Defining the Glass Composition Limits for SRS Contaminated Soils (U)

by C. A. Cicero Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, South Carolina 29808 W. 0. Crews Clemson University SC USA

D. F. Bickford

A document prepared for THIRD BIENNIAL MIXED WASTE SYMPOSIUM at Baltimore from 08/08/95 - 08/11/95.

DOE Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR18035

This paper was prepared in connection with work done under the above contract number with the U. S. Department of Energy. By acceptance of this paper, the publisher and/or recipient acknowiedges the U. S. Government's right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this paper, along with the right to reproduce and to authorize others to reproduce all or part of the copyrighted paper.

#

Revision 0

Keywords: RCRA, low level mixed wastes, vitrification

DEFINING THE GLASS COMPOSITION LIMITS FOR SRS CONTAMINATED SOILS

by

Connie A. Cicero and Dennis F. Bickford Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Technology Center P.O. Box 616 Aiken, SC 29808

William 0. Crews Clemson University Clemson Research Park Anderson, SC 29634

A paper h P O S e d for Publication in the Proceedings of the Third Biennial Mixed Was& SPPosium, August 8 - 11, 1995, in Baltimore, Maryland.

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, Or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

__

'IRiis T s h O I O B ' WVelopmMt Technical Task Plan No. SR1-3-20-04. By acceptance

andlor mipiat * ~ O W l e d g e s the U.S. Government's right to license in and to

Was PrePW in C O n t K d O l l with work done under the U.S. DeparUnent of Energy - Office of -, the

a nmexc1wive, r0~alv-h copyright Covering this paper, dong with the right to reproduce and to auth&

to reproduce all or part of the copyrighted paper.

ASTER ~ s ~ l B ~ l O p J OF THIS DOCUMENT 1s UNt'M'TED

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

Defining the Glass Composition Limits for SRS Contaminated Soils

W.O. Crews, Jr . , C.A. Cicero, and D . F . Bickford

ABSTRACT

Contaminated s o i l resul t ing from t h e excavation, repair , and decommissioning of f a c i l i t i e s located a t t h e Savannah River S i te (SRS) i s current ly being disposed of by shallow land bu r i a l o r i s being s tored when considered only hazardous. Vi t r i f ica t ion of t h i s waste i s being investigated, since it w i l l bind the hazardous and radioactive species i n a s tab le and durable g l a s s matrix, which w i l l reduce t h e r i s k of ground water contamination. However, the composition l i m i t s for producing durable glass have t o be determined before the technology can be applied.

Glass compositions, consisting of SRS s o i l and glass forming additives, were t e s t ed on a crucible-scale i n three ternary phase systems. Nine d i f f e r e n t g l a s s compositions were produced, w i t h waste loadings ranging from 4 3 t o 58 weight percent. These w e r e characterized using various chemical methods and tes ted for durabi l i ty i n both alkaline and acidic environments. All nine performed w e l l i n a l k a l i n e environments, b u t only three met t h e s t r i c t e s t c r i t e r i a fo r t h e ac id ic environment t e s t s . Although t h e glasses did not meet a l l of the l i m i t s f o r t he ac id ic tests, . the t e s t was performed on very conservative s i ze samples, so t h e r e su l t s were also conservative. Therefore, enough evidence was found t o provide proof tha t SRS s o i l can be v i t r i f i e d i n a durable glass matrix.

INTRODUCTION

Contaminated s o i l s and s imilar contaminated concrete wastes resul t ing from the excavation, repair , and decommissioning of Separations, Reactor, and I n t e r i m Waste Storage f a c i l i t i e s located a t the SRS are c u r r e n t l y being disposed of by shallow land burial . These wastes can be contaminated as t h e resul t of hazardous chemical s p i l l s or low levels transuranic (TRU) element or mixed f i ss ion product releases. Vi t r i f ica t ion of these materials, s o i l i n pa r t i cu la r , i s being investigated s i n c e it w i l l destroy the organic contaminants and bind the hazardous (RCRA metals) and radioactive species i n t h e glass mat r ix . T h i s reduces t h e r i s k of ground water contamination with t h e result ing wasteform being a s tab le and durable glass product.

