ratio
Ratio
7
14
21
28
1
I
PORTLAND
0.7
0.40
NA
977
NA
>1000
2
I
CEMENT
1.2
0.40
NA
>1000
NA
>1000
3
I
TYPE 1
2.3
0.40
NA
>1000
NA
>1000
4
II
PORTLAND
0.7
0.40
NA
>1000
NA
>1000
5
II
CEMENT
1.2
0.40
NA
>1000
NA
>1000
6
II
TYPE 1
2.3
0.40
NA
>1000
NA
>1000
7
III
PORTLAND
0.7
0.40
NA
28
NA
>1000
8
III
CEMENT
1,2
0.40
NA
99
NA
>1000
9
III
TYPE 1
2.3
0.40
NA
71
NA
>1000
10
IV
PORTLAND
0.7
0.40
NA
15.8
NA
16.2
11
IV
CEMENT
1.2
0.40
NA
167
NA
160
12
IV
TYPE 1
2.3
0.40
NA
177
NA
300
13
I
KILN
1
0.40
5
72.9
93
113
14
I
DUST
2
0.45
5
51.8
54
241
15
I
3
0.40
176
211
215
81.1
16
II
KILN
1
0.40
37.5
59.7
78.3
85.1
17
II
DUST
2
0.40
128
190
164
216
18
II
3
0.40
183
225
275
252
19
III
KILN
1
0.40
32.9
36.6
37.1
38.5
20
III
DUST
2
0.40
33
38.4
40.8
39
21
iri
3
0.40
45.7
44.7
43.7
79.8
22
IV
KILN
1
0.42
27.9
28.1
26.8
32.2
23
IV
DUST
2
0.43
38.9
55.7
52.4
52.2
24
IV
3
0.40
35.7
38.2
33
40.1
25
i
LIME/
1
0.45
24.1
27.3
26
32.3
26
I
FLYASH
2
0.45
22.2
29
33.9
40.4
27
I
3
0.45
19.5
30.4
32.9
46.6
28
II
LIME/
1
0.45
9.9
17.1
17.3
28.8
29
ii
FLYASH
2
0.48
17.2
24.2
26.9
62.4
30
II
3
0.49
19.4
31.4
41.2
73.4
31
hi
LIME/
1
0.48
21.9
28.7
29.1
30.7
32
hi
FLYASH
2
0.49
30.3
33
36.4
36.5
33
hi
3
0.50
34.8
48.8
48.2
50.9
34
IV
LIME/
1
0.45
34.9
36
34.8
37.9
35
IV
FLYASH
2
0.40
29.8
38.7
36.3
40.5
36
IV
3
0.45
36.9
35.7
37.9
42.2
25
-------
As discussed above, the UCS for the SARMs that were S/Sd with port 1 and
cement was very high within 1 day after mixing. Those SARMs S/Sd with kiln
dust and 1ime/flyash were far weaker. Most of these SARM samples could not
satisfy the 50-psi minimum after 7 days. Figures C-l through C-6 in appendix
C show the UCS values plotted against time. Interestingly, there is a small
but pronounced trend upwards. That is, the solids were, in general, getting
stronger with time. This is expected when using lime-based solidifying
agents, which can take years to set up. No clear-cut trend was identified as
to which SARM produced a stronger product.
Figure C-3 is interesting in that it first appears that SARM 1 and SARM 2
are S/Sd well by the kiln dust. Then on the 28th day, their strength appears
to drop. No reason for this drop is apparent. It may be an artifact of the
testing procedure or just due to random sample fluctuation. However, the data
are consistent enough that this phenomenon may warrant further examination.
4.2 VOLATILE EMISSIONS
The organic volatile and semivolatile emissions from the S/Sd SARM soil
samples were qualitatively made to track the loss of organic components from
the samples into the surrounding air. After curing overnight, the SARM
samples were placed into polyethylene bags and sealed until tested for UCS.
At 14 and 28 days, a 5-mL sample of the air in each bag of SARM sample was
withdrawn for analysis before the bag was opened and the cube measured. The
gas sample was injected onto a gas chromatograph to determine which compounds
were present. It should be noted that this methodology only gave
concentration for the compounds in the headspace. Because no gas flux
measurements through the plastic bags were made, these tests cannot be used to
calculate the emission rate of the organics. Because of this limitation of
the experiment, there was no value to measure the concentrations to a high
level of precision. As a result, they should be construed as qualitative in
nature. Table 4-2 shows the concentrations of each of the added organic
compounds in the headspace, expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L) of air at
14 and 28 days after mixing.
Other research being conducted in parallel to this program has shown that
S/S with the agents used here does not significantly reduce the rate of
release of volatile organics to the atmosphere.2 The headspace concentration
of the organic compounds was measured here to confirm this observation. The
organic concentration in the polyethylene bag varied in a random manner
throughout the program. While a slow drop in the concentration seemed to
occur, this trend was not definite.
The plastic bags used to store the samples were made of light duty
polyethylene and, while equipped with a "zip lock," were not airtight. Because
air (or at least the carbon dioxide in the air) is necessary to cure the lime
and lime kiln dust-based solidifying agents, sealing the samples completely
would have slowed the curing process. In addition, the temperature changes
and off gassing from the curing process often caused the bag seals to open by
themselves. The S/Sd SARM samples continued to lose the volatile and organic
compounds to the air, which would eventually have been depleted.
26
-------
TABLE 4-2. RESULTS OF HEAD-SPACE ANALYSES
(SARM)
SAMPLE NO. HiADSPACE CONCENTRATION AT 14 AND 28 DAYS (ppm)
BINDER
ACT
CLB
DCE
ETB
STY
TCE
XYL
ANT
BEP
PC?
I 1
PC
90
40
19
560
38
51
1311
31
1
2
1
PC
10
23
18
380
23
37
909
21
2
5
2
PC
772
24
13
357
21
34
719
21
1
4
2
re
11
10
13
167
1
18
188
12
ND
3
3
PC
531
16
5
249
ND
ND
541
18
1
ND
3
PC
31
8
12
151
11
15
370
8
ND
4
II 4
PC
10
ND
ND
18
1
ND
47
3
1
ND
4
PC
7
ND
ND
15
1
11
36
2
ND
4
5
PC
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
3
ND
ND
5
PC
3
ND
ND
11
ND
11
31
2
ND
3
6
PC
11
ND
ND
35
3
ND
91
3
1
ND
6
PC
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
2
1
3
III 7
PC
2
ND
ND
22
2
ND
56
1
4
ND
7
PC
2
ND
ND
11
ND
ND
29
1
1
6
8
PC
6
7
ND
77
7
ND
215
3
ND
ND
8
PC
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
2
ND
5
9
PC
3
5
ND
67
6
ND
187
4
ND
ND
9
PC
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
2
ND
3
IV 10
PC
47
ND
ND
34
2
ND
78
1
1
1
10
PC
9
ND
7
30
ND
ND
68
1
ND
3
11
PC
55
2
ND
22
1
ND
51
ND
ND
ND
11
PC
5
ND
ND
37
ND
ND
78
1
ND
2
12
PC
6
ND
ND
9
1
ND
21
ND
ND
ND
12
PC
40
ND
ND
62
3
ND
125
3
ND
ND
I 13
KD
7
ND
6
13
ND
ND
30
ND
ND
3
13
KD
3
ND
ND
56
4
ND
143
2
ND
7
14
KD
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
KD
13
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
3
15
KD
22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
2
15
KD
2
ND
ND
13
ND
10
35
4
ND
5
II 16
KD
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
4
16
KD
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
3
17
KD
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
4
17
KD
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
ND
ND
18
KD
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
1
ND
ND
18
KD
1
ND
2
7
ND
ND
19
3
ND
ND
continued
27.
