FINAL REPORT REVISION 0 - United States Environmental ...FINAL REPORT REVISION 0 SEDIMENT OPERABLE...

FINAL REPORTREVISION 0

SEDIMENT OPERABLE UNITCOMBINED DESIGNINVESTIGATIONFINAL REPORTS

FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

VOLUME 2

Solidification DesignInvestigation (SLDI)

Prepared forFields Brook PRP OrganizationFebruary 1995

Woodward-Clyde Consultants122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1920Chicago, Illinois 60603

Project Number: 86C3609 P-460

Woodward-ClydeConsultants SLDI Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

0.0 SOLIDIFICATION DESIGN INVESTIGATION (SLDI)EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0-1

0.1 SOLIDIFICATION DESIGN INVESTIGATION (SLDI) 0-1OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

0.2 SUMMARY OF STUDIES 0-20.3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 0-3

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1-11.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK 1-21.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOs) 1-31.4 WORK PLAN MODIFICATIONS/DEVIATIONS 1-4

2.0 FIELD SAMPLING STUDY 2-1

2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES 2-1

2.2 SEDIMENT SAMPLING 2-1

2.2.1 Reconnaissance of Sample Locations 2-12.2.2 Sampling Equipment 2-22.2.3 Sampling Procedures 2-32.2.4 Sample Handling and Chain of Custody 2-4

2.3 SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 2-5

2.3.1 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) andPolychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)Screening of Sediments 2-5

2.3.2 Sediment Chemical Characteristics 2-62.3.3 Sediment Physical Characteristics 2-9

2.4 DATA VALIDATION 2-10

3.0 BENCH-SCALE SOLIDIFICATION TREATABILITY STUDY 3-1

1 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.63.7

STUDY OBJECTIVES

DESCRIPTION OF TEST PROCEDURES

3.2.1 Mix Development3.2.2 Physical Testing3.2.3 Chemical Testing

PHASE 1 TESTING

3.3.1 Physical Test Results3.3.2 Chemical Test Results

PHASE 2 TESTING

3.4.1 Physical Test Results3.4,2 Chemical Test Results

VERIFICATION PHASE TESTING

3.5.1 Physical Test Results3.5.2 Chemical Test Results

DATA VALIDATIONCONCLUSIONS

4.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.14.24.34.44.54.64.7

WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATIONPERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SOLIDIFICATIONDESIGN CRITERIAPERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONSGUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORINGRESIDUALS DISPOSALPRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR SOLIDIFICATIONACTIVITIES

3-1

3-1

3-13-23-4

3-6

3-63-9

3-10

3-113-14

3-15

3-163-17

3-223-22

4-1

4-14-34-64-64-74-8

4-9

5.0 REFERENCES 5-1

11 02-15-95L\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDtRPT.RVO RevUioo 0



LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1A VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs) IN UNTREATED SLDISEDIMENT

TABLE 2-1B SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs) IN UNTREATEDSLDI SEDIMENT

TABLE 2-1C PESTICIDES AND POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) INUNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

TABLE 2-ID METALS IN UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

TABLE 2-2 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs) IN PRE-HOMOGENIZEDAND HOMOGENIZED SEDIMENT SAMPLES

TABLE 2-3A TCLP LEACHABILITY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOCs) FROM UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

TABLE 2-3B TCLP LEACHABILITY OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(SVOCs) IN TCLP LEACHATE FROM UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

TABLE 2-3C TCLP LEACHABILITY OF PESTICIDES, POLYCHLORINATEDBIPHENYLS (PCBs) AND CHLORINATED HERBICIDES FROMUNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

TABLE 2-3D TCLP LEACHABILITY OF METALS FROM UNTREATED SLDISEDIMENT

TABLE 2-4 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

TABLE 3-1 PHASE 1 MIX DESIGNS AND TESTING

TABLE 3-2 PHASE 2 MIX DESIGNS AND TESTING

TABLE 3-3 VERIFICATION PHASE MIX DESIGN AND TESTING

TABLE 3-4 PHASE 1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLIDIFIEDREACH 2-1 SEDIMENT

111 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Reviiion 0



TABLE 3-5

TABLE 3-6

TABLE 3-7

TABLE 3-8

TABLE 3-9

TABLE 3-10A

TABLE 3-10B

TABLE 3-10C

TABLE 3-10D

TABLE 3-11

TABLE 3-12

TABLE 3-13

TABLE 3-14A

SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTHS AND POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTHINDEXES

PHASE 1 TCLP RESULTS FOR SOLIDIFIED SAMPLES

PHASE 2 PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS FOR SOLIDIFIEDREACH 2-2 AND REACH 11-4 SEDIMENT

SUMMARY OF PHASE 2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTHS AND POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTHINDEXES

28-DAY PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS FOR SELECTEDPHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENTS

PHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT: TCL VOCs IN ANS 16.1LEACHATE

PHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT: TCL SVOCs IN ANS 16.1LEACHATE

PHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT: TCL PCBs IN ANS 16.1LEACHATE

PHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT: TAL METALS IN ANS 16.1LEACHATE

VERIFICATION PHASE PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION PHASE UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS AND POCKET PENETROMETERSTRENGTH INDEXES

28-DAY PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS FOR VERIFICATIONPHASE MIXES

48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHABILITY OF SOLIDIFIEDREACH 2-2 SEDIMENT

IVI:\FBK\SLDIRIT\SLDIRPT.RVO

02-15-95Revision 0



TABLE 3-14B

TABLE 3-14C

TABLE 3-15A

TABLE 3-15B

TABLE 3-16

48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHABILITY OF SOLIDIFIEDREACH 11-4 SEDIMENT

48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHABILITY OF SOLIDIFIEDTTDI ASH AND SDWTDI SLUDGE

MODIFIED SETUP 48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHABILITY OFSOLIDIFIED REACH 2-2 SEDIMENT

MODIFIED SETUP 48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHABILITY OFSOLIDIFIED REACH 11-4 SEDIMENT

HAZARDOUS CHARACTERISTICS TESTING OFVERIFICATION PHASE SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENTS

I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO02-15-95

Revision 0



LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2-1 PHASE 1 SAMPLING LOCATION IN REACH 2-1, CROSS SECTION 7



FIGURE 2-4 SEDIMENT SAMPLING DIAGRAM

FIGURE 3-1 PHASE 1 BULKING RATIOS VS. REAGENT-TO-SEDIMENT RATIOS

FIGURE 3-2 PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS VS.REAGENT-TO-SEDIMENT RATIOS

FIGURE 3-3 PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS VS. TIME OFMIXES SELECTED FOR TCLP

FIGURE 3-4 PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS VS. POCKETPENETROMETER STRENGTH INDEXES

FIGURE 3-5 REGRESSION MODEL OF PHASE 2 DATA: 50 PSI UNCONFINEDCOMPRESSIVE STRENGTH CONTOURS AS FUNCTION OFSEDIMENT WATER CONTENT ANDREAGENT-TO-SEDIMENT RATIO

FIGURE 3-6 RELATIONSHIP OF PHASE 2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTHS BETWEEN CUBE AND CYLINDRICAL SAMPLES

VI 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0



LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 USEPA APPROVAL AND STANDARD OPERATINGPROCEDURE FOR MODIFffiD SETUP FOR ANS METHOD 16.1

ATTACHMENT 2 MARCH 17, 1994 LETTER FROMU.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


LIST OF APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

BULKING RATIO CALCULATIONS

LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH INDEXAND UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STOENGTH

CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OFSOLIDIFYING REAGENTS

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND REGRESSION MODEL OFPHASE 2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -PHASE 1 (VOLUME I)

FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -PHASE 1 (VOLUME II)

FIELDS BROOK STUDY: PHASE 1 (ADDENDUM)

FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -PHASE 2

vnl:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO

02-15-95Revision 0



APPENDIX I FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -VERIFICATION TESTING MIXTURE DATA LOG

APPENDIX J FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -MODIFIED ANS 16.1 TESTING

APPENDIX K RESISTANCE TO MICROBIAL GROWTH TEST REPORT

VUl 02-16-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0



LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 USEPA APPROVAL AND STANDARD OPERATINGPROCEDURE FOR MODIFIED SETUP FOR ANS METHOD 16.1



LIST OF APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

BULKING RATIO CALCULATIONS

LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH INDEXAND UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OFSOLIDIFYING REAGENTS

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND REGRESSION MODEL OFPHASE 2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -PHASE 1 (VOLUME I)

FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -PHASE 1 (VOLUME II)

FIELDS BROOK STUDY: PHASE 1 (ADDENDUM)

FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORT -PHASE 2

VllJ:\FBK\SLDIWnSLDIRPT.RVO

02-15-95Revision 0



APPENDIX I FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORTVERIFICATION TESTING MIXTURE DATA LOG

APPENDIX J FIELDS BROOK TREATABILITY STUDY:SOLIDIFICATION TREATMENT FINAL REPORTMODIFIED ANS 16.1 TESTING

Vlll 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0



LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of VarianceANS American Nuclear SocietyARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsASTM American Society for Testing and MaterialsB bulking ratioCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCLP Contract Laboratory ProgramCUG Cleanup GoalsDQO data quality objectiveF percent fines in sedimentfcube unconfined compressive strength of cube sampleFBPRPO Fields Brook Potentially Responsible Parties OrganizationFID flame ionization detectorFSP Field Sampling PlanHazleton Hazleton Environmental LaboratoriesHDPE high density polyethyleneIWT International Waste TechnologiesKiber Kiber Environmental ServicesLAER Lowest Achievable Emission RateLDRs Land Disposal RestrictionsML low-plasticity siltMS/MSD Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike DuplicateN normalNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNCP National Contingency PlanNPL National Priorities ListNSPS New Source Performance StandardsOAC Ohio Administrative CodeOEPA Ohio Environmental Protection AgencyOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonPCB polychlorinated biphenylpcf pounds per cubic footPPI pocket penetrometer strength indexppm parts per millionPRP Potentially Responsible Partiespsi pounds per square inchQA/QC quality assurance/quality control

IXI:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO

02-15-95Revision 0



QAPjP Quality Assurance Project PlanR reagent-to-sediment ratioRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility StudyROD Record of DecisionSARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSDWTDI Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater Treatment Design InvestigationSLDI Solidification Design InvestigationSM silty sandSOU Sediment Operable UnitSOUEDI Sediment Operable Unit Engineering Design InvestigationSOW Statement of WorkSQDI Sediment Quantification Design InvestigationSVOA semi-volatile organic analysisSVOC semi-volatile organic compoundTAL Target Analyte ListTCL Target Compound ListTCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate ProcedureTOC total organic carbonTSD Treatment, Storage and Disposaltsf tons per square footTTDI Thermal Treatment Design InvestigationTWA Total Waste AnalysisUAO Unilateral Administrative OrderUCS unconfined compressive strengthUCScube unconfined compressive strength of cube specimenUCScyL unconfined compressive strength of cylindrical specimenUSEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyVOA volatile organic analysisVOC volatile organic compoundw sediment water contentWCC Woodward-Clyde Consultants

I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO02-15-95

Revision 0


0.0SOLIDIFICATION DESIGN INVESTIGATION (SLDI)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

0.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

The Solidification Design Investigation (SLDI) was conducted to collect and generate datafor designing a solidification process as part of the remedial activities planned for the FieldsBrook site in Ashtabula, Ohio. The following objectives were presented for the SLDI in theFields Brook Sediment Operable Unit Engineering Design (SOUEDI) Statements of Work(SOW) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 1989a):

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of solidification in reducing the mobility ofcontaminants in solidified sediment;

• Establish the measurements of treatment effectiveness and guidelines forperformance monitoring;

• Identify Potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements(ARARs) for land disposal of solidified materials; and

• Develop basic design criteria for performance specifications, including refinedestimates of the landfill capacity required for the disposal of solidified wastes.

The SLDI objectives were accomplished by performing the following activities:

Field sampling of sediment;Obtaining solidifying reagents from vendors;Characterization of sediment samples and solidifying reagents;A phased bench-scale treatability study;Data validation, review and summary;Data evaluation and conclusions; andReview regulations and laws pertinent to waste processing, treatment anddisposal.

The sediment would be considered suitably solidified in the SLDI for the purpose ofstructural integrity if the solidified matrix met or exceeded the following criteria (USEPA

0-1 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDKPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0


1992) using the methods specified in the approved SLDI Work Plan, Revision 2A, datedSeptember 1993:

• No free liquids (USEPA Method SW-846-9095);

• Nonreactive (USEPA SW-846 Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4);

Nonpyrophoric (USEPA SW-846-1010/1020);

• Resistant to microbial growth (American Society for Testing and Materials[ASTM] Methods G 21 and G 22);

• Minimum unconfmed compressive strength (UCS) of 50 pounds per squareinch (psi) (ASTM Method D 1633); and

• Wet/dry and freeze/thaw durability (ASTM Methods D 4843 and D 4842);

The SLDI Work Plan gave the following criteria for meeting the permanence requirementunder the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA):

• Constituent concentrations in leachate generated using the ToxicityCharacteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) not to exceed ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory limits; and

• Total Waste Analysis (TWA) of TCLP leachate demonstrating at least a 90percent reduction in concentration compared to untreated sediments.

Included in this report is a summary of data collected and evaluated during the course ofthe SLDI. In addition, preliminary design criteria are presented and discussed. These dataand preliminary design criteria will be reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, insubsequent stages of the Remedial Design.

0.2 SUMMARY OF STUDIES

The SLDI consisted of two basic studies: field sampling and bench-scale treatability testing.

The field sampling study consisted of the following activities:

0-2 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO RevUion 0


reconnaissance of three proposed sampling locations;sediment sample collection for characterization and treatability testing;sediment screening for chemical constituents;chemical and physical characterization of sediment;a volatilization study on field-mixed versus non-mixed sediment; andtracking and shipping of sediment samples to the laboratory.

The bench-scale treatability study consisted of the following activities:

• collection of the following solidifying reagents: portland cement, Class F flyash, hydrated dolomitic lime, cement kiln dust, and HWT-7/11 and HWT-25,proprietary reagents from International Waste Technologies (IWT);

• chemical and physical characterization of reagents;

• Phase 1 treatability study: screening and selection of solidification reagentsand mix ratios to evaluate their effectiveness in terms of UCS, teachabilityand absence of free liquids;

• Phase 2 treatability study: evaluation of mixes using two reagents selectedfrom Phase 1 in terms of bulking, free liquids, UCS, freeze/thaw and wet/drydurability and monolithic leachability, and selection of a final design mix;

• Verification Phase testing: evaluating the final design mix in terms of freeliquids, UCS, freeze/thaw and wet/dry durability, resistance to microbialgrowth, monolithic leachability, and RCRA hazardous characteristics ofreactivity and ignitability.

0.3 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Samples of coarse-grained sediment from Reaches 2-1 and 2-2 and fine-grained sedimentfrom Reach 11-4 of Fields Brook were collected for the bench-scale treatability study.Reach 2-1 and 2-2 sediments were classified as silty sands (SM) and Reach 11-4 sedimentwas classified as silt (ML). The water contents of the sediments ranged from 37 to 51percent (dry-weight basis) and had wet unit weights ranging from 103 to 105 pounds percubic foot (pcf). The coarse-grained sediments contained both organic and inorganicconstituents that included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), benzo(a)pyrene,hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury. The finersediment primarily contained inorganic chemical constituents that included arsenic,

0-3 02-J 5-95I:\FBK\SLDffiPT\SLDIRPT.RVO RevUion 0


chromium, lead, mercury and selenium.

Phase 1 Bench-Scale Solidification Study

Six solidifying reagents or blends which included portland cement, 1:2 portland cement-flyash blend, 1:2 hydrated lime-fly ash blend, 1:2 cement kiln dust-fly ash blend, andproprietary agents HWT-7/11 and HWT-25 were demonstrated to be effective at solidifyingReach 2-1 sediment. This reach was selected for reagent screening because the sedimentgradation and the broad range of organic and inorganic constituents would represent morechallenging conditions for solidification (SLDI Work Plan, 1993).

Mixes representing each of the six reagents yielded 28-day strengths of 50 psi or greater.Mixes having a minimum strength of 50 psi were demonstrated not to exhibit the RCRAtoxicity characteristic in leachate from the TCLP.

Portland cement at 25 percent dry sediment weight and the two proprietary agents at 20percent dry sediment weight produced the least volume increases (bulking) in the solidifiedsediment while meeting the 50-psi strength objective.

Phase 2 Bench-Scale Solidification Study

Portland cement, cement with fly ash and HWT-25 were selected for mix designoptimization on solidifying both coarse-grained sediment from Reach 2-2 and fine-grainedsediment from Reach 11-4. These locations were selected so that the mix would bedesigned for sediments with different grain size characteristics and chemical constituents.

At 11 percent cement-to-sediment, UCS ranged from approximately 35 psi to 50 psi. At 12percent HWT-25, UCS ranged from approximately 10 psi to 35 psi. The cement mixes wereselected for further study based on the higher strengths achieved at the lower reagent-to-sediment ratio.

Durability testing was performed on sediment samples solidified with 11 percent cement.The solidified samples lost less than 2 percent cumulative mass in wet/dry testing but lostbetween 20 and 60 percent cumulative mass in freeze/thaw testing. Test failure was defined

0-4 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRJT.RVO Revision 0


by ASTM D 4842 and D 4843 as 15 percent.

Leachability testing was performed on the 11-percent cement samples using AmericanNuclear Society (ANS) Method 16.1 modified for 48-hour duration to generate leachate.No volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or PCBs were detected in leachate from solidifiedReach 2-2 sediment. Two semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), benzoic acid andbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and two RCRA metals, arsenic and barium, were detected. Forsolidified Reach 11-4 sediment leachate, no VOCs, SVOCs or PCBs were detected, and onlyone RCRA metal, arsenic, was detected.

Verification Phase Treatability Study

A 15 percent cement-to-sediment ratio was selected for the Verification Phase based onstatistical analysis of Phase 2 UCS results to achieve a 28-day UCS on cylindrical samplesof 50 psi or greater and to improve freeze/thaw durability. The mix was tested on sedimentfrom Reaches 2-2 and 11-4 for comparison with Phase 2 results.

The solidified sediments were cured at room temperature (20 degrees C [68 degrees F]) andat 4 degrees C (40 degrees F) to evaluate the effect of cold-temperature curing on strengthdevelopment and durability. UCS ranged from 127 to 149 psi for samples that were curedat room temperature. The cold-cured samples had lower early strengths but ultimatelydeveloped 28-day strengths of 169 to 217 psi, exceeding the 28-day UCS of the room-temperature cured samples.

In wet/dry durability testing, both room-temperature and cold cured samples lost less than1 percent cumulative mass. Room-temperature cured samples experienced less than 4percent cumulative mass loss in freeze/thaw testing. Cold-temperature cured samples lostapproximately 2 percent cumulative mass or less. These losses are below the ASTMrecommended maximum of 15 percent.

All solidified sediments passed the paint filter test.

Leachate generated by ANS Method 16.1 did not contain detectable levels of SVOCs orPCBs. Three VOCs, acetone, benzene and methylene chloride, and two RCRA metals,

0-5 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Reviiioo 0


arsenic and barium, were detected in leachate from solidified Reach 2-2 sediment. TwoVOCs, acetone and methylene chloride, and two RCRA metals, barium and selenium, weredetected in leachate from solidified Reach 11-4 sediment Most compounds wereundetected in both the unsolidified and solidified sediment leachates. Some inorganics, suchas calcium and potassium, were observed to increase in the solidified sediment leachate.This was attributed to the portland cement. Other inorganics, such as magnesium,manganese and zinc, decreased in leachability by at least one order of magnitude in thesolidified sediments.

The solidified sediments were tested for the RCRA characteristics of ignitability, corrosivityand reactivity. Flashpoints of the solidified sediments were greater than 140 degrees F. ThepH ranged from 10.3 for solidified Reach 11-4 sediment to 11.8 for solidified Reach 2-2sediment, below the maximum regulatory guidance value of 12.5. Reactive cyanide was lessthan 0.05 mg/kg for both reaches compared to the regulatory guidance level of 250 mg/kg.Reactive sulfide ranged from 10.8 mg/kg for Reach 11-4 to 11.3 mg/kg for Reach 2-2, bothsignificantly below the regulatory guidance level of 500 mg/kg.

The solidified sediments were tested for resistance to microbial growth. No bacterial growthand only a trace (less than 10 percent) of fungal growth was observed. Fungal growth wasobserved only on undecayed plant matter on the surface of the solidified samples.

Thermal treatment ash from the Thermal Treatment Design Investigation (TTDI) andwastewater treatment sludge from the Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater TreatmentDesign Investigation (SDWTDI) were also solidified using the 15 percent cement mix. Thesolidified ash and sludge samples attained a 28-day UCS of 300 psi and 214 psi, respectively.Both passed the paint filter test. Only one RCRA metal, barium, was detected in ANSMethod 16.1 leachate. Additional physical and chemical testing could not be performedbecause of the lack of available residuals.

Conclusions

The SLDI bench-scale treatability study demonstrated that portland cement at a 15 percentdry sediment mix ratio effectively solidified the Fields Brook sediments examined, thermaltreatment ash and wastewater treatment sludge. Solidified sediments met the "no free

0-6 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Reviiion 0


liquids" requirement, exceeded the preliminary design strength of 50 psi, and werenonreactive, noncorrosive, nonpyrophoric, durable in freeze/thaw and wet/dry, and resistantto microbial growth except for a trace of fungi observed on undecayed plant matter.Solidified TTDI ash and SDWTDI sludge contained no free liquids and exceeded the UCSobjective of 50 psi.

The solidified sediments effectively immobilized most of the constituents of concern basedon constituent concentrations in ANS Method 16.1 leachate. Excluding VOCs which werenot of concern in the SLDI, the only detected analytes were three RCRA metals, arsenic,barium and selenium. Arsenic was detected in duplicate samples of leachate from solidifiedReach 2-2 sediment at estimated values slightly above the detection limit of 0.02 mg/kg. Thedetections occurred in only one aliquot per sample and at different time intervals for theduplicate samples. Furthermore, arsenic was not detected in leachate from solidified Reach11-4 sediment which had approximately ten times more total arsenic in the untreatedsediment compared to Reach 2-2. Therefore, the presence of arsenic in solidified Reach2-2 sediment leachate was not considered to be significant. Barium was detected in allleachate samples but was attributed to the chemical composition of portland cement.Selenium was only detected in leachate from solidified Reach 11-4 sediment but was notconsidered to be significant because it was detected in only one aliquot at an estimatedvalue of 0.04 mg/kg, just above the detection limit of 0.035 mg/kg.

Treatment effectiveness as measured by reduction in mobility was not evaluated using theTCLP. The final design mix was leached using ANS Method 16.1. Because of differencesin leachant chemistry (e.g., pH, ionic strength), sample agitation, sample size and shape, andlength of test duration, a comparison between the TCLP results for the untreated sedimentand ANS Method 16.1 results for the solidified sediments would not be valid. Insteadresults from the modified ANS Method 16.1 setup for unsolidified and solidified sedimentswere used for comparison. Except for inorganic compounds present in portland cement,most constituents decreased in leachability upon solidification by as much as two orders ofmagnitude. Other inorganics such as arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury were notdetected in any of the leachates thereby preventing a comparison between unsolidified andsolidified sediments for these particular metals.

0-7 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRFT.RVO Revision 0


1.0INTRODUCTION

LI BACKGROUND

The Fields Brook Site, as defined in the Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) (USEPA1989b), consists of Fields Brook and its tributaries, Ashtabula County, Ohio, andsurrounding areas that contribute, potentially may contribute, or have contributed to thecontamination of Fields Brook and its tributaries. The site is located in northeastern Ohioin Ashtabula County.

Fields Brook was determined by the USEPA and the Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency (OEPA) to contain contaminated sediments resulting from industrial discharges(USEPA 1986a). The Fields Brook Site was included on the National Priorities List (NPL)of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) on September 8, 1983. The site was placedon the NPL because of the possibility of direct contact with the sediment, movement ofcontaminated sediment into the Ashtabula River (and then Lake Erie), possible movementof contaminants into the public water supply of the City of Ashtabula, and the possibility ofuncontrolled releases of hazardous materials from the sediment (USEPA 1985).

The USEPA conducted a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the FieldsBrook site. Their study began in April 1983 and concluded in July 1986 with submittal ofthe FS. A partial listing of the findings from the RI Report (USEPA 1985) is presentedbelow:

• Chlorinated benzene compounds, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),hexachlorobutadiene, and PCBs were detected in sediment and surface watersamples from Fields Brook.

• Organic compounds detected in surface water samples also were detected insediment and/or industrial effluent samples.

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), chlorinated benzene compounds,

1-1 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDntPT.RVO Revision 0


PAHs, hexachlorobutadiene, and phthalate compounds were reported inrelatively high concentrations in some sediment samples.

• Concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg of PCBs in sediments were reportedin samples from Fields Brook at some locations.

• Some chemicals were detected in fish tissue.

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Fields Brook Sediment Operable Unit (SOU) inAshtabula, Ohio, dated September 30, 1986 (USEPA 1986a), identified solidification as aviable treatment option for Fields Brook sediment. The SLDI was required by the SOUEDISOW to demonstrate the effectiveness of solidification technology in reducing mobility ofchemicals in Fields Brook sediment.

Solidification refers to the physical process in which solidifying agents (usually cementitiousor other pozzolanic materials) are mixed with solids (e.g., soils, sediments or sludges) totransform them into a solid form that is capable of supporting loads. Stabilization refers tothe immobilization of chemical constituents within a solids matrix such that the constituentswill not leach from the stabilized solids. A combination stabilization/solidification processis generally employed to treat wastes containing heavy metals and low mobility organiccompounds. Despite differences between solidification and stabilization, the process thatboth forms a solid mass and decreases the mobility of chemicals in waste materials will becollectively referred to as "solidification." The SLDI investigated the effectiveness of thesolidification process on Fields Brook sediment.

12 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

The following objectives were stated in the SOW for the SLDI:

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of solidification in reducing the mobility ofcontaminants in solidified sediment;

• Establish the measurements of treatment effectiveness and guidelines forperformance monitoring;

• Identify potential ARARs for land disposal of solidified materials; and

1-2 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDnUT\SLDnUT.RVO Reviakn 0


• Develop basic design criteria for performance specifications, including refinedestimates of the landfill capacity required for the disposal of solidified wastes.

Additional objectives were identified for the SLDI as follows:

• Assess the long-term effectiveness of solidification in reducing mobility ofconstituents of concern in samples of Fields Brook sediment expected to bedifficult to solidify based on constituent concentrations;

• Establish landfill disposal criteria for solidified materials;

• Select a solidification agent that meets landfill disposal criteria;

• Identify sources of air emissions during solidification; and

• Estimate the final volume of treated sediment to be landfilled.

The approved SLDI scope of work was designed to address these objectives by including thefollowing activities:

• Sediment collection from three sampling locations in Fields Brook andshipment to laboratories for chemical and physical analyses and forbench-scale treatability testing;

• Chemical and physical characterization of raw sediment and solidifying agents;

• A phased bench-scale solidification testing to screen various solidifying agentsand mix designs for effectiveness at solidifying Fields Brook sediment (Phase1) and to refine the mix design for cost effectiveness (Phase 2);

• Data validation, review and summary; and

• Data evaluation and conclusions.

