TCLP AS A HEA SURE OF TREATHEIH EFFECTIVENESS RESU LTS OF TCLP WORK COHPltfEb ON DIFFERENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR CERCLA SOils

by Rober t C Thurnau U S EnvtroNnental Protection Agency Cincinnati Ohio 45268

H Pat Esposito PEl Associates Inc Cincinnati Ohto 45246

ABSTRACT

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Allendaents (HSWA) of the Resource COnservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) require that EPA ei ther ban the disposal of hazardous Mutes to the hnd or ascertain thH such MUtes are acceptable for land dtspoul The so11 and debris associated Mlth the clean up of Superfund s1tes also fall under these statutes and lUSt 1M addressed A slgntftcant part of the regulatory strategy adopted by EPA Involved the deterwtnatton of best diIIOnstrated available technology for contbulltn~~ted soils and debrts A series of sotl treuaent techmiddot nologtes that were considered u candidates for Superfund sites (physical chbulltca l then~al sol tdtfcatton) re tested on a laboratory prered feed ubullplt and the waste product streabulls generated were promiddot cessed by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)

The TCLP chetcals and bullechants have been cbullpared to SOlie of the 110st senre leaching conditions txpertenced In tht land dtspoul of hazardous ~~t~stes and therefort tht rtsults of thtst tests should stiiUlate the orst case situations In this conttxt TCLP 1s bttng studied as an Indicator of treataent effectiveness and NY be ont of the criteria bullploytd to deterwlned tf a ~~t~ste h buned or land dtsposed This paper prtsents the TCLP data gen~rated fr011 tht ftve (srdtrferent BOAT treatllent techoologtes tested and helps to put the use of this technique Into practical perspective

ltiTROOUCTOtl

Under section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) EPA was charged with Identifying those wastes which If Imprope rl y managed would pose a hazard to h1111an health tnd the environment The statute also specified that EPA Identify such wastes through the developa~ent of ltsts of huardous waste characteristics Characterhtlcl are those properties which If ehlblted by a wute Identify It as 1 hazardous waste and are establ hhed for levels of which there ts a high degree of certainty that the waste needs to be bullanaged In a control ted 11anner The Extraction P-ocedure Toxicity Cha-actertsttc EPTox) was developed to detemtne If specified bulletats Insecticides and he -b lcldes could be bulloblllzed fr0111 a siMUl ated unict pa l sa ni tary landfill envtrollllen t As wtt h 1110s t fi r st generat i on - ~o~ l es lbull pro ve~~ent and ex pansion fo llowed The Toxicity Ch arac ter is t ic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was s ~o~bse qu e ntl y developed t o address the bull obt11ty of a broad range of both orga ni c and Inorgan ic c011pounds and to sol ve the operational probl e~~s of the EPTC protocol

The rk reported In this paper centers around a set of soils tMt ere synthetically prepued to sh1uhte the middott olls found at a typical S~o~perfund site The soils referred to herein as Synthetic Analytical Reference Hltrhes (SARM) were processed through five different treatllent technologies Incineration low teMperature themal desorption chtbulllcal treatllent physical treatllent and stabilization The perfofll4nce of each technology was evaluated by c011partng total waste analysts (TWA) ud TCLP analyses of the starting utertals to the treated residues

TOXICITY CHAIIACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEOURE

A brief description of the TCLP is as follows The Ullple h class I middot fled as tq~o~ld or solid by the percentage of solid bull aterlal reduced In she 1f necessary (lt95 bull ) weighed and bull h ed with an acidic solution at hut 20 tlbull es the -ight of the solid phue The bullhture Is filtered and tht txtract 1s retained for chMical analysts The procedure ts bull odlfled soehat when volatile organics are Involved In that 1 ze ro headspace spec t ftc extract ion vessel Is required A TCLP fl ow Chart Is presented as Fi gure 1

EI PERI MENTAL

The butc ccbullposltion of the soft used In the technology eval uations was de t emlned as a result of an extensive llterature search of Superfund records The final soil c011position selected consisted of (by vol1111e) 301 by volt~~~e of clay (bullontllort11tnite and kaolinite) 25l stlt 20l sa nd ZOS top sol and SS gravel The components were air dried and then bullhed

I I I I

FIGURE 1 TCLP Flowchart

Wet Waste S1mpte Wet Waste Sample Contains 05 1 Contains 05 NonmiddotFIIterable Rel)feHntatlve Wute ~I----- SN on1dfsilterable-----~ SempleSolids 1 1 0 1

I Dry Waste

sarrplbull UquldSolld I I I LiquidSolidSepar1tlon I ~-----Sold~ Sapatltion~Discard I I Glau Aber I Solid Solid 0608 um 064 08 umi Glast Fiber

Filt I Filtersi I

i I I I

II Uquld I

RecNcPwtlcloSItelf 95nvn I OSumcoAiee 31cm Store At

4C

I I Dlocardr-- Solid I

lJquid

~--------------------~ I TCLPIExuect I j

I lI I Analytical_ I LTCLP Extract-------- Methodl t--------TCLP amptract

______J

V bull The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the soUd phase of the waste

together in two ISOOOmiddotlb bHches In a sta ndard truck 110unted ceMent bullher A prescribed list of cheMicals fo und to be widel y bullnd frequently occurring at Superfund s Ites ~o~as added to the clean sotl to produce the SARHs t n a series of sma ll scale 11f1tlng ope rations utO zing a 15 ftlbullortar 11he r The orga nic components added were acetone chlo roben zene 12middotdlchloromiddot ethane ethylbenzene styr ene tetrachloroethylene Jty l ene anthracene bis(2middotethylhexyl) phthalate and pentachlorophenol The metals added to the clean soil were either sa lts or OJtides of arsenic cadmium chrolflhm coppe r l ead nickel and zinc Oue to the fact that the contaminent pr omiddot files of Superfund soils differ widely frOM site to site in c0111posltion and concentration four different SARH for11ulas were prepared Table 1 presents the target conta11tnant concentration level of the four SARH sa11p les as well u the actual level achieved The SARHs showed representative consistency and h011ogeneHy between fonaulatlons and approached the ta rget levels outlined on Table I

The SARHs produced in the first phase of this project were then promiddot cessed through five treatment technologies that were thought to be bullost readily available and to have the greatest ap pl lcabtl tty to CERCLA s lte restoration acthlttes The technologies studied were lncineruton low teperature thenaal desorption ctltlltcal treatbullent (KPEG) physical treatshyMent (sotl wuhlng) and solldlflcatlonsUbtlhation The effectiveness of the ftve different treawent technologies wu ~ttuured by observing the change In concentration of the Identified c011pounds and eltt~ents TWA wu used to bullenure changes In the total contulnit lon levels In the treated SARH residuals as a result of treatent TClP on the other hud was used to track potentia ch1nges tn le1chate cobullposltfon as a result of treatlltnt The logic behind the TCLP aspect of the project was thit If the treatent reduces the total lenl of contulnatlon or fab11tzes it to 1 point where 1t wt 1 not bullIgrate with the acidic l eachate the residual will be a good candfdite for land dhpoul Thus residuals frOM each of the treushybullent technologies were collected and processed through the TCLP and ualyzed for the 11ttlls 1nd organic cobullpounds 1tsted above

RESULTS middot

Tlble II presents the results of the TCLP on the untruted sotl SARM I The dlta lndtcite that the sehollttle org1ntc coMpounds were not efff ctently eJttracted fr011 the untreated sotl The vohttle orgulc COMpounds were extracted at higher concentrlttons than the shollttle organic c011pounds with the bullost volatile cOMpounds (acetone and 12-dlchloroethane) being eJttracted coMpletely Figure 2 shows a plot of the percent of vohshytte COMpound extracted by TCLP vs the cOMpounds botltng point There appears to be i trend toward lower extraction of volatfle organic cobullpounds with Increasing botlng point The relatively lower water solubilities 1nd htgh bof1tng points of the semholattles are a logical utenston of this trend This type of lnforwatton WOuld be useful In deterwlnlng the Mi nibullWI soil concentration levels that would be neceSury for the use of TCLP as a predicting tool for organic cOMpound s In residuals elrwa rked for land disposal middot

- - -

c TABLE 1

Target cl Actaal Concbullbullbadons For SARMs Total Waste Antysls ITWAI

Table 1 SAliM I SAliM I SARM Ill SARM IV mglltg

~ r

1110 3570 plusmn 0 6800 4363plusmn 1933 1110 3580 6800 3059

400 ltl~ 132 t 104 40 ~~o121 Chkwobenlene 329

10 41 31fJJ 12 dlchloroelhane 1100 354 t 143 60 49 600 491

1230 1110 141 Ethylberuene 3200 332U 164

1000 7073 100 480 t 310151 Stytene 100 323 1000 631

eo tQ j 110 16) Tetrchkwoethytene 1100 458 i 137 60 600 540

8200 5555 2 1121 1650 t 720 820 3250 5576llt Xytene

6500 SJel ~ 3715 850 3510 170 650 1810 6500 1920 I 1992181 Anttwacene

646~ 2842500 1951 1104 250 13amp0 j 1200 11-40(9J Sal2 ettrvltbulluyUphthalate

(10t~tacNotophenol 100 300 1000 80 231000 321 237 100 310 550

500 S62 17410 11 7 10 174 20 500 7020 2041111 Atwnic

112)~ 19340 1352 2891 281923 10 20 244 31

1500 1381 172fllJChromium 30 2S t 7 1204 0 16330 2830 t 50

1500 91960 1551 11102 18 11114 JCoppef 190 239 sa 190 IUO t 480

210 245 82 14000 1469SO 1507 14000 15178 2227USILaad 210 30$0 J 5110

1459 bull 6 16 1000 14190 t 57830 3317 30 35 1 152U6UCket

2 2500 36177 0 I 11878 22500 27428 t st72450 502 t 2111 450 4110 1790 unznc

CJ1I003ll aAUYlUSIIIIHIIY oiU IYSOciSIQ liS OlJ

------ ----

TClP SARM I Untruted snple mgll

1 1 ~

bull J ~

Table 2 r bullt -middot J 1 ~

Compound

~

1i rg

1sect0 0 110_0 3200

u fg

210_0 1300 lSO 0

d 8

IH O tHO

d

I)C_OQ M100

h bullcl=i ~

xnoo-t 1000

H u

001700

~I ~ u

ISOO

1lt10 70780 Ito JSQ 700 110 710 )Q 710 JJOtOID 1~10250

1) 1 UdcNoroelhane 7700 2100 27 00 moo 1100 n oo 1700 t$00 MJJO bull bull to 2UO rtSO 1l70t710 11$00

1411~ bull100 csoo bullbulloo 000 00 4200 4100 l tCIO laquo00 5100 4570~1lt10

lSI SIYent 13001lOOIlCIO t0011100 l lCO 1300 1100 1200 1100 IIOOtll) 1540 tCIO

161 lttt~ 800 l M 130 bull-70 510140 l to 750 170710 aeo_ 10 1300~190

1 1IX~ noouoa oo 7000 7100 7300 llOOMOO 7100 11(1) 1(1_50 2171011600 HOO

t81 AnttwKene

bull111 8t~ I ZelyenuOchtNIbulltbull

1101-nl~

10000

7600

500 tOOO 1500

500 1300 llOO

1600SCIOO lOOD

2000 3200 ltOO

1100 32003100

llOOQtIOOC-100

1000 JOOO

2000 2000

J50 130

1000 1000

2000 KlCIO

110 1000

111C2ttl12

M 50 1100

HI 00~ 119 00

9190 tSS lO

1300

0 01 002 007 002002 002 0 15 OJ S 001~007 095t035

on on on 01071073 oeoon 0110 12

0 050ltMO OS 001001003 011 0 13 1lOrOJS

IC Cort~J~t Cl013Q -10 OlO 3ta 3-0 5 t0 50 5 muo 3501 flO 1100210

190190110 001 11Q 10 210230 2 no 1101010 lllOt 310

Oampl 064 0ampamp 001 Oil 015 010 OJO 0 10 0 71 055tOU 165 OIS

tliO 1310 1110 100113011 50 40 00 l2SOt bull50 lSI0100

ll

( 0

11 IIU Ill M JaUDI

()