-------
TABLE 4-2, concluded
(SARM)
SAMPLE NO. HEADSPACE CONCENTRATION AT 14 AND 28 DAYS fppm)
BINDER
ACT
CLB
DCE
ETB
STY
TCE
XYL
ANT
BEP
PCP
III 19
KD
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
1
ND
ND
39
KD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
1
ND
7
20
KD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
1
ND
9
20
KD
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
1
ND
3
21
KD
1
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
24
2
ND
6
21
KD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
3
1
4
IV 22
KD
12
ND
5
12
ND
ND
33
4
ND
2
22
KD
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
8
12
ND
ND
23
KD
35
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
12
3
5
ND
23
KD
1
ND
15
19
ND
9
52
10
ND
3
24
KD
36
ND
ND
30
3
ND
103
5
1
4
24
KD
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
7
5
ND
ND
I 25
LF
115
11
17
163
12
37
357
1
1
6
25
LF
18
15
15
239
12
44
525
3
ND
ND
26
LF
172
16
20
296
12
61
633
1
ND
8
26
LF
5
11
11
213
10
42
491
4
ND
ND
27
LF
157
22
25
410
2
73
842
3
2
13
27
LF
21
18
41
265
12
54
556
5
4
3
II 28
LF
12
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
25
1
2
12
28
LF
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8
1
ND
5
29
LF
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
2
29
LF
ND
ND
5
8
ND
ND
22
1
ND
ND
30
LF
3
ND
ND
6
ND
ND
16
ND
ND
7
30
LF
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
1
ND
ND
III 31
LF
7
3
14
9
ND
ND
26
1
1
4
31
LF
2
ND
6
1
ND
ND
4
5
10
ND
32
LF
4
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
32
LF
2
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
5
2
5
3
33
LF
1
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
6
2
ND
ND
33
LF
1
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
13
2
3
ND
IV 34
LF
23
ND
25
148
9
18
375
2
1
ND
34
LF
12
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
7
ND
11
35
LF
39
ND
21
20
3
ND
76
10
ND
ND
35
LF
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
9
ND
ND
36
LF
5
ND
17
49
4
ND
153
6
ND
ND
36
LF
1
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
3
7
ND
ND
ACT = acetone, CLB = chlorobenzene, DCE = 1,2-diehloroethane,
ET3 = ethylbenzene, STY = styrene, TCE = tetrachloroethylene
XYl = xylene, ANT = anthracene BEP = bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
ND = not detected PCP = pentachlorophenol
Note: First entry for each sample is concentration at 14 days, second is
at 28 days
28
-------
4,3 RESULTS OF TCLP ANALYSES
Samples of those mixes that had a UCS minimally greater than 50 psi or
which showed the highest UCS below 50 psi after 14 and 28 days were
subjected to Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The "TCLP
analysis was done by Lee Wan & Associates under EPA Contract No. 68-03-3393.
The analyses were done using SW-846 methods.6 the TCLP results for the
metals are summarized in table 4-3. All of the results are presented in
appendix B, tables B-l through 12.
Table 4-3 shows the concentration of each metal found in the TCLP
leachate of the raw SARMs (identified as RAW) and in SARMs I through IV S/Sd
with portland cement (PC), lime kiln dust (KD}, and lime-flyash (LF). The
results are presented for samples at 14 and 28 days after Mixing. For each
metal, the first column lists the parts per million found io the TCLP extract,
and the second column lists the percent reduction that occurred in the extract
from the raw SAHM to the S/Sd material. The percent reduction includes a
correction for the dilution of the metals caused by the addition of the
binders.
The tables in appendix B list the amount of each compound found at 14
days after mixing, 28 days after mixing, the apparent percent reduction, and
the actual reduction. The apparent reduction is the value of the TCLP
obtained after 28 days of curing subtracted from the "TCLP of the original
soil (not corrected for the dilution due to the solidifying agents) and
divided by the latter value. It is multiplied by 100 to present the result
as a percent.
The actual TCLP percent reduction is the same as the apparent reduction
but corrected for the dilution of the SAflM by the solidifying agent. It is
otherwise calculated in the same manner as the apparent reduction. The
calculation is described by the following equations:
TCLPa = 100% * (TCLPo - TCLF2s)/TCLPo (1)
TCLPc = 100% * (TCLPo -TCLP29*CF)/TCLPo (2)
where:
TCLPa
TCLPc
TCLP28
TCLPc
CF
= TCLP apparent
= TCLP of the initial SAflM
= TCLP of the S/Sd SAHM after 28 days
= TCLP corrected for dilution
= Dilution correction factor from appendix B or C
which is the sum of the weights of the SAHM, binder and
water used for a given sample divided by the weight of
SABM
29
-------
TABLR 4-3. SUWARY OF TCLP RESULTS TOR MKTAT.S
(SAHM) :
Smple Binder ! Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Zinc
No, (Day) lab a b a b a b ab ab a b
I
RAW
ND
0.53
ND
0.61
0.49
0.27
9.2
1
PC(14)
ND
-
ND
100
0.06
+
0.07
81
0.15
75
0.04
70
0.23
96
14
KD<14>
ND
-
ND
100
0.06
4-
0.04
81
ND
100
ND
100
0.27
94
27
LF(14)
ND
-
ND
100
0.02
+
0.03
98
ND
100
ND
100
0.14
94
1
PC(28)
ND
-
ND
100
0.06
+
0.06
83
0.15
75
0.04
70
0.49
91
15
KD(28)
ND
-
ND
100
0.09
+
0.03
98
ND
100
ND
100
0.62
73
27
LF(28)
ND
-
ND
100
0.02
+
0.03
98
ND
100
ND
100
ND
100
II
RAW
ND
0.73
ND
0.89
0.7
0.4
14.6
4
PC(14)
ND
-
ND
100
0.03
+
0.04
92
0.15
82
0.04
83
0.09
99
16
KD(14)
ND
-
ND
100
0.08
+
0.07
79
0.44
+
ND
100
0.25
97
30
LF(14)
ND
_
ND
100
ND
-
ND
100
ND
100
ND
100
0.22
99
4
PC(28)
ND
-
ND
100
0.03
+
0.06
89
0.15
83
0.04
83
0.54
94
16
KD(28)
ND
-
ND
100
0.05
+
0.09
89
0.37
+
ND
100
0.78
89
29
LF(28)
ND
ND
100
ND
-
0.03
90
ND
100
ND
100
0.02
100
III
RAW
6.39
33.1
ND
80.7
19.9
17.5
359
7
PC(14)
ND
100
ND
100
0.07
+
0.15
100
0.63
95
ND
100
0.58
100
21
KD(14)
ND
100
ND
100
0.22
+
1.02
96
13.3
+
ND
100
4.38
95
33
LF(14)
0.81
52
0.02
100
0.03
+
2.96
87
51
+
ND
100
3.81
96
7
PC(28)
ND
100
ND
100
0.07
+
0.09
100
ND
100
ND
100
0.69
100
21
KD(28)
0.21
98
ND
100
0.12
+
0.85
96
18.3
+
ND
100
4.07
95
33
LF(28)
0.79
51
0.02
100
0.07
+
2.59
87
51
+
0.03
99
3.97
96
IV
RAW
9.58
35.3
0.06
10
70.4
26.8
396
10
PC(14)
ND
100
ND
100
0.06
+
0.14
100
0.39
99
ND
100
0.39
100
23
KD(14)
0.16
95
ND
100
0.11
+
1.88
97
12.4
43
ND
100
4.57
97
LF(14)
1.61
50
ND
100
0.07
+
1.92
96
91.8
+
ND
100
3.22
96
10
PC(28)
ND
100
ND
100
0.06
+
0.17
100
0.37
99
ND
100
0.74
100
23
KD(28)
0.27
92
ND
100
0.12
+
1.67
97
21.4
9
ND
100
3.72
97
LF(28)
0.98
59
0.02
100
0.07
+
2.18
95
65
•f
ND
100
3.64
96
Detection Linit 0.15
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.15
0.04
0.01
Notes: (a) TCLP results in ppm ND - below detection linit
(b) percent reduction, corrected for dilution + - increase over raw SAHM
-------
To illustrate the uae of this correction, consider the sample described
in Table B-l. The lead in TCLP of the untreated SAHM T was 0.49 ppm. The
TCLF of the S/Sd sample at 28 days (as well as at 14 days) was 0.15 ppm. The
dilution factor for the treatment was 1.7. That is, the TCLP corrected for
the dilution of the SAM is in reality 1.7*0.15 = 0.255 ppm. Therefore the
percent TCLP reduction corrected for dilution is:
100% * (0.49-0.255)/0.49 = 48%
Note that the results are given to the nearest percent in all cases since
the TCLP results are usually only reproducible to two significant figures.
Added significant figures in the results would imply a greater accuracy than
exists.