1.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Sampling procedures, test procedures, and data for the SLDI were required to be ofsufficient quality to meet the preliminary design criteria listed in Section 1.2. The followingdata quality objectives (DQOs) were met to fulfill the SLDI design criteria:

1-3 02-15-95I:VFBK\SLDIRPnSLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0


• Sediment samples were collected for treatability testing having contaminantconcentrations and physical characteristics considered representative, or worstcase, of sediment meeting the solidification criteria (SLDI Work Plan,Revision 2A, dated September 1993)

• Sediment samples were collected using excavation methods that simulatedthose expected to be used during full-scale remedial activities;

• Screen solidifying agents for Target Compound List (TCL)/Target AnalyteList (TAL) compounds and physical properties (e.g., moisture content) toevaluate their effect on the characteristics of the solidified mix;

• Characterize solidification treatability test samples for TCL/TAL compoundsand physical properties pertinent to solidification (e.g., unconfinedcompressive strength and bulk unit weight);

• Identify solidifying agents and optimum mixing designs that met strength andleachability criteria;

• Examine the short- and long-term physical and chemical durability of thesolidified material; and

• Evaluate the volume increase, and physical and chemical characteristics of thesolidified material.

The effectiveness of solidification in reducing mobility and toxicity of constituents of concernin solidified material could not be fully evaluated because the analytical detection limits forleachability testing resulted in non-detect results for many of the unsolidified and solidifiedsediments.

USEPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Analytical Level 4 was used for TCL/TALparameters on the raw sediment and verification samples. USEPA SW-846 Analytical Level3 protocols and ASTM methods were used for analyses of sediment and solidified samplesgenerated during treatability testing (e.g., TCLP tests, TCL analysis on leachate, physicaltests). DQO summary sheets were included in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP).

1.4 WORK PLAN MODIFICATIONS/DEVIATIONS

Field sampling, sediment characterization, and bench-scale treatability testing were

1-4 02-15-93I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0


performed in accordance with the SLDI Work Plan with the following exceptions:

• The sampling location in Reach 2-1 at Cross Section 10 was changed to CrossSection 7 because no sediment deposits were encountered at Cross Section 10.

• Reach 2-1, Cross Section 7, and Reach 2-2, Cross Section 3, were sampledfor the treatability study although positive headspace readings on the flameionization detector (FID) were measured during sediment screening. Themeasured emissions were probably caused by methane gas released from thedecomposition of organic matter in the sediment.

• Discrete sediment samples from Reaches 2-1 and 2-2 were resampled andanalyzed for VOCs in March 1994 because a clerical error on the chain ofcustody during the November 1993 sampling resulted in the wrong analysisbeing performed. Reach 11-4 was not resampled because the reach wasfrozen at the time.

• The work plan specified that Phase 1 testing was to be performed on fine-grained sediment from Reach 2-1; however, laboratory grain size analysischaracterized the sample of Reach 2-1 sediment as silty sand.

• In situ drive-tube density sampling was not feasible in the field because thesediments were saturated, loose and noncohesive. Instead, unit weights weremeasured in the laboratory.

Changes relating to laboratory testing were as follows:

• Class F fly ash was used in the solidifying mixes in place of Class C becausethe nearest source, located in Ashtabula, produced only Class F fly ash.

• Phase 1 mix water contents were not held constant as specified in the workplan. The sediment water content was held constant resulting in variation ofthe mix water content as percent-added reagent was varied.

• A constant temperature and humidity room was not available for curing thesamples; instead, samples were placed inside plastics bags containing moistpaper towels and cured at ambient laboratory air temperature which wasrecorded throughout curing.

• The UCS and pocket penetrometer test schedule was modified in Phase 1 ofthe treatability study to obtain more data for early strength development.



Phase 2 and Verification Phase experimental designs were modified toaccommodate lower reagent-to-sediment ratios. Cold-cure test runs weredelayed until the verification phase so that the additional test runs could beperformed during Phase 2. These changes were approved by USEPA(Attachment 1).

ANS Method 16.1 replaced the TCLP in Phase 2 and the Verification Phaseat the request of the Fields Brook Potentially Responsible PartiesOrganization (FBPRPO) and was approved by USEPA (Attachment 2).

Because of insufficient quantities of residuals from the TTDI and SDWTDI,the scope for testing solidified ash and sludge was reduced to UCS, pocketpenetrometer, paint filter liquids and ANS Method 16.1 metals leachabilitytesting.

Resistance to microbial growth testing was performed by Biological LabServices in Minneapolis, Minnesota because they were better equipped andmore experienced at performing the tests.

Kiber Environmental Services (Kiber) performed the total analysis of thesolidified sediment for the Verification Phase instead of HazletonEnvironmental Laboratories (Hazleton) to expedite the testing.



2.0FIELD SAMPLING STUDY

2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the field sampling study were to

• select sediment sampling locations for the SLDI based on field observationsand chemical screening results;

• collect sediment samples for chemical and physical characterization;

• evaluate the effect of compositing and homogenizing sediment onconcentrations of VOCs; and

• collect bulk sediment for laboratory bench-scale solidification treatabilitytesting.

2.2 SEDIMENT SAMPLING

SLDI sediment sampling was performed concurrently with sampling for the other SOUtreatability studies. Sampling proceeded upstream from the furthest downstream location tominimize the potential for cross contamination between sampling locations caused bydisturbing the sediment deposits. Equal volumes of sediment were collected from eachdiscrete sampling point at a sampling location and were homogenized in a mixing drum.

22.1 Reconnaissance of Sample Locations

Figures 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 show the sediment sampling locations from Reaches 2-1, 2-2 and11-4, respectively. The sampling location in Reach 2-1 at Cross Section 10 as designatedin the SLDI Work Plan was changed to Cross Section 7 based on visual observations duringsite reconnaissance. The stream bottom at and near Cross Section 10 was characterized byexposed shale without sediment deposits. Moving downstream, silty deposits were observednear Cross Section 7 which was then selected to replace Cross Section 10. The work plan



sampling locations in Reaches 2-2 and 11-4 were found to be acceptable.

At each location, sediment was collected for chemical screening from three discrete pointsand placed into resealable plastic bags. Each discrete point was staked with a wooden latheon the adjacent streambank.

2.2.2 Sampling Equipment

The following equipment was used for sediment sampling:

• 55-gal. open-ended high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drums for use ascofferdams (three per sampling location);

• 2-gal. HDPE buckets for bailing water, scooping sediment and shippingsediment;

• Stainless-steel spoon or scoop for collecting chemical characterizationsamples;

• Analytical sample jars from Hazleton Laboratories;

• 55-gal. HDPE drum for homogenizing and holding sediments (one persampling location); and

• Galvanized-steel shovel and mashing tool for homogenizing sediments.

All equipment was cleaned or decontaminated prior to use. The 55-gal. HDPE cofferdamsand mixing barrels were steam cleaned, washed with non-phosphate detergent, rinsed withdistilled water and air dried. The 2-gal. HDPE buckets were washed with non-phosphatedetergent and double-rinsed with distilled water. Drums and buckets were not reused aftersampling a given location to prevent cross-contamination between sampling locations.

Sampling and mixing tools were decontaminated after each use according to proceduresgiven in the SLDI Field Sampling Plan (FSP) (SLDI Work Plan, Appendix A).

2-2 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revuioo 0


2.2.3 Sampling Procedures

Sediment sampling for the SLDI began at the most downstream sampling location in Reach2-1, proceeded upstream to Reach 2-2, and was completed at the most upstream locationin Reach 11-4. At each location, sampling was performed as described below and illustratedin Figure 2-4.

At each sampling location, a cofferdam barrel was installed at the furthest downstreamdiscrete sample point. A piece of lumber was placed across the top of the barrel and hitwith a sledge hammer to drive the barrel securely into the sediment deposit. Surface waterwas then bailed from the cofferdam using a 2-gal. bucket.

A sediment sample for volatile organic analysis (VOA) was obtained from the cofferdamusing a stainless-steel spoon or scoop and placed inside a VOA jar. The outside of the jarwas labeled using permanent marker showing the date, reach number and discrete samplingpoint identification. The sample time was noted in the field book.

Using a 2-gal. bucket, sediment for the SLDI was removed from the cofferdam and placedinto the mixing drum. Five buckets were collected from each discrete sampling point inReach 2-1, and four buckets were collected from each discrete point in Reaches 2-2 and11-4. When the sediment supply was depleted within the cofferdam or seepage becameuncontrollable, the cofferdam was reinstalled within a 5-ft. radius of the sampling point.Sediment collection continued until the four to five buckets were collected at each point.

Moving upstream, a clean cofferdam barrel was installed at each of the two remainingdiscrete sampling points. VOA samples and bulk sediment were collected as describedabove.

After sediment was collected from each of the three discrete points, it was composited andhomogenized in the mixing drum using the shovel and mashing utensil until visiblywell-mixed. The mixing drum was then covered with plastic sheeting while the sediment wasallowed to settle. After approximately 30 min., the mixing drum was uncovered and thesupernatant (if any) was bailed and saved for the SDWTDI.



Analytical sample jars for VOA, semi-volatile organic analysis (SVGA), pesticides/PCBs,TAL, total organic carbon (TOC) and TCLP were filled with homogenized sediment usinga clean spoon/scoop.

Bulk homogenized sediment was placed into 2-gal. buckets which were then sealed withtight-fitting lids. The buckets were cleaned and labeled with the date, reach number and"SLDI" written in permanent marker.

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were taken for analytical testing. Afield-duplicate composite sample was taken in Reach 2-1, Cross Section 7. Matrixspikes/matrix spike duplicates were taken in Reach 11-4, Cross Section 2, at one of thediscrete sampling points and of the composited sediment. Equipment rinsate blanks weretaken of the sampling equipment and of the decontamination pool prior to sampling inReach 11-4.

The SLDI Work Plan specified that in situ unit weights would be measured using thedrive-cylinder method in the field. However, the drive-cylinder could not be used becausethe saturated sediments were loosely deposited and flowed out of the cylinder.Alternatively, the treatability testing laboratory (Kiber) measured the unit weight by roddingthe sediments into cylindrical molds.

2.2.4 Sample Handling and Chain of Custody

Samples were brought to a staging area at the Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) FieldsBrook Field Operations compound. The outsides of the buckets and analytical sampling jarswere cleaned of sediment and dried. Duct tape was wrapped around the lids of the 2-gal.buckets to prevent leakage. Jars were similarly sealed using clear packaging tape. Labelswere placed on each container and sealed by wrapping clear tape around the circumferenceof the containers. The labels gave the following information:

• Sample Identification Number;• Sample Matrix;• Time and Date of Sample Collection;

2-4 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO - RevUioo 0


• Method of Sample Preservation (if required); and• Sampler's Initials.

The sample numbering system from the SLDI Work Plan was modified for compatibilitywith the Fields Brook project database. Each sample was assigned a six-character codeconsisting of three basic components: design investigation code (numeric); sample locationby reach and cross section (alphanumeric); and sample type (alphanumeric). For example,the SLDI sample code for the third discrete or grab sample in Reach 11-4, Cross Section2, point C, was "4K4B3G" where "4" was the design investigation code for the SLDI, "K4B"corresponded to Reach 11-4, Cross Section 2, and "3G" indicated the third sampling discreteor grab sampling point.

All samples were shipped inside coolers with ice. Plastic bubble wrap was placed aroundthe sample containers to prevent them from shifting or breaking. Two 2-gal. buckets wereplaced in each cooler for shipment to Kiber. Analytical jar samples were individuallywrapped in bubble wrap, sealed inside ziplock bags and placed inside coolers for shipmentto Hazleton.

Chain of Custody forms were completed for all samples, placed inside plastic envelopes andattached to the inside lid of each cooler. Coolers were then shut and locked, A custodyseal was placed across the gap between the lid and the body of the cooler and then coveredwith tape. Strapping tape was wrapped around each end of the cooler and covered by alayer of clear packaging tape to prevent accidental opening. The coolers were shippedovernight to the appropriate laboratory.

2.3 SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION

2.3.1 VOC and PCB Screening of Sediments

Screening for VOCs and PCBs was performed to evaluate the suitability of the sediment forthe solidification treatability study. Sediment for the SLDI bench-scale treatability study wasrequired to have VOC concentrations below USEPA Cleanup Goals (CUGs) and PCBconcentrations below 50 parts per million (ppm). Based on the screening results, the three

2-5 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revifion 0


sampling locations met the chemical criteria for the SLDI.

Sediment headspace screening was performed using a flame ionization detector (FID) toestablish that VOCs were not of concern at the sample location; however, the results wereinconclusive because positive instrument responses were probably caused by methane gasreleased by decomposition of organic matter in the sediment. Chemical characterizationlater confirmed that VOC concentrations were below the residential CUGs at each of thethree sampling locations (see Section 2.3.2).

PCB screening was performed using a PCB immunoassay test kit manufactured by EnSysInc. Each test was performed at two detection levels, 5 and 50 ppm. The test indicatedwhether PCBs were present above or below the given detection levels. Concentrations werebetween 5 and 50 ppm in Reach 2-1 and 2-2 and were below 5 ppm in Reach 11-4indicating that these sampling locations were acceptable for the solidification treatabilitystudy. PCB concentrations quantified in the laboratory (see Section 2.3.2) confirmed thefield screening results.

2.3.2 Sediment Chemical Characteristics

Total Organic Carbon

TOC can interfere with the solidification process by:

• preventing thorough coating of the sediment particles with binding agentswhich subsequently causes aggregation of untreated material into lumps; and

• disrupting the gel structure of the curing cement or pozzolanic mixture.

These interferences may retard setting of the mixture, and decrease short- and long-termstrength and durability (USEPA 1993).

TOC was measured for the homogenized sediments using USEPA Method SW-846-9060.The results at all three sampling locations exceeded the maximum detection limit of 16,000



mg/kg (1.6 percent by weight). TOC could not be quantified because no alternative testmethods were performed.

Total Waste Analysis

TWA was performed on the homogenized sediments using CLP Procedures. Analytesincluded TCL VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and pesticides/PCBs, andTAL metals. Tables 2-1A through 2-1D present the results along with the November 1993USEPA Residential and Occupational CUGs.

Very few organic compounds were detected in the sediments (Tables 2-1A, 2-1B and 2-1C).Aroclor 1248 exceeded the CUG for PCBs at 4,800 to 6,800 /<g/kg in Reach 2-1 and 11,000/ig/kg in Reach 2-2 (Table 2-1C). Most of the TAL metals were detected in the sediments.Arsenic exceeded the CUG at 162 mg/kg in Reach 11-4 (Table 2-1D).

Table 2-2 lists TCL VOC results for additional samples in Reaches 2-1 and 2-2. Thesesamples were tested to evaluate the effect of homogenizing the sediment on volatilizationof VOCs. VOC concentrations in grab samples from three discrete locations were comparedto concentrations in a sample composited and homogenized from equal portions of sedimentfrom the same discrete locations.

The first three columns under each reach given in Table 2-2 list the pre-homogenized,discrete sample concentrations and the fourth column lists the composited, homogenizedsample concentrations. Volatilization was not evident given the variability of concentrationsamong the discrete samples themselves and that the pre-homogenized and homogenizedconcentrations generally were within the same order of magnitude. In addition, the detectedVOC concentrations were relatively low compared to the method detection limits, giving riseto additional uncertainty.

The following possibilities may account for the differences in measured concentrations:

• Volatilization may have occurred during sediment sampling andhomogenization in the mixing drum causing a decrease in VOC



concentrations;

• VOCs in the air may have been attenuated by the sediment causing anincrease in VOC concentrations;

• The mixture was not chemically homogeneous as assumed and may have beensampled where concentrations were lower; and

• The distribution of VOCs within the in situ sediment deposit was nothomogeneous (as assumed).

Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure

TCLP extractions were performed on the sediments. The leachates were analyzed for TCLand TAL analytes. The results are presented in Tables 2-3A through 2-3D.

Comparing Table 2-3A to Table 2-1A, several VOCs detected in the leachates were notdetected in the sediment. It is possible that these compounds were laboratory artifacts. 2-Butanone, commonly encountered as a laboratory artifact, was measured in leachate fromeach reach but not in the sediments themselves. In addition, 4-Methyl-2-pentanone wasdetected in leachate from Reaches 2-2 and 11-4 but was not detected in the sedimentsamples.

Only one SVOC was detected in Reach 2-1 and Reach 2-2 leachate according to the resultsin Table 2-3B. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene was also detected in sediment from these reaches. NoSVOCs were detected in Reach 11-4 leachate.

In Table 2-3C, no pesticides, PCBs or chlorinated herbicides were detected in any of theleachates.

The majority of the TAL metals were detected in the leachates as reported in Table 2-3D.Of the RCRA metals, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and seleniumwere detected in the leachates. None of these metals exceeded the RCRA toxicity levels.



2.3.3 SEDIMENT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Unit Weight and Water Content

The unit weights and water contents of the SLDI sediments were measured in the laboratoryusing ASTM Method D 2937 and ASTM D 2216, respectively. For each sampling location,unit weight and water content samples were taken from randomly selected buckets ofas-received sediment. Average bulk unit weights of 112, 103 and 105 pcf corresponding towater contents of 37, 45 and 51 percent were measured for Reaches 2-1, 2-2 and 11-4,respectively. These results are shown in Table 2-4.

The work plan specified that unit weights were to be measured in the field using adrive-tube sampler. However, the sediment deposits were too loose and wet to be retainedinside the drive-tube cylinder. Instead, unit weights were measured in the laboratory.

Sediment was rodded by hand into cylindrical molds to produce uniform samples. Asopposed to using high-energy compaction (e.g., Standard or Modified Proctor), low-energyrodding was performed to break down large air voids in the sample matrix which otherwisewould yield a "honeycombed" structure. The saturated state of the sediment precludedfurther densification because the water-filled voids could not be compressed withoutdrainage.

Grain-Size Distribution. Atterberg Limits and Unified Soil Classification System

Results from grain-size analyses (ASTM D 422 and D 854) and Atterberg limits testing(ASTM D 4318) are given in Table 2-4. Based on these results, the sediments wereclassified as silty sand (SM) in Reaches 2-1 and 2-2, and silt (ML) in Reach 11-4.

Previous data from Phase I of the Sediment Quantification Design Investigation (SQDI)indicated that Reach 2-1 sediment was fine grained. However, the SQDI data was fromCross Section 10 where no sediment was found during SLDI field activities.

In the field, Cross Section 7 sediment was visually and manually classified as sandy silt (i.e.,



fine grained) with organic matter. The laboratory grain-size data confirmed that thematerial was predominantly silt and fine sand. However, the coarse sizes (i.e., larger than0.075 mm) in the laboratory sample exceeded 50 percent of the total weight classifying thematerial as a sand instead of silt Slight differences in composition between the field andlaboratory samples and the inherently subjective nature of the visual-manual classificationprocedure account for the different classifications.

2.4 DATA VALIDATION

The analytical data generated by Hazleton used for the SLDI were evaluated for theappropriate precision, accuracy and completeness specified in the SLDI Work Plan. Thedata validation process for this project consisted of data generation, reduction, and twolevels of complete data review and validation in accordance with Section 10 the SedimentOperable Unit (SOU) QAPJP.

Procedures for validation of the organic data followed guidance from the "NationalFunctional Guidelines for Organic Review" (USEPA, 12/90 with revision 6/91). Proceduresfor validation of the inorganic data followed guidance from the " Laboratory DataValidation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses" (USEPA, July 1,1988).

Based on the validations performed, it is recommended that the results reported for theseanalyses be accepted for their intended use. Accuracy and precision based on MS/MSDanalyses, field duplicate results, and laboratory control sample analyses were found to beacceptable according to the criteria established in the SOU QAPjP. In addition,completeness, defined as the percentage of analytical results judged to be valid (includingestimated values), was 99 percent The non-detect results reported for TCLP VOCs, samplenumber 4B1G2G, were rejected based on significant exceedance of holding time criteria.No other sample results were rejected during validation. Some analytical sample resultsrequired qualification based on minor QC deficiencies.



3.0BENCH-SCALE SOLIDIFICATION TREATABILITY STUDY

3.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The overall objectives of the bench-scale solidification treatability study were to evaluate theeffectiveness of several solidifying reagents at solidifying Fields Brook sediment and todevelop an optimum mix design using one reagent with the following preliminary designcriteria:

• unconfined compressive strength of 50 psi at 28 days;

• no exuding of free liquids;

• reduction in leachability compared to untreated sediment;

• durable after exposure to cyclical freeze/thaw or wetting/drying cycles

• resistant to microbial growth;

• nonreactive, noncorrosive, and unignitable;

• minimal volume increase ("bulking") of the sediment after reagent addition;

• effective at solidifying ash from thermal treatment and sludges fromwastewater treatment; and

• economical for full-scale remediation.

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF TEST PROCEDURES

3.2.1 Mix Development

Tables 3-1,3-2 and 3-3 display the mix designs for Phase 1, Phase 2 and Verification testing,respectively. Mixes were prepared at the natural water contents of the sediments except forwater addition to one half of the Phase 1 mixes and to thermally treated sediment in the

3-1 02-15-95l:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDmPT.RVO Revision 0


Verification Phase. The sediment was blended using a laboratory "Hobart" mixer at a rateranging from 60 to 90 revolutions per minute for approximately 1 to 2 minutes until visiblyhomogenized. Dry reagent was then added and the mix was blended for an additional 5minutes.

The mixtures were rodded by hand into plastic molds. To prevent sample disturbance, theplastic molds were not removed until the samples were ready for testing. A constanttemperature and humidity chamber was not available as specified in the work plan. Instead,the samples were cured inside plastic bags with moist paper towels enclosed for humidity.This was standard procedure for the laboratory in other solidification treatability studies.

Phase 1 samples were cured at room temperature. Laboratory room temperature averaged19 degrees C (66 degrees F) to 20 degrees C (68 degrees F) during sample cure. Phase 2samples were also cured at room temperature. According to the work plan, Phase 2 sampleswere to be cured at room temperature and at 0 degrees C (32 degrees F). Instead,cold-temperature curing was performed at 4.4 degrees C (40 degrees F) during theVerification Phase on two of the four sample batches.

3.2.2 Physical Testing

Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 present the tests performed and schedule for Phase 1, Phase 2, andVerification Phase testing. The tests are discussed below.

Unit Weight and Moisture Content

Bulk unit weights and water contents were measured using ASTM D 2937 and ASTM D2216, respectively. Material was rodded into cylindrical molds and weighed to obtain thebulk unit weight. As shown in Table 3-4, both unit weight and water content were measuredimmediately after mixing and after 28 days of curing. Water contents were measured intriplicate; unit weight samples were not replicated.

3-2 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\Sl.DmPT.RVO Revision 0


Paint Filter Liquids

In Phases 1 and 2, paint filter liquids release was to be measured using USEPA MethodSW-846-9095 if free liquids were visibly exuded from the sample. The test was performedon the Verification Phase samples to confirm that free liquids were not exuded from thesamples.

Pocket Penetrometer Strength Index

Pocket penetrometer strength indexes were measured on each mix throughout the 28-daycure until the maximum reading of 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf) was reached. The readingsfrom Phase 1 samples were used to develop a correlation with unconfined compressivestrength for evaluating early strength development during the first 28 days of cure.

Unconfined Compressive Strength

UCS was measured using ASTM C 109 on 2-in. cube samples and ASTM D 1633 on 3-in.diameter by 6-in. long cylinders. Sample failure was defined as the maximum pressureapplied to the sample or 15 percent strain, whichever came first (ASTM D 2166).

In Phase 1, UCS was measured at 7, 14 and 28 days for the majority of the mixes.Additional tests were performed on several mixes to develop an early-UCS correlation withpocket penetrometer readings at the times shown in Table 3-1. Cylindrical samples werenot tested in Phase 1 because the large number of tests performed would have requiredmuch more material than for the cube samples.

Phase 2 UCS testing was performed at 28 days to evaluate if mixes achieved the 50-psistrength objective. Both cube and cylindrical samples were tested for comparison. The finaldesign mix would ultimately be confirmed on cylindrical specimens.

Verification Phase UCS testing was performed at 28 days on solidified cylindrical samplesof sediment and on solidified cube samples of TTDI ash and SDWTDI sludges. Theavailability of TTDI and SDWTDI residuals was limited providing only enough material to



make cube samples.

Freeze/Thaw and Wet/Drv Durability

Freeze/thaw and wet/dry durability testing (ASTM D 4842 and 4843, respectively) wasperformed after 28 days in Phase 2 on two selected mixes and on Verification Phasesamples. Each test was performed on duplicate 2-in, diameter by 4-in. long cylinders. Thesame control specimen was used for both freeze/thaw and wet/dry procedures.

Permeability

Permeability of samples was measured after 28 days using ASTM D 5058 on two selectedmixes from Phase 2 and on Verification Phase samples. Cylindrical samples measuring 3-in.diameter by 6-in. long were tested in the flexible-wall permeameter (triaxial cell) using afalling head. An effective stress of 10 psi was used to confine each sample inside thepermeameter.

Resistance to Microbial Growth

Resistance to microbial growth was tested on Verification Phase samples using ASTM G21 for fungi and ASTM G 22 for bacteria. Solidified samples measuring 2-in. square by 0.5-in. height were prepared by Kiber and tested by Biological Lab Services.

3.2.3 Chemical Testing

Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure

The TCLP was performed during Phase 1 using USEPA Method SW-846-1311 on elevenmixes representing all Phase 1 reagents. The following analyses were performed on theleachate from each mix:

VOCs (SW-846-8260)• SVOCs (SW-846-8270/3510)



• Pesticides/PCBs (SW-846-8080/3510)• Herbicides (SW-846-8150A/3510)• RCRA Metals (SW-846-6010/3015)• Mercury (SW-846-7470)

The TCLP was also performed on samples of the unreacted reagents. The leachate wasanalyzed for metals only to determine if the reagents contributed to leachable metals.

American Nuclear Society Method 16.1 Leachability

ANS Method 16.1 was performed on two selected Phase 2 mixes and on the VerificationPhase samples cured at room temperature. Cylindrical specimens with 2-in. diameter and4-in. length were placed in the leachant (deionized-distilled water) over a 48-hour durationwith leachate collection and analysis at 2, 7, 24 and 48 hours. The following analyses wereperformed:

VOCs (SW-846-8260)SVOCs (SW-846-8270)PCBs (SW-846-8080)RCRA Metals (SW-846-6010)Mercury (SW-846-7470)

Additional testing was performed on unsolidified and solidified sediments using a modifiedsetup during the Verification Phase to accommodate unsolidified sediment. This setup wasapproved by USEPA and was included in Attachment 1.


TWA for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs and metals was performed on all Phase 1reagents and on Verification Phase solidified sediment cured at room temperature.Reagents were analyzed according to SW-846 procedures; solidified sediment was analyzedusing EPA CLP SOW 3/90 procedures.