Figure 2 aang Paint va Extraction Coefficient

i

ia 100

f c

80

u c 0

u

60~

80 100 120 140 160 180 C

Paint c

aooa aAU~IIIDfltIY ubull Iftota aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

ltiTROOUCTOtl

Under section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) EPA was charged with Identifying those wastes which If Imprope rl y managed would pose a hazard to h1111an health tnd the environment The statute also specified that EPA Identify such wastes through the developa~ent of ltsts of huardous waste characteristics Characterhtlcl are those properties which If ehlblted by a wute Identify It as 1 hazardous waste and are establ hhed for levels of which there ts a high degree of certainty that the waste needs to be bullanaged In a control ted 11anner The Extraction P-ocedure Toxicity Cha-actertsttc EPTox) was developed to detemtne If specified bulletats Insecticides and he -b lcldes could be bulloblllzed fr0111 a siMUl ated unict pa l sa ni tary landfill envtrollllen t As wtt h 1110s t fi r st generat i on - ~o~ l es lbull pro ve~~ent and ex pansion fo llowed The Toxicity Ch arac ter is t ic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was s ~o~bse qu e ntl y developed t o address the bull obt11ty of a broad range of both orga ni c and Inorgan ic c011pounds and to sol ve the operational probl e~~s of the EPTC protocol

The rk reported In this paper centers around a set of soils tMt ere synthetically prepued to sh1uhte the middott olls found at a typical S~o~perfund site The soils referred to herein as Synthetic Analytical Reference Hltrhes (SARM) were processed through five different treatllent technologies Incineration low teMperature themal desorption chtbulllcal treatllent physical treatllent and stabilization The perfofll4nce of each technology was evaluated by c011partng total waste analysts (TWA) ud TCLP analyses of the starting utertals to the treated residues

TOXICITY CHAIIACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEOURE

A brief description of the TCLP is as follows The Ullple h class I middot fled as tq~o~ld or solid by the percentage of solid bull aterlal reduced In she 1f necessary (lt95 bull ) weighed and bull h ed with an acidic solution at hut 20 tlbull es the -ight of the solid phue The bullhture Is filtered and tht txtract 1s retained for chMical analysts The procedure ts bull odlfled soehat when volatile organics are Involved In that 1 ze ro headspace spec t ftc extract ion vessel Is required A TCLP fl ow Chart Is presented as Fi gure 1

EI PERI MENTAL

The butc ccbullposltion of the soft used In the technology eval uations was de t emlned as a result of an extensive llterature search of Superfund records The final soil c011position selected consisted of (by vol1111e) 301 by volt~~~e of clay (bullontllort11tnite and kaolinite) 25l stlt 20l sa nd ZOS top sol and SS gravel The components were air dried and then bullhed

I I I I

FIGURE 1 TCLP Flowchart

Wet Waste S1mpte Wet Waste Sample Contains 05 1 Contains 05 NonmiddotFIIterable Rel)feHntatlve Wute ~I----- SN on1dfsilterable-----~ SempleSolids 1 1 0 1

I Dry Waste

sarrplbull UquldSolld I I I LiquidSolidSepar1tlon I ~-----Sold~ Sapatltion~Discard I I Glau Aber I Solid Solid 0608 um 064 08 umi Glast Fiber

Filt I Filtersi I

i I I I

II Uquld I

RecNcPwtlcloSItelf 95nvn I OSumcoAiee 31cm Store At

4C

I I Dlocardr-- Solid I

lJquid

~--------------------~ I TCLPIExuect I j

I lI I Analytical_ I LTCLP Extract-------- Methodl t--------TCLP amptract

______J

V bull The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the soUd phase of the waste

together in two ISOOOmiddotlb bHches In a sta ndard truck 110unted ceMent bullher A prescribed list of cheMicals fo und to be widel y bullnd frequently occurring at Superfund s Ites ~o~as added to the clean sotl to produce the SARHs t n a series of sma ll scale 11f1tlng ope rations utO zing a 15 ftlbullortar 11he r The orga nic components added were acetone chlo roben zene 12middotdlchloromiddot ethane ethylbenzene styr ene tetrachloroethylene Jty l ene anthracene bis(2middotethylhexyl) phthalate and pentachlorophenol The metals added to the clean soil were either sa lts or OJtides of arsenic cadmium chrolflhm coppe r l ead nickel and zinc Oue to the fact that the contaminent pr omiddot files of Superfund soils differ widely frOM site to site in c0111posltion and concentration four different SARH for11ulas were prepared Table 1 presents the target conta11tnant concentration level of the four SARH sa11p les as well u the actual level achieved The SARHs showed representative consistency and h011ogeneHy between fonaulatlons and approached the ta rget levels outlined on Table I

The SARHs produced in the first phase of this project were then promiddot cessed through five treatment technologies that were thought to be bullost readily available and to have the greatest ap pl lcabtl tty to CERCLA s lte restoration acthlttes The technologies studied were lncineruton low teperature thenaal desorption ctltlltcal treatbullent (KPEG) physical treatshyMent (sotl wuhlng) and solldlflcatlonsUbtlhation The effectiveness of the ftve different treawent technologies wu ~ttuured by observing the change In concentration of the Identified c011pounds and eltt~ents TWA wu used to bullenure changes In the total contulnit lon levels In the treated SARH residuals as a result of treatent TClP on the other hud was used to track potentia ch1nges tn le1chate cobullposltfon as a result of treatlltnt The logic behind the TCLP aspect of the project was thit If the treatent reduces the total lenl of contulnatlon or fab11tzes it to 1 point where 1t wt 1 not bullIgrate with the acidic l eachate the residual will be a good candfdite for land dhpoul Thus residuals frOM each of the treushybullent technologies were collected and processed through the TCLP and ualyzed for the 11ttlls 1nd organic cobullpounds 1tsted above

RESULTS middot

Tlble II presents the results of the TCLP on the untruted sotl SARM I The dlta lndtcite that the sehollttle org1ntc coMpounds were not efff ctently eJttracted fr011 the untreated sotl The vohttle orgulc COMpounds were extracted at higher concentrlttons than the shollttle organic c011pounds with the bullost volatile cOMpounds (acetone and 12-dlchloroethane) being eJttracted coMpletely Figure 2 shows a plot of the percent of vohshytte COMpound extracted by TCLP vs the cOMpounds botltng point There appears to be i trend toward lower extraction of volatfle organic cobullpounds with Increasing botlng point The relatively lower water solubilities 1nd htgh bof1tng points of the semholattles are a logical utenston of this trend This type of lnforwatton WOuld be useful In deterwlnlng the Mi nibullWI soil concentration levels that would be neceSury for the use of TCLP as a predicting tool for organic cOMpound s In residuals elrwa rked for land disposal middot

- - -

c TABLE 1

Target cl Actaal Concbullbullbadons For SARMs Total Waste Antysls ITWAI

Table 1 SAliM I SAliM I SARM Ill SARM IV mglltg

~ r

1110 3570 plusmn 0 6800 4363plusmn 1933 1110 3580 6800 3059

400 ltl~ 132 t 104 40 ~~o121 Chkwobenlene 329

10 41 31fJJ 12 dlchloroelhane 1100 354 t 143 60 49 600 491

1230 1110 141 Ethylberuene 3200 332U 164

1000 7073 100 480 t 310151 Stytene 100 323 1000 631

eo tQ j 110 16) Tetrchkwoethytene 1100 458 i 137 60 600 540

8200 5555 2 1121 1650 t 720 820 3250 5576llt Xytene

6500 SJel ~ 3715 850 3510 170 650 1810 6500 1920 I 1992181 Anttwacene

646~ 2842500 1951 1104 250 13amp0 j 1200 11-40(9J Sal2 ettrvltbulluyUphthalate

(10t~tacNotophenol 100 300 1000 80 231000 321 237 100 310 550

500 S62 17410 11 7 10 174 20 500 7020 2041111 Atwnic

112)~ 19340 1352 2891 281923 10 20 244 31

1500 1381 172fllJChromium 30 2S t 7 1204 0 16330 2830 t 50

1500 91960 1551 11102 18 11114 JCoppef 190 239 sa 190 IUO t 480

210 245 82 14000 1469SO 1507 14000 15178 2227USILaad 210 30$0 J 5110

1459 bull 6 16 1000 14190 t 57830 3317 30 35 1 152U6UCket

2 2500 36177 0 I 11878 22500 27428 t st72450 502 t 2111 450 4110 1790 unznc

CJ1I003ll aAUYlUSIIIIHIIY oiU IYSOciSIQ liS OlJ

------ ----

TClP SARM I Untruted snple mgll

1 1 ~

bull J ~

Table 2 r bullt -middot J 1 ~

Compound

~

1i rg

1sect0 0 110_0 3200

u fg

210_0 1300 lSO 0

d 8

IH O tHO

d

I)C_OQ M100

h bullcl=i ~

xnoo-t 1000

H u

001700

~I ~ u

ISOO

1lt10 70780 Ito JSQ 700 110 710 )Q 710 JJOtOID 1~10250

1) 1 UdcNoroelhane 7700 2100 27 00 moo 1100 n oo 1700 t$00 MJJO bull bull to 2UO rtSO 1l70t710 11$00

1411~ bull100 csoo bullbulloo 000 00 4200 4100 l tCIO laquo00 5100 4570~1lt10

lSI SIYent 13001lOOIlCIO t0011100 l lCO 1300 1100 1200 1100 IIOOtll) 1540 tCIO

161 lttt~ 800 l M 130 bull-70 510140 l to 750 170710 aeo_ 10 1300~190

1 1IX~ noouoa oo 7000 7100 7300 llOOMOO 7100 11(1) 1(1_50 2171011600 HOO

t81 AnttwKene

bull111 8t~ I ZelyenuOchtNIbulltbull

1101-nl~

10000

7600

500 tOOO 1500

500 1300 llOO

1600SCIOO lOOD

2000 3200 ltOO

1100 32003100

llOOQtIOOC-100

1000 JOOO

2000 2000

J50 130

1000 1000

2000 KlCIO

110 1000

111C2ttl12

M 50 1100

HI 00~ 119 00

9190 tSS lO

1300

0 01 002 007 002002 002 0 15 OJ S 001~007 095t035

on on on 01071073 oeoon 0110 12

0 050ltMO OS 001001003 011 0 13 1lOrOJS

IC Cort~J~t Cl013Q -10 OlO 3ta 3-0 5 t0 50 5 muo 3501 flO 1100210

190190110 001 11Q 10 210230 2 no 1101010 lllOt 310

Oampl 064 0ampamp 001 Oil 015 010 OJO 0 10 0 71 055tOU 165 OIS

tliO 1310 1110 100113011 50 40 00 l2SOt bull50 lSI0100

ll

( 0

11 IIU Ill M JaUDI

()

Figure 2 aang Paint va Extraction Coefficient

i

ia 100

f c

80

u c 0

u

60~

80 100 120 140 160 180 C

Paint c

aooa aAU~IIIDfltIY ubull Iftota aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