Each part of the tables in appendix C also lists the description of the
sample such as sample number, binder type, binder/soil ratio, density, the
volume dilution factor, and the SARM type.
All the concentrations are reported in terms of the liquid extraction
(milligrams per liter). These concentrations reflect a dilution of 20:1 over
the original solid. This is consistent with SW-846.
The leaching for the TCLP must be performed using a buffered solution of
specified pH. The samples submitted were highly caustic and may have
overwhelmed the buffering capacity of the solution. Unfortunately, because
the laboratory did not report the pH of the leaching solution, it is difficult
to understand the underlying chemistry from these results. The portland
cement and lime kiln dust used for this program had been analyzed for metals
(by atomic absorption spectroscopy) under a different project.2 The analyses
had not shown the metals of interest present. It is possible that some of the
metal analytes were present in the other binder components, the flyash and the
lime.
4.4 RESULTS OF TWA ANALYSES
The Total Waste Analysis (TWA) was performed by Hittman Ebasco
Associates under EPA Contract No. 68-01-7280. SW-846 methods were used in the
extraction and analysis of the samples. The first set of samples (14 day)
was extracted and analyzed in duplicate as a check on the homogeneity of the
samples and the performance of the laboratory. The results of the analyses
for the metals are presented in table 4-4, The full results are presented in
appendix A, tables A-l through 12.
Table 4-4 gives the parts per million of each metal found in both the raw
and S/Sd SARMs. Because no reduction in these metals occurred, the percent
reduction is not given. They are not corrected for dilution as presented here
although the corrected values are given in the tables of appendix A. The
tables in appendix A also list the amounts of the metal salts found, the
organic analyses, and the percent reduction (or increase) at 14 and 28 days
after mixing, the apparent percent reduction, and the actual reduction. The
apparent reduction is the value of the TWA obtained after 28 days of curing
¦31
-------
TABLE 4-4. SUF'WARY OF TVfA RESULTS, METALS
(SABM)
SAMPLE
BINDER
TWA RESULTS (ppm)
NO.
(DAY)
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
I
RAW
18
17
27
193
190
27
392
1
PC(14)
18
38
49
195
453
37
393
14
KD(14)
15
12
31
113
183
65
299
27
LF(14)
29
8
14
78
89
19
182
1
PC(28)
15
17
56
164
189
32
320
15
KD(28)
12
12
22
101
119
69
232
27
LF(28)
30
9
19
62
113
16
151
II
RAW
18
23
37
260
240
32
544
4
PC(14)
15
18
47
125
149
34
351
16
KD(14)
14
17
51
133
280
50
383
30
LF(14)
28
10
15
85
97
21
161
4
PC(28)
23
24
45
218
294
39
479
16
KD(28)
15
20
27
153
193
53
404
29
LF(28)
32
11
19
106
134
20
276
III
RAW
904
1,280
1,190
9,650
15,200
1,140
53,400
7
PC(14)
528
797
1,010
6,390
11,600
625
14,800
21
KD C14)
223
315
391
2,420
4,710
300
7,600
33
LF(14)
196
258
299
1,810
3,830
216
5,850
7
PC(28)
584
934
1,060
7,960
12,100
724
22,200
21
KD(28)
233
326
432
2,660
4,390
300
7,690
33
LF(28)
180
251
279
1,660
2.780
169
4.830
IV
RAW
810
1,430
1,650
13,300
16,900
1,380
28,900
10
PC(14)
506
858
1,060
7,040
12,100
616
17,500
23
KD(14)
290
541
550
4,230
6,320
418
11,200
35
LF(14)
281
448
461
4,440
6,590
374
9,890
10
PC(28)
563
952
1,020
10,100
8,680
753
21,000
23
KD(28)
271
490
516
4,860
5,190
449
12,300
36
LF(28)
225
306
386
3,430
4,590
255
7.020
32
-------
subtracted from the TOA of the original soil, not corrected for the
dilution due to the solidifying agents, and divided by the latter value. It
is multiplied by 100 to present the result as a percent.
The actual TWA percent reduction is the same as the apparent reduction
but corrected for the reduction of the TOA due to the simple dilution of the
SARM by the solidifying agent. It is calculated in the same manner as the
actual TCLP reduction was. Each part of the tables in appendix A also lists
the description of the sample, such as sample number, binder type, B:S ratio,
density, the dilution factor, and the SARM type.
The TWA analyses for the volatile organics showed the same pattern as the
TCLP. The TWA analyses, however, showed the results magnified. That is, the
S/Sd SAHMs contained on the order of 80 to 90 percent fewer volatile organics
than the original material. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the
volatile organics were released to the air rather than trapped in the solid.
The TWA results for the semivolatile organics were unexpected.
Stabilization appeared to result in an apparent increase in almost all the
values, This was surprising as the semivolatile organics were present in all
headspace samples. They were clearly being emitted during the mixing and
curing process. This increase is most likely apparent rather than actual. It
may well be an artifact of the analytical method. The TWA results appear to
vary widely. The reason for this is unclear, but it may be due to the
physical nature of the semivolatile compounds. They are heavy solids that go
into solution slowly. As a result, the amount of each constituent in the
liquid after the extraction for analysis may be more of a function of how much
of the material actually dissolves than of the total amount of that compound
in the waste. Under normal conditions, this error is not significant;
however, in this case, the TOA values are corrected for dilution. This
results in a "leveraging" of any error and a much higher degree of uncertainty
for the TWA results.
The TOA results for the metals behaved similarly to that of the
semivolatiles. Some metals showed large increases and some decreases. Once
again, the problem was most likely due to the "leveraging" of any error by the
dilution correction. Overall, the results showed no clear-cut increase or
reduction in the TWA for the metals.
33
-------
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
The work done by Acurex under this program met the requirements of a
Level 3 program as defined by the HWERL (Now RREL) OA manual.7 The
measurement of the TWA and TCLP was performed under separate tasks with IPA.
The QA/QC for these tasks was covered by another Quality Assurance Program
Plan (QAPP). Data quality objectives for this program were determined prior
to its start and agreed to by the parties in the QAPP based on expected
performance of the systems and equipment used for the measurements as
determined by experience and manufacturers' specifications. They are listed
in table 5-1. All objectives were met.
5.1 DATA QUALITY FOR CRITICAL MEASUREMENTS
This project was designed to measure the leaching performance of
synthetically contaminated soils from Superfund sites that have been S/Sd
using specified commonly used techniques. The actual leaching performance of
the samples was determined by the TCLP and TWA tests that were performed under
two other project tasks. These TCLP and TWA measurements are not covered by
the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for this project. This project was
responsible for mixing the materials (which were provided by EPA), performing
routine tests on the resultant samples, and sending selected samples to the
other laboratories for TCLP and TWA.
The semivolatile emissions were measured qualitatively. No
quantification of these was necessary since this was not a major objective of
the study. The elution time for each of the components selected was
determined by the daily injection into the GC/FID of solutions of each
component in a suitable solvent.
The ancillary measurements performed under this project were made using
extre*ely stable, reliable devices. The thermometers were all
mercury-in-glass and were accurate to within +0.5 °C. The relative humidity
was measured by a wet-bulb/dry-bulb sling psychrometer, which is the primary
standard for this measurement.
5.2 CALIBRATION
The major tests that were performed under this program were the UCS and
CP tests. The CP is a rugged device designed for field use, which measures
the force required to push a cone into a sample. It is calibrated by simply
34
-------
TABLE 5-1, QA OBJECTIVES FOR PRECISION, ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS
Measurement
Penetration
resistance
Unconfirmed
compressive
strength
Semivolatiles
analysis
Weight
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Method
Cone
Penetrometer
UCS tester
GC/FID
Laboratory
Balance
Thermometer
Sling
Psychronieter
Accuracy Precision Completeness
~10% +10* 90*
+ 10*
Qual.
+5%
+1° C
+5*
+10*
Gual.
+5*
+1°C
+10*
90*
90*
90*
90*
90*
pushing it down against a scale and comparing the force it records against
that of the scales. The compression testing machine used for the UCS
measurements was an AS IN standard device in its own right. Cube dimensions
were determined using standard machinist calipers that were purchased for the
project and had been calibrated by the manufacturer.