Reactivity. Corrosivity and Ignitabilitv

Reactivity, corrosivity and ignitability were performed on Verification Phase samples curedat room temperature. SW-846 methods were followed using Chapters 7.3.3 for reactivecyanide and 7.3.4 for reactive sulfide, EPA CLP SOW 3/90 for corrosivity by pH, andMethod 1020A for ignitability.

3.3 PHASE 1 TESTING

Thirty-six trial mixes were batched representing four generic reagents (or blends of genericreagents) and two proprietary agents. Generic reagents included portland cement, hydratedlime, cement kiln dust and fly ash. IWT supplied the two proprietary agents, HWT-7/11 andHWT-25. The mix designs for the thirty-six mixes are listed in Table 3-1. For each of thesix reagents, half of the mixes were blended at the natural water content of 37 percent withno water addition. Water was added to the remaining half for a final water-to-sedimentratio of 45 percent. The water-to-total-solids ratio was calculated for each mix and is givenin Table 3-1.

3*3.1 Physical Test Results

Unit Weight and Water Content

Unit weights and water contents measured immediately after mixing and after 28 days ofcure are presented in Table 3-4. Water contents were measured in triplicate for each unitweight sample with the average value reported in Table 3-4. Unit weight samples were notreplicated. The final column in Table 3-4 lists the dry unit weight computed using the bulkunit weight and average water content.

The bulking ratio, B, was computed for all mixes by comparing the in situ unit weight andwater content of the sediment to the 28-day unit weights and water contents of solidifiedsamples and adjusting for the reagent content. The bulking ratio calculations are includedin Appendix A.

3-6 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPr.RVO Revitioo 0


Figure 3-1 illustrates the relationship between bulking ratio and reagent-to-sediment ratio(R) for the six reagents at the different water contents. The greatest volume increasesoccurred for the lime-fly ash and kiln dust-fly ash mixes. Bulking was as high as 60 and 90percent for kiln dust-fly ash and lime-fly ash, respectively, at 1:1 R and natural watercontent. The bulking that occurred for the proprietary agents and portland cement was lessthan 25 percent when mixed at the natural water content of the sediment,


None of the cured samples were observed to contain free liquids and paint filter liquidstesting was not performed.

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Table 3-5 presents the results for all mixes and test intervals. UCS results are graphicallypresented in Figures 3-2 and 3-3.

Interpolating the UCS versus R plots in Figure 3-2, samples mixed at the natural sedimentwater content of 37 percent had higher strengths than samples mixed at a water content of45 percent up to R values of approximately 0.7 to 0.9. Above this range, the trend reversedand the added water resulted in higher strengths. The additional water apparently enabledthe reagents in the richer mixtures to hydrate and react more completely.

Figure 3-3 illustrates UCS results measured throughout the 28-day cure period for sampleswith minimum 28-day strengths exceeding 50 psi. The rate of strength development taperedoff by 28 days as indicated by the flattened curves. As discussed in Section 3.2, TOC mayinterfere with curing and retard strength development; however, TOC concentrationsexceeding 16,000 mg/kg in Reach 2-1 did not prevent the development of 50 psi strengthwithin the 28-day curing period.

UCS-Pocket Penctrometer Strength Index Correlation

The pocket penetrometer scale was developed by Soiltest, Inc. by comparing thousands of



UCS test results with pocket penetrometer strength index (PPI) readings on silty clays andclayey soils (Sanglerat 1972). The scale reading in tsf or kg/cm2 gave an approximation ofthe UCS of cohesive soil. Because the pocket penetrometer was designed for cohesive soils,a unique correlation was needed to compare the PPI reading with UCS for cemented(solidified) Fields Brook sediments.

For each series of reagents, the mixes at maximum R and natural water content were testedfor both UCS and PPI at 4 hours, 1 day and 3 days. These results were used for evaluatingthe rate of strength development and for developing a correlation between UCS and PPIreadings.

PPI readings for all thirty-six mixes are summarized in Table 3-5. Except for lime-fly ashMix 13, all mixes used for developing the UCS-PPI correlation yielded PPI readings greaterthan the maximum value of 4.5 tsf within the first 24 hours of cure. Supplemental tests wereadded for the lime-fly ash Mixes 14 through 18 at 4 hours, 1 day and 3 days. ForHWT-7/11, Mixes 26 through 30 and HWT-25 Mixes 32 through 36, an additional test wasperformed at 5 days for correlation with the 3-day PPI readings which were approaching 4.5tsf.

UCS results and PPI readings are shown in Figure 3-4. Except for the lime-fly ash datawhich plotted erratically, there appeared to be a linear trend between UCS and PPI. Alinear regression analysis was performed excluding the lime-fly ash data. The equation ofthe correlation line was calculated as:

y = 9.5 x + 4.4

where x is the PPI reading in tsf and y is the predicted UCS in psi. A summary of theregression analysis is given in Appendix B.

Visually from Figure 3-4, a UCS of 50 psi corresponds to a PPI reading of approximately4.5 tsf. Plugging the maximum pocket penetrometer reading of 4.5 tsf into the abovecorrelation yields a UCS of 47 psi.



Using the correlation, PPI readings can be used for supplementing quality control data inthe field. Measurements are quick to perform, inexpensive and more practical to performat high frequencies for estimating in situ strength. However, the pocket penetrometershould not be used in place of actual UCS testing.

3*3.2 Chemical Test Results

TCLP

Eleven solidified samples were extracted using the TCLP. Mixes were selected for TCLPextraction based on the minimum UCS exceeding 50 psi. Two mixes were selected for eachreagent except for cement kiln dust-fly ash where only one mix exceeded 50 psi at 28 days.

Table 3-6 summarizes the TCLP leachate analysis results for the eleven solidified samplesalong with the untreated sediment chemical results. The data, including detection limits,for the solidified samples were multiplied by 1 + R to account for dilution due to reagentaddition. The adjusted results are given in the table. All samples passed the TCLPregulatory levels with most analytes undetected. In addition, Aroclor 1248 which exceededthe CUG for total PCB concentration in the sediment was not detected in the leachate.

Based on analysis of the raw reagents included in Appendix C, potential sources of arsenic,barium and cadmium include the reagents themselves which could have raised theconcentrations of these analytes in the leachate. Raw fly ash contained 57 mg/kg of arsenicwhich suggests that fly ash may have been a source of arsenic in leachate from Mixes 11,13 and 15 in which fly ash was an ingredient. Barium was detected in all reagents and inleachate from all eleven TCLP samples. Mix 22 leached cadmium but contained cementkiln dust which was the only reagent with detectable levels of cadmium. Metal results anddetection limits for each reagent are provided in Appendix C.

Cresol and trichloroethylene were the only organic compounds detected in leachate fromthe solidified samples. These compounds were not detected in the TCLP leachate from theuntreated sediment. However, the detection limits for these compounds in the solidifiedsediment leachate were approximately one order of magnitude lower than those for the



untreated sediment leachate because the solidified tests were performed using SW-846methods and the untreated were performed using CLP methods. It is possible that thesecompounds were present in the untreated sediment leachate but were below their respectivedetection limits. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that these compounds were moreleachable from the solidified sediment. Cresol and trichloroethylene, along with the otheranalytes, were all below the TCLP regulatory levels in leachate from the solidified samples.

3.4 PHASE 2 TESTING

The primary objective of Phase 2 was to optimize the mix design for two reagents selectedfrom Phase 1. Phase 2 considered the following:

• The effectiveness of solidification on sediments with different grain-sizedistributions, water contents and chemical constituents;

• Leachability of solidified monoliths;

• Strength, durability and permeability;

• Bulking caused by reagent addition; and

• Cost effectiveness of solidified mixes.

Portland cement (with and without fly ash) and HWT-25 were selected for Phase 2 mixdesign based on their minimal bulking and superior UCS development exhibited in Phase1. Lower reagent-to-sediment ratios for portland cement-fly ash and HWT-25 were testedin Phase 2 because the lower limit of the reagent-to-sediment ratios to achieve a UCS of50 psi was not established in Phase 1. Curing temperature, proposed as a Phase 2experimental variable in the work plan, was deleted so that the lower reagent ratios and flyash could be evaluated more thoroughly without increasing the number of trial mixes. Thisdeletion was approved by USEPA in a letter dated March 17, 1994 from Mr. EdwardHanlon of USEPA to Mr. Joseph Heimbuch of de maximis, inc. (Attachment 2).

The ranges of reagent-to-sediment ratios for portland cement-fly ash and HWT-25 were 0.11to 0.25 and 0.12 to 0.20, respectively, as presented in Table 3-2. For the portland cement-fly



ash blends, the fly ash-to-cement ratio varied from 0:1, 1:1 to 2:1.

Sediment for Phase 2 was collected from Reach 2-2, Cross Section 3, and Reach 11-4, CrossSection 2 to evaluate solidification on different grain sizes and chemical constituentconcentrations.

Table 3-2 displays the test protocol for Phase 2. ANS Method 16.1 for leachability testingwas substituted for the TCLP as approved by USEPA in a letter dated March 23,1994 fromMr. Hanlon to Mr. Heimbuch (Attachment 3).

3.4.1 Physical Test Results

Unit weights, moisture contents, free liquids, UCS and pocket penetrometer strength indexwere performed on all sixteen mixes. Based on these results, mixes 2-7 with Reach 2-2sediment and 2-8 with Reach 11-4 sediment which contained portland cement (R of 0.11)and no fly ash were selected for further testing. Each of the selected mixes had a UCSslightly lower than 50 psi. The final mix for the Verification Phase would be adjusted tomeet the 50 psi strength objective.

Unit Weight. Moisture Content and Bulking

Unit weights and moisture contents at 0 hours and 28 days for all Phase 2 mixes arepresented in Table 3-7. The percent volume increase (bulking ratio) was calculated and isalso presented in the table.


Of the sixteen mixes, only Mix 2-5 exhibited free liquids by visual observation. The samplewas tested for paint filter liquids release and passed.

Unconfined Compressive Strength and Pocket Penctrometer Strength Index

Average UCS results for cube and cylindrical samples, and pocket penetrometer strength



indexes of cube samples are presented in Table 3-8 for the sixteen sample rounds.

Comparing Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 sediment mixes for each mix design, the effect offines content on UCS is not clear. The finer-grained Reach 11-4 sediment yielded higher28-day UCS for the cement-based mixes, but the coarser-grained Reach 2-2 sediment yieldedhigher 28-day UCS for the HWT-25 mixes. The PPI readings for the coarser sediment weregenerally greater than those for the finer sediment for both reagents.

The UCS results for the cement-based cube samples were used to develop a statisticalmodel for predicting UCS at different cement contents, mix water contents, and sedimenttypes (Le., percent fines). Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA), Class F fly ash had verylittle effect on UCS. The following regression model was developed to predict UCS basedon design mix variables (Appendix D):

-10.62* + 1.77F - 21.29w + 64-32Jftv

In UCSeu. = 10.30 +cube

where UCScube = unconfined compressive strength of cube sample;R = cement-to-sediment ratio;F = percent fines in sediment (< 0.075 mm); andw = sediment water content.

Not included in the analysis was TOC which was expected to have a detrimental effect onUCS. Unfortunately, the effect of TOC on UCS could not be evaluated because the TOCin the sediment could not be quantified as discussed in Section 2.3.2. The above equationshould be applied with caution to samples having significantly different TOC contents.

Figure 3-5 shows the 50-psi, constant-fines contours of the model for Reach 2-2 and Reach11-4 sediment containing 32.8 and 95.3 percent fines, respectively. The model is used byprojecting the natural moisture content of each sediment over to the appropriate curve andprojecting downward to obtain the required cement content.

3-12 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO RevUioo 0


The mix design model was based on the data from cube samples (i.e., length-to-width ratioof 1:1). The UCS of the 3-in. diameter by 6-in. length cylindrical samples (i.e., length-to-width ratio of 2:1) were generally lower than the UCS of the cubes. USEPA specified thatUCS be measured on samples having a length-to-width ratio of 2:1 during quality assurancetesting for actual remediation (Attachment 2).

A linear correlation was developed using the linear regression model shown in Figure 3-6so that the design model could be applied for the 2:1 cylindrical samples. The followingequation represents the lower 95 percent confidence level of the correlation:

= -15.44 + 0.90 UCScube

Using this equation, a UCScube of 72.7 psi would correspond to a UCScy, of 50 psi.

Appendix D contains the statistical analyses for evaluating UCS.

Other studies have been performed which compare the strengths between cube andcylindrical specimens. For concrete specimens, a general rule is that the strength of acylinder is four-fifths of the strength of a cube (Neville 1981). Using this rule, the requiredcube strength would be 62.5 psi to achieve a cylindrical strength of 50 psi.

Additional research has suggested that the strength ratio between concrete cylinders andcubes increases with the concrete strength according to the following relationship:

UCScyl = 0.76 + 0.2 Iog10 -I0 2840

where fcube is the strength of the cube in psi (Neville 1981). Using the above equation toobtain a UCScyl of 50 psi, the required UCScube would be 105.5 psi.

3-13 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRFT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0


These literature correlations were derived for concrete and it should be recognized that thesolidified sediment is not concrete but a low-strength cemented material. For the cylindricalstrength objective of 50 psi, the four-fifths rule appears to be in closer agreement with thecorrelation derived for the SLDI solidified materials.

Freeze/Thaw and Wet/Dry Durability

The results for mixes 2-7 (containing Reach 2-2 sediment) and 2-8 (containing Reach 11-4sediment) are given in Table 3-9. The control specimen had less than 1 percent cumulativemass loss making it acceptable as a control.

Both mixes failed the freeze/thaw durability test with a cumulative mass loss ranging from20 to 21 percent for Mix 2-7 and 33 to 60 percent for Mix 2-8. Failure was defined at 15percent mass loss (ASTM D 4842).

Both mixes passed the wet/dry durability with less than 1 percent mass loss for Mix 2-7 andno greater than 1.7 percent for Mix 2-8. As with the freeze/thaw test, failure was definedat 15 percent cumulative mass loss (ASTM D 4843).

Permeability

The permeabilities measured for Mixes 2-7 and 2-8 were 2x10"* and IxlO"6 cm/s, respectively.Typical permeabilities of solidified materials range between 10"8 and 10"* cm/s with amaximum recommended permeability 10"5 cm/s for landfilled solidified waste (USEPA1989c).

3.4.2 Chemical Test Results

ANS Method 16.1 Leachability

Tables 3-10A through 3-10D present leachability results for the ANS 16.1 method. Thedetected values are the cumulative total over the 48-hour test duration consisting of fourleachate fractions. A duplicate sample was performed on Mix 2-7.

3-14 02-15-95IrVFBKVSLDtRFRSLDKPT.RVO Revision 0


No VOCs or PCBs were detected in the leachate from Mix 2-7 (Reach 2-2) in Tables 3-10Aand C. Two SVOCs, benzoic acid and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, were detected at 27 to49.2 jig/1 and 4.3 to 11 /*g/I, respectively, as presented in Table 3-10B. Benzoic acid wasnot analyzed in the untreated sediment, but was detected in the TCLP leachate from Phase1 samples. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was measured at 640 jig/kg in untreated Reach 2-2sediment. Table 3-10D shows that only two RCRA metals, arsenic and barium, weredetected in the leachate at 0.03 mg/1 and 0.72 to 0.81 mg/1, respectively. Chromium, leadand mercury which were detected in Reach 2-2 sediment were not detected in the leachate.

Only metals were detected in leachate from Mix 2-8 (Reach 11-4). Table 3-10D shows onlyone RCRA metal, arsenic, in the leachate at 0.04 mg/1 compared to the total concentrationof 162 mg/kg in Reach 11-4 sediment. The other RCRA metals that were detected in thesediment, including barium, chromium, lead and mercury, were not detected in the leachate.

3.5 VERIFICATION PHASE TESTING

A portland cement-to-sediment ratio of 0.15 was selected from the Phase 2 design mixmodel for Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 sediment. The final mix for the Verification Phasewas designed using the UCS model for cube samples at 75 psi to ensure that the cylindricalsamples would exceed 50 psi. Mixes containing fly ash were not considered because ClassF fly ash provided no significant physical benefits. The cement and sediment were mixedat the natural water contents of the sediment. As presented in Table 3-3, each sediment mixwas cured at room temperature and at 4 degrees C (40 degrees F).

The two additional mixes in Table 3-3 were prepared using treated sediment residuals fromthe TTDI and SDWTDI to verify the effectiveness of the 0.15 cement-to-residual mix.SDWTDI wastewater treatment sludges were of greatest concern because chemicals usedto precipitate metals and flocculate suspended solids could potentially interfere withsolidification.

Thermal treatment ash identified as RT-1 from the TTDI was sent to Kiber by InternationalTechnology Corporation in Knoxville, Tennessee. The as-received water content of the ashwas less than 1 percent and was raised to 40 percent before mixing with cement.



Wastewater treatment sludge was generated by Kiber using aliquots of wastewater identifiedin the SDWTDI as TS-04, a combination of surface water, groundwater and sedimentssampled from Fields Brook. The aliquots were treated with 1 normal (N) sodium hydroxideto precipitate metals from solution. Entec 963, an anionic polymer manufactured by BetzEntec, Inc., was then added to remove suspended solids. The supernatant was decanted andthe sludge was air dried and vacuum filtered to a final water content of 40 percent.

3.5.1 Physical Test Results

Unit Weight. Moisture Content and Bulking

Unit weights and moisture contents at 0 hours and 28 days for the six Verification Phasemixes are presented in Table 3-11.

The percent volume increase (bulking ratio) was calculated and is also presented in thetable. Reach 2-2 sediment actually decreased in volume after solidification most likely aresult of tamping the mix into the molds. Reach 11-4 slightly increased in volume by 7 to8 percent immediately after mixing and 2 to 4 percent after curing for 28 days. Bulkingratios for both reaches decreased at 28 days probably because of shrinkage over the cureperiod.

Unconfined Compressive Strength and Pocket Penetrometer Strength Index

Table 3-12 presents the 28-day UCS and PPI results for all six mixes. The 28-day UCS ofeach mix was greater than the preliminary design strength of 50 psi. In Phase 1 it wasshown that a UCS of approximately 50 psi corresponded to a PPI reading of 4.5 tsf. ThePPI results in Table 3-12 indicate that 50 psi was reached between 1 and 3 days for all sixmixes based on the Phase 1 correlation.

The cold cure mixes reached greater 28-day strengths than the corresponding mixes curedat room temperature but initially had lower strengths as observed from the PPI readings.This observation is in agreement with that observed in cold-weather concreting. Concretemade and cured between 4 and 13 degrees C (40 and 55 degrees F) had lower early

3-16 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDlRPr.RVO Revision 0


strengths than concrete made and cured at 23 degrees C (73 degrees F) but had slightlyhigher strengths at 28 days (Portland Cement Association 1979).


All six mixes passed the paint filter liquids test as listed in Table 3-13.

Freeze/Thaw and Wet/Dry Durability

Durability testing was performed on all of the sediment mixes for both room temperatureand cold cures. Table 3-13 includes the results and shows that all mixes demonstrateddurability under freeze/thaw and wet/dry conditions. Not enough material was availableto perform durability testing on the TTDI and SDWTDI residuals. Given that theirstrengths were similar to the sediment mixes, they would likely pass the durability test.

Permeability

Permeabilities were measured for all sediment mixes. As presented in Table 3-13, all wereon the order of 10"7 cm/s, approximately one order of magnitude lower than the Phase 2mixes. TTDI and SDWTDI residual mixes were not tested because of the lack of material.

Resistance to Microbial Growth

Solidified sediment samples cured at room temperature were exposed to fungi and bacteriato determine their resistance to microbial growth. A trace (less than 10 percent) of thefungus Chaetomium was observed in the samples but only appeared on undecayed organicmatter in the solidified matrix. No bacterial growth was observed.

3.5.2 Chemical Test Results


Results of TWA of the solidified samples of Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 sediments are



presented in Tables 3-14A and 3-14B. The concentrations were reported on a solidified-weight basis. Based on sediment weight only, the concentrations would increase by 15percent to account for dilution from adding cement. Total concentrations of compoundsdetected in the untreated sediments are listed for comparison.

Acetone was detected at 1,600 and 670 /xg/kg in solidified Reach 2-2 and 11-4 sediments,respectively. 2-butanone was detected at 130 and 49 jig/kg. These exceeded theconcentrations in the untreated sediments and were the highest concentrated VOCs in thesolidified Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 sediments, respectively. Commonly encountered aslaboratory artifacts, these compounds possibly entered the solidified sediments during mixingor curing. Chlorobenzene and methylene chloride in solidified Reach 2-2 sediment, andtoluene and methylene chloride in solidified Reach 11-4 sediment were approximately at thesame or at lower concentrations compared to the untreated sediments. The remainingdetected VOCs were at concentrations lower than the detection limits for the untreatedsediments.

Most of the detected SVOCs were measured at higher concentrations in the solidifiedsediments than in the untreated sediments. For Reach 2-2, benzo(a)pyrene,benzo(b)fluoranthene, fluoranthene and hexachlorobenzene exhibited an increase inconcentration after solidification. The following are possible explanations for the observedincrease:

• Heterogenous distribution of chemical constituents between samples;

• Sample matrix interference;

• High pH of solidified matrix causing increased solubility of certaincompounds;

• Different quantitation procedures between Kiber (solidified sediment analysis)and Hazleton (untreated sediment analysis);

Increases in solidified concentrations of SVOCs have been observed in other studiesperformed by Kiber (telephone correspondence on December 19, 1994). However, thisphenomena was not investigated.



Aroclor 1248, detected in Reach 2-2 sediment, was approximately 10 times lower inconcentration in the solidified sediment. Encapsulation of the PCB by hydrated cementwould prevent its extraction and yield a lower measured concentration. Heterogeneity andmatrix effects may also account for the lower concentration.

Several metals were lower in concentration in the solidified sediment than in untreatedsediment for both reaches. Solidified concentrations of arsenic at 5.7 mg/kg (Reach 2-2)and 71.9 mg/kg (Reach 11-4) decreased from 15.0 mg/kg and 162 mg/kg, respectively.Mercury at 0.40 (Reaches 2-2 and 11-4) decreased from 0.80 mg/kg (Reach 2-2) and 1.3mg/kg (Reach 11-4), respectively. The decrease was possibly a combination of two factors:1) encapsulation of the metal ions inside the cemented matrix; and 2) decreased ionsolubility at the higher pH of the solidified matrix. As with the organics, heterogeneity andmatrix effects may have been a factor for the difference.

Significant increases in concentrations of calcium and magnesium were measured. ThePortland cement actually increased these concentrations because portland cement was shownto contain large quantities of calcium and magnesium (Appendix C). Other metals detectedin portland cement included iron and potassium.

ANS Method 16.1 Leachabilitv

Table 3-14 A and Table 3-14B also summarize the results of ANS Method 16.1 leachability.

Of the VOCs, acetone, benzene, methylene chloride and toluene were detected in aliquotsfrom leachate from solidified Reach 2-2 duplicate samples at cumulative concentrations of36 to 37, 0 to 0.5,29 to 37.6, and 0 to 2.6 /*g/l, respectively. Solidified Reach 11-4 sedimentyielded similar results with cumulative leachate concentrations of 55 and 40 /*g/l for acetoneand methylene chloride, respectively.

SVOCs and PCBs were not detected in leachate from solidified sediment for either reach.

RCRA metals that were detected in the leachate from solidified Reach 2-2 sedimentincluded arsenic and barium. Arsenic was detected in only one of the four leach cycles for



each of the duplicate samples. In one sample, arsenic was detected in the 48-hour leachateat an estimated concentration of 0.03 mg/1. In the other sample, arsenic leached at anestimated concentration of 0.04 mg/kg after 7 hours. Both detections were just above thedetection limit of 0.02 mg/1. Barium was detected in all four leach cycles yielding a totalcumulative concentration ranging from 0.90 mg/1 to 0.95 mg/1 for the duplicate samples.Leaching of barium peaked at 24 hours and decreased slightly after 48 hours.

For Reach 11-4 solidified sediment, barium and selenium were the only RCRA metalsdetected in leachate. Barium leached at a cumulative concentration of 0.09 mg/1,significantly lower than the Reach 2-2 samples. The greater fines content in Reach 11-4would enable more ion adsorption than the sandy sediment in Reach 2-2 and decreaseteachability. Selenium was detected in the 2-hour leachate at an estimated concentrationof 0.04 mg/1, slightly above the detection limit of 0.035 mg/1. For both reaches, the generaltrend was a gradual increase in metal concentrations over the first day reaching a peak at24 hours and decreasing after 48 hours.

ANS 16.1 leachate from solidified samples of thermal treatment residuals and wastewatertreatment sludge was analyzed for TAL metals. These results are presented in Table 3-14C.Barium was the only RCRA metal detected in any of the leachate. The cumulative totalconcentration of barium over the 48-hour test was 0.45 mg/1 for the solidified Tl'DI ash and48 to 54 mg/1 for the duplicate solidified SDWTDI ash.

Modified ANS Method 16.1 Leachability

Using the modified setup described in Attachment 1, both unsolidified and solidifiedsediments were leached using ANS Method 16.1.

The only VOC detected in solidified Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 leachates was methylenechloride which was also detected in the untreated sediment leachates. This compound alsoappeared in the method blank, indicating that it was introduced as a laboratory artifact.Toluene and xylene appeared at small concentrations in both untreated sediment leachates.In addition, 2-butanone and trichloroethene were detected in untreated Reach 11-4 leachate.



Of the SVOCs, diethylphthalate was detected in the untreated Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4leachates and in solidified Reach 11-4 leachate at lower concentrations than for theuntreated sediment sample. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in the 7 hour sampleof both solidified sediment leachates. Phthalates are commonly introduced by plasticcontainers such as the leaching tub or sample wrap used in the modified setup.

PCBs were not detected any of the untreated or solidified sediment leachates.

Metals which decreased in concentration for solidified Reach 2-2 leachate compared tountreated Reach 2-2 leachate included magnesium, manganese and zinc by at least oneorder of magnitude. Sodium concentrations were approximately the same betweenuntreated and solidified sediment leachates for Reach 2-2. Arsenic, mercury and vanadiumwere undetected in the solidified sediment leachate but were estimated at or just above thedetection limit in the untreated sediment leachate for Reach 2-2. An increase inconcentration of aluminum, barium, calcium, copper and potassium was measured in thesolidified Reach 2-2 leachate. However, these compounds were probably contributed by thecement in the solidified mix (Appendix C). Chromium and lead were not detected in eitheruntreated or solidified Reach 2-2 leachate.

Decreases in concentrations of metals ranged from approximately one order of magnitudefor cobalt, magnesium, manganese and zinc to approximately two orders of magnitude foraluminum and iron in solidified Reach 11-4 leachate. Barium, copper and sodiumconcentrations were approximately the same between untreated and solidified Reach 11-4leachates. Arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury were undetected in either untreated orsolidified sediment leachate for Reach 11-4. Calcium and potassium, components ofPortland cement, were observed to increase in concentration.

Hazardous Characteristics

Table 3-16 summarizes results for the hazardous characteristics of reactivity, corrosivity, andignitability.