Limited i n - s i t u v i t r i f i c a t i o n s tud ie s with simulated SRS contaminated soil were performed by Campbell and Buelt (1) of Pacif ic Northwest Laboratory. Their findings indicated that v i t r i f i c a t i o n of the s o i l w a s plausible, but suggested t h a t

thorough a d d i t i o n s of a l k a l i n e materials be made so a more homogeneous product would be produced and m e l t i n g would be made easier.

C h e m i c a l ana lyses of uncontaminated SRS s o i l was performed by Looney e t a l . ( 2 ) . The chemical composition of t h e SRS s o i l based on a d ry oxide b a s i s i s given i n Table 1.

P l a c e T a b l e 1 Here

When t h e i n - s i t u t e s t s w e r e b e i n g performed, Campbell and B u e l t chose t o use t y p i c a l contaminants t h a t w e r e found i n SRS s o i l s , s i n c e s e v e r a l SRS s i tes c o n t a i n contaminated s o i l and t h e y wanted t o cove r many waste streams. I n t h e i r s t u d i e s , t h e y used t h e maximum contaminant levels based on l e v e l s found i n t h e i r l i t e r a t u r e s e a r c h and t h e i r equipment d e t e c t i o n l i m i t s . They developed a s i m u l a t e d contaminated s o i l based on t h e d a t a from Looney e t a l . ( 2 ) and these maximum c o n c e n t r a t i o n s . The contaminants selected for t h e i r experimentat ion i s given i n Table 2 .

P l a c e T a b l e 2 Here

I n o r d e r t o more d i r e c t l y app ly v i t r i f i c a t i o n technology t o S R S c o n t a m i n a t e d soils, a b e t t e r d e f i n i t i o n of t h e composi t ion l i m i t s f o r producing d u r a b l e g l a s s e s c o n t a i n i n g SRS s o i l needed t o be determined. Various glass compositions had t o be t e s t e d c o n t a i n i n g S R S s o i l and glass forming a d d i t i v e s , w h i c h c o n s i s t o f f l u x i n g a g e n t s ,and r e a c t i v e chemicals . The i n t e n t of t h e s t u d i e s w e r e t o opt imize w a s t e l o a d i n g without s a c r i f i c i n g l e a c h r e s i s t a n c e and d u r a b i l i t y . The s t u d i e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s p a p e r w e r e performed on a c ruc ib l e - sca l e , and r e q u i r e d s e v e r a l glass compositions t o be t e s t e d t o ensure t h a t t h e glass forming r eg ion w a s completely c o v e r e d . S i n c e t h e s t u d i e s w e r e o n l y per formed on a c r u c i b l e - s c a l e , o f f g a s a n a l y s e s were n o t performed because offgas c o l l e c t i o n equipment i s n o t no rma l ly used d u r i n g c r u c i b l e - s c a l e t e s t i n g i n box fu rnaces .

EXPERIMENTAL

The s o i l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n performed by Looney e t a l . ( 2 ) and t h e contaminant c o n c e n t r a t i o n s used by Campbell and B u e l t (1) w e r e a l s o u s e d f o r t h i s s t u d y t o make s i m u l a t e d SRS contaminated s o i l . The major d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two s i m u l a n t s used w a s t h e use of cer ium i n these s t u d i e s as a s table s imulan t fo r cesium, c o b a l t , and s t r o n t i u m . (Non- r a d i o a c t i v e cesium, cobalt, and s t r o n t i u m w e r e n o t r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , s i n c e cer ium had been used i n other mixed waste s t u d i e s as t h e s table r a d i o a c t i v e s imulan t , cer ium w a s used i n t h e s e s t u d i e s ) . Cyanide w a s n o t added s i n c e it w a s p r e s e n t i n such small amounts, and phenol was used as t h e o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l s u b s t i t u t e b e c a u s e o f t h e s t r i c t h a n d l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s e n f o r c e d by S R S f o r t h e o r g a n i c s used by

Campbell and Buelt. Table 3 lists the oxide components of the soil. Approximately 500 grams of this simulated soil were made from reagent grade chemicals for the crucible studies.