The semivolatile emissions were measured qualitatively. A quantitative
measure of the emissions was considered unnecessary for the scope of this
study, The elution time for each of the components selected was determined
by the daily injection of solutions of each component.
The GC is the only instrument used which is susceptible to drift and
other variation. Because of such instability, its performance on the
standards was checked by daily monitoring of the elution times for the
desired components. Because surrogate wastes of known composition were used,
sample spikes for positive peak identification were unnecessary.
5.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE
The only sampling activity that took place was the collection of the
semivolatile emission sample for the GC analysis. This was performed in
accordance with EPA Method 18, "Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound
Emissions by Gas Chromatography."
3.5
-------
5.4 SAMPLE CUSTODY AND LABELING
Upon receipt, the soil samples were labeled and logged in according to
the type of SARM, date received, receiving technician, and other pertinent
information. Every time a portion of the sample was taken for testing or the
sample was otherwise handled, an appropriate entry was made in the log. This
included the amount removed or replaced, the responsible technician, date of
the activity, soil destination or source, and any other pertinent comments.
Each entry was signed by the person performing the activity. This log forms
the "chain-of-custody" document for all samples held at Acurex Corporation.
The chain-of-custody was maintained with all samples sent to the
analytical laboratories or other entities for further work.
36
-------
SECTION 6
REFERENCES
1. Locke, B. B., Esposito, P. M. , Furtnan, C. , and Traver, R. P. CERCLA BDAT
Standard Analytical Reference Matrix (SAHM) Preparation and Results of
Physical Soils Washing Experiment. Presented at; 14th Annual Research
Symposium on Land Disposal, Remedial Action, Incineration, and Treatment
of Hazardous Waste, May 9-11, 1988, EPA—Cincinnati, Ohio.
2. Weitzman, L., Hamel, L., and Cadmus, S. Volatile Organic Emissions From
Stabilized Hazardous Wastes. Acurex Corportion. Final Report. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3994, Work Assignments 32 and 37. 1987.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Cone Penetrometer (CP) Use Manual. Army
Document No. 1W-5-530. Section XV.
4. Bricka, M. Factors Affecting Stabilization/Solidification of Toxic and
Hazardous Waste. Draft Final Report. Interagency Agreement between EPA
and the U. S. Array Corp of Engineers No. DA930146-01-01.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. SW-846, Third
Edition. 1986.
6. PEI Associates, Inc. CERCLA BDAT SARM Preparation and Physical Soils
Washing Removal Efficiencies. Final Report. Contract 68-03-3413, Work
Assignment No. 0-7. Prepared for EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory. 1987.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of Results: Proceedings of
13th Annual Research Symposium on Hazardous Wastes. EPA/600/987/015.
July 1987. pp. 64-71.
37
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF TOTAL WASTE ANALYSES
(TWA)
OF SOLIDIFIED SAHMS
38
-------
TABLE A-l
TOA RESULTS FOR SARMS
SARM I
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
SAMPLE #
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY g/cm3
14 DAY
1
1:0.7
1.7
2.07
28 DAY
1
0.7
1.7
2.07
1
CONTAMINANT
TWA TWA TWA
RAW SARM § 14 DAY 0 28 DAY
% REDUCTION
APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
3150
710
560
82
70
CHLOROBENZENE
330
110
95
71
51
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
380
16
11
97
95
ETHYLBENZENE
3350
1000
940
72
52
STYHENE
710
240
220
69
47
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
600
110
84
86
76
XYLENE
4150
1500
1400
66
43
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
940
860
930
1
-68
BIS{2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
600
820
630
-5
-79
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
135
58
50
63
37
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
18
18
15
17
-42
CADMIUM
17
18
17
0
-70
CHROMIUM
27
49
56
-107
-253
COPPER
193
195
164
15
-44
LEAD
190
453
189
1
-69
NICKEL
27
37
32
-19
-101
2 INC
392
393
320
18
-39
39
-------
TABLE A-2
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SARM II
SAMPLE #
4
4
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:0.7
1:0.7
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
DILUTION
FACTOR
1.7
1.7
DENSITY G/CM3
1.92
1.92
TWA
TWA
TWA
% REDUCTION
CONTAMINANT RAW
SARM
§ 14 DAY
e 28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
230
68
250
-9
-85
CHLOROBENZENE
9,2
3
0.9
90
83
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
3.9
ND
ND
100
100
ETHYLBENZENE
74
31
5.3
93
88
STYRENE
26 '
7.3
1.8
93
88
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
16
3.3
ND
100
100
XYLENE
210
49
11
95
91
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
275
150
150
45
7
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
34
43
41
-21
-105
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
62
63
50
19
-37
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
18
15
23
-28
-117
CADMIUM
23
18
24
-4
-77
CHROMIUM
37
47
45
-22
-107
COPPER
260
125
218
16
-43
LEAD
240
149
294
-23
-108
NICKEL
32
34
39
-22
-107
ZINC
544
351
479
12
-50
40
-------
TABLE A-3
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 1
SARM III
SAMPLE #
7
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:0.7
1:0
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
DILUTION
FACTOR
1.7
1
DENSITY g/cm3
1.92
1.!
TWA
TWA
TWA
% REDUCTION
CONTAMINANT
RAW SARM
e 14 DAY
§ 28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUA]
VOLATILES
ACETONE
220
150
150
32
-16
CHLOROBENZENE
8.9
5.4
2.6
71
50
1,2-D ICHLOROETHANE
3.1
1.4
0.7
77
62
ETHYLBENZENE
100
63
34
66
42
STYRENE
24
14
8.7
64
38
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
13
6.4
2.7
79
65
XYLENE
150
100
59
61
33
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
265
340
450
-70
-189
BIS(2-ETKYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
140
140
220
-57
-167
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
15
66
48
-220
-444
INORGANICS (METALS)
ARSENIC
904
528
584
35
-10
CADMIUM
1280
797
934
27
-24
CHROMIUM
1190
1010
1060
11
-51
COPPER
9650
6390
7960
18
-40
LEAD
15200
11600
12100
20
-35
NICKEL
1140
625
724
36
-8
ZINC
53400
14800
2200
58
29
41
-------
TABLE A-4
TWA RESULTS FOR KARMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SARM IV
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
SAMPLE # 10
SOIL/BINDER RATIO 1:0.7
DILUTION FACTOR 1.7
DENSITY g/crn3 1.83
10
1:0.7
1.7
1.83
CONTAMINANT
TWA
RAW SARM
TWA
« 14 DAY
TWA
@ 28 DAY
X REDUCTION
APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
13000
270
830
2500
540
540
3700
550
66
25
690
150
89
970
1500
150
33
1600
350
180
2300
44
96
36
35
67
38
-9
-10
43
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE 775 730
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 500 500
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 78 63
1200
670
49
-55
-34
37
¦163
-128
-7
INORGANIC {METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
810
1430
1650
13300
16900
1380
28900
506
858
1060
7040
12100
616
17500
563
952
1020
10100
8680
753
21000
30
33
38
24
49
45
27
-18
-13
-5
-29
13
7
-24
42
-------
TABLE A-5
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAHM I
BINDER - KILN DUST
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
SAMPLE #
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY g/cn3
14
1:2
3
1.75
15
1:3
4
1.88
CONTAMINANT
TWA TWA TWA % REDUCTION
RAW SARM § 14 DAY § 28 DAY APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
3150
79
120
96
85
CHLOROBENZENE
330
1.5
7.3
98
91
1,2-DICHLOROETHAN1
380
0.8
7.3
98
92
ETHYLBENZENE
3350
19
8.3
100
99
STYRENE
710
4.3
5.6
99
97
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
600
1.5
7.3
99
95
XYLENE
4150
30
20
100
98
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
940
670
520
45
-121
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)FHTHALATE
600
410
230
62
-53
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
135
640
50
63
-48
INORGANIC (METALS)
ARSENIC
18
15
12
33
-167
CADMIUM
17
12
12
29
-182
CHROMIUM
27
31
22
19
-226
COPPER
193
113
101
48
-109
LEAD
190
183
119
37
-151
NICKEL
27
65
69
-156
-922
ZINC
392
299
232
41
-137
43
-------
TABLE A-6
TWA RESULTS FOR SAHMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SARM II
SAMPLE #
16
16
BINDER - KILN DUST
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:1
1:1
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
DILUTION FACTOR
2
2
DENSITY g/cm3
1.77
1.77
CONTAMINANT
TWA
RAW SARM
TWA
0 14 DAY
TWA
® 28 DAY
X REDUCTION
APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
CHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
TITRACHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE
SEMIVOLATILE
230
9.2
3.9
74
26
16
210
55
0. 1
0.02
0.8
0.4
ND
1.9
4.2
0.006
0.01?