Reactivity was evaluated by measuring reactive cyanide and sulfide. Reactive cyanide was



less than 0.05 mg/kg for both solidified samples. Reactive sulfide was detected at 11.3 and10.8 mg/kg for solidified Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 sediments, respectively.

Corrosivity was evaluated by measuring the pH of the solidified sediments. Solidified Reach2-2 sediment had a pH of 11.79 and solidified Reach 11-4 sediment had a pH of 10.28.

Ignitability was evaluated by measuring the flashpoint of the solidified sediments. Bothreaches exceeded 140 degrees F.

3.6 DATA VALIDATION

The analytical data generated by Kiber used for the SLDI were evaluated for theappropriate precision, accuracy and completeness specified in the SLDI Work Plan. Thedata validation process for this project consisted of data generation, reduction, and twolevels of complete data review and validation - with the exception of selected bench scaletreatability test data - in accordance with the Sediment Operable Unit (SOU) QAPjP.

Kiber provided the following data packages: chain-of-custodies; tabulated results ofcompounds identified and quantified, dilution factors, and the reporting limits for allanalytes; and analytical results for QC sample spikes, sample duplicates, standard proceduralblanks, and laboratory control samples.

A narrative accompanying the data package includes the identification of samples notmeeting the total QC criteria as specified in the analytical method and the laboratory dataquality review SOPs, and cautions regarding quantitative use or data usability limitations dueto out-of-control QC results.

3.7 CONCLUSIONS

Phase 1

Portland cement, cement with fly ash, hydrated lime with fly ash, cement kiln dust with flyash, and proprietary reagents HWT-7/11 and HWT-25 were all found to be effective at

3-22 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDlRP-nSLDIRPT.RVO Revision 0


solidifying Fields Brook sediment. For each of the six reagents/reagent combinations, oneor more design mixes exceeded the UCS objective of 50 psi, passed the RCRA TCLPtoxicity limits and did not exhibit free liquids. The percent volume increases (bulking) weregreatest for the lime-fly ash and kiln dust-fly ash mixes and were the least for portlandcement, cement-fly ash, and the proprietary reagents. Considering the minimal bulking andthe low amounts of reagent required to reach 50 psi, portland cement and HWT-25 wereselected for further investigation in Phase 2.

The volatilization study on the effect of homogenizing sediment was inconclusive given thelow levels of VOCs present in the sediment.

Phase 2

Portland cement and HWT-25 met the 50 psi UCS objective using leaner mixes thaninvestigated in Phase 1. Class F fly ash was found to have a no significant effect on theUCS of the portland cement mixes and was eliminated from further evaluation. HWT-25,being more expensive as a proprietary agent, was eliminated from consideration becauseessentially the same or more reagent would be required to meet the 50 psi objective thanportland cement.

Mixes having a 0.11 cement-to-sediment ratio were selected as a lower bound forteachability, permeability and durability testing. The following conclusions were made fromthese tests:

• The solidified monolith had a permeability within the expected range forsolidified materials;

• The solidified monolith exhibited durability upon repeated exposure towet/dry cycles; and

• The solidified monolith was not durable upon exposure to repeatedfreeze/thaw cycles indicating that a higher cement content was necessary.

A statistical analysis of UCS results for the portland cement mixes was performed todevelop a mix design model. A 0.15 ratio of cement to sediment was selected to satisfy the



50 psi objective on cylindrical samples based on the model.

Verification Phase

The design mix of 0.15 cement successfully solidified Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 sedimentsand TTDI and SDWTDI residuals according to the strength, durability and free liquidscriteria.

Raising the cement-to-sediment ratio from 0.11 to 0.15 notably increased UCS. Comparingthe 0.11 cement samples from Phase 2 to the 0.15 cement samples in the Verification Phase,the 28-day UCS of cylindrical samples increased from 34.1 and 48.0 psi to 149.0 and 127.4psi for Reach 2-2 and Reach 11-4 sediments, respectively. The increased cement contentsignificantly improved the freeze/thaw durability of the solidified monoliths. Less than 4percent cumulative mass was lost compared to losses as high as 60 percent in the Phase 2samples. The monoliths were also durable when exposed to wet/dry cycles with acumulative mass loss of less than 1 percent.

Cold curing the Verification Phase mixes at 4 degrees C (40 degrees F) retarded the rateof early strength development but resulted in slightly greater 28-day UCS compared to themixes cured at room temperature. Cold-cured samples demonstrated both freeze/thaw andwet/dry durability with similar results as the room-temperature cured samples. Cumulativemass losses were less than 2 and 1 percent for freeze/thaw and wet/dry testing, respectively.These cold-cure temperatures would typically be experienced in the spring and fall innortheastern Ohio and are not expected to be detrimental to the strength and durability ofthe solidified sediments. However, it is not recommended to expose the solidified sedimentsto sub-freezing temperatures during early strength-development.

Permeability decreased by approximately one order of magnitude from the Phase 2 samplesto 10"7cm/s for both room-temperature cured and cold-cured samples. The relativelyimpermeable monolith would impede water infiltration through the monolith. Water mayactually tend to flow around the monolith instead of through it depending on thepermeability of the surrounding soils.

3-24 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Revwion 0


The solidified sediments only supported a trace of fungal growth and did not support anybacterial growth. As noted earlier, fungal growth was only observed on undecayed organicmatter exposed on the surface of the samples. The fungi would tend to decompose organicmatter at the surface into water and carbon dioxide but would not attack the cementedmatrix. Because only a trace of fungal growth was sustained, decomposition of the organicmatter is not expected to be detrimental to the monolithic structural integrity. However,plant matter such as leaves, twigs and roots should be removed from the sediment as muchas possible prior to solidifying to reduce potential fungal growth.

The solidified mix effectively immobilized most of the constituents of concern based onconstituent concentrations in ANS Method 16.1 leachate. Excluding VOCs which were notof concern in the SLDI, the only detected analytes were three RCRA metals, arsenic,barium and selenium. Arsenic was detected in duplicate samples of leachate from solidifiedReach 2-2 sediment at estimated values of 0.03 and 0.04 mg/kg. Compared to the detectionlimit of 0.02 mg/kg, these concentrations are not significant. Furthermore, the detectionsoccurred in only one aliquot per sample and after different time durations among theduplicate samples. Arsenic was not detected in leachate from solidified Reach 11-4sediment which had approximately ten times more total arsenic in the untreated sedimentcompared to Reach 2-2. Barium was detected in all leachate samples but was attributed tothe chemical composition of portland cement. Selenium was only detected in leachate fromsolidified Reach 11-4 sediment but was not considered to be significant because it wasdetected in only one aliquot at an estimated value of 0.04 mg/kg, just above the detectionlimit of 0.035 mg/kg.

Using the modified ANS Method 16.1 setup, leachate concentrations of iron, magnesium,manganese and zinc decreased by at least one order of magnitude for the solidifiedsediments compared to untreated sediments. Leaching of aluminum, barium, calcium,copper and potassium were attributed to the chemical constituents in the portland cementfor the solidified sediments. Arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury were undetected inleachates from both untreated and solidified sediments. Lower detection limits may haveenabled a comparison between untreated and solidified sediment leachates for these metalsbut could not be attained given the small quantity of sediments available for testing and thetest methods used.



The solidified sediments were not hazardous under the RCRA characteristics of reactivity,corrosivity or ignitability.



4.0DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATION

Sediments

Sediments from three locations in Fields Brook were physically and chemically characterizedin the SLDI. These sediments were selected for the SLDI because they were expected tobe typical of sediments that may require full-scale solidification.

The sediment types ranged from silty sands (SM) to low-plasticity silts (ML). The siltysediment in Reach 11-4 had approximately 30 percent clay compared to less than 10 percentin the sandy sediments of Reaches 2-1 and 2-2. The silty sediment had the lowest dry unitweight, 69 pcf, and the highest water content of 51 percent. The sandy sediments had dryunit weights of 71 and 82 pcf corresponding to water contents of 45 and 37 percent,respectively. To minimize reagent addition for full-scale remediation, it is recommendedthat the sediments be dewatered to water contents below 50 percent.

Chemical characterization of the three sediments was presented in Tables 2-1A through 2-1D. In general, VOCs were undetected in the sediments as expected in the SLDI WorkPlan. Sediments containing greater quantities of VOCs were expected to be thermallytreated and were purposely not selected for the SLDI. The primary constituents of concernin the SLDI sediments were SVOCs, PCBs and metals in Reaches 2-1 and 2-2, and metalsin Reach 11-4.

Characterization of the remaining reaches of Fields Brook was performed in the SQDI.

Free liquids generated during excavation and dewatering of sediments were characterizedin the SDWTDI and will not be addressed here.

4-1 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDntPT.RVO Revision 0


Thermal Treatment Residuals

The characteristics of solidified thermal treatment ash were investigated as part of this study.After incineration, the residual ash will contain very little to no moisture and will requirewater addition if solidified. The water content of the ash can be raised by mixing with thesediment feed at an ash-to-sediment ratio within the range of 1:5 for sediments near 30percent moisture to 1:1 for sediments near 50 percent moisture to prevent the mix frombecoming too dry.

The TOC of the ash will generally be lower than in untreated sediments. As discussed inSection 2.3.2, TOC may be detrimental to strength development in the solidified mixes. Thelower TOC of the ash would reduce this effect.

The primary constituents of concern in the thermally treated sediment will be metals.RCRA metals detected in the ash from the TTDI included arsenic at 10.1 mg/kg, bariumat 89 mg/kg, cadmium at 1.5 mg/kg, chromium at 254 mg/kg, lead at 40 mg/kg, mercuryat 0.08 mg/kg, thallium at 5.5 mg/kg and silver at 3.3 mg/kg.

Wastewater Treatment Residuals

Residual sludges will be generated from metals precipitation and suspended solids removalas part of the wastewater treatment process during remediation. It is recommended thatthese sludges be dewatered to a water content of 50 percent or less (dry-weight basis) beforeentering the solidification process based on UCS and metals teachability results on solidifiedsludge in the SLDI.

It is expected that metals precipitation and suspended solids removal will be accomplishedusing caustic soda or lime and a polymer, or by using a polymer alone. Sludge generatedby treating a water sample from Fields Brook using caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and ananionic polymer was successfully solidified in the SLDI. The UCS of the solidified sludgewas over four times greater than the preliminary design strength of 50 psi and metals inANS Method 16.1 leachate from the solidified sludge was below RCRA toxicity levels forthe TCLP.

4-2 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Rcvmoo 0


4.2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SOLIDIFICATION

The non-binding ARARs for the SLDI were determined in the pre-SARA ROD (SLDIWork Plan, Rev. 2A, September 1993). Without waiving any rights or defenses, theFBPRPO believes that certain subsequent federal and state regulations outline theappropriate technical requirements for certain aspects of the remedial action. For example,the RCRA and PCB incineration regulations generally provide the appropriate requirementsfor on-site incineration. Therefore, the potential ARARs identified in the report includeregulations promulgated since the date of the ROD for general consideration in the designprocess.

A summary of the potential ARARs considered for the siting, design, construction andoperation of the thermal treatment unit is provided below.

Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (29 CFR 1910 and 1926)

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has promulgated acomprehensive set of occupational health and safety standards. These regulations take atwo-pronged approach to worker safety by establishing safe working practices, as well as safelevels of exposure to a variety of materials. These regulations are applicable during theremedial activities.

Ohio Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Ohio Administrative Code [OAC] Title 3745,Chapter 52)

These regulations specify standards for owners/operators at facilities where hazardous wasteis generated. These requirements include standards for the identification of hazardouswaste, the storage of hazardous waste, the need to manifest waste shipped off site, and pre-transport requirements.



Ohio Hazardous Waste Management (OAC Title 3745, Chapter 55)

These regulations regulate the treatment and storage of hazardous waste. If hazardouswaste is stored on site, then it must be stored in compliance with the regulations forcontainers, tanks, surface impoundments, or waste piles. These regulations also specify thedesign and operating standards that must be met for the treatment of hazardous waste.

Ohio Land Disposal Restrictions (OAC Title 3745, Chapter 59)

As stated above, since the Fields Brook ROD was signed prior to the enactment of SARA,the ARARs defined in the 1985 National Contingency Plan (NCP) apply to the site. The1985 NCP ARARs are used as general guides in determining the extent of the remedialaction (50 CFR 47917). These 1985 ARARs are much more flexible in their application.In effect, the 1985 ARARs are non-binding.

Furthermore, USEPA has stated that when they promulgated the Land Disposal Restrictions(LDRs) Treatment Standards, they recognized that treatment of waste, includingcontaminated soils, to the LDR treatment standards would not always be possible orappropriate (Superfund Publication 9347.3-06FS, September 1990).

Since the Fields Brook ROD is a pre-SARA ROD, and USEPA has stated that it does notalways make sense to apply the LDRs to contaminated soils, the application of the LDRsto soils and sediments at this site is not required.

RCRA Hazardous Waste Generation Regulations (40 CFR 262)

Part 262 describes the regulatory requirements imposed on generators of hazardous waste.The regulations address accumulating wastes without a permit, preparing waste for shipment,and using the uniform hazardous waste manifest system. Obviously, each generator mustalso be familiar with the contents of Part 261, which explains how to identify a hazardouswaste.

4-4 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRFnSLDIRPT.RVO RevUion 0


RCRA Standards for Owners/Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage, andDisposal Facilities (40 CFR 264)

The Part 264 standards impose stringent requirements on hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. The regulations fall into two general classifications:(1) Subparts A through H are general standards applicable to TSD facilities; and (2)Subparts I through BB apply to specific types of treatment, storage, and disposal activities(i.e., the use of landfills, incinerators, tanks) or specific equipment (e.g., drip pads andprocess vents).

Subpart O addresses the facility standards for incinerators. Specifically, this subpartspecifies how an incinerator is to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained.Hazardous waste incinerators must comply with strict testing and performance standards.

Clean Air Act. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards(40 CFR 50)

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) specify the maximum concentrationof a federally regulated air pollutant in an area resulting from all sources of that pollutant.No new construction or modification of facility, structure, or installation may emit anamount of any criteria pollutant that will interfere with the attainment or maintenance ofa NAAQS.

Clean Air Act. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61)

These standards regulate eight hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR 61.01(a)) and list other airpollutants that cause serious health effects (40 CFR 61.01(b)). These requirements couldbe applicable if the thermal treatment results in the release of hazardous air pollutants.

Nonattainment Area Regulations (OAC 3745-31, 35)

These regulations require new or modified sources located in nonattainment areas to meetspecial technology-based and air quality-based requirements in addition to New Source



Performance Standards (NSPS). These requirements are referred to as Lowest AchievableEmission Rate (LAER) and offsets. These regulations are potentially applicable becausethe Fields Brook site is in a nonattainment area for ozone.

4.3 DESIGN CRITERIA

Prior to solidification, sediments and residuals from other treatment processes should beprepared accordingly:

• Dewater or add water to a water content within the range of 30 to 50 percent;

• Remove undecayed plant matter to reduce the potential for fungal growth;and

• Remove oversize objects (e.g., boulders) that may damage machinery.

Selection of the maximum load and minimum rated capacity of the conveying and mixingequipment is dependent on the following factors:

• Excavation/hauling rate;

• Sediment preparation rate (for dewatering, vegetation and oversize particleremoval);

• Sediment storage capacity; and

• Reagent (i.e., cement) storage capacity and availability.

Energy and spatial requirements for the batch plant will ultimately depend on the selectedequipment.

4.4 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

The SLDI mix design criteria listed below were achieved or exceeded using a portlandcement to dry sediment ratio of 15 percent for sediment water contents less than 50 percent:

4-6 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Rcviiioo 0


• No free liquids;

• Nonreactive;

• Nonpyrophoric;

• Resistant to microbial growth;

• Minimum unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 50 psi at 28 days; and

• Wet/dry and freeze/thaw durability (unless cap thickness is greater than themaximum depth of frost penetration).

These preliminary design criteria may change in the final solidification design.

Based on bench-scale testing of cold-cured samples, solidification during moderately low-temperature periods (i.e., average temperature at or above 4 degrees C [40 degrees F])retards strength development but may ultimately yield a greater 28-day strength. However,it is not recommended that solidification be performed when temperatures are belowfreezing.

Traces of fungal growth in the solidified matrix associated with undecayed plant matter wasnoted during microbial growth testing in the SLDI. Therefore, it is important that plantmatter be removed from the sediment before solidifying,

4.5 GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING

It is recommended that the 28-day UCS be measured on solidified cylinders using ASTMD 1633. The samples should be closely observed while under maximum loading to ensurethat free liquids are not being exuded.

To accommodate placing new lifts over previously placed lifts cured less than 28-days, 7-dayUCS testing is also recommended. A 7-day UCS of 28 psi is expected to supportconstruction equipment and to demonstrate that greater than half of the 28-day designstrength has been reached. A set of four cylindrical samples cast from mix exiting the batchplant are recommended at a frequency of one set per 50 cubic yards to provide duplicate



samples for 7-day and 28-day UCS testing. Given the retardation of strength developmentduring cold cure, it may be necessary to delay the 7-day tests until 14-day tests to achieve28 psi.

In addition to laboratory UCS testing, in situ pocket penetrometer strength readings maybe performed at 7-days to supplement the laboratory UCS data. Three to five replicatereadings could be taken in a grid pattern across the lift at 25-ft. intervals. According to thecorrelation developed in Section 3.3.1, a pocket penetrometer reading of 2.5 tsf wouldcorrespond to a UCS of 28 psi. The pocket penetrometer data would be useful forpinpointing low-strength areas that may require verification UCS testing on cored samplesand possible removal and resolidification of the low-strength area.

4.6 RESIDUALS DISPOSAL

An estimated 7,900 cubic yards of sediments are expected to be solidified and landfilled.Based on the Verification Phase data in Table 3-11, bulking was measured at 4 percent orless. Actual bulking of solidified sediments as placed in the landfill will depend on thecompactive effort used in placing the layers. Assuming 5 percent bulking, the total volumerequired for landfilling the solidified sediments would be approximately 8,300 cubic yards.

The volume of sediments requiring thermal treatment was estimated at 3,200 cubic yards.Assuming the ash will be solidified and will bulk at 5 percent the initial volume, the totalvolume required for landfilling the solidified ash would be approximately 3,400 cubic yards.

Wastewater sludge generation was estimated in the SDWTDI at an annual rate of 78,000gallons, or 386 cubic yards. The bulking ratio for solidifying wastewater treatment sludgewas not measured in the SLDI. Assuming a bulking ratio of 25 percent, the annual volumeof solidified sludge to be landfilled would be approximately 480 cubic yards. For a projectduration of 2 years (assumed), the total landfill volume required for solidified sludge wouldbe approximately 960 cubic yards.

The total combined volume of solidified sediments, thermal treatment ash and wastewatertreatment sludge would be approximately 13,000 cubic yards.

4-8 02-17-95I:VFBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Rcviaioo 0


4.7 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR SOLIDIFICATION ACTIVITIES

The preliminary cost estimate associated with solidification activities will be provided in thePreliminary (30 Percent) Design Report.



5.0REFERENCES

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990. 1990 Annual Book of ASTMStandards. Volume 04.01. Cement: Lime: Gypsum.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990. 1990 Annual Book of ASTMStandards. Volume 04.08. Soil and Rock: Building Stones.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990. 1990 Annual Book of ASTMStandards. Volume 08.03. Plastics (III).

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990. 1990 Annual Book of ASTMStandards. Volume 11.04. Pesticides: Resource Recovery: Hazardous Substances andOil Spill Responses: Waste Disposal: Biological Effects.

Fields Brook Potentially Responsible Parties Organization (FBPRPO). 1993. SedimentOperable Unit Combined Design Investigation Task Work Plans, Fields Brook Site,Ashtabula, Ohio, Volume 2: Solidification Design Investigation (SLDI), Revision 2A.September 1993.

Neville, A.M. 1981. Properties of Concrete. Pitman Publishing Limited, London, England.

Portland Cement Association. 1979. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. PortlandCement Association, Skokie, IL.

Sanglerat, G. 1972. The Penetrometer and Soil Exploration. Elsevier Publishing Company,New York, NY.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985. Remedial Investigation, FieldsBrook Site, Ashtabula, Ohio. March 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. Record of Decision, RemedialAlternative Selection, Sediment Operable Unit (SOU), Fields Brook Site. September30, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989a. Sediment Operable UnitEngineering Design Investigation (SOUEDI) Statements of Work (SOW), FieldsBrook, Ashtabula, Ohio. March 14, 1989.

5-1 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRPT.RVO Rcviiion 0


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989b. Unilateral Administrative Order(UAO). March 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989c. "Stabilization/Solidification ofCERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests, Chemical Testing Procedures,Technology Screening, and Field Activities." EPA/625/6-89/022. May 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Comments to 3/27/92 "SQDIStatus Report, Sediment Operable Unit, Sediment Quantification DesignInvestigation (SQDI), Fields Brook Superfund Site." June 22, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. "Solidification/Stabilization ofOrganics and Inorganics." EPA/540/S-92/015. May 1993.

Zarlinsky, S. Telephone correspondence. December 19, 1994.

5-2 02-15-95I:\FBK\SLDIRPT\SLDIRIT.RVO Revision 0

TABLES

Woodward-ClydeConsultants

TABLE 2-1AVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOO) IN UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

vocConcentrations in

US/kg1.1,1 -TrichloroeUwM

1 . 1 ,2,2-Trtnchloroethm*1 .1 ,2-Trichloroethane

1,1-DtchlorocthmeI,l-Dichloroethen<1,2-DkhloroctlHM

1 J-DiohlorcMbene (total )1 ,2-DfchIoTopropme

2-Butanone2-Hexanom

4-Methyt-2-pentanoncAcetoneBenzene

Bromodjchloromethane

BrotnoformBromomethnM

Cofcon DvulfideCwbon Teirtchloride

ChkvobenzeneCUaroethme

CluOfOfofTT

ChJoromethaneci§-l ,3-DichloropropeneDibromochloroniethane

Ethyl BenzeneMrthylonc Chloride

StymieTetrwchloroethww

Toluenetnm-1 ,5-DJcWoropropcw

TrichloroetheneVmyl ChlorideXylenes (total)

NovemberEPA CUGs

Residential3

393.451,00051,000

179,000-

17,000-

87,433.000---

--

352,000-----

87,433.000-

1,672,000-

--

437.167,000

1,360,000

-196,000

874.335.000

-927,000

5,400

-

Occupational*766,500,000

119.000418,000

-40,000

. - .170.333.000

--

--

822,000-----

170.333.000-

3,909.000-

--

851,667,0003,180,000

-459,000

1,703,333,000

•2.168,000

13.000

-

REACH 2-1, XS 74BIO1D1

Det QIM|-Retuh Limit ifier

16U16U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16UJ16 UJ16U16 UJ16 U16 U16 U16 UJ

0.4 J16 U

10 J16 UJt 6 U16 UJ16 U16 U16 U

150 J16 U16 Ut f i U16 U16 U16U16 U

4B1O1S

Det Qu*J-

Renilt Limit ifier16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16UJ16UI16 U

19 J16 U16U16 U16 UJ

0.2 J16 U

15 J16 UJ16 U16 UJ16 U16 U16 U

70 J16 U16 U16U16 U16 U16 U16 U

REACH 1-1, XS 34B2C1S

DM. Qu.1-

Remit Limit ifier14 U14 U14 U14 U14 U14 U14 UU U14 UJ14 UJ14 U

21 J14 U14 U14 U14 UJ14 U14 U

1 J14UJ14 U14 UJ14 U14 U14 U

34 J14 U14 U14 U14 U14 U14 U14 U

REACH 11-4, XS J4K4B1S

Det Qual-Resuh Limit ifier

16 U16U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 UJ16 UJI6UJ16 UJ16 U16 U16 U16 U16 UJ16 UI f i U J16UJ16 U16 U16 U16 U16 UJ

110 J

16 UJ16 U

6 J

16 U16U16 UJ16 UJ

NOTES1 Duplicate sample1 Residential CUGs apply to Reaches 2-1 and 2-2.3 Occupational CUGs apply to Reach 11-4.

QUALIFIER NOTATIONU Not Detected

J Evtomted

UJ Not Detected, Detection Limit Ectimatad

VOCS XLSfChncterization] 2/16/95


TABLE MBSEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs) IN UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

svocConcentrations in

Mg/kR1 2,4 -Trich lorobcnzene

1 ,2'Dichlorobenzene1 ,3 -Dichlorobenzene1 ,4- Dichlorobenzene

2,2'-oxybis(l-ChIoropropane)2,4,5 -Trich loropbenol2,4,6-Trichloropheno]

2,4- Dich loropbenol2,4-DimethylpbcnoI

2,4-Dinitrophcnol2,4-Dinilrotolucne2,6-Dinitrotoluene

2-Ch loronaphthalene2-Chlorophenol

2-Methy Inapbthak nc2-Methylphcnol

2-NitroaniIinc2-Nitropbenol

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidiiie3-Nitroaniline

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenot4- B romopheny 1 -phcny lethci

4-Chlon>3-methyl phenol4-Chtoroaniline

4-Chloropheny l-pheny lether4-MeihylphcnoJ

4-Nitroaniline4-NitrophenolAcenapfatbene

Acenaphthylene

NovemberEPACUGs

Residential2 Occupational3

43,717,000 : 85,167,000393,451,000 ! 766,500,000

„425.000 994,000

_ I. -

.._.. :_

_.. :

..

21,858,000 42,583,000..„

_..

__

..

.._....-._ _..

262,300,000 51 1,000,000_ !