I I I I

FIGURE 1 TCLP Flowchart

Wet Waste S1mpte Wet Waste Sample Contains 05 1 Contains 05 NonmiddotFIIterable Rel)feHntatlve Wute ~I----- SN on1dfsilterable-----~ SempleSolids 1 1 0 1

I Dry Waste

sarrplbull UquldSolld I I I LiquidSolidSepar1tlon I ~-----Sold~ Sapatltion~Discard I I Glau Aber I Solid Solid 0608 um 064 08 umi Glast Fiber

Filt I Filtersi I

i I I I

II Uquld I

RecNcPwtlcloSItelf 95nvn I OSumcoAiee 31cm Store At

4C

I I Dlocardr-- Solid I

lJquid

~--------------------~ I TCLPIExuect I j

I lI I Analytical_ I LTCLP Extract-------- Methodl t--------TCLP amptract

______J

V bull The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the soUd phase of the waste

together in two ISOOOmiddotlb bHches In a sta ndard truck 110unted ceMent bullher A prescribed list of cheMicals fo und to be widel y bullnd frequently occurring at Superfund s Ites ~o~as added to the clean sotl to produce the SARHs t n a series of sma ll scale 11f1tlng ope rations utO zing a 15 ftlbullortar 11he r The orga nic components added were acetone chlo roben zene 12middotdlchloromiddot ethane ethylbenzene styr ene tetrachloroethylene Jty l ene anthracene bis(2middotethylhexyl) phthalate and pentachlorophenol The metals added to the clean soil were either sa lts or OJtides of arsenic cadmium chrolflhm coppe r l ead nickel and zinc Oue to the fact that the contaminent pr omiddot files of Superfund soils differ widely frOM site to site in c0111posltion and concentration four different SARH for11ulas were prepared Table 1 presents the target conta11tnant concentration level of the four SARH sa11p les as well u the actual level achieved The SARHs showed representative consistency and h011ogeneHy between fonaulatlons and approached the ta rget levels outlined on Table I

The SARHs produced in the first phase of this project were then promiddot cessed through five treatment technologies that were thought to be bullost readily available and to have the greatest ap pl lcabtl tty to CERCLA s lte restoration acthlttes The technologies studied were lncineruton low teperature thenaal desorption ctltlltcal treatbullent (KPEG) physical treatshyMent (sotl wuhlng) and solldlflcatlonsUbtlhation The effectiveness of the ftve different treawent technologies wu ~ttuured by observing the change In concentration of the Identified c011pounds and eltt~ents TWA wu used to bullenure changes In the total contulnit lon levels In the treated SARH residuals as a result of treatent TClP on the other hud was used to track potentia ch1nges tn le1chate cobullposltfon as a result of treatlltnt The logic behind the TCLP aspect of the project was thit If the treatent reduces the total lenl of contulnatlon or fab11tzes it to 1 point where 1t wt 1 not bullIgrate with the acidic l eachate the residual will be a good candfdite for land dhpoul Thus residuals frOM each of the treushybullent technologies were collected and processed through the TCLP and ualyzed for the 11ttlls 1nd organic cobullpounds 1tsted above

RESULTS middot

Tlble II presents the results of the TCLP on the untruted sotl SARM I The dlta lndtcite that the sehollttle org1ntc coMpounds were not efff ctently eJttracted fr011 the untreated sotl The vohttle orgulc COMpounds were extracted at higher concentrlttons than the shollttle organic c011pounds with the bullost volatile cOMpounds (acetone and 12-dlchloroethane) being eJttracted coMpletely Figure 2 shows a plot of the percent of vohshytte COMpound extracted by TCLP vs the cOMpounds botltng point There appears to be i trend toward lower extraction of volatfle organic cobullpounds with Increasing botlng point The relatively lower water solubilities 1nd htgh bof1tng points of the semholattles are a logical utenston of this trend This type of lnforwatton WOuld be useful In deterwlnlng the Mi nibullWI soil concentration levels that would be neceSury for the use of TCLP as a predicting tool for organic cOMpound s In residuals elrwa rked for land disposal middot

- - -

c TABLE 1

Target cl Actaal Concbullbullbadons For SARMs Total Waste Antysls ITWAI

Table 1 SAliM I SAliM I SARM Ill SARM IV mglltg

~ r

1110 3570 plusmn 0 6800 4363plusmn 1933 1110 3580 6800 3059

400 ltl~ 132 t 104 40 ~~o121 Chkwobenlene 329

10 41 31fJJ 12 dlchloroelhane 1100 354 t 143 60 49 600 491

1230 1110 141 Ethylberuene 3200 332U 164

1000 7073 100 480 t 310151 Stytene 100 323 1000 631

eo tQ j 110 16) Tetrchkwoethytene 1100 458 i 137 60 600 540

8200 5555 2 1121 1650 t 720 820 3250 5576llt Xytene

6500 SJel ~ 3715 850 3510 170 650 1810 6500 1920 I 1992181 Anttwacene

646~ 2842500 1951 1104 250 13amp0 j 1200 11-40(9J Sal2 ettrvltbulluyUphthalate

(10t~tacNotophenol 100 300 1000 80 231000 321 237 100 310 550

500 S62 17410 11 7 10 174 20 500 7020 2041111 Atwnic

112)~ 19340 1352 2891 281923 10 20 244 31

1500 1381 172fllJChromium 30 2S t 7 1204 0 16330 2830 t 50

1500 91960 1551 11102 18 11114 JCoppef 190 239 sa 190 IUO t 480

210 245 82 14000 1469SO 1507 14000 15178 2227USILaad 210 30$0 J 5110

1459 bull 6 16 1000 14190 t 57830 3317 30 35 1 152U6UCket

2 2500 36177 0 I 11878 22500 27428 t st72450 502 t 2111 450 4110 1790 unznc

CJ1I003ll aAUYlUSIIIIHIIY oiU IYSOciSIQ liS OlJ

------ ----

TClP SARM I Untruted snple mgll

1 1 ~

bull J ~

Table 2 r bullt -middot J 1 ~

Compound

~

1i rg

1sect0 0 110_0 3200

u fg

210_0 1300 lSO 0

d 8

IH O tHO

d

I)C_OQ M100

h bullcl=i ~

xnoo-t 1000

H u

001700

~I ~ u

ISOO

1lt10 70780 Ito JSQ 700 110 710 )Q 710 JJOtOID 1~10250

1) 1 UdcNoroelhane 7700 2100 27 00 moo 1100 n oo 1700 t$00 MJJO bull bull to 2UO rtSO 1l70t710 11$00

1411~ bull100 csoo bullbulloo 000 00 4200 4100 l tCIO laquo00 5100 4570~1lt10

lSI SIYent 13001lOOIlCIO t0011100 l lCO 1300 1100 1200 1100 IIOOtll) 1540 tCIO

161 lttt~ 800 l M 130 bull-70 510140 l to 750 170710 aeo_ 10 1300~190

1 1IX~ noouoa oo 7000 7100 7300 llOOMOO 7100 11(1) 1(1_50 2171011600 HOO

t81 AnttwKene

bull111 8t~ I ZelyenuOchtNIbulltbull

1101-nl~

10000

7600

500 tOOO 1500

500 1300 llOO

1600SCIOO lOOD

2000 3200 ltOO

1100 32003100

llOOQtIOOC-100

1000 JOOO

2000 2000

J50 130

1000 1000

2000 KlCIO

110 1000

111C2ttl12

M 50 1100

HI 00~ 119 00

9190 tSS lO

1300

0 01 002 007 002002 002 0 15 OJ S 001~007 095t035

on on on 01071073 oeoon 0110 12

0 050ltMO OS 001001003 011 0 13 1lOrOJS

IC Cort~J~t Cl013Q -10 OlO 3ta 3-0 5 t0 50 5 muo 3501 flO 1100210

190190110 001 11Q 10 210230 2 no 1101010 lllOt 310

Oampl 064 0ampamp 001 Oil 015 010 OJO 0 10 0 71 055tOU 165 OIS

tliO 1310 1110 100113011 50 40 00 l2SOt bull50 lSI0100

ll

( 0

11 IIU Ill M JaUDI

()

Figure 2 aang Paint va Extraction Coefficient

i

ia 100

f c

80

u c 0

u

60~

80 100 120 140 160 180 C

Paint c

aooa aAU~IIIDfltIY ubull Iftota aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

together in two ISOOOmiddotlb bHches In a sta ndard truck 110unted ceMent bullher A prescribed list of cheMicals fo und to be widel y bullnd frequently occurring at Superfund s Ites ~o~as added to the clean sotl to produce the SARHs t n a series of sma ll scale 11f1tlng ope rations utO zing a 15 ftlbullortar 11he r The orga nic components added were acetone chlo roben zene 12middotdlchloromiddot ethane ethylbenzene styr ene tetrachloroethylene Jty l ene anthracene bis(2middotethylhexyl) phthalate and pentachlorophenol The metals added to the clean soil were either sa lts or OJtides of arsenic cadmium chrolflhm coppe r l ead nickel and zinc Oue to the fact that the contaminent pr omiddot files of Superfund soils differ widely frOM site to site in c0111posltion and concentration four different SARH for11ulas were prepared Table 1 presents the target conta11tnant concentration level of the four SARH sa11p les as well u the actual level achieved The SARHs showed representative consistency and h011ogeneHy between fonaulatlons and approached the ta rget levels outlined on Table I

The SARHs produced in the first phase of this project were then promiddot cessed through five treatment technologies that were thought to be bullost readily available and to have the greatest ap pl lcabtl tty to CERCLA s lte restoration acthlttes The technologies studied were lncineruton low teperature thenaal desorption ctltlltcal treatbullent (KPEG) physical treatshyMent (sotl wuhlng) and solldlflcatlonsUbtlhation The effectiveness of the ftve different treawent technologies wu ~ttuured by observing the change In concentration of the Identified c011pounds and eltt~ents TWA wu used to bullenure changes In the total contulnit lon levels In the treated SARH residuals as a result of treatent TClP on the other hud was used to track potentia ch1nges tn le1chate cobullposltfon as a result of treatlltnt The logic behind the TCLP aspect of the project was thit If the treatent reduces the total lenl of contulnatlon or fab11tzes it to 1 point where 1t wt 1 not bullIgrate with the acidic l eachate the residual will be a good candfdite for land dhpoul Thus residuals frOM each of the treushybullent technologies were collected and processed through the TCLP and ualyzed for the 11ttlls 1nd organic cobullpounds 1tsted above

RESULTS middot

Tlble II presents the results of the TCLP on the untruted sotl SARM I The dlta lndtcite that the sehollttle org1ntc coMpounds were not efff ctently eJttracted fr011 the untreated sotl The vohttle orgulc COMpounds were extracted at higher concentrlttons than the shollttle organic c011pounds with the bullost volatile cOMpounds (acetone and 12-dlchloroethane) being eJttracted coMpletely Figure 2 shows a plot of the percent of vohshytte COMpound extracted by TCLP vs the cOMpounds botltng point There appears to be i trend toward lower extraction of volatfle organic cobullpounds with Increasing botlng point The relatively lower water solubilities 1nd htgh bof1tng points of the semholattles are a logical utenston of this trend This type of lnforwatton WOuld be useful In deterwlnlng the Mi nibullWI soil concentration levels that would be neceSury for the use of TCLP as a predicting tool for organic cOMpound s In residuals elrwa rked for land disposal middot