P l a c e T a b l e 3 Here

The surrogate soil composition was plotted on three different ternary phase diagrams: Calcia-Alumina-Silica (CAS), Soda- Lime-Silica (SLS), and Borosilicate (BOR) . The types and amounts of additives necessary to make homogeneous glasses were determined based on the plots of the soil composition points. Several compositions were selected from each ternary diagram in order to try and maximize waste loading. Approximately 70 gram batches of the compositions shown in Table 4 were fabricated for testing, with the exception of BOR-7 and BOR-8 which were only 45 gram batches. After the batches were thoroughly mixed, they were placed in high purity (99.8%) alumina crucibles and covered. The crucibles were placed in a programmable Lindberg furnace and melted for 4 hours at 130OOC for BOR-4 and the CAS system glasses and 115OoC for the SLS and BOR system glasses. After 4 hours at temperature, the crucibles were removed from the furnace and air-cooled to room temperature.

P l a c e T a b l e 4 Here

After cooling, the glasses were separated from the crucibles and analyzed for chemical composition, phase assemblage, and durability. Standards were submitted with each set of samples to determine the accuracy of the results. The total constituent analysis of the glasses was performed using Inductively Coupled Plasma - Emission Spectroscopy (ICPES) and Atomic Absorption (AA) spectrometry. The organic content of the glass was not analyzed because analytical techniques available at SRS would have destroyed the organics because of the elevated temperatures necessary to digest the glasses. X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed to determine the crystalline phase assemblage in the glass and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was used to confirm the XRD identification and chemical composition of the phases. Durability in an acidic environment was determined by performing the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), and the results were compared to the TCLP limits, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Limits, and the newly established Universal Treatment Standards (UTS), which became effective September 9, 1994.

The durability of the glass in an alkaline environment was determined by using the Product Consistency Test (PCT) per Jantzen et a1 ( 3 ) . This test evaluates the chemical durability of homogeneous and devitrified glasses by measuring the concentrations of the chemical species released from a crushed glass to a test solution. The PCT is only

r e q u i r e d f o r h igh- leve l w a s t e (HLW) g l a s s e s by t h e Department of Energy, b u t t h e r e s u l t s shou ld p rov ide a c o n s e r v a t i v e estimate of g l a s s d u r a b i l i t y f o r low- leve l mixed wastes (LLMW) g lasses . The r e s u l t s w e r e compared t o t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Assessment ( E A ) g l a s s P C T r e s u l t s as c h a r a c t e r i z e d by Jan tzen e t a l . (4), which are t h e acceptance c r i t e r i a fo r HLW g l a s s e s .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A l l of t h e s i x t e e n b a t c h composi t ions melted produced dark green glass. H o w e v e r , e i g h t of t h e s i x t e e n w e r e covered wi th a w h i t e , c r u s t y l a y e r r a n g i n g i n t h i c k n e s s f r o m a f e w m i l l i m e t e r s t o several c e n t i m e t e r s . These inc luded b a t c h e s CAS-1,2,3 and BOR-1,2,3,5,6. Of t h e s e e i g h t , chemica l a n a l y s e s w e r e performed only on b a t c h CAS-3, which had t h e t h i n n e s t l a y e r . XRD and SEM showed t h e l a y e r t o be h igh i n s i l i ca , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it w a s no t comple te ly reacted. I n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e u n r e a c t e d s i l i c a l a y e r f r o m forming, N a 2 C 0 3 w a s s u b s t i t u t e d as an a d d i t i v e f o r a p o r t i o n of t h e CaC03, s i n c e N a acts a b e t t e r f l u x i n g agent for Si02.

The chemical compositions of t h e e i g h t glasses and glass CAS- 3 are g iven i n Table 5. R e s u l t s f o r Hg are no t i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s e s , s i n c e it was only d e t e c t e d i n trace amounts i n one of t h e glasses. CAS-5 c o n t a i n e d 4 9 pg/l, w h i l e t h e remain ing glasses c o n t a i n e d <30 pg/L. T h i s w a s expec ted s i n c e Hg i s known t o vapor i ze a t h igh t empera tu res . All of t h e measured compositions w e r e r ea sonab ly close t o t h e i r expec ted v a l u e s excep t f o r glasses CAS-3 and SLS-3. These d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e p robably due t o errors i n b a t c h i n g . S ince t h e ana lyzed composi t ions w e r e used fo r a l l of t h e f i n a l ana lyses , these errors w e r e no t of a g r e a t concern and would on ly a f f e c t what t h e a c t u a l waste loading would be. F igures 1 - 3 show t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e glasses on t h e a p p l i c a b l e t e r n a r y phase diagrams.