REACH 2-1, XS 74BIG1D1

DEL Qual-Result Limit ifier

130 J480U

600no J

480 UJ1200 U480 U480 U480 U

1200 UJ480 U480 U480 U480 U

26 J480 U

1200 U480 U480 U

1200 U1200 UJ480 U480 U480 U480 U480 U

1200 U1200 U480 U480U

4BIG1SDa. Qul

Result Limit ffia

86 J480 UJ

420 J71 J

480 UJ1200 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

1200UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

1200 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

1200 UJ1200 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

1200 UJ1200 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

REACH 14, XS 34B2C1S

Del. QwJRemit Limit ffier

40 J570 U

750140 J

570 UJ1400 U570 U570 U570 U

1400 UJ570 U570 U570 U570 U

24 J570 U

1400 U570 U570 U

1400 U1400 UJ570 U570 U570 U570 U570 U

1400 U1400 U570 U570 U

REACHM-4.XS24K4B1S

Dei. Qu*J-Rexult Limit ifier

520 U520 U520 U520 U520 UJ

1200 U520 U520 U520 U

1200 UJ520 U520 U520 U520 U

240 J520 U

1200 U520 U520 U

1200 U1200 UJ520 U520 U520 U520 U520 U

1200 U1200 U520 UJ520 U

(Continued)NOTES1 Duplicate sample2 Residential CUGs apply to Reaches 2-1 and 2-2.3 Occupational CUGs apply to Reach 11-4.

pi lAT [FIFE NOTATION

U Not DetectedI Ectinuled

UJ Not Detected; Detection Limn Estimated


TABLE 2-1B (Continued)SEMIVOLATBLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs) IN UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT


US/kgAnthracene

Benzo(a>anthraceneBenzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b>nuorantbeiKBenzo(gJi,i)paylcnc

Benzo(k}fluoran(henebis(2-Cbloroefhoxy) methane

bis(2-Chtoroethyl) etbeibis(2-Eiriylhexyl) phthalaie

ButylbenzylphthalateCarbazoleChrysene

Di-n-butylphihalateDi-n-octylphthalate

Dibenzo(a,h )anthraceneDibenzofuran

DiethylpbthalateDimethylphihalate

FluotanthcneFluorene

HexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadiene

HexachlorocyclopentadieneHexacfatoroelbane

lndeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrcneIsophorone

N-Nilroso-di-o-propylamineN-nitrosodipheaylamine

NaphthaleneNitrobenzene

PentachlorophenolPbenantfarene

PhenolPyrenc

NovemberEPACUGs

Residential2 Occupational3

1,311 ,502,000 2,555,000,00013,970 33,0001,400 3,300

13,970 33,000-

13,970 33,000-_ •

729,000 1,703,000„-

139,730 327,000437,167,000 851,667,000

87,433,000 170,333,0001,400 3.300

,. • _3.497,338,000 ; 6,813,333,000

437,167,000 \ 851,667,000174.867.000 340,667,000174,867.000 340,667,000

6,380 15,000131,000 306,000

~729,000 1,703,000

14,000 33,00010,737,000 25,102,000

„2,081,750 4,867,000

174,867,000 340,667,0002,186,000 4,258,000

_„ _

2,623,004,000 5,1 10,000,0001,311,502,000 2,555,000,000

REACH 2-1, XS 74B1G1D1

Dec QulResult Until ifier

75 J230 J200 J540

480 U480 U480 U480 U

680480 U480 U

240 J480 U480 U480 U480 U

41 1480 U

55060 J

25001000

480 U79 J

110 J480 U480 U480 U480 U480U

1200 U430 J

480 U460 J

4BIG1SDa. Qual-

Rauk Limit ifier22 J

150 J170 J410 J

48 J480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

790 J480 UJ480 UJ

170 J480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

300 J480 UJ

2300 J470 J

480 UJ480 UJ

95 J480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ480 UJ

1200 UJ150 J

480 UJ240 J


Dec Qu*i-Result Limit ifier

56 J210 J180 J500 J

570 U570 U570 U570 U

640570 U570 U

270 J570 U570 U570 U570 U

29 J570 U

560 J60 J

1300260 J

570 U570 U

96 J570 U570 U570 U570 U570 U

1400 U430 J

570 U450 J

REACH 11 -4, XS 24MB IS

Del. Qurf-Rcsuft Limit ifier

35 J120 J

87 J350 J

74 J520 U520 U520 U

410 J520 U520 U

240 J520 U520 U520 U

92 J27 J

520 U350 J

520 U520 U520 U520 U520 U

60 J520 U520 U520 U

130 J520 U

1200 U510 J

520 U270 J

1 Duplicate sample2 Residential CUGs apply lo Reaches 2-1 and 2-2.3 Occupational CUGs apply lo Reach 11-4.

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not DetectedJ Estimated

UJ Not Detected, Dciecboa Limit E*uro*nsd

SV<>TS.XLS|O>»icleriz«ion)


TABLE2 1CPESTICIDES AND POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

Pesticide/PCBConcentrations in

Hg*g4,4'-DDD4,4'-DDE4,4'-DDT

AJdrinalpha-BHC

alpha-ChlordaneAroclor-1016Aroclor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-1260

beta-BHCdelta-BHC

DieidrinEndosulfanl

Endosulfan IIEodosuUan sulfale

EndrinEndrin aldehyde

Endrin ketoneganuna-BHC (Ltndane)

gamrna-ChlordaneHeptachlor

Heptachlor epoxideMethoxychlor

Toxapbene

NovemberEPACUGs

Residential1

----

1600-

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

_

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7800-

2300-

• --

Occupational1

----

3800-

*4

4

4

4

4

4

_

_

-

—

_

-

-

-

-

18000-

5300---

REACH 2-1, XS 74B1GJD'

Del QuaJ-Renift Limit ifier

240 U240 U240 U120 U120 U120 U

2400 UJ4900 UJ2400 UJ2400 UJ

4800 J2400 UJ2400 UJ

120 U120 U240 U120 U240 U240 U240 U240 U240 U120 U120 U120 U120 U

1200 U12000 U

4BIG1S

Det Qtul-R«uh Limit ifier

240 U240 U240 U120 U120 U120 U

2400 UJ4900 UJ2400 UJ2400 UJ

6800 J2400 UJ2400 UJ

440 J120 U240 U120 U240 U240 U240 U240 U240 U120 U160 UJ150 UJ120 U

1200 U12000 U

REACH 2-1, XS 3482C1S

Remit

11000

DetUrn*

280280280150150150

2800580028002800

28002800

150150280150280280280280280150190150200

150015000

Qu*ifier

UUUUUUUJUJUJUJ

UJUJUUUUUUUUUUUJUJUJUU

REACH 11 -4, XS 24K4B1SRE

RMUlt

3.9

Det

Limit

5.25.25.22.72.72.752

1005252525252

2.72.75.22.75.25.25.25.25-22.72.72.7

27270

Qual-ifier

UJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJJUJUJ

NOTES1 Duplicate sample1 Residential CUGs apply to Reaches 2*1 and 2-2.3 Occupational CUGs apply to Reach 11-4.4 Total PCBs not to exceed 1,300 Vg (residential) or 3,100 ngflcg (occupational).

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not Detected

J Estimated

UJ Not Detected, Detection Limit Estimated

PCBS.XLS{Characterization]


TABLE 2-1DMETALS IN UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

MetalsConcentrations in

rag/kgAluminumAntimony

ArsenicBarium

BerylliumCadmium

CalciumChromium*

CobaltCopper

IronLead

MagnesiumManganese

MercuryNickel

PotassiumSelenium

SilverSodium

ThalliumVanadium

Zinc

NovemberEPA CUG*

Residential1

-1,74927.6-2.4

2,186-

4,393,531-

161,752-500--

1,31287,433

-21,858

--262-

847,335

Occupational1

-3,407

27.6-5.5

4,258-

8,559,250-

315,117-500--

2,555170.333

-42,583

--511-

1,703,333


Del QiMl-Retult Limit ifier11,500

8.9 U12.3853

0.680.78 V

1030047.315.227.4

35,10036.3

3,680805

0.5137.7

1,7200.53 Ul

1.9 J526 UJ

0.53 U108133 J

4B1G1SDeL Qwl*

Reiutt Limit ifier

11,5008.6 U

13.4858

0.620.87

11,60045.115.929,8

36,30034.6

4,000856

0.5336.5

1,5700.53 U

1.6 UJ545 UJ

0.53 U89.6

126.0 J


DeL Qwrf-ReniH Limit ifier11,900

11.1 U15.0233

0.49 U0.98 U

22,50057.813.438.9

29,40055.5

5.900838

0.8032.5

1,6800.65 U

2.1 UJ903 UJ0.65 U

108125 J

REACH 11-4, XS 24K4B15

Del Qual-

Remdt Limit ifier10,700

10.5 U162.0

4734.3

0,93 U882

45.512.650.8

138,00098.0535126

1.3035.0

3,98023.2

2,0 UJ992 UJ

20.582.277.1 J

NOTES1 Duplicate sample3 Residential CUGs apply to Reaches 2-1 and 2-2.* Occupational CUGs apply to Reach 11-4.4 Listed CUG is for Chromium III and Chromium VI combined.

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not Detected) Estimated

Ul Not Detected; Detection Limit Estimated

METALS.XLS[Omcteri2ition]

...ward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 2-2VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)

IN PRE-HOMOGENIZED AND HOMOGENIZED SEDIMENT SAMPLES


Mg/kgt , 1 , l-Trichloroelhane

1. 1,2,2-Tetrachloroelhane1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroelhant1,1-DichIoroethcnc1,2-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethene (total)1 ,2-Dichloropropwie

2-Bufanone2-Hexanone

4-Methyl-2-penlanoiKAcetoneBenzene

Brom odic h lorom ethane

BromoformBfomomethane

Carbon BisulfideCarbon Tetrachloridt

ChlorobenzeneCnlorocthane

Chloroform

Ch lorom ethane

cis-l,3-DichloropropeneDibromochloromethant

Ethyl Benzene

Methylenc ChlorideStyrem

TetrachloroetheneToluene

trant- 1,3-Dich loropropcneTrichloroetheneVinyl ChlorideXylenes (total)

REACH 2-1, XS 7

4BIG4G1

Del. Qual-

Result Limit ifier40 U

40 U40 U40 U40 U

40 U3 J

40 U40 UJ40 U40 U

130 J40 U

40 U40 U

40 U40 U40 U

84

40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

240 UJ40 U

2 J25 J

40 U

40 U40 U

2 J

4B1G5G1

Del Qual-Result Limit ifier

22 U7 J

22 U22 U

22 U22 U

9 J22 U

22 UJ22 U22 U

26 UJ22 U22 U

22 U22 U22 U

22 U17 J

22 U22 U22 U

22 U22 U

22 U

95 UJ22 U

19 J10 J

22 U

24

22 U19 J

4BIG6G1


19 U19 U19 U19 U

19 U

19 U2 J

19 U19 UJ19 U19 U

44 UJ19 U19 U

19 U19 U19 U19 U

26

19 U19 U19 U

19 U19 U19 U

95 UJ19 U

0.9 J10 J

19 U

19 U

19 U09 J

4BIG7S2

Det Qual-Result Limit ifier

24 U24 U

24 U24 U

24 U24 U

8 J24 U24 UJ24 U24 U

39 UJ24 U24 U24 U24 U

24 U24 U

34

24 U24 U24 U24 U

24 U24 U

75 UJ24 U

3 J

12 U24 U

9 J

24 U3 J

REACH 2-2, XS 3

4B2C4G1

Dct Qual-Result Limit ifier

12 U12 U

12 U12 U

12 U12 U

3 J

12 U

12 UJ12 U12 U

18 UJ12 U12 U

12 U12 U

12 UJ12 U12 U12 U12 U

12 UJ12 U

12 U12 U

12 UJ12 U

2 J12 U12 U

5 J!2 U12 U

4B2C5G1

Det- Qual-Result Limit ifier

21 U

21 U21 U21 U21 U

21 U21 U21 U21 UJ21 U21 U

44 J02 J

21 U21 U

21 U21 UJ21 U

37

21 U

21 U21 UJ21 U21 U

21 U21 UJ

21 U1 J

21 U

21 U21 U

21 U21 U

4B2C6G1


26 U26 U

26 U26 U

26 U26 U26 U26 U26 UJ26 U

26 U60 UJ

0.9 J

26 U26 U26 U

26 UJ26 U

55

26 U26 U26 UJ26 U26 U

2 J

26 UJ26 U26 U

10 J26 U26 U26 U26 U

4B2C7S1

Dft. Qual-Resull Limit ifier

20 U20 U20 U

20 U20 U

20 U3 J

20 U20 UJ20 U20 U50 UJ

05 J20 U20 U20 U

20 UJ20 U

33

20 U20 U20 UJ20 U20 U20 U

20 UJ20 U20 U

5 J20 U20 U

20 U

20 U

NOTES1 Pre-homogenized grab sample.2 Homogenized composite sample.

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not Detected

J Estimated


VOCS .XLS[ Volatilization ] 9/5/94

Woodward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 2-3ATCLP LEACHABILITY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

FROM UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT


HR/lU.l-Tnchlorodhux

1 , 1 .2.2-TctrachlonxihincI.U-TYicMofoeiluiM

I.l-Dichlofoahav

U-DicMonKthene

l rDidUoroeflMoeIJ-DkbtanjeAene (uul)

1 ,2-Dichloroprop*K2-8uunanc

2-Haunam4-Mettayl-2-pcMMMnc

AcCtDfK

Benzen

BrorrodkhlcroRicihineBromoCcnr

BrcmomethNMCutxn Duulfidc

Cuban TttrachkxickOitarienaa*CMnroetlWK

ChkmrfomiChl«wn«h««

CM- 1 3-DtchtaropropaK

DibromochloroincltanEthyl Benzene

Methytene Chloride

StyRXK

TttnchtoroedMMTohtem

(rant- 1 J-D»chlo«ptOpeai:TrichtoroetheneVinyl Chloride

Xyfcnet <UK»IJ

RKACJI2 1.XS7

•JBIGIG'

Del. Qual-Rmh Limit ifier

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

LOU

10 U

10 U10 U10 UI

10 UJ

10 U

IOUJ

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UI

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UI10 Utou10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

4Bir,jr,'Dei Quil-

RcsuJl Limit ilier

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

^ 1R

3 IR

R

R

R

R

0.6 )

RR

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

4BIG3GRE1

DM. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

10 UI

10 UI

10 UI

10 U)

10 UI

10 UI

10 UI

10 UI

10 J

10 UJ

11 I

59 I

10 UI

10 UJ

10 UI

10 UJ

0.7 I

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UI

10 UI

10 UI

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UI

10 UJ

10 UI

10 UI

10 UJ

10 UJ

RKACH 2-2,XS.l

4B2C1G1

Del Quil-

R exult Limit ilicr

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ10 UJ

10 UI

10 UI

10 UI

43 I

10 UJ

1 I76 J

10 UI

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UI0.2 J

10 UI

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 UI

R

10 UI

10 UI

10 UI

10 UJ

4B2C:C.'

IX-I Quil-

Resull Liniil ificr

10 U

1 J10 U

10 U

It) U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 UJ

10 U

10 UI

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

0.5 J

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

11 UI

in u10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

3 I

10 U

4B2C3G'

Del. Qu»t-

Rcsuli Limit ifier

OR 1

10 UI06 J

0.6 I

O.H J

10 UJ

R0.6 J

19 I

10 UJ2 J

92 J

10 UJ0.5 J

0.4 J

10 UI0.9 J

0.9 J

1 J

10 UI06 J

10 UI

2 I

0.5 J0.9 J

10 UJ

0.6 J

10 UI

R0.4 J

R

10 UJ

3 J

REACH 11-4, XS 2

4K.4B1G1

DcL Qiul-Resull Limn ifier

10 U10 U

10 U

10 U

1 J

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

2 J62 U

10 U

10 U

to u10 UJ

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UI

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

R

R

10 UR

10 U

10 U

4K4B2G1

Del. Qu»l-Resuli Limit ifter

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

2 J

SI U

10 U

10 U10 U

10 UI

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

R

10 U

10 U

4K4B3G'

Dei. Qual-

Result Limit iTter

10 U

10 U

!0 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 U2 I

64 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

10 Uto u10 UI

10 U

10 UJ

10 U

10 U

10 U

10 U

to u10 U

10 U

10 U

R

10 U

10 U

NOTES1 Pre-homogenized grab sample. U

I

UJ Net Detected; Detection Loot Enirraied

VOCS.XLSfTCLP|


TABLE 2-3BTCLP LEACHABILITY OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs)



W5/11 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1 ,2-DichIorobenzene1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane)2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-TrichIorophenol

2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol

2,4-Dinitrophenol2,4-DinitrotoIuene2,6-Dinitrotoluene

2-Chloronaphthalene2-Chlorophenol

2-Methylnaphthalene2-Methylphenol

2-Nitroaniline2-Nitrophenol

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine3-Nitroaniline

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol4-BromophenyI-phenylether

4-ChIoro-3-methyIphenol4-Chloroaniline

4-Chlorophenyl-phenyIether4-Methylphenol

4-Nitroaniline4-NitrophenolAcenaphthene

Acenaphthylene



50 US O U

3 J50 U50 U

120 U50 U50 U50 U

120 U50 US O Usousou50 U50 U

120 U50 U50 U

120 U120 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U

120 U120 U

S O US O U

4B1GISDet. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

50 U50 U

3 J50 US O U

120 U50 U50 U50 U

120 U50 US O U50 U50 U50 U50 U

120 U50 U50 U

120 U120 U50 U50 U50 U50 USOU

120 U120 U50 U50 U


Det. Qua)-Result Limit ifier

SOU50 U

4 J50 U50 U

120 USOU50 U50 U

120 U50 U50 U50 US O U50 U50 U

120 U50 U50 U

120 U120 U50 U50 U50 U50 US O U

120 U120 US O US O U

REACH 11-4, XS 24K4B1S


SOU50 U50 U50 U50 U

120 USOU50 US O U

120 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U

120 US O U50 U

120 U120 U50 U50 U50 U50 US O U

120 U120 U50 U50 U

NOTESDuplicate sample

(Continued)QUALIFIER NOTATION


UJ Not Detected; Detection Limit Estimated

SVOCS.XLS[TCLP] 9/5/94


TABLE 2-3B (Continued)TCLP LEACHABILITY OF SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (SVOCs)



Mg/1Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzo(k)fluoranthenebis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane

bis(2-Ch!oroethyI) etherbis(2-Ethylbexyl) phthalate

ButylbenzylphthalateCarbazoleChrysene

Di-n-butylphthalateD i - n- octy 1 p htha 1 ate

Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneDibenzofuran

DiethylphthalateDimethylphthalate

FluorantheneFluorene

HexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadiene

HexachlorocyclopentadieneHexachloroethane

Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyreneIsophorone

N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamineN-nitrosodiphenylamine


PentachlorophenolPhenanthrene

PhenolPyrene

REACH 2-1, XS 74BIG1D1

Del. Qual-Result Limit ifier

S O U50 U50 U50 US O U50 UJS O U50 U50 US O U50 US O Usousousou50 Usou50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 US O US O US O U

120 US O US O U

4B1G1SDet. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

S O Usousousousou50 UJ50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 US O U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U

120 U50 U50 U

50 U 50 U

REACH 2-2, XS 34B2CIS

Det. Qual-Result Limit ifier

50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 UJSOU50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 US O U50 U50 USOU50 U50 US O US O Usousousou

120 U50 U50 U50 U

REACH 1 1-4, XS 24K4B1S


50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 UJ50 U50 U50 US O U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 US O U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 U50 US O U50 U50 U50 U50 U

120 U50 U50 U50 U


QUALIFIER NOTATION



SVOCS XLS[TCLP] 9/5/94


TABLE 2-3CTCLP LEACHABILITY OF PESTICIDES, POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)

AND CHLORINATED HERBICIDES FROM UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

Pesticide/PCB andChlorinated Herbicide

Concentrations inHg/1

Pesticides/PCBs4,4'-DDD4,4'-DDE4,4'-DDT

Aldrinalpha-BHC

alpha-ChlordaneAroclor-1016Aroclor-1221Aroclor-1232ArocIor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-1260

beta-BHCdelta-BHC

DieldrinEndosulfan I

Endosulfan 11Endosulfan sulfate

EndrinEndrin aldehyde

Endrin ketonegamma-BHC (Lindane)

gamma-ChlordaneHeptachlor

Heptachlor epoxideMethoxychlor

ToxapheneChlorinated Herbicides

2,4,5-TP (Silvex)2,4-D

REACH 2-1, XS 74B1GID1


0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

1 UJ2 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJI UJ1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.5 UJ

5 UJ

1 UJ5 UJ

4B1G1SDel Qual-

Result Limit ifier

0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

1 UJ2 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0. UJ0. UJ0. UJ0. UJ0. UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

0.5 UJ5 UJ

1 UJ5 UJ



0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

1 UJ2 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

0.1 UJ0.05 UJ

O.I UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.5 UJ

5 UJ

1 UJ5 UJ

REACH 11-4, XS 24K4B1S

Det Qual-Resutt Limit ifier

0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

1 UJ2 U J1 UJ1 UJ1 UJ1 UJI UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

0.1 UJ0.05 UJ

0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ0.1 UJ

0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ0.05 UJ

0.5 UJ5 UJ

1 UJ5 UJ


QUALIFIER NOTATION



PCBS.XLS[TCLP] 9/5/94


TABLE 2-3DTCLP LEACHABILITY OF METALS FROM UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

MetalsConcentrations in

mg/lAluminumAntimony

ArsenicBarium

Bery IliumCadmium

CalciumChromium

CobaltCopper

IronLead

MagnesiumManganese

MercuryNickel

PotassiumSelenium

SilverSodium

ThalliumVanadium

Zinc

REACH 2-1 ,XS 74B1G1D1

Del. Qual-Rcsull Limit ifier

1. 180.0328 U

0.01092.92

0.0015 U0.0098

2270.01450.0683

0.0109 U30.4 J

0.01469.45 J15.7

0.0001 U0.107

4.210.002 UJ

0.0063 UJ1,590 J

0.002 U0.0036 U

0.432 J

4B1G1SDel. Qual-

Result Limit ifier1.17

0.0328 U0.0126

2.680.0015 U

0.01209

0.01450.0656

0.0177 U29.9 J

0.014811.1 J14.5

0.0001 U0.0894

2.590.002 UJ

0.0063 UJ1,550 J

0.002 U0.0036 U

0.398 J

REACH 2-2, XS 34B2CIS


1.120.0328 U

0.01052.03

0.0012 U0.0072

3500.01450.0633

0.0094 U40.8 J

0.01788.65 J13.5

0.0001 U0.111

4.850.002 UJ

0.0063 UJ1,480 J

0.002 U0.0036 U

0.509 J

REACH 11-4,XS24MB IS


0.287 U0.0328 U

0.0030.169

0.0022 U0.0029 U

6.330.006 U

0,01890.0089 U

6.28 J0.0066

1.63 J0.853

0.000340.0577

7.390.0024 J

0.0063 UJ1,460 J

0.03480.0036 U

0.0593 JNOTES1 Duplicate sample

QUALIFIER NOTATION



METALS.XLS[TCLP-Untreated] 9/7/94


TABLE 2-4PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF UNTREATED SLDI SEDIMENT

PARAMETER

Soil Classification

Water Content 2

Grain-Size DistributionGravel (19 mm - 4.75 mm)Coarse Sand (4.75 mm - 2.00 mm)Medium Sand (2.00 mm - 0.425 mm)Fine Sand (0.425 mm - 0.075 mm)Silt (0.075 mm - 0.005 mm)Clay (< 0.005 mm)

Atterberg LimitsLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity Index

Unit Weight 2

WetDry

REACH 2-1Cross Section 7

SM Silty Sand

37 percent

8.1 percent3.8 percent

18.1 percent32.5 percent27.3 percent10.2 percent

362511

112 pcf3

82 pcf3


SM Silty Sand

45 percent


20.5 percent28.8 percent27.2 percent

5.6 percent

513417

103 pcf3

71 pcf3


ML Silt

51 percent

0.0 percent0.8 percent1.1 percent2.8 percent


3427

7

105 pcf3

69 pcf3

NOTES:1 Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) symbol followed by description.2 Measured upon receipt; Average of 6 replicate measurements.3 Pounds per cubic foot.

TAB2-4 XLS[PHYSCHAR]

Wooo .d-Clyde ConsultantsTABLE 3-1

PHASE I MIX DESIGNS AND TESTING

Reagent

'ortland Cement

'ortland Cementwith Fly Ash (1:2)

lydrated Limewith Fly Ash (1:2)

Cement Kiln Dustwith Fly Ash (1:2)

HWT-7/11

HWT-25

MixNo.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536

Water-to-SolidsRatio,

W0.2170.2530.3040.2630.3050.3640.1900.2530.3040.2310.3050.3640.1900.2530.3040.2310.3050.3640.1900.2530.3040.2310.3050.3640.2710.2920.3170.3260.3500.3780.2710.2920.3170.3260.3500.378

Reagent-to-Sediment

Ratio,R

0.7510.5010.2500.7150.4760.2391.0010.5010.2500.9520.4760.2391.0010.5010.2500.9520.4760.2391.0010.5010.2500.9520.4760.2390.4000.3010.2000.3810.2860.1900.4000.3010.2000.3810.2860.190

Test Schedule1

Post-Mix 4-8 hours 1 day 3 days 7 days 1 4 days 21 days 28 days2

UW, WC PPl, UCS PPI, UCS PPl. UCS PPT, UCS PPl, UCS, PFL PPI, UCS UW, WC, PPI. UCS, PFLUW, WC PPl PPl PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW. WC. PPI, UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PP1 PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW. WC. PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPl PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPl, UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI.UCS PPl.UCS PPI,UCS PP1.UCS PPI. UCS. PFL PPI.UCS UW, WC, PPI, UCS. PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPl PPl PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC. PPI. UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPl UW, WC, PPI. UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPl PPl PPI. PFL PPl UW, WC. PPI, UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPl PPl PPl, PFL PPI UW. WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPl PPl PPl, PFL PPI UW. WC. PPl, UCS. PFLUW, WC PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI, UCS, PFL PPI.UCS UW. WC, PPI. UCS. PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPl PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI. UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPl PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPl PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC. PPI, UCS, PFLUW.WC PPl PPl PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC. PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI. UCS. PFL PPI.UCS UW. WC. PPl, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPl PPl PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW. WC, PPl, UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPl PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPl PPl PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC. PPI. UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPl PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC. PPI. UCS. PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI. UCS. PFLUW, WC PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS, PFL PPI.UCS UW, WC, PPI. UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC. PPI, UCS. PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW. WC. PPl, UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC. PPI, UCS. PFLUW.WC PPl PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPl UW. WC. PPI, UCS. PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPl PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW. WC PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI.UCS PPI. UCS, PFL PPI.UCS UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW. WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC. PPl, UCS. PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW. WC. PPI, UCS. PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW. WC, PPI, UCS. PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI. PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS. PFLUW.WC PPl PPI PPI PPl PPl, PFL PPl UW. WC, PPI, UCS, PFL

Notes1 The tests are as follows:

UWWCPPI

UCSPFL

Unit WeightWater ContentPocket Penetrometer Strength IndexUnconfined Compressive Strength (on cube samples)Paint Filter Liquids Release (only performed if free liquids were observed in the sample)

Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) Leachability performed on the two samples for each reagent having the lowest UCS exceeding 50 psi.

PHYSDAT. XLWIRATIOS.XLS]

Woo« ward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 3-2PHASE 2 MIX DESIGNS AND TESTING

Reagent

Portland Cement

HWT-25

MixNo.

12345678910111213141516

ReachNo.

2-211-42-211-42-211-42-211-42-211-42-211-42-211-42-211-4

Reagent-to-Sediment

Ratio,R25252525181811111111202016161212

Fly Ash-to-CementRatio,

FA00

2:12:11:11:100

2:12:1NANANANANANA

TEST SCHEDULE

Post-Mix 4-8 hours 1 day 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days2

UW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFLUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFL


UW Unit WeightWC Water ContentPPI Pocket Penetrometer Strength Index

UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength (on cube and cylindrical samples)PFL Paint Filter Liquids Release (only performed if free liquids were observed in the sample)

2 The following tests were performed on two sets of samples closest to 50 psi:ANS Two-day American Nuclear Society (ANS) Method 16.1 Leachability

K PermeabilityF/T Freeze/Thaw Durability

W/D Wet/Dry Durability

PH2-DAT.XLS[mix design] 9/9/94

Wooaward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 3-3VERIFICATION PHASE MIX DESIGNS AND TESTING

MixNo.