0.03
0.02
ND
0.08
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
96
100
99
100
100
100
100
ANTHRACENE 275
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 34
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 62
INORGANICS (METALS)
ARSENIC 18
CADMIUM 23
CHROMIUM 37
COPPER 260
LEAD 240
NICKEL 32
ZINC 544
170
42
63
14
17
51
133
280
50
383
140
28
49
15
20
27
153
193
53
404
49
18
21
17
13
27
41
20
-66
26
-65
-58
-67
-74
-46
-18
-61
-231
-49
'44
-------
TABLE A-7
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAflM III
SAMPLE #
21
21
BINDER - KILN DUST
SOIL/BINDER
RATIO
1:3
1:3
CONCENTRATIONS IN MC/KG
DILUTION
FACTOR
4
4
DENSITY g/cro3
1.86
1.86
TWA
TWA
TWA
% REDUCTION
CONTAMINANT
RAW SARM
@ 14 DAY
@ 28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
220
39
20
91
64
CHLOROBENZENE
8,9
0.03
0.19
98
91
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
3.1
0.03
0.05
98
94
ETHYLBENZENE
100
0.16
2
98
92
STYRENE
24
0.11
0.79
97
87
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
13
0.01
ND
100
100
XYLENE
150
0.38
4.2
97
89
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
265
210
250
6
-277
BIS(2-ETHYLHE XYL)PHTHALATE
140
78
77
45
-120
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
15
600
62
-313
-1553
INORGANICS (METALS)
ARSENIC
904
223
233
74
-3
CADMIUM
1280
315
326
75
-2
CHROMIUM
1190
391
432
64
-45
COPPER
9650
2420
2660
72
-10
LEAD
15200
4710
4390
71
-16
NICKEL
1140
300
308
73
-8
ZINC
53400
7600
7690
86
42
45
-------
TABLE A-8
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SARM IV
BINDER - KILN DUST
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
SAMPLE #
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY g/cm3
23
1:2
3
1.83
1:2
1.83
CONTAMINANT
TWA
RAW SARM
TWA
§ 14 DAY
TWA
§ 28 DAY
% REDUCTION
APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
13000
410
180
99
96
CHLOROBENZENE
270
25
15
94
83
1,2-DICHLOROETHAN1
830
1.6
8
99
97
ETHYLBENZENE
2500
270
170
93
80
STYRENE
540
69
45
92
75
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
540
25
13
98
93
XYLENE
3700
410
260
93
79
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
775
430
840
-8
-225
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
500
330
590
-18
-254
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
78
62
64
18
-146
INORGANICS (METALS)
ARSENIC
810
290
271
67
0
CADMIUM
1430
541
490
66
-3
CHROMIUM
1650
550
516
69
6
COPPER
13300
4230
4860
63
-10
LEAD
16900
6320
5190
69
8
NICKEL
1380
418
449
67
2
ZINC
28900
11200
12300
57
-28
46
-------
TABLE A-9
TWA RESULTS FOR SAEMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SARM I
SAMPLE #
27
27
BINDER - LTME/FLYASH
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:3
1:3
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
DILUTION
FACTOR
4
4
DENSITY g/an3
1.54
1.54
TWA
TWA
TWA
* REDUCTION
CONTAMINANT
RAW SARM
§ 14 DAY
e 28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
3150
1900
800
75
-2
CHLOROBENZENE
330
51
55
83
33
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
380
12
9.6
97
90
ETHYLBENZENE
3350
440
700
79
16
STYRENE
710
100
150
79
15
TETRACHLOROETHY LEN1
600
59
73
88
51
XYLENE
4150
660
960
77
7
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
940
370
790
16
-236
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
600
350
490
18
-227
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
135
70
710
-426
-2004
INORGANICS fMETALS)
ARSENIC
18
29
30
-67
-567
CADMIUM
17
8.4
8.5
50
-100
CHROMIUM
27
14
19
30
-181
COPPER
193
78
62
68
-28
LEAD
190
89
113
41
-138
NICKEL
27
19
16
41
-137
ZINC
392
182
151
61
-54
4?
-------
TABLE A-10
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAM II
SAMPLE #
30
29
BINDER - LIME/FIYASH
SOIL/BINDER
RATIO
1:3
1:2
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
DILUTION
FACTOR
4
3
DENSITY g/cra3
1.59
1.56
TWA
TWA
TWA
X REDUCTION
CONTAMINANT
RAW SARM
@ 14 DAY
6 28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
230
13
57
75
26
CHLOROBENZENE
9.2
0.04
0.069
99
98
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
3.9
0.012
0.11
97
92
ETHYLBENZENE
74
0.5
0.95
99
96
STYREN1
26
0.06
0.14
99
98
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
16
0.024
0.033
100
99
XYLENE
210
0.89
1.8
99
97
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
275
56
77
72
16
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
34
12
12
65
-6
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
62
72
73
-18
-253
INORGANICS (METALS)
ARSENIC
18
28
32
-78
-433
CADMIUM
23
9.6
11
52
-43
CHROMIUM
37
15
19
49
-54
COPPER
260
85
106
59
-22
LEAD
240
97
134
44
-68
NICKEL
32
21
20
38
-88
ZINC
544
161
276
49
-52
-------
TABLE A-11
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAflW III
SAMPLE #
33
33
BINDER - LIME/FLYASH
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:3
1:3
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
DILUTION
FACTOR
4
4
DENSITY g/cn3
1.49
1.49
TWA
TWA
TWA
% REDUCTION
CONTAMINANT
RAW SARM
§ 14 DAY
§ 28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VO LATHES
ACETONE
220
25
140
36
-155
CHLOROBENZENE
8.9
0.35
0.32
96
86
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
3.1
0.23
0.2
94
74
ETHYLBENZENE
100
0.6
3.5
97
86
STYRENE
24
0.42
1.2
95
80
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
13
0.29
0.22
98
93
XYLENE
150
2.9
7.9
95
79
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
265
180
200
25
-202
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
140
51
64
54
-83
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
15
73
69
-360
-1740
INORGANICS (METALS)
ARSENIC
904
196
180
80
20
CADMIUM
1280
258
251
80
22
CHROMIUM
1190
299
279
77
6
COPPER
9650
1810
1660
83
31
LEAD
15200
3830
2780
82
27
NICKEL
1140
216
169
85
41
ZINC
53400
5850
4830
91
64
49
-------
TABLE A-12
TWA RESULTS FOR SARMS
14 DAY
28 DA'
SAflM IV
SAMPLE #
35
3i
BINDER - LIME/FLYASH
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:2
1;:
CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/KG
DILUTION
FACTOR
3
1
DENSITY g/can3
1.44
1.5:
TWA
TWA
TWA
% REDUCTION
CONTAMINANT
RAW SARM
§ 14 DAY
§ 28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
ACETONE
13000
1000
690
95
79
CHLOROBENZENE
270
110
43
84
36
1,2-DICHLOHOETHANE
830
54
19
98
91
ETHYLBENZENE
2500
1100
730
71
-17
STYRENE
540
220
130
76
4
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
540
140
66
88
51
XYLENE
3700
1600
920
75
1
S04IVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
775
780
540
30
-179
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
500
460
280
44
-124
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
78
73
68
13
-249
INORGANICS {METALS)
ARSENIC
810
281
225
72
-11
CADMIUM
1430
448
306
79
14
CHROMIUM
1650
461
386
77
6
COPPER
13300
4440
3430
74
-3
LEAD
16900
6590
4590
73
-9
NICKEL
1380
374
255
82
26
ZINC
28900
9890
7020
76
3
SO
-------
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE
(TCLP)
TESTS FOR SARMS
-------
TABLE B-1
TCIP RESULTS FOR SARMs
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAHM I
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L EXTRACT
SAMPLE # 1 1
SOIL/BINDER RATIO 1:0.7 1:0.7
DILUTION FACTOR 1.7 1.7
DENSITY g/cm3 2.07 2.07
ucs e 7,
14,21,28 DAY
>250......