- - -

c TABLE 1

Target cl Actaal Concbullbullbadons For SARMs Total Waste Antysls ITWAI

Table 1 SAliM I SAliM I SARM Ill SARM IV mglltg

~ r

1110 3570 plusmn 0 6800 4363plusmn 1933 1110 3580 6800 3059

400 ltl~ 132 t 104 40 ~~o121 Chkwobenlene 329

10 41 31fJJ 12 dlchloroelhane 1100 354 t 143 60 49 600 491

1230 1110 141 Ethylberuene 3200 332U 164

1000 7073 100 480 t 310151 Stytene 100 323 1000 631

eo tQ j 110 16) Tetrchkwoethytene 1100 458 i 137 60 600 540

8200 5555 2 1121 1650 t 720 820 3250 5576llt Xytene

6500 SJel ~ 3715 850 3510 170 650 1810 6500 1920 I 1992181 Anttwacene

646~ 2842500 1951 1104 250 13amp0 j 1200 11-40(9J Sal2 ettrvltbulluyUphthalate

(10t~tacNotophenol 100 300 1000 80 231000 321 237 100 310 550

500 S62 17410 11 7 10 174 20 500 7020 2041111 Atwnic

112)~ 19340 1352 2891 281923 10 20 244 31

1500 1381 172fllJChromium 30 2S t 7 1204 0 16330 2830 t 50

1500 91960 1551 11102 18 11114 JCoppef 190 239 sa 190 IUO t 480

210 245 82 14000 1469SO 1507 14000 15178 2227USILaad 210 30$0 J 5110

1459 bull 6 16 1000 14190 t 57830 3317 30 35 1 152U6UCket

2 2500 36177 0 I 11878 22500 27428 t st72450 502 t 2111 450 4110 1790 unznc

CJ1I003ll aAUYlUSIIIIHIIY oiU IYSOciSIQ liS OlJ

------ ----

TClP SARM I Untruted snple mgll

1 1 ~

bull J ~

Table 2 r bullt -middot J 1 ~

Compound

~

1i rg

1sect0 0 110_0 3200

u fg

210_0 1300 lSO 0

d 8

IH O tHO

d

I)C_OQ M100

h bullcl=i ~

xnoo-t 1000

H u

001700

~I ~ u

ISOO

1lt10 70780 Ito JSQ 700 110 710 )Q 710 JJOtOID 1~10250

1) 1 UdcNoroelhane 7700 2100 27 00 moo 1100 n oo 1700 t$00 MJJO bull bull to 2UO rtSO 1l70t710 11$00

1411~ bull100 csoo bullbulloo 000 00 4200 4100 l tCIO laquo00 5100 4570~1lt10

lSI SIYent 13001lOOIlCIO t0011100 l lCO 1300 1100 1200 1100 IIOOtll) 1540 tCIO

161 lttt~ 800 l M 130 bull-70 510140 l to 750 170710 aeo_ 10 1300~190

1 1IX~ noouoa oo 7000 7100 7300 llOOMOO 7100 11(1) 1(1_50 2171011600 HOO

t81 AnttwKene

bull111 8t~ I ZelyenuOchtNIbulltbull

1101-nl~

10000

7600

500 tOOO 1500

500 1300 llOO

1600SCIOO lOOD

2000 3200 ltOO

1100 32003100

llOOQtIOOC-100

1000 JOOO

2000 2000

J50 130

1000 1000

2000 KlCIO

110 1000

111C2ttl12

M 50 1100

HI 00~ 119 00

9190 tSS lO

1300

0 01 002 007 002002 002 0 15 OJ S 001~007 095t035

on on on 01071073 oeoon 0110 12

0 050ltMO OS 001001003 011 0 13 1lOrOJS

IC Cort~J~t Cl013Q -10 OlO 3ta 3-0 5 t0 50 5 muo 3501 flO 1100210

190190110 001 11Q 10 210230 2 no 1101010 lllOt 310

Oampl 064 0ampamp 001 Oil 015 010 OJO 0 10 0 71 055tOU 165 OIS

tliO 1310 1110 100113011 50 40 00 l2SOt bull50 lSI0100

ll

( 0

11 IIU Ill M JaUDI

()

Figure 2 aang Paint va Extraction Coefficient

i

ia 100

f c

80

u c 0

u

60~

80 100 120 140 160 180 C

Paint c

aooa aAU~IIIDfltIY ubull Iftota aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

- - -

c TABLE 1

Target cl Actaal Concbullbullbadons For SARMs Total Waste Antysls ITWAI

Table 1 SAliM I SAliM I SARM Ill SARM IV mglltg

~ r

1110 3570 plusmn 0 6800 4363plusmn 1933 1110 3580 6800 3059

400 ltl~ 132 t 104 40 ~~o121 Chkwobenlene 329

10 41 31fJJ 12 dlchloroelhane 1100 354 t 143 60 49 600 491

1230 1110 141 Ethylberuene 3200 332U 164

1000 7073 100 480 t 310151 Stytene 100 323 1000 631

eo tQ j 110 16) Tetrchkwoethytene 1100 458 i 137 60 600 540

8200 5555 2 1121 1650 t 720 820 3250 5576llt Xytene

6500 SJel ~ 3715 850 3510 170 650 1810 6500 1920 I 1992181 Anttwacene

646~ 2842500 1951 1104 250 13amp0 j 1200 11-40(9J Sal2 ettrvltbulluyUphthalate

(10t~tacNotophenol 100 300 1000 80 231000 321 237 100 310 550

500 S62 17410 11 7 10 174 20 500 7020 2041111 Atwnic

112)~ 19340 1352 2891 281923 10 20 244 31

1500 1381 172fllJChromium 30 2S t 7 1204 0 16330 2830 t 50

1500 91960 1551 11102 18 11114 JCoppef 190 239 sa 190 IUO t 480

210 245 82 14000 1469SO 1507 14000 15178 2227USILaad 210 30$0 J 5110

1459 bull 6 16 1000 14190 t 57830 3317 30 35 1 152U6UCket

2 2500 36177 0 I 11878 22500 27428 t st72450 502 t 2111 450 4110 1790 unznc

CJ1I003ll aAUYlUSIIIIHIIY oiU IYSOciSIQ liS OlJ

------ ----

TClP SARM I Untruted snple mgll

1 1 ~

bull J ~

Table 2 r bullt -middot J 1 ~

Compound

~

1i rg

1sect0 0 110_0 3200

u fg

210_0 1300 lSO 0

d 8

IH O tHO

d

I)C_OQ M100

h bullcl=i ~

xnoo-t 1000

H u

001700

~I ~ u

ISOO

1lt10 70780 Ito JSQ 700 110 710 )Q 710 JJOtOID 1~10250

1) 1 UdcNoroelhane 7700 2100 27 00 moo 1100 n oo 1700 t$00 MJJO bull bull to 2UO rtSO 1l70t710 11$00

1411~ bull100 csoo bullbulloo 000 00 4200 4100 l tCIO laquo00 5100 4570~1lt10

lSI SIYent 13001lOOIlCIO t0011100 l lCO 1300 1100 1200 1100 IIOOtll) 1540 tCIO

161 lttt~ 800 l M 130 bull-70 510140 l to 750 170710 aeo_ 10 1300~190

1 1IX~ noouoa oo 7000 7100 7300 llOOMOO 7100 11(1) 1(1_50 2171011600 HOO

t81 AnttwKene

bull111 8t~ I ZelyenuOchtNIbulltbull

1101-nl~

10000

7600

500 tOOO 1500

500 1300 llOO

1600SCIOO lOOD

2000 3200 ltOO

1100 32003100

llOOQtIOOC-100

1000 JOOO

2000 2000

J50 130

1000 1000

2000 KlCIO

110 1000

111C2ttl12

M 50 1100

HI 00~ 119 00

9190 tSS lO

1300

0 01 002 007 002002 002 0 15 OJ S 001~007 095t035

on on on 01071073 oeoon 0110 12

0 050ltMO OS 001001003 011 0 13 1lOrOJS

IC Cort~J~t Cl013Q -10 OlO 3ta 3-0 5 t0 50 5 muo 3501 flO 1100210

190190110 001 11Q 10 210230 2 no 1101010 lllOt 310

Oampl 064 0ampamp 001 Oil 015 010 OJO 0 10 0 71 055tOU 165 OIS

tliO 1310 1110 100113011 50 40 00 l2SOt bull50 lSI0100

ll

( 0

11 IIU Ill M JaUDI

()

Figure 2 aang Paint va Extraction Coefficient

i

ia 100

f c

80

u c 0

u

60~

80 100 120 140 160 180 C

Paint c

aooa aAU~IIIDfltIY ubull Iftota aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

------ ----

TClP SARM I Untruted snple mgll

1 1 ~

bull J ~

Table 2 r bullt -middot J 1 ~

Compound

~

1i rg

1sect0 0 110_0 3200

u fg

210_0 1300 lSO 0

d 8

IH O tHO

d

I)C_OQ M100

h bullcl=i ~

xnoo-t 1000

H u

001700

~I ~ u

ISOO

1lt10 70780 Ito JSQ 700 110 710 )Q 710 JJOtOID 1~10250

1) 1 UdcNoroelhane 7700 2100 27 00 moo 1100 n oo 1700 t$00 MJJO bull bull to 2UO rtSO 1l70t710 11$00

1411~ bull100 csoo bullbulloo 000 00 4200 4100 l tCIO laquo00 5100 4570~1lt10

lSI SIYent 13001lOOIlCIO t0011100 l lCO 1300 1100 1200 1100 IIOOtll) 1540 tCIO

161 lttt~ 800 l M 130 bull-70 510140 l to 750 170710 aeo_ 10 1300~190

1 1IX~ noouoa oo 7000 7100 7300 llOOMOO 7100 11(1) 1(1_50 2171011600 HOO

t81 AnttwKene

bull111 8t~ I ZelyenuOchtNIbulltbull

1101-nl~

10000

7600

500 tOOO 1500

500 1300 llOO

1600SCIOO lOOD

2000 3200 ltOO

1100 32003100

llOOQtIOOC-100

1000 JOOO

2000 2000

J50 130

1000 1000

2000 KlCIO

110 1000

111C2ttl12

M 50 1100

HI 00~ 119 00

9190 tSS lO

1300

0 01 002 007 002002 002 0 15 OJ S 001~007 095t035

on on on 01071073 oeoon 0110 12

0 050ltMO OS 001001003 011 0 13 1lOrOJS

IC Cort~J~t Cl013Q -10 OlO 3ta 3-0 5 t0 50 5 muo 3501 flO 1100210

190190110 001 11Q 10 210230 2 no 1101010 lllOt 310

Oampl 064 0ampamp 001 Oil 015 010 OJO 0 10 0 71 055tOU 165 OIS

tliO 1310 1110 100113011 50 40 00 l2SOt bull50 lSI0100

ll

( 0

11 IIU Ill M JaUDI

()

Figure 2 aang Paint va Extraction Coefficient

i

ia 100

f c

80

u c 0

u

60~

80 100 120 140 160 180 C

Paint c

aooa aAU~IIIDfltIY ubull Iftota aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

()

Figure 2 aang Paint va Extraction Coefficient

i

ia 100

f c

80

u c 0

u

60~

80 100 120 140 160 180 C

Paint c

aooa aAU~IIIDfltIY ubull Iftota aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

The third uea reported was the release of metals by TCLP Although the procedure was designed to sl-hte the worst cue leachate In these studies the TCLP only dissolved about JO percent of the orlgtnbulll 11e t al Into

r the leachate sa111pl e Agai n this ts Important from a sa11pl e ulectlon and Jnalytlcal detection ll11ft standpoint A sa11ple like SARM I which has a rehthely a high clay con~posltlon and a relatively loW concentration of metals would not be a good choice for eva l uating t r eatment effectiveness or metals as measured by meta l mobility on the bash of TCLP As the contamination level rises the easte r lt bec0111es to evaluate both trutment effect lveness and TCLP mobll I ty