V-l

V-2

V-3V-4

V-TT2

V-SDWT3

ReachNo.

2-2

11-4

2-211-4

(Ash)(Sludge)

Reagent-to-Sediment

Ratio,R

0.15

0.15

0.150.150.150.15

Water-to-Total Solids

Ratio,W

0.39

0.44

0.390.44

0.35-0.434

0.35-0.435

CureTemperature,

20°C (68° F)

20°C (68° F)

4 4°C (40° F)4 4°c (40° F)20°C (68° F)20°C (68° F)

Test Schedule

Post-Mix 4-8 hours 1 day 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 daysUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PP1, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFL, K, F/T, W/D, ANS

TWA, MCR, RCIUW.WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFL, K, ?/T, W/D, ANS

TWA, MCR, RCI

UW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFL, K, F/T, W/DUW, WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFL, K, F/T. W/D

UW,WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFL, ANS-METALSUW. WC PPI PPI PPI PPI PPI, PFL PPI UW, WC, PPI, UCS, PFL, ANS-METALS


UW Unit WeightWC Water ContentPPI Pocket Penetrometer Strength Index

UCS Unconfmed Compressive Strength (on cube and cylindrical samples)PFL Paint Filter Liquids Release (only performed if free liquids were observed in the sample)

K PermeabilityF/T Freeze/Thaw Durability

W/D Wet/Dry DurabilityANS American Nuclear Society (ANS) Method 16.1 Leachability with Analysis for VOCs,

SVOCs, PCBs and MetalsTWA Total Waste Analysis of Solidified Solid MassMCR Microbial Growth Resistance

RCI Reactivity, Corrosivity and Ignitability

2 TT indicates Thermal Treatment Design Investigationresiduals.

3 SDWT indicates Sediment Dewatering and WastewaterTreatment Design Investigation residuals.

4 Target water ratio range: water addition required.Target water ratio range: dewatering required.

VPH-DAT.XLS[MTX DESIGN] 9/9/94


TABLE 5-4PHASE 1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLIDIFIED REACH 2-1 SEDIMENT

MixNo.

123456789101 112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536

Reagent

CementCementCementCementCementCement

Cement-Fly Ash (1:2)Cement-Fly Ash (1:2)Cement-Fly Ash (1:2)Cement-Fly Ash (1:2)Cement-Fly Ash (1:2)Cement-Fly Ash (1:2)

Lime-Fly Ash (1:2)Lime-Fly Ash (1:2)Lime-Fly Ash (1:2)Lime-Fly Ash (1:2)Lime-Fly Ash (1:2)Lime-Fly Ash (1:2)

Kiln Dust-Fly Ash (1:2)Kiln Dust-Fly Ash (1:2)Kiln Dust-Fly Ash (1:2)Kiln Dust-Fly Ash (1:2)Kiln Dust-Fly Ash (1:2)Kiln Dust-Fly Ash (1:2)

HWT-7/1 1HWT-7/1 1HWT-7/1 1HWT-7/1 JHWT-7/1 1HWT-7/1 1HWT-25HWT-25HWT-25HWT-25HWT-25HWT-25

R

0.750.500.250.720.480.241.000.500.250.950.480.241.000.500.250.950.480.241.000.500.250.950.480.240.400.300.200.380.290.190.400.300.200.380.290.19

Post-MixWater

Content

0.200.270.330.270.310.350.200.230.300.210.300.350.180250.300.240.390.390.180.260.310.220.290.350.270.290.300.320.340.410.280.290.290.380.360.35

rioist UnitWeight

(pcf)130123118128121116113123117121119115100!I61161 1 5112113115121117121118114114115118118115112119116119112112115

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)1089789101928694100901009285859389938181979689999184908991898679939092818285

BulkingRatio, B1

0.320.270.150.400.310.180.740.230.140.590.320.190.930.320.150.720.500.250.680.280.140.610.320.200.280.190.080.260.230.220.230.180.060.390.280.14

28-DayWater

Content

0.120.170.250.150.190.300.140.210.270.180.250.330.160.220.300,230.330.360.160.230.280.220.280.350.230.270.290.290.320.380.230.290.280.360.360.33

Moist UnitWeight

(pcO128122117126120115113122117121119115100116116115112112114120117121117113118115118117115112118116119112112115

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)114104941101018899101921039586869589938482989891999184969191918781969093828286

BulkingRatio, B1

0.250.180.090.280.200.150.650.220.110.550.270.170.900.290.150.710.440.230.660.260.120.610.320.210.190.170.070.240.210.200.190.180.060.370.280.13

Notes1 Bulk ing ratio, B, equation and calculations in Appendix A.

nULKSUM XI.S[TADLE 3-4]

Consultants

TABLE 3-5SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS AND

POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH INDEXES

MIX

NUMBER12345678910I t12131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (DCS)1 AND POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH INDEX (PPI)1 AT SPECIFIC CURE TIMES

4 HOUR

UCS (psi)22.5

-----

66.0-----

8.516.55.0901 01.0

26.5-----

31.0-----

24.5-----

PPI (tsf)2.380680830.880.001.934.45

>4502.65

>4.501.950.653801.780.161.550.000.00

>4.501 000.003.800.000.004031.950.850650000003430650600000250.10

1 DAY

UCS (psi)1294.0

-----

525.0-----

23.510.03.012.0201.0

47.0-----

131 5-----

90.5-----

PPI (tsf)>4.50>4.50>4.50>4.50>4.50>4.50>4.50

->4.50

-> 4 5 03.134.402.130.202.880.000.00

-2250003600000.00

>4.50>4.503.533.201.980.73

>4.503.833.601.481.531.43

3 DAY

UCS (psi)1592.5

-----

3485-----

11.511.53.515.02.51 0

680-----

413.0-----

141.5-----

PPI (tsf)-----------

408>4.503.500.154.38000000

-2.650.004.480.68000

--

4.45>4.504.151.70

->4.50>4.504.23443355

5 DAY

UCS (psi)-------------------------

82.024.034.020.011.0

-41.030.527.022.0165

PPI (tsf)------------------------------------

7 DAYUCS (psi)

1653.51 340.5433.01698.0986.523552955416090.5734.5190.043.018535.085

56.0654.07653054.055.510.52.5

555.096.055.068542521 02660104056.060560036.0

PPI (tsf)-----------

>450-

>4.500.40

>4.500.08000

-3.150.05

>4500.50000

--

>4.50-

> 4 5 0> 4 5 0

---

>4.50>4.50>4.50

14 DAY

UCS (psi)1764.016950506.0

2342.0987.01840868.5693.0112010420240053089.094.0290147.030015053.542.07.0

79.021 000

916.5196.01030133085.040.0517.0231.0149.0153.0118.0580

PPI (tsf)--------------

1.70-

0.800.08

-328003

-080000

------------

21 DAYucs (psi)

1646.5-----

809.5-----

54.5-----

565-----

1232.0-----

7880-----

PPI (tsf)--------------

2.60-

2.40053

-4.000.05

-1.030.00

------------

28 DAY

UCS (psi)2041.01378.0618.01631.01191.0384067655935110.5901.0261.049.0127.0132.028.0284.542.01252653203.5

66.512.02.0

1545.02555141.0224.5137.064.5900.5314.5190.5243.5168.0109.5

PPI (tsf)-------------------

2.750.05

-1.60000

------------

Notes1 Values represent the average for duplicate samples1 Values represent the average of 10 replicate values.- Testing discontinued

For PPI replications greater than 4.5 at a given cure time, a value of 4.5 was used in calculating averages.

TAB3-S XLS[UCS-PPI1


RCRA

RCRA ToxicityCompound Level

(mg/l)Araic SJOBarium 100.0

Beneae 0,5rii inm 1.0CtAottetncUoBAe 0,5CUoidMe 0.03rMwri.iauai ioo.0CUonrfoan 6.0Oil. •• MI 5.0Craol 200.0

ZAD MXOlAOicttaiotattae 7.5IJ-niiMnim* ! 0.51.1-Diddamdvfeae 0.72*OWM*faBK 0.13EMlbn 0.02tfc*nd** 0-008tfcucttarabenzatt 0.13

Un U^KMk . in

Lad 3,0LJBdMK 0.4

Merewy 0.2MuhuxycUor 10.0Mc*yt«diylfa*»c 200.0NtarabaucK 2.0T«MiL»iiiuplM..il 100.0Pyhfe 5.0Sakwun 1.0saw 5.0rrtiKhtaBiUlijl* 0.7loMph«ie 0.5Tritl«««Hduh«j 0.52.4,5-lticttanpbeMl 400.02.4,6-TifaMiBHHiiMJ ; - - 24)2A5-1F{5lvex) 1.0vt&nuu*-*-----'-' • 03

,1-T-

• : : . • . . . • ; . : : : : :u2Tola! Concentration (i

Del. Qual-j *«i-Rewk Un* ifier i RcnUl fi«

12.3 13.'853 ; 851

0.016 U

0.78 U0.016 U

0.12 U

o.*-.

l

ftfllO J { 0:01*0.016 U U

47.3 I 43.?0.48 U

-*tofrCEJ>

i

AW0.1 10 J 0.07(

0.016 U '0.016 U

0,48 U0.24 U0.12 U

2.5

l.«00.079 J

36.30.12 U

?)JJ

2J€14?

i

344!J

0.51 [ ftj?1.2 U J

0.016 U 1 ;W0.4* U I J1.2 U

A/«i-CtP

_:j

N»'

0^3 U) U1.9 j i '

0.016 U j J

12U : J0.016 U

1.2 U0.48'U

Non-CLP

0.016 U

J

J

" ::;:-^N-J

:.; .. .$j

HWT-7/1 1

Mix No. 11IVt Qul-

ttenuli Limt ifier

0.086 U0.55

O.OOUU

0.022 U0.0031 U0.0012 U0.0024 U0.0036 ID0.024 UJ

0.0019 U0.12 U

Mix No. 30DtL Qual-

Kesuh Lima ifier

0.084 U0.62

0.0014 U0.021 U

0.0031 U0.0012 U0.0024 U0.0033 UJ0.015 U

0.0020 U0.12 U

0.0016 U 0.001 5 U0.0023 U 0.0023 U0.0047 U

0.017 U0.0024 U0.0012 U0.0035 U0.0022 U0.0041 U

0.092 U0.001 2 U0.004ft U

0.012 U0.14 U)

0.0019 U0.050 U0.035 U

0.16 U0.017 U

0.0042 U0.059 U

0.0029 U0.009] U

0.014 U0.024 U

0.0080 U

0.0046 U

0.017 U0.0024 U0.0012 U0.0036 U

0.0023 U0.0042 U0.089 U

0.0012 U0.0048 U

0.012 U0.13 ID

0.0020 U0.052 U0.033 U

O.15U0.015 U

0.0042 U0.057 U

0.0029 U0.0094 U

0.<H4 U0.024 U

0.4MMOU

HWT-25

Mix No. 33DM. Qua)

Rewh Una i&cr0.085 U

0.580.0014 U0.022 U

0.0031 U

0.0012 \i

0.0024 U0.0034 U

0.016 U0.0019 U

0.12 U0.0016 U0,0023 U0.0047 U

0.017 U0.0024 U

0.0012 U0.0035 U

0,0023 U0.0041 UO.OWU

0.0012 U0-004* U

0.011 U0.12 UJ

0.0019 V

0.050 U0.033 U

0.15 U0.016 U

0.0042 U0.055 U

0.0034

0.0091 U0.014 V0.024 U

0,0080 U

Mix No. 36Dei. Quo!

Rccuh IJIM ifkr0.084 U

0.650.0014 V

0,021 U0.0031 U0.0012 U0.0024 U0.0033 U

0.01 5 U0.0019 U

0.12 U0.001 5 U0.0023 U0.0046 U

0.016 U0.0024 U0.0012 U0,0035 U0.0021 U0.0039 U

0.089 U0.001 2 U0.0048 U

0.012 U0.14 UJ

0.0019 U0.049 U

0.032 U0.15 U

0.015 U

0.0042 U0.060 U

0.00430.0089 U

0.013 U0.024 U

0.0080 U

NQTCS'DMpikaunmplM of faoaogenized material.J Dupficwe mnptei of bonoftauzed material except for VOCt wfakfa we1 Mix otto* for «* btfdi AR listed in Table 3-1.4 TCLP Mart* Cor *e aoikEBed nrtetul adjured for retptf addttnt by

DATAOIIAI.TFTPRSU Not detectedJ Estimted valueUJ Not detected; quantitation limit estimated

TCLP_3UMXLWtUnieMed and Sofcttcd Sod.}


TABLE 3-7PHASE 2 PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS FOR SOLIDIFIED REACH 2-2 AND REACH 11-4 SEDIMENT

MixNo.

2-12-22-32-42-52-62-72-82-92-102-112-122-132-142-152-16

Reagent

CementCementCementCementCementCementCementCementCementCementHWT-25HWT-25HWT-25HWT-25HWT-25HWT-25

Reagent-to-

SedimentRatio, R

0.250.250.250.250.180.180.110.110.110.110.200.200.160.160.120.12

Post-MixWater

Content

-0.39

-0.400.420.400.410.43

-0.440.390.400.390.410.430.44

Moist UnitWeight(pcf)

-112-

110110112111109-

109112111111109109110

Dry UnitWeight(pcO

-81-

7977807976-

76817980777676

BulkingRatio, B1

-0.10

-0.130.080.050.000.03

-0.040.060.070.030.070.040.04

28-DayWater

Content

0.300.310.350.340.410.350.340.380.370.430.330.340.330.390.350.42

Moist UnitWeight(pcf)113111114112108111115108114115113111112112110114

Dry UnitWeight(pcf)

87848584778285788380858384808180

BulkingRatio, B1

0.000.030.020.040.070.00-0.09-0.01-0.08-0.04-0.020.0 1-0.040.00-0.04-0.03

Notes1 Bulking ratio, B, equation and calculations in Appendix A.- Not measured.

TAB3-7.XLS [Bulking] 9/9/94

W .ward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 3-8SUMMARY OF PHASE 2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS AND


MIXNUMBER

2-12-22-32-42-52-62-72-82-9

2-102-112-122-132-142-152-16

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS)1 AND POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH INDEX (PPI)1

4 HOURPPI (tsf)

->4.50

1.21.30.80.81.20.20.40.20.60.40.60.50.80.0

I DAYPPI (tsf)

->4.503.31.71.51.21.50.90.80.01.70.41.10.90.60.4

3 DAYPPI (tsf)

>4.50>4.504.12.02.51.92.42.01.30.12.51.33.30.91.40.5

7 DAYPPI (tsf)

--

4.12.53.62.23.43.31.90.1

>4.501.04.40.62.30.9

14 DAYPPI (tsf)

--

4.03.84.12.74.33.42.00.7

-2.7

-1.73.21.1

21 DAYPPI (tsf)

--

>4.503.84.22.64.33.31.90.5

-4.4

-2.33.90.9

28 DAYUCS (psi)

Cube290.5435.342.039.027.734.735.253.114.525.0122.365.680.223.026.320.5

Cylinder246.8431.429.039.1

3

36.534.148.08.05.4

96.545.776.313.637.011.5

PPI (tsf)

----------------

Notes1 Values represent the average for duplicate samples.2 Values represent the average of 10 replicate values. For PPI replications greater than 4.5 at a given cure time, a value of 4.5 was used in

calculating averages.3 Samples were too soft for testing.- Testing discontinued.

PH2-DAT XLS[UCS-PPI] 9/9/94

Wc^ward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 3-928-DAY PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS FOR SELECTED PHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENTS

MixNo.

2-7

2-8

ReachNo.

2-2

11-4

Cement-to-

SedimentRatio,

R

0.11

0.11

DryUnit

Weight

psf

85

78

UnconfmedCompressive Strength

CubeSamples

psi

35.2

53.1

CylindricalSamples

psi

34.1

48.0

Permeability

cm/sec

2.3E-06

1.2E-06

Durability1

(Cumulative Mass Loss)Freeze/Thaw

percent

20-21

33-60

Wet/Drypercent

<1.0

<1.0-1.7N.ptes1 Sample was considered durable if cumulative mass loss was less than or equal to 15 percent.

TAB3-9.XLS[28-DAYJ 9/9/94


TABLE 3-1OAPHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT:TCL VOCs IN ANS 16.1 LEACHATE

VOCs

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane1 , 1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethan«

1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichlorocthem

1.2-Dichloroethan«1 ,2-DichIoroethene (total

1 ,2-Dichloropropuic2-Butanone2-Hexanone

4-Mcthyl'2-pentanoneAcetoneBenzene

Bromodi chl oromethaneBromofonn

Bromome thaneCarbon Di&ulfide

Carbon TetrachlorideChloroberuen<

ChJorocthan<Chloroform

Chloromethanccis- 1 ,3-DichloropropeneDi bromoch 1 oro m ethane

Ethyl BenzeneMethylene Chloride

StyreiMTetracbJoToethene

Toluenetrans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene

Trichlorocthent

Vinyl ChlorideVinyl AcetaK

Xylenes (total)

REACH 2-2, XS 3Sediment Cone.

Otr/kj)Det. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

14 U

14 U

14 U

14 U14 U

14 U14 UU U14 UJ14 UJ14 U

21 J14 U14 U14 U14 UJ

14 U14 U

1 J14 UJ14 U14 UJ14 U14 U14 U

34 J14 U

14 U14 U

14 U14 U

14 U

Not analyzed14 U

Solidified ANS Cone.1'1

Onfl)Det. Qual-

Resutl Limit ifier

04 U0.7 U0.9 U08 U0.9 U0.5 U1 4 U0.5 U12 U1.3 U2.2 U85 U

0.3 U0.6 U0.6 U1.8 U1.1 U0.7 U0.6 U1.3 U1.6 UJ

1.7 U0.7 U

0.6 U

1.0 U40 U

0.4 U

0.9 U

09 U0.7 U0.6 U17 U08 U0.2 U

Det. Qua!'Result Limit ifier

0.4 U

0.7 U

0.9 U08 U

09 U

0,5 U1.4 U0.5 U12 U

1.3 U2.2 U91 U

0.3 U0.6 U0.6 U

1.8 U

1.1 U

0.7 U0.6 U13 U16 UJ17 U0.7 U06 U

1.0 U

42 U0.4 U

0.9 U

0.9 U0,7 U

0.6 U

1.7 U

0.8 U0,2 U

REACH 1 1-4, XS 2Sediment Cone

<MC/kc)Det. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 U16 UJ16 UJ16 UJ16 UJ16 U16 U16 U16 U16 UJ16 U16 UJ16 UJ16 U16 U16 U16 U

16 UJ

110 J

16 UJ16 U

6 J

16 U16 U16 UJ

Not analyzed

16 UJ

Solidified ANS Cone.1

(Ml/1)Det. Cnial-

Result Limit ifier

0.4 U0.7 U0.9 U0.8 U0.9 U0,5 UL4 U0.5 U12 U1.3 U2,2 U45 U

0.3 U0.6 U0.6 U1 8U1.1 U0.7 U06 U1.3 U1 1 UJ17 U07 U06 U10 U

34 U

0.4 U

0.9 U

0.9 U0.7 U0.6 U

1.7 U0.8 U0.2 U

NOTES1 Cumulative concentration over two days.2 Duplicate samples.

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not Detected

J EstimatedUJ Not Detected; Detection Limit Estimated

VOCS.XLS(ANS] 9/9/94


TABLE 3-10BPHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT:

TCL SVOCs IN ANS 16.1 LEACHATE

SVOCs

1 ,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneJ ,2-Dichlorobenzenet ,3-Dichlorobenzene1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene

2,2'-oxybis( 1 -Chloropropane)3

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-TrichIorophenol

2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol

2,4-Dinitropheno!2,4-Dinitro toluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene

2-Chloronaphthalene2-ChlorophenoI

2-Methylnaphthalene2-MethylphenoI

2 -Nitro aniline2-Nitrophenol

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine3 -Nitro aniline

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol4-Bromophenyl-phenylether

4-CMoro-3-methylphenol4-Chloroaniline

4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether4-Methylphenol

4-Nitroaniline4-NitrophenolAcenaphthene

Acenaphthylene


(jij/kg)Del. Qiul-

Rcsult Limit ifier40 J

570 U750140 J

570 UJ1400 U570 U570 U570 U

1400 UJ570 U570 U570 U570 U

24 J570 U

1400 U570 U570 U

1400 U1400 UJ570 U570 U570 U570 U570 U

1400 U1400 U570 U570 U

Solidified ANS Conc.u

(Mg/l)Del. Quil-

Result Limit ificr

0.8 U0.8 U0.7 U0-7 U2.1 U0.8 U0.8 U0.9 U1.4 U24 U1.4 U0.7 U0.8 U0.7 U1.0 U0.9 U0.6 U0.7 U0.9 U2.4 U0.6 U0.7 U0.7 U0.5 U0.8 U0.4 U1.0 U7.3 U0.8 U0.8 U


0.9 U0.9 U0.8 U0.8 U2.3 U0.9 U0.9 U1.0 U1.5 U27 U1.5 U0.8 U0.9 U0.9 U1.1 U1.0 U0.7 U0.8 Ul . O U2.6 U0.7 U0.8 U0.8 U0.5 U0.9 U0.4 U1.1 U8,1 U0.9 U0.9 U

REACH 1 1-4, XS 2Sediment Cone.

tufffcg)Del. QuaJ-

Result Limit ifier520 U520 U520 U520 U520 UJ

1200 U520 U520 U520 U

1200 UJ520 U520 U520 U520 U

240 J520 U

1200 U520 U520 U

1200 U1200 UJ520 U520 U520 U520 U520 U

1200 U1200 U520 UJ520 U


(MB")Oct. Qual-

Rcsult Limit tfier

0.8 U0.8 U0.7 U0.7 U2.1 U0,8 U0.8 U0.9 U1.4 U25 U1.4 U0.7 U0.8 U0.7 U1.0 U0.9 U0.6 U0.7 U0.9 U2.4 U0.6 U0.7 U0.7 U0.5 U0.8 U0.4 Ul .OU7.4 U0.8 U0.8 U

(Continued)NOTES1 Cumulative concentration over two days.

Duplicate samples.3 Also known as bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether.

QUALIFIER NOTATION



SVOCS.XLS [ANSI 9/9/94


TABLE 3-10B (Continued)PHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT:

TCL SVOCs IN ANS 16.1 LEACHATE

SVOCs

AnthraceneBenzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)perylene

Benzole AcicBenzo(k)fl uoranthene

Benzyl Alcoholbis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane

bis(2-Chloroethyl) etherbis(2-Ethylhcxyl) phthalate

ButylbenzylphthalateChrysene

Di-n -butyl phthalateDi-n-octylph thai ate

Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneDibenzofiiran

DiethylphthalateDimethylphthalate

FluorantheneFluorenc

He xach loro benzeneHexachlorobutadiene

HexachlorocyclopentadieneHexachloroe thane

Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyreneIsophorone

N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamineN -nitrosodipheny laminc


PentachlorophenolPhenanthrene

PhenolPyrene


(US/kg)Det Qual-

Result Limit ificr

56 J210 J180 J500 J

570 UNot analyzed

570 UNot analyzed

570 U570 U

640570 U

270 J570 U570 U570 U570 U

29 J570 U

560 J60 J

1300260 J

570 U570 U

96 J570 U570 U570 U570 U570 U

1400 U430 J

570 U450 J

Solidified ANS Cone."(Jigfl)

Dei. Qual-Resull Limit ifier

0.5 U0,6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U

49.2 J0.9 U0.6 U1.0 U0.8 U

4.30.8 U0.5 U0.7 U1.3 U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U0.7 U0.7 U0.7 U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U0.7 U0.6 U0.9 U0.8 U10 U0.9 U0.9 U0.6 U0.7 U0.4 U0.7 U

Det. Qua)Result Limit ifier

0.5 J0.7 J0.5 J1.0 J0.5 U

27 J1.0 U0.6 U1.1 U0.9 U

110.9 U0.5 U0.8 U1.4 U0.7 U0.9 U0.7 U0.8 U0.8 U0.8 U0.7 U0.9 U0.7 U0.8 U0.7 U1.0 U0.9 U1.1 U1.0 U1.0 U0.7 U0.8 U0.4 U0.8 U


fotflq.)Del. Qual-

Result Limit ifier35 J

120 J87 J

350 J74 J

Not analyzed520 U

Not analyzed520 U520 U

410 J520 U

240 J520 U520 U520 U

92 J27 J

520 U350 J

520 U520 U520 U520 U520 U

60 J520 U520 U520 U

130 J520 U

1200 U510 J

520 U270 J

Solidified ANS Cone.'<Mg/1)


0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U7.6 U0.9 U0.6 U1.0 U0.8 U0.9 U0.8 U0.5 U0.7 U1.3 U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U0.7 U0.7 U0.7 U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U0.9 U0.8 U1.0 U0.9 U0.9 U0.6 U0.7 U0.4 U0.7 U

NOTESCumulative concentration over two days.Duplicate samples.

3 Also known as bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether.

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not Detected

J Estimated


SVOCS.XLSfANS]


TABLE 3-10CPHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT:TCL PCBs IN ANS 16.1 LEACHATE

PCBs

Aroclor-1016Aroclor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-1260


(HB/kg)Del. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

2800 UJ5800 UJ2800 UJ2800 UJ

110002800 UJ2800 UJ

Solidified ANS Cone."

(Jig/I)Det. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

1.0 U2.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U


1.0 U2.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U

REACH 1 1-4, XS 2Sediment Cone.