....>250
TCLP
TCLP
TCLP %
REDUCTION
IN "TCLP
CONTAMINANT
ACTUAL
@ 14 DAY 28 DAY APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
110
61
180
-64
-178
CHLOROBENZENE
5.2
2.39
1.32
75
57
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
76
10
0.44
99
99
BTHYLBENZENE
27
6.28
10.3
62
35
STYRENE
9
5.84
2.78
69
47
TETRACHIOROETHYLENE
3.3
10
0.72
78
63
XYLENE
62
35
13.8
78
62
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
2.6
0.02
0.03
99
98
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
2.3
0.01
1.02
56
25
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
7.8
7
3.87
50
16
INORGANICS fMETALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC
0.15
ND
ND
ND
—
—
CADMIUM
0.01
0.53
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM
0.01
ND
0.06
0.06
—
—
COPPER
0.02
0.61
0.07
0.06
90
83
LEAD
0.15
0.49
0.15
0.15
69
48
NICKEL
0.04
0.27
0.04
0.04
85
75
ZINC
0.01
9.2
0.23
0.49
95
91
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
'52
-------
TABLE B-2
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAHM II
SAMPLE #
4
4
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:0.7
1:0.7
CONCENTRATION IN mg/L EXTRACT
DILUTION FACTOR
1.7
1.7
DENSITY g/cm3
1.92
1.92
UCS @ 7,14,21,28 DAY
>250....
....>250
TCLP TCLP TCLP % REDUCTION IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT ACTUAL @ 14 DAY 28 DAY APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
0.92
238
15
-1530
-2672
CHLOROBENZENE
0.05
2.4
0
17
-240
-478
1,2-D ICHLOROETHANE
0.05
10
0
05
0
-70
ETHYLBENZENE
0.12
19.2
4
78
-3883
-6672
STYRENE
0.03
8.52
0
03
0
-70
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
0.05
1.4
0
16
-220
-444
XYLENE
0.3
34.5
5
15
-1617
-2818
SPIIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE 0.01 0.02 0.01 0 -70
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 0.22 0.01 0.09 59 30
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 0.9 0.41 0.11 88 79
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC
0.15
ND
ND
ND
—
—
CADMIUM
0.01
0.73
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM
0.01
ND
0.03
0.03
—
—
COPPER
0.02
0.89
0.04
0.06
93
89
LEAD
0.15
0.7
0.15
0.15
79
64
NICKEL
0.04
0.4
0.04
0.04
90
83
ZINC
0.01
14.6
0.09
0.54
96
94
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
55
-------
TABLE B-3
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAHM III
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCENTRATION IN rag/L EXTR
SAMPLE #7 7
SOIL/BINDER RATIO 1:0.7 1:0.7
VOLUME DILUTION RATIO 1.7 1.7
DENSITY g/cn3 1.88 1.88
UCS % 7,14,21,28 DAY
>250.
.>250
TCLP
TCLP
TCLP
% REDUCTION
IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT
ACTUAL !
§ 14 DAY
28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
7.1
40.1
12.1
-70
-190
CHLOROBENZENE
0.38
0.08
0.01
97
96
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.5
0.1
0.01
98
97
ETHYLBENZENE
4.6
1.67
0.21
95
92
STYRINE
0.5
0.6
0.02
96
93
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
0.33
0.09
0.01
97
95
XYLENE
11
2.55
0.52
95
92
SB1IVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
0.01
0.01
0.02
-100
-240
BIS(2-ETHYLHE XYL)PHTHALATE
0.09
0.01
0.26
-189
-391
PENTACHLOROFHENOL
0.34
1.1
0.9
-165
-350
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
6.39
ND
ND
100
100
CADMIUM 0.01
33.1
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
ND
0.07
0.07
—
—
COPPER 0.02
80.7
0.15
0.09
100
100
LEAD 0.15
19.9
0.63
ND
100
100
NICKEL 0.04
17.5
ND
ND
100
100
ZINC 0.01
358.5
0.58
0.69
100
100
NB - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
54
-------
TABLE B-4
TCLP RESULTS FOR
1 SARMs
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAflM IV
SAMPLE #
10
10
BINDER - PORTLAND CEMENT
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:0.7
1:0.7
CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/l EXT
DILUTION FACTOR
1.7
1.7
DENSITY g/cm3
1.83
1.83
UCS @ 7,
14,21,28 DAY
250....
... .>250
TCLP
TCLP
TCLP %
REDUCTION
IN TCLP
contaminant
ACTUAL
8 14 DAY 28 DAY APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
130
68
1.57
99
98
CHLOROBENZENE
6.7
2.2
4.08
39
-4
1,2-BICHLOROETHANI
13
0.77
0.4
97
95
ETHYLBENZENE
47
28.8
149
-217
-439
STYRENE
11
8
37.5
-241
-480
TETRACKLOROETHYLENE
4.5
1.6
3.38
25
-28
XYLENE
100
37.2
244
-144
-315
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
3.4
0.04
1.06
69
47
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
3
0.01
1.06
65
40
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
3.8
5.9
12.1
-218
-441
INORGANICS fMETALS)
PET.LIM,
ARSENIC
0.15
9.58
ND
ND
100
100
CADMIUM
0.01
35.3
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.06
0
-70
COPPER
0.02
159.9
0.14
0.17
100
100
LEAD
0.15
70.4
0.39
0.37
99
99
NICKEL
0.04
26.8
0.04
0.04
100
100
ZINC
0.01
395.9
0.32
0.74
100
100
ND — BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
55-
-------
TABLE B-5
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
SARM I
BINDER - KILN DUST
CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L
SAMPLE #
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
DILUTION FACTOR
14 DAY
14
1:2
3
DENSITY g/an3 1.75
28 DAY
15
1:3
4
1.88
UCS
§ 7,14,21,28 DAY
5, 52,
176, 211,
54, 241
215, 81
TCLP
TCLP
TCLP
% REDUCTION
IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT
ACTUAL @
14 DAY
28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
110
3.87
6.14
94
78
CHLOROBENZENE
5.2
0.11
0.06
99
95
1,2-DICHLOROETHAN!
76
0.01
0.1
100
99
ETIYLBENZENI
27
1.54
0.06
100
99
STYRENE
9
0.59
1.06
88
53
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
3.3
0.12
0.02
99
98
XYLENE
62
2.71
2.04
97
87
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
2.6
0.05
0.05
98
92
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
2.3
0.01
0.05
38
91
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
7.8
0.06
0.13
98
93
INORGANIC (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
ND
ND
ND
—
—
CADMIUM 0.01
0.53
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
ND
0.06
0.09
—
—
COPPER 0.02
0.61
0.04
0.03
95
80
LEAD 0.15
0.49
ND
ND
100
100
NICKEL 0.04
0.27
ND
ND
100
100
ZINC 0.01
9.24
0.27
0.62
93
73
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
56
-------
TABLE B-6
TC1P RESULTS FOR SAflMs
SARM II
BINDER - KILN DUST
CONCENTRATION IN mg/L EXTR
SAMPLE t
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY g/cm
14 DAY
16
1:1
2
1 . 7?