P l a c e T a b l e 5 Here

Place F i g u r e 1 Here

P l a c e F i g u r e 2 Here

Place F igure 3 Here

XRD a n a l y s i s w a s per formed i n d u p l i c a t e when s u f f i c i e n t q u a n t i t i e s of t h e sample w e r e a v a i l a b l e . The phases detected f o r each glass are shown i n Table 6 . The c r y s t a l l i n e phases p r e s e n t i n glass CAS-3 p robab ly came f r o m t h e u n r e a c t e d s i l i ca l a y e r . The q u a r t z and c r i s t o b a l i t e c r y s t a l s detected i n glasses BOR-4 and BOR-7 w e r e p r e s e n t i n minor amounts and did not seem t o affect d u r a b i l i t y . The SEM performed on t h e samples confirmed t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e XRD a n a l y s e s and did

not reveal the presence of any large peaks of carbon, which would have possibly served a s an indicator of the presence of organics i n the glass .

P l a c e T a b l e 6 Here

TCLP extractions were performed on the glasses according t o USEPA ( 5 ) , and t h e r e s u l t i n g leachates w e r e analyzed by I C P E S . The TCLP was performed on >150 p m crushed glass , w h i l e the standard EPA t e s t s a re u s u a l l y performed on larger s ize glass specimens (1 c m ) . Therefore, the resu l t s provided a conservative estimate of the leach resistance, since more glass surface area was exposed t o the leaching solution. T h e resu l t s for t h e applicable metals are shown i n Table 7 , along w i t h the appropriate l i m i t s .

Place T a b l e 7 Here

TCLP r e su l t s show tha t t h e measured releases were l e s s than the more conservative RCRA l i m i t s only fo r glasses SLS-1, SLS-2, and SLS-3. However, by applying t h e l i m i t s specified i n the TCLP and considering t h e conservative nature of t h i s t e s t , g l a s s e s CAS-5 and BOR-7 were a l s o considered acceptable. When the UTS l i m i t s were considered, a l l glasses m e t the Ag, Ba, and Pb l i m i t s , but on ly glasses SLS-1, SLS-2, and SLS-3 met a l l of the l i m i t s .

After t h e modified TCLP r e s u l t s were received, g l a s s monoliths of the samples were placed i n a c e t i c acid for 2 4 hours t o see how the glass in tegr i ty would be affected. T h i s t e s t simulated t h e TCLP leachant and surface area t o volume r a t i o more closely than t h e modified t e s t . None of t h e glasses showed any signs of degradation a f t e r 2 4 hours and t h e leachates had no de tec tab le amounts of RCRA metals released when analyzed by I C P E S . These observations lend support t o the be l i e f t h a t these glasses may have been acceptable i f t h e standard TCLP conditions were used, since the appropriate s i z e g lass specimen was used and no metals leached from the glass .

To assess the durabi l i ty i n a lkal ine conditions, t h e glasses were subjected t o the PCT as developed by Jantzen e t a l . (31, w h i c h measures the releases of B, Na, S i , and other elements i n ASTM Type I water over a period of seven days a t 90°C. Each glass was run i n t r i p l i c a t e for the PCT, and the resul ts were averaged and then normalized using t h e analyzed elemental compositions. The blanks and standard glasses run simultaneously w i t h t h e o t h e r g l a s ses showed t h a t no significant errors i n the t e s t ing method occurred.