<Hg/k«>Det. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

52 UJ100 UJ52 UJ52 UJ52 UJ52 UJ52 UJ


<W/0Det. Qual-

Result Limit ifier

1.0 U2.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U1.0 U

1 Cumulative concentration over two days.! Duplicate samples.

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not Detected

J EstimatedUJ Not Detected; Detection Limit Estimated

PCBS.XLS[ANS] 9/9/94


TABLE 3-1ODPHASE 2 SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENT:

TAL METALS IN ANS 16.1 LEACHATE

Metals

AluminumAntimony

ArsenicBarium

BerylliumCadmium

CalciumChromium

CobaltCopper

IronLeac

MagnesiumManganese

MercuryNickel

PotassiumSelenium

SilveiSodium

ThalliumVanadium

Zinc


(mg/Vg)Det Qual-

Result Limit ifier

11,900111 U

15.0233

049 U098 U

22,50057.813.438.9

29,400555

5,900838

0.8032.5

1,6800.65 U

2.1 UJ903 UJ065 U

108125 J

Solidified ANS Cone."(«ffl)

Dei Qual-Rcsuk Limn ifier

2.820.02 U

0.03 J0.72

0.001 U0.004 U

2060.05 U

0.006 UJ0.02 UJ0.28 U0.03 U0.88 UJ0.04 UJ

0.001 U0.04 U

34.60.04 U

0,004 U25.7 J

0.03 U0004 J

0 04 UJ


2.80 J0.02 U

0.03 J081 J

0.001 U0.004 U

2260,05 U

0.006 UJ0.02 UJ0.28 U0.03 U0.93 UJ0.09 UJ

0.001 U0.04 U

37.70.04 U

0.004 U27.7

003 U0009 J

0.05 UJ


<»l*t)Del Qual-

Result Limit ifier10,700

10.5 U162.0

4734.3

0.93 U882

45,512,650,8

1 38,00098.0535126

13035.0

3,98023.2

2.0 UJ992 UJ

20582.277.1 J


<«l/i)Det Qual-

Result Limit ifier

046 J0.02 U

004 J0.02 UJ

0.001 U0.004 U

122 J0.05 U

0.006 UJ0.02 UJ

099 J0.03 U0.85 UJ0.5 UJ

0001 U3,0

34.90 04 U

0.004 U14.9

0.03 U0011

0.06 UJNOTES1 Cumulative concentration over two days.1 Duplicate samples.

QUALIFIER NOTATION

U Not Detected

J EstimatedUJ Noi Detected, Detection Limit Estimated

MET ALS.XLS1 ANSI

Wo^^ward-Clyde Consultants

Notes

TABLE 3-11VERIFICATION PHASE PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS

Reach No.or

DI Residual

2-211-42-211-4

TTDI2

SDWTDI3

CureTemperature

(degrees C)2020442020

Post-MixWater

Content(percent)

35.046.035.045.032.035.0

Moist UnitWeight

(pcf)116.0108.0116.0108.0114.0117.0

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)85.974.085.974.586.486.7

BulkingRatio, B1

(percent)-4.98.1

-4.97.4--

28-DayWater

Content(percent)

31.041.729.844.026.828.6

Moist UnitWeight

(pcf)119.5110.5119.5110.7105.6107.7

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)91.278.092.176.983.383.7

BulkingRatio, B1

(percent)-10.42.5

-11.34.0--

1 Bulking ratio, B, equation and calculations in Appendix A.2 Thermal Treatment Design Investigation incinerator ash.

1 Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater Treatment Design Investigation wastewater treatment sludge.

- Not measured.

TAB3-I1.XLS[V-BULK] 11/7/94

Woou ward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 3-12SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION PHASE UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS AND


REACH NO.OR

DI RESIDUAL2-211-42-211-4

TTDI3

SDWTDI4

CURETEMPERATURE

(degrees C)2020442020

28-DAYUCS1

(psi)149.0127.4169.2216.9299.6214.3

POCKET PENETROMETER STRENGTH INDEX2

(tsO4 HOUR

3.93.91.52.43.92.5

1DAY>4.5>4.54.2

>4.5>4.5>4.5

3 DAY>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5

7 DAY>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5

14 DAY>4.5>4,5>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5

28 DAY>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5>4.5

Notes1 Values represent the average for duplicate samples.2 Values represent the average of 10 replicate values. For PPI replications greater than 4.5 at a given cure time, a value of 4.5 was used in

calculating averages.3 Thermal Treatment Design Investigation incinerator ash.4 Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater Treatment Design Investigation wastewater treatment sludge.

TAB3-12.XLS[UCS-PPI] 11/8/94

-i/vard-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 3-1328-DAY PHYSICAL TEST RESULTS FOR VERIFICATION PHASE MIXES

Reach No.or

DI Residual

2-2

11-4

2-2

11-4

TTDI2

SDWTDI3

CureTemperature

(degrees C)

20

20

4

4

20

20

DryUnit

Weight

(pcO

91.2

78.0

92.1

76.9

83.3

83.7

UnconfinedCompressive

Strength

(psi)

149.0

127.4

169.2

216.9

299.6

214.3

PaintFilter

Liquids

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Permeability

(cm/sec)

1.6E-07

1.5E-07

1.4E-07

8.0E-08

-

-

Durability1

(Cumulative Mass Loss)Freeze/Thaw

(percent)

<1.0

<1.0-3.7

<1.0-2.1

<1. 0-2.0

-

-

Wet/Dry(percent)

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

-

-

Resistance toMicrobial Growth

Bacteria

No Growth

No Growth

-

-

-

-

Fungi

Trace4

Trace

-

-

-

-Notes1 Sample was considered durable if cumulative mass loss was less than or equal to 15 percent.2 Thermal Treatment Design Investigation incinerator ash3 Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater Treatment Design Investigation wastewater treatment sludge4 Less than 10 percent growth observed.- Not Tested

TAB3-13.XLS[TAB3-131 12/21/94


TABLE J-14A48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACH ABILITY

OF SOLIDIFIED REACH 2-2 SEDIMENT

COMPOUNDS/AN ALYTESDETECTED IN REACH 2-2

SEDIMENTVOCsAcetoneBenzene2-ButanoneCarbon DisulfideChlorobenzene2-Hexanonevlcthylene ChloridePetrachl oroetheneTolueneXyleneSVOCsAnthracene3enzo{ a)anthracencJenzo(a)pyrencJenzo(b)fl uorantheneJenzo(g,h,i)peryleneThrysenei ,3-Dichlorobenzene, 4- Di chl orobenze ne

Diethylphthalatebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate•1 uoranthene:luorene•iexachlorobenzene•Icxachloro butadienendeno{ 1 .2,3-c,d)pyrene

2 - Methyl naphthalene*henanthrcne*yrene,2,4-Trichloroben2ene

PCBsAroclor-1248METALSAluminumArsenicJariumBerylliumCalcium

ChromiumCobaltCopperron

LeadMagnesiumManganeseMercury

Nickel'otusiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Total ConcentrationUntreated SolidifiedSediment SedimentConcentration in ug/kj

21 J 1,600 J14 U 1 J14 UJ 130 J14 U 5 J

1 J 2 J14 UJ 2 J

34 J 23 U14 U 1 J14 U 3 J14 U 1 J

Concentration in ug/kg56 J 83 J210 J 570180 J 490500 J 1.100

J-0 U 380 3270 J 600750 490140 450 U29 3 450 U640 450 U560 J 1,30060 J 90 J1300 4,900260 J 400 J96 J 360 J24 J V50 U430 J 720450 J 97040 J 450 U

Concentration in ug/kg11,000 1,100 J

Concenq-ajjon in mg/kg11,900 10.900150 57 J233 219

0.49 U 0.6822,500 69,00057.8 38113.4 11.338.9 27.329,400 21,30055.5 39.35.900 6,980838 6700.80 0.4325 2181,680 1,320

903 UJ 445108 58.6125 J 986

ANS 16.1 LEACHABLE CONCENTRATIONSSolidified Reach 2-2 Sediment (Duplicate Samples)

2H 7H 24H 48HConcentration in un/1

2.6 U0.3 U12 U/./ U0.6 U1.3 U

7.6 J0.9 U0.9 U0.2 U

370.3 U12 U/./ U0.6 U1.3 U

13 J0.9 U0.9 U0.2 U

2.6 U05 J

12 U/./ U0.6 U1.3 U

11 J2.4 J0.9 U0.2 U

34.5 U2.7 U7.2 U2.6 U2.8 U2." U

6 32.5 U

2.6 J2.9 U

Concentration in un/10.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 UO.S U0- U06 U09 Uor uo.- u0.6 UO.J? U0.6 U1.0 U0- Uft- UO.S U

I.O U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U09 U0.5 U05 UO.S Uft' U0.6 U0.9 U0." Uft- U0.6 UO.ft U06 UI.O U0- U0- Uft* U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U05 U0.8 Uft" U0.6 U09 U0.7 Uo.- u0.6 UO.S U0.6 U10 U0.7 U

0" U0.8 U

0.5 U0.6 U05 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 Uft* U0." U0.6 U09 U0" U0" U0.6 U0* U0.6 U/0 U

ft~ Uft" U0.8 U

Concentration injtg/11.0 U j 1.0 U j 1,0 U

Concentration in ma/1006 J

0.02 U008 J

0.00/ U18 J

005 U0.003 U

0.02 J0.2S U

0.0J/ U0.67 J

0.0/2 U0.00/ U0.041 U

855.2 J

0.00^ U0.03 J

0.230.02 U

0.180.001 U

51 J005 U

0.004 U002 J

0.2S U0.031 U

048 J0.012 U0.00; u0.04 J U

9.56.0 J

0.00^ U0.03 J

0.82002 U

0.340001 U

100 J0.05 U

000.? U0.02 J

0.28 U0.031 U

0.64 J00/2 U0.00V UOOJ I U

169.4 J0.003 J

0.0/5 U

I.O0.03 J0.3

0.001 U98 J

005 U0.0ft? U

002 J0.2* U

00J/ U0.53 J

0.0/2 U0.00/ U0.041 U

M68 J0004 J005 J

2H

2.6 U0.3 U12 U/./ U0.6 U1.3 U2.8 U0.9 U0.9 U0.2 U

7H 24HConcentration in us/I

360.3 U12 U/./ U0.6 U1.3 U

130,9 U0.9 U0.2 U

2.6 U0.3 U12 U/./ U0.6 U1.3 U

M J0.9 U0.9 U0.2 U

48H

34.5 U2.' U7.2 U2.6 U2.8 U2.7 U

5 J2.5 U2.6 U29 U

Concentration in uaAO.S U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U05 U07 U0 - U0.6 U09 U0.7 U0~ U0.6 Uft* U0.6 U1.0 U0." Uft- U0.8 U

O.J U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U05 U07 u07 U0.6 U0.9 Uft 7 U0.- U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U1.0 U0," U0." U

0.8 U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 Uftj U0.5 U07 U0." U0.6 U0.9 Uft- U0.- U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 UI.O U0.7 U0- U0-8 U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 UO.J U0.5 U0.7 UO - U0.6 U0.9 U0.7 (J

o.- u0.6 UOS U06 Ui.O Uo- u0- U0.8 U

Concentration in uaA1.0 U 1.0 U j 1.0 U 1.0 V

Concentration in ma/1012 J

002 U0.15 J

0.001 U34 J

0.05 U0.00.? U

0.02 J0.2* U

0.031 U0.56 J

00/2 U0.00/ U0.041 U

117.5 J

000.? U0.04 J

0.230.04 J0.18

0.001 U46 J

005 Uft 00; U

002 J0.28 U

OOJ/ U0.52 J

00/2 U0007 U0041 U

8.65.2 J

0.003 U003 J

0.780.02 U

033 J0.00/ U

88 J0.05 U

ft OOJ U002 J

0.28 U0.031 U

051 J0.02 J

0.001 U0.041 U

148.3 J0.003 J002 J

1.00.02 U

0.29 J0.0ft/ U

88 J0.05 U

0.00,? U002 J

0.28 U0.031 U

0.44 J0.012 U0.00V U0.041 U

106.2 J

0.00* U0.04 J

NOTES1 Toul concentration measured using CLP protocols

ANS 16 1 leachate concentrations measured using EPA SW-846 methods

NOTATION:U UndetectedJ Estimated

UJ Undetected. Detection Limit EstimatedR Rejected Data

TAB3-UXL5[RcachMl


TABLE 3-14B48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHAB1LITY

OF SOLIDIFIED REACH 11 -4 SEDIMENT

COMPOUNDS/ANAL YTESDETECTED IN REACH 1 1-4

SEDIMENTVOCsAcetoneBenzene2-ButanoneMethylene ChlorideTolueneTrichloroetheneXyleneSVQCsAnthraceneB enzo( a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneChryseneDibenzofuranDiethylphthalatebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateFluoranthenelndeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene2 -Methy [naphthaleneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyreneMETALSAluminumArsenicBariumBerylliumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

Total ConcentrationUntreated SolidifiedSediment SedimentConcentration in ug/kg

16 UJ 670 J16 U 2 J16 UJ 49 J

110 J 40 U6 J 6 J

R 1 J16 UJ 2 J

Concentration in MS/Kg35 J 480 U120 J 480 U87 J 290 J350 J 430 J240 J 360 J92 J 160 J27 J 480 U410 J 890 U350 J 470 J60 J 130 J240 J 360 J130 J 190 J510 J 810270 J 320 J

Concentration in mg/kg11,900 10,500162 71.9 J473 4464.3 3.3882 46,90045.5 31.812.6 11.550.8 39.3138,000 109,00098.0 93.8535 1,300126 1611.3 0.435 21.23,980 3,82023.2 4.2 J

992 UJ 81120.5 5.582.2 41.577.1 68.4

ANS 16.1 LEACHABLE CONCENTRATIONS2

Solidified Reach 1 1-4 Sediment2H 7H 24H 48H

Concentration in uc/132 J

0.3 U12 U

10 J0.9 U0.6 U0.2 U

230.3 U12 U

130.9 U0.6 U0.2 V

2.6 U0.3 U72 U

12 J0.9 U0.6 U0.2 U

34.5 U2.7 U7.2 U

5 J2.6 U3.2 U2,9 U

Concentration in ue/10.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.8 U0.6 U0.9 U0.7 U0.6 UJ.O U0.9 U0.7 U0.7 U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 U0.6 U0.9 U0.7 U0.6 U7.0 U0.9 U0.7 U0.7 U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 U0.6 U0.9 U0.7 U0.6 U7.0 U0.9 U0.7 U0.7 U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 U0.6 U0.9 U0.7 U0.6 U7.0 U0.9 U0.7 U0.7 U

Concentration in me/10.06 J

0.02 U0.01 J

0.007 U19 J

0.05 U0.003 V

0.03 J0.37 J

0.037 U0.60 J

0.012 U0.007 U0.047 U

7.30.04 J3.2 J

0.025 U0.003 U

0.04 J

0.045 U0.02 U

0.020.007 U

20 J0.05 U

0.003 U0.02 J

0.25 U0.037 U

0.41 J0.072 U0.007 U0.041 U

6.90.035 U

2.9 J0.028 U0.003 U

0.02 J

0.13 J0.02 U

0.030.007 U

42 J0.05 U

0.003 U0.03 J

0.2S U0.037 U

0.53 J0.072 U0.007 U0.047 U

130.035 U

5.4 J0.025 U

0.007 J0.02 J

0.12 J0.02 U

0.030.007 U

41 J0.05 U

0.003 J0.02 J

0.25 U0.037 U

0.40 J0.072 U0.007 U0.047 U

120.035 U

4.5 J0.025 U

0.004 J0.03 J

NOTESTotal concentrations measured using CLP protocols

* ANS 16.1 leachate concentrations measured using EPA SW-846 methods


UJ Undetected; Detection Limit EstimatedR Rejected Data

TAB3-l4.XLS[Reach 11-4] 12/19/94

Woouward-Clyde Consultants

TABLE 3-14C48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHABILITY

OF SOLIDIFIED TTDI ASH AND SDWTDI SLUDGE

TARGETANALYTES

MEIALSAluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

ANS 16.1 LEACHABLE CONCENTRATIONS'Solidified TTDI Ash

2H

0.260.07 U0.03 V

0.11 J0.006 U0.007 U

66 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.02 J0.1 J

0.03 U0.57 J0.006 J

0.007 U0.02 J9.6

0.05 U0.0/ U

12 J0,03 U

0.006 J0.02 J

7H 24HConcentration in me/1

0.580.07 U0.03 U

0.09 J0.006 U0.007 U

64 J0.01 V0.06 U

0.02 J0.04 J

0.03 U0.61 J0.09

0.007 U0.02 J8.6

0.05 U0.07 U

8.9 J0.03 U

0.007 J0.05 J

1.50.07 U0.03 U

0.14 J0.006 U0.007 U

110 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.02 J0.03 J

0.03 U0.66 J0,02

0.007 U0.01 J12

0.05 U0.07 U

13 J0.03 U

0.02 J0.04 J

48H

1.80.07 U0.03 U

0.11 J0.006 U0.007 U

110 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.02 J0.03 J

0.03 U0.53 J0.002 J

0.007 U0.04 U

8.80.05 U0.01 V

10 J0.03 U

0.02 J0.03 J

Solidified SDWTDI Sludge (Duplicate Samples)2H

0.220.07 U0.03 U

0.08 J0.006 U0.007 U

29 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.03 J0.10 J

0.03 U0.57 J0.01 J

0.007 U0.02 J11

0.05 U0.07 U

13 J0.03 U0.06 U

0.04 J

7H 24HConcentration in me/I

0.250.07 U0.03 U

0.08 J0.006 U0.007 U

33 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.03 J0.05 J

0.03 U0.47 J0.001 J

0.007 U0.04 U

7.20.05 U0.07 U

8.0 J0.03 U0.06 U

0.03 J

0.690.07 U0.03 U

0.16 J0.006 U0.007 U

62 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.03 J0.03 J

0.03 U0.56 J0.002 J

0.007 U0.01 J13

0.05 U0.07 U

13 J0.03 U0.06 U

0.03 J

48H

0.890.02 U0.02 U

0.16 J0.007 U0.004 U

69 J0.05 U

0.003 U0.02 J0.03 J

0.037 U0.54 J0.003 J

0.007 U0.01 J11

0.035 U0.004 V

11 J0.025 U

0.01 J0.03 J

2H

0.220.07 U0.03 U

0.08 J0.006 U0007 U

29 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.03 J0.10 J

0.03 U0.57 J0.01 J

0.007 U0.02 J11

0.05 U0.07 U

13 J0.03 U0.06 U

0.04 J

7H 24HConcentration in me/1

0.290.07 U0.03 U

0.09 J0.006 U0.007 U

36 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.02 J0,04 J

0.03 U0.44 J0.007 J

0.007 U0.04 U

8.90.05 U0.07 U

8.8 J0.03 U0.06 U

0.03 J

0.870.07 U0.03 U

0.20 J0.006 U0.007 U

77 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.03 J0.04 J

0.03 U0.62 J0.004 J

0.007 U0.02 J17 J

0.05 U0.07 U

17 J0.03 U0.06 U

0.03 J

48H

0.940.07 U0.03 U

0.17 J0.006 U0.007 U

76 J0.07 U0.06 U

0.03 J0.03 J

0.03 U0.63 J0.003 J

0.007 U0.04 U

130.05 U0.07 U

12 J003 U006 U

0.02 JNOTES NOTATION:ANS 16.1 leachate concentrations measured using ERA SW-846 methods. U Undetected

J Estimated

TAB3-14.XLS[TT-SDWTDI] 12/19/94

Woo "lyde Consultants

MODIFIED SETUP 48-HO I'K ANS l«.l LEACHABILITVOF SOLIDIFIED AND UNTREATED REACH 2-2 SEDIMENT

COMPOUN DS/AN AL YTESDETECTED IN REACH 2-2

SEDIMENTVOCsAcetoneienzene-Butanone

Carbon Disulfide^h lore benzene1-Hexanone

Methylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneXyleneSVOCsAnthraceneBen zo< a)artth raceneienzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluoranthenerJenzo(g.h,i)peryleneChrysene1 ,3-Dichlorobennne1 ,4-DichlorobenzeneDiethylphthaltuebis<2-Eihylhexy1>phthal8teHuoranthene'luorene-lexachlorobenzene-texach lorobutad i enelndeno( 1 ,2.3-c.d)pyrene2 - M et hy 1 naphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene1 ,2,4-Trichloroberu:enePCBsAroclor-1248MHALSAluminumArsenicBariumBerylliumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadiumZinc

Total Con eentraii onUntreated SolidifiedSediment SedimentConcentration in UgAg

2] J 1,600 J14 U 1 J14 UJ 130 J/ - / U S J

t 1 2 iI-l UJ 2 J

34 J 23 Ul-l U 1 J14 U 3 J14 U 1 J

Concentration mjift/kg56 J 83 J210 J 570180 J 490500 J 1,100

$-0 U 380 J270 J 600750 490140 450 U29 J 450 U640 450 U560 J 1.30060 J 90 J1300 4.900260 J 400 J96 J 360 J24 J 450 U430 J 720450 J 97040 J 450 U

Concentration in U£/kjf11.000 1,100 J

Concentration in trig/kg11,900 10,900ISO 57 J233 219

049 U 06822,500 69.00057 8 38 1J 3 4 1 1 338 9 27 329.400 21,30055 5 39 35.900 6,980838 670080 0432.5 21 81,680 1,320

903 UJ 445108 586125 J 986

MODIFIED SETUP2

Solidified Reach 2-2 Sediment2H 7H

Concentre!34.5 U

2 ~ U7.2 U26 U28 U2.- U

7 J2.5 U2.6 U29 U

6.3 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 U0." Uo.- u0.6 U0.9 Uft" Uo- u0.6 U08 U0.6 U1.0 Uft7 Uft" U0« U

3-i.S U2 * U-.7 U;« u;.« u2 7 U

12 J2.5 U2. <5 U29 U

Con centra0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 Uft- Uft- U0.6 U

38 Jft- Uft- U0.6 U0.8 Uft* U/.ft Uft- Uft- U08 V

24 Hion in Utt/1

34. 5 U2.~ U7.2 U2(5 U2.* U2.~ U

16 J2.5 U2.6 U2.9 U

48H

3J.S V2.- U-.2 U2.6 U3.0 U2' U

14 J2.5 U2rf U2.9 U

ion in uaA0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U09 U0.5 U0.5 Uft ~ U0." U0.6 U0.9 Uft? U0.' U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U/.O Uft" Uft- Uft* U

0.5 V0.6 U05 U1.0 U05 U05 Uft" U07 U06 U/ 0 U0- Uo.- u0.<5 U0.8 UO.rt U/./ U0- Uo.- u0.8 V

Concentration in ua/l1.0 U | /.O U 1 /./ U I.I U

Concent ration in mn/l010 J

0.02 U009 i

0001 U14 J

005 U0.003 U

002 J0.28 V

0.031 U0.51 J

0.012 UO.OO/ U0.041 U

1170 J

0.003 U002 J

0.16 J002 U

0.14 J0001 U

26 J005 U

0.0<U U002 J

0.75 U0.03/ U

0.45 J001 J

0.00; u0.041 U

I I67 J

0.003 U004 J

029002 U

028 ;000/ U

54 J0.05 U

0.005 U002 J

0,2* U0.031 U

O.S1 J0.0/2 U0.00/ V0041 U

1710 J

0.003 U003 J

0370.02 U

0290.001 U

60 J005 U

0.003 U001 J

0.28 U0.031 U0.7? U

ft ft/7 U0.001 UO.O-*/ U

1591 J

0.063 U005 J

Untreated Reach 2-2 Sediment2H

2.6 U0.3 U12 U

/./ U0.6 U/3 U7* U0.9 U

1 3 J06 J

7HConcentral

2-6 U0.3 U/2 U/./ U0* U1.3 U

71 J09 U0.9 V0.2 U

Concsitral0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U09 U0.5 U05 U0.7 Uo- u

10 J0.9 U0.7 Uo- uft« U08 Uftri U/ 0 U07 Uo.- uO.tt U

05 U0.6 U0,5 U0,o U0.5 U0.5 U0.7 UO.r U

12 J0,9 Uft? Uo,- u0.<i U0* Uf t f j U1,0 U07 Uft' U0.8 U

24Hion in UB/I

2,<S U0.3 U72 U/./ U0.6 U/.3 U

11 J0.9 U0.9 U

06 Jion in usfl

0.5 UOff U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 U0.7 U0.7 U

18 J0.9 V0.7 U0." U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U1.0 U07 U07 U08 U

Concentration in ua/l/.O U /.O U /.O U

48H

2.6 U0.3 U12 U/./ U0.6 U1.3 U

6.8 J0.9 U0.P U02 U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U09 U0.5 U0.5 U0.; u07 U

19 J0.9 U0.7 U0.7 U0.6 U0.8 U0.6 U/.O U0.7 Uft' U0.8 U

/.ft UConcentration in ma/1

022003 J002 J

o.oo; u22 J

0.05 U0.003 U

0008 J0.2* U

0.031 U1.5 J006

0.00 J U0.041 U

0.86 U95 J

0003 UO i l J

0,10 J0.02 U

002 J0.00/ U

18 J0.05 U

0003 U0.008 J

0.18 U0.05/ U

1,3 J0070001 J

0.041 U1.2 J74 J

flOCJ U021 J

0.0-/5 U0.02 U

004 J0.00/ U

33 J005 U

0003 U0.005 U

0.2« UO.OJ/ U

1.6 J018

0.007 U0.041 U

0.86 U12 J

0.003 U023 J

0.0^5 U002 U

0.04 Jo0o/ u

32 J0.05 U

0.003 U0.008 J

0.7S U0.03/ U

1.5 J0.22

0.00/ U0.041 U

0.86 U99 J0.004 J026 }

NOTESTotal concentrations measured using CLP protocols

The modified setup consisted of 3-tn diameter x 2-in length cylindrical molds containing solidifiedor untreated sediment suspended in deioni zed -distil led water The mold consisted of impermeable vertical \with permeable filter mesh on both ends thereby exposing only the two ends of the sample to the leachantLeachate was analyzed using SW-846 methods

NOTATIONU UndetectedJ Estimated

UJ Undetected; Detection Limit EstimatedR Rejected Data

Woou .d-Clyde ConsultantsTABLE 3-15B

MODIFIED SETUP 48-HOUR ANS 16.1 LEACHABILITYOF SOLIDIFIED AND UNTREATED REACH 11-4 SEDIMENT

COMPOUNDS/ANALYTESDETECTED IN REACH 11-4

SEDIMENTVOCsAcetonelenzene

2-ButanoneMethylene Chloride"oluene"richloroethene

XyleneSVOCsAnthracene)enzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneChrysene)ibenzofuran

Diethylphthalatebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalateRuoranthenendeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene

2-MethylnaphthaleneNaphthalene*henanthreneVCTCMEIALSAluminumArsenicJariumberylliumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSodiumrhalliumVanadiumZinc

Total ConcentrationUntreated SolidifiedSediment SedimentCopcjntretig" '" up/kg

16 UJ 670 J16 U 2 J16 W 49 J

110 J 40 U6 J 6 J

R 1 J16 UJ 2 J

Concentration in up/kg35 J 4f(0 U120 J 490 U87 J 290 J350 J 430 J240 J 360 J92 J 160 J27 J 480 U410 J 890 U350 J 470 J60 J 130 J240 J 360 J130 J 190 J510 J 810270 J 320 J

Concentration in mg/kg11,900 10,500162 71.9 J473 4464.3 3.3882 46,90045.5 31812.6 11.550.8 39.3138,000 109,00098.0 93.8535 1,300126 161U 0.435 21.23,980 3,82023.2 4.2 J

992 UJ 81120.5 5.582.2 41.577.1 68.4

MODIFIED SETUP2

Solidified Reach 1 1-4 Sediment2H 7H 24H 48H

Concentration in ue/134.5 U2~ U7,2 U

7 J2.6 U32 U2.9 U

34.5 U2.7 UT2 U

11 J2.6 U52 U2.9 U

34.5 U2.7 U72 U

19 J2.6 U3.2 U2.9 U

345 U2- U"2 U

14 J2.6 U3.2 U2.9 U

Concentration in ue/105 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 UOK U

4.2 J0.9 U0.7 U06 U1.0 U0.9 U0.7 Uo.- u

05 U06 U05 U09 U0.5 U0.8 U

6.4 J5.1 J

0.7 U0.6 U1.0 U09 U0.7 U0.7 U

05 U06 U05 U09 U0.5 U08 U

8.5 J0.9 U0.7 U0.6 U/.O U09 U0.7 U

0~ U

0.5 Uo- u0.5 U/.O U05 U0.9 U

6.6 J1.0 U0.8 Uo.- u/./ U1.0 UOS U0.5 U

Concentration in me/10.045 U002 U

0.01 J0001 U

13 J005 U

0.003 U0.02 J

0.28 U0.031 U

0.55 J0.0/2 U0.001 U0.041 U

4.90.035 U

2.5 J0. 028 U0005 U

0.03 J

0.05 J002 U

0.01 J000/ U

17 J005 U

0.005 U0.02 J

0.25 U0.031 U

0.59 J00/2 U0.001 V0.041 U

7.30.035 U

3.3 J0025 U0.003 U

0.03 J

0.07 J002 U

0.02 J0.001 U

34 J005 U

O.OOJ U0.02 J

0.28 U0.031 U

0.59 J00/2 U0.00/ U0.041 U

150.035 U

6.2 J0025 U0.003 U

0.04 J

0.045 U002 U

0.02 JO.OO/ U

33 J0.05 U

O.OOJ U0.02 J

0.25 U0.031 U

0.35 J00/2 U0.001 U0.041 U

14O.OJ5 U

5.7 J0.02H U

0.004 J0.03 J

Untreated Reach 1 1-4 Sediment2H 7H 24 H

Concentration in ue/12.6 U0.3 U

126.3 J1.8 J0.60.6 J

2.6 U0.3 U

127.4 J

0.9 U0.6

02 U

26 U0.3 U

1213 J0.9 J0.6

0.2 U

48H

15 J0.4 J12

2.5 U1.0 J1.3 J0.6 I

Concentration in ue/10.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U0.5 U

5.4 J0.9 U0.7 U0.6 U1.0 U09 U07 U0~ U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U09 U05 U08 U

11 J09 U07 U0.6 U1.0 U09 U0,7 Uo- u

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U0.9 U0.5 U05 U

17 109 UQ- U06 U1.0 U0.9 U0.7 Uft? U

0.5 U0.6 U0.5 U09 U05 U0.8 U

21 J0.9 U0.7 U0.6 U1.0 U0.9 U0.7 U0.7 U

Concentration in me/13.6

002 U0.01 J0.002 J7.5 J

0.05 U0.01 J0.01 J23 J

0.031 U1.8 J0.44

O.OO/ U0.041 U

0.86 U0.035 U

2.6 J0.025 U0.003 U

0.93 J

3.10.02 U

0.02 JO.OO/ U

6.9 J0.05 U

0.006 J0.01 J16

0.031 U1.7 J0.37

0.00/ U0.041 U

O.S6 U0.055 U

2.3 J0.028 U0.003 V

0.75 J

3.80.02 U

0.03 J0.004 J8.2 J

005 U0.01 J0.02 J20

0.031 U2.0 J0.54

O.OO/ U0.041 U

1.2 J0.04 J3.2 J

0.025 U0003 V

0.83 J

4.40.02 U

0.03 J0.0058.1 J

005 U0.01 J0.02 J14

0.031 U1.9 J0.56

0.00/ U0.041 U

0.87 J0.035 U

3.1 J0025 U0.00.? U

0.59 JNOTES1 Total concentrations measured using CLP protocols.: The modified setup consisted of 3-in. diameter x 2-in. length cylindrical molds containing solidified

or untreated sediment suspended in deionized-distilled water. The mold consisted of impermeable vertical wallswith penneable filter mesh on both ends thereby exposing only the two ends of the sample to the leachant.Lcachate was analyzed using SW-846 methods.