The llaln thrust of the project was to evaluate the trutent effective nus of the five dffferent technologtes by either destroying removing or contatnfng the polluunts of Interest One of the ways to judge the treH~ 111ent effectiveness was to c01apare the leachabll tty of the target cobullpounds after trutment with sl11llar data before treauent TCLP was the vehicle selected to ~~akt thh co11parison In ~taking this selection It should be rt~~t~~bered that because the TCLP Is not totally effective In u trac t l ng the dtfferent classes of co11pounds the fntttal TCLP values for untreated SARHs were In several cues quite Slla11 and often near the l tatt of Jnalytlcal detection Thus In many cues the treatllent e ffectiveness was judged on the d t fference between two saa 11 n~bers WI th these thought s In 111 nd the TCLP data generated for the five CERCLA tratlllent technologies fs presented

Table 3 presents s011e typical TClP dlta collected for the soltdtftca tlon experlbullents SARM I wu treated with portland crt~ent ktln dust and 1Iefly ash and cured fof 28 days Tht stilbtllted bullateflals were sabullpled exbulllned by TClP and s-adzed Each of the Individual chtllfcals In the TCLP extnct fr011 the treated restduals wre c011pared to the Initial TCLP concentnttons for the untreated SARHs and the Individual r1110val efffshycfenctes were Cllculated Approprtate adjustents wtre bullade to account for dtlutlon lfhen the bfnders wert added to the SARH These efflctenctes wtre Sllllltd and averaged for each class of c011pounds (volatiles etc) and the ave rage n111ber taken u tht treattnt effectiveness attributable to TCLP Tht bir griphs sho111 the rehtlonshtps for the dlffertnt binders tOIfird the Sillt class of co11po11nds

The type of dati Illustrated In Tablt 3 can be expuded across all tht technologies Table 4 tllustratts a typical TCLP data set for SARPt I and how It wu affected by each of tht fhe treatent technologies tested The TCLP data Indicate that Incineration did an excellent job of reduclng middot-the teachable organi cs In the resld11ts Surprisingly the TCLP data for the 11euls In Incineration ath are 83 to 99+ percent lower thtn the untreated SARH TCLP values Indicating that either bulletals were reoved fro the uh during the Incineration process or that the ash wu altered so as not to release as 11uch bulleta I In the TCLP test low Tebullperature Then~al Desorption It lSobullr was only bullode ra t ely effective on the volatiles but at 3Sobullr and was ve ry effttthe SeMholattle rebulloval resu lts exceeded 95 for 1nthracene and bts(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate 4t all 3 t tMperatures results for pentachlorophenol ar e s011ewhat erratic but see~~ to Indicate the best rmoval rate (aboutmiddot 901) at the 550bull ttrnperlt ure The Metals data po int toward a change In the soil 111atrh during heating lfhlch results In higher

u

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

--

----

() )

Typical TCLP Data Summary For Solidification Experiments

~lt r

~11 ~ ~~ ompound

210~ )I llck__ 04

bulltl~-

~middot Sr 61 lltJacNroroethotIN

11 Xtltftt

ttldll ~middot101shy-so

l4tCOCJCItl

middotIt ~~i r

20700 t 1000

uo 1010

221001 S50

4S10tlltl0

1100Jll0

160110

110050

21501 1700

0091 007

OOIJ 004

IIOtOIO

OiOJ 012

11 504 50

Table 3

J l-juJ I bullJ jf J

1030 7150 ltGOO

lt 210 gt 7450

lt OOl gt ftIO ltGOO lt000 ltOU

ltOOIgtN SO lt001

0 00 Gat

GOO 00) -~ lt OIS gttolD ltGIS

lt 0 04 gt 12-70 lt GOO

lgtOO

_

_I ~~ if

so shyt amp

lClP

7

~ ~ I- shy

~~ j ~ l

- =middot

II shyim S Cit

~ ~

i i

j ~ l

SAliM I

TCL

~

~ l

2 _

S ~

~

CJliOOD UUYlLISIIIDiaY ~ JYIIoISJQ liSOl

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

----

0 ()

Table 4 Comparison of Treatment Technologies for

I low lemperbulllure Thetmal OesOtplkraquon8 j)SARM I Using TCLP

~1- ~iI j

~II~ c i uFamp~U~h 1150 ~ 350 __ ssobull Compound 2000 003 20700 t 7000 middot ltOJO gt9860 lt010730plusmn 010 gt H -50121~ 012 lt0gt0 gt9960 gt996 lt0gt0 gtneo2230plusmn550tlll2-ocHoroettllnl

0 15 ltOJO gt9980 lt010 gt998141(1~ 4570plusmn140 middot ~-10 090 lt 0 gt0 gt9UO lt0101100plusmn110 on 51 St_

004 gt9940 803 gt9150lt 0 10 gt98 5 lt0gt0 gt985llllellachloroethylene IIOt 170 x 110011050 5510 321 011 ltogtO tt21 1940plusmn110 gttiIOiltAnlfwKshy lt 002 gt9990 lt001 lt 001 gt ttIO191 Bosl2ttbullyi)DhthoaaM 2150plusmn2100 9t40 0 18 lt003 gt99-9 _ 409plusmn171 lt 002 gt9950

009 plusmn007 lt 015 lt015 lt015 lt015 lt015 NO

0171 021 lt001 gtN501121CMmoum

OOfltCl04tiJiC~ lt 001 gt1100 013 1160 020 91 0

150t 110 lt002 gt9940 04Coollet lt001 gt830

uo i orJ lt015 gt1010IISIIecl 280 230 020 1161NocUI 0 551022

27

30 9100 1150plusmn4_50 lt003 gt1111lnc

MOO 7ti~

CIWXlaV aAUYUSIIIINOY ubull IYSasta aso11

Soil Washing SolidificationTable 4 Comparison of Kiln Dust2 mm to 250 umTreatment Technologies for

SurfactantSARM I Using TCLP

aa c c

2 u 2 u~-~ ~

~ ~ to ]2a _-a a ~1aHe -JIf ~~E -JI pound115eCompound

I

610 97120700 plusmn 7000 065 997 l1l Acetone

730 plusmn080 012 984 006 992 121 Chlorobenzene

010 996 2230 plusmn550 003 999 Ill 12-dichloroemnt

4670plusmn840 097 979 ltooe gt999 141 Elhylbon_

025 977 108 904 1100plusmn3t0151 S1Vrtn1

880plusmn170 010 974 lt002 997 181To1rochlongtomvshy

8100 plusmn1050 220 973 204 975 171 Xytono

983 978

1940 plusmn 1810 lt002 gt999 lt005 gt997IIIAntlvlcono

2850 plusmn2700 010 998 lt005 gt998 191 Biol2 tthythoxyi)OIIIhlllte

409 plusmn371 041 900 013 9881101-shy

985 988 -1111Attri 009plusmn007 lt015 NO lt015 NO

1121Ctdmium 087plusmn028 028 812 lt001 gt985

1131Ctvomium ltOQl gt833 ooe plusmn004 009 middot500

l141Copper 350plusmn 180 018 949 003 991

1151Utd 015 908 lt015 gt906 160 plusmn080

1161N~kel lt006 891 lt004 gt927 055plusmn022

1171Zinc 190 848 082 950 1250 plusmn460

834 951

11

TCLP val ues lt1fte r t reatent c011pa red to befo re he nce the negative r eMoval efficiency va l ues This t r end suggests that l ow te11pe ra tu re desorptio n bullay not be 1pproprlate for soils contai ning both organic and 11etal l lc con ta11tna tlon Chemical treatMeil t by KPEG reduced t he chlorinated volat il e compounds (dlch l oroethane and tetrachlo roethyl ene)by gt98 and the semhoatlles by about gt90 KPEG t reatment was also effec tive In reduci ng metals TCLP values for metals In the residuals were overall 765 lower tha n for the the untreated SARH For soils washing treatment of 2 IWII to 250 111 f r action with surfactant reduced the volatiles in the TCLP by gt98 se11lmiddot volatiles by gt96 and the metals by gt831 Stabilization utilizing kiln dust reduced the bulletals by gt9SS The apparent high removal rates for organics (overall about g8S) following subtllutton Is thought to be the result of offgutng during 11txtng rather than the results of che11fcal reaction of the organics within the bullatrl~

The TC LP da t a collected around the five technologies and fo ur SARHs have been s-ar lzed t n orde r of decreasing t reatMe nt effec t iv eness as shown In Ta ble S

DI SCUSS ION

The TCLP syste for evaluating the potenthl of a waste to release hu~rdous contbulltnants was based on bull anlpulat l ng laboratory extraction conditions until the results bullItched those frCH~ a pilot- scale syste of lysibulleters containing 90S 11unicipal waste and lOS Industrial waste Its appl ication to evaluating residues fr011 dlfferent soil treataent options or Judging treatMent effictency of CERCLA so i ls should be approiChed with caution and done on a case by case basts

[lch CERCLA s 1te s so 11 will be dffferent In SOlie fom and to this extent the degree to which the TCLP will utract each co11pound frCHI the soil will also change The attenuation of the Individual copounds In the untretted SAfUts by 70 to 951 places a terrtftc burden on the ana lyt ical ttchnlques used to analyze the TCLP utriCt for tva reasons First In Nny cases even though the concentration of a given conta l nant y be hundreds or thousands of parts per bullill ton In the untreated sofl the conshycutration produced In the leiChate NY lie at the fringes of the analytical detection l fbullftt when COIIpared to a leachate value derived fro the treated res i due the tva nuber s Y be virtually Indistinguishable frCH~ each other Thus the 1Ibull Its of analytical detection un prevent a true p4cture fra being for~~ed regud t ng the effectiveness of a parti cuhr treatilent This type of condition ca n be cl ea r ly seen t n the dlta for arsenic and chroMha Second and perhaps 110r e fbullport ant1y In bull any cases the trea tae nt e ff ic iency wt11 be based on t he di ffe rence between t wo Sllall n-bers This was very evident In the 11e ta ls data I n Tabl e 4 as well as all t he e tals dbull t a co ll ec ted on bull11 the synthetic soils The solubtl tty o f Ino rga nic cobullpo unds In an Inorganic (Ie aqueous) solvent syste h t he question that Must be dea lt wi th 111hen using TCLP and this data Indicates that using this ap proach for evaluating treatment effectiveness co uld be risky

Kowever when approaching TCLP fr0111 a health and safety standpoi nt with Impac t s on t he envirorment being quantitated the use of TCLP wou l d

0 12

I I I I

1 ~I

=t~lrrllrfil

f (1I

bullbull

bullbull

bullbullbullbull

()

TClP Evaluetion of lhNitment E~forSARMs

Table 5

--~lo-tHObull

ollsta~no-shy

i =~=~=-- middotshyj Ills__ J-bullH0-middot-- shy19t~ middot O middot Mmiddot lOS- no-__ lllto-1 h-- llfG ft 1111~ _c- a-