The average normalized releases and the leachate pH are given i n Table 8 fo r each of t h e glasses and the EA glass p e r Jantzen e t a l . ( 4 ) . As can be seen from t h e r e su l t s , t h e normalized releases for a l l of t h e glasses w e r e substantially

less t h a n t h e EA glass . N o l i m i t e x i s t s fo r C e s i n c e it i s n o t a c r i t i ca l component of h igh - l eve l w a s t e glasses, b u t i t s releases are shown s i n c e it w a s t he radioactive s imulan t . C e releases w e r e v e r y s m a l l f o r a l l of t h e glasses. A l s o , though t h e y are n o t l i s t e d , t h e releases for t h e m e t a l s i n t h e glasses were measured and found t o be below o r n e a r d e t e c t i o n l i m i t s (<0.020 ppm Ag, <0.001 ppm B a , <0.001 ppm Cd, <0.004 ppm C r , <0.005 ppm N i , and <0.02 ppm P b ) . P l a c e T a b l e 8 Here

CONCLUSION

C r u c i b l e s t u d i e s w i t h s i m u l a t e d contaminated S R S s o i l have shown t h a t s o i l c a n be c o n v e r t e d t o a d u r a b l e , leach r e s i s t a n t glass wasteform. Three glasses i n t h e Soda-Lime- Si l ica sys t em (SLS-1, SLS-2, SLS-3) and one each i n t h e Calc ia -Alumina-Si l ica and B o r o s i l i c a t e sys t ems (CAS-5 and . BOR-7) passed a l l of t h e t e s t i n g c r i te r ia . Waste load ings o f up t o 58 w t % w e r e o b t a i n e d i n t h e SLS sys tem u s i n g g lass forming additives of CaC03 and N a 2 C 0 3 , up t o 4 8 w t % i n the CAS system u s i n g Al2O3, CaC03, and Na2C03, and up t o 4 3 w t % i n t h e BOR sys t em u s i n g C a C 0 3 , N a 2 C 0 3 , a n d b o r a x . H ighe r w a s t e l o a d i n g s may have b e e n p o s s i b l e i f h i g h e r m e l t i n g t e m p e r a t u r e s w e r e used, b u t t h a t w a s n o t per formed i n t h e scope of these s t u d i e s .

A d d i t i o n a l glass composi t ions may have a l so been accep tab le , b u t because o f t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e sample s i z e used t o perform t h e TCLP, t h e y w e r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d acceptable i n t h e s e s t u d i e s . For t h e modi f ied TCLP performed i n t h e s e s t u d i e s , t h e s u r f a c e area of glass t o volume of l e a c h a n t r a t i o w a s magni tudes greater t h a n it would have been f o r larger s i z e glass specimen. The fac t t h a t t h e s e glasses did n o t l e a c h any detectable amounts of RCRA m e t a l s i n t o t h e acetic acid s o l u t i o n s a f t e r 24 hours l e n d s proof t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e glasses may have been a c c e p t a b l e .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T h i s work w a s sponsored under t h e South C a r o l i n a U n i v e r s i t y Research and Educat ion Foundat ion, w h i c h w a s funded through c o n t r a c t AA009OOT. Funding fo r t h i s c o n t r a c t w a s p rovided by t h e Department of Energy - O f f i c e of Technology Development Mixed Waste I n t e g r a t e d Program under o p e r a t i n g c o n t r a c t N o . DE-ACO9-89SR18035.

REFERENCES

1. Campbell, B . E . ; B u e l t , J . L . I n S i t u V i t r i f i c a t i o n o f S o i l f r o m t h e Savannah R i v e r S i t e . Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-7421; 1990.

2. Looney, B.B.; Eddy, C.A.; Ramdeen, M.; Pickett, J.; Rogers, V.; Shirley, P.A.; Scott, M.T. Geochemical and Physical Properties of Soils and Shallow Sediments at the Savannah River Site. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company, WSRC-RP-90-0464; 1990.

3. Jantzen, C.M.; Bibler, N.E.; Beam, D.C.; Ramsey, W . G . Nuclear Waste Glass Product Consistency Test (PCT) Method - Version 7.0. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company, WSRC-TR-90-539, Revision 3; 1994.

4. Jantzen, C.M.; Bibler, N.E.; Beam, D.C.; Crawford, C.L.; Pickett, M.A. Characterization of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Environmental Assessment (EA) Glass Standard Reference Material. Aiken, SC: Westinghouse Savannah River Company, WSRC-TR-92-346, Rev. 1; 1993.

5. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) . Method 1131 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). 40 CFR 261 Appendix 11; 1991.