UJ Undetecled; Detection Limit EstimatedR Rejected Data


TABLE 3-16HAZARDOUS CHARACTERISTICS TESTING OF

VERIFICATION PHASE SOLIDIFIED SEDIMENTS

PARAMETER

Reactive Cyanide

Reactive Sulflde

PH

Flashpoint

UNITS

mg/kg

mg/kg

....

degrees F

RCRAREGULATORY

GUIDANCE

>250

>500

< 2 o r > 12.5

< I 4 0

SOLIDIFIEDREACH 2-2SEDIMENT

<0.05

11.3

11.79

> 140

SOLIDIFIEDREACH 11-4SEDIMENT

<0.05

10.8

10.28

> 140

TAB3-16.XLS[Characteristics] 12/29/94

FIGURES

15TH STREET

16TH STREET

REACH 2-1SDWT MW2-1/7(4 IN. DIA. PVC)

SLDI PHASE 1 AND5DWTDI SAMPLING LOCATION

(CROSS SECTION 7)

LEGENDSediment/Surface WaterSampling Location

SDWTDI Groundwater Well

floodplainclayey material

coarse materialshaley materialthick silty/clayey material

NOTE: A, B AND C DENOTE DISCRETE SEDIMENTSAMPLING POINTS.

FIELDS BROOKSLDI/SDWTDl SAMPLE LOCATIONS

REACH 2-17/15/94

' LM

TOOJtCT MO.

86C3609P 2-1

• Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCOHSULMC FHCMItlH. OtOUlCKTV WO CHMUMCMMl SMMIWTJ

SLDI PHASE 2 ANDSDWTDI SAMPLING LOCATION

(CROSS SECTION 3) Sedimenl/Surface WaterSampling Location




FIELDS BROOKSLDI/SDWTDI SAMPLE LOCATIONS

REACH 2-2REACH 2-2

© Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCOKSAIMC [MCNCEKS. CtOlOCtSrS. HMD I MVMOWCNrM. SCtWITSTS

SLD! PHASE 2 ANDSDWTDI SAMPLING LOCATION

(CROSS SECTION 2) N 818,000

LEGEND

Sediment/Surface WaterSampling Location




FEET

FIELDS BROOKSLDI/SDWTDI SAMPLE LOCATIONS

REACH 11-4"7/15/94

' LM

PROJECT NO.

86C3609Pno. NO.

2-3Woodward-Clyde Consultants

CONSULTING INOMtRS MOlOCISrS. »HO tFMROMMtm* SCHMHST5

^ .rfard Clyde Consultants

FIGURE 2-4SEDIMENT SAMPLING DIAGRAM

SLDIComposited

Sediment(To Kiber)

VOASedimentSample

(To HES)

DISCRETELOCATION C

VOASedimentSample

(To HES}

KeySDWTDI = Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater Treatment

Design InvestigationSLDI = Solidification Design InvestigationVOA = Volatile Organic AnalysisKiber = Kiber Environmental Services, Atlanta, GAITL = International Technology LabsHES = Hazleton Environmental Services, Madison, Wl

Nates1. All sediment for Kiber and ITL was sent in 2-gal. HDPE buckets.2. If available, supernatant was bailed from the mixing drum and

shipped to Kiber in 2-gal. HDPE buckets.

3. Sediment was collected from three discrete locationsdesignated as A, B and C in each of the three SLDI sampling areas(Reaches 2-1, 2-2 and 11-4) and from two discrete locations in thethree TTDI sampling areas (Reaches 5-1, 5-2 and 6).

RG2-4.XLS[FIG2-4| 9/5/94

Consultants

0.90

0.80

0.70

"i 0.60

DJD"5* 0.50

•aOQ

.2" 0.40"3DC

| 0.30CQ

0.20

0.10 -1

0.00

FIGURE 3-1PHASE 1 BULKING RATIOS VS. REAGENT-TO-SEDIMENT RATIOS

o-A

- Portland CementPortland Cement + Water

- Cement-Fly Ash- Lime-Fly AshCement-Fly Ash + WaterLime-Fly Ash + WaterKiln Dust-Fly AshKiln Dust-Fly Ash + Water

-HWT-7/11HWT-7/il + Water

-HWT-25HWT-25 + Water

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60Reagent-to-Sediment Ratio, R (dry-weight basis)

0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

PHYSDAT.XLW[BULKING] 9/8/94

WcK.**ward-Clyde Consultants

FIGURE 3-2PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS VS. REAGENT-TO-SEDIMENT RATIOS

10,000

1,000 -ooc

a.Eo

<ueao

Q00

100

D——

10

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Portland Cement_ Portland Cement + Water

Cement-Fly AshCement-Fly Ash + WaterLime-Fly AshLime-Fly Ash + WaterKiln Dust-Fly Ash

- Kiln Dust-Fly Ash + WaterHWT-7/11

_ HWT-7/11 + Water_HWT-25

- HWT-25 + Water-.Miiu Req-.UCS._,_____

0.6

Reagent-to-Sediment Ratio, R

0.7 0.8 0.9

——O

UCS-DATA.XLW[UCS28-RATIO] 9/8/94

.award-Clyde Consultants

FIGURE 3-3PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS VS. TIME

OF MIXES SELECTED FOR TCLP1,000

o.jac

100

OJQCeoocD

10

- Portland Cement (Mix 3)Portland Cement (Mix 6)Cement-Fly Ash (Mix 9)Cement-Fly Ash (Mix 11)

-Lime-Fly Ash (Mix 13)Lime-Fly Ash (Mix 14)Kiln Dust-Fly Ash (Mix 22)HWT-7/11 (Mix 27)HWT-7/11 (Mix 30)

-HWT-25(Mix33)HWT-25 (Mix 36)Min. Required UCS

10 15Time (days)

-4-- ——

20 25 30

UCS-DATA.XLW[TCLP_Rounds] 9/8/94

Woouward-Clyde Consultants

70

60

50

FIGURE 3-4PHASE 1 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS VS.


D

O

A

O

X

X

Portland CementPortland Cement with Fly AshLime with Fly AshKiln Dust with Fly AshHWT-7/11HWT-25Min. Required UCS

- Linear CorrelationUpper 95% ConfidenceLower 95% Confidence

0

0 0.5 1

Note: Lime with Fly Ash results not included in linear correlation.

1.5 2 2.5 3Pocket Penetrometer Strength Index (tsf)

3.5 4.5

CORREL8.XLW[CORREL8.XLC] 9/8/94

Woudward-Clyde Consultants

i.oo

0,90

0.80

0.70

^ 0.60

S 0.500*

e

.1 0.40

c/5

0.30

0.20

0.10

FIGURE 3-5REGRESSION MODEL OF PHASE 2 DATA:

50 PSI UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH CONTOURSAS FUNCTION OF SEDIMENT WATER CONTENT AND REAGENT-TO-SEDIMENT RATIO

0.00

• Reach 2-2•Reach 11-4

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

Cement-to-Sediment Ratio (R)

0.20 0.25 0.30

MODEL.XLSfWATER CONTENT Chart 2] 9/8/94


FIGURE 3-6RELATIONSHIP OF PHASE 2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

BETWEEN CUBE AND CYLINDRICAL SAMPLES

450.0

400.0

350.0

300.0

250.0

-Sfr

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0

0.0 50.0

Linear Regression Eq.:, = 0.9606 UCSMbc - 6.4506 psi

Observed75% Confidence Level95% Confidence LevelPredicted

100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0UCScube(psi)

300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0

CB-CYL.XLSFPH2-UCS Chart 3] 9/8/94

ATTACHMENT 1

USEPA APPROVAL AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDUREFOR MODIFIED SETUP FOR ANS METHOD 16.1


FILE COPY

TELEPHONE VOICE MAIL MESSAGE SUMMARY

Date: July 26, 1994 Time: 10:39 AM

Call Placed By: Ms. Patricia Erickson Of: USEPA Superfund TechnicalAssistance Response Team

To: Ms. Janice Merl Of: Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC)

Summary of Message:

Ms. Erickson (Trish) received WCC's letter via telefax on 7/25/94 in response to her7/18/94 comments concerning WCC's proposed modifications to ANS Method 16.1.

Trish was satisfied with WCC's responses but stressed that the laboratory must be verythorough in their reporting (e.g.,if leachate is filtered, specify which samples are filtered andthe filter medium and size).

Trish said that the proposed modifications "looked just fine" and to call her if WCC had anyquestions.

Signed: (L^^^f ft. l/Lu\J[Date: ^July 28,1994

Woodward-Clyde ^ConsultantsEngineering & sciences applied to Ihe earth & ils environment

July 29, 199486C3609L-500

Mr. Edward J. HardenUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion V (HSRM-6J) - Ohio/Minnesota Remedial Branch77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, Illinois 60606-3590

Subject: Modified ANS 16.1 Testing for Sediment, Sediment Operable Unit -Fields BrookSuperfund Site - Ashtabula, Ohio

Dear Mr. Hanlon:

Modified American Nuclear Society (ANS) Method 16.1 leaching of unsolidified FieldsBrook sediment is scheduled to begin the week of August 1, 1994 at Kiber EnvironmentalServices, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Sediment from Reaches 2-2 and 11-4 will be leached usingthe modified sample set-up described in Attachment 1 of this letter. In addition, solidifiedsediment from these reaches using the design mix from Phase 2 of the Solidification DesignInvestigation (SLDI) will be leached using the modified set-up.

Correspondence between Ms. Patricia Erickson ofUSEPA Superfund Technical AssistanceResponse Team and Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) are documented in Attachment2 of this letter. Ms. Erickson's letter dated July 18, 1994 presented some technical issuesand concerns regarding the proposed sample set-up. WCC addressed these issues andconcerns in a telefaxed letter dated July 25, 1994. Ms. Erickson gave approval of WCC'stechnical approach via telephone on July 26, 1994.

Sincerely,

Janice H. Merl, E.I.T. Philip J. Delahunt, P.E.SLDI Task Manager SOU Project Manager

Attachments

c.c. Martin L. Schmidt, Senior Project Manager (WCC)Joseph A. Heimbuch, Project Coordinator (de maximis, inc.)Patricia M. Erickson, Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team (USEPA)

I:\FBK\SLDILTRS\HAN0729.LTR

122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1920 • Chicago, Illinois 60603312-939-1000 • Fax 312-939-4198

Department: Physical Properties

TITLE: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES L^nNo. PM?FOR MODIFIED ANS TESTING ON Superseding Date: None

UNTREATED AND SOLIDIFIED SAMPLES fffecliw Dtle: n AugustPage:

1.0 SUMMARY

This Standard Operating Procedure establishes a standard method for performing amodified ANS 16.1 leaching test on untreated waste materials, sediments and soils orsolidified waste materials, sediments and soils. This procedure was developed mainlyto allow comparisons between the leaching of contaminants from untreated materialsand solidified materials.

2.0 SCOPE

This procedure provides all departments with a method for preparing modified ANS16.1 leaching samples, performing modified ANS 16.1 leaching tests, and acquiringand reporting data. Quality assurance/quality control issues and health and safetyconsiderations are also addressed.

3.0 EQUIPMENT

Balance (Sensitive to 0.01 grams)Oven (Capable of maintaining 110°C ± 5 °C)Moisture Tins5 inch square Nylon filter meshs (8 micrometer pore size)HDPE tubes with 3 inch diameter and 2 inch heightTeflon sheets (2 inch x 9.7 inch)Nitrile membranes (unstretched diameters of 2.8 inches)600 mL glass beakersHDPE baths (size dependent on analytical testing required)Wooden dowels (size dependent on analytical testing required)Monofilament fishing linePlastic garbage bags

4.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION

4.1 One sample for modified ANS testing can consist of more than one specimen

Modified ANS 16.1 Testing Kiber Environmental Services, Inc.


TITLE: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Lesion NO. PP""FOR MODIFIED ANS TESTING ON SupersedingDale: None

UNTREATED AND SOLIDIFIED SAMPLES *ffwUve Dale: 12 Aufiust l"JPage: 2

depending on the amount of leachate required for analytical testing. Calculatethe total number of specimens required by dividing the total amount ofleachate required to complete analytical testing by 912 mL and founding up tothe next whole number. For example, if a sediment sample is to be tested forleaching of polychorinated biphenyls and total semivolatile organics, a total of6 liters will be required for the analytical testing. As such, to test thesediment sample perform the calculation (6,000/912 = 6.58 rounded to 7) andround up to the nearest whole number to determine the number of specimensrequired.

4.2 Measure and record the weight of each specimen holder. This is the tareweight. The tare weight consists of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) tube2 inches in height and 3.1 inches in diameter, 1 teflon insert with a height of 2inches and a length of 9.7 inches, 2-5 inch square Nylon filter meshes, 2-nitrile membranes with a width of 1 inch and an unstretched diameter of 2.8inches, and 1-nitrile membrane with a width of 2 inches and an unstretcheddiameter of 2.8 inches.

4.3 Prepare specimens by first attaching a 5 inch square Nylon filter mesh with apore size of 8 micrometers (/xm) over the bottom of the HDPE tube. Attachthe Nylon filter mesh using the 1 inch wide nitrile membrane with anunstretched diameter of 2.8 inches.

4.4 Insert the teflon liner inside of the HDPE tube to prevent direct contact of thewaste materials with the HDPE,

4.5 Measure the moisture content of the sample in accordance with Kiber's SOPentitled Procedure for Performing Moisture Contents.

4.6 Compact the untreated waste material into the HDPE teflon lined tube. In thecase of solidified materials, a monolith 2 inches in height and 3 inches indiameter is prepared using methods outlined in Kiber's SOP entitled Procedurefor Solidification of Untreated Waste. Place the solidified monolith directlyinto the HDPE teflon lined tube.

4.7 Seal a second 5 inch square Nylon filter mesh over the top of the HDPE tube


TITLE: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURESFOR MODIFIED ANS TESTING ONUNTREATED AND SOLIDIFIED SAMPLES

Department:S. O. P. No.Revision No.Superseding Date:Effective Date:Page:

Physical PropertiesPP-13

None12 August 1994

3

using a nitrile membrane. Place a 2 inch wide nitrile membrane over theentire specimen.

4.8 Assign the specimens for each sample a number 1 to "the total number ofspecimens". Measure the weight of the tare plus the waste material and recordon the ANS set-up sheet for each specimen number.

4.9 The amount of leachate used per specimen is based on the exposed surfacearea of the specimens. In the case of the specimens used in this testing, a totalof 91.2 square centimeters (cm2) of surface area are exposed to the leachate.This area is composed of the bottom and top of the cylinders where the Nylonfilter mesh sits. According to standard ANS procedures, 912 milliliters (mL)of leachate is used for 91.2 cm2. As such, use 912 mL of leachate for eachspecimen.

4.10 For each test set-up, use a blank sample to insure that the test equipment andprocedures do not add contaminants to the leachate. Set-up the blank sampleby preparing the required number of specimens following steps 3.1, 3.2, and3.5. To clarify, prepare the blank specimens using the HDPE tube with theteflon insert and Nylon filter mesh on both ends of the tube held in place withnitrile membranes. For the blank, however, do not fill the interior of theHDPE tube with anything.

4.11 Attach a monofilament line around the perimeter of each specimen tube.

4.12 Attach the specimens to wooden dowels. Determine the length of the woodendowel based on the size of the HDPE bath which will be used to hold thespecimens during testing. Use an HDPE bath with adequate side lengths toaccomodate all of the specimens required for a sample.

4.13 The specimens for a sample are held in the bath by the wooden dowels whichare placed across the top of the bath. Test the fit of the specimens in the bathand adjust the heights and placement of each specimen to provide themaximum free space between the specimens and between the specimens andthe sides of the tanks.


0 P, rp


TITLE: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES ^tanNo! """FOR MODIFIED ANS TESTING ON Superseding Date: NoneUNTREATED AND SOLIDIFIED SAMPLES Elective Dale: 12 August 1994

Page: 4

4.14 Once each specimen is secured to a wooden dowel and the placement of eachspecimen has been determined, label the wooden dowel with the specimennumber so that each specimen is uniquely identified.

4.15 Once all the specimens for the sample and a blank have been prepared, initiatethe test procedure.

5.0 TEST PROCEDURE

5.1 Fill square HDPE baths with adequate side lengths to accomodate all of thespecimens required for each sample with the requisite amount of ASTM TypeI water (leachate). Calculate the amount of leachate required by multiplyingthe number of specimens times 912 mL and rounding up to two significantdigits (i.e. 3660 mL becomes 3700 mL).

5.2 Place the wooden dowels, to which the specimens are attached, across eachbath. In this way, each specimen is completely submerged in the leachate.Close the baths with the provided lids.

5.3 Record the date and time that the specimens are submerged in the leachate onthe ANS testing data sheet. Record the in i t ia ls of the laboratory technicianperforming the testing on the testing data sheet as well as the volume ofleachate used in milliliters. Record observations as to the clarity of theleachate and the stability of the specimens.

5.4 After 2 hours, remove the specimens for a sample from the bath by removingthe bath lid and lifting the wooden dowels up and out of the bath. Place thespecimens and wooden dowels onto a clean plastic sheet insuring thatspecimens are maintained in the proper location on the wooden dowels.Specimens are set on the nitrile membranes only. Insure that the exposedsurfaces of the specimens are not placed into contact with the plastic sheet.

5.5 Once the specimens are removed from the bath, pour the leachate directly into2.5 liter glass beakers. Use the glass beakers to fill the requisite samplebottles. Sample the leachate for pH and temperature.


r ?

TITLE: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURESFOR MODIFIED ANS TESTING ONUNTREATED AND SOLIDIFIED SAMPLES

Department:S. O. P. No.Revision No.Superseding Dale:Effective Dale:Page:

Physical PropertiesPP-13

None12 August 1994

5

5.6 Inspect the empty bath and the leachate for color, particles and debris andrecord observations. Measure and record the pH and temperature of theleachate on the ANS testing sheet. Record the time and date the specimenswere removed.

5.7 Decon HDPE baths by first cleaning with soap and water. Next, rinse bathswith deionized water. Clean baths with a dilute nitric acid wash. Rinse thebaths again with deionized water.

5.8 Fill baths with the requisite leachate for the next leaching interval. Once filledwith leachate, submerge the specimens again into the baths. Record the timeand date, initials of the techinician performing the work, and the volume ofleachate on the ANS testing data sheet.

5.9 Repeat steps 4.4 to 4.8 at each leaching interval. Typically, this testing usesintervals of 2, 7, 24, and 48 hours. Note that the leaching interval is based ontime zero.

5.10 At the end of the final leaching interval, measure the weight of each specimenrecord on the ANS set-up data sheets. Measure the tare weight of 500 mLbeakers and record on the set-up data sheets. Place each specimen into a taredand labeled beaker and dry at 110 ± 5 degrees Celsius (°C) for 24 hours.Measure the final dry weight of each specimen and record.

5.11 Test the blank sample in accordance with the same procedures used for the testsample including decon of the bath.

6.0 DATA ACQUISITION

6.1 Once the test samples have been prepared, assign the samples a computertracking code in accordance with Kiber's SOP entitled Procedure for SampleTracking for Analyses Associated with Physical Properties Testing. Transferthe appropriate computer files from the Treatability Worksheet Dist to thecurrent Physical Properties Disk. All data tracking and reduction is conductedusing computer spreadsheets generated in Lotus 1-2-3.



TITLE: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES L^nNo! "*""FOR MODIFIED ANS TESTING ON SupenedingDaie: NoneUNTREATED AND SOLIDIFIED SAMPLES Effective Dale: 12 August 1994

Page: 6

6.2 The data recorded on the set up data sheets is entered into a spreadsheet. Thespreadsheet calculates moisture content and bulk and dry density.

6.3 As it is obtained, the test data from the test data sheets is entered into anotherspreadsheet.

7.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY

Laboratory safety procedures, as defined in Kiber's Chemical Hygiene Plan, are followedduring Modified ANS 16.1 testing. A copy of this plan is maintained by the CorporateHealth and Safety Coordinator, and is reviewed and executed by all Kiber personnel.

8.0 QUALITY CONTROL / QUALITY ASSURANCE

8.1 The data calculated by the spreadsheet is checked by an individual notinvolved with the testing to insure that no mistakes have been incorporated intothe spreadsheet.

8.2 The engineer, or physical properties Laboratory Director, then manually andvisually checks the material tested and compares his observations to the testresults reported. The reviewing engineer or laboratory director is ultimatelyresponsible for all final review and quality control of the analyses and the datagenerated. Upon final approval of the data and data interpretations, theengineer will initialize the original data sheets. All original data sheets andanalyzed data will be maintained in the physical properties project files. Acopy of the finalized test results will be submitted to the appropriate projectmanager or client.

9.0 REFERENCES

Measurement of the Leachability of Solidified Low-Level Radioactive Wastes by aShon-Term Test Procedure. American National Standard ANSI ANS-16.1 1986.


ATTACHMENT 2

MARCH 17, 1994 LETTERFROM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

USE,

_ A n VUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION fiMlfi& F'" .*r*609PROJECT No. ae^*ow '

REGION 5 R E C E I V E D77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 Mf\R 2 1 1994

Via Facsimile ouAftF. t——-4'3°

March 17, 1994 TASK———-±—*REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:

Joseph A. HeimbuchDeMaximis, Inc.Civic Center Plaza, Suite 10433300 Five Mile Road HSRM-6JLivonia, Michigan 48154

RE: Review of 3/7/94 Solidification Letter; Fields Brook Site

Dear Mr. Heimbuch:

EPA has reviewed FBPRPO's 3/7/94 "Proposed Modifications toPhase 2 Solidification Design Investigation Experimental Design"letter proposal, and find it acceptable with the following threeclarification comments:

1) The 3/7/94 modified proposal is acceptable with theunderstanding that all wastes will be placed into a TSCA/RCRASubtitle C vault after solidification, as the ROD requires.

2) It is understood that, when conducting quality assuranceduring remediation, the UCS test length-to-width ratio of thesolidified samples will be 2:1.

3) The design which is offered is not a "full factorial" designas noted by the author, since a full factorial designincorporating 3 levels of fly ash-cement, 3 levels of solidifyingagent-sediment, and 2 levels of solidifying agent would require18 combinations without duplication or 36 with duplication.

Please contact me at (312) 353-9228 if you have anyquestions.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Hanlon

cc: R. Williams, OEPA (via Fax)M. Berman, EPA-ORCP. Felitti, EPA-ORCP. Delahunt, WCC (via fax)J. Merl, WCC (via fax)M. Schmidt, WCC (via fax)

Printed on Recycled Paper

ATTACHMENT 3

MARCH 23, 1994 LETTERFROM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGIONS WCC p iLE COPY77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD PROJECT No. B6C3609

CHICAGO. IL 60604-3590 R E C E I V E D

Via Facsimile MftR 2 4 1994

March 23, 1994 PHACSF /—rnMOC" ^

Joseph A. Heimbuch TASK- —— -£S ——————De Maximis, Inc.Civic Center Plaza, Suite 10433300 Five Mile RoadLivonia, Michigan 48154

RE: Solidification DI; Sediment OU; Fields Brook Site

Dear Mr. Heimbuch:

This letter finds the 3/22/94 letter regarding the changefrom TCLP to the ANS 16.1 test method to assess leaching duringPhase 2 tests of the Solidif icaiton DI acceptable. EPAunderstands the Phase 1 TCLP test results will also be reportedwithin the treatability study report.

Please contact me at (312) 353-9228 if you have anyquestions.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Hanlon

cc: P. Delahunt, WCC (Via Facsimile)J. Merl, WCC (Via Facsimile)

Printed on Recycled Paper

Date post:	13-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

FINAL REPORT REVISION 0 - United States Environmental ...FINAL REPORT REVISION 0 SEDIMENT OPERABLE...

Documents