~_ lh~middot --021

IltII _WnlwfbullJ- shy~ s_no_ ___ sw---1- --- shy ~ - ~middot UCIf ~~_lt

n--o--bull~middot tOSMI~J-bullno-

111 ___

t)l swk-l-f~HI

middotbull ~aoa_

bull ot l Swo-bull2 _ ____

middot~S~-1-shy

i

I II II IV

I j gttti __

Qt o gtbullJ a

ftl CSo-f ~NG n bull _ _O flW F _

111 2-bull110-~

tJinDIS JIO-shy lI S _

as _~

r----shy r-middotao-shy __O MOI

Itt tn ca_ ltfllG n Ill _O IWf

bull s----ao~shy1101st-bullHO

gtts1 _~

gt 0 diS middotl-cw gtNl llt S J __

bullbull s r-bullao-~ ~ llbull - ~_c

lt - a- IWJ _no_--shy-~ o

gtUI

gt11 4gt110

middot middot

Ill

gt tiO

gtOU

__ ca -BO_~ CIIIIIII J-bull150-~

-~--0 middot middotshy no--shy_-- ~~-a -~ lllfG fl

-~middot Cll

___ UI~UOlt_

Ol~t-lfAM __ df a-rc111 __ c ~nt

bullbull ~c-JI Ul s-_no--=--shyUIS middotl-cloltloll __ __ 150 __

-~ 0 __ 11~

bullca-ut_lliIG -

bullbullSWt~MofbullJ-shy~atsr _~

lli _bullHO-shyIfS-bullJ- dit$11111 1-bullHO---w

lit 5Ma J-bull HO-CNIIIM

-no-_ bull o-ut IUlG _n Ul filS HO-shy

IQ $111111 HO-ctrw 111~ 0 Ill~~_

s__~

llIS~middotJ---shy

WIQI~~~JI SolS _s_ __

dt~II OIG~n

511 1-bullHO-ctoN~t Ill s--J-bullHO---shybulls J-bullHO-shy$$111oMc-~OJI~

middot 111 Sooolt middotl- tlS lb Swr middotl-~shy

altS J _ _

11MI~c-JIamp

61S~1-bulll1o0-CIIooWI

Ill s-l_bullHO--a shylh~L-flt AbullJI-

stt l--~- -shymiddot~- 0 11 middot--~__

J

Claogtall liAUYlUSDIDIIIY 1111 JYSOIISIQ 38011

bullbull

bullbull

bullbullbullbull

()

TClP Evaluetion of lhNitment E~forSARMs

Table 5

--~lo-tHObull

ollsta~no-shy

i =~=~=-- middotshyj Ills__ J-bullH0-middot-- shy19t~ middot O middot Mmiddot lOS- no-__ lllto-1 h-- llfG ft 1111~ _c- a-

~_ lh~middot --021

IltII _WnlwfbullJ- shy~ s_no_ ___ sw---1- --- shy ~ - ~middot UCIf ~~_lt

n--o--bull~middot tOSMI~J-bullno-

111 ___

t)l swk-l-f~HI

middotbull ~aoa_

bull ot l Swo-bull2 _ ____

middot~S~-1-shy

i

I II II IV

I j gttti __

Qt o gtbullJ a

ftl CSo-f ~NG n bull _ _O flW F _

111 2-bull110-~

tJinDIS JIO-shy lI S _

as _~

r----shy r-middotao-shy __O MOI

Itt tn ca_ ltfllG n Ill _O IWf

bull s----ao~shy1101st-bullHO

gtts1 _~

gt 0 diS middotl-cw gtNl llt S J __

bullbull s r-bullao-~ ~ llbull - ~_c

lt - a- IWJ _no_--shy-~ o

gtUI

gt11 4gt110

middot middot

Ill

gt tiO

gtOU

__ ca -BO_~ CIIIIIII J-bull150-~

-~--0 middot middotshy no--shy_-- ~~-a -~ lllfG fl

-~middot Cll

___ UI~UOlt_

Ol~t-lfAM __ df a-rc111 __ c ~nt

bullbull ~c-JI Ul s-_no--=--shyUIS middotl-cloltloll __ __ 150 __

-~ 0 __ 11~

bullca-ut_lliIG -

bullbullSWt~MofbullJ-shy~atsr _~

lli _bullHO-shyIfS-bullJ- dit$11111 1-bullHO---w

lit 5Ma J-bull HO-CNIIIM

-no-_ bull o-ut IUlG _n Ul filS HO-shy

IQ $111111 HO-ctrw 111~ 0 Ill~~_

s__~

llIS~middotJ---shy

WIQI~~~JI SolS _s_ __

dt~II OIG~n

511 1-bullHO-ctoN~t Ill s--J-bullHO---shybulls J-bullHO-shy$$111oMc-~OJI~

middot 111 Sooolt middotl- tlS lb Swr middotl-~shy

altS J _ _

11MI~c-JIamp

61S~1-bulll1o0-CIIooWI

Ill s-l_bullHO--a shylh~L-flt AbullJI-

stt l--~- -shymiddot~- 0 11 middot--~__

J

Claogtall liAUYlUSDIDIIIY 1111 JYSOIISIQ 38011

be very useful Table J shOws the proposed TCLP Regulatory values for eight of the co~tpounds listed (the othe r co11pounds hue no current regulatory value proposed) The data In Table 3 indtcue that the solidifica t io n binders 6f port l and cement o~nd ll11efly ash when used on SARM I could not bring the TCLP values for chlorobenzene 12-dlchloroshyethane tetrachloroethylene and pentach lorophenol below the proposed regulatory limits Implying that these compounds cou l d stil l be released from the landfilled stabilized mixture In sufficiently high concentrations to have potential adverse Impac ts on the s urrounding environment The data In Table 4 also show that for SARH I low temperature thermal desorpshytion at tsobullf co uld release hanaful concentrations of chlorobenzene dichloroethane tetrachloroethylene and excessive cadllllum could be reshyleued fr011 the residuals regardless of the treatllent tetlperlture If land disposed after treatent Hone of the residues fr011 the other technolog ies had releases that -QUid be flagged by TCLP standards

Ffgure J expresses the TCLP data fr011 Table 4 In bar charts by technoshylogy Thts data can also be rearranged to study the trut~ent by co111pound chss and this ts sho~o~n In Figure 4 When displayed In this 11anner specific CERCLA probl e~~s can be isolated and the best treatment opt ions selected

A logical ex t ension of the TCLP work Is to study how It capares with the dati deterwfned by toul waste analysis (TWA) of the untreated SARHs ud the testtd residues A series of parallel dati sheets were developed for TWA thlt corresponded to the ubulle sets of trealllent options outlined for TCLP Table 6 Is a S11111ary chart of the treatent efficiencies as bullenured by TWA for the different technologies In In decreasing order of effectiveness Generally speaking the then~~al technologies did well against the organic fractions chllllical treatMent and soils washing did well on the SMholatlle fraction and soils washing and solidification did well against the bulletals

Figure 5 copares the effectiveness results of both TCLP and TYA for SARM I for each tKhnology by class of cobullpound For the volatile cobullshypounds the TWA and TCLP data for trutlllent effectheness were very c lose ud It didnt appear to uke bulluch of a dtfference which bullethod was used for bullenuring trtatllent effectiveness Tlle TCLP1IA percent effl(tlveness values for sbulltvolattle organic coMpounds and bulletas appeared to be bullhed 1 with generally htgMr effectiveness nlues usocfated wtth the TCLP data Overall TCLP u 1 Measure of effectiveness gives 1t least equal and often hlghel results than TWA desptte the fa c t that the lntttal concentration found In the TCLP leach1tt fr011 the untreated SARH were bullore dilute than the TWA data by a range of 2 to 200 and s011e of the etals and sebullhohtlle cobullpounds llftre near the quanti tat ton 1 fbulltt of the analytical equlpraent

These findings of course are based on the treatalent and analysh of residues fr011 a fres hl y prepared synthetic soil CoMparable studies uti shylizing aged and IUthered soils fr011 actual Superfund si t es o~re necessary to put these results Into proper perspective Such studies are currently In progress and results are expected to be avatlable In late 1988

14

I I I I

Jil 1 I

--a=~bullrrbull fr ~Jil

I

=~ ~a

II)

~~ 51

51

Reduction

0 0 ~ 0 2l ~ 8

I

(fi e J (

ifl iE~ f

~~~~middot i I~~l ~

ag=- ~ ~a

L I j_ j_ j

Volatiles 9921 J Semivolatilesgt9980 J

Metala 9400 I

Volatiles 9923 J

I Semiwlatilea 5480 I

Metela -7710

Volatllea 8990 J Semiwletllea 9030 J

Metals 7660 J

Volatiles 9630 J Semi110latiles 9650 J

Metals 6340 J

Volatiles 9760 I Seml110latiles 9880 I

Metals 9510 I

I I I I

~~ ~~ tl~il~

91

Reduction

8~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0

I

I

L _

I I I I I

LDw Temp Thermal 9923

Incineration 9921

Soila Wahlng 9830

Solidification 9780

Chemical Treat 8990 I

Incineration gt 9980

Solidification 9880

bull Soila Wlhing 9850 I KPEG 9030 I

LDw Temp 5460 J

Solidi fication 9510 I lncinere tion 9400 I

Soils Washing 8340 I KPEG 7650 J

LDw Temp Thermal Desorb bull 77)0

(

i ~

fo Hi

yen i ~ ~

~

u

------- ----

()

Table6 Summary of Treatment Efficiencies as Measured by TWA

-middot -Oopnlca__ -middot 1- Oopnlca

~-- -middot~---shy SAAMIV--shy_ 111 SoiWW middot2 --Ot O~JebullIU(GII

UI S-middot2---shy

l14llt Sooi_SoiW2-bull10-~ no__

th shy TlwiNIO fMCJI f

n-wo-t t 5~f shy IQOWhIIIUlGI2

gtMOO t21 S middot bullt~~~c- middot - OS middot II__ cNIIIIt __--ftl _ u bull amp nIO f iIPF

t1t OIPIG-n -~middot tAtllilt t~t o UfG n

lO ~ 550

gt gtWIO

n s z __ gtftft

QIS middot2-~ 010-UlGil _ 110__ ftls-1 2-bullHO-cMIIIII - ~CMOwll21 at

m o-c--utGn s 10 -cte middot~~_ uoo notsw no - 0010

l1lQl a-_UlGrlstl_ __ cas_z-owshyt41S middot2-~

15tslll 2bulllO----shyS lbullnG-ctllllll

tJJw---t-bull150- middot ~-UlG I2

-~UOll-

IIDI Solli

__ gtOIJO

gtftiO

___ lb swwwg __

tltSollmiddot2-shy141 o- lui UEG 11 t~a- n w--nr~o t SOf

f71 Sollityen11Bfw12-bull110--shy

~~~ ~~----cii ~AIO

IO Sollww-g

__

QJ s- _ Cli S -bull2__ s z_ct- rs O f HCrJ o-I UlGIIIIft

UlO m sr-zJtO--- 10gt0 SJbullZ50shy bull srr-zbullHOct~~~Wa nato- ~n

gt1111 IOD 1110

11 aat_ltrpoundG11

t2JarcI-KPEGU

OI S middotJ-~ gt0100

511111 middot2shy gt141

bull Sof _-shy12J5olliwnhnfmiddot2-~ ot a-1 _ Ol(i

t4Jo-llhliiiUfGI1

df~~--ltet

II Soll 2bulll50

en sl bullMO -- llt~COlt

lllO o

111 518middot2-shytlt S-middot2-- Ot Sooh-2bull250-shy~ Sae 2bullJSO----shy~~ Will

-~ltMOullll

f11S middot2-shy121 511111 middot2-c-- Ql Wll bulll----shy MtS 2bull150-cw r5tS 2bull2SD----shy