Table 1 - Composition of

Oxide

CaO

K 2 0 fio2

A 1 2 0 3

Fez03

N a 2 0 p205 Si02 S r O

T i 0 2 Z r 0 2 Total

Uncontaminated SRS Soil

Prv Basis (Wt%I 4 . 8 0.4 0.77 0.13 0.01 0 . 0 5 1.12

92.5 0.001 0.4 Q.09

100.271

Table 2 - Concentrations of Hazardous and Radionuclide Simulant s

Inorganic - As Ba Cd Ce cs c1 Cr co cu CN F Pb Hg Ni Ag Sr NO3 PO4 3 3 4

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate

Methylene Chloride1

\

Concentration QQau

5 310 210 2700 450 310 2500 450 190 15 3 320 60 370 40

4500 1700 1800 1100 340

70

Table 3 - Surrogate Soi l Composition

Oxide

A 1 2 0 3 A920

BaO C a O CdO

C e 0 2 C r 2 0 3

CUO Fez03 HgO K 2 0 m02 N a 2 0 NiO p 2 0 5 PbO

S i 0 2 T i 0 2 Z r02

Total

So i l Wt? 0.004 4.696 0.034 0 .391 0.023 1.375 0.357 0.023 0.753 0.006 0.127 0.010 0.049 0.046 1 . 0 9 6 0.034

90.496 0 .391 0.088

99.999

Table 4 - Batch Compositions By Weight Percentages

Batch CAS - 1 CAS-2 CAS-3 CAS-4 CAS - 5 SLS-1 SLS-2 SLS-3 BOR- 1 BOR-2 BOR-3 BOR- 4 BOR-5 BOR- 6 BOR-7 BOR-8

soil 50 58 40 40 48 55 58 55 50 50 45 50 43 52 43 43

U Q 3 10 7 15 15 7 0 0 0

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

-3 40 35 45 2 5 30 20 17 15 2 5 20 25 25 17 15 10 15

-2% 0 0 0 20 15 25 25 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0

Borax N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 30 30 25 40 33 40 32

Table 5 - Oxide Composition of the Soil Glasses

Oxide A g 2 0

A 1 2 0 3 B 2 0 3 B a O C a O CdO

C e 0 2 C r 2 0 3

CUO F e 2 0 3

K20 m02 Na2O N i O p 2 0 5 P b O Si02 T i 0 2 Z r02 Total

- 0.003 2 - 2 0 1 0.017 0.034

12.926 0.014 0.470 0 .341 0.001 1 .175 0.074 0.010 0 . 1 1 4 0.116 1.154 0 . 0 3 1