28 DAY
16
1:1
2
1.77
UCS @ 7,14,21,28 DAY
37,60,78,85
TCLP TCLP TCLP % REDUCTION IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT ACTUAL 8 14 DAY 28 DAY APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
0.92
2.13
1.65
-79
-259
CHLOROBENZENE
0.05
0.01
0.1
-100
-300
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.05
0.01
0.01
80
60
ETHYLBENZENE
0.12
0.28
0.03
75
50
STYRENI
0.03
0.05
0.1
—233
-567
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
0.05
0.02
0.1
-100
-300
XYLENE
0.3
0.36
0.09
70
40
SEMIVOLATILE
ANTHRACENE
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
-100
BIS{2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
0.22
0.01
0.05
77
55
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
0.9
0.18
0.04
96
91
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
ND
ND
ND
—
—
CADMIUM 0.01
0.73
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
ND
0.08
0.05
—
—
COPPER 0.02
0.89
0.07
0.09
90
80
LEAD 0.15
0.7
0.39
0.37
47
-6
NICKEL 0.04
0.4
0.04
0.04
90
80
ZINC 0.01
14.6
0.25
0.78
95
89
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
57
-------
TABLE B-7
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
14 DAY 28 DAY
SAfiM III SAMPLE # 21 21
BINDER - KILN DUST SOIL/BINDER RATIO 1:3 1:3
CONCENTRATION IN mg/L EXTR DILUTION RATIO 4 4
DENSITY g/cm3 1.86 1.86
UCS § 7,14,21,28 DAY 46,45,44,80
TCLP TCLP TCLP % REDUCTION IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT ACTUAL S 14 DAY 28 DAY APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
7.1
2.17
1.01
86
43
CHLOROBENZENE
0.38
1
0.01
97
89
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.5
0.02
0.1
80
20
ETHYLBENZENE
4.6
0.02
0.08
98
93
"STYRENE
0.5
0.01
0.01
98
92
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
0.33
1
0.01
97
88
XYLENE
11
0.03
0.12
99
96
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
0.01
0.02
0.11
-1000
-4300
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
0.09
0.01
0.11
-22
-389
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
0.34
0.36
0.08
76
6
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
6.39
0.15
0.21
97
87
CADMIUM 0.01
33.1
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
ND
0.22
0.12'
—
—
COPPER 0.02
80.7
1.02
0.85
99
96
LEAD 0.15
19.9
13.3
18.3
8
-268
NICKEL 0.04
17.5
ND
ND
100
100
ZINC 0.01
358.5
4.38
4.07
99
95
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
58
-------
TABLE B-8
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAHM IV
SAMPLE #
23
23
BINDER - KILN DUST
SOIL/BINDER
! RATIO
1:2
1:2
CONCENTRATION'S IN rag/L EXT
DILUTION
FACTOR
3
3
DENSITY g/cm3
1.83
1.83
UCS
§ 7,14,21,
28 DAY
39,56,52,52
TCLP,
TCLP
TCLP
% REDUCTION
IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT
ACTUAL
« 14 DAY
28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
130
24.4
35.2
73
19
C1LOROBENZENE
6.7
0.05
1.26
81
44
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
13
0.1
0.02
100
100
ETHYLBENZENE
47
7.92
13.5
71
14
STYRENE
11
1.15
4.1
63
-12
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
4.5
0.11
0.96
79
36
XYLENE
100
10.9
24.1
76
28
SEMTVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
3.4
0.01
0.03
99
97
BIS{2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
3
0.01
0.27
91
73
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
3.8
3.2
5.23
-38
-313
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
9.58
0.16
0.27
97
92
CADMIUM 0.01
35.3
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
0.06
0.11
0.12
-100
—500
COPPER 0.02
159.9
1.88
1.67
99
97
LEAD 0.15
70.4
12.4
21.4
70
9
NICKEL 0.04
26.8
ND
ND
100
100
ZINC 0.01
395.9
4.57
3.77
99
97
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
59
-------
TABLE B-9
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
SAKM I
BINDER - LIMK/FLYASH
CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L EXTRACT
SAMPLE #
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
DILUTION FACTOR
DENSITY g/an3
14 DAY
27
1:3
4
1.54
28 DAY
27
1:3
4
1.54
UCS € 7,
14,21,28
DAY 20
,30,33,47
TCLP
TCLP
TCLP
* REDUCTION
IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT
ACTUAL
§ 14 DAY
28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
110
35.6
43
61
-56
CHLOROBENZENE
5.2
1.3
1.6
69
-23
1,2—DICHLOROETHANE
76
0.4
0.1
100
99
ETHYLBENZENE
27
16.9
18
33
-167
STYRENE
9
0.4
4.1
54
-82
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
3.3
1.4
1.5
55
-82
XYLENE
62
21.5
22
65
-42
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
2.6
0.02
0.02
99
97
B IS ( 2-ETHYLHim) PHTHALATE
2.3
0.05
0.16
93
72
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
7.8
0.36
0.4
95
79
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
ND
ND
ND
—
.—
CADMIUM 0.01
0.53
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
ND
0.02
0.02
—
—
COPPER 0.02
0.61
0.03
0.03
95
80
LEAD 0.15
0.49
ND
ND
100
100
NICKEL 0.04
0.27
0.04
0.04
85
41
ZINC 0.01
9.2
0.14
ND
100
100
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
60
-------
TABLE B-10
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
14 DAY
28 DAY
SAflM II
SAMPLE #
30
29
BINDER - LIME/FLYASH
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:3
1:2
CONCENTRATION IN mg/L EXTR
DILUTION
FACTOR
4
3
DENSITY g/em3
1.58
1.56
UCS
@ 7,14,21,28 DAY
19, 31,
17, 24,
41, 73
27, 62
TCLP
TCLP
TCLP
% REDUCTION
IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT
ACTUAL
@ 14 DAY
28 DAY
APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
0.92
1.84
3
-226
-878
CHLOROBENZENE
0.05
0.01
0.01
80
40
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.05
0.1
0.01
80
40
ETHYLBENZENE
0.12
0.08
0.15
-25
-275
STYRENE
0.03
0.01
0.03
0
-200
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
0.05
0.1
0.01
80
40
XYLENE
0.3
0.06
0.2
33
-100
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
-200
BIS{2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
0.22
0.01
0.01
95
86
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
0.9
0.01
0.11
88
63
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
ND
ND
ND
—
—
CADMIUM 0.01
0.73
ND
ND
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
ND
ND
ND
—
—
COPPER 0.02
0.89
0.02
0.03
97
90
LEAD 0.15
0.7
ND
ND
100
100
NICKEL 0.04
0.4
ND
ND
100
100
ZINC 0.01
14.6
0.22
0.02
100
100
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
-------
TABLE B-ll
TCLP RESULTS FOR SARMs
14 DAY
28 DAY
SARM III
BINDER - LIME/FLYASH
CONCENTRATION IN rag/L EXTRACT
SAMPLE # 33
SOIL/BINDER RATIO 1:3
DILUTION RATIO 4
DENSITY g/cm* 1.49
33
1:3
4
1.49
UCS @ 7,14,21,28 DAY
35,49,48,51
TCLP TCLP TCLP % REDUCTION IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT ACTUAL § 14 DAY 28 DAY APPARENT ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
7.1
3.07
2.3
68
-30
CHLOROBENZENE
0.38
0.03
0.02
95
79
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
0.5
0.01
0.01
98
92
ETHYLBENZENE
4.6
0.55
0.26
94
77
STYRENE
0.5
0.06
0.06
88
52
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
0.33
0.01
0.02
94
76
XYLENE
11
0.86
0.4
96
85
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
0.01
0.01
0.01
0
-300
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
0.09
0.01
0.02
78
11
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
0.34
0.24
0.3
12
-253
INORGANICS (METALS)
DET.LIM.