0020 SMJ2bull250---shy_ lll a-UpoundGn

gtMIO J11 S 2 -bullJSO- l2l stl middot2-c-- Cliiiiii middotJ-shy bulloo MtS J-bullHO---shyr5t~l Womiddot-- 210- dlllot- tJt ~--OJI 4iit

nt stl middot2shy--shyQt S middotJ-~ Qt sww middot2 shy

-S 2bullHO-~

amp sti JbulllSO-shy-~l~Wo

~ uo

Ol D

1110

10 10

ClliOOD IAUYlUSDIIMCIY __lol JYSOclSIQ iiSOII ~

lA IIIlA IIIU A M JIWIII

~~ ~~ Ill

21

81

RIHiuotlon

0 0 ~ - g 0 8

c

I j_ 1 I

Incinerat ion - TWA bull 6270 I Incineration bull TCLP bull 9400 J

=J KPEG bull Chemical Treltmant 1510 bull TWA

KPEG - Chemical Treatment bull TCLP bull 7650 I

Soill Wuhlng TWA 7670 I Soils Washing - TCLP bull 8340 I

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption middot TWA bull -1190

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption - TCLP bull -7710

Solidification J Kiln Dust bull TWA bull 4380 -Solidification - Kiln Dust bull TCLP bull 9510 I

l

f

-~~ ()

r i

-a~ middot ~ -=shy

~ iii

u

I I I I

61

Reduction

0 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 _l I _l J I

Incineration middot TWA middot gt9999 16

- Incineration bull TCLP bull 9923

KPEG Chemical Treatment bull TWA 9996 16

KPEG bull Chemical Treatment TCLP 8990 J

Soill Walhlng bull TWA bull 9981

Soils Washing bull TCLP 9830 16 I

Low Temp Thermal Desorption middot TWA 9979 16

Low Temp Thermal Desorption bull TCLP 9923 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TWA 9855 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TCLP 9760 _16 _I

f ir

~~~ middotmiddotmiddot0

riE~ a=E [[h ~

() n~i 0ac~ iii

I

IIIJJ)aIt= I~

llf

oz Reduction

0 0 ~ 2l ~ 8j_ 1 I 1

lncineretion - TWAgt9998

lnclneretion - TCLPgt9980

f KPEG bull Chemicel lieetment - TWA 9580 J

KPEG - Chemical Treetment - TCLP 9030 I

Soil Walhing - TwA - 8140 J Soil Washing bull TCLP - 9650 J

Low Temp Thermal IDesorption - TWA 4160

Low Temp Thermal Desorption 1-TCLP bull 5460

Solidification - TWA - 8770 1 Solidification TCLP bull 9880

lf ~

-JJIa ~~[E~ E lu 0 g~~ iii00~

=~ ~a

II)

~~ 51

51

Reduction

0 0 ~ 0 2l ~ 8

I

(fi e J (

ifl iE~ f

~~~~middot i I~~l ~

ag=- ~ ~a

L I j_ j_ j

Volatiles 9921 J Semivolatilesgt9980 J

Metala 9400 I

Volatiles 9923 J

I Semiwlatilea 5480 I

Metela -7710

Volatllea 8990 J Semiwletllea 9030 J

Metals 7660 J

Volatiles 9630 J Semi110latiles 9650 J

Metals 6340 J

Volatiles 9760 I Seml110latiles 9880 I

Metals 9510 I

I I I I

~~ ~~ tl~il~

91

Reduction

8~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0

I

I

L _

I I I I I

LDw Temp Thermal 9923

Incineration 9921

Soila Wahlng 9830

Solidification 9780

Chemical Treat 8990 I

Incineration gt 9980

Solidification 9880

bull Soila Wlhing 9850 I KPEG 9030 I

LDw Temp 5460 J

Solidi fication 9510 I lncinere tion 9400 I

Soils Washing 8340 I KPEG 7650 J

LDw Temp Thermal Desorb bull 77)0

(

i ~

fo Hi

yen i ~ ~

~

u

------- ----

()

Table6 Summary of Treatment Efficiencies as Measured by TWA

-middot -Oopnlca__ -middot 1- Oopnlca

~-- -middot~---shy SAAMIV--shy_ 111 SoiWW middot2 --Ot O~JebullIU(GII

UI S-middot2---shy

l14llt Sooi_SoiW2-bull10-~ no__

th shy TlwiNIO fMCJI f

n-wo-t t 5~f shy IQOWhIIIUlGI2

gtMOO t21 S middot bullt~~~c- middot - OS middot II__ cNIIIIt __--ftl _ u bull amp nIO f iIPF

t1t OIPIG-n -~middot tAtllilt t~t o UfG n

lO ~ 550

gt gtWIO

n s z __ gtftft

QIS middot2-~ 010-UlGil _ 110__ ftls-1 2-bullHO-cMIIIII - ~CMOwll21 at

m o-c--utGn s 10 -cte middot~~_ uoo notsw no - 0010

l1lQl a-_UlGrlstl_ __ cas_z-owshyt41S middot2-~

15tslll 2bulllO----shyS lbullnG-ctllllll

tJJw---t-bull150- middot ~-UlG I2

-~UOll-

IIDI Solli

__ gtOIJO

gtftiO

___ lb swwwg __

tltSollmiddot2-shy141 o- lui UEG 11 t~a- n w--nr~o t SOf

f71 Sollityen11Bfw12-bull110--shy

~~~ ~~----cii ~AIO

IO Sollww-g

__

QJ s- _ Cli S -bull2__ s z_ct- rs O f HCrJ o-I UlGIIIIft

UlO m sr-zJtO--- 10gt0 SJbullZ50shy bull srr-zbullHOct~~~Wa nato- ~n

gt1111 IOD 1110

11 aat_ltrpoundG11

t2JarcI-KPEGU

OI S middotJ-~ gt0100

511111 middot2shy gt141

bull Sof _-shy12J5olliwnhnfmiddot2-~ ot a-1 _ Ol(i

t4Jo-llhliiiUfGI1

df~~--ltet

II Soll 2bulll50

en sl bullMO -- llt~COlt

lllO o

111 518middot2-shytlt S-middot2-- Ot Sooh-2bull250-shy~ Sae 2bullJSO----shy~~ Will

-~ltMOullll

f11S middot2-shy121 511111 middot2-c-- Ql Wll bulll----shy MtS 2bull150-cw r5tS 2bull2SD----shy

0020 SMJ2bull250---shy_ lll a-UpoundGn

gtMIO J11 S 2 -bullJSO- l2l stl middot2-c-- Cliiiiii middotJ-shy bulloo MtS J-bullHO---shyr5t~l Womiddot-- 210- dlllot- tJt ~--OJI 4iit

nt stl middot2shy--shyQt S middotJ-~ Qt sww middot2 shy

-S 2bullHO-~

amp sti JbulllSO-shy-~l~Wo

~ uo

Ol D

1110

10 10

ClliOOD IAUYlUSDIIMCIY __lol JYSOclSIQ iiSOII ~

lA IIIlA IIIU A M JIWIII

~~ ~~ Ill

21

81

RIHiuotlon

0 0 ~ - g 0 8

c

I j_ 1 I

Incinerat ion - TWA bull 6270 I Incineration bull TCLP bull 9400 J

=J KPEG bull Chemical Treltmant 1510 bull TWA

KPEG - Chemical Treatment bull TCLP bull 7650 I

Soill Wuhlng TWA 7670 I Soils Washing - TCLP bull 8340 I

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption middot TWA bull -1190

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption - TCLP bull -7710

Solidification J Kiln Dust bull TWA bull 4380 -Solidification - Kiln Dust bull TCLP bull 9510 I

l

f

-~~ ()

r i

-a~ middot ~ -=shy

~ iii

u

I I I I

61

Reduction

0 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 _l I _l J I

Incineration middot TWA middot gt9999 16

- Incineration bull TCLP bull 9923

KPEG Chemical Treatment bull TWA 9996 16

KPEG bull Chemical Treatment TCLP 8990 J

Soill Walhlng bull TWA bull 9981

Soils Washing bull TCLP 9830 16 I

Low Temp Thermal Desorption middot TWA 9979 16

Low Temp Thermal Desorption bull TCLP 9923 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TWA 9855 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TCLP 9760 _16 _I

f ir

~~~ middotmiddotmiddot0

riE~ a=E [[h ~

() n~i 0ac~ iii

I

IIIJJ)aIt= I~

llf

oz Reduction

0 0 ~ 2l ~ 8j_ 1 I 1

lncineretion - TWAgt9998

lnclneretion - TCLPgt9980

f KPEG bull Chemicel lieetment - TWA 9580 J

KPEG - Chemical Treetment - TCLP 9030 I

Soil Walhing - TwA - 8140 J Soil Washing bull TCLP - 9650 J

Low Temp Thermal IDesorption - TWA 4160

Low Temp Thermal Desorption 1-TCLP bull 5460

Solidification - TWA - 8770 1 Solidification TCLP bull 9880

lf ~

-JJIa ~~[E~ E lu 0 g~~ iii00~

I I I I

~~ ~~ tl~il~

91

Reduction

8~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0

I

I

L _

I I I I I

LDw Temp Thermal 9923

Incineration 9921

Soila Wahlng 9830

Solidification 9780

Chemical Treat 8990 I

Incineration gt 9980

Solidification 9880

bull Soila Wlhing 9850 I KPEG 9030 I

LDw Temp 5460 J

Solidi fication 9510 I lncinere tion 9400 I

Soils Washing 8340 I KPEG 7650 J

LDw Temp Thermal Desorb bull 77)0

(

i ~

fo Hi

yen i ~ ~

~

u

------- ----

()

Table6 Summary of Treatment Efficiencies as Measured by TWA

-middot -Oopnlca__ -middot 1- Oopnlca

~-- -middot~---shy SAAMIV--shy_ 111 SoiWW middot2 --Ot O~JebullIU(GII

UI S-middot2---shy

l14llt Sooi_SoiW2-bull10-~ no__

th shy TlwiNIO fMCJI f

n-wo-t t 5~f shy IQOWhIIIUlGI2

gtMOO t21 S middot bullt~~~c- middot - OS middot II__ cNIIIIt __--ftl _ u bull amp nIO f iIPF

t1t OIPIG-n -~middot tAtllilt t~t o UfG n

lO ~ 550

gt gtWIO

n s z __ gtftft

QIS middot2-~ 010-UlGil _ 110__ ftls-1 2-bullHO-cMIIIII - ~CMOwll21 at

m o-c--utGn s 10 -cte middot~~_ uoo notsw no - 0010

l1lQl a-_UlGrlstl_ __ cas_z-owshyt41S middot2-~

15tslll 2bulllO----shyS lbullnG-ctllllll

tJJw---t-bull150- middot ~-UlG I2

-~UOll-

IIDI Solli

__ gtOIJO

gtftiO

___ lb swwwg __

tltSollmiddot2-shy141 o- lui UEG 11 t~a- n w--nr~o t SOf

f71 Sollityen11Bfw12-bull110--shy

~~~ ~~----cii ~AIO

IO Sollww-g

__

QJ s- _ Cli S -bull2__ s z_ct- rs O f HCrJ o-I UlGIIIIft

UlO m sr-zJtO--- 10gt0 SJbullZ50shy bull srr-zbullHOct~~~Wa nato- ~n

gt1111 IOD 1110

11 aat_ltrpoundG11

t2JarcI-KPEGU

OI S middotJ-~ gt0100

511111 middot2shy gt141

bull Sof _-shy12J5olliwnhnfmiddot2-~ ot a-1 _ Ol(i

t4Jo-llhliiiUfGI1

df~~--ltet

II Soll 2bulll50

en sl bullMO -- llt~COlt

lllO o

111 518middot2-shytlt S-middot2-- Ot Sooh-2bull250-shy~ Sae 2bullJSO----shy~~ Will

-~ltMOullll

f11S middot2-shy121 511111 middot2-c-- Ql Wll bulll----shy MtS 2bull150-cw r5tS 2bull2SD----shy

0020 SMJ2bull250---shy_ lll a-UpoundGn

gtMIO J11 S 2 -bullJSO- l2l stl middot2-c-- Cliiiiii middotJ-shy bulloo MtS J-bullHO---shyr5t~l Womiddot-- 210- dlllot- tJt ~--OJI 4iit

nt stl middot2shy--shyQt S middotJ-~ Qt sww middot2 shy

-S 2bullHO-~

amp sti JbulllSO-shy-~l~Wo

~ uo

Ol D

1110

10 10

ClliOOD IAUYlUSDIIMCIY __lol JYSOclSIQ iiSOII ~

lA IIIlA IIIU A M JIWIII

~~ ~~ Ill

21

81

RIHiuotlon

0 0 ~ - g 0 8

c

I j_ 1 I

Incinerat ion - TWA bull 6270 I Incineration bull TCLP bull 9400 J

=J KPEG bull Chemical Treltmant 1510 bull TWA

KPEG - Chemical Treatment bull TCLP bull 7650 I

Soill Wuhlng TWA 7670 I Soils Washing - TCLP bull 8340 I

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption middot TWA bull -1190

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption - TCLP bull -7710

Solidification J Kiln Dust bull TWA bull 4380 -Solidification - Kiln Dust bull TCLP bull 9510 I

l

f

-~~ ()

r i

-a~ middot ~ -=shy

~ iii

u

I I I I

61

Reduction

0 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 _l I _l J I

Incineration middot TWA middot gt9999 16

- Incineration bull TCLP bull 9923

KPEG Chemical Treatment bull TWA 9996 16

KPEG bull Chemical Treatment TCLP 8990 J

Soill Walhlng bull TWA bull 9981

Soils Washing bull TCLP 9830 16 I

Low Temp Thermal Desorption middot TWA 9979 16

Low Temp Thermal Desorption bull TCLP 9923 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TWA 9855 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TCLP 9760 _16 _I

f ir