81.087 0.194 Q.041

100.003

GA&A 0.002

23.095 0.013 0.029

16.589 0.001 0.378 0.072 0 . 0 0 1 1.518 0.045 0.028

13.620 0.096 1.107 0.023

44.569 0.217 0.057

101 .461

CAS-5 0.002

14.308 0 . 1 0 1 0.057

20.444 0.010 0.404 0.154 0.018 3 . 0 8 1 0.050 0 .051

1 0 . 2 2 1 0.230 1 . 4 1 1 0.074

53.570 0.276 iLcu22

104 .531

sLs-1 0.002 2.140 0 .013 0.019

13.752 0.004 0.586 0.175 0.001 0.585 0.084 0.001

17.300 0.048 0.816 0.024

63.588 0.160 0.032

99.330

515-2 0.002 1.847 0.013 0.025

11 .491 0.013 0 . 3 0 1 0.297 0 .001 1.194 0.090 0.012

1 7 . 1 7 1 0.126 0.912 0.020

66.487 0.159 Q.034

100.203

_Oxide A 9 2 0

A 1 2 0 3 B 2 0 3 BaO C a O CdO

C e 0 2 C r 2 0 3

CUO Fe203

K20 M O 2 Na2O N i O p 2 0 5 P b O S i 0 2 T i 0 2 Z r 0 2 Total

sLs-3 0.002

18.034 0.010 0 .011

25.237 0.001 0.164 0.160 0 . 0 0 1 0.659 0.073 0.005

17.142 0.079 0.488 0.019

37.803 0.087 0.023

99.998

BOR-4 0.006

10.235 12.030

0.026 18.296

0.005 0.634 0.199 0.001 0.823 0.083 0.005 5.350 0.050 1.524 0.023

51.549 0.299 m

101.222

BOR-7 0.002 7.973

1 9 . 4 0 1 0.057 7.618 0.008 0.369 0.104 0.017 2.170 0.047 0.044

13.279 0.143 1.405 0.064

50.300 0.292 0.074

103.367

BOR-8 0 * 002

10.353 1’6.446

0.033 1 2 . 0 1 1

0.008 0.437 0.097 0.010 1.922 0.043 0 .030

14.767 0.122 1 .446 0.062

42.768 0.305 0.073

100.936

F i g u r e 1 - C a O - A l 2 0 3 - S i 0 2 T e r n a r y D i a g r a m

SiO,

1 O O A O Dunreacted Layer

A Did Not Meet TCLP Limits

+ Passed All Limits i3 Expected Position of CAS-:

I Simulated soil

0 Na2 0

Figure 2 - NagO-CaO-Si02 Ternary Diagram

CaO

fJ Expected Pos i t ion of SLS-3

Extended Glass Forming Region

Known Glass Forming Region

Si02 + Also3 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 3 - Borosil icate Ternary Diagram

Si02 0 Unreacted Layer

A Did Not Meet TCLP L i m i t s

+ Passed All L i m i t s Pyrex Glasses

Known Homogeneous 8 Simulated s o i l Waste Glass Regio

Known Region 4 0 of Glass Phase

Separation

Known Glass Forming Regi

+ RO

Table 6 - XRD Phase Assemblage Results

Batch CAS-3

CAS-4 CAS-5 SLS-1 SLS-2 SLS-3 BOR-4

BOR-7 BOR-8

VSlS 1 0.3 wt% Quartz

0.4 wt% Gehlenite

Amorphous Amorphous Amorphous Amorphous Amorphous

1.6 wt% Quartz 0.9 wt% Cristobalite

0.1 wt% Quartz Amorphous

VSlS 2 0.2 wt% Quartz

0.5 wt% Gehlenite 0.1 wt% Anorthite

Amorphous Amorphous Amorphous Amorphous Amorphous

2.0 wt% Quartz 0.8 wt% Cristobalite

N/A N/A

Batch CAS-3 CAS-4 CAS-5 SLS-1 SLS-2 SLS-3 BOR-4 BOR-7 BOR-8

T a b l e 7 - TCLP R e s u l t s (mg/L)

ao: <o. 020 <o -020 <0.020 K O . 020 <o " 020 <o .020 <o .020 <o .020 0.269

Ba 1.540 6.265 3.607 0.549 0.527 0.527 2.441 1.581 4.807

ai 0.720 1.102 0.088

<o. 010 <o. 010 0.012 0.914 0.947 1.700

4x Ki 9.530 1.436 15.777 1.934 1.234 0.113

<O .040 < O . 050 < O . 040 <O. 050 0.103 <0.050 8.440 1.464 3.918 1.104 13.163 1.646

RCRA L i m i t 0.072 TCLP L i m i t 5 UTS L i m i t 0.30

N/A 100 7.6

0.066 1.00 0.19

5.2 5.00 0.86

0.32 N/A 5.00

€ 2 2 1.989 4.694

<o. 200 <o .200 <o . 200 <o . 200 1.770 1.548 2.675

0.51 5.00 0.37

Table 8 - Normalized PCT Results (g/L)

Batch CAS-3 CAS-4 CAS-5 SLS-1 SLS-2 SLS-3 BOR-4 BOR-7 BOR-8

EA

B 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.335 3.612 2.898 0.190 1.905 0.559

H A 0.296 0.321 0.276 3.345 4.346

0.189 1.829 0.643

9.418

16.695 13.346

si 0.033 0.087 0.076 0.589 0.770 3.150 0.050 0.462 0.064

3.922

sh 0.008 0.019 0.010 0.095 0.136 0.247 0.006 0.011 0,009

N/A

PEZ 10.75 10.86 10.73 12.10 12.18 12.45 10.10 9.62 10.14

11.91