ARSENIC 0.15
6.39
0.81
0.79
88
51
CADMIUM 0.01
33.1
0.02
0.02
100
100
CHROMIUM 0.01
ND
0.03
0.07
—
—
COPPER 0.02
80.7
2.96
2.59
97
87
LEAD 0.15
19.9
51
51.2
-157
-929
NICKEL 0.04
17.5
ND
0.05
100
99
ZINC 0.01
358.5
3.81
3.97
99
96
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
6-2
-------
TABLE B-12
TCLP RESULTS FOR SAHMs
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
14 DAY
28 DAY
SARM IV
SAMPLE #
35
36
BINDER - LIMI/FLYASH
SOIL/BINDER RATIO
1:2
1:3
CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L EXT
DILUTION FACTOR
3
4
DENSITY g/cm3
1.44
1.52
UCS @ 7,14,
,21,28 DAY
30, 39,
37, 36
36, 41
38, 42
TCLP
TCLP
TCLP %
REDUCTION
IN TCLP
CONTAMINANT
ACTUAL
@ 14 DAY
28 DAY APPARENT
ACTUAL
VOLATILES
ACETONE
130
42.8
24.1
81
26
CHLOROBENZENE
6.7
0.39
1.7
75
-1
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
13
0.5
0.65
95
80
ETHYLBENZENE
47
18.1
11.6
75
1
STYRENE
11
2.08
3.59
67
-31
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
4.5
0.61
2.49
45
-121
XYLENE
100
29.8
22.9
77
8
SEMIVOLATILES
ANTHRACENE
3.4
0.02
0.01
100
99
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
3
0.05
0.1
97
87
3.8
14.4
0.25
93
74
INORGANICS (METALS)
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
DET.LIM,
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.15
0.04
0.01
9.58
1.61
0.98
90
59
35.3
ND
0.02
100
100
0.06
0.07
0.07
—
—
159.9
1.92
2.18
99
95
70.4
91.8
65
8
-269
26.8
ND
0.05
100
99
395.9
3.22
3.64
99
96
ND - BELOW DETECTION LIMIT
63
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED RESULTS OF
UNCONFINID COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS)
TESTS
64
-------
TABLE C-l
RESULTS OF UCS TESTS
OF SOLIDIFED SARM SAMPLES
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIBILITY
TEST RESULTS
(psi)
7-DAY
14-DAY
21-DAY
28-DAY
NA
1084
NA
1109
NA
587
NA
934
NA
1261
NA
1237
NA
977
NA
1093
NA
1291
NA
1238
NA
1329
NA
1247
NA
1280
NA
1247
NA
1300
NA
1244
NA
1276
NA
1288
NA
1258
NA
1273
NA
717
NA
1350
NA
1084
NA
1304
NA
1323
NA
1308
NA
1294
NA
1167
NA
1046
NA
1314
NA
1221
NA
1263
NA
1316
NA
1298
NA
1283
NA
1322
NA
1289
NA
1333
NA
1296
NA
1318
NA
1289
NA
1305
NA
1268
NA
1357
NA
1289
NA
1147
NA
1282
NA
1270
NA
30
NA
40
NA
34
NA
52
NA
33
NA
54
NA
32
NA
49
NA
137
NA
117
NA
114
NA
179
NA
124
NA
157
NA
125
NA
151
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
RESULTS OF UCS TESTS
OF SOLIDIFED SAEM SAMPLES
UWCONFINED COMPRESSIBILITY TEST RESULTS fpsi)
SAMPLE #
7-DAY
14-DAY
21-DAY
28-DAY
9-A
NA
84
NA
1165
B
NA
98
NA
1173
C
NA
32
NA
1171
mean
NA
71
NA
1170
10-A
NA
18
NA
18
B
NA
NA
NA
17
C
NA
14
NA
14
mean
NA
16
NA
16
11-A
NA
172
NA
199
B
NA
168
NA
144
C
NA
163
NA
135
mean
NA
167
NA
159
12-A
NA
190
NA
262
B
NA
157
NA
303
C
NA
184
NA
388
mean
NA
177
NA
318
13-A
<5
75
71
107
B
<5
77
100
115
C
<5
67
107
116
mean
<5
73
93
113
14-A
<5
52
48
230
B
<5
51
52
249
C
<5
52
63
245
mean
<5
52
54
241
15-A
178
203
215
75
B
160
204
216
76
C
189
225
NA
92
mean
176
211
215
81
16-A
36
64
68
85
B
38
53
90
86
C
39
63
78
85
mean
38
60
78
85
66
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
RESULTS OF UCS TESTS
OF SOLIDIF1D SAHM SAMPLES
SAMPLE #
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIBILITY TEST RESULTS (psi)
7-DAY 14-DAY 2]-DAY 28-DAY
17—A
B
C
mean
127
131
127
128
171
148
252
190
208
174
109
164
222
205
220
216
18-A
B
C
mean
191
174
183
183
226
225
224
225
334
258
232
275
246
245
265
252
19-A
B
C
mean
39
30
33
36
40
35
37
35
37
39
37
39
40
36
20-A
B
C
mean
33
34
33
33
34
43
38
38
40
44
39
41
37
36
44
39
21-A
B
C
IDG SUP
36
69
32
46
41
39
54
45
44
37
50
44
72
107
61
22-A
B
C
mean
30
30
28
29
25
31
28
29
29
23
27
31
36
30
32
23-A
B
C
mean
42
37
39
52
59
56
56
56
45
56
52
53
48
56
52
24-A
B
C
mean
37
37
33
36
37
37
41
38
37
22
40
33
43
40
38
40
67
-------
TABLE C -1 (continued)
RESULTS OF DCS TESTS
OF SOLIDIFED SARM SAMPLES
SAMPLE #
UNCONFTNED COMPRESSIBILITY TEST RESULTS (psi)
7-DAY 14-DAY 21-DAY 28-DA1
25-A
8
C
mean
22
25
26
24
28
28
26
27
31
25
23
26
34
27
36
32
26-A
1
C
mean
23
22
22
22
28
30
29
29
35
35
32
34
45
39
38
40
27-A
B
C
mean
20
19
19
20
32
29
30
30
35
31
32
33
49
47
44
47
28—A
B
C
mean
8
11
11
10
17
17
17
17
18
16
18
17
28
31
28
29
29-A
B
C
mean
16
17
18
17
16
29
28
24
24
25
27
61
64
67
63
30-A
B
C
mean
22
19
17
19
38
26
31
31
45
41
37
41
73
75
72
73
31-A
B
C
mean
24
20
21
22
31
29
28
33
26
29
30
32
30
31
32-A
B
C
mean
27
32
32
30
33
34
32
33
38
34
37
36
39
35
36
37
68
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
RESULTS OF UCS TESTS
OF SOLIDIFED SARM SAMPLES
SAMPLE
#
UNCOVFINED COMPRESSIBILITY
TEST RESULTS
(psi)
7-
-DAY
14-DAY
21-DAY
28-DAY
33-A
34
47
52
49
B
32
53
51
52
C
38
47
42
52
mean
35
49
48
51
34-A
38
30
31
35
B
32
34
36
39
C
35
34
38
40
mean
35
33
35
38
35-A
29
NA
40
44
B
30
37
37
40
C
31
40
33
38
mean
30
39
36
41
36-A
34
40
35
39
B
39
35
36
42
C
38
33
42
45
mean
37
36
38
42
NOTE:
Binder
for
Sample
Nos. 1-12 = Portland cement
Binder
for
Sample
Nos. 13-24 = Kiln
dust
Binder for Sample Nos. 25-36 = Lime/flyash
69
-------
UCS psi
lorlClnDuaiToSofcfe 1:1 (tySARM)
900
280
220
200
ISO
120
100
•0
40
22
2S
10
14
It
90
DAYS AFTER MXINCk
+ 8ARM2 o 8ARM9 A SARM4
Figure C-l. Change in UCS due to curing time
-------
UCS psi
for Kin Durt To
900
260
240
220
200
IflO
120
100
•0
00
40
20
0
11
22
SO
«
10
14
m
DAYS AFTER MIXING
8ARM1 + 8ARM2 © SARI* 3 A SAHM
Figure C-] . Change in I ICS due to curing t im**
-------
¦Nsl
N5
I
UCS psi
ferUnwffly«afcT«MMi 1*
970
200 _
180 _
OAYB AFTER MIXING
SARM 1
SARM 2
SARM 3
SARM 4
Fi jfure C-F,. Change in UCS due to curing time
-------
"*4
U>
£
I
I
UCS psl
lorlJmWFtyaahToSdkfc 12(by SARM)
280 _
220 -
120 _
DAYS AFTER MIXING
~
SARM1
8ARM2
SARM3
SARM4
Figure C-5. Change in UCS due to curing time
-------
UCS psi
«orUm^RyMhToSoM1:!(by9Ami)
--j
I
260 _
140 __
8ARM1
SARM2
OAYS AFTER MIXINQ
SAHM9
SARM4
Figure €-4. Change in UCS due to curing time
-------
UCSpsI
tor Kin Ourt To Soldi 13(by SARM)
100 _
0AY8 AFTER MOONQ
SARM1
8ARM2
8ARM3
SARM4
Figure C-3. Change in UCS due to curing Hme
-------
UCS psi
lor Kin Dust To Sold* 13 (by SARM)
Figure €-3. Change in UCS due to curing time
-------
UCS psi
lor Kin Dial To Sofcfc 12 (by 9ARM)
300
280
200
240
220
200
100
100
140
100
40
m
28
fl
10
22
14
DAYS AFTER MIXING
BARM I + 8AHM2 o 9AHMS & SAHIi
Figure C 2. Change in 1ICS due to curing time
------- |