~~~ middotmiddotmiddot0

riE~ a=E [[h ~

() n~i 0ac~ iii

I

IIIJJ)aIt= I~

llf

oz Reduction

0 0 ~ 2l ~ 8j_ 1 I 1

lncineretion - TWAgt9998

lnclneretion - TCLPgt9980

f KPEG bull Chemicel lieetment - TWA 9580 J

KPEG - Chemical Treetment - TCLP 9030 I

Soil Walhing - TwA - 8140 J Soil Washing bull TCLP - 9650 J

Low Temp Thermal IDesorption - TWA 4160

Low Temp Thermal Desorption 1-TCLP bull 5460

Solidification - TWA - 8770 1 Solidification TCLP bull 9880

lf ~

-JJIa ~~[E~ E lu 0 g~~ iii00~

------- ----

()

Table6 Summary of Treatment Efficiencies as Measured by TWA

-middot -Oopnlca__ -middot 1- Oopnlca

~-- -middot~---shy SAAMIV--shy_ 111 SoiWW middot2 --Ot O~JebullIU(GII

UI S-middot2---shy

l14llt Sooi_SoiW2-bull10-~ no__

th shy TlwiNIO fMCJI f

n-wo-t t 5~f shy IQOWhIIIUlGI2

gtMOO t21 S middot bullt~~~c- middot - OS middot II__ cNIIIIt __--ftl _ u bull amp nIO f iIPF

t1t OIPIG-n -~middot tAtllilt t~t o UfG n

lO ~ 550

gt gtWIO

n s z __ gtftft

QIS middot2-~ 010-UlGil _ 110__ ftls-1 2-bullHO-cMIIIII - ~CMOwll21 at

m o-c--utGn s 10 -cte middot~~_ uoo notsw no - 0010

l1lQl a-_UlGrlstl_ __ cas_z-owshyt41S middot2-~

15tslll 2bulllO----shyS lbullnG-ctllllll

tJJw---t-bull150- middot ~-UlG I2

-~UOll-

IIDI Solli

__ gtOIJO

gtftiO

___ lb swwwg __

tltSollmiddot2-shy141 o- lui UEG 11 t~a- n w--nr~o t SOf

f71 Sollityen11Bfw12-bull110--shy

~~~ ~~----cii ~AIO

IO Sollww-g

__

QJ s- _ Cli S -bull2__ s z_ct- rs O f HCrJ o-I UlGIIIIft

UlO m sr-zJtO--- 10gt0 SJbullZ50shy bull srr-zbullHOct~~~Wa nato- ~n

gt1111 IOD 1110

11 aat_ltrpoundG11

t2JarcI-KPEGU

OI S middotJ-~ gt0100

511111 middot2shy gt141

bull Sof _-shy12J5olliwnhnfmiddot2-~ ot a-1 _ Ol(i

t4Jo-llhliiiUfGI1

df~~--ltet

II Soll 2bulll50

en sl bullMO -- llt~COlt

lllO o

111 518middot2-shytlt S-middot2-- Ot Sooh-2bull250-shy~ Sae 2bullJSO----shy~~ Will

-~ltMOullll

f11S middot2-shy121 511111 middot2-c-- Ql Wll bulll----shy MtS 2bull150-cw r5tS 2bull2SD----shy

0020 SMJ2bull250---shy_ lll a-UpoundGn

gtMIO J11 S 2 -bullJSO- l2l stl middot2-c-- Cliiiiii middotJ-shy bulloo MtS J-bullHO---shyr5t~l Womiddot-- 210- dlllot- tJt ~--OJI 4iit

nt stl middot2shy--shyQt S middotJ-~ Qt sww middot2 shy

-S 2bullHO-~

amp sti JbulllSO-shy-~l~Wo

~ uo

Ol D

1110

10 10

ClliOOD IAUYlUSDIIMCIY __lol JYSOclSIQ iiSOII ~

lA IIIlA IIIU A M JIWIII

~~ ~~ Ill

21

81

RIHiuotlon

0 0 ~ - g 0 8

c

I j_ 1 I

Incinerat ion - TWA bull 6270 I Incineration bull TCLP bull 9400 J

=J KPEG bull Chemical Treltmant 1510 bull TWA

KPEG - Chemical Treatment bull TCLP bull 7650 I

Soill Wuhlng TWA 7670 I Soils Washing - TCLP bull 8340 I

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption middot TWA bull -1190

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption - TCLP bull -7710

Solidification J Kiln Dust bull TWA bull 4380 -Solidification - Kiln Dust bull TCLP bull 9510 I

l

f

-~~ ()

r i

-a~ middot ~ -=shy

~ iii

u

I I I I

61

Reduction

0 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 _l I _l J I

Incineration middot TWA middot gt9999 16

- Incineration bull TCLP bull 9923

KPEG Chemical Treatment bull TWA 9996 16

KPEG bull Chemical Treatment TCLP 8990 J

Soill Walhlng bull TWA bull 9981

Soils Washing bull TCLP 9830 16 I

Low Temp Thermal Desorption middot TWA 9979 16

Low Temp Thermal Desorption bull TCLP 9923 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TWA 9855 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TCLP 9760 _16 _I

f ir

~~~ middotmiddotmiddot0

riE~ a=E [[h ~

() n~i 0ac~ iii

I

IIIJJ)aIt= I~

llf

oz Reduction

0 0 ~ 2l ~ 8j_ 1 I 1

lncineretion - TWAgt9998

lnclneretion - TCLPgt9980

f KPEG bull Chemicel lieetment - TWA 9580 J

KPEG - Chemical Treetment - TCLP 9030 I

Soil Walhing - TwA - 8140 J Soil Washing bull TCLP - 9650 J

Low Temp Thermal IDesorption - TWA 4160

Low Temp Thermal Desorption 1-TCLP bull 5460

Solidification - TWA - 8770 1 Solidification TCLP bull 9880

lf ~

-JJIa ~~[E~ E lu 0 g~~ iii00~

~~ ~~ Ill

21

81

RIHiuotlon

0 0 ~ - g 0 8

c

I j_ 1 I

Incinerat ion - TWA bull 6270 I Incineration bull TCLP bull 9400 J

=J KPEG bull Chemical Treltmant 1510 bull TWA

KPEG - Chemical Treatment bull TCLP bull 7650 I

Soill Wuhlng TWA 7670 I Soils Washing - TCLP bull 8340 I

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption middot TWA bull -1190

Low Temperature Thermal Desorption - TCLP bull -7710

Solidification J Kiln Dust bull TWA bull 4380 -Solidification - Kiln Dust bull TCLP bull 9510 I

l

f

-~~ ()

r i

-a~ middot ~ -=shy

~ iii

u

I I I I

61

Reduction

0 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 _l I _l J I

Incineration middot TWA middot gt9999 16

- Incineration bull TCLP bull 9923

KPEG Chemical Treatment bull TWA 9996 16

KPEG bull Chemical Treatment TCLP 8990 J

Soill Walhlng bull TWA bull 9981

Soils Washing bull TCLP 9830 16 I

Low Temp Thermal Desorption middot TWA 9979 16

Low Temp Thermal Desorption bull TCLP 9923 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TWA 9855 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TCLP 9760 _16 _I

f ir

~~~ middotmiddotmiddot0

riE~ a=E [[h ~

() n~i 0ac~ iii

I

IIIJJ)aIt= I~

llf

oz Reduction

0 0 ~ 2l ~ 8j_ 1 I 1

lncineretion - TWAgt9998

lnclneretion - TCLPgt9980

f KPEG bull Chemicel lieetment - TWA 9580 J

KPEG - Chemical Treetment - TCLP 9030 I

Soil Walhing - TwA - 8140 J Soil Washing bull TCLP - 9650 J

Low Temp Thermal IDesorption - TWA 4160

Low Temp Thermal Desorption 1-TCLP bull 5460

Solidification - TWA - 8770 1 Solidification TCLP bull 9880

lf ~

-JJIa ~~[E~ E lu 0 g~~ iii00~

61

Reduction

0 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 _l I _l J I

Incineration middot TWA middot gt9999 16

- Incineration bull TCLP bull 9923

KPEG Chemical Treatment bull TWA 9996 16

KPEG bull Chemical Treatment TCLP 8990 J

Soill Walhlng bull TWA bull 9981

Soils Washing bull TCLP 9830 16 I

Low Temp Thermal Desorption middot TWA 9979 16

Low Temp Thermal Desorption bull TCLP 9923 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TWA 9855 16

Solidification bull Kiln Dust bull TCLP 9760 _16 _I

f ir

~~~ middotmiddotmiddot0

riE~ a=E [[h ~

() n~i 0ac~ iii

I

IIIJJ)aIt= I~

llf

oz Reduction

0 0 ~ 2l ~ 8j_ 1 I 1

lncineretion - TWAgt9998

lnclneretion - TCLPgt9980

f KPEG bull Chemicel lieetment - TWA 9580 J

KPEG - Chemical Treetment - TCLP 9030 I

Soil Walhing - TwA - 8140 J Soil Washing bull TCLP - 9650 J

Low Temp Thermal IDesorption - TWA 4160

Low Temp Thermal Desorption 1-TCLP bull 5460

Solidification - TWA - 8770 1 Solidification TCLP bull 9880

lf ~

-JJIa ~~[E~ E lu 0 g~~ iii00~

oz Reduction

0 0 ~ 2l ~ 8j_ 1 I 1

lncineretion - TWAgt9998

lnclneretion - TCLPgt9980

f KPEG bull Chemicel lieetment - TWA 9580 J

KPEG - Chemical Treetment - TCLP 9030 I

Soil Walhing - TwA - 8140 J Soil Washing bull TCLP - 9650 J

Low Temp Thermal IDesorption - TWA 4160

Low Temp Thermal Desorption 1-TCLP bull 5460

Solidification - TWA - 8770 1 Solidification TCLP bull 9880

lf ~

-JJIa ~~[E~ E lu 0 g~~ iii00~